RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/R/21
22 May 2001
(01-2594)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING HELD ON  14-15 MARCH 2001
Note by the Secretariat
I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1. The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee") held its twentieth
meeting on 14-15 March 2001.  The meeting was chaired by Mr. S.I.M. Nayyar (Pakistan).  The
agenda proposed in WTO/AIR/1499 was adopted with amendments.
II. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT
(a) Information from Members
(i) Activities of Members
Canadian BSE Policy and related inform ation:  Statement from Canada (G/SPS/GEN/245)
2. The representative of Canada outlined his government's policy on BSE, first notified to the
WTO on 16 April 1998 (G/SPS/NCAN/39), and informed Members of recent actions taken regarding
the application of this policy.  He said that Canada had adopted effective and appropriate policiesbased on sound scientific rationale to mitigate the risks of BSE.  He also reminded the Committee of
Canada's notification of 7 December 2000 (G/SPS/C AN/N/94), advising of additional BSE measures
to further mitigate the risk arising from incomple te or ineffective segregation of ruminant-derived
protein during rendering or animal feed produc tion which could result in cross-contamination.
Members were invited to provide the Chief Veterinary Officer of Canada assurances that, for certain
non-ruminant products, cross contamination was not possible based on their individual production
circumstances.
3. The representative of Canada maintained that the recent suspension of imports from Brazil
had occurred because Brazil had not complied with the Canadian authorities request for information
to allow for a risk assessment to be carried out.  A major concern for Canadian authorities was the
traceability of cattle imported from BSE-infected countries.  On 23 February 2001, Canada had lifted
its suspension after the receipt and analysis of documentation from Brazil, followed by an on-sitevalidation visit by scientists from Canada, United States and Mexico.  Canadian regulatory officials
were satisfied that Brazil had taken sound measures to prevent BSE.  In order to resume shipments of
Brazilian beef products to Canada, Brazilian authorities agreed to satisfy three conditions for
certification.  Firstly, shipments must be certified as containing beef products from cattle that were
born and raised in Brazil, and not from any importe d sources of beef.  Secondly, the beef must come
from cattle born after Brazil enacted its 1996 ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban.  Lastly, shipments must
be accompanied by a statement certifying that the cattle used in the products were exclusively grass-
fed, and not fed any animal proteins.G/SPS/R/21
Page 2
4. The representative of Brazil expressed regret that Canada had not handled this matter in a
more transparent manner, maintaining that the su spension was imposed without prior notification or
consultation.  Canada chose to apply the embargo first and ask questions later.  Brazil refuted
Canada's claim that the suspension had occurred because Brazil had failed to provide information;  in
fact, the Brazilian sanitary authorities provided the information requested on 1 February 2001, butCanada nonetheless went ahead with its trade embargo on 2 February.  Furthermore, Brazil had
provided Canada the opportunity to go to Brazil to do a BSE risk assessment.  Alternatively, Canadian
authorities could have, for example, expressed to their counterparts in Brazil their concern as to the
possible importation of live animals.  The representative of Brazil recalled that Brazil had BSE-free
status according to the OIE classification and that the feeding of ruminant material to cattle was not
permitted in Brazil since 1996.  Regarding the traceability of animals imported from BSE-infected
countries, he maintained that these animals were used solely for propagation and that they were fullytraceable.
5. The representative of Brazil maintained that his country had suffered many side effects and
trade effects from Canada's hasty embargo.  This had, for example, raised awareness in Brazil and in
the WTO as to the shortcomings of the multilateral system as a whole to provide solutions for cases
like this one.  There were no clauses in the WTO agreements that allowed Members to purse a propercompensation for the financial losses incurred by the Brazilian business community.  This should not
preclude the interested parties to seek compensation elsewhere.  This incident had also further
compromised the reputation of the WTO as an organization that was able to prevent arbitrary
measures.  Brazil would present to the SPS Committee and the General Council, in the context of the
implementation exercise, specific language to clarif y the limits of the flexibility implied in the SPS
Agreement, particularly with regard to obligations concerning the adoption of a measure that was not
phased in.  Brazil was also considering asking for ad hoc consultations or negotiations among
Members, under Article 12 of the SPS Agreement, to address specific sanitary issues, in an effort to
avoid a recurrence of such a situation in the future.
European Communities statement on BSE6. The representative of the European Commun ities informed the Committee of three recently
introduced additional measures to protect consumers and animals against BSE.  The first related to the
suspension from 1 January 2001, of the use, marketing and trading of processed animal proteins in
feed for farm animals destined for human consumption.  The second measure dealt with compulsory
testing from 1 January 2001, of all bovine animals over three months old subjected to emergency
slaughtering or showing symptoms of disease.  This testing would be applied to all cattle over thirty
months destined for human consumption from 1 July 2001.  The third measure referred to theamendment of the list of specified risk material (SRM) which may not be used in feed or food, to also
include the entire intestine and the vertebral colu mn of bovine animals and mechanically recovered
meat from all bones of bovine, ovine and caprine species.  He believed that implementation of
measures in EC member States was having the desired impact and the situation regarding BSE in the
European Communities was now regarded as stable.
7. In the interest of transparency, the repres entative of the European Communities encouraged
Members imposing BSE-related measures to notify such measures to the Committee and to provide
the European Communities with a copy of the legal text of such measures.  He stated that a global
approach needed to be adopted in combating BSE and compliance with international obligations, in
particular those of the OIE as laid out in G/SPS/GEN/230, was essential to this approach.
OIE information on BSE (G/SPS/GEN/230)
8. The representative of the OIE reminded the Committee that the international standard on BSE
was contained in the OIE International Animal H ealth Code (Chapter 2.3.13).  No new scientificG/SPS/R/21
Page 3
information had emerged to throw doubt on the validity of this standard.  In light of the available
scientific knowledge, the OIE recommended that, whatever the health status of an exporting country
with regard to BSE, importing countries should not apply any trade restrictions on certain products,
identified in G/SPS/GEN/230, which posed no risk of BSE infection.  Concerning the possibility of
BSE being transmitted through fish-meal, the representative of the OIE recalled that this subject hadbeen debated at length during WHO/OIE meetings in December 1999, and it was agreed that there
was no scientific evidence to support the view that fish or fish-meal could host the prions or could
ever transmit or disseminate the disease.
WHO Information on BSE (G/SPS/GEN/221 and 222)
9. The representative of the WHO drew attention to information on BSE contained in
G/SPS/GEN/221, and information relating to VCJD contained in G/SPS/GEN/222.  He informed
Members of a forthcoming joint WHO/FAO/OIE technical consultation on BSE, public health andtrade to be held at the OIE headquarters 11-14 June 2001.  The June consultation aimed to develop
clear and workable guidelines for countries, and in particular, developing countries, to protect their
human and livestock populations from vCJD and BSE, and to prevent global spread of BSE and vCJD
through appropriate national, international and regional actions.  The European Communities
acknowledged the importance of the two comm unications and welcomed the opportunity to
participate in the forthcoming consultation to establish a common base for scientific knowledge
concerning the problem.
European Communities – Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) situation
10. The representative of the European Communities reported that since 20 February 2001
approximately 200 cases of FMD had been decl ared in the United Kingdom.  The European
Communities had adopted protective measures to prohibit the movement of live susceptible animals
of bovine, ovine, caprine and porcine species, as we ll as other bi-ungulates and products derived from
such animals from the United Kingdom until 27 March 2001.  Milk and milk products must be
appropriately treated before export from the United Kingdom was allowed.  On an EC-wide level,
markets and assembly points for all susceptible species had been prohibited, as well as theirmovement except for direct movement from farm-to-farm or directly to slaughter, and only then when
subject to specific authorization from the compet ent authority.  Measures were also in place to
disinfect the tires of vehicles leaving the United  Kingdom for other EC member States.  All such
measures would be reviewed on a regular basis.  The European Commission and the member States
believed that recourse to vaccination would not be an appropriate response at this stage of the
outbreak.
