RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/W/256 
3 March 2011 
 (11-1080) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
REPORT OF THE AD HOC WORKIN G GROUP ON SPS-RELATED PRIVATE 
STANDARDS TO THE SPS COMMITTEE
1 
 
 
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, private standards have been  discussed regularly at SPS Committee meetings. 
2. Further to the Committee's discussions at its meeting in June 20083, the Chair circulated a 
questionnaire on 3 July 2008 seeking proposals on what the SPS Committee could and should do to 
(1) reduce the negative effects that SPS-related privat e standards had on international trade, especially 
for developing countries, and (2) enhance the pot ential benefits arising from SPS-related private 
standards for developing countries.4  Thirty Members responded to the questionnaire by the deadline 
of 22 July 2008 and their responses were compiled in document JOB(08)/97.  The Secretariat then 
circulated a summary of the responses in docu ment G/SPS/W/230, along with some proposals for 
possible actions. 
3. As agreed during the June 2008 meeting, t hose Members who provided responses to the 
Chair's questionnaire within the d eadline were invited to constitute the ad hoc working group on SPS-
related private standards.   
4. In light of the proposals contained in document  G/SPS/W/230 and in an effort to bring more 
structure and concrete examples to its discu ssions on SPS-related private standards, the SPS 
Committee decided in October 2008 that the ad ho c working group undertake a three-step study.5  It 
was agreed that the working group would presen t a report proposing conc rete actions to the 
Committee for its consideration at the end of this process.  Accordingly, th e working group met for 
the first time in October 2008 and completed its seventh meeting in October 2010, focusing mainly on 
this three-step endeavour. 
5. As the first step, the Secretariat circulated a Questionnaire on SPS-related Private Standards 
on 5 December 2008 in document G/SPS/W/232. The questionnaire sought information from 
Members regarding products and markets of concern, the relevant private and international standards, 
trade effects, costs of compliance, and a number of related elements. 
6. As the second step, a compilation of replies su mmarizing the information contained in the 
40 responses received from 22 Members was ci rculated on 15 June 2009 in document 
                                                      
1 Members of the ad hoc working gr oup on SPS-related private standards:   Argentina, Australia, Belize, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Do minican Republic, European Union, Ecuador, Egypt, 
Guatemala, Japan, Mexico, Mozambi que, New Zealand, Nicaragua, No rway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, 
St. Vincent & the Grenadines, South A frica, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, Unit ed States, Uruguay and Venezuela. 
2 G/SPS/GEN/766;  specific trade concern no. 219. 
3 See paras. 119-145 of G/SPS/R/51. 
4 JOB(08)/58. 
5 See paras. 4-7 of G/SPS/W/230 and paras. 122-137 of G/SPS/R/53. G/SPS/W/256 
Page 2 
 
 
  G/SPS/GEN/932.  The individual responses, including responses received after the circulation 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 st andards, which had already been raised on various 
occasions at the SPS Committee.  Some responses al so underlined the positive and trade facilitating 
impact of private standards. 
7. The ad hoc working group considered the compila tion of replies during its meetings in June 
and October 2009.  While some Members found the report to be a useful basis for the SPS Committee's deliberations, others raised concerns a bout the limitations of the report, especially with 
regard to the accuracy, precision and scope of some  of the data provided in the replies to the 
questionnaire.  For example, some replies were f ound to be very general and lacking specificity and 
others went beyond SPS issues to include references to quality, environmental and social standards.  
A revised version of this comp ilation, taking into account comments from Members, was circulated 
on 10 December 2009 as document G/SPS/GEN/932/Rev.1. 
8. As the third step, the workin g group requested the Secret ariat to prepare a document 
identifying possible actions by the SPS Committe e and/or Members regarding SPS-related private 
standards.  The Secretariat circulated a firs t draft on 20 October 2009 (G/SPS/W/247), drawing upon 
the SPS Committee's discussions on the topic, Member s and observers' specific written contributions, 
and the compilation of replies, keeping in mind its limitations.  After deliberations reflected in three 
subsequent revisions of G/SPS/W/247, the working group agreed in October 2010 to present its report 
on possible actions regarding SPS-related private standards for the Committee's consideration.  
9. The working group invites the SPS Committee to  endorse the six actions listed below.  
Endorsement of these actions would be without prejudice to the views of Members regarding the scope of the SPS Agreement.  
10. In addition, the working group considered six other actions on which consensus could not be 
reached at that stage.  These proposed actions are lis ted in Annex I, along with a brief explanation of 
the main differences of opinion.  
11. For ease of reference, a list of all SPS Comm ittee documents referring to SPS-related private 
standards can be found in Annex II. 
Action 1
:  The SPS Committee should develop a working definition of SPS-related private 
standards and limit any discussions to these. 
12. It is apparent from the discussions in the WT O and from the literature on this issue that 
private standards are already playing and will con tinue to play an increasingly important role in 
international trade and pose new challenges as well as opportunities for producers and exporters.  
They cover safety, quality, labour, social and envi ronmental issues and can affect a wide range of 
products. 
13. 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 
                                                      
