17 November 2025
- Raising the bar: Malaysia updates its alcohol content and labelling requirements for certain alcoholic beverages
- Promoting trade facilitation: Thailand issues new rules for the self-certification of the origin of goods
- Defining and regulating unhealthy ultra-processed foods (UPFs): Guiding consumers with labelling requirements and marketing restrictions?
- Recently adopted EU legislation
Raising the bar: Malaysia updates its alcohol content and labelling requirements for certain alcoholic beverages
By Amanda Carlota, Imelda Jo Anastasya, and Paolo R. Vergano
On 30 September 2025, the Attorney General’s Chambers of Malaysia published the Food (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2025, which will enter into force on 1 April 2026. This marks the third amendment this year of Malaysia’s Food Regulations 1985, which govern, inter alia, the standards and specific labelling requirements for meat, vinegar, and alcoholic beverages. The Food (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2025 pertain exclusively to alcoholic beverages and foresee changes to the minimum and maximum permissible alcohol content levels for certain products, new standards for the spirits tequila and mezcal, as well as updated labelling requirements.
This article discusses the Food (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2025, assesses their alignment with Malaysia’s commitments within the World Trade Organization (hereinafter, WTO), and examines the commercial implications.
Amending the Food Regulations 1985
On 10 March 1983, Malaysia’s Food Act 1983 was enacted to “protect the public against health hazards and fraud in the preparation, sale and use of food, and for matters incidental thereto or connected therewith”. The Act requires individuals and legal entities to prepare or sell only food that is fit for human consumption and prohibits the preparation or sale of any food containing substances that are injurious to health. On 1 October 1985, the Food Regulations 1985 entered into force as a companion to the Food Act, setting out detailed requirements related to food labelling, food additives and nutrient supplements, food packaging, as well as the labelling requirements for a wide range of products, including alcoholic beverages.
Under the Food (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2025, Regulation No. 361 sets out the general standards for alcoholic beverages, while subsequent regulations establish product-specific rules, such as for wine and vodka. Although each regulation targets a particular beverage, they share common requirements, including minimum and maximum alcohol content levels and labelling standards. Since their introduction, the Food Regulations 1985 have undergone multiple revisions, focusing on non-alcoholic products. Amendments addressing alcoholic beverages were only introduced in 2022, revising requirements on alcohol content, ingredient use, food additives, and labelling, as well as inserting Regulation No. 384A, which sets standards and labelling rules for tequila and mezcal.
Distilling the details: Food (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2025
The Food (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2025 introduce several key changes aimed at improving the safety and quality of alcoholic beverages. The amendments apply to all alcoholic beverages regulated under the Food Regulations 2025, except for apple wine, cider, pear wine, perry, fruit brandy, spirits, and liqueurs.
Firstly, the Regulations revise the permitted alcohol content levels for various alcoholic beverages. For instance, the Regulations increase the maximum allowed alcohol content for wine cocktails, vermouth, or wine aperitifs from 20% to 22%.
Secondly, the Regulations update the rules for tequila and mezcal by introducing new definitions and by setting requirements on minimum alcohol content and packaging. Tequila is defined as a spirit drink produced from the plant species Agave tequilana weber blue variety, containing between 35% and 55% alcohol by volume, while mezcal is defined as a spirit distilled entirely from any species of Agave, containing between 35% and 55% alcohol by volume.
Lastly, the Regulations introduce new labelling requirements for alcoholic beverages. Some provisions apply to a range of products, while others are product-specific. For example, wine, fruit wine, vegetable wine, honey wine or mead, and rice wine may not be labelled with the word “sparkling” or any word of similar meaning, unless the carbon dioxide in such products is naturally present solely due to fermentation. Previously, no such rule existed. Additionally, honey wine or mead may not be labelled with the word “wine” unless it is accompanied by the word “honey”. Before the amendment, the Food Regulations 1985 only specified the definition, alcohol content, ingredients, and permitted preservatives and food conditioners for honey wine, without prescribing any labelling requirements.
