APPENDIX 9
Memorandum submitted by Consumers' Association
(S 14)
INTRODUCTION
1. Consumers' Association (CA), publisher
of Which?, Health Which? and other consumer magazines and
information, is an independent consumer organisation with over
700,000 members.
2. We welcome this opportunity to submit
comments on the implications of trade liberalisation for UK agriculture
and EU agricultural policy. The next round of World Trade Organisation
(WTO) negotiations are of great interest to us as they could have
enormous implications for consumers. While we have welcomed greater
trade liberalisation in principle, as it can bring with it greater
choice, it can also raise many questions about the level of consumer
protection we can expect in the UK. We would therefore be pleased
to submit further comments to the Committee following the launch
of the new round at the Ministerial Meeting in Seattle at the
end of November where we will be represented by Consumers International.
3. Our response gives general comments on
the impact of the WTO agreements for food standards and agriculture.
We then go on to give more specific comments, where we have experience,
on the specific areas identified by the Committee for consideration.
GENERAL COMMENTS
Agreement on Agriculture
4. Despite the Agenda 2000 reforms, we are
concerned that the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) remains largely
producer focused and does not take into account consumers changing
demands from food production. We are also concerned that the CAP
results in consumers paying higher prices for food than is necessary.
It also fails to take into account aspects such as food quality,
nutritional value of the diet and food safety concerns. It continues
to promote intensive methods of farming, without reflecting the
increasing consumer demand for organically produced, less intensive
methods of production.
5. We are therefore concerned that the European
Commission's proposals for the WTO negotiations on agriculture
aim to maintain the existing unsatisfactory CAP with all of its
damaging effects on consumers, taxpayers and the environment.
The CAP needs to become more responsive to demand. There needs
to be a move away from price support that brings prices closer
to world prices and any form of support for farmers must be decoupled
from production. It is therefore essential that the new round
is used to further reduce agricultural protectionism.
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary
(SPS) Measures
6. The SPS Agreement has proven to be highly
controversial in recent years, most notably as a result of the
hormones dispute and in relation to concerns about genetically
modified (GM) foods. The Agreement sets out the conditions under
which a member may introduce measures to protect human, or plant
life or health. The Agreement has enhanced the status of international
food standards developed by the Codex Alimentarius Commission
by making them reference documents for the settlement of any disputes
under the Agreement. Our concerns therefore relate to the agreement
itself and the way that it is interpreted, and also to the Codex
process.
7. Under the Agreement, members can introduce
measures that go beyond the relevant international standard where
one exists if there is a "scientific justification"
or if it is considered to be appropriate as a result of a scientific
risk assessment.
In this respect, article Article 5.1 states
that:
"Members shall ensure that their sanitary
or phytosanitary measures are based on an assessment, as appropriate
to the circumstances, of the risks to human, animal or plant life
or health, taking into account risk assessment techniques developed
by the relevant international organisations."
8. We are concerned that it is currently
unclear how the Agreement should be applied in cases where there
is scientific uncertainty. While clearly the Agreement should
not allow members to introduce barriers to trade on the pretence
that they are designed to protect public health, there are situations
where members may need to introduce measures to protect public
health in the absence of clear evidence of the scale of the risk.
9. Article 5.7 allows members to apply a
precautionary approach:
"In cases where relevant scientific evidence
is insufficient, a Member may provisionally adopt sanitary or
phytosanitary measures on the basis of available pertinent information,
including that from the relevant international organisations as
well as from sanitary or phytosanitary measures applied by other
Members. In such circumstances, Members shall seek to obtain the
additional information necessary for a more objective assessment
of risk and review the sanitary or phytosanitary measure accordingly
within a reasonable period of time."
However, there is a need for clarity as to how
and when this should be applied and what constitutes "a reasonable
period of time". In some situations it may not be possible
to set a time limit in which to do a more objective risk assessment.
10. The Agreement also places a great deal
of emphasis on risk assessment and on the importance of sound
science. However, as we have repeatedly seen, supposedly objective
risk assessments can often come to different conclusions about
the significance of the risk depending on who is making the assessment.
