WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/SPS/R/62 
27 May 2011  
 
(11-2673) 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF 30-31 MARCH 2011 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
Table of contents 
 
Page 
 
I.  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA ............................................................................................. 3  
II.  INFORMATION ON RELEVANT ACTIVITIES ................................................................ 3  
(a)  Information from Members ...................................................................................................... ... 3 
(b)  Information from Observer Organizations .................................................................................. 5  
III. SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS (G/SPS/GEN/204/REV.11) ............................................. 6  
(a)  New Issues .................................................................................................................... .............. 6  
(b)  Issues previous ly raised ...................................................................................................... ........ 8 
(c)  Consideration of specific notifications received ....................................................................... 12  
(d)  Information on Resolution of Issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.11 ............................................ 12  
IV.  OPERATION OF TRANSPARENCY PROV ISIONS (G/SPS/GEN/27/REV.21, 
G/SPS/GEN/1076, G/SPS/ENQ/26, G/SPS/NNA/16) ........................................................... 12  
V.  IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT ................ 13  
VI.  EQUIVALENCE – ARTICLE 4 ............................................................................................ 13  
(a)  Information from Members on their Experiences ..................................................................... 13  
(b)  Information from Relevant Observer Organizations ................................................................ 13  
VII. PEST- AND DISEASE-FREE AREAS – ARTICLE 6 ........................................................ 13  
(a)  Information from Members on their Pest or Disease Status ..................................................... 13  
(b)  Information from Members on their Experi ences in Recognition of Pest- or Disease-
free Areas .................................................................................................................... .............. 13  
(c)  Information from Relevant Observer Organizations ................................................................ 13  
VIII. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND CO-OPERATION ...................................................... 14  
(a)  Information from the Secretariat .............................................................................................. . 14 
(b)  Information from Members ...................................................................................................... . 15 
(c)  Information from Observers .................................................................................................... . 15 
IX.  REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS 
AGREEMENT ..................................................................................................................... ... 16 
(a)  Issues Arising from the Second Review ................................................................................... 16  
(b)  Issues arising from the Third Review ....................................................................................... 18  
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/SPS/R/62 
Page 2  
 
 X.  MONITORING ON THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS ........................... 22  
(a)  New Issues .................................................................................................................... ............ 22  
(b)  Issues Previous ly Raised ...................................................................................................... ..... 22 
XI.  CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS ............................ 22  
(a)  Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group (G/SPS/W/256) ............................................................ 22  
XII. REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS ............................................................................ 24  
(a)  Ad hoc  Observers .................................................................................................................... .. 24 
(b)  New Requests .................................................................................................................. ......... 24 
(c)  Outstanding Requests (APCC, CBD, GSO, OIV) .................................................................... 24  
XIII. ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON ........................................................................................ 24  
XIV. OTHER BUSINESS ................................................................................................................  24 
XV. DATE AND AGENDA OF NE XT MEETING ..................................................................... 25  
  G/SPS/R/62 
 Page 3 
 
 
 I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 
1. The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary M easures (the "Committee") held its fiftieth 
meeting on 30-31 March 2011.  The proposed agenda  for the meeting was adopted with amendments 
(WTO/AIR/3722). 
II. INFORMATION ON RELEVANT ACTIVITIES 
(a) Information from Members 
2. The representative of the United States provided information on the Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) (G/SPS/N/USA/2156).  He indicated that trading partners would be invited to par ticipate in the rule-making process through the WTO 
notification process.  The law aims to strengthe n collaboration among all food safety agencies, as 
building the food safety capacity in trading partne rs promotes a well-integrated and coordinated 
global food safety system. 
3. The Ambassador of Japan expressed appreci ation to all Members for their condolences 
following the massive disaster that had recently taken place in Japan.  In light of this crisis, Japan had 
introduced food safety measures under the Food Sanita tion Act.  Japan had implemented a provisional 
regulation to prevent food exceeding the levels of radioactive contaminants established by the Nuclear 
Safety Commission of Japan from being supplied for public consumption.  These levels are in line 
with the radiation protection measurements r ecommended by the International Commission on 
Radiological Protection.  Japan would be monitoring le vels of radioactive contaminants in agricultural 
products to evaluate potential food safety risks and pr ovide detailed information to its trading partners 
through the WTO, WHO and FAO.  In turn, Japan requested that Members not over-react to this 
situation by imposing unjustifiable import restrictions. 
4. The representative of Japan also reported that, based on its recent experience with Foot and 
Mouth Disease, amendments to the Animal Disease a nd Infection Control Law were being considered 
and had been notified to the WTO (G/SPS/N/JPN/27).  This Law does not affect the current measures 
and procedures for commercial cargo. 
5. The representative of Japan reported that si nce November 2010, highly pathogenic avian 
influenza (HPAI) outbreaks had been confirmed on 23 farms in nine prefectures of Japan.  A number 
of wild birds were also confirmed to be infected with the virus.  In res ponse to these outbreaks, Japan 
had applied a number of control measures and remain ed committed to both swift and effective control 
over HPAI outbreaks and to keeping Members inform ed through various channels including the OIE 
notification system. 
6. The representative of the European Union prov ided information rega rding Foot and Mouth 
Disease in Bulgaria (G/SPS/GEN/1072).  Following the circulation of this document, there had been 
further outbreaks with the latest occurring on 19 March 2011.  In January, a decision was taken 
concerning interim protection measures to identify hi gh-risk and low-risk areas in Bulgaria.  The 
dispatch of susceptible species was immediately prohi bited from both areas, while the dispatch of 
products derived from animals of susceptible speci es was prohibited only from high-risk areas.  The 
European Union urged its trading partners to appl y the concept of regionalisation in the event of 
disease outbreaks. 
7. The representative of the European Union also provided information on the EU legislation 
related to pesticide residues.  The new legislati on framework had been applicable since September 
2008 to complete the harmonization and simplificati on of pesticide maximum residue limits (MRLs).  
Under the new pesticide framework, MRLs undergo a common EU assessment to ensure that all G/SPS/R/62 
Page 4  
 
 consumer classes are sufficiently protected, while elimin ating inappropriate technical barriers to trade.  
This means that an application for an MRL to be se t for the use of a pesticide needs to be made only 
once, and the MRL will be applicable throughout th e European Union.  A default MRL of 0.01mg/kg 
will be applied to pesticides for which no informa tion has been provided.  Importers should apply for 
tolerances when products treated with pesticides ar e imported into the European Union, unless there 
are extenuating circumstances such as a Codex standa rd for which the European Union has not noted 
any reservations.  For substances no longer authorised  in Europe, international standards and import 
tolerances would normally be maintained unless data  show that these were not safe for consumers. 
8. The representative of the Dominican Republic ra ised an issue concerning EU Regulation 669 
of 2009 under which seven products exported from th e Dominican Republic had been under intense 
pesticide residue checking.  The enquiry pertained particularly to bananas and mangoes that had been 
cleared by the EU authorities and yet still had not been released. 
9. The representative of India raised concerns that  in spite of the existence of international 
standards, the European Union had set its own MRLs  for which they had not yet provided scientific 
evidence. Furthermore, the European Union was sh ifting the burden of proof by requiring that its 
trading partners provide the scientific evidence to modify the EU residue levels. 
10. The representative of the European Union indicated  that she was not in a position to reply in 
detail to both concerns.  However, Regulation 669 w as continually reviewed on a quarterly basis and 
if indeed mangoes and bananas were found to be in  conformity with the legislation over a period of 
time they would be released from the increased testing. 
11. The representative of New Zealand informed th e Committee of the amalgamation of the New 
Zealand Food Safety Authority and the Ministry of  Agriculture and Forestry into one organization 
now known as the New Zealand Ministry of Agricu lture and Forestry (G/SPS/GEN/1071).  This one-
stop shop deals with all activities relating to food safety and plant and animal health.  SPS technical 
staff and trading partners could continue to work with the same New Zealand contacts that they had in 
the past.  Members were directed to the MAF we bsite for more detailed information regarding the 
organization. 
12. The representative of Belize reported that Belize had reviewed one of its principal laws, the 
Belize Agricultural Health Authority Act, Chapter 21 1 of the substantive Laws of Belize, 2000 – 2003 
Revised Edition.  The law covers four major areas :  animal health, plant health, food safety and 
quarantine.  The review had resulted in four majo r bills which, once enacted, would replace the Belize 
Agricultural Health Authority Act.  During the re view process, specific deficiencies had been 
addressed which would be reflected in the new legisla tion.  Each of four draft bills would be notified 
separately and at different time periods, commencing in April 2011. 
13. The representative of Korea reported that si nce the primary outbreak of Foot and Mouth 
Disease in eastern Korea the disease had spread across the country.  Immediately after the outbreak, 
Korea had implemented emergency quarantine me asures to minimize the outbreak of FMD in 
accordance with the National Continge ncy Plan for FMD.  All animals infected or suspected of being 
infected were culled and buried and all susceptible  animals, people, vehicles and animal growing 
facilities underwent movement restriction and disinf ection.  A Central Anti-Disaster Headquarters and 
Regional Anti-Disaster Headquarters had been establish ed to carry out various quarantine measures to 
contain the disease.  In spite of efforts from both the government and the livestock industry, FMD had 
spread across the country.  This had led to the stampi ng out of infected and suspected animals, and the 
implementation of a nation-wide vaccination polic y.  FMD vaccination was carried out in phases 
based on the development of the situation and the amount of vaccine available.  The number of FMD 
infections had dropped dramatically following th e implementation of the vaccination policy and there 
had been no report of additional outbreaks since 25February 2011.  G/SPS/R/62 
 Page 5 
 
