WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
G/SPS/R/63 
12 September 2011 
 (11-4380) 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF 30 JUNE-1 JULY 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 .................................................................................. 4  
III. SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS (G/SPS/GEN/204/REV.11) ............................................. 5  
(a)  New Issues .................................................................................................................... .............. 5  
(b)  Issues Previous ly Raised ...................................................................................................... ....... 8 
(c)  Consideration of Specific Notifications Received .................................................................... 16  
(d)  Information on Resolution of Issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.11 ............................................ 16  
IV.  OPERATION OF TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS ........................................................ 16  
V.  IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT ................ 17  
VI.  EQUIVALENCE – ARTICLE 4 ............................................................................................ 17  
(a)  Information from Members on their Experiences ..................................................................... 17  
(b)  Information from Relevant Observer Organizations ................................................................ 17  
VII. PEST- AND DISEASE-FREE AREAS – ARTICLE 6 ........................................................ 17  
(a)  Information from Members on their Pest or Disease Status ..................................................... 17  
(b)  Information from Members on their Experi ences in Recognition of Pest- or Disease-
free Areas .................................................................................................................... .............. 17  
(c)  Information from Relevant Observer Organizations ................................................................ 17  
VIII. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND CO-OPERATION ...................................................... 17  
(a)  Information from the Secretariat .............................................................................................. . 17 
(b)  Information from Members ...................................................................................................... . 18 
(c)  Information from Observers .................................................................................................... . 19 
IX.  REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS 
AGREEMENT ..................................................................................................................... ... 20 
(a)  Issues Arising from the Second Review (G/SPS/W/259) ......................................................... 20  
(b)  Issues Arising from the Third Review (G/SPS/GEN/1086) ..................................................... 22  
X.  MONITORING THE USE OF IN TERNATIONAL STANDARDS .................................. 24  
                                                      
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/63 
Page 2  
 
  (a)  New Issues .................................................................................................................... ............ 24  
(b)  Issues Previous ly Raised ...................................................................................................... ..... 24 
(c)  Adoption of the Annual Report .................................................................................................  26 
XI.  CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS ............................ 26  
(a)  Report on Informal Meeting .................................................................................................... . 26 
XII. REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS ............................................................................ 28  
(a)  Ad hoc Observers .............................................................................................................. ........ 28 
(b)  New Requests .................................................................................................................. ......... 28 
(c)  Outstanding Requests........................................................................................................... ..... 28 
XIII. OTHER BUSINESS ................................................................................................................  29 
XIV. DATE AND AGENDA OF NE XT MEETING ..................................................................... 29  
  G/SPS/R/63 
 Page 3 
 
 
  I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA 
1. The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measu res (the "Committee") held its fifty-first 
meeting on 30 June - 1 July 2011.  The propo sed agenda for the meeting was adopted with 
amendments (WTO/AIR/3774). 
II. INFORMATION ON RELEVANT ACTIVITIES 
(a) Information from Members 
2. The European Union provided updates on the Foot  and Mouth Disease situation in Bulgaria.   
As there had not been any new outbreaks since 7 April 2011, the European Union had reduced the areas under restriction.  The European Union would continue to follow this matter closely and adapt 
its measures on the basis of regular surveillance.  More information is available in G/SPS/GEN/1072. 
3. The European Union also reported on th e recent outbreak of Shiga Toxin-Producing 
Escherichia Coli (STEC).  Since the beginning of the outbreak, the European Union had continually provided information and communicated with its trad ing partners.  As soon as the outbreak became 
known on 22 May, all existing surveillance networ ks were immediately activated and followed the 
outbreak closely.   The strain that had been id entified in the European Union was O104:H4.  The 
epidemiological investigations were on-going and a task force was created which determined that the 
seeds used for the production of bean sprouts were the source of the outbreak.  A recent report from 
the European Food Safety Authority and the Europ ean Centre for Disease Prevention and Control was 
already available on the internet.  The European  Union urged Members to lift any discriminatory 
import restrictions that had been imposed given th at the source of the outbreak had been identified. 
4. China introduced its new Regionalization Management System on Food Safety 
(G/SPS/GEN/1101).  The presentation highlighted (i) the concept of regionalization management of 
food safety;  (ii) the scientific connotations of regi onalization management  of food safety;  (iii) the 
nine major working mechanisms;  (iv) primary control measures and;  (v) the system's main 
achievements.  The system had been successfully implemented in 27 provinces, 261 counties; and had 
brought together all food safety stake-holders.  In 2010, the counties that had successfully 
implemented the new system had met all import requi rements, demonstrating that the regionalization 
management system was an effective tool to address food safety concerns.  The new system would indeed be extended to other provinces.  In respon se to an OIE observation that China's definition of 
the term "regionalization" differed from that of th e OIE and the IPPC, China noted that it had spent 
more than ten years building its capacity to enable regionalization within the OIE context.  The World 
Bank recalled that a memorandum was signed in  May between the World Bank and APEC on 
strengthening food safety capacity.  The World Bank commended China's efforts and highlighted that 
this system was a crucial step in improving food safety capacity, which had been identified as a high 
priority issue by APEC. 
5. Japan provided information on the efforts being taken in response to the recent nuclear plant 
accident.  Japan highlighted that it would be diffi cult to indicate when the accident would be 
completely rectified, however information would be provided to the international community to 
ensure transparency.  Since the previous SPS Co mmittee meeting, Japan had continued to monitor 
levels of radioactive contaminants in food to prevent food exceeding the regulatory levels from 
entering any market.  Japan invited delegates to an  information session regarding the status of the 
nuclear accident and Japan's efforts to ensure food safety that would be held later in the day. 
6. Korea reported that as of 15 June 2011, it had c onsolidated three separate quarantine agencies 
for animals, plants and fish into one agency called the Animal, Plant and Fishery Quarantine and 
Inspection Agency (G/SPS/GEN/1104). G/SPS/R/63 
Page 4  
 
  7. Belize reported that the Agricultural Health Aut hority, in collaboration with the Ministry of 
Agriculture, the Belize Livestock Association an d with technical assistance from the Mexican 
Veterinary Services Authority, was finalizing preparations for comprehensive surveillance 
programmes for Bovine Tuberculos is, Bovine Brucellosis and Bovi ne Spongiform Encephalopathy, as 
well as for implementing an animal identification system for bovine.  Draft enabling legislation had 
been circulated to Members (G/SPS/N/BLZ/2, G/SPS/N/BLZ/3, G/SPS/N/BLZ/4, G/SPS/N/BLZ/5 
and G/SPS/N/BLZ/6), and Belize hoped to enact all five pieces of legislation as soon as the comment period was over. 
(b) Information from Observer Organizations 
8. The OIE gave an overview of its 79th session, he ld in May.  After years of collaborative 
effort, rinderpest had been eradicated globally.  The OIE was collaborating with the FAO under the 
framework of GF-TAD to eradicate Foot and Mouth Disease.  Details of the global strategy recommended at the 2009 OIE/FAO Global Conferen ce on FMD would be presented in June 2012 at 
the second Global Conference, in Bangkok.  The 79t h session had adopted 44 new or revised chapters 
in the Terrestrial Animal Health Code, and a new chapter on responsible use of antimicrobial agents 
in aquatic animals, as well as a number of amendm ents, were adopted in the Aquatic Animal Health 
Code.   
9. The IPPC reported on its work on developing a sy stem for electronic certification (EPHYTO).  
It also drew attention to its standard-setting work  programme, and its activities relating to information 
exchange, dispute settlement, capacity building,  review and support of implementation of the 
international phytosanitary standards, and resource mobilization (G/SPS/GEN/1102). 
10. Korea thanked the IPPC secretariat and its member countries for organizing the EPHYTO 
workshop, and New Zealand for providing financia l support for the participation of developing 
countries. 
11. The European Union stated that it would continue to support the OIE, IPPC and the Codex, 
particularly in their efforts to facilitate the partic ipation of developing countries in the work of the 
three Sisters.  The European Union reported that  it was in the process of considering additional 
funding for the IPPC's Implementation Review and Support System for the next two years, and urged 
other donors to support the IPPC's initiatives to en sure their continuation and sustainability.  The E-
certification system could be an initiative that increased cooperation between the three standard-
setting bodies. 
12. Australia indicated that it had been lobbying  for increased core funding to the IPPC, and 
encouraged other Members to also lobby the FAO to increase core funding for the IPPC.  Australia 
had also provided funding of over US$570,000 to the IPPC Trust Fund, including a contribution to 
allow the focus group meeting to be held in July to improve the standard-setting process. 
13. SADC reported on the implementation of the SPS A nnex to the SADC Protocol on Trade.  It 
had facilitated the formation of national SPS coordi nating committees in ten member states and an 
eleventh country had an active national Codex co mmittee which was currently serving as the national 
SPS committee.  The remaining SADC members were  in the process of establishing their national 
SPS committees.  A regional SPS stakeholder workshop in April had finalized and adopted a number of guidelines.  The work of the regional SPS Comm ittee, which would be launched in July 2011, 
would be guided by the standards and principles of the WTO, IPPC and Codex.  The WTO Secretariat 
requested that SADC inform its members of the WTO technical assistance and training programmes 
planned for 2011, including the October workshop on national and regional coordination, as well as 
the regional workshop being offered for Anglophone African countries.  G/SPS/R/63 
 Page 5 
 
 
  III. SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS (G/SPS/GEN/204/REV.11) 
(a) New Issues 
(i) Mexico's BSE Measures - Concerns of Canada 
14. Canada recalled that since 2003, Canada had requested that Mexico accept beef imports from 
cows over 30 months old.  In 2007, the OIE rec ognized Canada as a "controlled" BSE-risk country 
and the status has since been reconfirmed every year.  In 2008, Mexico too was recognized as a 
"controlled" BSE-risk country.  Cana da had engaged with Mexico at a ll levels concerning this issue.  
On 12 June, Mexico shared a technical report wh ich highlighted the basis of Mexico's current 
decision, however Canada did not consider that this report provided scientific evidence to support 
Mexico's measure.  Canada requested Mexico's par ticipation in an high-level technical meeting to 
further discuss scientific evidence on BSE-related measures. 
15. The European Union shared the concerns rai sed by Canada as Mexico also continued to 
impose BSE-related import restrictions on beef and beef products from EU member States with 
controlled risk status.  As Mexico allowed impor ts of beef and beef-re lated products from other 
similarly categorized countries, these restrictions a ppeared to be discriminatory.  The United States 
also urged Mexico to base its BSE import requireme nts on science, consistent with the OIE standards 
for "controlled" risk countries, as a zero risk  standard was both unworkable and inappropriate. 
16. Mexico indicated that it had provided a tec hnical report to Canada on 10 June 2011, which 
provided details on the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease-rela ted risks of eating of meat from cattle over 
30 months old.  The technical report referred to info rmation that had been provided by Canada in a 
report dated 23 July 2003.  The Canadian report highli ghted that in spite of the removal of high-risk 
tissue from BSE-infected animals, th ere still remained some risk to th e consumer.  The risk analysis 
provided by Canada had been based on cattle that were less than 30 months  old, and Mexico had 
requested a risk analysis on animals older than 30 months.  However, Canadi ans apparently did not 
consume meat from cattle older than 30 months, as was stated in a Canadian Medical Association 
Journal article dated 9 Novemb er 2010, presented at the March Committee meeting.  Mexico's 
technical report highlighted that some countries we re found to have a higher incidence of Creutzfeldt-
Jakob disease due to the consumption of meat that had been infected with BSE, and Canada was 
ranked number eight in the occurrence of the Creu tzfeldt-Jakob disease.  According to a Canadian 
Ministry of Health meeting on 26 August 2010, Canada  had not at that time established the origin of 
the disease.  Mexico stressed that its risk analysis  did not require the complete absence of BSE, and 
Mexico was willing to continue to work on this issue bilaterally with Canada. 
(ii) US failure to recognize South Patagonia as FMD-free and to Import Beef from North of the 
42nd Parallel - Concerns of Argentina 
17. Argentina expressed its concern that the Unite d States failed to recognize South Patagonia as 
a FMD-free region without vaccination, despite the OI E recognition of this status for South Patagonia 
since 2002.  The request for recognition had been sent to the United States in 2003, and a risk analysis 
conducted in 2007 gave satisfactory results, however no recognition had been granted.  Argentina was 
also concerned about the delay in the US authori zation of imports of fresh, chilled and frozen beef 
from the region north of the 42nd parallel.  The OI E recognized the rest of Argentina as an FMD-free 
area with vaccination in 2007.   The US Department  of Agriculture (USDA) had carried out an audit 
in 2006, but had never reported the results.  The delays in processing both of these requests were not 
due to scientific reasons and were therefore in cont ravention of Articles 3 and 6, and Annex C, of the 
SPS Agreement. G/SPS/R/63 
Page 6  
 
