Joint report: CETA Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Measures Joint Management Committee (JMC)

November 12-13, 2025 (Brussels and by videoconference)

1. Welcome and introduction

1.1. Opening remarks

• Canada and the European Union (EU) reiterated the importance of continuing the dialogue at the SPS Committee and acknowledged the efforts and cooperation to progress on technical files of the SPS area.

1.2. Introductions

• Meeting was attended by representatives from the EU Commission (DG SANTE and DG TRADE) the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA), Global Affairs Canada (GAC) and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC).

1.3. Adoption of the agenda

• The agenda was jointly adopted; no revisions were made.

2. Operation and implementation of the SPS Chapter

2.1. Review and follow up of action items from JMC 2024

• EU and Canada acknowledged the good communication between teams on complex issues and expressed satisfaction with the continuous collaboration in resolving technical challenges.
• Canada and the EU agreed to continue tracking the progress of issues and making firm new commitments for the next year.

2.2. Amendments to CETA Annex 5-E: Recognition of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures

• EU and Canada noted that some of the legislative references related to the established and recognized as equivalent SPS measures in Annex 5E of CETA are outdated and require updates given they form the conditions for trade of food and animal commodities between Canada and the EU.
• The update of the legislative references would provide legal certainty and clarity of which law applies to operators, auditors, and competent authorities.
• Both sides discussed on options forward with the objective to jointly publish an updated list of legislative references on their websites that could be kept regularly up to date.

Action items:

• EU and Canada to establish a working group for the revision of the legislative references of Annex-5E to bring legal clarity and explore options on the way forward towards a potential amendment in the future.

3. Information sharing

3.1. Pesticides and contaminants

• Canada reiterated its concerns on the EU’s approach to its pesticide regulations, including the application of a hazard-based approach to setting Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) and import tolerances, which include the setting of MRLs based on environmental concerns in third countries. Canada raised specific technical questions regarding testing and enforcement of these MRLs, enquired about the follow up on action items from previous meetings and technical discussions.
• In relation to the EU’s copper MRL regulation, EU noted that a draft regulation reviewing MRLs for copper compounds is planned for adoption around March 2026. No reduction in copper MRLs is planned for the moment, with stakeholders invited to submit monitoring data by 2028 in order for the MRLs to reflect the appropriate levels of environmental presence. Canada indicated that it will provide data for products exported to the EU to ensure continuity of trade.
• Canada requested a list of pesticides and contaminants under review, which EU agreed to share.
• For contaminants, Canada followed up on a previous commitment to develop a guidance document on regulation implementation. SANTE noted that this was expected to be finalised by early 2026. EU recalled that regulations are based on health risk assessments from EFSA, while Canada reiterated the importance of preventing trade barriers and avoid the risk of potential trade disruptions.
• EU committed to share data with Canada including details from the draft regulation on copper MRLs, the contaminants guidance document, and a list of contaminants to be reviewed by EFSA.

Action items:

• Pesticides MRLs: EU will share information with Canada on the draft copper MRL Regulation. EU will share the list of pesticides to be reviewed by EFSA.
• Contaminants: EU will share the list of contaminants to be reviewed by EFSA. EU will develop and share contaminants guidance document.

3.2. EU Vision for Food and Agriculture

• EU provided an overview of the “EU's Vision for Food and Agriculture”. In relation to the vision, it was explained that some important decisions are still pending (e.g. impact assessment on pesticides, animal welfare).
• Under the framework of the “Vision”, and with the objective of increasing the level of EU import control, a taskforce was created in cooperation with the EU Member States.
• Canada underlined the need to focus mainly on ensuring food and animal safety. While the objectives proposed are valid, Canada suggested the EU be open to alternative regulatory approaches to achieve food safety outcomes that would help avoiding unnecessary potential trade disruption. It reiterated its concern over MRLs being used for environmental purposes as part of it SPS measures which should be independent of these considerations and welcomed further discussions with EU on the topic.

Action items:

• EU will keep Canada updated on ongoing developments.

4. Specific issue management: Food safety

4.1. Point-of-entry violations from EU Member States exporting meat products to Canada

• Canada presented an overview of the point of entry (POE) violations for meat and meat products exported from EU Member States to Canada, which have been increasing over the past two years. It was explained that the cause for rejections continues to range from certification issues, microbiological and chemical residues, with most non-compliances (19) linked to organoleptic concerns (such as ingesta, fecal matter, foreign material, off conditions.).
• Canada requested that EU explore further mechanisms that can be implemented to ensure that sufficient oversight is provided by the competent authorities to meet requirements at the time of export.
• EU underlined that while it is important to take measures to minimize the number of non compliances, no immediate health threat has ever occurred and noted that Member States have already been alerted through the relevant forums and working groups.
• EU expressed readiness to take further action and committed to share any new data provided by Canada with Member States to ensure that they enforce compliance of their export consignments with the CFIA rules.

