Dr. Tamanna ChaturvediConsultant

Indian Institute of Foreign Trade

Dr. Tamanna ChaturvediConsultant

Indian Institute of Foreign Trade

Quality Compliance as per WTO SPS & TBT agreements

Quality Compliance as per WTO SPS & TBT agreements

Session 5

Production Strengths: case of India

Our Export Markets does not match with global importers?

Chrysanthemum

Importers: UK (23.1) , Japan (17.5), Russia (17.3), USA (16.8)Export markets: France, Germany, Japan, Russia

Carnations

Importers: UK (17.5) , Japan (14.7), USA (15.3), Netherlands (12)Export markets: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Germany

Importers: Netherlands (16.8), USA(15.5), Russia (12.8), Germany (12.6)Export markets: Japan, UK, Australia, Netherlands

Importers: Japan (26.4), Italy(11.6), France (8), USA (7.1)

Export markets: Greece, Maldives, Australia, Belgium

Composition of World Food TradeComposition of World Food Trade

Sectors lagging behind….Sectors lagging behind….

4%

Srilanka (23.1), Madagascar (19.8) , Singapore (17.4), Indonesia (7.8)

Loosing Competition in International market.. Is SPS responsible?

Mexico(15.9),Netherlands (14.8) ,Brazil(11.7), Indonesia(1),Thai(7.8),Pak (2.8)

Brazil (31.2), Thailand (5.7), Germany (4.7), USA (4.2)

Nigeria(40.4), Tanzania (27.9), Indonesia (13.9), Vietnam (5.3), India (3.8)

Srilanka(23.1), Kenya (20.5), China(13.3), India (8.4), UK (5.5)

USA(26.68), Australia(16.22), Canada(13.3), Netherlands(9.19)

Why are we not able to capture developed country markets???

Why restrict market access?Why restrict market access?

SPS as marketing tool: Declining competition in L2 players

Rapid Alert System for Food & Feed in EU

Increasing number of EU RASFF alerts

In how many ways can you think exports from your country can be hampered?

SPS or TBT ?

human or animal health

from food-borne risks

human health from animal-

or plant-carried diseases

animals and plants from

pests or diseases

examples:

pesticide residues

food additives

human disease control

(unless it’s food safety)

nutritional claims

food packaging and

quality examples:

labelling (unless

related to food safety)

pesticide handling

seat belts

SPS MeasuresTBT Measures

List of Non tariff barriersList of Non tariff barriers

Food additivesHeavy metalsMycotoxinsContaminantsPesticide Residues

Technical regulationCertification requirementsProhibitionLabelingPackagingIdentification and Marking

SPS

TBT

Some are justified: case of Colorant – Sudan I - IV (Chillies)Some are justified: case of Colorant – Sudan I - IV (Chillies)

Some are not: Incompatible SPS Standards:

case of Milk Production in India

Some are not: Incompatible SPS Standards:

case of Milk Production in India

Two Way Dilemma

How do you ensure that the country’s consumers are being supplied food safe to eat?

How can you ensure strict health & safety regulations are not being used as an excuse for protecting domestic producers?

WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phyto Sanitary MeasuresWTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phyto Sanitary Measures

SPS consists of 14 articles.SPS consists of 14 articles.

No unjustifiable discrimination– between Members with similar conditions– between own territory and other

Members

Non-discriminationArticle 2.3

SPS permits Members to impose different sanitary and phytosanitary requirements on food, animal or plant products sources from different countries, provided that they "do not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between countries where identical or similar conditions prevail".

Members shall ensure

that any SPS

measure is:

Scientific justification Article 2.2

applied only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health (least trade restrictive)

based on scientific principles

not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence

except as provided for in Article 5.7

Standard-setting organizations

food safetyCODEX

plant healthIPPC

animal healthOIE

Codex = Joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius CommissionOIE = World Organization for Animal HealthIPPC = International Plant Protection Convention (FAO)

HarmonizationArticle 3

Member Countries are encouraged to use International standards.

It allows countries to set their own standards

Scientific JustificationShould be applied only to the extent necessary to protect

Non Discrimination

On what basis??

To what extent???

