RESTRICTED  
  
G/SPS/R/90  
 
9 May 2018 
(18-2845) Page: 1/33 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETI NG OF 1-2 MARCH 2018  
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA ................................ ................................ ........................  4 
2   INFORMATION SHARING  ................................ ................................ .............................  4 
2.1   Information from Members on relevant activities  ................................ .............................  4 
2.1.1    Japan - Update on the situation surrounding Japanese food after the Fukushima 
Daiichi nuclear power plant accident  ................................ ................................ ......................  4 
2.1.2    Canada - Training for JMPR evaluators ................................ ................................ .........  4 
2.2   Information from CODEX, IPPC and OIE on relevant activities  ................................ ...........  5 
2.2.1    Codex  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  5 
2.2.2    IPPC ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  5 
2.2.3    OIE ................................ ................................ ................................ .........................  6 
3   SPECIFIC TRADE CONCE RNS ................................ ................................ .......................  6 
3.1   New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................  6 
3.1.1    Viet Nam's draft amendment to Circular 24 on MRLs for veterinary drugs - 
Concerns of the United States  ................................ ................................ ..............................  6 
3.1.2    Mexico's market access requirement for casein products - Concerns of India  ....................  7 
3.1.3    Saudi Arabia's temporary ban on the importation of fish, crustaceans and other 
aquatic animal products - Concerns of Viet Nam  ................................ ................................ ..... 7 
3.1.4    Viet Nam's market access requirements for ''white'' offals - Concerns of the United 
States  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............................  8 
3.1.5    US import restrictions on apples and pears - Concerns of the European Union  ..................  8 
3.2   Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ...............................  9 
3.2.1    EU maximum level of cadmium in foodstuffs - Concerns of Peru (No. 430)  .......................  9 
3.2.2    China's proposed amendments to the implementation regulations on safety 
assessment of agricultural GMOs – Concerns of the United States (No. 395)  ..............................  9 
3.2.3    The Russian Federation's import restrictions on certain animal products from 
Germany – Concerns of the European Union (No. 411)  ................................ ........................... 10 
3.2.4    The Russian Federation's import restrictions on processed fishery prod ucts from 
Estonia – Concerns of the European Union (No. 390)  ................................ .............................. 10 
3.2.5    EU revised proposal for categorization of compounds as end ocrine disruptors – 
Concerns of Argentina, China, India and the United States (No. 382)  ................................ .......11 
3.2.6    France's dimethoate -related re strictions on imported cherries - Concerns of the 
United States (No. 422)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......12 
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 2 - 
 
  3.2.7    China's AQSIQ official certification requirements for food imports 
(G/TBT/N/CHN/1209) – Concerns of the United States (No. 184)  ................................ ............. 13 
3.2.8    EU MRLs for acrinathrin, met alaxyl and thiabendazole - Concerns of Peru 
(No. 428) ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 13 
3.2.9    Thailand's import restriction on papaya seeds – Concerns of Chin ese Taipei 
(No. 421) ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 14 
3.2.10    General import restrictions due to BSE – Concerns of the European Union 
(No. 193) ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 14 
3.2.11    Mexico's restrictions on imports of swine meat - Concerns of Brazil (No. 271)  ............... 14 
3.2.12    China's import restrictions due to African swine fever – Concerns of the European 
Union (No. 392)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 15 
3.2.13    Korea's import restrictions due to African swine fever – Concerns of the 
European  Union (No. 393)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...15 
3.2.14    China's import restrictions due to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza – Concerns 
of the United States (No.  406) ................................ ................................ ............................. 15 
3.2.15    South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to Highly Pathogenic Avian 
Influenza - Concerns of the European Union (No. 431)  ................................ ........................... 16 
3.2.16    EU restrictions on poultry meat due to Salmonella detection - Concerns of Brazil 
(No. 432)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 16 
3.2.17    US seafood import monitoring programme - Concerns of China (No.  415) ..................... 17 
3.3   Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  ................................ ......... 17 
3.3.1    China's import ban on fresh mangosteen – Information from Indonesia (No. 416)  ........... 17 
3.3.2   India's import restrictions on bovine semen – Information from the European 
Union (No.  61)................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 18 
4   OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E SPS AGREEMENT  ................................ .. 18 
4.1   Equivalence  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 18 
4.2   Pest- and disease -free areas  ................................ ................................ ........................ 18 
4.2.1    Report on the Thematic Ses sion on Pest -Free Areas  ................................ ..................... 18 
4.2.2    Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ....................... 19 
4.3   Operation of transparency provisions  ................................ ................................ ............ 19 
4.3.1    Report on the "technical revision" of the Recommended Transparency Procedures 
(G/SPS/7/Rev.3)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 19 
4.3.2    Report on the Practical Manual for SPS NNAs and NEPs  ................................ ................ 20 
4.3.3    Nigeria – Update on SPS notifications  ................................ ................................ ......... 20 
4.4   Special and Differential Treatment  ................................ ................................ ................ 20 
4.5   Monitoring of the use of International Standards  ................................ ............................ 21 
4.5.1    New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 21 
4.5.2    Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ........................... 22 
4.6   Catalogue of Instruments available to manage SPS issues – Proposal by Canada and 
Kenya (G/SPS/W/279/Rev.2, RD/SPS/16)  ................................ ................................ ............. 23 
4.6.1    Report of the Informal Meeting  ................................ ................................ .................. 23 
4.7   Proposed process for the Fifth Review  ................................ ................................ ........... 26 
5   CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  ................................ ................................ ...........................  27 
6   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  AND COOPERATION  ................................ ...........................  27 
6.1   Information from the Secretariat  ................................ ................................ .................. 27 G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 3 - 
 
  6.1.1    WTO SPS activities (G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.13 and G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.8)  ...................... 27 
6.1.2    Proposed Topic for the July 2018 S PS Committee Workshop  ................................ .......... 28 
6.1.3    STDF (G/SPS/GEN/1607)  ................................ ................................ .......................... 29 
6.2   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ .......................... 29 
6.2.1    Nigeria – Technical assistance received  ................................ ................................ ......29 
7   CONCERNS WITH PRIVAT E AND COMMERCIAL STA NDARDS  ................................ ...... 30 
8   OBSERVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  30 
8.1   Information from observer organizations  ................................ ................................ .......30 
8.1.1    IICA ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 30 
8.1.2    ECOWAS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 30 
8.1.3    IGAD  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 30 
8.1.4    OIRSA  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 30 
8.1.5    ITC ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 30 
8.1.6    GSO ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 31 
8.2   Requests for observer status (G/SPS/W/78/Rev.14)  ................................ ....................... 31 
8.2.1    New requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 31 
8.2.2    Outstanding requests  ................................ ................................ ............................... 31 
9   ELECTION OF THE CHAI RPERSON  ................................ ................................ ..............  32 
10   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 32 
10.1   Indonesia – Risk management related to the global movement in plant seeds  .................. 32 
11   DATE AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETINGS ................................ ................................  32 
 G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1  ADOPTION OF THE AGEN DA 
1.1.  The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measur es (the "Committee") held its 
71st regular meeting on 1-2 March 2018. The proposed agenda for the meeting was adopted with 
amendments (WTO/AIR/SPS/ 20). 
1.2.  The Secretariat reminded the Committee that at the November  2017 Committee meeting it 
had requested that the  convening airgram be circulated one week earlier than the previous  
practice. This had been done for the first time with document WTO/AIR/SPS /20. The Secretariat 
thanked Members for the early submission of their  agenda items and documents , which had 
facilitated the preparation and circulation of the airgram by the new deadline.  
2  INFORMATION SHARING  
2.1  Information from Members on relevant  activities  
2.1.1   Japan - Update on the situation surrounding Japanese food after the Fukushima 
Daiichi nuclear power plant acciden t 
2.1.  Japan provided an update on the most recent data from it s food monitoring programme. 
The data showed that the rate of products exceeding the Japanese standard limits had decreased 
and all the test results, with the exception of edible fungi, wild plants and game meats, were below 
the Codex guideli ne level. Japan thanked  Argentina, the European Union, Iceland, Liechtenstein, 
Norway , Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Turkey and the United States for relaxing  their import 
restrictions. Japan reported that 51  out of the 54 Members who had introduced import restrictions 
on Japanese foods had either lifted or eased these restrictions. Japan als o drew Members'  
attention to the circulation o f the Panel report on DS 495: Korea – Radion uclides  (Japan)  on 
22 February  2018, highlighting that the Panel  had found that certain types of import restrictions 
on Japan ese food were inconsistent with the core obligations of the SPS Agreement.  Therefore, 
Japan urged Members with import restrictions on Japanese food to lift or relax the se restrictions. 
Japan signalled its openness for  further visits from Members to better assess the current food 
safety situation , and also to engage in discussions with counterpart authorities.  Japan also recalled 
that the FAO and IAEA had acknowledged and evaluated the  efforts  made by Japan  to ensure food 
safety.  
2.2.  Korea stated  that discussions of the Panel report of DS 495 in the SP S Committee  were 
inappropriate , due to the ongoing dispute settlement procedure s. Korea further  indicated  that it 
was not in agreement with many of the Panel findings  and opined  that discussions relating to the 
dispute should be held within the Dispute Settlement Body. Korea reaffirmed that its SPS 
measures  taken  in response to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident were applied to 
protect public health and safety , and were both legitimate a nd WTO co nsistent . Korea indicated its 
intention to appeal the Panel report after  further review . 
2.3.  The European Union expressed its appreciation for the information that Japan continued to 
provide  to the  Committee. The European Union  noted that it  had worked closely with the Japanese 
authorities  and had  regularly reviewed the additional guarantees required. As a result , the 
European Union was only still requesting a few additional guarantees for a limited number of 
products from a lim ited number of prefectures. The European Union expressed its  overall  
satisfaction with the measures adopted by the Japanese authorities and recognize d their efforts in 
handling the issue, both in terms of the transparent approach and effectiveness of the measures 
adopted . 
2.1.2   Canada - Training for JMPR evaluators  
2.4.  Canada provided information on a training session held in  partnership with FAO and the 
United States, with the aim of increasing the p ool of scientific expert s available to conduct 
pesticide residue evaluation s for JMPR. The training had taken  place in Canada from 27 November 
to 1 December  2017 and had led to the identification of six new J MPR evaluators  from Brazil, 
China, Greece,  Japan , Thailand and the United  Kingdom,  as well as four alternates from Brazil, 
Finland, Japan and Thailand. Canada expressed its satisfaction with the success of the event , 
which ha d increased the availability of knowledgeable experts who would contribute to the JMPR G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 5 - 
 
