RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/R/11
17 August 1998
(98-3210)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING HELD ON 10-11 JUNE 1998
Note by the Secretariat
1. The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures ("the Committee") held its eleventh
meeting on 10-11 June 1998, under the chairmanship of Mr. Alejandro Thiermann (United States).
The agenda proposed in WTO/AIR/853 was adopted with amendments.
2. The Committee observed a minute of silence in tribute to Mr. Randy Benoit (Canada).
Several delegations took the floor to praise his high level of expertise, unique negotiating skills, thepersonal contributions he made since 1989 to the negotiation of the SPS Agreement, as well as his
active participation in the work of the SPS Committee.
1. Implementation of the Agreement
3. The Chairman reminded the Committee that the timely submission of papers to the Secretariat
was essential to ensure that these were translated and distributed to Members well in advance of themeetings so that meaningful discussions could take place.
(a) Information from Members
(i) United States - Facilitation of informal consul tations on specific SPS issues (G/SPS/GEN/74)
4. The representative of the United States reminded the Committee of the potential usefulness of
Article 12.2 of the SPS Agreement which called for the Committee to "encourage and facilitatead hoc  consultations or negotiations among Members on specific sanitary and phytosanitary issues".
Such a procedure could take the form of informal, confidential consultations, without prejudice to
Members' rights and obligations under the SPS Agreement or any other WTO agreements.  Speaking
from experience, the delegations of Chile and the European Communities concurred that Article 12.2
was a useful instrument in solving SPS issues.  Chile underlined that many trade grievances were
resolved, or clarifications obtained, using not only Article 12.2, but also Article 5.8 and the SPS
Committee meetings.  Chile suggested that a record of all the SPS cases resolved using alternativeapproaches to the formal dispute settleme nt procedure would be most insightful.
5. Differing views were expressed with regard to the scope of Article 12.2 and the role
envisaged for the Chairman in the US paper.  The representative of Mexico noted that Article 12.2 did
not preclude recourse to bilateral consultations, nor did it provide for the suggested proactive role by
the Chairman to participate in "consultations and disputes".  Australia, in contrast, found that recourse
to the Chairman's services was a sensible suggestion, and the availability of the Chairman or any other
designated person should be made known to Memb ers who might wish to avail themselves of these
services.
6. The Committee agreed to revert to the US paper for more substantial consideration at its next
meeting.G/SPS/R/11
Page 2
(ii) United States - Use of international standards (G/SPS/GEN/76)
7. Introducing document G/SPS/GEN/76, the US dele gation reaffirmed its view that the SPS
Committee should not interfere in the development of objective, science-based international
standards, but Members had certain expectations which related to the effective implementation of the
SPS Agreement.  The United States urged the Committee to reflect on the progress being made in thedevelopment and use of such standards and ensure that these continued to be developed in a
transparent process, on the basis of science and risk assessment procedures, while reflecting the
widely felt views and the scientific opinions of the WTO membership.
8. Several delegations thanked the United States for initiating debate on this issue especially in
light of events currently taking place in the WT O as well as within the respective international
standard-setting bodies.  The  delegations of Argentina, Chile and Mexico, in particular, embraced the
main thrust of the paper, while suggesting some modifications.
9. Argentina praised the attempts made in paragraph 4 to take on board the informal discussions
held in the context of Article 5.5, but noted that various elements needed rebalancing to more closely
match the text of the SPS Agreement.  According to Mexico, there seemed to be a contradiction in
this paragraph between the overall objective of prom oting the use of international standards, and the
deviations which might take place when introducing a different level of protection.
10. Argentina pointed out that the first sentence of paragraph 6 gave room for interpretation when
referring to "relevant pertinent information" as oppos ed to "other relevant scientific information".
Similarly, the phrase "relevant evidence and views" seemed to refer to public hearings rather than
evidence being sought from the scientific community.   Finally, the language used in the first sentence
of paragraph 9 should be more explicit, despite recent trends to develop health standards on the basisof other than scientific concepts, an option, Argentina recalled, which had been completely discarded
during the Uruguay Round. In this respect, the delegation of Australia also stressed that it was
essential for Members to preserve the congruence of the fundamental concepts which formed the basis
of the SPS Agreement and the work of the relevant standard-setting bodies.  Changing the approach to
the formulation of standards would be a destabilizing factor for the international standard-settingbodies.
11. The representative of the European Communities indicated that the paper's focus on science
as the sole guiding principle seemed to be oblivious of a number of other considerations which were
taken into account when Codex standards, for ex ample, were developed.  While recognizing that
science was a fundamental and key element, other criteria, such as practicability, controllability and
environmental concerns should also be taken into consideration.  The representative of Chile found
this latter standpoint most confusing for a developing country which did not have the technicalcapacity to conduct comprehensive risk assessments, and who relied on international standards to
formulate national sanitary regulations.  Chile expressed concern that, increasingly, science-based
standards were blocked during the Codex process for various reasons.  Those reasons could well be
legitimate and justifiable, but they fell within the purview of other agreements.
(iii) Chile - Disease free status (G/SPS/GEN/81)
12. On April 1998, Chile was declared free from Classical Swine Fever.  As a result, Chile had
acquired the status of a country free of the disease, appearing in List A of the International Office of
Epizootics (OIE).  The full text of the statemen t by Chile is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/81.
Furthermore, Chile reported considerable progress in gaining recognition by two of its major trading
partners as a country free from Mediterranean fruit-fly.  Chile hoped to conclude its negotiations withJapan in 1998, and Korea was prepared to recognize certain regions as disease-free by the end of
1998.G/SPS/R/11
Page 3
13. Regarding bilateral agreements, the delegation of Chile announced that in April 1998, a joint
United States/Chile Consultative Commission had discussed the terms of reference of a sanitary and
phytosanitary group, the principal objectives of which would be the interchange of experience on the
principles and implementation of the SPS Agreement.  Chile had also concluded an economic
cooperation agreement with Peru, with a chapter dedicated to SPS issues.  The approach taken wasconsistent with the SPS Agreement and was intende d to facilitate trade and develop transparency
between the countries.
14. In May 1998, Chile hosted a meeting of the drafting group on fresh fruit and vegetables, a
subsidiary group of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene.  Since the last SPS Committee meeting,
Chile had also participated in the OIE meeting, the IPPC meeting on phytosanitary aspects, and the
Codex meeting on pesticide residues and on milk and dairy products.
(iv) EC  -  Update on the EC regulation on Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for aflatoxins
15. In light of the extensive comments made during the last meeting to the effect that proposed
EC requirements for MRLs and sampling methods for aflatoxins were too restrictive and onerous, as
well as the deliberations of the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants, the European
Commission had forwarded a revised proposal to EC  member States acting within the framework of
the EC Standing Committee on Foodstuffs.  The EC Standing Committee on Foodstuffs wouldconsider the proposed modifications at its meeting of 17-18 June 1998.
16. Regarding MRLs for groundnuts in raw form:  the European Commission proposed an
increase from 10 ppb (aflatoxin total) to 15 ppb, in line with the limit under discussion in the Codex
framework.  The European Commission considered that the initially-required aflatoxin content
(i.e. 10 ppb) could still be met after sorting the groundnuts for direct human consumption.
17. Regarding dried fruits and nuts in raw form, the proposed limit remained at 10 ppb (aflatoxin
total).  For dried fruits and nuts after sorting, (or other physical treatment preparing the product for
direct human consumption) the proposed MRL was 4 ppb.  In this case, the European Communities
did not have the available information regarding the incidence of physical treatments on the final level
of aflatoxins which would have allowed an increase of the MRL from 10 to 15 ppb.   However, ifwithin a year, planned tests demonstrated that the same reduction from 15 ppb in the raw material to
4 ppb in the final consumer product could be obtained, then the European Communities would
increase the MRL from 10 to 15 ppb.
