restrictions on imported fresh meat in june 2011 the united states stated that administrative order number 22 ao 22 of the philippines and its draft successor had disproportionately affected trade from other countries. it was not clear why the prescribed cold chain requirement for frozen chilled meat and chilled meat products which are primarily imported was not being equally applied to fresh meat. the traceability packaging and labelling requirements in both ao 22 and the new draft administrative order imposed additional burdens on the marketing and sale of frozen meat and meat products in the philippines yet there was apparently no risk assessment to support the adoption of these measures. there seemed to be no scientific justification for this requirement which appeared to discriminate against imports and which undermined the food safety advantages of frozen meat. the failure to follow any standard international practice created the impression that these measures were simply to restrict trade. the united states requested a copy of the philippines risk assessment and the suspension of ao 22 and its draft successor as well its notification to the wto. canada expressed its concern that ao 22 as well as its draft replacement only addressed the safety of frozen chilled meat and provided no scientific rationale for imposing different food safety measures than for fresh meat. these measures seemed to disproportionately affect imported meat. the measure had been implemented without notification to the wto and given the lack of a scientific rationale canada requested that ao 22 be suspended until the replacement measures were amended to include comparable food safety requirements for fresh meat. the european union supported the concerns of the united states and observed that the revision of ao 22 was currently going through a domestic consultation process and requested clarification as to why the requirements for warm meat which is mostly locally produced were lower than those for frozen chilled meat which is mostly imported. the new legislation issued in 2010 was not notified to the wto no supporting risk assessment had been provided and there was no opportunity for comments to be taken into account. the european union therefore requested the suspension of ao 22. the philippines stated that the rules and regulations for the handling of frozen and chilled meat and meat products were contained in ao 22 which was a post-border measure aimed at improving the countrys meat hygiene and meat safety system u to the point of retail sale. ao 22 was to be implemented by local government units with assistance from the national meat inspection service. ao 22 did not impose additional requirements and did not modify the provisions related to pre-border measures for the export of meat and meat products to the philippines. the basis for this measure was the usda code for frozen meat which required that thawing be done under chilled conditions and a cold chain be maintained until consumed. this was recommended also by the codex code of practice for the processing and handling of quick frozen foods cac rcp 8-1976 and the us food and drug administration fda and so the philippines had adopted the best standards. the philippines assumed that the united states and other trading partners had conducted a risk assessment for their codes of practice and so there was no need for the philippines to do its own risk assessment when imposing the same measures. neither were the philippines obliged to notify a measure based on the codex code of practice. ao 22 was not discriminatory as it applied to both imported and locally produced meat. however ao 22 did not apply to freshly slaughtered meat which was a different product. there were no codex standards for warm meat products and the philippines acknowledged that a risk assessment for freshly slaughtered meat was required. this would be carried out and guidelines developed based on ava