RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/R/12
29 October 1998
(98-4220)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING HELD ON 15-16 SEPTEMBER 1998
Note by the Secretariat
1. The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures ("the Committee") held its twelfth
meeting on 15-16 September 1998, under the chairmanship of Mr. Alejandro Thiermann (United
States).  The agenda proposed in WT O/AIR/906 was adopted with amendments.
2. Canada proposed that, in view of the informal consultations to be held by the Committee with
a representative of the secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the representative
of the CBD be invited on an ad hoc basis to attend the Committee formal meeting.  However, certain
Members, in particular the EC representative, noting that during its informal consultations the
Committee had been unable to reach consensus on criteria for accepting requests for observership,indicated that he could not support the Canadian proposal.
1. Implementation of the Agreement
(a) Information from Members
(i) European Communities – Recommendation on the evaluation of the epidemiological status of
countries with respect to transmissible spongiform encephalopathies
3. The representative of the European Commun ities stated that the objective of the EC
Commission recommendation of 22 July 1998 was to provide the Commission with the information
necessary to determine the TSE status of EC member States and eventually of trading partners. The
EC representative noted that the final recommendation would be based on a list of the factors which
contributed to the risk of occurrence and the risk of propagation in a geographical area as established
by the Scientific Steering Committee.  The type of information requested related to the following
main areas:  structure and dynamics of the cattle, sheep and goat populations;  animal movements andtrade;  animal feed, meat and bone meal bans;  specified bovine offal and specified risk material bans;
surveillance of TSEs with particular reference to BSE and scrapie;  rendering of waste and feed
processing;  and, BSE and scrapie related culling.
(ii) Chile – Implementation activities
4. The representative of  Chile reported that since the last meeting of the Committee, a bilateral
cooperation agreement had been reached between Servicio Agrícola y Ganadero (SAG) of Chile and
APHIS of the United States in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding on Sanitary and
Phytosanitary matters.
(b) Specific trade concerns
(i) Brazil – Import prohibition on coconut palms and related productsG/SPS/R/12
Page 2
5. Pursuing a matter raised at the June 1998 meeting of the Committee, the representative of the
Philippines, supported by Sri Lanka, raised concerns regarding Administrative Directive No. 70
(A.D. 70), approved by the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture and Supply on 5 March 1998 in respect
of Brazil's import prohibition on coconut palms and related products.  The Philippines had also
requested information on Brazil's risk assessment on coconut cadang-cadang and on desiccatedcoconut.  According to the representative of the Philippines, in its reply dated 31 July 1998, Brazil
had provided a copy of an unofficial translation of A.D. 70 but had not provided clear answers.
Consequently, the Philippines reiterated its request for clarification on the following matters:
- list of products covered (by HS tariff headings) and list of countries affected;
- 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 into
account, in particular those in Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 5.4;
- in relation to Article 5 as well as the transparency requirements of Annex B, could Brazil
provide some information on the risk assessment conducted relevant to coconut cadang-cadang and to desiccated coconut;
- whether Brazil's analysis of  "plague risk" referred to in A.D. 70 was based on any relevant
international risk assessment method and 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.
6. The representative of Brazil repeated that A.D. 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, provided that shipments were accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by theauthorities of the exporting country.  Brazil maintained that the measure was in full conformity with
the SPS Agreement as well as with the revised text of the International Plant Protection Convention
(IPPC) and was based on internationally recognized documents.  If shipments of imported coconuts
came from a region that was not recognized as being free from the microplasm meefolyellowing MLO
of the viroid kadang kadang and from the weed strigger SPP, it was subjected to prior inspection.
Based on existing scientific evidence, the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture and Supply had extended
the requirements to desiccated coconut as it had been proven to present a risk of transmission of thesepests or exotic pathogens.  Nonetheless, Brazil was ready to discuss with the Philippines, Sri Lanka or
any other interested country, proposals of dates and methods for risk evaluation and recognition of
pest-free areas.
(ii) Turkey - Import ban on cattle and meat products (G/SPS/GEN/89)
7. Both the United States and Hungary reverted to an issue concerning an import ban by Turkey
on cattle and meat products, previously raised at the June 1998 meeting of the Committee. The United
States noted that the Government of Turkey had extended for the eighth time its import ban of cattle
and meat products.  The United States questioned why Turkey had not notified its import ban to the
WTO and why it had not officially published a regulatory rule.  Moreover, the import ban applied to
cattle and meat from all countries, including those free from Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD).  TheG/SPS/R/12
Page 3
United States had been free from FMD for nearly seventy years.  The representative of Hungary
stressed that for the last two years, Turkey had not issued any quality and health certificates required
for import.  Severe losses were being inflicted upon Hungary's traditional exports although Hungary
was free from FMD and BSE, which were the reasons behind Turkey's import prohibition.
8. The representatives of the European Communities and Australia associated themselves with
the concerns expressed.  Australia requested clearer explanations as to the importation of meat
products, especially from countries known to be free from FMD.  The European Communities was
free from FMD as well as rinderpest, a disease which had been cited at an earlier stage by Turkey as a
reason for imposing the ban.  The United States, Hungary, the European Communities and Australia
urged Turkey to review its regulation and ensure its consistency with the WTO.
9. The representative of Turkey stressed that the policy in question was simply geared at
preventing the spread of FMD in his country.  The policies adopted regarding the importation of cattleand sheep had been dictated by the fact that Turkey, while no import restrictions existed, had
experienced sporadic incidences of FMD (which had been regularly reported to the Office
international des épizooties (OIE)), resulting in si gnificant economic losses.  In the past, Turkey's
measures to eradicate FMD at the root had proven to be inadequate, as had Turkey's attempt to
vaccinate imported cattle as some became infected before the completion of the vaccinationprogramme.  A rigorous nation-wide eradication prog ramme had been in place over the last years and
considerable progress had been made during the last two years in eradicating the disease.  Numerous
measures were being put in place to control animal movements within Turkey's borders, including a
proposed modification of the Law on Animal Heal th which contained additional provisions on
unauthorised internal movements of animals.  The law would also raise the level of standards foranimal markets and the applicable fines.  The current measures were temporary and reviewed every
three months on the basis of new information on the endemic animal diseases' situation.  Turkey
believed that its adoption and application of temporary measures with the objective of creating the
necessary conditions for animal health within its borders was justified, particularly under Article 5.3.
