 RESTRICTED  
  
G/SPS/R/100  
 
21 December 2020  
(20-9263) Page: 1/49 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING OF 5-6 AND 13  NOVEMBER 2020  
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
1   ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  ................................ ................................ ........................  5 
2   INFORMATION SHARING  ................................ ................................ .............................  5 
2.1   Information from Members on relevant activities  ................................ ............................  5 
2.1.1   Japan - Update on the situation surrou nding Japanese food after the TEPCO Fukushima 
Daiichi nuclear power station accident (G/SPS/GEN/1233/Rev.2)  ................................ .............  5 
2.1.2   Colombia, Cost a Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala and Paraguay - Request for the suspension of 
the processes and entry into force of reduction of MRLs for plant protection products in light of the 
COVID -19 pandemic (G/SPS/GEN/1778/Rev.4)  ................................ ................................ ..... 5 
2.1.3   United States - "Global Economic Impact of Missing and Low Pesticide Maximum Residue 
Levels, Vol. 1" report by the United States International Trade Commission (G/S PS/GEN/1842)  ... 7 
2.1.4   Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Paraguay and the United States - 
Seminar on Farmers' perspective on SPS challenges for sustainable food production and trade  ..... 7 
2.1.5   United States - Requirement for Additional Traceab ility Records for Certain Foods 
(G/SPS/N/USA/3203)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  8 
2.1.6   Peru - Strengthening of sanitary control for fishery and aquaculture pro ducts through the 
risk-based audit process model  ................................ ................................ ...........................  8 
2.1.7   Belize - Enhancing the diagnostic capacity of Belize's Veterinary Services  
(G/SPS/GEN/1838)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  8 
2.1.8   European Union - Update on the African swine fever situation  ................................ ....... 9 
2.1.9   United States - USDA FSIS Final Rule on Egg Products Inspection Regulations  .................  9 
2.1.10    Belize - STDF Pilot Project on Voluntary Third -Party Assurance Programme 
(G/SPS/GEN/1839)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  9 
2.1.11    Ukraine - Update on import legislation on approved forms of certificates  .......................  9 
2.2   Information from Codex, IPPC and OIE on relevant activities  ................................ ...........  9 
2.2.1   Codex (G/SPS/GEN/1844)  ................................ ................................ ........................  9 
2.2.2   IPPC (G/SPS/GEN/1827)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  9 
2.2.3   OIE (G/SPS/GEN/1830)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  10 
3   SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  ................................ ................................ .....................  10 
3.1   New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  10 
3.1.1   China's actions related to COVID -19 that affect trade in food and agricultural products - 
Concerns of Canada and the United States  ................................ ................................ ..........  10 
3.1.2   Philippines' ban on poultry imports due to COVID -19 - Concerns of Brazil  .......................  11 
3.1.3   Mexico's import restrictions on pork - Concerns of Brazil  ................................ ..............  11 
 
1 This document has been prepared  under the Secretariat 's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 2 - 
 
3.1.4   Korea's lack of progress on pending applications for authorization of beef imports - 
Concerns of the European Union  ................................ ................................ ........................  12 
3.1.5   Delays in Malaysia's approval procedures for meat and dairy imports - Concerns of the 
Russian Federation  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  12 
3.1.6   Honduras' import restrictions on pasteurized dairy products - Concerns of Mexico  ...........  12 
3.1.7   Non-publication of  US final rule on importation of sheep, goats and certain other ruminants 
- Concerns of the European Union  ................................ ................................ ......................  13 
3.1.8   HPAI-related r estrictions by China, the European Union and Kazakhstan - Concerns of 
Ukraine  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........................  13 
3.1.9   Panama's import restrictions on animal and plant products - Concerns of Colombia and 
Costa Rica  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  14 
3.1.10    Chinese Taipei's phytosanitary risk assessment procedure on imp orts of fresh vegetables 
and fruits - Concerns of Ukraine  ................................ ................................ .........................  14 
3.1.11    India's import requirements for pulses - Concerns of Canada  ................................ ...... 15 
3.1.12    Ecuador's import restrictions on grapes and onions - Concerns of Peru  .........................  15 
3.1.13    Request for information on the EU Farm to Fork Strategy - Concerns of Colombia  ..........  15 
3.1.14    EU proposal requiring residue testing of casings - Concerns of Australia  .......................  16 
3.1.15    India's  requirement for certificate for Non -GM origin and GM -free status - Concerns of the 
United States  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  17 
3.1.16    EU restriction on highl y refined products imported from China - Concerns of China  ........  18 
3.1.17    EU restrictions on exports of chocolate and cocoa products du e to the application of the 
Commission Regulation (EU) N° 488/2014 of 12 May 2014 Amending Regulation (EC) N° 
1881/2006 as regards maximum levels of cadmium in foodstuff - Concerns of Peru  ...................  18 
3.1.18    Proposed new EU rules on composite products - Concerns of Australia  .........................  19 
3.1.19    China's recognition of equivalence for third parties introduced as part of Phase 1 of the 
Economic and Trade Agreement between the United States and Ch ina - Concerns of Australia  .... 21 
3.2   Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ...........................  21 
3.2.1   EU MRLs for buprofezin, chlorothalonil, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, glufosinate, imazalil, 
ioxynil, iprodione, molinate, picoxystrobin and tepraloxydim (STC 448) - Concerns of Colombia, 
Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Paraguay and the United States  .........................  21 
3.2.2   EU legislation on endocrine disruptors (STC 382)  - Concerns of the Dominican Republic and 
Paraguay  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  24 
3.2.3   New EU MRLs for lambda -cyhalothrin (STC 459) - Concerns of China  .............................  25 
3.2.4   New EU definition of the fungicide folpet (STC 447) - Concerns of China  ........................  26 
3.2.5   General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193) - Concerns of the European Union  ....... 26 
3.2.6   China's import restrictions due to African swine fever (STC 392) - Concerns of the European 
Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................  27 
3.2.7   Korea's import restrictions due to African swine fever (STC  393) - Concerns of the European 
Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................  27 
3.2.8   Ukraine's restrictions on swine products (STC 463) - Concerns of Brazil  .........................  27 
3.2.9   Korea's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian influenza (STC  456) - 
Concerns of the European Union  ................................ ................................ ........................  28 
3.2.10    China's import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza (STC 406) - Concerns 
of the European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 28 
3.2.11    South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian influenza 
(STC 431) - Concerns of the European Union  ................................ ................................ ....... 29 G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 3 - 
 
  3.2.12    The Philippines' trade restrictions on imports of meat (STC  466) - Concerns of the 
European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  29 
3.2.13    Saudi Arabia's temporary suspension of Brazilian poultry exporting establishments 
(STC 486) - Concerns of Brazil  ................................ ................................ ...........................  29 
3.2.14    Indonesia's approval procedures for animal and plant products (STC  441) - Concerns of 
the European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  30 
3.2.15    India's new requirements for animal feed in the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 
(dated 27 January 2020) (STC 479) - Concerns of the United States  ................................ ....... 30 
3.2.16    China's administrative measures for registration of overseas manufacturers of imported 
food (26 November 2019) (STC 485) - Concerns of the United States  ................................ ...... 30 
3.2.17    US non -recognition of the pest -free status in the European Union for Asian longhorn beetle 
and citrus longh orn beetle (STC 471) - Concerns of the European Union  ................................ .. 31 
3.2.18    India's fumigation requirements for grain and other products (STC 4 72) - Concerns of the 
Russian Federation  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  31 
3.2.19    Thailand's phytosanitary restrictions on imports of fresh citrus fruits due to sweet orange 
scab (STC 470) - Concerns of Japan  ................................ ................................ ...................  31 
3.2.20    US import restrictions on apples and pears (STC 439) - Concerns of the Eu ropean Union  31 
3.3   Information on resolution of issues (G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.20)  ................................ ........  32 
4   OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  ................................ .. 32 
4.1   Equivalence  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  32 
4.2   Pest- and disease -free areas (regionalization)  ................................ ..............................  32 
4.2.1   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ......................  32 
4.2.1.1    Colombia - Self-declaration of a zone free of Aujeszky's disease in 15 departments  ...... 32 
4.2.1.2    Mexico - Declarations of areas free from large avocado seed weevils, small avocado seed 
weevils and avocado seed moths ( G/SPS/GEN/1824 , G/SPS/GEN/1825)  ................................ .. 32 
4.3   Operation of transparency provisions  ................................ ................................ ..........  32 
4.4   Control, inspection and approval procedures  ................................ ................................  33 
4.4.1   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ ......................  33 
4.4.1.1    Canada - Experiences and approaches to inspection (G/SPS/GEN/1835) ......................  33 
4.4.2   Working Group on Approval Procedures (G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1)  ................................ ..... 33 
4.4.2.1    Report on the first meeting of the Working Group  ................................ ....................  33 
4.5   Special and differential treatment  ................................ ................................ ..............  34 
4.6   Monitoring the use of international standards  ................................ ..............................  34 
4.6.1   New issues  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  34 
4.6.1.1    United States - Codex Alimentarius Guidelines for the Conduct of Food Safety Ass essment 
of Foods Derived from Recombinant -DNA Plants (CAC/GL 45 -2003)  ................................ ........  34 
4.6.1.2    Turkey - Newcastle disease restrictions not consistent with the OIE international standard
 ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 35 
4.6.1.3    Peru - Restrictions on exports of chocolate and cocoa pr oducts due to the lack of an 
international standard  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 35 
4.6.2   Issues previously raised  ................................ ................................ ..........................  35 
4.6.2.1    European Union - ASF restrictions not consistent with the OIE international standard  .... 35 
4.6.2.2    European Union - HPAI restrictions not consistent with the OIE international standard  .. 35 
4.6.3   New Zealand – Procedure to monitor the process of international harmonization  .............  36 G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 4 - 
 
4.7   Follow -up to the Fifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS  Agreement 
(G/SPS/64 and G/SPS/64/Add.1)  ................................ ................................ ......................  36 
4.7.1   Report on the Thematic Session on Voluntary Third -Party Assurance as part of National SPS 
Control Systems  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  36 
4.7.2   Report on the informal meeting  ................................ ................................ ...............  36 
4.8   Chairperson's Annual Report to CTG  ................................ ................................ ...........  37 
5   CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  ................................ ................................ ...........................  37 
5.1   Report on the SPS@25 Event  ................................ ................................ ....................  37 
5.2   COVID -19 and SPS issues  ................................ ................................ .........................  37 
5.3   Canada and the United States - SPS Declaration for the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference 
(G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.4)  ................................ ................................ ................................  37 
6   TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION  ................................ ...........................  38 
6.1   Information from the Secretariat  ................................ ................................ ...............  38 
6.1.1   WTO SPS activities  (G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.10/Add.1  and G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.10/Add.2)  .. 38 
6.1.2   STDF (G/SPS/GEN/1843)  ................................ ................................ ........................  38 
6.2   Information from Members  ................................ ................................ .......................  38 
6.2.1   Japan - Technical assistance to developing countries (G/SPS/GEN/1160/Add.8)  ..............  38 
6.2.2   Belize - Virtual training on pest risk analysis (G/SPS/GEN/1840)  ................................ ... 38 
6.2.3   Canada - Technical assistance to developing countries (G/SPS/GEN/1834)  .....................  38 
6.2.4   Chinese Taipei – SPS-related technical assistance provided in 2018 -2021 ......................  38 
7   CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS  ................................ ...... 39 
8   OBSERVERS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  39 
8.1   Information from observer organizations  ................................ ................................ ..... 39 
8.1.1   ECOWAS (G/SPS/GEN/1826)  ................................ ................................ ...................  39 
8.1.2   IGAD (G/SPS/GEN/1831)  ................................ ................................ ........................  39 
8.1.3   IICA (G/SPS/GEN/1832)  ................................ ................................ .........................  39 
8.1.4   CAHFSA (G/SPS/GEN/1833)  ................................ ................................ ....................  39 
8.1.5   OIRSA (G/SPS/GEN/1836)  ................................ ................................ ......................  39 
8.1.6   ITC (G/SPS/GEN/1837)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  39 
8.1.7   SADC (G/SPS/GEN/1845)  ................................ ................................ .......................  39 
8.2   Requests for observer status  ................................ ................................ .....................  40 
8.2.1   New requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  40 
8.2.1.1    Request from the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) 
(G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.18, G/SPS/GEN/1841, G/SPS/GEN/1867)  ................................ .............  40 
8.2.1.2    Request from the Arab Organization for Agricultural Development (AOAD) 
(G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.19)  ................................ ................................ ................................ . 40 
8.2.2   Pending requests  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 40 
9   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 40 
10   DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING (G/SPS/GEN/1823)  ................................ ... 40 
ANNEX A  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  42 
ANNEX B  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  44 
ANNEX C  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  49  G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1  ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA  
1.1.  The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee ") held its 78th regular 
meeting on 5 -6 and 13 November 2020. The proposed agenda for the meeting  was adopted with 
amendments ( JOB/SP S/11). In light of the COVID -19 pandemic, in -person attendance at the 
meeting was restricted and delegates were invited to participate via a virtual platform.  
1.2.  Members were able to submit agenda items and statements through eAgenda. For its meeting 
of June 2020, the Committee had used, on an ad hoc basis, combined written and oral procedures. 
For this meeting, the Committee reverted to its usual procedure as used prior to its June 2020 
meeting, with the additional use of eAgenda to support oral exchanges.  
2  INFORMATION SHARING  
2.1  Information from Members on relevant activities  
2.1.1   Japan - Update on the situation surrounding Japanese food after the TEPCO 
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station accident ( G/SPS/GEN/1233/Rev.2 ) 
2.1.  Japan  thanked Morocco and Egypt for lifting the import measures they had imposed on 
Japanese food products  following the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station accident . 
Japan  reported that 36 out of the 54 countries and regions that had introduced import restrictive 
measures following the accident had since then lifted them. Japan urged Members still maintaining 
measures to remove them based on scientific principles. Japan provided an update on the most 
recent data and status of its food safety control measures, as well as on water mana gement at the 
nuclear power station  and its transparency efforts, as detailed in G/SPS/GEN/1233/Rev.2 . 
2.2.  Korea expressed its appreciation for the updates provided by Japan , but reiterated concerns 
about the possible  release of contaminated water into the sea.  Korea referred  to reports  indicating 
that Japan  considered  a release into the sea of contaminated water currently stored in tanks as the 
most viable option. Korea  called for  a transparent and inclusive process to decide on  the disposal 
method of contaminated water.  Japan responded that the water s tored in tanks at the powerplants 
was treated water  purified by the Advanced Liquid Processing System and other related facilities . 
Reiterating observations contained in G/SPS/GEN/1819 , Japan added that it had not yet decided  
how and when water  would b e discharged  into the enviro nment.  
2.1.2   Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala and Paraguay - Request for the 
suspension of the processes and entry into force of reduction of MRLs for plant protection 
products in light of the COVID -19 pandemic ( G/SPS/GEN/1778/Rev.4 ) 
2.3.  Colombia informed the Committee that 39 Members were now calling upon the European Union 
to suspend the processes and entry into force of reduction of MRLs for plant protection products in 
light of the COVID -19 pandemic . Colombia stressed  the great challenges posed by the COVID -19 
pandemic for developing countries , which had hit Latin America particularly hard  both in human and 
economic  terms . Colombia referred to  a GDP shrinkage of 8 .1% at a regional le vel in 2020 . With this 
background, Colombia read the request contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1778/Rev.4 , urging  the 
European Union and any Member reviewing or modifying MRLs  to consider the concerns raised and 
base MRLs on international standards, guidelines , and recommen dations.  
2.4.  Costa Rica voiced  its disappointment with the responses  provided thus far  by 
the European  Union . While sharing the EU objective to protect the environment and human health, 
Costa  Rica urged the European Union to r ethink its regulatory approach given  the potential  negative 
impact s on its trading partners . Costa Rica stressed  that a gricultural producers, specifically  micro 
small and medium size enterprises ( MSMEs ), would be particularly  affected by the measures . 
While supporting the idea of  a global transition towards sustainable agri -food systems , Costa Rica 
took the view that achieving sustainability should be based on multilateral cooperation, considering 
adjustment costs for producers and exporters in developing c ountries.  
2.5.  Ecuador  noted  that e xports of agricultural and agri -food products were fundamental for  the 
Ecuadorian economy  and that import restrictions  were amplifying  the effects of the COVID -19 
pandemic. While recognizing  the protection of life or health of people and animals and G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 6 - 
 
the preservation of plants as legitimate objectives, Ecuador request ed the European Union  to 
consider the conditions of developing countries . 
2.6.  Paraguay observed that the request was now supported by 39 Members from Latin  America, 
the Caribbean, and Africa, all of them being developing or least developed countries strongly affected 
by the COVID -19 pandemic. Paraguay highlighted that SPS  measures , such as the reduction of MRLs 
for plant protection produ cts, represent ed a challenge for developing countries and hindered 
economic recovery efforts.  Paraguay noted the  EU statement in G/SPS/GEN/1814  that exceptions 
were highly unlikely  for measures taken to protect the life and health of consumers.  Yet, 
Paraguay  noted that exceptions were routine ly granted  for EU  producer s. Considering this, 
Paraguay  questioned how the  European Union could refuse to suspend MRL reduction processes and 
requested the  European  Union to reconsider its approach.  
2.7.  In the same vein, Guatemala indica ted that Members' current efforts were dedicated to 
controlling the COVID -19 pandemic, noting that Latin America was just emerging from the first 
wave. Given this situation, producers and health authorities were not in a position to take the 
necessary step s to adapt to new MRLs, as modified by the  European  Union. Guatemala hoped that 
the European Union would provide a clear and flexible response to the request for a 12 -month 
suspension of its MRL reduction processes.  
2.8.  Several o ther Members express ed their su pport for  the request  in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1778/Rev.4 , urging the European Union to suspend provisionally its processes for 
MRL reduction.  Panama hoped that the European Union would deal with the concerns in an 
appropriate manner. Referring to the figures that Colombia h ad mentioned, Argentina emphasized 
the devastating effects of the COVID -19 pandemic on Members ' economies. Although it understood 
the need to protect public health, Peru  underscored the need to focus resources on economic 
recovery and feared that unnecessary deviations from Codex MRLs would significantly impact trade. 
To Indonesia, the broad support showed for this agenda item illustrated the magnitude of the impact 
of new MRLs. In this context,  Indonesia  recalled  the objective of the SPS Agreement  to minimize 
negative effect s on trade.  Egypt  referred  to its previous statements  in this  and other  Committee s, 
in which it had highlighted the challenges faced by Egyptian exporters in light of new MRL s and the 
very short transitional period f or exporters to adapt . Egypt  specifically  pointed to the  challenges 
faced by small farmers in developing countries , as exacerbated by the COVID -19 pandemic . 
To Egypt, the current crisis  called for increased cooperation, rather than additional trade restric tions. 
Like other Members , El Salvador  emphasized  the challenges posed by the COVID -19 pandemic and 
current  efforts focused on dealing with this health situation and economic recovery.  
2.9.  The European Union  assured  the Members raising concerns  that it would assess carefully the 
revised document submitted as G/SPS/GEN/1778/Rev.4 . The European  Union read the statement 
circulated as G/SPS/GEN/1814/Rev.1 . In its intervention , the European Union expressed 
its willing ness to find suitable and innovative  approaches to help partners fight the consequences of 
the COVID -19 pandemic but considered the protection of public health to be a priority , which could 
not be compromised.  
2.10.  Colombia and Costa Rica clarified th at document  G/SPS/GEN/1778/Rev .4 had been revised 
only to include new Members supporting the request . Colombia indicated that Members were not 
asking for  cooperation or for the European Union to lower its health standards. Rather, 
Members  were submitting an emergency request,  asking fo r additional time in accordance with 
Ministerial  Decision WT/MIN(01)/17 . Colombia considered that Members had presented genuine 
concerns  and regretted that the European Union  appeared to provide merely  information . 
Colombia  urged the European Union to engage  in a dialogue  with Members on this issue.  
Costa  Rica supported a global transition to sustainable agri -food systems, but could not agree that 
all current agri -food systems were not  sustainable . Costa Rica considered that there were different 
levels of sustainability and that it had a sustainable agr iculture system . To Costa  Rica, forcing a 
change was not a good option ; rather,  a global transition could only be achieved with a multilateral 
approach. Costa Rica requested the  European  Union to engage in a dialogue with Members.  G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.1.3   United States - "Global Economic Impact of Missing and Low Pesticide Maximum 
Residue Levels, Vol. 1 " report by the United States International Trade Commission 
(G/SPS/GEN/1842 ) 
2.11.  The United States  presented the US International Trade Commission 's (USITC) report, 
requested by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR ). The report examined 
current and emerging challenges to global agricultural production from existing and evolving pest 
and disease pressures in different climates and  regions, compared national and international policies 
for establishing pesticide MRLs, and explored the effect of these policies on international agricultural 
trade. The United States considered the report as an important contribution to the Committee's 
ongoing discussions on MRLs. The US statement is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1842 . 
2.12.  Paraguay, Cost a Rica, Br azil, Peru, Colombia, Guatemala,  and Ecuador thanked the 
United  States for the report. Paraguay stated  that the USITC report contributed to the debates on 
the impact of MRL  policies . Through case studie s, the report provided information on costs and 
effects of MRLs for producers worldwide . In Paraguay's view, chapters 3 and 5 showed  the practical 
consequences of these policies and highlighted  the importance of pursuing discussions to find real 
solutions to these problems . Costa Rica urged Members to take into account the conclusions of the 
report and its detailed case studies . In particular, Costa Rica referred to Members implementing or 
considering  regulations aimed at reducing or eliminating MRLs of critical substances for production 
in tropical countries. Brazil stated that missing and low MRLs were pressing issues for farmers  and 
traders worldwide . Brazil  called Members ' attention to the document , which it considered a good 
input for the Committee's discussions . Peru had also provided ca se studies for the report . Peru noted 
that the adoption of SPS measures should take into account potential trade effects.  In Colombia 's 
view, the report provided an additional independent analysis for developing countries to continue 
on-going consultations on this issue . Guatemala believed the report would be a reference document 
and would allow for a better understanding of the topic and related challenges . Ecuador stated that 
any decision on MRLs should take into account scientific considerations and their global impact . 
2.13.  The European Union thanked the United States  for the report  and for the intense cooperation 
with the European Union . The Eur opean Union regretted that the report did not examine methods of 
production that used less pesticides. Despite having submitted contributions and held physical 
meetings with inve stigators , the European Union  noted factual inaccuracies and misleading 
statem ents in the description of the EU system for setting MRLs. The European Union provided 
its statement  in document G/SPS/GEN/1855 . 
2.1.4   Canada, Colomb ia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Paraguay  and the  United States 
- Seminar on Farmers' perspective on SPS challenges for sustainable food production and 
trade  
2.14.  Canada thanked the co-organi zers of the seminar and noted with interest the findings of 
the USITC report.  Producers ' perspectives and SPS concerns for food production and trade shared 
in the seminar were insightful and similar to those experienced by Canadian producers. All producers 
agreed on the need to base regulations for plant protection produc ts and products of biotechnology 
on science and risk , and on the use of Codex international standards for further harmonization.  
The importance of better communication with consumers and of an inclusive decision -making 
approach had also been  highlighted in the seminar.  Canada noted it had repeatedly referred to 
the importance of mitigating trade risks associated with missing and low MRLs and reducing 
the uncertainty for the trade of safe and nutritious food. Canada strongly encouraged Members  to 
establish transparent and predictable science - and risk -based measures that take into account 
Codex  standards, guidelines , and recommendations.  
2.15.  On behalf of the co -organizers, Colombia informed the Committee that the objective of 
the seminar had been  to discuss farmers' SPS challenges in produc ing and trad ing food safely and 
sustainably . Food security, climate change, COVID -19 impacts, changes on MRL s, sustainable food 
production and trade, scientific evidence, the role of C odex, small-scale farmers, the role of policy  
makers , and what could  be done to overcome related  challenges  were some of the topics discussed . 
In this seminar , moderated by the Perm anent Representative of Costa Rica to the WTO, FAO  had 
presented on challenges and opportunities facing agriculture in the XXI century. The  United States 
had introduced the Global Economic Impact of Missing and Low Pesticide Maximum Residue Levels 
Report b y the USITC,  and had highlighted k ey findings of the report . Farmers  from Costa Rica, Italy, 
Kenya, and Viet  Nam had presented on some of the SPS -related challenges they face d and called G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 8 - 
 
