RESTRICTED
G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1
6 March 2015
(15-1272)  Page: 1/72
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade   
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 5-6 NOVEMBER 2014 
CHAIRPERSON: MR. FILIPE RAMALHEIRA 
Note by the Secretariat1 
Revision 
 
Contents 
1   ADOPTION OF  THE AGENDA ........................................................................................ 2  
2   IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINI STRATION OF THE AGREEMENT ................................. 2  
2.1   Statements from Me mbers under Article 15.2 ................................................................ 2  
2.2   Specific Trade Concerns.............................................................................................. 2  
2.2.1   Withdraw n concerns ................................................................................................ 2  
2.2.2   New Concerns  ........................................................................................................ 2  
2.2.3   Previously raised Specific Trade Concerns .................................................................. 17 
2.3   Exchange of Experiences ........................................................................................... 64 
2.3.1   Preparation of the 7th Triennial Review ...................................................................... 64 
2.3.2   Tran sparen cy ........................................................................................................ 64 
2.3.3   Chairman's Report on the 4 November 2014 th ematic se ssion ...................................... 67 
2.3.4   Good Regulatory Practice (JOB /TBT/119) .................................................................. 67 
3   TECHNICAL COOPER ATION ACTIVI TIES .................................................................... 71  
4   UPDATING BY  OBSERVERS ........................................................................................ 71  
5   REPORT (2014) OF THE COMMITTEE ON TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE ............... 72  
6   DATE OF NE XT MEETING ........................................................................................... 72  
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to thei r rights and obligations under the WTO. G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 2 - 
 
   
1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1.1.  The Committee adopted the agenda contained in WTO/AIR/4364/Rev.1 
2  IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE AGREEMENT 
2.1  Statements from Members under Article 15.2  
2.1.  The Chairman said that the list of stat ements submitted under Article 15.2 of the TBT 
Agreement was contained in document G/TBT/GEN/ 1/Rev.13, dated 25 February 2014. He recalled 
that this information was available, and regula rly updated, on the TBT Information Management 
System (the "TBT IMS"). He stressed that while 129 Members had submitted at least one Statement on Implementation under Article 15.2, 31 Members had not yet fulfilled this obligation and he urged them to do so in a timely manner.  
2.2.  The representative of Canada introduced his delegation's proposal on the Article 15.2 
Statement - Partnering Exercise. The aim of this voluntary partnering initiative, he said, was to 
help those 31 WTO Members who had not yet fulfill ed this obligation by partnering members who 
had already submitted statements with those who had yet to do so. A meeting on the margins of 
the TBT Committee had been scheduled to see what the next steps would be. 
2.3.  The representative of Uganda thanked Ca nada for the proposal and noted that for those 
Members who had not yet submitted their statement,  it was important that they clearly identify 
why they had not met this obligation so as to enable developing country Members to have a strategy to overcome the challenges on a case-by-case basis as the challenges could vary between Members. He proposed that the challenges be identified in an "action plan" that would be prepared 
by the assisting Member. 
2.4.  The representative of the European Un ion suggested that those Members who required 
assistance in fulfilling this obligation flag their need for assistance and that this assistance be 
provided under existing technical assistance frameworks.  
2.5.  The representative of New Zealand agreed with  the EU that this be a demand driven exercise 
and looked forward to discuss the matter further. 
2.2  Specific Trade Concerns  
2.2.1  Withdrawn concerns 2.6.  The Chairman reported that the following Specific Trade Concerns were withdrawn from the 
Agenda at the request of the concerned Member:  
a. Chile – Draft Energy Efficiency Analysis and/or Test Protocol for Electrical Products 
(G/TBT/N/CHL/248) - withdrawn by the Republic of Korea. 
b. Malaysia – Regulation 28, Food Regulations 1985: Ceramic ware and Guideline on 
Importation of Ceramic Ware Intended to be used in the Preparation, Packaging, 
Storage, Delivery or Exposure of Food fo r Human Consumption  (G/TBT/N/MYS/40) – 
withdrawn by Indonesia. 
c. Japan – Wood Use Points Programme (G/TBT/N/JPN/471 and G/TBT/N/JPN/471/Corr.1) 
– withdrawn by Indonesia. 
2.2.2  New Concerns 
2.2.2.1  United States – Tire Identifica tion and Recordkeeping (G/TBT/N/USA/916) 
2.7.  The representative of Thailand noted that  the US measure proposed to increase the plant 
codes from 2 to 3 digits and require a blank space 50 mm after the Tire Identification Number G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 3 - 
 
  (TIN). Thailand was concerned that this measure could be creating unnecessary obstacles to trade 
within the meaning of the TBT Agreement. While Thai land took note of the US explanation that it 
was running out of two symbol plant codes for TI Ns and was therefore changing to three symbol 
codes, the US was asked to consider adopting a more trade facilitating path available and avoid 
creating unnecessary burdens to manufacturers. First, it was clear that TIN was by no means 
related to the improvement of quality, safety or efficiency of tyres. Although the US needed to 
come up with new codes to identify new tyre plants, there was no need to disrupt the use of the 
assigned codes that could thus continue to serve the purpose regardless of the US' proposed new 
TINs. The measure's unnecessary trade restrictivene ss was evidenced by the fact that the adoption 
of new codes would pose additional costs for manufacturers, and eventually also to consumers, without improving product quality, efficiency or sa fety. There was no safety or quality benefit in 
requiring the space of 50 mm after TIN on the sidewall either. At present, many regulations 
already required markings on the sidewall, and so me even specified where to place the mark. This 
resulted in little space left on the sidewall. And in certain cars, tyres were now smaller by design, 
making it even more difficult to provide the 50 mm blank space. Since this requirement did not 
improve product quality, efficiency or safety, the US was asked to consider removing it.  
2.8.  In case the US nonetheless deemed it nece ssary to introduce the changes proposed, Thailand 
asked the US to consider the following: (i) allow existing manufacturers to continue production 
under the current TIN without any adjustment. This was because no duplication of "Plant Code" had been found among the manufacturers who have been assigned the 2 symbol TIN. Hence, there was no need to add symbol "1" before the assigned two symbol plant codes, and continued 
use of the assigned two symbol plant code should be allowed; (ii) For new manufacturers, who 
would need to obtain a plant code, they should be assigned the 3 symbol plant code immediately after the 2 symbol plant codes had run out. This would be enough to avoid any duplication and 
would not impact manufacturers adversely; (iii) the 50 mm space requirement should be removed; 
and (iv) also consider extending the lead time for industry to comply from five years to ten years. 
2.9.  To illustrate its concern, Thailand compared TIN to car license plate numbers where Thailand 
had run out of car licence plate number many times. When there were fewer cars, license plates 
contained only a few digits. With more cars, a letter was added in front of the digits, then more letters were needed, and then more digits were pu t in front of the letters. To date, this system 
worked well and served its purpose. TIN should consider something similar. Thailand understood 
that the US did need to make some changes and appreciated its willingness to adopt standardized 
TINs. In light of the necessary change, Thailand proposed that the US should take the opportunity to consider adopting a more globally beneficial approach through the Global Technical Regulation 
(GTR). Thailand believed that the US could maximize, as well as contribute to the benefits for 
future models by harmonizing with the imminent GTR's 15 symbol TIN.  
2.10.  The representative of the United States sa id that in the 90 days since the US had published 
the NPRM it had received 13 comments. The final rule would respond to all of those comments and 
serious consideration was being given to making a variety of changes in the regulation. 
2.2.2.2  Russian Federation – Measure affect ing imports of Ukrainian juice products  
2.11.  The representative of Ukraine was concerned with the ban on imports of all Ukrainian juice 
products, including in the form of baby food, to the Russian Federation, which had been enacted 
on 29 July 2014 by the Federal Service on Cust omers' Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing 
Surveillance (Rospotrebnadzor). Russia did not refer to non-compliance of Ukrainian juice products 
with any particular effective Russian or Custom Union's technical regulation as a reason for the 
ban. A notice posted in Rospotrebnadzor's website stated that the ban had been imposed for the reason that "… Ukrainian juice products did not pass state registration for compliance with the 
technical regulations of the Customs Union, but were labelled with an 'EAC' sign - a single sign of 
the Customs Union market access". However the Russian authorities had not given any information as regards particular producers or products which included this alleged charge. Ukraine emphasized fact that Ukrainian producers had all necessary certificates confirming 
compliance of their juice products with the Technical Regulation for juice products made from fruits 
and vegetables (Federal Law of 27 October 2008 No.178- З) and with the Unified Sanitary and 
Epidemiological and Hygienic Requirements for Goods Subject to Sanitary and Epidemiological 
Supervision (control), approved by Decision  of the Commission of the Customs Union of 
28 May 2010 No. 299. According to the Decision of the Eurasian Economic Commission No. 880, the above Regulations were in force until 15 February 2015. Ukraine believed that juice products, G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 4 - 
 
  including baby food, that had certificates of conf ormity with the relevant valid Russian Federation 
technical regulations and were marked with the si gn of circulation on the market of the Russian 
Federation and with the appropriate signs of othe r importing countries, should be legitimate for 
importation and circulation on the market of the Russian Federation at least till mid February 
2015.  
2.12.  Ukraine informed the Committee that, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 10 and 
2.5 of the TBT Agreement, Ukraine had made a request on 15 August 2014 for relevant 
information and clarifications through the TBT/SPS Enquiry Point of the Russian Federation. 
However, to date no response has been received. In addition, Ukrainian producers had also sent inquiries for clarification to the Russian authorities but the responses they received were quite confusing and vague. Thus, Ukraine requested Russi a to provide official detailed clarification and 
justification of keeping the measure and its complia nce with the provisions of the TBT Agreement. 
Ukraine considered that the ban of import of all juice products, including baby food, of Ukrainian origin, imposed by Russia was a discriminatory measure that accorded treatment less favourable 
than that accorded to like products of national origin and to like products originating in other 
countries. Ukraine believed that the Russian measure was not justified, applied in a non-transparent and discriminatory manner and created unnecessary obstacles to trade. Thus, Ukraine 
considered that this measure was inconsistent with provisions of Articles 2.1, 2.2 and 5.1 of the 
TBT Agreement. Russia has not provided any written official detailed clarification and justification for the measure and the manner in which it was applied, as required by the provisions of paragraphs 2 to 4 of Article 2 of the TBT Agreemen t. Thus, in accordance with Articles 10 and 2.5 
of the TBT Agreement, Ukraine requested Russia to immediately lift the ban since no scientific 
information existed to justify the measure. 
2.13.  The representative of the Russian Federation  said that Russia had introduced restrictions on 
the import of juice products from Ukraine due to  the fact that necessary conformity assessment 
procedures applied to such products had not been provided. The Russian regulating authority (Rospotrebnadzor) had detected that the labelling of Ukrainian juice products contradicted relevant 
requirements by providing false information on compliance with technical regulations of the 
Custom Union. Moreover, these products were labelled by sign for the Eurasian Common Economic Space solely, and this fact represented a violation of the legislation of the Russian Federation and Common Eurasian Market regulation. The usage of single sign of circulation of products in the 
market of member countries of the Customs Union "EAC" for food products was described in 
technical regulation of the Custom Union "On labelling of food products" (which was adopted on 9 December 2011) and technical regulation of the Cu stom Union "On safety of food products" (which 
was adopted on 9 December 2011). Russia stressed that labelling with such a sign was allowed 
only for the goods that had their conformity to the Common Eurasian requirements attested. The large number of such precedents appeared to be dece ptive practice in internal trade. As the import 
suspension of juice products represented a measure taken under implementation of the both 
mentioned technical regulations that had been adopted before the accession of the Russian Federation to the WTO, Russia therefore saw no basis for notifying it. The measure at issue was, in any case, taken in full compliance with the WTO rules and in particular with the provisions of the 
TBT Agreement (Articles 2.9, 2.10, 5.6, 5.7). In orde r to lift the restriction, the Russian Federation 
called the competent authorities of Ukraine responsible for the control of the products to participate in bilateral consultations at the level of the competent authorities of both countries. 
Rospotrebnadzor was thus ready to develop the procedures, necessary to return such products to 
the circulation at the territory of the Russian Federation. 
2.2.2.3  Russian Federation – Measure affe cting imports of Ukrainian beer products 
2.14.  The representative of Ukraine expressed co ncern regarding the ban on import of Ukrainian 
beer products to the Russian Federation, which has been enacted on 15 of August 2014 by the 
Federal Service on Customers' Rights Protection and Human Well-being Surveillance (Rospotrebnadzor). The announced ground for the prohibition was alleged incompliance with 
legislation on consumer's rights protection, in particularly labelling requirements. The measure 
affected a majority (up to 70%) of imports of Ukrainian beer products to Russia. Yet the measure had been applied in a non-transparent and unpredi ctable manner. Ukrainian beer producers had a 
long history of credible supply of high quality products to the Russian market. They had all the 
necessary certificates of conformity and state registration that were required by the Russian Federation legislation and technical regulations. Ukrainian producers effectively applied G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 5 - 
 
  management systems for quality and safety of food products in compliance with requirements of 
ISO 9001 and ISO 22000 and had been accordingly certified.  
2.15.  However, and despite the forgoing, on 13 of August 2014, a short and incomplete 
publication was posted on Rospotrebnadzor's we bsite regarding the alleged incompliance by 
Ukrainian beer producers. Just two days later, all the import of Ukrainian major producers was 
stopped. Inquiries were sent immediately to the Russian authorities with requests for results of laboratory tests and/or expertise and other relevant information that might be useful to clarify the 
reasons for such strict measure. However, Ukra inian producers concerned have not received any 
answer with information as yet. Ukraine believed that this Russian measure was not justified, was applied in non-transparent and unpredictable manne r, and was enacted with a view of creating 
unnecessary obstacles to trade. Accordingly, this measure was inconsistent with provisions of the 
Articles 2.1, 2.2 and 5.1 of the TBT Agreement.  The Russian Federation has not provided any 
written official detailed clarification and justification for the measure and the manner in which it was applied, as it was required to do by virtue of the provisions of the paragraphs 2 to 4 of the 
Article 2 of the TBT Agreement. Thus, in accord ance with the Articles 10 and 2.5 of the TBT 
Agreement, Ukraine requested Russia to immediately lift the ban since no scientific information was available to justify this measure. 
2.16.  The representative of the Russian Federation said that the import suspension of certain beer 
products and beer containing beverages produced by some Ukrainian enterprises had been 
introduced in the Russian Federation due to inconsistencies of these products to the technical regulation requirements in the consumer protection  area, particularly due to the incompliance with 
the requirements on labelling. The Russian co mpetent authority (Rospotrebnadzor) detected 
numerous cases related to such products in the circulation, for which reason the measures had been introduced to prevent deceptive trade prac tices, to maintain the appropriate level of 
protection the safety and life and health of population. Russia stressed that the suspension 
encompassed only certain Ukraine enterprises, that produce beer, and was not a ban to imports to the territory of the Russian Federation of all the beer products of Ukraine. Russia reiterated that 
the import suspension of beer products of some Ukrainian companies represented a measure 
taken under implementation of the existing techni cal regulation. There was therefore no basis for 
notifying it. In order to resume the supplies of th e products from these Ukraine enterprises to the 
territory of the Russian Federation, Russia reiterated its call to the competent authorities of 
Ukraine responsible for the quality and regulation of such products, to start consultations at the 
bilateral basis at the level of the competent authorities. Rospotrebnadzor was ready to assist in developing the measures necessary to return such products to the circulation at the territory of the 
Russian Federation. Such a work would accelerate the resumption of Ukrainian beer products 
imports to the Russian market. The measure at issue was taken in full compliance with the WTO rules and in particular with the provisions of the TBT Agreement. 
2.2.2.4  France – Proposal to introduce plain packaging of tobacco products 
2.17.  The representative of Malawi expressed her delegation's concerns regarding the consistency 
of the proposed measure with the TBT Agreement. She also requested France to abstain from any 
tobacco plain packaging legislation until the WTO disputes lodged against Australia's plain 
packaging measures had been concluded. Malawi's full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/392. 
2.18.  The representative of Ukraine noted that Fr ance's Ministry of Social Affairs, Health and 
Women's Rights had recently announced that it would develop an amendment to the Health Bill 
currently under consideration, which would include "neutral" packaging requirements for tobacco 
products. However, France had not yet released an y legislative text or other description of the 
proposed "neutral" or "plain" packaging measure. Ukraine was thus interested to learn from France 
more details about the measure under consideration, including what information it has gathered or 
expects to gather through a regulatory impact assessment of this proposed measure, and the 
timetable of the development of the proposed measure and its notification to this Committee. Ukraine considered that plain packaging measures raised a host of concerns under Members' WTO 
obligations, including the TBT Agreement's requirement that technical regulations not be prepared, 
adopted or applied with a view to or simply "wit h the effect of" creating unnecessary obstacles to 
trade. As set out in Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreemen t, technical regulations must fulfil a legitimate 
objective and be no more trade restrictive than necessary in so doing.  G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.19.  As a preliminary point, Ukraine reiterated that the objective of protecting public health by 
reducing smoking prevalence was undoubtedly legitimate and indeed was an objective shared by Ukraine and France. However, one of the key qu estions regarding the consistency of proposed 
plain packaging measures with the TBT Agreement was whether the particular means chosen – the 
eradication of almost all trademarks and the standardized labelling, marking and packaging 
requirements – would actually contribute to the stated legitimate objective. Even though there were certainly notable differences between France's and Australia's measures, an analysis of the 
situation in Australia, the only Member that has implemented plain packaging to date, was 
informative. Almost two years after implementa tion of plain packaging, evidence from the 
Australian market showed that the measure has failed to contribute to the intended objective and has given rise to a number of unintended consequences. In this respect, Ukraine noted that as a 
third party to the dispute with Australia, the EU, and thus France, has access to all of the evidence 
that has been submitted in the context of the di spute on the tobacco plain packaging measure of 
Australia showing the lack of actual or potential future contribution of this type of measure. 
Ukraine thus hoped that this information would be taken into consideration in any future 
regulatory impact assessment as part of the scientific information available to France.  
2.20.  In light of the forgoing considerations, Ukra ine was interested to hear from France regarding 
the scientific evidence and other data it has considered before announcing this proposal, or that it 
was planning to consider, to assess the impact of the proposed measure on actual smoking behaviour. In this respect, Ukraine was also interested in hearing from France whether it intended to undertake a regulatory impact assessment and provide for a public consultation process 
regarding the announced "neutral" packaging measure for tobacco products. Finally, Ukraine would 
welcome any clarification from France on the timetable of the development of the proposed measure and its notification to this Committee. In addition to raising these questions, Ukraine also 
encouraged France to reflect on the concerns expressed by Ukraine and other Members in the 
context of the recent TRIPS Council meeting. Finally, given the fact that plain packaging measures for tobacco products were currently the subject of  a WTO dispute, it would appear to be prudent 
for France to await the objective assessment of the WTO on all of the relevant matters of fact and 
law relating to plain packaging in order to ensure that its technical regulations would indeed be consistent with its WTO obligations. 
2.21.  The representative of Indonesia said that, as one of the complainants in the dispute against 
the Australian plain packaging measure, his delegation considered that plain packaging measures 
were not only inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the TBT Agreement but also the TRIPS 
Agreement. Indonesia said that just because tobacco use can be bad for one's health, it did not 
follow that any form of tobacco control would be  good because such measures should respect WTO 
obligations. Indonesia was not challenging the right to use other forms of tobacco control measures apart from plain packaging. Studies and empirical evidence has shown no evidence that 
plain packaging in Australia has made any contribution towards reducing tobacco use among 
youth. Indonesia also asked all Members planning to implement plain packaging to wait until the Australian dispute had reached its conclusion. 
2.22.  The representative of the Dominican Republic associated herself with the statements made 
by Malawi, Ukraine and Indonesia.  2.23.  The representative of Honduras expressed her delegation's concerns with the measure. The 
full statement is contained in G/TBT/W/399. 
2.24.  The representative of Australia said that his delegation welcomed the announcement by the 
French Minister for Health to introduce standardised packaging as part of their proposed 
comprehensive package of reforms in their ongo ing efforts to combat the burden of disease 
attributed to tobacco products. The important steps made by France in tobacco control 
demonstrated that efforts to delay the adoption of tobacco plain packaging measures in these countries had not been successful. Australia looked forward to continuing its support of France as they proceed with the development and implemen tation of their own tobacco plain packaging 
measures. Australia was of the firm view that Members had the right to implement measures 
necessary to protect public health, while complying with relevant international treaty obligations, including the TBT Agreement. Tobacco plain packaging was a legitimate measure, designed to 
achieve a fundamental objective: the protection  of human health. The use of tobacco plain 
packaging measure was endorsed by leading public health experts as well as the World Health Organization and was supported by extensive peer reviewed research, reports and studies. In this G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 7 - 
 
  respect, Australia commended the EU and its Members for the tobacco control measures they have 
implemented to date, including the revisions to the Tobacco Products Directive. The revised EU Directive was a legitimate measure designed to achieve the fundamental objective of the protection of human health, in particular the protection of young people against smoking initiation 
and uptake. Australia's tobacco plain packaging measure was a legitimate public health measure 
which was consistent with the WTO Agreement obligations. Australia was currently defending its measure in the WTO. It was therefore inappropriate for complainants in the WTO disputes 
currently underway against Australia to invoke those proceedings in an attempt to delay or 
discourage another Member from developing or implementing their own legitimate tobacco control measures. 
2.25.  The representative of Nigeria associated herself with the concerns expressed by previous 
delegations and expressed her delegation's preo ccupation with the effects of plain packaging 
measures could pose to international trade and the rights of trademark owners.  
2.26.  The representative of Cuba stated that her delegation shared the view that Members had 
the sovereign right to regulate to protect public health. It requested however that France abstain 
from any tobacco plain packaging legislation unt il the WTO disputes lodged against Australia's 
plain packaging measures had been concluded. Cuba also asked France to provide detailed 
information about the status of the internal process taking place for the adoption of the measure 
and urged France to notify this proposed measure to the WTO as soon as possible. 
2.27.  The representative of Nicaragua said that his delegation supported the position of the five 
complainants of the current WTO dispute involving Australia's plain packaging measures. While 
Members had the sovereign right to regulate health – and Nicaragua itself was a signatory of 
various international instruments on this matter – any such measures had to respect WTO rules, including the TBT obligation of not being more trade restrictive than necessary. Concerning plain 
packaging, Nicaragua believed that this kind of  measure was incapable of attaining its ultimate 
public health objectives. Given the important economic and social impact that this kind of measure could cause in countries like Nicaragua, he urged Members planning to adopt them to wait until 
the Australian WTO dispute had been concluded. 
2.28.  The representative of Zimbabwe associated  his delegation with the concerns expressed by 
Malawi, Ukraine, Indonesia, Honduras, the Domi nican Republic, Honduras, Nigeria, Cuba and 
Nicaragua. While Zimbabwe appreciated the effort s made by France to protect consumers, the 
proposal appeared to be inconsistent with Arti cle 2.2 of the TBT Agreement as this technical 
regulation would be more trade restrictive than nece ssary to fulfil its stated legitimate objective. 
There was no scientific evidence that such kind of measure would influence the behaviour of 
tobacco consumers or reduce smoking among youth. Tobacco contributed significantly to 
Zimbabwe's GDP and was a major export. These measures would therefore impact negatively on employment, economic performance and poverty alleviation efforts in Zimbabwe, where tobacco 
farming was the major economic activity and source of livelihood for millions of its citizens.  
2.29.  The representative of New Zealand expressed her delegation's support for France's decision 
to consider the introduction of plain (or standardised) packaging requirements for tobacco and 
tobacco products. There was an extensive and growin g body of international research establishing 
that plain packaging, as part of a comprehensiv e tobacco control programme, would contribute to 
the objective of improving public health. To date, there was no credible evidence proving otherwise. The TBT Agreement recognised the fu ndamental right of Members to implement non-
discriminatory measures necessary to protect public health and provided appropriate flexibilities 
for Members to do so. New Zealand believed that it was possible for Members to implement a tobacco plain packaging regime that was consistent with all of their WTO obligations, including 
their respective obligations under the TBT Agreement.  
2.30.  The representative of Norway expressed her de legation's strong support to France's effort to 
combat tobacco use. Smoking was still the single factor with the greatest negative impact on 
public health. Norway belied that it was well within the right of WTO Members to adopt measures 
necessary to protect public health insofar as they were consistent with the WTO Agreements. 
Norway recalled that plain packaging of tobacco products was the recommended measure under FCTC. It was the opinion of Norway that the FCTC and the relevant WTO Agreements were 
mutually supportive, and that it was possible to introduce measures for the regulation of tobacco 
products in line with both sets of binding obligations. G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 8 - 
 
  2.31.  The representative of Canada stressed his delegation's interest to follow the ongoing 
international developments regarding the plain packaging of tobacco products, and how such 
measures interacted with both international trade and public health. Canada has been a pioneer in package labelling requirements for tobacco products, and thus considered these sorts of 
requirements, as proposed by France and other Members, a core component of public health. 
2.32.  The representative of the European Union informed the Committee that the French 
government was currently considering the possibility of introducing plain packaging for tobacco 
products. However, the measure was not yet finalized and it would be duly notified under internal 
EU procedures as well as the TBT Agreement. In this context, as the legislative proposal was still in preparation, the EU considered any discussions on this matter in the TBT Committee to be premature at the current stage.  
2.33.  The representative of the WHO made a statement the full content of which is contained in 
G/TBT/GEN/175. It was requested that this statemen t be considered applicable to the STCs raised 
with respect to the plain packaging proposals by Ireland and the UK as well as Australia's plain 
packaging measure. 
2.2.2.5  Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – Decree of the Saudi Arabian Ministerial Council on 
the sale and marketing of energy drinks of 4 March 2014 (G/TBT/N/SAU/669) 
2.34.  The representative of Switzerland expressed his delegation's concern with the Decree of the 
Saudi Arabian Ministerial Council "on the sale an d marketing of Energy drinks" (N°176; 2/5/1435) 
of March 4th, 2014. This decree introduced a specific mandatory statement for "energy drinks", as well as restrictions on marketing, sponsoring, advertising, including sales prohibition and 
constraints. The mandatory statement for so called "energy drinks" reads as follows: "This product 
has no health benefits, having more than 2 cans a day could lead to health damages. Warning - against taking this product by pregnant and lactating women, people suffering from a heart 
condition and high blood pressure and diabetes, yo uth under 16 of age, those allergic to caffeine, 
athletes during sport." Switzerland shared Saudi Arabia's intents regarding public health and consumer information. While Switzerland considered that there were grounds to mention the 
caffeine content and to raise awareness to pregnant or lactating women and children, a negative 
mandatory statement seemed more restrictive than necessary to achieve this goal. It also seemed to go beyond any relevant international standard. In this latter respect, he recalled that the CODEX standards on nutrition provided that declarations on products should not lead consumers to 
believe that there was exact quantitative knowledge  of what individuals should eat in order to 
maintain health, but rather convey an understanding of the quantity of nutrients contained in the product.  
2.35.  Given the forgoing, Switzerland asked Saudi Arabia to inform the Committee what were the 
substances that would justify that producers shall mention that a given product had detrimental effects on health. Additionally, Switzerland asked which international standards on labelling of 
nutrients and product claims have been followed when designing mandatory statements? 
Switzerland flag its concerns with the restrictions to sales in educational and government facilities as well as the requirement on selling such beverages in specifically designed fridges and shelves. Negative warnings as well as the far reaching restrictions on sales seemed to go well beyond the 
criteria of trade restrictiveness under the TBT Ag reement. Without a sound scientific basis, they 
could also be seen as arbitrary and discriminat ory. Also, as the described measures differed 
substantially from previously notified measur es, they should have been also notified.  
2.36.  The representative of the European Union noted that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia proposal 
provided for labelling requirements for formulated beverages with caffeine levels above 14.5 mg 
per 100 ml. The measure also stated that: "any energy drink label shall advise that the product is 
not suitable for pregnant or lactating women, persons under 16 years, persons with sensitivity to 
such products, or those who suffer from diseases that may affect their health, especially heart 
patients, arteries, diabetics, and athletes during exercise." The proposal also required: "labels of energy drinks to further advise on a maximum intake per day which should not be exceeded by 
the consumer and that producers of energy drinks shall be liable for such maximum consumption 
recommendation."  G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 9 - 
 
  2.37.  The EU fully shared Saudi Arabia's public health concerns with these products and noted 
that the EU has also implemented legislation in this domain, namely the EU Regulation 1169/2011. Similarly to Saudi Arabia proposal, this EU Regulation required labels of beverages which contained caffeine in a proportion in excess of 150 mg/l to include the following information on the label: 
"High caffeine content. Not recommended for children or pregnant or breast feeding women" 
followed by a reference in brackets to the caffeine content expressed in mg per 100 ml. The EU Regulation did not require, however, any specific advisory statement for certain diseases or 
statements about consumption during physical ex ercise. The scientific assessment carried out by 
the EU did not conclude that those were necessary. The EU would therefore ask Saudi Arabia to either withdraw those requirements or to share with the EU its scientific assessment for including 
the specific references to physical exercise, illnesses, cardiovascular patients, and other diseases. 
As regards the requirement to provide for a maximu m intake per day in the label, it was the EU's 
view that, given that caffeine was also consumed from other sources (such as coffee, tea and chocolate) it would be impossible for the industry to provide for a scientifically sound specific 
figure on the label and, more importantly, to assume strict legal liability for such statement. 
Therefore, the EU requested Saudi Arabia to consid er the EU labelling requirements in light of the 
comments it had just provided when deciding on this measure. Finally, the EU also expressed 
concerns regarding the restrictions on advertising and promotion for energy drinks announced by 
Saudi Arabia in March 2014. Those measures ban any sort of advertising for energy drinks, including the sponsoring of any event and impose several marketing restrictions, including additional warnings. The EU asked Saudi Arabia to share with this Committee the scientific basis 
on which these measures were based. 
2.38.  The representative of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia thanked Switzerland and the EU for their 
comments and expressed his delegation's wish to discuss this issue bilaterally with them at the 
margins of the meeting. 
2.2.2.6  Brazil – Draft Technical Resolutio n nº 69, 9 September 2014, Regarding the 
Requirement of Describing the Chemical Co mposition, in Portuguese, in the Label of 
Personal Hygiene Products, Cosmetic s and Perfumes (G/TBT/N/BRA/608) 
2.39.  The representative of Mexico considered that the proposal in question could contravene 
fundamental principles of the TBT Agreement, such as conformity with international standards, by 
failing to consider the existence of the widely accepted International Nomenclature of Cosmetic 
Ingredients (INCI). The representative was also concerned at the distinction that was made under 
the measure between products from the European Union, and products from Brazil's other trading partners, in particular those in Latin American, in violation of the MFN principle. While Mexico 
reserved the right to submit comments to Brazil on this measure, the representative submitted a 
number of requests to Brazil. First, she asked for an explanation of why the INCI system was not accepted under the measure, given that this system  was widely recognized by regulatory entities 
worldwide, as well as by the main product manufacturers and raw material producers. Second, her 
delegation requested an explanation or justificatio n as to the benefits of translating the names of 
product ingredients into Portuguese. Bearing in mi nd that the products used a large number of raw 
materials with highly complex technical names, she pointed that lay consumers were not familiar 
with such ingredients and were incapable of distinguishing between ingredients with similar 
names. Third, Mexico asked Brazil to revoke the provision in question, or if appropriate, at least modify the wording of the provision so as explicitly to allow the use of the INCI. She noted that in 
the case of Mexico, the use of the INCI was allowed under the Mexican technical regulation on 
labelling of such products (NOM 141 SSA1/SCF I 2012), Labelling of Pre Packaged Cosmetic 
Products. Health and Commercial Labelling, in forc e since 2012. Finally, she sought an explanation 
of the rationale of the measure and the reasons why it was deemed necessary to translate product 
ingredients into Portuguese, in relation to the legitimate objective pursued by Brazil. 
2.40.  The representative of Brazil explained th at notification G/TBT/N/BRA/608 referred to a draft 
measure regarding Portuguese language labelling describing the chemical composition of personal 
hygiene products, cosmetics and perfumes. The pr oposed measure was without prejudice to other 
applicable requirements. He highlighted that current legislation determined that the description of ingredients of personal hygiene products, cosmet ics and perfumes was required to follow the 
International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients (INCI). According to the Brazilian Consumer 
Protection Code, consumers in Brazil had the right to clear and appropriate information about products and services available on the market. He noted that a recent ruling found that the 
Brazilian Health Surveillance Agency (ANVISA) shall ensure that information about the chemical G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 10 - 
 
  composition of personal hygiene products, co smetics and perfumes be made available to 
consumers in Portuguese. Thus the proposed measure aimed to bring the requirements on information to consumers in line with applicable legislation. 
2.41.  With respect to the purpose of the INCI, it was the understanding of ANVISA that it served 
the purposed of indicating, in a simplified and unequivocal way, the list of ingredients in the label 
of cosmetic products. He said this allowed health professionals to identify technical and scientific information on a given product, by means of universally accepted quantification. It also enabled 
consumers to identify ingredients that they needed to be aware of due to use restrictions or 
sensitives, as in the case of allergies or intolerance. The use of INCI allowed for the identification of any ingredient in a clear, precise and immediate manner, in any country in the world. From the perspective of sanitary risks, it simplified action s to protect health in general and also allowed 
individual protection in case of emergencies or preventive measures. Brazil informed that the draft 
measure was currently under public consultation, and the final date for comments was 20 January 2015. After the public consultation, ANVISA would then review the comments received, and it was 
envisaged that once the new regulation was appr oved, a transition period of 180 days would be 
provided prior to entry into force. 
2.2.2.7  China - National Standard of the P.R.C., Safety Technical Specifications for 
Children's Footwear (G/TBT/N/CHN/983) 
2.42.  The representative of the European Union thanked China for the clarifications provided on 
the Chinese standards and on the restricted chemical substances referred to in the notified draft. 
However, the EU still requested further clarifications on the odour rating requirements. The 
notified draft set up five categories of odour ratings for new footwear for children, and the 
corresponding testing requirements. In this respec t, the EU asked for further information on the 
environmental and human health protection issues that were referred to by the Chinese authorities 
in the notified draft as justification for the provisions on odour testing and rating. The EU also 
requested information on the practical implications of these ratings and whether the odour rating had to be indicated on the product. Finally, the EU expressed its doubts that such odour tests 
could be conducted by humans, as required in the notified draft and asked for further information 
on the requirements for such testing operator personnel. 
2.43.  The representative of China emphasized that China had provided a detailed written reply to 
EU comments on 13 January 2014. As this reply had not been duly received by the EU, China 
resent the reply to the EU a few days before the meeting and hoped it would address their 
concerns. For the additional questions formulated by the EU, China noted he would refer them back to capital. 
2.2.2.8  Mexico – Draft Mexican Offici al Standard PROY NOM 142 SSA1/SCFI 2013: 
Alcoholic beverages. Health specifications. Health and commercial labelling (G/TBT/N/MEX/254)  
2.44.  The representative of the European Union recalled the comments EU sent to Mexico on 6 
May 2013, and asked Mexico for a written reply. In addition, the EU reiterated some of its previous 
specific concerns. With respect to the definition of ethyl alcohol, the EU expressed its preference 
for a broader definition, which would cover all ethyl alcohol of agricultural origin. With respect to 
the establishment of minimum and maximum alcoho l levels, the EU was concerned that some EU 
spirits drinks had alcohol content lower than 25% or higher than 55% and therefore would not be able to be marketed as spirits drinks in Mexico. For instance, whisky was filled into wooden casks 
for maturation at strength of more than 60%. Some premium, high value whiskies were bottled at 
"cask strength" in order to preserve the particular characteristics of the spirit coming out of the cask and therefore had more than 55% volume of al cohol. The EU thus requested Mexico to delete 
this maximum limit. With respect to the establishment of analytical parameters, the EU was 
concerned with how these limits had been set and how they could affect EU exports to Mexico. In this regard, the EU welcomed further clarificatio ns regarding the necessity and proportionality of 
the limits and on how those limits would relate to the existing 1997 Mexico EU Agreement on the 
mutual recognition and protection of designations for spirit drinks. With respect to the indication of 
alcohol content, the EU invited Mexico to accept  additional abbreviations for the indication of 
alcoholic content which were widely recognised at international level. With respect to the provision 
of mandatory information, the EU sought assurances from Mexico that this draft standard did not 
require the translation of the spirit drink geographical indication into Spanish. Finally, with respect G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 11 - 
 
