relate to food and animal health, the phyto-sanitary provi­sions cover plant health aspects of products (Chawla and Kumar, 1997).
     For the purpose of the definitions, "animals" includes fish and wild fauna; "plant" includes forests and wild flora; "pests" includes weeds; and "contaminants" include pes­ticide and veterinary drug residues and extraneous matter (Adopted from Swinbank, 1999: Original source GATT, 1994). The SPS standards comprise articles on basic rights and obligations, non-discrimination, harmonization, trans­parency, equivalence, regionalization, risk assessment and control, inspection and approval procedures; and are based on Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) guidelines of FAO/WHO which is nothing but application of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP). This method is about improving and controlling processes as variability in processes can cause quality problems; and is product-specific in nature.
     The basic rights  and obligations clause means that members have the right to take SPS measures necessary for the protection of human, animal or plant life or health pro­vided such measures are consistent with the provisions of the agreement, are based on scientific principles and do not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between members where identical or similar conditions prevail. The harmo­nization provision calls for members to base their SPS mea­sures on international standards where they exist though members can adopt more stringent SPS measures if there is a scientific justification as per the agreement. Under the agreement, members are also to recognize the SPS measures of other members as equivalent to their own if the exporting member objectively demonstrates to the importing member that its measures achieve the importing member's appropri­ate level of SPS protection (principles of equivalence). Fur­ther, if members wish to apply more stringent measures than the international standards, then they are obliged to base their risk assessment and level of SPS protection on scientific evidence and their levels should not be more trade restrictive. Members are also required to consider objective geographi­cal and ecological conditions rather than national boundar­ies to apply SPS measures (regionalization clause). Under the transparency clause of the agreement, members are to ensure that all SPS measures and changes in them are notified in a transparent manner through a single national enquiry point. Finally, the control, inspection and approval procedures are to be applied in no less favorable manner for imported prod­ucts than for like domestic products (Swinbank, 1999).

Critique of SPS measures.Since both the agreements (TBT and SPS Measures) are relatively new and technical, there is a certain amount of confusion and a lack of differentiation between the two measures. For example, shelf life regula­tions can be adopted as an SPS measure or a TBT measure depending on the exact purpose. Therefore, knowing the objective of a measure is critical to determine whether a measure is subject to the discipline of TBT or SPS agree­ment. Similarly, the range of measures given in the SPS agreement is not totally inclusive. For example, measures introduced to control the spread of weeds would generally be covered by the SPS agreement. But, the agreement is not clear enough about the concerns of those who believe that

use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) could lead to cross-pollination and GMO genes into the natural flora. In this context, the USA challenged the EU's labeling require­ment for certain products produced from GMOs under the TBT rather than under the SPS agreement arguing that it is not aware of any information that GM foods differ as a class in any way from products produced by other methods (Swinbank, 1999).
     Secondly, the differences in standards across countries are very difficult to resolve even with the best scientific ad­vice. The examples of disputes under WTO umbrella in this field include that of beef hormones, irradiated food, cheese made from unpasteurized milk and genetically modi­fied foods (Hoekman and Anderson, 1999). Though the SPS agreement does not impose international standards on members, it does enhance the importance of international standard setting agencies as it encourages members to base their SPS measures on international standards and that na­tional provisions have to be justified on scientific grounds if they are more stringent than international standards. Over time, it tends to impose a de facto set of international stan­dards worldwide.
     From the developing countries' and the Indian prospec­tive, the SPS measures set very high standards which are not suitable for these countries either because they have higher cost of compliance or are not required in their contexts. Further, no lead time has been given to these countries for implementing these provisions. It is also argued that what was designed in the Western contexts (CAC guidelines) has been imposed on the developing world. There is also hy­pocrisy in the practice of these provisions as there is lack of transparency and prevalence of discrimination against the developing world. For example, under Codex standards, the raw material for some types of cheese like mozzarella, ched-dar has been restricted only to cow milk in the Codex stan­dards on the basis of the argument that these cheeses were traditionally made from cow milk. This means that there may be difficulties in exporting cheese made from buffalo milk (Chawla and Kumar, 1997).
     An SPS measure becomes a barrier:
1.    When domestic standards are lower than those for im­ports
2.  When standard conformity assessment is different/not recognized by two countries as it duplicates costs of product testing (Table 3-3).

There is also no doubt that the SPS barriers can lead to im­port bans which means higher cost of compliance (15-40% of FOB value) for the developing country exporters which, in turn, could lead to reduced trade or diversion of trade between exporters due to high cost. The developing coun­tries are also likely to find it difficult to implement these standards as there is lack of SPS control systems, lack of awareness and understanding of standards, lack of technical abilities to implement standards and organizational struc­tures are not geared for such standard setting (Henson and Loader, 1999). There are also problems of multiplicity of standards organizations which leads to duplication and lack of coordination and small size of firms/farms.
     Due to the TBT and SPS provisions of WTO, India has faced non-tariff barriers for its products. In 1997 Indian fish-