United States - European Union Veterinary Equivalence Talks Release No. 0144.97 Q & A's on United States - European Union Veterinary Equivalence Talks April 30, 1997 Question: What is an Equivalency Agreement? Answer: An equivalency agreement is an outgrowth of the Uruguay Round's Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement (SPS). The SPS agreement requires countries to recognize the SPS measures of other countries as equivalent, if the exporting country objectively demonstrates to the importing country that its measures achieve the importing country's appropriate level of sanitary or phytosanitary protection. Moreover, it requires countries upon request to enter into consultations with the aim of achieving a bilateral agreement on the recognition of equivalency. The underlying premise of equivalency of sanitary measures is that most countries do not have the same sanitary measures. Those differing sanitary measure may, nonetheless, provide an appropriate level of protection to public and animal health. Through equivalency negotiations, countries thoroughly review each others' sanitary measures to ensure that the appropriate level of protection is maintained. One of the benefits of an equivalency agreement is the facilitation of trade without jeopardizing our food safety. Question: Why did this become such an issue? Answer: As part of the 1992 single market initiative, the EU introduced new import controls for all animal and animal products that became effective in January 1993. These controls threatened to disrupt U.S. exports to the EU. To avoid trade disruptions, the United States and the EU began a consultative process that developed into the current equivalency negotiations. For the past 3 years, the EU and the U.S. have been working toward a bilateral agreement to facilitate trade in animal and animal products by establishing a framework for recognizing equivalency between U.S. and EU sanitary measures. Provisions for equivalence are included in the Uruguay Round Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement. To allow for the completion of the negotiations, the EU delayed implementation of its new import requirements numerous times--most recently until April 1, 1997. Question: How will U.S. exports be affected by this Agreement? Answer: This Agreement should preserve most pre-existing trade in products such as petfood, dairy and egg products and potentially opens up new trade opportunities for beef and pork. Unfortunately, negotiators were unable to resolve all the poultry meat issues. As a result, the United States could lose up to $50 million in poultry meat exports. The United States and the EU will continue to work on resolving the remaining outstanding issues, especially in the poultry sector. Question: How will U.S. imports be affected? Answer: Poultry meat imported into the United States is now subject to recently imposed HACCP/Pathogen Reduction rules. During the course of the negotiations, the United States was unable to conclude that the EU system for poultry and poultry products provides an equivalent level of protection to that afforded under the current U.S. system. Because the current list of EU poultry establishments eligible to ship to the United States was developed prior to the importation of HACCP requirements, and because the United States does not have the same level of experience with the EU system for poultry that it does for meat, the United States will not be able to accept imports of poultry from the EU until it is able to conduct appropriate inspections and confirm delivery of its appropriate level of protection. Question: Is the USDA concerned about the safety and quality of meat, meat products, poultry, and poultry products currently imported into the United States from the EU? Answer: FSIS continually monitors the public health aspects of all meat and poultry products produced domestically or imported into the United States. FSIS has many years of experience with EU red meat, and is not concerned about the safety of meat products. However, due to the lack of experience with EC poultry plants, effective May 1, 1997 EU poultry plants will not be eligible to ship product to the United States until we are able to conduct appropriate inspections and confirm delivery of its appropriate level of protection. Question: Isn't the United States allowing foreign countries to negotiate the safety and quality standards of products going to U.S. consumers? Answer: The United States is committed to providing safe products to consumers all over the world. The underlying premise of equivalency of sanitary measures is that most countries do not have the same sanitary measures. Those differing sanitary measures may, nonetheless, provide an appropriate level of protection to public and animal health. Through equivalency negotiations, countries thoroughly review each others' sanitary measures to ensure that the appropriate level of protection is maintained. One of the benefits of an equivalency agreement is the facilitation of trade without jeopardizing our food safety. Question: Does the United States agree with the EU on the issue of anti-microbial treatments, including chlorine? Answer: The United States does not agree with the EU's position regarding the use of anti-microbial treatments. The United States strongly believes that the use of anti-microbial treatments are a safe and effective way to reduce the presence of bacteria and pathogens which cause many serious health problems. The United States believes that it has the safest and most wholesome product in the world. Question: How will the poultry impasse affect U.S. exports to third country markets? Answer: The current disagreement with the EU regarding anti-microbial treatment on poultry should not have any affect on U.S. trade with other third countries. The use of anti-microbial treatments is an important element in modern poultry processing and a common practice worldwide. The United States believes that the quality of U.S. poultry is the best in the world. Furthermore, we are in the process of implementing the most advanced, scientifically-based inspection system of any country in the world -- the Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) rules. In so doing, we have established bacterial performance standards and are collecting microbiological data that will objectively demonstrate the quality of our product. Question: How can the United States sign an Agreement that results in the loss of $50 million of poultry exports? Answer: We most certainly are not satisfied with the results on poultry. It is important to note, however, that this is not a trade agreement in the ordinary sense. It is a technical agreement which establishes a framework for reaching a determination of equivalency. What we have today is a single snapshot of an ongoing process. This Agreement is an important step in facilitating the implementation of the new Internationals rules as depicted in the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) Agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The Agreement also provides a forum for resolving problems associated with the EU's new harmonized import requirements. On this basis, the Agreement was signed. Question: Why was there no equivalency determination for poultry? Answer: The United States and the EU disagree on the use of anti-microbial treatment. The EU does not allow for such treatment in poultry processing. The United States believes that the use of anti-microbial treatments are a safe and effective way to reduce the presence of bacteria and pathogens which cause many serious health problems. As part of the annexes to the Agreement, the United States and the EU outlined work programs to resolve the remaining outstanding issues and to establish trade conditions until such issues are resolved. Unfortunately, the United States was unable to resolve all the outstanding issues in poultry. The United States does not agree with the EU's position in the area of poultry, and will continue to work with the EU to find a satisfactory resolution. Question: How will the Agreement affect U.S. exports of petfood, red meat, egg products, and dairy products? Answer: With this Agreement, we succeeded in preserving U.S. exports of egg products and dairy products, and most petfood exports, as well as improving trade conditions for red meat. Without this agreement, U.S. exports of some products, including egg products and dairy products, would have been blocked from the EU market, unless U.S. industries invested in costly adjustments in their facilities to comply with EU requirements. The Agreement also provides an avenue by which we can improve trade access in the future for any livestock product. Question: What has the United States agreed to with respect to regionalization? Will the United States continue to be able to protect U.S. animal health standards? Answer: The United States clarified its policy with respect to regionalization. In the event of a disease outbreak, the Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to recognize and accept decisions made under the EU's regionalization policy. Moreover, the United States will publish by October 1 a proposed rule for the recognition of the EU's current animal health status. The United States will continue to protect U.S. animal health standards. Question: Is the U.S. negotiating an Equivalency Agreement with any other country? Answer: The United States is engaged at some level in equivalency discussions with several countries. Question: What is the value of trade involved in the equivalency negotiations? Answer: The veterinary equivalency negotiations covers all animal and animal products. U.S. exports to the EU are valued at approximately $1.5 billion, and EU exports to the U.S. are also approximately $ 1.5 billion. # NOTE: USDA news releases and media advisories are available on the Internet. Access the USDA Home Page on the World Wide Web at http://www.usda.gov