RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/247 
20 October 2009 
 (09-5167) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
 
 
 
POSSIBLE ACTIONS FOR THE SPS COMMITTEE REGARDING  
PRIVATE SPS STANDARDS  
 
Note by the Secretariat1 
 
 1. The SPS Committee has been discu ssing the issue of private SPS standards since June 2005, 
when Saint Vincent and the Gren adines raised a specific trade c oncern regarding EurepGAP (now 
called GLOBALGAP) requirements for banan as destined for sale in the United Kingdom.
2  Since then 
this issue has been on the agenda of every SPS Committee meeting.3 
2. In an effort to bring more structure and concrete examples to its discussions on private 
standards, the SPS Committee decided in October 20 08 to undertake a three-step study on the effects 
of private SPS standards.4  
3. As the first step of this process, the Secr etariat circulated a Questionnaire on SPS-related 
Private Standards on 5 December 2008.5  The questionnaire sought information from Members 
regarding products and markets of concern, the rele vant private and international standards, trade 
effects, costs of compliance and a number of related elements. 
4. As the second step, a descriptiv e report summarizing the information contained in the 40 
responses received from 22 Members was circulated on 15 June 2009.6  The individual responses, 
including responses received after the circulation of the descriptive report7, can be consulted through 
the WTO Members' website.8  Most of the responses reiterate d a number of concerns regarding 
private standards, which had already been rais ed on various occasions at the Committee.  Some 
responses also underlined the positive and trade facilitating impact of private standards.   
5. The descriptive report was discussed during the SPS Committee's meetings held in June 2009.  
In addition, a number of Members submitted writte n comments on the descriptive report following the 
Committee meetings.  While some Members found the report to be an useful basis for the 
Committee's deliberations, others raised concerns a bout the limitations of the report, especially with 
regard to the accuracy, precision and scope of some  of the data provided in the replies to the 
                                                      
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/GEN/766; specific trade concern no: 219. 
3 A list of all SPS Committee documents referring to private standards can be found in Annex 1. 
4 G/SPS/R/53, para. 132. 
5 G/SPS/W/232. 
6 G/SPS/GEN/932. 
7 Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago submitted responses after the circulation of the descriptive report. 
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 SPS Committee's ad hoc working group on private standards. G/SPS/W/247 
Page 2 
 
 
  questionnaire.  For example, some replies were f ound to be very general and lacking specificity and 
others went beyond SPS issues to include references to  quality, environmental, and social standards.  
6. As the third step, the Secretariat was requested  to prepare an analytical report, identifying 
possible actions by the SPS Committee and/or Members.   In light of the concerns raised regarding 
some of the examples in the descriptive report, this draft report does not purport to provide a 
substantive analysis of the matter but rather focu ses on possible actions that could be taken by the SPS 
Committee and/or Members to enhance the benefits  of private standards and address their negative 
effects on market access, especially for producers/ exporters in developing countries.  The report 
draws upon the Committee's discussions to date on this topic, Members' and observers' specific 
written contributions, and the descriptive re port, keeping in mind its limitations. 
7. This draft report will be discussed during the SPS Committee's meetings on 28-29 October 
2009.  It will then be revised further in light of the Committee's discussions, any subsequent written 
submissions from Members, and further informatio n from the three international standard-setting 
bodies referenced in the SPS Agreem ent ("the three sisters"), in particular Codex and the OIE. 
POSSIBLE ACTIONS 
8. The recommendations below have been compiled in  light of Members' and observers' oral and 
written inputs on this topic.  Some of them fo cus on practical approaches for the Committee to 
address concerns raised regarding private standards.  Others address systemic and legal questions.  At 
this stage, the recommendations are in no particular order of importance, priority, or acceptability.  It 
should be noted, however, that the outcome on some of them could be regarded as a precondition for 
the pursuit of others.  
9. The SPS Committee can only take decisions by con sensus.  Therefore, there will need to be 
agreement by the Committee to pursue any of these recommendations. 
Recommendation 1 :  SPS Committee to develop a working definition of private SPS standards 
10. It is apparent from the discussions in the WT O and from the literature on this issue that 
private standards play an increasingly important role  in international trade and pose new challenges as 
well as opportunities for producers and exporters.  They can cover safety, quality, social and 
environmental issues and affect a wide range of products. 
11. Given its mandate, the SPS Committee is tryi ng to focus its discussions on private SPS 
standards, most of which are currently in the ar ea of food safety.  However, some Members have 
expressed concerns that the discussions are digressing  to issues beyond private SPS standards.  One of 
the reasons for this is that some private standa rds, such as GLOBALGAP, cover food safety as well as 
other requirements, making it more difficult to  single out the SPS requirements and determine 
whether any trade effects can be attributed directly to these.  At the same time, producers/exporters do 
not necessarily focus on the distinction between SPS versus TBT measures or public versus private 
standards, but rather on whether they are able to fulfill the totality of the requirements imposed by the 
importer.  
12. Some Members have proposed that the Committe e develop a definition of SPS-related private 
standards and limit its discussion to these.  For this purpose, a working definition could refer to "any 
private standard applied to fulfill one of the four objectives stated in Annex A, paragraph 1 of the SPS 
Agreement.".  G/SPS/W/247 
 Page 3 
 
