Indication of country of origin on food
- How it is justified and negative effects to the international trade-
Graduate school of agricultural and life sciences
Following Japan and Korea, the United –States and Australia have introduced the country of origin labelling requirement in recent years. At present, the EU is positive to adopting this system. While, the compulsory indication of country of origin has some negative effect to trade, its objective may be justified as a right of consumers to information. Then, it may be compatible with the text concerned of the TBT Agreement of the WTO. However this labelling system has some technical and practical problems which could induce a nature of “more restrictive than necessary” referred in the Agreement.
At the international level, there is not a common recognition on the compulsory labelling requirement. In this context, disputes under the framework of the WTO on the US.COOL have started in 2010. The conclusion of the dispute settlement body will have decisive importance for the future of the indication of country of origin.
In the situation where discussions are intensified in the international arena, Japan, as the country that has led this system, should not be much preoccupied by the coordination of interests of stakeholders inside in Japan, but be much responsible for the international harmonization. In any case, it shall be avoided to be inaccurate to induce mistakes, and not to be too confusing or obscure for consumers in the food labelling.
Keywords: Indication of country of origin, TBT Agreement, legitimate objectives
In recent years, some countries, such as Japan, introduced the obligatory indication of country of origin on food. Its purpose is regarded as assuring the food safety and providing information to consumers for their better choice of products. However, the common understanding does not yet exist in the world on the objective of this new system. Then, some countries are of the opinion that the necessity of the compulsory indication has not been justified, and may constitute an obstacle to international trade.
In fact, the majority of consumers in the world request and support the indication of country of origin. This fact might be attributed to the growing demand of consumers for the safety and quality of food at the high level, that could be realized by measures not only those based on scientific proof, but also by those for assuring the confidence of consumers on food, including consumers’ right to the information.
In the present days, the number of the countries which adopt the indication of country of origin progressively increases. In May, 2010, the European Parliament has adopted the Report of Scotta on the food quality policy which suggests the European Commission to introduce this compulsory labeling requirement. At the same time, in May, 2010 the creation of panels under the WTO has been decided by the claims of Canada and Mexico against the system of the United States (US.COOL, United States Country of Origin Labelling).
In the context that arguments are to be intensified at the international level, we will analyze the situation of introduction of the indication of country of origin in the world, its objective to be justified, relation between its negative effect to trade and the international agreements concerned, as well as some technical and practical problems, then will point out important elements to be considered for the development of the indication of country of origin in coming years.
2. Adoption of the indication of country of origin in the world
Since many years, voluntary indications of country of origin have been made on some products, aiming at showing that these are of hight quality. Because of this, fallacious indications occurred in some cases. It was the law for fair trade to prevent these deceptive and misleading labelling and presentations. At the international level, the Convention of Paris of 1883 and the Agreement of Madrid of 1891 have been accorded . The geographical indication as an intellectual property right is on the same line of this legislation.
In 1990s, the producers of vegetables in Japan were worried about the increase of import of of vegetables from Asia and the United States. Also it caused confusions in distinguishing quality among domestic and imported products. As well, the consumers were more and more interested in the safety of the imported food. Meantime, it was disclosed that prohibited pesticides had been used in imported foods. In responding to the strong requests from producers which were supported by consumers, the Government introduced a compulsory indication of country of origin for the limited products in 1996 (ginger, garlic, taro, broccoli and Chinese mushroom). In 1998, the covered products have been extended.
In 2000, by the adoption of the quality labelling standard for perishable foods , the indication of country of origin became compulsory for all perishable foods (fruits, vegetables, meat and fish). The imported perishable food has to declare the name of the country of origin and the domestic food has to declare, in principle, the name of the prefecture of origin.
As for the processed food, the consumers were worried about safety and quality of imported ingredients contained in processed food, even if final products are fabricated in Japan. Of this fact, since 2002, the Government introduced the compulsory indication of country of origin for ingredients of certain processed food (9 products). Besides, in 2004, by the amendment of the quality labelling standard for processed foods , the other 20 categories of processed food have been subject to the indication of country of origin for their main ingredient (see the table I).
