WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/GEN/355
5 November 2002
(02-6070)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Original:  English
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES – RESTRICTIONS ON THE IMPORTATION
OF FRUIT, FRUIT JUICES
Submission by Brazil
1. The European Communities has published Directive 2002/71/CE, of 19 August 2002, which
establishes new maximum levels for dimethoate residues in and on cereals, foodstuffs of animal origin
and certain products of plant origin, including fruit and vegetables.  Where no or insufficient data are
supplied by residue trials and toxicological data to support different MRLs than the ones proposed, as,
for example in citrus, the MRL was arbitrarily set as the Limit of Analytical Determination (LOD),which is equivalent to a prohibition.
2. On 6 June 2002, when the above-mentioned Directive was still in discussion (notification
G/SPS/N/EEC/160), the Brazilian Government submitted timely comments, indicating its objection to
the new maximum level of residues for dimethoate with solid arguments, based on the available
scientific information.  Nevertheless, the Directive was enacted, allowing only a six months period,until January 2003, for the exporters of juices to adapt to the new measure.  The European
Communities answered the Brazilian comments on 15 July 2002, mentioning a decision made in the
Codex Alimentarius about the need to change the MRL of this active ingredient.  On 6 August 2002,
Brazil contested, indicating that in fact the Codex Alimentarius had the active ingredient in its agenda,
but “decided to retain  the CXLs for … citrus fruit  … pending the residue evaluation by the 2003
JMPR”.  In the same letter, Brazil also asked for a special meeting on the subject for late
September 2002, but got no reply.  The request for a technical meeting was reiterated in a new letterdated 12 September.
3. The technical and legal arguments, in support of Brazil’s objection to the above-mentioned
Directive are the following:
• Dimethoate  – a broadly used insecticide – has been used for over 40 years and
remains today an extremely important tool for growers due to its attested
effectiveness against virtually most of destructive insect species, specially against thecitrus leaf hopper in Brazilian citrus.
• The WHO Panel of the JMPR (FAO/WHO, 1996) established an Acceptable Daily
Intake (ADI) of 0.002 mg/kg bw/day for the sum of dimethoate and ometoateexpressed as dimethoate.  The determination of the ACUTE reference dose of
dimethoate are shown to be within of 0,03 mg/kg bw.
• The risk assessment for dimethoate is available and supports the MRLs.  Based on US
and EU monitoring data, the risk assessment shows that the acute and chronic
consumer exposure is acceptable for all consumer groups.
• Dimethoate is currently registered in Brazil for citrus, apple, cotton, tomatoes, wheat
and ornamentals.G/SPS/GEN/355
Page 2
• The Brazilian exports of concentrated orange juice (ton) from July 2000 to June 2001
are reported in the table below:
European
UnionNAFTA Asia Mercosur Other Total
845.781 264.674 99.176 1.779 22.864 1.234.274
Ref.: ABECITRUS, 2002
• Brazil is the main concentrated orange juice exporter of the world and the impact of
orange juice exports on the trade balance is significant.  Most of the concentrated
orange juice produced in Brazil is exported to the EU.
• Based on the residues of dimethoate, there is no risk at all to consumers of orange
juice made from dimethoate treated oranges.
• The total annual domestic agricultural imports of dimethoate were about 330 tons of
the active ingredient (Ref.: SECEX/DE CEX/SERPRO - 2002).  About 80% of this
quantity is used in the citrus area, which receives at least 2-3 applications ofdimethoate per season.
• The establishment of the Limit of Analytical Determination (LOD) for the MRLs, as
enacted by the EU for dimethoate, will terminate exports of all dimethoate treatedcrops to the EU.  Further, since growers cannot effectively segregate shipments
according to destination, they will have to cease using dimethoate on all citrus andapples for export, losing the use of this effective insecticide, especially against the
leaf-hopper in citrus.  There is no alternate product on the market today that can be
applied to effectively and economically protect  the crops.
• The proposed EU MRL’s are not in line with Brazil’s, US and Codex Alimentarius
tolerance levels, being these MRL’s the best scientific evidence available in the world
today, which need to be considered when establishing a sanitary barrier to imports, in
conformity with the WTO Agreement.  It should be noted that EU member countries
are all Codex Alimentarius member countries and they had the right to veto any LMR
they did not agree with.  Unanimously, though, they accepted the LMRs established
for dimethoate in citrus, which is today in force as a CODEX standard, being the base
for any trade sanitary disputes involving WTO member countries, in conformity with
the WTO SPS Agreement.
• Moreover, the establishment of the Limit of Analytical Determination (LOD) for
dimethoate has no scientific justification, since the decision will be made without full
review of the available information.  The burden of proof is responsibility of the
sanitary body that imposes the new regulation, based on the understanding that any
country or region can establish the adequate level of protection.  Therefore, thesanitary body should present unquestionable scientific evidence about the potential
damage to the health of humans, animals and the environment.
• It can be pointed out that there is another incongruence in establishing LOD for
dimethoate for citrus, due to the fact that the same active ingredient has tolerance
levels different and above LOD for other products than citrus, as for examplecherries, olives and spring onions.G/SPS/GEN/355
Page 3
• This new maximum level of residues for dimethoate represents a non -tariff barrier to
international trade in agricultural products.  As such, it is inconsistent with theobligations of the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Measures (Article 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4; Article 3.2 and 3.3; Article 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and
5.5; and Article 6.1).
• Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement requires Members to base their SPS measures on
international standards, guidelines and recommendations, where they exist.According to Article 3.3, Members may only introduce or maintain SPS measures
which result in a higher level of protection than would be achieved by measures
based on the relevant international standards, if there is a scientific justification, or as
a consequence of the level of protection a Member determines to be appropriate based
on a risk assessment in accordance with the relevant provision of Article 5.  In
particular, Articles 5.4 and 5.6 require that Members take into account the objectiveof minimizing negative trade effects and ensure that SPS measures are not more
trade-restrictive than required to achieve an appropriate level of protection.  Article
10 of SPS Agreement establishes that member countries should consider the special
needs of developing countries in the preparation and application of sanitary and
phytosanitary measures.
4. In view of the above considerations, Brazil requests the European Communities to revise this
particular Directive which will ban Brazilian orange juice from the European market, taking into
account all scientific information available.  Brazil also requests the European Communities not to
apply the same approach as in the case of dimethoate in the reevaluation of 320 active substances thatis now underway.
__________