STC Number - 4
  Generate document   Go back   New search

Measures related to BSE

Maintained by: Argentina; Australia; Austria; Belgium; Brazil; Canada; Chile; Czech Republic; European Union; France; Germany; Italy; Netherlands; Poland; Romania; Singapore; Slovak Republic; Slovenia; Spain; United States of America
Raised by: Switzerland; United States of America
Supported by: Argentina; Canada; Chile; Uruguay
First date raised: May 1996 G/SPS/R/5 paras. 6-9 and G/SPS/R/5/Corr.1 (EN, para. 9). See STC 193.
Dates subsequently raised: October 1996 ( G/SPS/R/6 para. 53)
March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7 para. 5-6)
July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8 paras. 10-19)
October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1 (EN), paras. 15-17; G/SPS/R/9 (FR, ES), paras. 15-17)
March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10 para. 9-19)
June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11 para. 34-39)
September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12 paras. 26-30; 46-48)
November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13 paras. 17-18)
March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14 para. 8)
Number of times subsequently raised: 9
Relevant documents: G/SPS/N/AUS/56 G/SPS/N/AUS/57 G/SPS/N/CAN/18 G/SPS/N/CHL/1 G/SPS/N/CHL/6 G/SPS/N/CHL/31 G/SPS/N/CZE/14 G/SPS/N/CZE/14/Add.1 G/SPS/N/SGP/1 G/SPS/W/68 G/SPS/W/79 G/SPS/GN/5 WT/DS133/1; G/SPS/GEN/45 G/SPS/GEN/67 G/SPS/GEN/71 G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1 G/SPS/N/USA/106 G/SPS/GN/8 G/SPS/N/EEC/30 G/SPS/W/67 G/SPS/N/POL/4 G/SPS/N/POL/13 G/SPS/N/POL/14
Products covered: 02 Meat and edible meat offal; 0201 Meat of bovine animals, fresh or chilled.; 0202 Meat of bovine animals, frozen.; 0401 Milk and cream, not concentrated nor containing added sugar or other sweetening matter.; 0402 Milk and cream, concentrated or containing added sugar or other sweetening matter.; 0406 Cheese and curd.; 0410 Edible products of animal origin, not elsewhere specified or included.
Primary subject keyword: Animal Health
Keywords: Animal health; Human health; International Standards / Harmonization; Risk assessment; Zoonoses; Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)
Status: Resolved
Solution: Dispute settlement DS133. Consultations requested on 7/05/1998 (WT/DS133/1). In consultations on 7 May 1998. In September 1998, Switzerland informed the Committee that the Slovak transit ban had been abolished and that discussions on market access for dairy products continued. In March 1999, Chile indicated that the measure in question had been modified (G/SPS/R/14, para. 8). Withdrawal/revision of some other measures.
Date reported as resolved: 01/03/1999

Extracts from SPS Committee meeting summary reports

In May 1996, the representative of the European Communities provided the Committee with an update and detailed background information with regard to developments related to BSE in the European Communities (G/SPS/W/67). He stated that before notifying the WTO of SPS measures taken, internal consultations would have to be completed. Similarly, the representative of Switzerland introduced a paper on the BSE situation in his country (G/SPS/W/68). He noted that a number of countries had restricted imports on dairy products and reminded the Committee that both the OIE and the WHO had concluded that dairy products posed no risk in respect of BSE.

The representative of the OIE informed the Committee that subsequent to the statement made by the United Kingdom with regard to BSE in March 1996, the OIE had held an ad hoc meeting in May 1996. One result of this meeting had been an updating of a scientific document providing all available information on the disease itself, as well as on scientific progress related to it. Furthermore, many of the suggested improvements of the OIE Chapter on BSE were agreed at the subsequent meeting of the OIE International Committee. These included: (i) an encouragement to strengthen BSE monitoring, which could result in the determination of a list of countries considered to be free; (ii) a listing of products representing no risk, such as milk and dairy products; (iii) the identification of certain risk tissues; and, (iv) the formulation of the text so as to maintain the distinction between countries with a high prevalence and low prevalence of the disease.

The representative of the WHO informed the Committee that two expert consultations had been held since the beginning of 1996 on Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease (CJD) and BSE. At one expert consultation, held with the participation of the OIE and the FAO on 2-3 April 1996, recommendations had been made regarding best practices for ensuring protection of the consumer. The final report was available upon request from the WHO (EMC/DIS/96.147). The second expert consultation examined the findings associated with the newly recognized variant of CJD and compared it with data on other human transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs). The Committee was informed that the WHO would intensify its world-wide system of CJD surveillance and collaborate with the OIE on similar surveillance systems with regard to animal TSEs. Copies of two press releases and a fact sheet concerning both consultations were made available in the room in English and French1.

