RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/R/10
30 April 1998
(98-1750)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING HELD ON
12-13 MARCH 1998
Note by the Secretariat
1. The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures ("the Committee") held its tenth meeting
on 12-13 March 1998, under the chairmanship of Mr. Alejandro Thiermann (United States).  The agenda
proposed in WTO/AIR/784 was adopted with amendments.
Observers
2. The Chairman noted that the Committee had not yet taken any decision on requests for observer
status by the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP Group);  European Free Trade
Association (EFTA);  Inter-American Institute fo r Agricultural Cooperation (IICA);  International
Consultative Group on Food Irradiation (I CGFI);  Office international de la vigne et du vin (OIV);  and
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).  He noted that requests for
observer status had recently been received from the European Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) and
the International Meat Secretariat (a non-governmental organization), and previously from the
International Seed Federation (FIS).
3. The Australian representative suggested that the Committee begin to consider how to respond to
requests which had been made.  He stressed that the proceedings of the SPS Committee should be
transparent and should benefit from contributions which could be made by international organizations
granted observer status.
4. The Secretariat indicated that it would prepare a paper on the existing WTO criteria regarding
observership and the current situation in other bodies, in particular the General Council.  The Committee
decided  to revert to this item at its next meeting on the basis of the Chairman's informal consultations to
identify criteria that might help the Committee reach decisions on requests.
Implementation of the Agreement
Information from Members
5. The representative of the United States reported  a number of steps that the United States had
recently taken in accordance with its commitments under the SPS Agreement, in particular with respect tothe principle of regionalization.  He indicated that the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) had just adopted a rule which, subject to appropriate quarantine controls, would allow trade in
papaya from specific producing regions in Costa Rica and Brazil.  Last year the US authorities
recognition of other disease-free regions had allowed for the importation of beef from Argentina and of
pork products from Italy and from the Mexican state of Sonora.  Following a series of constructive
technical exchanges, Chile had recently recognized pest-free status of a number of key growing areas for
apples in the United States and, as a result, exports of apples from these areas to Chile had begun.  Chile
and the United States were continuing discussions on the status of other regions in the United States.G/SPS/R/10
Page 2
COSAVE (Comité Regional de Sanidad Vegetal para el  Cono Sur) had recently adjusted its policy with
respect to wheat on the bases of science and risk assessment and consistent with the relevant provisions of
the revised IPPC.  COSAVE removed TCK (Tilletia Cont roversa) from the list of quarantine pests, and
now identified it as a regulated non-quarantine pest.  Korea had also decided to adopt a range of Codex
MRLs.  The representative of the United States noted that in all these cases Members' decisions were
based on science and risk assessment, and ensured that trade could continue to develop in a mannerconsistent with the Member's health objectives.
6. The representative of the European Communities informed the Committee of EC actions
concerning citrus canker.  On 8 January 1998, th e Commission Directive 98/2/EC amending Annex 4 to
Council Directive 77/93 on protective measures against the introduction or spread of organisms harmful
to plants or plant products within the European Communities had been adopted.  In contrast to the
original proposal, the revised text included the possibility for recognition of any system of certification
considered as equivalent to the EC provisions on citrus canker, as provided for in Article 4 of the SPSAgreement.  This result was the consequence of the constructive consultations between the European
Communities and Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Brazil and South Africa, that had been organized by the
Chairman.  The outcome upheld the principles of risk assessment and equivalence.
7. The representative of Argentina associated herself with the comments of the EC delegate, but
noted that the negotiations were not yet finished.  Discussions regarding an equivalent alternative wereongoing and she hoped that this would yield positive results for both parties despite the fact that some EC
member States had taken decisions of a political nature prior to the technical discussions.  She expected to
be in a position to report on the final results of the consultations at the next Committee meeting.  With
reference to the earlier statement by the United States, she confirmed that COSAVE had listed TCK as a
regulated non-quarantine pest as far as propagation materials were concerned and that the regionalspecialists had been asked to determine tolerances and establish what would have to be regulated
exclusively in connection with propagation activities.
8. The representative of Chile indicated that although his country was not a major producer of
citrus, it had shared the position of Argentina and Uruguay because they reflected the application of a
principle of the SPS Agreement and because Chile had recognized disease-free areas in Argentina.However, it should be noted that Chile was a country free of citrus canker.  He informed the Committee
that, following scientific analysis of documentation pr ovided by Chile, the Philippines had recently joined
the number of countries which had recognized Chile as a country free of fruit fly.  Japan and Korea were
in the last phases of a similar recognition process which was expected to be concluded by the year end.
He added that in the framework of the Economic Cooperation Agreement, Chile and Mexico had includeda chapter on sanitary and phytosanitary measures for the application of many of the SPS Agreement
provisions, providing bilateral implementation of concepts of harmonisation, equivalence and risk
analysis in the areas of human, animal and plant health protection.
Specific trade concerns
Switzerland - BSE concerns
9. The representative of Switzerland noted that most of the BSE-related measures applied by certain
Members against Swiss exports remained in place.  Such measures deviated from OIE recommendations,
but those Members had not carried out a risk assessment as required by the SPS Agreement.  Such
measures, including the prohibition of transit in some neighbouring countries, as well as the
discriminatory manner in which some of the measures were applied, violated WTO rules.  Nevertheless,
some Members had eliminated their measures or had revised them in conformity with OIE
recommendations.  As a result, trade in Swiss genetic products for example, was again possible.Switzerland was also concerned with violations to WTO rules by some candidates for accession to theG/SPS/R/10
Page 3
WTO.  Finally the representative of Switzerland expressed the hope that recent developments in the
European Communities would gradually lead to a more predictable situation for all countries concerned
with BSE and related restrictions on trade.
United States - Measures with respect to BSE-related concerns
10. The representative of the European Co mmunities informed the Committee that the
European Communities was pursuing this issue bilaterally with the United States and had made a writtensubmission to the United States authorities (G/SPS/GEN/66), within the time frame provided by the US
notification.  He summarized G/SPS/GEN/66 and rejected US claims of "inadequate" surveillance within
the European Communities. He noted that surveillance existed in all EC member States, albeit in an non-
harmonized manner.  This situation would change as from 1 May 1998 because the EC Standing
Veterinary Committee had recently adopted a Commission proposal which introduced a harmonized
surveillance system targeting "potential candidates" for BSE in a systematic manner and requiring a
minimum number of animals to be tested, a system si milar to the one existing in the United States.  The
European Communities believed that the US measures were neither in conformity with provisions of the
SPS Agreement nor with the OIE guidelines and recommendations.  In his view, the suspension of import
certificates from the European Communities in regard to BSE went far beyond what could be justified
according to the scientific discussions in the European Communities and in the OIE, both under the
present OIE International Animal Health Code ("the Code") and the Code under development.  Specifiedrisk material was removed not only in the United King dom but also in all EC member States where native
cases had occurred, i.e. Ireland, France, Portugal, Belgium and the Netherlands.  He noted that the
United States had also ruled out the de-boning provision for exports from the European Communities to
the United States, which was in place only for the United Kingdom.  The EC representative observed that
the risk factors suggested by the United States in relation to live animals, feed bans, surveillance andrendering systems, were also present in the United States and, at least potentially, in all countries.