 
 14. The representative of Korea also reported that the first HPAI case was reported in the middle 
western part of Korea but had since spread across the country.  As of 28 March 2011, there had been 51 reported cases of HPAI.  Korea had immediately taken emergency control measures in accordance with the National Contingency Plan for HPAI.  All animals infected or suspected of being infected 
were culled and buried, and all susceptible animal s, people, vehicles and animal growing facilities 
underwent movement restriction and disinfection.  As of 18 March 2011 , a total of 6.2 million animals 
had been culled and buried and there had been no further outbreaks since March 2011. 
15. The representative of the OIE commented that th e information provided by Members showed 
the seriousness of the risk that th ese diseases continue to present globa lly, and stated that this should 
encourage Members to support veterinary ser vices as many of these diseases had far-reaching 
implications. 
(b) Information from Observer Organizations 
16. The representative of the OIE drew attention to document G/SPS/GEN/1073 regarding its 
relevant activities since the last meeting.  In particular, the document outlined the OIE`s proposal for an additional step for official endorsement of c ontrol programmes for countries seeking to eradicate 
FMD, and outlined the progress in the application of the PVS Pathway tool. 
17. The representative of the IPPC reported that at its recent meeting the Commission on 
Phytosanitary Measures (CPM) had agreed:  (i) the revision of ISPM 7 and ISPM 12 with respect to 
phytosanitary certification systems;  (ii) the adopti on of an appendix for fruit fly trapping and three 
phytosanitary treatments based on radiation treatment s;  (iii) new strategic objectives for the IPPC;  
(iv) the reassessment of the operational autonomy of the FAO Article 14 bodies;  (v) the 
establishment of an expert working group on capacity  building to advise the Secretariat on issues such 
as quality delivery;  (vi) the IPPC`s continued work  on the development of the phytosanitary capacity 
evaluation tool;  and (vii) the IPPC`s Implementa tion Review and Support System.  He highlighted 
that a dispute between South Africa and the Euro pean Union was being examined under the IPPC 
dispute settlement procedure, and that the Subsidiary  Body on Dispute Settlement had also been asked 
to provide guidance concerning the implementation of the IPPC`s standards. The IPPC had managed 
to secure short-term funding sufficient to maintain  their standard-setting activities in 2011, however, 
the short-fall was much larger than anticipated a nd the IPPC was actively seeking more funding.  An 
increasing number of countries were providing assistance in terms of temporary staffing and the IPPC encouraged other countries to follow suit. 
18. The representative of Codex reported that C odex had two new members, the Republic of 
Azerbaijan and the Republic of Na uru and had held five food safet y-related meetings since October 
2010.  A summary of the relevant activities of Codex was contained in G/SPS/GEN/1079.  
Subsequent to the distribution of that document, the Committee on Contaminants in Food had met in the third week of March in the Hague and had fina lised a Code of Practice for the Reduction of Ethyl 
Carbamate in Stone Fruit Distillates, and had agreed  maximum levels for Melamine in food, liquids 
and infant formula. 
19. The representative of Pakistan expressed her appreciation of the OIE`s initiative for good 
governance of veterinary services.  Pakistan was looking forward to IPPC`s new tool for capacity 
evaluation. Pakistan hoped that the Codex would con tinue to make the Codex Trust Fund available to 
assist developing countries to partic ipate in standard-setting processes. 
20. The representative of Japan drew attention to  IPPC`s difficult financial circumstances and 
informed the Committee, that Japan had made an in-kind staff contribution to the IPPC for the 
preparation of the CPM meeting and would continue  to assist the IPPC. The representative of the 
United States shared the concerns of Japan and en couraged Members to provide in-kind and financial G/SPS/R/62 
Page 6  
 
 support to IPPC.  The United States had provided numer ous staff to assist the IPPC as well as funding 
above their annual FAO contribution to the IPPC for the past eight years. 
21. The representative of New Zealand supported th e interventions made by Japan and the 
United States and suggested that the Secretary of the IPPC, Dr Yukio Yokoi, be invited to present to the June Committee meeting the IPPC's strategic plan, and highlight areas that required further 
financial or in-kind assistance. 
22. The representative of Australia recalled that Australia had previously raised concerns 
regarding the difficult situation facing the IPPC a nd was pleased to see other Members raising similar 
concerns.  He highlighted that the IPPC was de veloping a Resource Mobilisation Strategy with the 
aim of securing funding from donors. 
23. The representative of the IPPC indicated that a presentation on the IPPC`s strategic plan 
would not be possible because it had not yet been finalized, but that it would be possible to provide 
information on the IPPC's Resource Mobilisation Strategy. 
24. The representative of the OIE highlighted that Codex had sent a note to delegates requesting 
their opinions on a proposal for the Joint Developmen t of Common Standards by the OIE and Codex.  
The OIE was in the process of sending a similar note to its delegates asking th em to coordinate with 
the national focal points for Codex, and encouraged  the Committee to support the OIE position for the 
joint development of international standards. 
III. SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS (G/SPS/GEN/204/REV.11) 
25. The Secretariat recalled that document G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.11 covered all the trade 
concerns since 1995.  This resulted in a document of 400 pages that presented information that was 
publicly available from the SPS Information Management System ( http://spsims.wto.org/ ).  The 
Secretariat proposed that, starting in 2012, the annual compilation document would contain only the 
specific trade concerns (STCs) that had been discu ssed in the Committee in th e previous three years, 
but would still include an overview and list of all STCs raised since 1995. 
(a) New Issues (i) Import Restrictions due to Dioxin Contami nation in Germany – Concerns of the European 
Union 
26. The representative of the European Union expressed concerns regarding import restrictions 
due to dioxin contamination in Germany.  In li ght of the fact that Germany was managing the 
situation efficiently, many countries had lifted thei r restrictions.  However, a number of Members 
continued to impose import restrictions which affe cted animal products from the European Union.  
The contamination was under control and the Euro pean Union urged Members to immediately lift 
their import restrictions. 
27. The representative of Argentina responded that Argentina was one of the countries that had 
imposed import restrictions in response to the di oxin contamination. Argentina had notified the WTO 
that it had set up a surveillance programme for cer tain products from Germ any and the Netherlands 
(G/SPS/N/ARG/41).  However, in light of the information provided by the European Union, 
Argentina had since lifted these measures (G/SPS/N/ARG/41/Add.1).  G/SPS/R/62 
 Page 7 
 
 
 (ii) Viet Nam`s Ban on Offals – Concerns of the United States 
28. The representative of the United States expressed concerns about Viet Nam`s implementation 
of a temporary ban on the importation of offal produc ts as of 7 July 2010.  While Viet Nam had cited 
food safety concerns for the implementation of the ban, in spite of repeated requests from several 
trading partners, Viet Nam had neither notified th e WTO of this measure, nor had it provided any 
scientific justification for the ban.  The United States had raised this issue bilaterally in the margins of 
previous Committee meetings and at Transpacific Pa rtnership meetings, but was yet to see any change 
in the ban. 
29. The representative of Canada supported the con cerns of the United States.  Canada was 
informed of the ban only after it had been impo sed, and was not provided any scientific explanation 
for the action.  This ban had resulted in the imme diate ban of trade valued at 4.2 million Canadian 
dollars in 2009.  Canada had ma de numerous requests for Viet Na m to remove the ban, and the 
Canadian embassy in Viet Nam had been informed th at Viet Nam intended to partially lift the ban.  
However, Viet Nam had subsequently introdu ced additional SPS requirements on offal imports, 
which Canada hoped were science-based. 
30. The representatives of the European Union,  New Zealand and Australia supported the 
concerns expressed by the United States and Canada. 
31. The representative of Viet Nam responded that the emergency measures taken to temporarily 
suspend the importation of offals were in response to grave public health concerns.  According to a 
2009 WHO report, eight million Vietnamese people had health problems related to food.  Viet Nam 
was aware of the concerns raised by its trading pa rtners and was looking for solutions.  However, as a 
developing country with limited resources, it w ould take some time to strengthen the inspection 
procedures and provide uniform guidelines.  Viet Na m had already lifted its temporary ban on offals 
from poultry and pork and was currently in discussion with the United States and other trading partners to find adequate solutions for both Viet Nam's human health situation and trade. 
(iii) Ukraine Import Restrictions on Poultry and Poultry Products – Concerns of Mexico 
32. The representative of Mexico expressed con cerns with Ukraine`s emergency notification 
regarding the reappearance of Newcastle Dise ase (G/SPS/N/UKR/54), and noted that Mexico 
timeously provided reports on new outbreaks.  Me xico asked Ukraine to modify its measures and 
apply the concept of regionalisation. 
33. The representative of Ukraine indicated that Uk raine's decision had been taken in light of 
information from the OIE, according to whic h Mexico had reported the disease without 
compartmentalisation in 2010.  Hence the principle of  regionalisation was not relevant in this case.  
However, Ukraine was open to di scussing the issue bilaterally. 
34. The representative of the OIE indicated that the OIE did not recognize Newcastle Disease-
freedom in the same way that it recognized Foot  and Mouth Disease-freedom, and the best way to 
demonstrate freedom from Newcastle Disease was to indicate that a country was in full compliance 
with the relevant OIE Code chapters.  The OIE woul d be happy to help resolve this matter using its 
informal mediation mechanism. 
(iv) United States Import Restrictions on Chrys anthemums – Concerns of Costa Rica 
35. 
The representative of Costa Rica stated that Costa Rica was free from Chrysanthemum White 
Rust and had requested the United States to reduce post-entry quarantine to two months.  However, 
the United States continued to request a post-entry quarantine of six months.  On 27 April 2010, G/SPS/R/62 
Page 8  
 