for more involvement of scientists and producers, trust, science -based evidence, increased  access 
to production tools and technologies , and greater harmonization  of MRLs . The Minister  of Agriculture 
of Paraguay closed the seminar. In closing, the organi zers stated  that they would continue to work 
with other inte rested parties on these issues and invited Members to engage meaningfully.  
2.16.  Brazil congratulated the organi zers of the seminar ; it had been  valuable for  SPS delegates  
to witness  the impact of the Committee's work on farmers  worldwide and to hear  the voices of 
producers in this forum . 
2.17.  The Philippines noted that regulatory frameworks should remain risk -based and aligned with 
international standards and reminded  delegates  that measures taken to achieve the appropriate 
level of protection (ALOP) should ta ke into account technical and economic feasibility to avoid 
unnecessary trade restrictions.  Farmers and industry should be empowered by expanding their 
toolbox to achieve food security and agricultural productivity.  
2.18.  Argentina  highlighted  the relevance of f urther de epening the analysis of these issues in the 
Committee. The  joint participation of numerous agents, with technical and practical perspective s, 
confirmed the importance of these debates in real life. An SPS@25 event, celebrating the 25 years 
of the SPS Agreement , had taken place in the margins of the Committee  meeting . Argentina stated 
that the principles agreed by Members 25 years ago, includin g the importance of basing 
SPS measures on risk assessments , were still in force and should not be re -interpreted in light of 
other criteria outside of the commitments adopted by Members . 
2.19.  Guatemala thanked Colombia for the summary provided on behalf of the  organi zers. The main 
objective  of the seminar  had been  to find a space of dialogue and recognize the existence of 
challenges in the reality of production cha ins at the global level.  Guatemala  underscored the success 
of the event, with over 270 participants, and hoped to continue having these spaces of dialogue with 
the participation of more Members and trad ing partners . 
2.1.5   United States - Requirement for Additional Traceability Records for Certain  Foods 
(G/SPS/N/USA/3203 ) 
2.20.  The United States  informed the Committee about  its proposed regulation "Requirements for 
Additional Traceability Records  for Certain Foods ", which would enable faster removal of the affected 
products from the marketplace in the case of a foodborne illness outbreak or contamination event, 
reducing incidences of foodborne illnesses . The US statement is contained in G/SPS/GEN/1860 . 
2.1.6   Peru - Strengthening of sanitary control for fishery and aquaculture products 
through the risk -based audit process model  
2.21.  Peru explained that  the National Fisheries Health Service (SANIPES) had strengthened 
the sanitary control for fishery and aquaculture products through a risk-based audit process model. 
This methodology  allowed to establish a pre -classification of the plants processing hydrob iological 
products , ensuring  the fulfilment of sanitary requirements and increas ing trust. IT solutions to share, 
register and analyse information would assist the audit process model. With this preventive 
approach , SANIPES could promote effective international cooperation among stakeholders in matters 
relating to trade facilitation  and the  fulfilment of export procedures for hydrobiological products.  
Further information was available on the SANIPES web site. Peru provided  its statement in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1857 . 
2.1.7   Belize - Enhan cing the diagnostic capacity of Belize's Veterinary Services 
(G/SPS/GEN/1838 ) 
2.22.  Belize informed Members that , thanks to  an STDF funded project  (STDF/PG/495 ), 
the Polymerase Chain Reaction Laboratory of the Veterinary Services  had obtained 
ISO/IEC  17025:2017 accreditation for seven meth ods used in the detection of shrimp diseases . 
Belize provided its statement  in document  G/SPS/GEN/1838 . G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 9 - 
 
  2.1.8   European Union - Update on the African swine fever situation  
2.23.  The European Union  thanked the Members that had  supported its proposal for a thematic 
session on African swine fever ( ASF) to be held in  March 2021. The European Union shared 
information on  recent ASF cases affecting  feral pigs in Germany , which had been immediately 
notified to the OIE and trad ing partners . Intensive surveillanc e was ongoing in all high-risk areas, 
and regionalization and movement restrictions had been put in place.  The European Union stressed 
that it aimed at guaranteeing a swift, efficient, and coherent response to ASF outbreaks in line with 
OIE standards and g uidelines , and that its measures ensured that pigs, pork , and pork products 
from areas not under trade restrictive measures could be placed safely on the EU market and 
exported. The European Union  highlighted its  transparent approach and the effective  management 
of its regionalization policy.  
2.1.9   United States - USDA FSIS Final Rule on Egg Products Inspection Regulations  
2.24.  The United States  provided information regarding its final rule modernizing the inspection 
require ments for egg products  (G/SPS/N/USA/2985/Add.1 ), requiring, inter alia, federally  inspected 
establishments to develop and implement Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points systems and 
Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures . The US statement is contained in G/SPS/GEN/1861 . 
2.1.10   Belize - STDF Pilot Project on Voluntary Third -Party Assurance Programme 
(G/SPS/GEN/1839 ) 
2.25.  Belize provided the statement submitted in G/SPS/GEN/1839 , reporting on t he STDF project 
STDF/PG/682  "Piloting the use of Third -Party Assurance (TPA) Programme in Central  America 
(Belize  and Honduras) to Improve Food Safety Outcomes for  Public Health ". 
2.1.11   Ukraine - Update on import legislation on approved forms of certificates  
2.26.  Ukraine  updated the Committee on its Ministerial Order on the approval of forms of 
certificates, notified in G/SPS/N/UKR/138 . Ukraine drew Members' attention to the legislative update  
by means of implementation of the State Control Law, in force since April 2018. Ukraine indicated 
that i mport requirements for foodstuf fs, feedstuffs, animal by -products, live animals , and genetic 
materials had been  developed and used as a basis for approved forms of certificates.  Ukraine further 
indicated that t emplates of approved certificates were available on the Official Journal and online.  
Likewise, the list of legislation on import of food and animal by -products had also been developed 
and was available online . Ukraine added  that previously agreed bilateral forms of certificates 
remain ed valid, but that those not complying with curr ent import requirements were being analysed. 
In that regard, Ukraine indicated that it would  contact trading partners to initiate the reconsideration 
process, taking into account trade priorities.  Ukraine concluded that actions were underway aiming 
at tran sparently facilitating trade and looked forward to engaging with trading partners.  
2.2  Information from Codex, IPPC and OIE on relevant activities  
2.2.1   Codex ( G/SPS/GEN/1844 ) 
2.27.  The Chairperso n drew the Committee's attention to the report on Codex activities provided in 
document  G/SPS/GEN/1844 . 
2.2.2   IPPC ( G/SPS/GEN/1827 ) 
2.28.  IPPC presented  its report  on relevant activities  contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1827 . 
In particular,  IPPC informed the Committee about the work of : (i) the Strategic Planning Group , 
which had advanced discussions on the development agendas in the IPPC Strategic Framework 
2020-2030; (ii)  the Standard s Committee  on standards, phytosanitary treatments , and 
recommendations , referring in particular to four draft International Standards for Phytosanitary 
Measures (ISPMs)  dealing with Re -export, Audit in the phytosanitary context, Amendments to the 
Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms , and Commodity -based standards ; (iii)  the IPPC Secretariat  on 
"design thinking " regarding  new digital activities ; and (iv)  the FAO/IP PC Technical Working Group 
for the Global Action for Fall Armyworm  (FAW) control  on guidelines to implement phytosanitary 
measures  where FAW is absent or of limited distribution . G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 10 - 
 
2.2.3   OIE ( G/SPS/GEN/1830 ) 
2.29.  The OIE highli ghted the main point s of its report contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1830 . 
The OIE had been working with a network of experts and collaborate d with WHO and FAO as well as 
with Members  to enhance the capacity of countries to respond to the COVID -19 pandemic.  The OIE 
gave a n update on the Observatory  on the implementation  of OIE standards  and the redesigning  
World Animal Health Information System (WAHIS)  platform  for the global dissemination of 
information on animal disease events . The OIE also informed  the Committee  of new guidelines  on 
compartmentalization for ASF , the possible endorsement in 2021 of a first national control 
programme  for dog -mediated rabies , and its work on updating  standards on avian influenza . 
Finally,  the OIE referred to information in document G/SPS/GEN/1830  on the importan ce of 
surveillance  for new zoonotic  swine influenza  viruses,  the initiative  to control  zoonotic  tuberculosis,  
and two new OIE publications  on animal  health  issues  and trade. 
3  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  
3.1  New issues  
3.1.  Before the adoption of the agenda, Mexico withd rew a specific trade concern regarding 
Honduras' import restrictions on animal feed that had been included in the draft annotated agenda 
circulated as JOB/SPS/11 . 
3.1.1   China's actions related to COVID -19 that affect trade in food and agricultural 
products - Concerns of Canada  and the  United States  
3.2.  The United States provided the statement circulated in G/SPS/GEN/1863 . The United States 
urged China to withdraw  COVID -19-related restrictions imposed  since June  2020, including  exporter 
statements  requirements , the suspension of imports from facilities with worker cas es of COVID -19, 
testing requirements, and port -of-entry rejections in case of  positive nucleic acid test results . 
3.3.  Canada emphasized the need for cooperation to meet the challenges that COVID -19 pose d to 
health and economies, avoid unnecessary barriers to trade , and contribute to food security. 
Canada  also emphasized the importance of basing COVID -19 related measures on sound scientific 
principles and a  risk assessment . Canada sought further informatio n from China regarding the 
scientific basis for its recent measures relating to COVID -19, notified in G/SPS/N/CHN/1173 . 
Canada  noted that, according to available scientific evidence , food, food  packaging or food handling 
were not transmission route s. Canada referred  in this regar d to the International Commission on 
Microbiological Specifications for Foods opinion on SARS -CoV-2 of 3 September 2020  as well as to 
the FAO/WHO document  "COVID -19 and Food Safety:  Guidance for Food Businesses ". 
Canada  requested that,  if China ha d scientific evidence suggesting  transmission of COVID -19 
through food, food packaging , or food handling, China  share  this evidence.  Canada  encourage d 
China to maintain ongoing  dialogue toward s reinstat ing suspended meat establishments.  
3.4.  Austral ia, Brazil , Paraguay , the  United Kingdom , and Mexico supported the concern. 
Paraguay  expressed its systemic interest in this concern  and urged Members to base SPS measures 
on scientific evidence. In the same vein, Brazil  underscored the relevance of the provisions of the 
SPS Agreement  and the principle that SPS measures be based on scientific principles . 
Having  observed that no other country, nor the OIE had so far found scientific evidence for 
a restrictive approach to ag ricultural trade because of COVID -19 transmission , Brazil requested 
China to share the scientific evidence on which its measures are based . Looking  at the guidance 
from the FAO and WHO, the United Kingdom  considered that there was no evidence to date that 
COVID -19 could be transmitted via food or food packaging . In addition, the OIE  did not recommend 
that COVID -19 related sanitary measures be applied unless justified by a risk analysis.  
The United  Kingdom also pointed to its own risk assessment  publish ed by the Food Standard Agency, 
which had concluded that the probability that UK consumers would receive infectious exposures of 
COVID -19 via the consumption of food, or the handling of food contact materials or packaging was 
very low.  Finally, Australia suggested that a positive detection of SARS -CoV-2 on an inanimate 
surface  did not mean  a COVID -19 infection , and that contamination could occur at various stages 
along the supply chain. Australia encouraged China to work with global regulators to establish 
science -based measures and to share any scientific evidence  it might have showing that COVID -19 
can be transmitted through handling of food and food packagin g. G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 11 - 
 
  3.5.  Addressing first the scientific basis for its measur es, China pointed  to research proving  that 
the virus can survive under low -temperature conditions. To China, since many countries had 
experienced COVID -19 cluster s in food businesses, this showed that the SARS -CoV-2 virus could  
contaminate food or food pac kaging.  China also pointed  to WHO guidance indicat ing that 
the COVID -19 virus could be  transmitted through respiratory droplets and by fomites  as well as  by 
touching a contaminated surface and then touching one's mouth, nose, or eyes. China could 
therefore  not rule out  the risk  of spread via contaminated food or packaging.  Reminding Members  
that the virus had been detected  on the packaging and containers of imported white shrimp and 
chicken wings , China  indicated that it had adopted provisional measures  consistent with Article 5.7 
of the SPS  Agreement . China  further  indicated that, after expiration of the restricted period or 
re-testing and evaluation, China ha d restored export qualifications of temporarily restricted 
enterprises , thereby ensur ing that the measures would  have the least impact on trade.  
3.6.  China highlighted that it considered its measures to be  consistent with the FAO/WHO guidance 
in the document "COVID -19 and Food Safety: Guidance for Food Businesses ". To China, 
this guidance indicate d that Members should not only focus on the known food safety risks, but also 
guard against the potential risks caused by SARS -CoV-2 contaminated food or food packaging  to 
protect the health of consumers. Finally, China indicated that its measures to fight against the 
COVID -19 pandemic treated domestic and foreign enterprises equally . Reiterating that t he objective 
of its COVID-19 related measures was to protect people's lives to the maximum extent , China agree d 
that cooperation need ed to be strengthened among Members  in the face of the pandemic . 
3.1.2   Philippines' ban on poultry imports due to COVID -19 - Concerns of Brazil  
3.7.  Brazil  informed the Committee that the Philippines had suspended the importation of poultry 
from Brazil, as notified in G/SPS/N/PHL/467 , arguing the  detection of SARS -CoV-2 in a surface 
sampling conducted in chicken meat imported from Brazil to China.  Despite the information provided 
by Brazil, the Philippines ban had been lifted only partially . Brazil considered that the restrictions 
lacked clear sci entific justification  and were inconsistent with  Articles 2.2 -2.3 and 5.1-5.2 of 
the SPS Agreement.  
3.8.  The Philippines  noted that COVID -19 posed  unprecedented challenges to public health and food 
systems and that , while the risk might be low, international guidelines  did not dismiss human 
infection through contaminated surfaces . On the basis of available scientific information, 
the Philippines' Food Safety Act mandated  to err on the side of caution to safeguard human lives 
and health.  The Phili ppines thanked Brazil for the initial information provided in bilateral discussions 
and requested Brazil  to provide missing  documents for the completion of the risk assessment . 
The Philippines remained open to bilateral discussions with Brazil to resolve t his concern.  
3.1.3   Mexico's import restrictions on pork - Concerns of Brazil  
3.9.  Brazil  reported that , in April 2019  and after 16 years of negotiations , its authorities had been 
informed of the negative result of the risk analysis  regarding market access of  Brazilian pork to 
Mexico . Despite the subsequent exchange of information and the recognition by the OIE of the state 
of Santa  Catarina as free from foot -and-mouth disease (FMD) without vaccination, 
Mexico  questioned the efficiency of risk mitigation strat egies applied in that area . Brazil considered 
that this position was inconsistent with  Article 6 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement.  In July 2019 , 
Brazil had proposed an international sanitary certificate model for pork meat for industrial processing 
and was now awaiting a response.  Brazil reiterated that pork meat exported to Mexico came from a 
zone free from classical swine fever (CSF) and FMD, according to the OIE, and that pork imports 
were to be processed by Mex ico's food industry.  
3.10.  Mexico  reported that it was reviewing the technical information provided by Brazil in 
September about the measures being implemented on FMD risk products  and, as informed on 
9 Octobe r, would  respond to Brazil in writing. Given its status as FMD -free country without 
vaccination, Mexico  insisted on  the importance of sanitary guarantees regarding FMD and other 
vesicular diseases , in accordance with the SPS Agreement and relevant international standards . 
Mexico  encouraged a continue d technical dialogue to deal with this concern.  G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 12 - 
 