Equal Treatment??

http://gapcertification.com/

Maximum levels for Aflatoxins in spices in various developed countries

GRAPES CODEX U.S.A. EU JAPAN CANADA AUSTRALIA NEW ZEALAND

AZINPHOS-METHYL 1.0 5.0 1.0   5.0 2.0 2.0

ALPHA-CYPERMETHRIN 0.5   0.5 2.0 0.5 0.05  

BENALAXYL 0.2   0.2   0.1 0.5 0.5

CARBARYL 5.0 10.0 3.0 1.0 5.0 5.0 3.0

CHLOROTHALONIL 0.5   3.0 0.5 0.1 10.0 5.0

CHLORPYRIFOS 0.5   0.5 1.0 0.1 1.0 1.0

DIMETHOATE 1.0 1.0 0.02   0.1 5.0 2.0

DITHIANON 3.0       0.1 2.0 2.0

ENDOSULFAN 1.0 2.0 0.5   1.0 2.0 2.0

FENARIMOL 0.3 0.2 0.3 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.1

IPRODIONE 10.0 60.0 10.0 25.0 5.0 20.0 10.0

MALDISON 8.0 8.0 0.5 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0

METALAXYL 1.0 2.0 1.0   1.0 1.0 2.0

MYCLOBUTANIL 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.2

PERMETHRIN 2.0   0.05 5.0 2.0   0.5

PROCYMIDONE 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 1.0 2.0 5.0

TRIADIMENOL 2.0 1.0 2.0 0.5 0.1 0.5  

Comparison of CODEX level with Country standards for Fruits

Better off than CODEX

More stringent than CODEX

Case 3

Countries varies in their SPS standards-case of Salmonella

Countries varies in their SPS standards-case of Salmonella

Importing Country

Regulations regarding Salmonella

Hong Kong Products may be subjected to lab examination or microbiological contamination & positive testing shipment refused entry

Japan Japanese Min of health reserves the right to test shipments

China No separate Salmonella specific requirements

Canada No separate Salmonella specific requirements for raw products

Korea No separate Salmonella specific requirements

Estonia Mechanically deboned meat is tested for salmonella at port of entry Positive testing denied entry

Salmonella widely present in domestic supply chains in USA however country claims to have has zero tolerance for the pathogen

Importing Country

Regulations regarding Fruits

Australia Strict attention to plant health(fumigation only using methyl bromide)

USA Strong official attention to product cleanliness, labeling for allergens & fumigation banned out.

EU In contrast Fumigation is already banned in EU

     Spain Importance to testing on pesticide residue

    Germany Hardly any consignment tested

     UK Most pesticide residue testing is undertaken for products at retail level

Customers of South Europe prefer large sizes of tropical fruits (pineapples, papayas & mango) whereas customers in North Europe prefer small fruits.

Different Operative Procedures for Conformity Requirements for Fruits

Sr.No

RASFF Date

Country Reason for RASFF

Type of control by EU

1 08/06/2010

Austria 0.124 Distribution restricted to notifying country

2 21/05/2010

Slovak Republic

0.174 Product to be re dispatched

3 01/06/2010

Slovenia 0.19 Product on the market. Reinforced checking

4 25/05/2010

Lithuania 0.20 Withdrawal from the market

5 08/06/2010

Lithuania 0.21 No stock left

6 01/06/2010

Slovenia 0.24 Product on the market. Reinforced checking

7 07/07/2010

Czech Republic

0.24 Product already consumed

8 07/07/2010

Czech Republic

0.24

9 18/05/2010

Lithuania 0.24 Distribution restricted to notifying country

10 12/07/2010

Czech Republic

0.25 Product already consumed

11 20/05/2010

Lithuania 0.35 Possible withdrawal from the market

12 11/05/2010

Lithuania 0.37 Product to be withdrawn from the market

13 27/05/2010

Hungry 0.97

14 10/05/2010

Hungry 1.00

15 19/05/2010

Germany 1.28 Distribution restricted to notifying country

Discrepancies in the action taken across same EU country

Kiwi Green”- success story of IPM in New ZealandKiwi Green”- success story of IPM in New Zealand

• The detection of spray residues on New Zealand kiwifruit, was essentially being used as a trade barrier in some European markets. The New Zealand Kiwifruit Marketing Board (NZKMB) responded in 1991 by developing a pest management strategy that would enable the production of fruit with no detectable residues. This IPM program, called `KiwiGreen' focused on pest management and agrochemical issues, was launched in 1992.

• KiwiGreen' is an example of the successful development and implementation of an IPM program across an entire fruit industry. `KiwiGreen' consists of a documented and audited program of pest control measures that can only be applied in response to a demonstrable need. It was an important precursor to later developments when this program was broadened to encompass all the principles of IFP that became a major component within a broader GAP program called the ZESPRI™ System.