Nonetheless, Turkey was open to dialogue with its trading partners, in the aim of reaching a mutuallyagreeable solution.
10. In reply to the Australian inquiry regarding the importation of meat products, the
representative of Turkey stated that the Turkish authorities had given a preliminary approval to
38 companies to import meat.  More detailed responses to the questions and comments from Australia
would have to be sought from the capital.
(iii) European Communities – Requirements on maximum aflatoxin levels and consequences for
Bolivian chestnut exports
11. The representative of Bolivia informed the Co mmittee in respect of the EC requirements on
maximum aflatoxin levels and their consequences for Bolivian chestnut exports.  The full text of the
statement by Bolivia is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/93.  In light of the arguments presented in
its paper, Bolivia, supported by Brazil, Peru, India, Argentina, Canada, Mexico, Uruguay, Australia
and Pakistan, requested the European Communities to provide the risk assessments on which it hadbased its measures.  Bolivia  stressed that the EC requirements not only departed from the Codex
Alimentarius recommendations, but also had considerable social and economic impacts on the
concerned countries. Bolivia stood ready to enter into bilateral discussions with the European
Communities in order to find a mutually agreeable solution.
12. The representative of the United States stressed, as in the past, that setting maximum aflatoxin
levels at such low levels would likely result in trade disruption while providing little additional
protection for consumers.  Nonetheless, there had been constructive dialogues with the European
Communities, which had taken into account many of the comments made by producing countries inG/SPS/R/12
Page 4
revising drafts of the relevant regulations.  The United States encouraged the European Communities
to continue to take on board the recommendations contained in the FAO/WHO risk assessments
establishing maximum levels for aflatoxin in consumer-ready products.
13. The representative of the Philippines, speaking on behalf of ASEAN countries, reiterated their
concern about the EC regulation setting the maximum limit of aflatoxin M1 in milk at 0.05 parts perbillion (ppb).  The new limit for milk would require controlling aflatoxin B1 levels in feed stocks at
extremely low levels, which would be very dama ging to ASEAN and other developing countries'
trade with the European Communities.  The representative of the Philippines noted that in discussions
of this matter in Codex, the European Communities had indicated that their present level of M1 in
milk was achievable without changes to the present levels required for feed stocks.
14. The representative of the European Communitie s, referring to notification G/SPS/N/EEC/51
which contained the measures under discussion, noted that the deadline for comments had beenextended to allow for sufficient discussion and comments from  Members.  The representative further
noted the difficulty of comparing appropriate levels of protection linked to public health from one
country to another.  He reminded the Committee that in light of the extensive comments addressed to
the European Communities during various Committee meetings to the effect that proposed
requirements for MRLs and sampling methods for aflatoxin were too restrictive, as well as taking intoaccount the deliberations of the Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants, the
European Communities had revised its proposal and increased the threshold from 10 ppb to 15 ppb
The proposed limits for dry fruits and nuts in raw form or after sorting had remained unchanged as the
European Communities did not have any information on the effect of physical treatments on the final
level of aflatoxins.  However, the European Co mmunities was ready to increase the proposed levels
from 10 to 15 ppb. also for these products if new and conclusive information was provided.  With
regard to milk, the maximum limit of aflatoxin M1 in milk and milk products was in line with the
standards currently under discussion in Codex Alimentarius.  The EC representative expressed his
view that the Committee had exhausted all possible timetables or normal procedures in discussing the
EC proposal. He invited Members to submit to the European Communities any relevant technicalinformation so that this could be taken into a ccount when setting the MRL limit in the regulation.
(iv) Korea - Restrictions on imports of poultry
15. The representative of Thailand thanked Korea fo r providing her authorit ies with information
concerning Korea's restriction on imports of p oultry meat (G/SPS/N/KOR/44 refers).  Thailand
requested Korea to confirm that the Korean Food Code, previously issued by the Korean F ood and
Drug Agency, had been amended so that the criteria of zero tolerance for listeria would not apply to
imported frozen chicken effective 16 June 1998.  Furthermore, the representative of Thailandenquired as to whether a copy of the amended text could be provided by Korea.
16. The representative of Korea replied that the amendment to the Food Code was intended to
improve food safety and harmonize current Korean regulations with international standards.  Korea had
taken into account Thailand's concerns and had decided to include only meat for direct consumption in
the amended legislation.  Meat for further processing and cooking were excluded and not subject toinspection under the criteria of zero tolerance for listeria.  The representative of Korea stated that
Korea would gladly provide a copy of the amended text, when available, through the appropriate
channel, although it was the interpretation of the terms used in the document which mattered.
(v) Mexico - Import prohibition of Thai milled rice (G/SPS/GEN/82)
17. Further to the discussions which took place at earlier Committee meetings, Thailand recorded
once again its disappointment in the lack of progress over the past four years with regard to theG/SPS/R/12
Page 5
Mexican import prohibition of Thai milled rice, despite extensive recourse to bilateral as well as
multilateral channels of consultation.
18. The representative of Mexico informed the Co mmittee that official contacts had recently been
established between Thailand and Mexico in order to deal with the issue at hand.  The last consultation
had been held in June 1998.  The representative of  Mexico noted that the National Animal Health
Commission had conducted a risk assessment of Thai milled rice and, in spite of several requests for
information, Mexico was still awaiting information to be supplied by the Thai authorities.  That
information would enable Mexico to make a proper analysis of the risk of importing Thai milled rice
and act accordingly.  Prompted by Thailand, Mexico noted that the specify information requested had
been provided to the Ambassador of Thailand in Mexico in Document 01379.
(vi) South Africa – Ban on the import of meat on the bone
19. The representative of the European Communities stated that on 10 February 1998, South
Africa had notified an import restriction applied as of 18 April 1998 to the importation of chilled and
frozen bone-in-beef from EC member States (G/SPS /N/ZAF/2). The EC representative questioned the
justification for this measure, which appeared to be discriminatory.  The full text of the EC statement
is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/95.
