WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/GEN/301
11 March 2002
(02-1219)
Committee on Sanitary and
Phytosanitary MeasuresOriginal:  Spanish
CHILE – RESTRICTIONS ON THE IMPORT OF FRESH OR FROZEN
MEAT DUE TO FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE
Submission by Argentina
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Owing to the current epidemiological situ ation in Argentina, foreign market access
restrictions have been imposed on Argentine products in the form of unjustified sanitary measures
adopted by certain importing Members.
2. These access restrictions are inconsistent with the obligations established within the
framework of the multilateral trading system, more  specifically with the commitments contained in
the WTO Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement).
3. This inconsistency arises from the fact that the measures at issue are stricter than the
international reference parameters, and lack sufficient scientific grounds and risk analysis to justifythem.  Moreover, they are also disproportionate to the objectives pursued.  As a result, they are
inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 2.2, 3.3, 5.1, 5.6 and related articles of the
SPS Agreement.
II. ACCESS RESTRICTIONS TO THE CHILEAN MARKET
4. The draft resolution of the Chilean Agriculture and Livestock Service (SAG) lays down the
sanitary requirements for the import into its territory of fresh or frozen bovine meat (of any origin).
5. It provides that the foot-and-mouth (FMD) stat us of the country or zone of origin may be
either of the following:
- FMD free country/zone without vaccination
- FMD free country/zone with vaccination
6. Thus, the draft does not permit the import of fresh or frozen bovine meat from FMD infected
countries or zones .  In this respect the Chilean Standard is stricter than the international standard of
reference, since Article 2.1.1.23 of the OIE Internati onal Animal Health Code provides the possibility
of risk mitigating procedures to ensure that the virus is inactivated.
III. DISCIPLINES DERIVING FROM THE AGREEMENT ON THE APPLICATION OF
SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES (SPS AGREEMENT)
7. What follows is a brief description of the disciplines deriving from the SPS Agreement that
are relevant to the case at issue.G/SPS/GEN/301
Page 2
A. SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE – ASSESSMENT OF RISK
8. One of the fundamental principles of the SPS Agreement is that sanitary and phytosanitary
measures should be based on sufficient scientific evidence (Article 2.2) in order to ensure that they are
not used as unjustified restrictions on trade.  Accordingly, on the basis of the objectivity provided by
science, the application of this type of measures is disciplined in order to avoid discretionaryapplication by Members that would unjustifiably restrict international trade.
9. This basic principle is intrinsically related to the obligation to base sanitary and phytosanitary
measures on an assessment of risks (Article 5.1).  Indeed, this relationship between the two concepts
(scientific evidence and assessment of risks) has been widely recognized in WTO precedent.
B. 
HARMONIZATION
10. Another principle enshrined in the SPS Agreement is the harmonization, on as wide a basis as
possible, of sanitary and phytosanitary measures, on the basis of international standards, guidelinesand recommendations where they exist.  To that end, both the preamble to the SPS Agreement and
Article 3.1, 3.4 et seq. refer to harmonization as a trade facilitation instrument and encourage
Members to participate in international technical fora (Codex, OIE, IPPC) in order to promote the
development and periodic review of standards.
11. Article 3.2 of the SPS Agreement stipulates that sanitary and phytosanitary measures which
conform to the international standards and guidelines or recommendations shall be deemed to be
necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health, and presumed to be consistent with the
relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement and the GATT 1994.  This presumption of consistency is a
premium granted by the SPS Agreement to Members who base their measures on international
standards.
12. If Members should decide to depart from the standards provided by the international rules of
reference for the establishment of a sanitary or phytosanitary measure, the presumption of consistency
disappears, and there is an inversion in the general rule of burden of proof.  Consequently, the
Member in question must provide sufficient information (including the corresponding assessment of
risks) to justify the measure it wishes to introduce (Article 3.3 of the SPS Agreement).
13. Finally, it is important to point out that according to relevant WTO precedent, both the panels
and the Appellate Body consider the said provisions as the scientific parameters to be taken into
account in settling disputes relating to the determination of whether or not a sanitary or phytosanitary
measure is consistent with the obligation set out in the SPS Agreement.
C. 
PROPORTIONALITY
14. Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement requires Members to adopt proportionate measures.  This
principle is respected when, within the range of alternative measures suitable to achieve theappropriate level of protection, Members implement the measure which is the least trade restrictive.
