RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/247/Rev.3 
11 October 2010 
 (10-5199) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
POSSIBLE ACTIONS FOR THE SPS COMMITTEE REGARDING  
SPS-RELATED PRIVATE STANDARDS  
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
Revision  
  1. The SPS Committee has been discussing the issu e of SPS-related private standards since 
June 2005, when Saint Vincent and the Grenadin es raised a specific tr ade concern regarding 
EurepGAP (now called GLOBALGAP) requirements for bananas destined for sale in the United 
Kingdom.
2  Since then this issue has been discussed regularly at SPS Committee meetings.  A list of 
all SPS Committee documents referring to privat e standards can be found in the Annex. 
2. In an effort to bring more structure and c oncrete examples to its discussions on SPS-related 
private standards, the SPS Committee decided in Oct ober 2008 to undertake a three-step study, which 
would be led by an ad hoc working group.3  
3. As the first step of this process, the Secr etariat circulated a Questionnaire on SPS-related 
Private Standards on 5 December 2008.4  The questionnaire sought information from Members 
regarding products and markets of concern, the rele vant private and international standards, trade 
effects, costs of compliance, and a number of related elements. 
4. As the second step, a compilation of replies su mmarizing the information contained in the 
40 responses received from 22 Members was circulated on 15 June 2009.5  The individual responses, 
including responses received after the circ ulation of the compilation of replies6, can be consulted 
through the WTO Members' website.7  Most of the responses reiterated a number of concerns 
regarding private standards, which had alread y been raised on various occasions at the SPS 
Committee.  Some responses also underlined the positive and trade facilitating impact of private 
standards. 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. 
2 G/SPS/GEN/766;  specific trade concern no. 219. 
3 G/SPS/R/53, para. 132. 
4 G/SPS/W/232. 
5 G/SPS/GEN/932. 
6 Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago submitted responses after the circulation of the descriptive report. 
Argentina also provided additional information, complementing its two original responses.  
7 Please click on this address: http://members.wto.org/WTO_ resources/SPS/SPS-Private-
Standards_tri.htm .  All responses are available in English and Span ish as these are the working languages of the 
30 Members participating in the SPS Committee's ad hoc working group on private standards. G/SPS/W/247/Rev.3 
Page 2 
 
 
  5. The compilation of replies was discussed, in particular by the ad hoc working group on 
private standards8, during the SPS Committee's meetings held in  June and October 2009.  In addition, 
a number of Members submitted written comments on the compilation following the SPS Committee meetings.  While some Members found the report  to be a useful basis for the SPS Committee's 
deliberations, others raised concerns about the limita tions of the report, especially with regard to the 
accuracy, precision and scope of some of the data provided in the replies to the questionnaire.  For 
example, some replies were found to be very gene ral and lacking specificity and others went beyond 
SPS issues to include references to quality, environmen tal and social standards.  A revised version of 
this compilation was circulated on 10 Decemb er 2009 taking into account comments from Members.
9  
6. As the third step, the Secretariat was request ed by the working group to prepare a document 
identifying possible actions by the SPS Committe e and/or Members regarding SPS-related private 
standards.  The first version of the doc ument was circulated on 20 October 200910, drawing upon the 
SPS Committee's discussions on the topic, Members and observers' specific written contributions, and the compilation of replies, keeping in mind its limitations.  It was discussed during the meetings of the ad hoc working group on private standards and of the SPS Committee in October 2009.
11  In addition, 
Switzerland and MERCOSUR members (Argentina,  Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay) submitted 
written contributions on this topic following th e circulation of the Secretariat document.12  The Chair 
of the SPS Committee invited Members to submit written comments on the Secretariat document by 
16 December 2009, indicating in particular any seq uencing they would like to see in discussing the 
possible actions identified.  Subsequently, the Secretariat received written comments from nine 
Members and one observer organization and issued  a first revision of the document for discussion 
during the SPS Committee and the ad hoc wo rking group meeti ngs in March 2010.13  A second 
revision, incorporating comments made in the cont ext of the March 2010 meetings and subsequently 
by eight of the Members of the ad hoc working group, was circulated in June 2010.  This third revision has been prepared in light of Members'  oral and written comments and the Committee Chair's 
conclusions from the ad hoc worki ng group meeting held in June 2010. 
7. In light of the concerns raised regarding some  of the examples in the compilation of replies, 
this document does not purport to provide a substantive an alysis of the matter but rather focuses on 
possible actions that could be taken by the SPS Comm ittee and/or Members to identify the benefits of 
SPS-related private standards and address their ne gative effects on market access, especially for 
producers and exporters in developing  countries.  Identification of possible actions in this context is 
without prejudice to the views of Members regarding the scope of the SPS Agreement. 
8. The working group has identified twelve possible actions.  Annex I includes a compilation of 
these actions, along with an indication of the reacti ons from members of the working group to these. 
                                                     
 
8 See paras. 119-145 of G/SPS/R/ 51, paras. 4-7 of G/SPS/W/230, an d paras. 122-137 of G/SPS/R/53 
regarding the establishment of the working group. 
9 G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1. 
10 G/SPS/W/247. 
11 G/SPS/R/56, paras. 155-175. 
12 G/SPS/GEN/967 and G/SPS/W/249, respectively. 
13 G/SPS/GEN/247/Rev.1.  G/SPS/W/247/Rev.3 
 Page 3 
 
 
  9. In light of its work thus far, the work ing group recommends that the SPS Committee 
consider:  
(a) endorsing Actions [1 through 5];  and 
(b)(i) [giving further consideration to the remaining actions] OR  
(b)(ii) [asking the working group to give furthe r consideration to the remaining actions] OR  
(b)(iii) [suspending discussion on the remaining actions at this time].G/SPS/W/247/Rev.3 
Page 4 
 
