RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/R/13
15 January 1999
(99-0121)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
SUMMARY OF THE MEETING HELD ON 11-12 NOVEMBER 1998
Note by the Secretariat
1. The Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures ("the Committee") held its thirtieth
meeting on 11-12 November 1998, under the chairmanship of Mr. Alejandro Thiermann (UnitedStates).  The agenda proposed in WT O/AIR/962 was adopted with amendments.
1. Implementation of the Agreement
(a) Information from Members
(i) Costa Rica - status as country free of classic swine fever
2. The representative of Costa Rica informed the Committee that since 1 April 1996, his
authorities had declared Costa Rica to be free of classic swine fever (CSF), following a nine-month
period without outbreaks of the disease.  In February 1994, after official confirmation of the first
outbreak of CSF, his authorities had implemented a national emergency plan to deal with exotic
diseases, including quarantine, inspection and disinfection actions, and had declared a state of
emergency in the northern part of the country.  In January 1995, the animal health authoritiesintroduced a national plan for the eradication of CSF, which included  swine slaughter and destruction
of carcasses and sanitary measures dealing with the domestic transportation of swine.  The last
outbreak of CSF in Costa Rica took place in July 1995.  Epidemiologic surveillance measures were
put in place in January 1996.
(ii) United States - interim rule affecting solid wood packaging material
3. The representative of the United States prov ided information regard ing the US interim rule
affecting solid wood packaging material imported from China (G/SPS/GEN/107).  The measure,
notified to the WTO (G/SPS/N/USA/137 refers), was scheduled to enter into effect on
17 December 1998, and amended the regulations for importing logs, lumber and other
unmanufactured wood articles by adding treatment  and documentation requirements for solid wood
packing material imported from China, including the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
4. The representative of Hong Kong, China indicated that her authorities had submitted
comments and a number of questions to the US government.  Hong Kong, China was having bilateral
discussions with the relevant US authorities on this matter, and although the discussions had beenconstructive and useful, her authorities were concerned that the proposed US measure, which included
only Hong Kong, China among WTO Members, might not be consistent with the provisions of the
SPS Agreement.  Noting that the stated objective of the US initiative was to protect plant life, Hong
Kong, China's concern was that the SPS measure applied to meet this objective should not be arbitrary
or unjustifiably discriminatory.  Although the Interim Rule stated that "it is necessary to include the
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) in this interim rule in some form to effectively
address the problem", Hong Kong, China did not understand why this was necessary and how, byincluding the HKSAR alone in addition to China, the rule would effectively address the problem.G/SPS/R/13
Page 2
Hong Kong, China was also concerned with the adve rse impact that the implementation of the US rule
might have on the environment.
5. The representative of Hong Kong, China also not ed that the US notification lacked clarity. It
described the proposed measure as affecting "anyone who uses solid wood packing material inconnection with exporting commodities from China to the United States", without specific reference
to Hong Kong, China or any other WTO Member.  However, the US interim rule specified that the
rule affected Hong Kong, China.  Her authorities were thus not clear as to the exact coverage of the
measure, crucial information for analysing the effect iveness of the proposed action, and its basis in the
context of SPS and other WTO provisions.  Hong Ko ng, China was still awaiting US clarification of
the intended geographical coverage of the proposed action.
6. Her authorities also wondered whether it was scientifically justifiable for the United States to
single out Hong Kong, China for inclusion in its pr oposed action.  The United States' stated objective
in the interim rule was to control the entry of f our genera of wood-boring insects from China.  Of
these four genera of insects, it was understood that the United States was most concerned with the
Asian Longhorned Beetle.  However, the Asian L onghorned Beetle did not exist in Hong Kong,
China.  Two of the remaining three genera were not found in Hong Kong, China either.  Although the
fourth genus, Monochamus , was found in Hong Kong, China, it seemed to be more extensive in the
United States, where at least nine species could be found.  Furthermore, Hong Kong, China did notproduce solid wood packing materials, or more generally wood in any commercial sense.  Hong
Kong, China was not in itself a source of infest ed shipments, and over 90 per cent of shipments
originating from Hong Kong, China to the United States did not use solid wood packing material.
7. As for shipments routed through Hong Kong, China, if the originating country had in place
control measures acceptable to the United States, there was no need to duplicate those arrangements
in Hong Kong, China.  A US official at a public hearing on 16 October 1998 had stated that for
shipments originating from China routed through H ong Kong, China there would be no need for any
action by Hong Kong, China.  Goods being transshipped from China to the United States through
Hong Kong, China did not normally undergo repackag ing in Hong Kong, China.  Furthermore, over
80 per cent of the products re-exported to the United States did not need solid wood packagingbecause they were light industrial products requiring only paper carton packaging.
8. Hong Kong, China thus presented no more risk, as a source of the insects or a source of solid
wood packing material or a source of shipments than many other places in the world.  The four generaof pests were found in many different parts of the world, and there were other places which handled
re-exports from China to the United States or which used solid wood packing material from China.
Including only Hong Kong, China among Members in the proposed action was therefore unjustifiableand not in conformity with Article 2.3 of the Agreement.
9. The representative of Hong Kong, China observed that Article 5 of the SPS Agreement, and
also the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC), required that SPS measures be based on a
risk assessment which evaluated the likelihood of entry, establishment or spread of the pests
concerned.  However, it appeared that no such risk assessment had been conducted in respect of Hong
Kong, China.  As a WTO Member and separate customs territory, Hong Kong, China should betreated separately in the application of trade rule s from the mainland of China.  Her authorities were
also concerned about the environmental consequences of the proposed US measure which required
treatment of solid wood packing material by one of three possible methods:  heating, pressuretreatment, and fumigation with Methyl Bromide.
10. Although Hong Kong, China agreed that fumigation with Methyl Bromide was probably the
most effective and practical method, the use of this substance had undesirable implications for the
environment and human health.  Methyl Bromide was a significant ozone-depleting substance and
was lethal to all life forms.  Its use and production was controlled by the Montreal Protocol which
included clear timetables for the complete phase-out of the substance.  The further use of MethylG/SPS/R/13
Page 3
Bromide resulting from the US measure would be damaging to the environment and contrary to
internationally-accepted goals and practice.  The United States itself had legislation providing for the
early phase-out of Methyl Bromide, including its use for plant quarantine purposes.  Hong Kong,
China estimated that if it were to fumigate the relevant shipments to the United States, it would
require a 10-fold increase in use of this substanc e.  Furthermore, containers fumigated with Methyl
Bromide could potentially present a serious health ri sk to the crew of a ship.  Hong Kong, China was
waiting for a US response to its questions about the impact on the ozone layer and human health, and
reserved its rights to pursue the matter further, if necessary.