 
  13. More specifically, given the differing ownership structures of private standards,9 the working 
definition could refer to "any private standard ela borated at the firm-level, at the collective national 
level, or at the international le vel, which is applied to fulfill one of the four objectives stated in 
Annex A, paragraph 1 of the SPS Agreement.". 
14. As elaborated in the paper on private sta ndards prepared for the FAO/WHO for discussion 
during the 32nd Codex Alimentarius Commission10, it is also useful to distinguish between different 
functions that are implicated in private standa rd schemes;  i.e. standard-setting, adoption, 
implementation, conformity assessment and enforc ement.  Therefore, when discussing private 
standards, it would be useful to clarify that th e focus of the SPS Committee could cover all five 
functions, each of which might pose different challenges. 
Recommendation 2 :  SPS Committee to work with other international organizations to prepare 
a guidebook explaining the differences between public and private standards 
15. The responses to the Secretariat's questionnaire re vealed that not all producers might be aware 
of the differences between public and private SPS standa rds.  Therefore, it has been suggested that the 
SPS Committee work with other international organiza tions to prepare a guide for growers, shippers, 
importers, and retailers.  Such a guide would ex plain the difference between governmental SPS 
standards and private SPS standards. 
Recommendation 3 :  SPS and TBT Committees to develop a joint working group 
16. In view of the intertwined nature of SPS a nd TBT-related requirements in certain private 
standards, a joint SPS/TBT working group could be established to monitor developments and focus on 
common concerns. 
17. There has thus far been limited discussion on the issue of private standards in the TBT 
Committee.  During the March 2009 TBT Workshop on  the Role of International Standards in 
Economic Development, several participants expressed  concerns about the proliferation of private 
standards that could result in unnecessary barriers to  trade and create confusion in the market place.11  
In the context of the Fifth Triennial Review of  the TBT Agreement, which is expected to be 
concluded in November 2009, the issue of priv ate standards has been raised for discussion.12  What 
future action, if any, the TBT Committee may agree to take on this topic is not yet clear.   
Recommendation 4 :  SPS Committee to hold periodic meetings with entities involved in private 
SPS standards 
18. Members have raised a number of concerns regarding private SPS standards, including: 
• the multiplicity of standards and th e lack of harmonization among them; 
• deviations from international standards or from official governmental requirements (for 
example, for maximum residue limits); 
• the costs of compliance and certification, especially with a multitude of standards; 
• the lack of transparency, consultation and appeal mechanisms; 
                                                      
9 G/SPS/GEN/746, paras. 3-8. 
10 ALINORM 09/32/9D-Part II:  The Impacts of Private Food Safety Standards on the Food Chain and 
on the Public Standards-Setting Process, paper prepared for FAO/WHO by Spencer Henson and John 
Humphrey. 
11 G/TBT/W/310, para. 63. 
12 G/TBT/W/318. G/SPS/W/247 
Page 4 
 
