G/SPS/GEN/1710  
 
28 June 2019 
(19-4368) Page: 1/10 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
ANNUAL REPORT ON THE  PROCEDURE TO MONITOR  THE PROCESS  
OF INTERNATIONAL HAR MONIZATION  
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
1  INTRODUCTION  
1.1.  At its meeting of 15 -16 October 1997, the SPS Committee adopted a provisional procedure to 
monitor the process of international harmonization and the use of international standards, guidelines 
or recommendations, as provided for in Articles 3.5 and 12.4 of the SPS Agreement. The Committee 
extended the provision al monitoring procedure in 1999, 2001, and 2003, and revised the procedure 
in October 2004.2 In 2006, the Committee agreed to extend the provisional procedure indefinitely, 
and to review its operation as an integral part of the periodic review of the opera tion and 
implementation of the Agreement under Article 12.7.3 The procedure was reviewed as part of the 
Third Review of the Agreement4, and again in the context of the Fourth Review.5 
1.2.  The Committee has previously considered twenty annual reports on the mon itoring procedure.6 
These reports summarize several standards -related issues that the Committee has considered and 
the responses received from the relevant standard -setting organizations.  
2  NEW ISSUES  
2.1.  Since the 201 8 Annual Report, three  new issues have been raised  under this procedure : (i) ASF 
restrictions not consistent with the OIE international standard ; (ii) non-science factors in Codex 
standards ; and (iii) use of the Codex definitions for milk and milk products.  
2.1  ASF restrictions not consistent with  the OIE international standard  
2.2.  At the July 201 8 Committee meeting , the European Union noted inconsistencies in the 
application of the OIE standard in relation to African swine fever (ASF) and reminded Members that 
it had previously raised this issue under  the agenda item on specific trade concerns, which still had 
not been addressed by its trading partners. The European Union drew Members' attention to the 
revisions of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code, which had been adopted at the General Assembly 
in May 2018, and in particular Chapter 15, which contained ASF guidelines and clear criteria for the 
designation of disease -free zones, among other guidance. The European Union emphasized that ASF 
could be effectively managed and safe trade guaranteed. The European Union also remained 
concerned that the importance of international standard -setting bodies in global trade would be 
undermined if countries ignored these recommendations, without provision of a scientific 
justification.  
2.3.  The European Union further emphasized  its transparent approach to disease control and 
regionalization measures, which had also been acknowledged by the OIE in the 2018 World 
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the position of Members  or to their rights and  obligations under the WTO.  
2 G/SPS/14, G/SPS/17, G/SPS/25 and  G/SPS/11/Rev.1.  
3 G/SPS/40.  
4 G/SPS/53.  
5 The draft report of the Fourth Review is contained in document G/SPS/W/280/Rev.2.  
6 These were circulated as G/SPS/13, G/SPS/16, G/SPS/18, G/SPS/21, G/SPS/28, G/SPS/31, G/SPS/37, 
G/SPS/42, G/SPS/45, G/SPS/49, G/SPS/51, G/SPS/54, G/SPS/56, G/SPS/59, G/SPS/ 60, G/SPS/GEN/1332, 
G/SPS/GEN/1411, G/SPS/GEN/1490 , G/SPS/GEN/1550  and G/SPS/GEN/1617 . G/SPS/GEN/1710  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Assembly. The OIE had also recognized the contribution of the EU Standing Group of Experts on ASF 
to improvin g regional dialogue, and had encouraged its members to replicate this model in other 
regions, and for other diseases. The European Union further expressed regret that its trading 
partners were putting in place unnecessary and unjustified trade restrictions , such as country -wide 
bans and excessive heat treatment requirements. The European Union noted that its member States 
fully complied with international standards and urged other Members to evaluate import requests 
accordingly, and in line with the SPS Agr eement. Finally, the European Union reiterated its 
willingness to cooperate with other Members.  
2.4.  At the November 2018 Committee meeting , the European Union highlighted again an 
inconsistency in the application of the OIE international standard for African s wine fever (ASF). 
The OIE Code contained clear ASF guidelines for the designation of containment and disease -free 
zones, and for identification, treatment and certification of tradable products. The European Union 
was gravely concerned when other Members i gnored the Code's recommendations without sound 
scientific justification and timely decision making. The  European Union further explained that 
ASF remained a very serious disease. However, experiences in the European Union showed that it 
could be efficient ly managed to make sure that trade taking place in accordance with international 
standards did not cause any outbreaks.  
