Prague, 31 January 2001
Dr Mike M o o r e
Director-General
World Trade Organization (WTO)
154 rue de Lausanne
1211 Geneva 21
SWITZERLAND
------------------------------
Re: Abolition of the WTO "Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures"
Dear Dr
Moore,
I am writing,
as former United Nations' officer responsible for animal health programmes
working the whole professional life in this domain, to inform you about
catastrophic consequences of the WTO "Agreement on the Application of
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures" (SPS).
Key criteria
of any international document of this type are only results and impacts of its
practical implementation. SPS giving priority to benevolent risky import has
significantly contributed to animal diseases spreading through international
trade. SPS has caused irreparable consequences for human and animal health,
environment, economics and animal welfare. In no other commodities the quality
requirement has been so degraded as in this case.
I have sent
to the Office International of Epizootics (OIE), organization providing
detailed guidelines for SPS implementation, several urgent warnings about
rapidly worsening of global animal health through international trade.
Unfortunately, all have been left without corresponding actions, obviously due
to WTO/OIE agreement. This is the reason why I am writing directly to you who
is the highest responsible and decision-competent officer of the WTO.
SPS not
respecting basic medical principle "Primum non nocere !" de facto
officially started globalization of
infectious and parasitic diseases of animals, including zoonoses transmissible
to man. SPS is based upon risky trade at the expense of animal and human
health. This policy cannot be professionally justified and is undefendable in
public, among consumers, farmers, etc.. Recent unbelievable events related to
BSE represent the latest example of SPS impacts calling for immediate
corrective actions.
I have tried
to find out how SPS was prepared, justified and presented to member country
governments for its approval at ministerial meeting in Marrakesh on 15 April
1994. I have learnt that SPS was not based upon scientific principles and
complex analyses of practical impacts. Background information concealed the truth
about human health, animal health, ecological and economic as well as animal
welfare negative consequences. It was a big swindle ! It confused the
governments and ministers who approved it (in bloc with other documents as
condition sine qua non for WTO membership) in good faith in WTO HQs fairness.
Cosmetic
amendments cannot save the SPS based upon false concept admitting
"negative trade effect" upon health, i.e. diseases spreading. It
doesn't know terms such as "healthy animals", "wholesome animal
products", "zero-risk import", "avoiding diseases
spreading" or principle "quality first", i.e. in our case
"health first !".
Please, find
attached "Justification of the abolition of the WTO Agreement on the
Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures". It contains analysis
of SPS animal health part.
WTO is
responsible for global disastrous consequences of SPS. I hope that you will
understand my concern and arrange, as emergency measure, for immediate
abolition of this damaging document. SPS has already caused enough harms !
International
trade yes, but with pathogen free healthy animals and animal products avoiding
diseases spreading !
Yours
sincerely,
Prof. MVDr Vaclav K o u b a,
DrSc. *)
P.B. 516, 17000 Praha
7, Czech Rep.
Annex: 10 pages
Copies to:
- Dr Gro Harlem Brundtland, Director General, World
Health Organization, Avenue Appia 20, 1211 Geneva 27,Switzerland
- Dr Jaques Diouf, Director General, Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Via delle Terme di Caracalla,
00100 Roma , Italy
- Dr Bernard Vallat, Director General, Office
International of Epizootics, 12 rue de Prony, 75017 Paris, France
- Dr Klaus Topfer, Director General, United Nationals
Environmental Programme, P.B.Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya
- President, World Society for the Protection of
Animals,
Avenue du Mont Blanc, CH-1196 Gland, Switzerland
------------------------------------------------------------
*) Formerly: Chief, Animal
Health Service, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO); OIE
Informatics Expert;
WHO Veterinary Public Health Expert;
Editor, FAO-OIE-WHO Animal Health Yearbook.