  18. The United States stated that USDA was consider ing several requests from Argentina to allow 
imports of lamb and beef into the United States.  USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
(APHIS) had made significant progress in recognizing the FMD-free status of South Patagonia.  In 
light of the information Argentina provided in 2009,  which was used to update the 2005 risk analysis, 
APHIS was able to conclude that the import of ruminants and ruminant products from this region 
presented a negligible risk of FMD.  This informa tion was used in preparing a draft report to Congress 
on the risk associated with importing ruminants or ruminant products from Southern Patagonia.  By law, the report had to be submitted to the Co ngress before USDA could move forward with 
administrative rule-making.  APHIS had also complete d the risk analysis regarding the region north of 
the 42nd parallel and would subsequently draft a proposal to allow the importation of beef under 
certain conditions. 
(iii) Chinese Quarantine and Testing Procedures  for Salmon - Concerns of Norway 
(G/SPS/GEN/1090) 
19. Norway stated that after years of steady incr ease in its exports of fresh salmon to China, 
exports had dropped significantly due to testing a nd quarantine procedures implemented by China on 
13 December 2010.  These were followed by streng thened inspection and quarantine procedures as 
stated in Notice No. 9 2011, which had not been notified to the WTO.  The Norwegian monitoring 
programmes, in operation since 1998, showed no presen ce of illegal substances in the fish products 
and had consistently documented lo w levels of contaminants.  Chin a's measures did not seem to be 
based on scientific principles or a risk assessment, and Norway requested an explanation for these 
measures and how they complied with the SPS Agreement. 
20. The United States supported Norway and ex pressed their concern that China had 
implemented AQS1Q Order No. 9, Notice on Strengthening Inspection and Quarantine on Imported Salmon, in February 2011, without  having notified the measure.  The stated objective of this notice 
was to safeguard consumer health, however no risk assessment had been provided.  The United States 
requested a copy of China's risk assessment, and requested that China rescind AQS1Q Order No. 9's 
documentation requirements until the measure had been  notified.  China was also asked to explain 
how the requirement for the exporter's vessel name and number related to ensuring that wild salmon 
was safe for human consumption. 
21. The European Union also called fo r transparency in all SPS matters. 
22. China clarified that since 2010, the entry an d exit inspection and quarantine bureaus in China 
had detected fish lice, pathogenic micro-organism s and excess veterinary drug residues in imported 
chilled salmon.  In an attempt to protect their c onsumers, China had published a notice to strengthen 
the inspection and quarantine of imported sal mon, based on The Administrative Measure for 
Inspection, Quarantine and Supervision on Import an d Export of Feed and Feed Additives and its 
revision and amendment measures of imports and expor ts of aquatic products, which were notified to 
the WTO.  The measures taken were covered by th ese laws and regulations without any new element 
and therefore it was unnecessary to make another notification.  China had already responded to 
Norway's concerns when it raised them in Marc h 2011, during Norway's visit to China's AQSIQ and 
hoped that those replies addressed its  concerns.  China was open to further bilateral discussions with 
the European Union and the United States on this topic. 
23. Norway stressed that ensuring sea-food safety is  a major objective of Norwegian authorities, 
who monitor the presence of undesirable substances, microorganisms and parasites in wild-caught and 
farmed seafood, as well as fish feed.  Norway  had been performing a risk assessment on seafood, 
based on studies of the most commercially important fish species in Norway.  Stakeholders often held 
conflicting views on food safety and on the benefits  of seafood and it was important to distinguish 
between fact and fiction.  Norway was keen to  further collaborate in this area with China.  G/SPS/R/63 
 Page 7 
 
 
  24. China observed that Norway's concerns focussed on the detailed testing methods, however 
these purely technical matters had to be discussed among scientists.  In March, scientists from both 
countries had held detailed discussions on this issue, and almost all of Norway's concerns had been 
clarified.  China was disappointed with the lack of  Norwegian efforts to reso lve this issue, as when 
any cargo was identified to be carrying disease the problem was supposed to be rectified by the 
exporter.  China welcomed Norway's and other inter ested parties participation in bilateral discussions 
as this issue had been on-going for two years. 
(iv) Philippine Restrictions on Imported Fres h Meat - Concerns of the United States 
25. The United States stated that Administrative Order Number 22 (AO 22) of the Philippines, 
and its draft successor, had disproportionately affect ed trade from other countries.  It was not clear 
why the prescribed cold chain requirement for fro zen, chilled meat and chilled meat products, which 
are primarily imported, was not being equally applie d to fresh meat.  The traceability, packaging and 
labelling requirements in both AO 22 and the new draft Administrative Order imposed additional 
burdens on the marketing and sale of frozen meat and meat products in the Philippines, yet there was apparently no risk assessment to support the adopt ion of these measures.  There seemed to be no 
scientific justification for this requirement, which appeared to discriminate against imports, and which 
undermined the food safety advantages of frozen meat.  The failure to follow any standard international practice created the impression that the se measures were simply to restrict trade.  The 
United States requested a copy of the Philippines' risk assessment and the suspension of AO 22 and its 
draft successor, as well its notification to the WTO. 
26. Canada expressed its concern that AO 22, as well as its draft replacement, only addressed the 
safety of frozen chilled meat and provided no scienti fic rationale for imposing different food safety 
measures than for fresh meat.  These measures seemed  to disproportionately affect imported meat.  
The measure had been implemented without notifi cation to the WTO, and given the lack of a 
scientific rationale, Canada requested that AO 22 be suspended until the replacement measures were 
amended to include comparable food safety requirements for fresh meat. 
27. The European Union supported the concerns of the United States and observed that the 
revision of AO 22 was currently going through a domestic consultation process and requested 
clarification as to why the requirements for warm meat, which is mostly locally produced, were lower 
than those for frozen chilled meat, which is mostly imported.  The new legislation issued in 2010 was 
not notified to the WTO, no supporting risk assess ment had been provided, and there was no 
opportunity for comments to be taken into account.  The European Union, therefore, requested the 
suspension of AO 22. 
28. The Philippines stated that the rules and regul ations for the handling of frozen and chilled 
meat and meat products were contained in AO 22, which was a post-border measure aimed at 
improving the country's meat hygiene and meat safety  system up to the point of retail sale.  AO 22 
was to be implemented by local government units , with assistance from the national meat inspection 
service.  AO 22 did not impose additional requirement s and did not modify the provisions related to 
pre-border measures for the export of meat and meat products to the Philippines.  The basis for this 
measure was the USDA code for frozen meat, wh ich required that thawi ng be done under chilled 
conditions and a cold chain be maintained until c onsumed.  This was recommended also by the Codex 
Code of Practice for the Processing and Handling of  Quick Frozen Foods (CAC/RCP 8-1976) and the 
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and so the Philippines had adopted the best standards.  The 
Philippines assumed that the United States and other trading partners had c onducted a risk assessment 
for their codes of practice and so there was no need  for the Philippines to do its own risk assessment 
when imposing the same measures.  Neither were th e Philippines obliged to notify a measure based on 
the Codex Code of Practice.  AO 22 was not discrim inatory as it applied to both imported and locally 
produced meat.  However, AO 22 did not apply to freshly slaughtered meat, which was a different G/SPS/R/63 
Page 8  
 
  product.  There were no Codex standards for wa rm meat products and th e Philippines acknowledged 
that a risk assessment for freshly slaughtered meat  was required. This would be carried out, and 
guidelines developed, based on available studi es and data provided by trading partners. 
29. The United States noted that the measures, which the Philippines said were based in part on a 
USDA risk assessment, needed to be proportional to the risks identified in th at risk assessment.  The 
management tools and decisions by the Philippines went far beyond what was identified in the risk 
assessment, and the United States requested that th e Philippines provide additional scientific evidence 
to justify its measures. 
(v) Japan's MRLs applied to Sesame - C oncerns of Paraguay (G/SPS/GEN/1091) 
30. Paraguay expressed concerns that Japan's MR Ls for pesticides in sesame were more 
restrictive than those applied to other sim ilar products, and had a negative impact on trade 
(G/SPS/GEN/1091).  The application of an across-the- board uniform limit was inconsistent with the 
principles of the SPS Agreement. 
31. Japan observed that there were no Codex MRLs for sesame.  Japan applied a uniform limit of 
0.01 ppm as this was unlikely to damage human health based on the concept of acceptable exposure 
that had been scientifically assessed by JEFCA.  Th ese uniform limits had been notified to the WTO. 
The European Union also imposed the same uni form limit.  Japan could establish MRLs for 
compound/commodity combinations which were not re gistered in its legislation, in response to 
exporting country applications for import tolerances.  Japan invited Paraguay to file an application for 
an import tolerance with the Ministry of Health  Labour and Welfare, and to provide the necessary 
data for assessment.  Paraguay should be aware, how ever, that the MRL set by the European Union 
for the compound in sesame was 0.05 ppm. 
(b) Issues Previously Raised 
(i) Application and Modification of  the EU Regulation on Novel Foods - Concerns of Peru 
(No. 238) 
32. Peru raised concerns about Regulation 258/97 th at restricted foods which were not marketed 
in the European Union before 15 May 1997 and had therefore been categorized as novel foods.  This 
particularly affected trade in Peruvian traditional foods that were safely sold  in the United States and 
Japan (G/SPS/GEN/1087). 
33. Colombia shared the concern of Peru, as this regulation was an unjustified barrier to trade of 
traditional foods and consequently impeded economi c activities.  In 2009, the European Union had 
agreed to change this regulation in a way that would take into account tr aditional foods.  This 
modification had not been implemented, however , because of disagreements that the European 
Council and the European Parliament had regardi ng products of cloned animals, although there was 
general agreement on traditional foods.  Colombia en couraged the European Union to separate these 
issues and resolve the matter of tr aditional foods by the end of 2011. 
34. Brazil, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Mexico and Paraguay s upported the concerns 
raised by Peru and Colombia.  
35. The European Union stated that foods were considered novel under the present 
Regulation 258/97 if they were derived from new t echnological processes or if they had no significant 
history of consumption in Europe.  On 15 January 2008, steps were taken to update the existing novel 
food rules in an effort to facilitate applications for novel food authorizations and to simplify market 
access to the European Union for traditional foodst uffs from third countries which had a history of  G/SPS/R/63 
 Page 9 
 
