Precautionary Principle Decision-makers should be allowed to err on the side of public health protection when formulating standards in cases where there is scientific uncertainty, conflicting scientific evidence, or where the potential public health consequences of making an error are significant. For such a principle to be properly applied, the uncertainties in scientific risk assessment must be made clearer and more transparent. For example, experts should be asked to identify and quantify key uncertainties regarding risks, provide an assessment of the degree of confidence they have in their key scientific conclusions, and explain possible health consequence if conclusions later turn out to prove incorrect. The SPS Agreement established an SPS Committee responsible for its implementation, ad hoc negotiations, and other duties. However, the SPS review has taken place informally, creating difficulties for public interest organisations to be aware of and make input into the discussions.
Resource constraints can limit the input of some member governments.
Indeed there was no participation by any African countries during the SPS review. Some developing countries called for a longer implementation period during the Review. It seems though that much of the interpretation of the text of the SPS Agreement will be done through the WTO dispute settlement mechanism as disputes are raised rather than by the SPS Committee itself. Reviews of the SPS and TBT Agreement should be done formally, with consultation from consumer groups. Consumers should have the right to participate meaningfully in and be informed of public decisions affecting them.