Read the case lets below and identify which article under WTO SPS

agreement have been violated/referred to

Case 1: Banning of Seafood exports from India and Bangladesh by
EU
In August 1997 the European Commission banned fishery products from India and Bangladesh. The
Seafood Exporters Association of India expressed the view that many of the standards adopted in
the Order dated 21 August 1995 were either irrelevant for product quality or too stringent, given the
Indian fishing conditions. They claimed that the legitimate objectives of the EU standards could be
met through less cumbersome and less costly procedures. Some examples of the standards applied
through this Order which is clearly beyond HACCP standards and, perhaps, not strictly relevant for
product quality is given below:
Walls and ceilings must be easy to clean;
The floor of the food handling and cold room areas shall be waterproof;
Walls shall be free from projections. . . Junctions shall be rounded off;
All window sills shall be sloping inwards;
Potable water shall be used for all purposes, including cleaning the ceiling.
Producers feel that in some cases EU norms are too strict and, in several respects, irrelevant for
product safety. For example, the EU standards require that even floors and ceilings be washed with
potable water. Another example of over-strict regulations quoted by the producers is the
requirement to undertake 62 tests to check water standards. The equipment required for some of
these tests is not available in India.
Although the EU concern about quality and safety compliance by Bangladeshi plants was justified
and, in principle, conformed to the SPS provisions of the WTO, Bangladesh demanded more time to
comply to the EU norms. Further the plight of the Bangaldeshi shrimp industry shows that
standards should be developed in cooperation with countries which lack the capacity to comply with
stringent measures, so that solutions that meet the requirements of both the importer and the
exporter may be found. For this Bangladesh needed to be more involved into activities relating to
development and review standards, guidelines and recommendations as per SPS measures.

Case 2: Stringent testing methods

Bhoomi Fruits and Vegetables Pvt. Ltd was a traditional exporter of vegetables to European markets
of Netherlands and Germany. The pesticides used in cucumber were Triazophos and in curry leaves
Triazophos and Monocrotophos. The testing method used to detect these pesticides was High
Performance Liquid Chromatography Mass Spectroscopy (HPLC MS) which had sensitivity at levels
of 10 ppb. Despite the fact that EU standards of MRLs were much stringent than CODEX, the
company complied with the European standards and had a stable business until 2007. In 2007, EU
specified test by HPLC which has sensitivity to a level of .2 ppb. The additional equipment means

1 | Page

incurring expenditure of around Rs 1.5 crores (US$ 3.5 Million) per equipment with this cost
increase being proportionately reflected in each test carried out.
It was due to these cost implications, India and other developing exporters could not comply to
testing of the said chemical. As a result of which, a rapid alert against Bhoomi exports was raised
against three consignments subsequently in November 2007 and January 2008. Developing countries
demanded for sensitive HPLCMS from EU along with the technical assistance.

Case 3: Varying acceptance limits for heavy metals amongst SAARC

nations
The Codex has recommended limits only for lead, copper, arsenic, tin, zinc, and iron. India has fixed
limit for above metals more than the limit Codex has set and, in addition, the limits for other metals
such as cadmium, mercury, and methyl mercury are also included. With exception of mercury and
methyl mercury, Bangladesh and Pakistan have set limits for other metals such as aluminum,
antimony, boron, fluorine, and silver etc.
Limits for heavy metals

Case 4: Rejections of Rice from Pakistan, Thailand and Vietnam in

USA
In the first six months of 2000, out of 80 consignments of basmati and non-basmati rice to the USA,
nearly 20 consignments were rejected on the grounds that they were filthy and contained 'foreign'
matter. To comply with the US regulations, rice has to be manually sorted and fumigated, and dead

2 | Page

weevils have to be blown out of it. This is not required for exports to the EU. There is an average of
three to six months delay in clearing rice consignments from a number of low-cost countries such as
Thailand and Vietnam. This would thus incur interest costs. The price reduction after this wait may
be about 5 per cent of the total consignment. Thus the incentive to export rice to the United States is
very low.

