WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/746 
24 January 2007 
 (07-0335) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
 
PRIVATE STANDARDS AND THE SPS AGREEMENT 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
  
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. The issue of private standards was first ra ised at the SPS Committee meeting held on 
29-30 June 2005.
2  At that meeting, Saint Vincent and th e Grenadines raised a concern regarding the 
operation of a EurepGAP scheme in relation to trad e in bananas with supermarkets in the United 
Kingdom.  Other Members also expressed concerns w ith the effects of private standards on their 
trade.  An information session was subsequently organized in the margins of the 11-12 October 2006 
meeting with representatives of EurepGAP and UNCTAD.  At the October 2006 meeting, Saint 
Vincent and the Grenadines indicated that it retain ed its concerns with respect to the EurepGAP 
scheme.  The Committee also decided to include priv ate and commercial standards, in general, on the 
agenda of the 28 February-1 March 2007 SPS Committee meeting.3   
2. The purpose of this note by the Secretariat is to provide background information on the topic 
of private and commercial standards (hereinafter "p rivate standards") with a view to stimulating 
discussion in the SPS Committee.  It is not an ex haustive analysis.  It draws on information from 
Observer Organizations, academic literature and in formation available on th e websites of private 
standard-setting organizations.  A list of sources is provided in the Appendix at the end of this 
document.  
II. PRIVATE STANDARDS IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE 
3. The catalyst for the Committee's discussions on th e issue of private standards has been one 
Member's concerns with a specific private scheme.  Private standards are, however, neither limited to 
a single Member nor to a single scheme.  UNCTAD estimates the number of private schemes at 400 and rising.  Schemes range from those developed by individual firms to collective industry-wide 
international schemes.  Nor are private standards exclusive to a particular Member, geographical 
region or even level of developm ent.  Although these standards may have diverse objectives, the focus 
in the paper is on those relating inter alia  to food safety.  In this respect, the same factors and 
companies driving the use of private standard s are at work in developed, developing and 
least-developed countries.   
4. A variety of factors are behind the evolut ion of private standards.  These include, inter alia :  
• High profile food safety concerns and problems of confidence in regulatory agencies; 
                                                     
 
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.  
2 G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras.16-20. 
3 G/SPS/R/43, paras. 40-42. G/SPS/GEN/746 
Page 2  
 
  • Legal requirements on companies to demonstrate "due diligence" in the prevention of food 
safety risks; 
• Growing attention to "corporate social responsibility" and a drive by companies to minimize 
"reputational risks"; 
4 
• "Globalisation" of supply chains and a trend to wards vertical integration through the use of 
direct contracts between suppliers and retailers;   
• Expansion of supermarke ts in food retailing both nation ally and internationally;  and 
• Global expansion of food service companies. 
5. Table 1 gives examples of private standards.  Th e list of standards given in the table is an 
illustrative one;  it is far from exhaustive.  The th irteen schemes identified serve to demonstrate some 
of the diversity of the 400 plus schemes in operation.   
Table 1:  Examples of Private Standards 
Individual firm schemes Collective national schemes Collective international 
schemes 
Tesco Nature's Choice 
Carrefour Filière Qualité 
 
 Assured Food Standards 
British Retail Consortium Global 
Standard - Food 
QS Qualitat Sicherheit  Label Rouge Food and Drink Federation/British 
Retail Consortium Technical 
Standard for the Supply of Identity 
Preserved Non-Genetically Modified Food Ingredients and Product EurepGAP 
International Food Standard 
Global Food Safety Initiative 
ISO 22000: Food safety 
management systems  
Safe Quality Food (SQF) 1000 
and 2000 
ISO 22005: Traceability in the 
feed and food chain   
 
6. The categorization used in the table between i ndividual firm schemes, collective national and 
collective international schemes is one of several possible categorizations.  Distinctions can also be drawn between pre- and post-farm  gate standards, or between business-to-business standards or 
standards tied to a particular labelling or logo scheme intended for consumers.  Collective schemes 
may also tackle a particular supply chain issue or ob jective, at a national or international level.  The 
schemes listed above cover all these categories.  For example, while EurepGAP is primarily a pre-
farm gate standard, the British Retail Consortiu m (BRC) Global Standard and International Food 
Standard are aimed at packing and processing facilities.   Similarly, while the Assured Farm and Label 
Rouge schemes are linked to logos displayed on f ood packaging, the EurepGAP scheme is not.  
Likewise, the joint Food and Drink Federation/Br itish Retail Consortium Tec hnical Standard and the 
ISO 22005 scheme tackle specific supply chain issues - at both a national and international level.  
                                                     
