RESTRICTED  
  
G/SPS/R/102  
 
17 September 2021  
(21-6923) Page: 1/54 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF 14-16 JULY  2021 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ................................ ................................ ........................  5 
2   ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ ................  5 
3   INFORMATION SHARING  ................................ ................................ .............................  5 
3.1   Information from Members on relevant activities  ................................ .............................  5 
3.1.1    Japan - Update on the situation surrounding Japanese food after the TEPCO Fukushima 
Daiichi nuclear power station accident (G/SPS/GEN/1233/Rev.3 ) ................................ ..............  5 
3.1.2    United  States - Self-paced virtual SPS courses (G/SPS/GEN/1914)  ................................ . 6 
3.1.3    European  Union - European Commission study on the status of new genomic techniques  
in the European  Union (G/SPS/GEN/1931)  ................................ ................................ .............  6 
3.1.4    European  Union - Global transition towards sustainable food systems (G/SPS/GEN/1934) .. 7 
3.2   Information from Codex, IPPC and OIE on relevant activities  ................................ ............  9 
3.2.1    Codex (G/SPS/GEN/1920)  ................................ ................................ .........................  9 
3.2.2    IPPC (G/SPS/GEN/1921)  ................................ ................................ ............................  9 
3.2.3    OIE (G/SPS/GEN/1923)  ................................ ................................ .............................  9 
4   SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  ................................ ................................ .....................  10 
4.1   New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  10 
4.1.1    EU regulation on alpha -cypermethrin - Concerns of Paraguay  ................................ ........ 10 
4.1.2    EU classification of 'anthraquinone' as a pesticide and the MRL for imported tea -  
Concerns of India  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 11 
4.1.3    EU regulatory approach to maximum levels for contaminants - Concerns of Canada  ......... 11 
4.1.4    European Commission Regu lation on plastic materials and articles intended to come  
into contact with food - Concerns of China  ................................ ................................ ............ 12 
4.1.5    Chinese Taipei's imp ort restrictions on poultry - Concerns of Brazil  ................................ 12 
4.1.6    South Africa's import restrictions on bovine meat, pet food and other by -products of  
animal origin - Concerns of Brazil  ................................ ................................ ......................... 13 
4.1.7    Nigeria's import restrictions on meat, pork, poultry, milk and dairy products, genetic 
material and live cattle - Concerns of Brazil  ................................ ................................ ........... 13 
4.1.8    Transparency, delays and due process associated with China's import requirements for 
agricultural goods - Concerns of Australia  ................................ ................................ ............. 14 
4.1.9    The Russian Federation's classification of tea as "fruits and vegetables" -  
Concerns of India  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 14 
 
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/102  
 
- 2 - 
 
  4.2   Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ .............................  14 
4.2.1    EU MRLs for buprofezin, chlorothalonil, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, glufosinate,  
imazalil, ioxynil, iprodione, mancozeb, molinate, picoxystrobin and tepraloxydim (ID  448) - 
Concerns of Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Paraguay and the United  States ............................. 14 
4.2.2    EU legislation on endocrine disruptors (ID  382) - Concerns of Paraguay  ......................... 17 
4.2.3    EU restrictions on exports of chocolate and cocoa products due to the application of the 
Commission Regulation (EU) N° 488/2014 of 12  May 2014 amending Regulation (EC) N° 
1881/2006 as regards maximum levels of cadmium in foodstuff (ID  503)- Concerns of Peru  .......18 
4.2.4    EU review of legislation on vete rinary medicinal products (ID  446) - Concerns of the 
United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 19 
4.2.5    India's new requirements for animal feed in the Food S afety and Standards Act, 2006 
(dated 27  January  2020) (ID  479) - Concerns of the United  States  ................................ .......... 20 
4.2.6    Korea's mandatory HACCP certification for imported kimchi (ID  513) -  
Concerns of China  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 21 
4.2.7    China's actions related to COVID -19 that affect trade in food and agricultural products 
(ID 487) - Concerns of Australia, Canada, India and the United  States  ................................ .....21 
4.2.8    China's administrative measures for registration of overseas manufacturers of imported 
food (26  November  2019) (ID  485) - Concerns of Australia, Canad a, the European  Union and  
the United  States  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 23 
4.2.9    China's delay in approving requests for new listing and reinstatement of exp ort 
establishments (ID  516) - Concerns of Australia and Canada  ................................ ................... 24 
4.2.10    Panama's authorization of Federal Inspection Type establishments (ID  515) -  
Concerns of Mexico  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 25 
4.2.11    Saudi Arabia's temporary suspension of Brazilian poultry exporting establishments 
(ID 486) - Concerns of Brazil  ................................ ................................ ............................... 26 
4.2.12    General import restrict ions due to BSE (ID  193) - Concerns of the European  Union  ........ 26 
4.2.13    China's restrictions on bovine meat imports (ID  510) - Concerns of India  ..................... 26 
4.2.14    China's import restrictions due to African swine fever (ID  392) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 27 
4.2.15    Korea's import restrictions due to African swine fever (ID  393) - Concerns of  
the European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 27 
4.2.16    Mexico's import restrictions on pork (ID  489) - Concerns of Brazil  ................................ 27 
4.2.17    China's import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza (ID  406) -  
Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ .......................... 28 
4.2.18    Korea's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian influenza  
(ID 456) - Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ........... 28 
4.2.19    South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian influenza 
(ID 431) - Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ........... 28 
4.2.20    Non-publication of US final rule on importation of sheep, goats and certain other  
ruminants (ID  493) - Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ............................ 29 
4.2.21    The Philippines' trade restrictions on imports of meat (ID  466) - Concerns of the 
European  Union and the Russian Federation  ................................ ................................ .......... 29 
4.2.22    India's approval procedures for animal products (ID  484) - Concerns of the Russian 
Federation ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 30 
4.2.23    Delays in Malaysia's approval procedures for meat and dairy imports (ID  491) -  
Concerns of the Russian Federation  ................................ ................................ ...................... 30 
4.2.24    Panama's undue delays in the renewal of authorizations for plants of Peruvian fishery  
and livestock enterprises (ID  509) - Concerns of Peru  ................................ ............................ 30 G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 3 - 
 
  4.2.25    Mexico's resumption of frozen shrimp imports (ID  507) - Concerns of China  .................. 31 
4.2.26    China's proposed new health certificate format for shrimp imports (ID  506) -  
Concerns of India  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 31 
4.2.27    The Russian Federation's import restrictions on processed fishery products from  
Estonia and Latvia (ID  390) - Concerns of the European  Union  ................................ ................ 31 
4.2.28    Russian Federation - Procedures for authorizing units eligible for export of fish and fish 
products to Eurasian Customs Union (ID  508) - Concerns of India  ................................ ............ 32 
4.2.29    Guatemala's restrictions on egg products (ID  413) - Concerns of Mexico  ....................... 32 
4.2.30    Indonesia's approval procedures for animal and plant products (ID  441) - Concerns  
of the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 32 
4.2.31    US import restrictions on apples and pears (ID  439) - Concerns of  
the European  Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 33 
4.2.32    Thailand's phytosanitary restrictions on imports of fresh citrus fruits due to sweet  
orange scab (ID  470) - Concerns of Japan  ................................ ................................ ............ 33 
4.2.33    Ecuador's import restrictions on grapes and onions (ID  498) - Concerns of Peru  ............ 33 
4.2.34    Panama's restrictions regarding the procedure to regain access for Peruvian potatoes  
and onions (ID  512) - Concerns of Peru  ................................ ................................ ................ 34 
4.2.35    India's import requirements for pulses (ID  497) - Concerns of Canada  ......................... 34 
4.2.36    US non -recognition of the pest free status in the European  Union for Asian longhorn  
beetle and citrus longhorn beetle (ID  471) - Concerns of the European  Union  ............................ 35 
4.2.37    Proposed new EU rules on composite products (ID  504) - Concerns of Australia and  
the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  ................................ ....35 
4.2.38    India's requirement for certificate for non -GM origin and GM -free status (ID  501) - 
Concerns of China and the United  States  ................................ ................................ .............. 36 
4.3   Information on resolution of issues (G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21 and 
G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21/Corr.1)  ................................ ................................ .........................  38 
5   OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS  AGREEMENT  ................................ .. 38 
5.1   Equivalence  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  38 
5.2   Pest- and disease -free areas (regionalization)  ................................ ...............................  38 
5.2.1    Annual report in accordance with the Guidelines to Further the Practical Implementation  
of Article  6 in G/SPS/48 (G/SPS/G EN/1908)  ................................ ................................ .......... 38 
5.2.2    Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ....................... 38 
5.2.2.1    Canada - Official OIE recognition of Canada as negligible risk for BSE  .......................... 38 
5.2.2.2    Brazil - OIE recognition of six Brazilian States as free from foot -and-mouth disease 
without vaccination (G/SPS/GEN/1932)  ................................ ................................ ................ 38 
5.2.2.3    Colombia – OIE recognition of foot -and-mouth disease and classical swine fever  
status in Colombia (G/SPS/GEN/1929 and G/SPS/GEN/1930/Rev.1)  ................................ ......... 39 
5.3   Operation of transparency provisions  ................................ ................................ ...........  39 
5.4   Control, inspection and approval procedures  ................................ ................................ . 40 
5.4.1    Working Group on Approval Procedures (G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1)  ................................ ......40 
5.4.1.1    Report of the Working Group  ................................ ................................ .................. 40 
5.5   Special and differential treatment  ................................ ................................ ................  40 
5.6   Monitoring the u se of international standards  ................................ ................................  40 G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 4 - 
 
  5.6.1    New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 40 
5.6.2    Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ........................... 40 
5.6.2.1    European  Union - ASF restrictions not consistent with the OIE international standard  ....40 
5.6.2.2    European  Union - HPAI restrictions not consistent with the OIE international standard  ...40 
5.6.3    New Zealand – Procedure to monitor the process of international harmonization 
(G/SPS/GEN/1851, G/SPS/GEN/1877 and G/SPS/GEN/1915)  ................................ .................. 41 
5.6.4    Annual report in accordance with the Procedure to monitor the process of international 
harmonization in G/SPS/11/Rev.1 (G/SPS/GEN/1909)  ................................ ............................ 41 
5.7   Follow -up to the Fifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS  Agreement 
(G/SPS/64 and G/SPS/64/Add.1)  ................................ ................................ ........................  41 
5.7.1    Report on the Workshop on Risk Assessment, Risk Management and Risk  
Communication  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 41 
5.7.2    Report on the informal meeting  ................................ ................................ ................. 41 
6   CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  ................................ ................................ ...........................  41 
6.1   COVID -19 and SPS issues  ................................ ................................ ...........................  41 
6.2   Canada and the United  States - SPS Declaration for the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference 
(G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.7)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 42 
7   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION  ................................ ...........................  43 
7.1   Information from the Secretariat  ................................ ................................ .................  43 
7.1.1    WTO SPS activities  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...43 
7.1.2    STDF (G/SPS/GEN/1925)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 43 
7.2   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ .........................  44 
8   CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS  ................................ ...... 44 
9   OBSERVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  44 
9.1   Information from observer organizations  ................................ ................................ ...... 44 
9.1.1    GSO (G/SPS/GEN/1912)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 44 
9.1.2   ITC (G/SPS/GEN/1913)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 44 
9.1.3    SADC (G/SPS/GEN/1916)  ................................ ................................ ......................... 44 
9.1.4    ECOWAS (G/SPS/GEN/1917)  ................................ ................................ ..................... 44 
9.1.5    IGAD (G/SPS/GEN/1919)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 44 
9.1.6    OIRSA (G/SPS/GEN/1922)  ................................ ................................ ........................ 44 
9.1.7    CAHFSA (G/SPS/GEN/1924)  ................................ ................................ ...................... 44 
9.1.8    IICA (G/SPS/GEN/1928)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 44 
9.2   Requests for observer status  ................................ ................................ .......................  45 
10   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 45 
11   DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING  ................................ ................................ .... 45 
ANNEX A  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  46 
ANNEX B  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  52 
  G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1.1.  The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee ") held its 80th regular 
meeting on 14-16 July 2021. The proposed agenda for the meeting (JOB/SPS/15 ) was a dopted with 
amendments.  In light of the COVID -19 pandemic, in -person attendance at the meeting was 
restricted and delegates were invited to participate via a virtual platform.  
1.2.  Members were able to submit agenda items, support specific trade concerns (STCs), and upload 
statements through eAgenda. Members could support items through eAgenda until they were 
discussed in the meeting, and upload statements for STCs and other agenda i tems that had been 
raised by other Members before the distribution of the annotated draft agenda until Friday, 16 July. 
Only oral interventions by Members that took the floor during the meeting were reflected in the 
present report. Some Members also circul ated their interventions as GEN documents.  
2  ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  
2.1.  The Chairperson reminded the Committee that, according to the Rules of Procedure, the term 
of office of the Chairperson of the SPS Committee finishe d with the conclusion of the first me eting 
of each year. The Chairperson of the Council for Trade in Goods  (CTG)  had not yet concluded 
consultations2 on chairpersons for the subsidiary bodies of the CTG. The Committee was invited to 
postpone the election of the Chairperson of the Committee until the next Committee meeting in 
November 2021 .3 
3  INFORMATION SHARING  
3.1  Information from Members on relevant activities  
3.1.1   Japan - Update on the situation surrounding Japanese food after the TEPCO 
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station accident  (G/SPS/GEN/1233/Rev.3 ) 
3.1.  Japan  thanked Singapore for lifting its import measures on Japanese food  and called upon 
Members to remove the remaining measures, gi ven the lack of report s of non-compliance of 
radionuclide contamination from destination countries. In April 2021, the Joint FAO/IAEA Centre of 
Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture had assessed the appropriateness of measures to 
monitor and respond t o issues regarding radionuclide contamination of food. Japan informed that 
preparatory work for discharging the Advanced Liquid Processing System  (ALPS) treated water into 
the sea had started, although the actual discharge would only start approximately two years later, 
subject to the approval of National Regulation Authority, and in accordance with international 
regulatory standards. Japan would remain t ransparent and publish results of the IAEA's revision of 
the safety of ALPS treated water discharge and marine monitoring. Further information was provided 
in document G/SPS/GEN/1233/Rev.3 . 
3.2.  Korea  reiterated its concerns over the disposition of contaminated water from the Fukushima 
power plant and urged Japan to adopt  a more transparent decision -making process. The Japanese 
decision to release into the sea contaminated water stored at the plant site had led to concerns over 
the safety of fishery and food products. Korea opposed Japan's decision, which  would damage sea 
water and sediment and affect the marine biota, becoming a grave issue for all countries bordering 
the Pacific Ocean . Korea urged Japan to halt its steps toward the  implement ation of this decision.  
3.3.  China  stated  that measures announced by Japan could lead to food safety problems due to 
environmental pollution. China regretted that Japan had not published data on the actual situation 
of direct discharge of nuclear contaminated water into the sea or predicted data on the pollution of 
the Pacific . Japan had also not provided a long-term risk analysis report on the discharge of nuclear 
contaminated water into the sea. Invoking the principle of transparency, China invited Japan to 
 
2 In accordance with the established Guidelines for Appointment of Officers to WTO bodies (contained in 
document WT/L/31) . 
3 On 28 July 2021, the General Co uncil adopted the slate of names of chairpersons for the subsidiary 
bodies of the CTG for the period 2021 -2022. Pursuant to the approved slate of names, Mr Juteau Deadjufo 
Tousse (Cameroon) was nominated to chair the SPS Committee. Absent any objection rec eived in writing by 
the Secretariat by 29 July 2021, the SPS Committee elected Mr Juteau Deadjufo Tousse as its new chairperson 
as of that date.  G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 6 - 
 
  provide data on nuclear contaminated w ater discharge, on nuclear radioactive elements in the 
Fukushima area and on variations of nuclear radioactive elements in marine organisms in the 
Fukushima area over the years, as well as environmental and biological safety reports of the 
discharge of nuc lear contaminated water. Given the potential effect of discharges on global trade 
security of fish, seafood and related products, China suggested that international organizations and 
Members be invited to conduct jointly technical research and consultation s on this issue . 
3.4.  In response, Japan  clarified that data on the discharge of the ALPS treated water into the sea  
had been published and emphasized its continued transparent approach. Japan insisted that the  
discharge of treated water would only  be implemented when TEPCO complie s with regulatory 
standards  that are based on international standards . Japan would  strengthen the monitoring for 
radionuclides  in marine environment and the biota , that in its view could not  be a reason to impose 
import measures on Japanese food.  The IAEA would  conduct  review s and monitoring missions on  
the safety of the ALPS treated water , under the advice of  a group of internatio nally recognized 
experts.  Japan referred Members to communications made in previous Committee meetings and its 
one-stop reference site  (https://www.maff.go.jp/e/export/reference.html ). 
3.1.2   United  States  - Self-paced virtual SPS courses ( G/SPS/GEN/1914 ) 
3.5.  The United  States  informed of its virtual SPS side event, "Improved SPS Capacity Through 
Distance Learning", to be held on the margins o f the Committee meeting. The aim of the event was 
to introduce the 16 new online SPS courses developed by the United  States  Food Safety N etwork 
(FSN), in partnership with Texas A&M University. These free courses covered a wide variety of 
SPS topics and can be  a useful  tool for various  stakeholders in the development and enhancement 
of modern plant health, animal health, and food safety syst ems. The courses, available in multiple  
languages, were accessible at http://www.spscourses.com/ . More information was  provided  in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1914 . 
3.6.  Pakistan  commended the United  States  for the development of the SPS courses, which it 
considered an innovative idea to provide  an easily accessible solution to learning. Pakistan 
appreciated the initial collaboration with  the United  States  in the development of a programme on 
plant health capacity building in Pakistan in 2012, which  had inspired the development of these 
courses. The courses had been translated to Urdu and were publicly available at 
http://www.spstraining.pk . Pakistan looked forward to continued collaboration with 
the United  States.  
3.1.3   European  Union  - European Commission study on the status of new genomic 
techniques in the European  Union  (G/SPS/GEN/1931 ) 
3.7.  The European  Union  introduced a Commission study on the  status of New Genomic Techniques 
(NGTs),  i.e. the techniques of genetic modification  that emerged or were developed since the 
adoption in 2001 of the EU legislation on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The study noted 
the rapid development of these tools and the new applications being developed mostly outside the 
European  Union . While  NGT products had the potential to contribute to the objectives of the 
European Green Deal and the Farm to Fork Strategy of innovation and sustainability of food systems , 
as well as to a more competitive economy, the European  Union  mentioned concerns related to 
possible safety and environmental impact s of NGTs. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had 
concluded that plant products with similar risk profiles could be obtained with conventional breeding 
techniques, targeted mutagenesis and cisgenesis. Scientific knowledge was still limited for other 
NGTs or for applications in animals and microorganisms, especially on safety aspects.  
3.8.  According to the study, the current GMO legislation had to be adapted to scientific and 
technological progress and was not fit for purpose for certain NGTs and their products. For plants 
derived from targeted mutagenesis and cisgenesis, sufficient scientific evidence was available to 
initiat e a targeted policy action. The Commission intended to continue to build up the required 
scientific knowledge for animals and microorganisms and other new genomic techniques. An impact 
assessment would be carried out in 2022 to examine potential policy opt ions. Considerations related 
to the use of NGTs in medicinal products would be addressed in the context of the Commission's 
Pharmaceutical Strategy. More information was provided  in document G/SPS/GEN/1931 . G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 7 - 
 
  3.9.  Argentina  highlighted the conclusions of the study  that there was no justific ation for applying 
different restrictions to products with the same level of risk; regulatory systems must adapt to 
technological progress; there was enough scientific evidence available to develop a new regulatory 
policy for NGTs and their products, diffe rent to the current European regulation for GMOs; and 
different regulatory approaches could create barriers to trade. Argentina noted that products 
obtained from NGTs could contribute to the Sustainable Development Goals ( SDGs) and the 
2030 Agenda. Argenti na insisted on the need to base regulations on scientific evidence to be applied 
in agreement with the multilateral regulations. Argentina was of the view that there was an open 
door to continue discussions and highlighted the need to increase cooperation between regulatory 
agencies . 
3.10.   Paraguay  noted  that, as recognized in  the study , the EU regulatory approach could create 
barriers to trade.  Paraguay also pointed to the mention that  the same mutations could occur  through 
natural gene editing, as had been put forward by several delegations in G/SPS/GEN/1658/Rev.4 . 
Nonetheless, Paraguay expressed concerns with certain  observations made in the study. Paraguay 
noted the Commission's announcement that it would start a limited revision  for products of 
biotechnology and cisgenesis. Paraguay concluded that regulatory approaches necessary to protect 
life and health must be appropriate, science and risk -based to avoid generating unnecessary trade 
barriers and protectionism.  
3.1.4   European  Union  - Global transition towards sustainable food systems  
(G/SPS/GEN/1934 ) 
3.11.   The European  Union  drew Members' attention to several international meetings to foster 
change in food production and consumption, including the UN Food Systems Summit  (FSS)  in 
September 2021. The European  Union  encouraged the Committee to be a forum for discussion on 
this topic with a view to support the process and reflect on setting up a work programme to address 
issues related to the transition to sustainable food systems in  relation with international trade. In the 
EU view, the SPS Committee, as well as other relevant committees, should serve as a forum to 
discuss issues related to the transition to sustainable food systems with a view to support the 
process, while – at the same time – preventing any disguised re strictions on international trade and 
contributing to an even economic development, especially in LDCs.  Based on the outcome of the 
FSS, the Committee could reflect on setting up, possibly with other relevant committees, a work 
programme to address issues related to this transition in relation with international trade. A starting 
point for discussion could be to identify a list of policy objectives that can be legitimately pursued, 
considering the need to mainstream sustainability aspects in all relevant fo ra. Key findings and 
actions could be reported on to MC13, with  recommendations, as appropriate. More information was 
provided  in document G/SPS/GEN/1934 . 
3.12.   Georgia  agreed that sustainable food systems were essential to address climate change, 
biodiversity crisis and ecosystem degradat ion, and to deliver on SDG s. Georgia concurred  that the 
Committee should become a forum to discuss issues of transition to sustainable food systems.  
3.13.   Canada  underscored its active participation in the discussions towards the UN Food Systems 
Summit and its c ommitment to improving the environmental, economic and social sustainability of 
food systems. Canada emphasized that SPS measures must be based on science and not serve as 
trade barriers, in order to support global efforts towards change in food systems an d the delivery on 
the SDGs. Hoping the Summit would be an opportunity for Members to enhance their responses to 
the emerging global food security crisis, Canada agreed that the Committee should be prepared to 
respond to global challenges that fit within it s mandate. In that context, the work programme of the 
SPS Declaration for the Twelfth  Ministerial Conference  (MC12) , Responding to Modern 
SPS Challenges, was an ideal approach to position the Committee. Canada welcomed further 
discussions on these matters.  
3.14.   The United  States  agreed that the provisions of the SPS  Agreement  were still relevant to 
safeguard Member's rights to take measures necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or 
health. The United States further agreed  that the Committee sho uld continue to be a relevant forum 
to discuss SPS  agricultural trade issues related to sustainable food systems , and a work program me 
could help the Committee manage these concerns. T he United  States  noted that the SPS Declaration 
for MC12 ( G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.7 ), cosponsored by 29 Members, had been  developed with these 
goals in mind. The United  States  looked forward to further work with all Members to ensure the 
Declaration was a deliverable for MC12.  G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 8 - 
 