There is therefore a need for clarity over how risk assessment
should be conducted. The work that the Food and Agriculture Organisation
(FAO)/ World Health Organisation (WHO) and Codex is doing in the
whole area of risk analysis should be taken into account in this
respect, particularly its emphasis on "risk assessment policy"
where risk managers clearly specify the parameters of the risk
assessment, and on the need for consumer involvement and therefore
effective risk communication throughout the entire process. Our
policy report "Confronting Risk—a new approach to food
safety" which considers these issues in greater depth is
enclosed for the Committee's information.
11. Crucial to this debate is the role that
"other legitimate factors" should play in international
food standards, and whether there is the flexibility for a member
to base sanitary and phyosanitary measures on "other factors"
at national level, for example as a result of ethical or moral
values. It would appear from the wording of the agreement that
there is no such flexibility and if challenged, such measures
could be considered a barrier to trade.
12. When settling such a dispute and considering
whether such measures were justifiable, the WTO would look to
Codex. The place, therefore, where other factors besides science
must be acknowledged is within Codex standards. Codex is currently
debating the role of "other legitimate factors" which
need to be taken into account when setting standards besides "sound
science" with the aim of clarifying how its four statements
of principle should be applied in practice. The most significant
of these principles for this debate are 1, 2 and 3 which state
that[12]:
(1) The food standards, guidelines and other
recommendations of Codex Alimentarius shall be based on the principle
of sound scientific analysis and evidence, involving a thorough
review of all relevant information, in order that the standards
assure the quality and safety of the food supply.
(2) When elaborating and deciding upon food standards
Codex Alimentarius will have regard, where appropriate to other
legitimate factors relevant for the health promotion of fair practices
in food trade.
(3) In this regard it is noted that food labelling
plays an important role in furthering both of these objectives.
13. We consider that a clear policy on "other
legitimate factors" needs to be developed and that they need
to be recognised within Codex standards. We are also concerned
that in many situations other factors besides an objective scientific
analysis are already implicit, although this is not openly acknowledged.
At the moment judgements will inevitably be made, particularly
now that the status of Codex texts under the agreements has made
the process far more politicised. However, these decisions will
still be misleadingly presented as scientifically based. The "other
factors" debate appears to be polarised between the EU, which
considers that a clear policy needs to be developed and other
factors should be considered when elaborating Codex standards;
and the USA, which considers that sound science alone should be
the basis of standards.
14. Codex is also currently debating the
appropriateness of applying the precautionary principle when developing
standards and how this can be achieved in practice. We consider
it essential that Codex explicitly acknowledges the principle,
and that it considers how a precautionary approach may be applied
as part of its on-going work on developing working principles
for risk analysis.
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade
15. There is also a need for greater clarity
over the situations in which the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)
Agreement would apply rather than the SPS Agreement. This has
arisen particularly in relation to labelling of GM foods (see
below). If a measure is considered to fall within the TBT Agreement,
the requirements for a scientific risk assessment no longer apply,
although Codex standards will still be used as reference texts
when settling any disputes.
Codex Alimentarius Commission
16. Now that the status of the Codex Alimentarius
Commission has changed under the SPS Agreement, and also the TBT
Agreement, it is important that the way that it reaches its decisions
is also changed in order to reflect this. In particular the process
needs to become more open and transparent and there needs to be
much greater consumer involvement. At the moment the process remains
dominated by industry. We therefore welcomed the Codex Alimentarius
Commission's commitment to increasing consumer representation
at its meeting in Rome earlier this year. This now needs to be
followed up with practical measures.
17. These concerns also apply to the scientific
committees that advise Codex; the Joint Expert Committee on Food
Additives (JECFA) and the Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues
(JMPR), as well as ad-hoc FAO/WHO consultations. There needs to
be clarification over the status of their advice in any dispute
where a Codex standard is still in the process of being developed.
The basis for their decisions and the factors they took into account
when reaching their conclusions should also be transparent. Consumer
representatives should also be appointed to these committees.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Hormones in beef
18. The hormones dispute has highlighted
the lack of clarity over the provisions within the SPS Agreement—and
has demonstrated the difference between EU and US perspectives.
19. The Codex Alimentarius Commission established
Maximum Residue Limits for growth promoting hormones banned from
use in the EU at its meeting in Rome in June 1995. The USA then
proceeded to make an official complaint to the WTO that the ban
was an illegal barrier to trade. As the EU was unable to satisfy
the WTO dispute panel that its measures could be justified on
scientific grounds, the ban was judged illegal. Although an appellate
body decision amending the original verdict gave the EU more time
to conduct a risk assessment (which expired in May), and clarified
that issues of enforcability could be taken into account, the
ban was still considered to be illegal.
