• Classification of SPS measures
• SPS measures in the forest sector
• Brazil nuts and EU regulations

Classification of SPS measures

a) Policy instruments

i) Import bans: Total bans, Partial bans; 

ii) Technical specifications: process standards (e.g. quarantine), product standards (e.g. maximum residue level), and packaging standards;

iii) Information remedies: labelling requirements, controls on voluntary claims.

i) Uniform: apply to all products, domestic or imports

ii) border universal: applies to all imports – most common for maximum residue levels on imports where pesticide is banned in importing countries

iii) border specific: for certain imports -to mitigate different levels of risk from different sources.

There are biological and toxicological risk reducing measures and measures which do not reduce risk but promote other goals such as conservation, quality, and compatibility with domestic production systems.  There are three broad social objectives: 

i) protecting the economic interests of producers, 

ii) protecting the health and economic interests of consumers

iii) protecting the environment.

SPS measures in the forest sector

• foodstuffs, e.g. mushrooms and nuts (especially Brazil nuts)
• products that may be used in the pharmaceutical industries, e.g., rubber, oils and herbs
• substances used for medicines. 

Brazil nuts and EU regulations

In January 1997 the EU notified the SPS committee of its intention to set maximum levels for certain contaminants in certain foodstuffs.  This included fixing maximum limits for aflatoxin B1 which may occur in nuts, groundnuts, dried fruit, cereals, milk and processed products made from these products.  Aflatoxins are frequently found in nuts, including Brazil nuts. At low levels aflatoxins are extremely hazardous to human health and are carcinogenic.

Several submissions have been made to the WTO to object to this regulation including comments from Argentina, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia and most recently Bolivia.  Supported by other members, Bolivia argued the EU's proposals for aflatoxin levels departed from the recommendations of Codex Alimentarius and had considerable social and economic impacts in producing countries especially as the EU is the main market for its Brazil nuts.  A request was made for the EU to provide the relevant risk assessments on which its proposals were made and but also noted that they were ready to enter into bilateral discussions with the EU in order to find a mutually agreeable solution. 

• The level of toxin permitted too restrictive
• Sampling methodology specified is seen as inaccurate
• Lack of risk assessment
• International standards under Codex still being determined

The EU responded with an assessment of the risks involved and justification for leaving some of the new regulations unchanged on the basis that quantitative risk assessments attempted were subject to several limitations and that definitive conclusions could not be drawn.  A precautionary approach was therefore proposed. The EU declared in October 1998 that 

‘For groundnuts, nuts, dried fruit, cereals and processed products thereof intended for direct human consumption or as an ingredient in foodstuffs, maximum limits remain at the level of 4 µg/kg aflatoxin total (B1 +B2 + G1 + G2) and 2 µg/kg, aflatoxin Bl’(EU Regulation 1525/98).