REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Application of EU health and environmental standards to imported agricultural and agri-food products
Date: 2022-06-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety, European Commission
Subjects: European standard, World Trade Organisation, agri-foodstuffs, animal welfare, environmental standard, food safety, health control, import (EU), safety standard, surveillance concerning imports

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 3.6.2022  COM(2022) 226 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Application of EU health and environmental standards to imported agricultural and agri-food products  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION  

In July 2021, during the negotiations on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, the 
Council  of  the  European  Union  and  the  European  Parliament  invited  the  European 
Commission to present:  

[A]  report  containing  an  assessment  of  the  rationale  and  legal  feasibility  of  applying 
EU health and environmental standards (including animal welfare standards as well as 
processes and production methods) to imported agricultural and agri-food products as 
well  as  identifying  the  concrete  initiatives  to  ensure  better  consistency  in  their 
application, in conformity with WTO rules. This report should cover all relevant public 
policy  areas  including  –  but  not  limited  to  –  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy,  the 
Health and Food Safety Policy, the environmental policy and the Common Commercial 
Policy1. 

This Report answers this call. It identifies actions that the EU is already taking at multilateral 
and  bilateral  levels,  but  also  autonomously,  to  address  global  environmental  concerns  or 
citizen expectations with regard to imported agricultural or agri-food products, with a focus 
on  the  application  of  health  and  environmental  (including  animal  welfare)  standards  to 
imported products and challenges linked to the application of such standards. 

A public consultation2, in which more than 160 stakeholders submitted their comments, the 
orientation  debate in  the Agriculture and Fisheries  Council in February  2022 as  well as the 
Resolution of the European Parliament on the Farm to Fork Strategy3 informed the Report. 

Need for a global transformation to sustainable food systems 

1.1. 
Since the mid-1990s, with the adoption of major environmental conventions4, knowledge on 
the global impact  of modern food systems  on the environment  has  greatly  evolved, leading 
also to stronger societal and ethical concerns about the way food is produced and consumed. 
The  transition  to  sustainable  food  systems  that  are  less  reliant  on  fossil  fuels  at  the  global 
level is also a necessity.  

Food systems  are  globally  responsible for one-quarter of  annual  greenhouse  gas  emissions5 
and are the primary driver of biodiversity loss6. Almost 90% of global deforestation is caused 

1   https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10991-2021-ADD-1/en/pdf 
2   https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/have-your-say/initiatives/13371-Imports-of-agricultural-and-

food-products-applying-EU-health-and-environmental-standards-report-_en 

3   European  Parliament  resolution  of  20  October  2021  on  a  farm  to  fork  strategy  for  a  fair,  healthy  and 

environmentally-friendly food system (2020/2260(INI)). 

4   Notably  the  United  Nations  Framework  Convention  on  Climate  Change,  the  Convention  on  Biological 

Diversity and the United Nations Convention on Combatting Desertification. 

5   IPCC (2020), Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land 
degradation,  sustainable  land  management,  food  security,  and  greenhouse  gas  fluxes  in  terrestrial 
ecosystems. 

6   IPBES  (2019),  Summary  for  policymakers  of  the  global  assessment  report  on  biodiversity  and  ecosystem 
services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, point B1 
on p. 12. See also e.g. Benton,  T. G., Bieg,  C., Harwatt,  H., Pudasaini,  R.  and L. Wellesley (2021),  Food 
system  impacts  on  biodiversity  loss:  three  levers  for  food  system  transformation  in  support  of  nature. 
Chatham  House  Research  paper.  London;  Secretariat  of  the  Convention  on  Biological  Diversity  (2020), 
Global Biodiversity Outlook 5, Montreal, p. 64.  

1 

 
                                                           
by the expansion of land used for agriculture, an impact greater than previously thought7. In 
turn,  climate  change  and  environmental  degradation  are  making  global  food  systems  less 
resilient and more exposed to major challenges such as water scarcity, land degradation and 
extreme weather events, further undermining food security and increasing the risk of zoonotic 
diseases8. 

Today, nearly one in every three people worldwide is hungry or does not have regular access 
to  nutritious  and  sufficient  food9.  At  the  same  time,  almost  40%  of  the  adult  population 
globally  is  overweight10.  In  the  EU,  unhealthy  diets  are  a  major  cause  of  disease  and 
premature death11. 

The closely interconnected health of humans, animals and the environment is reflected in the 
One  Health  approach,  defined  as  ‘an  integrated,  unifying  approach  that  aims  to  sustainably 
balance  and  optimise  the  health  of  people,  animals  and  ecosystems’12.  The  One  Health 
approach is recognised in global commitments and declarations, such as the United Nations 
(UN)  Political  Declaration  on  Antimicrobial  Resistance13,  UN  Environment  Assembly’s 
Resolution 3/4 on environment and health14, the UN World Health Assembly’s resolution on 
strengthening efforts on food safety15, and UN Environment Assembly’s Resolution 5/11 on 
biodiversity and health16. 

The UN Food Systems Summit in September 2021 generated a broad global consensus that a 
transition to sustainable and resilient food systems is essential to address our planetary crisis 
and  to  deliver  on  all  Sustainable  Development  Goals  (SDGs)  and  created  a  momentum  for 
urgently  needed  global  change.  Many  countries  have  presented  their  national  pathways  to 
improve sustainability of agriculture and food17. 

In  the  same  spirit,  the  declaration  adopted  by  G2018  leaders  in  Rome  in  October  2021 
recognises  that  ‘promoting  sustainable  food  systems,  including  by  strengthening  global, 
regional and local food value-chains and international food trade, will contribute not only to 

7   FAO (2021), COP26: Agricultural expansion drives almost 90 percent of global deforestation. FAO Remote 
Sensing  Survey  findings  (https://www.fao.org/newsroom/detail/cop26-agricultural-expansion-drives-almost-
90-percent-of-global-deforestation/en). 

8   UN  Environment  Programme  and  International  Livestock  Research  Institute  (2020),  Preventing  the  Next 

Pandemic: Zoonotic diseases and how to break the chain of transmission, Nairobi. 

9   FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO (2021), The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021. 
diets 

affordable 

healthy 

Transforming 
for 
(https://www.fao.org/3/cb4474en/online/cb4474en.html). 

systems 

food 

10   WHO 

(2021),  Fact 

sheets:  Obesity 

and 

overweight 

(https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-

sheets/detail/obesity-and-overweight). 

11   https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/health-promotion-knowledge-gateway/eu-burden-non-communicable-

diseases-key-risk-factors_en 

12   WHO 

‘One  Health’ 
(https://www.who.int/news/item/01-12-2021-tripartite-and-unep-support-ohhlep-s-definition-of-one-health). 

support  OHHLEP’s 

(2021),  Tripartite 

and  UNEP 

definition 

of 

13   https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/845917?ln=en 
14   https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/30795/UNEA3_4EN.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y 
15   https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA73/A73_R5-en.pdf 
16  https://www.unep.org/environmentassembly/unea-5.2/proceedings-report-ministerial-declaration-resolutions-
and-decisions-unea-5.2?%2Fproceedings-report-ministerial-declaration-resolutions-and-decisions-unea-5_2 
17   UN  Food  Systems  Summit  (2021),  Member  State  Dialogue  Convenors  and  Pathways  -  Food  Systems 
(https://summitdialogues.org/overview/member-state-food-systems-summit-

Summit 
dialogues/convenors/?_se=ZWxlbmFhdmVyeUB5YWhvby5jby51aw%3D%3D&utm_campaign=Food). 
18   G20 members account for approximately 80% of global trade in agricultural goods and 60% of the world’s 

Dialogues 

agricultural land. 

2 

 
                                                           
food security but also make a major contribution to tackling the interlinked global challenges 
of climate change and biodiversity loss’19. 

1.2. 

EU strategy for sustainable food systems 

The EU’s path  towards  sustainable food systems has been put  forward in  the Farm to  Fork 
(F2F) Strategy20 published together with the Biodiversity Strategy21 in May 2020 as part of 
the  European  Green  Deal22.  The  F2F  Strategy  sets  out  an  agenda  for  a  fair,  healthy  and 
environmentally  friendly  food  system  which  requires  efforts  of  all  actors,  including 
consumers, to adapt to new and stricter health, environmental and animal welfare standards. 
The  transformation  should  result  in  increased  sustainability,  preserving  and  enhancing 
biodiversity and promoting biodiversity-friendly farming systems. 

The  new  Common  Agricultural  Policy  has  been  designed  to  guide  and  support  European 
farmers – including small farmers – to improve their environmental and climate performance 
through a more results-oriented model.  

The  sustainability  of  food  systems  is  a  global  issue  and  the  EU  acting  alone  cannot 
successfully address the global threats related to the way the food is produced and consumed. 
The F2F Strategy sets out the EU ambition to become a global leader in food sustainability 
through  its  international  cooperation  on  food  research  and  innovation,  by  building 
partnerships,  by  promoting  standards  supporting  sustainable  practices  at  international  level 
and through its trade and development policies. 

1.3. 

EU as a global player 

The EU is the world’s biggest exporter and the third biggest importer of agri-food products, 
including  aquaculture23.  EU  imports  are  dominated  by  products  which  are  mostly  not 
produced internally (e.g. coffee, tea, palm oil, tropical fruit), produced counter-seasonally, or 
whose production is limited or insufficient to meet demand (e.g. soybean and soymeal). EU 
exports cover the whole range of products from commodities such as milk powder, pig meat 
and  cereals  to  high  added-value  products  such  as  wines  and  spirits,  olive  oils  or  cheeses, 
resulting in a strong trade surplus24. 

