G/SPS/GEN/1617  
 
7 June 2018 
(18-3485) Page: 1/10 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
 
ANNUAL REPORT ON THE  PROCEDURE TO MONITOR  THE PROCESS  
OF INTERNATIONAL HAR MONIZATION  
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
1  INTRODUCTION  
1.1.  At its meeting of 15 -16 October 1997, the SPS Committee adopted a provisional procedure to 
monitor the process of international harmonization and the use of international standards, 
guidelines or recommendations, as provided for in Articles 3.5 and 12.4 of the SPS Agreement. 
The Committee extended the provision al monitoring procedure in 1999, 2001, and 2003, and 
revised the procedure in October 2004.2 In 2006, the Committee agreed to extend the provisional 
procedure indefinitely, and to review its operation as an integral part of the periodic review of the 
opera tion and implementation of the Agreement under Article 12.7.3 The procedure was reviewed 
as part of the Third Review of the Agreement4, and again in the context of the Fourth Review.5 
1.2.  At its meeting of 1 -2 March 2018, t he 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 procedure to monitor the use of interna tional standards, which was ten days 
before the meeting, no longer coincided with the deadline for raising issues under other agenda 
items. In this regard, the 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.  
1.3.  The Committee has previously considered nineteen annual reports on  the monitoring 
procedure.6 These reports summarize several standards -related issues that the Committee has 
considered and the responses received from the relevant standard -setting organizations.  
2  NEW ISSUES  
2.1.  Since the 201 7 Annual Report, five new issues have been raised  under this procedure : 
(i) non-use of Codex guidelines and principles on official import and export certificates ; 
(ii) the relation of the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture Organization to 
Codex Alimentarius ; (iii)  OIE's new chapter on porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome 
(PRRS) ; (iv) unnecessary delays in adoption of Codex Food Additive Standards ; and (v) risk 
management related to the global movement in plant seeds.  
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the position of Members  or to their rights and  obligations under the WTO.  
2 G/SPS/14, G/SPS/17, G/SPS/25 and  G/SPS/11/Rev.1.  
3 G/SPS/40.  
4 G/SPS/53.  
5 The draft report of the Fourth Review is contained in document G/SPS/W/280/Rev.2.  
6 These were circulated as G/SPS/13, G/SPS/16, G/SPS/18, G/SPS/21, G/SPS/28, G/SPS/31, G/SPS/37, 
G/SPS/42, G/SPS/45, G/SPS/49, G/SPS/51, G/SPS/54, G/SPS/56, G/SPS/59, G/SPS/60 , G/SPS/GEN/1332, 
G/SPS/GEN/1411, G/SPS/GEN/1490 and  G/SPS/GEN/1550.  G/SPS/GEN/1617  
 