The Government is still examining the extension of processed food to be subject to the indication of country of origin of their ingredient, especially taking into account of the request of consumers.
Regarding rice, in 2008, it was exposed that some contaminated rice, which had been sold by the Government for only industrial purposes, was actually traded for the human consumption in the distribution chain. The Government, then, introduced a law on compulsory traceability and indication of the origin of rice in 2009, with a view to assure food safety and consumers’ confidence (Rice traceability law) . The obligation of the indication of country of origin will come into force in July 2011. This obligation shall be applied to not only rice, but also to rice ingredients contained in certain processed foods, such as rice flour, rice meal, bentou, onigiri, steamed rice, packed steamed rice, rice cake, sake, shochu and mirin, etc. The detailers and restaurants and other like facilities should declare the country of origin of rice. For the rice produced in Japan,” the name of Japan or the name of place of origin should be declared, and for imported rice the name of the country of origin should be declared.
The Law on trade with exterior countries of 1991 established the obligation of the indication of country of origin for the designated products to be imported and to be exported, in view of assuring faire competition on trade, and of protecting consumers’ interest. Almost 170 fresh and processed foods (4 digits HS codes) are designated. The main objective of this legislation is to prevent unfair practices in trade. Therefore, precise criteria and procedure to determine the country of origin are set up in the legislation.
In 1994, the rule of the indication of country of origin for food distributed in the domestic market was adopted by the Law on the control of quality of agricultural products and by other laws . In this legislation, the obligatory indication of country of origin of ingredient contained in processed food was also instituted. According to the rule, certain domestic processed food (211 items) is required to declare the country of origin of their principal ingredient (more than 50 % in weight)  (see the table I).
3) United States
In the United States, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Farm Bill 2002)  demands the obligatory indication of country of origin for bovine meat, lamb, pork, marine products, fresh products (fruits and vegetables) and groundnuts. On April 4th, 2005, this rule came into force, but only for the fish and the wild and cultivated mollusks. Due to the fact that this obligation would impose burden on the operators concerned, the other products were not subjected to the text until September, 2008. It is January, 2009 when the final rule was published . The farm bill of 2008 added 5 products (chicken, goat meat, ginseng, pecan and macadamia nuts) subjected to the obligation of indication .
According to the final rule, the retailers are
required to declare the country of origin of the covered products. The covered products
that have become ingredients in a processed food due to the change of
character, as defined by the rule, are exempted from the compulsory indication
of country of origin (see the table I). The business operators
providing a covered product, directly or indirectly to retailers, have to
transmit the name of the country of origin of its product to the purchaser, and
record and keep files allowing identifying preceding seller and the purchaser.
2006, the obligation of the indication of country of origin was introduced by
the amendment of the Australia and New Zealand Food Standards Code . However, this obligation is not applied to
New Zealand. All packaged food, certain food not packaged (fresh or processed
fish, pork and fruits and vegetables, including these covered food in certain
processed foods) (see the table I), and fresh and cut fruits and vegetables in
transparent packing are required to declare the country of origin.
The European Commission, following consultations with stakeholders through the green paper concerning an orientation of reform on the food quality policy was published in May, 2009. On the basis of this orientation, the European Parliament led its examination, and adopted the Report of Scotta in May, 2010 .
The report states that it is opportune, in the case of the fresh agricultural products, to indicate the country of origin and, in that of the processed products including only the single ingredient, to indicate the place of provenance of the raw material used in the finished product, to assure an increased transparence and a better traceability, therefore to allow to the consumer to perform proper purchases. Besides, the report invites the Commission to examine if it is feasible to impose a labelling of the provenance for "major ingredients" (more than 50 % in weight) or “characteristic ingredients "contained in processed food.