11. The representative of Canada indicated that his authorities had imposed a measure on
shipments from China containing packaging material made of unmanufactured wood
(G/SPS/N/CAN/44 refers).  The focus of the Canadian measure was on the Asian Longhorned Beetle,
a particularly damaging pest, with an acquired taste for the maple trees which were economically very
important to his country.  Two recent interceptions had occurred from China.  To minimize the
disruption of trade from this measure, Canada had initially applied its measure only to imports of thismaterial from China.  However, the measure had subsequently been extended to Hong Kong, China
because of the high proportion of imports from China shipped through Hong Kong, China.  Moreover,
it was his authorities' understanding that some of the packing material used in exports from Hong
Kong, China originated in China.  As of 4 January 1999, all imports with this packaging material
would require certification that they had been treated by one of several measures to remove this pest.
Canada was engaged in discussions with China and discussions were being initiated with Hong Kong,
China on alternative mechanisms to address the problem.  A technical expert would be sent to Chinaand to Hong Kong, China to study ways, modalities and administrative arrangements whereby theimplementation of this measure could be carried out with a minimum disruption of bilateral trade.
12. The representative of the United States indicated that he had taken note of the comments of
the representative of Hong Kong, China and encouraged her authorities, as well as other Members, to
provide their comments to the US enquiry point before 17 November 1998, in order to allow theUnited States to fully consider any modifications of the interim rule.
(iii) Chile – Implementation activities
13. The representative of  Chile reported that his country had recently been recognized as free of
Classical Swine Fever by Uruguay and Cuba.
1  Argentina, Peru and the United States had requested
further information on this matter.  Chile had also  been recognized as free from Mediterranean fruit-
fly by all of its major trading partners, with the exception of Japan and the Republic of Korea.
However, in both those countries recognition was pending only on administrative grounds and was
expected to be completed before March 1999.  He informed the Committee that Chile had beenelected Vice-Chairman of the Interim Commission on Phytosanitary Measures, and also that Chile
was actively participating in diverse Codex Committees.
(b) Specific trade concerns
(i) Mexico - Import prohibition of Thai milled rice (G/SPS/GEN/82)
14. The representative from Thailand noted that despite the fact that this issue had been on the
agenda for the last four meetings of the Committee, it remained unsolved.  Thailand had proposed to
hold bilateral consultations with Mexico prior to the Committee meeting with the participation of the
Chairman, in accordance with the practice under Article 12.2 of the Agreement.  Mexico accepted the
principle of bilateral consultations, but not the participation of the Chairman.  Thailand would
welcome any means to advance this matter, including the involvement of a neutral or independentexpert, and proposed that Mexico suggest the form of future consultations.
                                                     
1 See also G/SPS/R/11, paragraph 11.G/SPS/R/13
Page 4
15. With regard to the substance of the issue, he recalled that in November 1993, Mexico had
proclaimed that Thai rice was infected by the fungus Tilletia barclayana .  Thailand had provided
scientific data showing that Mexico as well as ot her countries that exported rice into Mexico were
infected by this fungus.  So far Mexico had provided no scientific data demonstrating the risk of
transmission of this pest from Thai milled rice.  He drew the attention of Mexico to the last paragraph of
G/SPS/GEN/82.  He stressed that the Mexican measur e was inconsistent with Article 2.3 of the SPS
Agreement and Articles I and III of GATT 1994.  During the bilateral discussions held prior to the
meeting, Mexico had insisted that Thailand had not yet provided information on a new pest as requested
in a letter dated November 1997.  While this was correct, the Thai authorities saw no linkage between
the new pest and the import prohibition on Thai milled rice.  Furthermore, the new pest was not listed in
the regulation establishing quarantine measures to prevent the introduction of rice pests into Mexico
(G/SPS/N/MEX/55 refers).  Thailand was concerned that Mexico might continue to request informationon one pest after another.  In view of the good re lationship between the two countries, Thailand would
continue to consult with Mexico.  However, this problem was vital to the interests of Thailand and he
urged the Mexican delegation to convey this message to their authorities.
16. The representative of Mexico noted that bilateral consultations with Thailand had taken place in
line with the Committee procedures.  As he had stated  at the last meeting, Mexico had officially and
repeatedly requested information from Thailand, which the Thai authorities had not yet provided.
2
Upon receipt of such information, Mexico would examine it along with the information previously
received, and would proceed accordingly.  During the bilateral consultations held on the eve of the
Committee meeting, Mexico had provided the offi cial Mexican regulations earlier requested by
Thailand.  Mexico did not share Thailand's views regarding Mexico's disrespect of the SPS Agreementor other WTO obligations.  Mexico had also fully respected its notification obligations.
(ii) Slovak Republic – Import ban on dairy products and the transit ban in relation to BSE
17. The representative of Switzerland reported th at following several bilateral consultations,
Switzerland and the Slovak Republic were close to a short-term solution regarding the import ban on
Swiss dairy products in relation to BSE.  With regard to the longer term, a few technical issuesremained to be settled, but both parties hoped to find a solution shortly, possibly before the March
1999 Committee meeting.
18. The representative of the Slovak Republic confirmed the Swiss statement and reaffirmed his
authorities' best efforts to conclude this matter as soon as possible.
(iii) France and Norway – Restrictions on imports of gelatin
19. The representative of Brazil welcomed the new French decision which had taken into
consideration the concerns often expressed by her authorities regarding certain specific requirementson gelatin.  She urged France to implement the new requirements as soon as possible in order to allow
Brazil to resume gelatin exports to France.  Given the recent OIE resolution on the subject, Brazil
expected that there would be no further restrictions  on international trade of gelatin made from hides.
The EC representative asked for formal confirmation of the Brazilian authorities' agreement with the
French decision.
20. The representative of Brazil thanked Norway for having clarified the Norwegian requirements
for imports of gelatin.  Brazil had no problem m eeting such requirements, and looked forward to
resuming exports of gelatin to Norway.