  to the differentiation established by the latest available draft between alcoholic drinks depending 
on their alcoholic content and the related labelling obligations, the EU noted that according to available scientific studies, it was the excessive consumption of alcohol that was harmful for health, regardless of the type of alcoholic beverage. Thus, the differentiation between high alcohol 
content and low alcohol content products with regards to the warning message could mislead 
consumers, who could conclude that some alcoho lic beverages were more harmful than others.  
2.45.  The representative of Chile thanked Mexico for replying to its comments and for taking them 
into consideration regarding the definition of tolerance to alcohol, which was a very important 
point for Chile to be included in the standard. Ch ile asked to inform the next steps regarding the 
publication of the standard.   
2.46.  The representative of the United States associated herself with the EU's concerns on this 
issue and noted that the US would be closely monitoring this issue.  2.47.  The representative of Mexico noted that  it had taken on board all comments on this 
measure. She highlighted that the comment requir ing that Brandy be composed 100% of grapes 
was also taken into account. She also informed the Committee that a notification containing 
reference to the publication of the responses to the comments would be circulated. Mexico promised that all the comments made at this meeting would also be taken into account and would 
be replied to. While she did not have current info rmation on the process, as requested by Chile, 
she nonetheless noted that this would be included in the replies to comments, as well as with the modified draft standard.  
2.2.2.9  South Africa – Labelling and ad vertising of pre-packaged foodstuff 
(G/TBT/N/ZAF/66/Rev.1) 
2.48.  The representative of European Union than ked South Africa for the constructive bilateral 
meeting where they presented their concerns on  the proposed regulation on labelling and 
advertising of pre-packaged foodstuff. The EU ap preciated South Africa's commitment to take into 
account EU comments even after of the expiration of the deadline for comments. 
2.49.  The representative of New Zealand noted that it had also engaged bilaterally with South 
Africa on this issue, and thanked South Africa for its cooperation on this issue to date. 2.50.  The representative of South Africa than ked the EU and New Zealand for their comments and 
for the bilateral meeting, as well as the US for their written comments, and promised to share 
them all with their national regulator. While the notification that South Africa submitted on 
11 June 2014 allowed for a 60-day comment period , South African Department of Health was still 
considering comments from both domestic producers and trading partners after the deadline. The purpose of the notification was to allow trading partners the opportunity to provide comments on 
provisions of the draft regulation to ensure th ere would not constitute unjustified barriers to 
international trade. Adoption would only take place after comments were considered, and the implementation date would be announced after adoption of the regulation. South Africa therefore 
welcomed further written comments but asked Me mbers to send them urgently so that the 
regulator could still take them into account before adoption and would be able to provide a reasonable interval before implementation. South Africa noted that, as indicated in point 8 of the notification, the regulator had utilised international standards as required by Article 2.4 of the 
TBT Agreement. The Department of Health held it  necessary to draft these regulations to provide 
citizens with adequate information on product labels and enable them to make informed choices and to improve health regulation in South Africa.  
2.2.2.10  Israel – Resistance to ignition of mattresses, mattress pads, divans and bed 
bases (G/TBT/ISR/666 and Add.1) 
2.51.  The representative of the European Union referred to an Addendum 
(G/TBT/N/ISR/666/Add.1) to the original Israeli notification indicating that the mandatory 
application of the notified standard had been postponed and that further scientific assessments were to be conducted. However, it seemed that  at the same time the notified draft had been 
declared mandatory by way of Israeli standard SI 5418 as of 15 July 2014. While recognizing the 
legitimate objective of human safety and the need  for safe home furnishings, the EU was of the G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 12 - 
 
  view that the legislation in question created unnecessary barriers to trade for mattresses and 
mattress pads tested in accordance with other relevant standards, such as European standard EN 597-1 relating to the most commonly occurring fire safety issue of a cigarette smouldering in a sofa or a bed. It ensured an equivalent level of  protection, adequately fulfilling the human safety 
objective pursued by the notified draft, while not requiring the use of flame retardants containing 
chemicals, an important characteristic for consumers who looked for products with fewer chemicals. The EU wished to receive the results of  the investigation mentioned in the Addendum at 
issue and the scientific evidence, based on wh ich Israeli standard SI 5418 had been made 
mandatory. Furthermore, taking into consideration the extensive use of other voluntary standards by other WTO Members, the EU asked Israel to consider recognizing other relevant standards and applying Israeli standard SI 5418 only in a voluntary manner. 
2.52.  The representative of Israel said that although certain parts of voluntary standard SI 5418 
were scheduled to become mandatory on 16 November 2014, this had not occurred as the 
regulation had become the subject of court proceed ings at the Supreme Court of Israel. The entry 
into force of the regulation could be delayed ev en further depending on the outcome of the case. 
The regulation was an adaptation of British Standard BS 7177 and only parts of the standard pertaining to mattresses and mattress pads for d o m e s t i c  u s e  w e r e  t o  become mandatory. In 
addition, during the last revision of the standard adopted by the Technical Committee of the 
Standards Institution of Israel, it had been noted that two similar standards relating to the same hazard had been adopted by one WTO Member. Fu rthermore, the Israeli standard fully adopted 
the prohibition under the Stockholm Convention for the use of flame retardant materials. The need 
for the standard arose from the real danger stemming from the high ratio of open spiral heaters 
used in Israel, which had resulted in a high number of accidents caused by burning mattresses. 
2.2.2.11  European Union – Common Criteria for Information Technology Security 
Evaluation (Common Criteria) certification in the EU 
2.53.  The representative of China noted with appreciation that in November 2013 one of the 
Common Criteria testing labs in the EU had issued an "EAL 4+" certification for a security chip 
product developed by a Chinese manufacturer; however, Chinese security chip producers were still 
facing obstacles while applying for Common Criteria certifications. He asked that the EU explain 
the relationship between Common Criteria certifications and the market access policies for information security products in EU countries. According to Article 5 of the TBT Agreement on 
conformity assessment procedures, certification pr ocedures needed to apply equally to domestic 
and foreign products, be transparent and involve re asonable costs and processing periods in order 
to minimize their impact on trade. Therefore, China urged EU member states involved in the 
Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement (CCRA) to treat Chinese security chips with an open 
and fair attitude and develop transparent and pred ictable certification procedures and evaluation 
standards. 
2.54.  The representative of the European Union sa id that this concern provided an opportunity to 
outline the key differences in approach in this area between the EU and China. In the EU, 
"commercial encryption" and "encryption for national security" were clearly distinguished and handled separately. In the field of commercial encryption, the required level of certification for 
different commercial applications was set by the market and there were no mandatory certification 
schemes but only voluntary ones. Neither the EU nor its member states imposed mandatory 
cryptography standards for conformity assessment procedures as a condition for access the EU 
market. It was up to individual companies to ensure secure transmission of data over their 
systems and networks and procure equipment with the most appropriate technology available to 
meet their needs. European voluntary certification schemes were based on international standards 
and in particular the ISO/IEC Common Criteria for Information Technology Security Evaluation 
standard (ISO/IEC 15408). As regards the specific concerns raised by China with respect to the 
alleged delayed delivery or refusal to deliver voluntary certificates by some certification bodies in the EU, he invited China to detail these concerns with supporting evidence. Although these 
concerns had no connection or relevance from the point of view of the TBT Agreement, his 
delegation would be willing to look into them in good faith and provide feedback to China. He also underlined that while some Chinese manufacturers had already been participating in the EU 
system and receiving certificates, no foreign company had ever received a commercial encryption 
licence in China. By the same token, the Chinese standardization process was closed to foreign companies even if they had important local investments in China while the EU process was open. 
The EU was interested in seeing a balancing of the situation and a level playing field regarding G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 13 - 
 
  conditions for access to the market and participation in relevant standardization work, based on 
reciprocity. 
2.2.2.12  European Union – Limits for he xavalent chromium in toys (2009/48/EC) 
2.55.  The representative of China expressed concerns about the existing as well as proposed limit 
values for hexavalent chromium in toys or toy components in the European Toy Safety Directive 
2009/48/EC, which officially came into force on 20 July 2013. The annex to the current Directive 
set the limit values of hexavalent chromium for three types of toy material at 0.02 mg per kg, 
0.005 mg per kg and 0.2 mg per kg, respectively, which were even more stringent than the limits 
specified in the "WHO Guidelines for drinking-water quality"2 or in Members’ national standards for 
foodstuffs. China associated itself with the EU's goal of enhancing children's protection but wondered at the treatment of toys on the EU market as if they were for eating or drinking. 
Moreover, the EU Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks had proposed a revision 
of the existing limit values for hexavalent chromium, which, if applied as proposed, would result in 21 to 25 times stricter limits and would make detection impossible or extremely expensive. 
Referring to the requirement under Article 2. 2 of the TBT Agreement for Members to avoid 
adopting regulations which were more trade rest rictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate 
objective, he requested the EU to provide scientifi c evidence justifying the existing and proposed 
limit values for hexavalent chromium in the toy safety Directive. In addition, he said that 
according to Article 35 of EU Directive, the re vision should not increase the burden or the 
expenses for the toy industry, especially for small and medium enterprises. China invited the EU to 
verify its compliance to this principle prescribed in its own Directive. Finally, in accordance with the 
recently adopted TBT Committee recommendation on the coherent use of notification formats 
(G/TBT/35), China urged the EU to notify the propos ed revision of the EU toy safety Directive to 
the WTO and open a new comment period.  
2.56.  The representative of the European Union sa id that the concern provided a good opportunity 
to explain the context and the functions of the SC HER, one of the independent non-food scientific 
committees that provided the European Commission with the scientific advice it needed when 
preparing policy initiatives and regulatory proposals relating to consumer safety, public health and 
the environment. The task of the Committee was to draw the European Commission's attention to any new or emerging problems, which might pose an  actual or potential threat, and provide a risk 
assessment, to be distinguished from risk management, which was the regulator's task. In this 
particular case, which was related to chemicals, the task of SCHER was to advise on what could be 
considered as a toxicologically sound, virtually safe limit in light of available evidence. The main trigger for the Commission to request SCHER to look into this issue was a study related to 
hexavalent chromium in drinking water publishe d in July 2011 by the California Office of 
Environmental Health Hazard. The aim of SCHER' s draft Opinion, which had been available for 
public consultation for two months, from 29 July until 28 September 2014, was to consider 
whether a revision of the migration limits for hexavalent chromium in toys or components of toys 
was necessary in view of new available evidence, in particular with regard to the carcinogenic 
effects of chromium VI. SCHER would finalize its Opinion in the coming months, taking into account all the comments received from the scientific community and stakeholders. On the basis of 
this risk assessment Opinion on the toxicologically safe limits (calculated on the basis of a risk of 
one cancer occurrence in a million), the European  Commission, as part of its risk management 
tasks, would consider whether the current migration limits for chromium VI set out in paragraph 
13 of Annex 2 of Directive 2009/48/EC on the safe ty of toys needed to be amended. This 
evaluation would naturally also take into account available testing methodologies for the detection of hexavalent chromium in toys. If the Commission decided to propose a revision of the limits, any 
such proposal would be timely and duly notified to the WTO according to TBT Agreement's 
notification procedures. He hoped that this intervention clarified the distinction between the Opinion of the Scientific Committee and a regulatory proposal which might follow from that scientific opinion. 
2.2.2.13  European Union – Standard on sa fety of household and similar electrical 
appliances (EN60335-1:2012) 
2.57.  The representative of China said that as of 21 November 2014 all household and similar 
electrical appliances placed on the EU market would have to comply with the EU harmonized 
                                               
2 http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/guidelines/en/  G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 14 - 
 
  standard EN60335-1:2012. China was concerned about the unnecessary cost the standard would 
impose on enterprises. In particular, the addition al requirements of this standard would affect 
compliance of products previously certified according to EN 60335-1:2002 +A11:2004+A12:2006+A13:2008+A14:2010+A15:2011, as manufacturers would have to renew 
certification in accordance with the new requiremen ts even when the previous certificate remained 
valid. China requested the EU to provide a sufficient transition period for the renewal of certificates when upgrading its standards with a view to avoiding unnecessary barriers to international trade. 
2.58.  The representative of the European Union explained that the legal framework for placing 
household and similar electrical appliances on the market was laid down by the Low Voltage 
Directive 2006/95/EC, which set up the health an d safety requirements for these products. 
Compliance with the Directive could be achieved in different ways, including through 
demonstration of compliance with the voluntary harmonised EN standards. This provided a 
presumption of conformity with the requirements  of the Low Voltage Directive, which did not 
require third-party certification. The manufactu rer was responsible for the conformity of the 
product with the requirements of the Low Voltage Directive and needed to draw up the technical 
documentation, affix the CE marking and sign th e Declaration of Conformity. In cases where the 
manufacturer chose to comply with the requirements of the Low Voltage Directive through the 
EN 60335-1:2012 standard, compliance with this new standard was needed for products placed on 
the market as of 21 November 2014, when it replaced EN 60335-1:2002. Hence, products, which were in compliance with the previous standard and already placed on the market, were not affected. 
2.2.2.14  European Union – Regulation (E U) No 1169/2011 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council on the provision of food information to consumers, amending Regulations (EC) No 1924/2006 and (EC)  No 1925/2006, and repealing Commission 
Directive 87/250/EEC, Council Directiv e 90/496/EEC, Commission Directive 
1999/10/EC. 2002/67/EC and 2008/5/EC and Commission Regulation (EC) No 608/2004 (G/TBT/N/EU/143) 
2.59.  The representative of Indonesia said that  while recognizing the intention behind the EU 
Regulation related to environment and health considerations, Indonesia was concerned that it 
might pose unnecessary trade barriers to products from other Members. He requested that the EU provide the risk assessment and impact analysis re lated to the implementation of the Regulation 
and clarify whether the term vegetable oil therein app lied to palm oil only or also to rape seed oil. 
Indonesia expected the EU to monitor the implemen tation of the Regulation by EU member states 
and prevent unfair trade practices and discrimination against particular products such as 
Indonesian palm oil. Indonesia was particularly concerned that some companies were putting "no 
palm oil" on the label of their products and wished to pursue the discussions also on a bilateral basis. 
2.60.  The representative of the European Union said that EU Regulation 1169/2011 on the 
provision of food information to consumers, which had been notified to the WTO in 2008, would 
enter in force on 13 December 2014. It provided that the designation "vegetable oils" in the list of ingredients of food product labels needed to be followed immediately by an indication of their 
specific vegetable origin, for instance palm oil, soya oil, olive oil etc. The relevant provisions 
respected the principle of non-discrimination as th ey applied to all types of vegetable oils. The 
Regulation in question did not require or regulate any form of negative labelling such as "it does 
not contain palm oil". Nor did it regulate the manufacturers' freedom to indicate that an ingredient 
had not been used in a food product. The European Commission had produced and updated regularly a Question and Answer document to help food business operators comply with the 
Regulation's requirements and was ready to addres s any additional question Indonesia might have 
at bilateral a level. 
2.2.2.15  Russia – Draft of the Eurasian Ec onomic Commission Collegium decision on 
amendments to Common sanitary-epidemiol ogical and hygienic requirements for 
products, subjected to sanitary-epi demiological supervision (control) 
(G/SPS/N/RUS/50) 
2.61.  The representative of  Indonesia thanked Russia for their bilateral meeting and noted that 
under the Eurasian Economic Commission Collegium decision on amendments to Common 
sanitary-epidemiological and hygienic requirements for products, Russia had tightened the G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 15 - 
 
  peroxide content allowed in palm oil to 0.9 milli moles of active oxygen per kilogram, which also 
applied in other Eurasian member states. Accord ing to the relevant Codex standard, the good 
quality of vegetable oil was determined by the co lour, smell and taste, not by the contents of 
peroxide, which was permissible up to a limit of 10 millimoles of active oxygen per kilogram. 
Although the WTO recognized the right of governments to implement measures to protect human 
health, these needed to be supported by scienti fic studies and avoid imposing unnecessary trade 
barriers. The peroxide content limit of 0.9 millimoles of active oxygen per kilogram appeared to be 
set with the intention of curbing imports of palm oil to Russia as it was unlikely that this 
requirement could be met by palm oil producer s, especially by those from Indonesia. She 
requested that Russia provide its risk assessment and impact analysis regarding the implementation of this regulation and avoid discriminatory treatment to palm oil from Indonesia.  
2.62.  The representative of  Ukraine associated herself with the concerns raised by Indonesia. 
Ukraine had also raised concerns regarding this regulation in the SPS Committee and was still 
waiting for a response to its enquiry submitted on 5 June for clarifications, in particular concerning 
the peroxide level. 
2.63.  The representative of the Russian Federation  thanked Indonesia for their bilateral meeting 
and said that the limits of peroxide value were fixed in the Unified Sanitary and Epidemiological 
and Hygienic Requirements for Goods Subject to Sanitary and Epidemiological Supervision 
(Control), approved by the Decision of the Customs Union Commission No. 299 of 28 May 2010, 
and also in Technical Regulations on oil and fa t products adopted by the Eurasian Economic 
Commission in 2011. The value of peroxide specified in both documents was identical, at a 
maximum level of 10 millimoles of active oxygen per kilogram, and was in full compliance with 
CODEX STAN 210-1999 as well as Article 2.4 of  the TBT Agreement. In accordance with the 
Decision of the Board of the Eurasian Commission No. 22 of April 2012, the proposal of the Unified 
Requirements regarding the peroxide value should be excluded, so that only the proposal of the 
Technical Regulations on oil and fat products applied, with a view to allowing manufacturers in the Customs Union and exporters in other countries to refer to only one document. The draft decision 
providing a maximum limit for peroxide value of 0.9 millimoles of active oxygen per kilogram was 
based on scientific findings regarding its impact on human health and had been notified on 2 April 2014 in document G/SPS/N/RUS/50. However, the adoption of the amendment regarding the limit of peroxide value had been suspended. 
2.2.2.16  Ecuador - Equiva lence Agreement N° 14.241 with the European Union 
regulations 
2.64.  The representative of Mexico thanke d the Chairman and referred to the Agreement 
No. 14.241 of the Ecuadorian Ministry of Industry  and Productivity, dated 3 June 2014. In this 
connection, Mexico had expressed some concerns to Ecuador bilaterally, to which no replies have yet been received. For this reason, this STC was su bmitted on the basis of the following questions: 
(i) Article 1 of Agreement No. 14 241 stated that "the standards and technical regulations of the 
European Union and its member countries were recognized as equivalent". To which legislation and technical regulations did this refer?; (ii) In the antepenultimate paragraph of the preamble of the Agreement it was stated that "the technical report of 30 May 2014 recommends the adoption of 
European standards to assist the Ecuadorian indu stry". Could information be provided on the way 
in which it was considered that European standards assist the Ecuadorian industry? On the basis of the foregoing question, could Ecuador specify the relationship between European standards and 
international standards?; (iii) Did Ecuador agree with the interpretation that the provisions of 
Articles 2 and 3 of Agreement No. 14 241, in rela tion to conformity assessment procedures, imply 
a form of discrimination against products from non-European countries?  
2.65.  The representative of the United States associated herself with the comments made by 
Mexico. 
2.66.  The representative of Ecuador took note of  the concerns expressed and informed that they 
would be further discussed bilaterally, given that these concerns were only recently introduced to 
the agenda. G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 16 - 
 
  2.2.2.17  Ecuador - Draft Technical Regula tion of the Ecuadorian Standardization 
Institute (RTE INEN) No. 047: "Metal ca ble tray, electrical conduit and trunking 
systems")  
2.67.  The representative of Mexico noted that th is draft Ecuadorian Technical Regulation not only 
established packaging requirements for metal cable tray, electric conduit and trunking systems, 
but also contained the requirement to indicate the country of origin and the name of the importing 
enterprise. Mexico considered that, on the basi s of Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement, this 
requirement could be discriminatory and protectionist since it applied solely to imported products. 
Moreover, these requirements were different from the ones normally specified for this type of 
product, which entailed an increase in their costs.  The Regulation also established that products 
with the Ecuadorian Standardization Institute (INEN) seal of quality were not subject to the 
requirement of a certificate of conformity for marketing purposes; this seal was only issued for 
Ecuadorian products, and this, on the basis of Arti cle 5.1.1 of the TBT Agreement, could also have 
a discriminatory effect on imported products. Taking into account the provisions of Article 2.4 of 
the TBT Agreement, Mexico considered that the products covered by the technical regulation in 
question should be governed essentially by the provisions of the International Electrotechnical 
Commission Standard No. 61537, "Cable tray systems and cable ladder systems for cable 
management", rather than Ecuadorian Technical Standard INEN 2486, which did not have product 
safety tests as its main objective. Lastly, it should be noted that the manufacturer or distributor was required to obtain a raw material conformity certificate; in other words, the raw material certificate had to be appended to the conformity certificate for the finished product. This would 
imply the establishment of requirements that would be in breach of Article 5.1.2 of the 
TBT Agreement, as they would generate unnecessar y duplication, given that the finished product 
certificate was the document that best served to guarantee that the raw material was suited to the 
type of product and that it also met the specific manufacturing standards. 
2.68.  Accordingly, Mexico urged Ecuador to: (i) eliminate the specific packaging requirement for 
imported products and to make the necessary chan ge to ensure compliance with the principle of 
non-discrimination provided for in the TBT Agreement; (ii) take international standard IEC 61537 
as a basis for fulfilling the objective pursued by Te chnical Regulation No. 047, and if this would not 
be deemed appropriate, to provide the necessary ju stification. In this connection, it was requested 
that renewed consideration be given to making compliance with Ecuadorian Technical Standard 
NTE INEN 2486 compulsory, for the reasons mentioned earlier; (iii) eliminate the exemption from 
requirement of a conformity assessment certificate for products with the Ecuadorian Standardization Institute (INEN) quality seal, because of its discriminatory basis; and 
(iv) eliminate the requirement for presentation of a raw material conformity assessment 
certificate, or if this requirement would be maintained, to provide justification for its inclusion among the requirements under this regulation. 
2.69.  The representative of Ecuador took note of  the concerns expressed by Mexico and said that 
they would be further discussed bilaterally, given th at they had only recently been introduced on 
the agenda. 
2.2.2.18  Ecuador - (PRTE INEN) No. 111: En ergy efficiency, clot hes dryers labelling 
2.70.  The representative of Mexico thanked th e Chairman and expressed its trade concern with 
respect to Ecuadorian Emergency Technical Regulation (RTE INEN) N° 111, entitled "Energy 
Efficiency, Clothes Dryers, Labelling", which was notified by means of document G/TBT/N/ECU/152 
of 28 January 2014. Mexico did not find in th e regulations any specification or reference 
concerning unexpected events of an urgent nature that might have justified their issuance on an emergency basis. Moreover, Mexico noted that the Ecuadorian Government took no account of the 
formal comments transmitted to Ecuador on 24 February 2014. Mexico also considered that the 
technical regulation could imply a violation of the proportionality principle established in Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement by defining excessively high  ranges of energy efficiency which would limit 
the access of products to the Ecuadorian market (only ranges "A" and "B" would be admitted). 
According to information from industry sources, there were no precedents for such a measure at 
international level, since even under schemes such as that of the European Community, the eco-design directive for clothes dryers still permi tted the marketing of range "C" products. In this 
connection, Ecuador was requested to supply information providing justification for these 
requirements in the light of the legitimate obje ctive pursued by Emergency Technical Regulation 
RTE INEN 111.  G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 17 - 
 
  2.71.  Mexico also expressed its concern at two specific requirements included in the technical 
regulations - which provided for different certification schemes, such as certification "by batch" or "by scheme" - and which were applicable to other household electrical goods, namely: Emergency Technical Regulations RTE INEN 109 (gas water heaters); RTE INEN 196 (lighting chains); 
RTE INEN 077 (washing machines); RTE INEN 124 (washer-dryers); RTE INEN 072 
(Air conditioners); and RTE INEN 036 (fluorescent lamps). No provision were made, however, for certification "by type" of product. Mexico requested that these Ecuadorian technical regulations 
also admit this latter type of certification or, if necessary, that justification be provided for it not 
being admitted. Furthermore, despite the fact that  certificates and test reports on the technical 
regulations had been submitted in Spanish, Ecuador has maintained the requirement that they be authenticated by apostille. Ecuador was thus re quested to provide information justifying this 
requirement in the light of the principles cont ained in Article 5.1 of the TBT Agreement.  
2.72.  The representative of Ecuador took note of  the concerns expressed by Mexico and said that 
they would be further discussed bilaterally, given th at they had only recently been introduced on 
the agenda. 
2.2.3  Previously raised Specific Trade Concerns 
2.2.3.1  India – Pneumatic tyres and tubes for automotive vehicles (G/TBT/N/IND/20, 
G/TBT/N/IND/20/Add.1, G/TB T/N/IND/40 and G/TBT/N/IN D/40/Rev.1) - IMS Item 
No. 133 
2.73.  The representative of Japan said that according to Article 10.2 of the revised "Agreement for 
granting of BIS licences", tyre manufacturers outs ide India were required to pay a bank guarantee 
fee of USD 10,000, resulting in unnecessary and different competition conditions for factories 
inside and outside India. Japan requested the go vernment of India to consider amending the 
regulation. India had explained that the bank gu arantee was needed to recover expenses related 
to breach of agreement by manufacturers outside India. Japan requested India to show evidence 
that such bank guarantee fees were common internationally. Further, Japan was of the view that the ISI marking fee in India was more expensive th an in other countries and requested India once 
again to show evidence that the ISI marking fee in India was equivalent or not more expensive 
compared to other countries. Finally, Japan requested India to consider shortening the time for certification procedures as it was always taking a long time, around four to five months, to obtain 
certification for any tyre size. 
2.74.  The representative of the Republic of Korea reiterated concerns about the Indian Quality 
Order on Pneumatic Tyres and Tubes for Automoti ve Vehicles, regarding which no solution had 
been found although the issue had been raised repeatedly by Korea and other Members since 
2010. Through bilateral meetings, Korea and India had made some meaningful progress regarding 
the ISI mark on tyres to be exported to third countries. However, there were two outstanding 
issues, namely the ISI marking fee and the discriminatory bank guarantees, which Korea 
requested India to reconsider and resolve. The ma rking fee issue could be resolved easily if the 
possibility of reciprocal treatment was considered, namely if Korea required that Indian companies pay a heavy charge on Indian products with the Korean standard marker heading to other markets. Korea strongly urged India to reconsider these matters and to provide a reasonable 
resolution without any further delay. 
2.75.  The representative of the European Union reiterated concerns with regard to the Indian 
Quality Order on Pneumatic Tyres and Tubes for Automotive Vehicles, which introduced a 
certification procedure with a mandatory marking for tyres. The EU requested India once again to 
reconsider its marking fee system, which currently applied to each ISI-marked tyre and not only to those actually sold on the Indian market. The EU  asked India to remove these royalty fees, which 
were extremely burdensome and much more restrictive than necessary, or at least to limit them to 
tyres which were sold on the Indian market. Furthermore, as already indicated in previous meetings, the EU considered that the USD 10,000 ba nk guarantee that the BIS could use in case 
of breach of the BIS Agreement was both discrim inatory and an unjustified practice because it 
applied only to foreign manufacturers. In fact, pu rsuant to Article 3.4 of the BIS Agreement, it 
appeared that liability for the breach of the Agr eement could already be exerted on the authorized 
representative of a foreign manufacturer in India. India was therefore once more invited to explain 
the rationale for introducing a new bank guarantee when other legal means already existed in 
order to ensure compliance with the BIS Agreement and to remove this provision. Finally, the EU G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 18 - 
 
  requested India to confirm that it was possible to get the licences renewed for two or three years 
without the need for additional plant inspections. 
2.76.  The representative of India said that the "Pneumatic Tyres and Tubes for Automotive 
Vehicles (Quality Control) Order, 2009, which applied to both domestic and foreign manufacturers, 
had been issued on 19 November 2009 and entered into force on 13 May 2011. By virtue of this 
Order, pneumatic tyres could be imported to India only if they conformed to the specified standards and bore the Standard Mark of BIS. For this purpose, foreign manufacturers desiring to 
export their goods into India were required to en ter into an Agreement with BIS to be granted the 
BIS licence so that they can use the BIS Standard Mark on their goods. The foreign manufacturer was also required to furnish a bank guarantee of USD 10,000 in favour of BIS for due compliance with the provisions of the BIS Act, rules and regulations, and terms and conditions of the license. 
The bank guarantee was necessitated in view of a default by a foreign manufacturer on its 
payment of dues to BIS, which could not be rea lized even after the matter was taken up with the 
Embassy of that country. It was intended to protect the interests of BIS during the tenure of the 
license and was invoked only in case of breach of any condition of the agreement signed between 
BIS and licensee. It essentially covered any possible loss of revenue to BIS on account of non-payment of requisite marking fee dues to BIS an d also took care of legal expenses, if any. In 
case of any violation of the BIS Act, rules and re gulations, or non-payment of the marking fee by a 
domestic manufacturer, BIS could seek compensation through Court, whereas the law of the land could not be enforced in foreign countries. During the previous meeting, one Member had suggested that the liability for the breach of th e Agreement could be exerted on the authorized 
representative of the foreign manufacturer in In dia and that bank guarantee was therefore not 
needed when other legal means already existed to ensure compliance with the BIS Agreement. In this regard, he pointed out that the authorized representative might not have any control on the 
manufacturing process of the manufacturer and, as per law, might not be held responsible for any 
breach of contract by the manufacturer. 
2.77.  He indicated further that the BIS charged a fee on all goods produced and marked with ISI. 
Some Members had asked that the marking fee be calculated only on those goods, which were 
exported to India. He noted that the marking fee would not be charged in case the manufacturer supplied their goods to other countries without the ISI mark, but they were liable to pay a royalty fee to BIS if they covered that supply with the ISI mark. Moreover, there was a possibility that the 
goods sold in overseas market might eventually land in India on a later date. It was also important 
to mention that the marking fee was being charged on domestic manufacturers not only for goods they sold domestically but also for goods that they exported with the ISI mark. Marking fee was 
charged at the same rate on foreign as well as domestic manufacturers and varied from 0.01% to 
0.2% of the cost of the product. For exampl e, the cost of a commercial vehicle tyre was 
approximately Rs. 20,000 and the marking fee was Rs. 2 per tyre, which came to 0.01%. 
Therefore, the marking fee could not be considered  as exorbitant. In the previous meeting, one 
Member had sought clarification on the levy of an additional certification fee of USD 90 when a factory applied for certification for a new tyre size . He explained that a processing fee of Rs 5,000 
in equivalent USD was charged for inclusion of new varieties of tyres on each occasion irrespective 
of the number of tyre sizes to be included. This fee and the renewal application fee of Rs 1,000 
were the same for domestic as well as foreign manufacturers. Other concerns raised by Members 
were being forwarded to the capital and a response would be conveyed to the concerned 
delegations in due course. 
2.2.3.2  India – Drugs and Cosmetics Rule s 2007 (G/TBT/N/IND/33) - IMS Item No. 
167 
2.78.  The representative of the European Union reverted to concerns regarding the registration of 
cosmetic products in India, which had entered in force in March 2013. On 2 January 2013, India 
had issued Guidelines on the Registration of Impo rted Cosmetics, establishing that the label of 
imported cosmetics had to bear the registration  certificate number of the brand and name and 
address of the registration certificate holder and that stickering of labels containing this 
information may be allowed to be carried out after import at a suitable place approved by the licensing authority. The EU welcomed the fact that stickers providing this India-specific information 
were allowed but also reiterated its request for India to extend the possibility of providing 
information via stickers at customs bonded ware houses to all aspects of cosmetics labelling, including the list of cosmetic ingredients or any other information relevant for the consumer. This 
was a very important trade facilitating measure that did not jeopardise India's legitimate health G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 19 - 
 
