Resolution on Labeling

The New World Wine Producers (NWWP) Industry Group strongly recommends to the Governments of the NWWP:

That they commit to arrange for their representatives to meet as soon as practical with a view to concluding an Agreement on the harmonising of mandatory labeling information and mutual recognition of other wine labeling practices.

Industry also strongly supports in principle the FIVS paper on labeling and recommends the NWWP countries should support and observe the progress of the submission by FIVS to the OIV.

1. The following should also be taken into consideration in such an Agreement

1.1 wine producers should be free to label their products as they see fit subject to applicable laws on GI's and intellectual property and to such information being verifiable
1.2 there should be no requirement for a front or main label as such
1.3 the producer may provide consumers with accurate, descriptive information in addition to the prescribed minimum.

Statement on the Other Labeling Items for Wines

The Industry Group of the NWWP has agreed to consider at its next meeting a detailed paper on other labeling items, including:

• Health statements
• % tests for vintage, variety and geographical indication
• label approval issues
• alcohol tolerance (measurement of chemical indices)
• multi-variety, multi-region, multi-country and multi-vintage blends
• brandmarks/trademarks/geographical indication
• language (bi-lingual)
• importer statement
• descriptive terms
• country of origin
• any other items
  

Time frame

• Countries to forward current regulations on these issues within two months to Working Group Coordinator Bruce Drinkwater
• Paper to be prepared and discussed at Working Party meeting in June
• Working party to comprise: Willie de Klerk, Frederico Mekis, Bob Kalik, Tony Battaglene, Philip Gregan, Bert Silk
• Paper to be discussed at next meeting

Statement on Chaptalisation

Having regard to the definition of wine contained in the Draft Mutual Acceptance Agreement we have considered and discussed a paper on Chaptalisation and have agreed to consider the matter further in the future in light of developments of international oenological practices.

Statement on the Mutual Acceptance Agreement by the NWWP Industry Group

• Following consideration of the Santiago Statement of the NWWP Industry Group and consideration in Queenstown of the revised draft MAA text of 28 February 2000, we:
• Are appreciative of the fact that government processes require careful attention to the detail of the agreement being made
• Recognise that significant progress has been made in achieving a common position
• Note that for the agreement to work, it must be binding and have a mechanism to resolve disputes should they arise between parties in a way that recognizes the principles on which the agreement is founded. It must also prevent their recurrence.
• Recognize that the development of a sound model will facilitate the adoption of this agreement by other countries
• Urge governments to finalise the text of the agreement within two months, building on the momentum of the Santiago and Queenstown meetings
• Note that this clear the way for a labeling agreement within the NWWP

Statement on the OIV

The Industry Group of the New World Wine Producers urges its respective governments to ensure that, in the context of its review, the OIV should be an organisation whose objectives shall be reassessed periodically and agreed to by consensus. Its resolutions must be science based and agreed by all its members.

Reiteration of the Position Statement on the World Trade Organization (WTO)

The Wine Trade Group in its New Zealand meeting reiterated to the governments attending, the following concepts previously stated in the Santiago meeting referring to WTO:

1. Reduce import duties on wine to a level that will maximize meaningful market access and minimize trade distortions.

2. Eliminate grape and wine production and export subsidies in all of their forms.

3. Insure compliance with existing obligations of WTO members to the agreement on TBT, SPS, and TRIPS.

4. The TRIPS agreement should not be reconsidered.

Back to Top