 APHIS had provided a post-entry permit restricting chrysanthemums from Costa Rica to 2000 
cuttings, this was a disproportionate measure sinc e chrysanthemums from Costa Rica could not spread 
Chrysanthemum White Rust. 
36. The representative of the United States responde d that the USDA/APHIS was re-examining 
the quarantine status of Chrysanthemum White Rust and would address Costa Rica`s concerns.  
However, Chrysanthemum White Rust  remained a pest of quarantine significance in the United States 
and the United States continues to eradicate for it.   Once determined, the necessary steps for potential 
changes in regulatory requirements for impor ts would be communicated to Costa Rica. 
(b) Issues previously raised 
(i) India`s Restrictions due to Avian Influenza  – Concerns of the European Union (No. 185) 
37. The representative of the European Union indicated  that the risk assessment provided by India 
did not provide scientific basis to India's avian infl uenza restrictions.  The European Union asked the 
OIE whether India's risk assessment provided grounds for changes to the existing OIE standards.  The 
European Union also urged India to recognize the principle of regionalisation, and bring its import 
requirements in line with international standards. 
38. The representative of the United States stated that  the United States was still reviewing India's 
risk assessment on avian influenza.  The United Stat es would raise its scientific concerns with India 
bilaterally and would keep the Committee informed of  its discussions with India, the European Union 
and the OIE. 
39. The representative of the OIE stated that the OI E did receive India's risk assessment, and that 
the OIE had subsequently sent a response requesti ng clarification on the nature of the document. 
40. The representative of India indicated that he would follow up on the response sent by the OIE, 
and flagged the need to first discuss the risk assess ment India had provided before proceeding further. 
(ii) Indonesia`s Import Restrictions on Beef and Recognition of the Principle of Regionalisation – 
concerns of Brazil (No. 305) 
41. The representative of Brazil expressed concer ns over Indonesia's Regulation 82/200, which 
did not seem to comply with Article 6 of the SPS Ag reement.  Indonesia had notified revisions to the 
law which would have permitted recognition of di sease-free regions, and had engaged in bilateral 
discussions regarding imports of poultry meat from Brazil.  In August 2010 however, Indonesian courts had cancelled that aspect of the legisl ation, and on 18 November 2010, Indonesia had 
submitted a notification (G/SPS/N/IND/43) which did not recognise the principle of regionalisation and forbade the import of poultry meat. 
42. The representative of Indonesia noted that it had taken Indonesia a hundred years to 
completely eradicate Foot and Mouth Disease, and therefore the decision to amend the import regulations on animal and animal products from zone-based to country-based was meant to protect 
Indonesia from threats posed by countries which had had FMD.  Indonesia had sought to develop regulations that were consistent with international standards, but  these had been challenged in the 
constitutional court.  Imports from regions where FMD had not been completely eradicated were 
therefore prohibited.  G/SPS/R/62 
 Page 9 
 
 
 (iii) US Food Safety Modernization Act – Concerns of China (no. 299) 
43. The representative of China, supported by Co sta Rica and Pakistan, stated that despite 
promises to that effect, the United States had not notified the draft US Food Safety Modernization Act 
before the Act was formally adopted in January 2011.  Hence, Members were only provided an 
opportunity to comment on the Act when it was notified by the United States on 2 March 2011.  
China asked that the United States notify draft regul ations from the Act so that Members would have 
an opportunity to provide comments. 
44. The representative of Jamaica raised several concerns regarding the US Food Safety 
Modernization Act relating to:  (i) guidelines on  the mandatory preventative controls for food 
facilities;  (ii) produce safety standards in place in  Jamaica and other Caricom countries;  (iii) the 
status of the Jamaican Bureau of Standards' insp ection checklist vis-à-vis the mandatory inspection of 
foreign facilities commencing in 2012;  (iv) special  and differential treatment with regards to the 
implementation period for enhanci ng food tracing and record-keeping;  (v) foods tested by an 
accredited laboratory in Jamaica and whether they w ould need to be tested in the United States;  
(vi) the determination of the eligibility of a bod y listed as one of the Accreditation Bodies;  and 
(vii) training and funding on the interp retation and implementation of the Act. 
45. The representative of the Philippines requested th at the measures and standards of the Act not 
be unnecessarily burdensome nor unduly increase the cost of compliance for small industries. 
46. The representative of Mexico expressed concern regarding the administration of foods and 
that some elements of the Act were not based on science.  Mexico noted that it would submit its comments to the relevant authorities. 
47. The representative of the United States indicated that Members would be given an 
opportunity to comment on draft regulations before th ey are finalized and become binding on affected 
parties, including food manufacturers and impor ters.  The FSMA required that FDA publish 
regulations and guidance documents to implemen t the provisions of the law and the FDA would 
publish those documents over the next several years.  Regarding Jamaica`s comments on food 
controls, regulations would be de veloped and Jamaica would have the opportunity to comment during 
the drafting process.  The concerns regarding the inspection frequency and checklists, would be 
forwarded to the FDA for consideration.  The repr esentative of the United States further noted that 
concerning Jamaica`s queries on food tracing, reco rd-keeping and laboratory accreditation, draft 
regulations would take into consideration info rmation provided by Members as well as existing 
arrangements.  Finally, it was noted that the FDA was still developing plans with regards to capacity 
development. 
(iv) EC Regulation No. 1099/2009 of 24 September – concerns of India (No. 300) 
48. The representative of India expressed concern that the EU regulation contained animal 
welfare requirements that would be trade restrictive, and since the slaughter of animals was a sanitary 
issue this measure should be notified to the WTO.  Furthermore, the new regulation introduced animal 
welfare requirements beyond those that had been in  place since 1993, and should be notified to the 
WTO.  India was particularly concerned that the pr ovisions of Article 12 of the EU regulation were 
not in line with WTO agreements and that Article  5 would require that all establishments exporting 
meat receive a prior clearance from the European Union. 
49. The representative of the European Union, supp orted by Chile, regretted that the topic was 
being discussed again as discussions at the October 2010 meeting had confirmed that animal welfare 
was not covered by the SPS Agreement.  She highli ghted that the regulation was based on science and 
took into account the OIE's animal welfare standard s on the slaughter of animals, and that third G/SPS/R/62 
Page 10  
 
 countries were not obliged to adopt the same requi rements rather ones that were equivalent.  Any 
remaining areas of concern could be  clarified within the on-going free trade agreement negotiations 
between India and the European Union. 
50. The representative of India noted that discussions at the October 2010 meeting had not been 
conclusive on whether or not animal we lfare was covered by the SPS Agreement. 
(v) Chinese Taipei`s Prohibition on Ractopamine in Beef and Pork – Concerns of the United 
States (No. 275) 
51. The representative of the United States stated  that in January 2011, Chinese Taipei had 
ordered the cessation of the sale of US beef in gr ocery stores when two shipments of US beef had 
tested positive for ractopamine.  Ractopamine was approved for use in 26 countries and in 2007 
Chinese Taipei had determined that, based on scien tific evidence, ractopamine was safe for use in 
cattle and swine.  However, Chinese Taipei's notific ation of the implementati on of MRLs, consistent 
with the draft Codex standard, had been de layed by domestic opposition and had resulted in 
significant trade barriers to US exports. 
52. The representative of Canada indicated that Ca nada had already raised its concerns with 
Chinese Taipei bilaterally and on the margins of  Committee meetings.  While Codex had not yet 
adopted MRLs for ractopamine, Canada believed that  the scientific work conducted by Codex and the 
Joint FAO/WHO Export Committee on Food Additiv es fully supported their adoption.  Hence, 
Canada requested that Chinese Taipei reconsider its cu rrent prohibition. 
53. The representative of Chinese Taip ei stated that the use of ractopamine in food-producing 
animals was forbidden by many Members.  Alt hough Chinese Taipei had considered establishing 
MRLs for ractopamine, the process had been suspe nded due to criticism including from the scientific 
community.  The 33
rd Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission had also been unable to reach a 
decision and Chinese Taipei was therefore of the opinion that further scientific research and evaluation were needed. 
54. The WHO representative reported that the compilation of scientific information on 
ractopamine was available on the JEFCA website and that the conclusions were clear.  The only 
outstanding issue related to consum ption of and exposure to ractopamine  from lung tissue.  At the last 
Codex Committee of Residue of Veterinary Drugs several participants had requested from Chinese 
Taipei further clarification concerning the variability of concentration in lung tissue. 
55. The representatives of the European Union a nd Norway stated that there were no Codex 
MRLs for ractopamine and that in the absence of in ternational standards, th ey did not accept imported 
products treated with ractopamine. 
(vi) European Union's Maximum Residue Levels of Pesticides – Concerns of  India (No. 306) 
56. The representative of India stated that the European Union had harmonised its pesticide 
residue levels under Regulation No. 396/2005 on MRLs  for pesticides on food and feed of plant and 
animal origin.  A default level of 0.01mg/kg had be en applied on many chemicals, and the European 
Union had claimed that the MRLs had been set at  the Level of Determination (LOD).  However, 
without a validated test, it was not clear how the LO D was set and consequently the MRL as scientific 
evidence had not been provided despite substantially higher levels for the same chemicals existing in 
other countries.  The representative of India re-sta ted its concerns relating to:  (i) non- harmonization 
with international standards;  (ii) lack of ri sk assessment;  (iii) misuse of Article 5.7 of the SPS 
Agreement;  (iv) lack of attempt to minimize ne gative trade effects;  and (v) European Laws and 
Regulations.  G/SPS/R/62 
 Page 11 
 