Action items:

• EU will further raise the issue to the EU Member States at the relevant fora (working groups and meetings with Member State delegations) and encourage them to check CFIA requirements for exports. Canada will continue to inform MS on the POE’s.

4.2. EU Export of meat to Canada

4.2.1. Recognition of MS’ meat inspection systems and reinstatement

• EU repeated its request to Canada to proceed with a simplified procedure for the approval of the remaining MS with non-recognised inspection systems. It was also noted that with the cancellation of meat inspection systems of the MS that have been inactive with their exports for more than 5 years, the situation has radically worsened.
• EU reiterated the need for flexibility and for the establishment of a simplified protocol for the reinstatement of Member State market access. This should be based on the guarantees provided by the implementation of EU official controls in a Member State recognised for the export of a certain meat commodity when evaluating the inspection system of the same Member State for another meat commodity.
• Canada acknowledged the importance of the matter and indicated that efforts are underway to review how the processes to reinstate previously approved systems can be streamlined, and prioritising certain Member States for market access. EU was asked to provide a list of Member States interested in regaining its recognition of their meat inspection systems for the export of meat to Canada, including specific assessments for countries.
• Canada noted the requests it has received from Member States so far for new and reinstated access (Denmark for poultry meat, Belgium, the Czech Republic for beef and pork, Finland for processed meat, and Bulgaria for poultry). Canada expressed its willingness to consider streamlining the process to reinstate cancelled systems on a case-by-case basis that takes into account several factors including meat inspection systems for species currently approved for export.
• EU proposed that Canada applies a procedure similar to the EU system (questionnaires for the update of the required info from the MS for cross-commodity controls) which could reduce the workload of Canada's assessments.

Action items:

• EU to share the list of MS interested to export meat commodities to Canada including the requests for reinstatement of recognition after 5 years of inactivity.
• Canada to review the list and consider it for the next audit programme.

4.2.2. Eligibility of EU export establishments

• EU asked Canada for an update on the CFIA’s internal review and whether an interim solution would be possible prior to the implementation of the SFCR regulatory amendments.
• Canada explained that the SFCR regulatory amendment are still underway, and that decisions are being made on a case-by-case basis.
• EU requested further information to communicate with Member States.

Action items:

• Canada will keep the EU updated on the regulatory amendment to SFCR.

4.2.3. Technical Issues on Exporting Grouped Consignments

• EU expressed its concerns on the policy followed by Canada in recent years regarding the rejection of consignments originating from different EU Member States, which are certified at origin, but are grouped together into a single container at the port of departure. EU stressed that those technical issues should not arise as food and feed safety in the EU is ensured by the four level of controls in the EU territory (controls of the Food Business Operators, controls of the MS’ Competent Authorities to the Food Business Operators, Border Control Posts and EU F audits).
• Canada noted that this issue is unique to the EU as no other country consolidates shipments between countries and cited that its main concerns are the physical controls and documentary evidence in place with the movement of these products. To better understand the internal system in place, Canada had provided questions to the EU in May 2025 on tracking, oversight and traceability for products transiting from the exporting establishment of one EU MS to the establishment where the consolidation takes place before it is loaded in the shipping container.
• Canada has not received a reply to date, and reiterated its expectation to receive a reply to the technical questions submitted in relation to the controls for intra-EU movement of consignments, and noted that additional information would be needed, specifically on the traceability of shipment movements in order to develop a protocol that could then be reviewed, and once approved, shared as guidance to inspectors.
• EU noted that the EU control system on official controls remains unchanged since many years and was perplexed receiving the questions submitted by Canada on its functioning.
• Both sides agreed that a technical meeting would facilitate clarifying questions and concerns expressed by Canada.
• EU proposed to submit a suggestion for a specific protocol providing the additional attestations required which would certify conformity of consignments.

Action items:

• EU to reply to the questions submitted by Canada
• EU to provide a proposal for a protocol to be followed on the certification of EU grouped consignments for export.
• A technical call to be scheduled

4.3. EU Harmonized Export Certificates to Canada

4.3.1. Certificate for Processed Meat

• EU informed that Member States have submitted their comments on the proposed certificate and it will be sent back to Canada for their consideration.
• Canada requested to limit the changes to be made to the scope to avoid delays in the process, emphasising CFIA's priority to ensure coverage of all types of meat commodities.
• EU reassured that discussions will pertain solely to technical details, aiming to ensure comprehensive understanding among all stakeholders.