• This system was the basis of the EurepGAP implementation program in the kiwifruit sector in 2002 and today, over 90% of New Zealand's kiwifruit producers that are EurepGAP certified supply crops to Zespri International Ltd.

Nouyaku-navi- Concept of Navigation System for Appropriate Pesticide Use in Japan

Nouyaku-navi- Concept of Navigation System for Appropriate Pesticide Use in Japan

• In the Nouyaku-navi, the goal is to enable farmers to prevent pesticide misapplication due to carelessness and to automatically register the application records by automatic recognition of the agrochemicals using bar-codes (Japanese Article Number codes) and/or RFID (Radio Frequency Identification: Wireless IC) tags attached to the agrochemical containers.

• A judgment server system has been developed (hereinafter referred to as the Nouyaku-navi judgment server) which determines in advance the propriety of pesticide use, together with a system for preparing appropriate plans or guidelines on pesticide application and pest control which can easily and precisely create such plans. An on-site warning system has been developed which uses barcodes or RFID to give farmers warning information

Disease free areas Article 6 Disease free areas Article 6

• Adaptation of SPS measures to regional conditions, including pest- or disease- free areas, differing climatic conditions & different pest or diseases or food safety conditions so as to lead to the development/imposition of different SPS requirements

• Exporter to demonstrate (reasonable access to be given for inspection/testing)

TransparencyArticle 7 & Annex BTransparencyArticle 7 & Annex B

Members shallestablish an Enquiry Point

ANDdesignate a Notification Authority

notify other Members of new or changed SPS regulations when

no international standard exists OR

the new regulation is different than the international standard

regulation may have significant effect on trade

AND

When to notify?When to notify?

Emergency measures IMMEDIATELY!!

Regular measures

Allow 60 day comment period!!Allow 60 day comment period!!

When modifications are still possible(draft text)

Transparency timelineTransparency timeline

1. Drafting of the regulation

2. Publication of a notice

3. Notification to other Members

4. Draft text upon request (or website)

5. Receive & discuss comments

7. Adoption of the regulation

8. Publication of the regulation

...T

ime.

..

9. Entry into force of the regulationMin. 6 months

Min. 60 days

6. End of comment period

Trade impact on SPS: role of public and private standardsTrade impact on SPS: role of public and private standards

Individual Firm Standards Collective National standards Collective International Standards

• Nature's Choice(Tesco)

• Filières Qualité• (Carrefour) – version

applied in multiple• countries• Field-to-Fork (Marks

& Spencer)• Filière Controlleé

(Auchan) –versionapplied in multiplecountries

• P.Q.C. (PercorsoQualità Conad)

• Albert Heijn BV: AH

Excellent

• Assured Food Standards(UK)

• British Retail Consortium• Global Standard• Freedom Food (UK)• Qualitat Sicherheit (QS)• Assured Combinable Crops

Scheme (UK)• Sachsens Ahrenwort

Sachsen• Qualitatslammfleisch• QC Emilia Romagna• Stichting Streekproduction

• Vlaams Brabant

GlobalGAP• International FoodStandard• Safe Quality Food (SQF)1000/ 2000• Marine StewardshipCouncil (MSC)• Forest Stewardship

Council (FSC)

Pre-farm gate Post-farm gateFood processing Retail outlets

andsupermarkets

Collectivestandards

EurepGAPSQF 1000ISO 9000

SQF 2000ISO 9000HACCP

SQF 3000ISO 9000HACCP

Retailer specificstandards

TESCO (Nature Choice)

Selected private-sector standards and codes in the market place

Country DutchHACCP

ISO 9001:2008

GLOBALGAP Organic BRC FSSC22000:2010

ISO 22000:2005

TNC

UK √ √ √ Only for Tesco

EU √ √ √USA √ √ √Aus-NZ √Japan √

Variation in prevalent standards across major export markets

Estimation of Trade Impact of SPS standards

1. Increased cost of compliance due to variation in standards across the export markets;

2.Considering the poor awareness level and lack of government support towards dissemination of such information, the possibility of import detention in the export markets increases;

3.Variation in stringency levels across markets results into the loss of trade opportunities in almost all of these markets on account of one reason or the other.