  and safety objectives and was particularly relevant for manufacturers that exported small 
quantities and found it difficult to adapt the labels to requirements of different geographical regions. In this respect, on 29 September 2014 the Office of Drugs Controller General of India had issued a memorandum stating that "it had been decided under rule 148-A of the drugs and 
cosmetics rules, 1945 to permit relabeling or stickering on the label of cosmetics which have been 
imported under universal labelling and packaging without concealing the original label, to conform to the labelling requirements of the said rules before these are marketed for sale". According to 
the EU, this latest memorandum permitted importers to re-label or place a sticker on products to 
comply with all Indian labelling requirements and not only the India-specific ones. The EU asked India to confirm whether this reading was correct. 
2.79.  On a related matter, on 16 June 2014 the Indian Central Government had amended the 
legal metrology Packaged Commodities Rules 2011 to require that cosmetic products bear a red or 
a brown dot at the top of the principal display panel for products of non-vegetable origin and a green dot for products of vegetable origin. The rules had not been notified to WTO Members under 
the TBT Agreement and had entered into force 15 days  after publication. The EU reminded India of 
the notification obligations and the absolute need to provide sufficient time for market operators to adapt to new labelling requirements. In this cont ext, the EU asked India to notify the measure, 
provide time for comments and postpone implemen tation deadlines. In addition, the EU invited 
India to clarify how the vegetarian/non-vegetarian information would need to be provided and whether stickers would be allowed. Finally, the EU was concerned with the application of a new importing checklist to check compliance of imported products with the Indian requirements, which 
was requiring market operators to provide data and tests that were not foreseen in the basic 
Cosmetics Law of 2010. The previous checklist used  by DCGI had been in line with the Indian 
Cosmetics Law and guidance documents issued in 2013. Regular changes in the importing 
procedures and labelling requirements were seriously disrupting trade flows. In this context, the 
EU called on India to take the necessary steps to ensure a predictable business environment in this area and adopt less restrictive means to fulfil its legitimate objectives. 
2.80.  The representative of Canada expressed appreciation for India's willingness to provide 
additional clarifications of its Medical Device Regulatory System during meetings held on the 
margins of previous TBT Committee meetings as well as in responding to Canada's questions in the 
context of the WTO Trade Policy Review of India in September 2011. However, Canada still had 
not received sufficient detail and clarity regarding specific aspects of the regulatory system and 
welcomed any additional details on India's futu re plans for medical device regulation and the 
status of the Drugs and Cosmetics (Amendment) Bill, 2013, which as Canada understood, had not 
been passed by Parliament and contained provisions for a new medical device regulatory system. 
Regarding the Guidance Document on Common Submission Format for Registration/Re-Registration of Notified Medical Devices in Indi a, which had been published by the Central Drugs 
Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) in October 2012 and entered into force in January 2013, 
Canada sought information on whether: (i) medica l devices approved by Health Canada would be 
recognized on the same terms as those bearing the European Union's CE marking approval; (ii) 
certificates/licences needed to be notarized/atte sted by the Indian Embassy in the country of 
origin; and (iii) medical devices needed to be approved for sale in the country of origin. Canada 
also welcomed further details on whether India's requirements for country of origin labelling of medical devices differed from those of member countries of the former Global Harmonization Task 
Force (GHTF). 
2.81.  The representative of India indicated that comments had been received from the capital 
regarding a suggestion made by a delegation during  the previous Committee meeting that stickers 
be allowed on imported cosmetics for providing information on all aspects of cosmetics labelling, 
including list of ingredients and any other information for consumers. In this regard, he noted that as per Rule 129H of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules,  the label of imported cosmetics shall bear the 
registration certificate number of the product and the name and address of the registration 
certificate holder for marketing the said product in India. Furthermore, the Guidelines issued on 2 
January 2013 allowed stickering of labels contai ning the registration certificate number of the 
brand and the name and address of the registration  certificate holder, after goods were imported 
and at a suitable place approved by the Licensing Authority. Subsequently, on 29 September 2014 
(as per Office Memorandum No. DCGI/MISC/2014(44)), permission had been granted for stickering on the label of cosmetics, imported under universal labelling and packaging, without 
concealing the original label and conforming to the labelling requirements of the said Rules, before 
they were marketed for sale. However, only the registration certificate number of the brand and G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 20 - 
 
  the name and address of the registration certificate holder were permitted via stickers; hence 
stickering of any other information pertaining to cosmetics labelling, such as list of ingredients, was not allowed under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules. If stickers were allowed to display all mandatory information, such a facility would be liable for misuse by unscrupulous traders after the 
goods were cleared into the domestic market. Thus, the policy objective of informing the 
consumers would not be properly served if all requisite information was displayed using stickers on the packages. He said that concerns raised would be forwarded to the relevant authorities in the 
capital and their response would be conveyed to the interested delegations in due course. 
2.2.3.3  China – Provisions for the Administ ration of Cosmetics A pplication Acceptance. 
Cosmetics Label Instructions Regulation s and Guidance for the Cosmetics Label 
Instructions (G/TBT/N/CHN/821, G/ TBT/N/CHN/937) - IMS Item No. 296 
2.82.  The representative of Japan thanked China for its efforts, but reiterated its concern on two 
points regarding guidance for application and evaluation of new cosmetic ingredients ("the 
Guidance"). Firstly, he noted that since the impl ementation of the guidance in May 2011 only four 
new ingredients had been registered so far, and there still remained significant resistance to 
exports of cosmetic products to China with new ingredients. Japan therefore asked China to accelerate examination of new ingredients. Secondly, the guidance required safety evaluation data 
to be submitted for each single molecule isolat ed from plant extracts and fermented solvents. 
Japan underlined that such requirement was excessive and trade restrictive because they were not applied by other Members, such as United Stat es, the European Union or even Japan. Japan 
therefore asked China to revise the guidance in a way that cosmetics manufacturers could register 
new ingredients without isolation of new ingredients. In case China did not accept this request, 
Japan asked China to share the scientific basis for re quiring evaluation of single molecules isolated 
from a complex ingredient, as well as the risks that China saw in evaluating complex ingredients 
without isolation. 
2.83.  The representative of Canada reiterated concern regarding China's Food and Drug 
Administration's (CFDA) burdensome approval and registration process for cosmetic products. He 
insisted that the lack of progress in approving new ingredients was a serious barrier to trade. 
According to Canada, the "positive list" approach did not ensure an improvement in safety compliance and was redundant with regulation mechanisms already in place. Canada was concerned that the "positive list" approach woul d actually prevent Chinese consumers' access to 
safer and more innovative cosmetic products. CFDA's  intention to define what was "a new" vs. "an 
existing" ingredient according to a positive list risked a sudden characterization of thousands of ingredients that were already sold on the Chinese market as suddenly "new". Canada was also 
concerned that domestic cosmetic manufacturers were able to register "new ingredients" without 
an additional application process. Further, Canada was deeply concerned that China applied a different registration process for its domestic cosmetics manufacturers than it did for importers. He 
argued that streamlining the approvals processes for imported cosmetics and applying the same 
registration process applied to domestic cosmetic products would create a fair trade environment for the cosmetic industry, consistent with the TBT Agreement. 
2.84.  The representative of the Republic of Korea underlined his delegation's respect for China's 
efforts to protect consumer safety and noted that Korea's cosmetics manufacturers were trying to 
comply with the regulation as far as possible. Regarding the labelling requirements notified under G/TBT/N/CHN/937, Korea reiterated its concerns that the mandatory regulations of the CFDA and 
AQSIQ were overlapping and had even conflicting requirements. He considered that the Chinese 
measures conferred unnecessary burden and conf usion to many producers. Therefore, Korea 
requested China to harmonize the regulation of th e CFDA with the existing regulation of AQSIQ 
which was based on ISO standards.  
2.85.  The representative of the European Union joined the delegations of Japan, Canada and 
Korea and asked China to update the Committee on the measures taken since last meeting to 
accelerate the procedure for new ingredients authorisation. The EU was of the opinion that the new 
registration procedure of "new ingredients" (G/TBT/N/CHN/1019), was unlikely to deliver the 
speed efficiency and predictability essential in the cosmetics sector. She noted that as several new ingredients were developed per year and only four had been registered in the last four years, a 
new system should offer a more efficient approval of ingredients. The EU mentioned that an 
authorization system restricted to only certain ingr edients, such as UV filters, colorants and hair 
dyes, would be more adequate, as cosmetics were not pharmaceuticals. For the remaining G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 21 - 
 
  ingredients, which were the majority of cosmetic ingredients, the safety characterization and 
assessment should be done under the responsibility  of the manufacturer. In this context, the EU 
suggested to China to limit the procedure for registration of new ingredients to priority substances - i.e. higher risk substances - and allow a lighter procedure for lower risk substances; and share 
the safety responsibility for new ingredients betw een China's Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) 
and the registrant company for low risk substances. 
2.86.  The representative of China reminded the Committee that since the notification of the 
measure in July 2011, the CFDA offered specialized training and guidance on the difficulties 
enterprises had met in the implementation of this measure. In addition to cooperation at the governmental level, CFDA had kept bilateral cha nnels open and formed several working groups on 
this issue with several Members. The approving procedure was thus being carried out orderly. She 
said that, by 30 September 2014, CFDA had approved 10,367 imported cosmetics applications, 
which was more than the average number of the same period last year. China promised to remain available to discuss the issue bilaterally and welcomed further cooperation and valuable inputs 
from interested parties. 
2.87.  Regarding Canada's concern on the positive list, China explained that there was no "positive 
list" and that the "inventory of used cosmetics in gredients in China" was still under drafting. China 
explained that it was not a "positive list" on cosmetic materials, but instead a list to distinguish 
whether a material was used in cosmetics produced or sold in China. The document designed a sole standard on approving new cosmetic material s, to prepare for devolving responsibility of 
managing imported "normal cosmetic" registrations to provincial level authorities. CFDA had 
carried out two rounds of public opinion soliciting , and the industry had added over 10,000 existing 
materials to CFDA. Except the materials banned for safety hazards, all cosmetic materials that were used in the Chinese market were going to be included in this document. Every kind of 
material would be marked by both Chinese and INCI name. Regarding the "Adjustment of 
Cosmetic New Ingredient Registration Management" (G/TBT/N/CHN/1019), China explained it was issued to accelerate the approval procedure of new cosmetic materials through an adjustment on 
administration level. As for the "Cosmetics Label Instructions Regulations and Guidance", China 
explained that, due to the adjustment of CFDA's legislation plan, there would be a new regulation on cosmetics labelling before the end of 2014, which would be notified to WTO. 
2.2.3.4  India – New Telecommunicati ons related Rules (Department of 
Telecommunications, No. 842-725/2005-VA S/Vol.III (3 December 2009); No. 10-
15/2009-AS-III/193 (18 March 2010); and Nos. 10-15/2009-AS.I II/Vol.II/(Pt.)/(25-
29) (28 July 2010); Department of  Telecommunications, No. 10-15/2009-
AS.III/Vol.II/(Pt.)/(30) (28 July 2010) an d accompanying template, "Security and 
Business Continuity Agreement") - IMS Item No. 274 
2.88.  The representative of the European Unio n thanked India for its willingness to engage in 
discussions with European Industry and with the EU and said that, according to his knowledge, 
following a decision by the Department of Te lecommunications of the Indian Ministry of 
Communications and IT of 7 July 2014, the entry into force of the in-country testing of telecom products for information security reasons was postponed to 1
 April 2015. The EU welcomed this 
postponement, as they it did not consider the pr oposed system as being ready for implementation. 
Until then, the EU was under the understanding that a status quo  would apply and that foreign test 
results would continue to be accepted. The EU welcomed confirmation by India that relevant tests 
would have to be carried out according to international standards, namely the common criteria 
ISO/IEC 15408 Common Criteria standard, ISO 27000 for information security management systems, and the standards developed by the third generation mobile technology partnership 
project, 3GPP and 3GPP2, as regards telecom an d telecom network elements problems. He also 
was under the understanding that India was in the process of joining the 3GPP2, a step also welcomed by the EU towards ensuring lasting adherence by India to standards developed by this platform. The EU understood that test results from laboratories appointed by the Common Criteria 
Recognition Arrangement (CCRA) would continue to be accepted also beyond 1 April 2015 for the 
purpose of the required security assurance, which would be in line with India's obligations as a full member of the CCRA. The EU invited India to continue discussing with telecom equipment 
suppliers to develop working methods and procedures reflecting international practice. As for 
security aspects of mobile telecom elements which were not covered by the Common Criteria standard, the EU asked that India accept resu lts of qualified foreign laboratories holding 
accreditation from ILAC MRA signatories beyond 1
 April 2015, and that India therefore not require G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 22 - 
 
  exclusively in-country testing, but instead continue to accept foreign test results as a basis for any 
certification to be issued in India by appointed certification bodies.  
2.89.  The representative of the United States welcomed India's positive efforts as well as the 
delaying of the implementation to a better time. She associated itself with the EU's comments, 
requesting India to accept test results from accredited laboratories that are ILAC and IAF 
signatories, and not exclusively India-based laboratories. 
2.90.  The representative of Japan supported th e EU and US positions, and confirmed Japan's 
interest to the Unified Access Service Licence Agreement. 
2.91.  The representative of Canada supported the comments made by the EU, US and Japan, 
noting it was not aware of the most recent de velopments. Up until very recently they were 
concerned that the order continued to hinder, and possibly shut, Canadian exports out of the 
Indian market, due to delays in registration and testing. He underlined the relevance of relying on 
well-established international standards for evaluating the competence of conformity assessment bodies, particularly ISO/IEC17025, and ISO/ IEC17065. The ILAC/IAF mutual recognition 
agreements (MLAs) also provide for a peer review  systems to ensure the competence of signatory 
accreditation bodies. They asked India to confirm they were moving in this direction. He agreed with other concerned Members that recognition by India of test results by foreign conformity 
assessment bodies accredited by the signatories of ILAC and IAF MLAs to test and certify to India's 
regulatory requirements would minimise the negati ve impact on companies wishing to export to 
India, while at the same time providing assura nce to India that the recognized conformity 
assessment bodies are competent. Allowing accred ited foreign conformity assessment bodies to 
test and certify to India's regulatory requirements would reduce testing costs and allow exporters 
to bring their products to the Indian market more  quickly. Finally, Canada noted that substantive 
amendments to the Order, such as those with respect to marking and labelling requirements, 
should be notified to the TBT Committee, and an y update by India on these points would be 
welcome. 
2.92.  The representative of India reiterated that  in-country security testing of telecom equipment 
was mandated for "national security reasons" due to the fact that in modern age 
telecommunication equipment was vulnerable to spyware and malware attacks. Therefore, in 
May-June 2011, telecom service providers were instructed by the Department of Telecommunication that they "shall induct only those network elements into their telecom 
network, which have been got tested as per relevant contemporary Indian or International 
Security Standards". For example, IT and IT related elements were to be tested against 
ISO/IEC 15408, and Information Security Management System against ISO 27000 series. These 
tests were to be conducted from any international agency/labs of the standards such as Common 
Criteria Labs in case of ISO/IEC 15480 standards, until 31 March 2013. As from 1 April 2013, the certification was to be got done only from authorized and certified agencies/labs in India. This 
deadline was subsequently extended from time to time; and the latest extension of 9 months had 
been granted from 1 July 2014 to 1 April 2015 for complying with the mandatory requirement of in-country testing.  
2.93.  India also reiterated its view that the Common Criteria was not sufficient for the purpose of 
security testing of telecom equipment because its testing was limited to IT and IT related 
products. Moreover, being a process based testing, while the Common Criteria largely addressed the issues of commercial security consideration, it did not however address national security 
issues. Therefore, in respect of testing of IT prod ucts to be used in telecom networks which have 
already been tested under CCRA, due leverage woul d be given to the CC testing. Additional tests, 
if required, would be carried out as per the prescribed systems, processes and standards. Finally, 
India explained that when an IT product was used in telecom network, it became a telecom 
network element where functional or operational requirements were governed by 3GPP or 3GPP2 
standards. India intended to use the 3GPP and 3GPP2 standards also for testing and certification of telecom equipment. In this regard, India was taking necessary steps for participating in the 
exercise of formulating security standards by 3GPP/3GPP2 Sub-Group. G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 23 - 
 
  2.2.3.5  China – 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-goi ng revision and the Multi-Level Protection 
Scheme (MLPS) - IMS Item No. 294 
2.94.  The representative of the European Union as ked China to provide an update on the revision 
of the OSCCA regulation on commercial encryption products that had been on the agenda of the 
State Council legislative office for several years. He also requested China to confirm that there 
would be a TBT notification in timely and due manner of the final draft of the proposed revisions in 
order to allow Members for a meaningful opportunity to provide comments. Any update on the substance of the revisions would be welcome, beyond what the EU already knew, i.e. the fact that the new regulation would remove the discriminatory provisions that prevented foreign suppliers 
from applying for certifications. The EU was also  concerned with the implementation of the multi-
Level Protection Scheme (MLPS), in particular the overly extensive scope of the definition for "critical infrastructure" and the current restrictions that prevented the procurement of products 
incorporating foreign technology for use in critical infrastructure. The EU also mentioned that 
standardisation remained another area of concern due to the impossibility for foreign stakeholders, even if they have investments and were established in China, to meaningfully participate in this 
process. This was compounded by the overall opac ity of the process and too short time periods for 
comments on draft standards. The EU requested China to ensure that standards bodies under 
government control fully comply with the WTO Code of Good Practice. The EU invited China to make use of relevant international standards in this field rather than promoting home-grown 
solutions and to play a full role in the development of such international standards. Finally, the EU 
noted that in the margins of the Government Authorities Meeting of Semi-conductors (GAMS) meeting held on 14-16 October in Japan, a Seminar on Commercial Encryption Licensing and 
Certification took place, with participation from EU, India, Japan, Korea, the US, among others. 
This event helped foster exchange of informat ion about current approaches in the field of 
encryption and highlighted the need to step up international cooperation in this area. 
2.95.  The EU stressed the importance of intern ational cooperation to address global issues, and 
develop resilient systems deploying the best possi ble technology on the market. He underlined 
that it was in no Member's interest to segregate markets for encryption purposes by foreclosing the possibility of using foreign technology in their own market against cyber-attacks that could 
originate anywhere in the world. The GAMS endorsed the principle of promoting greater 
transparency regarding relevant regulatory po licy developments, and the EU underlined that 
transparency and cooperation go hand-in-hand. The EU stated that it looked forward to further 
discussions and dialogue with the Ch inese authorities going forward. 
2.96.  The representative of Japan reiterated it s support the EU's position and noted that Japan 
paid particular attention to various schemes and regulations within China on information security, 
and how they could negatively affect trade of information security products.   
2.97.  The representative of China informed that the Regulation on Commercial Encryption 
Products was due for revision. This revised version aimed to ensure equal treatment for foreign 
and domestic businesses and take the developmen t of information industry into account. This 
revision had the purposes of: (i) protecting information security; (ii) safeguarding the legitimate 
rights and interests of citizens, legal persons and other organisations; and (iii) protecting national security and public interests. China also continued bilateral and multilateral negotiations with EU 
and other Members. The draft had just been subm itted to the legal affairs office of the State 
Council. OSSCA had been open and transparent, carrying out reviews and public consultations 
during the drafting.  
2.98.   China also updated the Committee on the state of the revision process of the Multi-Level 
Protection Scheme (MLPS). The essence of the Regulation on Classified Protection of Information Security was to classify the protection on inform ation systems, aiming at safeguarding the basic 
information network and important information systems to ensure national security and public 
interests. The security of information systems in  banking, education, healthcare, transportation 
and other public utilities were all issues to which China attached great importance, due to their close relationship with citizens' welfare. Theref ore, the "importance" of information systems was 
not necessarily decided by the sensitivity of that industry but also by the possible damage it could 
cause to, inter alia , national security, social order, economic development and public interests. In 
addition, these systems only covered a very limited portion of all the information systems in China. G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 24 - 
 
  Therefore, it seemed very unlikely that the measure would be able to cause "significant" effects to 
international trade. China reiterated that in terms of intellectual property protection and government procurement, all enterprises within Ch ina would be treated equally in accordance with 
the non-discrimination principle of the TBT Agreement. 
2.2.3.6  Russian Federation – Draft on Tec hnical Regulation of Alcohol Drinks Safety 
(published on 24 October) (G/TBT/N/RUS/2) - IMS Item No. 332 
2.99.  The representative of the European Union requested an update on the status and timeline 
for adoption of this draft technical regulation, scheduled to be finalized during summer 2014. It 
also requested that Russia notify this new draft to the TBT Committee as it would likely include substantial change as compared with the text notified in 2012. The EU also noted it had also submitted detailed written comments in 2013, and encouraged Russia to take them into 
consideration. The EU also made various comments on the substance of the new draft. Concerning 
wines, the EU welcomed the fact that the use of  ''concentrated must'' and ''rectified concentrated 
must'' were recognized as an oenological practice in  the new version of the draft. In this respect, 
the EU asked for the confirmation that wines enriched with ''must'' were not considered 
"table wines". The EU also asked for a guarantee that EU geographical indications (GIs) would be duly protected and that wines with GIs would continue to be allowed to be bottled in Russia and 
maintain the GI designation. Concerning beers, the EU asked for confirmation that the limit on 
sugar content of beers would be removed and the use of fruits as well as additives would not trigger the obligation to label beers containing such components as "beer beverages". The EU also requested confirmation that brewery products were still excluded from the ban on PET packaging.  
2.100.  The representative of Mexico recalled that her delegation had sent written comments to 
Russia in December 2011 and April 2012, but had not yet received any formal responses. She also 
requested Russia to provide updated information on the state of progress on the elaboration of the 
regulation and the current state of play with regard to its final adoption. She also asked Russia to 
explain how the Mexican comments were taken into account in relation to the final text of the regulation in question and to provide a written formal response to those comments. 
2.101.  The representative of Australia reiterated that both Australia and Russia shared the 
commitment to adopt internationally accepted standards for alcoholic products as recommended 
by the International Organisation of Vine and Wine (OIV), and to avoid creating unnecessary 
obstacles to trade in wine. Australia submitted comments on Russia's notification on 
6 February 2013, focusing on a number of commonly used additives and processing aids that 
did not affect the safety of the alcoholic product.  Australia noted that it had been joined in its 
concerns by a number of other Members who considered the new measures to be both overly 
burdensome and repetitive. In the light of this, Australia once again suggested that Russia 
consider adopting the OIV list of approved additives and processing aids, as set out in the "International Oenological Codex" and the "International Code of Oenological Practices". Australia 
remained concerned about the legal status of wines which conformed to the health warning 
statement under the previous legislation, and were in circulation at the time the draft regulation entered into force. Australia asked again that Russia introduce a six-month transition period for these products to enable industry sufficient time to implement the stated labelling requirements. 
Australia also reminded Russia of their concerns over the requirements relating to the bottling 
location of wines which include a GI in their description and presentation. 
2.102.  The representative of the Russian Federation  informed that the internal adjustment of the 
draft of the technical regulation on the safety of alcoholic products was still in process, and that 
Russia remained open for further bilateral discussions and willing to keep Members informed of the process. 
2.2.3.7  Republic of Korea – Regulation on  Registration and Evaluation of Chemical 
Material (G/TBT/N/KOR/305) - IMS Item No. 305 
2.103.  The representative of the United States said that while her delegation acknowledged the 
extensive stakeholder engagement on this issue, the US remained concerned about the protection 
of confidential business information (CBI). The US thus encouraged Korea to develop a strong 
definition of CBI so as to include at least the possibility of protecting the specific chemical identity, composition, and uses, while respecting the legitimate government interest in allowing for G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 25 - 
 
  reporting of generic chemical names, and for providing adequate hazard information to 
downstream users. The K-REACH framework should include additional provisions to help prevent 
any disclosure of CBI to the public or other manufacturers and importers. She insisted that Korea should tighten the definition of "hazardous substance" so as to avoid confusion and an overly 
broad application that would de facto prevent claims of CBI for any substance. Specifically, the US 
considered that the phrase "other chemical substa nces that either pose or raise the concern of 
h a z a r d  o r  r i s k "  s h o u l d  b e  d e l e t e d  f r o m  t h e  d e f i n i t i o n .  T h e  U S  a l s o  e n c o u r a g e d  K o r e a  t o  g i v e  
greater consideration to industry requests for a de lay of the implementation date in light of the 
practical issues that have been raised. Finally,  the US mentioned that the role of the Korean 
Chemical Manufacturers Association (KCMA) needed  to be defined and it needed to guarantee a 
level playing field for domestic and foreign registrants. 
2.104.  The representative of Japan associated himself with the US comments. Regarding products 
containing around 500 hazardous substances, not less than 0.1% by weight and not less than 
1 ton per year in total, he said that it would be necessary to notify the authority of the production, 
sales and import of them. Japan reiterated its request for Korea to introduce the regulation by 
stepwise manner according to the priority of hazardous substances, as Japan had not received any reply yet. Japan was under the understanding that the enforcement regulation stipulated the 
necessary test items for registration on this regulation, and that the National Institute on 
Environmental Research's public notice was the instrument regulating in detail the conduct of the examination process. However, Japan believed that this would represent heavy burdens for the Japanese industries, which would have to carry out a lot of test items on the enforcement 
regulation. Japan thus requested Korea to alleviate the mandatory testing in cases where the test 
results required further registration under the regulation could reasonably be estimated from: 
(i) other test results on the same substance the registration of which it was applied for; 
(ii) existing reliable knowledge on the substance the registration of which it was applied for, such 
as published articles, or publically accessible da tabase and documents; and (iii) publically known 
test results regarding other substances constitution of which it was similar to that of the substance 
the registration of which it was applied for.  
2.105.  The representative of the Republic of Korea informed the Committee that the Presidential 
and Ministerial Decrees to the Act on Registration and Evaluation of Chemical Substances would be 
published in November 2014. The Act and the Decrees were scheduled to take effect on 
1 January 2015. Regarding protection of confiden tial business information (CBI), he pointed out 
that CBI including composition and contents of chemical materials would be excluded from the scope of information to be provided. CBI submitted during the registration process was going to be 
protected upon request if CBI corresponded to that stipulated in the "Unfair Competition 
Prevention and Trade Secret Protection Act" . In addition, although R&D substances and 
low-concern polymer compounds were exempted from registration, they shall be applied for 
exemption as "Toxic Chemicals Control Act (TCCA)" required it currently. For impurities and by 
products which were unintentionally produced, or  those which existed in other chemicals, those 
substances shall not be registered if they were not commercially distributed or circulated. He also noted that the Korean Ministry of Environment had already replied in writing to the United States 
on 7 April 2014. He informed that the other issues that had been raised at the present 
Committee meeting would be sent to the competent Korean authorities. 
2.2.3.8  Indonesia - Technical Guidelines fo r the Implementation of the Adoption and 
Supervision of Indonesian National Standards for Obligatory Toy Safety 
(G/TBT/N/IDN/64, G/TBT/N/IDN/64/Add.2) - IMS Item No.328 
2.106.  The representative of the European Unio n expressed regret about the fact that the new 
regulation on compulsory testing for toys according to the Indonesian mandatory standard for toy 
safety had been implemented on 30 April 2014 without taking into account the substantive concerns raised by a number of Members and th eir toy industries. He noted EU exporters' 
continuing concerns with the implementation of De cree No. 24 of Ministry of Industry (and related 
technical guidelines), including with the lack of clarity about the process. One area of remaining 
concern was the burdensome and discriminatory conformity assessment procedures between imported and domestically produced toys. For imported toys testing based on sampling was 
required for each batch, which compared unfavourably with tests of samples taken every 
six months from the production line for domestic products. Despite some announced revisions in the sampling procedures, in respect of which the EU requested further clarifications, the EU 
exporters still reported difficulties and delays in getting clearance for their products. The EU G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 26 - 
 
  therefore invited Indonesia to reconsider the full issue of conformity assessment and sampling for 
tests and testing procedures for imported toys in order to ensure a level playing field with domestic products. The EU also understood that a technical working group had been set up in the Ministry of Industry to allow for discussions between authorities and affected toy manufacturers. 
The EU welcomed this development and invited the Indonesian Ministry of Industry to work with 
the technical working group to propose amendments  to the existing legislation to address the 
concerns raised. Regarding testing, he noted that the current 2-year grace period allowing the 
acceptance of foreign tests by laboratories accred ited by ILAC MRA signatories, was due to expire 
in October 2015. The EU thus urged Indonesia to extend the acceptance of foreign tests beyond 
the expiry of this grace period as the capacity of local laboratories would be insufficient to deal with the current demands. In this respect, he stre ssed that there was no prospect of the capacity 
to be increased to meet expected demands by October 2015.  
2.107.  The EU also raised concerns regarding the impact on toys of the revised general labelling 
requirements (linked to STC ID 436
3), which added to the specific marking and labelling 
requirements prescribed by Decree No. 24. He noted that in Indonesia toys were subject to two 
separate sets of labelling requirements: one stemming from the specific toys regulation, and another from the mandatory labelling in Indonesian language. Since the label required under the 
toys regulation needed to include the shipment ta x number, which could only be obtained after the 
shipment had reached customs, the combined application of the two sets of requirements entailed that every single item had to be handled manually twice: before shipment, according to the general requirements for labelling in Indonesian language, and after importation, in order to meet 
the specific labelling requirements under the toy regulation. This created a disproportionate burden 
and cost for foreign toy manufacturers and importers, as well as unnecessary delays in placing the products on Indonesian market. In addition, the requirement of permanently affixing labels on 
certain types of toys could in itself give rise to safety concerns. This was so because, as permanent 
labels could be removed by children playing with the toys, this could damage the toy and expose 
the children to materials not supposed to be accessible for them. The EU also asked Indonesia to 
allow enough time for discussions with toy manufacturers on feasible labelling solutions capable of 
meeting policy objectives, while ensuring proporti onality and coherence between the two different 
sets of labelling requirements applicable to  toys, and not compromising toy safety.   
2.108.  The representative of the United States a ssociated herself with the EU concerns. She said 
that while toy safety was an objective the US shared with many Members, it nonetheless also 
noted that Indonesia's toy regulatory regime included several aspects that were considerably more restrictive than those adopted by other Members. In  this latter respect, the US continued to have 
concerns related to laboratory accreditation, testing frequency, sampling, documentation, and 
substance restrictions. Despite efforts by both the US Government and other trading partners, as well as the toy industry coalition, few of these concerns were addressed prior to the regulation 
coming into effect at the end of April 2014. She argued that increased costs and decreased 
quantity and variety of safe toys from compliant companies, due to these restrictive requirements, would cause consumers to look for alternatives in  the grey market, thereby decreasing consumer 
safety. The US remained interested in working th rough the remaining issues of concern with the 
new Indonesian administration to resolve these matters and help ensure that Indonesian 
consumers have access to safe toys.  
2.109.  The representative of Japan reiterated that the Indonesian toy safety regulation was 
inconsistent with its obligations under the TBT Agreement, and regretted that the revised 
regulation was put into effect although the concerns remained unsolved. He requested that the new Indonesian administration would amend the toy regulation so as to make it consistent with 
TBT Agreement obligations. 
2.110.  The representative of Indonesia informed  the Committee that since the new amendment of 
the regulation stipulated by Regulation of Minist er of Industry No. 55/M-IND/PER/11/2013, notified 
under G/TBT/N/IDN/64/Add.2, there had been no further changes in this regulation. Information 
regarding the availability of regulation was availa ble on Ministry of Industry's website. Regarding 
certification procedure, as stated in the technical guidance on the implementation of toys safety, local and foreign manufactures, could submit thei r application to conformity assessments bodies 
                                               
