ISSUE

CONCLUSION OF DISCUSSION

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS

1.

Requirement to stun on poll

The United States agree not to use poll stunning for slaughtering of animals destined for the Community

Adaptation of FSIS instructions.

No changes in Community requirements.

2.

Use of wood in lairages

Both sides agree that wood must not be used in pens for sick and suspect animals and, in other cases, wood should not be recommended.

Adaptation of FSIS instructions.

Amendment of Community instructions — (VM p. 13).

In the phrase, ‘However, where wood has been accepted temporarily, it must be gradually replaced with other materials ...’, ‘must’ should be replaced by ‘should’.

3. and 37.

Separate drainage for suspect animal pens

‘Separate drainage’ is understood by both sides to mean that the drainage system should exclude any possibility that healthy animals can come into contact with effluent from pens containing suspect animals. This can be achieved by use of gratings or other effective means.

Adaptation of FSIS instructions.

The Community will consider the need for clarification of the Community instructions — (VM).

4. and 38.

Prevention of contact of suspect animals

This recommendation is based on regulatory requirements and established procedures in United States facilities leading to prompt disposal of condemned animals.

FSIS instruction will ensure that animals not acceptable for slaughter should immediately be removed.

The aim is to prevent further contact with healthy animals at the soonest possible time following their recognition as unacceptable for slaughter.

Clarification of Community instructions — (VM p. 16):

‘... Facilities for sick and suspect animals must be constructed ...’ should be replaced by: ...‘... Facilities for sick and suspect animals, taking into account diseases present in the region, should be constructed ...’.

5.

Veterinary to perform ante-mortem inspection

The problem concerns ante-mortem veterinary inspection of animals at the slaughterhouse. The United States has proposed a solution which includes the following components:

Both sides should consider further actions necessary.

6.,

7. and 39.

Sterilization of sticking knife between cuts and between carcases

The inspector in charge of facilities approved for export to the Community shall take special care of the Community's concern for insuring that implements which have come in contact with the external surface of hides are cleaned before being used again on fresh meat.

Should be reflected in FSIS instructions. Community instructions (VM) should reflect that any implements which have been in contact with the external surface of hide shall be cleaned before they are used again.

8.

Apron washing cabinets for ‘sticker’

Withdrawn on the understanding that the preference for aprons to be washed in cabinets does not exclude use of flexible showers in accordance with point 9.

See point 9.

9.

Use of ‘drop-hoses’

Both sides agree that ‘suspended, flexible showers, sprays and hoses’ should only be used provided that:

Should be reflected in FSIS instructions. Should be reflected in Community instructions — (VM).

10.

Requirements for authorizing truck-wash facilities:

The United States require that means of transport for meat are cleaned acceptably and sanitized and checked by the responsible inspector before being used for that purpose.

This situation should be reflected by relevant FSIS instructions and Community instructions — (VM).

Establishments are authorized to use wash facilities of their choice on or off the premises of the plant. The location of the site of these premises is available from the plant management.

To avoid contamination of the site, trucks used for transporting livestock are not normally washed on the site of the establishment. Responsibility for insuring that livestock-transporting vehicles are maintained in a sanitary condition rests with APHIS. In the case where disease-control measures are necessary trucks are cleaned and sanitized under the official control of APHIS at identified sites.

Both sides agree that cleaning and sanitizing of trucks can take place on or off the premises of the plant, provided that the location of the sites for meat vehicles are available to veterinary inspectors from the plant management. In the case of livestock transport, officially identified sites will be under the official controls of APHIS where disease control is necessary.

11.

Correlation of parts for post-mortem inspection (batch condemnation)

Both sides agree on the need to correlate all offals with the carcase for the purpose of post-mortem inspection. They also agree that if the blood or offal of several animals is collected in the same container before the completion of the post-mortem inspection, the entire contents must be declared unfit for human consumption if the carcase of one of the animals concerned has been declared unfit for human consumption. (See Annex V schematic presentation).

FSIS instruction should reflect the need for the inspector in charge to demonstrate the effective operation of batch condemnation and correlation.

The Community agrees to consider the United States batching procedure as indicated in annexed schematic presentation as an acceptable batching procedure.

12. and 47.

