RESTRICTED  
  
G/SPS/R/79  
 
4 September 2015  
(15-4538)  Page: 1/32  
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
 SUMMARY OF THE MEETIN G OF 15-16 JULY 2015 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
1   ADOPTION OF  THE AGENDA ........................................................................................ 5  
2   INFORMATION ON RE LEVANT ACTI VITIES .................................................................. 5  
2.1   Information from Members ......................................................................................... 5  
2.1.1   Australia – Update on BSE country assessments .......................................................... 5  
2.1.2   Argentina – Risk of introduction of BSE, information on notification 
G/SPS/N/AR G/181 ............................................................................................................ 5  
2.1.3   Peru – Presentation of the Nati onal Agency for Heal th of Fisheries ................................. 5  
2.1.4   Russian Federation – Possible scenario on African swine fever spread in the 
Eurasian region ............................................................................................................... . 6 
2.1.5   European Union – Commission proposal to amend regulation (EC) no. 1829/2003 
as regards the possibility for EU member States to restrict or prohibit the use of 
genetically modified food and feed ...................................................................................... 6  
2.1.6   Japan - Update on the situation su rrounding Japanese food after the Fukushima 
Daiichi nuclear power station accident .................................................................................. 7  
2.2   Information from the relevant  SPS standard-setting bodies ............................................. 7  
2.2.1   CODEX ................................................................................................................. . 7 
2.2.2   IPPC .................................................................................................................. ... 7 
2.2.3   OIE ....................................................................................................................... 7  
3   SPECIFIC TR ADE CONCERNS ....................................................................................... 8  
3.1   New issues .............................................................................................................. . 8 
3.1.1   Chinese import regime, including quarantine and testing procedures for fish - 
Concerns of Norway .......................................................................................................... 8  
3.1.2   The Russian Federation's import restrictions on processed fishery products from 
Estonia and Latvia – Concerns  of the Europe an Union............................................................. 8  
3.1.3   Malaysia's import restrictions related to approval of poultry meat plants – 
Concerns of  Brazil ............................................................................................................ . 9 
3.1.4   China's import restrictions due to African swine fever – Concerns of the European 
Union ......................................................................................................................... ..... 9 
3.1.5   Korea's import restrictions due to African swine fever – Concerns of the European 
Union ......................................................................................................................... .... 10 
3.1.6   Costa Rica's temporary suspension of the issuing of phytosanitary import 
certificates for avocados  – Concerns of Guatem ala and Mexico ............................................... 10 
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to thei r rights and obligations under the WTO. G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 2 - 
 
  3.1.7   China's proposed amendments to the implementation regulations on safety 
assessment of agricultural GMOs – Concerns  of Paraguay and th e United States ....................... 11 
3.1.8   EU proposal to amend regulation (E C) No. 1829/2003 to allow EU member States 
to restrict or prohibit the use of genetica lly modified food and feed – Concerns of 
Argentina, Paraguay an d the United States .......................................................................... 11 
3.2   Issues prev iously raised ............................................................................................ 12 
3.2.1   Application and modification of the EU regulation on novel foods - Concerns of 
Peru (No.  238) ................................................................................................................  12 
3.2.2   US measures on catfish – Concerns of Ch ina (No.  289) ............................................... 13 
3.2.3   General import restrictions due to BSE – Concerns of the European Union 
(No. 193) ..................................................................................................................... .. 13 
3.2.4   US and Australia non acceptance of OIE categorization of India as "negligible risk 
country" for BSE - Concerns of India (No.  375 and 376) ........................................................ 13 
3.2.5   China's measures on bovine meat – Concerns of  India (N o. 383)  .................................. 14 
3.2.6   Chinese Taipei's import restrictions on Japanese foods in response to the nuclear 
power plant accident - Concerns of Japan (No. 387) .............................................................. 14 
3.2.7   China's import restrictions on Japa nese foods in response to the nuclear power 
plant accident - Concerns  of Japan (No. 354) ....................................................................... 14 
3.2.8   India's import conditions for pork and pork products – Concerns of the European 
Union (No. 358) ............................................................................................................... 15 
3.2.9   US high cost of certification for mango exports – Concerns  of India (No. 373)................. 15 
3.2.10   EU ban on certain vegetables fr om India – Concerns of India (N o. 374) ....................... 16 
3.2.11   EU revised proposal for categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors – 
Concerns of the United  States (No. 382) ............................................................................. 16 
3.2.12   France's ban on Bisphenol A  (BPA) – Concerns of the United States  (No. 346) .............. 16 
3.2.13   US proposed rule for user fees for ag ricultural quarantine and inspection services 
– Concerns of Me xico (No.  388)  ......................................................................................... 17 
3.2.14   EU withdrawal of equivalence for processed organic products – Concerns of India 
(No. 378) ..................................................................................................................... .. 17 
3.2.15   EU phytosanitary measures for citr us black spot – Concerns of South Africa 
(No. 356) ..................................................................................................................... .. 18 
3.3   Consideration of specif ic notification s received .............................................................. 19 
3.3.1   Korea's notifications G/SPS/N/KOR/495, G/SPS/N/KOR/503 and 
G/SPS/N/KOR/504 – Concerns of the Europe an Union ........................................................... 19 
3.4   Information on resolution of  issues in G/SP S/GEN/204/Re v.15 ........................................ 19 
4   OPERATION OF TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS (G/SPS/GEN/804/REV.7) ................. 19  
5   IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT .............................. 19  
6   EQUIVALENCE - ARTICLE 4 ........................................................................................ 19  
6.1   Information from Memb ers on their experiences ........................................................... 19 
6.2   Information from releva nt observer or ganizati ons ......................................................... 19 
7   PEST- AND DISEASE-FR EE AREAS - AR TICLE 6 .......................................................... 20  
7.1   Information from Members on  their pest or disease status .............................................. 20 
7.1.1   Morocco – Declaration of Morocco as  a country free from Af rican horse sickness ............. 20 
7.1.2   Switzerland – Disease status update ......................................................................... 20 
7.1.3   Chile – Freedom from classical swine fever (CSF) ....................................................... 20 G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 3 - 
 
  7.1.4   Mexico – Freedom from classical swine fever (CSF) ..................................................... 20 
7.2   Information from Members on their experiences in recognition of pest- or disease-
free areas .................................................................................................................... ... 20 
7.2.1   Ecuador – Information on  pest- or dise ase-free areas ................................................. 20 
7.3   Information from releva nt observer or ganizati ons ......................................................... 20 
7.4   Annual Report in a ccordance with  G/SP S/48 ................................................................. 20 
8   TECHNICAL ASSISTAN CE AND COOP ERATION ........................................................... 21  
8.1   Information fr om the Secr etariat ................................................................................ 21 
8.1.1   WTO SPS activities ................................................................................................. 21 
8.1.2   STDF .................................................................................................................. . 22 
8.2   Informatio n from Members ........................................................................................ 22 
8.2.1   Technical assistan ce provided by Canada .................................................................. 22 
8.2.2   Technical assistance provided by Japan ..................................................................... 22 
8.3   Information from observer organizations ...................................................................... 22 
8.3.1   IICA - Technical assistance activities......................................................................... 22 
8.3.2   OIRSA – Rele vant activities ..................................................................................... 23 
8.3.3   AUC – Rele vant activities ........................................................................................ 23 
9   REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS 
AGREEMENT ................................................................................................................... 2 3 
9.1   Fourth Review .......................................................................................................... 23 
9.1.1   Report of informal thematic session on risk communication .......................................... 23 
9.1.2   Report of th e Informal Meeting ................................................................................ 25 
9.1.3   Preparations for th e Transparency  Worksh op ............................................................. 25 
9.1.4   Adoption of the Catalogue of Instruments .................................................................. 26 
9.1.5   Adoption of the Repo rt of the Four th Review .............................................................. 26 
10   MONITORING OF THE USE OF  INTERNATIONAL STANDARD S .................................. 27  
10.1   New Issues ............................................................................................................ 27 
10.1.1   United States – Use of the Codex international standard on glyphosate ........................ 27 
10.2   Issues previously raised ........................................................................................... 27 
10.2.1   United States – HPAI restrictions  not consistent with the OIE international 
standard ......................................................................................................................... 27 
10.3   Annual report in acco rdance with G/ SPS/11/Re v.1 ....................................................... 27 
11   CONCERNS WITH PRIVAT E AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS .................................... 28  
11.1   Report of th e informal meeting ................................................................................. 28 
11.2   Communication from Argentina ................................................................................. 29 
12   OBSE RVERS ............................................................................................................. 30  
12.1   Information from observer orga nizations .................................................................... 30 
12.1.1   ISO (G /SPS/GEN /1416 ) ........................................................................................ 30 
12.2   Requests for observer status .................................................................................... 30 
12.2.1   New requests ...................................................................................................... 30 
12.2.2   Outstand ing requests ........................................................................................... 30 G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 4 - 
 
  13   OTHER BU SINESS .................................................................................................... 30  
14   DATE AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETINGS ................................................................ 31 
 G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 
1.1.  The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee") held its sixty-
third regular meeting on 15 and 16 July 2015. The proposed agenda for the meeting was adopted 
with amendments (WTO/AIR/SPS/4 and WTO/AIR/SPS/4/Corr.1). 
2  INFORMATION ON RELEVANT ACTIVITIES 
2.1  Information from Members 2.1.1  Australia – Update on BSE country assessments 
2.1.  Australia provided information on the food  safety risk assessment which was completed in 
May 2015 for the United States. This risk a ssessment was carried out under the Australian 
Government's BSE food safety policy 2009, which re quired that all countries exporting or seeking 
to e xp ort b ee f or b e e f p rod uc ts  to Aus tralia ha ve  a food  s afe ty ris k as s e s s me nt und e rtake n b y 
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). The results of the risk assessment indicated that 
the United States had comprehensive and well-estab lished controls to prevent the introduction and 
amplification of the BSE agent within the cattle population and to prevent contamination of the 
human food supply with the BSE agent. The assessment concluded that US beef products were 
safe for human consumption and recommended Category 1 BSE status for the United States. Australia informed the Committee that  its authorities were working together with the United States 
to finalise certification requirements for shelf-stable beef products, and that a copy of the risk 
assessment was available on the FSANZ website ( http://www.foodstandards.gov.au ). 
2.1.2  Argentina – Risk of introduction  of BSE, information on notification 
G/SPS/N/ARG/181 
2.2.  Argentina provided an update on its BSE si tuation, highlighting that a health monitoring 
programme was currently in force for imported animals to avoid introduction of BSE. Argentina informed Members that it had updated its 2012 domestic legislation, including the relevant 
provisions related to the import of live animals, animal products and goods containing such 
products, with respect to BSE. This legislatio n was adopted in April 2015 and was subsequently 
notified to the WTO, with a 60-day comment period. Argentina indicated that a number of 
countries had submitted comments, which had been analysed. Where relevant, the legislation had 
been amended. This process had increased harmonization of Argentina's legislation with the recently adopted OIE recommendations for BSE. Arge ntina indicated that the revised version of the 
legislation had been published in June 2015 and notified in G/SPS/N/ARG/181/Add.1. 
2.3.  The European Union referred to its comments on the legislation notified by Argentina in April 
2015. While the legislation recognized the OIE's BSE risk status, it was not fully aligned with the OIE because it still included requirements for importing safe commodities, regardless of the BSE 
status of the exporting country, contrary to OIE recommendations. The European Union provided 
additional information on other aspects of the legislation which were not in line with the OIE recommendations, such as the requirement to cond uct a risk assessment for all goods intended for 
food and feed, regardless of the BSE status of  the exporting country. Argentina had taken into 
consideration some of the EU comments on the legislation notified in April. However, the European Union noted that the revised legislation still did not recognize the OIE list of safe commodities and included requirements for the importation of such  commodities from BSE controlled countries. The 
European Union urged Argentina to comply with its obligations under the SPS Agreement, and to 
fully align its requirements with those of the OIE.  
2.4.  Argentina thanked the European Union for its comments and indicated that it would pursue 
the issue through bilateral consultations. 
2.1.3  Peru – Presentation of the Nati onal Agency for Health of Fisheries  
2.5.  Peru provided information on its National Agency for Health of Fisheries (SANIPES), created 
in 2013 to promote the growth and sustainable de velopment of the production and marketing of 
fishery and aquaculture products and resources in accordance with international standards, as well as to protect public health. Peru outlined the functions of SANIPES, including the investigation, G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 6 - 
 
