regulations on genetically modified food and feed the united states expressed concerns that the ec proposals on traceability and labelling of agricultural biotechnology products had been notified only under the tbt agreement and not the sps agreement although the proposals made it clear that they were intended to address unforeseen adverse effects to human and animal health. canada and the united states sought clarification as to whether the draft regulations covered food safety or human health. argentina noted that genetically modified food did not affect health and that the compulsory labelling required by the proposed ec regulation was not consistent with the tbt agreement. argentina sought clarification as to whether the labelling requirements extended to pharmaceutical products for human or animal use. the european communities observed that requests to prolong the consultation period had been accepted and this period would run until the end of the year. the main objective of the proposed regulations was to ensure that consumers were duly informed of the products they bought. two other key issues were traceability and labelling. the labelling of pharmaceuticals containing gm ingredients was covered by different legislation. the european communities stated that discussions should continue in the tbt committee. in march 2002 the united states noted that the ec measure notified as g sps n eec 149 would require a lengthy food safety review for all biotech foods and for the first time biotech feeds which would also need to be labelled. products already authorized for food or feed use within the european union would have to be re-authorized within nine years of their first placement on the market. the stated objective of this regulation was to protect health environment and consumers and to prevent deceptive practices. however the proposed regulation failed to distinguish the protection of health and the environment from perceived consumer desires. the regulation would be more trade restrictive than necessary and could create substantial difficulties for countries which imported us agricultural products for processing and further export without addressing the identified concerns and potential hazards. the united states suggested that without affordable testing and enforcement the proposed regulation left room for fraud and the european commission should examine the feasibility of implementing the regulation and analyze its potential regulatory impact. the united states further noted that the new eu food authority efa would undertake the risk assessments for biotech food and feed and provide technical and scientific information. but the european commission could propose an outcome inconsistent with the risk assessment or other safety and technical information considered by efa. this left room for political interference of the type that had led to the existing moratorium on the approval of biotech products. furthermore the ec legislation set a no risk level which could effectively block the regulatory process since no product could ever be guaranteed to have no risk. canada believed that these proposed regulations fell within the scope of the sps agreement and the primary concern of canada was that certain elements of these proposals lacked the needed scientific basis. argentina supported the us and canadian statements. israel expressed concern with the trend of members requiring traceability and mandatory labelling for biotech food and feed products a requirement not based on scientific information and hoped that members could find less trade restrictive measures to address their concerns. jordan supported the consideration of the safety of gm products on the basis of risk assessment as provided in the sps agreement. requirements imposed on processed products would result in unjustified costs that affected the competitiveness of products and resulted in greater restrictions on developing countries. egypt supported the stat