RESTRICTED  
  
G/SPS/R/95  
 
12 September  2019 
(19-5872) Page: 1/33 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETI NG OF 18-19 JULY  2019 
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ................................ ................................ ........................  4 
2   ELECTION OF CHAI RPERSON  ................................ ................................ .......................  4 
3   INFORMATION SHARING  ................................ ................................ .............................  4 
3.1   Information from Members on relevant activities  ................................ .............................  4 
3.1.1    Japan - Current status of food safety after the TEPCO Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power 
station accident in 2011  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 4 
3.1.2    Canada – International initiatives undertaken by Canada to support the setting of Codex 
Alimentarius Commission maximum residue limits (MRLs)  ................................ ........................  5 
3.1.3    Argentina - Ministerial declaration of the Southern Agricultural Council (CAS) on low -level 
presence of GMOs not authorized in the importing country (LLP)  ................................ ...............  5 
3.1.4    United States - Executive Order 13874: modernizing the US regulatory framework for 
agricultural biotechnology products  ................................ ................................ .......................  6 
3.2   Information from Codex, IPPC and OIE on relevant activities  ................................ ............  6 
3.2.1    Codex  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  6 
3.2.2    OIE ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  6 
3.2.3    IPPC ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  6 
4   SPECIFIC TRADE C ONCERNS (G/SPS/GEN/2 04/REV.19)  ................................ ............  7 
4.1   New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  7 
4.1.1    EU amendments of MRLs for imazalil – Concerns of Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, 
Dominican Republic, and Ecuador  ................................ ................................ .........................  7 
4.1.2    EU regulatory process for determining maximum levels of glycidyl fatty acid esters,  
3-monochloropropanediol (3 -MCPD) and its fatty acid esters, in foods or food ingredients –  
Concerns of Colombia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  9 
4.1.3    New EU MRLs for lambda -cyhalothrin – Concerns of China  ................................ .............  9 
4.1.4    China's restrictions on imports of US beef – Concerns of the United States  ..................... 10 
4.1.5    Turkey's F MD-related import restrictions on live cattle – Concerns of Argentina  ............... 10 
4.1.6    Viet Nam's general restrictions on imports (melons, live cattle, beef, and meat and bone 
meal) – Concerns of Brazil  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..10 
4.1.7    Ukraine's restrictions on swine products – Concerns of Brazil  ................................ ........ 11 
4.1.8    Japan's restrictions on avocado – Concerns of Brazil  ................................ .................... 11 
4.2   Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ .............................. 12 
                                                
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/95  
 
- 2 - 
 
  4.2.1    EU MRLs for buprofezin, chlorothalonil, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, glufosinate, ioxynil, 
iprodione, molinate, picoxystrobin and tepraloxydim – Concerns of Colombia, Costa Rica, India, 
Panama and Paraguay (No. 448)  ................................ ................................ ......................... 12 
4.2.2    EU legislation on endocrine disruptors – Concerns of Paraguay and the United States  
(No. 382)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 14 
4.2.3    France's dimethoat e-related restrictions on imports - Concerns of the United States  
(No. 422)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 15 
4.2.4    New EU definition of the fungicide folpet – Concerns of China (No. 447)  ......................... 16 
4.2.5    EU transitional periods for MRLs and international consultations – Concerns of Colombia 
(No. 4 54) ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 16 
4.2.6    South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian influenza - 
Concerns of the European Unio n (No. 431)  ................................ ................................ ............ 17 
4.2.7    China's import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza – Concerns of the 
United States (No. 406)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......17 
4.2.8    The Russian Federation's import restrictions on processed fishery products from Estonia – 
Concerns of the European Union (No. 390)  ................................ ................................ ............ 18 
4.2.9    EU Commission Decision 2002/994/EC on animal products – Concerns of China  
(No. 442) ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 18 
4.2.10    Guatemala's restrictions on egg products - Concerns of Mexico (No. 413)  ..................... 18 
4.2.11    General import restrictions due to BSE – Concerns of the European Union (No.  193) ......19 
4.2.12    Indonesia's approval procedures for animal and plant products – Concerns of the  
European Union and the United States (No. 441)  ................................ ................................ ...19 
4.2.13    Indonesia's food safety measures affecting horticultural products and animal products  
– Concerns of the Philippines (No. 414)  ................................ ................................ ................ 20 
4.2.14    China's AQSIQ official certification requirements for food imports (G/TBT/N/CHN/1209)  
– Concerns of the United States (No. 184)  ................................ ................................ ............ 20 
4.2.15    China's proposed amendments to the implementation regulations on safety assessment  
of agricultural GMOs – Concerns of the United States (No. 395)  ................................ ............... 21 
4.2.16    US import restrictions on apples and pears – Concerns of the European Union  
(No. 439) ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 21 
4.3   Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  ................................ ......... 21 
4.3.1    The Russian Federation's import re strictions on certain animal products from Germany  
– Concerns of the European Union (No. 411)  ................................ ................................ ......... 21 
4.4   Update on the project for the online submission of STCs ................................ .................. 21 
5   OPERATION AND IM PLEMENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  ................................ .. 22 
5.1   Equivalence  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 22 
5.2   Pest-and disease -free area s (Regionalization)  ................................ ................................ 22 
5.2.1    Annual report in accordance with G/SPS/48 (G/SPS/GEN/1711)  ................................ ....22 
5.2.2    Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ....................... 22 
5.3   Operation of transparency provisions  ................................ ................................ ............ 23 
5.3.1    United States – Notification by Members of SPS m easures adopted to align with EU  SPS 
Measures  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 23 
5.4   Special and Differential Treatment  ................................ ................................ ................ 24 
5.5   Monitoring of the use of International Standards  ................................ ............................ 24 
5.5.1    New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 24 
5.5.2    Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ........................... 24 G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 3 - 
 
  5.6   Fifth Review  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 26 
5.6.1    Fifth Review Report on the workshop on transparency and coordination  ......................... 26 
5.6.2    Report of the Informal Meeting  ................................ ................................ .................. 28 
6   CROSS -CUTTING IS SUES  ................................ ................................ ...........................  28 
7   TECHNICAL ASSIST ANCE AND COOPERATION  ................................ ...........................  29 
7.1   Information from the Secretariat  ................................ ................................ .................. 29 
7.1.1    WTO SPS activities  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...29 
7.1.2    STDF (G/SPS/GEN/1713)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 30 
7.2   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ .......................... 30 
7.2.1    Japan - Technical assistance to developing countries  ................................ .................... 30 
7.2.2    Chile ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 31 
8   CONCERNS WITH PR IVATE AND COMMERCIAL  STANDARDS  ................................ ...... 31 
9   OBSERVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  31 
9.1   Information from observer organizations  ................................ ................................ .......31 
9.1.1    ECOWAS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 31 
9.1.2    IGAD  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 31 
9.1.3    OIRSA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 31 
9.1.4    IICA ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 31 
9.1.5    ECCAS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 32 
9.2   Requests for observer status  ................................ ................................ ........................ 32 
9.2.1    New requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 32 
9.2.2    Outstanding requests  ................................ ................................ ............................... 32 
10   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 32 
11   DATE AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEET ING ................................ ................................ . 32 
 
  G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1  ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA 
1.1.  The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee") held its 75th regular 
meeting on 18-19 July 2019. The proposed agenda for the meeting was adopted with amendments 
(WTO/AIR/SPS/28).  
2  ELECTION OF CHAIRPER SON 
2.1.  The SPS Committee convened in formal mode prior to the informal meeting  on 17 July 2019 . 
Recalling the Committee's Rules of Procedure , the Chairperson noted that the term of office of the 
Chairperson of the SPS Committee finished with the conclusion of the first meeting of each year. 
At the time of the regular SPS Committee meeting held in March 2019, the Chairperson of the Council 
for Trade in Goods had not yet concluded the consultations on chairpersons for the subsidiary bodies 
of the Council for Trade in Goods in accordance with the Guidelines for Appointment of Officers to 
WTO bodies ( WT/L/31 ). 
2.2.  In the intervening period, the Council for Trade in Goods had agreed to the election of Mr Daniel 
Arboleda of Colomb ia. The Committee endorsed the election of M r Arboleda by acclamation, and 
voiced its appreciat ion to Ms Vutula for her work during the past year.  
3  INFORMATION SHARING  
3.1  Information from Members on relevant activities  
3.1.1   Japan - Current status of food safety aft er the T EPCO  Fukushima Daiichi nuclear 
power station accident in 2011  
3.1.  Japan thanked the United States  and the Philippines for relaxing their import restrictions, and 
the Kingdom of Bahrain  and the Democratic Republic of the Congo  for lifting their import restrictions.  
Japan also provided an update on the most recent data and status of its food safety  control 
measures, as well a s on its water management at the nuclear power station and the marine 
environmental impact . Japan reminded the Committee th at its limits  of radioactive caesium were 
lower than those set by Codex. Foods exceeding the maximum levels were neither distributed in the 
domestic market nor exported to third countries. Their test results concluded that  farm and fishery 
products  had not exceeded Codex level s for many years , except in wild harvests of certain game 
meat. Japan also reported on the measures taken by its government and the Tokyo Electric Power 
Company Holdings (TEPCO) to safely manage contaminated water , and recalled that t he IAEA 
mission in November 2018  found that : the rate of arising contaminated water ha d significantly 
reduced; the water level inside the reactor and turbine buildings ha d been maintained ensuring 
leakage -prevention ; the construction of an impermeabl e sea wall ha d improve d the protection of the 
marine environment; and contaminated water from the reactor and turbine buildings had been  
purified and was safely stored at the nuclear power station. Japan explained that when the 
radioactive caesium in seawa ter decrease d due to dispersal and dilution, the caesium in marine fish 
also decrease d gradually, and that clay in marine soil absorb ed and trap ped the caesium in water . 
Therefore, the caesium in soil ha d no significant effect to fish, even to demersal fis h living at the 
bottom of the sea. Japan concluded that the results of monitoring show ed that fish exceeding 
Japanese stringent maximum level had been  seldom detected , and that those  rare detections 
signif ied no meaningful effect to human health. Japan  urged Members  who maintain ed import 
restrictions to review them, based on the scientific evidence presented.  
3.2.  Canada provided information  on its enhanced import control s put in place following the 
Fukushima nuclear power station accident in 2011. This included a subsequent sampling and testing 
strategy for agricultural  products  imported from Japan. The results of the sampling and testing found 
radioactivity levels below Canada's limits. Therefore, the ir enhanced import control measures had 
been lifted in June 2011 and n o further  testing was planned. Evidence available to Canada support ed 
that Japanese  products ha d been safe for consumption for many years.  G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 5 - 
 
  3.1.2   Canada – International initiatives undertaken b y Canada to support the setting of 
Codex Alimentarius Commission maximum residue limits (MRLs)  
3.3.  Canada stated its  commitment  to the work of Codex. Canada underlined that the relevance  
and acceptance  of Codex standards as an international  reference for food safety and quality 
depend ed on the strength and independence of the scientific advice of its scientific bodies , such as 
that of the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) . Canada made reference to the 
joint proposal  (G/SPS/W/292/Rev.4) on pesticide  maximum residue limits, which  identif ied the 
absence of established  MRLS for traded products as a significant concern , particularly for specialty  
products and minor use crops . The joint proposal  underlined  Codex resource limitations and invited 
Members  to contribute resour ces to enable JMPR to better respond to the increased demand for 
Codex MRLs. Canada reported on its work  with the FAO, WHO, the Codex Committee on Pesticide  
Residues  (CCPR) and Members ; notably on a JMPR expert training  and an extraordinary session of 
JMPR. The training led to the designati on of six new JMPR pesticide residue experts . Canada 
committed to working with all Members to continue to deliver on Codex's mandate.  
3.4.  The United States supported Codex efforts to imple ment its dual mandate to protect consumer 
health and promote fair practices in food trade . It committed additional funding to train scientific 
experts and further support the work of the CCPR.  The United States highlighted three STDF projects 
it had led in cooperation with FAO, AU -IBAR, IICA, and the ASEAN Secretariat , which  had led to the 
establishment of new Codex MRLs . The United States also provided information on  the Global Minor 
Use Foundation, which sought  to expand access to newer, lower -risk pestic ide options for tropical 
produce , and on an international workshop hosted in May 2019  on missing MRLs . 
3.5.  Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire,  Guatemala, Kenya, Morocco, Nigeria, Peru, 
Senegal and ECOWAS,  echoed Canada's support for science -based SPS measures and the 
importance of contributing to the work of Codex and JMPR.  
3.6.  Chile noted  its work co -chairing two of JPMR's working group s on pesticide residu es, one with  
India and the U nited States, and the oth er with  India and Kenya, and encouraged Members to 
contribute in this way.  
3.7.  Burkina Faso requested that JMPR include sesame in its studies, and as well as C ôte d'Ivoire 
and Nigeria, pointed to the need for technical assistance in this area.  
3.1.3   Argentina - Ministerial  declaration of the Southern Agricultural Council (CAS) on 
low-level presence of GMOs not authorized in the importing country (LLP)  
3.8.  Argentina informed Members  that at  the last meeting of  the Ministers of Agriculture of the 
Agricultural Council of th e South (CAS), Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay had signed a 
declaration on low level presence (LLP) of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) not authorized by 
the importing country  (G/SPS/GEN/1703 ). The declaration underlined the importance of innovation 
to their agricultural production , and of  biotechnology as a tool to incorporate innovation in the 
development of GMOs. Argentina encouraged Members not to restrict trade based on LLP of non -
authorized GMOs , in the importing countr y, and international coope ration in the context of 
harmonized international standards.  
3.9.  Brazil,  Paraguay,  the United States and Uruguay, stressed the crucial role of biotech in facing  
global food supply challenges . Paraguay added that the use of biotechnology had been scientifically  
proven to be an efficient tool to produce safe food and had been  integrated into its production. 
With the increasing development and production of biotech crops , asymmetric and asynchronous 
approvals  could restrict trade . They supported the management of LLP incidences through the 
development and implementation of science -based, predictable , transparent  and practical 
approaches and policies , harmoniz ed with international standards.  Brazil emphasised the importance 
of predictability to innovat ion systems'  stakeholders.  
3.10.   The United States underlined that the global area of biotech crops had expanded from 
150 million  hectares in 2016 to 190  million  hectares in 2017 ; and that 24 countries cultivate d biotech 
crops in 2017 , most of which were develop ing countries. The United States added that  LLP was a 
significant trade issue affecting not only exporting countries but importing countries as well.  G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 6 - 
 