As an important player on international food markets, the EU has a considerable impact on 
third (i.e. non-EU) countries through its trade policy and ability to influence the development 
of  regulations  and  standards  of  global  significance.  The  EU  trade  policy  can  be  used  – 
together with other tools, such as the EU agri-food promotion policy – to increase awareness 
of the high standards of EU agri-food products outside the EU and to promote the transition 
towards sustainable food systems globally in line with the UN SDGs. The Commission also 

19   https://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/52730/g20-leaders-declaration-final.pdf 
20   Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions.  A  Farm  to  Fork  Strategy  for  a  fair,  healthy  and 
environmentally-friendly food system. COM(2020)381 final. 

21   Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions.  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  for  2030.  Bringing  nature 
back to our lives. COM(2020)380 final. 

22   Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. The European Green Deal. COM(2019)640 final. 

23   European Commission (2021), Agri-food trade in 2020: Report. 
24   In 2020, EU-27 agri-food trade generated a trade surplus of €62 billion equivalent to 28.5% of total EU-27 

trade surplus (see note 23). 

3 

 
                                                           
works jointly with the European External Action Service on outreach activities on sustainable 
food systems. 

Accordingly, the February 2021 Trade Policy Review25 sets course for an open, sustainable 
and  assertive  trade  policy  that  will  be  better  able  to  shape  global  change  and  reflect  EU 
strategic interests and values, in compliance with WTO rules. Combatting climate change and 
environmental  degradation  is  among  top  priorities  for  the  EU.  Making  this  vision  a  reality 
will require action at all levels. 

In  addition,  the  EU  and  its  Member  States  have  committed  to  policy  coherence  for 
development (PCD). Through PCD, they seek to take account of development objectives in 
policies  that  are  likely  to  have  an  impact  in  developing  countries.  PCD  aims  to  minimize 
contradictions  and  building  synergies  between  various  EU  policies  and  to  increase  the 
effectiveness  of  development  cooperation,  to  the  benefit  of  partner  countries.  Since  its 
introduction  in  EU  law  by  the  Maastricht  Treaty  (1992),  the  new  European  Consensus  on 
Development26  has  reaffirmed  the  EU  commitment  to  PCD  and  recognised  it  as  a  crucial 
element of the strategy to achieve the SDGs in partner countries.  

At  the  same  time,  the  EU  is  dependent  on  trade  not  only  as  an  outlet  and  source  of 
competitiveness  for  its  food  industry  but  also  as  a  means  to  ensure  the  diversity  of  food 
supply. As identified in the Communication on food security27, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine 
has  revealed  deficiencies  leading  to  risks  for  the  global  food  security  system;  these 
deficiencies  should  be  addressed  in  ways  that  enhance  the  transition  towards  sustainable, 
resilient and fair food systems in the EU and globally. 

2. 

COMPLIANCE WITH EU STANDARDS 

2.1. 

Health standards  

The EU has a robust sanitary and phytosanitary system in place to ensure that all food placed 
on the EU market satisfies the requirement of a high level of human health protection and to 
prevent the spread of pests or diseases among plants and animals. All agri-food imports must 
comply  with  the EU sanitary  and phytosanitary  requirements or with  conditions  recognised 
by the EU to be at least equivalent thereto28. The rules are based on scientific evidence and 
international standards are duly taken into consideration during the elaboration process. 

25   Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions.  Trade  Policy  Review  –  An  Open,  Sustainable  and 
Assertive Trade Policy. COM(2021)66 final. 

26   The new European consensus on development 'our World, our Dignity, our Future': joint statement by the 
Council  and  the  representatives  of  the  governments  of  the  Member  States  meeting  within  the  Council,  the 
European Parliament, and the European Commission, Publications Office, 2018. 

27   Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions:  Safeguarding  food  security  and  reinforcing  the 
resilience of food systems. COM(2022)133 final. 

28   Regarding  food  safety,  this  requirement  is  contained  in  Art.  11  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  178/2002  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  28  January  2002  laying  down  the  general  principles  and 
requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in 
matters of food safety (the ‘General Food Law’, OJ L 031, 1.2.2002, p. 1) which states that ‘[f]ood and feed 
imported into the Community for placing on the market within the Community shall comply with the relevant 
requirements  of  food  law  or conditions  recognised  by  the Community  to  be at  least  equivalent  thereto  or, 
where  a  specific  agreement  exists  between  the  Community  and  the  exporting  country,  with  requirements 

4 

 
                                                           
Compliance of animals, plants or products entering the EU from third countries with relevant 
EU standards and requirements is verified through effective control systems implemented by 
the  competent  authorities  in  EU  Member  States,  in  cooperation  with  national  customs 
authorities.  Import  requirements  and  control  system  are  risk-based,  which  means  that  the 
scope and the intensity of controls are adapted to the risk posed by particular animals, plants 
or products. The type of controls depends  on the type of products and risks associated with 
them  (e.g.  food  of  animal  or  non-animal  origin),  taking  into  account  scientific  evidence,  as 
well as various sources of information on non-compliance, such as food incidents, outbreaks 
of animal diseases or plant pests, results of border checks and information received from third 
countries. 

In  addition,  as  part  of  the  compliance  mechanism,  the  Commission  carries  out  controls, 
including  audits,  according  to  a  published  annual  work  programme  to  verify  that  the 
competent authorities in EU Member States and non-EU countries exporting to the EU fulfil 
their legal obligations. Commission controls focus on control systems rather than individual 
premises. 

Public health concerns related to agri-food production, however, do not only relate to sanitary 
and phytosanitary requirements. Regulation  2019/6  on veterinary medicinal  products  (VMP 
Regulation)29,  which  applies  from  January  2022,  provides  for  a  wide  range  of  concrete 
measures  to  fight  antimicrobial  resistance  (AMR).  Antimicrobial  resistant  organisms  can 
spread not only from food of animal origin but also directly from person to person or between 
people  and  animals.  The  measures  promoting  a  more  prudent  and  responsible  use  of 
antimicrobials  in  animals  will  support  the  achievement  of  the  F2F  Strategy  objective  to 
reduce by 50% overall EU sales of antimicrobials for farmed animals and in aquaculture by 
2030. In this context, new requirements will be set on the basis of Article 118 of the VMP 
Regulation in relation to the use of antimicrobials in animals and products of animal origin 
intended for import into the EU. Namely, these cannot be treated with antimicrobials for the 
purpose of growth promotion or yield increase or with antimicrobials designated in the EU as 
reserved for the treatment of certain infections in humans.  

2.2. 

Environmental and animal welfare standards  

All  food  imports  placed  on  the  EU  market  must  comply  with  the  relevant  EU  standards 
relating  to  the  end  products,  which  are  applicable  irrespective  of  whether  the  product  is 
produced  domestically  or  is  imported.  Requirements  on  the  way  products  are  produced 
(referred to as ‘process and production methods’ – PPMs), however, are usually not imposed 
on  imported  products.  There  are  currently  no  general  (horizontal)  provisions  in  EU  law 
referring  to  environmental  or  –  more  generally  –  sustainability  requirements  applicable  to 
domestic or imported food products. 

PPM regulations often apply in the area of environmental protection or animal welfare, where 
measures to  limit  the environmental impact  or to  address  ethical  concerns are not  linked to 
the end product itself, but to the production of that product. Therefore, if such standards apply 

contained  therein’.  The  General  Food  Law  is  an  ‘umbrella’  covering  all  fundamental  aspects  of  the  food 
safety policy and applied to all measures concerning food or feed placed on the EU market, leaving outside 
its scope only primary production for private domestic use. 

29   Regulation (EU) 2019/6 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on veterinary 

medicinal products, OJ L 4, 7.1.2019, p. 43. 

5 

 
                                                                                                                                                                                     
to imports, they de facto ‘regulate’ the production process abroad, to the extent the products 
concerned are intended to be sold on the market of the regulating country. In addition, PPMs 
might not even affect the physical characteristics of the final product. In such cases, the term 
‘non-product related process and production methods’ (NPR-PPMs) is used. 

While the EU does  not  systematically impose such standards on imported products,  certain 
EU animal welfare legislation is already applicable to imports. The EU sets out conditions 
for  the  protection  of  animals  at  the  time  of  killing,  as  well  as  regarding  the  protection  of 
animals during transport. Regulation 1099/200930 requires third countries exporting meat to 
the EU to apply at least equivalent standards to those in the EU Regulation. For this purpose, 
third countries attest in the export certificate that at least equivalent animal welfare standards 
at  slaughter to those of the EU have been met and this has never been  challenged by trade 
partners.  The  Commission  assesses  the  capability  of  the  countries  to  endorse  the  above 
attestation  during meat  hygiene audits. Similarly, animals  imported into the EU must be fit 
for transport in accordance with the relevant EU requirements, which the third countries must 
confirm  in  the  official  certificate  in  accordance  with  Regulation  1/200531.  A  set  of 
requirements  must  also  be  fulfilled  by  the  transporters  who  have  to  be  authorised  and 
represented in the Member States where they apply for an authorisation. The EU also has a 
mandatory  system  of  animal  welfare  labelling  for  table  eggs32  indicating  the  production 
method (cages, free range, barn, etc.). 

Finally,  for  reasons  of  animal  welfare  and  to  address  the  concerns  of  EU  citizens,  the  EU 
prohibits the placing on the market of seal products33 (except for products coming from hunts 
conducted  by  indigenous  communities),  as  well  as  of  cat  and  dog  fur  and  of  products 
containing such fur34. 

3. 

INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT 

3.1. 

