RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1*
26January 1998
ORGANIZATION(98-0274)
Committee onSanitary andPhytosanitary Measures
SUMMARY OFTHE MEETING HELD ON
15-16 OCTOBER 1997
Note bytheSecretariat
Revision1
1. TheCommitteeonSanitaryandPhytosanitaryMeasures("theCommittee")helditsninthmeeting
on15-16 October 1997, under thechairmanship ofMr.AlexThiermann (United States). Theagenda
proposed inWTO/AIR/692 wasadopted withamendments.
Observers
2. TheChairman noted thatinformal consultations regarding requests forobserver status inthe
SPSCommittee werecontinuing. TheCommittee decided torevert tothisitematitsnextmeeting.
Implementation oftheAgreement
Information from Members
3. Therepresentative ofChile reported thathisauthorities hadsigned asanitary andphytosanitary
agreement withColombia which included theSPSdisciplines oftransparency, harmonisation andrisk
analysis. Chile, which hasthechairmanship ofCOSAVE untiltheendof1997, hadalsochaired a
meeting ofregional plant protection organizations. Recalling thatChile wasfreeoffruitfly,the
representativeindicatedthathiscountryhadalong-standingagreementwithPeruaimedattheelimination
ofthispestinneighbouring countries andhadsigned asimilar agreement withArgentina in1997.
Alsofreeoffoot-and-mouth disease without vaccination, Chile hadfacilitated imports ofmeat by
eliminating fatpercentage requirements. Additionally, asaresult oftheimplementation ofasurveillance
project regarding Tilletia indica intheUnited States, Chile hadauthorized imports ofwheat fromthe
United States.
4. TherepresentativeoftheEuropeanCommunitiesclarifiedinformationwhichhadbeensubmitted
atthelastCommittee meeting regarding changes intheinternal structure within theCommission in
theareaofconsumer health andsafety.2Heindicated thatthesecretarial work ofthescientific
committees andthecreation ofariskassessment unitwere being done inDGXXIV. Whereas the
inspection oflegislation wasalsodoneinDGXXIV, legislation regarding veterinary andplanthealth
andanimal feeding matters remained inDGVI,while thelegislation regarding cosmetics and
*English only
1New textadded toparagraph 10andnewparagraphs 42to50.
2G/SPS/R/8, para. 7refers.G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1
Page2
pharmaceuticals wasdealt withinDGIII.With regard toBSE, heinformed theCommittee that
following ajointconference between theECCommission andtheEuropean Parliament inJuly1997,
theCommission would produce aconsultation paper onhowtheEuropean Communities should deal
withanimal waste andtheprocessing ofmeat andbone meal. Theconsultation paper, which was
expected tobeissued before thenextSPSCommittee meeting, would address threeoptions. Thefirst
option wastocontinue thepresent policy ofincluding intheproduction ofmeat andbonemeal the
present categories, butrequiring thatmammalian meatandbonemealbeprocessed according tostrict
parameters. Thesecond option wastoexclude fromtheprocessing ofanimal waste forfeeding purposes
theso-called "fallen-stock" (dead animals either atthelevelofthefarmorduring transport), reflecting
thepresent French policy. Thethird option wastoprohibit thefeeding ofallfarm animals with
mammalian meatandbonemeal, extending thefeedbanbeyond ruminants toinclude alsopigsand
poultry aswellasfish,reflecting thepolicy which wasadopted bytheUnited Kingdom sinceApril 1996.
5. Therepresentative ofArgentina informed theCommittee thatbilateral consultations withthe
European Communities onadraftstandard onimports ofcitrus fruitfrom areas where citrus canker
wasendemic wereprogressing towards aprobable positive solution. Consultations withSwitzerland
onwheat regulations regarding Tilletia indica wereunder way,andArgentina would provide itsviews
inwriting totheSwiss authorities. Argentina argued thatthecertification requirements discriminated
between the38countries members ofEPPO andcountries freeofthisdisease.
Specific trade concerns
Korean shelf-life requirements forUHT milk
6. Therepresentative ofAustralia indicated thathiscountry hadformally requested anexplanation
ofthereasons whytheRepublic ofKorea hadnotaccepted Manufacturer Determined Shelf-Life (MDSL)
forUHT milk. Heexpressed hisauthorities 'disappointment withtheKorean response3,which did
notmeettherequirements ofArticle 5.8oftheSPSAgreement. Heemphasized thatKorea hadaccepted
MDSL forarange ofother products, including bulkUHT milk, andtherefore mustbecognizant of
thescientific basisforthiswidely accepted practice. While Australia hadsubmitted detailed information
withrespect toitsownindustry andconsumer packages ofUHT milk, Korea hadnotprovided any
justification foritsnon-acceptance ofMDSL forthisparticular product. Herequested thatKorea give
further consideration toitsresponse andprovide, attheearliest possible opportunity, aresponse which
mettherequirements ofArticle 5.8.Therepresentatives oftheUnited States andArgentina supported
theAustralian position, inparticular inregard toArticle 5.8obligations.
7. Therepresentative ofKorea indicated that,asexplained inprevious occasions, theKorean
government would apply Manufacturers Determined Shelf-Life toUHT milkbytheendof1998.
However, hisauthorities were nowreviewing thepossibility ofextending thecurrent mandatory
determined shelf-life ofUHT milk, inaccordance withtheguideline onextension offoodshelf-life,
evenbefore theendof1998. Tothisend,theKorean authorities hadalready requested Australia to
submit thedatarequired under thatguideline. Upon receipt ofthisdata,theKorean government would
make athorough review oftheissue. Hisgovernment wasfullyaware ofArticle 5.8andwould possibly
provide anexplanation ofthereasons forthemeasure nowinplace, when itmade afinaldecision on
thismatter taking intoconsideration therequested supplementary data.
