WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1 
10 December 2009 
 (09-6408) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
 
 
 
EFFECTS OF SPS-RELATED PRIVATE STANDARDS - 
COMPILATION OF REPLIES1 
 
Note by the Secretariat2 
 
Revision  
  1. In the context of the Committee's work on pr ivate standards and in accordance with the 
Committee's decision to undertake a comparative study on the effects of private SPS standards
3, the 
Secretariat circulated a Questionnaire on SPS -related Private Standards on 5 December 2008.4 
2. The Secretariat received a total of 40 re sponses to the questionnaire from 22 Members5 before 
a compilation of replies was circulated on 15 June 2009.6  This revised version of the compilation 
incorporates a number of comments from Members.  The individual responses to the questionnaire, including those received after the circulation of the compilation,
7 can be consulted through the WTO 
Members' website.8 
3. The level of detail and explanations provided in the responses varies significantly, making it 
difficult to undertake a statistical analysis based on th e replies.  In addition, some of the replies refer 
to public as well as private standards without di fferentiation while others provide examples of 
environmental or quality requirements going beyond SPS issues.  This makes it difficult to determine 
which trade effects can be attributed to private SPS requirements.  At the same time, the Secretariat is 
not in a position to verify the accuracy of the rep lies, some of which might be questioned by other 
Members.  Therefore, this compilation does not attempt to provide a comprehensive overview on 
private SPS standards but rather re flects the perceptions of the respondents to the questionnaire and 
highlights the main points emerging from the replies. 
4. Annex II of the report includes a table showing the individual replies provided to questions 1 
(HS Code and full description), 2 (main export mark et), 3 (entity imposing the standard), and 5 
(description of private standard).  The replies to  the other questions have not been included in 
                                                      
1 The title of this document has been modified in light of Members' comments.  The current title, 
referring to a "compilation of replies", reflects more accu rately the nature of this document than the original 
title, which referred to a "descriptive report". 
2 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. 
3 G/SPS/R/53, para. 132. 
4 G/SPS/W/232. 
5 Please see Annex I for a list of Members which have submitted responses to the questionnaire. 
6 G/SPS/GEN/932. 
7 Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago submitted resp onses after the circulation of the compilation.  
Argentina also provided additional information complementing its two original responses. 
8 Please click on this address: http://members.wto.org/WTO_ resources/SPS/SPS-Private-
Standards_tri.htm .  All responses are available in English and Span ish as these are the working languages of the 
30 Members participating in the ad hoc working group on private standards. G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1 
Page 2 
 
 
  Annex II as they are more descriptive and vary signifi cantly in length.  Interested Members can also 
access a compilation of most replies presented in an Excel sheet through the Members' website 
referred to above. 
5. A number of concerns regarding the effects of  private standards on exports of agricultural 
products have been raised in the responses.  So me Members have also unde rlined the positive and 
trade facilitating impact of private standards. 
6. Subsequent to the discussion of the compilation of replies, the SPS Committee's ad hoc 
working group on private standards has been c onsidering possible actions for the SPS Committee 
regarding private SPS standards on the basis of proposals from Members.9 
7. A short summary of the replies to each question is provided below. 
Question 1.  Product of export int erest affected by private standards 
 
8. The following products were most often identifie d as being affected by private standards:   
• Fresh fruit (HS Codes 0804, 0805, and 0810); 
• Fresh vegetables (HS Codes 0701 and 0710);  and 
• Fresh, chilled or frozen meat – both bovine  and poultry (HS Codes 0201 and 0207). 
Products that may be classified as fresh produce app ear to be most affected by private standards 
although examples of processed foods and value- added spices have also been provided.   
 
Question 2.  Main export markets  
9. This question asked Members to indicate the main export markets for the products identified, 
including but not limited to those where private st andards might be prevalent.  The replies indicate 
that the main markets of the concerned products are Australia, Canada, Japan, the member States of 
the European Union, and the United States of Ameri ca.  The member States of the European Union 
most referred to are Germany, Italy, the Nether lands, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.  Other 
markets that are mentioned by more than one Me mber in the responses include China, Switzerland, 
and the United Arab Emirates. 
Questions 3 and 4.  Retailer/company/private tr ader/entity imposing the private standard - 
Type of domestic businesses whose export s need to meet the private standards  
 
10. It appears that the primary entities imposing private standards are retailers such as 
supermarkets and hypermarkets, e.g. Marks and Spen cer's, Metro, Primus Labs, Tesco, and Wal-Mart.  
Although some replies have not mentioned specifi c entities imposing these standards, they have 
indicated that retailers in their major export mark ets impose private standards.  All types of businesses 
seem to be affected by private standards, incl uding small, medium and large-scale enterprises.  
Question 5.  Description of the relevant private standard(s) applied in each of the product's 
export markets  
11. The international schemes most mentioned in the responses are GLOBALGAP, ISO 9000, 
ISO 22000, and SQF (Safe Quality Food).  Many res ponses also refer to Hazard Analysis and Critical 
Contol Point (HACCP) requirements.  It is important to note that Codex has adopted Principles on 
                                                     
