RESTRICTED  
  
G/SPS/R/93  
 
11 February 2019  
(19-0772) Page: 1/38 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETI NG OF 1-2 NOVEMBER 2018  
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ................................ ................................ .......................  4 
2   INFORMATION SHAR ING ................................ ................................ ............................  4 
2.1   Information fr om Members on relevant activities  ................................ ............................  4 
2.1.1    Japan - Update on the situation surrounding Japanese food after the Fukushima Daiichi 
nuclear power plant accident  ................................ ................................ ...............................  4 
2.1.2    Japan – Current situation of Classical swine fever  ................................ ........................  4 
2.1.3    Argentina – International statement on agricul tural applications of precision  
biotechnology  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  4 
2.1.4    Zambia - Update on emerging pests  ................................ ................................ ...........  5 
2.1.5    Zambia – Change in the phytosanitary certificate of Zambia  ................................ .........  6 
2.1.6    Zambia – Market access for products of Zambian origin  ................................ ................  6 
2.2   Information from CODEX, IPPC and OIE on relevant activities  ................................ ..........  6 
2.2.1    Codex  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  6 
2.2.2    IPPC ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  6 
2.2.3    OIE ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  7 
3   SPECIFIC TRADE C ONCERNS (G/S PS/GEN/204/REV.18)  ................................ ...........  7 
3.1   New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  7 
3.1.1    EU MRLs for buprofezin, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, ioxynil, molinate, picoxystrobin 
and tepraloxydim (G/SPS/N/EU/264) – Concerns of Colombia and India  ................................ ... 7 
3.1.2    The Russian Federation's bluetongue -related im port restriction on ruminants – 
Concerns of the European Union  ................................ ................................ ........................  10 
3.1.3    Viet Nam's import restrictions in the draft law of animal production – Concerns of the 
United States  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  11 
3.1.4    Thailand's import fees related to approval procedures for live animals and/or animal 
products (G/SPS/N/THA/243) – Concerns of the United States  ................................ ..............  12 
3.1.5    European Court of Justice Opinion 528/16 on organisms obtained by mutagenesis – 
Concerns of the United States  ................................ ................................ ...........................  12 
3.2   Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ............................  13 
3.2.1    EU revised proposal for categorization of comp ounds as endocrine disruptors – 
Concerns of Argentina, China, India and the United States (No. 382)  ................................ ..... 13 
3.2.2    EU maximum level of cadmium in foodstuffs - Concerns of Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire and 
Peru (No. 430) (G/SPS/GEN/1646) ................................ ................................ .....................  15 
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 2 - 
 
  3.2.3    EU review of legislation on veterinary medical p roducts – Concerns of Argentina  
and the United States (No. 446)  ................................ ................................ ........................  16 
3.2.4    Guatemal a's restrictions on egg products – Concerns of Mexico (No. 413)  ....................  18 
3.2.5    China's proposed amendments to the imple mentation regulations on  safety  
assessment of agricultural GMOS – Concerns of the United States (No. 395)  ...........................  18 
3.2.6    EU Commission Decision 2002/994/EC on anim al products – Concerns of China  
(No. 442) ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  19 
3.2.7    New EU definition of the fungicide folpet – Concerns of China (No. 447)  .......................  19 
3.2.8    The Russian Federation's import restrictions on processed fishery products from  
Estonia – Concerns of the European Union (No. 39 0) ................................ ............................  19 
3.2.9    The Russian Federation's import restrictions on certain animal products from  
Germany – Concerns of the European Union (No. 4 11) ................................ .........................  20 
3.2.10    Brazil's measures on shrimp – Concerns of Ecuador (No. 344)  ................................ ... 20 
3.2.11    China's import restrictions due to highly pathog enic avian influenza – Concerns  
of the United States (No. 406)  ................................ ................................ ...........................  21 
3.2.12    General import restrictions due to BSE – Concerns of the European Union (No.  193) .... 21 
3.2.13    South Africa's import restrictions on poultry  due to highly pathogenic avian  
influenza – Concerns of the European Union (No. 431)  ................................ .........................  21 
3.2.14    New Zealand's draft import health standard for vehicles, machinery and equipment - 
Concerns of Japan (No. 440)  ................................ ................................ .............................  22 
3.2.15    India's fumigation requirements for grain and other products - Concerns of Ukraine  
(No. 427)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  22 
3.2.16    Thailand's import restriction on papaya seeds - Concerns of Chinese Taipei  
(No. 421) ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  23 
3.2.17    US import restrictions on apples and pears - Concerns of the European Union  
(No. 439) ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  23 
3.2.18    Lack of transparency and undue delays in Indo nesia's approval procedures for  
animal products – Concerns of the European Union (No. 441) ................................ ................  24 
3.3   Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  ................................ ....... 25 
4   OPERATION AND IM PLEMENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  ................................ . 25 
4.1   Equivalence  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  25 
4.2   Pest-and disease -free areas (Regionalization)  ................................ ..............................  26 
4.2.1    Information from Members  ................................ ................................ .....................  26 
4.3   Operation of transparency provisions  ................................ ................................ ..........  27 
4.4   Special and Differential Treatment  ................................ ................................ ..............  27 
4.5   Monitoring of the use of International Standards  ................................ ..........................  28 
4.5.1    New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  28 
4.5.2    Issues previousl y raised  ................................ ................................ .........................  30 
4.6   Fifth Review  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  31 
4.6.1    Report on the Thematic Session on Equivalence (Part 1)  ................................ .............  31 
4.6.2    Report of the Informal Meeting  ................................ ................................ ................  32 
4.6.3    Chairperson's Annual Report to CTG  ................................ ................................ .........  33 
5   CROSS -CUTTING IS SUES  ................................ ................................ ..........................  33 
6   TECHNICAL ASSIST ANCE AND COOPERATION  ................................ ..........................  34 
6.1   Information from the Secretariat  ................................ ................................ ................  34 G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 3 - 
 
  6.1.1   WTO SPS activities  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 34 
6.1.2    STDF (G/SPS/GEN/1653)  ................................ ................................ ........................  34 
6.2   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ........................  35 
6.2.1    Canada – Technical assistance to developing countries (G/SPS/GEN/1651)  ...................  35 
7   CONCERNS WITH PR IVATE AND COMMERCIAL  STANDARDS  ................................ ..... 35 
8   OBSERVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  35 
8.1   Information from observer organizations  ................................ ................................ ..... 35 
8.1.1    ECOWAS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  35 
8.1.2    IICA ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  36 
8.1.3    OIRSA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  36 
8.1.4    IGAD  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  36 
8.1.5    OECD  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  36 
8.1.6   WHO ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  36 
8.1.7    The African Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 37 
8.2   Requests for  observer status (G/SPS/W/78/Rev.14)  ................................ .....................  37 
8.2.1    New requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  37 
8.2.2    Outstanding requests  ................................ ................................ .............................  37 
9   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 38 
10   DATE AND AGENDA  FOR NEXT MEETINGS ................................ ...............................  38 
 G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1  ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA 
1.1.  The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measur es (the "Committee") held its 7 3rd regular 
meeting on 1-2 November  2018. The proposed agenda for the meeting was adopted with 
amendments (WTO/AIR/SPS/ 24). 
2  INFORMATION SHARING  
2.1  Information from Members on relevant activities  
2.1.1   Japan - Update on the situation surrounding Japanese food after the Fukushima 
Daiichi nuclear power plant  acciden t 
2.1.  Japan thanked Brazil; France (N ew Caledonia); Hong Kong, China; and Singapore for lifting  
their import restrictions . Japan also provided an update on the most recent data from its food 
monitoring programme , and highlighted that Japanese standard limits had been set very 
conservatively  taking into consideration the accident and the food intake of Japanese citizens . 
Foods exceeding the limits were not allowed  to enter the food supply chain . The data showed that 
the situation regarding the safety of food, fishery and agricultural products continued to remain 
stable. A ll the test results  of farm and fishery products , as well as harvests of wild plants and edible 
fungi (consumed in small quantities) , had been within the Codex guideline s levels for more than five 
years , except those of specific game meat, which still exceeded the level by very low rates. Notably, 
the annual effective dose of radioactive caesium  in food  products  had been estimated as far below 
the Codex intervention exemption level. Japan also recalled that the FAO and IAEA had 
acknowledged and evaluated the efforts made by Jap an to ensure food safety , indicating that 
Japan ese food supply chain was controlled effectively by the relevant authorities.  Japan reported 
that 29 out of the 54 countries and region s who had introduced import restrictions on Japanese 
foods had completely lifted these  restrictions. Japan urged Members to base their measures on 
scientific principles . 
2.1.2   Japan  – Current situation of Classical swine fever  
2.2.  Japan provided an update on the situation of Classical swine fever  (CSF) , indicating that it had 
notified the OIE on 9 September 2018  of the occurrence of the disease  for the first time in 26 years , 
in Gifu prefecture.  Japan underscored that it was now free from the dise ase and that it had shared 
information on the occurrence of the disease, control measures and surveillance  with its trading 
partners . Various preventive measures had been implemented, which included stamping out 
procedures, establishment of a shipping and movement  restriction zone, as well as monitoring of pig 
farms within the shipping restriction zone and farm s with epidemiological links to the affected farm. 
Japan further explained that they had undertaken the testing of wild boars in Gifu and other 
prefectures, which had yielded positive results only in the Gifu prefecture, specifically within 
proximity of the affected farm (up to 12 km).  Japan indicated its intent ion to apply for the recovery 
of its CSF -free status from the OIE, given that no additional cases of CSF in domestic pigs had been 
found. Japan thanked its trading partners for their prompt response to continue trade in porcine 
products.  
2.1.3   Argentina – International statement on agricultural applications of pre cision 
biotechnology  
2.3.  Argentina drew the  Committee's attention to a joint communication on precision biotechnology  
(G/SPS/GEN/1658/Rev.2)  which had been submitted by Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, 
Guatemala, Honduras,  Paraguay and the United States .2 Argentina highlighted that precision 
biotechnology techniques constitute an essential tool for agricultural innovation , as their u se 
provide d farmers with access to products that increase productivity while preserving environmental 
sustainability. Argentina informed the Committee of a "Semina r on Genome Editing for Regulators"  
which had been organized by IICA  in April 2018 , where participating countries had shared a draft 
statement on the applications of precision biotechnology. The primary objective wa s to coordinate 
efforts to ensure that th e regulatory approaches for these techniques, which include gene editing, 
                                                
2 G/SPS/GEN/1658/Rev.3 was subsequently circulated on 1 November 2018 with the additional co -
sponsors of the Dominican Republic and Uruguay.  G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 5 - 
 
  are scientifically based and internationally harmonized. Argentina indicated that the final text of the 
international statement wa s non -binding on su pporting countries, but provided  the necessary 
guidelines for preventing regulatory asymmetries and, in turn, potential trade disruption. The text 
of the statement could be found  in document G/SPS/GEN/1658/Rev.2.  
2.4.  Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, Jordan, 
Paraguay,  the United States, Uruguay and Viet Nam  supported the International Statement , 
highlighting  the importance of precisio n biotechnology techniques for the promotion of sustainable  
crop systems and food security  by increasing  crop yields , improving resistance to pests or diseases, 
and improving nutritional and food quality characteristics for consumers,  among others . 
They supported the coordinated efforts to ensure that regulatory approaches to these techniques 
were based on s cientific data and harmonized internationally.  The Dominican Republic and Uruguay 
announced their intention to become  co-sponsors of the document.  
2.5.  Brazil further underscored the need to have well -designed regulations, standards and policies 
which were nece ssary to support and guide innovative activities. Brazil called upon other 
WTO Members to take these factors into consideration when addressing the challenge of regulating 
precision biotechnology techniques, in order to guarantee the application of the fun damental 
principles of the SPS Agreement when pursuing technological approaches to agriculture.  
2.6.  Canada  expressed concerns that differing domestic regulatory approaches for products derived 
from precision biotechnology could  create unnecessary challenges fo r both importers and exporters . 
This could  lead to international asy nchronicity in approvals as well as  asymmetric regulatory 
approaches , creating potential trade issues which threaten ed to impede innovation. Canada was also 
concerned about regulatory approaches that include d arbitrary and unjustifiable distinctions between 
end products  derived from precision biotechnology and similar end products obtained through other 
production methods. Canada encouraged interested Members to support the internationa l statement 
and participate in cooperative and collaborative  multilateral  efforts to support open and fair trade of 
produ cts of precision biotechnology.  
2.7.  Paraguay highlighted that  the genetic improvement of plants ha d made it possible to 
substantially impro ve its production of principal  crops such as  soya, maize, wheat  and rice, and 
further argued that t he new products derived from biotechnology ( e.g. precision or gen e editing) 
should not be treated  differently  from products obtained through other production  methods.  
2.8.  The United States underscored  the potential of new biotechnology tools to significantly reduce 
the costs and timelines to bring new products to market, thereby enabling public researchers and 
small technology companies to provide new tools to sup port local needs and challenges, particularly  
in developing countries.  
2.9.  ECOWAS expressed support for  the proposal, while highlighting some challenges for developing  
countries  in responding to this advanced technology , particularly in relation to the lack of  capacity 
to conduct appropriate risk assessment s on products of precision bio technology. ECOWAS called on 
donors and technical partners to provide support for capacity building  in this area. 
2.10.   Argentina thanked Members and organizations for their support , and further underscored the 
importance of maintaining  this issue on the Committee's agenda. Argentina also indicated its 
willingness to further revise the document, as well as to include additional co -sponsors.  
2.1.4   Zambia - Update on  emerging pests  
2.11.   Zambia reported on several emerging pests, indicating that the fall army worm was present 
and widespread in Zambia, but that government authorities and various stakeholders were working 
to control the pest. In relation to maize lethal necrosis, Zambia informed the C ommittee that survey s 
had been conducted, which had indicated that this disease was not present in Zambia. In addition, 
Zambia reported that the cassava brown streak disease had recently been detected but had been 
contained in the far north ern part of Zamb ia. Finally, Zambia noted that further to  survey s 
conducted, the potato cyst nematode was not present in areas where potato was produced.  G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.1.5   Zambia – Change in the phytosanitary certificate  of Zambia  
2.12.   Zambia announced that its phytosanitary certificate had bee n changed in order to enhance 
various security features. Zambia further indicated that  it had informed  most of its trading partners 
of the new features of its revised  phytosanitary certificate . 
2.1.6   Zambia – Market access for products of Zambian origin  
2.13.   Zambia i nformed the Committee that it had continued to gain access to new markets for new 
products, apart from traditional crops such as  maize. These new crops included blueberries, grapes, 
passion fruit and stevia. In this regard, Zambia noted that its first ship ment of blueberries had 
recently been sent  to its new trading partners . 
2.2  Information from CODEX, IPPC and OIE on relevant activities  
2.2.1   Codex  
2.14.   Codex provided an outline of its activities, as detailed in G/SPS/GEN/1648, highlighting 
meetings held since the last SPS Committee meeting. Codex drew Members' attention to a number 
of standards which had been adopted at the 41st Codex Alimentarius Commis sion in July 2018. 
These  standards included, among others: MRLs for different pesticides in various foods and feeds; 
maximum levels for methylmercury in certain fish species and for cadmium in chocolate; and MRLs 
for veterinary drugs used in food -producing  animals and the Risk Management Recommendation for 
Gentian violet. The full report of the Commission meeting was available at:  
http://www.fao.org/fao -who-codexalimentarius/sh -
proxy/en/?lnk=1&url=https%253A%252F%252Fworkspace.fao.org%252Fsites%252Fcodex%252F
Meetings%252FCX -701-41%252FReport%252FFINAL%2 52FREP18_CACe.pdf . 
2.15.   Codex also highlighted the recently held meeting of the Codex Committee on Food I mport 
and Export Inspection and Certification Systems (CCFICS) , noting that  the final report was  not yet 
available,  but that a draft version was  available o n the Codex website for consultation. Codex also  
drew the Committee's attention to the upcoming meeting of the Ad hoc Codex Intergovernmental 
Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance  (TFAMR)  to be held in December 2018. Codex  highlight ed 
two main  documents f or this meeting which were available for public comments and consultation on 
the Codex website : (i) the proposed draft  Revision of the Code of Practi ce to Minimiz e and Contain 
Antimicrobial Resistance (CAC/RCP 61 -2005) ; and (ii) the proposed draft Guidelines on Integrated 
Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance . 
2.2.2   IPPC  
2.16.   The IPPC provided an outline of its activities as detailed in G/SPS/GEN/16 57. The IPPC 
highlighted that it had held consultations for various draft standards during the summer of 2018. 
These  draft standards were now going  through the standard -setting system. A consultation process 
had also been undertaken for the draft IPPC Strategic Framework (2020 -2030), with comments  
compiled and considered at the Strategic Planning Group (SPG) meeting  held in October 2018, 
leading to the subsequent revision of the Framework.  This revised Framework would be submitted 
to CPM for endorsement , with the aim of seeking adopt ion in 2020 by Ministers at the Commission  
Meeting. The IPPC indicated that there wa s still an opportunity to make comments , and encouraged 
Members to do so.  
2.17.   The IPPC reported on several other topics which had been discussed at the SPG meeting , such 
as the safe trade facilitation  action plan, the ePhyto five -year plan  and e -commerce. In addition, the 
IPPC was a lso looking at how  it could be involved in issues related to emerging pests , such as fall 
armyworm. The SPG was also considering to what extent the IPPC community should be involved in 
addres sing antimicrobial resistance and had agreed to forward this issue to CPM -14 (2019) for 
discussion. In relation to commodity and pathway standards, a focus group meeting had been held 
in October and a report was available from the IPPC website. In addition , the IPPC reported on its 
efforts to have 2020 recognized as the International Year of Plant Health , highlighting that it was 
currently a waitin g a final response on whether this proposal had been  approved at the 
November  2018 UN General Assembly . Finally,  IPPC noted that it had undertaken seven regional G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 7 - 
 
