restrictions on the use of fishmeal in july 2001 peru expressed concern about the ec prohibition on the use of fishmeal in the elaboration of ruminant feed which had no scientific basis was not based on a risk assessment and was more trade-restrictive than required. the competent authorities in peru had shown that fishmeal and fish oil were safe to human and animal health and had high nutritional value. since the prohibition had a very serious impact on the peruvian economy peru asked the european communities to lift this restriction as soon as possible. chile underlined that fishmeal was not at all related to bse. at bilateral meetings the european communities had explained that the restriction was related to cross-contamination of fishmeal and other animal meals within the european communities. chile requested the european communities to exclude fishmeal from the prohibition and to be more flexible with standards applied to processing plants in the meantime. the european communities had classified chile as having minimal bse risk and chile had offered to provide quality and traceability certificates. chile was surprised that there were no restrictions on vegetable meals which could also be mixed with meat and bone meal mbm in feed. in addition mbm continued to be used as pet food in the european communities. the united states urged members to reacquaint themselves with the relevant oie guidelines and recommendations g sps gen 230 . the oie representative drew attention to the who fao oie conference held in june 2001 on bse public health animal health and trade g sps gen 260 . the experts at this meeting had concluded that the basis of the ec ban on feeding rendered animal protein to farm animals was to avoid risk of cross-contamination of the animal feed system. discussions had highlighted the lack of technical means to verify the absence of banned products in meals at very low levels. the european communities confirmed that the ban on the use of fishmeal in ruminant feed was a safeguard measure reflecting failures in the implementation of rules on animal feed. imports of fishmeal had not been prohibited but its use was subject to strict conditions. the european communities wished to minimize trade effects and was ready to evaluate with chile peru and other countries the consequences if any on their exports. in october 2001 peru indicated that the european communities recognized that there was no scientific evidence demonstrating that bse could be transmitted through fishmeal but maintained its restrictions to address an internal problem of cross-contamination and fraudulent practices. peru requested that the european communities lift the restrictions as soon as possible. chile noted that applying the same restrictions on fishmeal as for mbm had no scientific basis and was not consistent with oie or who recommendations. chile was concerned over the length of time that the provisional measure had been in place and the suggestion that a new diagnostic test of the presence of animal proteins in feed would need to be developed before the measure could be rescinded. chile would explore all options available under the sps agreement to have the restrictions lifted. the united states underlined the need for bse control measures to reflect the different risk status of particular products and countries. iceland objected strongly to the ec measures which were tantamount to an import ban on fishmeal for animal feed. the european communities clarified that the legislation was a provisional measure that covered the internal use of fishmeal. as all producers were requested to fulfil the same conditions the measure was not discriminatory. a derogation allowed the use of fishmeal in feeds for non-ruminant animals provided certain strict production and handling conditions were met. the development of a reliable but less laborious detection test would be a decisive element when reviewing the feed ban and efforts were und