ANNEX
JUSTIFICATION OF THE ABOLITION
OF THE WTO "AGREEMENT ON THE APPLICATION OF SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY
MEASURES" (SPS)
1) Disastrous practical results and impacts
are the main reasons for SPS abolition. I have analyzed OIE "World Animal Health" yearbooks
and Internet information about infectious and parasitic diseases introduced
through trade after 1995,i.e., when SPS came into force. In spite of after-SPS
stop of regular reporting on disease introduction through trade, I have
found many alarming ad hoc information sent by member countries:
- more than one hundred cases of
disease introduction (including the
most dangerous diseases, zoonoses transmissible to man and
intercontinental transmissions) through
legal trade with international veterinary certificates;
- about forty
historically first cases of important animal diseases introduced
through international trade into so far specific disease free countries;
- great number of cases of disease reintroduction
through international trade into countries being for many years (up to 92)
specific disease free.
This is
only "peak of iceberg" of SPS negative impacts ! SPS de facto started globalization
of animal diseases !
2) SPS
starts with attractive and promising
statement "Desiring to improve the human health, animal health .. in
all Members;". However, in the whole document is no one word about the
improvement of the health ! In contrast with this statement SPS is concerned
only how to "facilitate trade" at the expense of human and animal
health ! This was further swindle to influence countries' decision to
approve SPS ! The main swindle was when presenting SPS to country governments -
see my letter to DG WTO.
3)
Rapidly increasing animal diseases spreading as never before through
international trade has become alarming ! Consequences of SPS professionally unjustified
benevolence giving priority to risky trade (see Note 1), instead
to trade with healthy animals and wholesome animal products free of
transmissible pathogens (etiological agents of infectious and parasitic
diseases), are disastrous !
4) Requirement for zero-risk trade is missing
not only in SPS but also disappeared in OIE International Animal Health Code. In
no other trade commodities the quality requirement has been so degraded as in this case.
5) SPS
introduced unfair policy of risky imports officially admitting and imposing
also import of not healthy animals and not wholesome animal products.
According SPS and OIE, as implementing agency, the risk assessment was declared
as preferable to zero-risk import ! (Note 1).
6) SPS although permits to importing
countries "appropriate level of protection", but only "provided
that such measures are not inconsistent with the provisions of SPS"
(Art.2.1), i.e. if correspond with SPS benevolent risky import policy.
7) SPS
doesn't respect the fact that the main obstacle to animal trade are diseased
animals and their products and not preventive measures to protect health of
animal and human populations of importing countries.
8) The wordy SPS document becomes
"transparent" only when studying its detailed application in the OIE
Code and other OIE documents. These confirm fundamental shift in import policy
from zero-risk to risk management to "liberalize trade" which de
facto means "to liberalize diseases spreading". They
support "unimpeded flow" of international trade in animals and
animal products "avoiding unjustified trade barriers". Who decides
what is "unjustified" ?
9) SPS policy causing diseases spreading
through international trade is contrary to the efforts of world community to
protect and improve:
a) human
health - World Health Organization (WHO) policy and programmes (about 200
animal diseases, including killing ones, are transmissible to man);
b) animal
health - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
policy and programmes;
c) natural
environment - United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) - (introduction of pathogens into natural
environment is practically irreparable);
d) animal
welfare programmes (mass suffering due to infectious and parasitic
diseases); etc.
10) SPS officially admits and supports actions
causing conscious man-made diseases spreading affecting not only animal
health and welfare but also human beings as well as causing environmental
disasters. In many countries these acts belong under criminal code.
Conscious man-made international spreading of human diseases belongs among crimes
against humanity.
______________________________________________________________
Note 1) : OIE International Animal
Health Code, Special Edition, 1997, Article 1.4.1.1: "Import risk
analysis is preferable to a zero-risk approach." !?
11) SPS doesn't respect even WTO general
principle "quality
first" which requires the best possible
grade of commodities for international trade. SPS represents a boomerang damaging
also international trade. Introduced diseases into exporting countries can
paralyze the trade due to the lost of exportation market (e.g., BSE recently
paralyzed trade in cattle and beef in Europe; see also Note 3).
