RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/R/59 
23 August 2010 
 (10-4420) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF 29-30 JUNE 2010 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
Table of contents  
 
Page  
 
I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA.............................................................................................3  
II. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON ..........................................................................................3  
III. INFORMATION ON RELEVANT ACTIVITIES ................................................................3  
(a) Information from Members....................................................................................................... ..3 
(b) Information from Observer Organizations..................................................................................5  
IV. SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS ...........................................................................................6  
(a) New Issues ..................................................................................................................... .............6  
(b) Issues Previous ly Raised....................................................................................................... ......9  
(c) Consideration of Specific Notifications Received ....................................................................13  
(d) Information on Resolution of Issues .........................................................................................14  
V. OPERATION OF TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS........................................................14  
(a) Preparations for October Special Workshop on Transparency .................................................14  
VI. IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT ................15  
VII. EQUIVALENCE – ARTICLE 4............................................................................................15  
(a) Information from Members on their Experiences.....................................................................15  
(b) Information from Relevant  Observer Organizations ................................................................15  
VIII.  PEST- AND DISEASE-FREE AREAS – ARTICLE 6........................................................15  
(a) Information from Members on their Pest or Disease Status .....................................................15  
(b) Information from Members on their Experi ences in Recognition of Pest- or Disease-
free Areas..................................................................................................................... .............16  
(c) Information from Relevant  Observer Organizations ................................................................16  
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/SPS/R/59 
Page 2  
 
  IX.
 TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION .......................................................16  
(a) Information from the Secretariat............................................................................................... 16 
(b) Information from Members....................................................................................................... 17 
(c) Information from Observers ..................................................................................................... 18 
X. REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS 
AGREEMENT ...................................................................................................................... ..18 
(a) Issues Arising from the Second Review ...................................................................................18  
(b) Issues Arising from the Third Review ......................................................................................22  
XI. MONITORING OF THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ...........................22  
(a) New Issues ..................................................................................................................... ...........22  
(b) Issues Previous ly Raised....................................................................................................... ....22  
(c) Adoption of Annual Report (G/SPS/W/250) ............................................................................22  
XII. CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AN D COMMERCIAL STANDARDS............................23  
(a) Report on Chairperson's Consultations.....................................................................................23  
XIII.  REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS ............................................................................25  
(a) Ad hoc  Observers ..................................................................................................................... .25 
(b) New Requests ................................................................................................................... ........25  
(c) Outstanding Requests........................................................................................................... .....25  
XIV.  OTHER BUSINESS................................................................................................................2 6 
XV. DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING.....................................................................26  
  G/SPS/R/59 
 Page 3 
 
 
  I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 
1. The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee") held its forty-
eighth regular meeting on 29-30 June 2010.  The pro posed agenda for the meeting was adopted with 
amendments (WTO/AIR/3572). 
II. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON 
2. The Chairperson indicated that the Chairman of  the Council for Trade in Goods had consulted 
on a slate of names for appointment of chairpersons  to the subsidiary bodies of the Council for Trade 
in Goods in accordance with the established Guidelines for Appointm ent of Officers to WTO bodies.  
In light of those consultations, the Council for Tr ade in Goods had approved Mr. Flavio Damico of 
Brazil as chairperson of the SPS Committee for 2010 /2011.  The Committee endorsed the selection of 
Mr. Damico by acclamation, and voiced its appreciation to Ms Chavez for her considerable efforts 
and accomplishments as chairperson during the past year. 
3. The Chairperson expressed her gratitude to a ll Members for their cooperation and assistance 
during her tenure as Chairperson of the SPS Committee.   She also thanked the Secretariat for its 
assistance, and offered her support to the new chairperson. 
4. In assuming the role of chairperson, Mr. Damico expressed his appreciation for the 
confidence shown by Members in giving him this responsibility, and his interest to continue to 
support the work of the Committee. 
III. INFORMATION ON RELEVANT ACTIVITIES 
(a) Information from Members 
5. The representative of Argentina announced that a new analysis of risk factors associated with 
BSE was now available in Spanish, and was being tr anslated into English.  The document updated the 
risk assessment on the distribution of the disease and the risk of exposure to the disease.  Argentina 
noted that it was in a negligible risk category fo r BSE according to OIE standards.  The document was 
available from the national enquiry point and a GE N document including a direct link would soon be 
submitted.  In the meantime a number of room copies had been made available. 
6. The representative of the United States announced that the Food Safety and Inspection Service 
(FSIS) of the United States Department of Agricu lture (USDA) was in the process of implementing a 
new public health information management tool.  Th e Public Health Information Service (PHIS) was 
designed to support a data-driven approach to FSIS' s inspection system.  PHIS would strengthen the 
ability to detect and respond to food borne hazards by replacing many of FSIS' existing IT systems and enhancing the exchange of data between agencies throughout the world.  PHIS would allow 
USDA officials to electronically review and exch ange the information required on official health 
certificates with other regulatory authorities, and to provide a secure and timely advance notice of 
foreign shipments certified by a foreign government for export to the United States.  FSIS planned to 
implement PHIS in October 2010 and would provide more information on a country-specific basis as 
the implementation of PHIS drew nearer.  More information about PHIS was available at 
http://www.fsis.usda.gov
, and from USDA Foreign Agricultural Se rvice officers around the world.  
While some of the information generated by the PH IS would be publicly available, other information 
would be considered confidential. 
7. The representative of Kenya provided in formation on two initiatives detailed in 
G/SPS/GEN/1019.  The first initiative, with su pport from the World Summit on Sustainable 
Development (WSSD) and the Food and Agricultu re Organization (FAO), developed an early G/SPS/R/59 
Page 4  
 
  warning system to detect the occurrence of pest s of concern to countries that imported Kenyan 
horticultural produce, and to promote information sharing among stakeholders in public and private 
sectors.  A pilot group of scouts and inspectors were trained on quarantine pest identification, 
detection and reporting techniques.  An e-pest su rveillance software, server and GPS enabled tools 
were procured to facilitate that activity.  The se cond initiative was the development of e-certification 
for horticultural produce, launched in August 2009 by the Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Service, in 
collaboration with The Netherlands Plant Prot ection System (NPPS).  A process model and an 
information model for management of export certif ication had been designed and were due for pre-
testing in the next three months.  Initially, e-certifi cation would run in parallel with paper certification 
and would be piloted with roses. 
8. The representative of Venezuela reported that  Venezuela had developed and strengthened 
programs that directly affected producers, such  as free vaccinations against FMD, rabies and 
brucellosis for small- and medium-sized producers.  Significant progress had been made in vaccination coverage, producer par ticipation, and epidemiological vigilance.  In 2009, the Venezuela 
National Oil Company had provided funds for the implementation of the plan, and a project to 
strengthen policies and strategies to prevent, contro l and eradicate FMD had been created.  This had 
considerably diminished FMD outbreaks in just one  year.  The vaccination program was in its initial 
cycle, with the goal of vaccinati ng 3,800,000 cattle, sheep and goats.  The representative of Venezuela 
also reported on the integrated management of coff ee cultivation for the prevention and control of the 
coffee berry borer.  Goals for this year were to d eal with almost 13,000 hectares of crops in coffee-
growing areas.  Technical support was providing transportation to difficult-to-reach areas and 
constructing ten laboratories to produce bio-fertilizers.  The representative of Venezuela also 
indicated that a national network of seven phytosan itary laboratories, five for the quantification of 
aflatoxins and a national network of 13 diagnostic laboratories for animal diseases had been created.  
Those networks increased phytosanitary diagnoses by 13 per cent and animal disease diagnoses by 
15 per cent in comparison to previous years.  
9. The representative of Japan reported that on 20 April 2010, the first case of foot and mouth 
disease (FMD) in ten years was confirmed in Miyazaki Prefecture, in the southern part of Japan.  Since then, nearly 300 outbreaks ha d been identified.  Japan had form ed a cross-ministry taskforce in 
order to control the outbreak and apply control measures based on the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code.  Due to continuing outbreaks in a part of Miyazaki Prefecture, Japan had initiated emergency 
vaccinations on 22 May 2010 of animals within a 10 km radius of infected farms and was currently 
killing non-vaccinated animals.  Japan continued a close monitoring and thorough disinfection and 
was committed to working with its trading partners  and providing relevant information through the 
OIE disease notification system.  The issuance of all Export Quarantine Cer tificates for cloven-hoofed 
animals and derived products had been suspe nded since the day of the first outbreak.  The 
representative of Japan thanked those Members that  had resumed imports, a nd offered to provide 
further information to Members that maintained trade measures, especially for milk products and 
salted hide and skin, so that trade could resume as soon as possible. 
10. In addition to the information provided in  G/SPS/GEN/1023, the representative of Paraguay 
reported that the annual programme of Cucurb itaceae exports to Argentina had begun.  Also, 
protected area status for black sigatoka had been established in bana na producing regions, and 
Paraguay had established a phytosanitary alert sy stem for Huanglongbing disease.  He thanked the 
USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and IICA for their assistance in fruit fly 
vigilance for a mango export pilot project.  Pa raguay had adopted ISPM 32 regarding the 
categorization of commodities according to their pest risk.  G/SPS/R/59 
 Page 5 
 