Therefore the US measure, singling out and targeting Europe, was discriminatory.  He emphasized that
the safety of meat in Europe was as good as anywhere and it was unacceptable for the
European Communities to have EC meat characterised as being dangerous.  If a bilateral solution based
on scientific evidence were not found, the European Communities would have to reserve its rights topursue the matter in a different manner.
11. The representative of Argentina noted that the BSE issue had implications for human and animal
health as well as for market perceptions, thus requiring decisions to be based on an extremely rational
basis.  It was also necessary to deal with consumer's perception that BSE-related risks were higher than
what they really were.  On 12 January 1998, Argentina submitted a declaration to the OIE identifyingitself as a country free of BSE and TSE (a document available from Argentina's enquiry point).  He noted
that the EC representative had made no reference to  two cases of BSE which had recently occurred in
France (Haute-Savoie).  He stressed the BSE issue was an European problem with potential important
consequences for the rest of the world, which required a joint effort of political and scientific authorities
to come forward with a proposal based on available knowledge to avoid unnecessary trade disruption.
12. The representative of the United States said that the US interim measure had been published in
the Federal Register for public comment and had been notified to the WTO on 18 December 1997(G/SPS/N/USA/106).  The United States was in the process of reviewing the numerous comments and
information it had received from many WTO Members and other governments, as well as from domestic
groups.  The United States had adopted this provisional measure on 12 December 1997.  The measure
was intended to safeguard animal and consumer health from the risk of BSE, and halted the importation
of live ruminants and most ruminant products from the European Communities and the rest of Europe dueto recent additional reported cases of BSE in countries previously considered to be free of this disease.
This measure extended the scope of the feed ban that was already in place in the United States.  Recent
detections of BSE suggested that there was still an  unclear picture of the distribution of BSE in theG/SPS/R/10
Page 4
European Continent, especially considering the lack of published documentation on the amount of
surveillance throughout Europe.  There were a number  of European countries which appeared to have
high risk factors for BSE, including the importation of  contaminated feed and live cattle from known BSE
countries, but which appeared to have little surveillance in place.  In addition, the recent measures taken
in the United Kingdom as a result of infectivity detected in additional tissues, most significantly dorsal
root ganglion, bone marrow, raised new concerns regarding the extent of the infectivity in tissues.  Thecombination of these recent developments led the United States to impose the interim measure to protect
public and animal health until assurances could be provided by the countries in question.  Information
submitted by various sources, including the EC Commission, some EC member States and other
European countries was being evaluated in order to assess their BSE surveillance and reporting systems
and to determine the specific risk level presented by each country.  Trade would resume when those
countries had systems that met US criteria,  The United States intended to base its evaluation of the
surveillance, information and preventive measures provided by the countries affected on the OIEstandards.  As of 11 March 1998, 18 European countries, including several EC member States, had made
an official request for evaluation of their BSE ri sk status.  The USDA was currently evaluating these
requests and the data in order to regionalize Europe in terms of BSE.  He emphasized that the OIE
recognized that an adequate surveillance system was essential when making determinations on the risk
status of the country.  The US action in this case was based on the concern that countries in Europe hadnot demonstrated that adequate levels of surveillan ce were in place.  The United States was committed to
evaluating the data submitted by the various governments which demonstrated that their level of BSE
surveillance was in accordance with the OIE standards and would take what measures were necessary
based on science, risk assessment and available evidence, to protect human and animal health from the
disease.  However, at this point, US scientists disagreed with the EC delegate's view of the comparabilityof the risk factors in Europe with those in the United States and other parts of the world.
EC rules on "specified risk materials" (SRM) in products of animal origin
13. The representative of the United States recalled the concerns that his and other delegations had
expressed in the previous meeting of the Committee with regard to the public health and trade
implications of the EC proposed ban on "specified risk materials" (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1).  The United Stateshad since then continued to follow this issue closel y and welcomed the EC decision to provide additional
time to review all the scientific evidence and other important implications of the proposed measure.  The
United States was hopeful that the new approach  recently proposed by the EC Commission would
address the concerns that many Members had raised with respect to this measure.  The fundamental view
of the United States was that, consistent with Article 6 of the SPS Agreement, the SRM ban shouldrecognize the BSE-free status of the United States and other regions.  Products from those regions should
not be subject to the ban.  There had been no cases of BSE in the United States.  Moreover, the
United States maintained a rigorous surveillance system and other appropriate measures which surpassed
the OIE requirements for establishing BSE-free status.
14. The representative of Canada indicated that his delegation was also encouraged by the delay in
the implementation of the SRM ban and supported the US view that the proposed ban appeared to be
moving in the right direction.  He also welcomed the EC recognition of differences in the disease statusof countries and was encouraged that the EC evaluations  were to be based on OIE standards.  Canada still
had a concern with regard to the EC proposed evaluation process.  It was Canada's understanding that the
procedure would require a country to answer about 38 questions and that there was a provision in the
procedure that when countries were not able to provide an answer because of unavailable scientific
information, the EC Scientific Steering Committee would interpret the missing data as a worst casescenario, meaning that assumptions would be used to replace data that was not available.  This would
have severe implications, and Canada expected that the European Communities would review this
provision.G/SPS/R/10
Page 5
15. The representative of Australia drew the attention of the Committee to document G/SPS/GEN/45,
which contained Australia's comments with regard to  the EC SRM ban, and reiterated that his country
trusted that the European Communities would appropriat ely modify the application of this legislation so
as not to disrupt trade through placing requirements for the exclusion of SRMs upon countries such as
Australia which met agreed international criteria for BSE freedom.