11. On 13 March 2001, France reported an outbreak of FMD on a cattle farm located in the
Department of Mayenne , which borders the Department of Orne .  The slaughter of all the cattle on the
farm had been completed.  This particular outbreak was detected in a herd located in close proximity
to a farm where sheep had been introduced from a UK farm where subsequent outbreaks of FMD
were confirmed.  The European Communities immedi ately applied measures similar to those applied
in the United Kingdom to the region affected.
12. The representative of the European Communities expressed his concern that many countries
had adopted disproportionate measures which were not in accordance with the provisions of the OIE
Code.  He emphasized that the concept of regionalization was a transparent and efficient way to
handle the situation.  The representative of the OIE confirmed the events as described by the
representative of the European Communities.
13. The representative of Canada clarified that measures imposed by Canada in the wake of the
FMD outbreaks were interim measures for a duration of two weeks, in order to allow for a fullG/SPS/R/21
Page 4
assessment of the situation.  He indicated that Canada would officially notify the European
Communities of the measures taken.
New Zealand – Biosecurity risk analysis polic y statement:  Informat ion paper (G/SPS/GEN233)
14. The representative of New Zealand presented an information paper outlining a new policy
statement on conducting and implementing import risk analyses (G/SPS/GEN233).  The policy
statement set out the principles to which the Bio-security Authority (MAF Biosecurity) would adhere
when conducting risk analyses and employing them to effectively manage risks associated with the
importation of "risk goods".  The bio-security policy had been operational since 9 February 2001.
The representative of Australia encouraged other Members to share information on the practical
operation of import risk assessments.
15. The representative of the Codex Alimentarius Commission informed the Committee that the
FAO had prepared a paper on the subject of Biosecurity in Food and Agriculture which would beconsidered at the Sixteenth Session of the FAO Committee on Agriculture (COAG) meeting in Rome
on 26-30 March 2001 (G/SPS/GEN/239).
(b) Specific trade concerns
(i) New issues
Canada – Hungarian restrictions on bovine products16. The representative of Canada indicated that Hungary had suspended imports of all bovine
products from Canada due to fears over BSE as of 1 January 2001.  He indicated that there was no
scientific justification for such a measure as not only was Canada BSE free, but as confirmed earlier
by the representative of the OIE, BSE could not be transmitted by bovine semen.  Discussions had
previously taken place at a bilateral level and Canada was willing to continue working with theHungarian authorities to resolve this matter as quickly as possible.  The representative of the United
States drew attention to the OIE document (G/SPS/GEN/230) outlining products which were safe
from BSE and encouraged all Members to review measures they had in place in the light of the OIE
guidelines.
17. The representative of Hungary reported that the recent imposition of import bans by several
Members on certain countries free of BSE led the Hungarian consumers to question the safety of live
animals and meat products originating from countries with such an epidemiological status.  The
Hungarian Government, as a result, decided to provide a similar degree of protection from BSE as
that provided by several of its trading partners.  The Hungarian authorities had made the application
of prion tests a mandatory condition for the issuing of veterinary import licences for live cattle, fresh
meat and non-heat-treated meat products of bovine origin.  Bovine semen was not subject to the
Hungarian import restrictions.
Import restrictions affecting BSE-free countrie s - Common statement by Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech
Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic and Slovenia
18. The representative of Romania speaking on behalf of Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic,
Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic and Slovenia, drew attention to the notifications
of emergency measures banning imports of certain an imal products from countries that were BSE-free
and not included in the OIE list of countries with reported cases of BSE (notifications
G/SPS/N/AUS/125, G/SPS/N/ARG/59, G/SPS/N/CAN/94, G/SPS/N/KOR/83, G/SPS/N/NZL/77,
G/SPS/N/USA/379).  She stated that the measures were in violation of Articles 3.1 and 3.3 of the SPS
Agreement, as they were not based on a proper risk assessment.  The affected countries were ready toG/SPS/R/21
Page 5
provide those Members imposing restrictions with the necessary documentation warranting their
status as being BSE-free.  The full joint st atement is contained in G/SPS/GEN/247.  The
representatives of Poland, Bulgaria and the Czech Republic added further details on specific measures
in place to stop the spread of the disease to their territories.
19. The representative of the European Communities welcomed the positive attitude adopted by
certain countries with regard to testing and verification.  He reminded the Committee that the testing
of milk, dairy products, collagen and gelatine for BSE did not form part of OIE guidelines on BSE,
nor did the suspension of imports of these products due to BSE.  Members imposing such measures
should adapt their requirements to the international standard.
20. The representative of the United States stated that although all WTO Members had the right
to take measures necessary to protect the life and health of their citizens and animal populations from
the risks associated with BSE, these measures must be based on science and should reflect thedeterminations of international standard-setting bodies.  The United States was free of BSE, yet it had
also been the subject of import restrictions based on BSE, including some restrictions imposed by
those countries participating in the common statement presented by Romania.  The United States had
supplied evidence of its freedom from BSE to interested trade partners as well as information on its
disease control measures and its extensive surveillance system for the disease.  The United Statesrequired that countries that may pose a risk of BSE transmission provide similar data, in order to
allow the US Department of Agriculture to assess the risks of imports relative to BSE.  Many of the
countries currently facing restrictions on exports of ruminants and certain ruminant products to the
United States had been exposed to the disease through imports of live animals, animal products and
animal feeds from countries where BSE was known to occur. It was also not clear what riskmanagement measures had been taken in these countries.  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to the
contrary, the United States was unable to determine that exports from such countries posed no risk of
BSE transmission.  In its interim rule of December 1997, the United States informed countries about
the information it required in order to conduct an assessment of BSE risk.  It was noted that the
United States had not received all the necessar y information requested from several countries
participating in the common statement, and looked forward to receiving information so the necessary
reviews could be conducted.
21. The representatives of New Zealand and Australia expressed their concern over the increase
in known incidence of the disease in Europe as a result of more intensive testing.  New Zealand and
Australia had issued emergency food standards to protect public health from BSE.  The authorities of
New Zealand and Australia were working closely to develop permanent measures to address BSE
risks, and the resulting draft measures would be announced in the near future.  The permanentmeasures would be implemented separately in each country.  It was New Zealand's intention to notify
the new measures to Members at least 60 days before they were put in place, to allow for interested
Members to comment.  New Zealand's present measure would normally expire on 5 July 2001.
Australia's temporary measure would remain in place until the new permanent measures were
operational.
22. The representative of Canada recalled that in January 2001, it had notified the extension of  its
previous policy to a broader range of products.  Although Canada had not recognized any of the
countries of the joint declaration as being BSE free, it would assess individual countries based on a
risk assessment and looked forward to receivin g the necessary information from the countries
concerned to allow this process to begin.  Regarding imports of non-bovine products from Hungary,the representative of Canada stated that the issue of concern was that of cr oss-contamination.  Trade
in such products could resume once Canada had received the necessary guarantees.
23. The representative Korea indicated that his authorities had found it necessary to introduce a
temporary measure due to the increased prevalence of BSE in the European region.  The measure wasG/SPS/R/21
Page 6
provisional and Korea would continue to seek the additional information necessary for a more
objective assessment of the risks involved.  Korea would take into account the criteria detailed in the
OIE guidelines regarding BSE.
24. The representative of Argentina indicated that the emergency measure applied by his country
as of 12 February 2001 was based on the available scientific information at the time, taking intoaccount the increase in cases of BSE in European countries.  He stressed that it was a transitional
emergency measure and that the concerned scientific committee would consider any new information
it received and recommend changes accordingly.