 
  • the prescriptive, rather than outcome-based, operational procedures required by private 
standards;  and  
• the disproportionate effect on small- and medi um-sized producers/exporters in developing 
countries. 
19. A number of positive aspects have also been highlighted, including: 
• the facilitation of compliance with national a nd international standards, whereby private 
schemes take as a basis these standards and provide comprehensive guidance on achieving them; 
• the promotion of best-practices and productivity; 
• improved brand reputation a nd facilitation of access to markets and credits;  and 
• the ability to address emerging risks in a ra pid manner and pave the way for eventual 
adoption of international standards. 
20. While a number of Members would like to see  the SPS Committee play a formal role in 
addressing concerns related to private standards, others are of the view that it is not for the 
governments of Members to interfere in the private contractual relations of firms, except when these 
result in deceptive practices or distortions of competition. 
21. One practical approach the SPS Committee may pursue would be to hold periodic theme-
based meetings with all relevant stakeholders , including international organizations;  entities 
developing, adopting and certifying private standard s;  as well as producers and/or exporters who 
need to meet these standards.  To underline their practical nature, such meetings could be held as 
information sessions back-to-back with SPS Committ ee meetings.  They could assist in exchanging 
information regarding best practices and specific problems faced by exporters. 
22. For example, the Global Food Safety Initiativ e (GFSI) could be invited to provide the 
Committee with an update on the number of firms an d private food safety standards involved in their 
"once certified, accepted everywhere" initiative, on  the development and implementation of the 
scheme, and on the recently launched Food Safety K nowledge Network (together with Michigan State 
University), which aims to build food safety capacity in developing countries.  
23. GLOBALGAP could be invited to present an update on their work, including their global 
consultation mechanisms and on th eir partnership with GFSI.  
24. Another meeting could focus on the experience of export-oriented initiatives such as Chile 
GAP and New Zealand GAP. 
Recommendation 5
:  SPS Committee, Codex, the OIE, and the IPPC to update each other 
regularly regarding developments in thei r respective bodies on private standards 
25. One of the concerns raised regarding privat e SPS standards has been that they sometimes 
deviate from international standards set by the three si sters.  For example, in the area of food safety, 
some retail schemes have been identified as having MRLs which are more restrictive than those set by 
the Codex.  In the area of animal health, examples  of private standards with more trade-restricting 
BSE requirements than those of the OIE have been provided.  Given the interlinkages between private 
SPS standards and the standards developed by the sisters, the SPS Committee should liaise regularly 
with the sisters regarding this issue.   G/SPS/W/247 
 Page 5 
 
 
  26. The Codex Alimentarius Commission considered the issue of private standards during its 32nd 
session held in July 2009.13  A paper commissioned by the FAO and the WHO regarding the impact 
of private food safety standards on the food chain and on the public standard-setting process was also 
presented during the session.14  The Commission was of the opinion that Codex standards should be 
benchmarks for private food safety standards and ag reed to monitor developments in the WTO and 
work in cooperation with the OIE and the IPPC to consult on a common position on this matter.  The 
Commission also agreed that a study be conducted to  analyze the role, cost, and benefits of private 
standards for consideration by the Executive Committ ee and the Commission.  In addition, the Codex 
Secretariat was asked to prepare an  analysis of the speed of the Co dex standard-setting process, as this 
had been identified as one of the possible reas ons for the emergence of private standards. 
27. OIE members adopted a resolution regarding the implication of private standards in 
international trade of animals and animal products in May 2008.15  This resolution asks the Director 
General of the OIE, among others, "to work w ith relevant public and private international 
organizations with the objective that concerns of  Members are taken into consideration and that 
private standards, where used, are consistent with and do not conflict those of the OIE.". 
28. The OIE Secretariat has provided regular updates to the SPS Committee and submitted a 
document entitled "Considerations Relevant to Privat e Standards in the Field of Animal Health, Food 
Safety, and Animal Welfare".16  Also, an OIE ad hoc working grou p has been established to consider 
private standards in the area of an imal health and welfare.  This  group will meet in October 2009 to 
review the results of a questionnaire sent to Me mbers and relevant organizations and prepare 
recommendations for future action by the OIE, which will be reviewed by the Code Commission in 
February 2010.  The report of the Code Commissi on will be considered by the World Assembly in 
May 2010, which is when any recommendations would be adopted. 
29. There has thus far been limited discussion of private standards at the IPPC. 
Recommendation 6 :  SPS Committee to develop a transp arency and/or monitoring mechanism 
regarding private standards 
30. Transparency is one of the key principles of the SPS Agreement, requiring Members to notify 
their new or modified SPS measures while they are in draft form so that others Members have an 
opportunity to comment on them and producers/exporters  have time to adapt their production and/or 
processing methods as necessary.  One of the concer ns raised regarding private SPS standards has 
been that there are limited opportunities to provi de comments during the development of private 
standards and that it is very difficult to have an ove rview of the plethora of private standards.  Some 
Members have proposed a transparen cy mechanism through the SPS Comm ittee.  If this proposal is to 
be pursued, it would have to be clarified which en tities would have the responsibility to notify, what 
form notifications would take, and what status they would have. 
31. A similar proposal is for the SPS Committee to take on a monitoring role regarding private 
standards.  This might not rely on notifications as such but on inputs from Members, Observers, and 
the Secretariat regarding developments in the ar ea of private standards, including harmonization 
efforts and technical assistance programmes.  It c ould also provide a forum to raise specific trade 
                                                      