ORGANIZATION OBJECTIVE COSTS (US$)

Food Safety Authority of India(FSSAI)

Review and update legal framework 70,000

Development of regulations 20,000 Develop standardization capacity 90,000Promote implementation of safety standards 60,000Training of inspectors 40,000 Infrastructure development 100,000Production of training materials Consultancy for development of production manual Translation into local languages Printing

60,000

Sub total 440,000

APEDAPromote implementation of quality standards 40,000Upgrade research laboratory 70,000 Renovate/build cold chambers 90,000 Establishing traceability systems# 79,545

APEDA registered HACCP Certifying agencies and Export Inspection Council

Develop export certification capacity 80,000

Sub total 359,545

Department of Plant Protection and Quarantine

Develop capacity to deal with SPS issues 25,000Develop inspection and quarantine capacity 90,000Strengthen information, surveillance systems 60,000Modernize procedures for registering and control of pesticides

80,000

Upgrade infrastructure to allow efficient implementation of phytosanitary systems

95,000

Sub total 350,000Total 799,895

Cost estimate for obtaining Global GAP and HACCP certificate

Sr. No. Particulars Cost in Rs.A Consultancy1 Establishing & assembling in-house Food Safety team 3,000.002 Describing product 6,000.003 Identifying intended uses 3,000.004 Establishing flow diagram 5,000.005 Confirming flow diagram on-site 5,000.006 Establishing GMPs, GHPs and sanitation, on-site 22,000.007 Listing all potential hazards, conducting a hazard analysis

& considering any measures to control identified hazards23,000.00

8 Determining critical control points CCPs 8,000.009 Establishing critical limits for each CCP 5,000.0010 Establishing monitoring system for CCPs 5,000.0011 Establishing corrective actions 5,000.0012 Establishing verification procedures 5,000.0013 Establishing documentation & record keeping 5,000.0014 Preparation of policies & SOPs – ISO 22000 25,000.00Sr. No. Particulars Cost in Rs.B Awareness/Training 25,000.00C Tentative Travel & Hospitality expenses 15,000.00Total 165,000.00BRC Certification cost 95,000.00BRC Surveillance cost 25,000.00

The General EC Requirements on TraceabilityThe General EC Requirements on Traceability

Traceability Requirements

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/health_consumer/information_sources/videos_en.htm#Food

Product specific traceabilityProduct specific traceability

• A product’s traceability is increasingly important with regard to both captured and cultured fish (i.e. from the perspective of food safety, prevention of fraud and sustainability). It is a legal requirement within the EU, compliance with which is the industry’s responsibility.

• Choices for tracing systems include online reporting, product tagging and third party verification Third party verification is offered by certification systems (chain of custody certification) such as MSC

Application for Agricultural Methodological Analysis" (AFAMA): Success story of Traceability System in Japan

Application for Agricultural Methodological Analysis" (AFAMA): Success story of Traceability System in Japan

• Japanese government, local governments and the Japan Agricultural Cooperatives (JA) have been promoting the development and practical application of food traceability systems (FTS) as national projects.

• The "Virtually Identified Produce System" (VIPS) is the basic scheme of FTS, where ID numbers are given to food products and printed on their labels or packages. Farmers input in the production data about their products to an Internet-accessible database.

• Consumers who purchase these products can browse a product's data by going to the VIPS Website and entering the product's ID. Based on the VIPS, a practical information disclosure system called "SEICA" for fruit and vegetable products was developed and opened to the public in 2002

S.NO. Particulars Value (Rs. lacs)1 Software Development and Implementation 8.252 System Audit 0.753 Implementation (Training at various locations, Study

material, etc.)8.75

4 Call Centre Support 0.605 Hardware / Software / Server Co-location 11.256 Annual Maintenance Charges (AMC) 5.40  Total 35.00

Traceability Implementation for PomegranateSource: APEDA, New Delhi

http://www.fao.org/es/esn/food/foodandfood_fruits_en.stm

Strict Packaging requirementStrict Packaging requirement

Debarking :WPM must be free from bark with the exception of any number of individual pieces of bark if they are either less than 3 cm in width (regardless of the length) or, if greater than 3 cm in width, of not more than 50 cm2 in area.

Treatment :WPM entering the EU must have been treated with one of the following approved methods:

Heat Treatment (HT) that achieves a minimum wood core temperature of 56°C for a minimum of 30 minutes. Kiln-drying (KD), chemical pressure impregnation (CPI), or other treatments may be considered HT treatments as long as they meet the HT specifications.