  3.15.   Norway shared  the view that international trade and trade policy should reinforce the global 
multilateral efforts towards achieving sustainable development. For Norway, it was important that 
policies complied with WTO and other international rules, and that the WTO trade regime took 
climate change and environmental considerations into account. Norway had launched an action plan 
on sustainable food systems, and supported the EU proposal to investigate how the SPS Committee 
and the WTO could support Members in achieving their international commitments regarding 
environmental sustainability, in relation to trade.  
3.16.   Switzerland  shared the view that the SPS Committee, as well as other relevant 
WTO committees, should play an important role in supporting sus tainability objectives in relation to 
trade in agricultural products, in all three dimension of sustainability. Switzerland expressed its 
readiness to contribute to drafting a possible work programme and supported the  EU suggestion to 
report on key finding s and actions to MC13 with recommendations.  
3.17.   Paraguay  agreed that food supply chains played an essential role in human health and in the 
resilience and sustainability of food systems, and highlighted the key role of producers. While there 
was no dichotomy b etween agricultural productivity and environmental conservation, there was not 
a single solution to all challenges, and transformation of food systems should be done in a consistent 
manner, in agreement with national contexts and capabilities. Noting sever al strategies adopted by 
Paraguay and other MERCOSUR to promote sustainability of food systems, Paraguay insisted that 
governments should establish regulatory frameworks based on scientific and empirical data to guide 
activities of public and private secto rs in this respect. International cooperation was also key to 
ensuring that these policies take into account different national realities and development needs.  
3.18.   Paraguay  concurred that sustainability went beyond SPS issues  and welcomed the 
EU comment that other WTO committees should be part of the discussions on transition to 
sustainable food systems.  Production - and trade -distorting subsidies, and para -tariff barriers, 
negative ly impact ed on consumers and producers.  It was essential to move agricultural re form 
forward at the WTO, given the important role of open trade in ensuring global food security and 
compliance with SDGs. Paraguay and 19 other Members had called on the WTO membership to cap 
and reduce the sum of current global agricultural trade - and production -distorting domestic support 
entitlements by at least half by 2030, through a proposal in the Committee on Agriculture in Special 
Session . Agricultural market access should also be part of these discussions. Paraguay invited 
Members to join the SPS Declaration for MC12 . 
3.19.   Brazil  underlined  the major importance of sustainability, climate change and biodiversity in 
its domestic and foreign policies. Underscoring that the provisions of SP S Agreement  were still 
relevant in supporting Members to develop and implement measures that protect and improve 
human, animal and plant life and health, Brazil strongly supported the SPS Declaration for MC12  as 
a way forward to help farmers face 21st century challenges.  
3.20.   Noting the upcoming international  meetings, Uruguay  was of the view that environmental, 
economic and social sustainability should be taken into account when considering transition to 
sustainable food systems, including the needs of developing countries. There was not a single model 
of production and sustai nable development, and different conditions and realities, as well as 
trade -distorting policies, should be taken into account. As a co -sponsor  of the  SPS Declaration for 
MC12 , Uruguay invited Members to join the work to achieve positive results in the upcoming 
Ministerial Conference.  
3.21.   Colombia  echoed Paraguay's  and Uruguay's statements,  underlin ing the environmental, social 
and economic pillars of the concept of sustainability. These should all be reflected in the global 
transition to sustainable food sy stems, taking into account the productive situations of certain 
Members. The resulting increased burden of the economic pillar for producers in countries that were 
especially vulnerable should also be taken into account . 
3.22.   Argentina  welcomed the EU mention o f the role of the SPS  Agreement  and Committee in 
achieving sustainability, and invited the European  Union  to reconsider its support to the 
SPS Declaration for MC12 . Argentina insisted that science -based measures were the best approach 
to face environmental  challenges. Emphasizing that more than one path was possible, 
Argentina  referred  the existence of  different sustainable producti on models and to the exploration 
of new technologies that would foster progress in this sense. It was Argentina's understanding  that G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 9 - 
 
  the link established by the European  Union  between the SPS  Agreement and the Convention on 
Biological Diversity implied the renewal of its obligations under paragraphs 2 and 4 of article 20 of 
the Convention, and the recognition that the main obstacl e to the implementation of sustainable 
food systems was the existence of excessive domestic support program mes. 
3.23.   Costa Rica  agreed both with the need to have more sustainable systems and to have a 
granular approach to this transition. For these reasons, and given the strong synergies and 
similarities with the EU proposal, Costa Rica invited the E uropean  Union  to contribute and join the 
SPS Declaration for MC12 . 
3.2  Information from Codex, IPPC and OIE on relevant activities  
3.2.1   Codex ( G/SPS/GEN/1920 ) 
3.24.   The Chair person  drew the Committee's attention to the report presented by Codex  on its 
relevant activi ties, contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1920 . 
3.2.2   IPPC ( G/SPS/GEN/1 921) 
3.25.   The IPPC presented its report on relevant activities in document G/SPS/GEN/1921 . 
CPM-15 had bee n held virtually, seeing the adoption of the IPPC Strategic Framework 2020 -2030, 
eleven international standards for phytosanitary measures (ISPMs) and one CPM recommendation. 
Three CPM Focus Groups were also established. The IPPC secretariat had launched t he call for topics; 
the deadline to submit proposals was 15  September. Standards had been sent for consultation and 
six draft specifications had been approved. The IPPC was also active in establishing an 
Implementation and Capacity Development Committee te am on Fusarium oxysporum  f. sp. cubense  
Tropical Race 4 (TR4) . This, as well as Spodoptera frugiperda , was considered a big challenge for 
the future . The International Year of Plant Health had come to an  end, and 20 May had been 
proclaimed as the International Day of Plant Health. Phytosanitary  capacity evaluations at the 
national level  were continuing . 
3.2.3   OIE ( G/SPS/GEN/1 923) 
3.26.   The OIE highlighted the main point s of its report contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1923 , 
referring to  the virtual Annual General Session of the World Assembly of Delegates  held in May. 
Administrative and technical resolutions  had been  adopted and members of the governing bodies of 
the OIE and of the four OIE Specialist Commissions had been  elected. Dr Moniq ue Eloit had been  
re-elected as the Director General of the OIE . Chapter 10.4. of the Terrestrial Code had been  adopted 
and retitled "Infection with high pathogenicity avian influenza viruses". The Terrestrial Manual 
chapter on avian influenza had also been updated. Infection of dromedary camels with Middle East 
Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS -CoV) had been added to the OIE list of diseases and a 
corresponding new chapter in the Terrestrial Manual on MERS -CoV adopted. Section 3  of the 
Terrestrial , on Quality of veterinary services, had also been revised to reflect the responsibilities of 
the veterinary services. Chapter 4.4, Zoning and compartmentalisation, had been  revised to address 
the concept of 'protection zone'. Regarding  the Aquatic Code and Manual, a new chapter on 
biosecurity for aquaculture establishments had been  adopted to provide guidance on biosecurity. 
Infection with decapod iridescent virus 1 had also been adopted as a listed disease of crustaceans. 
A new chapter  on Infection with Batrachochytrium salamandrivorans  had been  adopted for inclusion 
in the Aquatic Manual. The OIE drew attention to a technical item 'Lessons learned prior to and 
during the pandemic: How the OIE can support veterinary services to achieve One Health resilience ', 
and to the adoption of the corresponding Resolution 31. Finally, the OIE noted that the first Aquatic 
Animal Health Strategy (2021 -2025) had been launched at the 88th General Session to improve 
aquatic animal health and welfare worl dwide.  G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 10 - 
 
  4  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  
4.1  New issues  
4.1.1   EU regulation on alpha -cypermethrin  - Concerns of Paraguay  
4.1.  Paraguay  expressed concerns on the non -renewal of alpha -cypermethrin , as had been notified 
in G/TBT/N/EU/770 . The substance was registered by the National Plant and Seed Quality and Health 
Service (SENAVE) as a systemic insecticide to control pests that attack crops of great economic 
importance . It was essential to have authorized substances that fulfilled the scientific and te chnical 
needs, that had proven to be effective to control these pests and that were necessary to ensure the 
rotation of active ingredients and avoid resistance within an integrated pest management. 
Assuming  that maximum residue limits ( MRLs) would subseque ntly be reduced, the non -renewal of 
alpha -cypermethrin  by the E uropean  Union  would limit the substances and technologies available 
for producers, affecting national economy. While recognizing Members ' right to determine their 
appropriate level or protectio n, Paraguay reiterated the importance of a risk -based scientific 
approach to regulate phytosanitary products. In its view, the EU criteria restricted trade more than 
necessary and violated the obligations under the SPS and TBT Agreements.  
4.2.  Ecuador  indicated  that alpha -cypermethrin was registered in Ecuador for use in pest control in 
various products, as well as in flowers. Ecuador requested the European  Union  to take into account 
possible consequences and undertake the appropriate analysis before notifying c hanges in MRLs. 
Ecuador also requested the establishment of reasonable transition periods of at least 36 months to 
allow for the development of new phytosanitary products.  
4.3.  Colombia  recalled that alpha -cypermethrin was an insecticide used to control quarant ine pests, 
mainly  in coffee. The substance was not phytotoxic due to its quick degradation through hydrolysis. 
Colombia recalled that MRLs  should be established in accordance with the principles of the 
SPS Agreement, including a risk assessment based on scientific evidence, showing that measures 
were necessary to achieve the appropriate level of consumer protection and did not restrict trade  
more than necessary. Colombia emphasized  that exceptional conditions granted to local products 
should also be granted to imported products.  
4.4.  Brazil  expressed its concern on notification G/SPS/EU/N/460  regarding the Draft Commission 
Implementing Regulation withdrawing the approval of the active substance alpha -cypermethrin. 
Alpha -cypermethrin was registered in Brazil as an insecticide against important pests that damaged 
a variety of crops, including products exported to the European  Union , for which the national health 
agency had appr oved MRLs. The withdrawal of the substance and the reduction of MRLs by the 
European  Union  would significantly affect the income of Brazilian farmers, especially citrus 
producers. Alpha -cypermethrin was also important for integrated pest management, and it s use was 
compatible with good agricultural practices  (GAP) . In Brazil's view, the European  Union  was in 
violation of the principle of international harmonization. Should the registration of 
alpha -cypermethrin be withdrawn, Brazil invited the European  Union to simultaneously adopt MRLs 
for imported products in accordance with the limits set by Codex.  
4.5.  The Russian Federation  noted the lack of information on the toxicological profile of 
alpha -cypermethrin and urged the European  Union  to clarify the data on the  substance . 
4.6.  India expressed its support to this concern.  
4.7.  Kenya  indicated that a lpha-cypermethrin  was widely used in Kenya for various crops to contain 
various exotic tropical pests.  
4.8.  The European  Union  drew the Committee's attention to notification G/TBT/N/EU/770  on the 
Draft Commission Implementing Regulation withdrawing the approval of the active substance 
alpha -cypermethrin, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2019/1690 renewed the approval of alpha -cypermethrin as candidate for 
substitutions, under the condition that applicant submitted confirmatory information on the 
toxicological profile of certain metabolites. No information had been  received, and the approval had 
thus been withdrawn in accordance with  article 21.3 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. 
Commission  Implementation Regulation (EU) 2021/795 withdrawing the approval  of the active G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 11 - 
 
  substance alpha -cypermethrin had been  adopted in May 2021. EU  member States must withdraw 
existing authori zations of plant protection products containing this substance by 7  December 2021, 
and grace period s would expire by 7  December  2022. Separate  actions on MRLs were likely to follow 
and would be notified under the SPS  Agreement . The outcomes of the forthcoming MRL review of 
group of cypermethrins by EFSA, planned to be launched in 2021 in accordance with article 12 of 
Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, would determine potential changes on currently established MRLs. 
The European  Union reiterated its availability to continue working bilaterally  with Members . 
4.1.2   EU classification of 'anthraquinone' as a pesticide and the MRL for imported tea  - 
Concerns of India4 
4.9.  India informed the Committee that, through Commission Regulation (EU) No 1146/2014, the 
European  Union  had classified anthraquinone as a pesticide and ha d set a MRL of 0.02  mg/kg for 
tea due to the detection of anthraquinone in tea . In India, a nthraquinone was not a registered 
pesticide , no pesticide formulation was available , no standards existed as per the Food Safety and 
Standards (Contaminants Toxins and Residues) Regulation , and neither was there a Codex  limit for 
anthraquinone in tea. Tests by various EU tea importers established that a nthraquinone  was a 
naturally occurring pollutant/hydrocarbon , and not a pesticide. The MRL of 0.02  mg/kg was 
considered to be too low and had greatly affected  Indian tea e xports to the European  Union . 
India referred to the definitions in  Annex A  and the requirements in Article  2.2 of the 
SPS Agreement . India request ed the  European  Union  to share the scientific basis for setting the 
MRLs at 0.02  mg/kg in tea, to explain  how classification of anthraquinone was necessary to protect 
human, animal or plant life , and to provide information on EU sampling and testing methodology for 
tea and international standards on which it was based . 
4.10.   The European  Union  recalled that anthraquinone  had been a non -approved active substance 
in the European  Union  since January 2009 and that no Codex standard had been established. 
MRLs were established at the level of quantification (LOQ) for all food products in Regulation 
(EC) 396/2005, since anthraquinone  was no longer authori zed in the European  Union  and no import 
tolerance had been requested or notified. During the revision of a nthraquinone  MRLs in 2014, 
the EU reference lab s for residues of pesticides were consulted on th e appropriate LOQ. 
The European  Union pointed out that provisions concerning this substance were harmoni zed in the 
27 EU member States. The  European  Union  remained open to further discussions  with India.  
4.1.3   EU regulatory approach to maximum levels for contami nants  - Concerns of Canada  
4.11.   Canada  stated that the EU implementation of hazard -based regulatory decision -making 
requirements under Regulation (EC) 1881/2006 was leading to the lowering of maximum levels 
(MLs) for contaminants in many food products. In Canada's view, the EU approach did not take into 
account c onsumption patterns and levels of dietary risk. Canada was particularly concerned with the 
negative trade implications of the lowering of MLs of cadmium in cereals and pulses and oilseeds, of 
ergot and ergot alkaloids in cereals, and of hydrocyanic acid in  linseed (flax) , and looked forward to 
responses to its letters addressed to the European  Union . Recalling that these substances were 
naturally occurring and difficult to control , Canada  underline d the importance of providing significant 
advance notice bet ween the adoption of regulations and their entry into force, to give industr ies 
sufficient time to adap t. 
4.12.   Firstly, the EU proposed MLs for cadmium  did not align with MLs set by Codex, and would 
negatively affect exports of cereals, pulses, flaxseed, mustar d seed and canola . The uncertainty for 
major grain suppliers and exporters  created by the immediate implementation of the lower MLs  could 
affect market availability , and potential mitigation measures could raise the cost of grains.  
Canada  request ed the extension  of the transition period until June 2022 . Secondly, Canada noted 
that some of the EU proposed MLs for ergot were half of the MLs established by Codex. 
The immediate implementation of MLs for ergot and ergot alkaloids could affect ed market availab ility 
and prices of barley, wheat, rye and oats. Since Codex had yet not set MLs for ergot alkaloids, 
Canada encouraged the European  Union  to delay the adoption of MLs for ergot alkaloids until the 
release of the full report of the 91st meeting of Joint FA O/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives 
(JECFA). Canada also requested information on the scientific basis of the EU proposed MLs for ergot 
and ergot alkaloid and on how the European  Union  intended to apply a sampling scheme. 
 
4 The title of the concern was modified to identify the European Union, instead of Germany, as a 
responding Mem ber.    G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Required  mitigation measures would raise the cost of grains destined for the European  Union . 
Canada requested the extension of the transition period until September 2023. Finally, 
Canada  requested information on EU deliberations on proposed MLs for hydrocyanic acid, and urged 
the Euro pean Union  to take into account dietary risks and consumption patterns of flaxseed. 
Canada  also hoped the European  Union  would take into account the risks associated with 
hydrocyanic acid released from linseed.  
4.13.   The European  Union  indicated that it would sh ortly respond to Canada's comments on 
notification  G/SPS/N/EU/479 . The European c onfirmed that the new ML established for ergot 
sclerotia in wheat and durum wheat (0 .2 g/kg, established on safety considerations) was lower than 
the one established in CXS 199/1995 (0.5 g/kg, established as a quality factor). Taking into account 
EFSA's sc ientific opinion and JECFA's assessment in its 91st meeting , it was necessary to establish 
MLs for ergot alkaloids in cereals and cereal products to ensure a high level of human health 
protection. According to the European  Union , the established level was readily achievable by 
applying good practices. The European  Union  further confirmed that the proposed ML for ergot 
alkaloids did not apply to bulk raw grain and that detailed sampling provisions would be elaborated 
and adopted before the MLs would apply. S ampling provisions were identical to those applicable for 
the control of other mycotoxin s in cereal and cereal products, as laid down in Regulation 
(EC) 401/2006.  Concerning the ongoing  discussion  on possible MLs for hydrocyanic acid  in certain 
foods, incl uding linseed, Canada's comments were being considered, and the outcome of the 
technical discussions would be notified as a draft for the Members to comment.  
4.1.4   European Commission Regulation on plastic materials and articles intended to come 
into contact wit h food  - Concerns of China  
4.14.   China  highlighted the large impact on its exporters of a proposal to amend the Regulation 
(EU) No 10/2011 on plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foo d, notified 
as G/SPS/N/EU/372 . Firstly, China  argued that the  preliminary research on the four rare earth 
elements ( lanthanum, europium, gadolinium and terbium ) restricted in annex II of the Regulation 
had not reported serious harm to the human body , and questioned the basis for setting a total limit  
of 0.05  mg/kg  for these elements. China also asked about the basis for setting a limit of primary 
aromatic amines that are listed in  the REACH Regulation at 0.002  mg/kg , or for setting  the total 
migration of ones at a maximum of 0.01  mg/kg . 
4.15.   Secondly, China queried about the basis of verifying  compliance of migration from repeated 
use articles or materials in annex V  according to the stability of the material or article from the first 
to the third migration test , and whether it was  suggested t o take materials or articles with fluctuant 
migration test results into consideration and set allowable fluctuation range.  Finally, 
China  complain ed that the amendment of numerous items had led to large expenses due to updating 
and testing of products, ult imately borne by consumers. Numerous c ompanies , especially MSMEs , 
were having  operational difficulties due to  COVID -19. China hoped that the European  Union  would 
provide  a scientific and reasonable response to the above -mentioned comments and suggested tha t 
the European  Union  extend the transitional period  of this regulation.  
4.16.   The European  Union  indicated that it had notified the Draft Commission Regulation amending 
and correcting Commission Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 in March 2020 as G/SPS/N/EU/372 , and no 
comments had been  received during the 60 -day comment period provided. The adoption of 
measures as Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/1245 of 2  September  2020 amending and correcting 
Regulation (EU) No 10/2011  had also been notified as G/SPS/N/EU/372/Add.1 . Some of the changes 
made to correct Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 were to address persistent issues with the composition 
of plastic materials and articles. The European  Union  would provide written answer s in a timely 
manner to the points in the statement uploaded by China in eAgenda. The European  Union  remained 
open to discuss technical issues bilaterally.  
4.1.5   Chinese Taipei's import restrictions on poultry  - Concerns of Brazil  
4.17.   Brazil  brought to the Committee's attention the restrictions faced by its  poultry exports to 
Chinese Taipei which , in its view , constituted a violation of Article  5 and Annex C of the 
SPS Agreement . Brazil  considered that there had been undue delays in Chinese Ta ipei's risk analysis 
for Brazilian poultry exports and noted that sanitary negotiation s had been  ongoing for many years . 
Despite answers provided by Brazil on several occasions , Chinese Taipei  continued to ask  questions G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 13 - 
 
  about animal health of food safety,  which affected  predictability and transparency. Bra zil requested 
Chinese Taipei to present a short timeframe for the next step . Brazil regretted that bilateral 
engagement had failed to accelerate negotiations and the lack of  predictability as to when this first 
stage of the negotiations  would be concluded . 
4.18.   Chinese Taipei  explained  that its current regulation required that the competent authority , 
the Council of Agriculture , recognized exporting countries as free from highly pathogenic avian 
influenza (HPAI) and Newcastle disease (ND). Brazil was recognized as free from HPAI, but not ND. 
Chinese Taipei indicated that active surveillance and relevant measures in accordance wit h 
OIE guidelines , as well as the submission of supplementary information  according to an official 
response provided to Brazil in 2019, would be required to resume Brazil's application for ND -free 
status approval . 
4.1.6   South Africa's import restrictions on bovin e meat, pet food and other by -products 
of animal origin - Concerns of Brazil  
4.19.   Brazil  informed the Committee of the import restrictions imposed by South Africa on several 
products. Concerning bovine meat with bone and offal, no response had been  received after 
Brazil  had provided information requested by South Africa to perform a risk assessment on 
foot-and-mouth disease  (FMD) . Concerning  by-products of animal origin and pet food, Brazil was 
still waiting for a response to the models of international sanitary  certificate  that it had  proposed in 
2017 and 2019, respectively. In Brazil's view, South Africa's unresponsiveness was in violation of 
Articles 2, 5, 8 and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement . 
4.20.   South Africa  referred to  difficulties in assess ing Brazil's control measures, given the different 
FMD zones across the country . Information on control measures in different zones and movement 
controls across zones provided by Brazil was under review. Although South Africa was already 
importing poultry and  beef from Brazil , the significant number of notifications of consignments that 
failed to meet the sanitary requirements  required extra cautio n. South Africa was awaiting feedback  
to the  proposal for a health certificate for pet food imports submitted to Brazil. Finally, regarding 
other by -products, South Africa asked Brazil to submit a more specific follow -up request . 
4.1.7   Nigeria's import restrictions on meat, pork, poultry, milk and dairy products, 
genetic material and live cattle  - Concerns of  Brazil  
4.21.   Brazil  referred to  import restrictions imposed by Nigeria on several products and regretted 
the lack of response to its proposals of sanitary certifications for live bubaline and bovine; genetic 
material for bovine and bubaline; beef, pork and poultry; hatching e ggs and day -old poultry; milk 
and dairy products; and dried bovine skin. In Brazil's view, Nigeria's  unresponsiveness was in 
violation of Articles 2, 5  and 8 and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement . 
4.22.   Nigeria took the view that import restrictions of several produc ts from Brazil were not  
SPS related and, therefore, the Committee might not be the appropriate forum for discussion. 
Nigeria's  enquiry point was reviewing the model certificates provided and would contact Brazil in due 
course . Import restrictions were temp orary measures applied to address Nigeria's economic and 
national security difficulties and development challenges . Nigeria did not intend to restrict market 
access , discriminate between locally produced and imported products, or protect its industry in a 
manner  that would be  inconsistent with WTO  obligation s. Nigeria would provide response s to 
concerns raised in the Committee on Agriculture or in the CTG. 
4.23.   Brazil  clarified that this STC related to the negotiation of sanitary certificates and the undue 
delays in approval procedures , which was an SPS issue . 
4.24.   Nigeria  indicated that it was under no  obligation to enter into bilateral negotiations on sanitary 
certificates. Nigeria reiterated that the propo sals were being  considered in capital, and Nigeria would 
get back to Brazil.  G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 14 - 
 
