Ukraine raised concerns on two of Russia’s import measures concerning confectionery products and edible salt. According to Ukraine, Russia banned imports of Ukrainian sweets in July 2013, claiming that the products did not meet Russian food standards, and in January 2016, Russia further imposed transit restrictions for Ukrainian products destined for a third country. In addition, Russia effectively banned imports of edible salt on the claim that the Ukrainian producer breached Russian requirements of food additives. As a result of the Russian measures, Ukrainian exports of sweets and edible salt to Russia dropped drastically. Ukraine requested Russia to provide reasons for the trade restrictions. In response, Russia said it had worked transparently and in good faith with Ukraine, and it would remain open to further discussion. Russia added that some of the issues raised by Ukraine were not covered by the SPS agreement.

Separately, the European Union raised concerns regarding Russia’s import restrictions of certain meat products from Germany. In early 2013, Russia banned imports of fresh and chilled meat from Germany and processed meat and dairy products from 3 German states on the grounds that Germany’s veterinary service had not carried out proper export controls. The EU said that despite all efforts to address Russia’s concerns in the past three years, the restrictions still remain in place with no proper justification.  Russia responded that German animal producers had enjoyed access to the Russian market since its WTO accession. However a majority of German processing plants failed to comply with Russia’s SPS requirements, according to inspections carried out by the Russian authorities. As a result, Russia banned imports of the concerned products. Once measures have been taken to ensure compliance with Russian requirements, Russia would re-inspect the processing plants.

Israel raised concerns regarding Costa Rica’s pesticide registration system, which it claimed hindered trade.  Israel said that an Israeli company had filed close to 100 registrations since 2011, yet no approval had been granted. While Israel supported Costa Rica’s right to regulate pesticides, it should respect reasonable time-frames.  In response, Costa Rica informed members it had reformed its system for registration, which led to a delay in processing of applications. The reform process is at the final stage and Costa Rica would soon notify the measure to members for comments.

The EU updated members on how they can actively contribute to its ongoing review process of maximum residue levels (MRLs) for pesticides, as circulated to WTO members in G/SPS/GEN/1494.

Discussions also continued around the European Commission’s criteria to identify chemicals that can impact hormone systems at certain doses, or endocrine disruptors. On 15 June 2016, two draft legal acts containing the criteria were endorsed by the European Commission. Twenty members raised concerns over the proposed criteria, which they claim could lead to hundreds of products having to be taken off the market and  unnecessarily impacting on trade and agri-food production.

The United States repeated its concerns on the delayed approval of US biotech products in the European market. The US said that significant delays in the consideration of biotech products are disrupting the ability of producers to bring new products to market. In particular, the US said that the European Commission had not taken action to adopt approvals of three soybean products, which has disrupted seed markets and farmers’ planning decisions. The EU responded that approvals of all biotech products are in line with the current legal framework, and the authorization process for the three soybean products are at the final stage.

The United States raised concerns regarding China’s proposed amendments to safety assessments of agricultural genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The US said that approvals of several agricultural biotech products was pending in China and urged China to speed up the process. China, in response, said that its food safety management has always been based on risk analysis in line with international practices, and it is still in the process of amending its implementation regulations for agricultural GMOs.

The US also questioned China over the lack of information on trade measures relating to China’s 2015 Food Safety Law. The US said that China had not notified measures issued by some of China’s principal regulatory agencies to implement the 2015 Food Safety Law, although many of these measures had a significant impact on trade. The US urged China to notify these measures and afford members the opportunity to provide comments.  Australia, the EU and New Zealand also shared similar concerns. In response, China said that it took its transparency obligations seriously, and some of the trade measures the US mentioned had not taken effect. It assured members that the measures would be notified to the WTO when the regulations are revised after public comments.