RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/R/28
5 February 2003
(03-0757)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING HELD ON 7-8 NOVEMBER 2002
Note by the Secretariat1
I. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
1. The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the "Committee") held its twenty-
fifth meeting on 7-8 November 2002.  The Chairman of the Committee, Mrs. Maria Fe Alberto-Chau
Huu (Philippines), opened the meeting.  The agenda proposed in WTO/AIR/1951 was adopted withamendments.
II. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT
(a) Information from Members
(i) Activities of Members
Update on FMD eradication activities in Korea2. The representative of Korea provided an update on his country's FMD eradication activities.
The first case of FMD in Korea was recorded in May 2002, and since that date a total of 16 cases had
been reported, the last on 23 June 2002.  Korea had submitted an application for the re-establishment
of its status as a country free of FMD without vaccination to the OIE on 4 October 2002.  Details of
the situation in Korea are contained in G/SPS/GEN/348.
Epidemiological situation and advances in the control of FMD in Argentina
3. The representative of Argentina presented an update of the epidemiological situation and
advances in the control of FMD in his country.  There had been no FMD outbreaks in Argentina for
over nine months, the last on 23 January 2002.  Argentina had adopted measures to reduce the risk of
transmission of FMD, as set out in the OIE Animal health Code, which made it possible to export
boned, hung and fresh meat which contained no risk of transmission of FMD.  Fifty-four countries
had notified that their markets were new open to fresh bovine meat exports from Argentina.  Adocument updating the information contained in G/SPS/GEN/323 would be circulated shortly.
4. The representative of Mali noted that for some African countries it sufficed to have a single
outbreak of FMD to prevent trade in meat or in livestock from taking place, despite having taken
measures to control the outbreak.
                                                     
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO.G/SPS/R/28
Page 2
Information on Paraguay's status as  free from FMD with vaccination
5. The representative of Paraguay provided information on Paraguay's status as free from FMD
with vaccination.  Details of the situation in Paraguay are contained in G/SPS/GEN/360.
6. The representative of the European Communities reported that a decision had been adopted to
restrict exports from the region adjoining the alleged outbreak on the Brazilian side of the border;  nomeasures had been taken in relation to Paraguay.  The European Communities had adopted a
regionalization approach towards Paraguay, and the region from which they permitted imports was
located 80 km away from the region where the outbreak had occurred.  The representative of the
European Communities encouraged the Paraguayan and Brazilian authorities to take decisive action to
eradicate this particular outbreak.
Newcastle disease - Information on the situation in Paraguay
7. The representative of Paraguay provided information on his country's programme initiated in
1996 to maintain the country free from Newcastle disease.  Details of the activities carried out by
Paraguay in this field are contained in document G/SPS/GEN/ 361.
Interim Marketing Authorizati ons - Information from Canada
8. The representative of Canada stated that his country had decided that it would be appropriate
to notify Interim Marketing Authorizations (IMAs) to the WTO, in a similar manner as proposals fornew or amended regulations were being notified.  IMAs were granted for the expanded use of
substances that had already been approved for use in or upon food products to allow domestic and
foreign manufacturers to use these substances on an optional basis while Canada conducted the formal
consultation required by their regulatory policy.  He emphasized that Canada would not, through this
approach, avoid the transparency obligations under the SPS Agreement.  A comment period would bemade available to trading partners and to Canada's domestic industry at a subsequent stage of the
regulatory process.  Members would be advised of the comment period through an Addendum or a
Revision to the IMA notification.
9. The representative of Mali sought a clarification from Canada regarding the difference
between IMAs and regular marketing authorizations.  He expressed that provisional authorizationsmight not offer sufficient safety guarantees and wondered whether this could cause a problem for
exports.  In response, the representative of Canada reiterated that IMAs were granted only for
substances whose safety had already been evaluated, as a means of allowing trading partners, as well
as their own manufacturers, the opportunity to extend the use of the substance pending the final
approval.
Information provided by the United States on its Biosecurity Act
10. The representative of the United States prov ided information of the enactment of the "The
Public Health Security and Bio-terrorism Prepar edness and Response Act of 2002" on 12 June 2002 ,
that contained some provisions that would impact directly on the exports of food, food products and
animal feeds to the United States.  This new law intended to provide US agencies with additional
authority to address certain recognized risks to the country's food, pharmaceutical and water supplies.
Specifically with regard to food, the legislati on provided the US Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) with enhanced authority in ensuring that  all foods, other than meat, poultry and processed
eggs, produced in or exported to the United States were safe.
11. The representative of the United States reported that there were four major provisions of the
law applicable to food that would be implemented between December 2003 and February 2004,G/SPS/R/28
Page 3
namely:  (i) registration of most food manufacturing and handling facilities;  (ii) establishment and
maintenance of certain records pertaining to the receipt and distribution of foods;  (iii) prior notice to
FDA of all food consignments intended for import into the United States;  and (iv) administrative
detention of any food when there was any credible evidence or information that it presented a threat of
serious adverse health consequences to humans or  animals.  The FDA would develop implementing
regulations to these four provisions before they became effective in late 2003 and early 2004, and all
proposed implementing regulations would be notified to the Committee as they were published over
the next year.  Members would be given the opportunity for commenting on all aspects of the
proposed regulations consistent with WTO obligations and his country's rule-making process.
12. The representative of Japan recalled that his country had already sent written comments and a
questionnaire to the United States last August.  Japan expected these comments to be taken into
account but stated their willingness to make additional comments during the comment period, ifnecessary.
13. The representative of the European Communities reported that they had provided the United
States with provisional comprehensive comments in  August and were interested in receiving some
feedback from the United States on the substantial comments already sent, in particular, in light of the
serious concerns that the European Communities had with respect to the potential impact of some ofthese measures.  The European Communities welcomed an open dialogue on this issue that would
help address the common problems that might arise.
14. The representative of Belize noted that more ne eded to be done to explain the implications of
the law at the national level.  In particular, Belize sought a clarification as to whether the term  meat
included fish and fish products.  The representative of the United States replied that the newlegislation would apply to fish and fish products, and that there would be separate authorities for meat
and other meat products.
15. The representative of Chile sought clarification on Act whether the plant registry that would
apply between December 2003 and February 2004 would be of a permanent nature, and whether it
would require providing supporting information, as well as carrying out consultations.  Chile was alsoconcerned about the detention of any food item that was suspect.  If suspected perishable products
were detained they would rot during the thirty-day waiting time, resulting in negative impacts on the
exports of primary products from developing countries, notwithstanding the fact that there might have
been no problem with the product to begin with.  The representative of Chile sought clarification as to
who would bear with the responsibility and the costs in such cases.
16. The representative of the United States clarified that to date, no decisions had been taken
regarding the length of registration or the implementation of the provisions.  The regulatory processwould consider and evaluate different ways of procee ding with the implementation of almost all of the
provisions that had been outlined through their inter-agency consultation process, to determine the
most effective measures, as well as those that would be no more trade restrictive than necessary.
When the bill had been enacted in June, the United States had asked for information from trading
partners, as well as their domestic industry, as to how they should proceed to implement the act.  Theinformation that had been solicited by the FDA had been advisory in nature, and because they had not
been issued as regulations the United States had no intention of responding to those comments.  The
representative of the United States urged Members to provide written comments within the time-
frame identified, when the notifications to the WTO were presented because the US regulatory
process required the consideration and response to each of the issues raised.  He encouraged those thathad continued concerns to re-submit their comments.
17. The representative of Argentina expressed interest in knowing whether the United States had
evaluated the cost of implementation of the four provisions of the law applicable to food, both forG/SPS/R/28
Page 4
industry and the export sector, and the impact that the law would have on developing country
exporters.  The representative of the United States responded that no cost evaluation had been
undertaken by his country, however, there was no fee for the registration and the United States hoped
to set up a system whereby the registration would be done electronically to make it as simple as
possible.
Information provided by Australia on its national FMD simulation programme
18. The representative of Australia informed the Committee of a major national FMD simulation
programme that had been carried out in Australia during the week of 9 September 2002.  The results
of the simulation were going to be made public and presented to the OIE.  The representative of
Australia emphasized that her country remained free from FMD.
Information provided by Chile on Regionalization
19. The representative of Chile stated that despite the efforts undertaken by exporting Members,
recognition of pest- or disease-free areas and areas of low pest or disease prevalence was problematic,
because many importing countries did not recognize the status granted by the OIE, and the
administrative procedures of importing countries were long and complex, often requiring inspections.
He noted that more work on standard setting needed to be carried out by the Committee in order to
avoid discrimination in the implementation of regiona lization. The representative of Chile thanked the
European Communities for helping his country with regionalization by setting up control zones, as
well as free zones, and by helping them apply a system which was being used world-wide.  He
suggested that this issue and Article 6 be considered at the next SPS Committee meeting.
20. The representative of the OIE welcomed the inte rest of Chile in improving the effectiveness
of regionalization standards.  He noted that the OIE had included regionalization in the diseases wherethe epidemiology of the disease allowed, but recogn ized that there was room for improvement.  He
encouraged Chile to send a letter to the OIE outlining their proposal on regionalization in the
international standards.
Information provided by Chile on Avian Influenza
21. The representative of Chile provided information on his country's situation regarding avian
influenza, following two outbreaks that had been  detected some months before.  Eradication
procedures had been undertaken and since June, no further outbreaks had been detected, neither in the
place of the original outbreak, nor elsewhere in the country.  Chile was split into two zones, with a
small eradication zone situated ten kilometres surrounding the outbreak, and the rest of the country
considered a free zone.
(b) Specific Trade Concerns
(i) New Issues
Honduras' import restrictions on chicken meat imports – Concerns of Costa Rica
22. The representative of Costa Rica reported that in March 2002, Honduras had applied import
restrictions on poultry meat from Costa Rica admitting imports of poultry meat only from countries
whose avian health status was equivalent to it s own.  In other words, Honduras allowed poultry
imports only from countries that were free from avian influenza, avian infectious laryngotracheitis,Newcastle disease and avian salmonellosis.  The representative of Costa Rica presented the technical
and legal arguments in support of his country' s objection over Honduras' import restrictions on
chicken meat, and noted that Costa Rica's avian health status was in line with the parametersG/SPS/R/28
Page 5
recognized by the OIE.  Costa Rica asserted that its poultry meat exports did not constitute a risk for
the avian health status of Honduras, and formally requested the Honduran authorities to withdraw the
restriction on the entry of poultry meat from Costa Ri ca.  Details of the presentation by Costa Rica are
contained in G/SPS/GEN/347/Rev.1.
23. The representatives of Argentina, Chile and Thailand supported the concerns expressed by
Costa Rica.  The representative of Chile noted that it was clear that there were problems with trade in
poultry meat, and indicated that further work needed to be undertaken by the OIE in this area, in order
to facilitate the movement of poultry meat world-wide.  Chile requested information from the OIE on
this issue, in particular concerning standards for the transmission of different avian diseases through
fresh poultry meat.  Chile also requested a copy of the risk assessment carried out by Honduras.
24. The representative of Honduras presented the Committee with background information on his
country's decision to impose import restrictions on chicken meat imports from Costa Rica.  He notedthat the Agriculture and Livestock Secretariat had developed a national programme for the prevention,
control and eradication of avian diseases, including avian influenza, avian infectious laryngotracheitis,
Newcastle disease and avian salmonellosis.  This programme had been notified to all WTO members
in document G/SPS/N/HND/3.  In October 2001, Honduras had notified that it had achieved free
status for the four avian diseases mentioned above.   Honduras had requested that Costa Rica, as well
as other countries, provide the necessary documentation that guaranteed equivalence between the
countries' avian health status, as well as access for technical experts to carry out the relevant
inspections.  His authorities had determined that the poultry health programmes of Costa Rica was not
equivalent because they had been unable to carry out the relevant inspections and obtain the necessary
technical information requested from Costa Rica.  Honduras requested official documentation fromCosta Rica regarding their claim (in G/SPS/GEN/ 347/Rev.1) that Honduras had recognized Costa
Rica as a country free from Newcastle disease and avian influenza, and that Costa Rica was therefore
in a position to export poultry meat to international markets.