- 2 - 
 
  2.1   Non-use of Codex guidelines and principles on official import and export c ertificat es 
2.2.  At the July 2017 Committee meeting , the United  States raised concerns regarding the impact 
on trade caused by official import and export certification requirements that were not based on 
Codex guidance developed ove r more than two decades, and also not based on scientific 
justification and risk. The United States regretted the proliferation of new proposed requirements 
for official certificates – particularly for low -risk products. These requirements increased the 
burden on exporters and regulatory agencies in the exporting country, and importers and officials 
in the importing country, with no identifiable public health or food safety benefit. The United 
States called upon Members to reflect on this concern, to consul t 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.  
2.3.  Canada shared the concerns of the United States and encou raged Members to follow the 
Codex Guidelines for Design, Production, Issuance and Use of Generic Official Certificates 
(CAC/GL/38 -2001) when establishing their official certification requirements. According to these 
guidelines, official certificates should  be required only where attestation and essential information 
were necessary to ensure food safety and fair practices in food trade; and that importing countries 
should consider alternative means to achieve this objective.  
2.4.  At the March 2018 Committee meeti ng, the United States reiterated its concerns regarding 
the potential negative 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 proliferation of 
new proposed requirements for official certificates – particular ly for low -risk products. 
These  requirements increased the burden on exporters, importers, consumer s and governments, 
with often no identifiable public health or food safety benefit. 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 t he Committee might support the work of Codex by 
advancing the understanding and use of the relevant Codex principles and guidelines in this area.  
2.2  The relation of the World Health Organization and the Food and Agriculture 
Organization to Codex Alimentarius  
2.5.  At the November  2017 Committee meeting , the United States recalled the SPS Committee 
procedure to monitor the process of international harmonization (G/SPS/11/Rev.1), highlighting 
that this procedure should help to identify, for the benefit of the relevant  international 
organizations, where a standard or guideline was needed, or was not appropriate for its purpose 
and use. In this regard, the United States drew Members' attention to the recent discussions that 
had taken place at the Codex Alimentarius Commi ssion in July 2017, regarding the relation of the 
WHO and FAO to Codex. The United States acknowledged the critical importance of the 
institutional support provided to Codex by the WHO and FAO, such as through the scientific 
advisory bodies, while also rec ognizing the unique role of Codex in the support of public health and 
trade, and the need for Codex to independently issue standards with support from its member s. 
2.6.  The United States noted that Codex effectively carried out its mandate, by maintaining an 
inclusive, open and transparent standards development process and by relying on scientific and 
technical advice from a wide range of perspectives from the public and private sector, as well as 
international organizations. The United States further stated tha t while WHO and FAO routinely 
provided inputs to Codex for further consideration by its membership, Codex ultimately made its 
determinations based on science, and consistent with the views of its members. The United States 
urged WHO and FAO to jointly rein force the independence of Codex, including its responsibility to 
make decisions that were both science -based and consistent with the views of its members. Due to 
the differences in mandate and procedures of the WHO and FAO, the United States noted that any  
ambiguity regarding the independence of Codex posed a concern, since any undue influence could 
adversely impact the appropriateness of Codex standards in ensuring fair practices in the trade of 
food. 
2.7.  The United States further underscored the need for Code x to remain a member -driven, 
science -based, transparent and inclusive organization in order to ensure the appropriateness of its 
standards for their purpose and use in protecting public health and ensuring fair trade. The United G/SPS/GEN/1617  
 