 
  ANNEX I 
 
COMPILATION OF POSSIBLE ACTIONS 
  
Action 1
:  The SPS Committee should develop a working definition of SPS-related private 
standards and limit any discussions to these.  
1. It is apparent from the discussions in the WT O and from the literature on this issue that 
private standards play an increasingly important role  in international trade and pose new challenges as 
well as opportunities for producers and exporters.  Th ey cover safety, quality, labour, social and 
environmental issues and can affect a wide range of products. 
2. Given its mandate, the SPS Committee should fo cus any discussions solely on SPS-related 
private standards, most of which are currently in  the area of food safety.  However, some Members 
have expressed concerns that the discussions have covered issues beyond SPS-related private 
standards.  One of the reasons for this is that many private standards include food safety as well as 
other requirements, making it more difficult to si ngle out the SPS-related re quirements and determine 
whether any trade effects can be attributed dir ectly to these.  At the same time, producers and 
exporters do not necessarily focus on the distinc tion between SPS versus TBT measures or public 
versus private standards, but rather on whether they  are able to fulfill all the requirements imposed by 
the importers.  
3. Given its mandate, the SPS Committee would limit any discussions to: 
 Requirements which are established and/or  adopted by non-governmental entities to 
fulfill one of the four objectives stated in Annex A, paragraph 1 of the SPS Agreement and 
which may affect international trade.  These four objectives are:   
(a) to protect animal or plant life or health within the territory of the Member from risks 
arising from the entry, establishment or sp read of pests, dis eases, disease-carrying 
organisms or diseas e-causing organisms; 
(b) to protect human or animal life or health within the territory of the Member from 
risks arising from additives, contaminants, toxins or disease-causing organisms in 
foods, beverages or feedstuffs; 
(c) to protect human life or health within the territory of the Member from risks arising 
from diseases carried by animals, plants or products thereof, or from the entry, 
establishment or spread of pests;  and 
(d) to prevent or limit other damage within th e territory of the Member from the entry, 
establishment or spread of pests. 
These requirements may include, inter alia , end product criteria; processes and production 
methods;  testing, inspection, certification a nd approval procedures;  quarantine treatments 
including relevant requirements associated with th e transport of animal or plants, or with the 
materials necessary for their survival during tr ansport;  provisions on relevant statistical 
methods, sampling procedures and methods of risk assessment;  and packaging and labelling 
requirements directly related to food safety. 
4. This proposed action appears to enjoy substan tial support among participants in the working 
group so as to ensure a common understanding with in the SPS Committee.  However, one delegation 
opposes spending additional Committee resources on the development of a working definition.   G/SPS/W/247/Rev.3 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Action 2 :  The SPS Committee should regularly info rm the Codex, OIE and IPPC regarding 
relevant developments in its consideration of SPS -related private standards, and should invite 
these organizations to likewise regularly inform the SPS Committee of relevant developments in 
their respective bodies.  
5. One of the concerns raised regarding SPS-rela ted private standards has been that they 
sometimes deviate from the standards established by the international standard-setting bodies (ISSBs) 
referenced in the SPS Agreement, which are the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), the World 
Organization for Animal Health (OIE), and the Inte rnational Plant Protection Convention (IPPC).  For 
example, in the area of food safety, some retail schemes have been identified as having maximum 
residue limits (MRLs) which are more restrictive th an those set by Codex.  In the area of animal 
health, examples of private standards with more trade-restricting BSE1 requirements than those of the 
OIE have been provided. 
6. Given the interlinkages between SPS-related priv ate standards and the standards developed by 
Codex, OIE and IPPC, these bodies would benefit from regular information exchanges on this topic.  
In addition, the Secretariats of the four organizati ons should inform each other regarding their work in 
this area, keeping in mind that th e scope of work on private standa rds in the international standard-
setting bodies may not be the same as that of the SPS Committee. 
7. The Codex Alimentarius Commission had cons idered extensively the issue of private 
standards for the first time during its 32nd session (CAC32, July 2009)2 on the basis of a paper 
commissioned by the FAO and the WHO on the impact  of private food safety standards on the food 
chain and on the public standard-setting process.3  The Commission did not support the conclusions of 
the paper and was of the opinion that Codex standa rds should be benchmarks for private food safety 
standards.  The Commission agreed to monitor de velopments in the WTO and work in cooperation 
with the OIE and the IPPC to consult on a commo n position on this matter.  The Commission also 
agreed that a further study be conducted to analyze th e role, cost and benefits of private standards for 
consideration by the Executive Committee and the Commission.   
8. A new study4 was prepared by the FAO and WHO and considered during the 33rd Session of 
the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Geneva, 5-9 July 2010).5  The main conclusions of the paper 
were that there was a tendency for individual firm st andards to be more stringe nt than relevant Codex 
standards without scientific basis, whereas collectiv e food safety standards were largely consistent 
with Codex.  A general exception to this relate d to traceability requirements.  Private food safety 
standards were, however, more prescriptive than Codex standards in stating how food hygiene 
requirements should be met.  Since the standards in  most cases were prepared with extremely limited 
opportunity for developing country input, the prescrip tions contained within the standards were often 
inappropriate in developing country  contexts and difficult or impossible to apply in small-scale food 
businesses in developing countries.  The cost of cer tification disproportionately penalized small-scale 
producers and multiple certification requirements we re a major problem that should be avoidable 
given that there are minimal differences among many of the existing standards.  
                                                      
1 Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy. 
2 ALINORM 09/32/REP, paras. 246-271. 
3 ALINORM 09/32/9D-Part II: The Im pacts of Private Food Safety St andards on the Food Chain and 
on the Public Standards-Setting Process, Paper prepared for FAO/WHO by Spencer Henson and John 
Humphrey. 
4 CX/CAC 10/33/13. 
5 ALINORM 10/33/REP, paras. 218-243. G/SPS/W/247/Rev.3 
Page 6 
 