3 Indonesia – Regulation of Minister of Trade No. 10/M-DAG/PER/1/2014 concerning Amendment of 
Regulation of Minister of Trade No. 67/M-DAG/PER/11/2013 concerning Affixed Mandatory Label in Indonesian Language for Goods . G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 27 - 
 
  designated by the Minister of Industry. In addi tion, foreign manufactures were to appoint their 
representative which was functioning as importer or manufacturing importer. On the issue of testing period for toys, she explained that the current regulation's requirement for sample-taking was based on the batches of shipments. A shipment could consist of several batches which were 
determined in terms of every trademark of toys which fell within the same HS code; such an 
improved requirement had significantly reduced the time for testing. Regarding acceptance of test 
result issued by foreign laboratories, she said that Indonesia granted a 2-year grace period for the 
result to be recognized. However, this kind of sp ecial treatment during this grace period could only 
be extended beyond the period if the government of the country where the laboratories were based already had a mutual recognition agreement with the Indonesian Government. She further explained that all requirements about marking and chemical substances contained in toys were 
set up in the technical guidance on this matter. The affixing of the label in Bahasa Indonesia in 
goods, particularly on toys, could be done through embossed printing or a firmly attached label on the packages, depending on the characteristics of the product. 
2.2.3.9  European Union – Draft Implementi ng Regulations amending Regulation (EC) 
No. 607/2009 laying down detailed rules for th e application of Council Regulation (EC) 
No 479/2008 as regards protected designations of origin and geographical indications, 
traditional terms, labelling and presentati on of certain wine sector products 
(G/TBT/N/EEC/264, G/TBT/N/EEC/264/Add.1) - IMS Item No. 345 
2.111.  The representative of Argentina reiterated Argentina's concern with the unjustified delay in 
resolving this long standing STC, a conduct it considered to be inconsistent with the principle of 
national treatment. Regulations (EC) No. 479/ 08 and (EC) No. 607/09, which, on one hand, 
granted EU member states the exclusive right to us e certain traditional expressions in each of their 
respective languages, on the other hand, restricted the right of third states to use these 
expressions in their labelling. This seriously affected wine exports from Argentina to the EU which 
used the terms "Reserva" and "Gran Reserva". Argentina believed this legal regime was inconsistent with the TBT Agreement. In order to he lp find a practical solution to avoid the barriers 
posed by this measure, and at the EU's invitation  at this Committee, Argentina presented a dossier 
on these terms to the EU in July 2009. This do ssier was then approved in March 2012 by the 
European Commission's Wine Management Committee. Although the substantive procedure was completed in March 2012, the final formal step, namely the adoption of the Argentine dossier by 
the College of Commissioners and its publication in the Official Journal of the EU, had not yet been 
taken. The substantive procedure took two years and seven months, from July 2009 until the approval of the dossier in March 2012, while the delay to comply a single administrative act of a 
formal nature had already reached two years and eight months, from March 2012 to November 
2014. It was striking that the delay to finalize a merely formal administrative act had exceeded the time taken to end the substantive procedure that approved the dossier. It was not coherent that 
only one formal act required more time than the total amount of acts of the process, during which 
Argentina had also responded to objections by different entities and supplied additional information in response to requests from the EC for clarifications regarding its documentation. Argentina insisted that such delay was doubly unjustified: neither had the process been concluded 
in a reasonable period of time, nor had a reasonable explanation been given for the delay. The 
total delay amounted to five years and three months. This delay constituted in and of itself an obstacle to trade. Argentina urged the EU to find a prompt solution. 
2.112.  Argentina further argued that the declared aim of not misleading consumers could not be 
achieved by the Community's legal regime because there was no uniform and unequivocal definition of the traditional terms "Reserva" and "Gran Reserva" at the Community level. The EU 
could not logically comply with said objective as there were divergent definitions of these terms at 
national level. It was not logical that the EU re quired third members to comply with this alleged 
objective when the EU did not apply the same trea tment to its own members. The pretence of the 
unequal objective (to not mislead consumers) constituted a violation of the principle of national 
treatment. Argentina also considered that the EU failed to comply with its obligation of national 
treatment, as the same conditions of access and marketing were not applied to wines from outside 
the Community compared with the conditions enjoyed by Community wines. Besides, the 
traditional expressions "Reserva" and "Gran Reserva" were not provided for at Community level in 
the case of Spain. In fact, in the single Annex to Regulation (EC) No. 881/98, entitled "List of additional traditional terms referred to in Article 3(1)", the traditional terms "Reserva" and "Gran 
Reserva" were not included in relation to Spain, although 14 other expressions were listed for 
Spain in that Annex, which made the absence of the terms all the more noteworthy because the G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 28 - 
 
  terms "Reserve", "Vieille  Reserve" and "Grand Reserve" in French were listed in the case of 
Greece. Argentina therefore questioned why exclusiv e rights were assigned to Spain for the use of 
such Spanish expressions when they were  not even provided for initially.  
2.113.  Argentina also noted that the World Wine Trade Group (WWTG) (a grouping of wine 
producing countries - Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Georgia, New Zealand, South Africa and 
the United States) transmitted four notes to the European Commission, the first on 4 June 2013, but had not yet received a satisfactory reply to the request to register and publish the traditional 
expressions requested by the non-Community countries, since the undue delays were not justified 
from the technical standpoint. Lastly, Argentina recalled that in a previous TBT Committee meeting, in October 1999 (G/TBT/M/17), the EU had stated, for instance, that "the purpose was to avoid misleading the consumer and unfair competition" and "stressed that the legislation would 
provide national treatment in that it allowed third countries to use the terms on similar conditions 
as applied to EC member States." He noted that 15 years after those statements, the reality still 
had not changed, despite continuous flagging of the concern. As the third STC raised in this 
Committee in terms of frequency and number of Members raising, Argentina saw this as a case of 
clear protectionist policy and urged the EU to eliminate the unjustified restrictions on exports of quality wines. She insisted that the Commission address this matter and publish the relevant 
regulatory act in its Official Journal. 
2.114.  The representative of the United States recalled its previous concerns and requested the 
status of the applications submitted by the US wine industry over four years ago. The US noted 
t h a t  s o m e  U S  s u p p l i e r s  t h a t  c u r r e n t l y  u s e d  t h e terms referred to in the EU measure had been 
unable to ship their products. The US was also concerned with the lack of transparency in the 
application process for the use of traditional terms. This process continued to undermine US exports of wine to the EU, as companies that used those terms legally in the US and third 
markets had been unable to sell their wines to the EU. She thanked the EU for reconsidering the 
traditional terms for wine schemes and requested more information on this review. In this respect, she asked what were the objectives and parameters of such review, the scope of the stakeholder 
participation in the review, and, in particular, whether foreign stakeholders could participate in the 
process. The US noted that information about the Wine Advisory Group, specifically regarding its plans for the approval of the use of Traditional Terms on wine by the US and other leading wine 
producing nations, had not been shared with key trading partners. Furthermore, it appeared that 
the Wine Advisory Group had been replaced by a Civil Dialogue Group on Wine. She noted that key 
trading partners had not yet received information on the composition and intentions of this new group regarding traditional terms,  further exacerbating the lack of transparency and undermining 
trade. The US urged the Commission to resolve this barrier to trade without further delay. 
2.115.  The representative of South Africa showed its support to the statements made by 
Argentina and the US. The EU and South Africa could resolve only three longstanding concerns 
relating to traditional terms in their economic partnership agreement negotiations. All other issues, 
also pertaining to the subject of this STC, were moved to a rendez-vous  clause to be negotiated at 
a later stage. As previously stated, South Africa  had been using quite a few of the "traditional 
terms" referred to by the EU since the time when European Settlers first started wine production in 
the Western Cape province of South Africa in 1685.  He noted that these terms therefore form part 
of South African valued heritage. As a member of the World Wine Trade Group, South Africa joined the other Members and cosponsored four letters to the EU, dated 18 December 2013, 22 May 
2014, 4 June 2014, 7 October 2014, sent by the WWTG Chairman to the DG Agriculture and the 
Rule Development of the European Commission on the issue of "traditional terms" within the framework of the European legislation, in part icular regarding EC Regulations 478/08 and 607/09. 
South Africa therefore urged the EU not to use general terms commonly used in many languages 
for the description of wine such as " classique " or " reserve " as a trade barrier. He also asked the EU 
to engage with concerned Members to ensure that common solutions could be found.  
2.116.  The representative of the European Union informed the Committee that the new 
Regulation establishing a common organization of the markets in agricultural products had been 
adopted by the European Parliament and the Council in December 2013 (Regulation (EU) No. 1308/2013). Following its publication, an intern al assessment on "traditional terms" had been 
carried out within the EU with stakeholders and experts from the Member States (in accordance 
with Article 114(3) of that Regulation). The co nsultation was still ongoing and included the 
conditions and specificities under which these traditional terms could be used on the labels of 
products from third countries. The possible de rogations, based particularly on minimum G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 29 - 
 
  requirements for production methods and controls under product specifications of the wines 
concerned, were covered by this discussion. Nevertheless, after three meetings no final conclusions were reached and, at this stage, the EU was waiting for the new Commission to take office before a decision could be made. The EU promised to continue to make the possible and 
necessary efforts to bring new elements into its policy on protection of traditional terms and their 
indication on the labels of wines in order to accommodate trade partners' concerns. She assured Members that their concerns had been taken into account in the assessment process currently 
carried out in the EU which was of a complex nature. The procedures under consideration (whether 
from EU Member States or third countries) would be taken once this evaluation was finalized. The EU remained open to discussion with trade partners bilaterally at expert level. 
2.117.  The representative of Argentina underlined again what it saw as a lack of transparency in 
the EU's approach since it declared to be attempting to bring in a new measure which would 
continue to delay the resolution of this issue. 
2.2.3.10  India – Food Safety  and Standards Regulation - Food labelling requirements - 
IMS Item No. 298 
2.118.  The representative of the European Un ion recalled that in October 2011 and January 2014 
India issued ad hoc guidelines under which certain India-specific information, such as the 
vegetarian/non-vegetarian logos and the name and address of the importer, was considered 
"rectifiable" information and could be affixed through stickers by the importer in customs warehouses. However, the guidelines specified that several compulsory food labelling elements, such as list of ingredients, were "not rectifiable", which meant that they could not be 
communicated by means of stickers but rather ha d to be printed on the food package. The EU 
noted that in most economies worldwide food products could be labelled by means of stickers provided they were accurate and not easily deta chable. She said this was a very important trade 
facilitating practice that allowed producers to serve different regions with different language 
requirements without the need for separate produc tion lines, while duly protecting the consumer. 
In this respect, she mentioned standard CODEX STAN 1-1985, relevant to the labelling of 
pre-packaged foods, which states: ''if the language on the original label is not acceptable, to the 
consumer for whom it is intended, a supplementary label containing the mandatory information in the required language may be used instead of relabeling''. It also states: ''in the case of either relabeling or a supplementary label, the mandatory information provided shall be fully and 
accurately reflect that in the original label.'' For the forgoing reasons the EU expressed its view 
that the October 2011 guidelines were too burdensome and were not therefore in compliance with Articles 2.2 and 2.4 of the TBT Agreement. She aske d India to bring its implementing guidelines in 
line with CODEX and to allow all types of labelling information - and not only the India-specific 
information - to be provided by stickers (for ex ample at customs bonded warehouses). This was a 
sound alternative to labelling in the country of origin that would allow India to fulfil its legitimate 
objectives in a non-trade restrictive way. 
2.119.  Concerning alcoholic drinks, the EU repres entative noted that Indian legislation required 
that the labels to these products contain the full list of ingredients. As already stated, stickers were not allowed and, in addition, the labels had to be pre-registered in different Indian States with the 
state excise authorities. In this context, th e EU encouraged India to provide more detailed 
information to market operators regarding the formulation of ingredients, and to allow sufficient time for implementation – up to 9-12 months depending on the excise cycle. She stressed that 
approval of labels by State authorities needed to take place before the implementation date. If this 
did not occur, the requirement to list ingredients in the label of alcoholic drinks could result in a major market access disruption. In addition, and supplemental to the transition period for 
implementation, the EU asked India to ensure that all products presently exported could continue 
to be marketed until stocks were exhausted. Finally, the EU was aware that the Food Safety and Standards Authority was preparing a technical regu lation on alcoholic drinks, and enquired about 
the envisaged timeframe for notification to WTO. 
2.120.  The representative of Switzerland echoed the concerns of the EU and the view that all 
labelling information should be "rectifiable" by stickers. He noted cases of firms pulling out of the 
Indian market due to these restrictive measures. Switzerland urged India to bring this measure in 
line with CODEX standards. G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 30 - 
 
  2.121.  The representative of Japan supported th e concerns expressed by the EU. She noted that 
certain information (such as the list of ingredients and nutritional information) were considered as 
"not rectifiable" and could not therefore be labelled by means of stickers under the measure. As previously reported, the implementation of these guidelines has had a significant negative effect 
on importation of food product to India from Japan. She cited Article 2 of CODEX STAN 1-1985, 
which defined a label as "any tag, brand, mark, pictorial or other descriptive matter, written, printed, stencilled, marked, embossed or impresse d on, or attached to, a container of food." She 
further cited Article 8.2.1 of this standard, which said: "if the language on the original label is not 
acceptable, to the consumer for whom it is intended, a supplementary label containing the mandatory information in the required language may be used instead of relabeling"; as well as Article 8.1.1, which said: "labels in pre-packaged foods shall be applied in such a manner that they 
will not become separated from the container." The representative said that this well-balanced 
standard reflected real world practices whereby many countries, including Japan, allowed food products to be labelled by means of stickers provided they were accurate and not easily 
detachable, achieving consumer protection while, at the same time, avoiding unnecessary trade 
disruption. Japan stated that India did not use the CODEX standard as the basis for these guidelines, and asked India to revise the guidelines so as to bring them in line with the CODEX 
standard in accordance with Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement. Moreover, Japan considered the 
guidelines to be overly burdensome, particularly for companies exporting to India in small quantities. Her delegation believed that the guidelines created unnecessary barriers to trade in the sense of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, and asked India to revise them accordingly. 
2.122.  The representative of Australia expressed continued concerns with India's food standards 
and their enforcement by the Food Safety and Stan dards Authority of India (FSSAI). He noted that 
Australia had previously supported the efforts of FSSAI to harmonize Indian food standards with 
CODEX standards, a process that began in early 2013. Australia had provided extensive 
information to FSSAI about Australian food standa rds and their enforcement. His delegation was 
encouraged about recent reports that India was reviewing national food regulations and requested 
confirmation as to whether a new review of regulati ons had indeed begun or if this simply reflected 
the ongoing FSSAI process to harmonize with CODEX standards. If India had indeed begun a new review, he asked about the scope and objective of the review, which elements of the food 
regulations were targeted, and whether the new review would build on the CODEX harmonization 
process. And, if not, he asked whether the CODEX harmonization process would then be 
abandoned.  
2.123.  The representative of New Zealand said her delegation continued to follow this issue with 
interest, and had expressed its concerns to India bilaterally. Like Australia, New Zealand was 
encouraged by reports of a comprehensive review of India's Food Safety and Standards Act 2006. She asked about the parameters of the review, and in particular which aspects of the Act would be 
within its scope, the timeframe for the review process, and how interested parties would be able to 
engage, to which New Zealand looked forward. 
2.124.  The representative of India said that, wi th respect of food labelling requirement, the 
regulatory situation had not changed since th e last meeting, and encouraged interested 
delegations to refer to India's statement at the prev ious meeting. He stressed that if stickers with 
all mandatory information were allowed on packages, this may be misused by unscrupulous traders for manipulating or tampering with the labels of imported food stuff. For instance, once a 
package was allowed with sticker declaring sensitive information - such as "best before date" - this 
sticker could be easily replaced with another on e with a different "best before date" once the 
goods entered into domestic market. Therefore, his delegation did not believe that allowing use of 
stickers to declare all mandatory information would properly serve the policy objective, which was 
informing consumers of what they were consumin g. Moreover, India did not have track and trace 
facilities to identify the source of such food items if a manipulated label was detected at a subsequent stage in the market. In view of this, India did not see any problem with maintaining its 
existing labelling requirements. He said that the queries raised by some Members regarding a 
review of existing food labelling requirements would be forwarded to the capital and a response 
would be sent to the interested delegations in due course. 
2.125.  He also said that the reason for the labelling requirements of alcoholic beverages were 
mandated under the Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations, which came into effect on 5 August 2011. These regulati ons were notified to the WTO in July 2010 at the 
draft stage. He recalled that paragraph 2.2.2.2 of these regulations mandated that, except for G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 31 - 
 
  single ingredient food, a list of ingredients shall be declared on the label. This was also applicable 
to alcoholic beverages, if additives - including colour, water and preservatives - were used in the manufacture of these products and were present in the final product. He explained that the addition of flavours need not be declared specific ally, but a statement to this effect shall be given 
on the label. If the alcoholic beverage was a "single ingredient product", no ingredient list was 
required to be declared on the label. Finally, he noted certain exemptions from specific labelling requirements for alcoholic beverages, namely: (i) "best before" date shall not be applicable for 
wine and liquors, nor for alcoholic beverages containing 10% or more by volume of alcohol; 
(ii) declaration of vegetarian/non-vegetarian was not required on the label of alcoholic drinks; and (iii) nutritional information was not required for alcoholic beverages. 
2.2.3.11  Chile – Proposed amendment to the Food Health Regulations, Supreme Decree 
No. 977/96 (G/TBT/N/CHL/219, G/TBT/N/CHL/219/Add.1, G/TBT/N/CHL/221, 
G/TBT/N/CHL/282) - IMS Item No. 370 
2.126.  While expressing support for Chile's policy objective of promoting healthy dietary choices 
and reducing obesity and related non-communicable diseases, the representative of Canada 
reiterated previous concerns and encouraged Chile  to consider less trade restrictive alternatives. 
Canada was concerned that the regulations published on 19 August 2014 deviated from 
international standards, were not be based on scien ce, and were likely to be more trade restrictive 
than necessary. In addition, Canada was concerned that the regulation could prohibit the use of trademarked characters, potentially infringing on intellectual property rights, as well as prohibit the use of complementary nutritional information, such as Guideline Daily Amounts. He urged Chile 
to consider a less trade restrictive alternative to achieve its policy goals, consistent with 
international standards and based on science. Finally, he asked Chile to clarify if and when the 19 August 2014 regulations would enter in force. 
2.127.  The representative of Mexico recalled previous concerns with Chile's Food Health 
Regulations on the nutritional composition of food and on food advertising (including labelling), 
which aim at informing the public of the energy, sugar, sodium and saturated fat content of the 
foods they consume. She first noted that, although  the statute establishing the amendment to the 
Food Health Regulations (Law No. 20.606) was a technical regulation within the meaning of 
Annex 1 to the TBT Agreement, Chile had failed to noti fy it to the WTO as required by Article 2.9 of 
the Agreement, an omission that prevented Mexico from being able to submit comments on the 
draft. The representative noted th at the amendment to the Food Health Regulations specified that 
"it shall be compulsory to highlight the nutritional  characteristics of any type of food or food 
product when its energy, sodium, total sugar or saturated fat content is not the same as in natural 
form and exceeds the value established in table No. 1 of this Article". She explained that the table 
in question set forth limits on the energy, sodium, sugar and saturated fat content of foods. Foods that exceeded the established limits were thus required to highlight this fact by means of the 
descriptive stamp with the term "EXCESS", followed  by the following terms: "SATURATED FATS", 
"SODIUM", "SUGAR" or "CALORIES".  
2.128.  Mexico considered that this proposed amendment was inconsistent with the principles of 
the TBT Agreement, specifically Article 2.4, becaus e it was not based on the General Guidelines on 
Claims of the CODEX Alimentarius (CAC/GL 1 1979, Article 3.5). Moreover, Mexico considered that 
every food possessed inherent nutritional characteristics, and for that reason no food could be characterized as "good" or "bad" in relation to its nutritional content. Thus the provisions relating 
to the label "EXCESS" could arouse fear in consumers by leading them to assume that 
non-communicable diseases, such as obesity, were caused by the consumption of specific foods. Mexico requested Chile to provide information in support of this provision of the technical 
regulation, in the light of the principle of pr oportionality set forth in Article 2.2 of the 
TBT Agreement. Furthermore, she observed that the proposed amendment stipulates that "foods 
or food products whose nutritional composition comprises energy, sodium, sugars or saturated fats in amounts higher than those specified in table No . 1 of Article 120 of the Regulations (referred to 
above), may not be advertised in the media or channels of communication targeting minors aged 
under 14 […]. This prohibition on advertising do es not apply to foods containing energy, sugars, 
sodium, or saturated fats in a natural form, consistent with the Dietary Guidelines of the Ministry 
of Health." In this respect, Mexico enquired as to  the scientific or technical evidence justifying this 
prohibition on advertising to minors aged 14 or less, as well as the exception established for products whose energy, sugar, sodium or saturated fat content was in a natural form. G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 32 - 
 
  2.129.  Accordingly, Mexico requested Chile to conduct a public consultation on the proposed 
amendments to the Food Health Regulations, and to harmonize the requirements set forth in the 
regulations with the General Guidelines on Claims of the Codex Alimentarius (CAC/GL 1 1979, Article 3.5). She also asked for an explanation of the scientific and technical evidence supporting 
the use of labels bearing the term "EXCESS" in the light of the legitimate objective pursued by the 
amendment to the Food Health Regulations. Chile was also requested to modify the classification 
of foods on the basis of a distinction between li quid and solid foods and, in accordance with 
international parameters, to classify foods according to the category to which they belong. The 
representative further asked Chile to provide information in support of the prohibition on 
advertising certain foods to minors aged 14 or less and to clarify and, if necessary, eliminate the exemption for foods whose energy, sugar, sodium or saturated fat content was in natural form. 
Finally, Mexico asked Chile to consider extending the date of entry into force of the amendments 
to the regulations from 6 to 18 months, and to take into account the formal comments made by the Government of Mexico on the final text of the regulation in question, as transmitted to the 
Chilean Government through its enquiry point on 22 October 2014. 
2.130.  The representative of the European Unio n said that her delegation remained concerned 
about the lack of notification of Law No. 20.606,  an omission which had seriously curtailed any 
significant discussion on the implementing measures. The EU fully shared Chile's policy objectives 
to combat obesity and related non-communicable diseases, and she stressed that her delegation's intervention in the Committee must be understood as fully supporting Chile's ultimate aim. Nevertheless, she expressed her delegation's disagreement on how these objectives could be best 
met, also noting that the EU had opted for a different approach which recognised the importance 
of the relationship between diet and health an d empowered consumers to make informed choices 
based on factual information. As a general remark, the EU noted that the TBT Committee was 
currently discussing the second draft of these measures. She regretted that significant time had 
been spent in the TBT Committee and at a local level to deal with issues in the first notification 
only to have Chile reopen the measure just a few weeks prior to its entry into force. Although the 
EU welcomed this new opportunity to provide comments, and hoped for a more positive outcome, 
she emphasized concerns regarding legal uncertainty created by these successive modifications. Moreover, her delegation was concerned that this new exercise appeared to render these measures more stringent, rather than enhance their compatibility with the TBT Agreement. The EU 
requested Chile's clarifications in this respect. 
2.131.  The EU also recalled its previous concerns  regarding the lack of scientific basis for the 
definition of the maximum levels for the concerned nutrients, noting the absence of international 
guidelines backing up this measure. It also agai n expressed its doubts on their proportionality and 
effectiveness. In particular, the EU was concerned about the use of warning messages, which in the form of a "stop sign" would bear the inscription "excess of" sugar, saturated fats, sodium or 
calories. The EU believed that the use of these warnings was not in line with CODEX General 
Guidelines on Claims (CAC/GL 1-1979), as it risked arousing fear in consumers regarding consumption of products that, when consumed in moderation, can be part of a healthy diet. Furthermore, the use of the term "excess" may lead consumers to believe that there were limits 
above which the consumption of certain nutrients was bad for their health. The EU asked Chile if 
they had considered aligning their measure with these international guidelines. In this regard, the EU recalled that for certain nutrients there was evidence of a positive association between intake 
and the risk of developing a disease or disorder, but there was no scientific evidence suggesting an 
identifiable threshold above which the risk existe d. She cited the CODEX Guidelines on Nutrition 
Labelling (CAC/GL 2-1985), which stated that the nutrient declaration "should not lead consumers 
to believe that there is exact quantitative knowledge of what individuals should eat in order to 
maintain health, but rather to convey an understan ding of the quantity of nutrients contained in 
the product". Therefore, the EU requested an explan ation as to the scientific basis for imposing the 
limits in the regulation. This was particularly relevant given that the established limits would 
mandate warning icons and messages on a vast majority of products, leading to a system that 
would make it difficult for consumers to identify, among the different food categories, the variants for a healthier diet. She also requested further information on Chile's assessment as to the 
quantity of products that would be affected by these measures, bearing in mind that if a wide 
scope of products were affected by the new warnings, its effect on consumer perceptions might be substantially reduced.  
2.132.  She also mentioned additional concerns about the prohibitions on the labelling and 
advertising of foods involving, for example, children's characters, animations, cartoons, animals G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 33 - 
 
  and toys in relation to products that were protected by trademarks. The EU asked for Chile's views 
on how these provisions would impact such existing and future trademarks. Concerning entry into force, she noted that while the transition period of 6 months was in line with WTO recommendations, it might not be sufficient given the extensive re-labelling procedures that 
companies would have to undertake, and which would require significant investments. For 
comparison, EU legislation provided for a transiti onal period of 3 years. The EU requested that 
Chile reconsider extending the implementation de adlines. Finally, she asked Chile to clarify how 
this new set of obligations would relate to the provision of voluntary consumer information 
labelling schemes, and if such schemes were permitted. 
2.133.  The representative of the United States  expressed her delegation's strong support for 
Chile's public health objectives of reducing obesity and related non-communicable disease, and her 
delegation's appreciation for the extensive bilateral discussions on this issue. Nevertheless, the US 
was concerned about the trade impacts of the proposed measure, particularly for imported pre-packaged foods, and implementation some of its provisions. Since the new regulation covered 
significantly more food categories, the preliminary estimate from USDA/FAS was that the 
regulation could affect USD 250 million worth of co mmerce in pre-packaged food exports to Chile. 
In the view of US industry, the current propos al imposed onerous labelling requirements for 
pre-packaged foods and may constitute an unnecessary obstacle to international trade. The US 
was therefore interested in exploring less trade restrictive labelling measures that included flexibility in the placement or shape of the icon, and also reflected consumer information based on 
common serving sizes that would help them achieve a balanced and healthy diet. In this respect, 
she asked whether Chile had considered a less stringent labelling approach in combination with a 
more comprehensive approach to consumer education in support of its public health goal, which was an approach strongly supported by her delega tion. The US also sought opportunities to work 
further with Chile both bilaterally and in the TBT Committee as the proposal was developed.  
2.134.  She noted that the labelling approach of the revised regulations appeared to strengthen 
the "warning" element of the icons of the December 2013 final regulation. She asked Chile to 
explain why the decision was made to strengthen  the warning elements of the regulation, and 
whether an analysis was performed on the additi onal benefits of the new draft approach as 
opposed to the December 2013 regulation. She further queried why the proportion of space occupied by the "excess of" icon varied greatly between different packages sizes, instead of a fixed 
ratio. For example, on a package that was 200 square centimetres the icon would occupy 4.5% of 
the label face, but on a package of 75 square centimetres the icon would occupy 8.33% of the 
label face. She noted that a single food could bear up to four icons, and for some packages with 
four icons, between 18% and 42% of the package surface could be covered.  
2.135.  She then asked Chile to explain the basis for the limits for sodium and energy in solid 
foods. She noted that Chile's initial nutrient limit for sodium (solids 400 mg/100 g or liquids 
100 mg/100 mL) appeared to be based on 20% of the CODEX Nutrient Reference Values – 
Non-communicable Disease (NRV-NCD) of 2000 mg/day. Chile was proposing to reduce the sodium limit by 5% per year to 150 mg/100 g. For solid foods, she recalled, CODEX indicated 2000 kcal as a reference. The regulation's 275 kcal/100 g limit would translate to roughly 13% of 
2000 calorie energy intake level. Further,  the amendment continued to prohibit 
(positive) health claims and complementary information for any product that had to carry the "excess of" icon. In this respect, the US asked Chile to explain how consumers would benefit from 
only receiving information on nutrients to be restricted  in the diet, without also being provided 
information on nutrients that would be beneficial and encouraged  in a healthy diet. She noted that 
such prohibition on (positive) claims may impact a consumer's ability to differentiate 
nutrient-reduced foods, such as low-fat margarine. Chile's approach, she said, could, in fact, result 
in "stop-sign" warnings for this entire category of products. Also, preventing the inclusion of factual voluntary claims could decrease the incentives for the food industry to develop certain foods with an improved nutrient content, if industry could not call attention to new formulations 
designed to present consumers with healthier alternatives.  
2.136.  She also enquired as to the basis for setting labelling requirements according to an 
across-the-board serving size of 100 grams or 10 0 millilitres. She observed, for instance, that: 
100 grams of butter would amounted to 10 indi vidual serving sizes of butter; 100 grams 
constituted approximately 37 sticks of gum; an d 100 grams was approximately five and a half 
pieces of white bread. This was clearly well about what most people would consume in one 
serving, and may make it more confusing for consumers to identify healthy eating options. G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 34 - 
 
  Recognizing that CODEX also allowed for the use of serving sizes, she asked if Chile would instead 
consider using serving sizes that reflected the consumption patterns of the Chilean population, 
which would adjust the serving size based on the type of product. She suggested Chile consider labelling which put "consumer advisory icons" in the context of daily dietary consumption, 
especially for foods where the average portion of  the consumed food was typically significantly 
larger or smaller than the 100 grams or 100 ml ba seline utilized for the proposed "stop-signs", or 
where the food may provide other valuable nutrients. For example, "food A" with 
275 calories/100 grams that was rich in other key nutrients - such as calcium, iron, vitamin A and 
vitamin C - was very different from "food B" with 275 calories/100 grams with no other significant nutritional value. She said that the US employed a multitude of consumer education programs and resources to help consumers understand how daily intake values related to a healthy diet and to 
reducing risks for NCDs. She also noted that WHO had established nutrient intake 
recommendations for sodium and sugar; a revised sugar recommendation was in process. The Codex Committee on Food Labelling and the Committee on Nutrition and Foods for Special Dietary 
Uses undertook a work plan to implement the re commendations of the 2003 WHO Global Strategy 
regarding reduction of NCDs. As part of this wo rk plan, she stated, Codex developed additional 
claims with respect to nutrients of concern, defined helpful nutrients like dietary fibre, developed 
upper limits for claims for healthy nutrients, and made recommendations to implement mandatory 
nutritional labelling. WHO member states had si nce adopted the WHO "Global Action Plan for the 
Prevention and Control of Noncommunicable Diseases 2013-2020"
4, which included a global target 
to reduce sodium intake by 30% and actions for WHO, member states and the private sector 
related to food labelling.  
2.137.  Finally, she also expressed concern with the short implementation timeline for compliance 
by July 2015, which may pose difficulties for some  US exporters of pre-packaged food. She noted 
that other countries often gave a longer timeline for compliance with such requirements. For 
example, when FDA issued two proposed ru les for nutrition labelling (TBT/N/USA/893 and 
TBT/N/USA/894), a two-year implementation timeline  from the publication of the final rule was 
proposed. Once final requirements were determined, she requested that Chile consider a two-year 
implementation timeframe, especially given that the labelling regulations were revised two months before the previously scheduled compliance date. 
2.138.  The representative of Switzerland reiterated his delegation's previously expressed 
concerns, which were still pertinent to the latest notified draft of the measure, and echoed the 
statements of other delegations. Switzerland had submitted comments on the latest draft, and looked forward to engaging bilaterally with Chile.  He asked Chile to explain how the latest draft 
reduced restrictive effects on trade as compared to previously notified measures, and how Chile 
intended to take into account concerns by Member raised in the TBT Committee on the latest and previous drafts. While sharing Chile's objective of reducing the prevalence of NCDs, Switzerland 
was concerned about the lack of harmonization to relevant international standards. Several 
countries were proposing and enacting nutritional labelling measures, many of which had been discussed in the TBT Committee, and Switzerlan d was concerned about the use of divergent 
negative messages and pictograms, and the multiplication of uncoordinated parameters worldwide, 
for instance, thresholds at which a food was considered high in a certain nutrient. 
2.139.  The representative of Australia expressed support for Chile's right to implement measures 
to provide consumers with information to make appropriate dietary choices and reduce the risk of 
diet related NCDs, provided such measures were implemented in a manner consistent with Chile's 
WTO obligations. He suggests there may be other measures available to promote consumer health, which could achieve Chile's objective and which were being considered by other countries, 
including Australia. Australia was pleased that Chile had taken a number of actions in response to 
concerns raised in the TBT Committee. He expressed appreciation for the clarification provided by Chile that the warning label would no longer take the form of an octagonal "STOP sign" but would instead be a coloured hexagon and its size would be established in relation to the size of the total 
area of the products. Further, he recalled that  Chile notified to the WTO, on 13 March 2014 
(G/TBT/N/CHL/219/Add.2 and G/TBT/N/CHL/221/Add.1) , a compilation of replies to the comments 
submitted by Australia and other countries received during the public consultation period. Australia 
was also pleased that Chile had changed the propos ed front of pack labelling requirement based on 
suggestions by other countries, including Australia. However, he noted that the labelling scheme was still mandatory for some food categories, incl uding some dairy foods. He additionally noted 
                                               
4 http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/94384/1/9789241506236_eng.pdf?ua=1 . G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 35 - 
 
  certain inconsistencies between the requirements for imported and domestic products. Finally, he 
observed that Chile had extended the original da te of entry into force to 30 June 2015, and that 
Australia looked forward to working cooperatively with Chile to ensure trade between Australia and 
Chile was not disrupted unnecessarily. 
2.140.  The representative of Brazil shared the concerns expressed by other delegations on this 
measure. His delegation appreciated the bilateral meeting held that morning with Chile, and would 
remain engaged in this discussion. 
2.141.  The representative of Costa Rica echoed the concerns expressed by Canada and US, and 
looked forward to receiving information from Chil e on how the concerns raised by Members would 
be addressed. 
2.142.  The representative of Colombia recalled comments submitted his delegation submitted 
comments on the proposed amendment, notifi ed by Chile in G/TBT/N/CHL/282, and he 
appreciated the prompt reply from Chile to Colombia's comments. 
2.143.  The representative of Chile said that the Supreme Decree No. 977/96 had been notified to 
the WTO as G/TBT/N/CHL/282 on 22 August 2014 and th at this notification replaced all previous 
notifications and their addenda. The deadline for comments was 22 October 2014, and Chile received 16 sets of comments which were transmi tted to the relevant regulatory body. She also 
noted a public consultation held on the proposed amendment, to which over 300 comments were 
received from interested parties. The Chilean Government had also engaged in a nationwide dialogue on the relevance and significance of the regulation. Chile intended to take all reasonable measures available to meet its obligations under the TBT Agreement, and to respond to all queries 
and provide information to trading partners and WTO Members. The representative noted that a 
multisectoral technical committee, led by the Health Ministry, would be working further on the regulation, and would consider the options avai lable. She expressed appreciation for support 
received, and for comments and questions, all of which would be taken into account in the 
regulatory process. 
2.2.3.12  India – Electronics and Informat ion Technology Goods (Requirements for 
Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012 (G/T BT/N/IND/44, G/TBT/N/IND/44/Add.1, 
G/TBT/N/IND/44/Add.2, G/TBT/N/IND/44/Add.3) - IMS Item No. 367 
2.144.  The representative of the European Union thanked India for their bilateral meeting on this 
issue and commended India for having set up two advisory committees to allow for discussions 
between government and industry. This was a good practice that could be taken as an example by 
other Members. The first of these two newly-created committees was a Technical Advisory Committee to deal with technical matters relating to the implementation of the 
compulsory registration for electronics and IT goods (as per a 2012 Order from the Minister of 
Communication, in force since 3 April 2014). The second was a Policy Advisory Committee under the Bureau of Indian Standards to address issu es such as marking and labelling requirements 
accompanying this scheme. However, the EU still saw scope for streamlining the current 
registration scheme, suggesting in particular: (i) a wide acceptance of test reports issues under the IECEE CB scheme or by laboratories accredited  by ILAC MRA signatories; (ii) limiting local 
testing only in cases of suspected non-compliance of products; (iii) streamlining the registration 
requirements by developing an online process with clear intermediate deadlines for the procedure 
to move forward in order to reduce delays to the minimum for completing the registration; (iv) extending the validity of the certificate from 3 to 5 years thus covering the life-cycle of 
products; (v) extending the validity of test reports from 90 days to at least 12 months, as it was 
the case in international practice in order to cover the useful life of each product model; (vi) requiring that tests should only be repeated if there was a change in design and components 
that would affect its safety properties; and (vii ) having only one registration number per product 
and not per factory, as manufacturing process was identical among different factories producing the same brands, and the factories could be traced using serial numbers.  
2.145.  The EU also noted that there was a plan to rely further on market surveillance to check 
conformity with mandatory standards for these products, and thus requested India for further 
information. The EU noted that the requiremen ts concerning marking and labelling had been 
amended following consultations with the industry and that these amendments had been G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 36 - 
 
  implemented by an order of the Bureau of In dian Standards of 11 April 2014 (in force on 
31 August 2014. This concerns the modality for the display of the word "self-declaration" 
conforming to the Indian standards on the prod ucts. These amendments granted some flexibility 
to manufacturers, in particular with regard to products whose physical dimensions are too small 
for the affixing of the marking and labelling  on the product itself. A choice of option had been 
given as to fixing the labelling on the product or the packaging. It was too early, he said, to say whether these amendments would fully address the co ncerns of industry and fit the nature of the 
products concerned, but they seemed to go in the right direction in providing greater flexibility to 
manufacturers, and therefore the EU welcomed  these developments.  The EU therefore 
recommended that the Policy Advisory Committee set up at the BIS continue to be used to discuss any issues concerning marking and labelling requirements. Finally, the EU noted that on 
8 September 2014, on the Indian Gazette, there was a publication of a public consultation 
document concerning a proposed expansion of the scope of the compulsory registration scheme to 
15 additional product categories. He asked India for an update on the state of play and to timely 
notify any proposed amendments under the TBT noti fication procedure to allow the opportunity for 
WTO Members to submit comments. The EU mentioned that the European Industry had submitted comments in this regard hoping they would be taken into consideration. 
2.146.  The representative of the United States associated herself with the EU's concerns and 
suggested that rather than requiring additional te sting, BIS should instruct the appointed labs to 
review and routinely accept a test report issued by labs approved under the IECEE CB Scheme. The US argued that appointed labs should only require a product sample unit to conduct 
verification testing if the labs cannot resolve a suspected non-compliance issue from information 
exchanges between the certification body issuing th e CB Test report and/or the manufacturer. This 
would provide immediate relief to manufacturers and allow India's labs to learn how to correctly 
perform necessary testing. The US also required BI S to remove the expiration date from the test 
report, as no other national certification agencies had expiration dates on their test reports. She asked when labs outside of India would be approved to perform the testing. She also said that the 
US remained concerned for burdensome over-labelli ng and regulation and requested that the list 
of products under the HSE exemption list should be  broadened to include more products that pose 
little risk to consumers. She noted that industry had raised concerns regarding the expanded list as it would create disruptions, and asked about the rationale behind such expansion. She 
expressed concerns that the expanded list would create similar problems as under the original 
product scope, including delays in testing. The US gathered from informal discussions that a market surveillance program would be launched, an d asked India to notify it to the TBT Committee 
with a reasonable comment period. 
2.147.  The representative of India said that in October 2012, India had issued the "Electronics 
and Information Technology Goods (Requirement for Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012" 
mandating fifteen categories of electronic items under the Compulsory Registration Scheme, based 
on their compliance to specified safety standards. The Order envisaged manufacturers/importers/sellers/distributors of th e notified goods to conform to the specified 
standards. The Order was applicable to both domestic manufacturers and foreign suppliers 
uniformly. Industry needed to get goods tested with laboratories recognized by BIS. On meeting 
requisite standards, BIS granted a unique regist ration number. Industry needed to mark a 
self-declaration of conformity on their products in a prescribed manner, followed by Registration 
numbers. 
2.148.  On the issue of accepting CB test reports for the purpose of ascertaining compliance of 
goods, India informed the Committee that the matter had been deliberated in detail during a visit 
of a senior delegation of IECEE to New Delhi in the month of October 2013. The Indian delegation 
pointed out that while India was not opposed to acceptance of CB test reports, the Compulsory Registration Order was an act of the regulator wh ich was completely independent, and even Indian 
CB test labs had to follow the rules. CB test reports were accepted for granting provisional 
clearance of goods covered under the Scheme. India was accepting IECEE Certificates and Test 
Reports for the Safety Critical Components be ing used for products under the Compulsory 
Registration Scheme. Based on these deliberatio ns, a Communiqué, issued jointly by IECEE and 
the Government of India on 24 March 2014, declared that India had not made any infringement of 
the rules of IECEE. A copy of this Joint Communiqué was available on IECEE's website at: http://www.iecee.org/. India's positi on in this matter had also been voted for in the meeting of 
Certification Management Committee of IECEE CB held in 2014.  G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 37 - 
 