Action items:

• EU will provide Canada with the comments from the MS and will plan a technical call with Canada.

4.3.2. Amended certificates for beef, pork and poultry

• Canada reiterated its request that as part of its regulations, Canada is required to include the SFCR license numbers for the EU certificates to export beef, pork and poultry meat to Canada.
• Canada would like to also streamline the certification process for the import process for pork, poultry and beef certificates.
• Canada explained that currently, EU pork and poultry shipments to Canada require a separate zoosanitary certificate which includes additional animal health statements the EU must certify for. Canada is interested in updating the existing pork and poultry certificates to include these animal health statements to simplify the verification process at the time of import.
• For beef, Canada explained that currently the EU is certifying to more stringent BSE conditions than are necessary in the import certificate. CFIA is proposing to update the certificate with modernized BSE requirements, which would be a positive outcome for the EU.
• Canada proposed sharing the revised certificates to the EU for their review. Specifically, the SFCR license number cell for beef, pork, and poultry, and the consolidated animal health statements to the EU for pork and poultry.
• Following the EU’s agreement on these changes, Canada would inform the EU when the new approved model certificate can be used and would ask the EU to update its EU model certificate for fresh beef, pig meat and poultry meat in TRACES with the new effective date.
• Canada concluded that this would be a simple exercise to complete and would benefit both sides.
• Regarding the license numbers, EU noted that the revision process is underway and emphasised that existing certificates should remain valid until new ones are issued, proposing a nine-month transition period to prevent trade disruption. Both sides demonstrated a strong commitment to finding a viable solution.

Action items:

• Canada to provide the EU with updated versions of the EU export certificates to Canada for beef pork and poultry. EU to review, revise and communicate changes to the Member State.

4.4. Canada export to EU: Simplified certificates to reflect equivalent public health measures

• Canada requested updates from the EU.
• EU acknowledged the necessity for clarity regarding applicable legislative procedures and noted that the internal procedure was currently ongoing.

Action items:

• EU will inform Canada on the progress made with the proposal and will share a draft of the certificates before submission for adoption.

4.5. Canada exports of animal casings to the EU

• Canada asked for an update on the assessment of the sampling plan submitted to the EU in June 2025 for regaining access to the EU market for animal casings.
• DG EU acknowledged the comprehensive information provided by Canada, and informed that the positive assessment will allow the inclusion of casings in the upcoming review of the relevant EU legislation (scheduled for July 2026).

Action items:

• EU to include listing of Canada for casings in the revision of the EU relevant legislations and inform Canada on the process.
• Canada to ensure that a residue plan for casings is included in their next residue control plan to be submitted to the EU.

4.6. Recognition of controlled housing conditions for trichinella

• EU informed Canada on the assessment of the submitted information and noted that it was planning to update EU Member States on the status of discussions by February 2026.
• Canada noted that Trichinella has been eradicated within its domestic pig’s population and underlined the maintaining of robust practices alongside with the industry efforts.

Action items:

• Canada to reply to EU and submit additional information by January 2026.

4.7. Impact of changes to health mark numbers on approved establishments exporting to Canada

• Canada requested an update on the letter sent in September 2025, seeking to ensure that information is received in advance and prevent trade disruptions due to the necessary changes in database entries. It was noted that any changes should be communicated in advance to CFIA.
• EU clarified that only the country abbreviation is to be modified from "EC" to "EU", while the numerical identifiers remain unchanged. This process would be conducted progressively until 2028, encompassing approximately 700 entries, which makes the actions for providing advance information challenging.
• Canada pointed out that such changes impact import transactions, necessitating updates to the Canadian system; otherwise, establishments may be incorrectly perceived as new, causing issues at the border. EU confirmed that Member States have been instructed to communicate with Canada on the issue.
• Canada reiterated the importance of Member States engaging with CFIA before making any changes and committed to ongoing cooperation with Member States. Advance notifications by Member States are vital to avoid potential disruptions.
• EU assured that Member States will be informed of the possible ramifications of changing references.

Action items:

• EU to ask MS to engage with CFIA prior the implementation of changes to health mark numbers of establishments.