  workshops , and highlighted t he importance of these activities in coord ination and information 
sharing, as well as the need to secure funding for these activities.  
2.2.3   OIE 
2.18.   The OIE outlined its report, as detailed in G/SPS/GEN/16 52. The OIE highlighted the  work 
undertaken by the four OIE Specialist Commissions in the development and review of OIE 
international standards, with high priority placed on the revision of the OIE standards related to the 
categoriz ation of official BSE risk status, and infection with avian influenza viruses. The OIE drew 
the Committee's attention to  the OIE Global Conference on Antimicrobial Resistance which had been 
held in October 2018, as well as the upcoming Global Conference on  Aquatic Animal Health , 
scheduled to take place in Chile from 2 -4 April 2019.  The OIE also noted that it continued to work 
on the design of a new tool to monitor the implementation of OIE standards , with a view  to identify ing 
difficulties faced by countrie s in order to better propose solutions . In addition, the OIE continued to 
provide capacity building activities, which include d seminars for recently appointed OIE delegates 
and regional seminars for OIE national focal points. In relation to vaccine banks, the OIE informed 
the Committee that it had released a policy paper ( http://www.oie.int/solidarity/vaccine -banks/ ), 
which clarified the role and responsibility of the OIE, as well as countries ben efiting from this 
mechanism. Finally, the OIE indicated that it continued to work on its Public -Private Progress 
Initiative, a strategic 3 -year programme supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and 
CIRAD, the French Agricultural Research and Int ernational Cooperation Organization (an OIE 
Collaborating Centre).  
3  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCE RNS (G/SPS/GEN/204/REV. 18) 
3.1  New issues  
3.1.1   EU MRLs for buprofezin, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, ioxynil, molinate, 
picoxystrobin and tepraloxydim (G/SPS/N/EU/264)  – Concerns of Colombia and India  
3.1.  India raised a concern regarding the lowering of EU MRL for buprofezin to default levels , as 
notified by the European Union  in G/SPS/N/EU/264 on 19 July 2018 . India noted that the measure 
was more trade restrictive than ne cessary to protect against risk s to human health  and argued that 
as per Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement, the European Union should have taken into consideration 
the existing Codex MRLs, as well as the MRLs of other Members. Specifically , in relation to gr apes, 
the Codex MRL for buprofezin was 1  ppm, and in the case of rice, the limit s in the United States, 
China and Japan were 1.5 ppm, 0.3  ppm and 0.5  ppm respectively. India requested the European 
Union to provide the rationale for deviating from Codex sta ndards, and for not considering MRLs set 
by other countries.  India further observed that the modified measure  did not provide an adequate 
transition al time period  for commodities produced in accordance with the existing EU MRL, prior to 
its modification . India noted that in January 2011, the European Commission had amended the 
Council Directive to include buprofezin as an active substance from 1 February 2012 to 31 January 
2021. Following which in April 2018 , the expiration of  the approval for buprofezin  had been 
postponed  until 31 January 2023 for use in fruits and vegetables at 0.5  ppm, and in cereals, including 
rice at 0.5  ppm. However, in July 2018, the European Union had proposed  default levels for 
buprofezin. India argued that the EU decision was ba sed on the  perceived uncertainty around 
genotoxic potential , relating to  the heat treatment  of buprofezin and the production of aniline. 
India underscored that this chemical was  normally present in many r aw fruits and vegetables. 
India urged the European U nion to conduct b road-based stakeholder consultations , as several 
countries , including India,  would face substantial trade impact s due to the proposed measure.  
India hoped  that the European Union would  conduct a timely and objective science -based risk 
assessment consistent with its obligations under the SPS Agreement.  
3.2.  Colombia raised  similar concern s in relation to EU MRLs for several pesticides , highlighting  the 
importance of this issue for trade in cereals  and food products of animal and plant origin, inc luding 
fruits and vegetables. In particular, Colombia was concerned  with the lowering of the MRLs for 
buprofezin to the default level of 0.1  ppm, as this substance was key in controlling quarantine pests 
for banana s, which  for Colombia and other countries was done through the use of tree bag wrapping s 
filled with buprofezin . This approach avoided damage to the fruit and allow ed lower exposure to the 
product , when compared with insecticide spray. Colombia observed  that there was no competitive 
substitute for  the substance , which  would make it more difficult to control pests for fruits , and G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 8 - 
 
  negatively affect Colombia's exports of banana to the European Union's market. Colombia further 
underscored the potential social impact due to the importance of employment in the regions where 
the crop was grown . Colombia highlighted the commitment of its banana producers to implementing 
international  quality  standards  linked with good agricultural practices , such as GlobalGap, Rainforest 
Alliance and Fair Trade. Colombia no ted that the  EU measure had been based on the possible 
production of aniline, a sub-product  which was carcinogenic,  and could be present in foods treated 
with buprofezin when subject to high temperatures during processing. However, Colombia 
highlighted tha t the In ternational Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) had included aniline in 
Group 3 as non -carcinogenic for humans.  In addition, the US Environmental Protection Agency  and 
the European Union's Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limit Values  (SCOEL) had not 
given conclusive evidence regarding the carcinogenicity of aniline. Colombia request ed the European 
Union to use a risk assessment approach in its decisions and to maintain the current MRL for 
buprofezin or establish a reference level  of 0.3  ppm in line with Codex  standards. Finally, Colombia  
requested the European Union to grant a transition al period sufficient for producers to adapt to the 
new measure.  
3.3.  Argentina,  Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicara gua, 
Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Turkey and the United States echoed  the concerns raised by Colombia and 
India,  underscoring the need for a risk -based approach  to implementing SPS measures , in line with 
the SPS Agreement . Some Members  requested an appropriate transition al period  for producers to 
adapt to the measure , and also urged the European Union to maintain the EU MRL of  0.5 ppm or to 
at least apply the Codex MRL of 0.3 ppm for buprofezin in banana . Costa Rica highlighted the 
economic and social impact of the lowering of EU MRLs for buprofezin given the importance of its 
banana exports. Costa Rica had also carried out chemical risk assessments  analyzing buprofezin on 
bananas , which had concluded that there was no sizable health risk for consumers of the fruit.  Chile 
and Turkey indicated that they had already submitted comments to the European Union.  In addition 
to buprofezin, Argentina noted similar concerns with ioxynil. Panama also  specifically indic ated its 
concerns with  buprofezin, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulf uron and picoxystrobin . 
3.4.  Brazil recalled its previous comments in the TBT Committee  on the Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2017/360, notified under the  TBT Agreement , which authorized the u se of 
buprofezin only as an insecticide and acaricide on non -edible crops. Brazil noted that the regulation 
had the objective of protecting human and animal health, characterized by the attention to operators ' 
and workers' safety and the risk to aquatic or ganisms. In this regard, Brazil indicated that it had 
previously asked the European Union to clarify  the reasons for not also notifying the measure to  the 
SPS Committee. In addition, Brazil drew Members' attention to its trade concern on picoxystrobin , 
which had also been raised in the TBT Committee.  
3.5.  Canada indicated concerns with the EU proposal to lower the MRL for picoxystrobin to the  limit 
of analytical detection. Canada sought to better understand EFSA's rationale for publishing an 
inconclusive peer  review for picoxystrobin , citing a lack of information to complete the risk 
assessment. Canada was alarmed  that a consumer health concern had been  raised during the 
assessment without conclusive evidence of the risk to human health. Canada ha d conducted a  
scientific risk assessment on picoxystrobin and determined that the active substance would  not be 
of concern to human health when used according to label directions. Canada highlighted the 
importance of picoxystrobin as  a key active substance used in Cana da's grain and oilseed production . 
Canada requested the European Union to conduct a fulsome risk assessment and establish import 
tolerances in order to minimize the impact on international trade.  
3.6.  The United States noted that these substances had been subje ct to multiple evaluations by the 
Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) , which found that the available data was 
acceptable for the purposes of completing risk assessments and establishing Codex MRLs. 
In addition, the authorization holders for  these pesticides had conducted and committed to supplying 
additional data that would address the European Union's concerns, however, the European Union 
had declined to review these data before withdrawing the authorizations for these chemicals and 
lowerin g their MRLs to default levels. The United States queried how an applicant  might be expected  
to demonstrat e the safety of substances, as required by EU legislation, when the European Union 
was not satisfied with data that had been evaluated and accepted by  other scientific authorities.  
The United States had submitted several import MRL applications for these substances and hoped 
for a timely and objective science -based risk assessment to inform decisions on these requests, 
consistent with the European Union 's obligations under the SPS Agreement.  G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 9 - 
 
  3.7.  The European Union explained that the proposed lowering of MRLs for buprofezin was necessary 
to protect consumers, as an assessment by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) had identified 
important consumer healt h concerns. Available information showed that under high -temperature 
processing conditions, buprofezin was degraded into several metabolite s, including aniline. 
The European Union noted that aniline was a carcinogen for which a genotoxic mechanism could not 
be excluded and therefore no threshold for acceptable exposure cou ld be assumed. As a result, 
the approval of the active substance buprofezin had been restricted to uses in non -edible crops only. 
In this regard, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/360 had been notified under 
the TBT Agreement as G/TBT/N/EU/418. The European Union also provided responses to several 
issues raised by its trading partners in relation to aniline originating  from different sources, 
IARC's  conclusion that aniline was not carcinogenic for human beings , and alignment of EU MRLs 
with existing Codex standards. The European Union underscored that  it aimed to minimize the 
exposure of consumers to aniline; it based its risk management measures on the evaluations carried 
out b y its own risk assessment body; and that the EU policy was to implement Codex MRLs into 
EU MRL legislation where Codex MRLs were found to be sufficiently protective for European 
consumers. The European Union further clarified that it had not intro duced a r eservation at the 
2013 CCPR meeting, because the establishment of the Codex MRL for buprofezin predated EFSA's 
identification of consumer health concerns. However, the European Union would be submitting a 
concern form to Codex mentioning the EFSA findings and conclusions in order to raise international 
awareness . 
3.8.  The European Union explained its concerns surrounding diflubenzuron, highlighting that EFSA 
had identified substantial safety concerns during its evaluation of the substance, due to the genotoxic 
carcinogenic metabolite 4 -chloroaniline (PCA). Since toxicological reference values for PCA could not 
be set and consequently no safe residue levels  could be  identified, the approved use of the substance 
was restricted to non -edible crops only. In this rega rd, Commissi on Implementing Regulation 
(EU) 2017/855 had been notified as a draft to the TBT Committee, in document G/TBT/N/EU/447. 
The European Union further noted that since it had not been demonstrated that residues of 
diflubenzuron above the limit of a nalytical determination (LOD) were safe for EU consumers, it had 
been proposed to lower the MRLs to the LOD. The formal adoption of the draft legislative act was 
expected in January 2019, and the new MRLs were expected to be applicable from July 2019 
onwar ds. The European Union invited interested parties, with information that , might in their view , 
allow the establishment of safe residue levels, to submit an application under the relevant 
EU legislative frameworks. The  European Union indicated that it  would  also be submitting a concern 
form to Codex . 
3.9.  The European Union explained that during the evaluation and peer review of the substance 
picoxystrobin, a number of concerns had been identified and detailed in the relevant EFSA conclusion  
related to the clasto genic and aneugenic potential of metabolite IN -H8612 formed as a residue. 
The European Union indicated that, based on the data available in the dossier, it had not been 
possible to complete the assessment of genotoxicity for the substance. This led to the non-approval 
of the substance , which had been notified in G/TBT/N/EU/437 , as the  European Union considered 
that it had not been demonstrated that residues of the subst ance above LOD were safe for 
EU consumers. On this basis, it was proposed to lower the MRLs to the LOD. The formal adoption of 
the draft legislative act was expected in January 2019, and the new MRLs were expected to be 
applicable from July 2019 onwards. The  European Union would  also be submitting a concern form 
to Codex . The European Union invited interested parties, with information that might , in their view , 
allow the establishment of safe residue levels, to submit an ap plication under the relevant 
EU legislative frameworks. The European Union also indicated that it had been made aware of 
the existence of an additional US study, however, this study had not been submitted in the context 
of a regulatory procedure provided for in  the EU legislation. As such, it could not be taken into 
account for decision -making.  
3.10.   The European Union also provid ed information on iprodione , which had been classified as 
a carcinogen  in line with the UN Global Harmonized System for Classification and Labelling (UNGHS).  
The 2016 EFSA assessment  had also advised the classification of this substance as  a carcinogen 
(Category 1B ) and as toxic for reproduction (Category 2 ), based on concrete evidence from in vitro  
tests. Due to these results and several other concerns with this substance, the approval for use of 
this substance in the E uropean Union  had not been  renewed. T he draft regulation was notified to 
non-EU countries on 25 July 2017 under the TBT Agreement , and responses provided to comments 
received from the United States and Turkey. The European Union further explained that f ollowing 
the non -renewal decision, EU member States had to withdraw their authorizations for plant G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 10 - 
 
  protection products containing iprodione by 5 June 2018 at the latest. A draft regulation  deleting 
iprodione  MRLs was prepared by the Commission and notified to the SPS Agreement in July 2018. 
The European Union indicated that c omments had been received from seven countries , mainly 
requesting  transition al measures and referring to the EFSA opinion. The se comments  had been 
shared with EU member States , prior to the last meeting of the Standing Comm ittee on Plant, 
Animals, Food and Feed  on pesticide MRLs which took place in September  2018. Following 
discussion s in that meeting , the draft regulation had received a unanimous favourable opinion from 
EU member States . In addition , due to the genotoxicity  concerns for one metabolite, EU member 
States had decided that t ransition al measures could not be granted. The European Union noted that 
the regulation would come into force in summer 2019 , highlighting that two year s would have  passed 
since the first not ification of the measure in July 2017 , which  had provided sufficient time for trading  
partners to adapt to the measure. The European Union informed the Committee  that it would send 
a concern  form to Codex requesting  a re-evaluation of the substance an d a revision of the MRLs . 
Finally, t he European Union indicated that i mport tolerances for iprodione  could still be requested , 
but that it would have to address  the genotoxicity concern for the metabolite . 
3.1.2   The Russian Federation's bluetongue -related import res triction on ruminants  – 
Concerns of the European Union  
3.11.   The European Union raised its concern regarding the Russian Federation's import restri ction 
in relation to bluetongue.  The European Union explained that several years ago, the Russian 
Federation had banned imports of all susceptible live animals and their genetic material from the 
areas affected by the disease, following the notification of outbreaks in limited areas of the European 
Union . In response to the Russian Federation's notification of these  measures in 2014 and 2016, 
the European Union had expressed in writing, and through bilater al exchanges, its view that 
the measure s were not in line with Chapter 8.3 of the OIE Terrestrial Code. The European Union 
underscored that the OIE recommendations i ndicated that the export of susceptible animals and 
their genetic material from areas affected by the disease should be allowed under certain conditions, 
such as vaccination, laboratory testing or protection of animals from vectors in vector -protected 
establishments. These conditions were also reflected in the relevant veterinary export certificates 
agreed between the European Union and the Russian Federation. However, this arrangement was 
not being respected, and despite its repeated requests, the Russian Federation had not provided the 
scientific just ification for its measures. The  European Union urged the Russian Federation to bring 
its measures in line with the international standards, and allow the resumption of trade in ruminants 
and their genetic mate rial without further delay.  
3.12.   The Russian Federation explained that b luetongue was a wide -spread , dangerous  viral disease 
of small ruminants and cattle,  notifiable  to the OIE , which had become established  in Western 
Europe.  Five Mediterranean countries had d eclared themselves as endemic . The Russian Federation  
underscored its interest in the regular import of breeding cattle and small ruminants , and 
maintaining trade links with its traditional partners in the European Union. In this regard , appropriate 
measures had been taken during the bluetongue outbreak  in the European Union, in order not to 
completely stop the mutually beneficial trade in live animals.  These measures had include d the  
signing of the veterinary certificates agreed  by the E uropean Union and the Russian Federation , 
recogn ition and regular update of the  bluetongue -free zone, as well as close contact between 
research institutes and veterinary services of the Russia n Federation  and the European Union,  which 
had to date  ensured s afe supplies of live animals from individual farms. This approach had proven 
successful , as trade had been maintained at a high level , and the Russian Federation had also  
remain ed free from bluetongue. The Russian Federation further  noted that from 1 Octob er 2016 to 
31 December 2020 , import and marketing of breeding cattle, breeding pigs, sheep and goats , horses, 
poultry, eggs and semen, and embryos thereof were exempted from value -added tax in the Russian 
Federation. The Russian Federation indicated that i t was taking the necessary steps to updat e its 
veterinary legislation in  light of the current epidemic risks and economic interests of Russian 
importers. In this regard, the draft regulation from the Ministry of Agriculture  on bluetongue spread , 
which was currently being reviewed, was destined to eliminate current contradictions between the 
veterinary certificate and the domestic legislation.  The Russian Federation called for the European 
Union's understanding , and for continue d constructive work in the pre vention of the spread of 
bluetongue in Europe . G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 11 - 
 