13 ALINORM 09/32/REP, paras. 246-271. 
14 ALINORM 09/32/9D-Part II (The Impacts of Priv ate Food Safety Standards on the Food Chain and 
on the Public Standards-Setting Process, Paper prepared for FAO/WHO by Spencer Henson and John 
Humphrey. 
15 Resolution No. XXXII 
16 G/SPS/GEN/822. G/SPS/W/247 
Page 6 
 
 
  concerns related to private SPS standards.  One po ssibility is that the current agenda item on private 
standards could serve this monitoring function to a certain extent. 
Recommendation 7 :  SPS Committee to seek clarificatio n as to whether the SPS Agreement 
applies to private SPS standards 
32. A number of factors have led to the proliferation of private standards and associated 
certification requirements.  These include the high profile of a number of food safety scares and reduced confidence in regulatory agencies;  lega l requirements on companies to demonstrate "due 
diligence" in the prevention of food safety risk s;  growing attention to "corporate social 
responsibility" and a drive by companies to minimize "reputational risks";  gl obalization and vertical 
integration of supply chains;  and the expansion of supermarkets nationall y and internationally. 
33. The SPS Agreement was negotiated during the Uruguay Round (1986-1994) as part of the 
Single Undertaking.  At the time, one of the main co ncerns of the negotiators was to ensure that the 
expected reduction of tariffs and e limination of quantitative restrictions would not be circumvented by 
governments through the use of protectionist me asures disguised as sanitary or phytosanitary 
measures.  The proliferation of private SPS standard s, due mainly to the factors listed above, had not 
been anticipated and no explicit reference to "priva te standards" is included in the text of the 
Agreement. 
34. Currently, Members have differing views as to whether the SPS Agreement applies to private 
standards.  Article 1.1 states th at the Agreement applies to "all
 sanitary and phytosanitary measures 
which may, directly or indirectly, affect intern ational trade" (emphasis added) without explicitly 
limiting this application to SPS meas ues taken by government authoriti es.  Likewise, the definition of 
an SPS measure in Annex A(1) and the accomp anying illustrative list of SPS measures does not 
explicitly limit these to governmental measures.  On the other hand, other provisions of the SPS 
Agreement explicitly refer to measures "taken" (Article  2.1), "established" (Article 5.6), "maintained" 
(Articles 2.2 and 5.6) or "adopted" (Article 5.7) by Members.  It is also not clear whether the 
certification requirements necessary to demonstrate compliance with private standards would be 
within the scope of Article 8 and Annex C of the Agreement.  
35. Article 13 has been brought up numerous times in Committee discussions.  The Article reads:  
"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 
Agreement by other than central governm ent 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 shall 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) 
36. Currently, there is no further guidance on Arti cle 13 and Members have differing views as to 
whether "non-governmental entities" re ferred to therein includes entiti es involved in the development, 
adoption, implementati on, certification, and enforcem ent of private standards.    G/SPS/W/247 
 Page 7 
 