  2.149.  On the concerns expressed by some dele gations regarding the new labelling requirement 
issued on 11 April 2014, India informed the Committee that the requirement was subsequently revised on 31 July and its implementation was postponed until 31 August 2014. The process of revision was carried out through a series of intens ive stakeholder consultations. Further, the draft 
amendment was placed on BIS website seeking comments from all stakeholders before it was 
finalised. He explained that the new labelling requirement was quite flexible and allowed for mandatory marking along with other markings, such as ratings, specification or model number, on 
the data plate or on the product itself. 
2.150.  India referred to the need expressed by so me delegations for expanding the validity period 
of test reports. The representative noted that as per the BIS Rules, the test reports issued by BIS 
recognized labs had to be submitted along with application for grant of registration. For this 
purpose a period of 90 days had been specified in the BIS Rules. India maintained that 90 days 
was a sufficient time period for the submission of test reports along with application for registration. On the issue of Highly Specialized Equipment (HSE), raised by some delegations in 
the previous meeting, India noted that the proce ss of their exemption had already been simplified. 
There was no longer a need for a HSE certificate issued by the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, and a declaration of specification from manufacturer was enough for 
customs clearance.  
2.151.  For testing purposes, India maintained that the authorized labs were well on track. A list of 
recognized labs was available on websites of DeitY and BIS. He underlined that these labs were well-equipped, and worked under International Safety Certification program. In fact, three of the 
recognized labs had parent companies of foreign origin (e.g. UL India Pvt Ltd., in Bangalore and 
Inter Tech Pvt Ltd., in New Delhi). Concerned authorities had no feedback of any delay in testing. In respect of allowing other labs for testing purposes, India said that the laboratories aspiring to 
test under the scheme would have to seek recognition from the BIS. However, he insisted that 
there were no capacity constraints in the authorized labs. On the registration side, he said that as of 28 October 2014, more than 1200 registrations had been granted without facing any 
implementation related problem. Finally, India considered it premature to discuss the proposed 
review of the Compulsory Registration Order for expanding the list of products. 
2.2.3.13  Peru – Act to Promote Healthy Ea ting Among Children and Adolescents - IMS 
Item No. 383 
2.152.  The representative of Canada said that while Canada supported Peru's objective of 
reducing obesity and other non-communicable diseases, it was nonetheless still concerned that 
this measure could be more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve this objective. Canada 
asked Peru to clarify whether the proposed regula tions were based on international standards, and 
when would they come into force. Canada encouraged Peru to provide a transition period so as to allow industry time to adjust to any new labelling requirements. 
2.153.  The representative of Switzerland endo rsed the comments made by Canada while also 
lending its support Peru's efforts to combat diet related non-communicable diseases. He noted that 
his delegation had submitted comments on previous versions of the measure, and looked forward to engaging with Peru on a bilateral basis to und erstand better which international standards were 
used to determine the food categories that woul d be subject to compulsory labelling for being 
"high in" certain nutrients. He asked what was being done to ensure that consumers understood the fat content of foods, and whether stickers coul d be used for compliance. He also recalled that 
several countries were proposing and enacting nut ritional labelling measures, many of which had 
been discussed in the TBT Committee. Switzerland was therefore concerned about the use of divergent negative messages and pictograms, and the multiplication of uncoordinated parameters 
worldwide. Switzerland encouraged Members to follow relevant international standards to promote 
harmonization of approaches. 
2.154.   The representative of Costa Rica echoed  the concerns expressed by Canada and recalled 
that at last the meeting Peru reported that the measure would be revised based on comments 
received by the deadline of 18 August 2014. He asked to what extent the comments would be 
taken into account and whether Peru would be notifying a new draft. G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 38 - 
 
  2.155.  The representative of Guatemala reiterated past concerns on this issue, and noted 
comments submitted by her delegation during the public comment period. Guatemala looked 
forward to receiving a reply from Peru, and asked when Peru would notify new draft legislation. 
2.156.  The representative of Peru said the regulation was aimed at promoting healthy eating 
amongst children and adolescents, and was notified as G/TBT/N/PER/59 on 23 May 2014, with a 
comment period ending on 18 August 2014. All comments received were forwarded to the Health Ministry, which was still in the process of evaluating them in order to see how they could be taken 
into account. If, as a result of this process, a decision would be made to the effect that substantial 
changes to the measure would be necessary, a new draft would be developed and the WTO would be notified. 
2.2.3.14  Indonesia – Ministry of Health Re gulation 30/2013 on the inclusion of sugar, 
salt and fat content information, as well as  health messages on the label of processed 
foods (G/TBT/N/IDN/84) - IMS Item No. 389 
2.157.  The representative of Canada supported Indonesia's objective of reducing the risk of 
non-communicable diseases, but was nevertheless concerned that the regulatory proposals may 
have a significant impact on trade and were likely to be more trade restrictive than necessary. He recalled that Canada had raised this issue with Indonesia at the March 2014 TBT Committee 
meeting. At that time, Indonesia indicated that testing for sugar, salt and fat content had to be 
conducted by accredited in-country laboratories. He asked if Indonesia had considered opening up such testing to foreign laboratories, and if not, whether this would be considered. Finally, he asked when the Regulation would enter into force and what  type of transition period would be provided 
for industry to adapt. 
2.158.  The representative of the European Union said that her delegation looked forward to the 
implementing provisions for the Regulation that would be issued by the Indonesian Ministry of 
Health and which would address product coverage in detail – as indicated in a written response to 
the EU comments. She recalled its request that the implementing regulations be notified to the TBT Committee while still in draft form, and Members be provided sufficient time to comment on 
them. The EU was also interested knowing more about the guidelines of the Indonesian Ministry of 
Health and the National Agency for Drugs and Food which would address other details of the Regulation – as also indicated in a written response to the EU comments. The EU also reiterated its concerns with respect to the mandatory warning message on salt, sugar and fat content that 
would have to be included on the label of all pr ocessed food products. In this respect, Indonesia 
was invited to consider whether the objectives of  the Regulation could be achieved with less 
trade-restrictive means. Some issues which, in th e EU's view, still required Indonesia's clarification 
were: (i) the placement of nutrition information an d related health warnings; (ii) testing methods 
for nutrition levels; and, (iii) the conduct of risk assessment related to non-communicable diseases. She noted the EU was informed about a study on total diet being undertaken by the 
Indonesian Ministry of Health, with the aim to determining types of food to be included in the high 
risk and low risk classifications. She expressed her de legation's interest in the results of this study. 
2.159.  Referring to Indonesia's written response to the EU comments, she said the EU was still 
interested in receiving more detailed information on how the Indonesian authorities would address 
a possibility of acceptance of test results issued by  laboratories other than those accredited by the 
Indonesian National Accreditation Body (KAN). The EU also restated that compliance with the CODEX Alimentarius Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling would require the amount of saturated fat 
and sodium or salt to also be labelled when th e nutrition labelling was provided. Finally, her 
delegation welcomed Indonesia's written confirmation that the use of stickers would be allowed for labelling. However, she stressed the importance of having the possibility to place the stickers on 
products after importation, and before being placed  on the market in Indonesia – for instance, in 
customs warehouses – as means to show compliance with the Regulation. The EU was of the view that this was a sound alternative to labelling in the country of origin that would allow Indonesia to fulfil its legitimate objectives in a non-trade restrictive way. 
2.160.  The representative of the United States endorsed the EU comments, while also supporting 
Indonesia's regulatory and public health efforts to improve nutritional literacy and raise awareness 
among Indonesians about healthy lifestyles. She th anked Indonesia for notifying the Regulation in 
January 2014, but also expressed her delegation's concern that the notification had occurred after 
the measure had been adopted, and given the lack of a public comment period, she said this called G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 39 - 
 
  into question whether alternate approaches or potential challenges for implementation were 
considered. The US also wondered how Members' concerns would be addressed, given the limited flexibility at this stage of Indonesia's rule making process. She recalled the US submitted comments on 6 March 2014. Her delegation was conc erned that the Ministry of Health Decree 
lacked clear guidance on how to implement and comply with the new labelling regulations. 
Moreover, the need for laboratory testing to esta blish label conformity seemed excessive given the 
relatively low risk posed by the inclusion of nutrition information. Lastly, she asked if there was a 
more definite timeline as to when the Ministry of Health would issue further technical guidance for 
implementation, as promised during previous discussions in the Committee, especially since the measure had already become effective. 
2.161.  The representative of Australia said that his delegation recognised and supported 
Indonesia's right to implement measures to provide consumers with information to make 
appropriate dietary choices and reduce the risk  of diet-related non-communicable diseases. 
However, it was important that such measures we re not more trade-restrictive than necessary to 
achieve this objective. Australia supported the harmonisation of labelling standards to help reduce 
the cost and complexity of imports and exports pa rticularly for small to medium enterprises, and 
urged Indonesia to consider the negative impact of this Regulation. He noted the fact that 
Indonesia would be one of the first countries in the world to implement a mandatory scheme for 
foods containing sugar, salt and fat and, in this respect, stressed that there were other less-restrictive measures available to promote consumer health being considered by other countries, including Australia. He asked Indonesia to clarify why it considered a mandatory scheme 
necessary to achieve its objectives of public he alth and informed consumer choice. He noted the 
Decree was published in the Official Gazette on 16 April 2013, entering into force three years after promulgation. The Decree, however, was not notified to the WTO until 13 January 2014. He 
encouraged Indonesia to notify any further am endments and guides on the operation of the 
Decree through the WTO TBT transparency proce ss. Indonesia had indicated at the previous 
Committee meeting that an implementing Decree for this Regulation would be issued. Australia 
thus requested that this Decree be notified to the TBT Committee in a timely manner so that WTO 
Members would have sufficient time to provide comments. 
2.162.  The representative of Switzerland echoed previous concerns, in particular concerning the 
need for approval of the label by Indonesian au thorities. Switzerland had presented comments to 
Indonesia on this regulation, and in reply to a question on the difference between the Regulation 
and the CODEX Guidelines on Nutrition Labelling (CAC/GL 2-1985). Indonesia's explanation to that question was that the inclusion of nutrition values in absolute numbers was not related to health, 
but that, nevertheless, consumers would pay more attention to such absolute numbers. While 
Switzerland shared Indonesia's objective of protecting health, it seemed confusing to provide consumers with information that did not pertain to health. More generally, Switzerland was 
concerned about developments relating to negative messages, and asked for an update from 
Indonesia on the measure. 
2.163.  The representative of Indonesia restated that the labelling requirements involved 
"health messages", not "health warnings". Further, the Regulation did refer to the Codex Standard 
for Labelling. Indonesia also clarified that it did not intend to prevent or prohibit the public from 
consuming particular foods. The legitimate objective of the Regulation was, instead, to increase consumers' awareness on the importance of know ing the amount of sugar, salt and fat in the 
processed food they consumed and the recommended daily intake. Such awareness was important 
to control the risk factors that contributed to non-communicable diseases. Indonesia was still in the process of preparing technical regulation for guidance on implementation of this Regulation. 
Other subsequent arrangements would be included in this technical regulation. To ensure 
transparency, the implementation regulation would be notified to the WTO. 
2.164.  Regarding conformity assessment procedur es, Indonesia explained that, as previously 
stated, the Regulation required testing of sugar,  salt and fat content, as well as other quality 
parameters, to be conducted by laboratories accred ited by Indonesian National Accreditation Body 
(KAN), or by other competent institutions that had mutual recognition arrangements with KAN. Such test results must be provided by producers when they registered (or re-registered) with the 
National Agency of Drugs and Foods Controls (BPO M), or when they formulated ingredient lists. 
The possibility to accept test results from other laboratories, including in the country of origin, would be addressed at a later stage. With respec t to the amount of saturated fat and sodium for 
processed food, this was stipulated in the Regula tion of the National Agency of Drugs and Foods G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 40 - 
 
  Controls, on the Control of Claim on Processed Food Labelling and Advertisement, notified as 
G/TBT/N/IDN/58. She expressed willingness to continue discussions with concerned Members bilaterally. 
2.2.3.15  European Union – Revised Proposal  for the Categorization of Compounds as 
Endocrine Disruptors of 19 February 2013 by DG Environment - IMS Item No. 393 
2.165.  The representative of the United States no ted that the EU had published an internal notice 
to assess, classify and regulate endocrine disruptors, which she believed could significantly disrupt 
trade, particularly of agricultural products. The US thanked the European Commission for 
informing the TBT Committee of the launch of the public consultation on defining criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors. In this respect,  they requested an explanation of how comments 
from WTO Members would be taken into account. The US also appreciated that the EU extended 
the usual consultation period, allowing a total of 16 weeks for interested parties to comment. She 
mentioned that a long consultation period would be appropriate in this case, which involved complicated scientific issues and with significant potential for disruptive effects on agricultural 
trade. 
2.166.  The representative of Mexico reiterated her delegation's interest in the pesticide 
registration process provided for in Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009. She said that Mexico was 
preparing comments to be submitted to the public consultation process which was informed by the 
EU. She expressed her delegation's hope that the result of this consultation process and the provision published by the EU would duly respect the principles enshrined in the TBT Agreement. 
2.167.  The representative of the European Union reiterated its intention to carry out a 
comprehensive impact assessment to analyse different options for defining criteria for the 
identification of endocrine disruptors and their corresponding health, socio-economic and environmental effects, once incorporated in different  pieces of EU legislation. In this context, the 
European Commission published in mid-June 2014 a roadmap setting out the scope of such 
impact assessment and presenting the policy option s that would be assessed. She explained that 
at least two studies supporting the impact assessment were needed. The first one had already 
started and would assess the chemicals that might be identified as endocrine disruptors under 
each of the various options for the criteria. The second one would then assess the socio-economic, health and environmental impacts of the implementation of the various options for the criteria into the relevant legislations. As part of this impact assessment process, on 26 September 2014 the 
European Commission launched a public consultation on the definition of criteria for identifying 
endocrine disruptors in the context of the implem entation of the EU's plant protection products 
regulation and the biocidal products regulation. Th is public consultation would provide information 
relevant to the impact assessment. The public consultation was meant to last until 
16 January 2015. The usual consultation period of 12 weeks had been extended to allow all stakeholders sufficient time to provide input. The EU called on all interested stakeholders, 
including WTO Members, to actively participate in this public consultation. She explained that once 
the consultation was closed a feedback report would be issued with an assessment of all replies received. Such factual, quantitative report would feed into the work for the impact assessment whose outcome would not prejudge or constitute th e announcement of any position on the part of 
the European Commission, but would allow the Commission to take an informed decision as 
regards further EU legislative work as appropriat e. The EU promised to present proposals for the 
establishment of scientific criteria to identify en docrine disruptors in the EU's plant protection 
products regulation and biocidal products regula tion only after the conclusion of the impact 
assessment. The EU would continue updating the Committee on this matter. 
2.2.3.16  Ecuador – Resolution establishi ng the "General conformity assessment 
framework for Ecuador" and the "Handbook of procedures to be observed prior to all 
stages of the customs clearance, marketin g and market surveillance of manufactured, 
imported and marketed goods subject to Ecuadorian technical regulations 
(G/TBT/N/ECU/44, G/TBT/N/ECU/44/ Add.1, G/TBT/N/ECU/44/Add.2, 
G/TBT/N/ECU/44/Add.3) - IMS Item No. 398 
2.168.  The representative of the United States said that some US exporters have been unable to 
obtain Ecuadorian Certificates of Conformity and Certificates of Recognition, that trade continued 
to be disrupted, and that many companies had th erefore decided to withdraw from the Ecuadorian 
market entirely. The US noted that Ecuadorian certification bodies' lack of capacity to meet the G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 41 - 
 
  demand for conformity assessment. Moreover, US ce rtifying bodies asserted that they could not 
issue the requisite certifications. The US further noted that Ecuador already had in place stringent measures to control the quality of goods entering its market. She therefore asked if Ecuador could explain what benefits additional attestations of conformity would confer. She also asked Ecuador to 
explain the legitimate objectives of requiring additi onal certification requirements for each product.  
2.169.  The representative of Brazil shared th e concerns expressed by the US delegation and 
informed the Committee of ongoing bilateral negotiations on this issue. 
2.170.  The representative of Ecuador recalled that the TBT Agreement recognized the legitimate 
objectives of addressing safety, the protection of  life, human and animal health, plant health, the 
protection of the environment as well as the prot ection of the consumer. It was to apply these 
objectives and protect consumers against damaging practices and certain food practices that an 
Inter-ministerial Committee on Quality of Ecuador was, according to article 9.1 of the law on the 
Ecuadorian System of Quality, established as the bo dy in charge of formulating the policies on the 
basis of which products would have to comply with technical regulations and conformity 
assessment procedures before they were traded. Inter-ministerial Committee on Quality of 
Ecuador established the resolution 001 about th e General conformity assessment framework for 
Ecuador and the Handbook of procedures. This reso lution established guidelines for the trading of 
products according with the requirements of the technical regulations, and the way in which they 
would be applied. To this end, the procedure  re quired that the import of goods produced outside 
the country or the marketing of products in the ca se of domestic production of goods were subject 
to  Ecuadorian technical regulations, would have to comply with Ecuadorian assessment framework 
regulations, or the equivalent compulsory regulations. The certification of conformity or inspection 
would have to be carried out by a body recogniz ed by the Ecuadorian authorities. The importer, 
before the importing of the goods subject to such technical regulations, must obtain a certification 
of conformity assessment. The assessment document would have to prove the validity and the 
scope of the accreditation of the certification bodies or of the inspection body within a period of 5 days after reception of the technical documentation. The national institute of standardisation, on 
the basis of these certification documents, wo uld issue, through the Ecuadorian bodies, a 
recognition certificate for the product which would then be marketed. This certificate of recognition would then be issued within a period of 5 days from reception of the document. All this process 
was electronic and fell within the framework of tr ade facilitation.  INEN could suspend or cancel 
any recognition certificate if it was proved that the document presented had been tampered with 
or when it was established that the product did no t conform with the requirements of the technical 
regulations, without prejudging the administrative sanctions to be applied. Ecuador underlined that 
the measures adopted were not a restriction to imports, but a useful process to establish 
conformity with Ecuadorian technical regulations. She also noted that they  had been notified as 
required by the TBT Agreement. 
2.2.3.17  Russian Federation – Measure affe cting import of Ukrainian confectionary 
products - IMS Item No. 399 
2.171.  The representative of Ukraine reiterated he r delegation's concerns with the ban on imports 
of Ukrainian confectionery products to the Russian Federation that had also been extended to the 
transit of Ukrainian confectionery products to the occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of 
Crimea. She noted that initially this ban concerned major producers and was enacted on 29 July 2013 by the Decision of the Federal Serv ice on Consumers' Rights Protection and Human 
Well-being Surveillance of the Russian Federation ( Rospotrebnadzor ). However, she said, on 
5 September 2014 this unjustifiable and discriminatory import ban had been expanded to all confectionery products of Ukrainian origin. With regard to the reason for imposing this restrictive 
measure, she recalled that the Russia had referred vaguely to its legislation on consumer rights 
concerning labelling requirements (Federal  Law No. 2300-1, of 7 February 1992). As its 
modus operandi , Russia applied its measures in a non-transparent manner, limiting relevant 
information to very general notices on the Rospotrebnadzor  website and failing to respond to 
enquiries of Ukrainian producers and authorities concerning specifics of alleged inconsistencies. 
She stressed that no evidence concerning violation of legislation on consumer protection was officially submitted to Ukraine. Ukraine also emphasized that official results of the inspection of 
Ukrainian factories conducted in October 2013 had not yet been provided to the producers and 
authorities. Ukraine further highlighted the lack of cooperative and constructive communication from Russian authorities in resolving this particular concern, including disregarding information 
provided by the Ukrainian authorities. G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 42 - 
 
  2.172.  She also noted that Ukraine had not yet received any written response to additional 
questions raised under this STC at previous meetings. She recalled that Russia was asked to provide: (i) a clear explanation of the reasons why the ban was introduced, including transmission of laboratory test results; (ii) an official detailed clarification and justification for measure and how 
it complied with Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the TBT Agreement; and (iii) the official results of the 
inspection of Ukrainian factories that was conducted in October 2013. She further noted that according to Russian Federation legislation (Articles 14.7, 14.8, 14.15, 14.43 of the Code on 
Administrative Offences), violation of requirements on consumer protection would result in a fine 
for Russian producers, but no ban on the placing on the market was envisaged. Thus, she stated the import ban for Ukrainian producers was clearly inconsistent with national treatment provisions of Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement. Ukraine beli eved that the measure was not justified, and was 
discriminatory as well as applied in non-transparent manner with a view to creating unnecessary 
obstacle to trade. Ukraine also noted the significant economic impact of this ban, which resulted in a reduction of 480 million US dollars per year of trade in these goods – which were traditionally 
exported to Russia – representing 45% of the total export of confectionary products from Ukraine. 
In accordance with the Articles 10 and 2.5 of th e TBT Agreement, Ukraine therefore requested the 
Russian Federation to immediately lift the ban since no scientific information was available to 
justify the measure. 
2.173.  The representative of the Russian Federation indicated that the measure affecting 
confectionery products of the Ukrainian company Roshen  was introduced due to inconsistencies of 
these products with Russian labelling requirements. Labelling requirements for food products were 
established in 2011 by the Customs Union Technical Regulations on Food Product Labelling. The 
circulation in the territory of the Customs Union of food products not in compliance with the provisions of the technical regulation was prohibited. In 2013, the Russian regulating authority 
Rospotrebnadzor  had detected that the labelling of confectionary produced by the company 
Roshen  had contradicted relevant requirements by providing false information on the content of 
proteins fat and carbohydrates in the products. The measure at issue was introduced to protect 
consumer rights for valid information and to preven t deceptive trade practices. He reiterated that 
the import suspension of confectionary produced by the company Roshen  represented a measure 
taken under the existing technical regulation. Hence, Russia did not see any basis for notification. With regard to concerns about national treatment, his delegation did not see any basis for such 
concerns and stated that the legislative requir ements and their enforcement were applied in a 
manner fully compliance with the national treatment principle. 
2.174.  Russia also said that after the detection of  the first violation of the Technical Regulations 
on Food Product Labelling by Ukrainian producers, Rospotrebnadzor  had paid closer attention to 
Ukrainian products and that this had revealed many additional violations. As a result, as from 5 September 2014, a prohibition on importation of all Ukrainian confectionary products was 
introduced due to inconsistency with labelling requirements. The results of test were shared with 
Ukrainian authorities at bilateral meetings held in August, October and December 2013. The majority of tested products did not meet the requ irements of the technical regulation. During the 
December 2013 bilateral meeting, the State Inspec tion of Ukraine for Protection of Consumers' 
Rights recognized the inconsistencies. In the process of consultation, an agreement was reached 
that would allow the trade of confectionary products of Roshen  to be resumed. Unfortunately, the 
Ukrainian side has still not taken steps to implem ent the agreement reached. In order to lift the 
ban, Russia called on the competent authorities of Ukraine to participate in bilateral consultations 
with the competent authorities of the Russian Federation. 
2.2.3.18  Ecuador – Resolution No. 116 of th e Foreign Trade Committee of Ecuador of 19 
November 2013 and Technical Regulation of the Ecuadorian Standardization Institute 
RTE INEN 022 on the labelling of proc essed and packaged food products 
(G/TBT/N/ECU/19/Add.3, G/TBT/N/EC U/19/Add.5, G/TBT/N/ECU/19/Add.6, 
G/TBT/N/ECU/19/Add.8) - IMS Item No. 411 
2.175.  The representative of Canada said that while his delegation supported Ecuador's objective 
of reducing the risk of non-communicable diseases, it was nonetheless still concerned that the 
regulatory proposals could have a significant impact on trade and were likely to be more trade 
restrictive than necessary. Given reports that the measure had entered into force on 29 May 2014, 
Canada asked Ecuador to clarify the status of the measure. If the measure had indeed entered into force, Canada was concerned that Ecuador had not provided trading partners the appropriate 
transition period prior, which was required under  the TBT Agreement. He recalled that when this G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 43 - 
 
  issue was last raised with Ecuador at the March 2013 TBT Committee meeting, Ecuador had 
indicated that it was taking WTO Members' concerns into consideration when amending the regulation. Canada thus asked Ecuador for an update regarding any such amendments. 
2.176.  The representative of Costa Rica recalled concerns about the difficulties faced by 
Costa Rican food product exporters to comply with Ecuador's conformity assessment procedures. 
He was pleased to report that these difficulties had been overcome according to reports from the 
Costa Rican food industry. Nevertheless, his de legation remained concerned about provisions 
relating to "traffic light" labelling for fat, sugar and sodium content. These were set forth in the 
Ecuadorian Technical Regulation (RTE INEN) No . 022 "Labellin g of processed and packaged food 
products", adopted by Resolution No. 14413 of 22 August 2014 of the Under-Secretariat for Quality of the Ministry of Industry and Productivi ty. In this respect, Canada expressed the view 
that this "traffic light" system was not based on scientific evidence nor was it covered by any 
CODEX reference standard. Given that it was not based on any recognized international practice, he stressed that such labelling requirement would have a considerable impact on trade, including 
the fact that exporters would have to adapt product labelling specifically for the Ecuadorian 
market. He additionally expressed ongoing concer ns about the labelling requirements for food 
products manufactured from transgenic ingredients. Costa Rica questioned the scientific basis and 
proportionality of these requirements in relation to the provisions of Article 2.2 of the 
TBT Agreement. He asked to be informed of the terms in which these matters were regulated in 
the final regulations and of the way in which concerns expressed by various delegations at previous meetings of the Committee had been taken into account. 
2.177.  The representative of Mexico reiterated its overarching concerns about Resolution No. 116 
of the Ecuadorian Foreign Trade Committee, by whic h the "certificate of recognition" requirement 
was established for a series of documents listed in the same document. She noted that this topic 
had been the subject of bilateral dialogue with Ec uador, in which the following was requested from 
Ecuador: (i) the notification of the measure in question to the TBT Committee; and (ii) the provision of information to justify the establishment of this requirement for a wide range of 
products. Given the variety of products covered by Resolution No. 116, Mexico requested Ecuador 
to provide information on the contribution made by the new requirement to fulfilment of the legitimate objectives pursued by the different technical regulations governing the specifications of the various products covered. 
2.178.  Mexico also reiterated its continued concerns about Ecuador's draft revision, 
PRTE INEN 022 (1R) of the Ecuadorian Standard ization Institute Technical Regulation, entitled 
"Labelling of processed and packaged food products", which was notified to Members in document 
G/TBT/N/ECU/19/Add.8. With respect to this no tification, her delegation was concerned that 
Ecuador had failed to comply with transparency obligations laid down in Article 2.9 of the TBT Agreement since this measure was a technical regulation and Ecuador had not provided 
Members with the opportunity to submit comments. On the specific provisions of the draft revision 
of PRTE INEN 022, Mexico considered that the definitions of "food", "processed food", 
"nutritional claim", as well as the system of colour coded charts, all may contravene the provisions of Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement, as they were  not based on relevant international standards, 
such as the "General Standard for the Labelling of Pre-Packaged Foods" of the CODEX Alimentarius 
(CODEX STAN 1 1985, point 2). She said the same point applied for labelling with references to non-caloric sweeteners and transgenic contents. Mexico argued that the system of colour coded 
charts (showing "high", "medium" and "low" concentration of total fats, sugars and salts) may 
contravene the principle of proportionality provided  for in Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement by not 
constituting the least restrictive alternative necessary to fulfil the desired legitimate objective. She 
was concerned that the system did not help the consumer make an appropriate choice of products 
for consumption; rather, the messages could instead arouse fear in the consumer. Further, the measures on advertising, which prohibited the use of images of real or fictitious persons and animals in labelling, could be contrary to the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, which governed 
the protection countries were required to provide for the owners of an intellectual or industrial 
property right. 
2.179.  The representative reiterated a series of requests to Ecuador. First, she called on Ecuador 
to notify the "Sanitary regulations for the labelling of processed foods for human consumption", in 
accordance with the provisions of the TBT Agreement, so that comments on the regulations could be submitted. Second, she requested that PRTE INEN 022 be amended so that concepts such as 
"food" and "nutritional claim" coincided with the provisions of the CODEX Alimentarius, and that G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 44 - 
 
  the difference between "food" and "processed food" was eliminated. Third, Mexico asked for an 
explanation of the justification and scientific ev idence for the colour coded system of charts 
specifying the "high", "medium" or "low" concentration of three components: total fats, sugars and salts, respectively. Fourth, she requested that just ification be provided for – or if appropriate, 
consideration be given to eliminating the requirement of – including the term "transgenic" on the 
label, in case of transgenic content. Fifth, Mexico asked that the restrictions on advertising in labelling be reconsidered. 
2.180.  The representative of the European Union echoed concerns expressed by other delegations 
on PRTE INEN 022 on the labelling of processe d and packaged food products. This technical 
regulation imposed nutrition food labelling obligations comprising "high in" warnings and a traffic light warning system. While the EU fully shared Ecuador's public health objectives regarding the 
provision of adequate nutritional information to  consumers, the representative expressed doubt 
that the approach taken in the notified draft was neither the best way to achieve these objectives, nor proportional to the aim pursued, which should  be to empower consumers to make an informed 
choice in order to foster effective competition and consumer welfare. The EU recalled previous 
interventions on this specific trade concern regarding the lack of proportionality of the measure, its departure from CODEX guidelines, and the use of the "high in" warnings, which were well recorded 
in the minutes of the last meeting of this Committee, document G/TBT/M/63. 
2.181.  The representative of the United States supported concerns raised by other Members on 
Ecuador Foreign Trade Committee Resolution 116 , and referred Members to comments made by 
her delegation under another STC concerning an  equatorial measure (Ecuador – Resolution 
establishing the "General conformity assessmen t framework for Ecuador" and the "Handbook of 
procedures to be observed prior to all stages of the customs clearance, marketing and market surveillance of manufactured, imported and ma rketed goods subject to Ecuadorian technical 
regulations). 
2.182.  The representative of Brazil shared the concerns raised by other delegations, expressed 
appreciation for the bilateral dialogue with Ecuador on this matter, and said Brazil would remain 
engaged in this discussion. 
2.183.  The representative of Colombia recalled that his delegation had sent comments to 
PRTE INEN 022 (G/TBT/N/ECU/19/Add.8) on 26 August 2014, but to date had not received a 
response for Ecuador. He requested that Ecuador provide a prompt reply. 
2.184.  The representative of Ecuador explai ned that Foreign Trade Committee (COMEX) with 
Resolution No. 116, adopted on 19 November 2013, was not a technical regulation, but rather was 
an administrative measure for customs which outlined the product headings which were subject to 
the requirement to submit a certificate of recognition.. She also stressed that the measure was not 
an unnecessary barrier to trade, and was consistent with multilateral trade rules. 
2.185.  With respect to RTE INEN 022, she explained that the Ministry of Public Health had carried 
out a national survey on health and nutrition, which revealed some worrying trends. In light of this 
situation, the Ministry of Public Health adopted a comprehensive policy taking certain measures to promote health and to improve the living standard s of the population, including this measure on 
"Health regulation labelling of processed food for human consumption". In Article 12 of the 
measures, it was specified that any processed food for human consumption must comply with the 
requirements of RTE INEN 022, including a colour coded bar with graphics. On 26 January 2014, the Regulatory Agency on Health made available to users a data processing system to access the 
new labelling system. Several workshops were held  throughout the territory to make firms aware 
of the labelling system, including visit from technical personnel to ensure correct implementation. On 12 March 2014, Ecuador notified this measure in document G/TBT/N/ECU/19/Add.4. Aware 
that firms needed some additional time to comply and adapt to the requirements, the national 
authority brought the measure into force in a sta ggered was accordance to the size of the firms. 
She noted that SMEs were given additional time to meet the labelling requirements. 
2.186.  The representative noted that Ecuador had taken on many of the comments and concerns 
raised by other Members, including with respect the placement of the label, the prohibition of 
depictions of animals and children, and the use of  stickers. To date, according to the monitoring 
carried out by Ministry of Public Health, more than 80% of firms had brought their labelling in line G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 45 - 
 