  regulation, supervision and monitoring of fisher y and aquaculture activities. In addition, Peru 
highlighted the additional responsibilities of SANIPES  such as issuing health certificates for exports 
of fishery and aquaculture products, as well as managing the international equivalence of sanitary regulations, in order to ensure recognition by its trading partners. Peru informed the Committee 
that SANIPES participated in several committees including the Codex Alimentarius Commission, 
and that it had budgetary, technical and scienti fic autonomy. Additional information on SANIPES 
activities was available in document G/SPS/GEN/1423 and from the agency's official website 
http://www.sanipes.gob.pe . 
2.1.4  Russian Federation – Possible scenar io on African swine fever spread in the 
Eurasian region 
2.6.  The Russian Federation recalled the spread of African swine fever (ASF) in the Eurasian 
region, noting that several ASF cases had been reported in the past year and a half. In the Russian 
Federation's view, the affected countries had not b een prepared to manage the disease or to halt 
its rapid spread. The high density of the wild boar  population alongside small-scale pig production 
and low biosafety levels were contributing factors. The Russian Federation informed Members that 
it had urged the European Union to comply with the requirements of the common veterinary certificate, noting that as a result, the trade in live pigs and raw pig products with the European 
Union had been suspended. The Russian Federation also noted several expansions of the European 
Union's quarantine borders as a result of the rapid spread of ASF, highlighting that at least ten trading partners were proceeding with trade on the basis of bilateral certificates, instead of EU guarantees. The Russian Federation further informed Members of its continued work to 
eradicate ASF and its collaboration with the Global Framework for the progressive control of 
Transboundary Animal Diseases (GF-TADS). The Russian Federation expressed concern at the 
number of outbreaks in Ukraine, which had led to  requests for strengthened monitoring at the 
Ukrainian borders by some neighbouring countries. In order to avoid serious losses from the 
spread of ASF, the Russian Federation encouraged Members to base their measures on the OIE Code. 
2.7.  The European Union expressed concerns rega rding use of the agenda item for purposes other 
than providing information to Members on releva nt activities and stated that, because of the 
ongoing dispute settlement case, it would not discuss the Russian Federation allegations. The European Union recalled some of the inform ation previously presented to the Committee, 
highlighting that the first case of ASF had been introduced into the European Union in January 
2014, most likely from its Eastern neighbours, and that the disease had had very limited geographical spread from the EU border with the disease-source countries from where there were 
still occasional incursions. The European Union also stated that all occurrences were notified 
according to OIE recommendations, that comprehe nsive and harmonised disease control measures 
were in place to contain, and eventually eradicate, major animal diseases like ASF, that it applied 
zoning/regionalization in accordance with OIE principles, and that enhanced passive and active 
surveillance were in place. The number of cases in wild boar reflected the high quality of surveillance implemented in the affected EU memb er States. Moreover, the European Union stated 
that the effectiveness of the measures had been demonstrated by the limited geographical spread 
of the disease in terms of distance from the source and also confirmed by a recent EFSA report. 
Finally, the European Union called on other Memb ers to show the same level of transparency, 
recalled the ongoing work within the Global Framework for the progressive control of 
Transboundary Animal Diseases (GF-TADS), and reiterated its commitment to work collaboratively 
with all affected countries to control the spread of ASF in a transparent, co-ordinated and structured manner. 
2.1.5  European Union – Commission proposal to amend regulation (EC) no. 1829/2003 
as regards the possibility for EU member Stat es to restrict or prohibit the use of 
genetically modified food and feed 
2.8.  The European Union announced that on 20 May 2015, it had notified under the WTO TBT 
Agreement a proposal for amending the EU legislat ion on genetically modified food and feed. The 
regulation, notified under G/TBT/N/EU/284, would provide legal basis for the EU member States 
which so wished, to take a decision on the use of genetically modified food and feed on their 
territory, subject to certain conditions. The European Union emphasized that the proposal did not 
introduce any restriction or ban; EFSA would continue to assess the relevant products, and the European Union to authorise these products in accordance with this assessment. The regulation G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 7 - 
 
  would provide the possibility for EU member States to opt out of the EU decision for "overriding 
reasons of public interest", disconnected from the assessment of risk to health and to the 
environment. Such member-State measures must respect principles such as non-discrimination and proportionality; they would not be SPS-relate d. The European Union stated that the proposal 
was not an SPS measure but it was mentioned in the SPS Committee for reasons of transparency. 
The European Union further explained that the mobi lity of GM food and feed would be preserved 
and that the regulation would not allow members Stat es to restrict the use of food and feed when 
GMOs are present at trace levels, or restri ct products from animals fed with GMOs. 
2.1.6  Japan - Update on the situation su rrounding Japanese food after the Fukushima 
Daiichi nuclear power station accident 
2.9.  Japan reminded the Committee of different ac tions taken to ensure food safety, and indicated 
that the limit values of radionuclides in products established by Japan were consistent with an 
intervention exemption level adopted by Codex. Th e results of monitoring tests showed that the 
rate of products exceeding these levels had drastica lly decreased. Distribution of the most affected 
products was restricted. Consequently, Japanese  food was safe, and unsafe products were not 
allowed to enter the food chain or to be expo rted. The International Atomic Energy Agency 
repeated on several occasions that the systems in  place prevented products with radionuclides in 
excess of the national regulatory limits from en tering the food supply. Japan appreciated that 
Thailand had lifted its import ban and the United Stated had eased its import restrictions. Japan would continue to provide regular information about the situation. 
2.2  Information from the relevant SPS standard-setting bodies 
2.2.1  CODEX 
2.10.  Codex provided an update about the Codex sessions that were held since the last SPS 
Committee meeting, as detailed in G/SPS/GEN/1432. The Codex Alimentarius Commission had 
met the week immediately preceding the SPS Committee meeting. Apart from adopting 36 new 
standards, the Commission had on a timeline for an internal review of the Codex work management and functioning of the Executive Comm ittee. Moreover, there was a discussion on the 
future of scientific advice to Codex, and in particular on the funding for this advice. Members also 
discussed the second phase of the Codex trust fund, which should become operational next year. One agenda item that had taken up a lot of time at the Commission meeting: the maximum residue limits for recombinant bovine somatotropin
 (rBST). The Commission had recognized the 
validity of JECFA's risk assessment, but there had been no consensus on the adoption of the 
standard. The Commission thus decided to keep the standard at step 8. 
2.2.2  IPPC 
2.11.  The IPPC introduced the new IPPC secretary, Mr Jingyuan Xia. The Commission on 
Phytosanitary Measures (CPM) held in March had unanimously supported the proposal to hold an international year of plant health in 2020. This project was also supported by FAO. The list of 
adopted ISPMs could be found on the International Phytosanitary Portal. The IPPC indicated that 
there would be a special topic session at CPM 2016 on the risk associated with the movement of sea containers, and gave an update of IPPC work on  this topic. Additional information, including on 
topics for new standards, and for revisions of existing standards, can be found in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1433. Finally, the IPPC provided an update on the resolution of a dispute in relation to 
citrus black spot, where an expert panel was being formed to review the issue. The IPPC asked Members to submit named of suitable experts on citrus black spot to the IPPC secretariat.  
2.2.3  OIE  
2.12.  The OIE provided information on the 83
rd general session held in May 2015, during which a 
new Director General, Dr Monique Eloit, was elected. The OIE reported on the revision and addition 
of standards in the OIE Terrestrial Code and th e Aquatic Code. The standard on foot and mouth 
disease (FMD) was revised, a new standard on Taenia solium was adopted, and a specific provision relating to the BSE standard was added to the Terre strial Code. Chapters of the Aquatic Code were 
revised and new chapters were added; acute hepatopancreatic necrosis disease (AHPND) was 
listed by the OIE. The OIE also informed Members of the official recognition of members' disease G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 8 - 
 
  status relating to six priority diseases: BSE, FMD, contagious bovine pleuropneumonia, African 
horse sickness, peste des petits ruminants and classical swine fever. More information is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1427. 
3  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
3.1  New issues 
3.1.1  Chinese import regime, including quar antine and testing procedures for fish - 
Concerns of Norway 
3.1.  Norway expressed concern about China's new import control regime for seafood from 
Norway, which included extensive testing for up to 40 substances. As a result, the costs for importers and exporters were increased, and products were kept in quarantine for a longer period. However, China had not notified any finding that could explain such measure. Norway highlighted 
that the new regulation was implemented in a non-transparent and discriminatory manner, since 
the increased testing only applied to Norwegian products. Furthermore, since 2011, Norway had repeatedly asked for consultations at technical level, but this request had never been addressed. 
Norway urged China to provide information on this new regime and on quarantine procedures in 
general, and on all specific measures applicable to Norwegian seafood. Norway also requested China bilateral consultations on food safety issues relating to trade in seafood. 
3.2.  China responded that uncompliant produc ts had been found on several occasions and 
constituted a risk for consumer health. The General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) had issued an announcement in 2011 to further strengthen inspection and quarantine of salmons imported from all Members. China stated that these 
measures were not new and were based on existing Chinese laws and regulations. Moreover, the 
measures were addressing the threat represente d by Norwegian aquatic products mentioned in 
several reports over the last years. China ha d therefore strengthened the inspection and 
quarantine of high risk products.  
3.3.  Norway reiterated its request for consultations with China at a technical level and informed 
the Committee that Norwegian food safety regulations were harmonised with the EU legislation, 
and as a result, were in compliance with EU requirements.  
3.1.2  The Russian Federation's import restri ctions on processed fishery products from 
Estonia and Latvia – Concerns of the European Union 
3.4.  The European Union indicated that, as of 4 June, the Russian Federation introduced a ban on 
imports of all fishery products from Estonia and Latvia, allegedly due to deficiencies detected 
during recent inspections. The European Union stated that the measure had been notified very late, was inconsistent with the SPS Agreement and taken in violation of Russia's WTO Accession 
commitments which included not to suspend exports from groups of establishments without having 
provided first the technical information and scientific justification of the risks detected, and not to take such measures before the expiry of the ti meframe provided for the adoption of corrective 
measures. Indeed, Russia had not provided evidence of immediate risk to consumers caused by 
deficiencies in the control systems of Estonia an d Latvia, which had been regularly inspected by 
the Russian Federation in recent years without having identified any major problems. The measures were clearly more trade restrictive than necessary and the ban had been announced 
before the official reports of the inspections were  provided to the competent authorities of Latvia 
or Estonia. The European Union expressed its willingness to cooperate with the Russian Federation to address their concerns but requested the Russi an Federation to lift the ban, to bring its 
measures in line with international standards, and to respect its WTO obligations. 
3.5.  The Russian Federation replied that conclusi ons by Russian experts about deficiencies in the 
work of the Latvian and Estonian competent author ities overlapped with the results of previous 
investigations by the European Union, and the presence of a risk was also confirmed by the 
notifications of the EU Commission in the rapid alert system. Russia stressed the importance and urgency of the report made by the European Union about the safety of food products. An 
inspection in 2013 had showed that Latvia and Estonia had not taken measures to withdraw unsafe 
products from the market. According to Russia, the European Union had failed to take necessary G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 9 - 
 
