|
Saturday,
7 July
Session
I: Food Safety and the SPS Agreement
Moderator:
Kazuaki Miyagishima — Associate Professor, School of Medicine,
Kyoto University
To begin the working session on the SPS Agreement and Food Safety, I
introduced the topic of food safety, noting that all diseases are
products of interaction between humans and the environment. Human
perception of risks is an important consideration, since in many
societies people are more afraid of food risks than other incidents
which actually kill many more people, such as automobile accidents.
Humans also perceive risks differently if they are from hereditary
or non-hereditary diseases, from voluntary or forced risks, and from
pharmaceuticals versus food-borne risks. There is a marked tendency
to focus on novel risks, although traditional products may be at
least as dangerous. In general, the public accepts some foods that
scientists do not consider to be safe, but do not accept all foods
that scientists know to be safe. Therefore, from a public health
point of view, there is a gap to be filled between perceived risks
and real risks as well as between accepted and unaccepted risks.
Our
first presenter, Dr. Dominique Taeymans of CIAA, addressed the issue
of precaution. He recalled that precaution was first considered in
the environmental field, where the Rio Declaration established the
principle that when faced with threat of serious or irreversible
damage, a lack of science should not prevent the taking of
precautionary actions. The SPS Agreement extends precaution to the
food safety area. Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement requires that
governments base their food safety measures on scientific evidence,
which, in terms of the Codex Alimentarius, means the full use of
risk assessment results. However, the SPS Agreement allows
governments to take provisional measures while they seek additional
information within a reasonable period of time. So Dr. Taeymans
argued that the precautionary approach should be structured by risk
analysis, and that it was a risk management element, not to be
confused with the scientific caution used in risk assessment.
Precaution is not welcome by economic operators because it has the
potential to disrupt trade, and can be used as a disguised trade
barrier. Precautionary measures should therefore be exceptional,
provisional, proportional, non-discriminatory, consistent, based on
cost/benefit analysis, should assign the burden of proof, and
involve all stockholders. Discussion of precaution is taking place
in the FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius, which may develop guidelines in
this area. Risk analysis should remain the rule, precautionary
measures the exception.
Our
second presenter, Dr. Groth from Consumer Union, USA, noted that the
debate about GMOs is a multi-dimensional debate, including ethical,
trade and economic issues. With regard to human health risks, the
one which attracted primary consideration is allergenicity; there is
also a possibility of modifying the natural toxicity of plants.
Ecological risks are probably more likely and harder to assess. On
the other hand, benefits for human health will probably only be seen
in the future; they might include nutritional improvements, quality
improvements, the potential to increase production and to provide
human vaccines. Regarding ecological benefits, there is the
possibility of reduced use of inputs such as pesticides and
fertilizers, which might make it possible to use less land or poorer
land to produce more food. Dr. Groth raised the question of
distribution – who gets the benefits and who faces the risks –
which is a major issue both within society and among societies. The
most difficult part of debate was not over facts but values –
ethical, religious, etc. Do the benefits justify the risk? Dr. Groth
closed by noting that risk assessment was essential, but a better
decision paradigm was needed to factor in other issues, including
precaution. Safety assessments by regulatory bodies could not
resolve the much broader debate, and a forum is needed to discuss
these broader issues.
The
third presenter, Dr. Coulibaly Fanny from Côte d'Ivoire, discussed
developing country concerns. Before 1999, many Developing countries
had no knowledge at a technical level of the SPS Agreement. Since
1999, there had been some workshops and training, not always well
coordinated. Developing countries remained concerned about the
absence of new market access, insufficient modernization of laws and
institutions, non use of risk analysis, lack of knowledge and
involvement with standard-setting organizations, and insufficient
technical assistance. Many countries had established national
committees to cope with these questions, but not always effective or
active. Dr. Coulibaly noted that many Developing countries were
facing problems related to a reluctance to reform legislations and
review procedures for inspection. She stressed the need for regional
work and development. The process was slow and there was a need to
inform the political level of the importance and implications of the
SPS Agreement. On the other hand, perhaps the SPS Agreement needed
to be revised to make more mandatory the technical assistance and
special and differential treatment provisions. Large and small
producers as well as consumers in developing countries needed to be
informed and trained to allow them to participate and make their
needs heard.