18. In the case of cereals, and in spite of the lack of sufficient evidence that sorting or other
physical treatment would reduce the aflatoxin content, the European Commission was ready to
postpone requirements for a year.  If, by this deadline, no new evidence was submitted that would
justify specific MRLs for raw, untreated cereals, then the currently-proposed limit for cereals intended
for human consumption, i.e. 4 ppm, would also apply to raw cereals.
19. As regarded sampling procedures, the previous requirement that each sub-sample should
comply with the established MRL was changed to require only that the average of all the sub-sample
MRLs should comply with the established MRL.  A further element in the EC proposal was that due
consideration would be given to transitional arrangements.   As a result, the new measures would notenter into force before 1 January 1999.
(b) Specific trade concerns
20. To help ensure the smooth functioning of each  meeting, the Chairman encouraged Members
to address specific issues in formal submissions for circulation as documents as far in advance of the
meeting as possible. If Members did not wish to address specific issues in formal documents,questions and comments should be provided to the Secretariat as far in advance of the meeting asG/SPS/R/11
Page 4
possible, so that these could be circulated as room documents at the beginning of each meeting.  A
new list of notifications received since the March meeting was circulated in document
G/SPS/GEN/80.
(i) Thailand - Korean restrictions on imports of poultry (G/SPS/GEN/83)
21. Further to his interventions during the 9th and 10th meetings of the SPS Committee, the
representative of Thailand again raised concerns about the Korean restriction on imports of poultry
meat from Thailand.  This measure, not notified to the WTO as yet, was not based on the relevant
international norms, particularly the recommendations of the International Commission on
Microbiological Specification for Foods (ICMSF), and repeated requests for explanations continued
to be ignored.
22. In addition, the representative of Thailand believed that the proposed amendment to the
Korean Food Code (notified in G/SPS/N/KOR/44), which required all meat to be free from certainmicro-organisms, including those cited when Thai consignments were rejected, was enacted to
retroactively cover the disputed testing requiremen ts.  Finally, Thailand specifically requested the
Republic of Korea to avoid enforcing the testing requirements on Listeria monocytogenes  during the
process of amendment of the Food Code.
23. The representative of Korea reported that bilateral consultations had been held prior to the
present Committee meeting.  He emphasized that the amendment to the Food Code was intended to
improve food safety and harmonize current Korean regulations with international standards.  All
comments received were currently being reviewed, although delays had occurred due to external factors.
The Korean delegation undertook to inform Thaila nd about the final outcome as soon as possible.
(ii) Thailand - Mexican import prohibition of Thai milled rice (G/SPS/GEN/82)
24. Further to the discussions which took place during earlier Committee meetings, Thailand
expressed disappointment at the lack of progress during the last four years with regard to the Mexican
import prohibition of Thai milled rice, despite extensive recourse to bilateral as well as multilateral
channels.  While Thailand would initially request Mexico to provide an explanation of the reasons
behind its measure on the basis of Article 5.8, Thailand reserved its rights under the WTO to use otherrelevant procedures.   The representative of Mexico stated that this matter was still under consideration
by his authorities.
(iii) Philippines - Brazilian prohibition on imports of coconut palms and related products
25. The representative of the Philippines, supported by Malaysia and Sri Lanka, raised concerns
regarding Administrative Directive No. 70 (A.D. 70), approved by the Brazilian Ministry of
Agriculture on 5 March 1998 and taking effect 60 days after its publication.  In order to facilitate the
Committee's consideration of this matter, the delegation of Philippines had submitted in advance aseries of questions to the delegation of Brazil and had requested written answers.  Clarification was
sought on the following matters:
- whether the measure had been notified to WTO and whether a time period for comments had
been granted;
- list of products covered (by HS tariff headings) and list of countries affected;- request for an official copy of A.D. 70 in an y of the WTO languages, preferably in English;
- consistency of the measure with Articles 2.2 and 2.3;G/SPS/R/11
Page 5
- whether the measure was in line with existing international standards, guidelines and
recommendations.  If not, clarification was soug ht on the extent of the deviation from such
standards;
- in case the measure was the result of Brazil's determination of its appropriate level of
protection, whether the obligations and criteria contained in Article 5 had been taken intoaccount, in particular those in Articles 5.2 and 5.4;
- whether Brazil's analysis of  "plague risk" referred to in A.D. 70 was based on any relevant
international risk assessment method; whether Brazil considered that this method was
consistent with Article 5;
- in light of Article 4, whether Brazil had taken into account the corresponding measures
implemented in other countries to eradicate the plagues identified in A.D. 70.
26. In a preliminary answer, the representative of Brazil stressed that Administrative Directive 70
was introduced with the sole purpose of preventing the spread of quarantine pests.  Brazil remained
open to imports of coconut plants and related products from countries recognized by the relevant
Brazilian authorities as being free from plagues, and if shipments were accompanied by a
phytosanitary certificate issued by the authorities of the exporting country.  To date, only one country
had applied for disease-free status.  Brazil maintained that the measure was in full conformity with theSPS Agreement as well as with the revised text of the IPPC.  Moreover, the risk assessment
methodology used was notified on 13 December 1995 in G/SPS/N/BRA/1.  Brazil undertook to
provide more detailed answers to the questions posed by the Philippines.
(iv) European Communities/Hungary - Slovak measures on imports of apples, pears and quinces
(G/SPS/GEN/79, G/SPS/N/SVK/8/Rev.1)
27. Pursuing a matter addressed during the March Committee meeting, the representative of
Hungary acknowledged the latest improvements made by the Slovak Republic in revising the
regulation against the introduction of fire blight, a quarantine pest disease potentially affecting apples,
pears and quinces (notified in G/SPS/N/SVK/8/Rev.1).  However, quoting excerpts from publications
of the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO), Hungary supported theview that such a prohibition must be brought in  line with EPPO's recommendations, i.e. that:
(a) fruits (as opposed to host plants for planting) should be exempted from the regulation since the
risk of transmission on fruit was considered to be insignificant;  and  (b) the ban should be totally
lifted during the winter period when the bacterium was in a dormant state, including in plant
propagating material.  The EC delegation concurred with the latter scientific standpoint and offered to
address the issue of propagating material on a technical basis.  The scope of the discussions, however,
was likely to be limited given the nature of the current burdensome licensing and notification systemapplying to each consignment, and which the European Communities, Hungary and Bulgaria
continued to find unjustifiably restrictive.
28. Invoking Article 5.8 of the SPS Agreement, Hungary questioned the validity of the scientific
arguments and other considerations advanced so far and informed the Committee that it had not yet
received replies to written queries put forward in December 1997.  The delegations of Hungary, theEuropean Communities and Bulgaria registered their interest in the immediate withdrawal of the
import ban on fruit and urged the Slovak Republic to bring its measure into compliance with EPPO
standards and recommendations and with the substantive provisions of the SPS Agreement.
29. The representative of the Slovak Republic informed the Committee that, in response to the
comments received since G/SPS/N/SVK/8/Rev.1 was circulated, a second modification was beingprepared in order to remove any remaining administrative obstacles and improve market access
conditions.  (The modification was subsequently circulated in document G/SPS/N/SVK/11.)  MoreG/SPS/R/11
Page 6
precisely, the wording of the Slovak regulation was modified to require exporting authorities to
identify where Erwynia Amylovora  occurred rather than a list of species from all orchards .  This
amendment had also been notified on 8 June 1998 to the European Communities, Hungary and EPPO.