International trade rules 

Global  trade  rules  aim  to  secure  a  predictable  and  non-discriminatory  framework  for  trade 
while  safeguarding  each  country’s  right  to  regulate  in  line  with  their  societal  preferences. 
Sustainable development and the need to protect the environment are among the World Trade 
Organization’s  principles35.  This  section  analyses 
legality  of  applying  health, 

the 

30   Council Regulation (EC) No 1099/2009 of 24  September 2009 on the protection of animals at the  time  of 

killing, OJ L 303, 18.11.2009, p. 1. 

31   Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2005 of 22 December 2004 on the protection of animals during transport and 

related operations, OJ L 3, 5.1.2005, p. 1. 

32   Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  589/2008  of  23  June  2008  laying  down  detailed  rules  for  implementing 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards marketing standards for eggs, OJ L 163, 24.6.2008, p. 6. 
33   Regulation  (EC)  No  1007/2009  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  16  September  2009  on 

trade in seal products, OJ L 286 31.10.2009, p. 36. 

34   Regulation  (EC)  No  1523/2007  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  December  2007 
banning the placing on the market and the import to, or export from, the Community of cat and dog fur, and 
products containing such fur, OJ L 343, 27.12.2007, p. 1. 

35   The  Preamble  to  the  Marrakesh  Agreement  Establishing  the  WTO  states  that  members  recognise  ‘their 
relations in the field of trade and economic endeavour should be conducted with a view to raising standards 
of living, ensuring full employment and a large  and steadily  growing volume of real income and effective 
demand, and expanding the production of and trade in goods and services, while allowing for the optimal use 
of the world's resources in accordance with the objective of sustainable development, seeking both to protect 
and  preserve  the  environment  and  to  enhance  the  means  for  doing  so  in  a  manner  consistent  with  their 
respective needs and concerns at different levels of economic development’. 

6 

 
                                                           
environmental  (including  animal  welfare)  standards  to  imported  products  under  the  WTO 
framework. 

The WTO does not question the right of countries to take action to protect the environment or 
public morals, including concerns about animal welfare, provided that certain conditions are 
met. In fact, over the last 20 years, the number of environment-related notifications submitted 
to the WTO has more than doubled, reaching almost 17% of all notifications in 202036.  

Two  well-known  examples  of  non-product-related  PPM  measures  introduced  to  protect  the 
environment are the US measures imposing a ban on tuna imported from third countries that 
were  not  able  to  prove  that  their  fishing  methods  protected  dolphins  and  the  measures 
imposing a ban on shrimps harvested in third countries without using technology to protect 
sea turtles. Both measures were challenged before the WTO and the rulings have contributed 
to a better understanding of how WTO jurisdiction addresses the interface between trade and 
environment37. 

The overarching obligations and rights concerning trade in goods are set  out in the General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  (GATT).  The first  step in  assessing the legality of  a 
measure affecting goods is whether it is caught by one of the rules of the GATT. This is the 
case, in particular, where a measure is: 

  discriminatory, meaning that it is either caught by: 

o  Article I on most-favoured nation treatment, which requires that products from 
one WTO Member must be treated no less favourably than the like products 
from any other country; or  

o  Article III on national treatment, according to which imported products cannot 

be treated less favourably than domestic like products; or 

  a  quantitative  restriction  which  limits  the  quantity  of  a  product  being  imported  or 

exported (Article XI). 

A  measure  is  discriminatory  when  it  constitutes  either  (1)  de  jure  discrimination,  that  is, 
when the measure expressly differentiates between products on grounds of origin; or (2)  de 
facto  discrimination,  that  is,  when  the  measure  is  origin  neutral  on  its  face,  but  it  has  a 
detrimental  impact  on  the  conditions  of  competition  between  like  products  from  different 
WTO  members.  De  facto  discrimination  may  exist,  for  instance,  if  domestic  products  can 
more easily meet a certain standard or requirement than like imported products.  

If  none  of  the  above  provisions  are  breached,  further  analysis  is  generally  not  necessary 
because  the  measure  is  considered  compatible  with  the  GATT.  If  the  above  provisions  are 
breached, the measure may still be able to benefit from the general exceptions to the GATT 

36   WTO  Committee  on  Trade  and  Environment  (2022),  Environmental  database  for  2020.  Note  by  the 

Secretariat, WTO Doc. WT/CTE/EDB/20, 28 January 2022. 

37   US  –  Prohibition  of  Shrimps  and  Certain  Shrimp  Products,  WTO  Doc.  WT/DS56/AB/R  (98-000)  (12 
October 1998) [Appellate Body Report] and WTO Doc. WT/DS58/R (15 May 1998) [Panel Report]; US – 
Restrictions on Imports of Tuna DS21/R - BISD 39S/155 (3 September 1991, unadopted) [Tuna-Dolphin I] 
and DS29/R (16 June 1994, unadopted) [Tuna-Dolphin II]. 

7 

 
                                                           
rules pursuant to its Article XX38. If it can, the measure can be maintained and considered as 
overall GATT-compatible.  

To benefit from justification under Article XX GATT, a measure needs to: 

  Genuinely  pursue  one  or  more  of  the  policy  objectives  listed  in  Article  XX 
(‘provisional  justification’).  The  most  recurrent  grounds  in  relation  to  PPM 
regulations  concern  the  protection  of  human,  animal,  plant  life  or  health  (Article 
XX(b)),  the  protection  of  (living  and  non-living)  exhaustible  natural  resources 
(Article  XX(g)),  public  morals  (Article  XX(a));  and  prison  labour  products  (Article 
XX(e)). Objectives of an economic nature, such as increasing the competitiveness of 
domestic producers or levelling the playing field, are not valid grounds under Article 
XX GATT for applying non-product related PPM standards to imports;  

  Satisfy the ‘necessity’ test, which requires a balancing of various elements: 

o  Consideration of the importance of the objectives pursued  for the regulating 
member. In some cases, a ban can be the only adequate means to achieve the 
desired  objective,  compared  to,  e.g.  a  labelling  requirement.  In  this  respect, 
the WTO upheld the EU ban on the import of seal products as it was based on 
strong societal concerns39. In the same vein, the EU bans the import and the 
marketing of cats and dogs fur on moral and ethical grounds40. The measure 
has  never  been  challenged  by  trade  partners  and  is  believed  to  be  fully 
compatible with WTO law. 

o  The contribution of the measure to the objectives, meaning the measure must 
be  suitable  to  achieve  or  contribute  to  the  achievement  of  the  stated 
objectives;  

o  The  absence  of  an  alternative  measure  available  that  would  be  less  trade 
restrictive,  but  make  an  equal  or  better  contribution  to  achieving  the  stated 
objectives,  taking  into  account  technical  and  economic  feasibility.  For 
example,  voluntary  measures  are  generally  considered  less  trade  restrictive 
than mandatory measures and labelling as less trade restrictive than a ban on 
imports;  

  Meet the conditions of the ‘chapeau’ of Article XX, which requires that there should 
be no arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination in the design, structure and application 

38   Article XX(a), (b) and (g) GATT reads: 

‘Subject  to  the  requirement  that  such  measures  are  not  applied  in  a  manner  which  would  constitute  a 
means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail, 
or a disguised restriction on international trade, nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to prevent 
the adoption or enforcement by any contracting party of measures: 
(a)  necessary to protect public morals; 
(b)  necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health; 
(…) 
 (e) relating to the products of prison labour; 
(…) 
(g)  relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources if such measures are made effective in 
conjunction with restrictions on domestic production or consumption…’ 

39   EC  –  Measures  Prohibiting  the  Importation  and  Marketing  of  Seal  Products,  WT/DS400/AB/R  and 

WT/DS401/AB/R (22 May 2014). 

40   Regulation  (EC)  No  1523/2007  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  December  2007 
banning the placing on the market and the import to, or export from, the Community of cat and dog fur, and 
products containing such fur, OJ L 343, 27.12.2007, p. 1. 

8 

 
                                                           
of  a  measure  between  countries  where  the  same  conditions  prevail,  or  a  disguised 
restriction on international trade. 

In essence, to be justified under Article XX GATT, a measure must be necessary to achieving 
one  or  more  of  the  covered  policy  objectives,  must  treat  domestic  and  imported  products 
even-handedly  and  not  have  protectionist  elements.  The  burden  and  costs  imposed  on 
relevant  stakeholders,  including  international  partners,  public  administrations,  importers, 
exporters and users should be taken into account.  The design of such measures should also 
provide  for  sufficient  flexibility  to  account  for  the  specific  conditions  and  potentially 
different  production  methods  of  the  exporting  countries,  provided  this  is  done  in  an  even-
handed manner, e.g. by  recognizing third country methods of production as  providing for a 
comparable level of effectiveness as EU standards.  

The  measure  should  take  into  account  any  relevant  international  rules  or  standards.  If  the 
measure departs from these standards, the reasons must be provided, such as the existence of 
additional information, or the decision to provide for a higher level of protection.  

The measure should be based either on science or on other information where relevant (e.g. 
from a relevant international body, and may include reports, decisions, surveys, etc.), which 
should  provide  a  rational  basis  for  the  measure,  evident  from  an  appropriate  assessment.  If 
the  measure  is  based  on  the  concept  of  precaution  (on  the  grounds  that  certain  scientific 
information is not yet available), it should be based on all the available pertinent information, 
provide for the acquisition of the information necessary for a more complete assessment and 
accommodate the possibility of review.  

Concerns that have a global dimension and are internationally recognised by at least part of 
the international community (e.g. climate change, biodiversity loss, AMR) are more likely to 
be accepted as legitimate reasons for action. 