                                                     
2 See G/SPS/R/11, paragraph 18.G/SPS/R/13
Page 5
(iv) Australia - Import restrictions on Roquefort cheese
21. The EC representative, supported by Switzerland, noted that cheeses produced with raw milk
were often subject to requirements that were in contradiction with their production methods.  Until
1994, French cheese made of raw milk, in particular Roquefort cheese, could be marketed in Australia
on the condition that it had been under storage during a 120-day period from its arrival in Australianterritory before being released for consumption.  Since 1994, the Australian authorities had required
that imported cheeses be manufactured exclusively from pasteurized milk.  In 1997, French
authorities had requested the easing of this measur e, considering that the respect of good hygienic
practices provided guarantees equivalent to those sought by the measure.  The Australian and New
Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA) had requested de tails and dialogue had continued since then.
However, a number of questions remained unanswered and, in particular, Australia had not yet
identified the legislation that provided the basis for the import ban of Roquefort cheese, nor hadAustralia indicated if such legislation had been notified to the WTO.  He requested Australia to
identify the international standard on which the Australian measure was based and, if there was none,
the scientific justification for the measure and whether it was based on a risk assessment.
22. The representative of Australia responded that current Australian food standards required that
all cheese be made from milk that was pasteurized or subject to an equivalent process, as indicated byphosphatase activity;  alternatively cheese could be made from milk which has been thermized and the
cheese stored at low temperatures for at least 90 days.  The importation of food into Australia was
controlled by the Imported Food Control Act of 1992, which was the means by which the Australian
Food Standards Code was enforced at the border.  Since this legislation existed before the entry into
force of the SPS Agreement, it had not been required to be notified to the WTO. ANZFA wascurrently considering an application from the Roquefort cheese manufacturers to recognize the
equivalence of the Roquefort cheese manufacturing process.  In considering this application, the risk
assessment undertaken by the Australian authorities had raised concerns about the potential survival
of pathogenic micro-organisms, in particular entero-hemorrhagic  E-coli, in the final product.  The
report on this finding had been communicated to the Roquefort manufacturers in June 1998, and theRoquefort manufacturers had requested time to provide further data.  The data on the propagation
dynamics of E-coli during storage of Roquefort cheese were received by the Food Authority in
October 1998 and were being evaluated.  A final decision was likely in the first quarter of 1999.
23. The representative of Australia indicated that importation of dairy products into Australia was
also restricted in order to protect animal health.  The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service
(AQIS) had conducted a review of current access conditions and would soon publish draft revised
conditions for entry of dairy products, including cheese.  At the same time, these would be notifiedunder the SPS procedures and a 60-day comment period would be allowed.  Following this, the entry
conditions would be finalized, making resolution of the issue probable in early 1999.
(v) Australia – Restrictions on imports of sauces  from the Philippines containing benzoic acid
24. Pursuing a matter raised at the September 1998 meeting of the Committee
3, the representative
of the Philippines noted that bilateral consultations with Australia had, so far, been unsuccessful.Australia prohibited all imports of sauces containing benzoic acid, except those originating from New
Zealand.  According to Australian authorities, the imports from New Zealand were allowed because
of transitional arrangements related to the development of a joint food standards system by the
Australian and New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA).  Under this agreement, Australia permitted
imports of food stuff from New Zealand which complied either with Australian or with New Zealandfood regulations.  The latter allowed the use of benzoic acid in sauces.  In addition, the transitional
arrangement included a dual standard clause which allowed Australian food manufacturers to apply
the New Zealand food regulations.  The Philippines were of the view that the Australian measure was
                                                     
3 See G/SPS/R/12, paragraphs 83-85 and G/SPS/GEN/106.G/SPS/R/13
Page 6
inconsistent with Article 2 of the SPS Agreement, and in particular Article 2.3.  The Australian
discriminatory measure had been in place since 1996, preventing access for Philippine products to the
Australian market.  The Philippines reiterated its request for the immediate lifting of the ban.
25. The Australian delegate responded that the current arrangements allowing sauces containing
benzoic acids from New Zealand but not from othe r countries were transitional and arose from a
treaty between the two countries to develop a common food standards system for both countries by
the end of 1999.  Considerable progress had been made regarding benzoic acids in sauces.  Following
detailed dietary exposure determinations, ANZFA had proposed that the level of 1 thousand mg/kg for
benzoic acids in sauces be approved.  The draft general standard had been notified in October 1998
with a comment period until the end of December.  ANZFA expected that the final standard for food
additives would be implemented in the first half of 1999.
(vi) Chairman's report on consultations
26. The Chairman informed the Committee of bilateral consultations which he had been
requested to facilitate.  These consultations had been requested by Bolivia, with regard to EC
aflatoxin levels for chestnuts, a matter raised at the last meeting of the Committee by the Bolivian
representative.4  The consultations were held on 22 October in Brussels, with the participation of
technical experts from both parties.  The Chairman's view was that the consultations had been veryfruitful and had helped Bolivia to better understand the rationale behind the EC measures and the
procedures followed by the European Communities.  They had also helped the European
Communities to better understand the potential effect of some of the measures being implemented by
the Bolivian industry.  The technical consultations were continuing and the Chairman hoped that a
bilateral resolution would be found soon.
27. The Secretariat and the Chairman had also been requested to facilitate bilateral consultations
between the United States and Poland, regarding tolerance levels for weed seeds, particularly of the
genus Ambrosia .  The consultations had taken place prior to the Committee meeting and had focused
on technical aspects of pest risk analysis.  Both parties had agreed to continue the consultations, and
the Chairman was optimistic that they would lead to a rapid resolution.
28. The Chairman expressed his appreciation for the efforts of Members to resolve difficulties
through bilateral consultations.  He observed that Article 12.2 provided a means and opportunity to
identify possible solutions, and could prevent the need to take other routes for the resolution of SPS
problems.