 
  safe food use.  However, the initial proposal submitt ed to the co-legislators was not adopted.  The 
main stumbling blocks related to provisions re garding food from cloned animals and nanotechnology.  
Any new regulation would contain a centralized an d quicker authorization procedure for novel foods 
and specific measures for traditional foods, as agreem ent had indeed already been reached on this 
issue between the European co-legislators. 
(ii) EU Maximum Residue Levels of Pesticides - Concerns of India (No. 306) 
36. India recalled that the European Union had previ ously indicated that its trading partners could 
apply for higher MRLs by providing scientific ev idence.  However, the application of the 
precautionary principle in the case of chemicals that  had been used for decades without any negative 
effects resulted in an unjustified trade barrier.  The MRLs had been set at the level of detection (LOD) 
without a risk assessment.  The LOD was the limit below which residues could not be detected by 
using sophisticated analytical methods, virtually a zero tolerance, and imported food items containing 
small traces of pesticides were being adversely aff ected.  In addition, the European Union had not 
made, or not shared, any scientific assessments that  justified the default MRL for some pesticides.  
The default MRLs created distrust as private labs we re being used to run the assessments and at times 
they used testing methods which were not in  line with the European Commission guidelines on 
method validation and quality control procedures for pesticide residue analysis in food and feed.  
Furthermore, the aggressive business behaviour by private labs in approaching exporting countries 
like India for pre-screening services was a cause for concern.  India requested that the European 
Union provide the scientific justification for the cu rrent MRLs for certain pesticides, rather than 
shifting the burden of proof onto exporters by requiring that they provide justifications when applying 
for higher MRLs.  India urged the European Union to take effective steps to remove these trade 
restrictive measures. 
37. The European Union stated that since 2008, a new legislative framework had been in 
operation which completed the harmoni zation and simplification of pesticide MRLs and eliminated all 
technical barriers to trade.  The full details of the EU policy on pesticides had been presented at the 
March SPS Committee meeting.  Tradi ng partners could apply for an MRL that was greater than what 
was foreseen in the EU legislation by providing scientific evidence justifying the higher level.  
Regarding the commodities of interest to India, the European Union was prepared to modify relevant 
MRLs assuming that the requisite information was pr ovided.  India had in fact already submitted an 
application for a higher MRL for isoprothiolane on  rice which was been evaluated by the European 
Food Safety Authority (EFSA), however, further in formation was required from India.  As far as 
grapes were concerned, data from 2011 indicated that no obstacles had been identified. 
(iii) Japan's Prohibition of Certain Food A dditives – Concerns of India (No. 307) 
38. India remained concerned that food additives we re being prohibited on the basis that they 
were not in use in Japan, without a risk assessment.  Some of the food a dditives that were restricted in 
Japan were in use in other countries, and such  a measure to prohibit these additives without any 
scientific basis violated the SPS Agreement.  I ndia requested that Japan provide a scientific 
justification for this decision, and that it perm it the use of these additiv es whilst the issue was under 
review. 
39. Japan stated that a number of substances on th e list of existing food additives had been used 
without a scientifically-based safety assessment.  Si nce 1996, Japan had been systematically carrying 
out safety verifications of the listed substances to  establish requirements based on science.  There was 
no indication that some of the food additives on the list were actually in use in the Japanese market, 
and Japan intended to delist these substances.  Howeve r, this was to facilitate the safety verification 
process, not to restrict international trade.  As of 6 May 2011, 55 substances had been withdrawn from the list of existing food additives.  Japan encourag ed India to provide information documenting the G/SPS/R/63 
Page 10  
 
  use of these substances in the Japanese market before Japan finalized the revision process.  Many 
Members had commented on G/SPS/N/JPN/255 at the October 2010 meeting, and Japan responded to India's comments in November 2010.  However, I ndia had submitted its comments four months after 
the conclusion of the notification period, so Jap an would use this information in the future. 
(iv) EC Regulation No. 1099/2009 – C oncerns of India (No. 300) 
40. India expressed concerns regarding the imp act of EC Regulation No. 1099/2009, dated 
24 September 2009, and inquired whether the Europ ean Union would notify this regulation.  India 
requested clarification of whether Article 12 of th e Regulation required that the health certificate be 
supplemented by an attestation certifying that re quirements laid down in Chapters II and III or 
equivalent practices would be fo llowed, and what would be the pa rameters for assessing equivalence 
in such a case.  India also sought clarification re garding who was required to make the attestation and 
whether the certificate could be issued by persons involved in slaughter operations in third countries 
as referred to in Article 7 of the Regulation. 
41. The European Union responded that the SPS Agr eement does not cover animal welfare.  The 
European Union also failed to understand the releva nce of this to trade as India does not export pig, 
poultry or bovine meat to the European Union, nor had India provided any data on future plans to do 
so.  EC Regulation No. 1099/2009 established comm on EU minimum rules for the protection of 
animals at the time of slaughter and would apply from 1 January 2013.  The principles were science-
based, developed in line with inte rnational standards on the humane slaughter of animals by the OIE, 
and were not restrictive of trade in that thir d countries were not obliged to adopt identical 
requirements, but only equivalent requirements.  Th e European Union was willing to work with the 
relevant Indian authorities to address any impact that  this legislation might have on India-EU trade, 
both current and potential. 
(v) US Food Safety Modernization Act – Concerns of India (No. 299) 
42. India indicated that the US Food Safety and Modernization Act (FSMA) introduced an 
elaborate multi-layered scheme of checks within th e food supply chain to minimize the possibility of 
food contamination, putting extra burden on exporters a nd leading to higher transaction costs.  In this 
light, India sought clarification on several key issues, including the foreign supplier verification programme, the voluntary qualified im porter programme, certification and audit, and regulations to be 
introduced under the FSMA.  India urged the United States to ensure the FSMA is in line with the 
SPS Agreement and the Codex principles and guide lines for the design, operation, assessment and 
accreditation of food import and export inspection and certification systems. 
43. China expressed disappointment that the United St ates did not notify nor provide a sufficient 
comment period.  To avoid unnecessary restrictions on trade, the United States should consider the compatibility of the FSMA regulations with those of developing country Members with whom the 
United States had signed bilateral SPS protocols.   Bearing in mind the importance of food and 
agricultural exports for developing country Memb ers, the United States should provide a sufficient 
transition period, as well as technical assistance, for developing country Members to adapt to the new 
requirements. 
44. Mexico remained concerned about the admi nistrative procedures in Section 207, the 
requirements for accreditation, the inspection pr ocedures regarding cont rol and approval in 
Section 306, the possibility of recognition of e quivalence between countri es or Memoranda of 
Understanding, and Section 301 rega rding foreign suppliers.  Mexico appreciated the US presentation 
at the last Committee meeting and the meetings  between Mexican and FDA authorities in June.  G/SPS/R/63 
 Page 11 
 
 
  45. The United States emphasized its commitment to implementing FSMA in a transparent 
manner according to its WTO obligations, and keep ing in mind Codex standards, guidelines, and 
texts.  It had notified FSMA as G/SPS/N/USA/2156 in February 2011, and the FDA had conducted 
numerous outreach sessions including a special session at the March SPS Committee meeting to 
provide detailed explanati ons of the law.  The United Stat es had received comments from China and 
Mexico, but not from India, before the June me eting.  The FDA had not yet implemented the 
provisions regarding foreign supplier and volunt ary importer programmes and welcomed Members' 
comments when these provisions were notified, in pa rticular scientific evidence on potential health 
and safety concerns and data on ec onomic impacts.  The United States reported that it would notify all 
implementing regulations to fore ign stakeholders through the WTO, as they are developed and 
consistent with its international obligations.  A series of events had been organized between FDA 
representatives in Delhi and relevant Indian author ities, including a briefing on the FSMA in February 
2011, a discussion regarding third party certification in  May 2011, a series of four-day workshops to 
over 175 participants in May 2011, and a meeting of senior Indian officials and exporters in October 2011. 
(vi) EU Regulation on Polyamide and Melamine Pl astic Kitchenware - Concerns of China 
46. China indicated that the European Union had not  provided an adequate transition period for 
manufacturers to adapt to EU Regulation 284/20 11.  Although the EU framework legislation 
669/2009 had been notified, it was a very general re gulation that Members could not use to predict the 
application of specific measures to particular produ cts.  China requested th at the European Union 
notify EU Regulation 284/2011 and provide a reasona ble comment period.  The European Union was 
requested to provide all notifications and alerts concerning plastic kitchenware received by the rapid 
alert system, not only those originating in or consigned from China and Hong Kong, China, and ensure that its measures were not arbitrary or unjus tifiably discriminatory.  Furthermore, the European 
Union should ensure the plastic food contact ma terial product standards in 2002/72/EC and the 
15 mg/kg formaldehyde limit in Regulation 284/2011 were based on internationa l standards;  or else 
provide data, risk analysis, and testing reports of the substances found in plastic kitchenware in order 
to prove the measures were based on sufficient scientific evidence. 
47. Hong Kong, China remained unconvinced that  the measure introduced by the European 
Union was non-discriminatory, given that the regulation imposed a more stringent import requirement on consignments from Hong Kong, China vis-à-vis t hose from other countries with a similar export or 
re-export trade.  It did not appear that the EU re gulation referred to any international standard, and 
Hong Kong, China urged the European Union to notif y the regulation and to conduct an early review 
of the measure with the purpose of repealing any di scriminatory measure against the relevant products 
originating in or consigned from Hong Kong, China. 
48. The European Union stated the regulation ha d its legal basis in Regulation 882/2004 on 
official food and feed controls and in Directive 2002/72 on provisions relating to plastic materials and 
articles intended to come into contact with foods tuffs.  These regulations were notified in 2002 and 
2003, respectively.  Mandatory border controls for plastic kitchenware imported from China and 
Hong Kong, China had been imposed as of 1 July 2011 due to the high number of alerts received 
regarding the non-compliance of these products.  Th e EU Food Veterinary Office (FVO) inspection 
missions to China and Hong Kong, China also reporte d there were insufficient export control systems 
in place for these products.  While the particular me asures in question were applied only to China and 
Hong Kong, China, the measures were not discrimin atory because they were applied solely for the 
reasons identified.  The measures were proportionate  and did not impose burdens additional to what 
was applicable to European products.  The measur es were also limited to the extent necessary to 
control the risk identified, and were scientifically justified on the basis of an opinion from EFSA.  The 
measures would remain in place until the situatio n changed and the border controls revealed a 
significant drop in non-conforming products.  The European Union was willing to offer assistance G/SPS/R/63 
Page 12  
 
