RESTRICTED  
  
G/SPS/R/105  
 
18 May 2022  
(22-3846) Page: 1/50 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF 23 -25 MARCH 2022  
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ................................ ................................ ........................  5 
2   INFORMATION SHARING  ................................ ................................ .............................  5 
2.1   Information from Members on relevant activities  ................................ .............................  5 
2.1.1    Japan – Update on the situation surrounding Japanese food after the TEPCO Fukushima 
Daiichi nuclear power station accident  ................................ ................................ ...................  5 
2.2   Information from Codex, IPPC and OIE on relevant activities  ................................ ............  6 
2.2.1    Codex (G/SPS/GEN/1993)  ................................ ................................ .........................  6 
2.2.2    IPPC (G/SPS/GEN/1996)  ................................ ................................ ............................  6 
2.2.3    OIE (G/SPS/GEN/2001)  ................................ ................................ .............................  6 
3   SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  ................................ ................................ .......................  6 
3.1   New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  6 
3.1.1    EU restrictions on spice imports and other food products due to European  Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2246 of 15 December 2021 – Concerns of India  ..................  6 
3.1.2    EU import tolerances for certain pesticides to achieve environmental outcomes in third 
countries – Concerns of Australia  ................................ ................................ ..........................  7 
3.1.3    EU restrictions on the importation of collagen for human consumption –  
Concerns of China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  8 
3.1.4    EU residue limits of e thylene oxide and dichloroethanol – Concerns of China  ....................  8 
3.1.5    Indonesia's draft regulation on heavy metals contaminants in proce ssed food –  
Concerns of China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  9 
3.1.6    Chinese Taipei's new procedure for the recognition of infectious animal disease - 
free status of a foreign country – Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ............  9 
3.1.7    Thailand's sanitary requirements on "wet blue" leather imp orts – Concerns of Brazil  .........  9 
3.1.8    Russian Federation's SPS notification G/SPS/N/RUS/241 regarding eleven new  
quarantine pests – Concerns of India  ................................ ................................ .....................  9 
3.1.9    Russian Federation's phytosanitary certificate requirements for groundnut and sesame 
seeds – Concern s of India  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...10 
3.1.10    US undue delays in opening its citrus market – Concerns of Brazil  ............................... 10 
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 2 - 
 
  3.2   Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ .............................. 11 
3.2.1    EU MRLs for alpha -cypermethrin, buprofezin, chlorothalonil, chlorpyrifos, chlorpyrifos -
methyl, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, glufosinate, imazalil, i oxynil, iprodione, mancozeb, 
molinate, picoxystrobin and tepraloxydim (ID  448) - Concerns of Colombia, Ecuador,  
United  States, Costa Rica and Paraguay  ................................ ................................ ................ 11 
3.2.2    EU classification of 'anthraquinone' as a pesticide and the MRL for imported tea  
(ID 518) – Concerns of India  ................................ ................................ ............................... 13 
3.2.3    EU legislation on endocrine disruptors  (ID 382) – Concerns of Paraguay  ......................... 13 
3.2.4    EU restrictions on exports of chocolate and cocoa products due to the application of the 
Commission Regulation (EU) N° 488/2014 of 12 May 2014 amendin g Regulation (EC) N° 
1881/2006 as regards maximum levels of cadmium in foodstuff (ID  503) – Concerns of Peru  ......14 
3.2.5    EU regulat ory approach to maximum levels for contaminants (ID  519) – Concerns of 
Canada  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 15 
3.2.6    EU review of legislation on veterinary m edicinal products (ID  446) – Concerns of the 
United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 16 
3.2.7    China's actions related to COVID -19 that affect trade in foo d and agricultural products 
(ID 487) – Concerns of Australia, Canada, the United  States and India  ................................ .....17 
3.2.8    China's administrative measures for registration of overseas manufacturers of imported 
food (26 November 2019) (ID  485) – Concerns of Australia, Canada, the European  Union,  
Japan and the United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ 19 
3.2.9    Concerns with transparency, delays and due process associated with China's import 
requirements for agricultural goods (ID  524) – Conce rns of Australia  ................................ .......20 
3.2.10    China's delay in approving requests for new listing and reinstatement of export 
establishments (ID  516) – Concerns of Australia and Canada  ................................ .................. 21 
3.2.11    Saudi Arabia's temporary suspension of Brazilian poultry exporting establishmen ts 
(ID 486) – Concerns of Brazil  ................................ ................................ .............................. 22 
3.2.12    Panama's undue delays in the renewal of authorizations for plants of Peruvian fishery  
and livestock enterprises (ID  509) – Concerns of Peru  ................................ ............................ 22 
3.2.13    Bolivia's import restrictions on agricultural and livestock products (ID  530) –  
Concerns of Peru ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 22 
3.2.14    General import restrictions due to BSE (ID  193) – Concerns of the European  Union  .......23 
3.2.15    South Africa's import r estrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian influenza 
(ID 431) – Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ .......... 23 
3.2.16    China's import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza (ID  406) –  
Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ .......................... 23 
3.2.17    China's import restrictions due to African swine fever (ID  392) – Concerns of the 
European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 23 
3.2.18    Mexico's import restrictions on pork (ID  489) – Concerns of Brazil  ............................... 24 
3.2.19    Chinese Taipei's import restriction s on poultry and beef (ID  521) – Concerns of Brazil  ....24 
3.2.20    China's restrictions on bovine meat imports (ID  510) – Concerns of India  ..................... 25 
3.2.21    The Philippines' trade restrictions on imports of meat (ID  466) – Concerns of the 
European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 25 
3.2.22    Qatar's new import rules for dairy products (ID  529) – Concerns of the  
European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 26 
3.2.23    Guatemala's restrictions on egg products (ID  413) – Concerns of Mexico  ...................... 26 
3.2.24    India's approval procedures for animal products (ID  484) – Concerns of the Russian 
Federation ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 26 
3.2.25    Delays in Thailand's approval procedures for animal products (ID  527) –  
Concerns of the Russian Federation  ................................ ................................ ...................... 27 G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 3 - 
 
  3.2.26    Russian Federation – Procedures for authorizing units eligible for export of fish  
and fish products to Eurasian Customs Union (ID  508) – Concerns of India  ............................... 27 
3.2.27    Indonesia's approval procedures for animal and plant products (ID  441) –  
Concerns of the European  Union and the Russian Federation  ................................ ................... 27 
3.2.28    China's proposed new health certificate format for shrimp imports (ID  506) –  
Concerns of India  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 28 
3.2.29    India's requi rement for certificate for non -GM origin and GM -free status (ID  501) – 
Concerns of the United  States  ................................ ................................ ............................. 28 
3.2.30    The Russian Feder ation's classification of tea as "fruits and vegetables" (ID  525) – 
Concerns of India  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 29 
3.2.31    Proposed new EU rules on compos ite products (ID  504) – Concerns of Australia and 
Chinese Taipei  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 30 
3.2.32    India's import requirements for pulses (ID 497) – Concerns of Canada  ......................... 31 
3.2.33    Panama's restrictions and procedure to regain access for Peruvian potatoes and  
onions (ID 512) – Concerns of Peru  ................................ ................................ ...................... 31 
3.2.34    Ecuador's import restrictions on grapes and onions (ID  498) – Concerns of Peru  ............ 31 
3.2.35    China's import suspension of fresh fruits (ID  532) – Concerns of Chinese Taipei  ............ 32 
3.2.36    US import restrictions on apples and pears (ID  439) – Concerns of the  
European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 32 
3.2.37    US non -recognition of the pest -free status in the European  Union for Asian  
longhorn beetle and citrus longhorn beetle (ID  471) – Concerns of the Eur opean  Union  .............. 33 
3.2.38    EU delays in authorizing imports of Samgyetang (Korean ginseng chicken soup)  
(ID 526) – Concerns of Kore a ................................ ................................ .............................. 33 
3.3   Information on resolution of issues (G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.22)  ................................ .......... 33 
4   OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS  AGREEMENT  ................................ .. 33 
4.1   Equivalence  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 33 
4.1.1    United States – Addition of Poland to list of countries eligible to export poultry products  ..33 
4.2   Pest- and disease -free areas ( regionalization)  ................................ ................................ 33 
4.2.1    Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ....................... 33 
4.3   Operation of transparency provisions  ................................ ................................ ............ 34 
4.3.1    Annual Report on Transparency and Specific Trade Concerns (G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.14  
and G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.22)  ................................ ................................ .............................. 34 
4.4   Control, inspection and approval procedures  ................................ ................................ ..34 
4.4.1    Working Group on Approval Procedures (G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1 and 
G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1/Add.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ 34 
4.5   Special and differential treatment  ................................ ................................ ................. 34 
4.6   Monitoring of the use of international standards  ................................ ............................. 35 
4.6.1    New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 35 
4.6.2    Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ........................... 35 
4.7   New Zealand – Procedure to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization  ................ 35 
4.8   Follow -up to the Fifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS  Agreement 
(G/SPS/64 and G/SPS/64/Add.1)  ................................ ................................ ......................... 36 
4.8.1    Report on the Informal Meeting  ................................ ................................ ................. 36 
4.8.2    Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ....................... 36 G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 4 - 
 
  5   CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  ................................ ................................ ...........................  36 
5.1   Report on the Thematic Session on Trade Facilitative Approaches to Pesticide MRLs 
(G/SPS/GEN/1989/Rev.1)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...36 
5.2   Canada – Current status of the SPS Declaration: Responding to Modern SPS  Challenges  
for the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference (G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.10 and G/SPS/GEN/1960)  ......... 37 
5.3   COVID -19 and SPS issues  ................................ ................................ ............................ 37 
6   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION  ................................ ...........................  37 
6.1   Information from the Secretariat  ................................ ................................ .................. 37 
6.1.1    WTO SPS activities (G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.12 and G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.17)  ..................... 37 
6.1.2    STDF (G/SPS/GEN/1994)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 38 
6.2   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ .......................... 38 
6.2.1    European  Union – SPS-related technical assistance provided by the European  Union in 
2019-2020 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 38 
7   CONCERNS WITH PRIV ATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS  ................................ ...... 38 
8   OBSERVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  38 
8.1   Information from Observer Organizations  ................................ ................................ ......38 
8.1.1    ECOWAS (G/SPS/GEN/1990)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 38 
8.1.2    OIRSA (G/SPS/GEN/1991)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 38 
8.1.3    IGAD (G/SPS/GEN/1992)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 38 
8.1.4    ITC (G/SPS/GEN/1997)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 38 
8.1.5    GSO (G/SPS/GEN/1999)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 38 
8.1.6    SADC (G/SPS/GEN/2000)  ................................ ................................ ......................... 39 
8.1.7    IICA (G/SPS/GEN/1995)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 39 
8.2   Requests for observer status  ................................ ................................ ........................ 39 
9   ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ ..............  39 
10   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 39 
11   DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING  ................................ ................................ .... 39 
ANNEX A  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  41 
ANNEX B  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  48 
 
  G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1.1.  The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee") held its 82nd regular 
meeting on 23 -25 March  2022. The proposed agenda for the meeting ( JOB/SPS/19 , 
JOB/SPS/19/Corr.1  and JOB/SPS/19/Corr.2 ) was adopted with amendments. In light of the 
COVID -19 pandemic, the meeting was held in hybrid form, with some delegates attending in -person 
and others joining via a virtual platform.  
1.2.  The Secretariat  announced  that Members were able to submit agenda items, support specific 
trade concerns (STCs), and upload statements through eAgenda. Members could support items 
through eAgenda until they were discussed in the meeting, and upload statements for STCs and 
other ag enda items until Friday, 25  March 2022. Only oral interventions by Members who took the 
floor during the meeting were reflected in the present report. In addition, longer statements could 
be shared through eAgenda or circulated as GEN documents. The Secret ariat drew Members' 
attention to an introductory presentation on the SPS Committee, available for delegates in the 
SPS Gateway . 
2  INFORMATION SHARING  
2.1.  Prior to the start of discussi ons under the first sub -item of this point on the agenda, 
Ukraine  made a statement on the military invasion of its territory by the Russian Federation. 
Ukraine  stressed that the blatant act of aggression constituted an attack on the sovereignty and 
territo rial integrity of Ukraine, and represented a violation of the principles of international law and 
of the WTO. Ukraine noted that that the military invasion had resulted in human casualties and 
economic losses. Ukraine expressed its appreciation to Members who had adopted economic and 
trade measures against the Russian Federation, and hoped for further support from Members.  
2.2.  Australia , Canada , the European  Union , Japan , Korea , New Zealand , Norway , Paraguay , 
Switzerland , Chinese Taipei , the United Kingdom  and the United  States  took the floor to strongly 
condemn the Russian Federation's military aggression in Ukraine, noting that it constituted a 
violation of international law and the UN Charter. Several Members called on the Russian Federation 
to withdraw its f orces and cease military operations in Ukraine, and to respect the territorial integrity 
and sovereignty of Ukraine.  The Russian Federation  underlined that the matter was not within the 
scope of the WTO , and highlighted that politically motivated trade restrictive actions against the 
Russia n Federation  imposed by several WTO Members had led to serious global economic damage, 
and resulted in damage to the multilateral trading system.  
2.1  Information from Members on relevant ac tivities  
2.1.1   Japan – Update on the situation surrounding Japanese food after the TEPCO 
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station accident  
2.3.  Japan  thanked the United Kingdom for making  the governmental decision to remove its import 
measures  on Japanese food, and ac knowledged Chinese Taipei's efforts in lifting import restrictions 
for five Japanese prefectures. Japan encouraged other Members to lift measures, as the food safety 
situation had remained unchanged. Japan explained that major food products were compliant with 
Codex guidelines and stricter Japanese maximum levels (MLs) of radio -caesium, and no reports of 
non-compliance of food imported from Japan had been received from destination countries. 
Japan  informed the Committee that in March 2022, the Joint FAO/IAE A Centre of Nuclear Techniques 
in Food and Agriculture had assessed the appropriateness of measures to monitor and respond to 
issues regarding radionuclide contamination of food and the safety of the food supply. 
An IAEA taskforce had been established to p rovide a scientific review related to the discharge of 
Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) treated water, and a report would be released in 
April 2022 with information from an on -site mission conducted in February 2022. Japan looked 
forward to further  updates regarding the lifting of import measures.  
2.4.  Korea  expressed its concern regarding recent cases of catch containing high radiation levels, 
most recently in January 2022 with 1,400 becquerels of radiation per kilogram detected. Referring  to 
its statem ents in previous Committee meetings on the treatment and discharge of contaminated 
water, Korea reiterated the need for consultations with relevant stakeholders and detailed 
information sharing on the potential environmental impacts.  G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.5.  In response, Japan  indicated that the case of a minor wild fish species exceeding the 
Japanese  MLs of radio -caesium, referenced by Korea, had resulted in the suspension of the shipment 
and further restrictions had been implemented. Japan reiterated that the water for discharge is the 
treated one and not the contaminated water, and  the IAEA and international experts were conducting 
reviews on the safety of treated water, the latest of which was conducted in February 2022.  
2.2  Information from Codex, IPPC and OIE on relevant activitie s 
2.2.1   Codex ( G/SPS/GEN/1993 ) 
2.6.  Codex  presented its report on relevant activities in document G/SPS/GEN/1993 . Codex referred 
to the 44th session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission held in 2021 where several MLs for 
additives and contaminants in food as well as Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for pesticides in food,  
feed and veterinary drugs had been adopted. Codex also noted the work undertaken by its taskforce 
on antimicrobial resistance (AMR), including the Code of Practice to contain foodborne AMR, and the 
guidelines for integrated monitoring and surveillance of foodborne AMR. The Codex secretariat had 
initiated a project to identify an approach to monitor the use and impact of Codex standards and a 
preliminary outline would be presented to the Executive Committee of the Codex Alimentarius 
Commission in June 2022.  
2.2.2   IPPC ( G/SPS/GEN/1996 ) 
2.7.  The IPPC presented its report on relevant activities in document G/SPS/GEN/1996 . 
The IPPC referred to the 16th meeting of the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM -16) to be 
held in April where nine draft international standards for phytosanitary measures (ISPMs) had been 
recommended for adoption. The IPPC secretariat highlighted its work on commodity standards and 
emerging pests such as banana fusarium wilt and fall armyworm, as well as ongoing developments 
in guides and training materials available for its contra cting parties.  
2.2.3   OIE ( G/SPS/GEN /2001 ) 
2.8.  The OIE referred to its report on relevant activities in document G/SPS/GEN/2001  and informed 
that the 89th OIE General Session would be held virtually in May 2022 and that the text of the 
OIE standards to be proposed for adoption would be available for review by its members. 
The OIE drew the Committee's attention to changes in chapter 11.4 on bovine spongiform 
encephalopathy (BSE) (namely to upgrade the provisions on official BSE risk status and BSE risk 
assessment and surveillance), and chapter 1.4 of the Aquatic Code. The OI E also referred to 
information available on its website on the work of the OIE Observatory to monitor the 
implementation of standards.  
3  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  
3.1  New issues  
3.1.  Before the adoption of the agenda, China  withdrew three new specific trade concerns (S TCs): 
Concerns regarding EU detection of bitter ginseng alkaloids in honey; Thailand's suspension of 
imports of live poultry, pigs and their carcasses; and Brazil's frequent adjustments of technical 
regulations affecting fishery trade.  
3.1.1   EU restrictions on s pice imports and other food products due to 
European  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/2246 of 15 December 2021 – 
Concerns of India  
3.2.  India informed the Committee that through Commission Implementing Regulation 
(EU) 2021/2246, the European  Union h ad increased official controls for the entry of spices and spice 
products by setting the limit of ethylene oxide at the default level, which was 0.02  ppm for chilli and 
ginger, and 0.1  ppm for all other spices. India urged the European  Union to share the r isk 
assessment for establishing the limit at the default level. India further noted that the regulation had 
been notified to the WTO eight days after entry into force, which did not allow time for comments.  
3.3.  The European  Union  responded that ethylene oxide was not approved as an active substance 
for use in plant protection products, and that any level of exposure would represent a potential risk G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 7 - 
 
  to human health. Following several cases of contamination with ethylene oxide on a range of 
Indian  commodities, th e European  Union had decided to adopt temporary measures to mitigate 
potential risks to consumers' health. This included official controls and certification requirements for 
commodities listed in Annex II of Regulation (EU) 2019/1793 and amended by Regulat ion 
(EU) 2021/2246. The European  Union had  informed India of amendments to the regulation in 
December 2021 and noted that India was aware of the certification requirements for the products 
at issue. The European  Union drew the Committee's attention to noti fication G/SPS/N/EU/538  which 
contained the measure under discussion, and also indicated that document G/SPS/GEN/1968 , 
circulated in November 2021, described the process of increased official controls and emergency 
measures for certain products. The European  Union reiterated its availability to engage in furthe r 
discussions with India.  
3.1.2   EU import tolerances for certain pesticides to achieve environmental outcomes in 
third countries – Concerns of Australia  
3.4.  Australia  raised its concern s on the European  Union 's plan to reduce neonicotinoid MRLs to 
default values and set import MRLs taking into account environmental impacts in the exporting 
country, without any justified risks identified for consumers. In Australia's view, this approach 
introduced arbitrary criteria that were incompatible with in ternational standards and guidelines. 
Australia reiterated that environmental risks should be assessed by chemical regulators of exporting 
countries and called on the European  Union to comply with WTO  rules when setting MRLs and 
considering requests for im port tolerances.  
3.5.  Colombia  noted that this concern was related to the EU policy on neonicotinoid pesticides, and 
to the concept of mirror clauses. Colombia did not consider that mirror clauses were possible in light 
of differences among WTO Members, notably  with regard to the environment, pest and disease 
prevalence, climate, and biodiversity. Colombia highlighted that the measures had not been notified 
and urged the European  Union to further review its justifications, noting that measures should not 
constit ute a means of arbitrary discrimination between countries where similar conditions prevailed.  
3.6.  The United  States  was concerned that the application of EU health and environmental 
standards on imported agriculture and agri -food products from third countries would jeopardize 
Members' ability to enact necessary SPS measures in their own territories. The United  States 
emphasized that these requirements could negatively affect trade and disrupt production and 
requested the European  Union to allow flexible require ments, considering the circumstances in each 
country. The  United  States submitted its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2003 . 
3.7.  Paraguay  expressed concerns with the European  Union's attempt to apply its legislation in other 
territories, its lowering of MRLs based on concerns not related to human health, and its refusal to 
grant import tolerances. Paraguay was of the view that the measure hindered third -country 
regulators' ability to implement policies and MRLs in line with their environmental conditions, and 
was concerned that emergency a uthorizations had been granted to certain producers on a selective 
basis. Paraguay urged the European  Union to base its measures on scientific evidence, 
an assessment of risks, international principles and standards and to allow import tolerances when 
applicable.  
3.8.  Ecuador  considered that the European  Union's extraterritorial objectives were not always 
consistent with WTO rules and the climatic and developmental conditions of its trading partners.  
3.9.  Japan  was of the view that the European  Union's plan to lower MRLs of neonicotinoid for 
imported agricultural products would not ensure the sustainability of the global food system. 
Japan  stressed that each Member should regulate pesticide use taking account of its respective 
environment. Japan noted that the applica tion of lower MRLs for imported agricultural products was 
inconsistent with the SPS  Agreement. When introducing environmental protection measures, 
Japan  considered it important to establish international rules that were harmonized with 
international standa rds. 
3.10.   New Zealand  explained that the establishment of MRLs should be in accordance with the rights 
and obligations of Members under the WTO SPS  Agreement, proportional to actual risk, based on a 
scientific assessment and not more trade -restrictive than nece ssary to achieve a legitimate level of 
protection. New Zealand questioned how the EU measures in question were aligned with the 
objectives and requirements of the SPS  Agreement, including Article  2. G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 8 - 
 