16. The representative of Brazil noted that Brazilian exports of edible gelatine had been affected by
the French decision to impose a specific requirement on all gelatine imports.  Brazilian exports to that
country had consequently decreased significantly.  There was no scientific basis for applying such a
decision to countries free of BSE, as was the case of Brazil.  The French measure lacked scientific
evidence, did not take into account the different status of different regions, and was not in line withArticles 2.2 and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement.  It should also be carefully designed on the basis of sound
science to effectively address its main concern, public health, and avoid unnecessary disruptions in the
supply of safe products.  She stressed that BSE had never been registered in the Brazilian territory.  The
Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture and Food Supply had approved a regulation, which followed the criteria
established in Chapter 3.2.13.2 of the OIE Code, recognizing not only that Brazil was free of BSE, butalso established specific rules of surveillance and procedures for notification of any suspicious cases of
BSE and scrapie (G/SPS/GEN/67).  Moreover, caprine  and ovine populations were very limited in the
Brazilian territory.  The Ministry had also prohibited, by means of internal regulation, the feeding of
bovine populations with protein of ruminants, with the exception of milk.  The same rule applied to
imported feedstuffs from ruminant.  The Brazilia n Animal Health Department conducted continuous
surveillance of rabies and other nervous-system diseases of the whole national territory and to date no
cases had been diagnosed.  Brazil had not imported bov ine, caprine and wild animals from BSE-infected
countries since 1990.  In the case of sheep, the prohibition was effective since 1995.  Regarding market
access problems faced by Brazilian producers of gelatine, she noted that the raw material employed in the
preparation of gelatine had been classified by the OIE as having low risk of transmission of BSE, even in
regions where the disease had been notified.  The Brazilian product was submitted to temperatures that
reached 140°C at different stages of its preparation as required by France.  The Brazilian representativestressed that she expected that this information would expedite the removal of unnecessary barriers
applied to Brazilian gelatine.  She indicated that the EC questionnaire requesting information regarding
the rules and composition of animal feeding in Brazil  would soon be officially provided to the European
authorities.
17. The representative of Argentina supported the comments by Canada, Australia and Brazil.
18. The representative of the European Communities indicated that as a consequence of internal
discussions and representations made by third countries, the Commission had decided and the StandingVeterinary Committee had approved postponing the application of the SRM decision to enter into force
on 1 April 1998.  The scientific discussions continued in the European Communities and new scientific
evidence had been received from the United Kingdom BSE Advisory Committee with regard to dorsal
root ganglia, bone marrow, etc.  The outcome of that evaluation had resulted in the EC proposal which
was being discussed in the European Communities.  The proposal suggested that, instead of having
measures in place by 1 April 1998, a further period of transition was necessary and the new requirementswould apply as from 1 July 1998.  An enlarged list of specified risk materials, including dorsal root
ganglia, bone marrow and other intestines, would be included in the provisions.  However, if an EC
member State or a third country submitted an application for a derogation, this derogation would be
rapidly evaluated by the Commission, so that the applic ation of such measures would not enter into force
until 1 January 1999.  A precondition for the derogation would be the absence of BSE, no native cases ofBSE, and the procedure would be within the Scientific Steering Committee and the Scientific Veterinary
Committee.  A number of submissions had already been received and the Commission expected to
receive further submissions in the near future.  If there were native cases, like in Switzerland, such
countries must apply from 1 July 1998 the short list SRM removal as reflected in the OIE Code.  The
geographical risk factors would thus be taken into account:  there would be different provisions in placeG/SPS/R/10
Page 6
or no provisions in place depending on the submission and evaluation by the EC scientists.  Ireland and
Switzerland were also working on post-mortem met hodologies to detect BSE, which might one day
become useful tools.  However, the Standing Veterinary Committee had not approved the EC proposal by
the required qualified majority.  The decision was now dependent on the Council of Ministers.  The EC
representative stressed that, unlike the United States, the European Communities had focused on the parts
of the bovine body which had been scientifically identified as containing, or potentially containing theagent, but had never targeted meat as such.  In response to the Brazilian statement, he indicated that the
provisions in place by France mirrored those for the United Kingdom.  Harmonized rules were being
discussed in the European Communities, but BSE as such and the question of additional guarantees with
regard to Brazil or other countries should be addressed within the framework of the requests for
derogations from the expected SRM decision.  In response to a question raised by Brazil, he added that if
the production was based on skulls, where brain materi al could be connected, or the vertebral column,
where spinal cord could be connected, the issue would be problematic.  However, if Brazil could certifythat, as claimed, all its production of gelatine was based on hides from animals fit for human
consumption, the difficulties faced by Brazil should be easily solved.  Repeating that the European
Communities had no harmonized system in place, he noted that the French measures should be
considered in that light and suggested that the Brazilian delegate should pursue the issue bilaterally with
the representative of France.
19. The representative of Uruguay informed the Committee that Uruguay had been alerted to the fact
that the Ministry of Public Health of Italy was restricting or including bovine lungs, or products derived
from bovine lungs to be used in the production of pharmaceutical products, in the SRM category.
Uruguay was unaware of any EC Co mmission decision on this issue and noted that this restriction
distorted an important Uruguayan trade flow to the European Communities.
Slovak Republic - Ban on imports of apples, pears and quinces (G/SPS/N/SVK/8 and Rev.1)
20. The representative of Hungary expressed his authorities' concern with regard to this measure
notified by the Slovak Republic.  He indicated that changes introduced since 15 February 1998 had
addressed some of the Hungarian concerns.  However, although the importation of apples, pears and
quinces from protected zones and from places of production under the control and inspection ofphytosanitary authorities of the relevant country were now allowed, the modified measure imposed
extremely burdensome certification and notification requirements.  In its application, the measure
appeared to go much beyond the extent that was necessary to protect plant health, was neither based on
scientific principles nor maintained with sufficient  scientific evidence, and appeared to constitute a
disguised restriction on international trade, in breach of the obligations of Articles 2.2 and 2.3 of the SPSAgreement.  After explaining the scientific arguments, the representative of Hungary urged the Slovak
Republic to withdraw the measure at issue, or bring it into full compliance with the SPS Agreement.
Hungary reserved its rights under the WTO in this regard.
21. The representative of the Slovak Republic noted that the notified SPS measure had been intended
solely for the protection of the Slovak Republic against introduction of blight (Erwinia amylovora).  His
country's territory was free of this quarantine plant disease and it was in the Slovak interest to avoid the
occurrence of such a dangerous pest.  Following complaints of some Members on the extent of the proofrequired, the Slovak authorities had modified decree effective from 15 February 1998.  The amended text
extended the possibilities of imports of apples, pears and quinces, not only from protected zones, but also
from production sites where fire blight did not occur within a 5 km range.  It was the view of the Slovak
authorities that the measures were in compliance with the SPS Agreement as defined in Articles 3.3, 5.7
and Annex A, paragraph 5, but the Slovak Republic remained open to discuss bilaterally with thoseMembers which had concerns with the measure.G/SPS/R/10
Page 7
Slovak Republic - Phytoquarantine measure for the import of ware potatoes (G/SPS/N/SVK/9)
22. The representative of the European Communities expressed his authorities concerns with regard
to this measure.  He noted that the introduction of the measure had been without any preliminary
notification, and its subsequent notification as an emergency measure did not appear to be justified.  He
stressed that the level of protection set by the Slovak Republic could be fulfilled by less trade restrictive
measures.  The EC representative summarized the arguments set out in document G/SPS/GEN/65 andconcluded that the Slovak Republic requirements appeared to be in breach of the provisions of the SPS
Agreement, in particular Articles 2 and 4, and likely the provisions of other WTO Agreements.  The
representatives of Hungary, Argentina and Chile associated themselves with the concerns expressed by
the EC representative.
