WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/932 
15 June 2009 
 (09-2889) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
 
 
 
EFFECTS OF SPS-RELATED PRIVATE STANDARDS - 
DESCRIPTIVE REPORT 
 
Note by the Secretariat1 
 
 1. In the context of the Committee's work on pr ivate standards and in accordance with the 
Committee's decision to undertake a comparative study on the effects of private SPS standards
2, the 
Secretariat circulated a Questionnaire on SPS -related Private Standards on 5 December 2008.3  
2. The Secretariat has received a total of 40 responses to the questionnaire from 22 Members.4 
The individual responses can be consu lted through the WTO Members' website.5  
3. The level of detail and explanations provided in the responses varies significantly, making it 
difficult to undertake a statistical analysis based on the replies.  In addition, it is important to note that 
the Secretariat is not in a position to verify the accu racy of inputs in the replies, some of which might 
be questioned by other Members.   
4. This report highlights the main points emergi ng from the replies.  Annex II of the report 
includes a table showing the individual replies provide d to questions 1 (HS Code  and full description), 
2 (main export market), 3 (entity imposing the standa rd), and 5 (description of private standard).  The 
replies to the other questions have not been incl uded in Annex II as they are more descriptive and 
vary significantly in length.  Interested Member s can also access a compilation of most replies 
presented in an Excel sheet through th e Members' website referred to above. 
5. A number of concerns regarding effects of private standards on exports of agricultural 
products have been raised in the responses.  So me Members have also unde rlined the positive and 
trade facilitating impact of private standards.  
6. Following the consideration of the replies as well as this descriptive report, the ad hoc 
working group on private standards will commence wo rk on an analytical report for consideration 
during the October SPS Committee meeting.   
7. A short summary of the replies to each question is provided below. 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. 
2 G/SPS/R/53, para. 132. 
3 G/SPS/W/232. 
4 Please see Annex I for a list of Members which have submitted responses to the questionnaire. 
5 Please click on this address: http://members.wto.org/WTO_ resources/SPS/SPS-Private-
Standards_tri.htm .  All responses are available in English and Span ish as these are the working languages of the 
30 Members participating in the ad hoc working group. G/SPS/GEN/932 
Page 2 
 
 
  Question 1.  Product of export int erest affected by private standards 
 
8. The following products were most often identifie d as being affected by private standards:   
• Fresh fruit (HS Codes 0804, 0805, and 0810); 
• Fresh vegetables (HS Codes 0701 and 0710);  and 
• Fresh, chilled or frozen meat – both bovine  and poultry (HS Codes 0201 and 0207). 
Products that may be classified as fresh produce app ear to be most affected by private standards 
although examples of processed foods and value- added spices have also been provided.   
 
Question 2.  Main export markets  
9. The replies indicate that the main markets of  the concerned products are Australia, Canada, 
Japan, the member States of the European Comm unities, and the United States of America.  The 
member States of the European Communities most re ferred to are Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, 
Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.  Other ma rkets that are mentioned by more than one 
Member in the responses include China, Switzerland, and the United Arab Emirates. 
Questions 3 and 4.  Retailer/company/private tr ader/entity imposing the private standard - 
Type of domestic businesses whose export s need to meet the private standards  
 
10. It appears that the primary entities imposing private standards are retailers such as 
supermarkets and hypermarkets, e. g. TESCO, Wal-Mart, Primus La bs, and Marks and Spencer's.  
Although some replies have not mentioned specifi c entities imposing these standards, they have 
indicated that major retailers and suppliers in  the United States and the European Communities 
impose private standards.  All types of businesses seem to be affected by private standards, including 
small, medium and large-scale enterprises.  
Question 5.  Description of the relevant private standard(s) applied in each of the product's 
export markets  
11. The international schemes most mentione d in the responses are GLOBALGAP, Hazard 
Analysis and Critical Contol Point (HACCP),
6 ISO 9000, ISO 22000, and SQF (Safe Quality Food). 
12. The most frequently identified national sch eme setting requirements for purchasing is the 
BRC.  In their replies, certain Members also make reference to export-oriented initiatives such as 
Chile GAP, Kenya GAP, New Zealand GAP, and Swiss GAP, which are benchmarked against 
GLOBALGAP and aim to facilitate exports. 
13. As regards individual firm schemes, the repli es also vary greatly, but TESCO Nature's Choice 
is the most commonly cited retail scheme.  Privat e Standards applied by Heinz, McDonalds, Aldi, 
Edeka/Netto, Carrefour, Lidl, Metro, Norma, Pl us, Rewe, Tegut, Tengelman , Marks and Spencer's, 
and Metro Cash and Carry are also cited.   
                                                      
6 It is important to note that Codex has adopted Principles on HACCP as well as Guidelines for its 
Application while recognizing that the details of application may vary depending on the circumstances of the food operation.  Many national governments have also adopted mandatory HACCP requirements, based on the 
Codex guidelines and principles, with respect to the produc tion of various food products.  It is possible that the 
references to HACCP in the replies relate to some of  the private schemes and certif ication requirements which 
take HACCP as basis. 
  G/SPS/GEN/932 
 Page 3 
 
 
  14. Some replies to this question make refe rence to private standards focusing on 
environmental/social issues (e.g. the Rainforest Allia nce) or to official government standards, which 
are not the focus of this study.7 
Question 6.  Content of the private standard  
 