French decision tosuspend imports ofgelatin
8. TheBrazilian representative indicated thatsince 1986 Brazilian exports ofedible gelatin had
beennegatively affected bytheFrench decision toimpose aspecific production method forallgelatin
3G/SPS/GEN/40 refers.G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1
Page3
exported toFrance. Brazil believed thatsuchrequirements lacked scientific justification andtherefore
werenotinlinewithArticles 2.2,4and5.6oftheSPSAgreement. Sheindicated thattherawmaterial
usedintheproduction ofgelatin hidesplits wasclassified aslowriskproduct interms ofBSE
transmission fortheregions where thedisease hadbeendiagnosed. Recalling theOIErecommendation
adopted inMay1996, theBrazilian delegate stressed thattherehadnever beenacaseofBSEinBrazil,
andallthenecessary measures toprevent itsentryintoBrazil hadbeentaken. Brazil could beconsidered
aBSE-free country andtherefore ingredients usedintheproduction ofBrazilian gelatin didnotrepresent
anyriskoftransmission ofthedisease. Furthermore, themethods ofproduction usedinBrazil also
included thermic treatment which eliminated anyotherformofinfectivity. Brazil enquired iftheFrench
measure hadbeennotified under theSPSAgreement. Anumber ofdelegations, including Mexico,
Argentina, theUnited States, Australia, Chile andThailand shared theconcerns raised byBrazil.
9. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities replied thattheFrench decision hadbeen
taken intheexpectation ofECprovisions which would introduce twotypes ofconditions. Onecondition
related tothenormal sanitary requirements interms ofmicrobiological andchemical criteria, which
hadbeendiscussed intheEuropean Communities buthadnotyetresulted inaresolution. Thesecond
condition related tominimum requirements withregard topossible risks from BSE. TheFrench
requirements weresimilar tothose applied toexports ofgelatin fromtheUnited Kingdom, andwere
notapplied onanEC-wide basis. However, corresponding parameters werenormally usedbylarge
partsoftheindustry andthisissuehadnotbeenraised asaconstraint byother countries trading with
France. Henoted thattheOIECode required certain minimum provisions which Brazil didnotfulfil,
andalsothatBrazilhadnotpresentedanapplicationtotheEuropeanCommunitiesrequestingrecognition
ofitsTSE-free status.
ECrules on"specified riskmaterials" inproducts ofanimal origin
10. Therepresentative oftheUnited States informed theCommittee ofhisauthorities 'concerns
withboththepublic health andthetrade implications oftheECDecision 97/534 EC,which banned
theuseofcertain specified riskmaterials inawiderange ofproducts (G/SPS/GEN/36 refers). He
noted thatpublic health agencies were concerned thattheECdecision, ifimplemented asoriginally
drafted, might directly orindirectly cause international shortages ofneeded medical products, which
could adversely affect thehealth ofconsumers. Itcould alsohave amajor restrictive impact on
Member 'stradeintallow, tallow derivatives, gelatine, pharmaceuticals andmany foodproducts. The
representative oftheUnited States indicated thatEC'sbanappeared tobemorerestrictive thannecessary
toachieve Member 'sshared public health objectives. Byimposing thesame restrictions onproducts
sourced from theUnited States andother regions where BSEisnotknown toexistasareimposed
onproducts from regions where thepresence ofBSEiswelldocumented, Decision 97/534/EC did
notappear torecognize important difference inregional disease conditions. Canada, Australia,
Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, NewZealand, theCzech Republic, Mexico, Colombia andChile associated
themselves withtheconcerns expressed bytheUSrepresentative.
11. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities indicated thattheECCommission 'sdecision
hadfollowed theopinion oftheScientific Veterinary Committee ofOctober 1996andhadbeenadopted
inJuly1997bytheECCouncil ofMinisters. Following theannouncement bytheBritish government
inMarch 1996 ofpossible transmission ofbovine spongiform encephalopathy tohumans, scientific
evaluation hadbeenintensified inthisarea. Although therewasnoproof yet,recent scientific studies
hadincreasingly demonstrated theexistence ofsuchpossibility. Therefore, theEuropean Communities
haddecided toincrease itslevel ofprotection, aiming atreducing therisk,nottozerobecause this
wasimpossible, buttotheminimum. Whereas inthepasttheEuropean Communities hadbanned
theuseofmammalian meatandbonemealtofeedruminants, thatfeedbanwasnoteffective toinsure
thattheagent would notbetransmitted firsttotheanimal population andsubsequently eventually to
humans through theconsumption ofinfected material. Thisconcern wasreflected intheApril 1997
decision toreinforce rendering standards.G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1
Page4
12. However,recentinactivationstudieshaddemonstratedthattheconditionssetbytheAprildecision
werenotasufficient safeguard especially inasituation ofhighdegrees ofinfectivity. Thisadditional
uncertainty wastaken intoaccount bythe"safe-sourcing" principle which consisted ofpreventing
specified riskmaterial which eventually might endanger public health from entering theprocess by
anychannel, whether feed,foodorcosmetics. Interms oftransmissible spongiform encephalopathies
(TSE), including BSE, brain, spinal cordandretina wereconsidered tobehighriskmaterials bythe
European Communities andthere werediscussions intheECMultidisciplinary Scientific Committee
onwhether intestines should alsobeincluded inthislist.Moreover, theScientific Committee was
considering theneedtoabolish the12-month agelimitbelow which therewerenoprohibitions, implying
thatallsuchtissues, irrespective oftheageoftheanimal, would bebanned foranyuse.There were
stillnumerous questions regarding BSEwhich remained tobeanswered, anditwasforthatreason
thattheECCommission haddecided totakeaprecautionary approach. TheEuropean Communities
would respect itsinternational obligations. AnyMember which considered itself tobeinasituation
presenting noriskswithregard toTSEs, could present asubmission forexamination bytheECScientific
Committee. ThisCommittee hadalready evaluated theapplications ofcertain Members andtheEC
Commission would consider whataction totakeinlightofthisevaluation. TheEuropean Communities
needed totakeintoaccount other TSEs duetothelinkswithBSEandtheorigin ofthisdisease, believed
tohavebeenprovoked bythefeeding ofscrapie-infected material fromovines tothebovine population.