  panel and to the development of international standards on pesticides. Canada also  informed the 
Committee  that it was working  with FAO to organize an  extraordinary session of the Joint 
FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residue s scheduled for May 2019.  This meeting would focus o n 
addressing the growing backlog of new use evaluations and facilitating the timely establishm ent of 
international standards.  
2.2  Information from CODEX, IPPC and OIE on relevant activities  
2.2.1   Codex  
2.5.  Codex provided an outline of its activities, as detailed  in G/SPS/GEN/160 5. Codex highlighted 
the various Codex sessions that had been held since the last SPS Committee  meeting and 
announced  the upcoming Codex meetings  for 2018 . Several workshops were also being held in 
various regions on Codex web tools. The a im of the se workshops was to enhance Member s' 
participation in Codex work through the use of electronic tools, such as the Codex Online 
Commenting System and  the web platform for electronic working group s. 
2.6.  Kenya  acknowledged the work of Codex and  indicated  that as the current coordinator for 
CCAfrica , it wished to  express appreciation for the support provided to the region. Kenya noted 
that it had hosted the first training workshop  on web  tools for Members in the region  and that 
Members were appreciative of  this training , which had augmented the ir work within  Codex . 
2.2.2   IPPC  
2.7.  The IPPC provided an outline of its activities  organized around six main areas of work , as 
detailed  in G/SPS/GEN/1601 . In particular, t he IPPC highlighted the establishment of a new IPPC 
CPM subsidiary bod y, the Implementation and Capacity Development  Committee (IC) , which had 
held its first meeting in December 2017 . This body , under the guidance of the CPM, would facilitate 
the implementation of the Convention and ISPMs,  as well as strengthe n the phytosanitary 
capacities of contracting parties.  The IPPC also reported on the activities of the focus group on 
developing joint criteria for the call for topics for standards and implementation , indicating that t he 
proposed process and criteria for the identification of topics w ould be presented to CPM -13 for 
further discussions. The IPPC further  highlighted  its development of guides on pest -free areas and 
pest risk communication, as well as its e -learning course. Finally, t he IPPC urged Members to 
support Finland's proposal to declare  2020 as the International Year of Plant Health  at the 
UN General Assembly in September 2018 . 
2.8.  South Africa welcomed the estab lishment of the new IPPC CPM subsidiary body , observing 
that dispute settlement remained a core  activity under Article 13 of the IPPC, and that the scope of 
this new body included  oversight of dispute settlement processes.  South Africa  recalled that in the 
July 2016 SPS Committee meeting, the topic of raising awareness of  the IPPC and OIE dispute 
settlement mechanisms had been discussed under the agenda item on cross -cutting issues. At that  
meeting, South Africa had  indicated its engagement in the IPPC dispute settlement mechanism 
and had  expressed regret that the mechanism was not as facilitative as  initially expected , while 
calling on IPPC to improve this mechanism. South Africa  further  noted the lack of inclusion of a 
status report by the IPPC secretariat on the disputes currently under review, and  that dispute 
settlement did not appear to be refle cted in the  key task s and activities of the IPPC work 
programme. South Africa observed  that this might indicate that dispute settlement was not a 
priority f or the IPPC , which would be of great concern . 
2.9.  The European Union expressed its appreciation to the IPPC for its report , reiterating its 
support for Finland's proposal to declare the year 2020 as the International Year  of Plant Health 
and urging Members to  support the proposal . The European Union  suggested  that there could be a  
possib le role for the WTO and that more information  could be provided  at the next Committee 
meeting . 
2.10.   In response to the concerns expressed by South Africa, t he IPPC  confirmed that  the IC 
would also  work on dispute settlement  and avoidance . In this regard, t he Committee had created a 
sub-group to develop and review processes in this area. The  IPPC also highlighted that the IC 
would  focus more  on dispute avoidance , rather than dispute settlement . G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.2.3   OIE 
2.11.   The OIE outlined its report,  as detailed  in G/SPS/GEN/1600 . The OIE  reported on the 
development s in OIE standards for terrestrial and aquatic animals , and i n particular highlighted th e 
revised chapter of  the Terrestrial Code on zoning and compartmentalization, and the revised 
questionnaires on the procedures for self -declaration and for official recognition of disease status 
by the OIE. The OIE also provided information on  its Observatory Project, noting that there had 
been a 78% response rate to the questionnaire  sent to all OIE delegates on the implementation of 
OIE stan dards . The results  of the analysis w ould be presented at the General Session  and also 
shared with  the SPS Committee , in order  to facilitate the identification of the challenges faced by 
Members in the implementation of OIE standards and the areas where cap acity building should be 
improved.  
2.12.   The Chairperson indicated that  information on the results of the questionnaire would be 
useful for the Committee and suggested that a briefing session could be organized at the next 
Committee meeting.  
3  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCE RNS 
3.1.  The Secretariat drew  Members' attention to the  recently released  annual compilation of 
specific trade concerns (G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18). The report compiled all specific trade concerns  
raised in the SPS Committee during 2017. A total of 32 STCs had been discussed, of which 
17 were new issues  and 15 had been previously raised . In 2017, 30 STCs had been reported as 
resolved , partially resolved , or substantive action had occurred in another WTO body.  
The Secretariat  reported that a total of 434  STCs had been raised be tween 1999 and the end of 
2017.  
3.1  New issues  
3.1.1   Viet Nam's draft amendment to Circular  24 on MRLs for veterinary drugs  - 
Concerns of the United States  
3.2.  The United St ates raised a concern regarding  Viet Nam's draft amendment to Circular  24 
(G/SPS/N/VNM/82)  which , as currently drafted , would  rescind MRLs for several veterinary drugs 
that were currently aligned with Codex  MRLs. The United States observed  that Viet Nam ha d not 
provided scientific justification for rescinding the Codex aligned MRLs.  The United States indicated 
that it had  welcomed  the announcement  by Viet Nam's Prime Minister , during his May 2017 visit to 
the United States, that Viet Nam  would continue to follow Codex  standards for the veterinary drug 
MRLs in question.  However, there still remained uncertainty regarding the status of the proposed 
ban on certain veterinary drugs, since there was no official document indicating that the draft ban 
would not go into effect. The United States, while acknowledging appreciation for the extensive 
bilateral engagement with Viet Nam on the issue, indicated disappointment that the issue 
remained unresolved. The United States further urged Viet Nam to maintain MRLs for veterinary 
drugs in accordance with Codex standards and requested that Vie t Nam notify an addendum to the 
WTO withdrawing G/SPS/N/VNM/82, in order to provide certainty for US exporters.  
3.3.  Canada shared the concerns of the United States regarding Viet Nam's draft amendment to 
Circular  24, which proposed zero tolerance s for  a number of veterinary drugs , including 
ractopamine,  which already had a Codex MRL. Canada stated that Viet Nam's proposed zero 
tolerance approach w ould effectively  ban import s of meat products contain ing any residue of  these  
veterinary drugs , even if wit hin the Codex established MRLs. Canada noted that it had submitted 
detailed comments on Viet Nam's notification (G/SPS/N/VNM/82), and requested the scientific 
justification for the zero tolerance approach. D espite several bilateral  efforts  to resolve the i ssue, 
Viet Nam ha d still  not withdrawn its proposal nor ma de known its future intention s, which had 
resulted in uncertaint y for Canadian meat exporters. Canada urged Viet Nam to withdraw its 
propos al, to inform the Committee of its  withdrawal and to establ ish MRLs for ractopamine and 
other veterinary drugs , based on Codex MRLs. 
3.4.  New Zealand supported the concern s of the United States , in particular noting the lack of 
scientific justification  for resci nding the Codex aligned MRLs.  G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 7 - 
 
  3.5.  Viet Nam welcomed  Members'  feedback  and underscored  its commitment to uphold  
transparency in the process . Viet Nam informed Membe rs that its Ministry of Health was still in the 
process of reviewing the regulation and receiving comments from relevant authorities , with a view 
to finalize the draft re gulation. Members would be notified once there was an update on  the status 
of Circular  24. Viet Nam further  stated that its regulation  was based on the guideline s of 
international standard setting bodies and that there was no arbitrary or unjustifiable  discrimination 
against Members  or disguised restriction to international trade . 
3.1.2   Mexico's market access requirement for casein products  - Concerns of India  
3.6.  India raised a concern over Mexico's market access requirement for casein products , 
explaining that the OIE had recognized its official control programme for foot and mouth disease , 
in accordance with the provisions of the Terrestrial Code. In particular, India noted that  the OIE  
Terrestrial Code recommended the import ation of milk products from  FMD-infected countries or 
zones where an official programme exists. In dia also explained that the processing of casein 
ensure d the destruction of any undesired microbes.  All the technical information required by 
Mexico had also been submitted  by India's authorities . India  highlighted the importance of casein 
as an export commodity and reque sted Mexico to allow  its casein  export s which ha d been certified 
by the competent authorities. India thank ed Mexico for its bilateral engagements and looked 
forward t o the resolution of this issue.  
3.7.  Mexico  informed the Committee that efforts were being made through bilateral discussions to 
resolve the issue.  Mexico affirmed its commitment to recognize and systematically implement all 
fundamental principles of t he SPS Agreement, and expressed its willingness to continue efforts to 
reach a solution.  
3.1.3   Saudi Arabia's temporary ban on the importation of fish, crustaceans and other 
aquatic animal products  - Concerns of Viet Nam  
3.8.  Viet Nam raised a concern over Saudi Arab ia's temporary ban on the importation of fish, 
crustaceans and other aquatic animal products , which had been notified as an emergency measure 
in document  G/SPS/N/SAU/3 36 on 30 January 2018 . Viet Nam noted  that the Saudi Food and Drug 
Authority  (SFDA)  had imposed the ban on the basis of the Quarterly Aquatic Animal Disease 
Report (Asia -Pacific Region, April – June 2017) and on an inspection visit in December 2017 , in 
relation to white spot disease (WSD) and acute hepatopancreatic necrosis disease (AHPND) . 
Viet Nam stated that the inspection visit had been limited to a few establishments, and n ot to the 
entire fishery safety control system , which i t viewed as inconsistent with Codex standards . 
In addition, the inspection report had not been sent to Viet Nam for consultation ahead of the 
imposition of the ban, which Viet Nam argued was not in line with international practices. Viet Nam 
further highlighted some inconsistencies in the information provided in Saudi Arabia's  notification, 
and emphasized that the b an was more trade restrictive than necessary, and was inconsistent with 
several provisions of the SPS Agreement. Viet Nam observed that WSD also occur red in Saudi 
Arabia. It  had further requested  information on  Saudi Arabia's  WSD-free status for shrimp ; 
however, no response had been received as yet. Viet Nam stated that  there was  no risk posed  by 
highly  processed or cooked shrimp  products  and that these products were  considered safe in 
commerce by the OIE . Viet Nam further indicated that both diseases had b een well controlled in 
Viet Nam for several  years , and t herefore urged Saudi Arabia to lift it s temporary ban . Finally, 
Viet Nam express ed its willingness to resolve the issue in a cooperative manne r. 
3.9.  Saudi Arabia stated that the temporary ban  on the importation of fish, crustacean s and other 
aquatic animal products from Viet Nam ha d been imposed as a precautionary measure . 
Saudi  Arabia highlighted that it had taken this measure on the basis of Section 4.15 of the  
Guidelines for Food Import Con trol S ystems (GSO/CAC/GL 47:2007), as well as the mission report 
and recommendations from the  technical team  which had visited  Viet Nam. Saudi Arabia further 
outlined several d iscrepancies  which had been  found during the technical visit to Viet Nam . Finall y, 
Saudi Arabia indicated  its willingness to engage in bilateral discussion s to resolve the issue.  G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 8 - 
 
  3.1.4   Viet Nam's market access requirement s for ''white'' offals  - Concerns of the  United 
States  
3.10.   The United States raised concerns regarding Viet Nam's market access requirement for 
''white'' offals . The United States  noted that Viet Nam had signed a letter of Agreement with the 
United States in 2006, as part of its WTO accession, accepting the export certificate issued by the 
USDA FSIS as proo f that its exported meat and poultry products had been inspected and passed 
by FSIS.  However, since the implementation of  Circular  25 in 2011 , US exporters now faced a 
burdensome administrative process due to the requirement for meat, poultry and fishery 
establishments to submit a questionnaire for subsequent approval by Viet Nam's  National Agro-
Forestry -Fisheries Quality Assurance Department  (NAFIQAD) , in order to be eligible to export to 
Viet Nam. The United States indicated that it s understanding of the Circular  25 approach was that 
Viet Nam would accept and review questionnaires on an ongoing basis and that as FSIS inspected 
and passed new establishments, Viet Nam would add these facilities to its list of entities eligible to 
export to Viet Nam. Instead,  the United States noted that Viet Nam had appeared to institute a 
process of registration of individual facilities, rather than focusing on the overall effectiveness of 
the FSIS inspection and certification system. Such an approach was contrary to Codex g uidelines, 
which stated that the importing country should evaluate the effectiveness of the inspection and 
certification system of the exporting country, rather than engage in an establishment by 
establishment approach. The United States observed that the regulation had created uncertainty 
for market access, and had stalled the addition of new establishments and the flow of exports to 
Viet Nam. In addition, there had been changes in the  administrative responsibility for the 
implementation of Circular  25, which had resulted in extensive delays in the reopening of 
Viet Nam's market. The United States acknowledged the bilateral engagements with Viet Nam and 
urged Viet Nam to resolve the issue expeditiously.  
3.11.   New Zealand shared the concern raised by the United States,  in particular  as it related to  
the consistency  of the regulation  with C odex guidelines on evaluating the effectiveness of the 
inspection and certification system of the expor ting country.  New Zealand also noted that its 
exporters faced similar issu es to those reported by the United States . 
3.12.   Viet Nam  explained that during the visit of  its inspection team to the United States in 2014 , 
several instances of non-compliance had been identified in some US e stablishments . Viet Nam 
indicated that it had infor med the United States of these issues and had also temporar ily halted 
the addition of new registration s, until the corrective and preventive methods had been taken at 
these establishments . Viet Nam stated that several requests had been made for USDA and FS IS 
representatives to facilitate a visit of the Vietnamese delegation to a number of establishment s 
that ha d been registered for exporting ''white'' offals to Viet Nam. The purpose of the mission 
would be  to inspect and review US regulatory programmes and food safety systems, in order  to 
ensure that all establishments met the requirements . Viet Nam indicated its willingness to continue 
working closely with US authorities on the issue, and further underscored its commitment to 
ensure that its SPS regulations were consistent with international standards and the SPS 
Agreement.  
3.1.5   US import restrictions on apples and pears  - Concerns of the European Union  
3.13.   The European Union raised a concern r egarding  the US import re strictions on apples and 
pears , explaining that  for many years  it had market access to the United States through a pre-
clearance inspection system . However, very limited EU export s had taken place due to the costly 
nature of the  pre-clearance  system . As an  alternative, the European Union had applied in 2008 to 
export apples and pears  to the United States  under a system s approach. Despite finalizing  the 
scientific and technical work in 2014 , there ha d been lengthy delays in the US approval procedure . 
The European Union indicated that the  last administrative step , which was to publish the final rule, 
had been put on hold by the United States,  resulting in blocked trade of apples and pears from the 
European Union. The European Union noted that this was incon sistent with the SPS Agreement , 
particularly in relation to avoiding  undue delays in approval procedures. The European Union urged  
the U nited States to respect its SPS obligations and to allow the  immediate start of trade of apples 
and pears under a system s approach.  
3.14.   The United States indicated that there had been considerable progress on  the several 
request s from the European Union to establish and expand access for its apple  and pear export s to 
the US market.  In 2010, seven EU member States (Belgium, Fran ce, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 9 - 
 
  Portugal and Spain) had requested access to the US market using a systems approach and an 
additional request had been submitted by Poland in 2014. The United States explained that t he 
USDA  Animal and Plant Health Inspection  Service  (APHIS)  had published a propos ed rule in 2016  
to authorize imports of apples and pears from eight EU member S tates under a system s approach  
that minimized  pest risk . Comments  received from  the public on the proposed rule were currently 
being evaluated , following which the final rule would be published. The United States indicated 
that it had been responsive to the EU requests, as it had conducted site visit audits of apple and 
pear production sites in four of the eight EU member States, in add ition to finalizing the work plan. 
The United States further explained that both of these activities were normally conducted only 
after the publication of the final rule. The United States noted that it would continue to provide 
regular updates to the Euro pean Union and its member States on the status of the rulemaking 
process.  
3.2  Issues previously raised  
3.2.1   EU maximum level of cadmium in foo dstuffs - Concerns of Peru (No. 430) 
3.15.   Peru reit erated its concern over  the maximum levels of cadmium in chocolates and other  
cocoa products proposed by  the European Union Commission Regulation (EU) No.  488/2014 . 
Peru highlighted the social and economic importance of cocoa and chocolate exports to its 
economy , underscor ing the potential negative impact of the regulation on its exports . Peru further  
observed  that the regulation did not establish maximum levels  for cadmium in cocoa beans, only in 
chocolate . Peru recalled the findings of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) , which 
indicated that it was unlikely that there would be adverse effect s in an individual expose d to 
dietary cadmium  in the European Union. Peru also noted that JECFA considered food s to be a risk 
when it contributed 5% or more of the maximum tolerable daily intake of the contaminant. 
Based  on th e JECFA  parameter, Peru argued there was no justification for including chocolate in 
the regulation, as it only contributed 4.3% to dietary cadmium exposure , and further concluded  
that the EU regulation was not in line with the SPS Agreement . Peru  drew Members' atten tion to  
the ongoing development of a Codex standard  for cadmium maximum levels and highlight ed that 
this standard could  serve as a reference point for trade. Finally, Peru urged the European Union to 
exclude chocolate and cocoa products from the scope of its regulation . 
3.16.   Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and Panama shared 
Peru's concern , and requested that the European Union exclude chocolate and cocoa products from 
its regulation pending the development  of Codex standards on maximum level s of cadmium . 
3.17.   The European Union recalled its intervention in the November 2017 Committee meeting , 
highlighting  that the measure was  based on EFSA recommendations that exposure to cadmium 
should be reduced , and that in light of available scien ce, excluding chocolate  and cocoa products 
from this measure would not achieve the desired level of protection. The EFSA assessment had 
taken into consideration EU consumption patterns. In addition, the European Union was of the 
view that the exposure asse ssment undertaken by JECFA ga ve no basis for amending the 
EU maximum levels for cadmium. The European Union reminded Members of its efforts to alleviate 
the difficulties of trading partners in complying with this measure, such as  agreeing to a 
transitional  period of five years, which had deferred the application date to January 2019 , and 
setting maximum limits for blended products instead of cocoa beans to facilitate trade . 
The European Union further noted its active participation in Codex discussion s on establishing an 
international stand ard for cadmium maximum level s. 
3.2.2   China's proposed amendments to the implementation regulations on safety 
assessment of agricultural GMO s – Concerns of the United States (No. 395) 
3.18.   The United States reiterated its conce rn regarding  China's proposed amendment to the 
implementation regulations on safety assessment of agricultural GMO s. The United States 
express ed its disappointment with the lengthy delay s in product approval s by China, noting that 
there were currently ten products poised for final adoption, some of which had been under review 
since 2011.  The United States highlighted the obligation under the SPS Agreement for Me mbers to 
provide timely information to applicants on the processing period s, the completeness of 
documentation , and also  to explain any delay s in the process . The United States further  requested  G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 10 - 
 
