RESTRICTED
G/SPS/R/78
21 May 2015
(15-2661)  Page: 1/28
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures   
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF 26-27 MARCH 2015 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
1   ADOPTION OF  THE AGENDA ........................................................................................ 4  
2   INFORMATION ON RE LEVANT ACTI VITIES .................................................................. 4  
2.1   Information from Members ......................................................................................... 4  
2.1.1   Peru - Results of the 46th Meeting of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene, held 
in Lima on 17-21 November  2014 (G/SPS/G EN/1396) ............................................................ 4  
2.1.2   Russian Federation – Information regarding the regional workshop on food 
standards within CCEURO, to be held in Saint Petersburg (Russia) on 17-18 September 
2015 ...............................................................................................................................  4 
2.1.3   Russian Federation – Possible scenario on African swine fever spread in the 
Eurasian region ............................................................................................................... . 4 
2.1.4   European Union - Update on the epidemiological situation of African swine fever .............. 4  
2.1.5   Japan - Update on the response to TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power 
station accident and on import restrictions on Japanese food regarding radioactive nuclides ........................................................................................................................... 5
 
2.1.6   United States of America – New se lf-reporting tool of the US Food Safety 
Inspection Service ............................................................................................................  5 
2.1.7   Indonesia – Information regarding the 29th Session of the Asia Pacific Plant 
Protection Commi ssion (A PPPC) .......................................................................................... 5  
2.1.8   Belize – Information on a national Codex workshop held in the capital city of 
Belmopan on 28-29 January 2015 ....................................................................................... 5  
2.2   Information from the relevant  SPS standard-setting bodies ............................................. 5  
2.2.1   CODEX ................................................................................................................. . 5 
2.2.2   IPPC .................................................................................................................. ... 6 
2.2.3   OIE (G/S PS/GEN/ 1394) ........................................................................................... 6  
3   SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  (G/SPS/GEN/204/REV.15) ............................................ 6  
3.1   New issues .............................................................................................................. . 6 
3.1.1   China's measures on bovi ne meat – Concer ns of India ................................................. 6  
3.1.2   General import restrictions due to African swine fever – Concerns of the European 
Union ......................................................................................................................... ..... 7  
3.1.3   General import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza - Concerns of 
the European Union ........................................................................................................... 7  
3.1.4   Mexico's measures on imports of hibiscus flowers – Conc erns of Nigeria ......................... 7  
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to thei r rights and obligations under the WTO. G/SPS/R/78 
 
- 2 - 
 
  3.1.5   Chinese Taipei's strengthened impo rt restrictions on food with regard to 
radionuclides - Conc erns of Japan ....................................................................................... 7  
3.1.6   US proposed rule for user fees for agricultural quarantine and inspection 
services – Concerns  of Mexico ............................................................................................ 8  
3.2   Issues prev iously raised ............................................................................................. 8  
3.2.1   Application and modification of the EU Regulation on Novel Foods - Concerns of 
Peru (No.  238) ................................................................................................................ . 8 
3.2.2   Korea's strengthened import restri ctions on food and feeds with regard to 
radionuclides – Concerns of Japan (No. 359) ......................................................................... 9  
3.2.3   China's import restrictions in response to the nuclear power plant accident – 
Concerns of Japa n (No. 354) ............................................................................................. 10 
3.2.4   European Union revised proposal for categorization of compounds as endocrine 
disruptors – Concerns of the Unit ed States of Am erica (No.  382) ............................................ 10 
3.2.5   France's Ban on Bisphenol A  (BPA) – Concerns of the United States of America 
(No. 346) ..................................................................................................................... .. 11 
3.2.6   Australia and US non-acceptance of OI E categorization of India as "negligible risk 
country" for BSE - Concerns of India (No.  376 and 375) ........................................................ 11 
3.2.7   General import restrictions due to BSE - Concerns of the European Union 
(No. 193) ..................................................................................................................... .. 12 
3.2.8   Turkey's requirements for importation of sheep meat - Concerns of Australia 
(No. 340) ..................................................................................................................... .. 12 
3.2.9   India's import conditions for pork and pork products – Concerns of the European 
Union (No. 358) ............................................................................................................... 13 
3.2.10   US measures on catfish – Concerns of China (No. 289) .............................................. 13 
3.2.11   US high cost of certification for mango exports – Concerns of India (No. 373) ............... 13 
3.2.12   EU ban on certain vegetables fr om India – Concerns of India (N o. 374) ....................... 14 
3.2.13   Indonesia's port closures  – Concerns of Chile (No.  330) ............................................. 14 
3.2.14   EU withdrawal of equivalence for processed organic products – Concerns of India 
(No. 378) ..................................................................................................................... .. 14 
3.3   Information on resolution of  issues in G/SP S/GEN/204/Re v.15 ........................................ 15 
4   OPERATION OF TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS (G/SPS/GEN/804/REV.7) ................. 15  
4.1   Russian Federation – Information regarding amendments to the common sanitary 
requirements (G/SPS /N/RUS/50/Add.1) .............................................................................. 15 
4.2   Nigeria – Additional information on the operation of transp arency provisions ..................... 15 
5   IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT .............................. 15  
6   EQUIVALENCE - ARTICLE 4 ........................................................................................ 15  
6.1   Information from Memb ers on their experiences ........................................................... 15 
6.2   Information from releva nt observer or ganizati ons ......................................................... 15 
7   PEST- AND DISEASE-FR EE AREAS - AR TICLE 6 .......................................................... 16  
7.1   Information from Members on  their pest or disease status .............................................. 16 
7.1.1   Nigeria – Avian influenz a situation (G/S PS/GEN/1397) ................................................ 16 
7.1.2   Mexico – Information on pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or 
disease prevalence ........................................................................................................... 16 
7.1.3   South Africa – Foot and mouth disease (FMD) status ................................................... 16 
7.2   Information from Members on their experiences in recognition of pest- or disease-
free areas .................................................................................................................... ... 16 G/SPS/R/78 
 
- 3 - 
 
  7.3   Information from releva nt observer or ganizati ons ......................................................... 17 
8   TECHNICAL ASSISTAN CE AND COOP ERATION ........................................................... 17  
8.1   Information fr om the Secr etariat ................................................................................ 17 
8.1.1   WTO SPS activities (G/SPS/G EN/521/Rev.10, G/SP S/GEN/997/Re v.5) ........................... 17 
8.1.2   STDF (G /SPS/GEN /1384 ) ........................................................................................ 17 
8.2   Informatio n from Members ........................................................................................ 18 
8.2.1   Technical assistance activities provided by the European Union in 2014 
(G/SPS/GEN/ 1139/Add. 3) ................................................................................................. 18 
8.3   Information from observer organizations ...................................................................... 18 
9   REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS 
AGREEMENT ................................................................................................................... 1 9 
9.1   Fourth Review .......................................................................................................... 19 
9.1.1   Report of th e Informal Meeting ................................................................................ 19 
9.1.2   Adoption of report of Fo urth Review (G/S PS/W/280/Rev.2) .......................................... 21 
9.1.3   Proposals submitted during the Four th Review ........................................................... 21 
10   MONITORING OF THE USE OF  INTERNATIONAL STANDARD S .................................. 22  
10.1   New Issues ............................................................................................................ 22 
10.1.1   United States of America – HPAI restrictions not consistent with the OIE 
international standard ...................................................................................................... 22 
10.2   Issues previously raised ........................................................................................... 22 
11   CONCERNS WITH PRIVAT E AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS .................................... 22  
11.1   Report of th e Informal Meeting ................................................................................. 22 
12   OBSE RVERS ............................................................................................................. 25  
12.1   Information from observer orga nizations .................................................................... 25 
12.2   Requests for observer status .................................................................................... 26 
12.2.1   New requests ...................................................................................................... 26 
12.2.2   Outstand ing requests ........................................................................................... 26 
13   ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON ............................................................................ 26  
14   OTHER BU SINESS .................................................................................................... 27  
15   DATE AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETINGS ................................................................ 27  
 G/SPS/R/78 
 
- 4 - 
 
  1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 
1.1.  The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee") held its sixty-
second regular meeting on 26 and 27 March 2015. The proposed agenda for the meeting was adopted with amendments (WTO/AIR/SPS/2). 
2  INFORMATION ON RELEVANT ACTIVITIES 
2.1  Information from Members 2.1.1  Peru - Results of the 46
th Meeting of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene, held 
in Lima on 17-21 November 2014 (G/SPS/GEN/1396) 
2.1.  Peru provided information about the 46th meeting of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene 
held in Lima in November 2014. The general objective of the meeting had been to discuss and evaluate the proposed draft Codex standards relating to food hygiene. The topics discussed 
included principles of hygiene to control pa rasites in food; guidelines to prevent the Trichinella 
parasite in pork meat; and general principles of hygiene for products with low moisture content. The meeting had reinforced the close ties between Peru's National Codex Committee and other 
Codex Committees worldwide. More information can be found in document G/SPS/GEN/1396. 
2.1.2  Russian Federation – Information regarding the regional workshop on food 
standards within CCEURO, to be held in Sa int Petersburg (Russia) on 17-18 September 
2015 
2.2.  The Russian Federation announced a regional workshop on food standards for members of 
the FAO/WHO Coordinating Committee for Europe (CCEURO), to be held in Saint Petersburg on 17-18 September 2015. Russia thanked the Netherlands for the cooperation in organizing this 
workshop and invited CCEURO members to participate. 
2.1.3  Russian Federation – Possible scenar io on African swine fever spread in the 
Eurasian region 
2.3.  The Russian Federation drew Members' attention to the African swine fever (ASF) situation 
within the Eurasian region. New outbreaks of the disease were reported in Russia and Ukraine in 2014 and the quarantine zone border in Europe had shifted 250 km deeper into the EU territory. In 
Russia's view the European Union had underestimate d the risk, resulting in the further spread of 
the disease. In particular, Russia expressed concer n about the spread of ASF in Estonia, and the 
resulting risks for ASF introduction to the Leningrad regions of Russia. Russia appreciated that constructive discussions had started on the matter and reaffirmed its willingness to share any 
information on its epizootic situation and to propose solutions to the problem. 
2.4.  The European Union believed that this was not the right venue to discuss Russia's allegations 
against the European Union since the case was in the hands of the Dispute Settlement Body. The 
European Union also deplored the tone and language used by Russia in its statement. 
2.1.4  European Union - Update on the epid emiological situation of African swine fever 
2.5.  The European Union provided, for the fo urth time, a factual update on the current 
epidemiological situation of ASF within its borders. In addition to the well-known endemic situation 
on the island of Sardinia, the virus had been introduced into the European Union from Russia through Belarus in January 2014. Since then it had been detected in four EU member States (Lithuania, Poland, Latvia and Estonia), with cases concentrating along their eastern borders. The 
European Union had put in place a comprehensive set of harmonized legislation. 
Zoning/regionalization was being applied as a tool to limit the impact on trade while eradicating and preventing the spread of the disease. The li mited geographical spread of the disease more 
than a year after ASF was introduced into the European Union was an important indicator of the 
effectiveness of the control and regionalization measures applied. The European Union expressed 
concern that its repeated requests for information on the surveillance and control measures taken 
by Belarus and Russia had not been answered. The European Union also indicated that, upon its 
initiative, a standing group of experts on ASF in  the Baltic and Eastern Europe region had been G/SPS/R/78 
 
