WORLD TRADE G/SPS/W/76
2October 1996
ORGANIZATION(96-3969)
Original: English Committee onSanitary andPhytosanitary Measures
MONITORING THE PROCESS OFINTERNATIONAL HARMONIZATION
AND USEOFINTERNATIONAL STANDARDS, GUIDELINES,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Response from theUnited States
Overview
1. Pursuant totheSecretariat request foranindicative listofthose international standards,
guidelines andrecommendations which areconsidered tobeofmajor importance totrade
(G/SPS/W/58), theUnited States hasprepared theattached annex identifying some oftheareas
where thefailure ofcountries toapply aninternational standard, guideline orrecommendation
impedes trade. Recognizing theimportance oftheCommittee ontheSanitary andPhytosanitary
Measures inidentifying priority areas forestablishing andapplying international standards,
guidelines, andrecommendations, theUnited States encourages theSecretariat toestablish a
mechanism intheCommittee ’sregularly scheduled meetings where Members canidentify and
discuss areas where work onharmonization isofparticular importance.
Procedure
2. Under Article 12.4oftheSPSAgreement, theCommittee ischarged withdeveloping a
procedure tomonitor theprocess ofinternational harmonization. Theparticular expertise ofthe
Committee istoprovide input onthetrade-related effects ofthese standards, guidelines and
recommendations andifappropriate provide direction totheinternational standard-setting bodies
onwhich standards areofparticular importance.
3. Apractical firststepcould betoestablish astanding agenda itemfortheCommittee
meetings where Members could raisetheirconcerns related totheprocess ofinternational
harmonization. Inthecommittee meeting, Members could provide examples ofinstances where
theprocess ofinternational harmonization isworking wellorwhere harmonization (orthelack
thereof) iscausing significant trade distortions. Thisinformation could thenbeevaluated byother
Members, whocould determine appropriate steps totakeatthenational levelinlightofthe
comments raised byother Members. Through theirparticipation intheinternational standard
setting bodies, Members could alsotakethisinformation intoaccount insetting priorities for
developing neworupdating existing international standards, guidelines orrecommendations.G/SPS/W/76
Page2
4. TheSecretariat could becharged withpresenting anannual report totheCommittee on
areas identified byMembers overtheprevious yearwhere non-use ofastandard, guideline or
recommendation impedes trade. TheSecretariat alsocould becharged withproviding areport to
theannual meeting oftherespective international standard-setting organizations oftheareas
identified byMembers overtheprevious yearwhere theabsence ofastandard, guideline or
recommendation impedes trade.
Non-use orVariation ofanInternational Standard, Guideline orRecommendation
5. Theinternational standard-setting organizations haveestablished standards, guidelines and
recommendations toaddress specific risksformany traded products. TheAgreement onthe
Application ofSanitary andPhytosanitary Measures provides thataMember mayapply astandard
more stringent thananinternational standard, provided anumber ofspecific conditions aremet.
While insome cases Members havedemonstrated thataninternational standard isnotappropriate
foruse,there areainstances where countries deviate from international standards without
providing ajustification. These deviations haveresulted inunwarranted restrictions which have
negative trade effects.
6. Annex Aidentifies areas where theUnited States hasencountered trade restrictions dueto
thenon-application ofinternational standards. Restrictions onU.S.poultry meatforthepurpose
ofguarding against highly pathogenic Avian Influenza (Fowl Plague) isanexample where relevant
international standards existbutarenotbeing used. According totesting doneinaccordance with
theOIEdiagnostic guidelines, theUnited States doesnothavepathogenic orhighly pathogenic
Avian Influenza. Hence, thebansonU.S.poultry meatfortheostensible purpose ofguarding
against Avian Influenza areinconsistent withtheOIECode. (OIE International Animal Health
Code, chapter 2.1.14 )
Absence ofanInternational Standard, Guideline orRecommendation
7. Even when aninternational standard, guideline orrecommendation doesnotexit,
Members arestillsubject tothedisciplines oftheAgreement when theyestablish SPSmeasures,
i.e.itmust bebased onscientific riskassessments which substantiate theeffectiveness ofthe
measures inmitigating aspecific animal, plant orhuman health risk.