(c) Consideration of specific notifications received
(i) Switzerland – Notification (G/SPS/N/CHE/ 14 and Corr.1 and G/SPS/N/CHE/16) on import
requirements on meat;  Notification (G/SPS/N/CHE/15) on eggs, egg products, foodcontaining eggs or egg products
29. Addressing an issue raised at the last Committee meeting, the US representative, supported by
Israel, Canada, Australia, Hungary, Chile, Braz il, India and New Zealand, noted that the proposed
Swiss regulations regarding the establishment of  requirements for the importation of meat from
animals and poultry fed with hormones, antibiotics and similar agents as growth promoters(G/SPS/N/CHE/14 and Corr.1 and G/SPS/N/CHE/16 refer) would prohibit meat from these animals to
be imported under the Swiss tariff rate quotas (TRQ).  The regulation notified under
G/SPS/N/CHE/15 would prohibit eggs and egg produc ts from birds raised in battery cages to be
imported under the TRQ.  Such imports would still be permitted to be imported outside the TRQ, but
would be subject to prohibitively high duties, strict labelling and additional certification requirements.
                                                     
4 See G/SPS/R/12, paragraph 11-14.G/SPS/R/13
Page 7
The proposed regulations on eggs and egg products did not indicate what public health objective
(protection against which risk) was involved.  The United States was particularly concerned that the
Swiss measures did not appear to be based on a risk assessment or supportive scientific evidence, and
requested a copy of such evidence if it did exist.  Furthermore, the treatment of products imported
under the TRQ, compared to products outside the TRQ, was unjustified and illogical.  Therepresentative of the United States suggested that protectionism was the real motivation for the
measures, not health protection.  Switzerland's attempt to impose its own animal standards as a
condition for trade was also counter to its obligations under the WTO.  The United States, as well as
Canada, had submitted formal comments to the Swiss Enquiry Point.  India asked to participate in any
bilateral consultations which might be held on this matter.
30. The representative of Switzerland responded that the measures at issue related to the
implementation of the new Swiss Federal Law on Agriculture of 29 April 1998.  The objective of thethree notifications was to inform the Committee we ll in advance of the entry into force of any
measures, thus fully respecting the notification procedures.  His authorities were still discussing the
implementation of the new Federal Law on Agriculture.  The questions raised by the United States
and other Members to the Swiss Enquiry Point and in the Committee could not be fully addressed yet,
but would be taken into account in the ongoing domestic discussions.  He stressed that the proposedmeasures responded to sanitary considerations and appropriate consumer information and had no
protectionist objective.
(ii) Japan - Notification (G/SPS/N/JPN/37) on ame ndment of enforcement ordinance of the
Japanese Plant Protection Law
31. The representative of the United States noted that the Japanese draft regulation proposed the
addition of 27 pests to the list of non-quarantine pests in Japan's Plant Protection Law
(G/SPS/GEN/100 refers).  These additional pests, when intercepted on commodities arriving in Japan,
would no longer be subject to quarantine measures.  Although encouraged by certain aspects of
Japan's proposal, the United States continued to have concerns regarding the basis and application of
Japan's phytosanitary legislation.  In particular, Japan's legislative amendments did not appear to alterthe current practice of requiring fumigation and other costly treatments for most non-quarantine pests,
including those pests which were widespread in Japan and not subject to internal regulatory or
quarantine controls. Japan's quarantine actions regarding non-quarantine pests, in many instances,
unjustifiably discriminated against foreign imports.  The United States urged Japan to re-evaluate its
basis for defining and taking action on quarantine pests in accordance with the IPPC definition of a
"quarantine pest" and the principle of "non-discrimination" ("... In the case of a quarantine pest within
a country, measures shall be applied without discrimination between domestic and importedconsignments.").
32. The representative of the European Communities noted that according to Article 5.2 of the
Japanese law all pests not included in the relevant list were considered as quarantine pests.  The
failure to include in the list non-harmful pests which also occurred generally in Japan would lead to
the regular rejection of imports or their submission to lengthy procedures at considerable expense.This seemed to be in breach of Article 2.3 of the SPS Agreement.  Furthermore, Japan established an
exceptional list of pests, rather than a list of quarantine pests with identified risks.  This approach did
not seem to be in conformity with Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.  Japan had indicated
that international standards on which to base the relevant evaluation did not exist, and yet it
maintained that the proposal had been developed according to the IPPC guidelines for pest risk
analysis.  Japan's risk assessment, apparently in conformity with Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement,
had resulted in the listing of pests which were not considered as quarantine pests.  This did not,
however, address requests from WTO Members for consideration of specified pests.  The EC
representative requested that, in accordance with Article 5.8 of the SPS Agreement, Japan provide the
scientific rationale behind the measure and the documents concerning its risk analysis.G/SPS/R/13
Page 8
33. The representative of Uruguay recalled that according to the revised IPPC, phytosanitary
requirements could only be applied to regulated pests.  These included two categories:  quarantine
pests, including pests normally non-existent in a country, and a new category of regulated non-
quarantine pests, specified as those which, if not regulated, would have a high impact on the proposed
use of the contaminated material.  The IPPC required the application of the principle of non-discrimination regarding this type of pest.  The representative of Australia supported the United
States' and Uruguayan statements and endorsed the positive aspects of the Japanese draft measure.
However, Australia was concerned that the current legal and administrative arrangements to expand
the list of pests were too inflexible.  There needed  to be an appropriate mechanism which enabled the
non-quarantine pest list to be updated regularly, as was the case in other countries, including
Australia.  He encouraged the Japanese authorities to use internationally accepted pest risk analysis to
identify further non-quarantine pests and to examine the current list in a publicly available forum.
The representatives of the Philippines, on behalf of Asean countries, Chile, New Zealand and Canada
supported the concerns raised above.
34. The representative of Japan indicated that the 27 non-quarantine pests added to the list were
widely distributed in Japan and were not officially controlled.  They were not quarantine pests
according to the definition in the IPPC guideline on pest risk analysis.  Japan had received requestsfrom a number of Members for the addition of more pests to the list.  However, these were quarantine
pests subject to official control programmes, such as the plant pest forecasting progamme.  In light of
the official control performed in Japan, his authorities believed they complied with the definition of
quarantine pests in IPPC.  In case the pest control by individual farmers was not properly performed,
the central government would give instructions to prefectural governments to establish a control plan.
Since Japan took the necessary measures against quarantine pests on domestic agricultural products as
well as on imported products, his authorities did not think there was unjustifiable discrimination
between domestic products and imported ones.  The list of non-quarantine pests would be reviewed in
the future with a view to expansion.  His authorities welcomed the continuation of bilateral
consultations to deepen mutual understanding of this matter.