- 5 - 
 
  established last year, under the OIE/FAO framewor k. Members of this expert group were Russia, 
Belarus, Ukraine, the four affected EU member States and the European Commission, while the OIE acted as the secretariat. Since ASF was a trans-boundary disease, the aim of this standing group was to enhance collaboration between all affected countries to ensure better control of the 
disease. 
2.1.5  Japan - Update on the response to  TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power 
station accident and on import restrictions  on Japanese food regarding radioactive 
nuclides 
2.6.  Japan provided an update on the situatio n of Japanese foods following the nuclear power 
station accident. Japan noted that multi-layer countermeasures against contaminated water and strict monitoring for seafood products were in place. To further promote accurate understanding of 
the safety of Japanese fishery products, the Fishery Agency of Japan had released a report on the 
monitoring of radionuclides in fishery products and had circulated it at the SPS Committee in July 2014. Japan reported that in February 2015, TEPCO had detected a puddle of contaminated 
water accumulating on the rooftop of one of the reactor buildings that could have reached the 
ocean through a drainage outlet. The Ministry of  Economy, Trade and Industry had ordered TEPCO 
to conduct a review and present suitable countermeasures. Japan noted that close monitoring of 
the marine environment demonstrated that the radioactive level in seawater – including near the 
drainage outlet - showed no significant change and that radioactive levels in fishery products had been stably declining. Japan thanked the Kin gdom of Bahrain, Brunei Darussalam, Oman, the 
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Thailand and the United States of America for easing their import 
restrictions on Japanese food products. 
2.1.6  United States of America – New self -reporting tool of the US Food Safety 
Inspection Service 
2.7.  The United States announced that USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) had 
recently made available to all WTO Members a new web-based equivalence self-reporting tool (SRT), notified to the WTO through document G/SPS/N/USA/2511/Add.1. The new SRT had been 
created to help Members provide or update information on their inspection systems. This would 
speed FSIS review of requests for equivalence and would increase transparency, as countries would be able to review their request status onlin e. Members who were interested in learning more 
were encouraged to refer to the notification or to contact the US delegation during the meeting. 
2.1.7  Indonesia – Information regarding the 29
th Session of the Asia Pacific Plant 
Protection Commission (APPPC) 
2.8.  Indonesia announced that the 29th Session of the Asia Pacific Plant Protection Commission 
(APPPC) would be held in Bali, Indonesia, on 7-11 September 2015. Indonesia invited all members 
of the APPPC to participate and indicated that the invitation letters would be sent out during the 
first week of August 2015. 
2.1.8  Belize – Information on a national Co dex workshop held in the capital city of 
Belmopan on 28-29 January 2015 
2.9.  Belize reported on a national Codex workshop held in Belize on 28-29 January 2015, in 
collaboration with several national entities, the Codex contact point of Costa Rica, and IICA. The 
workshop had covered initiatives to further strengthen the work of the national Codex committee; 
critical components for a national work plan; and recommendations on how best to engage the private sector in Codex initiatives at national level. Belize thanked the government of Costa Rica 
and IICA for their support. 
2.2  Information from the relevant SPS standard-setting bodies 2.2.1  CODEX 
2.10.  Codex gave an overview of its recent activi ties, noting that eleven Codex sessions had been 
held since the last SPS Committee meeting. The 12
th session of the Committee on Food Additives 
was currently under way in China. The Codex representative explained that Codex meetings were G/SPS/R/78 
 
- 6 - 
 
  hosted by different countries to save costs, but also to help increase awareness of the work of 
Codex around the world. More information is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1403. 
2.2.2  IPPC 2.11.  The IPPC reported on the 10
th session of the Commission of Phytosanitary Measure 
(CPM 10), which had met the previous week. The Commission had decided to promote the 
proclamation of 2020 as the international year of plant health, to raise political awareness about 
plant health; to promote plant health as a public good; to increase commitments to national plant 
health systems; and to better harmonize plant legislation at the national and international level. 
At CPM 10 there had also been strong support for the development of an electronic certification 
system for plant health requirements. The IPPC wa s looking into the possibility of developing an 
administrative and legal framework as well as a financial system for such a hub. For the first time 
IPPC would be able to provide direct services to national plant protection organizations. The IPPC 
had also adopted a recommendation on sea containers that was important in relation to invasive alien species (IAS). 
2.12.  The IPPC welcomed the proposal on risk  assessment presented by the United States 
(G/SPS/GEN/1401) and expressed its willingness to pa rticipate in an informal session, prior to the 
July SPS Committee meeting, to share practical ex periences in the area of awareness raising and 
communication. The IPPC welcomed collaborative efforts of the SPS Committee in this area. 
2.2.3  OIE (G/SPS/GEN/1394) 2.13.  The OIE outlined its report as contained in G/SPS/GEN/1394. Among the items up for 
adoption at the General Session in May, the OIE highlighted the revised chapter of the Terrestrial 
Animal Health Code on foot and mouth disease (FMD); further amendments of the BSE chapter; a 
new chapter on infection with epizootic haemorrhagic disease, and a revised chapter on infection with African horse sickness virus. 
3  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS (G/SPS/GEN/204/REV.15) 
3.1.  The Secretariat drew attention to the recent ly released annual compilation of specific trade 
concerns (G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 and G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15/Corr.1). The report compiled all 
issues raised in the SPS Committee during 2014. A total of 29 specific trade concerns had been 
discussed, of which 14 were new issues, 12 were previously raised, and three were reported as resolved. 
3.1  New issues 
3.1.1  China's measures on bovi ne meat – Concerns of India 
3.2.  India raised its concerns about China's import ban on bovine meat due to the prevalence of 
FMD in India. The ban had first been imposed by China in 1990 because of the incidence of 
rinderpest and FMD in India. Despite India being declared free from rinderpest in 1995 through an 
OIE resolution, China had not accepted India's rinderpest-free status until 2012. With regard to FMD, India had informed the Chinese authorities ab out the implementation of a strong FMD control 
programme through vaccinations that had created FMD-free areas, from where bovine meat was 
exported to various countries. China had signed a veterinary protocol for import of bovine meat from India in May 2013; nonetheless a visit for inspections of meat processing plants by the Chinese authorities from the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and 
Quarantine (AQSIQ) was still pending. India also  noted that all the information requested by 
AQSIQ had been provided to the Chinese authoritie s. India therefore requested China to carry out 
the required inspections at the earliest so that trade in bovine meat could restart smoothly. 
3.3.  China noted that a questionnaire had been required to lift the ban and that the first expert 
panel meeting had been convened in December 2013. However, since the department of Agriculture of India had not sent any experts to the meeting, technical exchange on prevention 
and control of FMD could not be conducted. Furthermore, the technical data requested by China 
had not been provided until July 2014. And were currently being assessed. China would hold the second expert panel meeting in December 2015 in view of lifting the ban and hoped that the G/SPS/R/78 
 
- 7 - 
 
  Indian Department of Agriculture would assign a contact person for technical issues to ensure 
smooth communication. 
3.1.2  General import restrictions due to Af rican swine fever – Concerns of the European 
Union 
3.4.  The European Union appreciated those trading partners that had not taken any import 
measures due to the African swine fever (ASF) outbreaks, trusting the strict EU control system. At the same time the European Union expressed concerns with the country-wide bans imposed by 
several other trading partners and stressed the importance and effectiveness of regionalization 
measures. The European Union had demonstrated that  it took all outbreaks of ASF very seriously, 
ensuring delivery of safe pork meat and products  both to the EU market and to third countries. 
The robustness of the EU system, including its surveillance and control measures, had been 
detailed earlier in the meeting. The European Union reminded Members of their regionalization 
obligations under Article 6 of the SPS Agreement and referred to document G/SPS/GEN/1159, where it had described how regionalization for animal diseases could be implemented successfully. 
The European Union invited all WTO Members keeping disproportionately trade-restrictive 
measures to respect their regionalization obligations and to lift all country-wide bans. 
3.1.3  General import restrictions due to high ly pathogenic avian in fluenza - Concerns of 
the European Union 
3.5.  The European Union also expressed concer ns about Members maintaining country-wide bans 
on EU poultry products. The European Union remarked that the early detection, control and eradication measures for avian influenza that were legally binding in EU member States had 
proved to be effective. The European Union was disappointed that some Members had put 
temporary bans in place that had never been lifted or justified, while other Members had not informed the European Union about the steps or time required to recognize regionalization. The 
European Union made reference to the Committee's Guidelines to Further the Practical 
Implementation of Article 6 of the SPS Agreemen t (G/SPS/48) and invited all Members to allow 
trade of all safe products, especi ally from non-affected zones. 
3.1.4  Mexico's measures on imports of hibiscus flowers – Concerns of Nigeria 
3.6.  Nigeria expressed concerns on certain verification procedures being used by Mexico on 
imported hibiscus flowers from Nigeria. Following the Mexican quarantine authorities' request to 
change the certificate, Nigeria had developed an online platform to generate electronic 
phytosanitary certificates and had held bilateral discussions with Mexico's quarantine authority. 
The validation procedures were causing delays for Nigeria's exports of hibiscus flowers and real losses in some cases. Nigeria thanked the Mexican delegate for the efforts made to convene a 
bilateral meeting on the margins of the Committee meeting, but noted that no timelines had been 
agreed for the resolution of the issue. 
3.7.  Burkina Faso echoed Nigeria's concern since it was experiencing similar problems with 
exports to Indonesia. Senegal also shared the concern, noting that Senegal was currently trying to 
develop its hibiscus flower sector and would consider the possibility of exporting to Mexico. 
3.8.  Mexico explained that 14 shipments of Hibiscus flowers with false SPS certificates had been 
intercepted during 2014. Mexican authorities had since maintained ongoing communication with 
Nigeria and had held a meeting in capital and a bilateral meeting on the margins of the Committee 
meeting with the aim of guaranteeing the authentici ty of the certificates produced by the Nigerian 
authorities. While setting a timeline was not possible due to certain aspects that still needed to be 
concluded, Mexico confirmed its willingness to find a prompt solution to the problem. 
3.1.5  Chinese Taipei's strengthened import  restrictions on food with regard to 
radionuclides - Concerns of Japan  
3.9.  Japan expressed its concerns over the import  ban imposed by Chinese Taipei on food exports 
from five Japanese prefectures after the accide nt at TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power 
Station, as well as over the draft strengthened  import regulations that required a pre-test 
certificate issued by the Japanese Government for almost all Japanese foods from all remaining G/SPS/R/78 
 