  3.11.   Canada  supported the CAS  Declaration on LLPs and reminded Members of the international 
declaration o n LLPs it reported on at the March 2019 SPS Committee meeting. Canada also invited 
members to an information session it was hosting later in the week on LLPs and its consequences 
for importers and exporters  and importing and  exporting countries . 
3.1.4   United States  - Executive Order 13874: modernizing the US regulatory framework 
for agricultural biotechnology products  
3.12.   The United States brought Members' attention to its Executive Order 13874 , issued on 
11 June 2019 entitled Moderniz ing the Regulatory Framework for Agricultural Biotechnology 
Products. The United States also drew attention to its Sustainable, Ecological, Consistent, Uniform, 
Responsible, Efficient  (SECURE ) proposed rule , notified as G/SPS/N/USA/3082 . The rule  sought  to 
modernize USDA 's plant biotechnology regulations , to protect plant health while allowing agricultural 
innovation to thrive. Th e framework would  provide a clear, predictable, and efficient regulatory 
pathway for innovators , while facilitating the development of new and novel GE  plants that would 
be unlike ly to pose a plant pest risk.  The United States voiced its support for  promoting constructive 
dialogues with trading partners on precision biotechnology to support open and fair trade, and to 
encourage research and innovation . The United States w elcome d Members' comments on USDA 's 
SECURE proposed rule by 5 August 2019 . 
3.2  Information from C odex , IPPC and OIE on relevant activities  
3.2.1   Codex  
3.13.   Codex  provided a summary of its activities, as detailed in G/SPS/GEN/1709 . Codex reported 
that the  Codex Committee on F ood Additive s had agreed on a  consensus text that would remove 
the reference to national legislation of the importing country , and would allow for more inclusive 
provision s to facilitate the uptake of food additives ' maximum levels  by Codex.  Codex highlighted  
the new work undertaken by  the Codex C ommittee on  Pesticide  Residue s (CCPR) to develop new 
guidelines on definition and criteria  for harmonization o f biopesticides. Codex explained  that it was 
not developing harmonized lists, but rather develop ing harmonised protocols , so that  countries could  
reach a common  understanding  of what biopesticides mean t for international regulations and how 
to include  those  substances in their national lists. Codex also explained that the Codex Committee 
on General Principles (CCGP) decisions would impact the work of all Codex committees , while i t did 
not deal directly with food safety issues , it addresse d procedures that  would  impact Codex work 
overall. Finally, Codex expressed appreciation to Members who supported its work on MRLs.  
3.2.2   OIE 
3.14.   The OIE outlined its report, contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1715 . It highlight ed the 
outcomes of its 87th General Session , held  in May 2019 . The OIE Terrestrial Code's Chapter 1.4 on 
Animal Health Surveillance  had update d guidance on surveillance , relating to all disease -specific 
chapters ; Chapter 8.14 now include d guidance for countries to apply , on a voluntary basis, the OIE 
endorsement of the ir national control programs  contributing to the global rabies eradication  
program ; and new Chapter 7.14 on animal welfare had been adopted . The OIE also highlighted 
updates to the A quatic  Code and Aquatic Manual , including the  new article 1.5.9 that provide d a 
mechanism to list taxonomic  group s of species as susceptible to infection . OIE also informed 
Members of the April 2019 4th Global Conference on Aquatic  Animal Health hosted by Chile . Finally, 
the OIE reminded  Members that information about new members, procedures for the self -declaration 
of disease freedom, technical information on strategic challenges in the control of ASF at the global 
level, new and amended texts , and survey results on the impact of external factors on veterinary 
services, could  be found on the OIE website.  
3.2.3   IPPC  
3.15.   The IPPC highlighted several points from its report , contained in document  G/SPS/GEN/1719 . 
The IPPC S trategic Framework for 2020 –2030 had been  endor sed at the 14th Commission on 
Phytosanitary Measures ( CPM-14), held  in April 2019. The new IPPC framework include d the 
protection of " global plant resources from pest while facilitating safe trade" , to promote trade and 
alignment with the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) . The IPPC also referred to its work on 
the Phytosanitary Capacity Evaluation  (PCE) tool, and updated Members on the completion of its G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 7 - 
 
  work on ePhyto , with support of STDF, as well as the G eneric ePhyto National System  (GENS ), a new 
website for developing countries. IPPC drew Members' attention to the December 2018 UN General 
Assembly adoption of the 2020 Year of International Plant Health (IYPH) . In preparation, the IPPC 
and FAO would be organizing events , including a ministerial  level meeting, the first  Global Plant 
Health Conference in Helsinki, Finland, and various other global, regional and national celebrations. 
The IPPC expressed its interest in working with the WTO  Secretariat and STDF to organi ze a side -
event to celebrate plant health on the margins of  the July 202 0 SPS Committee Meeting.  
3.16.   The European Union expressed its appreciation for the information provided and for the three 
sisters' work and cooperation with SPS Committee. The European Union stressed the importance of  
the IYPH 2020 and Global Plant Health Conference. The European Union voiced its support of Codex 
and highlighted its funding contribution to scientific advice. The European Union drew Members' 
attention to a paper, proposed by the European Union and co -signed by several Codex members at 
the Codex Alimentarius Commission CAC42 meeting, stressing the importance of sustainable and 
predictable funding for Codex scientific advice.  
4  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCE RNS (G/SPS/GEN/204/REV.19 ) 
4.1  New issues  
4.1.  Before the adoption of the agenda, Brazil withdrew a specific trade concern regarding Peru' s 
restrictions on fresh pork meat. This item had been included in the proposed agenda for the meeting, 
and was withdrawn because progress had been made in bilateral meetings scheduled to discuss the 
existing technical requirements.  
4.1.1   EU amendments of MRLs fo r imazalil  – Concerns of Colombia, Costa Rica, 
Côte d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic, and Ecuador  
4.2.  Colombia raised a concern regarding the draft EU Commission Regulation on maximum residue 
limits  of imazalil, notified in G/SPS/N/EU/319 . Colombia referred to documents G/SPS/GEN/1707  
and G/SPS /GEN/1707/Add.1  of Colombia,  Côte d'Ivoire,  Dominican Republic and Ecuador . 
4.3.  Colombia explained  that the draft Regulation would lower the MRL of imazalil in bananas to a 
level which would make its use unfeasible , despite being a substance that had been  recently 
evaluated and approved at the European level. Imazalil was a fungicide used by banana -producing 
countries , for which  there was no kn own phytosanitary alternative. The economic, social and 
environmental impact w ould be irreversible for producing countries.  
4.4.  Colombia called on the European Union to maintain its current MRL of 2 mg/kg for imazalil in 
banana s, in accordance with Codex stand ards, until the European Union carrie d out a scientific risk 
assessment in accordance with the WTO SPS Agreement. Colombia also requested that the 
EU Regulation take into account WTO obligations under  Article 2 paragraph 2; Article 3 paragraph  1; 
Article 5 , paragraph s 2 and 3 of the SPS Agreement . Finally, Colombia requested that the concerns 
of a significant number of Members who formally comment ed on the draft Regulation be considered.  
4.5.  Costa Rica referred to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recogni tion that the MRLs 
for imazalil in bananas should not be changed until there was more scientific evidence.  Costa Rica 
added its concern that the draft Regulation shifted the burden of pro ving the safety of imazalil to its 
users . In this case produce rs from developing and least developed countries in tropical regions , 
countries  whose  institutional and budget ary constraints prevent ed them from commissioning their 
own scientific studies. Costa Rica urged the European Union to ensure sufficiently long tr ansition 
periods so that the necessary studies could  be conducted , and that exporting countries had the  time 
to make th ose changes between crop harvests.  
4.6.  Ecuador highlighted that at the June 2019 meeting of the Standing Committee on Plants, 
Animals, Food a nd Feed of the European Union (SCOPAFF),  EU member States  and the 
EU Commission had agreed to an MRL  of 0.02 mg/kg of imazalil for bananas.  According to Annex 3 
of JMPR Report  234 of 2018, the International Estimated Daily Intake (IEDI) of imazalil varie d 
between 2 and 40  percent  of the maximum Acceptable Daily Intake  (ADI)  for various products , 
including bananas. This mean t that consum ing agricultural products with the maximum value of 
imazalil residue would  not have a health impact , since it would only amount to 40  percent  of the G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 8 - 
 
  maximum ADI. The aforementioned JMPR report also recommend ed increasing the current limit to 
3 mg/kg . The report was recognized at  the 51st annual mee ting of CCPR , held in April 2019,  and put 
forward for adoption at the CAC 42 meeting. Ecuador further added that a  number of EU member 
States had approved the MRL of  2 mg/kg, but that EFSA had consider ed that the data contained in 
the JMPR report was not sufficient, creating an uncertainty which led to the decision of lowering the 
MRL to 0.01 mg/kg.  Finally, Ecuador stressed the need of a transition period to adjust to a new 
fungicide, and of resources to conduct relevant scientific studies.  
4.7.  The Dominican Republic joined this concern. Imazalil was key to its banana, mango and 
avocado exports , which accounted for 20 percent  of its annual food exports , the main destination of 
which was  the European Union. The  Dominican Republic drew Members' attention to the 
Communication from India in document G/SPS/W/284  of April 2015, which noted that the practice 
of adopting MRLs for pesticides that were not registered or not used in the territory of the importing 
Member had negative trade impacts. As a result of that Communication, the SPS C ommittee had 
held several technical workshops to discourage such  practice . The Dominican Republic regretted that 
the European Union had not taken into account the recommendations of those  workshops . 
4.8.  The United States  noted that unnecessarily restrictive  MRLs were already impacting United 
States production costs and resulting in un necessary crop  loss and food waste. The United States  
regretted the European Union  move towards reduc ing imazalil  MRLs for citrus when Codex had just 
approved increased MRLs for th ose commodities , and expressed  concern that such actions were 
causing uncert ainty for scientists and innovators in the plant protection sector , who fac ed rapidly 
rising costs and extended decision timeframes for maintaining  authorisations and bringing new tools 
and products to the market.  
4.9.  Peru indicated that it was following the se discussions as imazalil was used in its production of 
asparagus, grapes, and citrus fruits.  
4.10.   Jamaica delivered its statement on behalf of the ACP group . It shared with  Members that 
Spain ha d new scientific evidence  that would allow to address the d ata-gap and conclude the safe 
use of imazalil , and emphasized the need for a 36-month  transition  period. Jamaica also regretted 
that the  EU vote on the measure  had taken place ten days after  the deadline for the submission of 
comments  to the EU notification to the  SPS Committee , which was insufficient time to properly 
review and analyse submitted comments.  
4.11.   Côte d'Ivoire joined Members presenting this STC. It underlined that it had been the largest 
African banana exporter and that the EU market was its main market. It also referred to the 
employment generated by banana production, and expressed concern that the EU  measure would 
affect  its development . Côte d 'Ivoire called on the European Union to defer the implementation of 
the measure and requested for technical assistance to seek alternative  fungicides . Côte d'Ivoire also 
supported Jamaica's comments on behalf of the ACP.  
4.12.   Uruguay informed Members that it would closely follow the evolution of the MRLs and appeal ed 
to the European Union that until new scientific evidence was provided, to continue maintaining the 
MRL for citrus fruits established by Codex.  
4.13.   Several other WTO Members including Brazil, Cameroon, G uatemala, Honduras, Jamaica on 
behalf of ACP countries , Nicaragua,  Panama, Peru, Senegal, and Uruguay,  supported this STC and 
expressed their concern with the MRL reduction, noting th at the limit was lower to Codex standards. 
Some Members emphasized the la ck of alternatives to imazalil and recalled  the SPS principles 
supporting science-based measures , risk analysis, and the avoid ance of unnecess ary restrict ions to  
trade. They also emphasized the importance of continuing work with Codex and the JMPR on the 
topic of MRLs.  
4.14.   The European Union considered  that the new propo sed MRLs were necessary to ensure the  
appropriate level of protection in the European Union . The 2017 assessment by EFSA had identified 
consumer health concerns  and its subsequent  assessment s did not produce more favourable results  
for none of the good agricultural practices for which information was available to EFSA, it was 
demonstrated that and MRL could be established that would be sufficiently protective for consumers . 
The assessment had included current Codex MLR s. As information on alternative practices was not 
available, the European Union had proposed lower ing the  MRL to the limit of analytical determination.  G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 9 - 
 
  The European Union  invite d Members who had information  that would  allow establishing safe residue 
levels , to submit application s under the relevant legislative framework , and clarified that such 
application s would not suspend the ongoing process of lowering MLR s. 
4.15.   The European Union acknowledge d that other risk assessment  bodies might  arrive at different 
conclusions due  to factors such as different database s, methodologies in risk assessment s and 
protection limit s chose n by risk managers. The European Union  reserve d the  right to base its 
measures  on evaluations by its own risk assessment body and clarified  that the current Co dex MRL 
predate d both the identification of consumer  health concerns by EFSA  and the EU membership of 
Codex, which  explain ed the absence of an EU reservation  at the CCPR meeti ng. At the 2019 CCPR 
meeting, the European Union introduced a reservation to  the advance ment of the  new draft Codex 
MRL for bananas of 3 mg/kg. The European Union added  that its draft act lower ing the MRL of 
imazalil in bananas had received a favourable  opinion  in the relevant Standing Committee . Formal 
adoption  of the measure was expected for October  2019 and would apply from  2020 onwards.  
Precise dates would be published upon publication of the measure in the Official Journal of the 
European Union, allowing  food business operators  to adapt to the new requirements . The European 
Union underlined its respect to transparency obligations under the SPS and TBT Agreements , and 
ensure d Members that all comments  sent to its SPS contact  points were being addressed in writing.  
4.1.2   EU regulatory process for determining maximum levels of glycidyl fatty acid esters, 
3-monochloropropanediol (3 -MCPD ) and its fatty acid esters, in foods or food ingredients 
– Concerns of Colombia  
4.16.   Colombia raised the concern , as detailed in document G/SPS/GEN/1708 . Colombia  drew 
Members attentio n to the draft regulation's proposed maximum level for palm oil of 2,500 μg/kg in 
food or food ingredients, which differed from the lower limit of 1,250 μg/kg proposed for other oils 
produced in Europe, including sunflower, colza, coconut and other oils. Although the European Union 
had not yet notified  the measure for comments, it was being raised at an early stage given its 
possible implications on the international palm oil market. Colombia noted that if the regulatory 
process was based on health reasons , it could look to the ongoing  work on a risk management 
measure under the Codex Alimentarius , through the development of a Code of Good Practice to 
reduce contaminants in refined oils and refined oil products , including palm oil. Colombia encouraged 
suppor ting the work of Codex and promot ing the adoption of good practices to jointly contribute to 
the prevention of the risk associated with this food contaminant.  
4.17.   Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire , Ecuador , Guatemala, Honduras  and Malaysia expressed their  
interest in the matter and would  continue monitor ing its development.  Guatemala  also looked 
forward to receiving information from the European Union on the issue ; and Ecuador highlighted the  
large number  of palm oil producers who were small producers, and the  socioeconomic impact the 
proposed measure would have on them . 
4.18.   The European Union clarified its proposed regulatory process maximum levels were based on 
the oils themselves , not on where the y were  produced , and that this was a trade  facilitating measure . 
The European Union shared with Members EFSA's scientific opinion of May 2016 on the risks to public 
health of the presence of monochloropropanediol and its fatty acid esters , which concluded that the ir 
presence in vegetable oil was o f concern. This was particularly the case for vegetable oil used in the 
production of infant formula. Following that d ivergent opinion of the Joint FAO/ WHO Expert 
Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants  (JECFA) , EFSA decided to review its opinion  and 
updated it in 2018 based on the tolerable daily intake (TDI) . Discussions regarding appropriate 
regulatory measures were ongoing in the European Union. Draft measures would be notified under 
the SPS Agreement  during the month of August or September,  and WTO Members' comments would 
be taken into account in finalizing a proposal. Finally, t he European Union asked other palm -oil 
producing Members to confirm whether Colombia 's suggestion for 1,250 μg/kg was achiev able. 
4.1.3   New EU MRLs for lambda -cyhalothrin – Concerns of China  
4.19.   China expressed its concern regarding the European Union's  amend ment of MRLs of lambda -
cyhalothrin in tea , from 1  mg/kg to 0.01 mg/kg , without a basis on risk assessment results. 
China  requested that the European Union evaluate the health risk to consumers of the original MRL 
of 1 mg/kg , and that, in the absence of risk, to reinstate the original MRL. If the European Union G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 10 - 
 
