RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/R/25
18 January 2002
(02-0253)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING HELD ON  31 OCTOBER-1 NOVEMBER 2001
Note by the Secretariat
I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1. The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee") held its twenty-
second meeting on 31 October-1 November 2001.  The meeting was chaired by Mr. William Ehlers(Uruguay).  The agenda proposed in WTO/AIR/1658 was adopted with amendments.
II. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT
(a) Information from Members
Foot-and-mouth disease status – Information from the European Communities
2. Reporting on positive developments in the FMD situation, the representative of the European
Communities stated that there had been no new disease outbreaks since 30 September 2001.
Addressing the situation in the United Kingdom, it was noted that the majority of the 2,030 outbreaks
had occurred before the end of April and that the last virus had been isolated on 25 September.  The
Netherlands, France and Ireland had been declared free of FMD without vaccination on 17 September
by the OIE.  The representative of the European  Communities stressed that although the measures
taken by EC member States had resulted in the swift containment of the disease, some Members
continued to impose unjustified measures on EC exports.
Classical Swine Fever  - Information from the European Communities
3. The representative of the European Communities stated that measures taken to control the
outbreaks of Classical Swine Fever in Germany and Spain had successfully brought the disease under
control.  Transmission from the wild boar population was the most probable source of the two July
outbreaks in Lower Saxony and three October outbreaks in Rhineland-Palatinate.  Strict diseasecontrol measures, including pig movement restrictions, had been put in place along with measures to
control and eradicate classical swine fever among the wild boar population.  In Spain, 29 classical
swine fever outbreaks had been reported between June and September – the last on 19 September.  EC
regionalization and national surveillance measures had been taken and, as a result of their
effectiveness, regional restrictions were still applied in only three small areas of the province ofLerida.  Epidemiological studies showed that the virus bore no resemblance to a previously detected
EC viral strain and was thus of external origin.G/SPS/R/25
Page 2
Statement from Japan on BSE
4. The representative of Japan stated that a first case of BSE had been identified in a five-year
old dairy cow on 10 September 2001.  The cow was born in Hokkaido and raised on a dairy farm in
Chiba Prefecture.  Tests for the presence of BSE on dairy cattle born or raised on these farms had all
proved negative.  Tests for the presence of animal proteins on a total of 142 cattle feed manufacturing
sites had also been negative.  The route of infection had not thus far been identified.  As of18 October, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare had started screening cattle at
slaughterhouses and taken measures to ensure the incineration of all specific risk materials (SRMs).
The Ministry had also instructed food manufacturers to replace SRMs used in food products and to
withdraw products from sale if they  used SRMs that companies could not verify as coming from BSE-
free countries.  Provisional restrictions on the importation and domestic use of processed animal
proteins, had been imposed (G/SPS/N/JAP/71).  Consideration had also been given to revising
quarantine controls on processed animal proteins not only on the basis of BSE cases in a country, butalso on other relevant information.  In the absence of an OIE BSE-status list, the representative of
Japan informed the Committee that his Go vernment would draw up its own list.
(b) Specific Trade Concerns
(i) New Issues
EC transitional TSE measures – Concerns of Canada5. The representative of Canada expressed concern about loss of access to the EC market for
Canadian exports of pet food, live bovine animals, embryos, ova and tallow exports in the wake of the
1 October adoption of transitional TSE measures by  the European Communities.  These measures had
the effect of unjustifiably pushing what was a domestic EU problem onto international markets.
Recalling earlier criticism of the arbitrary nature of the EC's review process as it applied to thirdcountries, the representative of Canada stated that the EC regulations classified countries according to
four levels of risk, but applied only two levels of risk management.  According to the OIE criteria,
Canada was BSE-free, yet Canadian exports faced identical trade restrictions to EC member States in
which BSE was prevalent.  These market access problems would be further compounded by the EC
animal waste regulations, due out next year, which threatened to prohibit the few remaining productsof animal origin that Canada could still export to the European Union.  The representative of Canada
requested that the European Communities remove Canada from the scope of application of these
measures.
6. The representative of the United States stated that his government shared many of the same
concerns and trade effects as Canada.  The European Communities was applying stringent measuresto countries that were either not affected by the disease or which had significantly different risk
factors.  This approach lacked scientific justification and ran counter to the existing international
standards regarding BSE.  Trade from the United States was unjustifiably disrupted by the transitional
measures which should be suspended until the final country classification was complete.  The United
States also had concerns regarding the methodology and for the information gathered on the United
States for the Geographic BSE risk (GBR) assessment.  As no case of BSE had been reported in the
United States and the extensive national control measures were in place, the US representative hopedhis country's final classification under the new EC regulation would not require SRM control
measures for exports.  Finally, he stressed that the EC GBR was not equivalent to an international
standard and had no more standing than any other WTO Member's legislation under the provisions of
the SPS Agreement.
7. The representative of the European Communities explained that the BSE country
classification exercize had not been replicated by any other Member or by the OIE.  All theG/SPS/R/25
Page 3
procedures followed and opinions issued had been peer reviewed and made publicly available.  The
methodology used went beyond incidence and was ba sed on risk assessment.  Since the geographical
BSE risk assessment was not the only element considered in arriving at the final country
classification, it was not possible to predict the final risk classification of countries.
8. To enable trading partners time to comply w ith this regulation, the European Communities
had established transitional measures between 1 July and 30 September, laying down importconditions for products of bovine, ovine and caprine origin.  An exemption was made for countries
classified in Category one (presence of BSE unlikely).  As neither Canada nor the United States were
included in Category one at present, these rules applied.  From 1 October, the transitional measures
had been extended to cover certification of other products of animal origin including raw materials for
animal feedingstuffs, rendered fats, gelatine, pet food, bone and bone products.  For live bovines,
embryos and ova, certification of a mammalian to ruminant feed ban was required along with
traceability for bovines identifying the dam and herd of origin.  Exemption was again made forcountries in Category one.  Pet food was included within the scope of these comprehensive measures
to protect consumers' health from BSE.  At the heart of these control measures were prohibitions on
the use of mechanically recovered meat and the use of specified risk materials.
(ii) Issues Previously Raised
Japanese measures relate to fireblight – Concerns of Japan9. The representative of the United States reported on bilateral discussions on Japan's quarantine
procedures on the shipping of western US apples.  Joint scientific research demonstrated that mature
symptom-less fruit was not a pathway for transmission of fireblight, however, a mutually acceptable
technical solution had not been reached.  The United States was considering what further steps,
including dispute settlement, it could take on this matter.
10. The representatives of the European Communities and New Zealand highlighted their
concerns over Japan's fireblight restrictions.  Based on the available scientific evidence, New Zealand
considered that Japanese fireblight restrictions on US apples were not justified.  New Zealand would
also seek bilateral discussions with Japan on its importation requirements for apples.
11. The representative of Japan stated that a sound scientific basis was indispensable in its
technical evaluation of its fireblight measures.  In order to complete this technical evaluation,
additional information had been requested from the United States at a bilateral meeting on
25 October.  Further bilateral contacts between the US and Japanese experts were considered
appropriate.
EC restrictions on the use of fishmeal – Concerns of Peru12. The representative of Peru indicated that the European Communities recognized that there
was no scientific evidence demonstrating that BSE could be transmitted through fishmeal.  However,
the European Communities maintained fishmeal restri ctions to address an internal problem of the risk
of cross-contamination and fraudulent practices within the Communities.  Peru considered the
fishmeal restrictions to be disproportionate, unscientific and an unjustifiable barrier to trade.  In view
of the deleterious effect the restrictions were having on Peru's fishing industry and exports, he
requested that the European Communities lift its restrictions as soon as possible.
13. The representative of Chile supported the comments made by the representative of Peru and
noted that applying the same restrictions on fishmeal as for meat and bonemeal had no scientific basis
nor was it consistent with the recommendations of the OIE or WHO.  He stated that the restrictions
were discriminatory and the issue at hand was not the trade effect on exports, but the scientific basisG/SPS/R/25
Page 4
for the EC measures.  Furthermore, given that the risk of cross-contamination arose at the destination
and not at the point of origin, the measures were unjustified.  Chile was also concerned over the
length of time that the provisional measure had been in place and the suggestion that a new diagnostic
test for the presence of animal proteins in feed would need to be developed before the measure could
be rescinded.  Chile would explore all options available under the SPS Agreement to have the
restrictions lifted.
14. The representative of the United States expressed concern that the European Communities
was applying restrictive trade measures against countries that were not affected by BSE or which had
significantly different risk factors.  Whilst the United States appreciated the need for restrictive
internal EC measures on meat and bonemeal given past problems, the different risk situations among
WTO Members warranted different actions.  In this regard, the need for BSE control measures to
reflect the different risk status of particular products and countries was underscored.
