WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/GEN/88
7 September 1998
(98-3388)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Original:  English
SPS NOTIFICATION G/SPS/N/EEC/58
(EUROPEAN COUNCIL DOCUMENT VI/5637/98/REV.5)
Submission by the United States
1. The Commission of the European Communities published VI/5637/97 Rev 5 - EN, a revision
of VI/5637/97 Rev 4 - EN a proposal notified to the WTO as G/SPS/N/EEC/58.  This regulation lays
down certain measures for implementing Council Di rective 95/69/EC including the conditions and
arrangements for approving and registering certain es tablishments and intermediaries operating in the
animal feed sector.
2. The United States appreciates the EC response to our concerns on the EC proposal
G/SPS/N/EEC/58.  However, we continue to believe that it could create unnecessary obstacles to
trade which could have a negative effect on our well-established and substantial trade with the
European Communities in the feedstuffs arena.  For the benefit of the Committee, we would like to
take the opportunity to further elaborat e some of our concerns and questions.
Background
3. In the June 1998 SPS meeting, the United States raised some concerns with the EC proposal
G/SPS/N/EEC/58 laying down the conditions and arrangements for approving and registering certain
establishments and intermediaries operating in the an imal feed sector.  The United States questioned
the EC requirement for a list of third country establishments operating under standards that are at least
equivalent to those laid down in the Annex of the EC Directive 95/69.
4. The United States commented that the requirement of a list of third country establishments
would create needless expense and bureaucracy and inhibit trade in feedingstuffs without creating a
safer food supply.  The United States was unclear as to the Commission’s need to extend its list
requirements beyond those necessary and sufficient to compile an accurate listing of third countries
whose systems have been deemed equivalent to the EC system.  The United States also requested
clarification as to the product coverage of the proposed directive.
5. The European Communities responded that the standard EC framework consists of a list of
third countries and their establishments exporting to the European Communities.  The European
Communities stated that the third country’s competent authority would provide guarantees that those
establishments on the list are operating under standards at least equivalent to EC standards.
Establishments can be added to or removed from the list based on the screening by the third country’scompetent authority.  The EC Commission will perform inspections based on resources.  The
inspections will focus primarily on the ability of the third country’s competent authority to ensure
compliance with EC requirements.
6. The European Communities stated that the proposed directive would not apply to petfood but
only compound feedingstuffs, additives, and other products entering the production of feedingstuffsfor farm animals.G/SPS/GEN/88
Page 2
7. In its written response, the European Communities recognized that the text of the regulation is
of fundamental importance for trade relations concerning feedingstuffs between the United States and
the European Communities.   The European Communities stated that the proposal is based mainly on
the identification of criteria which should enable the Commission to define which trade partners are
able to provide safeguards equivalent to those in the European Communities.  The EuropeanCommunities also states that certain feed additives and feedingstuffs do pose a health risk.
8. The European Communities stated that the only specific request to third countries in the
proposal is to provide the Commission, once "equivalence" has been established, with a list of
establishments that the third country has approved on the basis of such an “equivalence”
understanding.  In addition, there are no fixed time limits by which the lists must be provided and
trade can continue under transitional measures which are based on existing import rules.
9. The European Communities indicated that after careful consideration of the US comments, it
amended the text of the regulation.  The Standing Committee for Feedingstuffs expressed a favorable
opinion on an updated version on 23 June 1998.  To avoid any misunderstanding, the European
Communities modified the wording of Articles 8 and 9, and of the corresponding parts of the Annex
and of the preamble, by removing the direct reference to the law of third countries.
Need for Further Clarification
10. Our understanding of the EC response to our comments is that the European Communities
will engage in equivalency discussions, in accordan ce with the SPS Agreement, with third countries
to reach a determination of equivalency of the respective systems, and until an equivalency agreement
has been reached, trade will occur under the transitional measures.  Is this understanding accurate?
11. Upon study, the "transitional rules" appear quite confusing.  Please outline the transitional
rules, the reasoning behind such transitional rules, and how they deviate from the current import rules.
When do these transitional rules become effective?
12. The draft directive would mandate a transitional period during which no third nation or
facility thereof can export feeds or feedingstuffs to an EC member country without hiring an in-
country sales/import representative.  Please elaborate on this requirement and the reasoning for suchrequirement.
13. How would partnerships or consortiums of third country traders be treated?  Would one agent
suffice for all companies involved or would each co mponent company need to have a representative?
Since each representative could have multiple "clients", who is ultimately responsible for the actions
of the representative? What criteria would the European Communities impose on individuals and
firms wishing to serve as importer representatives?
14. In addition, the European Communities would hold the exporting third country company
responsible for the representative's registration and continued observance of EC law.  Please specify
which EC laws apply.
15. We appreciate the EC objective of safeguarding public and animal health and the environment
with respect to animal feed.  We too are interested in  this objective.  We are also encouraged with the
EC attention to the equivalency of systems.  Please specify in detail the public, animal, andenvironmental risk concerns that this proposal, or any previous directives that this proposal is based
on, addresses.
16. Please specify which products are covered under this proposal and the public and animal
health reason for these products to be included.  What are the risks associated with these products?G/SPS/GEN/88
Page 3
17. The European Communities response states "… for certain feed additives and feedingstuffs,
since, as has been demonstrated by past experience, they do pose a health risk".  This language is
unfortunately vague.  Please provide the specific information on these past experiences of public
health risk, including the specific feedingstuffs and ingredients and in what context the risk was
presented.
18. The EC response states that the reference to "country law" in Articles 8 and 9 has been
deleted.  In our review of the various revisions of the proposal, we did not see this change.  Neither
Rev. 4 or 5 show reference to third country law in those articles.  In fact, reference to a third country's
internal law is still referenced in Article 2.  Please clarify this discrepancy.
19. Article 5 refers to "inspections on-the-spot" to be carried out by experts of the European
Commission and Member States.  Please clarify the meaning of on-the-spot inspections.  Are these
intended to be  unannounced inspections?  How often will the inspections occur?  What will theinspections encompass?  With what requirements  will the European Communities be inspecting for
compliance or equivalence?
__________