23. The representative of the Slovak Republic responded that his authorities were aware that the
problem was due more to the rules governing the registration procedures of the plant protection products,
rather than the phytosanitary requirements per se.  The Slovak authorities were in the final stage ofpreparation of a decree aimed at the removal of the current strict registration requirements.  Approval of
the decree, which also addressed the question of establishing a maximum residue level, was expected
shortly.
Transparency provisions
Consideration of specific notifications received
European Communities - Maximum levels for certain contaminants (Aflatoxins) in foodstuffs
(G/SPS/GEN/51 and Add.1)
24. Documents with regard to the EC Commissi on proposal to set new Maximum levels for
Aflatoxins in Foodstuffs were submitted by:  Argentina (G/SPS/GEN/52);  Australia (G/SPS/GEN/61);
Brazil (G/SPS/GEN/58);  The Gambia (G/SPS/G EN/50);  India (G/SPS/GEN/54);  Indonesia
(G/SPS/GEN/63);  Malaysia (G/SPS/GEN/56);  Philippines (G/SPS/GEN/62);  Senegal (G/SPS/GEN/55)
and Thailand (G/SPS/GEN/57).  The representatives of these countries summarized their respective
documents.  Their statements were supported by the representatives of Brazil, Canada, Colombia, South
Africa, Turkey, the United States and Uruguay.
25. These Members noted that it was unlikely that the EC proposed maximum levels for aflatoxins
would result in a significant reduction in health risk  to EC consumers.  Yet, the proposed measure
potentially imposed severe restrictions on trade.  It was also noted that the EC proposal to set much more
stringent levels than the standards currently followed  internationally did not seem to be based on a proper
risk assessment taking into account available scientif ic evidence.  With regard to the proposed sampling
procedure, it was stressed that the procedure was unduly costly, burdensome and unjust, and wouldrender the measure even more trade restrictive.
26. Several Members noted that although an international standard on the acceptable level of
aflatoxin in food products did not yet exist, previo us work undertaken by the Joint (FAO/WHO) Expert
Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in June 1997 su pported the view that the EC proposed measure
would not significantly reduce health risks to consumers.  Moreover, the Codex Committee on Food
Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC) was considering the matter at the moment in a meeting in The
Hague.  It was generally felt that the timing of the EC's proposed regulation, coming just before theCodex Committee meeting, was inappropriate and that the European Commission should wait for the
Codex to set the requisite international standards.  These Members, most of which indicated that they had
already conveyed their  concerns to the EC enquiry point, urged the European Communities to review the
proposed measure.G/SPS/R/10
Page 8
27. The representative of Codex noted that for more than 10 years the Joint FAO/WHO Expert
Committee on Food Additives (JEFCA), the Committ ee on Food Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC)
and the Codex Alimentarius Commission had given consideration to the scientific data and the
establishment of limits for aflatoxins as contaminants in foods.  This had included evaluations of toxicity
and carcinogenicity as well as the establishment of sampling plans in order to provide international
guidance on tolerable levels of aflatoxins in foods.  The aim was to establish a tolerance level as low as
possible to protect human health while maintaining an adequate food supply.  At its 29th Session, held in
March 1997, CCFAC had not reached consensus on the draft Codex guideline levels and sampling plans
for total aflatoxins in peanuts and had maintained guidelines at Step 7, pending evaluation by JECFA.  At
its subsequent 49th Session, JECFA had given a full and complete risk assessment for aflatoxins.  The
Codex MRL of 15 parts per billion total aflatoxin in peanuts for further processing was under
consideration by the 30th Session of CCFAC, in the Hague.  The Codex representative informed the
Committee that according to reports of delegates attending the CCFAC meeting, there was generalconsensus on the guideline levels proposed by Codex.  However, the guidelines had been square
bracketed, pending further review of the JECFA risk assessment material by the European Communities.
28. The representative of the European Communities argued that there was no consensus in the
CCFAC meeting going on in The Hague.  He noted that although there were a large number of countries
which favoured the Codex norm, the European Communities did not agree and consequently there couldnot be a consensus.  He noted that the discussion on aflatoxins reflected in general the SPS Agreement
provisions.  It was about level of protection, scientific evidence, risk assessment and the role of
international standards.  He recalled that the Appellate Body Report on EC - Measures Concerning Meat
and Meat Products ("EC - Hormones") provided some guidance on these key issues.  It had confirmed
that the burden of proof was not on the Member taking the measure, but on the Member challenging themeasure.  It had confirmed that there was a justification for governments to be prudent and take a
precautionary approach, especially in situations where the scientific evidence was incomplete.  It had
confirmed that a Codex norm did not restrain the rights of Members under the SPS Agreement.  He
stressed that the question at issue was not about a m easure, but about the appropriate level of protection,
which was defined by a MRL, and noted that the EC  Scientific Committee for Food had looked at the
issue of aflatoxins in 1994 and had concluded that they were genotoxic carcinogens. For this type of
carcinogen it was generally felt that there was no threshold dose below which no tumour formation would
occur.  Only a zero level of exposure would result in no risk.  It had agreed with the evaluations of the
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) which in 1993 had concluded that even very low
levels of exposure of aflatoxins contributed to the risk of liver cancer.  In September 1997, the ECScientific Committee for Food, although recognizing the significant work of JECFA, had also noted
several limitations and assumptions inherent in the approach and had concluded that it was premature to
draw definitive conclusions on this issue.  The representative of the European Communities noted that the
EC action was not preventing trade, and only reflected the need to take preventive actions in regard to
Good Agriculture Practice in order to avoid contam ination through improved training, good storage
conditions, improved sorting procedures, etc. aimed at reducing the level of aflatoxins in the basic
product.