8. There are,however, cases where individual governments havedifferent standards anda
consensus onthemost appropriate international standard hasnotyetbeendetermined, suchasin
thecaseofstandards foraflatoxin infoodandfeedstuffs. Alsointernational standards maybe
absent inthose instances where regulatory actions areevolving inresponse totechnological
change. TheCommittee should draw attention tospecific examples where thelackofastandard
isimpeding trade. However, theprimary responsibility fordeveloping astandard, guideline or
recommendation must restwiththeinternational standard setting body.
9. Oneareawhere theUnited States hasencountered significant trade impediments isrelated
tofoodadditives. Currently, international standards onlyexistforfoodadditives usedinCodex
standardized foods. They donotcover foodadditives routinely found inmany other majorG/SPS/W/76
Page3
processed foodproducts. Some additives, suchasbenzoic acidandsulfites, areusedinawide
range ofU.S.foodproducts thatarenotpartoftheCodex standardized foodlists. Intheabsence
ofinternational standards forsuchnon-standardized foods, some countries haveestablished tight
restrictions onthese additives, rejecting U.S.foodproducts thathavebeendemonstrated tobe
safe.
10. Efforts toremedy thisproblem areunderway intheCodex Committee onFood Additives
andContaminants. Aworking group chaired bytheU.S.iswriting anewGeneral Standard for
Food Additives thatwillnotbelimited tousesinfoods covered byCodex commodity standards.
TheUnited States encourages allWTO Members tosupport thiseffort.G/SPS/W/76
Page4Annex A
AREAS OFTRADE WHICH ARE IMPEDED BYNON-USE ORVARIATIONS
INTHE APPLICATION OFANINTERNATIONAL STANDARD,
GUIDELINE, ORRECOMMENDATION
Commodity International
OrganizationStandard Background
Meat Codex Codex; Alinorm 91/31,
Appendix 1Three natural hormones (estradiol, progesterone, andtestosterone) occur naturally in
allfood animals, humans, andinmany other food products. Two other hormones
(zeranol andtrenbolone acetate) have asimilar growth promotion effect, butdonot
occur naturally incattle. TheCommittee onVeterinary Drugs oftheCodex
Alimentarius Commission agreed onmaximum residue limits (MRLs) for
trenbolone andzeranol, andagreed thatlimits were unnecessary forthethree natural
hormones. Nevertheless, nineteen WTO member countries have banned theuseof
these hormones andeffectively prohibited trade.
Poultry Meat OIE OIEInternational Animal
Health Code, Chapter 2.1.14.
Definition andOIEManual of
Standards, Chapter 14.Countries areblocking poultry meat imports duetoFowl Plague, adisease which
canonlybetransferred through livebirds. Testing done inaccordance withthe
relevant OIEdiagnostic standards hasdemonstrated thattheU.S. does nothave
Fowl Plague. Hence, thebans andrestrictions onU.S. poultry meat forthe
ostensible purpose ofguarding against Fowl Plague areinconsistent withtheOIE
Code.
Fruits IPPC FAO/IPPC, PartISignificant
quarantine pests.AnIPPC standard exists fordefining aquarantine significant pest. Nevertheless,
countries areroutinely taking action (i.e.fumigation) onintercepted pests regardless
ofnational conditions andwhether thepestisquarantine significant according tothe
IPPC definition.
Fruits IPPC FAO/ IPPC, Part4Pest-free
areas.Some countries donotapply theIPPC pest-free areastandard andinstead impose
highly restrictive measures onproducts thatoriginate outside infected orquarantined
areas. TheU.S. hasexperienced difficulties withfruitbeing denied access even
though itoriginates inpest-free areas.
Tomatoes IPPC IPPC PestRisk Analysis,
Establishment of
Potential(2.2.1) andSpread
Potential (2.2.2)Some countries arerelying onoutdated experiments toestablish their quarantine on
tobacco bluemold. Newer studies have proved thisdisease does notthreaten
tomatoes. IPPC Articles 2.2.1 and2.2.2 recommend thatreliable biological
information beobtained where thepestallegedly exists. Therefore banning tomatoes
duetotobacco bluemold iscontrary toIPPC recommendations.