 
 57. The representative of the European Union noted th at trading partners could apply for higher 
MRLs by providing scientific evidence.  With resp ect to the commodities of interest to India, the 
European Union had indicated that given the ec onomic significance of those commodities, it was 
prepared to modify the relevant MRLs.  India had already submitted an application for a higher MRL 
which was under evaluation and, pending the outcome of that evaluation, an import tolerance would 
be set. 
58. The representative of the European Union also informed the Committee th at with regards to 
the concern raised by the Dominican Republic on import restrictions on mangoes, those import checks 
would be lifted from 1 April. 
(vii) Turkey`s Restriction on Products derived from Bi otechnology – Concerns of the United States 
(No. 302) 
59. The representative of the United States noted that the development and implementation of 
Turkey's law on new biotech measures had not been transparent.  The United States appreciated the 
valuable trade in agricultural products with Turkey  and wished to re-estab lish market access for the 
previously approved products without delay.  Turk ey had approved the use of three soybean varieties 
for feed on 26 January, however they had not yet been approved for food u se and no other varieties 
had been approved for either food or feed use desp ite applications having b een submitted.  The United 
States remained concerned that the system prohibite d the presence of biotech products in products for 
infants and children, as well as its cultivation without a risk assessment or scientific evidence.  The 
United States sought clarifications on the process and criteria used to make decisions. 
60. Canada and Argentina noted that they had raised  concerns in writing that Turkey's proposed 
regulations were not based on science and, were still awaiting a response from Turkey.  As the new 
GMO regulations had already been implemented,  both Canada and Argentina asked how trading 
partners' comments would be taken into account, and urged Turkey to reconsider its regulations in 
light of those concerns. 
61. The representative of Turkey stated that repli es had been sent to Canada and Argentina in 
December 2010 and copies would be given to the resp ective representatives at the end of the meeting.  
Turkey had notified its new measure with sufficient time for Members to provide comments (G/SPS/N/TUR/7, 8, 10 and 11).  Turkey had recei ved comments from five Members and had allowed 
eight months between the notification and the im plementation of the legislation.  The comments 
received by Turkey related to:  (i) terminology;  (i i) translation issues;  and (iii) other questions and 
comments.  All relevant comments had been ta ken into account during the preparation of the 
secondary legislation.  The legislation was base d on the principles of the UNCBB Protocol, and 
attempted to manage the risks associated with GM O products.  The legislation had been implemented 
for six months and so far, no trad e restrictions had been reported. 
(viii) Japan`s Prohibition of Certain Food Add itives – Concerns of India (No. 307) 
62. The representative of India stated that at the Oc tober 2010 meeting, India had raised concerns 
about 31 of the 80 food additives that Japan had notified as no longer being distributed in Japan 
(G/SPS/N/JPN/255).  In March 2011, the original list  had been reduced to 50, however, India still had 
concerns regarding 18 food add itives to be withdrawn from the Japanese market on 18 May 2011. 
63. 
The representative of the European Union also requested clarification on a number of food 
additives planned to be withdrawn and which, accord ing to the webpage of the Japanese Ministry of 
Health, still remained on the list.  The European Un ion would continue its bilateral discussions with 
Japan to address its outstanding concerns. G/SPS/R/62 
Page 12  
 
 64. The representative of Japan stated that Japan was carrying out a safety verification of existing 
food additives, as some were being used without a risk assessment.  Japan had notified the WTO in 
July 2010 (G/SPS/N/JPN/255) and had received sev eral comments.  At the October 2010 meeting, 
Japan had asked India to submit evidence that certain substances were in use in  Japan so as to change 
the status of those food additives.  However, I ndia`s comments had been received after the comment 
period had lapsed.  Japan would publish a list of 55 substances for withdrawal from the Japanese 
market in the official Gazette, in May 2011. 
(ix) General Import Restrictions due to BSE – Concerns of the European Union (No. 193) 
65. The representative of the European Union urged Members to lift unnecessary restrictions 
negatively affecting EU beef exports.  The OIE standard highlighted that there should not be 
restrictions on some bovine products regardless of th e BSE-risk status of the country.  Unfortunately, 
several unjustified restrictions from Members only allowed imports from countries with a negligible 
BSE-risk assessment.  In addition, there had also been a number of discriminatory practices and inconsistencies in the level of protection of some  countries.  The European Union urged Members to 
align their requirements with OIE standards and ac knowledged the many countries that had started the 
assessment process to allow imports. 
(c) Consideration of specific notifications received 
66. No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 
(d) Information on Resolution of Issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.11 
(i) Greece`s Inspection and Testing procedures fo r Wheat – Concerns of Canada (No. 206) 
67. The representatives of Canada and the European Union reported that Greece had addressed 
Canada's concerns by amending its 2004 testing and inspection requirements for imports of grains 
from third countries. 
(ii) Restrictions on Poultry and Poultry products - Concerns of Chile (No. 311) 
68. The representative of Chile thanked Croatia and Albania for lifting their restrictions on 
poultry products.  The restrictions had been introd uced due to incorrect information regarding the 
presence of avian influenza in Chile but Chile had been free of avian influenza since 2002. 
IV. OPERATION OF TRANSPARENCY PROV ISIONS (G/SPS/GEN/27/REV.21, 
G/SPS/GEN/1076, G/SPS/ENQ/26, G/SPS/NNA/16) 
69. The Secretariat reported that the new SPS Notification Submission System (NSS) was now 
online.  The system had been first made available to a few Members to ensure that it was functioning 
correctly and, once that was finalised, access pass words would be provided to all Members through 
their National Notification Authorities with a copy to Geneva missions.  Members could also submit 
notifications as previously.  The Secretariat flagge d that it would provide an information session the 
following afternoon to allow Members to test the new system. 
70. The representative of El Salvador congratul ated the Secretariat on the NSS initiative and 
expressed gratitude for the recent traini ng provided to its Enquiry Point.  G/SPS/R/62 
 Page 13 
 
 
 V. IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT 
71. The representative of Cuba noted that the cons ideration of special and differential treatment, 
and of technology transfer, was not sufficiently discussed in the SPS Committee.  Cuba valued the technical assistance it received bilaterally or from specialized organizations and hoped to receive 
more technical assistance relating to technology tran sfer.  Cuba recalled that in its proposal to the 
CTDSS (TN/CTD/W/32) it had suggested that technolo gy transfer be provided to help developing 
countries deal with the TBT and SPS restrictions on their exports.  Cuba supported all possible actions 
or initiatives in the provision of special and differen tial treatment, in the widest possible sense, in light 
of the need for adequate resources to carry out appropriate technical tests and risk analysis. 
VI. EQUIVALENCE – ARTICLE 4 
(a) Information from Members on their Experiences 
72. The representative of Chile reported that Chile was working with the Eu ropean Union on two 
issues relating to equivalence as outlined in their Plan of Action Agreement, namely molluscs and 
exports of EU packaged beef. 
(b) Information from Relevant  Observer Organizations 
73. No observer organization provided any information under this agenda item. 
VII. PEST- AND DISEASE-FREE AREAS – ARTICLE 6 
(a) Information from Members on their Pest or Disease Status 
74. The representative of Japan reported that Japan `s status as an FMD-free country without 
vaccination had been restored.  Japan encouraged Members that continued to suspend imports on the 
grounds of FMD outbreaks to lift their restrictions. 
75. The representative of Paraguay reported that since the restoration of its FMD-free status with 
vaccination in 2006, Paraguay had not had any cases of  FMD.  In February 2011 the OIE had lifted 
the high surveillance zone in place for preventativ e measures and restored Paraguay`s classification of 
a FMD-free zone with vaccination.  Paraguay had also been recertified as a BSE-negligible-risk 
country. 
(b) Information from Members on their Experiences in Recognition of Pest- or Disease-free 
Areas 
76. The representative of Chile stated that Chile had had FMD-free status for about 24 years, 
however some countries still had not recognised that status, resulting in numerous bureaucratic 
problems.  This was also the case with  regards to classical swine fever . 
(c) Information from Relevant  Observer Organizations 
77. The representative of the OIE noted that the pr inciple of regionalisation was applied with 
regards to every disease in the OIE.  As all the dis ease chapters were being gradually revised in the 
OIE and in the terrestrial codes, the OIE was looki ng at how zones could be used as trade facilitation 
measures.  That would be particul arly important in the future as the OIE started to focus more on 
diseases in wild-life and to ensure that the incen tives for reporting diseases and transparency were not 
outweight by disincentives. G/SPS/R/62 
Page 14  
 