25. The representative of Bulgaria pointed out that according to Article 5.7 of the SPS
Agreement, Members were obliged to request additional information when temporary measures were
implemented.  The representative of Brazil reaffirmed a Members right to go beyond international
guidelines based on a risk assessment, and stressed that this may only take place once the necessaryinformation was provided.
Argentina – Venezuela's phytosanitary requirements for garlic and potato imports
26. The representative of Argentina reported that until 1996, Argentina had exported garlic
without any problems to Venezuela, but in  1997 the Venezuelan authorities detected Lurocystis
cepulae in garlic coming from Argentina  and suspended imports.  This garlic was not seed garlic but
was intended for consumption.  Argentina had not been able to confirm the incidence of Lurocystis
cepulae and had requested that a Venezuelan inspection team visit the production zone to carry out
the necessary verification and certification, as well as explain the issues of concern.  The Venezuelan
authorities failed to conduct such a visit in 1998, and in 1999 the phytosanitary service of Venezuela
suggested that Argentina sign a protocol setting out the conditions for the visit.  Argentina hadcommented on the proposed protocol and reaffirmed their interest in accommodating the visit,
however, the visit was subsequently suspended.  In 2000, Venezuela asked for a similar protocol to be
signed before a visit by their authorities could take place.  Argentina duly responded in 2001.
Argentine authorities were concerned that there seemed to be a lack of will on the part of Venezuela
to move forward on this issue.  Furthermore, under the terms of the Andean Pact that there was noreason to restrict exports as no quarantine measures had been adopted against Argentina.
27. With respect to potatoes, Argentina had started its efforts to open the Venezuelan market in
1996, by sending the necessary information for a risk assessment to be carried out.  In 1998, this
information was forwarded once again to the Venezuelan authorities.  Venezuela responded in 1999
that it would be necessary to carry out a pest risk assessment, despite the fact that with the information
that had been previously sent, Venezuela had adequate opportunity to begin carrying out the necessary
assessment.  The representative of Argentina regretted the apparent lack of will on the part of theVenezuelan authorities to open this market to Ar gentinian producers.  With regard to the mandatory
sanitary and phytosanitary standards of the Andean Community, the representative of Argentina stated
that there was a lack of coherence in the way Resolution 431 was being applied and Argentina would
raise this matter with the Andean Community.
28. The representative of Venezuela explained that there was no lack of will to move forward on
these issues on the part of the Venezuelan authorities.  In relation to trade in garlic, the administrative
process to set up the necessary protocols was ongoing.  With respect to exports of potatoes, Venezuela
believed that there was a problem of compatibility between Argentinian phytosanitary standards and
those of the Andean Community.  The representative of Venezuela emphasized that their sanitary
norms were in complete compatibility with those of the Andean Community and the WTO. Therepresentative of Colombia requested that Argentina submit for consideration by the Andean
Community any concerns it had regarding inconsistencies in the application of phytosanitary
standards amongst the members of the Andean Pact.G/SPS/R/21
Page 7
Argentina – EC maximum levels of contamin ants in food products and sampling methods for
aflatoxins in peanuts, other nuts, dried fruits and cereals
29. The representative of Argentina raised concerns over EC maximum levels of contaminants in
food products and sampling methods for aflatoxins in peanuts, other nuts, dried fruits and cereals.
Argentina was preparing a document outlining its technical position with regard to peanuts and otherdried fruits.  This paper would be addressed to the European Communities but would be circulated to
Members for information before the next meeting of  the Committee, when Argentina planned to raise
this issue once again.  The representatives of Bolivia and India stated that they shared the concerns of
Argentina regarding sampling methods for aflatoxins  and expressed their interest in following any
further debate on this matter.
30. The representative of the European Communities welcomed the preparation of a technical
document which would be carefully considered by its authorities.  As regards cereals, therepresentative reminded Members that the relevant legislation adopted last year and which had been
discussed in the SPS Committee would come into effect as of 1 July 2001.  The European
Communities would also consider technical documents deemed of relevance for cereals.
Canada – Hungarian restrictions on pork products
31. The representative of Canada reported that as of early January 2001, Hungarian importers of
pork products from Canada had been unable to obtain import certificates from the state veterinary
services of Hungary.  A similar disruption of trade occurred last year, and was subsequently resolved
through bilateral discussion.  He asked the Hungarian authorities to resume issuing import permits for
pork, or alternatively to provide some legitimate scientific justification for the measure.
32. The representative of Hungary referred to previous statements by Members concerning fears
over BSE transmission and the problem of cross cont amination of feedingstuffs.  Hungary was willing
to enter into discussions with the Canadian authorities on this matter.  The representative of Canada
asked for clarification on the relevance of cross contamination of feeds vis-à-vis  BSE and the
importation of frozen pork meat.
Chile – Bolivian restrictions on imports of poultry products
33. The representative of Chile indicated that in December 1999, Bolivia changed its importation
conditions for poultry and other agricultural products.  Chile complied with all the requisites of the
new conditions.  With respect to Bolivia's requirements for Inclusion body hepatitis, Chile observed
that this was an endemic disease present in the agricultural population world-wide, and did not appear
in lists A or B of the OIE Animal Health Code.  Chile had held bilateral consultations with the
Bolivian authorities to seek clarification of the scientific justification for the import restriction, inaccordance with Article 5.8 of the SPS Agreement.  The representative of Chile also noted that
Bolivia had failed to notify the measure in accordance with Article 7 and Annex B.  Chile affirmed its
desire to have risk assessment carried out on a scientific basis as quickly as possible.  Bilateral
discussions on the issue had ceased since August 2000.
34. The representative of Bolivia recalled the right of all Members to apply measures necessary to
protect the health and well-being of their human, animal and plant populations.  Bolivia had decided
to change the conditions for the importation of poultry and other agricultural products because of the
problems which Inclusion body hepatitis caused to the bird population and the associated negative
economic impact.  In the last five years, Bolivia's state veterinary diagnostic laboratories had
determined the clinical absence of Inclusion body hepatitis in Bolivia.  The disease had however beendiagnosed in Chile.G/SPS/R/21
Page 8
35. With respect to the use of vaccination with inactive viruses as a preventative measure, the
representative of Bolivia stated that the use of a vaccination was justifiable only if the virus was
present on a farm.  Secondly, total protection against the disease was only possible if the serotype
present in the vaccination was the same as those present in farm strains.  Thirdly, the success of
protection depended on the absence and/or monitoring of other immuno-suppressant factors, and inthe case of Chile there was the risk of Avian infectious anaemia, a disease with immuno-suppressant
effects on the bird population.  The National Food and Agricultural Health Service of Bolivia was in
the process of revising this standard, the results of which would be forwarded to the Chilean
authorities.  The representative of Bolivia expressed the desire that the matter be solved expediently
and to the benefit of both parties taking into account the traditional good trade ties existing between
the two countries.
Thailand on behalf of ASEAN  – EC import restrictions on soy sauce
36. The representative of Thailand, on behalf of ASEAN, drew Members' attention to the
notification of the European Communities (G/SPS/EEC/100) concerning maximum levels of certain
contaminants in foodstuffs.  Under this regulation new levels of lead, cadmium, mercury and 3-
MCPD contained in a wide range of foodstuffs ha d been set.  ASEAN did not agree with the EC's
maximum level of 3-MCPD contained in soy sauce, as the level of 0.01 mg/kg was too low to be
practicable.  This substance was a by-product in the acid hydrolysis treatment of the production
process and the permitted maximum level of this substance varied among countries.  The lowest level
was that set by the European Communities, which ASEAN believed to be an unnecessary barrier to
trade.  ASEAN asked the European Communities to share with them the technical know-how on thismatter in order to reach a mutually satisfactory solu tion.  The representative of Korea affirmed their
interest in this matter and registered their intere st to be informed of the outcome of bilateral
consultations between the European Communities and Thailand.
