WTO members raised a range
of trade concerns on pesticides in food products at the Committee on Sanitary
and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) on 2-3 November.
Meanwhile, they were unable to bridge gaps on a proposed decision on pesticide
residues at the forthcoming 11th Ministerial Conference (MC11).
Members highlighted a range of measures that set
standards on food safety and animal and plant health, which many agri-exporters said were too stringent and impeded trade,
especially to the detriment of farmers from developing countries. A record
number of WTO members and observers intervened at the meeting.
Peru voiced concerns over the European Union's
maximum residue levels for three pesticides - acrinathrin,
matalaxyl and thiabendazole.
In particular, thiabendazole is commonly used to
control fungal infection in mangoes, and the low residue limits imposed by the
EU have caused a decline in Peruvian mango exports. Peru argued that the requirement set more
stringent limits than is recommended by the Codex Alimentarius
and is more trade-restrictive than necessary.
The concern was shared by a wide range of WTO
members, including Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic,
Ecuador, Guatemala, Nigeria and the United States, which noted that the
standards have a negative impact on trade of a number of agricultural products.
The US added that the new standards also affected its sweet potato exports.
The EU, in its response, noted the stricter
standards were based on scientific studies by the European Food Safety
Authority (EFSA), and it had also provided information on alternative plant
protection products to replace thiabendozole use on
mangoes.
Peru further questioned the European Union on its
maximum permitted level of cadmium in foodstuffs, particularly in cocoa
products. As one of the major cocoa producers in the world, Peru was concerned
that the EU's intended requirements could impede its cocoa exports and were
already affecting the international price of the commodity.
The concern was echoed by other Latin American and
African cocoa exporters, including Colombia, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire,
Dominican Republic, Ghana, Guatemala, Madagascar, Nigeria and the Economic
Community of West African States (ECOWAS).
Colombia noted that cocoa cultivation is part of
its national strategy to diversify from illicit products, and the EU's
regulation on cadmium levels could affect the progress of this initiative and
the livelihood of farmers. Costa Rica said cadmium is naturally present in
cocoa due to the soil conditions, and called on the EU to take into account the
discussions under way in the Codex Alimentarius
Commission regarding cadmium in cocoa.
The EU, in its response, said that it had already
deferred the implementation of the maximum cadmium limits until 2019 due to
concerns by its trading partners. The scope of the regulation had also set the
limits on blended products, such as cocoa powders or chocolate products, rather
than on cocoa beans, to facilitate compliance. The EU further listed studies to
justify that the limit was based on a risk assessment and was necessary to
protect human health.
India's fumigation requirements once again received
strong reactions among WTO members. Colombia questioned India's requirement for
teak tree wood imports to be fumigated using a chemical called methyl bromide.
The concern was shared by Belize, Costa Rica and Liberia. They argued methyl
bromide had been banned in many countries because it damages the ozone layer,
and India's requirement hinders both their exports and their efforts to protect
the environment.
In a separate agenda item, Senegal repeated its
concern about a similar fumigation requirement for cashew nuts, supported by
Burkina Faso, Colombia, Madagascar, Mozambique, Nigeria, Togo, Ukraine and the
United States. Some members noted that India's fumigation requirement also
affected other agricultural products, such as peas and pulses. They stressed
that although members respected India’s right to
protect plant health, measures should be commensurate with the risks, and urged
India to acknowledge other treatments that could achieve the same level of
protection.
Russia withdrew a concern about fumigation of grain
imports at the start of the meeting, reporting that it had made progress in
bilateral discussions.
India, on its part, said that it had relaxed the
measure to make sure that imports can be fumigated upon arrival, and is in
consultation with members to find alternative solutions.
Some 20 members once again expressed concerns with
the European Union’s proposed criteria to define chemicals that can interfere
with hormone systems – endocrine disruptors.
The concern was initially raised by Argentina,
China and the United States, and supported by Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia,
Costa Rica, Guatemala, India, Israel, Madagascar, Mozambique, New Zealand,
Nigeria, Peru, Senegal, Thailand, Togo and Uruguay.
