G/SPS/W/350  
 
23 January 2024  
(24-0489) Page: 1/3 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  Original: English  
 
  
SIXTH REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT  
ON THE APPLICATION OF SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES  
SUBMISSION  FROM  THE UNITED STATES  
The following submission , dated 22 January 2024, is being circulated at the request of the delegation 
of the United States . 
 
_______________  
 
 
The period encompassing the Sixth Review, 2020 -2023, was marked by the COVID -19 pandemic. 
Beyond the incalculable effects on humans aroun d the globe, international response to the pandemic 
greatly affected the development and implementation of SPS measures and the functioning of the 
WTO SPS Committee. Differently than other Reviews, we view the Sixth Review as an opportunity 
to identify and  explore Members ' experiences and lessons learned during the pandemic. We expect 
that this exercise will inform and direct the work of the Committee by highlighting approaches that 
can strengthen the functioning and resiliency of Members ' SPS systems.  
1  TECH NOLOGY AND INNOVATION  
1.1.  WTO Members have their own experiences to share regarding their responses to the COVID -19 
pandemic. However, regardless of how Members ' responses may have varied, it is almost certain 
that technology played an important role in their ability to maintain the function of SPS systems and 
engage in international trade of agricultural products. Some of the most profound changes affected 
the wa ys in which we hold conversations and meet with one another, as virtual meeting platforms 
offered a means by which Members could stay connected when travel was not possible. Despite the 
lifting of restrictions on travel, the world is fundamentally differen t now than it was prior to the 
pandemic and many interactions that were previously conducted in person are now held using virtual 
tools. Beyond formal meetings, some Members took the initiative to use virtual tools to support 
various types of SPS -related r egulatory activities, including bilateral negotiations and various types 
of audits, and lessons can be learned from these early adopters, including lessons on where 
in-person meetings are preferable to virtual exchanges, and vice versa.  
1.2.  Beyond the use of v irtual tools to facilitate communication, the COVID -19 pandemic forced 
Members ' SPS regulators to adopt or expand the use of electronic tools in order to maintain 
the continued safe trade in food and agricultural products. For example, prior to the pandemi c, 
the e-Phyto project was gaining global support; throughout the pandemic, many competent 
authorities used and accepted digitized certificates, including electronic certification, which enabled 
the continued flow of international trade. The STDF has made significant past and recent investments 
in these projects, and a substantial number of Members have embraced the use of these tools, 
including many developing country and least -developed country Members. Thus, the Sixth Review 
is an ideal opportunity to en gage in discussions to further our shared understanding of the 
opportunities and challenges posed by greater use and adoption of electronic certificates, including 
sanitary certificates and other digitalized documents.  
1.3.  In addition to new uses for technolog y, the COVID -19 pandemic also served to highlight the 
importance of ensuring that producers are able to meet consumers ' needs and their production 
goals. Over the review period, Members have discussed and raised concerns in the Committee 
regarding the scie ntific and risk basis for approval processes and certain regulatory approaches to 
new tools and technologies, including pesticides, veterinary medicines, and biotechnology products. G/SPS/W/350  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Discussions held through the MC12 SPS Declaration Work Program me reiterate d the critical role of 
these tools now and in the future. Members emphasized the indispensable role production 
technologies will play in helping Members improve the sustainability of their agricultural production 
systems and address their food security goa ls, which will undoubtedly expand as new tools are 
developed and adopted. Through the Sixth Review, Members should continue discussions that took 
place under the Work Program me and further advance constructive engagement around appropriate 
SPS regulatory p ractices that encourage innovation in the production and facilitate trade of safe food 
and agricultural products.  
2  FACILITY REGISTRATION  
2.1.  Over the period covered by the Sixth Review, the Committee has seen some Members increase 
their use of facility registration requirements, ostensibly with the goals of improving human and 
animal health outcomes by strengthening food safety and traceability controls. Although these goals 
may be conceived rationally, the unnecessary cost of overly burdensome and compl icated regulatory 
systems was made even clearer through the challenging experiences and disruptions Members 
endured during the COVID -19 pandemic. Members have the right to protect human, animal, and 
plant life or health within their territories; however, i t is critical that all SPS measures, including 
determining the necessity of facility registration procedures as a prerequisite to trade, be based on 
and justified by an assessment of risk.  
2.2.  In addition, it is critical to clarify the appropriate role for com petent authorities of exporting 
Members such that importing Members consider facility self -registration and do not develop 
unnecessarily burdensome requirements that do not significantly contribute to the primary objective 
of SPS measures. For example, fac ility registration requirements that demand additional competent 
authority intervention (other than providing lists of certified establishments) may be unnecessary 
and unwarranted. Also, the information required of regulated exporting establishments should  be 
limited to that which is relevant to food safety, not other factors. The Sixth Review provides a timely 
opportunity to explore best practices related to facility registrations such that Members can work 
together to enhance the Committee 's common unders tanding of their purpose, while strengthening 
and improving the resiliency of international trade without imposing undue burdens on 
trading  partners.  
3  MISINFORMATION/DISINFORMATION  
3.1.  The spread of false and harmful information is not new. Today, information s preads easily with 
increased digitization, which enables more rapid and efficient messaging or information -sharing but 
also leads to the increased spread of inaccurate or harmful information. This was especially prevalent 
during the pandemic, and global ag riculture is not spared from its effects. Presentations made during 
the November 2023 "SPS Committee Thematic Session on Risk Communication, Misinformation and 
Disinformation " highlighted that all WTO Members are affected by misinformation and disinformati on 
in some way. It is important for the Committee to further analyse  the implications of misinformation 
and disinformation on consumer perception about the safety of food and about SPS issues generally, 
including how to strengthen efforts to identify and c ombat misinformation and disinformation when 
developing SPS measures and negotiating with trading partners. The Sixth Review is the opportunity 
for the Committee to do so.  
3.2.  The United States offers the following suggestions to guide future Committee work an d 
strategies to address misinformation and disinformation. Transparent regulatory systems can help 
dispel misinformation by providing accurate and accessible information to trading partners and 
consumers. Likewise, consumers often do not know how food and agricultural products are produced, 
so they overestimate their knowledge or fill their knowledge gaps with readily available information 
without seeking its truthfulness. In turn, consumers, lawmakers, and other stakeholders are not 
always aware of the pot ential misinformation points and do not rely on reputable sources and 
scientific studies to form their opinions or measures. Accordingly, the Committee should consider 
further SPS work encouraging Members to enhance transparency in their agricultural pract ices, 
policies, and regulations with the goal of addressing misinformation and disinformation.  
3.3.  Additionally, the Committee can continue to facilitate international cooperation and encourage 
cooperation among Members to share best practices in combating mis information. 
Collaborative  efforts include sharing experiences, policies, and regulatory frameworks that have G/SPS/W/350  
 
- 3 - 
 
  been effective in addressing misinformation in different agricultural contexts. Finally, the Committee 
can support capacity -building initiatives, especially in developing and least developed countries, 
by promoting initiatives aimed at enhancing digital literacy, critical analysis, and media literacy skills. 
Well-educated farmers, producers, and consumers are better equipped to discern accurate 
information from misinformation, which may help reduce the impact of false claims in the agricultural 
sector.  
__________