15. The representative of Iceland objected strongly to the EC measures on the use of fishmeal
which were tantamount to an EC import ban fishmeal for animal feed.  He stressed that that the
restrictions were neither science-based nor proportionate to the risk involved.  Why fishmeal had been
targeted by EC Regulation 2000/766 and not also vegetarian animal feed meals was perplexing for
Iceland.  The EC regulations, for example on cleaning requirements for vehicles transporting
fishmeal, treated fishmeal itself as a dangerous material.  Iceland urged the European Commissionand member States to implement immediately C ouncil Regulation 999/2001, which did not include
fishmeal within the scope of animal feed restrictions.
16. The representative of the European Communities clarified that the legislation in question was
a provisional measure that covered the internal use of fishmeal.  As all producers were requested to
fulfil the same conditions, the measure was not discriminatory.  The purpose of the regulations was toprevent the introduction of feed material that may have been cross-contaminated with animal protein
containing infectious BSE agents.  A derogation allowed the use of fishmeal in feeds for non-
ruminant animals provided certain strict production and handling conditions were met – including
production in dedicated fishmeal plants and  storage away from farms where ruminant animals were
kept (except where measures to prevent cross-contamination had been taken).  Current laboratorytechniques had limitations in detecting the presence of animal proteins in feed, and the development
of a reliable, but less laborious detection test would be a decisive element when reviewing the feed
ban.  Efforts were being made within the Communities in this regard.
17. The representative of the European Communities also questioned claims of an adverse impact
on trade of the EC regulations.  Although an EC request for data on trade effects had been made at thelast Committee meeting, no such information had been received.  Fishmeal was now the only animal
protein that was fed to pigs and poultry and as such it had gained a virtual monopoly in a profitable
industry.  Eurostat data on tonnages and average pr ices showed that after adoption of the measure on
1 January 2001, Chilean exports in the first six months of 2001 had doubled and increased 35 per cent
in price compared with the same period in 2000.  Prior to 2000, exports from Peru had been stable
while an abnormal peak in exports took place in 2000.  In 2001, exports from Peru had also increased
although not by as much as exports from Chile.
Argentina's BSE import restrictions on dairy products – Concerns of the European Communities
18. The representative of the European Communities re called that he had first raised the issue of
Argentina's import restrictions on dairy products in the SPS Committee in July 1999.  Argentine
restrictions went beyond international standards on BSE and ignored EC Scientific and Veterinary
Committee and OIE advice that there was no evidence of BSE transmission via milk from healthyanimals.  Despite statements from the Argentine authorities that dairy products would be reclassified,
Argentina continued to place restrictions on baby food and Baileys from Ireland; Belgian chocolate;G/SPS/R/25
Page 5
bovine semen and dairy products from the Netherlands; milk powder and cheese from Germany,
Swedish cacao oil butter; and dairy products from the United Kingdom and France.  Furthermore, the
European Communities fundamentally disagreed with the consideration of dairy products as low-risk,
as distinct from a no-risk, products and objected to negotiations on certificates on the grounds that this
was unscientific.  The EC representative also criticized the lack of transparency in the Argentine
measure.  In view of Argentina's continued refusal to reconsider its measures, the EuropeanCommunities was considering eventual recourse to Article 12.2 consultation procedures on the basis
of violation of Article 5.
19. The representative of Argentina outlined the legislation in force which classified dairy
products as low risk.  As such, Argentina did not maintain any restriction on EC imports of dairy
products.  The only restriction on EC dairy products was that they be certified as coming from
establishments where no case, or suspected case, of BSE had been recorded.  A counter proposal from
EC member States that milk come from establishments where there had been no case of BSE wascurrently being studied to see if it would be equivalent to the certification required by Argentina.
Given the EC policy of slaughtering all herds where a case of BSE had been recorded, the Argentine
delegate did not see why it was not possible to certify that milk came from a herd free of BSE.  On the
question of transparency, he pointed out that all standards could be consulted on the web page of the
Official Bulletin.  As Argentina continued to show good will in resolution of this question, he stated
that recourse to Article 12.2 consultations was not necessary.
EC concerns on FMD import restrictions.
20. The representative of the European Communitie s reminded the Committee that in July he had
reported on unjustified trade restrictions in response to the outbreak of FMD in the Communities.
Measures had been taken against all EC member States and not just those affected.  In some cases theban on EC products went beyond the OIE guidance and included non-susceptible products such as
fish, poultry, cereals, seeds and vegetables.  Furthermore, not many of these measures had been
notified.  Continued Australian restrictions agai nst Spain, Greece, Luxembourg and Portugal affected
EC member States in which there had been no outbreaks of FMD and were based on the failure of
these countries to reply to an Australian questionnaire.  Australia had lifted import restrictions againstcountries where an outbreak had taken place, but that had replied to the questionnaire.  Canadian and
US restrictive measures against Greece also affected a member State where no FMD outbreak had
taken place and that had been declared FMD free in the meantime.  Continued US, Japanese and
Mexican restrictions against France, the Netherlands and Ireland were also brought to the Committee's
attention.  The representative of the European Communities thanked New Zealand, Indonesia,Ukraine and Switzerland for lifting restrictions against member States after they had regained FMD
free status.  Where he felt that core principles  of the SPS Agreement were at stake, such as
regionalization and proportionality or Articles 2, 3 and 5, he would continue to bring unjustified trade
barriers to the attention of the Committee and press for their removal.  Where trade measures went
beyond what was necessary, trade could be affected in a permanent way.
21. Based on information from the OIE, EC member States and other sources, the representative
of Australia reported that his country was now able to recognize all member States, other than theUnited Kingdom, as FMD free.  The representative of Japan stated that bilateral consultations were
continuing with France, Ireland and the Netherlands.
22. The representative of the United States reported that an EC-wide ban had been put in place in
early March in response to the outbreak of FMD.  A risk assessment had subsequently been
undertaken which had categorized member States a ccording to risk.  For those EC member States
categorized as low risk, the import ban was removed.  The primary element in evaluating risk had
been the occurrence of an FMD outbreak.  Import restrictions continued to apply to the United
Kingdom, Netherlands, France and Ireland.  The United States recognized that the disease outbreaksG/SPS/R/25
Page 6
in these countries were limited and controlled and no remaining technical concerns existed.  The
United States was taking the necessary regulatory actions to publicize these proposals in the Federal
Register.  Concerning the situation in Greece, the product ban pre-dated the current FMD outbreak
and was based on a long standing, separate issue.
23. The representative of Canada recalled that the main product imported from Greece was
cheese.  Greece had only recently expressed an interest in exporting meat products to Canada, and therequest was being evaluated.  Trade in meat produ cts had been unaffected by the Canadian FMD ban.
Japanese restrictions on importation of su gar cane tops – Concerns of Indonesia
24. The representative of Indonesia reported on progress made in resolving his country's concerns
over Japanese import restrictions on sugar cane tops.  In addition to informal bilateral consultations,
Indonesia had also provided detailed information requested in a questionnaire from Japan.  His
country was ready to furnish all necessary documentation, as any protraction of this problem would
have detrimental effects on the Indonesian economy.  In this regard, he noted that Indonesia had beendeclared FMD free by the OIE since 1986.
25. The representative of Japan stated that at the bilateral meeting the day before the Committee
meeting certain misunderstandings had been cleared up.  He looked forward to receiving such
information as was necessary to resolve this problem.
Australian import risk assessment for table grapes – Concerns of the United States26. The representative of the United States informed the Committee that US and Australian
officials had recently held a constructive bilateral meeting to discuss quarantine procedures for the
shipment of Californian table grapes to Australia.  They had agreed to continue the dialogue to work
toward a resolution of the outstanding issues.  The representative of the United States resolved to keep
the Committee informed on progress made on this issue.  Speaking on behalf of ASEAN countries,the representative of the Philippines expressed his interest in this issue for systemic reasons and
expressed his hope that an appropriate solution could be found soon.  The representative of Australia
expressed her confidence that a mutually acceptable solution could soon be found with the United
States.
EC measures on maximum levels of aflatoxins – Concerns of Bolivia on the impact for its Brazil nut
exports
27. The representative of Bolivia recalled that concerns over EC measures on maximum levels of
aflatoxins in Brazil nuts had first been raised in September 1998.  The European Communities had
still not presented a risk analysis to justify the maximum levels for aflatoxins in brazil nuts, nor
applied the special and differential treatment provisions of Article 10.1 and 10.2 of the SPSAgreement.  Furthermore, no justification had been given why similar products were permitted higher
aflatoxin levels.  Noting that the measures affected one of the main agricultural exports of Bolivia, the
representative of Bolivia highlighted the concerns expressed by the Bolivian House of Parliament as
to the low international price of Brazil nuts, the possible collapse of the main productive activity of a
vast region of Bolivia and the accompanying risk of social upheavals.  The EC measures had
destabilized the Brazil nut market as importers feared that they would have to destroy loads that did
not respect the aflatoxin levels –a fact that was borne out by Bolivian Statistics' Institute data.