- 8 - 
 
  prefectures. Japan had repeatedly provided Chinese Taipei with comprehensive monitoring results 
to demonstrate that Japanese food was safe for human consumption. Four years had passed since the nuclear accident in 2011. In the meantime 13 Members such as Australia and Viet Nam had lifted their import restrictions. Many other Members, including the European Union, the United 
States and Singapore had eased their import restrictions based on sound scientific data. Japan 
believed that the measures maintained by Chinese Taipei were not based on relevant international standards and were more trade-restrictive than required. Japan therefore requested that Chinese 
Taipei lift the import ban on the five prefectu res and withdraw the draft strengthened import 
regulations notified to the SPS Committee last November. 
3.10.  Chinese Taipei noted that, although all the inspected batches proceeding from Japan were in 
compliance with Chinese Taipei's regulation, consumer protection groups and the public were still 
concerned about the safety of food imported from Japan. The notified draft control measure 
requiring that food products imported from Japa n be accompanied by pre-export radiation test 
certificates and certificates of origin was developed as a consequence of the radioactive 
contaminated water leak accident from Fukushima nuclear power plant in 2013. Chinese Taipei 
expressed its willingness to continue bilateral talks and looked forward to finding a mutual satisfactory solution on this matter. 
3.1.6  US proposed rule for user fees for agricultural quarantine and inspection 
services – Concerns of Mexico 
3.11.  Mexico raised a concern regarding the United States proposed rule for user fees for 
agricultural quarantine and inspection services. Mexico was particularly concerned about an 
increase of over 200% in the inspection servic es fees for commercial trucks with electronic 
transmitters, and an increase of 52% of the cu rrent fee for other types of commercial trucks. 
Mexican agricultural exports entered the United States mainly via land. Since Mexico was one of 
the main trading partners of the United States and the main source of agricultural products, this 
measure would not only affect transportation costs for Mexico, but it would also have a direct effect on the prices for final consumers, generating inflation and putting at risk small and medium 
producers and thousands of jobs directly or indirectly related to this sector. Mexico also noted that 
the measure could be considered discriminatory against Mexican imports, violating the Article 2.3, since most other trading partners did not export via land and traded much smaller volumes with the United States. The regulation also countervailed Members' obligations on transparency, as it 
had not been officially notified to the WTO. In Me xico's view the regulation was also incompatible 
with Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement, which required that any fees imposed for procedures on imported products be limited to the processing cost and be no higher than the 
actual cost of the services. The Mexican Government and private sector had participated in the 
consultation procedures and had submitted their concerns. Mexico hoped that its comments would be taken into consideration and invited the United States to comply with the provisions of the 
SPS Agreement. 
3.12.  The United States noted that the APHIS proposed rule had been published on 25 April 2014. 
Due to the interest in this proposed rule by stakeholders, the comment period had been extended to 24 July 2014. Comments had been received from over 200 stakeholders and the review by 
APHIS was still ongoing. The United States assured Mexico that it would carefully consider its and 
other comments before proceeding with any decisions on the matter. 
3.2  Issues previously raised 
3.2.1  Application and modification of the EU  Regulation on Novel Foods - Concerns of 
Peru (No. 238) 
3.13.  Peru reiterated its concerns over the proposed amendment of EU Regulation No. 258/97 
(G/SPS/GEN/1383). Peru challenged the consistency of the EU proposed regulation with Articles 
2.2 and 5 of the SPS Agreement, which require the importing Member to adopt the least trade-
restrictive measure, based on a risk assessment, and requested the European Union to provide the 
underpinning scientific basis. Peru noted how trade statistics for kaniwa (or cañihua) exports 
showed the detrimental effects of the EU's Regu lation on Novel Foods on Peru's traditional 
products derived from biodiversity. While Peru's global exports of kaniwa had increased by more 
than 317% in 2013 and about 206% in 2014, going to  markets such as Australia, Canada and the G/SPS/R/78 
 
- 9 - 
 
  United States, the marketing of this food in the European market was restricted and its real 
potential was therefore reduced. Peru also reques ted the European Union to clarify the scope of 
the phrase "a large part of the population of  a third country", contained in Article 2.2(c). 
The definition did not specify the percentage or nu m b e r  o f  p e o p l e  r e q u i r e d  f o r  t h i s  p a r t  o f  t h e  
population to be considered "large", nor did it specify whether the population in question should 
constitute a representative sample of the country's population as a whole or whether it may concern specific areas. 
3.14.  The Plurinational State of Bolivia, Colo mbia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador and 
Guatemala expressed their support for Peru's concerns. 
3.15.  The European Union recalled that the new proposal did not change the definition of novel 
food or the scope of the regulation, which covered foods, production processes and production 
methods new to the European Union for various reasons. This was in line with article 5.2 of the 
SPS Agreement. The European Union noted that in some cases safe consumption might require preparation or consumption habits only known to the consumers of the country producing the food 
in question. It was therefore not possible to anticipate the potential risk associated with such novel 
foods, production processes or production method s and to address them in an all-encompassing 
risk assessment. As a result, the high level of food safety pursued in the European Union could 
only be achieved on a case by case basis within  the framework of a pre-market approval system. 
The EU scheme for Novel Food wass in line with the SPS Agreement, as it was a pre-market approval based on scientific risk assessment, in line  with Articles 5, 8 and Annex C.  The European 
Union also reiterated its commitment to provide detailed guidance to applicants regarding the 
authorization and notification procedures and noted that products such as kaniwa should 
particularly benefit from the new Novel Food Regulation, as they were likely to qualify for the simplified and shortened procedure for authorization of traditional foods from third countries. The 
European Union finally recalled that the discussion by the EU Parliament and the Council had not 
yet concluded; therefore no final text was availabl e. The European Union would be in a position to 
provide a definitive answer to the questions and concerns raised by WTO Members only when the 
final text was available. 
3.2.2  Korea's strengthened import restrict ions on food and feeds with regard to 
radionuclides – Concerns of Japan (No. 359) 
3.16.  Japan reiterated its concern regarding the additional import bans and testing requirements 
maintained by the Government of Korea on Japanese food products. Japan considered that these 
bans and the additional testing requirements we re non-transparent, discriminatory, more trade-
restrictive than necessary and lacked a scientific basis. Japan had held numerous bilateral 
meetings and provided detailed information to Korea, seeking to use the tools set forth in the 
SPS Agreement to reach an amicable solution. In addition, at the request of the Korean government, Japan had hosted on-site visits by a Korean investigative committee in 
December 2014 and January 2015, and had assisted the committee's members in fully 
understanding the extent of the measures that Ja pan had taken to secure the safety of Japanese 
fishery products. In contrast, Korea had failed to respond to Japan's requests and had provided no information on the timeline and steps towards the lifting of its measures. To illustrate the damage 
of this ban, Japan reported the example of th e Tohoku area, where around 70% of farmed sea 
squirt was previously exported to Korea. The Tohoku sea squirt farmers were now facing a ban despite the fact that more than 150 samples from sea squirt had been inspected, with radioactive 
cesium either significantly below Korea's safety thresholds or so low as to be non-detectable. 
Japan stressed the fact that Korea's ban on such products lacked any scientific basis and reiterated that if Korea continued ignoring Japan's requests, Japan would have no choice but to resort to 
other actions under the WTO. 
3.17.  Korea noted that the necessary procedures to resolve this issue in a bilateral way had been 
in place since Japan had first raised this issue in the SPS Committee. Korea explained that the ban had been adopted as a provisional measure in acco rdance with Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement. 
At the same time, Korea had sought to obtain additional information from the Japanese 
government and had organized a private experts committee to review this information and to verify the scientific evidence. Korean experts had also visited Japan three times since last 
December. Korea was in the process of reviewing all the information obtained and hoped for full 
co-operation with Japan to solve this issue bilaterally. G/SPS/R/78 
 
- 10 - 
 
  3.2.3  China's import restrictions in resp onse to the nuclear power plant accident – 
Concerns of Japan (No. 354) 
3.18.  Japan recalled its concern over import restrictions by China on Japanese food exports, 
following TEPCO's nuclear power station incident. Japan had expressed the same concern three 
times consecutively since last March and regretted that no progress had been made, since China 
still maintained a ban on products from ten Japa nese prefectures. In Japan's view, this ban was 
not based on international standards and was more trade-restrictive than required to achieve the 
appropriate level of protection. In June 2013, Japan had provided China with monitoring results 
that demonstrated that Japan's food was safe for human consumption. Japan was also concerned about additional prefectures subject to import bans on vegetables, fruit, tea, milk, medicinal plants 
and related products. While China had announced in 2011 that it would lift the import ban on these 
products, it had since been reluctant to do so, despite Japan's proposal of pre-test certificates. 
Japan was concerned that China deliberately avoided any progress on this issue, raising the doubt that its measures were applied as a disguised restriction on international trade. Japan requested 
that China immediately accept Japan's pre-test certificates, and lift the import ban without further 
delay. 
3.19.  China explained that TEPCO's nuclear power station incident, which had brought great 
losses to Japan, had posed serious threats to food safety. China had imposed corresponding 
measures on agricultural and marine products from Japan, based on risk assessment in compliance with international practice. China had already adjusted the inspection and quarantine measures for Japanese food and agricultural products, and cont inued to apply restrictions only for high-risk 
products from seriously polluted regions. China expressed concerns about reports by Japanese 
media about the monitoring procedures for nucle ar pollution of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear 
power plant. According to Japanese media, the company responsible for the monitoring had used 
simple detection methods and had directly discharged nuclear wastewater into the open sea. 
Additionally, no action had been taken after discove ring a high presence of radioactive substances 
in some drainage channels. China invited Japan to  verify the media reporting and noted that China 
would take measures according to the technical documents provided by Japan and to the experts' 
assessment results. 
3.2.4  European Union revised proposal for categorization of compounds as endocrine 
disruptors – Concerns of the Unit ed States of America (No. 382) 
3.20.  The United States raised concerns regarding the EU public consultation on defining criteria 
for identifying endocrine disruptors in the contex t of the implementation of the plant protection 
product regulation and biocidal products regulati on. The United States questioned the scientific 
evidence considered in developing and selecting each of the options presented in the Roadmap and 
feared that risk might have not been taken into account. Implementation of any hazard-based "cut o f f "  o p t i o n  t h a t  d i d  n o t  c o n s i d e r  r i s k  f r o m  a c t u a l  e x p o s u r e  c o u l d  h a v e  s e v e r e  i m p l i c a t i o n s  f o r  
EU imports of agricultural goods, including those from the United States. Furthermore, banning 
chemicals and pesticides solely based on endocrine-disrupting properties might incentivize the use of more dangerous products, simply because they do not present endocrine-disrupting properties. 
The United States encouraged the European Union to explain in a public document how significant 
stakeholders' comments would be taken into account and urged the Commission to adopt an 
approach that fully considered the vital role that pesticide chemicals play in food safety and security. 
3.21.  Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Colo mbia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, India, Kenya, 
Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, South Africa and Uruguay shared the US concern regarding the socio-economic effects that the EU measure would have on their countries if the 
legislation was to be approved. Various Members asked if the European Union had considered 
conducting an economic impact assessment for such a regulation and looked forward to being further informed. 
3.22.  The European Union noted that there was currently no new EU legislative proposal on 
defining criteria for identifying endocrine disrup tors. The European Commission was in the process 
of conducting a full impact assessment, where all health, environmental and socio-economic aspects, including impacts on international trade, would be addressed. Following the publication of 
the Roadmap in June 2014, a public consultation had been held from September 2014 to 
January 2015. Over 27,000 responses had been received and published on the EU Commission G/SPS/R/78 
 