 
  9. Some delegations welcomed the paper as more balanced than the report discussed at CAC32 
while others were of the opinion that the paper seemed to favour pr ivate standards and put the onus on 
developing countries to meet these standards.  The Chairperson concluded that legal trade 
implications of private standards were best d ealt with in the WTO while Codex, FAO and WHO 
should engage with global private standard-setting bodies and encourage their participation in Codex 
as observers.  The Chairperson noted the willingness of FAO to make closer contact with private 
standards organizations.  The Commission agreed  to refer the matter to regional coordinating 
committees to conduct further analysis of the probl ems encountered with private standards and to 
make recommendations for follow up by the next session of the Commission.  The analysis should 
include the financial burden especially on sma ll and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) due to 
proliferation of private standards.  Private sta ndard-setting bodies should be encouraged to limit the 
number of audits and to work mo re cooperatively amongst themselves. 
10. A side event on private standards was orga nized by the FAO and WHO on the session-free 
day of the Commission on 8 July 2010. 
11. The Codex Secretariat had prepared an analysis  of the speed of the Codex standard-setting 
process which had been mentioned as one reason for th e proliferation of private standards.  This 
analysis was discussed at the 63th Session of the Executive Committee (CCEXEC63) in 
December 20096 and a further study taking into account setting of numerical standards and work 
management approaches of different  committees was discussed at the 64th Session of the CCEXEC in 
June/July 2010.7  The Committee concluded that the analys is contained in the working document had 
been positive, showing that Codex work in ge neral was progressing much better than was the 
prevailing impression and that this message should be actively communicated to all relevant parties.  
The Committee concluded further that the analys is had helped to identify work-management 
approaches of Codex Committees that facilitate adva ncement of texts in the Codex step process. The 
Committee recommended that Codex Committees consid er adopting the good practices identified. 
12. OIE members adopted a resolution regarding th e implication of private standards in the 
international trade of animals and animal products in May 2008.8  This resolution asks the Director 
General of the OIE, among others, "to work w ith relevant public and private international 
organizations with the objective that concerns of  Members are taken into consideration and that 
private standards, where used, are consistent  with and do not conflict those of the OIE." 
13. The OIE Secretariat has provided regular updates to the SPS Committee and submitted a 
document entitled "Considerations Relevant to Privat e Standards in the Field of Animal Health, Food 
Safety, and Animal Welfare".9  An OIE ad hoc  working group was established to consider private 
standards in the areas of animal health and welfar e.  This group met in October 2009 to review the 
results of a questionnaire sent to members and releva nt organizations and to prepare recommendations 
for future action by the OIE.  The group's report10 was reviewed by the Terrestrial Code Commission 
in February 2010 and was published as an annex to  the Commission's report in March 2010, including 
the complete report of the OIE questionnaire.11 
14. As most of the 68 OIE members responding to the questionnaire recommended that the OIE 
work more closely with private standard setting organi zations in an effort to avoid negative effects of 
                                                      
6 CX/EXEC 09/63/8. 
7 CX/EXEC 10/64/4. 
8 Resolution No. XXXII.. 
9 G/SPS/GEN/822. 
10 Executive summary at http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/en_executive%20summary.pdf  
11 http://www.oie.int/tahs c/eng/en_reports.htm , page 701.  G/SPS/W/247/Rev.3 
 Page 7 
 
 
  private standards, the OIE convened a meeting with pr ivate organizations, with the participation of the 
WTO Secretariat, on 16 February 2010 to exchange  information and consider possible next steps. 
15. At the OIE 78th General Session (23-28 May 2010) the private sector's views on private 
standards were presented by a representative of the not–for–profit global alliance for a Safe Supply of 
Affordable Food Everywhere (SSAFE).  In the related General Session Resolution No. 2612, members 
recommended that the OIE maintain and strengthen appropriate links and di alogue with relevant 
global private standard-setting bodies and global pr ivate industry organizations, with the aim of 
encouraging the compatibility of private standard s with OIE standards and fostering communication 
with national governments and consum ers on the safeguards offered by official standards.  The Final 
Report of the 78th General Session is available on the OIE website at 
http://www.oie.int/eng/OIE/actes/en_rfinal.htm . 
16. Following the recommendations of Resolution 26, in September 2010 the OIE convened a 
meeting with some global standard-setting bodies and other stakeholders to discuss future 
collaboration.  The report of this meeting will be released in October as an annex to the report of the 
Terrestrial Code Commission's September meeting.  Information on OIE activities relating to private 
standards for sanitary safety and animal welfare may be found at:   
http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/en_Implica tions%20of%20private%20standards.htm . 
17. There has been limited discussion of private standards at the IPPC. 
18. The WTO Secretariat has provided updates on the SPS Committee's deliberations on SPS-
related private standards during the annual  meetings of the Codex, OIE and IPPC,13 and participated 
in informal meetings at the OIE on this matter. 
 19. This proposed action appears to enjoy substan tial support among participants in the working 
group. 
 
Action 3
:  The SPS Committee invites the Secretariat to inform the Committee on developments 
in other WTO fora which could be of relevan ce for its discussions on SPS-related private 
standards. 
20. Private standards play an increasingly important role in international trade and may become a 
subject of discussion in various formal or informal WTO fora.  While such discussions are likely to go 
beyond SPS issues, there could also be linkages.  Fo r example, a private standard could contain both 
TBT as well as SPS-related requirements or its envi ronmental requirements could cover SPS aspects.  
Also, horizontal concepts such as tr ansparency could be considered.  In this context, it would be 
beneficial for the SPS Committee to keep abreast  of relevant developments in the WTO. 
21. There has thus far been limited discussion on the issue of private standards in the TBT 
Committee.  During the March 2009 TBT Workshop on  the Role of International Standards in 
Economic Development, several participants expressed  concerns about the proliferation of private 
standards that could result in unnecessary barriers to trade and create confusion in the marketplace.14  
                                                      
