G/SPS/GEN/2146  
 
18 July 2023 
(23-4849) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  Original: English  
 
EUROPEAN UNION  IMPORT TOLERANCES FOR CERTAIN PESTICIDES  
TO ACHIEVE ENVIRONMENTAL OUTCOMES IN THIRD   
COUNTRIES  – SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERN 534  
SUBMISSION BY THE UNITED STATES  OF AMERICA  
The following submission, received on 14 July  2023, is the statement made by the United States of 
America at the 12-14 July 2023 WTO SPS Committee, and is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of the United States of America . 
 
_______________  
 
 
1.  The United States notes that the high volume of concern from WTO Members representing a 
broad swathe of agricultural producers around the world highlights the diversity and extent of 
multilateral opposition to the EU approach of integrating environmental c oncerns into the use of 
pesticide MRLs and the establishment of import tolerance.  
2.  The United States shares the European Commission's goals for the continued transition to more 
sustainable food systems. We recognize the importance of tailoring measures that  take into account 
the economic, social, and environmental dimensions of sustainability that are unique to each 
Member. We also note that Members' sustainability actions must be consistent with their obligations 
under relevant WTO Agreements.  
3.  The United St ates reiterates its concerns with the application of EU domestic environmental 
policies to food and agricultural products imported from third countries. We echo the comments of 
the many WTO Members who rightly understand that countries require the use of d iverse 
approaches, tools, and technologies to meet their sustainability objectives.  
4.  We can all agree that pest control and crop protection needs vary by crop and by country and 
region. National competent authorities must remain empowered to establish the m easures necessary 
for the protection of human, animal, or plant life or health within their own territories. However, the 
regulation published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 15 February 2023, is a de facto  
extension of the EU production r equirements to farming communities outside the European Union 
because it requires third country imports to satisfy the EU environmental policy preferences and 
comply with pesticide MRLs that appear to have been reduced without scientific justification.  
5.  Pesticide MRLs are not an appropriate tool for achieving the EU domestic environmental 
objectives. International consensus -based pesticide MRLs reflect the highest level of pesticide 
residue that is legally tolerated in or on food or feed in consideration of consumer exposure and 
possible health risks; pesticide MRLs are not an appropriate or efficient indicator of environmental 
outcomes because MRLs are not developed to address this objective.  
6.  We note that in the most recent European Food Safety Authority, or  EFSA, opinion, the European 
competent authority on MRLs determined that existing EU MRLs did not pose a food safety risk for 
consumers. The US Environmental Protection Agency and Codex also completed science -based 
human health risk assessments confirming that existing MRLs above the limit of determination for 
clothianidin and thiamethoxam do not pose a food safety risk for consumers.  
7.  WTO Members rely on pesticide MRLs, including MRLs  established by Codex, to ensure food safety 
for consumers and to facilitate trade in agricultural products. The United States reminds the G/SPS/GEN/2146  
 
- 2 - 
 
  European Union  that the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues, or CCPR, confirmed in 2022 that 
consideration of envir onmental issues of global concern is not within its mandate and that 
environmental issues are not included in CCPR risk management principles.  
8.  The United States shares the EU concerns about pollinator health and is actively working to 
protect bees and othe r pollinators in the United States. We note the widely shared scientific 
understanding that complex interactions among multiple factors affect bee colony and wild pollinator 
health, including the presence of pests, pathogens, and diseases; pesticide use; p oor nutrition due 
to loss of foraging habitats and monoculture; bee management practices; and lack of genetic 
diversity.  
9.  The United States would again reiterate our concerns with the paucity of scientific evidence that 
the European Union  has provided thus far to demonstrate the relationship between the new 
regulation and the stated objective of protecting animal or plant life or health and protection of the 
environment in a manner that is no more trade restrictive than necessary.  
10.  The European Union  has not provided data demonstrating that the use of these substances at 
current MRL levels poses an actual risk to pollinators, either in the European Union  or globally. 
The studies cited only evaluate European production systems and a limited number of pollinator s 
found in Europe and do not take into account regional conditions, practices, and fauna in other parts 
of the world.  
11.  We therefore repeat our request that the European Union  provide robust scientific evidence and 
scientific justification that demonstrates how the reduction of these two pesticide MRLs contributes 
to protecting global pollinator health, the stated objective of the EU measure. Regardless of the 
transition period provided by the European Union, measures that are not technically justified should  
not be implemented by Members.  
12.  Global challenges require collaboration across the global community; unilateral approaches 
based on questionable and incomplete science may complicate or further delay meaningful progress 
on these pressing issues while unnec essarily affecting agricultural production and trade. In place of 
the EU regulation, the United States continues to welcome a collaborative approach to protecting 
pollinators and the opportunity to exchange resources, scientific expertise, and new ideas.  
 
__________