 
  (b) Information from Observer Organizations 
11. The representative of Codex indicated that the latest Codex activities were summarized in 
G/SPS/GEN/1022.  The 26th session of the Codex Committee on Gene ral Principles had forwarded to 
the Commission for final adoption a Revised Code of ethics for international trade in food .  The 
42nd session of the Codex Committee on Pesticide R esidues (CCPR) had proposed the adoption of 
217 new and revised MRLs in specific commodities,  and proposed the adoption of 52 draft MRLs.  
The CCPR had identified 95 existing Codex MRLs fo r revocation and had decided to discontinue 
work on 22 MRLs.  The CCPR was one of th e fastest-working Codex committees, with some 
standards established in less than one year.  Af ter reviewing the MRLs for persistent organic 
pollutants (POPs) under the Stockholm Convention, the CCPR had decided to maintain the current 
standards for the time being. 
12. The representative of the OIE noted that th e latest OIE activities were described in 
G/SPS/GEN/1024.  At its 78th General Session on 23-28 May 2010, the OIE had re-elected Dr. Vallat 
as Director-General for a third term, through 2015.  Dr. Vallat was committed to continue to work 
closely with OIE members and implement the 5th Strategic Plan through 2015.  Efforts to improve 
veterinary legislation especially in  developing countries would be di scussed at a December meeting in 
Tunisia.  Discussion of joint Codex and OIE standards was ongoing, as were discussions about agreements with FAO and WHO to further harmonize international standards.  A resolution regarding 
private standards, which was adopted at the Ge neral Session, was cont ained in the Annex of 
G/SPS/GEN/1024.  Several chapters of the Terrest rial Animal Health Code had been updated, 
including compartmentalization in FMD chapters.  Future work would elaborate on detailed guidance 
and would require the support of OIE members.  Members who had received official OIE recognition 
for their sanitary status for various diseases were iden tified in the report of the General Session and on 
the OIE website. 
13. The representative of the International Plan t Protection Convention (IPPC) Secretariat 
reported on activities between Ma rch and June 2010 (G/SPS/GEN/ 1028).  Mongolia had become a 
new contracting party to the IPPC on 12 May 2010.  The report included:  (i) information about the 
Fifth Session of the Commission on Phytosanitary M easures (CPM-5) and the new standards adopted;  
(ii) the first IPPC capacity development strategy a nd further work on the capac ity plan including the 
expert working group scheduled for October 2010;  (iii) the first request under the IPPC dispute 
settlement system;  and (iv) implementation Review a nd Support System (IRSS) work to take stock of 
activities, and mobilize new resources.  The financial sustainability of the IPPC Secretariat was a 
matter of urgency and would be a primary topic during the annual meeting of the CPM informal 
Working Group on Strategic Planning and Technical Assistance in October 2010.  The IPPC Secretariat currently did not have funding to conti nue staffing the IPPC Help Desk post past 2010, and 
asked Members to mobilize any possi ble resources to resolve the issue.   Finally, the representative of 
the IPPC noted that in G/SPS/GEN/1028, Section VI(c ), the reference should be to East Africa, not 
West Africa. 
14. The Chairperson welcomed the new observers pa rticipating in the Committee meeting for the 
first time and invited them to take the floor.  The representative of the Economic Community of West 
African States
 (ECOWAS) provided a brief introduction to  her organization.  The ECOWAS 
Parliament had recently passed into law legisla tion that harmonized standards among its fifteen 
member states.  ECOWAS was also developing mate rials to facilitate the understanding of SPS issues 
at the grassroots level.  G/SPS/R/59 
Page 6  
 
  IV. SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
(a) New Issues 
(i) China's SPS Notification Practices – Concerns of the European Union 
15. The representative of the European Union expr essed concerns over China's SPS notification 
practices.  On 1 June 2009, China's new Food Safety La w had entered into force.  This new legislation 
involved many new national food safety measures, cr eating a framework food safety legislation with 
the objective of assuring high levels of health prot ection.  While the European Union welcomed the 
objectives of the legislation, it was concerned that the rapid development of these measures meant that 
trading partners were not informed of the new legi slation before adoption or  did not have adequate 
time to comment prior to enforcement.  Trading pa rtners had been notified only after the adoption of 
the new Food Safety Law even though the legislati on included, for example, new measures on dairy 
products, additives, contaminants, veterinary medi cines, and commodities such as honey.  China had 
submitted almost 100 SPS notifications on food add itives in a few days, providing only a 15 days 
deadline for comments.  None of the notifications in cluded references to the original text.  China had 
not agreed to requests to extend the period for comments, even to the normally recommended 60-day 
period, despite the time required for reviewing such  a large volume of technical standards.  The 
European Union requested that China clarify its  procedure and indicate how it would ensure its 
SPS notification practices gave reasonable time frames for trading partners to comment and for China 
to take these comments into serious consideration. 
16. The representative of China explained that th e notification of a large number of national 
standards in a short time period was the result of the adoption of a new Food Safety Law.  Codex and 
other international standards had been fully consid ered in the development of the new measures, and 
as a result China believed that trade effects should be  minimal.  Members were welcomed to continue 
to make comments, and China would take into account  the comments received even after the end of 
the comment period before the publication of stan dards and in future modifications.  China was 
starting to include hyperlinks in the notifications, as recommended, but in a ll cases the Enquiry Point 
could provide full texts upon request.  China would inform its standard-setting agencies about the EU 
comments for future improvements in the process. 
(ii) Canada's Registration Requirement for Pet Food Export Enterprises in China  – Concerns of 
China 
17. The representative of China referred to Canada's registration requirement for pet food export 
enterprises in China.  In April 2008, China had sen t a letter to Canada inviting a field inspection of 
Chinese pet food companies who intended to export  to Canada.  After receiving no reply, in 
April 2009 China sent a second letter requesting fac ilitation of the inspection process.  Canada had 
replied to that letter stating that only those comp anies that had already corresponded with Canadian 
importers could be inspected due to limited financia l resources.  Although China had indicated that it 
was willing to bear the costs, Canada had still re fused to accept China's request.  China invited 
Canada to reconsider its request. 
18. The representative of Canada reported that industr ies in both countries were interested in pet 
food exports, and that a new inspection plan was in itiated earlier in the month.  A list of 60 facilities 
were on the original list, and Canada had elected to start with 19 facilities that already held valid 
import permits.  Canada was prepared to send several teams to simultaneously visit different facilities, 
and would continue its technical dialogue with China.  G/SPS/R/59 
 Page 7 
 
 
  (iii) Colombia's Import Restrictions on Brazilian Beef – Concerns of Brazil 
19. The representative of Brazil expressed concerns re garding the lack of reaction by Colombian 
authorities to a Brazilian proposal for a sanitary cer tificate for the export of beef to Colombia.  
In 2006, Brazil had presented a certificate to export meat products to Colombia, however, in February 
2007 Colombia had indicated that this proposal did not fulfil its requirements.  In 2007, Brazil had 
presented a new version of the certificate but de spite various diplomatic contacts and bilateral 
meetings, Brazil still had not received a response from Colombia regarding its risk analysis. 
20. The representative of Colombia reported that in November 2006, the Brazilian embassy in 
Colombia had requested a template for the offici al export certification of edible beef products.  
In November 2006, the Colombian Agricultural Ins titute (ICA) had requested the Brazilian Ministry 
of Agriculture (MAPA) to provide a clarification regarding which products w ould be covered by the 
proposed health certificate.  Colombia had not ye t received an answer to this communication.  
In February 2008, ICA had began the process of ri sk analysis for the importation of bovine and 
buffalo products by sending a questionnaire to MA PA, and in June 2008 had undertaken a verification 
visit regarding MAPA measures for bovine disease cont rol.  ICA had sent the report of the visit to 
Brazil in November 2008, but had not received any response to the report.  Such a response was 
necessary in order to continue the process solicited by Brazil. 
(iv) US 2009 Food Safety Enhancement Act – Concerns of China 
21. The representative of China expressed concer ns related to the US 2009 Food Safety 
Enhancement Act.  The US Congress had proposed  several new measures, including required 
registration for export food companies, follow up inspections, compulsory certification for high risk 
imported products and the expansion of FDA authority.  China asked the United States to notify these 
new measures and to provide the opportunity for Me mbers to make comments before the adoption of 
the legislation. 
22. The representative of India expressed the need to  understand the proposed legislation.  Indian 
industry had questions regarding th e duration of the registration process, whether it was modelled on 
international standards, whether foreign government  and sector associations would be notified before 
or after a food facility was inspected, and how the fast-track process for registration would work.  Once it had a better understanding of this process,  India would seek further clarification. 
23. The representative of the United States clarifie d that the US Congress was in the process of 
considering this legislation and it was not clear when the bill would become law, if at all.  
Accordingly, because the Food Safety Enhancemen t Act was not a SPS measure, the United States did 
not believe it was appropriate to comment on it at this  time.  However, if this bill or any other food 
safety legislation did become law, the United States  would alert its trading partners, and would notify 
the WTO accordingly. 
(v) EC Regulation No. 1099/2009 – Concerns of India 
24. The representative of India raised concer ns about EC Regulati on No. 1099/2009 dated 
24 September 2009 regarding the humane treatment of animals at the time of slaughter, which was to 
enter into force on 1 January 2013.  Under Article 12 of the regulation, the import of meat from third 
countries must be supplemented by a health certificate indicating that  requireme nts at least equivalent 
to those established in Chapters II and III of the regu lation had been met.  According to India, this 
specific regulation had not been notified by the Eu ropean Union despite being a trade-restricting 
measure.  India sought clarification on the justifi cation for this regulation and for animal welfare 
requirements that may not fall under the SPS Agreem ent.  India also inquired about:  (i) how 
equivalence may be assessed, including details of th e certification process;  and (ii) how EU experts G/SPS/R/59 
Page 8  
 
