G/TBT/M/55
Page 1

World Trade
Organization / RESTRICTED
G/TBT/M/55
9 February 2012
(12-0786)
Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF 10-11 november 2011

Chairperson: MsDenise Pereira (Singapore)

Note by the Secretariat[1]

I.Adoption of the agenda

II.Implementation and ADMINISTRATION of the Agreement

A.statements from members under article 15.2

B.specific trade concerns

1.Specific Trade Concerns

(a)New Concerns

(b)Previously raised concerns

2.Follow-up

3.Streamlining the Committee's discussion of specific trade concerns

C.exchange of experiences

1.Good Regulatory Practice

2.Standards

3.Conformity Assessment

4.Transparency

D.Other Matters

III.Transitional Review Mandated in Paragraph 18 of the Protocol of Accession of the People's Republic of China

IV.Technical Cooperation Activities

V.updating by observers

VI.Report (2011) of the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade

VII.Date of Next Meeting

I.Adoption of the agenda

  1. The Committee adopted the agenda contained in WTO/AIR/3821.

II.Implementation and ADMINISTRATION of the Agreement

A.statements from members under article 15.2

  1. The Chairperson said that the latest list of statements submitted under Article 15.2 of the TBT Agreement is contained in document G/TBT/GEN/1/Rev.10, issued on 22 February 2011. She noted that, since the last meeting, Zambia (G/TBT/2/Add.106) and Mozambique (G/TBT/2/Add.107) had submitted their statements under Article 15.2 and Georgia (G/TBT/2/Add.81/Rev.1) and Turkey (G/TBT/2/Add.33/Rev.1) had submitted revisions to their original statements. In total, since 1995, 124 Members had submitted at least one Statement on Implementation under Article 15.2. She recalled that this information was available, and regularly updated, on the TBT page of the WTO website and in the TBT Information Management System ( The latest list of enquiry point contact is contained in document G/TBT/ENQ/38/Rev.1, issued on 8 July 2011.