12 Resolution No. 26 "Roles of public and private standards in animal health and animal welfare". 
13 For example, see Codex document CAC/32 INF/5, paras. 28-34 and OIE document 76 SG/10 
regarding the Implication of Privat e Standards in International Trade of Animals and Animal Products. 
14 G/TBT/W/310, para. 63. G/SPS/W/247/Rev.3 
Page 8 
 
 
  22. In the context of the Fifth Triennial Review of the TBT Agreement, which was concluded in 
November 2009, the issue of private standards was raised for discussion.15  The relevant section of the 
report of the Fifth Triennial Review states the following16: 
 "The Committee notes that several Members have raised 
concerns regarding "private standa rds" and trade impacts thereof, 
including actual or potential unnecessary barriers to trade.17  T h e  
Committee also notes that other Members consider that the term lacks clarity and that its relevance to the implementation of the TBT Agreement has not been established.  Without prejudice to the 
different views expressed, the Committee recalls that Article 4.1 of 
the TBT Agreement requires that Members shall take such reasonable measures as may be availa ble to them to ensure that 
standardizing bodies accept and co mply with the Code of Good 
Practice.  The Committee further expresses the need to strengthen 
implementation of Article 4.  In view of this, the Committee
:  
(a) Recalls  its discussion in the Third Triennial Review18 
regarding standards developed by bodies that are not commonly considered standardizing bodies;  
(b) Reiterates  its 1997 invitation to Members to share their 
experiences with respect to steps taken to fulfil their obligations 
under Article 4, and to exchange information regarding the reasons 
some standardizing bodies have not  yet accepted the Code of Good 
Practice
19;  and 
(c) With a view to facilitating an informed discussion on the 
development and use of standards in general, including with regard to 
standards developed by non-governmental bodies, Members are 
invited to share their experiences  related to the implementation of the 
TBT Agreement, including the Code of Good Practice.  Discussions will neither prejudge the role of the TBT Committee nor the scope of the TBT Agreement with respect to any issue that may arise." 
23. The Committee on Trade and Environment held a workshop on Environment-Related Private 
Standards, Certification and Labe ling Requirements in July 2009.
20  In addition to an introductory 
session and presentations on specific private sta ndards, it considered the following topics: 
transparency and the standard development process,  proliferation and harm onization, environmental 
impact and effectiveness, relevant rules and work in the WTO (SPS and TBT). 
24. This proposed action appears to enjoy substan tial support among participants in the working 
group.  
                                                      
15 G/TBT/W/318. 
16 G/TBT/26, para. 26. 
17 The Committee notes that the issue has been discussed in other fora. 
18 G/TBT/13, para. 25. 
19 G/TBT/1/Rev.9, p.21. 
20 Job(09)/136/Rev.1.  G/SPS/W/247/Rev.3 
 Page 9 
 
 
  Action 4 :  [Once a definition of SPS-related private standards is agreed upon (as per Action 1),] 
Members are encouraged to communicate with en tities involved in such standards in their 
territories to sensitize them to the issues raised in the SPS Committee and underline the 
importance of following international standard s established by the Codex, OIE and IPPC. 
25. The SPS Committee has been discussing the issu e of SPS-related private standards since 
2005.  While Members are by now quite familiar w ith each other's concerns and positions on this 
issue, it is not clear to what extent entities involved in the development, application, certification, etc 
of SPS-related private standards are aware of the SPS Committee's discussions.  The information 
sessions with the participation of representatives of such entities were useful in bringing to their 
attention some of the concerns raised in th e SPS Committee as well as in updating the Committee on 
latest developments. 
26. Given the multitude and diverse nature of en tities involved in private SPS standards such as 
retail firms, producers, certifiers and NGOs, Member governments may be best placed to communicate with such entities as necessary.  Su ch communication could be achieved through 
meetings or other means and enc ourage harmonization, mutual recognition of standards by private 
standard holders, cost reduction in the areas of comp liance and certification, and further transparency 
and consultation mechanisms.  It would also help  Members build an understanding of the extent and 
functions of SPS-related private standards.  One limi tation that has been identified is that for some 
developing countries, such meetings might enco mpass only producers and exporters facing private 
SPS standards in their export markets and not those setting and applying such standards. 
 
27. This proposed action appears to enjoy substan tial support among participants in the working 
group.  
 
Action 5 :  The SPS Committee should explore the possibility of working with the Codex, OIE 
and IPPC to support the development and dissem ination of promotional materials underlining 
the importance of international SPS standards. 
28. The responses to the Secretariat's questionnaire re vealed that many producers and traders are 
not aware of the differences between public and SPS-relate d private standards.  In an effort to provide 
further clarity on this issue and promote the use of international standards, the SPS Committee could 
explore the possibility of working with the Codex,  OIE and IPPC to support the development and 
dissemination of promotional materials (such as brochures or videos).  Such materials would 
underline the merits of science-based internationa l standards, which, when adopted by Member 
governments and private schemes, serve to facilitate trade while ensuring safety. 
29. A better global understanding would facilitate  more informed commercial decisions by 
producers, which in turn may result in better retu rns.  A better understandi ng may also improve the 
ability of producers to negotiate with those setting private standards on the content of these standards.  
30. Such work should build on already existing materials. 
 31. This proposed action appears to enjoy substan tial support among participants in the working 
group.  
 G/SPS/W/247/Rev.3 
Page 10 
 