 
9 G/SPS/W/247.  G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  HACCP, as well as Guidelines for its Application, wh ile recognizing that the details of application 
may vary depending on the circumstances of the food operation.  Many national governments have 
also adopted mandatory HACCP requirements, ba sed on the Codex guidelines and principles, with 
respect to the production of various food products.  It is possible that the re ferences to HACCP in the 
replies relate to some of the private schemes and certification requirements which take HACCP as 
basis. 
12. The most frequently identified national sch eme setting requirements for purchasing is the 
British Retail Consortiums (BRC).  In their replies,  certain Members also make reference to export-
oriented initiatives such as Chile GAP, Kenya GAP, New Zealand GAP, and Swiss GAP, which are 
benchmarked against GLOBALGAP a nd aim to facilitate exports. 
13. As regards individual firm schemes, the replies al so vary greatly, but Tesco Nature's Choice is 
the most commonly cited retail scheme.  Private st andards applied by Aldi, Carrefour, Edeka/Netto, 
Heinz, Lidl, Marks and Spencer's, McDonald's, Metr o, Norma, Plus, Rewe, Tegut, and Tengelman are 
also cited. 
14. Some replies to this question make refe rence to private standards focusing on 
environmental/social issues (e.g. the Rainforest Allia nce) or to official government standards, which 
are not the focus of this study.  A possible explan ation for this is that, from the perspective of the 
producers, which have in most instances provided the inputs for the replies, what matters is the whole 
range of market access conditions, be they privat e or public, SPS- or environment-related.  Many 
exporters are unable to differentiate be tween private and public requirements. 
Question 6.  Content of the private standard  
 
15. Over two-thirds of the replies state that the sc ope of the content of the private standards is 
food safety, while other replies have also mentioned animal and plant health.  Social and 
environmental issues have also bee identified,  although these fall beyond the scope of the SPS 
Agreement and of this study. 
16. With respect to the date of entry into force of  relevant private standards, the replies vary 
extensively, although it appears that the phenomenon gathered momentum in the past five to ten 
years.  However, in some cases the identified privat e standards have been in existence since the early 
1990s.  It is pertinent to note that more than  twenty responses did not address this question. 
Question 7.  Relevant Codex, OIE, IPPC sta ndards (if any) for the products in question 
 
17. With respect to the relevant international sta ndards for the products in question, the detail 
provided in the replies vary greatly.  In a few ca ses, general references are made to Codex food safety 
standards, OIE animal health standards, or IPPC plan t health standards.  Less than half of the replies 
identify a relatively specific standard.  Overall, most  references are to Code x standards, followed by 
OIE standards.  Although there are a number of ge neral references to IPPC standards, no specific 
international standard for phytosanita ry measures has been identified. 
18. Among the Codex food safety "standards", those cited most often are related to HACCP 
requirements, maximum residue limits (MRLs) for pesticides, hygienic practices for meat and fresh fruits, testing laboratories, as well as commodity sp ecific standards such as those on bananas, olive 
oil, etc.  In this context, the replies of  Paraguay and Uruguay are particularly detailed. 
19. Six replies have made reference to OIE sta ndards although only three have provided more 
specific references.  These include Chapters 10.4.26 (inactivation of the avian flu virus) and 11.6 
(BSE) of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code, and animal welfare standards which are outside the 
scope of the SPS Agreement. G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1 
Page 4 
 
 
  20. At the same time, about a third of the repli es do not contain any information on whether there 
are any relevant international standards.  Some  responses indicate that producers, who provided the 
information, are simply not aware of international standards and focus on meeting the private standards in their export markets.  In other cases,  it is not clear whether there is no relevant 
international standard or whether th is information is simply lacking. 
Question 8.  Do the private standard(s) require ments for the product in question correspond to 
the relevant Codex, IPPC or OIE standard for that same product?  
21. About two-thirds of the replies indicate that at least some of the requirements of private 
standards exceed those of the relevant internati onal standards although only a third of these provide 
references to specific international stan dards.  The SPS-specific examples include: 
• more detailed and prescriptive operational proce dures, for example, compared to the Codex 
HACCP; 
• lower MRLs than those of Codex; 
• more demanding requirements regarding absence of  listeria in raw meat compared to Codex 
standards;  and 
• more restrictive requirements to demonstrate absence of  dura mater in matured and deboned 
beef compared to OIE standards. 
22. Four of the replies indicate that the private standards requirements for beef, fish and certain 
fresh fruits do not exceed those of the relevant inte rnational standards.  Five other replies do not 
contain specific information on this question.  On e specific example for cut flowers notes that most 
standards relate to socio-environmental issues and ar e therefore not comparable with the standards of 
Codex, OIE or the IPPC.  Such issues would also fall outside the scope of the SPS Agreement and of 
this study. 
23. One reply points to the positive role that pr ivate standards have had for beef and poultry 
products by addressing emerging risks (specific risk ma terials in beef and avian influenza in poultry) 
at an early stage.  These standards have assisted  exporters in maintaining access to certain markets 
while preventing the spread of diseases and have al so paved the way for the eventual adoption of 
international and national standards to address these risks. 
Questions 9 and 10.  Do the private standa rd requirements for the product in question 
correspond to the relevant official import  requirements for that same product? 
Do the private standard requirements for the pro duct in question correspond to official national 
regulatory requirements for that same product?  
24. About two thirds of the replies indicate that th e private standard requirements exceed official 
import requirements.  A number of examples cite MRLs for pesticides which are significantly lower 
than national requirements, which are themselves at  times more restrictive than MRLs set by Codex 
for the same products.
10  Other examples provided relate to hygiene requirements, traceability, 
HACCP requirements and the limited number of total substance residues accepted. 
25. Eight replies indicate that the private sta ndard requirements do not exceed official 
requirements, while two others do not respond to this question. 
                                                      