  would ensure that animals were slaughtered in  humane conditions and received clearance from the 
European Union. 
25. The representative of China supported the concer ns raised by India and noted that it would 
continue to follow the issue. 
26. The representative of the European Union reporte d that the regulation would enter into force 
on 1 January 2013 and was based on two publicly av ailable scientific opinions which had been 
forwarded to the Indian authorities.  The European Union clarified that regulations regarding animal 
welfare conditions at the time of stunning and sl aughter had been in place since 1993, and that 
regulation No. 1099/2009 re-addressed the issues,  but did not impose new requirements.  The 
European Union believed that the measures were no t more restrictive than necessary and that the 
regulation recognized the principle of equivalence.   The system had proved to be effective over a 
15 years time period and other countries had devel oped similar legislation, based on the OIE Code 
and consistent with internationa l standards.  Nevertheless, the European Union would ensure 
continued cooperation among e xperts to address any concerns before the legislation entered into force 
in 2013. 
27. The representative of the OIE clarified that if  the measures were to control animal health, 
including ante- and post-mortem inspections, then they were relevant to SPS.  Although animal 
welfare was not a SPS-related i ssue, OIE members had adopted a resolution in 2004 for OIE to 
undertake further work on animal welfare issues, and OIE members had the opportunity to comment 
on those standards, particularly through the Animal Welfare Working Group. 
(vi) US Risk Analysis for the Entry of Queen Bees – Concerns of Argentina 
28. The representative of Argentina ra ised concerns about US risk analysis for the importation of 
queen bees from Argentina into the North Americ an market.  Argentina had conducted research and 
provided information to the US Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).  There had 
been a constructive exchange and Argentina  hoped to  soon report the satisfactory conclusion of the 
risk assessment. 
29. The representative of the United States reported that due to the importance of beekeeping in 
modern US agriculture, there was a high level of protection against foreign bee pests and diseases.  
On 7 June 2010, USDA had started a national bee pest  and disease survey to determine the prevalence 
of parasites and disease-causing micro-organisms th at could contribute to the observed decline of 
American honey bee colonies.  Two laws, the Honey Bee Act and the Plant Protection Act, direct the 
USDA to enforce sanitary regulations to protect honey bee colonies, and the United States had 
published science-based risk assessment procedures for approving imports of bees.  With respect to 
Argentina's request for a risk  assessment, the United States had provided the findings of an 
assessment to the Argentine authoriti es in 2004, identifying three pests of concern in Argentine bees:  
Africanized honey bee, Braula schmitzi (bee louse), and Varroa destructor (mite).  In September 
2009, the United States had informed Argentina that the risk assessment was being revised to reflect 
changes in bee health and risks worldwide.  Information collected  from the national survey launched 
in June 2010 would inform further ri sk assessment of Argentine queen bees. 
(vii) Turkey's Restrictions on Products Derived from Biotechnology – Concerns of the United 
States  
30. The representative of the United States raised concerns about the development of Turkey's 
regulatory system for agricultural biotechnology (G/S PS/N/TUR/8).  In the eight months since Turkey 
had begun implementing new biotech measures, Turk ey had announced both a Biosafety Law, and 
several implementation measures.  However, only two of those implementation measures had been  G/SPS/R/59 
 Page 9 
 
 
  notified to the WTO and one of those was notifie d as "effective immediately" with no comment 
period.  The United States was concerned that co mpliance requirements were not shared publicly, and 
that regulations prohibiting the presence of biotec hnology in products for infants and children did not 
refer to a risk assessment, hence leading to a lack of predictability in th e approval process.  The 
United States asked for clarification on the status of current approvals, the approvals process, and how 
the process would change after the Biosafet y Law was enforced on 26 September 2010. 
31. The representative of Canada stated that it woul d continue to monitor the implementation of 
Turkey's Biosafety Law and its impacts on Canadi an exports of genetically and non-genetically 
modified commodities.  Canada  hoped that th e new law would take into account scientific 
assessments and would not be more trade restrictive than necessary. 
32. The representative of Argentina supported the c oncerns raised by the United States, noting 
that the Turkish standards were not consistent w ith the SPS Agreement or Codex standards, and were 
unfavourable to modern biotechnology products.  Argentina expressed deep concern about the 
measures and hoped that they would be revised based on the SPS Agreement and Codex standards. 
33. The representative of Turkey stat ed that Turkey had notified in  2009 and 2010 its legislation 
related to biosafety issues whose objectives were to :  (i) establish and implement a biosafety system 
for human, animal and plant health;  (ii) ensure the conservation of the environment and biodiversity 
and their sustainability;  and (iii) establish scien ce-based regulation and monitoring principles and 
procedures.  Previous Turkish legislations and th e Cartagena Protocol had been used as reference 
documents, as well as EU accession documents.  Tu rkey had endeavoured to address the concerns 
raised by the United States, Canada and Argentin a regarding its notifications, including issues caused 
by mistranslation.  Turkey indicated that it would draft and notify secondary regulations to the WTO, 
to clarify misunderstandings. 
(viii) Senegal's Import Restriction on Poultry Meat – Concerns of Brazil 
34. The representative of Brazil raised concerns regarding Senegal's impor t restriction on poultry 
meat in place since 2005.  Brazil, while recognizing Senegal's right to protect itself against diseases, 
recalled the OIE guideline that a Member could estab lish measures if avian influenza was detected.  
Brazil stated that its products fulfilled all interna tional requirements and that avian influenza had not 
been reported in its territory.  Brazil had provided Se negal with all the information needed for a risk 
analysis, and had asked in March and May 2010 fo r scientific justification of Senegal's import 
restrictions.  Brazil concluded that it was looking fo rward to receiving technical feedback to allow the 
export of Brazilian poultry meat to Senegal. 
35. The representative of Senegal stated that the Senegalese authorities had only received Brazil's 
request a few days prior to the Committee meeting, and that a reply would be provided to Brazil as 
soon as possible. 
36. The representative of ECOWAS reported that at a meeting in Cape Verde, ECOWAS 
members had held high level discussions on the issue.  ECOWAS hoped that the issue would be 
resolved amicably. 
(b) Issues Previously Raised 
(i) Japan's Pesticide Maximum Residue Level s (MRL) Enforcement System (STC 267) – 
Concerns of China 
37. The representative of China reiterated its c oncerns regarding Japan's MRLs and their 
enforcement system.  China welcomed the SPS c ooperation arrangement recently signed between G/SPS/R/59 
Page 10  
 
  Japan and China and the first round of technical consultations which had taken place under the new 
arrangement.  Nevertheless, China wished to reitera te its concerns regarding the temporary standards 
under Japan's Positive List scheme, the lack of sci entific basis for those standards, and a lagging 
review process. 
38. The representative of Japan responded that its Positive List system had been established 
in 2006 after consulting existing MRLs from Codex, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the European 
Union and the United States, based on a scientific eval uation.  Japan stated that its standard-setting 
process was in line with the SPS Agreement, and th at it had notified its draft MRLs to the WTO, 
providing Members an opportunity to submit comments. 
(ii) India's Restrictions due to Avian Influenza (STC 185) – Concerns of the European Union  
39. The representative of the European Union reiterate d the concerns regarding India's restrictions 
due to avian influenza and the lack of notification by India on the issue.  India had announced via its 
website that it would review its import conditions  related to avian influenza every six months 
however, that information had not been notified to  the WTO.  The European Union recalled that on 
several occasions India had been requested to pr ovide scientific justification for imposing import 
restrictions above the OIE standard on avian infl uenza.  During its May 2010 General Assembly, the 
OIE had confirmed that its avian influenza standard  was well supported by scientific evidence, and it 
had also been clarified that there was no risk rela ted to trade in fresh meat with regard to low 
pathogenic avian influenza.  The European Union al so requested India to recognize the regionalisation 
principle of the SPS Agreement, which was strictly applied in the European Union when an outbreak 
of avian influenza occurred.  Th e European Union requested that  India fulfil its transparency 
obligations, and either bring import requirements fully in line with international standards, or share 
the scientific evidence invoked to justify its measures. 
40. The United States supported the concerns raised by the European Union, stating that India 
stood alone with respect to the scope of its avian in fluenza-related bans, which were not in line with 
OIE standards.  The United States expressed disappointment that these bans continued as emergency 
measures, thereby prohibiting the imports of live pi gs and a wide range of avian species and avian 
products without a risk assessment.  The United States noted that, on numerous occasions, India had 
not provided a timely notification of its avian infl uenza-related import restrictions.  For example the 
last notification was on 31 March 2009, extending  the ban for six months.  However, the ban 
continued to be applied despite the lack of a ne w notification.  The United States and the European 
Union had repeatedly asked India to provide its risk assessments to suppor t the imposition of import 
requirements beyond OIE recommendations.  The United States urged India to provide its risk 
assessment and modify its measures to address the concerns repeatedly expressed by several Members. 
41. The representative of India replied that the s ituation had remained unchanged although, based 
on changed conditions, India had allo wed some restrictions to be temporarily lifted.  The Indian 
Department of Animal Husbandry had reviewed its sanitary conditions and removed avian influenza-
related restrictions for the import of pork produc ts (raw and processed pork).  India reported that 
presently there was no ban on the import of pork products (raw and processed pork) from avian influenza-positive countries.  However, the import of live pigs continued to be prohibited from avian 
influenza-positive countries.  Furthermore, the im port of processed poultry and poultry meat products 
were allowed from avian influenza-positive countries subject to conformity assessment for both low 
and high pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI and HPA I).  India cited scientific evidence that LPAI had 
the potential to mutate into HPAI, pa rticularly in wild aquatic birds.  G/SPS/R/59 
 Page 11 
 