3. Justification of the indication of country of origin
We have understood that the indication of country of origin had been introduced in certain countries within only 15 years. Then, the question will be how this obligation is justified. The laws pertinent don’t well explain the objective of the indication of country of origin for food. There are some explanations by authorities outside the legislation. The JAS law in Japan only states that a regulation on the indication of the place of origin can be adopted. The Japanese government has delivered an explanation that the indication of country of origin would allow better choice to consumers, as well as, would serve the mutual confidence between operators and consumers. The Secretary of Agriculture in the United- States declared in his letter of 2009 to the industry that the US. COOL would provide consumers with additional information about the source of food, and help producers differentiate their products. 
In considering that the relation between the food safety and the indication of country of origin is very indirect and obscure, we shall be able to understand that the main purpose of the indication of country of origin is to provide the consumer with information. Then, how and why is this information necessary? According to polls performed in Japan, the United States and other countries, more than approximately 80 % consumers support the indication of country of origin (1).
Besides, an American poll shows that the knowing the country of origin is consumers' right of the access to the information. This attitude of the consumer could be attributed to the fact that the consumers’ confidence in the food safety and quality became important, in particular, after the incident of ESB . The consumers consider that it is also important to know the process of production (how a food is produced) to entrust the product. Marion Nesle writes in her book « Safe Food-Bacteria, Biotechnology, and Bioterrorism » that the consumer wants to know the chemistry and the identification of the food which he takes in his body, and that he is worried if he does not know the provenance of the food . Authorities in the world respond such requirements of consumers, by taking into account consumer's right to information. For instance, labelling that a product is fabricated by genetically modifying method may be useless for food safety, because a strict risk assessment has been conducted before placing food on the market.
However, the majority of governments impose the obligation of indication of OGM, with a view to assuring the confidence of the consumers on food. The indication of country of origin can be justified in this context with regard to consumers' right to information in our contemporary societies.
4. Negative effects to the international trade
The compulsory labelling requirement sometimes has negative impacts to international trade. One of these negatives effects is created by the comparison between domestic products and foreign products in general. Consumers in most countries, particularly in developed countries, are likely to believe that the safety and quality of domestic food are better than those in foreign countries. Besides, consumers are sometimes inclined to an ethnocentric desire. For example, a report of Canada (2) refers to that the indication of country of origin is predicated on the assumption that domestic consumers will prefer domestically produced food.
In fact, consumers in Japan keep in principle the preference to domestic food. In this sense, the compulsory indication of country of origin may constitute an obstacle to trade.
The other is a negative effect to trade with a particular country and/or particular product.
When the fact that an imported food tainted by harmful substances is disclosed, consumers tend to refrain from purchasing this food produced in this country. If these cases continuously happen, consumers will not purchase food in general from this country by identifying the country of origin. At the early stage, such assumed effect provided incentive, to some extent, to the introduction of the labelling requirement. For example, vegetable producers in Japan expected that the import of vegetables would not be increasing, if the country of origin is declared. Consumers in Japan also were worried about the safety of imported food, due to mal performance of the Government policy for assuring food safety of imported food.
5. Relation between international agreements and indication of country of origin
Then, we must examine if the indication of country of origin having an adverse effect to trade is compatible with international agreements concerned. It is the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT agreement) under the WTO that is the most pertinent to the indication of country of origin. The article 2.2 states that Members shall assure that technical regulations are not prepared, adopted or applied with a view to or with the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade, and continue to state that for this purpose, technical regulations shall not be more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfill a legitimate objective. Prevention of deceptive practices, protection of human health and others are mentioned as legitimate objectives in the same article.
The key words are “legitimate objective” and “not be more restrictive than necessary” for the indication of country of origin. As for legitimate objectives, necessary information for consumers could be regarded as a legitimate objective by the reason that we have analyzed above, although we cannot determine, in the clear manner, the effect of this obligation. In this connection, it is necessary to note that « legitimate objective » is declared apparently in the text of the TBT Agreement (3).