The above rules of the GATT are further developed in the Agreement on Technical Barriers 
to Trade (TBT Agreement), which contains rules relating to discrimination (Article 2.1) and 
necessity  (Article  2.2).  It  specifies  that  technical  regulations  must  not  be  more  trade-
restrictive 
legitimate  objectives  such  as  national  security 
requirements;  the  prevention  of  deceptive  practices;  protection  of  human  health  or  safety, 
animal  or  plant  life  or  health,  or  the  environment.  When  developing  their  technical 
regulations,  WTO  members  are  expected  to  consider,  i.a.,  available  scientific  and  technical 
information.  

than  necessary 

to  fulfil 

The  TBT  Agreement  does  not  apply  to  non-product-related  PPM  regulations  (because  the 
definition  in  Annex  1  refers  to  ‘product  characteristics  or  their  related  processes  and 
production  methods’).  However,  it  does  apply  to  measures  that  deal  with  terminology, 
symbols, packaging, marking or labelling, as they apply to a product, process or production 
methods. If a measure falls within the scope of the TBT Agreement, it will be analysed under 
that framework. Article XX GATT does not apply in case of a breach of the TBT Agreement 
as the elements of Article XX GATT are already effectively integrated in Articles 2.1 and 2.2 
of the TBT Agreement. 

Article XX(b) GATT is similarly further developed in the Agreement on the Application of 
Sanitary  and  Phytosanitary  Measures  (SPS  Agreement),  which  also  contains  provisions 
relating  to  unjustified  discrimination  (Articles  2.3  and  5.5)  and  necessity  (Articles  2.2  and 

9 

 
5.6). However, as stated in its Annex A, the SPS Agreement only applies to certain specific 
risks arising within the territory of the regulating Member. 

To  conclude,  provided  that  all  the  conditions  mentioned  above  are  met,  national  PPM 
regulations could be considered compatible with the WTO rules.  

3.2. 

International health and environmental standards and commitments 

The expansion of international trade in agri-food products over the past several decades has 
prompted  the  need  to  develop  standards  at  international  level  to  facilitate  international 
exchange.  Several  international  organisations  play  an  important  role  in  developing  global 
food standards, in particular with regard to food safety and consumer protection. There is no 
dedicated forum, however, working on sustainability / environmental standards applicable to 
food.  The  overview  below  focuses  on  the  existing  international  organisations  active  in  the 
area of health and environmental standards and commitments related to food production. As 
mentioned above,  concerns that have  a  global dimension and are internationally recognised 
by at  least  part of the international  community are more likely to  be accepted as legitimate 
reasons for action. 

In the area of food safety and animal and plant health, the three most important international 
standard  setting  bodies,  recognised  by  the  WTO  in  the  SPS  Agreement,  are  the  Codex 
Alimentarius Commission, the World Organization for Animal Health and the Secretariat of 
the International Plant Protection Convention. 

The  Codex  Alimentarius  Commission  (CAC)  has  been  established  by  the  UN  Food  and 
Agriculture  Organization  (FAO)  and  World  Health  Organization  (WHO)  as  a  response  to 
growing  consumer  concerns  about  potential  health  hazards  related  to  foods  and  the 
proliferation of national food safety regulations impeding international trade. Over almost 60 
years of its continuous activity, CAC has adopted more than 200 food standards, as well as 
guidelines, codes of practice on hygiene, labelling, food produced from genetically modified 
organisms, AMR, maximum levels for contaminants in food or for food additives, maximum 
limits  for  pesticide  residues  or  for  residues  of  veterinary  drugs  in  foods.  In  2021  its  Task 
Force on AMR developed science-based guidance to enable coherent management of AMR 
along the food chain.  

The  World  Organisation  for  Animal  Health  (OIE41)  sets  international  standards  on  animal 
health, animal welfare and animal production including AMR. The OIE also addresses AMR 
through  the  Quadripartite  alliance,  a  consolidated  cooperation  between  WHO,  FAO,  UN 
Environment  Programme  (UNEP)  and  OIE  drawing  on  their  core  mandate  to  address  the 
wide  range  of  needs  of  the  global  response  against  AMR.  In  its  7th  strategic  plan  for  the 
period 2021-202542, the OIE emphasises that, while improving animal health and welfare is 
its  core  mandate,  doing  so  will  help  preserve  the  future  of  humankind.  Moreover, 
contributing to global goals through improved sustainability of animal production continues 
to be one of OIE’s overriding objectives. 

The  International  Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) is  an intergovernmental treaty signed 
by  over  180  countries,  aiming  to  protect  the  world's  plant  resources  from  the  spread  and 

41   The Organisation has kept its historical acronym which stands for Office International des Epizooties. 
42   https://web.oie.int/downld/SG/2020/A_88SG_14_StrategicPlan.pdf 

10 

 
                                                           
introduction of plant pests and promoting safe trade. The Convention introduced International 
Standards for Phytosanitary Measures as its main tool to achieve its goals, making it the sole 
global  standard  setting  organization  for  plant  health.  In  its  strategic  framework  for  2020-
2030, the  IPPC sets  out  the following strategic objectives:  (a) enhance global  food security 
and  increase  sustainable  agricultural  productivity;  (b)  protect  forests  and  the  environment 
from  the  impact  of  plant  pests;  and  (c)  facilitate  safe  trade  development  and  economic 
growth.  

The  EU  also  cooperates  closely  with  the  Food  and  Agriculture  Organization  (FAO)  on 
agriculture,  fisheries,  forestry,  biodiversity,  food  security,  food  crises  and  food  safety.  In 
2021,  the  EU  and  FAO  agreed  in  their  Strategic  Dialogue  to  increase  joint  efforts  on  their 
common  agendas  to  transform  agri-food  systems,  in  order  to  make  them  more  inclusive, 
efficient,  resilient  and  sustainable.  The  FAO  has  published  various  guidelines  on 
sustainability of aquaculture43, soil management and on sustainable food systems44, defining 
a sustainable food system, providing the reasoning for a holistic approach paying attention to 
the interlinkages between social, environmental and economic aspects of agri-food systems, 
limitations of current approaches and the need for changing.  

The  EU  efforts  described  above  to  take  impactful  measures  to  fight  AMR  also  reflect  the 
international  recognition  by  the  UN  ad  hoc  Inter-Agency  Coordination  Group  on  AMR 
(which  includes  experts  from  FAO,  WHO  and  OIE)  that  urgent  action  is  needed  to  curb 
AMR,  starting  with  the  phasing  out  of  the  use  of  antimicrobials  for  growth  promotion  in 
animals  and  setting  measures  to  preserve  the  efficiency  of  antimicrobials  that  are  most 
important for human medicine. 

The Committee on World Food Security (CFS), a UN forum to review and follow-up of food 
security  policies,  is  also  actively  involved  in  the  transition  towards  sustainable  food 
systems.45  
The  strategic  framework  for  biodiversity  2010-202046  of  the  Convention  on  Biological 
Diversity  (CBD)  includes  various  targets  that  are  relevant  in  the  context  of  standards  and 
trade in food, notably target 7 on sustainable agriculture, aquaculture and forestry and target 8 
on pollution, including excess nutrients.  

The  International  Pollinator  Initiative,  launched  within  the  framework  of  the  CBD  and 
implemented  by  the  FAO  since  2000,  is  the  main  policy  instrument  to  tackle  the  threats  to 

43   Article  9  of  the  FAO  Code  of  Conduct  for  Responsible  Fisheries  establishes  certain  principles  for 
responsible  aquaculture,  incl.  regulating  the  use  of  chemical  inputs  in  aquaculture  which  are  hazardous  to 
human  health  and  the  environment.  The  FAO  has  issued  several  guidance  documents  on  sustainable 
practices.  The  EU  is  currently  supporting  progress  towards  comprehensive  and  ambitious  Guidelines  for 
Sustainable Aquaculture in the context of the FAO, in line with the Strategic Guidelines for EU aquaculture. 

44   FAO (2018), Sustainable food systems: concept and framework, Rome. 
45   See, e.g. CFS (2014), Principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems, Rome; CFS 
(2021), CFS Voluntary Guidelines on Food Systems and Nutrition, Rome; CFS High Level Panel of Experts 
(HLPE)  (2019),  Agroecological  and  other  innovative  approaches  for  sustainable  agriculture  and  food 
systems  that  enhance  food  security  and  nutrition.  A  report  by  the  High  Level  Panel  of  Experts  on  Food 
Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome; HLPE (2020), Food security and 
nutrition: building a global narrative towards 2030. A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food 
Security and Nutrition of the Committee on World Food Security, Rome.  

46   https://www.cbd.int/sp/ 

11 

 
                                                           
pollinators  at  global  level.  Pollinators  are  an  integral  part  of  healthy  ecosystems47,  in 
particular  agro-ecosystems48.  Without  them,  crops  and  wild  plant  species  dependent  on 
animal pollination would decline and many would eventually disappear49. Yet, pollinators are 
declining  in  occurrence  and  diversity  in  the  EU  and  globally,  with  numerous  species 
threatened  with  extinction50.  The  International  Science-Policy  Platform  on  Biodiversity  and 
Ecosystem  Services  (IPBES)  assessment  report  on  pollinators51  names  land-use  change, 
intensive agricultural management and pesticide use, environmental pollution, invasive alien 
species, pathogens and climate change as the main threats to pollinators. 