29. With regard to the sampling methods, the EC representative recalled that the distribution of
aflatoxins in contaminated kernels appeared to be  rather small in terms of the percentage of a
consignment or a lot.  Therefore, it was not possible to obtain the necessary assurances by one simplesample.  That was why the sample plan considered three different cases and had to be undertaken in such
a manner that it minimized consumer risk.  This did not make trade impossible nor cause enormous costs
for operators.  Such tests and methods were alread y operated by some EC member States and were not
impracticable.  He stressed that the European Communities wanted to continue its consultations with its
trading partners as demonstrated by the extension of the time limit for comments.  The commentsreceived would be evaluated and the relevant EC experts would discuss the issue on 30 March 1998.  ItG/SPS/R/10
Page 9
was expected that the evaluation would be concluded by May 1998 and the proposal formalized in June,
entering into effect relatively shortly afterwards.
30. The representative of the United States agreed that Members could make decisions independently
and had important rights under the SPS Agreement, but at the same time it was also important to recall
that Members had agreed to be part of a rule-based system.  The US concerns, as well as those of otherMembers, were based on scientific evidence.  To argue that the application of restrictive measures,
regardless of whether they were necessary, did not prevent trade from occurring might be true.  However,
that was not the aim of the SPS Agreement.  The aim of the SPS Agreement was to avoid having to
comply with measures which were unnecessary.
31. The representative of Argentina quoted several pa ragraphs of the Appellate Body Report on EC -
 Hormones which, in his view, suggested that the EC representative's understanding of the report was not
correct.  Noting that the Appellate Body report a pplied only to the case at issue and was not a general
ruling, he insisted that neither the Appellate Body nor Panels were legislative bodies.  They created
interpretations that could be arguable and must be accepted for the case at stake, but not for every case.The rule was the SPS Agreement.  In the case of aflatoxins, the discussion was about a measure which
reflected the level of protection and not, as it was wrongly submitted by the European Communities,
about the level of protection itself.  Because the issue was a measure, the European Communities had the
obligation to apply all the relevant provisions of the Agreement, in particular Article 3 and Article 5,
paragraphs 1 to 3.  The representatives of Uruguay and Chile supported the statements of theUnited States and Argentina.
South Africa - Prohibition on bone-in beef impor ts from member States of the European
Communities (G/SPS/N/ZAF/2)
32. The representative of the European Communities noted that the South African ban applied to all
EC member States.  He considered it unjustified in light of the measures that the European Communities
had taken at its level and at national member State levels in those cases where native BSE cases had
occurred, for the reasons already described (paragraph 18).  He added that the South African
requirements were not in accordance with the OIE standards.
33. The representative of South Africa stressed that the European Communities were a major
supplier of meat to South Africa.  South Africa had no interest in having EC meat considered as beingdangerous by consumers.  However, his authorities ha d a legitimate interest in maintaining the BSE-free
status of South Africa.  The aim of the proposed measure was to protect human and animal health.  It wasexpected that the European Communities would provide their written comments to South Africa, so that
her authorities could duly take them into account.
Argentina - Temporary prohibition of fres h pork and pork produc ts (G/SPS /N/ARG/9)
34. The representative of the European Communities observed that the Argentine measure applied to
the entire European Communities.  He indicated that the European Communities had taken measures to
regionalize the three EC member States which had restrictions in this regard, in particular some parts ofGermany, the South of Netherlands and parts of Spain.  However, in all of these regions the situation was
under control.  In Belgium and Italy, with the exception of Sardinia, there had not been recent outbreaks.
By introducing a restriction applying across the board to all these countries, Argentina had not abided by
Article 6 of the SPS Agreement - Adaptation to Regional Conditions, Including Pest- or Disease-Free
Areas and Areas of Low Pest or Disease Prevalence - nor the OIE guidelines.  The representative of theEuropean Communities urged Argentina to withdraw its measure.
35. The representative of Argentina said that his authorities firmly believed in the principle of
regionalization stated in Article 6 of the SPS Agreement.  However, Argentina had found that there wasG/SPS/R/10
Page 10
no basis of compliance within the European Communitie s.  Argentina had requested information from a
number of EC member States, but only four countries  had responded.  Noting that Classic Swine Fever
was a highly infective OIE List A disease, which had not occurred in Argentina since 1985, he quoted, as
an example, information regarding outbreaks of the disease in Spain.  The Argentina Advisory
Committee on Quarantine issues was assessing information received from Italy and was waiting for more
information so as to adjust its measure as appropriate.
Any other matters related to the operation of transparency provisions
36. The United States welcomed the EC paper on this issue (G/SPS/GEN/64) and encouraged
Members which had not yet identified their Enquiry Points to do so as soon as possible.  He stressed the
importance of the notification procedures of the Agreement as a means to avoid trade problems through
bilateral or multilateral consultations, and raised some US concerns in this respect.  The United States
were particularly concerned with the length of the comment period, considered too often to be too short,
and the difficulty in obtaining relevant documents in a timely manner.  The United States would pursue
this issue as part of the review of the Agreement.  He recalled the US proposal for the organization ofregional workshops on the transparency provisions.  The US representative indicated that in
February 1998, the staff of notification authorities from 18 western hemisphere countries had met in
Washington, D.C., for a workshop on this issue.  Consultations were ongoing with the Secretariat and
Malaysia, as well as well as other countries, about the possibility of organizing a workshop in the South
East Asian region.
37. The representative of Chile supported the US statement and added that Members often notified
measures indicating that there were no international standards related to the measure at issue.  However,when more detailed information was provided upon request, it often happened that there were
international standards for at least part of the notified measures.  Members should address this issue morecarefully when notifying a measure.
38. The representative of the European Communities summarized the EC proposal contained in
G/SPS/GEN/64.  He stressed that the EC suggestions did not require the review of the SPS Agreement,
but simply a revision of the recommended notification procedures (G/SPS/7).  In response to a questionraised by the representative of Switzerland, he confirmed that the European Communities were
considering the practice of EC member States notification of national measures, but clarified that
discussions were still ongoing.  In any case, this practice would only relate to safeguard measures of an
urgent nature and all other EC member States meas ures would go through an EC procedure and would
only be notified subsequent to having been found in conformity with EC law.
39. The representative of Japan expressed his sympathy for the proposals contained in the EC
document, but raised concerns with the introduction of unnecessary burdens to countries whose mothertongue was not one of the WTO working languages, a burden which would exceed the SPS requirements.
However, Japan had no problem in submitting summaries of its proposed measures on a case-by-casebasis upon request.
Monitoring of the Use of International Standards
40. The representative of the United States introduced document G/SPS/W/87 and Corr.1.  In the US
view the purpose of this procedure was to build on the relationship between the work of the Committeeand the work of the International standard-setting organizations.  The United States considered the
provisional procedure as a way to identify key areas where a lack of use or the lack of an internationalstandard, guideline or recommendation had or could have a major impact on trade.  The related
International Organization should be informed on that basis.  This procedure was entirely different from
the agenda item dealing with implementation issues relating to specific countries' measures and should
serve to identify areas of concern, and hopefully of common concern.  He invited Members to commentG/SPS/R/10
Page 11
on the issues raised by the US document and on the format used for the communication of information.