12) SPS policy causing diseases
spreading through trade goes against:
preventive medicine (Primum non nocere! – First not to harm!),
scientific knowledge, practical experience, professional logic and ethics;
b) protection of consumers against diseases
transmissible by food of animal origin;
c) fair trade, general requirement for the best
possible quality (incl. guarantee) of exporting commodities;
d) trade deregulation, competition and
liberalization, i.e. freedom to decide about import conditions without external
interference or dictate (liberalization cannot mean "freedom for diseases
spreading" !).
13) SPS underestimates or doesn't respect at all:
a) incomparable difference between inanimate
industrial commodities and animals and their products as potential carriers of
pathogens ;
b) enormous number of transmissible animal
diseases mostly not notifiable, not reported, not monitored and not controlled;
many cases of notifiable disease are not reported (Note 2);
c) infinite complexity, diversity and dynamics
of diseases (every case is different in time and place, stages such as
incubation, manifestation, etc.) and of pathogens (e.g. strains' virulence,
resistance, ability to propagate
______________________________________________________________
Note 2) :Dictionary of Veterinary
Medicine, Iowa State University Press/Ames, 1999, p. 147: "It is
assumed, that for every case of salmonellosis recorded in humans in the United
States at least nine are not reported." This is the reality in human
diseases reporting and what about animal diseases reporting ?
Note 3) :OIE World Animal Health,
1997, p. 317-319:" Taiwan had been free of FMD (foot-and-mouth disease)
over 68 years before 1997. FMD occurred in March 1997 and stormed the whole
island that leads to tremendous economic impact due to the loss of exportation
market... During the four-months epidemic period, a total of 6,147 farms was
infected..." !
G. Davies in Rev.sci.tech.OIE,1993, p. 1115: In EU during 1977-1987
average ratio primary/secondary outbreaks of FMD was 1 : 54 !
horizontally and "vertically" to next
generations and reproduce having multiplying negative effect) (Note 3);
d) pathogen carriers and disease subclinical
forms with insidious propagation;
e) previously unknown emerging diseases (lesson
from BSE !), new and "exotic" strains of known pathogen species;
f) past experience with negative multiplying
impacts of diseases spreading upon animal and human health, environment, animal
welfare, economics, etc.;
g) fact, that the knowledge of real occurrence
of almost all diseases is limited (ad hoc reports of manifest cases only
are
far from true occurrence) or not available at
all (including emerging diseases);
h) fact that eradication of introduced and
spread diseases is extremely difficult (Note 3), usually very costly and takes years up to decades and in most diseases
is not yet feasible;
i) limits of diagnostic tests sensitivity
causing false negative results;
j) difficulties of government veterinary
services to control effectively on the spot the trade in animals and
their products, to inspect often permeable country and disease free zones
borders (sometimes illusory) as well as to supervise accredited veterinarians,
etc. due to manpower, material, laboratory
capacity and budgetary shortage;
k) non-government services are not always
reliable and independent (e.g., when testing and issuing export attests for
animals and their products of local producers who provide work and income to
accredited veterinarians);
l) ability of some pathogens to penetrate
"barriers" in spite of the most complete isolation measures (Note 4);
m) that several microbiological pathogens are
included in the list of biological arms for mass destruction (these can
unconsciously serve as a kind of "bioterrorism" by trade);
n) that among the reasons for import refusal
belong also: bad past experience, distrust in health attests and guarantees,
distrust in professional competence and responsibility of accredited
veterinarians, lack of necessary information about ___________________________________________________________
Note
4) :FAO-WHO-OIE Animal Health Yearbook, 1979, p. 53:" On
September 15, 1978, the Plum Island Animal Disease Research Center, identified
Foot-and-mouth disease (type O) in cattle in a holding area on the Island near
the Laboratory." This is the best isolated veterinary laboratory in
the world !
diseases occurrence and veterinary services,
fear of farmers and consumers of risky commodities import (e.g., BSE), etc. How
to justify "scientifically" these reasons, as SPS requires?
o) social-economic aspects, legislation,
discipline in observing laws, regulations and instructions; etc.