 
  (iii) US Import Restrictions on Cooked Poultry Pr oducts from China (STC 257) – Concerns of 
China 
42. The representative of China reiterated that Sec tion 743 of the US Agriculture Appropriations 
Act (AAA) of 2010 set discriminatory requirements on China's processed poultry products.  China had previously raised this concern at the Oc tober 2009 and March 2010 me etings.  At the March 
meeting, the United States had reported that addi tional information was being sought regarding 
China's new Food Safety Law.  China stated that it had in fact finalized a recognition of equivalence 
with the United States at the end of 2007, and ther efore Chinese cooked poultry products were able to 
meet United States' SPS requirements before the adop tion and implementation of the new Food Safety 
Law.  China argued that the Food Safety Law coul d not be used to impede the ongoing consultation 
process, and urged again the United States to eliminate discriminatory restrictions on Chinese cooked 
poultry products. 
43. The representative of the United States noted that the United States did not maintain a funding 
restriction on USDA's ability to move forward w ith rulemaking related to China's equivalence for 
poultry.  USDA had reached out to China several times in recent months to move forward with 
China's equivalence application, specifically aski ng for an updated application and more information 
regarding its new Food Safety Law.  USDA was comm itted to ensure that its regulatory policies were 
based on science and met its international obligations .  The United States urged China to work with 
the USDA on its application of equivalence and to  provide the requested information as soon as 
possible.  
(iv) Import Restrictions due to BSE (STC 19 3) – Concerns of the European Union  
44. The representative of the European Union reported that certain WTO Members still 
maintained unjustified import restrictions to  protect against Transmissible Spongiform 
Encephalopathies (TSE). The European Unio n urged Members to lift any unnecessary, 
disproportionate, or discriminatory restrictions wh ich negatively affected EU exports.  The European 
Union recalled that OIE had issued BSE standards based on scientific risk assessments and defined 
the conditions under which commodities could be safe ly traded.  In May 2010, additional wording 
was inserted in Article 11.6 of the OIE – Terrestrial Animal Health Code to clarify that, providing the 
commodities had been imported in accordance with  those conditions, the status of the importing 
countries would not be affected.  The Eur opean Union recalled that according to OIE 
recommendations, it is possible to import meat or even live animals from countries having a "negligible", "controlled", or "undetermined" BSE risk status, as long as OIE rules on surveillance and 
control were followed.  In addition, for certain  products under specific c onditions, such as de-boned 
skeletal muscle meat, milk and milk products, semen and embryos, there should be no BSE import 
requirements regardless of the BSE risk or the ag e of the cattle population of the exporting country, 
zone or compartment.  The representative of th e European Union stated that some Members had 
recently announced new measures which, without a ny scientific justification, deviated from OIE 
standards.  The European Union urged Members to align themselves with the OIE process and to 
process applications from the European Union.  
(v) EU Artificial Colour Warning Labels – Concerns of the United States 
45. The representative of the United States reitera ted concerns about EC  Regulation 1333/2008 
on food additives.  Article 24 of the Regulation re quired warning statements on food products that 
contained one or more of six colour additives:   Sunset Yellow (E110), Quinoline Yellow (E104), 
Carmoisine (E122), Allura Red (E129), Tartr azine (E102), and Ponceau 4R (E124).  The 
United States was particularly concerned with the scientific basis of the regulation, its potential 
negative impact on international trade, and the transp arency of its adoption.  Most of these six colour 
additives were widely used by the food industry in  products such as confecti onaries and beverages.  G/SPS/R/59 
Page 12  
 
  When the draft regulation was notified to the WTO (G/SPS/N/EEC/291), it did not contain the 
provision on warning statements, and the United States was not aware of an addendum to the original 
notification.  Scientific evaluations from the Univ ersity of Southampton in 2007 and the European 
Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in 2009 did not substa ntiate a link between the individual colours and 
possible behavioural effects in children.  The Un ited States was also concerned that even though 
EFSA was unable to substantiate a link, the Euro pean Union planned to implement the measure in 
July 2010.  The United States had recently petitio ned the European Union to delay implementation 
and would shortly provide the European Union w ith more than 580 studies to warrant a thorough 
scientific review of relevant evidence. 
46. The representatives of New Zealand and Mexi co supported the concerns raised by the 
United States, noting that the EU measure did not seem to be based on scientific evidence. 
47. The representative of the European Union clarif ied that the labelling requirement had been 
adopted in December 2008 and included a transitional period of 18 months for implementation, which 
would expire on 20 July 2010, allowing industry tim e to comply.  This measure had been notified by 
the European Union as a draft on 10 August 2006 (G/SPS/N/EEC/291) and as an addendum with the 
final text on 2 July 2009 (G/SPS/N/EEC/291/Add.1).  A 2007 study by the University of Southampton 
had concluded that exposure to some mixtures of colorants resulted in increased hyperactivity in 3-
year old and 8- to 9-year old children.  The new EU regulatory regime on artificial colorants was not 
an import ban but only introduced certain specific labelling provisions.  An opinion from EFSA had 
concluded that although the changes noticed in children' s behaviour were small, they were statistically 
significant.  Until new elements demonstrated the absence of those effects, the European Union's 
position would remain unchanged.  The European Un ion encouraged the United States to share any 
additional scientific data as it became available. 
(vi) Venezuela's Suspension of Inspection and of Emi ssion of Phyto- and Zoo-sanitary Certificates 
(STC 290) – Concerns of Colombia 
48. The representative of Colombia reiterated  the concerns presented in G/SPS/GEN/983 
concerning the suspension of inspections and of the de livery of plant and animal health certificates for 
Colombian products into the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.  Colombia c onsidered the measures 
adopted by Venezuela to be in flagrant violatio n of the basic provisions of the SPS Agreement, in 
particular Article 2, Annex C, and Article 13.  Colombia considered those measures to represent 
undue obstacles to trade as there were not based  on scientific evidence of a health risk. 
49. The representative of Venezuela responded that th e issue had been clarified at the March 2010 
meeting.  The information presented in G/SPS/GEN/983 was not based on official documents or on a 
certification refusal, but rather on information from the press.  The request for approval related to 
lendormin should not be considered an SPS matter, but as an import licensing issue outside the scope of the SPS Agreement.  Venezuela suggested that  the issues raised by  Colombia be discussed 
bilaterally. 
50. The representative of Columbia noted that at the March 2010 meeting, Venezuela had stated 
that the measures announced by Columbia were based on press releases and therefore not duly 
justified.  As a result, Columbia had submitte d additional documentation showing instructions 
banning the delivery of licenses and permits.  Colombia  wished to receive an explanation as to why 
those instructions had been issued. 
51. The representatives of Cuba and Bolivia encourag ed both countries to solve their differences 
bilaterally.  G/SPS/R/59 
 Page 13 
 
 
  (vii) US Proposed Rule on Importation of Wooden H andicrafts (STC 284) – Concerns of China 
52. The representative of China reiterated the con cerns regarding US restrictions on wooden 
handicrafts from China (G/SPS/N/USA/1921).  The notified draft regulation would apply to all wooden handicrafts from China although the risks which had triggered the import ban were only 
associated with wooden handicrafts with a diameter  over one centimetre.  China hoped that the United 
States would limit the scope of the measure to produc ts presenting real risks.  According to the draft 
regulation, all wooden handicrafts from China would be subject to fumigation or heat treatment and 
require plant quarantine certificates, which would unnecessarily raise costs for the Chinese handicraft 
industry and plant quarantine authorities.  China ha d made these points in its written comments on the 
notification and hoped they w ould be taken into account when finalizing the regulation. 
53. The representative of the United States explained that the emergency action of April 2005 
only prevented the import of wood handicrafts with attached bark.  Chinese-origin wood handicrafts 
remained enterable with the bark removed and prop erly treated.  However, to address China's market 
access concern, the United States had published a proposed rule to reauthorize the importation of Chinese-origin wood handicrafts subject to sp ecific requirements.  The proposal notified on 
27 April 2009 as G/SPS/N/USA/1921 would allow resu med trade in a broad range of handicrafts 
while continuing to protect the United States agains t the introduction of plant pests such as wood 
boring beetles.  The comment period on that no tification had closed on 8 June 2009, and the 
United States had received eight comments, incl uding comments from China.  The USDA's Animal 
and Plant Health Inspection Service would promulga te an additional proposed rule addressing China's 
concerns, and subsequently a final rule , after evaluation of public comments. 
(c) Consideration of Specific Notifications Received 
(i) Canada's Notification on Asian Gypsy Moth, Plant Protection Policy for Marine Vessels 
(G/SPS/N/CAN/281/Rev.1) – Concerns of China 
54. The representative of China raised concer ns on Canada's notification circulated on 
7 May 2010 concerning its plant protection policy fo r marine vessels which may carry Asian Gypsy 
Moth (AGM).  China and other Members had previ ously expressed concerns about the application of 
the North American Plant Protection Organisa tion (NAPPO) regional standard on AGM.  While 
China recognized Canada's rights to develop phytos anitary measures, China was concerned about the 
negative effect of the measure on exports and its sci entific justification.  China requested (i) that 
Canada provide a risk assessment report of AGM fr om Chinese-consigned marine vessels prior to 
implementing the draft regulation;  and (ii) that th e different climatic conditions of China's ports be 
considered in determining the risk of AGM.  Fina lly, China suggested that required documentation for 
marine vessels should be limited to marine vessels that visited ports in regulated areas during the egg 
laying season of AGM within 1to 2 years to minimize unnecessary trade obstacles. 
55. The representative of Korea referr ed to the comments it had sent on Canada's notification.  
Korea expressed concerns about th e measure's proposed adoption date of 1 June 2010 and asked that 
the measure be implemented with minimum trade impacts. 
56. The representative of Canada reported that it ha d had a constructive bilateral meeting with 
China prior to the Committee meeting.  Canada re iterated that the NAPPO me asure was being put in 
place to protect North American forests and pre-empt the high costs of eradication.  In 2009 egg masses of AGM were found on ships from Asia.  The standard was approve d on 10 August 2009, had 
entered into force in 2010  and would be phased in by March 2012.  Canada emphasized that all 
stakeholders had been consulted during that process, that it continued to take into account the 
concerns of its trading partners, and that a techni cal working group had been  established to address 
concerns and risks in a collaborative manner. G/SPS/R/59 
Page 14  
 