 
  Action 6 :  Members are encouraged to exchange relevant information regarding SPS-related 
private standards among themselves to enha nce understanding and awareness on how these 
compare or relate to international standards and governmental regulations, without prejudice 
to the different views of Members re garding the scope of the SPS Agreement. 
32. Members have raised a number of concerns  regarding SPS-related private standards, 
including: 
• the lack of a scientific basis for requirements; 
• deviations from international standards or from official governmental requirements (for 
example, for maximum residue limits); 
• the multiplicity of standards and th e lack of harmonization among them; 
• the costs of compliance and certification, especially with a multitude of standards; 
• the lack of transparency, consultation and appeal mechanisms; 
• the prescriptive, rather than outcome-based, operational procedures required by private 
standards, which disregards the concept of equivalence;  and  
• the disproportionate effect on small- and medium -sized producers and e xporters in developing 
countries. 
33. A number of positive aspects have also been mentioned, including: 
• the facilitation of compliance with national a nd international standards, where private 
schemes take as a basis these standards and provide comprehensive guidance on achieving them; 
• the promotion of best practices and productivity; 
• improved brand reputation a nd facilitation of access to markets and credits;  and 
• the ability to address emerging risks in a rapi d manner, fill gaps, and pave the way for 
eventual adoption of international standards. 
34. With a view to enhancing understanding and awareness on international, governmental, and 
private SPS-related standards without creating an  excessive burden, Members, observers, and the 
Secretariat could be encouraged to exchange informa tion on this topic.  This could include written or 
oral communications on any relevant conferences or  studies on SPS-related private standards or on 
concrete experiences of exporters in meeting these.
21 
35. In addition, the Secretariat may be request ed to organize ad hoc informal workshops22 with 
relevant stakeholders, including  international organizations;  entities developing, adopting and 
certifying private standards23;  as well as producers and/or exporters who need to meet these 
                                                      
21 Examples include the circulation of a communica tion by Switzerland entitled "Voluntary Standards" 
(G/SPS/GEN/967) and of an information note from the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) through the 
Secretariat (G/SPS/GEN/1004).  
 22 Earlier information sessions include the STDF Information Session on Private Standards 
(http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/private_standards_june08_e/private_standards_june08_e.htm ) and 
the Joint UNCTAD/WTO Informal Inform ation Session on Private Standards 
(http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/private_standards_june07_e/private_standards_june07_e.htm ). 
23 Potential invitees could include representatives of the ISO, Global Food Safety Initiatve (GFSI), 
GlobalGAP, Chile GAP, New Zealand GAP, Thailand GAP, and SSAFE.  G/SPS/W/247/Rev.3 
 Page 11 
 
 
  standards.  Such workshops would be an opportunity for interested Members to highlight the concerns 
mentioned above and follow the latest developments in an evolving field. 
36. To facilitate the participation of a larger numb er of delegations, such events could be held 
back-to-back with SPS Committee meetings.  It should be underlined, however, that the SPS 
Committee would not endorse or support any particul ar entity participating in such meetings. 
37. While a number of Members would like to see the SPS Committee play a role in addressing 
concerns related to SPS-related private standards, ot hers are of the view that such standards are not 
covered by the SPS Agreement and that it is not  for the governments of Members or the SPS 
Committee to interfere in the private contractual re lations of firms, except when these result in 
deceptive practices or distortions of competition.  In  addition, some Members would prefer that the 
SPS Committee focus on its regular business.  Moreove r, concerns have been raised that if the 
exchange of information were associated with  and facilitated by the Committee, it could be 
interpreted as an endorsement of SPS-related private standards.  It has been  suggested that such 
information exchanges take place among technical sp ecialists in the context of meetings associated 
with the ISSBs or at the national level. 
38. While this proposed action has enjoyed so me support in the working group, several 
delegations have expressed concerns as described in the preceding paragraph.   
Action 7 :  The SPS Committee should provide a foru m for the discussion of specific trade 
concerns related to SPS-related private standards.  
39. Under the agenda item on specific trade concerns, the SPS Committee meetings provide a 
forum for Members to raise concerns regarding specific SPS measures taken by other Members.  
Between 1995 and 2009, 290 su ch concerns were raised by Members.   For each of these, there is at 
least one specific Member raising the issue and in most cases, one or more Members are identified as maintaining the measure of concern.
24 
40. As stated earlier, Saint Vincent and the Gren adines raised a specific trade concern regarding 
EurepGAP (now GLOBALGAP) requirements for ba nanas destined for sale in the United Kingdom, 
first in June 2005 and then again in October 2006.  No resolution of this concern has been reported.  
Systemic issues arising from SPS-related private st andards have been on the agenda of the SPS 
Committee since then and a number of specific concerns  have been highlighted in the context of the 
questionnaire circulated by the Secretariat.  Howe ver, no other private standard-related concern has 
been raised under the SPS Committee's agenda item on specific trade concerns. 
41. The SPS Committee could provide a practical fo rum for Members to raise specific trade 
concerns related to the applicati on of SPS-related private standards.  These could be raised under the 
standing agenda item on specific trade concerns.  If many such concerns are regularly raised at the meetings, the SPS Committee could decide to estab lish a separate agenda item on SPS-related private 
standards.  The Member on whose territory the entity  that has developed or implemented the standard 
in question is located would then relay the concern ra ised to the private entity, seek explanations and  
revert back to the SPS Committee as appropriate. 
42. The objectives would be to raise the level of communication between Members and entities 
which adopt SPS-related private standards, facilita te the understanding of the reasons underpinning a 
                                                     
 
24 There have, however, been twelve instance to  date where no specific Member maintaining the 
measures was specified.  These concer ns related, for example, to BSE-related restrictions, implementation of 
ISPM 15, and determination of MRLs at the national level.  G/SPS/W/247/Rev.3 
Page 12 
 