However, theorigin ofthedisease might alsobeendemic inthebovine population and,asaresult,
recycling could takeplace through rendering systems which were noteffective inde-activating the
agent.
13. TheScientific Committee would alsolookattheissue oftallow andtallow derivatives in
connection withBSErisks, andtherewasapossibility that,irrespective ofthesource, tallow derivatives
might becharacterized assafeprovided theywere treated under thestringent ECparameters of
hydrolysis. TheECCommission waslooking atthequestion oftheavailability ofpharmaceutical
products andlife-saving types ofmedicine. However, therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities
noted thattheSRM banrelated strictly tothebovine, ovine andsheep population and,atthemoment,
onlyinrelation toanimals overtheageoftwelve months. Gelatin ortallow fromtheporcine species
oranyother species could beusedwithout difficulty. Inaddition, therendering, tallow andgelatine
producing industries inEurope wereintheprocess ofadjusting tothenewrequirements which would
enter intoforce on1January 1998. Therefore, itwasnotexpected thatthere would beanylackof
available ofsource materials fortheproduction oflife-saving medicines. IntheEuropean Communities,
products which hadbeenproduced withSRMs before 1January 1998 could notlegally bemarketed
afterthatdate, whether theywere ofinternal orimported origin.
14. TheUnited States representative indicated thatmaterials fromtheUnited States andmany other
Members didnotcontain highdegrees ofinfectivity ofBSEandthatthisshould bearelevant
consideration inthismatter. Moreover, whereas itwasalways possible tocomply withanyunnecessary
measure, onepurpose oftheSPSAgreement wastoavoid having todoso.Therepresentative of
Argentina saidthathiscountry hadfirsttaken aresolution regarding BSEin1990. Healsoprovided
copies ofabooklet, which contained aBSERiskAnalysis.4Inhisview, measures which failed to
distinguish between countries infected byBSEandcountries notinfected were contrary totheOIE
recommendations andtheSPSAgreement.
Switzerland andBSEconcerns
15. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland reminded theCommittee thatimport prohibitions byseveral
countries against meat products, including products originating inSwitzerland, hadbeentheobject
ofaninformal meeting oftheCommittee on20March 1997, andofaquestion/answer session during
4"Argentine Scientific Advisory Committee onBovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (1stMeeting), 7-8-9-10 April 1997, Buenos Aires,
Argentina, "Secretaría deAgricultura, Ganadería, Pesca yAlimentación".G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1
Page5
theCommittee 'sformal meeting of1July1997. TheBSEissue continued toraiseserious concerns.
InSwitzerland, thesituation wasimproving andBSEcases weredeclining significantly. Moreover,
Switzerland disposed ofallbovines onfarms where BSEcases hadoccurred since 1996. However,
numerous restrictions continued toaffect Swiss exports oflivecattle, genetic material, meatand,in
certain cases, milkproducts. Notonlywere OIErecommendations notapplied, butnoscientific
justification wasprovided, therewasnoinformation regarding theriskassessment methodology used,
northeresulting appropriate levelofprotection. Switzerland wasundertaking bilateral consultations
onthematter andwould inform theCommittee oftheiroutcome.
Transparency provisions
Consideration ofspecific notifications received
Australia -Draft quarantine requirements fortheimportation ofbovine embryos from
Switzerland (G/SPS/N/AUS/56 and57).
16. TherepresentativeofSwitzerlandindicatedthathisauthoritieswerestudyingtheabovementioned
notifications. Hequestioned whysuchrequirements applied toSwitzerland onlyand,inparticular,
whether othercountries withnotified oractual BSEincidents, either highorlow,weresubject tosimilar
requirements. Moreover, hewondered whytheobjective ofthenewrequirements wasto"develop
import requirements ...based oninternational standards", whereas thenotification indicated that"an
international standard doesnotexist". Therepresentative ofAustralia replied thathiscountry had
developed generic conditions fortheimportation ofruminants andruminants genetic material from
Member states oftheEuropean Communities, buthadestablished bilateral conditions withothertrading
partners. Theconditions inthenotified draftrequirements fortheimportation ofbovine semen and
embryos fromSwitzerland wereinaccordance withAustralia 'sgeneral import policy relating toBSE
promulgated inJanuary 1995, andwere equivalent toBSErequirements from allother countries.
International standards existed andAustralia didnotconsider thatthenotified draftmeasures deviated
from suchstandards.
