WTO members could include many different factors. However, the panel incorrectly considered that this permissive standard also meant a low threshold for what was qualified as a risk assessment. The panel concluded that the 1996 final report assesses „to some extent“ risks and risk factors and is therefore considered a risk assessment, but the appellate body has introduced a more important compliance test. As noted above, the organization stated that community actions were illegal, in part because there was no rational connection between risk assessments and the level of protection at the farm level, and that the specific measures taken were more restrictive than necessary. Article 5 and the other related provisions of the SPS agreement are subject to an instructive silence.12 Article 5 is primarily aimed at ensuring that countries rely on risk assessment and do not take measures that restrict trade more than necessary. It remains largely silent on the level of SPS protection to which a country aspires. As noted above, several provisions of the SPS Convention emphasize that countries are free to set their own level of SPS protection, even though this level of protection differs from that afforded by international standards (for example. B Articles 2.1 and 3.3). The only provision in the SPS agreement that explicitly limits the level of SPS protection that a country can set is Article 5.5, which requires countries to strive to achieve a comparable level of spS protection in comparable situations13 The SPS agreement requires SPS measures to be based on a risk assessment, unless they are based on international standards , will stress the need for international standards to be based on a risk assessment. However, to date, none of these organizations has applied a systematic policy to determine acceptable risk levels. The code is in the midst of a system-wide reassessment of risk approaches and practices.

But progress is very slow. Prior to the conclusion of the SPS agreement, the Codex Alimentarius Commission did not contain principles or definitions relating to the application of risk assessment and risk management (Codex Alimentarius Commission, 1993). Today, it has several general statements on the role of science and risk assessment, and efforts are underway to expand risk treatment when defining codex standards.70 However, the principles of Codex risk and now accept that the USDA approves the import application that authorizes imports of the product under a specific import protocol. These imports reduce domestic PC prices, which correspond to the global PW market, in addition to protocol compliance costs. 11 (If import demand came from a country that produced the product at a higher price for the cost of compliance included than the U.S. price, there would be no imports.) For the PC, the amount required by domestic consumers increases to Q2, while the quantity delivered domesticly is reduced to Q3. (Imports of q2 – Q3 make the difference.) If scientists and regulators felt that the probability of importing a disease with the product was essentially nil – for example, if it had never been known that there was a disease in the export country – manufacturers would lose the surface C-D, while consumers would gain the surface C – D – E – F. The net benefit of this decision would be E-F. This „zero risk“ scenario is identical to the typical trade liberalization scenario in which a country decides to remove a tariff. The lack of clarity reflects the fact that Australia`s measure (the import ban) was not based on a risk assessment – in particular, it did not assess the risk reduction that could be induced by other SPS measures. Australia stated that its level of protection was „very conservative“ (Report panel, at para.