 
  standard, and allow exporting Members to try to find  positive solutions to specific problems detected.  
Such specific trade concerns would be consider ed without prejudice to the different views of 
Members regarding the scope of the SPS Agreement. 
43. Participants in the working group have expressed divergent views on this proposed action.  In 
particular, some Members have raised concerns  that such involvement could lead to the SPS 
Committee being perceived inappropriately as the bod y responsible for the resolution of such trade 
problems.   
Action 8 :  The SPS Committee should develop guidelines on the implementation of Article 13 of 
the SPS Agreement. 
44. Members are investing their time and resources to work on systemic and specific issues in the 
SPS Committee with the goal of facilitating trade and ultimately drawing benefits from the 
multilateral trading system.  The increased prevalence  of SPS-related private standards is perceived 
by some Members to undermine this  investment and devalue the principles and relevance of the SPS 
Agreement and of the Codex, OIE and IPPC. 
45. In this context, it has been suggested that developing guidelines regarding the implementation 
of Article 13, especially related to SPS-related priv ate standards, could be one way to reinforce the 
key principles of the SPS Agreement, such as scientific  justification, transparency and equivalence, in 
the private standards arena. 
46. Article 13 reads: 
"Members are fully responsible under this  Agreement for the observance of all 
obligations set forth herein.  Member s shall formulate and implement positive 
measures and mechanisms in support of th e observance of the provisions of this 
Agreement by other than central governm ent bodies.  Members shall take such 
reasonable measures as may be available to them to ensure that non-governmental 
entities within their territories, as well as regional bodies in which relevant entities 
within their territories are members, comply  with the relevant provisions of this 
Agreement .  In addition , Members shall not take measures which have the effect of, 
directly or indirectly, requiring or enc ouraging such regional or non-governmental 
entities, or local governmental bodies, to act in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement.  Members sha ll ensure that they rely on the services of 
non-governmental entities for implementing sanitary or phytosanitary measures only 
if these entities comply with the provisions of this Agreement." 
47. There has been no further guidance to date from the SPS Committee regarding this Article.  
The disputes invoking the SPS Agreement have not referred to it either. 
48. Members have differing views on whether the term "non-governmental entities" includes 
entities involved in the development, adoption, impl ementation, certification and enforcement of SPS-
related private standards.  Some argue that Artic le 13 applies only in cases where Members rely on 
the services of non-governmental entities to implement SPS measures. 
49. The proposed guidelines could also shed light on the "reasonable measures as may be 
available to Members" to ensure that entities invol ved with SPS-related private standards comply with 
the "relevant" provisions of the SPS Agreement.  G/SPS/W/247/Rev.3 
 Page 13 
 
 
  50. Specific proposals in this rega rd were put forth by India25 and MERCOSUR members 
(Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay)26 in the context of the Third Review of the Implementation of 
the SPS Agreement.  
51. Participants in the working group have expr essed divergent views on this proposed action. 
 
Some have indicated that it would be prematur e to develop guidelines before reaching a clear 
understanding on the meaning of the term "non- governmental" entities in relation to SPS-related 
private standards.  
Action 9 :  The SPS Committee should develop a transparency mechanism regarding SPS-
related private standards. 
52. Transparency is one of the key principles of the SPS Agreement, requiring Members to notify 
their new or modified SPS regulations while they ar e in draft form so that others Members have an 
opportunity to comment on these and producers and e xporters have time to adapt their production 
and/or processing methods as necessary.  One of th e concerns raised regarding SPS-related private 
standards has been that there are limited opportunitie s to provide comments durin g their development.  
In addition, it has been stated that it is very diffi cult to have an overview of the plethora of private 
standards.  One tool for addressing this concer n would be the development of a more formal 
transparency mechanism for SPS-related priv ate standards through the SPS Committee.   
 53. If this proposal were to be pursued, it would ha ve to be clarified which entities would have 
the responsibility to notify, what form notifications  would take, and what status these notifications 
would have.  Concerns have also been raised about the fact that Members may not necessarily be 
aware of SPS-related private standards developed by en tities within their territories.  In addition, such 
a mechanism would raise issues of time, cost, gove rnment jurisdiction, and intellectual property. 
 
54. Participants in the working group have expressed  divergent views on this proposed action.  
 
Action 10 :  The SPS Committee should develop a Code of Good Practice for the preparation, 
adoption and application of SPS-related private standards. 
55. Annex 3 of the TBT Agreement provides for a Code of Good Practice for the Preparation, 
Adoption and Application of Standards.  It pr ovides disciplines, including those related to non-
discrimination, harmonization and transparency, fo r the preparation, adoption and application of 
standards (which are voluntary as opposed to mandatory) by central governmental, local 
governmental, non-governmental and regional standardizing bodies, all of which can formally submit 
their acceptance of the Code.  Members are required to take such reasonable measures as may be available to them to ensure that local government  and non-governmental standardizing bodies within 
their territories accept and comply with the Code. 
56. From 1 January 1995 until 1 February 2010, 162 standardizing bodies from 122 Members 
have accepted the Code of Good Practice, among them, 87 central gove rnmental standardizing bodies, 
64 non-governmental standardizing bodies, three statutory bodies, two parastatal bodies, three non-governmental regional bodies, one central gove rnmental/non-governmental body, one central 
governmental/local governmental body and one autonomous body.
27 
57. Unlike the TBT Agreement, the SPS Agreemen t does not contain a distinction between 
mandatory "technical regulations" and "voluntary standards".  It only makes reference to SPS 
                                                      