  measures in relation to establishments where violations were detected and to inform its trade 
partners. Indeed, between 2013 and July 2015, Russian inspections had revealed more than 2,000 cases of unreliable certification, and yet, no effective measures had been taken against the violators. The Russian Federation had concluded th at the guarantees given by the European Union 
were not reliable. As a result, Russia was forced to impose temporary restrictions, as stated in 
official letters to the European Union. The measures were not bans, but temporary restrictions, and complied with the SPS Agreement, which a llowed Members to adopt measures to protect 
human, animal or plant health.  
3.6.  The European Union clarified that they di d not dispute Russia's right to take SPS measures, 
but expected proportionate measures taken in a transparent manner and in accordance with the SPS Agreement.  
3.1.3  Malaysia's import restrictions rela ted to approval of poultry meat plants – 
Concerns of Brazil 
3.7.  Brazil raised concerns regarding the Malaysian Government's delays in approving Brazilian 
poultry meat export plants and the lack of definition of the applicable international sanitary 
certification. Brazil had been negotiating access to the Malaysian poultry meat market since 2010, and had not received a mission from Malaysia to audit Brazilian plants before March 2014. Since 
then, the Brazil had only received a feedback about one establishment. According to Brazil, this 
situation was in breach of paragraph 1(a) of Annex C of the SPS Agreement. Brazil had also proposed an international sanitary certificate to support its exports of poultry meat, but Malaysia had provided no answer to this request. Malaysia  had not presented scientific evidence for the lack 
of approval of the audited facilities. The final audit report and the response to the proposed 
certificate had also been unduly delayed. Brazil affirmed that the Malaysian measure did not comply with the provisions of Articles 2 and 5 of  the SPS Agreement since it resulted in arbitrary 
and unjustified discrimination between Members and in disregard of the objective of minimizing 
negative trade effects. The measure was also inconsistent with the provisions on control, inspection and approval procedures contained in Ar ticle 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement, as it 
created undue and unnecessary delays in the open ing of the Malaysian market. Therefore, Brazil 
requested the Malaysian authorities to approve th e Brazilian poultry meat export plants and to 
react to the proposal made by Brazil regarding the international sanitary certificate. 
3.8.  Malaysia replied that, as mentioned by Brazil, there had been an inspection. The result had 
been communicated to Brazil, one plant had been approved, and three had been rejected because 
they failed to comply with the Malaysian halal standard. Malaysia encouraged the Brazilian Embassy to send a written request to the Malaysian veterinary services. 
3.1.4  China's import restrictions due to Af rican swine fever – Concerns of the European 
Union 
3.9.  The European Union raised concerns about China's bans due to African Swine Fever (ASF) 
and indicated that the vast majority of EU trading partners did not take any import measures 
against the European Union on African Swine Fever (ASF) grounds because they fully trusted the strict EU control system. China had imposed a ban on EU pork and pork products since February 
2014 without applying regionalization, any scientific justification, or clarification on how and when 
it would recognise the stringent zoning measures put in place in the European Union to allow the 
prompt resumption of safe trade despite continuously receiving information from the European Union about these stringent control, surveillanc e and monitoring measures. The European Union 
had requested several times that China provide a risk assessment justifying the country-wide ban 
and the non-recognition of the EU zoning measures, but China had failed to respond. The European Union asked China to respect its regi onalization obligations under the SPS Agreement 
and to allow the trade of all safe products. 
3.10.  China replied that its measures were entirely based on science and safety considerations. 
It highlighted the threat represented by ASF in the world, and the fact that China was a major pig producer, and as such subject to great losses in case the disease entered the country. China 
indicated that the measures were in line with relevant Chinese laws and regulations that prohibited 
imports of relevant animals and animal products from countries infected by ASF. Finally, China G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 10 - 
 
  stated that it needed to evaluate further the measures taken by the European Union, since a 
number of cases of ASF had still been detected in recent months in the region of Podlaskie, Poland. 
3.1.5  Korea's import restrictions due to Af rican swine fever – Concerns of the European 
Union 
3.11.  The European Union raised a concern about the import restrictions on pork and pork 
products put in place in February 2014 by Korea on African Swine Fever (ASF) grounds. The European Union repeated that trade could take pl ace safely, and affirmed that Korea disrespected 
the SPS Agreement regarding regionalization. Korea continuously received detailed information on 
the control, surveillance and monitoring measures of the European Union. Korea's risk assessment 
process lacked of clarity about the required steps and the use of information provided by the European Union. The European Union called on Korea to respect its regionalization obligations 
under the SPS Agreement and to allow trade of all safe products. The European Union also 
restated its availability to continue working with Korea and any other trading partners with a view to finding a rapid solution on this matter. 
3.12.  Korea responded that it had banned pork and pork products from Poland since the first case 
of ASF was reported in February 2014, in agreement with Poland. In response to the European Union for regionalization, Korea had implemented the necessary steps to assess the current 
situation in Poland, and hired experts to that effect. The preliminary assessment on ASF had been 
delivered to Poland and an exchange of views wa s still under way. As a result, Korea had been 
consistent with Articles 6.2 and 6.3 of the SPS Agreement and hoped to continue bilateral discussion on the basis of science and future data. 
3.1.6  Costa Rica's temporary suspension of the issuing of phytosanitary import 
certificates for avocados  – Concerns of Guatemala and Mexico 
3.13.  Mexico raised concerns regarding the emergency measure taken by Costa Rica's 
phsytosanitary service in April 2015 through resolution  DSFE 03-2015, notified to the WTO under 
G/SPS/N/CRI/160 and G/SPS/N/CRI/160/Add.1. Costa Rica had temporarily suspended the issuing of import certificates for avocados of various origins because of the supposed presence of the 
sunblotch viroid  in imported avocados. Costa Rica had affirmed that the nature of the problem was 
urgent, but according to Mexico there was no international regulatory basis for this view. Indeed, the fact that Costa Rica had declared that its territory was free of a pest could not be a basis for the implementation of the emergency phytosanitary measure. The consequence was a complete 
interruption of trade, and Mexico did not believe that the measure was legitimate. Mexico 
requested a demonstration of the absence of the pe st in line with ISPM 04, Requirements for the 
Establishment of Pest Free Areas. The interruption of trade meant that Costa Rica's measure was 
not proportional to the risk, especially because ther e has been no notification of the pest in Mexico 
for 21 years. Mexico noted that the measure contravened the SPS Agreement and the SPS Chapter of the Free Trade Agreement between Mexico and Latin America. Mexico finally requested several 
documents from Costa Rica showing that Costa Rica was actually free of the pest, and information 
on shipments of avocados from Mexico that had shown positive results for the pest. 
3.14.  Guatemala, South Africa and the United St ates shared Mexico's concern. Guatemala also 
requested information about Costa Rica's pest free pest status. The United States worried that this 
suspension of the issuance of import permits fo r avocados from eight countries and Florida was 
part of a larger attempt to use SPS measures to protect sensitive domestic industries. In the US view, the measure raised concerns regarding its consistency with international standards and 
guidelines, its scientific justification and its level of trade restrictiveness. South Africa was 
concerned that it appeared on the list of countries affected by the suspension despite the fact that it was not exporting avocados to Costa Rica. South Africa requested to be removed from the list. 
3.15.  Costa Rica reaffirmed its commitment to transparency and to to the multilateral system. It 
referred to measures taken to protect the country fr om the virus and repeated that this pest could 
cause considerable damage to the phytosanitary status of its crop. Studies carried out in 2014-2015 by its SPS authorities had established that Costa Rica was free from the virus. As a result, 
the country had taken SPS measures against Peru and California to avoid the introduction of the 
pest. Costa Rica indicated that Mexico was its main provider of avocados and had reported the presence of the pest, which demonstrated the presence of an imminent risk. The current measure G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 11 - 
 
  was temporary, and a risk assessment was under way. Costa Rica indicated that its authorities 
were in close contact with Mexico. 
3.1.7  China's proposed amendments to th e implementation regulations on safety 
assessment of agricultural GMOs – Concer ns of Paraguay and the United States 
3.16.  Paraguay raised a concern about the inclusion of some socio-economic aspects in the 
Chinese risk assessment process for GMOs, contra ry to Article 5 of SPS Agreement and to the 
guidance of the relevant international organizati ons recognized by the WTO. The amendments to 
the implementing regulations had been notified in G/SPS/N/CHN/881. Paraguay stated that the 
measures, which went beyond scientific principles, could lead to arbitrary or unjustified distinctions, and that the inclusion of these elemen ts could undermine the production of safe food. 
Paraguay therefore requested China to recons ider the amendments to the regulations. 
3.17.  The United States shared Paraguay's concer n, and stressed the importance of notification of 
such measures to allow trading partners to review proposed changes, provide and discuss 
comments, and see them being taken into account. The United States highlighted its concerns 
about the negative impact that policies related to regulatory approval procedures for biotech 
products could have on the ability of consumers an d producers to reap the benefits of advances in 
technology through trade. The delays and lack of transparency in China's current biotech approval 
process meant that several products were pending at various stages in the process, despite the 
SPS Agreement's prohibition on undue delays in approval procedures and its obligation regarding standard processing periods and for a mechanism to resolve complaints. China was seeking to remove the specific timelines governing its regulatory review process, and was introducing new 
criteria referring to economic and social considerations. The United States had requested additional 
information from China in order to better understand the objectives behind the proposed changes. The United States also wished to ensure that the measures would comply with the SPS Agreement, 
and requested that China delay the implementation of the revisions to allow for a substantive 
dialogue with its trading partners. The United States further requested that China approve the 
currently pending events in a timely fashion and that the proposed changes to China's approval 
system not depart from the key tenets of timely , predictable science-based approvals required by 
the SPS Agreement. 
3.18.  China replied that the changes to its regulations aimed to enhance the management of 
safety evaluations for agricultural GMOs. The draft version of these management measures had 
been notified on 2 June and was open to comments until 1 August 2015. China indicated that it 
had not received comments from the United States and Paraguay, but would take any comments into consideration for further modification and improvement of the measures. 
3.1.8  EU proposal to amend regulation (E C) No. 1829/2003 to allow EU member States 
to restrict or prohibit the use of genetica lly modified food and feed – Concerns of 
Argentina, Paraguay and the United States 
3.19.  Argentina raised concerns about this amen dment, notified in G/TBT/N/EU/284, which would 
allow EU member States to restrict or prohibit the use of genetically modified food and feed approved at EU level. Currently, member States had the right to restrict or prohibit imports of such 
products when there was scientific proof that they represented a risk for health or for the 
environment. The new EU proposal would allow member States to ban or restrict the use of these 
products without requiring scientific evidence. In the past, the European Union and its member States had attempted to justify restrictions on use of GMOs for scientific reasons, without success. 
This new proposal could be considered as an al ternative way to reach the same objective. The 
measure would enable EU member States to create unnecessary barriers to international trade. It would also introduce unpredictability in commodity trade, and would affect the single market and 
the free movement of goods in the European Union. Argentina therefore invited the European 
Union to reconsider this draft amendment and to implement the current EU legislation on 
authorization and approval of GMOs in the entire  European Union in accordance with multilateral 
rules. 
3.20.  Paraguay shared Argentina's concerns with respect to the EU proposal, which could have an 
effect on products used for several years and wh ich had not had any adverse effect on human and 
animal health or on the environment. The am endment would allow member States to take G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 12 - 
 
  measures not be based on scientific evidence, which would therefore not comply with the 
SPS Agreement. The European Union was a major trading partner for Paraguay and Argentina, and the proposal was of great concern for their prod ucers. Paraguay therefore asked the European 
Union to reconsider the amendment of the regulation. 
3.21.  The United States also shared the concern, raising procedural questions, since the 
EU proposal had only been notified to the TBT Co mmittee, but should also have been notified to 
the SPS Committee in accordance with Article 7 and Annex B of the SPS Agreement, and the 
SPS Committee's Recommended Transparency Procedures contained in G/SPS/7/Rev.3. The 
amendment related to Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003 that was an SPS measure because it governed the health and safety approvals of biotech products. This measure had been notified to the SPS Committee in G/SPS/N/EEC/149, with several addenda and corrigenda. The United States 
also expressed substantive concerns regarding the amendment's potential adverse effects on 
trade, including unfair competition, regulatory  uncertainty, increased costs, and damages to 
integrated supply chains. The proposal could lead to a proliferation of arbitrary and discriminatory 
measures and to a lack of clarity and certainty. Finally, the United States recalled the EC-Biotech  
(2006) dispute, in which the DSB had found that nine EU member State bans of biotech products approved at the EU level were inconsistent with the European Union's obligations under the 
SPS Agreement. Yet some EU member States had maintained such bans, and adopted new ones. 
The United States urged the European Union not to adopt the proposal. 
3.22.  Brazil, Canada and Uruguay also shared this concern, emphasizing the measure's potential 
negative effect on trade and seeking additional information. 
3.23.  The European Union explained that the proposal was not an SPS measure. It had no relation 
to the protection of life or health, since restrictions linked to health risks or to the environment were excluded. As a consequence, the measure did not fall under the scope of the SPS Agreement. 
The European Commission would report the comments received from the WTO Members to its co-
legislators. The European Union indicated that it had complied with its transparency obligations by notifying the legislation, which clearly indicated that member States could not invoke the risks to 
health or life to impose a ban or a restriction on GMOs. 
3.2  Issues previously raised 3.2.1  Application and modification of the EU  regulation on novel foods - Concerns of 
Peru (No. 238) 
3.24.  Peru reiterated its concerns over the EU proposal for a regulation repealing Regulation 
(EC) No. 258/98 on novel foods notified in G/SPS/N/EU/64. Peru's traditional biodiversity products with high export potential were being affected by  the European Union's current regulation on novel 
foods, to the detriment of small- and medium si zed Peruvian producers and exporters. Peru gave 
the example of "huito", the marketing of which is re stricted in the European Union, as described in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1422. Peru requested that the European Union indicate the scientific basis 
for its regulation on novel foods and take into consideration the points raised by Peru at different 
meetings.  
3.25.  Colombia, Ecuador, the Dominican Republic , Nicaragua, Guatemala, Costa Rica and Brazil 
supported Peru's statement, and highlighted the measures potential adverse effects on trade that 
the measure. They stated that the EU measur e was not based on scientific principles and 
requested more information on its current status. 
3.26.  The European Union announced that the definitive text of the new regulation was not yet 
available, although some progress had been made  by the co-legislators. It was not possible to 
anticipate the potential risk associated with all novel foods, production processes and methods, and to address them in an all-encompassing ri sk assessment. The high level of food safety 
pursued by the European Union could only be achieved on a case-by-case basis within the 
framework of a pre-market approval system, in accordance with Article 8 and Annex C of the 
SPS Agreement. Regarding "huito", there had been no application for its authorization as novel food. Since the current novel food regulation ha d been in place since 1997, but there had been 
substantial imports of "huito" into the European Union in 2008, there seemed to be no causal 
relationship between the regulation and the trade of  this product into the European Union. Like all G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 13 - 
 