20. The representative of South Africa replied that at the March 1998 meeting of the Committee,
South Africa had explained the reasons for instituting the embargo on the import of de-boned beef
from the European Communities and had then invite d the European Communities to supply written
comments to initiate bilateral discussions on the issue.  However, such written comments had only
recently been received.  At the request of the European Communities, South Africa had supplied, in
writing, an explanation of the notification in question, in March and July of 1998.  Furthermore, SouthAfrica had reiterated its invitation to the European Communities to submit evidence which would
permit a re-evaluation of its decision, possibly on an individual EC member State basis.  The
representative of South Africa further explained that his country was free of scrapie and BSE, but still
allowed the manufacturing of bone and carcass meal  as feed supplement.  Although this policy was
under review, in accordance with the guidelines of the OIE, South Africa had to take precautions toprevent the introduction of possible infected material in the rendering process.  Nonetheless, South
Africa respected the provisions of Article 5.7, particularly the requirement that sanitary measures
instituted on a precautionary basis should be reviewed in the light of additional information.
21. The EC delegation recognized that the Europ ean Communities had yet to provide a written
reply to South Africa's request for information a nd indicated that it would follow the evolution of
submissions made by some of its member States concerning their disease-free status.  The EC
representative expressed his satisfaction with South Africa's reassurance that the measures were notexclusively addressed to the European Communities, and he welcomed the invitation for a bilateral
discussion of the question.
(vii) France – Restrictions on imports of gelatin
22. The representative of Brazil noted that this i ssue was being raised for the third time in the
Committee. Despite Brazil's efforts and numerous bilateral talks, Brazil had not been able to reversethe French decision which imposed unjustifiable production methods on all gelatin exported to
France.  The representative of Brazil reiterated that this decision, when applied to countries free of
BSE, as was the case of Brazil, lacked scientific evidence and was not in line with Articles 2.2 and 5.6
of the SPS Agreement.  Furthermore, Brazil recalled that at its May 1998 meeting, the OIE had
adopted a decision to the effect that trade in gelatin and collagen extracted from hides and skin shouldnot be restricted as they did not transmit BSE.  Commenting on a new directive that was issued on the
matter by France, Brazil stated that the only significant changes made had been those concerningG/SPS/R/12
Page 6
specific heat treatment.  Yet the Annex to the "Avis aux importateurs de gelatin" of 17 June 1998 still
required the raw material to undergo a certain chemical treatment for a period of time that Brazil
considered to be unjustifiably long.
23. The EC representative noted that the origin of the problem could be the fact that Brazil
considered itself as free of BSE.  While in the EC  view no country could be designated as BSE-free as
such, the European Communities was still interested in resolving all possible misunderstandings through
further contacts.  The EC representative observed that  they had not previously been informed that the
only precise problem of the Brazilian authorities was the timing requirement for the treatment of gelatin.
The representative of Brazil concurred that there had obviously been some misunderstandings and that
her authorities were pleased to see a willingness to resolve the issue.
(viii) Norway– Restrictions on imports of gelatin
24. The representative of Brazil reported that Brazilian exports of gelatin to Norway had been
prohibited since 1991, supposedly due to the occurrence of FMD in her country.  Since that time,
bilateral contacts had not resulted in a lifting of the ban.  In fact, Brazil had been told by Norwegian
authorities at an OIE meeting in 1996 that as its production process guaranteed the elimination of the
disease, Brazil could resume exports of gelatin to Norway.  However the situation had in effect
remained unchanged, and her authorities wished to know when its exports would be allowed to enter
Norway.
25. The representative of Norway informed the Committee that the following conditions applied
to the import of Brazilian gelatin into Norway:
(i) raw materials had to come from slaughterhouses authorized for export in conformity
with the rules stipulated by the European Communities;
(ii) the production process had to include treatment at 140°C or equivalent heat
treatment;  and
(iii) there should be no recontamination of the gelatin after production.
The representative of Norway stated that applications fulfilling these conditions would be accepted
and that Norway looked forward to clarifying  any outstanding questions bilaterally.  The
representative of Brazil noted that Brazil was able to meet the aforementioned import conditions and
should thus be able to export gelatin to Norway.
(ix) Austria, Spain (European Communities), Slovenia  and Chile – Import prohibitions on Swiss
bovine semen
26. The representative of Switzerland stated that the import prohibitions on Swiss bovine semen
maintained by Austria, Spain, Slovenia and Chile appeared to be in contradiction with a number of
WTO obligations, inter alia , non-discrimination, risk assessment (in case of departure from
international standards), notification and consultation obligations.  Switzerland was awaiting replies
from the countries concerned to its detailed questions or preferably, the immediate re-admission of
imports from Switzerland.
27. The EC representative noted that its bilateral contacts with Switzerland had been useful.  The
basic issue dealt with the notification of some national emergency measures, taken by EC memberStates.  The EC representative announced that in July 1998, the Council had modified the rules by
which SPS notifications could be submitted in the case of national emergency measures.  As regarded
BSE, the Commission services were presently undertaking an inventory of all relevant nationalG/SPS/R/12
Page 7
measures in order to notify them to the SPS Committee.  In addition, the European Communities
would propose that EC member States harmonize  their conditions for import from Switzerland,
considering the present situation of Switzerland in relation to BSE and the recommendations
formulated by the OIE in that field.
28. In a preliminary response, the representative of Chile noted that his country had submitted an
emergency notification in 1996 (G/SPS/N/CHL/1), and another notification in August 1997.  These
identified measures taken on the basis of Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement due to a lack of adequate
scientific evidence.  On the basis of OIE's International Animal Health Code and the chapter dealing
with sanitary measures relating to BSE, Chile had authorized imports of bovine semen from France
and had responded to a similar request from the United Kingdom in accordance with the OIE's general
provisions.  Switzerland, however, had not made an official request to Chile for the purpose of
exporting bovine semen.  The representative of Chile noted that his country would soon notify to theSPS Committee the changes in its requirements for the importation of bovine semen.
29. The representative of Switzerland expressed his pleasure at the development of a new
notification system inside the European Communities. He also thanked Chile for the details
concerning export application requirements.