25. The representative of the OIE recalled that OIE standards existed for three of the diseases
under discussion:  avian infectious laryngotracheitis, avian salmonellosis, and Newcastle disease, andfor the highly pathogenic form only of avian influenza. The OIE standards for avian infectious
laryngotracheitis and avian salmonellosis contain recommendations only for live birds, for day-old
chicks, and for hatching eggs but no recommendations for poultry meat.  In other words, at present
there are no official OIE standards for poultry meat for these two diseases. He added that these
chapters had not been reviewed for some time. The lack of a standard concerning poultry meat could
mean either that there were no risks associated wi th trade in poultry meat for these diseases, or that
the OIE had not come out with a recommendation on poultry meat which meant that trading partners
would be expected to negotiate between themselves using risk analysis in order to reach science based
conclusions. In the absence of an official OIE standard, the OIE had replied to a request from the
Director of Animal Health in Costa Rica that there was no scientific evidence indicating that avian
infectious laryngotracheitis or avian salmonellosis could be transmitted through poultry meat. He
stressed that this was not an official OIE standard but a scientific opinion from the OIE.  If there wassufficient trade disruption due to the lack of an OIE standard for poultry meat for these diseases, the
OIE would include updating these standards in its future work programme.
26. The representative of Costa Rica recognized Honduras' efforts to improve its sanitary
situation, but noted that was not the issue that was under discussion.  Under discussion was whether
the measure was scientifically justified and whether Honduras had carried out a relevant risk analysis.He drew attention to the statement made by the representative of the OIE that there was no scientific
evidence proving that the avian diseases under discussion could be transmitted through poultry meat.
In this regard, it would be to the benefit of all if Honduras shared its scientific evidence with other
members of the organization.  The representative of Costa Rica added that Honduras was trying to
reverse the burden by insisting that Costa Rica demonstrate its disease free status regarding these fourG/SPS/R/28
Page 6
avian diseases.  He requested Honduras to respond to the questions contained in
G/SPS/GEN/347/Rev.1, and reiterated his country's request that Honduras lift the measure.
27. The representative of Honduras clarified that there were four avian diseases under discussion.
The scientific evidence requested by Costa Rica was contained in the OIE Bulletin, N° 6, pages 810 to
815 and would be provided to the Committee.  Honduras welcomed the updating of standards by theOIE.
EC restrictions on the importation of fruit and fruit juices – Concerns of Brazil
28. The representative of Brazil raised concerns regarding the European Communities Directive
2002/71/CE, published on 19 August 2002, which es tablished new maximum levels for dimethoate
residues in and on cereals, foodstuffs of animal origin and certain products of plant origin, including
fruit and vegetables.  Brazil's technical and legal arguments regarding the directive which would have
the effect of banning Brazilian orange juice from the European market are contained inG/SPS/GEN/355.  He requested the European Communities to review the directive, taking into
account all scientific information available.  Brazil also requested the European Communities not to
apply the same approach in the re-evaluation of 320 active substances that was now underway.
29. The representatives of Argentina, Bolivia, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and
Uruguay supported the arguments made by Brazil, in particular, the need for scientific justification formaximum residue levels (MRLs), and expressed concern regarding the implications for developing
country exports.  The representative of Jamaica also reiterated that request that the European
Communities not apply the same approach as for dimethoate in the re-evaluation of other 320 active
substances.  The lack of set MRLs for many of the products exported by Jamaica to the European
Communities would have serious consequences.
30. The representative of the European Communitie s stated that the document put forward by
Brazil had not yet been discussed in Brussels.  Dimethoate was already under evaluation by the
European Communities and was one of the several hundred plant protection products which was
being reassessed for its safety to the environment, animal and public health.  The decision to establish
a limit of analytical detection had not been lightly taken, but the scientific evidence suggested that theexisting MRL was inadequate to provide for an appropriate level of health protection, and under the
circumstances the European Communities had considered it necessary to adopt the measure now
under discussion.  The representative of the European Communities recalled that a number of years
ago a recommendation had been made to the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues to withdraw the
MRL for dimethoate.  He noted that this was not a popular decision within the European Communities
because this substance was used by a range of EC growers of citrus and other fruit products, and they
were being obliged to withdraw its use.  The representative of the European Communities furtherindicated that the measure had been notified under the SPS Agreement (G/SPS/N/EEC/160) and that
comments had been received and taken into account from a number of countries, including Brazil.  He
would bring to the attention of his authorities the fears expressed by several countries over the impact
of the ongoing evaluation of a range of other active substances.
31. The representative of Brazil informed the Committ ee that the bilateral discussions held on the
previous day had been fruitful.  Brazil reiterated their request for a copy of the EC's scientific studies
as soon as possible.  He added that the issue of MRLs for dimethoate would be reconsidered by Codex
at its meeting in June 2003, and requested the Eu ropean Communities to suspend the implementation
of this directive pending to a full assessment of the situation.G/SPS/R/28
Page 7
Trinidad and Tobago's restrictions on imports of pork sausages and other pork products, fresh, cured
or salted – Concerns of Argentina
32. The representative of Argentina reported that the health authorities from Trinidad and Tobago
had provided two responses regarding import requirements for pork products, fresh cured or salted
from Argentina.  The first response indicated that imports of pork products from Argentina werecurrently banned because of the FMD outbreak that had occurred in 2001, and that imports would not
be able to resume until the health status of Argentina changed to that of a country free of FMD
without vaccination.  The second response stated that imports of pork products were allowed only
from those countries that had FMD free status without vaccination for at least three years before the
date of export.  The representative of Argentina asserted that these requirements were stricter than the
provisions contained in the OIE Animal Health Code.  He argued that the measures lacked a scientific
basis and were not proportionate to the objectives pursued.  He requested Trinidad and Tobago to liftthe ban and to provide Argentina with the scientific  evidence that justified the measure, including an
explanation as to why it deviated from international standards.
33. The representative of Trinidad and Tobago indicated that the issue of importation of pork
products from Argentina had been the subject of ongoing bilateral consultations.  She explained that
as a member of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) her country adhered to a regional policy forthe importation of meat and meat products according to which, in the event that an exporting country
had experienced an FMD outbreak, imports would only be allowed after disease-free status had been
achieved without vaccination.  The regional decision reflected consensus among member States.
These requirements were transparent and applied in an equitable manner to all countries that had
experienced FMD outbreaks.  She reaffirmed her country's willingness to continue the bilateralprocess to seek an amicable solution to the issue.
34. The representative of Argentina stated that hi s authorities hoped to be able to resolve this
matter bilaterally, as quickly as possible, and indicated that he would report on the progress achieved
at the next meeting of the Committee.
Japan's regulation on food additives – Concerns of the European Communities35. The representative of the European Communities indicated that his authorities had compiled a
list of substances, including food additives, aromas, food ingredients and extract solvents which were
not formally authorized by Japanese law, but which could constitute barriers to food products to
Japan.  He requested Japan to approve the list of substances that had been evaluated by the European
Communities on scientific grounds, and indicated  that the use of some of the additives had already
been authorized by Japan for other purposes.  Furthermore, all of the substances had been evaluated at
the international level by the scientific committee of the Codex Alimentarius Commission.  Therepresentative of the European Communities acknowledged Japan's interest in addressing the problem
and reported that a number of bilateral meetings had already taken place.
36. The representative of the United States shared the concerns expressed by the European
Communities and urged Japan to consider expedited approval for these food additives that were
commonly used and considered safe.  He suggested that better guidance ought  to be provided by
Japan regarding the data they required for the approval of food additives that were commonly used
around the world.  The United States encouraged Japan to rely on the reviews already conducted by
Codex and other countries in order to minimize trade disruptions.
37. The representative of Japan stated that a new policy for evaluating the safety and the necessity
of the use of food additives and for authorizing their use had been recently enacted in Japan.  Hisauthorities were putting together a list of food additives that were considered safe and necessary to
use for certain foods.  The use of  food additives varied from country to country depending uponG/SPS/R/28
Page 8
customs and habits, and a number of food additives authorized by the European Communities were
not authorized in Japan and vice versa.  He suggested that the European Communities consult directly
with the Standard Division of the Department of Food Safety in the Ministry of Health, Labour and
Welfare in Tokyo for further details regarding this issue.
China's regulation on wood packaging material – Concerns of the European Communities38. The representative of the European Communities stated that a number of aspects of the
Chinese regulation on wood packaging material, notified as G/SPS/N/CHN/14, caused serious
problems.  Although the Chinese authorities insisted that their legislation complied with the relevant
guidelines from the IPPC, and, in particular, with ISPM 15, there were important discrepancies
between the two that caused a number of problems.  The European Communities had gone to
considerable lengths to address the concerns of the Chinese authorities, and a lot of progress had been
made in particular following a visit from a number of experts to China.  He encouraged China to comeinto conformity with the IPPC standard, as expedi tiously as possible, and to work towards resolving
the issue.
39. The representative of China reported that during 2001 and 2002 large numbers of pests were
regularly detected by the inspection and quarantine authorities of China in wood packaging material
from the European Communities.  China had notifi ed this situation to the European Communities
repeatedly, and finally decided to take emergency measures on 19 April 2002 in order to prevent the
introduction of dangerous wood pests, and to ensure the protection of the environment, forestry and
tourism resources in the country. The notification and the risk analysis report were sent to the
European Communities for comments, to which China replied in detail on 17 June 2002.  Following
that date no further comments had been received from the European Communities, and that themeasure had been imposed on 28 June 2002, and notified to the WTO.  The measure was based on
scientific principles and on a risk analysis in line with the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement.
Japan's amendment of the food sanitation law – Concerns of China
40. The representative of China reported that China had serious concerns over Japan's amendment
of the food sanitation law and the procedures followed.  Japan's emergency notificationG/SPS/N/JPN/84, issued on 18 July 2002, indicated that the amendment prohibiting the sale,
manufacturing and import of specific food, food additives, apparatus and container/packages when
considerable amounts of foods were assumed not to be in conformity with the provisions of the Food
Sanitation Law would enter into force on 7 September 2002.  A related emergency notification had
been made on 7 September 2002 (G/SPS/N/JPN/86).  The representative of China presented his
country's objection to Japan's amendment of the food sanitation law, and questioned the
appropriateness of the use of emergency notifications, as Members could not comment before themeasure had been enforced.  He requested Japan to provide the scientific evidence, including a risk
analysis, in support of the measures taken.
41. The representative of Korea stated that his country had requested information on Japan's
amendment on 3 September 2002, and were awaiting a timely response from Japan.
42. The representative of Japan indicated that Japan had already received precise and
comprehensive comments from China on the amendment of the food sanitation law within the
framework of the Trade Policy Review of Japan.  Japan considered the use of the emergency
notifications as being in accordance with th e recommended procedures for implementing the
transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement.  However, having heard the concerns raised by China,
Japan was prepared to further explain the amendment to China bilaterally, with the hope of finding a
solution to the problem in due time.G/SPS/R/28
Page 9
US restrictions on imports of Chinese potted plants in growing medium – Concerns of China
43. The representative of China argued that because the United States had failed to remove its
SPS measures prohibiting the importation of Chinese penjing in growing medium almost six years
after the risk analysis had been finished and the protocol had been signed, exports from China had
been seriously affected.  The United States had relied on the excuse of domestic legal procedures andthe need to coordinate work between the relevant government agencies to delay solving the problem.
He requested the United States to notify its work procedures concerning the removal of measures
prohibiting imports of plants and plant products in compliance with the transparency provisions of the
SPS Agreement.  China failed to understand why the United States had proposed to solve only the
problem of the importation of one of the types of penjing plants in growing medium, instead of
considering the five types for which the risk analysis had been completed.  China appreciated the
efforts undertaken by the United States, and hoped that a favourable solution to the problem could bereported at the next Committee meeting.
44. The representative of the European Communities supported the concerns raised by China and
noted that they had run into the same difficulties with other varieties of potted plants.  The European
Communities urged the United States to find a rapid solution to the problem.
45. The representative of the United States noted that the issue of penjing in growing medium had
been the subject of extensive discussions with China.  The United States had been working actively to
evaluate China's proposed importation, but the importation of plants in growing medium was more
complicated from a risk mitigation perspective than importation of bare root plants.  While
examination of bare root plants could detect certain pests or disease problems, inspection of potted
plants necessarily involved the removal of the plant from the pot and the growing medium, and coulddamage the plant and reduce its commercial value.  Although the assessment of the risk to plant health
posed by the importation of the five species of penjing was essentially concluded, other risks needed
to be evaluated before determination if the importation presented an acceptable risk.  US regulatory
requirements for imported plants and growing medium reflected the need to prevent the introduction
of pests and disease that could seriously undermine or compromise native ecosystems, as well ascultivated plants, and this work was ongoing.  The 1997 protocol between the United States and China
reflected agreement on the technical issues relating to production, inspection, and quarantine
requirements for Chinese penjing that were necessary but not sufficient conditions for imports to
occur.  The protocol could not take effect until the risk assessments had been completed, and the
necessary regulatory and notification processes had run their course.  The United States
acknowledged the importance that China attached to this issue, and indicated their commitment to
reaching a mutually satisfactory resolution as soon as possible.