3.1.4   Korea's lack of progress on pending applications for authorization of beef imports - 
Concerns of the European Union  
3.11.  The European Union  was concerned that bans on imports of beef from the European Union  
imposed  by Korea in 2001 , following cases of BSE,  were still in place. The European Union had 
provided Korea with all necessary information on BSE -related control measures to guarantee safe 
trade.  While acknowledging the re -opening  in 2019 of the Korean beef marke t for two EU member 
States, which in the EU view demonstrated the trust of Korea in the EU food safety and animal health  
policy , the European  Union regretted that the assessment of most EU  applications had not  been 
finalized, despite the satisfactory compl etion of all the technical and scientific work.  
The European  Union stated that Korea was not complying with Article 8 and Annex C of the 
SPS Agreement and was discriminating  against  the European Union compared to other Members 
with a similar BSE  risk status as the E uropean Union. The  European Union urged Korea to grant 
market access for beef from remaining interested EU member States. 
3.12.  The Russian Federation shared  the concern. The Russian competent authority 
(Rosselkhoznadzor) had provided Korea with relevant information regarding the recognition by 
the OIE of the Russian Federation as free from FMD without vaccination . In October 2019, Korea had 
provided information  about the initiation o f a risk assessment process for beef imports from three 
regions  but had not yet authori zed beef imports fr om the Russian Federation . It called upon Korea  to 
adhere to Article 8 and Annex C of SPS Agreement and  approve pending application s of access of 
Russian  beef to the Korean market.  
3.13.  Korea  stated that its import approval procedures for EU beef were based on a risk analysis 
and fully compliant with the SPS Agreement and international standard s. Korea ha d already 
authorized import s of beef from the Netherlands and Denmark and import approval procedures were 
underway for EU beef. Korea indicated that it  would  continue bilateral consultations on this issue . 
3.1.5   Delays in Malaysia's approval procedures for meat a nd dairy imports - Concerns of 
the Russian Federation  
3.14.  The Russian Federation  expressed its concern  with the lack of transparency and the delays of 
Malaysia 's approval procedures  for import of meat and dairy products . The Russian Federation had 
not received responses regarding the access of Russian products of animal origin to Malaysia , 
the invitation to inspect Russian establishments interested in exporting poultry meat, ready -to-eat 
dairy, and meat products into Mala ysia, and the organi zation of bilateral meetings to discuss mutual 
market access . The Russian Federation considered this to be inconsistent with  Article 8 and Annex  C 
of the SPS Agreement and called upon Malaysia to implement transparency and prompt approv al 
procedures and to provide the requested responses.  
3.15.  Malaysia  was carrying out the necessary processes in response to three letters received from  
Rosselkhoznadzor . The Department of Veterinary Services would inform the Russia Federation  on 
the outcome of the  risk analysis following  the questionnaire on importation of poultry and domestic 
fowl. The sample of the  Veterinary Health Certification for milk and milk products was being 
processed  and the risk analysis following  the questionnaire  on importation of beef  was still on -going.  
3.16.  Malaysia argued that most of the request s had not reached the Food Safety and Quality 
Division of the Ministry of Health, but that responses had been provided to the Trade Representation 
of the Russian Federation  in Malaysia and by email to Rosselkhoznadzor . The delay in respon ding 
was due to the involvement of various agencies. Malaysia advised to address further communications 
to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industries , International Divis ion. The Food Safety and Quality 
Division was still awaiting Russia's response to Malaysia's request on fish and fishery products. 
Malaysia would be in touch bilaterally  with the Russian Federation to discuss this issue  further . 
3.1.6   Honduras' impor t restrictions on  pasteurized dairy products - Concerns of Mexico  
3.17.  Mexico  expressed concerns on undue delays by the Honduran  National Agriculture and Food 
Health and Safety Service regarding exports o f pasteurized dairy products.  According  to Mexico, 
despite on -going dialogue since 2016 with the National Health, Food Safety and Agrifood Quality 
Service, the progress of the risk analysis for exporting establishments had been unnecessary slow , 
inconsistently with  Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement . Mexico had also brought up the  issue G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 13 - 
 
  at the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures established under the Free Trade 
Agreement between Mexico and Central America, without any progress. Mexico  requested Honduras 
to respond to the request s concerning the planning of the necessary audits.  
3.18.  Honduras  reported that the competent sanitary authority was reviewing the relevant 
administrative procedures, which would  be communicated to Mexico in the coming  days.  
Honduras  expressed its willingness to maintain  the technical bilateral collaboration to resolve this 
issue.  
3.1.7   Non-publication of US final rule on importation of sheep, goats and certain other 
ruminants - Concerns of  the European Union  
3.19.  The European Unio n raised a concern regarding the delay  in the publication  of the final rule  
"Importation of Sheep, Goa ts, and Certain Other Ruminants " by the United States, which was a 
necessary step in the approval procedures for export s of small ruminant  meat. The relevant proposed 
rule had been published  in the US Federal Register on 18 July 2016 and all technical and 
administrative work necessary to the publication of the final rule had been completed by 
August  2017. According to the European Union, the long delays were inconsistent with  Article  8 and 
Annex C of the SPS Agreement. The European Union  urged  the United States  to lift remaining  
restrictions  related to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies  (TSE) for all EU member States, 
and not to delay  further the publication of the final rule. The E uropean Union remained open to 
continue working  constructively  with the United States and all trading partners.  
3.20.  The United States  informed  the European Union that the US Department of Agriculture ( USDA ) 
was working through its administrative procedures to process the EU request. The United States 
noted the bilateral technical engagement  and looked forward to continued cooperation with 
the European Union. 
3.1.8   HPAI -related restrictions by China, the European Un ion and Kazakhstan - Concerns 
of Ukraine  
3.21.  Ukraine  updated the Committee on its latest case of avian influenza (H5N8) , which had 
occurred in January 2020 and had been reported to the OIE  and trading partners . In response to 
the highly pathogenic avian influenza ( HPAI) outbreak, a stamping policy out had been applied  in 
the affected  areas and zoning and surveillance had been carried out  in accordance with the OIE 
Terrestrial Code. A rapid and effective disease control program me had been implemented  to 
eradicate the virus and control the outbreak.  Ukraine had also introduced a system of urgent 
notifications of quarantine restrictions, including the list of  localities and establishments  subject to 
such restrictions.  Ukraine regretted that  China, the European  Union, and  Kazakhstan  continued to 
apply restrictions  despite  Ukraine having been recognized as free from HPAI  since May 2020  and in 
disregard of international  standard s and their regionalization obligation s. Ukraine urged Members to 
lift their restrictions  without delay  and indicated that it  stood  ready to work closely with Members to 
resolve  this concern.  
3.22.  China  express ed appreciation for Ukraine 's implementation of its transparency obligations  and 
noted the update on Ukraine 's avian influenza -free status  provided in the previous  Committee  
meeting . However, China requested Ukraine to provide a link to the national self -declaration on 
OIE's official website so that China  could initiate an evaluation.  
3.23.  The European Union recognized  that Ukraine had  recently been declared free from HPA I, and 
affirmed its willingness  to follow  international guidelines and recommendations on recogni zing 
animal disease -free regions with respect to trade , provided control and epidemiological data  allowed 
so. Noting that  the topic had been p reviously discussed bilaterally  and that Ukraine should also 
respect a regionalization -based approach for other disease s of importance to the European Union, 
the European Union remain ed open to continue working with U kraine to finding a solution to this 
concern.  
3.24.  Kazakhstan responded that it had imposed temporary restrictions  as of January 2020 . 
Kazakhstan indicated that information provided by Ukraine had been transmitted to the relevant 
Kazakh authorities to conduct a scientific assessment and that it would consider lifting the temporary 
measures based on  the result of this assessment.  G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 14 - 
 
3.1.9   Panama's i mport restrictions on animal and plant products - Concerns of Colombia  
and Costa Rica  
3.25.  Costa Rica underscored that raising STCs should not be a mere formality and urged Members 
to maintain  the dialogue  and the search of solutions in the Committee.  
3.26.  Costa Ric a expressed its concern on the increasing number of import restrictions imposed by 
Panama and the negative effects on bilateral and regional agricultural trade, which were exacerbated 
by the COVID -19 pandemic. Tomato, strawberry, banana, plantain and pinea pple were some of 
the affected products.  In Costa Rica's view, Panama was systemically opting for the most restrictive 
option and was not taking any measure to resume trade.  Costa Rica additionally reported that , 
in June 2020, Panama had decided not to renew authori zations for exports from establishments of 
products of animal origin before physically inspecting the plants. This affected exports of dairy, pork , 
beef, processed poultry meat, sausages , and food for fish from Costa Rica and other trad ing partners.  
In Costa Rica 's view, Panama's measures appeared to be inconsistent with  Articles 2-3 and 5-8 of 
the SPS Agreement  as well as with  Articles I:1 and XI:1 of the GATT 1994 . 
3.27.  Costa Rica reiterated that there had been no change in its sanitary status that could affect 
the risk of products of animal origin  and that t he inability to conduct the physical inspection due to 
the pandemic had resulted in the sudden closure of trade of these products into Panama. 
Costa  Rica regretted the lack of explanations provided by Panamanian authorities in bilateral 
meetings, where Panama had  argued  the non -compliance of the forms and times for applications for 
the renewal of plants and the need to  narrow the trade balance with Costa Rica.  
Costa  Rica additionally referred to Panama's intention to withdraw tariff quotas for liquid milk and 
evaporated milk, as communicated in G/SECRET/45 . Costa Rica urged Panama to lift import bans 
and implement measures facilitating agricultural trade while waiting for the situation  to return to 
normal . 
3.28.  Colombia  asked the Panamanian aut horities to organize an in -person or online visit so that 
dairy products, processed meat products , and foods ready for human consumption could  again be 
exported to Panama. Colombia circulated document G/SPS/GEN/1852  on this issue.  
3.29.  Panama  was in contact with Costa Rican authorities to start the procedures for the export of 
products of animal origin . According to Panama, Costa Rica was requesting the immediate opening 
of the market to processed products from establishments last inspected in situ  in 2013 without 
allowing fo r a zoosanitary evaluation. In order to facilitate trade, Panama had extended the 
accreditation periods of processing plants in the past without conducting in situ  evaluations; the last 
extensions had expired on 30 June 2020 and no request had been receive d in due course. 
Concerning  phytosanitary measures, Panama underscored its right to protect itself from quarantine  
pests  such as Tuta absoluta , the m igratory locust and Fusarium tropical race 4 , for which Panama 
was receiving funding from the International  Regional Organization for Agricultural Health ( OIRSA ). 
3.30.  Panama would also report to capital Colombia's concern which, in its view, referred to the 
need for  new inspections due to the expiry of the accreditation of certain processing plants. 
Panama  remained open to dialogue to establish safe trade flows.  
3.1.10   Chinese Taipei's phytosanitary risk assessment procedure on imports of fresh 
vegetables and fruits - Concerns of Ukraine  
3.31.  Ukraine  expressed concerns regarding the lack of progress in Chinese Taipei 's pest risk 
assessments (PRAs) concerning  imports  of onions and apples  from Ukraine . Ukraine noted  
the bilateral exchanges held with Chinese Taipei. Ukraine had provided the requested priority 
ranking of products  and asked Chinese Taipei to provide an update  on the development of the PRAs  
and their results , including indicative timeframes for completing such assessments . In Ukraine's 
view, the lack of responses  on the substance  constituted undue delays  and an unju stified barrier to 
trade, making export of certain of fresh vegetables and fruits to Chinese Taipei impossible . 
Ukraine  requested Chinese Taipei to remedy the current situation.  
3.32.  Chinese Taipei  thanked Ukraine for bringing this concern to the Committee. Chi nese Taipei 
stated  that, for resource allocation purposes, it had asked  Ukraine  to identify a priority for market 
access and that Ukraine  had confirmed onions as its priority only at the end of 2019 . Chinese  Taipei G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 15 - 
 
  highlighted the time needed for  PRAs, including reviewing  documents provided by the exporting 
countr y and relevant scientific literature . Chinese Taipei expressed its willingness to continue 
discussions with Ukraine bilaterally  and looked forward to comple ting the PRA process.  
3.1.11   India's import requirements for pulses - Concerns of Canada  
3.33.  Canada expressed concerns about the impact of India 's trade restrictive measures on pulses, 
including mandatory fumigation requirements  and new measures on weed seeds.  Canada  considered 
its science -based systems approach to pest management to be  an effective and equivalent 
alternative to fumigation. While Canada had raised the  recognition of its system s approach with 
India on numerous occasions and at various levels , a solutio n was yet to be found . Turning to India 's 
new measures on weed seeds , Canada noted that India had added  26 new weed seeds species  to 
its List of Quarantine Weed Seeds  in October 2019 . In Canada 's view, t hese actions were inconsistent 
with the principles of transparen cy, predicta bility, and scientific basis  for international rules -based 
trade.  Specifically, Canada question ed India's technical justification as it did not appear to follow 
IPPC guidance.  Canada hoped for an early and final resoluti on to these issues.  
3.34.  The Russian Federation supported this concern and called upon India to lift its ban and accept 
the use of alternative fumigants based on hydrogen phosphide (phosphine) , in accordance with 
prevailing international practice . 
3.35.  India responded that it had been engag ing with Canada on this issue since 2018  and that 
it was currently in the process of examining information provided by Canada . In that regard, 
India pointed to: (i ) information provided following a visit to  Canada to review its systems approach  
and a related request for information by India; and (ii) information provided in the context of 
Canada 's request for a review of the list of quarantine seeds regulated under India's Plant Quarantine 
Order of 2003.  India also indicated that it was still awaiting a response from Canada in relation to 
India's review of the PRA for pulses imported from Canada  following the  interception  of quarantine 
pests in consignments of pulses  in October 2019 . India reaffirm ed its commitment to finding a 
mutually acceptable solution  with Canada on this matter . 
3.1.12   Ecuador's import restrictions on grapes and onions - Concerns of Peru  
3.36.  Peru raised its concern regarding Ecuador's import restrictions on grapes and onions  due to 
maximum levels of pesticides . Peru recognized the legitimate objective of health protection but 
considered Ecuador 's actions to be more trade restrictive than necessary. Peru further indicated that  
it had provided and requested additional information  on several occasions , but that no response had 
been received from Ecuador. In Peru 's view, there was evidence of non -compliance with Article 8 
and Annex C of the SPS Agreement . Peru regret ted that, despite having complie d with all the 
requirements requested by Ecuador to re -establish  market  access, restrictions remain ed in force 
without a ny technical justification.  Emphasizing  the significant loss to Peruvian export ers, Peru urged 
Ecuador to grant market access to grapes and onions  from Peru.  
3.37.  Ecuador  thanked Peru and stated that it would  provide comments as soon as possible . 
3.1.13   Request for information on the EU Farm to Fork Strategy - Concerns of Colombia  
3.38.  Colombia  referred to the statement it had submitted in eAgenda, containing the questions 
Colombia had asked the European Union on its Farm to Fork Strategy in the Committee on 
Agriculture2, and which the European Union had requested be asked in this Committee.  
3.39.  Paraguay , Indonesia, Ecuador, Peru, and Guatemala  supported the concern raised by 
Colombia. Referring to the EU communication contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1797 , Paraguay 
noted the objective of the Farm to Fork Strategy to promote a global transition towards sustainable 
food systems a nd observed  that the European Union had committed to collaborate with its trad ing 
partners. Paraguay expressed disappointment  that the European Union had only provided evasive 
responses until now . Indonesia expressed interest in the  Farm to Fork Strategy , particularly MRLs 
for plan t products given the potential implications for international trade , seeking further 
explanation s on this issue. Ecuador expressed interest in Colombia 's questions to the European 
 
2 AG-IMS ID 93127.  G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 16 - 
 
Union. Ecuador recognized the importance  of sustainability concerns and the protection of the 
environment. In Ecuador 's view, pest resistance in one part of the globe was not an isolated event 
and the effect of pesticide s was a matter of concern to all Members. Peru indicated  it was  monitoring  
the progress o f the Farm to Fork Strategy and highlighted the need  to apply risk analysis for 
regulations  developed in the context of  this Strategy in line with the  SPS Agreement . Keeping in 
mind that these issues  had been previously raised  in another Committee, Guatemala invited  the 
European Union to provide responses in this Committee  to Colombia 's questions.  
3.40.  The European Union submitted document G/SPS/GEN/1868  in response to this STC. 
Any regulatory decision s to lower MRLs for pesticides would be made on a case -by-case basis 
considering the best available scientific evidence.  The European  Union announced its intention to 
propose  measures in the following month  with respect to two specific  active  substances – namely, 
clothian idin and thiamethoxam, both belonging to the group of neonicotinoids – in respect of which  
it was planning to lower MRLs. The European Union assured that relevant science would be made 
available to all interested parties. In addition, t he European Union em phasized that the Farm to Fork 
Strategy was not laying down any legislation and that the Strategy itself  had thus no STC 
implications.  
3.41.  Colombia thanked the European Union for the answers provided. Colombia clarified t hat, 
although not an STC per se, Colombia had submitted this request for information in the form of 
an STC in line with past practice . 
3.1.14   EU proposal requiring residue testing of casings - Concerns of Australia  
3.42.  Australia  looked forward to  receiving  formal answers  from the European Union to c omments 
provided in response to notification G/SPS/N/EU/401  regarding changes to export certificates for 
animal products and to an EU letter regarding requirements for the import of casings into 
the European Union . Australia considered that a separate residues plan for casings could not be 
justified as a risk management measure and that it would set a precedent for similar trade -limiting 
actions on other processed animal products.  In Australia's view, the European Union had not 
provided the  relevant scientific evidence and the measures were arbitrary and unjustified. 
Australia  noted the  lack of provisions for countries with EU  approved residues monitoring plans for 
the species of animal from which  the casings may be derived, the lack of justific ation for imposing 
the requirements on countries with controls over establishments preventing the use of antimicrobials 
in the production of casings , and the lack of relevance of the list of compounds proposed for testing  
to the concerns . 
3.43.  Ukraine  expressed  interest in staying informed o n bilateral developments  on this issue . 
3.44.  The European Union  clarified that the establishments authori zed to export casings to the 
European Union were listed in the Trade Control and Expert System ( TRACES ) at the request of the 
national authorities of 39 third countries. Regulation (EU) 2016/429 established that the entry of 
products of animal origin into the European Union was subject to listing of the third countries, 
territories , or zones of origin; the cur rent requirements on production and entry into the European 
Union of casings would change as of 21  April 2021. Regulation (EU) 2017/625 required that products 
of animal origin enter the  European  Union only from listed third countries.  
3.45.  The European Union st ated that the main risks of residues from pharmacologically active 
substances were linked to treatment of casings to avoid spoilage by bacteria. In order to mitigate 
the risk posed by the presence of antimicrobial residues in casings, the Commission requir ed 
guarantees on the residues status of casings as a condition for importation, focusing on those 
antimicrobial substances which were prohibited from use in food -producing animals in 
the European  Union . Batches of casings would have to be accompanied by a specific import 
certificate  including attestations on animal health, public health and residues. EU stakeholders and 
trading partners had been informed of the new requirements through an SPS notification and by 
letter and a specific information session had  also been organi zed. G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 17 - 
 
  3.1.15   India's requirement for certificate for Non -GM origin and GM -free status - 
Concerns of the United States  
3.46.  The Unite d States  expressed concerns about  India's new measures requiring  "non-GM 
(genetically modified) origin and GM -free certific ates for certain agricultural imports, notified in 
G/TBT/N/IND/168 , but not to the SPS  Committee. India had not identified any specific food safety 
risk associated with the products at issue and the United States requested that India  reconsider and 
delay implementation  of its temporary measure. The United States provided its  statement in 
G/SPS/GEN/1865 . 
3.47.  Paraguay expres sed interest in this topic and asked India to provide information  on the scope 
of the measure (commodities or also processed products) , the basis and scientific evidence for 
the differentiated  treatment of genetically modified organism s (GMOs) and non -GMOs, the ALOP 
India sought  with this distinction , and the  reasons for notifying the measure as TBT rather than  SPS. 
3.48.  Japan was concerned that India 's proposed measures would create unnecessary trade barriers 
and negative ly impact agricultural trade . Japan sought further clarification on the scientific 
justification and the rationale for certain requirements , and  asked India to reconsider 
the implementation of the proposed measures . 
3.49.  Uruguay noted  the international consensus that GM products approved by exporting countries 
based on Codex recommendations were equivalent to their conventional counterparts. 
India's  measure thus seemed to lack technical justification. Given the objective to ensure safety of 
imported food, i n Uruguay's view the measure should also be notified and discussed in the 
SPS Committee.  
3.50.  Brazil  expressed  concerns regarding  India's requirements and noted  that India had not 
published any regulatory impact assessment or risk analysis, nor  had India explain ed the link 
between the regulation and its pursued objectives. Brazil questioned the transparency of the 
regulatory process undertaken by Indian authorities and  believe d that the measures should also 
have been notified to the SPS  Committee. According to Brazil, GM exemption guarantees for the 
most affected Brazilian exports (apples, cowpea beans, tobacco , and corn)  would  add unnecessary 
costs and regulatory burden to food value chains, without scientific justification  and with no 
additional b enefits to food safety . 
3.51.  Canada  was concerned that India's non-GM import certification requirement would impact  
the ability of  countries producing  GM products to export to India and would unnecessarily restrict 
international trade.  It was Canada 's understanding that the measure had been taken pursu ant to 
the 2017 Food and Safety and Standards (Import) Regulations to ensure food safety and should 
thus be notified to the SPS Committee . Canada had submitted written comments through the  TBT 
enquiry point . Canada stated that GM products had been marketed safely for a long time as countries 
had developed effective regulatory frameworks to asse ss risks prior to their commercialization . 
In Canada, the National Competent Authority does not is sue any import certification for these 
products as it assesse s the safety of GM products prior to their release on the market. 
Canada  requested India to explain the reasons for the non -GM certification requirement and to delay 
the implementation of the measure.  
3.52.  Australia shared  the concern  and concurred that the measure should have been notified to 
the SPS  Committee . While recogni zing India's right to take measures to protect public health, 
Australia reiterated the importance of compl ying with WTO obligations, in particular  that measures 
be applied in a non -discriminatory manner, only to the extent necessary and that they not be more 
restrictive than necessary, especially during the COVID -19 pandemic. Australia had submitted 
written comment s on India's notification in the TBT Committee and looked forward to India's 
response.  
3.53.  Argentina  also shared th e concern and noted that the measure lacked scientific evidence to 
discriminate between  GM products and their conventional counterparts.  Argentina considered that 
India's measure was disproportionate and created unnecessary barriers to international trade . 
Argentina  hoped that the comments submitted through the TBT enquiry point would be taken into 
account.  G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 18 - 
 
3.54.  New Zealand requested clarification regarding the specific intent and objective of the proposed 
measures, under which provisions of the SPS Agreement the  measure was proposed, and the less 
trade restrictive alternatives considered for countries that had not approved the release of any 
genetically modified crops into the environment. New Zealand believed that the proposed 
requirements would impose further u njustified restrictions and costs on existing trade and looked 
forward to sharing its concerns in greater detail.  
3.55.  Chile had also raised the concerns in the TBT Committee and was awaiting responses to the 
comments provided on India's notification G/TBT /N/IND/168 . Chile asked India to provide the 
relevant scientific evidence . 
3.56.  India informed the Committee that the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) 
would review the comments received on the notification to the TBT Committee and that it would 
convey the concerns to its domestic agencies. FSSAI was also discussing the issue with the USDA 's 
representatives in Delhi.  
3.1.16   EU restriction on highly refined products imported from China - Concerns of China  
3.57.  China  expressed concern s regarding the different types of control s that chondroitin sulphate 
exported from China was subject to  at different  EU border control posts. China  explained that , on 
the basis of risk and of Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/626, chondroitin sulphate expo rted as 
food was permitted . However, o nly chondroitin sulphate considered as feed material was covered in 
the Annex to Decision 2002/994/EC concerning certain protective measures with regard to the 
products of animal origin imported from China, which stipu lated that only import s of product s of 
animal  origin from China covered in Annex should be authorized.  China requested the European 
Union to amend the Annex to Decision 2002/994/EC to include chondroitin sulphate in the list of 
food of animal origin author ized into the European Union from China,  and to clarify whether the 
import of chondroitin sulphate derived from animals from China was authorized and provide  reasons . 
3.58.  The European Union  thanked China for the enquiry and indicated the full applicability of  
Decision 2002/994 /EC and subsequent modi fications (the la test being Decision 2015/1068) , which  
laid down the list of food and feed product s authori zed to be imported from China into 
the European  Union. The European Union was not aware of a ny discrepancy  in the interpretation of 
this Decision among EU border control posts, but it would investigate this matter and revert to China 
in due time. The European Union reminded the availability of EU technical experts to provide  
clarifications . 
3.1.17   EU restrictions on exports of chocolate and cocoa products due to the application 
of the Commission Regulation (EU) N° 488/2014 of 12 May 2014 Amending Regulation 
(EC) N° 1881/200 6 as regards maximum levels of cadmium in foodstuff - Concerns of 
Peru  
3.59.  Peru raised its concern regarding Regulation (EU) 488/2014  and provided the statement 
circulated in G/SPS/GEN/1870 . In Peru's view, the EU Regulation  negative ly impact ed trade of cocoa 
beans and cocoa powder. Peru  also reminded of  the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food 
Additives'  (JECFA ) opinion  of 2013  and noted the economic damage resulting from the request by 
EU importers of analysis of cadmium in cocoa beans , despite the  Regulation referring to chocolate 
and cocoa products.  
3.60.  Peru stated that exports of cocoa beans to the European Union had decreased and, as  a 
consequence, the price o f beans had dropped. Peru complain ed that EU importers required analysis 
of cadmium for all exported batches, perfor med both in Peru and upon arrival, with applied  levels 
between 0.7 ppm and 1.0 ppm depending on the destination. Exports of cocoa powder to the 
European Union had also dropped. In Peru's view, Regulation (EU) 488/2014 was inconsistent with 
the objective of protecting the final consumer and created unnecessary  barriers to exports of this 
product. Peru asked the European Union to explain what actions had been  or were to be taken to 
avoid importers misusing the s tandard. The commercial consequences were also visible from the 
reductions of exports of traditional cocoa to the EU market and an increase of exports to the Asia n 
market at a reduced price.  G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 19 - 
 