(x) Slovak Republic – Import ban on dairy products and the transit ban in relation to BSE
30. The representative of Switzerland informed the Committee that Switzerland and the Slovak
Republic had again held bilateral consultations regarding the import ban on dairy products and the
transit ban on a large number of products in relation to BSE.  The transit ban had been abolished at the
end of June 1998, however, discussions on market access for dairy products continued.
(xi) Slovak Republic - Ban on imports of apples, pears and quinces
31. Pursuing a matter addressed during the March and June 1998 Committee meetings
(G/SPS/GEN/79 refers), the representative of Hungary, joined by the European Communities,
acknowledged the latest improvements made by the Slovak Republic in revising its regulation against
the introduction of fire blight, a quarantine pest potentially affecting apples, pears and quinces
(notified in G/SPS/N/SVK/8/Rev.1). However, a partial import ban was still applied, apparentlywithout any scientific justification.  Hungary noted that it had not yet received replies to written
queries, relating to Article 5.8 of the SPS Agreement, put forward in December 1997.  Furthermore,
quoting excerpts from publications of the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization
(EPPO), Hungary requested  precision as to when  the Slovak Republic would withdraw the import
ban on fruits and thus bring its measure into compliance with EPPO recommendations and with the
SPS Agreement.
32. The representative of the Slovak Republic reiterated that this phytosanitary measure had been
adopted, in accordance with Article 5.7, to protect the health of plants and to prevent the introduction
of Erwinia amylovora into the Slovak Republic, which was free of this pest.  In response to the
comments received since G/SPS/N/SVK/8/Rev.1 was circulated, a second modification had been
notified to the WTO (circulated as document G/SPS/N/SVK/11) and had entered into force on
1 June 1998.
33. The representative of the Slovak Republic denied that its phytosanitary measure was a "ban
on imports" since, during the first eight months of 1998, the total imports of apples, pears and quinces
into the Slovak Republic reached the level of 18,700 tonnes.  These imports came from seventeen
countries, Antigua and Barbados, Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, the Czech Republic,
Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Macedonia, the Neth erlands, Slovenia, Holland and South Africa.  All
these exporting countries were thus able to fulfil the phytosanitary requirements and did notG/SPS/R/12
Page 8
experience market access impediments. 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.
34. The representative of Hungary stated that despite the Slovak Republic's answers, Hungary's
serious concern regarding the measure had not been dispelled.  There were systemic implications inmaintaining an SPS measure without scientific justification, setting a dangerous precedent for the
operation of the SPS Agreement.
(c) Consideration of specific notifications received
(i) European Communities – Notification (G/SPS/N/ EEC/58) on establishments operating in the
animal feed sector
35. The representative of the United States reverted
1 to an issue related to the EC notification
concerning conditions and arrangements for approving and registering establishments andintermediaries operating in the animal feed sector (G/SPS/N/EEC/58) and requested further
clarification on the transitional rules.  The United States was encouraged by the European
Communities' willingness to continue to consult on this draft directive with the objective of
implementing it in a way that led to safeguarding public and animal health while minimizing
disruptions to trade.
36.  The EC representative reminded the Committee that this directive was an instrument for
harmonization of the conditions and modalities for import into the European Communities.  It dealt
with lists of additives for mixtures and compound feedstuffs containing raw materials referred to in
Directive 74/63EC, such as lead and cadmium.  The system was similar to the regime already in place
in the veterinary field, but was more flexible in that on-the-spot inspections in third countries wereoptional.  The EC representative assured the United  States that prompt answers would be provided to
all questions raised.
(ii) European Communities – Notification (G/SPS/N/ EEC/61) EC measures on food treated with
ionizing irradiation
37. The representative of the United States sought clarification on the status of the measure
related to food and food ingredients treated with ionizing radiation. The US representative considered
that the Directive was a positive step toward recogn izing the role that this technology could play in
ensuring the wholesomeness and safety of food.  The United States was in fact taking similar steps.
Official comments had been sent to the European  Communities, outlining specific points.  However,
the United States wished to emphasize that the Annex of the Directive should be expanded to cover
other food products such as pork, beef, poultry, fruits and vegetables.  The Directive indicated that
irradiated foods from EC-approved facilities could be imported, and the United States requestedfurther explanation on how this approval process worked.
38. The EC representative thanked the US delegation for its positive comments.  He was aware of
the limited field of application of the Directive and would forward the suggestions of the United
States to the competent services of the Community.
(iii) Switzerland – Notification (G/SPS/N/CHE /14) on import requirements on meat
39. The US representative, supported by Australia, expressed serious concerns regarding the
proposed Swiss regulation regarding imports under th e Swiss tariff rate quota.  The restrictions on
                                                     
1 G/SPS/GEN/88G/SPS/R/12
Page 9
meat from animals treated with hormones, antibiotics and similar products were not, in the US view,
based on science or risk assessment.  Furthermore, the different treatment of products imported under
the tariff rate quota, as compared to products imported outside of the tariff rate quota, called into
question the validity of the alleged public health objective behind the proposed regulation.  The
United States indicated that it was preparing formal comments on the proposed Swiss regulation andencouraged other Members to carefully consider the implications of the notified measure.
40.  The representative of Canada noted that the purpose of the measure was for disclosure to
consumers, yet the actual measure did not make it clear if labelling was carried through to the retail
level.  In respect of the certificate, the measure also required that the place of production and the "nom
du producteur" be included on the certificate;  the representative of Canada wondered whether this
referred to the grower or the processor.
41. The representative of Switzerland stated that while he could not respond immediately to the
questions by Canada and Australia, thirty days remained in the comment period and all comments
made would be taken into account when drafting the final proposition.  The representative of
Switzerland added that the correct date of entry into force was not 16 October 1998, as erroneously
mentioned on the notification, but 1 January 1999.
(iv) Australia – Notification (G/SPS/N/AUS/72) on quarantine requirements for chicken meat)
42. The representative of Thailand expressed concern regarding Australia's requirement for the
importation of cooked chicken meat notified in G/SPS/N/AUS/72.  Thailand believed the requirement
was in excess of what was needed for the purpose of the protection of human or animal life or health.
Furthermore, it was not viable for commercial manufacturing, increased production costs for
producers and adversely affected the competitiveness of foreign products.  The full text of thestatement by Thailand is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/90.  Thailand requested Australia to
adhere to the principles of the SPS Agreement.
