G/SPS/GEN/1926   
25 June 2021 
(21-5161) Page: 1/3 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  Original: Spanish  
 
  
SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  – EUROPEAN UNION MAXIMUM RESIDUE LEVELS (MRLS) 
FOR BUPROFEZIN, CHLOROTHALONIL, DIFLUBENZURON, ETHOXYSULFURON, 
GLUFOSINATE, IMAZALIL, IOXYNIL, IPRODIONE,  MANCOZEB,  MOLINATE, 
PICOXYSTROBIN AND TEPRALOXYDIM  - (NO. 448) 
COMMUNICATION FROM  COLOMBIA,  ECUADOR, GUATEMALA AND PARAGUAY  
The following communication, dated 23 June 2021, is being circulated at the request of the 
delegations of Colombia , Ecuador , Guatemala  and Paraguay . 
 
_______________  
 
 
MODIFICATION OF EUROPEAN  UNION MRLS FOR PLANT PROTECTION PRODUCTS  
Colombia, Ecuador, Guatemala and Paraguay would like to ask the Europea n Union the following 
questions further to the replies received from the European  Union in document G/SPS/GEN/18 96, 
and in light of the provisions of Article 5.8 of the SPS  Agreement : 
1.  The European Union indicated, in document  G/SPS/GEN/1896 , that MRLs are set at the lowest 
level possible to achieve  the desired effect , in line with the As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) 
principle. The ALARA principle is applied primarily in the field of radiation and not to phytosanitary 
measures. Would the European Uni on provide:  
a) The basis for the translocation of this principle to non -radioactive substances;  
b) The scientific justification  for this translocation ; 
c) The provision of the SPS Agreement covering  the ALARA principle; and  
d) An explanation of the meaning of "the desired effect" that is sought when determining MRLs 
at the lowest level possible.  
2.  The European Union indicated that it accepts good agricultural practices (GAP) authorized in third  
countr ies even though they are differ ent from those established in the European Union , and that 
third countries  may submit a request to review import tolerances in cases where there is evidence 
supporting the request . According to which principles is the review of the GAP used by third  countries  
incorporated in the process to define import tolerances? What elements of the GAP of third  countries  
are taken into consideration?  
3.  Further to  reply 2(a), provided  in document  G/SPS/GEN/1896 , the European Union indicates  the 
situations that, in its opinion, are covered by t he precautionary principle referred to in Article  5.7 of 
the SPS  Agreement. Could the European Union provide further details on the difference between its 
explanation on the measures  covered by Article 5.7 and on the action that it is actually undertaking 
with regard to MRLs?  
4.  Further to reply 2(b) provided in document  G/SPS/GEN/1896 : 
a) Could the European Union indicate what is meant by "scientific uncertainty"? Is there 
scientific uncertainty when scientific evidence  is insufficient ? 
b) Could the European Union indicate what is considered  a "reasonable period of time ", taking 
into account the difference between the different approvals and their duration?  G/SPS/GEN/1926  
 