IV. INTERNATIONAL ANIMAL HEALTH CODE OF THE INTERNATIONAL OFFICE
OF EPIZOOTICS
15. The reference international organization in the field of animal health is the International
Office of Epizootics (OIE).  That Office approved the International Animal Health Code (hereinafter"the Code"), Chapter 2.1.1 of which sets out the regulations relating to foot-and-mouth disease.G/SPS/GEN/301
Page 3
16. To begin with, the said Chapter sets out the conditions governing the categorization of
countries/zones according to their sanitary status.  It then goes on to establish the products and
subproducts considered to present a risk of transmission of the FMD virus.  Finally, it lays down the
requirements to be imposed by the Veterinary Administration of the importing country with respect to
FMD, taking account of two variables:  the sanitary status of the country of origin of the product andthe sanitary risk of the product to be exported.
17. Accordingly, Article 2.1.1.23 establishes the requirements that the Veterinary Administration
of the importing country should impose on exporting FMD infected countries for fresh meat of
bovines (excluding feet, head and viscera):
" … the presentation of an international veterinary certificate  attesting that the entire
consignment of meat:
1. Comes from animals which:
(a) Have remained in the exporting country  for at least 3 months prior to slaughter;
(b) have remained, during this period, in a part of the country where cattle are regularly
vaccinated against FMD and where official controls are in operation;
(c) have been vaccinated at least twice with the last vaccination not more than 12 months
and not less than 1 month prior to slaughter;
(d) were kept for the past 30 days in an establishment, and that FMD has not occurred
within 10 km during that period;
(e) have been transported, in a vehicle  which was cleansed and disinfected before the
cattle were loaded, directly from the establishment  of origin to the approved abattoir
without coming into contact with other animals which do not fulfil the required
conditions for export;
(f) have been slaughtered in an approved abattoir :
(i) which is officially designated for export;
(ii) in which no FMD has been detected during the period between the last
disinfection  carried out before slaughter and the shipment for export has been
dispatched;
(g) have been subjected to ante-mortem and post-mortem inspections for FMD with
favourable results within 24 hours before and after slaughter;
2. Comes from deboned carcasses:
(a) from which the major lymphatic glands have been removed;(b) which, prior to deboning, have been submitted to maturation at a temperature above +
2°C for a minimum period of 24 hours following slaughter and in which the pH value
was below 6.0 when tested in the middle of both the longissimus dorsi."G/SPS/GEN/301
Page 4
V. ANALYSIS OF THE LEGAL CONSISTENCY OF THE CHILEAN DRAFT
18. The draft resolution prepared by the SAG does not comply with the requirements of the SPS
Agreement for the reasons provided:
A. HARMONIZATION –   SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
19. As mentioned, Article 2.1.1.23 of the OIE Code stipulates that the Veterinary Administrations
of the importing countries must  accept fresh meat of bovines (excluding feet, head and viscera) where
the Veterinary Administration of the exporting countries is able to provide certification of the risk
mitigation procedures expressly provided for in that article.
20. In spite of this, the Chilean regulation only permits imports of meat from FMD free countries
or zones (with or without vaccination), and in no circumstances provides for the possibility importing
meat from infected countries.
21. As already stated, Members may depart from international parameters where they can supply
sufficient scientific evidence to justify the measure in question.  In this case, the Chilean authorities
have not produced any evidence to justify imposing stricter requirements than those provided for in
the OIE regulations, so that the draft resolution is inconsistent with Article 3.3 of the SPS Agreement.
22. Similarly, the lack of scientific evidence mean s that there is a clear inconsistency with the
obligation laid down in Articles 2.2 and 5.1 of the SPS Agreement.
B. PROPORTIONALITY
23. Argentina considers the prohibition of imports on meat from FMD infected countries to be
disproportionate to the objectives pursued, since the Chilean authorities have an alternative measure at
their disposal which is less trade restrictive while nevertheless ensuring the appropriate level of
protection, and have failed to demonstrate otherwise.
24. This measure is the acceptance of the risk mitigation procedures established in the OIE Code
for fresh meat from countries infected with FMD (Article 2.1.1.23).
25. Consequently, the Chilean draft resolution is inconsistent with Article 5.6 of the
SPS Agreement.
VI. ARGENTINA APPEAL
26. In view of the above consideration Argentina requ ests that prior to the entry into force of the
draft resolution, Chile provide sufficient scientific evidence to support its departure from the
international reference parameters, in conformity with Article 3.3 of the SPS Agreement, or failing
this, that it follow the recommendations provided in the OIE International Animal Health Code
mentioned above (Chapter 2.1.1, Article 2.1.1.23).
__________