  3.61.  Peru also noted the development of the industrialization process for cocoa exports undertaken 
over the previous five years and regretted that the EU Regulation increased costs and reduced the 
industry's profitability. Peru stated that the implementation of Regulation (EU) 488/2014 would 
make it impossible to achieve res ults on the cooperation projects funded by the European Union, 
which required avoiding negative impacts in the price of cocoa. Peru requested the European Union 
to revoke Regulation (EU) 488/2014  which, in its view, was inconsistent with  Articles 2 and 5 o f the 
SPS Agreement and generated unnecessary barriers to trade.  
3.62.  Indonesia sup ported the concern  and appreciated the information provided by Peru, which 
suggest ed that  the existing international standard of cadmium level s was sufficient to protect human 
health . Indonesia urged the European Union to harmonize maximum levels of cadmium with 
international standards, guidelines , or recommendations . 
3.63.  Colombia thanked Peru for  its intervention and expressed concern regarding  the entry into 
force of Regulation (EU) 488/2014 , which had disrupted trade of chocolate and cocoa products since 
2019.  The Regulation applied only to certain categories of cocoa products and Colombia  requested 
the European Union to increase surveillance and control of economic operators in the application of 
the Regulation.  
3.64.  The European Union  thanked Peru and the other Members  for raising the issue and reassured 
them that it  fully appreciated the economic consequences  related to this public health issue. 
The EU measure was necessary to protect  the health o f consume rs and was based on a risk 
assessment that took into account the tolerably weekly intake (TWI) established by the European 
Food Safe ty Authority ( EFSA) and EU consumption patterns . It was  shown that consumption of 
chocolate was significantly higher  than in other parts of the world  and that  some vulnerable groups, 
specifically  children , exceed ed the TWI. 
3.65.  The European Union noted the 4-year transitional period  granted for chocolate and chocolate 
products since the entry into force of the Regulation on 1 January 2015 to take into account concerns 
of producing countries. T he EU maximum limit for chocolate ove r 50% total dry cocoa solids was in 
line with the recently agreed Codex levels  and stricter limits had only been introduced  to the extent 
necessary to protect human health . Maximum levels had been set for final products, not for cocoa 
beans, to avoid unnec essary trade restrictions. The European Union was providing targeted technical 
assistance and was implementing a specific development programme under the Development -Smart 
Innovation through Research in Agriculture  Initiative to promote sustainable cocoa p roduction in 
Colombia, Ecuador,  and Peru . The European Union remained open to continue bilateral discussions.  
3.1.18   Proposed new EU rules on composite products - Concerns of Australia  
3.66.  Australia  expressed  concerns about  the potential negative impact that the EU proposed 
changes relating to shelf -stable composite products under Regulation (EU) 2019/625, notified in 
G/SPS/N/EU/401 , might have o n trade in shelf-stable composite products . Products previously 
excluded from the original EU Regulation of 2007  would now be captured in the proposed 
requirement s for food manufacturers of shelf -stable composite products to attest t he sourcing  of 
animal origin ingredients  (dairy, fishery , or egg ori gin) from EU approved establishments either in 
EU member States or in authori zed third countries . Australia considered that th ese requirement s 
were not justified and would not lead to significant improvements in safety or a higher quality  of 
products, and asked  the European Union to explain how the proposed regulatory requirements were 
in line with  the SPS Agreement and Codex international standards.  
3.67.  Australia requested the European Union to recogni ze equivalence of third countries  already 
implement ing a sufficient level of sanitary regulation for low -risk shelf -stable composite products , 
as established in Article 4  of the SPS Agreement . It also requested  the European Union to indicate 
how the proposed changes correspond ed with the level of ris k posed by the presence of low levels 
of animal  origin ingredients contained within shelf -stable composite products, as required under 
Article 5  of the SPS Agreement . Australia  looked forward to receiving the EU views  on the precedent 
that this regulation would set for international trade in shelf -stable foods,  and requested the 
European Union to reconsider the implementation of this regulation as currently drafted , including 
product coverage and thresholds.  G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 20 - 
 
3.68.  Japan shared Australia 's concern on th e new EU rules on composite products . In Japan's view, 
the EU requirement to attach an official certificate or a private attestation stating that ingredients of 
animal origin came from an EU approved establishment, even for low -risk processed products with 
small amount s of animal origin ingredients, would impose a disproportionate burden to business 
operators. In the case of Japan, this would hinder exports of numerous shelf -stable seasonings, 
including miso.  It was Japan's understanding that t he rule was still under revision, including the 
amendment of  Annex II of Decision 2007/275/EC, which contained the list of foods exempted from 
the official control at EU border control points. Japan requested the European Union to address the 
concerns of its trading partners and establish non -restrictive rules  based on risk.  
3.69.  The Russian Federation echoed the concern that the draft Implementing Regulation notified 
in G/SPS/N/EU/401  would significantly affect trade. The Russian Federation noted that several of 
the proposed requirements were not in line with the OIE Terrestrial Code and lacked information  on 
their scientific principles and justification.  The Russian Federation regretted that the European Union 
had not notified to the WTO the legal acts referred to in the draft Implementing Regulation . 
The Russian Federation believed that changes in the requirements were inconsistent with  Article 2.2 
of the  SPS Agreement, were more trade  restrictive than necessary , and could result in trade barriers 
for composite products . The Russian Federation asked the European Union to provide feedback on 
the comments and questions sent by Rosselkhoznadzor to the EU Comm ission's Directorate -General 
for Health and Food Safety . 
3.70.  Chinese Taipei thanked Australia for raising the concern and stated  that the EU requirements  
established in Regulation (EU)  2019/625 lacked a scientific basis , since they did not differentiate or 
consider the proportion of usage of ingredients of animal origin in the final composite product, even 
in situations in which the ingredients were denatured or highly processed . Chinese  Taipei urged 
the European Union to  provide  the relevant scientific evidence and risk assessment supporting  its 
requirements , and recommend ed the adoption of SPS measures not more trade -restrictive than 
required to achieve its ALOP, in order to minimize the negative impact on trade and comply with 
WTO commitments.  
3.71.  New Zealand  supported the establishment of SPS import measures based on risk in 
accordance with the SPS Agreement , and stated that low-risk foods should not, in the absence of a 
risk analysis, be subject to official health cert ification.  
3.72.  The United States thanked Australia for raising this concern  on the proposed EU model 
certificates on composite products, which  it considered to be overly burdensome and have the 
potential of  affect ing supply chains and market access . The United States requested that the 
European  Union allow , at a minimum,  a 9-month transition period, provide a list of composite 
products that will be exempt ed from certificate  requirements,  and consider a robust risk 
management system for certification and verification. The US statement is contained in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1859 . 
3.73.  The European Union  remind ed that the  risk-based  import co nditions for composite products 
modified in 2019  were due to apply on 21 April 2021 , and specified that some  practical implementing 
measures were still under preparation . The European Union regretted that several of the conc erns 
expressed referred to EU requirements in force since 2004 that remained unchanged.  One innovation 
was the three -tier approach to categori sing composite products depending on their level of risk . 
The import conditions were now based on the risk posed by the composite products categorised in 
non-shelf-stable, shelf -stable containing processed meat , and shelf -stable containing  processed 
products of animal origin other than processed  meat. 
3.74.  The European Union stated that a longer list of composite pr oducts, extended from the 
existing list and subject to stakeholder consultation, would be exempted from controls  due to their 
lower risk . Additionally, the certification requirements would also change. A dditional information  on 
new requirements  had been pr esented in documents G/SPS/G EN/1763  and G/SPS/GEN/1786 , via 
SPS notification , by lette r, and through a specific information session . The European Union remained 
available to provide further details on the practical aspects of import conditions.  G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 21 - 
 
  3.1.19   China's recognition of equivalence for third parties introduced as part of Phase 1 
of the Economic and Trade Agreement between the United States and China - Concerns of 
Australia  
3.75.  Australia  appreciated China's assurance that Phase One of the Economic and Trade Agreement 
between the United States and China (Phase One Agreement) regarding technical SPS  measures  
would be implemented in a WTO consistent manner , in alignment with international standard -setting 
practices , and following a science - and risk -based approach . As such, Australia request ed that all 
Members receive  the same treatment granted to the United States with respect to streamlining of 
regulatory processes and equitable application of import conditions . 
3.76.  Australia ha d longstanding concerns regarding  the significant delays in obtaining 
Chinese  government appro val for export establishments for Australian agricultural commodities. 
Australia  sought  China 's commitment to apply to other countries the same assessment timeframes 
outlined in the Phase One Agreement for relevant commodities.  Australia also requested the  prompt 
amendment of relevant Chinese regulation s, where required , for the equitable application of other 
agreed changes to Chinese import requirements . Given China's commitments under  the Phase One 
Agreement, it was Australia 's understand ing that highly processed products containing poultry 
material would be eligible for import into China regardless of a country 's avian influenza status , 
on the basis of Chapter 10.4 of the OIE Terrestrial Code. Australia requested China to extend to all 
trading partners the same opportunities provided to the United States under these commitments.  
3.77.  China  thanked Australia and underscored that the Phase One Agreement  was in full 
compliance with the WTO Agreements . China noted that  food safety incidents on Austral ian meat 
products had occurred since 2019, affecting  consumer 's confidence and China's assessment of 
Australia's recommended registered companies. China expected  Australia to strengthen effectively 
the supervision and ensure the safety of meat products in accordance with the requirements of the 
bilateral agreement.  Similar situations had been faced regarding export s of aquatic products to China 
and the management of food exporting companies . China invited  Australia  to communicate 
bilaterally with the relevant Chinese authorities to promote the resolution of related issues.  
3.2  Issues previously raised  
3.2.1   EU MRLs for buprofezin, chlorothalonil, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, glufosinate, 
imazalil, ioxynil, iprodione, molinate, picoxystrobin and tepraloxydim (S TC 448) - 
Concerns of Colombia , Costa Rica , the  Dominican Republic , Ecuador , Paraguay  and the  
United States  
3.78.  Paraguay  and Colombia  requested the European Union to provide written answers to  the 
questions contained  in document G/SPS/GEN/1847 , raised together with Colombia and Guatemala . 
Paraguay clarified that this STC included the substances mancozeb, chlorpyrifos , and chlorpyrifos -
methyl.  
3.79.  Ecuador expressed concerns on the reduction of  MRLs for plant protection products that were 
crucial to manage pests and resistances in tropical climates. For instance, the reduction of the MRL 
for chlorothalonil  (G/SPS/N/EU/394 ) or for chlorpyrifos  and chlorpyrifos -methyl ( G/SPS/N/EU/360 ) 
could have severe economic consequences.  Ecuador stated there were currently no alternative 
phytosanitary products with a similar environmental or toxicological profile as chlorothalonil . 
The European Union had also questioned the environmental and sanitary effects of alternatives 
such as mancoze b, metiram, folpet , or propineb . Ecuador requested the European Union to renew 
the approval and maintain the MRL for mancozeb, used to control black sigatoka. Ecuador urged 
the European Union to take into account available  scientific information, such as information  
provided by Codex, and to provide at least 36 months  for producers in developing countries to adapt 
when the reduction of MRLs was essential.  
3.80.  Australia shared the concerns  and was awaiting the EU responses to th e comments submitted 
on the proposed MRL reduction for  chlorothalonil and propiconazole,  notified in G/SPS/N/EU/394 . 
Its grain industry was particula rly concerned,  and Australia had requested the  European Union to 
consider  an MRL of 0.05 mg/kg in pulses, instead of the proposed 0.01 mg/kg , to facilitate 
uninterrupted trade between Australia and the European Union. G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 22 - 
 
3.81.  The Dominican Republic reiterated its concerns and supported the previous interventions.  
The Dominican Republic was concerned by the proposed changes for diflu benzuron, chlorothalonil , 
and iprodione, as producers would not have enough time to find reliable alternative control 
measures. The EU measures would mainly affect exports of banana s, mango es and avocado s. 
In the Dominican Republic's view, the measures lacked robust scientific justification  and would 
create unnecessary barriers to trade. As such, it requested the European Union to reconsider 
the implementation of the measures.  
3.82.  El Salvador shared the previous ly expr essed concerns  on the negative impact of the measure 
of exports  or agricultural products from  developing countries  to the European Union . El Salvador 
was particularly concerned by the MRLs for buprofezin and chlorothalonil and reiterated its concern 
for th e various EU  regulations on MRLs. El Salvador urged the European Union to base its regulations 
on technical evidence and not to generate unjustified barriers to trade . 
3.83.  Uruguay expressed its concern on the EU approach to reduce MRLs for an increasing number  
of active substances without a complete risk assessment. Six months was an insufficient transition 
period to adapt the production and ensure compliance with the modified MRLs.  Uruguay called upon 
the European Union to take into consideration the concerns,  respond to the questions raised by 
several Members under this item  and reconsider its regulatory approach to avoid unnecessary 
barriers to trade.  
3.84.  Chile reiterated its support to  this concern on buprofezin, chlorothalonil , and mancozeb , 
highlighting its potential negative and unnecessary impact on trade and major implications for 
its domestic producers . Chile's statement is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1849 . 
3.85.  Brazil shared  this concern and recalled its previous comments in the SPS and TBT  Committees 
regarding Im plementing Regulation (EU) 017/360. In its view, t he EU measures were based on a 
hazard -based  approach and on the precautionary principle , and the  evaluations carried out by the 
European Medicines Agency  and EFSA were not conclusive regarding the genotoxic quality 
of substances such as buprofezin.  Brazil reiterated that the non -renewal of a registration was only 
a step before the reduction of MRLs, which was an SPS measure aimed at the protection of human , 
animal or plant life or health that did not necessarily comply with other obligations in the 
SPS Agreement.  The transitional periods established by several EU regulations did not allow a 
reasonable interval for producers to adapt their products and metho ds of production.  Brazil  called 
upon the European Union to provide answers to the questions raised.  
3.86.  Honduras supported the concern and asked the European Union to ensure that its measures 
did not restrict trade more than necessary and to follow Codex inter national standards.  
3.87.  Costa Rica  regretted the lack of answer s from the European Union regarding Costa  Rica's 
concerns about the impact on its production systems of the reduction of MRLs to the  level of 
detection  which, in practical terms, meant the exclusion of those substances from some pest -control 
program mes. In previous meetings , Costa Rica had specifically highlighted concerns 
on chlorothalonil, imazalil , buprofezin , and mancozeb, reiterating the lack of sci entific evidence and 
the divergence with findings of other international institutions. Costa Rica noted the  crucial function 
of the reduced number of substances available  in the market to ensure rotation in tropical conditions 
and avoid cross -resistance.  
3.88.  While noting the potential good news for imazalil, Costa Rica regretted the uncertainty and 
the economic implications for production of providing data on its safe use in banana. The EU  decision 
not to renew mancozeb meant a new challenge. Costa Rica reminde d that numerous Members had 
supported this concern in documents G/C/W/767  and G/SPS/GEN/1778  and its  revisions. Costa Rica 
urged the European Union to reconsider its regulatory approach and establish an effective dialogue 
with affected Members  to consider measures with a limited impact on food security , in particular in 
face of the consequences of the COVID -19 pandemic on the most vulnerable populations.  
3.89.  Guatemala hoped to receive  a clear answer from the European Union to the questions in 
G/SPS/GEN/1847 , raised togethe r with Colombia and Paraguay . The concerns also addressed 
the substances chlorpyrifos, chlorpyrifos -methyl and mancozeb, used for pest control . This would 
affect the agricultural sector, given the lack of effective alternatives in the market. Guatemala ask ed 
the European Union to clarify how the measure would not hinder trade from tropical countries and G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 23 - 
 
  reiterated the importan ce of  basing measures on risk analyses to avoid unnecessary trade 
restrictions. Guatemala asked the  European  Union to share the resul ts of the analysis.  
3.90.  Argentina  reiterated  its concern on the  hazard -based approach without a risk determination 
used by the European Union regarding regulations on pesticides. Argentina shared  the EU concern 
to strengthen human health protection, and highlighted the importance of ensuring SPS risk-based 
measures. Argentina was especially concerned that the increasing number of substances banned by 
the EU Commission, as indicated in G/SPS/GEN/1778/Rev.4  and G/TBT/GEN/296/Rev.4 , could 
seriously affect several Members, namely developing countries, highly depend ent on agricultural 
exports.  Argentina urged the European Union to use a risk -based approach in the analysis of 
regulatory changes and  determine the different aspects that can affect human health and the 
environment on the basis of conclusive scientific studies.  
3.91.  Canada  thanked the Members raising the concern  and reiterated the need to base decision -
making processes on risk assessment techniques developed by international organi zation s. 
Canada  requested the European Union to notify th e Committee of any anticipated change in its MRLs, 
to take Members' comments into account, to allow for transition periods for producers to adapt to 
new requirements and avoid discrimination between domestic producers and foreign exporters.  
3.92.  The Philippines  expressed  interest in this matter and stated that it would continue to monitor 
developments in this regard.  
3.93.  Indonesia supported this STC for chloro thalonil , chlorpyrifos , and mancozeb. Indonesia 
reminded that  high level s of SPS protection  should be justified scientifically . Lowering the level on 
MRLs negatively affected international trade and Indonesia urged the European Union to harmonize 
MRLs for some active substances with international standards, guidelines , and recommendations.  
3.94.  Reiterating its support, Peru was concerned by the increasing number  of MRLs deviating from 
Codex international standards , which  resulted in negative economic effects on its agricultural exports 
and restricted trade more than necessary.  
3.95.  Panama  echoed interventions by previous delegations and reiterated the support to this STC . 
3.96.  Nicaragua shared the concern on the EU policy to modify pesticide MRLs , namely for  imazalil, 
buprofez in, glufosinate , diflubenzur on, chlorothalonil , and picoxystrobin, used to control pests and 
weeds common in tropical areas.  The legitimate objective to reach the appropriate level of consumer 
protection should be achieved based on the relevant scientific information, joint collaboration , and 
through t he relevant international organi zation s. Nicaragua joined other delegations in requesting 
the European Union to engage in a constructive dialogue with its trad ing partners on 
the implementation of such measures.  
3.97.  The United States expressed concern s over th e EU implementation of unnecessarily restrictive 
pesticide policies, which  were adversely impacting global agricultural production and trade.  
The United States raised a number of new questions for the EU and called on the European Union to 
join with its tr ading partners in identifying mutually beneficial solutions. The United States submitted 
its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/1858 . 
3.98.  The European Union  thanked Members sponsoring the concern and reminded that most 
questions had  been previously  answer ed. Written responses were subsequently  provide d in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1872 . The European Union stated that MRLs should be set at the lowest 
achievable level consistent with good agricultural practices to protect consumers. On scientific 
evidence, the European Union noted that decisions to approve or to revoke  approval of active 
substances and on MRLs were taken based on rigorous risk assessments by EU m ember States and 
EFSA. Information for decisions was available on EFSA 's website and on the rationale of each 
EU decision. The European Union fully supported  the activities of the relevant ISSBs , including 
Codex, and their public, animal and plant health measures were based on those relevant 
international standards as much as possible. Regulation (EC) 396/2005 stipulated that pesticide 
MRLs set by Codex should be considered when setting EU MRLs, taking into account the 
corresponding GAP, and the European Union was aligned with more than 70% of Codex limits 
established between 2012 and 2019.  G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 24 - 
 