43. The EC representative stated that Australia' s recommended proposal of particular temperature
and time requirements created an extreme and unnecessary barrier to trade.  The full text of the
statement by the European Communities is contained in document G/SPS/GEN/96.  Furthermore, theEC representative indicated that a complete list of relevant questions would be provided to Australia
with the hope of receiving precise and prompt answers.
44. The representative of the OIE specified that OIE's purpose was primarily to define standards
reflecting currently available scientific information.  If a country or the SPS Committee itself
requested an OIE intervention, this would have to be  communicated to the OIE.  Countries could also,
in extreme cases, solicit the arbitration of the OIE, as was specified in the International Animal Health
Code.
45. As a preliminary response, the representative of Australia stated that the import requirements
were based on broad scientific principles and on scientific data.  The Australian Quarantine and
Inspection Service (AQIS) had based the final heating requirements on the results of research
conducted at the Central Veterinary Laboratory, Weybridge (United Kingdom) on the inactivation of
infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) strain CS88, a hi ghly virulent strain exotic to Australia.  The
CS88 strain was more typical of the strains currently presenting a quarantine threat to Australia and
the muscle/fat/skin mixture was more representative of finished chicken meat products which would
be exported to Australia than the materials used in the research referred to above.  Extensive
consultations had taken place with Thai and other quarantine authorities to discuss the issue and
Australia remained ready to provide any further information requested.  Australia was consideringwhether additional scientific research could usefully be conducted to enhance scientific understanding
and methods of inactivation of various poultry pathogens.G/SPS/R/12
Page 10
(v) Poland – Notifications (G/SPS/N/POL/4, 13 and 14) on veterinary measures and measures on
animal products
46. The representative of Switzerland reported on an informal consultations with Poland
regarding border measures in relation to BSE affec ting Swiss exports.  These border measures mainly
consisted of a stricter treatment applied to countries with a higher incidence of BSE than those of lowincidence.  Switzerland was concerned by this departure from OIE recommendations, which inter
alia, took into account the differences in surveillance and prevention systems applied in different
countries.  Consultations were ongoing and Switzerland hoped to find a solution to the problem.
47. The EC representative indicated that this measur e resulted in significant import restrictions on
cattle and bovine products.  He observed that the import restrictions did not recognize differences in
the TSE status of exporting countries.  The incidence in the Republic of Ireland had consistently been
lower and the number of BSE cases in 1998 showed an important decline.  Ireland had taken all themeasures recommended by international standards;  a feed ban had been introduced in 1990.  As
regarded the United Kingdom, the EC representative st ressed that even for products originating in the
highest risk category, imports should be accepted from herds with no BSE history.  Hence, both the
import ban against Ireland and in part against th e United Kingdom did not seem compatible with
international obligations under the SPS Agreement.
48. The representative of Poland explained that the measure had been taken in relation to the BSE
situation in the concerned countries.  It was fully justified by the serious nature of the problem and
was in accordance with WTO rules.  Nonetheless, bilateral discussions were ongoing with the United
Kingdom, Ireland and Switzerland.  The BSE situation was under permanent surveillance and all
results would be taken into account during the year-end domestic review of Poland's regulations.
(vi) European Communities – Notification (G/SPS/N /EEC/62) of emergency measures on citrus
pulp
49. The representative of Brazil stated that the EC notification of emergency measures for citrus
pulp (G/SPS/N/EEC/62) mentioned very high levels of dioxins found in citrus pulp pellets from
Brazil.  Brazil pointed out that this accident had happened in the past and that the problem had been
immediately dealt with.  The Brazilian authorities were maintaining bilateral talks with the European
Communities on the subject.
50. The EC representative explained that "the accident" dealt with 90,000 tonnes of contaminated
citrus pulp pellets destined for animal feed.  The competent EC authorities, after detailed and
scientifically based discussions which included contributions from Brazil's private sector, had decided
that the lack of information on the origin of the contamination, the amount of stocks involved and the
lack of a solution, justified the emergency measure.  The EC representative hoped that the ongoingcontacts with the Brazilian authorities would result in a solution before the end of the year.
(d) Any other matters related to the operation of transparency provisions
51. The Chairman indicated that the most recent list of Enquiry Points was circulated as
G/SPS/ENQ/7.  The latest list of National Notification Authorities was contained in document
G/SPS/GEN/91. In addition, G/SPS/GEN/27/Rev.3 indicated which Members had identified theirEnquiry Points and/or National Notification Authorities.  Notifications received since the June 1998
meeting of the Committee were listed in G/SPS/GEN/87.
(i) European Communities -  Modification of the procedure of notification of EC Member States'
national emergency measuresG/SPS/R/12
Page 11
52. The EC representative stated that, in light of the concern and interest expressed in previous
meetings of the SPS Committee, and with a view to increasing transparency, the European
Communities had modified some of its internal arrangements regarding the notification of SPS
emergency measures taken by member States as of July 1998.  EC member States' notifications of
emergency measures would now be provided to the WTO Secretariat as soon as the measure reachedthe Commission.  Canada and Argentina welcomed the efforts made by the European Communities to
amend its system of notification of member States' measures and welcomed any further efforts in that
direction.
53. The Secretariat reminded Members that notifications of SPS measures should be submitted
directly to the Central Registry of Notifications to avoid processing delays.  The Secretariat also
encouraged Members to ensure a close coordination between their notification authorities on TBT
matters and those under the SPS Agreement to ensure that measures were notified under theappropriate agreement.
2. Monitoring the Use of International Standards
54. The Chairman recalled that the Committee adopted a provisional procedure to monitor the use
of international standards in October 1997 (G/SPS/11 ).  According to this procedure, Members were
invited to submit, in advance of regular meetings, examples of what they considered to be problemswith a significant trade impact which they believed related to the use or non-use of relevant
international standards, guidelines or recomme ndations.  The Chairman reminded the Committee that
at the June 1998 meeting of the Committee, Members had discussed a paper submitted by the United
States (document G/SPS/W/87 and Corr.1).  