10 For example, Aldi, Plus-Edeka-Rewe-Metro group, Coop, Norma, Super de Boer, Kaufland, and  
Tengelmann.  G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
  26. The replies regarding a comparison between pr ivate standard requirements and official 
national regulatory requirements  of exporting Members follow a similar pattern to that found in 
Question 9.  In some cases, there is very lim ited or no national SPS requirements regarding these 
products in the exporting Members. 
Question 11.  Negative (trade inhibiting) effects of the private standard(s) on the export of a 
product 
27. Many responses indicate that compliance with priv ate standards is considered by exporters to 
be the prerequisite for exporting to a large number of developed country markets.  Those farmers and 
producers who cannot achieve compliance with private standards, even if they could meet official 
standards, are losing market access opportunities and tryi ng to switch to alternative markets, e.g. in 
Southeast Asia and the Middle East, where official  government standards still constitute the market 
access conditions. 
28. Certain retailers require very restrictive MRLs for pesticides, determined as a percentage of 
national MRLs, which are themselves at times more restrictive than MRLs set by Codex for the same 
products.  Such low MRLs result in the exclusion of  certain producers from the market even though 
they could meet the official or international re quirements. A number of replies indicate that such 
restrictive MRLs have neither scientific jus tification nor enhanced food safety outcomes for 
consumers. 
29. Most replies highlight concerns with the high costs of compliance, which are additional to 
what would be incurred to comply with official standards.  Some of these costs occur only initially 
and others on a regular basis.  Costs are incurred for initial studies, investment in infrastructure, 
external consultant fees for implementation, training , record-keeping, conduct of internal and external 
audits, annual certification fees, as well as required adaptations to changing requirements over time. 
30. While the cost of certification varies depending on the sector as well as the size and starting 
point of the farmers/producers, the examples provi ded indicate that the average annual certification 
fee may vary between US$2,000 to US$8,000 for a private standard (although some might also cover 
more than just SPS requirements).  Some of the replies also make reference to costly and time-
consuming private standard requirements for microbi ological and chemical analyses by laboratories 
accredited under ISO 17025 on Competence of Testing and Calibration Laboratories.  Most developing countries do not have accredited laboratori es and need to send samples abroad for testing.  
In addition, the scientific justificati on for this requirement is questioned. 
31. Concerns raised include the repeated annual certification requirements for firms with a good 
past record, as well as the non-transparent and inconsiste nt evaluations of certain auditors.  In general, 
certification is accepted only from subsidiaries of foreign enterprises, which are approved by the 
owner of the standard, and not from exis ting national and local certification bodies. 
32. Most responses indicate that compliance with  the private standards does not necessarily 
deliver a price premium despite the investments n eeded to obtain certification.  In addition, the 
absence of a logo or label for having achieved compliance (for example with GLOBALGAP) is seen as a disadvantage. 
33. Most respondents identify the multiplicity of pr ivate standards and the lack of harmonization 
among them, despite some benchmarking efforts, as one of the main difficulties with private 
standards.  This increases the complexity of require ments applicable in a certain sector as well as the 
compliance and certification costs.  The branding aspect of private standards was considered an 
obstacle against much-needed harmonization among them.  A related point raised is that the concept 
of "equivalence" in private standards is consid ered as an equivalence of processes and not of 
outcomes.  G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1 
Page 6 
 
 
  34. The Integrated Crop Management Assessment System in South Africa was described as a 
noteworthy effort on the supply-side to tackle the complexity of private standards.  This self-assessment tool compares different relevant private standards in a single checklist.  
35. Some replies indicate that the acceptance of "registered pesticid es" only constitute an obstacle 
for farmers/producers that rely on pesticides which ma y not be widely used and therefore not included 
on the list of registered pesticides. 
36. The replies point to a disproportionate effect on smallholders.  While large and medium-size 
international and national enterpri ses often manage to achieve compliance with private standards, 
smaller ones lack the necessary infrastructure and resources and may be driven out of the market.  
This seems to be particularly relevant for certain  commodities with export potential, such as exotic 
fruits, which are grown mainly by small-hol ders in developing country Members. 
37. The replies also highlight concerns about the lack  of transparency, the lack of involvement of 
exporters and other stakeholders in the private standard-setting process, and the lack of appeal 
procedures.  In particular, replies raise concerns  about the prescriptive nature of certain standards 
which might not be relevant or a pplicable in all circumstances. 
Question 12.  Positive (trade creating) effects of  the private standard(s) on the export of the 
product  
38. The replies acknowledge that those farmers/pr oducers who manage to comply with private 
standards maintain a stable presence in a number of major export markets and possibly expand their 
market share, while those who cannot are displaced.  Still, some replies note that the ability of more 
producers to meet private standard requirement s has enhanced competition and reduced ease of 
market access. 
39. Most replies also acknowledge that privat e standards may facilitate compliance with 
international standards, satisfy evolving consumer  demands and improve the safety and quality of the 
traded products even if there is no price premium.  They may also lead to more standardized farming, 
processing, and packaging activities, promoting pr oductivity and predictability.  In addition, 
compliance with private standards may improve a bra nd's reputation and facilitate access to credit and 
better stock market access quotation where applicable.  Private standards may offer product differentiation opportunities and access to niche mark ets. While it may not be directly linked to SPS 
issues, they may also contribute towards social and environmental goals. 
40. Two concrete positive examples were cited; one is FLO-CERT in Ecuador, which offers price 
premiums and a fund for workers.  The other is New Zealand GAP, a private sector initiative which has facilitated New Zealand's access to the intern ational market, as well as adaptation of certain 
prescriptive requirements of international priv ate standard schemes to local conditions. 
Question 13.  Information on recognition of co mpliance with the private standard(s) for the 
export product 
 