15. Over two-thirds of the replies state that the sc ope of the content of the private standards is 
food safety.  Many replies have also mentioned animal and plant health, as well social and environmental issues, which fall beyond the scope  of the SPS Agreement and of this study.   
16. With respect to the date of entry into force of  relevant private standards, the replies vary 
extensively, although it appears that the phenomenon gathered momentum post 2005.  However, in 
some cases the identified private standards have been  in existence since the early 1990s.  It is 
pertinent to note that more than twenty  responses did not address this question.  
Question 7.  Relevant Codex, OIE, IPPC sta ndards (if any) for the products in question 
 
17. With respect to the relevant international sta ndards for the products in question, the detail 
provided in the replies vary greatly.  In a few ca ses, general references are made to Codex food safety 
standards, OIE animal health standards, or IPPC plan t health standards.  Less than half of the replies 
identify a relatively specific standard.  Overall, most  references are to Code x standards, followed by 
OIE standards.  Although there are a number of ge neral references to IPPC standards, no specific 
ISPMs have been identified.  
18. Among the Codex food safety "standards", those cited most often are related to Hazard 
Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) requirements, maximum residue limits (MRLs) for pesticides, hygienic practices for meat and fresh fruits, testing laboratories, as well as commodity specific standards such as those on bana nas, olive oil, etc.  In this c ontext, the replies of Paraguay and 
Uruguay are particularly detailed. 
19. Six replies have made reference to OIE sta ndards although only three have provided more 
specific references.  These include animal welfare st andards, and Chapters 10. 4.26 (inactivation of the 
avian flu virus) and 11.6 (BSE) of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code.  
20. At the same time, about a third of the repli es do not contain any information on whether there 
are any relevant international standards.  Some  responses indicate that producers, who provided the 
information, are simply not aware of international standards and focus on meeting the private 
standards in their export markets.  In other cases, it is not clear whether there is no international 
standard or whether this information is simply lacking. 
Question 8.  Do the private standard(s) require ments for the product in question correspond to 
the relevant Codex, IPPC or OIE standard for that same product?  
21. About two-thirds of the replies indicate that at least some of the requirements of private 
standards exceed those of the relevant internati onal standards.  Examples have been provided with 
respect to: 
• more detailed and prescriptive operational procedures; 
• lower MRLs than those of Codex; 
                                                     
 
7 A possible explanation for this is that, from the perspective of the producers, which have in most 
instances provided the input s for the replies, what matters is the whole range of market access conditions, be 
they private or public, SPS- or environment-related.  G/SPS/GEN/932 
Page 4 
 
 
  • requirements regarding absence of listeria in raw meat; 
• requirements regarding de-boning of beef from BSE-free countries;  and 
• stricter animal welfare standards. 
22. Four of the replies indicate that the private standards requirements for beef, fish and certain 
fresh fruits do not exceed those of the relevant inte rnational standards.  Five other replies do not 
contain specific information on this question.  On e specific example for cut flowers notes that most 
standards relate to socio-environmental issues and ar e therefore not comparable with the standards of 
Codex, OIE or the IPPC.  Such issues would also fall outside the scope of the SPS Agreement and of 
this study. 
23. One reply points to the positive role that pr ivate standards have had for beef and poultry 
products by addressing emerging risks (specific risk ma terials in beef and avian influenza in poultry) 
at an early stage.  These standards have assisted  exporters in maintaining access to certain markets 
while preventing the spread of diseases and have al so paved the way for the eventual adoption of 
international and national standards to address these risks. 
Questions 9 and 10.  Do the private standa rd requirements for the product in question 
correspond to the relevant official import  requirements for that same product? 
Do the private standard requirements for the pro duct in question correspond to official national 
regulatory requirements for that same product? 
 
24. About two thirds of the replies indicate that th e private standard requirements exceed official 
import requirements.  A number of examples cite MRLs for pesticides which are significantly lower 
than national requirements, which are themselves at  times more restrictive than MRLs set by Codex 
for the same products.  Other examples provided re late to hygiene requirements, traceability, HACCP 
requirements and the limited number of total substance residues accepted. 
25. Eight replies indicate that the private sta ndard requirements do not exceed official 
requirements, while two others do not respond to this question. 
26. The replies regarding a comparison between pr ivate standard requirements and official 
national regulatory requirements  of exporting Members follow a similar pattern to that found in 
Question 9.  In some cases, there is very lim ited or no national SPS requirements regarding these 
products in the exporting Members. 
Question 11.  Negative (trade inhibiting) effects of the private standard(s) on the export of a 
product 
27. Many responses indicate that compliance with priv ate standards is considered by exporters to 
be the prerequisite for exporting to a large number of developed country markets.  Those farmers and 
producers who cannot achieve compliance with private standards, even if they could meet official 
standards, are losing market access opportunities and tryi ng to switch to alternative markets, e.g. in 
Southeast Asia and the Middle East, where official  government standards still constitute the market 
access conditions. 
28. Certain retailers require very restrictive MRLs for pesticides, determined as a percentage of 
national MRLs, which are themselves at times more restrictive than MRLs set by Codex for the same 
products. 8  Such low MRLs result in the exclusion of certain producers from the market even though 
                                                      