14) Profiting exporters (traders, businessmen)
of these commodities have almost never paid losses caused by introduction of disease if detected after quarantine. Only
they enjoy zero-risk trading in animal
commodities ! These losses and eradication programmes must be financed
by taxpayers of importing countries !
Note 5). SPS doesn't ask exporters and certifying veterinarians to
be accountable for "disease export" consequences.
15) SPS policy is dangerous and risky namely
for importing
countries with favorable animal health
situation thanks also
to previous successful disease eradication
programmes (usually very demanding, expensive and long time). These countries
logically need higher grade of protection avoiding
reintroduction of before eradicated diseases
and introduction of " exotic" diseases.
16) In SPS is no one word about the duty of
exporting countries: to export healthy animals and wholesome animal
products; to provide all necessary, reliable, true, complete and convincing
information needed for importing country decision, to guarantee health quality
and be responsible for eventual negative consequences due to export of diseases
agents; etc. In SPS is no one word about the need to produce healthy animals
and their wholesome products and thus to avoid export difficulties. In SPS is
no one word about the need to avoid possible unfair behaviour of exporting
countries, in contrast with its concern only about possible unfair behaviour of
importing countries which is the main idea of this document. SPS represents
globally organized "demotivation" of exporting countries as far as
diseases control and eradication programmes are concerned.
______________________________________________________________
Note 5) Eradication of Cochliomyia hominivorax,
horrible myiasis affecting all mammals, including man, introduced through trade
into North Africa from South America cost 80 million US$ (losses not included);
exporting country (traders) contributed nothing ! (FAO). Catastrophic
consequences of bovine spongiform encephalopathy introduction through trade are
paid by importing countries taxpayers and not by the exporters how it would be
normal in case of industrial commodities.
Note 6) :International Animal Health
Code, Sixth Edition,1992, Foreword: "the Code... is the fruit of a
consensus of the highest veterinary health authorities of the Member
Countries."
17) SPS deprives
importing countries authorities responsible for animal and human health
protection from having right to decide, without interference or dictate
from outside, under which conditions to import animals and their products .
18) SPS is lacking "transparency".
Definitions of terms such as "sanitary measures" (this is a
confusion), "scientifically justified", "appropriate level of
protection", "low disease prevalence", etc. are not uniformly
interpretable.
19) SPS is unilateral document unscrupulously
discriminating importing countries. For example, SPS asks several times
that these countries must "scientifically justify" the refusal of
risky import or when asking for better guarantees than described in OIE Code.
This kind of requirement is unknown in all other commodities !).
20) SPS converted former extremely useful
recommendations of the OIE Code into
obligatory maximal limit for protective measures not permitting better
protection without so called "scientific justification". However, OIE
Code has always been based upon consensus only (Note 6). Why to ask
importing countries to "justify scientifically" more demanding import
conditions than OIE Code being only result of consensus ?
21) Former OIE policy was always to avoid
spread of diseases offering reasonable flexibility in defining necessary
protective measures. The principle of the before-SPS OIE Code was always to define recommended
conditions for zero risk imports, i.e. avoiding the risk of diseases
spreading. This corresponded with all other international trade norms
representing requirements for minimum acceptable quality, i.e. admitting better
quality. SPS and follow-up OIE Code unfortunately changed the minimum requirements into maximum and
eliminated basic principle "to avoid risk of spreading". (Note 7).
This
fact can provoke discussions among member countries why to finance organization
which not only doesn't respect own main original mandate but even goes against
it! ___________________________________________________
Note 7) : International Animal Health
Code, Sixth Edition, 1992, Foreword: "The principal aim of the IAH Code
of the OIE is to facilitate international trade in animals and animal
products through the detailed definition of the minimum health guarantees
to be required of trading partners, so as to avoid the risk of spreading
animal diseases inherent in such exchanges."