41. As noted above, national and local certification bodies are not normally involved in 
certification of compliance with private standards.  This is usually done by subsidiaries of foreign 
enterprises, which need to be approved by the owner of the standard. 
42. According to the replies, large, medium, and sometimes small-size establishments, manage to 
achieve compliance, although the results vary by Member and sector.  Some small-scale producers 
manage to obtain certification by forming associ ations and slaughtering animals in third-party 
slaughterhouses.  G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
  43. Very limited information is provided in the re plies regarding convergence and benchmarking 
trends among private standards. 
44. Information available to the Secretariat from other public sources point to two major schemes 
with benchmarking activity. 
45. Under the international scheme of GLOBALGA P, owners of good agricultural practice 
standards can seek to demonstrate equivale nce with GLOBALGAP through an independent 
benchmarking scheme. Australia, Brazil, Chile, Chin a, Colombia, Germany, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, 
New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tha iland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and 
Uruguay have national GAP schemes that are recogni zed as equivalent or seeking such recognition. 
46. Under the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI ), eight international retailers (Ahold, 
Carrefour, Delhaize, ICA, Metro, Migros, Tesco , and Wal-Mart) accept the GFSI benchmarking of 
seven major food safety schemes BRC, Dutch HACCP , Food Safety System Certification (FSSC), 
Global Red Meat Standard (GRMS), GLOBALGAP (food safety aspects for fruits and vegetables), 
International Food Standard (IFS), and Safe Qua lity Food (SQF)).  If a supplier has been certified 
under one of these food safety schemes, it does not have to be certified under the others to be able to 
supply any of the eight retailers (the concep t of "once certified, accepted everywhere"). 
Question 14.  Technical/financial assistance rec eived to assist compliance with the private 
standard(s) and from who (governme nt, standard setter, NGO, etc) 
47. More than half of the replies state that ther e was some kind of assistance provided to facilitate 
compliance with the private standards.  Govern ments of exporters, export promotion agencies, non-
governmental organizations, and international organizations are identified as entities providing 
support.  Reference is also made to third parties pr oviding assistance at a charge.  In a set of replies 
from Pakistan, it appears that support is obtained from projects funded by the Asian Development 
Bank.  One reply states that the cost to comply with the private standards was borne by the global 
supplier company. 
48. Most respondents do not indicate the kind of support provided to comply with private 
standards.  In about a quarter of the replies, the assistance provided appears to be monetary assistance.  
The next common mode of assistance appears to be  supplying information about the standards. 
Question 15.  What is the main concern regardi ng private standard(s) faced by your export 
product(s)?  
49. Replies referred to all aspects listed under this question, namely:  transparency, inclusiveness, 
predictability, harmonization, equivalence, scientific  justification, number of standards, costs of 
compliance and possibility to challenge  decisions of the standard-sette r or of the certification body.  
The most commonly raised concerns relate to th e number of standards imposed on a single product, 
the lack of harmonization, and the cost of compliance. G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1 
Page 8 
 
 
  Question 16.  Identify which, if any, provisions of the SPS Agreement are relevant with regard 
to the difficulties arising from the requirements of the private standard(s)  
50. The provisions most frequently cited are those concerning harmonization (Article 3), 
equivalence (Article 4), scientific  justification (Articles 5 and 6), and transparency (Article 7 and 
Annex B).  Some replies also indicate that paragrap h 1 of Article 1 on the scope of the Agreement, 
and Article 13 concerning impl ementation are applicable.  
51. In two replies, Article 10 (Special and Differen tial Treatment) is also mentioned.  Article 8, 
(Control, Inspection and Approval), Article 9 (Tech nical Assistance), and pa ragraph 1 of Annex A 
concerning the definitions of SPS measur es are each cited once in the replies. 
Question 17.  What practical steps have been/a re taken (or will be taken) with the export 
market to resolve the trade concerns posed by the private standard(s)? 
 
52. Respondents note that some governments and non-governmental organizations, as well as 
private initiatives, have taken steps to assist busin esses achieve compliance wi th private standards, 
which are considered to be the de facto entry requi rement for some markets.  The response from New 
Zealand refers to the possibility for certain ex porters/suppliers to seek exemptions from the 
requirements of some private standards if they can provide scientific rationale to the retailer operating 
the private standard.  However, this is depende nt on the relationship between the exporter/supplier 
and the retailer. 
Question 18.  What other issues does the product face on export markets in relation to the 
requirements established by privat e standards in those markets? 
 
53. Replies make reference to a number of issues already covered under other questions.  One 
issue that comes up a number of times is the difficulty arising from the use of veterinary drugs and 
pesticides that are not necessarily approved or regi stered in the import market; however, the replies 
are not specific as to whether this is related to  private standards and/or public standards. 
Question 19.  Are you aware of any private st andards imposed by your domestic businesses, 
private traders, etc.?  For which products?  For what reasons? Which Members are affected? Any concerns raised by foreign exporters? 
 54. Several respondents did not answer the qu estions about private standards imposed 
domestically in their territories.  An equal numbe r of respondents state they have no knowledge of 
domestically imposed private standards.  Chile, China, Guatemala, New Zealand, and South Africa, refer to the existence of private standards dom estically, mainly arising from the presence of 
multinational retailers in their markets.  G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1 
 Page 9 
 
 
  ANNEX I 
 
List of Members which have replied to th e Questionnaire SPS-related Private Standards  
(G/SPS/W/232 ) 
 
 
 Member Number of specific 
examples 
   
1. Argentina  2 
2. Belize  1 
3. Brazil  1 
4. Chile  1 
5. China 5 
6. Colombia  1 
7. Costa Rica  1 
8. Dominican Rep.  1 
9. Ecuador  2 
10. Egypt  1 
11. European Union  Comments 
12. Guatemala  1 
13. India  7 
14. Japan  Comments 
15. New Zealand  1 
16. Pakistan  6 
17. Paraguay  1 
18. South Africa 1 
19. Thailand  1 
20. Tunisia  1 
21. United States  1 
22. Uruguay  2 
 
 
  