(ii) Issues Previously Raised
Argentina's BSE–related measures – Concerns of Canada
46. The representative of Canada recalled that at the last meeting his country had expressed
concern that Argentina appeared to have copied the EC geographical risk assessment rating scheme
relating to BSE without having conducted a risk asse ssment.  At that time Canada had also expressed
surprise at having been given a Level 2 ranking without Argentina having requested any data or
information in order to conduct a risk assessment prior to putting the measure in place.  Argentina had
undertaken to resolve the issue within a matter of days following the last meeting.  Canada recalled
that it had provided a large body of information to Argentina in June but had not yet had a response.
Canada did not have BSE and did not understand how it could have been given such a rating withoutany risk assessment having been conducted by Argentina.G/SPS/R/28
Page 10
47. The representative of the United States shared Canada's concern regarding Argentina's BSE-
related measures, and recalled that they had also raised the issue at the last meeting.  At that time he
had reported on the completion of a risk assessment on BSE that had been conducted by the Harvard
Center for Risk Analysis and encouraged Argentina, as well as other countries, to incorporate this
information in any risk assessment performed regarding BSE, and to bear in mind that the UnitedSates was also free of BSE.
48. The representative of Argentina reported that after having reviewed the measure his
authorities had decided to amend the provision in Annex II which contained the country ranking based
on a risk assessment of the criteria contained in the measure. These amendments would be undertaken
soon, and Argentina would inform both the United States and Canada.  He further indicated that
Argentina was completing its analysis of the additional information submitted by Canada, and a reply
would soon be provided bilaterally.
49. The representative of Canada noted his country's appreciation for the efforts undertaken by
Argentina to address this issue.  Canada noted that some positive steps had been made and reaffirmed
the commitment of his government to provide any further information and data that might be useful to
Argentina in order to confirm Canada's status.
China's import requirements for cosmetic s – Concerns of the European Communities
50. The representative of the European Communities reported good progress in resolving
difficulties with China's import requirements for cosm etics.  He recalled that the extensive bilateral
trade in cosmetics between China and the European Communities had taken place before China
introduced new provisions, and in particular protective measures related to BSE.  EC experts on BSE-
related risk assessment were to visit Beijing the following week.  The European Communities washopeful that good progress would be made and that this issue would be resolved before the next
Committee meeting.
51. The representative of China welcomed the visit of the experts from the European
Communities and noted that China hoped that the discussions would help in its review of the measure.
FMD-related trade barriers affecting EC exports – Concerns of the European Communities52. The representative of the European Communities noted disappointment that some FMD trade
barriers continued to affect EC exports because the last outbreak of FMD in the European
Communities had taken place on 30 September 2001, over 14 months ago.  The outbreak had been
decisively eradicated, and any remaining restrictions were now unnecessary and unreasonable.  He
requested Members that continued to restrict EC exports under the guise of FMD protection to come
into conformity with their SPS requirements.  The representative of Argentina supported the
comments made by the European Communities with regards to FMD-related measures taken bycertain Members.
53. The representative of the European Communities expressed concern over a number of BSE-
related measures taken by Mexico that had a detrimental effect on exports from Austria, although
Austria had registered no cases of FMD in the course of the 2001 outbreaks.  He considered that these
measures were unreasonable and requested Mexico to lift them.  Bilateral meetings on the matter hadbeen unsuccessful. The representative of Mexico stated that his country recognized Austria as being
FMD free but had been waiting to receive a request from Austria for plant inspections.G/SPS/R/28
Page 11
Indonesia's FMD-related restrictions on imports of dairy products – Concerns of Argentina
54. The representative of Argentina indicated that Indonesia allowed dairy products, other than
liquid milk, from Argentina to enter the country, how ever, there had been some practical difficulties.
In order to resolve these, Argentina had met with Indonesia and was awaiting information from the
Indonesian health services.
55. The representative of Indonesia reported that import restrictions due to FMD had only been
applied to fresh milk from Argentina;  other dairy products including skim milk, cream, butter, cheese
and yoghurt had not been restricted.  A questionnaire would be sent to Argentina and as soon as the
first provisions of the questionnaire were fulfilled, Indonesia would send an inspection team to
Argentina.  Indonesia hoped that this would lead to a resolution of the problem.
Colombia's restrictions on imports of beef meat - Concerns of Argentina
56. The representative of Argentina noted that because of the FMD outbreaks that had taken place
in 2001, Colombia had closed its market to Argentine meat despite the progress in controlling the
disease and notwithstanding the fact that there had been no new outbreaks in Argentina for nine
months.  Colombia still had not carried out inspections of 21 packing plants which Colombia claimed
was necessary before trade in beef meat could resume.  Argentina insisted upon the need for a timely
solution to the problem.
57. The representative of Colombia stated that his government had been informed that Argentina
had blocked imports of fresh flowers from Colombia.  He encouraged Argentina not to link these two
issues to the detriment of trade.
58. The representative of Argentina expressed concern over the response by Colombia and noted
that he was not aware of any linkage to Colombian flowers.  He requested Colombia to provideinformation as to whether it would carry out the vete rinary inspections in Argentina so that beef meat
exports could resume.
Japan's official control restrictions - Concerns of New Zealand and the United States
59. The representative of New Zealand presented her country's concerns with Japan's official
control restrictions, detailed in G/SPS/GEN/357.  New Zealand requested that Japan confirms that it
would not take any action, such as fumigation, on an y pest found on imported produce if that pest was
already present in Japan but not under official control as defined by the IPPC.
60. The representative of the United States recalled that he had previously raised concerns over
the basis and application of Japan's phytosanitary legislation, in particular with respect to horticultural
products that continued to face unjustified quarantine actions at Japan's ports of entry.  Even when
Japan required no domestic quarantine treatment for the same species of pests, the treatment imposed
on imported produce included fumigation which in many cases ruined the products.  The UnitedStates considered Japan's actions to be highly disruptive of trade.
61. The representatives of Australia and of the European Communities expressed their concern
regarding Japan's official control restrictions and supported the statements made by New Zealand and
the United States.
62. The representative of Japan recognized that the IPPC standards should be one of the basis in a
possible future quarantine system for Japan.  Japan was examining whether its appropriate level of
protection could be maintained by applying plant quarantine measures in line with the new IPPC
definition, taking into account Japan's climate and the large volume of imports into Japan.  A numberG/SPS/R/28
Page 12
of pests were presently under study and although a final conclusion had not yet been reached,
discussions were underway to identify practical measures to reduce the effects of Japan's official
control measures on international trade.
Brazil's import requirements for seed potatoes  - Concerns of Canada and the European Communities
63. The representative of Canada expressed concerns regarding Brazil's required certification for
a pest that was not of economic significance nor of significant risk to plant health.  Canada considered
this to be an issue of quality that was more appropriately resolved between the buyer and the seller,
and not by government certification schemes.  Although Canadian technical officials were working
with Brazil to complete a risk assessment, this is sue was not being resolved as quickly as warranted.
64. The representative of the European Communities stated that on 13 November 2001, the
Brazilian authorities had given notice of new measur es on imports of seed potatoes.  The European
Communities were one of the main suppliers of this product to Brazil.  He requested Brazil to modifyits measures on the basis of the technical arguments and proposals that had been made bilaterally.
The European Communities requested Brazil to postpone the implementation of these measures.
65. The representative of the United States shared the concerns expressed by both Canada and the
European Communities concerning the disruption of trade in seed potatoes.  The United States hoped
that Brazil would revise their policy as soon as possible.
66. The representative of Brazil noted that his country had been carrying out consultations on the
issue of seed potatoes for quite some time.  Brazilian experts were considering a new proposal from
the European Communities and hoped to provide a reply as soon as possible.  The Brazilian Directive
aimed at enhancing market opportunities in relati on to previous regulations by creating two new
categories of imports for seed potatoes.  Brazil was interested in diversifying their source of suppliersof seed potatoes given the strategic importance of the sector for Brazil.  Brazil emphasized that
national producers were subject to the same considerations applicable to foreign providers, and his
country's motivation could not be construed as aiming towards restricting market access for seed
potatoes in Brazil.  Brazil reiterated an invitation for the European Communities to send a team of
experts to become familiar with their system, and witness the fact that national producers were subject
to the same considerations as the foreign suppliers.
67. With respect to the comments made by Canada, Brazil recalled that the matter had been
extensively discussed by authorities from both countries.  The Brazilian legislation required that
exporters of seed potatoes to Brazil had to have a certification system in place; apparently this was not
the case for Canada.  The representative from Brazil added that he would transmit the concerns voiced
by the United States to the competent authorities.
68. The representative of Canada clarified that Canada had a certification system for seed
potatoes but that Canada does not certify for minor pests that affect only quality.  In response to Brazil
invitation, the representative of the European Comm unities suggested that Brazil should send a team
of experts to inspect the production and food safety conditions within the European Communities.
EC agricultural biotechnology approval procedures - Concerns of the United States
69. The representative of the United States recalled that the European Communities had been
maintaining a moratorium on the approval of agricultural biotechnology products since 1998.  The
United States considered this moratorium to be  unjustified and indicated that it resulted in
approximately 1 billion dollars loss of US exports  to the European Communities.  He observed that
senior European Commission officials had publicly stated that the moratorium was illegal.  The
representative of the United States indicated that despite the recent adoption of EC Directive 01/18,G/SPS/R/28
Page 13
the moratorium remained in place and trade continued to be blocked.  The United States was of the
view that the Commission had the authority and the power to act in the face of this illegal moratorium
and it had chosen not to do so.  The European Commission's failure to take action on this issue was a
matter of growing concern to the United States.  The representative of Canada said his country shared
the concerns expressed by the United States and regretted the inability of the European authorities totake steps to ensure that EC member States met their SPS obligations.  Canada called upon the
European Communities to lift the moratorium as soon as possible.
70. The representative of Australia supported the views expressed by the United States and
Canada about the lack of scientific basis for the EC moratorium.  Australia was also concerned about
the EC related proposals on genetically modified food and feed, and the traceability and labelling of
genetically modified organisms (GMOs).  She re quested further information as to whether the
European Communities had conducted a science-based risk assessment for its traceability regulationsor based its measure on an international standard.  The European Communities had confirmed in their
previous responses that the research undertaken had confirmed that those GM foods and GM plants
and derived products so far developed and marketed following usual risk assessment procedures had
not shown any new risk to human health or the environment, beyond the usual uncertainties of
conventional plant breeding, or risks that were likely to put in danger the chosen level of health orenvironmental protection in the European Communities.  Given this explanation, the representative of
Australia requested further clarification as to how, in the absence of an identifiable risk to human
health, the proposed traceability system met SPS requirements.
71. The representative of the Philippines shared the concerns expressed by the United States and
reiterated his country's position regarding traceability of GMOs.  He noted that the EuropeanCommunities had failed to demonstrate any scientific evidence that GMOs were not as safe as their
conventional counterparts, and that there were not less trade restrictive measures available to manage
the risk.
72. The representative of the European Communities noted that he understood the frustration of
other Members that no progress had taken place si nce the last meeting.  The European Commission
and the EC member States remained determined to put in place a regulatory framework to allow
GMO and GM products to be marketed freely within the European Communities and noted that the
progress had been made in that respect.  He requested patience and understanding on this very
sensitive dossier which was being dealt with at the highest level within the European Communities.
China's import ban on products of Dutch orig in - Concerns of the European Communities
73. The representative of the European Communities recalled that China had detected traces of
chlorophenicol in a few Dutch exports of animal products and immediately imposed a ban on a wide
range of Dutch exports.  The European Communities considered this a disproportionate reaction to a
problem that could have been resolved in a mutually satisfactory manner without disrupting trade.
Although some progress had been made, the European Communities called upon China to increase
efforts to resolve the issue.
74. The representative of China observed that other countries had faced similar problems with
Dutch products.  Progress had been made on resolving this matter and his country was now working
to remove the ban for other products.  For this purpose, China had requested the Netherlands to
provide information to enable China to conduct a risk assessment, as soon as possible.  He took note
of the EC concerns and stated that China hoped to resolve the remaining problems as soon as possible.G/SPS/R/28
Page 14
Australia's restriction on pigmeat - Concerns of the European Communities
75. The representative of the European Communities noted that Australia banned imports of
pigmeat from the European Communities, except Danish  pigmeat subject to a specific heat treatment.
