Under the SPS agreement, the WTO sets limits on Member States` policy on food security (bacterial contaminants, pesticides, inspection and labelling) and animal and plant health (phyto-hygiene) with regard to pests and imported diseases. There are three standards bodies that set standards on which WTO members should base their SPS methods. According to Article 3, they are the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex), the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) and the secretariat of the International Convention on the Protection of Plants (IPPC). Because GATT focused on tariff reductions, the framework before the SPS agreement was not sufficiently sufficient to deal with the problems of non-tariff barriers (NB) and the need for an independent agreement on this issue became critical.  The SPS agreement is an ambitious attempt to address NB due to cross-border differences in technical standards, without reducing the prerogative of governments to implement protection measures against diseases and pests.  The agreement on the application of health and plant health measures, also known as the sPS agreement or simply SPS, is an international treaty of the World Trade Organization (WTO). It was negotiated during the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and came into force with the creation of the WTO in early 1995.  Overall, the health and plant health measures («SPS») covered by the agreement are those aimed at protecting life, the animal or the plant or human or plant health from certain risks.  In 2003, the United States challenged a number of EU provisions restricting the importation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in a dispute known as biotech CE because it is «unjustifiable» and illegal under the SPS agreement. In May 2006, the WTO`s dispute resolution body issued a complex ruling that challenged aspects of the EU GMO regulation, but rejected many of the US claims. A summary of the decision can be provided here. The SPS agreement is closely linked to the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, which was signed the same year and has similar objectives.
The OBT is the result of the WTO round of negotiations in Tokyo and was negotiated to ensure non-discrimination in the adoption and implementation of technical rules and standards.  It is important to integrate the views of developing countries into the standards-setting process, as the effects of exporting countries taking SPS measures can harm developing countries. This is partly due to the fact that these states do not have the technology and resources to easily meet certain spS requirements.  Trade in products subject to spS measures has the potential to generate significant economic benefits for national economies.  However, in order to foster economic concerns on other important public health policy issues, a thorough review by governments and the international community is needed.  Some commentators criticize that the WTO`s assumption that trade liberalization improves consumer welfare has resulted in the SPS agreement being ill-equipped to deal with trade restrictions imposed by governments that respond to consumer protectionist pressures.  This is most clear from the beef hormone dispute, where European consumers, while stressing the relative safety of the growth hormones involved, urged governments to ban the importation of hormone-treated beef.  Some of the WTO`s most important cases in terms of the implementation of SPS measures are: while Article 1.5 tBT excludes the inclusion of SPS measures of its style, the biotech group ec has acknowledged that situations where an action is only a partial SPS measure could occur and, in these cases, , the SPS part of the measure is taken into account as part of the SPS agreement.
 When a measure under Article 2.4 of the SPS Convention is