37. The representative of the European Communities st ated that several of its member States had
reported high levels of 3-MCPD in samples of soy sauce imported from third countries.  The ECScientific Committee for Food advised on 16 December 1994, and confirmed in June 1997, that 3-
MCPD should be regarded as a genotoxic carci nogen, and that residues of 3-MCPD in food products
should be undetectable.  However, recently performed toxicological studies indicated that the
substance acted as a non-genotoxic carcinogen in vivo . The representative of the European
Communities believed that in order to encourage good manufacturing practices and to protect the
health of consumers, maximum levels of 3-MCPD  should be set.  Such limits were set under a
proposed Commission Regulation, presently under examination, based on the Scientific Committeefor Food Opinion in which a maximum level of 0.02 mg/kg in hydrolysed vegetable protein and soy
sauce was proposed.  The proposed maximum limits should apply 12 months after adoption by the
Commission, in the meantime the Scientific Committe e for Food would re-evaluate the toxicity of 3-
MCPD in the light of the results of the recently conducted scientific tests.  The adequacy of the
maximum levels should be reconsidered as soon as the new Scientific Committee for Food Opinionwas available.  Studies on the occurrence of 3-MCPD  in other foodstuffs were also underway and data
would be evaluated in considering the need to set maximum levels in additional foodstuffs.
38. The representative of the European Communities emphasized that several member States had
detected, through the EC's rapid alert system for food, several incidences of the presence of 3-MCPD
in soy sauce coming from the same manufacturer.  The European Communities had alerted theAmbassador of Thailand of the situation and of the need for Thailand to identify action to avoid a
recurrence of this situation.  No response had yet been received to this letter.
39. The representative of Thailand, on behalf of ASEAN, thanked the European Communities for
their explanation regarding the regulation setting maximum levels of certain contaminants in foodG/SPS/R/21
Page 9
stuffs. Thailand also confirmed that it would ask the relevant authorities to respond to the letter of the
European Communities.
(ii) Issues previously raised
Canada -  India's ban on bovine semen imports
40. The representative of Canada announced that both delegations had agreed to undertake
informal discussions under the SPS Agreement and hoped that this matter would be resolved in the
near future, recalling the statement of the OIE (G/SPS/GEN/230) which confirmed that BSE could not
be transmitted by semen.
41. The representative of India reaffirmed that bilateral discussions were taking place to resolve
the matter.  India was not trying to give an unfair advantage to domestic producers at the expense of
Canadian exporters.  India would raise questions of a technical nature, at the OIE, as to the manner in
which the OIE international standard was developed.  The representative of India also noted thatsocio-religious conditions and traditional practices in respect of the treatment of cows in India were
such that India had to be extremely cautious in taking a decision concerning this issue.  He asked
Canada to cooperate in the risk assessment that India would be carrying out, the first time that a risk
assessment of this nature had been undertaken by India.  Information on how to carry out the
assessment had already been obtained and the questionnaire for obtaining information from Canadaon the substantive issues involved was under preparation.  However, it would take at least another six
months before India could complete the risk assessment.
42. The representative of Canada queried the need to carry out the risk assessment as there was,
according to the OIE, no risk of the disease being transmitted through semen.  Canada viewed the
coming meetings at OIE as the best forum to discus s this matter further in the hope of resolving the
technical issues at hand.
43. The representative of OIE indicated that several issues had been being raised during this
meeting which could be discussed at the OIE.  For example, the ban on pork products due to fears
over BSE was unfounded.  In relation to hepatitis and poultry meat, this was not an OIE list A or B
disease, nor had any country requested it to be placed on either of these lists.  Any country wishing todo so should make their desire known to the OIE, so that the issue could be discussed and
consideration given to placing it on a list and subsequently an international standard developed for the
disease.
New Zealand – Indonesia's restrictions on the importation of fresh fruit (G/SPS/GEN/219)
44. The representative of New Zealand observed that this was the second time that New Zealand
had expressed their concern at Indonesia's failure to recognize New Zealand's freedom from
Mediterranean Fruit Fly.  At the previous SPS meeting, he had outlined, in detail, New Zealand'sconcerns as regards this issue (G/SPS/GEN/219).  Renewed bilateral consultations had taken place
during this SPS Committee meeting and Indonesia had indicated its willingness to send an inspection
team to New Zealand to study the situation of fruit fly surveillance and phytosanitary export assurance
systems.  New Zealand declared their interest in hosting this visit at the earliest opportunity and
encouraged Indonesia to finalize the arrangements whilst looking forward to a prompt resolution of
the problem.  New Zealand would keep Members informed of developments in this area.
45. The representative of Indonesia acknowledged that officials were planning to visit New
Zealand in the very near future.  He thanked New Zealand for their cooperation and readiness in
offering their assistance in accommodating the propos ed visit.  Indonesia hoped that the visit would
result in an expeditious and satisfactory outcome to the problem.G/SPS/R/21
Page 10
Thailand – Mexico's prohibition of Thai milled rice (G/SPS/GEN/216)
46. The representative of Thailand stressed that this issue had been raised repeatedly since
October 1997.  On 14 March 2001, Thailand had held bilateral consultations with the Mexican
delegation regarding the current status of Mexico's prohibition.  Mexico had reported that it had
removed the prohibition on Thai milled rice and that Thailand was no longer listed as a country underquarantine against Khapra beetle as indicated in NOM-005-FITO-1995.  Thailand requested that
Mexico notify this amendment to the SPS Committee.  Thailand was satisfied with the interim
measure introduced on 13 March 2001, which allowed for the importation of Thai milled rice upon
request by importers.  However, it was concerned that the final publication of the phytosanitary
requirements in NOM-028-FITO-1999 had not yet been adopted, meaning that the lifting of the
import ban on Thai rice, notified by Mexico to the SPS Committee in March 2000, could not be
implemented on a permanent basis.  Thailand would further pursue the issue bilaterally with Mexicoand hoped that this matter could be finally resolved before the next meeting.
47. The representative of Mexico read a statement from the National Agricultural and Rural
Services, dated 13 March  2001.  The amendment to NOM-005-FITO-1995 had been sent to the
Official Journal of Mexico for publication and woul d result in the lifting of the quarantine against
Khapra beetle to which Thailand was subject.  The definitive publication of the phytosanitary measurein the Official Journal had not yet been possible, due to a number of administrative procedures
requiring legislation.  However, in compliance with the risk assessment, the General Direction would
issue phytosanitary certificates to companies who asked to import rice until the publication of the
requirements in the Mexican Official Journal.  This measure had been taken in cooperation with the
judicial services and allowed for imports fulfilling certain criteria including internationalphytosanitary certificates, inspection at the entry point to Mexico, sampling for analysis in
laboratories and fumigation with methyl bromide at the doses specified in NOM-005-FITO-1995.
Fumigation would be accepted at the place of origin only when the product had been sent in plastic
bags.
Summary of specific trade concerns (G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.1)48. The Chairman reminded Members that at the last meeting the Secretariat had prepared a
document (G/SPS/GEN/204) summarizing all issues that had been raised to date at the SPS
Committee.  The Secretariat had revised the document based on information from Members,
especially about issues which had been resolved in the meantime.  The document will be updated
annually based on information provided to the Committee.
(c) Consideration of specific notifications received
49. The Chairman recalled that the joint statement by Romania on behalf of a number of countries
regarding import restrictions affecting BSE-free countries had been dealt with under sub-item 2(b)(i)
upon the request of Romania.