In
discussing the use of precaution, one of the participants noted that
the SPS Agreement and other instruments, such as the Cartagena
Protocol on Biosafety, differed with respect to the burden of proof.
The SPS Agreement assigned the responsibility primarily to the
importing country, whereas under the Cartagena Protocol the exporter
had the burden of demonstrating the safety of the new organism. The
speaker thought this latter approach was more appropriate. However,
another speaker noted that shifting the burden of proof could have
negative implications for trade, as the exporter would be expected
to prove 100% safety. Another speaker stressed the need for
internationally agreed procedures on how to deal with unknown risks,
and welcomed the decision by the Codex Alimentarius Commission to
develop guidelines for governments in this respect. Such
international guidelines could help avoid unjustified trade
restrictions.
Responding
to the various comments made, Dr. Groth noted that there was never
enough science, and almost any food safety decision involved some
precaution. The underlying decision was not scientific, but a
decision of how much risk a country wanted to accept, and how much
precaution to be applied. He also noted a need to develop commonly
agreed terminology to avoid confusion. Dr. Coulibaly observed that
there was a difference in the principle as discussed and how it was
actually applied in trade. She argued that the precautionary
principle should be used responsibly, especially when it affected
trade with developing countries.
Regarding
the issue of GMOs, one speaker stressed the need for labelling to
ensure consumers right to choose. Another noted that risk
assessments of GMOs in most countries was not a scientific process
but a political process and that the use of confusing terms caused
further problems. He noted that in 15 years of risk assessments on
GMOs, he had never seen any risks from GMO products that did not
occur with conventional hybrids. He suggested that developing
countries had not been given the chance to test the technology and
to evaluate potential benefits of existing GM products. Developing
countries also needed to now to address issues of ethical concerns
regarding GM foods before it becomes a major problem in their own
countries. WTO should show public leadership in providing public
facts and figures about GMs – otherwise the voices of developing
countries are never heard.
Dr.
Groth indicated that many of the costs of research were eventually
passed on to consumers in product prices, and that labelling costs
varied considerably according to how they were done. Dr. Taeymans
referred to on-going discussions on traceability, and concerns that
this could have significant costs, which would again be passed on to
consumers. Dr. Coulibaly observed that one effect of the
globalization of information was that as soon as a food safety
crisis occurred in Europe or elsewhere, consumers in developing
countries immediately demanded action from their governments, for
example on dioxin, BSE, GMOs, etc. Often this occurred at the cost
of diverting attention from more important concerns. She stressed
the need for discussions with consumers, industry, producers, and
governments to provide first information and facts, and then decide
on appropriate policies.
In
addressing the concerns of developing countries, one speaker
stressed the problem of the scarce participation of developing
countries in the relevant standard-setting bodies. Their lack of
participation meant that they had not been able to block the
establishment of standards at levels which were higher than needed
to protect health and designed instead to protect domestic
industries from competition. Another speaker suggested that, given
the high costs for developing countries of setting up structures and
institutions to implement the SPS Agreement, their implementation
should be made conditional upon technical and financial assistance
being made available to them. One speaker was concerned that the SPS
Agreement, had led to lower levels of food safety. Since developing
countries had not received sufficient technical assistance to
increase food safety, they argued in Codex for lower standards they
could meet. He suggested that there was a need for an international
agreement on food safety, under the auspices of the WHO.
Dr.
Coulibaly drew attention to the new FAO fund to assist developing
country participation, but noted that developing countries also had
to make efforts internally, for example by creating effective
national Codex committees. This was, however, a costly process for
countries with other urgent resource priorities. She reiterated her
suggestion that the technical assistance and special and
differential provisions of the SPS Agreement should be made more
binding. Dr. Groth observed the growing participation of developing
countries in Codex, but not yet effectively in Codex committees
where the technical and scientific expertise was crucial. It was
also noted that FAO and WHO are considering the establishment of
trust funds to support developing country participation. Other
international instruments are also being approached to explore ways
to improve capacities of developing countries.
In
summary, the working session noted that the issues of precaution and
GMOs stand at the crossroads of different areas such as SPS for food
safety; TBT for food labelling, as well as biodiversity, animal
welfare, etc. This situation clearly indicated the need to organize
more open for a at all levels so that the public is well-informed
and government actions are taken with full participation of all
interested parties.
|
|