Post-mortem inspection procedures

Both sides indicated details of differences in specific post-mortem inspection procedures for the different animal species. Exchange of documentation did not enable agreement to be reached. Both sides agree, however, that a joint review could lead to resolution of the matter.

Both sides agree on a joint evaluation of post-mortem inspection operations.

13. and 14.

Veterinary control of cold stores, cutting, health marks and health labelling devices.

The issues were examined on the basis of written documentation presented by the United States concerning the organization and responsibilities of the United States inspection system.

Adaptation of FSIS instructions in accordance with Annex III.

These issues were addressed in relation to an enhanced role of the FSIS as regards export to the Community.

The Community will consider further actions necessary including any necessary changes in its requirements.

15.

Requirement for medical certificates of first employment

It is noted that the Community legislation gives the possibility of specific guarantees, which may be required regarding the medical supervision of staff working on, and handling, fresh meat.

The United States will ensure that plant managements can demonstrate and document the way in which the United States requirements are applied in practice. This information will be made available to the official inspector on request.

The United States legislation requires that no operator of an official establishment shall employ in any department where any product is handled or prepared any person showing evidence of a communicable disease in a transmissable stage (does not include a specific requirement for medical certificates).

The follow up system of medical supervision and official enforcement will be in accordance with the documentation presented by the FSIS. The Community will examine whether the United States follow-up system gives adequate guarantees for Community requirements (on a case-by-case basis).

16.

Welfare facilities

Both sides agree that Community and United States requirements are basically the same.

Practical problems should be handled on a case-by-case basis in the ongoing review process between the United States and the Community at plant level.

17.

Employee clothing

Both sides agree:

FSIS instruction will require that the industry and the FSIS be able to describe and demonstrate when necessary the system in place for enforcing United States requirements at plant level.

18.

Requirements for separate store for packaging materials

Both sides agree that measures must be taken to insure that meat and meat products are not contaminated by wrapping and packaging materials.

FSIS guidelines to the industry should indicate Community requirements, that wrapping and packaging material, which will be taken into rooms where exposed fresh meat or offals are handled must be stored in separate rooms and in a way to avoid any contamination. The Community instructions — (VM) should include indications whereby the objectives of ‘no air connection’ in Community legislation could be satisfied in order to avoid contamination of packaging and wrapping materials.

19.

Facilities for dry storage of non-food items

Both sides agree that detergents, disinfectants and similar substances should be stored in a secure place, in order to avoid contamination of meat or packaging material. A secure place could be a cupboard, trunk or similar storage facility. Handling of any such material must avoid any possibility of contamination of fresh meat or wrapping or packaging material.

Adaptation in FSIS instructions.

No changes in Community requirements.

20.

Structural wood

Both sides agree that the absolute Community prohibition of wood covers instruments and working equipment which might come into contact with fresh meat or offals.

The United States has presented a paper to support its proposal.

As regards the structural use of wood both sides agree that such structures must be in good condition, impermeable, smooth durable, rot-proof and scaled with a coating that is waterproof.

The Community will consider whether this can be considered an acceptable structural use of wood.

The United States proposed that the structural and overhead wooden beams (including beams in chillers and coolers) that have been impregnated with an approved compound (e.g. hot linseed oil) fulfill this requirement.

The United States will incorporate provisions in FSIS instructions to ensure effective control and hygenic maintenance of structural surfaces.

21.

Wooden equipment

Withdrawn on grounds that it is not a major issue. The United States agree that the use of wood in this area shall be phased out.

Any specific problems that arise should be addressed during plant review, it being understood that emergency maintenance equipment, such as ladders, may be used provided that there is no risk of contamination of fresh meat or offals.

22. and 23.

Potable water (testing frequency and biological parameters).

It is noted that in accordance with Article 4 (c) of Council Directive 72/462/EEC specific guarantees may be required concerning the quality of the potable water used by establishments.

FSIS should present specific guarantees concerning the quality of potable water used by each establishment. The Community undertakes to consider promptly all submissions.

24.

Meat temperature requirements

Discussions indicate that the United States system appears to obtain meat temperatures required by Community legislation.

The Community will consider whether the temperatures achieved operationally by the United States system are acceptable.

The United States will incorporate provisions in FSIS instructions to ensure that the veterinarian in charge effectively enforces Community meat temperature requirements.

25.

