WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/TBT/W/284 
18 March 2008 
 
 (08-1195) 
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade Original:   Spanish 
  
 
PRODUCTION AND LABELLING OF ORGANIC PRODUCTS 
 
Communication from Argentina Concerning Regulation (EC) No. 834/07
 
Notified as Document G/TBT/N/EEC/101  
 
 
 The following communication, dated 14 March 2008, is being circulated at the request of the delegation of Argentina
. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. Argentina wishes to expresses its concern regard ing Regulation (EC) No. 834/07 on organic 
production and labelling of or ganic products, which was notified to the Committee as 
document G/TBT/N/EEC/101, dated 27 February 2006. 
2. The Regulation was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (EU) on 
20 July 2007.  Pursuant to its Article 42, the Regulation entered into force on the seventh day 
following its publication and is to apply as fro m 1 March 2009.  It repeals Regulation (EEC) 
No. 2092/91. 
3. Preambular paragraphs 3 and 5 of Regulation No. 834/07 specify that this technical regulation 
is part of a Community legal framework aimed at  "ensuring fair competition ... and ... justifying 
consumer confidence in pro ducts labelled as organic". 
4. Article 24 and preambular paragraph 24 of the Regulation provide that use of the Community 
organic production logo along with an indication of the origin of the raw materials is mandatory for 
pre-packaged products produced in the EU and vol untary in the case of products produced in the EU 
that are not pre-packaged and imported products, whether or not pre-packaged. 
5. Subparagraph 1(b) of Article 24, entitled "Compulsory indications", stipulates that the 
Community organic production logo (Art. 25) is to appear on pre-packaged foods.  Subparagraph 1(c) 
contains the further requirement that there be an i ndication of the origin of the raw materials, taking 
one of the following three forms: 
(a) "EU Agriculture", where the agricultural ra w material has been farmed in the EU; 
(b) "non-EU Agriculture", where the agricultural raw material has been farmed in third 
countries; 
(c) "EU/non-EU Agriculture", where part of the agricultural raw material has been 
farmed in the Community and a part of it has been farmed in a third country. G/TBT/W/284 
Page 2  
 
  6. Argentina's main concern relates to products pr oduced and packaged in the EU that contain 
imported raw materials, because of the mandatory requirement to indicate the origin of the raw 
materials that served as organic inputs, except in the case of imported products, for which the logo 
and the indication may be used on a voluntary basis. 
7. In other words, Argentina's concern does not re late to organic products that are exported to 
the EU once they have been processed in our country, or to the inform ation regarding the nature of the 
ingredients used, but to Argentine raw materi als that are imported for processing in the EU. 
8. Specifically, we are highly concerned about the situation arising from the "EU/non-EU 
Agriculture" labelling option, in view of its c onsequences in terms of consumer perception. 
9. In short, the Regulation deals with organic produc tion, and its stated purpose is to prevent the 
European consumer from being misled by products which are not organic and/or use raw materials 
that fail to meet the required standard of production.   In the light of the foregoing, the following two 
points should be considered. 
(i) Regarding the intrinsic charac teristics of an organic product 
(a) A product is organic where it conforms to specific production methods, regardless of 
the place or country in which it is manufact ured.  Hence, there is no need for the 
country in which the raw material originated to appear on the label.  In any event, the 
only essential item of information would be wh ether or not the product is organic in 
accordance with internationally r ecognized certification systems. 
(b) Since products sold in the Community market will be subject to the Regulation, the 
question of EU or non-EU origin would have no impact on the method of production 
used or on the organic characteristics of the product. 
(ii) Regarding the prevention of practices likely to mislead the EU consumer 
(a) The indication concerning the country of origin of the raw materials is noteworthy, 
because it is not clear that use of such an indication helps to protect consumer interests or maintain consumer confidence. 
(b) The origin of the product, regardless of th e European country in which it has been 
produced or the third country from which it has been imported, cannot alter the organic characteristics of the product. 
(c) There is consequently no need for the c onsumer to know whether or not the raw 
materials were farmed in the EU, a nd hence the method selected is not only 
inadequate but also counterproductive in that it fails to achieve the legitimate 
objective pursued (which is to prevent the consumer from being misled) and may, 
moreover, give the consumer a false impression. 
(d) One need only imagine the impact on cons umers of two identical or like products 
respectively labelled "EU Agriculture" and "EU/non-EU Agriculture". 
II. CONSISTENCY OF REGULATION (E C) NO. 834/2007 WITH THE 
WTO MULTILATERAL AGREEMENTS ON TRADE IN GOODS 
10. The "EU/non-EU Agriculture" labelling option is supported neither by the WTO Agreements 
on Rules of Origin or Technical Barriers to Trade, nor by the Codex Standards.  G/TBT/W/284 
 Page 3 
 