On the other hand, no term "legitimate" is referred in the text of the SPS Agreement . That's why that food safety measures shall be strictly based on the scientific proof. Therefore, the SPS Agreement could be interpreted to exclude the consideration of other legitimate factors than scientific evidences, such as interest of consumers, social, environmental, cultural factors at the time of taking measures of risk management. (4).The TBT Agreement clearly allows legitimate objectives, by illustrating some examples in the text. The report of the appellate body regarding « conserved sardine», which was the first case related to the TBT Agreement under the WTO, has suggested that these examples are not exhaustive (5). By the interpretation of the text of the TBT Agreement, the protection of the interests of the consumers, such as the indication of country of origin could be regarded as to be one of the legitimate objectives.
As for the term « not be more restrictive than necessary to fulfill a legitimate objective», the indication, itself, requires neither extreme costs, nor complete technical or practical difficulties. Besides, a less restrictive alternative means does not exist. Therefore, the indication of country of origin may not be said “ more restrictive than necessary”. If the traceability is imposed on an imported product in the exporting country, the country which does not introduce the traceability is not able to export. This case might be regarded as "more restrictive than necessary". The indication of country of origin does not have such effect.
In the ordinary trade, the operators perform an evaluation on quality and security of products, by gathering necessary information, including their provenance. For the reasons above, we could conclude that the indication of country of origin has not a nature to be more trade restrictive than necessary.
However, at the international level, there is not still a common understanding of the question if the indication of country of origin is, or not, compatible with terms “legitimate objective " and « not be more restrictive than necessary ». From 2001 to 2003, the Committee of the Codex on food labelling discussed this subject on the basis of the UK proposal and of some other countries. Some delegations expressed their concerns that the labelling of the country of origin would create not necessary obstacles particularly for developing countries, and underlined that
the requirement for ingredients would create practical difficulties and draw away important costs for industries. The Committee of 2003 decided not to continue work, since there was no consensus .
In the framework of the WTO, Canada and Mexico expressed their concerns on a trade restrictive effect of the US. COOL. At the end of 2008, they proposed consultations, and then, requested for the creation of panel. In May, 2010, the WTO decided the establishment of panels, where discussions will begin in September, 2010. Two countries claim that the US. COOL does not comply with articles 2, 5 and 7 of the SPS Agreement, with articles 2 and 12 of the TBT Agreement and with article 2 of the Rules of origin (DS 384 and DS 386). The third parties are China, EU, Korea, Australia and other countries.
6. Reliability of the indication of country of origin
With a view to assuring the reliability of labelling of the country of origin at the stage of retailers, the traceability in the whole food chain is important. In the United States, the traceability from the point of importation to retailers is incorporated for foods covered by this obligation. The traceability is composed of recording the purchase and sell and of transmitting the name of country of origin to the closest purchaser of covered products .
In Japan, at the time of the creation of the system of the indication of country of origin, compulsory traceability has not been instituted. Deceptive presentations happened in the trade of ingredients for processed food between 2007 and 2007. The Japanese Government introduced, under the JAS Law, an obligation to present the name of ingredient of products to the purchaser, as well as the name of country of origin of product subject to the indication of country of origin of ingredients in the processed products. Regarding the rice, the rice traceability law of 2009 introduced the obligation of traceability and the compulsory indication of country of origin at the same time.
As the above, some appropriate
measure should be incorporated to assure the reliability of the indication of
country of origin, since the food chain of agricultural products is complex,
and many operators are involved in production, circulation and transformation.
7. Practical and technical problems of the indication of country of origin
The indication of country of origin has some technical problems. One of these problems is that related to the indication of ingredients in processed food. The coverage of processed foods subjected to the obligation of the mention of the country of origin of their ingredient is limited in fact by the practical reason. In Japan and Korea, the processed foods which are subject to this obligation are designated. In the United States, covered products (including marine products) which are processed in certain degrees are exempted from obligatory indication (see the table I). The rice in the system in Japan adopts the same method as that in the Unites-States.