3.99.  Referring to transparency and the approach of dual notification  for relevant measures , the 
European Union noted that comments on TBT measures should be addressed to the TBT enquiry 
point even when th ese were notified, for information  only, under the SPS Agreement. 
The European  Union had taken into account  and responded in writing  to comments  on the revocation 
of authori zation of specific  substances  on MRLs from Members on measures notified under the  TBT 
and/or SPS Agreements . The European Union specifically referred to notification G/SPS/N/EU/394  
on chlorot halonil, lowering all MRLs to the relevant  limit of quantification, in view of the concerns 
identified by EFSA , applicable as of August 2021 . On chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos -methyl , the 
European Union stated having sufficient scientific evidence that both substances posed serious 
concerns to human health . The regulations concerning the ir non-approval, notified to  the 
TBT Committee , had been adopted and published on 10 January 2020 . They  required 
EU member  States to withdraw authorizations from plant protection products containing  chlorpyrifos 
and chlorpyrifos -methyl  by 16 February 2020, with a short period of grace until 16 April 2020 . 
The European Union had notified to the Committee the Commission proposal to lower MRLs for 
chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos -methyl to the level of quantification, w ith a three -month deferral period 
for the application of the lower MRLs.  Finally, the draft Implementing Regulation concerning the non -
renewal of the approval of mancozeb, in accordance with 1107/2009, had been  notified to the 
TBT Committee on 17 April 2020. During the evaluation of the substance, concerns were identified 
by EFSA. Mancozeb did not meet the approval criteria as outlined  in Article 4 of Regulation  (EC) 
1107/2009  and could not be currently approved.  EU member States must withdraw existing 
authorizations of plant protection products containing mancozeb  at the latest by six  months after 
the date of entry into force of the Implementing Regulation . It was likely that separate action s would 
take place regarding the MRLs, which would follow  the corresponding SPS  procedures.  
3.100.   Paraguay pointed  out that most of the EU answers had not provide d the full information 
requested  over the last two years . Paraguay regretted that no additional information, relative to 
previous interventions, had been provided in response to the new elements raised by Paraguay and 
other delegations.  
3.2.2   EU legislation on endocrine disrupt ors (STC 382) - Concerns of the Dominican  
Republic  and Paraguay  
3.101.   Paraguay  reiterated its concern regarding the EU l egislation on endocrine disruptors. 
Paraguay referred to its communicat ion in document G/SPS/GEN/1 846, containing  a series of 
questions submitted to the European Union , mainly on scientific criteria for the determination of 
endocrine disrupting properties for plant protection products . 
3.102.   Noting that this issue had been on the agenda of the Committee  for over two years, 
the Dominican Republic reiterated its  concern about the approach  adopted by the European Union  
based on hazard  instead of an assessment of risk . The Dominican Republic noted  that 
the European  Union had not demonstrated the existence of a risk or how its measures would reduce 
this risk. The Dominican Republic expressed  concerns  about the impacts of the EU approach on its 
exports , in particular in light of the COVID -19 pandemic. The Dominican Rep ublic urged the European 
Union to avoid imposing unnecessarily trade restrictive measures . In that context, the Dominican 
Republic highlighted the socioeconomic consequences of  the measures for  farmers, who were 
particularly vulnerable.  
3.103.   Supporting the conc ern, Brazil  stated that technology, innovation , and research on 
plant protection products were important drivers for the  development of a resilient, stable , and 
sustainable  agriculture in tropical regions.  Brazil urged the European Union to keep in mind the 
importance of  conducting assessments appropriate to the  circumstance s and the need to obtain the 
information necessary for an objective assessment of risk that does not create measures more trade  
restrictive than required. In addition, Brazil aske d the E uropean Union  to clarify how it will apply the 
cut-off criteria  set out in Regulation (EU) 528/2012 and Annex II  to Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 for 
the establishment of  effective and science -based import tolerances, as well  as on the definition of 
transition periods.  
3.104.   Chinese Taipei  thanked Paraguay and the Dominican Republic for raising this issue and 
recalled its suggestion  at the previous Committee meeting to have additional research  on endocrine  
disrupt ors. Chinese Taipei had just received a response from the  European  Union , which its experts 
were reviewing . In the interim, Chinese Taipei noted that EFSA and the European Chemicals Agency 
had prepared guidance for the identification of endocrine disruptor s, but that the criteria of endocrine G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 25 - 
 
  disrupting activity remained  unclear. Chinese Taipei recommended  that EFSA provide clear criteria 
on endocrine disrupting activity induced by plant protection products  and requested a list of plant 
protection products exhibiting endocrine disrupting activity  classified in terms of their effect s. 
Chinese Taipei also requested the European  Union  to submit further scientific evidence regarding 
the effects of endocrine  disrupting compounds.  
3.105.   As set out in  its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/1849,  Chile took issue with the  potential 
unneces sary restrictions on the use of pesticides and with the  European Union's  hazard -based 
approach.  Reiterating its concern regarding  the E U approach to regulating pesticides and MRLs,  
Guatemala  requested the European Union to reconsider its approach and base its measures on a 
risk evaluation.  Costa Rica equally deplored that the European Union adopted a  hazard -based 
approach , instead of  relying  on a risk assessment and scientific evidence in acco rdance with the 
SPS Agreement.  
3.106.   Canada  continued to ask  the E uropean Union  to amend its hazard -based regulation and 
consider both hazards and risks for all active substances in its regulatory decision -making.  
The European  Union  had referred to  its process for establishing import tolerances for active  
substances triggering  cut-off criteria  and Canada  sought  information on how the E uropean Union  
would  base the setting of an import tolerance for an active substance falling under the cut -off criteria 
on an assessment of risk and how it would  take into account risk assessment techniqu es developed 
by relevant international organizations. While waiting for  a clear and predictable process , 
Canada  request ed that import tolerances for active substances not re -authorized in the 
European  Union  be maintained at existing levels to allow trade t o continue.  In addition, 
Canada  encourage d the E uropean Union  to notify proposed regulations stemming from its Farm to 
Fork Strategy , underlining the importance of providing significant advance notice between adoption 
and entry into force of regulations to enable  the industry to adapt.  Canada also expressed hope  that 
any regulatory changes would  be commensurate with  the level of risk and be establis hed in a 
coherent and transparent way . 
3.107.   Uruguay, Peru, Honduras, and Colombia also took the floor supporting the concern. 
Uruguay  reiterate d its systemic concerns with the EU hazard -based approach instead of a risk-based 
approach built on conclusive scienti fic evidence. Uruguay considered such an approach to c ontribute 
little, if anything,  to protecting public health. Uruguay expressed support for the work of Codex to 
develop harmonized risk -based approach es to protect health while facilitating trade . Noting the 
serious consequences for developing countries, Uruguay encouraged  the European  Union  to listen 
to the concerns expressed by Members and reconsider its approach . In the same vein, Peru deplored 
that th e European  Union maintained a hazard -based approach  instead of basing its regulations on a 
risk assessment, leading to measures that are more restrictive than nec essary. Honduras joined 
other Members requesting the European  Union to  establish criteria base d on a n assessment  of risk 
and harmonization with Codex MRLs.  
3.108.   The European Union  thanked Members who showed interest in the ongoing work on 
endocrine disruptors.  The European Union recalled that scientific criteria to identify endocrine 
disruptors, based on the WHO definition of endocrine disruptors, had been put in place in the 
European Union and that criteria to identify pesticides ha d been applicable since November 2018. 
The European Union spec ified that the criteria also apply to on -going procedures for the approval or 
renewal of approval of active substances.  The European Union indicated that it had answered 
questions and regularly informed Members of relevant developments , and that n o new inf ormation 
was available with respect to what has previously been communicated.  The European Union  indicated 
that it would respond to Paraguay 's questions  in writing after the meeting ; the responses  were 
subsequently circulated as  document G/SPS/GEN/187 1. 
3.2.3   New EU MRLs for lambda -cyhalot hrin (STC 459) - Concerns of China  
3.109.   China reiterated its concern regarding the EU amendment of M RLs for lambda -cyhalothrin in 
tea from 1 mg/kg to 0.01 mg/kg which, in its view, was inconsistent with Article s 5.1 and 5.4  of the 
SPS Agreement.  China recommended  that the European Union  implement the original limit since 
there was no health risk to consumers . In case of a new limit,  China recommended that  the 
European  Union consider the tea planting and tea production period s and provide a transition period 
of at least one year  for Chinese tea producers  to adjust . G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 26 - 
 
3.110.   Paraguay thanked China  and referred  to its previous intervention  on this topic , contained in  
the report of the previous meeting ( document G/SPS/R/97/Rev.1 ), where  Paraguay had expressed  
concern that the EU MRLs  for lambda -cyhalothrin  had been lowered to 0.01 mg/kg despite 
Codex  levels and  had invited the  European  Union to follow international standards.  
3.111.   The European Union  reminded the Committee that it had amended its legislation in 2018 
and that the amendment of MRLs for lambda -cyhalothrin was based on two risk assessments carried 
out by EFSA , as published on  its website in 2015 and 2017,  respectively.  The European  Union stated 
that EFSA had performed risk assessments for the MRLs of the products on which trials and 
information had been  submitted by EU member States, non -EU countries , or stakeholders at the 
time and that a vailable Codex MRLs had also been assessed.  The European  Union further s tated that 
EFSA's reasoned opinion indicated that the trials provided on tea were insufficient to derive an MRL 
and further information on the Good Agricultural Practice s on which an old import tolerance had 
been granted ha d not been provided. For herbal i nfusions , no data had been  submitted to EFSA.  
For products for which no information was available  (including products in the lines "others " in the 
different groups of products listed in Annex I to Regulation (EC) 396/2005 ), MRLs were set at the 
limit of de termination , i.e. 0.01 mg/kg  for lambda -cyhalothrin . 
3.112.   The European Union indicated  that, under Regulation (EC) 396/2005 , there was an 
opportunity to grant  transitional measures to keep  products on the market that were compliant with 
the legislation and placed on the market before the application date, but this was without prejudice 
to the obligation to ensure a high level of consumer protection.  In other words, no  transitional period 
could be granted for MRLs of pesticides for which a health risk was identified , as was the case for 
lambda -cyhalothrin for kale and rice grain. The European Union concluded that  it would continue to 
apply previous MRLs to products which were produced or impo rted into the  European  Union before 
the application  date of the proposal, except for MRLs for kale and rice grain.  
3.2.4   New EU definition of the fungicide folpet (STC 447) - Concerns of China  
3.113.   China  reiterated its concern on the EU residue definition for the fun gicide folpet and invited 
the European Union to align its measures with the Codex residue definition.  
3.114.   The European Union responded that it was aware of the concerns raised by China in the 
Committee and bilaterally and that the EU residue definition was sti ll under consideration as part of 
the on -going renewal procedure of the active substance . The European Union assured China that it 
would report on any developments in due course  in the Committee and bilaterally . 
3.2.5   General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193) - Concerns of the European Union  
3.115.   The European Union  reiterated its concerns regarding  unjustified and long delays in 
approving imports of beef from the E uropean Union in light of BSE concerns of certain Memb ers. 
The European Union took the view that t hese delays in approval procedures were inconsistent with  
Article  8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement.  The European Union  urged Members, in particular  
China,  Chinese Taipei, and the  United  States, to comply with t heir obligations under the 
SPS Agreement  and international standards and to  lift remaining BSE -related restrictions for all 
EU member States. Concluding on a positive note, the European Union welcome d the progress made 
by Japan  in approving imports from several  EU member States, hoping that remaining applications 
would  be finali zed shortly.  
3.116.   China responded that it had always attached great importance to and followed the standards 
of the OIE. China affirmed its willingness to carry out further  technical exchanges with relevant 
EU member States. Chinese Taipei responded that its  competent authority  reference d international 
standards and regulations conducted by different countries to deal with  systematic inspection  of 
certain products, including beef. Chinese Taipei indicated that requirements for beef included 
systematic inspection,  food safety questionnaires  review, risk assessment, on -site inspection  and 
risk communication , and that the time needed for this approval  process  depend ed on 
the completeness of the information provided by the applicant countries and the time taken by  
the applicant countries  to pro vide supplementary documents. Chinese Taipei further indicated that, 
in recent years, it had  approved import s of beef from the Netherlands and Sweden through th is 
approval process  and assured that it was willing to cooperate with EU member States on this issue.  G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 27 - 
 
  3.2.6   China's import restrictions due to African swine fever (STC 392) - Concerns of the 
European Union  
3.117.   The European Union again raised concerns over China's  ASF-related  country -wide ban s on 
pork products. The European Union recalled that the issue h ad first been raised in July 2015, without 
a positive response from China to date, despite China having the same sanitary profile than 
the European  Union. The European Union emphasized its regionalization measures  and request ed 
China to allow trade from di sease -free areas. While appreciating  the dialogue between several 
countries  and China, the European Union urged China to identify its procedures, counterparts , and 
information requirements to engage in meaningful exchanges.  
3.118.   China stressed that ASF is a severe infectious disease and that  it had suffered severe losses 
because of the outbreak of ASF, including economic and management costs in conducting eradication  
measures. China observed that ASF continued to occur in several EU member States and assured  
that it stood  ready to cooperate with the European Union at a technical level.  
3.2.7   Korea's import restrictions due to African swine fever (STC  393) - Concerns of the 
European Union  
3.119.   The European Union  reiterated its concern over Korea's ASF-related ban on pork and pork 
products from several EU members  States since February 2014, which did not take into account 
EU regionalization measures. The European Union indicated that, since the ban, Korea had continued 
to receive detailed information on all outbreaks  in full transparency and had received all necessary 
evidence demonstrating  that the free areas in the affected EU member States were likely to remain 
free. The European Union urged Korea to finalize the risk assessment  and adopt trade measures 
consistent with Articles 2 -3, 6, and 8 of the SPS  Agreement. In addition, the  European  Union noted 
that Korea had reported ASF outbreaks in its own territory and had no t stopped production and sale 
of pigs and pi g products in its whole country, while placing country -wide bans on EU member States. 
The European Union  remain ed open to working with Korea  but urged  Korea to lift the se country -
wide bans without delay and recogni ze the EU harmoni zed measures.  
3.120.   The Russian Federation  shared EU concern. The  Russian  Federation  had requested market 
access for pig products on numerous occasions since 2014 and had provided all relevant information 
regarding  ASF control measures  and regionalization. According to  the OIE Terrestrial Code , imports 
of pig products from a country with cases of ASF were possible under certain conditions . 
Korea's  position, however,  had remain ed unchanged  and Korea appeared to require a significant 
improvement of the ASF situation in the Russia n Federation . The Russian Federation  called upon  
Korea to comply with  its obligations under Articles  3 and 6 of the SPS Agreement.  
3.121.   Emphasizing that ASF  was highly co ntagious and difficult to control , Korea indicated  that its 
import restrictions from countries with ASF outbreaks  were a provisional precautionary measure 
consistent with the SPS Agreement . Korea noted that exporting countries ha d the burden of proof 
to demonstrate to importing countries that region s were free of ASF. Korea informed the Committee 
of bilateral discussions regarding  the recognition of ASF regionalization and risk assessment s carried 
out for countries where the ASF situation ha d stabilized . 
3.2.8   Ukraine's restrictions on swine products (STC 463) - Concerns of Brazil  
3.122.   Brazil reiterated its concern about Ukraine's continued embargo on Brazilian pork and other 
swine products. Brazil explained that it had a zone free from CSF concentrat ing over 95% of swine 
production and 100% of exports of pigs and pig products  and that this free zone  had been recognized 
by the OIE in 2015. Brazil had notified an occurrence of CSF to the OIE in 2018, which had happened  
500 kilometres away from t he border of its disease -free zone. Other outbreaks had occurred but in 
three states not part of the disease -free zone. None of these outbreaks had altered  the international 
recognition granted to the disease -free zone. Brazil  explained that it was continuously providing all 
technical clarifications requested by Ukraine and had held a bilateral meeting in March 2020.  
3.123.   Brazil underscored that the CSF outbreak had been notified  to the OIE in due observance of 
OIE Guidelines, within 24 hours of receiving confirmation via laboratory analysis. Brazil added that 
it follow ed strict surveillance and risk -mitigation procedures t o prevent the introduction of the 
disease into the disease -free zone. Brazil  remarked that Ukraine was the only Member to impose G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 28 - 
 
restrictions on importation and transit of Brazilian swine products. This was in non -compliance with 
Resolution No. 29 of 25 Ma y 2018 containing the model health certificate that had been  bilaterally 
agreed, and Decree No. 71 of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine of 2004, which specified that Brazil 
should be divided into regions with respect to trade restrictions imposed due to incidence of CSF. 
Brazil, therefore, called upon Ukraine to recognize the principles of regionalization and reconsider 
its restrictive measures.  
3.124.   Ukraine responded that it was in close contact with Brazil and assured that it was aiming at 
resolving this mat ter based on international standards. Ukraine added that an audit was due to take 
place in Brazil but that it had not yet received an official request to initiate this process.  
3.2.9   Korea's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian influenza  
(STC  456) - Concerns of the European Union  
3.125.   The European Union  reiterated  its concern about Korea's country -wide bans on poultry 
imports from certain EU member States due to HPAI. The European  Union had  provided information 
on the sanitary control systems in place  on numerous occasions  to demonstrate that avian influenza 
was reliably controlled , and disease -free areas were likely to remain free , but Korea was  impos ing 
lengthy review procedures . Korea had  not offer ed, thus far,  any productive dialogue to implement 
the regionalization concept. The European Union underscored that Korea implemented 
regionalization domestically when confronted with HPAI outbreaks on its territory  but continued to 
impose countr y-wide bans on EU member States. The European Union requested Korea  to define 
the information requirements and structure for a productive regulatory dialogue . While committed 
to continue working with Korea, the European Union urged Korea to lift the countr y-wide bans and 
recogni ze the its harmoni zed regionali zation measures.  
3.126.   The Russian Federation supported  the EU trade concern . The Russian Federation stated  that, 
according to Korea, m arket access for Russian poultry  would only be granted when the entire 
territory of  the Russian Federation  was recogni zed as HPAI-free. Yet, the Russian Federation 
emphasized, the OIE Terrestrial Code allow ed the imports of poultry products from HPAI infected 
countries under certain conditions . The Russian Federation thus  called upon  Korea to respect 
Article s 3 and 6 of the SPS Agreement.  
3.127.   Korea  stated that  it had imposed an import ban on HPAI -affected countries according to the 
import health requirements for poultry and poultry meat agreed upon with an exporting country. 
Korea emphasized that, b ased on OIE standards, if HPAI -free status  was recovered in an exporting 
country , it would quickly evaluate  the status and lift  the import ban.  Korea  informed that bilateral 
consultations with EU member States were due to take place to move forward on the procedures , 
which, in Korea 's views, should be  based on  the principle  of reciprocity . 
3.2.10   China's import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza (STC 406)  - 
Concerns of the European Union  
3.128.   The European Union raised its continued concern with China's imposition, since 2015, of 
country -wide bans on several EU member States on account of HPAI. The European Union  had 
repeatedly  urged China to recognize the princ iple of regionalization , lift country -wide import 
restrictions , and take more targeted measures . The European Union regretted that there was not 
much progress to report. The European Union lamented that China continued to disregard the  
concept of regionali zation and the OIE Terrestrial Code, while  express ing its continued interest to 
working constructively with China on this issue.  
3.129.   China  noted that importation of poultry products  from 14 EU member States had been 
banned due to  HPAI outbreak s. China indicated that it would  actively advance  the risk assessment 
process , following the relevant OIE rules and the SPS Agreement , for EU member States where the 
epidemic ha d been effectively controlled . Meanwhile, China welcome d the continued  technical 
discuss ions with the European Union and its members States to resolve the issue . G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 29 - 
 
  3.2.11   South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to highly pathogenic avian 
influenza (STC  431) - Concerns of the European Union  
3.130.   The European Union reiterated its concern with South  Africa's approach to regulating HPAI. 
The European Union regretted that South Africa maintained country -wide bans on poultry products 
from six EU member States, even though those States had been free from HPAI for many months. 
The European Union had been in discussions with South Africa to explain its control measures and 
regionalization system and South Africa had also carried out inspections in several 
EU member  States. The Europ ean Union called for South Africa to respect its obligations and allow 
trade of all safe poultry products from the disease -free EU member States and disease -free zones . 
3.131.   South Africa  reminded the Committee of its  concerns  voiced  in previous Committee meetin gs 
about the application of the concept of regionalization in the European Union  with respect to HPAI . 
In that regard, South Africa considered the EU measures to be inconsistent  with the  OIE Terrestrial 
Code. South Africa also addressed the issue of openin g markets following an outbreak. South Africa 
referred to audit s on implemented controls by Members  and reserved the right to open its markets 
based on the measures applied , conduct a physical inspection , or continue trade suspensions . 
While  these issues had been discussed in numerous meetings, South Africa remained committed  to 
engage  with the  European  Union . 
3.2.12   The Philippines' trade restrictions on imports of meat (STC  466) - Concerns of the 
European Union  
3.132.   The European Union  reported again tha t the Philippines did not adhere to agreed OIE 
international standards.  The Philippines did not apply the regionali zation principles to the European 
Union and maintain ed a policy of imposing scientifically unjustified country -wide bans on imports of 
meat and meat products from EU member States on grounds of ASF or HPAI.  Nine EU member 
States were subject to country -wide import bans imposed by the Philippines on pork meat or poultry 
meat and relevant products.  Bans on imports of pork and poultry from the entire territory of an 
EU member State lacked scientific justification and were against the principle of 
regionali zation/zoning. The European Union thus consider ed that the se measures were inconsistent 
with Art icles 2.2 and 6 of the SPS Agreement.  The European Union was transparent on the 
regionali zation measures put in place and provided all the necessary evidence to the Philippines 
demonstrating that trade was safe and c ould continue. The European Union remain ed ready to 
engage further with the Philippines with the objective to minimi ze the disruption of trade. 
The European Union reiterate d its call on the Philippines to respect its international obligations and 
allow trade of pork and poultry from disease -free member States and disease -free zones.  
3.133.   The Philippines  emphasized the provisional nature of its measures restricting imports of meat 
from countries with ASF or HPAI outbreaks , based on available pertinent information consistent with 
Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement.  In reviewing its measure pursuant to Article s 5 and 6 of the 
SPS Agreement , the Philippines viewed as  imperative the consi deration of  prevalence of the diseases 
and the effectiveness of controls  to be supported by convincing evidence of disease contraction or 
elimination. The Philippines indicated that it continued  to monitor the disease situation and sought  
to obtain additional information necessary for the review of the provisional import bans. It further 
indicated that it had  lifted the provisional import ban s imposed on pork and poultry meat from 
Belgium and Poland , following information from OIE official reports and documentary evidence 
provided by veterinary services authorities.  The Philippines welcomed the continued  discussion with 
the European Union on this matter.  
3.2.13   Saudi Arabia's temporary suspension of Brazilian poultry exporting 
establishments (STC  486) - Concerns of Brazil  
3.134.   Brazil  reiterated its concern  regarding the temporary suspen sion by Saudi  Arabia of  imports 
from two major Brazilian poultry -producing plants  since February 2019, without providing clear 
technical reasons . Brazil noted Saudi Arabia 's reference to media reports on an investigation 
conducted in Brazil  regarding an  alleged fraud scheme in the production of animal feed. 
Brazil  indicated that n either of the plants affected by the suspension of imports  was involved in th is 
investigation  and all necessary technical information had been provided to Saudi Arabia.  G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 30 - 
 