4.8. EU-Canada regulatory differences on residues of veterinary substances in meat

• Canada noted that unlike the EU, where MRLs are established (100 μg/kg in muscle, 300 μg/kg in fat and liver, 600 μg/kg in kidney), Canada has not set MRLs for doxycycline. Consequently, any detectable presence, even at levels far below internationally recognized thresholds, is considered a violation by CFIA. This approach generates significant challenges for trade operators, as the intensified testing protocols applied may represent costs up to 40% of the value of consignments.
• It was also noted that there is no associated food safety concern: doxycycline is authorized for human use in Canada and its safety profile has been recognized through established MRLs across the EU.
• Canada noted that the absence of a MRL for doxycycline presents noncompliance challenges from its perspective and has shared relevant information with trading partners. Health Canada is prepared to investigate options for alignment.
• Canada has encouraged the EU to engage actively with Health Canada to explore potential harmonisation opportunities. CFIA will verify with Health Canada whether they are open to receiving additional technical data directly from the EU, rather than requiring submission through individual applicants.

Action items:

• EU is invited to engage with Health Canada (Veterinary Drugs Directorate) regarding requirements and process for establishing a new MRL for doxycycline.

5. Specific issue management: Plant health

5.1. Update on PRA status of horticulture exports to Canada

5.1.1. Exchange of information about the approved and pending market access applications

• Following the discussions during and after the SPS JMC meeting of October 2024, Canada confirmed that it is committed to maintaining transparency and remains open to exchanging with the EU regarding the status of SPS market access applications (products of animal and plant origin) made by individual Member States.
• Canada agreed to continue to inform the individual Member States and the Commission as soon as such market access approvals have been satisfactorily concluded (e.g. cherries from Spain) and provide the Commission with updates about the state of play of all the market access applications in the SPS JMC meetings.

5.1.2. EU Export applications of fresh tomato with vines, stems, and calyces under a pilot project.

• EU recalled that in 2025 both Canada and the US had shared with the EU the result of their review and recommendations of the EU's revised proposal for exports of fresh tomatoes with green parts from countries with Tuta absoluta, and informed that only one Member State had provided substantial written comments to the reviews.
• Canada informed that certain Member States are already approved to export tomatoes without green parts to Canada (given the lower risks). Canada noted that other Member States could follow their example, and that Canada would consider tomatoes without green parts from Italy in the prioritisation of the pest risk analysis.

Action items:

• The EU to schedule a technical call with EU, Canada and US on tomato with green parts.
• Tomatoes from Italy (without green parts): Canada to review information provided by Italy and consider it in the prioritisation of the pest risk analysis.

5.1.3. Cherries from Spain

• Canada shared the good news that all the pest risk analysis steps had been concluded for the approval of cherries from Spain and is now working on an administrative update of their system and directive. Once finalized, this approval will be communicated to Spain and the EU, likely within a few months.

Action items:

• Following the completion of the administrative update, Canada to inform Spain of the implementation date for the new market access.

5.1.4. Raspberries from Spain

• ​The EU recalled that on 1 May 2025 Canada sent a letter requesting technical information from Spain to initiate the pest risk analysis, and that on 10 October 2025 Spain sent to Canada the information requested to perform a PRA.​

Action items:

• Canada to review the questionnaire and identify risks of concern and propose sanitary measures.

5.2. Fresh cranberries for export to EU

• Canada noted that while it currently has access to the EU market, the requirement for certifying freedom from the cherry fruit worm may soon prove unsustainable and potentially disrupt trade. Canada has submitted data from provinces demonstrating that the cherry fruit worm is not present and asked to align preventative measures with actual risk levels.
• EU reported that there was no progress on this issue as it falls under EFSA's jurisdiction and prioritisation.
• On Canada’s concern on the lengthy process, EU noted that the internal procedures should be respected and reassured that the matter will be considered in the next prioritisation exercise.

Action items:

• EU to inform on any progress made on the EFSA’s risk assessment following the prioritisation of mandates.

5.3. Recognition of EU’s pest free areas for Asian and citrus long horned beetles for nursery stock

• The EU informed Canada that no additional Member States have signaled their interests in being recognised as free or in having additional pest free areas recognised as free from Asian and citrus long horned beetles (other than those Member States that have already been recognise by Canada in 2019 and by the US in 2024).

Action items:

• The EU to schedule a technical call with EU, Canada and US to discuss how to recognize pest-free areas within infested countries for nursery stock.