- 11 - 
 
  website, and an analytical report of these responses would be provided in due course. 
A stakeholders' conference for all interested parties, including third countries, was planned for the 1 June 2015, while a dedicated webpage with information on the ongoing impact assessment would be available soon on the DG-SANTE website. In parallel, the necessary studies to support 
the impact assessment were ongoing. The first one would estimate which substances would be 
identified under each option for the criteria ou tlined in the Roadmap, with 700 chemicals being 
screened. Only when the results of these screenings  would be available, the European Commission 
would launch the studies assessing impacts on health, environment, trade, agriculture and socio-
economic effects in general and include them in the impact assessment report that would accompany any legislative proposal. If and when such proposal would be made, the legislative 
draft would be notified to the WTO to allow Members to present their comments, in line with the 
transparency obligations of the SPS Agreement that the European Union promoted and would like 
to reinforce. 
3.2.5  France's Ban on Bisphenol A  (BPA) – Concerns of the United States of America 
(No. 346) 
3.23.  The United States recalled its concerns over France's ban on the use of the chemical 
Bisphenol A  (BPA) in the production of food containers  and food contact surfaces, including cans, 
for baby food beginning 1 January 2013 and for a ll foods beginning on 1 January 2015. The United 
States urged the European Union to notify this ban to the SPS Committee and requested France to provide its risk assessment supporting the ban. Th e United States also highlighted the lack of 
scientific basic for the ban by recalling the assessm ent on BPA released by the US Food and Drug 
Administration, the European Food Safety Au thority (EFSA) and the German Federal Risk 
Assessment Institute (BfR). According to the United  States, all agencies found no safety issues 
with BPA, that exposure to BPA from the diet or a combination of sources was considerably under 
the safe level, and therefore poses no health risk  to consumers. The United States therefore urged 
France to rescind the ban on BPA. 
3.24.  The European Union explained that as a general rule, EU member States may adopt their 
own national measures in areas that are not harmonised at an EU level. For areas that are 
harmonized at EU level, member States may, in addition, temporarily suspend or restrict application of the harmonized EU provisions within their territory when, as a result of new information or reassessment of existing information, it has detailed grounds for concluding that the 
use of the material endangers human health. For areas where there is no harmonized measure, 
member States may adopt national provisions if th ey are deemed necessary in view of protecting 
the health and lives of citizens. According to the European Union, France had justified its national 
measures on these grounds. 
3.25.  The European Union further explained that BPA had raised divergent views from scientists 
for many years, referring to both the US and EU  risk assessments on BPA. France adopted its 
national law in December 2012 on the basis of  an assessment of the health effects of BPA 
conducted by the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety. This was subsequently underpinned by a specific risk assessment on BPA by the French Agency, which 
was published in April 2013. EFSA had completed its comprehensive evaluation of the risks to 
public health from BPA, which was published only  in January 2015. The French Agency and EFSA 
had discussed the diverging views, which was foreseen in EU food law and may occur as part of the normal scientific risk assessment process. The European Union was now evaluating the opinion 
of EFSA on BPA in full as a matter of priority and would assess the adequacy of existing EU 
measures as well as measures adopted by member States. The European Union ensured that decisions taken on the risk management concerning BPA in food contact materials at EU level 
would be communicated effectively to all stakeholders, including third countries. If any changes to 
the EU legislation were to be proposed, they would be duly notified to the WTO SPS Committee to allow WTO Members to share their scientific data or opinions and make their observations that would be taken into account, assessed and prop erly responded to within the WTO framework. 
3.2.6  Australia and US non-acceptance of OIE categorization of India as "negligible risk 
country" for BSE - Concerns of India (No. 376 and 375) 
3.26.  India restated its concern that the United States did not accept the OIE categorization of 
India as a negligible risk country for BSE. India recalled that the OIE defined the standards for six 
diseases including BSE, and that India followed these standards in line with the SPS Agreement. G/SPS/R/78 
 
- 12 - 
 
  India reminded Members to apply OIE designations instead of conducting their own national 
assessments, and noted that the United States had chosen to disregard the OIE designation, which 
was contrary to accepted international practice among Members. India requested the United States 
to recognize its official OIE BSE status. 
3.27.  India also reiterated its concern regarding Australia's non-acceptance of its OIE 
categorization as negligible risk country for BSE. India noted that Australia had chosen to implement its own categorization process and voiced concerns about the multiplicity of systems, as 
well as the risk that national categorization processes would contradict the OIE's categorization. 
India requested that Australia share the reasoning behind its diverging view in determining a negligible risk country. 
3.28.  The United States reiterated its commitment to aligning its import regulations governing 
BSE with OIE guidelines. The United States had received India's OIE dossier on 10 September 
2014, and was currently reviewing India's status, with an opportunity for public comments. 
3.29.  Australia indicated that, consistent with th e SPS Agreement, it reserved its right to conduct 
its own risk assessments on the status of India or any other Member in relation to diseases of 
biosecurity concern, including BSE, in accordance with its appropriate level of protection. 
3.2.7  General import restrictions due to BSE - Concerns of the European Union 
(No. 193) 
3.30.  The European Union reiterated the importance of this concern; SPS measures adopted by 
Members had to be based on relevant international standards. Unjustifiable trade restrictions relating to BSE were still in place in a number of Members, although OIE standards for safe trade 
had existed for more than ten years. The Euro pean Union welcomed the growing number of WTO 
Members recognizing the EU control system and th e EU member States' negligible or controlled 
risk status. The European Union urged all Members to align their BSE requirements with OIE 
standards. 
3.31.  Specifically, the European Union welcomed the progress made by China, allowing beef 
exports from one EU member State and the lifting  of the ban on two others. The European Union 
also welcomed the beginning of exports from one of its member States to the United States. The 
European Union urged China and the United States to provide more information on their import procedures that would allow exports from other member States. The European Union also urged Australia, South Korea and Ukraine to process the import applications submitted by the European 
Union in a speedy manner. The European Union reported that it had put in place a robust system 
for BSE in all of its member States, following the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code. This system guaranteed that all bovine products placed on the EU market, imported and exported were safe. 
Against this background, the European Union urged all Members to lift the BSE ban on bovine and 
bovine products for the entire European Union within a reasonable period of time. 
3.32.  China explained that it attached great im portance to exports of beef from the European 
Union and was actively carrying out technical exchange and co-operation with the relevant 
EU member States to solve technical problems. China further explained that it had carried out separate risk assessments for the relevant EU me mber States. For the member States without BSE 
cases, accelerated procedures were imposed. Ch ina noted that Hungary had exported to China 
while Latvia had signed a beef export protocol. China had also lifted the ban on some beef 
products from the Netherlands and Ireland. China was looking forward to enhanced technical exchange and consultation with the European Union to properly solve this issue. 
3.2.8  Turkey's requirements for importatio n of sheep meat - Concerns of Australia 
(No. 340) 
3.33.  Australia repeated its concerns over Turkey's requirements for sheep meat imports, which it 
had raised at each Committee meeting since October 2012. Australia reported that it had held 
productive bilateral discussions with Turkey in the margins and hoped these discussions would lead to a satisfactory resolution of the issue. Turkey had advised that it had prepared a draft veterinary 
health certificate for sheep meat and undertook to provide a copy of the certificate and information 
on certification requirements upon receipt of an official written request from Australia. G/SPS/R/78 
 
- 13 - 
 
  3.34.  Turkey explained that during a bilateral m eeting, both delegations had determined that the 
measure was based on OIE standards. Turkey reiterated that certification requirements would be made available upon request and stressed that the measure was not intended to be a trade barrier. Turkey was open for further consultation with Australia to resolve this issue. 
3.2.9  India's import conditions for pork an d pork products – Concerns of the European 
Union (No. 358) 
3.35.  The European Union recalled its concerns regarding India's import requirements for pork 
and pork products, and noted that at the last four Committee meetings it had requested India to 
bring such measures into line with OIE standards. The European Union welcomed the effort made by India in its new import measures on pork and pork products as notified to the WTO. However, India had not yet adopted the regionalization princi ple, requiring a whole country to be free from 
animal diseases. India also still required exporting countries to certify freedom from diseases for 
which there were no OIE standards. The European  Union requested that India provide scientific 
justification for such measures and fully respec t its obligations under the SPS Agreement. The 
European Union also requested that India publis h amended measures in a timely and transparent 
manner. The European Union remained open to c ooperating with India to resolve this issue. 
3.36.  India explained that the measures were cu rrently under review and had been notified on 
16 March 2015 (G/SPS/N/IND/98). India invited all Members to submit their comments in writing 
through the relevant authorities for due consideration. 
3.2.10  US measures on catfish – Concerns of China (No. 289) 3.37.  China recalled that in the 2014 Farm Bill of  the United States, the regulatory food safety 
oversight of all Siluriformes  fish was moved from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to the 
United States Department of Agriculture's F ood Safety Inspection Service (FSIS). FDA was 
traditionally in charge of other food products, including aquatic products. The proposed rule on 
mandatory inspection of catfish and catfish products,–notified to the Committee in March 2011, 
would thus duplicate inspections already conducted by FDA on all catfish products. China also recalled the report published by the United States Government Accountability Office in May 2012. 
According to China, the report observed that th e USDA proposed rule on mandatory inspections 
would duplicate existing government programmes and would not improve consumer safety. The USDA risk assessment published in July 2012 showed  that the prob ability of food poisoning from 
catfish is very low, with only one salmonella outbreak linked to catfish in the past 20 years. 
China believed that the inspection programme was not based on a serious risk assessment, which 
violated US obligations under the SPS Agreement. China urged the United States to regulate catfish on a scientific basis, and to maintain the catfish inspection programme under the regulatory 
system of aquatic products. 
3.38.  The United States explained that the Food  Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, known as 
the 2008 Farm Bill mandated that catfish be regu lated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and 
directed USDA to promulgate a rule to define ca tfish and provide for its mandatory inspection. The 
Agricultural Act of 2014, known as the 2014 Farm Bill had made FSIS responsible for Siluriformes  
fish including catfish. The United States noted that FSIS was currently working on finalizing the catfish inspection rules, and that trading partners  would be notified as soon as these rules were 
finalized. 
3.2.11  US high cost of cert ification for mango exports – Concerns of India (No. 373) 
3.39.  India reiterated its concern regarding the high cost of certification for mango exports to the 
United States. In previous meetings, the United States had offered the possibility of irradiation 
upon arrival. This solution had been discussed in a bilateral meeting held on 3–4 March 2015. India requested that the United States circulate a draft work plan for the irradiation upon arrival 
requirement. 
3.40.  The United States reported that the bilateral discussion in March 2015 had been productive. 
Two options had been discussed: (1) expansion of the current irradiation programme for mangoes (and pomegranates) in India through the approval of two additional irradiation facilities in India; G/SPS/R/78 
 