  3.11.   Guatemala  expressed its concerns with the European  Union' s extraterritorial application of its 
measures, and urged the European  Union to consider the different environmental and production 
conditions in developing countries.  
3.12.   Uruguay  stated that it would continue to monitor this concern, and emphasized the 
import ance of SPS measures being consistent with the SPS  Agreement, particularly with the 
objectives set forth in paragraph 1 of Annex A.  
3.13.   In response, the European  Union  stated that the Committee had been informed of its 
intentions in November 2020 through docum ent G/SPS/GEN/1868 , and cons idered that the concerns 
were not within the scope of the SPS  Agreement. The European  Union reiterated that import 
tolerances could be granted to the active substances not authorized in the European  Union if set 
levels were safe for consumers, and added th at environmental considerations would be taken into 
account when requests were evaluated. The European  Union acknowledged differences in production 
conditions and pest pressures in third countries, and emphasized that import tolerances would be 
granted onl y for applications accompanied by scientific evidence demonstrating no adverse effect on 
the environment. Referring to article 6 of Regulation 396/2005, the European  Union clarified that 
the evaluation of applications for the use of active substances withi n or outside the European  Union 
followed the same procedure. The European  Union indicated its willingness to further discuss this 
matter with interested Members.  
3.1.3   EU restrictions on the importation of collagen for human consumption – Concerns 
of China  
3.14.   China  informed the Committee that pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2017/625, 
Commission  Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/405 authorized collagen from China in accordance 
with its Annexes IX, XII, and XIII. China regretted that the European  Union intended to use the  
previous Commission Decision 2002/994/EC which prohibited the import of collagen from China, and 
stated that it had raised the same concern in the TBT Committee. China urged the European  Union 
to implement the more recent EU regulation.  
3.15.   The European  Union  clarified that Commission Decision 2002/994/EC, as amended by 
Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2015/1068, included a list of food and feed products that 
were authorized for importation into the European  Union from China. According to article 1 of thi s 
Decision, it applied to all products of animal origin imported from China which were intended for 
human consumption or animal feed use. The European  Union emphasized that, while articles 2 and 
3 of this Decision indicated possible derogations from articl e 1, collagen was not included in the list 
of possible exceptions in Parts I and II of the Annex, and was therefore not authorized for import 
from China.  
3.1.4   EU residue limits of ethylene oxide and dichloroethanol – Concerns of China  
3.16.   Referring to its full statement available on eAgenda, China  emphasized that the EU ethylene 
oxide limit was not science -based, and that only a few countries imposed limits on ethylene oxide 
and chloroethanol in food, and that these limits varied according to food category. China also 
highlighted that the occurrence probability of ethylene oxide in xanthan gum was very low, and 
could come from fumigation disinfection or packaging contact materials. China urged the 
European  Union to consider the scientific ba sis and necessity of the requirements of Regulation 
(EU) 2019/1793 for ethylene oxide residues of xanthan gum, and adjust the residue limit, using a 
less trade -restrictive approach.  
3.17.   The European  Union  explained that xanthan gum from China had been temporar ily subject to 
increased controls due to risks associated with ethylene oxide for consumer health. Xantan gum had 
been listed in Annex II of Regulation (EU) 2019/1793 (and amended by Regulation (EU) 2021/2246), 
and had to be accompanied by an official cert ificate which demonstrated compliance with Regulation 
(EC) No 396/2005  on MRLs of ethylene oxide. The European  Union had informed China of 
notifications of ethylene oxide contamination through RASFF but non -compliant consignments 
continued to be exported i nto the European  Union. On 16 December 2021, the European  Union 
informed China of amendments to Regulation (EU) 2019/1793, which were also notified in document 
G/SPS/N/EU/538 , and reminded Members that the process of increased controls was described in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1968 . The European  Union emphasized that  the temporary measures were 
consistent with the SPS  Agreement and indicated its availability to continue bilateral discussion on 
the matter.  G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 9 - 
 
  3.1.5   Indonesia's draft regulation on heavy metals contaminants in processed food – 
Concerns of China  
3.18.   China  expressed its concerns about the arsenic limit of 0.15  mg/kg in the draft regulation 
notified by Indonesia, which was at odds with the 2.0  mg/kg limit stipulated in the dry baking yeast 
standard, issued by the National Standardization Agency of Indonesia.  China stated that the 
internationally recognized arsenic limit for yeast was 1.5 -5 mg/kg, while the arsenic limit for 
different types of yeast varied. In China's view, the arsenic limit in Indonesia's draft regulation was 
excessive, lacked scientific basi s, and had a negative impact on international trade. China proposed 
adjusting the arsenic limit to 1.5  mg/kg -5.0 mg/kg based on the type of yeast.  
3.19.   Indonesia  thanked China for the interest in its draft regulation notified in document 
G/SPS/N/IDN/142  and clarified that since 2017, the stipu lated maximum limit of arsenic of 
0.15 mg/kg had not changed. Referring to the import value of Chinese yeast since 2017, 
Indonesia  did not consider that the limit in question was creating trade barriers for China. 
Indonesia  informed that the draft regulati on was developed on the basis of public consultations, 
followed international recommendations, was consistent with the provisions of Article  5 of the 
SPS Agreement, and did not discriminate between domestic and imported products.  
3.1.6   Chinese Taipei's new proce dure for the recognition of infectious animal disease -
free status of a foreign country – Concerns of the European  Union  
3.20.   The European  Union  expressed its concerns with Chinese Taipei's new procedure, notified in 
document G/SPS/N/TPKM/543 , which required third countries to submit detailed dossiers on animal 
disease status, to allow for a subsequent risk assessment to be conducted by Chinese Taipei. 
The European  Union stated that the animal disease status of its relevant products was verified by 
the European Commission and notified to the OIE. The European  Union expressed regret that, 
despite its comments, the procedure had entered into force in Chinese Taipei in December 2021. 
In the view of the European  Union, the new procedure was burdensome and inconsistent with 
Article  5.6 of th e SPS  Agreement.  
3.21.   Chinese Taipei  explained that the procedure was established in 1992 and was most recently 
amended in 2021, in order to comply with OIE recommendations and take account of the current 
context of international animal diseases. Chinese Taipei  emphasized that the procedure did not 
arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between Members, and was consistent with the practices of 
other Members. To avoid disruptions to bilateral trade, a two -year grace period had been provided 
to applicant countr ies. Chinese Taipei would welcome further discussion with Members through 
bilateral channels.  
3.1.7   Thailand's sanitary requirements on "wet blue" leather imports – Concerns of Brazil  
3.22.   Brazil  raised its concerns about the export of wet blue leather to Thailand, w hich was subject 
to a health certificate requirement. Brazil noted that Thailand's 2015 Animal Epidemics Act B.E 2558 
included wet blue leather under the definition of "carcass" and considered this to be at odds with 
Article  8.8.27 of the OIE Terrestrial C ode. Brazil requested clarification on whether Act B.E 2558 was 
based on an international standard or guideline, the scientific basis on which "carcass" was defined, 
and whether the legislation had been notified.  
3.23.   Thailand  clarified that its 2015 Animal Epi demics Act B.E. 2558 was implemented to prevent 
and control animal epidemics in accordance with FAO, WHO, and OIE guidelines. It defined wet blue 
leather as "carcass" and required all exporting countries to provide health certificates. 
Thailand  informed th e Committee that a bilateral consultation was held in April 2021 and that it 
would consider amending the Act in due course.  
3.1.8   Russian Federation's SPS notification G/SPS/N/RUS/241  regarding eleven new 
quarantine pests – Concerns of India  
3.24.   India expressed concerns regarding notificatio n G/SPS/N/RUS/241 , which a dded 11 new 
quarantine pests to the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) Common List of Quarantine Pests. 
India noted that two of the listed quarantine pests, namely American dagger nematode 
(Xiphinema  americanum sensustricto Cobb ) and Californian dagger nematod e 
(Xiphinema  californicum Lamberti & Bleve Zacheo ), were also present in the Russian Federation. 
Additionally, India informed the Committee that nine out of the eleven notified pests were not known G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 10 - 
 
  to occur in India and considered that these pests posed no  threat to the Russian Federation, referring 
to Articles 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 of the SPS  Agreement and ISPM 11. India requested the 
Russian  Federation to issue appropriate amendments or advisories to its entry points to ensure that 
consignments from India woul d not be detained.  
3.25.   The Russian Federation  stated that, despite the presence of twelve Xiphinema nematode 
species on its territory, nematodes of the American group (including Bricolense dagger nematode, 
American dagger nematode and Californian dagger nemato de) could be considered quarantine pests 
in the EAEU because they had not been registered in the Russian Federation nor in other 
EAEU  countries. The Russian Federation noted that the proposed measure was in accordance with 
the SPS  Agreement and that upon r equest, it could provide results confirming the phytosanitary 
risks of the 11 pests in question. The Russian Federation added that the importation of products 
which potentially contained any of those 11 pests would be subject to special quarantine 
requirem ents as specified in documents G/SPS/N/RUS/241  and G/SPS/N/RUS/243 . 
The Russian  Federation expressed its willingness to engage in comprehensive bilateral cooperation 
on the matter.  
3.1.9   Russian Federation's phytosanitary certificate requirements for groundnut and 
sesame seeds – Concerns of India  
3.26.   India expressed its concerns regarding a new EAEU requirement to include a declaration in 
phytosanitary certificates stating that exported peanuts and sesame were produced in areas free of 
Striga spp., Callosobruchus spp., Caulophilus latinasus, Trogoderma granarium . Indi a noted that 
this was not technically possible due to the small size of Striga seeds, which could easily spread. 
India suggested that a more feasible alternative would be to declare that the consignment was free 
from the above -mentioned pests. India expres sed regret that this requirement had hindered its 
oilseed exports to the Russian Federation, and urged the Russian Federation to accept its declaration 
that the goods shipped from India were free from Striga and other related organisms.  
3.27.   The Russian Federat ion informed the Committee that this matter had already been discussed 
bilaterally, and that requests to amend EAEU phytosanitary regulations should be submitted directly 
to the Eurasian Economic Commission. Noting that the EAEU had responded to India's 20 19 request 
for a change in the Striga requirement, the Russian Federation expressed its willingness to share a 
written answer from the EAEU with India, and to continue bilateral cooperation on this matter.  
3.1.10   US undue delays in opening its citrus market – Concerns of Brazil  
3.28.   Brazil  raised its concerns on the United  States' undue delay in opening its citrus market 
despite more than twenty years of negotiations. Brazil explained that in an effort to avoid delays, 
it had proposed to break down the PRA related t o all Citrus genera, to focus on market access for 
Brazilian lime. Brazil stated that the United  States had agreed with its proposal, informing Brazil that 
a new PRA would not be necessary. Brazil had been informed by the US Animal and Plant Health 
Inspect ion Service (APHIS) that an internal public consultation would take place after conclusion of 
the Brazilian lime PRA; however, the consultation still had not been opened. Brazil was also informed 
by APHIS that the PRA was complete but not formally publishe d, and expressed its concern that 
other countries had access to the US market despite having started negotiations after Brazil. 
Considering that the decision not to publish an available PRA constituted an undue delay, 
Brazil  called on the United  States to publish the PRA as soon as possible.  
3.29.   In response, the United  States  noted that following a request from Brazil, APHIS had 
separated Tahiti limes from all other citrus in Brazil, reassigning other citrus to a different priority 
level, and had completed a PR A for Tahiti limes. The United  States explained that once the PRA was 
approved for publication, it would be published for a 30 -day stakeholder consultation period. 
The publication of the PRA involved several steps, and the United  States was working through  
its administrative procedures on this matter. The United  States encouraged technical engagement 
on this matter, including as part of plant health meetings between US and Brazilian authorities.  G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 11 - 
 
  3.2  Issues previously raised  
3.2.1   EU MRLs for alpha -cypermethrin, bupro fezin, chlorothalonil, chlorpyrifos, 
chlorpyrifos -methyl, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, glufosinate, imazalil, ioxynil, 
iprodione, mancozeb, molinate, picoxystrobin and tepraloxydim (ID  448) - Concerns of 
Colombia, Ecuador, United  States, Costa Rica and P araguay  
3.30.   Colombia  reiterated its statements made in the SPS and TBT Committees and in the General 
Council, and referred to the new questions contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2002 . 
Colombia  emphasized that the European  Union's political approach to default values, as mentioned 
during the Thema tic Session on Trade Facilitative Approaches to Pesticide MRLs, was inconsistent 
with the provisions of the SPS  Agreement and promoted food waste over sustainability goals. 
In Colombia's view, emergency authorizations granted to domestic producers were dis criminatory in 
nature, as they were obtained more easily than import tolerances, and allowed pesticides to be used 
without respecting the established MRLs. Colombia referred to article 4.7 of Regulation (EC) 
No 1107/2009, which stipulated a five -year perio d for developing alternative and new pest control 
methods, and stated that the same time period should be granted to third -country exporters prior 
to lowering MRLs.  
3.31.   Ecuador  expressed its concerns that the EU measure required the development of new 
technolo gies; an additional transition period for implementation; and financial and technical 
resources. Ecuador specifically referred to changes in the limits of pesticides such as chlorothalonil, 
mancozeb, metiram, chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos -methyl and recall ed the economic and social 
impact of these measures in the banana sector. Ecuador also referred to economic recovery efforts 
following the COVID -19 crisis and reiterated its request for the suspension of the entry into force of 
this measure. Ecuador urged the European  Union to take into account available scientific 
information, including by Codex, and provide at least 36 months for producers in developing 
countries to adapt. Regarding emergency authorizations, Ecuador requested that they be granted 
under si milar conditions for producers in the European  Union and in third countries. Ecuador looked 
forward to responses to the questions it raised in document G/SPS/GEN/2002  regarding the granting 
of emergency authorizations; the establishment of import tolerances; and compliance with 
Article 5.7 of the SPS  Agreement.  
3.32.   The United  States  reiterated its concern that the European  Union continued to apply the 
precautionary principle without completing a risk assessment, referring to document 
G/TBT/N/EU/827  as an example. Noting that the European  Union intended to factor glo bal 
environmental impacts into EU decisions on import tolerances, the United  States requested 
clarification on how this would be justified. The United  States called on the European  Union to afford 
producers in third countries equal access to crop protectio n tools based on emergency 
authorizations, to apply MRLs at the point of production for imported products, and to extend the 
transition period for all MRLs to the maximum term possible. The United  States submitted its 
statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2006 . 
3.33.   Costa Rica  reiterated its co ncerns regarding the EU regulatory approach and noted that these 
concerns had been raised in the SPS and TBT Committees and in the Council for Trade in Goods 
(CTG). Costa Rica thanked Colombia and other Members for the questions submitted to the 
European  Union and called on the European  Union to engage in discussions with Members on this 
issue.  
3.34.   Paraguay  requested the European  Union to provide written answers to the questions 
contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2002 , raised together with Colombia, Ecuador and Guatemala. 
Referring  to the Thematic Session on Trade Facilitative Approaches to Pesticide MRLs, Paraguay 
stressed the importance  of international harmonization, science -based risk assessment and 
appropriate transition periods. Paraguay called on the European  Union to reconsider its regulatory 
approach, base its decisions on scientific evidence in accordance with international stand ards, and 
provide adequate transition periods when necessary. Paraguay looked forward to resuming bilateral 
dialogue with the European  Union on this issue.  
3.35.   Uruguay  reiterated its concern about the EU approach to reduce MRLs for an increasing 
number of acti ve substances without a complete risk assessment. In particular, Uruguay was 
concerned about the reduction of MRLs for mancozeb, imazalil, iprodione and buprofezin, which were 
used in a range of products. Uruguay stressed that emergency authorizations gran ted by the 
European  Union to domestic producers deserved further attention, and requested written answers G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 12 - 
 
  to the questions contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2002 . Uruguay recalled that SPS measures must 
be based on science and international standards, and should not constitute an unjus tified barrier to 
trade. An adequate transition period of no less than two years should be provided for producers to 
adapt to new requirements. Uruguay called upon the European  Union to take into consideration the 
concerns expressed by Members, respond to the questions raised, and reconsider its regulatory 
approach to avoid unnecessary barriers to trade.  
3.36.   Brazil  reiterated its concern regarding the EU approach to pesticide MRLs. In Brazil's view, 
the EU regulatory approach on MRLs disregarded Codex standards , violated the harmonization 
principle of the SPS  Agreement, lacked scientific justification, and was more trade -restrictive than 
necessary. Brazil underscored that risk assessment techniques should consider the relevant guidance 
of international standard -setting bodies (ISSBs) and recalled that SPS measures should be based on 
scientific evidence.  
3.37.   Argentina  supported this concern and reiterated the need to ensure that Members applied 
risk-based SPS measures taking into account the techniques developed by th e relevant international 
organizations. Argentina urged the European  Union to use a risk -based approach and determine the 
different aspects that could affect human health and the environment on the basis of conclusive 
scientific studies. Argentina was conc erned that the measures benefitted domestic producers with 
emergency authorizations for the use of prohibited substances. Argentina urged the European  Union 
to engage in discussions with Members on this issue.  
3.38.   Guatemala  reiterated its concern regarding the  negative effects on agricultural production of 
the reduction of MRLs by the European  Union for the substances at issue. Guatemala urged the 
European  Union to reconsider its regulatory approach, highlighting the climatic differences between 
countries. In G uatemala, mancozeb was used on bananas as a fungicide to prevent black sigatoka, 
while chlorpyrifos was used for the treatment of mites. In Guatemala's view, productive sectors were 
left with limited alternative substances. Guatemala requested the European  Union to provide 
transition periods for developing countries, identify alternative substances for use, and provide 
answers to the questions contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2002 . 
3.39.   Canada  reiterated the need to base decision -making processes on risk assessment techniques 
developed by r elevant international organizations. Canada was particularly concerned by the impact 
of the EU approach to setting import tolerances and to the transition periods implemented. 
Canada  sought further information from the European  Union on how environmental i mplications 
would be taken into account in the EU approach to setting import tolerances. Canada requested the 
European  Union to maintain MRLs for substances that did not pose unacceptable dietary risks, 
thus eliminating the need for import tolerance reques ts. Underlining the importance of providing 
advance notice between the adoption of MRLs and their entry into force, Canada invited the 
European  Union to notify any anticipated changes in its MRLs earlier than the required 60 -day notice 
period, and take Mem bers' comments into account. Regarding the authorization of emergency 
derogations, Canada requested the European  Union to clarify its approach, and avoid discrimination 
between domestic producers and foreign exporters.  
3.40.   Panama  expressed its concern regarding the non -renewal of the substances at issue, 
in particular mancozeb. Panama recalled the need for SPS measures to be based on international 
standards and to avoid unnecessary barriers to trade. While supporting a global tran sition to 
sustainable agri -food systems, Panama believed this objective should be based on science and 
implemented through international cooperation. Panama requested the European  Union to postpone 
the non -renewal process for the substances at issue.  
3.41.   Peru supported this concern and considered the measures to be more trade -restrictive than 
necessary.  
3.42.   Chile supported this concern.  
3.43.   The European  Union  provided information on the active substances at issue. Regarding 
chlorothalonil and chlorpyrifos, the European  Union referred to its statement in the November 2021 
SPS Committee meeting, noting that no new elements were available. On imazalil, the 
European  Union noted that an import tolerance request on bananas had been withdrawn by the 
applicant in May 2021. Rega rding mancozeb, the European  Union highlighted that a draft regulation 
concerning the non -renewal of the active substance had been notified to the TBT Committee. 
Grace  periods granted by EU member States had expired in January 2022, 12 months after the ent ry G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 13 - 
 
  into force of the regulation. The European  Union informed Members that it had started a review 
process on existing MRLs for dithiocarbamates in which interested parties had been invited to 
contribute, as  described in document G/SPS/GEN/1494/Rev.1 . A scientific opinion on 
dithiocarbamates was expected to be published in the first half of 2022.  
3.44.   Regarding emergency authorizations, the European  Union  reiterated that EU member States 
were allowed to authorize the placing on the market of plant protection products, including those 
containing active substances that were not approved, under special circumstances. Noting that 
emergency authorizations were time limited, the European  Union explained that import tolerances 
could be used to facilitate trade and were not time limited.  The European  Union clarified that there 
was no prioritization exercise regarding reviews for active substance approvals. Active substances 
could be approved for periods between seven to fifteen years and expiration dates were defined in 
a transparent mann er. In addition, the European  Union noted that transition periods were provided 
in accordance with WTO recommendations. Referring to a statement made by a representative of 
the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in the Thematic Session on Trade Facilita tive Approaches 
to Pesticide MRLs, the European  Union highlighted that its limit of quantification was less stringent 
than that of other WTO Members. The European  Union reiterated its availability to cooperate with 
all Members on the issue, and indicated t hat it would provide written responses to the questions 
contained in document G/SPS/GEN/2002 . 
3.45.   Paraguay  thanked the European  Union for its clarifications regarding emerging authorizations.  
3.2.2   EU classification of 'anthraquinone' as a pesticide and the MRL for imported tea 
(ID 518) – Conc erns of India  
3.46.   Referring to its statements in previous SPS Committee meetings, India questioned the 
classification of anthraquinone as a pesticide and the MRL of 0.02  mg/kg for tea. The MRL of 
0.02  mg/kg was considered too low and had significantly affecte d Indian tea exports to the 
European  Union. India referred to the definitions in Annex A and the requirements in Article  2.2 of 
the SPS  Agreement and  requested the European  Union to share the scientific basis for setting the 
MRLs at 0.02  mg/kg in tea, info rmation on the EU sampling and testing methodology for tea and 
international standards on which it was based, and the risk assessment undertaken for fixing the 
MRL at the level of quantification and the alternative measures considered . 
3.47.   The European  Union  acknowledged India's interest on this issue and indicated that no new 
elements were available since the issue was last discussed at the July 2021 SPS Committee meeting. 
The European  Union recalled that authorizations for plant protection products containing  
anthraquinone had been withdrawn in 2009 based on Commission Decision (EU) No 2008/986, and 
that no Codex standard had been established. MRLs were established at the limit of quantification 
(LOQ) of 0.02 mg/kg for tea. The European  Union remained open to further discussions with India 
on this issue, and was ready to provide technical assistance to interested Members on laboratory 
methods to detect anthraquinone upon request.  
3.2.3   EU legislation on endocrine disruptors  (ID 382) – Concerns of Paraguay  
3.48.   Paraguay  highlighted the need to adopt risk -based approaches in the regulation of 
phytosanitary products. Regarding the last set of questions to the European  Union presented in the 
SPS Committee, Paraguay sought information on whether the European  Union would stop gr anting 
emergency authorizations for non -renewed substances.  
3.49.   Ecuador  reiterated its concern, recalling the provisions of Article  5 of the SPS  Agreement, and 
noting that a risk -based scientific approach was required to avoid unnecessary barriers to trade. 
Ecuador noted that EU reports which supported the non -approval of certain molecules, included the 
alleged endocrine disruption effects among the reasons for the withdrawal of authorizations.  
3.50.   Guatemala  considered the issue of endocrine disruptors to be linked  to the application of 
restrictive MRLs affecting agricultural production in tropical countries. Highlighting the importance 
of risk analysis, Guatemala stressed the need to take into account the agricultural production, 
disease control and environmental c haracteristics of other countries in the process. 
Guatemala  reiterated the statements and requests it made in previous SPS Committee meetings.  
3.51.   Brazil  supported this concern and recalled that the criteria for the determination of endocrine -
disrupting substa nces needed to be established in accordance with Article  5 of the SPS  Agreement, G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 14 - 
 
