RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/204* 
27 September 2000 
 (00-3901) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures   
   
SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
 
Note by the Secretariat
 
 
 
 At the 15-16 March 2000 meeting of the SPS Co mmittee, the Secretariat was requested to 
prepare a paper summarizing the specific trade con cerns that had been brought to the Committee's 
attention.1  This note includes all issues which have been raised at SPS Committee meetings through 
the eighteenth regular meeting of the Committee on 21-22 June 2000.   
 The issues are divided into those concerned with  food safety, animal h ealth, plant health and 
others, and listed in alphabetical order according to the country maintaining the measure in question.  
Where one issue concerns both food safety and anim al health, it is included under food safety, except 
for BSE concerns, which will be found in the animal health section.   Resolution of the specific concerns raised h as been explicitly reported to the Committee for a 
limited number of matters only.  (These are noted in  the summary table at the beginning of each item.)  
This does not necessarily mean, however, that there has not been resolution of other concerns, only 
that this has not been explicitly  reported to the Committee.  Indeed, in many cases the Members 
concerned have reported satisfactor y progress, or expectation of resolution.  Members are encouraged 
to inform the Committee of the current status of all trade concerns identified in this document. 
                                                     
 
*In English only  
1 G/SPS/R/18, para. 20. G/SPS/GEN/204 
Page 2  
 
TABLE OF CONTENT 
 
I. FOOD SAFETY ................................................................................................................. .......5 
1. Australia – Restrictions on imports of sauces containing benzoic acid................................5 2. Australia and New Zealand – Im port restrictions on cheese ................................................5 
3. Belgium - Measures regarding canned tuna in oil .................................................................6 
4. Brazil - Import re quirements for wine....................................................................................6 
5. Canada - Importation of cheese.............................................................................................. .7 
6. Chile, Czech Republic, El Salvador , Honduras, Slovak Republic – Zero-
tolerance for salmonella  in imported poultry products.........................................................7 
7. Czech Republic - Prohibition of po ultry meat imports from Thailand ...............................8 
8. Egypt - Restrictions on canned tuna .......................................................................................8 9. European Communities - Information on dioxin...................................................................9 10. European Communities - Measures on f ood treated with ionizing radiation ...................10 
11. European Communities - Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/62) of emergency measures 
on citrus pulp................................................................................................................. ..........10 
12. European Communities - Measure on establishments operating in the animal 
feed sector .................................................................................................................... ............10 
13. European Communities - Maximum levels for certain contaminants (aflatoxins) 
in foodstuffs .................................................................................................................. ...........11 
14. European Communities – Trade restrictions in response to cholera .................................12 
15. Iceland's notification on meat and meat products ...............................................................13 
16. Korea – Import ban on frozen poultry..................................................................................13 17. Korea – Shelf-life requirements............................................................................................ .14 
18. Malaysia and Singapore - Notifications related to dioxin ...................................................15 19. Poland - Requirements for import s of milk and milk products..........................................15 
20. Spain – Restriction on levels of co pper and cadmium in imported squid..........................15 
21. Switzerland -  Notifications regarding import requirements on meat and eggs ...............16 22. United States - Notification G/SPS/N/USA/133 on refrigeration and labelling 
requirements for shell eggs .................................................................................................... 16 
II. ANIMAL HEALTH AND ZOONOSES ...............................................................................17 
A. I
SSUES RELATED TO TSE S.........................................................................................................17 
23. Argentina – Import restrictions on bovine semen, milk and milk products......................17 
24. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, 
France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, United States and others – Measures related to BSE ..............................18 
25. Canada - Zoosanitary import policies pertaining to BSE ...................................................20 
26. European Communities – Measures related to BSE............................................................20 
(a) Cosmetics and BSE.......................................................................................................... .........21  G/SPS/GEN/204 
 Page 3 
 
