G/SPS/GEN/1886  
5 March  2021 
(21-1837) Page: 1/3 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  Original:  Spanish  
 
  
SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  – EUROPEAN  UNION MAXIMUM RESIDUE LEVELS (MRLS ) FOR 
BUPROFEZIN, CHLOROT HALONIL, DIFLUBENZUR ON, ET HOXYSULFUR ON, GLUFOSINAT E, 
IMAZALIL, IOX YNIL, IPRODION E, MOLINAT E, PICOX YSTROBIN  
AND TEPRALOX YDIM – CONCERNS OF …. (Nº 448) 
COMMUNICA TION FROM  COLOMBIA, ECUADOR, GUATEMALA AND PARAGUAY  
The following communication , dated 3 March  2021, is being circulated at the request of the  
delega tions of Colombia , Ecuador , Guatemala  and Paraguay . 
 
_______________  
 
 
MODIFICA TION OF EUROPEAN  UNION  MRLS  FOR PLANT PROTECTION PRODUCTS 
(G/SPS/N/EU/XXX, …..)  
Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala and Paraguay would like to ask the European  Union  the following 
questions  further to the replies received from the European  Union  in document G/SPS/GEN/1872 , 
and in light of the provisions of Article 5.8 of the SPS  Agreement : 
1.  Further to the European  Union 's assertion in point 1  of document G/SPS/GEN/1872 : 
(a) Could the European  Union  define  the "lowest achievable level " in the setting of MRLs ? 
(b) Could the European  Union  indica te whether "good agricultural practice(s) " can vary from 
country to country ? 
(c) Does the European  Union  accept  "good agricultural practices au thorized in third countries ", 
even though they are different from those established  in the European  Union ? 
2.  In light of the European  Union 's statements  in point 2 of document G/SPS/GEN/1872 : 
(a) Does the European  Union  consider  that, in cases where scientific  evidence does not exist or 
is insufficient  and the European Food Safety Authority ( EFSA) is unable to conclude that an 
MRL is safe, Article 5.7 of the SPS  Agreement is being  applied ? 
(b) Article 5.7 of the SPS  Agreement indicates that in cases where relevant scientific evidence 
is insufficient, a Member may provisionally adopt sanitary or phytosanitary measures on the 
basis of available pertinent information. Could  the European  Union  indicate why it adopt s 
definitive  measures when EFSA studies do not deliver conclusive  results?  
(c) Does the European  Union  consider  that the submission  of reservations regarding MRLs 
adopted by the Codex Alimentarius (CXL s) releases it from its obligations under Article  3 of 
the SPS  Agreement ? 
(d) The European  Union  has indicated that many CXLs are outdated  and should therefore be 
reviewed again by EFSA. In this regard, could the European  Union  indicate how many CXLs 
have been revi ewed since November 2017?  
(e) We refer once again to the consultations on the degree of al ignment between CXLs and 
European  Union  MRLs from November 2017 to date.  
3.  With regard to emergenc y authorizations granted by the European  Union  to its Member  States 
for plant protection products which are not already authorized  in the European  Union and who se 
MRLs have therefore been reduced to 0.01 mg/kg:  G/SPS/GEN/1886  
- 2 - 
  (a) Could the European  Union  indicate how many emergency authorizations have been granted 
since 2017, indicating the full list of products and Member States  where they have been 
granted?  
(b) Could the European  Union indicate whether, when emergency  authorizations are issued to 
Member States, agricultural products that use these substances can be market ed within the 
European  Union  and also exported to third countries?  
(c) What criteria are taken into account to issue an emergency  authorization for the use of 
prohibited substances? How many consecutive times can an emergency  authorization be 
renewed for the use of substances above the MRLs in force established  by European  
legislation?  
(d) Do emergency  authorizations have any impact on import tolerances with regard to like or 
similar plant protection products ? 
(e) How does the European  Union  reconcile the emergency  authorizations  granted to its 
Member  States  with its obligations on na tional treatment under Article  III of the GATT and 
Articles  2.3 and 5.5 of the SPS  Agreement?  
4.  With regard to the European  Union 's reply in point 4 of document G/SPS/GEN/1872 : 
(a) Could the European  Union  confirm  that MRLs apply  both to food and to feed?  
(b) Do MRLs  applied to feed have the purpose of protecting the life and health of animals?  
(c) If so, does the European  Union  consider that MRLs applied to feed come within the scope of 
Article 5.3 of the SPS  Agreement?  
(d) Has t he European  Union  conducted  a regulatory imp act analysis of the effects that would 
result from reducing the use of pesticides  to 50% in the production of certain  foods regarding 
which  no alternative pest control substances are registered?  
5.  In point 5 of document G/SPS/GEN/1872 , the European  Union has indicated that it cannot 
provide an exhaustive  list of "other  legitimate factors " that could be taken into account when setting 
MRLs and cannot provide  specific  examples of the practice. However, it has observed that "societal, 
economic, traditional, ethical and environmental  factors " should be taken into account in risk  
management decisions.  