In the system of Japan and Korea, agricultural products which are never declared could exist, when they are processed. In the American system, the processed food subject to the obligation to indicate the country of origin of its ingredient is not clearly known beforehand.
As the table I shows, the systems of indication of country of origin for ingredients vary, each other, according to social and industrial situations, as well as eating habit in countries concerned. For some cases, it is extremely difficult to determine the country of origin for imported ingredients; there are products whose countries of origin of ingredients change very frequently, such as fruit juice, edible oil, etc. Du to this fact, the excessive expansion of covered processed products would entail an imposition of too much burden on the industry. Besides, the industry having fear about such burden or about mislabelling may tend to avoid the import of such ingredients; otherwise, the importing industry may transfer burdens to exporting countries, requesting for precise and correct determination of country of origin. These might be trade restrictive effects that could be regarded as “more restrictive than necessary” referred by the TBT Agreement, article 2.2. Instead, the permission of obscure declaration to alleviate the problems above mentioned, such as “imported” may impair the original objective of the labelling.
The costs for the indication should not be neglected. The obligation imposed on a particular group of industry in need of excessive costs for the precise indication will make lose its competition power in the food industry, because the food substitutes, in many cases, each other. An adequate cost analysis is needed from this point, while the cost-benefit analysis in general has been conducted.
Indication of country of origin for ingredients in processed food
Processed foods to be labeled for the country of origin of its ingredient/s
Ingredient/s to be labeled for its country of origin
Examples of processed foods to be labeled for the country of origin of their ingredient/s
20 categories of products and 4 products designated
Products designated containing rice as ingredient
Principal ingredient of more than 50% of the total ingredients
Rice in products
Dried, salted and frozen fruits and vegetables, pickles of vegetables, mixed fruits and vegetables, konnyaku, processed groundnuts, ground meat, slightly processed meat, salted dried and slightly processed fish, treated eel, green tea beverage
Rice cake, bentou, onigiri, rice biscuits, sake, syochu (distilled sake)
211 processed foods designated
Principal ingredient of more than 50% of total ingredients,
or first 2 principal ingredients, when the ingredient of more than 50% does not exist.
Bread, chocolate, snack cakes, dairy products, meat products, conserved fruits, edible oil, beverages, chomiryo, pasta, products of kimuchi, bentou, cereal, lightly treated fruits, vegetables and meat
Items are excluded from labelling
under the regulation when a covered
commodity is an ingredient in a
processed food item
Items which are not ingredients in a processed food item.
A ‘‘processed food item’’ is defined as follows.
“Retail item that has undergone specific
processing resulting in a change in the
character of product or that has been combined with other covered commodity or other substantive food component.”
“Specific processing” includes cooking (e.g., frying, broiling, grilling, boiling, steaming, baking, roasting), curing (e.g., salt curing, sugar curing, drying), smoking ,and restructuring
Examples of items which are excluded from labelling
teriyaki flavored pork loin, meatloaf, roasted peanuts, breaded chicken tenders, breaded fish sticks,
cooked and smoked meats, cured ham, bacon, corned beef, , a salad that contains iceberg and romaine lettuce, a fruit cup that
contains cantaloupe, watermelon, and honeydew, mixed vegetables,
salad mix that contains lettuce and carrots and/or salad dressing.
Certain processed fish, pork, fruits and vegetables which are not prepackaged
(a label identifying the country/yes of origin is required, and when they are mix of local and imported food, a statement of this fact is required.)
-Fish that has undergone any other processing including cooking, smoking, drying, pickling or coating
-Pork that has been preserved by curing, drying, smoking or by other means.
-Fruits and vegetables where that produce has been preserved, pickled, cooked, frozen or dehydrated
- Fruits and vegetables in a transparent package
Same as the left
Sources : Quality labelling standard for processed foods, Cabinet order of the rice traceability low, Document 3” Food labelling in Korea” Forty first session of the joint committee of food labelling of 10 February 2009, Final Rule January 15 2009 7CFR Parts 60 and 65,
Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code, Standard 1.2.11 Country of Origin Requirements of 2006
Another problem is the determination of the country of origin. We don’t have much difficulty in determining the country of origin for perishable products. However, there are some difficulties for animals such as beef, pork and lamb. Japan adopts criteria of the length of raising animals. Korea has a similar one. On the other hand, in the United-States, animals should be born, raised and slaughtered within the States to declare “Product of USA”.