Czech Republic -Decision concerning therestriction ofcattle oversixmonths imported from
Switzerland (G/SPS/N/CZE/14)
17. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland raised similar questions withregard tothenotification from
theCzech Republic. Therepresentative oftheCzech Republic replied thatanindividual import permit
wasrequired fortraders interested inimporting goods subject toveterinary control, including live
animals. Hisauthorities considered carefully theepizootic situation inthecountry oforigin, frequency
ofnewly found cases ofcontagious diseases, efficiency oferadication programmes, etc.Theimport
approachusedwasalwaysthesameandincludeddiscussionswiththeveterinaryauthoritiesofthecountry
oforigin. Thissystem enabled thedistinction between countries withsporadic positive cases andthose
withcontinued occurrence ofcases, likeSwitzerland. Although themeasures inplace inSwitzerland
corresponded totherecommendations oftheOIE,theyhadnotfullyeliminated risksrelating toBSE,
andhadnotstopped theoccurrence ofnewly infected animals. Unlike other countries, Switzerland
slaughtered anddestroyed onlyBSE-affected animals, notallanimals keptandfedinthesame place.
Suchanimals could beconsidered assuspect andasource ofdisease. Imports ofcattle totheCzech
Republic were nothigh, andoriginated inonlyalimited number ofcountries. With regard tothe
protocol concerning SPSandanimal welfare measures inrelation totrade between hiscountry and
theEuropeanCommunities,thecriteriumusedfortheSPSnotificationswastheECCommissionDecision
794/94, reflecting ahigher rateofprevention thantheOIErecommendations. Hisauthorities offered
tocontinue bilateral discussions withSwitzerland.G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1
Page6
United States -Importation offruits andvegetables; papayas from Brazil andCosta Rica
(G/SPS/N/USA/94)
18. Brazil indicated thathisauthorities would comment onthisnotification atalaterdate.
Anyother matters related totheoperation oftransparency provisions
19. TheUnitedStatesrepresentativewelcomedtheSecretariatdocument(G/SPS/GEN/27andRev.1)
which listed allMembers andindicated those which hadidentified theirEnquiry Points and/or their
National Notification Authorities. Heexpressed appreciation tothose Members which hadrecently
provided suchinformation. Heintroduced document G/SPS/GEN/37 which identified problems and
shortcomingsintheimplementationofthetransparencyandnotificationprovisionsoftheSPSAgreement.
TheUnited States proposed thatMembers organize regional workshops onthetransparency provisions
priortoMay1998toexplore means ofaddressing theseissues. Several representatives expressed similar
concerns andsupported theUSinitiative. Itwasnoted thatholding regional workshops ontransparency
didnotnecessarily conflict orexclude theorganization ofsimilar workshops onnotification requirements
inGeneva. However, therepresentative ofAustralia noted thattherewasnotonlyaneedforincreasing
theunderstanding ofthetransparency obligations imposed bytheAgreement, butabroader needto
deepen theunderstanding oftheAgreement asawhole. Inhisview, individuals ororganizations with
averygood understanding oftheAgreement should beidentified andusedtoprovide theneeded
information atthenational level. Australia waslooking atvarious ways toimprove awareness ofthe
SPSAgreement, including bydiscussing SPSissues toagreater extent thaninthepastinmeetings
withother countries initsregion.
20. TheSecretariat indicated thatoverthelasttwoandahalfyears ithadconducted numerous
regional andnational seminars inthecontext oftechnical assistance, andthatthetransparency provisions
featured prominently inthepresentations. Feedback from Members inrelation tospecific problems
wasparticularly important asitallowed theSecretariat tofocus inamore detailed manner onsuch
problems. Despite itslimited staffresources, which largely depended ondevelopments inthedispute
settlement area, itwasalways possible toorganize workshops inGeneva. Responding toconcerns
raised bycertain developing countries 'representatives, theSecretariat indicated thatitcould explore
thepossibility offinancing theparticipation ofsome Members intheseseminars through theutilization
oftechnical cooperation funds. TheSecretariat would alsocontinue toparticipate inregional workshops
totheextent itslimited resources permitted. Inregard tothenotifications, theSecretariat stressed
thattheprocedures werenowworking more smoothly andmostnotifications wererapidly processed.
Notifications werepromptly circulated andadded totheWTO Websiteintheoriginal language 2-3
daysafterreception intheSecretariat, andother languages werecirculated assoonasthetranslations
wereready. Members wereencouraged tosendallnotifications totheCentral Registry ofNotifications
inorder toavoid anydelays.
Monitoring theuseofinternational standards
21. Aprovisional procedure tomonitor theuseofinternational standards hadbeentabled bythe
Chairman atthemeeting heldinJuly1997 (G/SPS/W/82). Arevised version wasprepared
(G/SPS/W/82/Rev.1) taking intoaccount thecomments received from various delegations. Further
commentsweresubsequentlyreceivedfromthedelegationoftheEuropeanCommunities(G/SPS/W/85).
Theamendments suggested bytheEuropean Communities weregenerally found toreflect Article 12.4
more closely andweresupported byvarious delegations. Following discussions ofafurther revised
versionoftheproposedprocedure,on16October1997,theCommitteeadoptedaprovisionalmonitoring
procedure, contained indocument G/SPS/11.G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1
Page7
Consistency
22. Furtherinformalconsultationsonthedevelopmentofguidelinesonconsistencyintheapplication
oftheappropriate levelofprotection hadbeenheldsubsequent totheCommittee meeting ofJuly1997.
TheChairman encouraged Members tosubmit additional comments inwriting totheSecretariat by
mid-January 1997, inorder foranewdrafttobeready forfurther consultations priortothenextmeeting
oftheCommittee.
Technical assistance andcooperation
23. Since theJuly1997 meeting, theSecretariat hadparticipated innational seminars inUganda
andRomania andhadorganized regional seminars inColombia (21-22 September 1997) andIndia
(30September-1 October 1997). Inaddition, theSecretariat wasplanning toparticipate intwonational
workshops inNigeria andVenezuela, tobeheldinNovember andDecember 1997, respectively.