(d) Any other matters related to the operation of transparency provisions
50. The Chairman pointed out that notifications received since the last Committee meeting were
summarized, on a monthly basis, in G/SPS/GEN/223, G/SPS/GEN/224, G/SPS/GEN/226, andG/SPS/GEN/234.  The most recent list of Enquiry Points had been circulated as G/SPS/ENQ/11 and
Addendum 1.  The latest list of National Notification Authorities had been circulated as
G/SPS/NNA/1 and Addendum 1.  The Secretariat had also updated the list of Members which had
identified National Notification Authorities and National Enquiry Points in document
G/SPS/GEN/27/Rev.8.  The Chairman encouraged any Members which had not yet identified aNational Notification Authority and/or an Enquiry Point to do so as quickly as possible.  TheG/SPS/R/21
Page 11
Secretariat had also prepared a compilation of all SPS documents issued in 2000, by country or
observer organization (G/SPS/GEN/228).
European Communities – Information to Members abou t the functioning of the EC SPS contact point
51. The representative of the European Communities indicated that the SPS notification system
was one of the most important contributions of the SPS Agreement thus far and was essential infacilitating the degree of transparency needed between Members.  He pointed out that the rate of
increase in notifications was so great that the European Communities was finding it difficult to ensure
its smooth functioning, although coping with the increase was facilitated by an electronic system.
From 1995 to date, the EC enquiry point had produced 113 notifications, 32 of which were issued last
year alone.  He believed that other Members were experiencing a similar level of increase and that the
overall increased precedence in notifications should be interpreted in a positive manner.  The
European Communities questioned its ability to ensure the continuance of the present system wherebynotifications and legal texts were forwarded to national contact points in three languages whilst
maintaining as rapid a system of notification as possible.  Greater cooperation was called for in the
manner in which the national enquiry points interacted, especially considering that some countries
have more than one enquiry point which lead to a duplication of effort on the part of the Member
issuing the notification.
52. The representative of Israel reported that Israel's policy relating to BSE was now available on
the internet.  This included the official figures on numbers and origin of imported bovines and bovine
products since the 1980s.  Details on the relevant web site would be distributed to Members through
WTO.
III. THE SPS AGREEMENT AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
(a) Implementation of the provisions for special differential treatment (G/SPS/W/105)
53. The Chairman reminded Members that at its meeting in March 2000, the Committee agreed to
focus discussion on issues of concern to developing countries by identifying specific issues for
consideration at each meeting of the Committee.  The first issue identified was the implementation of
the provisions for special and differential treatment.  This issue was discussed by the Committee at itsJune and November 2000 meetings, and the Secretariat had prepared a background paper
(G/SPS/W/105).  The Chairman recalled that although he had invited Members to submit papers or
non-papers on the subject of special and differential treatment, no such papers had been submitted
since the November meeting.  At the last meeting, however, several Members asked for information
regarding the participation of developing countries in the relevant standard-setting activities.  This
issue has been identified as one of the concerns regarding implementation of the SPS Agreement and
the General Council had requested that the Director-General consults with the OIE, FAO and WHOon this matter.
54. The Secretariat recalled that the Director-General was charged by the General Council to
explore means, in conjunction with the internationa l standard-setting organizations, to seek financial
and technical mechanisms to assist in particular th e participation of developing countries in the Codex
Alimentarius, OIE and IPPC (WT/GC/42).  The Director-General was also requested to coordinateefforts with relevant international standard-setting bodies to identify SPS-related technical assistance
needs and how best to address these needs.  Following this request, the Director-General had initiated
contact with the international standard-setting bodies and the World Health Organization.  On 7
February 2001, the Deputy Director-General hosted a meeting with the international standard-setting
bodies who reported that there was substantial current and growing levels of participation andunderstanding of developing countries in their work (WTG/C/45).  One of the main problems
encountered by the organizations in this area was the perception of developing countries that some ofG/SPS/R/21
Page 12
the standards developed were not relevant to their needs.  There was also a need to increase the
capacity of developing countries to better use and implement international standards.  The Secretariat
also underlined its report to the Committee in November concerning meetings, held in September
2000 at FAO, with the standard-setting bodies, the World Bank, FAO and the WHO to investigate
capacity building problems with regard to international food standards related to the SPS Agreement.
55. The Secretariat indicated that the workshop on this subject which preceded the SPS meeting
was one immediate outcome of the meeting of the Deputy Director-General.  The report of the
workshop will be circulated as G/SPS/GEN/250.
56. The representatives of the Codex Alimentarius (G/SPS/GEN/236), IPPC (G/SPS/GEN/227)
and WHO (G/SPS/GEN/231) each introduced papers on developing country participation in their
activities.  The representatives of Codex and IPPC hi ghlighted the fact that participation by LDCs had
grown in recent years.  However, although the statistical analysis of participation showed thatdeveloping countries had a relatively high rate of participation, the numbers did not reflect the quality
of participation or the degree to which developing countries benefitted from participation in standard-
setting.  The representative of Codex indicated that the participation of developing countries in the
committees responsible for drafting proposed standards had been increasing in recent years, but was
still below the level of participation in the Code x Commission, or the level that would be considered
as being representative of the Commission as a whole.  The participation of Eastern European and
former CIS countries remained a particular problem.
57. The representative of Egypt suggested that developing countries should present proposals
relevant to their needs and which respond to specific problems they face in implementing the SPS
Agreement.  In turn, the international organizations and financing agencies should respond to theneeds elaborated.  This "twin track" approach had already been used successfully at the TBT
Committee's workshop on technical assistance.  The representative of Canada welcomed Egypt's
suggestion and encouraged the international organizations to look at ways to increase their level of
funding to tackle the precise concerns of developing countries.
58. The representative of Malaysia indicated that his country was quite active in the standard-
setting meetings of the Codex and pointed out that most of these meetings take place in Europe.
Malaysia hoped that the Codex would seek to increase the number of its meetings in developing
countries in order to increase participation levels of developing countries.  Malaysia pointed out that
effective participation of developing countries in standard setting would be greatly enhanced if they
were involved in every aspect of the standard-setting process and especially through the selection of
experts from developing countries.
59. The Chairman invited the Committee to consider how it should move forward with this issue.
The representative of Argentina suggested that th e Committee adopt a similar approach to that which
it adopted in respect of equivalence, encouraging Members to provide specific information on their
experiences.
60. The representative of the European Communities pointed out that a lot of technical assistance
already took place and proposed that the Committee try and assess the effectiveness of thiscooperation in an effort to evaluate if Members were addressing the right issues.  He believed that this
would be a positive experience for Members to learn how to improve the efficiency of already
established cooperation projects.  The representative of Venezuela recalled that the Secretariat had
already presented a detailed document on technical assistance, and suggested to focus on identifying
assistance by the international organizations which was seen to function most effectively so thatcapacity building at an institutional level could be strengthened.G/SPS/R/21
Page 13
61. The Chairman suggested that this issue be kept on the agenda for the next meeting in order to
allow Members to discuss further how they might develop the suggestions of the European
Communities and Venezuela regarding the identification of best practice as regards institution
building.  He emphasized that Members were expected to contribute to the discussion through written
suggestions, comments and proposals for the next meeting.
(b) Equivalence – Article 4
62. The Chairman reminded the Committee that this topic had also been discussed in the General
Council, in the framework of its discussion on im plementation.  The General Council requested the
SPS Committee "… to examine the concerns of developing countries regarding the equivalence of
SPS measures and to come up with concrete options as to how to deal with them …".  In December,
the Chairman had reported to the General Council on the discussions held in November (G/L/423) and
he informed Members that he was  expected to give an oral report to the informal session of theGeneral Council to be held on 16 March 2001.  On 13 March 2001, an informal discussion of this
topic had been held and the Chairman expressed his appreciation for the contributions in writing from
New Zealand (G/SPS/GEN/232) and from Argentin a (a non-paper), which added to what the
Committee had received from the European Communities, United States and Codex.  The Chairman's
report to the General Council on these further discussions is contained in G/L/445.