The representative of Argentina stated that one of the territories alluded to in the European Communities' paper was part of Argentina's territory and that its correct designation was the Maldive Islands (Islas Malvinas).

In October 1996, the representative of the European Communities informed the Committee that in July, the European Commission had adopted decision 96/449/EC (G/SPS/N/EEC/30) on alternative heat treatment methods for processing animal waste, geared towards the inactivation of Spongiform Encephalopathy agents. Further measures were being studied by the Communities, which would notify any such measures in due course to the SPS Committee (see G/SPS/GN/8). The representative of Switzerland made a statement on the current situation of BSE in Switzerland, including the new sanitary prescriptions, culling and veterinary measures to be adopted at the border. The full statement is available in document G/SPS/GN/5.

In March 1997, the representative of Switzerland introduced a paper on bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in relation to the SPS Agreement (G/SPS/W/79). Switzerland, a country of "low incidence" of BSE, had been subject to a number of trade restrictions not all of which, according to the Swiss representative, could be justified under WTO rules. While he recognized that scientific uncertainties remained, and that sanitary authorities could adopt measures to protect the health of their countries' bovine cattle herds and their populations, distinctions had to be made between legitimate protection and unjustifiable discrimination between WTO Members. About 30 countries had adopted trade restrictions relating to BSE which affected Switzerland. Apparent violations of WTO obligations fell primarily, but not exclusively, within the scope of the SPS Agreement. The Swiss representative requested the Chairman to organize informal consultations with Members concerned, and suggested that the Committee give priority to the issue.

Several delegations welcomed the Swiss paper, agreeing that this was a current issue of wide interest and with significant repercussions on international trade of meat and meat products. Most members supported the suggestion that the Chairman conduct informal multilateral consultations, although several noted that the Committee did not have the capacity to judge the legality of border measures in this regard. It was agreed that the Chairman hold informal consultation on 21 March 1997, open to all interested Members. Swiss government experts would make a more detailed presentation and provide documentation for the occasion. The consultations would be restricted to the scope of the SPS Agreement and participation of observer organizations would be considered at a later stage.

In July 1997, Switzerland reminded the Committee of their concerns regarding measures taken by certain countries in relation to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) and the SPS Agreement (G/SPS/W/79). Although there had been some positive developments in this respect, the trend was not general. In particular, Switzerland addressed the following questions to Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia, Spain and the United States: (i) Have all of the measures been notified? (ii) Will these measures soon be abolished? (iii) If not abolished, to the extent that these measures deviate from the relevant OIE recommendations, how does the Member justify this deviation in light of Article 3.3? (iv) If these measures are a result of the appropriate level of protection of the Member, how have the obligations and criteria of Article 5 been taken into account? (v) At its May 1997 meeting the OIE adopted a new standard concerning the surveillance necessary with respect to BSE; in this context, how does the Member justify its claim of being BSE-free? (vi) For those Members which have prohibited the transit of live animals, how is this justified? (vii) For Brazil, does its membership in MERCOSUR imply specific veterinary obligations?

The representative of Switzerland stressed the interest his country had in the rapid and satisfactory solution to the problem and their willingness to continue discussions on the subject on a bilateral level.

The representative of Argentina informed the Committee that his government had provided replies to the Swiss questions and that additional information would be forthcoming. The representative of Switzerland expressed satisfaction with the progress achieved so far.

The representative of Brazil noted that the prohibition on imports of bovine semen by Brazilian authorities had been based on a decision by the Animal Health Commission of MERCOSUR, taken in July 1996. In light of the recommendations made by the first International Seminar on BSE, the Commission had classified bovine semen as a product of medium risk. Such classification implied a suspension of imports of the product from countries of high incidence of the disease as well as from countries with low incidence with native cases, such as Switzerland. Moreover, the representative of Brazil stated that the measures in question had been taken on an emergency basis as provided for in Annex B of the SPS Agreement taking into account that: (i) Brazil was a country free of BSE; (ii) Brazilian authorities were in possession of studies that suggested the possibility of transmission from mother to embryo; (iii) the fact that the disease was not well known; (iv) the disease had a long incubation period; and, (v) that its epidemiological behaviour was undefined. She affirmed that Brazil regularly examined and implemented the standards adopted by the OIE. However, Brazil had the largest commercial bovine cattle herd in the world, with 115 million head of cattle spread throughout a large territory. Nevertheless, with regard to the specific prohibition on bovine semen imports, Brazil had asked that the issue be reverted to the Permanent Working Group on Animal Quarantine of the Animal Health Commission of MERCOSUR, at its next meeting of 14-18 July 1997. The intention would be to reclassify the product as a "low-risk" product. This would permit the lifting of restraints on bovine semen imports from low-incidence countries. It was therefore possible that the issue be solved in a satisfactory manner at the next meeting of the Animal Health Commission, in August 1997. Brazil agreed to provide detailed written answers to the Swiss questions. The representative of Switzerland noted the importance they attached to regional aspects, and in particular the result of the consultation and possible decision which might emerge at the July 1997 meeting of the Working Group on the Animal Health Commission of the MERCOSUR.