 78. The representative of Codex flagged th at while regional FAO/WHO Coordinating 
Committees set commodity standards, there were al so for instance codes of hygienic practice for 
street food sold within countries which did no t necessitate Codex regional SPS-related standards. 
79. The representative of IPPC indicated that IPPC had started to collect information on pest-free 
areas in line and had found that several countries dea lt differently with pest-free areas.  Furthermore, 
despite the availability of a form on pest-free areas  on the IPPC website, there had not been many 
responses. 
VIII.  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND CO-OPERATION 
(a) Information from the Secretariat 
(i) WTO SPS Activities 
80. The Secretariat drew attention to  documents G/SPS/GEN/521/Rev.6 and 
G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.1.  Document GEN/521/Rev.6 compiled all the SPS technical assistance activities undertaken by the Secretariat from 1 September 1995 to 31 December 2010 and GEN/997/Rev.1 provided detailed information about all the SPS technical assistance activities 
planned for 2011.  The Secretariat indicated that  the 2011 Advanced SPS Course would be held from 
10 to 28 October 2011 in Geneva and in light of  the overwhelming amount of applications from all 
regions last year, the course would be offered agai n in English.  The deadline for submission of 
applications for WTO funding for the Course, as well  as for the three regional workshops being held 
this year, is 8 July 2011. 
81. The representative of El Salvador thanked the Secretariat for the National SPS Seminar held 
in El Salvador in 2010. 
(ii) Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) 
82. The Secretariat of the STDF provided a br ief overview of the STDF's main activities 
(G/SPS/GEN/1075).  The overview included:  (i) th e STDF working group of March 2011;  (ii) the 
conclusion of the STDF production of the "Trading Safely" film in Arabic, Chinese and Russian;  
(iii) STDF collaboration with the Enhanced Integrated  Framework (EIF) in the preparation, validation 
and update of DTIS and project development;  (iv) the pilot training workshop on project design and 
logical frameworks in Nepal in March which would be replicated in selected LDCs in 2011;  and 
(v) the Aid for Trade Ministerial for the Special  Programme for the Economies of Central Asia 
(SPECA) in Baku, Azerbaijan.  Future STDF events include a global event on international trade and 
invasive species in 2012 for which the STDF would c onsult with IPPC, the OIE, and other relevant 
organizations. 
83. The Secretariat noted that for the March Work ing Group, several relevant organizations had 
requested to present issues of interest to the SPS capacity building community, including two more 
presentations to the SPS Committee at lunchtime.  All presentations would be available on the STDF 
website.  The Secretariat concluded by noting that applications for STDF funding could be made at 
any point in the year but had to be received at least 60 working days in advance of working group 
meetings in order to be considered.  The next deadline for the submission of applications was 
8 April 2011 and applicants were strongly encourag ed to read the "Guidance Note for Applicants" 
available on the STDF website.  G/SPS/R/62 
 Page 15 
 
 
 (b) Information from Members  
84. The representative of the European Union drew attention to EU technical assistance activities 
summarized in G/SPS/GEN/1074 and noted that the bulk of EU technical assista nce activities in the 
SPS area was implemented within  the framework of multi-annual country assistance programmes 
aligned with national development plans to ensure  overall coherence.  The European Union also 
promoted regional co-operation to facilitate S outh-South trade through the harmonisation of SPS 
frameworks, strengthen regional consumer protection as well as improve international market access.  
The European Union also supported programmes at  a global or African level including the EDES 
project, the African Veterinary Governance Progra mme jointly implemented by the OIE, the FAO and 
the AU-IBAR, and the PAN-SPSO programme.  There were also a number of specific SPS training 
initiatives under the umbrella of the European Commission`s Better Training for Safer Food.  The 
representative of the European Union invited deve loping countries to approach either the EU 
representation in their countries or the directorate of the EU Commission in charge of technical assistance. 
(c) Information from Observers 
85. The representative of the OIE drew attention to reports of the successful use of the PVS 
pathway from various donors, benefi ciary countries and regions.  In addition to the initial PVS 
assessment, PVS gap analysis missions looked at ve terinary legislation, twinning arrangements, and 
specialized veterinary training institutes.  As OIE standards and recommendations regarding aquatic 
animals had been neglected in SPS capacity building,  the OIE encouraged Me mbers to enter the PVS 
pathway for aquatic animals as well.  The OIE repr esentative also drew attention to the June 2011 
global conference on aquatic animal health progra mmes and their benefits for global food security 
which would be held in Panama City.  The PVS wa s also diversifying into the area of collaboration 
between public health agencies and veterinary servi ces.  A conference on rabies control would take 
place in Korea on 7-9 September 2011 in collaboration with the government of Korea. 
86. The representative of the IPPC stated that ov er 70 countries had used the phytosanitary 
capacity self-evaluation tool and some countries had undergone the process several times because of 
oft-changing conditions.  The IPPC had also star ted a pilot project for gathering information for 
phytosanitary capacity development projects which w ould be discussed at the expert working group in 
May 2011.  A system would be subsequently develo ped to manage the database, publicly available as 
of late 2011 early 2012.  The project database w ould attempt to address the overlap in projects the 
IPPC was involved with, as some countries applied fo r funding from different donors.  IPPC would 
also develop a training of trainers programme in coordination with other pertinent organisations, as 
well as generic training material that would be made  available to the public to foster consistency on 
IPPC issues.  The Implementation and Review Support System would look at a number of mechanisms such as the PCE focussing on gaps and pr oblem areas in the phytosanitary world, as well 
as addressing regional problems. 
87. The representative of Codex noted that Codex was not involved in capacity building activities 
except as trainers.  The strategic outlook of the Codex Trust Fund for the next six years would be 
finalised at the next Codex Commission. 
88. The representative of IICA drew attention to document G/SPS/GEN/1068 on IICA activities.  
The document gave a progress report regarding suppor t for participation at Codex meetings.  The 
United States Department of Agriculture had prov ided 75 per cent of the funding and IICA the 
remaining 25 per cent.  Some of the main findings were that:  (i) there was support for active 
participation in international fora as capacity buildi ng, (ii) countries had to earn the right to attend by 
reporting on the impact of their participation, and ( iii) there must be a national structure of the Codex 
committee to derive benefits.  Given the political  and institutional changes ongoing domestically, G/SPS/R/62 
Page 16  
 
 training had to be provided at least every three year s.  Lastly, the IICA representative reported that 
IICA had signed a cooperation agreement with the FDA to capacitate countries of the Americas to 
deal with new US food safety regulations. 
89. The representative of ITC provided an overview of ITC`s activities (G/SPS/GEN/1082) which 
had included:  (i) involvement in two projects in Kyrg yzstan and Tajikistan;  (ii) the supervision of an 
STDF project in Nigeria on expanding Nigeria's e xports of sesame seeds and Shea nut butter;  (iii) a 
programme helping enterprises and develop local ca pacity in implementing food safety management 
systems in Samoa, according to ISO 2200;  and (iv) a project on strengthening capacity for international trade in the agro-processing sector in Guinea.  Concerning its Non-Tariff Measures 
Project, ITC pursued the launch of NTM surveys.  Under the Trade for Sustainable Development 
Program, ITC had recently launched a new standard s map on its website, including a comprehensive 
database on voluntary standards.  ITC was also  involved with the Access Programme under the 
Canadian-funded Programme for building African Cap acities for Trade (PACT) providing training to 
African business women.  In November 2010, ITC had organised a regional workshop with ISO on 
linking trade promotion organisations and nationa l standards bodies for export success, and a third 
event for Anglophone African countries was tentatively scheduled for June 2011. 
90. The representative of OIRSA highlighted so me of OIRSA technical assistance activities 
(G/SPS/GEN/1078), including:  (i) work with SPS-re lated programmes such as the compliance with 
the regional emergency declaration in pineapple plan t by Fusarium (Fusarium guttiforme);  (ii) joint 
support with the International Atomic Energy Agency  for the participation of the regional technical 
group on fruit flies at an international symposium in  Valence;  (iii) tomato detection programme in 
some member countries;  (iv) training programmes in Nicaragua, Belize, El Salvador, and Mexico;  
(v) STDF project 284 to strengthen the Honduras Na tional Committee on sanitary and phytosanitary 
measures;  and (vi) support for a sanitary pr otocol between El Salvador and Nicaragua. 
IX. REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS 
AGREEMENT 
(a) Issues Arising from the Second Review 
(i) Use of Ad Hoc Consultations – Report on Informal Meeting 
91. The Chairman reported that at the informal meeting on the recommended procedure to 
encourage and facilitate ad hoc c onsultations held on 29 March 20 11, he had reminded the Committee 
that the use of the Good Offices of the SPS Chair was included in the Committee's Working 
Procedures and that it had been used on three occasions  in the past, with the most recent one being in 
March 2001. 
92. During the informal meeting, the Committee had considered three documents:  (i) a revised 
proposal on a specific mechanism on the use of the Good Offices of the SPS Chair, contained in 
G/SPS/W/243/Rev.4;  (ii) a new proposal by I ndia, Norway, the Philippines and Switzerland, 
contained in JOB/SPS/1;  and (iii) a submission by  Canada regarding its past experience in using 
Article 12.2 ad hoc consultations , contained in G/SPS/GEN/1080.  
93. The Chairman had recalled that, in advance of  the meeting, he had also requested the 
Secretariat to prepare two reference documents that had been distributed as room documents.  One of these was a comparison table between document G/SPS/W/243/Rev.4, the February 2010 HM NAMA proposal (TN/MA/W/106/Rev.1) and the new JO B document (JOB/SPS/1).  The second room 
document provided responses to questions that were raised in the 30 July 2010 non-paper by India, 
Norway, the Philippines and Switzerla nd regarding ad hoc consultations.  G/SPS/R/62 
 Page 17 
 