  3.1.3   Viet Nam's import restrictions in the draft law of animal production  – Concerns of 
the United States  
3.13.   The United States raised its concern regarding Viet Nam's draft Livestock Production Law, 
which could restri ct US exports of livestock products, inc luding meat and poultry to Viet  Nam. 
The United States thanked Viet Nam for  the extensive bilateral discussions on the issue, but 
highlighted that its concerns had not been fully addressed. The United States observed  that the law 
could be debated and voted on by Viet Nam's National Assembly as early as November 2018, and 
further requested that Viet Nam provide an update on the status of the draft law. In particular, the 
United States drew attention to Article 12, clau se 7 of the draft law which would ban the import of 
livestock products produced using chemicals prohibited for domestic production in Viet Nam , despite 
assurances from Viet Nam that it would harmonize its MRLs for imported goods to Codex standards. 
The Uni ted States reminded Viet Nam of its obligati ons under the SPS Agreement, in  particular 
Articles 3 and 5 , and sought clarification on how Viet Nam would ensure that the measures taken on 
chemicals prohibited for domestic production were based on science. Th e United States also queried 
the appropriate level of protection that Viet Nam was seeking through such bans on domestic 
chemical usage in animal production, considering existing  scientific evidence, including by Codex,  
which showed  that such chemicals were being used to produce safe food. The United States 
encouraged Viet Nam to adopt Codex MRLs of veterinary drugs in foods , and requested Viet  Nam to 
delay adoption of this law, until Article 12, clause 7 had been revised to align with Viet  Nam's 
SPS commit ments, and had addressed the identified trade concerns.  
3.14.   Canada shared the concerns raised by the United States with respect to the latest version of 
Viet Nam's draft law of animal production. Canada thanked Viet Nam for productive bilateral 
meetings , but expressed its concern regarding the provision contained in Article 12.7 that ban ned 
imports of products containing residues of veterinary drugs which were prohibited domestically in 
Viet Nam. This provision would ban imports of meat products that con tained residues of several 
veterinary drugs , including ractopamine , for which there were existing Codex standards for safe use. 
Canada note d that this provision was essentially the same proposed ban that the Vietnamese 
Ministry of Health had notified on 7 September 2016, under G/SPS/ N/VNM/82. On 4 November 2016, 
Canada had submitted detailed comments on that proposal , including a request that Viet Nam 
maintain MRLs for ractopamine and other veterinary drugs based on Codex MRLs and provide the 
rationale and scientific justification for taking a zero-tolerance  approach. To date Viet Nam ha d not 
responded to Canada's formal comments. Canada indicated that it had held several bilateral 
meetings, including at the highest levels, raising concerns about Viet Nam's proposed ban. However, 
despite these meetings and Viet Nam's indicatio n that the concerns of trading partners were being 
taken into account , the latest version of the draft law of livestock production (draft 6) of August  2018 
contained a provision which wo uld legislate essentially the same ban which Canada ha d been 
objecting to since 2016. Canada noted that Viet Nam had notified this draft law o n 30 October 2018 
as G/SPS/N/VNM/95/Add.2 , providing Members with a 60 -day comment period ending 29 December 
2018.  Canada observed  that Viet Nam's National Assembly w ould be reviewing the draft law on 
7 November 2018, and voting on it on 20 November 2018, prior to the end of the notification's 
comment period. As such,  Canada request ed that Viet  Nam delay the review and vot ing on this draft 
law until after the conclusion of the comment period of the WTO notification , so that Viet Nam c ould 
take into account the comments of trading partners. In addition, Canada continue d to request that 
Viet Nam remove the provision th at ban ned imports of products containing residues of ractopamine 
and other veterinary drugs for which there were existing Codex standards for safe use. Canada also 
request ed that Viet Nam maintain MRLs for ractopamine and other veterinary drugs based on Co dex 
MRLs. Canada look ed forward to continue working with Viet Nam to resolve this issue.  
3.15.   Paraguay stated its interest in this trade concern and indicated that it would continue to 
closely follow development s on this issue.  
3.16.   Viet Nam underscored its commitme nt to ensuring transparency, highlighting that it had 
notified its draft law on livestock production as G/ SPS/N/VNM/95 on 10 March 2018. Viet Nam 
welcomed comments and feedback from all WTO Members on the matter. Viet Nam informed the 
Committee that the dr afting agency , the Department of Livestock Production in the Ministry of 
Agriculture and Rural Development , was still in the process of reviewing the draft law  including  
comments from Members. Viet Nam noted that it had recently  notified the final draft to the WTO on 
30 October 2018 for further comments from Members . In relation to the ban on the chemicals, 
Viet Nam emphasized that its legislative system differ ed from that of  other countries . Viet Nam  
explain ed that the  three -step legislative process  started with a more general law , which did not G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 12 - 
 
  provide details for each substance, followed by a decree related to the designation of the duty and 
responsibility of the government agency and the competent authorities responsible for d eveloping 
the list of substances and chemicals subject to the ban. Lastly, a Circular was developed by the 
Ministry of Agriculture to regulate in detail the substances to be banned, especially as it relate d to 
the group of beta -agonists,  including ractopam ine. 
3.17.   Viet Nam noted Canada's  concerns with Circular No. 24 which had been notified in 2016, and 
would be  review ed in the future. Viet Nam explained that the  Circular still remain ed in effect , which 
meant that Viet Nam accepted the residue levels of ractopamine which had been adopted according 
to the existing Codex guidance. Viet Nam underscored that its measures were based on international 
guidelines and that they did not constitute a  disguis ed restriction on international trade.  
3.1.4   Thailand's import fees related to approval procedures for live animals and/or 
animal products (G/SPS/N/THA/243) – Concerns of the United States  
3.18.   The United States raised concerns regarding Thailand's food safety inspection fees, in the 
form of import permit fees on all shipments of uncooked meat, poultry and meat offal. The United 
States indicated that these fees, which had the same objective of preven ting the spread of animal 
diseases as the corresponding domestic slaughtering fees for the same products, were significantly 
higher than the domestic fees, and appeared disproportionate to the  cost of services rendered. 
The United States noted that despite  several bilateral meetings held over a number of years, 
Thailand had still not provided  a justification for the disparity between the two sets of fees. 
The United States underscored the obligation under Annex C , that any fees charged for the 
procedures on  imported products be equitable in relation to those on like domestic products, and be 
no higher than the actual cost of the service. The United States argued that the higher fees acted 
as a disguised restriction on US exports, and requested Thailand to en sure that the fees levied on 
imported products were the same as those levied on domestic products.  
3.19.   Thailand highlighted  the right of Members, as embodied in Article 2.1, to take SPS measures 
as necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health. Th ailand explained that, in order to 
protect human and animal health, it was necessary to charge import inspection fees for both animal 
products and live animals of all species . These fees were set  at the rate defined in the Ministerial 
Regulation under the Animal Epidemic Act. Thailand clarified that the  fees cover ed the operational 
expenses related to the  cost of food safety and veterinary inspection services , which w ere necessary 
to ensure that the prod ucts we re free from microbial, biological and chemical  hazards, as well as 
animal pathogens . Thailand underscored that no special or differential treatment was granted to any 
individual trading partner . Unlike for imported animal products, the inspection service fees for 
domestic products we re charged to dome stic business operators along each step of the food 
production chain . This was done to  ensure that the products complied  with national legislation and 
were safe for consumers. Thailand argued that the combined cost o f the fees charged at each step  
which  domestic producers had to bear  was higher than the import inspection fee. For this reason , 
Thailand indicated that its approach  complie d with Annex C(1)(f)  of the S PS Agreement.  
3.1.5   European Court of Justice Opinion 528/16 on organisms obtained by mutagenesis 
– Concerns of the United States  
3.20.   The United States raised its concerns about the European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling 
regarding the f orms of mutagenesis that qualified  for the exemption contained in EU Directive 
2001/18/EC on the Deliberate Release into the  Environment of Gene tically Modified Organisms. 
The United States noted that the ruling carried the effect that all products of genome editing were 
subject to the risk assessment and review requirements, labelling, and monitoring obligations, as 
well as tr aceability laws currently applied to products falling under the scope of Directive 
2001/18/EC. The European Union was taking steps to now clarif y how the Commission and the 
EU member States would implement this ruling. The United States was concerned that the 
implementation of this ruling would lead to  unjustified barriers to trade in products of genome 
editing, as well as stifle the agricultural research and innovation necessary to prevent hunger and 
malnutrition in the coming decades , while ensuring envir onmental sustainability of agricultural 
activities.  The United States invited the European Union to provide the scientific basis for the 
regulatory distinctions made across the products of mutagenesis, whereby products of random 
mutations induced by chemic als or radiation were exempted from any regulatory review, and 
products with precise mutations induced through biotechnology were subject to protracted 
premarket regulatory review. The United States also requested the European Union to inform the G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 13 - 
 
  Committee  of its plans to implement the ECJ ruling, particularly with respect to how it was 
considering risk in assessing options related to import controls, detection and traceability. Finally, 
the United States noted its long experience with the European Union,  in the context of the EC Biotech  
dispute settlement proceedings , and subsequent efforts to reach compliance. The United States 
urged the European Union to work with other countries that were taking science -based approaches 
to the oversight of products of ge nome editing.  
3.21.   Argentina and Paraguay shared the concerns raised by the United States , and requested the 
European Union to implement the ruling in a manner consistent with the provisions of the WTO, 
particularly  those of the SPS Agreement.  
3.22.   The European Unio n explained that the ECJ had provided important clarification on the scope 
of application of the EU GMO legislation (Directive 2001/18/EC) in relation to organisms obtained  by 
mutagenesis techniques. As a consequence, the GMO legislation was applicable to organisms 
obtained by new mutagenesis techniques. According to the Court judgement, organisms obtained 
by means of techniques  or methods of mutagenesis, which ha d conventionally been used in a  number  
of applications  and ha d a long safety record, were exempt ed. The European Commission 
was currently analy zing the ruling together with EU member States to ensure its proper  
implementation. Operators in and outside the European Union remain ed responsible for ensuring 
that products which were placed on the ma rket were safe and compl ied with all relevant regulatory 
requirements.  The European Union further explain ed that the ruling had not extended the scope of 
the legislation , but had clarified how it should be read.  The current EU legislation on GMO s was 
based  on science  and had been in place since the 1990s , following which it had been  updated in 
2001. In the European Union's view, t his regulation was consistent with the WTO Agreement s, and 
the European Commission ha d no plans to propose an amendment to the cu rrent legislation in the 
short term.  
3.23.   The European Union also addressed several concerns raised i n other fora regarding 
the distinction between these products  obtained by mutagenesis techniques  and other products 
obtained by conventional techniques.  The Eur opean Union noted that different scientific bodies and 
experts ha d acknowl edged that identifying the techniques used to obtain certain products could  be 
challenging. EU member States and the Commission were currently considering  the issue . 
In addition, t he joint research centre (JRC) was addressing the issue together  with the European 
Network of GMO laboratories  to support the competent authorities of member States in this task. 
The European Union recalled that the question of detection of certain GM prod ucts was already  posed 
by some processed products in which no DNA was present, e.g. GM  sugar . In this respect, 
the legislation included the need to ensure traceability throughout the chain, even when detection 
at a later stage was not possible. The Europea n Union indicated that the Commission w ould carefully 
analyz e the ruling  from a legal perspective , including the status of products obtained from new 
techniques , and reflect on further action. The European Union also addressed comments related to 
the diffe rence in its approach as compared to other parts of the world.  In this regard, the European 
Union underscored its precautionary approach to the development of environmental and safety 
regulations , which was enshrined in its treaties , and reflect ed the high importance that EU citizens 
attach ed to safe food and environmental protection.  The European Union remained open to continue 
discussing this issue on a bilateral basis within the framework of the regular dialogue on 
biotech nology with its trade p artners.  
3.2  Issues previously raised  
3.2.1   EU revised proposal for categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors – 
Concerns of Argentina, China, India and the United States (No. 382)  
3.24.   Argentina reiterated its concern over the European Union's policy on pestici des and the 
adoption of a hazard -based approach for identifying substances with endocrine disrupting properties. 
Argentina noted the adoption of Regulation (EU) No. 2018/605, modifying Annex II to Regulation 
(EC) No. 1107/2009, which would come into force as of 10 November 2018. Argentina expressed 
concern about the systemic and trade impact of the measure, which violated core provisions of the 
SPS Agreement, such as the obligation to undertake a risk assessment and to apply the least trade 
restrictive meas ure. Argentina requested again th at the  European Union continue applying the 
procedures for granting import tolerances under Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005. Argentina queried 
how the EU reliance on the precautionary principle would conform with the requireme nt in Regulation 
(EC) No. 396/2005 to conduct risk assessments in establishing import tolerances and recalled that G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 14 - 
 
  any precautionary measure would need to comply with Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement. Argentina 
also queried when import tolerances guidance under discussion in the EU Standing Committee on 
Plants, Animals, Food and Feed would be published and applied. Argentina referred to the GMO case 
and emphasized the need to carry out assessment procedures for import tolerances without undue 
delay. Argenti na asked the European Union to provide information on the approach that would finally 
be applied, and to examine the proposal on waivers in order to at least exempt the substances that 
represented a minimal risk to public health, due to low exposure levels . Finally, Argentina urged the 
European Union to reconsider its hazard -based reg ulatory approach to pesticides.  
3.25.   The United States reiterated its concern on the EU hazard -based approach to pesticide 
regulation, and the implementation of criteria for identif ying and subsequently banning endocrine -
active substances. The United States requested clarification on the appropriate level of protection 
that these actions would achieve, underscoring that the identification of hazards without identifying 
potential risk s would likely be more trade -restrictive than necessary. Furthermore, the United States 
again requested  an explanation o f the "legitimate factors", other than risk, considered when 
evaluating import tolerances, and how these factors rationally related to a chieving an appropriate 
level of protection. The United States also drew Members' attention to the EU notification 
(G/SPS/N/EU/263) of a proposal to lower the maximum residue limits (MRLs) for iprodione to trade -
restrictive default levels, despite a final EFSA assessment which found no risks to consumers for a 
number of commodities, many of which also had Codex MRLs. Iprodione was an important crop 
protection tool for US agricultural producers, being highly effective against a number of fungal 
diseases. Fin ally, the United States noted that it remained unclear how the European Union would 
ensure consistency of its regulatory approach to pesticides with the SPS Agreement.  
3.26.   China reiterated its concerns over the European Union's process to define criteria to id entify 
endocrine disrupting properties in Regulation (EU) No. 2018/605, which appeared to be based on a 
hazard assessment. China urged the European Union to consider the existing scientific evidence 
when assessing risks to life or health and to adopt Codex  standards where they exist, to minimize 
the impact on international trade.  
3.27.   India echoed the concerns raised, in particular on the hazard -based regulation approach, 
which was  highly trade restrictive.  
3.28.   Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica,  ECOWAS, El Salvador, Guatemala, 
Honduras, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Chinese Taipei and Thailand 
indicated that they shared this concern and called upon the European Union to reconsider their 
measure , considering the significant  negative impact that it would have on trade. They also called 
upon the European Union to base its measures on adequate scientific risk assessments and to 
consider Codex MRLs. Brazil reiterated the view that safe and modern plant protection products 
could be of the upmost importance for the protection of plants while promoting agricultural yield and 
productivity in tropical regions. Guatemala highlighted that certain products were necessary given 
the climate conditions in such regions, in particular as a co nsequence to climate change.  
3.29.   Canada reiterated its disappointment that the technical amendment for derogation s based on 
negligible risk had not been included in the final regulatory amendment of Regulation (EU) 
No. 2018/605. Canada sought assurances from t he European Union that once a substance was 
identified as an endocrine disruptor, import tolerances would continue to be based on complete risk 
assessments, as set out in Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005. Finally, Canada sought information on 
how the European Union planned to work with its trading partners to implement the measure in a 
manner consistent with its international obligations and without unnecessary disruptions to market 
access.  
3.30.   The European Union confirmed that new criteria to identify endocrine di sruptors for biocides 
applied from 7 June 2018 (Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2100), whereas for pesticides they would 
apply as of 10 November 2018 (Regulation (EU) 2018/605). The criteria would also apply to ongoing 
renewal or approval procedures of acti ve substances. The European Union also confirmed that the 
guidance document for the implementation of the adopted criteria had been published by EFSA and 
ECHA on 7 June 2018. The criteria were the same for biocides as for pesticides in order to ensure a 
harmonized approach. The criteria were based on the WHO definition, required consideration of all 
relevant scientific information and applied a weight of evidence approach. Regarding the proposals 
for derogation (i.e. the possible inclusion of the clause on negligible risk from exposure), discussions 
with member States had started, and a qualified majority in favour of the derogation was needed to G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 15 - 
 