The representative of Canada noted that there had been no changes in the applied import conditions for the importation of live cattle, bovine embryos, bovine semen, bovine meat or meat products from Switzerland due to the draft discussion document on BSE policies, and the proposed draft policy measures would not have an impact on the current bovine semen and embryo trade between Switzerland and Canada. Furthermore, Canada recognized and supported the measures approved by the 65th General session of the OIE in Paris, May 1997. In this respect, the design of the Canadian BSE surveillance system conformed to the requirements outlined in Chapter 3.2.13, and, in certain respects, even went further. The representative of Canada informed the Committee that several written comments had been received subsequent to the notification of the proposed import principles (G/SPS/N/CAN/18). It had become evident that there had been considerable misinterpretation of several of the import principles. Bilateral meetings had been held with some respondents, and Canada had undertaken to amend the text of the import policies and to revise several of the principles applied. Prior to final notification, the amended text would be distributed to those countries with whom there had been an exchange of comments. The formal policy notification to the WTO was expected to precede the promulgation of Canada's mammalian ruminant feeding ban, anticipated for 4 August 1997. The representative of Canada asserted that the final import policy would recognize the provisions and standards of the OIE International Animal Health Code and would be in full accordance with Canada's obligations under the SPS Agreement. She noted that a major concern for Canada was the lack of quantitative or qualitative parameters for the differentiation between countries with high incidence of BSE and countries with a low incidence of BSE. The representative of Canada re-extended an invitation for bilateral discussions in order to resolve outstanding concerns.

The representative of the United States stressed that the United States did not prohibit the importation of meat. Current Federal regulations were based on scientific evidence relating to the risks of transmission of BSE. These regulations were subject to continued review and had, in the case of bovine semen, led to the opening of trade in those products. With respect to embryos, it was the understanding of the United States that scientific evidence on possible risks related to transmission of BSE was still unresolved. The United States was closely following the on-going research and scientific discussion in the area and remained open to an exchange of information with Switzerland. A written response to the Swiss questions would be provided shortly. The representative of Switzerland noted that the United States certification requirement regarding dried meat ("viande des Grisons") for both the origin of the meat and the country of processing was not fully consistent with the statement of the representative of the United States. Furthermore, the Swiss representative hoped that the current review of US import policies would be fully in line with OIE recommendations, in particular the part of the Animal Health Code which pertained to embryos.

The representative of Romania informed the Committee that preliminary answers to the Swiss questions had already been provided in bilateral discussions. Prohibitions on imports of certain products which were potential carriers of BSE and scrapie from certain countries, were contained in Orders of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, from May and June 1997. These regulations were in line with OIE recommendations. The relevant authorities in Romania were currently preparing a notification on the matter as provided for in Annex B of the SPS Agreement. The representative of Switzerland expressed satisfaction with the results of the bilateral talks with Romania.

The representative of Poland noted that no bilateral discussions had been held on the matter regarding BSE with Switzerland. Imports to Poland were carried out on the grounds of individual import permissions granted on the basis of applications by importing companies to the Veterinary Department. No such applications regarding imports from Switzerland had been made. If made, such applications would be considered in accordance with the appropriate procedures. According to the Swiss delegate there was a need for bilateral clarification as the nature of the problem faced by Swiss exporters did not entirely correspond to the information provided by the Polish delegation.

The representative of Singapore informed the Committee that countries exporting beef to Singapore were required to certify BSE-free status for the past six years. The measure was in conformity with the provisions of the SPS Agreement and would shortly be notified thereunder. The representative of Singapore stressed that their level of protection was based on an appropriate risk assessment and that the measure was applicable to all countries exporting beef and beef products to Singapore; it did not target any specific country. Countries which were free of BSE outbreaks for the past six years were able to export beef to Singapore. It was noted that Singapore's current total cattle population was less than 1000 head and all animals were imported from Australia. Singapore could thus be considered a country free of BSE. The Singapore delegation was in the process of finalizing a response to the Swiss delegation.

The representative of the Czech Republic noted that there had been no cases of BSE in the Czech Republic and that their apprehension with regard to imports of beef from Switzerland were based on continued occurrences of BSE in Switzerland. Czech sanitary measures in question had yet to be notified to the WTO, although these were known by the Swiss authorities, according to the representative of the Czech Republic. It was pointed out that imports of bovine semen, brain and embryos from Switzerland were not restricted. The representative of the Czech Republic stressed that his authorities would prefer that the continued discussion and exchange of information take place on the level of veterinary experts. An official answer to the Swiss questions was being prepared.