5.4. Exception for birch (Betula spp) veneer that is less than 1mm in thickness

• Canada expressed its views on birch as a low-risk product and asked for an exemption for veneers less than 1mm in thickness.
• EU acknowledged the ongoing discussions following recent legislative changes, noting that the differences on the risk evaluation in the EU are supported by EFSA opinions from 2024. It informed that it is exploring grounds for possible exemptions where pest concerns relate to insect pests.
• EU noted that EFSA opinions indicate a remaining fungus risk that will be addressed in general (not specific to Canada). Although discussions with Member States are ongoing, no legal draft has been formed yet.
• Canada welcomed these developments and proposed a follow-up call.

Action items:

• EU to provide update on any progress made on the cross-cutting exercise.

5.5. EU recognition of heat treatment (56/30) as a phytosanitary measure for debarked sawn wood of Betula spp

• The CFIA submitted a technical document on March 5, 2025, with supporting scientific evidence confirming that 56 degrees Celsius for 30 minutes is sufficient to mitigate the risk of the bronze birch borer.
• EU noted that EFSA has recently accepted the mandate and that discussions are ongoing. An official letter confirming this acceptance was in the pipeline. EFSA has a 12-month deadline for their risk assessment, however, eventual questions may delay this timeline.
• EU will also engage with the Member States to determine on the best way to proceed.
• Canada expressed its confidence in the technical soundness of the request and asked for anticipated information on EFSA’s risk assessment.

Action items:

• EU to provide a letter to Canada for the submission of the dossier to EFSA.
• Canada to submit the dossier.

5.6. Malus spp plants for planting to EU

• Canada asked for an update on the next steps and timeline after its submission of additional information to EFSA in April 2025.
• EU conveyed that the files are currently with EFSA, and no issues have been reported that might delay the process.

Action items:

• Canada to provide additional information if required by EFSA

6. Audits and foreign assessments

6.1. Incoming and outgoing audits and foreign assessments

6.1.1. On going and completed

• Canada reported on the audits and assessments carried out in Spain (ovine-caprine meat, poultry meat), Netherlands (poultry) and Greece (cheese).

6.1.2. Planned and under consideration

• EU reported that the last audit concerning poultry took place in May 2025, and Canada has provided comments on the draft report along with an action plan. EU informed that there were no new audits planned in Canada in line with the 2026 audit plan.
• Canada indicated its 2026 audit plan was not yet finalised.

Action items:

• Canada to inform the EU on the audit planning and assessments for 2026
• EU to provide Canada with the official audit report for the shellfish audit conducted in September 2025

7. Specific issue management: Animal health

7.1. Exports of Slovenia bees to Canada

• Canada informed that it is currently proceeding with the risk assessment, and that additional information was requested from Slovenia through an updated questionnaire sent in April 2025. Canada is still awaiting Slovenia's response.

Action items:

• Slovenia to submit to Canada the requested additional information to the questionnaire.

7.2. Recognition of FMD free status of EU Member States

• EU informed Canada on the notification received from Bulgaria that Canada is not recognizing Bulgaria’s FMD-free status according to WOAH and asked for clarifications.
• Canada noted that its regulatory requirements include an assessment of the FMD status, and that an evaluation for Germany was also currently ongoing (jointly with USA).
• Canada informed that Bulgaria has not initiated any contact with CFIA, which is essential to begin the assessment process. A separate evaluation would be necessary for Bulgaria as it has never been assessed in the past.
• EU requested to be fully informed about these exchanges.

Action items:

• Canada will update on the assessment of FMD freedom in Germany and Hungary.
• EU to ask Bulgaria to confirm its request for recognition of FMD-free status.

7.3. EU requirements for food supplements containing ingredients of animal origin

• Canada asked for update from the EU on its review of import requirements for food supplements containing ingredients of animal origin, particularly gelatine and collagen of bovine origin to reflect EFSA’s opinion
• EU informed that removing BSE requirements for gelatine and collagen is part of the issues the Commission plans to do following EFSA (and WOAH) new recommendations. In this respect, the Commission intends to amend Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 999/2001. A specific change was included to that end in the draft Commission Simplification Omnibus for which a call for evidence was published in September 2025. This document, which contains different proposals for simplification on a large variety of topics, was being examined at Commission level.

Action items:

• EU will update Canada on the progress made for the amendment of the BSE Regulation for gelatine and collagen under the Omnibus legislative proposal.

8. Conclusion

• Both parties reviewed the action items and timelines.
• Next JMC will take place in Canada in November 2026.
• Canada and the EU expressed appreciation for the continued collaboration and partnership, noting this year’s particular openness and enthusiasm to engage on topics and explore mutually beneficial solutions.
• Meeting was adjourned.