G/SPS/GEN/1354/Rev.1  
 
7 November 2014  
(14-6495)  Page: 1/4  
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
 INDIA'S REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON ORGANIC PRODUCT NOTIFICATION 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
Revision 
1  INTRODUCTION 
1.1.  At the SPS Committee meeting of 9-10 July 2014, India requested the Secretariat to provide 
information regarding the extent to which measures concerning organic products are governed by 
the provisions of the SPS Agreement or the TBT Agreement, and the extent to which the Codex 
Alimentarius Commission (Codex Commission), the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) and the World Organization for Animal Heal th (OIE) address the issue of organic products. 
The present revision corrects a number of inaccuracies found in the original document. 
1.2.  The Secretariat notes that no authoritative legal interpretation currently exists as to whether 
measures concerning organic products are necessary for the protection of human life or health from the risks identified in Annex A of the SPS Agreement. Members have submitted notifications 
relating to organic products under both the SP S and TBT Agreements, as described below. Four 
trade concerns relating to organic products have been raised in the TBT Committee. The issue raised by India at the July 2014 meeting of the SPS Committee was the first instance in which a 
trade concern relating to organic products was raised in the SPS Committee; India subsequently 
raised the issue again at the October 2014 meeting of the SPS Committee. 
1.3.  Information regarding the work of the Codex Commission in relation to organic products is 
described below. At the July 2014 meeting, the IPPC and OIE confirmed that they have not 
addressed the issue of organic products. 
2  SPS NOTIFICATIONS CONCERNING ORGANIC PRODUCTS 2.1.  Twenty-four SPS notifications (excluding ad denda) relating to organic products have been 
submitted by Members since 1995, all of which are regular notifications. Of these 24 notifications, 
the majority relate to technical regulations gove rning organic agricultural foodstuff production, 
processing, packaging, labelling and/or certification. Some notifications specifically cover the 
requirements for importing organic products. 
2.2.  During the last five years, Indonesia, El Salvador, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Thailand 
have submitted SPS notifications for organic products. Saudi Arabia submitted the only relevant notification in 2014, covering pesticide residues and contaminants in organic foods. 
3  TBT NOTIFICATIONS CONC ERNING ORGANIC PRODUCTS 
3.1.  TBT notifications on organic products pertain largely to the classification and certification of 
organic foods and products intended to be marketed as organic. Since 1995, there have been 
95 regular notifications (excluding addenda) that relate to organic agriculture and organic 
products. Many of these regular notifications centre on organic agricultural production, organic 
                                               
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/GEN/1354/Rev.1 
 
- 2 - 
 
  aquaculture and livestock production, labelling and certification of organic processed foods, and 
substances allowed in organic production. 
3.2.  In 2011, two urgent technical notifications we re circulated by Brazil. One notification related 
to a technical regulation for the production of organic seedlings; the second regulation concerned 
food standards for truffles and mushrooms. 
4  OVERLAP IN NOTIFICATIONS 4.1.  Ten notifications pertaining to the same regulation related to organic products have been 
submitted to both the SPS and TBT Committees, as regular SPS notifications and TBT notifications 
under Article 10.6 of the TBT Agreement. These notifications are the following: 
SPS document TBT document Date of 
circulation 
of SPS 
notification Date of 
circulation 
of TBT 
notification  Member Products 
G/SPS/N/ARM/17 G/TBT/N/ARM/66 25/06/2008 19/06/2008 Armenia Raw materials and 
food-products produced by the method of organic agriculture, as well as processed foodstuffs and food of any animal and plant origin 
G/SPS/N/BRA/421 
and 
G/SPS/N/BRA/422 G/TBT/N/BRA/282 
and 
G/TBT/N/BRA/283 02/06/2008 02/06/2008 Brazil Organic agricultural 
products 
G/SPS/N/BRA/89 G/TBT/N/BRA/140 08/12/2003 03/12/2003 Brazil Control products 
used in organic agriculture 
G/SPS/N/SLV/106 G/TBT/N/SLV/162 08/08/2012 14/08/2012 El Salvador Organic agriculture: 
International 
Classification for 
Standards (ICS) 
Code 
G/SPS/N/HND/17 G/TBT/N/HND/52 03/12/2007 21/ 12/2007 Honduras Organic agriculture 
produce 
G/SPS/N/IDN/65 G/TBT/N/IDN/80 10/09/2013 08/10/2013 Indonesia Organic food system 
and products 
G/SPS/N/KOR/282 G/TBT/N/KOR/177 06/06/2008 09/06/2008 Korea, 
Republic of Organic processed 
food 
G/SPS/N/NIC/14 G/TBT/N/NIC/37 17/11/2013 07/10/2003 Nicaragua Agricultural foodstuff 
and organic farming 
G/SPS/N/SAU/90 G/TBT/N/SAU/717 21/01/2014 28/01/2014 Saudi Arabia, 
Kingdom of Foodstuffs: 
Maximum Limits of Pesticides Residues and Contaminants in Organic Food (ICS Codes: 65.100 and 67.040) 
5  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS IN THE SPS AND TBT COMMITTEES2 
5.1.  The first time a trade concern related to organic products was raised in the SPS Committee 
was by India at the July 2014 meeting. India ra ised this concern again at the October 2014 
meeting of the SPS Committee. According to India, in 2006 the European Union had recognized 
India's National Programme for Organic Products (NPOP) standards as equivalent to EU organic 
standards, based on an equivalency agreement between the two Members.3 This recognition of 
                                               