 
4 No agreed definition of "corporate social responsibility" (CSR) exists.  One definition in use of CSR 
is  “a concept whereby companies inte grate social and environmental concerns in their business operations and 
in their interaction with their stakeholders on a voluntary basis”.  Communication from the Commission concerning Corporate Social Responsibility: A Business  Contribution to Sustainable Development, Brussels, 
2 July 2002, COM(2002) 347 final.  G/SPS/GEN/746 
 Page 3 
 
 
  7. Table 1 serves to demonstrate the diversity of priv ate standards.  It also highlights the rise of 
private standard-setting collations which are seekin g to harmonize industry-wide efforts to control 
particular risks.  The proliferation of standard s schemes nationally and internationally is also 
stimulating a trend towards "benchmarking" – whic h provides a means to compare requirements.  For 
example, EurepGAP has a process through which othe r schemes may be "benchmarked" against it.  
Another example of this process is the Global Food  Safety Initiative (GFSI).  The GFSI was founded 
with the idea of "benchmarking" national schemes in ternationally against a set of key elements.  For 
example, the BRC Global Standard and the Inte rnational Food Standard (IFS) have been 
benchmarked against GFSI.   
8. Benchmarking does not necessarily imply equivalence.  For example, EurepGAP and QS 
Qualitat Sicherheit benchmarked each other's schem es last year and now recognize the schemes as 
equivalent.  However, the BRC and IFS standards ar e not recognized as equivalent even though both 
are GFSI benchmarked.   
9. Private standards are not mandatory.  Suppliers are not required by law to meet private 
standards.  Compliance with private standards is a choice on the part of the supplier.  Where private 
standards become the industry norm, however, choice is limited.  Consolidation in food retailing may 
be a key factor to consider in this context.  Wher e a small number of food retailers account for a high 
proportion of food sales, the options for suppliers w ho do not participate in either an individual or 
collective retailer standard scheme can be consider ably reduced.  Furthermore, the retailer scheme 
may be de facto applied as the industry norm by all actors in the supply chain.  Thus the choice of whether or not to comply with a voluntary sta ndard becomes a choice between compliance or exit 
from the market.  In this way, the distinction between private voluntary standards and mandatory 
"official" or "public" requirements can blur.   
10. Further information is required from Memb ers and Observers Organizations on the 
prevalence of private standards in international trade in products covere d by SPS measures.  The 
preceding analysis is not exhaustive, but has highlighted: 
• The diversity of private standards schemes in operation; 
• Trends to harmonization of industry schemes at national and intern ational level;  and 
• How the distinction between voluntary private standards and official SPS measures can blur 
when private requirements become an industry norm.  
III. TRADE ISSUES RELATED TO PRIVATE STANDARDS 
11. Compliance with private standards can have trad e creation effects.  Compliance with a private 
standard can open access to multiple markets if the privat e standard is used internationally or if a firm 
operating a scheme is trading internationally.  Pr ivate standards can thus be trade-creating.  
Furthermore, voluntary self-regulation of this nature  should reduce food safety risks for consumers.   
12. Research on the topic of private standards has tended to highlight the challenges which 
private standards may pose, especially for developing country suppliers.  In pa rticular, questions arise 
as to whether or not these schemes go beyond what is scientifically justified and where the burden of 
the cost of compliance falls.  For ease of reference,  the challenges related to private standards may be 
divided into (1) concerns with the content of pr ivate schemes and (2) concerns with the ability of 
operators to meet them.  Table 2 provides examples of  concerns in relation to both issues.  It is an 
illustrative, non-exhaustive list.  G/SPS/GEN/746 
Page 4  
 