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/256 
 Page 3 
 
 
  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. 
14. 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, diseases, disease-carrying 
organisms or disease-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. 
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. 
15. 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 BSE
8 requirements than those of the 
OIE have been provided. 
16. 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.  Such updates by the ISSBs could 
be presented under: "Information on Relevant Activities – Information from Observer Organizations".  
17. The updates provided thus far to the worki ng group by the Codex, OIE, and IPPC are 
reflected in Annex III. 
                                                      
8 Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy. G/SPS/W/256 
Page 4 
 
 
  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. 
18. 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. 
19. The updates provided thus far to the working group by the Secretariat are reflected in 
Annex IV. 
Action 4 :  Members are encouraged to communicat e with entities involved in SPS-related 
private standards in their territories to sensiti ze them to the issues raised in the SPS Committee 
and underline the importance of international standards established by the Codex, OIE and IPPC. 
20. 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. 
21. 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. 
Action 5
:  The SPS Committee should explore the possibility of working with the Codex, OIE 
and IPPC to support the development and/or  dissemination of informative materials 
underlining the importance of international SPS standards. 
22. 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/or 
dissemination of informative materials. Such materials would underline the merits of science-based international standards, which, when adopted by  Member governments and private schemes, serve to 
facilitate trade while ensuring safety.  They  would build on already existing materials. 
23. A better global understanding could contribute to th e further incorporation of these standards 
in public and private requirements and may also improve the ability of producers and exporters to 
negotiate with those setting private sta ndards on the content of these standards.  G/SPS/W/256 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Action 6 :  Members are encouraged to exchange relevant information regarding SPS-related 
private standards to enhance understanding a nd awareness on how these compare or relate to 
international standards and governmental regulat ions, without prejudice to the different views 
of Members regarding the scope of the SPS Agreement. 
24. 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-b ased, operational procedures required by 
private standards, which disregards the concept of equivalence;  and 
• the disproportionate effect on small- and medium-sized producers and exporters in 
developing countries. 
25. 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. 
26. With a view to enhancing understanding and awareness on international, governmental, and 
private SPS-related standards without creating an  excessive burden, Members and observers are 
encouraged to exchange relevant information on this topic, including on the margins of the SPS 
Committee.  Such exchanges could involve writt en or oral communications on any relevant 
conferences or studies on SPS-related private standa rds or on concrete experiences of exporters in 
meeting these.
9 
27. In addition, the Secretariat may be request ed to organize ad hoc information events10 with 
relevant stakeholders, including  international organizations; entities developing, adopting and 
certifying private standards11;  as well as producers and/or exporters who need to meet these 
                                                      
9 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). 
10 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 ). 
11 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/256 
Page 6 
 
 
  standards.  Such events could provide an opportunity  for interested Members to highlight the concerns 
mentioned in paragraph 24  and follow the latest deve lopments in an evolving field.  To facilitate the 
participation of a larger number of  delegations, such information events could be held back-to-back 
with SPS Committee meetings.  It should be underlin ed, however, that neither Members nor the WTO 
Secretariat would endorse or support any particular entity participating in such events. 
  G/SPS/W/256 
 Page 7 
 
 
  ANNEX I  
 
Proposed possible actions on which the working group could not reach consensus  
  Action 7
:  The SPS Committee should provide a foru m for the discussion of specific trade 
concerns related to SPS-related private standards.  
1. 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.1 
2. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines raised a speci fic trade concern regarding EurepGAP (now 
GLOBALGAP) requirements for bana nas destined for sale in the United Kingdom, first in June 2005 
and then again in October 2006.  No resolution of th is concern has been reported.  Systemic issues 
arising from SPS-related private standards have b een on the agenda of the SPS Committee since then 
and a number of specific concerns have been highlight ed in the context of the questionnaire circulated 
by the Secretariat.  However, no other private st andard-related concern has been raised under the SPS 
Committee's agenda item on specific trade concerns. 
3. It has been suggested that the SPS Committee pr ovide a practical forum for Members to raise 
specific trade concerns related to the application of SPS-related private standards.  These could be 
raised under the standing agenda item on specific trad e concerns.  If many such concerns are regularly 
raised at the meetings, the SPS Committee could decide to establish a separate agenda item on SPS-
related private standards.  The Member in w hose territory the entity that has developed or 
implemented the standard in question is located w ould then relay the concern raised to the private 
entity, seek explanations and  revert b ack to the SPS Committee as appropriate. 
4. 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 
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. 
5. Participants in the working group have expressed  divergent views on this proposed action.  
While a number of Members would like to see the SPS Committee play a role in addressing concerns 
related to SPS-related private standa rds, others 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 relations of firms, except when these r esult in deceptive practices 
or distortion of competition.  In addition, some Me mbers have raised concerns that such involvement 
could lead to the SPS Committee being perceived inappropriately as the body 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. 
                                                      