The consistency of Malaysia’s regulatory framework with international trade rules
The alcohol content and labelling requirements under the Food (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2025 qualify as “technical regulations” under Annex 1 of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (hereinafter, TBT Agreement), as they “lay down product characteristics or related production methods with which compliance is mandatory”.Consequently, Malaysia must ensure that imported alcoholic beverages are accorded treatment “no less favourable” than like domestic or third-country products under Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement and that the regulations do not create unnecessary obstacles to trade, in accordance with Article 2.2.
The amendments through the Food (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2025 fall short of addressing concerns raised by other WTO Members. In fact, the Food Regulations 1985 continue to draw scrutiny from WTO Members due to the absence of a product category for liqueurs with less than 15% alcohol, which effectively prevents their placing on the market in Malaysia. In June 2025, during the meeting of the WTO TBT Committee, Japan argued that this exclusion was “more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve a legitimate objective and may conflict with Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement”. Japan recommended that Malaysia either amend the existing liqueur category stipulated in Regulation No. 386 or create a new category. Malaysia asserted at the WTO that the exclusion was “non-discriminatory” and served“legitimate health and safety objectives”.
In this context, it would need to be assessed whether excluding liqueurs with less than 15% alcohol is indeed necessary to achieve Malaysia’s stated health and safety objectives, considering, for instance, that beverages with higher alcohol content are permitted. Should this issue be challenged in the context of WTO dispute settlement, Malaysia would need to show that the exclusion of liqueurs with less than 15% alcohol is the least trade-restrictive measure reasonably available to achieve its legitimate health and safety objectives and that no less restrictive alternatives could effectively address the same risks.
Implications for the alcoholic beverages industry
Once the Food (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2025 take effect on 1 April 2026, businesses must ensure compliance with the new requirements on minimum and maximum alcohol content levels and the new labelling rules. Businesses in the alcoholic beverage sector should diligently review the new rules and prepare for compliance. This may also require reviewing product formulations to ensure that alcohol levels fall within the prescribed range and making labelling adjustments, where necessary. Preparing in advance will help businesses maintain market access and avoid potential compliance risks.
For any additional information or legal advice on this matter, please contact Paolo R. Vergano
Promoting trade facilitation: Thailand issues new rules for the self-certification of the origin of goods
By Joanna Christy, Pattranit Chantaplaboon, and Paolo R. Vergano
On 29 September 2025, Thailand’s Department of Foreign Trade (hereinafter, DFT) issued the Notification on the Registration of Approved Exporters for Self-Certification of Origin of Goods under International Trade Agreements or International Trade Practices B.E. 2568 (2025). The 2025 Notification, which entered into force on 1 October 2025, sets out the general criteria and procedures for exporters to obtain an authorisation for the self-certification of origin, allowing them to self-declare the origin of the goods they trade in order to claim preferential trade benefits under relevant preferential trade agreements.
This article examines Thailand’s rules on self-certification of origin and how these rules can facilitate trade for exporters and traders.
Certification of origin in Thailand
Rules of origin are used to determine the “nationality” of goods for the application of trade measures, such as preferential and non-preferential duties, as well as quotas. Typically, a Certificate of Origin is required to certify a product’s country of origin. In Thailand, exporters may certify the origin of their goods through two methods: certification issued by authorised bodies or through self-certification.
For the certification by authorised authorities, exporters may either apply for: 1) An Ordinary Certificate of Origin, which is a document that validates the country of origin of goods but does not grant preferential tariffs, duty reduction, or duty exemption; or 2) A Preferential Certificate of Origin, which is a document used to claim preferential Customs duty or tariff benefits, such as preferential tariffs under the ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement (hereinafter, ATIGA). Thailand’s DFT is authorised to issue both the non-preferential Certificate of Origin and the Preferential Certificate of Origin, while the Thai Chamber of Commerce and the Federation of Thai Industries have been empowered to issue the non-preferential Certificate of Origin. Exporters can submit their application for a Certificate of Origin electronically to the DFT through the DFT SMART Certificate of Origin website for both the non-preferential Certificate of Origin and the Preferential Certificate of Origin.