Temperature recording devices

The United States side requests that handwritten recording of room temperatures be considered acceptable in low volume plants.

The Community will consider whether handwritten recording of room temperatures can be acceptable in low volume plants.

26.

Temperature for ‘trichinae’ destruction

The United States has presented an alternative cold temperature treatment system to the Community for the destruction of trichinae in pigmeat (see Annex V).

The Community agrees to examine the United States' documentation in order to determine whether it provides an acceptable alternative health guarantee.

27.

Necessity to examine horse meat for trichinae

The United States has presented documentation questioning the necessity to examine horsemeat for trichinae.

The Community agrees to study scientifically the documentation presented by the United States.

28.,

29.,

30.,

31. and 32.

Sanitary dressing

Both systems rely on the judgement of the official veterinarian to determine whether sanitary dressing is carried out in such a way that an acceptable level of hygiene is maintained. Problems arise from an apparent difference in the unwritten standards applied by each system.

Both sides recommend that there should be improved on-the-spot dialogue between the veterinarians at plant level both with the objective of finding solutions on the spot and of improving their professional dialogue.

The above recommendation should be supported by a clearer understanding of the interpretation of the Community requirements by FSIS.

Should be done against the background of an enhanced role for FSIS in the Community plant approval process, including inspection and hygienic control.

Should be supported by ongoing bilateral contacts within an established structure. This dialogue should involve all appropriate levels of the inspection services including veterinary inspection staff charged with plant inspection on both sides (see Annex IV).

33.

Necessity for separate room to clean stomachs and intestines

It is agreed by both sides that Community legislation (Directive 64/433/EEC) does not require a separate room provided that the conditions enumerated in Chapter 11, 14c of that Directive are fulfilled.

A clarification of the Community requirements on this point should be considered with a view to indicating that in relation to green offal from pigs, partitioning should be required, on a case-by-case basis, where it is necessary to prevent contamination of fresh meat or offals.

34.

Handling of red offal

Withdrawn.

The problem arose from a misunderstanding of Community requirements and should not arise in the future.

35.

Offal handling (pig tonsil removal)

It is agreed by both sides that the removal of pig tonsils should be made in a way to prevent contamination of the head and tongue. The issue should be solved during plant review.

A clarification of the Community instructions — (VM) on this point should be considered.

36.

Separation of operations

Withdrawn on the understanding that no condiments or spices will be handled or used in the same place where fresh meat is handled, cut or chopped.

40.

Eviscerators boots and apron wash

The United States side confirms that it applies the same requirements to imported and domestically produced products. That is to say that the United States only requires washing when contamination occurs. As a result of the discussions that have taken place in the context of these negotiations any misunderstanding of United States requirements should have been eliminated.

Future questions arising from the application of these requirements should be addressed during plant review (see Annex IV).

41.

Truck wash facilities

Withdrawn.

The problem arose from the application of implementing measures. There is a difference in legal requirements. As there is no United States requirement the problem should not arise in the future (see point 10).

42.

Veterinary supervision of plants

The United States confirms that veterinary supervision requirements applicable to Community plants for export to the United States does not exceed United States domestic requirements.

43.

Prior approval of blueprints of equipment and materials

It was clarified during the course of the discussion that the United States does not impose an absolute requirement that plants in foreign countries submit blueprints to their national authorities for prior approval.

The United States will continue to apply equivalence for this requirement.

44.,

45.,

46.,

47.,

48.,

49.,

50.,

51.

Administrative actions

Idem 28 to 32

See Annex III.

See Annex IV.

52.

Administrative actions (submissions of monthly reports)

In the overall context of equivalency there should be periodic visits by a veterinarian at supervisory level of the exporting country to approved establishments, in principle on a monthly basis.

Further details for this issue should be established within the framework of Annex IV including the matter of confidentiality.

Written reports of the above visits should be made available to the visiting inspection officials representing importing countries.

Such visits or reports should not be required during periods when establishments are not operating or are not engaged in producing products for exportation to the host country.

See Annexes III and IV.

53.

Administrative actions (control of transit products)

The problem appears to arise from the requirements of countries of destination (insisting upon having sealed containers opened at the transit point) and not the United States.

See Annex IV.

54.

Demands made of Community veterinary services for certification on quality matters

Not addressed at technical level in accordance with the agreement to exclude these issues from these talks.

55.