 
 94.  The Secretariat had introduced the fourth revi sion of the draft proposal of an SPS mechanism 
contained in G/SPS/W/243/Rev.4.  This fourth re vision reflected suggestions from Canada and the 
United States, the only two Members who had submitted written comments on the third revision by the 17 December 2010 deadline.  Several Members had supported this new revision and noted that it 
reflected much of the work that had taken place.  One Member had proposed that the deadline and 
transparency provisions that were found in  the previous version be re-introduced. 
95. The representative of India had presented the new proposal from India, Norway, the 
Philippines and Switzerland.  He had noted that the co-sponsors of the new proposal felt that the G/SPS/W/243 series did not sufficiently reflect the c oncerns that some Members had raised and thus 
the co-sponsors had decided to table a separate pr oposal.  He had explained that the proposal had 
several links to the on-going work on the Horizont al Mechanism and highlighted the sunset clause 
that was contained in paragraph 17.  Severa l Members had welcomed this new proposal, and 
especially the additions of indicative deadlines for th e conclusion of the procedures, and the technical 
assistance and transparency provision s.  These Members had noted that this proposal added value to 
the discussions but also emphasized that much work still needed to be done to refine the proposal and 
add issues such as third party participation. 
96. Several Members had indicated that some provisi ons in the new proposal conflicted with their 
national position, namely the relaxed confidentiality and the mandatory time frame provisions.  These 
Members had also noted that they had fundament al concerns with the facilitator providing legal 
opinions and on the sunset clause.  They had hi ghlighted that the SPS Committee provisions for ad 
hoc consultations were not dependent on a decisi on in other fora such as the NAMA negotiating 
group.  Some Members had noted that fundamental differences existed between the two proposals but 
that a number of the recommendations in the new propo sal were similar to those in the Secretariat's 
document.  
97. Canada had presented a paper on its experience us ing Article 12.2 ad hoc consultations to 
facilitate the resolution of an SPS trade-related issue (G/SPS/GEN/1080).  Canada had highlighted 
that the participation of the Chair had added rigour  to the consultations.  The European Union had 
noted that it was difficult to find information on its experience using Article 12.2, especially with 
regards to the usefulness of the participation of the Chair, as these consultations had been held long 
ago.  The United States had also shared some of its  observations regarding the use of the Article 12.2 
consultations.  It had noted that it was an effective and flexible tool to discuss scientific and technical 
concerns and to understand other Members' position on the issue.  Its use also signalled to the SPS 
Committee that Members were serious about seeking a solution.  The United States provided a review 
of its past use of ad hoc consultations, noting that although the final result was overtaken by other events, the United States found the experience to be very helpful. 
98. The Secretary to the SPS Committee had offered to share notes with the delegations who had 
been involved in the previous consultations, not ing that these notes were factual in nature. 
99. India had suggested that the reason why these ad hoc consultations under Article 12.2 had 
been of limited value was because the Committe e needed a mechanism wi th certain mandatory 
provisions.  
100. To advance the work, the Chairman had invite d all Members to submit comments in writing 
on documents JOB/SPS/1 and G/SPS/W/243/Rev.4 by 29 April 2011 .  After receiving these 
comments, it would be useful if the Secretariat we re to merge the two proposals and integrate the 
suggestions into one working document, using brac kets to indicate where substantial differences 
remained.  This new working document would be distributed prior to the June SPS Committee meeting and could form the basis for discussions at the next informal meeting. G/SPS/R/62 
Page 18  
 
 101. In commenting on the Chairman's report, the repr esentative of the United States stated that the 
resolution of this issue from the Second Review  depended on a consensus by Members on a way 
forward.  He highlighted the important effort  of drafting G/SPS/W/243/Rev.4 and requested more 
information concerning the practical implementation of the ideas in JOB/SPS/1 and how to ensure that the work done in G/SPS/W/243/Rev.4 was not reversed. 
102. The Philippines, Argentina, Brazil, Pakistan and Hong Kong, China supported the Chairman`s 
proposal to merge documents as they complemented  each other.  A merged document would include 
all views with the outstanding differences brackete d for further discussion.  The Philippines and Hong 
Kong, China suggested that the Chairman hold cons ultations on the merged document in advance of 
the next formal meeting to attempt to clean up th e text and bring the Committee closer to agreement 
on an ad hoc  mechanism at its next meeting in June. 
103. The Chairman agreed with the suggestion by the Philippines and Hong Kong, China to hold 
consultations on the merged proposal prior to the next Committee meeting, to allow Members to begin a substantive discussion on issues of divergen ce and be in a better position to make progress on 
this issue at the next Committee meeting. 
104. The representative of the United States requested clarification on whether the comments made 
on JOB/SPS/1 would be incorporated into the merged  document that would be prepared for the June 
meeting. The Chairman responded that comments on both documents should be submitted by 29 April 
and would be incorporated, as appropriate, in the merged document. 
105. The representative of Canada noted its preferen ce for the merged document to be discussed 
on the margins of the next Committee meeting to ensure  the participation of capital-based delegates.  
Canada and other countries had shar ed their experience on using the ad hoc  mechanism and hoped 
that Members would take those comments into consideration when re viewing both documents. 
106. The Chairman reiterated that comments on both G/SPS/W/243/Rev.4 and JOB/SPS/1 should 
be received by 29 April, following which a merg ed document would be prepared putting divergent 
issues side by side in brackets.  Inter-sessional consu ltations would then be held in Geneva in May to 
examine the merged document in advance of an in formal meeting of the Committee in June.  The 
Chairman clarified that the inter-sessional consu ltations would involve all interested Members and 
that a video and/or telephone c onference link would be provided. 
(b) Issues arising from the Third Review 
(i) Report on the Informal Meeting 
107. The Chairman reported that at the informal  meeting of the SPS Committee on issues arising 
from the Third Review held on 29 March, Member s had discussed specific proposals from Argentina, 
Canada, Japan and New Zealand. 
108. The Chairman had recalled that at its Marc h 2010 meeting, the Committee had adopted the 
report of the Third Review, which is contained in document G/SPS/53.  The report identified several 
issues where the Committee had agre ed to further work. At the October 2010 informal meeting, 
Members had agreed to prioritize three issues fo r consideration under the work of the Committee 
arising from the Third Review:  (i) the cooperation between the SPS Committee a nd the Three Sisters;  
(ii) improving the procedure for monitoring the use of international standards;  and (iii) control, 
inspection and approval procedur es (Article 8 and Annex C). 
109.
 The Chairman reported that two items had been discussed under the issue of cooperation 
between the SPS Committee and the Three Sisters:  (i) a new joint submission by Canada and Japan;   G/SPS/R/62 
 Page 19 
 
 
 and (ii) a proposed programme from the Secretaria t for a workshop on national coordination.  Canada 
had referred to its joint submission with Japan to advance work in particular on recommendations 3, 6 
and 7 from the October 2009 workshop on the rela tionship between the Committee and the Three 
Sisters.  The report of that workshop is G/SPS/R/ 57.  Canada and Japan had suggested that the 
Committee encourage joint work by the Thr ee Sisters on cross-cutting issues such as  certification, 
inspection, approval procedures and/or risk analysis. 
110. Japan had drawn Members' attention to recomme ndation 6 on soliciting more information at 
the strategic planning phase of the Three Sisters' work, stating that the recommendation was useful for 
the enhancement of the co-operation between th e Committee and the Three Sisters.  Japan had 
suggested the creation of a forum to discuss these ma tters, such as an informal meeting on the margins 
of the SPS Committee meeting.  Regarding recomme ndation 10, Japan had supported the Secretariat's 
proposed workshop on SPS coordination at  the national and regional levels. 
111. The United States had supported the proposals by Canada and Japan for increased and 
improved co-operation between the Three Sist ers and the SPS Committee, including through the 
regular exchange of information.  The United States had also agreed that Members should be 
encouraged to identify the relevant cross-cutti ng issues.  The Secretariat had presented a draft 
programme for a workshop on SPS coordination at national and regional le vels (G/SPS/GEN/1067), 
based on the recommendations of the October 2009 workshop on the relationship between the SPS Committee and the Three Sisters.  Members were  invited to make suggestions on the proposed 
programme, including identification of possible speakers to present good coordination practices at the national and regional level.  The Secretariat had not ed that funding would be available to sponsor the 
participation of about 50 officials from deve loping and least-developed country Members and 
Observers, and that application forms for this purpose were available in G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.1. 
112. The Chairman reported that on the second prio ritized issue on improving the procedure for 
monitoring the use of international standards,  Argentina had introduced its submission 
(G/SPS/W/255), and had noted that monitoring of th e use of international standards was a standing 
item on the agenda of Committee meetings.  Howeve r, the procedure for monitoring international 
harmonization was clearly underutilized by Members, as Members chose to raise concerns, even those 
prompted by the absence of an international standa rd or non-use of standards, under the agenda item 
on "Specific trade concerns".  Argentina had propo sed that the list of standards, guidelines and 
recommendations included in the annual report prepared by the Secretariat also include related issues 
raised under the agenda item "Specific trade concer ns".  Argentina had stressed that this would be 
without prejudice to a Member's right to dete rmine its appropriate level of protection.  
113. Canada and New Zealand had referred to thei r joint submission (G/SPS/W/257) and agreed 
that the procedure of monitoring the use of inte rnational standards was currently underutilized by 
Members.  They had suggested that, as a first step, Members should start a discussion on why this 
procedure was not being used.  Inputs from the Th ree Sisters in future di scussions on monitoring the 
use of international standards were considered as essential. 
114. The United States had noted that Argentina's proposal seemed to go beyond the scope of the 
recommendations pertaining to the Third Review, and had raised questions about a Member's right to 
deviate from international standards. 
115. Mexico had suggested that the Committee also address the issu e of good regulatory practice, 
and had indicated that it would be submitting a proposal in this regard. 
116. The Secretariat had noted that there were vari ous ways to bring the Committee discussions to 
the attention of the Three Sisters.  In addition to the report of the monitoring procedure, and the 
presence of the Three Sisters as observers in the SPS Committee meetings, the Secretariat prepared G/SPS/R/62 
Page 20  
 
