. /.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SPS/GEN/100
4 November 1998
(98-4291)
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Original:  English
JAPAN'S PROPOSED SANITARY REGULATION ON AMENDMENT
OF ENFORCEMENT ORDINANCE OF THE PLANT PROTECTION LAW
(G/SPS/N/JPN/37)
Submission by the United States
1. On 23 July 1998, the Government of Japan notified the WTO of its proposed legislative
changes entitled "Amendment of Enforcement Ordinance of the Plant Protection Law"
(G/SPS/N/JPN/37).  Japan's proposed legislative changes, based on phytosanitary considerations,have implications for trade in fruits and vegetables.
2. The United States provided written comments regarding Japan's proposed legislative changes
to Japan's official Enquiry Point.  While we are encouraged by certain aspects of Japan's proposal, we
continue to have concerns regarding the basis and application of Japan's phytosanitary legislation.
3. In particular, Japan's legislative amendment does not appear to alter their current practice of
requiring quarantine action for most non-quarantine pests (i.e., pests which are widespread in Japan).
The amended legislation fails to address Japan's current practice of requiring fumigation and other
costly treatments for imported commodities found with intercepted pests even though these same
pests occur in Japan and are not subject to internal regulatory or quarantine controls.
Designating Quarantine Pests
4. Japan's proposed amendment to its Plant Protection Law adds 27 pests to the list of non-
quarantine pests in their regulations.  These additional pests, when intercepted on commoditiesarriving in Japan, will no longer be subject to quarantine measures.  Currently, the Japanese
regulations identify only 36 pests, mostly common storage pests, as non-quarantine pests.
5. Under Japan's current system, if any plant pest, other than those designated as non-quarantine
pests, is found on imported plant products, quarantine action such as fumigation or destruction is
required.  However, many of these intercepted pests occur in Japan, and are widely distributed in thatcountry.  Under the International Plant Protection Conv ention (IPPC), a pest that is widely distributed
in a country is not considered a quarantine pest unless official controls are in place to eliminate the
pest or prevent its movement into uninfested areas.
6. The United States is encouraged by the Japanese government's effort to identify non-
quarantine pests.  Many pests intercepted by Japan's plant health inspectors on US commodities arewidely distributed in Japan.  However, many of these pests have not been included in the official list
of non-quarantine pests.  Moreover, interceptions of such pests result in more costly quarantine
actions and measures than those applied domestically to control the same pests.
7. Instead of determining that these are not quarantine pests, based on the distribution of these
pests in Japan, and releasing the cargo, Japan requires quarantine action for any pest not included onG/SPS/GEN/100
Page 2
the list of non-quarantine pests.  This action severe ly limits trade between the United States and Japan
for US lettuce, and requires unnecessary treatment of other products, including citrus, asparagus and
broccoli.  The lettuce, in particular, is greatly damaged by the treatments.
8. On 22 April 1998, the United States requested that Japan assess the status of ten plant pests
that are commonly intercepted on US exports and which occur widely in Japan.  Japan has failed todesignate any of these pests as non-quarantine pests. Japan indicated that they consider the pests
mentioned in our letter as quarantine pests because they are being "officially controlled".  When
questioned, Japanese quarantine officials said that official control consisted of the Japanese
government providing information to farmers concerning the timing and size of pest appearances and
outbreaks, and advice concerning control.
9. The United States does not believe that government activities, such as extension efforts that
simply provide information and advice to farmers, constitute an official control program or that theycan be used as the rationale for requiring costly quarantine controls imposed on imported
commodities. In this regard, Japan's interpretation of "official control" is inconsistent with the
meaning and intent of the IPPC definition.  Furt hermore, such action is discriminatory because
imported products are subject to inspection and treatment while the domestic products, with the same
pests, are not.
Conclusion
10. Japan's quarantine actions regarding non-quarantine pests, in many instances, unjustifiably
discriminate against foreign imports.  In considering final amendments to its plant health legislation,
we urge Japan to re-evaluate its basis for defining and taking action on quarantine pests in accordance
with the intent of relevant IPPC definitions a nd principles, including the IPPC definition of a
"quarantine pest" and principle of "non-discrimination" (i.e., "... In the case of a quarantine pest
within a country, measures shall be applied without discrimination between domestic and imported
consignments.").
11. In addition, Japan's practice of imposing quarantine measures against all pests, if they have
not been officially designated as non-quarantine pests by Japan's plant health authorities, raises thequestion of whether such measures are based on a pest risk assessment.  While Japan's limited list of
non-quarantine pests seems to be developed from a pest risk assessment procedure, Japan,
nonetheless, maintains phytosanitary measures on numerous other pests without regard to the actual
pest risk.
_________