1 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/256 
Page 8  
 
  6. 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. 
7. 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. 
8. 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." 
9. There has been no further guidance to date from the SPS Committee regarding the 
implementation of this Article.  The disputes i nvoking the SPS Agreement have not referred to it 
either. 
10. 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. 
11. 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. 
12. Specific proposals in this regard were put forth by India
2 and MERCOSUR members 
(Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay)3 in the context of the Third Review of the Implementation of 
the SPS Agreement. 
13. Participants in the working group have expressed  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. 
                                                      
2 G/SPS/W/236. 
3 G/SPS/W/245.  G/SPS/W/256 
 Page 9 
 
 
  Action 9 :  The SPS Committee should develop a transparency mechanism regarding SPS-
related private standards. 
14. 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 is that it is very difficult to have an overview of the plethora of schemes and requirements.  
let alone provide comments during their development.  It has been suggested that one tool for addressing this concern could be the development of  a more formal transparency mechanism for SPS-
related private standards through the SPS Committee.  
15. Participants in the working group have expressed  divergent views on this proposed action.   
Some Members have questioned which entities would have the responsibility to notify, what form 
notifications would take, and what status these no tifications would have.  In addition, such a 
mechanism would raise issues of time, cost, govern ment jurisdiction, and intellectual property.  
Concerns have also been raised about the fact  that Members may not necessarily be aware of SPS-
related private standards developed by entities within their territories.   
Action 10
:  The SPS Committee should develop a Code of Good Practice for the preparation, 
adoption and application of SPS-related private standards. 
16. 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. 
17. 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.
4 
18. 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 
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 wh ich contain SPS requirements, it has been suggested 
that a Code of Good Practice could provide guidan ce and a framework for the development, adoption, 
and certification of SPS-related private standards. 
19. 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.   
                                                      
4 G/TBT/CS/2/Rev.16. G/SPS/W/256 
Page 10  
 
  20. Participants in the working group have expressed  divergent views on this proposed action.  
Concerns have been raised regarding the fact th at 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.  
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.  
21. 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 thei r territories, it has been suggested that the SPS 
Committee could develop guidelines for Members.  Such guidelines could underline the importance 
of relaying the concerns raised in the SPS Co mmittee to these entities and of encouraging the 
application of the key principles of the SPS Agreemen t, such as the need for a scientific basis for 
measures, harmonization, equivalence, etc. 
22. Some Members could also develop their own guidelines for the development and certification 
of private standards or encourage entities developi ng SPS-related private standards to develop their 
own codes of good practice.5 
23. Participants in the working group have expressed  divergent views on this proposed action.  
Some Members have suggested that it would be mo re effective to strengthen communication between 
producers/manufacturers of exporting countries and entities involved with SPS-related private 
standards in importing countries.  Other Members ha ve suggested that the international standard-
setting bodies are better-placed to develop guidelines given the specifics involved.  In this context, 
reference has been made to the recent work of the OI E in this area.  It has also been pointed out that 
difficulties faced by Members regarding SPS-related pr ivate standards should be addressed globally.   
Action 12 :  The SPS Committee should seek clarific ation as to whether the SPS Agreement 
applies to SPS-related private standards. 
24. 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. 
25. 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. 
                                                      
5 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/256 
 Page 11 
 
 
  26. 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 Action 8, Members have differing vi ews regarding to what extent Article 13 applies 
to entities involved with SPS-related private standards. 
27. It has been suggested that the SPS Committ ee pursue further work in clarifying the 
relationship between private standards and the SPS Agre ement.  This work could be based on specific 
written submissions from Members, which could be  based on their own legal views or views 
developed by legal entitie s they have consulted.6  Alternatively, the SPS Committee could instruct the 
Secretariat to seek a legal opinion on this question from a qualified legal entit y, for consideration by 
the SPS Committee. 
28. If Members were to reach consensus on a decision,  this could be forwarded to the Council for 
Trade in Goods and eventually to the General C ouncil and/or the Ministerial Conference for formal 
adoption.  This work could be undertaken in the co ntext 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. 
29. Article 12.7 also states that "Where appropr iate, 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."  Unlike  an agreement on the clarification of a particular 
provision, any formal amendment of the text of  the SPS Agreement would presumably need to be 
pursued in accordance with Article X of the Ma rrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade 
Organization. 
30. Apart from any initiative of the SPS Committee, th e extent of the applicability of the SPS 
Agreement to SPS-related private standards could also  be the subject of deliberations of a dispute 
settlement panel established under the WT O's Dispute Settlement Understanding. 
31. Participants in the working group have expressed  divergent views on this proposed action.   
                                                     