  G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1 
Page 10 ANNEX II 
 
Summary table  
 
  1a.  HS number 1b.  Full 
description 2.  Main export 
market 3.  Entity imposing the 
private standard 5.  Description of private standard (int'l scheme/ 
nat'l scheme/ indivd'l firm scheme) 
1 Argentina – 
1 (a) 0201.30  
(b) 0202.30  
(c) 1602.50 (a) Meat of bovine 
animals, fresh or 
chilled, boneless. 
(b) Meat of bovine animals frozen, 
boneless.  
(c) Prepared or 
preserved meat of 
bovine animals USA All customers 
(importers/ distributors/ 
supermarkets) in the 
USA and EU. ISO 22000/ISO 65 (USA) / BRC (United Kingdom)/ 
The large firms surveyed have to certify with specific 
firms such as Heinz, McDona ld's (USA).  They also 
provide Kosher and Halal certification when requested by private firms.  
Small-scale producers report that they do not seek 
this type of certification owing to the high costs of 
implementing and subsequently maintaining it. 
2 Argentina – 
2 (a) 0805.50.10 
(b) 0805.40.00  (c) 0805.10.20  
(d) 0805.20.50  
(e) 0808.10.10  (f) 0808.20.10 (a) Lemons  
(b) Grapefruit  (c) Mandarins  
(d) Oranges 
(e) Apples  (f) Pears European Union Hypermarkets:  Aldi, 
Lidl, Rewe, Edka, Plus, Tesco, Norma.  
Retailers in the 
Netherlands, United Kingdom and Germany. GLOBALGAP/ - / Hypermarkets such as Aldi, 
Edeka/Netto, Lidl, Metro, Norma, Plus, Rewe, Tegut, and Tengelman.  
Small firms report that they do not have access to 
these retail chains. 
3 Belize 2009.11.10; 2009.21.30; 
2009.41.10; 2009.31.11; 2009.11.20; 2009.21.90; 
2009.11.20; 2009.21.90; 
1211.90.90; 1211.90.90; 3301.12.00; 3301.19.10; 
2309.90.90;   
2309.90.90;   1211.90.90 Straight or 
concentrated juice from orange or 
grapefruits or the 
by-products thereof. Final products are 
either packed in 
drums, bins or tankers Belgium, England, 
Germany, Holland,  Italy, Switzerland, 
UK, and USA 
In own region: Barbados, 
Dominican 
Republic, Guyana, Jamaica, and 
Trinidad Mainly retailers in 
Belgium, England, Germany, Holland,  
Italy, Switzerland, UK, 
USA Quality Management System -ISO 9001:2000, 
Environmental Management System ISO 14001, HACCP, SGF ( Sure Global Fair) – European 
Labelling standard, Kosher, AIJN/ - / - 
4 Brazil Animal and Plant 
Products Fresh, raw and 
processed. Some countries Retailers, wholesalers, 
private traders.  Agricultural Labelling, BRC (British Retail 
Consortium), Farm to Fork, , GLOBALGAP, Ranch  
Nature’s Choice, UFAS (Universal Feed Assurance 
Scheme), and others.  
   G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1
 Page 11  1a.  HS number 1b.  Full 
description 2.  Main export 
market 3.  Entity imposing the 
private standard 5.  Description of private standard (int'l scheme/ 
nat'l scheme/ indivd'l firm scheme) 
5 Chile - Fresh and processed 
fruit and vegetables 
for consumption Asia (China, 
Japan), European 
Union (United Kingdom, 
Germany, Spain, 
etc.), Latin America 
(Argentina, 
Colombia) and North America 
(United States of 
America, Mexico)  GAP standards: Primus 
Lab (USA);  Tesco 
supermarkets (UK);  Marks & Spencer;  Wal 
Mart supermarkets 
(USA), GMP standards:  British Retail 
Consortium (UK);  SQF 
2000, currently known as the world food safety 
standard. Good Agricultural Practi ces (GAP) Standards;  
protocols applied in the field:  Global Partnership for 
Good Agricultural Practices  (GlobalGAP);  Product 
Safety Enforcement Forum of Europe (Prosafe);  
Nature's Choice;  Safe  Quality Food (SQF). 
Good Manufacturing Prac tices (GMPs), Sanitation 
Standard Operating Pro cedures (SSOPs), Hazard 
Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP), ISO 
Standard 22.000:2005 (including: HACCP principles, Prerequisites programme (GMPs), Quality 
management system (ISO 9001:2000), Interactive 
communication)/ ChileGAP® is a private Good 
Agricultural Practices (GAPs) certification 
programme which was developed by the 
Fruit‑Growing Development Foundation 
(Fundación para el Desarrollo Frutícola, FDF) under 
a mandate from Chile's fruit and vegetable export industry and which harmonizes the most accepted 
GAP requirements in Europe and the US so domestic 
producers can promote the use of GAPs on their land with a view to accessing the major markets at 
minimum cost. 
6 China -1 19022000 Processed deep 
frozen food made of 
flour and rice cake. Deep frozen food 
made of flour : 
Japan,  
Rice cake :  some 
EU member States 
such as Italy, the 
Netherlands, Spain, and the UK. Deep frozen food made 
of flour:   Food Safety 
Co., Ltd. in Japan 
Rice cake:   ORLANDO in the Netherlands -/ Rice cake ：Collective national schemes/ Deep 
frozen food made of flour the total bacteria allowed 
should not exceed 3000 pieces per gram 
7 China -2  0808.1000  
0808.2012 
0808.2013 Apples, Ya pears, 
Hsueh pears and 
Xiang pears The European 
Union Retailers (Supermarkets 
in the EU) EurepGap,  upgraded to GLOBALGAP in 2007/ - /- 
8 China -3 02.03 and 02.07 Raw pork and 
chicken Japan and the EU Euro-Retailer Produce  
Working Group-EUREP GLOBALGAP to the fresh farm products/ BRC or 
