The SPS Committee’s main task is to monitor how countries are implementing food safety

and animal and plant health measures under the WTO Agreement, and to discuss issues

arising from that, including the work of recognized international standards-setting bodies. Its

deliberations range from comments on specific measures to broader principles.

International standards

The complaint about measures that are unscientific or not based on international standards

came from Argentina, Australia, Brazil (which presented the argument), Canada, Chile,

Colombia, Costa Rica, New Zealand, Paraguay, Philippines and the US

(documentG/SPS/GEN/1143/Rev.1), supported by Mexico, South Africa and the EU. India

reminded members of provisions on monitoring the use of international standards in the SPS

Agreement.

“The increase in the number of SPS measures that are not based on international standards,

guidelines and recommendations or that have inadequate scientific justification is a point of

concern readily raised by many members in the SPS Committee and other contexts. These

measures often unduly restrict trade and appear to be associated with objectives that are

not deemed as legitimate under international trade rules,” the paper says.

It calls for members to confirm:

the need for science-based international guidelines, standards and recommendations

the need to support and strengthen confidence in SPS international standard-setting

bodies (Codex Alimentarius, World Organization for Animal Health, International

Plant Protection Convention)

the need for a scientific justification for any sanitary and phytosanitary measures

which is not based on the relevant international standards, guidelines and

recommendations

Some issues raised in previous meetings

Ractopamine (specific trade concern no. 275). The US, Canada, and Brazil continue to

object to Chinese Taipei’s ban on meat fed with ractopamine, a beta-agonist drug mixed

with feed that boosts growth and promotes leanness in pigs and cattle. They repeated their

argument that scientific evidence shows ractopamine is safe, including findings from the

Joint Export Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) under the UN Food and Agriculture

Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (FAO).

They urged Chinese Taipei to allow imports by adopting the minimum residue level (MRL) it

had been planning to introduce, as notified to the WTO in 2007, and the US urged all

members to ensure their measures are based on science and do not unnecessarily impede

trade. Chinese Taipei, which has not lifted the ban, said it would report the comments back

to its capital.

The issue was discussed in greater depth in June 2011. Countries have not been able to agree

on a proposed international standard in the FAO-WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission.

Mad Cow Diseases

"The European Union now tests every cow over the age of 6, when they’re most likely to contract the

disease. But testing here [in the U.S.] has actually decreased 90 percent since 2005. Now, we test only

40,000 of the 35 million cows slaughtered each year.”

“Compounding the risk, only one in every 900 cattle is tested for mad cow, a tiny fraction of the beef that

is made onto our tables. More surprisingly, our government actually prevents beef processors from testing

their own stock!“ "Compounding the risk, only one in every 900 cattle in the U.S. is tested for Mad Cow, a

tiny fraction of the beef that makes it onto our tables. More surprising, our government actually prevents

beef processors from testing their own stock!""Compounding the risk, only one in every 900 cattle in the

U.S. is tested for Mad Cow, a tiny fraction of the beef that makes it onto our tables. More surprising, our

government actually prevents beef processors from testing their own stock!"

https://secure.consumersunion.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=2661&

JServSessionIdr004=uoyys0y3o5.app243a