Furthermore,  the  Stockholm  Convention  on  Persistent  Organic  Pollutants  (POPs)  is  a 
multilateral  agreement  to  protect  human  health  and  the  environment  from  chemicals  that 
remain intact in the environment for long periods, become widely distributed geographically, 
accumulate  in  humans  and  wildlife  and  have  harmful  impacts  on  human  health  and  the 
environment. Together with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) 
Protocol on POPs52, the Stockholm Convention establishes strict international regimes for the 
listed POPs (16 in the UNECE Protocol and 31 in the Stockholm Convention), among which 
many are pesticides. The production and use of these substances must be either eliminated or 
severely restricted. Despite the fact that many POPs were banned years ago, they still can be 
found in the environment as a result of their persistence. 

Finally, voluntary agreements, initiatives or codes of industry and private entities as well as 
private sustainability schemes also play a role in promoting the application of environmental 
and animal welfare standards across global value chains, especially with regard to trade in the 
agri-food  sector.  While  private  sustainability  schemes  initially  emerged  in  the  area  of  food 
safety,  they  have  increasingly  extended  to  environmental  or  animal  welfare  issues  (e.g. 
GLOBALG.A.P.). Another example of a private initiative is  the Roundtable on Sustainable 
Palm  Oil53  that  brings  together  oil  palm  producers,  processors  or  traders,  manufacturers, 
retailers, investors and environmental and social non-governmental organisations to develop 
and implement global sustainability schemes for palm oil. 

47   Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions.  EU  Pollinators  Initiative,  COM(2018)395  final  and 
accompanying Staff Working Document, SWD(2018)302 final/2. 

48   FAO (2019), State of the World’s Biodiversity for Food and Agriculture, Rome. 
49   5-8%  of  current  crop  production,  with  an  annual  market  value  of  USD  235-577  billion  (2015  figures)  is 

directly attributed to pollinators (see IPBES (2016), note 50, pp. 4 and 154). 

50   IPBES (2016), The assessment report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and 
Ecosystem  Services  on pollinators,  pollination and  food production, Potts  S.  G., Imperatriz-Fonseca  V.  L. 
and  H.  T.  Ngo  (eds),  Secretariat  of  the  Intergovernmental  Science-Policy  Platform  on  Biodiversity  and 
Ecosystem Services, Bonn. IPBES is a scientific advisory body established under the CBD. See also CBD 
(2007),  Pollinators:  Key  issues  (https://www.cbd.int/agro/pollinatorkeyissues.shtml);  S.  Fryday,  K.  Tiede 
and  J.  Stein  (2015),  Scientific  services  to  support  EFSA  systematic  reviews:  Lot  5  Systematic  literature 
review on the neonicotinoids (namely active substances clothianidin, thiamethoxam and imidacloprid) and 
the risks to bees. EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-756; FAO (2019), Declining bee populations pose 
threat to global food security and nutrition (https://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/1194910/icode/). 

51   IPBES (2016), see note 50. 
52   Aarhus Protocol on Persistent Organic Pollutants, adopted in 1998 as an addition to the Geneva Convention 

on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution. 

53   https://rspo.org/ 

12 

 
                                                           
4. 

AREAS OF EU ACTION 

4.1.  Multilateral forums 

The European Green Deal stressed the importance of a global response to global challenges 
such  as  climate  change  and  environmental  degradation,  calling  for  the  EU  to  continue 
promoting  and  implementing  ambitious  environment  and  climate  policies  across  the  world. 
The F2F Strategy further set – as one of the EU objectives – to promote the global transition 
to  sustainable  food  systems  in  standard-setting  bodies  and  lead  the  work  on  international 
sustainability standards. In multilateral forums, the EU has been one of the strongest voices 
advocating  for  the  urgency  of  the  transition  to  sustainable  food  systems.  It  must  take  a 
leading role in ensuring tangible follow-up, and the most effective tool to make that happen is 
the EU’s normative soft power as an important standards setter and one of the world’s largest 
agri-food exporters and importers. Section 3.2 provided an overview of existing organisations 
and initiatives in the area of sustainable agri-food systems. This section identifies main areas 
of  action  at  multilateral  level  that  are  of  a  particular  importance  for  the  EU  to  pursue  its 
objectives related to the global transition to sustainable food systems.   

UN Food Systems Summit follow-up 

The  sustainability  of  food  systems  is  a  cross-cutting  issue  that  links  most  of  the  current 
climate and environmental  challenges. Unlike areas such as biodiversity  or climate change, 
there is no international framework convention or agreement on sustainable food systems to 
encourage  integrated  policy  development  and  an  independent  scientific  body  informing 
policymaking (like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the Intergovernmental 
Science-Policy Platform  on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services). In this context, the 2021 
UN  Food  Systems  Summit  played  an  important  role  in  consolidating  action  and  bringing 
together various multilateral discussions about food.  

Against this backdrop, the Commission has established an expert group to explore the needs 
and  options  for  an  interconnected,  coherent  framework  to  strengthen  the  international 
science-policy interfaces in the area of food systems54. In line with the identified needs, the 
EU  supports  improving  the  science-policy  interface  role  of  the  Committee  on  World  Food 
Security. 

The  EU  is  also  committed  to  engaging  with  the  proposed  ‘Food  Systems  Coordination 
Hub’.  The ‘Hub’, hosted by the FAO, will play a coordinating function to bring together and 
link  food  systems  knowledge  and  expertise  to  support  progress  on  the  SDGs  at  national 
levels, with a global stock-taking meetings to review progress every two years.   

Finally, the EU is engaged in several Coalitions/Initiatives for Action55 resulting from the UN 
Food  Systems  Summit.  In  parallel,  it  is  also  preparing  and  will  publish  an  ‘EU  Pathway’, 
which  will  position  the  F2F  Strategy  into  the  general  international  debate  and  make  EU 
actions more visible.   

54   European  Commission  (2021),  Everyone  at 

the 

table:  co-creating  knowledge 

for 

food  systems 

transformation, Webb, P. and R. Sonnino (eds), Publications Office. 

55   The  EU  is  engaged  in  the  following  coalitions/initiatives  for  action:  Food  is  Never  Waste;  Healthy  Diets 
from  Sustainable  Food  Systems  for  Children  and  All;  School  Meals  Coalition;  Aquatic  and  Blue  Foods; 
Agroecology; Zero Hunger; Fighting Food Crises along the Humanitarian, Development and Peace Nexus; 
and Sustainable Productivity Growth. 

13 

 
                                                           
UN bodies and the CBD 

At  the  same  time,  the  CBD,  the  FAO  and  other  UN  agencies  mentioned  in  Section  3.2 
continue  to  play  their  role  in  advancing  the  international  agenda  on  various  aspects  of 
sustainable food systems by developing targets, guidelines and recommendations relating to 
sustainable production methods in agriculture, aquaculture and food production. The EU will 
continue  proactively  supporting  all  initiatives  leading  to  more  sustainable  food  systems 
globally. 

Of particular importance in this context is the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP15) to the 
CBD,  which  is  to  adopt  the  post-2020  global  biodiversity  framework.  The  draft56  under 
negotiations includes targets on the same issues as in the EU Biodiversity and F2F Strategies, 
including measurable targets to reduce the use of nutrients and pesticides. The EU’s objective 
is to include measurable targets in the new global framework in line with the EU targets. 

World Trade Organization 

The  EU  is  committed  to  reforming  the  WTO  towards  a  more  sustainable  and  effective 
multilateral  trading  system.  It  takes  forward  initiatives  and  actions  that  promote  climate  as 
well  as  environmental  and  other  sustainability  considerations  throughout  the  various 
functions of the WTO. It supports in international discussions on trade and environment  an 
interpretation  of  relevant  WTO  provisions  that  recognise  the  right  of  members  to  provide 
effective  responses  to  global  challenges,  notably  climate  change,  biodiversity  loss  and 
environmental pollution. 

The  EU  also  takes  a  leading  role  in  mainstreaming  sustainability  issues  in  relevant  WTO 
committees.  The  WTO  Committee  on  Trade  and  Environment  (CTE)  serves  as  the  main 
forum for discussion on trade and environmental measures. Since the European Green Deal 
publication,  the  Commission  has  made  presentations  in  every  CTE  meeting  on  legislative 
proposals relevant to trade.  

The  Trade  and  Environmental  Sustainability  Structured  Discussions  (TESSD),  launched  in 
November 2020, are intended to complement the existing work of the CTE and other relevant 
WTO  committees  and  bodies.  The  objective  of  the  TESSD  is  to  discuss  trade-related 
environmental  measures  and  explore  opportunities  for  voluntary  actions.  The  discussions 
have covered many topics, including a thematic session on sustainable food and agriculture57. 
Sustainability  of  supply  chains  is  part  of  TESSD  work.  In  December  2021  the  Ministerial 
Statement  on  Trade  and  Environmental  Sustainability58  was  adopted  to  define  the  future 
work. The fact that the co-sponsors represent more than 86% of global trade demonstrates the 
important role of the WTO in promoting sustainable development. The EU has been leading 
efforts in the TESSD. 

With regard to  food systems  specifically, there is no dedicated  forum  in the WTO where a 
cohesive approach to trade-related aspects of the transition to sustainable food systems could 
be developed. As many discussions on trade in foods take place in the Committee on Sanitary 
and  Phytosanitary  Measures  (SPS),  the  EU  has  been  actively  advocating  for  extending  the 

56   https://www.cbd.int/article/draft-1-global-biodiversity-framework 
57   https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/INF/TESSD/R4.pdf&Open=True 
58   https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/WT/MIN21/6R2.pdf&Open=True 

14 

 
                                                           
discussions in the SPS Committee to other issues related to the transition to sustainable food 
systems  in  relation  with  international  trade  and  –  to  this  end  –  to  setting  up  a  work 
programme59.  

