CODEX DEFERS DECISION ON ORIGIN LABELLING

The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) at its 27th session from 28 June - 3 July in Geneva, Switzerland, failed to reach a decision on revising the Codex standard on country of origin labelling. Instead, the Commission instructed the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL) to forward a letter to member states asking for their views on whether current Codex regulations adequately addressed the concerns raised by some governments. The comments will be considered at the next CCFL meeting in May 2005. The CCFL had requested guidance on this issue at its last meeting, following member states' failure to agree on whether to begin work on revising the "General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods" (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 28 May 2004, http://www.ictsd.org/biores/04-05-28/story2.htm). The UK -- along with other European countries and several non-governmental groups -- believes such a revision to be necessary, arguing that the current standard, which bases its criteria for labelling of country of origin on the place of processing, is not enough to prevent misleading labelling. The US, many developing countries and food industry groups continue to oppose the revision of the origin labelling standard, which they regard as sufficient to address consumer concerns. They fear that ingredient origin labelling in particular would be impracticable, complicated, confusing and entail huge cost to food producers and industries and that this could be a source of trade barriers, especially for developing countries.

For a more in-depth report on the CAC meeting, see the forthcoming issue of BRIDGES Trade BioRes.

"Codex Commission postpones decisions on country origin labelling," WTO REPORTER, 6 July 2004.

TREATY ON PLANT GENETIC RESOURCES FOR FOOD COMES INTO FOR

On 29 June, the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture came into force. The treaty aims to guarantee food security through the conservation, exchange and sustainable use of the world's plant genetic resources. It is based on the principles of fair use and equitable benefit sharing, and is in harmony with the Convention on Biological Diversity. The treaty took seven years to negotiate and has been ratified by 55 countries (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 22 November 2001). Central to the treaty is the Multilateral System for Access and Benefit Sharing. The system allows plant breeders, farmers and research institutions to access 64 important crops and forages from around the world more freely. The treaty also requires that a portion of the profits from the commercialisation of plants bred with material from the protected crops be paid to a trust fund to support developing countries' efforts in this area. Farmers' rights also play a central role in the treaty -- they are specifically recognised and protected.

Some civil society groups raised concern with regard to the treaty's effectiveness. For example, the UK Food Group noted ambiguities in the text surrounding whether, and to what extent, countries would be able to impose intellectual property rights (IPR) on genetic resources obtained from the Multilateral System that were subsequently modified. Questions about the consistency of this treaty and existing national IPR regimes and international agreements, including the WTO's Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights, were also raised. The erosion of plant biodiversity is a growing concern -- three-quarters of the genetic diversity found in agricultural crops is estimated to have been lost over the last century, and currently 80 percent of plant energy comes from only 12 crops.

"The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture," Commission on Genetic Plant Resources for Food and Agriculture; "International Seed Treaty Becomes Law," UK FOOD GROUP RELEASE, 29 June 2004.

SERVICES COALITION CALLS FOR PROGRESS IN AG SECTOR TALKS

A services coalition from Australia, Canada, Chile, the EC, India and the US delivered a letter to WTO Director-General Supachai Panitchpakdi on 25 June in support of progress in the Doha Round and a framework deal at the end of July. While services negotiations until recently were considered the engine of the Doha Round, the process has been stalling and the services groups noted links to other, stalled areas in the round. They pinpointed agriculture in particular as holding back advances in the area of services. So far, only 44 of 148 WTO Members have submitted their initial services offers. Furthermore, the offers that have been submitted generally reflect a low level of ambition (see related story, this issue). The services coalitions stressed that the welfare benefits potentially flowing from the liberalisation of trade in services could actually be more significant than those flowing from agriculture. The groups added that the services sector is the most important economic sector in all countries, developed and developing, and services amount to up to 50 percent of developing country GDP. Therefore, the services groups stressed that it was absolutely essential to resolve agricultural differences for the end-July WTO General Council meeting, or the window of opportunity for making substantives advances in the current round of negotiations in the WTO in 2004 would be lost.

ICTSD reporting; "Global Services Organisations issue open letter to WTO Director-General," GLOBAL SERVICES ALERT, 25 June 2004; "Services Groups cite need for July WTO framework deal," WTO REPORTER, 30 June 2004.