WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/16
10 October 2000
(00-4150)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures
PROCEDURE TO MONITOR THE PROCESS
OF INTERNATIONAL HARMONIZATION
Second Annual Report1
A. INTRODUCTION
1. At its meeting of 15-16 October 1997, the SPS Committee adopted a provisional procedure to
monitor the process of international harmonization and the use of international standards, guidelines
or recommendations, as provided for in Articles 3.5 and 12.4 of the SPS Agreement.2  At its
7-8 July 1999 meeting, the Committee decided to extend the provisional monitoring procedure for atleast another two years, to review the operation of the provisional procedure by July 2001, and to
determine at that time whether to continue with the provisional procedure, amend it, or develop
another one.
3
B. ISSUES
2. At its meeting of 7-8 July 1999, the Committee also adopted the First Annual Report.4  This
report summarized several standards-related issues that the Committee had considered, based on
Members' responses to a questionnaire prepared by the Secretariat.5  The Committee decided to bring
these issues to the attention of the relevant standard-setting organizations.
3. Since the First Annual Report was adopted, no new issues have been raised by Members.
C. RESPONSES RECEIVED FROM THE RELEVANT STANDARD -SETTING ORGANIZATIONS
4. All three standard-setting organizations replied to the request from the SPS Committee to
consider the identified standard-related issues.  Their responses were circulated in G/SPS/GEN/137.
In addition, the organizations provided updates on these issues at the November 1999 and March 2000
Committee meetings and in submissions.  The information provided on each issue is summarized
below. 6
                                                     
1 As agreed by the Committee at its meeting of 21-22 June 2000, the Secretariat revised the draft
Second Annual Report to include additional relevant information provided at that meeting(G/SPS/W/107/Rev.1).  The revised draft report was circulated for approval on an ad referendum basis, as theCommittee requested.  Members were asked to submit comments by 6 October 2000.  No comments were
submitted by that date.  The report is therefore considered as adopted.
2 G/SPS/11.
3 G/SPS/14.
4 G/SPS/13.
5 G/SPS/W/100.
6 Codex responses are from G/SPS/R/17, para. 42 and G/SPS/R/18, para. 58; IPPC responses are from
G/SPS/R/17, para. 43, G/SPS/GEN/146 and G/SPS/GEN/183; and OIE responses are from G/SPS/R/17,
para. 44, G/SPS/R/18, para. 51, G/SPS/GEN/145 and Add.1.G/SPS/16
Page 2
Requirement for control of Infectious Bursal Virus (IBDV) in cooked chicken meat – Response
from the OIE
5. The Bureau of the Code Commission noted that Chapter 3.6.1. of the International Animal
Health Code  (the Code ) provided recommendations on international trade in domestic birds, day-old
chicks and hatching eggs from domestic birds, but remained silent on the subject of products derived
from birds, and in particular on chicken meat.  To decide whether it would be appropriate to include
provisions on chicken meat in the aforementioned Chapter, the Bureau asked experts from the OIE
Reference Laboratories for infectious bursal disease for information on the probability of finding the
causal virus in fresh meat obtained from chickens that were healthy at the time of slaughter, the effect
of refrigeration and freezing on the survival of the virus in chicken meat, etc.  During its January 2000
meeting, the OIE International Animal Health Code Commission examined the replies received fromthese experts.  The Commission concluded that, given the current state of scientific knowledge, it was
not in a position to develop a draft standard on the subject, as the available information did not enable
it to determine whether or not the product in question poses a risk of transmission of the IBD virus.
The Commission considered that additional scientific research was needed before it could deliver a
definitive opinion on the matter.  The OIE does not undertake research itself, but rather relies onMember countries for that purpose.  The Code Commission will review this issue at its September
2000 meeting.