 
 (b) Rules on "specified risk materials" in products of animal origin..............................................21 
(c) Gelatin imports ............................................................................................................ .............22 
27. France – Certification requirements for pet food ................................................................23 
28. India – Import restrictions on bovine semen........................................................................23 29. Israel - Notification G/SPS/N/ISR/2 on TSE-related import restrictions of live 
cattle ......................................................................................................................... ................24 
30. Israel – Measures affecting imports of bovine meat ............................................................24 
31. Poland - Notifications on veterinary measures and measures on animal products 
including gelatin.............................................................................................................. ........24 
32. South Africa - Prohibition on bone-i n beef imports from member States of the 
European Communities..........................................................................................................2 5 
33. United States – Measures related to BSE..............................................................................25 
B. 
ISSUES RELATED TO FOOD -AND-MOUTH DISEASE (FMD).........................................................26 
34. Japan - Measures regarding FMD ........................................................................................26 
35. Korea – Import rest rictions on beef ......................................................................................27  
36. Mexico - Import rest rictions on beef.....................................................................................27  
37. Norway – Restrictions on gelatin imports.............................................................................27 38. Turkey – Import ban on livestock .........................................................................................28  
C. 
OTHER ISSUES CONCERNING ANIMAL HEALTH ..........................................................................28 
39. Argentina - Temporary prohibitio n of fresh pork and products .......................................28 
40. Australia - Notification G/SPS/N/AUS/72 on quarantine requirements for 
chicken meat................................................................................................................... .........29 
41. Australia – Ban on salmon imports.......................................................................................29 42. Czech Republic – Regulation concerning warehouses and silos.........................................30 43. El Salvador – Restrictions on meat and dairy products......................................................30 44. European Communities - Ban on antibiotics in feed ...........................................................30 
45. European Communities – Salmonella-relat ed restriction on fishmeal imports ................30 
46. India – Restrictions on imports of horses .............................................................................31 
47. United States - Regionalization in relation to animal health...............................................31 48. Venezuela - Import conditions  for pork meat and products...............................................31 
49. Venezuela – Measures related to Avian Influenza...............................................................32 III. PLANT HEALTH.............................................................................................................. .....32 
50. Australia – Restrictions on im ports of tropical fresh fruit..................................................32 
51. Brazil – Import prohibition of coconut palms and related products .................................33 52. Brazil – Restrictions on imported wheat...............................................................................33 53. Chile – Restrictions on imports of wheat and fruit..............................................................33 54. Czech Republic - Imports of potatoes ...................................................................................34 G/SPS/GEN/204 
Page 4  
 
55. European Communities - Citrus canker...............................................................................34 
56. European Communities – Protected zones ...........................................................................35 57. Honduras – Restrictions on imports of rough rice...............................................................35 58. Indonesia - Fresh fruit and vegetables ..................................................................................35 59. Japan – Testing requirements for different varieties of apples, cherries and 
nectarines..................................................................................................................... ............36 
60. Japan - Plant quarantine regulations....................................................................................36 61. Japan - Notification on amendment of the Japanese Plant Protection Law......................36 62. Mexico – Import prohibition of milled rice ..........................................................................37 63. Panama – Requirements for cert ification of consumer rice................................................38 
64. Phytosanitary issues in general............................................................................................ ..38 
65. Poland – Restrictions on wheat and oilseeds ........................................................................39 
66. Slovak Republic – Restrictions on imports of apples, pears and quinces ..........................39 67. Slovak Republic – Import restrictions on potatoes..............................................................39 
68. Switzerland - Notification on wheat, rye and triticale.........................................................40 
69. United States – Imports of citrus fruit ..................................................................................40  
70. United States – Import restrictions  on rhododendrons in growing medium.....................41 
71. United States – Interim rule affecting solid wood packaging material ..............................41 72. United States - Actions taken by local governments............................................................42 IV. OTHER CONCERNS............................................................................................................. 42 
73. Korea – Import clearance measures and practices..............................................................42 
74. Japan and Korea - Translation of regulations .....................................................................43 
  G/SPS/GEN/204 
 Page 5 
 
 
 I. FOOD SAFETY 
1. Australia – Restrictions on imports of sauces containing benzoic acid 
Raised by: Philippines 
Supported by: Malaysia 
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 83-85), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, 
paras. 24-25), July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15,  para. 68), June 2000 (G/SPS/R/19, 
para. 21) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/106;  see also G/SPS/13, G/SPS/GEN/137 and 
G/SPS/W/107/Rev.1 
Solution (if reported): Australian to lerance level modified June 2000. 
 