- 2 - 
 
  c) Does the existence of scientific uncertainty and the review of measures within a reasonable 
period of time imply the application of Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement? What is the opinion  
of the European Union in this regard?   
5.  We welcome  the explanation provided by the European Union for its  submission of  reservations 
concerning the MRLs adopted by Codex Alimentarius ( CXLs). However, the question posed to the 
European Union sought clarification as to whether the submission of reservations exempts it, in its 
opinion, from the harmonization commitments undertaken under Article 3 of the SPS  Agreement. 
We reiterate this question . 
6.  We thank the European Union for the submission of statistics with regard to its leve l of 
harmonization with the Codex since 2012. Howeve r, the information requested was specifically for 
the period from 2017 onwards.  We would be pleased if the European Union could provide information 
for the period of time requested.  
7.  Furthermore, we appreciate the fact that the level of harmonization of the  European Union's MRLs 
with the CXLs is 70%. We observe, however, that the issue of concern is precisely the remaining 
30% of cases, in which the European Union  deviates from the CXLs.  In these cases, is there a 
conclusive risk assessment to support each o f the MRLs that are not harmonized with the Codex?  
8.  We welcome the confirmation that compliance with MRLs must be ensured in order for member 
States of the European Union to trade with one another. In light of this:  
a) Must the MRLs  established by the European Union be met by the member State granting an 
emergency authorization for a specific substance, with regard to imports from other member 
States of the European Union or third  countr ies? 
b) On what criteria is the European Union's a nalysis based to determine the absence of 
unacceptable risks for the consumer?  
c) How many  countries in the European Union are marketing within their territories  products 
that do not comply with the MRLs established by the European Union?  
d) Have the member Stat es of the European Union submitted scientific justification to apply 
MRLs that are higher than those stipulated in European Union  standards , which 
demonstrates that the MRLS do not pose a risk to consumers?  
e) Could the European Union share the evidence subm itted by members of the European Union 
to justify the application of MRLs that are higher than those stipulated in European Union  
standards ?  
f) How does the European Union conduct controls to ensure that products with higher MRLs 
produced in member States wi th emergency authorizations are not marketed in other 
member States?  
g) In view of the absence of border controls and inspections within the European Union, could 
the European Union indicate the mechanism used to ensure compliance with the MRLs in 
intra-Commu nity trade ? 
9.  As regards trade with third countries:  
a) What mechanisms exist for the control of the MRLs  of substances authorized only for 
emergencies in the case of exports outside the European Union?  
b) Are there products for export with MRLs that are higher than those authorized for the 
European Union or specific cases in which they have been exported outsi de the 
European  Union? Are these products regulated by other standards? Do the MRLs for these 
products exceed those established by international standards such as Codex?  
c) When a member States grants an emergency authorization for a substance, does the 
Europ ean Union allow the importation of products complying with the same MRLs for that 
substance which are imposed for domestic products?  
10.  Could the European Union explain why there are emergency authorizations for States that are 
not members of the European Union in its database? Could the European Union also explain how 
this mirror mechanism works in the case of emergency requests from producers in non -EU countries ? 
Do the same conditions as those for European producers requesting emergency authoriz ations apply 
to producers in non -EU countries?  G/SPS/GEN/1926  
 
- 3 - 
 
  11.  How does the European Union reconcile the high level of protection for its consumers with the 
high number of emergency authorizations issued by its member States?  Once the time -limit for an 
emergency authoriza tion has expired, is there another time -frame in which a new emergency 
authorization for the same substance may be requested?  
12.  In light of reply 4(a) in document G/SPS/GEN/1896 , would the European Union confirm that 
Article  5.3 of the SPS Agreement applies to MRLs?  
13.   The European Union  indicated, in reply 4(d) provided  in document G/SPS/GEN/1896 , that there 
are no objectives for third countries in the Farm to the Fork strategy. However, this strategy includes 
an external dimension  as part of the fourth section entitled "Promoting the global transition".  The 
sectio n indicates that the European Union will achieve this objective "through its external policies, 
including international cooperation and trade policy". European authorities have also indicated that 
their trade partners must comply with the same standards to  level the playing field with European 
competitors. In this context, could the European Union confirm that it will not require its trade 
partners to meet the same reduction targets as those required of its producers?   
14.  Would the European Union explain why the assessment of the impact of the Farm to Fork 
strategy will be conducted after the implementation of the strategy?  
15.  In reply 5(b) provided in document G/SPS/GEN/1896 , the European Union recognized that 
"other legitimate factors" fell outside of the scope of the SPS Agreement, even though they apply to 
food products. Could the European Union indicate the provision of the multilateral trade rules under 
which these "other legitimate factors" would fall?  
16.  If the possible  consideration of "other legiti mate factors" could result in MRLs  that are lower 
than those determined on strictly sanitary and phytosanitary grounds , how would these MRLs be 
compatible with those stipulated in the SPS Agreement?   
17.  If the majority of emergency authorizations are granted for substances the use of which is 
permitted in the European Union, as stated in document  G/SPS/GEN/1894 , what is the reason behind 
the need for these emergency authorizations and their frequent use?  
18.  Could the European Union indicate which MRLs, among those revised since 2017, have b een 
lowered to the limit of detection (LOD) ? Could the European Union clarify whether the LOD is a 
variable or fixed number? Would the European Union indicate which criterion was used to establish 
the LOD at 0.01 mg/kg in its two regulations?  
19.  We reiterate our question on the costs at the European level that would result from the 
withdrawal  of plant protection products that have not been renewed to date.  
20.  Further  to reply 9(b) provided in document G/SPS/GEN/1896 , could the Euro pean Union indicate 
which criteria  are used to identify sources of data and information?  
21.  Further  to reply 9(e) provided in document  G/SPS/GEN/1896:  
a) Could the European Union establish an MRL of 0.01 mg/kg in view of "global concerns ", 
despite the existence of a higher CXL?   
b) Could th e European Union provide an exhaustive list of what constitutes its "global 
concerns"?  
c) Could the European Union share the source of its definition of "global concern", and a 
definition of the term "transboundary"?  
__________