He recalled that Australia had began a risk assessment for pigmeat imports in May 1998, and although
the results had been scheduled for February 2000 they had not been presented and no alternative datehad been set.  The European Communities had formally proposed equivalent measures, but Australia
had not accepted these, in violation of Article 4 of the SPS Agreement.  Four and a half years was too
long to wait for a risk assessment to be undertaken, and the delay was out of proportion to the
objective.  The European Communities requested Australia to take a decision as quickly as possible.
76. The representative of Australia indicated that her country was conducting a generic import
risk analysis (IRA) of the quarantine risks and risk management options associated with disease
agents that may be introduced into Australia with pigmeat imported from a number of countries,including EC member States.  A technical issues paper issued early in 2001 identified a range of
quarantine risks including foot-and-mouth disease, Af rican swine fever, classical swine fever, as well
as various other pig diseases.  The pigmeat IRA being conducted was necessarily comprehensive and
complex;  Australia's pig industry had a very favourab le health status.  In the case of the EC exports,
the risk analysis had to deal with three OIE List  A diseases, as well as a number of other serious
diseases present in EC member States but absent in Australia.  For some serious diseases little
scientific information was available and Australia had had to commission significant research to
provide independent scientific information on a range of issues including the transmissibility of
Porcine Respiratory and Reproductive Syndrome (PRRS).  The results of some mayor research was
expected to be available at the end of the year.  Technical input from the European Communities onPRRS and other diseases being considered in the import risk analysis would be welcomed.
(c) Consideration of specific notifications received
G/SPS/N/BRA/65 – Pest risk assessments for imports of plant origin
77. The representative of Canada referred to Brazil's legislative requirement for pest risk
assessments for all vegetable products imported into Brazil, published on 28 March 2002.  WhileCanada did not challenge the right of Brazil to conduct pest risk analyses for imported commodities,
they considered the measure as unduly restrictive of trade, in particular given that imports would be
suspended on 27 November 2002, pending completion of the pest risk assessments.  Canada had
exported a number of products covered by this measure for a number of years without problems
arising.  Canada requested Brazil to allow existing trade from well known sources to continue while
the pest risk assessments were being completed.  In  this regard, Canada was prepared to provide the
information required to facilitate the early completion of any risk assessments concerning productsfrom Canada.
78. The representative of the United States expressed concern over the new pest risk analysis
(PRAs) procedures notified by Brazil.  The United States did not believe that it was necessary or
justifiable to ban or temporarily halt the importation of products while pest risk analysis were being
conducted unless there was a specific pest risk problem that would required such drastic action.  TheUnited States also sought clarification regarding the implementation of these new requirements.  The
representatives of Australia, the European Communities, New Zealand and Peru shared the concerns
expressed by Canada and the United States and requested Brazil to withdraw the application of the
measure.
79. The representative of Brazil stated that one of the key concerns of his country was that many
PRAs were open-ended, in other words the studies never came to completion.  Brazil was reassessing
the matter and considering alternatives to the PRAs, such as the possibility of extending the time-G/SPS/R/28
Page 15
frame for implementation of the measure in the case of ongoing studies, including cases where
documents had already been forwarded to Brazil.  The representative of Brazil requested that the
United States identify its concerns in writing, so that a response could be provided by the competent
authorities.
G/SPS/N/ARG/67 and G/SPS/ N/ARG/68 – Pest risk assessment requirements
80. The representative of the United States recognized Argentina's efforts to develop a procedure
governing the establishment of sanitary and phytosanitary requirements for products entering their
territory.  He sought clarification regarding several aspects of those procedures, in particular of the
criteria to be used in determining whether or not a product tracing system through the production and
marketing chain met the requirements of this measure.  This measure also referred to mutual
agreements under which Argentina authorized imports of animals and animal products.  The United
States was interested in learning more about existing agreements that Argentina might haveconcluded, as well as the criteria and procedures for future such agreements.  Furthermore, the United
States sought information on the role of equivalence under this measure.  For example, when
inspecting export establishments would Argentina recognize the overall inspections systems of
exporting countries, or only verify compliance with Argentine requirements?
81. The representative of Canada stated that his country found certain elements of Argentina's
measure to be unnecessarily trade restrictive, su ch as the requirement for an audited traceability
system throughout the entire product and marketing chain for a wide range of products, live animals,
reproductive material, soil dressing etc.  Canada was concerned that all foreign establishments would
be subject to prior inspection and authorization that was only valid for two years.  This requirement
provided no flexibility for cases where no risk problems were present, and could result in high costs toexporters.  Canada requested information on the implementation of this measure.  The representatives
of New Zealand and of the European Communities supported the concerns raised by the United States
and Canada and expressed a systemic interest in the issue.
82. The representative of Argentina requested the United States to provide its questions in
writing.  The notification was open for comments and the period for comments had been extended dueto requests from trading partners.  In response to the comments made by the European Communities,
he noted that plants exporting meat to the European Communities were approved following a visit of
EC experts, and then the conditions were maintained by Argentina.
G/SPS/N/IDN/17– Ban on hormones in animal production
83. The representative of the United States stated that the implementation of this regulation would
effectively ban the use of several growth hormones and there was no scientific evidence to support
this measure.  US regulatory agencies had been conducting research since the 1950s on the use andsafety of approved growth hormones.  A concensus had been reached regarding the safety of these
hormones if used with good veterinary practices.  The United States requested Indonesia to put
forward scientific data in support of its proposed ban.  In the event that no scientific data existed, the
United States requested Indonesia to reconsider this proposal as soon as possible.
84. The representative of Canada, supported by Australia and Mexico, expressed concerns
regarding Indonesia's apparent import ban on live cattle and beef derived from cattle treated with
synthetic growth hormones.  A number of questions surrounding the risk-based nature of these
measures were highlighted, particularly given the precedence established in the WTO regarding
measures prohibiting growth hormones.  They requested Indonesia to indicate whether it had
conducted a risk assessment and to provide the details of the risk based rational for its measures.G/SPS/R/28
Page 16
85. The representative of the European Communities clarified its position with respect to
hormones.  He noted that there was a WTO finding on the issue and that it was the EC's intention to
bring its legislation into compliance with the ruling of the panel.  Much work had been undertaken in
this regard and the European Communities expected to soon be able to ensure that the EC ban was
fully compatible with the WTO.
86. The representative of Indonesia noted that his country had not yet implemented the regulation,
but had notified to Members the fact that they were going to amend the decree concerning
classification of veterinary drugs.  Although Indonesia had not yet banned hormone growth
promoters, there were some reasons to believe that growth hormones could be hazardous to human
health, due in part to the fact that developed countries' consumption patterns were different to those in
Indonesia.  He further noted that the use of horm one growth promoters in poultry had been banned
internationally.
G/TBT/N/CHN/6 – Zero tolerance for e-coli
87. The representative of the United States recognized the need for China to reduce bacterial
contamination on raw meats and poultry products to the lowest achievable level but had two concerns
related to this notification.  The United States believed that the complete elimination of
enteropathogenic bacteria in raw meats and p oultry products was not achievable using existing
technologies and practices and they were interested in more information related to the risk assessment
that had been used as the basis for this zero tole rance.  Experience in the United States had shown that
carcasses of normal healthy birds and animals could still contain a variety of bacteria, including those
of concern to China, but proper preparation and ha ndling could eliminate health concerns.  As the
basis of China's notification appeared to be food safety and human health concerns, the United Statesrequested that China also notify this proposed regulation under the provisions of the SPS Agreement.
88. The representative of China indicated that he had taken note of the concerns raised by the
United States and would consult with the standardizing agency and take the necessary steps.
G/SPS/N/URY/5/Rev.1 – Ri sk assessment on BSE
89. The representative of the United States observed that Uruguay had notified its adoption of the
EC BSE geographical base risk approach for classifying countries.  He encouraged Uruguay to
consider the US BSE-free status and the Harvard risk assessment on BSE as they considered the
application of this risk profile to the United States.  The United States looked forward to continuing
discussions with Uruguay with the objective of reaching a satisfactory conclusion.
90. The representative of Canada indicated that his country looked forward to working with
colleagues from Uruguay in providing information which would confirm Canada's status as free of
BSE.
91. The representative of the European Communities highlighted that the EC risk classification
on BSE was never intended to serve as the international norm.  He encouraged Members to work on
agreed OIE risk classifications in relation to BSE at the international level.  Discussions were
continuing in the OIE in that direction and the European Communities hoped an agreement would be
reached by June-July 2003.
92. The representative of Uruguay indicated that his country was highly dependent on animal
product exports.  If BSE appeared in Uruguay it would not only affect the health and life of people
and animals, but would have an economically devastating effect.  He explained that Uruguay had
adopted emergency measures due to the increase in the number of countries with BSE over the last
year and the increased risk of introducing the disease into his country.  According to OIE data, at theG/SPS/R/28
Page 17
end of 2000 there were 12 countries with local outbreaks, while that figure currently stood at 22.
Uruguay had adopted the risk assessment criteria established by the European Communities until such
time as the OIE produced a list of countries classified in relation to BSE, and would review its
legislation when the OIE finished its work in this area.
G/SPS/N/CHN/10– China's Mi nistry of Health regulations on biotechnology
93. The representative of the United States recalled that at the last meeting his country reported
that China had not notified the regulations concerning agriculture biotechnology proposed by the
Ministry of Health.  He expressed concern regarding the implementation dates proposed in these
regulations and requested China to consider an interim period of implementation that would allow
sufficient time for compliance by US exporters.  The representative of Argentina shared the concerns
with regard to the possible trade effects of the regulations that had been notified and indicated that
Argentina had held bilateral consultations with China to discuss the possible trade effects.
94. The representative of China clarified that they had notified the draft regulation to the WTO
before the last SPS Committee meeting and that during the meeting the notification had been
processed by the Secretariat.  He indicated that afte r having consulted with the Ministry of Health, the
interim period could be extended for one year.
G/SPS/N/EEC/149 and G/SPS/N/EEC/1 50– Concerns raised by Argentina regarding responses that
the European Communities circul ated as G/SPS/GEN/337 and 338
95. The representative of Argentina drew attention to the 21 questions for which his country was
seeking a written response from the European Communities (G/SPS/GEN/354).  At this time
Argentina wanted only to point out the fact that the notified version drafted by the Council did not
include the amendments made by the European Parliament.  Argentina enquired as to whether thelatest version notified included the amendments.
96. The representative of the European Communities noted that they had received the questions
from Argentina at a late date, and would provide answ ers to the questions in writing.  He confirmed
that the European Communities usually notified a draft text to the WTO to allow Members enough
time to comment while the proposed regulation was being circulated in the Parliament and Council.Discussions were still underway in these two bodies and as soon as a final regulation was adopted it
would be notified to the SPS Committee for information.
G/SPS/N/BRA/67 – Exports of live ostriches
97. The representative of the European Communitie s stated that they would bilaterally request
clarification of the legal scope and scientific grounds for the measure.  The representative of Brazil
reported that during an informal consultation, Brazil had explained that the motives for their import
restriction on live ostriches was due to the possible threats that live imports of ostriches posed to theBrazilian poultry industry.  The regulation that had been notified to the SPS Committee required that
the OIE existing standards for inspection, supervision and quarantine requirements, both at the point
of origin and the point of destiny, be followed.  He took note of the request from the European
Communities to provide the necessary risk assessment for the non OIE-listed diseases and agreed to
convey this request to the relevant authorities.
G/SPS/N/PHL/44 – Certificati on of meat and dairy plants
98. The representative of Canada expressed concerns about the effects of the memorandum order
MO7 from the Philippines Department of Agriculture, noting that it would have serious effects upon
its exports of meat and dairy products.  While Canada did not quarrel with the requirement thatG/SPS/R/28
Page 18
imports be produced in plants applying HACCP procedures and that there be a certification to this
effect, it was not clear whether Philippine producers were subject to similar requirements.  The
requirement of a third party independent certification was unwarranted and not the least trade
restrictive option.  Canada's governmental aut hority, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, was
prepared to certify that exports to the Philippine s had been produced in HACCP compliant plants and
there was no need for additional certification by a third party.
99. The representative of the European Communities supported by Australia, Korea, New
Zealand and the United States expressed their concerns regarding the Philippine's certification
requirements of meat and dairy products.  The EC certification requirements already put a lot of
emphasis on HACCP compliance.  Australia felt that the Philippine's proposed measures were not in
accordance with SPS obligations.  Many Members felt that third party certification was unwarranted
and unjustified.  In this regard, they urged the Philippines to defer these proposed measures pertainingto inspection and certification requirements of meat and dairy products.