  (d) Information on Resolution of Issues 
57. No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 
V. OPERATION OF TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS 
58. The Chairperson noted that the most recent list of National Notification Authorities was 
contained in SPS/NNA/15, and the most recent list of National Enquiry Points in SPS/ENQ/25.  The 
Chairperson reminded the Committee that the pa per copies of these lists were updated only once 
every year, but that the electronic lists were c onstantly updated and available through the SPS 
Information Management System (SPS IMS).  The Chairperson asked Members to provide the most 
recent contact information to the Secretariat so  that it could be included in the SPS IMS. 
59. The Chairperson indicated that notifications received since the last meeting of the SPS 
Committee were summarized on a monthly b asis in G/SPS/GEN/1016, G/SPS/GEN/1018, and 
G/SPS/GEN/1025. 
60. The representative of Chile pointed out that  last year following the outbreak of H1N1 
influenza, Albania had notified a measure (N/ALB/ 124) prohibiting imports from Chile due to avian 
influenza which did not exist in Chile.  Chile ha d been unable to contact the Albanian National 
Notification Authority (NNA) to clarify the situatio n and had not yet received a response to its query 
from Albania who was also not present at the Committee meeting.  Chile asked that before submitting notifications, Members analyze all information, including information from the OIE, to avoid mistakes, particularly in emergency notifications , and the potential to cause a domino effect of 
unnecessary trade restrictions from other countries.  Chile also noted that its SPS NNA had received TBT notifications from several countries.  Measures could be notified under both agreements when in 
doubt, but some measures had nothing to do with  SPS and that led to unnecessary increases in the 
work of Enquiry Points. 
61. The representative of Mexico referred to  a co mmunication issued on 19 April 2010 about its 
2010 program of normalization whic h had included by mistake a 2004 communication.  Mexico asked 
Members to refer to the 2010 communication. 
62. The Secretariat clarified that when a notification is sent through the Central Registry of 
Notifications, it is sent either to the SPS or the TBT Committee.  If it appeared to contain a TBT measure the Secretariat researches whether it was also notified as a TBT measure.  If it had not been notified under TBT, the Secretariat contacts the Members' NNA and suggests that the measure be 
notified as TBT, or in addition to notifying it under SPS.  The TBT team follows a similar process.  Regulations with elements of bot h SPS and TBT were more difficult.  Sometimes this would not be 
obvious from the brief description provided, and wh en in doubt it would be circulated as an SPS 
notification.  The Secretariat asked Members to c ontact the NNA of the notifying Member directly to 
request clarification, and also to verify and up date the NNA and EP contact information provided to 
avoid communication missteps. 
(a) Preparations for October Special Workshop on Transparency 
63. The Secretariat reminded the Committee that it w as organizing a workshop on transparency to 
begin on Monday, 18 October 2010 and resume on Fr iday, 22 October.  The Committee's informal 
and regular meetings would be held on 19-21 Oc tober.  All Members, Observers and observer 
organizations were invited to atte nd the workshop.  The WTO would be able to fund the participation 
of about 50 government officials from devel oping countries and LDCs, and the Secretariat 
particularly encouraged officials from Enquiry Points (EPs) and National Notification Authorities 
(NNAs) to participate.  Further details on eligibilit y, funding and application forms could be found in  G/SPS/R/59 
 Page 15 
 
 
  document G/SPS/GEN/997.  The deadline for applicati ons for funding to participate in the workshop 
was 9 July 2010. 
64. The Secretariat presented the draft progra mme for the workshop (G/SPS/GEN/1021), and 
requested that Members submit any suggestions on th e programme by 9 July 2010.  The first day of 
the workshop would involve genera l presentations on the transparency provisions and their level of 
implementation.  The Secretariat would also pr esent existing WTO reference materials and tools, 
including the SPS IMS, that may help in implem enting transparency provisions.  The STDF would 
also make a brief intervention on initiatives to im prove the functioning of EPs and NNAs.  Finally, 
Members would be invited to share their experien ces in the plenary and break-out sessions.  The 
second day would be more practical  and hands-on, focusing on how to  prepare notifications and how 
to react to incoming notifications.  The Secret ariat was currently working on developing online 
submissions for notifications and hoped to pr esent the system in October for feedback from 
delegations. 
VI. IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT 
65. The Secretariat reported that it had provide d an update on the Category II S&D proposals 
referred to the SPS Committee, for the information of the Chair of the Committee on Trade and 
Development in Special Session.  The update re ferred to progress made and activities of the 
Committee in recent years related to Category II prop osals, which concern specifically Articles 9 and 
10 of the SPS Agreement.  The Secretariat also referred Members to document JOB(09)/94 from the 
Committee on Trade and Development for which it ha d also provided an update on developments 
relating to SPS and S&D.  The document provided a comprehensive report on the implementation of 
all S&D provisions in the various WTO Decisions and Agreements. 
VII. EQUIVALENCE – ARTICLE 4 
(a) Information from Members on their Experiences 
66. No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 
(b) Information from Relevant  Observer Organizations 
67. No observer organization provided any information under this agenda item. 
68. The Secretariat noted that in the context of technical assistance activities, it often becomes 
aware of various Members' experiences with equivalence.  The Secretariat encouraged Members to share this information with the Committee, along with any relevant internal reports and evaluations so 
Members could learn from each others' experiences. 
VIII.  PEST- AND DISEASE-FREE AREAS – ARTICLE 6 
(a) Information from Members on their Pest or Disease Status 
69. The representative of the Philippines drew attention to document G/SPS/GEN/1031, which 
provided supplementary information to the new FM D status awarded to the Philippines by the OIE 
General Assembly in May 2010.  The Philippines had been designated as FMD-free without vaccination, except for one zone which was eligib le to apply for the same classification as of 
August 2010, for consideration by the OIE General Assembly in 2011.  The Philippines had invested 
substantial resources to achieve this new status  and had facilitated the active participation of 
stakeholders.  To further sustain the programme the national government was working closely with 
regional officers and local government units. G/SPS/R/59 
Page 16  
 
  70. The representative of Paraguay drew attenti on to document G/SPS/GEN/1023 regarding the 
fact that Paraguay had been designated by the OIE as FMD-free with vaccination.  That classification 
reflected the ongoing implementation of an agreemen t between the Standing Veterinary Committee of 
the Southern Cone and the OIE to establish high surveillance zones in areas along the borders of 
Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia and Paraguay.  Paraguay highlighted that joint efforts between public and 
private sectors would lead to the construction of  a new diagnostic laboratory for FMD and other 
potential diseases exotic to Paraguay.  That effort w ould provide suitable facilities for risk material 
management and FMD immunization c ontrol.  Paraguay also highlighted its re-certification by the 
OIE as a "BSE Negligible Risk" country and as free from rinderpest.  Finally, Paraguay drew 
attention to its National Swine H ealth Plan and the Programme for the Eradication of Classical Swine 
Fever 2010-2012, adopted by Executive Decree No . 4.214 on 16 April 2010, which covered matters 
related to the sector's production but also the impr ovement of health conditions among the country's 
swine population. 
71. The representative of Brazil drew attention to its recent notification G/SPS/N/BRA/115, and 
noted that with the addition of Mato Grosso do Su l, a region of 14 states had been designated as free 
of Black Sigatoka. 
72. The representative of the United States reported USDA's recent determination that the 
Mendoza province of Argentina had been recognized as a pest-free area for Med iterranean fruit fly.  
The United States invited all Members to review  its notification G/SPS/N/USA/2039 on the matter 
and send comments by 29 August.  Finally, the repr esentative of the United States stated that all of 
Chile was also now recognized as Med-fly free. 
(b) Information from Members on their Experiences in Recognition of Pest- or Disease-free 
Areas 
73. No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 
(c) Information from Relevant  Observer Organizations 
74. The representative of the IPPC congratulated Me mbers for their information exchange in the 
SPS Committee, but expressed concern that IPPC was not receiving notifications.  The representative 
of IPPC asked Members to notify the IPPC as well as their trading partners, as per the obligations of 
the Convention. 
IX. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION 
(a) Information from the Secretariat 
(i) WTO SPS Activities 
75. The Secretariat referred Members to docum ent G/SPS/GEN/997, which compiled all the 
upcoming technical assistance activities for 2010, including eligibility criteria, deadlines, pre-
requisites, application processes and application form s.  The Secretariat was planning to hold three 
regional workshops, one advanced SPS course (previous ly known as the specialized course) as well as 
a transparency workshop.  Delegates were remind ed that the deadline for application to those 
activities was 9 July 2010. 
76. Since the last SPS Committee meeting, the Secret ariat had delivered four national seminars in 
Madagascar, Seychelles, the Dominican Republic, a nd Serbia.  Nineteen participants from the 
October 2009 Advanced SPS course ha d been invited back to Geneva to present their action plan to  G/SPS/R/59 
 Page 17 
 
 
  enhance and improve the implementation of the SPS  Agreement in their respective countries.  The 
Secretariat noted that the participants had ach ieved very encouraging and impressive outcomes. 
(ii) Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) 
77. The Secretariat provided an update on the opera tion of the Standards and Trade Development 
Facility (G/SPS/GEN/1029).  The STDF team was working on two STDF events.  One was a 
technical working meeting scheduled for 1 July 2 010 and organized in collaboration with the OECD 
in order to facilitate discussion of a joint STDF/OECD working paper on the development and 
application of indicators to measure the performance of national SPS systems and, in particular, a set 
of preliminary indicators.  Based on discussions at the meeting, and following pilot testing activities in countries in the second half of 2010 and in 2011,  this document would be finalized and published 
as a guide for the development and application of SPS indicators at country level. 
78. The second STDF event was a workshop on public /private partnerships (PPPs) in the SPS 
area.  The workshop was scheduled for 4 to 6 Octobe r in the Netherlands, in close collaboration with 
the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture and the Wo rld Bank, and would present examples of PPPs and 
consider common challenges, innovations  and good practices.  A site visit on 6 October  to the Port of 
Rotterdam was also planned.  The STDF was current ly identifying concrete examples of SPS-related 
partnerships to present at the workshop and ask ed delegates if they could notify STDF by 
16 July 2010 if they had examples of such partners hips.  The STDF Secretary noted that limited funds 
were available to sponsor some officials from deve loping countries providing relevant information on 
partnerships to attend the workshop.  The works hop would be held in English with no translation 
available.  Further information about the event would be available on the STDF website in July. 
79. The Secretariat reported that the STDF ha d held a workshop on economic analysis 
methodologies in the SPS area in October 2009.  The objective of the workshop was to develop 
practical tools to support the use of economic an alysis in SPS-related d ecision making and enhance 
resource allocation.  The Secretariat noted that ther e would be a follow-up to that work in the second 
half of 2010 through a pilot project that would test those methodologies in selected countries.  
Institutions and/or countries interested in that pilo t initiative were encouraged to contact the STDF by 
30 July 2010. 
80. The Secretariat drew the Committee's attention to the second STDF newsletter of 2010 and 
noted that the STDF had set up a new electronic dist ribution service.  If delegates wished to receive 
the newsletter and other STDF news/publications, they  could register through the WTO news service.  
It was also noted that the new STDF website would be launched in July. 
81. The next deadline for the submission of appli cations for STDF projects was 30 July 2010. 
The Secretariat noted that the application forms fo r STDF projects and project preparation grants had 
been revised and that a new "Guidance Note for Applicants" was also available on the STDF website. 
(b) Information from Members 
82. The representative of Canada provided an update on SPS-related technical assistance 
delivered to developing countries in calendar y ear 2008 (G/SPS/GEN/1027).  In 2008, a total of 
17 SPS-related technical assistance projects, targeti ng various geographical re gions, including Central 
America, the Caribbean, South America, the Asia-Pacific region, Central Asia, Eastern Europe, and Africa had been initiated.  Canada had committe d a total of approximately 25 million Canadian 
dollars to SPS-related technical assistance to the developing world through these projects. G/SPS/R/59 
Page 18  
 