1. In September 1998, the Philippines voiced con cerns that Australia's import prohibition on 
Philippine sauces containing benzoic acid were disc riminatory, since sauces from New Zealand were 
allowed entry even if they contained benzoic aci d.  Australia indicated willingness to pursue this 
matter with the Philippines.  Both Members noted th e absence of an international standard for benzoic 
acid in sauces.  In November 1998, the Philippines re ported that bilateral cons ultations had not been 
successful.  Australia explained that the different  rules applying to sauces from New Zealand were 
transitional, and stemmed from a treaty establishing a common food standards system for both 
countries.  Australia expected that the final sta ndard for food additives would be implemented in the 
first half of 1999. 
2. In July 1999, the Philippines again reported on bilateral consultati ons.  Completion of 
Australia's new food code was foreseen for late 1999.  Australia confirmed that benzoic acid would be 
allowed as an additive under the new food standards code. 
3. In June 2000, the Philippines requested an update  of the situation from Australia.  Australia 
reported that the relevant part of the Australian Food Standards Code had been revised.  The present 
restriction on benzoic acid would be removed and replaced on 22 June  2000 with a tolerance level of 
1000 milligrams per kilogram for benzoates in sauces, a pplicable to all products sold in the Australian 
market, whether domestic or imported. 
2. Australia and New Zealand – Import restrictions on cheese 
Raised by: European Communities, Switzerland 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11 and Corr.1, paras. 41-42b), November 1998 
(G/SPS/R/13, paras. 21-23), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, paras. 9-13) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/80 
Solution (if reported):  
 
4. In June 1998, Switzerland reported that, without  advance notice, New Zealand and Australia 
had stopped imports of hard cheeses made from unpasteu rized milk, on the grounds that they did not 
meet the sanitary requirements.  Australia and New Zealand responded that the relevant import 
measure required inactivation of pathogenic organism s.  This measure had been put in place before 
1 January 1995 and therefore not been notified, but compliance had recently been reinforced.  
ANZFA was evaluating the applications received from Switzerland and the European Communities. 
5. In November 1998, the European Communities requested Australia to identify the 
international standard on which its  import ban on Roquefort cheese was based, or to provide scientific 
justification and a risk assessment.  Australia r esponded that its food standards required all cheese to G/SPS/GEN/204 
Page 6  
 
be made from pasteurized milk, or milk that had u ndergone an equivalent process.  Australia's risk 
assessment on Roquefort cheese had identified poten tial problems with pathogenic micro-organisms, 
in particular entero-hemorrhagic E-coli.  Furt her data from the Roquefort manufacturers had been 
received and were being evaluated.  In additio n to food safety assessments, Roquefort cheese was 
being evaluated for risks to animal health.  Draf t revised import conditions would be notified soon, 
and comments solicited.  A final decision was likel y in the first quarter of 1999 on both food safety 
and animal health aspects. 
6. In March 1999, Switzerland asked about the progress of ANZFA's procedures. Australia 
responded that ANZFA had conducted a risk assessme nt.  The documentation would be published on 
17 March 1999 for public comment, after which a final recommendation would be made.  Swiss 
officials in Canberra would be br iefed on 16 March 1999.  Regarding EC concerns, Australia reported 
that according to a risk assessment initiated by th e Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA), 
French Roquefort did not comply with Australian requirements.  French officials in Canberra would be briefed on the issue.   
3. Belgium - Measures regarding canned tuna in oil 
Raised by: Philippines 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, para. 87-88) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution (if reported):  
 
7. The Philippines expressed concern regarding a Belgian decision to withdraw from sale 
Philippine canned tuna in oil based  on allegations of contaminatio n with biphenol-A-diglycydyl and 
biphenol-F-diglycydyl.  The European Communities responded that following reports of a possible 
contamination, a Belgian supe rmarket had withdrawn the pro duct from sale.  The European 
Communities was unaware of any actions taken by th e Belgian authorities, but offered to pursue the 
matter on a bilateral basis with the Philippines. 
4. Brazil - Import requirements for wine 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5, para . 13), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 23) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/BRA/13/Rev.1 
Solution (if reported):  
 
8. In May 1996, the European Communities expr essed concern that proposed Brazilian import 
requirements for wine had not been notified.  Th e European Communities was concerned that Brazil 
was apparently requiring that establishments in exporting countries be inspected and approved by 
Brazilian authorities.  The European Communiti es considered its own requirements for wine 
production to be at least equivalent to those in Braz il with respect to the safety of the product for the 
consumer, and planned to present written comment s to Brazil once an SPS notification had been 
made. 
9. In March 1997, the European Communities qu estioned Brazil's measure on wine exports, 
notified as G/SPS/N/BRA/13/Rev.1 on 6 February 1997, stating that it was not clear what requirements producers faced.  The European  Communities questioned whether inspection 
requirements for individual establishments were based on science, and expressed concern over certification requirements for individual consignments  rather than more general, generic types of 
certification.  Brazil noted that the proposed legi slation would not be adop ted before 16 May 1997,  G/SPS/GEN/204 
 Page 7 
 