  other traditional biodiversity foods, "huito" should particularly benefit from the new novel food 
regulation, since it was likely to qualify for the simplified, shorter procedure for such traditional foods. The European Union announced that once th e regulation was adopted, guidance on all the 
information to be presented by applicants would be  made available for public consultation and an 
information session would be organized. The European Union remained committed to cooperating 
on this matter with all interested WTO Members.  
3.2.2  US measures on catfish – Concerns of China (No. 289) 
3.27.  China recalled its concerns regarding US regulations on the mandatory inspection of catfish 
and catfish product notified in March 2011, which transferred the regulatory food safety oversight of all Siluriformes  f i s h  f r o m  t h e  F o o d  a n d  D r u g  A d m i n i s t r a t i o n  ( F D A )  t o  t h e  U n i t e d  S t a t e s  
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety Inspection  Service (FSIS). As a re sult, the United States 
applied terrestrial animal meat inspection procedures for the imports of Siluriformes fish, including 
catfish. According to China, the inspection prog ramme was not based on science and would result 
in a disguised restriction on international trade. China also recalled that according to the 2012 
US Government Accountability Office report, the risk of food poisoning from catfish might be 
overestimated. China urged the United States to revoke all legislation on mandatory inspection of Siluriformes fish and to maintain the catfish inspection programme under the FDA regulatory 
system of aquatic products. 
3.28.  The United States explained that the regulation was based on relevant international 
standards and would also apply to domestic products. The United States welcomed comments from Members in this regard. 
3.2.3  General import restrictions due to BSE – Concerns of the European Union 
(No. 193) 
3.29.  The European Union reiterated the importance of this long-standing concern and restated 
the observations presented during the March 2015 meeting. The European Union again urged all 
Members to align their BSE requirements with OIE standards and welcomed progress made by China and United States by allowing imports from some member States to take place. The 
European Union urged Australia, Ukraine and Kore a to progress rapidly to speed their import 
approval procedures. The European Union recalled also the international obligations of WTO Members, and its own high level of transparency  towards other countries by providing technical 
information about the EU animal health and food safety system. 
3.30.  China reiterated the explanation that it had provided in March 2015 and recalled its interest 
in looking forward to enhanced technical exchange and consultation with the European Union on the prevention and control of BSE and other animal disease. 
3.2.4  US and Australia non acceptance of OIE categorization of India as "negligible risk 
country" for BSE - Concerns of India (No. 375 and 376) 
3.31.  India restated its concern that the United States and Australia did not accept the OIE 
categorization of India as a negligible risk count ry for BSE. India had shared its OIE dossier with 
the United States, but had not received any response yet. India urged both countries to carry their assessment in accordance to OIE standards. 
3.32.  The United States restated its commitment to align its import regulations governing BSE 
with that of OIE guidelines as reflected in USDA APHIS final rule published in 2013. It was 
currently reviewing India's OIE dossier, and the result would be published and public comments 
welcomed. 
3.33.  Australia said it hoped previous bilate ral discussions with India had helped to clarify 
Australia’s position and reiterated that it reserved its right to conduct its own risk assessments on India's or any other Member's status in relation to diseases of biosecurity concern, including BSE, 
in accordance with its appropriate level of protection. G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 14 - 
 
  3.34.  India referred to the explicit recognition of OIE standards under Annex A.3 of the 
SPS Agreement, and invited the United States and Australia to share any additional factors that would be taken into consideration in determining India's BSE status. 
3.2.5  China's measures on bovine meat – Concerns of India (No. 383) 
3.35.  India recalled its concern about China's import ban on buffalo meat and the various 
exchanges of FMD-related information that had taken place since 2013. India had implemented the OIE recommendations, in particular on importation from FMD free countries or zones where 
vaccination is practised (Chapter 8.5, Article 8. 5.23), and was exporting frozen buffalo meat to 
several WTO Members.  
3.36.  China confirmed that the import ban on Indian artiodactyla and artiodactyla  products was 
due to FMD concerns and recalled that a Memorand um of Understanding had been signed by both 
parties in May 2013. It had received supplementary materials on India's disease status in 
March 2015, which were being reviewed in preparation of a field visit to India. 
3.2.6  Chinese Taipei's import restrictions on  Japanese foods in response to the nuclear 
power plant accident - Concerns of Japan (No. 387) 
3.37.  Japan reiterated its concerns over the import ban imposed by Chinese Taipei on food 
exports from five Japanese prefectures after th e accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear 
Power Station, as well as over the strengthened import restrictions imposed since 15 May 2015. 
According to information published by Chinese Taipei, none of the more than 70,000 samples of Japanese food products tested had exceeded Chinese Taipei's limit levels of radioactive cesium, which seemed to confirm the appropriateness of Japan's measures taken after the incident. Japan 
also noted that Chinese Taipei's import restrictions were not based on science, nor based on the 
relevant international standards, and were more trade restrictive than required. Japan requested that Chinese Taipei complete its risk assessment and immediately remove its measures. Japan also 
expressed hope that bilateral consultations would help find a mutually acceptable solution. 
3.38.  Chinese Taipei confirmed the implementa tion of control measures consisting in the 
temporary suspension of inspection applications for food produced in the Fukushima and the other 
four nearby prefectures since March 2011. However, in March 2015 food products from the 
restricted prefectures had entered the Chinese Taip ei market using false labelling. Consequently, 
Chinese Taipei had implemented control measures requiring certificates of origin and, for specific food products and prefectures, radioactive ex amination reports. Chinese Taipei also noted 
concerns over the continuous leakage of radioactive contaminated water from Fukushima nuclear 
power plant since 2013. Chinese Taipei reiterated its commitment to bilateral efforts to find a solution to this matter.  
3.2.7  China's import restrictions on Japane se foods in response to the nuclear power 
plant accident - Concerns of Japan (No. 354) 
3.39.  Japan reiterated its concern regarding the import restrictions imposed by China on Japanese 
food exports after the accident at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. Japan 
recalled that despite raising this concern in each Committee meeting since March 2014, no progress had been made. Japan regretted that China maintained a ban on products from ten prefectures without considering additional information provided. Japan had proposed pre-test 
certificates in June 2011, answered all technical questions asked in August 2012 and shared a 
comprehensive monitoring result in June 2013. Japan reiterated its concerns that China had deliberately avoided any progress on this issue fo r more than three years, and that its measures 
and actions were not in line with the requirement of several articles of the SPS Agreement 
including Article 2.3, Article 7 and Annex B as well as Article 8 and Annex C. Japan urged China to accept the proposed form of the pre-test certific ate and to immediately lift the import ban on the 
ten Japanese prefectures. Japan stressed that it  would consider every effective option for the 
resolution of this issue. 
3.40.  China explained that it had been adjusting its measures on Japanese imports in accordance 
with Japan's nuclear pollution status and its risk analysis results. Import restrictions were currently 
imposed only for high-risk products from seriou sly polluted regions. China noted that through G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 15 - 
 
  smooth bilateral cooperation, exports from Japan had increased each year since 2012, and in 2014 
represented more than 85% of the level of export s in 2010. China noted that the monitoring of the 
Fukushima Daiichi power plant revealed that Japan's control measures were unsatisfactory, especially regarding the treatment of radioactiv e waste water, which had delayed the lifting of 
import restrictions. China was currently conducting a risk assessment on the latest status of 
nuclear pollution, based on updated information received in April 2015. 
3.41.  Japan appreciated China's comments and welcomed more consultations between the 
competent authorities of both governments. 
3.2.8  India's import conditions for pork an d pork products – Concerns of the European 
Union (No. 358) 
3.42.  The European Union thanked India for the noti fication on its certificate for import of pork 
and pork products (G/SPS/N/IND/98). The European  Union welcomed India's introduction of the 
regionalization and of references to alternative re quirements to the Indian laws based on OIE and 
Codex standards. The European Union urged India to take into account its comments in finalizing 
the certificate and to allow imports quickly. Th e European Union requested that India provide a 
solid risk analysis demonstrating, for example, that  the diseases included in the health certificate 
were transmitted by pork or pork products and th at they pose a significant risk to India. The 
European Union asked India to make a series of specific changes to the certificates. The European 
Union was concerned because despite repeated requests, it had not received any scientific justification from India for deviating from the OI E standards, and because the Indian requirements 
would unnecessarily and unjustifiably restrict trade in safe products. The European Union 
requested that India notify the health certificat e for imports of live pigs. The European Union 
welcomed future discussions to allow imports of safe products to India. 
3.43.  India explained that the requirements were being developed taking into account comments 
received from Members in accordance with pa ragraph 5(d) of Annex B. Comments had been 
received from Canada, South Africa and the Unit ed States, but not from the European Union. 
3.2.9  US high cost of cert ification for mango exports – Concerns of India (No. 373) 
3.44.  India restated its concerns about the high cost of certification for mango exports to the 
United States. Since April 2007, India had been granted access to export mangoes to the United States on the basis that its mangoes would first be irradiated, under the supervision of US inspectors. India noted the high cost of certification that it had to bear, which amounted to 
approximately 12% of the FOB costs per metric ton of mangoes exported to the United States. 
India recalled that in a bilateral meeting held in March 2015, the United States had offered the possibility of irradiation upon arrival, and Indi a had requested circulation of the corresponding 
draft work plan.  
3.45.  Brazil and the Dominican Republic shared In dia's concern. Brazil noted that during the 2015 
mango exports season, Brazil had spent half a million US dollars for the on-the-spot inspection 
carried by the US inspectors. Brazil noted that the procedures were costly and duplicative, and 
urged the United States to ease its requirements. The Dominican Republic requested further information from the United States on the costs of import procedures. 
3.46.  The United States confirmed that India had exported mangoes every year since the market 
was opened in 2007, and the value of those exports had risen to reach nearly 2 million US dollars 
in 2014. The United States recalled the two op tions that had been di scussed in March 2015: 
(1) expansion of the current irradiation programm e by resolving substantial deficiencies of new 
irradiation facilities in Vashi and Innova; and (2) irradiation upon arrival in the United States. 
Additional information on the second option had been sent to India in June 2015. The United States welcomed further engagement with Indi a to resolve these concerns and would plan a 
second visit when India's facilities were ready for certification. The United States noted that only 
the irradiation facility at Nasik was currently certified. The United States also welcomed bilateral consultations with Brazil and the Dominican Republic. G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 16 - 
 