8 For example, Aldi, Plus-Edeka-Rewe-Metro group, Coop, Norma, Super de Boer, Kaufland, and  
Tengelmann.  G/SPS/GEN/932 
 Page 5 
 
 
  they could meet the official or international re quirements. A number of replies indicate that such 
restrictive MRLs have neither scientific jus tification nor enhanced food safety outcomes for 
consumers. 
29. Most replies highlight concerns with the additi onal costs of compliance, some of which occur 
only initially and others on a regular basis.  Cost s are incurred for initial studies, investment in 
infrastructure, external consultant fees for impl ementation, training, record-keeping, conduct of 
internal and external audits, annual certification fees, as well as required adaptations to changing 
requirements over time.  
30. While the cost of certification varies depending on the sector as well as the size and starting 
point of the farmers/producers, the examples provi ded indicate that the average annual certification 
fee may vary between  US$ 2,000 to US$ 8,000 for a private standard.  Some of the replies also make 
reference to costly and time-consuming privat e standard requirements for microbiological and 
chemical analyses by ISO 17025-certified laborator ies.  Most developing countries do not have 
accredited laboratories and need to send samples abro ad for testing.  In addition, the scientific 
justification for this requirement is questioned.  
31. Concerns raised include the repeated annual certification requirements for firms with a good 
past record, as well as the non-transparent and inconsiste nt evaluations of certain auditors.  In general, 
certification is accepted only from subsidiaries of foreign enterprises, which are approved by the 
owner of the standard, and not from exis ting national and local certification bodies. 
32. Most responses indicate that compliance with  the private standards does not necessarily 
deliver a price premium despite the investments n eeded to obtain certification.  In addition, the 
absence of a logo or label for having achieved comp liance (for example with GLOBALGAP)  is seen 
as a disadvantage. 
33. Most respondents identify the multiplicity of pr ivate standards and the lack of harmonization 
among them, despite some benchmarking efforts, as one of the main difficulties with private 
standards.  This increases the complexity of require ments applicable in a certain sector as well as the 
compliance and certification costs.  The branding aspect of private standards was considered an 
obstacle against much-needed harmonization among them.  A related point raised is that the concept 
of "equivalence" in private standards is consid ered as an equivalence of processes and not of 
outcomes.  
34. The Integrated Crop Management Assessment System in South Africa was described as a 
noteworthy effort on the supply-side to tackle the complexity of private standards.  This self-
assessment tool compares different relevant private standards in a single checklist.  
35. Some replies indicate that the acceptance of "registered pesticid es" only constitute an obstacle 
for farmers/producers that rely on pesticides which ma y not be widely used and therefore not included 
on the list of registered pesticides. 
36. The replies point to a disproportionate effect on smallholders.  While large and medium-size 
international and national enterpri ses often manage to achieve compliance with private standards, 
smaller ones lack the necessary infrastructure and resources and may be driven out of the market.  This seems to be particularly relevant for certain  commodities with export potential, such as exotic 
fruits, which are grown mainly by small-hol ders in developing country Members. 
37. The replies also highlight concerns about the lack  of transparency, the lack of involvement of 
exporters and other stakeholders in the private standard-setting process, and the lack of appeal G/SPS/GEN/932 
Page 6 
 
 
  procedures.  In particular, replies raise concerns  about the prescriptive nature of certain standards 
which might not be relevant or app licable in all circumstances.    
Question 12.  Positive (trade creating) effects of  the private standard(s) on the export of the 
product 
 38. The replies acknowledge that those farmers/pr oducers who manage to comply with private 
standards maintain a stable presence in a number of major export markets and possibly expand their market share, while those who cannot are displaced.  Still, some replies note that the ability of more 
producers to meet private standard requirement s has enhanced competition and reduced ease of 
market access.   
39. Most replies also acknowledge that privat e standards may facilitate compliance with 
international standards, satisfy evolving consumer  demands and improve the safety and quality of the 
traded products even if there is no price premium.  They may also lead to more standardized farming, 
processing, and packaging activities, promoting pr oductivity and predictability.  In addition, 
compliance with private standards may  improve a br and's reputation and facilita te access to credit 
and better stock market access quotation where a pplicable.  Private standards may offer product 
differentiation opportunities and access to niche mark ets. While it may not be directly linked to SPS 
issues, they may also contribute towards social and environmental goals.   
40. Two concrete positive examples were cited;  one is FLO-CERT in Ecuador, which offers 
price premiums and a fund for workers.  The othe r is New Zealand GAP, a private sector initiative 
which has facilitated New Zealand's access to the inte rnational market, as well as adaptation of certain 
prescriptive requirements of international privat e standard schemes to local conditions.   
Question 13.  Information on recognition of co mpliance with the private standard(s) for the 
export product  
41. As noted above, national and local certification bodies are not normally involved in 
certification of compliance with private standards.  This is usually done by subsidiaries of foreign 
enterprises, which need to be approved by the owner of the standard.   
42. According to the replies, large, medium, and sometimes small-size establishments, manage to 
achieve compliance, although the results vary by Member and sector.  Some small-scale producers 
manage to obtain certification by forming associ ations and slaughtering animals in third-party 
slaughterhouses. 
43. Very limited information is provided in the re plies regarding convergence and benchmarking 
trends among private standards. 
44. Information available to the Secretariat from other public sources point to two major schemes 
with benchmarking activity.   
45. Under the international scheme of GLOBALGA P, owners of good agricultural practice 
standards can seek to demonstrate equivale nce with GLOBALGAP through an independent 
benchmarking scheme. Australia, Brazil, Chile, Chin a, Colombia, Germany, Japan, Kenya, Mexico, 
New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tha iland, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and 
Uruguay have some GAP schemes that are recognize d as equivalent or seeking such recognition. 
46. Under the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI), eight international retailers (Carrefour, ICA, 
Tesco, Metro, Migros, Ahold, Wal-Mart, and Delhai ze) accept the GFSI benchmarking of four major 
food safety schemes (British Retail Consortium Gl obal Standards, Dutch HACCP, International  G/SPS/GEN/932 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Featured Standards (IFS), and Safe Quality Food (S QF)).  If a supplier has been certified under one of 
these food safety schemes, it does not have to be certifi ed for the three others to be able to supply any 
of the eight retailers (the concept of "once certified, accepted everywhere"). 
47. In February 2009, the GFSI and GLOBALGAP announced that they are in the process of 
developing a joint approach  to benchmarking for farm assurance scheme owners. 
Question 14.  Technical/financial assistance rec eived to assist compliance with the private 
standard(s) and from who (governme nt, standard setter, NGO, etc) 
48. More than half of the replies state that ther e was some kind of assistance provided to assist 
compliance with the private standard s.  Assistance is provided by the government in about a quarter of 
the cases, while private parties/interested parties are the other common entities providing support.  In 
a set of replies from Pakistan, it appears that s upport is obtained from projects funded by the Asian 
Development Bank.  One reply states that the cost to  comply with the private standards was borne by 
the global supplier company. 
49. Replies indicate that the kind of assistance provided varies greatly.  Most respondents do not 
indicate the kind of support provided to comply with private standards.  In about a quarter of the 
replies, the assistance provided appears to be monetary assistance.  The next common mode of 
assistance appears to be supplying information about the standards. 
Question 15.  What is the main concern regardi ng private standard(s) faced by your export 
product(s)?  
50. Replies referred to all aspects listed under this question, namely:  transparency, inclusiveness, 
predictability, harmonization, equivalence, scientific  justification, number of standards, costs of 
compliance and possibility to challenge  decisions of the standard-sette r or of the certification body.  
The most commonly raised concerns relate to th e number of standards imposed on a single product, 
the lack of harmonization, and the cost of compliance. 
Question 16.  Identify which, if any, provisions of the SPS Agreement are relevant with regard 
to the difficulties arising from the requirements of the private standard(s)  
51. The provisions most frequently cited are those concerning harmonization (Article 3), 
equivalence (Article 4), scientific  justification (Articles 5 and 6), and transparency (Article 7 and 
Annex B).  Some replies also indicate that paragrap h 1 of Article 1 on the scope of the Agreement, 
and Article 13 concerning impl ementation are applicable.  
52. In two replies, Article 10 (Special and Differen tial Treatment) is also mentioned.  Article 8, 
(Control, Inspection and Approval), Article 9 (Tech nical Assistance), and pa ragraph 1 of Annex A 
concerning the definitions of SPS measur es are each cited once in the replies. 
Question 17.  What practical steps have been/a re taken (or will be taken) with the export 
market to resolve the trade concerns posed by the private standard(s)? 
 