The US noted that in October 2017, the European
Parliament had rejected the European Commission's proposed criteria for
identifying endocrine disruptors, with members essentially calling for stricter
criteria that would lead to many additional substances being classified as
endocrine disruptors and subsequently banned. It added that prolonged
uncertainty on how the EU will move forward with regulating endocrine
disruptors was detrimental on many fronts.
The EU, for its part, responded that it had acted
in full transparency to inform WTO members of the proposed measure and its
regulatory process. It explained that the original proposal on criteria for
plant protection products had been rejected and returned to the Commission, and
the latter was currently reflecting on the next steps.
Brazil raised concerns regarding the European
Union's inspection and rejection of poultry meat shipments due to the detection
of salmonella. Brazil argued that the EU authorities had applied a stricter
standard than publicly announced. Brazil also requested the EU to provide
scientific evidence as to why there are two separate criteria for fresh poultry
meat and meat preparations.
The EU replied that its microbiological criteria
for meat preparations are stricter than for fresh poultry meat. As salt is
normally added to fresh poultry meat intended for export to the EU, the end
product falls under the definition of meat preparations, and thus stricter
standards apply.
Under an agenda item on monitoring the use of
international standards, Argentina and the United States took issue with the
ongoing delays in the European Union to renew the authorization for glyphosate.
The concern was also echoed by Australia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, New
Zealand, Peru and Uruguay. Glyphosate is an herbicide widely used for weed
control. Last month, EU member states failed to agree on whether to renew the
approval of glyphosate.
The US said members' actions to restrict the use of
glyphosate appear to lack scientific justification. It reminded members that
the scientific body assessing risks that international standards rely on – the
Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) - concluded that glyphosate
does not pose a risk to consumers or public health when used appropriately.
The EU said that there had been intensive internal
discussions on the possible renewal of glyphosate, and the EU is committed to
finding a solution that ensures a high level of protection for human health and
the environment, and that is based on sound science.
Members were unable to reach consensus to endorse a
decision on pesticide maximum residue levels (MRLs), which proponents hoped to
put forward to trade ministers at the 11th WTO Ministerial Conference (MC11) in
Buenos Aires this December.
A pesticide MRL is the maximum amount of pesticide
residue permitted to remain in or on food products to ensure that there is no
risk to human health. The proposal from Kenya, Uganda and the United States
noted that agricultural producers report growing concerns over the impact of
missing and misaligned MRLs on their exports.
The three members circulated a draft ministerial
decision, along with a set of recommendations to address the issue of pesticide
MRLs, to the SPS Committee earlier in October. The latest revision of the
document (G/SPS/W/292/Rev.2) contains five recommendations to enhance standards
development, transparency and cooperation on the use of MRLs.
The proponents highlighted that missing MRLs, as
well as differences between MRLs applied in different countries, can impede
international trade in agricultural products, and urged members to share
information and experiences on the development of MRLs on a voluntary basis.
They also suggested strengthening the process for developing international standards,
to promote harmonization. They stressed that bringing this matter to the
highest decision-making body of the WTO would help raise the profile of
MRL-related issues, injecting momentum to address the problem.
The Committee Chair, Mr Marcial
Espínola Ramirez (Paraguay), reported that he had
heard broad support for both the recommendations and the proposed ministerial
decision. A few members indicated support for the recommendations but voiced
concerns about a ministerial decision, while one member felt the
recommendations and proposed decision did not fully address the full spectrum
of issues related with MRLs, and therefore considered it premature to recommend
the proposal to a higher WTO decision-making body.
In conclusion, the Committee Chair urged members to
continue the discussion with their capitals and with each other, with a view to
finding a solution.
The Committee meeting was preceded by a workshop on
information sharing of SPS measures from 30 to 31 October. The workshop
included an overview of the transparency provisions in the SPS Agreement and
the recommended procedures to share information, as well practical sessions on
finding SPS information and submitting notifications. Members also shared their
experiences and best practices for public consultations on new SPS regulations.
Complete information on the workshop is available on the SPS Gateway.
The SPS Information Management System (SPS IMS)
includes all SPS-related measures notified by WTO members and the trade-related
concerns discussed in previous SPS Committee meetings.