 Okay, thanks. First of all, my thanks to conference organizers and to all the efforts they put to making this possible. Well, during my presentation, I'll address how other legitimate factors referring to non-scientific factors have been taken into consideration in the regulation of full safety risk within the SPS agreement and the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Moreover, at the end, I will also try to give you some additional reflections on any possible impacts of COVID-19 in this sense. So since 1970s, God started to develop a set of rules to distinguish legitimate from illegitimate restriction in global market in the domain of non-tariff barriers. In 1994, the adoption of the agreement on the application of sanitary and heterosanitary measures rules on science and risk assessment, even in the era of food safety, came into play. So according to the SPS agreement, the harmonization of food safety measures with standards can be done with the standards developed by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which appear to be the best candidate to fill this role. In both cases, so both within the SPS agreement and both within the activities of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the paramount for legitimacy is scientific knowledge in the sense that it is considered as a sort of normative yardstick. And against this background, the issue of a sort of innovative approach on risk assessment has been raised. So the point here is to include the possibility that economic, social, environmental or sustainability aspects came under the scope of trade rules and under the multilateral scientific consequences. So here a question, if the legal and institutional framework of these two bodies and pieces of law are responsive to this emerging problem as state. So Codex, which is a jointly international body created by FAU and by World HHO, started in 1995, so just one year after the adoption of the SPS agreement, to consider working on principle conserving the role of other legitimate factors. In 2001, Codex members adopted a decision on the criteria for the consideration of other factors and which are the most important aspect of this decision. First of all, other legitimate factors came related to both health protection, but even for fair trade practice. Second, risk manager should indicate how these factors affect the selection of risk management options. Then the separation between risk assessments and risk management should be respected and the factors should be accepted only if they could be considered on a worldwide basis, while for regional basis they can only be accepted if they are adopted for regional standards. Moreover, they should be clearly documented, including the rationale for their integration and even on a case-by-case basis. The relevance of these factors should also be considered in relation to possible impacts for developing countries. And last but not least is the fact that the only factor which has been properly identified as a proper and other legitimate factor for risk regulation is economic interest, which in every case should be substituted with data. So more than other legitimate factors in this sense, we can state that these are sort of rules that can be followed in order to identify which are any other possible legitimate factors for risk regulation. And states were aware of the fact that in the context-contact risk analysis has to be considered more as a health issue with trade implications and not as a trade issue with health implications. And so if we want to sum up on the position of Codex in this sense, we can say that first of all there is a sort of legal basis in order to consider these other factors because it is desirable this decision in order to identify them. But then from an institutional point of view, if we look at the mandate of Codex, it basically has to adopt international standards, guidelines, or recommendation with the aim to protect consumer health and with the aim of fair trade and thus it is not public under its scope to consider these other legitimate factors. And last, if we look at how the adoption of international standards completely is practiced within the Codex, we can say that standards are basically adopting in subsidiary bodies where the main actors are just scientific experts. Then, if we look at the WTO framework, first of all, in the text of the SPS agreement, there is no reference to risk management but only to risk assessment. It is a very debated issue but by academics, practitioners, and so on. And if we look at the text of the agreement, we can say that in an article five, which is the one devoted to risk assessment in the paragraph, there is only reference to relevant economic factors. And the same provision is also contained in the Hanex hay where within a definition of risk assessment, there is just reference to economic consequences. Then, if we now look at the case law within the WTO, there is a very famous statement in the appellate body report in the AC community's Hormones case where it was stated that risk assessment under article five, paragraph one, is not only risk-assured in a science laboratory operating under strictly controlled conditions but also risking human societies as they happily exist. The actual potential for adverse effects on human health in the real world where people live and work and die. So, why here we have a specific reference to the fact that risk assessment should not be considered as a sort of isolated framework at the same time with not appropriate reference of what are those specific legitimate factors and in which way we can use them. And by the way, there were other two important cases which related to this aspect and which are namely Russia peaks and also Japan apples but in this case no proper guidance on this aspect were developed. An important point which can be useful to identify other relevant factors has been developed within the activities of the SPS committee which in 2000 adopted guidelines to further the practical implication and implementation of article 5.5 and in this sense there was a specific reference to traditional food which may imply the