IV. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION
(a) European Communities – Information to Members about EC technical assistance
(G/SPS/GEN/244)
63. The representative of the European Communities provided information on technical
assistance to developing countries in the area of SPS.  Projects under this scheme were managed bythe European Aid Cooperation Office.  The paper submitted by the European Communities outlined
how this office functions and explained the intention of the Commission to decentralize the
communication and decision operations on cooperation to the delegations of the European
Communities in the different countries.  The document referred to the financial criteria and the
typology of actions covered by cooperation assist ance and gave examples of cooperation projects.
(b) Identification of technical assistance needs (G/SPS/GEN/206)
64. The Chairman reminded Members that in November the Committee had begun to examine the
typology for technical assistance prepared by the Secretariat (G/SPS/GEN/206).
65. The representative of Canada said the document was very helpful in pointing out different
types of technical assistance and proposed that the Committee have a more focused informal
discussion on the paper with a view to identifying types of activities which were particularly effective
in responding to developing countries' specific demands.  The Committee agreed to consider this issueat an informal meeting just prior to the next Committee meeting in July.
66. The representative of the United States reported that the US Department of Agriculture and
the US Agency for International Development had sponsored a training workshop for participants
from eleven southern African countries in Botswana from 5-9 March 2000.  The focus of the
workshop was on the WTO system and in particular the SPS Agreement.  Two similar workshopswere to be held in the coming weeks in Kenya and Senegal for representatives of other African
regional organizations.  In addition, follow-up training in the area of risk assessment would be
provided for all of these groups later this year.  A workshop on risk analysis with representatives from
thirteen countries was also scheduled to take place in Tunisia.  The workshop was designed to give an
overview of the SPS and TBT Agreements and the five FAO/WHO consultations related to riskG/SPS/R/21
Page 14
analyses.  In addition, the US Food and Drug Admi nistration, the Department of Agriculture and the
Center for Disease Control would hold a conference in South Africa, 27-29 March, for more than 40
countries of Sub-Saharan Africa on food safety initiatives influencing public health and trade.
67. The Secretariat called Members attention to the two coordinating meetings which had taken
place in September 2000 and February 2001, with the standard-setting organizations, WHO and thefinancial institutions such as the World Bank.  C oordination of efforts between the international and
regional organizations was essential due to resource constraints.  Consultations were ongoing.
68. The Secretariat reported on seminars which it organized or attended in the past months.  The
first of these was held in Congo and was a general workshop explaining the actions and functioning of
WTO and including the SPS Agreement.  A workshop was also held in Egypt on the SPS Agreement
at the first meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Coordinating Committee for the Near East.  The
Secretariat, in cooperation with France and the French trust fund for SPS technical assistance,organized a regional seminar on SPS in Iran. In the coming months, the Secretariat would be
participating in SPS-related workshops in Fiji, Pakistan, China, Cameroon and Kenya.  The majority
of these workshops would be held on a national rather than a regional basis.  The Secretariat indicated
that organizing the workshops at a national level allowed for a more detailed discussion to take place
on the implementation aspects of the agreement.
(c) International organizations
69. The representative of IICA provided a summary (G/SPS/GEN/235) of some of their activities
and actions aimed at implementing the SPS Agreement.  The representative of the IPPC informed
Members on behalf of FAO, including Codex and th e IPPC, that five workshops would take place
under the FAO's umbrella programme for follow-up training to the Uruguay Round Agreements.  Therepresentative of Codex reported that they had participated in a number of workshops with the WTO
including the one recently held in Tehran and had also been working to provide information on risk
analysis and assessment in relation to food safety.
V. MONITORING THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
(a) New issues
70. The Chairman reminded Members that they were invited to submit, at least 30 days in
advance of each regular meeting, examples of what they consider to be problems with significant
trade impact related to the use or non-use of relevant international standards, guidelines or
recommendations.  Since the adoption of the first annual report on monitoring by the Committee at its
meeting of July 1999, no Member had submitted new examples for consideration by the Committee.
He pointed out that by not identifying new concerns, Members were missing an opportunity to inform
the standard-setting bodies of their needs.
71. The representative of Thailand, on behalf of ASEAN, recalled their concerns about the
European Communities setting maximum levels for 3-MCPD contained in soy sauce.  They
considered that this was an example where a relevant international standard, if in existence, could help
prevent what could become a trade barrier.  In this regard, ASEAN urged the European Communities
to delay implementing its maximum level for 3-MCPD until the outcome of the joint FAO/WHOExpert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) ev aluation in June 2001 and urged the Codex
Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC) to accelerate the establishment of a
standard based on the outcome of the JECFA evaluation.  The representative of the European
Communities noted that it participated in JECFA and CCFAC meetings.G/SPS/R/21
Page 15
(b) OIE – Progress report on draft standard on IBDV for cooked chicken meat and frequency of
controls to be carried out on bulls in collection centres (G/SPS/GEN/145/Add.3)
72. The representative of OIE pointed out that following a request from the Code Commission,
the OIE Director-General met with an ad-hoc  group in January 2001, entrusted with giving scientific
opinion on five questions drawn up by the Code Commission.  The second task of this Group was to
determine in what areas additional scientific research would be necessary in order to improve the state
of knowledge leading to harmonization.  Experts also examined the existing chapters of the code on
IBD and proposed several changes and additions concerning poultry meat which would soon be
transmitted to member countries of OIE and considered at the next general session.
73. In respect of frequency of controls to be carried out on bulls in collection centres (brucellosis,
tuberculosis, leukosis, IBR), the representative of OIE reported that a number of texts on the subject
had been compiled into one single text in order to take into account comments made by variouscountries.  The new revised annex on this subject would be submitted for adoption by the
International Committee of the OIE in May  2001.
74. The representative of Thailand informed Members that he hoped that the finding of the
studies as well as the scientific advice provided by the OIE experts and comments made in annexes 1
and 2 of document G/SPS/GEN/145/Add.3, will be taken into account when any Memberreconsidered or reviewed its SPS measures for the importation of cooked chicken meat.
VI. MATTERS OF INTEREST ARISING FROM THE WORK OF OBSERVER
ORGANIZATIONS
(a) Codex
75. The representative of Codex stated that the Commission would be considering a number of
draft standards prepared by its subsidiary Committees and task forces.  Of particular interest was the
one dealing with the judgement of equivalence of  sanitary measures associated with food import
inspection and certification systems.  This standard was at a relatively advanced stage.  The
Commission would also receive interim reports from its task forces working on animal feeding and on
foods derived from biotechnology.  The Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants wasexpected to make considerable progress with the Codex general standard on food additives.  The
Codex representative, on behalf of WHO/FAO, stated that as a result of the Okinawa G8 summit,
steps were under way to convene the first of what would be regular meetings of food safety regulators
to discuss common problems related to science based decision-making.  The preparatory meeting will
be held in Rome in May 2001 and would bring together representatives of the G8, developing and
other countries.  The first official meeting should take place near the end of this year.  The Committee
would be informed of developments in this area in July.
(b) IPPC
76. The  representative of the IPPC indicated that the third session of the Interim Commission on
Phytosanitary Measures would be held from 2-6 April at FAO headquarters in Rome.  He noted that
three new international standards for phytosanitary measures would be considered for adoption,
notably guidelines for the notification of non-compliance and emergency actions, guidelines forphytosanitary certificates and pest risk analysis for quarantine pests.  In addition, the Commission
would be considering amendments to the Glossary of Phytosanitary Terms and a supplement to the
Glossary providing a definition and explanation of "official control".  The Commission meeting
would also include the completion of non-binding disp ute settlement procedures, the formulation of a
strategic plan, and initiatives in information exchange and technical assistance.  The IPPC hadrecently met with representatives of the Convention on Biological Diversity to discuss areas for futureG/SPS/R/21
Page 16
cooperation.  There had also been a meeting to elaborate proposals for information exchange
initiatives and a third meeting of the expert working group developing a standard on wood packing.