25 G/SPS/W/236. 
26 G/SPS/W/245. 
27 G/TBT/CS/2/Rev.16.  G/SPS/W/247/Rev.3 
Page 14 
 
 
  measures, which must be necessary for the protection of  human, animal or plant life or health.  In light 
of the concerns about some private standards which contain SPS requirements, a Code of Good 
Practice could provide guidance and a framework for the development, adoption, and certification of 
SPS-related private standards. 
58. An SPS Code of Good Practice could take th e form of an SPS Committee recommendation, 
or could be submitted through the Committee's pa rent bodies to the Ministerial Conference for 
adoption.  Alternatively, given that a number of pr ivate standards contain SPS- as well as TBT-related 
elements, entities involved in private standards coul d be encouraged to sign on to the TBT Code of 
Good Practice.  However, questions could arise as to whether the "non-governmental standardizing 
bodies" referred to in the TBT Code  of Good Practice would cover the type of private standard-setting 
entities referred to in the SPS Committee discussions.  Also, concerns have been raised regarding the 
fact that developing such a Code could endorse private standard-setting entities and undermine the 
primacy of the international SPS standards developed by the Codex, OIE and IPPC.  
59. Participants in the working group have expr essed divergent views on this proposed action .   
Action 11 :  The SPS Committee should develop guidelines for the governments of WTO 
Members to liaise with entities invol ved in SPS-related private standards.  
60. The SPS Committee is the forum convening WTO Me mbers to focus on systemic and specific 
implementation issues arising from the SPS Agreement.   At the same time, the governments of WTO 
Members need to consult regularly with their dom estic stakeholders, be they governmental or non-
governmental, export or import-orient ed, regarding the implementation of the SPS Agreement.  In an 
effort to facilitate the exchange of informa tion between the governments of Members and entities 
involved with SPS-related private standards in their territories, the SPS Committee could develop 
guidelines for Members.  Such guidelines could und erline the importance of relaying the concerns 
raised in the SPS Committee to these entities and of en couraging the application of the key principles 
of the SPS Agreement, such as the need for a scientific basis for measures, harmonization, 
equivalence, etc. 
61. Some Members may wish to develop their own guidelines for the development and 
certification of private standards or encourage en tities developing SPS-related private standards to 
develop their own codes of good practice.28 
 62. Some Members have suggested that it would be  more effective to strengthen communication 
between producers/manufacturers of exporting co untries and entities involved with SPS-related 
private standards in importing countries.  It has also been pointed out that difficulties faced by 
Members regarding SPS-related private standards shoul d be addressed globally.  Some Members have 
suggested that ISSBs are better-placed to develop guidelines given the specifics involved.  In this 
context, reference has been made to the recent work of the OIE in this area.   
 
63. Participants in the working group have expressed  divergent views on this proposed action.  
 
                                                      
28 A document submitted by Switzerland entitled "V oluntary Standards" (G/SPS/GEN/967) outlines the 
Swiss Government's strategy for ensuring that private voluntary standards contribute positively to sustainable 
development and that they do not operate as unnecessary barriers to trade.    G/SPS/W/247/Rev.3 
 Page 15 
 
 
  Action 12 :  The SPS Committee should seek clarific ation as to whether the SPS Agreement 
applies to SPS-related private standards.  
64. A number of factors have led to the proliferation of private standards and associated 
certification schemes which contain SPS-related requi rements.  These include the high profile of a 
number of food safety scares and problems of conf idence in some regulatory agencies;  legal 
requirements on companies to demonstrate "due dilige nce" in the prevention of food safety risks;  
growing attention to "corporate social responsibility" and a drive by companies to minimize "reputational risks";  globalization and vertical inte gration of supply chains;  and the expansion of 
supermarkets nationall y and internationally. 
65. The SPS Agreement was negotiated during the Uruguay Round (1986-1994) as part of the 
Single Undertaking.  At the time, one of the main co ncerns of the negotiators was to ensure that the 
expected reduction of tariffs and e limination of quantitative restrictions would not be circumvented by 
governments through the use of protectionist me asures disguised as sanitary or phytosanitary 
measures.  It is not clear whether the proliferation of SPS-related private standards, due mainly to the 
factors listed above, was anticipated at the time and no  explicit reference to "private standards" is 
included in the text of the Agreement. 
66. Members have differing views as to whethe r the SPS Agreement applies to SPS-related 
private standards.  Article 1.1 states that the Agreement applies to "all
 sanitary and phytosanitary 
measures which may, directly or indirectly, affect  international trade" (emphasis added) without 
explicitly limiting this application to SPS measures taken by government authorities.  Likewise, the 
definition of an SPS measure in Annex A(1) a nd the accompanying illustrative list of SPS measures 
does not explicitly limit these to governmental measures.   On the other hand, other provisions of the 
SPS Agreement explicitly refer to measures "taken " (Article 2.1), "established" (Article 5.6), 
"maintained" (Articles 2.2 and 5.6) or "adopted" (Ar ticle 5.7) by a Member.  It is also not clear 
whether the certification requirements necessary to demonstrate compliance with SPS-related private 
standards would be within the scope of Article 8 and Annex C of the Agreement.  Moreover, as 
elaborated under Recommendation 8, Members have  differing views regarding to what extent 
Article 13 applies to entities involved with SPS-related private standards. 
67. The SPS Committee could pursue further work in  clarifying the relationship between private 
standards and the SPS Agreement.  This work coul d be based on specific written submissions from 
Members, which could be based on their own legal view s or views developed by le gal entities they have 
consulted.29  Alternatively, the SPS Committee could instruct the Secretariat to seek a legal opinion on 
this question from a qualified legal entity, for consideration by this Committee. 
68. If Members were to reach consensus on a decision, for example clarifying the scope of 
Article 13, this could be forwarded to the Council for Trade in Goods and eventually to the General 
Council and/or the Ministerial Confer ence for formal adoption.  This work could be undertaken in the 
context of a periodic review of the Agreement.  In accordance with Article 12.7 of the SPS Agreement 
and the decision of the Fourth Session of the Ministerial Conference, Members are instructed to review the operation of the SPS Agreement at least once every four years. 
69. Article 12.7 also states that "Where appropriate, the Committee may submit to the General 
Council for Trade in Goods proposals to amend the text of this Agreement having regard, inter alia , to 
the experience gained in its implementation."  Unlik e an agreement on the clarif ication of a particular 
provision, any formal amendment of the text of the SPS Agreement would presumably need to be 
pursued in accordance with Article X of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. 
                                                     
 
29 See G/SPS/GEN/802. G/SPS/W/247/Rev.3 
Page 16 
 
 
  70. Apart from any initiative of the SPS Committee, the extent of the applicability of the SPS 
Agreement to SPS-related private SPS st andards could also be the subject of deliberations of a dispute 
settlement panel established under the WT O's Dispute Settleme nt Understanding. 
71. Participants in the working group have expressed  divergent views on this proposed action.   
  G/SPS/W/247/Rev.3 
 Page 17 
 