  implement ed new MRLs, China requests it take into consider ation the tea pla nting and tea production 
period , and to provide a transition period of at least one year for Chinese tea producers.  
4.20.   The European Union  provided Members with background to the 2018 and 2019 EU regulations 
on this topic, including the EFSA-reasoned opinion  on which they were based. At th at time, there 
had not been sufficient information to establish safe MRLs, so the limit of determination had been  
applied. The European Union informed China that the regulation had been notified to the SPS 
Committee , comments had been  received, and a response had been sent to China. The European 
Union also stated that import tolerances could be requested.  
4.1.4   China's restrictions on imports of US beef – Concerns of the United States  
4.21.   The United States raised  its continued c oncern with China 's restrictions on US beef exports , 
despite China's  recogni tion that the United States had negligible risk for BSE. The United States 
noted that current trade conditions with China f ell short of full alignment with OIE recommendations 
for negligible risk countries. The United States continue d to seek access for all products  and the 
elimination of age and product scope restrictions , and request ed China to  align its import 
requirements regarding veterinary drugs, including beta  agonists and h ormones, with Codex 
standards.  
4.22.   China noted that a fter it had conducted a  risk assessment  and in June 2017  it had resumed 
imports of deboned and boned beef under 30 months of age from the United States . Since China 
had never been affected by BSE, it had  not imported beef over 30 months of age from Members that 
had been affected by BSE, because cattle over 30 months of age had a higher risk of being infected 
with BSE, which increased the risk of BSE transmission . The measure was based on  China's 
appropriate level of animal health protection and compl ied with the SPS Agreement. China remained 
interested in continuing consultations with the U nited States  on the issue. 
4.1.5   Turkey's FMD -related import restrictions on liv e cattle – Concerns of Argentina  
4.23.   Argentina expressed its concern regarding Turkey's import restrictions of beef for fattening 
and slaughter from Argentina. Turkey's import ban was more stringent than the relevant OIE 
standard and did not have a scientific basis. Argentina regretted that the restrictions continued 
despite negotiations between their health services in 2011 and inspection visits in 2018, technical 
exchanges, conferences and visits. Argentina had a free zone without vaccination and a free zone 
with vaccination, as recognized by the OIE. Argentina pointed out that Turkey ha d an area recognized 
by the OIE in 2009 as FMD -free and an area without an  official health status for FMD , and that it  
allowed entry of beef for fattening and slaughter  from ot her countries, with similar sanitary 
conditions to Argentina . Therefore it requested that Turkey eliminate the restrictions on bovine meat 
from FMD -free with vaccination  for live cattle areas , and to establish equitable and non -
discriminatory conditions between Members with identical or similar conditions.  
4.24.   Turkey stated that , since 2010, it ha d been importing a considerable amount of live cattle 
from various countries which had complete d the relevant a pproval procedures. Turkey had 
unfortunately faced incompliances that resulted in disease occurrences. Based on this and its 
legislative alignment as an EU candidate country, Turkey had adopted the relevant EU regulation , 
as notified in 2015 under G/SPS/N/ TUR/58. The regulation entered  into force with  a five-year 
transition p eriod for exporting countries to avoid trade disruptions . Turkey ha d an FMD-free zone 
with vaccination  status since 2010 , and ha d spent significant resources combatting FMD  through 
vaccinat ion, biosecurity measures, livestock movement restrictions and sampling, vaccine research 
and studies. Turkey clarified it was still experiencing F MD occurrences from imports , and noted that 
Argentinian imports had failed to meet its FMD standards . Turkey looked forward to bilateral 
discussions to resolve th e issue.  
4.1.6   Viet Nam's general restrictions on imports (melons, live cattle, beef, and meat and 
bone meal) – Concerns of Brazil  
4.25.   Brazil remarked that Viet Nam ha d been imposing restrictions against several Brazi lian 
products, through undue delays in the process of negotiating International Sanitary Certificates 
(ISC) and requiring more information than what was scientifically necessary to perform risk analysis. 
Brazil reported that the negotiations between Brazil  and Viet Nam to open the market for live cattle G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 11 - 
 
  had started in November 2015, when Brazil sent Viet Nam a proposal of an International Sanitary 
Certificate for the exports of live cattle. Brazil also sent Viet Nam the information  they required in 
July 2016, and ha d provided all the necessary documents from 2016 to 2019. In September 2018, 
Vietnamese authorities had indicated that they were preparing for an on -site inspection in order to 
conclude the negotiations for opening the market to Brazilian live cat tle. However, Brazil regretted 
that Viet Nam had recently sent another request for further information. Brazil noted that this 
proce dure was similar to the one faced by its  requests to export meat and bone meal and tropical 
fruits, and was not in complianc e with Article 8  and Annex C of SPS Agreement.  
4.26.   Viet Nam stated its commitment to transparency and welcomed comments and feedback from 
all WTO Members. Regarding plant origin products and animal products from Brazil, Viet Nam 
recalled its  2018 Law on Crop Production and Law on Livestock Production.  For plant origin products, 
Viet Nam had recently submitted notification  G/SPS/N/V NM/105, replacing an older regulation.  
For import of products o f animal origin, in 2018 Viet Nam's National Assembly had passed a new 
livestock law, amending the list of prohibited substances. Further, Viet Nam  explained that a new 
notification could be submitted in July or August  2019. Viet Nam also referred to the limited capacity 
of its Department of Animal Health, which was working to provide the information  requested . 
Viet Nam assured Brazil that  it was not discriminati ng and looked forward to bilateral discussions.  
4.1.7   Ukraine's restrictions on swine products – Conce rns of Brazil  
4.27.   Brazil presented this STC due to Ukraine's embargo against Brazilian swine products. 
Ukraine  was the only country to impose restrictions on Brazilian pork, following an  occurrence of 
Classical Swine Fever (CSF) in 2018 in the state of Cear a, after ten years without CSF in Brazil. Since 
the beginning of the embargo, Brazilian authorities h ad been providing the technical information 
requested and held a bilateral meeting in March 2019. CSF -free zone s cover ed 95 percent of all 
Brazilian swine production and 100 percent of its swine exports. Its National Program on Swine 
Health survey ed the whole national territory and impose d the necessary restrictions to the 
movement of animal s and kep t track of the animals and animal products considered susceptible. 
Brazil reaffirmed that the sanitary measures regarding CSF were in line with  national regulation s as 
well as with the OIE's Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Brazil noted that the restrictive measures were 
in breach of Articles 2.2, 3 .1, 5.6 and 6 of the SPS Agreement.  
4.28.   Ukraine thanked Brazil for their bilateral cooperation on the issue. Ukraine not ed that CSF 
was a mandatory notifiable disease, according to the principles and requirements of the OIE. 
Ukraine  regretted that despite seve ral requests, Brazil had not submitted the information necessary 
to carry out a  risk assessment. Frozen pork meat had been imported  in 2018. H owever, after Brazil's 
notification of CSF in October 2018, import s of pigs, pork meat and pork meat products had been 
restricted . In 2018, Brazil notified the OIE of 30 cases of CSF in the State of Ceara , in backyard 
farms. Unfortunately, almost 2 months had passed between the initial occurrence of the disease and 
the disease confirmation. During that period , 112 pig s out of 132 pigs had died , with an  apparent 
mortality rate of 84.85%. The most recent occurrences of the disease ha d been registered in 
July 2019, as notified to the OIE . Therefore, Ukraine had request ed additional information, including 
on Brazil's review of its strategy for surveillance and control of CSF. Ukraine voiced its concern with 
Brazil 's lack of transparency and undue delays in notifying to the OIE, and looked  forward to a more 
effective dialogue with Braz il. 
4.1.8   Japan's restrictions on avocado – Concerns of Brazil  
4.29.   Brazil raised this STC due to Japan's undue delay in concluding its pest risk analysis to open  
its market to Brazilian avocado , in violation of  Articles 2.2, 3, 5.6 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement. 
Since Brazil had initiated talks in 2014, Japan ha d repeatedly requested additional information from 
Brazil, which had been  provided. In 2019, Brazil had sent the required information and technical 
information necessary to conclude the risk analysis . 
4.30.   Japan  responded that it needed to prevent the introduction of Mediterranean fruit fly , which 
it was free of . It had been lifting bans on avocado imports from countries after consultations , and 
was still in consultations with others . It had responded to Brazil's  request to lift the ban on avocados 
in 2015, and had been  communicating through various channels. Brazil was currently requesting to 
remove phytosanitary measures against Mediterranean fruit fly, and to allow exports of avocados 
from an area free of anoth er fruit fly. In response to this request, in June 2019 Japan had asked G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Brazil to provide relevant information about th at pest-free area , based on the SPS Agreement and 
the IPPC 's guideline s. Japan looked forward to constructive discussions.  
4.2  Issues previou sly raised  
4.2.1   EU MRLs for buprofezin, chlorothalonil , diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, glufosinate, 
ioxynil, iprodione, molinate, picoxystrobin and tepraloxydim – Concerns of Colombia, 
Costa Rica, India, Panama and Paraguay (No. 448)  
4.31.   Colombia made reference to the most recent meetings of the TBT Committee and of the 
Council for Trade in Goods, where 90 Members had expressed their concerns over EU measures. 
Colombia  highlighted  the importance of basing measures on international standards, risk 
assessment s, and scientific evidence, and not arbitrar ily applying  unnecessary distinctions on MRLs ; 
and that these measures should not  unnecessarily restrict trade  and should provide a reasonable 
period of time before their  entry into force.  
4.32.   Costa Rica emp hasised the urgency of the concern for the  agricultural products  affected , as 
the concerned pesticides were essential in tropical climates. Costa Rica noted  the EU regulations ' 
deviation from Codex standards, and the lack of conclusive eviden ce on toxicolo gy and doses for 
chlorothalonil. Costa Rica also highlighted the banana sector creation of 40,000 direct jobs and 
100,000 indirect jobs ; and t hat 50 per cent of its fruit exports went to  the EU market, which would 
therefore also be affected . Costa Rica referred to  communication G/C/W/767 , which present ed the 
same con cern to the Council for Trade in Goods. Costa Rica requested the European Union to apply 
Codex -set MRLs, to carry out risk assessment s for each product and substance at issue, and to base 
its measures on conclusive scientific evidence. It also requested a transition period of at least 
24 months for new measures, to provide sufficient time between harvest s. Costa Rica urged the 
European Union to establish an effective, broad -based dialogue with affected  Members to limit the 
impact of new regulations.  
4.33.   Panama joined the concern regarding the substances used in Panama: buprofezin , 
chlorothalonil , diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron and picoxystrobin. Panama  had signed join t 
declarations on MRLs in 2017 in Buenos Aires with Ministers of a dozen Members, and in June 201 9 
in Antigua, Guatemala with Central America n neighbours,  and was a co -sponsor of document 
G/C/W/767 . 
4.34.   Paraguay joined the concern, underscoring that its agricultural sector  represented  80 percent 
of its exports ; and the employment numbers it generate d. It added that these measures could lead 
to unpredictability for food exporters. The relevance of the matter was noted in that 14 delegations 
had taken the floor to express their concern  at the March SPS Committee meetings , and that the 
issue had also been raised in the TBT Committee meeting  and at the Council for Trade in Goods . 
4.35.   India joined the concern, especially regarding the use of bufoprezin for rice and grapes. 
India requested the European Union to share the rationale for deviating from international standards 
set by the CAC and from MRLs set by other countries . India noted that t he European Union had 
based its decisions on the perceived uncertainty around genotoxic potential, and that upon heating 
treatment, buprofezin tend ed to produce aniline ; whereas the chemical was also natu rally present 
in many raw fruits and vegetables . 
4.36.   Brazil, Canada, Chile, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Malaysia, 
Nicaragua, Peru, the United States, and Uruguay supported this  concern. Several Members regretted 
that EU measures were based on a hazard -based  approach instead of a risk-based approach  
grounded in science, in line with Codex standards . Many Members also expressed their concern that 
the transition period granted for the measure's  entry into force was too short for producers  to find  
and implement  alternatives, thus restricting trade  and creating serious socioeconomic impact s. 
4.37.   The United States noted that EU MRLs were impacting US  production costs and resulting in 
unnecessary crop loss and food waste. The United States drew at tention to the sweet potato and 
cranberry industries , which  had suffered as a result of the EU removal of the MRL for thiabendazole 
and the lower ing of its MRL for chlorothalonil, respectively. The United States await ed the European 
Union 's review of impor t tolerance applications for substances like buprofezin . It remain ed concerned 
that the European Union was requiring additional genotoxicity studies that involve d significant costs G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 13 - 
 