53. Respondents note that some governments and non-governmental organizations, as well as 
private initiatives, have taken steps to assist busin esses achieve compliance wi th private standards, 
which are considered to be the de facto entry requi rement for some markets.  The response from New 
Zealand refers to the possibility for certain ex porters/suppliers to seek exemptions from the 
requirements of some private standards if they can provide scientific rationale to the retailer operating 
the private standard.  However, this is depende nt on the relationship between the exporter/supplier 
and the retailer. G/SPS/GEN/932 
Page 8 
 
 
  Question 18.  What other issues does the product face on export markets in relation to the 
requirements established by privat e standards in those markets? 
 
54. Replies make reference to a number of issues already covered under other questions.  One 
issue that comes up a number of times is the difficulty arising from the use of veterinary drugs and 
pesticides that are not necessarily approved  or registered in the import market. 
Question 19.  Are you aware of any private st andards imposed by your domestic businesses, 
private traders, etc.?  For which products?  For what reasons? Which Members are affected? Any concerns raised by foreign exporters? 
 
55. Several respondents did not answer the qu estions about private standards imposed 
domestically in their territories.  An equal numbe r of respondents state they have no knowledge of 
domestically imposed private standards.  Chile, China, Guatemala, New Zealand, and South Africa, refer to the existence of private standards dom estically, mainly arising from the presence of 
multinational retailers in their markets.  G/SPS/GEN/932 
 Page 9 
 
 
  ANNEX I 
 
List of Members which have replied to th e Questionnaire SPS-related Private Standards  
(G/SPS/W/232 ) 
 
 
 Member Number of specific 
examples 
   
1. Argentina  2 
2. Belize  1 
3. Brazil  1 
4. Chile  1 
5. China 5 
6. Colombia  1 
7. Costa Rica  1 
8. Dominican Rep.  1 
9. Ecuador  2 
10. Egypt  1 
11. European Communities  Comments 
12. Guatemala  1 
13. India  7 
14. Japan  Comments 
15. New Zealand  1 
16. Pakistan  6 
17. Paraguay  1 
18. South Africa 1 
19. Thailand  1 
20. Tunisia  1 
21. United States  1 
22. Uruguay  2 
 
 
  