2.5.  The European Union further highlighted its transparent approach to disease control and 
regionalization measures, and remained open to pr ovide all the necessary evidence demonstrating 
the efficiency of its policies to guarantee safe trade. Furthermore, this high level of transparency 
had also been acknowledged by the OIE. However, the European Union regretted to see that its 
trading partner s were putting in place and maintaining unnecessary and unjustified trade 
restrictions. The European Union noted that its member States fully complied with international 
standards and urged other Members to evaluate import requests accordingly, and in line  with the 
SPS Agreement. The European Union further explained that country -wide bans and excessive heat 
treatment requirements for each product were scientifically unjustified and should not be put in 
place. Finally, the European Union reiterated its willi ngness to cooperate with other WTO Members.  
2.6.  At the March 2019  Committee meeting , the European Union reiterated its concerns about 
inconsistencies in the application of the OIE international standard for African swine fever (ASF). 
The OIE Terrestrial Code contained clear ASF guidelines for surveillance, designation of containment 
zones, and for identification, treatment and certification of tradable products. The European Union 
was concerned that some Members ignored the OIE Terrestrial Code's recommendatio ns, which had 
been adopted within the OIE with the support of those same Members. The  European Union 
explained that ASF remained a very serious disease, but that experiences in the European Union 
showed that it could be efficiently managed to make sure tha t trade in accordance with international 
standards did not cause any outbreaks. The European Union highlighted its policies and tools to 
maintain trade safe, as well as its transparent approach to disease control. The European Union 
requested WTO Members t o evaluate EU member States' import requests in line with the SPS 
Agreement and international standards. The European Union stressed that country -wide bans were 
scientifically unjustified.  
2.2  Non-science factors in Codex standards  
2.7.  At the November  2018 Committ ee meeting , the United States  drew Members' attention to 
document G/SPS/GEN/1656, stating that at the July 2018 SPS Committee meeting, the Codex 
secretariat had reported on the decision of the chairperson of the Codex Committee on Residues of 
Veterinary Dr ugs in Foods (CCRVDF) not to move the MRL for the veterinary drug Zilpaterol to 
Step 5, despite consensus on the science and the safety of this veterinary drug. The United Stated 
explained that the CCRVDF chairperson cited a lack of consensus on moving the  MRL due to factors 
outside the mandate of Codex. The United States noted the Codex representative had indicated that 
the real concern among some Codex members was related to the status of Codex standards under 
the SPS Agreement. Furthermore, the United St ates noted that the Codex secretariat had reported 
that the Legal Offices of WHO and FAO, the chairperson and vice chairpersons of Codex, and the 
Codex secretariat were preparing a report on issues related to the periodic blocking of Codex 
standards to be discussed at next year's Codex Executive Committee (CCEXEC) and next year's 
Codex Alimentarius Commission meeting.  
2.8.  Regarding the planned report to CCEXEC, the United States emphasised its support for the 
unique dual mandate of Codex to protect the health o f consumers and ensure fair practices in the G/SPS/GEN/1710  
 
- 3 - 
 
  food trade. The United States added that the procedural and scientific foundation of Codex helped 
to ensure that the international standards developed in Codex were science -based, globally relevant, 
fit for purp ose and reflected current best practices around the world. However, the United States 
stressed that the credibility and reliability of Codex was based on operating within its mandate, and 
taking decisions on the basis of considerations within its mandate. Clearly, opining on the WTO 
covered agreements, including on the implications of Codex MRLs or other food safety standards, 
guidelines, or recommendations under those agreements, would be outside the mandate of Codex.  
2.9.  The United States was of the  view that neither Codex nor the other drafting entities had the 
authority or the expertise to carry out a legal analysis of WTO implications. The Codex Alimentarius 
Commission must be grounded in the Codex Procedural Manual , not driven by WTO implications. 