  13. Trade concerns with the content of private sta ndards primarily arise from the focus of private 
schemes on process and production methods (PPMs).  The scope of PPMs covered by private 
standards is wide: covering issues as diverse as HACCP, animal welfare, organics, absence of genetically modified organisms, traceability, environmental impact, labour standards etc.   
14. Trade concerns related to the ability of operators to  meet private standards relate to the cost of 
implementing schemes at firm or farm level and the cost of demonstrating compliance.  Private 
standards tend to be prescriptive, placing detaile d requirements on suppliers which do not always 
allow alternative, but equivalent, ways of achie ving the same food safety (or other) outcome.   
Compliance may also be judged on the basis of audits by a certification body, normally an independent third party. 
Table 2:  Examples of Concerns related to Private Standards 
Concerns on the content of private standards  Concerns related to compliance with private 
standards  
Multiplication of private standard schemes both 
within and between markets Cost of third party certification, particularly for 
small and medium-sized enterprises and farmers 
in developing countries 
"Blurring" of official SPS measures with private standards Requirements of some private schemes to use 
only specified certification bodies 
Relationship of private standards with the international standard-setting bodies referenced under the SPS Agreement Lack of equivalence between schemes leading to 
repetition of certification audits  
Scientific justification for certain PPM requirements Lack of recognition of certificates issued and/or 
lack of recognized certification bodies in 
developing countries 
 
IV. PRIVATE STANDARDS AND THE SPS AGREEMENT  
15. To date, no determination has been made as to whether private standards are SPS measures 
within the scope of the SPS Agreement.  Article 1. 1 states that the Agreemen t applies to "all sanitary 
and phytosanitary measures which may, directly or indirectly, affect international trade" without 
explicitly limiting this application to SPS measures ta ken by governmental authorities.  Likewise, the 
definition of an SPS measure in Annex A(1) a nd the accompanying illustrative list of SPS measures 
does not explicitly limit these to governmental measur es.  A number of the existing private standards 
would appear to address, in particular, the risks to  human health identified in Annex A(1)(a), through 
means identified in the illustrativ e list.  On the other hand, other provisions of the SPS Agreement, 
including the basic rights and obligations in Article 2, explicitly refer to the rights and obligations of 
"Members".  It is also not clear whether the certification requirements necessary to demonstrate 
compliance with private standards would be with in the scope of Article 8 and Annex C of the 
Agreement. 
16. The provisions of Article 13 may be relevant in this regard.  Article 13 is reproduced below: 
"Members are fully responsible under this  Agreement for the observance of all 
obligations set forth herein.  Member s shall formulate and implement positive 
measures and mechanisms in support of th e observance of the provisions of this  G/SPS/GEN/746 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Agreement by other than central government bodies.  Members shall take such 
reasonable measures as may be available to them to ensure that non-governmental 
entities within their territories , as well as regional bodies in  which relevant entities 
within their territories are members, comply with the relevant provisions of this 
Agreement.   In addition, Members shall not take measures which have the effect of, 
directly or indirectly, requiring or enc ouraging such regional or non-governmental 
entities, or local governmental bodies, to act in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement.  Members sha ll ensure that they rely on the services of 
non-governmental entities for implementing sanitary or phytosanitary measures only if these entities comply with the provisions of this Agreement".    (emphasis added) 
17. In seeking to ensure the compliance of non-governmental entities applying SPS measures 
with the obligations imposed by the SPS Agreement, the following questions arise: 
• What positive measures and mechanisms are ope n to Members to support observance of the 
SPS Agreement by other than Central Government Bodies? 
• What would be a reasonable measure to ensure compliance by a non-governmental entity?   
A further question is whether or not the standard is  really a private or an official standard.  A 
governmental standardizing body might, for exampl e, develop a national standard based on ISO 
22000:  Food safety management systems, blurring the distinction between official SPS measures and 
private standards.   Or, a Member might decide to permit the entry of imports that are certified to comply with a private standard that incorporates and exceeds the official requirements.  Could the 
Member be construed as relying on the services of a non-governmental entity to implement sanitary or 
phytosanitary measures? 
18. Other WTO Agreements may also be of rele vance.  An examination of the EurepGAP 
standard and the others listed in Table 1 would su ggest that some elements of private standards 
address matters outside the scope of the SPS Agreemen t.  For example, EurepGAP standards contain 
chapters dealing with, amongst other topics, worker  health, safety and welfare and waste and pollution 
management.  
19. Some private standards schemes could fall with in the scope of the Agreement on Technical 
Barriers to Trade (hereinafter "TBT Agreement").   The legal definitions given for standards, 
conformity assessment procedures and non-govern mental bodies within Annex 1 to the TBT 
Agreement would appear of particul ar relevance in this regard.   
20. Were a particular private standard to fall w ithin the definition of a standard under the TBT 
Agreement, then Article 4 would apply.  This Ar ticle requires Members to take reasonable measures 
to ensure that non-governmental bodies accept and comply with Annex 3 to the TBT Agreement (the 
Code of Good Practice for the Preparation, Adoptio n and Application of Standards).  Amongst the 
provisions of the Code are notifica tion obligations both with respect to  acceptance of the Code and the 
publication of work programmes.  Notification of  the existence of work  programmes is to the 
ISO/IEC Information Centre, not the WTO Secretaria t.  With regard to conformity assessment, the 
provisions of Article 5 and Article 8 of the TBT Agre ement would appear of particular relevance.   
21. Both the TBT and SPS Agreements contain sim ilar language with resp ect to implementation 
vis-à-vis  the activities of non-governmental bodies (as referred to in the TBT Agreement) and 
non-governmental entities (as referred to in the SPS Ag reement).  One difference to note with respect 
to the "reasonable measures to ensure compliance"  required of Members is the reference under the 
TBT Agreement to Members ensuring acceptance and co mpliance with the Code of Good Practice by 
non-governmental bodies.  No such "reasonabl e measure" exists under the SPS Agreement. G/SPS/GEN/746 
Page 6  
 