  to avoid unnecessary trade restrictions. Brazil urged the European  Union to consider Members' 
concerns regarding the scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine -disrupting properties. 
Brazil highlighted the importance of conducting risk assessments that were appropriate to the 
circumstances, and the need to obtain the additional information necessary for an objective 
assessment.  
3.52.   Canada  reiterated its request for the European  Union to consider both hazards and risks in its 
regulatory decision -making. Canada asked the European  Union to explain how it would establish the 
restrictions to be applied in exporting countries with respect to environmental impacts. Canada urged  
the European  Union to conduct trade impact assessments and transparent public consultation 
processes on its regulatory proposals, and for regulatory changes to be no more trade -restrictive 
than necessary.  
3.53.   Uruguay  reiterated its concerns regarding the EU adoption and implementation of a hazard -
based approach for products with endocrine -disrupting properties. Uruguay insisted on the need to 
base such determinations on conclusive scientific evidence in order to avoid removing important 
components of pest man agement systems which were considered safe for use. Uruguay stressed 
that a hazard -based approach could have a negative and disproportionate impact on sustainable 
agricultural production, food security and international trade in food products. Uruguay supp orted 
the multilateral work undertaken by Codex to develop a harmonized, risk -based approach, and 
requested the European  Union to reconsider its regulatory approach.  
3.54.   Costa Rica  reiterated its concern regarding the EU approach for the implementation of 
Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. Costa Rica urged the European  Union to ensure that the regulation 
of endocrine disruptors was based on risk assessments, using criteria supported by sufficient 
scientific evidence, in line with the SPS  Agreement.  
3.55.   Peru supported th e concern and considered that the EU regulations were inconsistent with 
Article  5 of the SPS  Agreement, and that maintaining a hazard -based approach would lead to 
measures more trade -restrictive than necessary.  
3.56.   Chile expressed its concerns with the hazard -based cut -off criteria used for the assessment 
of active substances in Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, and referred to the gradual reduction of safe 
and effective phytosanitary products. In Chile's view, the criteria deviated from the internationally 
agreed principles of risk analysis and unnecessarily lowered MRLs for substances commonly used in 
agriculture.  
3.57.   The European  Union  affirmed that the scientific criteria in place in the European  Union to 
identify endocrine disruptors were based on the WHO definitio n. The criteria to identify pesticides 
had been applicable since November 2018, and also applied to ongoing procedures for the approval 
or renewal of active substances. The European  Union reiterated that, to date, there had been no 
cases of non -approval of  a substance solely based on endocrine disruptor criteria that had been 
followed by the lowering of MRLs. For all substances for which MRLs had been lowered following the 
non-approval under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, other intake concerns, in addition t o their 
classification as endocrine disruptors, had been identified. The European  Union reiterated 
its commitment to keep Members informed of further developments.  
3.2.4   EU restrictions on exports of chocolate and cocoa products due to the application 
of the Com mission Regulation (EU) N° 488/2014 of 12 May 2014 amending Regulation 
(EC) N° 1881/2006 as regards maximum levels of cadmium in foodstuff (ID  503) – 
Concerns of Peru  
3.58.   Peru raised its concerns regarding Commission Regulation (EU) No 488/2014, establishing 
maximum levels (MLs) for cadmium in chocolate and other cocoa products that, in practice, had a 
negative impact on trade in cocoa beans and cocoa. Peru highlighted the trade performance and the 
social importance of the cocoa production chain, and was of the  view that the EU regulation violated 
Article  2 of the SPS  Agreement and created unnecessary barriers to trade. Making reference to 
JECFA/91/SC, dated 5 March 2021, Peru noted that the contribution of cadmium from cocoa -derived 
products remained insignific ant, including in high -consumption countries, and that the application of 
MLs of cadmium in chocolate and cocoa derivatives would not significantly reduce dietary exposure 
to cadmium. Peru called upon the European  Union to rescind Commission Regulation (EU ) 
No 488/2014 with respect to chocolate and other cocoa products. Peru submitted its statement in 
document G/SPS/GEN/2010 . G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 15 - 
 
  3.59.   The European  Union  thanked Peru for its continued interest on this issue and noted that no 
new elements were available since the November 2021 SPS Committee meet ing. 
The European  Union recalled that it had granted a transition period of 5 years to comply with the 
legal requirements of the measure concerning cocoa and chocolate products. The European  Union 
added that the MLs were established on finished products, a nd did not apply to intermediate cocoa 
products. Noting the toxicity of cadmium, the European  Union stressed that the measure was 
necessary to protect human health. The European  Union noted that it was providing targeted 
technical assistance in Peru and ne ighbouring countries within the framework of the Clima -LoCa 
programme which fostered the development, implementation and scaling of low cadmium production 
practices and technologies. The European  Union reiterated its commitment to work constructively 
with Members to address outstanding issues.  
3.2.5   EU regulatory approach to maximum levels for contaminants (ID  519) – Concerns 
of Canada  
3.60.   Canada  considered that the EU implementation of the precautionary -based regulatory 
decision -making requirements under Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 was leading to the lowering of 
maximum levels (MLs) for contaminants in many food products. In recent bilateral eng agement with 
the European  Union, Canada reiterated that the MLs did not align with international standards and 
would negatively impact trade for many products.  In particular,  Canada was concerned with the 
negative trade implications of the EU approach to t he regulation of MLs of cadmium in cereals, pulses 
and oilseeds; ergot and ergot alkaloids in cereals; and cyanogenic glycosides in linseed. 
Canada  urged the European  Union to extend the transition period to allow industries sufficient time 
to adapt. Final ly, Canada indicated that it would be providing comments on a draft EU regulation 
notified to the WTO that cited new and lower MLs for hydrocyanic acid (including those bound in 
cyanogenic glycosides) for certain food stuffs.  
3.61.   Brazil  expressed its concerns with the EU approach to the regulation of maximum limits in 
food products under Regulation (EC) 1881/2006, noting that it disregarded Codex standards. 
Brazil  stated that SPS measures should be based on scientific evidence and MLs should be defined 
on the b asis of realistic exposure scenarios rather than on a presumption of hazard. Brazil further 
noted that the potential trade impact should be taken into account, in accordance with Article  5.4 of 
the SPS  Agreement.  
3.62.   Ecuador  noted that in different Codex techn ical committees, including the Codex Committee 
on Contaminants in Food, MLs for contaminants in food were determined using a risk analysis in 
order to avoid health impacts and unnecessary barriers to trade. For some contaminants such as 
cadmium, Ecuador no ted that the FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) had 
conducted some toxicity studies, which demonstrated that the determination of an ML should be 
primarily concerned with avoiding trade barriers, as there was no proven adverse effect on hum an 
health.  
3.63.   In its response, the European  Union  noted that answers had been provided to 
Canada's  comments on notifications G/SPS/N/EU/466  and G/SPS/N/EU/479 . The European  Union 
explained that the measures in question were based on a risk assessment and considered relevant 
consumption patterns and levels of dieta ry risk. According to the European  Union, the population's 
exposure to cadmium should be reduced in view of its toxicity and possible health risks. The MLs for 
cadmium had been established at levels as low as reasonably achievable, considering the occurren ce 
data for cadmium in the specific foodstuffs from various origins, in order to ensure a rejection rate 
of 5% or lower. The expected effect on trade was thus limited.  
3.64.   The European  Union  confirmed that the new ML established for ergot sclerotia in wheat an d 
durum wheat (0.2  g/kg, established on safety considerations) was lower than the one established in 
CXS 199/1995 (0.5  g/kg, established as a quality factor). Taking into account EFSA's scientific 
opinion and JECFA's assessment in its 91st meeting, it was necessary to establish MLs for ergot 
alkaloids in cereals and cereal products to ensure a high level of human health protection. 
According  to the European  Union, the established level was readily achievable by applying good 
practices. The European  Union fu rther confirmed that the proposed ML for ergot alkaloids did not 
apply to bulk raw grain, but to cereals placed on the market for the final consumer. As such, the 
European  Union was of the view that these concerns did not justify a further deferral of the 
application of the MLs for ergot alkaloids. Concerning the MLs for hydrocyanic acid in certain foods, 
including linseed, the European  Union noted that Canada's comments had been considered,  that the 
maximum level established for food had been aligned to the maximum level for hydrocyanic acid in G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 16 - 
 
  linseed for feed in place for more than 45 years in the E uropean Union,  and that the outcome of 
technical discussions on this matter  had been notified as draft measures in  G/SPS/N/EU/546 . 
The European  Union reiterated its commitment to discuss the issue bilaterally with Canada.  
3.2.6   EU review of legislation on vete rinary medicinal products (ID  446) – Concerns of 
the United  States  
3.65.   Referring to its statements in previous SPS Committee meetings, the United  States  reiterated 
its concerns regarding the implementation of the EU legislation on veterinary medicinal products  
(Regulation (EU) No 2019/6). Noting that the European Medicine Agency (EMA) had published the 
recommended list of antimicrobials that would be reserved for human use, the United  States asked 
the EU Commission to follow the scientific recommendations of th e EMA in the delegated acts that 
will formalize the implementation of article 118. The United  States noted that delays in the 
implementation of the EU veterinary medicine legislation were leading to significant uncertainty for 
producers. The United  States requested information on how the list of antimicrobials reserved for 
human use would be maintained to ensure fair, transparent, and science -based risk assessment and 
urged the European  Union to base its regulations on science and risk, and to consider the impact of 
its SPS measures on global animal health, food security, trade, and agricultural sustainability. 
The United  States submitted its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2007 . 
3.66.   Japan  reiterated previous requests for information on the list of prohibited antimicrobials and 
the Orders relevant to the implementation of Section 118. Noting that the measure had entered into 
force on 28 January 2022, Japan urged the European  Union to notify the list of antimicrobials 
exclusive for human use; to provide sufficient time for Members to submit comments and take these 
comments into account; and to set a sufficient transitional period. Japan also drew the Committee's 
attention to a provisional measure by France imposing restrictions on meat processed from livestock 
to which growth -promoting antimi crobials had been applied. Stating that the measure was 
announced on 22 February and was expected to enter into force from 22 April, Japan considered 
that the application of this measure without a notification nor a sufficient transitional period would 
be problematic and hoped for an explanation on this matter.  
3.67.   Highlighting its low rates of AMR, Australia  recalled the ongoing implementation of its national 
AMR strategy and expressed support for the international efforts to set standards for AMR. 
Australia  was concerned that unilateral AMR trade policies would be inconsistent with the outputs 
from ISSBs and emphasized that international engagement on AMR mitigation should be sustained 
through realistic and practical international standards and policies. Austr alia considered it was 
essential that antimicrobials for treatment, control and prevention of infectious animal diseases be 
retained to support animal health and welfare and food security. Australia called  on the 
European  Union to consider approaches that recogni zed third countries’ AMR settings, along with 
the different conditions, availability of antimicrobials and disease prevalence in those countries, 
before releasing the proposed list of reserved antimicrobials.  Referring to the delays in the 
implement ation of the veterinary medicine legislative package, Australia requested an update on the 
release date for the final antimicrobials list, clarification on the expectations of compliance with the 
new requirements and the transition period offered.  
3.68.   Brazil  noted the potential burden of the EU regulation on producers due to the introduction of 
sanitary requirements that were more trade -restrictive than necessary. Expressing its support for 
international efforts to develop multilateral harmonized guidelines o n AMR, Brazil urged the 
European  Union to consider the ongoing global efforts by the WHO, the OIE and FAO, as well as the 
work of the Codex Taskforce on Antimicrobial Resistance. Brazil reiterated the importance of a safe, 
harmonized, and science -based fra mework for trade in animal products for the promotion of food 
safety and food security, and hoped that when the list of antimicrobials was published, 
Members  would be allowed sufficient time to provide comments which could be duly considered.  
3.69.   Argentina  expressed appreciation for the dialogue with the European  Union on this subject 
and reiterated its concerns regarding the final list of antimicrobials reserved for human use and the 
implementation of article 118 of Regulation (EU) No 2019/6, which required th ird countries to 
demonstrate the non -use of those antimicrobials. Argentina considered it necessary to have early 
access to the evaluations used to create the list and information on transition periods, and requested 
that the measures be science -based and avoid unnecessary barriers to trade.  
3.70.   Paraguay  referred to G/SPS/N/EU/478/Add.1 , noting that the measure applied from 
28 January, but the list of antimicrobials had not yet been notified. Paraguay requested the G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 17 - 
 
  European  Union to notify the list, explain how article 118 wou ld apply to third countries, and allow 
a sufficient transition period for producers. Paraguay also expressed concerns regarding 
France's  import ban on meat from animals in which antimicrobials were used as growth promoters, 
and requested further informatio n on the measure as it had not been notified. Paraguay also 
prohibited the use of antimicrobials as growth promoters and was interested in knowing whether the 
requirements to demonstrate compliance would be the same. Paraguay added that a measure by 
one EU  member State, which was still being discussed in the European  Union and could be 
implemented without being notified, created a lack of predictability.  
3.71.   Uruguay  highlighted that under the SPS  Agreement, measures needed to be based on 
international standards , or conclusive scientific evidence, and noted that in this case, the specific 
needs and realities of different countries should be considered. Regarding the recommendation on 
antimicrobials and antimicrobial groups to be reserved for the treatment of cert ain infections in 
humans included in the EMA scientific opinion of 16 February 2022, Uruguay requested confirmation 
that this would be used to develop the implementing act under Article  37 (5) of Regulation (EU) 
No 2019/6. Uruguay also asked when the imple menting act under Article  37 (5), and the Delegated 
Act under Article  118 would be notified to the SPS Committee, and when the final rules would enter 
into force, in particular for third parties. Uruguay reiterated the need to communicate measures and 
draft measures, allow sufficient time for comments, and take Members' comments into account. 
Uruguay also explained that in case of significant regulatory changes, transition periods should take 
account of the realities of affected sectors and products.  
3.72.   Canada  expressed its support for the coordinated international efforts to combat AMR. 
Acknowledging the entry into force of the EU veterinary medicinal products regulation on 28 January 
2022, Canada noted that two implementing legislations had not been released and created 
uncertainty and unpredictability for EU trading partners and industry stakeholders. In Canada's view, 
it was imperative for trading partners to have the information needed to adapt to any new 
requirements. On 1 March 2022, the EMA had published  an overview of what the potential list of 
antimicrobials to be reserved for human use could entail. Canada urged the European  Union to share 
and notify the list of antimicrobials reserved for human use and the import controls for third countries 
related t o veterinary medicinal products, to allow for comments and to take these comments into 
account when finalizing the measure. Canada also requested the European  Union to provide a 
sufficient transition period based on the realities of production systems and product storage.  
3.73.   The European  Union  reiterated that Regulation (EU) No 2019/6, which applied from 
28 January 2022, would strengthen EU action to fight AMR, following the European One Health Action 
Plan against AMR. Noting that the EU regulations on veterin ary medicines and medicated feed would 
impose stricter rules on EU operators than on those in non -EU countries, the European  Union 
considered that the import provisions should not be seen as a trade barrier but as part of the overall 
fight against AMR. The  European  Union provided a detailed state -of-play regarding the preparation 
of two remaining draft legal acts, and committed to keep Members informed of any future 
developments to avoid trade disruptions. Regarding the French Ministerial Order adopted on 
22 February 2022, the European  Union and France held extensive consultations on the matter, 
including on the issue of notifying the measure to the WTO. The European  Union underscored the 
importance of international collaboration and expressed its continued engagement with trading 
partners and other WTO Members in the fight against AMR to promote and support effective 
strategies to prevent and contain the global threat of AMR.  
3.2.7   China's actions related to COVID -19 that affect trade in food and agricultural 
prod ucts (ID  487) – Concerns of Australia, Canada, the United  States and India  
3.74.   Australia  reiterated its concerns that China's continued enforcement of emergency measures 
to prevent the risk of COVID -19 transmission via food products, such as those notified in 
G/SPS/N/CHN/1173 , those outlined in GACC Announcement No. 103 of 2020, and its prevention 
measures released on 30 January 2022, were not based on scientific evidence and offered a less 
favourable treatment than that afforded to domestic goods. Australia questioned the consistency  of 
China's measures with revised WHO/FAO guidance, requested an update on China's review of 
emergency measures for food businesses related to COVID -19 and the notification of 
China's  additional measures related to COVID -19, and asked for an update on the timeframe for 
lifting suspensions applied to Australian export establishments. Australia was of the view that 
China's  COVID -19 measures, including at borders, were increasingly discriminatory towards foreign 
imports. Australia indicated its willingness to work with China and other Members to ensure that G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 18 - 
 
  measures to prevent the spread of COVID -19 were science - and risk -based, took account of the 
latest available pertinent information and minimized unnecessary impacts on trade.  
3.75.   Canada  emphasized the importanc e of basing COVID -19 related measures on sound scientific 
principles and risk assessments, and drew the Committee's attention to the recently updated 
WHO/FAO guidance on COVID -19 and Food Safety. Canada questioned the scientific basis for 
China's  measures relating to COVID -19 as notified in G/SPS/N/CHN/1173  and expressed concerns 
on the lack of clarity, transparency and predictability of the measures, in particular regarding the 
reinstatement process for suspended establishments. Canada noted that multiple reinstatement 
packages h ad been submitted to China, and urged China to respond to its requests, reinstate all 
suspended establishments without undue delays, and base its SPS measures on sound scientific 
principles. Canada called on China to work more collaboratively with its trad ing partners to avoid 
unnecessary trade barriers.  
3.76.   Reiterating its concern on China's measures, the United  States  explained that China had not 
provided scientific justification to support the need and effectiveness of the emergency measures 
notified in G/SPS/N/CHN/1173 . The United  States referred to the updated WHO/FAO guidance, and 
encouraged China to withdraw its measures and support the guidance of international organizations 
on COVID -19. The United  States also encouraged China to share the process to reinstate 
establishments as  eligible for export to China and to resume the exports from two poultry production 
facilities suspended on the basis of COVID -19 related concerns. The United  States submitted its 
statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2005 . 
3.77.   India reiterated its concern regarding the indefinite suspension o f exports from over 50 fish 
and fishery product establishments on the basis of presence of COVID -19 nucleic acid on the 
packaging of frozen products. China had not shared the relevant test reports, hindering detailed 
investigations in India. Following the WHO/FAO guidance, Indian exporters had implemented 
stringent preventive controls. India requested China to share the relevant reports that had led to 
the export restrictions or allow exports from the delisted units.  
3.78.   Stressing the need to base SPS measures on scientific principles and the importance of 
international cooperation, Japan  expressed concerns on whether China's analysis was consistent 
with the updated WHO/FAO guidance, and requested China to clarify the risk assessments and 
scientific evidence tha t supported its measures.  
3.79.   The United Kingdom  also referred to the WHO/FAO guidance, and further specified that the 
detection of virus or viral ribonucleic acid remnants on foods and food packaging did not confirm the 
transmission of SARS -CoV-2 to people in  contact with contaminated products. The United Kingdom 
considered that available scientific evidence did not support the continuation of China's testing 
requirements, nor its policy of point -of-entry rejections and establishment suspensions. 
Citing  Article 2.2 of the SPS  Agreement, the United Kingdom asked whether China would review its 
COVID -19 related import measures in line with global scientific consensus, and invited China to 
share any relevant scientific evidence for its measures.  
3.80.   Switzerland  express ed its concern regarding the additional requirements on imported food 
products linked to COVID -19 established by China without having shared the risk assessment or the 
scientific justification. Switzerland considered that the measures, as well as related p ublic 
statements, undermined consumer trust towards imported food products. Switzerland stressed the 
importance of transparency and noted that Members should respect the rules -based multilateral 
trading system.  
3.81.   Referring to the WHO/FAO guidance, the Europe an Union  considered that Chinese policies for 
agri-food products were not proportionate and caused uncertainty, delays and increased costs. 
The European  Union invited China to share its risk assessment, scientific evidence and data which 
justified its meas ures and to review them in light of the recent international guidance. 
The European  Union expressed its concerns with government authorities publicly dissuading 
Chinese  consumers from purchasing foreign goods due to COVID -19 risks, and further stated that 
unnecessary verification measures were harmful to food security, food prices and global trade and 
may undermine public trust.  
3.82.   China  responded that it had conducted a comprehensive analysis of surveillance data on food 
products and their packaging, which co ncluded that cold -chain foods and their packaging could 
become carriers of the virus if in contact with infected people. China explained that since 2020, G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 19 - 
 