(iii) Israel - Notification (G/SPS/N/ISR/2) on import restrictions of live cattle relative to TSE
35. The representative of the European Communities, supported by Switzerland, noted that Israel
categorized countries' BSE status on the basis of  a number of parameters which were not further
clarified, such as surveillance, import restrictions a nd records of BSE cases.  Israel's notification did
not provide sufficient information and listed a number of compulsory requirements which did not
appear to be justified, but the European Communities assumed that the purpose of the measure was
the protection of public and animal health from BSE.  He noted that Israel was not following the OIErecommendations.  The OIE Code Co mmission proposed that the assessment of the risk for human
and animal health in countries, or regions within countries, be based on a combination of the spread of
BSE and the application of measures to control risk.  The OIE foresaw five different categories, listed
from A to F, where the risk and incidence of BSE were considered separately and formed the basis for
categorization.  He questioned the basis of Israel's categorization scheme, which apparently failed tocomply with Articles 2.2 and 3.1 of the SPS Agreement, and requested more information on the
background of the measure and on the risk assessment.  Invoking Article 5.8 of the SPS Agreement,
the European Communities requested an explanation of the notified legislation, and in particular of
the guidelines used by Israel for the risk assessm ent and the criteria used for the categorization of
countries on the basis of their BSE status.  The EC representative requested written responses to anumber of other questions, including what information exporting countries were requested to provide
and which countries, if any, had already been evaluated against this information;  what was the
scientific justification behind a ban on the import and use of all animal feed of mammalian meat and
bone meal;  what considerations had resulted in the definition of specific age limits of cattle for
fattening and for slaughter;  and whether these limits applied in the exporting country.G/SPS/R/13
Page 9
36. The representative of Israel requested the European Communities to provide its questions in
writing for submission to his authorities.
(iv) United States - Notification (G/SPS/N/USA/133)  on refrigeration and labelling requirements
for shell eggs
37. The EC representative queried whether the US measure was based on a risk assessment and if
such risk assessment was available.  Moreover, he sought written clarification from the United States
on the non-application of the measure to certain ty pes of production units, those with 3,000 or less
hens, and asked whether the United States could explain the discrimination between imported eggs
and some domestic eggs.  He also inquired whether the US authorities would accept to consider
equivalent measures, as provided for in Article 4 of the SPS Agreement.
38. The representative of the United States responded that the US measure was based on a risk
assessment which was available on Internet, but which he would nevertheless provide to the EuropeanCommunities.  He welcomed the EC request for consideration of equivalence of measures and
indicated that the United States would respond to the more technical questions in due course.
(v) Czech Republic - Notification (G/SPS/N/CZE/16)  on imports of poultry meat from Thailand
39. The representative of Thailand recalled the Czech Republic's ban on imports of poultry meat
from Thailand, an issue raised at the last Committee meeting.
5  He indicated that Thailand and the
Czech Republic had held bilateral consultations with the aim of finding an expeditious solution to this
problem.  The consultations had been useful, and the Czech Republic had agreed to provide Thailand
with further clarifications on the measure, as well as its scientific justification.
40. The representative of the Czech Republic conf irmed that the consultations had been very
productive.  Some information and clarification had previously been provided to Thailand and theCzech Republic had agreed to reply in writing to further Thai questions.  This exchange of
information would take place prior to a mission of Czech experts to Thailand in the near future.
(d) Any other matters related to the operation of transparency provisions
41. The Chairman indicated that the most recent list of Enquiry Points was circulated as
G/SPS/ENQ/7/Add.1.  The latest list of National Notification Authorities was contained in documentG/SPS/GEN/91/Add.1.  He informed the Committee that Dominica had recently identified its
National Notification Authority and National Enquiry Point and encouraged Members which had not
yet identified both a National Notification Authority and an Enquiry Point to do so as quickly as
possible.
2. Monitoring the Use of International Standards
42. The Secretariat introduced the first draft annual report to the Committee under the agreed
provisional procedure to monitor the process of international harmonization.  The EC representativeindicated that his delegation would submit some additions to the text of the draft report, in particular
with regard to EC positions reflected in the report.
43. The representative of the Philippines noted that the non-existence of an international standard
for the use of benzoic acid as a preservative in sauces had a significant impact on the trade of sauces.
The use of benzoic acid in sauces was included in the draft Codex General Standard for FoodAdditives (GSFA).  It was important  that the GSFA be finalized soon, as the lack of an international
                                                     
5 See G/SPS/R/12, paragraphs 81-82.G/SPS/R/13
Page 10
standard not only hurt international trade in sauces but had the potential to hurt trade in other
processed food products where preservatives were used.
44. The United States welcomed the Philippine submission and stressed the importance of the
Codex GSFA which was expected to be submitte d for adoption by Codex members in June 1999.  In
the US view, the Codex Committee on Food Additives  and Contaminants was doing excellent work
establishing a modern approach to food additives, which required cooperative and innovative
standards work to protect public health and provide transparent and understandable codes for
processors and traders.  Positive trade benefits could be expected from the June 1999 adoption of the
GSFA.
45. The representative of the European Communities indicated that his delegation would submit
written comments to the Committee on the Philippine submission.  He raised another issue relating to
bovine semen, where the frequency of controls carried out on bulls in collection centres (brucellosis,tuberculosis, leucosis, IBR) affected trade (G/SPS /W/96 refers).  He noted that an international
standard was contained in various articles of the OIE International Animal Health Code, but the
European Communities believed that this was a case where it would be useful to analyse whether the
OIE standard was appropriate.
46. With respect to the submission by Canada on the issue of certification regarding the absence
of certain pathogens in raw meat products, representatives of the United States and the European
Communities supported the need to move forward (G/SPS/W/89 refers).  A significant number of
restrictions were imposed on meat products because of the presence of certain animal diseases
unlikely to be transmitted through meat.  Likewise, the US representative agreed that the elaboration
of international standards in this area would contribute significantly to resolving a number of tradeissues.  As an example, he noted that some Members had indicated that Australia's quarantine
requirements for importation of cooked chicken meat were too stringent and substantially more trade
restrictive than necessary to safeguard animal health.  Some diseases of concern identified by
Australia, particularly Infectious Bursal  Disease (IBD), was unlikely to be transmitted by meat and
thus the strict temperature requirements imposed by Australia seemed unnecessary.  Similarly,countries in regions free of Newcastle disease should be able to export poultry meat without
unnecessary restrictions being applied solely due to vaccination.  He noted that, although there had
never been a documented case of transmission  of avian influenza through meat, Mexico was
considering testing requirements for avian influenza that would hamper US exports of poultry meat.