3.135.   Saudi Arabia responded that it  had received certain documents from Brazil, which it was 
reviewing. Saudi Arabia stressed the importance of international cooperation between Members and 
reaffirmed its commitment to facilitate bilateral discussions with Brazil to resolve this matter.  
3.2.14   Indonesia's approval procedures for animal and plant products (STC  441) - 
Concerns of the European Union  
3.136.   The European Union shared its  concern  about the lack of transparency of and undue delays 
in Indonesia 's approval procedures for import s of plant and animal products.  The European Union 
regretted the limited feedback received from Indonesia following a  request for information on 
its market access approval procedures for agri -food products from EU member States pending export 
applications. Specifically, t he European Union expressed concerns about the lack of progress on 
export applications for beef, dairy, poultry, por k, and plant products, which in some instances had 
been submitted more than  six years ago. The E uropean Union  reported additional difficulties with 
its export of  dairy products from already approved member States, highlighting delays in  the renewal  
of import  licenses . The European Union requested Indonesia to be transparent about its approval 
procedure s and finalize pending market access applications without undue delay . 
3.137.   Indonesia  thanked the European Union for its statement and for the continued bilateral 
dialogue. Indonesia indicated  that all necessary information and updates had been p rovided  both 
in multilateral and bilateral forums . Indonesia indicated that approval processes on plant products 
for Austri a, Bulgaria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal , and Spain 
had been completed . On animal products, approval processes for Austria, France, Ireland, Belgium, 
Italy, Spain, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Poland, Latvia, and Lithua nia were being completed , with 
information provided to countries in  a transparent and timely manner. Regarding dairy products, 
Indonesia indicated  the dates to submit  application s for 2021. Indonesia  expressed  its willingness 
to continue a bilateral dialogue with the European Union . 
3.2.15   India's new requirements for animal feed in the Food Safety and Standards Act, 
2006 (dated 27 January 2020) (STC 479) - Concerns of the United States  
3.138.   The United States  indicated that it remained concerned with India's new directive on  animal 
feed, which it expected to have  a significant impact on trade in feed ingredients and possibly on 
meat and dairy products from livestock . Having  commented  on the requirements imposed  by the 
directive, including on India 's notification obligations, as detailed in its statement contained in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1866 , the United Sta tes requested India to suspend implementation and 
provide necessary information.  
3.2.16   China's administrative measures for registration of overseas manufacturers of 
imported food (26 November 2019) (STC 485) - Concerns of the United States  
3.139.   The United States reiterated its concern  regarding  China 's draft  "Administrative Measures 
for Registration of Overseas Producers of Imported Foods ". In particular, t he United States 
underscored that  the draft measures appear ed to apply  to all food, including low -risk products a nd 
products with health or safety certificates , and to require foreign authorities to confirm continuous 
compliance with China 's laws, regulations, and standards.  The US statement is contained in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1862 . 
3.140.   Japan and Thai land supported the concern. Japan worried that China 's proposed measures 
would create unnecessary barriers to trade and have negative impacts on trade. Japan requested  
China to notify its measures, provide relevant information, and address Members ' concern s. 
Thailand  expressed concerns on the draft measure for registration of overseas producers of imported 
food. While recognizing the importance of the measure for ensuring food safety for consumers in 
China, Thailand requested China to: (i)  notify the draft measure and provide time for comments 
given the measure's potential significant effect on international trade; (ii)  list products affected and 
apply the measure only to high -risk food products; and (iii)  indicate the  expected date  of entry into 
force and p rovide for  a reasonable time period for Members to comply . 
3.141.   China  thanked the United States and other Members . Reiterating that the revision was at a 
drafting stage , China reassured Members  that, once finalized , it would notify  the draft for Members ' 
comments.  G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 31 - 
 
  3.2.17   US non -recognition of the pest -free status in the European Union for Asian 
longhorn beetle and citrus longhorn beetle (STC 471) - Concerns of the European Union  
3.142.   The European Union  reiterated its concern concerning the United S tates' failure  to recognize 
the pest -free status in the European Union  for Asian longhorn beetle and citrus longhorn beetle. 
The European Union indicated that a ll the information demonstrating the absence of these pests in 
21 EU member States and regarding the pest -free area status of the remaining EU member States 
had been provided . On this basis, the United States had satisfactorily finali zed its scientific 
assessment. The European Union urged the United States to complete th e last administrative  step 
of publishing its Final Federal Notice without delay , in compliance with its commitment under the 
SPS Agreement on approval procedures.  
3.143.   The United States assured the European Union that it was working through its administrative 
procedures to process this request . The United States noted the bilateral technical engagement  on 
the matter and looked forward to continued cooperation.  
3.2.18   India's fumigation requirements for grain and other products (STC 472) - 
Concerns of the Russian Federation  
3.144.   The Russian Fede ration  reiterated its concern regarding India 's mandatory requirement to 
use methyl bromide for cereal fumigation. The Russian  Federation reported that, since 2017, it had  
repeatedly shared analysis for the justification and feasibility of the use of phosphine against grain 
crop pests, as well as comparative effectiveness analysis for fumigation conducted with methyl 
bromide and phosphine. At the June 2020 Committee meeting, India had affirmed that it wo uld 
conduct a comparative analysis of the effectiveness of phosphine and methyl bromide and had later 
assured that it would share relevant information, but the Russian Federation was still awaiting a 
response. Noting that  the use of methyl bromide was limited by the Montreal Protocol on Substances 
that Deplete the Ozone Layer , the Russian Federation urge d India to lift its ban in accordance with 
prevailing international practice.  
3.145.   Canada  thanked  the Russian Federation  and recalled its earlier support for thi s STC. 
Canada  expressed  concern s about India 's mandatory fumigation requirements and the impact 
these  requirements had on the trade of pulses . In this regard, Canada  referred to its intervention in 
relation to  the new STC it had raised regarding India's import requirements for pulses.  
3.146.   At the request of India, the Chairperson referred to India 's statement uploaded on eAgenda, 
whereby India  indicated  that its regulatory authorities were processing the Russian Federation 's 
request and that it remained available to consult bilaterally  on this matter . 
3.2.19   Thailand's phytosanitary restrictions on imports of fresh citrus fruits due to sweet 
orange scab (STC 470) - Concerns of Japan  
3.147.   Japan  reiterated its concern regarding Thailand's phytosanitary restrictions on imports of 
fresh citrus fruits due to sweet orange scab and regretted that Thailand had not taken into account 
the proposal of  equivalence of the alternative set of phytosanitary measures , including visual 
inspections of all f ruits, proposed by Japan . Additionally, Japan requested Thailand to provide a PRA  
report in case of non -acceptance of the equivalence of measures , and pointed out that the USDA 
APHIS document used by Thailand as the basis for the requested treatments could be used as a 
reference, but not as a PRA report for citrus fruits from Japan.  
3.148.   Thailand  highlighted the need to apply effective mitigating measures to ensure safe trade 
and protect its territory from the introduction of the sweet orange sca b, considered a  quarantine 
pest in Thailand . Thailand believed that its risk management measures were not more restrictive 
than necessary and requested Japan to comply with the established requirements . Thailand 
expressed its willingness to engage with Jap an bilaterally.  
3.2.20   US import restrictions on apples and pears (STC 439) - Concerns of the European 
Union  
3.149.   The European Union regretted that the United States  continued to  refuse imports of apples 
and pears from the European Union under a systems approach. The European Union recalled that G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 32 - 
 
the United States had concluded, several years ago,  that imports of apples and pears could take 
place under a systems approach. Yet, the final administrative step of publishing the relevant rule 
had been blocked , without justification for the delay. The European Union took the view that the 
pre-clearance programme , which the United States continued to  apply, was not economically viable  
for EU apples and pears growers and that the US market was de facto  closed. The European Union 
urged the United States to allow imports of apples and pears under the agreed systems approach 
without any further delay.  
3.150.   The United States  responded that it co ntinue d to work on this request,  noting that the 
European Union  was able to export apples and pears under the existing pre -clearance program me. 
The United States expressed its appreciation for the bilateral engagement on this issue.  
3.3  Information on resoluti on of issues ( G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.20 ) 
3.151.   The Secretariat  informed  Members  that it had contacted 44 Members to seek information 
regarding the status (resolved, partially resolved or not reported as resolved) of STCs that had not 
been discussed since October 2017 : 35 STCs of these STCs had been reported as resolve d and 
42 STCs as partially resolved. Th e result of this exercise was contained in document  RD/SPS/ 114, 
which also include d the results of similar exercise s undertaken in 2013 and 2017. 
4  OPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPS AGREEMENT  
4.1  Equivalence  
4.1.  No Member provided any information under this agenda item.  
4.2  Pest- and disease -free areas (regionalization)  
4.2.1   Information from Members  
4.2.1.1   Colombia - Self-declaration of a zone free of Aujeszky's disease in 15 departments  
4.2.  Colombia  referred to G/SPS/GEN/1856 , notifying the self-declaration of a zone free of 
Aujeszky's disease in Colombia in line with OIE guidelines . Colombia specified that this area account s 
for 95 % of the country's industrialized swine production and is home to the main genetic centers  
and slaughterhouses f or the export of pigs . 
4.2.1.2   Mexico - Declarations of areas free from large avocado seed weevils, small 
avocado seed weevils and avocado seed moths ( G/SPS/GEN/1824 , G/SPS/GEN/1825)  
4.3.  Mexico  reported o n document s G/SPS/GEN/1824  and G/SPS/GEN/1825  regarding the 
declaratio n of several areas located in the  states of Guerrero, Michoacán de Ocampo , and Mexico as 
areas free from the large avocado seed weevil ( Heilipus  lauri), the small avocado  seed weevil 
(Conotrachelus aguacatae  and C. perseae ), and the avocado seed moth ( Stenoma catenifer ). 
Mexico  indicated  that phytosanitary measures had been  taken to maintain and protect the se areas.  
4.3  Operation of transparency provisions  
4.4.  The Secretariat recalled  the background of eAgenda  and introduced the report on the use of 
the SPS eAgenda contained in G/SPS/GEN/1818 . Based on Members' feedback after the June 2020 
Committee meeting, in the informal consultations held on 16 September 2020 , and in the 
TBT Committee, several update s had been implemented, as demonstra ted in the refresher session 
organi zed by the Secretariat on 12 October. The main updates were the following, as communicated 
to Members on 13 October: the possibility to raise jointly an intervention (other than an STC) that 
another Member ha d put on the agenda ; the c reation of a drop -down list of issues previously raised 
under the item "Monitoring of the use of international standards "; the p ossibility of downloading 
statements uploaded on eAgenda ; the option to save STCs as draft s before rais ing or support ing; 
the inclusion of a direct link to the specific STC s referenced in the email alerts; the inclusion of 
hyperlinks to the corresponding STC s in the SPS IMS and to the relevant documents in DocsOnLine 
in the recapitulative Excel files f or previ ously raised STCs ; the addition of airgrams and annotated G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 33 - 
 
  draft agendas for all previous meetings; and the activation of  the count number of STCs per Member 
under "My STCs ". The Secretariat remained available to provide specific training upon request.  
4.5.  The United States thanked the Secretariat , acknowledging that its suggestions had  been taken  
into account. eAgenda had become a tool that complemented the valuable verbal engagement and 
the dynamic s in the Committee . 
4.6.  Colombia thanked the Secretariat for eAgend a, acknowledging the crucial role of the platform 
in the current  year. The tool complemented the dialogue maintained in the meetings and made it 
easier to follow topics of interest . 
4.7.  The Chairperson recalled that, as proposed at the informal SPS consultations on 16 September, 
the annual report on the  overview of the implementation of the transparency provisions of the 
SPS Agreement ( G/SPS/ GEN/804  and revisions ) would  now be issued in March of every year along 
with the annual report on notifications and STCs ( G/SPS/ GEN/204  and revisions ). The issuance of 
both reports at the same time , in March,  would allow coverage of the same reporting period  and 
facilitate analys es and comparisons.  
4.4  Control, inspection and approval procedures  
4.8.  The Chairperson recalled that this new agenda item had been included based on the 
recommendations in the Fifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of the SPS Agreement. 
Members were invited to share any experiences  and raise any questions or concerns regarding the 
implementation of Annex C of the SPS Agreement.  
4.4.1   Information from M embers  
4.4.1.1   Canada - Experiences and approaches to inspection ( G/SPS/GEN/1835 ) 
4.9.  Canada  highlig hted specific information available regarding inspection initiatives , namely the 
Standard Inspection Procedure (SIP), outlining a common inspection approach that would apply a 
consistent method of inspection for all regulated commodities, and the Operation al Procedure: Meat 
Compliance Verification System (CVS), providing guidance to inspection staff on how to conduct 
inspections in all licensed meat processing, storage , and slaughter establishments. 
Canada's  statement was submitted in document G/SPS/GEN/1835 . 
4.4.2   Working Group on Approval  Procedures ( G/SPS/W/3 28/Rev.1 ) 
4.4.2.1   Report on the first meeting of the Working Group  
4.10.  Canada  and Paraguay  took the floor  in their capacity as co -stewards for the Working Group 
on Approval Procedures . Canada and Paraguay were pleased to report that the Working Group on 
Approval Procedures had held its first meeting on 4 November 2020  to share initial thoughts about 
the Group and process going forward. Th is meeting was led by Canada and Paraguay, as co -stewards  
and twenty -two Members had registered  as par ticipants  in advance of the meeting: Argentina, 
Belize, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, New  Zealand, 
Norway, Paraguay, Philippines,  the Russian Federation, Singapore, South Africa, Switzerland, 
Chinese Taipei, Ukrai ne, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Uruguay. The OECD  had also 
registered as a participant. This first Working Group meeting was , however, open to all Members 
and Observers and Ecuador signed -up to join the Working Group after the meeting.3 
4.11.  Paraguay further reported that, at the Working Group meeting, the  co-stewards  had walked 
through the approach for the Working Group set out in  G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1 , highl ighting that: 
(i) the Working Group  would  primarily work electronically and  may meet virtually  intersessionally , 
as required ; (ii) the Working Group was expected to conduct three rounds of deliberations  and to 
conclude its work in November 2021, subject to  an agreement to extend the Working Group ; and 
(iii) in the context of the first round of deliberations,  participan ts would submit written proposals by 
14 December 202 0. A document consolidating inputs received by that date would  then be circulated 
 
3 Chile confirmed its participation to the Working Group shortly after the Committee meeti ng, bringing 
the number of participants to 25, as the time of this Summary Report.  G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 34 - 
 
for com ments and revised for discussions at the Working Group 's subsequent  meeting in 
March  2021.  
4.12.  As Paraguay indicated, t he co-stewards had also clarified  at the Working Group meeting  that 
the Group  would  explore : (i) k ey challenges of approval procedures that impact international trade 
that the Committee should seek to address; (ii) principles of approval procedures that facilitate 
international trade while meeting the importing Member's ALOP and the Committee's role in  
highlighting these principles; (iii) tools available and best practices to enhance the implementation 
of the obligations of the SPS  Agreement as they apply to approval procedures; and (iv) o ther topics 
raised by participants over the course of the work.  Paraguay noted  that p articipants who had taken  
the floor  at the Working Group meeting had  recogni zed the importance of the work to be conducted. 
Regarding specific topics, it had been  suggested that the W orking Group should work on the topic s 
of "undue dela ys" and "transparency ". 
4.13.  Paraguay then recalled that Working Group participants had been  invited to: (i) share with 
the Secretariat and the co-stewards any objections they might have to using Zoom for future 
meetings, by Friday , 6 November 2020 ; (ii) identify one focal point contact to the Secretariat by 
Friday , 6 November 2020 ; and (iii) s ubmit written proposals to the co -stewards, through the 
Secretariat, by 14 December 2020.  Regarding the platform to be used, Paraguay noted that one 
Member had express reservations  regarding  the use of Zoom  and that t he co -stewards were 
considering using Cisco WebEx Meetings instead. Paraguay thus invited  Working Group participants 
to let the Secretariat and co -stewards know if they ha d any objections to using Cisco WebEx Meetings 
by 20  November 2020.  Paraguay also reminded  Working Group participants who ha d not done so 
yet to identify one focal point by Member to facilitate the work of the Wor king Group.  
4.14.  To conclude, Paraguay reminded the Committee  that any interested Members or Observers 
wishing to join the Working Group had been  invited to sign up via the Secretariat  by 4 November 
2020. This had been identified by the co -stewards as the last opportunity to join to enable the 
Working Group participants to embark on the substantive work of the Working Group on Approval 
Procedures within the proposed timelines.  
4.5  Special and differential treatment  
4.15.  No Member provided any information under this agend a item.  
4.6  Monitoring the use of international standards  
4.6.1   New issues  
4.6.1.1   United States - Codex Alimentarius Guidelines for the Conduct of Food Safety 
Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant -DNA Plants (CAC/GL 45 -2003)  
4.16.  The United States  submitted its statement in document G/SPS/GEN/1864 , which highlighted 
the gaps between the regulatory procedures maintained by some Members for approval of 
genetically engineered (GE) food products and the Codex Guideline CAC/GL 45 -2003. 
The United  States regretted that some Members'  requirements to conduct animal studies delayed 
the approval of, use of, and trade in useful and demonstrably safe products. The United States 
encouraged Members to eliminate those requirements, focus data requirements on the information 
necessary for cond ucting safety assessment s, and consider Codex guidelines.  
4.17.  Argentina considered that Members should eliminate their requirements to routinely perform 
animal studies, which affected innovation and normal trade flows. Argentina reaffirmed the 
importance of fo llowing international, science -based guidelines.  
4.18.  Canada  thanked the United States and reiterated  the importance to base measures on 
international standards . Highlighting some of the conclusions of CAC/GL 45 -2003, Canada underlined 
the importance of Members  taking timely science - and risk -based regulatory decisions, taking into 
account the Codex food safety advice.  
4.19.  Paraguay expressed interest in sponsoring this item , highlight ing the unnecessary co sts and 
requirements resulting from differences  between Codex and approval procedures established by G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 35 - 
 
  some Members . Paraguay urged Members to contribute to international harmonization in order to 
facilitate trade.  
4.6.1.2   Turkey - Newcastle disease restrictions not consistent with the OIE international 
standard  
4.20.  Turkey  expressed its concern regarding the import restrictions imposed by some countries for 
heat-treated poultry meat from Turkey with regard to Newcastle disease. Turkey stated that 
paragraph 2 of Article 10.9.15 of the OIE Terrestrial Code indicated th at heat -treated poultry meat 
was not an import risk. According to Turkey, some Members still imposed  trade barriers for the 
heat-treated poultry meat products. Turkey referred to Article 3 of the SPS Agreement on 
harmoni zation  and requested Members to foll ow the recommendations in Article 10.9.20 of the 
OIE Terrestrial Code . 
4.6.1.3   Peru - Restrictions on exports of chocolate and cocoa products due to the lack of 
an international standard  
4.21.  Peru referred to the development and discussion of maximum levels of cadmium in chocolate 
and cocoa products within the  Codex Committee on Contaminants in Foods  (CCCF) , as well as  the 
importance of having an international standard for a sector that is of great social and economic 
significance to Peru . The lack of a Codex standard had led countries to adopt standards  that were 
more trade restrictive than necessary . 
4.22.  Peru invited Members to coordinate with their respective health authorities, in order to achieve 
consensus by honouring the agreement to apply a  criterion of proportionality when establishing, at 
the next CCCF meeting, maximum levels of cadmium for the following categories: ( i) cocoa powder 
ready for consumption containing or declaring 100% total cocoa solids ; and (ii) chocolate containing 
between  30% and 50% of total dry cocoa solids.  Peru requested the secretariat of the C odex 
Alimentarius Commission  (CAC)  to ensure the development of science - and data -based standards . 
Peru also asked Members having already established maximum levels of cadmium for chocolate and 
cocoa products to review their standards on the basis of the findings presented within the CCCF and 
to inform their trade operators that these standards  do not  apply to cocoa beans . 
4.23.  Colombia indicated that this topic was of  high interest for Colombia, given the implications in 
trade of chocolate and cocoa products . Colombia invited Members to take into account  the 
considerations  raised by Peru . 
4.6.2   Issues previously raised  
4.6.2.1   European Union - ASF restrictions not consistent with th e OIE international 
standard  
4.24.  The European Union  drew Members' attention to inconsistencies in the application of 
OIE international standards related to ASF. The European Union  noted that s everal Members did not 
follow the OIE Terrestrial Code recommendations  that had been developed  and adopted with the ir 
support . The European Union had demonstrated in its single market that the disease could be 
managed effectively to ensure that legitimate trade was not the cause of any outbreak . The European 
Union was transparent on its disease control measures and provided information through many 
channels.  ASF was a disease affecting many EU and non -EU countries.  
4.25.  The European Union welcomed the decision to organi ze a thematic session  on ASF in 
March  2021.  The objective would be to build confidence among Members to apply trade conditions 
consistent with the SPS Agreement and international standards. The European Union invited 
Members to work together to prepare the thematic session and work on the removal of co untry -wide 
and scientifically unjustified trade bans . 
4.6.2.2   European Union - HPAI restrictions not consistent with the OIE international 
standard  
4.26.  The European Union  praised those  Members that trusted  the EU effective and transparent 
system of control and eradication of animal diseases such as  AI. The European Union regretted that G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 36 - 
 