Furthermore, three regional seminars including SPSissues werescheduled totakeplace inKorea and
intheCaribbean region (twoseminars, including oneorganized bytheOIE) before theendof1997.
More regional seminars inAsiaandLatin America wereplanned for1998. Alltheseminars hadbeen
organized withtheactive involvement andcooperation oftherespective governments andtherelevant
international organizations. Regarding thepreparation ofalistofexperts inthefieldofriskanalysis,
asspecifically requested bytheChairman during thelastmeeting, noMember hadtodateprovided
anynames totheSecretariat. TheCodex representative indicated FAO'swillingness toshare with
theSPSCommittee alistofexperts whohadbeenidentified during thecourse ofprevious consultations
onriskanalysis andriskmanagement.
24. Thedelegations ofColombia, India andPakistan thanked theSecretariat fortheorganization
oftheabove-mentioned regional seminars. Therepresentative ofColombia reported thattheseminar
heldinBogota wasattended bymore than80officials from Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Venezuela and
Colombia, including many directly responsible fortheimplementation oftheSPSAgreement. The
representative ofIndia reported thatparticipants fromthetrade, industrial andgovernment sectors had
benefited fromtheseminar organized bytheWTO inNewDelhi andhadputforward specific queries
andproposals. Inthisrespect, Indiaoffered thesuggestion that,infuture, seminars should beoriented
totheneeds ofspecific industries soastoenhance theeffectiveness oftechnical assistance. India also
informed theCommittee ofhiscountry 'sspecific needs fortechnical assistance, notably inthefollowing
areas: training ofpersonnel, laboratory andtesting procedures, andtheestablishment ofadequate risk
assessment systems.
25. Recalling previous discussions onthecoordination oftechnical assistance activities ofrelevant
international organizations andbilateral donors, thedelegation ofPakistan wondered whether the
suggestion todesignate afocal point within theWTO Secretariat hadbeengiven dueconsideration.
Pakistan alsorequested assistance inorganizing anational seminar ontheSPSAgreement in1998,
asthecountry 'sparticipation intheregional seminar heldinNewDelhi hadbeenlimited. Pakistan
wasfurther seeking technical cooperation tohelphisgovernment authorities evaluate thecountry 's
training needs inSPS-related matters anddesign acomprehensive programme forthemedium-term.
26. TheChairman informed theCommittee thatOIRSA hadscheduled aworkshop ontheWorld
Trade Organization for25-27 February 1998inNicaragua andinvited Members tocontact theagency
directly regarding participation.
27. TheCodex representative introduced apaper identifying FAO'stechnical cooperation activities
withrespect tofoodsafety andquality (G/SPS/GEN/39) inthecontext oftheSPSandTBTAgreements.
Inclose cooperation withWHO, Codex wascompleting aseries ofconsultations onriskanalysis;
thelastonewasscheduled totakeplace on2-6February 1998. AjointFAO/IAEA expert consultation
onvalidation ofanalytical methods forfoodcontrol wastobeheldon2-4December 1997.G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1
Page8
28. Therepresentative ofWHO reported thatWHO continued toclosely cooperate withmany donor
agencies andinternational organizations, bothonabilateral andmultilateral basis. Arecently launched
project withUNIDO aimed atthestrengthening offoodsafety control systems inseven sub-Saharan
developing countries. This programme sought toharmonize thenational food legislations with
international requirements; introduce foodsafety assurance measures using risk-based assessment
systems; andadvise governments onthedevelopment offoodcontrol infrastructures andenforcement
policies. WHO alsoparticipated inasub-regional seminar onriskassessment inOman. TheWHO
representative introduced anewly-edited brochure, copies ofwhich weremade available intheroom,
thatprovided guidance tothepublic health sector andformulated recommendations oncapacity-building
ofnational foodcontrol systems.
29. Therepresentatives from WHO andCodex invited WTO Members tosubmit theirrequests
fortechnical assistance through theirrespective WHO orFAO representatives atregional ornational
levels.
Matters ofinterest arising from thework ofobserver organizations
Revision oftheInternational Plant Protection Convention (IPPC)
30. Therepresentative oftheIPPC reported onthedevelopments surrounding therevision ofthe
Convention (G/SPS/GEN/33). TheFAO Committee forConstitutional andLegal Matters (CCLM)
hadmettodiscuss thelegalissues associated withtherevised text. Whether therevised textentailed
newobligations would haveabearing onhowquickly thenewConvention would beadopted byIPPC
contracting parties, especially ifalengthy ratification process could beavoided. According totheIPPC,
theCCLM waslikely torecommend thatFAOadopt aposition thatwould ensure thatnonewobligations
were imposed onIPPC contracting parties. Theprimary objective oftherevised textwasrather to
create anenvironment which would promote theeffective operation oftheConvention. Among the
mostsignificantfeaturesoftherevisedtextweretheadoptionofinterimmeasures,provisionstodesignate
nationalcontactpointsandprovisionsfortheimmediateadoptionofanamendedphytosanitarycertificate.
According totheIPPC representative, therewould bemoreactivities inthenearfuture tohelpmembers
understand thisnewenvironment. IPPC encouraged WTO Members towork withtheirrespective
capitals topromote acceptance oftherevised Convention.
Clarification ofreferences toCodex texts
31. TheCodex representative reminded theCommittee thatduring its22nd session inJune1997
theCodexAlimentariusCommission(CAC)hadsoughtclarificationon(a)howtodifferentiatestandards,
guidelines orrecommendations inrelation totheimplementation oftheSPSAgreement and(b)the
status assigned toCodex regional standards andrelated textsbyWTO agreements. Aspecific request
from Codex hadbeencirculated indocument G/SPS/W/84. TheChairman informed theCommittee
thatanumber ofuseful suggestions regarding whatmight constitute anappropriate response hadbeen
made during informal consultations onthesubject. Adraftresponse onthebasisofthose inputs would
becirculated forconsideration bytheCommittee atitsnextmeeting inMarch 1998.