International standard-setting bodies 

Given the central role the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) plays globally in setting 
food  standards,  contributing  both  to  protecting  consumers  worldwide  and  to  facilitating 
global  trade  in  food  products,  Codex  could  play  a  major  role  in  the  global  adoption  of 
sustainability standards, by adding an environmental dimension to its deliberations.   

One  of  the  main  principles  underpinning  Codex  standard  setting  is  the  scientific 
substantiation  and  the  use  of  risk  analysis  for  food  safety.  Codex  texts  must  be  based  on 
scientific  analysis,  carried  out  mainly  by  FAO/WHO  expert  bodies60  consisting  of 
independent experts from all over the world. In accordance with Codex rules, other legitimate 
factors (than scientific risk assessment) relevant for health protection and fair trade practices 
can  be  taken  into  account  during  the  Codex  decision-making  process,  provided  that  these 
factors can be accepted on a worldwide basis (or on a regional basis in the case of regional 
standards)61. 

The EU vision on the future of Codex and its position on the need to integrate sustainability 
considerations  into  the  work  of  CAC  was  laid  out  in  the  Council  Conclusions  adopted  in 
February  202262.  The  Conclusions  recognise  the  crucial  role  of  the  CAC  in  facilitating  the 
global  transition  to  sustainable  food  systems  and  call  for  sustainability  considerations  to 
feature more prominently in global food standards set up by Codex, in line with commitments 
made by Codex members at international level. 

At the same time, apart from these horizontal efforts, the EU will continue its involvement in 
the  development  of  various  individual  Codex  standards  important  from  the  sustainability 
viewpoint. 

Similarly  to  the  position  in  CAC,  the  EU  will  continue  to  support  work  on  other  relevant 
international  standard  setting  bodies.  This  includes  IPPC’s  work  on  international  standards 
on plant protection responding to the current climate and environmental challenges, as well as 
the  OIE’s  efforts  for  improving  the  animal  welfare  at  global  level  by  adopting  new 
international  animal  welfare  standards  and  by  strengthening  the  implementation  of  the 
existing standards, in particular by supporting the OIE Global Animal Welfare Strategy63 and 

59   https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/G/SPS/GEN1969.pdf&Open=True. 

The 
Ministerial  Conference is the highest-level decision-making body of the WTO; it usually  meets every  two 
years. 

60   The  main FAO/WHO bodies  providing risk assessment to Codex are: Joint FAO/WHO  Expert Committee 
on  Food  Additives  (JECFA),  Joint  FAO/WHO  Meetings  on  Pesticide  Residues  (JMPR),  Joint  FAO/WHO 
Expert  Meeting  on  Microbiological  Risk  Assessment  (JEMRA)  and  Joint  FAO/WHO  Exert  Meetings  on 
Nutrition (JEMNU). 

61   CAC  (2019),  Procedural  Manual  27th  edition,  Appendix:  General  Decisions,  Statements  of  Principle 
Concerning the Role of Science in Codex Decision-Making Process and the Extent to Which Other Factors 
Are Taken Into Account, FAO/WHO, Rome. 

62   https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-6298-2022-INIT/en/pdf 
63   https://www.oie.int/app/uploads/2021/03/en-oie-aw-strategy.pdf 

15 

 
                                                           
the  implementation  of  the  Third  Action  Plan  of  the  OIE  Platform  on  Animal  Welfare  for 
Europe (2021-2023)64.  

4.2. 

Bilateral cooperation and trade agreements65 

Bilateral cooperation 

The  EU  pursues  targeted  cooperation  with  partners  who  are  willing  to  improve  the 
sustainability  and  quality  of  their  local  production  (including  better  management  of 
compliance  with  EU  standards  and  measures  to  increase  the  value  of  their  products  on  the 
global  market).  Through  its  cooperation  policy  with  developing  countries,  the  EU  supports 
programmes of capacity building aimed at strengthening sanitary and phytosanitary systems 
of  agricultural  exports  in  those  countries.  In  this  respect,  those  programmes  contribute  to 
compliance  with  the  EU  standards  and  support  the  transition  towards  sustainable  food 
systems. The EU Sustainable Cocoa Initiative is an example of a sectoral approach developed 
with  Cote  d’Ivoire  and  Ghana  and  aiming  to  support  sustainable  cocoa  production  in  these 
countries encompassing social, economic and environmental aspects.  

With partners who are willing, the EU is committed to exploring opportunities to expand the 
cooperation to cover the whole agricultural sector and to support the transition to sustainable 
food systems as envisaged in the F2F Strategy. To this end, the Commission is organising a 
series  of  seminars  (exploratory  talks)  in  2022  with  third  countries  to  explore  areas  of  joint 
interest. 

Trade agreements 

One  of  the  main  principles  of  the  WTO  is  that  countries  cannot  discriminate  between  their 
trading  partners.  Trade  is  conducted  on  a  ‘most-favoured-nation’  (MFN)  basis.  The  WTO 
provides, however, certain exceptions to this principle: for instance, countries can enter into 
free trade agreements (FTAs) or give developing countries preferential access to the market 
in  the  form  of  specific  tariff  reductions.  The  EU  has  entered  into  a  large  number  of 
preferential bilateral trade agreements to liberalise trade with third countries. In fact, nearly 
half66  of  agri-food  imports  into  the  EU  are  subject  to  the  rules  set  up  in  trade  agreements 
including the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP) – a special trade arrangement for low 
and lower middle-income countries.  

Bilateral  trade  agreements  are  primarily  a  tool  to  increase  two-way  trade  and  investment 
flows, but  they can also  be used to  encourage EU partners to  make progress  in  the field  of 
sustainable  development  and  global  policies.  That  is  why  the  EU  newer  trade  agreements 
contain  a  dedicated  chapter  on  trade  and  sustainable  development  (TSD)  with  binding 
commitments  to  respect  multilateral  labour  and  environmental  agreements  (including 
climate)  and  to  ensure  that  labour  and  environmental  standards  are  not  lowered  in  order  to 
attract trade. When the partner country does not respect these conditions, the trade agreement 
provides  for  means  to  rectify  this.  In  addition,  the  Commission  has  proposed  that  the  EU 
makes  the  compliance  with  the  Paris  Agreement  an  essential  element  in  all  future  trade 

64   https://rr-europe.oie.int/wp-

content/uploads/2021/10/3rd_action_plan_oie_platform_animal_welfare_europe_adopted.pdf 
65   With the exception of aquaculture, the area of fisheries is excluded from the scope of this analysis. 
66   In 2020 imports under trade agreements or the Generalised Scheme of Preferences accounted for 47.5% of 

agri-food imports (source: Eurostat). 

16 

 
                                                           
agreements.  In  consequence,  failure  to  meet  Paris  commitments  may  lead  to  a  unilateral 
suspension of agreements containing such provisions by the EU. 

Since  2011  the  FTAs  (with  Canada,  Central  America,  Colombia/Peru/Ecuador,  Georgia, 
Japan,  Korea,  Moldova,  Ukraine,  Singapore,  United  Kingdom  and  Vietnam)  have  included 
TSD chapters. The 2018 15-Point Action Plan on Trade and Sustainable Development67 has 
guided  the  improvement  of  the  implementation  and  enforcement  of  TSD  chapters  in  EU 
FTAs.  As  announced  in  the  Trade  Policy  Review  Communication,  the  Commission  is 
conducting a review of this Action Plan, covering all relevant aspects of TSD implementation 
and  enforcement68.  In  accordance  with  the  Strategy,  the  EU  also  has  to  ensure  full 
implementation and enforcement of the TSD provisions in all trade agreements. 

Over the years, commitments on cooperation in the area of animal welfare and AMR have 
been  added  to  FTAs.  Regarding  animal  welfare,  the  agreements  focus  on  farmed  animals 
with  a  view  to  improving  the  mutual  understanding  of  respective  laws  and  regulations  and 
their implementation, as well as on exchange of information, expertise and experiences in this 
field.  On  the  issue  of  combatting  antimicrobial  resistance,  the  FTAs  envisage  co-operation, 
collaboration  and  information  exchange  to  promote  the  prudent  and  responsible  use  of 
antibiotics in animal husbandry and veterinary practices. The EU also promotes the phase out 
of the use of antibiotics as growth promoters. 

The objective of the F2F Strategy is to ensure ‘an ambitious sustainability chapter in all EU 
bilateral trade agreements’. The new chapter on sustainable food systems (SFS) is built on 
the  good  experience  with  the  cooperation  provisions  established  in  previous  FTAs.  This 
chapter, however, represents an important change in the paradigm of the cooperation between 
the parties, moving away from a topical to a holistic approach encompassing the entire food 
chain and focusing on the transition to sustainable food systems. With this objective, the SFS 
chapter  includes  provisions  to  cooperate  at  all  steps  of  the  food  chain  from  production  to 
consumption  in  order  to  reduce  food  loss  and  waste;  to  fight  against  food  fraud;  and  to 
cooperate  on  multilateral  forums  and  in  food  science  in  the  areas  of  animal  welfare,  fight 
against  antimicrobial  resistance,  and  the  reduction  of  the  use  of  fertilizers  and  chemical 
pesticides. The Commission will continue to propose a chapter on sustainable food systems in 
future EU trade agreements. The SFS chapter has already been agreed with Chile, and is in 
negotiation with Australia, Indonesia and New Zealand. 

It is also possible within FTAs to condition tariff preferences to meeting certain standards, 
this being subject obviously to other partner’s acceptance of such conditions.  This approach 
has  however  been  applied  only  once  to  date  –  in  the  FTA  with  Mercosur,  where  tariff 
liberalisation for shell eggs was granted subject  to compliance with the relevant EU animal 
welfare standards for laying hens. 