As at previous meetings, the representative of the European Communities noted that measures taken on a national basis by EC member States were screened for conformity with EC law before notified to the WTO. In the case of BSE, this process had taken more time than expected and, although at the time of the meeting there was no common position within the European Communities, changes to the policy were being considered. The Committee was furthermore informed that recent inspection in relation to BSE in Switzerland had generally had good outcome. Nevertheless, one of the findings of the inspection was that there had been a certain number of cases of BSE in animals born after the feed ban in 1990, which would suggest that the feed ban had not been totally effective. Regarding the OIE standards, the representative of the European Communities pointed out that a considerable number of Members, including the European Communities, had gone beyond these recommendations. This was a sign of the degree of concern with regard to BSE and the need governments felt to take a cautious attitude. The representative of the European Communities stressed that it would be useful to discuss the outcome of that inspection more directly with the Swiss delegation with the participation of the relevant experts who were knowledgeable on the subject. The representative of Switzerland hoped that the European Communities would soon be in a position to notify under the SPS Agreement and welcomed the prospect of continuing talks on a bilateral level with the relevant experts.

In October 1997, Switzerland reminded the Committee that import prohibitions by several countries against meat products, including products originating in Switzerland, had been the object of an informal meeting of the Committee on 20 March 1997, and of a question/answer session during the Committee's formal meeting of 1 July 1997. The BSE issue continued to raise serious concerns. In Switzerland, the situation was improving and BSE cases were declining significantly. Moreover, Switzerland disposed of all bovines on farms where BSE cases had occurred since 1996. However, numerous restrictions continued to affect Swiss exports of live cattle, genetic material, meat and, in certain cases, milk products. Not only were OIE recommendations not applied, but no scientific justification was provided, there was no information regarding the risk assessment methodology used, nor the resulting appropriate level of protection. Switzerland was undertaking bilateral consultations on the matter and would inform the Committee of their outcome.

The representative of Switzerland indicated that his authorities were studying the above mentioned notifications. He questioned why such requirements applied to Switzerland only and, in particular, whether other countries with notified or actual BSE incidents, either high or low, were subject to similar requirements. Moreover, he wondered why the objective of the new requirements was to "develop import requirements ... based on international standards", whereas the notification indicated that "an international standard does not exist". The representative of Australia replied that his country had developed generic conditions for the importation of ruminants and ruminants genetic material from Member states of the European Communities, but had established bilateral conditions with other trading partners. The conditions in the notified draft requirements for the importation of bovine semen and embryos from Switzerland were in accordance with Australia's general import policy relating to BSE promulgated in January 1995, and were equivalent to BSE requirements from all other countries. International standards existed and Australia did not consider that the notified draft measures deviated from such standards.

The representative of Switzerland raised similar questions with regard to the notification from the Czech Republic. The representative of the Czech Republic replied that an individual import permit was required for traders interested in importing goods subject to veterinary control, including live animals. His authorities considered carefully the epizootic situation in the country of origin, frequency of newly found cases of contagious diseases, efficiency of eradication programmes, etc. The import approach used was always the same and included discussions with the veterinary authorities of the country of origin. This system enabled the distinction between countries with sporadic positive cases and those with continued occurrence of cases, like Switzerland. Although the measures in place in Switzerland corresponded to the recommendations of the OIE, they had not fully eliminated risks relating to BSE, and had not stopped the occurrence of newly infected animals. Unlike other countries, Switzerland slaughtered and destroyed only BSE-affected animals, not all animals kept and fed in the same place. Such animals could be considered as suspect and a source of disease. Imports of cattle to the Czech Republic were not high and originated in only a limited number of countries. With regard to the protocol concerning SPS and animal welfare measures in relation to trade between his country and the European Communities, the criterium used for the SPS notifications was the EC Commission Decision 794/94, reflecting a higher rate of prevention than the OIE recommendations. His authorities offered to continue bilateral discussions with Switzerland.

In March 1998, Switzerland noted that most of the BSE-related measures applied by certain Members against Swiss exports remained in place. Such measures deviated from OIE recommendations, but those Members had not carried out a risk assessment as required by the SPS Agreement. Such measures, including the prohibition of transit in some neighbouring countries, as well as the discriminatory manner in which some of the measures were applied, violated WTO rules. Nevertheless, some Members had eliminated their measures or had revised them in conformity with OIE recommendations. As a result, trade in Swiss genetic products for example, was again possible. Switzerland was also concerned with violations to WTO rules by some candidates for accession to the WTO. Finally, the representative of Switzerland expressed the hope that recent developments in the European Communities would gradually lead to a more predictable situation for all countries concerned with BSE and related restrictions on trade.