  83. The representative of Colombia thanked Canada for the assistance it had received in the form 
of a donation of laboratory diagnostic equipment.   The donation consisted of "smart cycle" PCR 
equipment along with other laboratory equipment va lued at approximately 61 million dollars.  Two 
Colombian officials had also received technical tr aining for the use of the new equipment.  The new 
equipment would allow for the detection of Foot  and Mouth disease, Vesicular stomatitis virus, 
Newcastle disease, Avian Influenza, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, Bluetongue disease, etc. 
84. The representative of the Dominican Republic reported on a technical assistance activity that 
had taken place in Santo Domingo on 7-9 June 20 10 (G/SPS/GEN/1034).  The representative of the 
Dominican Republic thanked the WTO Secretariat for its support in undertaking that national workshop on the SPS and TBT Agreements. 
85. The representative of Kenya reported on technical assistance in national capacity 
development in phytosanitary and food safet y areas received from the European Union 
(G/SPS/GEN/1020).  Kenya Plant Health Inspector ate Service (KEPHIS) had received a grant of 
3.2 million euros for capacity building in the areas of  analytical services for contaminants in food and 
feed, plant health diagnostics and expansion of laboratories.  Kenya  thanked the European Union and 
other donors for their continued assistance in both t echnical and infrastructural capacity development 
initiatives. 
86. The European Union congratulated Kenya and in particular KEPHIS for the progress made in 
the fields of sanitary and phytosanitary an alysis, compliance, and capacity building. 
(c) Information from Observers 
87. The representative of the IPPC brought to the Co mmittee's attention  the technical assistance 
activities listed in document G/SPS/GEN/1028 and not ed IPPC's adopted strategy for building 
national phytosanitary capacity.  The document wa s available on the IPPC website and had been 
already used by some Members  in the development of projects. 
88. The representative of OIRSA provided information on specific projects and technical 
assistance activities and highlighted several of the OIRSA projects detailed in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1033. 
89. The representative of IICA provided information on SPS-related technical assistance 
activities (G/SPS/GEN/1026 refers), and noted that IICA had held a series of workshops on risk 
communication as part of the IICA/STDF-108 project, based on countries' requests and their capacity-building needs in that area.  IICA had also implemented the second chapter of the project to support participation by the Americas in Codex Al imentarius committees.  IICA had also held SPS 
awareness raising workshops and had provided traini ng in international standard-setting processes in 
Jamaica, Barbados and Bahamas/Belize. 
X. REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS 
AGREEMENT 
(a) Issues Arising from the Second Review 
(i) Use of Ad Hoc Consultations (G/SPS/W/243/Rev.2) 
90. The former Chairperson, reported that at th e informal meeting of the SPS Committee on the 
enhancement of procedures for ad hoc  consultations held on 28 J une 2010, she had reminded the 
Committee that it had agreed to "endeavour to expeditiously conclude  this outstanding issue from the 
Second Review in a manner which facilitates the u se of ad hoc consultations, including through the 
good offices of the Chairperson of the SPS Committ ee, for the resolution of specific trade concerns ."  G/SPS/R/59 
 Page 19 
 
 
  91. The Secretariat had introduced  the second revision of the draft proposal, contained in 
G/SPS/W/243/Rev.2.  As requested by Members at th e last meeting, the chan ges that were suggested 
since the previous revision were included in squa re brackets.  Only two Members had made specific 
comments on the text of the document, either at or following the March meeting of the Committee. 
92. Some Members had highlighted differences betw een the draft procedure and the "horizontal 
mechanism" under discussion in the NAMA negotiations .  They wished to avoid differences between 
the procedure adopted in the SPS Committee and a possible wider mechanism to be adopted under 
NAMA. 
93. One Member had reiterated its view that only th e participation in a first meeting should be 
mandatory.  Several Members had opposed this sugges tion, stressing that the procedure was meant to 
be an ad hoc , flexible opportunity to solv e trade concerns.  More formal alternatives were already 
available, including raising a specific trade c oncern in the Committee, or initiating a dispute 
settlement procedure.  Making the procedure less flexible or non-voluntary would mean that it would 
be less used. 
94. One Member had invited Members who already had had experiences with ad hoc  
consultations under Article 12.2 to provide inform ation on their experiences, including what had 
worked well, and what could improve the process.  The Secretariat had noted that a long time had 
passed since such consultations were last held, and that most of the delegates that had been involved 
were no longer participating in the SPS Committee.  In addition, the procedure that was used had been 
described in the Second Review.  The Chairperson' s Good Offices had been requested in writing or 
orally.  The Chair or the Secretary had then arranged a meeting with all parties involved, listened to 
all sides, and suggested a possible way forward.  This had been very informal, and the process had 
been in confidence.  Once the process had been  completed, the Chairperson had informed the 
Committee. 
95. While some Members had wished to discuss the dr aft document in detail, others had not come 
prepared to do so.  The Chairperson had highlighted again that the issue had been under discussion for 
a number of years and that the Committee had agreed as part of its Third Review to expeditiously 
conclude its discussions.  Any procedure adopted by  the Committee would not be final and could be 
reviewed, as was indicated in paragraph 19 of the dr aft procedure.  Furthermore, paragraph 3 clearly 
indicated that the procedure was not intended to prejudice in any way the process or outcome of the 
work of any other Committees, including negotiating bodies. 
96. In concluding the report on the informal meeti ng, the former Chairperson noted that since 
some Members had not been ready to discuss the document section-by-section, she had asked that 
Members submit their comments on the draft documen t, or any other comments, before 30 July.  
Members with experience using the Chairperson's Good Offices had also been invited to provide 
information to the Committee if such  information were still available. 
97. In response to the report on th e informal meeting, the represen tative of India welcomed the 
suggestion regarding the exchange of experiences of Members with ad hoc consultations in order to 
learn more about the role of the facilitator and the adherence to specific timelines and procedures.  
India cautioned against using short cuts and ju mping into text-based negotiations, and reminded 
Members of the ongoing work in the Negotiating Group on Non Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) 
on the horizontal mechanism.  The horizontal mechan ism was intended to institutionalize an informal 
procedure concerning non-tariff barriers, including SPS measures.  The horizontal mechanism was at 
a higher level of maturity and had broader support than the ad hoc  consultations and, therefore, it was 
important that discussions in the SPS Committee di d not infringe on or adversely affect the  
negotiations in the Negotiating Group on NAMA.  Th e representative of India noted that there were 
many salient features in the horizontal mechanism th at were not reflected in the proposed text on the G/SPS/R/59 
Page 20  
 
  ad hoc  consultations, including third party participation, tighter timelines, flexibility in the use of 
procedures, the active role of the facilitator, tran sparency procedures, langua ge on the confidentiality 
of data, thresholds for filtering submissions, the manda tory nature of information exchange, etc.  India 
would provide a submission with suggestions incorporating those features. 
98. The representative of Hong Kong, China noted that while Members were committed to 
looking for a possible compromise on various aspect s of the proposed horizontal mechanism, views 
were still quite divided as to whether that mechan ism should cover SPS-related measures.  Regardless 
of their respective positions, there was a general consensus among Members on the need to strengthen 
the operation of WTO committees.  Hong Kong, Ch ina supported the objective of expediting the 
discussions on the ad hoc  consultations draft proposal which it found to be balanced and reasonable.  
Article 3 contained a "without prejudice" clause and Article 19 included a review clause, which would 
provide for the review of the mechanism in light of the operation of the ad hoc  mechanism and other 
developments in the Doha Round ne gotiations.  Hong Kong, China was fully prepared to engage in a 
text-based discussion of the draft proposal and invite d Members to also engage in discussions in a 
timely and constructive manner, with a view to finalising the proposal. 
99. The representative of Argentina reiterated the differences between the horizontal mechanism 
negotiations and the discussions in the SPS Committ ee as concerned their starting point, negotiating 
procedures and their objectives.  All Members were aware of the situation of the Doha Round and its 
uncertain future.  Members' contributions to the ad hoc  consultations draft text could strengthen or 
improve the proposal without affecting its substance.   Finally, the representative of Argentina noted 
that Members were still unsure as to whether th e horizontal mechanism would include SPS measures 
or to what extent the mechanism would reflect  the scientific principles of the SPS Agreement. 
100. The representative of Switzerland, one of the co-sponsors of the proposal on WTO procedures 
for the facilitation of solutions to Non-Tariff Barrier s, supported the views expressed by India.  When 
the horizontal mechanism would be adopted, the proposal would be sent to all relevant WTO 
committees for application.  The relevant WTO committees would be responsible for implementing 
the procedures and a Committee could decide to adju st the procedures, if deemed necessary, to fit 
existing working procedures.  Although the issue of  scope had not yet been settled, there was no 
reason to exclude the SPS Agreement from the scope of the horizontal mechanism.  Switzerland preferred to avoid having a mechanism/procedure fo r SPS that was clearly different from that of other 
committees. 
101. The representative of Switzerland gave some preliminary comments on the draft proposal, 
and first noted that the reference in the title of G/SPS/W/243/Rev.2 to "negotiations among Members 
under the SPS Agreement" was misleading.  The role of the facilitator was so  limited in the draft 
proposal that Switzerland questioned whether there was even a need to have a facilitator.  The 
facilitator would be responsible to facilitate co mmunication between Members (paragraph 12), but in 
contrast to the horizontal mechanism proposal, th e facilitator could not ta ke any position based on 
technical questions (paragraph 13).  If the parti es agreed on all technical questions, they could 
informally have discussions without the help of a fac ilitator.  Switzerland stated that another issue that 
was not included in the draft proposal was the rights and obligations of the third parties. 
102. The revised document indicated that the good o ffices of the Chairperson had been used on 
three occasions with 10 countries using the facilitato r approach proposed in Article 12.2 of the SPS 
Agreement.  The representative of Switzerla nd therefore proposed that the Committee hear 
experiences from delegations that took part in tho se cases.  Discussions should include the following:  
positive aspects of having ad-hoc consultations with th e Chairperson, the exact role of the facilitator, 
and elements that would have been more useful in resolving the problem.  G/SPS/R/59 
 Page 21 
 