Note 8): Papers published about
"risk assessment" have shown that how many authors so many different
methods. I have found examples of mathematical phantasy (may be theoretically
correct), artificially minimizing risk ad absurdum having nothing to do
with reality and practical life. E.g. in OIE/WTO Seminar on Risk Analysis,
Animal Health and Trade, Paris, May 1995,
organized to instruct OIE delegates, were presented many nonsense
examples such as "risk is one in 10 billion", "risk of one in a
hundred billion" etc. to "facilitate trade" !?
22) Very bad example of SPS has been imposed
upon regional international organizations and individual countries and
thus has contributed to multiplied negative consequences of risky trade
under restricted protection of population health.
23) SPS key principle is risky trade and in
this context so called "risk assessment". The methodology
provided by SPS follow-up WTO/OIE seminars and training courses and by OIE Code
has proved to be not transparent and their results difficult to defend (theory
isolated from practical life). Risk assessment has been abused, when using
mathematical models not respecting all important factors, trying to convince
importing countries that the risk has been "exceedingly small" and
thus to "facilitate trade" (de facto to facilitate diseases
spreading). Note 8).
Reasonable evaluation of import risk had been current practice long before
SPS.
24) OIE reduced information system instead to
provide more and better data on diseases
status needed for import decision. Importing countries have less information
about diseases status required for decision making than before SPS !
This obviously follows absolutely false and very dangerous
"philosophy", professionally unacceptable, that "when we have
available risk reducing tools (tests, treatments, whatever)... what does it
matter what starting risk was ?"
This means, what does it matter what diseases situation was in herd,
locality, zone and country of exporting commodity origin.
25) OIE information
system is far from providing necessary data for "risk
assessment". Useful set of indicators about different disease occurrence
grades for systematic reporting was abolished and replaced by a symbol "+"
which is practically uninterpretable (it can mean one imported case in
quarantine of otherwise disease free country or many millions of cases spread
all over the country); absolute data about occurrence are mostly ad hoc reported
cases not reflecting true status (see Note 3)) and therefore confuse
importing countries. Necessary information about the size of active
investigations to discover true occurrence and their results are not collected.
Regular data on diseases prevalence are not available as well. Reporting of
List C diseases (including also some transmissible to man) was stopped. Many
countries do not send reports on diseases situation to OIE.
26) There are many other facts demonstrating risky
benevolence of SPS and OIE Code (Note 9). Among these belongs
SPS text (Art.5, para 5) openly admitting risks for human beings: "...
___________________________________________________________________
Note 9): Latest issue of the OIE Code
2000: Article 2.3.13.12 is still admitting and supporting import of cattle,
fresh meat and meat products of cattle from a country or zone with a high
incidence of BSE ! According to OIE Code the refusal of these commodities must
be scientifically justified in spite of several years of alarming experience !?
exceptional character of human health risks to
which people voluntarily expose themselves."
This statement confirms SPS "antimedical" policy admitting explicitly
import of commodities with pathogens transmissible to man !
27) There are countries not respecting SPS
and OIE Code, e.g., banning import without "scientific
justification" and without any consequences for them (double standard ?).
(Note 10).
investigations = no knowledge). Everybody must
be responsible for his signature similarly as when exporting industrial
commodities. Importing side is interested first in the final product quality
and not so much in production process or "risk management" or
"sanitary measures". This facilitates reclamation and material
(financial) consequences for exporting side in case of disease export.