  China to provide  such information  to applicant s, and to approve the se products without  further 
delay . 
3.19.   China emphasized the importance it placed on  managing the safety of agricultural GMO s, 
highlighting that the y were conducted on the basis of scientific assessment principles , consistent 
with international practice . In addition,  its procedures were transparen t and standardized , and no 
delay s had been experienc ed in the examination and approval  process. China also reminded the 
Committee that the measure had been notified in 2015, following which submitted  comments , 
including those of the United States, had been  reviewed and taken into consideration in the 
amende d administrative measure issued in 2016 . China provided an overview of its revised 
administrative measure , highlighting that the measure had not  reduce d the frequency of decisions 
taken;  instea d statistics had shown that imports of agriculture GMOs had rapidly increased , 
indicating  the smooth  trade of GMOs . 
3.2.3   The Russian Federation's import restrictions on certain animal products from 
Germany – Concerns of the European Union (No. 411)  
3.20.   The European Union reiterated its concern s regarding the Russian Federat ion's import ban 
on fresh and chilled pig meat, beef and poultry meat from the entire territory of Germany imposed 
in early 2013, and the subsequent ban on finished meat and milk products from three German 
Federal States. The European Union welcomed the re cent developments, whereby the Russian 
Federation had lifted res trictions on three dairy plants. H owever, the European expressed its 
disappointment that the overall ban still remained in force , despite all efforts made by Germany 
and the European Union. Th e European Union repeated its previous  statements on the 
inconsistency of the measure with the SPS  Agreement , and also indicated that it viewed the 
request by the Russian Federation for a fourth round of inspections as unreasonable.  The European 
Union furt her noted that the inspection of individual establishments was neither e fficient nor 
proportionate. Instead, a systems audit approach was more app ropriate , in line with Codex 
guidelines. The  European Union urged the Russian Federation to repeal its measure s without 
further delay.  
3.21.   The Russian Fe deration noted  that t here ha d been tangible progress since the last 
Committee meeting . In particular, restrictions on three dairy establishments had been lifted in 
January 2018, following the submission of information  by Ge rmany. The Russian Federation had 
also requested German authorities to provide information on state -run laboratory monitoring for 
three other establishment s, and on laboratory control for another  establishment. These requests 
were still pending . 
3.2.4   The Russian Federation's import restrictions on processed fishery products from 
Estonia – Concerns of the European Union (No. 390)  
3.22.   The European Union reiterated its concerns regarding the Russian Federation's import 
restrictions on all fishery products from Es tonia, which followed an audit of a few establishments 
by the Russian Federation in 2015. The European Union argued that these measures were 
inconsistent with the SPS Agreement, unjustifiable on sanitary grounds, and not in compliance 
with the Russian Fede ration's WTO accession commitments. The European Union indicated that 
Estonia  had been audited by the R ussian Federation in June 2016 , however, the findings of this 
audit had only been provided in October 2017.  In addition, Estonia had held  several  bilater al 
discussions with the Russian Federation, without further success. The European Union welcomed 
the re -authorization of  one fishery products establishment in December 2017, but expressed its 
regret that the same approach had not been applied to other conc erned establishments. 
The European Union urged the Russian Federation to immediate ly repeal the measure.  
3.23.   The Russian  Federation indicated that considerable progress had been made since the last 
Committee meeting , highlighting that  further to inspections in  2016, restrictions had been lifted on 
one Estonian establishment  in December 2017 . The Russian Federation further noted that  it would 
consider  lifting more restrictions , upon submission of in formation on how the remaining  
deficiencies identified during the inspection visit were being addressed . The Russian Federation 
also recalled that Estonia had agreed to another inspection  visit in July 2018 , which it hoped would 
produce  positive results . G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 11 - 
 
  3.2.5   EU revised proposal for categor ization of compounds as endocrine disruptors – 
Concerns of Argentina, China, India  and the United States (No. 382)  
3.24.   Argentina reiterated its concern over the European Union's process to define criteria to 
identify endocrine disrupting properties. Argentina thanked the  European Union for the update 
provided in December 2017 through document G/SPS/ GEN/1594,  and further requested the 
European Union to  notify the substantive  changes which ha d been made to the proposal . Argentina 
remained concerned that the EU policy continued  to be based on  a hazard identification  approach  
instead of a complete scientific risk assessment , which was counter to the principles of the SPS 
Agreement . Argentina emphasized the systemic impact that this policy  would have on agricultura l 
exports to the EU market , specifically highlighting  that 39% of  Argentine exports to the European 
Union could  be affected by this policy . Argentina further observed that phytosanitary products 
currently authorized , after having gone through a n EFSA risk assessment, could later be regulated 
on the basis of hazard identification, which could lead to MRLs being established at limits of 
detection, without corresponding scientific basis - and even in contradiction of Codex standards.  
Argentina reiterated its r equest that the European Union maintain import tolerances with MRLs 
above default values, in accordance with its Regulation (EC) 396/2005.  
3.25.   China echoed Argentina's concern , also noting that the criteria appeared to be policy -
oriented, rather than based on rigorous scientific risk assessment  as required  under  the 
SPS Agreement.  China urged the European Union to consider the existing scientific basis when 
assessing risk s to life or health and to minimize the negative effects of trade. China also 
recommended that "negligible risk" be modified to " be acceptable to human an d environmental 
risks" , and  that the European Union adopt Codex standards where they exist, in accordance with 
the harmonization principle of the SPS Agreement. China also signalled its intere st in follow ing the 
developments on this issue and further encouraged the E uropean Union to update the 
SPS Committee.  
3.26.   India supported the concerns  raised , and requested the European Union to adopt a risk 
assessment approach for regulating pesticides and es tablish ing import tolerances , without creating 
unnecessary barriers to trade.  
3.27.   The United States reiterated its concerns on the EU pesticides policy. The United States 
argued that the hazard -based pesticide regulations were insufficiently grounded on scienc e and 
risk, and would harm agricultur al trade , without making a meaningful contribution to public health  
or environmental protection . The United States requested clarification  on the appropriate level of 
protection being sought by the European Union throug h implementation of  Regulation 1107/2009. 
In addition, t he United States noted that adoption of the revised criteria , currently under review by 
the European Parliament , would  lead to a ban on many more substances than those previously 
suggested in the E uropean Union's 2016 notification. The United States further queried ho w the 
European Union  would ensure consistency with the SPS  Agreement if it withdrew MRL s without 
conducting risk assessments. The United States emphasized the existence of other approaches  
that could provide the high levels of public health and environmental protection being sought by 
the European Union,  without forgoing the scientific risk assessment framework. The United States 
welcomed the European Union's efforts to update the Committee (G/SPS/GEN/1594), but 
registered its regret that the substanti ve concerns of over 30 Members had  still not been 
addressed. Fina lly, the United States looked forward to receiving responses to the written 
question s that had been submitted after the March 2017 SPS Committee meeting, and also hoped 
that the comments submitted on related text s in other fora (i.e. EU's REFIT consultation on 
legislation , EFSA/ECHA guidance)  would be taken into  consideration.  
3.28.   Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, 
Kenya, Korea, New Zealand, Nigeria, Panama, Peru, Chinese Taipei, Thailand and Urugua y 
indicated that they shared this concern and called upon the European Union to reconsider their 
measure considering the significant negative impact that it w ould have on trade.  They also called 
upon the European Union to base its measures on adequate scie ntific risk assessments and to 
consider Codex MRLs.  Brazil further noted that it had conducted its own impact assessment of 
pesticides using the criteria being discussed by the European Commission, but with different 
outcomes. In this regard, Brazil unders cored the challenges arising from establishing criteria to 
define endocrine disruptors.  G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 12 - 
 
  3.29.   Canada further  express ed its disappoint ment that a regulatory amendment for derogation 
based on negli gible risk had not been introduced in the revised regulatory propos al which had 
been approved by the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed in December 2017. 
Canada sought assurances from the Europea n Union that decisions on setting MRLs would continue 
to be made on the basis of complete risk assessments, as  set out in Regulation (EC) 396/2005. 
Canada looked forward to continued updates from the E uropean Union on the next steps for the 
criteria, as well as information on the timelines for the entry into the force of the proposal. Canada 
also sough t informatio n on how the European Union planned to work with its trading partners to 
develop a revised measure in a manner which was consistent with its international obligations and 
which  avoided unnecessary disruptions to market access.  
3.30.   The European Union reiterated  its commitment to transparency, noting that  it had 
communicated the latest state of play in document G/SPS/GEN/1594 . The European Union recalled 
that in October 2017, the European Parliament had rejected the criteria for plant protection 
products which ha d been agreed by EU member States. A new  version of the draft criteria for plant 
protection products had subsequently been developed and was currently  under the scrutiny of the 
European Parliament. The European Union  also reminded the Committee that the p roposed 
regulation criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors in biocidal products had been adopted and 
subsequently  published in  November 2017 as  regulation (EU) 2017/21003 . The criteria  would be 
applicable from 7 June 2018. A technical guidance documen t was also being developed by the 
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) and EFSA for the implementation of the n ew scientific criteria 
for pesticides and biocides , with an expected completion date in June 2018. Several Members had 
submitted comments on this gui dance document which were being taken into consideration . 
The European Union reminded the Committee that the proposal to amend the derogation , based 
on negli gible risk of exposure, remained on hold until  agreement on  the criteria was adopted. 
Import tolera nce requests for substances falling under the cut -off criteria would also be carefully 
evaluated on a case -by-case basis, considering the objectives of consumer protection , as well as 
the European Union's obligations under the SPS Agreement. Finally, the E uropean Union undertook 
to keep Members duly informed about  further developments.  
3.2.6   France's dimethoate -related restrictions on import ed cherrie s - Concerns of the 
United States (No. 422)  
3.31.   The United States reiterated its concern regarding  actions taken by Fr ance to ban the 
importation of fresh cherries from the United States and other countries that had approved the use 
of the pesticide dimethoate on cherries. The United States expressed concern over the decision to 
restrict imports of commodities based on th e authorization of a pesticide in the country of origin 
rather than based on a scientific assessment of risk, and regardless of whether or not residues of 
the pesticide were present in the imported commodities. The United States indicated that it had 
provided data, in response to France's notification (G/SPS/N/FRA/13), showing that di methoate 
had not been  used in th e State of California for over five  years. Furthermore, the United States 
argued that in regions where dimethoate might be used, it had been  applied as a post-harvest  
application,  which d id not result in residues  on the fruit . The United States noted t hat it had 
received from France a response to its  submitted  comments, but regretted that its substantive 
concerns had not been addressed. The United States indicated  that it had demonstrated that 
pesticide authorization status was not a reliable indicator of actual exposure to residues and on 
this basis, requested France to clarify whether less trade restrictive measures had been 
considered. The  United States also highlighted that it had satisfied the data -gaps for dimethoate 
metabolites  and further urged France to follow the MRLs established by the European Commission, 
upon completion of the E U re-evaluation of dimethoate. Finally, the United St ates requested 
France not to renew its ban for a third consecutive year.  
3.32.   Canada echoed the US  concern,  request ed information about any new measure that would 
apply later in 2018, and encouraged France to adopt measures in line with those of the European 
Commission . Canada  noted that France had lifted its ban on cherries  from countries where 
dimethoate use was  authorized, but remained concerned that France might implement another 
temporary measure banning cherries from countries that had registered dimethoat e use. Canada 
urged France to conduct a risk assessment to determine if the current MRL established by the 
European Union was insufficient , before implement ing more trade restrictive measures.  
3.33.   Turkey supported the concerns raised , indicating that although dimethoate use had been  
prohibited  in Turkey, it still had been unable to export cherries to France. T urkey urged France to G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 13 - 
 