55. The representative of Canada identified three areas where trade in meat products had been
affected and where Canada thought that further work  or consideration by the relevant standard-setting
bodies could be helpful.  He welcomed the opportunity provided by the procedure developed under
Article 3.5 to ask that those three areas be submitted or be put on the provisional list to be submitted
to the standard-setting bodies (G/ SPS/W/89, refers).
56. The EC representative, while welcoming the document presented by Canada, questioned
whether it was feasible or appropriate to ask Code x to develop standards for pathogens in raw meat.
The question raised by Canada had already been a ddressed by Codex last year and was also on the
agenda of an upcoming meeting on 26-30 October 1998.  Furthermore, FAO and WHO were apparently
considering the creation of a joint expert comm ittee to deal with those matters.  The European
Communities felt that it would be more appropriate to  examine the concept of level of protection rather
than that of standards.
57. The United States stated its appreciation of th e suggestions brought forward by Canada and
asked for an opportunity to discuss those specific suggestions at the next meeting of the Committee.
3. Consistency
58. The Chairman reminded the Committee that at its June 1998 meeting, the Secretariat had been
requested to prepare a non-paper bringing together elements and proposals put forward by various
Members with respect to the draft guidelines to further the implementation of Article 5.5 of the SPS
Agreement.  The paper had been distributed to Members on 19 August 1998 and had been the subject
of discussions at an informal meeting of 15 September 1998.  The Chairman reported that thanks to
Members' contributions and spirit of cooperation, good progress had been made in the informal
discussions.  Members were reminded that they had until 8 October to submit any additionalcomments or recommendations on this topic so that the Secretariat could prepare a new document for
distribution to Members by 20 October, in preparat ion for further informal discussions in November.G/SPS/R/12
Page 12
4. Review of the SPS Agreement
59. The Chairman recalled that at the October 1997 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 (G/SPS/10).  The implementation of the transparency provisions, the notification
process, the special needs of developing countries, and technical assistance and cooperation had beendiscussed in June 1998 and again at an informal meeting on 14 September 1998 on the basis of a
number of background papers provided by Members.  Members had also been invited to submit
specific papers on the adaptation of SPS measures to regional conditions, harmonization and
equivalence and to identify other issues of interest, by the end of August 1998.  Informal papers had
been submitted on the recognition of regional conditions by the United States, on harmonization by
India (G/SPS/NGEN/94) and on considerations relating to the review of the Agreement by Mexico
The Secretariat had prepared a synoptic table of the proposals made to date with respect to thetransparency and notification provisions, the special needs of developing countries and technical
assistance, which had also been discussed at the informal meeting of 14 September 1998.  The
Chairman reported that considerable progress ha d been made in narrowing down differences and
developing common language.  The informal consultations would continue upon completion of the
formal meeting.
60. The representative of Mexico drew attention to his country's submission on harmonization,
equivalence and issues of recognition of disease-free areas.  Mexico particularly emphasized the
importance of continuing to review the issue of harmonization.  On the question of equivalence,
Mexico proposed the full application of Article 4.2 of the SPS Agreement so that importing countries
accepted equivalent measures and facilitated trade. Mexico stated that despite the existence ofArticle 6 of the SPS Agreement, there were still some countries which resisted the recognition of
disease-free zones or areas where disease prevalence was low.  Mexico had reported on its experience
in bilateral negotiations to recognize disease-free areas and hoped that some of these elements would
be included in the report resulting from the review exercise.
61.  The representative of Australia, joined by Argentina, New Zealand, Mexico and South
Africa, noted that very good progress had been made  in the informal discussions and looked forward
to their continuation.  However, in Australia's view it was important to finalize the review so as to
report on how Members were getting on under the SPS Agreement. Secondly, Australia noted that in
the review discussions so far the focus had been on those matters where Members suspected
implementation problems rather than on the success of  the Agreement in creating a new framework
for international trading relationships where SPS measures were relevant.  It was, in Australia's view
important for the report of the review to reflect the fact that in many Members' experience theAgreement had already proved to be a major force for good in trading relations.  It identified for the
relevant authorities within Member governments the disciplines within which they operated, as well
as their rights in the application of SPS measures.
62.  The EC representative recalled that the European Communities had not agreed with the
establishment of a deadline for conclusion of the review process (see footnote to G/SPS/10).  TheEuropean Communities would make a positive, constructive and decisive contribution to the review
procedure so that it could be concluded.  However, the European Communities could not agree to a
final date beyond which there would be no further discussion;  there needed to be room for further
input and possible changes in opinion.
63.  The representative of Canada, joined by the United States, suggested that the Committee
should seek to provide a "snapshot" report on implementation of the Agreement at the end of 1998.
The report could identify areas where Members wished to see more work done.  The report should
also stress the benefits that the Agreement had on freeing trade.G/SPS/R/12
Page 13
64. The EC representative noted that the text of the Agreement did not require ending review at
any particular moment, and the European Communities did not want a final report on  matters that had
not been fully discussed.  The EC delegate liked the suggestion of the report as a "snapshot" of the
situation, and stressed that the European Communities would contribute to a report, provided it fully
and faithfully reflected the discussions held in the informal Committee.
5. Technical assistance and cooperation
65. The Secretariat reported on technical assistance activities undertaken since the June 1998
meeting.  The Secretariat had organized a regional seminar 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 in general, its dispute settlement procedures, and a detailed presentation of the
SPS Agreement, the scope of the seminar also included a special session on risk assessment and
equivalence thanks to the participation of Dr. Peter O'Hara from New Zealand.  A third session,organized in conjunction with the USDA/FAS, had consisted of a two-day workshop on transparency
and notification procedures during which the role a nd functioning of national Enquiry Points had been
presented.  Twelve countries participated in the seminar;  some had a high level of understanding of
the SPS Agreement and its implementation while others were still at a very early stage of
implementing their obligations under the SPS Agreement.  A number of participants claimeddifficulties relating to the utilisation of international standards, which they considered were often too
demanding.  Risk assessment also presented problems.  The lack of coordination on a national level
between relevant services clearly affected the way the Agreement was implemented by some of the
countries, many of which did not appear to be familiar with document G/SPS/7. The Secretariat felt
that these seminars were useful but there needed to be some follow-up, possibly by developing aevaluative questionnaire.