  regarding how the relevant procedures must be applied in practice, had published guidelines on the 
implementation of the regulation and provided information on the EU  website regarding technical 
information on the physical checks that were applied. 
(vii) Turkey's Restrictions on Products Derived from  Biotechnology - Concerns of the United 
States (No. 302) 
49. The United States expressed concerns regarding the 1 April extension of the Biosafety Law to 
prohibit the use of products derived from biotechnol ogy for industrial purposes, including cotton fibre 
from biotech cotton.  The action was implemente d without advance notice and caused additional 
disruption to trade.  This reinforced previously ra ised concerns with the Biosafety Law, including the 
apparent lack of scientific justification, lack of  transparency, lack of predictability for approvals, 
extreme liability provisions, and lack of response to  requests for clarification.  The United States 
remained eager to work with Turkey to develop solu tions to these concerns and to prevent future trade 
disruptions. 
50. Canada reiterated that several provisions of the regulation lacked a scientific basis and were 
unduly trade restrictive, in particular the provisi ons related to the GMO approval process, a ban on 
GMO cultivation, mandatory labelling, and the cer tification and inspection regime.  Canada had 
appreciated its discussions with Turkey on 29 June 2011, and wished to prevent unnecessary 
disruptions to trade. 
51. Argentina and Paraguay supported the concerns of the United States and Canada, and urged 
Turkey to bring its biotechnology regulati ons into line with the SPS Agreement. 
52. Turkey referred to its previous responses cont ained in G/SPS/R59, R/61 and R/62.  The draft 
biosafety law was notified in January 2010,  adopted in March 2010 and implemented on 
26 September 2010.  During the six-month period between March and Sept ember 2010, relevant 
secondary regulations were released and notified in a timely manner.  Citing Article 7 and Annex B of 
the SPS Agreement, Turkey stated that it did not  take into account comments regarding matters 
outside the scope of the SPS Agreement in the prep aration of the regulation.  The biosafety measures 
were science-based and in compliance with WTO rul es, and no trade restriction had been reported by 
any trading company.  In fact, there were a number of examples of increases of imports of biotechnology products from the United States, Brazil,  and Paraguay into Turkey since the passage of 
the biosafety measures, raising questions as to the relevance of this trade concern since the import 
volume of transgenic products into Turkey was booming. 
(viii) Chinese Taipei's Prohibition on Ractopamine in Beef and Pork - Concerns of the United 
States 
53. The United States observed that ractopamine wa s approved for use in the United States and 
25 other countries.  In 2007, Chinese Taipei conducte d its own assessment and determined it was safe 
for use in cattle and swine.  That same year, Chinese Taipei notified in G/SPS/N/TPKM/114 that it 
intended to implement MRLs for ractopamine use in cattle and pigs consistent with the draft Codex 
MRLs.  However, staunch oppositi on of pork producers to foreign pork being imported resulted in 
delays in the implementation of the draft MRLs.  The United States remained  concerned about these 
actions because there was no scientific basis for questioning the safety of the use of ractopamine within the MRLs set by the United States, Canada, Japan, Korea and many other countries.  Chinese 
Taipei's failure to ensure that its measures were science-based sent confusing signals to its own public 
on food safety issues.  The failure to adopt ractopami ne MRLs resulted in significant barriers to trade 
and would ultimately contribute to higher prices for consumers.  In order to avoid further unjustified 
restrictions, Chinese Taipei should immediately implement the 10 ppb MRL that it notified in 
August 2007.  The United States encouraged Chinese Taipei and all Members to ensure measures  G/SPS/R/63 
 Page 13 
 
 
  were based on science, and not to use media to unnecessarily scare consumers in order to maintain 
trade barriers. 
54. Canada shared the concerns of the United States  regarding the lack of scientific justification 
for the prohibition of ractopamine in pork and beef, and the creation of considerable uncertainty for 
beef and pork exporters.  These concerns had been  discussed bilaterally with Chinese Taipei, most 
recently at the 13 June 2011 meeting of the Cana da-Chinese Taipei Agriculture Working Group in 
Ottawa.  Based on a comprehensive risk assessment, Canada had approved the use of ractopamine as 
an ingredient in feed for pigs in 2005 and for cattle  in 2007;  administrative MRLs for ractopamine in 
edible swine and cattle tissues were also establis hed.  The scientific assessments conducted by Codex 
and JECFA supported the adoption of MRLs for r actopamine.  Given the extensive scientific 
evidence, Canada requested Chinese Taipei to reconsider its current prohibition. 
55. Both Brazil and Costa Rica expressed systemic  concerns on the prohibition of ractopamine, 
including the lack of a scientific basis for such prohi bitions.  They were also concerned that the MRLs 
for ractopamine had not yet been adopted by Codex.   
56. The European Union highlighted that as there wa s no international standard for ractopamine, 
every Member was free to adopt its own national measures as long as they were in line with the SPS 
Agreement.  The European Union did not allow th e use of ractopamine, nor any similar substances, 
and did not accept imports of products from animals tr eated with ractopamine.  In the interest of 
protecting the health of its consumers, the European  Union maintained a preference for meat and meat 
products not treated by substances such as ractopa mine, a fact which was widely known by those 
countries seeking to export meat and meat products to the European Union. 
57. China and Norway supported the views of the European Union.  China stated that more 
scientific work was needed to address the concerns of  Members, and that a consensus must be reached 
before international standards were adopted.  All Members had the right to adopt SPS measures as 
long as a risk assessment had been completed.  
58. Switzerland stated that as a general rule it only authorized the administration of veterinary 
drugs to animals for therapeutic purposes;   other chemical substances with no vital benefits were 
strictly regulated, and growth promoters like ractopa mine were prohibited.  The current Codex debate 
clearly showed that no scientific consensus existed regarding the safety of ractopamine.  The lack of certainty in the risk assessment, as identified by EFS A in April 2009, combined with questions on risk 
management, led Switzerland to oppose the a doption of Codex MRLs for ractopamine.   
59. Chinese Taipei responded that it had first prohi bited ractopamine in 2006, and no MRL had 
been established.  According to its legislation, therefore, any detection of ractopamine in meat 
products constituted a breach of the law.  While it had notified in 2007 that it was considering the 
establishment of an MRL for ractopamine, the draft proposal had attracted considerable criticism and 
questioning from the scientific community, consumer groups, and other interested parties.  For these 
reasons, Chinese Taipei concluded that it must conti nue to investigate the adverse effects of this drug 
on human health, while increasing its efforts regarding risk communication. 
(ix) Viet Nam's Ban on Offal - Concerns of the United States 
60. The United States expressed concerns that Viet  Nam had restricted trade in offal as of 
July 2010, without providing any scientific justification or notification.  Viet Nam had since lifted its ban on hearts, livers, and kidneys derived from cattle, swine, and poultry, but the ban on all other offal 
products continued.  To date, no scientific justifi cation had been provided for the ban, despite many 
requests for such information, and the United St ates urged Viet Nam to lift its unjustified ban 
immediately. G/SPS/R/63 
Page 14  
 
  61. The European Union expressed similar concerns a nd indicated that the ban seriously affected 
EU exports of offal.  The ban was not consis tent with Viet Nam's obligations under the SPS 
Agreement, as the measure had not been notified;  no scientific justification had been provided despite 
requests from trading partners, and there were no similar measures on domestic offal, thereby 
discriminating against foreign imports.  The recent revision of the ban, which would allow resumption 
of imports of some red offal, was a positive step, but the ban on other types of offal remained in place.  
Viet Nam was urged to immediately lift its ban on all offal or, alternatively, to provide a risk assessment and scientific justification.  Viet Na m should refrain from implementing such measures in 
the future, and comply with the transparency requirements and other obligations under the SPS 
Agreement. 
62. New Zealand supported the systemic concerns expressed by the United States and the 
European Union, specifically with regard to the l ack of notification and scientific justification, and 
requested Viet Nam to lift the ban as soon as possible. 
63. Viet Nam responded that there was no formal regulation banning imports of offal.  During 
2009 and early 2010, imported frozen animal and an imal products were found to violate the food 
safety requirements of Viet Nam;  within that time period, Viet Nam detected and disposed of 94 tons 
of meat, 42,57 tons of offal, and 234,000 chickens .  In order to protect Vietnamese consumers, the 
government issued Letter 1152 reque sting relevant agencies to better control imported animal 
products.  The Ministry of Agriculture and Rura l Development (MARD) enacted Circular 25 on 
registration and management to control the import of animal products, and Ci rcular 29 on criteria for 
testing and control to regulate the level of contam inants in animal products.  To continue trade in 
animal offal, the MARD Department of Animal H ealth enacted an official letter on 23 March 2011 to 
guide the import of red offal.  On 1 June 2011,  the MARD sent Letter 1528 to Viet Nam's customs 
offices to inform them of the deci sion to allow trade in red offal.   According to data from the 
Department of Animal Health, from March to Ma y 2011 Viet Nam imported 170 tons of red offal 
from the United States and Canada.  Viet Nam still banned all trade in white offal and intended to 
conduct a risk assessment on white offal.  Viet Nam was willing to meet bilaterally with interested 
Members, and sought more information and data wi th which to conduct the risk assessment with the 
goal of opening trade in white offal. 
(x) India's Restrictions due to Avian Influenz a - Concerns of the European Union and United 
States (No. 185) 
64. The European Union recalled that India ha d finally provided a risk assessment in 
October 2010, but observed that the risk analysis provided by India did not provide any additional 
scientific information that justified a deviation fro m the existing OIE standards on avian influenza.  
The risk assessment was incomplete and lacked th e necessary elements.  Furthermore, the paper from 
India had not triggered any change to the existing OIE standard during the la test OIE General Session 
in May 2011, and the existing standards remain ed the benchmark against which to measure 
restrictions.  India was therefore requested to bring its import requirements fully in line with 
international standards and to recognize the concep t of regionalization, as applied in the European 
Union, in implementing its measure. 
65. The United States supported the concerns of the Eu ropean Union, and agreed that India's risk 
assessment was not consistent with international st andards for conducting a risk analysis, nor did it 
contain sufficient scientific evidence to support India' s ban.  India's restrictions related to avian 
influenza did not conform to OIE standards and were not  scientifically justified.  Repeated attempts to 
make progress with India at a technical level had re ached an impasse.  The United States proposed to 
prepare a list of concerns regarding the assessment, together with the Europ ean Union and the OIE, 
and asked India to address these concerns no later than  15 August.  India should also lift its current 
restrictions while the United States and India worked  together on a valid science-based assessment.  If  G/SPS/R/63 
 Page 15 
 
