. /.   WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/MA/W/134 
28 January 2010 
 (10-0406) 
Negotiating Group on Market Access Original:   English 
 
 
 
MARKET ACCESS FOR NON-AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS 
 
Co-sponsors’ Answers to Japan’s Questions on the "Understanding on the Interpretation of the 
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade with r espect to the Labelling of Textiles, Closing, 
Footwear, and Travel Goods"  
 
Communication from by the European Union, M auritius, Sri Lanka, and the United States 
 
 
 The following communication, dated 27 January 2 010, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegations of the European Union, Maur itius, Sri Lanka, and the United States. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
Scope of Information Requirements (Para 2)  
 
1. Why were the items listed in Para 2 includ ing "country of origin," "care instructions" 
specifically chosen to be regarded as less trade r estrictive? How can these items be justified to be 
consistent with the condition of  Article 2.2. of TBT agreemen t; national security requirements, 
prevention of deceptive practices, protection of human h ealth or safety, animal or plant life or health, 
or the environment?  
 
Co-sponsors’ answer :  The items listed in Paragraph 2 st em from extensive consultations with 
industry. In those consultations, requirements to in clude the information liste d in Paragraph 2 were 
cited as the most prevalent types of labeling require ments worldwide for textiles, apparel, footwear, 
and travel goods, as appropriate.  Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement contains  a non-exhaustive list of 
legitimate objectives.  Accordingly, a Member may require information to be included on a label to 
fulfill one of the objectives listed in Article 2.2 or any other legitimate objective.  Paragraph 2 does 
not address the reasons or objectives a Member might have for requiring certain information on a 
label.  That said, for example, a requirement to incl ude fiber content on clothing labels might serve to 
protect consumers that are allergic to certain ma terials or to prevent consumers from being deceived 
about the quality or nature of the clothing they are purchasing.   
 
2. How to ensure that other information requireme nts on labels than those listed in Para 2 are not 
prejudged to be trade restrictive under TBT agreement? 
 
Co-sponsors’ answer:   Irrespective of Paragraph 2, Members requiring the types of information 
contained in paragraph 2 on labels  (or any other type of information) must ensure that their 
requirements are not inconsistent w ith Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, i.e. those requirements must 
be no more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfill a legitimate objective.  As we stated in our FAQ 
(TN/MA/W/114), Paragraph 2 only creates a presumption that requiring the information specified in Paragraph 2 on a label is not more trade-restrictiv e than necessary.  That presumption is rebuttable, 
however, for example, by demonstrating that the requirement is not necessary to fulfill the Member’s 
legitimate objective.   While under Paragraph 2 requ irements to include certain information on a label TN/MA/W/134 
Page 2 
 
 
  will be presumed to be no more trade restrictive th an necessary within the meaning of Article 2.2 of 
the TBT Agreement, this does not prejudice the fact  that requirements to include other information 
may likewise be no more trade restrictive than n ecessary within the meaning of Article 2.2.  We 
underline that the major difference is that such ot her information does not benefit from a presumption. 
 
Rebuttable Presumption (Para 2 and 5)  
 
 Just for a confirmation, is the understanding that any Member’s right to establish any domestic labeling systems at its  discretion is not precluded inter alia , any Member is not forced to 
legislate the labeling requirements of information listed in Para 2 correct? 
 
Co-sponsors’ answer:   It is correct that nothing in the pr oposal requires Members to require that the 
information listed in Paragraph 2 to be included on labels.   
 Positive Consideration on Non- permanent Labels (Para 3)
 
 
 Does uneven treatment in the proposal fo r permanent and non-permanent labels in 
considering the legal effect oppose the current tr end in consumer policy which prefers permanent 
labels? 
 Co-sponsors’ answer:   This paragraph only asks Members to gi ve "positive consideration" to the use 
of non-permanent labelling; it does not require Memb ers to require non-permanent labels in lieu of 
permanent ones.  Please refer to the compendium  to the TAFT proposal (TN/MA/W/123) which 
contains answers to questions from the Republic of  Korea and New Zealand on the issue of "positive 
consideration".  Also, we are not aware of any studies showing that consumers prefer permanent 
labels.   Our industries indicate that non-permanen t labelling facilitates trade and helps ensure that 
customers receive goods in a cost-e ffective and timely manner. Diffe rent Members require different 
sets of information on labels, including what inform ation must be on a permanent label versus what 
can be put on a stick-on or hang-tag label. This  dynamic often causes problems and raises costs for 
exporters, especially when the destination is cha nged mid-shipment.   While it costs only a few cents 
to sew in or otherwise permanently affix a label in th e first place, it can cost up to a dollar per garment 
to rip out the original label and sew in a new label because of new requirements or change in 
destination.  Additionally, exporte rs encounter additional administrativ e and handling costs, the delay, 
and possible penalties for having the wrong label in th e garment.  These additional costs are passed on 
to the consumer.  
  
__________