 
  103. The representative of Japan recalled that the original purpose had b een to create a user-
friendly mechanism to discuss issues within the Committee.  The point was not to compare this 
mechanism with the horizontal mech anism.  Japan was looking forwar d to a constructive and  focused 
discussion during the Committee meeting. 
104. The representative of Brazil stated that Braz il was prepared to analyze and compare the 
recommended procedures proposed in the SPS Committe e and those in the horizontal mechanism.  
The horizontal mechanism was at a more mature stage than the ad hoc  consultations, and it should 
also include SPS issues.  The horizontal mechanism w as to be used as a refere nce regarding the level 
of ambition sought in the SPS Committee in terms of the development of a consultations mechanism.  
Brazil would continue to analyze the current draft pr oposal, particularly as it compared to some of the 
key provisions of the horizontal mechanism, such as  participation of third parties, the use of a 
facilitator, and the establishment of time limits.  Brazil agreed with Switzerland that the priority 
should be a well functioning mechanism rather th an one developed with haste.  Brazil would  
comment on the current draft proposal and supported an efficient mechanism that would help avoid 
the formal dispute process. 
105. The representative of the Philippines noted that  there was an increasing dichotomy in the 
views put forward by Members and a need for c oherence in the work of both the SPS Committee and 
the Negotiating Group on NAMA.  The Philippines supported Switzerland's suggestion to exchange 
information on past experiences on the use of Good Offices of the Chairperson. 
106. The representative of Chile agreed  with Argentina and Japan that the task at hand should have 
been completed a long time ago given that the process had begun in 1995.  The objective was to 
create procedural guidelines for a process that was of  an informal nature and had so far only been 
used on three occasions.  Chile cautioned that if the procedure started to become complex, it would be 
difficult to finalize.  Concerning experiences with th e citrus canker consultations, in which Chile was 
involved, the facilitator had had a very constructive role and good results had been achieved.  A risk 
mitigation issue was resolved which had allowed Argen tina to export to the European Union.  Finally, 
Chile noted that the text resulting from the SPS Comm ittee consultations could be revised to reflect 
developments in the NAMA negotiations. 
107. The representative of Argentina expressed con cern that several Members had asked for a 
comparative exercise and coherence between the horizontal mechanism and the ad hoc  consultations.  
This was not the mandate of the SPS Committee. 
108. The representative of Norway supported the comments made by India, Switzerland and 
Brazil.  As a co-sponsor of the horizontal mechan ism, Norway wanted a me chanism that worked for 
SPS as well as for other agreements.  There was room  for improvement in the draft proposal and 
Norway welcomed the opportunity to submit comments. 
109. The representative of Pakistan supported the comments made by India, Switzerland, Brazil, 
Norway and the Philippines.  A large number of Members were not convinced that the proposed 
process was an improvement of, or even comparable with, the horizontal mechanism.  Pakistan  
supported a thorough comparison between the two pr ocedures, particularly with respect to the 
facilitator's role, information exchange, specific time lines and the mandatory and voluntary nature.  It 
was Pakistan's view that while measures under th e Agreement on Agriculture were excluded, all 
goods were included in the horizontal mechanism. 
110. The representative of the United States supported the statements by Argentina, Hong Kong, 
Japan, and Chile.  The job at hand was to raise issues  and resolve specific trade concerns and in order 
to do that, Members had to have many tools at their disposal.  It was not necessary to compare tools.  The Committee had been discu ssing the guidelines for the ad hoc  mechanism since 1999 while G/SPS/R/59 
Page 22  
 
  NAMA had started discussing a horizontal mechanis m since 2004.  The United States urged Members 
to be prepared to discuss document G/SPS/W/243/Rev.2 in October. 
111. The representative of Canada supported the statements by Argentina, Japan, Chile, 
Hong Kong, China and the United States.  Canada supported the coexistence of the ad hoc  mechanism 
and of the horizontal mechanism and considered that the ad hoc  mechanism should be flexible, 
voluntary and confidential. 
112. The representative of the European Union stated  that while the European Union supported an 
informal trade dispute solving procedure in the SPS Committee, it preferred the more general 
horizontal mechanism.  The horizontal mechanism w as at a more mature stage and that process should 
not be prejudiced by arrangements  reached in the SPS Committee.  However, an additional tool in the 
SPS Committee to address trade concerns would be useful. 
113. The Chairperson reminded Memb ers that comments on G/SPS/W/243/Rev.2 should be sent to 
the Secretariat by 30 July 2010.  
(b) Issues Arising from the Third Review 
114. The Chairperson noted that the report of the Third Review of the Operation and 
Implementation of the SPS Agreem ent had been adopted on an ad referendum  basis on 
18 March 2010.  Since no Member had submitted any objections by the deadline, the report had been 
adopted and circulated in document G/SPS/53. 
115. Regarding the organization of future work, the Chairperson noted that as part of the Third 
Review, the Committee had agreed to further work in a number of areas.  The Secretariat recalled the 
issues that had been identified in the Review where the Committee had d ecided to do substantive 
work.  In particular, the Secretariat highlighted  those areas for further work where Members had 
submitted concrete sugges tions or proposals. 
116. The Committee agreed to hold an informal meeting in conjunction with the next regular 
meeting of the Committee to consider issues identi fied for further work.  The Chairperson invited 
Members to submit proposals by 30 September 2010 on specific issues the Committee had agreed to 
do further work on.  The Chairperson noted that , based on concrete proposals tabled by Members 
before the next meeting, he would circulate a sp ecific agenda for an informal meeting on issues 
arising from the Third Review. 
XI. MONITORING OF THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS 
(a) New Issues 
117. No new issues were raised under this agenda item. 
(b) Issues Previously Raised  
118. Several Members made comments and suggested revisions to the draft annual report on the 
monitoring of the use of international standards.  The Chair clarified that those comments would be 
reflected in the agenda item relating to the adoption of the annual report. 
(c) Adoption of Annual Report (G/SPS/W/250) 
119. The Chairperson noted that the Secretariat would prepare a revised document based on both 
the oral and written comments from Members and woul d then circulate the revised annual report on  G/SPS/R/59 
 Page 23 
 
 
  the Monitoring of the Use of International Standa rds.  Members would have three weeks to comment 
and submit any objections, failing which th e annual report would be adopted on an ad referendum 
basis. 
XII. CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS 
(a) Report on Chairperson's Consultations 
120. The former Chairperson info rmed the Committee that the ad hoc  working group on private 
standards had held its sixt h meeting on Monday, 28 June. 
121. A representative from the ISO had given a presentation on ISO's recent publication 
International Standards and "Private Standards" .  After an overview of the ISO system, the standard-
setting process and its implications for policy-making, he had discussed that work in the context of the 
discussion on private standards.  He had explaine d ISO's key principles of transparency, openness, 
consensus and impartiality, market relevance and ef fectiveness, coherence and development.  Those 
were explicit principles in line with the Deci sion of the TBT Committee on the development of 
international standards, guidelines and recommendations .  In that respect, ISO standards had to be 
considered separately from other private schem es which did not necessarily follow these principles. 
122. The ISO representative had supported increased engagement among ISO, Codex, OIE and 
non-governmental organizations working on privat e standards such as the Global Food Safety 
Initiative (GFSI).  He had encouraged such organiza tions to move away from private standard-setting 
to focus instead on implementation and harmonization,  with a view to optimizing the benefits of 
private standards.  In that context, he had refe rred to ISO 22000 in the area of food safety, which was 
based on the Codex HACCP principles, and to other ISO standards relating to labelling and 
certification. 
123. Working group members had had a constructiv e discussion with the ISO representative to 
clarify questions relating to transparency, con sensus, and the distinction between private, 
international, and ISO standards.  The ISO represen tative had noted that one helpful development in 
recent years had been the implementation of an electr onic tool to collect data about the national use of 
standards during the normal ISO review process, which was three years following the initial 
publication of a standard. 
124. The representative of Codex had provided an upda te on Codex's work on the issue of private 
standards.  Following the decision taken at the last 32nd meeting of the Codex Alimentarius 
Commission in July 2009, FAO and WHO had prep ared a new study on private standards for 
consideration by the Executive Committee and th e Commission during its upcoming meeting in 
July 2010.  A side-event on private standard s would take place during that meeting of the 
Commission.  The Codex Secretariat had also prepared, for the Commission's consideration, a 
document on the speed of the Codex standard-setti ng process, which had been suggested, as one of 
the reasons for the development of private standa rds.  When solid risk assessment was available, 
Codex could develop standards within  one year, for example for pesticide residues.  In controversial 
areas, such as the development of the definition of dietary fibre, discussions had lasted almost 
20 years. 
125. The Secretariat had agreed to make availabl e the PowerPoint presentations of the ISO and 
Codex representatives on the WTO's SPS gateway. 
126. The representative of the OIE had drawn attenti on to the OIE General Assembly's Resolution 
on Private Standards – which was included as an Annex to the OIE submission for the Committee 
meeting (G/SPS/GEN/1024).  In accordance with that resolution, the OIE had been taking steps to G/SPS/R/59 
Page 24  
 