- 3 - 
 
  States urged WHO and FAO to  provide sustainable funding to enable Codex standards to meet 
their health and trade objectives.  
2.8.  Canada recalled that Codex had been jointly established by the FAO and WHO with a specific 
mandate to develop food standards to protect the health of consumer s and to ensure fair practices 
in trade of food products. Canada recognized the different mandates of each of the three 
organizations and indicated its support for their respective work, while highlighting the 
complementary and synergistic nature. Canada f urther underscored that any work undertaken by 
Codex should be within the purview of its mandate, while also recognizing the importance of taking 
into account the policies of FAO and WHO in its work, and the need for Members to strengthen 
their national co ordination structures on FAO, WHO and Codex.  
2.9.  At the March 2018 Committee meeting, 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 a nd WHO. The United States noted that while it supported a close working 
relationship between Codex and its parent bodies, 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. Critical to this dual mandate was its inclusive, open and transparent standards development 
process, which relied on scientific and technical advice f rom public and private sector, as well as 
international organizations. The  United States further highlighted that the SPS Agreement 
recognized 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 development of science -based standards.  
2.10.   Canada recalled that Codex had been jointly established by the FAO and WHO, while 
highlighting the specific mandate o f 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 
the importance of expert scientific advice to Codex work and further indicated that the FAO/WHO 
Scientific Advice Programme had been operating with an annual defic it. Several needs had been 
identified, such as finding a sustainable funding solution; inviting the WHO to increase its 
contribution to Codex; and supporting the establishment of a blind trust fund designed to enhance 
contribution to scientific advice acti vities. Canada also called upon WHO and FAO, as the parent 
bodies, to provide predictable and appropriate funding for Codex scientific advice activities.  
2.11.   Argentina appreciated the work undertaken by WHO and FAO in various areas, including 
keeping Members a ware 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 organizations and interested stakeholders. 
Argentina emphasized the different mandates and procedures that guide Codex, FAO and WHO, 
and further underscored the need for Codex to concentrate on its dua l mandate of protecting 
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.  
2.12.   Chile reiterated the need to secure funding for the risk assessment activities being 
undertaken, and underscored the importance of Codex and its role in developing international 
stand ards in the food safety area.  
2.13.   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 Un ion further urged Members and the two parent 
bodies to consider more sustainable financing mechanisms to fund Codex scientific work, such as 
funding from the WHO's core budget.  G/SPS/GEN/1617  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.3  OIE's new chapter on Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS)  
2.14.   At the November  2017 Committee meeting , the United States recalled that at the July 2017 
SPS Committee meeting, it had thanked the OIE for its new chapter on PRRS which had been 
adopted at the May 2017 General Session of the World Assembly. The United States hi ghlighted 
that this new PRRS chapter provided science -based guidelines to ensure safe trade in live swine 
and their products, as well as clarity on the nature of actions to effectively manage risks 
associated with PRRS. The United States further observed t hat several WTO Members continued to 
implement PRRS -related import restrictions which appeared not to reflect the new OIE guidelines 
and which were impacting US exporters. The United States indicated that it was closely monitoring 
the implementation of the  new guidelines, as well as engaging in bilateral discussions with several 
Members. The United States urged Members to fully implement the OIE guidelines and to 
expeditiously remove PRRS -related restrictions that did not reflect these guidelines.  
2.15.   Canada sh ared the concerns of the United States and underscored the role of science -based 
international standards in contributing to a transparent and predictable trading environment for 
Members. Canada further noted that the recommendations in the chapter would he lp Members 
manage the risk of international transmission of PRRS and specifically highlighted the conclusion of 
the OIE Scientific Committee which found that meat is not a pathway for the transmission of PRRS 
virus and that the disease would not spread wit h the measures included in the new standards. 
Canada encouraged all Members to follow the recommendations included in the new chapter as a 
basis for their sanitary measures to address PRRS.  
2.16.   The European Union echoed the concerns of the United States and re iterated that the new 
OIE chapter on PRRS was based on science, while urging all OIE member countries to fully 
implement these guidelines. The European Union also recalled that the OIE was currently in the 
process of setting up an observatory on the implem entation of OIE standards by its member 
countries. The European Union indicated its support for this project and further encouraged the 
OIE to include the PRRS guidelines in its observatory work.  
2.4  Unnecessary delays in adoption of Codex Food Additive Standa rds 
2.17.   At the March 2018 Committee meeting, t he 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 members, 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 
additives, particularly in relation to provisions for colours and sweeteners. Recalling that Codex 
standard s 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 we ll 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 
harmonization of standards.  
2.18.   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 standards 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 Food Additives as the ba sis 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 scientific 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, the United States requested Codex to provide the 
Committee with further information on this issue, in accordance wi th paragraph 9 of the 
Committee Decision contained in document G/SPS/11/Rev.1.  G/SPS/GEN/1617  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.19.   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 scientifi c 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, Argentina 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 Members to reject the approval of additives, and to believe that they were 
exempted from undertaking  a scientific risk assessment. Finally, Argentina highlighted the wide -
ranging effects of this issue which deserved the attention of the Committee.  
2.20.   Codex informed the Committee that CCFA was developing a discussion paper to address the 
ongoing challenges b eing 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 websit e and would be 
discussed in the upcoming March 2018 CCFA session. Codex invited Members and Observers to 
submit comments on the draft discussion paper.  
2.5  Risk management related to the global movement in plant seeds7 
2.21.   At the March 2018 Committee meeting, Indonesia raised a concern 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 na tional 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 analy sis process and allow 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 transboundary movement of seeds between Indonesia and its trading partners.  
2.22.   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 t he upcoming 
commodity 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.  
3  PREVIOUS ISSUES  
3.1.  Since the 201 7 Annual Report, there was further discussion on three issues previously raised 
under this procedure  regarding : (i) application of ISPM 13 on notifications of non -compliance;  
(ii) use of the Codex international standar d on glyphosate ; and (iii) HPAI restrictions not consistent 
with the OIE International Standard . 
3.1  Application of ISPM 13 on notifications of non -compliance  
3.2.  At the July 2017 Committee meeting, Senegal referred to the non -notification of non -
compliance of products in international markets, contrary to ISPM 13. Senegal welcomed the 
efforts of some Members, particularly the European Union in notifying non -conformities, allowing 
Senegal to follow -up and rectify where required.  
                                                