  it had found positive COVID -19 test results on multiple occasions on the outer and inner packaging 
of imported cold -chain products. Referring to data as of March 2022, China noted that a significant 
number of COVID -19 detections were found in consignments from India.  China had adopt ed graded 
and classified treatments based on a scientific evaluation o f transmission risk , to deal with cold chain 
food packaging which had tested positive . For low -level risk, the cold chain food was allowed to enter 
normal production, marketing, and consum ption. China added that import s from a particular 
company  would be resumed  once the company had taken active and effective actions to eliminate 
the relevant risk.  
3.2.8   China's administrative measures for registration of overseas manufacturers of 
imported food ( 26 November 2019) (ID  485) – Concerns of Australia, Canada, the 
European  Union, Japan and the United  States  
3.83.   Australia  expressed its concern regarding delays in the registration processes of 
China's  Regulation on Registration and Administration of Overseas Manufacturers of Imported Foods. 
Noting  that approval procedures should be undertaken without undue delays and in a 
non-discriminatory manner, Australia stressed that it had provided the relevant information for the 
registration of establishments, which ha d not been reflected in China's registration system. 
Australia  requested China to adopt a flexible approach to the implementation of the measure until 
1 July 2023, allowing entry of products from registered facilities in line with historical trade; 
notify  the guidance on the regulation to the Committee; and provide information on the regulation 
to its trading partners, for example, through an information session. Australia expressed its 
willingness to further work with China on these issues.  
3.84.   Canada  reiterated its concern regarding China's administrative measures. Canada regretted 
that China had not engaged with trading partners prior to the implementation of the online 
China  Import Food Enterprise Registration (CIFER) system, and that no reasonable transition period 
had been provided for adaptation to the new system. Noting the successful bilateral arrangements 
between both countries, Canada was concerned that China's administrative measures were overly 
burdensome and went beyond the extent necessary  to protect against food safety risks. 
Canada  regretted that Member's comments on Decrees 248 and 249 had not been taken into account 
prior to their adoption and publication, and that requests for delays in their implementation had not 
been considered. Can ada requested China to provide an 18 -month grace period, until 1 July 2023, 
in which establishment information in CIFER would not be used to determine export eligibility; 
to establish an enquiry point to respond to Member's queries on the registration proc ess; to outline 
relevant timelines in a transparent manner; and to provide further information and clarifications on 
the implementation of Decrees 248 and 259 and CIFER. Canada looked forward to bilateral 
discussions with China on this issue.  
3.85.   The European  Union  noted that several EU member States had reported cases of 
consignments held at Chinese ports due to errors in the information available in China's online 
system. The European  Union urged China to provide an 18 -month grace period allowing registered 
establishments to export related products, maintain an open dialogue to solve implementation 
issues, provide guidelines on registration in English, and provide guidelines on the verification of 
establishments registered under the fast -track procedure.  
3.86.   Sharing the concern, Japan  sought clarification from China on the type of information required 
for registration following discrepancies between the information contained in Article  10 of 
the regulation, and the information available on the CIFER system as well as the scope of 
Decree  248. Japan noted that the list of commodities for which facility registration was required 
changed frequently, which resulted in unnecessary barriers to trade. Recalling the obligations 
established in the SPS  Agreement, Japan request ed China to take Members' comments into account, 
provide a grace period until 1 July 2023 to allow imports from registered facilities, establish contact 
points between exporters and China's customs authority, and hold an information session on the 
operatio n of the Decree.  
3.87.   The United  States  reiterated its concern regarding China's lack of response to requests for 
scientific justification and clarification on how the measures established in Decrees 248 and 249 
would address food safety and public health conce rns. The United  States urged China to provide the 
risk assessments used in the development of the Decrees. Noting instances of shipments held at 
Chinese ports due to a broadening of the scope of HS codes subject to the measure, 
the United  States requested China to allow entry of products from registered facilities until 1 July 
2023, to provide a contact point at China's customs authority to address concerns regarding the G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 20 - 
 
  online registration system, and to hold an information session in Geneva on the impleme ntation of 
the Decrees. The United  States submitted its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2004 . 
3.88.   Norway  remained concerned that China's measures were more trade -restrictive than 
necessary, and noted that there were outstanding questions and clarification needed on the new 
requirements a nd registration processes. Regarding the CIFER system, Norway stressed that the 
lack of information in English and occurrence of technical errors had created additional burdens on 
its competent authorities. Norway urged China to engage in dialogue to solve  the implementation 
issues, and to make adjustments to the CIFER system as necessary.  
3.89.   Switzerland  regretted that the measure included all food categories irrespective of their risk 
profile and seemed to be more trade -restrictive than necessary. Switzerland urged China to brief 
Members on the implementing rules, and to allow entry of products from regi stered facilities until 
1 July 2023.  
3.90.   The United Kingdom  regretted that China had not considered delaying the implementation of 
the measures as requested by several Members in previous Committee meetings, and believed that 
certain aspects of China's measure s, such as the requirement to audit establishments exporting 
low-risk products, were overly burdensome. Recalling the provisions of Article  5.6 of the 
SPS Agreement, the United Kingdom requested China to review its measures for an application that 
would no t be more trade -restrictive than necessary.  
3.91.   Korea  reiterated its concern regarding China's administrative measures on the registration of 
overseas manufacturers of imported foods. In Korea's view, certain provisions of the regulation, 
such as those related  to low -risk products, were more trade -restrictive than necessary. 
Highlighting  the provisions of Article  5 of the SPS  Agreement, Korea requested China to provide the 
scientific evidence underpinning the requirements. Korea urged China to reconsider its de cision on 
the registration of establishments, and to provide a contact point to facilitate the review of online 
information for exporters.  
3.92.   Chinese Taipei  stressed that the lack of information on registration requirements and 
operational guidance posed diff iculties in the implementation of the measures. 
Chinese  Taipei  questioned the alignment of the measures with the relevant provisions of the 
SPS Agreement, such as those related to risk assessment and scientific justification. 
Chinese  Taipei  urged China to designate a contact point to address concerns surrounding the 
measures, to provide a grace period for its implementation, to temporarily allow entry of all products 
from registered facilities, and to hold an information session to provide further informati on on the 
implementation of the measures.  
3.93.   China  indicated that the revision of the draft Administrative Measures for Registration of 
Overseas Manufacturers of Imported Foods was compliant with international rules and common 
practices, and that Members' com ments had been adopted and a transition period had been 
provided. A number of supporting documents had been made available to Members, such as the 
interpretation of the regulation, guidance and relevant forms for registration application, and an 
operating manual of the registration information system. China noted that it had contacted several 
Members in September 2021 to provide information on the requirements and procedures for the 
registration process. Video conferences were held with 114 Members, and tra ining sessions had been 
conducted for over 2,000 overseas manufacturers.  China noted that, as of 10 March  2022, 
over 100 Members had provided the list of enterprises recommended for registration, and a total of 
67,626 overseas manufacturers in 32 food cate gories had been registered. In China's view, the 
implementation of the measure went well.  
3.2.9   Concerns with transparency, delays and due process associated with China's import 
requirements for agricultural goods (ID  524) – Concerns of Australia  
3.94.   Recalling the o bligations in Article  5.8 of the SPS  Agreement, Australia  remained concerned 
with China's increased inspections and testing measures at the border which had been initiated 
without prior notice, did not appear to be based on scientific evidence and had led to trade 
constraints across a range of agricultural products. Australia would welcome bilateral engagement 
on these matters, and urged China to respond to its requests for information, provide details of its 
inspection and testing measure and engage with A ustralia on its proposals.  G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 21 - 
 
  3.95.   China  stated that it had notified the SPS measures to the WTO and to relevant Members in a 
transparent and timely manner, and called on Australia to strengthen its supervision of export 
enterprises in accordance with bilateral ag reements to ensure the safety of products.  
3.96.   Australia  clarified it had provided information outlining its food safety and biosecurity system 
and was awaiting a response from China on investigations following non -compliance reports. 
Australia regretted that China had not engaged with Australia on these investigations, and that 
technical submissions had not yet been answered.  
3.2.10   China's delay in approving requests for new listing and reinstatement of export 
establishments (ID  516) – Concerns of Australia and Cana da  
3.97.   Australia  reiterated its concerns with the long delays and lack of transparency in China's 
approval and administrative process for agriculture and fisheries exports. Australia noted that it was 
waiting for China to approve establishment registrations, and to update administrative listing 
changes. Australia requested China to provide information on the assessment and approval of 
products as well as the lifting of restrictions on suspended establishments. Australia reminded 
China  of the obligations of Art icle 2.3 of the SPS  Agreement, and welcomed engagement to discuss 
these issues.  
3.98.   Canada  continued to experience undue delays in China's approval procedures for the import 
of food products and foreign establishments, and was awaiting updated information on o ver 10 lists 
of Canadian products and facilities eligible to export. The delays, lack of transparency and rationale 
in the approval procedures for foreign establishments led to unjustified barriers to trade and 
administrative burdens. Recalling the obligat ions in Annex C of the SPS  Agreement, Canada urged 
China to update and publish the lists of Canadian products and establishments awaiting registration 
or approval; to provide timelines for approval of Canadian food products and establishments; 
to transmit the result of the approval procedures; to provide the reason why Canadian products and 
establishments had not been approved; to explain any delays; to limit information requirements to 
what was necessary; and to ensure transparent and predictable approval procedures.  
3.99.   The United Kingdom  noted that its trade continued to be affected by undue delays and lack 
of transparency in China's approval procedures. The United Kingdom waited for China's response on 
the re -listing of three pork establishments following Ch ina's technical requests and the facilitation of 
virtual inspections. The United Kingdom requested China to apply its approval procedures in a timely 
and predictable manner, in accordance with Annex C of the SPS  Agreement.  
3.100.   The European  Union  supported the concern and called for transparent, predictable and swift 
approval procedures and for the listing or re -listing of establishments in line with agreed international 
standards. The European  Union was concerned about the focus on COVID -19 control measures in 
establishment audits, as well as the short notice of the announcement of these audits. 
The European  Union requested China to ensure the application of SPS measures in a 
non-discriminatory and predictable manner, and to remove unnecessary barriers to trade.  
3.101.   China  noted the recurring incidents in recent years involving Canadian and Australian 
products, including detection of the COVID -19 virus on Canadian aquatic products and 
chloramphenicol residues in imported Australian beef products. Non -compliance issues  had been 
communicated to the exporting Members in accordance with relevant international guidelines. China 
urged the Members concerned to look into these cases, make the relevant rectifications and 
inform  China of the results, in order to carry out assess ments and evaluations to adjust the relevant 
measures.  
3.102.   Canada  responded to China by emphasizing the adherence of all Canadian federally licensed 
establishments to internationally accepted standards and food safety requirements. In case of any 
potential foo d safety risks, appropriate actions were taken immediately by Canada to prevent 
contaminated foods from entering the domestic and international food supply.  
3.103.   In response to China, Australia  underscored the high standards of its food system and the 
quality o f its agricultural products. Australia regretted that China had not honoured its 
WTO commitments, the lack of progress on market access requests, and the unresponsiveness to 
the requests for engagement. Australia highlighted that it had responded to all re quests for 
information from China and had undertaken corrective actions in a timely and transparent manner. G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 22 - 
 
  Noting that other trading partners had also raised concerns on delays and lack of transparency, 
Australia believed that China's actions were inconsi stent with WTO obligations.  
3.2.11   Saudi Arabia's temporary suspension of Brazilian poultry exporting 
establishments (ID  486) – Concerns of Brazil  
3.104.   Brazil  explained that since February 2020, Saudi Arabia had suspended exports from 
Brazilian poultry -producing plant s without scientific justification. Brazil considered Saudi Arabia's 
policies to be at odds with Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS  Agreement. Brazil informed Members that on 
27 January 2022, Saudi Arabia had authorized the suspended plants to export poultry, alt hough the 
suspensions had not been formally withdrawn. In Brazil's view, this demonstrated that the measures 
were neither justified nor based on a proper risk analysis. Brazil requested clarification on the 
sanitary concern which justified suspending Brazi lian poultry establishments, while still allowing 
them to export to Saudi Arabia.  
3.105.   Referring to its statements in previous meetings, Saudi Arabia  stressed that the measures 
imposed on Brazilian establishments were intended to ensure food safety and the prot ection of 
human health and were consistent with the SPS  Agreement. Saudi Arabia informed Members that 
the issue was discussed bilaterally with Brazil in December 2021 and January 2022, and that 
concrete actions had been proposed and were in the final stage s of implementation. 
Saudi  Arabia  urged Brazil to continue the bilateral discussion, and reaffirmed its commitment to 
transparency by notifying any new proposed changes to its SPS measures.  
3.2.12   Panama's undue delays in the renewal of authorizations for plants of Peruvian 
fishery and livestock enterprises (ID  509) – Concerns of Peru  
3.106.   Peru raised its concern regarding Panama's undue delays in renewing authorizations for 
fishery and livestock enterprises. Peru considered Panama's actions to be inconsistent with 
Articles  2.2, 5.1 and 8, and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement, noting that no respons e had been 
provided by Panama concerning the pending requests for authorization. Peru emphasized that 
Panama had not communicated the anticipated processing period, and that the timeframe to renew 
authorizations was uncertain. Peru requested a written resp onse from Panama on its queries in 
relation to Annex  C of the SPS  Agreement, which were raised in February 2022 during the 
Trade  Policy Review of Panama. Peru submitted its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2011 . 
3.107.   Chile expressed its concerns regarding Panama's refusal to process new au thorizations, as 
well as the lack of clarity surrounding the renewal of establishments exporting to Panama. 
Noting  that there were over 50 Chilean livestock and fisheries establishments with expired or 
expiring authorizations, or with pending requests for first-time authorizations, Chile urged Panama 
to respond to these requests. Chile indicated its availability to coordinate bilaterally with Panama to 
identify solutions, including remote inspections or documentary audits, and avoid unnecessary 
obstacles to  trade, and urged Panama to comply with Article  8 and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement.  
3.108.   Costa Rica  supported this concern regarding Panama's trade -restrictive practices. 
Costa  Rica called on Panama to address Members' concerns, which were indicative of an inadequate 
application of SPS measures and a non -observance of the obligations in the SPS  Agreemen t. 
3.109.   Panama  indicated that it was coordinating with capital to respond to Peru's concerns, and 
was also coordinating with Chile to address its concerns. Panama reiterated its willingness to work 
with Members in the search for mutually satisfactory solutions in this matter.  
3.2.13   Bolivia's import restrictions on agricultural and livestock products (ID  530) – 
Concerns of Peru  
3.110.   Peru expressed concerns over various restrictive measures applied by Bolivia on Peruvian 
exports of agricultural products, such as potatoes and  onions. In Peru's view, these measures were 
inconsistent with Article  XI of the GATT  1994 and Articles 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 as well as Annexes B and C 
of the SPS  Agreement. Peru urged Bolivia to lift the restrictions on Peruvian exports of perishable 
goods as we ll as trout. Peru submitted its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2009 . G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 23 - 
 
  3.111.   Bolivia  considered that the issues were of a technical nature and had been discussed in 
various bilateral meetings. Bolivia reiterated its willingness to continue open and transparent 
communication with Peru on thi s matter.  
3.2.14   General import restrictions due to BSE (ID  193) – Concerns of the European  Union  
3.112.   The European  Union  reiterated its concerns regarding unjustified and long delays in certain 
Member's approval of beef imports from the European  Union in light of BSE . In its view, the delays 
in the approval procedures of some Members, in particular Argentina, Australia, Brazil, China, Egypt, 
Jordan, Korea, Malaysia, Mexico, South Africa, Chinese Taipei and the United  States, were 
inconsistent with Article  8 and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement. The European  Union urged all 
Members to comply with their obligations under the SPS  Agreement; to apply international 
standards; to lift remaining BSE -related restrictions; and to engage with the European  Union to 
finalize the asses sment of pending market access requests.  
3.113.   Switzerland  supported this concern, noting for example that it had been recognized by the 
OIE as having negligible BSE risk for more than a decade, but continued to be on China's "list of 
animals and their products  prohibited from being imported from countries where animal diseases 
are endemic". Switzerland urged trading partners to lift remaining import restrictions due to BSE, 
and to allow imports of beef products from Switzerland.  
3.114.   In response, China  referred to i ts statement on eAgenda, which reiterated its previous 
position on this issue.  
3.2.15   South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian 
influenza (ID  431) – Concerns of the European  Union  
3.115.   The European  Union  regretted that South Africa m aintained country -wide bans on poultry 
products from 14 EU member States following HPAI outbreaks, and had not lifted the trade 
restrictions in line with OIE recommendations. The European  Union considered the measure to be at 
odds with Article  6 of the SPS  Agreement. South Africa had carried out inspections in certain 
EU member States, and was familiar with EU veterinary services and the EU policy and 
regionalization system. The European  Union called for South Africa to respect its obligations.  
3.116.   South Africa  referred to a technical meeting with the European  Union held in 
November  2021, in which it had agreed to continue engagement with the European  Union with a 
view to finding solutions.  
3.2.16   China's import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza (ID  406) – 
Concerns of the European  Union  
3.117.   The European  Union  raised its concern regarding China's imposition, since 2015, of country -
wide bans on several EU member States on account of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). 
The European  Union explained tha t there were no records that HPAI outbreaks were attributable to 
trade in poultry meat and by -products, which took place regularly among disease -free areas of 
EU member States as well as between the European  Union and third countries. The European  Union 
had repeatedly requested China to lift country -wide import restrictions in accordance with the 
OIE Terrestrial Code and to recognize the principle of regionalization. The European  Union regretted 
the lack of progress towards the resolution of this longstandi ng issue.  
3.118.   China  highlighted that HPAI was a serious infectious disease affecting the poultry industry 
which continued to occur in some EU member States, affecting both wild and domestic poultry. 
China  had suspended imports of live poultry from the European  Union to protect the safety of its 
poultry industry. China welcomed extensive technical exchanges with the European  Union and its 
member States through bilateral and multilateral channels.  
3.2.17   China's import restrictions due to African swine fever (ID  392) – Concerns of the 
European  Union  
3.119.   The European  Union  expressed its concerns regarding China's ASF -related country -wide 
import bans on pork products from EU member States, including from those that had successfully 
eradicated the disease in livestock and wildl ife and regained a disease -free status in accordance with G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 24 - 
 
  OIE rules. The European  Union explained that since 2015, China had expanded rather than lifted the 
unjustified trade bans, despite having the same sanitary profile as the European  Union. 
The Europea n Union requested clarification on the difference in the risk profile between imported 
and domestically -produced pork products. The European  Union called on China to respect its 
obligations under the SPS  Agreement and OIE standards, to allow trade from dis ease-free areas, 
and to engage in meaningful, solution -oriented exchanges.  
3.120.   China  referred to recent reports of ASF. Noting the ongoing trade with some EU member 
States and the regional technical exchanges on ASF with France and Germany, China encouraged 
bilateral applications from EU member States for export licenses on the premise that the risk could 
be controlled. China expressed its willingness to carry out technical exchanges and to cooperate with 
the European  Union.  
3.2.18   Mexico's import restrictions on pork  (ID 489) – Concerns of Brazil  
3.121.   Brazil  reiterated concerns regarding Mexico's restrictions on pork imports from 
Santa  Catarina. Brazil explained that Santa Catarina had been recognized by the OIE as free from 
FMD without vaccination for almost 15 years, and  FMD had last occurred almost 30 years ago. 
Referring to Mexico's concerns with the guarantees offered by Brazil on export safety and 
regionalization, Brazil noted that Mexico imported from another country which offered similar 
guarantees and considered th at this was discriminatory. Underscoring the effectiveness of its 
National Program on Swine Health, Brazil considered that exports of pig meat to Mexico presented 
no risk since they came from a zone free from classic swine fever and FMD, as recognized by t he 
OIE. Brazil also informed Members that it had not received a response on its proposal for future pork 
imports from Brazil to be processed by Mexico's food industry before reaching Mexican households. 
Regarding Normative Instruction No. 52 and Santa Cata rina State Law No. 17.829, 
Brazil  emphasized that there was no conflict as both rules did not allow the entry of cattle into 
Santa  Catarina from other Brazilian states that were subject to vaccination, and both rules allowed 
cattle from states that were fr ee from FMD without vaccination, as recommended by the OIE. 
Brazil  asked Mexico to confirm that this information was clear, and also requested Mexico to indicate 
the guarantees it required from countries that were not FMD -free to export to Mexico. Brazil a rgued 
that Mexico's restrictions were inconsistent with the principles of non -discrimination, harmonization 
and regionalization, and with Decision G/SPS/48 . 
3.122.   Mexico  noted that its measures systematically recognized the principles of the 
SPS Agreement, and that it remained concerned with the guara ntees offered by the Brazilian 
authorities to demonstrate export safety with respect to regionalization. Mexico noted that in 
addition to a review of the technical information provided on the control of FMD in the state of 
Santa  Catarina, a legal analysis of the normative instruments was ongoing in accordance with the 
SPS Agreement and the relevant international standards. Preliminary findings indicated that the 
epidemiological surveillance system being evaluated was not equivalent to that of Mexico. 
Noting  differences in risk assessment methodologies, Mexico indicated that it was evaluating a 
request from Brazil to analy ze the data using probabilistic parameters. Regarding its risk assessment 
procedures, Mexico noted that it took the sanitary status into ac count in accordance with OIE 
recommendations, while also applying the national legislation. In response to Brazil's queries, 
Mexico  considered that the review of the regulations in question did not provide sufficient clarity and 
showed contradictions in li ght of OIE recommendations. Mexico also stated that it did not import 
pork from countries with FMD, hence the conditions for allowing entry could not be provided. 
Noting  that risk mitigation measures for FMD must be applied and certified by, and in, the co untry 
of origin, as established by the OIE, Mexico did not consider Brazil's request as viable, as the animal 
health guarantees were not yet in place.  
3.2.19   Chinese Taipei's import restrictions on poultry and beef (ID  521) – Concerns of 
Brazil  
3.123.   Brazil  considered restrictions on poultry and beef imports to Chinese Taipei to be at odds 
with Articles 5, 8 and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement. Brazil regretted that questions concerning 
animal health or food safety had been asked again although Brazil had alrea dy provided the 
necessary information. In February 2022, Brazil had provided responses to a questionnaire from 
Chinese Taipei about processed poultry, and sought clarification from Chinese Taipei regarding the 
completeness of the document and the time limi t for the analysis of the documents submitted.  G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 25 - 
 