100. The representative of the Philippines clarified that certification of HACCP compliance by
third party auditors was required in the light of several documented cases of contaminated products
entering the country.  His country was concerned that not all shipments came from well established
HACCP compliant plants.  The measures were not meant to replace or duplicate the exportingcountry's inspection system but to complement it.  The Philippines believed that appropriate and
sufficient time had been provided to trading partners and foresaw no problem that trade restrictions
might occur especially for countries claiming to be HACCP compliant.  The representative of the
Philippines indicated that HACCP was a universal guideline approved and propagated by FAO and
WHO.  He had taken note of the comments made  and discussions would be pursued with those
concerned with a view to finding an acceptable solution.
Update of G/SPS/GEN/204
101. The Secretariat recalled that it had been agreed that G/SPS/GEN/204, which contained a
summary of all specific trade concerns raised since 1995 in the Committee, would be updated on aregular basis.  The next update would be undertaken before the first Committee meeting of 2003.
Members were requested to inform the Secretariat of issues that had been resolved bilaterally but not
notified to the Committee, by the end of 2002.
(d) Any other matters related to the operation of the transparency provisions
102. The Chairperson noted that notifications received since the last Committee meeting were
summarized, on a monthly basis, in documents G/SPS/GEN/336, G/SPS/GEN/340 and Corr.1,
G/SPS/GEN/341, and G/SPS/GEN/342 and Corr.1.  The most recent list of National NotificationAuthorities was contained in G/SPS/NNA/4 and the most recent list of National Enquiry Points in
G/SPS/ENQ/14.  No Member had yet submitted a notification of the recognition of equivalence,
according to the format contained in G/SPS/7/Rev.2/Add.1.
Report of informal meeting on transparency
103. The Chairperson recalled that informal consul tations had been held prior to the Committee
meeting to discuss an informal proposal made by Egypt to include a new box on special and
differential treatment in the standard notification format and a Canadian proposal on enhancing
transparency of special and differential treatment (G/SPS/W/127).  At the informal consultations,
Canada had explained that under its proposal special and differential treatment would be notified expost in the form of an addendum, i.e. once the importing Member and the developing exporting
Member had found a solution to a problem identified by the exporting country.  Such a solution might
take the form of special and differential treatment, technical assistance, or an adjustment to theG/SPS/R/28
Page 19
measure on an MFN basis.  Canada noted that although an importing country could probably not
identify possibilities for special and differential treatment in advance, it could try to find a solution to
a problem identified by a developing country exporting into its market.  Notification of this solution
might encourage other Members to address similar concerns.  Canada stressed that unless a
developing country expressed an interest and identified problems related to a notified measure, theirconcerns could not be addressed.  In this context, Canada noted that it had never received such a
request for special and differential treatment.
104. The Chairperson further reported that Egypt, while appreciative of Canada's proposal,
explained that it did not fully address its concer n to operationalize Article 10 of the Agreement.
Canada's proposal did not specify the desirable result of the bilateral consultations to be held, and
contained best endeavour language.  Egypt believed that it was possible for an importing country to
provide information in its initial notification, and that providing this information should be mandatorywhere national regulations went beyond international standards.  Information to be provided could
include: a list of countries that had exported the product in question during the last 3 years, and the
value of trade involved;  the technological requirem ents necessary to comply with the new regulation;
the types of special and differential treatment the importing country was ready to provide, including
for example the timeframe for Article 10.2; and the types and sources of technical and financialassistance that could be provided.  A number of Members supported the Egyptian proposal.  One
Member noted that the special and differential treatment should be provided on an MFN basis.  Other
Members invited Egypt to provide its proposal in writing to enable its further consideration.
105. The Secretariat had noted that provision of special and differential treatment was not normally
reported.  However, it was aware of certain instances in which developing country Members hadidentified difficulties with proposed measures, as when the European Communities notified changes
in its aflatoxin regulations.  In this case, the timeframe for application of the regulation had been
extended, proposed aflatoxin levels for some products had been revised, and sampling procedures had
been modified.  Technical assistance had also been provided to certain countries.
106. The Chairperson stated that one Member had provided an example of a trade problem that had
been resolved as a result of consultations with the importing country.  Yam exports had been
interrupted because MRLs for certain pesticides had not been established.  However, after
discussions, the importing Member agreed that the relevant MRLs applied to sweet potatoes would be
extrapolated for use on yams, and trade had resumed.  The Chairperson recalled that several Members
had stated that special and differential treatment in the SPS context was different from other areas;
and that technical assistance was a more appropriate way to address the needs of developing
countries.  Several Members had highlighted the difficulty of determining what constituted specialand differential treatment, especially where solutions were applied on an MFN basis.  One Member
stressed that what was important was to find practical solutions to trade problems, whether these
solutions consisted in special and differential treatment, technical assistance or modifications to
proposed measures on an MFN basis.
107. After the report by the Chairperson on the informal meeting, the representative of Canada
called on Members to consider agreeing to the Canadian proposal at the next meeting as an "early
harvest" in implementing the special and differenti al treatment provisions of the Agreement.  On
behalf of ASEAN, the representative of the Philippines stated that it was in the process of studying the
Egyptian and Canadian proposals and would comment in due course.  The representative of Egypt
indicated that his country's preference to hold further discussion on both proposals before any interimor final agreement was reached.  The Committee agreed to continue discussing this matter at an
informal meeting to be scheduled prior to the next regular meeting of the SPS Committee.G/SPS/R/28
Page 20
China's notifications of SPS measures
108. The representative of Canada raised concerns regarding China's notifications of SPS
measures.  While recognizing that China had made significant efforts to implement its transparency
obligations, there were still certain measures not notified, a lack of feedback on comments made tothe Chinese authorities on their notifications, and notifications circulated very close to the date of
entry into force.  He cited G/SPS/N/CHN/15 as a particular case in point.  The representative of the
United States supported Canada in its concerns over Chinese notification practices.
109. The representative of Mexico shared the concerns of Canada and the United States about
China's transparency, but stressed that these problems were not limited to China.  Analysis by the
Mexican authorities showed that late notifications of measures with limited comment periods, or
notification of measures that were already in place, was commonplace.  He suggested that the issue oflate notifications and the use of emergency notifications for routine situations (as opposed to ones
where an unexpected event of urgent health protection had arisen) merited further discussion at a
future SPS Committee meeting.
110. The representative of China agreed with Mexico  that the problem of late notifications and
over-use of emergency formats was wide-spread.  China had implemented its transparency obligationsthrough MOFTEC as the notification authority and AQSIQ as the national enquiry point.  He stressed
that China had made significant efforts to implement its transparency obligations and recalled that
staff at both MOFTEC and AQSIQ had undergone training and that further training was foreseen.
China had made 140 notifications of existing measures at the time of accession to the WTO and had
made 15 notifications of new measures since join ing.  Notifications of new measures had been
delivered to the WTO Secretariat with a 60-day comment period;  any reduction in the comment
period was most probably due to delays in processing by the Secretariat.  He offered to provide the
Committee with a detailed analysis of the comment periods on Chinese SPS notifications.
111. The Secretariat stated that the normal delay between receipt of a Member's notification and its
circulation to all Members was 2-3 days.  The Secretariat also echoed the concern raised by Mexiconoting that many Members did not respect the r ecommended notification procedures by allowing a
60-day comment period for routine notifications.
III. THE SPS AGREEMENT AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
(a) Implementation of the provisions for special and differential treatment
112. No issues were raised under this agenda item.
IV. EQUIVALENCE - ARTICLE 4
(a) Report of the informal meeting on equivalence
113. The Chairperson reported on informal consultations held prior to the SPS Committee on the
issue of equivalence.  Informal discussions focu ssed on the three points regarding clarification of
specific paragraphs of the Decision.
Clarification of the pr ovisions of paragraph 5
114. The Secretariat had prepared a note on the clarification of paragraph 5 (G/SPS/W/121), and
Argentina submitted written comments on the Secretariat note (G/SPS/W/123).  In its paper,Argentina suggested that the Committee should go beyond the recommendations set out in the
Secretariat paper, in particular to develop guidelin es for accelerated procedures for the recognition ofG/SPS/R/28
Page 21
equivalence of products historically traded; to provide for follow-up and analysis in the SPS
Committee of the guidelines on the judgement of equivalence developed by the three standard-setting
organizations; and to provide for consideration of  any notifications received regarding agreements
recognizing equivalence, to enable the Co mmittee to examine the question of practical
implementation of Article 4.
115. Argentina had explained that paragraph 5 established a principle, and a number of issues
needed to be clarified to allow for implementation of this principle.  The current paragraph 5 was
insufficient to help developing countries negotiate the recognition of equivalence.  In Argentina's
view, guidelines should first identify the variables which determine whether equivalence procedures
would be simplified;  second identify how these va riables determined simplification of the procedure;
third identify the rights and responsibilities of the importing and exporting countries; and fourth
clarify the results and expected effects of this simplification of procedures.
116. The Chairperson further reported that other Members, while prepared to accept the
recommendations contained in the Secretariat note, remained to be convinced that further work was
necessary.  In particular, a number of Members expressed reservations about the SPS Committee
analyzing or second-guessing the work undertaken in three standard-setting organizations (Codex,
OIE and IPPC).  Regarding the preparation of detailed guidelines for equivalence procedures, severalMembers felt that this work should be carried out in the standard-setting organizations, and mentioned
that such work was included in the Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and
Certification Systems (CCFICS) work on judgement of equivalence.  One Member pointed out that
the Committee could already discuss equivalence notifications at its meetings, and that no further
recommendation was necessary in this regard.  Anot her Member was of the opinion that some of the
recommendations in the Secretariat note could be strengthened or clarified.
117. At the informal meeting, one Member had stated that three types of situation in the context of
paragraph 5 could be distinguished.  The first was a situation where the exporting country's products
were in conformity with the importing Member's measures;  in the second case the exported products
were not in compliance with the importing Member's measure because equivalence had beenrecognized;  and in the third instance an exporter was proposing a new measure which it wanted to be
recognized as equivalent.  In this third situation the existence of historical trade was relevant.
118. One Member had suggested that consideration of Article 4 came only after Articles 2, 3 and 5
had been fulfilled.  Whenever a new measure was proposed, there was a need for an iterative
discussion of these Articles and comparative risk profiles.  These discussions should take place before
more formal discussions under Article 4 were initia ted, yet the three sister organizations were working
on Article 4 only.
Clarification of the pr ovisions of paragraph 5
119. Following her report of the informal discussions on transparency, the Chairperson invited
Members to consider the recommendations contained in G/SPS/W/121.  The Committee agreed on
clarification of the provisions of paragraph 5, as contained in document G/SPS/19/Add.1.
Clarification of the pr ovisions of paragraph 6
120. The Chairperson reported that informal discussions of paragraph 6 were based on a note
prepared by the Secretariat (G/SPS/W/122), summarizing Members statements that while a request for
equivalence should not in itself be a reason to disrupt trade, the existence of such a request should also
not preclude Members to take measures that are necessary to protect health.  One Member, withwidespread support, suggested that the OIE and IPPC should also be encouraged to consider this
paragraph in their work on equivalence.G/SPS/R/28
Page 22
121. The Committee agreed on clarification of the provisions on paragraph 6, as contained in
document G/SPS/19/add.1.
Clarification of the pr ovisions of paragraph 7
122. The Chairperson further reported that in the informal discussions Members had considered a
new non-paper submitted by Australia, in addition to previous papers prepared by Australia andArgentina.  Australia's paper suggested that judgement of whether an exporting country's measure met
the importing country's appropriate level of protection required an objective basis for comparison of
alternative measures.  Australia further pointed out a number of issues which dealt with information to
be provided by the importing Member, and provided  an update of developments in Codex.  A number
of Members noted that this issue would be considered by CCFICS at its December meeting, and
suggested that the Committee revert back to this i ssue at its next meeting.  One Member raised the
issue of national treatment, and questioned whether the level of protection referred to in paragraph 7was a Member's appropriate level of protection.
123. Following the Chairperson's report, the Committee agreed to continue discussions on
paragraph 7 at an informal meeting to be schedu led prior to the next regular meeting of the SPS
Committee.  Members also agreed to invite the obse rver organizations to participate in that informal
meeting.