30. Slovakia denied that its phytosanitary measure was a "ban on imports" since, during the first
half of 1998, a total of 9,500 tonnes of apples, pears and quinces, representing 35 per cent of domesticconsumption and one third of domestic production, were imported from Austria, Belgium, Chile, the
Czech Republic, Spain, France, Hungary (albeit in small quantities), Italy, Poland, Slovenia,
Macedonia and South Africa.  All these exporting countries were thus able to fulfil the phytosanitary
requirements and did not experience market access impediments.  Taking into account the possible
consequent economic losses which could arise from the spread of the disease, the Slovak Republic
maintained the view that the established phytos anitary requirements did not go beyond the level
deemed necessary to protect plant health.  Since available scientific information was not sufficient andin the absence of relevant international standards, a precautionary approach was adopted in line with
Article 5.7.  The phytosanitary requirements were thus of a temporary nature, and allowed for
additional scientific information to be gathered and assessed.  The Slovak Republic was currently
engaged in an intensive exchange of information with countries applying similar phytosanitary
requirements, and was ready to continue discussions in good faith to find an acceptable solution withtrading partners.
31. Addressing problems of recognizing equivalence, the representative of Argentina noted that
this issue had also emerged during consultations on citrus canker.  The representative of the European
Communities responded that, after examining Arge ntina's proposal for monitoring and control
measures, the EC Standing Committee on Plant Health had come to the conclusion that, for the timebeing, Argentina could not objectively demonstrate the equivalence of its control measures with EC
requirements.  No EC producing member State accepted imports of citrus originating in infected areas
or countries, and even Argentina prohibited the movement of fruit from the contaminated North East
zone into its disease-free West zone.  According to the EC delegation, Argentina's proposal lacked
consistency, within the meaning of Article 5.5, si nce it applied a lower level of protection to the
Community than that applied within Argentina.
32. Argentina maintained that the measures in its infected and exempt areas were introduced in
accordance with the requirements of international buyers of Argentinean citrus fruit, principally EC
member States.  The representative of Argentina recalled that the recommendation that different
criteria be applied to infected versus exempt zones was a written recommendation made by an EC
technical expert.  Argentina requested information on the risk assessment undertaken by the
Community to support its claim that Argentina's proposed measures were not equivalent.  TheChairman invited the delegates to put this item on the agenda of the next meeting of the Committee if
they wished to further discuss it.
(v) United States - Turkey's livestock import ban
33. The United States reported that since August 1996, Turkey had banned imports of cattle and
meat products from the United States.  The ban was originally imposed for a period of three months,subsequently extended six times, and, recently, Turkey announced an extension through July 1998.
The reason cited by the Turkish authorities was the protection of livestock from foot-and-mouth
disease (FMD) while an eradication programme was under way.  After numerous bilateral meetings
and raising the issue in other WTO committees, the representative of the United States sought
clarification on whether the measure in question had ever been officially published in Turkey ornotified to the WTO, and an explanation of the scientific basis or evidence of risk assessment
justifying this measure, especially in view of the FMD-free status of the United States (no occurrence
of the disease was registered since the 1920's).  The representatives of Uruguay and the European
Communities associated themselves with the concerns expressed.  Uruguay was free from FMD, and
the Community was free from FMD as well as rinderpest, a disease which was cited at an earlier stageG/SPS/R/11
Page 7
by Turkey as a reason for imposing the ban.  The European Communities, Uruguay and the United
States urged Turkey to review its regulation and ensure its consistency with the WTO.  The
representative of Turkey indicated that he was unable to respond to the points raised since he had not
received the questions in advance of the Committee meeting.
(vi) United States - EC's proposed restrictions on "Specified Risk Materials" (SRMs)
34. The representatives of Argentina, Canada, Chil e, Switzerland and the United States sought an
update on the BSE-related issue, extensively discussed during the ninth and tenth meetings of the SPS
Committee.  In particular, these delegations sought information on:  (a) the current status of the
restriction and the proposed time-frame for implementation;  (b) whether the amended version of the
regulation would be published and notified to WTO;  (c) the criteria on the basis of which a country's
BSE-status was to be determined;  and (d) how the European Communities would ensure that
individual EC member States did not start introducing their own measures.
35. The representative of the European Communities reported that EC member States were still
unable to reach a common position on this issue.  Consequently, EC Decision No. 97/934 would not
enter into force until 1 January 1999.  A suggestion that the list of SRMs be slightly reduced was
subject to a scientific review.  In the meantime, EC member States, such as the United Kingdom,
France, Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Port ugal and Luxembourg, had introduced a number of
measures.  Notification of these national safeguard measures to the WTO had been considered but not
yet made.  (The concerns expressed by several delegations regarding the lack of notification by EC
member States are reported under agenda item 2(c) below.)
36. The EC representative also reported that the EC Commission was submitting new legislation
to the Council for approval, departing from the traditional procedure reserved for safeguards on BSEwhere the proposal was forwarded to the EC Standing Committee.  The legislative proposal would
include general provisions in terms of safeguards and control measures with respect to BSE.  An
important element in elaborating this proposal was the outcome of the recent meeting of the OIE, in
particular classification of countries according to four categories of BSE incidence.  This would play
an important role in the formulation of EC internal policies.  On the other hand, the ScientificVeterinary Committee had considered BSE-free status on several occasions and concluded that the
United States could not be recognized as BSE-free.  This did not mean that BSE was present in US
territory, but rather that the country fell into the "low-risk" category, taking into account the presence
of risk factors in feeding of meat and bone-meal and in ineffective meat rendering systems, and the
absence of an adequate surveillance system in place for a sufficiently long time-period.
37. The US representative disagreed with the classification of the United States as a "low-risk"
country.  Furthermore, the United States had not been officially notified of any decision by theEuropean Communities on the disease status of the United States.  An official notice to the Chief
Veterinary Officer, together with the criteria and scientific basis used by the European Communities
to reach this determination, would be most appreciated by the United States.  It was the US
understanding that the EC Scientific Steering Committee had been unable to date to adopt an opinion
on third country BSE-status because of lack of relevant data.  The United States was currentlypreparing a new submission and requested clarification as to whether the Commission was prepared to
consider new information in order to reassess its criteria and its application to individual countries.
Information on the criteria used by the Commission to carry out its evaluation and deadlines for
receipt of submissions was also requested.
38. The EC representative clarified that, in their view, no country could be designated as BSE-free
as such, and confirmed that the Commission had not r eached any conclusions with regard to provisions
of the directive whose application was suspended until 1 January 1999.  This was also the deadline for
receipt of submissions.  The re vision and evaluation procedure wa s ongoing, and countries should
submit further background information.  For example,  information required to be eligible for aG/SPS/R/11
Page 8
derogation from EC measures was whether the adequate risk management measures were in place.
Applications had already been received from a number  of EC member States, and Argentina, Australia,
Canada, Chile, United States, Japan, New Zealand a nd the Czech Republic.  The EC delegation invited
other Members which considered themselves eligible  for derogations or less stringent requirements to
also send their applications to the Directorate General for Agriculture (DG VI).
(vii) Switzerland - Request for consultations under Article XXII, GATT 1994: Slovak Republic -
Measures concerning the importation of dairy products and the transit of cattle (WT/DS133/1
and G/SPS/GEN/71)
39. The representatives of Switzerland and the Slovak Republic reported on the progress achieved
during the consultations held between their respective veterinary authorities.  One delegation had
notified its interest in joining the bilateral consulta tions.  Despite the negative response, at least at this
stage of the consultation process, the Slovak Republic recognized that BSE-related issues attractedgeneral interest and stated that the process would be transparent vis-à-vis  trading partners and
explanations would be given if necessary.  If a mutually satisfactory solution were found, the Dispute
Settlement Body and the SPS Committee would be informed about the outcome of the discussions.