  proceed with the inclusion. In relation to import tolerances, the European Union confirmed that the 
procedures of  Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005 would apply, including a full risk assessment, followed 
by a case -by-case decision, taking into account all relevant factors, in accordance with risk analysis 
principles. In addition, the Regulation included transitional measu res for products produced prior to 
the modification of MRLs to remain on the market until the end of their shelf life, even after the date 
of application of the new MRLs, six months after the date of entry into force. However, when a health 
concern was identified, such transition measures would not be provided. The European Union 
reminded that early warning was available. As an example, TBT notifications on the non -renewal of 
active substance approval were accompanied by a statement on possible impact  on MR Ls. Recent 
examples had shown that two years could elapse between such notifications and the application of 
the lowered MRLs. The procedure for import tolerances would be published on the Commission 
website.  
3.2.2   EU maximum level of cadmium in foods tuffs - Conc erns of Colombia, Cô te d'Ivoire 
and Peru (No. 430) (G/SPS/GEN/1646)  
3.31.   Peru reiterated its concern over the maximum levels of cadmium in chocolates and other 
cocoa products proposed by Regulation (EU) No. 488/2014, and observed that the entry into force 
of the regulation on 1 January 2019 would have a negative impact on trade of cocoa beans with the 
European Union. According to Peru, the new maximum levels of cadmium were not justified by 
scientific evidence (G/SPS/GEN/1646). JECFA considered a food to represe nt a risk when it 
contributed 5% or more of the maximum tolerable intake of the contaminant, and since chocolate 
and cocoa products contributed only 4.3% to dietary cadmium exposure, there were no grounds for 
including them in the regulation. Peru also not ed inconsistencies in the EU Regulation, which 
established the same maximum levels of cadmium, 0.10 mg /kg, for potatoes and chocolate with  up 
to 30% cocoa, in spite of the fact that potatoes contributed a much higher percentage than chocolate 
(13.2%) to ov erall cadmium dietary exposure, and had a different consumption pattern. Therefore, 
the EU Regulation was in violation of articles 2.2, 2.3, 5.1 and 5.4 of the SPS Agreement, since it 
was not based on scientific principles, no proper risk assessment had be en conducted, and the 
objective of minimizing the negative effects on trade when determining the appropriate level of 
sanitary protection had not been considered. The entry into force of the regulation would harm 
Peruvi an cocoa bean  producers, and many oth er WTO Members, as well as undermine Peru's joint 
efforts with the international community, including the United States and the European Union, to 
combat illicit drug trafficking within the framework of comprehensive and sustainable programmes 
for the deve lopment of alternatives to coca leaf production. Peru reiterated its request for the 
European Union to exclude chocolate and chocolate products from the scope of its regulation until 
there was updated scientific evidence on the level of risk to human healt h from cadmium, and Codex 
would finalize the adoption of maximum levels for cocoa. Peru concluded by requesting the European 
Union to postpone  the entry into force of the regulation  to 1 January 2022.  
3.32.   Côte d'Ivoire echoed Peru's concerns on this issue, and  explained that efforts were being 
currently undertaken in the country to diversify exports and increase the p roduction of higher value 
processed products . The entry into force of the EU Regulation, not based on a risk assessment, 
would negatively impact on exports of cocoa products, allowing trade in cocoa beans only, which 
was more sensitive to price fluctuations. While Côte d'Ivoire recognized the legiti mate right of the 
European Union to take measures to protect its population, it urged the European Union to review 
its Regulation until the adoption of Codex maximum l evels for cadmium in chocolate.  
3.33.   Colombia reiterated its concern over the proposed Regulat ion (EU) No. 488/2014, highlighting 
again the significant economic and social impact on the cocoa sector. Colombia recalled  that its 
national agriculture policy aimed to replace illicit crops by incentivizing producers to change poppy 
and coca crops by see ding cacao. As a result, cultivation and exports of cocoa to the European Union 
had increased. Colombia remained concerned that the positive results obtained with the support of 
international cooperation initiatives,  including  the WTO through the STDF, and  EU funding, would be 
affected by the application of the EU Regulation. In accordance with Article 10 of the SPS Agreement, 
Colombia requested the European Union to provide additional resources to continue research on 
cadmium in cocoa and to implement the necessary mitigation measures. Also, referring to JECFA's 
scientific opinion and Article 3 of the SPS Agreement, Colombia requested the exclusion of  chocolate 
from the scope of the regulation. Finally, Colombia invited the European Union to consider notify ing 
draft SPS legislation at an earlier stage, so as to allow sufficient time for comments to be considered.  G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 16 - 
 
  3.34.   The Plurinational State of Bolivia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Nicaragua, and Trinidad 
and Tobago shared the concerns, and requested that the E uropean Union exclude chocolate and 
cocoa products from the scope of its regulation and/or to extend the entry into force of the regulation 
to 1 January 2022, pending the development of Codex standards on maximum levels of cadmium. 
Ecuador highlighted that  certain trade operators applied the regulation before its entry into force 
and incorrectly, that is, not to the finished products as provided in the measure, but to the raw 
material (cocoa beans). This issue had resulted in the development of a national a genda for cadmium 
reduction, involving the public and private sectors, to implement mitigation activities, which would 
require additional resources and time. Trinidad and Tobago highlighted the negative impact of the 
proposed regulation on diversification initiatives in the cocoa sector.  
3.35.   El Salvador, Panama, the United States, and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela also echoed 
the concerns, emphasizing that the regulation created unnecessary barriers to trade. Furthermore, 
the United States urged the Euro pean Union to consider the objective of minimizing negative trade 
effects and to ensure that the level of protection achieved by its measure wou ld be scientifically 
justified.  
3.36.   Costa Rica expressed its systemic interest in this concern, and reminded  Members  that 
cadmium, being present in  the soil, was present naturally in cocoa. Costa Rica asked the European 
Union to take this element into consideration in its research on this matter.  
3.37.   The European Union recalled its previous interventions, highlighting that the limits in 
Regulation (EU) No. 488/2014 were not based on a hazard -based  approach, but on risk assessments 
and scientific opinions from EFSA. Furthermore, the European Union noted that the EU limits for 
chocolate containing a high amount of cocoa (>50%)  were consistent with adopted Codex maximum 
levels. The European Union reminded Members of its efforts to alleviate the difficulties of trading 
partners in complying with this measure, such as agreeing to a transitional period of five years. 
The European U nion also pointed out that the ultimate goal of the European Union was to protect 
the health of EU consumers, and explained that EFSA's risk assessment showed that taking into 
account the EU  Tolerable Weekly Intake (TWI) and consumption patterns, the mean dietary exposure 
to cadmium in EU countries was close to or slightly exceed ed the TWI.  The European Union further 
noted that certain subgroups of the population (mainly children) may even exceed the TWI by about 
two-fold. Furthermore, based on the risk ass essment, it was considered necessary to limit the 
exposure of EU consumers to cadmium for all commodities, including chocolate. EU maximum levels 
were set on the basis of occurrence data at a level which was as low as reasonably achievable, and 
this was 0. 10 mg/kg for potatoes and for milk chocolate containing less than 30% total dry cocoa 
solids. Finally, the European Union informed the Committee on future technical assistance projects 
on low cadmium and climate relevant innovation to promote sustainable c ocoa production in 
Colombia, Ecuador and Peru.  
3.2.3   EU review of legislation on veterinary medical products – Concerns of Argentina and 
the United States (No. 446)  
3.38.   Argentina reiterated its concern regard ing the European Union's  propos ed regulation  on 
veterinary  medicinal products , stating that it was not based on a risk assessment nor in line with 
Codex guidelines and principles. Further, through this  new regulation, the European Union would  be 
apply ing mutatis mutandis  a reciprocity  approach that lacked scienti fic basis , preventing access to 
the EU market for animal products from third countries where antimicrobial medicinal products were 
subject to different usage authorization standards.  Argentina requested the European Union to 
consider the equivalence of thi rd country regulations on the use of antimicrobial medicines based on 
rigorous scientific assessment vis-à-vis the level of sanitary protection set by  the European Union.  
3.39.   Argentina noted that the issue of antimicrobial resistance had received greater attention in 
various international fora, such as the United Nations, G20, FAO, WHO as well as t he OIE and Codex 
Alimentarius. A ntimicrobial resistance was a complex topic that posed significant challenges , which 
required coordinated efforts  based on scienc e. Argentina further asked the European Union to 
develop the new regulation in compliance with the SPS Agreement and to avoid any barrier to trade. 
Finally, Argentina urged the European Union to provide the list of permitted antimicrobials for human 
and an imal use, and encourage d the European Union to notify the rev ised measures to both  the TBT 
and SPS C ommit tees. G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 17 - 
 
  3.40.   The United States also  reiterated its concern , emphasizing that the measure would require 
foreign  producers to abide by EU production standards  regarding the use of antimicrobial veterinary 
drugs, without taking into consideration  animal health conditions in their own territories. The United 
States further explained that the measure would ban the use of certain veterinary drugs based on 
approv al in the exporting country and would not target residues of concern. Furthermore , the 
EU legislation prevented third countries from taking into account regional conditions and disease 
prevalence . The United States urged the European Union to consider  the ongoi ng global effort 
undertaken in the Codex Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance (TFAMR) to develop standards on 
antimicrobial resistance , and to delay implementation of its legislation until after the Task Force 
concluded its work. Finally, t he United Stat es asked  the European Union to notify the revi sed 
legislation.  
3.41.   Colombia and Paraguay shared the concern raised by Argentina and the United States. 
Paraguay reiterated its support for the ongoing multilateral effort s to combat AMR, highlighting 
national initiatives currently under development . 
3.42.   Canada expressed its disappointment with the European Parliament 's vote in favour of the 
new regulation on veterinary medical products to manage health risks from AMR. Canada recognized  
that AMR represented a seriou s public health issue that required high attention , but was concerned 
that the EU approach to managing such risks unnecessarily restricted trade and possibly undermine d 
the ongoing multilateral efforts to combat AMR. Canada was of the view that AMR was a c omplex 
global issue  and recogni zed th e coordinate d efforts undertaken by several international bodies to 
promote the prudent use of antimicrobial s in animal and public health. Canada encouraged the 
European Union to support these ongoing efforts . Canada ur ged the European Union to notify the 
implementing measure s given its significant potential impact on trade , to allow Members the 
opportunity to provide comments and to take  these comment s into account. Different conditions and 
diseases in third countries could result in approved usages of drugs that differe d from those  in the 
European Union.  Canada requested that  the European Union provide the rationale and scientific 
justification for prohibiting certain veterinary antimicrobial drugs in the European Union  and imports 
from third countries  and to provide the consideration s that would be taken into account when 
preparing the list of medically important antimicrobial s to be prohibited for veterinary use in the 
European Union and in third countries exporting to  the European Union.  
3.43.   Brazil shared the concern , highlighting the ongoing multilateral efforts undertaken by 
international standard -setting organizations to address AMR.  Brazil was of the view that AMR needed 
to be addressed multilaterally , and that unilate ral decisions to  ban the use of certain veterinary 
drugs and prohibit  imports from countries where these products had been authorized was 
incompa tible with Article 3 of the SPS Agreement and more trade -restrictive than necessary. 
Brazil  emphasi zed the work  of the Codex TFAMR  and the "Code of Practice to Minimize and Contain 
Antimicrobial Resistance", supported  by WHO, OIE, FAO and G20. Finally, Brazil requested the 
European Union to establish MRLs based on risk assessment s. 
3.44.   Australia reiterated its support  for the joint work of WHO, OIE and FAO in setting international 
standards  for AMR. The application of risk measures to prevent and reduce AMR should be based on 
internationally agreed standards and supported by scientific data. Australia also stressed  the 
importance of retaining access to effective antimicrobials to protect animal health and to avoid 
adverse animal welfare outcomes. Australia discouraged regional and individual countries ' efforts to 
introduce AMR -related risk management measures that were inconsistent with agreed standards , 
not supported by science , and  that could distort trade. Unilateral initiatives related to AMR trade 
policies outside the international standard -setting organizations had the potential to undermine 
collaborative global eff orts and the integrity of these organi zations. Australia emphasized  its 
commitment to an effective and robust system for the prevention and containment of AMR  and 
explained that it had adopted one of the most conservative approaches to the use of antimicrobial s 
in livestock production  in the world. However, Australia  stress ed that antimicrobials were important 
for animal health , welfare and biosecurity and that it  was critical for the Australian livestock sector 
to retain access to these antimicrob ials to treat, prevent and control diseases. Australia underlined 
its low rate of AMR in food animal s due to its favourable animal health status, extensive farming 
systems, stringent border controls, efficient security measures to prevent the introduction of 
endemic and exotic diseases , and strong regulations governing the registration and use of 
antimicrobials. Finally, Australia expressed its concern that any measure s to restrict access to the 
prophylactic use of antimicrobials in food animal s would have significant adverse impact on exports 
of Australian  and other livestock animal products . G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 18 - 
 
  3.45.   The European Union noted that the revised regulation on veterinary medicinal products 
established a framework for the authorisation, distribution and use of veterinary  drugs in the 
European Union. The European Union recalled that the original proposal , drafted in September 2014 , 
had been notified under the TBT Committee in April 2015. Formal adoption, publication and entry 
into force was expected to take place in Novemb er 2018 , and the new regulation would be applicable 
after three years. The European Union further explained that the key objectives of the new regulation 
aimed at addressing the global public health risk of AMR. The new regulation was based on a wide 
range  of actions following the "One Health" approach internationally recogni zed as the most effective 
to tackle AMR. These actions included the strengthening of the principles behind the prudent and 
responsible use of antimic robials,  a ban on the preventive use  of antibiotics in group s of animals,  
restrictions on metaphylactic use,  the possibility to reserve certain antimicrobials for humans only , 
and compulsory data collection on s ales and use of antimicrobials.  
3.46.   The European Union recalled that the ban on using antimicrobials for growth promotion was 
not new in the European Union, highlighting that the ban on us ing antibiotics as feed additives , in 
force since 2006, was based on a scientific opinion . Furthermore, the total ban was also in line with 
the growin g international recognition of the need to phase out the use of antimicrobials as growth 
promoters , some of which  were critically important for human medicine. The European Union recalled  
that AMR organisms and resistance determinants might spread to human s and animals through the 
consumption of food and feed originated in and outside the European Union . Therefore, certain non -
discriminatory and proportionate provisions were introduced in the regulation to prevent operators 
in non -EU countries from using antimicrobials for growth promotion or antimicrobials designated in 
the European Union for human use only , insofar as relevant in respect of animals or products of 
animal origin exported to the European Union . 
3.47.   The European Union recalled that the new regulat ion would impose stricter requirements to 
operators in the European Union than to operators in non -EU countries, in particular  for rules related 
to prophylaxis and metaphylaxis. The European Union noted that the new import requirements  
should  be considered  as part of the overall fight against the global spread of AMR , and not as trade 
barriers. The European Union reiterated its interest in the work carried out by WHO and OIE as well 
as the work of the UN Interagency Coordination Group (IACG) and the ad hoc Codex TFAMR. 
3.2.4   Guatemala's restrictions on egg products – Concerns of Mexico (No. 413)  
3.48.   Mexico reiterated its concern over Guatemala's restrictions on egg products, highlighting that 
the measure in question violated fundamental principles of technical and sci entific justification based 
on international standards. Mexico explained that these principles wer e enshrined in the SPS and 
TBT A greements, as well as in the free trade agreement between Mexico and Central America. 
The continuous discussions held with Gua temala had not succeeded in resolving  this matter, despite 
Mexico's self -declaration as an HPAI -free area. Mexico expressed concerns regarding undue delays 
in communications by Guatemala given discussions had been ongoing since 2010. Mexico further 
recalle d that its egg products exports were significantly affected by the restrictions, and requested 
that Guatemala withdraw its measures, which had no scientific justification and were not based on 
any relevant international standard.  
3.49.   Guatemala replied that in October 2016, it had informed Mexico that it was reviewing the 
information provided. This issue had been further discussed in 2016 and 2017, and in June 2018, 
Guatemala had informed Mexico on the prohibition of imports of poultry products in response to an  
outbreak of H7N3 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in two Mexican states. Guatemala noted 
that its measures were in line with the OIE standards, and was awaiting additional information from 
Mexico. Guatemala remained committed to continue bilateral  discussions on this matter.  
3.2.5   China's proposed amendments to the implementation regulations on safety 
assessment of agricultural GMOS – Concerns of the United States (No. 395)  
3.50.   The United States reiterated its concern over undue delays and the lack of predic tability, 
transparency, and scientific basis for products approvals by China, highlighting the long -standing, 
robust and mutually beneficial trade of biotechnology products between their countries. The United  
States  indicated that in March and July 2018 te n products remained poised for final adoption, most 
of which had been under review for five or more years. The United States asked China to provide 
precise and complete information to applicants on the processing periods, information requirements, G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 19 - 
 
  as well as to explain any delays in the process. The United States noted that no meeting of China's 
National Biosafety Committee (NBC) had been held thus far in 2018, whereas its domestic legislation 
on biotech approvals required that the NBC met at least twice a year. Finally, the United States 
urged China to take into account its SPS commitments in any revi sion of its biotech regulation.  
3.51.   China explained that the measure had been amended in 2016 on the basis of scientific 
assessment principles, and the approval procedures were open and transparent. China had notified 
to the WTO and trading partners a proposed amendment, taking into account other countries' 
practices and Members' comments. Finally, China remained open for further bilateral discussions 
with the Uni ted States on this matter.  
3.2.6   EU Commission Decision 2002/994/EC on animal p roducts – Concerns of China 
(No. 442)  
3.52.   China reiterated its concern over EU Commission Decision 2002/994/EC, highlighting that 
each consignment of poultry meat, casings, aquaculture fi shery products and crayfish from China 
had to be tested for chloramphenicol, nitrofuran, malachite green, crystal violet and their metabolites 
before being exported to the EU market. China explained that in accordance with the "farm to table" 
concept it im plemented strict inspection and quarantine procedures for animal products exported to 
the European Union. Moreover, the European Union had recognized China's food safety and residue 
regulatory systems, conducting several on -site reviews over the past years . On this basis, China 
urged the European Union to consider removing additional testing requirements on the above -
mentioned substances, to reduce unnecessary costs and facilitate trade.  
3.53.   The European Union recalled that the measures contained in Decision 20 02/994/EC had been 
introduced due to the detection of forbidden substances in products of animal origin. The European 
Union noted that exports were still allowed, with additional require ments for safety reasons. 
Since  2002, the measure had been repeatedly reviewed on the basis of information and guarantees 
provided by China, demonstrating progress made in residue controls. Finally, the European Union 
announced  that the issue would be further discussed during the visit of the EU Agriculture 
Commissioner to C hina in November.  
3.2.7   New EU definition of the f ungicide folpet – Concerns of China (No.  447)  
3.54.   China again raised its concern with the new definition and MRL for folpet contained in 
Regulation (EU) No. 156/2016. The new regulation defined residue s of folpet as the sum of folpet 
and phthalimide, whereas China stated that phthalimide was not only  a metabolite of folpet as it 
could also metabolize from phosmet or bentazone insecticides, which meant that the presence of 
phthalimide might be irrelevant to folpet. Fur ther, China argued that the regulation's residue 
definition for folpet did not comply with the Codex definition. China recalled that EFSA had published 
on its website an evaluation report on a folpet public consultation, recommending a revision  of the 
residue definition for monitoring purposes. China encouraged the European Union to issue relevant 
regulations to review the definition as early as possible, in line with the Codex definition.  
3.55.   The European Union recalled its previous intervention, highlighting that the residue definition 
of the fungicide folpet would be considered during the on -ongoing renewal procedure of the approval 
of this active substance. The European Union explained that a significant part of this process was 
the EFSA peer review exercise , to be finalized early next year. Finally, the European Union expressed 
its commitment to keep China updated on further developments on this issue.  
3.2.8   The Russian Federation's import restrictions on processed fishery products from 
Estonia – Concerns of the E uropean Union (No. 390)  
3.56.   The European Union reiterated its concerns regarding import restrictions on fisheries products  
from Estonia, highlighting that these measures were inconsistent wit h several provisions of the 
SPS Agreement as well as with the Russian  Federation's WTO accession commitments. Estonia had 
held several bilateral discussions with the Russian Federation, without much progress. The European 
Union welcomed the re -authorization for exports of one establishment, but regretted the continuous 
ban on every other establishment. The European Union wel comed the Russian Federation's 
acceptance earlier in the year to conduct another round of audits on Estonian establishments in 
2018, but regretted that despite Estonian's efforts, no dates had been confir med yet. The European G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 20 - 
 