 annual individual reports to the Three Sisters mee tings.  These reports include information on STCs, 
the identification of disputes, and, when available, the international standards identified as relevant in 
SPS notifications.  The Secretariat suggested that pe rhaps the most effective way to inform the Three 
Sisters on the issues pertaining to the monitoring of international standards was through the active 
participation of Members in the Three Sisters' activities.  
117. The Chairman had suggested that it could be u seful if the Secretariat prepared a background 
document for the Committee's discussion on monitori ng the use of international standards that 
contained relevant information that  could be harvested from specific trade concerns, notifications and 
other documents submitted by Members.  The Unit ed States had raised concerns that any such 
background document not contains  judgements as to whether any particular measure was in 
compliance with the relevant  international standards. 
118. The Chairman reported that on the third prioritized issue on control, inspection and approval 
procedures (Article 8 and Annex C), Argentina had introduced its submission (G/SPS/W/254) and had 
noted that the lack of precision characterizing certa in provisions in Annex C, as well as the lack of 
guidelines clarifying their content and scope, had led to significant differences between Members with 
regard to the design and implementation of their nati onal control systems.  Argentina had proposed to 
focus first on the issue of audits. 
119. Canada and New Zealand had referred to th eir joint submission (G/SPS/W/257) and had 
noted, along with some other Members, that it would be useful for Members to first provide information regarding their experiences in the implementation of Article 8 and Annex C.  The 
European Union had added that it could share its ow n experience, in particular on a pre-listing system 
of exporting establishments. 
120. In concluding the meeting, the Chairman had invited Members to submit, in advance of the 
June meeting of the Committee, other specific inputs on the identified priority issues and on how to advance the work of the Committee on issues resulti ng from the Third Review of the SPS Agreement. 
121. In commenting on the Chairman's report of the informal meeting, the representative of the 
OIE clarified that the OIE did not actively review the extent to which its standa rds were being put into 
practice, what was important was where the non-use of a standard led to a problem.  For the OIE, this 
was primarily in the area of BSE, FMD and avian infl uenza.  The OIE also noted that the box that is 
ticked to indicate whether a notification is consistent  with the international standard did not provide 
clear information on whether the measure was actually  consistent with interna tional standards and that 
more detail could be provided in the notification of new SPS measures.  The representative of the OIE 
noted that the Committee would need to identify key areas where it would like the Three Sisters to 
focus to allow the Three Sisters to adequa tely respond to requests from the Committee. 
122. The representative of Chile noted that there coul d be situations where a country deviated from 
the international standard without scientific justifi cation but for transparency reasons it was important 
that this be known.  The representative of the Euro pean Union stated that while Members preferred to 
use the agenda items related to information from Members or to specific trade concerns to raise 
concerns with the use of international standards,  it would be better for Members to raise issues under 
the relevant agenda item.  In the meantime, the Secretariat could provide guidance to Members to indicate under which agenda item they wi shed to raise a specific concern. 
123. The Chairman agreed with the European Un ion suggestion, however many Members tended 
to attribute more importance to specific trade c oncerns as they carried more political weight as 
compared to the remaining agenda items .  In a ddition, many Members devoted the first day of the 
Committee meetings discussing specific trade concerns a nd then engaged in other interactions such as 
bilateral negotiations during the rest of the Committee meeting.   G/SPS/R/62 
 Page 21 
 
 
 124. The representative of the United States enquire d whether the OIE`s intervention had referred 
to the enforcement of or compliance with standa rds.  As there were already documents which 
addressed the issues of concern to Me mbers, the United States reiterat ed its concerns about the nature 
of the Secretariat background document on the use of international standards. 
125. The representative of Argentina clarified that Argentina's concern related to the Committee's 
annual reports on monitoring the use of internat ional standards only highlighting two or three 
deviations from international standa rds which did not reflect reality.  The representative of Argentina 
pointed out that the issue of ractopamine had been included under both monitoring the use of 
international standards and specific trade concerns .  He also added that all Secretariat reports 
contained a disclaimer. 
126. The representative of Canada supported the co mments of the European Union and of the 
Chairman regarding Members making a more consider ed use of the agenda.  Looking at previous 
airgrams of the Committee, the re presentative of Canada suggested th at one disincentive could have 
been that for an issue to be reviewed under the Mon itoring the use of international standards, it had to 
be submitted 30 days before the meeting.  A lthough the submission dates now coincide, some 
delegations might still have been in the mind set of  using the specific trade concerns agenda item.  
Canada is making a more considered effort to place issues in the appropriate agenda items and 
encouraged others to do the same. 
127. The Secretariat agreed with the representativ es of the European Un ion and Canada that 
Members give more thought to placing their i ssues under the appropriate agenda item.  The 
Secretariat already provided suggestions to Members if certain issues could be more appropriate under 
a different agenda item, however the deadline for the request of inclusion of agenda items was eleven 
days before Committee meetings and the agenda was sent out ten days before the meeting and 
sometimes not allowing sufficient time to provide feedback to Members.  With regards to the 
background document requested by the Chairman on th e use of international standards, the Secretariat 
stated that this would indeed be a completely factual document as the role of the Secretariat was not to 
make any judgements concerning compliance or non-compliance with legal obligations. 
128. On the proposed programme for a workshop on national coordination (G/SPS/GEN/1067), the 
representative of the IPPC stated that a lot could be done to work together and coordinate activities 
better.  With regards to monitoring and implementing international standards, the issue was not that of 
a compliance assessment but rather to encourag e Members to implement compliance correctly. 
129. The representative of Canada suggested that the IICA handbook on good practices for 
participating in meetings could also be an im portant tool to be discussed at the workshop. 
130. The representative of Codex stated that Codex had a rather complicated acceptance procedure 
that had been abolished in 2003 in light of the WTO notification requirements.  Since then, the only work on monitoring took place in the regional Co dex coordination committees with letters sent in 
advance of those meetings enquiring about the im plementation status of each Member and whether 
they had encountered difficulties in implementing the standards.  Codex was open to sharing the 
information gathered at those meetings. 
131. The Secretariat recalled that the background for selecting the theme of coordination at the 
national and regional levels for the purposes of  the October workshop had come from the 2009 
workshop on the relationship between the WTO, OIE,  Codex and IPPC.  One of the conclusions, and 
part of the discussions, dealt with improving co llaboration between agencies, organisations and 
Committees as there remained serious national and re gional coordination problems.  The Secretariat 
had suggested that it could be helpful if the Octobe r workshop could focus on this issue and attempt to 
identify, through volunteer speakers, good useful pr actices that were working to provide for good G/SPS/R/62 
Page 22  
 
 coordination at both national and regional levels.  Two STDF project s that looked at the regional 
economic commissions of Africa and their SPS prot ocols and texts could  provide a background, 
however Members were also invited to inform th e Committee of any success stories they were aware 
of so that speakers could be identified for the workshop. 
X. MONITORING ON THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS 
(a) New Issues 
132. No Member raised any new problems which they  believed related to the use or non-use of 
relevant international standards, guidelines or recommendations. 
(b) Issues Previously Raised  
(i) Brazil – Preservation of Scientific Principles by Codex – Ractopamine 
133. The representative of Brazil, supported by Colo mbia, Costa Rica, Australia, Argentina, 
Mexico, the United States, Canada, New Zealand an d Chile, recalled that the Codex Commission had 
decided in 2008 to hold the proposals of ractopamine  MRLs at step 8 and that Members would send 
further data to be analysed.  To overcome the d eadlock on the approval of ractopamine MRLs at the 
33
rd Session of the Commission, a "Friends of the Chair" group had been established to discuss 
possible solutions focussing on JECFA risk management.  Following the approval by the Codex 
scientific consultative body, the adoption of the ractopamine MRLs within  Codex should not be 
delayed.  Brazil recalled that all countries had the right to adopt any sanitary measures as long as they 
were scientifically justified and requested the i mmediate adoption of the r actopamine MRLs.  This 
was of paramount importance for the protection of c onsumers, the promotion of international trade, 
for food safety, and for the maintenance of the ro le of the Codex Alimentarius as an international 
reference organization in the area of food safety. 
134. The representative of Codex stated that the matter of ractopamine MRLs would be examined 
again at the next Commission and that hopefully members would be able to reach a consensus. 
135. The representative of the European Union, suppor ted by Norway and Switzerland, stated that 
JECFA had provided Codex with a risk assessment and discussions had focused on risk-management.  
Therefore, while science was indeed a key element, ri sk managers also had to consider other factors 
that also impacted on consumers' health.  The Europ ean Union, as part of the "Friends of the Chair" 
had actively searched for a solution acceptable to all parties and looked forward to making progress in 
advance of the July 2011 Codex Commission. 
XI. CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS 
(a) Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group (G/SPS/W/256) 
136. The Chairman reported that the working group had completed its work and had presented its 
report to the SPS Committee.  The report was c ontained in document G/SPS/W/256 and proposed six 
actions for the SPS Committee.  Those six actions were now put forward for endorsement by the 
Committee.  In addition, the report listed, in the Annex, six other actions on which the working group 
could not reach consensus, along with a brief e xplanation of the main differences of opinion. 
137. The Chairman thanked all the members of th e ad hoc working group for their constructive 
spirit and hard work to come up with some practical  actions, as had been requested by the Committee.  
The Chairman noted that he intended to firs t invite the Committee to endorse the 6 actions 
recommended by the working group.  Following th is, he would propose to organize an open-ended  G/SPS/R/62 
 Page 23 
 