IFS - to the processed products / TNC - the standards to supply to the Tesco supermarket  
  G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1 
Page 12   1a.  HS number 1b.  Full 
description 2.  Main export 
market 3.  Entity imposing the 
private standard 5.  Description of private standard (int'l scheme/ 
nat'l scheme/ indivd'l firm scheme) 
9 China -4 20081190, 1202200000, 
2008112000, 
1202109000 Processed; fried 
cashew, peanut with 
coat, fried peanut, peanut kernel, 
pinder, peanut 
kernel without peel Australia, Canada, 
the Netherlands, 
the EU and the US Companies such as Wal-
Mart Stores, 
Woolworth, MARS, Tesco COSHER, and HACCP/ BRC / Some private 
standards are individual firm schemes 
10 China -5 07103000, 0710809090, 
0712909090 , 
0710300000, 0714903090, 
0714909099, 
2004900090, 0710100000, 
0710290000, 070610, 
070310 Raw and processed; 
deep frozen 
vegetables and dried vegetables. Australia, the EU, 
Japan, South 
Korea, and the USA.  
America, Europe, 
Middle east Oceania, South 
East Asia,  Poseidon Trident, 
MacDonald’s, Heinz -/ EUREPGAP/ The private standards applied by 
Heinz 
11 Colombia Cape gooseberries 
(Physalis peruviana ):  
08.10.90.50.00, Purple passion fruit – gulupa 
(Passiflora edulis):  
08.10.90.10.00, Yellow passion fruit – maracuyá 
(Passiflora edulis):  
08.10.90.10.00, Granadilla (Passiflora 
ligularis):  
08.10.90.10.00, Tree tomatoes (tamarillo) 
(Cyphomandra betacea):  
08.10.90.30.00 - Belgium, France, 
Germany, the 
Netherlands, and  United Kingdom  
 Supermarkets Collective international schemes, applied in a 
number of countries/ Collective national schemes 
applied by one country to the fresh fruit and vegetable market/ Company specific schemes:  e.g. 
German supermarkets MRLs;  Permitted pesticides 
registers United Kingdom supermarkets 
12 Costa Rica 8030011 Banana Belgium, , 
Germany, Italy, 
Russia, Sweden, the United 
Kingdom, and the 
USA GLOBALGAP GLOBALGAP's certification system is applied the 
world over.  Anyone wishing to obtain the 
certification must apply the same standards, whatever the country. / - / -  
   G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1
 Page 13  1a.  HS number 1b.  Full 
description 2.  Main export 
market 3.  Entity imposing the 
private standard 5.  Description of private standard (int'l scheme/ 
nat'l scheme/ indivd'l firm scheme) 
13 Dominican 
Republic 0804.40 – Avocados;  
0804.50 – Organic 
Mangoes, fresh / Mangoes, fresh;  
0805.20 – Mandarins, 
fresh;  0709.60 – Peppers, fresh;  
0709.90.31 – Pumpkins, 
fresh;  0710.22.10 – Green Beans;  0710.80 – 
Aubergines;  1211.90.40 
– Chinese Bitter Melon;  
0709.90.90 – Other 
(Chinese okra) - Belgium, Canada, 
France, Germany, 
Holland, Italy, Japan, Norway, 
Spain, Sweden, 
Switzerland, UK, USA United Kingdom: Marks 
and Spencer, Tesco, 
Waitrose, Sainsbury's;  United States:  Primus 
Labs, Walmart;  Japan:  
Japanese Agricultural Standards (JAS) 
 EurepGAP, GLOBALGAP, EU 2092/91, Ethical 
Trading Initiative (ETI), National Organic Program 
(NOP-USDA); Japanese Agricultural Standards (JAS), Bio Suisse, Soil Association, Linking 
Environment and Farming (LEAF), Field to Fork, 
Tesco Nature's Choice (TNC). Standards applied: Good Agricultural Practices 
(GAPs), Good Manufactur ing Practices (GMPs), 
Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SSOPs), Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP)/ 
The Dominican Republic has set up a Department of 
Food Safety which prepares guides to GAPs and 
GMPs and takes steps to ensure compliance with the 
standards./ - 
14 Ecuador -1 - Banana, Mango, 
Pineapple Germany 
European Union - European Union:  GLOBALGAP/ Japan:  JAS;  
United States:  NOP/ - 
15 Ecuador -2 0603 Cut flowers, fresh 
(roses, gypsophila, 
carnations, 
chrysanthemums, tropical flowers, 
proteas, etc.) Germany, 
Netherlands, 
Russia, USA Variable, according to 
the standard.  In 
Ecuador, there are many 
private standards for flowers FLO-CERT;  GLOBALGAP/ Rain Forest alliance 
(USA);  VERIFLORA (USA);  MPS (Netherlands);  
FLP (Germany)/ -  
16 Egypt Fresh fruit and 
vegetables - (0701-
0703-0708-0710-0711-
0712-0713-0803-0804-0805-0806-0809-0810-
0811-0813) Processed 
fruit and vegetables (2009-2007) Olive oil 
(1509) Confectionery 
(1704-1806-1905) - Austria, the 
Netherlands,, 
Switzerland, UK, 
USA GLOBALGAP, British 
Retail Consortium, 
Tesco, Metro Cash & 
Carry   Global GAP;  ISO;  HACCP/ BRC / Tesco Natural 
choice;  Metro Cash & Carry 
17 European Union General remarks  
  G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1 
Page 14   1a.  HS number 1b.  Full 
description 2.  Main export 
market 3.  Entity imposing the 
private standard 5.  Description of private standard (int'l scheme/ 
nat'l scheme/ indivd'l firm scheme) 
18 Guatemala Snow Peas 0708.10.00, 
French Beans 
0708.20.00, Loquats 08.10, Strawberries 
0910.10.00, 
0810.20.00, Peached 2008.70.00, Lettuce 
07.05, Carrots 07.06, 
Balsam apples 0709.90.30, Taro Root 
0714.90.10, Chinese 
Okra and thai Okra 
0709.90.40  Fresh products France, Spain, 
United Kingdom 
United States,  Firms exporting the 