(viii) Switzerland - Restrictions on imports of hard cheeses imposed by Australia and New Zealand
40. The representative of Switzerland, supported by the delegation of the European Communities,
reported that, without advance notice, imports of hard cheese from unpasteurized milk had been
stopped on the grounds that the product did not meet the sanitary requirements of New Zealand and
Australia.  This had caused disruptions of Swiss and EC exports of certain cheeses.  Both delegations
sought clarification with regard to the absence of notification and the scientific justification of what
appeared to constitute an unnecessary restriction on trade.  The EC representative argued that theissue of pasteurization was irrelevant when considering public health risks, as long as good
manufacturing practices and hygiene standards were respected.
41. The representatives of Australia and New Zealand noted that their respective food codes
required pasteurization as a measure to mitigate the human health risks which might arise from the
presence of pathogenic organisms in raw milk cheeses since well before 1 January 1995.  However, ithad become evident that the measure was not being complied with in either country and steps were
recently taken to enforce it, which had given rise to the trade problems encountered by the European
Communities and Switzerland.
42. Australia and New Zealand confirmed that a comprehensive risk assessment exercise had
been initiated with a view to revise the joint Australia/New Zealand Food Standards Code.
Switzerland's application had been received, in accordance with the established procedures, and the
joint Australia/New Zealand Food Authority sought public comments on the possibility ofrecognizing equivalence.  The process would be completed as expeditiously as possible to resolve
problems encountered by Switzerland.  The EC application had also been received and was at an
advanced stage of consideration.
(c) Consideration of specific notifications received
(i) European Communities - Suspension of import  permits for certain ruminants and ruminant
products into the United States (G/SPS/N/USA/106)
43. This issue, which the EC representative characterized as an outright ban on live cattle and
meat, was extensively discussed during the last meeting.  With reference to Article 5.8 of the SPS
Agreement, the European Communities sought an explanation of the US measure.  The EC
representative noted that the OIE had recently indicated that when a country had no native cases ofBSE, and surveillance systems in place for seven years, trade in meat products could take place.G/SPS/R/11
Page 9
Germany, Austria, Denmark, Swede n, Finland, Italy, Spain and Greece fell within that category.  The
OIE Code also provided the basis on which trade could take place for countries with low incidence of
BSE, like France, the Netherlands, Ireland, Belgium, Luxembourg and Portugal.  The United
Kingdom fell under a third category which required the removal of certain SRM, of particular
relevance for animals born before the effective EC feed ban was established on a Community-widebasis in July 1994.  During bilateral consultations in May 1998, US officials had informed the
European Commission that they were in the final stages of establishing criteria on which decisions
would be based, although the nature and contents of such criteria were still unclear to the EC
delegation.
44. The representative of the United States announced that a considerable amount of information
had been received from all interested parties following the public announcement and notification of
the interim measure under discussion.  These inputs were being incorporated into the risk assessmentalong with other available information, taking into account the ongoing discussions in the OIE
framework.  The interim measure published in December 1997 identified in general terms the criteria
upon which the US decision would be based, and questionnaires seeking specific information on the
risk factors were sent to the chief veterinary officers of the countries affected by the US measure.
This questionnaire further identified the criteria upon which the US decision would be based.  Theupdated rule would soon be published and notified to the WTO, and responses provided to all the
comments that were received on the interim rule.  The preliminary indications of changes to the
proposed rule included the removal of some countries previously subject to the measure on the basis
of information that was provided regarding surveillance systems, other risk management practices,
and other risk factors.
45. The representative of Switzerland noted that given that the state of scientific knowledge on
BSE, the factors to be considered should be the same for all countries and based on OIE guidelines.
Both the United States and the European Communities seemed to be developing their individual
criteria, applying trade measures even before those criteria were finalized, and not applying the same
standards to their domestic production.  If Switzerland required others to meet the criteria it applied todomestic producers, there would be little meat imports into Switzerland. There was a flagrant problem
of non-national treatment as well as discriminatory treatment among international suppliers where the
same conditions prevailed.
46. Several delegations observed that BSE-related measures were causing a lot of problems in
world trade.  WTO Members needed to work constructively to address this important health issue on
the basis of science, within the relevant fora, a nd consistently with the commitments made under the
SPS Agreement.  In this context, Argentina, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa,Switzerland and Uruguay registered their support to, and appreciation of, the progress being made at
the OIE.
47. New Zealand noted with irony that although it provided to countries with internal BSE
problems the negative control samples for the tests th ey were developing, reaffirming the perception of
New Zealand as BSE-free, New Zeal and, as well as a number of other countries which had never had a
case of BSE, still did not meet the criteria estab lished by some BSE-affected countries.  For certain
countries, there was no reason to believe that cases would ever occur in view of the surveillance and
control policies which had been pursued for years on a domestic basis, as well as in terms of importation
of semen, embryos, feeding practices and so forth.  Several delegations complained that recognition of a
country's status in relation to BSE took too long especially in Europe .  Chile also noted that too much
burden was placed on countries to demonstrate th eir "innocence", a situation which set a dangerous
precedent and threatened to bring chaos to trade.G/SPS/R/11
Page 10
(ii) United States - G/SPS/N/POL/5:  Temporary im port ban by Poland on bovine gelatine and its
derivatives
48. The representative of the United States sought clarification on the status of this measure, its
scientific basis, and whether future amendments were being considered.  In this context, Brazil, the
European Communities, Switzerland, and the United States hoped that the disease status of thesupplying country, the scientific factors relating to the infectivity of gelatine and gelatine-containing
products, as identified by the OIE, as well as equal treatment of international suppliers where the
same BSE conditions prevailed, would be taken into account in future amendments.
49. The representative of Poland stressed that his au thorities were monitoring all the developments
relating to the BSE issue.  The measures taken by other WTO Members were also studied, as well as the
discussions taking place in the SPS Committee.  The measure in question was taken in order to protect
consumers' health and would remain in force to the end of June 1998.  It would be replaced by a
measure reflecting the present state of scientific knowledge on the subject, a nd a new notification would
be submitted in due course.  Regarding the different treatment of Switzerland, the United Kingdom and
Ireland, the representative of Poland stated that th e new regulations had not yet been adopted by the
Polish Government and he undertook to provide a response on the basis of written questions from
Switzerland.
(iii) United States - G/SPS/N/EEC/58:  EC measur e on establishments operating in the animal
feed sector
50. The representative of the United States raised concerns with regard to Council Directive
No. 95/69/EEC, which set conditions and arrangemen ts for approving and registering establishments
and intermediaries operating in the animal feed sector.  The United States sought clarification on:  (a)the justification for requiring a list of establishments in addition to the maintenance of a list of third
countries, especially if the country already fulfilled the requirements of the Directive;  (b) the specific
products covered by this proposal, e.g. was petfood included;  (c)  the specific criteria used for the
inclusion of a country in the third-country list, as the requirements appeared to refer to the
determination of equivalence;  (d) the legislative and administrative procedures envisaged to modifythe lists established under the Directive;  (e) the requirement in Chapter 6 that imports could only
come from third countries which had representatives " established within the Community"  and the
justification for that requirement in terms of the sc ientific risks involved;  and (f) an update of the
status of implementation of this Directive.
51. The EC representative stated that the European  Communities were in the process of putting in
place all the legislative framework for the establishment of the single market in regard to animal, plant
and consumer health.  It was the common practice to apply harmonized standards to all establishmentssupplying foodstuffs so that products could circul ate freely within the Community.  Provisions were
also harmonized with regard to third countries.  The standard EC framework consisted of a list of
countries considered eligible to export products to the Community and an evaluation, the general
criteria of which were the same as those applied in areas of public health and veterinary matters, as
stipulated in the Directive.  These criteria were th e country's legislation in the area of feedingstuffs
and in particular the rules relating to manufacturing and distribution of products;  substances intended
to be used in nutrition;  control rules;  the structure and organization of the competent authority;
guarantees provided by the organization in the implementation of adequate controls;  and guarantees
provided by the country with regard to the complian ce with standards at least equivalent to those laid
down in the Annex to Directive No. 95/69.