Self-certification is an administrative procedure that allows exporters to self-declare the origin of their goods without requiring verification from authorised bodies. In Thailand, self-certification was, so far, regulated by Notification on the Self-Certification of Origin B.E. 2554 (2011). However, the 2011 Notification did not clearly outline the rules for registration, especially with respect to the electronic application procedures. Therefore, the 2025 Notification has been issued to address this gap, enhance legal certainty, and digitalise procedures. Under the previous regime, exporters were required to personally appear at Thailand’s DFT to apply for the registration to become a certified exporter and submit documents in paper, such as the company name and registration number, and manufacturing data.
Thailand’s updated self-certification framework for exporters
The 2025 Notification now sets out the criteria, procedures, and conditions for registering exporters approved to self-certify the origin of goods in order to benefit from preferential Customs tariffs under several preferential trade agreements. To self-certify the origin of goods, exporters must first be registered as ‘approved exporters’, which refers to exporters that are approved by the DFT to self-certify the origin. An application to apply for registration for self-certification is now possible online and can be done through the DFT Self-Certification website. The DFT Self-Certification website is a separate portal from the DFT SMART Certificate of Origin website, which is used to apply for the Certificate of Origin. The DFT Self-Certification system shares and stores data interoperably among the DFT systems.
Accompanying the application for self-certification, exporters must electronically submit the supporting documents through the DFT Self-Certification website, including the business registration certificate, a map of the business location, and proof of identity of the authorised signatory of the company. After submitting the application and supporting documents, the DFT will notify exporters of the registration results and share the registration number through the DFT Self-Certification website. Exporters that are approved by the DFT can then issue the Declaration of Origin by including the registration number on the invoice and proceed with the usual Customs clearance and final shipment to the buyer, who can claim the preferential tariff.
Furthermore, the 2025 Notification regulates the validity of ‘approved exporters’ status, which remains valid for two years from the date of registration. The DFT Self-Certification website is also used to administer the renewal procedure and handle all related data submissions and data storage. Approved exporters are required to maintain related documents and accounting records, and to report both export and non-export activities electronically through the DFT Self-Certification website on a monthly basis. The DFT may revoke the right to self-certify the origin of goods if the approved exporter violates or fails to comply with the stipulated criteria under the 2025 Notification.
Towards greater trade facilitation
Thailand’s move to digitalise the self-certification of origin through the DFT Self-Certification system by utilising DFT websites, such as DFT SMART Certificate of Origin and DFT Self-Certification, is in line with Thailand’s commitments under the WTO’s Agreement on Trade Facilitation (hereinafter, TFA) and follows best practices adopted by other countries and regions, such as the EU, which allows self-certification through the digitalised Registered Exporter system, or ASEAN, which introduced the ASEAN-wide Self-Certification (hereinafter, AWSC) scheme.
Under Article 10 of the TFA, WTO Members committed to “decreasing and simplifying import, export, and transit documentation requirements”, such as through digital means. Online systems are trade facilitative as they are available for exporters anywhere and anytime, thereby “minimising the incidence and complexity” of the traditional paper-based export formalities and avoiding time-consuming in-person visits to Government offices.
Within the region, since 2020, ASEAN Member States introduced their own self-certification scheme, namely the AWSCscheme, which electronically connects the National Single Windows of all ASEAN Member States and enables the secure and paperless exchange of trade-related documents, including under the ATIGA. Notably, the AWSC allows certified exporters in ASEAN Member States to directly declare the origin of their goods on the invoice to claim preferential tariffs under the ATIGA. This scheme replaces the traditional, time-consuming process of issuing a Certificate of Origin (i.e., Form D for ATIGA preferences) from the relevant authority for every shipment. For the implementation of the AWSC scheme, a database that securely shares and exchanges certified exporters’ information among all ASEAN Member States was established, significantly streamlining export formalities and regional trade. Thailand’s Department of Foreign Trade will share the approved exporter data from its DFT Self-Certification database with other ASEAN Member States through the AWSC.