66. The representative of the Philippines expressed gratitude to the WTO Secretariat, the US
Government, Codex, OIE and IPPC who had made po ssible the regional seminar in Manila.  The
seminar, and in particular, the workshop on SPS Enquiry Points, had been extremely beneficial in
enhancing participants' understanding of the SPS Agreement and its implications.  The Philippinesalso thanked New Zealand for Dr. O'Hara's valuable briefing on risk assessment and equivalence.
Developing countries needed a greater understanding of such issues in order to fully comprehend and
implement the SPS Agreement.  The inclusion of these issues in future workshops would be
appreciated.
67. The representative of the World Health Organization informed the Committee that
Dr. Brundtland, former Prime Minister of Norway, had taken office as Director General of the WHO
on 21 July 1998.  Globalization of trade and its impact on health had been identified as a new priorityarea.  WHO's technical programmes responsible for chemical safety, nutrition and other food safety
aspects had been joined in one structural entity.  The WHO believed that this reorganization would
strengthen its capacity to meet the needs of its Me mber States with regard to technical assistance in
the field of food safety.
68. The representative of the FAO International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) reported that
FAO and a new Swiss Agency for Trade and In formation (AITIC) were conducting a two-day
workshop on 22-23 September 1998 in Geneva with the participation of both the IPPC and Codex.
The objective was to help less advanced countries to understand the Uruguay Round Agreements and
to familiarize themselves with the resources available at the FAO, particularly in preparing for the
future round of negotiations.  Technical assistance and cooperation by the IPPC related primarily toparticipation in workshops, seminars, meetings and the provision of general information.  Moreover,
there were numerous projects facilitated through F AO's technical cooperation programmes devoted to
building infrastructure.  The representative of th e IPPC noted that governments could consider theG/SPS/R/12
Page 14
IPPC for the coordination or delivery of technical assistance or cooperation that might be made
available directly from Member to Member as indicated in Articles 9 and 10 of the Agreement.
69. The representative of the OIE indicated that a seminar had been held in July in Lithuania on
risk assessment in the animal health area for Easter n European countries, with the cooperation of OIE
and Switzerland.  Another seminar was scheduled in early November at the behest of the FAO, whichwould target Middle Eastern countries and deal with FMD, rinderpest, the juris valid pest and
brucellosis.  Another seminar would be organize d for French-speaking African countries also in
November on epidermalogical surveillance of animal diseases, with the financial help of the French
cooperation agency and hosted by the Senegalese Government.
70. The representative of Codex announced that Codex had produced a new document for general
distribution on the Hazard Analysis Critical Contro l Point (HACCP) process for food safety using a
harmonized approach.  The document also encouraged the use of the general principles on hygiene asa prerequisite to the Codex HACCP approach.  The representative of Codex recommended that the
document, which would be on the FAO Internet home page, be used as part of training programmes.
The representative of Codex also reported that the report of the expert consultation on risk
communications, held in February 1998, had now been finalized and would shortly be put on the
Internet.  The report described experts' advice on how to address risk communication in the riskanalysis programme.
6. Matters of interest arising from the work of observer organizations
(a) OIE
71. The representative of the OIE informed the Committee that a number of expert meetings had
been held focussing especially on BSE with a view to further developing the contents of the pertinentchapter in the International Animal Health Code.  An ad hoc  group had been convened to consider
updating the chapter on sheep fever, and the texts of both groups would shortly be submitted to
Member countries for comment.  In addition, a procedure had been examined which would make it
possible to declare countries free from BSE in accordance with a resolution that had been adopted last
year.  Also, a study had started in conjunction with an international NGO on the problems posed bythe inter-regional transportation of wild animals. Lastly, the OIE Standards Commission had
considered a new definition of Newcastle disease which should make it possible to specify
appropriate international constraints on the marketing of poultry and poultry meat.
(b)  IPPC
72. The representative of the IPPC reminded the Committee that the first meeting of the Interim
Commission on Phytosanitary Measures would ta ke place in Rome on 3-6 November 1998.  In
addition, he noted several upcoming meetings:  a working group meeting on regulated non-quarantinepests in Asuncion, Paraguay, during the first week of October, and the Tenth Technical Consultation
of Regional Plant Protection Organizations on 9-10 November in Rome.  He indicated that key
documents sent to governments in 1998 were available at the IPPC Secretariat.
(c) Codex
73.  The representative of Codex reported on the thirteenth Session of the Codex General
Principles Committee (CCGP) held on 7-11 September 1998, in Paris.  One of the key issues was the
area of risk analysis in respect of which the CCGP had redrafted some definitions.  The CCGP also
considered possible changes to the decision-making procedures of Codex, and will revert to this issue
at its meeting in June 1999.  On special treatment for developing countries, the CCGP had stressed the
importance of not differentiating standards and compromising consumer safety aspects in theG/SPS/R/12
Page 15
application of any special or differential treatment to developing countries.  Regarding the extent to
which factors other than science should be taken into consideration in the development of standards,
the CCGP reaffirmed the primary role of science in health-related decisions.
(d) WHO
74.  The representative of the WHO stated that previous informal and formal meetings of the SPS
Committee had proven to be helpful in the revision of the IHR and the WHO would try to make the
IHR more relevant to Members' needs as regarded public health and trade issues.  The WHO intended
to illustrate the differences between the public health and trade roles of the Codex and the proposed
role and obligations of the IHR for WHO Members, in a document to be distributed to both WTO and
WHO Members.  The WHO representative reiterated that the IHR revision process provided an
opportunity to try and minimize any conflicting regulatory or operational requirements on Members
of both the WTO and WHO and hence Members' input was critical to the success of the process.  In
accordance with the suggestion made by Thailand at the last Committee meeting, IHR health/trade
briefings had been held in Singapore, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam.  The briefings had been
well attended, and the insight provided by the national governments would be included in the revision.
Other briefings were planned for 1999.
7. Observers
75. The Chairman informed the Committee that, as requested at the June 1998 meeting, the
Secretariat had contacted those intergovernmental organizations which had requested observer status
in the Committee.  Responses from the following organizations had been circulated to Members in
August 1998: the Office international de la vign e et du vin (OIV), the European Free Trade
Association (EFTA), the Latin American Economic System (SELA), the European and Mediterranean
Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) and the In ter-American Institute for Cooperation on
Agriculture (IICA).  The OECD had indicated that it would provide information at a later date.  The
International Consultative Group on Food Irradiation was not pursuing its request for observer status
at this time.
