G/SPS/GEN/2179  
 
21 November  2023 
(23-7843) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  Original: English  
 
EUROPEAN UNION  IMPORT TOLERANCES FOR CERTAIN PESTICIDES  
TO ACHIEVE ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES IN THIRD   
COUNTRIES  – SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERN 534  
SUBMISSION BY THE UNITED STATES  OF AMERICA  
The following submission, received on 20 November  2023, is the statem ent made by the 
United  States of America at the 15-17 November  2023 WTO SPS Committee, and is being circulated 
at the request of the Delegation of the United States of America . 
 
_______________  
 
 
1.  The United States reiterates its concerns with the application of EU domestic environmental 
policies to food and agricultural products imported from third countries. We recognize the importance 
of tailoring measures that take into account the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of 
sustainability  that are unique to each Member. However, Members' sustainability actions must be 
consistent with their obligations under relevant WTO Agreements.  
2.  We echo the comments of the many WTO Members who rightly understand that countries require 
the use of diverse  approaches, tools, and technologies to meet their sustainability objectives. We  can 
all agree that pest control and crop protection needs vary by crop, by country, and by region. 
However, the United States is concerned that this measure undermines the exp ertise of national 
competent authorities and the development and use of good agricultural practices worldwide.  
3.  National competent authorities must remain empowered to establish the measures necessary for 
the protection of human, animal, or plant life or he alth within their own territories. However, 
this regulation is a de facto extension of the E uropean Union's production requirements to farming 
communities outside the European Union because it requires third country imports to satisfy 
EU environmental poli cy preferences.  
4.  We note that in the most recent European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) opinion, 
the European  competent authority on MRLs determined that existing EU MRLs did not pose a food 
safety risk for consumers. The US Environmental Protection Agency a nd Codex also completed 
science -based human health risk assessments confirming that existing MRLs above the limit of 
determination do not pose a food safety risk for consumers.  
5.  WTO Members rely on pesticide MRLs, including MRLs established by Codex, to ens ure food safety 
for consumers and to facilitate trade in agricultural products. The United States reminds the 
European Union that the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) confirmed in 2022 that 
consideration of environmental issues of global concer n is not within its mandate and that 
environmental issues are not included in CCPR risk management principles.  
6.  International consensus -based MRLs reflect the highest level of pesticide residue that is 
acceptable in or on food or feed in consideration of co nsumer exposure and possible health risks; 
pesticide MRLs are not an appropriate or efficient indicator of environmental outcomes because MRLs 
are not developed to address this objective.  
7.  We also remind the European Union that the lack of predictability that results from the 
consideration of import tolerance requests on a "case -by-case" basis, as in the case of this G/SPS/GEN/2179  
 
- 2 - 
 
  regulation, unnecessarily increases uncertainty for farmers globally and li mits farmers' ability to 
protect crops from pests and diseases.  
8.  From an environmental perspective, the United States shares the E uropean Union's concerns 
about pollinator health and is actively working to protect bees and other pollinators in the United 
States. We note the widely shared scientific understanding that complex interactions among multiple 
factors affect bee colony and wild pollinator health, including the presence of pests, pathogens, and 
diseases; pesticide use; poor nutrition due to loss of f oraging habitats and monoculture; 
bee management practices; and lack of genetic diversity.  
9.  However, even considering this policy approach from an environmental perspective, 
the European Union has not provided data demonstrating that the use of these substa nces at current 
MRL levels poses an actual risk to pollinators. The studies cited only evaluate a limited number of 
pollinators found in Europe and do not take into account regional conditions, practices, and fauna in 
other parts of the world.  
10.  We therefore  repeat our request that the European Union provide robust scientific evidence and 
scientific justification that demonstrates how the reduction of these two pesticide MRLs contributes 
to protecting pollinator health. Regardless of transition periods provid ed, Members should avoid 
implementing measures that lack technical justification.  
11.  Global challenges require collaboration across the global community; unilateral approaches 
based on questionable and incomplete science may complicate or further delay meanin gful progress 
on these pressing issues while unnecessarily affecting agricultural production and trade.  
12.  In place of the EU regulation, the United States requests a collaborative approach to protecting 
pollinators.  
 
__________