  with the requirements, and the remaining firms still had additional time to do so. On this basis, 
she concluded that firms had managed to adapt to the new requirements. 
2.2.3.19  France – Recycling Triman Mark: "Draft Decree on a common set of symbols 
informing the consumer about recyclable pr oducts subject to a system of extended 
producer responsibility associated with wast e sorting instructions" (G/TBT/N/FRA/153) 
- IMS Item No. 420 
2.187.  The representative of the United States asked the European Union for an update on the 
revision of the draft decree, which the US understood would provide more flexibility to industry in 
meeting the labelling requirements, including the option of posting recycling information on a website. She asked how companies would be made  aware of these requirement changes. Without 
this revision, she said, foreign manufacturers could incur significant costs. She asked that France 
continue consultation with producers and manufacturers on alternative less costly options that 
would still increase recycling rates, such as a consumer education programme. The US welcomed 
the exemption of glass from the proposal in the law published on 2 January 2014, but asked 
whether aluminium/plastic closures would still be subject to the recycling logo requirement. In the 
event that there would not be a revision to the draft decree, she said it was unclear how companies would comply with some of the labelling requirements. It was their understanding that 
if there were "significant and disproportionate economic, regulatory or technical obstacles", the 
information could be provided by placing the labe l on either the packaging or the manual of the 
product. However, it was not clear how this option would provide the appropriate information to the consumer. 
2.188.  The representative of Canada supporte d comments made by the US and invited Members 
to refer to the comments made by Canada on  this issue at previous Committee meetings. 
2.189.  The representative of the European Un ion informed the Committee that the requirement 
regarding the affixing of the TRIMAN logo had been changed. With regard to the waste sorting 
instructions, the TRIMAN logo should be affixed, preferably on the product, on the accompanying product manual if it would not be possible to do so on the product itself, or on any supporting 
documentation (including dematerialised forms), if the other means had not been used. The 
obligation to label a product with the TRIMAN logo was now on those placing the product on the French market for the first time.  
2.2.3.20  Russian Federation – Safety of products for children and adolescents - IMS 
Item No. 418 
2.190.  The representative of the European Union reiterated concerns sent to the Russian 
authorities on 28 February 2014, and also raised in previous Committee meetings, in particular the 
issue concerning the definition of "synthetic or ar tificial leather" and the abolishment of the ban on 
the use of synthetic or artificial materials in the products for children and adolescents. He asked Russia to provide more detailed information on th e possible changes of the notified amendments 
and on the timeline foreseen for their adoption and entry into force. 
2.191.  The representative of Norway associated her delegation with the statement and concerns 
raised by the EU and looked forward to updates and written replies from Russia. 
2.192.  The representative of the Russian Fede ration thanked the EU and Norway for their 
comments on the amendments to the Customs Union technical regulation on the safety of products 
for children and adolescents which entered into forc e on 1 July 2012, with a transitional period for 
implementation which expired on 15 February 2014. Subsequent amendments to the technical 
regulation were notified to the WTO in G/TBT/N/RUS/29. Public hearings on amendments to the 
technical regulation started in December 2013 and, based on requests from WTO Members, were extended until April 2014. Comments from interested parties had been received and were being 
considered in the draft amendments being de veloped. He added that procedures for the 
introduction of amendments to technical regulations were similar to those for the introduction of the regulation itself. In answer to the EU request for a timeline, he stated that the amendments would most likely not be adopted before January 2015, with entry into force no earlier than July 
2015. Until then the existing technical regulation wo uld continue to be applied. He said the use of G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 46 - 
 
  artificial and/or synthetic material in the lining of footwear for children and adolescents (Annexes 
14 and 15 to the technical regulation) was not prohibited. 
2.2.3.21  China – Regulations for the Supervis ion 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) 
- IMS Item No. 428 
2.193.  The representative of Canada expressed his delegation's continued concerns with the far- 
reaching effects of this measure on the medical device industry in China as well as foreign 
suppliers of medical devices. Given the number of  implementing regulations related to Order No. 
650 that had been issued in recent months, more time would be required to fully comprehend the 
potential impact for foreign medical devices companies. He asked whether there were plans to hold 
debriefing or training sessions in China. He also requested clarification on certain aspects of the 
new implementing regulations, in particular Order No. 4 (Medical Device Registration Administration Methods), and Order No. 5 (In Vitro Diagnostic Products Registration Administration 
Methods). He noted that Article 13 of Order No. 4 and Article 15 of Order No. 5 stated that 
imported products for which registration or list ing applications were being made "should have 
obtained permission to be entered into the mark et and sold in the country (region) where the 
applicant registered or produced the product". Di d this this mean that imported medical devices 
and in vitro diagnostic products had to have prior approval in their country of origin? He said such a requirement might be difficult for Canadian exporters who may not necessarily seek regulatory approval domestically. Could applications be made for Canadian-originating medical devices or in 
vitro diagnostic products which had received approval  in other leading jurisdictions, such as the US 
or EU, but which were not approved in Canada? A dditionally Orders No. 4 and No. 5 required the 
applicant to provide registration inspection samples of Class II and III medical devices and in vitro 
diagnostic products. This form of duplicative type testing appeared to be unnecessary and 
burdensome for imported devices that had already been approved in other markets. Canada requested China to clarify whether foreign clinical trial data was applicable or whether the trials 
had to be conducted in China as this was not clear from Article 22 of Order No. 4, which only 
stated that clinical trials should be conducted for Class II and III medical devices. Canada also had concerns with Article 35 of Order No. 5, which specifically stated that, for in vitro diagnostic products, a focused clinical evaluation should be conducted in China, which constituted an 
unnecessary and duplicative clinical trial requirement for Canadian exporters that had received 
prior regulatory approval in other leading foreign jurisdictions, including Canada. He said this duplicative requirement would result in addition al time and expense being incurred by Canadian 
medical device exporters wishing to enter the Chinese market. Canada asked whether China 
intended to issue additional implementing regulati ons concerning medical devices in the future and 
looked forward to receiving a detailed response to its questions. 
2.194.  The representative of the European Union welcomed the efforts made by Chinese 
authorities to amend the regulations on medical devices, and the constructive dialogue between 
the Chinese and EU authorities. However, like Canada, the EU still had some concerns with the regulations, and in particular Article 17 of Or der 650, which stated that if the safety and 
effectiveness of the medical device could be proven by using data obtained from the clinical trial of 
similar products or during clinical applications, then the product was exempted from clinical trials and listed in a catalogue. Did this mean that that Medical Devices not listed in the catalogue would 
have to be subject to clinical trials conducted in  China? The EU also had concerns that the draft 
lists of Class II and Class III devices exempted from clinical trials were too limited. She asked CFDA to put in place a robust system that allo wed for swift updates of exemption catalogues, as 
experience had shown that the pace of the regula tory mechanism to update such lists sometimes 
lagged significantly behind the pace of innovation.  
2.195.  She also noted that for products not listed in the catalogues duplicative and redundant 
clinical trials would have to be conducted in China. The EU was of the view that due consideration 
should be given to studies that had taken place outside China, especially where the studies had 
been conducted in a jurisdiction which, like China, was a member of the International Medical Device Regulators Forum (IMDRF). The study results might then only require small bridging 
studies to ensure its relevance to China. She reiterated the importance of avoiding any duplication 
of clinical trials which would cause additional delays in placing products on the Chinese market, without any added benefit. Excessive trials, she said, also presented ethical problems. The EU 
failed to understand the rationale for the requiremen t to register medical devices in the country of G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 47 - 
 
  origin, as all medical devices marketed in China (whether already registered in the country of 
origin or not) needed to comply with comprehensive Chinese authorization requirements.  
2.196.  Finally, concerning the Electromagnetic Co mpatibility (EMC) testing, the EU reiterated its 
request that CFDA accept test reports from foreign laboratories accredited by accreditation bodies 
that were members of ILAC, as an alternative to in-country testing in China. The EU also stressed 
that the registration certificate should exclude the potentially confidential "Product Technical Requirements" documentation. Finally, the EU requested that Chinese authorities provide a 
transitional period of three years as these new provisions introduced major changes. Further 
guidelines, she said, would also be welcome. 
2.197.  The representative of the United States supported comments made by Canada and the EU. 
While appreciating China's efforts in notifying the implementing regulation of CFDA's overall 
medical devices regime, Order No. 650 did not appear to provide sufficient transition periods for 
industry to fully adjust to the multiple new requirements, in particular for Class I medical product conformity assessment procedures. She asked whether China would take into account comments 
received from industry on the necessity of a transition period of two to three years. 
2.198.  The representative of China informed the Committee that CFDA had communicated directly 
with relevant foreign and domestic enterprises and associations on the measures and had taken 
comments into account, including those received from the EU and US chambers of commerce in 
China. Prior to implementation, she said, CFDA had held specialized training sessions to help enterprises and organizations to understand better the measures. Comments from stakeholders and interested parties would continue to be taken into account. 
2.2.3.22  Egypt – Bottled water - IMS Item No. 421 
2.199.  The representative of Turkey reiterated concerns regarding exports of bottled water to 
Egypt. Turkish exporters of bottled water still could not obtain permission for importation from the 
Supreme Committee for Water of Egypt's Ministry of Health. He recalled that in previous 
Committee meetings Egypt had argued that Egyptian Standard No. 2007/1589 was in conformity with the relevant Codex Standards and WHO Guidelines, and was equally applied to domestic 
bottled water companies. However, in previous di scussions, in June 2013, Egyptian authorities had 
informed his delegation that the mandatory Egyptian Standards were being revised according to "Codex Standard 227-2001" and the "WHO Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality, 2011". The representative sought clarification as to whether the Egyptian Standard was in conformity with 
these two relevant documents and asked Egypt to explain why it had initiated such a revision of 
the standard. Turkey also requested Egypt to pr ovide any additional information on the current 
status of the revision initiated by Egyptian authorities. 
2.200.  With respect to Egypt's argument that domestic and imported products were accorded 
equal treatment, he reminded the Committee of th e fact that Turkish exporters of bottled water 
could not obtain permission for importation from the Supreme Committee for Water. The 
explanation given by Egypt was that periodic control of its source could not be maintained based 
on Egyptian Standard No. 02007/1589. In this respect, in April 2014 Turkey had invited a technical committee of Egyptian officials to conduct inspection visits and to control the water source of Turkish exporter firms of bottled water on-site. Wh en no reply was received to this request, on 
14 October 2014, Turkey had reiterated this meetin g request to the relevant Egyptian authorities. 
Turkey had not yet received a reply to either request. 
2.201.  He also recalled that at the last Committee meeting, Egypt had stated that the 
requirement limiting importation of bottled water to those producers with an EU reference applying 
the HACCP system had been removed. His delegation considered this to be a positive development, since such requirement was a clear violation of Egypt's WTO MFN obligations. Turkey 
requested additional information from Egypt as to how the requirement was removed and how its 
effective implementation would be ensured. Furthermore, in reference to the decisions of the Supreme Committee for Water, Turkey posed the following questions: (i) what were the requirements for exporting bottled water to Egypt; (ii) from which countries did Egypt allow 
importation of bottled water; (iii) how did Egyptian authorities maintain periodic control of the 
source of the bottled water coming from these countries; and, (iv) whether they conducted inspection visits, or required test reports or certificates? Turkey again expressed its readiness to G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 48 - 
 
  invite a technical committee from Egypt to conduct inspection visits and control the water source if 
this was the requirement applied by Egypt to its other trading partners. His delegation continued 
to believe that Egypt's policies and practices constituted an unnecessary obstacle to Turkey's bottled water exports to Egypt. He asked Egypt to cooperate with Turkey to find a mutually 
satisfactory solution to this issue and once again recalled Egypt's existing obligations under WTO 
Agreements in general, and the TBT Agreement in particular. 
2.202.  The representative of Egypt stated that im ports of bottled water were subject to Egyptian 
Standard No. 2007/1589, mandated by Ministerial Decree No. 130-2005, which was notified to the 
TBT Committee as G/TBT/N/EGY/1. This standard wa s publicly available at the premises of the 
Egyptian Organization for Standardization in Cairo, as well as online.5 The Egyptian Standard 
requirements included that authorities conduct regular checks on water resources, along with all 
other specifications requested. In this regard, she underlined that in 2012 the Egyptian 
government had suspended seven bottled water companies due to non-compliance with the standard's requirements. Egypt applied this decree equally to domestic and foreign bottled water 
companies, and was therefore fully compliant with  Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement. She further 
stated the Egyptian standard was in conformity with relevant CODEX standards and WHO guidelines. Finally, she stated the Egyptian Standard was not more trade restrictive than 
necessary, as the measure was necessary for consumer health, safety and protection. The 
representative said she would convey all other requests for clarification from Turkey to her capital, and would reply in due time. 
2.2.3.23  India – Labelling Regulations for Canola Oil - IMS Item No. 413 
2.203.  The representative of Canada said that until February 2014, canola oil had entered India 
since 2007 without incident, and was marketed as canola oil and labelled as "Ingredients: 
Imported Refined Canola Oil". In July 2014, India' s Food Safety and Standards Authority of India 
(FSSAI), which had apparently banned the marketin g and labelling of canola oil, published an 
import clearance notice reaffirming India's position that the product must be labelled and marke te d  as "I mp orted  R e fine d  R apes e e d Oil  - L ow Eruc ic  Ac i d ." Canad a said  that s uch s ud de n 
and seemingly irrevocable decision to apply such labelling requirements to canola oil shipments 
without notice, directly and immediately affected exports, marketing and sales of canola oil in 
India. Canada was of the view that India was therefore in violation of its WTO obligations for having failed to notify Members of changes to its labelling regulations. Moreover, he said India's 
regulation could be more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve its legitimate objective of food 
safety, which would be a violation of  Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. 
2.204.  Canada was also concerned that the labelling requirements for canola oil, contained in 
India's Food Products and Food Additives Regulations 2011, did not conform to the relevant 
guidelines recommended by CODEX Alimentarius, as CODEX Standard 210-1999 deems "canola oil" and "rapeseed oil – low erucic acid' as synonyms. He said India's labelling 
requirements appeared to discriminate against the legitimate term "canola oil", which was of 
equivalent status to "low erucic acid – rapeseed oil" according to CODEX Alimentarius guidelines. Despite claims to contrary by FSSAI, Canada re iterated that "canola oil" was not a trademark 
name but rather an internationally recognized vege table oil applauded for its health benefits. Since 
India's regulation differed from the international standard, in this case the CODEX standard, 
Canada was of the view that India's regulation  may violate Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement. 
Furthermore, he noted that the Bombay High Cour t ruled in favour of an importer, by issuing a 
stay order against the FSSAI labelling guidelines  for "canola oil". Canada encouraged India to 
consider an alternative measure to the currently enforced labelling requirements for "canola oil", which would follow CODEX Alimentarius guidelines, and would not create an unnecessary barrier to 
trade. 
2.205.  The representative of Australia considered the requirement to use the term "rapeseed oil – 
low erucic acid", as specified by India in its Food Products and Food Additives Regulations 2011, 
and only permitting the use of the term "canola oil" as a secondary term, as an unnecessary 
labelling burden for Australian exporters of refined "canola oil" to India. His delegation believed 
this regulation contradicted CODEX Alimentarius Standard for named vegetable oils, which permitted the use of synonym descriptors for "rapeseed oil", including "canola oil" (Codex 
Standard 210 - 1999, section 2.1.16). Australia understood that the term "canola oil" was often 
                                               
5 www.eos.org.eg G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 49 - 
 
  used to describe domestic products that were available for local sale in India. He said India's Plant 
Quarantine Order 2003, which outlined India's impo rt quarantine requirements for plants and plant 
products, allowed the use of the alternative terms "rape and canola". Australia continued to express support for FSSAI's initiative of harmon ising India's food standards with CODEX that 
commenced in early 2013. 
2.206.  The representative of India said "canola oil" was an edible vegetable oil produced from 
"rapeseed bearing low erucic acid". "Canola oil" had been imported to India for several years, 
mostly from Canada, and India believed that "canola oil" was a given trade name. He noted that in 
the CODEX standard the product was listed as "rapeseed oil, low erucic acid". In accordance with the CODEX, India's Food Safety and Standards (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations 2011 required that the product be labelled and marketed  as "Imported Refined Rapeseed Oil- Low Erucic 
Acid". He stated the manufacturer may, if desired, write "Canola Oil" in parenthesis. He said that 
in an e-mail message from FSSAI, dated 26 May 2014, the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi was informed about this labelling requirement. It was also noted that the labelling of canola 
oil should conform to Food Safety and Standa rds (Packaging and Labelling) Regulations 2011, 
which was effective from 5 August 2011. This regu lation, he reminded Members, was duly notified 
to the WTO in July 2010 and Members were given 60 days for comments. The objective of the 
marking requirements was to ensure protection of the interests of consumers and to provide a 
basis for consumers to make informed choices in relation to the foods they consumed. The representative noted that it entailed only a simple change of product declaration on the labels. Instead of writing the "brand name", he explaine d suppliers were henceforth required to declare 
the "generic name" on the product labels for the sake of consumer information. He stressed that 
this measure could not be characterized as more trade restrictive than necessary. 
2.2.3.24  Thailand – Draft Notification of the Alcoholic Beverages Control, Re: Rules, 
Procedure and condition for Labels of Al coholic Beverages, issued under B.E. 
(G/TBT/N/THA/437) - IMS Item No. 427 
2.207.  The representative of Canada recognized Thailand's right to impose measures to protect 
consumer health and safety, and provide consumer s with adequate information to make informed 
choices. He expressed appreciation for Thailand's briefing at the margins of the Committee meeting, and applauded its efforts to reduce yout h consumption of alcohol. Canada was, however, 
concerned that Thailand's proposed labelling regulations may be more trade restrictive than 
n e c e s s a r y  t o  m e e t  t h e i r  o b j e c t i v e ,  a n d  i n  t u r n ,  m a y  h a v e  a n  u n d u e  i m p a c t  o n  t h e  t r a d e  o f  
Canadian alcoholic beverages to Thailand. He noted that Clause 2(2) and Clause 3(1-6) of the proposed rules prohibit the use of wine labels that contained: (i) images of athletes, artists, 
singers or cartoons; and (ii) messages that were affiliated with activities such as sport, music, and 
contests. Seeing some of the images displayed by Thailand during the briefing session, Canada understood Thailand's concerns. However, some of the definitions in the regulations were unclear 
and might be overly injurious to certain labels considered as "cartoons". For instance, some 
Canadian wine labels portrayed images which were not, however, intended to appeal to children or promote irresponsible alcohol consumption. His de legation understood that the amended proposed 
regulation of September 2014 had been expanded to  consider the use of graphic warning labels 
and messages unique to Thailand. He asked for further information about next steps on this 
regulatory proposal. He also noted that the amende d proposed regulation had not been notified to 
the TBT Committee, and therefore encouraged Thaila nd to make that notification and to comply 
with the related entry into force obligations under the TBT Agreement. 
2.208.  The representative of Mexico thanked Tha iland for the information session and for meeting 
with her delegation bilaterally. Mexico reiterated concerns with this Thai measure, notified to the 
TBT Committee on 28 March 2014 in document G/TBT/N/THA/437. Her delegation was concerned 
that Thailand may be contravening basic principles of the TBT Agreement with respect to the preparation of technical regulations, such as those relating to: (i) non-discrimination, as contained in Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement; (ii) prop ortionality, as contained in Article 2.2; and 
(iii) conformity with international standards, as contained in Article 2.4. She noted that the 
technical regulation established an exception for beverages manufactured in Thailand or imported for re-export, or for those prepared for purp oses of non-commercial sampling, analysis, or 
research within the country. In this respect, Mexico asked Thailand to adhere to the TBT principle 
of non-discrimination Mexico also asked Thailand to ensure compliance with the TBT principle of proportionality in the light of the legitimate objective pursued by this regulation. She recalled that 
the regulation imposed graphic warning labels on the harmfulness and toxicity of alcoholic G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 50 - 
 
  beverages, using colour coded graphics authoriz ed by the Alcohol Control Committee of the 
Department of Disease Control. In addition, the regulation imposed prohibitions on the labelling of alcoholic beverages (such as messages on product quality or characteristics), instead of promoting measures to help the public obtain accurate information on the effects of alcoholic beverage 
consumption, so that consumers could make informed choices. Bearing in mind the obligations in 
Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, Mexico asked Thailand for information on the justification or scientific evidence supporting the labelling propos al, including the aforementioned prohibitions, in 
light of the legitimate objective pursued by the re gulation. Similarly, she requested information on 
the alternatives considered by Thailand to achieve the objective defined by the technical regulation, such as the use of public information campaigns on the effects of excessive alcohol consumption.  
2.209.  Furthermore, Mexico considered that these measures could constitute violations of the 
TRIPS Agreement due to the wide range of prohibitio ns established on the use of images (athletes, 
artists, singers and cartoon pictures), which could unjustifiably encumber the use of trademarks in 
the ordinary course of trade. Accordingly, Thailand was reques ted to take due account of the 
provisions of Section 2 of Part II of the TRIPS Agreement. Finally, Mexico reserved the right to submit formal comments to the government of  Thailand and, in the meantime, expressed 
continued concerns that the measures proposed could be considered as restrictive and 
discriminatory, which could lead to the creation of parallel markets for unrecorded alcohol and give rise to adverse economic effect s as well as health problems, including for Thai citizens. 
2.210.  The representative of the European Unio n reiterated concerns regarding the draft on 
Alcoholic Beverages Control notified by Thaila nd on 28 March 2014 (G/TBT/N/THA/437), intended 
to replace the old measure dated 21 January 2010 (G/TBT/N/THA/332). The notified draft law laid down requirements for labelling of alcoholic products, including mandatory text warning 
statements. The EU thanked Thailand for the pr esentation organized on the margins of the 
meeting, and for the clarifications provided. In particular, the EU welcomed Thailand's commitment to re-notify the measure if a decision would be ta ken to re-introduce graphic health warning labels. 
The EU requested confirmation on this point from Thailand, and considered that the substantial 
changes to the March 2014 draft in the area of graphic health warnings should be re-notified to the WTO, and that sufficient time should be allowed for comments. Thailand was currently carrying out a public consultation on the Alcoholic Beverage s Control and the amended March 2014 draft, as 
available online, included provisions on graphic health warning labels. In that respect, the EU 
requested Thailand to clarify how previous EU comments had been taken into account and also clarify the status of the most recent amended dr aft. She recalled that her delegation submitted 
comments on 23 May 2014, and was still looking forward to receiving Thailand's reply. With 
respect to graphic warning health messages, the EU saw the recent online draft (which had not been notified) as a step backwards. The draf t notified to the WTO by Thailand in 2010 
(G/TBT/N/THA/332) contained similar requirements  which were eventually not adopted and which 
were not present in the March 2014 draft following the comments submitted by various WTO Members, including the EU. She reiterated the request to Thailand whether they could take into consideration less trade restrictive measures or, failing this, clarify on which basis and evidence 
Thailand concluded that different, less costly and burdensome alternatives than the indication of a 
graphic health warning, would be insufficient to address the objective pursued.  
2.211.  Furthermore, the EU remained concerned about the strict labelling requirements proposed 
in the notified draft and its departure from international standards. In particular, referring to 
Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement, the EU invited Thailand to clarify the reasons for a deviation from the definition of a label and a container as  provided in the text of CODEX STAN 1-1985. She 
reiterated concerns regarding the lack of clarity of  the provisions of the notified draft relating to 
messages on the labels which may lead to inconsistent interpretations by economic operators. Finally, the EU believed that the administrative co mplexity of the label approval process (intended 
to be dealt with by two separate government ag encies), and the short implementation deadlines 
for compliance, constituted serious market access barriers. In this respect, she reiterated the 
request for Thailand to allow the sale of all products existing on the market until stocks had been exhausted. She requested that Thailand take these comments into account and respond to them 
before the adoption of the draft regulation.  
2.212.  The representative of the United States echoed comments of other Members, and 
expressed concerns with Thailand's most recent proposal requiring graphic labels and warning 
statements on all alcoholic beverages sold in Thailand. The US submitted comments to the G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 51 - 
 
  notification of the original text notified by Th ailand in March 2014, as G/TBT/N/THA/437. The US 
was particularly concerned that Thailand had made substantive updates to its March 2014 proposed measure, but that it had not yet notifi ed those amendments to the WTO for comment by 
other Members. These updates included drafts of Thailand's proposals for the graphic labels and 
warning statements that would be required on any alcoholic beverage sold in Thailand. In line with 
WTO customary practice, and taking into account the recommendation of the TBT Committee on "Coherent use of notification formats" (G/TBT/35) , she urged Thailand to notify the amendments 
to its March 2014 proposal immediately and to delay implementation of this measure until after 
Members had an opportunity to submit comments. She emphasized that this measure, as proposed, entailed unnecessary obstacles to trade with significant potential impact on US and other Members' exports to Thailand. She urged Thailand to take into account the serious concerns 
expressed by Members over this issue, and to consider less trade alternatives as a means of 
achieving its policy objectives. Once the final requirements were determined, she asked Thailand to consider flexibility regarding implementation, including adequate transition periods to facilitate 
industry's adjustment to the new labelling scheme, and the possibility to allow sale of products on 
the market until exhaustion. 
2.213.  The representative of Australia recognised the right of governments to take measures 
necessary to protect public health, provided that such measures complied with relevant 
international trade obligations. He welcomed information provided by Thailand to date, and looked forward to receiving further information on the proposed measure. 
2.214.  The representative of Chile supported th e statements of other Members, and expressed 
significant concerns about the provisions and im plementation of the proposed measure. While 
Chile agreed with the objective pursued by Thaila nd to safeguard consumer health and safety, she 
believed that this measure was more trade restrictive than necessary within the meaning of 
Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. She asked Thailand to consider alternative measures to achieve 
their policy objective, which were common international practice. In particular, Chile was concerned about implications of the measure for various declarations about the quality and 
characteristics of the product normally displayed on  labels of wines and other alcoholic beverages, 
such as "reserve", "grand reserve", "special ", amongst others. For instance, she noted the 
importance of such terms for differentiating qualities of Pisco; special Pisco ; reserve Pisco ; 
gran reserve Pisco . She also cited possible implications for geographic indications and appellations 
of origin, and highlighted their importance for helping consumers identify a product as originating 
in a certain territory with a certain quality and reputation, and other characteristics which could be attributed directly or indirectly to the geographic origin. Her delegation expressed concern that the 
Thai measure may not allow for such information on labels, denying consumers important 
information. Furthermore, there was a lack of clarity on the prohibition on using images. Chile did not understand how various evocative images, such as of sculptures, angles, abstract pictures or 
images relating to sport or caricatures, could incite alcohol consumption. Chile enquired as to the 
scientific basis for such prohibitions. She also sought clarification about how the rule would be applied in the period prior to entry into force, and the sanctions for non-compliance. Finally, she urged Thailand to take account of the various concerns expressed by Members. 
2.215.  The representative of New Zealand thanked Thailand for the briefing session. New Zealand 
acknowledged and supported Thailand's right to adopt new regulations to address public health 
concerns, and appreciated that in seeking to addre ss the harmful use of alcohol, the draft technical 
regulation was directed towards achieving a legitimate public health objective. New Zealand 
appreciated Thailand's recent request by its Mini s t r y  o f  H e a l t h  f o r  p u b l i c  c o m m e n t  o n  i t s  d r a f t  
regulation. However, New Zealand requested that Thailand notify this regulation to the TBT 
Committee in accordance with its WTO obligations, as Thailand has previously done on previous 
versions of the regulation. In this light, she welcomed recent comments that Thailand intended to notify the revised version of the regulation in due course, and requested that Thailand provide 
reasonable time for Members to provide comments as per WTO obligations. 
2.216.  New Zealand also reiterated concerns that the labelling requirements were unnecessarily 
trade restrictive and was particularly concerned that the new version of the regulation envisaged a more restrictive approach than the regulations prev iously notified in March 2014. She asked for an 
explanation of the rationale behind the change in  this revised draft regulation. New Zealand was 
particularly concerned that Clauses 2 and 3 of th e draft regulation were subjective and open to 
interpretation that could lead to uncertainties for manufacturers and importers as to whether 
certain labels were consistent with the regulation. New Zealand also asked for clarity regarding the G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 52 - 
 
  interpretation of the provisions on pictures of at hletes, artists and singers, and the definition of 
"recreation". Finally, she noted that the draft regulation allowed labels used before the entry into force of the regulation to be used for a transition  period of 180 days after the regulation came into 
force. This was a positive inclusion that would limit the impact on trade. However, she was 
concerned that the period may not be appropriate for alcoholic beverages such as wines and spirits 
with a longer shelf life, and asked Thailand to consider extending it. 
2.217.  The representative of South Africa thanke d Thailand for bilateral discussions. South Africa 
shared concerns outlined by other Members, but also understood the need to inform consumers 
about the danger of alcohol abuse. His delegation was concerned that Thailand had not officially stated in its draft regulation (G/TBT/N/THA/437) which graphic depictions would need to be included in the health warning. South Africa understood that it would be the picture of a 
drunk-driving accident. Furthermore, the draft regulation, as notified, did not state the content of 
the other warning statement that would need to be included in the label. Therefore, South Africa 
requested Thailand to provide further details re garding the photo and the content of the warning 
statement, and to provide further opportunity to  allow trading partners to provide comments on 
these labelling requirements before implementation. Finally, Thailand was requested to provide a reasonable period of at least 6 months between ad option and entry into force of the regulation to 
allow producers time to adapt.  
2.218.  The representative of Thailand was of the view that the Draft Ministerial Announcement 
was in clear conformity with TBT Agreement obligat ions. The draft regulation pursued the objective 
of consumer information consistent with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. The regulation would 
apply equally to both imported and local products, as per Article 2.1 of the Agreement. Moreover, 
Thailand had properly notified the draft in accord ance with Article 10.6 of the Agreement, allowing 
a comment period of 60 days. The representative stated that all comments had been taken into 
consideration by the Disease Control Department of the Ministry of Public Health. She also 
informed Members that prior to the meeting, Th ailand convened a plurilateral discussion with 
representatives of concerned Members, which prov ided an opportunity for Thai experts (from the 
Disease Control Department and International Heal th Policy Programme of the Ministry of Public 
Health) to explain the rationale for the measure,  and which made clear that the regulation was 
only about addressing concerns of Thai popula tion. Regarding the draft regulation on graphic 
health warnings raised by Members, she informed  the Committee that Thailand had first collected 
in-country comments. The comments of internal stakeholders would then be carefully considered, 
and a decision would be taken on the question of  pictorial warning labelling, which in any event 
would serve the purpose of consumer protection and comply with the TBT Agreement. However, 
Thailand assured Members that further details about the content of the photo and warning 
statement would be provided by notifying to the TBT Committee without delay. She assured Members that all other comments received would be forwarded for consideration by the 
Department of Disease Control of the Ministry of Public Health. 
2.219.  The Thai representative of the Internatio nal Health Policy Programme said that alcohol 
consumption was the leading national health risk factor, and that control of alcohol-related health problems was firmly on the Thai national agenda. She said alcohol consumption caused serious 
social problems, and harmed socio-economic development. Most importantly, while there was low 
risk and high risk alcohol consumption, risk fr ee alcohol consumption did not exist. Therefore, 
Thailand did not regard alcohol as an ordinary comm odity. She reported that the Ministry of Public 
Health had been tasked with protecting society from alcohol, with particular concern for the young 
generation. To achieve this goal, and as recommended by the WHO, Thailand pursued a comprehensive policy framework including a variety of interventions aiming at different target 
groups through different mechanisms in sustainable ways. Alcohol marketing was the most 
powerful determinant of alcohol consumption. She said marketing was effective with consumers by shaping attitudes to products and the decision to  purchase and drink. Evidence had shown that 
packaging and labelling of alcoholic beverages could increase appeal to consumers, including 
drinkers and potential drinkers. It could also minimize and distract from potential harm caused by 
the product. 
2.220.  Due to legal loopholes, she explained that alcohol packaging and labelling had been used 
aggressively as a marketing channel in Thailand. There were many pictures of celebrities, athletes 
and singers on alcohol containers and packages. These were not only attractive labels in their own right; they were also cunningly used as creative marketing tools by linking to ongoing promotions 
campaigns or activities. A 2011 study carried out in Thailand showed that more than half of the G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 53 - 
 
  Thai respondents found the containers, packages and labels of alcoholic beverages to be colourful, 
attractive, and persuasive to purchase and cons ume. Therefore, the Thai government could not 
take the sport and music marketing strategy of the alcohol industry for granted, and needed 
effective tools to control it to and protect citizens. In line with the principle of consumer protection, 
and taking account of the recommendations of th e WHO's "Global Strategy to Reduce Harmful Use 
of Alcohol" on controlling alcohol beverage labels to reduce the negative impacts of drinking and intoxication, Thailand developed this draft notification with the aim of reducing attractiveness and 
appeal of alcohol to drinkers, especially young people. The prohibition on displaying images of 
celebrities, athletes, film stars, singers, and cartoons on alcohol beverage labels were intended to eliminate the positive attitude towards alcohol products. The representative said the draft regulation did not aim to block responsible communication, or the right to show trademark names 
or the symbol of the company, but to work as an extension of the Alcohol Beverages and Control 
Act 2008. 
2.2.3.25  Indonesia – Regulation of Mini ster of Trade No. 10/M-DAG/PER/1/2014 
concerning Amendment of Regulation of Minister of Trade No. 67/M-DAG/PER/11/2013 
concerning Affixed Mandatory Label in Indonesian Language for Goods 
(G/TBT/N/IDN/85) - IMS Item No. 436 
2.221.  The representative of the European Union said the EU continued to have concerns with the 
burdensome, time-consuming and costly compulsory registration procedure for sample labels as a 
precondition for obtaining the labelling certific ate (SKPLBI). The overall requirements for the 
labelling and label content were more restrictive than necessary to fulfil the stated objective of 
consumer protection and prevention of deceptive practices. The EU asked whether the same 
objectives could be achieved through a general requirement for local and foreign manufacturers/importers to submit a sample label for information to Indonesian authorities prior 
to first placing of a product on the Indonesian  market. The EU considered the requirement for 
permanently affixed labels through, for instance engraving or embossing, as well as the prohibition t o  a f f i x  l a b e l s  i n  t h e  f o r m  o f  s t i c k e r s  w h i l e  p r o d u c t s  w e r e  s t i l l  i n  I n d o n e s i a n  c u s t o m s ,  t o  b e  
excessively constraining for many products and not in tune with market reality for globally traded 
products. Concerning automotive spare parts labelling requirements, the EU pointed out that international practice did not require, in addition to the homologation markings, any specific printings on the tyres themselves. Therefore, th e EU invited Indonesia to consider that for 
automotive spare parts, and in particular ty res, a marking attesting conformity to UNECE 
regulations be accepted on the Indonesian market without further requirements at customs. Further labelling requirements could be applied at  the point of sale, without requiring any marking 
on the product itself, such as affixing labels to the packaging of tyres or by providing the required 
information by signs, brochures or other similar ways. Finally, he reminded the Committee that the EU had already raised concerns with respect to the application of these labelling requirements for 
toys, under STC ID 328.
6 
2.222.  The representative of the United States associated her delegation with the comments 
made by the EU. She said the US continued to have concerns with the Indonesian practice of 
notifying measures after adoption and reminded Indonesia of the transparency requirements of the 
TBT Agreement, in particular allowing time for comments to be taken into account. She queried 
whether products already on the market would have to meet these labelling requirements.  
2.223.  The representative of Japan supported the comments made by previous delegations and 
invited Indonesia to ensure that the regulation was not more trade-restrictive than necessary. 2.224.  The representative of Indonesia thanked the EU, US and Japan for raising their concerns, 
and also thanked the EU for their bilateral meeting. This labelling regulation, he said, ensured that 
consumers were properly informed on products purchased. The new regulation and its 
amendments on the affixing of labels in Indone sian language contained several improvements on 
the previously notified regulation on obligatory labelling (G/TBT/N/IDN/47). He mentioned the following as examples of such improvements: (i) the increase in the number of products covered, 
from 103 to 127; (ii) adjustments in the HS codes; and (iii) the requirement for permanent 
labelling through embossed print or firmly atta ched labels. He explained that importers or 
producers of products not listed in the attachment of the regulation may put labels in the 
                                               