76. The International Seed Federation and the Inte rnational Meat Secretariat had been informed
that, given the decision of the General Council regarding non-governmental organizations, the SPS
Committee could not at this time agree to grant them observer status.
77. The Chairman informed the Committee that informal consultations had been held prior to the
formal Committee meeting to consider criteria that might help the Committee reach decisions on
requests for observer status.  As no consensus had been reached, similar informal consultations would
be held prior to the November meeting of the Committee.
8. Other business
(a) Negotiating Session of the UN Biosafety Protocol
78. The Chairman reminded the Committee  that, as agreed at the June 1998 meeting, an informal
session with the representative of the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
was to be held immediately following the formal meeting of the Committee to allow Members to pose
questions.  The questions that had been received in advance from Members had been compiled by theSecretariat and circulated on 4 September 1998, and had also been forwarded to the CBD Secretariat.
79. The Secretariat informed the Committee that it had attended the second week of the
negotiating session on the UN Biosafety Protocol.  Ar eas of possible conflict between the Biosafety
Protocol and the SPS Agreement were well summarized in the questions forwarded by WTOG/SPS/R/12
Page 16
Members to the CBD Secretariat.  A good example was the text of the CBD itself, paragraph 8(g):2 as
regarded risks to human health.  There were also references to socio-economic considerations in many
areas of the Convention.  One of the most interesting mechanisms in the draft Protocol was the
advanced informed agreement which provided for prior consent from importing to exporting countries
before any exportation of living genetically modified organisms took place.  As to the directly trade-related  articles, there was no agreement between the negotiators in respect of the inclusion of such
provisions, nor was there agreement in respect of the content of these should they be included.  The
next and final round of negotiations was scheduled to take place in Colombia in February 1999.
80. The representative of Australia noted that the Biosafety Protocol should effectively address
risks to biological diversity without inappropriatel y restricting trade in living genetically modified
organisms.  The Protocol should not conflict with no r affect in any way existing rights and obligations
under WTO agreements, particularly the SPS Agreement.
(b) Czech Republic – prohibition of imports of poultry meat from Thailand (G/SPS/N/CZE/16)
81. The representative of Thailand indicated that the Czech Republic had, since June 1998,
prohibited shipments of poultry meat from Thailand on the grounds that arsenic acid was found in
levels higher than the limits acceptable to the Czech Republic.  This decision resulted in an immediateand costly import embargo on imports of poultry meat from Thailand. Thailand sought clarification
and confirmation from the Czech Republic as to the non-discriminatory nature of this decision.  In
Thailand's view, the maximum limit of arsenic acid at the level of 0.1 parts per million (ppm) was too
restrictive to trade and was not scientifically justified in view of Article 3.3 of the SPS Agreement.
Bilateral consultations and collaboration between th e regulatory authorities of the two countries had
been initiated to find a rapid solution to the proble m.  The representative of Thailand maintained that
Thai poultry meat products complied with the high levels of sanitary and hygienic standards accepted
internationally.
82. The representative of the Czech Republic confirmed that bilateral consultations had already
been initiated with Thailand and would continue with a view to fully clarify the measure.  Hereassured Thailand of the non-discriminatory natu re of the testing methodology used by the Czech
authorities.
(c) Australia – Restrictions on imports of sauces from the Philippines containing benzoïde acid
83. The Philippines, joined by Malaysia, raised concerns on Australia's measure to prohibit
importation of sauces containing benzoïde acid .  The measure was highly discriminatory in light of
the fact that sauces containing benzoïde acid  originating from New Zealand were allowed entry into
Australia.  Furthermore, the reasons provided by Australia did not constitute a scientific justificationfor prohibiting imports from the Philippines.  In light of the above, the Philippines requested Australia
to lift its import prohibition.
84. The representative of Australia noted his authorities willingness to pursue the matter with the
Philippines.  International standards did not exist with respect to the use of benzoïde acid in food such
as sauces and Australia was currently undergoing a review of its current standards as part of thearrangement to establish a joint food standard-setting mechanism for both Australia and New Zealand.
Australia expected that a uniform standard would be in place by mid-1999.
85. The representative of the Philippines noted that this was a clear example of a specific trade
concern stemming from the lack of an internationa l standard.  The Philippines would endeavour to put
the issue under the agenda item on harmonization and monitoring of international standards at theG/SPS/R/12
Page 17
next Committee meeting.  The Philippines would also request Codex to give priority to the matter,
given its importance for developing countries.
9. Calendar of meetings for 1999
86. The Committee adopted the following provisional schedule of meetings for 1999:
10-11 March 1999
7-8 July 199910-11 November 1999
The EC representative noted the difficulty Members faced in adequately prepar ing for meetings of the
Committee if these were scheduled at less than four month intervals.  He further noted the it would be
useful if the Committee would commence a practise of  blocking exact weeks (for example the first week
in March, June and September) during the calendar year for SPS Committee meetings.  This wouldgreatly facilitate the scheduling of Members' work  during the year.  The Chairman indicated that
informal meetings (for example on Article 5.5 guid elines and on the review exercise) would, to the
extent possible, be scheduled to immediatel y precede the formal meetings of the Committee.
10. Date and agenda of the next meeting
87. The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled for 11-12 November 1998.  The Committee
agreed on the following items tentative 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 standards
4. Consistency - report by the Chairman on consultations
5. Review of the SPS Agreement - report by the Chairman on consultations
6. Technical assistance and cooperation7. Matters of interest arising from the work of observer organizations
8. Observers – Requests for observer status
9. Other business
10. Date and agenda of next meetingG/SPS/R/12
Page 18
88. The Chairman reminded delegates that the deadlines for requesting the inclusion of specific
items on the agenda or receiving inputs from Members under respective agenda items were as
follows:
Agenda item 2:  (b) Specific trade concerns and  (c) notifications 29 October 1998
Agenda item 3:  Monitoring procedure:  Specific examples 12 October 1998
Agenda item 5:  Review of the SPS Agreement:  Non-papers 27 October 1998
__________