The Unit ed States indicated that it would welcome a discussion in Codex about how to prevent WTO 
implications from influencing Codex decisions, but also highlighted that the appropriate forum for 
any exploration of the WTO implications of Codex decisions, includin g their implications under the 
WTO SPS Agreement, was the WTO. Regarding the intrusion of WTO considerations in the Codex 
MRL establishment process, the United States stated that scientific support was crucial in the context 
of Codex decision -making on MRL s. In this regard, the United States recalled the key principles of 
Article 2.2 and Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement. The United States also pointed out that 
harmonization based on international standards, guidelines, and recommendations would be a 
signifi cant tool for achieving these objectives, particularly for Members that lacked resources to 
perform their own risk assessments.  
2.10.   The United States further stated that Codex establishment of MRLs on the basis of 
considerations outside its mandate was contrar y with assumptions underpinning the SPS Agreement 
and potentially undermined the value of those MRLs. The United States was particularly concerned 
about Codex allowing WTO implications of MRLs to drive its decision -making about whether, or at 
what levels, to set MRLs. The United State s affirmed that the reliability of Codex decisions was 
grounded on criteria outlined in the Codex Procedural Manual, and could not be driven by countries 
seeking to influence WTO outcomes to favour their country or region. The United States explained 
that Members would lose confidence in Codex standards if they had the perception that those 
standards were designed to achieve particular WTO outcomes, instead of being promulgated without 
regard to WTO implications. Loss of confide nce in Codex would be damaging to countries at various 
development levels that may lack resources to set up and maintain complex food safety risk 
assessment programmes. In conclusion, the United States encouraged WTO  Members to clarify , in 
the context of C odex discussions and meetings , that Codex should not be opining on WTO legal 
matters, and should remain laser -focused on establishing food safety standards, guidelines, and 
recommendations based on considerations within Codex's mandate.  
2.11.   The Russian Federat ion emphasised the importance of the scientific basis of Codex. 
Codex  standards were recognized by the WTO and had two primary aims, namely to protect 
consumers' health and to ensure fair practices in food trade. From the very beginning, Codex had 
develope d food standards based on sound scientific principles and on data in relation to food safety 
and scientific risk assessment. The Russian Federation recalled that Codex standards covered a wide 
range of food issues, including pesticides, veterinary drug res idues in food, environmental 
contaminants and pathogenic organisms in food, food additives, nutrition and standards for 
composition and identity for major food commodities. In relation to food safety, the protection of 
consumers implied a careful review of  all scientific data. Although all food standards must be science -
based, the Russian Federation pointed out that other legitimate factors were relevant for the 
protection of consumers and fair practices in food trade. However, the use of these different 
components should be clearly documented, including the rationale for integrating them in each case.  
2.12.   Argentina shared the concern raised by the United States and stressed that the scientific basis 
of the preliminary draft had been recognised by most members o f the CCRVDF. However, it was not 
approved due to factors outside the mandate of the CCRVDF and the general principles of Codex. 
Argentina explained that the standard should be based on scientific principles and emphasised that 
the decision taken by the CC RVDF potentially affected the Codex system, and was against the basic 
principles contained in the Codex Procedural Manual. Argentina further indicated that Codex had 
established solid guidelines for the development of SPS measures based on scientific princ iples, and 
had adopted decisions to ensure that factors outside scientific principles were considered without 
any risk. Finally, Argentina emphasised the importance of Codex and the General Principles of Codex.  G/SPS/GEN/1710  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.13.   Chile, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras and Pa raguay shared the concern raised by the United 
States, emphasising the independent nature of Codex. Costa Rica recalled that Codex not only 
provided a scientific basis for SPS measures but represented one of the pillars of the multilateral 
trading system. Costa Rica emphasised its willingness to continue to work with Codex to ensure the 
scientific principles underlying SPS measures. Guatemala expressed its concern regarding the issue 
of Zilpaterol and underlined the scientific basis of Codex. Guatemala emph asised the importance of 
the harmonization of SPS measures to Codex standards in the SPS , as well TBT Committees. 
Furthermore, the interpretation of WTO rules was a prerogative of WTO Members.  
2.14.   ECOWAS recalled that international standards were based on scie nce, and scientific advice 
bodies had been established within Codex, for example the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on 
Food Additives (JECFA). JECFA had conducted risk assessments on this compound and provided 
information on its safety during the last CCRV DF meeting. ECOWAS noted that the credibility of 
scientific advice bodies had been questioned in this case, underlining that the objective of these 
bodies was to provide scientific evidence and to facilitate the work of Codex and other standard 
setting bod ies in developing international standards.  