28. Contents of veterinary attests
represents other benevolence. OIE Code
asks signing veterinarians to confirm only a series of otherwise useful
conditions, such as tests, no evidence
of clinical signs, etc., instead to guarantee pathogen free status and being
for this statement fully responsible. Importing country is interested first in
the guarantee that the animals or animal products are pathogen free. Eventual
alibi of attesting officer that he
"doesn't known" infectious diseases situation is problematic (no
29. OIE Code, following SPS policy, contains
also chapters explicitly supporting
diseases spreading. For example, OIE Code applies surveillance systems permitting animals
for export also if specific disease affects (up to 5%) local population ! These
methods cannot be acceptable for exporting
purposes which require healthy animals without
pathogens ! See Note 11). OIE Code 2000 Users' Guide
calls as "irresponsible to insist on guarantees as to the absence of
commonly found
_________________________________________________________
Note 10): Most recent example of not
respecting SPS and OIE Code: In January 2001 New Zealand prohibited import of
beef and beef products from all countries of Europe including from BSE free
countries (even not importing from BSE countries). This was, using SPS wording,
"inconsistent with the provisions of the SPS", without
"sufficient scientific evidence", without "documented
transparent risk assessment techniques", without any discussion with
exporting countries, without respecting
bilateral agreements, without respecting that BSE free countries have the same
BSE free situation as in New Zealand which "unjustifiably discriminates
countries where identical conditions prevail" and "constitutes a
disguised restriction on international trade". From this country comes a
fervent defender of the SPS, influential man in the OIE, who wrote "what
does it matter what starting risk was?".
Note 11): OIE Code 2000, chapter
2.10.2, for Salmonella enteritidis and Salmonella typhimurium in
poultry doesn't require to attest that the birds are healthy (i.e. free of
these agents); Code requires only that the birds come from establishment
without evidence of the diseases using monitoring methodology (3.4.1.9)
"able to detect one positive sample given that the infection is present in
the population at a level of 5% and greater."!?
infectious that are present in the importing
country". This justifies import of animals and animal products not being
free of pathogens. Why importing country must permit worsening of health
situation and pay for it?
30. SPS has caused difficult-to-recover
dangerous damages in theoretical and practical veterinary medicine due to
extreme degradation of animal population prevention as never in the whole
veterinary history. This false concept has already caused unacceptable
underestimation and reduction of preventive component in field practice,
education, training, research, publications and minimization (instead of
strengthening) of government services capability to cope with animal
health/diseases and trade. SPS false philosophy means to abandon the basic role
of veterinary medicine by converting population prevention into
"fire-fighting" system and by accepting animal diseases spreading!
The worst is that SPS concept is being unscrupulously imposed upon the way of
thinking of new generation of veterinarians strongly influenced by lack of
financial attractiveness of population prevention in comparison with treating
individual sick animals.
31. Veterinary medicine was always giving the
priority to prevention, i.e. to protect healthy animals and specific diseases
free territories. First duty of international organizations responsible for
animal health policy is to assist member countries in promoting, protecting
and recovery of population health and not in admitting or even supporting
diseases spreading !
32) The situation in diseases spreading through
trade as never before (in spite of having rich scientific knowledge as never
before !) has become alarming. Very limited number of successfully finished
eradication programmes is absolutely unable to compensate enormous number of
new outbreaks and newly diseased animals due to risky benevolent trade. Rapidly
worsening of international situation calls for international alarm and immediate adequate emergency actions !
Recommendations
for WTO
=========================
I) To
abolish immediately the SPS (at least "sanitary" parts) and thus
to avoid further irreparable losses and other unacceptable consequences due to
diseases spreading ! There are enough alarming information to justify stop of
this disastrous policy.
II) To declare that the main obstacle of
international trade are diseased animals and their products and not
preventive measures of importing countries.
III) To support
trade only with pathogens free healthy animals and wholesome animal products
to avoid diseases spreading.
IV) To revoke relevant WTO/OIE Agreement
which enforced OIE to be the main channel for implementation of SPS. This will
allow OIE to return to its original purpose and policy (updated OIE Code as
recommendations for avoiding diseases spreading) and to amend restored
before-SPS information system to provide necessary data for import decisions.
V) To declare the right of importing country
government authorities responsible for the protection of animal and human
health to decide, considering OIE Code recommendations, about import
conditions without any outside interference or dictate. Let importing and
exporting countries to find the solutions (incl. acceptable compromises)
themselves.
VI) To inform member country governments and
world public through international mass media about the change of WTO policy
and to advise how to protect country territory against introduction of
animal diseases during international trade.
Prof.MVDr V. Kouba,
DrSc.
31/1/2001