The  EU  has  also  concluded  more  ambitious,  Deep  and  Comprehensive  Free  Trade 
Agreements  with  Georgia,  Moldova  and  Ukraine.  These  agreements  include  some 

67   European  Commission  (2018),  Feedback  and  way  forward  on  improving  the  implementation  and 

enforcement of Trade and Sustainable Development chapters in EU Free Trade Agreements. 

68   One  of  the  elements  of  the  review  is  a  comparative  study  examining  how  countries  around  the  world  are 
implementing and enforcing TSD chapters and – more globally – climate, social and labour laws: Velut, J. 
B.  et  al.  (2022),  Comparative  Analysis  of  Trade  and  Sustainable  Development  Provisions  in  Free  Trade 
Agreements. 

17 

 
                                                           
commitments to approximate the legislation of these countries with EU law, including animal 
welfare legislation. As a result, when implemented, products  imported from  these countries 
will comply with EU rules.  

In addition, the EU has progressively concluded agreements referred to as Stabilisation and 
Association Agreements with  each of the Western  Balkan partners:  Albania (2009), North 
Macedonia (2004), Montenegro  (2010), Serbia  (2013), Bosnia and Herzegovina (2015) and 
Kosovo69 (2016).  In effect, these agreements constitute the legal instrument for alignment to 
the body of EU law and progressive integration into the EU market.  

Furthermore,  the  EU-UK  Trade  and  Cooperation  Agreement  includes  specific  binding 
provisions ensuring a level playing field with commitments for non-regression on the levels 
of protection in various areas, including on the management of impacts on the environment 
from  agricultural  or  food  production,  notably  through  the  use  of  antibiotics  and 
decontaminants. 

Giving developing countries special access to the market is another permitted exception from 
the  MFN  rule.  Apart  from  the  standard  General  Scheme  of  Preferences  (GSP)  partially  or 
fully removing customs duties on more than two thirds of the tariff lines for low and lower-
middle income countries, the EU also  offers the  Generalised Scheme of Preferences  Plus 
(GSP+),  which  reduces  the  same  tariffs  to  zero  for  those  low  and  lower-middle  income 
countries that implement 27 international conventions related to human rights, protection of 
the  environment  and  good  governance.  In  September  2021  the  Commission  adopted  the 
legislative proposal for the new GSP for the period 2024-2034. The proposal extends the lists 
of  international  conventions  that  need  to  be  complied  with  by  adding,  i.a.,  the  Paris 
Agreement on climate change. 

Finally,  differentiation  between  imported  products  based  on  sustainability  criteria  can  also 
apply in the absence of any trade preference – that is, when trade is conducted on the most-
favoured-nation (MFN) basis. For non-preferential trade, the EU applies tariffs in accordance 
with its WTO schedule. In the context of the GATT Uruguay Round (and other negotiations), 
the  EU  has  committed  to  a  number  of  WTO  Tariff  Rate  Quotas  (TRQs),  allowing  given 
volumes to be imported under a lower tariff. Conditions are sometimes attached to the use of 
these TRQs. An example is the WTO high quality bovine meat TRQs (known as the ‘Hilton 
quota’)70, accessible to various countries, for some of which it is required that the animals be 
exclusively grass-fed.  

Mutual recognition agreements  

The  EU  can  also  enter  into  specific  agreements  with  third  countries. One  of  the  existing 
examples is organic farming. Under the new organic regulation71, a product may be imported 
to be sold in the EU as an organic product if it either complies with production and control 
rules of the non-EU country that are recognised under a bilateral, stand-alone agreement or 

69   This  designation  is  without  prejudice  to  positions  on  status,  and  in  line  with  UNSCR  1244  and  the  ICJ 

Opinion on the Kosovo Declaration of Independence. 

70   Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  593/2013 of  21  June  2013  opening  and  providing  for  the 
administration of tariff quotas for high-quality fresh, chilled and frozen beef and for frozen buffalo meat, OJ 
L 170, 22.6.2013, p. 32. 

71   Regulation (EU) 2018/848 of 30 May 2018 on organic production and labelling of organic products,  OJ L 

150, 14.6.2018, p. 1. 

18 

 
                                                           
administrative arrangement as equivalent to those in the EU; or has a certificate issued by the 
relevant control authorities or control bodies in non-EU countries confirming that the product 
complies with EU standards. 

4.3. 

Autonomous EU measures 

As the Trade Policy Review – an open, sustainable and assertive trade policy recalls, in some 
cases, the EU may take autonomous measures relating to environmental72 or ethical aspects 
of  the  process  or  production  methods  of  imported  products.  Such  measures  also  reflect 
demands  of  European  consumers  who  are  increasingly  becoming  aware  of  environmental, 
health,  social  and  ethical  aspects  of  food  production  and  want  to  be  empowered  to  choose 
sustainably produced food73. Similar trends can also be observed in other parts of the world, 
where national regulatory systems resort to PPMs regulations applying to imported products. 

Given  the  size  of  the  EU  market  and  the  volumes  of  imports  into  the  EU  of  certain 
commodities, some EU requirements for producers abroad to shift towards more sustainable 
production methods may lead to a considerable impact globally74.  

While complying with the EU standards governing agri-food imports may be challenging for 
some  food  business  operators  in  third  countries,  they  are  rewarded  by  access  to  an  open 
market of over 400 million consumers, a set of trade facilitating measures and higher prices 
paid  by  EU  consumers  compared  to  other  markets.  In  addition,  the  EU  being  a  world’s 
benchmark for food safety standards, compliance also gives access to other, often high value 
markets. For these reasons, despite the fact that the EU rules may be considered strict, exports 
to the EU continue to show an increasing trend.  

In  addition  to  the  animal  welfare  measures  already  in  force  (see  Section  2.2),  a  number  of 
legal acts or legislative proposals aiming to constraint production methods relating to animal 
welfare or the protection of the environment are currently being prepared at EU level. 

First, the Commission has proposed a regulation on deforestation-free products75, based on 
a  system  of  mandatory  due  diligence  rules.  The  proposal  aims  to  prevent  deforestation  and 
forest degradation associated with products and commodities placed on the EU market, such 
as soy, cattle, palm oil, cocoa, coffee and wood. The objective is to minimise consumption of 
products coming from supply chains associated with deforestation or forest degradation – and 
to  increase  EU  demand  for  and  trade  in  legal  and  ‘deforestation-free’  commodities  and 
products. The proposal addresses both legal and illegal deforestation and forest degradation 
caused  by  the  production  of  these  commodities.  Operators  and  authorities  will  be  able  to 
check  whether  products  or  commodities  are  deforestation-free  by  using  geolocation 

72   The European Green Deal states that ‘[i]mported food that does not comply with relevant EU environmental 

standards is not allowed on EU markets’. 

73   Special Eurobarometer 505. Making our food fit for the future – Citizens’ expectations. October 2020. 
74   For  example,  when  looking  at  deforestation  embodied  (as  an  externality)  in  total  final  consumption  (in  a 
produced,  traded,  or  consumed  product,  good,  commodity  or  service),  some  models  calculate  that  the  EU 
consumption represents around 10% of the global share (EC (2019). Communication from the Commission 
to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council,  the  Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the 
Regions: Stepping up EU Action to Protect and Restore the World’s Forests. COM(2019)352 final). 

75   Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  making  available  on  the 
Union  market  as  well  as  export  from  the  Union  of  certain  commodities  and  products  associated  with 
deforestation  and  forest  degradation  and  repealing  Regulation  (EU)  No  995/2010  (COM(2021)706  final), 
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/deforestation-proposal.htm. 

19 

 
                                                           
coordinates  and  remote  monitoring  via  satellite  images.  Partnerships  and  efficient 
international  cooperation  with  producer  and  consumer  countries,  and  in  bilateral  and 
multilateral  fora,  are  fundamental  to  promote  the  transition  to  sustainable  agricultural 
production  and  sustainable  forest  management  as  well  as  towards  identifying  and  agreeing 
robust global standards and definitions. 

The  Commission  also  adopted,  in  February  2022,  a  proposal  for  a  directive  on  corporate 
sustainability  due  diligence76.  The  objective  of  this  directive  is  to  foster  sustainable  and 
responsible  corporate  behaviour  and  to  impose  a  general  duty  on  bigger  companies  (SMEs 
are  excluded  from  the  scope  of  the  application  of  the  proposal)  to  address  adverse  human 
rights  and  environmental  impacts  in  their  operations  and  corporate  governance.  This  duty 
also  refers  to  their  value  chains  outside  the  EU.  The  rules  on  corporate  sustainability  due 
diligence  would  be  enforced  through  administrative  measures,  including  sanctions  and 
compliance  orders,  as  well  as  through  civil  liability  granting  compensation  for  damages 
resulting from the failure to comply with the obligations contained in the proposal. 

Moreover, the F2F Strategy announces that ‘environmental aspects will be taken into account 
when assessing applications for import tolerances for pesticides that are no longer allowed 
in the EU, while respecting WTO standards and obligations’77.   

Import tolerances are maximum residue levels (MRLs) for pesticides that are based on uses 
authorised  outside  the  EU78.  This  may  include  setting  MRLs  for  substances  no  longer 
approved  in  the  EU  (for  reasons  other  than  public  health  reasons),  which  may  be  needed 
because producers in third countries face production conditions and pest  pressures different 
from those in the EU. Uses may be different for the same substance on the same crop. Import 
tolerances can also relate to crops that are not grown in the EU (e.g. certain exotic fruits or 
vegetables and coffee, cocoa or tea), and therefore no MRL based on EU uses is established.  