  3.124.   Chinese Taipei  explained that, regarding poultry meat products, exporting countries had to 
be recognized as free from HPAI and Newcastle disease (ND). Brazil was recognized as HPAI -free, 
but not as ND -free, ba sed on the results of a risk assessment. Chinese Taipei invited Brazil to conduct 
active surveillance and apply other measures in accordance with OIE guidelines, and to submit 
supplementary information for review, for recognition of ND freedom. Chinese Tai pei would notify 
Brazil of the results of the review of the responses provided to the questionnaire of food safety on 
poultry, and confirmed receipt of the dossiers for market access for Brazilian heat -treated poultry 
meat in February 2022. Regarding beef,  Brazil needed to submit a food safety questionnaire, and as 
a BSE -occurring country, a BSE questionnaire was also requested. Chinese Taipei acknowledged 
reception of the supplemental documents of the food safety and BSE questionnaires, which would 
be revi ewed in the order of applications. Chinese Taipei explained that the progress of review 
depended on the completeness of documents and the reply would be given as soon as possible.  
3.2.20   China's restrictions on bovine meat imports (ID  510) – Concerns of India  
3.125.   India reiterated its concerns on import restrictions imposed by China based on India's FMD 
status. The concerns persisted despite the STC raised, the bilateral Memorandum of Understanding 
(MoU) signed in 2013, the clearing by China in 2017 of 14 centres for t he export of bovine meat 
from India, and the similar FMD conditions prevailing in China and India. India also emphasized that 
China imported bovine meat from countries that had not been listed by the OIE as free from FMD in 
OIE resolution No. 13. India poi nted out that it had a recognized official FMD control programme and 
had been exporting frozen buffalo meat since 1969 to over 70 countries. India stated that its 
production of buffalo meat was a regulated industry and considered that China's measures were  
inconsistent with Articles 2.2, 2.3, 3.3 and 5.1 of the SPS  Agreement, and requested China to lift 
the restrictions and allow bovine meat exports from India.  
3.126.   China  explained that the ban on imports of Indian beef and its products was established in 
accord ance with the principles of regional management of FMD and with OIE standards, in light of 
the outbreaks of this disease in India in recent years. China noted that, based on an expert 
assessment, it could not lift the ban since FMD had not been effectively  controlled in India. In case 
India had effectively controlled FMD, China invited India to provide the corresponding information 
so that the relevant procedures for lifting the ban could be initiated.  
3.2.21   The Philippines' trade restrictions on imports of meat (ID 466) – Concerns of the 
European  Union  
3.127.   The European  Union  reiterated that the Philippines did not adhere to OIE  international 
standards and maintained country -wide bans on imports of meat and meat products from 
EU member States on grounds of ASF and HPAI. The European  Union indicated that 17 EU member 
States were subject to country -wide import bans imposed by the P hilippines on pork meat or poultry 
meat and relevant products, and considered that these measures were inconsistent with Articles 2.2 
and 6 of the SPS  Agreement. The European  Union indicated that it had provided the necessary 
evidence demonstrating the eff ectiveness of disease control measures, and called on the Philippines 
to respect its international obligations and allow trade from disease -free areas.  
3.128.   The Russian Federation  expressed concerns regarding the Philippines' restrictions on imports 
of Russian beef and pork. Exports of pork and beef to the Philippines would only be allowed after 
receiving recognition from the OIE for FMD -, ASF -and lumpy skin disease -free status, as well as 
low-risk status for BSE. The Russian Federation had submitted informatio n on the domestic epizootic 
situation to the Philippines for the diseases at issue, and had not yet received a response. Noting  the 
proposals made to hold bilateral meetings between competent authorities, the Russian Federation 
urged the Philippines to com ply with obligations under Articles 6 and 8, and Annex C of the 
SPS Agreement, to recognize the regionalization on dangerous animal diseases in the 
Russian  territory, and to accelerate the process of gaining market access.  
3.129.   The Philippines  noted the concern s of the European  Union and assured that its measures 
concerning the importation of meat from EU member States affected by the spread of ASF and HPAI 
were regularly reviewed and updated in light of the available scientific information, in accordance 
with A rticle 5.6 of the SPS  Agreement. Regarding ASF, the Philippines stated that ASF cases had 
been on the rise in the European  Union, affecting domestic and wild pigs. The Philippines added that 
detections and spread of HPAI virus were also reported in several  EU member States. In response 
to the Russian Federation, the Philippines indicated that the Russian Federation remained not G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 26 - 
 
  accredited to export pork and beef due to its ASF and lumpy skin disease, and emphasized that its 
decisions had been explained to t he Russian Federations bilaterally.  
3.2.22   Qatar's new import rules for dairy products (ID  529) – Concerns of the 
European  Union  
3.130.   The European  Union  reiterated its concern regarding Qatar's establishment of new import 
requirements for UHT milk and white cheese, is sued on 30 May 2019. The European  Union noted 
that the scope of these measures was further expanded in August 2021, and regretted that they 
affected several dairy products exported to Qatar. The European  Union recalled that at the previous 
Committee meetin g, Qatar had stated that the matter was under consideration by its competent 
authorities. The European  Union thanked Qatar for seeking solutions as discussed during bilateral 
exchanges, and expressed its willingness to continue the constructive dialogue.  
3.131.   Qatar informed the Committee that during a bilateral meeting held in February, 
the suspension of the Circular in question had been confirmed, pending the completion of the internal 
review process. Qatar reiterated that its measures were necessary for consum er protection in 
accordance with its international obligations and were applied equally to domestic and imported 
products. Qatar thanked the European  Union and reiterated its willingness to continue constructive 
discussions.  
3.2.23   Guatemala's restrictions on egg  products (ID  413) – Concerns of Mexico  
3.132.   Mexico  reiterated its concern regarding the import restrictions imposed by Guatemala on 
thermally processed egg products, which could be a violation of fundamental principles of the 
SPS Agreement and of the FTA betwe en Mexico and Central America. While all the necessary 
technical information demonstrating the safety of the products had been submitted, the delay in 
responses had hindered the progress of negotiations. In October 2021, Guatemala had informed 
Mexico that it was not possible to continue with the analysis as the questionnaire submitted by 
Mexico was considered not compliant due to changes in the name of the responsible institution. 
Mexico also highlighted concerns in relation to its negotiations with Guatema la regarding an animal 
health certificate for export, emphasizing that the sanitary requirements that had been established 
for Mexico were inconsistent with Resolution 338 -2014 of the Central American Customs Union. 
Mexico requested Guatemala to consider i ts questionnaire as compliant, to prioritize the resolution 
of this concern and continue bilateral discussions, and to allow imports of the products in question. 
Mexico looked forward to resolving this trade concern as soon as possible, through technical d ialogue 
between both countries.  
3.133.   Guatemala  reiterated that the concerns were being discussed in bilateral meetings between 
the relevant authorities of both countries, where various agreements had been reached. 
Guatemala  expressed its intention to continue b ilateral communications between health authorities 
on the matter as had been agreed.  
3.2.24   India's approval procedures for animal products (ID  484) – Concerns of the 
Russian Federation  
3.134.   The Russian Federation  reiterated concerns regarding its inability to supply food products of 
animal origin to the Indian market, despite repeated requests and submitted materials regarding 
dangerous animal diseases. The Russian Federation regretted that India had not shared its view 
regarding regionalization for avian influenza an d the access of Russian poultry products to the 
Indian  market, and considered that there were unreasonable delays in the approval of veterinary 
certificates for poultry meat, fish products, feed and feed additives and sheep wool. 
The Russian  Federation urg ed India to comply with Article  8 and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement and 
requested India to complete its approval procedures without undue delay.  
3.135.   India was currently reviewing the responses provided by the Russian Federation and noted 
that the examination wa s at an advanced stage.  G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 27 - 
 
  3.2.25   Delays in Thailand's approval procedures for animal products (ID  527) – Concerns 
of the Russian Federation  
3.136.   The Russian Federation  expressed its concerns regarding the exportation of Russian beef 
and pork products to Thailand. Follow ing the inspections of Russian establishments in 2019, 
Thailand  had not confirmed whether the information on BSE provided in 2017 had been taken into 
consideration. The Russian Federation expressed regret that Thailand had not informed of the 
inspection re sults and urged Thailand to complete its approval procedures without undue delay, 
in accordance with Article  8 and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement.  
3.137.   Thailand  recalled that the procedures for the importation of live animals and animal products 
to Thailand had b een notified as G/SPS/N/TH A/243  in accordance with the transparency provisions 
of the Agreement . Thailand underscored that the importation of livestock products to Thailand was 
based on risk analysis for animal health and was in conformity with the SPS  Agreement and OIE 
standards. Thailand stated that it had received the requested information from the Russian 
Federation in May 2021, and had provided initial results of the review to the Russian Embassy in 
Thailand on 10 March 2022. Thailand emphasized that it would soon inform the Ru ssian Federation 
of the official results.  
3.2.26   Russian Federation – Procedures for authorizing units eligible for export of fish 
and fish products to Eurasian Customs Union (ID  508) – Concerns of India  
3.138.   India expressed concerns that the Russian Federation had no t updated its register of 
approved enterprises, and that newly approved enterprises had not been able to export to the 
Eurasian Customs Union, despite the list of approved processing establishments provided by India 
in accordance with a bilateral MoU. In I ndia's view, this was in violation of the MoU and Articles 2.3, 
4 and 5 of the SPS  Agreement. India requested the Russian Federation to share its risk assessment 
to support the inspections by Russian authorities. India considered that the responses provide d by 
the Russian Federation did not address its concerns. According to India, the Russian Federation's 
authority under clause 11 of the MoU to inspect approved Indian establishments was not a 
prerequisite for listing approved Indian establishments. Given t he MoU's recognition of India's audit 
system, India requested that the Russian Federation register approved Indian establishments.  
3.139.   The Russian Federation  emphasized that more than 80 Indian fish processing enterprises 
had the right to export into the Russian market. Following detections of residues of harmful and 
prohibited substances in Indian products, the Russian Federation had temporarily imposed 
restrictions on certain enterprises. The Eurasian Economic Commission Council Decision No. 94 
established the inspection of foreign enterprises as a possible requirement prior to the authorization 
of fish and fish products exports. The Russian Federation argued  that India had not responded to its 
proposal to conduct inspections of fish processing enterprises. The Russian Federation also noted 
that most of the registered Indian exporting enterprises had never supplied products to its territory, 
and that India had  failed to update the existing lists. The Russian Federation expressed its readiness 
to include new Indian enterprises in the Register of Enterprises of third countries after the 
implementation of existing requirements and agreements.  
3.2.27   Indonesia's approval procedures for animal and plant products (ID  441) – 
Concerns of the European  Union and the Russian Federation  
3.140.   The European  Union  reiterated its concerns about the lack of transparency, the limited 
feedback on requests for information on pending export appl ications, and the undue delays in 
Indonesia's approval procedures for imports of plant and animal products. Specifically, 
the European  Union expressed concerns with the lack of progress on export applications for beef, 
dairy, poultry, pork, and plant produ cts, which in some instances had been submitted more than 
eight years ago. The European  Union requested Indonesia to be transparent about its approval 
procedures and to finalize pending market access applications.  
3.141.   The Russian Federation  expressed concerns regarding the lack of progress in Indonesia's 
approval of export certificates, including for poultry, cattle and goat meat, milk and dairy products 
obtained from cattle and small cattle, canned food, sausages, table eggs and egg products. 
The Russian Feder ation had sent several reminders on the pending approvals and had submitted 
questionnaires on poultry and beef establishments, but had received no response to its proposal to 
conduct veterinary inspections. The Russian Federation urged Indonesia to comply with Article  8 and 
Annex C of the SPS  Agreement and to complete its approval procedures without undue delay.  G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 28 - 
 
  3.142.   Indonesia  considered that the European  Union's concerns with regard to undue delays were 
no longer relevant and referred to its responsiveness rega rding the applications of each 
EU member  State, in accordance with Articles 7 and 8 of the SPS  Agreement. Indonesia explained 
that some applications were pending due to outstanding documents or audit fee payments. 
Regarding plant products, Indonesia provid ed updates on recognitions and approvals granted to 
some EU member States. Indonesia concluded that most of the applications had been processed and 
invited EU  member States to report on the progress to the EU representative in Geneva.  
3.2.28   China's proposed new health certificate format for shrimp imports (ID  506) – 
Concerns of India  
3.143.   India raised its concerns regarding China's proposed new health certificate format that would 
make most of India's shrimp consignments unfit for export to China. Referring to its sta tements in 
previous Committee meetings, India considered that the responses provided by China in the 
July 2021 Committee meeting did not address its concerns. India requested China to provide a risk 
assessment or indicate the less trade -restrictive measure s it had taken into consideration, and 
enquired when the temporary preventive measure would be suspended.  
3.144.   China  argued that preventive and control measures against shrimp -related diseases had 
been adopted for many years. In order to prevent risks, China ha d adopted temporary emergency 
preventive protective measures to suspend the import of related products, which was in line with 
the SPS  Agreement and OIE standards. China added that other Members had also put forward strict 
disease quarantine requirements o n imported shrimp products and that their measures were 
science -based, reasonable and did not impose excessive protection requirements. China had 
submitted a revised version of the health certificate to India in August and October 2021, 
emphasizing that it  was a refinement of the original disease requirements.  
3.2.29   India's requirement for certificate for non -GM origin and GM -free status (ID  501) 
– Concerns of the United  States  
3.145.   The United  States  reiterated its concerns with India's measure mandating non -GM 
(genet ically modified) origin and GM -free certificates for certain agricultural imports into India, 
notified as G/TBT/N/IND/168 . The United  States noted that the regulation was used as a basis to 
limit the trade of certain processed products which had not been listed in the Order in the Annex of 
G/TBT/N/IND/168 . The United  States continued to seek technical cooperation with the Food Safety 
and Standards Authority of India and urged India to withdraw this measure and develop alternative 
approaches that were less trade -restrictive and more consistent with internatio nal best practices. 
The United  States submitted its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/2008 . 
3.146.   Paraguay  expressed its concerns that India's measure could create an unjustified assumption 
that GM products were less safe than non -GM food products. Paraguay noted that India had not 
provided a regulatory impact assessment, scientific evidence or risk analysis to support the measure, 
and added that the GM food products in question had undergone rigorous scientific assessments in 
accordance with international standards, guidelines and recommenda tions. Paraguay urged India to 
notify the measure to the SPS Committee and respond to the note it had sent to India in 
January  2021, together with other Members.  
3.147.   Acknowledging the ongoing cooperation, Australia  remained concerned that India's 
regulation cr eated unnecessary costs and additional regulatory burden on Australian exporters and 
Indian importers of products such as apples, canola, plums, and wheat. Australia requested India to 
notify its measure to the SPS Committee and to consider adopting a less  trade -restrictive alternative 
arrangement. Australia looked forward to further engagement with India.  
3.148.   New Zealand  continued to support concerns regarding India's requirement to provide 
non-GM origin attestations or certification per consignment and requested India to provide the 
scientific and risk -based justification for this measure. New Zealand reiterated that con sideration 
should be given to the acceptance of country -wide assurances, in place of specific consignment 
assurances, from countries free from GMOs with standards in place to enforce these requirements.  
3.149.   Japan  considered that the proposed requirements would  create unnecessary trade barriers 
and have negative impacts on agricultural trade. Japan controlled the import, distribution and 
cultivation of GM food in order to ensure its safety. Japan considered that the requirement for a 
certificate of non -GM origin  and GM freedom was not based on scientific principles or appropriate G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 29 - 
 
  risk assessment, and that this measure was more trade -restrictive than necessary. Japan urged 
India to waive the certification requirement for Members which managed GM food appropriately . 
3.150.   Brazil  reiterated its concern regarding India's Order notified as G/TBT/N/IND/168  which 
applied to 24 crops and required official certification to attest that imported products were not 
genetically modified. Brazil urged India to notify any new developments on this regulation to the 
SPS Committee.  
3.151.   Uruguay  considered that there was no technical justification for the certification requirement 
and noted that GM products approved on the basis of Codex risk assessment recommendations were 
considered to be equivalent to their convention al counterparts. Referring to the objective to ensure 
the safety of imported food, Uruguay urged India to notify the measure to the SPS Committee. 
Uruguay stressed that measures should be based on science, not more trade -restrictive than 
necessary and look ed forward to India's response to its concerns, including those submitted in a 
joint note by several countries in January 2021.  
3.152.   Canada  reiterated its concern about the implementation of India's Order, which would impact 
exports of GM -producing Members to I ndia and unnecessarily restrict international trade. 
Canada  welcomed India's recent decision to accept Canada's non -GM attestation for bean exports. 
Canada recalled its request for India to notify the non -GM Order to the SPS Committee, to suspend 
the imple mentation of this measure and to consider the robust, science -based regulatory 
frameworks developed in other countries. Canada looked forward to further bilateral discussion on 
this issue.  
3.153.   The European  Union  reported that it was still awaiting a response t o comments it had 
provided on the TBT notification of this measure. The European  Union highlighted that the measure 
was costly and burdensome for trading partners who were already subject to robust regulatory 
regimes governing the use of GMOs and had a hig h prevalence of non -GM foods in their domestic 
market. The European  Union also expressed concerns with the limited number of food crops 
authorized to contain GMOs under the measure as well as the strict traceability and labelling 
requirements which would a pply to food containing GMOs. In closing, the European  Union asked 
India to waive the certificate requirement.  
3.154.   India reiterated that the requirement to regulate imports of GM food had already been 
notified to the WTO as the Environment Protection Act 1986.  In India's view, the Order was not 
trade -restrictive as consignments of identified commodities, accompanied by the required certificate, 
were imported into India. So far, the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee had not approved 
any of the crop varieti es of GM or GE origin listed in the Order. India informed that trade partners 
including the United  States, United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Turkey, Iran, China, 
European  Union including Italy, Germany, France, and Thailand were providing requisite certif icates 
and trade continued without hindrance. India noted that the Export Inspection Council, its nodal 
agency for issuing non -GMO certificates for export consignments, provided several countries with 
non-GMO certificates for the export of primary food cro ps and processed food products into India.  
3.2.30   The Russian Federation's classification of tea as "fruits and vegetables" (ID  525) 
– Concerns of India  
3.155.   India raised its concern regarding the Russian Federation's classification of tea as "fruits and 
vegetables", which had resulted in higher levels of mould parameters. Referring to Articles 3.3 and 
5.6 of the SPS  Agreement, India highlighted the need for a scientific justification or a risk assessment 
for SPS measures deviating from international standards, and ask ed the Russian Federation to 
provide the scientific rationale for classifying tea as fruits and vegetables and the risk assessment 
to define higher mould parameters standards. India also considered the measure to be more 
trade -restrictive than necessary to achieve the ALOP. India thanked the Russian Federation for its 
interim reply and looked forward to a complete response on the concern raised.  
3.156.   The Russian Federation  clarified that the EAEU did not classify tea as fruits and ve getables. 
The safety requirements for food products, including tea, were set out in the technical regulations 
of the EAEU with the ML of mould in tea set at 1,000 colony forming units per gram as defined in 
Appendix 2 of Regulation 021/2011. Noting the abs ence of a Codex standard for mould in tea, the 
Russian Federation highlighted that these measures were taken to protect human health from 
potential risks and were based on available scientific data and an assessment of risk, in accordance G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 30 - 
 
  with Articles 2 a nd 5 of the SPS  Agreement. The Russian Federation indicated its willingness for 
comprehensive bilateral cooperation with India on this issue.  
3.2.31   Proposed new EU rules on composite products (ID  504) – Concerns of Australia 
and Chinese Taipei  
3.157.   Australia  reiterat ed its concerns  about the new EU rules for shelf -stable composite products 
under Regulations (EU) No 2019/625 and (EU) No 2020/2235. For Australia, the new rules were not 
commensurate with risk and had already restricted trade in shelf -stable composite pro ducts and 
caused delays in border clearance for Australian exporters. In Australia's view, the  requirement to 
source animal origin ingredients from EU -listed establishments for all composite products , 
irrespective of the percentage of animal ingredient in the product,  was unjustified  and unnecessarily 
trade restrictive. Australia also considered that the  private attestation requirement  could be 
eliminated without any impact on food safety. Referring to Articles 4 and 5 of the SPS  Agreement , 
Australia  asked the European  Union  to recognize  the equivalence of third countries and to establish 
measures commensurate with the level of risk,  and requested information on the process for 
consideration of alternative equivalent measures. Australia urged the  European  Union to reconsider 
the implementation of this regulation , including its provisions related to the product coverage and 
thresholds.  
3.158.   Chinese Taipei  reiterated its concern and noted that the decision to treat all composite 
products with processed products of a nimal origin (PPAO) on the same level of risk was based on 
2012 EFSA research, and did not take account of developments in scientific and risk assessment 
techniques. Chinese Taipei sought clarification of the scientific evidence supporting the new rules fo r 
all composite products with PPAO ingredients to be produced by EU approved establishments. 
Chinese Taipei also requested information on the practical cases of hazards caused by composite 
products with only trace amounts of PPAO when they were not produce d in EU approved 
establishments, and questioned how the European  Union determined that prior practice would no 
longer achieve the ALOP. Finally, Chinese Taipei considered the measure to be disproportional to the 
level of hazard, and asked the European  Union to explain the rationale for adopting the measure.  
3.159.   Japan  noted that even after the entry into force of the regulation, businesses continued to 
enquire about the categorization of items as composite products. Japan added that differences in 
the interpreta tion of this regulation had led to cases where customs clearance of composite products 
exported to the European  Union had not been permitted. Japan requested the European  Union to 
provide clarification on the products affected by the measure, and to respon d to its requests for 
information.  
3.160.   China  expressed its concerns with the implementation of the measure, in particular with its 
compliance and administrative costs. China noted that there were no EU approved dairy product 
manufacturers in China, which hinde red exports of composite products containing local milk 
ingredients. China noted that exports of collagen -containing composite products had been returned 
by EU customs due to issues related to the EU approved residue monitoring plan. China suggested 
that t he European  Union set a level for different animal origin ingredients and offer exemptions if 
the products were lower than the level set; adopt the principle of equivalence for Members who have 
a well -established regulatory system; and cancel the requireme nt for food residue monitoring plans 
for collagen -containing composite products.  
3.161.   The Russian Federation  shared its concerns with the uncertainty, complexity of 
administration, lack of scientific evidence and apparent redundancy of this EU measure. 
The Russian Federation was of the view that the lack of an internationally harmonized regulatory 
framework for the export of composite products created uncertainty, particularly during border 
controls. The Russian Federation also raised concerns with the scientifi c rationale behind the 
regulation and the assessment methods, and noted that traceability and certification requirements 
for low -risk products imposed a disproportionate burden on business operators. Noting that EFSA's 
risk assessment was conducted 10 year s ago, the Russian Federation called for a revision of the risk 
assessment to look further into composite product categories and exclude low -risk composite 
products from stringent regulations. The Russian Federation called on Members to discuss these 
issues at the next SPS Committee meeting to agree on an objective classification of safe composite 
products, and considered it necessary to establish an international SPS standard on composite 
products which did not pose a serious risk to human health. The Russ ian Federation urged the 
European  Union to postpone the application of the measure.  G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 31 - 
 