- 14 - 
 
  and (2) irradiation of Indian-origin mangoes (and pomegranates) upon arrival in the United States. 
The United States welcomed further engagement with India on this issue. 
3.2.12  EU ban on certain vegetables fr om India – Concerns of India (No. 374) 
3.41.  India recalled its previously-raised concer n regarding the EU ban on exports of mangoes 
and four types of vegetables. India reported that the ban on mangoes had been lifted in 
February 2015; however the ban on four types of vegetables remained. India had informed the European Union on various measures to improve it s packaging, quarantine and inspection system. 
India also recalled the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) visit to India in September 
2014, which had reported overall improvement in the control system. India requested that the 
European Union recognize this improvement and lift the remaining ban. 
3.42.  Nigeria shared India's concern and noted that such measures could be an impediment to 
Nigeria's export diversification efforts. 
3.43.  The European Union explained that the ban was temporary, to prevent the introduction into 
and spread within the European Union of harmfu l organisms with regard to bitter gourd, taro, 
eddo, eggplant and snake gourds originating from India. The European Union confirmed that the 
audit mentioned by India had shown significant improvements in India's phytosanitary export 
certification system; nevertheless, interceptions of harmful organism in consignments of non-
prohibited commodities from India were still o ccurring regularly. The European Union indicated 
that further analysis was needed and that a further review would take place in 2015 on the basis of the evolution of import interceptions. 
3.2.13  Indonesia's port closures – Concerns of Chile (No. 330) 
3.44.  Chile recalled its concern regarding the loss of access for its fruit exports through the 
Jakarta port, due to resolutions No. 42 and 43 issued by Indonesia's Ministry of Agriculture in June 2012. Chile had provided Indonesia with all the necessary documentation establishing its fruit 
fly-free status, and had invited Indonesian authorities to conduct a technical visit to Chile, which 
had not yet occurred. To date, Chile had not been recognized as free of fruit flies by Indonesia, although Chile had fulfilled the international stan dards set by IPPC. Chile noted that Indonesia's 
measure was not in line with the objectives of the SPS Agreement and further urged Indonesia to 
announce a solution at the next Committee meeting. 
3.45.  Chinese Taipei shared Chile's concerns with regard to Indonesia's import licensing regime 
for agricultural products. Chinese Taipei noted that the regime was complex, burdensome and time 
consuming, and was not in line with the national treatment obligation. Chinese Taipei requested 
that Indonesia bring its import procedures into conformity with all relevant WTO agreements. 
3.46.  Indonesia explained that the measures had been taken to effectively control pest outbreaks 
and not to ban the importation of fruits and vegetables through Tanjung Priok port. Indonesia 
clarified that resolutions No. 42 and 43 issued by its Ministry of Agriculture were in accordance with Article 6 of the SPS Agreement. Indonesia confirmed the receipt of additional documents 
provided by Chile and informed Chile that the documents were currently being reviewed by the 
relevant authority. 
3.2.14  EU withdrawal of equivalence for proc essed organic products – Concerns of India 
(No. 378) 
3.47.  India raised concerns regarding the EU withdrawal of equivalence for processed organic 
products, which had previously been recognized since 2006. The equivalence agreement with the European Union provided that processed and unprocessed organic food products from India could 
be exported to the European Union pursuant to certification from the bodies accredited under 
India's National Programme for Organic Products (NPOP). In order to expand its exports, in September 2012 India had published guidelines that would permit certain imported ingredients. 
These guidelines provided that the percentage of  imported ingredients would be within the range 
of 5%. However, EU regulation No. 125/2013 with effect from 1 April 2013 had removed processed organic products from the equivalence agreement, on the grounds that the agreement required that all of the ingredients be grown in India. India clarified that no processed organic G/SPS/R/78 
 
- 15 - 
 
  products containing imported ingredients were exported to the European Union. India requested 
that the equivalence recognition be restored since it had withdrawn the 2012 guidelines. 
3.48.  The European Union responded that India's concern was not an issue under the scope of the 
SPS Agreement. The European Union reiterated its commitment towards engaging with India at a 
technical level on this issue, within the appropriate framework. An audit of the EU's Food and 
Veterinary Office (FVO) would take place in India on 13-24 April 2015. 
3.49.  The United States supported the EU resp onse, noting that organic standards and organic 
certification programmes were not under  the scope of the SPS Agreement. 
3.3  Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 3.50.  Indonesia reported that specific trade concern number 360 concerning China's import policy 
for bird nests had been resolved. Indonesia expr essed appreciation to the Government of China 
and welcomed further cooperation in the future. China thanked Indonesia for the update and 
expressed its intention to solve additional specific trade concerns and to continue bilateral discussions with Indonesia. 
4  OPERATION OF TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS (G/SPS/GEN/804/REV.7) 
4.1.  The Secretariat informed Members that the transparency questionnaire discussed at the 
informal meeting had triggered many updates of  the addresses of Members' National Enquiry 
Points (NEPs) and National Notification Authorit ies (NNAs). These updates would be included in 
SPS IMS, where they would be available to Members. 
4.1  Russian Federation – Information regarding amendments to the common sanitary 
requirements (G/SPS/N/RUS/50/Add.1) 
4.2.  The Russian Federation updated Members on the decision by the Eurasian Economic 
Commission to amend the common sanitary epidemiological and hygienic requirements for products subjected to sanitary epidemiological supervision. After taking into consideration the 
comments from Members, the Eurasian Economic Commission had decided to stop developing 
amendments to Section 1 of Chapter 2 of the above-mentioned requirements. 
4.2  Nigeria – Additional information on the operation of transparency provisions 
4.3.  Nigeria informed Members about the estab lishment of two new NEPs and about its new food 
safety policy. The detailed contact information of the new NEPs and the notification of the food 
safety policy would be submitted to the Committee in the near future. Nigeria also indicated that it had made very few regular notifications so far, but that it would update its notification process so 
as to increase transparency. Nigeria's NNA and th e NEPs had agreed to address all the outstanding 
issues and submit missing notifications. 
5  IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT 
5.1.  Nigeria encouraged Members to discuss the proposals with regard to the special and 
differential treatment provisions of the SPS Agreement submitted prior to the Cancún Ministerial Conference. 
6  EQUIVALENCE - ARTICLE 4 
6.1  Information from Members on their experiences 6.1.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 6.2  Information from releva nt observer organizations 
6.2.  Codex informed Members about its new work on guidance for the monitoring of the 
performance of national food control systems. Code x noted that the product of this work would not G/SPS/R/78 
 
- 16 - 
 
  replace the equivalence provisions of the SPS Agreement. The final product would be available in 
about two to three years to improve the functioning of national food control systems. 
7  PEST- AND DISEASE-FREE AREAS - ARTICLE 6 7.1  Information from Members on  their pest or disease status 
7.1.1  Nigeria – Avian influenza situation (G/SPS/GEN/1397) 
7.1.  Nigeria provided information on the avian influenza resurgence in Dala Local Government 
Area and at a live bird market at Onipanu in Lagos in January 2015. All state directors of 
veterinary services had been alerted, and the OIE, AU-IBAR and development partners had been 
notified. Nigeria had established a technical committee on avian influenza to supervise the current control strategy that included quarantine, depopulation, decontamination and vaccination. Currently, Nigeria received support from the World Bank and from FAO to contain the disease. 
Nigeria stressed that the resurgence of the disease was a matter of great concern for the 
continent, and that more intensive control and surveillance activities were needed. Nigeria urgently requested more support from national and regional governments and from international 
development agencies. 
7.2.  Madagascar noted that the emergence of avian influenza in Nigeria was of concern for 
neighbouring countries and for Africa as the whole. Madagascar requested assistance from Nigeria 
to avoid the spread of the disease. 
7.1.2  Mexico – Information on pest- or di sease-free areas and areas of low pest or 
disease prevalence 
7.3.  Mexico provided information on various pest- or disease-free areas. Mexico had been 
declared free from Mediterranean fruit flies, as detailed in G/SPS/GEN/1376. Mexico had also 
submitted documents regarding the absence of Aujeszky's disease in the state of Jalisco (G/SPS/GEN/1380); the absence of Boll weevil in th e state of Baja California and various regions 
in Chihuaha, Coahuila and Sonora (G/SPS/GEN /1378 and G/SPS/GEN/1378/Corr.1); the absence 
of pink bollworm in the state of Chihuahua and several municipalities in Sonora and Coahuila (G/SPS/GEN/1377); areas of low prevalence of fruit flies of the genus Anastrepha  in certain 
municipalities in Michoacan and Nayarit (G/SPS/GEN/1379 and G/SPS/GEN/1389); areas free of 
spotted-wing drosophila (G/SPS/GEN/1386 and G/SPS/GEN/1388); areas free from large and small avocado seed weevils and avocado seed moths (G/SPS/GEN/1390-1393) and areas free from Pierce's disease (G/SPS/GEN/1385 and G/SPS/GEN/1387). 
7.4.  Mexico also reported the response to comments and modifications made to the Official 
Mexican Standard NOM-026-FITO-1995 as notified in G/SPS/N/MEX/48/Add.1, and provided information on the modification of the Official Mexican Standard NOM-026-FITO-1995, amending 
the controlled cotton pests, as notified in G/SPS/N/MEX/260/Add.1. 
7.1.3  South Africa – Foot an d mouth disease (FMD) status 
7.5.  South Africa informed Members that, after consideration by the OIE, it had regained its 
status of foot and mouth disease (FMD) free zone without vaccination, with effect from 
14 February 2014. South Africa urged Members to lift restrictions on trade in cloven-hoofed animals and their products. 
7.6.  Madagascar informed Members that it had considered South Africa's new FMD status and had 
lifted its ban on the importation of produc ts of animal origin from South Africa. 
7.7.  Zambia reported its recognition of South Africa's new FMD status and supported South 
Africa's request. 
7.2  Information from Members on their expe riences in recognition of pest- or disease-
free areas 
7.8.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item. G/SPS/R/78 
 
- 17 - 
 
  7.3  Information from releva nt observer organizations 
7.9.  Codex informed Members that the biennial meetings of all its coordinating committees were 
being held during 2015. Five sessions of the coordinating committees had already taken place, while the one for the Middle East would be meeting in May. Steps had been taken to revitalize 
these committees to better serve the purpose of Codex within the Codex-FAO-WTO system. 
Several of these committees had continued setting regional standards. 
8  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION 
8.1  Information from the Secretariat 
8.1.1  WTO SPS activities (G/SPS/G EN/521/Rev.10, G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.5) 
8.1.  The Secretariat introduced document G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.10, which provided an overview of 
all SPS specific technical assistance activities undertaken by the WTO Secretariat. The document 
presented the number and type of activities deliver ed each year, including information such as the 
language used and participation of the standard-setting bodies. The document showed that there had been 318 training activities with the overa ll participation of more than twelve thousands 
persons from 1 September 1994 to 31 December 2014. In 2014, 30 SPS-related training activities 
had been undertaken, including three regional or sub-regional workshops, 14 national seminars, 12 other activities and one advanced SPS course. 
8.2.  The Secretariat also indicated that docu ment G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.5 provided information on 
technical assistance activities planned for 2015. The activities included the Advanced SPS Course to be held in English in October, three regional SPS workshops to be held for the Caribbean, Asia and Arab regions, and a thematic workshop on tr ansparency to be held in the margins of the 
SPS Committee meeting in October. The Secretar iat highlighted that funding was available for 
least-developing and developing countries to participate in technical assistance activities, and that the deadline for applications was 5 June 2015. The specific dates of the technical assistance 
activities, eligibility criteria, prerequisites and application processes could be found in the 
document. 
8.3.  The Secretariat also informed Members of upcoming technical assistance activities. 
A workshop on the SPS and TBT Agreements fo r member States of the Intergovernmental 
Authority on Development (IGAD) would take place in May 2015, in Kenya. National activities were being scheduled for the Dominican Republic; Honduras; Macao, China; Mexico; Oman; Sudan and Chinese Taipei. The E-learning Course on the SPS Agreement would be available all year long in 
the three working languages of the WTO. The Secret ariat also provided an overview of activities 
held since the last SPS Committee Meeting in October 2014. These activities included five national seminars, held in Belarus, The Gambia, Myanmar, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Trinidad and 
Tobago; two regional SPS workshops for the Pacific region, in Samoa, and for Latin America, in 
Uruguay; and (participation in training sessions on the SPS Agreement held in Geneva, Kenya and 
the Republic of Moldova. 
8.1.2  STDF (G/SPS/GEN/1384) 
8.4.  The Standards and Trade Development Facilit y (STDF) informed Members about its activities 
since the October meeting and upcoming activities, as detailed in document G/SPS/GEN/1384. The STDF highlighted its new strategy for the period 2015–2019, which aims to strengthen the STDF's 
results based management (RBM) framework and includes a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) 
framework. The STDF thanked donor Members (Canada, Denmark, European Commission, 
Germany, Ireland, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and United States of America) for the 
funds provided in 2014. The STDF informed the Committee about its work on the implementation 
of SPS measures in the context of trade facilitati on in Africa. The draft report about the research 
undertaken in Southern Africa was under review by STDF members. Also in relation to facilitating 
safe trade, the STDF had been invited to participate in a plenary session of the Fifth Global Review 
of Aid for Trade that would take place on 1 Ju ly 2015. The theme of this review was "Reducing 
Trade Costs for Inclusive, Sustainable Growth". G/SPS/R/78 
 