  and live animal testing for substances like imazalil, diflubenzuron, and pi coxystrobin, when other 
authorities, including Codex, ha d found existing data to be sufficient and acceptable for completing 
risk assessments and establishing MRLs. The European Union 's current glufosinate MRLs had been  
confirmed on the basis of a risk ass essment in 2016 but would likely be lowered to the default level 
of 0.01 mg/kg based on the hazard -based  criteria and the expiration of the E uropean Union  
glufosinate authorization in 2018. The United States concluded that the European Union 's actions 
were causing uncertainty for scientists and innovators in the plant protection sector . 
4.38.   Honduras recalled that experts from JMPR and the CCPR  had evaluated buprofezin in 2013 
and had recommended an MRL of 0.3 mg/kg in bananas . Honduras therefore urged the European 
Union to either follow this recommendation or maintain the ir current MLR of 0.5 mg/kg . It also 
requested  an extension of at least 36 months before the entry into force of the new MRL , availing 
itself of Article 10 of the SPS Agreement . 
4.39.   Canada urge d the European Union to provide Members with clarity on  whether any changes 
were anticipated with regard to the EU 's MRLs for glufosinate; the scientific basis for any such 
changes; and the transition periods that would be available for EU and non -EU farme rs in the case 
of any new MRLs for glufosinate. If changes to the EU 's glufosinate MRLs were anticipated, 
Canada  requested that the European Union notify the SPS Committee well in advance, including a 
clear indication of the scientific basis and transition  periods, to provide Members with the opportunity 
to comment and have those comments taken into account.  
4.40.   Guatemala regretted that its communications with the European Union had not yielded 
satisfactory results. It called on the European Union to respond to  the concerns of tropical developing 
countries  and requested a longer transition period of 24 months.  
4.41.   The Dominican Republic shared its concern that the only alternatives for b uprofezin , 
diflubenzuron  and chlorothalonil , used for mango production,  was imazalil, which was also being 
restricted by the European Union . 
4.42.   Ecuador added its concern over the reduction of the MRLs of buprofezin and chlorothalonil, 
essential for its control of quarantine pests in bananas.  
4.43.   Chile requested  the European Union to share the scientific basis for its measure, and to review 
whether it had face d problems in the past with th ose substances.  
4.44.   Regarding buprofezin, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, ioxynil, molinate, picoxystrobin and 
tepraloxydim , the European Union  referred to the statement s made  at the November 2018 and 
March 2019 Committee meetings , where the rationale for th e reductions  of those MRLs  had been  
explained. Regulation (EU) 2019/91 had been adopted in January 2019, and MRL changes for the 
mentioned substances were therein explained. On the restriction of approval of bufoprezin and 
diflub enzuron , the expir y of ethoxysulfuron, ioxynil, molinate, and tepraloxydim ; and the non -
renewal of the approval of picoxystrobin , MRLs had been  set at the relevant limit of determination 
in accordance with Article 18 of Regulation (EC) 396/2005 , which woul d apply as of August 2019. 
The European Union  reminded Members that import tolerance requests could be submitted in 
accordance with Article 6 o f Regulation (EC) 396/2005 . 
4.45.   Regarding iprodione, the European Union reiterated the explanation given at the March 2019 
SPS Committee meeting , notably that its approval had not been renewed because EFSA 's evaluation 
concluded that  acute intake concerns could not be excluded, and that genotoxicity concerns  could 
not be excluded regarding its major residue met abolite. In a follow up assessment , EFSA had 
identified the commodities of concern  for these risks . The substance also fell under the cut -of criteria 
established by Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 , though eve n without the additional criteria, renewal of 
the substance would not have been approved due to the concerns raised.  As per Regulation 
(EC) 2017/2091 of 14 November 2017 , the non -renewal of the substance had been  established, 
transitional  measures for the withdrawal of authorisations had been  granted until March 2018 and 
a grace period for the removal from the market had been  granted until 5 June 2018. The reduction 
in MRLS had been  adopted by a Regulat ion of January 2019, established at the limit of determ ination , 
and would apply from 31 July 2019. Requests for import tolerances could  be submitted and would  
follow a risk assessment process as established in Regulation  (EC) 396/2005.  G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 14 - 
 
  4.46.   Regarding glufosinate, its approval had expired on 31 July 2018, and the applicant had 
withdrawn the application for renewal. EU member states could grant grace periods for the use of 
glufosinate in plant production products until 31 January 2020. Its MRL had last been modified 
in 2016. In response to the questions from Canada, the European Union responded that there was  
currently  no proposal to modify  the MRL for glu fosinate, but that a ny possible modifications would 
be notified in due course, and applicat ions for import tolerances would always be possible.  
4.2.2   EU legislation on endocrine disruptors – Concerns of Paraguay and the United States 
(No. 382)  
4.47.   The United States reiterated its ongoing concern with the E uropean Union's approach to 
regulating pesticides and MRLs. The United States regretted that d espite repeated concerns 
expressed by more than 40 Members of the SPS  Committee, questions remained about the 
consistency of the EU  regulatory approach with the obligation to base measures on an assessment 
of ris k. The European Union  had previously informed the SPS  Committee that the procedures of 
Regulation (EC) 396/2005 would  apply to import tolerance requests, followed by case -by-case 
decision -making, taking into account "other relevant factors " without clarifying how those  "other 
factors " would rationally relate to achieving an appropriate level of protection.  The United States 
added that a  2017 study commissioned by the European Crop Protection Association had estimated 
that the European Union 's hazard -based pesticide policies could adversely affect trade flows valued 
at approximately $86 billion, with a disproportionate impact to growers in Central and South America 
and Sub -Saharan Africa. The European Union 's suggestion that those producers  would find 
alternative crop protection methods was insufficient as,  in many cases, viable alternatives did not 
currently exist or carr ied higher risks than those being banned by the European Union . The United 
States asked  the European Union  to reconsider its  approach to regulating pesticides and to ensure 
that its actions with regard to MRLs and import tolerances were consistent with the European Union 's 
WTO obligations.  
4.48.   Paraguay reiterated its concern  that the EU hazard -based measures affected Paraguay's 
agricultural exports. It also highlighted that 22 delegations had intervened on this concern in the 
March 2019 SPS Committee meeting, 16 delegations in the relevant TBT STC at the June 2019 
TBT Committee meeting, and 30 delegations representing 90 Members at the July 2019 meeting of 
the Council for Trade in Goods.  
4.49.   Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, 
Honduras, India, Kenya, Malaysia, New Zealand, Panama, Peru, the Russian Federation, Senegal, 
Chinese Tai pei, Thailand and Uruguay  supported the concern  and called upon the European Union  
to take a risk -based approach, carry out  risk assessments for the identification and regulation of 
endocrine disruptors , and  apply criteria supported by sufficient scientific  evidence in line with the 
commitments of the SPS Agreement . There were also requests for updates of the discussions, 
including those held in JPMR and the prospects for adoption.  
4.50.   Argentina also requested the European Union  to allow waivers for at least tho se substances 
that represented an insignificant risk to human health, due to low exposure.  
4.51.   Brazil stated that the promotion of technology, investment, innovation and research on plant 
protection products were important drivers for the development of a resi lient, stable and sustainable 
agriculture in tropical regions ; and added that scientific e valuations should be able to separate 
chemicals with the potential to cause harm due to their endocrine mode of action from those without 
that potential. Finally, Bra zil expressed its appreciation for the information on endocrine disruptors  
provided by the European Union , contained in  documents G/SPS/GEN/1594  and G/TBT/GEN/241 . 
4.52.   Canada expressed its concern on the growing number of plant protection products not being 
renewed by the European Union, without a clear scientifically -sound risk -based justification.  
Canada  noted the different approaches between Regulation (EC) 396/2005 provisions which allowed 
for the establishment of an import tolerance based on a risk assessment, in the event of an active 
ingredient 's non -renewal ; and Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 specific hazard -based cut-off criteria to 
identify substances with endocrine disrupting or carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reproductive toxicant 
properties. Canada also referred to the European Union's state ments at the Council for Trade in 
Goods, that import  tolerances for active substances falling under the cut -off criteria would be 
established based on a risk assessment  as per Regulation (EC) 396/2005, on a "case-by-case basis " G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 15 - 
 
  and would take into account "other considerations ". Canada requested the European Union to 
provide detailed information on the process it would follow when setting an import tolerance for an 
active substance falling under the cut -off criteria , as well as clarity on how Regulation  (EC) 396/2005 
and Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 would be implemented in a coherent  and transparent way . 
Canada  finally requested that import tolerances for active substances which were not re -authorized 
in the European Union be maintained at existing levels to allow for trade to continue.  
4.53.   Ecuador  stressed the difficulties posed for its producers by the lack of clarity around the 
process of requesting import tolerances , as well as the cost for developing countries to provide the 
data required  for import tolerance  requests.  
4.54.   India noted that  the European Union measures did not refer to the processes for establishing 
import tolerances for substances identified as endocrine disruptors.  
4.55.   The Russian Federation explained that there was still a lack of conclusive scientific evidence 
to restrict the use of chemicals that disrupt the endocrine s ystem , and expressed concern about how 
the European Union would move forward with its regulati ons on  endocrine disruptors.  
4.56.   The European Union referred Members  to its statement at the March 2019 SPS Committee 
meeting and recalled that Regulation (EC) 396/2005 would apply to requests for import tolerances. 
Regarding the "other legitimate factors" to be taken into consideration, the European Union 
explained that this provision was part of the same Regulation. Such import  tolerance requests would 
be followed by risk assessments carried out by EU  member States and an evaluation by EFSA. On 
transitional arrangements, the European Union explained that it applied as a general rule a deferral 
period of six months and a transiti onal period for products on the market, if there were not health 
concerns, until the end of their shelf -life. The use of substances falling under the cut off criteria was 
not allowed in the European Union, but import tolerance requests would be nevertheles s processed 
under Regulation (EC) 396/2005 , and a risk assessment  would be carried out . The European Union 
further explained that the possibility of introducing a derogation on negligible exposure  had not been 
supported by EU member States.  
4.2.3   France's dimeth oate-related restrictions on imports - Concerns of the United States 
(No. 422)  
4.57.   The United States reiterated its  concern that France ban ned the import of cherries based on 
the authorization status of dimethoate in the country of origin, regardless of whether or not the 
cherries had been treated with dimethoate or contain ed dimethoate residues. The measure unjustly 
restrict ed access to the Fre nch market and harm ed US cherry producers  without adequately 
clarifying its scientific basis.  
4.58.   Canada  reiterated its concern regarding the French emergency measures, in particular the 
lack of  evidence to demonstrate that the EU's existing MRL for dimethoate  was insufficient to protect 
consumers and whether  another MRL would be more appropriate ; and that a science -based ban of 
a substance should require the lack of residues of said substance in imported products, not ban 
imports from countries that permit the  use of that substance, regardless of whether there is any 
residue on a particular shipment . Given  that this was the fourth emergency measure notified by 
France since 2016 regarding the use of dimethoate in the production of cherries, Canada request ed 
France that, i f the current EU MRL was considered insufficient, to conduct a full scientific risk 
assessment to determine a more appropriate MRL.  
4.59.   The European Union  explained that this was an  emergency measure adopted by France on 
18 April 2019 . It entered into force on 20 April 2019, and would expire after twelve months. It was 
notified to the SPS Committee as an emergency measure on 8 May 2019. The measure suspended 
the importation and placing in the market of fresh cherries produced in EU member States or in non -
EU countries where the use of plant protection products containing dimethoate was authorised for 
the treatment of cherry trees. France justified the measure due to public health risks associated with 
the consumption of cherries treated wit h dimethoate  because of toxicological risks of certain 
metabolites. In October 2018, EFSA 's review of dimethoate  identified several areas of concern, 
including risks to humans from exposure to dimethoate  because of its genotoxic and mutagenic 
potential.  On this basis, the European Union submitted notification G/TBT/N/EU/467  in March 2019  
regarding  a draft measure on the non-renewal of dimethoate . The measure was adopted and G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 16 - 
 
  published on 26 June 2019 as Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1090 , which 
provide d for a short grace period for plant protection products inten ded to be used on cherries, 
because of the risks identified for these products. In view of health concerns, a proposal to reduce 
MRLs for cherries had been notified under the SPS Agreement in July 2019. T he French measure 
would  be reviewed  following the Eu ropean Union -wide developments . 
4.2.4   New EU definition of the fungicide folpet – Concerns of China (No. 447)  
4.60.   China reiterated its concern about the new EU residue definition for the fungicide folpet. 
China  regretted that  the European Union had not revised the definition of the residue used for 
monitoring sterilization, and still considered  it the sum of folpet and phthalimide. China  requested  
the European Union to  align with the Codex residue definition of folpet.  
4.61.   The European Union confirmed t hat the residue definition of the fungicide folpet was under 
consideration as part of its on-going renewal procedure. Part of the process included a peer review 
carried out by EFSA, which was ongoing. The European Union would provide updates  on any 
develop ments.  
4.2.5   EU transitional periods for MRLs and international consultations – Concerns of 
Colombia (No. 454)  
4.62.   Colombia noted that, considering harvest times and the times when agrochemicals were 
applied , the six -month period prior to the application of a measur e did not provide  sufficient time to 
make the necessary production adjustments to ensure the compliance of agricultural products with 
new MRLs. MRL t ransition periods should follow a different analysis to the general rule of six  month s. 
Colombia also share d that other Members had expressed similar concerns on this issue.  
4.63.   Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, 
Nicaragua , Panama, Paraguay, Thailand and the United States  also expressed concerns over  the 
transition and implementation period s for MRLs , and the time required to replace the affected 
substances . 
4.64.   Brazil regretted that new regulations would apply taking into consideration the date of 
production for European Union products, but the date of i mportation for non -EU products, which 
could introduce an unjustifiable discrimination between the SPS measures that were applied.  
4.65.   Ecuador underlined that the registration of new replacement substances required a 24 -month 
evaluation process, followed by a nother 12 months for the issuance of the registration. Insufficient 
time and lack of access to alternative molecules could lead to blocking the entry of their  agricultural 
products into their most important market.  
4.66.   The United States expressed its  concern tha t the European Union 's transition measures also 
appear ed to establish arbitrary differences in the treatment of domestic and imported products. 
In the European Union 's response to US comments on G/SPS/N/EU/248 , one of the first notified 
European Union MRL measures to introduce the transition measures in question, the European  Union 
explicitly acknowledged that non -EU countries would have a shorter time to comply with new MRLs 
compared to EU member States. The United States therefore asked  the European Union to clarify 
how it was taking  into account the technical and economic feasibility of producers to comply with 
the timeframes provided in its MRL measures, as well as its obligation to not arbitrarily or 
unjustifiably discriminate between its own territory and that of other Members.  
4.67.   Costa Rica requested the extension of the deadline for compliance with new tolerances and 
asked the European Union to establish a dialogue with the exporting countries of agricultural 
products that were affected by the ir modifications of the MRLs, and encour aged that studies, analysis 
and decisions be adopted within the framework of Codex and the SPS Agreement.  
4.68.   Chile requested  the European Union to exten d the transition period  to at least 24 months ; 
while the Dominican Republic requested at least one year. Guatemala also underlined a study 
undertaken by producers to determine the impact  of EU measure s. Canada referred to  its previous 
comments on transition periods.  G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 17 - 
 