 
 and that the full text of the proposed legislati on was available from the Brazilian Enquiry Point.  
Although Brazil insisted that its legislation was in conformity with the SPS Agreement, and not 
substantially different from legislation in place in several European countries, it was open for bilateral 
discussions on the subject. 
5. Canada - Importation of cheese 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Switzerland 
Dates raised: May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5, para. 14) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CAN/8 
Solution (if reported):  
 
10. The European Communities raised concerns w ith a proposed Canadian requirement that 
cheese be pasteurized or produced from pasteurized milk.  The Eu ropean Communities considered 
that its measures, including production requireme nts, safe and correct sourcing and subsequent 
supervision in the various production stages from fa rm to consumer, provided at least equivalent 
guarantees in terms of food safety.  The European Communities observed that a number of Members maintained restrictions on imports of raw milk  cheeses from the European Communities which were 
not justifiable on health grounds.  Canada noted  that on request it would provide scientific 
documentation in support of the proposal, and that an  expert advisory committee had been appointed 
to examine the matter. 
6. Chile, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Hondur as, Slovak Republic – Zero-tolerance for 
salmonella  in imported poultry products 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, par as. 18-25), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras. 
52-53) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GN/3 
Solution (if reported):  
 11. In October 1996, the United States indicated that a number of Members discriminated 
between standards for control of salmonella  in domestic versus importe d poultry products. Chile, the 
Czech Republic, El Salvador, Slova kia and Honduras applied so-ca lled zero-tolerance standards, 
which was a misleading name since none of these Members appeared to have eradication or 
surveillance systems in place to  establish non-existence of salmonella  in domestic products. 
12. The Slovak Republic responded that it did not ap ply a zero-tolerance standard, but rather 
required ante- and post-mortem treatment of sl aughter poultry, for domestic and imported poultry 
meat.  The Czech Republic clarified that its regulations required negative results on salmonella  tests 
in poultry holdings and slaughterhouses.  No assura nces had been received from the United States that 
this requirement would be met.  The Czech Rep ublic suggested bilateral consultations between 
veterinary experts.  The representatives of Honduras a nd El Salvador indicated that they would inform 
their authorities of the statement made by the United States. 
13. Chile observed that bilateral consultations on salmonella  had started in 1992.  The US 
concern was probably due to a misunderstanding of  Chile's sanitary requirements, which required 
tests to determine the level of salmonella.  The resu lt was compared with the level of prevalence in the 
exporting country, which was part of Chile's risk assessment procedure.  Chile was aware that the 
United States had difficulties in complying with this  requirement given the high level of prevalence of G/SPS/GEN/204 
Page 8  
 
salmonella  domestically.  Given the US situation, the Chilean government was prepared to show a 
certain flexibility and would consider imports of  irradiated poultry from the United States as a 
possible alternative. 
14. In March 1997, the United States reiterated its concerns.  In particular, Chile had not 
substantiated its claim that salmonella was less prev alent in domestic poultry stocks compared to the 
imported product, and the Czech Republic conti nued to maintain a zero-tolerance policy.  
Furthermore, the United States was interested to know when legislation would be implemented to 
harmonize requirements for poultry meat imports in the Central American Common market.  In response, Chile recalled its arguments made at the previous meeting, and remained open to further 
discussion with the United States. 
7. Czech Republic - Prohibition of po ultry meat imports from Thailand 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 81-82), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, 
paras. 39-40), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, para. 16), July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, 
para. 8), November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, para. 5) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CZE/16 
Solution (if reported): Czech measure lifted in October 1999. 
 15. In September 1998, Thailand indicated that si nce June 1998, the Czech Republic had stopped 
shipments of poultry meat from Thailand on the grounds  that it contained levels of arsenic acid above 
the acceptable Czech limits.  Thailand indicated that this measure was not scientifically justified and 
too trade restrictive, and asked whether the me asure was non-discriminatory.  The Czech Republic 
indicated that bilateral consu ltations had begun and would conti nue, and assured Thailand of the non-
discriminatory nature of its testing methodology. 
16. In November 1998, Thailand reporte d that bilateral consultations had been held, and that the 
Czech Republic had agreed to provide further clar ifications on the measure, as well as a scientific 
justification.  The Czech Republic indicated that th e exchange of information would take place before 
a mission of Czech experts to Thailand in the near future.  
17. In March 1999, Thailand and the Czech Republic reported that bilatera l consultations were 
progressing, and that the problem might be resolved  after a visit of Czech experts to Thailand, 
planned for April 1999.  In July 1999, Thailand repor ted that the visit of Czech experts had been re-
scheduled for September 1999.  The Czech Republic conf irmed that consultations were advancing.  In 
November 1999, the Chairman informed the Commit tee that the Czech Republic had recently notified 
the lifting of the measure from 1 October 1999. 
8. Egypt - Restrictions on canned tuna 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2000 (G /SPS/R/19, paras. 103-104) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution (if reported):  
 