 
  the issues could not be resolved through collabor ation, the United States would petition the OIE to 
help mediate the issue and to provide expertise to ensure that the matter was resolved in a manner 
consistent with international standards and India's WTO obliga tions.  The United States hoped to 
report a positive resolution to the next Committee meeting in October 2011. 
66. Australia shared the concerns of the European  Union and the United States, and encouraged 
all Members to take a measured approach to in stances of notifiable avian influenza and not to 
implement unnecessarily trade restrictive measures in relation to this disease. 
67. The OIE stated that they had received a letter from India clarifying that the provision of the 
risk assessment document to the OIE had been for information purposes.  The OIE would be happy to 
review India's risk assessment if so requested, as we ll as to initiate a dispute mediation process if both 
parties agreed. 
68. India clarified that during the October 2010 Comm ittee meeting, they had provided their risk 
assessment supporting the ban on imports of poultr y and poultry products from avian influenza-
positive countries with the United States and the Europ ean Union, as requested.  This was not the final 
risk assessment document, which would take some ti me.  India welcomed inputs on the information it 
shared, and was examining a response from the Eur opean Union.  The EU-India joint working group 
would also discuss this issue on 17 July 2011.  India encouraged trading partners to address this issue 
in bilateral discussions. 
(xi) Chinese Taipei's BSE-Related Import Restricti ons on Non-Ruminant Products - Concerns of 
Canada (No. 291) 
69. Canada continued to be concer ned regarding Chinese Taipei's BSE-related restrictions and 
their negative effect on the Canadian beef industry.  In May 2007, the OIE officially recognized 
Canada as a BSE controlled risk country;  this st atus had been reconfirmed every year and most 
recently at the OIE meeting in May 2011.  The OI E standard recognized that all beef products from 
countries within this risk category were safe without  age restrictions, under conditions that Canada 
met.  Canada had regularly raised this issue bila terally with Chinese Taipei on the margins of the 
Committee meetings, and had repeatedly requested that Chinese Taipei expand Canadian beef access 
based on the OIE standards.  At several high leve l meetings, including the 13 June Canada-Chinese 
Taipei Agriculture Working Group meeting in Ottawa, Chinese Taipei had not identified any 
remaining technical issues for Canada to address, nor any scientific reasons for not granting expanded 
access.  Accordingly, Canada looked forward to working with Chinese Taipei to complete the 
remaining steps based on science, and hoped to report at the October 201 1 Committee meeting that 
the issue was resolved. 
70. The United States supported the concerns of Ca nada.  In October 2009, Chinese Taipei had 
agreed to provide access for all US  beef and beef products, consiste nt with its OIE controlled risk 
classification.  However, in January 2010 Chinese Ta ipei's legislature banned import of all US ground 
beef, offal, and certain other beef products in viol ation of the October 2009 bilateral protocol.  This 
measure was unjustified and inconsis tent with the SPS Agreement.  Chinese Taipei should review its 
current measures and replace these with measures b ased on science, reflecting the controlled risk 
status the OIE has granted to both the United States and Canada. 
71. The European Union shared the concerns rais ed by Canada and the United States.  The 
European Union noted that it could not export bo vine products to Chinese Taipei even though EU 
member States were classified by OIE as having cont rolled or negligible BSE risk status, while other 
Members with similar risk status were able to e xport to Chinese Taipei.  Chinese Taipei had been 
provided with the details of the EU BSE control measures.  Chinese Taipei was urged to bring its G/SPS/R/63 
Page 16  
 
  import conditions into line with the interna tional standard on BSE as required under the SPS 
Agreement, and to allow imports of EU bovine products. 
72. Chinese Taipei stated that ri sk communication was as vital as risk assessment, emphasizing 
that there was a need to communicate effectively w ith the public - including consumers, experts, 
academics, legislators, and any other interest groups  - to alleviate their concerns and minimize the 
possible negative impact on trade.  Chinese Taipei acknowledged Canada's BSE-controlled risk status 
as recognized by the OIE, but noted that because an  18th BSE case had been confirmed in Canada, the 
risk assessment of Canadian beef (with the update d information provided by Canada) was still under 
review. 
(xii) Import Restrictions due to BSE - Concerns of the European Union (No. 193) 
73. The European Union expressed concerns that several Members had not yet implemented the 
OIE standard on BSE and continued to impose bans or  trade restrictions on EU beef products.  These 
Members should either implement the OIE standard, or else share their scientific risk assessment.  To 
date, the European Union had not seen any scientific justification for restrictions that went beyond the 
OIE standards.  The European Union welcomed th e implementation of the OIE standards by several 
Members, as well as the process begun by the United States and Australia, which would eventually 
allow the import of EU beef products.  The Europ ean Union urged Members to fully take into account 
the OIE standards and establish fair, non-discriminator y, transparent, and scientifically based rules. 
74. Canada was pleased to note that a large number of Members had approved the import of 
Canadian beef based on the OIE standards, and join ed the European Union in asking Members to base 
their measures on OIE standards. 
(c) Consideration of Specific Notifications Received 
75. No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 
(d) Information on Resolution of Issues in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.11 
76. Pakistan observed that the document prepared by the Secretariat was very informative and 
requested that Members inform the Committee of a ll resolved issues as well  as the time it took to 
resolve the issues.  This would contribute to dem onstrating the efficacy of the Committee, as well as 
provide information that would assist in the deve lopment of the ad hoc consultation mechanism. 
IV. OPERATION OF TRANSPARENCY PROVISIONS 
77. The Secretariat reported that it was now circ ulating paper copies of the list of national 
notification authorities (NNA) and of national enquiry points (ENQ) only once a year.  On the other hand, the information in the SPS Information Ma nagement System (SPS IMS) was constantly 
updated, and Members should inform  the Secretariat imme diately of any changes to the contact 
information for NNAs and ENQs in order to avoi d missing announcements for training opportunities, 
as well as to avoid trade problems.  The monthl y lists of notifications were contained in 
G/SPS/GEN/1084 for March, G/SPS/GEN/1085 for April, and G/SPS/GEN/1093 for May. 
78. The SPS on-line Notification Submission System (NSS) had been launched for a small pilot 
group during the past three months.  The Secretariat had informed all SPS contact points by e-mail 
that the system was available to all Members as of 1 June 2011, and to date 14 Members had requested access to the NSS.  The Secretariat th anked those Members (Belize, Chile, Costa Rica, the 
European Union, the Netherlands and New Zeal and) who had already used the NSS to submit 
27 notifications, and highlighted the efficiency gain s of the NSS.  All Members were encouraged to  G/SPS/R/63 
 Page 17 
 
 
  request log-in information and begin using the syst em, and the Secretariat of fered to provide hands-on 
training to any delegates who so requested.   
V. IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT 
79. No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 
VI. EQUIVALENCE – ARTICLE 4 
(a) Information from Members on their Experiences 
80. No Member provided any information under this agenda item. 
(b) Information from Relevant  Observer Organizations 
81. 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 
(i) Colombia - Status of Avian Influenza 
82. Colombia provided information regarding its recent self-declaration as a country free from 
avian influenza pursuant to Resoluti on 001610 on 7 April 2011 (G/SPS/GEN/1083). 
(ii) Japan - Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza - Regain of Disease Free Status 
83. Japan recalled that during the March Comm ittee meeting it had provided information on 
highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) outbreaks in 24 farms in nine prefectures.  By 24 March,  it 
completed stamping-out policies including immediate slaughter and safe disposal of all infected and susceptible animals on the infected poultry farms;  establishment of restriction zones of animal 
movement at and near the infected farms;  and su rveillance within the restriction zones.  Japan had 
regained HPAI free status according to the provisi ons of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code, 
effective 25 June 2011.  
(b) Information from Members on their Experiences in Recognition of Pest- or Disease-free 
Areas 
84. No Member provided information under this agenda item. 
(c) Information from Relevant  Observer Organizations 
85. No observer organization provided in formation under this agenda item. 
VIII.  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND CO-OPERATION 
(a) Information from the Secretariat 
(i) WTO SPS Activities 
86. The Secretariat reported on technical assistance  activities carried out since March, including 
national seminars in Colombia and Iran, and capacity building programmes in Nicaragua and 
Argentina.  National seminars in Uganda, Nicaragua , and Chinese Taipei would be scheduled later in G/SPS/R/63 
Page 18  
 
  the year, and the Secretariat had also received requests for technical assistance from Gabon, Morocco, 
and Sudan.  Other planned technical assistance activities included the SPS Advanced Course from 10-
28 October;  the national and regional coordination workshop on 17 October in Geneva; regional 
workshops for the Caribbean, organized in collabor ation with the Inter-American Development Bank 
(IDB), from 26-29 July;  French-speaking Africa (w eek of 7 November), English-speaking Africa 
(week of 21 November), and Arab and Middle E astern Countries (week of 28 November).  The 
deadline for applications for all of these even ts, except the Caribbean regional workshop, was 
8 July 2011.
2  A limited number of applications had been received to date for the three regional 
workshops scheduled for November, and Members we re invited to distribute information regarding 
the technical assistance activities to their competent authorities.  Additional information regarding the 
technical assistance activities was av ailable in G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.1. 
87. Zambia indicated that it had benefited from the e-learning and advanced SPS courses offered 
by the Secretariat, and was willing to share its experiences at the national and regional coordination 
workshop in October.  It had also benefited fro m the EU-funded African Union Inter-African Bureau 
for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR) project to enhan ce the participation of African countries in the 
standard-setting organizations (PANSPSO), whic h was coordinated by COMESA for Zambia.  
Zambia had been involved with the STDF pilot wo rk on the use of SPS indicators using the Multi 
Criteria Decision Analysis tool, that would be presented in Lu saka, Zambia in early July. 
88. Chinese Taipei observed that after participation in the SPS advanced course, its officials had 
followed through on the action plan in the capital.  Chinese Taipei was inte rested in sharing its 
experiences and learning from other Members.  Chinese Taipei would encourage its officials to attend 
the e-learning course in order to learn more about the SPS Agreement.  
(ii) Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) 
89. The Secretary of the STDF provided an overview of STDF activities since the March 
Committee meeting (G/SPS/GEN/1089).  The STDF Secr etariat also reported on the results of the 
STDF Working Group meeting of 28-2 9 June 2011, in particular d escribing recent developments in 
the work of the STDF, including: the application of  the Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in 
two African countries;  a global seminar on internati onal trade and invasive alien species planned for 
the margins of the SPS Committee meeting in J une 2012;  recent publications and information 
materials provided by STDF;   and the Working Group's approval of three projects for funding as well as funding of a feasibility study regarding COMESA's  "green pass" concept.  The next deadline for 
submission of project and PPG applications was 22 July 2011.  The STDF Working Group was 
developing a new medium-term strategy for the STDF, including an agreed vision and mission 
statement.  The comments of Working Group members would be taken into account in the development of a final strategy document, and the October STDF Working Group meeting would be 
dedicated to revising the STDF operational rules and agreeing a work plan for 2012. 
(b) Information from Members 
90. Canada reported that in 2009 it had cont ributed Can$17 million to SPS-related technical 
assistance in the developing world (G/SPS/GEN/1099).  It had initiated and delivered 11 SPS-related 
technical assistance projects targeting various geographic areas - including Central America, the 
Caribbean, South America, the Asian Pacific Regi on, Central Asia, Eastern Europe and Africa. 
91. The Philippines indicated that its Bureau of  Plant Industry Plant Quarantine Service had 
participated in a regional training workshop on "Pest s Identification for Plant Quarantine Officers" on 
6-17 June.  The workshop was offered in collabora tion with the FAO and the Government of Japan 
                                                      