  4.69.   The European Union r eferred to its statement at the March 2019 SPS Committee meeting . 
It recalle d that generally there was a  deferred application of six months and there could be 
transitional measures when there were no immediate safety concern s, which would allow products 
produced in the E uropean Union or imported to remain on the market until the end of their shelf life. 
The European Union explained that it applie d the same cut -off date for production and importation 
for reasons of enforcement  and feasibility of controls . The European Union also suggested that the 
notificatio ns of non -renewal or revocation of authorisations of substances under the TBT Agreement 
were de facto an early warning , as normally mentioned in the se notification s. Following the se 
notification s, the period of withdrawal of authorization s was normally six months , and an additional 
grace period for placing new plant protection products without market disruption could be up to 
18 months. Therefore, there could be two years between TBT notification s and the application of 
measures modifying MRLs. The European  Union took note of Members' comments, and added that  
the EU system was transparent and predictable.  
4.70.   Costa Rica made reference to the European Union's response which noted its TBT notifications 
as an "early warning" , providing Members with almost two years  to adjust to lower MRLs . Costa Rica 
requested clarification on whether the European Union's  TBT notifications should be evaluated under 
the disciplines of the SPS Agreement, too , including the science -based  requirement . 
4.71.   The European Union responded  that the notification under the TBT Agreement of the non -
renewal of MRLs could be discussed, as it  could be argued that there could be some SPS elements 
in those decisions. However, for measure s to be notified, they had to have a significant impact on 
trade, and the non -renewal of substances ' authorisations  would not have a significant impact on 
trade,  other than in the E uropean Union. 
4.72.   The United States  sought clarification from the  European Union's comment that the  reason to 
not notify the non -renewal of substances for domestic use was that they did not significantly impact 
trade , but at the same time it asserted that the ir TBT notification s were an early warning to trade 
partners . 
4.73.   The European Union expressed its c ommit ment to transparency  and notifying its measures . 
It noted that n on-renewals of substances had no impact on trade until the MRLs were changed , and 
notifications had been regularly submitted that way. 
4.2.6   South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian 
influenza - Concerns of the European Union (No. 431)  
4.74.   The European Union report ed that South Africa did not apply regionalization and maintain ed 
country wide -bans on poultry products from six EU member States on grounds of Highly Pathogenic 
Avian Influenza (HPAI) , even though th ose EU member States were free from HPAI. The European 
Union informed Members it was in discussion s with South Africa about  its control measures and 
regionalization system, including a study visit and a joint seminar in January 2019  and a South 
Africa n inspect ion of  three EU member States. The European Union asserted that its  regionalisation 
measures were fully compliant with  OIE recommendations. The European Union reiterate d its call to 
South Africa to allow trade of all safe poultry products from  disease -free EU m ember States and 
disease -free zones.  
4.75.   South Africa  referred Members to its comments at  the March 2019 SPS Committee  meeting 
and noted that its delay had been due to challenges , including  insufficient information received. 
South Africa  highlighted a bilateral dialogue that had taken place in Brussels earlier that week and 
was positive about future market access for the remaining EU member States.  
4.2.7   China's import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza – Concerns of 
the United States (No. 406)  
4.76.   The United States reiterated this concern  and the re quest that China follow the OIE's 
guidelines  on regionalization . The United States regretted that  China maintain ed restrictions despite 
the entire United States being  recognized as free of HPAI per OIE guidelines , and its strong 
surveillance programs for avian influenza ( AI) in commercial poultry operations  for live bird markets, 
backyard flocks and migratory wild bird populations. In July 2017, China had conducted an audit of 
the system maintained in the United States for AI control, but had not made official requests for G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 18 - 
 
  additional information. The United States ask ed that China remove all HPAI -restrictions on imports 
from the United States.  
4.77.   The European Union took the floor to added that country -wide bans after HPAI outbreaks 
disregard the SPS Agreement and the OIE Terrestrial Code , and were not scientifically justified.  
4.78.   China  responded that its control over animal epidemics was based on relevant SPS principles 
and was in accord ance with OIE standards, especially with regards to the control of AI in the regions 
where such technical standards were applicable. HPAI was mainly carried by wild birds, which made 
its prevention and control  more difficult . China was communicating with those exporters who 
compl ied with the relevant OIE standards (i.e. free of HPAI for 12 consecutive months and other 
technical requirements). China explained that a risk remained in the U nited States control of live 
poultry transportation in AI infected areas, as it did not compulsorily implement uniform biosecurity 
measures in poultry farms ; whereas a strict enforcement of biosecurity measures was the most 
effective way of preventing the introduction  of HPAI into poultry farms. China would continue its 
technical exchanges with the United States, including discussions on the understanding of relevant 
OIE standards for the regionalization of AI. 
4.2.8   The Russian Federation's import restrictions on processed fishery products from 
Estonia – Concerns of the European Union (No. 390)  
4.79.   The European Union acknowledged the developments  after a recent audit carried out by the 
Russian Federation, the announcement of their intention to lift the ban from a second establis hment , 
and possibly a third one on a conditional basis.  It expressed its hope that all Estonian fishery 
establishments, compliant with the requirements of the Russian Federation , would regain access to 
the Russian market in the near future . 
4.80.   The Russian Fed eration update d Members on the progress made on this issue. T he Russian 
Federation' s Veterinary Service had conducted the inspection of four Estonian fish product -
manufacturing plants , interested in supply ing their products to the Eurasian Economic Union ( EAEU). 
The results of the inspections had not been satisfactory for all the inspected plants. The efficient 
control of the production process and compliance with the EAEU regulation had been  confirmed only 
by one of the plants and temporary restrictions on  its product supplies had been  lifted from 27 May 
2019. The Russian Federation  was looking forward to  the comments and corrective actions from 
Estoni a. 
4.2.9   EU Commission Decision 2002/994/EC on animal products – Concerns of China 
(No. 442)  
4.81.   China had requested in September 2016 that the European Union lift its requirements for test 
results and certificates for every batch of animal products exported from China, following the 
improvements of its food safety supervision system . China recalled that th e European Union had 
agreed to expedite lifting the drug residue certificate for food of animal origin  in November 2018 , 
which China looked forward to.  
4.82.   The European Union responded that it was assessing the responses provided by China to the 
recommendation s of the audit on residues of veterinary drugs carried out by the European Union in 
2018, as well as the assurances made concerning the 2019 residue plan , received on 24 June 2019. 
The European Union acknowledged the progress made and the ongoing bilateral  dialogue . 
4.2.10   Guatemala's restrictions on egg products - Concerns of Mexico (No. 413)  
4.83.   Mexico requested Guatemala an opportunity to demonstrate that thermally -processed egg -
based products lack ed risk, and to allow the import of egg -based products that had been  subject to 
a thermal treatment that guaranteed the destruction of the AI virus, regardless of the country's AI 
status, as per Article 10.4.15 of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code . Regarding Newcastle 
disease, Mexico had been informing detected outbre aks, and requested Guatemala to allow the 
importation of heat -treated products which guaranteed the destruction of the virus, as per the 
Terrestrial Animal Health Code Article s 10.9.11 .2 and 10.9.20. Guatemala had explained that its 
restrictions were in  compliance with its Ministerial Agreement 228/2013 , however Mexico noted that G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 19 - 
 
  the Agreement also stated that  it would comply with OIE guidelines . Mexico regretted the lack of 
response to the communications it had sent . 
4.84.   Guatemala  informed Members that it w ould provide a written response to Mexico, including 
its requirements for imports  to its market , which were part of the ongoing review process of their 
poultry regulations, which would take as reference the OIE guidelines  for countries with outbreaks 
of AI and Newcastle virus . Guatemala would continue the ongoing bilateral discussions.  
4.2.11   General import restrictions due to BSE – Concerns of the European Union (No.  193)  
4.85.   The European Union reiterated its concerns about the unjustified and long delays in approvin g 
imports of beef from the European Union due to concerns of several WTO Members related to BSE. 
The European Union regretted that Members were ignoring existing science , and that their delays 
breached Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement. The Europe an Union welcomed the progress 
made by Japan in approving several member States and by Korea towards  opening up its market 
for beef from some EU member States . 
4.2.12   Indonesia's approval procedures for animal and plant products – Concerns of the 
European Union a nd the United States (No. 441)  
4.86.   The European Union thanked  Indonesia for the meetings held and for the information provided 
on their procedures related to the lifting of import bans after outbreaks of HPAI in EU member States. 
The European Union added that it also looked forward to receiving  details related to Indonesia's  
market access approval procedures for all kinds of products, including indicative and average 
timeframes for completing such procedures ; as well as  information  on when EU member States 
applications would  be finalised. The European Union recall ed that some of its export applications on 
beef, dairy, poultry and pork products had been  submitted six years ago. The European Union 
remain ed open to continue its dialogu e with Indonesia . 
4.87.   The United States remind ed Members that facility inspection requirements should be applied 
in a manner consistent with the SPS Agreement ; and that approval procedures should be undertaken 
without undue costs or delays, and in a manner tha t did not discriminate against imported products. 
Further, t he competent body for approvals should  examine the completeness of the documentation 
submitted with an application and inform the applicant in a precise and complete manner of all 
deficiencies, an d it should also transmit as soon as possible the results of the procedure in a precise 
and complete manner to the applicant , so that corrective action could  be taken if necessary.  
4.88.   Brazil recalled the STC it had raised regarding its request s to export beef  to Indonesia, due 
to similar undue and unjustified delays in the processes of risk analysis, approval and inspection of 
exporting establishments of bovine meat. Brazil  also noted that in the dispute regarding Indonesia's 
measures concerning the importation of chicken meat and chicken products, the Panel had found an 
undue delay in the approval of veterinary health certificates for poultry meat.  
4.89.   Indonesia  took note  that the United States had joined the STC and that it now covered both 
animal and plant products. Indonesia explained that it had been working to finalize the approval for 
the import of animal products submitted by EU members  States and that it had been  provid ing 
responses to the European Union, including to questions regarding market access applications. 
Some  applications ha d pending responses from Indonesia, and some from the European Union.  
Indonesia regretted the statement made that EU member States had not received feedback from 
Indonesia on their export applications for animal products  since 2013. Trade dat a indicated t hat 
Indonesia had received imports of animal products from many trading partners, including India and 
the United States, as well as bovine m eat from Spain and France ; which meant that Indonesia had 
respond ed to import  to applications and issue d import permits  to applicants that had fulfilled the 
established requirements. Indonesia looked forward to resolving its dispute settlement proceeding 
with the United States (DS478) , which dealt with issues covered in this STC. Finally, Indonesia 
shared with the Committee that it was in the process of  harmonizing its regulations to provide a 
detailed timeline of its audit process.  G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 20 - 
 
  4.2.13   Indonesia's food safety measures affecting horticultural products and animal 
products – Concerns of the Philippines (No. 414)  
4.90.   The Philippines expressed its appreciation for the  communication it had received from 
Indonesia's Ministry of Agriculture regarding the revised Decree on the Registration of Philippine 
Laboratories , with a revised list of active substances for MRL testing for horticultural products . 
The Philippines appreciate d the recent development on this long -running trade concern. However, 
the Philippines regretted Indonesia's  unclear requirement regarding prior notice and a certificate of 
laboratory analysis as accompanying documents on a per -consignment basis. The "per co nsignment 
MRL and heavy metals certification " would be burdensome and costly; lacked a scientific  justification 
and was not based on international protocols and benchmarks . In addition, Indonesia n horticultural 
products were not subject to the same require ments . The Philippines added that in 2016 Indonesia 
had closed its ports to horticultural products from the Philippines during their system equivalence 
determination and later the ongoing  laboratory registration , despite  having had  prior trade . 
Exports  from the Philippines to Indonesia had declined by almost 70  percent  since 2013 and reached 
bottom -zero since 2016. Regarding Indonesia' s approval measures for the import of meat and meat 
products, the Philippines remained  deeply concerned with the undue delay s, lack of transparency, 
unpredictable approach, and discriminatory requirements without scientific justification. 
Indonesia  had require d the Philippines to be of negligible risk status for BSE , even though both the 
Philippine s and Indonesia had the same u ndetermined OIE status for BSE.  The Philippines urged 
Indonesia to consider and accept  their proposed  import measures for horticultural products and to 
align its approval measure s for the import of meat and meat products to its WTO obligations.  
4.91.   Indonesia expressed appreciation to the Philippines for their bilateral engagement and 
ongoing work. Regarding the procedure for the registration of accredited laborator ies, Indonesia had 
adopted Ministry of Agriculture Regulation No. 1329 of 2019  on 31 May 2019, which amend ed prior 
scope and parameter s of lab oratory  testing for pesticide residue s and heavy metal contents in 
shallots, pineapple, and bananas from the Philippines.  Indonesia further reiterated  that it was in the 
process of harmonizing its regula tions to provide a detailed timeline of its auditing process . 
4.2.14   China's AQSIQ official certification requirements for food imports 
(G/TBT/N/CHN/1209 ) – Concerns of the United States (No. 184)  
4.92.   The United States  requested an update on the status of the draft measure  notified as 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1209 , which require d official certificates to accompany a range of imported food 
products on a shipment -by-shipment basis , including processed, shelf -stable foods. In response to 
concerns  raised by trading partners on the burden it would impose and its lack of scientific 
justification, China notified an extension of the entry into force until 30 September 2019. Given that 
there were pending concerns regarding the measure, t he United States  request ed a confirmation 
that the measure would  not enter into force on that date . It recall ed China 's statement made to the 
TBT Committee on 5 July 2019, that the measure would  "not affect existing trade after October, 
even though other Members could not  provide certificate s for processed food ", until a mutual ly 
agreed solution  was found . The United States  would welcome a notification by China of an addendum 
indefinitely postponing the implementation of the measure . 
4.93.   Japan support ed the concern , and reques ted information on the risk analysis and the revised 
draft, as well as sufficient  time to prepare for any new measure.  
4.94.   Guatemala sought clarification on the implementation of the measure and queried  whether 
its entry into force would be postponed . 
4.95.   The Euro pean Union  referred to the Codex recommendations that official certificates should 
only be required when attestation and essential information were necessary to ensure food safety.  
4.96.   China  clarified that the objective of the measure was not restrict trade, but to ensur e the 
safety and complete traceability of products, through a strengthen ed supervision  and the  
responsibility of exporting parties' authorities.  China assure d Members that the measure would  not 
affect existing trade after October 2019 , even when M embers could not provide a certificate for 
processed food. To enhance communication and cooperation with Members, China  had joined the 
electronic working group (EWG) on Food Integrity and Food Authenticit y of the Codex Committee on 
Food Import and Export Certification and Inspection (CCFICS) , addressing Members ' concerns on G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 21 - 
 