products require these 
standards of producers, most of whom are 
smallholders. 
(GLOBALGAP) GLOBALGAP / - / - 
19 India-1 Cashew Kernels 
08013200 20081910 
 Processed Europe, Japan, 
Middle East,  USA etc.  Company / retailer HACCP, GMP, ISO 9000, ISO 22000/ - / - 
20 India -2 Curries (with chillies 
& turmeric) 09105000 Curry; value added 
spice Australia, Europe, 
Scandinavia, USA  European Union & 
USFDA Colourants – European Union;  Aflatoxin – European 
Union;  Pesticide residues  -  European Union;  
Allergens – Products exported to Europe, US & 
Australia should be free from allergens./ - / -   
21 India – 3 Turmeric 0910 3030 Turmeric powder; 
value added spice Asia, Australia, 
Europe, 
Scandinavia, USA  European Union & 
USFDA Colourants – European Union;  Aflatoxin – European 
Union;  Pesticide residues  -  European Union;  
Allergens – Products exported to Europe, US & 
Australia should be free from allergens./ - / -   
22 India – 4 Chillies 09042010, 
09042020 Chilli whole, Chilli 
powder; value 
added spice Asia, Australia, 
Europe, 
Scandinavia, USA European Union & 
USFDA Colourants – European Union;  Aflatoxin – European 
Union;  Pesticide residues  -  European Union;  
Allergens – Products exported to Europe, US & 
Australia should be free from allergens./ - / -   
23 India – 5 09081010-in shell 
(Nutmeg)  09081020- 
Shelled (Nutmeg) value added spice Asia, Australia, 
Europe, 
Scandinavia, USA European Union & 
USFDA Colourants – European Union;  Aflatoxin – European 
Union;  Pesticide residues  -  European Union;  
Allergens – Products exported to Europe, US & 
Australia should be free from allergens./ - / -    
   G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1
 Page 15  1a.  HS number 1b.  Full 
description 2.  Main export 
market 3.  Entity imposing the 
private standard 5.  Description of private standard (int'l scheme/ 
nat'l scheme/ indivd'l firm scheme) 
24 India – 6 09041200, 09109100, 
09092000 Spices powders and 
Spice Mixes 
(Masalas); integrated spices - Private traders  ISO 22000, HA CCP/ EIA, Spices Board/ -  
25 India – 7 0302 33 00, 03 03 32 
00  Frozen Skipjack 
Tuna Whole round, Frozen Yellowfin 
Tuna Gutted Tunisia, Turkey Retailer -/ - / Test results on analysis of Microbiological, 
Chemical or Honey Comb issued by accredited Laboratories are often required 
26 Japan No significant effect of private SPS standards    
27 New Zealand 07 03 10 01 00 Onions ( Allium 
cepa ) – raw European Union 
(Belgium, 
Germany, United 
Kingdom) Retailers Good Agricultural Practice (GAP);  GlobalGAP/ 
New Zealand GAP (based on: GAP, HACCP 
(Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) and the 
ISO 9002 quality management system.)/ Individual retailer schemes.  For example German supermarket 
standards for maximum residue levels (MRLs). 
28 Pakistan -1  Onion 0712. 2000  Raw Kuwait, Malaysia, 
Singapore, Sri Lanka, UAE  Retailers, Chain stores 
like Metro, Makro, Wal-Mart, Tesco, etc GlobalGAP, ISO 22000:2005/ BRC / -  
29 Pakistan – 2 Potato 0710. 1000  Raw Kuwait, Malaysia, 
Singapore, Sri Lanka, UAE Retailers, Chain stores 
like Metro, Makro, Wal-Mart, Tesco, etc GlobalGAP, ISO 22000:2005/ BRC / -  
30 Pakistan – 3 Dates 0804. 1010  Raw France, Germany, 
India, Sri Lanka, 
UAE, UK  Retailers, Chain stores 
like Metro, Makro, Wal-
Mart, Tesco, etc GlobalGAP, ISO 22000:2005/ BRC / -  
31 Pakistan – 4 Mango 0804. 5020  Raw Afghanistan, 
Bahrain, Belarus, 
Canada, Denmark, Germany,  Hong 
Kong, Indonesia, 
Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, 
Mauritius, 
Netherlands, Norway, Oman 
Philippine, Qatar, 
Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, 
Sri Lanka, UAE, 
UK, and Ukraine   Retailers, Chain stores 
like Metro, Makro, Wal-
Mart, Tesco, etc GlobalGAP, ISO 22000:2005/ BRC / -   
  G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1 
Page 16   1a.  HS number 1b.  Full 
description 2.  Main export 
market 3.  Entity imposing the 
private standard 5.  Description of private standard (int'l scheme/ 
nat'l scheme/ indivd'l firm scheme) 
32 Pakistan – 5 Mandarin (Kinnow) 
0805. 2010  Raw Afghanistan, 
Bahrain, Belarus, 
Canada, Denmark, Germany,  Hong 
Kong, Indonesia, 
Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, 
Mauritius, 
Netherlands, Norway, Oman 
Philippine, Qatar, 
Russia, Saudi 
Arabia, Singapore, 
Sri Lanka, UAE, UK, and Ukraine   Retailers like Metro, 
Makro, Wal-Mart, 
Tesco, etc GlobalGAP, ISO 22000:2005/ BRC / -  
33 Pakistan -6 0805.2010, 0804.5020, 
0804.1010, 0710.1000 
0712.2000, 07.08, 07.09 Kinnow, mango, 
dates, potato, onion 
and other vegetables Afghanistan, 
Bahrain, Belarus, 
Canada, Denmark, Germany,  Hong 
Kong, Indonesia, 
Iran, Kuwait, 
Malaysia, 
Mauritius, Netherlands, 
Norway, Oman 
Philippine, Qatar, Russia, Saudi 
Arabia, Singapore, 
Sri Lanka, UAE, UK, and Ukraine   Retailers like Metro, 
Makro, Wall mart, 
Tesco, etc GlobalGAP, ISO 22000:2005/ BRC / -   
   G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1
 Page 17  1a.  HS number 1b.  Full 
description 2.  Main export 
market 3.  Entity imposing the 