(b) Information from Members on their experiences
124. The representative of Guatemala recounted the experience his country had to date in
negotiating an equivalence agreement with Mexico on soft fruit, such as raspberries, blackberries and
blueberries.  The issue arose after Mexico initially required that soft fruit from Guatemala be treated
with a chlorine wash in response to an outbreak of cholera in the region.  Chlorine washing had anegative effect on the marketability of Guatemalan fruit, and according to the Pan-American Health
Organization, soft fruit did not constitute a risk for the spread of cholera.  In October 2001, Guatemala
requested that Mexico recognize its control measures, set out in the Integrated Environmental
Protection Act, as being equivalent to the chlorine wash.  In June 2002, a Mexican expert mission
visited Guatemala and found that the measures taken there were equivalent to the chlorine wash.However, the Guatemalan authorities had subsequently been told that they would have to petition the
Mexican Health Secretary before equivalence could be granted.  The representative of Guatemala
noted that this problem constituted a barrier to his country's exports, and hoped that a positive
outcome could be reported at the next SPS Committee meeting.  The representative of Argentina
expressed her appreciation for the presentation made by the representative of Guatemala as it
highlighted how administrative procedures could be a serious barrier to trade.
125. The representative of Chile noted that the concept of equivalence remained unclear.
Nevertheless, the European Communities had recognized Chilean measures as equivalent with regard
to ovine exports, pesticide residue testing and organic production.
(c) Information from relevant observer organizations
126. The representative of Codex recalled that CCFICS had not been able to agree a final text on
"Guidelines on the Judgement of Equivalence of Sa nitary Measures Associated with Food Inspection
and Certification Systems" at its last meeting.  A drafting group, headed by New Zealand, had been
formed to present draft guidelines for discussion at the 3-6 December 2002 meeting of CCFICS to be
held in Adelaide, Australia.
127. The representative of the IPPC stated that the Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures
(ICPM) had agreed to add the topic of equivalence to its work programme.  In the first instance, theG/SPS/R/28
Page 23
ICPM had appointed a working group to begin work on a concept standard on the efficacy of
measures, which would form the basis for future work on equivalence.  The concept standard on
equivalence was a centrepiece of the IPPC's work in the coming year and a temporary staff member
had been appointed to work on this topic.
128. The representative of the OIE stated that the OIE would be revising the draft guidelines it had
already circulated to its members on the basis of the outcome of the CCFICS meeting in December.
He noted that comments were solicited on the draft guidelines and requested that representatives bring
the guidelines to the attention of their national authorities.  The draft guidelines would be formally
discussed at the next General Session of the OIE in May 2003.
129. Commenting on the presentations by the three standards' organizations, Canada expressed
concerns as to the budgetary situation of the IPPC, given its increased workload and growing
demands for technical assistance.  Canada, supported by the European Communities, suggested thatMembers should press the Food and Agriculture Or ganization (FAO) to increase the budget available
to the IPPC Secretariat.  In response, the repres entative of the IPPC stated that the FAO recognized
that a funding problem existed at IPPC and that it had been addressed in September when a medium
term programme for the IPPC had been drawn up.  The FAO Council, which had met the week prior
to the SPS Committee, had agreed as to the need for further resources for the IPPC.
V. REPORT TO THE TRADE NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE.
130. The Chairperson recalled that paragraph 12 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration
(WT/MIN(01)/DEC/1) stipulated that WTO bodies which had received a mandate to address an
outstanding implementation issue were to report to the Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) by the
end of 2002.  The SPS Committee had received the mandate to "develop expeditiously the specificprogramme to further the implementation of Article 4 of the Agreement on the Application of
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures" (paragraph 3.3 of the Decision on Implementation-Related
Issues and Concerns (WT/MIN(01)/17)).  Consid eration of such a report to the TNC was also
foreseen in the Committee's work programme on equivalence (G/SPS/20).  A second issue to be
addressed in the report to the TNC was Brazil's proposal regarding the notification of SPS measures
131. The Chairperson indicated that she intended to  submit a report on her own responsibility in
which she would briefly recall the Brazilian proposal, and report on the changes to the transparency
procedures that were adopted by the Committee at its March meeting, drawing special attention to the
recommendations for submitting addenda and revisions when there are changes to a notified measure.
With respect to equivalence, she would report on the Committee's work programme and progress to
date, drawing attention to the format for the notification of determination of the recognition of
equivalence of SPS measures that was adopted at the June meeting.  The report to the TNC wassubsequently circulated as G/SPS/24.
132. The representative of Brazil stated that his authorities were still evaluating the amendments
which had been made to the recommended notification procedures and expected that Brazil would
table a proposal in this regard at the next meeting of the SPS Committee.  In reply to a question from
Argentina, the Secretariat clarified that while the Committee was not mandated to provide furtherreports, the TNC could request additional information at any time.
VI. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND COOPERATION
(a) Replies to the technical assistance questionnaire
133. The Chairperson noted that 27 Members had responded to the technical assistance
questionnaire (G/SPS/W/113), and the replies were  contained in G/SPS/GEN/ 295 and addenda.  SinceG/SPS/R/28
Page 24
the last meeting, China, Gambia, Guatemala, Hondu ras, Mauritius, Panama, Senegal, South Africa,
Sri Lanka and Yugoslavia had either replied to the questionnaire for the first time, or provided a
revision of their reply.  The Chairperson emphasized that Members that had not been able to meet the
original 31 January 2002 deadline for completion of the questionnaire, were not precluded from
completing the questionnaire and returning it for consideration at the next meeting of the Committee.She recalled that when completing the questionnaire, Members should pay particular attention to the
note prepared by the Secretariat on the typology of technical assistance (G/SPS/GEN/206).
(b) Technical assistance activities
134. The Secretariat reported on its technical assistance activities since the previous meeting of the
Committee.  On 5 November 2002, the WTO had held a seminar on technical assistance and capacity-
building related to the SPS Agreement.  The workshop heard presentations by representatives of the
FAO (including Codex and IPPC), OIE, UNCTAD,  UNIDO and the World Bank, representatives of
regional organizations (SADC, APEC, IICA) and the experience of two developing country Members,
Mauritius and the Philippines.  In addition to the presentations on technical assistance activities of
these organizations, the Chairman of the International Commission on Phytosanitary Measures
presented a particularly useful needs diagnostic tool, the Phytosanitary Capacity Evaluation.  The
presentations underscored the significant and varied on-going activities with respect to technicalassistance and capacity building at both national and regional level.
135. Key messages emerging from the seminar included the importance of a needs-focussed
approach; differences between countries and regions regarding their technical assistance needs; the
need to avoid duplication of effort and to improve coordination and cooperation among donor
agencies; and the need for a holistic approach to technical assistance and capacity-building.  TheWorld Bank representative gave an overview of the newly established Standards and Trade
Development Facility (STDF) which involved the FAO, OIE, WHO, World Bank and WTO.  These
five agencies had issued a joint statement in Doha  on the "Participation of Developing Countries in
the Development and Application of International Standards, Guidelines and Recommendations on
Food Safety, Animal and Plant Health" (WT/MIN(01)/ST/97).  Through the STDF, these agenciessought to better coordinate their efforts to provide targeted technical assistance and capacity building
in the SPS area. One conclusion emerging from the seminar was that the review and updating of the
legal framework for SPS measures was an extremely important obstacle to implementing SPS
measures in developing countries.
136. The Secretariat also reported on its involvement in technical assistance activities in Zambia,
the Russian Federation, Dominican Republic, Barbados, Tunisia, Paraguay and Cuba, and
forthcoming activities in Lesotho and Angola.  Members were also reminded that the Secretariat hadproduced a CD-rom on the SPS Agreement as a teaching tool.
137. The representatives of Paraguay, Uruguay, the Dominican Republic, Cuba and Barbados
thanked the Secretariat for the technical assistance activities held in their countries.  Uruguay and the
Dominican Republic also thanked the US Department of Agriculture and the Inter-American Institute
for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) for their a ssistance in organizing these SPS activities.  The
representative of Uruguay stressed the need for greater cooperation between regional and national
organizations, for greater focus at political level on these issues and for the involvement of the private
sector in SPS technical cooperation activities.  Technical assistance to adapt legislative and regulatory
frameworks was difficult but promised results, and he noted the FAO's work on food legislation in
this regard.
138. The representatives of Mexico and Argentina spoke of the need for technical assistance to
help Members understand and meet their SPS rights and obligations.  The representative of Mexico
echoed the comments of Uruguay and stated that perhaps the traditional workshop approach had runG/SPS/R/28
Page 25
its course.  He noted the problem of retaining trained staff in the public sector due to low pay, and
referred to document G/TBT/W/189 which set out Mexico's experience in more detail.  The
representative of Mexico suggested the development of an instruction manual for new employees in
the SPS/TBT area so as to ensure that government ag encies were not left in difficulty when a trained
staff member departed.
139. The representative of New Zealand referred to document G/SPS/GEN/352, which outlined
technical assistance activities undertaken by his country in the SPS area since 1995.  The
representative of Codex indicated that document G/SPS/GEN/344 outlined the activities of Codex on
technical assistance.  In this context, the IPPC noted that it offered three main forms of assistance:
regional training events (often in conjunction with the WTO); technical assistance projects up to a
maximum value of US$455,000 and duration of two years of which 11 had been undertaken to date;
and the Phytosanitary Capacity Evaluation tool (w hich would soon be available on CD-rom).  IPPC
members were currently evaluating a project on capacity building in biotechnology and food safety.
140. The representatives of the Philippines, on behalf of ASEAN, supported a change in focus to a
client driven and product-specific model of technical assistance delivery which could encompass a
wide range of hard and soft infrastructure.  He further suggested consideration of the provision of
technical manuals explaining new measures, identification and transfer of appropriate technology andinformation sessions for exporters.
141. The representative of Indonesia recalled the important bilateral technical assistance
programmes being run by Australia and New Zealand in his country, particularly with regards to pest
risk assessment.  He noted that the tragic events in Bali had curtailed many activities but hoped that
they would not lead to postponements in technical assistance delivery.
VII. MONITORING THE USE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
142. The representative of the United States referred Members to document G/SPS/GEN/343 in
which the United States proposed that the Committee consider requesting that the OIE revise
Chapter 2.1.14 of the International Animal Health Code to include procedures for low-pathogenic
strain of avian influenza.  The code currently deals only with highly pathogenic avian influenza.  Therepresentative of the OIE stated that an expert meeting group on avian influenza had been held in
Paris the week before the SPS Committee.  He noted that several Members had requested that the
chapter of the code dealing with Avian Influenza be expanded to cover low pathogenic strains and
frequently traded products.  He further stated that recommendations of the expert group would be
passed on to the Codex Committee at the end of November and for discussion at the General session
of the OIE in May of next year.  In this context, the representative of Japan informed the Committee
that his country presently allowed the importation of poultry products from three states of the UnitedStates and that technical discussions would be held on December 19-20 in Paris
VIII.  TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE PROTOCOL OF
ACCESSION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
143. The Chairperson recalled that at the June 2002 meeting of the Committee, Members had been
invited to raise relevant questions to China well in advance of the November Committee meeting.China had indicated that it might also address questions to other Members regarding their SPS
measures.  Chinese Taipei, the European Communities and the United States had submitted questions
in advance (G/SPS/W/124, 125 and 126 respectively).
144. The representative of China made a statement on China's SPS-related activities since
accession.  Fulfilling China's commitments had been a challenging task, however China applied SPSmeasures only to the extent necessary to protect life or health, and had made every effort to base itsG/SPS/R/28
Page 26
SPS measures on international standards, guidelines and recommendations.  Where there was
deviation between international standards and Chinese SPS measures, sufficient scientific
justifications could be provided.
145. Immediately after accession, the Chinese Government had established China's WTO
Notification and Enquiry Center under the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation(MOFTEC).  MOFTEC served as the focal point to fulfill notification obligations, including SPS
notifications, and to provide trade-related information in response to enquiries from individuals,
enterprises and WTO Members. Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Annex B of the SPS Agreement, the
International Standard and Technical Regulation Center of the General Administration of Quality
Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) had been designated to be China's SPS enquiry
point.  This institutional arrangement reflected the importance China attached to transparency, and
had ensured timely notifications of SPS-related measures.  Detailed information regarding the  China
WTO Notification and Enquiry Center and China's SPS enquiry point  had been provided to the WTO
in early 2002.