Other activities relevant tothework oftheSPSCommittee
32. Twoexpert meetings jointly convened byWHO andotherinternational organizations addressed
food safety considerations foraquaculture products andforirradiated products. Document
G/SPS/GEN/38 summarizes information onthese consultations, which hadresulted intechnical
recommendations intended fordirect usebygovernments aswellasbytheCodex Alimentarius
Commission.G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1
Page9
33. Inresponse totheChairman 'srequest totherelevant standard-setting bodies toprovide updated
listsofstandards, guidelines andrecommendations, documents G/SPS/GEN/29 (Codex), GEN/30 (OIE)
andGEN/31 (IPPC) hadbeencirculated. TheCommittee tooknoteofthese documents.
34. TheChairman informed theCommittee thatthedraftagreement between theOIEandtheWTO
(G/SPS/W/61) hadbeenapproved bytheCouncil forTrade inGoods atitsmeeting of21July1997,
andthatitwould besubmitted totheGeneral Council forconsideration atitsOctober meeting.
Review oftheSPSAgreement
35. TheChairman reported oninformal consultations thathadbeenheldtodiscuss thenature, scope,
andtiming oftheReview exercise explicitly referred toinArticle 12.7. Adraftprocedure hadbeen
elaborated onthebasis ofcomments andsuggestions fromMembers andprovided totheCommittee.
36. TheChairman clarified thattheinclusion ofatarget dateforcompleting theReview (November
1998between square brackets) merely reflected theideathatsuchanexercise wasnotanopen-ended
process. Another deadline could beidentified atalaterstage, oncetheCommittee hadgained abetter
understanding ofthetaskbefore it.Similarly, thedeadline of15January forreceiving listsoftopics
fordiscussion attheMarch 1998 meeting wasonlyforthepurpose ofstarting theprocess. The
procedure wasflexible andadditional topics could beadded tothepreliminary listsafterthestated
deadline. Inresponse toquestions onthemeaning ofthephrase "consideration ofthefuture work
programme", theChairman explained thatonce thetopics tobestudied were identified, awork
programme would beproposed totheCommittee, grouping items andsuggesting thesequence forthe
discussions.
37. TheCommittee adopted theprocedure toreview theoperation andimplementation ofthe
Agreement (G/SPS/10).
Report bytheChairman onthework oftheCommittee in1997
38. Inorder tofacilitate theannual review ofWTO activities bytheGeneral Council, theChairman
proposed tosubmit, under hisownresponsibility, abriefreport totheCouncil forTrade inGoods
ontheCommittee 'sactivities in1997. Adraftofthereport hadbeencirculated anddiscussed during
informal consultations.
39. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities stated thateventhough BSEhadbecome
asalient itemduring thecourse ofthediscussions, thetopic wasinappropriately singled outinthe
Chairman 'sreport. BSEissues should bereferred toinapurely factual manner. Other delegations
suggested thatamore complete listofother specific trade issues should beenumerated. References
toother tasks carried outbytheCommittee needed tobesubstantiated, namely inrelation tothe
guidelines tofurther thepractical implementation ofArticle 5.5;therecent agreement onaprocedure
toinitiate theReview oftheoperation andimplementation oftheSPSAgreement; andthetechnical
assistance activities undertaken bytheWTO Secretariat inSPS-related matters.
40. TheChairman noted thatthecomments andsuggestions received fromMembers would betaken
intoaccount inthefinalreport. Furthermore, thesubmission ofthereport waswithout prejudice to
theinputs thatmight berequired fromtheCommittee inthecontext ofthe1998Ministerial Conference.
TheCommittee tooknoteofthereport bytheChairman (subsequently distributed asG/L/197).G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1
Page10
Provisional calendar ofmeetings for1998
41. TheChairman proposed toholdfourmeetings in1998instead ofthree, inviewoftheadditional
timerequired toconduct theReview oftheoperation oftheAgreement. TheCommittee adopted the
following provisional schedule ofmeetings for1998:
12-13 March 1998
10-11 June1998
15-16 September 1998
11-12 November 1998
Itwasnoted thatinformal meetings (forexample onArticle 5.5guidelines andonthereview exercise)
would,totheextentpossible,bescheduledtoimmediatelyprecedetheformalmeetingsoftheCommittee.
Other business
42. Therepresentative oftheUnited States reported onhisgovernment 'songoing bilateral
consultations withKorea, under theprovisions ofArticles XXIII ofGATT 1994, onKorea 'simport
clearance procedures. Henoted thatsome progress hadbeenmade. However, inaddition tothe
remaining unresolved issues ofprinciple, theUnited States wasconcerned byreports ofcontinuing
problems withimplementation ofcertain changes thatKorea hadpreviously agreed tomake toits
administrative andlegalrequirements. TheUnited States expected thatimplementation ofthese and
other changes would result insignificantly shorter delays inclearing agricultural andfoodproducts
through Korean ports.