2.15.   The European Union noted that it was open to discussions in the SPS Committee about the 
WTO implications of Codex standards, guidelines and recommendations. The European Union 
recalled the lessons learned during t he thematic session held on 30 October 2018, and stressed that 
there was no hierarchical order among the SPS Committee, Codex, OIE or IPPC. The European Union 
added that, while the SPS Committee could invite Codex or other international standard -setting 
bodies to discuss topics of interest to the SPS Committee, in its view, the SPS Committee should not 
attempt to influence procedures or decision -making processes within Codex. The European Union 
noted that Members should raise their concerns in the competent  fora. 
2.16.   Codex informed Members that the relevant document would be considered by CCEXEC. 
Codex  also indicated that the composition of the commission responsible for preparing the document 
would follow instructions provided by the Codex Alimentarius Commissi on. Finally, Codex invited 
WTO Members to further considerations when the document would be distributed by the Codex 
Alimentarius Commission.  
2.3  Use of the Codex definitions for milk and milk products  
2.17.   At the November  2018 Committee meeting , India drew the Com mittee's attention on the 
inconsistency in the application of the Codex standard relating to the definition of milk in some 
Members' regulations. India quoted the definition of milk developed by Codex and stressed that 
although the definition specified tha t milk could be obtained from any milking animals, some 
Members applied their own definition of milk and milk products which referred mainly to milk 
obtained from cows. India further explained the importance of taking into account that milk could 
be obtain ed not only from cows but also from other milking animals such as buffalos, goats, camels , 
etc. India also highlighted that there was no scientific justification for adopting such a restrictive 
definition, and that this misleading definition of milk and mi lk products had created unnecessary 
barriers to trade. Finally, India invited Members to consider Article s 2.2 and 3.1 of the 
SPS Agreement and urged them  to adapt their regulations for milk and milk products to the definition 
provided by Codex.  
2.18.   Japan note d that the issue raised by India was not related to food safety, pointing out that 
it should be covered by the TBT Committee. Japan requested more clarifications from India in this 
regard.  
3  PREVIOUS ISSUES  
3.1.  Since the 201 8 Annual Report, there was further discussion on four issues previously raised 
under this procedure  regarding : (i) HPAI restrictions not consistent with the OIE international 
standard ; (ii) BSE restrictions not consistent with the OIE international standard ; (iii) ISPM 38 on 
international movement of seeds; and (iv)  use of the Codex international standard on glyphosate . G/SPS/GEN/1710  
 
- 5 - 
 
  3.1  HPAI restrictions not consistent with the OIE international standard  
3.2.  At the July 201 8 Committee meeting, the European Union reiterated its co ncerns regarding 
inconsistencies in the use of OIE  standards on regionalization in relation to HPAI outbreaks. 
The European Union highlighted its strict and transparent system of control, and acknowledged that 
many Members recognized EU  regionalization mea sures for HPAI. The European Union further 
explained that it applied the same policies and guarantees to its intra -European Union trade, as to 
its exports to non -European Union countries. In addition, regular audit reports were published on 
the European Co mmission website, which ensured that trading partners could be fully aware of the 
animal health situation in all EU  member States.  
3.3.  The European Union expressed regret that some Members applied country -wide bans whenever 
there was an outbreak, noting that t his type of measure was not science -based and that there was 
no justification to maintain such bans after EU member States had regained freedom from the 
disease, according to OIE standards. The European Union acknowledged OIE's ongoing work in 
distinguishi ng between HPAI and low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI), which avoided unjustified 
barriers to trade due to LPAI outbreaks. The European Union regretted that its comprehensive 
surveillance programmes and transparent approach resulted in trading partners imposing unjustified 
restrictions. The  European Union reiterated its call for Members to respect their regionalization 
obligations and to lift all existing unjustified bans and restrictions, as well as to refrain from imposing 
trade restrictions in cases w here HPAI was detected in wild birds, and low pathogenic avian influenza 
in poultry. The European Union reiterated its willingness to continue discussions on regionalization, 
to ensure the implementation of OIE standards.  