52. The risks addressed by this framework were microbiological and those arising from the
presence of extraneous matters, contaminants and chemical residues, transmitted through
feedingstuffs to the animals or to consumers.  An essential element of the measure was to be able to
identify such risks as close as possible to the first source of contamination.  For that purpose theG/SPS/R/11
Page 11
legislation of third countries was supplemented by:  (a) the proper registration of individual
establishments;  (b) an assessment of the ability of the establishment to fulfil the requirements  at least
on an equivalent basis to those that were applicable in the Community;  and (c) a certificate, astandard practice in international trade.  Regarding the scope of the Directive, it did not include
petfood but only compound feedingstuffs, additives and other products entering in the production offeedingstuffs for farm animals.
53. The measure was to be adopted by vote in the Standing Committee of Animal Feedingstuffs
by the end of June 1998.   By the end of 1998, EC member States must provide the Commission with
a list of establishments considered eligible.  As the competent authority of the exporting country
carried out continuous screening of such establishm ents to ensure their compliance, establishment
could be added or removed from the list.  Inspection of such establishments was foreseen by the EC
Commission, subject to the resources available, focusing primarily on the ability of the competentauthority to ensure compliance.  The registration requirements were flexible and not very onerous,
contrary to views expressed by US industry.
54. The representative of Argentina requested a written copy of the statement made by the EC
representative.
(d) Any other matters related to the operation of transparency provisions
55. The most recent list of Enquiry Points was circulated as G/SPS/ENQ/6 with Addenda 1 and 2.
The latest list of National Notification Authorities was contained in document G/SPS/GEN/35 with
Addenda 1 and 2.  In addition, the Secretariat had updated document G/SPS/GEN/27/Rev.3,
indicating which Members had identified their Enquiry Points and/or National Notification
Authorities as of 5 June 1998.
56. During the March meeting, the European Communities introduced a paper containing some
suggestions on the transparency pr ovisions, G/SPS/GEN/64.  In addition to the comments made at the
last meeting on the EC suggestions for changes in the transparency provisions or the notification
procedure, additional suggestions were made durin g the informal meeting on the review of the SPS
Agreement.
(i) Switzerland -  Notification by EC member States
57. The representative of Switzerland sought an update on the progress made by the EC
Commission in internal discussions regarding the no tification by EC member States of their sanitary
and phytosanitary measures.  Other delegations expressed strong concern with the lack of progress in
resolving the problem of notification of EC member States' regulations since this had an important
implication for Members' obligations and the exercise of their rights under the SPS Agreement.  Trade
flows were affected just as much by EC member States' actions as they were by actions taken underthe jurisdiction of the European Communities.
58. The EC representative confirmed that, prompted by comments previously made by WTO
Members, the EC Commission envisaged modifying its internal notification provisions in order to
allow EC member States to notify national safeguard measures immediately to the WTO, with the
proviso that such national measures might become irrelevant, if as a result of Community procedures,they were suspended or withdrawn.  Only national safeguard measures were concerned, since other
measures taken by member States on a national basis could not enter into force before they had beensubject to the screening procedure at the Community  level.  The EC representative indicated that
"national safeguard measures" could be emergency measures, quarantines, temporary import bans,
suspension of certificates, etc.  The EC legal service was still considering the proposed amendment
and its general conformity with Community law.  The EC representative hoped to provide a more
affirmative statement on this issue at the next meeting of the Committee.G/SPS/R/11
Page 12
59. In response to a query regarding the conformity of non-safeguard measures with Annex B,
paragraph 5(b) of the SPS Agreement, the EC representative indicated that such measures must be
notified to the European Commission before their entry into force and comments from WTO
Members were taken into account.  As regards the impact that the internal screening process mighthave on the timely availability of information to  international traders, the delays involved were
normally from 10 to 15 days, although there were exceptions.
60. The delegation of Switzerland emphasized that each WTO Member was responsible for
fulfilling its obligations under the WTO agreements and this applied to each member State of the
European Communities.  Furthermore, the obligations under the SPS Agreement applied to all
measures, not only safeguard measures.  The channelling procedure used by the European
Communities to forward member States' notifications to the WTO was of secondary importance.
2. Monitoring the Use of International Standards
61. The Chairman recalled that in October 1997, the Committee adopted a provisional procedure
to monitor the use of international standards (G/SPS/11).  According to this procedure, Members were
invited to submit, in advance of regular meetings, examples of what they considered to be problems
with a significant trade impact which they believed related to the use or non-use of relevant
international standards, guidelines or recommendations.
62. Further to comments made at the last meeting regarding the US submission (G/SPS/W/87 and
Corr.1), the representative of the European Communities observed that the role of the SPS Committee
was not to tell the Codex Alimentarius Commission or other relevant standard-setting bodies what to
do.  The US delegation noted that international standard-setting organizations were interested in
feedback from the SPS Committee on issues within their purview which had an impact on trade.  Theprovision of such feedback was in accordance with the mandate contained in Article 12 of the SPS
Agreement.
63. With regard to the substance of the paper, the EC representative highlighted that EC rules
distinguished between use of Chlortetracycline (CTC) as a veterinary medicine, i.e. in the form of
medicated feedingstuff, administered to sick animals under close veterinary control versus  its use as
an additive in animal feedstuffs (i.e. as a growth promoter).  The latter use was banned since 1975.
Accordingly, the EC established different maximum residue limits (MRLs) for CTCs when they were
used as veterinary medicines.  Dosing instructions and "withdrawal" (minimum non-treatment)
periods must be respected before the animal was slaughtered and entered the food chain, to avoid any
residues in meat exceeding those established in Commission Regulation 281/96 dated
14 February 1996.  Within the Codex framework, th e EC delegation was in favour of setting MRLs
for CTC as a veterinary medicine, but opposed fixing MRLs for the use of CTCs as a feed additive,because the use of growth promoters without close supervision, control and administration, could lead
to public health risks arising from antibiotic resist ance.  EC MRLs for CTCs for veterinary therapeutic
use was half those currently under discussion at the Codex.  The monitoring suggestion put forward
by the United States, although pointing to some important issues, was flawed because MRLs were not
needed for substances that were prohibited as growth promoters.
64. The Chairman encouraged Members to contribute to the monitoring exercise by submitting, at
least one month in advance of the next regular meeting, examples of trade problems which they
believed were related to the use, non-use or absence of international standards.  The delegation of the
European Communities indicated that it hoped to make such a submission by the September meeting.
3. Consistency
65. The Chairman reported orally on the progress achieved during the informal consultations held
with all interested Members on the development of guidelines to further the practical implementationG/SPS/R/11
Page 13
of Article 5.5 of the SPS Agreement regarding decisions on the appropriate level of protection.  The
Chairman praised the efforts of New Zealand, Norway, Mexico and the European Communities,
which had provided non-papers for discussion during the recent informal consultations.
66. The representative of the European Communities emphasized that the EC paper in many ways
mirrored the contribution by New Zealand, in terms of  its analysis of Article 5.5.  In light of the
Hormones Panel final ruling, it appeared that the provision set down three steps, all of which had to
be violated in order for there to be contravention of Article 5.5.  Several delegations noted that the
status of the guidelines should be clarified in relation to the WTO and the SPS Agreement, since these
should in no way be considered as an interpretation of Article 5.5.
67. The Secretariat was requested to produce draft guidelines, taking into account the discussions,
for the next informal meeting of the Committee.