18. Thailand, acknowledging Egypt's decision to r estrict food imports containing genetically 
modified organisms (GMOs), insisted that Thai canned tuna did not contain soybean oil produced 
from genetically modified plants.  Thailand noted th at it was not possible to identify the origin of 
soybean oil since the final processing stages destr oyed genetic material.  Thailand considered the  G/SPS/GEN/204 
 Page 9 
 
 
 restrictions on Thai canned tuna to be discriminat ory, and asked the Egyptian Government to lift the 
restrictions as soon as possible.  Egypt took note of Thailand's concerns and agreed to report back to 
the Committee in due course. 
9. European Communities - Information on dioxin 
Raised by: None, information provided by the European Communities. 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, par as. 17-22), March 2000 (G/SPS/R/18, para. 19), 
June 2000 (G/SPS/R/19, para. 9) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/123 and Add.1-4 
Solution (if reported):  
 19. In July 1999, the European Communities provided information on the dioxin contamination 
which had occurred in Belgium in January 1999, an d on the steps it had taken to manage the health 
risks.  Many countries had responded by imposing trade restrictions.  The European Communities 
stressed that there was no longer any justification for maintaining import bans, regretting that several 
countries had not notified their bans.  The Europ ean Communities reserved its right to take action 
with regard to unjustified trade barriers. 
20. Malaysia expressed disappointment to be receiving in formation at such a late stage.  It would 
only be in a position to lift its import ban when it was fully satisfied that there was no more danger 
from EC products.  Australia, Canada, Chile, Brazi l, South Africa and the United States appreciated 
the information provided by the European Commun ities throughout the dioxin crisis.  Australia and 
the United States had notified any ac tion taken with respect to diox in.  Canada had banned Belgian 
imports, but was reviewing the products and areas cove red by the ban.  The Philippines indicated that 
its measures had taken into account the EC meas ures regarding dioxin, and were being reassessed. 
21. The WHO noted that it had convened an expert c onsultation in 1998 to evaluate the tolerable 
daily dose of dioxin to which humans could be exposed  without harm.  Codex reported that at the July 
1999 meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Co mmission, countries had requested that an 
intergovernmental group prepare a code of prac tice on animal feed.  The European Communities 
added that it had established a working group w ithin its Standing Committee on Animal Nutrition 
which was examining legislation regarding an imal nutrition to prevent future accidents. 
22. In March 2000, the European Communities provided an update on the dioxin situation.  While 
some Members had adjusted their trade measures as th e situation evolved, othe rs continued to apply 
unnecessarily strict measures.  The European Comm unities looked forward to receiving answers to 
the questions it had raised in G/SPS/GEN/123/Add.3. 
23. In June 2000, the European Communities explaine d that all previously restricted products 
could be circulated and exported without any addi tional certification.  While there was a general 
acceptance by Members that EC and Belgian produc ts no longer represented a health risk, some 
Members had neither lifted their measures nor respon ded to a January 2000 letter requesting that they 
remove them.  The European Communities repeated that it reserved its right to take any necessary 
action with regard to unjustified trade barriers. G/SPS/GEN/204 
Page 10  
 
10. European Communities - Measures on food treated with ionizing radiation 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 37-38) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/61 
Solution (if reported):  
 