  Union urged the Russian Federation to repeal the measure, which was inconsistent with several 
provisions of the SPS Agreement.  
3.57.   The Russian Federation provided information  on progress made, highlighting that 500 tonnes 
of fishery produ cts had been exported from one establishment in Estonia and another in Latvia in 
2018. The Russian Federation further noted that it would discuss with Estonia conditions and dates 
of future inspection visits. Finally, the Russian Federation expressed its w illingness to resolve this 
issue.  
3.2.9   The Russian Federation's import restrictions on certain animal products from 
Germany – Concerns of the European Union (No. 411)  
3.58.   The European Union reiterated its concern over the Russian Federation's import restrictions 
on certain animal products from Germany imposed since 2013, highlighting that these measures 
were inconsistent with several provisions of the SPS Agreement. The Eur opean Union reported that 
six establishments had been re -authorized to export to the Russian Federation and hoped that the 
remaining plants would regain access to the Russian market soon. The European Union noted that 
interested establishments had already submitted relevant laboratory and inspection information to 
the Russian Federation. The European Union also clarified that several establishments, which had 
submitted relevant information, had renounced to export to the Russian Federation. Finally, the 
European Union urged the Russian Federation to repeal its measures without further delay.  
3.59.   The Russian Federation confirmed that six German dairy plants had regained access to the 
Russian market, and would be able to export as soon as mutual economic sanctions  would be lifted. 
The Russian Federation continued to review the list of eligible establishments, based on the 
information provided by the German competent authorities. The Russian Federation expressed its 
willingness to continue its cooperation with  Germa ny to resolve this issue.  
3.2.10   Brazil's measures on shrimp – Concerns of Ecuador (No.  344)  
3.60.   Ecuador reiterated its concern over Brazil's Regulation 39, highlighting that since its adoption 
in 1999 Brazil had suspended impor ts of all species of crustaceans  includ ing fresh, frozen and cooked 
products from Ecuador. Ecuador recalled that SPS requirements for shrimps had been established in 
February 2017 and that in May 2017 Brazil had informed Ecuador of its equivalency for the inspection 
system for shellfish, and th at enabled plants were authorized to export. However, a group of Brazilian 
producers  had presented a court action which led to the suspension of the authorization to import 
shrimps from Ecuador. Ecuador further noted that the measure had been  adopted for p recautionary 
reasons, without taking into account sanitary requirements. Moreover, Ecuador contended that 
Brazil's measures were not in conformity with various provisions o f the SPS Agreement and Article  XI 
of the GATT. Finally, Ecuador regretted that desp ite various meetings with Brazil at the highest level , 
no official ruling had been made regarding the precautionary measure issued by the S upreme Federal 
Court of Brazil.  
3.61.   Brazil recalled its previous interventions, explaining that the approval process for shrimp 
imports considered all information received from Ecuador, including scientific evidence. Brazil 
explained that the animal health requirements for the importation of shrimps had been established 
in February 2017 under the regulation "Animal Health Re quirements of Brazil for the importation of 
non-viable crustaceans and derivatives derived from extractive fisheries or aquaculture" (Circular 
Memorandum 6/2017/DSA.SDA/SDA/MAPA). In May 2017, the Brazilian market was opened for 
imports of shrimps from Ecu ador, as reflected in letter No. 926/2017 informing Ecuador's sanitary 
authorities of the recognition of equivalence of their fisheries inspection system. Brazil explained  
that the recent suspension of exports by the Brazilian Supreme Court had only a prev entive nature, 
highlighting that it had already established animal and health shrimp import requirements from 
Ecuador and had also recognized the equivalence of its fisheries inspection system. Brazilian Federal 
Executive authorities were providing all leg al and technical information to guarantee fully  informed 
judicial evaluations.  G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 21 - 
 
  3.2.11   China's import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza – Concerns of 
the United States (No. 406)  
3.62.   The United Stated reiterated its concern on China's HPAI -related r estrictions on US poultry 
products and requested China to follow OIE standards, particularly on regionalization. The United 
Sates regretted that despite being HPAI -free according to OIE guidelines, China still maintained 
restrictions. China had conducted a n audit of the US avian influenza control system in July 2017, 
and had not requested further information to lift restrictions afterwards. The United States urged  
China to remove all HPAI -related import restrictions and indicated its commitment to continue 
maintaining its rigorous and effective surveillance for HPAI in compliance wit h OIE transparency 
obligations.  
3.63.   China expressed its preference for using  compartmentalization rather than regionalization for 
poultry. China indicated that it would conduct consu ltations on the avian influenza epidemic 
management model based on the principles of reciprocity and s ynchronization to resolve this issue. 
Finally, China expressed its commitment to continue discussions on regionalization and 
compartmentalization with the  United States to resolve thes e concerns as soon as possible.  
3.64.   The United States clarified that it had not received a formal compartmentalization proposal 
from China. Further, the United States noted that each country should be evaluated for recognition 
of regionalization or compartmentalization separately, following the procedure established by the 
importing country. The United States added that since both countries were in different stages of the 
process, it requested China to finalize the regionalization protocol that was provided following the 
July 2017 visit, and to remove all HPAI -related restrictions on imports from the United States, in line 
with its HPAI -free status, according to OIE standards.  
3.2.12   General import restrictions due to BSE – Concerns of the  European Union (No.  193)  
3.65.   The European Union reiterated its concern, noting unjustified undue delays in several 
Members regarding import approval procedures for safe com modities as defined by OIE. 
The European Union noted that longer approval procedures due to insufficient resources would 
constitute significant trade barriers in violation of Article 8 of the SPS Agreement. The European 
Union welcomed positive developments in China, Japan, and Chinese Taipei reg arding certain 
EU member States  applications,  and hoped that they would proc eed swiftly with all pending 
EU applications. The European Union urged Korea to finalize pending EU member States applications 
without any further delays. Finally, the European Union urged all Members to align their BSE 
requirements with OIE standards and to lift restrictions , particularly to allow trade in  safe 
commodities (e.g. beef) regardless of the BSE country status.  
3.2.13   South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian 
influenza – Concerns of the European Union (No. 431)  
3.66.   The European Union regretted to report that South Africa still did not apply regionalization, 
and maintained country -wide bans on imports of poultry products from several EU members States 
due to HPAI. The European Union stressed t hat these restricted and unjustified measures had been 
maintained by South Africa despite the fact that  EU member  States affected by the bans had been 
recognized as free from HPAI for months; that OIE standards stated that HPAI -related trade 
restrictive me asures could be lifted three months after the whole country, or part of it, regained 
freedom of HPAI, following the application of a stamping -out policy; and that OIE requirements had 
been strictly applied by the European Union. The European Union consider ed these measures to be 
in contradiction to Article 6 of the SPS Agreement, which required recognition of the concept of 
disease free area s. The European Union reported that South Africa had audited three EU member 
States and was aware that the HPAI outbre ak in the European Union had resulted from  the 
movement of migratory birds, and not the result of international  trade in poultry products. 
The European Union further had explained its control measures and regionalization system in 
bilateral discussion s with South Africa. The European Union expressed its willingness to further 
discuss any necessary guarantee to minimize the disruption o f trade in future outbreaks, in line with 
OIE C ode. Finally, the European Union urged South Africa to respect its obligation s and allow trade 
in all poultry products from the disease -free z ones without any further delay.  G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 22 - 
 
  3.67.   South Africa repeated its concerns on the effectiveness of HPAI -related controls and 
preventive measures in the European Union. Preliminary inspections had bee n conducted in Hungary, 
Poland and Spain and reports would be sent. South Africa also reported that it had engaged in 
bilateral discussions with the European Commission in Johannesburg on 9 -10 October 2018. South 
Africa highlighted that it had never doubte d the EU legis lation on the control of HPAI. However, the 
inspections had shown differences in the implementation of the legislation by EU members States. 
Furthermore, South Africa noted that in some part s the EU legislation was not equivalent to  OIE 
guide lines. Finally, South Africa informed the Committee that it was considering differen t option s to 
facilitate the  evaluation of HPAI control implemented in the European Union, once freedom was 
declared.  
3.2.14   New Zealand's draft import health standard for vehicles , machinery and 
equipment - Concerns of Japan (No. 440) 
3.68.   Japan reiterated its concern on New Zealand's SPS measures for vehicles, machinery and 
equipment from Japan notified on 30 May 2018. Japan recalled that a specific trade concern had 
been raised at the  July 2018 Committee  meeting,  stressing t hat measures implemented by 
New Zealand should be based on sufficient scientific evidence, should not arbitrarily discriminate 
among Members , and should ensure sufficient time for comments. Despite the concern  raised in July 
2018, the new measures had entered into force on 1 September 2018. Japan highlighted that the 
measures put in  place by New Zealand lacked scientific justification . Furthermore, the time-period 
between the notification and the entry into for ce of the measure had been insufficient . Japan 
encouraged New  Zealand to base its measures on scientific principles,  in accorda nce with Article 2.2 
of the SPS  Agreement , and reported that the scientific evidence provided by New Zealand had not 
included cla rification on: (i) detection data of Halyomorpha halys  (brown marmorated stink bug) 
from cons ignments, especially machinery  exported to New Zealand from Japan; (ii) analysis of 
likelihood based on effective accumulated temperature on the introduction and e stablishment of 
Halyomorpha halys  in New Zealand; and (iii) the rationale to establish  on 1 September 2018 as 
entry into force of the regulation. Japan urged New Zealand to clarify these points and review the 
existing pest risk analysis. Japan also reminde d New Zealand that SPS measures should not 
arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate among Members where identical or similar conditions 
prevailed. Finally, Japan highlighted that New Zealand had requested heat or fumigation treatment 
of used vehicles and used machinery for a certain period of time. However, Japan noted that this 
requirement had not been mandatory for other countries.  
3.69.   New Zealand considered the brown marmorated stink bug (BMSB) a very serious pest with 
potentially significant implications o n agriculture, aquaculture, and New Zealand's environment. 
New Zealand underlined that BMSB had been intercepted in vehicles and machinery arriving from 
Japan,  and noted that there were very limited options to manage BMSB. New Zealand was of the 
view that the measures put in place were consistent with SPS principles and New  Zealand's 
appropriate level of protection. In addition, New Zealand express ed its appreciation for the 
collaborative work with Japan and hoped to continue to work tog ether in resolving t his matter.  
3.2.15   India's fumigation requirements for grain and other products - Concerns of 
Ukraine (No. 427)  
3.70.   Ukraine reiterated its concern about  India's fumigation requirements with methyl b romide on 
certain plant products , but expressed appreciation to India for providing temporary extensions to 
allow trade while alternative fumigation measures were under consideration. However, Ukraine 
looked forward to achieving a permanent resolution. Ukraine drew Members ' attention on the I PPC 
"Recommendations on replacement or reduction of the use of Methyl Bromide as phytosanitary 
measure". Ukraine explained  that phosphine  was recommended as a replacement for grains, oil 
seeds, dried food stuff beverages including coffee, cocoa, herbs, tre e nuts, fiber crops including 
cotton and others. In addition, Ukraine recalled that methyl b romide had not been listed under the 
State Register of Pesticides and Agrochemicals permitted for the used as fumigants for grains in 
Ukraine and could not  be used for the export of grain shipment. Ukraine argued that according to 
Article 4 of the SPS Agreement exporting Members should recognize pest risk management 
measures that were alternative s to those initially required by importing Members . Ukraine added 
that i n December 2016  it had  submitted to India's National Plant Protection Organization the 
scientific information on the efficiency of application of alternative fumigants, including phosphine , 
and had provided further relevant scientific information during bi lateral discussions held in July 2017 
and 2018. Furthermore, Ukraine reported that India exempted some countries from the general G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 23 - 
 
  fumigation requirements and also allowed the use of phosphine instead of methyl bromide. 
Ukraine  requested India clarify  these  provisions and emphasised that these alleged practices wer e 
contrary to WTO rules, including the MFN principle. Finally, Ukraine encouraged India to implement 
less trade restrictive and more predictable SPS measure s, pointing out that the 2017 IPPC 
recomm endations on plant health and environmental protection would represent a reasonable 
alternative to Indi a's current requirement to use m ethyl bromide.  
3.71.   India recalled that until 31 December 2018, agricultural imports from other countries, whose 
products had not been fumigated with methyl bromide at the port of export, could be fumigated 
upon arrival in India,  and indicated that more information could be found on the website 
http://agricoop.nic.in/. India also added that the Montreal Protocol allowed for the u se of methyl 
bromide for quarantine purposes. India explained that the Indian authority had received from 
Ukraine the request for consideration of alternative methods of fumigation, and reported that in its 
response  to Ukraine, India had requested clarific ations and data to be able to conduct further 
examinations on this matter. Finally, India expressed its commitment to keep working at the 
technical level to resolve this  concern as well as to maintain an appropriate level of protection in 
accordance with t he principles of the SPS Agreement.  
3.2.16   Thailand's import restriction on papaya seeds - Concerns of Chinese Taipei 
(No. 421)  
3.72.   Chinese Taipei reiterated its concern regarding Thailand's import restriction on papaya seeds 
imposed since 2008. Chinese Taipei expres sed appreciation to Thailand for the proposal to submit 
the import protocol to the Committee on Plant Quarantine for approval.  However, Chinese Taipei 
regretted that the final report had  not been published and requested Thailand to adopt the final 
import protocol and ensure  market  access for its papaya seeds in Thailand.  
3.73.   Thailand welcomed the opportunity to provide clarifications on the concern raised by Chinese 
Taipei and stressed that t he issue remained unsolved because Chinese Taipei failed to submit the 
request for export of papaya seeds under the transitory provision of the regulatory amendment. 
Thailand explained that during this transitory time all its trading partners, including Ch inese Taipei, 
were informed to submit the request to apply the import exemption under the transitory provision. 
Thailand expressed its commitment to solve Chinese Taipei's concern.  
3.2.17   US import restrictions on apples and pears  - Concerns of the European Union  
(No. 439)  
3.74.   The European Union reiterated its concern regarding the US import restrictions on apples and 
pears under the system s approach and regretted that the United States had n ot provide d a solution 
to this matter. The European Union recalled that since  2007 the European Union had been  able to 
export apples and pears to the United States under the pre -clearance system. The European Union 
further explained that in practice , the US pre -clearance system hindered EU exports, 
as demonstrated by the limited vo lumes exported from the European Union to the United States. 
The quantity had even further decreased in recent years. As an alternative, in 2008 the European 
Union had applied to export apples and pears to the United States under a systems approach, to 
replace the pre -clearance system. The European Union noted that  preparatory work had been 
finalized in a satisfactory manner , addressing phytosanitary concerns. However, the last 
administrative step towards the adoption of the final rule by the US Administrat ion had been pending 
for over one year without scientific justification, which was inconsistent with the SPS Agreement, 
particularly in relation to avoiding undue delays in approval procedures. The European Union 
underscored that there were no phytosanitar y justifications for postponing  the publication of the 
final rule. Furthermore, the European Union noted that the United States had not provide d details 
on the timing for the publication of this rule. The European Union requested the United States to 
respe ct its obligations and to allow trade in apples and pears to start immediately under the agreed 
systems approach conditions and to immediately publish the final rule. Th e European Union 
reiterated its  willingness to continue to work with the United States to find a solution on this matter.  
3.75.   The United States highlighted the considerable progress made on several requests by 
the European Union to establish and expand access for EU apple and pear exports to the US market. 
The United States explained that the US DA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) had 
published a proposed rule in 2016 to authorize imports of apples and pears from eight EU member G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 24 - 
 