  3.162.   The European  Union  reiterated that the import conditions laid down in the new composite 
product legislation were all risk -based. While most of the rules remained unchanged,  some of the 
changes related to the three -tier approach to categorizing composite products depending on their 
level of risk. The European  Union highlighted that more flexibility was now offered, making it easier 
to source ingredients from other countries, with a longer list of composite products being exempted 
from controls at the border due to their lower risk, and through the replacement of official certificates 
by a private attestation for certain categories of shelf -stable and meatless composite product s. 
The general information provided in documents G/SPS/GEN/1763 , G/SPS/GEN/1786  and published 
in the special website on the import conditions of composite products – 
(https://ec.europa .eu/food/safety/international_affairs/trade/special -eu-import -conditions -
composite -products_en ), was still relevant. The European  Union provided updates on the model 
animal health certificates for the entry and transit through the European  Union of certain  composite 
products, noting in particular that the Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/36 amended the model 
animal health certificate for the entry of not shelf -stable and shelf -stable composite products 
containing any quantity of meat products except gelati ne, collagen and highly refined products, and 
intended for human consumption. The European  Union also clarified that the principle of equivalence 
was included in Regulation (EU) No 2017/625. The European  Union remained open to continue the 
dialogue with in terested Members.  
3.2.32   India's import requirements for pulses (ID  497) – Concerns of Canada  
3.163.   Recognizing positive bilateral engagements with India, Canada  welcomed India's 
announcements on fumigation options for pulse shipments and continued to engage with India  on 
import requirements for Canadian pulses. Canada still had concerns with India's measures on weed 
seeds noting that India had added 26 new weed seed species to its List of Quarantine Weed Seeds 
in October 2019. In Canada's view, these actions were incon sistent with the principles of transparent 
and predicable international rules -based trade. Canada looked forward to working collaboratively 
with India on both matters.  
3.164.   India thanked Canada for its continued interest and bilateral engagement, noted the conc ern 
raised, and indicated that it would revert to Canada as soon as possible.  
3.2.33   Panama's restrictions and procedure to regain access for Peruvian potatoes and 
onions (ID  512) – Concerns of Peru  
3.165.   Peru referred to its full statement on eAgenda, and provided a brief statement orally. 
Peru requested that Panama allow market access of Peruvian onions and potatoes to prevent 
violation of Articles 2, 5, 8 and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement as well as unnecessa ry and unjustified 
barriers to trade. Peru also reiterated queries made during the Trade Policy Review of Panama, held 
in February 2022, notably in relation to Articles 2 and 5, and Annexes B and C of the SPS  Agreement. 
Referring to paragraph 3.155 of docu ment G/SPS/R/104 , Peru requested t he technical reasons for 
discussing this concern in the TBT Committee. Peru's full statement was circulated in 
G/SPS/GEN/2013 . 
3.166.   Panama  maintained that it considered the TBT Committee to be the appropriate forum to 
address this concern. Notwithstanding this, Panama had been addressing Members' concerns, noting 
that the date of entry into force for the measure affecting potatoes had been extended. 
Panama  expressed its willingness to continue to work with Peru to find mutually satisfactory 
solutions.  
3.2.34   Ecuador's import restrictions on grape s and onions (ID  498) – Concerns of Peru  
3.167.   Peru referred to its full statement on eAgenda, and provided a brief statement orally. 
Drawing attention to some provisions of Annex C of the SPS  Agreement, Peru acknowledged bilateral 
engagement with Ecuador regard ing the latter's measures on grapes, but considered that the 
responses from Ecuador seemed to unnecessarily delay market access. Regarding onions, Peru noted 
that Ecuador's measures were restrictive in the context of intra -subregional trade as indicated in  
Resolution 2253 of the Andean Community. Furthermore, Peru noted that Ecuador's proposed 
measures included the development of a new PRA which would further delay market access for 
Peruvian onions, and stressed that the suspension of trade to update a PRA was inconsistent with 
ISPMs. Peru was of the view that Ecuador's actions constituted a violation of Articles 2, 3, 5, 7 and 
8, as well as Annexes B and C of the SPS  Agreement. Peru requested Ecuador to avoid proposing 
measures which were inconsistent with the SPS  Agreement and the basic principles of the WTO; G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 32 - 
 
  to respect previously developed technical agreements; to notify its measure and provide 
opportunities for comments; and to reopen the market for grapes and onions. Peru submitted its 
statement in docum ent G/SPS/GEN/2012 . 
3.168.   Regardin g onions, Ecuador  responded that Peru's concern in the context of the 
Andean  Community was addressed and had resulted in Ecuador lifting its measures on onion 
imports. Stressing the importance of compliance with international standards and phytosanitary 
regulations, Ecuador emphasized the need for Peru to submit technical information to prepare the 
PRA and work together to meet internationally recognized phytosanitary objectives. 
Regarding  grapes, Ecuador noted that Peru's concern on safety requirements for  grape imports had 
also been addressed in the Andean context and that it was awaiting a response from Peru on this 
matter. Ecuador reiterated its willingness to continue dialogue with Peru to resolve this concern.  
3.2.35   China's import suspension of fresh fruits (ID 532) – Concerns of Chinese Taipei  
3.169.   Chinese Taipei  raised concerns about China's suspension of the importation of pineapples, 
sugar apples and wax apples, and requested China to resume imports in accordance with the 
SPS Agreement and the relevant interna tional standards, guidelines and recommendations. 
Following notifications of non -compliance from China, Chinese Taipei had adopted improvement 
measures, provided information on inspection and quarantine requirements and urged China to 
engage in technical d iscussions on this issue. Chinese Taipei noted that scale insects were also 
detected in some Chinese regions and that quarantine and fumigation of consignments were 
accepted international practices, less restrictive than import suspension. Chinese Taipei u rged 
China  to bring its measures in conformity with Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the SPS  Agreement, to conduct 
bilateral scientific and technical dialogue, and to share the detailed identification reports, ALOP and 
risk analysis reports for further analysis.  
3.170.   China clarified that since January 2020, quarantine pests such as planococcus minor had 
been repeatedly found on pineapples, sugar apples and wax apples imported from Chinese Taipei, 
which, once introduced, would pose a serious threat to China's agricultural and forestry production 
and ecological security. China considered that its measure to temporarily suspend the imports of the 
three fruits were consistent with Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS  Agreement and national legislation, and 
noted that the improvement me asures taken by Chinese Taipei could not eliminate the risk to the 
three fruits. China urged Chinese Taipei to take effective measures to reduce the risk of quarantine 
pests so that stable and sustainable development of agricultural production and trade co uld be 
resumed as soon as possible.  
3.171.   In response, Chinese Taipei  reiterated that it was still awaiting China's detailed identification 
report, ALOP  and risk analysis, and considered that this information would be necessary to work 
constructively with China to resolve the concern.  
3.172.   China  reiterated the harmfulness of the quarantine pests in question and emphasized that 
the temporary import suspension w as based on sufficient scientific evidence and fully consistent with 
the WTO rules.  
3.173.   Chinese Taipei  expressed its appreciation for China's response and looked forward to 
receiving the scientific -based explanation, report and analysis.  
3.2.36   US import restrictions  on apples and pears (ID  439) – Concerns of the 
European  Union  
3.174.   The European  Union  regretted that the United  States had not finalized the approval of 
imports of apples and pears under a systems approach and had not yet published the final notice to 
allow tr ade to start, despite having concluded its assessment several years ago. The European  Union 
indicated that trade of apples and pears was hindered by the high costs associated with the existing 
preclearance approach, and urged the United  States to base its import conditions on science and 
solve this matter without further delay.  
3.175.   The United  States  responded that it continued to work through its administrative procedures 
to process this request. Noting that the European  Union was able to export apples and pear s under 
the existing preclearance programme, the United  States expressed its appreciation for the bilateral 
engagement on this issue, including during the October 2021 Plant Health Working Group meeting.  G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 33 - 
 
  3.2.37   US non -recognition of the pest -free status in the Eu ropean  Union for Asian 
longhorn beetle and citrus longhorn beetle (ID  471) – Concerns of the European  Union  
3.176.   The European  Union  reiterated its concern regarding the US failure to recognize the 
EU pest-free status for Asian longhorn beetle and citrus longhor n beetle. Although it had finalized 
its scientific assessment, the European  Union indicated that the United  States had yet to finalize the 
administrative procedure needed to formalize the recognition of pest -free status in 
21 EU member  States, and publish the Final Notice. The European  Union urged the United  States to 
formally accept the pest -free areas and proceed with the immediate publication of the Final Notice.  
3.177.   The United  States  assured the European  Union that it was working through its administrative 
procedures to process this request. The United  States noted the bilateral technical engagement on 
the matter, including through discussions during the October 2021 Plant Health Working Group 
meeting, and looked forward to continued cooperation.  
3.2.38   EU delays i n authorizing imports of Samgyetang (Korean ginseng chicken soup) 
(ID 526) – Concerns of Korea  
3.178.   Korea  expressed concerns on import approval delays imposed by the European  Union 
regarding Korean chicken soup Samgyetang. According to Korea, the European  Union  had conducted 
an on -site inspection and had subsequently received all the data requested on the National Residue 
Programme report. Despite the indications by the European  Union that it would proceed with the 
next steps for granting market access for Samgy etang, Korea had not received approval for imports. 
In Korea's views, the EU delays in import approvals were a violation of Article  8 and Annex C of the 
SPS Agreement. Korea urged the European  Union to complete the procedure and to provide 
information on t he timeframes.  
3.179.   The European  Union  clarified that the import conditions for Samgyetang soup had been 
extensively discussed with Korea bilaterally and reiterated its commitment to continue the 
cooperation on this matter.  
3.3  Information on resolution of issues ( G/SPS /GEN/204/Rev.22 ) 
3.180.   No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  
4  OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS  AGREEMENT  
4.1  Equivalence  
4.1.1   United  States – Addition of Poland to list of countries eligible to export poultry 
products  
4.1.  The United  States  reported  that following documentation review and on -site verification, the 
US Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) had determined that 
Poland's poultry laws, regulations, and inspection system achieved an equivalent level of sanitary  
protection as that of the US food safety system for poultry. The United  States would continue 
communication with Poland to ensure the safety of poultry products exported from Poland to the 
United  States.  
4.2  Pest- and disease -free areas (regionalization)  
4.2.1   Information from Members  
4.2.1.1   Brazil – Risk status for foot -and-mouth disease (FMD) and bovine spongiform 
encephalopathy (BSE)  
4.2.  Brazil  informed Members that six Brazilian States had been recognized by the OIE as free from 
FMD without vaccination. Brazil's FMD -free z one without vaccination represented almost 
1 million  km2 and more than 44 million animals. The last case of FMD had occurred in 2006 and, 
since 2018, the entire country was considered free from FMD. In line with OIE recommendations, 
protection areas in FMD -free zones had been established based on natural and geographical barriers, 
official quarantine and animal movement control. Brazil urged Members to accept the OIE's G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 34 - 
 
  recognition of Brazil as FMD -free, and reminded Members that it was recognized by the OIE  as 
having negligible risk for BSE. Brazil asked Members to continue to comply with the 
recommendations of the ISSBs to allow safe trade.  
4.2.1.2   Turkey – Declaration of fruit fly -free areas  
4.3.  Turkey  informed Members that eight Turkish districts had been recognized as free of 
Mediterranean fruit fly. Studies carried out for the establishment of pest -free areas followed ISPMs 
4 and 26. Turkey had made available the relevant information for public review through the IPPC on 
15 February 2022. Turkey urged Members to fac ilitate trade of fresh fruit from areas free of 
Mediterranean fruit fly.  
4.3  Operation of transparency provisions  
4.3.1   Annual Report on Transparency and Specific Trade Concerns 
(G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.14  and G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.22 ) 
4.4.  The Chairperson  recalled that, as had been proposed in the informal SPS consultations on 
16 September 2020, the annual report on the implementation of the transparency provisions of the 
SPS Agreement ( G/SPS/GEN/804  and revisions) was now issued in March of every year along with 
the annual report on sp ecific trade concerns ( G/SPS/GEN/204  and revisions). Concomitant issua nce 
of both reports allowed the reports to cover the same reporting period and facilitate analyses and 
comparisons. The Secretariat  presented the reports circulated in documents G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.14  
and G/SPS/GEN/204/R ev.22 , highlighting the improvements and additional analysis that had been 
undertaken. Members were invited to review the documents and submit comments to improve 
subsequent versions of the reports.  
4.5.  The Secretariat  provided an update on the new ePing SPS&T BT Platform which integrated 
SPS and TBT online tools. An overview and live demo of the new plaftorm had been provided by the 
Secretariat at the informal meeting of the Committee of 23 March 2022. The pilot version of the new 
platform went live on 28 March  2022. The Secretariat reminded Members that the new platform 
integrated the SPS and TBT IMS, SPS and TBT NSS, and the ePing SPS and TBT notification alert 
system. The new platform allowed users to receive alerts on notifications based on products and 
markets of interest, search SPS and TBT related information, submit online notifications and 
participate in national and international fora. The submission of notifications and management of 
the national and international fora required specific access rights w hich could be granted by the 
Secretariat on request. The Secretariat recalled that a pilot testing phase had taken place in 
February  2022, and thanked all those who provided feedback. The Secretariat informed Members of 
upcoming training sessions on the ne w platform.  
4.4  Control, inspection and approval procedures  
4.6.  No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
4.4.1   Working Group on Approval Procedures ( G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1  and 
G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1/Add.1 ) 
4.7.  The Chairperson  noted that further to the informal meeting of the Committee, a draft report 
on the work of the Working Group (WG) on Approva l Procedures had been circulated with an 
opportunity for Members to provide comments by Monday, 4 April 2022. The final version of the 
report is included in Annex A . 
4.5  Special and differential treatment  
4.8.  No Member provided any info rmation under this agenda item.  G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 35 - 
 
  4.6  Monitoring of the use of international standards  
4.6.1   New issues  
4.6.1.1   Brazil – Application and consideration of norms from relevant international 
organizations  
4.9.  Brazil  informed Members that it had published 300 norms in 2021 which took  into account 
international food safety guidance. Brazil highlighted the need to apply the international standards 
developed by the ISSBs, and urged Members to keep the Committee informed of actions they were 
taking to internalize Codex standards.  
4.6.2   Issues p reviously raised  
4.6.2.1   European  Union – ASF restrictions not consistent with the OIE international 
standard  
4.10.   The European  Union  drew the Committee's attention to inconsistencies in the application of 
OIE international standards related to ASF. The European  Union considered that many Members did 
not follow the OIE Terrestrial Code guidance for identification, treatment, and certification of tradable 
products and zoning. The European  Union highlighted that ASF could be managed effectively to 
ensure that legitimate t rade was not the cause of any outbreak, as presented in the Thematic Session 
held in March 2021. The European  Union added that ASF was a disease affecting WTO Members that 
were connected by longstanding trade relations, and considered that it was a shared interest to 
maintain free and safe trade of pork and its products. Members were invited to work with the 
European  Union on the substitution of country -wide trade bans by science -based, rational and 
proportionate measures.  
4.6.2.2   European  Union – HPAI restrictions  not consistent with the OIE international 
standard  
4.11.   The European  Union  regretted that some Members disregarded their obligations under 
Article  6 and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement. Country -wide bans after a disease outbreak were not 
scientifically justified where effective movement controls were in place, and there was no justification 
to wait one year or more to restore disease -free status. Noting the revisions regarding avian 
influenza in the Terrestrial Code adopted in the 88th OIE General Session of May 2 021, 
the European  Union asked Members to respect their obligations on regionalization under the 
WTO SPS Agreement; to follow the recommendations of ISSBs; and to allow trade from non -affected 
zones.  
4.7  New Zealand – Procedure to Monitor the Process of Interna tional Harmonization  
4.12.   The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to New Zealand's submissions on the 
Procedure to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization ( G/SPS/GEN/1851 , 
G/SPS/GEN/1877 , G/SPS/GEN/1915  and G/SPS/GEN/1998 ) and recalled that Membe rs had had an 
opportunity to discuss these submissions at the informal meeting. A draft report on the discussions 
had been circulated to Members with an opportunity to provide comments by Monday, 4 April. 
The final report of the discussions held in the inf ormal meeting is included in Annex A . Members had 
a further opportunity to submit comments on New Zealand's proposals by Friday, 22 April 2022.  
4.13.   The United  States  expressed its appreciation for New Zealand's interest in the topic  of 
monitoring the use of international standards. While noting that there was interest in improving the 
capacity of ISSBs to monitor the use of their standards, the United  States was concerned that such 
shift in focus would undermine the main role of thes e organizations. The United  States considered 
the ISSBs to be well positioned to work with their membership to better understand the challenges 
to the adoption of their standards. The United  States recommended using the existing processes 
and agenda items of the SPS Committee to monitor the use of international standards, such as the 
procedure adopted in G/SPS/11/Rev.1  to submit examples of problems related to the use or non -use 
of relevant international standards.  G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 36 - 
 