  the safety problems of low -risk foods in the international food trade through the formulation of Codex 
standards or guidelines. China remained open to maintain ing close communication with the United 
States to resolve the issue.  
4.2.15   China's proposed amendments to the implementation regulations on safety 
assessment of agricultural GMOs – Concerns of the United States (No. 395)  
4.97.   The United State s reiterated its concerns about the delays and the lack of predictability, 
transparency, and scientific justification in China 's pre-market approval procedures for the products 
of biotechnology. It was especially  concerned with China's new requirements that applicants had to 
submit materials for tests to be conducted in China, instead of accepting packages from tests 
conducted out side of China. These new in -country data and testing requirements did not differentiate 
– in terms of exposure or risk – between imported products used for food, feed and processing or 
domestic products for cultivation.  The requirements also decreased regu latory transparency and 
predictability and had not been notified to the SPS Committee. The United States requested China 
to publish precise and complete information on processing periods and information requirements, to 
publish in advance schedules for mee tings of its National Biosafety Committee and to respond to 
applicants in a timely manner to explain any delays in processing a request . They also requested 
that China notify all changes to its SPS measures to the SPS  Committee, allow comments from its 
trading partners, and to take such comments into account in finalizing changes to its measures.  
4.98.   China repl ied that its  approval of biotechnology products was transparent and science -based. 
China attached great importance to the safe management of GMOs. China' s National Agricultural 
Genetically Modified Organisms Safety Committee  (NAGMOS)  was responsible for the safety 
evaluation of GMO s in China . Applicants were notified when their products were not approved, and 
they could always resubmit the ir application s for review with additional  required data and materials.  
4.2.16   US import restrictions on apples and pears – Concerns of the European Union 
(No. 439)  
4.99.   The European Union  regretted that the United States had concluded the necessary risk 
assessment for the import of a pples and pears from the European Union several years ago , but that 
trade had not been allowed to resume. The final administrative step of  publishing the relevant rule, 
had been blocked . The United States had previously noted that the European Union had be en 
exporting apples and pears to the United States since 2013 , but the European Union regretted that 
those exports had only been authorised under a pre -clearance approach , which was costly and trade - 
restrictive , and only allowed small amounts of apples into the US market . 
4.100.   The United States  responded that considerable progress had been made on requests by the 
European Union to expand access for their apple s and pear s to the US market. The final step in the 
process was the publicat ion of a final notice by the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service  
(APHIS ). 
4.3  Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
4.3.1   The Russian Federation's import restrictions on certain animal products from 
Germany – Concerns of the European Union (No. 411)  
4.101.   The European Union  reported that  STC No. 411 had been solved  and that the bans from 
2013 ha d been lifted. The European Union  thanked the Russian Federation for its cooperation on this 
matter. It also acknowledged progress made in relation to STC No. 449 on import restriction on 
ruminants , the formal re solution of which it hoped to announce soon.  
4.102.   The R ussian Federation thanked the European Union and looked forward to further fruitful 
cooperation.  
4.4  Update on the project for the online submission of STCs  
4.103.   The WTO Secretariat update d Members on the eAgenda project launched at the end of 2018, 
supported by the WTO Information Technology  Solutions D ivision (ITSD) and  carried out for both 
the TBT and SPS sections. The eAgenda buil t upon the existing tools for the online submission of G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 22 - 
 
  notifications, SPS NSS and TBT NSS; and the online information management systems, the SPS IMS 
and the TBT IMS.  
4.104.   eAgenda was the develop ment of an online platform to help Members m anage STCs ahead 
of SPS and TBT Committee meetings. Access to the platform would  be restrict ed to Members , who 
would  be able to add or support STCs ahead of the circulation of the meeting agenda (SPS's Airgram 
and TBT's Annotated Agenda). Development of the TBT pilot platform had been progressing well, 
and was scheduled to be presented at the next TBT Committee m eeting  in November  2019. 
Development of the SPS pilot platform was scheduled to begin after September  2019, and Members 
would be updated on its progress, including the possible pilot testing of the platform by Members.  
5  OPERATION AND IMPLEM ENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  
5.1  Equivalence  
5.1.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item . 
5.2  Pest-and disease -free areas (Regionalization)  
5.2.1   Annual report in accordance with  G/SPS/48  (G/SPS/GEN/1711 ) 
5.2.  The annual report covering the period from 1 April 2018 until 31 March 2019 was circulated as 
document G/SPS/GEN/1711 . The Secretariat gave the Committee an update r egarding the annual 
report  on Members'  request s for recognition of pest or disease -free areas or areas of low pest or 
disease prevalence, their determinations on whether to recognize such an area, and Members' 
experiences in the implementation of Article 6 , based  on information  provide d in notifications and at 
SPS Committee meetings under this and other agenda item s. The Secretariat sought feedback and 
suggest ions from Members  on the structure of the document. Comments were welcomed by 
6 September 2019, or before the preparation of the next annual report in July 2020.  
5.2.2   Information from Members  
5.2.2.1   Russian Federation – Recovery of the OIE 'FMD -free zone without vaccination' 
status  
5.3.  The Russian Federation  reported that its "FMD free zone where vaccination is not practiced" 
status had been  suspended on 30 September 2017 due to the immediate notification of a single FMD 
outbreak in the Republic of Bashkortostan. Based on the strict quarantine measures applied and the 
documenta tion submitted, the OIE Scientific Commission by Resolution No. 15 of the 83rd OIE 
General Session , concluded that the zone could  regain its previous status as of 20 May 2019.  
5.2.2.2   Russian Federation - Self-declaration of the recovery of zone freedom from highly 
pathogenic avian influenza in the Russian Federation  
5.4.  The Russian Federation  updated Members that HPAI, observed in Eurasia since the end of 2016,  
and which had affected the Russian Federation, had been brought under control. Regionalization for 
this disease (high and low pathogenic AI separately) had been conducted on  the territory in 
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 4.3 of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code. 
These  actions and further disease surveillance procedures allowed the Russian F ederation to 
eradicate outbreaks and maintain a zone free from AI in all 85 Russian administrative regions. 
In April 2019, the Russian Federation 's self -declaration of the recovery of zone free from HPAI  was 
published on the OIE website . Further d etailed i nformation was available online on the WAHIS portal 
of the OIE.  
5.2.2.3   Chile  – Regionalization  regarding quarantine for pests in Chile  
5.5.  Chile referred Members to document G/SPS/GEN/1716 , which reported on its measures to 
establish criteria for regionalization for quarantine pests. The document was related to plant health 
and provided  an up -to-date list of plagues , as advised by IPPC, as well as the risk analysis for 
produ cts from certain areas. The document also included weblinks to further online information.  G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 23 - 
 
  5.2.2.4   Peru – Improvement of  national SPS procedures  
5.6.  Peru updated Members that its  National Fisheries Health Services (SANIPES ) had undergone 
the Evaluation of Performance of its Aquatic Animal Health Services (OIE PVS ). Peru had received 
preliminary results  of the report, which were being implemented to improve their fisheries health  
system.  
5.3  Operation of transparency provisions  
5.3.1   United States – Notification by Members of SPS measures adopted to align with 
EU SPS Measures  
5.7.  The United States remind ed Members of the obligation to notify changes to their SPS measures. 
It noted that several Members ha d national policies to align their SPS standards and regulations to 
those of the European Union, but did not regularly notify proposed changes to th e SPS  Committee. 
The United States pointed to the low notification rate of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA)  
and invited Members with national policies align ed with EU SPS Measures , to review their notification 
practices to ensure that other WTO Members ha d the oppor tunity to comment on changes to their 
SPS measures. The United States reiterated that alignment, approximation, or harmonization with 
other Members' SPS regulations did not relieve a Member of its transparency obligations under the 
SPS Agreement , and w elcomed other Members ' views on th e topic.  
5.8.  Colombia appreciated the inclusion of  this item on the agenda. Paraguay and Uruguay 
expressed their concern that given the increasing importance of transparency in cross -cutting issues 
in the WTO, some Members were not meeting their WTO obligation to provide information on SPS 
measures. Paraguay added  that information submitted to the European Union did not  exempt from 
notifying measures to the SPS Committee, which was particularly  important when th ose measures  
related to MRLs and import tolerances, and could  have a significant impact on trade and be a matter 
of concern to other SPS Committee Members.  
5.9.  Switzerland recalled its uniquely close contractual relationship with the European Union in the 
TBT and SPS  areas . Its economy was closely integrated and it had widely harmonised its technical 
requirements with those of the European Union in order to reduce unnecessary barriers to trade. 
Switzerland closely followed the STCs raised in the Committee in areas where the ir regulations were 
harmoni zed, and were conveyed to their competent authorities . Switzerland notifie d its SPS 
measures when an international standard, guideline or recommendation did not exist or the content 
of a proposed SPS regulation was not substantially the same as the content of an international 
standard, guideline or recommendation. SPS measures adopted by Switzerland were also notified 
when  they might  have a significant effect on trade of other Members. Switzerland had taken 
concerted steps to review its notification practice s and procedures and ha d raised awareness among 
the Federal Offices with a role in proposing, drafting or reviewing SPS -related regulation s. 
Switzerland remain ed open to meet bilaterally with Members to discuss this matter further.  
5.10.   Norway explained that t he 2018 Trade Policy Revi ew of Norway dealt in detail with the 
notification of SPS measures adopted by Norway to align with EU SPS measures . The Agreement on 
the European Economic Area (EEA) brought  together the 28 EU member States and the three EEA 
EFTA states Norway, Iceland and  Liechtenstein,  in an internal market governed by the same basic 
rules. The principle of free movement of goods ensure d that products originating in an EEA state 
could circulate freely within the internal market. As a  member of the EEA, Norway was bound by  the 
adopted EU legislation in the field of SPS measures  and food safety, with the exception of plant 
health, and also to the proceedings leading up to the adoption of new rules. Drafts and proposals 
were drawn up by the E uropean Union  and were notified to  the WTO. The basic rule for entry into 
force of new EU regulations was the same for Norway as for EU members. However, some regulations 
were subject to negotiations between the EFTA/EEA countries and the E uropean Union. The Official 
Journal confirm ed whether and when Norway ha d implemented the actual legal act. Norwegian 
national legislation , legislation not part of the EEA -Agreement, was notified according to WTO  SPS 
procedures. Norway also publicize d new regulations through the official web -pages of  the Norwegian 
Food Safety Authority and also in the general Official Journal of Norwegian laws and regulations. 
Any matter regarding SPS issues could  also be addressed to the Norwegian Enquiry Point for SPS  
matters , or directly to the Norwegian Food Safet y Authority.  G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 24 - 
 
  5.4  Special and Differential Treatment  
5.11.   No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  
5.5  Monitoring of the use of International Standards  
5.5.1   New issues  
5.12.   No new issues were raised under this agenda item . 
5.5.2   Issues previously raised  
5.5.2.1   European Union  – ASF restrictions not consistent with the OIE international 
standard  
5.13.   The European Union drew the attention of Members to inconsistencies in the application of 
OIE international standards , in this case regarding ASF . The European Union  noted that s everal WTO 
Members did not follow the OIE Terrestrial Code recommendations  that had been developed  and 
adopted with the support of th ose same Members , on surveillance, designation of containment and 
disease -free zones , and for the identification, treatment  and certification of tradable products. 
ASF was a very serious disease but it could be managed effectively to make sure that legitimate 
trade did not the cause any outbreak. The E uropean Union had demonstrated through its strict 
regionalisation policy, th at the disease ha d not been transmitted via commercial trade . In addition, 
the European Union was transparent on its disease control measures and provide d information 
through the web sites of the EU Commission, of the EU m ember States  and of the OIE , and through 
bilateral contacts with trade partners. The European Union strongly urged  WTO Members to align 
their import measures with the SPS Agreement and wit h international standards , and stood ready 
to work with Members to remove country -wide bans . 
5.5.2.2   European Union and the United States – Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza  
(HPAI ) restrictions not consistent with the OIE international standard  
5.14.   The European Union praised those  Members that recognise d EU regionali zation measures , 
trusting the European Union's effective and transparent system of control and eradication of animal 
diseases like AI. R egarding regionalisation for HPAI, the European Union highlight ed the 
inconsistency in the application by some  WTO Members of the OIE international standards, and their 
obligations under the SPS Agreement 's Article 6 and Annex C.  Country -wide bans after a disease 
outbreak were not scientifically justified , and there was no justification to wait one year or more to 
restore the disease -free status , instead of the three months defined by the OIE Code.  The veterinary 
services of all EU member States work ed in a transparen t manner  and the audit and analysis service 
of the European  Commission publishe d regular  public  audit reports. The European Union reiterate d 
its call to all Members to  respect their regionalisation obligations ; allow trade of all safe products 
from non -affected zones ; lift all bans after regaining freedom three  months after the application of 
stamping -out, cleaning and disinfection of all affected premises ; refrain from imposing trade 
restriction in case of HPAI in wild birds ; and r efrain from imposing trade restriction in case of detected  
HPAI. 
5.15.   The United States underscored the importance of OIE guidelines related to HPAI  and their 
contribut ion to facilitating safe trade in live poultry and poultry products. The United States 
highlighted that according to OIE guidelines for HPAI , free status could  be regained quicker in a 
previously free country if it applie d a stamping out policy that include d disinfection of all affected 
establishments, provided the country carried out appropriate surveillance. The OIE provide d an 
incen tive for Members to implement an effective stamping out policy and to conduct robust 
surveillance to provide clear evidence and guarantees of eradication of HPAI. The United States 
expressed concern that restrictions on poultry meat or products subjected t o treatment, such as 
heat treatment that mitigate d the HPAI virus, lack ed scientific justification.  The United States ha d 
been free of HPAI per OIE guidelines since August 2017 . While many trading partners had lifted their 
HPAI-related restrictions on US p oultry  imports , some restrictions remain ed in place , which the 
United States urged Members to lift.  G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 25 - 
 