some Members disregarded their obligations under Article  6 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement. 
Country -wide bans after a disease outb reak were not scientifically justified, and there was no 
justification to wait one year or more to restore the disease -free status, instead of the three months 
defined by the OIE Terrestrial Code. The European Union reiterated its call to all Members to re spect 
their regionalization obligations; allow trade of all safe products from non -affected zones; lift all bans 
after regaining freedom three months after eradication and re -instate trade conditions applicable to 
disease -free countries without delay ; refrain from imposing trade restriction s in case of HPAI in wild 
birds; and refrain from imposing trade restrictions in case of detected LPAI. The European Union 
appeal ed to Members to respect the recommendations of ISSBs  that had been developed and 
adopted wi th their support.  
4.6.3   New Z ealand – Procedure to monitor the process of international harmonization  
4.27.  New Zealand presented the proposal submitted in  G/SPS/GEN/1851 . New Zealand's p roposal 
was in response to renew ed discussion on the ISSBs on use and impact o f their standards. 
The IPPC had reported on the activities of the Implementation Review and Support Syst ems (IRSS), 
including a general survey on the IPPC and use of its standards. The OIE had initiated an Observatory 
project with the aim of assessing the i mplementation of standards, and what the impediments were 
to their implementation.  Codex was exploring the issue in relation to its parent bodies (FAO/WHO), 
as significant funds  were used to develop standards. New Zealand believed there was merit in 
promot ing some discussion on what further role the Committee could play in assisting the ISSBs in 
monitoring the use of their international standards, as laid out in Articles 3.5 and 12.4 of the 
SPS Agreement. New Zealand suggested that the Secretariat invite Me mbers and the ISSBs to 
propose ideas and suggestions on how the Committee could proactively explore this topic.  
4.7  Follow -up to the Fifth Review of the Operation and Implementation of the 
SPS Agreement ( G/SPS/64  and G/SPS/64/Add.1)  
4.28.  The Chairperson recalled that the Report of the Fifth Review of the Operation and 
Implementat ion of the SPS Agreement had been adopted on an ad referendum  basis at the 
June 2020 Committee meeting  and had been circulated as G/SPS/64  and G/SPS/64/Add.1 . 
4.7.1   Report on the Thematic Session on Volunta ry Third -Party Assurance as part of 
National SPS Control Systems  
4.29.  The Chairperson reminded delegates that the draft Report on the Thematic Session on 
Voluntary Third -Party Assurance  (vTPA) as part of National SPS Control Systems , held on 
3 November  2020, had been circulated for Members  to provide  comments.  The final report is 
included in Annex A.4 
4.30.  Belize , as the Member who had suggested a Thematic Session on vTPA programmes, thanked 
the Secretariat for its assistance in organizing the  Thematic Session and  commended  the speakers  
for a very informative  event . Belize considered that it had been a good  opportunity to learn about 
different approaches taken by Members . Emphasis had been put on risk -based approaches, resulting 
in reduced inspections in most cases, and vTPA programmes  were being used in a manner 
complementary to the work of inspection authorities. Belize look ed forward to engaging further with 
certain Member s along the implementation of  STDF funded  project  STDF/PG/682 . Belize added that 
the information shared by the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) on their benchmarking activities , 
along with the use of the Global Markets Programme , would  be of interest to MSMEs . Finally,  
Belize  noted that t he STDF had  highlighted the benefits of public/private partnership  and had 
captured key issues faced by developing countries . 
4.7.2   Report on the informal meeting  
4.31.  The Chairman drew the Committee's attention t o the draft Report of the informal meeting of 
4 November 2020 , which had been shared with  Members to provide comments . The final report is 
included in Annex B . 
 
4 The dedicated webpage for the Thematic Session can be accessed here: 
www.wto.org /english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_thematic_session_31120_e.htm . G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 37 - 
 
  4.8  Chairperson's Annual Report to CTG  
4.32.  The Chairperson reminded  delegates that he would submit a factual annual report on the 
activities of the Committee for consideration by the Council for Trad e in Goods (CTG)  at its meeting 
on 25 -26 November 2020 . The Chairperson also noted  that the draft report had been made available 
to Members for comments. The final report was circulated as G/L/1376.  
4.33.  The United States enquired whether comments had been  received  and changes made since 
the draft had been circulated and whether the revised draft report  would be shared with Members. 
The Chairperson  responded  that no comments had been received  thus far  and confirmed that  the 
Secretariat  would recirculate the draft re port before submission to the CTG. 
5  CROSS -CUTTING ISSUES  
5.1  Report on the SPS@25 Event  
5.1.  The Chairperson  reminded that a draft report of the SPS@ 25 Event of 2 November 2020 had 
been circulated for Members to provide  comments . The final report is included in Annex C.5 
5.2  COVID -19 and SPS issues  
5.2.  The Chairperson  reminded  delegates  that discussions on COVID -19 related issues  had been 
held during the Committee informal meeting  of 3 November 2020  and that a draft report had been 
circulated  for Members to provide comments.  The final report is included in Annex B . 
5.3  Canada  and the  United States - SPS Declaration for the 12th WTO Ministerial 
Conference ( G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.4 ) 
5.3.  Canada  presented the  SPS Declaration  for the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference . Canada noted 
that t he global agricultural landscape ha d evolved since the adoption of the SPS  Agreement , 
resulting in new opportunities and emerging pressures relating to international trade in food, 
animals , and plants. Canada further noted that t he objective of the Declaration was to initiate a work 
programm e to consider how to enhance the implementation of the SPS Agreement in light of the se 
opportunities and pressures.  The Declaration did not indicate a need to launch negotiation s of 
SPS obligations. Canada expressed  enthusias m regarding Members ' willingness to engage and  was 
pleased that  new co-sponsors had joined the Declaration. Canada reminded Members that an 
informal meeting would be held on 23 November  to allow co -sponsors to present the Declaration 
and give Members an opportunity to discuss  in an informal manner . Canada invited  Members to 
continue to reflect on this important initiative.  
5.4.  The United States  noted  that the Declaration provided the Committee with an opportunity to 
direct  its own work and set a productive agenda for the future . The United States acknowledged 
three new co -sponsors : Burkina Faso, Costa Rica , and Guatemala . The United States  looked forward 
to engaging with Members during the informal session of 23  November, hoping that the Declaration 
could be a product of the entire Committee.  
5.5.  Mexico expressed interest in joining  as a co -sponsor . South Africa thanked the proponents of 
the Declaration , indicating that it had provided comments and looked forward to seeing how these 
had been considered in the revised draft Declaration. In South Africa's view, the  Declaration should 
emphasi ze the use of relevant science to inform SPS measures to achieve the ALOP. South Africa 
guarded against the inclusion of new technological aspects, which some  regulatory syste ms are not 
ready to regulate. South Africa added  that the Declaration should emphasi ze the need  to strengthen 
the effectiveness of the participation of developing Members through S&D provisions. Finally, 
Brazil  thanked all the Members who had engaged with the co -sponsors  and reiterated the importance 
of the Declaration for the future of the SPS Agreement and SPS  systems.  
5.6.  The Chairperson recalled th at the informal session  would take place on 23 November . 
 
5 The dedicated webpage for the SPS@25 Event  can be accessed here: 
www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/sps_at25_e.htm . G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 38 - 
 
6  TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION  
6.1  Information from the Secretariat  
6.1.1   WTO  SPS activities  (G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.10/Add.1  and 
G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.10/Add.2 ) 
6.1.  The Secretariat presented an overview of technical assistance efforts since November  2019, 
reflected  in documents G/SPS/GEN/997/Rev.10/Add.1  and G/SPS/ GEN/997/Rev.10/Add.2 . 
Technical assistance  included  in-person and virtual activities, in the form of national SPS seminars , 
Advanced and Regional Trade Policy Cours es, and dedicated trainings on the ePing alert system  and 
eAgend a. The Secretariat  announced  a new interactive eLearning SPS  course6 and directed  Members 
to the SPS  gateway of the WTO website , under Events, workshops and training , for further 
information  on technical assistance activities . 
6.1.2   STDF ( G/SPS/GEN/1843 ) 
6.2.  The STDF secretariat reported  on its recent activities  detailed in  G/SPS/GEN/1843 . The STDF 
secretariat highlighted STDF work on SPS-related Public Private Partnerships  and vTPA programmes , 
and SPS e -certification. It also informed Members that, at its last meeting, t he STDF Working Group, 
chaired by Julie Emond  from Canada, had approve d Project Grants  (PGs) and P roject Preparation 
Grants (PPG s), raising  the number of  ongoing projects to 51 . The STDF secretariat indicated  
the deadline for n ew PG and PPG applications (1 January 2021 ), adding that the next meeting would  
be chaired by Tom Heilandt, the Codex s ecretary.  
6.2  Information from Members  
6.2.1   Japan - Technical assistance to developing countries ( G/SPS/GEN/1160/Add .8) 
6.3.  Japan  reported on its technical assistance activities to developing countries  from April  2018 to 
March 2019 . These activities , aimed at facilitat ing the implementation of SPS  measures in developing 
countries based on science , amounted to a total value of approximately 598 million Japanese yen . 
Japan 's statement is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/1160/Add.8 . 
6.2.2   Belize - Virtual training on pest risk analysis ( G/SPS/GEN/1840 ) 
6.4.  Belize reporte d on the participation of several officers of the Belize Agricultural Health Authority 
in a virtual training on pest risk analysis, organi zed by OIRSA . Belize 's statement is contained in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1840 . 
6.2.3   Canada - Technical assistance to developing countries ( G/SPS/GEN/1834 ) 
6.5.  Canada  reported on 27 SPS-related technical assistance projects  in 2019, addressing 
information, training, and "soft" infrastructure development . Canada had committed approximately 
CDN $  1.49 million  to these projects . Canada 's statement is contained in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1834 . 
6.2.4   Chinese Taipei – SPS-related technical assistance provided in 2018 -2021  
6.6.  Chinese Taipei shared information regarding SPS -related technical assistance  in 2018-2021 in 
the Caribbean region, Central America , and West Asia.  Projects pertained to  banana revitalization in 
St. Vincent and the Grenadines, forest pest management in Honduras , and date palm cultivation in 
Saudi Arabia . They aimed at  helping Members prevent and control regulated pests of economic fruits 
or forest as well as  enhance their  ability to export agricultural products in the international market.  
Chinese Taipei reported a total value of approximately USD 5 million  for these activities . 
 
6 The eLearning SPS course  is available from the WTO eLearning website at: http://w tolearning.csod.com  
and the  trailer is available at : https://youtu.be/Fp2O -9pb-6g. G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 39 - 
 
  7  CONCERNS WITH PRIVATE AND COMMERCIAL STANDARDS  
7.1.  No Member provided information under this agenda  item. 
8  OBSERVERS  
8.1  Information from observer organizations  
8.1.1   ECOWAS ( G/SPS/GEN/1826 ) 
8.1.  ECOWAS  provided a summary of its SPS activities, implemented in collaboration with its 
partners , as detailed in document G/SPS/GEN/1826 . Key activities included : (i) meetings on national 
plant protection organizations (NPPOs) regional harmonizat ion and common position o n matter s to 
be tabled for discussion at CPM15 ; (ii) a training workshop for plant quarantine inspectors in 
two countries  to be scaled up in all ECOWAS Members; and (iii)  participation to CAC's 43rd session.  
8.1.2   IGAD ( G/SPS/GEN/1831 ) 
8.2.  The Chairperso n drew the Committee 's attention to the report of activities provided by IGAD 
in document G/SPS/GEN/1831 . 
8.1.3   IICA ( G/SPS/GEN/1832 ) 
8.3.  IICA reported on its activities, which are detailed in G/SPS/GEN/1832 . IICA, in colla boration 
with USDA, hosted an Interregional Virtual Colloquium for Countries of the Codex Coordinating 
Committees for Africa (CCAFRICA) and for the Latin America and Caribbean (CCLAC) , to develop 
regional participation strategies prior to CAC43.  IICA had a lso hosted the four virtual sessions of the 
5th edition of its Strategy Session , organized in partnership and sponsored by the USDA , aiming at 
improving coordination on the OIE Terrestrial Code chapters. Additionally, IICA, together with the 
USDA , were cur rently implementing a long -term project in the Americas, aimed at promoting 
harmonization in the adoption and implementation of MRLs and in the registration requirements for 
chemical pesticides and bio -pesticides. IICA had elaborated a Virtual Course and a n Electronic 
Manual on "Preventive Measures in the Agriculture Sector to Guarantee a Continuous Food Supply 
for the Population During COVID -19"Finally, IICA , in conjunction with FDA, continue d to strengthen 
the capacities in relation to  FSMA  regulations on the safety of fresh agricultural products..  
8.1.4   CAHFSA ( G/SPS/GEN/1833 ) 
8.4.  The Chairperson drew the Committee 's attention to the report of activities provided by CAHFSA 
in document G/SPS/GEN/1833 . 
8.1.5   OIRSA ( G/SPS/GEN/1836 ) 
8.5.  The Chairperson drew the Committee 's attention to the report o f activities provided by OIRSA 
in document G/SPS/GEN/1836 . 
8.1.6   ITC ( G/SPS/GEN/1837 ) 
8.6.  The Chairperson drew the Committee 's attention to the report of activities provided by ITC in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1837 . 
8.1.7   SADC  (G/SPS/GEN/1845 ) 
8.7.  The Chairperso n drew the Committee 's attention to the report of activities provided by SADC 
in document  G/SPS/GEN/1845 . G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 40 - 
 
8.2  Requests for observer status  
8.2.1   New requests  
8.2.1.1   Request from the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) 
(G/SPS/GEN/121/Add. 18, G/SPS/GEN/1841 , G/SPS/GEN/1867 ) 
8.8.  The Secretariat ha d received a new request from UNIDO , as contained in document 
G/SPS/GEN/121/Add. 18. 
8.9.  Senegal, Belize, and Morocco supported UNIDO's request. Senegal highlighted that UNIDO's 
mission covered several different fields, including food security and safety  and that  UNIDO's 
contribution s helped countries to meet challenges in the health arena , by setting up initiatives for 
capacity building. Belize submitted document G/SPS/GEN/1841  to underscore the diversity of 
UNIDO's interventions in SPS -related matters , its contributions to increase the competitivity of small 
and medium size enterprises (SMEs) , and its value for the successful execution  of two STDF projects 
in West Africa and Central America.  Having benefited from its technical expertise in the area of food 
safety and SPS measures, Morocco noted that observer status would allow UNIDO to interact with 
regard to discuss ions among Members and to contribute with appropriate proposals with regard to 
local, regional, and international partners. Morocco submitted document G/SPS/GEN/1867 . 
8.10.  The Chair person  indicated that he had been informed that it would not be possible to reach 
consensus status on UNIDO 's request . 
8.2.1.2   Request from the Arab Organization for Agricultural Development (AOAD) 
(G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.19 ) 
8.11.  The Secretariat had received a new request from the Arab Organization for Agricultural 
Development (AOAD) in document G/SPS/GEN/121/Add.19 . No objections were received and the 
Committee agreed  to grant  ad hoc observer status to AOAD.  
8.12.  The Committee  decided  to invite organi zations with ad hoc  observer status in the Committee 
to participate in all of the Committee meetings in 2021 - with the exception of closed meeting - 
unless any Member raise d an objection in advance of a meeting.  
8.2.2   Pending requests  
8.13.  The Chairperson noted that  there was still no consensus on the six outstanding requests for 
observer status from the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); CABI International; 
the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); 
the Organi sation Internationale de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV); the Asian and Pacific Coconut 
Community (APCC); and the International Cocoa Organization (ICCO).  
9  OTHER BUSINESS  
9.1.  No Member took the floor under this agenda item.  
10  DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING ( G/SPS/GEN/1823 ) 
10.1.  The Chairperso n drew Members' attention to the proposed dates for the upcoming Committee 
meetings in 2021 , as detailed in G/SPS/GEN/1823 . He recalled that the next regular meeting of the 
Committee had been tentatively scheduled for 25 -26 March 2021  and highlighted that the dates  for 
the July meeti ng might change , depending  on the final dates of the  12th WTO Ministerial Conference.  
10.2.  The Secretariat informed the Committee  that it would prepare a relatively brief  summary 
report that would be complemented by Members' ability to download  complete stateme nts via 
eAgenda.  Many Members also circulat ed their interventions as GEN documents . G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 41 - 
 
  10.3.  The Secretariat reminded Members of the following deadlines , circulated by email : 
a. eAgenda clos ing for the upload of statements: Friday, 13 November 2020 (midnight 
Geneva time) ; 
b. For submitting comments on the revised version of the Chairperson's annual report to the 
CTG: Wednesday, 18 November 2020 ; 
c. For submitting comments on the Chairperson's draft report on the informal meeting, the 
SPS@25 Event, and the Thematic S ession on Voluntary Third -Party Assurance: 
Wednesday , 18 November 2020 ; 
d. For submitting comments on the proposal (G/SPS/W/322) or suggesting speakers for the 
Thematic Session on African Swine Fever, to be held on 23 March 202 1: Friday, 
4 December 2020 ; 
e. For submitting comments on the draft programme for the Workshop on Risk Assessment, 
Risk Management and Risk Communication (G/SPS/GEN/1769): Friday, 4 December 
2020 ; 
f. For identifying new issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure and for 
reques ting that items be put on the agenda: Wednesday, 3 March 2021 ; and  
g. For the distribution of the Airgram: Friday, 5 March 2021 . 
 