- 18 - 
 
  8.2  Information from Members 
8.2.1  Technical assistance activities provided by the European Union in 2014 
(G/SPS/GEN/1139/Add.3) 
8.5.  The European Union provided information on its SPS-related technical assistance activities 
undertaken in 2014, as contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1139/Add.3. In this submission the 
European Union listed technical assistance activities that either focused on the SPS area or had a significant SPS component. In 2014, more than 360 such projects had been under way, and the 
European Union contributed approximately 152 million  euros. The projects targeted specific SPS 
issues at the local, national, regional and multilateral level. The European Union highlighted that the two major projects, i.e. the Quality and Conf ormity Fruits and Vegetables Programme (PIP) 
and Development of Food Safety Systems Progra mme (EDES), had undergone mid-term external 
evaluations in 2013. The outcome of the evaluations was very positive, but some areas for 
improvement had been identified. The European Union invited interested Members to contact EU delegations in their countries or the European Commission in Brussels to express an interest in 
receiving SPS-related technical assistance. 
8.6.  Several Members expressed their appreciation for the technical assistance provided by the 
European Union. Belize appreciated financing provided under the 10
th European Development Fund 
(EDF) which facilitated Belize's participation in the SPS Committee Meeting and the meeting of the 
Commission on Phytosanitary Measures held recently in Rome. Madagascar expressed its appreciation for the technical assistance provid ed by the European Union, especially for the 
improvement in its capacity to analyse residues in fruit products. Mali also expressed its 
appreciation, and requested technical assistance to tackle the fruit fly problem. Kenya reported 
that it had benefited from the PIP and EDES pr ogrammes as well as the Africa coordination 
meeting in preparation for the current SPS Commit tee meeting organized by the PANSPSO project. 
Nigeria also thanked the European Union and indi cated that it had especially benefited from a 
mycotoxin lab provided by the European Union. Nigeria also noted that more technical assistance was needed. Zambia informed Members that EDES implementation has benefited its honey 
exports. Burkina Faso indicated its gratitude and highlighted that more assistance was needed to 
tackle the of fruit fly problem that troubled its fruits exports, especially mangoes. 
8.7.  The Secretariat indicated that certain donors had sponsored the participation of several 
delegates from Africa and the Caribbean in the Committee meeting, which had enriched the 
discussions. 
8.8.  The STDF noted that several Members had raised the fruit fly problem in Africa, and that they 
might wish to seek technical assistance on a regional basis. The STDF referred to a fruit fly 
programme implemented in West Africa with th e support of the European Union. The STDF 
encouraged affected Members to develop a joint action plan. 
8.3  Information from observer organizations 
8.9.  IICA informed Members about its activities, including a workshop conducted under the 10
th 
European Economic Development Fund for Caribbean countries in Trinidad and Tobago on the development of monitoring programmes for food. IICA also implemented STDF projects, including 
an online food inspection course, as part of its Virtual Food Safety Inspector School project. Under 
its Codex programme, IICA has been supporting the implementation of Codex symposia by 
supporting the participation of over 20 delegates.  With financial support from the United States, 
IICA had developed national workshops to build the ca pacity of exporters to fulfil US food safety 
requirements. More details can be found in document G/SPS/GEN/1395. 
8.10.  OIRSA reported on training and technical assistance activities; support provided in the areas 
of harmonization and equivalence; as well as on prevention, control and eradication activities; on 
strengthening of national institutions to facilitate trade; and on strategic alliances for the 
promotion of health and trade. More information is available in document G/SPS/GEN/1400. 
8.11.  Belize, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago ex pressed their appreciation for the work of IICA 
and OIRSA. G/SPS/R/78 
 
- 19 - 
 
  9  REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT 
9.1  Fourth Review 9.1.1  Report of the Informal Meeting 9.1.  The Chairperson reported on the informal m eeting on the Fourth Review of the Operation and 
Implementation of the SPS Agreement held on 25 March 2015. The Committee had discussed 
(i) the new revision of the draft report of the Fourth Review; and (ii) specific proposals submitted in the context of the Review. 
9.2.  The Chairperson had reminded Members that according to the agreed timetable, the Fourth 
Review should have been completed in October 2014. The draft report reflected the Committee's work over the past few years. Its objective was to take stock of what had been achieved, and to make recommendations for future work. It was not the right instrument to tackle unresolved 
substantive differences on certain issues. 
9.3.  First, the Committee had taken up the new revi sion of the draft report of the Fourth Review 
circulated on 6 November 2014 (G/SPS/W/280/Rev.2). The Secretariat had highlighted the 
changes in response to the Committee's requests at the last meeting. Apart from updates to 
certain sections, this included additional recommendations to reflect the periodic reviews of past Committee decisions, and creative language on tw o recommendations on which there had been no 
consensus in October. These were (i) the fourth recommendation in the transparency section; and 
(ii) the second recommendation in the section on SPS-related private standards.  
9.4.  The Chairperson had noted that comments on the new revision of the report had been 
received from Belize, Canada, Egypt and the Euro pean Union. Except for Egypt's comments, all 
other comments had focused on the second recommendation in the section on SPS-related private 
standards (paragraph 14.20), and they seemed to go in opposing directions.   
9.5.  First the Committee had taken up Egypt's proposal to introduce three additional 
recommendations (G/SPS/W/282). At the informal meeting, there had been agreement to include 
the first two recommendations suggested by Egypt, in sections 11 and 12 of the report. Some Members had noted that the third recommendation that Egypt suggested, for inclusion in the 
private standards section, was very similar to Action 2 from document G/SPS/55. However, it 
referred to relevant international organizations, whereas Action 2 referred only to the Three Sisters.  
9.6.  Regarding the recommendations in paragraph 14.20 (in the section on SPS-related private 
standards), many Members had taken the floor to express diverging views, in particular on the 2nd 
bullet point. While some could accept the language in the latest revision of the draft report, others had suggested reverting to language used in the previous revision of the report 
(G/SPS/W/280/Rev.1). In an effort to find a compromise, Canada had proposed combining 
language from two different bullet points from di fferent versions of document G/SPS/W/280. While 
some Members had expressed their support for this  new suggestion, others had needed more time 
to consider it. 
9.7.  Recognizing the interest expressed by  Members to finalize the Fourth Review, the 
Chairperson had proposed that a small group, comprised of those Members who had made comments, attempt to resolve the remaining differences by proposing compromise language. The 
group would also address the 3rd recommendation proposed by Egypt.  
9.8.  Next, the Committee had discussed the outstand ing proposals submitted in the context of the 
Fourth Review. Canada had presented the new revi sion of its joint proposal with Kenya on a 
catalogue of instruments available to WTO Members to manage SPS issues (G/SPS/W/279/Rev.2), 
which incorporated comments received from Members since the Committee's last meeting in October. Kenya had thanked all Members for the comments provided and for agreeing to develop 
such a catalogue, which could become one of the achievements of the current review. Some 
Members had requested clarification about the lega l status of the document, and the Secretariat 
had explained that it would become one of the reference documents adopted by the Committee. The Chairperson had requested that the Secretariat prepare a draft introductory paragraph to G/SPS/R/78 
 
- 20 - 
 
  clarify that the Catalogue did not have a legal status, for consideration by Members before the 
possible adoption of the Catalogue during the regular meeting. 
9.9.  The second subject discu ssed had been transparency, where a joint proposal had been 
submitted by Chile, the European Union, Moro cco and Norway (G/SPS/W /278). The Chairperson 
had recalled that in October the Committee had agreed that a diagnosis of the needs and 
difficulties of Members in the implementation of the transparency obligations be carried out through a questionnaire. Such questionnaire could also help identify problems encountered by 
Members that could be addressed within the on-g oing project aimed to improve and modernize the 
SPS IMS and NSS applications. The questionnaire had been circulated in document G/SPS/GEN/1382, taking into account questions suggested by several Members.  
9.10.  The Secretariat had introduced the analysis of  the replies to the questionnaire, circulated as 
document G/SPS/GEN/1402, acknowledging this analysis had only recently been circulated in 
English. 108 responses to the questionnaire ha d been received, representing 93 Members and 
one Observer. There was a wide coverage in terms of development status and regional breakdown. 
All responses were presented with graphics, which in general spoke for themselves. In some cases, 
a brief paragraph had been included to highlight a particular result. Responses had been submitted by the European Union as well as by several of its member States. The Secretariat had pointed out 
that the analysis, including the written comments, were also available online.  
9.11.  Many Members, including the proponents of  the transparency proposal, had recognized the 
usefulness of such analysis in assessing the needs and difficulties related to transparency, as well as examining possible ways to move forward with this issue. The European Union had presented 
some preliminary observations. Since many responde nts had been of the view that the term "trade 
facilitating" should be further defined, the European Union had suggested that the Secretariat prepare a factual compilation of existing WTO definitions of this term. This suggestion had received 
widespread support.  
9.12.  The Chairperson had proposed that the an alysis of the replies to the questionnaire on 
transparency be further discussed at an informal meeting in July. In addition, she had highlighted 
that the October workshop on transparency coul d be a good opportunity for Members to share 
experiences and practices with regard to transparency, as well as to provide hands-on training on the SPS applications. She had invited Members to submit ideas or suggestions regarding topics 
and sessions for the workshop by 15 May 2015. 
9.13.  Finally, the Chairperson had invited the United States to present its submission on possible 
next steps for consideration following the workshop on risk analysis held in October 2014 (G/SPS/GEN/1401). The United States had noted that its proposal focused on three key challenges 
identified by Members at the workshop, and for which they suggested further action: these were 
(i) the need to improve sharing of information rela ted to risk assessment; (ii) the interest from 
some Members to benefit from assistance of other Members to improve their capacity to perform 
risk analyses, for instance through a mentoring programme; and (iii) the suggestion to hold an 
informal session on risk communication prior to  the July 2015 meeting of the Committee. It had 
also noted the work being carried out in FAO, WHO and the Three Sisters on risk assessment and 
asked the Committee to strengthen its collaboration with these organizations. 
9.14.  Many Members had expressed their general support for the US proposal, indicating that 
they would need more time to consider all the elements proposed and how they could be implemented in practice. The proposal to hold an informal session on risk communication in July 
had received broad support.  
9.15.  FAO had provided information on recent work done in this area, in particular the 
development of a handbook on risk communication, and had expressed its interest in collaborating 
with the organization of such an informal session. The report submitted by FAO was made 
available in document G/SPS/GEN/1405. G/SPS/R/78 
 