3.4.  The Russian Federation echoed the European Union's call for Members to observe the OIE 
standard on HPAI. The Russian Federation underscored its transparent approach in reporting its 
epizootic situation to WAHIS, and indicated that it provided its trading partners with information to 
suppor t its regionalization requests that far exceeded the requirements of the Terrestrial Code 
guidelines. The Russian Federation further noted that its regionalization measures for diseases such 
as HPAI, were in some respects more stringent than those provided  for under the Terrestrial Code. 
Nevertheless, some Members continued to apply country -wide bans which lacked scientific 
justification. The Russian Federation urged members to lift unjustified bans on poultry products and 
to respect the regionalization pri nciples provided for in the Terrestrial Code and the SPS Agreement.  
3.5.  Ukraine shared the concerns raised, noting that despite having been recognized as free of HPAI 
by the OIE, certain Members had maintained their import restrictions on poultry products. Det ailed 
information on the measures taken and its surveillance strategy had been transmitted to all its 
trading partners. Ukraine called on Members to respect OIE standards and the regionalization 
principle, and to lift restrictions from the whole territory of Ukraine.  
3.6.  The United States also shared the concerns raised by the European Union, and reminded 
Members that the OIE guidelines for HPAI had contributed greatly to facilitating safe trade in live 
poultry and poultry products. The United States indicated that it was free of HPAI, according to OIE 
guidelines, and further encouraged trading partners to remove any HPAI -related restrictions on 
imports of live poultry and poultry products from the United States.  
3.7.  At the November  2018 Committee meeting , the European Union reiterated its concerns 
regarding inconsistencies in the use of OIE standards on regionalization in relation to HPAI 
outbreaks. The European Union expressed regret that some Members applied country -wide bans 
whenever there was an outbrea k, noting that this type of measure was not scientifically justified and 
that according to OIE standards there was no justification for maintaining such bans after EU member 
States had regained freedom from the disease. Moreover, the European Union regrett ed that its 
comprehensive surveillance programmes and transparent approach resulted in trading partners 
imposing unjustified restrictions. The  European Union highlighted its strict and transparent system 
of control and acknowledged that many Members recogn ized EU regionalization measures for HPAI. 
The European Union also acknowledged OIE's ongoing work in distinguishing between HPAI and low 
pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI), to avoid unjustified barriers to trade due to LPAI outbreaks. The 
European Union ap plied the same policies and guarantees to its intra -EU trade as to its exports to 
third countries. In  addition, regular audit reports were published on the European Commission 
website, which ensured that trading partners could be fully aware of the animal health situation in 
all EU member States. The European Union reiterated its call for Members to respect their 
regionalization obligations and to lift all existing unjustified bans and restrictions, as well as to refrain G/SPS/GEN/1710  
 
- 6 - 
 
  from imposing trade restrictions in cases where HPAI was detected in wild birds, and LPAI in poultry. 
The European Union looked forward to continuing discussion on the implementation of 
regionalization.  
3.8.  At the March 2019 Committee meeting, the European Union again reiterated its concerns 
regarding inconsistencies in the use of OIE standards on regionalization in relation to HPAI 
outbreaks. The European Union regretted that some Members applied country -wide bans whenever 
there was an HPAI outbreak, without a scientific basis, contrary to OIE s tandards. The European 
Union acknowledged that many WTO Members recognized the EU regionalization measures and 
trusted its effective and transparent system, while other Members did not comply with international 
standards and obligations under Article 6 and  Annex C of the SPS Agreement. The European Union 
reiterated its call for Members to respect their regionalization obligations and to lift all existing 
unjustified bans, as well as to refrain from imposing trade restrictions in cases of HPAI detected in 
wild birds and of low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI).  
3.9.  The United States emphasised the contribution of OIE guidelines on HPAI to facilitat ing safe 
trade in live poultry and poultry products, and added that the OIE provided Members with incentives 
to imple ment an effective stamping out policy and to conduct robust surveillance to provide clear 
evidence and guarantees of eradication of HPAI. The United States expressed concern that 
restrictions on poultry meat or products subjected to treatment mitigating th e HPAI virus appeared 
to lack scientific justification. The United States, based on Articles 2 and 3 of the SPS Agreement, 
urged Members to lift HPAI -related restrictions on US poultry exports immediately, given the 
US HPAI-free status since August 2017 as  per OIE guidelines.  