  4.1.8   Transparency, delays and due process associated with China's import requirements 
for agricultural goods - Concerns of Australia  
4.25.   Australia  stated that China's arrangements to under take import checks at the border , 
including inspection and border clearance procedures , should be risk -based , not more 
trade -restrictive than necessary , transparent and allow a reasonable interval between their 
publication and entry into force . Australia c omplain ed about the increased amount of import 
clearance interventions targeted at  Australian agricultural products , without prior notification . 
China  had not provided detailed information on detections of non -compliances in Australian products 
and had not considered proposed valid alternative approaches  to ensure compliance. 
Australia  presented several examples of increased requirements and lack of resp onses by China that 
had led to delays and losses.  Australia asked China to  respond to its requests for information and 
implement changes to inspection and testing requirements in a timely, transparent, 
non-discriminatory and predictable manner . Australia said that it would welcome bilateral 
engagement on these matters . 
4.26.   The Russian Federation  noted that China was applying certain SPS measures  in a 
non-transparent manner, without providing  a scientific justification or a risk assessment , and was 
applying cert ain measures in a discriminatory manner, thus creating unjustified trade barriers.  
4.27.   China  invited the Russian Federation to contac t China  bilaterally on specific issues. Concerning 
Australia's concerns, China noted numerous  food safety incidents  involving Australia n products . 
China had tightened the registration procedures  of Australian enterprises to protect consumers 
health.  China  invited  Australia to follow the provisions of the ir bilateral cooperation documents . 
4.1.9   The Russian Federation's classification of tea as "fruits and vegetables"  - Concerns 
of India  
4.28.   India expressed its concern regarding the Russian Federation's classification of tea  as fruits 
and vege tables , which had resulted in requirements of higher levels of mould parameters 
(103 KOE per gram). India considered this measure to be inconsistent with international standards , 
as these did not apply mould parameters to bulk tea and tea products. India recalled the provisions 
of Article s 3.3 and 5.6 of the SPS  Agreement  and highlighted the need for a scientific justification or 
a risk assessment for SPS measures deviating from i nternational standards. India requested the 
Russian  Federation to provide the scientific justification for the classification of tea as fruits and 
vegetables, and the risk assessment done to define higher standards of mould parameters. 
India considered the  measure to be more trade -restrictive than necessary to achieve the appropriate 
level of protection ( ALOP). 
4.29.   The Russian Federation  referred to its statement uploaded on eAgenda. 
The Russian  Federation clarified that its National Standardisation Body did no t classify tea as fruits 
and vegetables. The safety requirements for food products, including tea, were set out in the 
technical regulations of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) with the ML of mould in tea set at 
1,000 colony forming units per gram as defined in Section 1.5, Appendix 2 of Regulation 021/2011. 
The Russian Federation highlighted that these measures were taken to protect human health from 
potential risks and were based on science.  
4.30.   India looked forward to engag ing further with the Russian Federation on this matter . 
4.2  Issues previously raised  
4.2.1   EU MRLs for buprofezin, chlorothalonil, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, glufosinate, 
imazalil, ioxynil, iprodione, mancozeb, molinate, picoxystrobin and tepralo xydim ( ID 448) 
- Concerns of Colombia , Costa Rica , Ecuador , Paraguay  and the  United  States  
4.31.   Colombia  expressed concerns regarding existing EU exception mechanisms, which allowed 
producers to continue using certain products and substances. In Colombia's view, emergency 
authorizations granted by the European  Union  were reserved for domestic producers and w ere easily 
obtained, while import tolerances exceptions were reserved for countries exporting to the 
European  Union and required more difficult procedures. Colombia noted that since 2017, 
European  producers had benefited from 1,934 emergency authorizations , while only 61 import G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 15 - 
 
  tolerances had been granted. Colombia recalled that WTO rules did not allow for a less favourable 
treatment of imported products than those of domestic origin.  Colombia drew attention to the 
constraints faced by developing countries in their adaptation processes regarding the reduction of 
MRLs in active substances , and insisted on the need to establish a structured and comprehensive 
mechanism for plurilateral dialogue to seek constructive and substantial solutions.  
4.32.   Paraguay  requested the European  Union  to provide written answers to the questions 
contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1926,  raised together with Colombia, Ecuador and Guatemala. 
Paraguay  expressed its concern regarding the granting of emergency authorizations from 
EU member States for the same substances  subject to this and other STCs, while import tolerances 
required long processes and had no guarantee of approval. Paraguay hoped that this issue could 
continue to be address ed in a constructive manner.  
4.33.   Costa Rica  reiterated its co ncern regarding the impact on its production systems of the 
reduction by the European  Union  of MRLs to the minimum level of detection for several of the 
substances at issue. In previous meetings, Costa Rica had expressed its  concern regarding the lack 
of scientific evidence a nd the divergence with findings of other international institutions such as 
Codex. Costa Rica supported  the questions contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1926 , with particular 
interest in the questions related to emergency authorizations by the European  Union . Costa Rica 
urged the Europe an Union  to reconsider its  regulatory approach, establish an effective dialogue with 
affected Members, and consider measures to limit the impact that these new regulations would have 
globally.  
4.34.   Ecuador  reiterated its concern regarding the reduction by the E uropean  Union  of an increasing 
number of MRLs for several substances , such as chlorothalonil, mancozeb and metiram,  which were 
crucial to manage pests in tropical climates . Ecuador highlighted the economic and social impact of 
these measures in the banana sector which accounted for 2% of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 
and 35% of its agricultural GDP. Ecuador  reiterated its request for the suspension of the entry into 
force of the reduction of MRLs considering the efforts made by the productive sectors for  the 
economic recovery following the COVID -19 crisis.  Ecuador urged the European  Union  to take into 
account available scientific information, such as information provided by Codex, and provide at least 
36 months for producers in developing countries to ada pt when reducing MRLs. Ecuador thanked 
the European  Union  for the continued dialogue and recalled the concerns contained in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1926  regarding the granting of emergency authorizations by the European  Union . 
4.35.   The United  States  reiterated its concern that the E uropean  Union  continue d to lower many 
MRLs to trade -restrictive levels without clear scientific justification or measurable benefit to human 
health. The United  States  also reiterated its concerns regarding the EU hazard -based approach to 
pesticide regulati on and the implementation of its precautionary principle, which the United  States  
stated  creates  trade barriers  that threatened global food security . The United  States  called on the 
European  Union  to apply MRLs at the point of production for imported produ cts, extend the transition 
period for all MRLs to limit trade disruptions, and continue to facilitate dialogues with third countries 
on this matter. The United  States  submitted its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/1944 . 
4.36.   Guatemala  reiterated its concern regarding the reduction by the E uropean  Union  of MRLs for 
several s ubstances  such as buprofezin, chlorothalonil, imazalil and diflubenzuron, which were crucial 
for pest control in Guatemala. Stressing that there were currently no effective substitute s for these 
substances , Guatemala indicated  that it had requested an extension on the application of this 
measure. Guatemala urged the European  Union  to share the relevant scientific information on the 
harmful effects to human health by the consumption of agricultural products fr om third countries, 
as well as to apply an environmental policy that consider ed climatic differences  between countries . 
4.37.   Guatemala also supported this concern on behalf of Honduras . 
4.38.   Panama  supported this concern regarding the non -renewal of the substances a t issue , 
in particular mancozeb . Panama stated that there were currently no alternative active ingredients 
to replace mancozeb, which posed serious challenges for Panama's exports to the European  Union . 
Panama considered these measures to be more trade -restrictive than necessary and urged the 
European  Union  to comply with WTO obligations and those established in the SPS  Agreement . 
Panama called on the European  Union  to be open to a  plurilateral dialogue  on this matter . G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 16 - 
 
  4.39.   The Russian Federation  supported this concern regarding EU measures on pesticide MRLs. 
The Russian Federation referred to the information contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1926  and 
considered these measu res might restrict exports from countries that d o not apply  GAP. In addition, 
the Russian Federation consi dered that EU measures differed from international standards and 
lacked scientific justification. The Russian Federation urged the European  Union  to adopt measures 
not more trade -restrictive than necessary to achieve its ALOP.  
4.40.   Brazil  supported this concern  regarding EU measures on pesticide MRLs and recalled 
its previous comments in the SPS and TBT Committees. Brazil thanked Colombia, Ecuador, 
Guatemala and Paraguay for the questions contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1926 . 
Brazil  considered certain MRLs  to be more trade -restrictive than necessary and to lack scientific 
justification. In Brazil, mancozeb was used against plant diseases damaging several crops exported 
to the European  Union . Substances of similar use as mancozeb, such as chlorothalonil, had  also been 
banned in the EU market, limiting the availability of alternative substances in the short to medium 
term. Brazil noted that the establishment of low MRLs for this substance would have major 
consequences on international trade.  
4.41.   Argentina  supporte d this concern and reiterated the need to ensure that Members applied 
risk-based SPS  measures taking into account the risk assessment techniques developed by the 
relevant international organizations. Argentina urged the European  Union  to use a  risk-based 
approach and determine the different aspects that could affect human health and the environment 
on the basis of conclusive scientific studies.  Argentina thanked Colombia and Paraguay for the 
analysis carried out on e mergency authorization s. 
4.42.   Uruguay  reiterat ed its concern about the EU approach to reduce MRLs for an increasing 
number of active substances without a complete risk assessment. Uruguay thanked Colombia, 
Ecuador, Guatemala and Paraguay  for the questions contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1926 . 
Uruguay stressed that emergency auth orizations granted by the European  Union  to domestic 
producers deserved further attention. Uruguay recalled that SPS measures must be based on science 
and international standards, and should not constitute an unjustified barrier to trade. An adequate 
transition period of no less than two years should be provided for producers to adapt to new 
requirements. Uruguay called upon the European  Union  to take into consideration the concerns 
expressed by Members, respond to the questions raised and reconsider its re gulatory approach to 
avoid unnecessary barriers to trade.  
4.43.   Reiterating its support, Peru expressed its concern regarding the EU hazard -based approach, 
which Peru considered to be inconsistent with the SPS  Agreement  and to result in unnecessary 
barriers to t rade. 
4.44.   Canada  supported this concern and reiterated the need to base decision -making processes on 
risk assessment techniques developed by relevant international organizations. Canada expressed its 
concern regarding the trade implications of the EU approach on setting import tolerances and on the 
transition periods provided for MRLs . Canada questioned the European  Union  on its emergency 
authorizations provisions and requested the European  Union  to maintain MRLs for substa nces that 
did not pose unacceptable dietary risks , to avoid the need for import tolerance requests. 
Canada  urged  the European  Union  to notify the Committee of any anticipated changes in its MRLs 
while taking Members' comments into account. In addition, Can ada requested the European  Union 
to allow for transition periods for producers to adapt to new requirements, and to avoid 
discrimination between domestic producers and foreign exporters.  
4.45.   Chile supported this concern and urged the European  Union  to apply Co dex international 
standards and guidelines on MRLs or base its measures on  a risk analysis. Chile referred to the 
products listed in its statement uploaded to eAgenda.  
4.46.   The European  Union  reminded that most questions had previously been answered and 
referre d to document G/SPS/GEN/1896.  The European  Union  reiterated that MRLs should be set at 
the lowest achievable level consistent with GAP to protect vulnerable groups. The European  Union  
drew Members' attention to the information contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1494/Rev.2  
regarding the ongoing review of MRLs of pest icides. The  European  Union  announced that it would 
provide written responses to the questions contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1926 . G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 17 - 
 
  4.2.2   EU legislation on endocrine disruptors ( ID 382) - Concerns of Paraguay  
4.47.   Paraguay  thanked the European  Union  for recent bilateral meetings. Paraguay  had r eceived 
confirmation from  the European  Union  that import tolerances would be subject to risk assessment 
and would consider GAP of trading partners. Paraguay reiterated its concern regarding the case-by-
case approach, the consideration of undefined legitimate factor s and the evaluation of environmental 
factors  by the European  Union . Paraguay hoped to continu e to address this issue in a c ollaborative  
manner.  
4.48.   Uruguay  reiterated its trade and systemic concern relating to the EU adoption and 
implementati on of a hazard -based approach in its regulatory determinations concerning products 
with endocrine -disrupting properties. Uruguay  insisted on the need to base such determinations on 
conclusive scientific evidence to avoid some of these important components of pest management 
systems being withdrawn despite their safe use. Uruguay stressed that a hazard -based approach 
could have negative and disproportionate impact on sustainable agricultural production, food 
security and international trade in food products . Uruguay supported the multilateral work 
undertaken by Codex to develop a harmonized, risk -based approach , and requested 
the European  Union to reconsider its regulatory approach to avoid unjustified barriers to 
international trade and their socio -economic consequences.  
4.49.   Brazil  supported this concern and recalled that the criteria for the determination of 
endocrine -disrupting substances needed to be established in accordance with  Article  5 of the 
SPS Agreement  to avoid unnecessary trade restrictions. Brazil urged the European  Union  to consider 
Members' concerns regarding the scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine -disrupting 
properties.  Brazil requested the European  Union  to provide more clarity on the implementation of 
the cut -off criteria set out in Regulation (EU) 528/2012 and annex II to Regulation (EC) 
No 1107/2009 for the establishment of effective and science -based import tolerances, as well as on 
transition periods.  
4.50.   Peru supported the conc ern and considered that the EU hazard -based regulations were 
inconsistent with Article  5 of the SPS  Agreement , leading to measures that were more 
trade -restrictive than necessary.  
4.51.   Costa Rica  reiterated its concern regarding  the EU approach for the implemen tation of 
Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. Costa Rica urged the European  Union  to ensure that the regulation 
of endocrine disruptors was based on risk assessments, using criteria supported by sufficient 
scientific evidence, in line with the SPS  Agreement . 
4.52.   Canada reiterated its request for the European  Union  to amend its hazard -based approach 
and consider both hazards and risks in its regulatory decision -making. Canada asked  the 
European  Union to explain how it would establish the restrictions to be applied in exporting countries 
with respect to  environmental impact s. Canada encouraged the European  Union  to notify  quickly  all 
proposed regulations arising from the Farm to Fork Strategy  to allow sufficient time for comments . 
Canada also expected that regulatory am endments be made  in a transparent and coherent manner.  
4.53.   Colombia  reiterated that a hazard -based approach was inconsistent with WTO rules, and 
stressed the need to conduct risk assessments, using criteria supported by scientific evidence, in 
line with the SPS  Agreement . Colombia urged the European  Union  to reconsider its regulatory 
approach to avoid unnecessary barriers to trade.  
4.54.   The Russian Federation  supported this concern. The Russian Federation considered that the 
EU measures on endocrine disruptors lacked scientific evidence and recalled that measur es should  
not be more trade -restrictive than necessary to meet the ALOP.  
4.55.   Kenya  supported this concern and requested the European  Union  to reconsider its 
hazard -based approach and apply internationally agreed risk assessment approaches to avoid trade 
disrup tions.  
4.56.   The European  Union  affirmed that the scientific criteria in place in the European  Union  to 
identify endocrine disruptors were based on the WHO definition. The criteria to identify pesticides 
had been applicable since November 2018. The criteria also  applied to ongoing procedures for the G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 18 - 
 
  approval or renewal of approval of active substances. The European  Union  reiterated that, to date, 
there had been no cases of non -approval of a substance solely based on endocrine disruptor criteria 
that had been foll owed by the lowering of MRLs. For all substances for which MRLs had been lowered 
following the non -approval under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, other intake concerns, in addition 
to their classification as endocrine disruptors, had been identified.  
4.57.   The Eur opean  Union  confirmed that it would follow the procedure in Regulation (EC) 
No 396/2005 for import tolerance requests concerning active substance s falling under the cut -off 
criteria. The  procedure included a risk assessment by an evaluating EU member State . 
The European  Union  referred to article 49 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 regarding transitional 
measures. The  European  Union  reiterated its commitment to keep Members informed of further 
developments.  
4.2.3   EU restrictions on exports of chocolate and cocoa products due to the application 
of the Commission Regulation (EU) N° 488/2014 of 12  May 2014 amending Regulation 
(EC) N° 1881/2006 as regards maximum levels of cadmium in foodstuff (ID  503) - 
Concerns of Peru  
4.58.   Peru raised concern s regarding Commission Regulation (EU) No 488/2014, establishing MLs 
for cadmium in chocolate and other cocoa products that, in practice, had a negative impact on trade 
in cocoa  beans and cocoa. Peru highlighted the trade performance and the social importance of the 
cocoa produc tion chain , and was of the view that the EU regulation violated Article  2 of the 
SPS Agreement  and created unnecessary barriers to trade . Peru called upon the European  Union  to 
rescind Commission Regulation (EU) No 488/2014, with respect to chocolate and other cocoa 
products.  Peru submitted its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/1935 . 
4.59.   Colombia  supported this concern. Colombia noted that , in practice,  Commission Regulation 
(EU) No 488/2014 had a negative impact on trade in producing countries. Colombia highlighted th e 
impor tance of cocoa for the substitution of illicit crops , and urged the European  Union  to revise it 
Regulation, taking  into account the JECFA recommendations.  
4.60.   The European  Union  recalled that the measure was necessary to protect the health of 
consumers and was based on a risk assessment, which took into account the tolerable weekly intake 
(TWI) established by EFSA and the EU consumption patterns. The European  Union  stressed that t he 
exceedance of the TWI for EU consumers for cadmium was a sufficient justification to set limits for 
chocolate and cocoa products and other commodities. On the basis of the most recent updated 
JECFA  assessment, issued on 5  March  2021, stating that cocoa products with high cadmium 
concentrations can contribute up to 9.4% of the exposure of European children of 3 -9 years old and 
for Europeans consuming only cocoa products from the Latin America and Caribbean region, cocoa 
products can even be the main contr ibutors to the cadmium exposure (39.4% of the cadmium 
exposure) , the European  Union  confirmed the need to maintain the existing MLs to limit  the exposure 
of consumers to cadmium from cocoa products.  
4.61.   The European  Union  noted the additional 4-year transition al period granted for chocolate and 
chocolate products since the entry into force of the regulation on 1  January  2015 to take into account 
concerns of producing countries. The EU ML for chocolate over 50% total dry cocoa solids was in line 
with the recentl y agreed Codex levels , and stricter limits had only been introduced to the extent 
necessary to protect human health , i.e. only for milk chocolate typically consumed by children . MLs 
had been set for final products, not for cocoa beans, to avoid unnecessary  trade restrictions. While 
the European  Union  was aware that some private operators applied strict limits for cadmium in 
imported cocoa beans instead of finished products, it did not have jurisdiction over contractual 
arrangements between private parties.  
4.62.   The European  Union  was providing targeted technical assistance in Peru and neighbouring 
countries within the framework of a Standard and Trade Development Facility (STDF)  project , 
through the development of a regional strategy and a proposal to establish m itigation and 
remediation measures for cadmium contamination in cocoa beans in Latin America and the 
Caribbean region; and in the context of a specific development programme under the Development 
Smart Innovation through Research in Agriculture Initiative (DeSIRA) to put more science in 
development with a view to foster innovation for increased impact. The European  Union  reiterated 
its commitment to work constructively with Members to address outstanding issues.  G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 19 - 
 
  4.2.4   EU review of legislation on veterinary medici nal products (ID  446)  - Concerns of 
the United  States  
4.63.   The United  States  reiterated its concern regarding the implementation of EU legislation on 
veterinary medicinal products (Regulation (EU) 2019/06). The United  States  noted that the 
European  Union  had not yet published the  implementi ng acts on the list and rules for imports for 
the EU  proposals associated with the prohibition of certain uses of antimicrobials , which it 
understood needed to be adopted no later than 28  January  2022.  The United  States  referred to 
notifications G/SPS/N/EU/464  and G/SPS/N/EU/478  regarding official controls on animals and 
products of animal origin expor ted from third countries, and the delegated regulation to establish 
the criteria for the designation of antimicrobials reserved for human use. The United  States  
expressed its concern regarding the transition period between the finalization of the list of 
antimicrobials reserved for human use and the application of measures to imported products. 
The United  States  urged the European  Union  to maintain the use of antimicrobials for growth 
promotion not medically important for humans, to base its regulations on science, to avoid trade 
disruptions, and to issue relevant implementing regulations in a timely manner to allow sufficient 
time for review  and implementation in respective SPS systems . The United  States  provided its 
statement in document G/SPS/GEN/1942 . 
4.64.   Australia  reiterated its support for the joint work of the WHO, OIE and FAO as well as the 
Codex  Taskforce on Antimicrobial Resistance in setting international standard s for antimicrobial 
resistance ( AMR). Australia considered that AMR mitigation should be based on international 
standards. Australia requested the European  Union  to consider the conditions, availability of 
antimicrobials and disease prevalence in third cou ntries before releasing its list of antimicrobials 
reserved for the treatment of human infections. Australia highlighted  that this list should be based 
on science , and encouraged the European  Union  to hold early consultations with third countries.  
Australi a urged the European  Union  to consider approaches to recognize third countr ies' AMR 
management programmes and to provide appropriate transition periods.  
4.65.   Canada  expressed its support for the coordinated efforts undertaken by several international 
bodies to promote the prudent use of antimicrobials in animal and public health.  In Canada's view, 
the European  Union  should take into account  global disease prevalence, the One Health approach 
and antimicrobial usage in different countries while developing its legislation. Canada looked forward 
to the response of the European  Union  to its letters of 5  May 2021 and 25  June 2021 concerning the 
criteria for the designation of antimicrobials to be reserved for human use, and the implementation 
timeline and transitio nal period. Canada urged the European  Union  to provide trading partners with 
sufficient transitional periods of five years or more, and to notify its list of antimicrobials reserved 
for human  use to the Committee.  
4.66.   Paraguay  requested the European  Union  to provide an update on the status of the legislation, 
given that it was foreseen for the beginning of 2022.  Paraguay reiterated its concern regarding the 
criteri a for the designation of antimicrobials reserved for human use.  
4.67.   Japan  supported this concern and requested the European  Union  to provide information on 
the scope and procedures to be applied under the regulation, as well as the relevant scientific 
justification. Japan urged the European  Union  to (i) announce the delegated acts stipulated under 
article 118 concerning imported products; (ii) notify the measures t hrough to the Committee ; 
(iii) provide sufficient time for Members to submit comments; and (iv) set a sufficient transitional 
period for Members to meet the requirements.  
4.68.   Brazil  noted that the EU regulation had the potential to impose a heavy burden on producers 
by limiting the use of currently available veterinary drugs and introducing sanitary requirements that 
were more trade -restrictive than necessary. Brazil expresse d its support to the wor k of the 
international organizations recognized in the SPS  Agreement  in developing multilateral harmonized 
guidelines on AMR. Brazil considered that the unilateral ban o n the use of several veterinary drugs 
and the prohibition of imports from countries whe re their use was authorized was inconsistent with 
the provisions of the SPS  Agreement . Brazil urged the European  Union  to consider the ongoing global 
efforts undertaken by the WHO, OIE, FAO in setting international standards and guidelines for AMR, 
as well  as the work of the Codex Taskforce on Antimicrobial Resistance.  G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 20 - 
 
  4.69.   Argentina  reiterated its concern regarding the final list of antimicrobials reserved for human 
use and the implementation by the European  Union  of article 118 of Regulation  (EU) 2019/06, 
following which third countries would have to demonstrate the non -use of those antimicrobials. 
Argentina  urged the European  Union  to base its regulations on science, establish transitional periods, 
and avoid unnecessary barriers to trade.  
4.70.   Uruguay  expressed its  concern regarding the approach and implementation of the 
EU regulation on veterinary medicinal products. Uruguay recalled that SPS measures must be based 
on international standards or scientific evidence. The conditions, AMR regulatory frameworks and 
disease prevalence in third countries should also be considered. Uruguay stressed the need to allow 
sufficient time for third countries to review the proposed regulation and to provide adequate 
transitional periods for implementation . 
4.71.   Chile expressed interest in the topic  and requested notifications to be made to the Committee 
when appropriate.  
4.72.   The European  Union  reiterated that Regulation (EU) 2019/6 would strengthen EU action to 
fight AMR. The new regulation laid down a wide range of measures following the One Health 
approach , internationally recognized as the most effective to tackle AMR. The European  Union  
indicated that the legislation had entered into force in January 2019 and would apply as of 
28 January 2022. The European  Union  stressed t hat the new EU regulation would impose stricter 
rules on operators in the European  Union  than on those of non -EU countries, and should therefore 
not be seen as a trade barrier. The European  Union  indicated that the state -of-play had not changed 
since the p revious Committee meeting and provided information on the adoption timeline for its 
legislations: (i) the delegated act establishing the criteria to designate the antimicrobials to be 
reserved for human use was to be adopted by 27 September 2021; (ii) the implementing act 
establishing the list of antimicrobials reserved for human use was to be adopted by 27  January  2022; 
and (iii) the delegated act detailing the rules for the importation for animals and products of animal 
origin was to be adopted by 27  January 2022.  
4.73.   Referring to the delegated act establishing criteria to designate the antimicrobials to be 
reserved for human use, the European  Union  stated that following discussion with 
EU member  States, public consultation and notification to the Committee fo r comments, the 
Commission had adopted the delegated act on 26  May 2021. The scrutiny period of the 
European  Parliament for the delegated act is due to end on 26  September  2021. Concerning the 
implementing act establishing the list of antimicrobials reserv ed for human use, the European  Union  
noted that the European Medicines Agency had set up an expert group in 2019 to prepare the 
scientific advice , which would be finalized once sufficient certainty on the criteria to designate 
antimicrobials reserved for h uman use would be available. Regarding the last delegated act detailing 
the rules on imports from third countries, the European  Union  indicated that information on the 
current discussion s concerning its preparation had been provided to third countries in 
December  2020, and that the EU Commission had adopted on 9  March  2021 a proposal to amend 
the Official Controls Regulation to allow the official control system for imports of animals and 
products of animal origin to apply to verification of compliance with article 118(1) of Regulation 
(EU) 2019/6. The European  Union  stressed that it would keep Members informed of future 
developments in a timely manner and reiterated its commitment to fight AMR and engage with 
Members.  
4.2.5   India's new requirements for animal feed in the Food Safety and Standards Act, 
2006 (dated 27  January  2020) (ID  479)  - Concerns of the United  States  
4.74.   The United  States  reiterated its concern regarding India's new directive on an imal feed , which 
omitted certain commonly used feed ingredients. The United  States  requested India to prov ide the 
written process outlining  the methodology for adding new feed ingredients to the list, and to delay 
the implementation of the measure until sa id documentation was notified.  The United  States  
submitted its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/1941 . 
4.75.   India indicate d that it had taken note of the concern raised by the United  States  and that no 
updated  information was available  at the time.  G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 21 - 
 