Fumigation with Methyl Bromide (MB) in alignment with ISPM No. 15 requirements. In any case, minimum temperature should not be less than 10°C and the minimum exposure time should be 24 hours.

If you are using Wood as packaging material

Strict Labeling Requirements Strict Labeling Requirements

• A large amount of information has to be provided on the label in both English & Chinese.

• The establishment number should be printed on the inner poly liner, poly bag, or vacuum bag.

• In the case of Alcohol & Pre-packaged food– Labeling should be in Chinese.– Specific font sizes have to be maintained.

• In the case of milk & milk products– Labeling should be in Chinese.– Specific background colors have also been mentioned.

Few examples….

Let’s see what Pakistan has to ask for?

Organic labelingOrganic labeling

• Regulated through EU regulation 2092/91 and 1788/2001

• To label a product as organic a minimum of 95% of the ingredients have to be produced by organic methods

• Inspections of final product are not sufficient (inspections during production process)

• Conversion period of 2 year• Certification through accredited bodies (e.g.

Skal, IMO)

Heavy Metals in Herbal Products

Source: The Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF), EU Annual report 2013

Legislative requirements

Phytosanitary regulations are government regulations that restrict or prohibit the importation and marketing of certain plant species, or products of these plants, so as to prevent the introduction or spread of plant pests or pathogens that these plants may be carrying. (stats.oecd.org)

http://www.eppo.int/

All you wanted to know about Quality requirements in Dutch Auction Centers

http://www.vbn.nl

Milieu Project Sierteelt (Floriculture Environmental Project”

• MPS- Florimark production

• MPS- Socially qualified

• MPS-GAP

• MPS-ABC

• MPS-Quality

• MPS-Quali Tree

International Labeling for Floriculture: MPS

MPS-Quali Tree

MPS-GAP

MPS-SQ

MPS-ABC

MPS-Quality

Textile Labelling Textile Labelling

• Directive 2008/121/EC • All textile products must carry a label which

indicates the fibre content on the product• A textile product consisting of two or more

fibres must be marked + % • Fibre marking in % order

Product safety for Manufactured goodsProduct safety for Manufactured goods

• CE Marking [compulsory to a range of products and hazards, incl. e.g. machinery, toys, protective wear, electrical appliances, pressure vessels. Full list is mentioned under the New Approach Directive] Indicates that the product conforms to the European

applicable and legal demands in terms of safety, health and consumer protection

• EU Directives (per product group) describe the essential requirements (laid down in norms as defined by CEN, CENELEC or ETSI), which differ as per the safety risk involved

• From self-declaration by the manufacturer to testing and verification by testing institutes (notified bodies)

• http://www.newapproach.org/ – Product overview, directives with full legal texts and

applicable standards (EN norms)– Safety of toys; Directive 88/378/EEC

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

11.89.4 9.3

11.1 10.628.62 9.65

45.48 46.08 46.08

51.76 51

43.76

52.01

21.20

17.80 17.0015.20 16.10

10.68

India Bangladesh Nepal Srilanka

Percentage of Adulterated/substandard samples

Strategies for better SPS compliance

Strategies for better SPS compliance

• Establishment of Food Safety Act: India• “Safe” vegetable program of Vietnam• Promotion of safer food in China: Different labels are used for

“green” food, “organic” food and “pollution-free” food. “Green” food is supposed to be non-polluted, safe, nutritious, and grown in a sustainable (e.g. minimal energy consumption) manner. Food meeting these standards can use an authentication symbol issued by one of 38 branches of the Green Food Development Centre.

• Guangzhou has implemented a Food Quality Reassurance project.

• In 2001 Shanghai introduced “Standards for Safe and Hygienic High-Quality Vegetables” covering seed and land selection, fertilizer and pesticide use and quality monitoring.

• Beijing, which hosted the Olympics in 2008, introduced the “Meat and Vegetable Quality Reassurance Project” in August 2002. The aim was to develop a “from farm to dining table” control system, involving producers in taking responsibility for product safety and leading to a “Green Olympics”

Efforts made in ThailandEfforts made in Thailand

• In Thailand, several farm-level accreditation schemes have been in operation.

• The “Pesticide Safe” vegetable program, run by the Department of Agriculture, involved inspection and crop testing. Farmers could still use pesticides and mineral fertilizers but products had to contain pesticide residues lower than the maximum level set by Codex Alimentarius

• The “Hygienic Vegetables” programme is promoted by the Medical Sciences Department. This places responsibility on the packer for sourcing vegetables with safe pesticide residue levels.