3.2  BSE restrictions not consistent with the OIE international standard  
3.10.   At the July 201 8 Committee meeting , the United States reiterated its commitment to aligning 
its import regulations governing BSE with OIE guidelines. In this regard, t he USDA's Animal and 
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) had published a Notice in the Federal Register on 24 April 
2018 that advised the public of the preliminary concurrence with the OIE BSE risk designations for 
four regions, and solicited public co mment by 25 June 2018. The four regions designated by the OIE 
as negligible risk for BSE included Croatia, Poland, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The United States 
indicated that its action had demonstrated that it had put in place a process to align its r egulations 
with the OIE international standard for BSE. The United States noted that it was also recognized as 
negligible risk for BSE by the OIE, yet still faced some restrictions on certain meat exports. 
The United States urged Members to remove any rema ining BSE -related import prohibitions on 
US bovines and bovine products. The United States also reminded Members that certain products 
such as protein -free tallow and blood products were deemed safe by the OIE regardless of a country's 
BSE risk status and thus should not be subject to BSE -related import restrictions.  
3.11.   At the March 2019 Committee meeting, the United States indicated that measures restricting 
ruminant meat and meat products from BSE -free countries were inconsistent with OIE guidelines. 
The OIE  chapter on BSE provided for age - and product scope -related restrictions limited to specified 
risk materials, not on meat and meat products. Competent authorities were responsible for 
conducting the appropriate risk communication. The United States urged M embers to base regulatory 
actions relative to BSE on sound scientific risk -based principles, balancing public health and 
Members' WTO obligations . 
3.3  ISPM  38 on international movement of seeds  
3.12.   At the July 2018 Committee meeting, the United States thanked Indo nesia and Nigeria for 
drawing Members' attention to ISPM 38 on the international movement of seeds in the March 2018 
SPS Committee meeting. ISPM 38, which had been adopted by the IPPC in April 2017, provided 
guidance to assist national plant protection org anizations (NPPOs) in identifying, assessing and 
managing pest risks associated with the international movement of seeds (as a commodity class). 
In addition, the standard provided guidance on other topics such as procedures to establish 
phytosanitary impor t requirements to facilitate the international movement of seeds; and a list of 
acceptable phytosanitary treatments that included crop treatment, seed treatment, systems 
approach and prohibition. The  United States highlighted the importance of systems appr oaches, as 
they provided the opportunity to implement risk reduction measures along the entire seed supply 
chain. The United States echoed Indonesia's and Nigeria's view that ISPM 38 was particularly timely G/SPS/GEN/1710  
 
- 7 - 
 
  given the rapid growth of the international seed trade and its increasing complexity. The United 
States also informed Members that a hemispheric workshop was being planned for early 2019, 
through the North American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO), along with the United States, 
Canada and Mexico to focus on the effective implementation of ISPM 38. The United States 
encouraged Members to fully implement ISPM 38 to ensure a harmonized approach for managing 
phytosanitary risks and to facilitate the safe international movement of seeds in commerce. In 
addition, the United States invited Members and the IPPC to provide any reports or updates on the 
implementation of this standard.  
3.13.   Australia echoed the importance of ISPM 38 in helping Members undertake risk analysis and 
to apply justified measures, only to the extent necessary to achieve their ALOP. Australia indicated 
that it had reviewed the risks posed by a number of vegetable seeds, with a particular focus on 
seed-transmitted disease risks, the results of which had been published on its website. 
Australi a stated that regulators needed to clearly define import requirements and ensure that they 
were technically justified, as an international clean seed trading system managing both seed quality 
and health would significantly facilitate the safe trade in clea n seeds. Australia  encouraged countries 
and seed companies to progress that concept as a platform for harmonization of measures and 
facilitating safe trade in seeds, in recognition of ISPM 38 guidelines.  
3.14.   Canada reminded Members that seeds could act as a pa thway for the introduction of plant 
pests into countries, and outlined the important guidance provided by ISPM 38 in helping NPPOs to 
identify, assess and manage pest risks for the international movement of seeds. Canada highlighted 
its active role in the development of ISPM 38, and noted its involvement in the organization of the 
NAPPO workshop. This workshop was targeted at regulatory agencies in NAPPO countries, other 
regional plant protection organizations from the Americas, as well as the seed industry  and technical 
experts, in order to ensure the proper implementation of the standard at the national and regional 
level.  