  4.2.6   Korea's mandatory HACCP certification for imported kimchi (ID  513) - Concerns of 
China  
4.76.   China  reiterated its concern regarding Korea's mandatory Hazard Analysis and Critical Control 
Point (HACCP) certification for imported kimchi , the implementation of which  would negatively 
impact Chinese kimchi exports . China noted that the Chinese National Accreditation Service for 
Conformity Assessment (CNAS) employed the standards and guidelines issued by the "International 
Accreditation Forum", of which Korea was a member. China considered the certification obtained by 
CNAS to be equivalent to the certification recognized by Korea. China  urged Korea to recognize 
China's conformity assessment, adopt the list of companies recommended by China or recognize the 
certificate issued by China's certification bodies . 
4.77.   Korea  appreciated China's bilateral cooperation . As a traditional Korean  food, Korea noted 
kimchi required strict safety controls in its manufacturing process. Korea  indicated that it had 
adopted a mandatory HACCP certification for domestically manufactured kimchi and planned to apply 
the same measure to imported kimchi to ensure the same level of food safety. In Korea's view, 
it was critical to have detailed measures for each step of the manufacturing process. 
Korea  highlighted its consultation meetings with China since 2019 , as well as a proposed pilo t 
programme for Chinese  kimchi manufacturers to enhance understanding o f HACCP certification . 
4.2.7   China's actions related to COVID -19 that affect trade in food and agricultural 
products (ID  487) - Concerns of Australia, Canada, India and the United  States  
4.78.   Australia commented on China's provisional measures notified in G/SPS/N/CHN/1173  to 
preven t the risk of introduction  of COVID -19 through imported food. Australia requested China to 
provide an update on the steps taken to obtain additional information  for a more objective 
assessment of risk . China had implemented additional measures which had no t been notified to the 
WTO, including widespread testing and disinfection of imported products; mandatory commercial 
declarations or variations to commercial contracts; requirement of virtual audits to maintain or 
regain market access; and requests for ove rseas food manufacturing establishments to voluntarily 
suspend exports following the detection of SARS -CoV-2 in onsite workers. Regarding the voluntary 
suspension of export establishments, Australia highlighted that certain establishments had been 
subject to unjustified suspension periods. Australia recalled the  provisions  of Annex C of the 
SPS Agreement  and requested China to provide an update on the reinstatement of suspended 
establishments.  
4.79.   The United  States  reiterated its concerns regarding  COVID -19 rel ated measures imposed by 
China. Several Members had requested China to withdraw these restrictions, which, according to 
G/SPS/N/CHN/1173 , had been  implemented on an emergency basis. The United  States  had 
underscore d the lack of evidence of viral transmission through food or food packaging, and noted 
that China had still not provided science -based justifica tion or testing results in support of its 
measures. The risk for transmission of SARS -CoV-2 to humans via food an d food packaging was  low, 
based on available information from global scientific bodies. The United  States  stressed that 
unjustified trade restrictions threatened global food supply chains, slowed global recovery efforts , 
and challenged global food security . The United  States  encouraged China to withdraw its measures 
and work to support the guidance of international organizations by building the body of scientific 
evidence on COVID -19. The US statement is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1943 . 
4.80.   Canada  emphasized  the need for cooperation to meet the challenges that COVID -19 posed to 
health and economies, avoid unnecessary barriers to trade, and contribute to fo od security. 
Canada  emphasized the importance of basing COVID -19 related measures on sound scientific 
principles and risk assessmen ts. Canada sought information from China regarding the scientific basis 
for its measures relating to COVID -19, notified in G/SPS/N/CHN/1173 . Canada continued to base its 
COVID -19 related SPS measures on th e FAO/WHO  document "COVID -19 and Food Safety: Guidance 
for Food Businesses" . Referring to the International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for 
Foods opinion on SARS -CoV-2 of 3  September  2020, Canada noted that food, food packaging and 
food handling were not transmission routes , and requested China to shar e the scientific evidence it 
had. Canada expressed concern regarding the lack of clarity of China's reinstatement pro cess for 
suspended establishments , and requested China to reinstate the suspended establishments without 
undue delays. Canada encouraged Ch ina to maintain the ongoing technical dialogue  to resolve the 
concerns at issue . G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 22 - 
 
  4.81.   India expressed its concern regarding the suspension of export app rovals citing the detection 
of COVID -19 nucleic acid on seafood packaging. China had not provided reports  or procedures  
adopted to test for the presence of COVID -19 nucleic acid . India  considered China's measures to be 
inconsistent with Articles 2.2 and 5.1 of the SPS  Agreement . Referring to the FAO/WHO  docume nt 
"COVID -19 and Food Safety: Guidance for Food Businesses" , India  highlighted the lack of evidence 
of COVID -19 transmission via food or food packaging. India  requested China to share the test reports 
for the consignment on which COVID -19 nucleic material had been found, and to establish how the 
measure at issue was necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health.  
4.82.   The European  Union  supported this concern regarding the control measures imposed by China 
against COVID -19. The European  Union  indicated that, according to national and international 
bodies, there was no evidence of transmission of COVID -19 through food. The European  Union  
considered  that China's import policies caused uncertainty, delays and increased costs. 
The European  Union i nvited China to share its risk assessment, scientific evidence and valid data 
which justified its measures and to explain why these measures were considered necessary and 
proportionate.  The European  Union  stressed that unnecessary verification measures wer e harmful 
to food security, food prices and global trade.  
4.83.   The Russian Federation  expressed its  concer n regarding China's emergency measures on 
imported frozen foods to prevent the risk of introduction of COVID -19, which, in its view, were not 
transparent. The Russian Federation referred to the restrictions imposed on its fish exports on the 
basis of several cases of COVID -19 detected on product packaging. The  Russian  competent 
authorities had informed China about the measures taken to prevent the spread of the virus, and 
had not received any scientific justification confirming the risk of cross -border spread of COVID -19. 
The Russian Federation urged China to withdraw its COVID -19 measures and expressed its readiness 
to cooperate with China to ensure food saf ety and resume previous trade volumes.  
4.84.   The United Kingdom  referred to the International Commission on Microbiological 
Specifications for Foods  and to its own risk assessment published by the Food Standard Agency, 
which had concluded that the risk of food and food contact materials as a transmission route for 
COVID -19 was very low . The United Kingdom highlighted the importance of cooperation among 
Members to  avoid unnecessary barriers to trade, and encouraged Members to introduce COVID -19 
related measures only when necessary to protect human health. The United Kingdom requested 
China to share the relevant evidence to support that  food is a significant source for the transmission 
of SARS -CoV-2. 
4.85.   Japan  supported this concern and stressed that SPS measures, including those related to 
COVID -19, should be based on sufficient scientific evidence.  
4.86.   Switzerland  supported this concern and noted that China had not shared the risk assessment 
or scientific proof for the additional requirements on imported food products linked to COVID -19. 
Switzerland highlighted that Members should respect the rules -based multilateral trading system.  
4.87.   While recognizing Members' right to set t heir ALOP and adopt emergency measures to protect 
against entry and establishment of COVID -19, New Zealand  requested greater transparency and a 
timely and consistent process for the re -listing  of an establishment once the causes for suspension 
were deemed resolved by the exporting country.  
4.88.   Kenya  stated it had implemented various guidelines, including the FAO/WHO document 
"COVID -19 and Food Safety: Guidance for Food Businesses" , to ensure its food products met the 
requirements and protocols related to COVID -19. Kenya recalled that, based on information provided 
by the WHO, there were no COVID -19 food safety risks associated with trading food commodities. 
Kenya expressed its concern regarding China's measures on food imports, and requested China not 
to maintai n such measures without scientific evidence.  
4.89.   China  responded that it had detected COVID -19 virus in food imports  from India, the 
United  States  and Canada following a nucleic acid tests on imported food and packaging. As of 
22 June 2021, Chin a customs had detected 26 positive COVID -19 virus samples from products 
exported by a Member. China hoped  Members would strengthen their prevention and contr ol 
measures to ensure food safety in exported food , and encouraged companies with employee 
infections to voluntarily suspend exports to China. China considered its measures to be in line with G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 23 - 
 
  the SPS  Agreement and the FAO/WHO document "COVID -19 and Food Sa fety: Guidance for Food 
Businesses".  
4.90.   The United  States  requested China to engage in a robust discussion if the item was  included 
in the agenda of the November 2021 Committee meeting . 
4.2.8   China's administrative measures for registration of overseas manufacturer s of 
imported food (26  November  2019) (ID  485)  - Concerns of Australia, Canada, the 
European  Union  and the United  States  
4.91.   Australia  reiterated that some aspects of China 's Regulation on Registration and 
Administration of Overseas Manufacturers of Imported Food, promulgated as Decree 248 , might 
restrict trade more than necessary and be inconsistent with the SPS  Agreement . Australia regretted 
that China's responses to Australia's comments to notification G/TBT/N/CHN/1522  did not provide  
clear answers. Australia reiterated i ts request for China to provide the risk analysis, scientific data 
and technical information , and to notify the measures to the Committee. Australia  believed that 
China's requirement to register  all overseas food manufacturers  with the food safety authorit y, 
following the assessment  and approval  as equivalent  of the food safety management system of the 
country where they were located by China , was inconsistent with Codex standards and would restrict 
trade. In Australia's view, the proposed Regulation would discriminate between local and imported 
foods.  Understanding  that the R egulation would  come into effect on 1  January  2022, 
Australia  reques ted guidance for the registration of  overseas manufacturers of food categories , and 
request ed that establishments that ha d already completed the existing registration process be 
exempt ed from having to re -register . Australia sought  timely and transparent f eedback  in order to 
continue the successful history of trade in food products with China . 
4.92.   The European  Union  regretted the publication of Decrees 248 and 249 by China customs 
without reactions to comments provided to the draft texts notified in G/TBT/N/CHN/1522  and 
G/SPS/N/CHN/1191 . Taking into account the high volumes of products and beverages traded 
between China and the European  Union , and in order to minimi ze disruptions to economic 
relationships, the European  Union  urged China customs to develop guidelines, implementing rules 
and template forms and notify them through  the WTO for comments; indicate the HS codes of 
product categories codes that must be registered under the 'registration with recommendation' 
procedure unde r article 7 of Decree 248; define the types of operations that must be register ed; 
and provide for implementation and transition periods . 
4.93.   Noting the publication of Decrees 248 and 249 (notified in G/SPS/N/CHN/1191  and 
G/TBT/CHN/1522 , respectively), t he United  States  feared that the food facility registration 
requirements  established would create major trade disruptions  by mandating documentation and 
procedures beyond what is currently required for higher -risk products . The United  States  requested 
China to identify the specific food safety risks it  was attempting to address  with these measures . 
Given the complexity and significant effect on international trade of the proposed measures , the 
United  States  asked China to postpone the proposed implementation date of 1 January  2022 and 
continue engaging with trading partners . The US statement is contained  in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1939 . 
4.94.   Canada  regretted that comments provided to notifications G/SPS/N/CHN/1191  and 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1522  had not b een sufficiently taken into account by China customs before publication 
of Decrees 248 and 249. Noting the many successful bilateral arrangements between both countries, 
Canada was concerned that China's administrative measures were overly burdensome, went  beyond 
the extent necessary  to protect against food safety risks, would create confusion for competent 
authorities and industry due to the lack of details and transparency regarding its implementation, 
and would create serious barriers to trade, including  significant financial impacts. Acknowledging the 
numerous requests for bilateral meeting s to discuss these measures , Canada requested China to 
provide further clarity on these measures, specifically on the scope of the products impacted and 
the need of al l imported food and food products to be registered with China. Canada asked for an 
explanation on the relation between these measures with Decree 177 on the import and export of 
grain. Finally, Canada urged China to delay for 18 months the implementation o f Decrees 248 and 
249. G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 24 - 
 
  4.95.   Korea  was concerned with the economic, time and administrative burden that China's 
measures would impose on foreign facilities and exporting countries . Korea requested China to 
provide the  scientific evidence or risk analysis  used to  include a wide range of food products , and 
the requirement for foreign competent authorities to conduct a preliminary examination or inspection 
and a recommendation review . Korea asked China to delay the implementation of the measures 
beyond January 2022.  
4.96.   The United Kingdom  argued that introducing changes that appl ied to all foods regardless of 
the risk would negatively impact food trade more than necessary. The United Kingdom requested  
China to provide further clarity on these measures including risk assessments and scientific evidence . 
4.97.   Japan  was disappointed with the lack of response to comments provided on 
G/TBT/N/CHN/1522  prior to the publication of Decree 248. Japan was concerned with the  burden 
that the measures would impose on foreign competent authorities  and private f acilities that 
manufacture, process and store food items  exported to China. Specifically, Japan was concerned 
with the ambiguity of the regulation 's scope  regarding  food items  and companies to be registered , 
the duration of the registration, and the specific procedures and timeline of the registration of 
business operators . To avoid negative impacts on trade, Japan requested China to take into 
consideration the comments and concerns from WTO Members and reco nsider the implementation 
date of the measures.  
4.98.   Switzerland  regret ted that the measures include d all food categories irrespective of their 
risk-profile, and referred to previous statements for more detailed comments. 
Switzerland  encourage d China to conside r alternative  ways to ensure the importation of safe food 
products. Switzerland sought further clarification regarding  to product categories (by HS codes) and 
the types of operations that would  need to be registered. Likewise, Switzerland invite d China to  
review the  implementation and transition periods and share detailed guidelines well in advance of 
the date of implementation.  
4.99.   The Philippines  shared the concern that China's measures would impact trade in food 
products , regardless of risk levels . The several layers of  regulatory and administrative requirements  
imposed by the measures would  add cost to trade and regulatory burden to competent authorities , 
and cause undue delays in the registration or approval process.  The Philippines called on China to 
reconsider the measures , in light of the obligations in the SPS  Agreement  on harmonizing , 
minimizing of negative trade effects , avoiding undue delay and discrimination,  and requiring 
information limited to what was necessary.  The Philippines asked China to  refer to the statement 
and the questions provided in the June 2021  TBT Committee  meeting . 
4.100.   China  recalled that the Administrative Measures for Registration of Overseas Manufacturers 
of Import Foods  had been notified in 2011 as  G/SPS/N/CHN/472 . Given increasing food imports , 
new requirements had been put forward for food safety management , and the administrative 
measures  had been updated in order to implement China's  Food Safety Law . Taking into account 
Members' comments, China had established an eight -month transition period following publication 
of Decree 248 in April 2021. China clarified that  that th is Decree would  not affect the implementation 
of relevant agreements previously signed.  
4.2.9   China's delay in approving requests for new listing and reinstatement of export 
establishments (ID  516)  - Concerns of Australia  and Canada  
4.101.   Australia  was concerned with the long delays and lack of transparency in China 's approval 
and administrative update process , as well as with the lack of risk and/or evidence basis of China 's 
approach . Noting longstanding requests for approval of food export establishments , 
Australia  requested China to avoid discrimination of Australian products , in accordance with 
Article  2.3 of the SPS  Agreement . China was requested to apply SPS measures that we re 
science -based, proportionate to the risk and not more trade -restrictive than necessary . Australia  was 
waiting for China to approve  establishment registrations and updat e administrative listings changes , 
and to accept and publish the product listing requests and requests for renewal of registrations prior 
to expiry . Australia  reminded China of the obligations established in Annex C of the SPS  Agreement  
and urged China  to apply consistent criteria and transp arent timeframes on a non -discriminatory 
basis for approval procedures . G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 25 - 
 
  4.102.   Canada  was disappointed at the  undue delays in China 's approval procedures for the import 
of food products and of foreign establishments . These delays and the lack of transparency and of a 
rationale of approval procedures for foreign export establishments result ed in uncertainty and trade 
disruption s. Recalling the obligations established under Annex C of the SPS  Agreement , 
Canada  urged Ch ina: to finalize and publish the lists of Canadian products await registration; 
to provide timelines for acceptance; to transmit the result of the approval procedures; to explain 
the undue delays; to provide the reason why Canadian products or establishmen ts had not been 
approved; to limit information requirements to what was necessary; and to ensure transparent and 
predictable approval procedures.  
4.103.   The United Kingdom  shared the concerns on China's undue delays and lack of transparency , 
and asked China to en sure the application of  SPS measures in a non -discriminatory  and predictable 
manner , in accordance with Annex es B and C of the SPS Agreement . 
4.104.   The European  Union  called for transparent, predictable and swift approval procedures and 
the listing or re -listing  of establishments in  line with agreed international standards . 
4.105.   Highlighting its strict implementation of the products ' access and enterprise registration 
management , China  noted the recurring incidents involving Australian and Canadian products, 
including detection of the COVID -19 virus in Canadian aquatic products . China undertook  risk 
assessment s of the agricultural and food product quarantine access applications  to preven t the 
introduction of the pandemic and to ensure the facilitation and sustainability of trade under 
controllable risks . 
4.106.   In response  to China, Canada  emphasized the adherence of a ll Canadian federally licensed 
establishments to internationally accepted stan dards and food safety . Both countries shared a long 
history of safe trade. While Canada had provided all the detailed information  required, China ha d 
not responded to approve and publish the eligibility for exporting establishments . 
4.107.   Australia  responded to China by underscoring the high standards of its food system and the 
quality of  its agricultural products. Australia regretted that China had not honour ed commitments 
made during bilateral negotiations, that no progress had been made on market access requests, and 
that no response had been  received to the requests for engagement. Noting that other trading 
partners had also raised concerns on delays  and lack of transparency, Australia believe d that 
China's  actions were inconsistent with WTO obligations.  
4.2.10   Panama's authorization of Federal Inspection Type establishments (ID  515)  - 
Concerns of Mexico  
4.108.   Mexico  reiterated its concerns on the undue delays by Panamania n Food Safety Authority  
(AUPSA) in the renewal of authorization of Mexican establishments exporting products and 
by-products of bovine animals.  Despite Mexico's repeated requests for renewals, AUPSA had 
indicated the need to develop a procedure for the eli gibility of countries exporting to Panama and 
an assessment of Mexico's veterinary services, even though trade was ongoing and Mexico 
maintained the same sanitary status. Mexico recalled that SPS measures had to be based on science 
and appropriate to the c ircumstances, as well as the obligations under Annex C of the 
SPS Agreement . Reiterating its willingness to cooperate with Panama, Mexico  hoped to reach an 
agreement in the bilateral meeting of the SPS committee of the Free Trade Agreement  to be held 
later in July.  
4.109.   Costa Rica  consid ered that Panama's measures were not based on scientific evidence or a 
risk assessment, resulting in trade restrictions to the Panamanian market of a wide variety of 
agricultural products. Costa Rica urged Panama to take into account its concerns and respe ct the 
obligations under the SPS  Agreement . 
4.110.   In Peru's view, Panama's  measures were in violation of Articles 2, 5 and 8 and Annex C of 
the SPS  Agreement . Peru requested Panama to avoid unnecessary and unjustified barriers to trade.  
4.111.   Reiterating its willingne ss to cooperat e with Mexico , Panama  confirmed that this concern 
was included in the agenda of a bilateral meeting of the SPS committee of the Free Trade Agreement  
to be held later in July.  G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 26 - 
 
  4.2.11   Saudi Arabia's temporary suspension of Brazilian poultry exporting 
establishments (ID  486)  - Concerns of Brazil  
4.112.   Brazil  drew Members' attention to the tariff and non -tariff measures  imposed by Saudi Arabia 
restrict ing market access of poultry without  scientific evidence. In 2020, Brazil became aware 
through  Letter No. 19672/E  that the Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) had temporarily 
suspend ed imports of products manufactured in two establishments , without providing technical 
reasons. Later on, another 11 plants were suspended  without the possibility to provide  technical 
clarifications . Brazil  considered  such restrictions to violate  Article s 2, 5 and 8 and Annex C  of the 
SPS Agreement  and urged  Saudi Arabia to reconsider its restrictive measures as soon as possible.  
4.113.   Ukraine  also indicated its c oncerns with some regulatory changes regarding shelf -life period s 
for frozen chicken and table eggs. Ukraine believed that the adoption of the proposed requirements 
would impact the ability to export these products and negatively affect mutual trade. Ukraine looke d 
forward to receiving responses to the comments submitted to notification G/SPS/N/SAU/435 , 
G/SPS/N/SAU/435/Add.1  and G/SPS/N/SAU/435/Add.2 . 
4.114.   Saudi Arabia  replied that it had provided Brazil  with the required procedures to resolve the 
issues affecting the two poultry meat establishments.  In May 2021, Saudi Ara bia had suspended 
imports from certain Brazilian poultry establishments due to certain products exceeding the 
microbiological limits and standards set forth in the Technical Regulation of Microbiological Criteria 
for Foodstuffs No.  (SFDA.FD/GSO 1016:2015 ), notified as G/SPS/N/SAU/1 37. Saudi Arabia 's 
measures  were intended to ensure food safety and the protection of human health , in light of 
Article  2.1 of the SPS  Agreement , and were subject to review in light of any new information.  
Saudi  Arabia reaffirmed its commitment to facilitating international trade, and welcomed the current 
dialogue with Brazil to resolve this issue bilaterally.  
4.2.12   General import restrictions due to BSE (ID  193)  - Concerns of the European  Union  
4.115.   The European  Union  reiterated its concerns regarding unjusti fied and long delays in 
approving imports of beef from the European  Union  in light of bovine spongiform encephalopathy 
(BSE) concerns of certain Members. The European  Union  took the view that the delays in the 
approval procedures of some Members, in partic ular Argentina , Australia , Brazil , China, Colombia , 
Egypt , Japan , Jordan , Korea, Malaysia , South Africa , Chinese Taipei , and the  United  States  of 
America, were inconsistent with Article  8 and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement . The European  Union  
urged all Members to comply with their obligations under the WTO agreements, apply international 
standards, lift remaining BSE -related restrictions for all EU member States and finalize the remaining 
pending approval procedures without further delay. The European  Union  remained open to continue 
to work constructively with all trading partners.  
4.2.13   China's restrictions on bovine meat imports (ID  510)  - Concerns of India  
4.116.   India reiterated its concerns on import restrictions imposed by China based on India's FMD 
status, despite the STC raised, the bilateral Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed in 2013, 
the clearing by China in 2017 of 14 centres for the export of bovine meat from India, and the similar 
FMD conditions prevailing in China and India. Recalling the  guidance provided by the OIE in its 
Terrestrial Code, India noted its ongoing exports of  meat to FMD -free countries with no instances of 
FMD transmission. India pointed out that it had a  recognized official FMD control programme similar 
to other countries  from which China allowed bovine meat imports.  India considered 
China's  measures were inconsistent with Articles 2.2, 2.3, 3.3 and 5.1 of the SPS  Agreement , and 
requested China to share its scientific justification and the risk assessment undertaken to imp ose a 
higher standard of disease -free status than that required by the OIE.  
4.117.   China explained that the ban  on imports  of Indian beef and its products was established in 
accordance with the principles of regional management of FMD and with OIE standards, in light of 
the outbreaks of this disease  in India in recent years. In case India had effectively controlled the 
FMD, C hina invited India to provide the corresponding information so that the relevant procedures 
for lifting the ban could be initiated.  G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 27 - 
 