The representative of the European Communities informed the Committee that the European Communities was pursuing this issue bilaterally with the United States and had made a written submission to the United States authorities (G/SPS/GEN/66), within the time frame provided by the US notification. He summarized G/SPS/GEN/66 and rejected US claims of "inadequate" surveillance within the European Communities. He noted that surveillance existed in all EC member States, albeit in an non-harmonized manner. This situation would change as from 1 May 1998 because the EC Standing Veterinary Committee had recently adopted a Commission proposal which introduced a harmonized surveillance system targeting "potential candidates" for BSE in a systematic manner and requiring a minimum number of animals to be tested, a system similar to the one existing in the United States. The European Communities believed that the US measures were neither in conformity with provisions of the SPS Agreement nor with the OIE guidelines and recommendations. In his view, the suspension of import certificates from the European Communities in regard to BSE went far beyond what could be justified according to the scientific discussions in the European Communities and in the OIE, both under the present OIE International Animal Health Code ("the Code") and the Code under development. Specified risk material was removed not only in the United Kingdom but also in all EC member States where native cases had occurred, i.e. Ireland, France, Portugal, Belgium and the Netherlands. He noted that the United States had also ruled out the de-boning provision for exports from the European Communities to the United States, which was in place only for the United Kingdom. The EC representative observed that the risk factors suggested by the United States in relation to live animals, feed bans, surveillance and rendering systems, were also present in the United States and, at least potentially, in all countries. Therefore, the US measure, singling out and targeting Europe, was discriminatory. He emphasized that the safety of meat in Europe was as good as anywhere and it was unacceptable for the European Communities to have EC meat characterised as being dangerous. If a bilateral solution based on scientific evidence were not found, the European Communities would have to reserve its rights to pursue the matter in a different manner.

The representative of Argentina noted that the BSE issue had implications for human and animal health as well as for market perceptions, thus requiring decisions to be based on an extremely rational basis. It was also necessary to deal with consumer's perception that BSE-related risks were higher than what they really were. On 12 January 1998, Argentina submitted a declaration to the OIE identifying itself as a country free of BSE and TSE (a document available from Argentina's enquiry point). He noted that the EC representative had made no reference to two cases of BSE which had recently occurred in France (Haute-Savoie). He stressed the BSE issue was an European problem with potential important consequences for the rest of the world, which required a joint effort of political and scientific authorities to come forward with a proposal based on available knowledge to avoid unnecessary trade disruption.

The representative of the United States said that the US interim measure had been published in the Federal Register for public comment and had been notified to the WTO on 18 December 1997 (G/SPS/N/USA/106). The United States was in the process of reviewing the numerous comments and information it had received from many WTO Members and other governments, as well as from domestic groups. The United States had adopted this provisional measure on 12 December 1997. The measure was intended to safeguard animal and consumer health from the risk of BSE, and halted the importation of live ruminants and most ruminant products from the European Communities and the rest of Europe due to recent additional reported cases of BSE in countries previously considered to be free of this disease. This measure extended the scope of the feed ban that was already in place in the United States. Recent detections of BSE suggested that there was still an unclear picture of the distribution of BSE in the European Continent, especially considering the lack of published documentation on the amount of surveillance throughout Europe. There were a number of European countries which appeared to have high risk factors for BSE, including the importation of contaminated feed and live cattle from known BSE countries, but which appeared to have little surveillance in place. In addition, the recent measures taken in the United Kingdom as a result of infectivity detected in additional tissues, most significantly dorsal root ganglion, bone marrow, raised new concerns regarding the extent of the infectivity in tissues. The combination of these recent developments led the United States to impose the interim measure to protect public and animal health until assurances could be provided by the countries in question. Information submitted by various sources, including the EC Commission, some EC member States and other European countries was being evaluated in order to assess their BSE surveillance and reporting systems and to determine the specific risk level presented by each country. Trade would resume when those countries had systems that met US criteria, The United States intended to base its evaluation of the surveillance, information and preventive measures provided by the countries affected on the OIE standards. As of 11 March 1998, 18 European countries, including several EC member States, had made an official request for evaluation of their BSE risk status. The USDA was currently evaluating these requests and the data in order to regionalize Europe in terms of BSE. He emphasized that the OIE recognized that an adequate surveillance system was essential when making determinations on the risk status of the country. The US action in this case was based on the concern that countries in Europe had not demonstrated that adequate levels of surveillance were in place. The United States was committed to evaluating the data submitted by the various governments which demonstrated that their level of BSE surveillance was in accordance with the OIE standards and would take what measures were necessary based on science, risk assessment and available evidence, to protect human and animal health from the disease. However, at this point, US scientists disagreed with the EC delegate's view of the comparability of the risk factors in Europe with those in the United States and other parts of the world.