146. China had begun to sift its existing SPS-related laws, regulations and administrative measures
well before accession, resulting in 140 SPS notifications made in February and March 2002, pursuant
to Article 14 of China’s Protocol of Accession.  Aside from the notifications, China also promptlyresponded to questions regarding those notifications by supplying relevant SPS documents upon
request.  With regard to new SPS measures, China had also faithfully fulfilled its obligations under
the SPS Agreement.  Pursuant to Article 7 and Annex B of the SPS Agreement, China had notified 15
new or revised SPS measures.  Comments from ot her WTO Members on these notified measures had
been taken into account and responsible authorities had tried their best to reflect these comments, ifreasonable and justifiable, in the final adoption of the SPS measures.  For example, following
comments and information from the European Communities and the Netherlands on China’s import
ban on Dutch products of animal origin due to chloramphenicol contamination (G/SPS/N/CHN/5),
China had allowed some products such as certain kinds of sea fishes, sea molluscs, edible eggs and
egg products to be imported.  China also published promptly its newly adopted or revised SPSregulations and measures, as required by Annex B of the SPS Agreement, in the “Gazette of the
Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation” and the "Gazette of the General
Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine".  These new SPS regulations and
measures were also available at the websites of the AQSIQ, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of
Health, and the SPS Enquiry Point.
147. The representative of China emphasized that, because of the great challenges related to
accession, capacity building had been of the utmost importance, particularly in technical fields such asthe SPS Agreement.  A series of materials had been translated and published in the Chinese language,
and seminars and training courses had been organized for officials at various levels. China expressed
its appreciation to the Secretariat, other intern ational organizations and WTO Members for their
support in this respect.
148. The representative of China indicated that his general introduction had addressed some of the
questions raised by Members in advance of the meeting.  China had categorized the remaining
questions and would provide responses by subject.  Regarding harmonization, China had taken many
steps to base its SPS measures on international standards.  First, Article 10 of the "Law on
Standardization of the People’s Republic of China" stipulated that relevant international standards
should be taken into account while developing national standards.  Second, in 2001, theStandardization Committee of the People’s Republic of China (SAC) within AQSIQ had been
established.  This Committee was specifically responsible for the administration of standardization in
the whole country, for promoting an active participat ion in international standard-setting activities and
for alignment of national standards to international standards.G/SPS/R/28
Page 27
149. Third, AQSIQ had promulgated "Rules on Manage ment of Adopting International Standards"
in Decree No.10 in 2001.  The Rules stipulated explicitly the principle and procedures for adopting
international standards:  (i) determine if Codex, OIE or IPPC have adopted a related international
standard;  (ii) if a relevant international standard  existed, the Chinese standard should be the same or
equivalent to it, except in cases where there was suff icient scientific evidence;  (iii) a working plan for
adopting the international standard should be presented to SAC;  (iv) after the proposed standard was
ready, it should be published for public comments and the relevant organizations or specific standard
committees proposing the standard should take in to account the comments from the public; (v) the
proposed standard should be notified to Members for comments if it was not based on existing
international standards and had a significant effect on international trade, and the comments from
Members should be taken into account;  and (vi) the standards should be released after being adopted.
150. Fourth, in July 2002, SAC had worked out a target for adoption of international standards.  By
the end of 2005, the ratio of national standards based on international standards should reach 70 per
cent on the whole and 75-80 per cent in important fields such as SPS.  Fifth, to conform to
international standards, existing standards were bein g reviewed and modified.  The Ministry of Health
was reviewing dozens of food safety standards which were not in conformity with Codex standards.
151. Regarding consistency, the representative of China noted that China was a centralized
country, and the constitution and the current legal and standard system could effectively ensure
nationwide uniform implementation of laws, regulations, national standards and the WTO Agreement.
Local SPS regulations and standards which did not conform to national laws, regulations and
standards, as well as to the WTO Agreement, would be withdrawn by the central government.
152. On risk assessment, the representative of China explained that at the beginning of the 1990s,
China had participated in the drafting of the international standard of phytosanitary measures
regarding pest risk analysis.  China was one of the first developing country Members to conduct pest
risk analysis.  New SPS measures had been developed and import bans on a variety of agricultural
products had been lifted based on risk assessments.  In 2001, the National SPS Risk Assessment
Committee led by AQSIQ had been established to promote the development of risk assessment inChina in accordance with international standards.  In concluding his statement, the representative of
China indicated that the interim review process was a useful forum for clarification and information
exchange.
153. Several Members acknowledged the efforts required of China to comply with its WTO
obligations, expressed their appreciation for the information provided and requested written copies of
the statement.  The representative of Chinese Taip ei indicated that in its written questions it had
requested clarification of the quarantine procedures for imported fresh fruits.  He was not sure thisquestion had been addressed in China's statement.  Chinese Taipei indicated that China's smooth
implementation of its commitments was in the best interest of all Members, including China itself.
154. The representative of the European Communities indicated that it had raised a number of
issues whose clarification would be mutually advantageous to facilitate trade.  The European
Communities recognized that China might require time to reflect on these questions and lookedforward to a written response to the EC questions.
155. The representative of New Zealand noted the steps China was taking to meet key principles of
the SPS Agreement, including harmonization, equivalence, risk assessment and transparency. New
Zealand encouraged China to remedy those areas where China was not in compliance with its WTO
commitments, and to ensure that any new measures introduced were consistent with its obligationsunder the SPS Agreement.  New Zealand looked forwar d to continuing a fruitful exchange of views
on SPS matters, in both bilateral and multilateral contexts.G/SPS/R/28
Page 28
156. The representative of the United States noted that many of its questions had been addressed in
China's statement, including those regarding pest risk assessment and harmonization.  The United
States had also raised specific questions, for example related to quarantine inspection permits and raw
meat and poultry standards.  The United States hoped that China could provide a response to these
questions in sufficient time for the review mechanism to be completed by the SPS Committee beforethe end of 2002.
157. The representative of Chile highlighted that Chile had agreements on animal and plant health
with China to further the principles of the SPS Agreement, and was working on the recognition on
pest-free areas in accordance with Article 6.  Recently Chinese technicians had visited Chile to certify
its condition as free from fruit flies.  There had been great progress on the technical level, and Chile
was awaiting administrative progress to finalize the recognition process.
158. The representative of Australia emphasized the positive SPS relationship between Australia
and China.  Australia was bilaterally pursuing several issues regarding access for some animal and
plant products to China.  There were a number of outstanding bilateral issues whose solution had been
protracted, but Australia remained hopeful that they would soon be sorted out.  Australia appreciated
China's commitment to address systemic challenges in its implementation of the SPS Agreement
related to consistency, transparency, the use of international standards, the use of least trade-restrictive measures and matters related to non-discrimination.  Australia had been pleased to be
amongst those assisting China in its SPS traini ng programmes and would soon welcome a visit by
Chinese quarantine authorities for work on SPS matters.
159. The representative of Thailand informed the Committee of concerns similar to those
expressed by Chinese Taipei regarding the delays in receiving import permits for agriculturalproducts, especially fresh fruits.  Thailand's exports of fresh fruit and vegetables to China had
declined after China's accession to WTO.  Thailand requested written explanations from China.
160. The representative of China replied to some of the comments raised by Members.  Regarding
the US question on meat standards related to Escherichia Coli  and other bacteria, China's standards in
Article 10 of its food sanitation law provided that meat and other food must not be contaminated by
disease-causing organisms.  The procedures for obtaining import quarantine permits had been notified
according to Article 14 of the Protocol of Accession.  Importers in China filled out application forms
and sent them to the local quarantine bureau for a first consideration.  If the permits were for imports
of specific animals, plants or foods, the quarantine permit covered a combination of disease and food
safety issues.  If there was any prohibition on imports from overseas, the importers need not go
further.  Otherwise, the application form woul d subsequently be submitted to AQSIQ for final
approval.  There was no limit on the amounts of products covered by one application.  In the case offresh fruit, the same system applied.  Furthermore, there was no restriction on which ports could
import fruits unless there were no inspection facilities or unless agreed bilaterally.
161. Regarding four US meat plants, from December 2001 until March 2002, China had twice
found E. coli O157 on meat from two plants, and had also twice found other disease-causing
organisms on meat from the other two plants.  Chin a had immediately notified US authorities and was
working on lifting the bans on products from these four plants.  China looked forward to receiving
responses from its US counterparts and was confident that the problem could be solved through
bilateral discussions.
162. Regarding the US concerns about treatment of Alaskan logs, the representative of China
explained that imports of logs were permitted from countries that did not have appropriate facilitiesfor log treatment on condition that the arrival port s in China had these treatment facilities and the
capability to address risks of pests entering into China.  Pest species in logs imported from Russia
were similar to those in China, and logs exported from Russia could be treated at the border in theG/SPS/R/28
Page 29
north of China.  Logs from Alaska could so far not be treated in the same manner due to a high risk of
pest introduction since Alaska had a different ecosystem from China.  However, relevant Chinese
ports did not yet have the necessary treatment facilities.  Chinese and US experts were currently
discussing these issues.  The United States had agreed to establish a research project for log treatment
in Alaska, for example by dipping the logs in sea water.  China was expecting to hear good news fromthe project.
163. More generally, China appreciated the encouragement, understanding and patience expressed
by its trading partners, and confirmed that it would make efforts to continue its implementation of the
commitments in its Protocol of Accession and in the SPS Agreement.  China's statement would be
made available to Members in writing.  China looked forward to further cooperation with Members.
If any questions had remained unanswered they could be addressed through the normal channels of
the SPS Committee, which provided for efficient cooperation.
164. The Chairperson announced that she would make a short factual report on the transitional
review to the Council for Trade in Goods.  The Chai rperson briefly outlined the content of this report
(subsequently circulated as G/SPS/22).
IX. MATTERS OF INTEREST ARISING FROM THE WORK OF OBSERVER
ORGANIZATIONS
165. The representative of OIE referred Member s to document G/SPS/GEN/351 which outlined
OIE meetings in 2002 and those scheduled for 2003.  Expert working group meetings had taken place
on brucellosis, avian influenza, BSE and animal welfare.  The OIE Working Group on Animal
Production Food Safety was scheduled to meet  on 18-20 November 2002.  Recommendations from
these working groups would be circulated to Members for their adoption at the General Session of theOIE in May 2003.
166. The representative of IICA summarized technical assistance activities in the SPS area which
were described in detail in document G/SPS/GEN/350.  He highlighted the coordination meeting of
Enquiry Points for the FAO/WHO Coordinating Committee for Latin America and the Caribbean in
November 2002;  a Latin American and Ca ribbean Regional Technical Consultation  on phytosanitary
measures related to the IPPC in October in Costa Rica;  a fourth module of the Executive Series on
Food Safety, "Food Safety and Tourism", in September in the Dominican Republic, with the
participation of the WTO Secretariat; and food safety courses for the agri-food industry, with
emphasis on HACCP, by means of video-conferences linking.  He also stated that IICA and the
United States Department of Agriculture had facilitated the participation of two experts from the
countries of the Americas in the current meeting of the SPS Committee.
167. The representative of the International Plant Protection Convention stated that certain
activities had been cancelled in 2002 due to funding problems.  Extra-budgetary financing and staff
had been made available by Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, and
the Dutch Government had provided funding for the International Phytosanitary Portals system of
web-based information exchange.  A Working Group on pest risk assessment for Living Modified
Organisms had been held on 24-27 September with financial support from the Canadian Government.A memorandum of understanding between the IPPC  and the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD) was being developed which would recognize IPPC's important role and work on alien invasive
species.  At the Standards Committee meeting which was currently taking place in Rome topics under
discussion included amendments to the glossary of phytosanitary terms, irradiation as a phytosanitary
treatment, discussion of terms such as potential economic importance and environmental risk analysis.Legal difficulties had arisen with the implementation of ISPM 15: Guidelines for Regulating Wood
Packaging Material in International Trade.  A key provision of the standard was the use of a mark for
the certification of approved treatment measures.  However, the FAO faced difficulties in legallyG/SPS/R/28
Page 30
protecting the mark for use according to the standard and the implementation of the standard had been
temporarily suspended until these legal issues had been resolved.
168. During 2002, five new countries had joined the IPPC bringing the total number of member
countries to 119.  The 1997 amended Convention could enter into force only after two-thirds of the
Members ratified the amended text.  To date, only 45 countries had done so and the representative ofthe IPPC encouraged the remaining members to ratify the 1997 amendments.  He noted that once the
new text was ratified, the European Communities could become a member in its own right.  The
representative of the United States stressed the importance of Members ratifying the 1997 amended
IPPC and also highlighted the funding problem in th e organization.  He stressed that core funding had
to be increased if the IPPC was to meet its increased workload, and requested that Members raise the
issue with their respective national FAO representatives.
