SEE
ALSO:
press
releases
WTO
news
Mike
Moore's speeches
Renato
Ruggiero's speeches, 1995-99
> report
of previous meeting
The
WTO is not responsible for the content of external
internet sites linked from this page
|
BSE
(mad cow disease) back
to top
The discussion came under several agenda items.
Frequently raised was the question of obligations under
the SPS Agreement — whether particular situations
would require a country restricting imports to inform WTO
members before adopting emergency measures. Brazil said
it would prepare a paper on this for the General Council
discussions on “implementation” (i.e. how the
present WTO agreements should be implemented,
particularly for developing countries).
1. Canada explained its recent actions
on BSE, in particular the temporary ban on products from
Brazil, which has now been lifted. Canada stressed that
this was purely a health issue and that it was acting
while waiting for information to determine whether the
Brazilian products pose a BSE risk. Brazil complained
that Canada had acted without warning.
2. The European Union provided
information on its latest actions. Without naming any
countries, the EU said that some trading partners had
taken actions that were unnecessarily harsh, including
banning products that are considered by the International
Organization of Epizootics (OIE, or World Organization
for Animal Health) not to be risky.
3. The OIE and World Health
Organization presented their latest papers on BSE
(G/SPS/GEN/230 and G/SPS/GEN/221) (see
box)and
the WHO’s paper on variant CJD (G/SPS/GEN/222), the
human disease linked to BSE.
|
NOTE:
This summary has been written by the WTO
Secretariat to help public understanding about
developments in the SPS Committee. Unlike the
meeting’s minutes,
it is not an official record.
How
to search for and download official documents
To
search for documents referred to here, go to the WTO on-line
document database.
Insert
the codes indicated in the “document symbol”
window of the search engine.
|
| |
Replying
to a question from Chile, the OIE said it does not
consider fishmeal feed to be a risky product since
scientific evidence suggests fish cannot have prions (the
agents of BSE) in their bodies.
4. Romania, representing Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech
Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Poland, Romania,
Slovak Republic, and Slovenia, complained about import
bans in Australia, Argentina, Canada, Rep of Korea, New
Zealand, and the US. The complaining countries said the
bans were unjustified because BSE had been found in the
EU, but not in these other European countries. The
countries introducing the bans said they had to take
action while seeking more information because the recent
discoveries in the EU had been result of stricter
surveillance. They said they wanted to be sure that BSE
not existed without detection.
Foot
and mouth disease back
to top
The EU reported on the latest situation, including the
outbreak discovered in France a few days earlier. The
infected French herd was 500 metres from a herd of sheep
that had been imported from an infected farm in the UK,
the EU said.
While describing its “regional” approach to
containing the disease, the EU complained that some
countries’ actions had been excessive because
imports had been banned from the whole of the EU. Some
members responded that their measures were temporary and
aimed at providing them with enough time to assess the
situation adequately.
Other
specific measures discussed back
to top
 One
issue generated comment from several members — a US
complaint about the length of time Australia has taken to
complete an analysis of risks and allow imports of
Californian table grapes. Malaysia, Indonesia,
Philippines, Thailand and the EU agreed that Australia
takes too long. Australia denied that it is taking longer
than most other countries and argued that countries
should separate the length of time taken under rules
preceding the SPS Agreement from those that Australia has
applied since 1995. It also rejected the US argument that
there is no risk from “glassy-winged
sharpshooters”.
