G/SPS/W/287  
 
13 July 2015  
(15-3597)  Page: 1/3  
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  Original: English  
 
 CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS 
BELIZE'S INTERVENTION AT THE 62ND WTO SPS COMMITTEE MEETING 
GENEVA, SWITZERLAND; 25-27 MARCH 2015 
Communication from Belize 
The following communication, received on 10 July 2015, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of Belize. 
 
_______________ 
  
1  ACTION 1: REPORT FROM THE CO-CHAIRS 
1.1.  Belize thanks the delegations of China and New Zealand for their efforts as co-chairs of the 
electronic working group and also for the report contained in document G/SPS/W/283. 
1.2.  Members will recall that when discussions on private standards initiated in this Committee, it 
was important that only those that are SPS-related be discussed. It was thus in this spirit that a questionnaire was circulated to Members for them to provide additional information which could 
assist this Committee in determining what actions, if any, can be taken. 
1.3.  Document G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1: "Effects of  SPS-related private standards – compilation of 
Replies", contains the summary of responses to the questionnaire that was circulated by the Secretariat. The response from Members indicate d that the products that were often affected 
included: fresh fruit (HS Codes 0804, 0805, and 0810); fresh vegetables (HS Codes 0701 and 
0710); and fresh, chilled or frozen meat – both bovine and poultry (HS Codes 0201 and 0207). 
1.4.  Paragraph 15 of the same document states th at over two-third of the replies stated that the 
scope of the content of the private standards were food safety, while a few others mentioned 
animal and plant health. In paragraph 18, response s compiled informed that under the umbrella of 
food safety, the specific requirements were of ten related to HACCP, maximum residue limits 
(MRLs) for pesticides, hygienic practices for meat and fresh fruits, testing laboratories, as well as 
commodity specific standards such as those on bananas olive oil and so on. 
1.5.  One Member in its response to the Questionnaire provided specific references to the OIE 
standards including references to chapter 10.4 .26 (inactivation of the avian flu virus) and 
chapter 11.6 (BSE) of the Terrestrial  Animal Health Code among others. 
1.6.  Paragraph 21 of the same document informs that deviations from the International Standards 
included: more detailed and prescriptive operational procedures (the example cited was in 
comparison to the Codex guidelines for HACCP); lower MRLs than those of Codex; more 
demanding requirements regarding absence of Listeria  in raw meat compared to Codex , just to 
mention a few. 
1.7.  According to the responses from Members, compiled in document G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1, the 
primary entities imposing private standards are retailers such as supermarkets and hypermarkets, example Marks and Spencer's, Metro, Primus Labs, Tesco and Wal-Mart. G/SPS/W/287 
 
- 2 - 
 
  1.8.  The aforementioned information was compiled with the objective of helping this Committee to 
guide its decision in regards to the recommended actions contained in document G/SPS/GEN/256. 
1.9.  The examples cited document G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1, confirms that the specifications set by 
these entities cover health and safety. To differe ntiate them from those set by governments we 
have proposed the use of the term "non-governmen tal entity" in the definitions; and as mentioned 
on several different occasions in this Committee, due to their mandatory nature and their scope of application, the term that best describes them is "requirement(s)". 
1.10.  We believe that a working definition should be clear so to guide the process forward.  We 
are aware that many times history is lost in the deliberation of ideas and concepts and thus the clearer a working definition; the better it is for all concerned. 
1.11.  In conclusion, Belize would like to urge Members to support the working definition of an 
SPS-related private standard as proposed by the Co-Chairs of the Electronic Working Group: 
"An SPS-related private standard is a written requirement or condition, or a set of written 
requirements or conditions, related to food safety, or animal or plant life or health that may be 
used in commercial transactions and that is applied by a non-governmental entity that is not 
exercising governmental authority. " 
1.12.  We are flexible with the inclusion of the disclaimer as proposed by Members. In the spirit of 
cooperation and with the objective of advancing on this agenda item, Belize urges Members to 
support the adoption of this working definition as it more accurately defines the scope of issues under private standards that should be considered by this Committee. 
2  ACTIONS 6-12 
2.1  Under Action 6 
2.1.  Members are encouraged to exchange relevant information regarding SPS-related private 
standards to enhance understanding and awareness on how these compare or relate to 
international standards and governmental regulations, without prejudice to the different views of 
Members regarding the scope of the SPS Agreement.  
2.2.  Belize would like Members to consider the questions contained in document 
G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1 as a possible guide for the implementation of Action 6. We believe that the 
format used in that document along with the table in Annex II could be a possible template for submission of additional examples, to this Comm ittee, of SPS-related private standards and how 
these compare to or related to international standards and governmental regulations. 
2.2  Conclusion 
2.3.  It is understood that a few Members are of the view that work on these actions should only 
be considered once the Committee has developed a working definition for SPS-related private 
standards. Belize would like to encourage Members to reconsider that position and instead once 
more, take time, to revisit the text cont ained in each of those recommendations. 
2.4.  Those actions can be dealt with in parallel ism with the development of a working definition 
for SPS-related private standards, particularly at this stage where significant advances have been 
made under action one. 
2.5.  As a result, Belize once more reaffirms its former recommendations under these actions 
(6-12) and encourages Members to advance work in these areas either through the formation of a 
physical or electronic working group. 
3  OTHER MATTERS 3.1.  The 19
th Session of the Joint FAO/WHO Coordinating Committee for Latin America and the 
Caribbean was held in San Jose, Costa Rica from 9-14 November 2014. G/SPS/W/287 
 
- 3 - 
 
  3.2.  During that session, the delegation of Belize informed the Committee that SPS-related 
private standards continued to have a negative impact on their exports. Some of the concerns included increasing costs associated with certification; the difficulties with different schemes having conflicting requirements; in several instances the absence of science to justify some of the 
stricter requirements. The delegation stated that the private sector called into question the 
relevance of food safety authorities as a number of importing countries did not require official food safety attestations. Belize also noted that governments are responsible for setting measures and 
should be guided by international standards where those exist. Furthemore it reaffirmed that it 
was the responsibility of governments to set the ap propriate level of protection and not the private 
sector. 
3.3.  During its intervention Belize also encour aged the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 
and the Codex Secretariat to continue their participation in Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) 
due to possible influence in areas of harmonization, consistency and application of science-based principles. 
3.4.  Paragraphs 161-166 of the Codex Document: REP/15/LAC contains a summary of the 
concerns raised; an update by the Codex secret ariat and the recommendations of the Committee. 
3.5.  The Committee reiterated its 2012 recommendations on private standards and these 
included:  
a. to express concern over the negative effects of private standards in developing countries 
and in international trade, and over the misleading of consumers; 
b. to reaffirm that Codex standards are the guarantee to protect consumers' health and 
that the stricter requirements of private standards do not ensure "greater protection"; 
c. to reaffirm the need for a scientific basis for requirements regarding food; 
d. to continue coordination with other relevant international organizations (for example 
OIE); 
e. to continue a constructive dialogue with the non-governmental organizations imposing 
compliance with private standards; 
f. to provide information and guidance to its members on this subject; 
g. to propose to the Commission that it monitor the private standards that cause problems 
for exports from developing countries, and also establish an information system so that the causes of the problems can be quantified; and 
h. to continue urging private standard-setting bodies to participate in Codex as observers. 
3.6.  In relations to this SPS-related private standards, the Committee also: 
a. urged CCLAC countries to submit information to the Codex secretariat about specific 
cases where the negative impact of private standards on trade has been shown; and 
b. encouraged the FAO and the Codex secretariat to continue their participation in GFSI. 
 
__________