2 The summaries of the trade concerns do not necessar ily identify all Members that spoke on the issue, 
but the Member that put the matter on the agenda. 
3 The equivalency agreement provided that proces sed and unprocessed organic products from India 
could be exported to the European Unio n pursuant to (i) certific ation in terms of the NPOP and (ii) all products 
being cultivated in India. G/SPS/GEN/1354/Rev.1 
 
- 3 - 
 
  equivalence was withdrawn by the European Union4 when India published guidelines in 2012 that 
permitted the inclusion of less than 5% non-Indian  ingredients in its value-added blended organic 
products destined for the EU market. India's complaint at the July SPS Committee meeting was that despite having revoked the 2012 guidelines, the European Union had not yet restored the terms and conditions of the equivalency agreement. 
5.2.  The European Union had responded that this was not a matter within the scope of the 
SPS Agreement, and should be discussed in another forum. 
5.3.  The following four specific trade concerns re lating to organic products have been raised at 
TBT Committee meetings. 
5.1  Republic of Korea – Regulation for Food Industry Promotion Act 
(G/TBT/N/KOR/204) 
5.4.  In June 2009, the United States raised a concern about Korea's Food Industry Promotion Act, 
in terms of which organic processed foods ce rtified by other national organic programmes 
(previously recognised as organic in Korea) would no longer be recognised as such, unless they were formally recognized as equivalent under Korean procedures. However, Korea's enforcement 
regulations did not contain procedures for recognising a foreign government's organic certification 
bodies. As such, the United States requested that Korea extend the grace period for foreign products until June 2011 in order to provide time for the Korean Ministry for Food, Agriculture, 
Forestry and Fisheries (MIFAFF) to recognise foreign organic certification bodies and, during this 
period of time, temporarily grant entry into Korea to organic products without the MIFAFF seal. The United States highlighted that MIFAFF had not accredited any foreign organic certifier, and requested that Korea clarify the criteria that foreign organic certification bodies would need to 
satisfy in order to be accredited by MIFAFF. Australia, Canada, Chile, the European Union and 
New Zealand shared the US concerns. 
5.5.  Korea explained that the proposed orga nic processed food certification programme was 
aimed at improving both the quality and producti on of organic processed foods. The programme 
was equally applicable to both domestic and im ported products, and products with an organic 
claim would need to fulfil the requirements contained in the programme. Until then, labelling of organic food products could be based either on labelling requirements contained in the the Food 
Sanitation Act or on organic certification guidelines in accordance with the Food Industry 
Promotion Act. 
5.2  European Communities – Producti on and Labelling of Organic Products 
(G/TBT/N/EEC/101) 
5.6.  Argentina raised a concern in March 2008 about the application of Article 24 (entitled 
"Compulsory indications") of EU Regulation No. 834/07 to the production and labelling of organic 
products. This provision required an indication of the origin of raw materials and provided for 
categorisation under one of three forms: (i) "EU  Agriculture"; (ii) "non-EU Agriculture"; and 
(iii) "EU/non-EU Agriculture". In Argentina, a product was considered "organic" pursuant to 
following certain manufacturing processes, irrespec tive of where it was produced. Argentina noted 
that the "EU/non-EU Agriculture" label was neit her supported by WTO agreements nor by Codex 
standards and would create an inappropriate precedent by imposing new requirements in addition 
to existing international standards. 
5.7.  The European Union committed to conti nued discussions with Argentina on this topic. 
5.3  Chinese Taipei – Organic Products  (G/TBT/N/TPKM/65 and G/TBT/N/TPKM/69) 
5.8.  In November 2009, the European Union raised concerns about Chinese Taipei's 
discriminatory application of import standards on organic products amongst the EU member 
States, notably between the 12 newer and 15 older members States. The European Union felt this 
was unjustified and discriminatory, because (i) all EU member States conformed to identical organic legislation that had been recognized as equivalent by Chinese Taipei and (ii) for the new 
EU member States, the organic legislation was implemented without any transition period from 
                                               