7 This issue was originally raised under the agenda item 'Other Business'. However, t he Secretariat 
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 sugges ted 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 2018 meeting. 
The Committee agreed to this suggestion.  G/SPS/GEN/1617  
 
- 6 - 
 
  3.3.  Madagascar supported Senegal's request that all Members respect the non -compliance 
notification principle.  
3.4.  Burkina Faso associated itself with Madagascar and highlighted that in general such 
notifications were not sent to publi c services, but to exporters directly, and therefore competent 
authorities were unable to react accordingly.  
3.5.  At the November  2017 Committee meeting, Burkina Faso reiterated it s concern s regarding 
the application of ISPM 13 , noting the delays in r eceiving notifications of SPS non -compliance from 
Members, including  from the European Union. Burkina Faso welcomed the COLEACP information 
note on monitoring  RASFF and EUROPHYT notifications which provided transparency in the 
management of issues related to non -compliance with SPS measures. This would allow countries, 
especially those with notifications of non -compliance through official inspection structures, to 
better monitor SPS problems and propose solutions.  
3.6.  Canada indicated the importance of the IPPC guidelin es with respect to the notification of 
non-compliance in emergency action, as set out in ISPM 1 3. Canada highlighted the requirements 
of the importing party to provide a notification to an exporting party in instances where 
consignments failed to comply wi th specified phytosanitary import requirements, and to report an 
emergency action taken upon the detection of a pest posing a potential threa t. Canada 
underscored that such notifications were intended to help investigate the cause of non -compliance 
and to facilitate steps to avoid its recurrence, thereby helping exporting countries meet importing 
country requirements. Canada's approach to issuing and receiving such notices was set out in the 
Canadian Food Inspection Agency's Plant Health Directive D -01-06. Canada encouraged all 
Members to follow the international standard in order to prevent the spread of organisms that 
might pose a potential phytosanitary threat.  
3.7.  The European Union indicated its willingness to have bilateral discussions with Burkina Faso 
in order to understand its concerns  and find a solution.  
3.2  Use of the Codex International Standard on Glyphosate  
3.8.  At the July 2017 Committee meeting , Argentina  reiterated its concern regarding the debates 
in the European Union on the renewal of the authorizatio n for use of glyphosate, a commonly used 
pesticide. Argentina recalled the extension of the authorization until the end of 2017, urging for its 
renewal. Argentina expressed concern about  the trade impact that a non -renewal of the 
authorization would have. Argentina emphasized that glyphosate had already been assessed by 
the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR), which was the basis for the MRLs 
adopted by Codex. Argentina therefore urged the European Union to comply with its multilateral 
obliga tions and base its decision on Codex rules and on the scientific reports published by the 
European authorities EFSA and ECHA.  
3.9.  Australia, Brazil, Canada, the Dominican Republic and the United States  associated 
themselves with Argentina and stressed the impo rtance of scientific assessment and consistency 
with international standards, recalling the JMPR re -evaluation of glyphosate and other risk 
assessments; as well as the negative trade impact that a non -renewal of the authorization of 
glyphosate would have o n producers.  
3.10.   The European Union clarified that the Risk Assessment Committee of ECHA had concluded 
that the "available scientific evidence did not meet the criteria to classify glyphosate as a 
carcinogen, as a mutagen or as toxic for reproduction". The Eur opean Union recalled that on 
16 May the European Commission had restarted discussions with member States about the 
possible renewal of approval for ten years. The deadline to decide on the renewal was 
15 December 2017, six months after the reception by the  Commission of ECHA's formal opinion. 
The European Union restated its commitment to adopt a science -based decision that ensured the 
protection of human health and the environment.  
3.11.   At the November  2017 Committee meeting, Argentina reiterated its concern that some 
Members were considering the possibility of rescinding the use of glyphosate and thereby no 
longer apply ing the Codex MRL. In particular, Argentina noted the ongoing debate within the 
European Union on the renewal of the authorization of glyphosa te use and the increasing G/SPS/GEN/1617  
 