  4.2.14   China's import restrictions due to African swine fever (ID  392)  - Concerns of the 
European  Union  
4.118.   The European  Union  again ra ised concerns over China's African swine fever (ASF) -related 
country -wide import bans on pork products, encompassing EU member States that had successfully 
eradicated the disease in livestock and wildlife and had regained a disease -free status in accordanc e 
with OIE rules. The European  Union  recalled that the issue had first been raised in July 2015 and 
regretted that China had since then expanded the bans, despite having the same sanitary profile as 
the European  Union . The European  Union  requested China to  respect its obligations under the 
SPS Agreement and OIE standards and to allow trade from disease -free areas . The European Union 
was ready to work with China towards finding a solution.  
4.119.   China  noted the success of the strict measures adopted to prevent and control ASF  since the 
disease was introduced in 2018. According to OIE data, ASF had been reported in Latvia, Romania, 
German y and other EU member States in 2021. China pointed out that trade of products  was ongoing 
on the basis of risk asse ssment  from ASF -free EU member States.  
4.2.15   Korea's import restrictions due to African swine fever (ID  393)  - Concerns of the 
European Union  
4.120.   The European  Union  reiterated its concern regarding  Korea's ASF -related ban on pork and 
pork products from several EU me mber States since February 2014, which did not take into account 
EU regionalization measures. The European  Union  considered the measure to be more 
trade -restrictive than necessary. In addition, the European  Union  indicated that Korea had continued 
to recei ve detailed information on all outbreaks in full transparency and had received all necessary 
evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of the EU regionalization measures. The European  Union  
urged Korea to lift the bans and to recognize the EU harmonized reg ionalization measures.  
The European  Union  welcome d recent positive exchanges with Korea and remai ned open to further 
cooperation . 
4.121.   The Russian Federation  requested Korea to approve  a pending application for market access 
of Russian pig products. The Russian Federation regretted that Korea's position remained 
unchanged, despite having received all necessary data on ASF control measures implemented by 
Russia and the guidelines in the OI E Terrestrial Code. The Russian Federation requested Korea to 
comply with its obligations under Articles 3 and 6 of the SPS  Agreement . 
4.122.   Korea  pointed out that the import ban on pork products from the ASF -affected countries was 
in accordance with the import health requirements agreed by the two parties. Consultations for the 
evaluation of the regionalization of ASF for other EU member States were ongoing, and imports of 
pork meat from Belgium had been resumed following the recent recovery of the country's ASF -free 
status. Concerning  the Russian Federation, Korea had delivered its concern about the ASF outbreak 
situations within the country. Korea remained open to holding consultations on this issue.  
4.2.16   Mexico's import restrictions on pork (ID  489)  - Concerns of Brazil 
4.123.   Brazil  noted that, in April 2019, its authorities had been informed of the negative result of 
the risk analysis concerning market access to Mexico of Brazilian pork produced in the state of 
Santa  Catarina. Despite the OIE recognition of the state of Santa Catarina as free from FMD without 
vaccination, Mexico had continued to question the efficiency of its risk mitigation strategies. 
Brazil  considered this position to be inconsistent with Article  6 and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement , 
and recalle d the provisions of article 1.3.2.2 of the OIE Terrestrial Code. Brazil reiterated that pork 
meat exported to Mexico presented no risk as it came from a zone free from classic swine fever 
(CSF) and FMD, as recognized by the OIE, and that pork imports were to be processed by 
Mexico's  food industry. In July 2019, Brazil had proposed an international sanitary certificate model 
for pork meat for industrial processing, and was waiting for Mexico's response. Brazil considered 
Mexico's measures to be discriminator y and to lack scientific basis.  
4.124.   Mexico  highlighted  that its SPS measures systema tically recognized the principles of the 
SPS Agreement , and expressed its concern on the guarantees offered by the Brazilian authorities to 
demonstrate export safety as it refe rs to regionalization.  Mexico considered the two Brazilian 
normative instruments for the mobilization of animals to be conflicting, and noted that, in addition G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 28 - 
 
  to the review of the technical information provided on the control of FMD in the state of 
Santa  Catarina, a legal analysis of these normative instruments was being carried out in accordance 
with the SPS  Agreement  and the relevant international standards. Mexico reiterated its willingness 
to continue working with Brazilian  authorities and encouraged a  continued technical dialogue to deal 
with this concern.  
4.2.17   China's import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza (ID  406)  - 
Concerns of the European  Union  
4.125.   The European  Union  raised its concern regarding China's imposition, since 2015, of 
country -wide bans on several EU member States on account of HPAI. The European  Union  had 
repeatedly requested China to recognize the principle of regionalization, lift country -wide import 
restrictions, and take more targeted measures. The  European  Union  regretted that there was not 
much progress to report on the resolution of this  issue. The European  Union  considered that 
China  continued to disrespect the concept of regionalization and the OIE Terrestrial Code. 
The European  Union  reiterated its continued in terest to work constructively with China on this issue.  
4.126.   China  highlighted that HPAI was a serious infectious disease affecting the poultry industry. 
China noted there had been several outbreaks in EU member States with the ongoing one being the 
most seriou s outbreak in recent years. China indicated it had suspended imports  of live poultry from 
the European  Union  to protect the safety of its poultry industry, and expressed its willingness to 
conduct technical exchanges on the management of HP AI with the Euro pean Union . 
4.2.18   Korea's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian influenza 
(ID 456)  - Concerns of the European  Union  
4.127.   The European  Union  reiterated its concern regarding Korea's country -wide bans on poultry 
imports from certain EU member St ates due to HPAI. The European  Union  had, on numerous 
occasions, provided information on the sanitary control systems in place to demonstrate that avian 
influenza was reliably controlled, and disease -free areas were likely to remain free. 
The European  Union referred to the OIE's updated waiting period to regain freedom , which had been 
reduced from three months to 28 days. The European  Union  urged Korea to lift the country -wide 
bans and recognize its harmonized regionalization measures.  The European  Union  welcomed the 
recent exchanges with Korea and expressed its willingness to find a solution.  
4.128.   The Russian Federation  supported the concern. Th e Russian Federation stated that, 
according to Korea, market access for Russian poultry would only be granted when the entire 
territory of the Russian Federation was recognized as HPAI -free. In this regard, the 
Russian  Federation recalled that the OIE Terr estrial Code allowed imports of poultry products from 
HPAI-affected  countries under certain conditions. The Russian Federation urged Korea to comply 
with Articles 3 and 6 of the SPS  Agreement . 
4.129.   Korea  indicated that it had imposed import bans on HPAI -affecte d countries according to the 
import health requirements mutually agreed upon by the two sides. Korea highlighted that, based  on 
OIE standards, if HPAI -free status was recovered in an exporting country, it would immediately lift 
the import ban. Korea had informed the European  Union  and Russia that it would proceed with an 
evaluation of regionalization, provided there was a specified disease -free area and a stable 
HPAI situation in the exporting country. Korea expressed its willingness to resolve the issue th rough 
technical consultations.  
4.2.19   South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian 
influenza (ID  431)  - Concerns of the European  Union  
4.130.   The European  Union  regretted that South Africa maintained country -wide bans on poultry 
products from six EU member States and did not apply the regionalization principle. 
The European  Union considered the measure to be at odds with Article  6 of the SPS  Agreement . 
The European  Union  noted that South Africa had carried out inspections in certa in EU member States 
and was aware of the structure and capacity of EU veterinary services. The European  Union  called 
for South Africa to respect its obligations and reiterated its interest to resolve the issue in a 
constructive and mutually satisfactory ma nner.  G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 29 - 
 
  4.131.   South Africa  clarified that several EU member States were eligible to export cooked poultry 
meat to South Africa. South Africa highlighted that it was a priority for the country to address the 
issue and reminded the European  Union  that it had not rec eived requests from EU member States 
for the evaluation and recognition of compartments free from HPAI despite several bilateral 
negotiations attempts.  
4.2.20   Non-publication of US final rule on importation of sheep, goats and certain other 
ruminants (ID  493)  - Concerns of the European  Union  
4.132.   The European  Union  reiterated its concerns about the unjustified and long delay in the 
publication of the US final rule on importation of sheep, goats and certain other ruminants. 
The European  Union  noted that this would be on ly the starting point for EU member States and other 
WTO Members to start the relevant procedure to get approval for exports of small ruminant meat. 
It would also complete the protracted process of aligning US animal health rules with international 
standar ds for BSE and transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE). The European  Union  
highlighted existing links between  this STC and STC 193 and recalled the need to take into account 
international standards and science  when establishing SPS measures . Considering that necessary 
technical and administrative work had been completed in 2017, the European  Union  considered the 
accumulated delays to constitute a violation of Article  8 and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement . 
The European  Union  urged the United  State s to comply with its WTO obligations and apply 
international standards to lift remaining TSE related restrictions for all EU member States and not 
to delay further the publication of the final rule.  The European  Union  noted that no substantial 
developments  had emerged from the discussion in the March 2021 EU -US Animal Health Technical 
Working Group, and remained open to continue to work constructively with the United Stated.  
4.133.   The United  States  appreciated the interest of the European  Union  in the status of t he final 
rule t o change BSE -related restrictions for non -bovine ruminant species and most sheep and goat 
products. The United St ated indicated that it continued to work through its administrative procedure 
to process this request. The United  States  noted  the bilateral engagement on this matter, including 
the March 2021 US -EU Animal Health Technical Working Group meeting  and looked forward to 
continuing cooperation with the European  Union . 
4.2.21   The Philippines' trade restrictions on imports of meat (ID  466) - Concerns of the 
European  Union  and the Russian Federation  
4.134.   The European  Union  reiterated that the Philippines did not adhere to OIE international 
standards, did not apply the regionalization principle, and maintained a policy of imposing 
scientifically unjusti fied country -wide bans on imports of meat and meat products from EU member 
States on grounds of ASF or HPAI . The European  Union  recalled that nine EU  member States  were 
subject to country -wide import bans imposed by the Philippines on pork  meat or poultry meat and 
relevant products. To the European  Union , the Philippines' measures lacked scientific justification, 
were against the principle of regionalization, and wer e inconsistent with the SPS  Agreement . 
The European  Union  indicated that it remained ready to engage further with the Philippines with the 
objective to minimize the disruption of trade, calling on the Philippines to respect its international 
obligations an d to allow trade of pork and poultry from disease -free EU  member States and zones.  
4.135.   The Russian Federation  raised its concern regarding the Philippines' restrictions on imports 
of Russian beef and pork. The Russian Federation had been informed that exports of pork and beef 
to the Philippines would only be allowed after receiving the FMD, ASF and lumpy skin disease -free 
status,  as well as the BSE low risk status by the OIE. The Russian Federation indicated it had 
submitted information on the domestic epizooti c situation to the Philippines for the diseases at issue, 
and that it had not yet received a response from the Philippines. The Russian Federation urged the 
Philippines to comply with the obligations under Articles 6 and 8, and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement , 
and to provide responses to its requests.  
4.136.   The Philippines  reiterated that it adhered to  international standards and was mindful of  the 
obligations under  the SPS  Agreement . The Philippines noted that it had imposed country -wide import 
restrictions on four EU member States based on evidence of the rapid spread of HPAI. 
Import  restrictions had been regionalized for Hungary, Belgium and Ireland. The Philippines 
considered that  the technical information available was not sufficient to ease its import restrictions, 
and explained that the measures were reviewed and updated on the basis of verifiable scientific G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 30 - 
 
  information. Regarding ASF, the Philippines shed light on its efforts t o prevent and control the 
disease in the affected areas. The Philippines considered it had been clear in its response to the 
requests of the Russian Federation. The Philippines had not granted beef and pork export 
accreditation to the Russian Federation fo llowing an assessment procedure from 2018 to 2019. 
The Philippines maintained this decision due to current outbreaks of ASF in domestic and wild pigs 
and detections of lumpy  skin disease. The Philippines concluded that it would welcome further 
discussion w ith the European  Union  and the Russian Federation.  
4.2.22   India's approval procedures for animal products (ID  484) - Concerns of the 
Russian Federation  
4.137.   The Russian Federation  acknowledged progress in the cooperation with India regarding the 
approval procedures fo r imports of Russian feed and non -food raw materials of animal origin. 
The Russian Federation nonetheless reiterated that, thus far, it had not had an opportunity to supply 
any food products of animal origin to the Indian market. In addition, India had not  shared its view 
regarding the issue of regionalization for avian influenza and access of safe Russian poultry products 
to the Indian market. The Russian Federation further considered India to unreasonably delay the 
approval of veterinary certificates for poultry meat and poultry products (offal) and veterinary 
certificates for fish products. The Russian Federation urged India to comply with Article  8 and 
Annex  C of the SPS  Agreement  and requested India to undertake and complete its approval 
procedures prop erly and without undue delay.  
4.138.   India indicated that it was in consultation with the Russian Federation. After consultations in 
January,  answers had been provided to the Russian Federation and India was waiting for a  response 
and a  detailed examination. Indi a reiterated its statement at the March  2021 Committee meeting.  
4.2.23   Delays in Malaysia's approval procedures for meat and dairy imports (ID  491) - 
Concerns of the Russian Federation  
4.139.   The Russian Federation  acknowledged progress on the resolution of the issue and thanked 
Malaysia for making information on the import requirements for dairy products  available . 
In May 2021 the Russian Federation provided answers to Malaysia's question on its veterinary 
supervision system for beef produ ction. The Russian Federation reiterated its concern about 
unmotivated delays in Malaysia's approval procedures for meat and dairy imports. 
The Russian  Federation had been waiting, since October 2019, for veterinary certificate approvals 
for products of an imal origin (pork, poultry, beef, and dairy products). The  Russian  Federation urged 
Malaysia to comply with Article  8 and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement , and to accelerate the provision 
of responses to its requests.  
4.140.   Malaysia  indicated it maintained active communication with the Russian Federation on this 
issue. The Russian Federation had been requested  to provide additional information and 
documentation on one of its application s and had yet to respond to Malaysia's request d ated 
23 June 2021. Disagreeing with the point made by the Russian Federation regarding unmotivated 
delays, Malaysia reiterated its compliance with Article  8 and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement . 
Malaysia  expressed its willingness to continue technical discussi ons with the Russian Federation.  
4.2.24   Panama's undue delays in the renewal of authorizations for plants of Peruvian 
fishery and livestock enterprises (ID  509) - Concerns of Peru  
4.141.   Peru expressed its concern regarding Panama's undue delays in the renewal of author izations 
for plants of fishery and livestock enterprises. Peru considered Panama's actions to be inconsistent 
with Articles 2.2, 5.1 and 8, and Annex C.1(a) -(c) of the SPS  Agreement , as no response had been 
provided by Panama concerning the pending request  for authorization. Peru emphasized that 
Panama had failed to communicate the foreseen processing period, and that the timeframe that 
would be given to Peruvian enterprises in case of renewal of authorizations was uncertain. 
Peru requested Panama to renew the authorizations for Peruvian export plants, provide new 
authorizations and avoid undue delays. Peru submitted its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/1936.  
4.142.   Costa Rica  supported this concern regarding the practices implemented by Panama which 
restricted trade. Costa Rica called upon Panama to address Members' concerns, which were G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 31 - 
 
  indicative of an inadequate application of SPS  measures and a non -observance of the obligati ons in 
the SPS  Agreement . 
4.143.   Panama  took note of the concerns and referred to its previous comments indicating that 
STCs were being addressed through a bilateral technical commission. Panama hoped to move 
forward in the search of solutions in this matter . 
4.2.25   Mexico's resumption of frozen shrimp imports (ID  507) - Concerns of China  
4.144.   China  expressed its concern regarding Mexico's suspension of imports of shrimp products 
from China on the grounds of preventing the introduction of the Acute Hepatopancreatic Necrosis 
disease (AHPND).  In May 2021 China had received Mexico's sanitary requirements for imported 
frozen shrimp. China appreciated Mexico's cooperation and bilateral engagement in this regard. 
Nonetheless, China considered that Articles 3 , 4 and 5 of Mexico's san itary requirements set an 
excessively high level of protection for the control of the disease, and contradicted the OIE Aquatic 
Code. In addition, China considered Mexico's measure to be inconsistent with the SPS  Agreement 
and the GATT  1994. China hoped th at Mexico would comply with the relevant standards, scientifically 
formulate its import requirements for Chinese frozen shrimps and resume importing frozen shrimp 
from China as soon as possible . 
4.145.   Mexico  reiterated its willingness to work with China and indi cated that it had recently 
requested a  bilateral meeting. Mexico highlighted that its SPS measures systematically recognized 
the principles in the SPS  Agreement . In April, Mexico had pro posed a risk mitigation strategy to 
facilitate trade in shrimp from Ch ina. The proposed strategy would  allow frozen, peeled, deveined 
and headless shrimp for human consumption, prepared and packaged for direct retail sale in line 
with the provisions of article 5.4.2 of the OIE Aquatic Code. To determine equivalence, 
Mexico  highlighted that it was necessary to carry on with the evaluation of Chinese veterinary 
services. Mexico expressed its willingness to continue the d ialogue with China at a technical  level.  
4.2.26   China's proposed new health certificate format for shrimp imports (ID  506) - 
Concerns of India  
4.146.   India raised its concerning regarding China's proposed new health certificate format , that  
would make most of India's shrimp consignments unfit for export to Chi na. The health certificate 
format  required that shrimp consignment be tested for OIE -listed pathogens, including the white 
spot syndrome and the infectious hypodermal and hematopoietic necrosis viruses , which were also 
prevalent in China and did not pose a  threat to human health . In India's views, the responses 
provided by China in the March 2021 Committee meeting did not address its concerns. 
India requested China to provide a risk assessment or indicate the less trade -restrictive measures 
it had taken int o consideration . 
4.147.   China  argued that  preventive and control measures against shrimp -related diseases  had 
been adopted for many years.  In order to prevent risks, China ha d adopted temporary emergency 
preventive protective measures to suspend the import of related products, which was in line with 
the SPS  Agreement  and the OIE standards.  China added that other Members had also put forward 
strict disease quarantine requirement s on imported shrimp products  and that their measures we re 
science -based , reasonable and did not impose  excessive protection requirements . 
4.2.27   The Russian Federation's import restrictions on processed fishery products from 
Estonia and Latvia (ID  390)  - Concern s of the European  Union  
4.148.   The European  Union  reiterated its concerns regarding import restrictions on fisher y products 
from Estonia, recalling that these measures were inconsistent wit h several provisions of the 
SPS Agreement. Estonia had held several bilate ral discussions with the Russian Federation, without 
satisfactory progress regarding the lifting of trade restrictions. The European  Union  regretted that 
no fisher y plants were authorized to export  to the Russian Federation  despite a third audit conducted 
in 2019.  The European  Union  hoped that Estonian fishery establishments, compliant with the 
requirements of the Russian Federation, would regain access to the Russian market in the near 
future.  The European  Union  called on the Russian Federation to repeal its disproportionate measures 
and to respect its WTO obligations.  G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 32 - 
 
  4.149.   The Russian Federation  recalled  that the temporary restriction s imposed on imports of fish 
products from Latvia and Estonia w ere due to violations  in the fish product safety control system, 
as confirmed by experts' inspections in 2015 and 2016. The Russian Federation indicated that 
inspections had been carried out in Latvia and Estonia in 2016 and 2019 respectively, and certain 
restrictions had been  lifted as a result. No additional requests to lift the restrictions had been 
received from Latvia and Estonia . 
4.2.28   Russian Federation - Procedures for authorizing units eligible for export of fish 
and fish products to Eurasian Customs Union (ID  508)  - Concern s of India  
4.150.   India complain ed that the Russian Federation had not updated its register of approved 
enterprises and newly approved enterprises had not been able to export to the Eurasian  Customs 
Union , despite the list of approved processing establishments provided by India in accordance with 
a bilateral MoU. In India's view, this was  in violation of the MoU and Articles 2.3 , 4 and 5 of the 
SPS Agreement . India requested the Russian Federation to share its risk assessment in support of 
insisting on inspections  by Russian authorities . India considered that the responses provided by the 
Russian Federation did not address its concerns and reiterated the request that the risk assessment 
be shared.  
4.151.   Following detections of residues of harmful and prohibited substances in Indian products , 
the Russian Federation  had temporarily imposed restrictions on certain enterprises, and was not 
adding new enterprises to the Register of Exporters . The Eurasian Economic Commission Council 
Decision No . 94 established the ins pection of foreign enterprises as a possible requirement prior to 
the authorization of  fish and fish products exports . The Russian Federation argued that India had 
not responded to its proposal to conduct inspections of fish processing enterprises . 
The Russian Federation was not able to update the  Register of Enterprises  of third countries as 
India had failed to  update the existing lists . The Russian Federation expressed  its readiness to 
include  new Indian enterprises after the implementation of existing re quirements and agreements . 
4.2.29   Guatemala's restrictions on egg products (ID  413)  - Concerns of Mexico  
4.152.   Mexico  reiterated its concern regarding the import restrictions imposed by Guatemala on 
thermally processed egg products, which could be a violation of fundam ental principles of the 
SPS Agreement and of the FTA between Mexico and Central America. This concern had also been 
raised in several bilateral fora. The National Health, Food Safety and Agrifood Quality Service 
(SENASICA ) had repeatedly requested the procedure and requirements to export thermally 
processed liquid and dried egg products, and had provided technical information on these products 
to Guatemala. In its response, Guatemala had referred to Ministerial Agreements No. 105 -2012 and 
No. 228 -2013, which stated that import restrictions would be based on OIE guidelines. However, 
Mexico believed that import restrictions imposed on thermally processed poultry and poultry 
products that did not pose a health risk restricted trade without scientific evidence. Guatemala did 
not allow imports of these products, despite the objective evidence provided by Mexico of the 
existence of HPAI -free zones and compartments. Mexico asked Guatemala to provide import 
requirements for thermall y processed egg products in accordance with OIE guidelines  and to lift 
restrictions on the importation of egg products . Mexico remained open to dialogue and looked 
forward to Guatemala's comments . 
4.153.   Guatemala  confirmed that the information submitted by SENAS ICA was under evaluation by 
Guatemala's health authority and requested that the discussions be continued in bilateral fora.  
4.2.30   Indonesia's approval procedures for animal and plant products (ID  441)  - 
Concerns of the European  Union  
4.154.   The European  Union  reiterate d its concerns about the lack of transparency of and undue 
delays in Indonesia's approval procedures for imports of plant and animal products. 
The European  Union regretted the limited feedback received from Indonesia following a request for 
information on its market access approval procedures for agri -food products from EU member States 
pending export applications. Specifically, the European  Union  expressed concerns about the lack of 
progress on export applications for beef, dairy, poultry, pork, and plant products, which in some 
instances had been submitted more than seven years ago. The European  Union  requested Indonesia G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 33 - 
 
  to be transparent about its approval procedures and finalize pending market access applications 
without undue delay, in line with the SPS  Agreement . 
4.155.   Indonesia  noted that  the concern had been addressed in the CTG. Indonesia  stated  that 
provisions for the importation of animals and animal products were considered  based on  a risk 
assessment, according to Article  5 of the SPS  Agreement . Likewise, harmonization was being carried 
out with issuance of Minister of Agriculture Regulation No. 42 of 2019 and Minister of Agriculture 
Regulation No. 39 of 2019, which had been revised to Minister of Agriculture No. 02, of 2020. 
Indonesia  acknowledged some delays in the approval procedure for the entry of imported goods due 
to COVID -19, which had been bilaterally communicated to the EU member States. 
Indonesia  suggested that each EU memb er State report the status of progress of the import approval 
procedure to the EU representative in Geneva . 
4.2.31   US import restrictions on apples and pears (ID  439)  - Concerns of the 
European  Union  
4.156.   The European  Union  regretted that the United  States  continued t o refuse imports of apples 
and pears from the European  Union  under a systems approach , instead of the existing preclearance 
approach . The European  Union  recalled that the United  States  had concluded, several years ago, 
that imports of apples and pears coul d take place under a systems approach , but had not undertaken 
the final administrative step of publishing a final notice  to allow trade to start . 
To the European  Union, there was no justification on scientific grounds to continue to block imports 
into the United  States of apples and pears from the European  Union  under the agreed systems 
approach.  The European  Union  indicated that it continued to work constructively with the 
United  States, but  also urged  the United  States  to solve this matter without any further delay . 
4.157.   The United  States  responded that it continue s to work through its administrative procedures 
to process this request. While noting that the European  Union  was able to export apples and pears 
under the existin g preclearance programme and appeared to misrepresent these aspects of the 
issue, the United  States  expressed its appreciation for the bilateral engagement.  
4.2.32   Thailand's phytosanitary restrictions on imports of fresh citrus fruits due to sweet 
orange scab (I D 470)  - Concerns of Japan  
4.158.   Japan  expressed its appreciation for the bilateral meeting held after the March 2021 
Committee meeting. Recalling the chronology of the concern since the introduction by Thailand of a 
5-step procedure for packinghouse handling  in 2018, Japan explained that Thailand ha d not 
conducted the proper risk assessment based on the ISPM. Japan argued that, although Thailand had 
referred to the probability of entry of  sweet orange scab , in its view the  result of Thailand 's risk 
assessment was in fact a general statement of possibility , rather than an actual assessment of the 
probability . Japan considered that the probability of entry was negligible when applying an 
alternative measure that Japan had proposed  and that had not been accepted by Thailand.  
Japan  reiterated its request for  Thailand to conduct a proper risk assessment based on the ISPM and 
to accept the proposed alternative phytosanitary measure.  
4.159.   Thailand  underscored the bilateral cooperation on the risk analysis process for the 
importation of citrus fruit  since the detection in 2014 of sweet orange scab  in citrus fruits . 
Thailand  informed the Committee that Japan had requested a  transition period after the measure 
was applied in 2019 , which had  been provided, and had also confirmed and agreed on the import 
protocol , as referred in a  confirmation letter from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries 
(MAFF) . Thailand was waiting for the additional scientific information  that had been req uested to 
Japan, which was necessary to conduct the risk analysis and to consider the acceptance of the 
proposed alternative measure. Thailand suggested that the ongoing technical consultation s continue 
bilaterally.  
4.2.33   Ecuador's import restrictions on grapes and onions (ID  498)  - Concerns of Peru  
4.160.   Recognizing Ecuador's legitimate objective of protecting health established in Article  5 of the 
SPS Agreement , Peru was of the view that Ecuador's actions constituted a violation of the legislat ion 
in place in Ecuador, of Articles 2.2, 5.1, 5.4, 7 and 8, as well as Annexes B and C of the 
SPS Agreement , and of Codex Guidelines for the Exchange of Information Between Countries on G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 34 - 
 