4 EU Regulation 125/2013, withdrawing the equivalency recognition agreement with effect from 
1 April 2013. G/SPS/GEN/1354/Rev.1 
 
- 4 - 
 
  their date of accession to the European Union. Accordingly, the European Union requested that 
Chinese Taipei extend its approval procedures to its 12 new member States. 
5.9.  Chinese Taipei explained that its review of organic equivalency covered both regulations and 
technical specifications of organic agricultural and processed products in foreign countries, as well 
as development of the organic agricultural se ctor. The European Union had not yet provided 
information on the development of its organic agricultural sector with regard to the effective implementation of the European organic manage ment system in the 12 new EU member States. 
Following a meeting in October 2009, the European Union had undertaken to provide the 
necessary information required for Chinese Taipei to extend its approval procedures to the 12 new EU member States. 
5.4  European Communities – Regulation Concerning Import Requirements and 
Certification of Organic Products (G/TBT/N/EEC/2) 
5.10.  The United States raised concerns at the TBT Committee meeting in October 2001 about 
draft EU regulations relating to import requirements and certification of organic products.
5 
Effective from July 2002, the EU regulation provid ed that organic products would be approved by 
the competent border authorities of individual EU member States when imported from countries who lacked an equivalency agreement with the Euro pean Union. The United States noted that the 
lack of procedures amongst EU border authorities to communicate with the competent authorities 
that issued import regulations could give rise to delays in approval procedures. As such, the United 
States requested the European Union to provide clarity on the criteria it used in establishing equivalency agreements for access of organic products to the European market. 
5.11.  The European Union undertook to provide further information to the United States. 
6  CODEX STANDARDS 6.1.  The Codex Commission is mandated to facilitate fair practices in food trade and to ensure the 
global health of consumers. In order to fulfil this mandate, the Codex Commission is tasked with 
creating food standards and guiding principles for the safe and fair trade in food products. In 1999, its Committee on Food Labelling developed the Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling 
and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods  ("Guidelines"), intended to facilitate the 
harmonization of organic products requirements at an international level, and assist governments with establishing national regulations within this arena of food standards regulation. 
6.2.  In particular, the Guidelines: 
i. cover concepts of organic production, descriptions and definitions; 
ii. address labelling and rules of production and preparation; 
iii. provide for inspection, certification systems and import control; and 
iv. list criteria for substances permitted in organic production.
6 
 
__________  
                                               
5 Article 11 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91. Notification of the EU draft regulation was 
circulated by the TBT Secretariat in do cument G/TBT/N/EEC/2 on 6 February 2001.  
6 Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labell ing and Marketing of Orga nically Produced Foods, 
CAC/GL 32-1999.