  G/SPS/GEN/932 
Page 10 ANNEX II 
 
Summary table  
 
  1a.  HS number 1b.  Full 
description 2.  Main export 
market 3.  Entity imposing the 
private standard 5.  Description of private standard (int'l scheme/ 
nat'l scheme/ indivd'l firm scheme) 
1 Argentina – 
1 (a) 0201.30 (b) 0202.30 
(c) 1602.50 (a) Meat of bovine 
animals, fresh or 
chilled, boneless. (b) Meat of bovine 
animals frozen, 
boneless. (c) Prepared or 
preserved meat of 
bovine animals USA All customers 
(importers/ distributors/ 
supermarkets) in the USA and EU. ISO 22000/ISO 65 (USA) / BRC (United Kingdom)/ 
The large firms surveyed have to certify with specific 
firms such as Heinz, McDona ld's (USA).  They also 
provide Kosher and Halal certification when 
requested by private firms. Small-scale producers 
report that they do not seek this type of certification owing to the high costs of implementing and 
subsequently maintaining it. 
2 Argentina – 
2 (a) 0805.50.10 (b) 
0805.40.00 (c) 
0805.10.20 (d) 
0805.20.50 (e) 0808.10.10 (f) 
0808.20.10 (a) Lemons (b) 
Grapefruit (c) 
Mandarins (d) 
Oranges (e) Apples (f) Pears - Hypermarkets:  Aldi – 
Lidl – Rewe – Edka – 
Plus – Tesco – Norma. 
Retailers in the Netherlands, United 
Kingdom and Germany. GlobalGap/ - / Hypermarkets such as Aldi, 
Edeka/Netto, Lidl, Metro, Norma, Plus, Rewe, Tegut, 
Tengelman. Small firms report that they do not have 
access to these retail chains. 
3 Belize 2009.11.10; 2009.21.30; 
2009.41.10; 2009.31.11; 
2009.11.20; 2009.21.90; 
2009.11.20; 2009.21.90; 1211.90.90; 1211.90.90; 
3301.12.00; 3301.19.10; 
2309.90.90;   2309.90.90;   
1211.90.90 Straight or 
concentrated juice 
from orange or 
grapefruits or the by-products thereof. 
Final products are 
either packed in drums, bins or 
tankers Belgium, England, 
Germany, Holland,  
Italy, Switzerland, 
UK, USA Mainly retailers in 
Belgium, England, 
Germany, Holland,  
Italy, Switzerland, UK, USA Quality Management System -ISO 9001:2000, 
Environmental Management System ISO 14001, 
HACCP, SGF ( Sure Global Fair) – European 
Labelling standard, Kosher, AIJN/ - / - 
4 Brazil Animal and Plant 
Products Fresh, raw and 
processed. Some countries Retailers, wholesalers, 
private traders.  Agricultural Labelling, BRC (British Retail 
Consortium), Farm to Fork, , GlobalGAP, Ranch  
Nature’s Choice, UFAS (Universal Feed Assurance Scheme), and others./ - / -   
   G/SPS/GEN/932
 Page 11  1a.  HS number 1b.  Full 
description 2.  Main export 
market 3.  Entity imposing the 
private standard 5.  Description of private standard (int'l scheme/ 
nat'l scheme/ indivd'l firm scheme) 
5 Chile - Fresh and processed 
fruit and vegetables for consumption Asia (China, 
Japan), European Union (United 
Kingdom, 
Germany, Spain, etc.), Latin 
America 
(Argentina, Colombia) and 
North America 
(United States of America, Mexico)  GAP standards: Primus 
Lab (USA);  Tesco supermarkets (UK);  
Marks & Spencer;  Wal 
Mart supermarkets (USA), GMP standards:  
British Retail 
Consortium (UK);  SQF 2000, currently known 
as the world food safety 
standard. Good Agricultural Practi ces (GAP) Standards;  
protocols applied in the field:  Global Partnership for Good Agricultural Practices  (GlobalGAP);  Product 
Safety Enforcement Forum of Europe (Prosafe);  
Nature's Choice;  Safe  Quality Food (SQF). 
Good Manufacturing Prac tices (GMPs), Sanitation 
Standard Operating Pro cedures (SSOPs), Hazard 
Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP), ISO Standard 22.000:2005 (including: HACCP 
principles, Prerequisites programme (GMPs), Quality 
management system (ISO 9001:2000), Interactive communication)/ ChileGAP® is a private Good 
Agricultural Practices (GAPs) certification 
programme which was developed by the 
Fruit‑Growing Development Foundation 
(Fundación para el Desarrollo Frutícola, FDF) under 
a mandate from Chile's fruit and vegetable export industry and which harmonizes the most accepted 
GAP requirements in Europe and the US so domestic 
producers can promote the use of GAPs on their land with a view to accessing the major markets at 
minimum cost./ -  
6 China -1 19022000 Processed Deep frozen food 
made of flour :  
Japan,  
Rice cake :  some 
EC Member States 
such as UK, the Netherlands, Italy 
and Spain Deep frozen food made 
of flour:   food safety 
Co., Ltd. in Japan ；  
Rice cake :   
ORLANDO in the 
Netherlands -/ Rice cake ：Collective national schemes/ Deep 
frozen food made of flour ：the total bacteria allowed 
should not exceed 3000 pieces per gram 
7 China -2  Apples: 0808.1000 Ya 
pears and Hsueh pears: 
0808.2012 Xiang pears: 
0808.2013 Apples, Ya pears, 
Hsueh pears and 
Xiang pears - Retailers (Supermarkets 
in the EC) EurepGap,  upgraded to GlobalGap in 2007/ - /- 
8 China -3 02.03 and 02.07 Raw Japan and EC Euro-
Retailer Produce Worki