 
  A. AGREEMENT ON RULES OF ORIGIN  
11. Pursuant to Article 2(d) of the Agreement, a product manufactured in the EU already is a 
domestic product, which obviates the need to indicate the origin of the raw materials used. 
B. CODEX STANDARDS  
12. The Guidelines for the Production, Processing,  Labelling and Marketing of Organically 
Produced Foods (in particular Section 3) do not specify  any obligation to list the origin of ingredients 
on product labels. 
13. Section 4 refers only to indicating the origin  of the FOOD PRODUCT, not the raw material, 
to which Regulation No. 834/07 extends the in terpretation and scope of this provision. 
14. The Codex Standards apply on a voluntary basi s, and although there have been discussions on 
indicating the origin of ingredients on product labels , it was decided to suspend work on the matter. 
15. Indication of the origin of ingredients is unnecessary from the point of view of food safety or 
trade practices, and might lead to discrimination by the consumer. 
16. The question of indicating the country of orig in of raw materials and ingredients on product 
labels was discussed in 2004 and 2005 in th e Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL).  
Argentina was part of the group opposing further wo rk on the matter, because details regarding the 
country of origin of a food product's ingredients di d not constitute key inform ation for the consumer.  
That position ultimately prevailed. 
17. Moreover, guidelines aimed at requiring the co untry of origin of the raw materials and 
ingredients to appear on product labels would cause serious prejudice not only to the food industry but 
also to the authorities responsible for labelling contro l, as they would have to approve labels each time 
a change occurred in the origin of an ingredient or raw material. 
C. TBT  AGREEMENT  
18. Article 24 and preambular paragraphs 24 and 27 of Regulation (EC) No. 834/07 are not 
consistent with the provisions of the TBT Agre ement pertaining to necessity and proportionality 
(Art. 2.2), use of international standards (Art. 2.4) , and special and differential treatment (Art. 12), to 
the extent that the TBT Agreement stipulates as fo llows:  "... Members shall ensure that technical 
regulations are not prepared, adopted or applied w ith a view to or with the effect of creating 
unnecessary obstacles to international trade ... technical regulations shall not be more trade-restrictive 
than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective [such as] ... the prevention of deceptive practices;  ...". 
19. The EU Regulation is contrary to the above provision.  There is no logic in asserting that 
indication of the origin of raw materials guarantees fair competition in the organic products market.  
The creation of a distinction according to the origin of the product would rather tend to suggest that 
origin has an impact on a product's characteristics, wh ich in turn will affect the consumer's decision or 
perception. 
20. Thus, the requirement laid down in the EU Regul ation to indicate the origin of raw materials 
is doubly inconsistent with the a bove Article, since it creates an unnecessary obstacle to trade and the 
means that is used is inappropriate for the fulf ilment of the allegedly legitimate objective pursued. 
21. The objective of preventing practices likely to  mislead consumers cannot be achieved by 
inappropriate means.  There must be consistency between the objective sought and the means used to G/TBT/W/284 
Page 4  
 
  attain that objective.  Inconsistency in that rega rd would be tantamount to legitimizing any means on 
the pretext of achieving a legitimate objective.  A legitimate objective may not disguise a technical 
barrier to trade. 
22. The EU Regulation does not comply with the pr inciple of proportionality, since its effects 
could prove more trade-restrictive th an necessary to fulfil its objective. 
23. Nor is there a balance between the benefits of pursuing a legitimate objective, such as 
mitigating a risk associated with the importation of  a product, and the disadvantages (effects of the 
measure) that ensue from the pursuit of that objective. 
24. It is the authorities' – not the consumer's – task to monitor misleading market practices and at 
government level that action can be  taken to counter such practices.  The authorities can and should 
exercise control regarding the characteristics or condition of organic products, and such a 
responsibility should not be ha nded down to the consumer. 
25. In the light of the foregoing, the EU authoriti es do not appear to have either established the 
necessity for the measures adopted or guaranteed th eir effectiveness in relation to the objective 
pursued. 
26. The Codex Standards – albeit not mandatory – are a reference base, and the EU has gone 
beyond those provisions without taking into acco unt the Codex decision to abandon the labelling 
procedures aimed at listing the origin of every ingredient (27
th Session of the Codex Alimentarius 
Commission, Report on the 32nd Session of the Codex Committee on Food Labelling 
(ALINORM 04/27/22)). 
III. CONCLUSIONS 
27. The overriding issue is the obligation to indicate the origin of the organic inputs of goods 
produced and packaged in the EU, since the "EU/non-EU Agriculture" labelling option may prove 
damaging for our exports. 
28. Since international standards do not lay down any obligation to specify the origin of a 
product's ingredients on the product label, the EU Regulation would set a negative precedent, as the 
TBT Agreement does not provide for the possibility of establishing a higher level of protection. 
29. Indication of origin is unnecessary for several  reasons.  Indeed, it bears no relation to the 
safety of the food product;  a product manufactured in the EU is a Community product and the consumer might be in doubt as to its organic nature. 
30. The EU Regulation has failed to strike a balance between interests of two kinds.  It exceeds 
the EU's sovereign right to establish a regulatio n supposedly aimed at protecting the right of 
consumers to know what they are consuming (hea lth and safety), and at protecting them against 
misleading practices. 
31. The requirement to indicate origin totally disregards the rights of producers and exporters of 
raw materials already certified as being organic under EU legislation (see Article 12 of the TBT Agreement), in particular where, as a result of processing, a product becomes an EU originating 
product. 
32. It should be emphasized that such products are Community products which, in the event of 
being exported to third countries, woul d be regarded as EU originating products.  G/TBT/W/284 
 Page 5 
 
 
  33. It can therefore be concluded that the labelling requirement in the EC Regulation is 
mandatory and that it is also inconsistent with the TBT Agreement in several respects. 
 
__________