  States (Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Netherlands, Portugal, Belgium and Poland) under a systems 
approach that minimized pest risk; and that in 2017, it had conducted a site visit to several of the 
EU members States included in the proposed rule. The United States had worked with the European 
Commission and interested member States to finalize the work pl an to implement the regulatory 
changes in the proposed rule, and hoped that USDA APHIS would publish the final rule soon. 
The United States also reported that since 2013 , export s of pears and apples from the United States 
to the European Union had continue d to increase. Finally, the United States highlighted its 
commitment to transparency.  
3.2.18   Lack of transparency and undue delays in Indonesia's approval procedures for 
animal products – Concerns of the European Union (No.  441)  
3.76.   The European Union raised a concer n over the lack of transparency and undue delays in 
Indonesia's approval procedures for animal products, reporting that, for many years, European 
member States had not received feedback from Indonesia on their export applications, some of them 
filed in 201 3. The European Union explained that in July 2018, Indonesia had provided information 
on questionnaires , but had not explain ed how to make progress on approval procedures for imports.  
According to the European Union, as Indonesian import a pproval procedures and standard  
processing periods were unknown, they were inconsistent with Article 8 and Annex C. Recalling 
previous interventions, the European Union stressed that WTO Members should ensure that approval 
procedures were undertaken without undue delays and in no less favourable manner for imported 
than for domestic products. Further, the European Union added that WTO Members should promptly 
examine the completeness of applications and provide the necessary feedback in case of any decision 
on the a pplication and, upon request, provide information on the s tandard processing periods. 
The European Union expressed appreciation for preliminary meetings with Indonesia and Indonesia's 
commitment to provide feedback on EU member states ' applications for dai ry products. However, 
the European Union regretted that it had so far been unable to make progress.  The European Union 
urged Indonesia to respect its obligation s, be transparent about its approval procedure , and finalize 
the pending market applications fro m EU members states without further undue delays. Finally, 
the European Union looked forward to a more effective and r egular dialogue with Indonesia.  
3.77.   Brazil and the Philippines shared the concern raised by the European Union and expressed 
their appreciatio n for bilateral discussions with Indonesia. The Philippines stressed difficulties related 
to the  transparency and predictability of certain requirements , which affected the export not only of 
animal products but generally of all agriculture products export ed to Indonesia.  
3.78.   Indonesia explained that the re quirements for importing animal -based food products ha d been 
applied based on  risk analysis and the applicable law. In relation to  the legal basis, Indonesia listed 
several regulations for the implementation of the import policy, Law No.  18 of 2009 as amended by 
Law No.  41 of 2014 concerning animal husbandry and animal he alth; Government Regulation No.  95 
of 2012 concerning Veterinary Public Health and Animal Welfare; Minister of Agriculture Regulation 
No. 34 of 2016 as amended by Minister of Agriculture Regulation No.  34 of 2016, as  amended by 
Minister of Agriculture Regulation No.  23 of 2018, concerni ng imports of c arcass es, meat, and offal; 
and Minister of Agriculture Regulation No.  17 of 2016, concerning th e import of boneless meat 
originating from countries or zones in the country of origin. Indonesia clarified that these regulations 
were enacted to specify the requirements for import s of animal s into Indonesia. Complimentary to 
the requirements set in thes e regulations, various procedures and  permit approval s were foreseen.  
Indonesia reiterated that its procedures and permits were applied to all Members  in a non -
discriminatory way and in accordance with MF N treatment. In addition, Indonesia reported that th e 
implementation of  its import policy which include d a detailed technical process  was in line with 
Article 5.2 of the SPS Agreement.  
3.79.   Regarding the alleged lack of transparency, lack of responses from Indonesian authorities, 
and delays in approval procedures for imports, Indonesia drew Members ' attention to the online 
system that could help  monitor the process of filling an import approval for animal products. 
Indonesia also reported on a forum organized with several representatives from WTO Members  and 
business association s in Jakarta to collect useful inputs to develop the online system. Furthermore, 
the forum was an occasion to inform relevant stakeholders about  the implementation of changes in 
procedures. Finally, Indonesia expressed its willingn ess to continue to work with the European Union 
to find a solution to this issue.  G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 25 - 
 
  3.3  Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
3.80.   The Chairperson drew Members' attention to the Annual Report on the Use of the Procedure 
to Encourage and Facilita te the Resolution of Specific SPS Issues (G/SPS/61 ). As required by the 
procedure, the Secretariat had prepared an annual report on the use of this procedure, contained in 
G/SPS/GEN/1642. The Chairperson noted  that the report was ver y short since the proce dure had  
never been used.  
3.81.   The Secretariat also informed Members of a new IT project in relation to online submission of 
STCs for inclusion in the Airgram. The project , supported by the IT Solution Division , would be  jointly 
carried out for both the TBT and  SPS Committees  and would  build on the success of  the online 
notification system and  the SPS and TBT Information and Management System (IMS). The project 
aimed to develop  an online platform supporting Members in managing STCs ahead of SPS and TBT 
Committee  meeting s. The platform would be protected by personal password s and would allow 
Members to submit  and/or support  STCs before the circulation of the SPS Airgram. The  Secretariat 
highlighted that the system would improve transparency on STCs, and could enhance the efficiency 
of STCs discussion s as well as enhancing  the availability and coverage of information on STCs in the 
SPS IMS . The system was expected to be operative by the end of 2019. The Secretariat further 
explained that as a second stage, the proje ct could allow Members to submit information on other 
agenda items online in addition to  STCs. More detailed information on the system, in particular on 
the development of a pilot project, would be available at the March 2019 Committee m eeting. 
The pilot project would enable a  group of Members to test the platform.  
3.82.   Several Members expressed their appreciation for and interest  in the project . Brazil looked 
forward to the impl ementation of the pilot project . Colombia thanked the Secretariat for its 
presentation and expressed its interest to be  included in the pilot project.  
3.83.   The European Union requested more information on the impact that the online submission 
would have on raising STCs within the SPS Committee , and in particular whether  the system would  
apply also to Members supporting a specific STC . The European Union queried whether this might 
be used to streamline meetings of the SPS Committee in the sense that not all Members supporting 
a given STC might need to take the floor.  
3.84.   Paraguay emphasised t hat every Member of the SPS Committee should continue to have  the 
right to express its opinion regarding SPS measures  in the SPS Committee . 
3.85.   Costa Rica expressed its interest in the pilot project. Furthermore, Costa Rica requested 
clarification on how the o nline platform would be integrated in other online tools such as ePing. 
Costa  Rica also queried  if the system would be similar to  the Agriculture Information Management 
System (Ag -IMS), or whether it would  follow a different scheme of implementation.  
3.86.   The S ecretariat explained that the system would not change the way M embers prepared 
SPS Committee meetings but aimed at helping Members to have more information ahead of time . 
Moreover, the Secretariat emphasised that the platform would improve transparency and  efficiency 
in the f ormulation of the Airgram, and c ould be a supportive tool to tailor Members' intervention s 
during Committee meetings. The Secretariat highlighted that the project was jointly developed with 
TBT colleagues and being developed in part due  to the large number of STCs discussed in every 
meeting of the TBT Committee . The Secretariat indicated that the online platform would be 
integrated in the SPS IMS and explained that  ePing was an alert system for SPS and TBT 
notifications, but did not cont ain information on STCs. Regarding the Ag -IMS, the Secretariat 
reported that the platform would follow a similar  system, and clarified that the title and a brief 
description of the STC would be submitted ahead of time . However, statements of Members would 
not be included  in advance . 
4  OPERATION AND IMPLEM ENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  
4.1  Equivalence  
4.1.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 26 - 
 
  4.2  Pest-and disease -free areas  (Regionalization)  
4.2.1   Information from Members  
4.2.1.1   Mexico – Self-declaration as a country historically free from Afri can swine fever  
4.2.  Mexico informed the Committee about  its self-declaration as a country historically free from 
African swine fever (G/SPS/GEN/1641 ). Mexico explained that the self-declaration contained 
information on Africa n swine fever in Mexico; early detection systems; species susceptible to African 
swine fever in Mexico; and measures for maintaining ASF -free status. Mexico also reported that this 
communication had been submitted to the SPS Committee for purposes of trans parency and in order 
to provide Members with further information on the current regulatory process in Mexico. Finally, 
Mexico informed  Members that the document was available for consultation on the website of the 
World Organization for Animal Health.  
4.2.1.2   Mexi co – Declaration  as a n area free  from Mediterranean fruit fly ( Ceratitis 
Capitata (Wiedemann)  
4.3.  Mexico informed the Committee about its  declaration as a n area free of Mediterranean fruit fly  
(G/SPS/GEN/1644 ). Phytosanitary measures wou ld be applied according  to the n ational emergency 
and p revention system a gainst exotic fruit fly (NOM -075-FITO-1997).  Mexico further noted that the 
decisions declaring the free areas had entered into force on 7 September 2018, one day after their 
publication in the Official Journal, and were available for consultation on the website of the Federal 
Official Gazette.  
4.2.1.3   Costa Rica – Official OIE recognition  of Costa Rica as a country free from classical 
swine fever  
4.4.  Costa Rica informed the Committee of the official OIE recognition as a country free from 
classical swine fever  (G/SPS/GEN/1638) . For over 21 years,  Costa Rica's  National  Animal Health 
Service (SEN ASA) had implemented  a series of measures for the surveillance, control, prevention 
and eradication of the disease. Costa Rica further explained that during the 86th General Session of 
the OIE, held in May 2018, the Assembly had adopted Resolution No. 29, "Recognition of the Classical 
Swine Fever Status of Members", including Costa Rica in  the list of members recognized as being 
free of classical swine fever, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1 5.2 of the Terrestrial 
Code. In  the interests of tran sparency and in accordance with Articl e 6 of the SPS Agreement, 
Costa  Rica encouraged Members to take note of this recognition, which reflected intensive efforts by 
both the public and private sectors to promote animal and public health both in Costa Rica and at 
the global level.  
4.2.1.4   Canada – Experiences and approaches to regionalizat ion relating to animal 
diseases  
4.5.  Canada recognised the importance of the SPS Agreement's obligations on ad aptation to 
regional conditions, both for facilitat ing international trade and safeguarding animal and plant health. 
In document G/SPS/GEN/1650, Canada shared information about  resources regarding recent 
experiences and approaches to regionalization. Canada further explained that information submitted 
on Canada's approach to zoni ng as an effective tool for animal disease control and to facilitate trade 
along with informati on on specific disease incidence,  and Canada's risk management activities in 
response to avian i nfluenza in British Columbia in 2014 and in Ontario in 2015, were  available on 
the Canadian Food In spection Agency website. Canada encouraged other Members to share 
information on their experiences wi th pest and disease -free areas.  
4.6.  The United States expressed its appreciation for the information provided in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1650. The United States reminded  the Committee that in the context of Fifth Review 
Members' had emphasized the importance of  sharing experience s on regionalization. The United 
States underscored that this agenda item represented an important opportu nity where Members 
could share their experiences and information about procedures and processes related to various 
aspects of regionalization. Finally, the United States thanked Canada for its efforts to link 
regionalization to the Fifth Review.  G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 27 - 
 
  4.7.  Brazil and  the European Union echoed the US comments  and thanked Canada for sharing its 
experience. The European Union reminded  Members that in 2012  it had  submitted information on 
the EU regionalization system in document G/SPS/GEN/1159. The European Union also enc ouraged 
Members to provide information under thi s agenda item.  
4.8.  The Chairperson reminded the Committee that providing information on their pest or disease 
situation in the SPS Committee did not substitute for legal obligations to submit certain information  
to the IPPC or the OIE.  
4.3  Operation of transparency provisions  
4.9.  The Secretariat drew Members ' attention to its annual report on transparency 
(G/SPS/GEN/804/Rev.11). A corrigendum had been  circulated mainly to correct some figures in 
Table 5 related to comment period s provided in regular notifications. In preparing this document, 
the Secretariat had largely relied on the SPS Information M anagement System (SPS IMS). 
The analysis contained in  the report covered  the period from 16 September 2017 to 15 September 
2018.  
4.10.   Since 1995, a total of 23,525 notifications had been  submi tted to the WTO, of which 
1,636  were notified during the period under review. The report included charts with the total nu mber 
of notifications per year, the share of notification s submitted  by developing country members and 
by geographical region s. As compared to the same period in the previous year, an increase in the 
number of notifications and share of notifications by de veloping countries could  be observed.  
Tables  1 and 2 list ed the Members which had submitted the greatest number of notifications since 
1995 and during the last year. The report also provided an overview of the products most often 
covered by notifications, share of notifications that identified specific countries or regions affected 
by the notifications, as well as the most frequently cited objectives. The report contained statistics 
on the share of notifications which identified relevant international stand ards, and on conformity 
with those international standards. The report also included statistics on dates of adoption, 
publication and entry into force, and on final date s for comments. The 60 -day period comment 
checkbox option had been  selected in 56% of r egular notifications. The report also highlighted the 
reasons for addenda to notifications. Section 4 some presented statistics regarding the most 
frequently assigned keywords.  
4.11.   In section 5, Members were reminded that the SPS Notification Submission System  (SPS NSS) 
allowed National Notification Authorities to fill out and submit SPS notifications online , which 
improved accuracy and  allowed the notifications to be circulated faster . The Secretariat stressed that  
80 Members had requested access to the system , and 42 of these had submitted notifications via 
the SPS NSS. More than 50% of notifications were submitted via the SPS NSS.  Paragraph 5.5 made 
reference to the practical manual on the operation of Enquiry Points an d Notification Authorities. 
The revised 2018 edition of the manual, now named Practical Manual for SPS NNAs and SPS NEPs, 
was made available in English on the SPS gateway of the WTO website on 11 October  2018. 
Hard copies could  be requested from the Secretariat. The Secretariat took the opportun ity to thank 
Ms Sally Jennings from New Zealand, the original author of the manual, for her inputs as well as all 
those received from other Members , contributing to the successf ul finalization of this manual.  
4.12.   The Secretariat highlighted that paragraph 5.6 of the report  made a reference to ePing. 
The Secretariat recalled that ePing was a publicly available notification alert system and covered 
both SPS and TBT notifications. Subscribers were able to receive email alerts regarding SPS and TBT 
notifications co vering particular products and/or markets of interest to them. In addition, users could 
search and share notifications, upload additional information and related documents, as well as 
participate in disc ussion forums. ePing also offered an Enquiry Point m anagement tool to facilitate 
domestic as well as international information sharing and discuss ion. 
4.13.   Finally, the Secretariat reminded all Members to inform the Secretariat on any change in the 
contact information of NNAs or NEPs to ensure that update infor mation was available on the SPS  IMS. 
4.4  Special and Differential Treatment  
4.14.   No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 28 - 
 
  4.5  Monitoring of the use of International Standards  
4.5.1   New issues  
4.5.1.1   United States – Non-science factors in Codex standards  
4.15.   The United States drew Members' attention to document G/SPS/GEN/1656, stating that at 
the July 2018 SPS Committee meeting, the Codex secretariat had reported on the decision of the 
chairperson of the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods  (CCRVDF) not to 
move t he MRL for the veterinary drug Zilpaterol to Step 5, despite consensus on the science and the 
safety of this veterinary drug. The United Stated explained that the CCRVDF chairperson cited a lack 
of consensus on moving the MRL due to factors outside the mandate of Codex. The Unite d States 
noted the Codex representative  had indicated that the real concern among some Codex members 
was related to  the status of Codex standards under the  SPS Agreement. Furthermore, the United 
States noted t hat the Codex secretariat had reported that the Legal Offices of WHO and FAO , the 
chairperson and vice chairpersons  of Codex, and the Codex secretariat were preparing a report on 
issues related to the periodic blocking of Codex standards to be discussed at  next year's Codex 
Executive Committee (CCEXEC) and next year's Codex A limentarius Commission meeting.  
4.16.   Regarding the planned report to CCEXEC, the United States emphasised its support for the 
unique dual mandate of Codex to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the 
food trade. The United States added that the procedural and scientific foundation of Codex helped 
to ensure that the international standards developed in Codex were science -based, globally relevant, 
fit for purpose and refl ected current best practices around the world. However, the United States 
stressed that the credibility and reliability of Codex was based on  operating within its mandate, and 
taking decisions on the basis of considerations within its mandate. Clearly, opi ning on the WTO 
covered agreements, including on the implications of Codex MRLs or other food safety standards, 
guidelines, or recommendations under those agreements, would b e outside the mandate of Codex.  
4.17.   The United States affirmed that in its view neither Codex nor the other drafting entities had 
the authority or the expertise to carry out  a legal analysis of WTO implications . The Codex 
Alimentarius Commission must be grounded in the Codex Procedural Manua l, not driven by WTO 
implications. The United States indicated that it would welcome a discussion in Codex about how to 
prevent WTO implications from influencing Codex decisions, but also highlighted that the appropriate 
forum for any exploration of the WTO implications of Codex decisions, including their implications 
under the WTO SPS Agreement, was the WTO.  Regarding the intrusion of WTO considerations in the 
Codex MRL establishment process, the United States stated that scientific support was crucial i n the 
context of Codex decision -making on MRLs. In this regard, the United States recalled the key 
principles of Article 2.2 and Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement.  The United States also pointed out 
that harmonization based on international standards, guide lines, and recommendations would be a 
significant tool for achieving these objectives, particularly for Members that lacked resources to 
perform their own risk asses sments.  
4.18.   The United States further stated that Codex establishment of MRLs on the basis of 
considerations outside its mandate  was contrary with a ssumptions underpinning the SPS Agreement 
and potentially undermined the value of those MRLs. The United States was particularly concerned 
about Codex allowing WTO implications of MRLs to drive its decis ion-making about whether, or at 
what levels, to set MRLs. The United Stated affirmed that the reliability of Codex decisions grounded 
on criteria outlined in the Codex Procedural Manual, and could not being driven by countries seeking 
to influence WTO outc omes to favour their country or region. The United States explained that 
Members would lose confidence in Codex standards if they had the perception that those standards 
were designed to achieve particular WTO outcomes, instead of being promulgated without  regard to 
WTO implications. Loss of confidence in Codex would be damaging to countries at various 
development levels that may lack resources to set up and maintain complex food safety risk 
assessment programmes. In conclusion, t he United States encouraged  WTO Members to clarify in 
the context of Codex discussions and meetings that Codex should not be opining on WTO legal 
matters, and should remain laser -focused on establishing food safety standards, guidelines, and 
recommendations based on considerations w ithin Codex's mandate.  
4.19.   The Russian Federation emphasised the  importance of the scientific basis of Codex . Codex 
standards were recogniz ed by the WTO  and had two primary aims, namely to protect consumers' G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 29 - 
 