  22. In addition to the TBT Agreement, other WT O Agreements may also be relevant. For 
example, the Agreement on Preshipment Inspection ma y relate to the actions of certification bodies 
which have been mandated by Members to provide expert inspection services. 
V. ISSUES FOR POSSIBLE CONSID ERATION BY THE SPS COMMITTEE 
• Relationship of private standard-setting organiza tions with the international standard-setting 
bodies referenced under the SPS Agreement  
23. For private standards schemes which address food safety, their relationship with the 
standards, guidelines and recommendations develope d by the Codex Alimentarius Commission is a 
key one.  Several of the schemes referred to in  Table 1 (for example ISO22000 and SQF) state that 
their requirements are based on Codex guidelines (for example with regard to HACCP).   
Furthermore, in the case of ISO, it should be not ed that the Codex maintains contacts with ISO, 
mainly through information exchange.
5  (ISO is an Observer Organization both to Codex and to the 
SPS Committee.) 
24. Work to obtain basic information on the developm ent and use of private standards is one of 
eleven proposals on which the views of Codex members and observers are currently being sought through a circular letter.
6  A decision on whether or not to proceed  with this work is  scheduled for the 
59th Session of the Executive Committee and the 30th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.   
25. The mandates of Codex and OIE extend to issues not specifically covered by the SPS 
Agreement such as food quality or animal welfare issues.7  Other elements of the corporate social 
responsibility schemes, such as labour standards, fa ll outside the mandate of the Codex and OIE and 
may be covered by other bodies, e.g. th e International Labour Organization.   
Reasonable measures to ensure comp liance by non-governmental entities 
 
26. The SPS Agreement is silent as to what the r easonable measures are which Members can take 
to ensure compliance by non-governmental entities w ith the SPS Agreement, and there is no   
jurisprudence on this matter.  In addition to reas onable measures which might be taken by Members, 
the Committee may also wish to di scuss if there are actions which the Committee might take on this 
issue. 
Relationship of private standard schemes with other WTO Agreements and Committees 
 
27. During the Committee's discussion of St Vincen t and the Grenadines trade concern with 
EurepGAP, one Member made the suggestion that it could be interesting for the SPS Committee to 
examine the TBT Code of Good Practice.  As noted in paragraph 21, one difference with respect to 
the "reasonable measures to ensure compliance"  required of Members under the TBT and SPS 
                                                      