- 21 - 
 
  9.1.2  Adoption of report of Fourth Review (G/SPS/W/280/Rev.2) 
9.16.  The Chairperson recalled that a small group of interested Members had agreed to discuss 
the outstanding issues in the report, i.e. the second recommendation under paragraph 14.20, and 
the third recommendation suggested by Egypt. 
9.17.  The United States reported that Member s had shown flexibility during the small group 
meetings; however, consensus had not yet been reached. The United States noted that it was ready to reflect and consult domestically, with a view to finding a compromise for the next 
Committee meeting. Brazil and Nigeria also expressed their willingness to work towards reaching 
consensus at the next meeting. 
9.18.  The Chairperson thanked the Members for their efforts and encouraged Members to resolve 
the remaining differences at an informal meeting in July. The Chairperson also suggested that the 
new Chairperson consult with Members to try to identify compromise language. 
9.1.3  Proposals submitted during the Fourth Review 9.19.  The Chairperson recalled that at the informal meeting, she had requested that the 
Secretariat prepare an introductory paragraph to clarify the legal status of the Catalogue of 
Instruments Available to WTO Members to Manage SPS Issues (G/SPS/W/279/Rev.2). The language circulated had been adapted from the latest decision adopted by the Committee, which 
was the Procedure To Encourage And Facilitate The Resolution Of Specific Sanitary Or 
Phytosanitary Issues Among Members In Accordance With Article 12.2 (G/SPS/61).
2 
9.20.  Several Members indicated that they would need more time to consider the proposed 
language. 
9.21.  India proposed the following introductory paragraph instead: "This catalogue of instruments 
is only intended as a reference document, to help Members address and manage SPS issues. It 
neither adds to nor detracts from the existing rights and obligations of members under the SPS 
Agreement or any other WTO agreement nor does it provide any interpretation of these 
agreements. It shall not constitute a legally binding agreement and will have no legal force".3 
9.22.  Nigeria supported India's suggestion since it clarified that the document was not legally 
binding. 
9.23.  Mexico expressed concerns that the inclusion of disclaimer language in the Catalogue of 
Instruments would impact on other documents that also served as reference documents. Mexico proposed that such an inclusion was not needed. The United States expressed sympathy with 
Mexico's view. 
9.24.  The Chairperson invited Members to su bmit comments on the proposed introductory 
language to clarify the legal status of the Catalogue of Instruments by 30 April 2015. 
                                               
2 The language circulated by the Secretariat was: "This catalogue of instruments is intended as a 
reference document to help Members a ddress and manage SPS issues. It is without prejudice to the rights and 
obligations of Members under the SPS Agreement or any other WTO agreement and shall not constitute a legally binding agreement." 
3 Subsequently, India submitted a revised version of its suggested introductory paragraph: "This 
catalogue of instruments is intended  only as a reference document, to help members address and manage SPS 
issues. It neither adds to nor detracts from the exis ting rights and obligations of members under the SPS 
agreement or any other WTO agreement nor does it provide any interpretation of these agreements. The SPS 
Committee takes note of the said catalogue which shall neither have any legal force nor constitutes a legally binding agreement." G/SPS/R/78 
 
- 22 - 
 
  10  MONITORING OF THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS 
10.1  New Issues 10.1.1  United States of America – HPAI restrictions not consistent with the OIE 
international standard 
10.1.  The United States reminded Members about the OIE guidelines on imports of live poultry 
and poultry products (including heat-treated/cooked  products) related to avian influenza, including 
highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). The guid elines made clear that when HPAI was detected 
only in wild birds, OIE Members should not impose bans on trade in poultry commodities. The 
guidelines also clearly established provisions for the recognition of zones or regions free of the disease. The affected country should define the control zones based on its response efforts, and the remainder of the country outside of those co ntrol zones could continue to be considered 
disease free. Additionally, heat-treated poultry products (meat, liquid eggs, rendered meals, etc.) 
that had been heat-processed to destroy the HPAI virus in accordance with OIE guidelines were safe to trade irrespective of whether the products came from an area where HPAI had been 
detected. The United States called upon its trading partners to lift any import restrictions on live 
poultry and poultry products (including heat-treated products) from the United States that were not consistent with the OIE guidelines. 
10.2.  The European Union shared the US concern and supported the removal of import 
restrictions with relation to HPAI that were not in line with international standards. Canada noted that the OIE provided effective guidance around  the principle of zoning and encouraged all 
Members to recognize zones established by affected  Members, in accordance with this guidance. 
10.2  Issues previously raised 
10.3.  No Member raised any issues under this agenda item. 11  CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS 
11.1  Report of the Informal Meeting 
11.1.  The Chairperson reported on the informal meeting on SPS-related private standards held on 
25 March 2015. She had recalled that the Committee had agreed to develop a working definition of 
SPS-related private standards in order to set the framework for its discussions. Agreed Action 1 
(G/SPS/55) did not propose a legal definition, but merely sought a framework to limit the scope of issues considered by the Committee. 
11.2.  The Chairperson had also reminded the Committee that, as stated in paragraph 4 of 
G/SPS/55, endorsement of the adopted actions wa s without prejudice to the views of Members 
regarding the scope of the SPS Agreement.  
11.3.  Regarding the work of the co-stewards of  the private standards electronic working group 
(e-WG), the Chairperson had recalled the long history of the Committee's work on this matter, and 
in particular the hard work since October 2013 of the e-WG under the very able stewardship of 
China and New Zealand. 
11.4.  The co-stewards had introduced their report on the work of the e-WG contained in 
G/SPS/W/283. They had recalled that, in the WTO co ntext, there appeared to be no difference in 
legal weight or value regarding whether the disclaimer text was in a footnote, or located in the main body of the Decision. Also, there was no WTO jurisprudence regarding the term "working 
definition". This definition would be only for th e work of the SPS Committee, designed to limit 
discussions to SPS-related private standards. 
11.5.  The co-stewards had detailed the latest round of discussions and e-WG members' concerns, 
suggestions and flexibilities and had noted that the e-WG, while very close, had not been able to 
reach consensus on the working definition. There ha d in particular been an impasse with the terms 
"non-governmental entities" and "requirements" and the co-Stewards had suggested a cooling off 
period for all e-WG Members to reflect further on the issue. G/SPS/R/78 
 
- 23 - 
 
  11.6.  Many Members had thanked China and Ne w Zealand for their leadership. Some Members 
had stressed the need to keep working towards a working definition of SPS-related private standards, given their effects on many developing countries' exports and economies. Other Members had noted the fundamental differences amongst Members on the scope of the 
SPS Agreement and regarding some of the suggested  language in the definition. Given the obvious 
impasse, these Members had supported the proposal  of the co-Stewards for a cooling off period. 
11.7.  Argentina, supported by other Members, had argued to keep the terms "non-governmental 
entities" and "requirements" in the definition. Argentina had noted the definitions of private 
standards used by OIE and the FAO/WHO/Codex, as well as the mandate given by the Committee Decision in G/SPS/55. Argentina had also objected to excluding private standards that were not established in writing and had noted its preference  for the definition contained in G/SPS/W/272, 
with the amendment that a private standard could also consist of one requirement. 
11.8.  Belize had recalled that the examples in  the compilation of Members' answers to the 
questionnaire on the effects of SPS-related private standards (G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1) showed that 
the specifications set by private entities on health and safety were mandatory in nature. The use 
of the terms "non-governmental entities" and "requirements" in the working definition was necessary to differentiate SPS-related privat e standards from those set by governments. 
11.9.  China had regretted that despite all the efforts made, the e-WG could not reach consensus 
on the co-stewards' proposed working definition. The current impasse was already having consequences on other WTO work and China had urged all Members to resolve the impasse and avoid creating an undesirable precedent for the work of the SPS Committee. 
11.10.  New Zealand had noted that compromise should be possible given the wording of the 
disclaimer. New Zealand had echoed South Africa's comments that the working definition need not be perfect but a good enough compromise to help the Committee set a framework for its 
discussion of SPS-related private standards. 
11.11.  The representative of Codex had clarified that despite lengthy discussions on the issue of 
private standards in 2009 and 2010, Codex had never sought to formally define private standards. 
11.12.  The Chairperson had reminded the Committee that it had been discussing this issue since 
2005. Despite the well-known differing positions, the Committee had agreed to develop a definition of SPS-related private standards. Hence,  Action 1 would remain on the agenda until the 
Committee agreed on a working definition of SPS-re lated private standards to define the scope of 
its work on this issue. 
11.13.  It had been agreed that the e-WG would take  some time to further reflect, and that the co-
Stewards, China and New Zealand, would restart wo rk when most appropriate, with the objective 
of agreeing on a working definition as soon as possible. 
11.14.  Regarding the implementation of Actions 2-5, under Action 2, Codex had noted that it 
continued to reach out to private standards-setting organizations to encourage them to become 
Codex observers and take part in Codex meetings. 
11.15.  Under Action 3, the Secretariat had noted that there had not been any recent relevant 
developments in other WTO fora, but that it would continue to liaise with the TBT and Trade and Environment Committees, as well as with Aid for Trade colleagues, and report back on any 
relevant work. 
11.16.  Under Action 4, Nigeria, referring to its document G/SPS/GEN/1398, had noted the 
difficulties that private standards created for its small exporters and reported on training received 
from Global GAP. Nigeria had noted that the adoption of Global GAP standards for its fresh produce 
would be too burdensome for a developing country like Nigeria to put it in place. Nigeria had stressed that the SPS Committee had a vital role to play in addressing the issues related to private 
standards and their impact on international trade. 
11.17.  Several Members had shared the concerns expressed by Nigeria on the harmful effects of 
private standards on the exports of developing countries. Argentina, supported by various G/SPS/R/78 
 
- 24 - 
 
  Members, had noted that according to Article 13 of the SPS Agreement, Members were to take 
reasonable measures available to them to ensure that non-governmental entities within their territories complied with the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement. Argentina had also noted that paragraph 14.20 of the draft 4th Review report (G/SPS/W/280/Rev.2) contained specific 
proposed recommendations relating to the discussion of private standards, including their effects 
on international trade. 
11.18.  Under Action 5, Codex had reported on its continued effort to underline the importance of 
implementing international standards and on its communication strategy to show the positive 
impact of applying Codex standards. Codex had also noted the cooperation of the OIE and IPPC in that regard. 
11.19.  Regarding suggestions on the implementation of proposed Actions 6 to 12, Belize had 
indicated that it continued to support the esta blishment of a working group that could advance 
work on Actions 6 to 12, and had referred to its earlier submissions in that regard. Belize had also suggested using the questions contained in document G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1 as a possible guide 
for the implementation of Action 6.  
11.20.  Norway and the European Union had noted that there was no consensus on Actions 6-12, 
and that the Committee should focus its time and e ffort on the implementation of the five agreed 
actions.  
11.21.  Regarding other information on SPS-related private standards, Belize had reported on the 
19th session of the Joint FAO/WHO Coordinating Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean held in Costa Rica in November 2014. Belize had referred Members to paragraphs 161 to 166 of 
Codex document REP/15/LAC for further details of the discussions and of the recommendations 
made at the meeting. 
11.22.  The OECD had referred to its document G/SPS/GEN/1399 on OECD activities of interest to 
the SPS Committee and had flagged its upcoming report on voluntary environmental standards 
which focused on the linkages between voluntary (often private) environmental standards and public policies. 
11.23.  After her oral report, the Chairperson invited Members to comment.  
11.24.  The European Union and the United States supported the proposal for a cooling off period. 11.25.  Jamaica, Kenya, Uruguay, Cuba, Mali, Ma dagascar, Central African Republic, Cabo Verde 
and Zambia were of the view that the cooling-off period should not be too long; they wished the 
Committee to conclude the definiti on of private standards soon. 
11.26.  Argentina reiterated its position that  eliminating the two terms "non-governmental 
entities" and "requirements" from the definition would contradict Codex and OIE definitions and 
the mandate given by the Committee Decision in document G/SPS/55, which contained the same 
wording. Argentina also noted that the word "wri tten" should be deleted from the definition to 
avoid setting aside private standards not established in writing, such as those stemming from 
customary traditions. In this regard, Argentina recalled that the jurisprudence of the WTO had 
clarified, a long time ago, that there were no distinguishing features between written and unwritten requirements. Argentina encouraged the Committee to resolve the concerns on this matter and swiftly reach an agreement on a definition of private standards. 
11.27.  Nigeria reaffirmed its position and noted that the Chair report had well reflected the 
position of developing countries. 
11.28.  Ecuador, India and Brazil indicated that in their view, private standards were covered 
under Article 13 of the SPS Agreement. Belize, Senegal and Uruguay urged Members to find a 
common position so as to allow the Committee to reach a consensus on a working definition. 
11.29.  In its capacity as e-working group co-steward, China clarified that the SPS Committee was 
not proposing a legal definition but merely a framework to limit the scope of issues considered by 
the Committee. Indeed, as per G/SPS/55, endorsement of the adopted actions was without G/SPS/R/78 
 