  5.16.   The OIE brought Members attention to  Chapter 10.4 of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code,  
Infection with Avian Influenza Viruses , which was  under  a comprehensive revision because of a lack 
of compliance noted by OIE m embers. The revision s ought to remove misunderstandings in the 
interpretation of standard s. A draft of the revised chapter ha d been circulated to OIE m embers for 
comments  and the OIE meeting in September 2019 would advance  that work. OIE r ecommend ed 
Members  to contact their national OIE delegate s in order to make comments and follow the progress  
of the revision  before it  was propos ed for adoption in 2020 or 2021.  
5.5.2.3   United States – Use of th e Codex international standard on glyphosate  
5.17.   The United States drew attention to Members ' restrict ions or proposed restrictions on  the use 
of glyphosate. It noted that s cientific and regulatory authorities worldwide ha d re-evaluated and 
reconfirmed the aut horization status of glyphosate as a crop protection tool , including at the 
May 2016 JMPR special session to re -evaluate glyphosate due to concerns resulting from the hazard 
report of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) , and the availability of new 
toxicology and epidemiology studies. JMPR concluded that dietary exposure to glyphosate did not 
present a risk to consumers and reaffirmed existing Codex MRLs for glyphosate. In April 2019 , the 
US Environmental Protection Agenc y (EPA) published its proposed interim registration review 
decision for glyphosate, concluding that there were no risks to public health when glyphosate was 
used in accordance with its current label, and that glyphosate was not likely to be carcinogenic to  
humans. The United States urged Members to base their regulatory actions on glyphosate on sound 
science and risk -based principles.  
5.18.   Canada agree d with the United States on the  importan ce of basing measures on international 
standards, guidelines and recomme ndations and specifically Codex standards. Establishing science -
based pesticide MRLs help ed ensure that pesticides were being used properly by growers and 
provide d consumers with access to a safe food supply. Canada noted that JMPR had conducted a 
thorough  toxicological evaluation and had found that glyphosate was unlikely to be genotoxic at 
anticipated dietary exposure , and was also unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from 
exposure through diet. Similar reviews ha d been undertaken by a number of  Members, including 
Canada, making glyphosate one of the most rigorously evaluated pesticides in the world . Canada's 
findings support ed the continued registration and safe use of products containing glyphosate. 
Canada underline d the importance of Members t aking timely regulatory decisions based on science 
and risk, taking into account the advice of the international standards setting bodies, in particular 
Codex . 
5.19.   Brazil, Paraguay , Senegal, the Russian Federation  and Uruguay  encouraged Members not to 
deviate from established Codex standards for glyphosate.  
5.20.   Paraguay also elaborated that Codex standards enable d developing countries, without the 
resources to carry out their own risk analysis, to meet their international requirements in terms of 
safety. Uruguay urged Members to  adhere to the available scientific evidence, in order to avoid 
creating unjustified barriers to international trade.  
5.21.   Australia informed Members that t he Australian Pesticide and Veterinary Medicines Authority 
(APVMA) had undert aken a review of recent evidence presented in formal legal actions around the 
world , and found no grounds to take re gulatory action in Australia. Australia' s risk -based scientific 
approach to regulation ensure d that each agricultural chemical was thoroughly and independently 
assessed tak ing into  account extensive scientific information. The APVMA ha d considered the WHO  
IARC report, along with an examination of many other scientific trials and studies . Like other 
regulators, the APVMA ha d determined that glyphosate was safe to use when used in accordance 
with label directions.  The APVMA advised Australian stakeholders tha t discussions in the media did 
not represent the facts or the science accurately.  
5.22.   Codex noted that Members were well informed of the JMPR evaluation outcomes in May 2016 
and the CCPR decision based on JMPR's scientific advice.  
5.5.3 Annual report in accord ance with G/SPS/11/REV.1  (G/SPS/GEN/1710 ) 
5.23.   The annual report on the Procedure to Monitor the Process of International Harmonization ha d 
been circulated as  document  G/SPS/GEN/1710 . The WTO Secretariat explai ned that the report G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 26 - 
 
  summarize d the discussions under this agenda item over the past year, as reported in the summary  
report of each meeting.  
5.6  Fifth Review  
5.6.1   Fifth Review Report on the workshop on transparency and coordination  
5.24.   The Secretariat reported on the  Workshop on SPS transparency and coordination that had 
taken place on 15 -16 July (programme in document G/SPS/GEN/1694/Rev.2 ). The WTO, with the 
financial assistance of the Doha Development Agenda Global Trust Fund, had sponsored the 
participation of  34 government officials from developing country Members and Observers. 
In addition, the United States and the African Union (AU) had made it possible for eight and five 
participants, respectively, from Africa and Central America to attend the workshop and the meetings 
of the Committee.  
5.25.   The objective of this workshop had been to bring together Members' officials responsible for 
the implementation of the SPS Agreement, as well as experts from regional and international 
organizations, to exchange experiences with transparency -related coordination, and with broader 
domestic coordi nation mechanisms. An area of focus had been the difference in scope between the 
SPS and TBT Agreements, and notification of measures containing both SPS and TBT elements.  
5.26.   The workshop had begun with an overview of the key SPS and TBT transparency provisio ns. 
It had reviewed the objectives and coverage of the SPS and TBT Agreements, related discussions in 
the respective Committees and examples of measures notified under both agreements , including the 
SPS Committee recommendation to notify cross -cutting meas ures under both Agreements. 
Through  an interactive exercise, participants had been challenged to define whether a measure fell 
within the scope of one or both Agreements. A brief report on the TBT Committee Thematic Session 
on Transparency held in June 201 9, which had also addressed SPS  and TBT notifications, had 
completed the introductory session.  
5.27.   Brazil, Canada, Japan, Chinese Taipei, and Uganda had presented experiences in handling 
and coordinating SPS  and TBT notifications. Speakers had discussed their experiences with various 
institutional arrangements, including having separate SPS and TBT agencies or one single agency 
covering both SPS and TBT matters, thus creating a "single window" for the transparency 
requirements. Several speakers had encouraged the notification of measures that contained SPS 
and TBT elements under both Agreements, inserting an indication that the regulation had been 
notified under another Agreement, and submitting both in synchrony, for greater transparency and 
harmoni zed comment periods.  
5.28.   The Secretariat had provided an overview of SPS  and TBT sources of information, including  
that WTO Documents Online and the e -Subscription service for delegates to receive official WTO 
documents; the SPS  and TBT Gateways on the WTO web site; and the SPS  and TBT Information 
Management Systems (SPS IMS and TBT IMS) for searches and reports on notifications, STCs, and 
contact details of Enquiry Points  and Notification Authorities. In addition, the Secretariat had 
provided an update on the e Ping alert system, which include d two main functionalities: an email 
alert mechanism to track relevant notifications; and a communication platform to facilitate domestic 
and international discussion s and coordination o f distributed notifications. Enquiry P oints and 
Notification Authorities had been encouraged to request admin rights to administer ePing at the 
domestic level. Further training on ePing functionalities could be provided on the margins of the 
November 2019 SPS  Committee meetings, in case of int erest.  
5.29.    UNCTAD had presented its Non -Tariff Measures (NTM) programme, covering a broad 
spectrum of measures including but not limited to SPS and TBT measures. Data collection was 
comprehensive, but represented a stocktaking exercise at a certain point in t ime, including 
information from SPS and TBT notifications. ITC had also introduced the Global Trade Helpdesk, 
a single entry point for trade -related information , which aimed to combine in one online platform 
dispersed and complex information, contained in other international organizations' databases, and 
translate it into business language. A beta version was publicly available, and the final version would 
be launched at the 2020 WTO Ministerial Conference.  G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 27 - 
 
  5.30.   Australia and Uganda had participated in the pilot  testing phase of ePing's coordination 
functions  and presented on its advantages , as compared to prior notification distribution 
mechanisms, and on the efforts undertaken to promote the system and engage the private sector 
through newsletters, partnering w ith private sector associations, and present ing at existing events. 
China had presented institutional efforts undertaken to improve compliance with SPS transparency 
provisions, and their coordination  challenges. New Zealand had explained how training could  
contribute to better transparency and coordination, highlighting the need of a training strategy, the 
importance of building trust with stakeholders and using technology.  
5.31.   The second day had begun with a panel discussion, broadening the perspective to inco rporate 
experiences from the trade facilitation area, and from the use of STDF's P -IMA tool. It had been 
recalled that unlike the Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA), the SPS Agreement did not require the 
establishment of national committees. However, many Members had found it useful. 
While  committees were easy to create, they were difficult to maintain. National SPS committees 
could play a role in facilitating implementation of the SPS Agreement, by creating awareness and 
promotion. Some challenges  had included engaging the private sector and building trust. 
Lessons  learnt had included being inclusive, developing long -term planning, allowing for quick 
successes and making use of the wealth of resources available, for example through the TFA Facility. 
Speaker s had stressed the need of political backing and of a formal structure.  SPS agencies had an 
important role to play in setting workplans and streamlining procedures. While the P -IMA tool 
primarily aimed to help SPS officials prioritize SPS -related investmen t decisions, coordination played 
an important role in ensuring an efficient allocation of SPS resources. Belize had recounted its 
experience with both P -IMA and UNCTAD's national trade facilitation committee programme , and 
how these projects had compliment ed each other, allowing for sustained and fruitful public -private 
dialogue. Panellists  and participants had noted the synergies between capacity building for trade 
facilitation committees and national SPS committees.  
5.32.   The workshop had also benefited from presentations by Canada, Kenya, Peru, Senegal and 
the United States about domestic coordination mechanisms for purposes broader than transparency, 
such as coordinating positions to prevent and resolve specific trade concerns. Diverse ap proaches 
to domestic coordination included joint SPS  and TBT national authorities, interdepartmental 
coordination mechanisms, increasing transparency in the rule -making process itself through public 
notice and comments, among other . To take advantage of th e abundant expertise in the room, 
participants had also had a chance to brainstorm on successes, challenges, and lessons learnt. 
They had highlighted the difficulties of engaging the private sector for feedback on draft measures; 
how Members' processes cou ld be improved; and the commonalities between the TFA and 
SPS Agreements, underscoring the importance of transparency and coordination.  
5.33.   The workshop had ended with presentations by the African Union, ECOWAS, IICA, Chile and 
APEC on the successes and challe nges of various regional and international initiatives to support 
domestic coordination. Speakers had commented on the benefits of various approaches and 
highlighted the importance of training, resource and experience -sharing, as well as engaging 
academia and the private sector.  
5.34.   Before concluding, given the large amount of useful information shared, one Member had 
suggested that relevant resources be submitted to the Secretariat to be compiled and made available 
in a single document. In addition, the Secret ariat informed Members that p resentations from all 
sessions of the workshop were available on the SPS Gateway.  
5.35.   In response to the report, Chinese Taipei recommended that Members consider how to 
improve the Committee's work on  transparency  in the future . Chinese Taipei mentioned that the 
workshops were useful  and valuable for Members' reference. Therefore, it r ecommend ed that SPS 
workshops and thematic sessions be put on the website as webinars for capitals and the public , like 
the TBT Committee  did for its June 2019 workshop . This would benefit those who were unable to 
attend these events . The b etter use of online webcast technology could  contribute to greater 
transparency.  
5.36.   The WTO Secretariat noted that webcast ing was possible . However, in March, o ne delega tion 
had not been  comfortable with the proposal . The Secretariat noted it would consider it again , if the 
Committee was in agreement.  G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 28 - 
 
  5.6.2   Report of the Informal Meeting  
5.37.   The Chairman  drew the Committee's attention to the draft report of the informal meeting held 
on 17 July  20192 and invited Members to make comments on the draft report during the meeting, 
or to send them to the Secretariat by 26 July 2019.  
5.38.   The WTO Secretariat remin ded the Committee of the structure of the document and noted 
that proposals were grouped by topic, starting with e quivalence . It explained that the document did 
not necessarily follow the order of the informal meetings , since it kept the same structure as  the 
last meeting 's report. The WTO Secretariat clarified that it had circulated a track changes version , 
so that changes could  be easily identified . 
5.39.   Argentina expressed the usefulness of the new format and noted its use as an essential tool 
for its work . Argen tina also requested a correction to JOB/SPS/2/ Rev.3, and raised a question on 
document G/SPS/W/313 . The Secretariat clarified that a corrigendum had been circulated  to correct 
an earlier omission . 
5.40.   The Chairperson recalled the deadlines in the context of the Fifth Review:  
• Friday, 27 July 2019  for submitting comments on th e draft report of the informal meeting 
JOB/SPS/2/Rev.3 ; 
• Friday, 6 September 2019  for submitting comments on the draft programme and suggest 
speakers for the Thematic Session on Approval Procedures, to be held on 5 November 2019 ; 
• Friday, 6 September 2019  for submitting comments (including possible 
recommendations) for the dra ft report of the Fifth Review ( G/SPS/W/31 3 and 
G/SPS/W/313/Corr.1 ). 
5.41.   The S ecretariat also informed the Committee that a compilation of Members ' comments on 
the draft report of the Fifth Review would  be prepared  by the Secretariat in September 2019, and a 
revised version including recommendations would be circulated in October  2019. Members were 
invited to submit comments about scheduling of thematic sessions and the Committee workshop for 
2020,  to the Secretariat, before  to the next Committee meeting . 
5.42.    The Chairman advised Members to submit  comments about scheduling  dates and deadlines 
to the Secretariat di rectly . 
6  CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  
6.1.  Chile took the floor to comment on the annotated agenda  that had been circulated by the 
Secretariat. Chile supported the initiative and added that it would contribute to  improv ing its 
domestic coordination and enhanc ing its participation in th e SPS  Committee.  
6.2.  Paraguay thanked the Secretariat  for the document  and requested a correction to add it to the 
list under  STC No. 382 on endocrine disruptors.  
6.3.  Argentina also supported the initiative and requested further information on its use. 
6.4.  The Chairman responded providing with an overview of the document , and explained that it 
was meant to compl ement the official Airgram . The document  that had been  circulated had been  a 
pilot. A similar document  would be circulated as a Job document for the November SPS Committee 
meeting after the circulation of the formal agenda , with translations to be circulated soon after.  
The Chairman  drew Members' attention to the table of STCs in the Annex  and hoped Members 
presenting STCs wou ld provide a brief description of the STC to fill in the respective column of the 
table. The Chairman requested Members to share their comments  on the annotated agenda . 
6.5.  The Secretariat further clarified that in the  TBT Committee , this type of document repl aced the 
Convening Airgram. The Secretariat propos ed circulat ing both the Convening Airgram and the 
translated annotated agenda a s a supplement  to it, until Members were used to the annotated 
agenda . The Secretariat took note of Paraguay's comment and expl ained that the annotated agenda 
                                                