  3.2.10  EU ban on certain vegetables fr om India – Concerns of India (No. 374) 
3.47.  India recalled its concern regarding the EU  ban on exports of mangoes and four types of 
vegetables, on the grounds of the increasing number of interceptions of harmful pests and organisms since May 2014. The ban on mangoes had been lifted in February 2015; however the 
ban on vegetables continued. India had shared information with the European Union on various 
control measures including the strengthening of plant quarantine systems and the increasing of 
sampling intensity. India also recalled the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) visit to 
India in September 2014, which had reported overall improvement in the control system. 
3.48.  The Dominican Republic shared India's concerns, noting that it was currently facing a similar 
situation. 
3.49.  The European Union confirmed that its measures had been introduced on 24 April 2014 to 
prevent the introduction of harmful organisms. The European Union explained that the ban on 
mangoes had been lifted in February 2015 based on the positive feedback received after the visit 
of EU inspectors and the confirmation from the In dian competent authorities that they would apply 
a specific phytosanitary treatment on mangoes before exportation. Despite the progress made, 
many interceptions of harmful organisms were stil l occurring. These repeated interceptions raised 
EU concerns over the effectiveness of India's phytosanitary export system. The European Union 
recalled that the measures were temporary and wo uld be reviewed before the end of 2015 on the 
basis of the evolution of import interception s and the guarantees provided by the Indian 
competent authorities. 
3.2.11  EU revised proposal for categorization  of compounds as endocrine disruptors – 
Concerns of the United States (No. 382) 
3.50.  The United States recalled its concerns on EU roadmap outlining possible options for 
defining criteria to identify endocrine disruptors, specifically as they related to plant protection 
products.  Referring to the public consultation held in Brussels on 1 July 2015, the United States 
questioned the scientific evidence underlying the options, and the consideration of any hazard-
based "cut off" option instead of risk from actual exposure. It encouraged the European Union to 
share information on the methodology used in deve loping EU member States' impact assessments. 
The United States requested that the European Union recognize risk-based endocrine programmes developed by other countries. It also request that the European Union keep the Committee informed of relevant developments, and encouraged the European Union to publish the draft 
legislation, once developed, including any risk and impact assessments carried out. 
3.51.  Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, India, 
Kenya, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, and Peru also spoke about the revised EU proposal on 
endocrine disruptors. They urged the European Un ion to take into account all the comments made 
during the public consultation and requested th at the Committee be informed of any relevant 
developments. 
3.52.  The European Union recalled that it was currently conducting an all-inclusive risk 
assessment, including impacts on international trade, and that the report of the public consultation conducted between September 2014 and January 2015 would be made public in the coming weeks. The European Union also noted that all the relevant information about the impact 
assessment had been made available on their we bsite. The European Union recalled that two 
studies were being conducted, one on the identifica tion of the endocrine disruptors and another on 
the assessment of impacts. Once, and if, a legislative proposal was eventually made, it would be 
notified to the Committee and comments from Members would be taken into account before 
adoption of the final regulation. 
3.2.12  France's ban on Bisphenol A  (BPA) – Concerns of the United States (No. 346) 
3.53.  The United States recalled its concern over France's ban of the use of the chemical 
Bisphenol A (BPA) in the production of food cont ainers and food contact surfaces, including cans, 
for baby food beginning 1 January 2013 and for all foods beginning 1 January 2015. The United 
States again questioned the scientific justification for the ban, and recalled the assessments of BPA 
released by the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) and the US Food and Drug Administration G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 17 - 
 
  (FDA). The United States reiterated its request for a scientific justification for the ban, which 
threatened to have a significant negative trade impact on the US food industry, and any other company whose products were packaged using safe  levels of BPA. The United States requested 
that the European Union provide information on when the ban would be enforced and how it would 
be monitored. It also requested to be info rmed about the European Commission's current 
examination of the ban for possible violation of EU single market rules.  
3.54.  Brazil shared US concerns, noting that the ban was inconsistent with the SPS Agreement as 
it was not based on science and was more trade restrictive than necessary. 
3.55.  The European Union noted again that BPA had raised divergent views from scientists across 
the world for many years and that several countries, including some EU member States, the United States and Canada had introduced restrictio ns on the use of BPA in food contact materials. 
Some EU member States had imposed additional restrictions. The European Union reiterated that 
EU member States had the right to adopt their own national measures in areas that were not harmonised at EU level, and to temporarily suspend or restrict application of EU provisions within 
their territory in areas harmonized at EU level when there was new information about human 
health risks. According to the European Union, France had justified its national measures on these grounds. The European Union recalled that France had adopted its national law on the basis of an 
assessment by the French agency in 2011, subsequently underpinned by a specific risk 
assessment published in April 2013. From 1 January 2015, the ban on BPA in France included all food packaging, containers and utensils and was enforced by random checks on the market or 
checks targeted at operators. According to Fr ance, the ban was directed towards products for 
which BPA was intentionally used in the manufactu ring process. The French Agency and EFSA had 
discussed the diverging views and the detail of th e meeting had been published on EFSA website. 
The European Union was now evaluating the EFSA opinion as a matter of priority, and would 
shortly set out a series of options for the risk ma nagement of BPA at EU level. Any changes to the 
EU legislation on BPA in food contact materials would be communicated effectively to all stakeholders, including third countries and duly notified to the WTO SPS Committee.  
3.2.13  US proposed rule for user fees for agri cultural quarantine and inspection services 
– Concerns of Mexico (No. 388) 
3.56.  Mexico recalled its concern on an APHIS proposed rule for user fees for agricultural 
quarantine and inspection services. Higher transpor tation costs would result in higher prices for 
customers, threatening the livelihood of small- scale producers. In Mexico's views the measure 
violated the MFN principle, as well as Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement. Mexico urged the United States to take Members' comments into account. 
3.57.  The United States explained that the rulema king process was still ongoing and that Mexico's 
comments would be considered before any decision was taken. The United States welcomed future 
bilateral discussions. 
3.2.14  EU withdrawal of equivalence for proc essed organic products – Concerns of India 
(No. 378) 
3.58.  India recalled its concerns regarding the EU withdrawal of equivalence for processed organic 
products, which it had previously recognized since 2006. India restated the explanation that it had 
provided in July 2014 and March 2015. EU regulati on No. 125/2013 with effect from 1 April 2013 
had removed processed organic products from the equivalence agreement, on the grounds that the agreement required that all of the ingredients be grown in India. India noted that no processed 
organic products containing imported ingredients were exported to the European Union, and again 
requested that the equivalence recognition be restored, since it had withdrawn the 2012 guidelines that would permit certain imported ingredients.  
3.59.  The European Union restated its opinion that India's concern was not under the purview of 
the SPS Committee. India's concerns were being discussed bilaterally in the appropriate forum. 
3.60.  The United States supported the EU response and explained that organic programmes did 
not address risks to plant, animal or human health. Their requirements were similar to those of 
halal labelling and thus would fall under the TBT Agreement. G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 18 - 
 
  3.61.  India noted that packaging and labelling re quirements directly related to food safety fell 
under Annex A of the SPS Agreement. India also highlighted that document G/SPS/GEN/1354/Rev.1 listed 24 notifications related to organic products, and that Codex had developed standards on organic products. Furthermore, according to India, language used in 
EU regulation EC834/2007 linked organic products  with protection of human, animal and plant 
health. 
3.62.  Chile expressed the view that Codex standards did not define the scope of the 
SPS Agreement. 
3.63.  Ecuador requested clarification on the relevant Committee to discuss organic products 
requirements. 
3.64.  Codex explained that its Guidelines  for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing 
of Organically Produced Foods  contained a definition of organic products but did not establish any 
food safety standards, nor any MRLs for food products. 
3.65.  The Secretariat explained that many Codex standards included requirements related to 
nutrition, labelling and packaging for food products  and were thus relevant for the TBT Committee. 
The Secretariat informed notifying Members when it was not clear whether a particular notification should be notified under the SPS or the TBT Agre ement, but ultimately the Member decided under 
which Agreement it wished to submit a particular notification. Some notifications related e.g. to 
residues of organic pesticides had been notified  under the SPS Agreement, and many notifications 
related to organic agriculture had been made under the TBT Agreement. 
3.66.  The European Union noted that India's selective reading of EU regulations led to the wrong 
conclusion. It confirmed that the regulation was not aimed at food safety, nor related to the 
SPS Committee. 
3.2.15  EU phytosanitary measures for citrus  black spot – Concer ns of South Africa 
(No. 356) 
3.67.  South Africa reiterated its concerns on EU restrictive import requirements regarding citrus 
fruit. EU measures on citrus black spot (CBS) implemented since 2014, were significantly more 
stringent than previous ones, lacked a scientific basis, implied additional costs and had severe 
negative influence on South Africa's citrus industry. South Africa recalled that it had asked the IPPC secretariat to establish an expert committee in line with Article XIII of the IPPC to provide an 
independent science-based opinion. South Africa urged the IPPC to expedite the process. 
3.68.  The European Union stressed that the measur es were in place to prevent the entry of CBS 
to EU territory. The strengthening of the requir ements was the result of the risk assessment 
conducted by EFSA in February 2014 and the re curring number of interceptions. The European 
Union noted that there had been 28 interceptions in 2014 and four in 2015. Given the 
circumstances, the European Union was maintainin g its import requirements and would consider 
taking further measures. The European Union acknowledged South Africa's efforts to remedy the 
situation, however the efforts has not yet resulted in a reduction of imports interceptions. The 
European Union welcomed bilateral discussion between the technical bodies of both countries to resolve the matter. With regard to the work in IPPC, the European Union indicated that it would 
provide its comments on the draft terms of re ference proposed by the IPPC secretariat. 
3.69.  The IPPC noted that this was the first fo rmal dispute under the IPPC, and would serve as a 
learning experience. The IPPC reiterated was facing significant difficulties in finding neutral scientific experts on CBS. The IPPC had expanded its search by including experts in the area of risk 
assessment as it is related to CBS. The IPPC en couraged Members to come forward with names of 
experts, and explained that the terms of referenc e of the panel were subject to the negotiation 
between the parties. G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 19 - 
 
  3.3  Consideration of specific notifications received 
3.3.1  Korea's notifications G/SPS/N/KOR/495, G/SPS/N/KOR/503 and 
G/SPS/N/KOR/504 – Concerns of the European Union 
3.70.  The European Union noted that the notification G/SPS/N/KOR/495 on a special bill on 
imported food safety management did not contain a comment period. The European Union had 
requested the possibility to comment, but had been informed that comments would be accepted only after the enacted legislation would be notified. The European Union had sent EU comments on 
the draft legislation, but had not received a response. In notification G/SPS/N/KOR/503 and 
G/SPS/N/KOR/504 on reinforcement measures related to the bill, Korea allowed a 60 day comment period. However, the notified documents were over 200 pages long, and only in Korean. The European Union had requested an extension of th e comment period, which had been refused. In 
light of the complexity of the technical measures and their expected effect on trade, the European 
Union considered this refusal unacceptable and urged Korea to allow sufficient time for trading partners to comment, or to provide translations of the notified documents. 
3.71.  Australia supported the EU request for an extension of the comment period in light of the 
time needed to translate the 214 pages of the notified regulation. Australia noted that the SPS Agreement obliged Members to allow reason able time for Members to submit comments. 
3.72.  Korea explained that it had notified the regulation immediately to the Secretariat and had 
given a reasonable time for Members to submit their comments, in accordance with the SPS Agreement. The measures comprised the food sa nitation act, an act on sanitary control of 
livestock products and a functional health act. The purpose of this combination was to enhance 
integrity, efficiency, convenience and transparency  for trading partners. In order to facilitate 
understanding, South Korea had held a public hearing on 30 April 2015 and a briefing session on 30 June 2015 with foreign embassies based in Korea. 
3.4  Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
3.73.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 4  OPERATION OF TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS (G/SPS/GEN/804/REV.7) 
4.1.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 
5  IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT 5.1.  India asked the Secretariat whether there had been any experience sharing in the 
implementation of Article 10.1 and 10.2 of the SPS Agreement under this agenda item. 
5.2.  The Secretariat replied that there had been  discussions a number of years earlier, and that 
two documents had resulted from these discussions: the Report on Proposals for Special and Differential Treatment (G/SPS/35) on the Proced ure to Enhance Transparency of Special and 
Differential Treatment in Favour of Developing Country Members (G/SPS/33/Rev.1). Since its 
adoption, no requests had been submitted under this Procedure. 
6  EQUIVALENCE - ARTICLE 4 
6.1  Information from Members on their experiences 
6.1.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 6.2  Information from releva nt observer organizations 
6.2.  No observer provided any information under this agenda item. G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 20 - 
 
