A. Nothing in the NAFTA will prevent the U.S. Food and Drug 

 Administration, or other U.S. regulatory agencies, from 

 inspecting at the border to ensure compliance with human, animal, 

 and plant health standards. The NAFTA requires that sanitary/ 

 phytosanitary measures have a scientific basis and be no more 

 rigorous for imported product than for domestically produced 

 items. In that regard, a provision calling for inspection for 

 aflatoxin in peanuts imported from Mexico to be just as rigorous 

 as that for domestically produced peanuts would not be 

 inconsistent with the Agreement. 



Q. I understand that you are working on surge protection to help 

 the sugar industry adjust to the proposed NAFTA. Would peanuts, 

 and other commodities such as livestock and wool, be covered by 

 these provisions if you are successful in working them out? 



A. The import surge side agreement is not expected to be 

 commodity specific. It would apply to all products covered by the 

 NAFTA, including sugar, livestock and wool. Our objective in 

 this regard is not to change the mechanisms in the NAFTA, but 

 rather to ensure that these provisions can be effectively and 

 fairly used by all sectors. In crafting this agreement, we will 

 be cognizant of the fact that our exports are a much larger share 

 of the Mexican and Canadian markets than are their exports to our 

 much larger economy. Accordingly, we must be attentive that we 

 do not inadvertently create unwarranted obstacles to the growth 

 of our own exports. We envision that a Safeguards Committee 

 would be established under this side agreement to examine trade 

 and employment trends at the request of any party to assess the 

 likelihood of safeguard actions. The Committee would be composed 

 of government officials of each NAFTA party and would report to 

 the NAFTA Trade Commission (the trade ministers of the respective 

 countries) . 



