G/SPS/GEN/1944  
 
21 July 2021 
(21-5739) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  Original: English  
 
 
EU MRLS AND PESTICIDE POLICIES – SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERN 448 : 
EU MRLS FOR BUPROFEZIN, CHLOROTHALONIL, DIFLUBENZURON,  
ETHOXYSULFURON, GLUFOSINATE, IMAZALIL, IOXYNIL,  
IPRODIONE, MANCOZEB, MOLINATE, PICOXYSTROBIN  
AND TEPRALOXYDIM  
SUBMISSION BY THE UNITED STATES  OF AMERICA  
The following submission, received on 20 July 2021, is the statement made by the United States of 
America at the 14 -16 July 2021 WTO  SPS Committee, and is  being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of the United States  of America . 
 
_______________  
 
 
1.  The United States joins Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Paraguay in discussing this important 
issue before the Committee.  
2.  The United States again emphasizes our concern for human, plant, animal, and environmental 
health, and we remain disappointed that the European Union continues to lower many MRLs to 
trade -restrictive levels without clear scientific justification  or measurable benefit to human health. 
The EU's hazard -based approach to pesticide regulation and implementation of the "precautionary 
principle" creates trade barriers that threaten the security of global food systems.  
3.  The United States appreciated the opportunity to comment on the European Commission's public 
consultation on the evaluation and impact assessment of the Sustainable Use of Pesticides Directive. 
Sustainable global agricultural production relies on science -based decisions and  international 
standards that support the safe and judicious use of diverse crop protection tools to manage 
endemic, emerging, and invasive pests. The United States notes that pesticides are an important 
component in integrated pest management, or IPM, pro grams. Unnecessarily removing tools such 
as active ingredients and modes of action can increase the development of resistance to pesticides, 
which adds an additional challenge for agricultural producers and threatens biodiversity.  
4.  For example, propiconazol e is an important fungicide for rice growers and failure by the 
European  Union to reauthorize use of this fungicide eliminates an important plant protection tool for 
rice growers in the state of Louisiana that export to the European Union.  
5.  The United State s further notes that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is reviewing ten 
member states' emergency authorizations for active substances, including for several neonicotinoids. 
Based on their continued requests for emergency authorizations, it appears as though producers in 
the European Union, like those in the United States, view these products as integral components of 
their IPM programs. Accordingly, we request that the E uropean Union afford producers in 
third countries equal access to these importan t and efficacious crop protection tools.  
6.  At our previous meeting in March of this year, the United States requested that the 
European  Union clarify the provisional nature of recent MRL decisions for a number of pesticides 
(fenamidone, propiconazole, chloro thalonil, clethodim ), since these decisions were based on 
incomplete risk assessments, and to confirm that scientific data will be collected and analyzed to 
justify these measures.  We have not received a response to this inquiry.  G/SPS/GEN/1944  
 
- 2 - 
 
  7.  We note that this is a chr onic issue in ongoing pesticide reviews.  While the European Union has 
not yet lowered MRLs for phosmet, G/TBT/N/EU/790  indicates that the substance will not be renewed 
based on what appears to be an incomplete risk assessment.  Phosmet is an important part of 
IPM programs used in the production of several crops in the United States, including blueberries, 
cranberries, cherries, almonds and walnuts; it is also an important crop protection tool used in the 
production of a number of crops in the European Union, where it is used to control  pests in fruits 
such as cherries and citrus, as well as in nuts, olives, and oilseed rape.  
8.  Although the 2021 EFSA peer review for phosmet is highly redacted, the United States 
understands that phosmet does not meet the EU health cut -off criteria, is not a n endocrine disruptor, 
and that EFSA did not finalize its risk assessment. The United States notes that a publicly available, 
EFSA-funded publication includes an analysis conducted by EFSA and member state toxicologists 
and scientists regarding appropriate  safety factors in the risk assessment for phosmet, indicating 
the possibility of safe use on potatoes. The United States requests that EFSA consider all of the 
existing, rigorous, science -based, and publicly available data to complete its risk assessment,  and 
take such information into account before making a final decision. The United States also requests 
that the European Union keep existing MRLs in place until the process is completed to facilitate 
continued safe trade.  
9.  The United States likewise unders tands that MRLs will be lowered on abamectin following the 
proposed restriction of its use to permanent greenhouses, as notified in G/TBT/N/EU/784 . 
The United  States notes that, while EFSA did not find any health hazard cut off criteria, EFSA did not 
finalize the consumer risk assess ment for abamectin due to a data gap identified with respect to 
drinking water. The United States would like the European Union to clarify what steps it is taking to 
complete its risk assessment. Further, the United States requests that the European Union confirm 
that it will maintain its current MRLs until the completion of the consumer risk assessment. When  the 
European  Union  considers MRLs for abamectin, the United States requests that the European Union  
maintain an MRL for hops that is harmonized to the  existing Codex MRL of 0.15 ppm to facilitate 
safe international trade.  
10.  Finally, the United States would again like to raise concerns around the manner in which the  
European Union enforces newly reduced MRLs. The European Union  enforces newly reduced MRLs 
at the point of production for domestic goods, and at point of importation for imported goods. 
This causes trade inefficiencies and disruptions for products destined for the EU market depending 
on when a new reduced MRL is enforced and results in both an i nconsistent application of the 
SPS measure and an unfair advantage for EU producers.  
11.  The United States asks the European Union  to apply MRLs at the time of production for imported 
products to allow products to move through the full channels of trade, which  would be the least 
trade restrictive action. If, as with other MRL changes, lowered MRLs will be enforced at the date of 
importation, this will continue to have a negative effect on trade in products with long shelf lives. 
Regardless of whether enforcemen t occurs at the date of importation, the United States requests 
that the European Union  extend the transition period for all MRL changes to the maximum term 
possible, or at least 24 months, to help minimize the negative impact on agricultural producers whi le 
protecting consumer health.  
12.  We look forward to continued engagement in this area and encourage the E uropean Union to 
continue its discussions with third countries around these important SPS measures.  
 
__________