Although it was observed that the procedure with regard to the monitoring exercise might still need
further thought, Switzerland, New Zealand, Chile, Canada, Philippines and the European Communities
supported in principle the approach and format presented by the United States.
Consistency
41. Further informal consultations on the development of guidelines to further the practical
implementation of Article 5.5 had been held subsequent to the Committee meeting of October 1997.  TheChairman noted that, despite the slow pace of progress in this area, there was a renewed attempt by
Members to make some advances in the development of practical guidelines.  There had been a numberof suggestions for progress by dealing with small components of this issue, rather than addressing
Article 5.5 as a whole.  A number of Members had volunteered to submit informal papers by mid-May
and more active informal discussions should take place prior to the next meeting of the Committee.
42. The representative of Australia encouraged those Members who had to date been less involved in
the informal consultation process to actively participate and help expand understanding of the issue.Larger participation would also ensure that all relevant  points of view could be factored into the process
under way.  The representative of the United States supported the Australian statement.
Technical assistance and cooperation
43. The Chairman recalled that the inclusion of this item on the agenda was to permit Members to
more specifically identify technical assistance and cooperation needs and, on the other hand, identify
possible sources of assistance.  The Secretariat informed the Committee of technical assistance activities
since the last Committee meeting, including a seminar organized by the Republic of Korea for developing
countries (12 November 1997);  a national seminar in Nigeria (19-20 November 1997); a national
seminar in Venezuela (11 December 1997) and participation in a OIE Seminar on Safeguarding Animal
Health in Trade in the Caribbean (Trinidad and Tobago, 9-11 December 1997).  The attention ofMembers was drawn to the Secretariat's Manual on Technical Cooperation and Training
(WT/COMTD/14).  With regard to requests for tec hnical assistance, Members were informed that as an
alternative to the procedures laid down in the document, requests for assistance in the SPS area could be
directly submitted to the Committee or the Secretariat staff responsible for the SPS Agreement.
44. The representative from Codex reported that since the last meeting of the SPS Committee, Codex
had held an expert consultations jointly with the International Atomic Energy Agency on Analytical
Methods for Food Control, in December 1997.  In addition, the series of consultations on risk analysis
had been concluded with the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Risk Communication in
January 1998.  FAO continued to receive a very large number of requests from Member countries fortechnical assistance related to the implementation of the SPS and TBT Agreements.  A booklet on FAO
Technical Assistance on the Uruguay Round Agreements , with a section specific ally dealing with the
SPS and TBT Agreements, was made available to Members in the room.
45. The representative of the WHO indicated that the WHO had recently published "Guidelines for
Predicting Dietary Intake of Pesticide Residues" in collaboration with the Codex Committee on PesticideResidues (WHO/FSF/FOS/97.7).  He indicated that , with the support of the government of the
Netherlands, free copies were being made available to all developing countries.  Copies in English,
French and Spanish were otherwise available from WHO/DSA.  WHO had also prepared a brochure
(WHO/FSF/FOS/97.9) describing the purpose and sc ope of the GEM/Food program, which included a
range of activities from development of methodologies for exposure assessment to chemicals to technical
cooperation with countries to strengthen their food contamination, monitoring and assessment
programmes.  A revised issue of the WHO booklet "Food Safety and Globalization of Trade in Food",
(WHO/FSF/FOS/97.8/Rev .1), providing policy guidance to the health sector in the light of the SPSG/SPS/R/10
Page 12
Agreement, was made available.  The Eastern and Mediterranean Regional Office of the WHO was
organizing a Regional Conference on Emerging  Foodborne Pathogens in Abu Dhabi, from 20 to
22 October 1998, sponsored by the International Life Science Institute, with the participation of the FAO.
Finally, the WHO, jointly with the FAO, would hold a consultation on the role of government agencies in
assessing HACCP in Geneva from 1 to 5 June 1998.
46. The representative of the International Trade Centre (ITC) informed the Committee that the ITC
was launching a project of assistance to Arab enterprises in the fields of quality and information- related
aspects of the TBT and SPS Agreements.  This project had been requested by Arab countries and was
sponsored by the UN regional office for Arab countries, executed by the UN Office for Project Services
and implemented by the ITC.  The main objectives were to create awareness mainly among the business
communities on the applications of the TBT and SPS Agreements and to establish and improve national
capabilities with regard to the effective operation of Enquiry Points or Information Services.  The project
was organized in cooperation with the WTO, ISO, Codex, OIE and the IPPC.  ITC was also participatingin the WTO/UNCTAD/ITC Technical Assistance Programme for Selected Least-Developed and Other
African Countries.
47. The representative of the OIE indicated that the WTO and SPS Agreements had been presented at
the OIE Seminar on Safeguarding Animal Health in Trade in the Caribbean.  The seminar, financed by
France and the WTO Netherlands Fund, had also introduced the different aspects of risk evaluationregarding animal health, including epidemiological su rveillance, and identified methods of zoosanitary
evaluation, as well the evaluation of veterinary services and laboratories.  Participants had agreed on a
certain number of recommendations relevant for the implementation of the SPS Agreement.  Another
seminar, to be held in March 1998 in Colombia, was being organized under the auspices of the FAO with
the participation of an OIE Collaboration Centre on epidemiological surveillance and risk evaluation.
48. The representative of the IPPC reported on a seminar sponsored by the OIRSA in Manágua,
Nicaragua, at the end of February 1998 which had addressed the work of the Codex, IPPC and OIE in
relation to the SPS Agreement.  The seminar, which had been attended by 170 government officials and
private sector representatives of the Central American countries, had been an unquestionable success.
49. The representative of the European Co mmunities informed the Committee that the
European Communities was providing to the Secretariat a list of experts from several EC member States
on risk analysis and SPS-related subjects, including public health, animal health, zoonoses, plant
protection, toxicology, pharmacology, etc., which could be of assistance and interest to developing
countries and the seminars organized by the Secretariat.  This list was subsequently distributed as
G/SPS/GEN/69 and Add.1.
Matters of interest arising from the work of observer organizations
Clarification of references to Codex texts
50. The Chairman recalled that in September 1997, Codex had requested the Committee to provide
clarification of references to Codex texts in the context of the SPS Agreement (G/SPS/W84).  In
particular, Codex was seeking clarification regarding how the Committee would differentiate between
standards, guidelines or recommendations, and with regard to the status which might be given to Codex
regional standards and related texts.  Following informal consultations, the Chairman had prepared a draftresponse to the Codex request (G/SPS/W/86).  Pursuant  to further consultations earlier in the week, a new
version had been prepared and was submitted for discussion (G/SPS/W/86/Rev.1).  Canada, the
United States, New Zealand, Australia, Chile, Mexico and Uruguay took the floor to support the new text.