acceptance of a lower level of protection. So in this sense we can probably consider both cultural and religious aspects that can be related to food can be taken into consideration when risk manager or more properly risk assessment is developed. And if we then look at the relationship between the World Trade Organization and economic standards as we know the WTO does not properly adopt directly standards but only decide to adopt the standards that have been adopted by the project. So there is this sort of specific reference within their agreement in article 3 devoted to organization. And at the same time we know and also states are aware of the fact that the credibility and reliability rests on codex operating within its mandate which is based as we say at the very beginning on scientific foundation but even also on procedural requirements. And so in this sense there is no sort of hierarchy among the SPS committee and the codex and at the same time there is no appropriate form of controls or cooperation between these two bodies. And so at the end the SPS committee should not attempt to influence the procedures or decisions of the adoption of international standards by making reference to any possible other relevant international factors in the development of risk assessment. So again if we want to sum up on the WTO position and other relevant factors in this case we can say that there is no reference to its management in the SPS agreement and of course it is a quite irrelevant obstacle for the aiming of identifying these possible factors. Moreover there is only reference and only two economic aspects while no social environmental societies sustainability factors are considered in the text of the agreement. And at the same time there is no form of proper control or cooperation over the codex. This is due mainly for legitimacy reasons and so some factors that can be relevant according to the WTO framework cannot be imposed on the activities of the development of international standards within the codex elementaries commission. At the same time it is possible to identify that there is some possible area of intervention within the SPS committee as the guidelines that I previously mentioned demonstrate. But since now no proper results were given within the activities and the activities of the SPS committee and I believe that the two main reasons of this lack are due to both the institutional characteristics of the WTO and of course it's due also to its mandate and in this sense it is well known the general debate about trade and on trade concerns and how the activities of the WTO should be limited in this sense. Finally I would like to look at some of the measures that have been adopted by states in relation to COVID-19 and if among these measures and all the reflection that remain this sense there are some possible inputs for the HHS state. First of all during the last month a lot of measures have been notified to the WTO secretariat and among these national measures around 20 of them were related to provisions on food but basically all of them provided just restriction on import and exports and were just related in order to guarantee the food security within each state's border. At the same time there has been an interesting interim guidance provided by FAO and WHO of last week which was directed to competent authorities which are responsible for food safety control. In this sense first of all this guidance tries to address which are the challenges that now national authorities which are in charge for risk assessment and risk management are addressing especially for the consequences of COVID-19 and so in this sense the challenges can be can be related to basically the reduced capacity to maintain the fully functioning of food safety inspection program to the reduced capacity of tasting in food laboratories to the increased risk to guarantee the supply chain of course in the sense all of the risk related to food security and finally they need to respond to an increasing number of questions from ministries for food industry but even consumers and media. In order to tackle this challenge the measures that have been suggested by these guidance are basically in two different directions. First of all they suggest to adopt and introduce electronic data in order to guarantee risk assessment and risk management measures even in this period of emergency. At the same time given the lack of possibility to access laboratories or the lack to workers to to to circulate within each country or even in some in some cases to cross some national borders and this interim guidance that's also you can see there's activities of private bodies in order to develop a proper risk assessment or risk management. So generally the kind of measures that have been adopted both at national but even at international level suggest that science and scientific experts are sort of have a sort of leading role in this particular period of emergency but at the same time there is also a call for a prompt and decisive reply of political actors and more generally we can say that public actors are again at the center of the public debate even in international arena. If we now try to pinpoint which could be the possible impacts of COVID-19 in the efforts to try to identify other relevant factors for a proper assessment of risk measures we can say that a lot of public fears that arise in different countries cannot be conceived as a sort of other factors that legitimate the adoption of a risk assessment measure in the sense that for example there has been a call in the European Union not to legitimate the request for COVID free labeling because in some countries like Greece and other European countries there was a request from some importers to guarantee that this product can be considered as COVID free but all of the measures and all of the statements that have already been explained before me demonstrates that food cannot be considered as a possible transmitter of disease. All of these measures that have been required cannot be considered legitimate and I would say not under the digital framework but at the same time not under the Codex Limiter's condition.