 
  37. The SPS Committee could pursue further work in  clarifying the relationship between private 
standards and the SPS Agreement.  This work coul d be based on specific written submissions from 
Members, which could be based on their own legal vi ews or views developed by a private legal entity.  
Alternatively, the Committee could instruct the Secr etariat to seek a legal opinion on this question from 
a qualified private legal entity, for consideration by the Committee.   
38. If Members reach consensus on a decision, for ex ample clarifying the scope of Article 13, it 
could be forwarded to the Council for Trade in Goods and eventually to the General Council and/or the 
Ministerial Conference for formal a doption.  This work could be unde rtaken in the context a periodic 
review of the Agreement.  In accordance with Arti cle 12.7 of the SPS Agreement and the decision of the 
Fourth Session of the Ministerial Conference, Members are instructed to review the operation of the SPS 
Agreement at least once every four years.   
39. Article 12.7 states that "Where appropriate, the Committee may submit to the General Council 
for Trade in Goods proposals to amend th e text of this Agreement having regard, inter alia , to the 
experience gained in its implementation.".  Unlike an agreement on the clarification of a particular 
provision, any formal amendment of the text of the SPS Agreement would presumably need to be 
pursued in accordance with Article X of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade 
Organization. 
Recommendation 8 :  SPS Committee to develop guidelines on the implementation of Article 13 
of the SPS Agreement 
40. Members are investing their time and resources to work on systemic and specific issues in the 
SPS Committee with the goal of facilitating trade and ultimately drawing benefits from the 
multilateral trading system.  However, the increased prevalence of private standards is perceived by 
some Members to undermine this investment a nd devalue the principles and relevance of the SPS 
Agreement.  Developing guidelines regarding the im plementation of Article 13 and its application to 
private standards could be one way to reinforce the key principles of the SPS Agreement, such as 
scientific justification, transparency, and e quivalence, in the private standards arena. 
41. Such guidelines could also shed light on the "reasonable measures as may be available to 
Members" to ensure that entities involved with private standards comply with the "relevant" 
provisions of the SPS Agreement. 
42. Specific proposals in this rega rd were put forth by India17 and MERCOSUR members 
(Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay)18 in the context of the Third Review of the Implementation of 
the SPS Agreement.  
Recommendation 9 :  SPS Committee to develop a Code of Good Practice  
43. Some Members have proposed the development of  a Code of Good Practice similar to that 
found in Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement.  It provides disciplines, including those related to transparency, for the preparation, adoption and ap plication of standards by central, governmental, 
local, non-governmental and regional standardizing bodies, all of which can formally submit their 
acceptance of the Code.  Members are required to take such reasonable measures as may be available to them to ensure that local government and n on-governmental standardizing bodies within their 
territories accept and comply with the Code.   
                                                     
 
17 G/SPS/W/236. 
18 G/SPS/W/245. G/SPS/W/247 
Page 8 
 
 
  44. From 1 January 1995 until 31 December 2008,  159 standardizing bodies from 119 Members 
have accepted the Code of Good Practice.  Among them are 85 central governmental standardizing 
bodies, 63 non-governmental standardizing bodies, three statutory bodies, two parastatal bodies, three non-governmental regional bodies, one central governmental/non-governmental body, one central 
governmental/local governmental body and one autonomous body.
19 
45. A similar SPS Code of Good Practice coul d take the form of an SPS Committee 
recommendation, or could be submitted through th e Committee's parent bodies to the Ministerial 
Conference for adoption.  Alternatively, given that  a number of private standards contain SPS as well 
as TBT-related elements, entities involved in private st andards could be encouraged to sign on to the 
TBT Code of Good Practice.  However, questions could arise as to whether the "non-governmental 
standardizing bodies" referred to in the TBT Code of Good Practice would cover the type of private 
standard-setting entities referred to in the SPS Committee discussions.  
Recommendation 10 :  WTO Members to hold regular meetings with entities involved in private 
SPS standards  
46. Given the diverse nature of entities involved in  private SPS standards such as retail firms, 
producers, certifiers, and NGOs, Member governments ma y be best placed to convene meetings of all 
stakeholders to sensitize them to the issues raised  in the Committee and receive feedback.  Members 
could then report back to the Committee (possibly under a monitoring mechanism). 
Recommendation 11 :  SPS Committee to develop guide lines for Member governments to liaise 
with entities involved in private standards  
47. The SPS Committee is the forum convening WTO Member governments to focus on systemic 
and specific implementation issues arising from th e SPS Agreement.  At the same time, Member 
governments need to consult regularly with their domestic stakeholders, be they governmental or non-
governmental, export or import-orient ed, regarding the implementation of the SPS Agreement.  In an 
effort to facilitate the exchange of informa tion between Member governments and entities involved 
with private SPS standards in their territories,  the SPS Committee could develop guidelines for 
Member governments.  Such guidelines could under line the importance of relaying the concerns 
raised in the Committee to these en tities and of encouraging the application of the key principles of 
the SPS Agreement.  Some Member governments may wish to encourage entities developing private 
standards to develop their own codes of good practice. 
                                                      