The Committee adopted the revised version of the response.G/SPS/R/10
Page 13
Revision of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC)
51. The representative of the IPPC reported on the adoption of the new revised text of the IPPC by
the FAO Conference at its 29th Session in November 1998.  The text (G/SPS/GEN/51, Annex 1) was
currently being officially transmitted to governments by the Director-General of the FAO for acceptance
or adherence.  He encouraged WTO Members' representatives to work with their colleagues in the
capitals to bring the new revised text into force as  soon as possible, so that the role of the IPPC
envisioned in the SPS Agreement could be fully realized.  He stressed that many WTO Members were
not signatories to the IPPC.  The IPPC representative detailed some of the interim measures decided by
the FAO Conference, specifically the identification of contact points, the voluntary use of revised
phytosanitary certificates and the formation of the Commission on Phytosanitary Measures.  The first
meeting of the Interim Commission would be organi zed by the FAO in Rome on 3 to 6 November 1998.
52. The representative of Uruguay welcomed the new IPPC text.  He noted that the introduction of
the notion of non-quarantine regulated pest was a major feature and some regional organizations,including COSAVE, had begun to use this concept.  He  stressed the necessity for priority to be given to
the establishment of standards and guidelines for the application of concepts which could potentially
become new trade barriers.  The representatives of Australia, Chile, the European Communities, the
United States and New Zealand also  welcomed the new IPPC text.
53. In response to a question by the representative of Chile, the IPPC representative indicated that the
definition of pest-free area was not included in the new Convention because this concept was not seen as
critical to clarification of the text.  On the contrary, the concept of area of low prevalence was an
important concept and included in the definitions because of the clarification related to regulated non-
quarantine pests.
54. The Committee took note of the comments of the IPPC representative and various Members and
urged Members to ratify the text as quickly as possible.  The Committee also urged those Members which
had not yet become signatories to the IPPC to consider their adherence given the importance of the IPPC
for the implementation of the SPS Agreement.
WHO - Trade restrictions in response to cholera
55. The representative of WHO briefly described WHO's recommendations with respect to trade with
cholera-infected countries (G/SPS/GEN/53).
56. The representative of the European Communitie s informed the Committee that, in light of the
outbreak of cholera in four African countries, the European Communities had taken safeguard measures
relating to imports of fruit, vegetables and, in particular fish products, but a distinction was made between
frozen and fresh products.  On the latter, there was a ban because it was impossible to undertake amicrobiological examination within the period of freshness of the product.  On frozen products there was
not a ban, but only intensified checks with entry subject to the result of the microbiological examination.
As it had done in the past with certain South American countries, the European Communities would
consult with the African countries at issue to find arrangements by which these countries could put in
force proper hygiene requirements.  However, the in spection procedures of these African countries had
shown deficiencies in this respect.  Once proper safeguards and modifications were put in place, the
European Communities would accept them as alternative to the import ban on the fresh product andintensified checks on the frozen products.  EC member States were trying to develop a common joint
policy regarding cholera on the basis of risk assessme nt and risk analysis, which would serve as guidance
for the future.G/SPS/R/10
Page 14
57. The WHO representative noted that cholera was not only a problem of four countries in Africa;
every year, at least 50 countries around the world were affected by regular outbreaks of cholera.  Such
outbreaks had begun in 1971 and there was now considerable experience with regard to the potential risk
of the spread of cholera through imports of food from countries affected by this disease.  That explained
the WHO's Director-General note stressing the almost  non-existent risk to countries importing food from
cholera-affected countries.  The WHO did not consider the import ban, especially for fish products whichwere not consumed in a raw form in Europe, as a necessary measure.
WHO - The Revision of the International Health Regulations (IHR) (G/SPS/GEN/59)
58. The representative of the WHO introduced document G/SPS/GEN/59.  She noted that the new
IHR provided good grounds for cooperation between WHO and WTO.  Both organizations recognized
the imperative need to limit inappropriate trade sanc tions.  The WHO was particularly concerned by the
impact outbreaks of diseases could have on many developing countries, where the economic
consequences could be disastrous.  In order to respond to those situations, WHO was first of all a sourceof authoritative information about the assessment of risks regarding public health aspects of outbreaks of
human diseases.  It issued statements based on international expert consensus opinion on appropriate and
inappropriate measures to be taken to control a particular disease outbreak.  WHO would seek to settle
disputes between member states through a process of negotiation.  As a last resort there was a mechanism
for convening an arbitration committee which could rule on the case in question.  In the last 40 years,there had been only one arbitration committee convened, as usually the matters were settled by
discussion, advise and consultation between the member states concerned.  WHO was essentially
concerned with the public health issues that affected trade, but did not seek to replace or usurp the WTO
dispute settlement mechanism.  Indeed, WHO was not in a position to settle trade disputes and the revised
IHR specifically referenced the SPS Agreement and recognized its authority.  At the same time, WHOconsidered that the mechanisms available through the revised IHR could facilitate some of the work of
the WTO.  Specifically, WHO statements on appropriate and inappropriate control measures in response
to disease outbreaks, as well as rulings from the WHO arbitration committees, could be made available to
the WTO for use in its trade dispute deliberations.  If WHO were recognized by the WTO as the
reference authority on health aspects, at least some of the WTO trade disputes could perhaps be avoided.WHO could provide useful public health and technical information that might assist the WTO in some of
its dispute resolution procedures.  WHO was the only UN agency with a mandate to arbitrate on
international public health issues and, since its creation 50 years ago, the principal role of the WHO had
been to set international standards on health related matters.
59. The representative of the European Communities expressed his surprise with regard to the
existence of a dispute settlement mechanism in the WHO and questioned its significance for the
SPS Agreement and the WTO dispute settlement mechanism.  He wondered whether it could be seen as a
competing dispute settlement process or a "first court" with the WTO mechanism acting as a "court of
appeal".  If it were seen as a parallel procedure, this would create confusion and inconveniences.
Although he stressed that paragraph 4 of G/SPS/GEN/59 contained what appeared to be a clear statement,
he sought clarification on the WHO intentions in this regard.