43. Therepresentative oftheRepublic ofKorea expressed hisdisappointment toseethisissue
repeatedly featured ontheCommittee 'sagenda. Thisrepetition could negatively affect theperceptions
ofKorea 'strading partners regarding theimport clearance system applied, which Korea believed was
infullcompliance withtheprovisions oftheSPSAgreement. Korea explained thattheprevious
requirement thatallingredient percentages bereported hadbeenabolished byanamendment tothe
Ministerial Ordinance oftheFood Sanitation ActinDecember 1996. Under thenewsystem, the
reporting ofpercentages wasonlyrequired forthemainingredients, other ingredients being citedonly
bynames. Asfortherequirement dealing withtheprovision ofmanufacturing process information,
itspurpose wastofacilitate theautomatic exemption ofagiven company andproduct fromlaboratory
examination. Furthermore, itwasnotmandatory forallimporters. Finally, regarding thetechnical
consultations ontheFoodAdditives Code, theKorean delegate believed thathisgovernment hadalready
respondedtotheconcernsexpressedbytheUnitedStates.Nonetheless,thecontinuedconcernsexpressed
bytheUnited States would beconveyed tothecompetent authorities inSeoul.
44. Therepresentative ofThailand reported thatMexico hadprohibited theimportation ofThai
milled ricesince1989because ofinfestation withKarnal smut.InNovember 1994, agroup ofMexican
experts hadvisited Thailand andhadconcluded thatthericewould becompletely cleared ofthefungus
atthemilling stage, andthuswould notpresent anyphytosanitary danger toMexico. Moreover, reports
confirmed theexistence ofthefungus inMexico, forwhich noofficial controls were currently
implemented. InSeptember 1996, theMexican government hadinformed theThaiauthorities that
theprohibition would belifted andreplaced byanewimport regulation. Despite consultations atvery
highlevels ofgovernment between bothcountries onseveral occasions, nosubstantial progress had
beenachieved. Thailand believed thattheMexican measure wasinconsistent withArticle 2:2ofthe
SPSAgreement, aswellaswithArticles IandIIIofGATT 1994. Thedelegation ofMexico assured
theCommittee thatthismatter would befollowed-up, particularly inlightofthebilateral consultations
heldwithThailand.G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1
Page11
45. TheThaidelegation wasalsoconcerned bytheimport banimposed byKorea onfrozen chicken.
Korean experts hadbeensatisfied aftervisiting facilities oftheThaipoultry industry. Nevertheless,
theThaicommercial office inSeoul recently confirmed thatKorea hadbanned Thaifrozen poultry
because oflisteria. Thebanwasnotnotified inadvance, which, according toThailand, wasinbreach
ofArticle 7oftheSPSAgreement. TheThaidelegation expressed itsdetermination topursue this
matter withKorea inorder toresolve thisissue. Thedelegation ofKorea wasnotinaposition toprovide
anyexplanations atthisstage since theyhadbeengiven littleadvance notice, andrequested Thailand
tosubmit detailed information inwriting.
46. Therepresentative ofArgentina raised acertain number ofquestions withreference todocument
G/TBT/Notif. 97.357 of21July1997. According tothatnotification, Japan authorized imports of
Foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) inactivated vaccine (butonlytheOtypeofFMD inactivated virus),
andexempted traders from undergoing theusual approval procedures beforehand. Three countries
weredesignated assuppliers: Germany, theNetherlands andtheUnited Kingdom. Argentina sought
some clarifications regarding (a)thecurrent FMD-status ofJapan since thedecision toimport FMD
vaccines tookeffect; (b)thecriteria usedtodesignate onlythreesources ofsupply, especially inview
ofthefactthatArgentina hadexported 12million unitsofthesame products, produced inconformity
withOIEstandards, toChinese Taipei; (c)whether Japan considered itselfa"zero-risk" country and
whether ariskassessment hadbeencarried outbyJapan insupport ofthis"zero-risk" status; and
(d)since Argentina wasdeclared freefrom FMD withvaccination bytheOIE, howJapan viewed
itscurrentpolicynottoimportArgentineanmeat.TherepresentativeofJapanexplainedthatthemeasure
notified wasanamendment totheapproval procedures regarding theimport ofvaccines foremergency
purposes. Theaction taken byJapan wasaprecautionary measure following theoutbreak ofFoot-and-
mouth disease inChinese Taipei inMarch 1997. TheArgentinean delegation indicated thattheywould
provide theirquestions inwriting totheJapanese delegation.
47. Therepresentative ofChile noted thatsome legal actions anddecisions taken bylocal
governments could disrupt trade flows andevenjeopardize thefunctioning oftheSPSAgreement.
Inoneinstance, Californian judges hadrequested theUSDepartment ofAgriculture toundertake an
environmental analysis before accepting imports ofgoods. Inanother instance, after Chilean
phytosanitary authorities hadtaken adecision regarding theentry ofweeds, theywerethreatened to
besubject tolegalproceedings initiated bytheexporting country, unless theexporting country was
declared a"low-risk" ora"zero-risk" country. Another related issue concerned theneedforthe
streamlining orreform ofnational regulatory frameworks. Asmany as5signatures weresometimes
required toclear theentry ofgoods intoaterritory.
48. Chile andPerusought some clarifications regarding theECdirective governing theexports
offishmeal totheEuropean Communities, which enforced strict controls oversalmonella. Thefact
thatitwasonlyapplied tofishmeal wasfound tobediscriminatory sincesimilar ruleswerenotapplied
tosubstitutes tofishmeal norcompeting products thatcould bepotentially contaminated withsalmonella,
ashadbeenconfirmed byrecent research carried outintheUnited Kingdom.
49. TheECdelegation, inapreliminary response, indicated thattheECdirective wasjustified
onthebasis oftheavailable scientific information onanimal feeds, whether bone-meal orfish-meal.