20. The dispute clearly highlights the implications
of the agreements and the extent to which they can now impact
on the EU's (and UK's) ability to introduce consumer protection.
More generally, it has general implications for the basis of EU
food policy, the need to clearly justify legislation within the
context of the WTO. It also has implications for the way that
Codex sets its standards, the adequacy of the advice that it receives
from its expert scientific committees and as highlighted above,
the extent to which Codex can—and should—consider
other facts besides "sound science".
21. The EU did not use article 5.7 which
allows for precautionary action in defending its position. This
reinforces the need for clarification as to the scope and flexibility
within this article as part of the next round of WTO negotiations
and also demonstrates the need for the EU to ensure that it is
prepared to defend its positions within the context of the WTO
agreements.
22. We supported the EU's position to complete
the risk assessments that it had begun and to try and negotiate
compensation with the USA in the meantime. The US opted to introduce
sanctions instead. However, it is still necessary, in light of
the uncertainties surrounding the safety of these hormones for
the EU to complete its assessment. The measures should then be
reconsidered within the light of the results and bearing in mind
that many consumers do not want to eat hormone-treated beef.
Restrictions on trade in GM foodstuffs
23. Again, the implications of the agreements
for trade in GM foodstuffs is unclear, but has been interpreted
in different ways. For example, the USA has suggested that EU
labelling rules on GM (which in their current form do not go as
far as EU consumers would like) could be an illegal barrier to
trade under the TBT Agreement as they cannot be justified on scientific
grounds. Clarification is needed that GM labelling would fall
under the TBT Agreement, as labelling is not linked to sanitary
and phytosanitary measures, and as such does not need to be justified
by a scientific assessment.
24. At the moment, there is no Codex standard
for labelling of genetically modified foods although this is currently
being debated within the Codex Committee on Food Labelling (CCFL)
which meets in April in Ottawa. Although many countries have changed
their positions in favour of labelling in recent years, the USA
stance will prevent agreement being reached as codex standards
have to be based on consensus.
25. Even within this context, the debate
that Codex is having on "other factors" will be important
as some government delegations argue that labelling standards
have to be based on science and therefore cannot be introduced
in response to consumer demand alone. We consider that consumers
have a fundamental right to know what they are eating, and this
must be acknowledged within international standards. In this respect,
we welcomed the recommendation of the recent Food and Agriculture
Organisation, World Health Organisation and World Trade Organisation
conference held in Melbourne in October on International Food
Trade Beyond 2000: science based decisions, harmonisation, equivalence
and mutual recognition that:
"The Conference supported efforts by FAO
and WHO to explore strategies to collect information from all
regions of the world about consumer requirements, perceptions,
beliefs and motivations concerning food, nutrition and food safety
so as to consider the role that food labelling and other means
of communication can play in addressing these concerns."
26. It is also essential that controls on
the safety assessment and approval of genetically modified foods
are harmonised at international level given the global nature
of trade in GM foodstuffs. Consumers need to have confidence that
wherever they are produced, foods and ingredients have been subject
to a rigorous approval process and that they can be subsequently
traced throughout the food chain. We hope that the ad hoc Intergovernmental
task force on Biotechnology which has been established by Codex
and meets for the first time in March in Tokyo will make progress
in this respect.
CONCLUSION
27. Trade liberalisation is already having
an enormous impact on food standards. This brings many advantages,
but also raises concerns about the potential negative effect on
national standards and brings into question the ability of national
government's to implement measures in response to consumer concerns.
Even if this is not explicit at the moment, it is certainly implicit,
as concern about the impact of the WTO and its implications is
often presented as a reason why action can not be taken in particular
areas.
28. We consider it essential that there
is a full, transparent review of the SPS and TBT Agreements that
considers the impact of the Agreements on consumers. It is also
essential that the next round is used to clarify the scope of
the provisions within the Agreements and the flexibility that
may remain to go beyond international standards at national level.
3 November 1999
12 Codex Alimentarius Commission Procedural Manual,
Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme 1997. Back
| 