  apply the least trade restrictive measures and indicated its willingness to continue bilateral 
discussions on the issue.   
3.34.   The Europ ean Union referred to its previous  response s provided in the 2017 SPS Committee 
meeting s and in dicated that the measure , which had been introduced in April 2017,  had expired at 
the end of 2017. In terms of the next steps, the  European Union explained that EFSA would 
evaluate new studies, particularly in view of  the open questions on  metabolites , and that an  EFSA 
conclusion was  expected later in 2018 . The European Union noted that it was too early to know 
whether new measures would be in troduced by France in 2018. The European Union further 
indicated that  any such measure w ould be notified to  the Committee . 
3.2.7   China's AQSIQ official certification requirements for food imports 
(G/TBT/N/CHN/1209) – Concerns of the United States (No. 184)  
3.35.   The U nited States reiterated its concern on China's proposed official certification 
requirements for imported food. The United States thanked China for its bilateral engagement and 
for its notification to the WTO of the two -year transitional period for the impl ementation of the 
official certification requirement. The United States welcomed the clarifications provided by China 
and requested confirmation that China was considering  revision of the measure in the coming 
months . The United States further requested in formation on the associated timelines for such a  
revision  and urged China to notify any revision to the SPS Committee . The United States 
highlighted the wide range of imported food prod ucts covered by the measure, including 
processed, shelf -stable food, wh ich would pose little to no risk to food safety and human health. 
The United States also noted the potential administrative and financial burden to b oth exporting 
countries and China, due to the measure . The United States recalled the exist ing Codex guidel ines 
and principles on official certification requirements and urged China to consider aligning its 
measure to these international guidelines. Finally, the United States welcomed the opportunity to 
work further with China on the matter.  
3.36.   The European Union,  Guatemala, Japan, Korea, Singapore and Thailand also shared the 
concern of the United States and urged China to provide information on the revised draft and its 
implementation, noting that the measure would be disproportionate, go beyond international 
standards, and be trade disrupting.  Guatemala further looked forward to receiving a response to 
its questions submitted in August 2017.  
3.37.   China recalled its response in previous SPS Committee meetings , highlighting that it had 
carefully considered the comments submitted by Members and had decided to postpone 
enforcement of the measure to 1 October 2019, as notified to the WTO. China explained that the 
measure had been drafted taking into account the practical situation of other Members, and  
further indicated tha t it would take into consideration all reasonable comments from Members, 
with a view to adjust the measure and minimize negative trade effects. Finally, China  invited  
Members to coordinate with Chinese authorities to continue discussion s on the technical d etails.  
3.2.8   EU MRLs for acrinathrin, metalaxyl and thiabendazole - Concerns of Peru 
(No. 428)  
3.38.   Peru r eiterated its concern  regarding  the lowering of EU MRLs for acrinathrin, metalaxyl and 
thiabendazo le under Regulation (EU) 2017/1164, which had entered into force on 21 January 
2018. Peru emphasized the negative impact of this measure on its fruit and vegetable exports to 
the European Union. In particular, Peru highlighted its concerns with EFSA' s categorization of 
mango, which had led to more re strictive EU MRLs being applied  than the Codex standard of 
5mg/kg . Peru requested that the European Union review th is measure  which it viewed as more 
trade restrictive than necessary, without scientific basis and inconsistent w ith Articles 2 and 5 of 
the SP S Agreement.  
3.39.   Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala and the United States 
shared the concern raised by Peru, underlin ing the importance of basing measures on scientific 
evidence and using Codex standard s. The United States expresse d its disappointment with the 
European Union's decision to lower the thiabendazole MRL on sweet potatoes to 0.01mg/kg, even 
though no risk to consumers had been identified and confirmatory residue trial data w ere under 
development for submission. The Unite d States requested clarification on the European Union's G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 14 - 
 
  process , including the time -frame, for consider ing comments submitted by Members . In particular, 
the United States highlighted the short timing between its submission of comments , in response to 
the EU notification , and the subsequent vote by EU member States on thiabendazole MRLs , a few 
days later . The United States further noted that sweet potato growers would face great difficulties 
in exporting to the European Union and in controlling black rot during the time that  it would take  
the European Union to re-establish  an import tolerance. The United States indicated that it  planned 
to submit an import tolerance application and hoped that the EU would consider an expedited 
review.  
3.40.   The European Union recalled its previous interv ention in the November 2017 
SPS Committee, e xplain ing that the proposed MRLs were based on EFSA 's identification of dietary 
intake concerns and data gaps in their assessment of MRLs for thiabendazole in mangoes. The 
European Uni on reported that comments received from Members in response to notification 
G/SPS/N/EU/174 had not presented specific new data for re -evaluation and invited Members to 
apply for import tolerances for affected products accompanied by substantial new data ad dressing 
EFSA's concerns. The European Union also indicated that t he Standing Committee had discussed 
the concerns of trading partners , including whether processing factors could be applied for 
mangoes ; however, it concluded that there was insufficient dat a or justification  for further action. 
The European Union noted that there were other  available  plant protection products which could 
replace thiabendazole , and that a list of these possible alternatives had been transmitted to some 
interested trading part ners. This list could also be made available to other Members . Finally , the 
European Union reminded Members that it had provided an information note in 2016 on the 
ongoing review of EU MRLs, which had been updated in June 2017  (G/SPS/GEN/1494/Rev.1) , and 
urged Members  to make their concerns known as early as possible in the process.  
3.2.9   Thailand's import restriction on papaya seeds – Concerns of Chinese Taipei 
(No. 421)  
3.41.   Chinese Taipei reiterated its concern regarding  Thailand's import restriction on papaya 
seeds imposed since 2008. Chinese Taipei reported that it had reviewed Thailand's draft 
quarantine requirements for its papaya seeds and  had submitted  comments in January  2018, 
where it had indicated that the different modes of transportation had no effect on the pest risk of 
its papaya seeds. Chinese Taipei  noted that it had proven that its measures could effectively 
control any risks relating to tobacco ringspot virus (TRSV) and further indicated that its exports of 
papaya seeds had never been intercepted or invaded by any pests. Chinese Taipei urged Thailand 
to lift the import restriction and comply with its WTO obligations.  
3.42.   Thailand responded that it had held  several bilateral meeting s with Chinese Taipei and that 
a draft import protocol , based on the availa ble scientific information , had been  submitted  to 
Chinese Taipei  in the last bilateral meeting . However , an agreement  on the import protocol  had 
not yet been reached. Thailand expressed its willingness to continue working with Chinese Taipei 
for the mutual resolution of this concern.  
3.2.10   General import restrictions due to BSE – Concerns of the European Union 
(No. 193)  
3.43.   The European Union reiterated the importance of this concern, recalling BSE -related science 
on the safe trade of beef regardless of the BSE  country risk st atus, as stated by the OIE. 
The European Union regretted that some countries maintained their BSE -related bans, which 
contradicted their obligations under the SPS Agreement. The European Union also underlined the 
lack of transparency of som e Members' import procedures, as well as undue delays in approval 
procedures of some Members. The European Union appreciated  the positive developments in 
China, Japan, Korea, Chinese Taipei and the United States, and further urged all Members to 
promptly a llow imports of safe beef from the European Union.  
3.2.11   Mexico's restrictions on imports of swine meat - Concerns of Brazil (No. 271)  
3.44.   Brazil informed the Committee of the withdrawal of its specific trade concern  against Mexico 
following recent bilateral discuss ions, and further indicated that a timeframe had been agreed to 
resolve this concern.  G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 15 - 
 
  3.2.12   China's import restrictions due to African swine fever – Concerns of the 
European Union (No. 392)  
3.45.   The European Union again raised concerns over China's country -wide ban o n pork products 
from Poland and other EU member States due to African swine fever (ASF). The European Union 
recalled that the issue had first been raised in July 2015, without a positive response from China to 
date. The European Union emphasized  its region alization measures and the evidence presented to 
guarantee safe trade, urging China to recognize the concept of disease -free areas and respect its 
regionalization obligations in compliance with the SPS Agreement and OIE standards. 
The European Union also r equested that China provide information on its procedure to recognize 
disease -free areas and on its standard processing period, and that China ensure that these 
procedures were undertaken and completed without undue delay. The European Union indicated its 
willingness to continue working intensively and constructively with China towards finding a 
common solution, in line with international standards and obligations.  
3.46.   China highlighted th e serious nature of  ASF, noting that there was no effective vaccine t o 
date, and that this  disease had shown a continuous spread in Europe,  in recent years. 
China  confirmed that there ha d been no occurrence of ASF in China,  and further indicated that 
according to the SPS Agreement and China's current protection ability, China had to strictly 
prohibit imports of animals and animal products with a high risk.  
3.2.13   Korea's import restrictions due to African swine fever – Concerns of the 
European  Union (No. 393)  
3.47.   The European Union reiterated its concern over Korea's ban on pork and pork products from 
Poland since February 2014, which did not take into account the European Union's  regionalization 
measures.  The European Union indicated that, since the ban, Korea had continued to receive 
detailed information on all outbreaks.  Korea had perfo rmed a preliminary risk assessment and an 
on-site inspection in December 2014 , following which it had informed the European Union,  in 
October 2015 , that a risk analysis had been initiated . However , there had been no progress  to 
date. The European Union urg ed Korea to finalize the risk assessment,  adopt trade measures 
which we re consistent with the SPS Agreement, and only request  the necessary information to 
complete the assessment . The European Union expressed its willingness to continue working with 
Korea and looked forward to a quick resolution of this concern.  
3.48.   Korea drew attention to the increasing number of ASF cases in Poland, particular ly in small 
domestic pig farms , and further recalled that the report of the European Animal Health Regulatory 
Committe e had indicated possible causes for the outbreak.  Korea expressed its concern  that the 
proposed  ASF-free zone was not effectively managed, and further indicated that it had requested 
pertinent information on the spread of ASF in domestic pig farms . However , no response  had yet 
been received from Poland . 
3.2.14   China's import restrictions due to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza – Concerns 
of the United States (No.  406)  
3.49.   The United States reiterated its concern over China's Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza 
(HPAI) -related restrictions on poultry products and requested that China follow OIE standards, 
particularly on regionalization. The United States regretted that despite being HPAI -free, according 
to OIE guidelines, China still maintained the restriction . China had  also not requested any 
additional information from the United States, further to its audit in July 2017. The United States 
urged China to remove all HPAI -related import restrictions and indicated its commitment  to 
maintain its rigorous and effective surve illance for HPAI.  
3.50.   China replied that it had found problems with the prevention and control system of avian 
influenza in the United States in July 2017, based on its preliminary risk assessment. China had 
informed the United States of the problems detected,  but had not  yet received a response. 
China  urged the United States to provide feedback in writing, as well as the requested 
supplementary information. China explained that there had been bilateral discussions on biosafety 
compartmentalization and regional ization methods, and kept an open mind on both methods. 
China added that it would again submit its standards on biosafety compartmentalization , in G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 16 - 
 
  writing , to the United States. Finally, China suggested that both parties establish coordinate d 
standards on regionalization and biosafety compartmentalization under the OIE guidelines.  
3.51.   The United States clarified that, while it understood that China would like to purse 
compartmentalization, a formal compartmentalization proposal had not been received from China.  
Moreover , the United States noted that each country should separately be evaluated for 
recognition of regionalization or compartmentalization , following the procedure established by the 
importing country. The United States added that since both countries were in different stages of 
the process, it requested China to finali ze the regionali zation protocol  that was provided following 
the July 2017 visit , and to remove all HPAI -related  restrictions  on imports from the United States,  
in line with its HPAI -free status, according to OIE standards.  
3.2.15   South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to Highly Pathogenic Avian 
Influenza - Concerns of the European Union (No. 431)  
3.52.   The European Union reiterated concerns over country -wide bans on imports of poultry 
produc ts from several EU member States due to HPAI, despite all but one of them ha ving been 
recognized as free from HPAI for months. The European Union recalled the OIE standard which 
stated that HPAI -related trade restrictive measures could be lifted after the application of a 
stamping out policy . This stamping out policy had been implemented in the affected areas of the 
European Union,  and all trading partners, including South Africa, had been informed of this and 
other developments.  The European Union explaine d that South Africa's decision not to accept HPAI 
zoning even after receiving  relevant evidence disregarded the international standard and 
regionalization obligation under the SPS Agreement. The European Union indicated its bilateral 
engagement with South Africa, including an audit v isit to three EU member States , and further 
urged South Africa to lift the country -wide bans without delay.  
3.53.   South Africa repeate d its concerns regarding the effectiveness of HPAI-related  control and 
preventive measures in the European Union.  South Africa indicated its commitment to conduct 
inspection missions to EU member States, in order to evaluate the control measure s and to ensure 
that no risk would be posed in poultry trade.  South Af rica furth er informed the Committee  that its 
inspectors were currently in Spain, after having visited Hungary and Poland,  following which the 
outcome of these visits w ould be communicated to the European Union.  
3.2.16   EU restrictions on poultry meat due to Salmon ella detection - Concerns of Brazil 
(No. 432)  
3.54.   Brazil reiterated concerns over the reinforced border testing controls in the European Union, 
which had resulted in increased reports of salmonella detections in poultry. In addition, Brazil 
pointed out that di stinct microbiological criteria for fresh meat products and poultry meat 
preparations were unjustified, as the two products were similar . Brazil explained that it exported a 
considerable volume of uncooked salted poultry meat and seasoned poultry meat  to the European 
Union,  which were both commercially defined as "poultry meat preparations". However, Brazil 
argued that the food safety specifications for salted poultry meat should be the same as those 
applied to fresh poultry meat, since their intr insic char acteristics relevant to microbial food safety 
were virtually identical. In addition, both products were uncooked, had similar muscle fibre 
structure and were not intended for immediate human consumption. Brazil queried the scientific 
justification for the adoption of different food safety criteria for these products. Brazil also  
indicated that over 95% of the notifications of positive results in Salmonella  detection by the 
European Union's Rapid Alert System for Food and Feeds (RASFF) were related to Salmonella  in 
salted poultry meat, with no public health significance. Brazil further  highlighted that  the Standing 
Committee on Plants, Animals , Food and Feed was scheduled to discuss the delisting of Brazilian 
establishments  which were currently authoriz ed to export  products of animal origin . 
Brazil  emphasized that such a decision could have a negative  result on Brazil's exports to the 
European Union and  would  constitute an unjustified barrier to trade.  
3.55.   The European Union acknowledged the difference in mi crobiological criteria for Salmonella 
for the two product categories as pointed out by Brazil, indicating that the scientific considerations 
were based on the opinion of the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public 
Health on Salmonell ae in Foodstuffs. The European Union stated that there was no justification for 
revising the criteria , and that they applied to both domestic production and imports into the G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 17 - 
 