ng Group-EUREP GLOBALGAP to the fresh farm products/ BRC or 
IFS - to the processed products / TNC - the standards 
must be complied for the supply to TESCO supermarket  
  G/SPS/GEN/932 
Page 12   1a.  HS number 1b.  Full 
description 2.  Main export 
market 3.  Entity imposing the 
private standard 5.  Description of private standard (int'l scheme/ 
nat'l scheme/ indivd'l firm scheme) 
9 China –4 20081190, 1202200000, 
2008112000, 1202109000 Processed US, Canada, the 
Netherlands, Australia and EC Companies such as Wal-
Mart Stores, Woolworth, MARS, 
TESCO COSHER, and HACCP. / BRC / Some private 
standards are individual firm schemes 
10 China -5 07103000, 0710809090, 
0712909090 , 
0710300000, 
0714903090, 0714909099, 
2004900090, 
0710100000, 0710290000, 070610, 
070310 Raw and processed America, Europe, 
Middle east 
Oceania, South 
East Asia,  Poseidon Trident, 
MacDonald’s ,Heinz -/ EUREPGAP/ The private standards applied by 
Heinz 
11 Colombia Cape gooseberries 
(Physalis peruviana ):  
08.10.90.50.00, Purple 
passion fruit – gulupa (Passiflora edulis):  
08.10.90.10.00, Yellow 
passion fruit – maracuyá 
(Passiflora edulis):  
08.10.90.10.00, Granadilla (Passiflora 
ligularis):  
08.10.90.10.00, Tree tomatoes (tamarillo) 
(Cyphomandra betacea):  
08.10.90.30.00 - Belgium, France, 
Germany, Holland,  
United Kingdom,  
 Supermarkets Collective international schemes, applied in a 
number of countries/ Collective national schemes 
applied by one country to the fresh fruit and 
vegetable market/ Company specific schemes:  e.g. German supermarkets MRLs;  Permitted pesticides 
registers United Kingdom supermarkets 
12 Costa Rica 8030011 Banana Belgium, England, 
Germany, Italy, 
Russia, Sweden, USA Global GAP GLOBALGAP'S certifi cation system is applied the 
world over.  Anyone wishing to obtain the 
certification must apply the same standards, whatever the country. / - / -  
   G/SPS/GEN/932
 Page 13  1a.  HS number 1b.  Full 
description 2.  Main export 
market 3.  Entity imposing the 
private standard 5.  Description of private standard (int'l scheme/ 
nat'l scheme/ indivd'l firm scheme) 
13 Dominican 
Republic 0804.40 – Avocados;  
0804.50 – Organic Mangoes, fresh / 
Mangoes, fresh;  
0805.20 – Mandarins, fresh;  0709.60 – 
Peppers, fresh;  
0709.90.31 – Pumpkins, fresh;  0710.22.10 – 
Green Beans;  0710.80 – 
Aubergines;  1211.90.40 – Chinese Bitter Melon;  
0709.90.90 – Other 
(Chinese okra) - Belgium, Canada, 
France, Germany, Holland, Italy, 
Japan, Norway, 
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK, 
USA,  United Kingdom: Marks 
and Spencer, Tesco, Waitrose, Sainsbury's;  
United States:  Primus 
Labs, Walmart;  Japan:  Japanese Agricultural 
Standards (JAS) 
 Standards applied: Good Agricultural Practices 
(GAPs), Good Manufactur ing Practices (GMPs), 
Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SSOPs), 
Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP)/ 
The Dominican Republic has set up a Department of Food Safety which prepares guides to GAPs and 
GMPs and takes steps to ensure compliance with the 
standards./ - 
14 Ecuador -1 - Banana, Mango, 
Pineapple Germany - European Union:  GLOBALGAP/ Japan:  JAS;  
United States:  NOP/ - 
15 Ecuador -2 0603 Cut flowers, fresh 
(roses, gypsophila, 
carnations, chrysanthemums, 
tropical flowers, 
proteas, etc.) Germany, 
Netherlands, 
Russia, USA Variable, according to 
the standard.  In 
Ecuador, there are many private standards for 
flowers FLO-CERT;  GLOBALGAP/ Rain Forest alliance 
(USA);  VERIFLORA (USA);  MPS (Netherlands);  
FLP (Germany)/ -  
16 Egypt Fresh fruit and 
vegetables - (0701-0703-0708-0710-0711-
0712-0713-0803-0804-
0805-0806-0809-0810-0811-0813) Processed 
fruit and vegetables 
(2009-2007) Olive oil (1509) Confectionery 
(1704-1806-1905) - Austria, Holland, 
Switzerland, UK, USA Global GAP, British 
Retail consortium, Tesco, Metro Cash & 
Carry   Global GAP;  ISO;  HACCP/ BRC / Tesco Natural 
choice;  Metro Cash & Carry 
17 European Communities      
  G/SPS/GEN/932 
Page 14   1a.  HS number 1b.  Full 
description 2.  Main export 
market 3.  Entity imposing the 
private standard 5.  Description of private standard (int'l scheme/ 
nat'l scheme/ indivd'l firm scheme) 
18 Guatemala Snow Peas 0708.10.00, 
French Beans 0708.20.00, Loquats 
08.10, Strawberries 
0910.10.00, 0810.20.00, Peached 
2008.70.00, Lettuce 
07.05, Carrots 07.06, Balsam apples 
0709.90.30, Taro Root 
0714.90.10, Chinese Okra and thai Okra 
0709.90.40  - France, Spain, 
United Kingdom United States,  Firms exporting the 
products require these standards of producers, 
most of whom are 
smallholders. (GLOBALGAP) GLOBALGAP / - / - 
19 India-1 Cashew Kernels 
08013200 20081910 Europe, Japan, 
Middle East,  USA 
etc.  Company / retailer HACCP, GMP, ISO 9000, ISO 22000/ - / - 