4. Review of the SPS Agreement
68. The Chairman recalled that at the October meeting, the Committee had agreed on a procedure
to conduct the review of the operation and implementation of the SPS Agreement provided for in
Article 12.7.  An informal meeting had been held on 10 June 1998, at which the implementation of the
transparency provisions, the notification process and the operation of Enquiry Points had been
considered.  Several delegations submitted background discussion papers, notably the United States,identifying preliminary issues for consideration by the Committee (G/SPS/W/88);  regarding the
improvement of the operation of the notificati on provisions (G/SPS/GEN/75);  on the use of
international standards (G/SPS/GEN/76), and on transparency and implementation of the Agreement
(G/SPS/GEN/77).  The delegation of Hong Kong requested the Secretariat to insert on the
consolidated list of issues for consideration, the "prompt publication of adopted SPS regulations asrequired under Annex B".
69. Fruitful discussions and a number of useful suggestions were also made on issues related to
the special needs of developing countries, and technical cooperation and assistance.  Speaking on
behalf of ASEAN, the representative of the Philippines emphasized that all possible means should be
identified to give full effect to the provisions on differential and more favourable treatment fordeveloping countries.  This was supported by Egypt, India, Mexico and Pakistan, especially with
reference to the ideas presented in India's non-pa per (subsequently circulated as G/SPS/GEN/85),
which highlighted the importance of Article 10.   The development of a survey questionnaire was
suggested in order to compile the particular difficulties and market access barriers faced by
developing countries in implementing the SPS Agreement.  An alternative approach suggested by
some Members was the creation of an inventory of specific examples of the difficulties faced,
domestic limitations and weaknesses hindering the participation of developing countries in the WTO.In reply to this request, the Secretariat indicated that, in consultation with Members, a questionnaire
could be designed.
70. The representative of Mexico reminded Members that according to the agreed procedure, the
Chairman was to submit a report to the Committee and decisions on possible actions, taking into
account all the topics reviewed during the exercise , would be made only once the review exercise was
concluded.  Transparency issues and the possible revision of the recommended notification
procedures needed more in-depth discussion.  Mexico was also concerned that issues and papers
tabled for discussion during the informal process should not be discussed during regular Committee
meetings.
71. The Chairman indicated that discussion on the topics of special and differential treatment and
technical cooperation would continue at the next informal meeting.  Delegations were also invited to
submit specific papers on the adaptation of SPS measures to regional conditions, harmonization and
equivalence, and to identify any other issue of interest, by the end of August.  The Secretariat wasG/SPS/R/11
Page 14
asked to compile all the proposals and suggestions made to date so that the Committee could consider
these in more detail.  The next informal meeting on the review of the Agreement will be held just
prior to the next regular meeting of the Committee.
5. Technical assistance and cooperation
72. The Secretariat reported on technical assistance activities undertaken since the March
meeting.   In May 1998, the Secretariat participated in a regional seminar on the SPS Agreement for
CARICOM countries, sponsored by USAID and organized in cooperation with USDA.  Participants
to the seminar highlighted their lack of financial resources, lack of coordination at national and
regional levels and absence from the work of the relevant standard-setting bodies.  The Secretariat
was organizing a regional seminar to be held in Manila from 30 June-1 July 1998, in cooperation with
the Government of the Philippines, USDA, Codex, OIE and IPPC.  In addition to an overview of the
WTO, dispute settlement procedures, and a detailed presentation of the SPS Agreement, the scope ofthis seminar would include a special session on risk assessment, as well as a two-day workshop on
transparency and notification procedures.  On that occasion, the role and functioning of national
Enquiry Points would be presented.  This new approach was praised by the US representative.  A
seminar on the SPS and TBT Agreements, organized by  the International Trade Centre, would be held
in Jordan in July 1998.  The Secretariat announced that on 14-15 September, a seminar on TBTEnquiry Points would be organized in Geneva, bringing experts from all developing countries.  To the
extent that resources were available, the Secretariat would try to organize a session on the SPS
notification procedures for those TBT Enquiry Points  which were also SPS Enquiry Points.  Given the
limited human resources available in the SPS area, the Secretariat had not yet been able to fulfil its
technical cooperation objectives with regard to African countries.  Developing country Members wereinvited to continue to address their requests to the Secretariat.  The Chairman indicated that he was
invited, in his personal capacity, to an animal production and animal health conference for the SADC
countries in Botswana.
73. The representative of the United States presented the US paper on technical cooperation and
assistance, circulated as document G/SPS/GEN/78.  This paper outlined the various US programmes
on technical assistance addressing SPS issues within the Department of Agriculture, Foreign
Agricultural Service;  the Agency for International Development;  and the Department of Commerce.
Such programmes were designed to help developing countries enhance their participation in
international standard-setting bodies, overcome their technical limitations within the transition period
foreseen in Article 14, and establish bilateral cooperation and assistance on a long-term basis.
74. The delegation of Chile thanked the delegation of the European Communities for providing a
list of experts in the field of risk assessment.  In order to have as complete a list as possible, Chilesuggested that all Members, as well as the inte rnational standard-setting institutions, provide such
information.
75. The representative of the World Health Organization reported that a joint WHO/FAO
Consultation on the role of government agencies in assessing hazard analysis and critical control
points (HACCP) was held in June 1998.  This event responded to the increasing need for guidanceexperienced by national food control authorities as  the implementation of HACCP systems in the food
industry progressed.
76. The representative of the IPPC Secretariat reported on the involvement of the IPPC in a
number of FAO projects.  The IPPC currently was in the final stages of a project designed to
strengthen plant quarantine capabilities in Gambia, namely:  (a) updating the phytosanitary legislationto improve its consistency with the SPS Agreement and the revised Convention;  (b) training in pest
risk analysis and in phytosanitary treatment and inspection.  Two similar projects were being
implemented in the Caribbean and Andean regions.  Two other trade-based projects were under way
to assist countries to meet phytosanitary requirements and avoid disputes.  The first was to assist theG/SPS/R/11
Page 15
Bahamas in upgrading phytosanitary systems for citrus to gain markets in the Far East.  The second
involved assistance to the Dominican Republic in order to develop suitable pest risk management
programmes for the export of coconuts to Brazil.  Fi nally, the IPPC Secretariat participated in a recent
workshop on pest risk analysis, held in South Africa, and sponsored by the USDA.
77. The representative of the joint FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex)
announced that they, in collaboration with the IPPC, were preparing a sectoral plan for technical
assistance for developing countries to assist th em in meeting their obligations and accruing the
benefits of the SPS and TBT Agreements.  The plan included provisions related to food quality and
safety measures consistent with the Codex principles and provisions related to the IPPC.  The plan
also included inputs from FAO fisheries, forestry and agriculture departments in relevant areas.  FAO
would welcome collaboration and partnership with WTO Members in providing technical assistance.
FAO currently had 34 world-wide technical assistance projects designed to strengthen developingcountries' capacities in food quality and safety.
78. The representative of the International Trade Centre (ITC) reported on its programme for
Arab countries, funded by the UNDP, which included seminars on TBT and SPS, targeted at the
business community.  One event was scheduled for July 1998 in Jordan, others in Saudi Arabia and
Egypt in 1999.   Seminars on information services and Enquiry Points would be organized in Tunisia
in September 1998, and in Saudi Arabia in 1999 .  An integrated WTO/UNCTAD/ITC project for
Least Developed Countries and Other Selected Countries in Africa was planned, addressing the
particular needs of eight countries.   One element of this programme referred to the establishment of
TBT and SPS Enquiry Points.
6. Matters of interest arising from the work of observer organizations
(a) WTO/OIE Agreement
79. On 4 May 1998, the Directors-General of the WTO and of the OIE formally signed a
cooperation agreement (WT/L/272).  This Agreement had been approved by the SPS Committee
(G/SPS/W/62) and subsequently by the Counci l for Trade in Goods and the General Council.
