. /.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/GEN/133
21 July 1999
(99-3026)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Original:  English
GELATIN
Statement by Brazil at the meeting of 7-8 July 1999
1. Brazil has been informed that the European Communities has taken the necessary steps to
notify the latest draft revision of Directive 92/118.  We are thankful to the European Communities forthis step towards transparency.  Nevertheless, I have been instructed by my Government to highlight
some of the concerns that Brazil has in relation to this issue.  Of course, these concerns and some
additional ones will be forwarded to the EC competent authorities within the next 60 days.
2. Brazil is the third largest producer of gelatin, right after two European countries:  France and
Germany.  Around 70 per cent of our national production of gelatin goes to the EC market.  Brazil hasbeen exporting gelatin to European countries for over 15 years.  Over that time, not one single health-
related problem has been identified.
3. This is not the first time Brazil brings this issue to the attention of the SPS Committee.  As
some of us might recall, in 1997, France introduced regulations on specific requirements for the
production of gelatin made out of hides and skins.  As a result of Brazil's representations, the Officeinternational des Epizooties (OIE) instituted an ad hoc Group of Experts, which concluded that hides
and skins are free of BSE and declared that gelatin produced from these raw materials are safe for
consumption.  In May last year, the OIE approved those scientific conclusions and, as a result of that,
included gelatin made of hides and skins in a list of products which should not be the object of any
restrictions to international trade.  In March 1999, almost one year later, France reviewed its
regulation.  Italy and Portugal, countries that apply the same regulation as France, have not done so
yet.  Brazil would like to know why.
4. As France dismantles its technical barrier, the European Communities decided to review
Directive 92/118, and in this exercise, the European Communities is considering the imposition of
new requirements for the imports of gelatin made out of hides and skins.  Among these requirements,
I would emphasize the obligation that tanneries that provide hides and skins to gelatin industries be
certified.  The distinction between slaughterhouses and tanneries for the purpose of supplying hidesand skins for the production of gelatin is an artificial one and can only be understood as a disguised
barrier to trade for it goes beyond the Codex Alimentarius safety standards.
5. Brazilian sanitary regulations require that industry expose these raw materials to pH variation
tests, after which no bacteria can possibly survive.  The draft legislation applies to food gelatin only,
while pharmaceutical gelatin, which accounts for 22 per cent of the European edible gelatin market, is
not included.  There is no logic to this policy, let alone scientific basis.  Bone gelatin is exempted
from the Directive until EC legislation concerning classification as regards BSE status is applicable.
It goes without saying that this is the sort of gelatin that should be controlled – not exempted.
Nonetheless, the Directive applies controls to the type of gelatin that is safe, that is, the one producedin Brazil.  The EC draft decision inaugurates the post-mortem inspection requirement.  There is notechnical or scientific justification for that requ irement, for ante-mortem inspections are considered
sufficient by international standards.  Additionally, these inspections are required to be undertaken by
an "official veterinarian".  This is another artificial barrier to trade.  In countries outside Europe,G/SPS/GEN/133
Page 2
health inspections are usually carried out by sanitary officials under the supervision of an official
veterinarian.
6. Before concluding, let me just point out two of the many inconsistencies of the EC initiative
with regard to the SPS Agreement:
• Article 2.2 calls for a scientific basis for the adoption of SPS measures.  The EC
measure does not take into account the scientific conclusions of the OIE on hides and
skins;
• Article 2.3 establishes that SPS measures should not  "arbitrarily or unjustifiably
discriminate between Members where identical or similar conditions prevail".  The
EC measure should accept the equivalency provisions for individual countries set out
in the SPS Agreement.
7. The EC legislation, as proposed now, will severely impact the ability of gelatin
manufacturers, especially those outside Europe, to supply gelatin to the market.  These regulations arean unnecessary barrier to trade.  There has been, I insist, no risk assessment conducted to support the
requirements and there is no scientific basis to justify Decision 4841/98.
8. Brazil urges the European Communities to take into account the arguments presented here
today.  Brazil will be forwarding to the EC authoritie s detailed comments in writing.  Brazil is willing
to meet bilaterally with the competent European countries in order to clarify any remaining points
which would contribute to the review of Directive 96/118.
__________