20 India -2 Curries (with chillies 
& turmeric) 09105000 Curry Australia, Europe, 
Scandinavia, USA  European Union & 
USFDA Colourants – European Union;  Aflatoxin – European 
Union;  Pesticide residues  -  European Union;  
Allergens – Products exported to Europe, US & 
Australia should be free from allergens./ - / -   
21 India – 3 Turmeric 0910 3030 Turmeric powder Asia, Australia, 
Europe, 
Scandinavia, USA  European Union & 
USFDA Colourants – European Union;  Aflatoxin – European 
Union;  Pesticide residues  -  European Union;  
Allergens – Products exported to Europe, US & Australia should be free from allergens./ - / -   
22 India – 4 Chillies 09042010 
,09042020 Chilli whole, Chilli 
powder Asia, Australia, 
Europe, 
Scandinavia, USA European Union & 
USFDA Colourants – European Union;  Aflatoxin – European 
Union;  Pesticide residues  -  European Union;  
Allergens – Products exported to Europe, US & Australia should be free from allergens./ - / -   
23 India – 5 09081010-in shell 
(Nutmeg)  09081020- Shelled (Nutmeg) - Asia, Australia, 
Europe, Scandinavia, USA European Union & 
USFDA Colourants – European Union;  Aflatoxin – European 
Union;  Pesticide residues  -  European Union;  
Allergens – Products exported to Europe, US & 
Australia should be free from allergens./ - / -   
24 India – 6 09041200, 09109100, 
09092000 Spices powders and 
Spice Mixes (Masalas) - Private traders  ISO 22000, HA CCP/ EIA, Spices Board/ -   
   G/SPS/GEN/932
 Page 15  1a.  HS number 1b.  Full 
description 2.  Main export 
market 3.  Entity imposing the 
private standard 5.  Description of private standard (int'l scheme/ 
nat'l scheme/ indivd'l firm scheme) 
25 India – 7 0302 33 00, 03 03 32 
00  Frozen Skipjack 
Tuna Whole round, Frozen Yellowfin 
Tuna Gutted Tunisia, Turkey Retailer -/ - / Test results on analysis of Microbiological, 
Chemical or Honey Comb issued by accredited Laboratories are often required 
26 Japan No significant effect of private SPS standards    
27 New Zealand 07 03 10 01 00 Onions ( Allium 
cepa ) – raw European Union 
(Belgium, 
germany, UK) Retailers Good Agricultural Practice (GAP);  GlobalGAP/ 
New Zealand GAP (based on: GAP, HACCP 
(Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points) and the 
ISO 9002 quality management system.)/ Individual retailer schemes.  For example German supermarket 
standards for maximum residue levels (MRLs). 
28 Pakistan -1  Onion 0712. 2000  Raw Kuwait, Malaysia, 
Singapore, Sri 
Lanka, UAE  Retailers, Chain stores 
like Metro, Makro, Wal-
Mart, Tesco, etc GlobalGAP, ISO 22000:2005/ BRC / -  
29 Pakistan – 2 Potato 0710. 1000  Raw Kuwait, Malaysia, 
Singapore, Sri 
Lanka, UAE Retailers, Chain stores 
like Metro, Makro, Wal-
Mart, Tesco, etc GlobalGAP, ISO 22000:2005/ BRC / -  
30 Pakistan – 3 Dates 0804. 1010  Raw France, germany, 
India, Sri Lanka, 
UAE, UK  Retailers, Chain stores 
like Metro, Makro, Wal-
Mart, Tesco, etc GlobalGAP, ISO 22000:2005/ BRC / -  
31 Pakistan – 4 Mango 0804. 5020  Raw Afghanistan, 
Bahrain, Belarus, 
Canada, Denmark, Germany,  Hong 
Kong, Indonesia, 
Iran, Kuwait, Malaysia, 
Mauritius, 
Netherlands, Norway, Oman 
Philippine, Qatar, 
Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, 
Sri Lanka, UAE, 
UK, and Ukraine   Retailers, Chain stores 
like Metro, Makro, Wal-
Mart, Tesco, etc GlobalGAP, ISO 22000:2005/ BRC / -   
  G/SPS/GEN/932 
Page 16   1a.  HS number 1b.  Full 
description 2.  Main export 
market 3.  Entity imposing the 
private standard 5.  Description of private standard (int'l scheme/ 
nat'l scheme/ indivd'l firm scheme) 
32 Pakistan – 5 Mandarin (Kinnow) 
0805. 2010  Raw Afghanistan, 
Bahrain, Belarus, Canada, Denmark, 
Germany,  Hong 
Kong, Indonesia, Iran, Kuwait, 
Malaysia, 
Mauritius, Netherlands, 
Norway, Oman 
Philippine, Qatar, Russia, Saudi 
Arabia, Singapore, 
Sri Lanka, UAE, UK, and Ukraine   Retailers like Metro, 
Makro, Wal-Mart, Tesco, etc GlobalGAP, ISO 22000:2005/ BRC / -  
33 Pakistan -6 Kinnow, mango, dates, 
potato, onion and other vegetables 0805.2010, 
0804.5020, 0804.1010, 
0710.1000 0712.2000, 
07.08, 07.09 - Afghanistan, 
Bahrain, Belarus, Canada, Denmark, 
Germany,  Hong 
Kong, Indonesia, 
Iran, Kuwait, 
Malaysia, Mauritius, 
Netherlands, 
Norway, Oman Philippine, Qatar, 
Russia, Saudi 
Arabia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, UAE, 
UK, and Ukraine   Retailers like Metro, 
Makro, Wall mart, Tesco, etc GlobalGAP, ISO 22000:2005/ BRC / -   
   G/SPS/GEN/932
 Page 17  1a.  HS number 1b.  Full 
description 2.  Main export 
market 3.  Entity imposing the 
private standard 5.  Description of private standard (int'l scheme/ 
nat'l scheme/ indivd'l firm scheme) 
34 Paraguay 1202.20.90 
(Groundnuts Shelled, Common Grain);  
1201.00.90 (Soybean 
seeds);  1701.10.00 (Soybean Oil, Crude);  