6 Indonesia - Technical Guidelines for the Implementati on of the Adoption and Supervision of Indonesian 
National Standards for Obligatory Toy Safe ty (G/TBT/N/IDN/64, G/TBT/N/IDN/64/Add.2)  G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 54 - 
 
  Indonesian language, adjusted to the characteristics of the products. Those listed in the 
attachment of the regulations, and who had their products already distributed on the Indonesian 
market, were granted a transitional period until 24 December 2014 so as to adjust to the required label. For new products, the regulation applied since 24 June 2014. He observed that some types 
of products were exempt from this regulation, such as basic materials for production processes, 
products in bulk, temporary imported products and several other categories. Exemption was also given to producers, trademark holders, general importers and suppliers of automotive products 
who submitted a "letter of exemption" to the Directorate of Consumer Empowerment of the 
Ministry of Trade. Indonesia welcomed bilateral discussion with Members on more specific aspects 
of the regulation.  
2.2.3.26  Kingdom of Saudi Arabia – Certific ate of Conformity (n ot notified) and GSO 
marking requirements for toys - IMS Item No. 435 
2.225.  The representative of the European Union thanked Saudi Arabia for their extensive replies 
to concerns raised at the previous meeting of the Committee, and for the bilateral meeting which 
had taken place and looked forward to future bila teral discussions. He reiterated his delegation's 
support for the harmonization efforts being made within the Gulf region on toy safety and said the EU was willing to exchange experiences and prov ide any clarification regarding the EU's own 
experience with technical harmonization in the toy or other sectors as this may help in ensuring 
more uniform implementation across the region. The EU's main concerns were with inconsistencies in implementation practices of individual Gulf States. There were differing interpretations of the requirements on the fixing of the "G mark", and on the registration number placed next to the "G 
mark" – for example, whether labels were to be permanent or non-permanent. Secondly, there 
appeared to be a trend in some Gulf States to introduce additional duplicative conformity assessment requirements, for example the Saudi Cert ificate of Conformity (CoC) or the Abu Dhabi 
Trustmark. More positively, he noted that foreig n laboratories that were ILAC accredited to 
ISO17025 were allowed to perform the required testing. Concerning the process whereby each toy model was assigned a registration number which had to be fixed next to the "G mark", the EU 
understood that GSO was considering ways to facilitate the registration process allowing 
registration numbers to be assigned to each manuf acturer or importer rather than to each model. 
He understood a guidance document was being prepared which, he said, was being eagerly awaited by industry. 
2.226.  The representative of the United States also thanked Saudi Arabia for their bilateral 
discussions and for the document they had provided  which helped clarify the use of the "G mark" 
for toys. The US continued to look forward to working with both the GCC and the individual 
members as the "G mark" was being further implemented for toys and other products.  
2.227.  The representative of Canada appreciate d the technical harmoniz ation efforts undertaken 
by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members through the GCC 
Standardization Organization (GSO). Nonetheless,  his delegation shared some of the concerns 
expressed by the EU and the US regarding transp arency issues on notifications by GCC members 
of regional GSO technical regulations. Difference s in notification practices by GCC members over 
the same regional technical regulation, including non-notification or variations in content or 
timeframe, could lead to difficulties for all members reviewing those notifications. To this end, 
Canada had written to the GSO, copying Saudi Arab ia, on the subject of notification practices by 
GCC members on the same regional technical regulations. Canada appreciated that the GSO itself, 
in its presentation at the Thematic Session  on Transparency at the June 2014 meeting, 
acknowledged the potential for confusion on this issue. Canada encouraged GCC members to streamline and coordinate their regional notification efforts where possible.  
2.228.  The representative of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia thanked delegations for their comments 
and looked forward to continuing discussions bilaterally. All comments would be sent to capital 
where full answers would be prepared and relayed to Members. 
2.2.3.27  China – Safety Requirement for Lithium Ion Cells and Batteries used in 
Portable Electronic Equipment (G/TBT/N/CHN/1016) - IMS Item No. 425 
2.229.  The representative of the Republic of Korea thanked China for their bilateral meeting and 
looked forwarded to continued cooperation so as to resolve the concerns. Many Members, G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 55 - 
 
  including Korea, adopted technical regulations on lithium ion cells and batteries which were 
harmonized with international standards. However many of China's test requirements for their safety regulation did not correspond with either  the current IEC62133 or its draft revision. He 
requested that China harmonize those requirements with international standards. For those that 
were not, China should provide the scientific rationale and background. Concerning Article 11, he 
asked that China eliminate the requirement from the National Standard or exclude it from mandatory requirements since the safety requirement for system protection circuit could be 
complied by portable electronic equipment ma nufacturers rather than cells and batteries 
manufacturers.  
2.230.  The representative of China said that as lithium batteries were the cause of many injuries 
and even death, China had drafte d a national standard safety requirement in order to protect 
consumer's health and safety. An ad hoc wo rking group established in 2008 developed this 
standard. This working group was consisted by more than 40 lithium producers and science 
research institutes, both domestic and abroad, including many foreign enterprises. After three 
years of in-depth discussion and industry survey s, and three rounds of requests for comments, a 
final version of the draft standard was formulated. She said that, due to a different scope of application, the Chinese standard did not directly  correspond to IEC62133. It adopted the relevant 
criteria of IEC62133, when appropriate, and improved the IEC standard according to the 
characteristics of the lithium battery. A number of proposals based on this Chinese standard had been adopted by the IEC, which illustrated its effectiveness. Therefore, the Chinese standard, based on the relevant international standard, did not violate any TBT Agreement provision or 
principle. 
2.2.3.28  Russian Federation – Measure affect ing import of Ukrainian dairy products - 
IMS Item No. 426) 
2.231.  The representative of Ukraine informed  the Committee that on 7 April 2014 the Russian 
Federation imposed an import ban on dairy products from 6 Ukrainian producers. The ban was 
imposed on the ground of alleged noncompliance wi th requirements of the "Technical regulation on 
milk and dairy products", approved by Federa l Law No. 88 FZ. Since that time, this ban was 
expanded to 27 Ukrainian producers. She said that this measure was being applied in a non-transparent manner as producers were still unaware of the specifics of their alleged noncompliance and have not received any documents regarding the results of the tests conducted by the relevant 
authority of the Russian Federation (Rospotrebnadz or). She noted that all producers affected by 
the ban held certificates of conformity in accordance with the requirements of the Technical Regulation on milk and dairy products. These certificates were issued by accredited certification 
bodies listed in the register of the certification bodies of the Customs Union. For the purposes of 
ensuring safety and quality of their products, she explained that these producers additionally 
achieved: (i) voluntary certification for their dairy products in the accredited regional centres in 
Ukraine for standardization, metrology and certification; (ii) control for product safety and quality 
by the Ukrainian State laboratories of veterinary medicine, in accordance with requirements of the ISO/IEC 17025:2006; and, (iii) certified management systems for safety and quality of food products based on Hazard Analysis and Cr itical Control Points (HACCP) principles. 
2.232.  Ukraine considered that Russia was applying this measure with a view to, and with the 
effect of, creating unnecessary obstacles to trade, in violation of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. 
In addition, Ukraine believed that the unpredictabil ity and the lack of transparency in respect of 
this measure made the measure inconsistent with national treatment and MFN provisions of the 
Article 2.1 of the Agreement. She informed Members that Ukrainian dairy products, some of them from international global companies with decades of excellent standards, had been traditionally 
exported to the Russian Federation for many years.  Some of the producers exported up to 70% of 
their production to the Russian market. Through these measures, however, Russia had effectively 
cut by half the imports of Ukrainian dairy produc ts. Finally, she urged Russia to immediately lift 
the ban in accordance with the Articles 10 an d 2.5 of the Agreement, since no scientific 
information was available to justify the measure. 
2.233.  The representative of the Russian Federati on said that the import suspension of dairy 
products of some Ukrainian companies was introduced due to inconsistencies of these products 
with the technical regulation of the Russian Federation. He reported that requirements for dairy 
products were established in 2008 by the provisions of Federal Law of the Russian Federation "Technical regulation on milk and dairy products" that was adopted on 12 June 2008. As of 1 May G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 56 - 
 
  2014, the technical regulation of the Customs Union "on safety milk and dairy products" (adopted 
by Decision of the Council of Eurasian Economic Commission No. 67 on 9 October 2013) entered into force. Circulation within the territory of the Russian Federation of food products that were not 
in compliance with the provisions of the technical regulation was prohibited. In 2014, he explained, 
the Russian regulating authority (Rospotrebnadzor) had detected that the dairy products produced 
by the some Ukrainian companies contradicted relevant requirements on fat, proteins and moisture content. 
2.234.  He further explained that the measure at issue was introduced to protect consumer rights 
for valid product information and to prevent deceptive trade practices. Given that the decision to suspend dairy products imports from some Ukrainian companies was taken as part of the enforcement of the existing technical regulation, Russia saw no basis for notifying such decision to 
the TBT Committee. In addition, the import suspen sion applied to specific products manufactured 
by specific Ukrainian companies. In any event, he said, the decision at issue was taken in full compliance with the WTO rules, in particular wi th the provisions of the TBT Agreement. The 
representative reported that Rospotrebnadzor was ready to assist the competent authorities of 
Ukraine in developing the measures necessary to resume the circulation of the at issue products in the territory of the Russian Federation. He said th is would lead to the quickest resumption of the 
trade in Ukrainian dairy products on the Russian market. The competent authorities were also 
ready to discuss the questions on a bilateral basis in order to avoid any restrictions in the future. 
2.2.3.29  Ecuador – Draft Technical Regula tion of the Ecuadorian Standardization 
Institute (PRTE INEN) No. 189: "Labelling of alcoholic beverages" - IMS Item No. 433 
2.235.  The representative of Canada noted that the new customs regulation on spirits imports 
covering whisky, vodka, tequila and rum had been approved on 9 August 2013, published in the 
official registry on 23 September 2014 with entry into force 30 days later. This regulation only 
appeared to apply to imported spirts and required labels to be affixed in the country of origin, 
which was contrary to standard practice in the internationally traded spirits industry. The usual practice was to apply, in the country of production, generic front labels providing mandatory 
information and to affix, in the import market any other market specific information on the back or 
secondary label. He asked Ecuador to explain how this requirement was not more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective an d therefore a violation of  Article 2.2 of the TBT 
Agreement. He also asked Ecuador to provide an update with respect to any revisions to the 
regulation. 
2.236.  The representative of Mexico expressed concern with the fact that the measure did not 
provide for any possibility of labelling or relabeling in the primary area of the product. She was 
also concerned with the requirement that the name of the Ecuadorian importer be affixed on the 
label. She said that Mexico considered that thes e requirements could be in contravention of the 
TBT Agreement, specifically Article 2.2, as it wa s debateable whether this measure constituted the 
least restrictive alternative to fulfil the legiti mate objective pursued. She requested that the 
requirement of a label of origin with the name of the importer in Ecuador be removed, and that Ecuador reply to the comments formally submitted by Mexico on 2 July 2014. 
2.237.  The representative of Ecuador informed the Committee that this draft regulation on the 
requirements for the labelling of alcoholic drinks was to protect human health and safety, and 
prevent deceptive practices. This measure applied to both domestically produced and imported to 
beverages. National and importing producers had to prove compliance through the submission of 
an inspection certificate. This certificate could only be accepted in Spanish. She said the competent 
authorities were looking at revising the measure in view of the comments received 
2.2.3.30  European Union – Proposal for a Dire ctive of the European Parliament and of 
the Council amending Directive 96/53/EC of 25 July 1996 laying down for certain road 
vehicles circulating within the Community  the maximum authorised dimensions in 
national and international traffic and the ma ximum authorised weights in international 
traffic (COM(2013) 195 final) (G/TBT/N/EU/109) - IMS Item No. 434 
2.238.  The representative of the United States th anked the EU for the bilateral discussion on this 
issue, in particular the EU's confirmation that the proposal allowed for derogations from the fixed 
dimensions. Her delegation appreciated that the EU had noted the US concern that any technical G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 57 - 
 
  specifications developed for type approval include the ability to use an aerodynamic cabin to 
qualify for such derogations. She also appreciated that industry would be able to participate in stakeholder meetings on this subject. 
2.239.  The representative of the European Union thanked the US and looked forward to continued 
discussions bilaterally. 
2.2.3.31  Ireland – Proposal to introduce standardised/plain packaging of tobacco 
products in Ireland (G/TBT/N/IRL/1, G/TBT/N/IRL/1/Add.1) - IMS Item No. 380 
2.240.  The representative of Malawi expressed her delegation's concerns regarding the 
consistency of the proposed measure with the TBT and TRIPS Agreements. She also requested 
Ireland to abstain from any tobacco plain packaging legislation until the WTO disputes lodged against Australia's plain packaging measures had been concluded. Malawi's full statement is 
contained in G/TBT/W/393. 
2.241.  The representative of Ukraine said that  this proposed plain packaging measure raised 
concerns under WTO law, including Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement requiring that technical 
regulations be not be more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective. While 
protecting public health by reducing smoking prevalence was unquestionably a legitimate objective, Ukraine also believed that the availabl e scientific evidence and data indicated that plain 
packaging did not contribute to that objective an d would, in fact, have unintended consequences 
against the attainment of this objective. She also said that, as a third party to the dispute Ukraine and four other Members have lodged against Austra lia over its plain packaging measure, the EU, 
and thus Ireland, would have already seen the evidence showing the lack of contribution the 
Australia measure was able to make towards its st ated objective. Ukraine therefore reiterated its 
concern that plain packaging measures, such as th e one proposed by Ireland, appeared to violate 
Ireland's obligations under the TBT and TRIPS Agreements. Further, Ukraine understood that a 
number of EU member states have registered objections with the European Commission regarding 
the impact of the proposed Irish measure on the EU Common Market. Given this state of affairs, Ukraine would appreciate an update on the intern al EU process and the impact this process may 
have on the Irish proposal in terms of substance and timing. Finally, Ukraine considered that it 
would be prudent for Ireland to await the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body in the dispute over Australia's similar measure to ensure that its proposed technical regulation would be adopted in line with its WTO obligations. 
2.242.  The representative of the Dominican Republic associated herself with the statements made 
by Malawi and Ukraine and urged Members that  were planning to implement tobacco plain 
packaging measures to wait until the conclusion of the Australian disputes.  
2.243.  The representative of Australia reiterated his delegation's strong support for the decision 
by Ireland to legislate for the mandatory plain packaging of tobacco products. In particular, 
Australia welcomed the presentation of implementing legislation to the Irish Parliament in June 
2014. The important steps made by Ireland in toba cco control demonstrated that efforts to delay 
the adoption of tobacco plain packaging measures in these countries have not been successful. Australia firmly believed that Members had the right to implement measures necessary to protect public health, while complying with relevant international treaty obligations, including the TBT 
Agreement. Tobacco plain packaging was a legitima te measure designed to achieve a fundamental 
objective: the protection of human health. The adoption of tobacco plain packaging measures was a policy choice endorsed by leading public health experts as well as the World Health Organization 
and was supported by extensive credible peer revi ewed research, reports and studies. Australia's 
own tobacco plain packaging measure, currently being litigated in the WTO, was consistent with Australia's obligations under the WTO Agreements. It was inappropriate for complainants in these 
disputes underway against Australia to invoke those proceedings in an attempt to delay or 
discourage another Member from developing or implementing their own legitimate tobacco control measures. 
2.244.  The representative of Guatemala stated th at while her delegation shared Ireland's policy 
objectives related to public health and tobacco control; it was nevertheless concerned with the 
proposed legislation and encouraged Ireland to consider less trade restrictive alternative measures. G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 58 - 
 
  2.245.  The representative of Cuba stated that wh ile her delegation shared the view that Members 
had the sovereign right to regulate to protect public health, such measures had to be drafted 
respecting Members' WTO obligations. Cuba conti nued to have reservations with respect to the 
usefulness of plain packaging and was concerned with its trade restrictiveness. She also requested 
Ireland to abstain from any tobacco plain packaging legislation until the WTO disputes lodged 
against Australia's plain packaging measures had been concluded.  
2.246.  The representative of Honduras stated her delegation's concern that Ireland was 
introducing a measure – tobacco plain packaging - similar to a measure, by Australia, currently 
being challenged by five disputes before the DSB, and which had also been object of concerns from many Members in this Committee as well as other WTO bodies. Honduras informed the Committee that, as a complainant in the Australian dispute, it had submitted its first written 
submission to the Panel on 8 October 2014, which included concrete evidence showing that this 
kind of measure was not reducing tobacco consumption in the Australian population. Honduras also reiterated that it was not calling into question Members' right to adopt measures to protect 
public health; but only that, in as far as they do so, such measures needed to be based on solid 
scientific evidence and comply with WTO rules. Ho nduras therefore urged Ireland to reconsider the 
introduction of this measure which lacked scientific basis, was unnecessarily trade restrictive and 
also constituted a violation of intellectual property rights such as trademarks and geographical 
indications. In this context, Honduras asked Irel and to wait for the conclusion of the Australian 
plain packaging WTO dispute before taking a decision on its own similar measure. 
2.247.  The representative of Indonesia requested Ireland to abstain from any tobacco plain 
packaging legislation until the WTO disputes lodged against Australia's plain packaging measures 
had been concluded. 
2.248.  The representative of Zimbabwe associated himself with the concerns expressed my 
Malawi, Ukraine, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Honduras and Indonesia.  2.249.  The representative of Uruguay was of the view that the proposed Irish plain packaging 
measure was compatible with WTO rules and fell within the sovereign rights Members had to 
legislate to promote public interests. Such a right was reaffirmed by the "Punta de Este 
Declaration", adopted during the FCTC's 2010 COP,  and the "Moscow Declaration", adopted during 
the FCTC's 2014 COP. In implemen ting such a measure, Ireland would be thus merely exercising 
its sovereign right to protect public health by givi ng effect to the obligations it had undertaken as a 
party to the WHO FCTC, in particular its Articl e 11 and relevant implementing guidelines, which 
were adopted by consensus. Uruguay requested that this statement to be equally applicable to the 
subsequent SCTs on the plain packaging measures by the UK and Australia. 
2.250.  The representative of Norway referred Me mbers to her delegation's previous statement 
made under the new STC with respect to the proposed tobacco plain packaging measure by 
France. She also rejected the view that other Members should wait the end of the Australian 
dispute before implementing their own plain packaging measures. 
2.251.  The representative of New Zealand support ed Ireland's decision to commence the process 
of introducing a plain packaging regime for all tobacco products. She also referred Members to her 
delegation's previous statement made under the new STC with respect to the proposed tobacco 
plain packaging measure by France.  
2.252.  The representative of Nigeria expressed he r delegation's concern that plain packaging for 
tobacco could serve as a dangerous precedent for other heavy regulated products, like foods and 
carbonated drinks, in particular due to their effects to the intellectual property rights related to 
these products. She also requested Ireland to abstain from adopting any tobacco plain packaging legislation until the WTO disputes lodged against Australia's plain packaging measures had been 
concluded. 
2.253.  The representative of Nicaragua said that the statement his delegation made in the 
present meeting in the context of the STC on France's proposed plain packaging measure was 
equally applicable to this STC as well as the next two concerns involving similar measures by the 
UK and Australia. G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 59 - 
 
  2.254.  The representative of the European Union noted that tobacco products have being 
recognised as having harmful effects on human health. In this sense, Article 2.2 of the TBT 
Agreement included the protection of human health  as a legitimate objective. The Agreement also 
recognised that any measure pursuant to this legitimate objective must not be more trade 
restrictive than necessary and create unnecessary obstacles to international trade. It should also 
be noted that Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994 emphasised the importance of public health by justifying measures "necessary to protect human … health". She called Member's attention to the 
Irish Government's statement that the Bill aimed at further reducing the smoking prevalence in 
Ireland by reducing the attractiveness of tobacco  products, especially among young people, and 
that the measures were a response to the packaging design strategies developed by tobacco companies in recent years, which were aimed at young people, including young women. The 
notified draft constituted the latest strand of a comprehensive range of tobacco control legislation 
already in place in Ireland aimed at decreasing tobacco consumption. Such other measures under existing Irish law included the following: (i) a comprehensive smoke free legislation; (ii) a ban in 
place on smoking at the workplace; (iii) a ban on tobacco advertising and sponsorship; and (iv) a 
ban on the display of tobacco products in shops. In addition, all tobacco products placed on the 
Irish market must display combined text and graphic health warnings. Certain types of sale 
promotions were also prohibited. Further, the smoking of tobacco products in vehicles where 
children were present would also be prohibited  by a law to be enacted by the end of 2014.  
2.255.  In addition to the notified draft, Ireland made available to TBT Committee Members, 
through a TBT notification, an explanatory memorandum that detailed the rationale of the measure 
and its expected health impacts, a regulatory impact analysis and several scientific studies on the 
impact of plain packaging on smoking prevalence. In parallel with the WTO notification, Ireland 
has also notified the proposed measure to the European Commission in accordance with internal 
EU requirements for notification of draft national technical regulations under Article 8 (1) of 
Directive 98/34/EC and under Article 24 (2) of the Tobacco Products Directive 2014/40/EU. Under 
these internal EU procedures, Ireland received detailed opinions and comments from some EU 
member states. These comments were currently being analysed and considered by the Irish 
authorities. As regards comments that may be received from WTO Members under the WTO TBT 
notification procedure, these would be equally ex amined and written replies be provided in due 
course. 
2.2.3.32  United Kingdom – Proposal to intr oduce plain packaging of tobacco products 
(G/TBT/N/GBR/2) - IMS Item No. 424 
2.256.  The representative of the Dominican Re public expressed her delegation's concerns 
regarding the consistency of the proposed measure with the TBT and TRIPS Agreements. The full 
statement of the Dominican Republic is containe d in G/TBT/W/397, the content of which it, by 
their request, is to be equally applicable to the following STC on Australia's plain packaging 
measures. 
2.257.  The representative of Malawi expressed her delegation's concerns regarding the 
consistency of the proposed measure with the TB T and TRIPS Agreements. She also requested the 
UK to abstain from any tobacco plain packaging legislation until the WTO disputes lodged against 
Australia's plain packaging measures had been concluded. Malawi's full statement is contained in 
G/TBT/W/394. 
2.258.  The representative of Australia reiterated its delegation's strong support for the decision by 
the UK to legislate for the mandatory plain packaging of tobacco products. Australia welcomed, in 
particular, the UK's release of draft regulations on  standardised packaging of tobacco products for 
public consultation. This followed the findings of an independent review that concluded that 
"standardised" packaging of tobacco products would be very likely to reduce the rate of children 
taking up smoking and have a positive impact on pu blic health. In the interest of efficient use of 
time, Australia said that it would not repeat in full its earlier statements, but rather refer Members to the comments it have made on similar issues, and in particular: (i) that Members had the right 
to take action in the interest of public health concerns; (ii) that measures be based on credible 
evidence; and (iii) Australia's firm belief that pl ain packaging measures were fully compliant with 
Members' WTO commitments. Australia welcomed the references to the DSB proceedings on its 
own measures. However, as these proceedings were still ongoing, he suggested that the correct 
approach under Article 14 of the TBT Agreement wa s to leave substantive discussion of Australia's 
measures to that specific WTO body. G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 60 - 
 
  2.259.  The representative of Ukraine stated her delegation's concern that plain packaging 
measures were more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil their health protection objective as 
they failed to actually contribute to reducing smoking while being trade restrictive. Such measures therefore appeared to be contrary to Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement. With respect to the UK's 
proposed measure, Ukraine would appreciate to receive from the UK an update on the status of 
the proposal. Since the last meeting of this Committee, the UK conducted a public consultation on the proposed measure. Ukraine would be particularly  interested to know when the results of this 
consultation process would be released. In closing, Ukraine would like also to suggest that it would 
be prudent for the UK to await the recommendatio ns and rulings of the DSB in the dispute over 
Australia's measure to ensure that this proposed technical regulation would be consistent with its WTO obligations. 
2.260.  The representative of Honduras expressed her delegation's concern with the proposed 
measure's inconsistencies with the TRIPS and TBT Agreements. While Honduras fully shared the 
aim of protecting human health, it also consider ed these measures to be more trade restrictive 
than necessary for achieving these objectives. Honduras recalled that in its first written submission 
as a complainant in the Australian dispute, it had made it clear that the plain packaging measures 
at issue were not based on sufficient scienti fic evidence and were an unnecessarily trade 
restrictive, and also that they were affecting Honduras' intellectual property rights, which were key 
elements for the economic development of a country. Honduras urged the UK to await the 
conclusion of the Australian dispute before implementing its own plain packaging measure. 
2.261.  The representative of Cuba expressed co ncern regarding the consistency of the proposed 
measure with the WTO Agreements, in particular the TBT and TRIPS Agreements. Cuba considered 
that the proposed measure lacked scientific basis and was more trade restrictive than necessary to 
the attainment of its stated public health objective. It also requested the UK to abstain from 
implementing any tobacco plain packaging legi slation until the WTO disputes lodged against 
Australia's plain packaging measures had reached a conclusion and the results could be assessed.  
2.262.  The representative of Indonesia supported the concerns raised by the Dominican Republic 
and Malawi and asked Members intending to implement plain packaging measures to wait until the 
conclusion of the Australian dispute. Indonesia also referred to the arguments it had made in the present meeting with respect to the STCs raised with respect to the proposed plain packaging measures by France and Ireland. 
2.263.  The representative of Guatemala supported the concerns raised by the Dominican Republic 
and Malawi and said that, while her delegation  acknowledged the legitimate rights the UK 
government had to protect public health, it nevertheless considered that this had to be done in a 
less trade restrictive way possible. Guatemala asked Members intending to implement plain 
packaging measures to wait until the conclusion of the Australian dispute. Guatemala asked these points to be also equally applicable to the next STC on Australia's plain packaging measures. 
2.264.  The representative of Norway referred Memb ers to its previous statements under the STCs 
raised with respect to the proposed plain pa ckaging measures by France and Ireland and 
commended the UK on its measures to combat the tobacco epidemic.  
2.265.  The representative of Nigeria stated its concerns with the negative impact of the proposed 
measure on branding and consumers as well as on the Nigerian economy, given that Nigeria is an 
important producer of tobacco leaves, a sector that provides income to its farmers. Nigeria considered that this proposal would be in breach of the EU's WTO obligations, including under the 
TRIPS and TBT Agreements.  
2.266.  The representative of New Zealand lent support to the EU decision to introduce further 
controls on the packaging of tobacco products. She also noted the recent findings of the 
independent review into the public health effect s of standardised packaging of tobacco products, 
commissioned by the UK Government. In particular, she quoted the following conclusion of Sir Cyril Chantler's report: "… after a careful review of all of the relevant evidence before me I am satisfied there is sufficient evidence derived from  independent sources that the introduction of 
standardised packaging as part of a comprehensive policy of tobacco control measures would be 
very likely over time to contribute to a mode st but important reduction in smoking prevalence 
especially in children and young adults. Given the dangers of smoking, the suffering that it causes, G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 61 - 
 
  the highly addictive nature of nicotine, the fact that most smokers become addicted when they are 
children or young adults and the overall cost to so ciety, the importance of such a reduction should 
not be underestimated." 
2.267.  The representative of Zimbabwe shared the concerns expressed by the Dominican 
Republic, Malawi, Ukraine, Honduras, Cuba, Indone sia, Guatemala and Nigeria, and stated that 
Zimbabwe's statement was equally applicable to the next concern on Australia's plain packaging measure.  
2.268.  The representative of the European Union noted that tobacco products have being 
recognised as having harmful effects on human health. In this sense, Article 2.2 of the TBT 
Agreement included the protection of human health  as a legitimate objective. The Agreement also 
recognised that any measure pursuant to this legitimate objective must not be more trade 
restrictive than necessary and create unnecessary obstacles to international trade. It should also 
be noted that Article XX(b) of the GATT 1994 emphasised the importance of public health by justifying measures "necessary to protect human … health". She said that the UK's decision to 
proceed with the Regulations had not yet been ma de. If taken forward, she said, the UK draft 
Regulation on Standardised Packaging of Tobacco Products aimed at further reducing the smoking 
prevalence in the UK by: (i) discouraging uptake of tobacco use by young people; (ii) encouraging 
and supporting tobacco users who want to quit; an d (iii) reducing people's exposure to second 
hand smoke. The proposed UK measure would form the latest strand of a comprehensive range of 
tobacco control legislation already in place in the UK aimed at decreasing tobacco consumption. Under such existing legislation, there were already: (i) a ban on advertising tobacco products to 
the general public; (ii) a ban of tobacco sponsors hip to sports and cultural events; and (iii) a 
prohibition for companies to give out free samples of tobacco. Furthermore, pictorial warnings on tobacco products were also required in the UK and the sale of these products from vending 
machines was prohibited, including, as from 2015 on, tobacco displays in all shops being 
prohibited.  
2.269.  In addition to the notified draft, th e UK made available to TBT Committee Members, 
through a TBT notification, an explanatory memorandum that detailed the rationale of the measure 
and its expected health impacts, a regulatory impact analysis and several scientific studies on the impact of plain packaging on smoking prevalence. In parallel with the WTO notification, the UK has 
also notified the proposed measure to the European Commission in accordance with internal EU 
requirements for notification of draft national technical regulations. Under these internal EU 
procedures, the UK received detailed opinions and comments from some EU member states. These comments were currently being analysed and considered by the UK authorities. As regards 
comments that may be received from WTO Members under the WTO TBT notification procedure, 
these would be equally examined and written replies be provided in due course. 
2.2.3.33  Australia – Tobacco Plain Packaging Bill 2011 (G/TBT/N/AUS/67, 
G/TBT/N/AUS/67/Add.1, G/TBT/N/AU S/67/Add.2) – IMS Item No. 304 
2.270.  The representative of Ukraine explained th at the reason why Ukraine requested that this 
"old" agenda item be reintroduced the Committee agenda was to allow Ukraine to provide a brief 
update to the Committee on the facts relating to this measure, which was currently the subject of 
a WTO dispute settlement proceeding. This update was mainly a matter of courtesy and 
transparency for the whole of the WTO membership, given that the parties and third parties to the disputes have now seen the full presentation of  Ukraine's evidence and arguments in its first 
written submission in the context of that dispute. Ukraine considered that it would be useful for all 
Members to be informed of developments in respec t of the concerns that Ukraine previously raised 
over Australia's measure from the perspective of  the TBT Agreement, now almost two years after 
its entry into force. The evidence available to da te, which has been submitted in the context of the 
dispute settlement process, showed that the Aust ralian tobacco plain packaging measure was not 
contributing to the stated objective of improving public health by reducing smoking prevalence in 
Australia. The measure, however, was already di storting competition in the market and it was 
highly realistic that the perverse market dynamic that this measure set in motion would continue, 
leading to the opposite result than the intended objective of reducing smoking. The quantitative 
and qualitative evidence availabl e to Ukraine demonstrated that this measure was an unnecessary 
obstacle to trade because it restricted trade without making any contributing to the fulfilment of its 
legitimate objective (and, actually, it even went against that objective). Ukraine looked forward to 
the WTO Panel's objective assessment of the evid ence presented by Ukraine as well as to the G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 62 - 
 
  Panel's analysis of the legal arguments. Australia would, of course, be able to present its case to 
the WTO Panel as well and that was the way concerns over measures covered by the WTO Agreements were to be resolved in accordance with  the rules of the DSU. In this respect, Ukraine 
informed the Committee that this dispute settlem ent process should move forward in the most 
expeditious way possible. 
2.271.  The representative of Honduras shared th e concerns expressed by Ukraine with regard to 
the possibility that other Members would follow Au stralia's example and adopt legislation on plain 
packaging for tobacco products. As one of the co complainants of the ongoing dispute lodged 
against Australia's plain packaging measure, Honduras had presented its first written submission to the Panel. In that submission, Honduras includ ed expert and empirical evidence with regard to 
the effects of the measure in the Australian ma rket. This evidence demonstrated that plain 
packaging was an experiment that had failed. The empirical data following the implementation of 
the measure in December 2012 confirmed that plain packaging had not reduced tobacco use in Australia. Instead of this, this measure had in fact led to a phenomenon, known as "substitution 
effect", which made that consumers replaced high priced brands by cheaper brands. In its written 
submission to the Panel, Honduras had made it clear that the dispute was not whether smoking was a danger or whether it affected public he alth. Clearly, the response was yes for both 
questions. Honduras also shared Australia's objective to reduce the use of tobacco and this was 
why Honduras itself also had various strict tobacco control rules. On the other hand, in Honduras's view, Australia's measure on plain packaging was an unprecedented instrument that resulted in the elimination of all registered trademarks used in a product that was legally sold in Australia. As 
Honduras had explained to the Panel, Australia had at its disposal various less trade restrictive 
alternative measures. The existence of alternative measures that could contribute to the declared public health objectives in the same level as plain packaging, confirmed the unjustifiable and 
unnecessary character of plain packaging. For the forgoing reasons, the Australian measures 
violated its obligations under the TRIPS and TBT Agreements. Finally, Honduras urged other Members planning to introduce similar plain packaging measures to wait until the Australian 
dispute would be over and the compatibility of its measures with WTO disciplines had been 
reviewed by the DSB. 
2.272.  The representative of Canada expressed hi s delegation's support for the efforts of France, 
Ireland, UK and Australia with respect to tobacco control. Tobacco use was a very significant 
problem in Canada and in the world. In Canada alone 37,000 people died annual from tobacco use, 
making it Canada's leading cause of preventable deaths by disease. Tobacco products were also the only goods that were subject to a legally bi nding international treaty, the WHO's FCTC. Canada 
believed that Members should engage in these disc ussions bearing in mind the complete economic 
picture regarding tobacco control, including the question whether tobacco constituted a net "economic drain" for many countries with respect to its health costs. Canada was interested in the 
further discussions on the appropriate balance betw een regulation, international trade and public 
health. 
2.273.  The representative of Cuba said that her delegation supported the statements made by its 
other fellow co complainants in the Australian dispute, Ukraine and Honduras. She also said that 
the statements Cuba made in this meeting in context of the other STCs involving plain packaging 
proposed measures were equally applicable to this STC.  
2.274.  The representative of Indonesia said that, as the other co-complainants in the Australian 
dispute, his delegation had also presented to the Panel its own first written submission on 8 
October 2014. Indonesia believed that public health regulations should not be more trade restrictive than necessary. More specifically, Indonesia noted that after two years in force, the 
Australian measure was not working as intended. Indonesia also asked all Members currently 
planning to implement similar plain packaging measures to wait until the Australian dispute was over. Finally, Indonesia asked this statement to be considered as equally appliance to the other STCs discussed in this meeting involving proposed  plain packaging measures by France, Ireland 
and the UK.  
2.275.  The representative of Nigeria stated its concerns with the negative impact of the proposed 
measure on international trade and asked that her delegation's previous statements with respect 
to the other STCs on proposed plain packaging to be considered as equally applicable to this 
particular STC.  G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 63 - 
 
