   
  
G/SPS/GEN/2215  
 
28 March  2024 
(24-2762) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  Original: English  
 
 
EUROPEAN UNION  MRLS AND PESTICIDE POLICIES – SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERN 448 : 
EU MRLS FOR ALPHA -CYPERMETHRIN, BUPROFEZIN, CHLOROTHALONIL , 
CHLORPYRIFOS, CHLORPYRIFOS -METHYL , CYPERMETHRIN,  
DIFLUBENZURON,  ETHOXYSULFURON, GLUFOSINATE,  
IMAZALIL,  IOXYNIL,  IPRODIONE, MANCOZEB,  
MOLINATE,  PICOXYSTROBIN   
AND TEPRALOXYDIM  
SUBMISSION BY THE UNITED STATES  OF AMERICA  
The following submission, received on 26 March  2024, is the statement made by the United  States 
of America at the 20-22 March  2024 WTO SPS Committee, and is being circulated at the request of 
the Delegation of the United States of America . 
 
_______________  
 
 
1.  The United States, along with a number of  other  raising Members, continues to express concern 
with the European Union's pestici de approval and renewal decisions and the systemic trade barriers 
that result from the subsequent withdrawal or reduction of pesticide maximum residue levels, or 
MRLs, to the Limit of Quantification based on uncertainty and insufficient scientific evidence . 
2.  The United States has noted recent EU MRL reductions to levels well below the E uropean Union's 
current, default limit of determination (LOQ) of 0.01 parts per million (ppm). The United States is 
concerned that the European Union's efforts to lower MRLs t o levels ranging from 0.001 ppm to 
0.005 ppm, as was proposed through notification G/SPS/N/EU/646  regarding MRLs for oxamyl, 
appears to be more trade restrictive than necessary to meet the EU level of protection.  
3.  The United States is concerned that s uch reductions to MRLs will have unnecessary negative 
effects on agricultural trade and create trade disruptions due, in part, to inaccurate residue analytical 
results, cross -contamination, or other reasons outside of the control of producers or exporters.  
4.  On 11 September 2023, the United States shared comments on G/SPS/N/EU/646  and we have 
not yet received a response from the European Union, although the proposed date of adoption is 
now May 2024. We would appreciate knowing when our comment s will receive a response so that, 
if necessary, we can engage in further discussions with  the European Union.  
5.  The United States has also previously shared concerns regarding the European Union's 
enforcement of MRLs. We continue to ask that the European Union consider alternate and more 
flexible approaches to the enforcement of changes to MRLs. A more flexible approach can support 
our shared goals of enhancing global food security in the least trade -restrictive manner possible 
while still protecting consumers. We request the E uropean Union extend the transition periods for 
MRLs where the E uropean Union has not identified risks to consumers based on dietary exposure 
based on complete risk assessments.  
6.  The United States, along with many third country producers, has expressed the need for lawfully 
produced food products to have sufficient time to move through the channels of trade before they 
are subject to the enforcement of standards established after their production. This is particularly 
important for products with long shelf lives. The EU policy of enforcing MRLs at the time of 
importation for imported goods rather than at the time of production causes unnecessary disruptions 
in trade destined for the EU market. This policy apparently is not based on consumer protection G/SPS/GEN/2215  
 
- 2 - 
 
  because the E uropean Union enforces new standards against domestic produ cts at the time of their 
production, not at the time of sale.  
7.  The United States requests that MRLs for all products, both domestic and imported, be enforced 
based on the MRLs in place at the time of application of the pesticide. This would resolve the 
inconsistency of enforcement of MRLs for agricultural goods produced inside and outside the 
European Union. 
8.  Consistent with the SPS Agreement , the United States also expects the E uropean Union to take 
WTO Members' comments into account prior to finalizing its draft measures. The United States has 
observed that the period of time between the WTO comment submission period and 
European  Commission voting on draft regulations on active substance renewals and MRLs may be 
too brief to allow the Commission to adequatel y consider Members' comments.  
9.  Lastly, we ask the E uropean Union to retain existing MRL levels while import tolerances are under 
consideration. Recent EU regulation states that import tolerance applications will be considered on 
a case -by-case basis depende nt upon meeting its definition of "environmental criteria ". The lack of 
predictability that results from the consideration of import tolerance requests on a "case-by-case" 
basis unnecessarily increases uncertainty for farmers globally and limits farmers' a bility to protect 
crops from pests and diseases.  
10.  During these times of increasing global food insecurity and unexpected global challenges related 
to changes in climate and disease, we urge the E uropean Union to recognize that its regulatory 
approaches for pesticides are increasingly out of step with those of nearly every other Member of 
the WTO and strongly consider the concerns that have been raised for years by many WTO Members.  
 
__________  