28. The representative of Bolivia also clarified that the amount of technical assistance received by
her country was not US$17 billion as reported at the last Committee meeting.  Promises of technical
assistance were not of any benefit for exporters and producers;  the best assistance that could be
offered was the elimination of the EC aflatoxin measure that penalized Brazil nuts.  In this regard, theG/SPS/R/25
Page 7
Bolivian authorities wished to see a solution based on acceptance by the European Communities of a
scientific certificate.
29. The representative of the European Commun ities indicated that a formal letter on this
question would be presented to the Bolivian delegation later that day.  The issue related to a measure
which had been examined in a JECFA working group.  Prolonged bilateral consultations had taken
place prior to the entry into force of the measure and expected trade concerns had not realized.Bolivia was one of the main beneficiaries of EC development assistance – a key goal of which was to
ensure that they could respect the EC standards.  The representative of the European Communities
stressed that discussion of the risk assessment had taken place on numerous occasions in the SPS
Committee and in JECFA.
30. The European Communities shared many of the concerns as to the importance of sustainable
Brazil nut production for social and economic reasons.  The shared concerns guided the direction of
the EC technical assistance and food security programmes.  The European Communities wascooperating closely with the Bolivian authorities in applying technical assistance funds and was ready
to redouble its efforts, although laboratory capacity did not appear to be the problem.  No excessive
levels of aflatoxins had been detected by the EC rapid alert system in Bolivian Brazil nuts in over a
year, although the same could not be said of exports from other Members.  Statistics showed that
since 1996, there had been continuous growth in Bolivian Brazil nut exports to the EuropeanCommunities.  Exports had risen in value from Euro 9 million to Euro 16 million.
31. At a bilateral meeting in Brussels, Bolivian and EC officials discussed the options of
certificates issued by the Bolivian authorities on control at origin.  EC technical officials had
identified at least three private Bolivian laboratories able to carry out aflatoxin content tests.  A
national certification and accreditation mechanism was being implemented which would allow thethree laboratories to issue internationally recognized  certificates so that controls were carried out by
the Bolivian authorities prior to export.  However,  no follow-up information had been received from
the Bolivian authorities on this possible solution.
(c) Update on specific trade concerns
32. The Secretariat announced its intention to update document G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.1 on
specific trade concerns raised in the SPS Committee for the next meeting in March 2002.  The
document was first circulated in September 2000 and revised in March 2001.  The Committee had
requested that the document be updated each year.  To facilitate the update, Members who had raised
items for which no solution had been reported were asked to provide new information, either orally or
in writing.
33. The representative of Hungary noted that concerns related to Turkey's FMD ban on imports of
live cattle and beef meat, raised in the Committee meeting of June 2000, were still outstanding.  On
the other hand, a mutually acceptable solution had been found with regard to the Slovak Republic's
certification requirements for apple imports.
34. The representative of Brazil informed the Committee that following two technical visits by
EC officials to evaluate Brazilian control systems, emergency measures on dioxin in citrus pulp from
Brazil, taken in 1998, had been lifted.  On gelatin imports, intense bilateral consultations on Brazilianprocessing methods and controls had resulted in the European Communities lifting its restrictions on
13 June 2001.
35. The representative of Hong Kong, China reported that no developments had occurred related
to the US interim rules on solid wood packaging material.G/SPS/R/25
Page 8
36. The representative of the Philippines stated that an update had been sent to the WTO
Secretariat on Australia's restrictions on sauces containing benzoic acid.
37. On Australian quarantine requirements for chicken meat, the representative of Thailand noted
that the Department of Livestock Development was finalising its risk analysis on Infectious Bursal
Disease Virus (IBDV).  A public hearing would be held before the analysis was presented to
Australia.  The OIE in May 2001 had agreed to conduct research on appropriate heat treatment toinactivate the IBD virus in poultry.
(d) Consideration of specific notifications received
Romania's notification of FMD measures (G SPS/N/ROM/3) – Concerns of Argentina
38. The representative of Argentina questioned the justification provided under point 6 of the
notification by Romania of its emergency measure which had made reference to food safety and the
need to protect humans from animal diseases.  It  was known that FMD had no effect on human health,
hence the justification of the measure on food safety grounds raised systemic issues.  Althoughmention of the objectives did not in any way modify the scope of the measures, Argentina sought
clarification from Romania as to the basis on which the measure was declared and suggested that
animal health was the only appropriate basis for the measure to be taken.
39. The representative of Romania noted that FMD was one of the most contagious animal
diseases and caused important economic losses.  Transmission of FMD could arise through animatevectors such as humans.  Romania had been free of FMD for more than twenty years and had stopped
vaccination since 1991.  The crisis generated by this disease in eastern Europe and Asia had led the
Romanian National Sanitary and Veterinary Agency to take precautionary measures on a temporary
basis only on products receptive to FMD.  Poultry and poultry products, fish and fish products, dairy
products and canned products had been exempted fr om this measure.  Although Romania was aware
that FMD prevention measures were intended mainly to protect animal health, the reference in
Romania's notification to the objective and ration ale did not amplify or modify the scope of the
emergency measures in any way.
EC regulations on genetically modified food and feed – Concerns on the part of the United States
40. The representative of the United States highlighted concerns over the EC TBT notification of
its 25 July proposals on traceability and labelling of agricultural biotechnology products
(G/TBT/N/EEC/6 and EEC/7).  The European Communities had not notified these proposals under
the SPS Agreement, yet the EC proposal made clear that it was intended to address "unforeseen
adverse effects to human health and animal health ".  These issues related directly to the SPS
Agreement and the representative of the United States encouraged the European Communities toprovide a SPS notification as soon as possible.
41. The representative of Argentina shared the concerns of the United States regarding the EC
TBT notifications.  Genetically modified food did not affect health and the compulsory labelling
required by the EC measure was not in Argentina's vi ew consistent with the standards contained in the
TBT Agreement.  Argentina sought clarification as to whether or not the labelling requirements
extended to the compulsory labelling of pharmaceutical products for human or animal use which
could have been made with genetically modified ingredients.
42. The representative of Canada supported the United States in its concerns given that one of the
purported objectives of the EC regulations concerned human health.  If the measures were notified
under the SPS Agreement, then different questions could be asked to those raised in the TBT
Committee.  If, as the EC delegate appeared to suggest, the labelling requirements were intendedG/SPS/R/25
Page 9
merely to cover consumer information needs, and not food safety or human health objectives, then
discussion in the SPS Committee would not be necessary.  Both Canada and the United States sought
clarification as to whether the draft EC regulations covered food safety or human health.
43. The representative of the European Commun ities observed that a TBT Committee meeting
had been held three weeks prior to the SPS Committee.  Requests made to the European Communities
to prolong the consultation period had been accepted and this period would run until the end of theyear.  The main objective of the regulations was to make sure that consumers were duly informed of
the products they buy.  Two other key issues were also identified: traceability and labelling.  The EC
representative stated that discussion should continue in the TBT Committee, especially since
delegations had raised questions in that forum, and the European Communities reserved its position
on any other matters until the comments in the TBT Committee were known.  While the European
Communities was not against discussing these matters in any other fora, no decision had been taken as
to whether this was necessary.
44. Replying to Argentina's concerns, the EC repr esentative stated his understanding that the
labelling of pharmaceuticals containing GM ingredients was covered by different legislation.
EC notification G/SPS/N/EEC/131 – Concerns of Ecuador
45. The representative of Ecuador stated that a series of questions had been submitted to the
European Communities in September 2001 on notification G/SPS/N/EEC/131.  These questions,contained in document G/SPS/GEN/278, were with regard to the scientific grounds for the measure,
the risk analysis, the methods to be used at entry ports, special treatment for developing countries, and
possible alternative measures.
46. The representative of Israel noted that the proposed amendments raised commercial concerns
for Israel in relation to a change in inspection proc edures that could detrimentally affect deliveries to
its major export market.  Distribution of Israeli flowers took place through Dutch bourses - although
the point of entry could be elsewhere in the European Union.  If, as the amendments foresaw,
inspection was to take place at the point of entry and then further transportation had to be organized to
the Dutch bourses, the quality and the prices of delivered flowers would suffer.  An additional
concern related to the manpower implications for the point of entry inspection system which would
require officials to move between points of entry to undertake the inspections.
47. The representative of Kenya shared the concerns of Ecuador and Israel and looked forward to
receipt of a response to his concerns from the European Communities within a few weeks time.