The representative of the United States recalled the concerns that his and other delegations had expressed in the previous meeting of the Committee with regard to the public health and trade implications of the EC proposed ban on "specified risk materials" (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1). The United States had since then continued to follow this issue closely and welcomed the EC decision to provide additional time to review all the scientific evidence and other important implications of the proposed measure. The United States was hopeful that the new approach recently proposed by the EC Commission would address the concerns that many Members had raised with respect to this measure. The fundamental view of the United States was that, consistent with Article 6 of the SPS Agreement, the SRM ban should recognize the BSE-free status of the United States and other regions. Products from those regions should not be subject to the ban. There had been no cases of BSE in the United States. Moreover, the United States maintained a rigorous surveillance system and other appropriate measures which surpassed the OIE requirements for establishing BSE-free status.

The representative of Canada indicated that his delegation was also encouraged by the delay in the implementation of the SRM ban and supported the US view that the proposed ban appeared to be moving in the right direction. He also welcomed the EC recognition of differences in the disease status of countries and was encouraged that the EC evaluations were to be based on OIE standards. Canada still had a concern with regard to the EC proposed evaluation process. It was Canada's understanding that the procedure would require a country to answer about 38 questions and that there was a provision in the procedure that when countries were not able to provide an answer because of unavailable scientific information, the EC Scientific Steering Committee would interpret the missing data as a worst case scenario, meaning that assumptions would be used to replace data that was not available. This would have severe implications, and Canada expected that the European Communities would review this provision.

The representative of Australia drew the attention of the Committee to document G/SPS/GEN/45, which contained Australia's comments with regard to the EC SRM ban, and reiterated that his country trusted that the European Communities would appropriately modify the application of this legislation so as not to disrupt trade through placing requirements for the exclusion of SRMs upon countries such as Australia which met agreed international criteria for BSE freedom.

The representative of Brazil noted that Brazilian exports of edible gelatine had been affected by the French decision to impose a specific requirement on all gelatine imports. Brazilian exports to that country had consequently decreased significantly. There was no scientific basis for applying such a decision to countries free of BSE, as was the case of Brazil. The French measure lacked scientific evidence, did not take into account the different status of different regions, and was not in line with Articles 2.2 and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement. It should also be carefully designed on the basis of sound science to effectively address its main concern, public health, and avoid unnecessary disruptions in the supply of safe products. She stressed that BSE had never been registered in the Brazilian territory. The Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture and Food Supply had approved a regulation, which followed the criteria established in Chapter 3.2.13.2 of the OIE Code, recognizing not only that Brazil was free of BSE, but also established specific rules of surveillance and procedures for notification of any suspicious cases of BSE and scrapie (G/SPS/GEN/67). Moreover, caprine and ovine populations were very limited in the Brazilian territory. The Ministry had also prohibited, by means of internal regulation, the feeding of bovine populations with protein of ruminants, with the exception of milk. The same rule applied to imported feedstuffs from ruminant. The Brazilian Animal Health Department conducted continuous surveillance of rabies and other nervous-system diseases of the whole national territory and to date no cases had been diagnosed. Brazil had not imported bovine, caprine and wild animals from BSE-infected countries since 1990. In the case of sheep, the prohibition was effective since 1995. Regarding market access problems faced by Brazilian producers of gelatine, she noted that the raw material employed in the preparation of gelatine had been classified by the OIE as having low risk of transmission of BSE, even in regions where the disease had been notified. The Brazilian product was submitted to temperatures that reached 140°C at different stages of its preparation as required by France. The Brazilian representative stressed that she expected that this information would expedite the removal of unnecessary barriers applied to Brazilian gelatine. She indicated that the EC questionnaire requesting information regarding the rules and composition of animal feeding in Brazil would soon be officially provided to the European authorities.

The representative of Argentina supported the comments by Canada, Australia and Brazil.