Until recently Argentina had maintained a ban on imports of fresh, chilled and frozen pork meat from
the United States to protect against the risk of the introduction of porcine respiratory and reproductive
syndrome.  This disease was spread by contact among  pigs and, in recognition of this fact, Argentina
had agreed to develop less restrictive measures that would permit trade in pork.  This list of issues
clearly illustrated significant trade concerns and the United States supported Canada's suggestion that
the OIE be requested to develop guidelines that more specifically addressed animal health
certification for meat and meat products, perhaps beginning by guidelines on some of the specific
diseases just identified.
47. The representative of Australia stressed that there was scientific evidence in support of the
measures which Australia applied.  AQIS had recognized that there was a deficiency in the
information base concerning the distribution of IBD virus in tissues and organs of infected chicken
and had commissioned the central laboratory at Weyb ridge in the United Kingdom to study the issue.
Results of that study showed that chicken muscle contained detectable very virulent IBD virus 48, 72
and 96 hours post infection, and chicken which had been subject to thermal treatment at 80°C for 15
minutes still contained a significant titre of IBD virus, suggesting that the virus can survive in cooked
meat derived from IDB infected chicken.
48. The Committee agreed to a proposal from Chile to schedule an informal meeting in advance
of the March 1999 meeting of the Committee.  The purpose of the informal meeting would not be toG/SPS/R/13
Page 11
undertake technical discussions on the issues addressed by the different submissions, which were in
the competence of the international standard-setting bod ies, but rather to further discuss the identified
issues and to develop focused and specific requests that could eventually be sent to these bodies.
Depending on the outcome of that discussion, the Committee could determine whether representatives
of the standard-setting organizations should be invited to future informal meetings.
3. Consistency
49. The Chairman informed the Committee that info rmal consultations on draft guidelines to
further the practical implementation of Article 5.5 had been held prior to the formal meeting of the
Committee.  Although the Secretariat had not been able to draft a new, consolidated paper to take into
account comments made at the September 1998 informal discussions, New Zealand, the United
States, Norway and Japan had tabled new papers which had facilitated very positive discussions.
Members seemed closer to an agreement on guidelines and the Secretariat would prepare a new draftpaper based on the discussions and papers submitted by Members, to be circulated by 15
January 1999.
50. The representative of Argentina agreed that the establishment of an appropriate level of
protection was a political decision.  However, this  political decision led to SPS measures.  A political
decision which did not result in a measure had no trade implications and was not of interest to theCommittee.  On the other hand, a measure which did not reflect a political decision establishing an
appropriate level of SPS protection had no objective and, consequently, its implementation was
unjustifiable.  In other words, there had to be a relation between  the  political decision, the measure
and its implementation.  Article 5 of the SPS Agreement should be seen in its entirety, not as offering
different options.  A political decision not based on scientific evidence remained a political decision,but had no justification under the SPS Agreement.  It would unjustifiably affect the contractual rights
and obligations of Members.  Article 5.5 guidelines should reflect the fact that the practical
implementation of the political decisions should be legitimate, based on scientific justification, and
not arbitrary or unjustifiable.
4. Review of the SPS Agreement
51. The Chairman recalled that in accordance with  the agreed procedure, informal consultations
had been held prior to the meeting.  At the Committee meeting in September, background papers on
regionalization, harmonization and equivalence had been discussed.  The Committee had also
considered in detail a synoptic table of the proposals which had been made with respect to the
transparency and notification provisions, the special needs of developing countries and technical
assistance.  For the present meeting, Members had been invited to submit specific papers on the risk
assessment provisions, dispute resolution, and control and inspection procedures (Annex C).
However, no papers had been received.  During the informal consultations, Members had considered a
first draft report on the review exercise (G/SPS/W/92 refers).  The Secretariat would prepare a new
draft of the report for circulation to Members by 15 January 1999, requesting written comments prior
to the Committee meeting in March 1999, with a view to concluding the report at that meeting.
52. The representative of India noted that if the objective was to conclude the report at the March
1999 meeting, it would be helpful if an informal meeting of the Committee could be organized prior
to the formal meeting, possibly in February.  Upon discussion of the Indian proposal, it was agreed
that, on the basis of written comments from Members on the revised draft report by 3 February 1999
at the latest, the Chairman, in consultation with the Secretariat, would determine whether there was a
need for an informal meeting in February or whet her it would be sufficient to hold an informal
meeting in March prior to the formal meeting of the Committee.
53. The representative of the European Communities introduced a paper on adaptation to regional
conditions and equivalence (G/SPS/GEN/101 refers).  He noted that this subject was intimatelyG/SPS/R/13
Page 12
related to efforts to combine levels of protection and minimize effects on trade.  The paper described
the EC experiences in applying the regionalization concept in animal health matters, both within the
European Communities and in relation to third countries.  A section of the paper dealt with plant
health and described the types of protected zones that could be identified and the EC procedures for
recognition of a protected zone within the European Communities.  There was also a section onequivalence, including a reflection on how equivalence related to regionalization.  The general steps
necessary to produce a risk assessment before equivalence was applied were also described.  The EC
experience supported the notion that it was possible to meet the objective to maintain a high health
status while minimizing barriers of trade.
5. Technical assistance and cooperation
54. The Secretariat reported on technical assistance activities undertaken since the September
1998 meeting.  The Secretariat had participated in two training seminars for developing countriesorganized within the framework of broader WTO technical cooperation.  Moreover, the Secretariat
had participated in a workshop on food control procedures on exports, import quality assurance
systems and technical requirements in the European Communities' markets organized by the Islamic
Development Bank and the Turkish authorities in Istanbul.  The Secretariat would soon attend a
seminar on Latin American and Caribbean concerns in the face of the process of further multilateralagricultural reforms.  In 1999, the Secretariat would participate in an SPS seminar to be held in
Thailand on 3-5 February 1999, sponsored by the Netherlands under the Asian/European Trade
Facilitation Action Plan.  The Secretariat was also organizing national seminars to be held in Africa in
1999.  The intention was to visit 2-3 countries, perhaps in March and September 1999, and hold
national seminars with the participation of neighbouring countries.