2 Subsequently circulated as JOB/SPS/2/Rev.3.  G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 29 - 
 
  had been  compiled  manually , as it was not  yet automated as STC table attached to the TBT 
annotated agenda.  
6.6.  In response to a question from Chinese Taipei regarding the agenda format of informal 
meeting s, the Chairman  clarified that informal meetings did not have an Airgram, but that further 
information could be circulated before the following  informal meeting.  
7  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  AND COOPERATION  
7.1  Information from the Secretariat  
7.1.1   WTO SPS activities  
7.1.  The WTO Secretariat had informed Members that it was organizing a session for delegates to 
clarify doubts about the work of the SPS Committee as well as on the SPS Agreement. The session 
would be  scheduled for September and be taught in English. The Secretariat would send mor e 
information and request Members to indicate their interest in participating. The Secretariat had also 
informed Members that the Regional Workshop on SPS  measures for Central and Eastern Europe, 
Central Asia and the Caucasus, organized with the Vienna Mul tilateral Institute, which had been 
scheduled for September 2019, had been postponed to 2020 . The new date would be announced as 
soon as possible.  
7.2.  The Secretariat had also presented information on the technical assistance activities related to 
SPS measures  carried out since the last meeting of the SPS Committee in March  2019. 
The Secretariat  had held SPS workshops in Turkey and Jamaica in May and a Thematic Workshop 
on Transparency and Coordination that had taken place that week  in Geneva. There had also been 
training on the SPS Agreement and other more general trainings including  in the Advanced  Trade 
Policy Courses for African -speaking Members  in Mauritius ( 15-17 May) and for the Caribbean 
countries in Trinidad and Tobago (week  of June 24) , the Advanced Trade Policy Course in French 
(17-18 June) , a joint event with the World Bank on the implementation of the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement , and the Netherlands internship program ; to groups of graduate students from the 
University o f Minnesota, from the École Nationale des Services V étérinaires , from Duke University, 
and from the Russian Federation; and to government officials of Mozambique. Upcoming activities 
in 2019 were national workshops in Guatemala ( 29-30 August); China ( 10-12 September); 
Uzbekistan (October); and Peru ( 19-21 November).  
7.3.  The Secretariat highlighted the follow -up session of the Advanced SPS Course that had begun 
on 10 July, the fourteenth consecutive year in which the Course had been  offered; this edition held 
in Spanish. The participants of the Course were 19 government officials from nine WTO Members, 
who had returned to Geneva to present the action plans they prepared during  the first part of the 
Course and had implemented in their countries during  nine months.  The Secretariat expressed its 
appreciation to the participants for their involvement and hard work.  
7.4.  The Advanced Course had also received  the special support of the Inter -American Institute for 
Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), through its specialist in Agricultural Health and Food Safety, 
Mr Eric Bolaños, who had been working with the Secretariat as one of the three Course coaches . 
The Secretariat had expressed appreciation to Mr. Bolaños and IICA for the close collaboration. 
The Secretariat had also thanked the Chairman of the SPS Committee and all the delegates who had 
participated as speakers in the Advanced SPS Course and who had share d their knowledge and 
experiences with the participants , as well as the external consultants who had been coaches in the 
Course , Mr João Magalhães and Mr Kevin Walker; and to ITTC for their collaboration in coordinating 
this Course.  
7.5.  The Secretariat had reminded Members that the e -learning course on the SPS Agreement was 
available throughout the year in the three official languages of the WTO , and that it was working on 
a new, more interactive version of the electronic course, which should be online in 2020 . Finally, 
more information on SPS technical assistance activities could be found on the WTO website (under 
trade -related technical assistance or in the section dedicated to the SPS Agreement).  
7.6.  Guatemala thanked the Secretariat  for supporting  the technical assistance  activity organized 
for August , to work with  its competent authorities on SPS  notifications.  G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 30 - 
 
  7.7.  Turkey thanked the Secretariat for the workshop that had been organized in Turkey in May . 
It had scheduled activities to  disseminate the tools shared, in cluding the ePing alert system, through 
trainings within the country in the month of August.  
7.1.2   STDF ( G/SPS/GEN/1713 ) 
7.8.  The STDF Secretariat provided a brief overview of its mos t recent activities, as detailed in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1713 . The fourth  evaluation of the STDF  had been  issued in July . It had been 
positive, and underlined the continued relevance of STDF  building developing countries ' SPS 
capacity . It also set out recommendations on the future direction of the STDF to meet emerging 
challeng es. The new strategic plan was being developed and would be reported on at the November  
SPS Committee meeting . The STDF Secretariat also referred to the event organized at the  Global 
Aid for Trade Review, on STDF capacity building in Guatemala, Sri Lanka, and Uganda . Attention 
was also brought to the  2018 STDF Annual Report . It highlighted its main achievements of the year, 
and was  available in hard copy and on the STDF website. The STDF Secretariat thank ed its 14 donors  
for their  support. Regarding STDF briefing notes on  the impact of trade -related  food safety projects 
on the domestic health situation , they sought to answer the question of whether investing in food 
safety capacity for exports also lead to improved food safety in the domestic market. The results 
would be discussed at the next STDF working group meeting in October  2019, but notes were already 
available on the STDF website.  Members were also informed about the p articipation of STDF at the 
SPS Workshop on Transparency and Coordination earlier that week, and reminded Members of its 
2012 publication on national SPS coordination mechanisms , focused on African countries, which 
includ ed a checklist for establishing a national SPS Committee.  Finally, three STDF projects had been 
recently externally evaluated , the results would be presented at a side event during the November 
SPS C ommittee meeting.  
7.9.  Guatem ala thanked the STDF for its assistance and noted the progress made in public private 
partnerships and helping SMEs internationally.  
7.10.   Burkina Faso  thanked the  STDF and donors for the funding of projects  to reduce aflatoxin in 
maize, which would contribute to food security in  the country , and noted that two projects would be 
launched on 29 July 2019.  
7.11.   Mali thanked the  STDF  for funding its standards and development project s on tea and mango . 
Mali emphasised its capacity building needs for laboratorie s, tools and kits to be able to comply with 
pesticide MRLs ; and of technical assistance to comply with international standards harmonization.  
7.12.   Nigeria thanked the STDF for its assistance ; and Peru took the floor to note it would seek the 
assistance of STDF.  
7.2  Information from Members  
7.2.1   Japan - Technical assistance to developing countries  
7.13.   Japan drew Members' attention to document G/SPS/GEN/1160/Add.7 , which detail ed Japan' s 
SPS-related technical assistance from April 2018 to March 2019 ; and explained that its SPS-related 
technical assistance  aimed to facilitate the enhancement an d implementation of SPS  measures in 
developing countries , based on sound science . Its assistance for the period amounted to 
approximately 630 million Japanese yen (approximately 5.8 million USD) , with an  accumulated 
amount of assistance since April 2009 of approximately 6.8 billion Japanese yen (approximately 
62.6 million USD). Most of Japan's overseas aid projects were carried out by the Japan International 
Cooperation Agency (JICA) . In addition, SPS -related technical assistance for Asia and the Pacific 
region was provided through  the Official Development Assistance. Japan invited Members interested 
in participating in these training courses, workshops, or any other projects, to contact its Enquiry 
Point, the International Trade Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.  
7.14.   Mali took the floor to express its appreciation to Japan for the assistance received through 
JICA. G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 31 - 
 
  7.2.2   Chile  
7.15.   Chile highlighted its technical assistance activities under Article 9 of the SPS  Agreement . First, 
Chile had provided assistance to Honduras, Cuba and Belize, though triangular projects with the 
United States, the European Union and El Salvador, respectively. Second, Chile had been the 
beneficiary of assistance together with Mexico, aimed at strengthening their SPS regulat ory systems , 
early warning system and electr onic certification. Third, Colombian officials had visited Chile's SPS 
services through the cooperation of the Inter-American  Development Bank . Fourth, through the IICA 
Codex Twinning Project , Chile was working to build capacity in Latin American and Caribbean 
countries.  
8  CONCERNS WITH PRIVAT E AND COMMERCIAL STA NDARDS  
8.1.  No Member  took the floor under this agenda item.  
9  OBSERVERS  
9.1  Information from observer organizations  
9.1.1   ECOWAS  
9.1.  ECOWAS  report ed on recent activities, as detailed in document  G/SPS/GEN/1702 . 
ECOWAS  had provided training on  strengthening the monitoring, prevalence and impact of fall 
armyworm ( FAW) with the financial and technical support of FAO; w hich had led to additional 
targeted funding. In addition, with the support of USDA , ECOWAS  provided a training workshop on 
development and monitoring of phytosanitary inspection and pest identification guides , aimed at 
harmoniz ing relevant guidelines . ECOW AS had also pr ovided capacity building in the area of food 
safety , which led to successful applications to Codex Trust Funds for  Benin, Burkina Faso, 
Cabo Verde, C ôte d'Ivoire , The Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Nigeria and Senegal . ECOWAS  thanked 
donors and technical partners for their continuing support in advancing SPS issues in the ECOWAS 
sub-region and beyond.  
9.1.2   IGAD  
9.2.  The Chairman drew attention to the report submitted by IGAD  on its main activities , contained  
in document G/SPS/GEN/1705 . 
9.1.3   OIRSA  
9.3.  OIRSA reported on its main activities , as detailed  in document G/SPS/GEN/1706 . 
OIRSA  highlighted its work on the comprehensive managemen t of citrus huanglongbing (HLB)  and 
on the prevention of the banana  fungus  Fusarium wilt.  OIRSA had also supported countries, like 
Ecuador, though the InterAmerican Group for Coordination on Plant Protection (GICSV ); and had 
also been working on the preven tion of ASF . 
9.4.  Ecuador clarified that its work was focused on the prevention of the banana fungus, but that it 
did not face a suspicion of entry or have quarantine measures  against it . OIRSA corrected  that it 
was working with Colombia  on these issues , instead of Ecuador.  
9.1.4   IICA  
9.5.  IICA drew Members' attention to document G/SPS/GEN/1714 , which contained a report on its 
main activities . IICA continue d to support its member s to participate  more actively in multilat eral 
forums. IICA thanked the WTO for including IICA in the Advanced SPS Course, and described it as 
an extraordinary training opportunity for its  participant s. IICA had been involved in  some of the 
Course's action plans , including on transparency and coor dination, which  contributed to their 
monitoring and sustainability. IICA thanked the United States for its financial and technical 
contribution , which enabled IICA to carry out many of its technical assistance activities . G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 32 - 
 
  9.6.  The Dominican Republic thanked IIC A and OIRSA for the ir work in the region,  and highlighted 
the Risk Analysis Consortium created with the support of IICA and OIRSA, IICA's SPS Leadership 
Course, and IICA's and OIRSA's support for its participation in multilateral fora. 
9.1.5   ECCAS  
9.7.  ECCAS provided  Members with an overview of  its main activities , as detailed  in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1718 . ECCAS referred to the Comprehensive Africa n Agriculture D evelopment 
Programme (CAADP)  it had been working on,  and explained that it had  implemented the Common 
Agricultural Policy , the Regional Agricultural Investment Programme for Food and Nutrition Security 
(PRIASAN) and related projects, as well as platforms o f the stakeholders participating in the 
implementation of these initiatives. It was working to improve the institutional environment with a 
view to improving the quantity and quality of farm production throughout its member s. On plant 
health, ECCAS  had worked on FAW and on a platform for the coordination o f SPS issues. On animal 
health, it had  been setting up an entity for the follow -up of regional animal diseases, including AI. 
ECCAS had also taken part in OIE activities in Chad as well as in finalizing a draft World Bank project 
to strengthen surveillance of human disease. ECCAS had also been working on the Regional Disease 
Surveillance Systems Enhancement (REDISSE) Project for Central Africa , with funding from the 
African Development Bank and World Bank. ECCAS thanked the Inter -African Bureau of the AU for 
funding its participation in the SPS C ommittee  meeting . 
9.2  Requests for observer status  
9.2.1   New requests  
9.8.  There were no new requests for observer status . 
9.2.2   Outstanding requests  
9.9.  The list of organizations whose requests for observer status were pending was contained in 
G/SPS/W/78/Rev.14 , circulated on 31 October 2016. No Member took the floor under this agenda 
item. 
9.10.   The Chairperson thanked the representatives  of observer organizations for their contributions 
to the work of the Committee and for their assistance to Members. The Chairperson further 
encouraged observer organizations to provide written reports on their relevant activities in advance 
of the November  2019 meeting . 
10  OTHER BUSINESS  
10.1.   No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
11  DATE AND AGEND A FOR NEXT MEETING  
11.1.   The Secretariat explained the proposed calendar of meetings  of the SPS Committee  for 2020 , 
as contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1712 . The first meeting of 2020 was scheduled for the w eek 
of 17 March , with the formal meeting on 18 -19 March; the summer meeting would be held the w eek 
of 22 June ( noting that the  Ministerial Conference would take place in the first half of June);  and the 
last meeting of the year would be held the w eek of 2 November  2020. 
11.2.   The Chairman  recalled  that the  next regular meeting of the Committee was scheduled for 
7-8 November 2019, preceded by a Thematic Session on Approval Procedures on 5 November, and 
an informal meeting on 6 November.  
11.3.   The WTO Secretariat reminded Members of the following deadline s: 
• For submitting comments on the d raft report of the informal  meeting  (JOB/SPS/ 2/Rev.3 ): 
Friday , 26 July  2019 ;  
• For submitting comments on the  draft programme and the proposal of speaker s for the 
Thematic Session on Approval Procedures  to be held on 5 November 2019 : Friday, 
6 September  2019 ;  G/SPS/R/95  
 
- 33 - 
 
  • For submitting replies to comments from the  proponents of  the proposal on 
regionalization (G/SPS/W/3 11): Friday, 6 September 2019 ; 
•  For submitting comments on the Secretariat's annual report on regionalization  
(G/SPS/GEN/1711 ): Friday, 6 September 2019 ;  
• For submitting comment s and propose d recommendations for inclusion in the  report of the 
Fifth R eview  (G/SPS/W/313  and G/SPS/W/313/Corr.1 ): Friday, 6 September 2019 ; 
• For submitting agenda items for the November SPS Committee meeting, including STCs and 
items under the procedure to monitor the use of international standards : Thursday, 
17 October 2019 ; 
• For submitting proposals of topics for a thematic workshop to be held in July 2020 and for 
thematic session (s) to be held during the week of the last SPS Committee meeting of 2020; 
to be discussed during the November 2019 SPS Committee meeting: Thursday, 
17 October 2019 . 
11.4.   The Secretariat  informed Members that it would compile Members' comments on the report 
of the Fifth Review and would circulate them in September  2019. The Secretariat also reminded 
Members of the intention of the Chairman  to hold consultations at the end of September. Further, 
the Secretariat  would prepare a rev ised version of the draft report  of the informal meeting , including 
draft recommendations, to be circulated in October  2019. Finally, t he Airgram  convening the 
November SPS Committee meeting would be circulated on 18 October  2019, and the annotated 
agenda would be circulated shortly after.  The deadlines would also be circulated to Members  by 
email.  
 
__________