15.07.90.00 (Soybean 
Oil, refined);  1204.40.90 (Sesame 
Seeds);  5201.00.20 
(Cotton, Ginned);  5203.00.00 (Cotton 
Carded or Combed);  
1701.11.00 (Sugar, Raw);  1701.99.00 
(Sugar, Refined) Sesame seeds 
(organic); groundnut seeds 
(organic); cotton 
fibre (organic); organic sugar; 
soybean seeds, 
soybean oil Chiefly Japan, EU, 
and  USA Company/private trader ISO 22.000, adjustment in process;  European 
ecosocial standards (for sesame and soybeans), SA 8000, social accountability;   ANEC 41 and 71, 
commercial quality;  FOSFA 51, commercial quality/ 
- / Some firms apply certification 
35 South Africa All fruit (stone, pome, 
table grapes) - Primarily EU 
(particularly UK 
and Netherlands/ 
Germany/ plus 
other) and non-EU 
European countries, 
including Norway, 
Switzerland, Russia/ other; 
Middle and Far 
East countries/ Asian and African 
countries. Smaller 
volumes to special export markets 
requiring pest-risk 
assessment and specific 
phytosanitary 
protocols to gain market access ie. 
USA; Israel and 
China for table All major and medium 
size retailers, mainly in 
the UK and other EU 
countries, including 
service providers to 
retailers i.e. Importers. More recently Walmart, 
a retailer in the USA. GlobalGAP; BRC (renamed Global Standard for 
Food Safety); SQF; ISO 22000; HACCP; ETI 
(Sedex); BSCI; SA 8000;  Fairtrade; FLOCERT/ 
other;  Tesco Nature’s Choice; Field to Fork – (UK 
retailer schemes); Fruitnet – (Belgium retailer 
scheme),  applied internationally in a number of countries./ LEAF (UK); Bench-marked GlobalGAP 
standards ie. ChileGAP; KenyaGAP;  SwissGAP; 
NZ GAP; Assured Produce (UK); QS (Germany) / Fruitnet; Tesco Nature’s Choice; Field to Fork; 
Multiple private standard retailer/ company 
chemical/ residue-reduction schemes  
  G/SPS/GEN/932 
Page 18   1a.  HS number 1b.  Full 
description 2.  Main export 
market 3.  Entity imposing the 
private standard 5.  Description of private standard (int'l scheme/ 
nat'l scheme/ indivd'l firm scheme) 
grapes; USA for 
stone and pome fruit (excluding 
apricots) and 
Chinese Taipei for apples. 
36 Thailand Fresh poultry meat 
0207, Fully cooked poultry products 1602 
(Poultry meat = 
chicken and duck) Frozen seafood and 
value added seafood, Ready to 
cook and Ready to 
eat Australia, Japan, 
USA Retailers/Companies, 
Importers, Traders   -/ -/ - 
37 Tunisia Fresh or chilled fish 03 
02, Frozen fish 03 03, 
Fish fillets 03 04, Live bivalve molluscs 03 07 In the case of 
fisheries products, 
chilled or frozen or processed; in the 
case of live bivalve 
molluscs,  live. Cyprus, France, 
Germany, Greece, 
Italy, and Spain  The European 
Commission Collective international schemes (some schemes are 
applied in a number of countries)/ - / -  
38 United States Beef (all) and 
processed poultry 
meat. - EU, Japan, 
Mexico, and USA - For poultry:  Processing temperatures (development 
of an international standard (70° C for 3.5 sec) to 
inactivate the AI virus;  on-farm biosecurity 
standards;  These private standards pre-dated certain 
National and OIE Terrestrial Code specifications./- / For beef:  Individual firm scheme standards that 
required the removal of Specified Risk Materials 
(SRM); prohibition on the use of nonambulatory cattle;  and separate equipment for removal of SRM 
vs. edible tissue.  
39 Uruguay – 1 Fresh, chilled or frozen 
meat 0201.10, 
0201.20, 0201.30, 
0202.10, 0202.30 Meat of bovine 
animals, fresh, 
chilled or frozen, 
boneless or with 
bone in A number of 
beef‑importing 
countries Retailers, companies, 
private traders Yes/ Yes / Yes  
   G/SPS/GEN/932
 Page 19  1a.  HS number 1b.  Full 
description 2.  Main export 
market 3.  Entity imposing the 
private standard 5.  Description of private standard (int'l scheme/ 
nat'l scheme/ indivd'l firm scheme) 
40 Uruguay – 2 Citrus Fruit Fresh 
Lemons Citrus Limon 0805500000 ; Citrus 
Fruit Fresh Oranges 
0805100000; Citrus Fruit fresh Mandarins  
0805200000 ; Citrus 
Fruit Fresh Grapefruit 0805400000; 
Cranberries:  
0810400000 (Fresh Blueberries); Fresh 
Apples 0808100000; 
Fresh Pears 0808201000; Fresh 
Peaches 0809301000; 
Fresh Grapes 0806100000  Fresh fruit, packed 
in boxes or bins;  waxed/disinfected. European Union 
(main destinations Netherlands, 
Germany, Spain, 
United Kingdom, Portugal, Italy), 
other European 
countries, United States, Russian 
Federation, 
Canada, Asian markets (mainly 
Saudi Arabia, 
United Arab Emirates and 
China) and 
countries of our own region 
(mainly Brazil).  In 
2008 these 
destinations 
accounted for over 90% of export 
volume. Mainly retailers and 
their supplier companies. Globalgap/ BRC, Fair Trade, SA8000, USAGAP/ A 
number of companies apply the Tesco Nature's Choice, Marks & Spencer or Carrefour Qualité 
Filiere protocols 
 
__________