  European Union . The European Union added that shipments from Brazil were subject t o laboratory 
testing at 20 % frequency at the EU borders  in addition to the checks that were requested to be 
carried out by the Brazilian authorities on each consignment before the export takes place.  These 
controls were put in place last year following the  meat fraud scandal and on the basis of the 
results of an audit carried out in May 2017. However, despite the pre -export tests, the prevalence 
of Salmonella  found in poultry meat con signments from Brazil at the EU  border was  close to 7% 
and this was a matt er of concern. The European Union informed the Committee that the European 
Commission had recently carried out an audit in Brazilian poultry meat establishments, and that 
the report was under preparation. The European Union also explained that the delisting of Brazilian 
establishments was a separate  issue under consideration by EU authorities , as it related to 
recurrent Salmonella  detection in specific establishments, despite requests for Brazil to take 
appropriate measures . In relation to the probl ems of risk management and communication raised 
by Brazil in the November 2017 SPS Committee  meeting , the European Union underscored  its 
transparent  system , highlighting that  information on detection s in both intra-European  and 
international trade could be  found  in RASFF. Finally, the European Union noted that i ts measures 
were consistent with the SPS Agreement, and further  indicated  its willingness to continue bilateral 
discussions on this issue.  
3.2.17   US seafood import monitoring programme - Concerns of China ( No. 415)  
3.56.   China reiterated its concern on the Seafood Import Monitoring Programme  and the Fish and 
Fish Product  Import Regulations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act.  China noted that 
aquaculture products had no relation to the false capture of marine m ammals, and that the 
traceability of aquaculture products outside the United States did not help to prevent illegal, 
unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and fraud in aquatic products. China requested an 
explanation of the rationale for the inclusion o f aquaculture products in the scope of application of 
the two bills, and further urged the United States to consider removing these products from the 
bills and to f ormulate laws con sistent with the SPS  Agreement.  
3.57.   The United States reiterated that the final rule was not an SPS measure and therefore fell 
outside the scope of the SPS Agreement. The United States also reiterated that the objective of 
the final rule was to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud, and thus required US importers to 
report certain information upon entry into the United States and retain other information that 
would allow the shipments to be traced back to the point of catch or harvest in order to protect its 
market from being used to sell frau dulently marketed seafood or seafood products produced from 
IUU fishing. The United Stated  also indicated its willingness to have bilateral discussions  on the 
other measure mentioned by China, which was outside the scope of this  trade concern  on the 
US seafood import monitoring programme . The United States looked forward to  its continued 
engagement with China.  
3.3  Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.1 8 
3.58.   The Secretariat recalled that in September 2017, it had contacted all Members who had 
raised specific trade concerns ( STCs) to seek information regarding the status of each STC raised 
by that Member, which had not been discussed since March 2016. A compilat ion of STCs reported 
as resolved or partially resolved had been circulated in document RD/SPS/28 on 31 October 2017. 
Based on further exchanges with those Members, an updated version of the document had 
subsequently been circulated in RD/SPS/28/Rev.1 on 19  February 2018.   
3.3.1   China's import ban on fresh mangosteen – Information from  Indonesia (No. 416)  
3.59.   Indonesia expressed gratitude to China for lifting its import ban on fresh mangosteen from 
Indonesia, and for accelerating the market access for these products by signing an export protocol 
in December 2017. Indonesia indicated that it had relaunched its mangosteen exports to China in 
January 2018, and further  expressed its  commitment  to continue fulfilling the required standard s. 
Indonesia hoped that this  protoc ol would continue to further strengthen the trade cooperation 
between Indonesia and China, as envisaged in Article 4 of the SPS Agreement.  
3.60.   China thanked Indonesia for providing information on the resolution of this trade concern  
and stressed the importance of bilateral discussion s to resolve this issue. China expressed its G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 18 - 
 
  willingness to work with other Members to promote the smooth development of trade in 
agricultural products.  
3.3.2   India's import restrictions on bovine semen – Infor mation from  the European 
Union (No.  61) 
3.61.   The European Union informed Members o f the resolution of its concerns regarding India's 
import restrictions on bovine semen, which had initially  been raised by Canada and supported by 
the European Union. The European  Union thanked India for their cooperation on this issue.  
4  OPERATION AND IMPLEM ENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  
4.1  Equivalence  
4.1.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  
4.2  Pest- and disease -free areas  
4.2.1   Report on the Thematic Session on Pest -Free Area s 
4.2.  The Chairperson reported that a thematic session on pest -free areas had been held on 
27 February 2018 as agreed by the SPS Committee in November 2017, based on a proposal 
submitted by the United States (G/SPS/GEN/1593/Rev.1) . The purpose of the thematic session 
had been to provide an opportunity for Members to increase their awareness of IPPC standards on 
pest-free areas, and to share experiences about the challenges, as well as the benefits, of 
implementing pest -free areas in  practice from the perspective of an importing, as well as an 
exporting party. This, in turn, would contribute to building confidence among trading partners 
when recognizing or seeking recognition of pest -free areas.  The programme for the thematic 
session had been circulated in document G/SPS/GEN/1596/Rev.1, based on contributions received 
from Members.  
4.3.  In the Chairperson's introductory remarks, he had underscored the importance of thematic 
sessions for the work of the SPS Committee, in order to discuss par ticular SPS -related topics in an 
informal setting, and to hear the experiences of different Members in implementing specific 
provisions of the SPS Agreement.  
4.4.  In Session 1, the Secretariat had provided an overvi ew of the provisions of the 
SPS Agreement on p est-free areas (Article 6) and the relevant guidelines (G/SPS/48), as well as 
relevant jurisprudence from recent disputes. Although the existing body of relevant jurisprudence 
focused on disease -free areas in relation to animal health, the Secretariat had highlighted that the 
legal findings from these disputes could be broadly applicable to pest -free areas.  
4.5.  The Chairperson had also highlighted the important role played by the IPPC, as the standard -
setting organization for plant health referenced in the SPS Agreement. Unfortunately, due to 
unforeseen circumstances, the representative of the IPPC had not been able to attend the thematic 
session. However, arrangements had been made for a Member to present on IPPC's behalf, 
providing information on the IPPC stan dards on pest -free areas; factors to consider when 
establishing pest -free areas; implementation challenges; and information on the  IPPC's Pest -Free 
Area Project.  
4.6.  The ensuing discussions in Session 1 had covered the role of dispute settlement panels in 
assessing the evidence provided by Members in relation to the determination of pest -free areas 
and the broad nature o f IPPC standards, among others.  
4.7.  In Part 1 of Session 2, speakers representing COSAVE and IAEA had shared their regional 
and international persp ectives on the establishment of pest -free areas. At the regi onal level, 
the importance of defining and maintaining a pest -free area had been highlighted and the role of a 
regional plant protection organization (RPPO) in supporting the phytosanitary activit ies of its 
members. At the international level, the use of the sterile insect technique as a tool for 
establishing and maintaining pest -free areas had been explained, as well as the associated 
benefits a nd challenges of this approach.  G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 19 - 
 
  4.8.  In Part 2 of Session 2, Members had shared their practical experiences on the establishment 
and maintenance of pest -free areas, as well as the legislative aspects and more general principles 
related to their implementation. Presentations had covered the use of pest -free areas in dealing 
with pests such as the Mediterranean fruit fly, oriental fruit fly, guava fruit fly and the red 
imported fire ant in different regions of the world.  In addition to the speakers indicated on the 
programme, a couple of Members had taken the floor to share experiences in recognizing pest -free 
areas of their trading partners.  The discussions had highlighted the importance of the early 
detection of pests, the availability of a corrective action plan to deal with outbreaks , and buildin g 
trust among tra ding partners.  
4.9.  In concluding, the Chairperson had remarked that the thematic session had proven to be 
informative and interesting, and that it had provided a useful opportunity to increase Members' 
awareness of pest -free areas, from the perspective of inte rnational rules and guidelines, as well as 
their practical implementation by Members.  The presentations from the Thematic Session would be 
made available on the SPS Gateway page.  Finally, the Chairperson had thanked the presenters for 
their insightful and interesting presentations. The Chairperson had also acknowledged the 
willingness of Members to share their experiences.  
4.10.   The IPPC expressed regret for its unavoidable absence at the Thematic Session on Pest -Free 
Areas, due to weather -related travel delays. The IPPC conveyed its appreciation to the delegate 
from the United Kingdom for stepping in at the last minute to deliver the IPPC presentation. 
The IPPC also indicated its willingness to contribute to follow -up actions , if any,  from the thematic 
session.  
4.2.2   Information from Members  
4.2.2.1   Dominican Republic – Freedom from Mediterranean fruit fly 
4.11.   The Dominican Republic informed  the Committee  that further to an outbreak  of the 
Mediterranean fruit fly  in March 2015 near Punta Cana, a technical committee had been formed 
with the assistance of the United States, FAO and IAEA to address this issue. The Dominican 
Republic further indicated that through resolution RS/MA/2017/11 (July 2017) of the Ministry of 
Agriculture, it had been decla red free from the Mediterranean fruit fly. A  country -wide surveillance 
program me had also been put in place  for the early detection of fruit fl ies. 
4.2.2.2   Thailand – Freedom from Xanthomonus Stewartii  or Pantoea Stewartii  
4.12.   Thailand reminded the Committee that it h ad been declared free from Xanthomonus 
Stewartii  or Pantoea Stewartii  and that this information had been provided in  document 
G/SPS/GEN /1352 on 7 August 2014.  In addition, Thailand had reported the absence of 
Xanthomonus stewartii to the IPPC on 3 Septembe r 2013. Thailand indicated that some trading 
partners still requir ed it to follow certain import measures to eradicate this pest, although Thailand 
had confirmed that it did not exist in Thailand,  based on surveillance activities . Thailand requested 
Member s to take this information into account.  
4.3  Operation of transparency provisions  
4.3.1   Report on the "technical revision" of the Recommended Transparency Procedures 
(G/SPS/7/Rev.3)  
4.13.   The Secretariat recalled that during the last Committee meeting in November 2017, it had 
proposed to prepare a "technical revision" of the current Recommended Transparency Procedures 
(G/SPS/7/Rev.3), to update outdated information related to the online tools, notification practices 
or notification templates.  
4.14.   On 6 December 2017, the Secret ariat had circulated, through the SPS contact emailing list, 
a revised version of the Recommended Transparency Procedures with proposed track changes in 
the three WTO working languages, and Members had been given until end of January 2018 to 
provide any co mments. No substantive changes had been made, although the revised document  
now included the text and the notification format contained in the Decision on Special and G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 20 - 
 
  Differential Treatment, document G/SPS/33/Rev.1, in order to consolidate all notification  
recommendations into one document.  
4.15.   On 27 February 2018, a clean version of the updated Recommended Transparency 
Procedures had been circulated in document RD/SPS/29. As compared to the version circulated in 
December 2017, this last version included commen ts received from Hong Kong, China. The main 
ones were: 
 In paragraph 2.29, correction of the title of G/SPS/33/Rev.1, which now correctly read 
"Procedure to enhance transparency of Special and Differential treatment in favour of 
developing country Members" , instead of "Procedure to enhance transparency of Special 
and Differential treatment in favour of developing countries"; and  
 Under Annex E, the reference to G/SPS/19 had been changed to the latest revision 
G/SPS/19/Rev.2, and "European Communities" changed  to "European Union".  
4.16.   In addition, this clean version incorporated the most recent templates and some minor 
formatting changes. For example, when listing items, the Secretariat had harmonized the use of 
bullet points (para graphs  2.32-2.33).  
4.17.   Since Members had been given little time to consider th e document, the Secretariat 
proposed that any comments be submitted until Friday, 23 March 2018. If no substantive 
comments were received, the updated Recommended Transparency Procedures w ould be 
circulated as docume nt G/SPS/7/Rev.4.  
4.3.2   Report on the Practical Manual for SPS NNAs and NEPs  
4.18.   The Secretariat recalled that in the  November 2017 SPS Committee  meeting , it had 
explained that the 2011 edition of the Step -by-Step Procedural Manual for NNAs and NEPs was 
being revise d to incorporate the improved SPS NSS and IMS platforms and the new ePing 
notification alert system, as well as other general updates, and that this manual would be 
circulated for comments. This  work had been done with the great assistance of Ms Sally Jenn ings 
from New Zealand, the original author of the manual.  
4.19.   This manual had been circulated on 24 November 2017 and the deadline for comments  had 
been extended until the end of January 2018. The Secretariat thanked  the following Members for 
their comments:  Australia ; Chile;  the European Union;  Hong Kong, China;  the Philippines;  and 
Ukraine. The Secretariat indicated that it was in the process of incorporating these comments and  
further indicated that the final deadline for Members to submit comments  was Friday, 23 March  
2018.  The Secretariat also drew the Committee's attention to the suggested change  in the title of 
the manual from "Procedural Step -by-Step Manual for SPS NNAs and NEPs" to " Practical Manual 
for SPS NNAs and NEPs ". 
4.20.   The Chair person  requested Members to consider the above two documents and to send 
comments to the Secretariat by 23 March 2018.  
4.3.3   Nigeria  – Update on SPS notifications  
4.21.   Nigeria noted the importance of transparency for ensuring smooth, predictable and free 
trade , and also em phasized that the obligation to notify SPS measures was central to the 
implementation of the SPS Agreement . Nigeria provided information on 23 SPS regulations , which 
dated from 1962  to 2017, that were in the proces s of being notified to the WTO.  
4.22.   The Chair person  indicated that it might  be useful  for Nigeri a to submit  this information as a 
GEN document.  
4.4  Special and Differential Treatment  
4.23.   No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 21 - 
 