 
6 See G/SPS/GEN/802. G/SPS/W/256 
Page 12  
 
  ANNEX II 
 
SPS Committee documents referring to private standards
 
 
 
Document Symbol Date of 
distribution Submitted by Document title 
G/SPS/GEN/1055 03/11/2010 Cuba Statement by Cuba at the Meeting of 
20 and 21 October 2010 
G/SPS/W/247/Rev.3 11/10/2010 WTO 
Secretariat Possible Actions for the SPS 
Committee Regarding Private SPS 
Standards - Note by the Secretariat - Revision 
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/GEN/1004 09/03/2010 Global Food 
Safety Initiative (GFSI) The Global Food Safety Initiative 
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/W/256 
 Page 13 
 
 
  Document Symbol Date of 
distribution Submitted by Document title 
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/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 G/SPS/W/256 
Page 14  
 
  Document Symbol Date of 
distribution Submitted by Document title 
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/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 
  G/SPS/W/256 
 Page 15 
 
 
  ANNEX III 
 
Updates from the Codex, OIE, and IPPC on SPS-related private standards  
  
1. The Codex Alimentarius Commission considered extensively the issue of private standards 
for the first time during its 32
nd session (CAC32, July 2009)1 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.
2  The Commission did not support the conclusions of the paper and 
was of the opinion that Codex standards should be be nchmarks for private food safety standards.  The 
Commission agreed to monitor developments in th e WTO and work in cooperation with the OIE and 
the IPPC to consult on a common position on this matter.  The Commission also agreed that a further study be conducted to analyze the role, cost and bene fits of private standards for consideration by the 
Executive Committee and the Commission. 
2. A new study
3 was prepared by the FAO and WHO and considered during the 33rd Session of 
the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Geneva, 5-9 July 2010).4  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.  
3. 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. 
4. 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. 
5. The Codex Secretariat also prepared an analys is of the speed of the Codex standard-setting 
process which had been mentioned as one reason for th e proliferation of private standards.  This 
                                                     
 
1 ALINORM 09/32/REP, paras. 246-271. 
2 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. 
3 CX/CAC 10/33/13. 
4 ALINORM 10/33/REP, paras. 218-243. G/SPS/W/256 
Page 16  
 
  analysis was discussed at the 63
th Session of the Executive Committee (CCEXEC63) in 
December 20095 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 2010.6  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  
6. OIE members adopted a resolution regarding th e implication of private standards in the 
international trade of animals and animal products in May 2008.7  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." 
7. 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".8  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 report9 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.10 
8. 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 
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. 
9. 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. 2611, 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. 
10. 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 was relea sed 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. 
                                                     
 
5 CX/EXEC 09/63/8. 
6 CX/EXEC 10/64/4. 
7 Resolution No. XXXII. 
8 G/SPS/GEN/822. 
9 Executive summary at http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/en_executive%20summary.pdf 
10 http://www.oie.int/tahsc/eng/ en_reports.htm, page 701. 
11 Resolution No. 26 "Roles of public and private standards in animal health and animal welfare".  G/SPS/W/256 
 Page 17 
 
 
  11. There has been limited discussion of private standards at the IPPC. 
12. 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,12 and participated 
in informal meetings at the Codex and OIE on this matter. 
                                                      
12 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. G/SPS/W/256 
Page 18  
 
  ANNEX IV 
 
Updates on developments in other WT O fora regarding private standards
 
  
1. 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.
1  
2. 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.2  The relevant section of the 
report of the Fifth Triennial Review states the following3: 
 "The Committee notes that several Members have raised concerns regarding 
"private standards" and trade impact s thereof, including actual or potential 
unnecessary barriers to trade.4  The 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 available to them to ensure 
that standardizing bodies accept and comply 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 Review5 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 oblig ations under Article 4, and to exchange 
information regarding the reasons some standardizing bodies have not yet accepted 
the Code of Good Practice6;  and 
(c) With a view to facilitating an informed discussion on the development and 
use of standards in general, including w ith regard to standards developed by non-
governmental bodies, Members are invited to share their experiences  related to the 
implementation of the TBT Agreement, in cluding 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." 
                                                      
1 G/TBT/W/310, para. 63. 
2 G/TBT/W/318. 
3 G/TBT/26, para. 26. 
4 The Committee notes that the issue has been discussed in other fora. 
5 G/TBT/13, para. 25. 
6 G/TBT/1/Rev.9, p.21.  G/SPS/W/256 
 Page 19 
 
 
  3. The Committee on Trade and Environment held a workshop on Environment-Related Private 
Standards, Certification and Labe ling Requirements in July 2009.7  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). 
__________  
                                                      
7 JOB(09)/136/Rev.1.