The representative of the European Communities indicated that as a consequence of internal discussions and representations made by third countries, the Commission had decided and the Standing Veterinary Committee had approved postponing the application of the SRM decision to enter into force on 1 April 1998. The scientific discussions continued in the European Communities and new scientific evidence had been received from the United Kingdom BSE Advisory Committee with regard to dorsal root ganglia, bone marrow, etc. The outcome of that evaluation had resulted in the EC proposal which was being discussed in the European Communities. The proposal suggested that, instead of having measures in place by 1 April 1998, a further period of transition was necessary and the new requirements would apply as from 1 July 1998. An enlarged list of specified risk materials, including dorsal root ganglia, bone marrow and other intestines, would be included in the provisions. However, if an EC member State or a third country submitted an application for a derogation, this derogation would be rapidly evaluated by the Commission, so that the application of such measures would not enter into force until 1 January 1999. A precondition for the derogation would be the absence of BSE, no native cases of BSE, and the procedure would be within the Scientific Steering Committee and the Scientific Veterinary Committee. A number of submissions had already been received and the Commission expected to receive further submissions in the near future. If there were native cases, like in Switzerland, such countries must apply from 1 July 1998 the short list SRM removal as reflected in the OIE Code. The geographical risk factors would thus be taken into account: there would be different provisions in place or no provisions in place depending on the submission and evaluation by the EC scientists. Ireland and Switzerland were also working on post-mortem methodologies to detect BSE, which might one day become useful tools. However, the Standing Veterinary Committee had not approved the EC proposal by the required qualified majority. The decision was now dependent on the Council of Ministers. The EC representative stressed that, unlike the United States, the European Communities had focused on the parts of the bovine body which had been scientifically identified as containing, or potentially containing the agent, but had never targeted meat as such. In response to the Brazilian statement, he indicated that the provisions in place by France mirrored those for the United Kingdom. Harmonized rules were being discussed in the European Communities, but BSE as such and the question of additional guarantees with regard to Brazil or other countries should be addressed within the framework of the requests for derogations from the expected SRM decision. In response to a question raised by Brazil, he added that if the production was based on skulls, where brain material could be connected, or the vertebral column, where spinal cord could be connected, the issue would be problematic. However, if Brazil could certify that, as claimed, all its production of gelatine was based on hides from animals fit for human consumption, the difficulties faced by Brazil should be easily solved. Repeating that the European Communities had no harmonized system in place, he noted that the French measures should be considered in that light and suggested that the Brazilian delegate should pursue the issue bilaterally with the representative of France.

The representative of Uruguay informed the Committee that Uruguay had been alerted to the fact that the Ministry of Public Health of Italy was restricting or including bovine lungs, or products derived from bovine lungs to be used in the production of pharmaceutical products, in the SRM category. Uruguay was unaware of any EC Commission decision on this issue and noted that this restriction distorted an important Uruguayan trade flow to the European Communities.

In June 1998, the representatives of Argentina, Canada, Chile, Switzerland and the United States sought an update on the BSE-related issue, extensively discussed during the ninth and tenth meetings of the SPS Committee. In particular, these delegations sought information on: (a) the current status of the restriction and the proposed time-frame for implementation; (b) whether the amended version of the regulation would be published and notified to WTO; (c) the criteria on the basis of which a country's BSE-status was to be determined; and (d) how the European Communities would ensure that individual EC member States did not start introducing their own measures.

The representative of the European Communities reported that EC member States were still unable to reach a common position on this issue. Consequently, EC Decision No. 97/934 would not enter into force until 1 January 1999. A suggestion that the list of SRMs be slightly reduced was subject to a scientific review. In the meantime, EC member States, such as the United Kingdom, France, Ireland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal and Luxembourg, had introduced a number of measures. Notification of these national safeguard measures to the WTO had been considered but not yet made. (The concerns expressed by several delegations regarding the lack of notification by EC member States are reported under agenda item 2(c) below.)

The EC representative also reported that the EC Commission was submitting new legislation to the Council for approval, departing from the traditional procedure reserved for safeguards on BSE where the proposal was forwarded to the EC Standing Committee. The legislative proposal would include general provisions in terms of safeguards and control measures with respect to BSE. An important element in elaborating this proposal was the outcome of the recent meeting of the OIE, in particular classification of countries according to four categories of BSE incidence. This would play an important role in the formulation of EC internal policies. On the other hand, the Scientific Veterinary Committee had considered BSE-free status on several occasions and concluded that the United States could not be recognized as BSE-free. This did not mean that BSE was present in US territory, but rather that the country fell into the "low-risk" category, taking into account the presence of risk factors in feeding of meat and bone-meal and in ineffective meat rendering systems, and the absence of an adequate surveillance system in place for a sufficiently long time-period.

The US representative disagreed with the classification of the United States as a "low-risk" country. Furthermore, the United States had not been officially notified of any decision by the European Communities on the disease status of the United States. An official notice to the Chief Veterinary Officer, together with the criteria and scientific basis used by the European Communities to reach this determination, would be most appreciated by the United States. It was the US understanding that the EC Scientific Steering Committee had been unable to date to adopt an opinion on third country BSE-status because of lack of relevant data. The United States was currently preparing a new submission and requested clarification as to whether the Commission was prepared to consider new information in order to reassess its criteria and its application to individual countries. Information on the criteria used by the Commission to carry out its evaluation and deadlines for receipt of submissions was also requested.

The EC representative clarified that, in their view, no country could be designated as BSE-free as such, and confirmed that the Commission had not reached any conclusions with regard to provisions of the directive whose application was suspended until 1 January 1999. This was also the deadline for receipt of submissions. The revision and evaluation procedure was ongoing, and countries should submit further background information. For example, information required to be eligible for a derogation from EC measures was whether the adequate risk management measures were in place. Applications had already been received from a number of EC member States, and Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, United States, Japan, New Zealand and the Czech Republic. The EC delegation invited other Members which considered themselves eligible for derogations or less stringent requirements to also send their applications to the Directorate General for Agriculture (DG VI).