private standard 5.  Description of private standard (int'l scheme/ 
nat'l scheme/ indivd'l firm scheme) 
34 Paraguay 1202.20.90 
(Groundnuts Shelled, 
Common Grain);  1201.00.90 (Soybean 
seeds);  1701.10.00 
(Soybean Oil, Crude);  15.07.90.00 (Soybean 
Oil, refined);  
1204.40.90 (Sesame Seeds);  5201.00.20 
(Cotton, Ginned);  
5203.00.00 (Cotton 
Carded or Combed);  
1701.11.00 (Sugar, Raw);  1701.99.00 
(Sugar, Refined) Sesame seeds 
(organic); 
groundnut seeds (organic); cotton 
fibre (organic); 
organic sugar; soybean seeds, 
soybean oil Chiefly Japan, EU, 
and  USA Company/private trader ISO 22.000, adjustment in process;  European 
ecosocial standards (for sesame and soybeans), SA 
8000, social accountability;   ANEC 41 and 71, commercial quality;  FOSFA 51, commercial quality/ 
- / Some firms apply certification 
35 South Africa All fruit (stone, pome, 
table grapes) - Primarily EU 
(particularly UK and the 
Netherlands/ 
Germany/ plus 
other) and non-EU 
European countries, 
including Norway, 
Switzerland, Russia/ other; 
Middle and Far 
East countries/ Asian and African 
countries. Smaller 
volumes to special export markets 
requiring pest-risk 
assessment and specific 
phytosanitary 
protocols to gain market access, i.e. 
USA; Israel and All major and medium 
size retailers, mainly in the UK and other EU 
countries, including 
service providers to 
retailers i.e. Importers. 
More recently Walmart, a retailer in the USA. GlobalGAP; BRC (renamed Global Standard for 
Food Safety); SQF; ISO 22000; HACCP; ETI (Sedex); BSCI; SA 8000;  Fairtrade; FLOCERT/ 
other;  Tesco Nature’s Choice; Field to Fork – (UK 
retailer schemes); Fruitnet – (Belgium retailer 
scheme),  applied internationally in a number of 
countries./ LEAF (UK); Bench-marked GlobalGAP standards ie. ChileGAP; KenyaGAP;  SwissGAP; 
NZ GAP; Assured Produce (UK); QS (Germany) / 
Fruitnet; Tesco Nature’s Choice; Field to Fork; Multiple private standard retailer/ company 
chemical/ residue-reduction schemes  
  G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1 
Page 18   1a.  HS number 1b.  Full 
description 2.  Main export 
market 3.  Entity imposing the 
private standard 5.  Description of private standard (int'l scheme/ 
nat'l scheme/ indivd'l firm scheme) 
China for table 
grapes; USA for 
stone and pome fruit (excluding 
apricots) and 
Chinese Taipei for apples. 
36 Thailand Fresh poultry meat 
0207, Fully cooked poultry products 1602 
(Poultry meat = 
chicken and duck) Frozen seafood and 
value added seafood, Ready to 
cook and Ready to 
eat Australia, Japan, 
USA Retailers/Companies, 
Importers, Traders   -/ -/ - 
37 Tunisia Fresh or chilled fish 
03 02 
Frozen fish 03 03 Fish fillets 03 04 
Live bivalve molluscs 
03 07 In the case of 
fisheries products, 
chilled or frozen or processed; in the 
case of live bivalve 
molluscs,  live. Cyprus, France, 
Germany, Greece, 
Italy, and Spain  The European 
Commission Collective international schemes (some schemes are 
applied in a number of countries)/ - / -  
38 United States Beef (all) and 
processed poultry 
meat. - EU, Japan, 
Mexico, and USA - For beef:  Individual firm scheme standards that 
required the removal of Specified Risk Materials 
(SRM); prohibition on the use of nonambulatory 
cattle;  and separate equipment for removal of SRM 
vs. edible tissue. 
For poultry:  Processing temperatures (development 
of an international standard (70° C for 3.5 sec) to 
inactivate the AI virus;  on-farm biosecurity 
standards;  These private standards pre-dated certain 
National and OIE Terrestrial Code specifications. 
39 Uruguay – 1 Fresh, chilled or frozen 
meat 0201.10, 0201.20, 0201.30, 
0202.10, 0202.30 Meat of bovine 
animals, fresh, chilled or frozen, 
boneless or with 
bone in A number of beef -
importing 
countries Retailers, companies, 
private traders Yes/ Yes / Yes  
   G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1
 Page 19  1a.  HS number 1b.  Full 
description 2.  Main export 
market 3.  Entity imposing the 
private standard 5.  Description of private standard (int'l scheme/ 
nat'l scheme/ indivd'l firm scheme) 
40 Uruguay – 2 Citrus Fruit Fresh 
Lemons Citrus Limon 
0805500000 ; Citrus Fruit Fresh Oranges 
0805100000; Citrus 
Fruit fresh Mandarins  0805200000 ; Citrus 
Fruit Fresh Grapefruit 
0805400000; Cranberries:  
0810400000 (Fresh 
Blueberries); Fresh 
Apples 0808100000; 
Fresh Pears 0808201000; Fresh 
Peaches 0809301000; 
Fresh Grapes 0806100000  Fresh fruit, packed 
in boxes or bins;  
waxed/disinfected. European Union 
(main destinations 
Netherlands, Germany, Spain, 
United Kingdom, 
Portugal, Italy), other European 
countries, United 
States, Russian Federation, 
Canada, Asian 
markets (mainly 
Saudi Arabia, 
United Arab Emirates and 
China) and 
countries of our own region 
(mainly Brazil).  In 
2008 these destinations 
accounted for over 
90% of export volume. Mainly retailers and 
their supplier 
companies. GLOBALGAP/ BRC, Fair Trade, SA8000, 
USAGAP/ A number of companies apply the Tesco 
Nature's Choice, Marks & Spencer or Carrefour 
Qualité Filiere protocols 
 
__________