- 7 - 
 
  uncertainty regarding the adoption of a decision to renew the licence for its use in the European 
Union, which would expire  on 15 December 2017. Argentina  referred to the scientific opinion s from 
EFSA and the European Chemicals Ag ency (ECHA), as well as risk analyses undertaken by several 
agencies from various countries, which all concluded that glyphosate could not  be classified as 
being carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction. Argentina also noted that glyphosate had 
been the subject of various risk assessments carried out by JMPR, which provided the basis for 
establishing maximum residue limits, for subsequent adoption by the Codex Alimentarius 
Commission. Argentina acknowledged the concerns of variou s EU member States and other 
EU stakeholders, and echoed the need to ensure consumer and environmental protection, but 
further emphasized the fundamental importance of basing sanitary measures on a scientific risk 
assessment. In this regard, Argentina noted that glyphosate h ad been proven to be safe and 
effective when used correctly by farmers. Argentina further indicated its concern regarding the 
position of some EU member States to prohibit the use of glyphosate or to renew it for very short 
periods, even when EU legislatio n indicated that approval for substances whose uses had been 
assessed to be safe, could be renewed up to a fifteen year period.  
3.12.   Argentina stated that a potential decision against the renewal of the approval of glyphosate, 
despite the conclusions of availab le scientific assessments which backed the renewal of 
glyphosate, would lead to serious concerns about the science -based decision -making procedures in 
the European Union. In addition, Argentina highlighted the possible impact of the non -renewal of 
the authorization of glyphosate on the advancement of safe agricultural techniques, as well as the 
effects on international  trade and prices of grains , oilseeds  and by -products . While Argentina 
acknowledged the need to control the indiscriminate use of toxic subst ances, it emphasized the 
importance of ensuring that SPS measures were based on scientific evidence and not more trade 
restrictive than necessary. As such, Argentina urged the European Union to comply with its 
obligations under the SPS Agreement to base de cisions on scientific evidence, as set out in 
Article  3, and to swiftly proceed with the renewal of the authorization of glyphosate, in accordance 
with EU legislation. Finally, Argentina drew the Committee's attention to the E uropean Court of 
Justice ruling in Case C111/16 , which stated that neither  the European Commission nor 
EU member States could adopt emergency measures, such as the prohibition of genetically 
modified organisms, if it were not proven that such products may credibly present a grave risk for 
human, animal health or the environment.  
3.13.   The United States reiterated its concerns over the fact that some Members had already 
taken action, or were considering taking action, to  withdraw existing glyphosate MRLs or to  no 
longer apply the Codex MRL for  glyphosate. The United States observed that some of these 
measures appeared to lack scientific justification, while noting that glyphosate had been one of the 
most rigorously studied and evaluated crop protection tools. The United States recalled JMPR's 
conclusion that neither short -term nor long -term dietary exposure to glyphosate presented a risk 
to consumers or a public health concern. On this basis, all existing Codex MRLs had been 
reaffirmed. The United States expressed concern that actions to restric t the use of glyphosate and 
withdraw glyphosate MRLs would significantly harm international trade without any benefit to 
public health , and that such actions had the potential to underm ine Codex and its standards. 
In particular, the United States noted the  ongoing delays in the European Union to renew the 
current authorization for glyphosate, and recalled that the E uropean Union had failed to reach a 
renewal decision last year, despite the conclusions by both EFSA and JMPR that glyphosate was 
unlikely to be  a human carcinogen. The United States explained that a short 18 -month extension 
had been provided, in lieu of a 15 -year renewal decision, in order to allow a third independent 
opinion by ECHA on glyphosate. In March 2017, the ECHA had corroborated the fin dings of EFSA 
and JMPR . The United States recalled the European Union's subsequent statement in the March 
SPS Committee  meeting , where it had restated its commitment to adopt a science -based decision 
on glyphosate renewal. However, the United States expres sed concern that EU member States 
appeared to be ignoring the findings of international and European scientific authorities, as they 
had failed to reach a qualified majority at the October 2017 Standing Committee on Plants,  
Animals, Food and Feed (PAFF).  
3.14.   With the pending December 2017 expiration of the EU authorization, the United States 
reiterated its concern that EU member States had yet to reach a decision on the renewal of 
glyphosate and that non -renewal could lead to the lowering of glyphosate MRLs to default levels in 
the European Union. The United States further noted the potential impact on crop production 
techniques, world trade of grains and oilseeds, and the estimated net global losses to the sector, 
nearly US$7 billion dollars according to a thir d party impact assessment, if authorization for G/SPS/GEN/1617  
 