The representatives of Switzerland and the Slovak Republic reported on the progress achieved during the consultations held between their respective veterinary authorities. One delegation had notified its interest in joining the bilateral consultations. Despite the negative response, at least at this stage of the consultation process, the Slovak Republic recognized that BSE-related issues attracted general interest and stated that the process would be transparent vis-à-vis trading partners and explanations would be given if necessary. If a mutually satisfactory solution were found, the Dispute Settlement Body and the SPS Committee would be informed about the outcome of the discussions.

In September 1998, the representative of Switzerland stated that the import prohibitions on Swiss bovine semen maintained by Austria, Spain, Slovenia and Chile appeared to be in contradiction with a number of WTO obligations, inter alia, non-discrimination, risk assessment (in case of departure from international standards), notification and consultation obligations. Switzerland was awaiting replies from the countries concerned to its detailed questions or preferably, the immediate re-admission of imports from Switzerland.

The EC representative noted that its bilateral contacts with Switzerland had been useful. The basic issue dealt with the notification of some national emergency measures, taken by EC member States. The EC representative announced that in July 1998, the Council had modified the rules by which SPS notifications could be submitted in the case of national emergency measures. As regarded BSE, the Commission services were presently undertaking an inventory of all relevant national measures in order to notify them to the SPS Committee. In addition, the European Communities would propose that EC member States harmonize their conditions for import from Switzerland, considering the present situation of Switzerland in relation to BSE and the recommendations formulated by the OIE in that field.

In a preliminary response, the representative of Chile noted that his country had submitted an emergency notification in 1996 (G/SPS/N/CHL/1), and another notification in August 1997. These identified measures taken on the basis of Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement due to a lack of adequate scientific evidence. On the basis of OIE's International Animal Health Code and the chapter dealing with sanitary measures relating to BSE, Chile had authorized imports of bovine semen from France and had responded to a similar request from the United Kingdom in accordance with the OIE's general provisions. Switzerland, however, had not made an official request to Chile for the purpose of exporting bovine semen. The representative of Chile noted that his country would soon notify to the SPS Committee the changes in its requirements for the importation of bovine semen.

The representative of Switzerland expressed his pleasure at the development of a new notification system inside the European Communities. He also thanked Chile for the details concerning export application requirements.

The representative of Switzerland informed the Committee that Switzerland and the Slovak Republic had again held bilateral consultations regarding the import ban on dairy products and the transit ban on a large number of products in relation to BSE. The transit ban had been abolished at the end of June 1998, however, discussions on market access for dairy products continued.

The representative of Switzerland reported on an informal consultations with Poland regarding border measures in relation to BSE affecting Swiss exports. These border measures mainly consisted of a stricter treatment applied to countries with a higher incidence of BSE than those of low incidence. Switzerland was concerned by this departure from OIE recommendations, which inter alia, took into account the differences in surveillance and prevention systems applied in different countries. Consultations were ongoing and Switzerland hoped to find a solution to the problem.

The EC representative indicated that this measure resulted in significant import restrictions on cattle and bovine products. He observed that the import restrictions did not recognize differences in the TSE status of exporting countries. The incidence in the Republic of Ireland had consistently been lower and the number of BSE cases in 1998 showed an important decline. Ireland had taken all the measures recommended by international standards; a feed ban had been introduced in 1990. As regarded the United Kingdom, the EC representative stressed that even for products originating in the highest risk category, imports should be accepted from herds with no BSE history. Hence, both the import ban against Ireland and in part against the United Kingdom did not seem compatible with international obligations under the SPS Agreement.

The representative of Poland explained that the measure had been taken in relation to the BSE situation in the concerned countries. It was fully justified by the serious nature of the problem and was in accordance with WTO rules. Nonetheless, bilateral discussions were ongoing with the United Kingdom, Ireland and Switzerland. The BSE situation was under permanent surveillance and all results would be taken into account during the year-end domestic review of Poland's regulations.

In November 1998, Switzerland reported that following several bilateral consultations, Switzerland and the Slovak Republic were close to a short-term solution regarding the import ban on Swiss dairy products in relation to BSE. With regard to the longer term, a few technical issues remained to be settled, but both parties hoped to find a solution shortly, possibly before the March 1999 Committee meeting.

The representative of the Slovak Republic confirmed the Swiss statement and reaffirmed his authorities' best efforts to conclude this matter as soon as possible.

In March 1999, Chile also recalled that at the meeting of September 1998, Switzerland had raised concerns regarding Chile's import restrictions on bovine semen. He indicated that the measure in question had been modified, and notified as G/SPS/N/CHL/31.