  health and to ensure fair practices in food trade. F rom the very beginning, Codex had developed 
food standards based on sound scientific principles and on data in relation to food safety and 
scientific risk assessment. The Russian Federation recalled that Codex standards covered a wide 
range of food issues,  including pesticides, veterinary drug residues in food, environmental 
contaminants and pathogenic organism s in food, food additives, nutrition and standards for 
composition and identity for major food commodities. In relation to food safety, the protectio n of 
consumers implied a careful review o f all scientific data . Although all food standards must be science -
based, the Russian Federation pointed out that other legitimate factors were relevant for the  
protection of consumers and fair practices in food tra de. However, the use of these different 
components should be clearly documented, including the rational e for integrating  them in each case.  
4.20.   Argentina shared the concern raised by the United States and stressed that the scientific basis 
of the preliminary d raft had been recognised by most members of the CCRVDF. However, it was not 
approved due to factors outside the mandate of the CCRVDF and the general principles of Codex. 
Argentina explained that the standard  should be based on scientific principles and em phasised that 
the decision taken  by the CCRVDF potentially affected the Codex  system , and was against the basic 
principles contained in the Codex Procedural Manual. Argentina further indicated that Codex had 
established solid guidelines for the development  of SPS measures based on scientific principles, and 
had adopted decisions to ensure that factors outside scientific principles were considered without 
any risk. Finally, Argentina emphasised the importance of Codex and the General Principles of Codex . 
4.21.   Chile, Costa Rica, Guatemala, H onduras and Paraguay shared the concern raised by the United 
States,  emphasising the independent nature of Codex. Costa Rica recalled that Codex not only 
provided  a scientific basis for SPS measures but represented one of pillar s of the multilateral trade 
system. Costa Rica emphasised its willingness to continue to work with Codex to ensure the scientific 
principles underlying  SPS measures. Guatemala expressed its concern regarding the issue of 
Zilpaterol and underlined the scien tific basis of Codex. Guatemala emphasised the importance of 
the harmonization of SPS measures to Codex standards in the SPS as well TBT Committee s. 
Furthermore, the interpretation of WTO rules was a prerogative of WTO Members.  
4.22.   ECOWAS recalled that international standards were based on science, and scientific advice 
bodies had been established within Codex, for instance the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on 
Food Additives (JECFA). JECFA had conducted risk assessments on this comp ound and provided 
information on its safety during the last CCRVDF meeting. ECOWAS noted that the credibility of 
scientific advice bodies had been questioned in this case, underli ning that the objective of these 
bodies was to provide scientific evidence an d to facilitate the work of Codex and other standard 
setting bodies in deve loping international standards.  
4.23.   The European Union noted that it was open to discussions in the SPS C ommittee about the 
WTO implicat ions of Codex standards, guidelines and recommend ations. The European Union 
recalled the lessons learned during the thematic session held on 3 0 October 2018, and stressed that 
there was no  hierarchical order among the SPS  Committee, Codex, OIE or IPPC. The European Union 
added that , while the SPS Committ ee could invite Codex or other international standard -setting  
bodies to discuss topi cs of interest to the SPS  Committee , in its view, the SPS Committee should not 
attempt to influence procedures or decision -making processes within Codex. The European Union  
noted that Members should raise their concern s in the competent fora.  
4.24.   Codex informed Members that the relevant document would  be considered by CCEXEC. 
Codex  also indicated that the composition of the commission responsible for prepar ing the document 
would  follow instructions provided by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Finally, Codex invited 
WTO Members to further considerations when the document would be distributed by the Codex 
Alimentarius Commission.  
4.5.1.2   India – Use of the Codex definitions for milk and milk products  
4.25.   India dr ew the Committee's attention on the inconsistency in the application of the Codex 
standard relating  to the definition of m ilk in some Members'  regulations. India quoted the definition 
of milk developed by Codex and stressed that although the definition specified that milk could be 
obtained from any milking  animals, some Members applied their own definition of milk and milk 
products which referred mainly to milk obtained from cows. India further explained the importance 
of taking into a ccount  that milk could be obtained not only from cows but also from other milking  G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 30 - 
 
  animals such as buffalos, goats, camels etc. India also highlighted that there was no scientific 
justification for adopt ing such a restrictive definition, and that this misle ading definition of milk and 
milk products had created unnecessary barriers to trade. Finally, India invited Members to consider 
Article 2.2 and 3.1 of the SPS Agreement and urged them adapt their regulation s for milk and milk 
products to the definition provided by Codex.  
4.26.   Japan noted that the issue raised by India was not related to food safety , pointing out that 
it should be covered by the TBT Committee. Japan requested more clarifications from India in this 
regard . 
4.5.2   Issues previously raised  
4.5.2.1   United States  – Use of the Codex international standard on glyphosate  
4.27.   The United States drew Members ' attention to actions taken or under consideration to restrict 
the use to glyphosate that appear ed to lack scientific justification. The United States  pointed out 
that scientific and regulatory resources worldwide ha d re-evaluated and reconfirmed the safety of 
this crop protection tool , making it one of the most rigorously studied and evaluated. Furthermore, 
the United States recalled that in May 2016 the Joint FAO/WHO M eeting on Pesticides Residues  
(JMPR)  had held a special session to re -evaluate glyphosate , at the recommendation of the WHO's 
Core Assessment Group on Pesticides Residues , due to concerns resulting from  the 2015 
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) hazard report and availability of new toxic ology 
and epidemiology studies.  
4.28.   After evaluating all previously reviewed data and new studies on genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, 
reproductive and developmental toxicity, and epidemiological studies on cancer  outcomes, JMPR had 
concluded that neither short term nor long term dietary exposure to glyphosate presented a risk to 
consumers or a public health concern , and had reaffirmed the safety of all existing Codex MRLs for 
glyphosate. In addition, the United St ates highlight ed that in December 2018 the US Environmental 
Protection Agency anticipated publishing the proposed interim registration review decision for 
glyphosate , reporting that glyphosate was one of the most widely used agricultural pesticides in the 
United States. The United States also noted that EPA's human health risk assessment concluded that 
glyphosate was not likely to be carcinogenic to humans and found no risks to human health when 
glyphosate products were used acc ording to the label.  Given th e efforts and findings of Codex and 
competent authorities of several Members, including the US EPA, the United States reiterated that 
actions to restrict the use of glyphosate without a sound scientific basis appeared to unnecessarily 
restrict internationa l agricultural trade , with no discernible benefits to public health. Finally, the 
United States urged Members to base their regulatory action s for glyphosate on sound scientific risk -
based principles.  
4.29.   Brazil and Paraguay shared the concern raised by the U nited States and encouraged 
WTO Members to take into account the  Codex standards on glyphosate.  
4.30.   Canada recognised the importance of Members basing their SPS measures to international 
standards, guidelines and recommendations. Concerning plant protection pro ducts, in particular 
glyphosate, the Codex Committee on Pes ticides Residues (CCPR) and JMPR continued to provide 
useful guidance in this area. JMPR  had re-evaluated glyphosate and found that glyphosate was 
unlikely to be genotoxic and unlikely to pose a ca rcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through 
the diet. Canada noted that similar reviews had been undertaken by Members, including Canada, 
which supported the continu ed registr ation and safe use of  products containing glyphosa te. 
Canada  underscored the  importance of timely , scientific , risk-based decision making with respect to 
plant protection products including glyphosate. Canada also encouraged Members to continu e to 
base their regulations on scientific evidence and to take into account the advice  of the international 
standard -setting bodies, in particular Codex.  
4.31.   Argentina reiterated the importance of respect ing the basic principles of the SPS Agreement , 
which encouraged basing  SPS measures on Codex international sta ndards.  
4.32.   Costa Rica recalled the  rigorous  assessment conducted by Codex to establish pesticide  MRLs 
and encouraged Members to adapt their measures for glyphosate on Codex recommendations.  G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 31 - 
 
  4.33.   Australia expressed its concern about the trade impact of Members  applying glyphosate  
related restrictio ns based on non -science based assessment s. Any regulation of this chemical should 
be based on WTO compliant risk assessment s based  on all available scientific evidence, and 
conducted in a transparent manner. Australia recalled that glyphosate was one of th e most common 
crop protection chemical s and had been subjected to new re -evaluation by a number of countr ies 
chemical regulators to determine the safety of the chemical. Australia highlighted that the Australian 
Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authorit y (APVMA) had established that products containing 
glyphosate could be safely used  according to label directions.  
4.5.2.2   European Union – ASF restrictions not consistent with the OIE international 
standard  
4.34.   The European Union highlighted  inconsistency in the appli cation of the OIE international 
standard for African swine fever (ASF) . The OIE  Code contained clear ASF guidelines for the 
designation of containment and disease -free zones, and for identification, treatment and certification 
of tradable products. The Eur opean Union was gravely concerned when other Members ignored the 
Code's recommendation s without sound scientific justification and timely decision making. 
The European Union further explained that ASF remained a very serious disease. However, 
experiences i n the European Union showed that it could  be efficiently managed to make sure that 
trade taking place in accordance  with international standards did not  cause any outbreak s. 
4.35.   The European Union further highlighted its transparent approach to disease control and 
regionalization measures, and remained open to provide all the necessary evidence demonstrating 
the efficiency of its policies to guarantee safe trade. Furthermore, this  high level of transparency 
had also been acknowledged by the OIE. However, the European Union regretted to see that its 
trading partners were putting  in place and maintain ing unnecessary and unjustified trade 
restrictions. The European Union noted that it s member States fully complied with international 
standards and urged other Members to evaluate import requests accordingly, and in line with the 
SPS Agreement. The European Union further explained that country -wide bans and excessive heat 
treatment requir ements for each product were scientifically unjustified and should not be put in 
place. Finally, the European Union reiterated its willingness to co operate with other WTO Members.  
4.5.2.3   European Union – HPAI restrictions not consistent with the OIE international  
standard  
4.36.   The European Union reiterated its concerns regarding inconsistencies in the use of OIE 
standards on regionalization in relation to HPAI outbreaks. The European Union expressed regret 
that some Members applied country -wide bans whenever there was an outbreak, noting that this 
type of measure was not scientific ally justified and that according to OIE standards there was no 
justification for maintain ing such bans after EU member States had re gained freedom from the 
disease . Moreover, the European Uni on regretted that its comprehensive surveillance programmes 
and transparent approach resulted in trading partners imposing unjustif ied restrictions.  
The European Union highlighted its strict and transparent system of control and acknowledged that 
many Memb ers recognized EU regionalization measures for HPAI. The European Union also 
acknowledged OIE's ongoing work in distinguishing between HPAI and low pathogenic avian 
influenza (LPAI), to avoid  unjustified barriers to trade due to LPAI outbreaks. The Europea n Union 
applied the same policies and guarantees to its intra -EU trade as to its exports to third  countries. 
In addition, regular audit reports were published on the European Commission website, which 
ensured that trading partners could be fully aware of t he animal health situation in all EU member 
States . The European Union reiterated its call for Members to respect their regionalization obligations 
and to lift all existing unjustified bans and restrictions, as well as to refrain from imposing trade 
restri ctions in cases where HPAI was detected in wild birds, and LPAI in poultry. The European Union 
looked forward to continuing discussion on the implementation of regionalization.  
4.6  Fifth Review  
4.6.1   Report o n the Thematic Session on Equivalence (Part 1)  
4.37.   The Chairperson drew Members ' attention to the report of the first part of the thematic session 
on Equivalence held on 30 October 2018. The Chairperson recalled that the thematic sessi on was 
first proposed by Canada . Other Members had also submitted proposals recommending that the G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 32 - 
 
  Committee further discuss the concept of equivalence, including examining the existing guidance on 
the recognition of equivalence (G/SPS/19/Rev.2). The Chairperson explained that the first part of 
the two -part thematic session on equi valence provided an opportunity to lay out the international 
framework for the application of the concept of equivalence. The  programme for the thematic session 
was circulated in  document G/SPS/GEN/1640/Rev.1.  
4.38.   The Chairperson indicated that firstly, the Se cretariat had provided an overview of the 
provisions of the SPS Agreement on equivalence (Article 4) and the relevant guidelines 
(G/SPS/19/Rev.2), as well as related  jurisprudence. The Secretariat had highlighted that the existing 
body of relevant jurispru dence on equivalence was limited to one SPS dispute, which provided some 
general guidance on the relationship of Article 4 with the rest of the provisions in the SPS Agreement. 
The Secretariat had also presented information on SPS -related notifications and  specific trade 
concerns on equivalence. In addition, based on the comments received from one Member, the 
thematic session had included a presentation from the Secretariat on equivalence from a TBT 
perspective. The Secretariat  had stressed the provisions i n the TBT Agreement which refer to 
equivalence, also noting the reference to the concept of mutual recognition in the TBT Agreement. 
The Secretariat had further presented information on the relevant work of the TBT Committee on 
equivalence and the notifica tion of bilateral/plurilateral agreements, and had noted the lack of TBT -
related jurisprudence in this area. The ensuing discussions had covered SPS topics related to the 
time-frame for expedited responses, the  use of Committee guidelines in disputes, responding to 
equivalence requests, criteria for determining the appropriate level of protection, and the lack of 
equivalence notifications, among others. In addition, the discussions  had focused on the differences 
in the coverage of equivalence in the SPS  and TBT Agreements, and the lessons to be learned from 
discussions  in the SPS and TBT Committees.  
4.39.   Secondly, the representatives of Codex, IPPC and OIE had explained how the concept of 
equivalence was applied in their respective areas, and  had identified t he relevant international 
standards and guidelines. In addition, the OIE had provided information on the level of 
implementation of equivalence and equivalence arrangements by its members, including the 
challenges faced in making an equivalence determinati on, as reported in a recent survey. 
Discussions had covered the need to ensure the consistency of the work being undertaken by the 
standard -setting bodies  with the WTO Agreements; the challenges of having a common definition of 
equivalence; the lack of con sistency in wording across organizations; the situations in which a 
systems approach should be used; and the link between recognition of disease -free areas and 
equivalence determinations. The Secretariat had also provided background information on the 
genesis of the equivalence guidelines and underscored the collaboration between the SPS Committee 
and the standard -setting organizations in the elaboration of gui dance at the time.  
4.40.   The Chairperson stressed that the thematic session had proven to be informative  and 
interesting, and that it had provided a useful opportunity to increase Members' awareness of 
equivalence, from the perspective of international rules and guidelines. Finally, she indicated that 
the presentations from the Thematic Session would be made  availa ble on the SPS Gateway page. 
In addition, she reminded Members that the second part of this thematic  session would be held in 
March  2019, focusing on Members' experiences with the implementation of equivalence.  
4.6.2   Report of the Informal Meeting  
4.41.   The Cha irperson drew the Committee's attention to the draft report on the informal meeting 
held on 31 October 2018 (JOB/SPS/2 Rev.1), paper copies of which had been circulated to Members 
during the formal meeting. The Chairperson noted  that the draft report would  be made available 
electronically after the formal meeting and invited Members to make comments on the draft report 
either during the meeting, or to send them to the Secretariat by the deadline of Friday, 9 November 
2018.  
4.42.   The Secretariat drew Members ' attention to the new format for reporting informal Committee 
meetings adopted at the July 2018 Committee meeting. The Secretariat explained that the report 
had been updated maintaining the same structure and sequence of proposals  as previously,  starting 
with e quivalence and adding any new proposal under each section as well as adding any new 
comments or views at the end of the list. The Secretariat further indicated that new subjects had 
been ad ded at the end of the document.  G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 33 - 
 
  4.43.   The Chairperson reminded  Members th at, as indicated in the report on the informal meeting, 
there were no comments on the order of thematic sessions and workshops for 2019. The second 
part of the thematic session on equivalence, as well as the session on fall armyworm would be held 
at the next meeting in March. Finally, the Chairperson invited Members to submit suggestions for 
topics and speakers for both these sessions by 14 January 2019.  
4.44.   In addition, the Chairperson recalled  that the proposal on fall armyworm contained in 
document G/SPSW/30 5 suggested  the creation of a working g roup to discuss this topic. 
The Chairperson noted support for the creation this working group during the informal meeting, and 
invited Members to share their ideas on how th e working group would function.  
4.45.   The United S tates noted that regarding the idea of the creation of a working group there had 
been expressions  of interest during the informal meeting. The United States suggested to dedicate 
a specific time, perhaps at the end of the informal session to be held in Mar ch 2019, in the  form an 
open-ended meeting for anyone interest ed in participating in a working group discussion. 
Furthermore, the United States proposed to structure the informal meeting in separate blocks of 
subject s. The United States also pointed out it s interest, shared with Brazil and the European Union, 
to organize an informal session dedicated on regionalization. Finally, the United States explained 
that initial  exchanges of  ideas could  be followed by electronic exchanges , depending  on interest 
showe d by Members.  
4.46.   Brazil expressed its support to the US proposal of having an open discussion  of the working 
group  following  the informal meeting,  on fall armyworm, and on equivalence. Brazil also stressed 
the importance hav ing an in-depth discussion on regionalizati on during the informal meeting.  
4.47.   The Secretariat clarified that informal meetings or sessions  on subject s of interest had been 
held in previous Committee meetings. For instance, dedicated informal meetings  had focused  on 
transparency and its procedures, and  on equivalence , when the Committee was developing guidance 
in these areas . The Secretariat confirmed that is was possible  to structure the March informal 
meeting in blocks  of time dedicated to  different subjects of interest. The Secretariat suggested that 
a first part of the informal meeting could be dedicated to discuss ing Review proposals . Depending 
on submissions received, a specific time could possibly be devoted to regionalization and/or 
equivalence , followed by  an open -ended  meeting of the working group  on fall armyworm.  
4.48.   The Chairperson recalled next deadlines for the Fifth Review:  
• 31 January 2019  for submitting additional proposals and papers on the issu es under 
consideration;  
• 8 February  for circulation by the Secretariat of a revised version of G/SPS/GEN/1625 , which 
provided an overview of all papers/ proposals submitted by Members;  
• 22 February  for submission of comments by Members on proposed actions on the issues 
under consideration; and  
• 28 February  for circul ation by the Secretariat of a compilation of comments submitted by 
Members.  
4.49.   Finally, the Chairperson recalled that at the informal meeting Members had  considered the 
updated version of the Secretariat's background note on  the relationship between the Trade  
Facilitation Agreement and the SPS Agreement, circulated as document RD/SPS/3/Rev.2.  
4.6.3   Chairperson's Annual Report to CTG  
4.50.   The Chairperson explained that she would submit a factual annual report on the activities of 
the SPS Committee for consideration by the  Council for Trade in Goods  (CTG) . The report available  
to delegations for comments; it  would be revise d to reflect the Committee's work at the present 
meeting. The Chairperson further indicated that the report would be considered by the CTG at its 
meeting  on 12 November 2018, and reminded Members to provide comments on the draft report by 
6 November 2018 , as announced at the start of the meeting . 
5  CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  
5.1.  No issue was raised under this agenda item.  G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 34 - 
 