 19 G/TBT/CS/2/Rev.15.  
  G/SPS/W/247 
 Page 9 
 
 
  Annex 1.  SPS Committee documents referring to private standards 
 
Document Symbol Date of 
distributionSubmitted by Document title Links to 
documents 
G/SPS/W/246 30/09/2009 Argentina, Brazil, 
Paraguay, 
Uruguay Legal Framework for 
private standards in the 
WTO EN ES FR
G/SPS/W/245 15/09/2009 Argentina, Brazil, 
Paraguay, Uruguay Third Review of the 
SPS Agreement - Guidelines on the Implementation of Article 13 of the SPS Agreement EN
 ES FR
G/SPS/GEN/932 15/06/2009 WTO Secretariat Effects of SPS-Related 
Private Standards - 
Descriptive Report EN ES FR
G/SPS/W/237 08/05/2009 WTO Secretariat Review of the Operation 
and Implementation of the SPS Agreement EN
 ES FR
G/SPS/W/236 17/04/2009 India Third Review of the 
WTO/SPS Agreement  EN ES FR
G/SPS/GEN/911 16/03/2009 Belize Private and Commercial 
Standards - Statement at the Meeting of 25 - 26 February 2009 EN
 ES FR
G/SPS/W/232 08/12/2008 WTO Secretariat Questionnaire on SPS-
Related Private 
Standards EN ES FR
G/SPS/GEN/891 08/12/2008 WTO Secretariat Research and 
Researchers on Private Standards EN
 ES FR
JOB(08)/97 25/09/2008 WTO Secretariat Private Standards and 
Practical Actions for the SPS Committee - Compilation of responses to the 
questionnaire EN
 ES FR
G/SPS/W/230 25/09/2008 WTO Secretariat Private Standards - 
Identifying Practical Actions for the SPS Committee - Summary of Responses EN
 ES FR
G/SPS/R/50 24/07/2008 WTO Secretariat Report of the STDF 
Information Session on 
Private Standards (26 
June 2008) EN ES FRG/SPS/W/247 
Page 10 
 
 
  Document Symbol Date of 
distributionSubmitted by Document title Links to 
documents 
G/SPS/GEN/865 11/07/2008 WTO Secretariat Documents and Other 
Information on Private Standards EN
 ES FR
Job(08)/58 03/07/2008 WTO Secretariat Private Standards - 
Identifying Practical 
Actions for the SPS 
Committee EN ES FR
G/SPS/W/225 18/06/2008 Uruguay Terms of Reference for 
the Working Group on Private Standards EN
 ES FR
G/SPS/GEN/843 21/05/2008 Uruguay Private Standards - 
Statement by Uruguay at the Meeting of 2 - 3 April 2008 EN
 ES FR
G/SPS/GEN/822 25/02/2008 World 
Organization for 
Animal Health 
(OIE) Considerations Relevant 
to Private Standards in 
the Field of Animal 
Health, Food Safety and Animal Welfare EN
 ES FR
G/SPS/GEN/802 09/10/2007 United Kingdom Private Voluntary 
Standards within the WTO Multilateral Framework EN
 ES FR
G/SPS/GEN/792 05/07/2007 Ecuador  Private and Commercial 
Standards - Statement 
by Ecuador at the 
Meeting of 27 - 28 June 2007 EN
 ES FR
JOB(07)/89/Rev.1 15/06/2007 United Nations 
Conference on Trade and Development 
(UNCTAD), 
World Trade Organization (WTO) Joint UNCTAD/WTO 
Informal Information Session on Private Standards - Revision EN
 ES FR G/SPS/W/247 
 Page 11 
 
 
  Document Symbol Date of 
distributionSubmitted by Document title Links to 
documents 
G/SPS/GEN/761/Corr.1 09/03/2007 United Nations 
Conference on Trade and 
Development 
(UNCTAD) Private Sector Standards 
and Developing Country Exports of Fresh Fruit 
and Vegetables - 
Communication from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) - 
Corrigendum EN
 ES FR
G/SPS/GEN/766 28/02/2007 Saint Vincent and 
the Grenadines Private Industry 
Standards EN ES FR
G/SPS/GEN/764 28/02/2007 Bahamas Report by the 
Commonwealth of the Bahamas to the WTO-SPS Committee on Private Standards and the SPS Agreement : the 
Bahamas Experience EN
 ES FR
G/SPS/GEN/763 27/02/2007 Organization for 
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Private Voluntary 
Standards and Developing Country Market Access: Preliminary Results EN
 ES FR
G/SPS/GEN/761 26/02/2007 United Nations 
Conference on 
Trade and 
Development (UNCTAD) Private Sector Standards 
and Developing Country 
Exports of Fresh Fruit 
and Vegetables  EN
 ES FR
G/SPS/GEN/760 26/02/2007 United Nations 
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Typology of Global 
Standards EN
 ES FR
G/SPS/GEN/750 16/02/2007 International 
Organization for 
Standardization (ISO) Submission by the 
International 
Organization for Standardization (ISO) to the SPS Committee Meeting - 28 February and 1 March 2007 EN
 ES FR
G/SPS/GEN/746 24/01/2007 WTO Secretariat Private Standards and 
the SPS Agreement EN ES FR
 
__________