48. The representative of the European Communities recalled the scope of the proposed
amendment that was being made to annexes of Council Directive 2000/29/EC on protective measuresagainst the introduction and spread within the Eu ropean Communities of organisms harmful to plants
or plant products.  The amendment covered four non-native harmful organisms that were regularly
intercepted on certain commodities including cut flowers: Amauromyza  maculosa , Bemisia tabaci
(non-European populations), Liriomyza  sativae  and Thrips palmi .  At present, most of the cut flowers
in question were not yet subject to plant health check s, but due to the continuing interceptions of the
aforementioned organisms, it appeared that these cut flowers were a pathway for the organisms in
question.  As such, control measures needed to be strengthened.  In order to assess the commentsmade by other Members, the proposed date of entry into force of the draft amended regulation had
been deferred.  Further information would be provided to Members in due course.G/SPS/R/25
Page 10
(e) Matter relating to the operation of transparency provisions
49. The Chairman reported on an informal meeting that had taken place on transparency and
notification prior to the Committee meeting.  At the meeting, concerns had been raised by Brazil over
transparency requirements for measures that may affect products of interest to developing countries
whose product scope or country coverage has been widened since they were first notified.  These
concerns stimulated debate as to where responsibi lity lay for identifying measures of interest to
developing countries.  While Brazil suggested that responsibility lay with the importing Member,
several other Members stressed difficulties in identifying products of interest to specific Members,
including in situations where horizontal regulations touching many product categories were involved -
a view also shared by the Secretariat.  One Member highlighted the Secretariat's obligations in
paragraph 9 of Annex B to the Agreement.  The Secretariat outlined how this provision was being
implemented through document dissemination, both in paper and electronic formats, and by monthly
lists of notifications.
50. Some Members stressed that emergency notifications should also be included within the
scope of a review of notification requirements and that all Members should be alerted, not just
developing countries, when a measure was likely to affect their exports.  Another delegation observed
that except in emergency situations, it was very difficult to discern if a particular country's exports
were likely to be affected.  Additionally, several delegations stressed that it was essential to know ifthe existing transparency provisions were being used correctly before any new obligations were
added.
51. A detailed submission on transparency and notifications was made by New Zealand.  The
document, G/SPS/W/112, included specific suggestions on how to tackle revisions, corrigenda and
addenda, what to do when measures were notified under both the SPS and TBT Agreements, andelectronic document interchange protocol.  The representative of New Zealand invited other Members
to provide their own comments on these issues.
52. The Secretariat suggested that a review might also look at the issue of multiple enquiry points
and notification authorities within a single Member.  Further issues that might be considered included:
providing further guidance on the type of measures that should be notified and the insertion of boxesto specify where an international standard originat ed (Codex, the IPPC or the OIE).  Another point
stressed was just how differently Members approached such problems as amending existing
notifications.  The Secretariat requested that Members keep national links from the WTO website up-
to-date.  Some Members stressed the problems faced by developing countries with limited access to
modern information technology and limited financial resources with which to participate in standardssetting work.
53. A further informal session before the March formal Committee meeting was scheduled and
Members were invited to provide written submissions on revisions to the notification requirements by
the end of the year.
54. Discussions also covered Article 11 of the Committee's Decision on Equivalence (document
G/SPS/19) which instructed the Committee to revise the recommended notification procedures to
provide for the notification of the conclusion of equivalence agreements.  It was suggested that theprocedures adopted by the TBT Committee for notifying bilateral agreements might provide a useful
model.  Another Member stated that the matter might be resolved by the simple addition of a number
of boxes to the notification form.  The question was raised as to what constituted an equivalence
agreement and what should be notified.  To assist this discussion, Members were encouraged to
provide written examples of equivalence agreements to the Secretariat by the end of the year.G/SPS/R/25
Page 11
55. The Chairman noted that notifications received since the last Committee meeting were
summarized, on a monthly basis, in G/SPS/GEN /273, G/SPS/GEN/277 and G/SPS/GEN/283.  The
most recent list of Enquiry Points had been ci rculated as G/SPS/ENQ/12 and Addendum 1, and the
latest list of National Notification Authorities had been circulated as G/SPS/NNA/2 and Addendum 1.
III. THE SPS AGREEMENT AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
(a) Implementation of the provisions for special and differential treatment
56. The Secretariat reported that on 9 October 2001, a second high level meeting, chaired by
WTO Deputy Director-General Miguel Rodriguez-Me ndoza, was held with the OIE, FAO, WHO and
World Bank.  The meeting continued the discussion begun in February 2001 on the participation of
developing countries in standards-setting organizations and included the World Bank for the first
time.  The meeting agreed to deepen and extend existing cooperation efforts both at the policy and
technical levels, in particular with regard to coordination of technical assistance activities.  An
agreement was also reached to develop a joint communiqué to be issued at the Doha MinisterialConference.
(b) Equivalence – Article 4
57. The Chairman recalled that special sessions of the SPS Committee had been convened on 18-
19 September and 24 October.  The Chairman thanked Members for their hard work and flexibility in
arriving at a Decision on the Implementation of Article 4 (G/SPS/19) and stated that the task that nowlay before the Committee was to develop a work programme.
58. The Chairman reported on the discussions that had taken place at the informal meeting of the
SPS Committee of 30 October 2001.  Argentina had presented a paper clarifying some of the concepts
contained in the Decision, including how "historic trade" should be taken into account in determining
whether an accelerated procedure could be applied to recognize equivalence, as set out in paragraph 5of the Decision.  The Chairman recalled that the United States had already flagged the need to clarify
what constituted "historic trade" and what was an "accelerated procedure".  Other Members suggested
that paragraph 6 of the Decision also needed to be clarified.  This paragraph stated that the
consideration of a request for the recognition of equivalence should not in itself be a reason to disrupt
or suspend on-going imports.  One Member raised the need to discuss more precisely what "on-goingimports" meant in practice, while another raised the need to discuss what would be done in emergency
situations.
59. Paragraph 13 of the Decision referred not only to the development of a work programme, but
also to the need to review the Decision in light of the relevant work undertaken by the three sister
organizations.  Furthermore, paragraph 10 of the Decision refered to encouraging the standard-setting
organizations to continue their work in the area of equivalence, and to keep the SPS Committee
informed of these activities.  The Chairman stat ed his intention to send a letter to the three
organizations to draw their attention to these aspects of the Decision.  The Committee agreed to invitethe observer organizations, on an ad hoc basis, to participate in future informal meetings on
transparency.
60. The Chairman encouraged Members to identify the issues they would like to see considered
in the work programme, and to provide background papers or proposals, by 31 December 2001.  On
the basis of the submissions, the Chairman would put together a proposal for a future work
programme, to be submitted to Members in advance of the next meeting of the Committee.G/SPS/R/25
Page 12
IV. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION
61. The Chairman recalled that at the 9 July 2001 meeting of the SPS Committee, the Secretariat
had been requested to circulate a new questionnaire on technical assistance that would focus on
ascertaining developing country requirements.  This task had been completed and the Chairman
encouraged Members to complete and return the new questionnaire (G/SPS/W/113) before
1 January 2002.  In completing the questionnaire, Members were requested to pay particular attentionto the note prepared by the Secretariat on typology of technical assistance (G/SPS/GEN/206).  The
Secretariat stated that a straightforward and brief format had been used for the new questionnaire so
as to encourage replies from developing countries.
62. The representative of Chile introduced a paper on technical assistance (G/SPS/GEN/287).
Concentrating on the document's conclusions, the representative stated it was important to undertake a
technical assistance diagnosis to define the recipient's capabilities and needs.  Once the diagnosis had
been completed, priorities could be established in each of the thematic areas, information provided onexperts and donors that could offer assistance and a programme of technical assistance designed that
would include follow-up programmes.
63. The representative of Indonesia highlighted the importance of taking into account the
differing capacities and human resources of developed and developing countries in the SPS area.  A
further discussion of how best to respond to developing countries' demands was requested.  Indonesiaconsidered technical assistance to be an integral part of the SPS Agreement, necessary to bridge
differences in protection levels.  As such, it wa s important to see this provision operationalized
through further technical assistance in the development of human resources, national infrastructure
and training of trainers.
64. The representatives of Canada and Argentina welcomed the paper by Chile.  Canada stressed
the need for a focused discussion to respond to the particular demands of developing countries in this
area and encouraged developing countries to return completed questionnaires.  The representative of
Norway stated that his authorities were looking into what assistance could be offered to developing
countries in the SPS field.  One problem in this regard was the low priority accorded these issues in
beneficiary countries.  Given that there was competition between alternative uses for the scarcetechnical assistance resources available, this often led to problems in raising funds for SPS projects.
