Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest • Volume 13 • Number 24 • 1st July 2009
Pork Exporters Condemn ‘Swine Flu’ Import Bans
Discuss this articleShare your views with other visitors, and read what they have to say
Several exporting countries chastised their fellow WTO Members last week for imposing ‘unjustified’ import bans on live pigs and pork products in response to the recent outbreak of the H1N1 ‘swine flu’ virus.
The complaints were one of several grievances aired at a 23-24 June meeting of the WTO’s Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, which deals with trade-related aspects of food safety and animal and plant health.
Countries ranging from China to Ecuador implemented a string of pork import bans shortly after the virus, which is thought to have originated in pigs, first made international headlines in April (see Bridges Weekly, 29 April 2009, http://ictsd.net/i/news/bridgesweekly/45787/). Pork prices tumbled with the fall in demand for exports, and producers in many countries took a hit.
Australia, Canada, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Japan, and the US were among those leading the charge against the recently imposed embargoes at last week’s meeting. The US delegate argued that not a single case of H1N1 flu “has even been tentatively linked” to the consumption of pork or the handling of pigs. That position has been supported by the WTO, the World Health Organization, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, and the World Organization of Animal Health (OIE), several exporters noted. The four intergovernmental bodies issued a statement in May that found that there is “no justification” for bans on pigs or pork products. The exporters further argued that several of the import prohibitions had not been notified to the WTO - an oversight that amounts to a violation of the WTO’s Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (the SPS Agreement).
But several of the countries that have imposed the pork bans - which include China, Jordan, Indonesia and Ukraine - countered that the measures were temporary, that they had been taken to protect public health, and that they might be removed after scientific evidence has been examined.
In other business, members of the committee seemed to warm to a proposal that would increase the role that the chair of the SPS committee plays in mediating health- and safety-related trade disputes. While Members generally approved of the notion, which was put forward by Argentina and the US, some expressed concern that establishing a set of guidelines for intervention by the chair might undermine similar discussions in the WTO’s committee on non-agricultural market access, or NAMA. However, if the SPS proposal were to go forward, its mandate would expire once WTO Members agree on - and implement - an overall NAMA deal.
The SPS Committee will hold its next meeting on 28 and 29 October.
ICTSD reporting.
Add a comment
Enter your details and a comment below, then click Submit Comment. We’ll review and publish the best comments.