  Rejections of Imported Food (CAC/GL 25 -1997). The closure of Ecuador' s markets could not be 
technically justified by the Code of Ethics for International Trade in Food including Concessional and 
Food Aid Transactions (CAC/RCP/20 -1979). While the Technical Resolution DAJ 20133EC -0201.0096 
had been notified in document G/SPS/N/ECU/132 , Resolution 0064 , from 2017, had not been notified 
and Members had not been able to submit comments, despite the impact of the regulation on trade. 
Despite the exchanges held since 2014, Peru had not received a reply on its actions implemented to 
reach a technical solutio n and on the action plan proposed. Peru considered Ecuador's actions as 
discriminatory and regretted that restrictions were still in place despite having fulfilled all requests 
by Ecuador. Noting the concern raised in G/SPS/GEN/1907 , Peru requested Ecuador to avoid 
proposing measures  that violate the provisions of the SPS  Agreement  and the basic principles of the 
WTO; to ensure that it does not disregard the technical agreements previously established; to notify 
its measure and give the other WTO Members the opportunity to submit comm ents; and to reopen 
access to the Ecuadorian market for grapes and onions from Peru.  More information is available in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1937 . 
4.161.   Reiterating the necessity of the imposed measures to protect consumers' health, 
Ecuador  hoped that the upcoming bilateral technical meeting w ould lead to a mutually acceptable 
solution. Ecuador reaffirmed its commitment to comply with the SPS  Agreement  and the Codex 
standards, as well as with the agreements reached in Presidential meetings between both countries . 
4.2.34   Panama's restrictions regarding the procedure to regain access for Peruvian 
potatoes and onions (ID  512)  - Concerns of Peru  
4.162.   Peru raised concerns about  Panama's restrictions and undue delays in granting access to 
Peruvian potatoes and onions. In Peru's view, Panama' s measures were in violation of Articles 2.2, 
5, 5.4 and 8 and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement . Peru indicated that Panama had suspended the 
importation of onions in 2016 on the basis of an updated pest risk analysis (PRA). Trade in potatoes 
had been suspende d in 2009 following the interception of a pest in a consignment at destination; 
Peru regretted the lack of response at the phytosanitary protocol for the exportation  proposed in 
2010. Panama 's market  was kept  closed for potatoes and onions, and no response  was provided to 
Peru's information and  communications , including G/SPS/GEN/1905 . Peru request ed Panama to 
reopen the market to Peruvian potato and onion exports and to avoid unnecessary and unjustified 
barriers to trade.  More information is available in document G/SPS/GEN/1938 . 
4.163.   Costa Rica  reiterated its concerns on Panama's practice of implementation of SPS measures 
which, in some cases, led to total restrictions of trade namely of a wide range agricultural products. 
Costa Rica asked Panama to take into account Members' concerns, which noted an inappropri ate 
implementation of SPS measures and a non -compliance of the obligations established in the 
Agreement.  
4.164.   Panama  took note of Peru's comments  and recalled that a technical commission was 
addressing the concerns bilaterally.  
4.2.35   India's import requirements for p ulses (ID  497)  - Concerns of Canada  
4.165.   Canada  reiterated its concern regarding India's trade -restrictive measures on pulses, 
including mandatory fumigation requirements and measures on weed seeds. Canada recalled that 
India had committed to continue engaging on the issue of alternatives to India's fumigation 
requirements. However, there had been a lack of engagement since then and India had not yet 
responded to Canada's overtures of fall 2020. Turning to India's measures on weed seeds, 
Canada  noted that India had added 26 new weed seeds species to its List of Quarantine Weed Seeds 
in October 2019. In Canada's view, these actions were inconsistent with the principles of transparent 
and predicable international rules -based trade. Canada urged India to continue en gage with the aim 
of finding an early resolution of these issues.  
4.166.   Recalling the continuous engagement with Canada in this issue, India had requested 
information on several issues following a visit to Canada to review its systems and approaches. 
India was s till waiting for Canada's response about India's review of PRA on pulses imported from 
Canada, following  interception of quarantine pests in pulses consignment in 2019. India reaffirmed 
its commitment to finding a mutually acceptable solution in this matte r. G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 35 - 
 
  4.167.   In response to India, Canada  clarified  that it had provided India with all requested 
information  on both f umigation and weed seeds  and that nothing was outstanding on its side. 
Canada  looked forward to clarifying these matters.  
4.2.36   US non-recognition of the pest free status in the European  Union  for Asian 
longhorn beetle and citrus longhorn beetle (ID  471)  - Concerns of the European  Union  
4.168.   The European  Union  reiterated its concern regarding  unjustified and long delays in the 
United  State s' recognition of the pest  free status in the European  Union  for Asian longhorn beetle 
and citrus longhorn beetle. The European  Union  regretted the absence of progress on this topic, 
indicating that the United  States  had satisfactorily finalized its scient ific assessment several years 
ago on the country pest freedom recognition of the EU member States concerned, but had yet to 
publish a final Federal Order in this respect. The European  Union  added that there was no scientific 
basis for the United  States  to block this last administrative step and that the United  States  was 
therefore not complying with the SPS  Agreement . Having expressed its openness to continue 
working with the United  States , the European  Union  urged the United  States  to publish without 
further delay the notice at issue and accept the EU pest  free areas . 
4.169.   The United  States  assured the European  Union  that it was working through its administrative 
procedures to process this request. The United  States  noted the bilateral technical engagement on 
the matter and looked forward to continued cooperation . 
4.2.37   Proposed new EU rules on composite products (ID  504) - Concerns of Australia 
and the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu  
4.170.   Australia  was still concerned  about the new  EU rules for shelf -stable composite products 
under Regulations (EU) 2019/625 and (EU) 2020/2235.  For Australia, these new rules were not 
commensurate with risk and had already restricted trade in shelf-stable composite products . 
The requirement that animal  origin ingredients  be sourced  from EU -listed establishments for all 
composite products  was unjustified. Australia con sidered that the private attestation requirement , 
which added transaction costs and brought no food safety benefits, could be eliminated without any 
impact on food safety. Australia invited the European  Union  to consider this request.  
4.171.   Thanking the European  Union  for the updated information provided on DG SANTE 's website , 
Chinese Taipei  regretted the lack of a clear correlation between the requirements for ingredients of 
animal origin to be produced by EU -approved establishments, and shelf -stability, food safety and 
risks to public or animal health.  Chinese Taipei considered there was no reasoning for requiring 
ingredients of processed products of animal origin used in trace amounts  to be produced by 
EU-approved establishments when alternative approaches exist ed to achieve the same health 
protection level . Chinese Taipei urged the E uropean  Union  to review the requirement , that was  
subject to Article  5 of the SPS  Agreement , and to set a threshold level of ingredients of animal origin 
to be sourced from EU -approved establishments based on their risks  to avoid unnecessary barriers 
to trade.  
4.172.   The United  States  expresse d concerns on the negative impact of the proposed model 
certificates notified under G/SPS/N/EU/401 , G/SPS/N/EU/402  and G/SPS/N/EU/403  in supply chains 
and trade . Noting the work left to avoid unnecessary trade restrictions, the United  States  reiterated 
the request jointly submitted with several Members for the European  Union  to delay the 
implementation of the animal health certificates after 21  August  2021.  More information was 
provided in document G/SPS/GEN/1945 . 
4.173.   Supporting the establishment of risk -based import SPS me asures, New Zealand  reiterated 
that low risk foods should not be subject to increased requirements more appropriate for high risk 
food commodities.  
4.174.   Japan  appreciated the extension by the European  Union  of the grace period for trading 
partners to notify sta keholders. However, Japan regretted that stakeholders did not have the time 
to prepare to comply with these complex provisions affecting  a broad range of products . 
Japan  request ed the European  Union  to conduct flexible operation at the border, to provide w ith 
opportunities to consult the operations of th e rules when troubles occur at the border clearance or 
official control, and to respond to inquiries in a timely manner.  G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 36 - 
 
  4.175.   The Russian Federation  agreed that the EU requirements restricted trade more than 
necessary, as the new measures covered a wider range of composite products since April 2021. 
Russian confectioneries exporters , as well as other international companies, could not comply with 
the EU requirements for composite products . The Russian Federation was unclear on when audits on 
such Russian enterprises  could take place.  
4.176.   Malaysia  complain ed that the new requirements had already  negatively affected trade of 
shelf-stable non -meat, highly processed , composite products entering th e European  Union . 
Malaysia  was of view that the control imposed were disproportionate with the low risk of the highly 
processed composite products which ha d low amount of animal origin raw material and ha d 
undergone sufficient heat treatment . Malaysia urge d the European  Union  to remove the 
requirements on shelf -stable non -meat category or to expand the exemption list to include more 
low risk shelf -stable composite products . Malaysia looked forward to the EU response and would 
welcome  a bilateral meeting  with the E uropean  Union . 
4.177.   The European  Union  indicated that  the import conditions laid down in the new composite 
product legislation  were all risk -based . While most of the rules remained unchanged, some of the 
changes introduced referred to the three -tier a pproach to categori zing composite products 
depending on their level of risk. The European  Union  highlighted that more flexibility was now 
offered, making it easier to source ingredients from other countries, with a longer list of composite 
products being e xempted from controls at the border due to their lower risk, and through the 
replacement of official certificates by a private attestation for certain categories of shelf -stable 
meatless composite products. Additional  information explaining the new rules o n composite products 
had been submitted in documents G/SPS/GEN/1763  and G/SPS/GEN/1786 , all draft measure had 
been notified and all comments had been answered. The European  Union  had set up a special website 
to provide up -to date on the import conditions of composite products 
(https://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/international_affairs/trade/special -eu-import -conditions -
composite -products_en ). 
4.178.   The European  Union  noted that Commission Impleme nting Regulation (EU) 2020/2235 
provided for transitional provisions for the use of certificates issued in accordance with Regulation 
(EU) No 28/2012 for consignments of composite products. Animal health requirements for the entry 
into the Union of shelf -stable composite products were laid down in Delegated Regulation 
(EU) 2020/692, which had been duly notified to the Committee in 2019. The  European  Commission 
might propose slight modifications to certain requirements after the assessment of comments 
received. The European  Union  remained open to continue the dialogue with interested Members.  
4.2.38   India's requirement for certificate for non -GM origin and GM -free status (ID  501) 
- Concerns of China and the United  States  
4.179.   Sharing India's concerns on food safety, China  explained that u napproved genetically 
modified (GM) varieties could not  be imported into China or distributed domestically  and, as such, 
India's order would affect trade and increase the cost of Chinese export s of kidney beans and other 
agricultural products  to India. China invited  India to publish the risk assessment and decision basis 
for the selection of the 24 food crops listed in annex 1 to the Order . China suggest ed India not to 
include n on-GM products in  the scope of this measure  and to  provide alternative measures to 
Members who had not  approved the release of GM crops into the environment.  
4.180.   The United  States  reiterated the concern s about India's measures, notified under 
G/TBT/N/IND/168 , contained i n documents G/SPS/GEN/1865  and G/SPS/GEN/1901 . The measu re 
had disrupted US apple exports and could further lead to shortages and price increases of products. 
The United  States  asked India for the scientific justification and the risk assessment for the 
measures, or the relevant international standards, in the absence of which the United  States  
requested India to withdraw the measure. Likewise, the United  States  requested India to consider 
alternative approaches that could be  implemented in a non -discriminatory manner and were not 
more trade -restrictive than necessary . The United  States  looked forward to the Food Safety and 
Standards Authority of India 's (FSSAI) response  to the proposed technical cooperation to develop 
alternatives to the non -GM origin and GM -free certificate . The full intervention  is available i n 
document G/SPS/GEN/1940 . G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 37 - 
 
  4.181.   Australia  appreciated  India's ongoing cooperation on this issue, namely the responses 
provided to queries raised in the SPS and TBT Committee meetings. Australia reiterated the 
importance of implementing measures in a non -discriminatory manner, so that they  did not restrict 
trade more than necessary and did not place an unnecessary regulatory burden on exporters or 
Indian importers. Australia looked forward to further engagement with India.  
4.182.   Uruguay  noted  the interna tional consensus  on the equivalence between  GM products 
approved by exporting countries based on Codex recommendations and their equivalent 
conventional counterparts. As such, Uruguay considered that there was no technical justification for 
India's measure to achieve the legitimate objective of  food safety, and that the Order should be 
notified to the Committee.  Reiterating the need for science -based measures, Uruguay looked forward 
to India's response to the concerns submitted, including through a joint communication by s everal 
Members in January 2021.  
4.183.   Reiterating the concerns stated at the TBT Committee, Brazil  was not aware of the 
publication by India of any technical document presenting the link between the regulation and its 
pursued objectives . This lack of scientific information raised concerns about transparency in India's  
regulatory process . Brazil detailed that the measures would be particularly harmful for its exporters 
of apples, cowpea beans, tobacco and corn , as they would add unnecessary costs and regulatory 
burden to food value chains . 
4.184.   Turkey  echoed the view that the measures  create d unnecessary trade barriers , additional 
workload and time loss on trade procedures . Turkey sought information on the scientific justification  
of the measure and request ed India to consider the need for a non -GM certificate from exporting 
countries where production of GM crops was prohibited , such as Turkey.  
4.185.   Paraguay  was waiting for India's response to the joint communication. Paraguay re ferred to  
the concerns it had raised  in previous Committee meetings and hoped that India would review the 
measure in light of those concerns. Paraguay emphasized that there was no scientific justification 
for a differentiated treatment between GMOs and their conventional counterparts.  
4.186.   Japan  agreed that India's measure would create unnecessary trade barriers and negative ly 
impact agricultural trade . Japan regretted the entry into effect of the Order without taking  Members' 
comments into account. Japan controlled import, distribution and cultiv ation, ensuring the safety of 
GM food and, requested India to waive the certification requirement for Members manag ing GM food 
appropriately . 
4.187.   Canada  looked forward to the responses to comments submitted to TBT enquiry point  and 
invited India to notify the measure  to the SPS Committee.  It was still unclear how  the 
non-GM certification requirement  would contribute to the stated objective of  ensuring the health and 
safety  of its population . Canada recalled that  GM food products  were only authorized for 
commercialization  once they had received appropriate safety approvals  under the science -based 
regulatory frameworks  developed in numerous countries . Canada reiterated its request  that India 
suspend the implementation of this measure  and to consider the scient ific and technical information 
in its approach to support a transparent, predictable, risk - and science -based trading environment , 
without impact ing the ability of GM -producing countries to export to India and unnecessarily 
restrict ing international trade.  Canada was available to pursue discussions bilaterally to consider an 
alternat ive, less trade -restrictive approach that would meet India 's objectives . 
4.188.   Argentina  asked India to provide the scientific evidence underpinning the measure.  
4.189.   New Zealand  considere d that India's requirements unnecessarily increased costs of existing 
trade and asked for a scientific and risk -based justification  for this measure that also applied to 
countries free of the specified GMOs , such as New Zealand.  New Zealand request ed India to consider 
less trade -restrictive options  based on risk  to consumers , as relevant to the trade between the two 
countries concerned.  The solution proposed by New Zealand to accept a country -wide assurance as 
an alternative to consignment -to-consignm ent certification  for a specified period o f time would 
reduce the burden and costs  without reducing any level of protection.  G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 38 - 
 
  4.190.   The Russian Federation  asked India to explain the process of determining the products to be 
certified . The Russian Federation also supported references by other Members on measures to 
Members who had not  approved the release of GM crops into the environment.  
4.191.   India clarified that  the Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee had n ot approved any of 
the crop varieties of GM or g enetically engineered (GE) origin listed in the Order . Therefore , the 
FSSAI was seeking a certificate from exporting countr ies to ascertain the GM -free status of listed 
crops , and had clarified the non -applic ability of this requirement for the import of processed food.  
4.3  Information on resolution of issues (G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21  and 
G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.21/Corr.1 ) 
4.192.   No Member provided any information under this agend a item.  
5  OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION 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 the Guidelines to Further the Practical 
Implementation of Article  6 in G/SPS/48  (G/SPS/GEN/1908 ) 
5.2.  The annual report covering the period from 1  April 2020 until 31  March  2021 was circulated as 
document G/SPS/GEN/1908 . The Secretariat explained that  the annual report summarized 
information on  Members' requests for recognition of pest or disease -free areas or areas of low pest 
or dis ease prevalence, their determinations on whether to recognize such area s, and Members' 
experiences in the implementation of Article  6, based on information provided in notifications and at 
Committee meetings under this and other agenda items.  
5.2.2   Information f rom Members  
5.2.2.1   Canada  - Official OIE recognition of Canada as negligible risk for BSE  
5.3.  Canada  informed Members  of its official recognition by the OIE as  having a negligible risk for 
BSE, in accordance with the OIE Terrestrial Code  and based on documentation submitted  by Canada . 
This recognition proved that  OIE member countries continue d to endorse the provisions established 
in the  BSE chapter  of the Terrestrial Code  and the outcomes of th e OIE BSE risk categorization 
process . It further demonstrate d that many WTO Members were basing their decisions on 
OIE standards.  Canada looked forward to working with  Members to ward removing remaining 
BSE-related restrictions on Canadian cattle, beef , and beef products . 
5.2.2.2   Brazil - OIE recognition of six Brazilian States as free from foot -and-mouth 
disease without vaccination  (G/SPS/GEN/1932 ) 
5.4.  Brazil  informed the Committee that six Brazilian States had been recognized as free from FMD 
without vaccination by the OIE  through Resolution 13/2021 . Brazil 's FDM-free zone without 
vaccination represented almost 1 million km2 and more than 44 million animals. T he last case of 
FMD had occurred 5 years prior and, since 2018, the entire country was considered free from FMD. 
The Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Supply  and the private sector ha d been 
developing program mes to eradicate FMD  for 50 years : the National Strategic Plan for the Eradication 
and Prevention of FMD had been  launched in 2017 and would  be fully executed in 2026. Brazil urged 
Members to comply with the provisions  of Article  6 of SPS  Agreement  on regionalization,  and 
encourage d Members to continue to support the work and apply the standards of the international 
standard setting bodies. Brazil provided further information in document G/SPS/GEN/1932 . G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 39 - 
 
  5.2.2.3   Colombia – OIE recognition of foot -and-mouth disease and classical swine fever 
status in Colombia  (G/SPS/GEN/1929 and  G/SPS/GEN/1930/Rev.1 )5 
5.5.  Colombia  informed the Committee of the OIE recognition of Colombia  as free of FMD with 
vaccination  and free of classical swine fever (G/SPS/GEN/1929 and G/SPS/GEN/1930/Rev.1) . 
Colombia  invite d WTO Members to inform their health authorities of this new health status to lift  
restrictions imposed by certain  countries  and facilitate  ongoing processes to ensure market access  
for beef and pork meat from Colombia. Enquiries regarding the measures impl emented by the 
Colombian Agricultural Institute (ICA) could  be addressed to asuntos.internacionales@ica.gov.co . 
5.6.  Chile appreciated the efforts on regionalization  and congratulated Members achieving 
recognition by following the guidelines of the international organizations. Noting the increased 
information shared on the efforts to achieve recognition  of pest- or disease -free areas, which was 
one of the objectives of the guidelines contained in G/SPS/48 , Chile regretted that the other objecti ve 
of providing information on achieved recognitions was still missing. Chile informed that it had 
recognized Colombia as free of FMD with vaccination and, in the past, had also informed of other 
recognitions made.  
5.3  Operation of transparency provisions  
5.7.  The Secretariat  provided an update on the Trade Concern Database (TCD) project, presented 
in beta version on the margins of the Committee meeting. The TCD had been developed to enhance 
and streamline SPS and TBT tools , and was the  first stage of a broader project to update and 
integrate the WTO's  current tools, including the ePing system . The TCD aimed at improving access 
to information on STCs currently  available through  two separate systems:  the SPS and 
TBT Information Management Systems. The TCD brought  together SPS  and TBT STCs in one place.  
Additionally, the search functions for STCs had been improved and data could be explored  in the 
three official WTO languages in a more targeted and comprehensive way . The platform ha d been 
developed in a flexible manner, so that other areas of WTO work could  be integrated in the future. 
The database, still in beta version, was accessible at https://tradeconcerns.wto.org/en . 
Members  were invited to provide feedback and guidance. The Secretariat thanked the  TBT and 
IT teams  for the collaboration on the development of this database . 
5.8.  The Secretariat also drew the Committee's attention to the  "SPS 10 Key Results from 2020 " 
booklet , a new publication  based on  the 2020 annual reports on transparency and specific trade 
concerns circulated in March  2021 (G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev. 13 and G/SPS/GEN /204/Rev.21 , issued 
together to cover the same reporting period and facilitate analyses and comparisons , and including  
new graphics and statistics ). The  booklet would be available in the SPS gateway  and advertised 
through social media.6 The Secretariat congratulate d Uruguay for using the SPS N otification 
Submission System (SPS NSS)  for the first time to submit online SPS notifications . A total of 
51 Members were now using the SPS NSS , which helped streamlin e the notification process  and 
make documents acce ssible to the membership more quickly. The Secretariat also thank ed Members 
who had recently updated their National Notification Authorities  and National Enquiry Points contact 
information.  The Secretariat invited Members to visit the newly revamped Transp arency Members' 
Toolkit webpage, available from the SPS gateway , and to follow  #WTOsps on social media . 
5.9.  Finally, the Secretariat recalled that the ePing system  (www.epingalert.org ) was  targeted at 
the public and private sectors and allowed  users to receive email alerts on SPS  and TBT notifications, 
using individual criteria on market and products of interest. It also include d a communication 
platform to exchange comments on notification s at the domestic and international level, among 
others . The TBT team had carried out a survey among registered ePing users . The survey report had 
been circulated as G/SPS/GEN/1933 ; G/TBT/GEN/317 . 
5.10.   Acknowledging the efficient work of the Committee, Turkey  thanked the Secretariat for the 
efforts and believed that t he improvement of the tools would further benefit Members . As a user of 
the systems, Turkey looked forward to working with the Secretariat on this.  
 