Definition of "quarantine pest"
7 – Response from the IPPC
6. Work on a definition for the term "official control", undertaken as a result of the
recommendation of the SPS Committee, resulted in a draft definition and guidelines for theinterpretation and application of the concept.  These were approved by the IPPC’s Interim Standards
Committee in May 2000 and were subsequently distributed to governments for consultation.  The
IPPC Secretariat accepts comments until the end of October 2000.  The document will then be
reviewed again by the Interim Standards Committee in light of the comments received from
governments and will be modified if necess ary for submission to the Interim Commission on
Phytosanitary Measures (ICPM).  The ICPM could adopt the definition and guidelines at its third
Session in April 2001.
Chlortetracycline (CTC) residues in pork and pork products  – Response from Codex
7. The Committee on Veterinary Drug Residues in Foods considered the question of
Tetracycline.  The only maximum residue levels for Tetracycline, which were submitted to the
Commission for provisional adoption at Step five, concerned fish and prawns.  As regards pigmeat,
cattle, sheep and chicken, the recommended maximum residue levels were considered by the March
2000 session of the Committee on Veterinary Drug Residues in Food.
Bacilli  and other organisms in canned/bottled products, including jams  – Response from Codex
8. At its November 1999 meeting, the CCFH also considered the question of bacilli  and other
organisms in canned/bottled products including jams.  The CCFH drew the attention of the SPS
Committee to the Codex Principles for the Establishment and Application of Microbiological Criteria
for Foods, and recommended that the Committee on Processed Foods and Vegetables proceed with
the revision of the existing standards.
Frequency of controls to be carried out on bulls  in collection centres (brucellosis, tuberculosis,
leukosis, IBR)  – Response from the OIE
                                                     
7 This definition contains the term "officially controlled", which was a source of concern for some
Members.G/SPS/16
Page 3
9. The health controls to be carried out on bulls at artificial insemination centres are described
both in the Code  chapters dealing with diseases transmissible by semen and in the appendices relating
to artificial insemination in bovines.  The International Animal Health Code Commission discussed
with an expert the need to re-examine the provisions of the International Animal Health Code  relating
to bovine, porcine and small ruminant semen, taking care to ensure consistency between the chapterson animal diseases and the appendices on semen.  A progress report on the work undertaken is due to
be given by the expert in question at the next meeting of the Bureau of the International Animal
Health Code Commission, to be held in September 2000.
Benzoic acid as a preservative in sauces  – Response from Codex
10. Safe levels for benzoic acid are under consideration in the Committee on Food Additives and
Contaminants. The March 2000 Beijing meeting of the Codex Committee on Food Additives andContaminants (CCFAC) produced a draft standard of 1,000 milligrams per kilogram for benzoic acid
approved for use in sauces and like products.  The revised draft of the general standard for food
additives was circulated in November 1999 and governments were asked to comment before the
March 2000 meeting.  CCFAC agreed to invite ad ditional comments on the general standard for food
additives for further consideration at its next Session.
Certification requirements for origin of animals  – Response from the OIE
11. The International Animal Health Code Commi ssion intends to make use of the scientific
articles on traceability of animals and products of animal origin that are due to be published in issue
No. 2 of Volume 20 of the OIE Scientific and Technical Review  to consider the subject in greater
depth.
Certification regarding the absence of certain pathogens in raw meat products  – Response from
Codex
12. The Committee on Food Hygiene (CCFH) consider ed the question of certification of raw
meat products regarding the absence of pathogens.  The CCFH recognized that it was scientificallyimpossible to provide such certification, as it concerned only one step of the HACCP system in the
framework of risk management, and recommended adherence to good manufacturing practice as
specified in the General Principles of Food Hygiene.  The CCFH concluded that at this stage there
was no need for a specific text.
Certification requirements for diseases for which national control measures may not exist (meat
products)  – Response from the OIE
13. With regard to certification requirements on diseases transmitted through meat and meat
products, the Bureau of the Code Commission noted that the relevant recommendations were given
disease-by-disease in the various chapters of the Code , and that the recommendations should not be
restricted to List A diseases.
__________