(a) Given that most of these factors are not strictly scientific  in nature  – but rather sociological 
or anthropological – and that SPS meas ures must be based on scientific  principles , how 
would the consideration of these other factors be compatible  with the European  Union 's 
obligations  under Article 2.2 of the SPS  Agreement?  
(b) Could the European  Union  indicate how these other factors  are covere d by the 
SPS Agreement?  
(c) Could weighting these other factors determine the setting of lower MRLs than those derived 
from strictly scientific or sanitary factors ? 
6.  We reiterate our request for specific examples that illustrate how comments by third countries 
have been ta ken into account by the European  Union  before taking a final decision.  
7.  The request for a single list containing all already revi ewed substances and the status of those 
being revised was presented  to the European  Union  in its TPR  of February  2020 and reiterated  in 
the subsequent  SPS Committee meetings , but to date no copy of that list has been made available . 
The European  Union  has indicated , in point 7 of  document G/SPS/GEN/1872 , that the feasibility of 
the request is being  considered . While the European  Union is analysing  this feasibility : 
(a) Could the European  Union  confirm  whether the informal list contained in document 
RD/SPS/131 and the information contained in that list are correct?  
8.  With regard to the process of setting MRLs  for specific substances : 
(a) Could the European  Union  indica te whether account  is taken in that process of the existence 
of alternative substances ? 
(b) Does the European  Union  consider the possibility that, after the process of revi ewing  all 
substances and settin g MRLs at the analytical detection limit, there will be no alternative 
plant protection products for specific crop s?  
(c) Has the European  Union  carried out an estimate of the total cost at European level that 
would result from the withdrawal of various plant protection products that are currently  
available for farmers?  G/SPS/GEN/1886  
- 3 - 
  9.  In point 9 of document G/SPS/GEN/1872 , the European  Union indicates that the burden of 
supplying scientific  evidence  is shifted onto  applicants because they have a direct or indirect 
commercial interest in placing their product on the market. Moreover , in point 2 of document 
G/SPS/GEN/1872 , the European  Union indica tes that, to establish an MRL, an EFSA risk assessment 
must show that the MRL is safe for consumers . 
(a) Does the European  Union consider that under the SPS  Agreement it is for the Member that 
imposes a sanitary measure to undertake the risk assessm ent on which this measure is 
based?  
(b) In the European  Union 's view, does the SPS  Agreement provide for the burden of supplying  
scientific evidence  to fall on an applicant third country? Could the European  Union indicate 
where the legal basis for this is to b e found in the text of the SPS  Agreement?  
(c) What specific scientific evidence should applicants  provide wh o have an interest in exporting 
to the European market?  
(d) In cases where the European  Union adopts MRLs lower than those established by the 
Codex  Alimenta rius and, in light of the provisions of Article  3.3 of the SPS  Agreement, does 
the European  Union consider that the burden of providing  scientific  evidence  for stricter MRLs  
than those provided for in international standards also falls on  applicants?  
10.  At the seminar  organized by the European  Union on the weighting  of environmental factors in 
setting MRLs, held online in Brussels on 20  January  2021, the European Union asserted  that 
imported food that does not meet the relevant environmental standards of the European  Union will 
not be allowed into the European market in order to avoid the transfer of non -sustainable practices. 
Moreover, the European  Union indicated that environm ental factors that will be taken into account 
are those that are of global concern and, as specific examples, the decline in the population of 
pollinators and the accumulation in the environment of persistent, bioaccumulative and/or toxic 
substances (PBTs and vPvBs) were mentioned.   
(a) Could the European  Union  provide a definition of "sustainable  practices " and the criteria 
taken into account to define them?  
(b) Could the European  Union  provide a definition of "global concern " and the criteria taken into 
account to define it? 
(c) The Stockholm Convention  of 2001 only refers to P OPs (persistent organic pollutants). Could 
the European  Union provide an exhaustive list of the substances that it considers to be PBTs 
and vPvBs?  
(d) Has the c lassification of substances as PBTs and vPvBs been undertaken  by the 
European  Union itself or is it based on some international standard ? 
(e) Can a pesticid e be of "global concern ", according to the European  Union , in cases where a 
CXL exists for that pesticid e? 
11.  At the same seminar referred to above , the European  Union indic ated that it consider s the fact 
that current risk assessment tools do not correctly reflect the complex behaviour  of these substanc es 
to be problematic . In these cases , would Article  5.7 of the SPS  Agreement apply ? 
 
__________