5 Revised documents G/SPS/GEN/1929/Rev.1  and G/SPS/GEN/1930/Rev.2  were circulated on 13 August 
2021.  
6 The publication can be downloaded from the following link: 
https://www .wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/sps10key2020_e.pdf . G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 40 - 
 
  5.11.   The Secretariat 's Language and Documentation Services Division  (LDSD) made a brief 
presentation on the WTO e -Subscription service.7 
5.12.   Uruguay  thanked the Secretariat for the information provided and the work undertaken to 
improve the online SPS tools. Uruguay considered the SPS NSS to increase efficiency and invited a ll 
Members to use th is system.  
5.4  Control, inspection and approval procedures  
5.13.   No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
5.4.1   Working Group on Approval Procedures ( G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1 ) 
5.4.1.1   Report of the Working Group  
5.1.  The Chairperson drew the Committee's attention to the last meeting  of the Working Group on 
Approval Procedures  held on 7  July 2021. A draft report on the work on the Working Group  had been 
circulated with an opportunity  to provide comments by Wednesday, 21  July 2021. The final version 
of the report is included in Annex A . 
5.5  Special and differential treatment  
5.2.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  
5.6  Monitoring the use of international standards  
5.6.1   New issues  
5.3.  No new issues were raised  under this agenda item.  
5.6.2   Issues previously raised  
5.6.2.1   European  Union  - ASF restrictions not consistent with the OIE international 
standard  
5.4.  The European  Union  drew the Committee's attention to inconsistencies in the application of 
OIE international standards related to ASF. The European  Union  considered that many Members did 
not follow the OIE Terrestrial Code guidance for the identification, treatment and certi fication of 
tradable products. The European  Union  highlighted that it had, as well as other Members, 
demonstrated that ASF could be managed effectively to ensure that legitimate trade was not the 
cause of any outbreak , as presented in the Thematic Session held in March 2021 . 
The European  Union added that ASF was a disease affecting many EU and non -EU countries. 
The European  Union  invited Members to work on the removal of country -wide and scientifically 
unjustified trade bans.  
5.6.2.2   European  Union  - HPAI restricti ons not consistent with the OIE international 
standard  
5.5.  The European  Union  regretted that some Members disregarded their obligations under Article  6 
and Annex C of the SPS  Agreement . Country -wide bans after a disease outbreak were not 
scientifically justifi ed where effective movement controls were in place, and there was no justification 
to wait one year or more to restore disease -free status. Noting the revisions regarding  avian 
influenza  in the T errestrial Code adopted in the 88th OIE General Session of Ma y 2021 , 
the European  Union  asked Members to l ift trade restrictions 28 days after eradication and 
disinfection of HPAI and re -instate trade conditions applicable to disease -free countries ; refrain from 
trade restrictions after reported cases of HPAI in wild birds ; refrain from trade restriction after 
reported cases of low pathogenicity avian influenza  (LPAI); respect their obligations on 
 
7 The WTO e -Subscription service can be accessed here by log ging-in to WTO individual account s: 
https://www.wto.org/english/forums_e/personalization_e/xpersonalization_e/e_subscription_e.htm . G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 41 - 
 
  regionali zation under the WTO SPS  Agreement ; follow the  recommendations of international 
standard setting bodies ; and allow trade from non -affected zones . 
5.6.3   New Zealand – Procedure to monitor the process of international harmonization 
(G/SPS/GEN/1851 , G/SPS/GEN/1877  and G/SPS/GEN/1915)  
5.6.  The Chairperson  reminded the Committee that Members had had an opportunity to discuss 
New Zealand's submissions in G/SPS/GEN/1851 , G/SPS/GEN/1877  and G/SPS/GEN/1915  regarding 
the procedure to monitor the process of international harmonization at the informal meeting of the 
Committee of 14  July 2021. The Chairperson drew the Committee's attention to the summary of 
these discussions in his draft report on the informal meeting, which had been shared with Members 
with an opportunity to provide comments by 21  July 2021. The final report on the informal meeting 
is included in Annex  A. Members were also invited to submit comments on the Thematic Session to 
be held in November 2021 by 13  August  2021.  
5.6.4   Annual report in accordance with the Procedure to monitor the process of 
international harmonization in G/SPS/11/Rev.1  (G/SPS/GEN/1909 ) 
5.7.  The annual report on the Procedure to Monitor the Process  of International Harmonization had 
been circulated as document G/SPS/GEN/1909 . The Secretaria t explained that the report 
summarized the discussions under this agenda item over the past year.  In accordance with the 
monitoring procedure, the Secretariat would  bring these issues to the attention of the international 
standard setting bodies . 
5.7  Follow -up to the Fifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of the 
SPS Agreement ( G/SPS/64  and G/SPS/64/Add.1)  
5.7.1   Report on the Workshop on Risk Assessment, Risk Management and Risk 
Communication  
5.8.  The Chairperson reminded delegates that the draft Report on the Workshop on Risk 
Assessment, Risk Management and Risk Communication , which had been held on 12-13 July 2021, 
had been circulated to Members  with an opportunity  to provide  comments  by 21  July 2021. The final 
report is included in Annex  B.8 The Secretariat would prepare a more det ailed report of the Workshop 
after the meeting.  
5.7.2   Report on the informal meeting  
5.9.  The Chairperson drew the Committee's attention to the draft report on the informal meeting of 
the Committee of 14  July 2021, specifically referring to the summaries of the discussions on the 
follow -up to the Fifth Review, the proposed thematic sessions on international harmonization and on 
default pesticides MRLs . The Chairperson reminded Members that this draft report had  been shared 
with Members to give them an opportunity to provide comments  by 21  July 2021. The final report 
is included in Annex A . Members were also encouraged to submit proposals for thematic sessions to 
be held in 2022 by 13  August  2021.  
6  CROSS -CUTTING  ISSUES  
6.1  COVID -19 and SPS issues  
6.1.  The Chairperson reminded the Committee that the informal Committee meeting of 
14 July 2021 had included discussions on COVID -19 and SPS issues. These discussions had been 
summarized in his draft rep ort on the informal meeting. The final report is included in Annex A . 
 
8 The dedicated webpage for the Workshop can be accessed here: 
https://w ww.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_workshop_july21_e.htm . G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 42 - 
 
  6.2  Canada  and the  United  States  - SPS Declaration for the 12th WTO Ministerial 
Conference ( G/SPS/GEN/1758/ Rev.7) 
6.2.  The Chairperson reminded the Committee that the informal Committee meeting of 
14 July 2021 had included discussions on the SPS Declaration for MC12 . These  discussions had been 
summarized in his draft report on the informal meeting, which had been shared with Members. 
The final report is included in Annex A . 
6.3.  Canada  emphasized that the Declaration underlined the benefits of the SPS  Agreement  and 
reaffirmed the importance of adhering to its obligations. The Declaration recognized the evolution of 
the global agricultural landscape and would initiate a work programme to enhanc e the 
SPS Agreement  considering these developments. Canada was pleased that the Declaration now had 
29 co -sponsors, and remained optim istic regarding the possibility to achieve consensus on the 
initiative as a successful contribution to MC12. Canada expressed its willingness to engage with 
Members requiring further clarification.  
6.4.  The United  States  acknowledged several new co -sponsors  of the Declaration  and highlighted 
the diversity in economic and regional areas of co -sponsors . The United  States  highlighted the open 
and collaborative procedure in the development of the Declaration. The  United  States  reiterated that 
the Declaration was an opportunity to develop a forward -looking workplan for SPS challenges of the 
21st century. The United  States  also reiterated the availability of co -sponsors to address concerns or 
requests for clarification from Members.  
6.5.  The European  Union  hoped that the UN Food Systems Summit  would serve as a turning point 
in transforming global food systems and addressing global health and environmental challenges. 
The European  Union  considered  MC12 to be an occasion to reinforce the message that international 
trade must take place in consonance with sustainable development. The  European  Union remarked 
that robust references to current and future challenges for trade in food should be included in the 
text of the Declaration. In particular, the European  Union  referred to the protection of biodiversity, 
global transformation towards sustainable food systems, animal welfare, and best practices in risk 
management. The European  Union  considered that the Declaration should avoid duplication  with the 
actions foreseen on the F ifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS  Agreement . 
The European  Union  noted it could not support the Declaration in its present form and remained 
open to engage in further discussions with co -sponsors to address its concerns.  
6.6.  Brazil  thanked the new co -sponsors  for joining the Declaration. Brazil highlighted that the 
Declara tion was inspired by the discussions held in SPS Committee meetings, and that MC12 was a 
convenient opportunity  to reflect on the successes and challenges of the implementation of the 
SPS Agreement . Brazil  remarked that the work programme in the Declaratio n tried to capture the 
pressing issues impacting agricultural production and trade. Brazil emphasized that ministerial 
attention at MC12 would spur deepened engagement on emerging SPS issues.  
6.7.  Australia  welcomed the new co -sponsors of the Declaration. Austr alia highlighted that the 
Declaration recognized the importance of the SPS  Agreement  and reaffirmed Member s' rights and 
obligations. The Declaration focused on a forward -looking work programme and thematic work areas 
to support the work on emerging issues in international agricultural trade. Australia looked forward 
to hearing Members ' views.  
6.8.  Japan  informed the Committee that it had joined the Declaration  as a co -sponsor . Japan hoped 
to engage in further discussions with Members on emerging trade issues.  
6.9.  Switzerland  stressed the need to review carefully how the Declaration would fit the style of 
Ministerial Declarations regarding its length and level of detail. Switzerland questioned how the 
Declaration would account for new developments and challenges in food production and 
consumption. Switzerland considered  that the Declaration needed to address challenges related to 
climate change, biodiversity loss, sustainable use of pesticides and animal welfare.  
6.10.   Paraguay  welcomed the new co -sponsors  of the Declaration . Paraguay invited Members to 
join th e Declaration and reiterated the willingness of co -sponsors to address concerns or requests 
for clarification from Members. Paraguay hoped that the synergies regarding SPS measures,  and the 
need to addre ss the emerging challenges would lead to the adoption of the Declaration at MC12.  G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 43 - 
 
  6.11.   Argentina  welcomed the n ew co -sponsors and invited Members to join the Declaration . In light 
of emerging challenges such as the production of more and better food , as well as those mentioned 
by other Members, Argentina urged Members to support the Declaration and to rely on the adoption 
and implementation of measures based on scientific evidence . 
6.12.   Uruguay  welcomed the new co -sponsors and highlighted the importance o f establishing a 
work programme following MC12  taking into account the challenges and opportunities related to the 
production and trade of food products in the 21st century . Uruguay invited Members to work together 
with co -sponsors in order to achieve posi tive results at MC12.  
7  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION  
7.1  Information from the Secretariat  
7.1.1   WTO  SPS activities  
7.1.  The Secretariat provided Members with an overview of the technical assistance activities held 
since March 2021. These activities included national seminars held in virtual format for Djibouti, on 
notifications, in March, and for Singapore on SPS and Agriculture, in May. More general training on 
the SPS  Agreement  had been  provided in two UNCTAD sessions on Trade Facilitation and the 
SPS Agree ment for Lesotho, in April, and Paraguay, in June. An FAO Webinar  for Madagascar had 
been held in May; and the WTO Virtual Regional Trade Policy Course for English -speaking Africa had 
been held from 28  June to 2  July 2021. The Secretariat also referred to  requests for upcoming virtual 
SPS seminars for Ecuador and Thailand.  
7.2.  The Secretariat provided an overview of the WTO Technical Assistance activities outlined in 
G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.11.  The 2021 Geneva -based activities were the Workshop on Risk  Assessment, 
Risk Management and Risk Communication, which had been  held on the margins of this meeting on 
12-13 July; and the new SPS In -depth Virtual Course. This course would be delivered virtually, in 
English, over a series of sessions of approximately 1.5 -2 hours from 20  Septembe r to 
8 October  2021. Information on this course was available in G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.11  and a 
communication had been  sent to SPS delegates in June. The deadline to apply for this course was 
Monday, 26  July. The Secretariat would undertake the selection process for this cour se and inform 
the respective missions of the proposed selection of candidates from their government before the 
final selection.  
7.3.  The Secretariat highlighted upcoming activities that would include general SPS training: the 
WTO Virtual Regional Trade Policy Course to be held for Latin America on 24-28 September, including 
an SPS and TBT session; and an UNCTAD Session on Trade Facilita tion and the SPS  Agreement for 
Peru in August 2021.  
7.4.  Further information on SPS Technical Assistance activities was available on the SPS gateway 
of the WTO website (under Events, workshops and training), or by contacting the Secretariat. Finally, 
the Secret ariat noted that the E -Learning Course on the SPS  Agreement  was available all year long, 
in the three official languages of the WTO.  
7.1.2   STDF ( G/SPS/GEN/1 925) 
7.5.  The STDF Secretariat reported on its recent activities detailed i n G/SPS/GEN/1925 . The STDF 
Secretariat provided information on its three  main workstreams serving as a global platform, 
promoting knowledge work and serving as a  funding mechanism. STDF's new short film "Shaping a 
safer world" highlighted the importance of investing in SPS capacity f or developing countries. 
The STDF Secretariat also referred to the UN Food System s Summit dialogue session on 2 8 June 
entitled "Transforming Food Systems for the 21ST Century: why does facilitating safe trade matter", 
the webinar of 14  July 2021 on System Approaches in Food Safety and Plant Health, and the UN  Food 
System s Pre-Summit dialogue session of 27  July on Promoting sustainable food systems: the role of 
international standards. Finally, the STDF Secretariat referred to STDF work on the P -IMA 
framework, public -private partnerships, good regulatory practices, electronic SPS certification, and 
current STDF projects.  G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 44 - 
 
  7.2  Information from Members  
7.6.  No Member provided information under this agenda item.  
8  CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS  
8.1.  No Mem ber provided information under this agenda item.  
9  OBSERVERS  
9.1  Information from observer organizations  
9.1.1   GSO ( G/SPS/GEN/1912 ) 
9.1.  The Chairperson drew the Committee's attention to the report of activities provided by GSO in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1912 . 
9.1.2   ITC ( G/SPS/GEN/1913 ) 
9.2.  The Chairperson drew the Committee's attention to the report of activities provided by ITC in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1913 . 
9.1.3   SADC ( G/SPS/GEN/1916 ) 
9.3.  The Chairperson drew the Committee's attention to the report of activities provided by SADC 
in document G/SPS/GEN/1916 . 
9.1.4   ECOWAS ( G/SPS/GEN/1 917) 
9.4.  The Chairperson drew the Committee's attention to the report of activities provided by ECOWAS  
in document  G/SPS/GEN/1917 .  
9.1.5   IGAD ( G/SPS/GEN/1919 ) 
9.5.  The Chairperson drew the Committee 's attention to the report of activities provided by IGAD 
in document G/SPS/GEN/1919 . 
9.1.6   OIRSA ( G/SPS/GEN/1 922) 
9.6.  The Chairperson drew the Committee 's attention to the report of activities provided by OIRSA 
in document G/SPS/GEN/1922 . 
9.1.7   CAHFSA ( G/SPS/GEN/1924 ) 
9.7.  The Chairperson drew the Committee's attention to the report of activities provided by CAHFSA 
in document G/SPS/GEN/1924 . 
9.1.8   IICA  (G/SPS/GEN/1928 ) 
9.8.  IICA reported on its activities, detailed in document G/SPS/GEN/ 1928. IICA referred to a  
Coordination Session on SPS Committee matters developed jointly with ECOWAS and several 
Members. IICA also referred to a series of interregional virtual colloquia  hosted in collaboration with 
the Un ited States  in preparation for several Codex Committees, the 7th edition of its OIE Strategy 
Session, actions to support the alignment of national pesticide registration systems,  as well as past 
dialogues , courses, and training sessions . G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 45 - 
 
  9.2  Requests for obser ver status  
9.9.  The Chairperson referred to document G/SPS/W/78/Rev.15 , listing the outstanding requests 
for observer status. The Chairperson indicated that, absent any intervention, he would assume that 
the positions of Members had not changed. No Member took the floor.  
10  OTHER BUSINESS  
10.1.   No Member took the floor under this agenda ite m. 
11  DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING  
11.1.   The Chairperson recalled that the next regular meeting of the Committee was scheduled for 
4-5 November  2021 and  that the proposed calendar of meetings for 2021 was contained in 
G/SPS/GEN/1823 . 
11.2.   The Secretariat informed the Committee that it would pre pare a summary report based on 
oral interventions at the meeting, complemented by Members' ability to download complete 
statements via eAgenda.  
11.3.   The Chairperson also reminded of the following deadlines:  
a. For submitting statements: Friday, 16  July 2021 ; 
b. For comments on the Chairperson's draft report on the Workshop on Risk and the informal 
meeting : Wednesday, 21  July 2021 ; 
c. For comments on New Zealand's proposed topics for the Thematic Session on Monitoring 
International Harmonization to be held in Novembe r 2021 ( G/SPS/GEN/1915 ): Friday, 
13 August  2021 ; 
d. For proposals for thematic sessions for 2022: Friday, 13  August  2021 ; 
e. For suggestions for the 2022 Committee workshop: Friday, 13 August 2021 ; 
f. For requesting that items, including STCs, be put on the agenda, and for identifying new 
issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure: Wednesday, 
13 October  2021 ; 
g. For the distribution of the Annotated Draft Agenda: Friday, 15 October  2021 . 
 
____ ___________  G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 46 - 
 
  ANNEX A  
INFORMAL MEETING – 14 JULY  2021  
REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  
 
1  FOLLOW -UP TO THE FIFTH REVIEW  
1.  At the informal meeting on 14 July 2021, the Committee discussed how to take forward some of 
the recommendations in the Fifth Review Report, as well as discuss ongoing work in various areas.  
SPS Committee Working Group on Approval Procedures ( G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1 ) 
2.  The c o-stewards for the Working Group, Canada and Paraguay, provided an update on the 
activities of the Working Group.1 
3.  In the first round of work that concluded in March 2021, participants had identified four main 
themes for the Working Group: (1) common unde rstanding of "approval procedures"; (2) key 
challenges of approval procedures; (3) principles of approval procedures that facilitate international 
trade while meeting the importing Member's ALOP; and (4) tools available and best practices to 
enhance the im plementation of the obligations of the SPS Agreement as they apply to approval 
procedures.  
4.  In the second round of work (March to July 2021), participants met on two occasions and 
continued to exchange in writing. The discussions focused on: (1) developing  a common 
understanding of the term "approval procedures"; and (2) assembling a collection of available tools 
and best practices. In addition, participants started discussions on key challenges of approval 
procedures.  
5.  Participants had in -depth discussions  on a possible common understanding of "approval 
procedures" to facilitate the work of the Working Group. The majority of participants valued such a 
common understanding to advance the objectives of the Working Group and to facilitate discussions. 
Certain participants expressed reservations and cautioned that any identification of a common 
understanding of approval procedures may be viewed as interpreting the Agreement and/or be taken 
as a legal definition. Additionally, certain participants indicated that they would like to move to 
discussing key challenges of approval procedures while others expressed concerns about moving to 
this next topic without narrowing the scope of work. Participants' submissions nonetheless revealed 
general alignment in the paramet ers for the Working Group's understanding of "approval 
procedures," as related to the work of the Working Group. On this basis and only for the purposes 
of the Working Group, the co -stewards submitted a proposed common understanding of approval 
procedures that remains under discussion in the Working Group. This proposed "common 
understanding" for use by the Working Group takes the form of an illustrative list of approval 
procedures, generated based on participants' contributions for the practical purpose of  advancing 
the work of the Working Group. This proposed "common understanding" is not exhaustive, does not 
represent a legal interpretation of the rights and obligations of SPS Agreement, and does not in any 
way constitute a legal definition.  
6.  The Working G roup also discussed and worked on assembling a collection of existing tools and 
best practices to enhance the implementation of the obligations of the SPS Agreement as they apply 
to the work of the Working Group. Participants submitted materials and resour ces readily available, 
on the basis of which a draft collection of available tools and best practices was prepared by the 
WTO Secretariat for discussion in the Working Group. There was general agreement among 
participants that this collection is not an exh austive list of tools and best practices, that it does not 
 
1 The Working Group on Approval Procedures was established in November 2020. Twenty -five 
Members are participating in the Working Group: Argentina, Belize, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa 
Rica, Ecuador, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, the Philippines, the 
Russian Federation, Singapore, South  Africa, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, the 
United States, and Urugua y. The  OECD is also a participant.  G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 47 - 
 
  represent or exemplify a legal definition, and that it has been developed to facilitate the work of the 
Working Group. This collection will continue to be discussed in the Working Group and will be  updated 
as participants put forward additional resources and best practices.  
7.  Moreover, participants had initial discussions regarding the challenges that had emerged from 
the previous round of work, namely: (1) timing and undue delays; (2) transparency; ( 3) 
communication or information exchange; (4) justification and discrimination of approval procedures; 
(5) harmonization with international standards; and (6) other challenges such as the COVID -19 
pandemic.  
8.  Finally, the OECD was invited to provide informat ion on its ongoing work project on approval 
procedures. This work project will not duplicate the efforts of the Working Group, and the OECD will 
continue to liaise with the Working Group and the WTO Secretariat.  
9.  With its last meeting of 7 July 2021, the Wo rking Group concluded its second round of work and 
moved to its third round of work.  
10.  Following the co -stewards update, I provided an opportunity for Members to raise any questions 
or comments on the activities of the Working Group. One Member took the floo r to thank the co -
stewards for their continuous leadership in the Working Group. The United States welcomed the 
progress made by the Working Group, highlighting the valuable conversation and interesting 
discussions in the Working Group.  
Exchange of experie nces or continued discussions on various topics  
11.  We then discussed the recommendations that encourage Members to continue to exchange 
experiences or have continued discussions. I highlighted that these recommendations were found in 
various sections of the F ifth Review Report, such as: appropriate level of protection, risk assessment 
and science (para. 2.15); equivalence (para. 4.11); fall armyworm (para. 5.16); national SPS 
coordination mechanisms (para. 6.7); MRLs for plant protection products (para. 8.6); and 
regionalization (para. 9.15).  
12.  Similar to the March 2021 meeting, I again sought Members' views on the best way to move 
forward with these recommendations. I recalled that in the September 2020 consultations, one 
Member had observed that the proposed wo rk plan for the MC -12 SPS Declaration, also currently 
being discussed by the Committee, was consistent with these recommendations and could provide 
a pathway to continue exploring these topics. I also noted that in the November 2020 informal 
Committee meet ing, another Member had reminded the Committee of its previously raised concerns 
regarding some of the topics covered by the recommendations. No comments were received from 
Members in the March meeting.  
13.  In this week's meeting, I again invited Members to pr ovide any further comments or suggestions 
on the identified recommendations. No Member provided additional inputs.  
Preparation of a collection of resources for Members in implementing their national 
coordination mechanisms ( G/SPS/GEN/1850/Rev.1 ) 
14.  Next, we discussed the recommendation in the Fifth Review Report ( G/SPS/64 , para. 6.7) on 
the preparation of a collection of useful resources for Members in implementing their national 
coordination mechanisms. By way of background, I recalled that Members had requested that the 
Secretariat prepare such a compilation of resources, starting with those mentioned at the 2019 
Workshop on Transparency and Coordination, and including additional resources as suggested by 
Membe rs. I further reminded the Committee that in the November 2020 meeting, the Secretariat 
had presented a draft compilation of these resources in document G/SPS/GEN/1850  and that 
Members had been invited to provide comments.  
15.  In the March meeting, the Secretariat had presented a revised  version of the document, 
circulated as G/SPS/GEN/1850/Rev.1 . In particular, the Secretariat had highlighted the changes to 
Section 3 of the document on useful tools and resources for national SPS coordination, noting that 
the table had been updated to include the annotat ed agenda for SPS Committee meetings, as 
suggested by Chile in the November 2020 SPS Committee meeting. In addition, five new resources 
had been incorporated from the Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF), as well as an 
update of one of the STDF resources. No further comments were provided by Members.  G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 48 - 
 