  4.14.   Highlighting the important role of international standards in protecti ng plant, animal and 
human health and reducing trade barriers, New Zealand  thanked Members for their interest on its 
proposal and took note of the feedback received.  
4.8  Follow -up to the Fifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of the 
SPS Agreement ( G/SPS/64  and G/SPS/64/Add.1 ) 
4.8.1   Report on the Informal Meeting  
4.15.   The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the draft report on the informal meeting 
of the Committee of 23 March 2021, specifically referring to the summaries of the discussions on 
the follow -up to the Fifth Review and the upcoming Thematic Session on the Use of R emote (Virtual) 
Audit and Verification in Regulatory Frameworks; the Thematic Session on International Standards 
and Best Practices in Pest Risk Identification, Assessment and Management; and the Committee 
Workshop on Transparency. The draft report had bee n circulated to Members with an opportunity to 
provide comments by Monday, 4 April 2022. The final report is included in Annex A . 
4.8.2   Information from Members  
4.8.2.1   United  States – Responding to Fall Armyworm: Integrated Pest Management a nd 
Policy Approaches – SPS Side Event (23 March 2022)  
4.16.   The United  States  thanked the presenters, Members and participants of the event titled 
"Responding to Fall Armyworm: Integrated Pest Management and Policy Approaches" held on 
23 March 2022, which had been co -sponsored by Uganda. The United  States noted that the lessons 
learnt from the introduction of fall armyworm in Africa could be applicable to other parts of the world. 
Speakers had highlighted the importance of integrated pest management to control fall armyworm, 
which included a variety of techniques such as scouting, c ultural controls, biological controls, 
application of pesticides and genetic modification of both host plants and pest insects. 
The United  States considered that additional efforts were needed to ensure that countries were well 
positioned to address pest o utbreaks, such as collaboration at the regional and international level in 
the areas of field trials, data portability, joint risk assessments, regulatory determinations and 
mutual recognition. Finally, the United  States acknowledged the role of the SPS Co mmittee in helping 
to mitigate the impact of fall armyworm and other disruptive pests on food security and trade, by 
providing a forum to share experiences on SPS approaches that reduced unnecessary burdens while 
increasing the efficiency and predictabilit y of science -based outcomes.  
5  CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  
5.1  Report on the Thematic Session on Trade Facilitative Approaches to Pesticide MRLs 
(G/SPS/GEN/1989/Rev.1 ) 
5.1.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the draft report on the Thematic Session 
on Trade Facilitative Approaches to Pesticide MRLs, which had been held on 22 March 2022. The  draft 
report had been circulated to Members with an opportunity to provide comments by  Monday, 4 April 
2022. The final report is included in Annex B . 
5.2.  The United  States  recognized the diversity of speakers and viewpoints presented at the 
Thematic Session and considered that further dialogue would be necessary to r esolve outstanding 
concerns and facilitate safe trade. As noted by several speakers at the session, the United  States 
highlighted that the adoption of Codex MRLs could bridge the gap to import markets where a 
substance was not authorized, and that hazard -based approaches to MRLs could impede the trade 
of safe food by reducing consumer confidence in food producers. The United  States was of the view 
that transparent processes for the establishment of import tolerances were an important tool to 
protect consume rs while allowing safe trade, notably when Codex MRLs could not be adopted. 
The United  States encouraged the Committee to maintain its focus on specific aspects of MRL policies 
such as science and risk -based policies, as well as the development of appropri ate transition periods.  
5.3.  Australia  appreciated the insights and experiences shared on various topics, such as the 
adoption of positive list approaches by several Members, the industry perspective on certain MRL 
regimes and the critical role of transition pe riods. In Australia's view, effective MRLs played a central 
role in addressing increasing pressures on food production brought by factors such as population G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 37 - 
 
  growth and climate change. Australia urged the Committee to prioritize the issue of MRL practices, 
calling on Members to support a paper to be circulated by the co -sponsors of the Thematic Session 
ahead of the next Committee meeting.  
5.4.  The European  Union  referred to the discussions under certain STCs, and noted that its MRL 
decisions were based on risk a ssessment procedures and that its alignment with Codex standards 
was high in comparison with other WTO Members.  
5.2  Canada – Current status of the SPS Declaration: Responding to Modern 
SPS Challenges for the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference ( G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.10  and 
G/SPS/GEN/1960 ) 
5.5.  Canada  welcomed the Members of the African Group and the AC P Group as the most recent 
co-sponsors of the Declaration contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.10 . The next revision 
of the Declaration was expected to include the support of Malaysia and Mongolia, bringing the total 
number of co -sponsors to 91. Canada recalled that  the Declaration had been placed on the agenda 
of the General Council and looked forward to discussions at the General Council meeting in May. 
Canada highlighted that the co -sponsors continued to work with interested Members towards 
achieving consensus on the Declaration.  
5.6.  Mongolia  informed the Committee that it had joined the Declaration as a co -sponsor. 
Mongolia  invited Members to join the Declaration to achieve greater cooperation on the 
implementation of the Agreement.  
5.7.  Acknowledging the constructive exch anges held in December 2021, the European  Union 
indicated its availability to continue dialogue towards revising the Declaration.  
5.8.  Norway  regretted that the revisions of the Declaration did not address the concerns expressed 
by Members. Referring to its com munication contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1969 , Norway was 
of the view that the work programme in paragraph eight of the Declaration should include explicit 
text on "sustainable food systems". While flagging its reservation on the current draft Declaration, 
Norway expressed its will ingness to contribute to the draft text for adoption at MC12.  
5.3  COVID -19 and SPS issues  
5.9.  No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
6  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION  
6.1  Information from the Secretariat  
6.1.1   WTO SPS activities ( G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.12  and G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev. 17) 
6.1.  The Secretariat  drew the Committee's attention to document G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.17 , which 
provided an overview of technical assistance activities that had been undertaken, and document 
G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.12 , which provided an annual overview of planned technical assistance 
activities for  2022. This included a Course on Essentials for SPS Committee Participation in French, 
and a Transparency Champions Course in English. The Secretariat noted that the deadline to apply 
for these activities was Friday, 20 May 2022. In addition, the Secretari at reminded Members that a 
workshop on Transparency would take place in June 2022 during SPS Committee week.  
6.2.  The Secretariat highlighted other upcoming activities that would include general SPS training 
and national seminars: a Virtual Workshop on Standard s to be held on 20 March 2022; a WTO Virtual 
Regional Trade Policy Course for Asia -Pacific to be held at the end of June 2022; and a National 
SPS seminar for Kenya. In addition, the Secretariat provided an overview of the technical assistance 
activities he ld since the last Committee meeting, including a virtual Regional SPS Workshop for Arab 
Countries in November 2021, and a virtual national SPS and TBT seminar for Thailand in 
February  2022.  
6.3.  Further information on SPS Technical Assistance activities was ava ilable on the SPS gateway 
of the WTO website or by contacting the Secretariat. Finally, the Secretariat noted that the G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 38 - 
 
  E-Learning Course on the SPS  Agreement was available throughout the year, in the three official 
languages of the WTO.  
6.4.  Ecuador  thanked the  Secretariat and looked forward to continue benefitting from these 
technical assistance activities.  
6.1.2   STDF ( G/SPS/GEN/1994 ) 
6.5.  The STDF Secretariat  reported on its recent activities detailed in G/SPS/GEN/1994 . 
Two new projects and four project preparation grants (PPGs) had been approved since its last 
meeting in Octo ber. The STDF indicated that the deadline for new project applications was 12 August 
2022. A  new risk management report on the impact of COVID -19 on STDF workstreams, as well as 
the French and Spanish versions of the practical guide on good regulatory prac tices to improve 
SPS measures were available on the STDF website. Finally, the STDF Secretariat referred to its work 
on public -private partnerships and informed Members of upcoming events. The STDF thanked its 
donors for their contributions.  
6.6.  Ecuador  thanke d the STDF for its project work in the country.  
6.2  Information from Members  
6.2.1   European  Union – SPS-related technical assistance provided by the European  Union 
in 2019 -2020  
6.7.  The European  Union  indicated that its report on SPS technical assistance would be present ed 
in the June 2022 Committee meeting.  
7  CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS  
7.1.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  
8  OBSERVERS  
8.1  Information from Observer Organizations  
8.1.1   ECOWAS ( G/SPS/GEN/1990 ) 
8.1.  The Chairperso n drew the Committee's attention to the report of activities provided by ECOWAS  
in document G/SPS/GEN/1990 . 
8.1.2   OIRSA ( G/SPS/GEN/1991 ) 
8.2.  The Chairperso n drew the Committee's attention to the report of activities provided by OIRSA  
in document G/SPS/GEN/1991 . 
8.1.3   IGAD ( G/SPS/GEN/1992 ) 
8.3.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the report of activities provided by IGAD  
in document G/SPS/GEN/1992 . 
8.1.4   ITC ( G/SPS/GEN/1997 ) 
8.4.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the report of activities provided by ITC in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1997 . 
8.1.5   GSO ( G/SPS/GEN/1999 ) 
8.5.  The Chairperso n drew the Committee's attention to the report of activities provided by GSO in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1999 . G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 39 - 
 
  8.1.6   SADC ( G/SPS/GEN/2000 ) 
8.6.  The Chairperson  drew the Committee's attention to the report of activities provided by SADC  
in document G/SPS/GEN/2000 . 
8.1.7   IICA ( G/SPS/GEN/1995 ) 
8.7.  IICA drew Memb er's attention to the report on its activities in document G/SPS/GEN/1995 . 
IICA had concluded its third coordination session on WTO SPS Committee matters, and expressed 
its appreciation to Canada, the United  States, Brazil and Argentina for their support in the 
organization of the se ssion.  
8.2  Requests for observer status  
8.8.  The Secretariat  informed the Committee of a new request for observer status submitted by the 
International Olive Council. An addendum to document G/SPS/GEN/121  would be circulated 
providing additional information on the request. Members would be invi ted to consider the request 
in the June 2022 SPS Committee meeting.  
9  ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  
9.1.  The Chairperson  reminded the Committee that, according to the Rules of Procedure, the term 
of office of the SPS Committee Chairperson finishes with the conclusi on of the first meeting of every 
year. However, the Chairperson of the CTG had not yet concluded consultations on chairpersons for 
the CTG subsidiary bodies in accordance with the established Guidelines for Appointment of Officers 
to WTO bodies ( WT/L/31 ). The Committee therefore agreed to postpone the election of the 
Chairperson until the next Committee meeting in June 2022.  
10  OTHER BUSINESS  
10.1.   No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
11  DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING  
11.1.   The Chairperson  recalled that the next regular meeting of the Committee was scheduled  for 
the week of 20 June 2022, which was the week after the planned dates for the Ministerial Conference. 
The proposed calendar of SPS Committee meetings for 2022 was contained in 
G/SPS/GEN/1910/Rev.1 . 
11.2.   The Secretariat  informed the Committee that it would prepare a summary  report based on 
oral interventions at the meeting, complemented by Members' ability to download complete 
statements via eAgenda. In addition, statements could be circulated as GEN documents, as usual.  
11.3.   The Chairperson  also reminded the Committee of the fol lowing deadlines:  
a. For submitting statements: Friday, 25 March 2022 ; 
b. For comments on the Chairperson's draft report on the Thematic Session on Trade 
Facilitative Approaches to Pesticide MRLs  and the informal Committee meeting: Monday, 
4 April  2022 ; 
c. For comments on New Zealand's submissions on the procedure to monitor the process of 
international harmonization (G/SPS/GEN/1851 , G/SPS/GEN/1877 , G/SPS/GEN/1915  and 
G/SPS/GEN/1998 ): Friday, 22 April 2022 ; 
d. For comment s on the proposed agenda for the upcoming Thematic Session on the Use of 
Remote (Virtual) Audit and Verification in Regulatory Frameworks 
(G/SPS/GEN/1949/Rev.1 ), including suggestions of speakers: Friday, 22 April 2022 ; 
e. For comments on the proposed age nda for the Thematic Session on International 
Standards and Best Practices in Pest Risk Identification, Assessment and Management 
(G/SPS/GEN/1951/Rev.1 ): Friday, 22 April 2022 ; G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 40 - 
 
  f. For requesting that items, including STCs, be put on the agenda, AND for identifying new 
issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure: Wednesday, 1 June 2022 ; and 
g. For the distribution of the annotated draft agenda: Friday, 3 June 2022 . G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 41 - 
 
  ANNEX A  
INFORMAL MEETING – 23 MARCH 2021  
REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  
 
1  FOLLOW -UP TO THE FIFTH REVIEW  
1.  At the informal meeting on 23 March 2022, the Committee discussed how to take forward some 
of the recommendations in the Fifth Review Report, as well as ongoing work in various areas.  
Exchange of experiences and continued discussions on various topics  
2.  We discussed the recommendations that encourage Members to continue to exchange 
experiences or have continued discussions. I highlighted that these recommendations were foun d in 
various sections of the Fifth Review Report, such as: appropriate level of protection, risk assessment 
and science (para.  2.15); equivalence (para.  4.11); fall armyworm (para.  5.16); national 
SPS coordination mechanisms (para.  6.7); MRLs for plant pro tection products (para.  8.6); and 
regionalization (para.  9.15).  
3.  Similar to the November 2021 meeting, I again sought Members' views on the best way to move 
forward with these recommendations. I recalled that in the September 2020 consultations, 
one Member had observed that the proposed work plan for the MC -12 SPS Declaration, also currently 
being discussed by the Committee, was consistent with these recommendations and could provide 
a pathway to continue exploring these topics.  I also noted that in the Nove mber 2020 informal 
Committee meeting, another Member had reminded the Committee of its previously raised concerns 
regarding some of the topics covered by the recommendations. I reminded the Committee that no 
comments had been received from Members in the N ovember 2021 meeting.  
4.  In this week's meeting, I again invited Members to provide any further comments or suggestions 
on the identified recommendations. No Member provided additional inputs.  
Responding to Fall Armyworm: Integrated Pest Management and Policy  Approaches – 
SPS Side Event (23 March 2022)  
5.  The United  States provided information on a side event entitled "Responding to Fall Armyworm: 
Integrated Pest Management and Policy Approaches" which was being jointly organized with Uganda 
to build on the fall armyworm work undertaken during the Fifth Review, and which would be held on 
Wednesday, 23 March at 1:30pm. The side event would provide an update on the current status of 
fall armyworm, particularly in Africa, and an overview of ongoing policy approaches to further 
address this situation in Africa, and as it continued to spread across the world.  
6.  The United  States reminded the Committee that the topic of fall armyworm had been discussed 
under the Fifth Review and had resulted in several recommendations. Alt hough the Committee had 
not been able to meet in person over the last few years, the United  States underscored the 
importance of the Committee reflecting on and identifying ways to respect the work undertaken 
during the Fifth Review, with a view to moving forward. As such, the side session had been organized 
on this topic.  
7.  By way of background, the United  States drew attention to its 2018 joint submission with Brazil, 
Kenya, Madagascar, Paraguay and Uruguay in document G/SPS/W/305 , submitted in the context of 
the Fifth Review. This submissi on, entitled "The Role of the WTO SPS Agreement in Enabling Access 
to Tools and Technologies and Facilitating International Trade: A Case Study on Fall Armyworm", 
noted that the response to fall armyworm in Africa must involve rapid dissemination of the 
appropriate knowledge and available tools, alongside efforts to build resilient, streamlined regulatory 
systems to enable access to a wider range of technologies by farmers. The United  States also 
highlighted the impact on affected countries due to the lack of available products for sustainably 
managing fall armyworm, and underscored the need for governments to develop approaches to 
streamline regulatory processes to make these tools and technologies available to farmers in a timely 
manner, while safeguarding  human, plant, and animal health.  The submission offered viable G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 42 - 
 
  strategies that African Members could employ to enable greater access to the necessary tools and 
technologies to manage fall armyworm in an integrated approach, and the Americas was also 
provided as an example where relevant regulatory frameworks had been established.  
8.  The United  States further noted that the SPS Committee could play a role in helping to mitigate 
the impact of fall armyworm on food security and trade by sharing experiences on SP S approaches 
that reduce unnecessary burdens, thereby increasing the efficiency and predictability of 
science -based outcomes and putting urgently needed tools in the hands of farmers, while protecting 
public health and the environment. In addition, this on going work on fall armyworm was closely 
aligned with that of the Working Group on Approval Procedures, and it was hoped that it would 
renew and reinvigorate Members to address challenges in this area and strengthen approval 
procedures to allow access to mo dern agricultural tools and technologies.  
SPS Committee Working Group on Approval Procedures ( G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1  and 
G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1/Add.1 ) 
9.  The co -stewards for the Working Group, Canada and Paraguay, provided an update on the 
activities of the Working Group.  
10.  In the first round of work (November 2020 to March 2021), participants had identified four main 
themes for the Working Group: (1) a common understanding of "approval procedures"; 
(2) key challenges of approval procedures; (3) principles of approval procedu res that facilitate 
international trade while meeting the importing Member's ALOP; and (4) available tools and best 
practices in relation to approval procedures.  
11.  In the second and third rounds of work (March to July 2021 and July to November 2021), 
the discussions had focused on developing a common understanding of the term "approval 
procedures" for the purposes of the Working Group's discussions, assembling a collection of available 
tools and best practices, and discussing certain key challenges of approva l procedures.  
12.  In its fourth round of work (November 2021 to March 2022), the Working Group continued to 
discuss key challenges of approval procedures that affect international trade and that the Committee 
should seek to address. Specifically, at its inters essional meeting of 7 February 2022, 
the Working  Group discussed challenges associated with: (1) justification and discrimination of 
approval procedures; and (2) harmonization with international standards.  
13.  The Working Group also continued its work on the c ollection of available tools and best practices. 
New tools were added to the collection and the WTO Secretariat reached out to the international 
standard -setting bodies for their review and input. Finally, the Working Group invited the OECD 
to provide an u pdate on its research work on approval procedures, and a few Working Group 
participants contributed to a questionnaire developed by the OECD as part of this work.  
14.  The Working Group had scheduled to meet on 21 March 2022 as part of this fourth round of 
work. However, due to the inability of some delegations to participate in the meeting, the 
co-stewards decided to postpone this meeting. In providing their update, the co -stewards indicated 
that they would work with the Secretariat and would endeavour to find a way forward and continue 
the Working  Group's momentum.  
15.  Following the co -stewards' update, I provided an opportunity for Members to raise any questions 
or comments on the activities of the Working Group. No Member took the floor.  
2  SPS DECLARATION FOR THE 1 2TH WTO MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE 
(G/SPS/GEN/1758/REV.10  AND G/SPS/GEN/1960 ) 
16.  The Committee also discussed the SPS Declaration for the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference. 
I first reminded Members that this proposal had previously been discussed in informal Committee 
meetings in 2020 and 2021. I also drew attention to the proposal in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.101, as well as a background document ( G/SPS/ GEN/1960 ). 
 
1 The pr evious version of this proposal ( G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.9 ) was first submitted to the General 
Council as WT/GC/W/835  on 11 November 2021. The current version of the Declaration has the joint document 
symbol  WT/GC/W/835/Rev.1  and G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.10 . G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 43 - 
 
  17. I then invited the proponents to provide an update. Canada highlighted that the current version 
of the proposed Declaration ( G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.10 ) had gained the co -sponsorship of the African 
Group and the ACP Group. In addition,  Mongolia had recently joined as a co -sponsor, and would be 
reflected in the next revision of the document, bringing the total number of co -sponsors to 90.  
Canada explained that consideration of the proposed Declaration had shifted to the General Council 
in anticipation of finalizing the Declaration for the Ministerial Conference, which had originally been 
planned to take place in December 2021. Despite the postponement of MC -12, the co -sponsors 
continued to work with other interested Members, bilaterally, and in the context of 
the General  Council, towards achieving multilateral consensus on this forward -looking Declaration.  
18. Canada further noted co -sponsors' enthusiasm with the generally supportive and positive 
discussions, most recently at the February meeting of the General Council, as well as in ongoing 
bilateral discussions. Canada underscored the importance placed by the co -sponsors on proceeding 
in a timely manner with the work programme proposed in the Declaration to identify challenges 
in the implementation of the SPS  Agreement and the mechanisms available to address them, and 
the impacts of emerging pressures on the application of the SPS  Agreement.  
19. Malaysia indicated that it would join the co -sponsors of the Declaration, noting that it was 
imperative that the benefits derived from the SPS  Agreement continue to safeguard Members' rights 
to ensure the necessary protection of human, animal, plant life or health, while at the same time 
avoiding unnecessary barriers to trade. Malaysia considered th e Declaration as an opportunity for 
Members to strengthen the implementation of the SPS  Agreement, and be better positioned to 
manage and deal with SPS issues in the 21st century. Another Member thanked the co -sponsors for 
their efforts to better promote t he SPS  Agreement to address new challenges in the agriculture 
landscape and indicated that it had communicated its comments to co -sponsors and looked forward 
to either receiving feedback or their comments being reflected accordingly in the Declaration. One  
Member also requested that the co -sponsors reach out to the LDC group and provide an explanatory 
presentation to better understand the elements proposed in the Declaration.  
20.  Brazil further highlighted the need for the Declaration to be urgently implem ented as it was 
essential to enforcing the commitment to support rural livelihood, trade facilitation and sustainable 
agricultural growth. The Declaration would be an important milestone to reflect on the outcomes 
achieved and the challenges ahead for the 21st century. Brazil welcomed the African Group and 
ACP Group, as well as Mongolia, and further emphasized that the growing number of Members was 
a reminder that the Declaration was borne out of a proactive initiative from Committee deliberations. 
Despite the progress achieved, Brazil hoped that more Members would support this Declaration.  
21.  Canada noted Members' comments and welcomed the newest co -sponsor, Malaysia. In response 
to Members' interventions, Canada expressed the willingness of co -sponsors t o provide outreach to 
the LDC group and also indicated that it would follow up to ensure that any outstanding questions 
were appropriately addressed. Canada looked forward to ongoing discussions, especially in the 
context of the upcoming meeting of the Gen eral Council, and hoped that there would be a positive 
multilateral outcome in the near future.  
22.  One Member further recognized the importance of finding common ground on the 
SPS Declaration, noting the need for a more effective implementation of the SP S Agreement and 
understanding the best way to respond to new SPS challenges. The Member indicated that the 
current version of the proposal required a few amendments and called upon Members to accelerate 
work on the Declaration, while expressing its willing ness to work with Members to find appropriate 
wording which could lead to consensus.  
23.  Another Member thanked the co -sponsors for the constructive exchanges leading up to MC -12, 
originally scheduled to be held in November 2021, and confirmed its availab ility to continue this 
constructive dialogue, as well as its commitment to the relevance and good functioning of the 
SPS Agreement and Committee, while maintaining its reservations on the current version of the 
Declaration, for the reasons expressed on pre vious occasions. One Member also noted its concerns 
that the latest revision of the Declaration had not taken into consideration Members' comments. 
In particular, the Member highlighted the need to include a specific reference to sustainable food 
systems i n paragraph 8 of the proposed Declaration, and drew attention to the information presented 
in the joint submission G/SPS/GEN/1969 . The Member flagged its reservation on the current draft, 
while indicating its willingness to contribute constructively to the deliberations ahead of MC -12. G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 44 - 
 