_______________  
 
 G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 42 - 
 
ANNEX  A 
SPS COMMITTEE THEMATIC SESSION ON VOLUNTARY THIRD -PARTY ASSURANCE  AS 
PART OF NATIONAL SPS CONTROL SYSTEMS  
3 NOVEMBER 20 20 
CHAIR PERSON'S  SUMMARY  
1.1.  A thematic session on voluntary third -party assurance programmes as part of national SPS 
control systems was held on 3 November 20 20. This session had originally been planned for March 
2020; but had to be postponed due to the COVID -19 pandemic . The programme was circulated in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1754/Rev.3 , based on the proposal submitted by Belize  in document  
G/SPS/W/320 . 
1.2.  The main objectives of the thematic session were to  receive updates from the international 
standard -setting bodies on their work in the area; facilitate an exchange of information among 
Members on their use of voluntary third -party assurance as part of national SPS control syste ms; 
obtain the perspectives and experiences of the private sector; and learn about capacity  building 
initiatives in this area.  
1.3.  In Session 1, Codex referred to  the ongoing work of the Codex Committee on Food Import  and 
Export Inspection  and Certification Sy stems (CCFICS) on the development of guidelines  for the use 
of third -party assurance schemes by competent authorities . The adoption of these guidelines was 
expected in 2021. Their objective would be to promote a harmonized and robust approach , to 
enhance t he regulatory arrangements and the delivery of official controls within National Food 
Control Systems  while also allowing  flexibility to reflect diverse needs and capabilities. Codex 
explained  that the guidelines  would include principles; roles and respons ibilities; criteria for 
assessing vTPA programmes and their data; and examples of regulatory approaches that use vTPAs. 
The guidelines were not meant  to mandate the use of  vTPAs,  nor to officially recogni ze inspection or 
certification bodies , or to apply private standards . The speaker also shared the UK perspective on 
the integration of vTPA to its food safety system.  
1.4.  The IPPC explained that the Convention provided for the possibility that national plant 
protection organizations (NPPOs) could authori ze other entities to perform specific sanitary actions 
on their behalf, with the exception of the issuance of phytosanitary certificates. The IPPC underlined 
that the responsibility of phytosanitary action remained with NPPOs. The IPPC also noted existing 
standards that refer red to authori zations , and to a draft standard on the a uthorization of entities to 
perform phytosanitary actions , the application and implementation of which would be voluntary. 
Finally, IPPC shared the results of a study  titled " Authorizing entities to perform phytosanitary 
actions: an overview of the current use of authorization by national plant protection organization s". 
1.5.  In Session 2, Members presented their experiences with vTPA programmes. A speaker from 
Belize  described its participation in the STDF pilot programme to  test how the vTPA approach set 
down in the draft Codex guidelines work ed in practice . Egypt  explain ed its transition towards a 
modernized food import control approach. Canada  highlighted that the use of data collected through 
its vTPA programme informed its risk -based planning and prioritization, within its regulatory 
framework, and its  role in helping achieve food safety regulatory objectives, without replacing 
regulatory enforcement authorities. Germany noted the relevance of public private partnerships to 
allow a more efficient use of public resources and a better targeting of official controls, which  could 
lead to direct cooperation between authorities and third parties or to the consideration of third -party 
audits in planning official controls. Finally, the United States explained how it included third -party 
audits in its regulatory programme in two ways: through an accredited third -party certification 
programme and through supply chain controls.  
1.6.  In response to questions on the impact of COVID -19 on their use or planned use of vTPAs, 
speakers reported that this had tested the resilience of their syste ms, and that it had led them to 
allow remote testing and to adopt a more flexible approach. To another question, they answered G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 43 - 
 
  that they expected a growth in the relationship between third parties and regulatory agencies, 
without replacing official control s. 
1.7.  In the second part of Session 2, the Committee heard from GFSI on their efforts to harmonize 
requirements for accredited private certification programmes with a mutual recognition approach. 
GFSI's response to COVID -19 had been to extend the validity of issued certificates, in order to avoid 
the disruption of supply chains; and the performance of hybrid in -person and remote assessments.  
1.8.  Session 3 covered capacity building efforts. The STDF explained that its projects in the area 
aimed to pilot the vTPA approach in a developing countr y context, and to generate  lessons and 
experiences that could  be relevant  to other stakeholders. The STDF  also presented the results of a 
STDF /UNIDO/IICA Survey on the use of vTPA programmes . Respondents re ported a more efficient 
allocation of inspection time and resources, and an overall improvement in food hygiene and safety. 
They also expressed concerns regarding the additional financial costs for food business operators 
(FBOs), the confidentiality of pri vate audit reports, the reliability of private assurance systems and 
the duplication of existing laws and regulations. The STDF concluded that due to the diversity of 
existing situations in different jurisdictions, there wasn't one single approach that off ered a solution 
for all Members.  Honduras, a beneficiary of an STDF vTPA pilot project, expected to improve food 
safety management systems of its FBOs to facilitate access to high -value markets.  
1.9.  UNIDO explained its holistic approach, including in the imple mentation of the STDF pilot 
programme, to build capacity on vTPA among all stakeholders and take into account countries' 
individual food safety, quality infrastructure (QI) and conformity assessment setup. TradeMark East 
Africa presented its work on third -party assurance schemes and in particular the development of 
safe SPS corridors. COMESA presented the evolving vTPA landscape in its region, and the regional 
capacity building initiatives, through joint public  private partnerships.  
1.10.  South Africa provided in formation on the South African Dairy Standards Agency, a self -
regulatory initiative established by the dairy industry, and explained its dairy monitoring programme 
in collaboration with health authorities. Finally, GFSI presented its Global Markets Program me, a 
free voluntary tool which provided guidance toward certification.  
1.11.  In concluding, I remarked that the thematic session had proven to be informative and 
interesting, and trusted it would  help increase Members' understanding on the topic.  
1.12.  Presentations from all sessions of the thematic session will be made available on the SPS 
Gateway . 
 G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 44 - 
 
ANNEX B  
INFORMAL MEETING – 4 NOVEMBER 2020  
REPORT BY THE CHAIRPERSON  
 
1. FOLLOW -UP TO THE FIFTH REVIEW  
1. At the informal meeting on 4 November 2020, the Committee discussed how to take forward 
some of the recommendations in the Fifth Review Report.  
Creation of a SPS Committee Working Group on Approval Procedures ( G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1 ) 
2. Further to the reco mmendation in the Fifth Review Report ( G/SPS/64 , para. 3.12) in relation 
to the creation of a Working Group (WG) on Approval Procedures, I first provided an update on the 
written expressions of interest  received from the following delegations to p articipate in the Working 
Group  from Argentina, Belize, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, the European Union, Japan, 
Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, the Philippines, the Russian Federation, Singapore, South 
Africa, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, U kraine, the United Kingdom, the United States and Uruguay.  
The OECD had also expressed interest in joining the Working Group. In addition, I indicated that 
Canada and Paraguay had volunteered to act as co -stewards to lead the Working Group.  
3. I reminded the Committee that the first meeting of the Working Group would take place in 
the afternoon and that further discussions could take place in that meeting. I then invited the co -
stewards to address the Committee.  
4. Canada clarified the role of "Observers " for the  Working Group, explaining that this was only 
a reference to the Observer organizations of the SPS Committee, and not as a secondary option of 
participating in the Working Group for Members. The purpose of the first Working Group meeting 
was to share initi al thoughts about the group itself and the process going forward. Canada invited 
interested Members or Observer organizations , who had not yet signed up to participate in the 
Working Group , to attend the first meeting of the Working Group. The last opportu nity to sign up 
would be immediately following the Working Group meeting. Finally, Canada drew attention to 
document G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1 , which outlined the details and process of the Working Group.  
5. In response, Chile thanked the co -stewards for their work and indicated its support for 
document G/SPS/W/328/Rev.1 , further suggesting that the Working Group could consider including 
the topic of undue delay as a possible area of work.  
Exchange of experiences or continued discu ssions on various topics  
6. We then discussed the recommendations that encourage Members to continue to exchange 
experiences or have continued discussions. I highlighted that these recommendations were found in 
various sections of the Fifth Review Report, suc h as: appropriate level of protection, risk assessment 
and science (para. 2.15); equivalence (para. 4.11); fall armyworm (para. 5.16); national SPS 
coordination mechanisms (para. 6.7); MRLs for plant protection products (para. 8.6); and 
regionalization (pa ra. 9.15). I sought your views on the best way to move forward with these 
recommendations. I recalled that in the September consultations, one Member had observed that 
the proposed work plan for the MC -12 SPS Declaration, also currently being discussed by the 
Committee, was consistent with these recommendations and could provide a pathway to continue 
exploring these topics.  
7. One Member, while acknowledging  that it had been flexible in  its decision to join the 
consensus to adopt the Fifth Review Report, recal led its previously expressed concerns regarding 
certain proposals , drawing attention to its statement in the June 2020 informal Committee meeting. 
In particular, the Member highlighted its concerns with the fall armyworm proposal and further 
acknowledged t he clarification that had been provided by one of the proponents, as circulated in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1820 . The Member  also reminded the Committee of its concerns regarding 
the term "scientific uncertainty" in the third recommendation on appropriate level of protection, risk G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 45 - 
 
  assessme nt and science (paragraph 2.15 of G/SPS/64) . The Member further recalled that it had 
previously queried the legal basis of the term, while noting that the term had still been included in 
the adopted  recommendations.  
Preparation of a collection of resources for Members in implementing their nat ional coordination 
mechanisms  
8. Next, we discussed the recommendation in the Fifth Review Report (G/SPS/64, para. 6.7) 
on the preparation of a collection of useful resources for Members in implementing their national 
coordination mechanisms. I recalled that Members had requested that the Secretariat prepare such 
a compilation of resources, starting with those mentioned at the 2019 Workshop on Transparency 
and Coordination, and including additional resources as suggested by Members. The Secretariat 
presented a  first draft of the document circulated as G/SPS/GEN/1850 . The Secretariat also 
highlighted hat the document was a work in progress and that inputs from Members would be 
welcomed.  
9. In response, one Member indicated that the document was very helpful for coordination 
across various agencies, and further suggested including a reference to the annotated agenda s for 
SPS Committee meetings  in Section 3 of the document, as this was a useful tool which enabled 
discussions and follow -up at the national level.  
10. I indicated that Member s might need more time to review the document and invited 
comments and inputs on additional resources by the deadline of Friday, 4 December 2020 . 
11. In relation to the tools indicated in Section  3 of the document, the Secretariat drew attention 
to the ePing s ystem and its recent enhancements. The Secretariat explained that ePing had an 
international and national discussion forum to facilitate exchanges on SPS and TBT notifications at 
both levels. In addition, government officials working on SPS and TBT matters  could request 
administrative rights to manage ePing at the domestic level and access additional features . In 
response to a recommendation  from the TBT Eighth Triennial Review , the Secretariat had recently 
introduced  some enhancements  to ePing to facilitat e the sharing  of comments on notifications and 
the responses, usually exchanged bilaterally . In response to a question from one Member, the 
Secretariat clarified that this feature was different than the new administrative chat function, 
currently under dev elopment and being piloted in a few regions before being rolled out more broadly. 
The Secretariat showed a short video tutorial on the sharing of comments feature, accessible at: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=it5PN -vazuA&feature=youtu.be , and further indicated that any 
questions on ePing could be sent to ePing@wto.org . 
2. SPS DECLARATION FOR THE 12TH WTO MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE  
(G/SPS/GEN/1758/Rev.4 ) 
12. At the informal meeting on 4 November 2020, the Committee discussed the SPS Declaration 
for the 12th Ministerial Conference (GEN/1758/Rev.4). The proponents first acknowledged new co -
sponsors  of the document : Burkina  Faso, Costa Rica and Guatemala  – noting that the overall list of 
co-sponsors spanned al l regions and levels of development. In response to a Member's sug gestion 
in the September consultations to broaden the discussion and to organize  a meeting to discuss the 
details of the Declaration, the United States indicated that a  Chair-facilitated ses sion was being 
planned for November, the details of which would shortly be announced. A ll Members were invited 
to engage prior to and during that event to share their views in order to ensure a participatory  and 
multilaterally endorsed  Declaration. In resp onse, I  indicated that this meeting was being  organized 
for 23 November at 3:00  p.m. via Interprefy.  
13. Brazil noted the evolution of the SPS regime for world trade in agricultural products  and the 
numerous challenges faced, while underscoring that the princi ples enshrined in th e Declaration 
provide d a way forward.  Canada observed that the  Declaration s ought  to underline the benefits of 
the SPS  Agreement  for all Members . It reaffirm ed the importance of adhering to the obligations  and 
also recognize d a number o f new opportunities and challenges  that ha d emerged since the adoption 
of the Agreement . In this regard, the work programme sought to enhance the implement ation of 
the SPS A greement  in light of those pressures.  
14. Senegal  further endorsed the Declaration  indicating that it enabled Members to take stock 
of progress made in international trade , but also helped to underscore some of the  market access  
challenges faced in terms of regulatory and risk assessment -related issues . G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 46 - 
 
15. One Member underscored the importance of the multilateral rules -based system and  
indicated its interest in participating in further discussions, including at the upcoming meeting.  
However, it also recalled its previously raised reservations at the informal consultati ons in September  
regarding the text of the Declaration . Another Member emphasized  the importance of reconfirming 
the principles of the SPS Agreement at the Ministerial level, noting that SPS measures should be 
based on science and only applied to the exten t necessary. However , this Member  had some 
concerns on the text, particularly due to the detailed nature of the proposed work programme , as 
compared to other previously adopted Declarations. The Member indicated its willingness to work 
on a draft that woul d be agreeable to all WTO Members.  
16. One Member thanked the proponents for taking on board the suggestion to organize  the 
information  sharing session  to discuss the Declaration , and also echoed the concerns regarding the 
broad mandate of the work programme. Nevertheless, the Member looked forward to engaging in 
discussions  in the scheduled meeting.  
3. BRAZIL'S DRAFT WORKING PROCEDURES ON STRENGTHENING T HE CONSULTATIVE  
FUNCTION  OF THE SPS COMMITTEE (G/SPS/W/319/R EV.2) 
17. At the informal meeting on 4 November, Brazil informed Members that it was in the process 
of revising its proposal and inv ited Members to continue discussions and provide inputs.  
18. One Member welcomed the document and supported the recommendations made to 
strengthening consultations. The Member prop osed several suggestions in relation to paragraphs 7, 
8, and 9, noting that while useful, these paragraphs could instead be presented under a separate 
title dealing with the other functions of the Committee. In addition, paragraph 10 was viewed as a 
recomm endation relating to the principle of transparency and complementary to already existing 
documents, such as document W/290. The Member further emphasized that it would be useful to 
maintain the current process for STCs, and suggested that both detailed and  summarized meeting 
reports could be useful.  
4. UPCOMING THEMATIC SESSIONS/WORKSHOP  
19. Members discussed the scheduling of the proposed thematic sessions  on African swine fever 
(ASF) in document W/322 , and default pesticide MRLs. I recalled that, based on the discussions in 
the September consultations, the Committee had agreed to  hold the thematic session on ASF in 
March 2021. For default pesticide MRLs, I proposed two options: (i) to hold this session in November 
2021; or (ii) to hold this session in  between Committee meetings (i.e. not back -to-back with a 
Committee meeting). I further explained that given the packed schedule for the Ju ly 2021 Committee 
meeting - which also included the two -day Workshop  on Risk – it was not feasible to hold th e 
thematic session during that week.  
20. One Member supported the proposal  of organizing the MRL thematic session  in between 
Committee meetings , while another considered whether holding the event back -to-back with a 
Committee meeting would raise the profile of the event . This Member also proposed that the 
thematic session be held after the Workshop on Risk Assessment, Risk Management and Risk 
Communication, to allow the session on default MRLs to benefit from the discuss ions during the 
workshop. Overall, Members indicated their willingness to rely on the Secretariat to take into account 
the suggestions concerning a possible date and time for the event.  
21. China indicated that it was in the process of drafting a programme for  the thematic session 
on default MRLs which would be shortly circulated. China also  noted that there was no definition of 
uniform limits and underscored the need for in -depth discussion on the topic with the active 
participation of pesticide experts.  
22. The E uropean Union  provided an overview of the topics to be covered  in the thematic session  
on African swine fever,  noting that it allowed the Committee to explore  solutions to address this 
increasing global trade issue. Members would have the opportunity  to share their best practices in 
disease control and also in safe trade. Several Members expressed support for the event. One 
Member highlighted  the importance of focusing not only on disease control, but also on SPS 
measures to facilitate trade. Another Member  proposed that the session could provide an opportunity 
to discuss the OIE guidelines on compartmentali zation for ASF, which would be published soon.  G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 47 - 
 
  23. In relation to the Workshop on Risk Assessment, Risk Management and Risk Communication, 
which w ould be held in July 2021, Members were invited to share comments on the draft programme 
in document GEN/1769.  
5. COVID -19 
24. As requested by Members in the September consultations, the WTO Secretariat, the three 
standard -setting bodies and the World Health Organ isation (WHO) provided update s on COVID -19 
and SPS issues in their respective areas. The WTO Secretariat provided an update on the 72 SPS 
notifications and other communications related to COVID -19 submitted by Members, 66% of which 
concerned  trade facilita ting measures . Most of the seven temporary restrictions impose d had already 
been lifted.  
25. Codex informed  the Committee  that its Executive Committee had decided to examine the 
impact of the pandemic on Codex work. Codex  highlighted that so far there was no s cientific evidence 
that COVID -19 was a food safety issue and, as such, Codex subsidiary bodies did not foresee the 
development o f specific food safety standards. The dedicated COVID -19 Codex webpage contained 
Codex texts relevant to the pandemic,  including  hygienic practices,  as well as regular updates on 
the work of the relevant Codex Committees.  
26. The IPPC Secretariat reported  that the possibility of adopting ISPMs virtually was being 
explored. The Online Commenting System was being used to review draft sta ndards, discuss plant 
health issues and share best practices for dealing with COVID -19 issues. Budget for capacity 
development was being reallocated towards building a more robust eLearning and other virtual 
training and problem analysis activities. The In ternational Year of Plant Health activities had been 
extended until June 2021 . The IPPC invited Members to continue  implement ing effective 
phytosanitary measures to ensure a safe supply of fresh food and protect plants from pests. The IPPC 
had been urging Members to  make use of electronic phytosanitary certificates (ePhyto Solution) . 
While some countries were requiring "COVID -19 free" certificates , this was outside IPPC's mandate 
and not a  phytosanitary issue. Members should follow relevant  WHO guidance. The IPPC invited 
countries to harmoniz e measures through the use of ISPM s, to share knowledge and best practices , 
and to continue to take technically justified measures to protect plant health.  
27. The OIE presented its activities in the COVID -19 pandemic, which  included participation in 
the IHR Emergency Committee, the preparation of a survey for member countries, and the 
elaboration of guidelines for working with free -ranging wild mammals. The future OIE work 
programmes included the preparation of an OIE Wildlife Health Management Framework and an OIE 
Policy Paper to prepare for, prevent and build resilie nce against health crises. Concerning COVID -19 
and animals, the OIE presented the available scientific evidence on SARS -CoV-2 from an animal 
health perspective . The  OIE summarized the recommendations of the OIE ad hoc Group, which 
included facilitating saf e international movement of live animals and animal products and not 
introducing unjustified or unnecessary COVID -19-related sanitary measures.  
28. The WHO reported on the fifth meeting of the IHR Emergency Committee and on  the 
recommendations, for WHO and for  State Parties, that were relevant for SPS Committee, namely on 
research and on health measures in relation to international traffic. The WHO was reviewing its travel 
guidance to propose a risk -based framework for countries considering implementing travel 
restrictions. The IHR Review Committee had been  convened to review the functioning of the IHR 
during the COVID -19 pandemic and propose recommendations to the Director -General, including for 
necessary amendments to the Regulations.  
29. Some Members' provided up dates. The European Union reported that  they had  extended up 
to February 2021 the trade facilitating measures to accept scanned sanitary certificates. The 
European Union  highlighted that the OIE did not recommend any sanitary measures on international 
move ment of live animals or animal products without a justifying risk analysis  and regretted the 
restrictions on trade in agri -food products imposed by some Members and the unnecessary additional 
requirements. Specifically, the European  Union referred to notif ication G/SPS/N/CHN/1173  on cold -
chain foods , noting  that China's measures were taken under Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement . 
The European Union  invited China to share its scientific risk assessment, indicate why the measures 
were considered to be proportionate and when the emerg ency measures would be terminated. 
The European Union's full statement is available in document G/SPS/GEN/1854 . G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 48 - 
 
30. Colombia thanked the Secretariat for the information and the Members for all the 
notifications on technical barriers and on trade facilitation, and enquired how to find  out about 
modifications on drafts and regulations of agri -products. Indonesia underlined the importance of 
follow ing scientific evidence and refrain ing from restricting trade. Indonesia had been accepting 
electronic or scanned phytosanitary certificates to ac celerate the inspection process. Senegal 
highlighted the impact o f COVID on food products  and transportation systems, noting that it was 
not in a position to develop its export activities at this stage. Senegal called for cooperation among 
Members and for a coordinated response. Senegal also highlighted the need for guaranteeing good 
hygienic practices and reported on an increase in the inspection rate in  processing plants.  
31. China stated that SARS -CoV-2 had been detected on imported containers of wild shrimp s 
and chicken wings . China  had adopted provisional measures in line with the SPS Agreement. Studies 
proved the possibility of transmission of COVID from food to people . The measures were provisional 
and based on scientific evidence, in line with the SPS Ag reement. China hoped the international 
community could step up the international cooperation to combat this disease.  
 G/SPS/R/100  
 
- 49 - 
 
  ANNEX  C 
SPS @25 EVENT  
2 NOVEMBER 20 20 
CHAIR SUMMARY  
1. An SPS@25 half -day informal event was held on 2 November 2020 to celebrate the 25th 
anniversary of the SPS Agreement. The programme was circulated in document G/SPS/GEN/1848 . 
2. DDG Alan Wolff provided opening remarks, highlighting the results of recent research on the 
human health implications and the economic relevance of SPS measures. He also unde rlined the 
importance of the SPS Agreement as setting the internationally -recognized framework for SPS 
measures in trade, and the crucial role of the SPS Committee in contributing to resolve trade 
concerns. DDG Wolff encouraged Members to continue to hold open and productive discussions to 
find constructive solutions to SPS challenges.  
3. The first session of the SPS@25 event, "Everything you always wanted to know about the 
SPS Agreement but were afraid to ask ", looked back at the negotiations of the SPS Agree ment and 
the evolution of the SPS Committee over time. Key negotiators and the former Secretary of the 
SPS Committee shared their memories of how the SPS Agreement came together. They highlighted 
that keeping technical aspects at the forefront of the discu ssions allowed them to move forward, 
overcoming political obstacles. The issues that took longest to agree upon in the negotiations, as 
they recalled, were risk assessment (where international standards were yet to be developed), the 
concept of the appropr iate level of protection, regionalization and the phrase "not maintained without 
sufficient scientific evidence " in Article 2.2 . They also spoke about the importance of the Agreement 
for developing countries. Finally, the speakers highlighted how the personal relationships and trust 
between negotiators led to constructive engagement and to a text that is still the basis for smooth, 
safe trade in food and agricultural products today.  
4. In the second session, "The Crystal Ball ", speakers explored trade -related SPS challenges of 
the future, and the potential role of the SPS Committee. They spoke about the new areas where 
food safety regulations will have to be applied, such as novel, innovative food, including cultured 
meat; personal food; and the blurring o f the food/medicine divide. In relation to plant health, new 
pests were emerging due to factors such as climate change, which required new pest management 
strategies. These in turn led to a need for new approaches to risk assessments and controls for 
residues in foods. The speakers pointed to the role of the "Three Sisters " in providing a forum for 
discussions on topics such as climate change. They also referred to the increasing importance of 
digitally -driven technology in trade and agriculture. They noted  that COVID -related restrictions had 
led to a wider use of electronic certificates. Increased use of information technology provided more 
opportunities to gather and share data, which could provide a basis to target inspections to high -
risk products. Both speakers agreed that interaction between SPS agencies and the private sector 
were likely to change, towards increasingly shared responsibilities. Finally, they concluded that in 
an ever -changing world, regulations needed to be flexible and systems needed t o be resilient in 
order to constantly adapt to new situations.  
5. On the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the SPS Committee, all former Chairpersons had 
been invited to send a short video about their time as Chairs. The WTO Secretariat produced a set 
of videos with the Chairs' contributions, which was streamed during the event and shared on WTO's 
social media accounts.  
6. In concluding, I expressed my hope that this exchange would enrich our SPS discussions.  
 
__________  