The committee discussed a record of 16 other bilateral
trace concerns, including:
- Argentina
on Venezuela’s requirements for garlic and
potatoes;
- Argentina
and Bolivia on EU maximum levels of aflatoxin
(see EU notifications G/SPS/N/EEC/51 and
G/SPS/N/EEC/95);
- Canada
on Hungary’s pork restrictions;
- Chile
on Bolivia’s poultry measures;
- Thailand,
Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines on new EU
maximum levels of lead, cadmium, mercury and
3-MCPD in soy sauce and other foodstuffs (see EU
notification G/SPS/N/EEC/100);
- Canada
on India’s bovine semen restrictions;
- New
Zealand on Indonesia’s fresh fruit
restrictions (see New Zealand’s concerns
expressed in G/SPS/GEN/219);
- Thailand
on Mexico’s rice import restrictions (an old
issue first raised in October 1997);
- ASEAN
on Australia’s restrictions on prawns (see
Australia’s notifications G/SPS/N/AUS/124
and 126);
- the
US on EU measures on gelatin;
- Ecuador
on Turkey’s restrictions on bananas.
Equivalence
(also an “implementation”
issue in the General Council) back
to top
This is the question of countries recognizing that
different methods could be equivalent in providing the
same level of health protection against risks of disease
or contamination.
In his report to the General Council on discussions this
time, the chairperson said the committee agreed that
equivalence does not necessarily require formal
equivalence agreements but can be achieved at different
levels. It stressed the importance of information, and
members said they would inform each other through the WTO
when they recognize that other members’ measures
have equivalent results.
Background explanation: SPS measures reduce risks to
consumers, livestock or plants to acceptable levels.
Measures to achieve an acceptable level of risk can often
be different. Among the alternatives — and on the
assumption that they are technically and economically
feasible and provide the same level of food safety or
animal and plant health — governments should select
those measures that are not more trade restrictive than
required to meet their health objective. Furthermore, if
another country can show that the measures it applies
provide the same level of health protection, these should
be accepted as equivalent. This helps ensure that
protection is maintained while providing the greatest
quantity and variety of safe foodstuffs for consumers,
the best availability of safe inputs for producers, and
healthy economic competition.
Developing countries in particular say developed
countries are not doing enough to accept that actions
they are taking on exported products provide levels of
protection that are equivalent to the developed
countries’ requirements. This complaint has been
raised as one of the many issues in the WTO General
Council under the heading of “implementation”.
The chairman’s report was submitted to the General
Council meeting on implementation on 16 March.
Participation
in international standard-setting bodies back
to top
This is an “implementation” issue that has also
been discussed in the General Council. Director-General
Mike Moore has been actively involved and has reported
regularly to the General Council (the latest is in
document WT/GC/45 of 6 March 2001).
The
“three
sisters” (Codex Alimentarius, Office International
des Epizooties or World Organization for Animal Health,
and the International Plant Protection Convention)
briefed members on participation in international
standard-setting bodies in a workshop before the SPS
Committee met. The information showed that developing
countries are participating more, but not necessarily in
the most adequate manner. One problem, the committee
heard, is that the work of these organizations is not
always relevant to developing countries. Egypt said that
both sides need to act: developing countries need to do
more homework; and developed countries and international
organizations should listen more to the developing
countries. Malaysia proposed that more standard-setting
meetings should be held in developing countries.
(See summary documents from Codex — G/SPS/GEN/236;
IPPC — G/SPS/GEN/227; World Health Organization
— G/SPS/GEN/231)
_______________
This was the first meeting of 2001. Chairing it was
S.I.M. Nayyar of Pakistan. At the end, the committee
elected William Ehlers of Uruguay as his successor. The
next meeting will be in July 2001.
|
Is
milk safe?
Yes, says the World Organization for Animal
Health or Office International des Epizooties
(OIE) in an SPS Committee paper (G/SPS/GEN/230 ).
The OIE says it considers the following products
to be safe from BSE even if they come from areas
where BSE exists:
“In the light of the available scientific
knowledge, the OIE recommends that, whatever the
health status of an exporting country with regard
to BSE, importing countries should not apply any
restrictions on importation or transit through
their territory:
- of
milk and milk products;
- of
semen;
- of
protein-free tallow and derivative
products;
- of
dicalcium phosphate (with no trace of
protein or fat);
- of
hides and skins;
- of
gelatine and collagen prepared from hides
and skins.”
> Back
to text
|
|