65. The representative of New Zealand shared the views of other Members on the importance of
technical assistance and endorsed the Secretariat questionnaire.  New Zealand informed Members of
technical assistance provided under the auspices of the Asia Pacific Economic Community on the SPS
and TBT Agreements.  As part of the project, APEC had funded the participation of APEC officials at
the TBT and SPS Committee meetings.
66. The representative of the United States reported that in August 2001, the Food and Drug
Administration and the government of Singapore ha d co-sponsored a conference in Singapore on food
safety.  The conference was one of five organized under the US Food Safety Outreach Programme.
Also in August 2001, the Department of Agriculture  undertook a training programme in Sub-Saharan
Africa focusing on SPS issues as part of the Africa Trade and Investment Programme.  In
September 2001, the Department of Agriculture al so organized a workshop on Codex risk analysis
procedures in Puerto Rico for Spanish speaking countries.
67. The representative of Australia informed the Committee of a recent technical assistance
initiative with ASEAN on biosecurity.  The project encompassed areas identified as important at the
July 2001 SPS Committee meeting, and illustrated the continued partnership with ASEAN in the area
of capacity building,G/SPS/R/25
Page 13
Secretariat
68. The Secretariat highlighted technical assistance activities undertaken since the July SPS
Committee meeting.  In August, a national seminar held in Kenya had highlighted the problems of
internal coordination faced by many developing members.  For Members with no delegation in
Geneva, a week of briefings on WTO issues had been held in early September.  Also in September,
the Secretariat had attended a seminar organized by IICA in cooperation with the Canadian FoodInspection Agency.  The Secretariat commended IICA on its approach and organization of this
seminar which was part of a two year technical assistance programme aimed at building capacity in
food safety policies in the Caribbean, Central and South America (see G/SPS/GEN/286).
69. Further requests for technical assistance had been received from Angola, Oman, United Arab
Emirates, People's Republic of China and Thailand.  The Secretariat planned to attend the FAO/WHO
global forum for food safety regulators in Morocco.  As part of the inter-agency discussions held on 9
October, a technical group meeting was scheduled to discuss better coordination between OIE, Codex,IPPC, FAO, WHO and the World Bank on technical assistance activities.
70. The Secretariat also informed the Committ ee that an interactive CD rom on the SPS
Agreement would be ready by the end of the year.  The purpose of the CD rom was to provide
information to officials, particularly from developing countries, who were working on SPS issues but
who had not had access to training in the past.
71. The representative of Kenya expressed his gratitude to the Secretariat for the organization of
the national seminar and stated that it had helped the Kenyan authorities in addressing questions of
internal organization.
Observer Organizations
72. The representative of the World Health Organization stressed the importance of focused,
timely technical assistance for developing countries.  The WHO offered technical assistance of
various kinds, such as Food-Borne Disease (FBD) surveillance and response to reduce uncertainties in
risk assessment and support selection of appropriate prevention and control strategies.  On 26-
29 November 2001, a consultation would be held in Geneva, on global strategies for FBD surveillance
as part of WHO’s comprehensive strategy for stre ngthening national capacities for FBD surveillance
in developing countries.  Eight training courses had been organized in South East Asia, Central
America, South America, China and the Mediterranean for laboratory microbiologists.  WHO also
offered training workshops on developing surveillance systems for human TSEs upon request by
member states.  On 10-14 September 2001, with th e cooperation of the WTO Secretariat, a training
course was held on the public health implications of the multilateral trade agreements, including theSPS Agreement.  Training materials used during this training course would soon be made available on
CD-rom.
73. Technical assistance activities were also carried out by the six WHO regions.  The Pan
American Institute for Food Protection and Zoonoses and Pan American Health Organization
provided technical and financial support to the Codex Coordinating Committee for Latin America and
the Caribbean so as to enable effective participatio n.  Virtual meetings of national contact points using
a free Internet site had been organized in preparation of Codex meetings. INPPAZ/PAHO had alsodeveloped an electronic tool for maintaining databases on national food legislation and standards,
which enabled a comparison of food legislation among different countries as well as with Codex
standards.  The WHO Regional Office for the Am ericas had promoted the Caribbean Food Safety
Initiative to assist the English-speaking Caribbean countries to meet their obligations under the WTO
SPS Agreement.  In the WHO Region for the Western Pacific, various workshops on food safety andCodex had been held in collaboration with the FAO.  Many of the Pacific Island countries hadG/SPS/R/25
Page 14
identified a need for greater understanding of the implications of the WTO and its trade agreements.
China had also noted the need for WHO to provide information, technical advice and guidance on the
WTO SPS Agreement and had suggested that WHO should further strengthen its collaboration with
WTO and other international organizations.  In the WHO Region for the Eastern Mediterranean
technical assistance had also been provided for a review of national food legislation in member states
with a view to harmonizing them with Codex sta ndards, guidelines and recommendations.  Activities
were also being planned to assist countries in the region to develop a full understanding of the content
and implications of the SPS and TBT agreements at national level, to become more actively involved
in the work of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and to involve the Ministries of Health in this
process.  Finally, the global forum for food regulators, initially scheduled for October 2001 had been
rescheduled to 28-30 January 2001.  Further details on WHO technical assistance were provided in
G/SPS/GEN/290.
74. The representative of Codex recalled that technical assistance was provided through Codex's
parent organizations (the FAO a nd WHO).  At the last Codex meeting, agreement had been reached
on the establishment of a WHO/FAO Trust Fund to facilitate the participation of developing countries
in the work of Codex.  Work was on-going on arrangements for the Trust Fund and would be
specifically discussed at the next session of the Codex Executive Committee in June 2002 and a final
decision taken by the Codex Commission in 2003.  Practical discussion was also underway on theproposal for the FAO to establish a Global Facil ity on food safety and quality for least developed
countries.
75. The representative of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) stated that the
FAO's Umbrella programme, designed to assist countries in understanding and implementing their
Uruguay Round Commitments, was moving into a second phase in which the focus was turning tospecific regions, countries and issues.  As this phase had only recently begun, there were still
opportunities for countries to express their needs in this regard.  The IPPC Secretariat had been active
in workshops in South Africa, Zambia and Senegal.  With respect to initiatives of the Interim
Commission on Phytosanitary Measures, work on assisting countries to inventory their capacity needs
through the phytosanitary capacity evaluation was enjoying success with over 20 countries involved.One concern raised by the IPPC delegate was that the increasing demand for projects had created
problems in identifying experts who could be used on projects, particularly for risk analysis.  The list
of national experts from the European Union and North America, tabled at the Committee, had been
helpful in identifying professionals in the past, but the IPPC was facing increasing difficulties in
matching experts to projects - most notably for a project on South American leaf blight in South EastAsia.  Members were invited to identify risk analysis experts to fill this gap.
76. The representative of the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA)
indicated that the 30 September and 5 October 2001 conference refered to by the Secretariat was part
of the second module of the executive leadership series on food safety.  The purpose of the two year
executive series programme was to address critical topics, to enhance leadership skills and to build
community among the participants.  As part of the process each of the participants carried out a
project under the guidance of mentors.  Participants came from a variety of backgrounds, countriesand both the private and public sector.  The focus was on the entire food chain.  Funding and support
for this module was provided by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, and involved many other
countries and organizations.  On 10-11 September 2001, a third symposium had taken place on
equivalence between the northern and southern regions of the Americas.  The symposium provided an
informal forum for discussion between national experts from Canada, the United States of America,Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Chile and Paraguay.  The twelfth meeting of the informal
consultative group of the agricultural negotiators of the Americas, organized by IICA and FAO, was
held in Panama City on 28 August 2001.  The participants discussed topics related to sanitary and
phytosanitary measures, technical assistance, modernization of agricultural health and food safety
services in the Andean countries, and the foot-and-mouth disease programme in Panama.  Support hadG/SPS/R/25
Page 15
also been provided to Mexico on its the agricult ural health system, in controlling and preventing
specific diseases, and early warning systems.  With the United States Department of Agriculture,
OIRSA and the governments of Nicaragua and Hon duras, IICA had carried out a programme aimed at
establishing and maintaining fruit flyfree areas.  More details about IICA's technical assistance was
contained in document G/SPS/GEN/286.
77. The representative of OIRSA recalled that it was an international organization devoted to
provide support to the plant and animal health of its eight member countries.  Technical assistance in
the phytosanitary area included control of the pine beetle ( Dendroctonus  spp.) in Nicaragua and
Honduras;  an economic study for a regional program for eradication of medfly and integrated
management of other fruit flies in Central America, Belize and Panama;  and follow-up on the pink
mealybug in Belize.  In Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua and Honduras, action was being undertaken to
establish Medfly-free areas with international recognition.  OIRSA also participated actively in
meetings of the Interim Committee on Phytosanitary Measures (ICPM) convened by the Secretariat ofthe IPPC.  In the sanitary area, OIRSA had underway a regional project for the strengthening of
sanitary surveillance for the prevention of FMD and BSE;  meetings to deal with avian influenza and
a project for the control and eradication of avian diseases;  meeting of the Steering Committee for
eradication of classical swine fever from the Americas; and vaccination of pigs in Nicaragua along
with a risk analysis to detect the transmission level of the disease.  A seminar on Epidemiology andRisk Analysis was held in El Salvador, in cooperation with the USDA Center of Epidemiology in
Animal Health, as well as the 4
th Meeting of the Ad-hoc Working Group on Risk Analysis of the OIE
Office for the Americas.  Work on standards harmonization in the fisheries area had progressed.