  16.  In this week's meeting, I again invited Members to provide comments. No Member provided 
additional inputs.  
17.  I then proposed that the document remain as a 'living document' to be updated any time 
Membe rs suggested additional resources. On this basis, future discussions on this document would 
only be included in the agenda for the informal meeting if a Member proposed additional resources 
to be included.  
2  SPS DECLARATION FOR THE 12TH WTO MINISTERIAL CO NFERENCE 
(G/SPS/GEN/1758/REV.7 ) 
18.  At the informal meeting on 14 July 2021, the Committee also discussed the SPS Declaration for 
the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference. I first reminded Members that this proposal had previously 
been discussed in informal Committee meetings held this year and last year, including in a 
Chair -facilitated informal consultation in November. I also drew attention to the recent revision of 
the proposal which had been circulated i n document ( G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.7 ). 
19.  I then invited the proponents to provide an update. The proponents expressed appreciation to 
the new co -sponsors, which now brought the total number of co -sponsors to 29 . Canada underscored 
that the proposed Declaration "Responding to Modern SPS Challenges" underlined the benefits of 
the SPS Agreement to all WTO Members, and reaffirmed the continuing importance of adhering to 
its obligations. The Declaration would initiat e a work programme, open to all Members and 
Observers, to consider how to further enhance the implementation of the SPS Agreement in light of 
the opportunities and pressures created by the evolution of the global agricultural landscape. 
In addition, the De claration provided an opportunity to raise awareness within the broader 
WTO community, including trade ministers, of the relevance of the SPS Agreement and the 
challenges ahead. The SPS Committee would achieve this through, among other things, a report to 
the 13th Ministerial Conference with key findings and consensus recommendations, if any. 
Canada  also indicated that it anticipated that this proposed Declaration would be taken up in the 
consideration of various outcomes for MC -12. 
20.  Brazil reminded Members that the Declaration was a proactive initiative by Members, based on 
actual experiences and inspired by the lively discussions in Committee meetings. Given the recent 
25th anniversary of the SPS Agreement, MC -12 provided an opportunity to reflect on the su ccesses 
achieved, while looking ahead to 21st century challenges in the implementation of the Agreement. 
In this regard, Brazil highlighted that the work programme of the Declaration tried to capture the 
pressing issues impacting agricultural trade which s hould be dealt with in an urgent and unbiased 
manner, using a science -based approach. Brazil further underscored that Ministerial engagement 
was crucial and necessary to face future challenges in the implementation of the Agreement.  
21.  The United States welco med the presence of WTO DDG Jean -Marie Paugam at the meeting and 
underscored the importance of the discussions on the Declaration, given its collaborative and 
forward -looking approach, and contribution to MC -12. The United States reiterated that the 
Declar ation provided a real opportunity, in a landscape with many challenges, for the Committee to 
acknowledge these challenges and adopt a forward -looking work plan to ensure timely discussions 
aimed at addressing issues of relevance in agricultural production and trade.  
22.  The proponents also drew attention to the several successful outreach sessions that had been 
held between co -sponsors and Members to further explain the Declaration, and indicated their 
willingness to hold additional sessions to provide any furt her clarification to assist in achieving 
consensus on this important forward -looking initiative.  
23.  New co -sponsors Japan and New Zealand underscored the importance of science -based 
measures and its reflection in the Declaration. In addition, New Zealand note d the importance of 
SPS issues in the context of international trade.  
24.  One Member reiterated its previous comments, drawing attention to Agenda 21, the 
15th Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity and the 
UN Foo d Systems Summit and their anticipated role in serving as a turning point in transforming 
food systems globally, and providing a strong response to current global health and environment 
challenges. The Member noted that MC -12 represented an excellent oppor tunity to reinforce the 
message that international trade in general – and particularly, trade in food – must take place in full 
consonance with sustainable development. The Member saw the need to include more robust G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 49 - 
 
  references in the Declaration to current  and future environmental, climate and ethical challenges for 
trade in food, such as protecting biodiversity and the ecosystems of the planet, global transformation 
towards sustainable food systems, animal welfare and establishment of best practices in ris k 
management which respect legitimate consumer expectations, while avoiding disguised 
protectionism. The Declaration should avoid overlaps and duplication with the Fifth Review. 
The Member noted that it could not support the Declaration in its present form , as it did not meet 
its policy goals and objectives, but remained open to have discussions on the context, language, 
content and appropriateness of the work programme.  
25.  Some Members proposed textual revisions to the SPS Declaration, which included insertin g a 
reference to new threats like COVID -19, and also to the challenges for developing and least 
developed countries. Another Member sought clarification on the transparency elements included in 
paragraph 4 of the Declaration, including a query on how the e xisting transparency and notification 
requirements in the SPS Agreement would interact with the Declaration.  
26.  One Member recognized the opportunity that the 12th Ministerial Conference presented in 
highlighting the value and relevance of the SPS Agreement a nd the important work undertaken by 
the SPS Committee. In addition, the Member reaffirmed its commitment to the principles of the 
Declaration in the use of science -based principles, upholding transparency, and the work of the 
international standard -setting  bodies in facilitating and enhancing safe trade. The Member further 
indicated its ongoing internal consultations which could highlight further areas of content for the 
proposed work programme, and welcomed the opportunity to submit further clarifying ques tions in 
writing.  
27.  Argentina welcomed the new co -sponsors and invited other Members to join the proposal, 
underscoring the need for science -based measures in light of the challenges faced in agricultural 
production.  
28.  One Member suggested the need to carefull y consider whether the proposed SPS Declaration 
would fit well with the usual style of Ministerial Declarations, particularly in relation to the length 
and level of detail of the proposal. There was also a need to consider how the Declaration would fit 
into the landscape of possible Declarations on other WTO agreements celebrating 25 years of 
existence, and on new developments in food production and consumption. The Member also 
indicated that the text should seek to achieve a balance, avoiding the impressio n of prioritizing the 
enhanced implementation of the SPS Agreement over other agreements, while improving the text 
to take into account concerns such as climate change, biodiversity loss, environmental degradation, 
sustainable food systems, sustainable use  of pesticides and animal welfare. The Member signaled 
its willingness to participate in the process and to contribute to revising the text for potential 
adoption at MC -12. 
29.  Another Member agreed that the text of the Declaration was lengthy and highlighted the 
numerous topics covered, noting that some had already been captured in the SPS Agreement, while 
others were ambitious. The Member also sought clarification on the overarching objective of the 
Declaration, what it sought to address, and the process to m ove the proposal forward. In addition, 
the Member noted the monitoring role of the SPS Committee and the absence of a mandate to 
develop declarations. In response, I drew the Committee's attention to Article 12.1 of the 
SPS Agreement which could be read as  the Committee having more than a monitoring role.  
30.  Chile made reference to several topics mentioned by Members, such as climate change and 
biodiversity, noting that these had been included in the document. In addition, Chile underscored 
that the work progr amme was not aimed a repeating current work, and further invited Members to 
sponsor the Declaration.  
31.  The proponents expressed appreciation for Members' engagement and feedback, and further 
invited Members to submit written comments, and also to engage in d iscussions with co -sponsors 
(whether capital - or Geneva -based). The United States also underscored its commitment to continue 
engaging in dialogue leading up to the Ministerial Conference, and further highlighted the opportunity 
for the Committee to emphas ize the relevant SPS work in global food production systems and trade 
of the future. Canada reiterated that the intention of the Declaration was to recognize the important 
issues being faced at the global level, such as climate change, biodiversity loss, s ustainability of food 
systems, food security and the need for innovation. In this way, the Declaration sought to examine 
these issues and understand their SPS impact, and by extension how the SPS Committee could G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 50 - 
 
  contribute to these discussions. Canada unde rscored that it was not intended that the 
SPS Committee solve these issues, but that there could be a role for it to play.  
3  PROCEDURE TO MONITOR THE PROCESS OF INTERNATIONAL HARMONIZATION 
(G/SPS/GEN/1851 , G/SPS/GEN/1877  AND G/SPS/GEN/1915)  
32.  I recalled that three Members ha d submitted comments, by the deadline of 23 April 2021, on 
New Zealand's submissions on the procedure to monitor the process of international harmonization 
(G/SPS/GEN/1851  and G/SPS/GEN/1877) , discussed since November 2020. Subsequently, 
New Zealand submitted document G/SPS/GEN/1915 , which includes some possible topics to be 
covered in the thematic session on international harmonization, for consideration by the Committee.  
33.  New Zealand appreciated Members' interest in organizing such a thematic session, possibly in 
November. The thematic session,  focusing on  Articles 3.5 and 12.4 of the SPS Agreement, could 
provide the opportunity to: (i) review progress with implementation of the SPS Agreement; 
(ii) review the work of the International Standard -setting  Bodies (ISSBs); and (iii) allow Members 
to share their experiences. The thematic session's programme, to be developed in close consultation 
with Members and ISSBs, could pave the way for future work. Regarding other proposals contained 
in its submissions,  New Zealand recognized that further analysis was required.  
34.  Several Members expressed support for the organization of this event, proposing that lessons 
from related dispute settlement cases and the Committee's Procedure to Monitor the Process of 
Internati onal Harmonization, contained in document G/SPS/11/Rev.1 , also be covered, as well as 
noting that the participation of ISSBs in this event was essential.  
35.  The "Three Sisters" expressed support for such a timely event, which would provide a good 
forum to present the state of play of th eir monitoring mechanisms developed or currently under 
development, and in line with Codex' and IPPC's new strategic frameworks. The OIE reported that 
the Observatory project would become a more long -term programme and move into a new phase, 
and the OIE wo uld review how best to align it with its digital transformation project. 
The "Three  Sisters" hoped that the thematic session event could offer an opportunity to discuss how 
ISSB's different texts, i.e. standards, guidelines, recommendations, or codes of pr actice, were 
considered in Members' legislation and under the SPS Agreement.  
36.  New Zealand indicated that it would continue developing the programme in line with Members' 
comments and the ISSBs' busy schedule for the remainder of the year.  
37.  I then invited Members and ISSBs to submit comments on the proposed topics to be covered 
in the thematic session by the deadline of Friday, 13 August 2021. I also invited New Zealand to 
submit a draft programme for further consideration by Members. One Mem ber also sought 
clarification on the type of comments expected by the deadline of 13 August. I clarified that the 
stated deadline was for the submission of comments on the latest document G/SPS/GEN/1915  and 
indicated that there would be further opportunities to provide other comments  and to propose 
speakers once the draft programme was circulated.  
4  UPCOMING THEMATIC SESSIONS ( G/SPS/GEN/1915 ) 
38.  At the informal meeting on 14 July 2021, I first informed the Committee that three Members 
had submitted comments on the scheduling of the two proposed thematic sessions, one on default 
pesticide MRLs and one on international harmonization. Comments referred to postponing the 
thematic session on default pesticides MRLs (by the proponent); a suggestion to schedule this 
thematic session in 2022 and hold the session on harmoni zation in November 2021; and a general 
query on the thematic session on default pesticides MRLs that was forwarded to the proponent. 
I also drew attention to my correspondence of 11 May which provided an overview of Members' 
submitted comments.  
39.  At the info rmal meeting, Members were in agreement that the thematic session on international 
harmonization be held in November 2021.  
40.  In relation to the thematic session on default pesticide MRLs, the initial proponent China 
suggested postponing this thematic session , while in the interim it would continue to liaise with 
interested Members. In response to a Member's query, China further clarified that it would like to 
postpone the thematic session, but had no objection to the Chairperson’s proposal that the G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 51 - 
 
  Committee could hold this thematic session in 2022. Several Members also expressed their support 
and availability to collaborate in the preparation of the thematic session, with one Member 
highlighting recent activities by APEC which could be of interest.  
41.  In relatio n to the overall planning of thematic sessions for 2022, I encouraged Members to 
submit any other proposals for thematic sessions by the deadline of Friday, 13 August 2021. The 
European Union informed the Committee that it would submit a written proposal f or a thematic 
session on plant health risk assessment and related international standards and procedures. I further 
suggested that the Committee aim to finalize the schedule of thematic sessions for 2022 at the 
November 2021 Committee meeting.  
5  COVID -19 AND SPS ISSUES  
42.  As in the November 2020 and March 2021 informal meetings, the WTO Secretariat and the 
"Three Sisters" provided updates on COVID -19 and SPS issues in their respective areas. The WTO 
Secretariat reported that there had been 102 SPS notificatio ns and other communications related to 
COVID -19 submitted by Members. These could be extracted from the SPS Information Management 
System (SPS IMS) using the "COVID -19 SPS" keyword. The Secretariat recalled that SPS, as well as 
all other WTO COVID -19 relat ed documents were available on the COVID -19 gateway of the WTO 
website.  
43.  The IPPC continued to hold all its meetings in virtual mode. Four e -Learning courses jointly 
developed with COLEACP would be soon available. The IPPC was exploring how best to improve their 
work, considering their target audience needs.  
44.  The OIE had continued to work with other partners such as FAO, UNEP and WHO, in the ad hoc 
group on safe trade in animal products, whose last report of February 2021 was available on the OIE 
website. The  OIE encouraged Members to report on their investigations on SARS -CoV-2 in animals; 
this information was available on the renewed WAHIS platform on animal health data. The OIE was 
reviewing lessons learned on their response to the COVID pandemic, to be bet ter prepared for the 
future.  
45.  Some Members provided updates. The European Union had extended until September 2021 its 
acceptance on a temporary basis of scanned copies of certificates. It expressed concern regarding 
certain Members' restrictive measures, wh ich increased delays and had no scientific basis. The 
European Union recalled the assessments of EFSA, OIE and other bodies, which found no evidence 
that food could be a source of COVID -19 transmission, and requested Members maintaining such 
measures to sh are their risk assessment that would explain these measures as valid and 
proportionate.  
46.  Chile had implemented electronic certification, continuing to promote its use bilaterally with 
other Members, as well as remote inspections and delivery of export estab lishments' requests.  
47.  Colombia called on Members to reduce delays in inspection visits, for example through virtual 
inspections and electronic certification, to prevent measures from becoming unnecessary restrictions 
to trade.  
48.  Indonesia reiterated that it h ad taken necessary measures to ensure that fisheries products 
were safe for consumption through testing and asked Members to share their experiences in 
preventing COVID -19 in fisheries products. Indonesia added that it had taken a risk -based approach, 
consistent with Article 5 of the SPS Agreement, and following FAO and WHO guidance.  
49.  Kenya had implemented FAO and WHO guidelines to ensure the safety of food exports with 
respect to COVID -19, and expressed concern with certain Members' restrictive measures bei ng 
implemented without sufficient scientific evidence.  
50.  Switzerland again expressed concern regarding the additional requirements related to 
COVID -19 from certain Members for the importation of food products, including tests, inspections 
and certificates, w ithout sharing the risk assessments on which these were based.  G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 52 - 
 
  ANNEX B 
WORKSHOP ON RISK ASSESSMENT, RISK MANAGEMENT , AND RISK COMMUNICATION  
12-13 JULY  2021  
CHAIRPERSON'S SUMMARY  
1.  A Workshop  on Risk Assessment, Risk Management, and Risk Communication was held on 
12-13 July 2021 on Zoom . The programme was circulated in document  G/SPS/GEN/1911/Rev.2 , 
based on a proposal submitted by Canada in the context of the Fifth Review of the Operation and 
Implementation of the SPS  Agreement  (G/SPS/GEN/1769  and G/SPS/GEN/1769/Rev.1 ). 
The workshop brought together a variety  of speakers from the public sector (from Africa, the 
Americas, Asia, Europe, and Oceania) as well as speakers from the private sector, academia, 
international standard -setting bodies, and other international organizations.  There were  close to 
1,300 regist ered participants, including interested stakeholders from Members, private sector, 
academia, and civil society. The interest that the workshop generated was strong evidence of the 
need for  an event of this kind . 
2.  A dedicated webpage for the workshop  had been made available ahead of the event, with relevant 
information, the programme, background information on all the speakers, and a catalogue  of 
relevant  resources  to support governments in building and operationalizing risk analysis frameworks. 
This catalogue builds on resources from the WTO, the international standard -setting bodies, relevant 
international organizations, and others. It includes international standards, guidelines and 
recommendations, presentations, handbooks, guides, tools, links  to previous events, and online 
courses . 
3.  The workshop fostered discussions  on all aspects o f SPS risk analysis, building on the Thematic 
SPS Workshop on Risk Analysis , held on 13 -14 October  2014; and the SPS Thematic Session on Risk 
Communication , held on 15  July 2015.  Through roundtable discussions, presentations, practical case 
studies, video clips, polls, and Q&A sessions, the workshop generated exchanges on SP S risk 
analysis, experience sharing, and discussions on challenges, best practices and emerging issues. 
Participants also benefited from a number of side sessions, which offered opportunities to interact 
informally with speakers.  
4.  The first day of the works hop was dedicated to an opening session (Session 1) and a series of 
roundtables on risk assessment (Session 2) and risk management (Session 3).  
5.  In the opening session , a short video clip was shown providing  a few introductory remarks from 
eminent WTO experts on risk analysis and the SPS  Agreement . This video clip served as a  useful 
refresher of  some of the discussions on risk analysis in the WTO over the years. It was complemented 
by a presentation from the  WTO Secretariat on the provisions  of the SPS  Agreement  relevant to 
risk analysis . 
6.  In a first roundtable on risk assessment,  Codex Alimentarius and the OIE discuss ed international 
standards relevant to risk assessment , new trends, and available support to help developing 
countries implement their guidance . In addition, FAO  discussed the FAO-OIE-WHO Tripartite Joint 
Risk Assessment Operational Tool  to address health risks arising from animal diseases in an 
interdisciplinary manner, and the OECD presented SPS voluntary guidance developed in the areas 
of chemic als and pesticides . In another roundtable  moderated by a speaker from Kenya , 
representatives from China, the European  Union , Morocco , Norway, and the United  States  shared 
experiences on risk assessment, the use of international standards to assist in risk assessment 
activities and reliance on international and regional risk assessments. They also shared experiences 
on building capacity  and discussed challenges in risk assessment activities, including those related 
to capacity, data availability and quality,  and emerging risks . 
7.  Risk management was then discussed from the perspective s of the international standard -setting 
bodies , with speakers from Codex Alimentarius and the OIE, as well as stewards of the IPPC G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 53 - 
 
  Standards Committee . Speakers shared information on international standards and guidance on risk 
management , support provided for Members, and areas for further work. Innovative approaches in 
risk management were also explored, including those in the area of e -commerce. The first day of 
the workshop conc luded with a roundtable on Member perspectives moderated by a speaker from 
New Zealand , where representatives from Brazil, Peru, and  Chinese Taipei  share d experiences  on 
risk management , discussed challenges and strategies. In addition, the discussions add ressed 
incorporating inputs other than scientific assessments in risk management decisions and the use of 
international standards to improve risk management at the domestic level . Speakers also discussed 
private sector perspectives and experiences with pub lic-private coordination in risk management, 
which were shared in the workshop via video clips.  
8.  The second day of the workshop was  dedicated to risk communication  (Session 4) and case 
studies (Session 5) on all aspects of risk analysis . 
9.  In the session on risk communication, p articipants benefited from detailed presentations on 
Codex  Alimentarius risk communication guidance, IPPC tools for pest risk communication, 
OIE standards and risk communication activities, FAO food safety risk communication challenges, as 
well as the APEC regional framework on food safety risk communication.  
10.  In addition, WTO Members  shared experiences on internal risk communication and effectiv e 
communication between and among risk assessors and risk managers. Building on differences in 
approaches between risk assessors and risk man agers, Chinese Taipei  presented  risk communication 
strategies and a proposed action plan based on scenario assumpti ons. The United  States  then 
discussed risk communication at the United  States  Environmental Protection Agency and presented 
its SALT  framework based on Strategy , Action , Learning , and Tools. 
11.  Other presentations focused on experiences with translating risk assessment and risk 
management into communication messages, including communicating uncertainty and leveraging 
new communication tools . In this context, speakers discussed e ffective ways to target 
communication, how to identify audiences, the  scope of  government's responsibility and its role in 
risk communication, and when to communicate.  Canada shared its risk communication strategies in 
the context of African swine fever, highlighting the importance of  dialogue  between regulator s and 
those potentially aff ected , to foster informed decisions, encourage positive behaviour change, 
maintain public trust , and prepare for outbreaks . This was followed by a presentation from China on 
how r isk communication helped its gelatin e trade to the European  Union . This presentation 
highlighted the importance of c onsistent and effective internal risk communication , as well as open 
and objective external risk communication . The European  Union  discussed relevant developments in 
the EU legal framework on risk communication, with a focus on the n ew EU regulation on the 
transparency and the sustainability of the EU risk assessment in the food chain . Finally, the 
United  States presented on communication practices within the United  States  Centers for Disease 
Control and Preventio n (CDC) , in particular the use of  real-time data to communicate real -time risk  
in the context of m ultistate foodborne outbreak s. 
12.  In the last session of the workshop, representatives from WTO Members and the private sector 
presented case studies on the different risk analysis components. The United Kingdom discussed 
tools, resources, and challenges, including those pertaining to uncertainty in risk assessment, in the 
context of pest risk analysis. Chinese Taipei discussed how risk management measures for 
international mail articles of plant products  had been strengthened, in particular through a bilingual 
online application permit system . In this context, Chinese Taipei highlighted the importance of 
inter-agency  cooperation and review efforts. Chinese Taipei also presented on the various aspects 
of risk analysis in the context of  border control measures for African swine fever. Canada discussed 
joint review processes involving two or more countries and associated benefits and challenges in the 
context of pesti cides. The European  Union  presented an initiative on trust, with the aim of 
establish ing an international community of practice for communication and engagement experts. 
A private sector perspective was also shared with a presentation highlighting the need  for 
public -private cooperation in risk communication to protect public health  and the importance of 
building trust among stakeholders.  
13.  In concluding, I remarked that the discussions had highlighted the links between risk 
assessment and risk management act ivities as well as the various actors that have roles to play in 
risk analysis  activities, including government agencies, private sector actors , and consumer groups. 
I further noted that the importance of stakeholder engagement, forming trust, working with G/SPS/R/102  
 
- 54 - 
 
  transparency, and developing confidence in regulatory decisions had been at the heart of many of 
the interventions.  
14.  The presentations made in the workshop are available on the workshop's dedicated webpage . 
The video clips shown in the workshop and the recordings in English, French, and Spanish will also 
be made available on this webpage.  
__________