1
                                                     
1 Para. 4 of G/SPS/GEN/59 reads as follows:  "The revised draft of the International Health Regulations
specifically references the SPS Agreement in draft Article 48, (January 1998), which states:  "The provisions ofthese Regulations do not prejudice the rights and obligations of the parties bound by the World Trade OrganizationAgreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures which came into force on 1 January 1995 or any subsequent
amendment to that Agreement".  The SPS Agreement, however, does not reference the International Health
Regulations, nor does it recognize the capacity of the World Health Organization to provide dispute resolution for
public health matters between member states of the WHO (draft IHR Article 56).  The recognition of this capacityas a reference in the SPS Agreement would provide a natural and useful linkage between these documents andprovide a credible and consistent focus for health risk assessment for Member State disputes."G/SPS/R/10
Page 15
60. The representative of Argentina supported the EC statement.  He requested clarification on the
meaning of "WHO statements based on international expert consensus opinion";  how the dispute
settlement mechanism worked and to what extent its conclusions were binding;  what the word
"arbitration" meant in relation to health matters;  and, finally, what was meant by paragraph 4 of
G/SPS/GEN/59.
61. The representative of Australia wondered whether there was an overlap between the SPS
measures as defined in Annex A of the SPS Agreement and some of those exemplified in paragraph 9 of
G/SPS/GEN/59.  He questioned whether the intention of the IHR was to deal with the same issues, or
complementary issues.  He noted that zoonoses were diseases of significance to human health and to
animal health and asked if the IHR had been aligned with the role of the OIE.  He also requested
clarification with regard to the nature of the oblig ations which would be applied to members of the WHO
in relation to items mentioned in paragraph 9 of G/SPS/GEN/59, as well as the specification of the
measures referred therein which should be taken, taking into account the definition of internationalstandards, guidelines and recommendations in Annex A.3(d) of the SPS Agreement.  The representatives
of the United States, Mexico and Chile supported the statements of the European Communities,
Argentina and Australia.
62. The Chairman proposed to schedule informal discussions with representatives of the WHO prior
to the next Committee meeting in June 1998 and requested Members to provide to the Secretariat, by theend of March 1998, written questions to be submitted to WHO.  The Secretariat would subsequently
compile the questions raised at the meeting and the additional questions received from Members and
submit them to the WHO in order to prepare the informal discussions.  The OIE observer's request to be
invited to participate in the discussions with WHO was accepted.
Review of the SPS Agreement
63. The Chairman reported on the informal consultations and indicated that issues related to the
implementation of the transparency provisions of the Agreement had been considered, including the
notification process and the operation of enquiry points.  Two key topics were identified for the informal
discussions of the June meeting:  continuation of the discussions of the transparency provisions, including
notifications, and technical assistance and differential treatment.  Informal papers on these subjectsshould be submitted by 25 May 1998.
64. The representative of Malaysia, speaking on behalf of developing countries, requested the
assistance of the Secretariat in the preparation of papers regarding technical assistance and special and
differential treatment.  The representative of Switzerland noted that since the entry into force of the SPS
Agreement, a number of developments had taken place both outside the WTO, namely in Codex, OIE andIPPC, and inside WTO, in the SPS Committee and in the dispute settlement mechanism.  All such
developments should be taken into account in the review process and Switzerland might make a proposal
for the consolidated list in this respect.
Report to the 1998 Ministerial Conference
65. The Chairman informed the Committee that for the Ministerial Conference, the Chairperson of
the Council for Trade in Goods was to provide a br ief oral report to the General Council on work done
since December 1997 by the CTG and its subsidiary bodies.  The Chairman of the SPS Committee hadbeen invited to prepare a brief account of work accomplished since December 1997, which would
essentially be a factual account of the current meeting of the Committee to complement the 1997 report
of the Committee (G/L/197).G/SPS/R/10
Page 16
Election of the Chairperson for 1998/99
66. The Chairman was nominated for re-election for 1998/99 by the Council for Trade in Goods, and
re-elected by the Committee.
Other business
Thailand - Korean restrictions on imports of poultry
67. The representative of Thailand indicated that his authorities had provided to Korea written
detailed information with regard to Korean rest rictions on imports of poultry (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1) on
1 October 1997.  Thailand sought clarification on whet her the Korean measure was based on international
standards and, if not, if it was based on a risk assessment and scientifically justified, particularly in light
of information made available to Korea by the WHO working group on food-borne listeriosis.  This
information clearly indicated that listeriosis was non-existent or had only a very low incidence in Asia.
Thailand had not yet received a response and, in the meantime, Korea had banned another consignment
of Thai frozen chicken.  During bilateral consultations held prior to the Committee meeting, Korea hadindicated that it would reply in due course, and the Thai representative requested a response as soon as
possible.
68. The representative of Korea indicated that the Korean measure was not an import ban, but only a
rejection.  Nonetheless, he would convey the concerns to his authorities who would respond to Thailand
directly.
Thailand - Mexico's restrictions on rice
69. The representative of Thailand indicated that Mexico had prohibited imports of rice from
Thailand since 1993 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1).  Thailand ha d provided information in writing to the Mexican
authorities on 22 October 1997 in this respect, stressing that the measure imposed by Mexico was
inconsistent with Articles 2.2 and 2.3 of the SPS Agreement and Articles I and III of GATT 1994.  To
date Thailand had not received an oral or written reply from Mexico and, during bilateral consultations
held prior to the Committee meeting, the delegation of Mexico had indicated that it would follow up on
the matter.  Thailand requested Mexico to reply as soon as possible.
70. The representative of Mexico said that his authorities were examining the matter seriously.  He
did not share the view that Mexico was not complying with its obligations under the SPS Agreement, buthe would convey the concerns to his authorities.
Date and agenda of the next meeting
71. The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled for 10-11 June 1998.  The following items will
be included on the agenda:
1. Adoption of the agenda2. Implementation of the Agreement
(a) Information from Members
(b) Specific trade concerns
(c) Consideration of specific notifications received
(d) Any other matters related to the operation of transparency provisions
3. Monitoring of the use of international standardsG/SPS/R/10
Page 17
4. Consistency - report by the Chairman on consultations
5. 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 Requests for observer status
9. Other business10. Date and agenda of next meeting
72. Members who wish to raise any specific concerns or examine specific notifications for the
June 1998 meeting were reminded to inform other Members involved and the Secretariat not later than
5 p.m. on 28 May 1998.  The Chairman also reminded delegates that informal papers on consistency
(Agenda Item 4), including papers on practical definitions of the terms discussed and practical examples
related to the key terms of the obligations, should be submitted to the Secretariat by 1 May 1998.
Moreover, comments, suggestions and new papers on monitoring of the use of international standards(Agenda Item 3) should be submitted by 10 May 1998.  Finally, the informal papers on the review of the
Agreement with regard to transparency, including notification procedures and differential treatment and
technical assistance, or the identification of other areas to be considered for the review (Agenda Item 5),
should be submitted by 25 May 1998.  The Committee took note of these dates.
__________