  4.5  Monitoring of the use of International Standards  
4.24.   The Chairperson reminded Members that the Committee had agreed in the November 2017 
Committee meeting to circulate the convening airgram one week earlier than the previous 
practice. This meant that the original deadline for  raising agenda items under the p rocedure to 
monitor the use of international standards, which was 10 days before the meeting, no longer 
coincided with the deadline for raising issues under other agenda items. In this regard, th e 
Chairperson suggested that Members respect the earlier deadline for submitting issues under the 
monitoring agenda item, which in practice would mean that Members would submit all agenda 
items up to, but not including, the day on which the notice convening the meeting was to be 
issued.  
4.5.1   New issues  
4.5.1.1   United States – Unnecessary delays in adoption of Codex Food Additive 
Standards  
4.25.   The United States drew Members' attention to  the challenge being faced in the Codex 
Committee on Food Additives (CCFA), where 1,200 food additive provisions were being blocked  by 
certain Codex m embers, unless a note (i.e. Note 161) was appended specifying that the standard 
was "subject to the national legislation of the importing country…". The United States indicated 
that each of the substances in the blocked provisions had already  been reviewed  by the Joint 
Expert Committee of Food Additives (JECFA) and found to be safe. These roadblocks  had 
hampered CCFA's ability to establish international standards for food additive s, particularly in 
relation to provisions for colours and sweeteners. Recallin g that Codex standards were not 
mandatory or binding, and that all Codex standards were subject to national legislation, the United 
States argued that inserting Note 161  might call into question the standard itself, or other Codex 
standards that did not contain the note , as well as damage the overall status of Codex standards . 
In addition, the United States was of the view that insertion of the note was not consistent with 
the role accorded to Codex, by the SPS Agreement, to foster international harmoniza tion of 
standards .  
4.26.   The United  States observed that in order to make progress in CCFA's work, Codex had 
adopted  400 food additive provisions containing this note over the past several years, however, 
certain countries had decided not to use food additive s tandards that contained Note 161, resulting 
in additives being banned without scientific justification. The United States further emphasized the 
far-reaching consequences of this issue , noting that many countries relied on the Codex General 
Standards for F ood Additives as the basis for their national standards, and as such, the lack of 
adoption of these food additive provisions could prevent countries from permitting foods with these 
safe additives. The United States observed that this issue eroded the scie ntific foundation of 
Codex , and further  urged Members to eliminate the use of Note 161, a s well as  to facilitate 
adoption of standards for safe additives. Finally, t he United State s requested  Codex to provide the 
Committee with further information  on this issue,  in accordance with paragraph 9 of the 
Committee Decision contained in document G/SPS/11/Rev.1.  
4.27.   Argentina shared  the concerns of the United States  and reminded the Committee that in 
order for an additive to be included on the list of Codex permitted substances, a scientific risk 
evaluation of the substances had to be first undertaken  by JECFA . This ensured the scientific 
foundation for decisions taken by CCFA. In this regard, Argen tina underscored that the use of Note 
161 was contrary to the spirit of Codex and its role as the international standard -setting body for 
food safety, as recognized by the SPS Agreement.  Argentina considered  that the inclusion of Note 
161 could lead Member s to reject the approval of additives , and to believe that they were 
exempted from undertaking a scientific risk assessment.  Finally, Argentina highlighted th e wide -
ranging effects of this issue which deserved the attention of the Comm ittee. 
4.28.   Codex informed  the Committee th at CCFA was developing a discussion paper to address the 
ongoing challenges being faced in relation to a number  of issues, such as addressing  the backlog 
of provisions in the General Standards on Food Additives , and availability of limited  resources to 
CCFA. A draft version  of this discussion paper was available on the Codex website and  would be 
discussed i n the upcoming March 2018 CCFA session. Codex invited Members and Observers to 
submit  comments on the draft discussion paper.  G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 22 - 
 
  4.5.2   Issues pre viously raised  
4.5.2.1   European Union and the United States – HPAI restrictions not consistent with the 
OIE international standard  
4.29.   The United States reminded Members that the OIE  guidelines for avian influenza stated that 
free status could be regained quicker in a previously free country, if it applied a stamping out 
policy that included disinfection of all affected establishments and provided that the appropriate 
surveillance had  been undertaken. The United States also highlighted that restrictions on poultry 
meat or products subject to treatment that mitigated the HPAI virus were not scientifically 
justified. The United States reminded Members of their obligations under Articl es 2 and 3 of the 
SPS Agreement, and urged Members to swiftly lift HPAI -related restrictions on US exports.  
4.30.   The European Union shared the concerns of the United States, highlight ing its strict and 
transparent system of control . The European Union explained th at it applied the same policies and 
guarantees to its intra -European Union trade, as to its exports to non -European Union countries. 
In the event of an outbreak of a contagious animal disease, the potentially affected parties were 
immediately notified via several channels, including directly and via the OIE's WAHIS . 
The European Union also noted that in the event of a prolonged disease outbreak, regular status 
reports were published on the European Commission – DG SANTE website. In addition, audit 
reports w ere published on the control systems in EU member States and non -EU countries 
importing to the European Union.   
4.31.   The European Union expressed regret that so me Members applie d country -wide bans , 
whenever there was an o utbreak,  and noted that this type of mea sure was not science -based.  
The European Union also noted that some Members did not provide information on the various 
steps of their recognition process for regionalization or did not inform Members of missing 
information required for the completion of th e process and subsequent lifting of bans. 
The European Union urged Members to immediately lift all bans, no later than three months after 
the application of stamping out procedures and disinfection of all affected premises. The European 
Union indicated its  continued willingness to further discuss the proper implementation of OIE 
international standards.  
4.32.   Chile supported the concerns raised  and recalled Chile's previous experience with an 
outbreak of low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) in one particular reg ion. Chile highlighted its 
actions under taken to address the issue and the response of its trading partners. In particular, 
Chile noted that in the case of HPAI, a free status could be regained three months after the 
application of the OIE stipulated eradi cation measures, and further requested the OIE to provide 
information on its  guidelines for LPAI.  
4.5.2.2   United States – The relation of the World Health Organization and the Food and 
Agriculture Organization to Codex Alimentarius  
4.33.   The United States recalled  that at the November 2017 SPS Committee, it had outlined its  
concerns regarding the relationship between Codex and its parent bodies, FAO an d WHO. 
The United States noted that  while it supported a close working relationship between Codex and its 
parent bo dies, it also sought to heighten recognition of the difference in mandates and procedures 
of the three organizations. The United States underscored the dual mandate of Codex to protect 
the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the food trade. Cr itical to this dual mandate 
was its inclusive, open and transparent standards development process, which relied on scientific 
and technical advice from public and private sector, as well as i nternational organizations. 
The United States further  highlighted  that the SPS Agreement recognize d the  international 
standards and guidelines developed by Codex,  setting Codex standards apart from those 
developed by FAO or WHO. The United States encouraged Members to support Codex's 
independent, member -driven developme nt of science -based standards . 
4.34.   Canada recalled that Codex had been jointly established by the FAO and WHO , while 
highlighting the specific mandate of Codex  and underscoring the different mandates of each of the 
three organizations. Canada noted  that the 40th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission  
(2017)  had concluded that WHO and FAO policies were to be taken into account , as appropriate, in  
accordance with the need to respect the unique and specific mandate of Codex. Canada recognized G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 23 - 
 
  the imp ortance of expert scientific advice  to Codex work  and further indicated that t he FAO/WHO 
Scientific Advi ce Program me had been operating with  an annual deficit . Several needs had been 
identified , such as  finding a sustainable funding solution ; inviting the WHO to increase its 
contribution to Codex ; and s upport ing the establishment of a blind trust fund designed to enhance 
contribution to scientific advice activities. Canada also called upon WHO and FAO , as the parent 
bodies, to provide predictable and a ppropriate  funding for Codex scientific advice activities . 
4.35.   Argentina appreciated the  work undertaken by  WHO and FAO  in various areas, including 
keeping Members aware of new and emerging issues . Argentina referred to the Codex Procedural 
Manual  which was  agreed upon by Members and the two parent bodies, noting the inherent 
member -driven process by which  decisions were to be taken in Codex , while bearing in mind  the 
opinion of the two parent bodies, other international organi zations and  interested  stakeholder s. 
Argentina emphasized the different mandates and procedures that guide Codex, FAO and WHO, 
and further underscored the need for Codex to concentrate on its dual mandate of  protect ing 
consumer  health and promoting fair business practices in food trade , unless Members decided 
otherwise.  Argentina further highlighted that, as the international standard -setting body for food 
safety recognized under the SPS Agreement, Codex's mandate and procedures should  be 
respected and  not undermined.  
4.36.   Chile reiterated the n eed to secure funding for the risk assessment activities being 
undertaken, and underscored the importance of Codex and its role in developing international 
standards in the food safety area.  
4.37.   The European Union indicated its commitment to provide financial support to the Codex risk 
assessment bodies  (i.e. JMPR, JECFA and JEMRA) , through a grant agreement of 402,000 euros 
during the period 2018 -2020. The European Union further  urged Members and the two parent 
bodies to consider  more sustainable  financing  mech anisms to fund Codex  scientific work, such as  
funding from  the WHO 's core  budget . 
4.5.2.3   United States – Non-use of Codex Guidelines and Principles on Official Import 
and Export Certificates  
4.38.   The United States reiterated its concerns regarding the potential negati ve impact on trade 
arising from unnecessary official export certification requirements that were not based on Codex 
guidance developed over more than two decades, and also not based on scientific justification and 
risk. The United States regretted the prol iferation of new proposed requirements for official 
certificates – particularly for low -risk products. These requirements increased the burden on 
exporters, importers, consumers and governments, with often no identifiable public health or food 
safety benef it. The United States noted the ongoing work in APEC, and further called upon 
Members to reflect on these issues, to consult with their exporters and consider whether and how 
the Committee might support the work of Codex by advancing the understanding and use of the 
relevant Codex principles and guidelines in this area.  
4.6  Catalogue of Instruments available to manage SPS issues – Proposal by Canada and 
Kenya (G/SPS/W/279/Rev.2, RD/SPS/16)  
4.6.1   Report of the Informal Meeting  
4.39.   The Chairperson reported on the discussio ns at the informal meeting on 28 February 2018.  
4.40.   At the informal meeting on 28 February 2018, the Chair person  had recalled that Members 
had agreed on the content of the Catalogue of Instruments, and  that everybody  thought it was an 
extremely useful document . Yet the Committee had previously not been able to adopt it due to a 
divergence of views on the need to add a disclaim er to clarify its legal status.  
4.41.   The Chair person  had reminded Members that a new approach had been tried in the 
July 2017 SPS  Committee me eting. This had entailed combining an introductory paragraph 
clarifying the intended use of the Catalogue with a soft disclaimer. This new language had been 
circulated in room document RD/SPS/16. One Member had subsequently submitted comments 
indicating th at systemic concerns regarding the inclusion of disclaimers in Committee documents 
persisted, and the Chair person  had held consultations in October 2017 to try and resolve the issue.  G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 24 - 
 
  4.42.   The Chair person  had recalled the SPS Committee meeting in November 2017, where one 
Member had suggested organizing an exchange with legal experts from the Secretariat to explain 
the interpretation of Committee decisions and disclaimers. This suggestion had been supported by 
one of the authors of the Catalogue, who had also thou ght it could be  helpful. In this light, 
the Chairperson  had requested the Secretariat to organize such an exchange in order to help 
Members understand the leg al implications of disclaimers.  
4.43.   At the informal meeting, an expert from the Legal Affairs Division  had presented on the 
jurisprudence on disclaimers in Committee Decisions. The Chair person  had also recalled that a 
background note by the Secretariat entitled "Consideration of Disclaimers in WTO Panel and 
Appellate Body Reports" had been circulated by em ail the previous week.  
4.44.   Referring to this background note, the expert from the Legal Affairs Division had recalled 
the following observations contained therein:  
 There ha d been no attempt by panels or the Appellate Body to develop a general body of 
jurisprudence relating to "disclaimers" as such, or a general body of jurisprudence relating 
to the legal status of Committee documents as such. Panels and the Appellate Body ha d 
instead taken more of a case -by-case approach, and refrained from making any broad 
pronouncements on the legal status of disclaimers or Committee documents, on whether 
differences in the language used in different disclaimers or Committee documents imply 
different legal consequences, or on how Members should formulate disclaimers or 
Committee documents to ach ieve certain objectives;  
 When panels and the Appellate Body ha d expressly assessed the legal value of Committee 
decisions or other documents, they ha d in some instances offered such observations with 
specific reference to a disclaimer that may have been used in or in connection with the 
decision or document in question; in other instances, the assessment seem ed to have been 
based as much on the content of the document itself as on the language in any disclaimer. 
It may therefore be difficult to discern from prior panel and Appellate Body reports how 
much weight had actually  been placed on the existence and wording of any disclaimer, as 
an element distinc t from the actual content of the docum ent or action being considered.  
4.45.   He had then made the following factual observations relating to the compilation of selected 
extracts from prior panel and Appellate Body reports:  
 No committee  decision, recommendation or document had been treated as a self -standing 
source of legal rights or obligations;  
 It appeared that in many cases committee decisions or recommendations had been 
referred to by the panels and the Appellate Body only to reinfor ce or support an 
interpretation that was either based on other grounds, or that was not contentious in that 
dispute;  
 While  the WTO Appellate Body report in US-Tuna II (Mexico)  had found that the committee 
decision in question qualified as a "subsequent agr eement " within the meaning of 
Article  31(3)(a) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, panels and the Appellate 
Body had for the most part avoided engaging in technical and legalistic discussions of 
disclaimers, on the legal value of committee dec isions, and on whether and where and how 
committee decisions fit within the framework of Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna 
Convention on the Law of Treaties; and  
 lastly, that there were several instances of WTO panels  and the Appellate Body including 
statem ents in reports that indicate d a degree of sensitivity to concerns of Members in 
relation to placing undue weight on documents such as committee decisions.  
4.46.   After this presentation, one Member had highlighted systemic concerns over the inclusion of 
disclaim ers in committee decisions. Recalling paragraph 29 of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration to 
reinvigorate the work of regular committees, this Member had noted that the SPS Committee had 
long reached consensus on the substantive text of the Catalogue, whic h should be Members' main 
focus, rather than the disclaimer. The Committee should not be scared by the possibility that 
panels and the Appellate Body would look at Committee decisions; they would use them as 
context. Discussions about disclaimers risked sl owing down future wor k of this and other 
committees.  
4.47.   In response to concerns related to setting a precedent with the inclusion of a disclaimer in 
the Catalogue of Instruments and the effect that it migh t have on the work of other G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 25 - 
 