The same criteria are applied to fish of aqua culture in the United-Stats. As the table II shows, the rule of each country to determine the country of origin is substantially different each other. In fact, the rules of origin vary according to the groups of industry even within a country. The efforts for the international harmonization under the Rules of origin of WTO that was adopted in 1994 are in a half way at the present .
Since the harmonized rules of origin do not exist so far, there will be cases that claims are raised by exporting countries. Claims that the US.COOL is not compatible with the article 2 of the Rules of origin of the WTO were raised by Canada in the panel of the WTO dispute settlement body.
Country of origin of animals
Indicate the name of the foreign country in the case that the period of raising the animal in Japan is shorter than that in this foreign country. In this case, if the animal has been raised in two or more countries, the name of the country where the period of raising is the longest shall be declared.
a) Declare “product of US” for meat of animals born, raised and slaughtered in the USA.
b) Declare « product of country X » for meat of animals from country X with no production step in USA.
c) Declare” product of country X and USA” for meat of animals imported from country X for immediate slaughter in USA
d) Declare “product of US and country X” for meat of animals born in country X, and raised and slaughtered in USA,
a) Beef: the country of origin is that where animals have been raised during 6 or more than 6 months.
b) Pork: the country of origin is that where animals have been raised during 6 or more than 6 months.
c) Other animals: the country of origin is that where animals have been raised during 1 or more than 1 months.
Sources: Quality labelling standard for perishable foods, Rule of the law on trade with exterior countries of 1991, Final rule January 15 2009 7CFR parts 60 and 65
Following Japan and Korea, the United –States and Australia have introduced the country of origin labelling requirement in recent years. At present, the EU is positive to adopting this system. While it was regarded as a peculiar system for countries with a different culture in earlier stage, it is now about to be an international standard for the food quality policy.
Since the compulsory indication of country of origin has a negative effect to international trade, some exporting countries have raised their concerns about this system. Then, disputes under the framework of the WTO will start in 2010.
In this context, Japan should take much consideration to international aspects for the further development of this system. For example, too much coverage of processed foods for the indication of country of origin of ingredients will have a risk of entailing trade obstacles to be regarded as “more restrictive than necessary”, or a risk of inaccurate or meaningless labelling.
In this connection, we have to follow carefully the proceedings of the WTO disputes, because the report to be concluded will have the decisive impact to the future of this system. Also, it is expected that discussions in the Codex committee will be resumed. Although my observations in this report are strictly personal ones, the official interpretation must be provided by the decisions and recommendations of the report of the dispute settlement body in the WTO.
Japan, as the country that has led this system of labelling, should not be much preoccupied by the coordination of interests of stakeholders in Japan, but should develop this system of labeling in considering the international harmonization. In any case, it shall be avoided to be inaccurate to induce mistakes, and be too obscure or confusing to induce misunderstanding of consumers in the food labelling.
(1) Consumers Union’s Comments on US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) Interim Final Rule on Mandatory Country of Origin Labelling ( AMS‐LS‐07‐0081September 30, 2008） state as follows:
“For example, a poll of 1,000+ people conducted by Consumers Union in early June, 2007, found that 92% thought that imported food should be labeled as to its country of origin2. Another poll from 2007, conducted for Food and Water Watch, found that 82% of 1000 people polled in early March, 2007, supported mandatory COOL. Most recently, a poll of more than 4,500 people, conducted in mid‐July, 2007 by Zogby Interactive, found that 88% of those polled said all retail food should have COOL. More importantly, some “94% believe that consumers have a right to know the country of origin of the foods they purchase.”
