Both agreements contain some common elements, including basic non-discrimination obligations and similar requirements for the notification of proposed measures and the establishment of information offices (« enquiry points »). However, many of the substantive rules differ. For example, both agreements promote the application of international standards. However, under the SPS Agreement, the only justification for the absence of such food safety and animal/plant health standards is scientific arguments arising from an assessment of potential health risks. On the other hand, under the TBT Convention, governments may decide that international standards are not appropriate for other reasons, including fundamental technological problems or geographical factors. TBT measures could cover anything from vehicle safety to energy-efficient appliances to the shape of food cartons. To give some examples of human health, TBT measures could include pharmaceutical restrictions or cigarette labelling. Most measures related to the control of human diseases are covered by the TBT Convention, unless they concern diseases transmitted by plants or animals (e.g. B rabies). For food, labelling requirements, nutrition claims and concerns, quality and packaging requirements are generally not considered sanitary or phytosanitary measures and are therefore generally subject to the TBT Convention. At the same time, the single payment system imposes restrictions on their claims, so their arbitrary use should not restrict international trade. Specific sanitary and phytosanitary requirements are most often applied on a bilateral basis between trading countries. Developing countries benefit from the SPS Agreement because it provides an international framework for sanitary and phytosanitary arrangements between countries, regardless of their political and economic strength or technological capabilities.

In the absence of such an agreement, developing countries could be disadvantaged when challenging unjustified trade restrictions. In addition, governments must accept products introduced under the SPS Agreement that meet their safety requirements, whether these products are the result of simpler and less sophisticated methods or advanced technology. Increased technical assistance to support developing countries in the area of food safety and animal and plant health, whether bilaterally or through international organizations, is also part of the SPS Agreement. This introduction deals with the text of the SPS Agreement as contained in the Final Act of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, signed in Marrakesh on 15 April 1994. This Agreement and other contents in the Final Act and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, as amended (GATT 1994), form part of the Treaty establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO). The WTO replaced the GATT as the umbrella organization for international trade. In 2003, the US challenged a series of EU laws restricting the import of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in a dispute known as EC-Biotech[11], arguing that they were « unjustifiable » and illegal under the SPS agreement. In May 2006, the WTO`s Dispute Settlement Body issued a complex decision that challenged some aspects of EU GMO rules, but rejected many of the claims made by the US. A summary of the decision can be found here. The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the « SPS Agreement ») entered into force with the establishment of the World Trade Organization on 1 January 1995.

It concerns the application of the rules on food safety and animal and plant health. Yes, since 1948, national food safety and animal health measures affecting trade have been subject to GATT rules. Article 1 of the GATT (see note 1), the most-favoured-nation clause, required non-discriminatory treatment of products imported from various foreign suppliers, and Article III required that such products not be treated less favourably than domestically produced products in terms of legislation or sales requirements. These rules applied, for example, to limit values for pesticide residues and food additives and to restrictions for animal or plant purposes. Sanitary and phytosanitary measures can naturally lead to trade restrictions. All governments accept that certain trade restrictions may be necessary to ensure food safety and the protection of animal and plant health. However, governments are sometimes under pressure to go beyond what is necessary to protect health and apply sanitary and phytosanitary restrictions to protect domestic producers from economic competition. This pressure is likely to increase as other trade barriers are removed as a result of the Uruguay Round agreements. A sanitary or phytosanitary restriction that is not really necessary for health reasons can be a very effective protectionist means and, because of its technical complexity, a particularly misleading and difficult obstacle to combat.

The SPS Agreement is closely linked to the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, which was signed in the same year and pursues similar objectives. The TBT is the result of the WTO TOKYO Round of negotiations and was negotiated with the aim of ensuring non-discrimination in the adoption and implementation of technical regulations and standards. [3] The SPS-IMS is a comprehensive database that allows users to search all notified SPS measures and specific trade concerns (SPCs) submitted to the SPS Committee. Users can also search national notification bodies and SPS enquiry points, as well as other SPS-related documents disseminated to the WTO. .