 
 informal meeting where Members could (i) discuss the process and next steps to be taken with respect 
to those 6 actions, and (ii) discuss the approach  regarding the 6 remaining actions on which the ad hoc  
working group could not find consensus. Finally, th e Chairman clarified that endorsement of those 
actions would be without prejudice to the view s of Members regarding the scope of the SPS 
Agreement. 
138. The representative of the United States stated that the work on private and commercial 
standards had produced concrete and clear results. However it was also clear that there had not been consensus on possible actions seven to twelve.  Fu rthermore, regarding the six actions on which there 
was consensus, the Committee still needed to consid er, given its limited resources, which of those 
items it would like to further consider, and how to prioritize them.  With regards to action one, the 
United States was concerned about spending additio nal resources and time on the development of a 
working definition of private standards.  Regard ing action six, the United States, supported by New 
Zealand, noted that private standards were outside  the scope of the SPS Agreement, thus any related 
discussions should be outside the formal and informal sessions of the SPS Committee. 
139. The representative of the European Union s upported the Chairman's proposal to adopt the 
working group report and endorse the first six actions.  The European Union was particularly attached 
to the development of a working definition of priv ate standards to ensure a shared understanding of 
the implications of SPS-related private standards a nd their impact on trade.  However, the European 
Union was opposed to discussing possible actions seve n to twelve, as it was of the opinion that SPS 
private standards did not fall within  the scope of the SPS Agreement. 
140. The representatives of Argentina, Paraguay, Br azil, Chile, Cuba, Belize, El Salvador and 
Mexico supported the Chairman's proposal to adopt  the working group report and endorse the first six 
actions. 
141. The representative of the United States, suppor ted by New Zealand, proposed a language 
change on the text of action six to read:  "Members are encouraged to exchange, outside of the formal 
and informal sessions of the SPS Committee, rele vant information regarding SPS-related private 
standards to enhance understanding and awareness on how these compare or relate to international 
standards and governmental regulations, withou t prejudice to the different views of Members 
regarding the scope of the SPS Agreement.". 
142. The representative of Venezuela asked whether th e informal meeting would be opened to all 
delegations and whether the discussions would concern only the first six actions or all twelve actions. 
143. The representative of Canada agreed with the Eu ropean Union on the need to move forward 
on the first six actions and also noted its lack of support that the remaining actions seven to twelve be 
further discussed at the June informal meeting.  Canada suggested that perhaps paragraph 26 of 
G/SPS/W/256 could assist in addressing the concer ns of New Zealand and of the United States. 
144. The Chairman proposed that Members adopt ac tions one to five and offered Members the 
opportunity to provide comments on action six until 29 April 2011.  Action 6 would then be discussed 
again at the June informal meeting.  In response to a query from the Europ ean Union, the Chairman 
indicated that in addition to discussing how to actio n the adopted actions, the June informal meeting 
could also provide an opportunity to agree on the adoption of action six as well. 
145. The Committee adopted actions one through five with the understanding that the suggested 
amendments to action six be circulated prior to th e June informal meeting.  The Chairman concluded 
by indicating that an open-ended informal meeting would be scheduled in June to discuss:  (1) the 
adoption of action six as amended, (2) next steps and how to move forward on these agreed actions, G/SPS/R/62 
Page 24  
 
 and (3) how to address and further consider the remaining six actions on which the ad hoc  working 
group could not find consensus. 
146. The representative of the OIE indicated that the OIE pursued its work on private standards to 
identify existing problems.  The OIE would continue to  provide updates of its work in the area, as the 
input of the international organiza tions was particularly important with regards to looking at what 
standards were being threatened. 
XII. REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS 
(a) Ad hoc  Observers 
147. The Committee agreed to invite all of the ad hoc  observers to participate in the next 
Committee meeting, including the informal meeting on ad hoc  consultations, on private standards and 
on the Third Review. 
(b) New Requests 
148. The Secretariat reported that there were five new requests for observer status.  While CABI 
(G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.9), ECCAS (G/SPS/GEN/121/ Add.10) and CITES (G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.11) 
had provided the requested background information,  IGAD and COMESA had not yet submitted that 
information. 
149. The representative of the United States stated that the United States was not in a position to 
approve the requests of the organisations that had provided background information as those were 
currently under review. 
(c) Outstanding Requests (APCC, CBD, GSO, OIV) 
150. The representative of the United States reported that the request of the CBD was currently 
under review. 
151. The representative of New Zealand requested clar ification as to the time period over which an 
international organization could remain on the list for requests for observer status.  The Chairman 
responded that the Committee had not decided on actions concerning past requests, hence the 
Committee would continue to look at those requests until a decision was made. 
152. The Committee agreed to revert to these outsta nding requests at the next regular meeting. 
XIII.  ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON 
153. The Chairman informed the Committee that the Council for Trade in Goods had agreed to the 
election of Mr Deny Kurnia of Indonesia as the new Chairperson of the Committee on Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures.  The Committee endorsed th e election of Mr Kurnia by acclamation, and 
voiced its appreciation to Mr Damico for his consid erable efforts and accomplishments as chairperson 
during the past year.  
154. The Chairman expressed his gratitude to the Secretariat and the Members of the SPS 
Committee for their hard work. The Secretariat also  thanked the Chairperson for his work as Chair. 
XIV.  OTHER BUSINESS 
155. The representative of Hong Kong, China repor ted that on 22 March 2011, the European 
Union had enacted Commission Regulation No. 284/2011, outlining a more stringent set of testing  G/SPS/R/62 
 Page 25 
 
 
 controls for the imports of Polyamide and Melamine Plastic Kitchenware, originating in or consigned 
from China and Hong Kong, China.  Hong Kong, Chin a was concerns that while the regulation would 
take effect on 1 July, it had not yet been notified.   Hong Kong, China was also concerned that the 
restrictions were discriminatory, and that despite  bilateral discussions, Hong Kong, China`s concerns 
had not yet been addressed. 
156. The representative of China supported the view s expressed by Hong Kong, China and noted 
that the EU restrictions were discriminatory as th ey only applied to China and Hong Kong, China.  
China requested that the European Union provide  scientific justification for the measures, and 
postpone the effective date of the regulation. 
157. The representative of the European Union stated that she was not in a position to reply in 
detail to these concerns.  However, the European  Union would hold discussions with China and Hong 
Kong, China in the interim period be fore the next Committee meeting. 
XV. DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING 
158. The Chairman recalled that the next meeting of the Committee was tentatively scheduled for 
29-30 June 2011 .  An informal meeting on ad hoc  consultations, on private standards and on issues 
arising from the Third Review would be scheduled immediately prior to the next Committee meeting. 
 
159. The Committee agreed to the following tent ative agenda for its next meeting: 
1. Adoption of the agenda 
2. Information on relevant activities 
(a) Information from Members 
(b) Information from Observer organizations 
3. Specific trade concerns 
(a) New issues 
(b) Issues previously raised 
(c) Consideration of specific notifications received 
(d) Information on resolution of issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.11 
4. Operation of transparency provisions 
5. Implementation of special and differential treatment 
6. Equivalence – Article 4 
(a) Information from Members on their experiences 
(b) Information from relevant  Observer organizations 
7. Pest- and Disease-free areas – Article 6 
(a) Information from Members on their pest or disease status 
(b) Information from Members on their experiences in recognition of pest- or 
disease-free areas 
(c) Information from relevant  observer organizations G/SPS/R/62 
Page 26  
 
 8. Technical assistance and cooperation 
(a) Information from the Secretariat 
  (i) WTO SPS Activities 
  (ii) STDF 
(b) Information from Members 
(c) Information from Observers 
9. Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement 
(a) Issues arising from the Second Review 
(i) Use of ad hoc consultations – Report on informal meeting 
(b) Issues arising from the Third Review 
(i) Report on informal meeting 
10. Monitoring of the use of international standards 
(a) New issues 
(b) Issues previously raised 
(c) Adoption of annual report 
11. Concerns with private and commercial standards 
(a) Report on informal meeting 
12. Observers – Request for observer status 
(a) Ad hoc Observers 
(b) New Requests 
(c) Outstanding requests 
13. Other business 
14. Date and agenda of next meeting 
160. Members were asked to take note of the following deadlines: 
(i) For submitting suggested amendments to the heading of action 6 on private standards 
(G/SPS/W/256):  Friday,  29 April 2011;  
(ii) For submitting proposals on issues to be considered by the Committee during the 
Third Review:  Friday,  29 April 2011 ; 
(iii) For submitting comments on the current working documents relating to ad hoc  
consultation, JOB/SPS/1 and G/SPS/W/243/Rev 4:  Friday, 29 April 2011;  
(iv) For comments on the workshop on National and Regional Coordination as well as 
suggestions on possible speakers and the agenda :  Friday, 27 May 2011;  
(v) For identifying new issues for considera tion under the monitoring procedure, AND 
for requesting that items be put on the agenda:  Thursday, 16 June, 2011 ;  and 
(vi) For the distribution of the airgram:  Friday, 17 June, 2011.  
 
__________