RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/W/94
11 November 1998
(98-4443)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
PROCEDURE TO MONITOR THE PROCESS
OF INTERNATIONAL HARMONIZATION
Draft Annual report
Note by the Secretariat
1. At its meeting of 15-16 October 1997, as requ ired by Articles 3.5 and 12.4 of the SPS
Agreement, the SPS Committee adopted a provisional procedure to monitor the process of
international harmonization and the use of international standards, guidelines or recommendations.1
According to paragraph 10 of the provisional proc edure, "the Secretariat should prepare an annual
report to the Committee on the list of standards, guidelines or recommendations established under
paragraph 8 [of the preliminary procedure], the major trade impacts identified by Members and theircomments regarding the use or non use of the iden tified international standards, guidelines or
recommendations and of those cases identified where there was no international standard, guideline or
recommendation, and any conclusions drawn by the Committee.  The Committee will transmit this
report to the international organizations responsible for developing the relevant sanitary and
phytosanitary standards, guidelines or recommendations.  It is expected that Members will take this
information into account, through their participation in these international organizations, in
establishing those organizations' work priorities.".
2. Although Members have not formally agreed on a format for the submission of issues under
the provisional monitoring procedure, there was broad support for the approach and format presented
by the United States in its first submission.
2  Other Members have subsequently used the same
approach and format.
3. To date, the following issues have been provided by Members for the Committee's
consideration:
(i) Chlortetracycline (CTC) residues in pork and pork products (submission by
the United States)2;
(ii) Bacilli  and other organisms in canned/bottled products, including jams
(submission by the United States)2;
(iii) Certification requirements for origin of animals (submission by Canada)3;
(iv) Certification regarding the absence of certain pathogens in raw meat products
(submission by Canada)3;
                                                     
1 G/SPS/11.
2 G/SPS/W/87 and Corr.1.
3 G/SPS/W/89G/SPS/W/94
Page 2
(v) Certification requirements for diseases for which  national control measures
may not exist (meat products) (submission by Canada)3;  and
(vi) Benzoic acid as a preservative in sauces (submission by the Philippines).4
(i) Chlortetracycline (CTC) residues in pork and pork products
4. In its submission, the United States indicated that Codex was developing international
standards, maximum residue levels (MRLs), which would apply to three tetracyclines, including CTC.
However, the standard would not be reconsidered at  step 8 of the Codex approval process before the
end of June 1999.  Trade in pork and pork products was significantly affected by the non-existence of
such a standard, and there was also potential for trade in cattle, sheep, chicken, turkey and duck
products to be significantly affected.
5. The European Communities noted that within the Codex framework, the European
Communities was in favour of setting MRLs for CTC as a veterinary medicine, but opposed to
determining MRLs for the use of CTCs as a feed additive.  In the EC's view, the monitoring
suggestion put forward by the United States, alt hough identifying some important issues, was flawed
because Codex MRLs were not needed for substances that were prohibited for use as growthpromoters.
5
(ii) Bacilli  and other organisms in canned/bottled products, including jams
6. The United States submitted that existing Codex standards for jam indicated that products
should be "free from micro-organisms in amounts which may represent a hazard to health" and
presupposed that zero tolerances were not necessary to eliminate health hazards.  In a documentregarding "Principles for the Establishment and Application of Microbiological Criteria for Foods",
Codex stated that "the mere finding, with a pr esence-absence test, of certain organisms known to
cause foodborne illness … does not necessarily indicate a threat to public health".
 6  However, certain
countries had rejected jam imports containing bacteria ( Bacillus Cereus ) irrespective of whether the
level or stage (e.g. spore) of bacteria detected posed a hazard to health.  Other canned and bottledproducts had been denied entry into markets for similar reasons.  The United States considered that
this was inconsistent with the Codex standard and appeared to be an unnecessary trade restriction.
(iii) Certification requirements for origin of animals
7. Canada submitted that the non-existence of international standards with regard to
"certification requirements for origin of animals" significantly affected trade of meat products.  Many
meat processors imported animals, processed the meat and exported the products to another country.
Some countries required that imported meat products be derived only from animals raised in theexporting country, i.e., no products derived from non-domestic animals might be imported.  Other
countries required that the country of origin of th e animal from which the meat products were derived
be identified.  This requirement was maintained even when the importing country was also importing
meat products directly from the source country of the animals.   In Canada’s view, this requirement
presented a difficulty for processors in the exporting country who must segregate shipments in orderto meet such requirement.  Canada suggested that  OIE could be asked to establish criteria and
conditions for determining country of origin requirements.
                                                     
4 G/SPS/W/91
5 G/SPS/R/11, paragraph 63.
6 CAC/GL21-1997G/SPS/W/94
Page 3
(iv) Certification regarding the absence of certain pathogens in raw meat products
8. Canada indicated that restrictions were imposed on trade of meat products because certain
countries required that the meat be free of certain pathogens, e.g. salmonella.  Canada suggested that
Codex could be asked to determine if developing standards for pathogens in raw meat was feasible or
appropriate. If so, and such standards were developed, a country choosing to implement morestringent requirements would have to justify them in accordance with the provisions of the SPS
Agreement.
9. The European Communities noted that the question of pathogens in raw meat had been
addressed by Codex in 1997 and was again on the agenda of a Codex meeting to be held on 26-
30 October 1998.  Furthermore, FAO and WHO were apparently considering the creation of a joint
expert committee to deal with microbiological ri sks.  The European Communities suggested that it
would be more appropriate to examine the concept of level of protection from microbiological risksrather than the development of standards.
7
(v) Certification requirements for diseases for which national control measures may notexist (meat products)
10. Canada submitted that restrictions were imposed on trade of meat products because of the
presence of certain animal diseases which were unlikely to be transmitted through meat.  OIEestablished standards for safeguards appropriate for trade in animals (or products of such animals)
affected by diseases identified in OIE's List A a nd List B.  Only diseases of importance (e.g. OIE
List A) should be required to be identified/specified on export certificates.  Canada proposed that OIE
be asked to develop more specific guidelines for the animal health certification of meat products, i.e.
diseases of concern and appropriate safeguards su ch as country freedom, farm-free, farm-free-plus-
certain-radius, etc.  Guidelines could also be de veloped for countries that wanted to require more
stringent certification, e.g. with respect to surveillance program or disease transmission data from
meat products.
(vi) Benzoic acid as a preservative in sauces
11. The Philippines indicated that benzoic acid is an anti-microbial preservative used in sauces
with a shelf-life of 6-12 months, and therefore necessary in products marketed for export.  The
FAO/WHO Joint Expert Committee on Food Additiv es (JECFA) had determ ined the Acceptable
Daily Intake (ADI) of benzoic acid at 5 mg/kg body weight.  Some countries restricted its use on the
ground that high levels of consumption of foods containing the additive could result in a health risk.
There were no internationally agreed methodologies for assessing risk due to dietary exposure to food
additives and the lack of an international standard negatively affected international trade because it
allowed countries to discriminate in the use of the additive.  The Philippines noted that the use ofbenzoic acid in sauces was included in the draf t Codex General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA)
and stressed that it was important that the GSFA be finalized soon by Codex.  The lack of an
international standard not only affected international trade in sauces, but also had the potential to
hamper trade in other processed food products where preservatives were used.
__________
                                                     
7 G/SPS/R/12, paragraph 56.