After the earthquakes in El Salvador, OIRSA had provided the national authorities with an action plan
to prevent food-transmitted diseases.  The actions listed were described in more detail inG/SPS/GEN/281.
78. The representative of the International Trade Centre described a joint project implemented
with the Commonwealth Secretariat (G/SPS/GEN/288).  The purpose of the project was to provide a
basis for identification of the technical assistance needs of developing countries, both in the
immediate and long term period, for their improved and effective participation in internationalstandardization activities and for developing effective national infrastructures for conformity
assessment.  Case studies had been conducted in Kenya, Mauritius, Uganda, Namibia, Jamaica and
Malaysia.  The resulting case studies would be published in a joint publication on TBT and SPS by
the Commonwealth Secretariat and the International Trade Centre, lessons learned disseminated
through regional workshops and focused technical assistance provided at national level.
79. The Committee agreed that an informal meeting on technical assistance should be held prior
to the next regular Committee meeting.
V. MONITORING OF USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
80. The Chairman noted that, in accordance with the agreed procedures (G/SPS/11), Members
were requested to submit, at least 30 days in advance of each regular meeting, examples of what they
consider to be problems with significant trade impact which they believe were related to the use or
non-use of relevant international standards, guidelines or recommendations.  As requested at the July2001 meeting, the Secretariat sent a fax to remind Members of the deadline for submitting new items.
A request had been received from South Africa re garding the OIE standard pertaining to African
Horse Sickness (G/SPS/GEN/289).  However, as the request arrived after the deadline, South Africa
was invited to introduce the paper under agenda item 8 (Other Business).G/SPS/R/25
Page 16
VI. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE WORK OF OBSERVER ORGANIZATIONS
81. The representative of Codex reported that in October the Committee on Food Hygiene had
met in Bangkok and concluded its work on the code of hygienic practice for fresh fruits and
vegetables throughout the food chain.  The code wa s proposed for adoption at the next session of the
Codex Alimentarius Commission in 2003.  Draft guidel ines on the application of HACCP to small
and less developed businesses had progressed to stage five (provisional adoption).  It was expectedthat these guidelines would be finalized dur ing the next Committee on Food Hygiene meeting.
Principles and guidelines on microbiological risk assessment had been adopted in 1999, and work
continued in the Food Hygiene Committee on developing similar principles and guidelines on
microbiological risk management.  Discussion had focused on how to advance the Committee's work
on the basis of expert consultations, in particular the interaction between risk assessors and risk
managers, and how risk assessment results could be integrated into Codex standards, guidelines and
codes of practice.  A specific FAO/WHO expert  consultation on this question was proposed for
Spring 2002.  A specific expert consultation had already taken place on guidelines for the control of
listerium sanctogenis and risk management measures.  An extraordinary session of the Executive
Committee of Codex had allowed texts not adopted at the Commission because of time constraints to
be adopted at the intermediate level.  The Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Food
would meet in the United States on 4-7 December.  In February 2002, the reactivated Committee onMeat Hygiene would meet to revise codes of h ygiene finalized in 1993.  In the last week of
February 2002, the Committee on Import and Export Certification systems would meet in Australia
and was expected to finalize guidelines on the judgement of equivalence.  In March, a further meeting
of the Intergovernmental Taskforce on Foods Derived from Biotechnology would be held in Japan at
which the risk analysis principles should be finalized.
82. The representative of the WHO noted that a meeting of the global environment monitoring
system/food contamination monitoring and assessm ent programme (GEMS/Food-Euro) contact points
had been held on 10-12 July 2001 in Berlin, Germany, and discussed the re-establishing of data
collection and cooperation in the area of food contamination monitoring.  The Joint FAO/WHO
Expert Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) had met on 16-25 September 2001 in Geneva andevaluated 26 pesticides, including two new compounds and seven that were subjected to full re-
evaluation.  The second international total diet workshop would be held on 5-15 February 2002 in
Brisbane, Australia, with the purpose to develop procedures and to train staff for Total Diet Studies in
member states.  A joint FAO/WHO expert cons ultation on Risk Assessment of Microbiological
Hazards in Foods had been held on 23-27 July 2001 on campylobacter, and an expert consultation onthe risk assessment for Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli  would be convened in early 2002.  A
consultation on methods and principles for the monitoring of anti-microbial usage in food animal
production for the protection of human health had been held in Oslo in September.  An expert
consultation on foods derived from biotechnology was also held on 24-28 September in Geneva to
consider the scientific aspects of safety assessments of foods derived from genetically modified
microorganisms.  The findings of this expert consultation had been published on the WHO website
and would be provided to the Codex ad hoc Intergovernmental Task Force on Foods Derived from
Biotechnology.  Following the 53
rd World Health Assembly (May 2000) recognition of the
importance of foods that used gene technolo gies, the WHO would be commissioning a research
consortium to establish a knowledge base to assist member States, international standard-setting
bodies and other stakeholders to achieve a consensus on appropriate modes of application and risk
assessment of foods produced using gene technology.  The research consortium would identifycurrent knowledge on the potential risks and benefits of modern biotechnology, considering both
direct and indirect effects.
83. The representative of IPPC stated that the consultation period for four new IPPC standards
(identified in G/SPS/R/22) had ended and that the Secretariat would collate comments and make
revisions where necessary before submitting the standards for possible adoption at the StandardsG/SPS/R/25
Page 17
Committee in March 2002.  Following the success of regional consultations for Asian countries in
Bangkok, a further such consultation would take place in Cairo.  A letter had been sent by the IPPC to
Members requesting that they identify new topics for standard setting work by 1 December 2001.  On
new standards being developed, the IPPC representative stated that in August the Working Group on
pest risk analysis for environmental hazards had met to develop a supplement to the existing standard
on risk analysis for quarantine pests.  In September, a working group had taken place onspecifications for standards on living modified organisms (LMOs).  Outcomes of the meeting were
that: IPPC would actively engage with the ICCP (Bureau for the Implementation of the Cartagena
Protocol);  LMOs did not present uniquely diff erent plant pest risks compared to non-LMOs;
additional guidance was required for methodologies for risk analysis as applied to LMOs and the draft
specifications were agreed for a new standard on LMO risk analysis; and the draft specifications
would be presented at the Interim Commission for Phytosanitary Measures for its adoption and also to
the ICCP.  A further working group on irradiation was planned for Mexico City in November, alongwith a technical consultation between regional plant protection organizations in New Zealand.
84. The representative of OIE informed the Committee of the finalization of guidelines on
bacterial resistance to antibiotics, which would be published at the end of the year in the scientific and
technical magazine of the OIE.  Within the Code Committee of OIE, new guidelines had been drawn
up on the assessment of veterinary services as well as on regionalization and zoning.  Both of theseadditions to the Code would be submitted to the International Committee next year for approval.
Following a meeting of the ad hoc committee on BSE, improvements to this chapter were suggested
regarding animal disease surveillance so as to take on-board new diagnostic techniques.  On FMD, the
OIE representative confirmed that the Republics of Korea, Ireland, France and the Netherlands had
recovered their status of FMD free without vaccination.  An ad hoc group had also been establishedon BSE-free status and it was hoped their first meeting would take place at the beginning of 2002.
85. The representative of Chile stressed that the Codex Committee on Import and Export
Certification and Inspection Systems would be considering important documentation on equivalence
at its meeting in early 2002.  Furthermore, in December, an open drafting group of the Codex
Committee on General Principles would meet to work on risk analysis and Codex standards.  At thelast Executive meeting of Codex a strategic planning document was adopted, giving countries the
opportunity to contribute to medium-term planning activities (over the period 2003-2007) for Codex.
VII. OBSERVERS
Requests for observer status
86. The ad hoc observers of the ACP Group, EFTA, IICA, OECD, OIRSA and SELA were
invited to attend the next Committee meeting.
87. The Chairman indicated that in the case of the OIV and APCC, there had been no change in
Members' positions from the last meeting.
