restrictions on products derived from biotechnology in june 2010 the united states raised concerns about the development of turkeys regulatory system for agricultural biotechnology g sps n tur 8 . in the eight months since turkey had begun implementing new biotech measures turkey had announced both a biosafety law and several implementation measures. however only two of those implementation measures had been notified to the wto and one of those was notified as effective immediately with no comment period. the united states was concerned that compliance requirements were not shared publicly and that regulations prohibiting the presence of biotechnology in products for infants and children did not refer to a risk assessment hence leading to a lack of predictability in the approval process. the united states asked for clarification on the status of current approvals the approvals process and how the process would change after the biosafety law was enforced on 26 september 2010. canada stated that it would continue to monitor the implementation of turkeys biosafety law and its impacts on canadian exports of genetically and non-genetically modified commodities. canada hoped that the new law would take into account scientific assessments and would not be more trade restrictive than necessary. argentina supported the concerns raised by the united states noting that the turkish standards were not consistent with the sps agreement or codex standards and were unfavourable to modern biotechnology products. argentina expressed dee concern about the measures and hoped that they would be revised based on the sps agreement and codex standards. turkey stated that turkey had notified in 2009 and 2010 its legislation related to biosafety issues whose objectives were to i establish and implement a biosafety system for human animal and plant health ii ensure the conservation of the environment and biodiversity and their sustainability and iii establish science-based regulation and monitoring principles and procedures. previous turkish legislations and the cartagena protocol had been used as reference documents as well as eu accession documents. turkey had endeavoured to address the concerns raised by the united states canada and argentina regarding its notifications including issues caused by mistranslation. turkey indicated that it would draft and notify secondary regulations to the wto to clarify misunderstandings. in october 2010 the united states welcomed turkeys notification of the implementation of its new biotech measures however the development and implementation of the law had not been transparent nor timely. the united states appreciated the valuable trade in agricultural products with turkey and wished to re-establish market access for the previously approved products without delay. the united states remained concerned that the system prohibited the presence of biotech products in products for infants and children as well as the cultivation of biotechnology without reference to a risk assessment or scientific evidence. the united states sought clarifications on the process and criteria used to evaluate approval decisions and encouraged turkey to establish written procedures outlining those processes and criteria as well as to confirm that they were based on science. argentina expressed concern that the turkish standards were not consistent with the sps agreement or codex standards and were unfavourable to modern biotechnology products. the representative of canada stated that the new law had to take into account scientific assessments and not be more trade restrictive than necessary. canada also urged turkey to consider delaying the implementation of the regulation for six months until at least february 26 2011. turkey stated that turkey had notified in 2009 and 2010 its legislation related to biosafety issues whose objectives were to establish a biosafety protection system for human animal and plant health against risks emerging