- 8 - 
 
  glyphosate use was withdrawn or MRLs lowered. The United States stated that separating 
production throughout the entire supply chain for exports to the European Union was unwarranted 
from a risk stand point, and also not feasible. In concluding, the United States observed that the 
European Union's decision had the potential to undermine regulatory authorities around the world 
(EFSA, ECHA, JMPR), and could embolden those who reject ed the validity of independent  and 
objective scientific evaluations as the basis of regulatory approvals. The United States urged the 
European Union to avoid further delay and to base its glyphosate renewal decision on the scientific 
findings published by European  and international aut horities.  
3.15.   The Chairperson drew the Committee's attention to the report submitted by Codex in 
G/SPS/GEN/1577/Add.1, which provided some information on glyphosate.  
3.16.   The European Union thanked the United States and Argentina for the detailed information 
provid ed to the Committee, and confirmed that the current glyphosate approval was valid until the 
end of 2017. The European Union explained that there were ongoing discussions with EU member 
States on the renewal of the approval, on the basis of the positive opi nions by EFSA and ECHA, 
and that all relevant information was available on the Europ ean Union's glyphosate webpage.  
3.17.   Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Peru, New Zealand and Uruguay echoed the concerns of 
Argentina and the United States, and stressed the importance of scientific, risk -based decision -
making, as well as the importance of following the Codex standard. The potential impact of the 
EU decision on world agricultural production and exports to the European Union, as well as the 
potential pest and d isease issues that might arise, were also noted. Members encouraged the 
European Union to take into account the conclusions of the various scientific risk assessments, 
including by European authorities, in its decision -making process. Australia also raised  several 
queries in relation to the likely timeline for the EU decision, the expected period of re -approval, 
how this information would be communicated to trading partners , and whether a comment period 
would be provided if glyphosate approval was restricte d or not renewed. Australia further 
requested the  views of the  EU Commission on its import tolerance setting process if glyphosate 
was not approved for EU use, bearing in mind the conclusions of the European Union's risk 
assessment of glyphosate and the cu t-off criteria indicat ed in EU Regulation No. 1107/2009.  
3.3  HPAI restrictions not consistent with the OIE international standard  
3.18.   At the November  2017 Committee meeting, the European Union shared its concerns 
regarding inconsistencies in the application of OIE  international standards on regionalization in 
relation to HPAI outbreaks. The European Union highlighted its strict and transparent system of 
control, characterized by its effective early detection and erad ication of avian influenza. 
The European Union ex plained that 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 not ified 
via several channels, including directly by the Commission 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 were 
published on the control systems in EU member States and non -EU countries importing to the 
European Union. The European Union assured trading partners of its transparent approach to 
sharing information on the animal health s ituation in EU member States and further noted that the 
information it had provided so fa r, objectively demonstrated the robustness of its measures, which 
guaranteed that safe trade could continue without the ne ed for country wide bans. 
These  measures, whi ch were legally binding in the European Union and based on OIE international 
standards, were aimed at containing the disease in the infected zone, while allowing trade of safe 
products from the rest of the European Union and exports to non -EU countries.  
3.19.   The European Union underscored that a country -wide ban was not required whenever there 
was an HPAI outbreak, as this type of measure was not science -based nor was it relevant in the 
context of the European Union's single market. In addition, the actions of s ome Members in 
targeting bans on wild birds only and on heat -treated products were disproportional to the level of 
risk and were not in line with OIE international standards. The European Union expressed its 
concerns regarding Members' classification of so me bans as temporary, even though these bans 
had not been lifted or had been kept in place for extended periods. The European Union also noted 
that some Members did not provide information on the various steps of their recognition process 
for regionalizati on or did not inform Members of missing information required for the completion of G/SPS/GEN/1617  
 