  7  PEST- AND DISEASE-FREE AREAS - ARTICLE 6 
7.1  Information from Members on  their pest or disease status 
7.1.1  Morocco – Declaration of Morocco as a country free from African horse sickness 
7.1.  The Chair noted that Morocco had reported in document G/SPS/GEN/1414 that it had been 
recognized as free from African horse sickness by Resolution No. 22 at the 83rd OIE General 
Session in May 2015. 
7.1.2  Switzerland – Di sease status update 
7.2.  Switzerland reported that it had been declared free from classical swine fever (CSF) and 
classified as having a negligible risk for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) through Resolutions Nos. 24 and 21 at the 83
rd OIE General Assembly, as communicated in 
G/SPS/GEN/1420. Switzerland requested WTO Members to lift all restrictions on Swiss products 
related to both these diseases. 
7.1.3  Chile – Freedom from classical swine fever (CSF) 
7.3.  Chile reported that it had been officially declared free of CSF through Resolution 24 at the 
83rd OIE General Assembly. Chile stated that it had been free of the disease since 1998, when it 
self-declared freedom from CSF (see G/SPS/GEN/81). 
7.4.  Chile also highlighted its notification G/SPS/N/CHL/506 of 12 June 2015 on its list of 
quarantine pests. Chile encouraged Members to routinely submit such notifications for 
transparency purposes even if these lists did no t constitute SPS measures. Chile suggested that 
this agenda item contain updates to  this effect in future meetings. 
7.1.4  Mexico – Freedom from classical swine fever (CSF) 
7.5.  Mexico reported that it had been officially declared free of CSF through Resolution 24 at the 
83rd OIE General Assembly. 
7.2  Information from Members on their expe riences in recognition of pest- or disease-
free areas 
7.2.1  Ecuador – Information on pest- or disease-free areas 7.6.  Ecuador provided information on various pe st- or disease-free areas. Last year, Ecuador had 
been declared free of African horse sickness and peste des petit ruminants. At this year's 83
rd OIE 
General Assembly in, the island territory of Galapagos had been recognized as a zone free of FMD without vaccination and the area consisting of the mainland as FMD-free with vaccination. Ecuador also provided an update on a national fruit fl y management project that had yielded positive 
results. 
7.3  Information from releva nt observer organizations 
7.7.  No observer organization provided any information under this item. 
7.4  Annual Report in accordance with G/SPS/48  
7.8.  The Secretariat introduced the annual repo rt prepared in accordance with the Committee's 
Guidelines to Further the Practical Implementation  of Article 6 of the SPS Agreement (G/SPS/48) 
The report covered the period from 1 June 2014 until 31 March 3015, and was based on 
information provided by Members through notifications and reports provided during the Committee meetings (G/SPS/GEN/1412). G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 21 - 
 
  8  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION 
8.1  Information from the Secretariat 8.1.1  WTO SPS activities  8.1.  The Secretariat recalled that document G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.5 provided an overview of the 
planned technical assistance and training activities for 2015. Since the last Committee meeting, 
technical assistance on the SPS Agreement had been  provided through two national seminars held 
in Honduras and Mexico; and a workshop on the SPS and TBT Agreements for member states of 
the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) in Kenya. More general training on the 
SPS Agreement had been provided through: (a) the WTO Advanced Trade Policy Course (in English); (b) three Regional Trade Policy Courses held for: French-speaking Africa in Tunisia, English-speaking Africa in Botswana, and for th e Caribbean in Barbados; (c) a WTO seminar for 
French-speaking journalists held in Geneva; (d) a SIDA workshop held in Stockholm; (e) an ADB 
SPS workshop held in Turkmenistan; and (f) seve ral training sessions in Geneva with students 
from: Michigan State University; the American University Washington College of Law; and Duke 
University. 
8.2.  The Secretariat also indicated that upcomi ng Geneva-based SPS training activities by the 
WTO Secretariat included: the Advanced SPS Course, which would be held in English, from 
5-23 October 2015; and the Workshop on Transparency  to be held on the margins of the October 
SPS Committee meeting, on 12-13 October 2015. Regional activities were scheduled in Belize for the Caribbean (27-30 October); Bangkok, Thailand for Asia, covering both SPS and TBT (10-13 November); and for Arab countries from 25-28 January 2016, in Kuwait. Over 
600 applications had been received to date for th e planned technical assistance activities for 2015; 
however, the application period for the three regional workshops for the Caribbean, Asian and Arab countries had been extended to 17 July. The Adva nced SPS Course had received 281 applications 
and the Workshop on Transparency had received 327. The specific dates of the technical 
assistance activities, eligibility criteria, prerequisites and application processes could be found in document G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.5. Additional training  on the SPS Agreement will also be provided 
in: a joint Agriculture and SPS regional workshop for French-speaking Africa, to be held in Benin in 
October; and a joint regional SPS and TBT workshop to be held for Portuguese-speaking African countries. 
8.3.  The Secretariat further announced that nati o n a l  s e m i n a r s  w e r e  s c h e d u l e d  t o  b e  h e l d  i n  
Algeria (5-6 August); Macao, China (mid September); the Dominican Republic (September); 
Chinese Taipei (28-30 July); and Uganda (4-6 August). Other national seminars were planned for Iran, Madagascar, Oman, Paraguay and Sudan. The Secretariat was currently working out the 
details to carry out these seminars and also for previous requests received. The following activities 
would also include general SPS training: two SIDA workshops to be held in Stockholm in October 
and November; and a SADC SPS Awareness Creation workshop to be held in Zambia in 
September. The Follow-up Session to the 2014 Advanced SPS Course in Spanish was currently 
being held and attended by 23 participants from LDCs and developing countries. The Secretariat recalled that the E-Learning course on the SPS Agreement was available year-round in the three WTO official languages. Further information on SPS-related technical assistance could be obtained 
on the WTO website (under trade-related technical a ssistance), or by contacting the Secretariat for 
additional clarification and assistance. 
8.4.  Nigeria thanked the Secretariat for technical assistance provided to Nigeria and other 
Members. Nigeria requested clarification on the selection criteria, taking into account staff rotation 
within countries; as well as on the costs borne by the host country for national seminars. The Secretariat confirmed that WTO provided a resour ce person to provide the training at such 
seminars, but the host Member was responsible for providing the workshop venue and other 
related costs. 
8.5.  Honduras and Mexico thanked the Secretariat for having supported recent national 
workshops, as well as for the Advanced SPS Cour se and Follow-up. Honduras also thanked donors 
and urged the Secretariat to continue the course along this line. G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 22 - 
 
  8.6.  Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, and Ec uador also expressed their appreciation to the 
Secretariat for the Advanced SPS Course and Follo w-up Session, noting the major benefits from 
the training which focussed on changing the ability of officials to actually implement the SPS Agreement in their countries. 
8.1.2  STDF 
8.7.  The Secretariat of the Standards and Trad e Development Facility (STDF) informed Members 
about its activities since the March meeting and upcoming activities, as detailed in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1418. The STDF thanked donor Members who have renewed their contributions 
recently, with a special word of thanks to Sweden  for an important new 5-year contribution that 
had been signed during the 5
th Global Review on  Aid for Trade. 
8.8.  The STDF had worked with the WTO to organize a plenary session on implementing safe 
trade during the 5th Global Review on Aid for Trade, which had the theme “Reducing Trade Costs 
for Inclusive, Sustainable Growth”. High-level speakers at this plenary session – including the Director General of FAO and the Director General elect of OIE, as well as representatives of the 
private sector – had discussed how robust, science- and risk-based SPS controls could assist with 
trade facilitation, and how to reduce SPS transaction costs while ensuring health protection. During the Global Review, the STDF had launched its new short film, Safe Trade Solutions, which looked 
at what Chile, Colombia and Peru had done to enable trade to flow faster across borders, while 
also ensuring the safety of imported food and preventing the entry of pests or diseases. The film was available on the STDF website in Spanish, with English and French sub-titles. Detailed information on STDF activities and how to apply for funding was available in G/SPS/GEN/1418 and 
from the STDF website ( http://www.standardsfacility.org ). 
8.9.  Nigeria thanked the STDF for the report and indicated it had submitted new applications for 
STDF consideration. Nigeria also suggested additional consultations with beneficiaries to assess the 
impacts of completed STDF projects. 
8.2  Information from Members 8.2.1  Technical assistance provided by Canada 
8.10.  Canada provided information on its technical assistance to developing countries in calendar 
year 2014 (G/SPS/GEN/1426). Canada delivered or initiated a total of 34 SPS-related technical assistance projects targeting various geographic regions, amounting to approximately Can$27.93 million. Canada had also made a fourth co ntribution of Can$1 million as part of a multi-
year, multi-million dollar contribution to the STDF. 
8.2.2  Technical assistance provided by Japan  8.11.  Japan provided an update on SPS-relate d technical assistance it had delivered between 
1 April 2013 and 31 March 2014 (G/SPS/GEN/1160/Add.3). Since 2009, 54 programmes on 
technical assistance had been provided, targeting more than 40 countries and amounting to a total of 4.4 billion Japanese yen. The overseas aid programme was managed by the Japan International 
Co-operation Agency (JICA). 
8.3  Information from observer organizations 8.3.1  IICA - Technical assistance activities 8.12.  IICA informed Members about its technical cooperation activities, particularly supporting the 
participation of member countries in international meetings of Codex, OIE and the SPS Committee. 
A Codex symposium was held in June 2015 that convened participants from two regions for the first time (Africa and the Americas) to exchange experiences. Another Codex colloquium was 
scheduled for August in Urugua y. More details could be found  in document G/SPS/GEN/1421. G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 23 - 
 
  8.3.2  OIRSA – Relevant activities 
8.13.  OIRSA reported on training and technical assistance activities; support provided in the areas 
of harmonization and equivalence; as well as on prevention, control and eradication activities; on strengthening of national institutions to facilitate trade; and on strategic alliances for the 
promotion of health and trade. More information is available in document G/SPS/GEN/1429. 
8.3.3  AUC – Relevant activities 8.14.  The Chair noted that the African Union Commission had submitted a written report on its 
activities in G/SPS/GEN/1430. 
9  REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT 9.1  Fourth Review 9.1.1  Report of informal themat ic session on risk communication 
9.1.  The Chair reported that a thematic sessi on on risk communication had been held on 
15 July 2015. In the Chair's opening remarks, he had highlighted that this was the first time a thematic session had been held within the SPS Committee. The Chair had welcomed the 
opportunity to discuss issues of interest to the Committee within this type of forum and had 
indicated that he looked forward to other possibilities to continue discussions on other areas of work relevant to the Committee in this format. 
9.2.  The Chair had reminded Members that the SPS Committee had agreed, at its March 2015 
meeting to hold a Thematic Session on risk communication preceding the July 2015 meeting, 
based on a proposal submitted by the United States . In this regard, the thematic session had been 
organized as a follow-up event to the October 2014 Workshop on Risk Analysis, which had 
generated much interest and discussion. 
9.3.  The objective of the thematic session ha d been to offer an opportunity for Members and 
relevant international organizations to share experiences and lessons learned in relation to risk 
communication strategies in the SPS area. In this regard, several suggestions had been received 
from Members and Observers on the programme an d speakers, which had been incorporated into 
the final programme (G/SPS/GEN/1428). 
Session 1: Importance of risk communication and its contribution to the operation of the 
SPS Committee and Members' implementation of the SPS Agreement  
9.4.  In session 1, the Secretariat had provided an historical context, recalling that when the 
SPS Agreement was negotiated, the Three Sisters had not yet developed clear guidance on the 
process of risk analysis. However, it had now been widely accepted that the risk analysis process 
involved: risk assessment, risk management and risk communication. The Secretariat had further underscored the importance of governments being able to communicate the results of a risk 
assessment, including uncertainties, to all stakeholders and trading partners. 
Session 2: Frameworks and guidance in the area of risk communication 
9.5.  In Session 2, several panellists - representing Codex, IPPC, OIE, FAO, IICA and the United 
States – had responded to a series of questions on the existing guidance in the area of risk 
communication. The Three Sisters first had highlighted the relevant guidelines and recommendations, as well as the overall principles embodied in the risk analysis process, within their respective organizations. 
9.6.  FAO had presented information on its work in the area of risk communication, including a 
manual which had been developed to offer some practical tools, tips and examples on how to become more effective risk communicators. The United States had also provided information on 
the FAO risk communication manual, as well as outlining the work undertaken by the US Centers 
for Disease Control (CDC) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in developing risk communication guidelines. IICA had shared its expe rience and work in the region on developing 
capacity in the area of risk communication. G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 24 - 
 