2 This was subsequently extended to 22 July 2011.  G/SPS/R/63 
 Page 19 
 
 
  under the FAO trust fund project GCP/RAS/226/JPN, "Co-operation for the improvement of 
phytosanitary capacity in Asian countries through capacity building".  Participants in the training included plant quarantine officers from Cambodia,  Lao People's Democratic Rep., Myanmar, 
Viet Nam, Thailand, and the Philippines.  The cour se covered plant quarantine pests and risk analysis, 
bacteriology, mycology, s eed health testing in plant quarantine, and virology.  The training was 
designed to enable participants to identify quarantine insect pests and diseases as well as quarantine 
materials;  carry out pest interception, detection, analysis and control with ease and confidence;  make 
sound scientific decisions with regard to the fate of  intercepted consignments;  address other relevant 
quarantine issues in a more scientific manner;  a nd design local strategies to make the quarantine 
programme more responsive to its clientele, st akeholders, and the general public.  The overall 
outcome of the training was an improved methodology  of inspection and screening of imported plants, 
plant materials, and by-products in order to preven t the introduction and spread within the country and 
region of destructive plant pests and diseases.  Qu arantine officers were now able to conduct better 
and more improved methods of pest  detection and analysis as well as control, consequently reducing 
the probability of misdiagnosis and thus facilitating trade.  
92. Chile reported that since the March SPS Committe e meeting, the agricultural ministry in 
Chile had provided support programmes for Ecua dor and Colombia in animal husbandry and 
vegetable farming.  The programmes were conducte d in Chile, as well as during technical visits to 
these countries.  Chilean technicians were going to Panama  in July to work on risk analysis for animal 
husbandry.  The Chilean agriculture ministry ha d recently reached an agreement with OIRSA to 
support its member countries in the areas of animal health, food safety, and plant safety, and in 
particular regarding fruit flies and the legal aspects of food safety. 
(c) Information from Observers 
93. OIE provided a brief update on its capac ity building activities (G/SPS/GEN/1098 and 
G/SPS/GEN/1096).  The OIE PVS pathway evaluati on had been conducted in a number of OIE 
members to strengthen their veterinary services. A number of other activities had also taken place 
including the PVS Pathway follow-up missions. 
94. IICA reported on a project to support partic ipation in Codex committee meetings, with 
funding from USDA.  The project had four phases of implementation, including participation in four 
committees and by four countries per committee.  Th e three years of supporting participation in 
Codex meetings was coming to an end.  In Ur uguay, IICA had conducted a project supporting the 
repositioning of National Codex Committee as a provide r of training and channel for information on 
the national position.  This included communicati on and training through workshops and electronic 
fora.  IICA was also assisting the Codex Focal Po int fulfil its role of coordinator of the Codex 
Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean.  IICA had worked with the Standing Veterinary 
Committee of the Southern Cone to analyse the imp acts of private standards on the beef food chain. 
IICA had worked with the University of California (D avis) in the United States to provide interactive 
distance teaching on risks of animal diseases.  It had also designed a virtual regional school for food 
inspectors in Central America and Dominican Republic , that was approved by STDF.  The aim of the 
project was to develop inspection based on risk pro cesses in terms of food safety, and to harmonize 
regional protocols for food inspection in terms of trade and standards for open markets, involving as 
advisors a number of universities and agencies. More information can be found in G/SPS/GEN/1088. 
95. OIRSA noted that as part of the citrus fruit chain safety work they received support from 
Chinese Taipei to assist Panama and Honduras in using antibiotics and vector insect control 
(G/SPS/GEN/1094).  OIRSA and the IDB Mesoamerica Fruit-Growing Project were running workshops in each citrus-growing country as part of the certification programme for nurseries with 
good pest controls..  In another activity, tomato leafminer was being addressed through phytosanitary 
supervision and inspection.   Chinese Taipei wa s supporting a project to er adicate classical swine G/SPS/R/63 
Page 20  
 
  fever in Honduras and Nicaragua.  Both countries were free of classical swine fever as of mid-
June 2011.  OIRSA also reported on projects an d workshops in Honduras, El Salvador, and 
Guatemala.  This latter, regarding shrimp and tuna , had been undertaken together with the EU Food 
Safety Directorate.  
96. ISO shared information on some projects rela ted to SPS areas that would also be reported 
fully to the next Codex meeting.  The new stra tegic plan 2011-2015 included a fairly aggressive 
development action plan.  National workshops on ISO 22000 on food safety management systems had 
been held in Malawi, Cuba, Bosnia  and Herzegovina, and Zimbabwe in the last year, and at a regional 
level in Namibia in March 2010.  A regional worksh op on fishery and aquaculture would take place in 
September in Bali, Indonesia, with  joint-sessions with ISO, FAO, Codex, OIE and the Global Food 
Safety Initiative.  
IX. REVIEW OF THE OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS 
AGREEMENT 
(a) Issues Arising from the Second Review (G/SPS/W/259) 
(i) Use of Ad Hoc Consultations – Report on Informal Meeting 
97. The Chairman noted that two informal meeti ngs on the recommended procedure to encourage 
and facilitate ad hoc consultations  under Article 12.2 of the SPS Agreement had been held since the 
last regular meeting of the Committee, and he reported on both of these meetings.   
98. The Chairman had recalled that at the March 2011  informal meeting on ad hoc consultations, 
Members had been invited to submit comments in writing by the end of April on both the fourth revision of the draft proposal contained in G/SPS/W/243/Rev.4, as well as on the new proposal from 
India, Norway, the Philippines and Switzerland contained in JOB/SPS/1.  Comments had been 
received from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada , the European Union, Japan, Turkey, and the 
United States, as well as from the four sponsors of the Job document.  The outgoing Chair had 
requested the Secretariat to prepare a document that merged the two proposals while taking into 
account the comments received.  This new me rged proposal was contained in G/SPS/W/259. 
99. On 9 June, the outgoing Chair had held an inter-sessional meeting at the WTO to have a first 
round of discussions on this new merged proposal , and to see if Members could identify ways to 
reduce the points of disagreement in advan ce of the Committee's meeting in June.  Around 
30 delegations had participated in the meeting. 
100. The Chairman reported that at this inter-se ssional meeting, delegations had discussed the 
merged proposal in a detailed manner and had ex pressed their positions on the various bracketed 
items as well as their preferences for the different alternatives iden tified in the merged G/SPS/W/259.  
While many had welcomed the merged document as a useful basis for continued discussion, some had 
felt that it did not accurately reflect the language th at had been proposed in their submissions.   
101. At the end of the 9 June inter-sessional meeti ng, Members had been invited to submit their 
comments in writing on G/SPS/W/259 by 17 June.  Comments had been received from Australia, 
Canada, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, and the United States.  These had been compiled and circulated 
to Members electronically and had been made availa ble during the informal meeting in paper form.  
Comments had been received later from India, Norw ay, the Philippines and Switzerland, which had 
likewise circulated electronically and had been made  available as a room document for an informal 
meeting held on 28 June.  G/SPS/R/63 
 Page 21 
 
 
  102. At the 28 June informal meeting, the Chairm an 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, most recently in March 2001.  
103. Members had expressed support for G/SPS/W/259 an d had agreed that it could be the basis 
for future discussions.  At the sa me time, the co-sponsors of the Job document had noted that certain 
elements of their proposal had not been reflected  in G/SPS/W/259 and that other issues, such as the 
participation of third parties, had not yet been addressed.   
104. The Chairman had offered his observation that Members' differing choices of language in the 
draft procedure closely related to the divergence of positions on several substantive issues.  The 
Chairman had therefore proposed to focus the di scussions on a non-exhaustive list of five general 
topics:  (i) the voluntary versus mandatory nature of th e procedure;  (ii) timeframes;  (iii) transparency 
and confidentiality;  (iv) the facilitators role (creat ing a setting for bilaterals versus playing a more 
pro-active role);  and (v) the relationship with the NAMA negotiations and the harmonized 
mechanism. 
105. While Argentina had also recommended that the Committee should concentrate on these same 
five issues, other Members had cautioned on focusing  on a pre-set number of topics.  The European 
Union had suggested that the relationship betw een NAMA's horizontal mechanism and the SPS ad 
hoc proposal superseded all other issues in that positions on a number of contentious provisions would 
be altered depending on the out come of paragraph 22 in G/SPS/W/ 259.  However, many Members 
had indicated that so many written comments had alr eady been submitted that they would first like to 
have a revision of G/SPS/W/259 that incorporated a ll of the Members' comments before going into 
further discussion. 
106. Taking into consideration Members' preferences,  the Chairman reported that he had decided 
to forego a detailed discussion on G/SPS/W/259 until the Committee had a revision of the merged document. 
107. Several Members had requested that inter- sessional meetings be avoided because it was 
difficult for capital-based experts to actively participate. 
108. To advance the work, the Chairman had invited all Members who had not already done so to 
submit comments in writing on G/SPS/W/259 by 29 Ju ly 2011.  Members who had already provided 
comments were welcome to submit additional comments if  they so desired.  Canada in particular had 
noted that they had made an error in their submissi on and would take this opportunity to correct their 
comments.  The Chairman had requested the Secretar iat to incorporate all comments received into a 
new revision of G/SPS/W/259.  This new revision would be distributed to Members in early 
September and would form the basis for discussi ons at an informal meeting scheduled for 
18 October 2011. 
109. Lastly, at the informal meeting, the Chairm an had encouraged those Members who held 
differing views on specific issues to meet together  to develop a better unders tanding of the concerns 
and constraints of each other's positions, in order to  try to identify possible ways to move forward at 
the October meeting. 
110. In commenting on the Chairman's oral report,  Argentina reiterated the view that the 
discussion should focus on the five issues and on how to  move ahead with the procedure, rather than 
Member's repeating their current views. G/SPS/R/63 
Page 22  
 
  111. India queried whether the request to avoid info rmal inter-sessional meetings related solely to 
this issue.  The Chairman clarified that the request had been made in the context of this issue, but it 
was not clear whether this would always be the case. 
112. Norway supported the recommendations by the Chair and looked forward to working with 
other Members on this issue.  Norway considered that inter-sessional meetings could be helpful in 
advancing discussions. 
113. The Philippines agreed on the suggestion to first focus on the five issues, but noted the need 
to also focus on the remaining issues.  Developi ng countries faced limited resources, and there was a 
need for an effective consultation mechanism. 
(b) Issues Arising from the Third Review (G/SPS/GEN/1086) 
(i) Report on the Informal Meeting 
114. The Chairman reported that at an informal meeting on 29 June, the Committee had discussed 
ways to advance work on issues arising from the Third Review. 
115. The Chairman had first recalled that at its  March 2010 meeting, the Committee had adopted 
the report of the Third Review, which was contai ned in document G/SPS/53.  The report identified 
several issues where the Committe e had agreed to further work. 
116. At the October 2010 informal meeting, Members had agreed to prioritize three issues for 
consideration of further work: (i) the cooperation between the SPS Committee and 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). 
117. On cooperation between the SPS Committee and the three Sisters, two items had been 
discussed. The first was the upcoming October wo rkshop on national coor dination.  The second 
related to a joint submission by Canada and Jap an to advance Recommendation 3 of the October 2009 
workshop, regarding joint work by the three Sisters. 
118. Several Members, as well as the IPPC and the OIE, had expressed their support for the 
upcoming workshop, and provided suggestions for its programme.  Some Members had volunteered 
to give presentations on their experiences in nationa l coordination.  The Secr etariat had provided an 
update on the draft programme for the workshop, and had invited any further comments by 29 July 
2011.  The Secretariat had noted that the participati on of about 50 officials from developing and least-
developed country Members and Ob servers could be sponsored by the WTO, and flagged that the 
deadline for applications was 8 July 2011.   
119. The importance of cooperation between the SPS Committee and the three Sisters had been 
stressed by several Members.  The Secretariat had noted the timeliness of the issue, given that the G20 
Ministers of Agriculture had noted in their r ecent final declaration the importance of the SPS 
Agreement and the work of the relevant international standard-setting bodies.   
120. Canada had recalled that the October 2009 wo rkshop on the relationship between the SPS 
Committee and the three Sisters had resulted in sever al recommendations.  The joint submission with 
Japan (G/SPS/W/258) proposed a formal d ecision by the SPS Committee to implement 
Recommendation 3 of the 2009 workshop by encouraging the three Sisters to u ndertake joint work on 
cross-cutting issues.  Canada had observed that this  also responded directly to the G20 ministerial 
declaration.  G/SPS/R/63 
 Page 23 
 