  2.276.  The representative of Australia noted the continued interest of other Members in its 
initiative to require the plain packaging of to bacco products, and acknowledged the significant 
amount of support it has received for this important measure. As other Members were aware, Australia's measure was currently before the DSB for resolution following the initiation of dispute 
settlement proceedings by Ukraine, Honduras, Indonesia, the Dominican Republic, and Cuba. In 
this respect, he draw Members' attention to Arti cle 14 of the TBT Agreement, which stated that the 
settlement of disputes "with respect to any matter affecting the operation of this Agreement shall 
take place under the auspices of the [DSB]". Australia was therefore both disappointed and 
surprised to see this issue raised again in the TBT Committee. Australia did not consider it appropriate for Ukraine to raise this measure as a STC for discussion as Australia's measure was no longer a matter for the TBT Committee's consideration. Discussion of Australia's tobacco plain 
packaging measure in this Committee would create a "parallel process" alongside the ongoing 
dispute settlement proceedings, which would undermine the rules and procedures for participation of Members in those disputes, particularly for the 41 Members that have requested participation in 
the related tobacco plain packaging disputes as third parties. Australia's tobacco plain packaging 
measure has already been raised as a STC and been the subject of detailed debate at several previous TBT Committee meetings in 2011 and 2012, prior to the commencement of dispute 
settlement proceedings. It was clear from the fact that the measure was now subject to dispute 
settlement proceedings that the views of Members raising this measure as a concern remain unchanged. Re consideration of this measure by the TBT Committee was therefore unnecessarily duplicative, and was contrary to Rule 27 of th e Rules of Procedure for Meetings of the TBT 
Committee, which provided that: "Representatives should make every effort to avoid the repetition 
of a full debate at each meeting on any issue th at has already been fully debated in the past and 
on which there appears to have been no change  in Members' positions already on record." 
Australia expressed its hope that such unnecessary use of this Committee's time would not be 
repeated in the future. 
2.2.3.34  Ecuador – Proposed Motor Vehicle Sa fety Regulatory Requ irements (RTE INEN 
034) (G/TBT/N/ECU/32, G/TBT/N/ECU/32/Add.1, G/TBT/N/ECU/32/Add.2, 
G/TBT/N/ECU/32/Add.3, G/ TBT/N/ECU/32/Add.4, G/TBT/N/ECU/32/Add.6) - IMS 
Item No. 409 
2.277.  The representative of Mexico said that despite bilateral discussions (held in 2003), 
Mexico's observations had not been incorporated in the most recent publication of RTE INEN 034. 
Mexico considered that Ecuador had failed to comply with Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement because its proposed technical regulation was only  based on the requirements established by the 
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) without also considering as valid 
references the other existing standards, such as those from of the United States, Japan or Korea. With respect to the "third party" certification re quirement, under the measure' section dealing with 
conformity assessment procedures, Mexico considered that Ecuador should bear in mind that 
third party certification must be exceptional in the automotive sector, given that this was a sector regulated internationally with vehicles normally being certified at the origin. Regarding the transition period for the entry into force of the regulation, a period of 180 days (six months) was 
established for implementation of the compulsory safety provisions. Mexico considered, however, 
that this was an insufficient period for producers to be able to introduce the requested changes. On the basis of the foregoing, Mexico requested Ecua dor: (i) to extend to 2-years transition period 
for implementation of the changes envisaged in the technical regulation, as from the date of its 
publication; (ii) with regard to the safety requ irements, to accept the conformity assessment in 
accordance with the rules of the United Nations Ec onomic Commission for Europe (UNECE), as well 
as the regulations of the United States ("Federa l Motor Vehicle Safety Standards" – FMVSS), Japan 
(SRRV), the Republic of Korea ("Korea Motor Vehicle Safety Standards" – KMVSS) and Brazil ("National Transit Council" – CONTRAN); and (iii) with regard to the assessment of conformity with the technical regulation in question, it wa s requested that the alternative process of 
"self-certification" be allowed, since bearing in mind the specific characteristics of the automotive 
sector (a sector regulated internationally), the reports of tests carried out by the manufacturer could be recognized as valid. 
2.278.  The representative of Brazil said that his delegation was following this concern very closely 
and that it shared the concerns raised by Mexico. G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 64 - 
 
  2.279.  The representative of Ecuador said that he r delegation took note of the points made by 
Mexico and Brazil, which would be also included in their next bilateral meetings given that they 
had only recently been introduced on the agenda. 
2.3  Exchange of Experiences 
2.3.1  Preparation of the 7th Triennial Review  
2.280.  The Chairman recalled that the Committee was scheduled to complete the Seventh 
Triennial Review at its 3-5 November 2015 meeting in line with the Article 15.4 of the TBT 
Agreement. He stressed that, as usual, the Review would be based on substantive proposals – and 
he encouraged Members to submit these as soon as possible. The following timeline7 was agreed:  
a. 4-6 November 2014 : TBT Committee meeting (discussion on approach and any 
substantive proposals submitted); 
b. End-February 2015: circulation by Secretariat of outline compiling relevant information 
available to the review; 
c. 17-19 March 2015 : TBT Committee meeting (discussion of substantive proposals); 
d. 1 June 2015: deadline for the submission of substantive proposals by Members;  
e. 16-18 June 2015 : TBT Committee meeting (discussion of substantive proposals); 
f. July 2015: circulation by Secretariat of first draft report of the Review;  
g. End-August 2015: submission of written comments from Members on the first draft;  
h. End-September 2015: circulation of second draft report of the Triennial Review; 
i. 3-5 November 2015 : TBT Committee meeting (adoption of the Seventh Triennial 
Review). 
2.281.  The representative of El Salvador thanked the Chairman for having provided a clear 
timeline for the 7th Triennial Review process and stressed the importance her delegations 
attributed to the Committee's triennial review mandate. 
2.282.  The Chairman proposed that the thematic  sessions in 2015 focus on proposals made in the 
context of the 7th Triennial Review. He suggested that the time scheduled for the thematic sessions 
(informal mode) be used to discuss specific proposals from Members and also to reflect on how to 
address relevant existing recommendations. This would not preclude discussion on other topics if 
Members came forward with specific proposals. This  would mean that the first thematic session for 
2015 (scheduled for 17 March 2015) would focus on any 7th triennial review proposals tabled by 
then.8 It was so agreed.  
2.3.2  Transparency 
2.283.  The representative of Canada introduced his delegation's proposal contained in document 
JOB/TBT/109. He stressed that the objective of the proposal was to enhance transparency and 
dissemination of existing information pertaining to all WTO Members' domestic regulations that can 
impact trade. It was Canada's view that the information available through the WTO Secretariat could be better disseminated to interested entities inside and outside Member governments. In 
this way, rather than 160 national  systems, there would be only one system managed through the 
WTO Secretariat. There would be a "push" email system which would allow users to identify countries or sectors that they would be interested in monitoring. The service would consolidate on a daily basis the most recent TBT notifications posted on the WTO website and would send it in an 
                                               
7 JOB/TBT/108. 
8 For more detail see the Chairman's follow-up communication of 4 December 2014 (sent by fax to all 
Members). G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 65 - 
 
  automatic e-mail to subscribers (it would include relevant information, such as: dates, links to 
texts). While he acknowledged that several Members had created such national systems (e.g., US, EU, Kenya) there would clearly be efficiencies from the WTO developing a single  global export alert 
system for existing TBT notifications. 
2.284.  The representative of El Salvador aske d if this would system be implemented on a 
voluntary or mandatory basis.  
2.285.  The representative of Chile noted that Ca nada had raised a fundamental issue in the area 
of transparency. Currently, different Members were making efforts to improve procedures aimed at 
alerting the public and private sector about TBT me asures, and, in particular their potential impact 
on exports. While there might be duplication, the WTO was in a good place to establish a system which would be more efficient and this would be of particular importance to those developing 
countries that did not have the resources to set up their own systems. It was also important to 
bear in mind that public consultations had little effect if the TBT notifications did not reach the interested stakeholders at the right time. In this regard, the WTO Secretariat could deliver a better 
service than the one rendered currently. Canada's proposal therefore needed to be maintained on 
the work programme of the Committee. 
2.286.  The representative of Mexico recognized that the aim of the Canadian proposal was to 
develop a common, joint platform – improving on the existing system – to optimize resources 
aimed at creating national systems for alerts. This would, in Mexico's understanding, represent a new mechanism for dialogue between regulators, private sector and other stakeholders involved in the implementation of the TBT Agreement. Mexico  stressed the importance of reviewing this 
proposal in the Committee. 
2.287.  The representative of Uganda supporte d the Canadian proposal and made substantive 
additional suggestions. His detailed statement is reflected in full in document G/TBT/GEN/176. 
2.288.  The representative of the United States noted that the Canadian proposal could be 
particularly important for those countries that did not already have their own alert systems. She 
expressed her delegation's concern that, while the Canadian proposed system was intended as a 
complement, the development of a WTO-based system could negatively impact Members which 
already had such a system in place, or those which were currently either planning for a new system or for upgrading existing ones. Members wi th existing alert systems might have to face a 
situation of possible reductions in subscribers, confusion among stakeholders, a potential a loss of 
data on subscriber activity, increased circumvention of enquiry points to submit comments, and 
reduced contacts between Members, industry an d various stakeholders. The US also stressed 
dependence of existing systems on the current  version of the IMS and Docs-Online and warned 
that possible changes to the current system – be cause of the development of a new one – could 
have a negative impact. Nevertheless, the US supported efforts to increase awareness among stakeholders of measures notified to the TBT Committee. She informed the Committee that the US 
was currently in the process of developing an  updated version of its own alert system.  
2.289.  The representative of Switzerland characterized the instrument proposed by Canada as an 
inclusive public good, crucial for the adequate functioning of the TBT notification procedures – and 
at the heart of how to better involve the private sector. He said that the current WTO IMS would 
b e n e f i t  f r o m  a n  u p g r a d e  a n d  t h a t  i t  n e e d e d  t o  b e  m a d e  m o r e  u s e r - f r i e n d l y .  I n  t h i s  r e g a r d ,  h e  
recalled the contributions made to the Committee's 6th Triennial Review and, in particular, the 
proposal tabled by the European Union9 which, among other things, called for an enhancement of 
current WTO IT information systems.10 Switzerland proposed that the Committee request an 
upgrade of current systems in the context of the Committee's upcoming 7th Triennial Review. 
2.290.  The representative of Brazil welcomed the Canadian proposal and considered it a helpful 
contribution that would be useful for both governments and the private sector. Brazil viewed this 
proposal complementary to national initiatives, such as Brazil's own alert system ( Alerta 
Exportador11); in other words, the systems could live side-by-side. Brazil stressed the importance 
of making available, as suggested in paragraph 2.6 of Canada's proposal, the full regulatory text 
                                               
9 G/TBT/W/354, dated 12 June 2012. 
10 See, in particular, the recommendations co ntained in paragraphs 17 and 18 of G/TBT/32. 
11 http://www.brasilexport. gov.br/alerta-exportador   G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 66 - 
 
  (e.g., via a hyperlink). He stressed the importance of such texts being made available for 
download in an accessible file format that could be processed by translation tools. 
2.291.  The representative of China asked who would be responsible for daily maintenance of alert 
system, whether it would use only the WTO work ing languages, and whether there would be a 
budget for the project. 
2.292.  The representative of the European Unio n recalled, like Switzerland, the Committee's 
previous discussion in the context of the 6th Triennial Review on how to improve the TBT IMS, 
including the initial discussions on an alert system. He also recalled that in that occasion the 
Committee had concluded that any improvement on TBT IMS would be beneficial to those who did 
not have resources to develop their own web-based applications. In general, the EU expressed its 
interest in engaging in a discussion of further improvements to IMS, particularly on with respect to 
increase the system's user-friendliness. Like the United States, he noted, however, that some 
Members had already invested significant financial and human resources in developing their own national alert systems. Thus, the implications of future WTO-based alert system for existing 
systems needed to be carefully considered. He also pointed out that national systems could, to 
some extent, be even better than a global one at  reaching certain categories of stakeholders. He 
said that the EU would give serious consideration to the Canadian proposal and noted that the 
Committee could – along with the topic of transparen cy and IT more broadly - discuss it further at 
the upcoming thematic session on the 7
th triennial review in March 2015. 
2.293.  The representative of Ukraine supported th e Canadian proposal and noted the benefits it 
could have for stakeholders. She was of the view that to have a common platform, operated by 
the WTO, could be the optimal solution for many enquiry points and notification authorities 
considering their own limited resources. Nevert heless, further consideration and discussion was 
necessary in the Committee. 
2.294.  The representatives of Chinese Taipei, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, the 
Philippines and Trinidad and Tobago welcomed the Canadian initiative as it built on the 
transparency provisions of the TBT Agreement. Th e importance of an efficient and effective alert 
system that facilitated a dissemination of informat ion to stakeholders, in particular in developing 
countries, was noted. The representative of Chinese Taipei informed the Committee that its notification authority would join the TBT on-line notification system (TBT-NSS) on 1 January 2015.  
2.295.  The representative of Canada responded to a number of issues raised. With respect to the 
voluntary or compulsory nature of the proposal, he stressed that the proposal was not intended to 
create any additional requirements on Members; rather, it was intended to make existing information more readily available and interpretabl e for stakeholders or go vernments. It was about 
"packaging" the information, not requesting more of it. Canada further noted that UN DESA was 
currently considering a similar initiative aimed at least developed countries (LDCs) and that synergies could be explored. With respect to the role of national initiatives, Canada drew the 
Committee's attention to paragraph 2.9 of its proposal which suggested that Members' Enquiry 
points could login to the alert notification system  that would filter and provide Enquiry Point staff 
with a database of subscribers registered in their country – this could actually enhance the 
information provided and make the proposed system more relevant. On China's point about 
operation, working languages and budget – this would have to be discussed subsequently.  
2.296.  The Secretariat noted that it was open to  enhancing the existing TBT IMS and that it had 
done so previously on a step-by-step basis in  response to Committee recommendations. Should 
the Canadian proposal further evolve and a mandate be established by the Committee, for 
instance in the form of a recommendation, the fe asibility of implementing the project would be 
assessed, including with respect to resources needed.  
2.297.  The Chairman noted that there was substantial interest for the Canadian proposal and that 
several ideas were on the table, including a number of substantive, procedural and budgetary 
issues that remained to be addressed. He encour aged further discussion in  the Committee to find a 
common understanding and noted that the Committee could build on this work in the forthcoming 
triennial review. G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 67 - 
 
  2.3.3  Chairman's Report on the 4 November 2014 thematic session 
2.298.  The Chairman presented his report on the thematic session held on 4 November 2014 on 
the topics of conformity assessment procedures, and technical assistance and special and 
differential treatment. The full report, including a brief summary of each presentation, is contained 
in G/TBT/GEN/174. 
2.3.4  Good Regulatory Practice (JOB/TBT/119) 2.299.  The Chairman reported on his consultations and work related to the list of voluntary 
mechanisms and related principles of Good Regulatory Practice (GRP). He recalled the mandate 
before the Committee12 and noted that this work had been going on for some time. He further 
recalled that after the September 2014 informal meeting the Committee had agreed on a two-track approach. Under the first track, and on the one hand, he had – as Chairman – addressed 
substantive issues in the text of the document itself. In this vein, a new round of comments had 
been opened and several comments were received from Members. The Chairman stressed that in this process he had used a minimalist approach when taking into account the comments received, 
i.e. he reflected those comments which sought to clarify the text and that did not substantially 
change its meaning. He explained that he had done this because the text that the Committee had considered in June 2014 had already been deemed quite stable. His proposals were eventually 
issued as JOB/TBT/119 on 27 October 2014. In parallel, the second track involved a process of 
consultations on systemic issues, namely those relating to the legal status of the document.  
2.300.  The chairman stressed that, for the current meeting, the time had come to merge the two 
tracks he had just outlined. He had therefore circulated a Room Document (in all three languages) 
containing an only slightly revised version whic h incorporated only six changes compared to the 
original proposal (JOB/TBT/119). He also said that a "track change version" had been made 
available for Members so that they could see exactly what modifications had been made. The 
Chairman stressed that the Committee had spent quite some time debating the issue at hand and, 
in his view, everyone's positions were clear.  The document, he said was the result of a 
compromise, a delicate balance. In opening the floor he recalled a quote by the renowned 
Portuguese poet Fernando Pessoa, who said: We worship perfection because we can't have it; if 
we had it, we would reject it. Perfection  is inhuman, because humanity is imperfect .
13  
2.301.  The representative of India thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for a draft text 
which took into account the sensitivities of all Members and said that, in his delegation's view, the 
Committee was on the verge of a final balance. He said India could only offer some preliminary 
comments since the revised draft proposal had only been issued late the previous day and more time would be required to examine some intricate changes. India considered that there were a few 
loopholes in paragraph 3 that needed to be rectified. First, what had originally been three 
sentences of a legal disclaimer had been merged into one. It needed to be considered whether a different meaning had been conveyed, in particular with respect to the word "thereof" at end of 
the second sentence in paragraph 3. He asked if this word qualified the phrase "TBT Agreement" 
or only the phrase "any other WTO agreement". He noted that the Committee had started with two clear sentences for a disclaimer as the basis for discussion. India's intention was to ensure that the list did not constitute any interpretation of the TBT Agreement. He also expressed his delegation's 
doubts with the meaning of the word "list". Did it refer to the complete table? Or, instead, did it 
refer only to the list of "possible steps and examples of mechanisms", i.e., not including the third column of the table? This was not clear because the first sentence in paragraph 3 only referred to 
the "list of possible steps and examples of mechan ism". He explained that the third column, which 
contained references to articles and sub-articles of TBT Agreement, was also required to be taken into account while examining the interpretative value. India was also of the view that the 
disclaimer needed to stand alone as it had done before – and not be merged as this added to 
ambiguity and confusion.  
2.302.  Second, the Indian delegation did not endo rse the use of the word "authoritative" as this 
was subjective. Moreover, if used, it would imply that there were some other kinds of 
interpretations that were still possible which would not be authoritative. In this regard, the basic 
purpose of the document was to list voluntary mechanisms and related principles of GRP for the 
                                               
12 Paragraph 4 of G/TBT/32. 
13 Autobiografia sem Factos , p. 249 G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 68 - 
 
  purpose of assisting policy makers in implementing the Agreement; it was not for deriving any 
legal interpretation of the Agreement. More work was therefore necessary to finalize the document, particularly the “legal disclaimer”. 
2.303.  The representative of China shared the concerns expressed by India. He thanked the 
Chairman and Secretariat for the consultative process and the positive progress that had been 
made. However, he regretted that not all his concer ns had been clearly reflected. First, he noted 
that in the e mail conveyed to Members by th e Secretariat on the evening before the current 
meeting, six changes had been incorporated in the latest version of paper. China regretted that a 
seventh suggestion by China14 – the deletion of the word "may" – had not been reflected. While 
this was not a "life or death" issue for China, it was an important one because it helped reinforce the relatively weak Special and Differential Tr eatment mechanisms in the GRP paper and thus 
would bring some comfort to developing country Members, and particularly LDCs. He asked other 
Members whether for them this change was so important that it could be characterized as a "life or death" issue. 
2.304.  The disclaimer (paragraph 3) was, in Chin a's view, one of the core issues that divided 
Members. While China was pleased with the information session held on 4 November 2014 to educate delegations about WTO Committee documents referenced to in WTO Panel and Appellate 
Body reports, it was now necessary to take some time to digest the Secretariat's compilation. 
China would provide better-informed thoughts and comments on the GRP paper containing the 
recently proposed legal disclaimer at a later time. China was seeking more clarity on the language regarding "authoritative interpretation" and its added value. According to Article IX:2 of the WTO 
Agreement (on Decision-Making), the "Ministerial Conference and the General Council shall have 
the exclusive authority to adopt interpretations of  this Agreement and of the Multilateral Trade 
Agreements" – this included the TBT Agreement. The language contained in the proposed legal 
disclaimer meant the same thing. As the GRP paper would be adopted by the TBT Committee 
rather than as a Ministerial Declaration or as General Council document, it went without saying that this document did not constitute an interpretation by the Ministerial Council or the General 
Council. Thus the language did not have any added value. The mechanisms could still be used by a 
WTO Panel to interpret the relevant provisions of the TBT Agreement. Preliminarily, the Chinese delegation said that they could manage with a language similar to that of the SPS document; that is: replacing "constitute an authoritative interpretation" with the language "provides any 
interpretation".  
2.305.  The representative of the United States sa id that it was unfortunate that India and China 
did not feel that the compromises that had been st ruck during the informal consultations had been 
enough. The US delegation, together with other delegations, had worked very hard to come up 
with a compromise solution that would make everyone comfortable. In light of the many concessions that it had already made, the US was not therefore comfortable with further changes 
to the document. 
2.306.  The representative of the European Union thanked the Chairman for consultations that had 
been well-handled and had proved effective. Th ey were effective because the number of open 
issues had been reduced to only a few – and the Committee did, indeed, have a largely agreed 
outcome document. The attainment of such small number of outstanding issues (currently reduced 
to the term "may", mentioned by China) was possi ble because all other requests from China, India 
and other delegations had been considered and accommodated in the text, including their 
requests: (i) to add elements on special and diffe rential treatment in various places of the text; 
and (ii) to clarify certain provisions in order to make them appear less "burdensome" (there were in any case voluntary in nature) for developing countries. In other words, some Members had 
made genuine efforts to bridge positions and to accommodate the requests of others, and the EU 
had made a number of compromises and concessions on the originally proposed text. It was therefore unfortunate and regretful that this had been met with inflexibility.  
2.307.  He said that the EU nevertheless still remained persuaded that the document did not 
require any disclaimer in the first place. For instance, every second line of the text contained 
language such as "may", "non-prescriptive", "illustrative", "for example", "according to 
administrative capacity", or "depending on the level of economic development". And yet, 
reluctantly, the EU had accepted the compromise  put forward by the Chairman. The EU was not 
                                               
14 Shown highlighted in yellow in the middle of page 6 of JOB/TBT/119/Rev.1. G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 69 - 
 
  willing to go any further. Now it was up to ot her Members who had not shown flexibility to take 
responsibility for the Committee not being able to adopt the document. The EU also noted that the majority of Members looked forward to the docume nt because it was considered to contain useful 
guidance, especially for developing countries in the process of setting up regulatory systems, 
administrative procedures, and processes for rule-m aking. Indeed, it was a useful compendium of 
existing practices – basically a menu of tools which each Member could pick and choose from depending on whether it would fit their systems or not.  
2.308.  The EU further noted that the presentation  at the informal information session had also 
demonstrated that in no case had a Panel or Appellate Body used a Committee document as the basis for their interpretation. They reached the inte rpretation of specific provisions according to 
other criteria, and then they looked at Committ ee documents to see if there was anything that 
would contradict their interpretation or could confirm their interpretation. But in no way – 
regardless of various disclaimers used – was a recommendation used or rejected as a possible source of interpretation of provisions in Agreements. Hence, the issue of legal interpretative value 
had been overly exaggerated in the context at ha nd. What was currently on the table was a very 
balanced document. 
2.309.  The representative of Argentina noted that the main point of contention appeared to be the 
disclaimer. One possibility was to accept paragraph 3 as it currently stood (leaving it unchanged) 
and eliminate column three in the document (where  articles of the TBT Agreement were quoted). 
2.310.  The representative of China insisted that his delegation had been constructive throughout 
the process, but it was important to address legitimate concerns of developing Members and LDCs. 
China drew the Committee's attention to discussions in the SPS Committee where delegations had 
been discussing a simple working definition for "private standards" for more than three years 
without consensus. Part of the reason for the failu re to achieve consensus on such definition in 
that Committee was the fact that some large Members had insisted on including a strong legal 
disclaimer to that simple working definition. If the EU was asking about responsibility for failure, the representative of China wished to turn that same question back: who should take responsibility 
for a lack of consensus in the SPS context? Moreover, China could not agree with the reading of 
Panel and Appellate Body reports that the EU had provided, particular the US Tuna II  Reports. In 
this case the WTO Panel and Appellate Body had clearly regarded the TBT Committee document on the "Six Principles"
15 as a "subsequent agreement". The Appellate Body had thus used this decision 
to interpret what constituted an international standard. This justified China's concern and that of 
other Members. 
2.311.  The representative of Brazil thanked China, India and other Members for raising an 
important systemic discussion. As had the Chair, he  also mentioned the Portuguese poet Fernando 
Pessoa, who, he recalled, wrote a book called " The Book of Disquiet ,"16 a title that also described 
how he felt with these discussions. He wished to comment on the discussion from two different 
points of view. It was a given that Members must  be fully aware and cognisant of what they do 
and decide in WTO Committees in which they participate. It was also important that they be careful and cautious about implications and the impact of what they together agreed in a document. On that same side of the equation, he recalled – as China and others had done – that 
some disclaimers had been inserted in several documents; there were two or three important 
precedents in the SPS Committee with somewhat different language used in each case. This needed to be taken into account. On the other hand, the Committee would do well to take time to 
ponder the implications of the reinforcement of this precedent, namely: the insertion of all kinds of 
disclaimers in the work of all Committees in which we Members participate. Delegations needed therefore to ask themselves: what room would be left for the work of Committees, which convened 
and worked according to Article III of the Marrake sh Agreement (on the Functions of the WTO), to 
further the objectives of the Agreements and to fa cilitate their operation and administration? If the 
Committee would decide to insert – without prejudice as to whether this was right or wrong, good or bad – a very strong disclaimer language in a document called a voluntary "list", then the 
representative of Brazil would venture to say that all other documents that came out of the 
Committee that were more than a list would have to have a disclaimer.  
                                               
15 G/TBT/1/Rev.11, Annex 2, page. 45. 
16 "Livro do Desassossego: Composto por Bernardo So ares, ajudante de guarda-livros na cidade de 
Lisboa) ", published posthumously in 1982, 47 years after Pessoa's death. G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 70 - 
 
  2.312.  The representative of Brazil stressed that  he was not making any particular affirmation; 
rather, he was simply calling for thoughtful consideration. As regards the list of Panel and Appellate Body Reports presented at the Committee's informal information session (4 November 2014), he noted that 20 were Panel Reports and 4 were Appellate Body Reports. With respect to 
the Appellate Body decision in US – Tuna II , while, of course, it could be said that the Appellate 
Body went too far, the real question was another one: what should we (the TBT Committee) do about it this? What should be done when such a decision was not to the Committee's liking? Do we 
put a disclaimer on all we do? Another option was to tell the Appellate Body that it was not a good 
decision. This could be done in future cases, in a statement in the DSB – there were several ways of influencing future decisions. All this needed to be considered so that the Committee could find an acceptable path that would not haunt or hobble its future work. 
2.313.  The representative of India associated hims elf with the points made by the delegation of 
China. India could also support the proposal m a d e  b y  A r g e n t i n a .  O n  t h e  i s s u e  o f  t a k i n g  
responsibility, India noted that this was about br idging the few remaining gaps, a goal India was 
ready to work towards to. At the same time the gaps were ambiguous, as already articulated by 
India, and needed further work. It was important not to delve in constructive or deliberate ambiguity in trying to achieve a compromise. 
2.314.  The representative of the European Union appreciated the statement by Brazil. 
Consequences of disclaimers needed to be co nsidered. What would happen if the Committee 
started to put into question what it did by adding disclaimers to what had been agreed? He stressed that the document was part of an overall package, it was a balanced compromise. On the 
point made by China, the EU stressed that there was an important difference with the work done 
in the SPS context on private standards. He expl ained that in the SPS context the document being 
discussed would have given the impression that there was agreement that private standards fell 
within the scope of the SPS Agreement. The disclai mer had, in that case, been a precondition by 
the EU to accept a discussion of private standard s in the SPS context. GRP in TBT context was an 
altogether different matter as there was no question about GRP being an important component of 
the effective implementation of the TBT Agreem ent. There was consensus about this and the 
matter had been reiterated since the Second Triennial Review – thus the contexts were not comparable. 
2.315.  The representative of Mexico thanked the Chairman and the Secretariat for the transparent 
process of the negotiation on the document. Moreover, the informal information session of 4 
November 2014 had been very useful. She expresse d her delegation's disappointed with the lack 
of agreement. Clearly, the document was not perfect – but it came close and the Committee had 
worked on it for a long time and had a mandate to do so. Mexico remained convinced that the use 
of disclaimers would have repercussions furthe r down the line. She thanked Brazil for their 
intervention in this regard. Mexico was not fully comfortable with the use of a disclaimer but, in 
the spirit of compromise, had accepted the Chairman's text. She expressed Mexico's doubts on 
what the next step should be. Mexico could accept the text as it stood, as a package. Mexico would 
therefore feel uncomfortable with the idea of  introducing more changes to the document.  
2.316.  The Chairman thanked all Members for their interventions. He said that the discussion had 
been useful in that at least there was agreemen t on the whole text, except for the disclaimer (in 
paragraph 3) and for the word "may" in the middle of page 6.17 He noted that no other issue had 
been raised by delegations. To the contrary, many delegations stressed the value of the document. 
It was, after all, a list aimed at deepening the understanding of the ways in which Members could 
implement the TBT Agreement. Also , eventually, it was important to show that this organization 
could agree – albeit at a different level (this was not the DDA) – but agree nonetheless on a 
document, by consensus. It was important to reflect if the issue of the disclaimer (having it or not 
having it) was so important as to block the adoption of the document. He also stressed that he was not taking any side on this; he was simply trying to facilitate an agreement. With respect to the comments made on whether or not drafting suggestions by Members had been taken into 
account, he noted that this was always difficult. When one Member's comments were taken into 
account another had to concede. The negotiation of the text could be described as a formula for an "equal distribution of pain". The Chairman promised therefore to continue to "distribute pain". For 
                                               
17 Highlighted in yellow and within square brackets  in JOB/TBT/119/Rev.1 (circulated subsequent to the 
meeting, on 4 December 2014).   G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 71 - 
 
  now, and for clarity, he asked that the Committee confirm: the text was closed  except for the 
disclaimer (in paragraph 3) and the word "may" (on page 6). It was so agreed. 
3  TECHNICAL COOPERATION ACTIVITIES 
3.1.  The Secretariat updated the Committee on technical assistance activities undertaken and 
planned for the 2014-2015 biennium, which contained an intense TA agenda, due to, in great part, 
a large number of national TBT-specific activities : 20 (10 undertaken in 2014, and 10 planned for 
2015). He said that demand has been particularly high from Latin America from which almost half 
(8) of such requests came from. Many of the requ ests for national and regional activities (10 in 
total) were for joint TBT-SPS activities. Such joint activities were organized in partnership with SPS colleagues from the Agriculture Division. The Secretariat has also organized (or planned to organize) 6 TBT-specific regional activities. He  highlighted that some of the workshops, in 
particular, regional workshops, were organized in partnership with the host country. In this 
respect, he took the opportunity to thank the Brazilian Government, in particular Inmetro, for the financial, logistical, and intellectual support given at the IADB/WTO workshop for Latin American 
countries that had taken place in Brazil in September 2014. The Secretariat also informed the 
Committee that the Fifth Advanced Course on the TBT Agreement would take place in March 2015, where 25 participants would be selected to attend the two week course. She encouraged 
developing country Members to submit candidatures. A document containing information on the 
Secretariat's technical assistance activities was made available.
18 
3.2.  The representative of Brazil thanked the WT O Secretariat for the assistance provided in the 
organization of the national workshop on TBT held  back to back with the regional workshop in 
September 2014. This event, he said, was attended  by government officials and stakeholders and 
provided a highly qualified forum for TBT related issues. 
3.3.  The representative of El Salvador thanked the WTO Secretariat for its support at a national 
workshop on the TBT and SPS Agreements which ha d taken place in September 2014, attended by 
officials from technical regulations body, the consumer defence committee and the Ministry of Agriculture. 
3.4.  The representative of Paraguay expressed his delegation's interest in holding a national 
workshop in 2015.  
3.5.  The representative of the IEC updated the Committee on its technical assistance related 
activities19, including the Conformity Assessment Committee (CAC) launched by the African 
Electrotechnical Standardization Commission (AFSEC), a two day training seminar in Paraguay on 
IECEE conformity assessment activities and a new technical mentoring partnership between Uruguay. He also informed the Committee that the 78
th General Meeting would take place in Tokyo 
from 10-14 November. 
3.6.  The representative of the BIPM informed the Committee that the BIPM, along with OIML had 
participated in the AFRIMETS Legal Metrology School in Tunisia in October 2014. He also said that 
the BIPM would be proposing to extend its current practice of allowing staff from national 
metrology institutes from developing countries to  spend time at BIPM so as to have a better 
understanding of metrology.  
4  UPDATING BY OBSERVERS 
4.1.  The representative of ISO informed the Committee that a new publication on using and 
referencing ISO and IEC standards to support public policy and technical regulations was now 
available.20 He also highlighted the continued development of the ISO Academy21 which pulled 
together numerous training and development initiatives to build the capacity of members to meet 
                                               
18 G/TBT/GEN/171/Rev.1. 
19 Full details are on  the IEC website ( http://www.iec.ch ). 
20 
http://www.iso.org/sites/policy/documents/Using% 20and%20referencing%20ISO%20and%20IEC%20standar
ds%20to%20support%20public%20policy%20-%20EN.pdf . 
21 http://www.iso.org/iso/home/about/training-technical-assistance.htm . G/TBT/M/64/Rev.1 
 
- 72 - 
 
  their commitment to good standardization practices. Further updates on courses and partnering 
initiatives with members would be made  available in the coming months.  
4.2.  The representative of the BIPM informed the Committee that Sudan and Yemen had recently 
become associates, bringing participation to 56 member states and 41 associate states and 
economies. He said the General Conference woul d take place from 18-20 November, the agenda of 
and related documents of which were on the BIPM website.22 Concerning the scientific progress 
towards the revision of the international system of units (SI), he said this would bring significant 
future proofing to the scientific community, but th at the changes were not expected to have an 
impact on the trade community.  
4.3.  The representative of UNECE informed the Committee that WP6 recently had 
recommendations on references to standards an d education related standards, both of which 
would be the focus of the annual session taking place on 24-26 November.23 
4.4.  The representative of the Kingdom of Saud i Arabia proposed that the Committee accept the 
application for observer status submitted by th e GCC Standardization Organization (GSO). The 
proposal was supported by Qatar, Egypt,  United States, Jordan and Canada.  
4.5.  The Committee agreed to grant ad hoc  observer status to the Gulf Cooperation Council 
Standardization Organization (GSO). 
5  REPORT (2014) OF THE COMMITTEE ON TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE 
5.1.  The Committee adopted its 2014 Report to the Council for Trade in Goods (G/L/1092). 
6  DATE OF NEXT MEETING 6.1.  The next regular meeting of the Committee is scheduled for 18-19 March 2015 . It will be 
preceded by a thematic session to be held on 17 March . 
 
__________  
                                               
22 http://www.bipm.org/en/cgpm-2014/ . 
23 http://www.unece.org/trade/wp6/welcome.html