24. The United States sought clarification on the EC measure on food and food ingredients 
treated with ionizing radiation.  The United Stat es was taking similar steps towards recognizing that 
this technology could play a role in ensuring the wholesomeness and safety of food, and had sent 
official comments to the European  Communities.  However, the Unite d States emphasized that the list 
of products provided in an annex to the EC direc tive should be expanded to cover other food products 
such as pork, beef, poultry, fruits and vegetables.  The United States also requested explanation of 
how the approval process for treatment facilities work ed.  The European Comm unities indicated that 
the US suggestions would be forwarded to the competent EC services. 
11. European Communities - Notification G/ SPS/N/EEC/62) of emergency measures on 
citrus pulp  
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 49-50) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/62 
Solution (if reported):  
 
25. Brazil expressed concerns regarding EC em ergency notification G/SPS/N/EEC/62, which 
mentioned very high levels of dioxi n found in citrus pulp pellets from Brazil.  Brazil pointed out that 
this accident had already been fully dealt with. Br azilian authorities were maintaining bilateral talks 
with the European Communities on the subject.  The European Communities explained that this 
accident had involved 90 000 tonnes of contaminated citrus pulp pellets destined for animal feed.  
After scientific discussions, including Brazil's privat e sector, the EC authorities had decided that the 
lack of information on the origin of the contaminati on, the amount of stocks involved and the lack of a 
solution justified the emergency measure.  Th e European Communities hoped that ongoing contacts 
with the Brazilian authorities would result in a solution before the end of the year. 
12. European Communities - Measure on establishmen ts operating in the animal feed sector  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Argentina 
Dates raised: June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras.  50-56), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 
35-36) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/58, G/SPS/GEN/88 
Solution (if reported):  
 26. In June 1998, the United States raised its concer ns with regard to an  EC measure which set 
conditions and arrangements for approving and registering establis hments and intermediaries 
operating in the animal feed sector.  The United St ates sought clarification regarding criteria used, 
justification and coverage of the measure and the procedures  involve d, and asked for an update on its 
implementation status. 
27. The European Communities replied that it was putting in place the legislative framework for 
the establishment of a single market in regard to  animal, plant and cons umer health.  It was  G/SPS/GEN/204 
 Page 11 
 
 
 establishing harmonized standards so that products c ould circulate freely within the Community.  The 
European Communities provided an explanation of  the criteria used and risks addressed by the 
framework, and clarified that it applied only to feedi ngstuffs for farm animals, not to pet food.  The 
European Communities clarified that by the e nd of 1998, EC member States must provide the 
Commission with a list of establishments considered  eligible, which could be modified later on.  
Establishments would be inspected by the EC Commission.  The European  Communities considered 
its registration requirements to be flexible and not  very onerous.  Argentina requested a written copy 
of the EC statement. 
28. In September 1998, the United States reported it was encouraged by the EC willingness to 
consult on this draft directive with a view to safe guarding public and animal health while minimizing 
trade disruptions.  The European Communities noted that the new regime was similar to the previous 
one, but was more flexible in that on-the-spot inspection in third countries was optional.  The 
European Communities assured the United States that  prompt answers would be provided to all 
questions raised. 
13. European Communities - Maximum levels for certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in 
foodstuffs 
Raised by: Argentina, Australia, Bolivia , Brazil, The Gambia, India, Indonesia, 
Malaysia, Philippines, Senegal, Thailand 
Supported by: Canada, Colombia, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines 
(ASEAN), South Africa, Turkey, United States, Uruguay 
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras.  24-31), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras. 15-
19), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 11-14), November 1998 
(G/SPS/R/13, para. 26), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, paras. 64-66) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/51, G/SPS/GEN/50, G/SPS/GEN/52, G/SPS/GEN/54, 
G/SPS/GEN/55, G/SPS/GEN/56, G/SPS/GEN/57, G/SPS/GEN/58, 
G/SPS/GEN/61, G/SPS/GEN/62, G/SPS/GEN/63, G/SPS/GEN/93 
Solution (if reported): Maximum levels for so me products and sampling procedures revised. 
 
