G/SPS/GEN/1978  
 
11 November  2021 
(21-8551) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  Original: English  
 
EU MRLS AND PESTICIDE POLICIES – SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERN 448 : 
EU MRLS FOR ALPHA -CYPERMETHRIN, BUPROFEZIN, CHLOROTHALONIL, 
DIFLUBENZURON,  ETHOXYSULFURON, GLUFOSINATE, IMAZALIL, IOXYNIL,  
IPRODIONE, MANCOZEB, MOLINATE, PICOXYSTROBIN  AND TEPRALOXYDIM  
SUBMISSION BY THE UNITED STATES  OF AMERICA  
The following submission, received on 8 November 2021, is the statement made by the United States 
of Am erica at the 3-5 November 2021 WTO SPS Committee, and is  being circulated at the request 
of the Delegation of the United States  of America . 
 
_______________  
 
 
1.  The United States joins Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, and Paraguay in raising these 
important issues before the Committee.  
2.  After numerous interventions by many Members in this Committee, we are disappointed that the 
European Union continues to show no interest in discussing its trade restrictive approach to pesticide 
maximum residue  levels, or MRLs. As we have stated before, the European Union's hazard -based 
approach to pesticide regulation and its implementation of the "precautionary principle" creates trade 
barriers which threaten the global food system.  
3.  The United States is concer ned about the European Union 's recent statements to the WTO 
indicating that global environmental impacts could be factored into future EU decisions on import 
tolerances. The  United States would like for the European Union  to clarify its justification for i ncluding 
environmental considerations outside its territorial boundaries in its assessment process for import 
tolerance.  
4.  We note that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is reviewing emergency authorizations 
from ten Member States for several active substances for which EFSA found that there are no 
sufficient alternatives available. In its assessments, EFSA noted that when non -insecticidal methods 
are available, they did not have the same efficacy as plant protection products, or presented 
technical o r scientific limitations. EFSA also found that in some cases there was no practical, 
acceptable, established non -insecticide effective program available to control pests.  
5.  Based on continued requests for emergency authorizations, it appears as though producers in 
the European Union, like those in the United States, view these products as integral components of 
their IPM programs for which effective alternatives are not available. Accordingly, we request that 
the European Union  also afford producers in third countries equal access to these important and 
efficacious crop protection tools.  
6.  The United States reiterates its concerns around the provisional nature of recent MRL decisions 
in ongoing pesticide reviews, which now appears to be a chronic issue for  the European Union. 
For these recent decisions based on incomplete risk assessments, we request that the 
European  Union  confirm that scientific data will be collected and analyzed to justify these measures.  
7.  For example, G/TBT/N/EU/790  indicates that although phosmet does not meet th e EU health 
cut-off criteria and is not an endocrine disruptor, phosmet will not be renewed based on what appears 
to be an incomplete risk assessment. The United States requests that EFSA consider all existing, G/SPS/GEN/1978  
 
- 2 - 
 
  rigorous and science -based data to complete i ts risk assessment, and take such information into 
account before making a final decision.  
8.  The United States again highlights our concerns around the EU enforcement process for newly 
reduced MRLs. The European Union  enforces these MRLs at the point of impo rtation for imported 
goods and at the point of production for domestic goods, an inconsistency that causes inefficiencies 
and disruptions in trade for products destined for the EU market.  
9.  The United States again requests that the European Union  apply MRLs at the time of production 
for imported products, in order to allow products to move through the full channels of trade, which 
would be the least trade restrictive action. If lowered MRLs will be enforced at the date of 
importation, as with other MRL change s, this will continue to have a negative effect on trade in 
products with long shelf lives that were compliant with existing standards at the time of production.  
10.  Regardless of whether MRL enforcement occurs at the date of importation, the United States 
requests that the European Union  extend the transition period for all MRL changes to the maximum 
term possible, or at least 24 months, to help minimize the negative impact on agricultural producers 
while protecting consumer health.  
11.  We encourage the European U nion to engage in discussions with third countries around these 
important SPS measures and we highlight once more the importance of a consistent, science -based 
enforcement process to facilitate trade and protect plant and human health. As currently 
impleme nted, the EU's approach is counter -productive and unsustainable to maintain the agricultural 
productivity and trade needed to ensure global food security.  
 
__________