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS
FMD situation in Argentina
88. The representative of Argentina indicated that a report issued on 23 October on the
epidemiological situation (week 43 of the outbreak) had recorded no new outbreaks of the disease inweeks 40, 41 and 42.  Up to mid-week 43, the number of active outbreaks was six and the total
number of cases reported 2,116.  The outbreak peaked in week 26 when 159 outbreaks were recorded,
after which cases declined sharply.  The average length of each outbreak was 55 days.  In mid-July,
the first mass vaccination of 51.3 million bovine animals and the re-vaccination of 8.3 million animalsG/SPS/R/25
Page 18
had been completed.  Vaccination was used in focal areas and prior to animal movements.  From
1 August, the second vaccination campaign had distributed 51.4 million doses.  The focus in this
second stage was on buffer areas surrounding disease free zones, such as Patagonia, river bank dairy
areas, breeding farms and other areas where there were seasonal movements.  Additionally, the
campaign would focus on breeding herds with seasonal deliveries in August, September and October
so as to immunize new born calves.  As a result of these actions immunity in the population had beenconsiderably improved.
89. The representative of the European Communities reported that a visit by veterinary officials
would take place to Argentina shortly after the Committee meeting.  The European Communities
hoped the evaluation would be positive and lead to a lifting of the current ban on Argentine imports.
Argentina's concerns about Chile's FMD restrictions
90. The representative of Argentina stated that his country was concerned about draft regulations
being drawn up by Chile's Agricultural and Cattle Service (SAG) for the importation of fresh orfrozen beef.  These draft regulations categorized country of origin according to two FMD categories:
FMD free without vaccination and FMD free with vaccination.  Argentina judged these draft rules
stricter than the international reference standard of the OIE, which contained in Article 2.1.1.23 the
possibility to allow importation from FMD infected countries or zones so long as certain risk
mitigation procedures had been used.  If mitigation measures were not accepted, Argentina wouldonly be allowed to resume exports to Chile once it had regained its FMD free status.  According to
OIE rules a three-year FMD free period would have to elapse before exports could be resumed.
Argentina requested Chile to provide sufficient scientific justification as required by Article 3.3 of the
SPS Agreement.
91. Stressing that his reply was a preliminary one, the representative of Chile suggested that it
was premature to discuss the issue in the SPS Committee as the draft regulation had not been
circulated internationally and a bilateral technical meeting, scheduled for early November between the
relevant Argentine and Chilean authorities, had not yet taken place.  The draft still had to pass through
a number of levels before entering into law.  The deadline for public comments, 28 October, had only
just passed and comments received had not yet been considered.  As notified to the Committee, Chilehad taken a number of provisional emergency measures in response to the FMD outbreak and was
seeking to regularize these controls.  The OIE status of FMD with vaccination depended on the proper
operation of a country's veterinary health services.  Chile maintained a high level of protection,
having eradicated all the diseases on the OIE "A" list, and last had an outbreak of FMD in 1987.
Chile was respecting the legal provisions of the SPS Agreement, in particular with regard toArticles 3.3, 5.1 and 5.6 of the Agreement, and had not yet been asked to provide a risk assessment by
the Argentine authorities.
Argentina's concerns about Indonesia's FMD restrictions
92. The representative of Argentina noted that he had raised concerns about Indonesia's FMD
restrictions on certain products at the last SPS Committee meeting.  In July, Indonesia had informed
Argentina that it had reclassified these products.  However, Argentina stated that the changes had not
been implemented and it was still unable to export the products concerned, mainly vegetables andcorn.
93. The representative of Indonesia stated that the ban on Argentine corn had been lifted as of
August 2001.  Indonesia looked forward to holding further bilateral discussions with Argentina on this
matter after the meeting.G/SPS/R/25
Page 19
Argentina's concerns regarding US restrictions on citrus
94. The representative of Argentina expressed concerns related to a California court decision to
overturn a USDA/APHIS risk assessment which had allowed the import of lemons, oranges and
grapefruits from north western Argentina starting 15 June 2000.  The representative of Argentina
explained that the problem lay not with APHIS, with whom Argentina maintained excellent
cooperation, but with the decision taken by a Californian judge that the risk assessment undertaken byAPHIS had contained errors, notably by not includ ing a definition of significant risk.  Argentina
judged that the original APHIS risk assessment met US obligations under the SPS Agreement, but that
the judge's reasoning, particularly in requiring a quantification of zero-risk, went beyond the terms of
the SPS Agreement.  As imports from other destinations could be imported without being subject to
zero-risk, Argentina felt this amounted to discrimi nation.  In addition, the judge had ruled that APHIS
had not measured the economic impact of imports on producers in the United States.  Not only had the
APHIS risk analysis undertaken this test, it had concluded that as citrus production in the UnitedStates was low, there would not be a major impact on US producers.  Furthermore, from the
viewpoint of the SPS Agreement this economic test was inadmissible.  In conclusion, the
representative of Argentina requested that the US authorities take steps to ensure compliance with
Article 13 of the SPS Agreement by bodies other than those of the central government.  Since trade
had opened in June, 26,000 tonnes of citrus had been exported, and the economic impact of thejudge's decision on the production region in Argentina was serious.
95. The representative of the United States stated that no problems had been reported during the
two seasons that Argentina had had access to the US market for citrus since APHIS passed federal
regulations approving imports.  US regulations were subject to judicial review and had been
challenged through a District Court in California.  Although the Federal Government had disputed thecase, the Court had ruled in favour of the complainant in September 2001.  The US representative
stated that the executive branch agencies were consulting about how to proceed and would take the
comments of Argentina into account.
96. The representative of Chile noted that this situation in which an importer sought to use the
national courts to restrict importation of a particular product could arise anywhere and recommendedthat the Committee should study this question in future.
Argentina's concerns regarding phytosanitary regulations in the Canary Islands
97. The representative of Argentina expressed concerns about how phytosanitary regulations in
the Canary Islands differed from those applied in the European Communities, particularly as regarded
apple and pear imports.  As Argentina had demonstrated the equivalence of their measures in acommunication to the EC representative in March 2001, there seemed to be no objective reason why
exports of apples and pears to the Canary Islands were prohibited.  In particular, Argentina questioned
why the Canary Islands had been exempted from the scope of EC Directive 2029.  Argentina asked
for a probable date for the implementation of this regulation by the Canary Islands and requested
acceptance of the equivalent measures proposed by Argentina in March.
98. The representative of the European Communities stated that he would provide Argentina with
a bilateral reply in due course.
Argentina's concerns on Venezuela's restrictions on potatoes
99. The representative of Argentina requested that the Venezuelan authorities provide a technical
reply to the questions raised during a recent bilateral meeting on the sanitary restrictions on the import
of potatoes, so as to facilitate the start of trading in this product.G/SPS/R/25
Page 20
100. The representative of Venezuela stated that information on the cultivation of table seed
potatoes in Argentina indicated the existence of pests that were exotic to his country (namely
nematodes, viruses and beetles) – information confirmed in FAO publications of 1999 and 2000.  To
prevent the entry of these pests, the sanitary authorities of Venezuela maintained measures on the
import of Argentine potatoes.  The sanitary services were evaluating the appropriateness of alternative
methods, such as pest free areas, that would meet Argentina's legitimate trade concerns andVenezuela's appropriate level of protection.
Argentina's concerns on Cuba's restrictions on apples and pears
101. The representative of Argentina expressed concerns that the government of Cuba did not
accept cold treatment as a quarantine treatment for apples and pears.  Bilateral consultations had been
held between Argentina and Cuba, and further information from Cuba was expected on this issue.
US concerns on EC agricultural biotechnology approval processes
102. The representative of the United States informed the Committee of his country's growing
concern regarding the lack of a functioning approval process in the European Communities for
agricultural biotechnology products.  Since 1998, a de  facto moratorium on approval of agricultural
biotechnology products had been in place.  The United States believed that the European
Communities was obligated under the SPS Agreement to have a functioning approval process and that
they should not continue to delay decisions on pending applications.  The United States believed thatthe European Commission had both the authority and responsibility to take the action necessary to
restart the approval process, and urged the Commission to restart the process as soon as possible.
103. The representative of Canada agreed with the US concerns and wished to see a functioning
EC approval process.  More broadly, Canada was concerned that the European Communities was
fundamentally altering the regulation of agriculture and food products to discriminate on the basis ofhow a product was produced rather than the product's characteristics.  One of the regulation's
requirements which raised particular concerns was the need to label highly refined products, such as
oils where there was no detectable DNA or protein.  Canada further considered the regulation to be
arbitrary, as the European Communities did not require similar controls on products that could present
equal risk but which were produced using other me thods of development such as mutation breeding or
mutagenesis.  Moreover, the regulations discriminated against products produced from genetically
modified products, but not against products produ ced with genetically modified organisms.  A
significant portion of EC cheese and wine was produc ed with GM processing aids, such as enzymes,
but would not require labelling even though the processing aids left detectable residue traces.