  9.7.  More specific questions had then been answer ed by the panellists regarding the goal of risk 
communication and the tailoring of messages to various audiences. Speakers had highlighted the importance of translating science into manageable  messages, as well as taking into account the 
social dimension, such as the public perception of risk. In tailoring messages to various audiences, 
one speaker had emphasized the need to first iden tify whether the goal of the message was simply 
to share information, to persuade the audience, or to engage in dialogue. In this regard, the use of 
social media had been underscored as an important tool in crafting messages to various 
audiences. Risk communication also had been further highlighted as an ongoing process and not a 
linear action. 
9.8.  Panellists had also addressed the issue of  how to communicate uncertainty by stressing the 
importance of providing consistent and honest an swers, even if this meant communicating that 
there was unknown information. Understanding public perception and gaining public confidence 
had been underscored as important in order for risk  communication to be effective. Questions from 
the audience had given Members the opportunity to address further issues, like the role of social 
factors in risk communication, or how to deal with the loss of public confidence after a risk 
communication message has been disseminated. 
9.9.  In addition, Codex had highlighted the me mber-driven nature of its organization and had 
indicated its openness to receive proposals from Me mbers if more work was needed in the area of 
risk communication. IPPC had drawn attention to it s portal which could be used for the sharing of 
risk communication materials. 
Session 3: Practical experiences and lessons learned related to th e risk communication 
strategies employed in response to specific SPS issues 
9.10.  In Session 3, four speakers from both developing and developed countries had presented 
practical experiences and lessons learnt in the area  of risk communication, highlighting the specific 
risk communication strategies that had been empl oyed in response to pressing SPS issues. From 
the European Union, Members had heard about how to effectively communicate risk in order to maintain and restore consumer confidence based on the experience from several contamination 
events in the European Union. The speaker from the United States had outlined the CDC strategy 
in communicating risk, specifically using the experience from the outbreak of listeriosis in caramel apples to highlight effective risk communication responses. From the Caribbean, Members had heard about the work of the Caribbean Public Health  Agency in relation to the development of risk 
messages to address outbreaks related to salmonella in Trinidad and Tobago, Norovirus in Turks 
and Caicos, as well as the overall development of a food safety policy brief for Barbados. The Brazilian experience in communicating its plan for the use of genetically engineered mosquitoes to 
control dengue had also been shared, where Members had benefitted from hearing a creative 
musical example of a message developed to educate the public. 
9.11.  These presentations had generated questions re lating to how to deal with initial errors in 
communicating the level of risk and the issue of  how to evaluate the effectiveness of risk 
communication messages. In responding, speakers  had highlighted the importance of ensuring 
that the scientific analysis was correct, so that the proper message could be formulated. However, it had been acknowledged that mistakes could occur in the identification of the risk and that this 
could negatively impact an industry over a long pe riod of time. Several examples had been cited in 
this regard. Overall, speakers had stressed the importance of quickly communicating risk, while underscoring the need to be correct and honest in the messages. A critical takeaway point had 
been to communicate what you know and what you do not know and to avoid trying to cover up 
mistakes. In relation to the effectiveness of  risk communication messages, one speaker had 
indicated that the impact was presented in term s of how many deaths had been averted and how 
many of these deaths would not have been av erted if there had been a delay in the risk 
communication. 
9.12.  Overall, the Chair had indicated that these experiences had provided very interesting 
practical insights into the elements of effective strategies to be used in the risk communication 
process. G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 25 - 
 
  Session 4: Conclusions and Next Steps 
9.13.  In concluding, the Chair had underscored that this first Thematic Session had proven to be a 
good experience and that it had provided a useful  opportunity to discuss an issue of importance to 
Members. The Chair had suggested that Members may want to consider using this type of forum, 
in the future, to discuss other topical and important issues of interest to the Committee. The 
presentations from the Thematic Session and links to the resources presented would be made available on the SPS Gateway page:  
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/s ps_e/wkshop_jul15_e/wkshop_jul15_e.htm  
9.14.  In thanking the presenters and panellists fo r their insightful and interesting presentations, 
the Chair had also extended thanks to the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) for funding the participation of one of the speakers. 
9.15.  New Zealand congratulated the organizers and speakers on the thematic session. 
9.1.2  Report of the Informal Meeting 9.16.  The Chair reported on the informal meet ing on the Fourth Review of the Operation and 
Implementation of the SPS Agreement held on 14  July 2015. At the informal meeting, the Chair 
had reminded Members that according to the agreed timetable, the Fourth Review should have been completed in October 2014. Members had addressed several issues related to the Review 
process as identified in paragraph 4 of the airgram; namely (i) the draft report of the Fourth 
Review; (ii) the Catalogue of Instruments Availa ble to WTO Members to Manage SPS Issues; and 
(iii) transparency. 
9.1.3  Preparations for the Transparency Workshop 
9.17.  The Chair reported that Members had star ted with the easiest one, transparency, and had 
structured the discussion around two main points: (i) comments on the analysis of the replies to the questionnaire on transparency (G/SPS/GEN/1 402); and (ii) comments on the draft programme 
of the October Transparency Workshop (G/SPS/G EN/1419). On the first point, the Chair had 
recalled that at the Committee's last meeting in March, the Secretariat had introduced the analysis of the replies to the questionnaire, and it ha d been proposed that the document be further 
discussed at the current meeting, since Members had not had much time to study the document 
for the March meeting. 
9.18.  Also, since many respondents had been of th e view that the term "trade facilitating" should 
be further defined, it had been suggested that the Secretariat prepare a factual compilation of 
existing WTO definitions of this term, which had been circulated as document G/SPS/GEN/1417. 
The Secretariat had highlighted that no official WT O definition of the term "trade facilitating" or 
"trade facilitation" had ever been adopted by WTO Members. Several Members had expressed their 
interest in sharing their notification practices in the use of this term, rather than working on a 
definition. 
9.19.  Many Members had recognized the usefulness of the analysis of the replies in assessing 20 
years of implementation of the transparency pr ovisions. Some of the issues highlighted had 
included, among others: identification of the relevant international standard and whether there was conformity to such international standards; identification of HS Codes; emergency measures becoming permanent; measures notified after th eir adoption; and availability of translations. 
9.20.  Having moved to the second topic on tr ansparency, the October workshop, the Secretariat 
had introduced the draft programme circulated as document G/SPS/GEN/1419, which had incorporated suggestions from several Members. It had combined hands-on training on the use of 
online tools and sharing of national experiences. Several Members had welcomed the sessions on 
the improved SPS IMS and NSS applications, an d others had expressed interest in sharing 
experiences related to technical assistance as well as to coordination and interaction between 
stakeholders. Some Members had emphasized that  the programme should not prejudge whether 
the Committee would decide to make changes to the current Recommended Transparency Procedures (G/SPS/7/Rev.3). The Chair had invited Members to submit comments and suggestions as well as possible speakers to the Secretariat by 21 August 2015. Comments received would be 
circulated by email to the Committee's mailing list. G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 26 - 
 
  9.1.4  Adoption of the Catalogue of Instruments 
9.21.  Next, Members had discussed the Catalogue of Instruments (G/SPS/W/279/Rev.2). The 
Chair had recalled that the joint submission by Canada and Kenya on such a Catalogue was first circulated in June 2014, and was subsequently revised based on comments received from 
Members. The last revision of the document had not been adopted in March, as several Members 
needed more time to consider the proposal by Indi a to add an introductory paragraph to clarify its 
legal status. The Chair had recalled that he had held informal consultations on this topic on 
29 May 2015, on which the Chair had reported in the fax circulated on 25 June 2015. In an 
attempt to bridge the differences between those delegations that submitted drafting proposals and those that explained why the disclaimer would not be needed or that a rather simple version would be preferable, the Chair had suggested, on his own responsibility, compromise language for a 
disclaimer. In response to the Chair's fax, Arge ntina, Australia, Canada and the European Union 
had submitted comments, which had been circul ated by email through the Committee's mailing 
list. 
9.22.  Members had had a long round of discussi ons during which many Members expressed their 
views. While there had seemed to be a broad co nsensus on the need to adopt such a useful 
catalogue of instruments, the views on the disclaimer had remained unchanged. Some Members 
had suggested that the document be restructur ed to make the use of a disclaimer unnecessary. 
The Chair had noted that Members had seemed to have reached an impasse and had suggested that Members discuss possible ways forward with this issue in the margins of the meeting, which hopefully could have been presented at the regular meeting. 
9.1.5  Adoption of the Report of the Fourth Review 
9.23.  Finally, Members had discussed the draft report of the Fourth Review 
(G/SPS/W/280/Rev.2). The Chair had reminded Memb ers that according to the agreed timetable, 
Members should have adopted the report in October 2014. The draft report had reflected the 
Committee's work over the past few years, an d had made recommendations for future work. 
These recommendations had provided Members with  some guidance for future discussions, but 
had not pre-judged the outcome of these discussion s. The Chair had recalled that at the March 
meeting Members had discussed comments received from Belize, Canada, Egypt and the European 
Union. Most of the comments had focused on the second recommendation under para. 14.20, on which Members had had small group meetings, but Members had not been able to find 
compromise language. Argentina had also expressed concerns with the fourth recommendation 
under para. 6.22. In an attempt to identify compromise language, the Chair had held, on 19 June 2015, an informal consultation on the draft report of the Fourth Review, on which the 
Chair had also reported in the fax circulated on 25 June 2015. Comments received from Argentina, 
Canada and the European Union, in response to th e Chair's fax, had also been circulated by email 
through the Committee's mailing list. Additionally, Belize's statement from the March meeting had 
been circulated in document G/SPS/W/286.  
9.24.  No new views had been expressed, and theref ore the Chair had only been able to note that 
on this topic, as on the Catalogue of Instruments, Members had seemed to have reached an impasse, since there had been no consensus on the proposed language for the second 
recommendation under para. 14.20, and some Members had been proposing that this 
recommendation be removed.  
9.25.  In summing up, the Chair had invited Members to explore new options to bridge these 
differences, including through a broader reflection on the nature of the Committee's work, for 
consideration during the regular meeting. 
9.26.  Having concluded his oral report, the Ch air suspended discussions on the Catalogue of 
Instruments and Adoption of the Fourth Review  report until the October meeting due to the 
reported impasse in views. The Chair invited Members to take a step back and propose possible ways to move forward instead of focussing on the details. In preparation for the October meeting, the Chair stated that he might call consultations on the Catalogue and Fourth Review should new 
ideas be put forth. G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 27 - 
 
  9.27.  China expressed its regret that despite a ll of the discussions, Members were still at an 
impasse, particularly on the work on private standards as contained in the Fourth Review. China urged Members to be open to deeper discussions on the application of SPS measures. 
9.28.  Responding to a query by the Dominican Re public, the Chair clarified that the Catalogue of 
Instruments was a compilation of official information and Members should feel free to make use of 
the information it contains irrespective of  its formal endorsement by the Committee. 
10  MONITORING OF THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS 
10.1  New Issues 
10.1.1  United States – Use of the Code x international standard on glyphosate 
10.1.  The United States expressed concern that some Members had taken action, or were 
considering taking actions, to restrict the use of glyphosate, an active ingredient in many 
commonly used pesticides, due to a recent assessment from the WHO International Agency for 
Research on Cancer (IARC) declaring the compound "probably carcinogenic". It was important to note that IARC's findings were based on an assessment of hazard and not risk. The United States 
urged Members to base their SPS measures for glyphosate on the international standard provided 
by Codex, or on an assessment of the risk that includes realistic exposure scenarios and considers 
all available data. 
10.2.  Ukraine shared the US concern on the scientific justification of restricting glyphosate use. 
10.3.  Codex stated that at the last meeting of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues 
(CCPR), a delegate had questioned the lack of consistency between the IARC and Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) assessments of glyphosate. Codex emphasized that the roles 
of the bodies were different, as IARC focused on  hazard characterization while JMPR performed 
risk assessments and exposure assessments for regulatory purposes. 
10.2  Issues previously raised 
10.2.1  United States – HPAI restrictions not consistent with the OIE international 
standard 
10.4.  The United States reminded Members about the OIE guidelines on imports of live poultry 
and poultry products (including heat-treated/cooked  products) related to avian influenza, including 
highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI). The guid elines made clear that when HPAI was detected 
only in wild birds, OIE members should not impose bans on trade in poultry commodities. The guidelines also clearly established provisions for the recognition of zones or regions free of the 
disease. The affected country should define the control zones based on its response efforts, and 
the remainder of the country outside of those co ntrol zones could continue to be considered 
disease free. Additionally, poultry products (meat, liquid eggs, rendered meals, etc.) that had been 
heat-processed to destroy the HPAI virus in acco rdance with OIE guidelines were safe to trade 
irrespective of whether the products came from an area where HPAI had been detected. The United States called upon its trading partners to lift any import restrictions on live poultry and 
poultry products (including heat-treated products) that were not consistent with the OIE 
guidelines. 
10.5.  The European Union shared the US concern and urged the removal of import restrictions 
with relation to HPAI that were not in line with  international standards. Canada noted that the OIE 
provided effective guidance on the principle of zoning and encouraged all Members to recognize 
zones established by affected Members,  in accordance with this guidance. 
10.3  Annual report in acco rdance with G/SPS/11/Rev.1 
10.6.  The Secretariat introduced the Annual Report on the Procedure to Monitor the Process of 
International Harmonization, as contained in G/SPS/GEN/1411. The report reflected the issues raised over the past year, and included only one new issue, raised by the United States at the 
March meeting regarding the application of the international standard for HPAI. G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 28 - 
 