- 9 - 
 
  the process and subsequent lifting of bans. The European Union called upon Members to comply 
with the regionalization obligations under the SPS Agreement and to follow OIE i nternational 
standards, and allow trade of all safe products, especially from non -affected zones. The European 
Union further requested Members to immediately lift all bans, no later than three months after the 
application of stamping out procedures and dis infection of all affected premises, and to refrain 
from imposing trade restrictions in cases where HPAI was detected in wild birds. The European 
Union indicated its continued support for the Committee's thematic sessions on regionalization, 
which provided a forum to further discuss the proper implementation of OIE international 
standards.  
3.20.   The United States shared the concerns of the European Union, and informed Members that 
it had regained country -wide freedom from HPAI, consistent with the OIE guidelines, in August 
2017. The United States reminded Members of the importance of the HPAI guidelines in facilitating 
safe trade in life poultry and poultry meat. In particular, the United States highlighted that the OIE 
guidelines for avian influenza stated that fr ee 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 noted that  
some AI -related restrictions on imports from the United States had been lifted, and acknowledged 
the European Union, Japan and South Africa for their actions in that regard. However, the United 
States observed that not all Members were following the OIE g uidelines, nor did they offer 
scientific justification for deviating from the international standards. The United States reminded 
Members of their obligations under Articles 2 and 3 of the SPS Agreement, and urged Members to 
swiftly lift HPAI -related restr ictions on US exports.  
3.21.   At the March 2018 Committee meeting, t he 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 t hat 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 Articles 2 and 3 of the SPS  Agreement, and urged Members to swiftly lift HPAI -
related restrictions on US exports.  
3.22.   The European Union shared the concerns of the United States, highlighting its strict and 
transparent system of control. The European Union explained that it applied the same policies and 
guarantees to its intra -European Union trade, as to its exports to no n-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 e vent of a prolonged disease outbreak, regular status 
reports were published on the European Commission – DG SANTE website. In addition, audit 
reports were published on the control systems in EU member States and non -EU countries 
importing to the European U nion.  
3.23.   The European Union expressed regret that some Members applied country -wide bans, 
whenever there was an outbreak, and noted that this type of measure was not science -based. 
The European Union also noted that some Members did not provide information o n the various 
steps of their recognition process for regionalization or did not inform Members of missing 
information required for the completion of the 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.  
3.24.   Chile supported the concerns raised and recalled Chile's previous experience with an 
outbreak of low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) in one particular region. Chile highlighted its 
actions undertaken to address the issue and the response of its trading partne rs. 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 eradication measures, and further requested the OIE to provide 
information on its guidelines for LPAI.  G/SPS/GEN/1617  
 
- 10 - 
 
  4  RESPON SES RECEIVED FROM TH E RELEVANT STANDARD -SETTING ORGANIZATION S 
4.1.  There have been no further responses received from the relevant standard -setting 
organizations  since the last annual report . 
__________