  promote compatibility and avoid conflict between private and official standards.  The OIE had 
encouraged global private standard-setting organi zations to develop or strengthen transparent 
mechanisms and work towards harmonization with  official standards.  The OIE had welcomed 
continued collaboration with the SPS Committee,  Codex, and IPPC as well as strengthening 
appropriate links and dialogue with private sta ndard-setting organizations such as the GFSI and 
GlobalGAP.  OIE had also encouraged Members to consult with national contact points responsible 
for animal health and food safety to develop nati onal and regional positions co nsistent with the new 
recommendations. 
127. The Secretariat had presented the second revision of document G/SPS/W/247/Rev.2, entitled 
"Possible Actions for the SPS Committee regarding SPS-related Private Standards".  The document 
had been revised in light of oral and written comments from members of the working group during 
and following the Committee's March meeting.  A number of delegations ha d been concerned about 
the grouping of possible actions into two sections  according to the level of support reached at  
previous discussions, while others had seen that as a practical way of moving forward the Committee's work.  Due to diverging views, the working group had not been in a position, at that 
stage, to propose concrete actions for consideration by the SPS Committee. 
128. In concluding her report on the meeting of the working group, the Chairperson indicated that 
she had asked the Secretariat to issue a revised version of G/SPS/W/247 after
 further consultations 
with the working group and in time for the Octobe r meeting of the Committee.  She had suggested 
that the revised document be in compliance with the mandate of the working group and also reflect 
the different views of the group.  To this end, sh e had suggested that it include a compilation of all  
actions already identified, along with  an indication of the level of support for each of these actions.  
The revision would also include a set of recommendations supported by the working group for consideration by the SPS Committee regarding further work. 
129. The representative of El Salvador stated, on beha lf of GRULAC, that while Article 2 of the 
SPS Agreement established the right to implement measures for the protection of human, animal, 
plant life or health, such measures had to be based on science and not on commercial reasons.  Private 
standards went beyond the standards, guidelines an d recommendations developed by the relevant 
international organizations.  GRULAC requested the Secretariat to con tinue undertaking studies, 
workshops and consultations on the matter to find solutions that would allow Members to counteract 
the negative effects of private standards. 
130. The representative of India recalled the text  of paragraph 9 of G/SPS/W/247/Rev.2 and 
questioned whether it had derived from th e Committee's discussions or from the ad hoc  group 
discussions.  India would wait for the final report to be  completed in order to deliberate on its content.  
In response, the Chairperson noted that divergent views had continued to prevail on that point, which 
did not allow the ad hoc  group to come forward with more sp ecific and concrete recommendations for 
the Committee's consideration at this time. 
131. The representative of El Salvador noted that the latest revision was a good basis for 
discussions and that El Salvador was looking  forward to submitting comments on the revised 
document during the next Committee meeting. 
132. The representative of Cuba supported the stat ement made by GRULAC and noted that the 
most recent document on possible actions was a good b asis for continuing work on private standards.  
Cuba remained concerned about the trade restrictions  effects of private standards.  Cuba would push 
for practical solutions in order to monitor pr ivate standards in the SPS Committee since their 
proliferation was affecting market access and had a direct effect on the participation of developing 
countries in international trade.  G/SPS/R/59 
 Page 25 
 
 
  133. The representative of ISO noted that his organization had recently published a brochure 
explaining the distinction between ISO Standards a nd other so-called private standards and schemes.  
He expressed concern that W/247/Rev.2 made no cl ear distinction between international standards 
developed by ISO, and standard s developed by industry-governed groups such as:  Global GAP, 
certain benchmarked schemes of G FSI, and other industry initiatives.  He further noted that the 
standardization disciplines and governance for tho se standards were different from ISO's formal 
international standardization process.  Many of t hose schemes did not use ISO international standards 
or international standards from Codex as the main and explicit base for their implementation.  The 
representative of ISO therefore suggested that the Committee encourage cooperation of such organizations with ISO and with Codex, to harmonize their requireme nts as international standards. 
134. The representative of the OIE highlighted the im portance of respecting the clear and distinct 
position of international standards refe rred to in the SPS Agreement.  
135. The representative of the United States, supported by Brazil, agreed  with the OIE and noted 
that the SPS Agreement was very clear on that it onl y recognized three international standard-setting 
bodies. 
XIII.  REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS 
(a) Ad hoc  Observers 
136. The Committee agreed to invite all of the ad hoc  observers to participate in the next 
Committee meeting, including the informal meetings on ad hoc  consultations and on the Third 
Review. 
(b) New Requests 
137. The Chairperson noted that new requests for observer status had been received from the 
Agency for International Trade Information and Cooperation (AITIC), and from the West African 
Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU).  Back ground information on those two organizations 
could be found in documents G/SPS/GEN/121/Add. 7 and Add.8, respectively. 
138. The Committee agreed to grant ad hoc  observer status to thos e two organizations on an 
ad referendum  basis.  If no formal objection were raised before 30 July 2010, those organizations 
would be invited to the October meetings. 
(c) Outstanding Requests 
139. There was no change in the position of Members with respect to the pending requests for 
observer status from the Asian and Pacific Coconut Community (APCC), Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), International Vine and Wi ne Office (OIV) and the Gulf Customs Council 
Standardization Organization (GSO).  The Committee  decided to revert to these outstanding requests 
at the next regular meeting. 
140. The Secretariat encouraged Members to look at the work that was being done in the CBD, in 
particular on invasive species and living modified orga nisms, which were partic ularly relevant to the 
scope of the SPS Agreement, and to consider granting ad hoc  observer status to the CBD. 
141. 
The representative of Canada agreed with the co mments by the Secretariat but noted that the 
document related to the CBD's application (G/ SPS/GEN/121/Add.2) was specific to its functions 
related to the Cartegena Biosafety Protocol.  Canada  therefore suggested that the CBD be invited to 
resubmit its request for observer status. G/SPS/R/59 
Page 26  
 
  XIV.  OTHER BUSINESS 
142. The representative of the United States reporte d that on 17 June 2010, the United States 
Department of Agriculture (USDA) had published a risk analysis for the import of mangoes from 
Pakistan and reminded Members that comments on the analysis were due by 16 August 2010.  That 
had been notified to the Committee in G/SPS/N/USA/2040. 
143. The representative of Pakistan noted that Pakistan 's request for a risk analysis was pending for 
two other Members. 
144. The Secretariat recalled that in March 2010 it had circulated an information document from 
the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) (G/SPS/GE N/1004 refers).  The GFSI was a non-profit 
foundation bringing together food safety experts fro m major retailer, manufacturer, and food service 
companies as well as certification bodies. 
145. The Secretariat had participated in a meeting of the GFSI regulatory affairs working group in 
May 2010 to provide informati on on the SPS Agreement and the work of the SPS Committee, 
especially with respect to SPS-related private stan dards.  The GFSI was interested in having an 
opportunity to present their work to the WTO, preferably in an interactive setting. 
XV. DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING 
146. The Chairperson recalled that the next meeti ng of the Committee was tentatively scheduled 
for 20-21 October 2010
.  An informal meeting on ad hoc  consultations and on issues arising from the 
Third Review would be scheduled for 19 October 2010  while the Transparency Workshop would be 
held on 18 October  and 22 October .   
147. The Secretariat proposed a tentative calendar of  SPS Committee meetings for 2011:  weeks of 
21 March, 27 June, and 10 October. 
148. The Committee agreed on the following tent ative agenda for its next meeting: 
1. Proposed agenda 
2. Information on relevant activities 
(a) Information from Members 
(b) Information from Observer organizations 
3. Specific trade concerns 
(a) New issues 
(b) Issues previously raised 
(c) Consideration of specific notifications received 
(d) Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10 
4. Operation of transparency provisions 
(a) Interim report on Workshop on Transparency Provisions 
5. Implementation of special and differential treatment 
6. Equivalence – Article 4 
(a) Information from Members on their experiences 
(b) Information from relevant  observer organizations  G/SPS/R/59 
 Page 27 
 
 
  7. Pest- and Disease-free areas – Article 6 
(a) Information from Members on their pest or disease status 
(b) Information from Members on their expe riences in recognition of pest- or 
disease-free areas 
(c) Information from relevant  observer organizations 
8. Technical assistance and cooperation 
(a) Information from the Secretariat 
(b) Information from Members 
(c) Information from observers 
9. Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement 
(a) Issues arising from the Second Review 
(b) Use of ad hoc  consultations 
(c) Issues arising from the Third Review 
10. Monitoring of the use of international standards 
(a) New issues 
(b) Issues previously raised 
11. Concerns with private and commercial standards 
(a) Report on Chair's consultations 
12. Observers – Request for observer status 
13. Chairperson's annual report to the Council for Trade in Goods 
14. Other business 
15. Date and agenda of next meeting 
149. Members were asked to take note of the following deadlines: 
(i) For submitting comments on the proposed progr amme for the Tran sparency workshop 
AND for submitting applications for 2010 technical assistance activities:  Friday, 9 July
; 
(ii) For submitting comments on the propo sed recommended procedure for ad hoc  
consultations (G/SPS/W/243/Rev.2) AND for submitting any objections to granting ad hoc  observer status to WAEMU and/or AITIC:  Friday, 30 July
; 
(iii) For submitting any objections to the revised annual report on the monitoring of the 
use of international standards (G/SPS/W/250/Rev.1):  3 weeks after circulation ; 
(iv) For submitting specific proposals regarding further work by the Committee on issues 
identified in the Third Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS 
Agreement  (G/SPS/53):  Thursday, 30 September ; 
(v) For requesting that items be put on the agenda AND for identifying new issues for 
consideration under the monitoring of th e use of international standards:  
Thursday, 7 October ;  and 
(vi) For the distribution of the airgram and th e circulation of documents for discussion 
during the October meeting:  Friday, 8 October . 
 
__________