55. The representative of the European Communities indicated that it would be useful if advance
copies of the agendas and the reports of the technical cooperation seminars organized by the
Secretariat were made generally available.  He clarified that the technical cooperation seminar to be
held in Thailand was organized by the Netherlands to gether with Thailand and China, for participation
by all Asian partners.  The WTO, the Codex Alimentarius, the OIE and the IPPC would alsoparticipate.  The aim of the seminar was to enhance mutual understanding through an exchange of
information between partners, specifically concerning notifications and implementation of
international standards in the field of food safety, animal health and plant protection.
56. The representative of the Codex Alimentarius announced that the information paper on the
"FAO Technical Assistance Programme: Food Quality and Safety" was currently being updated and
revised, including the list of FAO publications, technical assistance projects, workshops and seminars.
The revised version of the document would be provided to the SPS Committee.
57. The representative of the WHO noted that microbiological aspects of food safety were
becoming a serious concern for WHO member countries.  WHO was currently developing two
databases on foodborne diseases:  (i) a data bank on foodborne disease outbreaks with
epidemiological information on investigated outbreaks including food involved, place of
contamination, etiologic agent, etc., and (ii) a data bank on foodborne disease incidence where data onthe incidence of various foodborne diseases were collected. These databases would be finalised by
next spring and posted on the WHO website.
58. The representative of the OIE informed the Comm ittee that two meetings had been held in the
beginning of November 1998.  One had been orga nized in Egypt by the FAO for Middle East
countries to discuss the impact of animal diseases on trade of live animals and animal products in theregion.  The OIE had organized a second seminar on epidemic surveillance of animal diseases in
Africa, held in Senegal, and addressed to French speaking countries.  The establishment of
surveillance systems in the concerned countries should, in the future, allow these countries to be
recognized by the OIE as free of the Rinderpest virus.G/SPS/R/13
Page 13
59. The representative of the IPPC reported that the 7th International Working Conference on
Stored Product Pests had been held in Beijing, Ch ina in October 1998.  Phytosanitary measures had a
prominently featured in the meeting.  The IPPC Secretariat and Chinese phytosanitary officials had
agreed to exchange information concerning pest risk analysis.  The IPPC also indicated that Chinese
phytosanitary officials expressed a strong interest in initiating similar exchanges on SPS matters withthe WTO Secretariat and Members.
60. The representative of Chile noted that in 1998 Chile had benefitted from an FAO Technical
Cooperation Programme (TCP) related to the operation of the recently created National Codex
Alimentarius Committee.  Previously, Chile had been  an active participant in the OIE and IPPC, but
its participation in Codex activities was limited.  Within the TCP, four workshops had been organized
covering certification and inspection;  standardization procedures;  risk analysis and critical points;
and residue tolerance levels.  The National Codex Committee replicated the different Codexcommittees at the domestic level and included official authorities, the private sector and universities.
Chile encouraged other developing country Members to take advantage of the FAO TCP, and
expressed its willingness to provide information and documentation related to its own experience
through the Chilean Codex contact point.
6. Matters of interest arising from the work of observer organizations
(a) OIE
61. The representative of the OIE informed the Committee that within the framework of the OIE
Code Commission ad hoc groups had met or were going to meet, in particular to deal with the
epidemiology of BSE.  A new draft chapter on this disease would be sent to OIE members for
comments before the May 1999 General Session.  The Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) Commissionwas studying a procedure to recognize countries free from BSE, and would make proposals in this
regard in its January 1999 report.  The Standards Commission had agreed on a new definition of
Newcastle disease, a necessary step for the establishment of a Newcastle surveillance standard and the
revision of the International Health Code.  Further information was available from the OIE website
http://www.oie.int/.
(b) Codex
62. The representative of Codex reported on the results of the 11th Session of the Codex
Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods (CCRVDF), held in September 1998.  The
CCRVDF forwarded over 180 maximum residue limits (MRLs) for 16 veterinary drugs to the Codex
Alimentarius Commission for adoption, including final MRLs for bovine somatotropin and draft
MRLs for the chlortetracycline/oxytetracycline/te tracycline group.  Noting WHO's request for better
international cooperation in the field of non-human use of anti-microbials, the CCRVDF had agreedto further consider the use of anti-microbials in animal production at its next meeting, taking into
account the activities of other international bodies.  The representative of Codex also highlighted the
results of the 31st Session of the Codex Committee on Food Hygiene, held in October 1998.  One of
the key documents finalized at the meeting for a doption by the Codex Alimentarius Commission had
been the Principles and Guidelines for the Conduct of Microbiological Risk Assessment.  TheCommittee was also continuing work in the area of foodborne diseases through the elaboration of
discussion papers on principles and guidelines for microbiological risk management and codes of
practice related to the primary production, harvest and packaging of fresh fruits and vegetables and
pre-cut fruits and vegetables.  The Committee woul d also have further discussions concerning the
existence of regional differences in the prevalence of various foodborne pathogens in the food chain.Further information was available from the Codex website http://www.fao.org/waicent/faoinfo/
economic/esn/codex/Default.htm.G/SPS/R/13
Page 14
(c) WHO
63. The representative of the WHO provided an update on the revision of the International Health
Regulations (IHR).  The Committee on International Surveillance of Communicable Diseases, which
was the expert WHO Committee tasked with the review of the draft IHR, would begin its review in
Geneva 16-20 November 1998.  After the meeting, the draft IHR would be revised to include therecommendations of the expert committee and the comments received to date from WHO members.
This draft would then be circulated early in the new year to member states, international organisations
and NGOs for further comment.  In-country “focus gr oups” had been suggested as a useful forum to
discuss the nature and scope of the traffic and trade challenges that stemmed from international public
health events.  It was hoped that these groups could identify possible international trade and health
sector co-operation that could help minimise economic damage to members.  The WHO was
developing a document comparing IHR, the SPS Agreement and Codex, which would be distributedwhen the information and recommendations had been reviewed by all parties.  Further information
was available from the WHO website
 http://www.who.org/.