Regarding the latter, a draft standard should be ready for consultation by governments in June 2001.
(c) WHO
77. The representative of the WHO presented document G/SPS/GEN/237, describing the recent
activities of WHO in the area of food safety.  Following the Decision at the World Health Assembly
(WHA), the governing body of WHO, in May 2000, recognized food safety as a priority area of
WHO. WHO had been increasing its support to the member states and the Codex Alimentarius
Commission in making science-based decisions, through convening independent expert meetings,
such as the joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Foods Additives (JECFA) and the Joint Meeting
on Pesticide Residues (JMPR).  The WHO had also, in collaboration with the FAO, significantly
increased its efforts relative to risk assessment of microbiological hazards in foods and the safetyassessment of foods derived from biotechnology.  The paper also provided information on the joint
WHO/FAO/OIE Technical Consultation on BSE, Public Health and Trade to be held in June 2001.
WHO had convened a Strategic Planning Meeting in February 2000, with the participation of food
safety experts, to discuss WHO's future strategy on food safety.  The WHO Strategy on Food Safety ,
would be presented to the WHA in May 2001. Furthermore, WHO was planning two expert
consultations, one on methods and principles for the monitoring of antimicrobial usage in food animal
production for the protection of animal health, in Norway, September 2001, and the second on pre-
harvest food safety, to be held in Germany at the end of March.
VII. OBSERVERS – REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS
(a) Criteria for observer status (G/SPS/GEN/229)
78. The ad hoc observers of the ACP Group, EFTA, IICA, OECD, OIRSA and SELA were
invited, without objection, to return to the next Committee meeting.
79. The Chairman reported that the Committee had discussed criteria for observer organizations
at an informal meeting on 14 March 2001, based on a background note prepared by the Secretariat
(G/SPS/GEN/229).  It was decided at this meeting that further discussion was needed on the role ofobservers, on the basis of a document to be prepared by the Secretariat.  The United States and the
European Communities requested that there be consultations with Members before the paper was
finalized.
80. The Committee addressed the request from the Asian and Pacific Coconut Community
(APCC) for observer status (G/SPS/GEN/178).  The representative of Egypt pointed out that criteria
was being developed by the General Council for the granting of observer status in general and
questioned the right of the Committee to take decisions in the absence of such guidelines.  Therepresentative of Canada pointed out that the APCC was a regional commodity-specific organization.
While Canada was not specifically opposed to the admittance of this organization, there were
numerous organizations of this nature and any decision regarding the APCC would set a precedent for
a countless number of other organizations to request observer status.
81. The representative of the European Communities said they remained favourable to granting
observer status to both the APCC and the  Office International de la Vigne et du Vin (OIV) on an ad
hoc basis and noted that their acceptance was being blocked due to a systemic question raised by a
single Member, Egypt.  Egypt reaffirmed their view that there was a systemic issue to be resolved and
stressed that it was not opposed to the admission of any international organization in particular.  The
representative of Uruguay pointed out that the present practice of issuing invitations on an ad hocG/SPS/R/21
Page 17
basis had functioned very well, and suggested that Members admit the APCC to the next meeting on
an ad-hoc  basis.
82. The Chairman drew attention to the decision of the General Council (WT/L/161) that
Committees could take decisions on a case-by-case basis.  In the case of the APCC and OIV , he
observed that there was still no concensus among Members and a need to reflect further on this issue.
VIII.  ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON
83. The Chairman reported that the Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods had carried out
informal consultations on chairpersons of the subsidiary bodies in accordance with the established
Guidelines for Appointment of Officers to WTO bodies (WT/L/31).  On the basis of the
understandings reached, the Committee elected Mr. William Ehlers, of Uruguay, as Chairperson of
the Committee by acclamation.
IX. OTHER BUSINESS
(a) ASEAN (Thailand) - Australia's import re strictions on prawn and prawn products
(G/SPS/N/AUS/124, G/SPS/N/USA/126)
84. The representative of Thailand, on behalf of ASEAN, drew Members attention to the
notifications of Australia (G/SPS/N/AUS/124 and 126 ), regarding its import risk analysis (IRA) and
interim measure on prawn and prawn products.  The draft analysis identified 15 agents as potentialhazards and concluded that risk management measures were required for two agents, White Spot
Syndrome Virus and Yellow Head Virus.  The notification set 15 January 2000 as the deadline for
submission of comments.  Prior to this deadline , however, Australia imposed an interim condition on
the importation of uncooked prawns and prawn produc ts from ASEAN countries as an urgent measure
until the IRA was finalized.  This measure came into effect 15 December 2000.  Thailand regrettedthat this measure was not notified until February 2001 and maintained that the Australian decisions
were based on the fact that the imported prawns might illegally be used as fishing bait subsequently
causing a white spot syndrome epidemic.  ASEAN objected strongly to the inclusion of domestic
illegal practices as a major element in the import ri sk analysis. Thailand urged Australia to lift the
imposition of this interim measure, which was more restrictive than necessary and inconsistent withArticle 5 of the SPS Agreement.
85. The representative of Australia explained that the measures put in place were the result of an
outbreak of exotic White Spot Virus disease in faci lities in Darwin, which required stamping out and
depopulation of the facilities.  Investigations revealed that far more imported prawns were being used
for bait than was previously thought, and a 15 g cut off point was introduced in an effort to reduce the
likelihood of the prawns being used for bait rather than for human consumption.  The additional
measures applied only to whole green and unpeeled headless green prawns from countries or zonesnot free from White Spot Disease;  they did not apply to cooked, peeled or processed prawns.  The
risk analysis was progressing and comments from countries or any stakeholder regarding a better
balance between domestic control measures and import restrictions would be taken into account,
along with the survey results and any new information on the diseases of concern.  Australia hoped to
conclude the risk analysis as soon as possible
(b) Bolivia – European Communities levels for aflatoxin in Brazil nuts
86. The representative of Bolivia recalled her country's presentation to the SPS Committee in
September 1998 (G/SPS/GEN/93), in which Bolivia gave information regarding the new maximum
levels of aflatoxins that the European Communities wished to apply from 1999.  It was noted in this
document that there was no scientific proof that the reduction of aflatoxin levels in foodstuffs fromG/SPS/R/21
Page 18
20 ppb to 4 ppb had a beneficial effect in protecting the health of individuals by diminishing the risk
of cancer. The European Communities had not been able to demonstrate the scientific basis of the
measure, nor had they provided a risk analysis.  The representative of Bolivia outlined the socio-
economic and ecological implications of the measure for the area of production, as well as the effects
on the national economy.
87. The representative of the European Communities requested a copy of the Bolivian statement
to permit for a comprehensive reply.  He stated that their understanding did not coincide with that of
Bolivia especially as regarded the scientific basis for the decisions, and recalled that the science
involved had been explained in detail to the Committee as reflected in the reports of the Committee
meetings in 1998 and 1999. The European Communities sent an expert to Bolivia in May 2000 to
evaluate the situation of the Brazil nut sector.  The Commission believed that the problems of Bolivia
stemmed from needed improvements in the production chain and the equipment used.  A project toaddress these issues had been included in the EU Aid Programme.
(c) Canada – Precaution (G/SPS/GEN/246)
88. The representative of Canada presented a paper on precaution and recalled that several
Members intended to reflect on precaution in the wake of the papers submitted by the European
Communities (G/SPS/GEN/ 168 AND G/SPS/GEN/225).  He suggested  that the Committee schedule
an informal, practical discussion, focused on an exchange of individual Member's experience in
managing risks in situations of limited scientific information.  The aim of the discussion would be to
arrive at a common understanding on how precaution was addressed in the context of the existing
rights and obligations of the SPS Agreement.