B.specific trade concerns

1.Specific Trade Concerns

(a)New Concerns
(i)Mexico - Draft Decree Amending Provisions for Drinks with Caffeine
  1. The representative of the European Union expressed concerns regarding draft amendments to the Mexican General Health Law reinforcingthe label provisions (health warnings) applicable to drinks with added caffeine. These warnings included that products should not be consumed in excess of 500 ml per day, that they should not be mixed with alcoholic drinks, that they are not suitable for persons under the age of 18, and that they may lead to intoxication, insomnia and cardiovascular and neurologic disorders. The EU Enquiry point, she said, had requestedinOctober 2011 that this draft measure be notified to the WTO.
  2. The representative of the United States said that his delegation shared Mexico's worries that energy drinks combined with alcohol could be harmful to young people. However, it also raised concerns that this proposal, if adopted, was going to ban or restrict the sale of energy drinks in the Mexican market, whether or not they were combined with alcohol. He urged Mexico not to proceed with this proposal until US and Mexican officials had a detailed technical discussion on the matter. He hoped that Mexico would discuss the US questions submitted in this regard.
  1. The representative of Mexico clarified that this initiative was being discussed by the Mexican Congress and it was at an early stage. For this reason Mexico still had not notified this amendment to the WTO. On 27 September 2010, the Mexican Economy Ministry received a communication from the Mexican Embassy in Austria containing a number of comments concerning this draft amendment. These questions had already been transmitted to the competent authorities. Mexico continued to work on a set of technical regulations relating to this issue, namely the Official Mexican Standard PROY-NOM-218-SSA1-2009 Products and services. Non-alcoholic flavoured beverages, their frozen versions, concentrates to prepare these products and beverages with added caffeine. He clarified that this measure was published on 22 December 2010 and it was duly notified to the WTO for comments. The Mexican Health Ministry was still in the process of analysing the comments they received during the period of public consultations and responses to those comments would be duly published in the Mexican Official Gazette prior to the publication of the definitive measure.
(ii)Peru - Draft Supreme Decree Approving the Regulations Governing the Labelling of Genetically Modified Foods
  1. The representative of Mexico voiced his delegation’s concerns on this measure. The Mexican Government submitted a number of comments on this draft decree on 4 September 2011, including that this measure could potentially lead to discrimination. His delegation considered that this measure, in particular the requirement to label products containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs), lacked sufficient scientific basis. GMOs had been rigorously evaluated and authorized for marketing and consumption by more than 59 countries’ authorities, including Mexico. Conventional products and GMOs were, in principle, equivalent in nature because there was no difference in their composition in terms of proteins, nutrition or toxicological or allergenic properties. In Mexico's view, labelling may only be justified where there were substantial significant differences in the nutritional makeup of a food, or in the properties that they contained, as opposed to conventional products.
  2. Moreover, modern agricultural biotechnology was a process and a production method which did not bear any impact on the final characteristics of the products. Thus, in Mexico's view, an obligation to label products which were substantially equivalent to conventional products would constitute unjustified discrimination. The representative of Mexico called upon Peru, in line with the provisions of Article 2.5 of the TBT Agreement, to explain the technical and scientific justification of this measure in light of Article of 2.2 of the Agreement. He also requested, wherever possible, that Peru reply to these comments, in conformity with Article 2.9.4 of the TBT Agreement, to establish a dialogue between Peru, Mexico, and other interested parties, on these issues.
  3. The representative of Brazil echoed Mexico's concerns. Comments had been submitted and they looked forward to receiving Peru's responses.
  4. The representative of Canada said that his delegation appreciated information provided by Peru so far, in particular in relation to how the measure was to be applied, provisions on testing and how imports were going to be monitored. He requested confirmation on the status of the draft regulation, and whether their comments would be taken into account.
  5. The representative of Colombia indicated that his Government supported labelling to provide information to the consumer where this information was verified, based on technical facts and did not induce error. However, in his view there was no evidence that there was any difference in properties between genetically modified foods and conventional food products. Thus, a differentiated label for food products containing GMOs would constitute a technical barrier to trade under the TBT Agreement offering no benefits in terms of additional information to the consumer.
  6. The representative of Chile noted that this proposal did not set forth a threshold to determine whether a product contained genetically modified substances. Chile wished to learn whether there was a list of Peruvian laboratories accredited by Peru's National Institute for the Defence of Competition and the Protection of Intellectual Property (INDECOPI) to carry out the tests mentioned in the draft and whether foreign laboratories could be accredited or recognized for the same purpose. Also, Chile did not consider that the 180-day adaptation period for the phasing in of the new requirements established by the measure to be sufficiently long.
  7. The representative of Argentina said that his delegation also considered that this draft measure discriminated against products derived from modern genetically modified food. This measure was not proportional to the risks involved and would only apply to certain types of products such as colza, soya, corn, cotton, etc. without providing an explanation about the exclusion of other products also containing transgenic substances from the application of this measure. Argentina was concerned that this measure would be followed by other initiatives regulating matters beyond labelling requirements which could have serious negative effects for the development and commercialization of certain genetically modified foods. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), world food production need to increase by 50% to meet global food demands and these new technologies would therefore be necessary.
  8. The representative of Peru clarified that Peru was presently evaluating and reviewing the draft regulations on the basis of the comments received. In line with its international obligations, Peru would publish comments in due time, before the final version of the measure was adopted.
(iii)European Union - Draft Commission Regulation implementing Directive 2009/125/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council with regard to ecodesign requirements for air conditioners and comfort fansG/TBT/N/EEC/362)
  1. The representative of China, while thanking the EU for formally replying to China's comments, said there were still two points that had not yet been solved. First, China suggested the adoption of different evaluation methods and energy efficiency requirements for air conditioners with inverters and air conditioners without inverters. His delegation considered that this was a reasonable distinction since there were substantial differences between the operation principles and characteristics of these two types of air conditioners. Second, he invited the European Union to provide the scientific justification for the noise limits established by this draft regulation according to which noise produced by air conditioners with a rated capacity of equal to or less than 12KW would harm humans and the environment. If there was no scientific basis for this requirement, it should be removed from the draft regulation.
