G/SPS/GEN/1750  
 
14 November 2019  
(19-7752) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  Original: English  
 
FLOOR STATEMENTS  
NOVEMBER 2019 WTO SP S COMMITTEE - FORMAL  MEETING  
AGENDA ITEM 3(B)(II): EU LEGISLATION ON EN DOCRINE DISRUPTORS  
Communication from the United States of America  
The follow ing communication, received on 12 November  2019, is being circulated at the request of 
the Delegation of  the United States of America . 
 
_______________  
 
 
1.  The United States takes the floor to raise ongoing concerns with the EU 's implementation of 
EU Regulation 1107/2009, including the criteria for identifying and subsequently banning substances 
on the basis of hazard.  
2.  Once again, we have carefully considered the explanations offered by the European Union  at 
previous meetings and find that they do not address the concerns or questions that we have raised.  
3.  Members ar e well aware of our concerns. We continue to be troubled that the European Union : 
(1) adopted endocrine disruptor criteria that are far more stringent than those initially notified to 
the WTO; (2) removed and then failed to reintroduce the risk -based amend ment to its derogation 
procedures, inconsistent with the repeated assurances made to this Committee that critical 
substances used by agricultural producers around the world would be evaluated on the basis of risk; 
and (3) on 10 November 2018, began impleme nting its criteria to identify and subsequently ban 
endocrine -active substances.  
4.  In March 2019, in response to these concerns, the European Union explained that it had held 
discussions on possible derogations, but that there was a lack of internal agreemen t and therefore 
no further discussions would be held.  
5.  We do not find the E uropean Union's update on the internal disagreements between member 
States to be an adequate response to the concerns raised about codification of a hazard -based 
approach to pesticid e regulation. We continue to question how an approach that bases decisions on 
hazard is consistent with the requirement in the SPS Agreement to base measures on risk.  
6.  Also in March 2019, in responding to our repeated requests that the European Union define  "other 
legitimate factors " and explain the relevance of the so -called precautionary principle in making case -
by-case determinations on import tolerance requests, the European Union only reminded members 
that the standard clause had been in force since 200 5. 
7.  We do not find this reminder useful in facilitating transparency or promoting better understanding 
of the factors unrelated to risk that the European Union applies in its case -by-case determinations 
on MRLs.  
8.  Indeed, the European Commission asked its own  scientific advisors how its regulatory process 
for plant protection products could be more efficient and transparent. In May 2018, the Chief 
Scientific Advisors responded by noting the "different, sometimes conflicting, objectives " of EU G/SPS/GEN/1750  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Regulation 1107/2009 and stating, "the 'precautionary principle ' suffers from a degree of 
vagueness. " They recommended improved clarity in EU protection goals.  
9.  In March 2019, the European Union informed this Committee that an import tolerance process is 
in place. As we conveyed in great detail earlier in the meeting, we have serious concerns about the 
scientific underpinnings, objectivity, and consistency in application of that process.  
10.  At the July 2019 meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods, 29 Members representing roughly 
one hundred economies raised concern about the EU 's policies. The European Union acknowledged 
the impact of its actions on trade. The European Union responded that it cannot risk EU lives.  
11.  Given the questions we have raised and the JMP R's recent affirmation of certain MRLs, we are 
still unclear whether the European Union has actually identified a real risk to EU consumers, or if the 
European Union would be able to demonstrate that there is any measurable level of risk reduction 
achieved  through its trade -restrictive measures.  
12.  For the millions of people around the world who produce and trade crops such as coffee, cocoa, 
nuts, bananas, and cereals, however, the impacts of the E uropean Union's actions are very real, and 
these are adversely affecting global agricultural production and trade; limiting the use of critical 
tools to manage pests and resistance; and threatening the livelihoods of producers.  
13.  So once again, we express our hope that the European Union will carefully consider our conc erns 
and specific questions; provide clarity requested by Members; and reconsider its approach to 
regulating pesticides. We ask the European Union to ensure that its actions are consistent with the 
EU's WTO obligations.  
14.  Chair, we will submit this statement  as well to the Secretariat and request its issuance as a GEN 
document.  
 
__________