- 25 - 
 
  prejudice to the views of Members regarding the sc ope of the SPS Agreement. China also clarified 
that the proposed working definition was not intend ed to provide an interpretation of any specific 
terms or provisions of the SPS Agreement that could be used in a dispute settlement context. 
Therefore, it was not necessary for Members to over interpret the legal implications of the 
proposed working definition. 
11.30.  New Zealand echoed the statement made by its co-steward and reiterated that, as clarified 
by the disclaimer, the proposed working definition was not intended to be used to determine the 
scope of the SPS Agreement, but rather to help focus the Committee's work on what is SPS 
related. New Zealand noted that until the Committee agreed on a working definition, it would not be able to concentrate on finding practical solutions to address the effects of private standards. New Zealand looked forward to the e-working gr oup resuming work and urged Members to seek 
new and practical ways forward to define SPS-related private standards. 
12  OBSERVERS 12.1  Information from observer organizations 
12.1.  The OECD provided a report on recent activities of interest of the SPS Committee 
(G/SPS/GEN/1399). The OECD was about to publish a report on voluntary environmental standards in the Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers series, focussing on the linkages between 
voluntary (often private) environmental standards and public policies. The OECD was also 
developing a practical tool to help countries diagnose regulatory divergence and guide policy makers in reaching a policy decision implementing the most favourable international regulatory co-operation mechanisms. On 21 November 2014, the OECD had held a workshop on Trade 
Facilitating Effects of International Regulatory C ooperation in Food and Agriculture. The discussion 
had highlighted the importance of the simplificat ion of border inspection services, from an 
information flow perspective and in terms of risk-based inspection and control. Participants also 
acknowledged the role of private companies and industry associations in RTA negotiations and in 
regulatory design, as well as in RTA dialogue mechanisms. 
12.2.  ITC reported on its recent and upcoming activities related to the work of SPS Committee, 
highlighting an EIF project to improve sector comp etitiveness and export diversification in Gambia. 
In this project, technical barriers hindering market access were being addressed, and a sensitisation programme on standards and technical regulations relating to quality and food safety for groundnuts, cashew nuts and sesame was being implemented. A second project was being 
carried out in Sri Lanka with the collaboration of the Ceylon Chamber of Commerce and the 
Department of Agriculture to perform training in fo od safety and plant health for six types of fruits 
and vegetables. The activities included assessment of laboratory testing capacity, a workshop on 
institutional networking mechanisms and strengthening the plant health control system. A third 
project promoted intra-regional trade in Eastern Africa through inclusive and sustainable export-
led growth by improving the competitiveness of producers in Kenya, Tanzania and Zambia. Fourth, 
a project funded by the Multi-Annual Indicative Programme on Accompanying Measures for Sugar 
(AAP2011) aimed to improve and consolidate farmin g systems in Fiji. Lastly, a trade and private 
sector development programme included a component related to capacity building of the conformity assessment services of the Standards Association of Zimbabwe for pesticide residue 
testing as well as other testing for food products. 
12.3.  SADC drew attention to its report in document G/SPS/GEN/1404. The SADC secretariat had 
convened regional meetings for the SADC Sanitary and Phytosanitary Coordinating Committee; 
and well as technical committees on food safety, livestock and plant protection in Pretoria, South 
Africa on 21–22 January 2015. The SADC Secretariat had also facilitated a workshop on food safety awareness creation for the private sector in Pretoria, South Africa on 10–12 February 2015. 
A workshop on harmonisation of phytosanitary regulations for horticultural fruits moving in intra-
regional trade was held during the same days in  Harare, Zimbabwe. A regional study was carried 
out in November 2014 to identify phytosanitary measures hindering trade in plants and plant products. Supported by the FAO, SADC member States were undertaking a one-month training 
course at the International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology in Kenya. Lastly, the SADC 
secretariat thanked the African Union – Inter-Africa Bureau for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR) for the support to participate in the SPS Committee meeting.  G/SPS/R/78 
 
- 26 - 
 
  12.4.  UEMOA expressed its gratitude to Members for their work on private standards. UEMOA 
encouraged the SPS Committee to collaborate with the STDF and the EIF to organize regional workshops on fruits, vegetables and cut flowers from 2016 onwards to strengthen the export capacity of UEMOA member States. 
12.2  Requests for observer status 
12.2.1  New requests 12.5.  There were no new requests received by the Secretariat. 
12.2.2  Outstanding requests 
12.6.  The Secretariat informed Members that, as  agreed by the Committee in October 2012, the 
Secretariat had contacted the ad hoc observer organisations that had not attended any meetings of the SPS Committee during 2014, to request conf irmation of their continuing interest to 
participate as an ad hoc observer in the meet ings of the SPS Committee. All of the Observers 
except one had responded to confirm their interest in maintaining ad hoc observer status in the Committee. The only Observer that had not re sponded was the Community of Sahel-Saharan 
States (CEN-SAD). As in 2013, this African Regional Economic Community had not attended the 
meetings of the SPS Committee in 2014 and had no t responded to any correspondence, on which 
the African Union had also been copied. The Secretariat recalled that the African Union had 
informed the Committee in 2014 about the difficultie s in communicating with CEN-SAD due to the 
political situation in Libya, where it was based. Furthermore, most of its member states were LDCs. In light of those specific difficulties, and taking into consideration special and differential treatment, the Committee had agreed in 2014 to maintain ad hoc observer status for CEN-SAD for 
another year. Presently it appeared that the African Union no longer had contact or any other type 
of relation with CEN-SAD. As it seemed that this organization was no longer active, or at least had 
not demonstrated interest in the work of the SPS Committee, the Secretariat suggested that CEN-
SAD be removed from the list of organisations benefiting from ad hoc observer status in the SPS 
Committee. 
12.7.  Nigeria suggested that consultation migh t be necessary to give CEN-SAD more time to 
reflect on its participation in the Committee. 
12.8.  The Secretariat clarified that communication with the African Union had confirmed that no 
staff was actively working in CEN-SAD. The Secretariat indicated that CEN-SAD could submit a new request for observer status in th e future if its situation changed. 
12.9.  The Chairperson noted that there was still no consensus on the six outstanding requests for 
observer status from the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); CABI International; the Convention on International Trade in Endangered  Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); the 
Organisation Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV); the Asian and Pacific Coconut Community 
(APCC); and the International Cocoa Organization (ICCO). 
12.10.  The Chairperson informed the observer orga nizations that their contributions to the work 
of the SPS Committee and their assistance to Members were highly appreciated and that the 
Committee looked forward to their continued participation in all unrestricted meetings during 2015. The Chairperson once again encouraged the observers to provide written reports on their relevant activities in advance of the July 2015 meeting. 
13  ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON 
13.1.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that the Council for Trade in Goods had agreed to 
the election of Mr Felipe Hees of Brazil as th e new Chairperson of the Committee on Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures. The Committee endorsed th e election of Mr Hees by acclamation, and 
voiced its appreciation to Ms Bwalya for her efforts as chairperson during the past year. Mr Hees would begin his chairmanship at the beginning of the first informal meeting in July. 
13.2.  The Chairperson expressed her gratitude to the Members of the SPS Committee and the 
Secretariat for their hard work. G/SPS/R/78 
 
- 27 - 
 
  14  OTHER BUSINESS 
14.1.  India introduced its document on the need for measures on detection of pesticide residues 
not registered in the country of import for unimpeded flow of trade (G/SPS/W/284). The purpose of the paper was to put in context the persistent problem faced by exporters from developing 
countries due to importing countries' application of limits of detection (LoD) for these pesticides. 
India had observed that LoD were being applied even for substances where Codex standards existed. India noted that the disciplines containe d in Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the SPS Agreement 
applied in this case, and provided examples for the trade impact this application of LoDs was 
having. India concluded by suggesting certain steps in dealing with this issue. India encouraged 
Members to take the paper into consideration and welcomed further discussion at the next Committee meeting. 
14.2.  Argentina welcomed the document and noted that it was also interested in this topic. 
15  DATE AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETINGS 15.1.  The next regular meeting of the Committee is tentatively scheduled for 15 and 16 July 
2015. The Secretariat noted that the regular meetin gs would be preceded by informal meetings, 
which would be held on 14 July and in the morning of 15 July. There would be informal meetings on the Fourth Review and on private standards, and an informal session on risk communication. 
15.2.  The Committee agreed to the following tent ative agenda for its upcoming regular meeting: 
1. Adoption of the agenda 
2. Information on relevant activities 
a. Information from Members 
b. Information from the relevant SPS standard-setting bodies 
3. Specific trade concerns 
a. New issues 
b. Issues previously raised 
 [c. Consideration of specific notifications received] 
d. Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
4. Operation of transparency provisions 
5. Implementation of special and differential treatment 
6. Equivalence – Article 4 
a. Information from Members on their experiences 
b. Information from relevant observer organizations 
7. Pest- and Disease-free areas – Article 6 
a. Information from Members on their pest or disease status 
b. Information from Members on their experiences in recognition of pest- or disease-
free areas 
c. Information from relevant observer organizations  
8. Technical assistance and cooperation 
a. Information from the Secretariat 
i. WTO SPS Activities 
ii. STDF 
b. Information from Members 
c. Information from observer organizations  
9. Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement 
a. Fourth review 
i. Report of the informal meeting 
ii. 
Adoption of the informal meeting on risk communication 
10. Monitoring the use of international standards 
a. New issues 
b. Issues previously raised 
c. Adoption of annual report G/SPS/R/78 
 
- 28 - 
 
  11. Concerns with private and commercial standards 
a. Report on informal meeting 
12. Observers 
a. Information from observer organizations 
b. Requests for observer status 
i. New requests 
ii. Outstanding requests 
13. Other business 
14. Date and agenda of next meeting 
15.3.  The Chairperson recalled the plan for a worksh op on transparency to be held in conjunction 
with the Committee meeting in October. She announced that this workshop would be conducted on 
12 and 13 October 2015, followed by informal meetings on the 14 October and the regular 
meeting on the 15 and 16 October. 
15.4.  Members were asked to take note of the following deadlines: 
• For comments of the proposed disclaimer language for the Catalogue of Instrument 
(G/SPS/W/279/Rev.2): Thursday, 30 April 2015 ; 
• For submitting ideas for the programme of the Workshop on Transparency to be held in 
October, and to suggest speakers or to volunteer for the informal session on risk 
communication in July: Friday, 15 May 2015 ; 
• For identifying new issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure and for 
requesting that items be put on the agenda: Thursday, 2 July 2015 ; 
• For the distribution of the Airgram: Friday, 3 July 2015 . 
 
__________