  2. The representative of the European Unionexplained that the Draft Commission Regulation implemented the ecodesign Directive 2009/125/EC and had, as the latter, the objective of environmental protection and fighting climate change through reduced energy consumption and emissions. She informed that the Regulation was not yet adopted, but that adoption was imminent. As soon as the adopted text was published, it would be sent as an addendum to the WTO notification.
  3. The draft measure established ecodesign requirements for certain air conditioners and comfort fans without distinguishing between those with or without inverters. Inverters allowed the appliance to receive information on the varying air temperature outside/inside of a building in order to adjust its performance to these temperatures. Thus, inverters allowed for savings in energy consumption emissions, but air conditioners with and without inverters had exactly the same function. Since the objective of the legislation was the reduction of energy consumption in the fight against climate change, the requirements for power consumption could not be set on the basis of a given technology or component used in an appliance. In her delegation’s view, China was asking for less stringent requirements for a generally less efficient technology. The EU believed that such differentiation would jeopardize the fulfilment of the legislation’s objective.
  4. Moreover, the EU’s regulations did not prohibit the marketing of air-conditioners without inverters; they could be sold in the European Union if the efficiency requirements were met. Regarding the proposed noise limits in the draft measure, noise was one of the environmental aspects that had to be assessed in the framework of eco-design requirements and these limits were based on the stakeholder consultation and on limits identified by the World Health Organization. Further information on this could be found in the impact assessment that would be available once the measure was adopted. The respective website on which the impact assessment would become available had already been sent to China.
(iv)European Union - issue with respect of honey containing pollen from genetically modified maize MON810, Ruling from ECJ
  1. The representative of Argentina expressed his Government's concerns about the European Court of Justice 7 September 2011 ruling that pollen was a natural component and an ingredient of honey. His delegation believed that this decision contradicted the standard for honey established by Codex Alimentarius 81/2001. Thus, this particular court ruling gave rise to legal uncertainty causing honey importers in the EU to interrupt virtually all purchases of honey produced in Argentina. This had an impact on the traditional trade flows in this sector, causing major social consequences, in particular, for small-scale producers, family businesses and regional economies in Argentina. Argentina had more than 30,000 beekeepers with a longstanding tradition of producing honey for over 50 years and exporting to more than 40 different countries. The EU market was the main destination for the export of Argentinian honey, accounting for 30 per cent of its total production. For this reason, Argentina called on the EU to promptly take all necessary measures to remove any legal uncertainties arising from this ruling and to eliminate the impact that it had on the import of honey into the EU from other Members. In addition, he requested the EU to comment on the opinion of the IPSAS regarding the innocuous nature of honey containing pollen and to ensure that implementation of this ruling did not, in any way, prevent exports of Argentinian honey into the EU.
  2. The representatives of Brazil, El Salvador,Mexico and Uruguay, shared Argentina's concerns regarding the decision of the European Court of Justice and respectfully invited the European Union to remove what they perceived as legal uncertainty arising from this court ruling as well as the negative trade impacts arising for imports of honey into the European Union. The representative of Canada echoed the concerns regarding uncertainty and potential for trade disruption. The representative of Mexico also mentioned that the same concerns had been voiced in a recent meeting of the WTO SPS Committee. This ruling affected developing-country Members in particular, and failing to grant special and differential treatment in this case would negate the meaning of the relevant provisions in the TBT Agreement.
  3. The representative of the European Union explained that, in 2008, a German beekeeper challenged the regulations concerning pollen that contained traces of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) after he detected GM maize MONSANTO 810 pollen in his honey. The contamination originated from GM plants grown for research purposes near the beekeeper's hives. The "GM honey" case was brought to the European Court of Justice. In its 6 September 2011 ruling, the Court said that GM pollen in honey fell under the scope of the relevant EU legislation on GM food and feed (Regulation 1829/2003). Therefore, the marketing in the EU’s territory of honey with traces of GM pollen became subject to an authorization. Moreover, according to this ruling, honey containing authorized GM pollen had to be labelled according to the provisions of Regulation 1829/2003.
  4. This issue had not arisen in the past since pollen was regarded only as a constituent in accordance with Directive 2001/110/EC relating to honey thus falling out of the scope of the corresponding labelling directive and honey containing GM pollen was considered to be out of the scope of Regulation 1829/2003. She acknowledged that the ruling’s effects were numerous and related not only to imports, but to honey produced within the European Union as well. The development of harmonized methods for the sampling and detection of GM pollen had yet to be assessed in order to help EU Member States apply the Court's ruling, in terms of controls and labelling at a national level, of both imports and of national production. Regarding imports into the EU, since some GMOs were authorized in third countries but not in the EU, imported honey products from these countries containing GMOs that were not authorized for use in pollen in the EU, would not be allowed in the EU market.
  5. The specific case examined by the European Court of Justice, involved MON810, a GM crop that had been authorized in the EU for more than 10 years. However, it was authorized for food uses which did not include pollen, on the basis of an assessment prepared by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in 2009. In addition to these food uses, MON810 was also authorized for feed uses and for cultivation. EFSA prepared an opinion on the safety of MON810 pollen in honey, delivered on 20 October 2011, concluding that MON810 in pollen was as safe as nonGM maize pollen. In the meantime, the company in question, Monsanto, intended to submit an application to cover MON810 pollen in or as food, according to the authorization procedure provided by Regulation 1829/2003.
  6. Finally, she added that the EU was actively reflecting on the best possible approach to ensure the proper implementation of the ruling without causing unnecessary disruptions to the supply of honey to EU consumers, be it from domestic or imported production. To this end, the European Commission held several meetings with third countries concerned about this issue, including Argentina, as well as a stakeholder meeting on 29 September 2011.