| OTO No. | 642 | Classification | MAFF-(2) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Date of Acceptance | August 22, 2001 | Ministry/Agency Receiving Complaint | Cabinet Office | |
| Responsible Ministries | Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries | Related Laws | Law Concerning Standardization and Proper Labeling of Agricultural and Forestry Products (JAS Law) | |
| Complainant | Domestic firm | Exporting Countries | Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka | |
| Subject | Expansion of the temporary measures applied to accredited processors to accredited packers | |||
| Description of Complaint |
1. Controllers of production processes (producers etc.) themselves may grade their organic agricultural products using the Japanese Agricultural Standard and put the organic JAS mark newly provided for in the revised JAS Law to their products by obtaining prior certification from certification organizations. (Article15 of the Law) As for organic agricultural processed foods, meanwhile, the revised Law states that raw materials that have been graded and had an organic JAS mark labeled by accredited controllers of production processes be used. 2. However, since it will be difficult for certification organizations to accredit all applicant controllers of production processes in a short period of time and there will be few organic agricultural products with an organic JAS mark on the market for some time after the revised JAS Law is enforced, the ministry has decided to take a temporary measure that enables, for the time being, the use of raw materials without an organic JAS mark in certain cases. 3. The temporary measure above has allowed accredited processors, in certain cases, to put an organic JAS mark on their processed foods that use raw materials without an organic JAS mark. As for accredited packers, meanwhile, they may not put an organic JAS mark nor an "organic" label on their products when they handle the same materials as the accredited processors, since the Law only states that packers may put the same grading labels even if they use foods that already have an organic JAS mark (Clause 6, Article 15 of the Law). As for this difference, the ministry says that accredited processors produce new products whereas accredited packers conduct only packing, without altering the nature of the materials. 4. However, while accredited processors have the risk of altering the nature of raw materials by conducting processing, for example, dissolving raw materials into water, accredited packers conduct only packing, raising a rather small risk of altering the nature of organic agricultural products. Furthermore, although certification organizations should have started operations before the end of March 2001, no certification organization exists as of August 22, and thus accredited packers cannot acquire imported organic agricultural products, etc. with an organic JAS mark. Therefore, accredited packers are in the same condition as the processors mentioned in the above 2 regarding the fact that there are few organic agricultural products with an organic JAS mark. 5. Therefore, the ministry is requested to take the same temporary measure as accredited processors that will allow packers to put an organic JAS mark and an organic label to their products. |
|||
| Details of Measures |
1. The ministry replied as follows: As for the grading labels by packers, Article 15, Clause 6 of the Law Concerning Standardization and Proper Labeling of Agricultural and Forestry Products (the JAS Law) states that, "those who make their business out of packing agricultural materials may, concerning agricultural materials subject to the certification with grading labels, put the same grading label as the one put on the agricultural materials, on their packages or containers or their invoices before packing to the the agricultural materials and on their packages or containers after packing. Therefore, packers may not, after packing, put an organic JAS mark nor an "organic" label on agricultural materials that had no organic JAS mark before packing. 2. The complainant replied, "The response (above) does not form a reply for our complaint that requests the review of the ministry's view, considering the purpose of the Law. However, because we cannot expect a positive answer in light of the past developments, we will focus on our separate complaint, OTO 643." This reply closed the complaint. |
|||
| Classification of Processing | D | Directions | IV | |
| Remarks | A written reply was made on August 30, 2001. | |||