3.15.   The IPPC informed the Committee that it was working closely with the International Seed 
Federation to implement the new standard. An IP PC regional workshop was also being organized in 
2018 on how to implement the standards, among other topics.  
3.4  Use of the Codex international standard on glyphosate  
3.16.   At the November  2018 Committee meeting , the United States drew Members' attention to 
actions taken or under consideration to restrict the use to glyphosate that appeared to lack scientific 
justification. The United States pointed out that scientific and regulatory resources worldwide had 
re-evaluated and reconfirmed the safety of this crop protect ion tool, making it one of the most 
rigorously studied and evaluated. Furthermore, the United States recalled that in May 2016 the Joint 
FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticides Residues (JMPR) had held a special session to re -evaluate 
glyphosate, at the recommendati on of the WHO's Core Assessment Group on Pesticides Residues, 
due to concerns resulting from the 2015 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) hazard 
report and availability of new toxicology and epidemiology studies.  
3.17.   After evaluating all previou sly reviewed data and new studies on genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, 
reproductive and developmental toxicity, and epidemiological studies on cancer outcomes, JMPR had 
concluded that neither short term nor long term dietary exposure to glyphosate presented a  risk to 
consumers or a public health concern, and had reaffirmed the safety of all existing Codex MRLs for 
glyphosate. In addition, the United States highlighted that in December 2018 the US Environmental 
Protection Agency anticipated publishing the propo sed interim registration review decision for 
glyphosate, reporting that glyphosate was one of the most widely used agricultural pesticides in the 
United States. The United States also noted that EPA's human health risk assessment concluded that 
glyphosate was not likely to be carcinogenic to humans and found no risks to human health when 
glyphosate products were used according to the label. Given the efforts and findings of Codex and 
competent authorities of several Members, including the US EPA, the United  States reiterated that 
actions to restrict the use of glyphosate without a sound scientific basis appeared to unnecessarily 
restrict international agricultural trade, with no discernible benefits to public health. Finally, the 
United States urged Members to base their regulatory actions for glyphosate on sound scientific risk -
based principles.  G/SPS/GEN/1710  
 
- 8 - 
 
  3.18.   Brazil and Paraguay shared the concern raised by the United States and encouraged 
WTO Members to take into account the Codex standards on glyphosate.  
3.19.   Canada recognis ed the importance of Members basing their SPS measures on international 
standards, guidelines and recommendations. Concerning plant protection products, in particular 
glyphosate, the Codex Committee on Pesticides Residues (CCPR) and JMPR continued to provi de 
useful guidance in this area. JMPR had re -evaluated glyphosate and found that glyphosate was 
unlikely to be genotoxic and unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through 
the diet. Canada noted that similar reviews had been undertake n by Members, including Canada, 
which supported the continued registration and safe use of products containing glyphosate. 
Canada  underscored the importance of timely, scientific, risk -based decision making with respect to 
plant protection products includi ng glyphosate. Canada also encouraged Members to continue to 
base their regulations on scientific evidence and to take into account the advice of the international 
standard -setting bodies, in particular Codex.  
3.20.   Argentina reiterated the importance of respect ing the basic principles of the SPS Agreement, 
which encouraged basing SPS measures on Codex international standards.  
3.21.   Costa Rica recalled the rigorous assessment conducted by Codex to establish pesticide MRLs 
and encouraged Members to adapt their measures  for glyphosate on Codex recommendations.  
3.22.   Australia expressed its concern about the trade impact of Members applying glyphosate -
related restrictions based on non -science based assessments. Any regulation of this chemical should 
be based on WTO compliant ri sk assessments based on all available scientific evidence, and 
conducted in a transparent manner. Australia recalled that glyphosate was one of the most common 
crop protection chemicals and had been subjected to new re -evaluation by a number of countries ' 
chemical regulators to determine the safety of the chemical. Australia highlighted that the Australian 
Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) had established that products containing 
glyphosate could be safely used according to label directi ons. 
4  RESPONSES RECEIVED F ROM THE RELEVANT STA NDARD -SETTING ORGANI ZATIONS  
4.1.  There have been no further responses received from the relevant standard -setting 
organizations  since the last annual report . 
__________