  WTO Committees , a third Me mber had pointed out that most SPS Committee decisions contained 
disclaimers.  
4.48.   One Member had stressed that no explanation had been received from those who were 
requesting a disclaimer on the reasons for this request, and had asked those Members to provide 
this explanation. Although other SPS Committee decisions contained disclaimers, all of them were 
slightly different; there was no horizontal solution for all situations.  
4.49.   Other Member s had taken the floor to encourage all Members to strive to reach a middle  
ground in this matter and had welcomed proposals from Members on ways to reach a compromise. 
They had stressed the need for a collegiate, consensus -based approach to finalize this document 
and embark on new work, including the Fifth Review.  
4.50.   One Member had  reiterated that WTO panels and the Appellate Body had used committee 
decisions only to reconfirm their interpretation of the WTO Agreements , and had expressed 
support for adoption of the Catalogue. Several other Members had taken the floor to reiterate th eir 
support for the Catalogue, and their wish to see it adopted, including the introductory paragraph in 
RD/SPS/16. They had again stressed the usefulness of this document.  
4.51.   In conclusion, the Chair person  had noted that the presentation and the resulting di scussion 
had provided additional clarification on disclaimers in Committee decisions. There was almost 
universal support for the inclusion of a "soft" disclaimer in the document, as proposed in 
RD/SPS/16. The Chai rperson  stressed that Members needed to fin d a way to move forward and 
reach a compromise. This w ould also help the Committee to focus on the upcoming Fifth Review. 
Finally, t he Chair person  had also announced his intention to propose the Catalogue of Instruments 
for adoption at the formal meeting.  
4.52.   The Chairperson proposed that the Committee adopt  the Catalogue for Instruments 
available to manage SPS issues as contained in G/SPS/W/279/Rev.2 with the introductory 
paragraph as contained in RD/SPS/16.  
4.53.   Mexico expressed its appreciat ion to  Members and the Secretariat for the work on the 
Catalogue of Instruments , and further noted  several points  related to the document and to the use 
of disclaimers in general . Firstly, Mexico highlighted its support for the idea of the document  and 
secondly,  indicated that it was in favour of the work of WTO Committees, given  its relevance and 
importance as one of the main pillars of the  WTO. It was for this reason that Mexico  had 
maintained its opposition to the inclusion of disclaimers.  Mexico placed on rec ord its continuing 
legal concerns about the use of disclaimers in the SPS and other Committees, as well its use  in 
past, current and future documents. Mexico noted that a vast majority of Committee decisions d id 
not include disclaimer s, which in its view s hould be the approach taken. In addition, Mexico argued 
that proponents of the disclaimer had neither  concretely  explained  the reasons for the inclusion of 
a disclaimer nor given specific examples to illustrate their case. I nstead, Mexico observed that 
Members had only made reference  to the convenience  of such disclaimers  or that these  disclaimers  
had been used in the past. Mexico underscored its concern that  the inclusion of  a disclaimer in the 
Catalogue of Instruments might  have legal and systemic implica tions for the work of this and other  
WTO Committees , as had already been the case in  the TBT and Anti -Dumping Committees.  
4.54.   Finally, Mexico stated that in this particular case, without renouncing its systemic concerns 
regarding the use of disclaimers, it had decided to give  priority to the proposals submitted by 
Members and on reaching consensus , as this would promote the continued work of the Committee. 
In this regard, Mexico had accepted the language of the introductory paragraph as contained in 
RD/SPS/16. Mexico further indicated its commitment to monitor the integrity of the system so that  
disclaimers were only included in documents where there was genuine justifi cation for their 
inclusion , and with uniform wording . 
4.55.   Brazil fully supported Mexico's statemen t and also placed on record it s serious concerns on 
the use of disclaimer in a text which wa s only a compilation of existing SPS instruments . Brazil 
highlighted that disclaimers added an unnecessary level of complexity to the Committee's work , 
result ing in the loss of time due to repeated negotiations on  the text of the disclaimer , instead of 
on the substance of the document , creating  an overall negative systemic impact  and undermining 
the work of the SPS Committee,  among  others. I n this regard, Brazil reca lled p aragraph 29 of the G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 26 - 
 
  Nairobi Ministerial Declaration  on reinvigorating the work of Committees. Brazil also observed that 
the burden of proof should fall on the proponents of the disclaimer and not on those Members who 
were against its inclusion. Finall y, Brazil stated its support for the adoption of the Catalogue of 
Instruments . 
4.56.   The Chair person  thanked Mexico and Brazil for the flexibility shown on th is issue  and for 
giving priority to encouraging  Members  to raise issues  and submit proposals  for discussion in the 
Committee . The Chairperson noted that this approach  would be helpful for the Committee, as it 
sought to embark on the  Fifth Review. The Chairperson further reassured  Mexico and Brazil  that 
their stated concerns would be reflected in the summary report of the meeting.  
4.57.   The Committee adopted  the Catalogue of Instruments  available to manage SPS issues  as 
contained in document G/SPS/W/279/Rev.2 , with the introductory language in RD/SPS/16 . 
The final document was subsequently circulated as G/SPS/63.  
4.7  Proposed process  for the Fifth Review  
4.58.   The Chairperson reported on the discussions at the  informal meeting on 28 February 2018.  
4.59.   The Chairperson had reminded Members that in the last Committee meeting, the Secretariat 
had provided background information on the Review process in order to guide the Committee's 
consideration of the procedure for the Fifth Review. The Secretariat had explained that the Review 
process normally started with the Committee's consideration of a proposed procedure for t he 
Review, with timelines identified for the various steps. The Committee had requested the 
Secretariat to prepare such a draft procedure for consideration and discussion at the pre sent 
Committee meeting. In the regard, t he Chairperson had drawn  Members' a ttention to document 
G/SPS/W/296, circulated on 19 December 2017. The Secretariat had also provided an overview of 
the proposed pro cess outlined in this document.  
4.60.   Some Members had indicated general support for the process laid out in G/SPS/W/2 96 and 
propos ed adjustments. In particular, the Chairperson reported that a couple of Members had 
suggested revising the proposed calendar with a view to providing more breathing room between 
the various steps. They had also highlighted Committee workshops and thematic  sessions as 
valuable sources of information for the Fifth Review. These Members had thought it would be 
useful for the Committee to engage in discussions on the process ahead, to reach a common 
understanding on exp ectations for the Fifth Review.  
4.61.   Recalling  the challenges experienced in the Fourth Review, one Member had underscored 
that the process would benefit from an approach which would guide Members in moving forward in 
the process. The Member had expressed strong support for the use of written submissi ons as a 
means to identify subjects for consideration, and had stressed the importance of exchanges of 
experiences among Members as a foundation for reviewin g the implementation of the 
SPS Agreement, specifically in relation to how Members had met their go als of ensuring food 
safety, animal and plant health, while still facilitating trade. In addition, this Member had 
highlighted the importance of ensuring that recommendations to emerge from the Review process 
be Member -driven, to  facilitate reaching consen sus. 
4.62.   In terms of the format of the report, one Member had suggested that the background 
document be kept succinct, with a focus on Members’ shared concerns in relation to the 
implementation of the SPS Agreement. In particular, this Member had suggested placing less 
emphasis on the recommendations from the past. The focus should be on building consensus in 
order to generate an outcome. Another Member had proposed that one section of the report 
include factual and descriptive information on the w ork undertaken by the SPS Committee, while a 
separate section could provide information on the Fi fth Review process and outcome.  One Member 
had recalled a document with options to finalize the Fourth Review submitted by the United States, 
which could be us eful for the resolution of difficulties, if they arose.  
4.63.   In summing up, the Chairperson  had requested the Secretariat to modify the timelines of 
the proposed process in light of the discussions, allowing additional time for the initial submission 
by Members  of the issues they had wished to be considered during the Review, and extending the G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 27 - 
 
  process beyon d July 2019. Finally, t he Chairperson had proposed to circulate a revised version of 
document G/SPS/W/296 for adoption at the formal meeting.  
4.64.   The Chairperson drew Members' attention to the revised document which had been 
circulated in document G/SPS/W/ 296/Rev.1  on 28 February 2018 . The Chairperson proposed that 
the Committee adopt the revised document in order to start the process for the Fifth Review. 
The Committee adopted  the proposed process for the Fifth Review as  outlined in 
G/SPS/W/296/Rev.1.  
4.65.   The Chairperson thanked the Committee for agreeing to embark on the Fifth Review and 
urged Members to submit pr oposals for further discussion.  
5  CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  
5.1.  No issue was raised under this agenda item.  
6  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  AND COOPERATION  
6.1  Information from the Secretariat  
6.1.1   WTO SPS activities  (G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.13 and G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.8)  
6.1.  The WTO Secretariat drew the Committee's attention to G/SPS/ GEN/521/Rev.13, which 
provided an overview of all SPS specific technical assistance a ctivities undertaken by the 
WTO Secretariat from 1 September 1994 to 31 December 2017. This document presented  
information on the number and type of activities delivered eac h year , including information such as  
the regions covered , languages used , participation of the international standard -setting bodies and 
much more. The document showed that since 1994 there had been 386 SPS -specific TA activities , 
with an overall participation of more than 14,700  persons. I n 2017, 22  SPS-related training 
activities had been undertaken: one regional workshop; 12 national seminars; an Advanced SPS 
Course; a Thematic Workshop on Transparency; and seven courses or ganiz ed by other 
organizations.  
6.2.  The Secretariat also indicated that document G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.82 provided information on 
the planned T A activities for 2018. The activities included the Advanced Course on the 
SPS Agreement (to be  held in Spanish) in October, an d a Thematic Workshop to be held on the 
margins of the July SPS Committee meeting.  The Secretariat highlighted that funding was 
available for officials from least -developed and developing countries to participate in these two 
activities, and that the deadl ine for applications was 3 April 2018 for the thematic workshop an d 
8 June 2018 for the Advanced C ourse. Additional details on the dates of these planned activities, 
eligibility criteria, pre-requisites and application processes could be found  in the docum ent. 
6.3.  The Secretariat also reminded Members of its approach to  deliver more effective and 
demand -driven regional workshops, which  would entail working collaboratively with regional 
organizations to address SPS -related training needs identified within various regions.  Using this 
approach, t he Secretariat w ould schedule regional SPS workshops in 201 8 upon request from 
regional organization s or a Member in conjunction with a regional organization . On this basis, one 
regional SPS workshop was scheduled to take place for Arab countries (co -organized with the IMF -
Middle East Centre for Economics and Finance) in Kuwait during the week of 16 April 2018. The 
Secretariat noted that this workshop had been  originally scheduled for the week of 19 November 
2017, but had been postponed  as previously announced in the November 2017 SPS Committee 
meeting. Two other regional SPS workshops  were bein g planned with the Intergovernmental 
Authority on Development ( IGAD) and the GCC Standardization Organization ( GSO), at the 
request of these organizations . 
6.4.  The Secretariat provided an overview of the activities held since the last SPS Committee 
meeting in November 2017. These activities included  five national seminars held in Argentina, 
Bangladesh, Belarus, Colombia and Papua New Guinea. M ore general training on the 
                                                
2 G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.8/Add.1 was subsequently circulated on 16 March 2018.  G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 28 - 
 
  SPS Agreement had also been provided in the following activities : WTO Advanced and Regional 
Trade Policy Courses; Workshop on Trade and Public Health, held in Geneva; SPS Training 
Programmes organized by the Swedish Int ernational Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA); 
and a SPS briefing session for Geneva Week.  
6.5.  The Secretariat also informed Members of upcoming national activities that were being 
scheduled for Bolivia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, S aint Kitts and Nevis, Chinese Taipei, Tonga and 
Tunisia. The E -Learning Course on the SPS Agreement was available all year -round in the three 
WTO official languages. Further information on SPS technical assistance activities could be 
obtained on the WTO website or by contacting  the Secretariat . 
6.6.  Chad, Colombia and Nigeria expressed their appreciation to the Secretariat for organizing  the 
various technical assistance  activities . In particular, Colombia highlighted the usefulness of 
national seminars for capital -based officials.  
6.7.  Chad queried whether the Advanced SPS Course  would be  provided  in other languages apart 
from Spanish. The Secretariat explained that the language of instruction of the Advanced  SPS 
Course was rotated among the three official languages of the WTO . The last Ad vanced SPS Course 
in French had been held in 2016 and would be held next in 2020. The Secretariat further 
highlighted that Members could also request national seminars and that interested Members could 
approach the Secretariat for further information.  
6.8.  Nigeria sought  clarification on the application process for regional SPS workshop s in the 
event that a Member  wished to  request a regional workshop , but did not have an  expression of 
interes t from a  regional organization.  The S ecretariat explained its demand driven approach  for 
regional SPS workshops, highlighting that this approach sought to ensure that regional  workshop s 
were held on the basis of actual demand from the region. The S ecretariat  indicated its willingness 
to have further discussions with  Nigeria  on possible options, if Nigeria was i nterest ed in organizing 
a regional work shop. 
6.1.2   Proposed Topic for the July 2018 SPS Committee  Workshop  
6.9.  The Chairperson reported on the discussions at the informal meeting on 28 February 2018.  
6.10.   The Chairperson indicated that at the informal meeting he had recalled that the Secretariat 
had announced in the November 2017 Committee meeting that it planned to organize this year's 
Committee workshop on 9 -10 July 2018. Members had been invited to submit proposed topics for 
the workshop. The Chairperson recalled the message sent out the week before the Committee 
meeting which indicated the three topics that had been sugg ested for the workshop, namely : 
(i) Private and commerc ial standards (G/SPS/GEN/1592); (ii) Control, inspection and approval 
procedures (i.e. Ann ex C of the SPS Agreement); and (iii) Export certification.  
6.11.   Several Members had taken  the floor to express their support for the topic of control, 
inspection and approval procedures (i.e. Annex C of the SPS Agreement). Members had 
highlighted the need for the Committee to place additional attention on this topic, given its 
importance, the wide scope of implementation issues related to these types of procedures, and the 
resulting tra de challenges faced by Members.  
6.12.   One Member had indicated interest in the topic of export certification, highlighting the 
importance of this documentation require ment for goods crossing borders and the linkages with 
the Trade Facilitation Agreement. Another Member had further suggested including export 
certification as one of the sessions in the workshop, while focusing more broadly on control, 
inspection and appro val procedures as the main topic of the workshop. Several Members  had 
indicated support for this suggestion.  
6.13.   In relation to the possible format for a workshop on Annex C, one Member had suggested 
the following sessions: review of relevant WTO texts and gui dance; review of relevant STCs; 
information from Codex, IPPC and OIE on their work in this area; and sharing of Members' 
experiences in the implementation of Annex C. Several Members had indicated support for this 
format.  G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 29 - 
 
