Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) concerns in agricultural trade
CRS Report for Congress
Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Concerns in Agricultural Trade
Updated January 10, 2008
Geoffrey S. Becker
Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures refer to any of the laws, rules,
standards, and procedures that governments employ to protect humans, other animals,
and plants from diseases, pests, toxins, and other contaminants. Examples of SPS
measures include meat and poultry processing standards to reduce pathogens, residue
limits for pesticides in foods, and regulation of agricultural biotechnology.
SPS measures can be barriers to trade in agricultural, food, and other products,
according to the World Trade Organization (WTO) and others. Notable U.S.
disputes have included a European Union (EU) ban on U.S. meats treated with
growth-promoting hormones, which a WTO dispute panel ruled was not supported
by a risk assessment; and an EU moratorium on approvals of biotechnology products.
Foreign countries have often objected to various U.S. SPS measures as well.
Multilateral trade rules allow governments to adopt measures to protect human,
animal, or plant life or health, provided that they do not discriminate or use them as
disguised protectionism. This principle was clarified in 1994 by WTO members’
approval, along with the other so-called Uruguay Round Agreements, of the
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. This
document sets out the basic rules for ensuring that each country’s food safety and
animal and plant health laws and regulations are transparent, scientifically defensible,
and fair. The United States also has signed, or is considering, numerous regional and
bilateral free trade agreements (FTAs) that may contain SPS language.
The United States participates actively in the three major international scientific
bodies designated by the WTO to deal with SPS matters: the Codex Alimentarius
Commission for food safety, the Office of International Epizootics (OIE) for animal
health, and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) for plant health.
These bodies meet often to discuss threats to human and agricultural health, evaluate
SPS-related disputes, and develop scientifically based SPS standards, which can
provide guidance for countries formulating their own national SPS measures.
Although U.S. WTO officials frequently cite the benefits of SPS cooperation
under trade agreements, some, among them food safety and environmental advocacy
organizations, have been skeptical. They have argued that implementation of the
agreements can result in “downward harmonization” rather than upgraded health and
safety standards. Defenders counter that trade rules explicitly recognize the right of
individual nations to enact stronger protections than international guidelines if they
believe they are appropriate and are justified by scientific risk assessment.
In Congress, which must approve legislation if a trade agreement is to be
implemented, many Members are interested in how the FTAs might address SPS
matters. Some Members may be concerned that as trade agreements lower
agricultural tariffs, more countries may turn to SPS measures to protect their farmers
from import competition. Also, U.S. SPS rights and obligations are relevant as the
110th Congress considers new measures to more closely regulate imported foods.
