This study aims to analyse World Trade Organisation (WTO) specific trade concerns (STCs) raised against Indonesia’s Ministry of Health Regulation No. 30 of 2013 (MoH Regulation No. 30/2013), which mandates sugar, salt and fat (SSF) content disclosure and health warnings on processed food labels. It evaluates the regulation’s compatibility with the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Agreement and elucidates legal tensions between domestic public health objectives and international trade disciplines.
The research uses qualitative legal methodology, combining doctrinal analysis of WTO law with documentary analysis of primary sources. Core data comprises official transcripts from STC discussions in the WTO TBT Committee. These records are analysed thematically to identify legal principles, Members’ objections and Indonesia’s defence, framed within established WTO jurisprudence.
The analysis reveals significant legal vulnerabilities: non-compliance with transparency obligations under TBT Articles 2.9 and 2.12; failure to satisfy the “necessity” test under Article 2.2; unjustified deviation from Codex Alimentarius standards under Article 2.4; and risk of de facto discrimination from onerous conformity assessment procedures under Articles 2.1 and 5.1.2. Indonesia’s policy-based defences are insufficient to meet these strict legal tests.
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper provides the first comprehensive doctrinal analysis of WTO trade concerns surrounding Indonesia’s SSF labelling policy, filling a gap in scholarship on how developing countries navigate health regulation and trade law. It moves beyond descriptive objections to offer a forensic compliance assessment, concluding with a structured pathway for aligning public health measures with WTO obligations. The study offers critical insights for policymakers and scholars on reconciling regulatory autonomy with the rule-based trading system.