 
  ANNEX II 
 
SPS Committee documents referring to private standards 
  
Document Symbol Date of 
distribution Submitted by Document title 
G/SPS/W/247/Rev.2 15/06/2010 WTO 
Secretariat Possible Actions for the SPS 
Committee Regarding Private SPS Standards - Note by the Secretariat - 
Revision 
G/SPS/53 03/05/2010 WTO 
Secretariat Review of the Operation and 
Implementation of the SPS 
Agreement – Report adopted by the Committee on 18 March 2010 
G/SPS/W/247/Rev.1 05/03/2010 WTO 
Secretariat Possible Actions for the SPS 
Committee Regarding Private SPS Standards - Note by the Secretariat - Revision 
G/SPS/W/237/Rev.2 01/03/2010 WTO 
Secretariat Review of the Operation and 
Implementation of the SPS 
Agreement - Draft Report of the 
Committee - Revision 
G/SPS/W/249 23/12/2009 Argentina, 
Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay Private Standards 
G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1 10/12/2009 WTO 
Secretariat Effects of SPS-Related Private 
Standards – Compilation of Replies 
G/SPS/GEN/967 20/10/2009 Switzerland Voluntary Standards 
G/SPS/W/247 20/10/2009 WTO 
Secretariat Possible Actions for the SPS 
Committee Regarding Private SPS 
Standards 
G/SPS/W/246 30/09/2009 Argentina, 
Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay Legal Framework for private 
standards in the WTO 
G/SPS/W/245 15/09/2009 Argentina, 
Brazil, Paraguay, 
Uruguay Third Review of the SPS Agreement 
- Guidelines on the Implementation of Article 13 of the SPS Agreement 
G/SPS/GEN/932 15/06/2009 WTO 
Secretariat Effects of SPS-Related Private 
Standards - Descriptive Report 
G/SPS/W/237 08/05/2009 WTO 
Secretariat Review of the Operation and 
Implementation of the SPS 
Agreement 
G/SPS/W/236 17/04/2009 India Third Review of the WTO/SPS 
Agreement  G/SPS/W/247/Rev.3 
Page 18 
 
 
  Document Symbol Date of 
distribution Submitted by Document title 
G/SPS/GEN/911 16/03/2009 Belize Private and Commercial Standards - 
Statement at the Meeting of 25-26 February 2009 
G/SPS/W/232 08/12/2008 WTO 
Secretariat Questionnaire on SPS-Related 
Private Standards 
G/SPS/GEN/891 08/12/2008 WTO 
Secretariat Research and Researchers on Private 
Standards 
JOB(08)/97 25/09/2008 WTO 
Secretariat Private Standards and Practical 
Actions for the SPS Committee - Compilation of responses to the 
questionnaire 
G/SPS/W/230 25/09/2008 WTO 
Secretariat Private Standards - Identifying 
Practical Actions for the SPS 
Committee - Summary of Responses 
G/SPS/R/50 24/07/2008 WTO 
Secretariat Report of the STDF Information 
Session on Private Standards 
(26 June 2008) 
G/SPS/GEN/865 11/07/2008 WTO 
Secretariat Documents and Other Information 
on Private Standards 
Job(08)/58 03/07/2008 WTO 
Secretariat Private Standards - Identifying 
Practical Actions for the SPS Committee 
G/SPS/W/225 18/06/2008 Uruguay Terms of Reference for the Working 
Group on Private Standards 
G/SPS/GEN/843 21/05/2008 Uruguay Private Standards - Statement by 
Uruguay at the Meeting of 2-3 April 2008 
G/SPS/GEN/822 25/02/2008 World 
Organization for 
Animal Health 
(OIE) Considerations Relevant to Private 
Standards in the Field of Animal 
Health, Food Safety and Animal 
Welfare 
G/SPS/GEN/802 09/10/2007 United 
Kingdom Private Voluntary Standards within 
the WTO Multilateral Framework 
G/SPS/GEN/792 05/07/2007 Ecuador Private and Commercial Standards - 
Statement by Ecuador at the Meeting 
of 27 - 28 June 2007 
JOB(07)/89/Rev.1 15/06/2007 United Nations 
Conference on Trade and Development 
(UNCTAD), 
World Trade Organization (WTO) Joint UNCTAD/WTO Informal 
Information Session on Private Standards - Revision  G/SPS/W/247/Rev.3 
 Page 19 
 
 
  Document Symbol Date of 
distribution Submitted by Document title 
G/SPS/GEN/761/Corr.1 09/03/2007 United Nations 
Conference on Trade and 
Development 
(UNCTAD) Private Sector Standards and 
Developing Country Exports of Fresh Fruit and Vegetables - 
Communication from the United 
Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) - Corrigendum 
G/SPS/GEN/766 28/02/2007 Saint Vincent 
and the Grenadines Private Industry Standards 
G/SPS/GEN/764 28/02/2007 Bahamas Report by the Commonwealth of the 
Bahamas to the WTO-SPS 
Committee on Private Standards and 
the SPS Agreement : the Bahamas Experience 
G/SPS/GEN/763 27/02/2007 Organization for 
Economic Co-operation and Development 
(OECD) Private Voluntary Standards and 
Developing Country Market Access: Preliminary Results 
G/SPS/GEN/761 26/02/2007 United Nations 
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) Private Sector Standards and 
Developing Country Exports of Fresh Fruit and Vegetables  
G/SPS/GEN/760 26/02/2007 United Nations 
Conference on Trade and 
Development 
(UNCTAD) Typology of Global Standards 
G/SPS/GEN/750 16/02/2007 International 
Organization for Standardization (ISO) Submission by the International 
Organization for Standardization (ISO) to the SPS Committee Meeting - 28 February and 1 March 2007 
G/SPS/GEN/746 24/01/2007 WTO 
Secretariat Private Standards and the SPS 
Agreement 
 
__________