• Thailand has now developed the “Q Mark” with the objective of consolidating the various codes that presently exist. The system of Q standards covers different steps of the supply chain. Q GAP is for farm-level certification; Q-GMP is for packing plants; while QFood Safety (Q-GAP plus Q-GMP) is for packers sourcing only

from farmers who are QGAP certified.

• Malaysia has introduced a commodity branding programme called “Malaysia’s Best.”

• This is an umbrella brand for the country’s horticultural products that guarantees quality and safety in accordance with Malaysian Standards and the Malaysian Good Agricultural Practice System.

• It was initiated for carambola, papaya, pineapple, mango and watermelon, but is to be extended to all other commodities. All farmers can apply to be certified although, initially, most certified farmers are contracted to the Federal Agricultural Marketing Authority (FAMA) for delivery to supermarkets.

Efforts made in MalaysiaEfforts made in Malaysia

• In Indonesia, the Government has also responded to a lack of quality incentives in the marketing system by introducing commodity and location-specific certification systems.

• Prima III is the lowest standard, with produce required to meet MRLs. Prima II incorporates Prima III and quality attributes. Prima I broadly complies with EurepGAP standards.

Efforts made in IndonesiaEfforts made in Indonesia

Kiwi Green”- success story of IPM in New ZealandKiwi Green”- success story of IPM in New Zealand

• The detection of spray residues on New Zealand kiwifruit, was essentially being used as a trade barrier in some European markets. The New Zealand Kiwifruit Marketing Board (NZKMB) responded in 1991 by developing a pest management strategy that would enable the production of fruit with no detectable residues. This IPM program, called `KiwiGreen' focused on pest management and agrochemical issues, was launched in 1992.

• KiwiGreen' is an example of the successful development and implementation of an IPM program across an entire fruit industry. `KiwiGreen' consists of a documented and audited program of pest control measures that can only be applied in response to a demonstrable need. It was an important precursor to later developments when this program was broadened to encompass all the principles of IFP that became a major component within a broader GAP program called the ZESPRI™ System.

• This system was the basis of the EurepGAP implementation program in the kiwifruit sector in 2002 and today, over 90% of New Zealand's kiwifruit producers that are EurepGAP certified supply crops to Zespri International Ltd.

Assistance towards SPS ComplianceAssistance towards SPS Compliance

• ‘Better Training for Safer Food’ programme, – EU organised training specifically for developing countries

(particularly emerging economies and trade partners). The aim is to keep participants up-to-date with EU law and also to ensure more harmonised and efficient controls.

• The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) – Organises training courses on a regular basis to increase trade

capacity of countries but also helps to develop standards for fruits and vegetables.

• Aid for Trade program by the WTO – Initiated in 2005 focuses on identifying the needs within recipient

countries, responding to donors and acting as a bridge between donors and developing countries. Aid for Trade supports countries overcoming supply side constraints such as lack of knowledge, inadequate financing and poor infrastructure.

• National level international training program (ITP) in Belgium on food safety, quality assurance and risk analysis by Ghent University (Department of food Safety and Quality)

• EU Pesticide Initiative Program (PIP) to ensure compliance of fresh produce to EU requirements

Standard and Trade development facility

Food &Agriculture Organization

World Organization for Animal Health

STDF: a joint initiative….

World Bank

World Health Organization

World Trade Organization

Grants under STDF

www.ipfsaph.org

Internet adressesInternet adresses

• www.eurep.org (EUREPGAP)• www.globalgap.org (GLOBALGAP)• www.brc.org.uk (BRC)• www.codexalimentarius.net• http://eur-lex.europa.eu (EU legislation)• http://exporthelp.europa.eu (EU Export Helpdesk)• www.foodlaw.rdg.ac.uk/label (UK regulations guide)• www.cbi.nl/accessguide• www.sa-intl.org (Social Accountability International)• www.iso.ch (International Standards Organisation• www.flo-cert.net (FLO Fair Trade Label Certification)• www.intracen.org/ep (ITC Packaging resource)• http://ec.europa.eu/sanco_pesticides/public/index.cfm (Pesticide

Residue Level Database)

Tamanna Chaturvedi

tchaturvedi@iift.ac.in

+91-11-26967558