 
  121. Japan had stated that Recommendation 6 on soliciting more information at the strategic 
planning phase of the three Sisters' work was subs tantially interconnected to Recommendation 3, and 
had suggested that the SPS Committee needed to indicate to the three Sisters what the Committee 
would like to see as the implementation of those recommendations. 
122. While some Members had supported the draft decision proposed by Canada and Japan, others 
had requested more time for further consideration.   The IPPC and the OIE had noted the importance 
of collaboration in their standard-setting work, but also cautioned that as a result of their different 
fields of activity, the scope for common work may be limited.   
123. The Chairman reported that he had suggested that the Committee re-examine this issue at the 
October meeting, when the discussions would benefit from the results of the workshop on 
coordination. 
124. In relation to improving the procedure for monito ring the use of international standards, the 
Committee had discussed the Secretariat's backgrou nd document, and submissions from Argentina, 
Canada and New Zealand. 
125. The Secretariat had presented its backgroun d document, circulated as G/SPS/GEN/1086.  
Several Members had welcomed the background document and the information it presented. 
126. Argentina had reiterated its call for a way to ad equately reflect, in the annual reports on the 
procedure to monitor the process of international ha rmonization, all situations  involving international 
standards.  Chile had noted that Members' notifi cation authorities were not fully complying with the 
recommendation to notify measures when based on inte rnational standards, and were not accurately 
identifying the existence of rele vant international standards.  
127. Canada had referred to pr evious suggestions to include more  specific trade concerns under the 
monitoring agenda item, and stressed that it was fo r Members to decide where to place their items on 
the agenda.  The Secretariat had observed that any modification of its mandate for preparing annual 
reports would require a decision from the Committee to revise the procedure in G/SPS/11/Rev.1. 
128. Some Members had agreed that the procedure for monitoring international harmonization had 
been underutilized.  These Members nevertheless stre ssed that before considering a process to change 
these procedures, Members should provide more info rmation on why they were not making better use 
of the existing system. 
129. The Chairman indicated that he had concluded the discussions on this point by inviting 
Members to submit, by 29 July 2011, any specifi c submissions regarding the underutilization of the 
current monitoring procedure or proposals for its revision.   
130. Under the third prioritized issue, control, in spection and approval pro cedures (Article 8 and 
Annex C, the Committee had discussed submissions from Argentina, Canada and New Zealand.   
131. Argentina had noted that it was currently revi ewing on-site audit procedures at the national 
level, and that it was considering presenting the results of this work to the Committee when available.   
132. New Zealand had reaffirmed its joint proposal  with Canada, that Members should first 
exchange information on their experiences regardi ng control, inspection an d approval procedures 
before discussing the provisions more generally.   G/SPS/R/63 
Page 24  
 
  133. The European Union had presented its approach  to SPS audits and inspections in third 
countries.  Several Members had welcomed the EU  presentation, and emphasized the importance of 
continued discussion on this theme. 
134. To advance the work, the Chairman had encour aged Members to reflect on the submissions 
made and to continue sharing their experiences with control, inspection, approval procedures. 
135. Chairman reported that he had concluded the informal meeting by inviting Members to 
submit, in advance of the October meeting of th e Committee, other specific inputs on the identified 
priority issues and on how to advance the work of the Committee on issues resulting from the Third 
Review of the SPS Agreement. 
136. In commenting on the Chairman's oral report, Ar gentina stressed that the annual monitoring 
report should reflect the real situation regarding the use of international standards, however the data 
available was not entirely reliable.  The Committee s hould seek to ensure that more notifications more 
accurately indicated whether or not a relevant inte rnational standard existed.  With regard to 
exchanging information on inspection practices, Argen tina would need to consult with its technical 
experts as to what information could be presented, and when. 
X. MONITORING THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS 
(a) New Issues 
137. No Member raised any issue under this agenda item. 
(b) Issues Previously Raised  
(i) Costa Rica and United States - Preservation of Scientific Principles by Codex - Ractopamine 
138. Costa Rica again raised concerns about the dela ys in the adoption of the proposed standard for 
ractopamine by the Codex Commission (G/SPS/GE N/1092).  Maximum residue levels (MRLs) for 
ractopamine had been proposed, based on the safety assessment by the FAO/WHO Joint Expert 
Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), the advisory  scientific body of the Codex.  There were no 
scientific or procedural reasons to delay adopti on of the standard for ractopamine.  Costa Rica 
considered that this was a matter of major systemic  importance, as there was a need to ensure that 
Codex standards were based on scientific analysis in  order to guarantee the safety of international 
food supplies.  The failure to adopt the sta ndards cast doubts on the validity of JECFA, and 
discouraged Codex members, especially developing  country members, from participating in the 
standard-setting process.  Costa Rica stressed that Codex should base its decision on science, as this 
was important for protecting consumer health inte rnationally, the promotion of consumption, and 
maintaining Codex as an international referenc e body in the area of food safety standards. 
139. The United States recalled that the matter of approving MRLs for ractopamine would be 
considered for the fourth time by the Code x Commission the following week.  The unjustified 
opposition by some countries to the adoption of a scien ce-based international standard threatened the 
institutional integrity of Codex.  Ractopamine w as approved by 25 national authorities, including the 
United States, for use in the production of beef and por k.  It had been used for 12 years in the United 
States with no adverse effects.  JECFA, an indepe ndent panel of experts, had evaluated it numerous 
times and recommended MRLs for ractopamine in musc le, fat, kidney and liver tissues of cattle and 
swine.  Science-based decision making allowed Codex to be free from national and political influences.  Blocking this decision for non-scientific reasons created a dangerous precedent for countries to block other standards for reasons unrelated  to food safety and consumer health protection.  
While the United States could understand that some  Members did not want to approve the use of  G/SPS/R/63 
 Page 25 
 
 
  ractopamine at the national level, blocking the adopti on of an international standard without scientific 
evidence was disruptive to the integrity of Codex.  If international standards were no longer science-
based, this could have adverse effects on the impl ementation of the WTO SPS Agreement, as it refers 
to Codex standards, and it would likely lead to th e development of expensive private standards.  
Failure to adopt the MRLs at th e next Codex meeting would underm ine the scientific decision-making 
process and have adverse impacts on food security, su stainability and interna tional trade in food. 
140. Canada reiterated its support for the science- based standard-setting process in Codex, while 
acknowledging that non-science factors may be consid ered in the risk management process where 
appropriate.  In developing international food safet y standards, the Codex process was based on sound 
scientific analysis and evidence provided by leadin g international scientists in the field, national 
experts, and independent scientif ic expert committees such as JECFA, JMPR, and JEMRA.  Codex 
had been unable to reach a consen sus in this case because there is an  attempt to introduce into the 
Codex decision-making process regional consumer prefer ences which is not a legitimate factor in the 
global context and does not satisfy the Codex criteria fo r the consideration of other legitimate factors.  
Canada observed that the recommended MRLs were based on the scientific evaluation by JECFA and 
that all Codex procedures were followed, so there was no reason to further delay their adoption.  The 
failure to adopt the standards could seriously  impact the FAO/WHO scientific process on which 
Codex relies, undermine the integrity of the sta ndard-setting process and lead to questioning the 
relevance of the Codex as a reference body under the SPS Agreement. 
141. Brazil recalled that it had expressed similar concer ns in the past.  Given the exhaustive work 
by JEFCA, the non-adoption of MRLs could result in systemic problems that jeopardized Codex' role 
in food safety and posed a risk to the credibility of JEFCA and Codex.  It was important that scientific 
data underpin decision-making to avoid trade barri ers with no scientific basis, and to assist the 
provision of safe food at reasonable cost, especially for developing countries.  Brazil requested that 
these concerns be brought to the a ttention of Codex, FAO and WHO. 
142. Argentina, Australia, Chile, New Zealand, Peru  and the Philippines all shared the concerns 
that had been raised regarding th e need to ensure that  the basic principles and processes of Codex be 
respected.  Chile noted that a great deal of work ha d been done to develop a strategic plan for Codex, 
in order to make the standard-setting process less cumbersome.  However, the insistence on national 
preferences, in this case and in another that had dragged on for ten years, had exhausted the strength 
of the international standard-setting system.  Th e Philippines stated that the establishment of a 
standard for ractopamine would allow countries,  especially those with limited resources, to 
differentiate ractopamine from other substances that  are unsafe or used illegally, therefore ensuring 
safe food supplies for consumers.  Australia and Ne w Zealand shared concerns that the failure to 
adopt the proposed standard could have broad imp lications for the integrity of the Codex standard-
setting process. 
143. The European Union stated that it was strongl y committed to the role of science in the 
development of all international standards, as we ll as in its own legislation.  However, it was 
imperative to understand the role of science as part of the risk analysis appro ach.  The risk assessment 
by JECFA was valuable input for the Codex discu ssion, but the full range of factors had to be 
considered by Codex acting as risk  managers, as was clearly stipulated in the Codex Procedural 
Manual.  The European Union observed that their concerns on the use of ractopamine were supported 
by a significant number of other members, including China, which together with the European Union, 
constituted the largest producers and consumers of pig meat and which would thus be the most 
seriously impacted by the adoption of MRLs for ractopamine.  Insofar as the relevance of Codex 
being put into question by delays in the adoption of  such a standard, it was rather the adoption of a 
Codex standard when there was no consensus that would undermine the validity of Codex.  The 
European Union was disappointed that some Memb ers put more emphasis on the Codex mandate of 
facilitating trade rather than on the mandate of prot ecting the health of consumers.  The European G/SPS/R/63 
Page 26  
 