According to the representative of the OIE, this Agreement formalized the long-standing cooperation,
working relationship and dialogue between the two or ganizations.  It also strengthened the existing
framework for sharing information and technical cooperation.  The Secretariat of the WTO expressed
its appreciation for this fruitful cooperation.
(b) Revision of the IPPC
80. The representative of the IPPC reported that the new text of the International Plant Protection
Convention had been transmitted to all FAO member governments for acceptance or adherence.  The
FAO's legal office and the IPPC Secretariat were c onsulting with governments in order to facilitate
rapid acceptance.  A number of ratifications had already been forwarded to the FAO.  The IPPC
representative hoped this process would accelerate in order to bring the new Convention into force
with little delay and allow IPPC to fully realize the role envisioned for it under the SPS Agreement.
The IPPC Secretariat was grateful to the WTO Secretariat and SPS Committee for emphasizing the
important relationship between the IPPC and the SPS Agreement and noted the importance ofArticle 3.4 concerning Members' participation in standard-setting activities.
81. The first meeting of the IPPC Commission on Phytosanitary Measures would be held in
Rome, from 3-6 November 1998.  This was an important event for IPPC as it marked the start of
direct Member participation in establishing the structure and priorities for the Convention.  The
agenda of the IPPC Commission included:  establishm ent of the rules of procedure;  consideration of
two new standards for approval;  and discussions on the future work programme.  Formal invitations
would be sent in July 1998.G/SPS/R/11
Page 16
82. The Plant Protection Agreement for Asia and the Pacific, a supplementary agreement under
the IPPC, was also under revision, inter alia,  to strengthen and clarify the relationship of
phytosanitary measures to trade.
(c) WHO - The revision of the International Health Regulations (IHR) - G/SPS/GEN/59
83. As requested at the March 1998 meeting of the Committee, informal consultations with the
WHO were held on this matter.  Questions raised by Members were provided to the WHO and their
responses were circulated in advance of the informal consultations.
84. The representative of the WHO thanked th e SPS Committee for the instructive comments
made, which would be helpful in the next stages of the revision of the IHR.  Although WHO and
WTO had different mandates, structures, and working procedures, most WTO Members were also
WHO members and consequently had obligations under both the SPS Agreement and the IHR.  The
fundamental principle of the IHR was to provide maximum protection against the spread of disease
while causing minimal interference with international traffic and trade, which was consistent with the
WTO.  WHO believed that this common purpose should be reflected in the IHR and the SPS
Agreement to avoid any potential conflict in the obligations of members of both organizations.
85. The WHO representative also believed that WHO could assist WTO with respect to public
health aspects of disputes arising as a result of disease outbreaks. On the basis of the informaldiscussions, it appeared that no modification of the SPS Agreement could be envisaged at this stage,
and the WHO hoped that other channels could be explored.  WHO would report in July 1998 to its
member states on the progress of revision of the IHR and the report would include reference to the
discussions with the SPS Committee.  In this respect, the WHO sought an indication from the SPS
Committee as to whether a forum for continuing dialogue could be envisaged.
86. The representative of Thailand drew the attention of the WHO representative to the need for
consultation with members of the WHO prior to initiating a proposal to establish a framework of
cooperation with the WTO.  This initiative should first be brought to the attention of member
countries, to ensure no duplication at the national level of each member.  Thailand encouraged
members of both the SPS Committee and the WHO to further consider this matter and ensurecoordination at the national level.  The suggestion was supported by several delegations.
(d) Twenty-Third Session of the Codex Executive Committee
87. At its session of 3-5 June 1998, the Executive Committee finalized the draft Medium Term
Plan for 1998-2002 for submission for approval by the Twenty-Third Session of the Codex
Commission in 1999.  The Executive Committee agreed to reinstate a programme strengthening
transparency, to facilitate participation of non-governmental organizations as observers in the Codex
decision-making process.  In the area of food production and processing systems, the ExecutiveCommittee was of the opinion that a clear statement by the Codex on a policy approach which would
ensure the safety and nutritional requirements of food prepared from biotechnology was needed as a
matter of priority.  The Executive Committee agreed to amend this programme area to include
provisions of a draft general standard for food prepared from biotechnology.
88. The Executive Committee placed particular emphasis on the need for prompt action by FAO
and WHO to establish a scientific advisory body on the microbiological aspects of food safety,
e.g. microbiological risk assessment.  The Executive Committee also stressed the need for expert
advice on food allergies and intolerances which should be subject to appropriate labelling provisions.
As a follow-up to the Commission's decisions concerning the judgement of equivalence of food
control systems in different countries, the Executive Committee noted that guidance in this area was ashared responsibility of several Codex Committees, including the Codex Committee on Food Import
and Export Certification Systems and the Codex Committee on General Principles.  The SPSG/SPS/R/11
Page 17
Committee's clarification on how it would differentiate standards, guidelines and other
recommendations (G/SPS/W/86) was reviewed by the Executive Committee and it was agreed that the
work of Codex should now move forward without c oncern of misunderstanding or misinterpretation
of how Codex standards or related texts might be used.
(e) Sixty-sixth General Session of the OIE
89. The representative of the OIE outlined the main achievements of the 66th General Session of
the OIE.  From the point of view of international trade, it was important to note changes to the
International Zoosanitary Code with regard to anthrax, which was revised at the request of several
OIE member states facing trade difficulties, especially in trade of dairy products.
90. There was also a new chapter on BSE in the OIE Code, which defined more precisely the
different stages involved in risk analysis, for example by describing how adequate surveillance
systems should operate.  The description of the criteria that a country must fulfil in order for its BSE-free status to be established was also modified.  A new category of disease-status was created of those
countries which could not demonstrate their disease-free status and which had not declared native
cases of BSE.  However, this definition was still under study, together with provisions relating to
trade in live bovine animals and bovine products originating from such countries.  One major
development was that bovine semen, some tallow, gelatine and collagen, exclusively prepared fromhides and skins of healthy bovine animals, were added to the list of products which should not be
restricted in international trade.  New provisions were also adopted to address international trade in
gelatine and collagen prepared from bones, as well as trade in other tallow.
91. With regard to BSE, a number of recommendations were still pending and would be closely
examined in the coming months.  The International Committee was expected to adopt a Resolutionregarding the BSE-status of OIE member countrie s.  The Commission on FMD and other epizooties
was to establish a procedure which would allow the OIE to accept the facts presented by OIE member
countries in support of their claims on BSE-status.  An ad hoc  working group began the practical and
substantive work on the BSE subject as of the end of June and would report its findings in
September 1998 to the OIE Commission.
92. The representative of Chile thanked the standard-setting bodies for making available updated
versions of their international standards, guidelines and recommendations and expressed Chile's
continued interest in regular updates.
7. Observers
93. The Chairman informed the Committee of informal  consultations held to identify the criteria
that might help the Committee reach decisions on requests for observer status.  The Secretariat
provided an informal paper on existing WTO criteria regarding observership, and the status ofdecisions in some other WTO bodies.  It had been agreed to:  (a) inform the non-governmental
organizations that, in light of the decision of the General Council, the SPS Committee would not for
the time being grant their requests for observer  status;  (b) request the intergovernmental
organizations, whether of regional or global coverage, to provide more detailed information on their
mandate, membership and reciprocity with WTO, and circulate this information to the Committee.On the basis of the information provided, each request would be considered on a case-by-case basis.