Outlook for exporters and traders
Since the 2025 Notification is already in effect, exporters based in Thailand are encouraged to register with the DFT to be approved to self-certify the origin of their goods. The updated self-certification system offers significantly improved convenience and accessibility that businesses should take advantage of.
For any additional information or legal advice on this matter, please contact Paolo R. Vergano
Defining and regulating unhealthy ultra-processed foods (UPFs): Guiding consumers with labelling requirements and marketing restrictions?
By Amanda Carlota, Ignacio Carreño García, and Tobias Dolle
On 6 November 2025, the World Health Organization (hereinafter, WHO) published, for public notice and comment, a provisional list of experts who are tasked with developing a Guideline on the consumption of ultra-processed foods. The Guideline is intended to support WHO Member States’ efforts to “promote healthier, safer and more sustainable diets as a priority”.
This article discusses the concept of ultra-processed foods, examines the link between ultra-processed foods and noncommunicable diseases, and explores the possible implications of using front-of-pack labelling to regulate the consumption of ultra-processed food.
Defining ‘ultra-processed food’
The WHO initiative confirms the relevance of ultra-processed foods. At the same time, there is currently no generally accepted scientific definition of ultra-processed foods (hereinafter, UPFs).
The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) adopted the NOVA classification, developed in 2009 by researchers at the University of São Paulo, which “groups all foods according to the nature, extent and purposes of the industrial processes they undergo”. UPFs, which comprise NOVA Group 4, are defined as “formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, made by a series of industrial processes, many requiring sophisticated equipment and technology”.
Some public authorities have developed their own definitions. For example, in the US, on 8 October 2025, California adopted Assembly Bill No. 1264, which makes California the first US state to legally define UPFs. California’s new law broadly defines “UPF” as any food or beverage that contains one or more ingredients with specified technical effects (e.g., emulsifiers, stabilisers, colours, flavours, flavour enhancers, non-nutritive sweeteners); and either (i) contains “high amounts of” saturated fat, sodium or added sugar (as defined in the new legislation), or (ii) contains a nonnutritive sweetener or certain other specified substances (e.g., hydrogenated starch hydrolysates and sucralose). The law also directs California’s Department of Public Health (CDPH), in consultation with California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, the Department of Education, the Department of Food and Agriculture, and other entities, to adopt formal regulations by 1 June 2028 identifying “UPFs of concern” and “restricted school foods.”
The link between UPFs and noncommunicable diseases
In 2024, the need to develop a proper definition of UPFs gained a sense of urgency after the WHO published a reportidentifying UPFs as among the ‘commercial determinants’ of noncommunicable diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, and cancer in the EU. According to the report, as many as one-third of total global deaths and 41% of deaths from noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) can be attributed to just four commercial products, one of which is UPFs (the other three being tobacco, fossil fuels, and alcohol). More specifically, the WHO estimates that, in 2021, more than 391,000 deaths in the EU could be attributed to diets high in UPFs such as processed meat, sugar-sweetened beverages, and foods high in sodium and trans fatty acids. According to the WHO, UPFs comprise over 12% of European adults’ daily food consumption and 27% of their total daily energy intake.
On 2 October 2025, the 2025 EAT-Lancet Commission, a global interdisciplinary group of scientists dedicated to “setting global targets for human and planetary health”, published its report on ‘healthy, sustainable, and just food systems’. According to Freshfel Europe, a business association representing Europe’s fresh fruit and vegetable industry, the EAT-Lancet report “highlights the need for changes in agriculture, fiscal, health, environmental, and education policies, as current frameworks are seen as favouring ultra-processed foods over fresh produce”.