  11  CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS 
11.1  Report of the informal meeting 11.1.  The Chair reported on an informal meetin g on SPS-related private standards that had been 
held on Tuesday, 14 July 2015. He had begun that  meeting by recalling the long history of the 
Committee's work on this matter, and in particular the hard work since October 2013 of the 
"electronic working group" (e-WG) under the very  able stewardship of China and New Zealand. 
11.2.  The Chair had also recalled that at the March 2015 meeting, following the discussion of the 
co-stewards' latest report (G/SPS/W/283), the Committee had agreed that the e-WG would take 
some time off. 
Action 1: Update from the Co-stewards of  the Private Standards e-Working Group and 
Members Submissions  
11.3.  At the informal meeting, the co-stewards ha d recalled the longstanding effort to agree on a 
working definition of SPS-related private standard s, and had reported on their consultations with 
the e-WG following the cooling off period agreed in March. The co-stewards had noted that they 
had received very limited feedback on how to progress work and that the e-WG had reached an 
impasse on the working definition. 
11.4.  Argentina had introduced document G/SPS/W/285 regarding discussions on a definition of 
SPS-related private standards and had stressed the need to agree on a definition, given the 
numerous harmful effects of private standards. 
11.5.  Belize had introduced document G/SPS/W/288 which proposed a new definition of SPS-
related private standards. Nigeria had welcomed the proposal tabled by Belize and had stressed 
the need for a straightforward working definition which reflected the challenges faced by Members. 
Other Members had noted that compromise was possible through the inclusion of a disclaimer, and Chile had referred to the definition of an SPS measure in Annex A of the SPS Agreement as an 
existing starting point. 
11.6.  China had regretted the current impasse which had been having consequences on other 
WTO work and had urged all Members to show flexibility, including through a stronger disclaimer 
or possibly a horizontal approach, and to agree on the co-stewards' compromise definition. 
11.7.  The Chair had noted that the e-WG's diffic ulty to agree on a working definition of SPS-
related private standards reflected more than a mere drafting problem and required a broader perspective. The Chair therefore had encouraged all Members to think about new and innovative 
ways to move forward, including any useful fresh approach. The Chair had suggested that the 
e-WG pursue its cooling off period, until new thinki ng or proposals emerged. The Chair would, in 
consultation with the co-stewards, also think about how to take the issue forward, including 
perhaps through open-ended informal consultations. 
11.8.  The Chair had concluded discussions by st ressing that despite the well-known differing 
positions, the Committee had agreed to develop a definition of SPS-related private standards, and 
Action 1 would remain on the agenda until the Committee had adopted a definition to frame its 
work on the issue. 
Implementation of Actions 2 to 5 
11.9.  Under Action 2, Chile had referred to the OIE's cooperation with private standard-setting 
bodies to ensure that their standards were aligned with OIE standards. OIE and Codex should 
increase the participation of private standard-setti ng bodies as observers in their standard-setting 
processes. This collaboration would help improve transparency and the implementation of official 
science-based standards. 
11.10.  Under Action 3, the Secretariat had noted that private standards had been discussed in 
some of the sessions of the 5th Global Review of Aid for Trade and that the reports on those 
sessions would be issued shortly. G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 29 - 
 
  11.11.  Under Action 4, the Dominican Republic had referred to its notification G/SPS/N/DOM/51 
regarding the requirement for all enterprises certif ying compliance with Good Agricultural Practices 
to register with the Department of Food Safety of the Ministry of Agriculture. 
11.12.  Under Action 5, the Secretariat had refe rred to the ongoing cooperation with the Three 
Sisters to underline the importance of international standards, and had noted the resource 
constraints faced in that effort. 
Suggestions on the implementation of proposed Actions 6 to 12 
11.13.  Belize, supported by Argentina, had indicated that it continued to favour the option of a 
working group to advance work on Actions 6 to 12.  Brazil and Nigeria had indicated interest and 
Belize had clarified options for establishing such a group, including through a call to interested 
Members. Belize had further noted the specific li nkages between Actions 1 to 5 and some of the 
proposed actions identified in G/SPS/W/256, which could serve as a basis to start work. 
11.14.  The European Union and the United States had reiterated that there was no consensus to 
proceed with Actions 6 to 12. 
Other information on SPS-related private standards 
11.15.  Belize had reported on a recent UNEP regi onal capacity building workshop on food waste 
and had noted that data from pilot studies show ed significant losses being incurred by producers 
due to overly stringent food safety requiremen ts. Belize had cited the example of a papaya 
producer in Belize which had lost six million po unds of papayas as waste due to stringent market 
requirements. Belize had reported that UNEP was communicating with retailers on the impact of stringent requirements, and the related food wastage, with the hope that they applied 
requirements only to the extent necessary. 
11.16.  The United States had observed that the i ssue of food wastage did not fit in the work of 
the SPS Committee. Belize had responded that private standards not only negatively impacted 
entities trading agricultural products, but also led to many rejected products being dumped, hence 
affecting trade, the environment and revenue. Be lize had urged Members to communicate with 
private standard-setting bodies in their territories on those negative impacts. 
11.17.  After concluding his report, the Chair stated that he shared the view of the co-chairs 
regarding the impasse and was not convinced that it was a question of drafting. The Chair urged 
Members to take a step back and look at the broader issue and to consult in order to find a way forward. The Chair clarified that any future co nsultations would be to prepare for the October 
meeting and not to make final decisions. 
11.2  Communication from Argentina 11.18.  Argentina thanked the Chair for his well-reflected report and stated that document 
G/SPS/W/285 reaffirmed Argentina's position from the March meeting and stressed the need to 
agree on a definition, given the numerous harmful effects of private standards. 
11.19.  Ecuador expressed support for the document and reminded Members that any standards 
should be compatible with the SPS Agreement. 
11.20.  Belize stressed the importance of advancing work to fulfil the mandate to develop a 
definition for private standards and called on Members to be as realistic as possible. Belize suggested revisiting the approach to the whol e process as some Members had expressed more 
concerns the more specific the definition had become. 
11.21.  Cuba thanked Argentina for the document and urged Members to reflect on this issue 
considering its importance for developing countries. 
11.22.  Brazil, Egypt, India and Nigeria also expressed their support for the document and urged 
Members to continue discussing the issue. G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 30 - 
 
  12  OBSERVERS 
12.1  Information from observer organizations  12.1.1  ISO (G/SPS/GEN/1416) 12.1.  ISO drew attention to its report in document G/SPS/GEN/1404 and highlighted a new 
brochure on using ISO standards to support public po licy initiatives. A conference on this topic, 
co-organized with IEC and UNECE, will take place in November in Geneva, Switzerland. 
12.2  Requests for observer status 
12.2.1  New requests 
12.2.  There were no new requests received by the Secretariat. 12.2.2  Outstanding requests 12.3.  The Chairperson noted that there was still no consensus on the six outstanding requests for 
observer status from the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); CABI International; the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered  Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); the 
Organisation Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV); the Asian and Pacific Coconut Community 
(APCC); and the International Cocoa Organization (ICCO). 
12.4.  Jamaica enquired whether a method or criteria existed to evaluate requests for observer 
status. The Secretariat confirmed that the Committee had developed criteria and all organizations 
have submitted rationale. This background info rmation can be found in G/SPS/GEN/121 and its 
subsequent addenda. 
13  OTHER BUSINESS 13.1.  India again introduced its document on th e need for measures on detection of pesticide 
residues not registered in the country of import for unimpeded flow of trade (G/SPS/W/284). The 
purpose of the paper was to put in context th e persistent problem faced by exporters from 
developing countries due to importing countries' application of limits of detection (LoD) for these 
pesticides. India had observed that LoD were being applied even for substances where Codex 
standards existed. India noted that the disciplin es contained in Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the 
SPS Agreement applied in this case, and provided  examples where the application of LoDs had a 
trade impact. The document concluded by suggesting certain steps in dealing with this issue. India 
encouraged Members to take the paper into consideration and welcomed further discussion at the next Committee meeting. 
13.2.  Argentina, Belize, Brazil, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Jamaica and South Africa welcomed 
the document and looked forward to continuing discussions at the next Committee meeting as an 
agenda item. 
13.3.  The United Sates thanked India for the document and requested more time to reflect on the 
content as well as where it best fit on the agenda. Chile expressed similar sentiments and 
suggested addressing the topic under Agenda Item 10 or as an informal thematic session. 
13.4.  Chinese Taipei clarified that the depictio n of its measure by India in G/SPS/W/284 on page 
3, paragraph G was inaccurate and the actual measure was aligned with the Codex standard. 
13.5.  New Zealand thanked India and supported the need for discussions. New Zealand looked 
forward to discussing the paper internally as New Zealand featured heavily in the document itself. 
13.6.  India thanked Members for supporting the document and welcomed inclusion of this topic as 
an official agenda item. Several suggestions were made by delegations on the best place in the 
agenda, or the possibility to discuss this during an informal meeting prior to the October regular meeting. G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 31 - 
 
  14  DATE AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETINGS 
14.1.  The next regular meeting of the Committee is tentatively scheduled for 15 and 16 October 
2015 with a special workshop on transparency scheduled for 12-13 October 2015. 
14.2.  The Committee agreed to the following tent ative agenda for its upcoming regular meeting: 
1. Adoption of the agenda 
2. Information on relevant activities 
a. Information from Members 
b. Information from the relevant SPS standard-setting bodies 
3. Specific trade concerns 
a. New issues b. Issues previously raised 
[c. Consideration of specific notifications received] 
d. Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
4. Operation of transparency provisions 
a. Report on Workshop on Transparency 
5. Implementation of special and differential treatment 6. Equivalence – Article 4 
a. Information from Members on their experiences 
b. Information from relevant observer organizations 
7. Pest- and Disease-free areas – Article 6 
a. Information from Members on their pest or disease status 
b. Information from Members on their experi ences in recognition of pest- or disease-
free areas 
c. Information from relevant observer organizations  
8. Technical assistance and cooperation 
a. Information from the Secretariat 
i. WTO SPS Activities 
ii. STDF 
b. Information from Members c. Information from observer organizations  
9. Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement 
a. Fourth review 
i. Adoption of the Fourth Review 
ii. Adoption of the Catalogue of Instruments 
10. Monitoring the use of international standards 
a. New issues b. Issues previously raised 
11. Concerns with private and commercial standards 
12. Observers 
a. Information from observer organizations b. Requests for observer status 
i. New requests 
ii. Outstanding requests 
13. Chairperson's Annual Report to CTG 
14. Other business 
15. Date and agenda of next meeting G/SPS/R/79 
 
- 32 - 
 
  14.3.  Members were asked to take note of the following deadlines: 
• For submitting ideas for the programme of th e Workshop on Transparency to be held in 
October: Friday, 21 August 2015 ; 
• For identifying new issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure and for 
requesting that items be put on the agenda: Thursday, 1 October 2015 ; 
• For the distribution of the Airgram: Friday, 2 October 2015 . 
 
 
__________