(2) Hobbs. J、stated as follows in the Policy Dispute Information Consortium 9th Agricultural and Food Policy Information Workshop, which was held in Montreal, in April 2003;
“Producer interest groups in various countries have often lobbied for the introduction of
country of origin labelling on food. Usually this lobbying is predicated on the assumption that
domestic consumers will prefer domestically produced food, either due to perceived quality or
safety differences or through an ethnocentric desire to support domestic industries”.
(3) The article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement refers as follows, as legitimate objectives
“Such legitimate objectives are, inter alia: national security requirements; the prevention of deceptive practices; protection of human health or safety, animal or plant life or health, or the environment.”
(4) As for “ legitimate factors”, the article 6.3 of the EU Regulation (No 178/2002) laying down the general principles and requirements of Food Law states that risk management shall take into account the result of risk assessment ….,other factors legitimate to matter under consideration”. The SPS Agreement does not have any reference to “legitimate”. However, it is interpreted that the level of food safety protection is at discretion of each country. Accordingly, Mr. .I,Yamashita and Mr. N, Fujioka underline that other factors such as concerns of consumers could be taken into account to decide the level of protection, in their books, “ Food Safety and trade, Nihon Hyoronn Sha, “ and “ WTO disputes around food safety, Noubunnkyou,2007”. However, this may mean that other factors legitimate could be taken into account in selecting a suitable risk level among those indicated in the risk assessment. Therefore, it is not clear whether other factors legitimate could be taken into account, outside the risk assessment.
(5) The report of the appellate body for the EU’s labelling of sardine ( WT/DS231/AB/R, adopted on 23 October, 2002) suggests that while, “ objectives legitimate” should be interpreted based on the article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, those cited in this article are not exhaustive（Para 285-286）。
 Convention de Paris pour la protection de la propriété industrielle, 1883
Arrangement concernant la répression des indications de provenance fausses ou fallacieuses sur les marchandises, 1891
 Quality labelling standard for perishable foods ( Ministerial notification No 514, 2000）
Quality labelling standards for
processed foods (Ministerial notification No 513, 2000)
 Law concerning rice traceability and system for providing information on the origin of rice ingredient (Law No 26, 2009)
 Law on quality control of agricultural products, article 15 (indication of the place of origin) Law on quality control of fisheries products, article 10 (indication of place of origin)
 Document 3” Food labelling in Korea”, Forty first session of the joint committee of food labelling of 10 February 2009
Farm security and Rural Investment Act
 Interim Final Rule August 1 2008 7CFR 65 and Final rule January 15 2009 7CFR parts 60 and 65,
 Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008
The Australia New Zealand Food Standards
Code Standard 1.2.11 Country of Origin Requirements
 Scotta.G, 2009, « Proposition de résolution du Parlement européen », Commission de l’agriculture et du développement rural, Rapporteur , para 23-27
 Secretary Vilsack’s Letter to Industry, February 20, 2009, pp1
 Takahashi.T. 2008,« La sécurité et la qualité des denrées alimentaires, Etude comparée, Japon, -UE-Etats-Unis », Thèse , Université de Toulouse, pp 3-4
 Nestle. M. 2003. “Safe Food-Bacteria, Biotechnology, and Bioterrorism”. University of California Press Berkley, Translated into Japanese by Yuko Kubota and Tamako Hirose, Iwanami Shoten, 2009, pp 22
 Agreement on the application of sanitary and
phytosanitary measures of 1994(SPS Agreement)
 Report of the thirty-eighth session of the Codex committee on food labelling
Quebec City, Canada, 3 – 7 May 2001 pp 20-21,Report of the thirty-first session of the Codex committee on food labelling
Ottawa, Canada, 28 April - 2 May 2003 pp 19-20
 Takahashi.T. 2008 “Food traceability in the U.S.A.” FRISIS Information, No 36 2008, Council for International Standards Harmonization of Food Industry and Food Traceability, pp 35-50
 WTO: 2010 NEWS ITEMS, Rules of origin,
Back to the top