89. The representative of the European Communities welcomed Canada's paper and encouraged
Members to consider both their initial paper and the new Resolution on precaution adopted by the
Council of the European Union.  He welcomed Canada's proposal for a serious debate on the subject.
The representative of Switzerland welcomed the inputs of the European Communities and their efforts
to formulate a definition on the precautionary principle and encouraged them to continue to work in
this area.  The representative of Mexico pointed out that there was a need to distinguish between thegeneral principle of precaution and the precautionary principle.
(d) Hungary – Import restrictions due to Foot-and-Mouth disease
90. The Hungarian delegation expressed serious concern about reported United States and
Canadian import bans on Hungarian meat products in reaction to incidences of foot-and-mouth
disease in France.  The representative of Canada clarified that Canada had not placed any restrictions
on the importation of products from Hungary.  A temporary measure was placed on imports of
products from the European Communities and Argentina.  The representative of the United Statesindicated that it had only placed a two week moratorium on imports from the European Communities.
91. The representative of the European Communities asked Members that had taken measures to
reconsider their actions in light of the regionaliza tion decisions of the European Communities.  It was
very important that Members respect the principles established in the SPS Agreement and that both
international standards as well good regionalization practices were taken into account.
(e) United States – Access of California table grapes to Australia
92. The representative of the United States informed Members that for the last 10 years, the
United States had experienced difficulties in exporting California table grapes to Australia, with
requests for market access being met with continual delays.  Even under Australia's new IRA process
these delays and requests for additional information and documentation had continued, and nearly aG/SPS/R/21
Page 19
year had elapsed since the completion of the draft IRA and the release of the final IRA in January
2000. Following that, an additional study was conducted as part of the Australian appeals process,
which was completed in March 2000, and stated that it found no evidence that any relevant technical
or scientific information had been ignored.  According to the Australian process, this should have
opened the market to California table grapes, but Australia decided to initiate a new study separatefrom the IRA process focusing on the Glassy-winged sharpshooter and Pierce's Disease, even though
Australia's own scientific risk analysis had reviewed these issues and concluded that table grapes
could be safely imported into Australia under specific conditions.  The representative of the United
States maintained that the risk profile had not changed:  there had been no changes in the situation in
California concerning table grapes and the transmission of Pierce's Disease which would warrant
additional investigation into this matter.  The United States urged Australia to modify its import
restrictions on California table grapes consistent with its completed IRA and with its obligationsunder Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement.
93. The representative of Australia informed Members that the administrative process was not
complete until the Director of Plant and Animal Quarantine takes a final decision.  Australia was free
of Pierce's Disease and its most mobile vector, the Glassy-winged sharpshooter.  Referring to the
California Department of Agriculture literature on the subject, Australia believed that there was aneed for further scientific research, and had sent two scientists to the United States in 2000.  The
subsequent mission report raised questions about changes in the risk profile which required more
information.  Australian authorities were willing to cooperate with those of the United States to learn
more about the disease and its vector.
94. The representative of the Philippines, on behalf of ASEAN, stated that they shared the
concerns of the United States with regard to Australia's phytosanitary regulatory process.  The
opening of market access in Australia for ASEAN exports of fresh fruits and fresh cut flowers
suffered considerable delays in view of the lengthy risk assessment procedure of Australia.  ASEAN
requested Australia to undertake risk assessment within a reasonable time frame as well as in a
transparent and predictable manner.  The representative of Australia insisted that the time-frame oftheir IRAs was similar to that of other Members.
(f) United States – exports of gelatine to the European Communities
95. The representative of the United States said that US authorities had been in discussions with
the European Communities since May 2000 aimed at enabling US gelatine shipments to the European
Communities to continue, based on the equivalence of US and EC safety systems relative to gelatine.
Despite the continuing efforts of US regulatory authorities and the US gelatine industry to
demonstrate that US-produced gelatine met the leve l of protection achieved by the EC's food safety
measures, the European Communities had not agreed to accept equivalence based on export
certificates issued by US regulatory authorities.  As a result, there had been no export of US  food
grade gelatine to the European Communities since 1 June 2000.  The United States said it appreciated
the efforts that the European Communities were taki ng in reviewing the information provided relative
to the safety of US-produced gelatine, and urged the Commission to accept the equivalency of the UScertificates.
96. The representative of the European Communities st ated that his services were in frequent and
intensive negotiation with the US Food and Drug Administration on this matter and that both sides
had clear ideas of the problems involved, which were primarily of a judicial nature.  The European
Communities was working very hard to propose "flexibilities" which both parties might findacceptable and could lead to a satisfactory outcome to this problem in the near future.G/SPS/R/21
Page 20
(g) Ecuador – Turkey's restriction on banana imports
97. The representative of Ecuador stated that th e Turkish authorities were issuing phytosanitary
control certificates for a specific and limited volume of bananas, a volume he believed to be small
when compared to the tonnage of normal banana shipments.  Ecuador believed that the control
certificates were not only de facto  quantitative restrictions but also imposed unnecessary and
unjustified administrative burdens.  Ecuador believed such measures were designed to restrict the
entrance of bananas from Ecuador into the Turkish market.  He asked the Turkish delegation to
provide a written response to questions posed and maintained that his country would pursue the matter
bilaterally, informing the Committee, if considered necessary, on the results of future discussions.
98. The representative of Turkey said that Turkey was import dependent on this product and
encouraged an open market to benefit Turkish consumers.  MARA, the Turkish agency with
responsibility for inspection and control of food imports, had only 15 laboratories at its disposition toprovide this facility.  Due to such resource constr aints, Turkey could not verify whole shipments of
consignments at once as this would occupy a laboratory for a considerable time and Turkey would
face complaints from other exporters on delays on the issuing of control certificates.  The
representative of Turkey claimed that her country was in full conformity with Annex B, paragraph 1,
of the SPS Agreement, as it had published all the relevant regulations and their annexes coveringstandards, levels and limits of residues and other organisms, as well as testing and sampling methods.
They were the same for both producers and importers and in full conformity with international
standards.  Turkey was willing to provide Ecuador with more detailed information.
(h) Brazil – Implementation of the provisions for special and differential treatment
99. The representative of Brazil explained to Members that Brazil would be proposing specific
changes regarding implementation of Article 10.2 and Article 7, Annex B, in order to address
concerns Brazil had due to recent problems with Canada  over BSE.
X. DATE  AND AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING
100. The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, 10-
11 July 2001, immediately following the session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which will
also be meeting in Geneva.  This back-to-back scheduling had been deliberately done to facilitate
participation of Member's national food safety experts, particularly those from developing countries,
in both meetings.  Members were reminded to ensure that the appropriate authorities were informed of
the consecutive scheduling of these two meetings, so that they might benefit.
101. The Committee agreed on the following tentative agenda:
1. Proposed agenda
2. Implementation of the Agreement
(a) Information from Members
Activities of Members
(b) Specific trade concerns
(i) New issues
(ii) Issues previously raised
(c) Consideration of specific notifications received
(d) Any other matters related to the operation of transparency provisionsG/SPS/R/21
Page 21
3. SPS Agreement and developing countries
(a) Implementation of the provisions for special and differential treatment
(b) Equivalence – Article 4
4. Technical assistance and cooperation
5. Monitoring of the use of international standards6. Matters of interest arising from the work of observer organizations
7. Observers - Requests for observer status
8. Other business
9. Date and agenda of next meeting
102. The Chairman reminded delegates of the following deadlines:
• for requesting that items be put on the agenda:  Thursday, 28 June 2001
• for the distribution of the airgram:  Friday, 29 June 2001
• for identifying new issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure:  Friday,
11 June 2001.
103. The Committee expressed its appreciation to Mr. Nayyar for his work as Chairman during the
past year.
__________