169. The representative of Codex reported that the Ad Hoc Task Force on Animal Feed hoped to
complete its work by June 2003.  The meeting of the Codex Executive Committee had discussed the
terms of reference for the on-going WHO/FAO joint evaluation of the Codex and members had
supported the review and its focus on management issues.  At an extraordinary session of the Codex
Alimentarius Commission, scheduled for February 2003, the joint evaluation document would be
formally discussed.  The report itself would be completed in December.  The scheduling of thisextraordinary session had caused some time-table problems as meetings of the regional commissions
and CCFICS had been advanced to allow countries to feed their comments into the process.  A web-
page on the Codex website had been dedicated to the joint evaluation
(http://www.codexalimentarius.net/evaluation_en.stm).  The results of the joint evaluation would be
factored into the Medium Term Plan for 2003-2007.  The representative of New Zealand and of theUnited States emphasized the importance of the Codex evaluation in enhancing the useful work done
by Codex.
170. The representative of Codex indicated that equivalence and traceability would to be discussed
at a forthcoming meeting of CCFICs.  On traceability, the CCFICs was considering how best to
address this issue within existing Codex texts.  The Codex Committees on Food Hygiene and onNutrition and Foods for Special Dietary Uses had recently met.  At the Food Hygiene meeting issues
related to microbiological risk and risk assessment as well as HACCP had been discussed.
X. OBSERVERS - REQUESTS FOR OBSERVER STATUS
171. The observers of the ACP Group, EFTA, IICA , OECD, OIRSA and SELA were invited to
attend the next meeting of the Committee.
172. The representatives of Australia, Canada and Norway supported granting observer status to
the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).  The representative of New Zealand, in principle,supported granting observer status to the CBD although her country remained to be convinced of the
benefits.  She stressed the need for better communication on the part of the CBD on living modified
organisms and alien invasive species.  The representative of the European Communities supported the
granting of observer status to both the OIV and CBD.  The representative of Egypt indicated that his
country's position remained that questions of observe rship should be dealt with as a cross-cutting and
systemic issue.  The Secretariat noted that the CBD would be part of a multilateral environmental
agreement information session on 11 November.
XI. ANNUAL REPORT TO THE COUNCIL ON TRADE IN GOODS
173. The Chairperson announced her intention to make a brief, factual annual report on the
activities of the SPS Committee in 2002 for consideration by the Council for Trade in Goods.  Thereport would provide information on the number of meetings held in 2002, and on the main workG/SPS/R/28
Page 31
undertaken at these meetings.  She indicated that she would draw attention to the progress made on
equivalence, and to the adoption of new transparency procedures.  In addition, the report would
mention the large number of specific trade concerns discussed, and provide an overview of
discussions under other agenda items.  The annual report to the Council on Trade in Goods was
subsequently circulated as G/L/592.
XII. OTHER BUSINESS
Bolivia - EC measures relating to aflatoxins in Brazil nuts
174. The representative of Bolivia notified the Committee that a mutually agreeable solution to the
long-running differences over aflatoxins had been reached by his authorities and those of the
European Communities.  The representative of the European Communities expressed his satisfaction
that it had been possible to reach an agreement on this issue.
Brazil - Update regarding restrictions faced on meat products175. The representative of Brazil informed the Co mmittee that the South African authorities had
authorized imports of meat and pork from Brazilian regions free of FMD.  Some difficulties remained
regarding administrative procedures for meat products, but Brazil expected these to be resolved soon.
In his view, the impending solution to the trade problem was testament to the important benefits
brought to international trade in agricultural products by the SPS Agreement.
Chinese Taipei – Information on FMD status
176. The representative of the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu
(Chinese Taipei) reported on the FMD situation in his country.  Prior to the outbreak in March 1997,
Chinese Taipei had been free of FMD for 68 years.  As a result of the FMD outbreak some 3.8 million
pigs on 6,000 farms had been slaughtered.  Furthermore, detection of a separate FMD virus strain inruminant livestock in June 1999 had exacerbated the situation.  The total cost of stamping out
measures was estimated at US$354 million whil e lost export revenues reached US$1.6 billion.
Chinese Taipei had established a strategic plan to recover its FMD-free status that included a
vaccination programme and strict disease diagnosis measures.  With just six cases reported in 2000
and the last case reported on 25 February 2001, the representative of Chinese Taipei expressedconfidence that his country was well on its way to regaining FMD disease-free status.
Cuba – Consultations with the European Communities on honey
177. The representative of Cuba reported that progress had been made in bilateral consultations
with the European Communities on regulation EC 96/93 setting out residue limits for imported honey.
She stated that she would update the Committee on any further progress at its next meeting.
Israel – EC regulation on cut flowers
178. The representative of Israel raised once more his country's concerns with EC Regulation
2002/36/EEC.  While he appreciated that the European Communities had modified and delayed the
entry into force of the proposed revision until Ap ril 2003, Israel was of the view that until the
European Communities had finalized its pest risk assessment the new regulation should be a
temporary, not a permanent, measure.  Furthermore, he expressed concern that the European
Communities was not taking measures to control pests already established in the EC member Statesfrom spreading to new areas, and requested consultations with the European Communities and other
interested Members.  The representative of Kenya also expressed his hope that a solution would be
found to the problem.  The representative of the European Communities replied that the question wasG/SPS/R/28
Page 32
complex and went beyond a simple matter of the use of the precautionary principle.  The ambitious
pest eradication measures of the European Comm unities should not be undermined by imports.  He
agreed to enter into bilateral consultations with the representatives of Israel and Kenya.
Mexico – US restrictions on melon
179. The representative of Mexico indicated that on 28 October 2002, the US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) imposed an emergency import ban on cantaloupe melons imported from
Mexico.  He considered this measure as being disproportionate and not based on scientific evidence of
any health risk.  Mexico requested the United States to suspend the import ban on cantaloupe melons
and to comply with its obligations under the SPS Agreement.  Details of Mexico's concerns are
contained in G/SPS/GEN/366.
180. The representative of the United States noted that FDA sampling of imported produce found
that samples of cantaloupe melons from most growing regions in Mexico tested positive forsalmonella. The samples had been collected both in the fall/winter and spring/summer seasons, and it
appeared that unsanitary conditions in the growing and packing of cantaloupe melons had resulted in
four salmonella outbreaks.  The import alert recomm ended officials to detain cantaloupe melons from
Mexico at all US ports without physical examination.  The October import alert expanded prior
import alerts that had targeted specific imports and growers whose products had been linked tooutbreaks or had tested positive for salmonella.  On 28 October 2002, the United States had also
announced that they would continue to work with Mexico on a food safety programme for production,
packing and shipping of fresh cantaloupe melons.  The Mexican Government had proposed a
certification programme based on good agricultural practices and good manufacturing practices that
would allow the FDA to identify firms that had adopted and implemented such a programme.  This
certification programme was still under development and that the United States looked forward to its
early implementation.
Argentina – Cuban measures on pork products
181. The representative of Argentina reported that a few technicalities needed to be sorted out
before the issue, raised at the previous meeting of the Committee, was completely resolved.
Indonesia – EC restrictions on shellfish
182. The representative of Indonesia recalled that this issue had previously been raised before the
Committee.  An EC inspection team had visited Indonesia in October 2002, and he noted that the
resolution of the problem would have a very positive effect on the fish industry in Indonesia,
especially at the production level.
183. The representative of the European Communities noted that shellfish were considered as
falling under the category of fish products posing the highest health risks for consumers, and therewere very strict production requirements, especially for maritime zones where they were farmed.  The
European Communities commended Indonesia for all the efforts that the country had made to meet
the safety requirements set out in EC legislation, and hoped that further progress would permit
resolution of the problem.
Indonesia – Japan's restrictions on sugar cane tops184. The representative of Indonesia noted that this issue had also been raised previously.
Japanese animal health inspection team had carried out an FMD risk assessment in Indonesia in
June 2002.  Indonesia recalled that the OIE had recognized the country as FMD free without
vaccination and requested Japan to take this into consideration.G/SPS/R/28
Page 33
185. The representative of Japan stated that the issue could not be resolved until the risk
assessment was completed.  Further data had been sought from Indonesia in order to finalize the risk
assessment.
Thailand – Australia's restrictions on durian
186. The representative of Thailand stated that his country had been seeking access to Australia's
market for durian since 1991.  He recalled that the issue had been raised on three occasions since
November 2000.  Australia's import procedures required the cutting of the products in an excessive
sampling size that was not justifiable.  The matter had been pursued on a bilateral basis, but to date no
agreement had been reached.  At the last meeting, Australia had mentioned that it was considering an
alternative method of rapid scan for inspection of  import durian.  Thailand was of the view that
Australia should have concluded its consideration of this method by now.  He urged Australia to lift
this unduly trade restrictive measure as soon as possible.
187. The representative of the Philippines, speaking on behalf of ASEAN, expressed systemic
concerns and noted their interest in monitoring developments in this matter.
188. The representative of Australia recalled that the import conditions of fresh durian from
Thailand were subject to review after the first year of trade.  She clarified that other less destructive
methods of inspection could be substituted for fruit cutting, if efficacy data showed that it couldprovide an equivalent level of quarantine protection from the key pests of concern. Australia was
willing to continue to work with the Thai authorities to make progress on the assessment of non
destructive inspection methods.
Thailand – Australia's restrictions on Infectious Bursal Disease (IBD) in chicken products
189. The representative of Thailand indicated that they had provided the risk analysis report on
IBD virus in chicken meat to Australia, as well as to the OIE.  This quantitative risk assessment
evaluated the risk of introducing IBD virus into Australia's backyard flocks through the importation of
cooked chicken meat products from Thailand.  The report concluded that the risk of introducing IBD
virus into backyard poultry in Australia was minimal.  The representative of Thailand noted that his
country was still waiting for a response from Australia.  He requested information from the OIE onthe progress made regarding this issue.
190. The representative of Australia noted that at its recent meeting the Australian risk analysis
panel had examined the Thai document in detail.  The panel had prepared technical comments and
questions about aspects of the Thai risk assessment which would shortly be sent to the relevant Thai
authorities.
191. The representative of the OIE took note of the risk analysis document, and indicated that as
soon as the OIE received more information and data from Members it would be in a position toreview the OIE chapter through its expert working group.
Thailand – Australia's restrictions on prawns
192. The representative of Thailand recalled that his country had previously raised this issue in the
Committee on behalf of ASEAN.  At the last meeting, Australia had stated that new measures were
being considered for imports of highly processed prawns.  Thailand expressed concerns over thecontinuation of the interim measure imposed by Australia and urged Australia to complete the risk
analysis and abolish the measure as soon as possible.  The representative of the Philippines, speaking
on behalf of ASEAN, supported the concerns expressed by Thailand and noted their interest in
monitoring the issue.G/SPS/R/28
Page 34
193. The representative of Australia reiterated that in June 2002 Australia had implemented new
measures for certain prawn products to provide a less trade restrictive way to address certain prawn
diseases.  The work of the Australian IRA on prawns and prawn products was underway, and the next
step would be the release of a revised draft import risk analysis report.  In the meantime, the interim
measures from June 2002, including the amended conditions, would continue.  The interim measurewas science based, temporary and applied only to a small proportion of prawn exports to Australia
from Thailand and other countries.  Experts from the aquatic animal biosecurity team had recently
visited Thailand to work out a cooperative technical assistance programme exploiting the feasibility of
alternate measures, including area disease freedom, which might enhance prospects for trade in the
prawn products of concern.  The representative of Thailand requested a written copy of the response
provided by Australia.
European Communities – Panama's restrictions on food products194. The representative of the European Communities stated that Panama had instituted a range of
severe measures on imports of animal products.  Although the law was intended to address risks
related to FMD, BSE, Newcastle disease and other exotic diseases, the European Communities
considered the law to be disproportionate and not science-based.  In addition, the measure had not
been notified.
195. The representative of Panama indicated that he would refer the EC concerns to the competent
authorities and hoped to be able to provide a prompt response.
XIII.  DATE AND AGENDA OF NEXT MEETING
196. 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
3. SPS Agreement and developing countries
(a) Implementation of the provisions for special and differential treatment
(b) Proposals from India and Canada
4. Equivalence – Article 4
(a) Information from Members on their experiences
(b) Information from relevant observer organizations
(c) Consideration of specific provisions of the Decision (paragraphs 5 and 7)
5. Disease – free areas – Article 6
6. Technical assistance and cooperation7. Monitoring the use of international standards
8. Matters of interest arising from the work of observer organizations
9. Observers - Requests for observer statusG/SPS/R/28
Page 35
10. Election of Chairperson
11. Other business
12. Date and agenda of next meeting
197. Following conclusion of the meeting, the date of the next SPS Committee meeting was
changed to 2-3 April 2003.  The following deadlines are relevant:
• for identifying new issues for consideration under the monitoring procedure:
3 March 2003
• for requesting that items be put on the agenda:  20 March 2003
• for the distribution of the airgram:  21 March 2003
__________