Until now, the focus when setting MRLs for pesticides, including for import tolerances, has 
been  only  on  good  agricultural  practices  and  the  protection  of  EU  consumers.  This 
requirement will continue to apply. In addition, however, in line with the commitments in the 
F2F Strategy, environmental aspects will also be considered in the process of setting MRLs, 
including import tolerances. 

Furthermore, as  announced in  the F2F Strategy, the Commission  is  preparing  a  revision of 
the EU animal welfare legislation, with legislative proposals planned for the end of 2023. 
As  mentioned  in  the  Commission’s  reply  to  the  ‘End  of  Cage  Age’  European  citizens’ 
initiative79,  the  Commission  intends  to  include  in  these  legislative  proposals  provisions  to 
phase out and finally prohibit the use of cages, stalls and pens for farming pigs, laying hens, 
calves, rabbits, pullets, broiler breeders, layer breeders, ducks, geese and quail.  

With  regard  to  imported  products,  the  Commission  will  consider,  as  one  of  options,  the 
introduction of rules requiring that imported products were obtained under conditions that are 
equivalent to the EU’s animal welfare rules, or some of them, and/or a labelling requirement 

76   https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/proposal-directive-corporate-sustainable-due-diligence-and-annex_en 
77   See note 20, p. 18. 
78   Art. 3(2)(g) of Regulation 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on 
maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin, OJ L 70, 16.3.2005, 
p. 1. 

79   https://europa.eu/citizens-initiative/initiatives/details/2018/000004_en 

20 

 
                                                           
also  for  imported  products  (either  focusing  on  the  housing  conditions  or  covering  more 
animal welfare criteria), in compliance with WTO rules. 

The Commission  will also  consider options for improved  animal  welfare labelling  to  help 
transmit  value  through  the  food  chain  and  in  reply  to  the  growing  consumer  interest  in  the 
farming  conditions  of  animals.  At  present,  apart  from  the  mandatory  table  egg  standard 
mentioned  above,  other  animal  welfare  claims  are  voluntary  and  to  a  large  extent  not 
harmonised at EU level80, which often makes it difficult for consumers to understand various 
claims  present  on  the  food  labels.  A  subgroup  under  the  EU  Animal  Welfare  Platform 
delivered conclusions on animal welfare labelling in June 202181. The Commission published 
an  external  study  gathering  data  on  existing  animal  welfare  labels  and  consumers  attitudes 
and expectations in April 202282 and it is carrying out an impact assessment on a possible EU 
legislation on animal welfare labelling. 

In  addition  to  the  above-mentioned  individual  actions,  in  order  to  fully  ensure  policy 
coherence  and  mainstream  sustainability  in  all  food-related  policies,  the  F2F  Strategy  has 
envisaged,  by  end  of  2023,  the  adoption  by  the  Commission  of  its  flagship  proposal:  a 
horizontal sustainable food system framework law, as an umbrella for common definitions 
and  general  principles  and  requirements  governing  the  sustainability  of  foods  produced  or 
placed  on  the  EU  market  and  related  food  operations.  The  purpose  of  such  EU  level 
intervention would be to establish the new foundations for future food policies by introducing 
sustainability objectives and principles on the basis of an integrated food system approach.  

The  sustainability  labelling  framework  will  be  part  of  the  sustainable  food  system 
framework  legislation.  The  sustainability  labelling  framework  will  govern  the  provision  of 
information to consumers on the sustainability performance of food products regarding their 
nutrition, climate, environment and social aspects. This may be an important element of the 
F2F Strategy consisting  in  changing production  patterns through empowering consumers to 
make informed and sustainable food choices.  

Finally,  the  voluntary  ‘Code  of  Conduct  on  Responsible  Food  Business  and  Marketing 
Practices’83  forms  an  integral  part  of  the  EU  path  towards  sustainable  food  systems.  It 
contains a set of seven aspirational objectives, each with its targets and indicative actions. For 
businesses that are active both within the EU  as  well as beyond, the commitments apply in 
principle to the sales/activities within the EU, including impacts related to their supply chains 
in  third  countries  (associated  to  these  sales/activities).  Companies  may  also  put  forward 
commitments applying to their total global sales/activities (and related supply chains), which 
most multinational companies do. The Code entered into force in July 2021 and has currently 
over 100 signatories. 

80   The  only  voluntary  standards  harmonised  at  EU  level  are  the  marketing  standards  for  poultry  containing 
reference  to  types  of  farming  (Commission  Regulation  No  543/2008  of  16  June  2008  laying  down  laying 
down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 as regards the marketing 
standards  for  poultrymeat,  OJ  L  157  17.6.2008,  p.  46)  and  the  EU  organic  farming  rules  requiring  a  high 
standard of animal welfare. 

81   https://ec.europa.eu/food/system/files/2021-06/aw_platform_plat-conc_awl-subgroup-conclusion.pdf  
82   https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2875/676603 
83   https://ec.europa.eu/food/horizontal-topics/farm-fork-strategy/sustainable-food-processing/code-conduct_en 

21 

 
                                                           
5. 

CONCLUDING REMARKS 

Today there is a broad consensus on the need for a transition to sustainable and resilient food 
systems.  The  EU,  with  its  ambitious  Green  Deal  and  as  a  global  player  on  the  agri-food 
markets, plays an important role in steering that global transition. The COVID-19 crisis and 
Russia’s  invasion  of  Ukraine  have  exposed  vulnerabilities  of  agricultural  and  food  systems 
that need to be addressed by accelerating the shift towards a sustainable and resilient EU food 
system. 

Ambitious  health,  environmental  and  other  sustainability  standards  and  objectives  are  not 
self-serving  EU  interests.  They  all  contribute  to  achieving  legitimate  objectives  on  global 
concerns, also in line with the One Health approach. 

Global  concerns  require  global  actions.  Being  a  trailblazer  implies  certain  challenges  and 
risks. The Report analysed three main, complementary areas of EU action for enhancing and 
promoting health and environmental standards. 

The EU will continue its  efforts  at  multilateral  level  to  gain  support and reach  – ideally  – 
global consensus on the need for action and internationally agreed standards. While the EU 
and its Member States show already a high level of engagement and leadership in many of 
those  forums,  an  important  long-term  objective  will  be  intensification,  better  coordination 
and synergies to raise health, environmental and other sustainability standards. 

Trade  agreements  and  bilateral  cooperation  provide  opportunities  to  do  the  same  with 
partner countries. With its ambitious trade agenda, the EU has already made progress in this 
area. For more than a decade, trade agreements have included a TSD chapter and provisions 
on  cooperation  on  animal  welfare  and  AMR.  The  agreements  currently  under  negotiations 
envisage  a  Sustainable  Food  Systems  chapter  and  the  EU  will  propose  it  in  any  future 
agreements.  

The EU will continue to ensure coherence of its sustainability agenda with its enlargement, 
neighbourhood  and  development  policies.  This  also  implies  taking  into  consideration  trade 
impacts on third countries. Flanking measures, including funding, technical cooperation and 
capacity  building,  may  be  important  to  assist  trading  partners  when  engaging  in  more 
sustainable practices, especially for most vulnerable countries and neighbouring partners that 
undertake ambitious commitments in those fields.  

As  the  foregoing  assessment  shows,  the  EU  is  also  able  to  take  measures  autonomously 
when  necessary  to  address  global  environmental  concerns  or  animal  welfare  issues.  The 
application  of  PPM  regulations  to  imported  products  in  these  fields  must  be  done  in  full 
respect of WTO rules and other international commitments. Some measures taken by the EU 
autonomously to regulate global environmental or ethical aspects of imported products, even 
if in full compliance with WTO rules, might still be controversial for WTO members and can 
always be challenged under the WTO dispute settlement system. Measures determined to be 
illegitimate  or  protectionist  and  inconsistent  with  the  balance  of  the  EU’s  international 
obligations and rights may expose the EU to a risk of retaliation. 

For all these reasons, regulatory proposals need to undergo a case-by-case assessment of their 
WTO  compatibility.  While  there  is  indeed  policy  space  to  pursue  the  application  of  health 
and  environmental  (including  animal  welfare)  requirements  on  process  and  production 

22 

 
methods to imported products in a WTO compatible manner, each case needs to be carefully 
analysed on its own merits. 

In  addition  to  the  question  of  WTO  compatibility,  the  case-by-case  analysis  of  possible 
measures  needs  also  to  take  into  account  the  technical  and  economic  feasibility  of  control 
mechanisms. Since it is the methods of production or processing in the third country that are 
being regulated, the feasibility and proportionality of adequate means to control and enforce 
their  application  must  be  assessed  in  relation  to  costs  and  benefits  of  doing  so.  This 
dimension deserves more emphasis. 

In conclusion, there is some scope to extend to imported products EU production standards 
provided this  is  done in  full respect  of the  relevant  WTO rules. This  Report, in  addition  to 
assessing the legal and technical feasibility of doing this, and explaining the constraints that 
apply, also indicates a wide range of areas where the EU has already, legitimately, extended 
to  imported  products  its  domestic  production  standards,  be  it  via  multilateral,  bilateral  or 
autonomous  instruments.  The  Report  shows  that  before  applying  production  standards  to 
imports, it is always essential to make a case-by-case assessment.  

The Commission believes it has carried out the technical mandate given to it by the Council 
and  Parliament,  and  which  was  recalled  in  the  opening  paragraph  of  this  Report.  The 
Commission  invites  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  to  carefully  consider  the 
findings  and  guidance  set  out  in  this  Report  and  take  them  into  account  in  future 
deliberations. 

23