Labelling UPFs
Given the health risks associated with the consumption of UPFs, there have been calls to introduce front-of-pack (FoP) labelling to inform and guide consumers. Latin American countries are pioneers in this regard. According to a Guidance Note jointly published in 2023 by FAO, PAHO, and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) on ‘Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling in Latin America and the Caribbean’, 10 out of 33 countries in the region have adopted FoP nutritional labelling schemes for UPFs. The most common scheme, adopted by Chile (see Trade Perspectives, Issue No. 16 of 15 September 2015), Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela, and in combination with other schemes by Argentina and Mexico, consists of black octagonal labels indicating that a product is high in sugar, saturated fats, trans fats, sodium, or calories. Those labels must be placed on certain processed foods, such as cookies, when they are high in sugar, saturated fats, trans fats, sodium, or calories. Depending on the definition of UPF, most UPFs are poised to bear the black label.
The guidance note describes FoP nutritional labelling as “the system that achieves the best results in real population and national scenarios” and states that black octagonal warnings “effectively reduce the purchase intention of products with excess critical nutrients, whose consumption is associated with diseases that are one of the main causes of death and loss of years of life in the region and the world”.
Currently, there is no equivalent scheme in the EU. However, a team of researchers from France and Brazil have experimented with introducing a ‘Nutri-Score 2.0’ scheme, consisting of the familiar colour-coded, letter-graded Nutri-Score label surrounded by a black border with the word ‘ultra-processed’ (or its equivalent in other EU languages) underneath. The researchers concluded that the Nutri-Score 2.0 label “had a strong effect on the ability of the participants to detect food with a better nutrient profile and to identify UPFs compared with the current official situation in Europe”.
Restricting the marketing of UPFs
According to the 2024 WHO report, the marketing of UPFs, as well as other commercial determinants of noncommunicable diseases, is “a major commercial driver of poor health across the world”, as it normalises their consumption. The marketing for objectively unhealthy food often targets vulnerable populations, such as children, ethnic minorities, and “more socioeconomically disadvantaged” groups. Thus, the introduction of FoP labelling is one of several regulatory measures that can guide consumer behaviour towards healthier food consumption. Public health initiatives, such as bans or restrictions on junk food advertising aimed at children, could indeed be used as a tool to address health issues with UPFs.
In the EU, advertising restrictions are addressed by Directive (EU) 2018/1808 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2010/13/EU on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services in view of changing market realities (i.e., the Audiovisual Media Services Directive). While the proposal for this Directive foresaw provisions on restrictions of advertisements for foods high in fat, sugar or salt (HFSS) and on related nutrient profiles for such foods (see Trade Perspectives, Issue No. 11 of 2 June 2017), the Directive as adopted merely “encourages” EU Member States “to ensure that self- and co-regulation, including through codes of conduct, is used to effectively reduce the exposure of children to audiovisual commercial communications regarding foods and beverages that are high in salt, sugars, fat, saturated fats or trans-fatty acids or that otherwise do not fit those national or international nutritional guidelines”.
Businesses involved in the production and distribution of food should closely monitor the regulatory developments in the area of UPFs, as new policies would likely entail additional manufacturing, packaging, and marketing costs necessary to ensure compliance.
For any additional information or legal advice on this matter, please contact Ignacio Carreño Garcia
Recently adopted EU legislation
Customs Law
Food Law
- Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2294 of 10 November 2025 adopting a temporary derogation from the requirements concerning the introduction into the Union territory of fruits of Mangifera L. originating in Mali and amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/2072
Imelda Jo Anastasya, Amanda Carlota, Ignacio Carreño García, Pattranit Chantaplaboon, Joanna Christy, Tobias Dolle, Alya Mahira, Stella Nalwoga, and Paolo R. Vergano contributed to this issue.
Follow us on Bluesky @fratinivergano.bsky.social
To subscribe to Trade Perspectives©, please click here. To unsubscribe, please click here.