  6.14.   In summing up, the Chairperson had  indicated that there w as broad consensus  for the topic 
of control, inspection and appro val procedures (Annex C). The Chairperson had also  indicated that, 
as per the suggestion of Members, the workshop could also include other related topics such as 
export  certification.  
6.15.   In concluding, the Chairperson had invited Members to submit additional suggestions of 
sessions for the workshop, as well as speakers by 23 March 2018. Following which, the Secretariat 
would prepare a draft version of the programm e for circ ulation and feedback.  
6.1.3   STDF (G/SPS/GEN/1607 ) 
6.16.   The STDF Secretariat provided an overview of its activities, as circulated in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1607. The STDF highlighted that a survey had been conducted last year, aiming to 
analy ze how the use of good regulatory practice ( GRP) for the development, implementation and 
review of SPS measures c ould improve the quality and effectiveness of these measures. 
Information had been gathered  on how SPS agencies, in particular in developi ng countries, were 
applying GRP. The STDF noted that 118 responses  had been  received from 64 countries and that 
the p reliminary results and a background note with options for further STDF work on this topic 
were available on the STDF website ( http://www.standardsfacility.org/good -regulatory -practice ). 
These options would  be discussed at the next STDF Working Group meeting on 20 -21 March 2018.  
6.17.   The STDF also indicated that it had published a pr oject results book, which had been made 
available to Members in the meeting room, and was also available in electronic format on the STDF 
website (http://www.standardsfacility.org/ driving -sps-capacity -delivering -results -series ). The book 
highlighted the results and impact of a number o f STDF funded projects which had been 
implemented over the last decade. The purpose of this book was to share results and experiences 
gained, which co uld be useful for future design and implementation of projects aiming to 
strengthen SPS capacities in developing countries. The STDF thanked the collective work of its 
team members and in particular those who directly worked on the publication . 
6.18.   Finally, th e STDF provided information on its projects and PPGs , noting that the STDF had 
approved  seven  new PPGs and nine projects  in the previous year , which would  benefit 
24 developing countries (Africa, Asia, L atin America ), corresponding to US$4.2 million in funding. 
The STDF explained that th is went beyond  the STDF Work Plan for 2017 , which had envisaged the 
approval of four projects and four  PPGs, for a total v alue of US$3.2 million.  As a result, the STDF 
was in a delicate financial situation. The STDF  affirmed its commitment to continue providing 
support to developing countries to build their capacities to implement international SPS standards 
and gain market access , but noted that this would depend on future funding . The STDF thanked its 
current donors for their support in 2017 and  for the  commitments  for 2018 , and further 
encouraged current, as well as potential donors  to support  the STDF in 2018 an d in the future.  
6.19.   Nigeria expressed its appreciation for the STDF's work in undertaking SPS  projects , and 
indicated its interest in reviewing the  results  and impact of STDF-funded  projects.  
Nigeria  highlighted the importance of project preparation  activities  and encouraged the STDF to 
further provide technical assistance and capacity building in this area for devel oping countries. 
Nigeria also appealed to donors to provide funds to the STDF.  
6.2  Information from Members  
6.2.1   Nigeria – Technical assistance received  
6.20.   Nigeria acknowledged the technical assistance provided  by the Secretariat to Members , and 
also highlighted the SPS-related challenges  faced in its v egetable export s to the European Union 
and hibiscus expor ts to Mexico , which had resulted in a significant loss of jobs for local farmers. 
Nigeria request ed assistance in the area s of processing, pack hous es and trainin g of local farmers , 
and noted  the need for more  support  to be provided  to Nigeria and other developing countries.  
6.21.   Nigeria further informed Members that technical assistance had been received from UNIDO , 
with EU -funded support, to undertake activities leading to the identification of all outstanding SPS 
related regulations for notification. Nigeria  indicated the need to establish a SPS -TBT notification 
system in order to avoid delays in submitting notifi cations to the WTO Secretariat, which would G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 30 - 
 
  also increase the efficiency of the NNA and NEP. Nigeria acknowledged AU -IBAR's support which 
had facilitated Nigeria's participation in the SPS Committee and USDA's support in the review of 
the Nigerian Food Saf ety Policy. Nigeria further  encouraged donors to provide more support to 
Nigeria and other African Members in need of capacity building.  
7  CONCERNS WITH PRIVAT E AND COMMERCIAL STA NDARDS  
7.1.  No issue was  raised under this agenda item.  
8  OBSERVERS  
8.1  Information from o bserver organizations  
8.1.1   IICA  
8.1.  The Chairperson drew attention to the report submitted by IICA contained in 
G/SPS/GEN /1597.  
8.1.2   ECOWAS  
8.2.  The Chairperson drew attention t o the report submitted by ECOWAS contained in 
G/SPS/GEN/1599 . 
8.1.3   IGAD 
8.3.  IGAD reported on recent activities of interest to the Committee,  detailed in  document 
G/SPS/GEN/1603 . IGAD shared information on the tec hnical support provided to its m ember 
States  which included: a joint animal health regulatory bodies meeting ; the development of 
regional policy brief s to enhance SPS compliance within IGAD member States; the 5th PPR Regional 
Control and Eradication Committee meeting to review the progress of the implementation of P PR 
strateg ies; and cross-border activities among Memb ers to enhance joint surveillance and 
vaccination.  
8.1.4   OIRSA  
8.4.  OIRSA reported on recent activities of interest to the Committee , detailed in  document 
G/SPS/GEN/1604 . OIRSA informed the Committee of the results of its  visit to the Ministries of 
Agriculture of its  member States , which had been undertaken to identify priorities for the region. 
Some of the priorities identified, included: strengthening of the animal and plant health laboratory 
testing system; improving the health status of countries in the region; and establishing  a regional 
health intelligence system. OIRSA expressed appreciation for the support provided by Codex, IPPC 
and OIE in dealing with the various SPS -related issues in the region . 
8.1.5   ITC 
8.5.  ITC reported on recent activities of interest to the Committee, detailed in  document 
G/SPS/GEN/1606 . ITC provided an update on several of its projects  which included : (i) an EU-
funded project on advancing Afghanistan trade ; (ii) an STDF-funded project in Myan mar on  food 
safety and compliance ; (iii) a project funded by Finland on promoting intra -regional trade in 
eastern Africa ; (iv) enhancing the export competiveness o f the avocado industry in Kenya;  
(v) an STDF -funded feasibility study for value added additio n in the fr uit and vegetable sector in 
Sri Lanka ; (vi) an EU-funded project on  strengthening the national SPS institutional  framework in 
Zimbabwe;  (vii) supporting India's trade and investment for Africa;  (viii) the Gambi a youth 
empowerment project;  and (ix) overcoming trade obstacles related to non -tariff measures in Arab 
countries. ITC also provided information on a new tool, http://www.HelpMeTrade.org , that had 
been launch ed with UNCTAD and WTO at the 11th WTO Ministerial Conference and which would 
help smaller firms benefit from trade. ITC further  highlighted the  ePing alert  system and its NTM 
report for Bangladesh.  
8.6.  Nigeria noted the need for further guidance and capacity building on how to react to 
notificat ions, in order to ensure that Members were aware of the next steps to be taken after G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 31 - 
 
  receiving notifications through the ePing alert system. Nigeria also queried how the comments that 
were submitted were being taken into account by Members.  
8.7.  The Chairperson  thanked Nigeria for its observations and indicated that the Secretariat was 
currently putting together a manual which would help answer questions related to the notification 
process and the ePing alert system.  
8.1.6   GSO 
8.8.  GSO reported on  its main activities of interest to the Committee  during the period 2016 to 
2017, highlighting that it had  issued numerous standards and technical regulations covering 
various economic sectors , most of which had been adopted from international standards. During 
the past year, the GSO had established a new technical comm ittee for halal products and services , 
whose  mandate was to prepare  and review technical regulations, manual, guidelines and 
recommendations relevant to halal foods and services. The scope of the committee would cover 
three main areas : (i) products ; (ii) services and their facilities ; and (iii) personnel associated with 
halal products . GSO  also outlined the various activities which had been undertaken by its Technical 
Committee for Food and Agricultural Products, whi ch had included issuing and updating standards, 
as well as  translating standards from English to Arabic , and vice versa. GSO indicated its ongoing 
work on the development of a GCC rapid warning system for food , and its related participation in 
regional com mittees dealing with food and agricultural products. GSO drew Members' attention to 
its upcoming participation  in the WTO Follow -up Regional SPS Worksh op for Arab Countries  to be 
held in April 2018 , as well as  its organization of a regional TBT/SPS workshop in October 2018. 
Finally, GSO expressed  its gratitude to the WTO Secretariat for their support and cooperation . 
8.2  Requests for observer status (G/SPS/W/78/Rev.14)  
8.2.1   New requests  
8.9.  There were no new requests received by the Secretariat.  
8.2.2   Outstandi ng requests  
8.10.   The Chairperson reminded the Committee that in 2012, it had agreed that i f for any one -
year period an ad hoc observer organization did not  attend any meetings of the SPS Committee, 
its observer status would lapse, but only after the Secretariat  had contacted the observer 
organization and received confirmation that it was no longer interested in maintaining its observer 
status. The Chairperson recalled that in the November 2017 meeting, the Secretariat had been 
requested to verify whether any ad hoc observer organizations had not attended a single 
Committee meeting in 2017. The Secretariat had also been requested to contact any such 
organization s and seek information regarding their continuing int erest to participate in the 
SPS Committee.  
8.11.   The S ecretariat informed the Committee that it had contacted  the six ad hoc observer 
organizations  that did not attend any meeting of the SPS Committee during 2017 , to request  
confirmation of their continuing  interest to participate as an ad hoc observer in the meetings of the 
SPS Committee.  These six observers had confirmed  their interest in maintaining the ir ad hoc 
observer status in the Committee. The Secretariat suggested that the current list of  organizations 
benefitting from ad hoc observer status in the C ommittee remain unchanged.  
8.12.   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 Endangere d Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); 
the Organisation Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV); the Asian and Pacific Coconut 
Community (APPC); and the International Cocoa Organization (ICCO).  
8.13.   The Chairperson informed the o bserver organizations  that their contributions to the work of 
the SPS Committee and their assistance to Members were highly appreciated, and that the 
Committee looked forward to their continued participation in all unrestricted meetings during 
2018.  The Chairperson further  encoura ged observer organizations to provide written reports on 
their relevant ac tivities in advance of the July  2018 meeting.  G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 32 - 
 
  9  ELECTION OF THE CHAI RPERSON  
9.1.  The Chairperson informed the Committee that the Chairperson of the Council for Trade in 
Goods had not yet concluded cons ultations on chairpersons for the subsidiary bodies of the Council 
for Trade in Goods, in accordance with the established Guidelines for Appointment of Officers to 
WTO Bodies (contained in document WT/L/31). The Committee agreed with the Chairperson's 
proposal to postpone the election of the Chairperson of the Committee until the start of the next 
Committee meeting in July 2018.  
10  OTHER BUSINESS  
10.1  Indonesia – Risk management related to the global movement in plant seeds  
10.1.   Indonesia raised a conc ern regarding risk management in global trade and movement of 
plant seeds, observing that in the absence of appropriate phytosanitary measures, there was a 
possible risk of pathogens being transferred through plant seeds moving across national borders. 
This was due to the number of countries involved in the production, processing and packaging 
stages. In particular, Indonesia highlighted the possible risks associated with the export of seeds 
to Indonesia, which might not originate from exporting countries, but from transit countries. 
Indonesia stated that there was need for an international standard on pest risk analysis, as an 
initial step to identify the health status of imported plant seeds. Indonesia explained that it had 
circulated an official letter to  all NPPO bodies of its trade partners, requesting the completion of a 
form which would provide technical information on the health of plant seeds. Indonesia urged 
Members to provide this information which would facilitate its risk analysis process and all ow a 
transparent procedure for the trade of plant seeds. Indonesia indicated that its risk analysis 
process was endorsed by ISPM 38 on the International Movement of Seeds. Indonesia noted that 
the process did not create an unnecessary burden to the transbo undary movement of seeds 
between Indo nesia and its trading partners.  
10.2.   Nigeria highlighted that the requirements for a pest risk analysis on the movement of seeds 
were already contained in the ISPM. Nigeria also informed the Committee of the upcoming 
commodi ty standards that would regulate the bulk shipment of grains and commodities. With the 
introduction of this new standard, issues related to the movement of seeds for planting , as well as  
bulk shipment of commodities would be addressed by ISPMs.  
10.3.   The Secret ariat informed the Committee that Indonesia had intended to raise this issue 
under the agenda item on monitoring of the use of international standards, but had been unable to 
meet the deadline for submission of agenda items. The Secretariat suggested that the information 
provided by Indonesia still be included in the annual report on monitoring which would be prepared 
for the Committee's consideration at the July meeting. The Committee agreed to this suggestion.  
11  DATE AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETINGS  
11.1.   The next re gular meeting of the Committee was tentatively scheduled for the week of 9 July 
2018, with the thematic workshop on 9 -10 July, an informal meeting on 11 July , and the regular 
meeting scheduled for 12-13 July 2018.  The Chairperson informed Members that  a provisional 
agenda for the July 2018 meeting would be circulated  via e-mail. 
11.2.   Members were asked to take note of the following deadlines:  
 For submitting  inputs  for the program me of the Workshop on Control, Inspection and 
Approval Procedures, including suggestions of speakers : Friday, 23  March 2018 ; 
 For submitting comments on the "technical " revision of the Recommended Transparency 
Procedure s (G/SPS/7/Rev.3)  and the transparency manual for NNAs and NEPs : Friday, 
23 March 2018 ; 
 For circulat ing a factual b ackground document  for the Fifth Review  describing the 
Committee's work since the period covered by the report of the last Review: Friday, 
4 May 2018 ;3 
                                                
3 All deadlines relate d to the process for the Fifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of the 
SPS Agreement are outlined in G/SPS/W/296/Rev.1.  G/SPS/R/90  
 
- 33 - 
 
   For submitting issues for consideration under the Fifth Review: Friday , 1 June 2018 ; 
 For identifying new issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure and for 
requesting that items be included on the agenda: Thursday, 21 June 2018 ; 
 For the distribution of the Airgram: Friday, 22 June 2018 . 
 
__________