Demands made of Community veterinary services for residues

Not addressed at technical level in accordance with the agreement to exclude these issues from these talks.

56.

Financial trust fund

Prior to granting export approval, the United States requires Community plant operators to set up a financial trust fund to be used to pay for inspections for additional animal health safeguards which are required by the USDA. The Community questions the justification for this mandatory requirement. Changes of USDA regulation may be possible.

The USDA will review its requirement for a financial trust fund from Community exporting plants.

57.

Transparency of means used for recognizing that a country is free from disease

Both sides use a system that relies on requests for information and on-site visits to gather information about the conditions in foreign countries. In both systems, a committee evaluates the data in relation to, and gives an opinion on, disease status prior to the final decision. In the United States this process, in some cases, has taken more than one year because of administrative procedures.

The onus is on the exporting country to apply for recognition of its status in both systems. The status depends, amongst other things, on the import policy in the exporting country. As of 1 July 1992, veterinary checks at internal borders in the Community will be replaced by a system which includes reinforced checks at the origin. Both sides agree that this system should provide sufficient health guarantees to allow the existing health status of Community Member States to be maintained.

The USDA will undertake to continue the recognition of the freedom of the Member States from animal diseases as follows:

without the application of additional safeguards after 1 July 1992 when internal veterinary border controls are removed in the Community. However, in view of changing patterns of trade, the USDA is considering the application of non-comminglement requirements to Irish meat plants (these are already applied in the United Kingdom and Denmark). Non-comminglement in this context means that the plant concerned does not handle at the same time, animals, meat or products from countries which are not recognized as free from relevant diseases and that there is no mixing of the meat or products destined for the United States with meat or products from such countries.

The USDA will undertake to rapidly process applications from Member States which are not now recognized as free from certain diseases by USDA. For the purpose of recognition of disease free status, USDA will undertake to accept Community legislation which is legally binding on all Member States, where it exists, and is the legal basis for animal disease control measures and animal health policy in relation to imports of live animals, meat and products.

The Community Commission will undertake to provide the necessary data to expedite the listing of Member States as free from animal diseases as appropriate.

58.

Recognition of regional health status

The Community has submitted a document to APHIS, entitled ‘The Community Single Market — a new strategy in the field of animal and plant health’. This details the management structure for dealing with epizootic animal disease in the Community.

On the basis of the Community strategy paper the USDA recognizes that Community policy for disease control on a regional basis may give acceptable guarantees to prevent the spread of animal disease via products of animal origin.

Both sides recognize the potential benefits of the regionalization concept when dealing with outbreaks of exotic epizootic diseases, and that the criteria for definition of the region and the method of management of the region are critical.

The United States will reconsider its import policy in the light of the regionalization concept, and if appropriate, will undertake to amend its regulations and legislation concerning FMD, rinderpest and other relevant diseases.

APHIS has established a working group to study the application of the regionalization concept to animal disease control measures.

59.

The acceptance of Community sanitary measures applied to countries or regions with different disease incidence

Both sides recognize that certain diseases may be present at different levels of incidence in countries or regions and that a different level of risk is attached to imports from countries or regions with different disease incidence.

The USDA recognizes that BSE is of low incidence in Ireland and France and presents a different epidemiological situation to that in the United Kingdom.

The USDA accepts that a different incidence of a specific disease may exist between different countries and that the risk of importation from countries with a low incidence is less than from those with a high incidence, and will evaluate BSE and scrapie research available, study OIE recommendations, and implement risk assessment studies with a view to modify import procedures.

60.

Apparent discrimination and lack of uniformity of United States authorities as regards recognition of different Member States disease status

Both sides agree that the recognition of disease-free status depends on the disease situation, control system, etc. and that countries should be treated without discrimination. Imports of certain types of product are accepted by the USDA from some countries although the countries are not free from SVD, but these products are not accepted from other countries which are considered free by the Community. Studies indicate that SVD virus survival may exceed 500 days in certain cured ham products. Therefore, the USDA is carrying out an evaluation of the SVD status of the exporting country concerned.

The USDA will undertake to apply risk reduction measures uniformly to all Member States of similar status.

The USDA will undertake not to unduly delay acceptance of imports after the results of scientific studies are available and agrees that any such studies should be relevant to the disease situation in the Member State concerned.