  6  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  AND COOPERATION  
6.1  Information from the Secretariat  
6.1.1   WTO SPS activities  
6.1.  The Secretariat provided Members with an overview of the technical assistance activities held 
since the last SPS Committee meeting in July 2018. These activities had included a national seminar 
held from 6 to 8 August 2018 in Moldova, and a thematic session on Equivalence that took place on 
30 October 2018. A regional workshop  for Arab countries  had been organized in collaboration with  
GSO; and  training provided in the context of the WTO Regional  Trade Pol icy Course for  Asia-Pacific 
Members and Observers in Thailand.  
6.2.  The Secretariat also announced that national seminars would  be held in Ecuador from 5 to 
8 November; St Kitts y Nevis from 13 to 15 November; Chile from 20 to 22 November; Costa Rica 
from 3 to 5 November; and, Chinese Taipei from 4 to 6 December. The Secretariat further reported 
that was currently preparing  a national seminar to be held in Côte d'Ivoire.  
6.3.  The Secretariat drew Members' attention on the Advanced Course on the SPS Agreement that 
had started on 22 October and would finish on 9 November 2018. The Secretariat reminded  the 
Committee that the Advanced Course had been held for 14 years, and this year it was  in Spanish. 
After a rigorous selection process, 25 government officials from 11 WTO  Member s had been selected 
to attend the course in Geneva. The Course had the objective to enhance the level of understanding 
of the rights and obligations arising from the SPS Agreement  and the functioning of the 
SPS Committee. The Secretariat further exp lained that during the course, each participant would 
develop an action plan, which would address problems identified in their countries. Three coaches 
were assisting  participants in developing their action plans . Participants would return after nine 
month s to present on their experiences in implementing their action plans.  The Secretariat 
highlighted that this year the course had benefitted from the co -operation with IICA, and thanked 
Mr Eric Bolanõs for his participation in the course as coach and speaker . The Secretariat also thanked 
WTO delegates that participated in the course as speakers and shared their experience with 
participants; Codex; IPPC; OIE; the Advisory Center on WTO Law; the International Chamber of 
Commerce (ICC) and FAO. Finally, t he Secr etariat reminded  Members th at the online course on the 
SPS Agreement was available online and encouraged Members to visit the SPS website to get more 
information on its technical assistance activities.  
6.1.2   STDF (G/SPS/GEN/1653 ) 
6.4.  The STDF Secretariat provided a  brief overview of its activities undertaken since July 2018, as 
detailed  in document G/SPS/GEN/1653. At the outset, t he Secretariat highlighted that the document 
included information on how to apply for project and project preparation grants . The Secretariat 
encouraged Members to visit the STDF  website for information on STDF activities and projects and 
invited Members to subscribe  to the STDF mailing list ( http://www.standardsfacility.org/ ). 
At present, t he STDF manages close to  50 innovative SPS projects at various stage of development , 
implementation or  evaluation . 
6.5.  The Secretariat highlighted  that the  STDF Working Group had met on 29 and 30 October 2019 
and agreed to fund four new projects  focused  on: (i) strengthening the spice value chain in India 
and improving market access through capacity building and innovative interventions; (ii) enhancing 
the capacity of Uganda's fruit and vegetable sector to comply with phytosanitary requirements for 
expor t to the European Union and other high -end and regional markets; (iii) enhancing capacity of 
Kyrgyz fruit and vegetable industry to implement Good Agriculture Practices (GAP) and Good 
Hygiene Practices (GHP); and (iv) reducing of aflatoxin contamination in  maize from Burkina Faso.  
6.6.  The Secreta riat also reported that  two project preparation grant s (PPGs)  had been approved:  
(i) to study the feasibility of exports of live bees from Niue, in accordance with OIE standards; and 
(ii) to carry out studies and develo p a regional project in Asia on the use of bio -pesticides as a way 
to mitigate conventional pesticide residues. In addition, the Working group had approved two PPGs 
benefiting countries in Central America and Africa to explore how developing countries can use Third 
Party Assurance (TAP) programmes in their national food control systems. Both PPGs were linked to G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 35 - 
 
  ongoing work in the Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification 
Systems (CCFICS) on this topic.  
6.7.  The Secretariat also repo rted that the Working Group had also approved STDF 's Work Plan for 
20193. The STDF will: (i) start updating its 2012 study on Public Private Partnerships to build SPS 
capacity; (ii) finalize and present a study on Good Regulatory Prac tice in the SPS area; and 
(iii) continue working on prioritizing SPS investment options for market access in developing 
countries sing the P -IMA framework. The Secretariat recalled STDF's participation in the July 2018 
Workshop on Annex C, where it had shared experiences and le ssons from its work on Facilitating 
Safe Trade, which are also summarized in STDF's Briefing Note on this topic. The STDF will continue 
to build bridges between the SPS and Trade Facilitation communities and reference was made to a 
series of forthcoming re gional workshops that STDF helped organizing on Border Agency 
Cooperation, involving STDF partners, the standard -setting bodies and other relevant organizations 
such as the World Customs Organization (WCO). These workshops would be held for representatives  
from both customs authorities (training them on the importance of SPS controls) and SPS border 
agencies (training them on the role of customs at the border). Financial support for the workshops 
was kindly provided by the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement F acility (TFAF) and the World Bank 
Group.  
6.8.  Finally, the Secretariat informed the Committee that the Facility was being reviewed by an 
independent evaluator. The final evaluation report was expected in early 2019, with 
recommendations to feed into the develop ment of a new strategy for the STDF for 2020 and beyond.  
6.2  Information from Members  
6.2.1   Canada – Technical assistance to developing countries (G/SPS/GEN/1651)  
6.9.  Canada informed the Committee that  it had  provided 29 SPS -related technical assistance 
projects to various geographic regions, including Africa, Eastern Europe, Latin America and the 
Caribbean, Central Asia and the Asia -Pacific region amounting to  approximately CDN $12.58 million. 
Canada's technical assistance to developing countries addressed three of the four broad categories 
listed in G/SPS/GEN/206: information; training; and "soft" infrastructure development (but not 
"hard" infrastructure development).  
7  CONCERNS WITH PRIVAT E AND COMMERCIAL STA NDARDS  
7.1.  No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
8  OBSERVERS  
8.1  Information from observer organizations  
8.1.1   ECOWAS  
8.1.  ECOWAS reported on recent activities of its member States, detailed in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1643. ECOWAS informed  the Committee about the joint monitoring mission FAO -CILSS 
which had the objective to anticipate the risk of food safety and to inform preparedness and response 
interventions to fall armyworm (FAW). The following countries have been involved in the joint 
mission: Togo, Burkina Faso, Guinea, Nigeria and Cape Verde.  ECOWAS reported that it had 
conducted regional trainings on improving monitoring of FAW risk, prevalence and imp act 
assessment at country level,  and trained 31 qualified individual preventive con trols and 17 lead 
instructors on food safety standards harmonizat ion discussion and on the new U S Food Safety 
Modernization Act (FSMA). Furthermore, ECOWAS provided technical assistance to members of the 
South Africa Development Community (SADC) on how to submit robust application s to the Codex 
Trust Fund. Recalling the intervention of the STDF secretariat, ECOWAS also informed Members on 
the recent approval of a project aiming  at reducing aflatoxin levels across the maize value chain in 
Burkina Faso.  
                                                
3 See: http://standardsfacility.org/sites/default/files/STDF_Work_Plan_2019.pdf . G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 36 - 
 
  8.1.2   IICA  
8.2.  ICCA reported on recent activities of interest to the Committee, detailed in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1645. IICA indicated its continued support to build capacity in its member countries with 
activities related to the multilateral trade system. IICA thanked the United States for the technical 
and financial support  provided, as well as the WTO Secretariat for the collaboration  in the Advance d 
SPS Course currently taking place.  
8.1.3   OIRSA  
8.3.  OIRSA reported on its main activiti es contained in G/SPS/GEN/1647.  OIRSA recalled that its 
mandate aimed at supporting member countries in formulating national action plans and projects 
on animal and plant health. OIRSA emphasised that technical assistance had been provided to 
government officials and professionals on top ics related to agricultural health. OIRSA indicated that 
as a part of their safety diploma training, officials from ministries of Agriculture in the OIRSA region 
took part in virtual tutored courses. Furthermore, OIRSA pointed out its work in supporting me mber 
countries in advancing their sanitary condition through  disease control. Finally, OIRSA informed the 
Committee about its new internal structure that would enhance coordination among members and 
OIRSA's Technical Commission, in particula r on animal and  plant health , with the ultimate aim to be 
more effective at the national level.  
8.1.4   IGAD  
8.4.  IGAD reported on its main activities of interest, detailed in document G/SPS/GEN/1649. As a 
regional economic community, IGAD stressed its commitment to enhance coordinat ion among its 
members. In this regard, IGAD provided information on the cross -border Memorandum of 
Understanding  (MoU) developed between Sudan and South Sudan, to increase harmonized animal 
disease surveillance, vaccination and reporting on harmonization m atters. IGAD further reported 
that it was currently providing technical assistance to three member States to develop national SPS 
strategies aligned to the regional SPS strategy. Finally, IGAD indicated its contribution in the 
organization of six PPR regio nal control and eradication coordination meeting s conducted to review 
progress of the implementation of the national PPR strategies and  discussed key challenges. 
IGAD  thanked USAID, the European Union and FAO for their collaboration and financial support.  
8.1.5   OECD  
8.5.  OECD reported on recent activities, detailed in document G/SPS/GEN/1654. OECD drew 
Members ' attention to the recent publication of a paper estimating a d valorem equivalents of non-
tariff measures , including SPS and TBT measures. OECD underlined the ne w approach introduced 
by the study across 5000 traded goods and 80 countries and explicitly distinguished trade -cost 
effects associated with non -tariff measures from possible demand -enhancing effects that came from 
reducing information asymmetries and stre ngthening consumer confidence in imported products . 
In a number of cases, in particular in the SPS area, trade expanded, even though trade costs 
increased with the implementation of these measures. The OECD explained that this was likely 
explained by close r regulatory environments between the countries examined. However, OECD 
stressed the importance of further investigating  these effects.  
8.6.  The OECD also provided information on a paper studying the implications of different IRC 
mechanisms within preferential trade agreements (PTAs) , which was expected to be published at 
the beginning of 2019. The econometric assessment explicitly disentangled the effects of PTAs as 
such from those to be had from IRC mechanisms related to SPS and TBT measures, and also looked 
at the implications of their enforceability. The OECD reported that preliminary results sug gested that 
TBT- and notably SPS -related IRC mechanisms generated the bulk of the positive trade effects to 
be gained from PTAs. However, the positive trade effects of SPS - and TBT -related IRC mechanisms 
remained small unless agreed mechanisms were backed by the relevant enforcement mechanisms.  
8.1.6   WHO  
8.7.  WHO drew Members ' attention to a Food Safety Conference jointly organized  by the FAO and 
WHO which would  take place in ea rly 2019. The conference under the theme "The F uture of Food 
Safety" would strengthen commitment at the highest political level to scale up food safety in the G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 37 - 
 
  2030 Age nda for Sustainable Development,  and would identify key actions and strategies to address  
current and future challenges to food safety globally. The WHO explained that the conference would 
be held into two events. The opening event , in collaboration with the African Union , would be held 
at the African Union Commission in Addis Ababa from 12 to  13 February 2019; the closing event, 
the FAO/WHO/WTO  International Forum on Food Safety and Trade , would take place at the WTO in 
Geneva from 23 to 24 April 2019. The conference would bring together ministers and high -level 
delegates from national governm ents, regulatory bodies , international  organizations, development 
agencies, regional economic bodies as well representatives of academia, the pr ivate sector and civil 
society.  
8.8.  The WHO further explained that the conference had the objective to discuss the t opic of 
foodborne diseases and the benefit of investing  in food safety and sustainable food system s in an 
area of accelerate climate change, and  identify key actions and strategies to address current and 
future cha llenges to food safety globally . The WHO s tressed that the International Forum in Geneva 
would look more closely at trade -related issue s related to this topic and invited Members to visit the 
website of FAO and WHO to get more information  (https://www.who.int/food -safety/international -
food-safety -conference ). 
8.9.  The Secretariat thanked the WHO for the information provided and highlighted that initial 
discussion s among FAO, WHO and WTO on the agenda for the second part of the conference had 
started. The Secretariat reminded Members that the conference would be held at the WTO in Geneva 
on 23 -24 April 2019.  
8.1.7   The African Union  
8.10.   The African Union African emphasized  its commitment to work with FAO, WHO and WTO in 
organizing  the First FAO/WHO/AU International Food Safety Conference . The African Union  indicated 
that its work on SPS issues continued to be guided by the comprehensive African Agriculture 
Program me and reported that recently , African leaders had signed the Continental Free Trade Area 
Agreement. Trade Ministers at their meeting in December 2014 had requested the African Union 
Commission and the pan African quality i nfrastructure institution s to assess the quality of 
infrastructures in Africa, and added that the assessment was extended to SPS issues. The AU 
Commission had been  requested to pr ovide concrete information on SPS requirements of the African 
Free Continental Protocol on Trade in Service s and Goods Annex on SPS measures and to undertake 
a study to assess the capacity of member States in various area s, especially covering legislative 
framework s, capacity to conduct various risk assessments, audit and verification, transparency and 
inspections procedures. The African Union  clarified that the SPS assessment would also provide 
information on the development of the EU continental SPS polic y framework , as requested by 
ministers of agriculture in 2017. Recalling its previous interventions, the AU emphasized  that fall 
armyworm affected many member countries; in particular, 44 countries had official ly reported the 
presence of fall armyworm in t heir countries in February 2018. The AU stressed that currently there 
were no adequate early warning systems and pesticides were overus ed. The African Union was 
committed to work  on this issue with different partners and would organiz e a conference on how to 
manage this pest . 
8.2  Requests for observer status (G/SPS/W/78/Rev.14)  
8.2.1   New requests  
8.11.   There were no new reques ts received by the Secretariat.  
8.2.2   Outstanding requests  
8.12.   The Committee  agreed  to invite  organizations with ad hoc observer  status  to participate in all 
of its meetings in 2019 , with the exception of any closed meeting , and unless any Member raise d an 
objection to the participation of any of these observers in advance of  a meeting.  
8.13.   The Chairperson reminded  Members that the Committee had agreed, in 2012, that if for any 
one-year period an ad hoc observer organization did not attend any meetings of the SPS Committee, 
the Committee would  consider that its observer status has lapsed, but only after the Secretariat ha d 
contacted the observ er organization and received confirmation that it was no longer interested in G/SPS/R/93  
 
- 38 - 
 
  maintaining its observer status. The Chairperson requested the Secretariat to verify if there were 
any ad hoc observer organizations that had not attended a single meeting of the  SPS Committee 
during 2018. The Chairperson also requested the Secretariat to contact these organizations and to 
seek information regarding their continuing interest to participate as observers in the Committee.  
8.14.   The Chairperson noted that there was still n o 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 Internation ale de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV); the Asian and Pacific Coconut Community 
(APCC); and the International Cocoa Organization (ICCO).  
8.15.   The Chairperson thanked the representatives of observer organizations for their contributions 
to the work of the Committee and  for their assistance to Members. The Chairperson further 
encouraged observer organizations to provide written reports on their relevant activities in advance 
of the October 2018 meeting.  
9  OTHER BUSINESS  
9.1.  No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
10  DATE  AND AGENDA FOR NEXT  MEETINGS  
10.1.   The Chairperson drew Members' attention to the proposed dates for the 2019 meetings of the 
SPS Committee, as circulated in document G/SPS/GEN/1619. The next regular meeting of the 
Committee was tentatively scheduled for the we ek of 18 March 2019, with an informal meeting on 
20 March and two days of regular meetings on 21 -22 March. In addition, thematic session s would 
take place on 18 and 19 March. The Chairperson informed  Members that a provisional agenda  for 
the regular meeting  would be circulated via e -mail. 
10.2.   The Secretariat reminded Members of the following deadlines:  
• For comments on the Chairperson's annual report to the CTG: Tuesday, 6 November 
2018 ; 
• For inputs, including speakers, for the thematic ses sions: Monday, 14 January 2019 ; 
• For identifying new issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure and for 
requesting that items be included on the agenda: Thursday, 28  February 2019 ; 
• For distribution of the Airgram: Friday, 1 March 2019 . 
10.3.   In the c ontext of the Fifth Review, Members were asked to take note of the following 
deadlines:  
• For submission of specific proposals for actions on the issues under consideration: 
Thursday, 31 January 2019 ; 
• For circulating a revised overview of papers/proposals submitted by Members 
(G/SPS/GEN/1625): Friday, 8 February 2019 ; 
• For Members' comments on proposals: Friday, 22 February 2019 ; 
• For circulation of a compilation of comments submitted by Members: Thursday, 
28 February 2019 . 
10.4.   All other deadlines related to the Fifth Review could be found in document 
G/SPS/W/296/Rev.1.  
__________