RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/W/107
16 May 2000
(00-1993)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
PROCEDURE TO MONITOR THE PROCESS
OF INTERNATIONAL HARMONIZATION
Draft Second Annual Report
A. INTRODUCTION
1. At its meeting of 15-16 October 1997, the SPS Committee adopted a provisional procedure to
monitor the process of international harmonization and the use of international standards, guidelines
or recommendations1, as provided for in Articles 3.5 and 12.4 of the SPS Agreement.  At its 7-
8 July 1999 meeting, the Committee decided to extend the provisional monitoring procedure for atleast another two years, to review the operation of the provisional procedure by July 2001, and to
determine at that time whether to continue with the provisional procedure, amend it, or develop
another one.
2
B. ISSUES
2. At its meeting of 7-8 July 1999, the Committee also adopted the First Annual Report.3  This
report summarized several standards-related issues that the Committee had considered, based on
Members' responses to a questionnaire prepared by the Secretariat.4  The Committee decided to bring
these issues to the attention of the relevant standard-setting organizations.
3. Since the First Annual Report was adopted, no new issues have been raised by Members.
C. RESPONSES RECEIVED FROM THE RELEVANT STANDARD -SETTING ORGANIZATIONS
4. All three standard-setting organizations replied to the request from the SPS Committee to
consider the identified standard-related issues.  Their responses were circulated in G/SPS/GEN/137.
In addition, the organizations provided updates on these issues at the November 1999 and March 2000
Committee meetings and in submissions.  The information provided on each issue is summarized
below. 5
Requirement for control of Infectious Bursal Virus (IBDV) in cooked chicken meat – Response
from Codex
5. The Bureau of the Code Commission noted that Chapter 3.6.1. of the International Animal
Health Code  (the Code ) provided recommendations on international trade in domestic birds, day-old
                                                     
1 G/SPS/11.
2 G/SPS/14.
3 G/SPS/13.
4 G/SPS/W/100.
5 Codex responses are from G/SPS/R/17, para. 42 and G/SPS/R/18, para. 58; IPPC responses are from
G/SPS/R/17, para. 43 and G/SPS/GEN/146; and OIE responses are from G/SPS/R/17, para. 44, G/SPS/R/18,
para. 51, G/SPS/GEN/145 and Add.1.G/SPS/W/107
Page 2
chicks and hatching eggs from domestic birds, but remained silent on the subject of products derived
from birds, and in particular on chicken meat.  To decide whether it would be appropriate to include
provisions on chicken meat in the aforementioned chapter, the Bureau asked experts from the OIE
Reference Laboratories for infectious bursal disease for information on the probability of finding the
causal virus in fresh meat obtained from chickens that were healthy at the time of slaughter, the effectof refrigeration and freezing on the survival of the virus in chicken meat, etc.  During its January 2000
meeting, the OIE International Animal Health Code Commission examined the replies received from
these experts.  The Commission concluded that, given the current state of scientific knowledge, it was
not in a position to develop a draft standard on the subject, as the available information did not enable
it to determine whether or not the product in question poses a risk of transmission of the IBD virus.
The Commission considered that additional scientific research was needed before it could deliver a
definitive opinion on the matter.
Definition of "quarantine pest"
6 – Response from the IPPC
6. The IPPC undertook work on a definition for the term "official control" as a result of the
recommendation of the SPS Committee.  Preliminary discussions held within the work programme of
the IPPC over the past year resulted in several proposals.  The Committee of Experts on PhytosanitaryMeasures (CEPM) thoroughly reviewed the proposals  in May 1999 and concluded that it was difficult
to capture the full meaning of the term in a definition.  The CEPM suggested that a more
comprehensive explanation would be required.  The Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures
(ICPM), meeting in October 1999, agreed to the establishment of an expert group tasked with
developing a definition, and, if necessary, guidelines for its application.
Chlortetracycline (CTC) residues in pork and pork products  – Response from Codex
7. The Committee on Veterinary Drug Residues in Foods considered the question of
Tetracycline.  The only maximum residue levels for Tetracycline, which were submitted to the
Commission for provisional adoption at Step five, concerned fish and prawns.  As regards pigmeat,
cattle, sheep and chicken, the recommended maximum residue levels were considered by the March
2000 session of the Committee on Veterinary Drug Residues in Food.
Bacilli  and other organisms in canned/bottled products, including jams  – Response from Codex
8. At its November 1999 meeting, the CCFH also considered the question of bacilli  and other
organisms in canned/bottled products including jams.  The CCFH drew the attention of the SPS
Committee to the Codex Principles for the Establishment and Application of Microbiological Criteriafor Foods, and recommended that the Committee on Processed Foods and Vegetables proceed with
the revision of the existing standards.
Frequency of controls to be carried out on bulls  in collection centres (brucellosis, tuberculosis,
leukosis, IBR)  – Response from the OIE
9. The health controls to be carried out on bulls at artificial insemination centres are described
both in the Code  chapters dealing with diseases transmissible by semen and in the appendices relating
to artificial insemination in bovines.  The International Animal Health Code Commission discussed
with an expert the need to re-examine the provisions of the International Animal Health Code  relating
to bovine, porcine and small ruminant semen, taking care to ensure consistency between the chapterson animal diseases and the appendices on semen.  A progress report on the work undertaken is due to
                                                     
6 This definition contains the term "officially controlled", which was a source of concern for some
Members.G/SPS/W/107
Page 3
be given by the expert in question at the next meeting of the Bureau of the International Animal
Health Code Commission, to be held in September 2000.
Benzoic acid as a preservative in sauces  – Response from Codex
10. Safe levels for benzoic acid are under consideration in the Committee on Food Additives and
Contaminants.  There are no Codex standards for sauces, but this topic will be considered under the
general standard for food additives.  The revised draft of the general standard for food additives was
circulated in November 1999 and governments were asked to comment before the following Codex
session on Food Additives and Contaminants in March 2000.
Certification requirements for origin of animals  – Response from the OIE
11. The International Animal Health Code Commi ssion intends to make use of the scientific
articles on traceability of animals and products of animal origin that are due to be published in issue
No. 2 of Volume 20 of the OIE Scientific and Technical Review  to consider the subject in greater
depth.
Certification regarding the absence of certain pathogens in raw meat products  – Response from
Codex
12. The Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH) consider ed the question of certification of raw
meat products regarding the absence of pathogens.  The CCFH recognized that it was scientifically
impossible to provide such certification, as it concerned only one step of the HACCP system in the
framework of risk management, and recommended adherence to good manufacturing practice asspecified in the General Principles of Food Hygiene.  The CCFH concluded that at this stage there
was no need for a specific text.
Certification requirements for diseases for which national control measures may not exist (meat
products)  – Response from the OIE
13. With regard to certification requirements on diseases transmitted through meat and meat
products, the Bureau of the Code Commission noted that the relevant recommendations were given
disease-by-disease in the various chapters of the Code , and that the recommendations should not be
restricted to List A diseases.
__________