94. Echoing the concerns voiced by the delegation of Uruguay during the informal consultations,
the representative of the European Communities cited the references made to regional plant protection
organizations in Article 3.4 and in Annex A to recall their relevance to the operation of the SPS
Agreement.  The European Communities argued in  favour of the acceptance of regional plant
protection organizations as observers since, contrary to the situation in public or animal health, the
plant health situation was largely of a regional nature.  Chile, however, noted that the references to theG/SPS/R/11
Page 18
regional plant protection organizations was in the context of their relationship to the IPPC, which was
an observer.  The regional organizations provided their scientific input through the IPPC framework,
and the IPPC provided the appropriate representation to the SPS Committee.
95. The EC delegation also argued in favour of the OECD, a globally-oriented organization.  The
OECD had observer status in a number of other WTO bodies, namely the General Council, theCouncil for Trade in Goods, the Committee on Agriculture, and the Committee on Technical Barriers
to Trade.
8. Other business
(a) Tanzania – EC fish ban on Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda and Mozambique
96. The representative of Tanzania reported that on 16 January 1998 the EC Commission
prohibited the importation of fresh, frozen and processed fishery products from Tanzania, as well as
from Kenya, Uganda and Mozambique, alleging publ ic health concerns.  However, over 2,000 tests
and EC inspection of Tanzania's fish processing establishments before 6 January 1998 had produced
no positive tests for any of the bacteria concerned.  Despite the existence of specific recommendations
by both the WHO
1 and the FAO, the EC notification, G/SPS/N/EEC/4 circulated on 4 March 1998,
indicated that no international standard, guideline or recommendation existed on the subject.  In
Tanzania's view, the recommendations made by the Codex and the International Commission onMicrobiological Specifications for Food (ICMSF) were most relevant to this case.  None of these
bodies identified import prohibition as an appropriate response to the alleged public health concern.
97. This ban had adverse and severe economic effects on Tanzania's economy, in terms of  rising
unemployment, depressed prices, reduction of purcha sing power and loss of export earnings, all of
which were of vital importance to a least developed country.  Tanzania questioned the consistency ofthis measure with Articles 2.2 and 5.7 of the SPS Agreement. Moreover, the SPS Agreement
emphasized that Members should help developing countries comply with the sanitary measures
necessary to achieve the appropriate level of protection in their export markets.
98. The EC representative maintained that the import measure was justified since there was a risk
of transmission of cholera through foodstuffs whic h contained fresh water, such as fish products.
WHO involvement in this matter was not appropriate;   it was not the role of the WHO to determine
what a Member's appropriate level of protecti on should be, nor what measures would be most
relevant.
99. The EC representative confirmed that since the measure was taken, a number of consultations
had been held with the competent authorities of the affected exporting countries, and the EC
Commission was now satisfied that the necessary guarantees were in place.  A formal proposal that
trade be restored with the four African countries would be submitted to the EC Standing VeterinaryCommittee in June and was expected to enter into force on 1 July 1998, subject to approval by EC
member States.  The new measure would be notified to the affected countries and published in the
Official Journal of the European Communities.
                                                     
1 WHO, WHO Guidance on Foundation of National Policy and Control of Cholera (Chapter IX).  The
same Chapter concludes:
"Although there is a theoretical risk of Choler a transmission associated with some food commodities
moving in international trade, this has rarely proved  significant and authorities should seek means of dealing
with it other than by applying an embargo on importation".G/SPS/R/11
Page 19
(b) Canada's revised BSE policy
100. The representative of Canada provided an update on import policy with regard to BSE,
notified and published on 16 April 1998, and expected to enter into force on 15 June 1998.  According
to the new policy, traditional supplying countries would have to demonstrate their BSE status in order
to retain their eligibility to export to Canada.  Th e Canadian representative encouraged those countries
affected by the new policy to promptly submit their applications and contact Canada's Food
Inspection Agency and animal health officials for assistance.  Canada was cooperating with the
United States in carrying out the assessments, so any data supplied through the USDA programme
would automatically be recognized as equivalent and accepted by Canada.
(c) Canada – United Nations Biosafety Protocol
101. The representative of Canada drew the Committ ee's attention to the Biosafety Protocol being
negotiated under the Convention on Biological Diversity, which might significantly affect world tradein food and agricultural products.  According to Canada, this Protocol would have implications for:
(a) agricultural material derived from biotechnology; (b) the regulatory systems of the signatory
countries;  and (c) WTO Members' obligations under the SPS and other agreements.
102. Substantive negotiations would take place in August 1998, to address the transboundary
movement of live or living modified organisms resulting from modern biotechnology which may haveadverse effects on biodiversity.  A key element of the draft Protocol was the Advanced Informed
Agreement procedure (AIA), a notification and appr oval process to assess and decide if a living
modified organism posed a risk to a country's biodiversity before it could be imported.   Several
elements were still under study, including:  the scope of the AIA, the responsibility for notifying and
supplying information to the importing country (i.e. whether it would be the importer, the exporter or
the importing country) and the capacity of countries to conduct approval procedures and assessments
of incoming shipments.
103. The Protocol was expected to be finalized by February 1999.  Canada encouraged Members
who might not be familiar with the trade implications of the Protocol to become involved in the
discussions.
104. The US delegation expressed concern with the overlapping and apparent lack of consistency
between the risk assessment approaches, in the Protocol and in the SPS Agreement.  The Protocol had
the potential to affect trade flows of agricultural products without necessarily identifying precisely
what specific risks were involved.  Even more disturbing was the opposition shown by the delegations
of some WTO Member countries to the suggestion that the Protocol should not affect their rights and
obligations under WTO agreements;  some countries proposed that the Protocol supersede the
provisions of the SPS Agreement.  The US delegation hoped that this was only the result of a lack ofinternal coordination.
105. The representative of Australia stressed that the overall objective in negotiating the Protocol
should be to avoid excessive, burdensome and unjustified restrictions on trade.  The Protocol should
also be sufficiently flexible to allow importers to apply their sanitary or phytosanitary measures,
e.g. domestic quarantine measures, if these were deemed necessary.  The delegations of Argentina,Australia, Canada, Chile, Mexico and the United States concurred that the Protocol should not
undermine WTO Members' rights and obligations and urged the delegations present to coordinate
their efforts within their national governments to work towards that objective.
106. It was agreed that informal consultations with the Secretariat of the Protocol should be
arranged.  Members were invited to submit their questions for compilation by the Secretariat inadvance of the consultations.G/SPS/R/11
Page 20
9. Date and agenda of the next meeting
107. The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled for 15-16 September 1998.  The following
items will be included on the agenda:
1. Adoption of the agenda
2. Implementation of the Agreement
(a) Information from Members
(b) Specific trade concerns
[Tanzania – EC restrictions on fish and fish products (Cholera)]
(c) Consideration of specific notifications received
(d) Any other matters related to the operation of transparency provisions
3. Monitoring of the use of international standards
4. Consistency - report by the Chairman on consultations5. Review of the SPS Agreement - report by the Chairman on consultations
6. Technical assistance and cooperation
7. Matters of interest arising from the work of observer organizations
8. Other business
[United Nations Biosafety Protocol]
9. Date and agenda of next meeting
108. The Chairman reminded delegates of the deadlines for requesting the inclusion of specific
items in the agenda or receiving the inputs from Members under respective agenda items:
Agenda item 2:  (b) Specific trade concerns and  (c) notifications 3 September 1998
Agenda item 3:  Monitoring procedure:  Specific examples 14 August 1998
Agenda item 5:  Review of the SPS Agreement:  Non-papers 31 August 1998
Agenda item 8:  United Nations Biosafety Protocol:  Questions 14 August 1998
109. The Committee noted with regret the departure of several delegates who had been very active
participants in past years, notably Mr. Jorge Riaboi (Argentina), Mr. Lars Hoelgaard (EC),
Mr. Christian Häberli (Switzerland) and Mr. John Ellis (US).
__________