  Union would make every effort to ensure that c onsumers remain at the centre of the Codex decision-
making process. 
144. China supported the statement of the European Un ion and highlighted that it was the largest 
consumer and producer of pigs in the world.  It s ban was based on inadequate scientific evidence 
regarding ractopamine, and on the need to consider  ractopamine residuals in lung tissue.  China did 
not support the rush to adopt internationa l standards where there was no consensus. 
145. Switzerland and Norway shared the concerns of  China and the European Union.  Switzerland 
indicated that the work of the SPS Committee was ba sed on existing standards, and as currently there 
was no standard for ractopamine, this issue shoul d more appropriately be considered under Other 
Business.  It was fundamental that Codex standa rds be based on scientific principles, and clear 
scientific conclusions, to ensure health.  Overlooking  divergent scientific conclusions and the lack of 
a consensus on this matter would create systemic con cerns and jeopardize the role of Codex.  Norway 
supported the use of science in the development of international standards, but observed that other 
elements also had to be taken into account in risk management decisions. 
146. Costa Rica and the United States asked Members who had indicated that other factors should 
be considered in the adoption of Codex standards to elaborate on what these other factors were.  The 
European Union replied that the SPS Committee was not the appropriate forum for the discussion of 
these factors but that all interested parties to th e discussion on ractopamine were familiar with what 
these other factors were as extensive consultations had taken place on this matter.  It was important 
that these factors be taken into account when th e discussion took place in the appropriate forum, 
namely the Codex. 
(c) Adoption of the Annual Report 
147. The Chairman noted that a draft Annual Report had been circulated in G/SPS/W/260. 
148. The Secretariat indicated that the only issue iden tified in the annual report was that regarding 
ractopamine.  Given the substantial discussions at this meeting on the issue, the Secretariat would 
revise G/SPS/W/260 to include a summary of the most recent discussions.  This would be circulated 
with a deadline for comments by Member.  If no obj ections were raised, the revised annual would be 
considered to be adopted.  Should there be any objections, adoption of the report would be postponed 
until the October meeting. 
XI. CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS 
(a) Report on Informal Meeting 
149. The Chairman reported that an informal meeting on the implementation of the agreed actions 
with respect to SPS-related private standards and other identified actions was held on Wednesday, 
29 June. 
150. At that meeting, the Chairman had reminded Members that at its meeting in March, the 
Committee had (i) adopted Actions 1 through 5 as recommended by the ad hoc working group on private standards in G/SPS/55, and had (ii) agreed to revert to the proposed Action 6 of 
G/SPS/W/256. 
151. The Chairman had invited Members to comment on the proposed amendments to Action 6 
received from the United States, New Zealand, Japan and Brazil, and circulated as document G/SPS/W/261.  G/SPS/R/63 
 Page 27 
 
 
  152. Some Members had supported the proposed revisions to the title of Action 6.  They had stated 
that private standards were outside the scope  of the SPS Agreement and hence exchanges of 
information among Members should be on the marg ins of SPS Committee meetings.  Other Members 
had noted their support for the adoption of Action 6 as recommended by the working group report and 
had opposed any limitation on where the discussions on private standards could take place.  These 
Members were of the view that SPS-related private standards fell within the jurisdiction of the SPS 
Committee and that the issue of private standards sh ould be on the agenda of the Committee.  It was 
also noted that paragraph 9 of the working group report in G/SPS/W/256 clarified that endorsement of 
Actions 1 to 6 would be without prejudice to the views of Members regarding the scope of the SPS 
Agreement. 
153. As a consensus could not be reached on the adop tion of Action 6, the Chairman had suggested 
that Members discuss among themselves proposed chang es to the title of Action 6 before the October 
meeting to try and resolve differences.  It had been  agreed that paragraphs 26 and 27 in the text of 
Action 6 would not be revised. 
154. The Chairman reported that he had then inv ited the Committee to discuss the implementation 
of the five agreed Actions and had asked for c oncrete suggestions on how to move forward on these 
actions.   
155. With regards to Action 1, the Chairman had not ed that the text of the action contained a 
proposed working definition, and asked whether this  proposed working definition was acceptable.   
156. Some Members had stressed the need to furthe r discuss and agree on a working definition of 
SPS-related private standards first, as the basis for work on the remaining agreed actions.  Other 
Members had noted that the implementation of some actions, for instance Action 5, could be 
undertaken without a working definition of  SPS-related private standards.     
157. Regarding Action 2, the Chairman had suggested  that the Committee could ask the Secretariat 
to (i) draw the attention of the three Sisters to the request to regularly inform the Committee, and 
(ii) ensure that the three Sisters were likewi se kept informed of SPS-related private standards 
discussions at the SPS Committee.  
158. On Action 3, the Chairman had noted that the Secretariat could keep the Committee informed 
of relevant discussions in other WTO fora.  One Member had suggested that the Secretariat could 
circulate a report on any relevant developments. 
159. On Action 4, the Chairman had observed that  communicating at the national level with 
entities involved in SPS-related private standards was for each Member to do individually, but that 
there might be some useful ideas to be shared that could assist other Members to undertake such 
communications. 
160. On Action 5, the Chairman had encouraged speci fic suggestions for what materials might be 
developed to stress the importanc e of Codex, IPPC and OIE sta ndards, and to ensure a better 
understanding how these differed from SPS-related private standards.  
161. The Chairman had concluded the discussion of Ac tions 1 to 5 by inviting Members to submit 
specific proposals on how to implement any or all of the agreed 5 Actions, by 29 July, and had noted that this did not prevent any Member from moving forward on Action 4. 
162. 
The Chairman indicated that he had then inv ited comments regarding the six actions on which 
the working group could not reach consensus, as presented in the Annex of the report of the ad hoc 
working group on SPS-related private standards in G/SPS/W/256. G/SPS/R/63 
Page 28  
 
  163. A number of Members had noted that while ther e had been no consensus on proposed Actions 
7 to 12, work on private standards had produced concre te results with five agreed actions for further 
work.  Hence, Members needed to  concentrate on making substantia l progress first on Actions 1 to 5 
and then perhaps revert to Actions 7 to 12 at a later stage.  
164. Other Members, however, had suggested that Members should continue to exchange views 
and information on Actions 7 to 12 within a new ad  hoc working group, with a view to help advance 
the work of the Committee. 
165. The Chairman had concluded the discussion by inviting those Members who wished to further 
discuss Actions 7 to 12 to submit suggestions of how  to move forward, including revisions that could 
help find a consensus, by 29 July.  
166. At the informal meeting, IICA had reported on a new study it had undertaken on the impact of 
private food standards in the Southern Cone, a nd highlighted its main findings (G/SPS/GEN/1088).  
The full study was available on the IICA website in Spanish, with an English version to be made 
available shortly.   
167. IPPC had flagged the interest of IPPC memb ers in the SPS Committee annual reports to the 
CPM, including on SPS-related private standards.  On ag reed Action 2, IPPC could, if requested by its 
members as a priority and if resources were available, provide regular analytical reports to the Committee on the importance of private standards in plant health, although such type of standard had 
not yet been identified in this area.  Regarding Ac tion 5, the IPPC had noted the link with its proposed 
communication strategy and sought feedback from th e Committee.  Finally, IPPC had drawn attention 
to a recent publication on the application of inte rnational phytosanitary standards that IPPC had 
developed recently with the FAO Forestry Division, and its upcoming effort to develop the same type 
of guidelines for the seeds sector. 
168. In concluding the informal meeting the Chairm an noted that he had proposed that at an 
informal meeting be scheduled immediately prior to the October SPS Committee meeting to discuss: 
(i) the implementation of Actions 1 to 5, based on specific proposals submitted by 29 July;  (ii) any 
developments or proposals for consideration aris ing from Members' discussions on Action 6;  and 
(iii) Actions 7 to 12, based on any new potentia l compromise proposals or suggested revisions 
submitted by Members by 29 July. 
XII. REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS 
(a) Ad hoc Observers 
169. The Committee agreed to invite all of the ad  hoc observers to participate in the next 
Committee meeting, including the informal meetings  on ad hoc consultations, on private standards 
and on issues arising from the Third Review. 
(b) New Requests 
170. There were no new requests for observer status. 
(c) Outstanding Requests 
171. The Secretariat indicated that there were now outstanding requests from nine organizations:  
the Asian and Pacific Coconut Community (APCC), Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Gulf Cooperation Council Standardization Organization (GSO ), International Vine and Wine Office (OIV), 
Center for Agricultural Bioscience Internationa l (CABI), Economic Community of Central African  G/SPS/R/63 
 Page 29 
 
 
  States (ECCAS), Common Market for Eastern a nd Southern Africa (COMESA), Intergovernmental 
Authority on Development (IGAD), and the Conven tion on International Trade in Endangered 
Species (CITES).  The Secretariat suggested that th e Committee might wish to consider the requests 
by categories of organizations, such as those with  specific geographical focus, those with specific 
commodity focus, etc.  
172. Kenya, Swaziland, Uganda, Zambia and Zimb abwe supported granting observer status to 
COMESA, noting its important contributions in assisting countries in the region on SPS-related 
matters.  
173. The Philippines supported granting observer status to CABI, highlighting their capacity-
building initiatives that had resulted in impr ovements in essential work within the region. 
174. The United States stated that they were not ab le to agree on any of the requests for observer 
status at this meeting, but thought that a categor ization of the organizations could facilitate their 
consideration.  Chile noted that some of the request s were of long standing, and that consideration of 
the organizations by categories could facilitate decision-making. 
175. Egypt indicated that they had no objections to gr anting observer status on an ad hoc basis.  In 
the Committee on Trade and Development, group of countries had proposed a set of criteria for 
approving requests for observer status, whether from regional or international organizations, to avoid 
the politicization of the issue that had created difficulties since 1999. 
176. Canada requested that the Secretariat re mind the Committee of previously established 
guidance regarding observers, including re ferences to the relevant documents.  
177. The Committee agreed to revert to the outsta nding requests at the next regular meeting. 
XIII.  OTHER BUSINESS 
178. Ecuador expressed concern about Japan's deci sion to apply MRLs to additives based on a 
positive list system.  Similar concerns had been raised by Paraguay (G/SPS/GEN/1091), and Ecuador 
was hopeful that a solution could be found.  The cu rrent approach was particularly damaging to the 
livelihood of Ecuador's small pr oducers and exporters of cocoa. 
179. Brazil expressed their support of the in terventions by Ecuador and Paraguay. 
180. Japan observed that they had not previously r eceived information from Ecuador regarding this 
issue, but were keen to work with  Ecuador on this issue bilaterally. 
181. The United States expressed appreciation to Japan for sharing information on how they were 
dealing with the aftermath of the earthquake.  This was an example of sound and transparent 
practices. 
XIV.  DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING 
182. The Chairman recalled that the next meeting of the Committee was tentatively scheduled for 
19-20 October 2011.  Informal meetings 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. 
183. The Secretariat proposed a tentative calendar of  SPS Committee meetings for 2012:  weeks of 
26 March, 9 July, and 15 October (G/SPS/GEN/1106). G/SPS/R/63 
Page 30  
 
  184. 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 rele vant 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 rele vant observer organizations 
 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 Workshop on na tional and regional coordination 
   (ii) Report on informal meeting 
 10. Monitoring of the use of international standards 
  (a) New issues 
  (b) Issues previously raised 
 11. Concerns with private and commercial standards   (a) Report on informal meeting 
 12. Transitional Review under Paragraph 18 of the Protocol of Accession of the People's 
 Republic of China 
 13. Observers – Request for observer status   (a) Ad hoc Observers  G/SPS/R/63 
 Page 31 
 
 
    (b) New Requests 
  (c) Outstanding requests  
 14. Chairperson's annual report to the Council for Trade in Goods  15. Other business  16. Date and agenda of next meeting 
 
185. The Secretariat noted that following the October meeting, the Chairman would need to submit 
an annual report to the Council for Trade in Goods , on his own responsibility.  Delegates would be 
given the opportunity to comment on a draft of this  report, which would be made available at the 
beginning of the October meetings. 
186. Members were asked to take note of the following deadlines: 
 For applications to participate in WTO funded activities, including the October 
workshop, the Advanced Course on th e SPS Agreement, and three Regional 
workshops:  Friday, 8 July
3; 
 For Members comments and suggestions on ad  hoc consultations, private standards, 
and issues arising from the Third Review:  Friday, 29 July ; 
 For identifying new issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure, and for 
requesting that items be put on the agenda:  Thursday, 6 October ; 
 For the distribution of the Airgram:  Friday, 7 October . 
 
__________  
                                                      
3 This deadline was subsequently extended to 22 July 2011.