./.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/GEN/95
25 September 1998
(98-3706)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Original:  English
IMPORTATION OF BONE-IN BEEF FROM
THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
(G/SPS/N/ZAF/2)
Statement made by the European Communities at the
Meeting of 15-16 September 1998
I. BACKGROUND
1. On 10 February 1998, South Africa notified as G/SPS/N/ZAF/2 a measure concerning the
importation of meat from the European Communities.  This applies solely to the importation of
chilled and frozen bone-in beef from member States of the European Communities.  South Africaconsiders that only de-boned meat, devoid of obvious nervous and lymphatic tissue, is deemed safe
with regards to BSE in countries where the disease occurs.
2. In addition, South Africa maintains that due to the free movement of animals and products in
the single market and the lack of formal surveillance in some EC member States, the origin of animals
and beef cannot be guaranteed and infected bones c ould end up in South African meat and bone meal.
3. The import restriction applies as of the 18 Apr il 1998, notwithstanding the EC reaction at the
SPS Committee meeting of 12-13 March 1998.
4. The European Communities share the concerns of South Africa to control BSE and to protect
consumers, however it considers that the above rule is discriminatory, more trade restrictive than
required and contrary to the obligation of South Africa under the SPS Agreement.
II. SPECIFIC COMMENTS
5. South Africa claims that the measure takes into account the OIE international
recommendations as regards BSE, Chapter 3.2.13.  The OIE Code provides for a BSE risk
categorization of countries on the basis of specific parameters, which are listed in Chapter 3.2.13.1.
6. South Africa does not take into account the risk categorization provided for by the OIE and
considers different countries which have never notified cases of BSE and countries where BSE is
currently present as having the same health status, without taking into account the prevalence of thedisease in a given country.  The relevant section of the OIE Code allows for trade in ruminants and
ruminant products from countries where BSE exists, providing that certain conditions are met.
Especially, Article 3.2.13.8 recommends a ban on meat on the bone for high incidence countries or
zones only, while South Africa applies such a ban on all EC member States.  In the light of the above,South Africa apparently fails to comply with Article 6 of the SPS Agreement, requiring Members to
take into account, inter alia , the level of prevalence of a specific disease, the existence of control and
eradication programmes and the relevant guidelines developed by international organizations.G/SPS/GEN/95
Page 2
7. The measure applies to the European Communities as a whole, other WTO Members are not
directly concerned.  The European Communities believe this to be highly discriminatory and therefore
in breach of Article 2(3), where Members are required not to arbitrary or unjustifiably discriminate
between Members where identical or similar conditions prevail.
8. South Africa claims that the measure is necessary due to the potential infectivity of bone
marrow.  The most recent studies indicate bone marrow as a low infective material, and only in
animals over 30 months of age.  Therefore, a policy based on the above-mentioned findings would
eventually focus on meat of animals over that age.  However, infectivity of bone marrow has never
been detected in naturally infected bovines.  The European Communities are unaware of any new
research findings concerning bone marrow infectivity that justify a ban across-the-board of meat on
the bone, and would welcome any further scientific information that led South Africa to ban bone-in
beef from the all European Communities, notwithstanding the health status.
9. South Africa claims that one of the reasons for the restriction are the "soft borders" between
EC member States and the "inadequate surveillance" carried out by EC members States.  The
European Communities regret that illegal exports of UK meat took place at a certain stage, however
this can be regarded as an isolated illegal incident against which the European Communities have
taken specific actions, in order to prevent it from happening in the future.  The EuropeanCommunities would appreciate receiving the information which led South Africa to the conclusions
that controls within the European Communities are not sufficient in order to guarantee the safety of
consumers.
10. In addition, the European Communities wish to remind South Africa of Commission
Decision 98/272/EC on epidemio-surveilllance for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies.  Itrequires EC member States to notify the suspected presence of any Transmissible Spongiform
Encephalopathy in any animal, to place suspected animals under official movement restrictions and to
carry out an annual programme of monitoring.
11. South Africa did not enforce a ban on the importation of meat and bone meal and in this
respect it apparently follows the OIE recommendations, placing on the exporting country the onus ofenforcing a feed ban (ruminant to ruminant).  Though this is more than welcome by the European
Communities, it appears that South Africa is not consistent in its BSE policy across the board.  In fact,
here both scientific advice and the OIE recommendations as regards BSE and risk categorization are
apparently taken into account.
12. Information on the general as well as specific BSE policy, on the rationale behind it and the
criteria followed, would be therefore very much appreciated.
III. CONCLUSIONS
13. The European Communities look forward to developing discussion with South Africa and
invite it to review and modify the relevant measure in order to ensure that it is based on available
scientific advice, existing international recomme ndations and that it properly takes into account the
specific information submitted by the exporting countries directly concerned.
__________