Forcompeting types offeedingstuffs, forexample those ofvegetable origin, working groups within
theEChadbeenconsidering whether tointroduce similar provisions. Theconclusion reached byseveral
ECMember states wasthatthere were notsufficient grounds forintroducing sucharequirement in
terms ofmicrobiological criteria. Some other ECMember states, however, hadintroduced national
requirements stipulating thatheattreatment mustbeundertaken togetridofsalmonella andother risks.
According totheECdelegate, there wasnoelement ofdiscrimination since fish-meal wasrecognized
asamore risky typeofproduct.G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1
Page12
50. Another issue raised byChile concerned theunilateral imposition ofimport prohibitions by
France andItalyaffecting fishmeal forfeeding ruminants, including inmixtures withbonemeal, under
thealleged objective ofpreventing riskarising fromcontamination. TheECdelegation indicated that
itneeded toeffectively enforce themammalian protein feedbantoruminants. Withthepresent methods,
theEuropean Community wasfacing practical difficulties intrying tosegregate theorigins ofthevarious
mammalian rawmaterials, including fish. There werenoECrequirements inthisrespect. TheEC
delegate indicated thatthisissuewould beexamined more closely, together withthetwoMember states
involved.
51. Thedelegation oftheEuropean Communities expressed concern overtheimport requirements
forwarepotatoes imposed bytheCzech Republic, notified inG/SPS/N/CZE/12 and13.Document
G/SPS/GEN/42 reproduces thefullstatement made bytheECdelegation whose standpoint wasthat
noscientific principles supported theregulation. Moreover, recourse toequivalent methods ofsprout
treatment wasnotallowed. Referring tothenewly-circulated listofCodex international standards,
theECdelegation pointed outthatamaximum residue existed fortheactive ingredient involved .
52. Therepresentative ofArgentina wasconcerned that,inorder forthepesticide toeffectively
impede sprouting, itmust beapplied before harvest. Thismade itimpossible forproducers totake
apost-harvest decision toexport totheCzech Republic. Thefinaldestination ofaproduct (post-harvest
decision) wasinfactlimited bythetypeoftreatment selected (pre-harvest decision) andthisclearly
constituted anon-tariff barrier totrade. Alternative, internationally-recognized anti-sprouting pesticides
existed which could beeffectively applied postharvest. Also, itwasnotclear toArgentina whether
theregistration procedure concerned theentire product formula oronlytheactive ingredient.
53. Therepresentative oftheCzech Republic explained thattubers ofware potatoes other than
seedandother potatoes needed tobetreated according tonational legislation, asnotified totheWTO
(G/SPS/N/CZE/6, dated 27March 1996). Anofficial statement tothateffect should appear onthe
phytosanitary certificate delivered bytheexporting country. Thenational legislation stipulated that
imported plantproducts could notbeputincirculation domestically iftheycontained residues ofactive
plant protection ingredients notregistered intheCzech Republic. Inpractical terms, thismeant that
seedpotatoes could beimported iftreated withanother product containing thesame active ingredient
astheonealready registered intheCzech Republic. Only oneproduct hadbeenapproved sofarbut
aregistration procedure wasunder wayfortheapproval ofasecond active ingredient. According
totheCzech delegation, therulesgoverning theregistration procedure wereattherootoftheproblem,
notthephytosanitary requirement perse.Although bilateral consultations hadbeenheld, theCzech
representative believed thatthere hadbeenlittleopportunity todiscuss thematter atatechnical level.
Thebilateral channels forresolving theissue, notably within theframework oftheEuropean Association
Agreement, were farfrom exhausted.
54. Thedelegation oftheEuropean Communities sought clarification onanother Czech regulation
requiring warehouses andsilosforstoring cereals foranimal feeding tobeunder statecontrol for
purposes ofquality assurance. TheCzech representative regretted thatadvance notice hadnotbeen
given tohisdelegation oftheECintention toraisethisissue, norhadtheECveterinary delegate in
Budapest forwarded anyconcern totherelevant Czech authorities. Inaddition, theCzech Republic
informed theCommittee that,within theframework oftheProtocol forveterinary andphytosanitary
cooperation withtheEuropean Union, bothharmonized andnon-harmonized conditions existed for
individual commodities. Thegrain products affected bytheCzech regulation weremostlikely within
thenon-harmonized category. TheCzech Republic indicated thattheywished topursue thematter
bilaterally withtheECveterinary delegate atexpert level.G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1
Page13
Dateandagenda ofthenextmeeting
55. Thenextmeeting oftheCommittee isscheduled for12-13 March 1998. Thefollowing items
willbeincluded ontheagenda:
A. Adoption oftheagenda
B. Observers
C. Implementation oftheAgreement
(a) Information from Members
(b) Specific trade concerns
(i) Switzerland -BSErelated measures
D. Transparency Provisions:
(a) Consideration ofspecific notifications received
(b) Anyother matters related totheoperation oftransparency provisions
E. Monitoring ofuseofinternational standards (G/SPS/11)
F. Consistency
G. Technical assistance andcooperation
H. Matters ofinterest arising from thework ofobserver organizations
I. Review oftheSPSAgreement (G/SPS/10) -Report onconsultations
J. Other business
K. Dateandagenda ofnextmeeting
56. MemberswhowishtoraiseanyspecificconcernsorexaminespecificnotificationsfortheMarch
1998 meeting were reminded toinform other Members involved andtheSecretariat notlaterthan5
p.m.on27February 1998. TheChairman alsoreminded delegates thatcomments andsuggestions
fortheGuidelinesonconsistency(Article5.5)andtheReviewexercise(Article12.7)shouldbesubmitted
totheSecretariat by15January 1998. Members 'input totheMonitoring Procedure (Article 12:4)
were requested by6February 1998. TheCommittee tooknoteofthese requests.
__________