(d)  IPPC
64. The representative of the IPPC referred to the first meeting of the Interim Commission, held
in November 1998.  He noted that the Interim Commission had elected a bureau and reachedprovisional agreement on rules of procedure, pending the completion of an annex outlining standard
setting procedures.  The Interim Commission had also reviewed the priorities for the work programme
of the IPPC Secretariat and had adopted two new in ternational standards for phytosanitary measures:
"Determination of pest status in an area" and "G uidelines for pest eradication programmes".  The
second meeting of the Interim Commission was te ntatively scheduled for 4-8 October 1999 at FAO
Headquarters in Rome.  The 10
th Technical Consultation Among Regional Plant Protection
Organizations had followed the Interim Commission meeting.  The Consultation had highlighted the
role of regional plant protection organizations in the acceptance and implementation of the new IPPC.
Technical discussions had included pest reporting obligations, the concepts of appropriate level of
protection and acceptable level of risk, and a definition for the term "official control".  Other topicshad included the voluntary use of new phytosanitary certificates and the role of regional plant
protection organizations in the SPS Committee.  The re ports of both meetings were available from the
IPPC Secretariat and would soon be posted on the IPPC website
http://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FaoInfo/Agricult/AGP/AGPP/PQ/.
7. Observers
65. The formal meeting of the Committee was su spended in order to allow for informal
discussions under this item.  In resuming the formal meeting, the Chairman reported that informaldiscussions under this item had been fruitful and that the Committee would address the issue again at
its March 1999 meeting.  The formal meeting would be preceded by further informal discussions on
the basis of a paper to be prepared by the Secretariat reflecting comments and papers provided by
Members at the current meeting.
8. Annual report to the Council for Trade in Goods
66. The Chairman indicated that, as customary, he would on his own responsibility submit a brief,
factual report on the work of the Committee during 1998 to the Council for Trade in Goods.  The
report would identify the main matters considered  by the Committee at both its formal and informal
meetings.  Several Members had informally made suggestions regarding this report, which he would
take into account to the extent possible.
6
                                                     
6 The report was subsequently circulated as document G/L/274 and Corr.1.G/SPS/R/13
Page 15
67. The Chairman reported that the Council on Trad e in Goods had asked Chairpersons of several
Committees, including the SPS Committee, to consider adding an item on Trade Facilitation to the
agenda.  The CTG was seeking input for informal consultations on trade facilitation scheduled for
early March 1999.  After consideration, he had drafted a response to the CTG, which had been
discussed at an informal meeting of the Committee.   The response was in essence that the Committee
routinely considered trade facilitation, in particular through discussions on specific trade concerns and
the monitoring of the use of international standards.  At the informal consultations, a number of
suggestions had been made, such as reference also to the important trade facilitation role of the
transparency provisions of the Agreement and some other trade facilitation aspects of the Agreement
as identified in the review exercise.  As suggested by some Members, the Chairman would reply to
the CGT on behalf of the Committee.
68. The representative of Costa Rica supported the Chairman's reply to the CTG, but noted that
the CTG had approved a work programme to further the analytical and exploratory work on trade
facilitation.  At its meeting in March 1999 the CTG would consider, inter alia , the WTO agreements
that related to trade facilitation or included related provisions.  The ultimate objective of the work in
this area would be to establish WTO trade facilitation standards in a meeting to be held in June 1999.
The purpose of the CTG request for the establishment of an agenda item on trade facilitation was toallow the different Committees to compile the necessary elements for Members to decide whether or
not it was necessary to establish specific and independent standards in the trade facilitation area, in
conformity with the mandate of the Ministerial Conference of Singapore.
69. The representative of  India noted that after informal consultations with participants on the
CTG work, his understanding of the CTG objective was to identify the problems, as far as tradefacilitation was concerned, that Members were facing.  In this respect, the Chairman's reply seemed to
be a good preamble, but perhaps did not adequately address the problems and concerns which his
authorities might want to address in the future.  In his opinion, some of the text of the draft report on
the SPS review might better convey to the CTG the concerns of the Committee.
9. Other business
70. The representative of the European Commun ities indicated that the Polish notification
requirements for sanitary certification of imports of milk and milk products (G/SPS/N/POL/14 refers)
resulted in unjustified distortions of trade, since it required the application of heat treatment to
products which were basically produced with raw milk.  The European Communities felt that there
were equivalent procedures ensuring that the level of protection requested by Poland was met by a
different method.  Moreover, the measure was not based on international standards.  He invited
Poland to engage in bilateral discussions to seek a better understanding of the reasons and conditionof application of such measures.
71. The representative of Poland indicated that the EC request would be considered by the Polish
authorities immediately upon reception of the official request.
10. Date and agenda of the next meeting
72. The next meeting of the Committee is scheduled for 10-11 March 1999.  The Committee
agreed on the following tentative agenda:
1. Adoption of the agenda
2. Implementation of the Agreement
(a) Information from Members
(b) Specific trade concernsG/SPS/R/13
Page 16
(c) Consideration of specific notifications received
(d) Any other matters related to the operation of transparency provisions
(e) The SPS Agreement and developing countries (G/SPS/W/93)
3. Monitoring of the use of international standards
4. Consistency - report by the Chairman on consultations
5. Review of the SPS Agreement - report by the Chairman on consultations
6. Technical assistance and cooperation
7. Matters of interest arising from the work of observer organizations
8. Observers – Requests for observer status
9. Other business
10. Chairmanship of the Committee11. Date and agenda of next meeting
73. The Chairman reminded delegates of the following:
(a) Review of the SPS Agreement
The Secretariat will circulate a revised draft report on the review of the Agreement by
15 January 1999 .  Written comments by Members should be sent to the Secretariat not later
than 3 February 1999 .  If necessary in view of the comments received from Members, an
informal meeting of the Committee to further discuss the review of the Agreement would take
place on 11 February 1999 .
(b) Article 5.5 guidelines
The Secretariat will circulate a draft document by 15 January 1999 .
(c) Informal meetings of the Committee
On 8 and 9 March 1999 , the Committee will hold informal meetings on the review of the
Agreement;  Article 5.5 guidelines;  requests for observer status;  and monitoring the use of
international standards.
74. Furthermore, the Chairman reminded delegates th at the deadlines for requesting the inclusion
of specific items on the agenda, or receiving submissions from Members under the respective agenda
items, were as follows:
Agenda item 2:  (b) Specific trade conc erns and (c) notifications 25 February 1999
Agenda item 3:  Monitoring procedur e:  Specific examples 8 February 1999
__________