Case 5: Reduced limits of Aflatoxins in Peanuts in EU

The EU Commission has specified tolerance limits for aflatoxin contamination in peanuts and also
the testing methods to be used. The levels are 10 ppb. The Codex Alimentarius Commission had
proposed a maximum limit of 15 ppb. A report by the Joint European Commission Food Association
(JECFA) mentions that aflatoxin contamination of foodstuff is very low among the EU nations and
only a few members of the population suffer from hepatitis B, a precondition for liver damage by
aflatoxins. The report estimates that the risk at 20 ppb is 0.0041 cancer cases per 100 000 persons
annually. For 10ppb it is 0.0039 cases. This shows that the change in standard from 20 ppb to 10 ppb
reduces the estimated risk of cancer by approximately two cancer cases per billion people annually.
The contamination rate is estimated at 1:10 000 for peanuts. The FAO has recommended testing a
single 20 kg sample for aflatoxin content from a batch of between 15 and 24 tonnes. The FAO is of the
opinion that this sampling procedure will yield results that are reliable enough to eliminate the risk
for the consumer and that stricter requirements would bring no significant safety measure. The EU's
sampling procedure requires that three samples of 10 kg each be tested from a batch of between 15
and 24 tonnes. According to the new regulation, the whole shipment will be rejected if only one of
the three samples exceeds the tolerance level. It would be far more logical to calculate an average
value from all three samples as an end result. On the basis of the risk estimate computed by JECFA,
several experts are of the opinion that the new procedure would mean an unnecessary waste of good
product without actually being necessarily safer.

Case 6 : Rejections of Indian Apples from different origins in

Australia
SreeNanda exports having its branch in New Delhi as well as J&K (another province/state in India)
had traditionally been an apple exporter to Australia. In 2008, Bio security Australia (BA) banned
imports of apples from countries where firelight was present. SreeNanda exports contended that
firstly commercially packed apples were not the pathway for fire blight. Secondly, in November 2003,
Australia had lost the case with Japan on the same issue due to the absence of scientific justification.
Thirdly, while fireblight was present in some cases from apples originating from Himanchal Pradesh
in India, the presence of fireblight in regions like J&K with low temperatures was not possible.
Hence the import bans, if applied should be region specific instead of banning the country
altogether leading to a financial burden to the exporters.

3 | Page

Case 7: Frequent changes in labeling requirements

Moreover frequent change in the labeling regulations in the target market further enhances the cost
burden for an exporter. An analysis of frequency of change in the labeling regulations in EU on
authorization of certain health claims made on foods and referring to the reduction of disease risk
and to childrens development and health depicts that this regulation have been changed four times
within the duration of two months. Out of the four changes made, three of them fell into the same
category of health claim.

Commission regulation (EU)

Effective from

Category

Commission regulation (EU) NO 957/2010 of 22nd

Oct 2010

3rd Nov 2010

Iron,
Iodine,
bifid
bacteria

Commission regulation (EU) NO 958/2010 of 22nd

Oct 2010
Commission regulation (EU) NO 1162/2010 of 9th
Dec 2010
Commission regulation (EU) NO 1161/2010 of 9th
Dec 2010
Commission regulation (EU) NO 1161/2010 of 13th
Dec 2010
Source: EU commission directives on Labeling, 2010

3rd Nov 2010

30th Dec 2010

Health
Claim

30th Dec 2010

31st Dec 2010

Case 8: Grape exports from India suffers loss of Rs 250 crore

Grape exporters from India faced a loss of an estimated Rs. 273 crore as European authorities had
rejected consignments from India over the use of a chemical to preserve the fruit. According to
exporters, as many as 2,600 containers worth around Rs 273 crore were stuck at ports in Europe. in
order to keep the grapes fresh, chlormequat chemical was used as a preservative. The CCC is not a
banned growth hormone and hence was in use since ages by the grape farmers in India. A list of 97
preservatives to be used was given by the grape buyers in European countries. The European Union
countries revised these import norms for chemical residue in grapes in December 2009. As per the
new norms, 0.05 milligram per kilogram is the new permissible residue level for farmers exporting
to EU countries as against the earlier limit of 1.6 mg per kg. In December, 2009, these countries had
warned farmers not to use chloromacvat, but till then, the preservative was used and the fruit had
nearly ripened. Some farmers came to know about the changed norms only when their containers
were stopped at various ports in Europe. The consignment sent to Europe was rejected and it had
been lying there for the last two-and-a--half months Therefore, the remaining grapes were sold at an
average price of four euro per kilo. The importers chose to sell grapes at such lower prices to control
the damage. The stock was also being disposed of by burying the grapes in big pits and the cost was
borne by the exporters.

4 | Page

Case 9: Exporters confusion in exporting rice to Middle East and

mangoes to Jordan
Import requirements for rice are not necessarily transparent. The problems in exporting to the
Middle Eastern countries are very different from those that arise when exporting to Europe, Japan
and the USA. The difficulties of exporting to the Middle East arise primarily from a lack of clarity in
the specification of standards and the extensive documentation required from their embassies.
Some exporters claim that there is a lack of clarity in the specification of SPS measures for mangoes.
For example, exports to Jordan require a certificate stating that the product (a) is not radioactive (b)
does not contain dioxins and (c) does not contain certain pesticide residues. However, buyers are
often unable to provide detailed specifications of the pesticide residues for which the fruit must be
tested. This information is important since each pesticide may require a different testing method and
it may be expensive to conduct.

5 | Page