  24.  Finally, I acknowledged the various interventions and encouraged both the proponents and 
other Members to have constructive engagements ahead of MC -12 with a view to reaching a 
consensus.  
3  PROCEDURE TO MONITOR THE PROCESS OF INTERNATIONAL HARMONIZAT ION 
(G/SPS/GEN/1851 , G/SPS/GEN/1877 , G/SPS/GEN/1915  AND G/SPS/GEN/1998 ) 
25.  I noted that ahead  of the March Committee meeting, New Zealand had circulated document 
G/SPS/GEN/1998  which proposed that the Committee further explore and discuss several ideas for 
action and delivery in the period 2022 -2023. I first invited the Secretariat to briefly remind us of the 
history of the Committee's efforts to monitor the process of international harmonization and the use 
of international standards.  
26.  The Secretariat provided an overview of past Committee efforts to monitor the use of 
international standards and the process of internati onal harmonization, in accordance with 
articles  3.5 and 12.4 of the SPS  Agreement. The Secretariat reminded Members that the first 
provisional procedure had been adopted in 1997 in document G/SPS/11 , and at that time, Codex, 
OIE and IPPC  were submitting lists of standards to the Committee and Me mbers were invited to 
identify standards that had a major trade impact due to their non -use, misuse or absence. The 
Secretariat then compiled and circulated a list of standards identified by Members as having a trade 
impact for Members' comments, and also prepared an annual report with a compilation of the 
responses for adoption by the Committee. These reports were shared with Codex, OIE and IPPC to 
inform them of which standards had been identified. The standard -setting bodies provided updates 
to the Commi ttee when the identified issues were addressed. The Secretariat reminded Members 
that the procedure adopted in G/SPS/11  was provisional because the Committee wanted to continue 
improving the procedure.  
27.  The Secretariat further explained that a revised version of the procedure had been adopte d in 
November 2004 ( G/SPS/11 /Rev.1 ) and that this procedure could still be used. During the 2006 
review of the procedure, the Committee had decided to extend the procedure indefinitely, and review 
its operation as an integral part of the periodic reviews of the SPS  Agreement. The Sec retariat also 
reminded Members that during that 2006 review, the SPS Committee had noted that the procedure 
had been rarely used, and that after the first few years, Members had not identified standards to be 
monitored. Some Members had indicated that they  preferred to raise missing or problematic 
standards directly with the relevant ISSB.  
28.  In addition, the Secretariat noted that there had been periodic suggestions to revise 
the procedure to more closely fulfil the mandate in Article  12.4. In recent yea rs, while the agenda 
item was being used more, the Committee had not been closely following the procedure set out in 
G/SPS/11/Rev.1 , as most interventions under the monitoring agenda item were related to the 
non-use of certain international standards by Members, e.g. on ASF and avian  influenza. 
The Secretariat noted that it prepared annual reports once per year for Members' consideration and 
also brought them to the attention of the ISSBs. However, the Secretariat no longer circulated lists 
of issues identified with standards for othe r Members to comment on, because no such issues had 
been identified.  
29.  I then invited New Zealand to present its most recent submission. New Zealand presented 
its proposal ( G/SPS/GEN/1998 ), explaining that the impetus for the proposal was related to recent 
developments and renewed  interest by the ISSBs to better understand Members' use of their 
standards, and the impact and benefits. New Zealand highlighted that the SPS  Agreement 
emphasized the importance of international harmonization and the use of international standards as 
a basis for human, animal and plant health protection and facilitating trade. In New Zealand's view, 
there were clear advantages and benefits to better understanding how international standards were 
being used, and a clear interest for WTO Members to facilitat e the development of standards and 
better appreciate how the objectives of the SPS  Agreement were being advanced. In its proposal, 
New Zealand had suggested several areas to improve understanding of the international 
harmonization process, and also propose d a new working group to facilitate a detailed examination 
of the issues, which it would be able to lead. New Zealand concluded that it was timely for the 
SPS Committee to take a fresh look at further strengthening the monitoring process against the 
backgr ound of new initiatives of the ISSBs.  
30.  I opened the floor for comments and questions, in particular on the suggestion to create a 
working group to lead the work proposed in New Zealand's submission ( G/SPS/GEN/1998 ). G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 45 - 
 
  31.  Several Members provided comments and suggestions on New Ze aland's proposal. One Member 
noted that the proposed actions were well considered, and the proposal would help to identify 
problems in the international coordination of standards, promote a more active adoption of standards 
and strengthen the role of the C ommittee in promoting international coordination. 
Regarding  notifications, a review of the notification template would be helpful. There was also a 
suggestion that general principles should guide the work in this proposal, and that Members' different 
condi tions and levels of protection should be taken into account with regard to the use and suitability 
of international standards. Improving the standard -setting process might help increase international 
harmonization.  
32.  Regarding the proposal for a new wor king group, some Members took the floor to express 
support for the idea and indicated their willingness to join the relevant discussions. Some Members 
sought clarification on the need, scope, function, and reasons for a new working group and 
encouraged fur ther reflection on its objectives and intended outcomes. It was also indicated that 
there already existed a Working Group on Approval Procedures, and that harmonization was a key 
element of the discussions, as reflected in the many international standards,  handbooks and 
guidance documents which had been included in the Working Group's list of available tools and best 
practices. Regarding the suggestion on annual reports from ISSBs, it was noted that the ISSBs were 
already providing annual reports to the Com mittee and reporting on their activities at each 
Committee meeting.  
33.  Some Members highlighted that many of the proposed concepts in G/SPS/GEN/1998  had been 
proposed in New Zealand's previous proposal ( G/SPS/GEN/1877 ). There was also discussion on how 
to approach these issues within the mandate of the SPS Co mmittee. It was highlighted that the 
Committee had agreed on a procedure to address the issue of monitoring and that there was a 
standing agenda item, which was being used differently by Members. Attention was drawn to the 
context of the text of the SPS  Agreement, as the SPS  Agreement was conceived and negotiated at 
a time when the SPS environment as well as the work and initiatives of the ISSBs were different. 
Since  then, new processes had been developed within each ISSB, including to prioritize and review  
standards. There was interest in hearing ISSBs' views and in having further discussion of the 
concepts proposed, including gaining clarity on the need for a new working group.  
34.  New Zealand acknowledged the concerns raised and reiterated that there was renewed interest 
and initiatives by ISSBs in examining how the SPS  Agreement could support the process to monitor 
international harmonization. New Zealand noted that the creati on of the working group would be 
without prejudice to the outcome of its work, and explained that past proposals had been re -
proposed for more detailed consideration; acknowledged the interest in reviewing the notification 
process; and noted that the ISSBs ' annual report could be more informative in the context of new 
initiatives. New  Zealand concluded that it wanted to bring this proposal to the Committee within the 
context of the SPS  Agreement provisions to see if there was need for a closer look at the i ssues 
identified, and that it would be the Committee's decision on how it wished to proceed, including with 
regard to the working group.  
35.  I then invited the ISSBs to provide any information relevant to the discussions. The IPPC 
highlighted the importan ce of notifying how standards are being implemented and considered it 
critical to have an idea of the challenges faced and how these had been overcome. The IPPC indicated 
that it was involved in the development of standards, as well as their implementation , and 
encouraged the Committee to further reflect on how standards are being implemented in countries 
as this could be useful information for other countries seeking to implement standards.  
36.  The OIE also considered the importance of examining success s tories and challenges regarding 
the implementation of international standards, noting that the value of standards was in their 
implementation. In the OIE's view, understanding the reasons for the successful implementation of 
standards by some Members was k ey. The OIE Observatory sought to monitor and understand 
challenges, and provide capacity building for Members. In light of its resources and commitment in 
this area, the OIE highlighted the need for the SPS Committee as well as the ISSBs to stay within 
their respective mandates. Regarding New Zealand's proposal, the OIE noted that some actions 
should be reviewed and taken forward, even if not within the SPS Committee. The OIE called to 
further strengthen cooperation between relevant organizations to avoid some of the proposed 
actions eventually coinciding with the work of the ISSBs and, subsequently, going beyond the 
mandate of the SPS Committee. The OIE remained respectful of the decisions of the Committee and 
expressed its willingness to participate in an y further discussions, given the importance of its work.  G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 46 - 
 
  37.  I thanked Members for their constructive engagement and noted that the topic could be of 
interest, but that there were some clarifications and concerns that needed to be brought or 
addressed, re spectively. Hence, I invited New Zealand as well as other Members to reach out to 
each other to see how their comments could be taken into account to revise the proposal. It is 
noteworthy that discussions could continue in an informal mode until there was a consensus on how 
to move forward. I further indicated the Chairs' readiness to eventually facilitate such interactions 
or consultations if deemed necessary. In this regard, I looked forward to further strengthening the 
work of the SPS  Committee.  
4  UPCOMING  THEMATIC SESSIONS ( G/SPS/GEN/1949/Rev.1 , G/SPS/GEN/1951/Rev.1 ) 
AND COMMITTEE WORKSHOP ON TRANSPARENCY  
38.  I offered an opportunity for Members to provide additional feedback and comments on the 
proposals for the upcoming Thematic Sessions on the Use of Remote (Virtual ) Audit and Verification 
in Regulatory Frameworks, to be held in June 2022, based on the submission by Australia 
(G/SPS/GEN/1949/Rev.1 ); and on International Standards and Best Practices in Pest Risk 
Identification, Assessment and Management, to be hel d in November 2022, based on the submission 
by the European  Union ( G/SPS/GEN/1951/Rev.1 ). I noted that comments had been provided and 
shared with the proponents.  
39.  Regarding the Thematic Session on the Use of Remote ( Virtual) Audit and Verification in 
Regulatory Frameworks ( G/SPS/GEN/1949/Rev.1 ), Australia thanked Members for their comments 
which it  noted would be taken into account in the final programme. Australia indicated that the topic 
is an emerging area of i nnovation in regulatory practice, and the session would seek to present a 
diverse set of perspectives, including from exporting and importing countries, from developed and 
developing countries, as well as from international organizations and the private se ctor. Australia 
welcomed further comments on the proposal and suggestions on speakers, and informed the 
Committee that it would reach out to a diverse group of Members regarding the development of this 
session.  
40.  Some Members welcomed the draft programm e circulated in G/SPS/GEN/1949/Rev.1  and 
indicated their willingness to share respective experiences in this area. It was noted that the topic 
was timely due to the COVID -19 pandemic and the work being undertaken in the ISSBs, especially 
the CCFICS electronic working group on Guidance on Remo te Audit and Verification in Regulatory 
Frameworks.  
41.  Australia noted that comments would be taken on board and that it appreciated Members' 
interest in presenting their experiences at the session.  
42.  Regarding the Thematic Session on International Standards and Best Practices in Pest Risk 
Identification, Assessment and Management ( G/SPS/GEN/1951/Rev.1 ), the European  Union 
acknowledged the interest of several Members. The European  Union explained that  the thematic 
session would provide Members with an opportunity to learn from each other on best practices in 
the area of plant health and that this experience -sharing among Members would be one of the main 
objectives. The  European  Union added that any con crete outcomes from the thematic session could 
feed into IPPC's work programme, by identifying possible gaps in the standards or new trade -related 
projects. The European  Union noted that comments were being carefully considered and would be 
taken into acco unt in the preparation of the session.  
43.  Some Members took the floor, expressing interest in sharing their respective experiences at the 
thematic session, welcoming the draft programme, and looking forward to a revised version. 
There  was a suggestion fo r the IPPC to present on relevant ISPMs in relation to pest risk analysis, 
including a reference to its upcoming work on the reorganization and revision of the pest risk analysis 
standards. In addition, there was interest in exploring international standar ds for approval 
procedures for plant and plant products, and learning more about improvements in pest risk 
assessments and best practices by Members, as well as a suggestion to consider including a systems 
approach, a tool that allowed for the reduction of  agrochemical products in the field.  
44.  The European  Union indicated that it had taken note of the suggestions and would work with 
the Secretariat to prepare the thematic session. The IPPC thanked Members for their interest in the 
area of plant health an d pest risks, and looked forward to working together on this thematic session 
in November.  G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 47 - 
 
  45.  I also reminded Members that the June 2022 SPS Committee workshop would focus on 
transparency. The Secretariat explained that the workshop would offer an opport unity to review the 
main functions of the new ePing SPS&TBT platform and provide further training. Members would 
also be invited to share their experiences, including on the use of new functions such as exchanging 
comments on notifications. The Secretariat  informed the Committee that a first draft of the 
programme would be circulated after the March SPS Committee meeting, and Members invited to 
provide comments by 22 April.  
5  NEW EPING SPS&TBT PLATFORM  
46.  The Secretariat presented the new ePing SPS&TBT Plat form and indicated that it would provide 
a report in the formal meeting under agenda item 4(c) on the Operation of Transparency Provisions.  
6  COVID -19 AND SPS ISSUES  
47.  I recalled that COVID -19 and SPS issues had been discussed at the dedicated information  
sharing session of June 2020, and in every meeting since then. The Secretariat reported that out of 
all WTO COVID -19 related notifications submitted by Members, 27% related to SPS. This represented 
122 SPS notifications and other communications related to  COVID -19. These could be extracted 
from the ePing SPS&TBT Platform using the "COVID -19 SPS" keyword. Finally, the Secretariat 
recalled that all WTO COVID -19 related documents, were available on the COVID -19 gateway of the 
WTO website.  
48.  The IPPC thanke d the Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) for the resources and 
assistance provided for the development of the ePhyto solution that had allowed for the exchange 
of more than 2 million digital certificates between 66 active countries. Approximat ely another 
50 countries were currently in the process of joining. The solution had contributed to the safe trade 
of plant and plant products during the pandemic.  
 G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 48 - 
 
  ANNEX B  
SPS COMMITTEE THEMATIC SESSION ON TRADE FACILITATIVE  
APPROACHES TO P ESTICIDE MRLS, INCLUDING SUBSTANCES  
NOT APPROVED FOR USE IN AN IMPORT MARKET  
22 MARCH 2022  
REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  
1.  A Thematic Session on Trade Facilitative Approaches to Pesticide MRLs, Including Substances not 
Approved for Use in an Import Market wa s held on 22 March 2022, as agreed by the SPS  Committee 
in November 2021. A draft programme was circulated in document  G/SPS/GEN/1989 , based on a 
proposal submitted by Australia, Colombia, Paraguay, and the United  States in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1947 . The final programme is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1989/Rev .1. 
The thematic session was held in hybrid format, with delegates invited to attend in person or virtually 
through the Interprefy platform. The thematic session was also webcast live.1 
2.  The main objective of the thematic session was to explore differe nt approaches used by Members 
to address issues associated with pesticide maximum residue limits (MRLs) and to provide an 
opportunity for Members to share experiences and best practices with regard to facilitating safe 
trade. The thematic session built off  of recent work by the Asia -Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) 
in this area and provided Members an opportunity to learn from one another and from key private 
sector perspectives, including those involving transition periods and channels of trade.  
3.  Session 1  provided background information and context. The Secretariat began by providing an 
overview of key principles of the SPS  Agreement relevant to pesticide MRLs, recalling recent relevant 
work of the SPS Committee, and briefly reporting on pesticide MR L-related specific trade concerns.  
4.  Session 1 continued to discuss the economic case for addressing MRLs and the impacts of 
risk-based and trade facilitative enforcement practices, providing Member and industry perspectives. 
In this context, Australia p resented its policy and practice with respect to MRLs, highlighting key 
principles underpinning its MRL assessment framework and exploring case studies on wheat and 
wine. Australia underscored the central role of Codex and advocated for a global solution t o enable 
trade, reduce costs, and contribute to food security. Next, the Almond Board of California presented 
trade data, p est management needs, and integrated pest management  efforts with respect to 
California Almonds, stressing the need for trade facilit ative MRL measures and  looking at examples 
of such measures. This was followed by a presentation from the US Northwest Horticultural Council, 
highlighting the importance of risk-based MRL frameworks and the role of Codex in the context of 
fresh produce . This presentation also discussed trade disruptions in fruit between the United  States 
and the European  Union, as well as issues pertaining to missing or low MRLs and costs associated 
with MRL compliance .2 
5.  In Session 2 , speakers discussed the role of Cod ex, looking at the work of the FAO/WHO Joint 
Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) and the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR). 
First, a JMPR expert provided an overview of JMPR composition, role, outputs, and procedures behind 
the establishment of  MRLs based on a priority list established by the CCPR. Changes in 
methodologies within JMPR and recurring issues were also addressed. This was followed by a 
presentation from the Codex Secretariat providing an overview of the role of the CCPR. 
This presen tation discussed the priority list of pesticides for evaluation by JMPR, establishment of 
MRLs and extraneous MRLs for pesticides in food and feed, and methods of analysis.  
6.  Session 2 continued with importing and exporting Member and industry experience s harmonizing 
with Codex MRLs, including as a default. In this context, the European  Union provided an overview 
of the principles underpinning the EU pesticide MRL legislation, the process for implementation of 
 
1 On the day of the event, 239 connections were made to the live webcasting.  
2 Uganda was scheduled to present its perspective on trade challenges and solutions to MRLs in food 
commodities in Session 1. Unfortunately, due to connectivity issues, the speaker could not attend the thematic 
session.  G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 49 - 
 
  Codex MRLs, EU assessment of Codex MRL propos als and reasons that may justify EU reservations. 
This was followed by a presentation by Brazil on its experience harmonizing with Codex MRLs. 
In its presentation, Brazil also discussed the work of its regulatory bodies on pesticides, the process 
to establ ish MRLs according to Good Agricultural Practice requirements as well as its pesticide residue 
in food analysis programme. Next, New Zealand addressed harmonization of international 
agrichemical assessment processes and recognition of MRLs, discussing its participation 
in harmonization initiatives, including CCPR. New  Zealand stressed the need for more regulatory 
coherence, acknowledgement of existing international standards such as Codex MRLs, and mutual 
recognition of national MRLs. Finally, the Canada Gr ains Council provided an exporter perspective 
on pesticide regulations, noting that farmers increasingly faced a complex global patchwork of 
misaligned and missing MRLs. The presentation then introduced data pertaining to MRL -related food 
waste, including data on food waste that could be avoided by using Codex MRLs.  
7.  Session 3  covered the role of import tolerances. Starting with the APEC Import MRL  Guideline for 
Pesticides, Australia addressed its development, implementation phases, and key underlying 
principles, e.g. its focus on, science, minimizing data requirements, and using Codex MRLs. Australia 
further discussed tools to support the APEC Guid eline, such as the Common APEC MRL Application 
Template, as well as an Australian -led initiative to foster the implementation of the APEC  Guideline 
within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). The United  States followed to discuss a 
complemen tary US -led pilot project to leverage the APEC Guideline for trade facilitation in ASEAN. 
The United  States discussed underlying principles, the concept for the pilot mechanism to receive, 
process, and evaluate import MRL applications as well as the next s teps for the project.  
8.  The remaining presentations in Session 3 focused on importing and exporting Member 
experiences with import tolerances. Korea discussed its positive list system, pursuant to which a 
uniform 0.01  ppm default tolerance applies when t here are no established MRLs. Korea further 
discussed work to encourage MRL registration applications and introduced its MRL database. 
Next,  Chile shared its perspective as an exporting country. Having discussed issues faced by 
exporters, Chile looked at e xamples of missing/lower or default MRLs in the context of the fruit 
industry. Chile emphasized that import tolerances were a good opportunity to facilitate trade, noting 
that procedures for establishing import tolerances should be uniform, transparent, sc ience-based 
and aligned with Codex. Finally, Chinese Taipei presented its current practice in establishing import 
tolerances for pesticide residues in food. Chinese Taipei recalled broad principles for setting MRLs, 
presented its procedures for establishin g MRLs, introduced its MRL inquiry system for applicants to 
check the progress of their applications online, and discussed its positive list system.  
9.  Session 4  on addressing MRL enforcement measures focused on Member and industry 
experiences with limits  of detection and channels of trade/transition periods. The United  States 
provided insights on pesticide regulatory decisions and channels of trade considerations for 
implementation. The US pesticide regulatory framework was presented and establishing MRLs  as 
well as tolerance revocation were discussed. The channels of trade provision in the US Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act was introduced, as well as existing guidance regarding the general 
enforcement approach for revoked, suspended, or modified tole rances.  The presentation also 
discussed showing dates and related enforcement strategies. Next, the German Hop Industry 
Association presented on MRL enforcement issues and experiences of the German hop industry. 
In particular, challenges associated with mi ssing or restrictive MRLs in destination markets and those 
associated with the EU pesticide policy were set out. The presentation then focused on channels of 
trade case studies, concluding that concrete international channels of trade policies are needed a nd 
that international harmonization of MRLs is essential. Last but not least, Corteva Agriscience 
discussed low or missing MRLs and the global effects – direct and indirect – of lowering MRLs, looking 
at the case of banana producers in Costa Rica. Moreover , possible tools were identified, including 
the Organisation for Economic Co -operation and Development (OECD) Mutual Acceptance of Data, 
positive list systems, and the concept of one global MRL (or enhanced Codex) as an  aspirational goal 
to facilitate trad e. 
10.  Before closing the thematic session, I remarked that the discussions had provided a useful 
opportunity to increase Members' understanding of the relevance of the SPS  Agreement to pesticide 
MRLs as well as the importance of risk -based approaches and  Codex MRLs. In addition, 
Members  learned more about the process behind setting Codex MRLs and the APEC Import MRL 
Guideline for Pesticides  and how the Guideline is leveraged for trade facilitation purposes. 
Importantly, in this thematic session, Member an d industry experiences and case studies were 
shared on various topics related to MRLs, including on harmonization with relevant international 
standards such as Codex MRLs, import  tolerances, and MRL  enforcement measures.  G/SPS/R/105  
 
- 50 - 
 
  11.  Presentations made in this thematic session  and the videos of the event are available on the 
event's webpage : WTO | Thematic Session on Trade facilitative approaches to pesticide MRLs, 
including s ubstances not approved for use in an import market . 
 
__________