5 See Codex document ALINORM 06/29/9D. 
6 See Codex document ALINORM 06/29/9B, Part II, Add.1.  Paragraph 27 concerns the role of Codex 
standards versus private standards.  "Proposal 11. The Commission may wish to request the Codex Secretariat, 
in cooperation with FAO and WHO, to obtain basic information on the development and use of private 
standards, especially those other than ISO standards, at  the international level and provide relevant information 
to the Executive Committee and the Commission in 2007." 
7 The World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) is currently working on anim al welfare issues.  At 
its 73rd General Session in May 2005, the International Committee of OIE Member Countries adopted four animal welfare standards in the OIE Terrestrial Animal  Health Code.  Further standards are currently under 
discussion.    G/SPS/GEN/746 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Agreements is the reference under the TBT Agreement to Members ensuring acceptance and 
compliance with the Code of Good Practice by non-governmental bodies.   
Equivalence and private standard schemes 
 
28. Harmonization efforts by coalitions of private organizations often involve benchmarking of 
alternate private schemes.  Such benchmarking, howe ver, does not always result in equivalence.  The 
Committee's Decision on the Implementation of Article  4 (G/SPS/19/Rev.2) may be of relevance in 
this regard.   
29. The list of possible issues for consideration by the Committee given above is not exhaustive.  
Further issues can be envisaged, su ch as the scientific justification for private PPM requirements or 
the relationship of private standards with Article 5.1 or 5.6 of the SPS Agreement or the costs of 
certification and obligations under Annex C of the SPS Agreement.    
30. The purpose of this paper is not to provide an  exhaustive treatment of the topic of private 
standards, but rather to provide relevant bac kground information that might stimulate discussion 
within the Committee.  The background note would be enriched by specific examples from Members 
of the trade effects of private standards and from further submissions from Observer Organizations on 
this topic.  G/SPS/GEN/746 
Page 8  
 
  APPENDIX 
 
INFORMATION SOURCES 
 
Information submitted to the Committee by Observers Organizations 
 
ISO: G/SPS/GEN/589 and G/SPS/GEN/628   UNCTAD: G/SPS/GEN/567  Other information prepared by Observer Organizations  
 
OECD: Final Report on Private Standards and The Shaping of the Agro-Food System, AGR/CA/APM(2006)9/FINAL.  Report available at:  http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2006doc.nsf/43bb6 130e5e86e5fc12569f a005d004c/4e3a2945ffec37eec
12571bc00590ce3/$FILE/JT03212398.PDF 
 World Bank: "Food Safety and Agricultural Health  Standards: Challenges and Opportunities for 
Developing Country Exports" report no. 31207  Report available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTRANETTRADE/R esources/Topics/Standards/standards_challe
nges_synthesisreport.pdf 
 
Website addresses for private standard-setting schemes listed in Table 1 
 
Tesco Nature's Choice: www.tescocorporate.com Carrefour Filière Qualité: www.carrefour.fr/etmoi/fqc/ 
Assured Food Standards: www.redtractor.org.uk 
British Retail Consortium Global Standard – Food: www.brc.org.uk/standards/about_food.htm 
QS Qualitat Sicherheit: www.q- s.info/index.php?id=92&L=1  
Label Rouge: www.label-rouge.org Food and Drink Federation/British Re tail Consortium Technical Standard for the Supply of Identity 
Preserved Non-Genetically Modified  Food Ingredients and Product: 
www.brc.org.uk/standards/about_nongm.htm 
EurepGAP: www.eurepgap.org  International Food Standard: www.food-care.info  Global Food Safety Initiative: www.ciesnet.com/2-ww edo/2.2-programmes/2.2.foodsafety.gfsi.asp  
ISO 22000: Food safety management systems and IS O 22005: Traceability in the feed and food chain: 
www.iso.org 
Safe Quality Food (SQF) 1000 and 2000: www.sqfi.com   
Other information sources consulted 
 
"The Relationship of Third-Part y Certification to Sanitary/Phytosanitary Measures and the 
International Agri-Food Trade" Final Report, Raise SPS Global Analytical Report #9.  The report is 
published online at: http://www.msu.edu/~ifas/downloads/The%20R elationship%20of%20 TPC%20to%20SPS%20Measu
res--Final%20Report%20+%20Annexes.pdf  
"The Role of Public and Private Standards in  Regulating International Food Markets", Spencer 
Henson, Department of Food, Agricultural and R esource Economics, University of Guelph.  The 
reports is published on-line at:  http://www.agp.uni-bonn.de/iatrc/ia trc_program/Session%204/Henson.pdf 
__________