104. The representative of Canada argued that the EC regulations were not commensurate with the
risks entailed and lacked scientific basis.  In this respect, reference was made to a report from a group
of 400 pre-eminent EC scientists, sponsored by the Research Directorate of the European
Commission, that had concluded that using biotechnol ogy did not contain any more risks than using
traditional plant breeding techniques.  Since the regulations were both arbitrary and discriminatory,
they clearly disrupted trade.  Furthermore, the regulations were fundamentally unworkable, as
demonstrated by the one per cent threshold for the adventitious presence of GMOs.  The question of
ability to verify labels through testing raised questions about the workability of the regulation andcreated risks of fraud and misrepresentation of products.  In this respect the regulations did not
explain how EC member States should set out or oversee the infrastructure required.  Canada could
envision how the regulations could be enforced at ports, but not how the regulations would be
enforced through an entire agri-food system within  the European Communities.  Furthermore, a report
issued by a food standards agency of an EC member State had concluded that the regulation wasunworkable, unscientific and costly.G/SPS/R/25
Page 21
105. The representative of the European Comm unities reaffirmed the European Commission's
interest and positive actions aimed at allowing the authorization procedures to continue.  The recent
meeting of the European Environment Council had started a very important discussion on proposals
presented by the Commission to restart the authorization procedure.  The representative of the
European Communities suggested that the issues raised by Canada should have been more properly
addressed elsewhere on the Committee's agenda than "Other Business", but nevertheless agreed tostudy Canada's comments.
Thailand's concerns on 3MPCD
106. The representative of Thailand stated that since early 2001, Thailand had not been able to
export soy sauce to certain countries, including the European Communities, due to 3MPCD  limits set
as low as 0.01mg per kilogramme.  Thailand considered this level to be excessively low, and the
European Communities had agreed to review its limit on the basis of new scientific evidence.
Measures had been taken in Thailand to establish maximum 3MPCD limits and to modify productionprocesses to lower rates of contamination; and its industry expected to be able to meet a 1 mg per kilo
limit within one year.  According to the EC JECFA analysis, 3MPCD was not genotoxic and a
provisional maximum daily threshold limit had been set at 2 micrograms per kilo of bodyweight per
day.  Based on this limit for a person of an  average 50 kilo bodyweight, a safe daily consumption of
up to 10 grammes would be allowable.  However, the limits applied by Members differed widely from0.01 to 0.1.mg per kilogramme.
Thailand's concerns regarding Australia's restrictions on durian
107. The representative of Thailand stated that concerns over Australia's import rules for durian
had first been raised in the Committee in November 2000.  Assurances had been sought from
Australia about Thailand's long held concerns ov er the undue strictness of import restrictions for
durian.  Despite numerous bilateral meetings, no agreement had been reached and Thailand requested
that Australia seek to adjust its import restrictions to make them more commercially viable.
108. The representative of Australia refered Members to G/SPS/GEN/218 in which Australia had
first replied to the concerns raised by Thailand.  A risk analysis for durian had been finalized in 2000,
after submission in 1997, by Thailand of a list of diseases and pests affecting durian.  The riskassessment indicated that other non-destructive methods of sampling could be substituted if efficacy
data could be presented to show they provided an equivalent level of protection.  However no
information had been received from Thailand that X-ray technology or irradiation could be equally
effective in meeting Australia's biosecurity needs.  Australia was keen to finalize bilateral
arrangements so that inspections of packing houses and orchards could begin in Thailand and importpermits be issued.  Australia noted that once trade had commenced, it would be willing to review
arrangements after one year to see if adjustments could be made while still maintaining Australia's
biosecurity needs.
Thailand's concerns regarding Australia's restrictions on prawns and prawn products
109. Speaking on behalf of ASEAN, the representative of Thailand expressed serious concerns
about the inclusion of Australia's domestic enforcement practices as a major element in Australia's
import risk analysis for imported prawn and prawn products from ASEAN countries.  Thailand urgedAustralia to lift the interim measures taken on the basis of this risk analysis.  ASEAN countries
believed these measures were not based on scientific evidence and were more trade restrictive than
necessary.  The representative of Indonesia supported Thailand and urged Australia to lift measures
which it considered inconsistent with Article 5 of the SPS Agreement.G/SPS/R/25
Page 22
110. The representative of Australia stated that interim measures had been taken because of an
outbreak of white spot syndrome in Darwin in 200 0.  The outbreak had been stamped out using severe
measures and subsequent surveys had not indicated presence of the virus.  Australia believed its
measures to be scientifically valid.  The risk analysis was continuing and would result in final
measures.  An application for equivalence for highly processed prawn products was being examined
and, if approved, would result in less trade restrictive measures.
111. The representative of the European Communities noted that interim measures should be used
for as short a time-period as possible, whilst recognising that risk assessments took time to complete.
In the EC's view this was one possible example of where the principle of precaution could be applied.
Thailand's concerns regarding Mexico's restrictions on milled rice
112. The representative of Thailand recalled that in the March 2001 meeting of the SPS
Committee, the delegate of Mexico had announced that restrictions had been lifted against Thai
exports of milled rice on condition it underwent fumigation treatment.  Despite this statement,notification G/SPS/N/MEX/172 showed that Thailand remained among Mexico's list of countries
affected by the capra beetle and subject to quarantine requirements.  In subsequent bilateral
consultations,  Thailand had been informed that it would be removed from this list.
113. The representative of Mexico expressed his surprise at Thailand's statement since as of
March, Mexico had imported over 1,000 tonnes of Thai rice.  He indicated that the product mentioned
in G/SPS/N/MEX/172 was not Thai rice.
Request by South Africa for an OIE standard on African Horse Sickness
114. The representative of the Republic of South Africa refered members to document
G/SPS/GEN/289 in which a request was made to the OIE for the development of a standard on
African Horse Sickness.
115. The representative of the OIE stated that South Africa's request would be submitted to the
next OIE Code Committee meeting.  Revision of the chapter on horse sickness had begun at the start
of the 1990s after the disease appeared in Morocco and the Iberian peninsula.  The code was revised
and deemed sufficient to carry out equine events at the Barcelona Olympics of 1992.  Since 1992, a
new chapter on sheep had been adopted providing for the establishment of safe zones if theepidemiological conditions of the countries concerned were deemed favourable.  In view of its
expertise in African Horse Sickness, the OIE representative invited South Africa to propose a chapter
in the code.
Chairman's comments on issues raised under Other Business
116. The Chairman noted that the positive attitude displayed by all Members in the SPS
Committee had resulted in a relaxation of the Rules of Procedure.  Rules of Procedure 25 and 26
applied to discussions under Other Business and, in short, stated that unduly long or substantive
discussions of business should be avoided under this agenda item.  The Chairman encouraged
Members to respect the 10-day rule to request the inclusion of items on the regular agenda.
117. The representative of the European Communitie s stated that the European Communities had
abstained from raising trade concerns under Other Business, in order to respect the Rules of Procedure
and also because any delegation raising a substantive issue for consideration could not expect toreceive a full reply to their query.  As such, the EC representative urged Members to make summary
statements under Other Business.G/SPS/R/25
Page 23
118. The representative of Canada clarified that comments his delegation had made under Other
Business could equally have been made under item 2c of the agenda.  He looked forward to a full
discussion of the EC's draft GMO labelling and traceability regulations at the next Committee
meeting.
Date and Agenda for Next Meeting
119. The next regular meeting of the Committee is scheduled for Wednesday and Thursday , 20
and 21 March 2002 .  In line with the Committee's Decision on Equivalence, a specific agenda item
was included on equivalence.  Members were encouraged to report on their experiences with
equivalence under this agenda item.  Informal meetings on transparency, equivalence and technical
assistance would be held immediately prior to the next regular meeting.
120. The Committee agreed on the following tentative agenda for the formal Committee meeting:
1. Proposed agenda
2. Implementation of the Agreement
(a) Information from Members
Activities of Members
(b) Specific trade concerns
(i) New issues(ii) Issues previously raised
(c) Consideration of specific notifications received
(d) Any other matters related to the operation of transparency provisions
(i) Report of informal consultations
3. SPS Agreement and developing countries
(a) Implementation of the provisions for special and differential treatment
4. Equivalence – Article 4
(a) Report on informal consultations
(b) Information from Members on their experiences
(c) Information from relevant observer organizations(d) Further work programme
5. Technical assistance and cooperation
6. Monitoring of the use of international standards
7. Matters of interest arising from the work of observer organizations
8. Observers - Requests for observer status9. Other business
10 Date and agenda of next meeting
121. The Chairman reminded delegates of the following deadlines:
• for identifying new issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure:
20 February 2001
• for requesting that items be put on the agenda:  7 March 2002
• for the distribution of the airgram:  8 March 2002.
__________