geographical bse risk assessment in 2001 canada requested information on the ec geographical bse risk assessment gbr process the consistency of its application and how assessments could be reviewed when risks changed. canada noted that the oie was developing a system to verify countries own assessments of their bse status and wondered how it would relate to the ec system. the united states was concerned that the european communities was applying similarly stringent measures to countries with significantly different risk factors a practice which lacked scientific justification and ran counter to existing international standards. it was not entirely transparent how country classifications would be determined nor what requirements would be applied in the meantime. the united states had submitted detailed comments identifying a number of problems with the methodology and with the information related to the united states. the united states urged countries to take the oie standard into account when developing their bse measures. the oie representative clarified that the oie would deal only with recognition of bse freedom not with the other four categories contained in the international animal health code g sps gen 266 . the commission on fmd and other epizootics had received the mandate to develo guidelines to hel member countries carry out their risk assessment taking into account the experience from gbr assessments. the european communities explained that gbrs were based on information provided by trading partners in a 1998 questionnaire. the gbr methodology had been established by the ec scientific steering committee. the new ec bse-tse measure was in conformity with the oie code but the gbr pre-dated the current oie code. any new scientific evidence could be submitted to the commission and a re-evaluation of a gbr would be considered once additional stability measures had been implemented allowing three to five years to take into account the incubation period of bse. the european communities explained the stability factors that were taken into consideration these were considered on a case-by-case basis. the european communities considered that the gbr reflected the international standard and was willing to cooperate with members and provide information. knowledge about this disease should be shared to minimize trade effects where possible. in june 2005 india expressed concerns regarding the categorization of india in the suspected list of the gbr. the assumptions made by the european communities while conducting the risk assessment needed to be reconsidered as bse had never been reported in indian cattle and buffalos. india had made these concerns known to the european communities on several occasions. the ec categorization had the potential to disrupt indias beef trade not only with ec member states but also with its other trading partners. the european communities described its bse import regime in relation to beef and beef products as proportionate non-discriminatory and science-based. the recent findings of bse in both the united states and canada had not led to measures from the european communities. the ec classification system had been introduced due to insufficient progress in the oie with the development of an international framework on trade in beef and beef products and bse. in that context the european communities encouraged all oie members including india to work towards oie country classifications which would allow the european communities to abandon its classification. the european communities clarified that unless the oie failed to classify countries indias existing classification would not be revisited since it had been carried out on an independent basis by ec scientists. in february 2006 chile noted that while it had never registered any cases of bse in 2005 the european food safety authority efsa evaluated chile as being a country where bse was likely to occur or had been confirmed categ