29. In March 1998, a number of countries argued that the EC proposal to set new maximum 
levels for aflatoxins would impo se severe restrictions on trade while not resulting in a significant 
reduction in health risk to consumers.  The pr oposal did not seem to be based on a proper risk 
assessment.  Furthermore, the proposed sampli ng procedure was unduly costly, burdensome and 
unjust.  Although an international standard on the subject did not yet exist, the Codex Committee on 
Food Additives and Contaminants ( CCFAC) was considering the matter.  The complaining Members 
felt that the timing was unfortunate, and urged the European Communities to review the proposed 
measure. 
30. The European Communities noted that there had been no consensus in the CCFAC on the 
issue; although many countries supported the Codex norm, the European Communities did not.  The proposed measure reflected the EC level of protection.   With regard to the sampling procedure, since 
contamination appeared in a small percentage of ke rnels, one simple sample was not sufficient to 
minimize risk to consumers.  The proposed methods were already used by some EC member States.  
The European Communities planned to evaluate th e comments received until May 1998 and formalize 
the proposal in June 1998.  The measure would enter into effect relatively shortly afterwards. 
31. In June 1998, the European Communities reported that it had forwarded a revised proposal to 
its member States.  The EC Standing Committ ee on Foodstuffs would consider the proposed 
modifications on 17-18 June 1998.  Apart from revi sing some of the maximum levels, the European G/SPS/GEN/204 
Page 12  
 
Communities was considering trans itional arrangements, and the new measures would not enter into 
force before 1 January 1999. 
32. In September 1998, Bolivia informed the Co mmittee that the proposed EC measure would 
have severe effects on Bolivian exports of Brazil nuts.  Bolivia requested to see the EC risk 
assessment, and indicated it was prepared to ente r into bilateral discussions with the European 
Communities in order to find a mutually agreeable  solution.  The United States encouraged the 
European Communities to take into account the recommendations contained in the FAO/WHO risk 
assessments establishing maximum levels for afla toxin in consumer-ready products.  The ASEAN 
countries expressed concern with maximum levels in milk, which would affect developing countries' 
feed exports. 
33. The European Communities noted that the dead line for comments had been extended to allow 
for further comments from Members.  The European  Communities had also revised its proposal, and 
was prepared to raise the proposed maximum levels in  nuts.  With regard to milk, the proposed EC 
levels were in line with the standards being discussed in Codex. 
34. In November 1998, the Chairman informed the Committee about bilateral consultations 
between Bolivia and the European Communities whic h he had been requested to facilitate.  The 
Chairman reported that the discussions had been very fruitful, and had helped Bolivia to better 
understand the rationale behind the EC measures, as  well as the EC procedures followed.  They had 
also helped the EC understanding of the potential effect of some of its measures on the Bolivian 
industry.  Technical consultations were continuing. 
35. In March 1999, Bolivia reported that it had presen ted a plan to improve its Brazil nuts, and 
consultations with the European Communities were ongoing.  Bolivia considered that this was a good 
case for the application of special and differential tr eatment.  Peru indicated that several countries had 
brought their problems with the new EC regulation on aflatoxins to the attention of the European Communities through their missions in Brussels, without having obtained a satisfactory response.  In particular, the European Communities had not presented a risk assessment.  The European 
Communities assured Bolivia that their common examin ation of the problem w ould continue through 
a rapid procedure.  In response to other Members,  the European Communities indicated that there had 
been ample time for comments, and that the prop osal had been revised in response to comments 
received.  On cereals, the European Communities was prepared to continue accepting comments until 
1 July 1999 and to modify the measure if there was scientific justification. 
14. European Communities – Trade restrictions in response to cholera 
Raised by: Tanzania 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras.  56-57), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras. 96-
99) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/4 
Solution (if reported): Measures revised. 
 
36. In March 1998, the European Communities in formed the Committee that it had taken 
safeguard measures with resp ect to imports of fruit, vegetables and fish products in light of a cholera 
outbreak in Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda and Mozambi que.  The inspection procedures in these countries 
had shown deficiencies, but the European Commun ities planned to consult with them to find 
arrangements by which they could put in force prope r hygiene requirements.  EC member States were 
trying to develop a joint cholera policy based on risk assessment.  The WHO observer did not 
consider the import ban necessary, especially on fish  products which were not consumed in raw form 
in Europe.  He drew attention to the WHO Guid ance on Foundation of National Policy and Control of  G/SPS/GEN/204 
 Page 13 
 
 
 Cholera , and particularly the conclusion in Chapter IX that:  "Although there is a theoretical risk of 
Cholera transmission associated with some food comm odities moving in international trade, this has 
rarely proved significant and authorities should seek me ans of dealing with it other than by applying 
an embargo on importation".  
37. In June 1998, Tanzania reported that the Eu ropean Communities continued to prohibit the 
importation of fresh, frozen and processed fishery products from the four African countries, although 
tests had not found the bacteria concerned.  Ta nzania stressed that the EC ban was having severe 
economic effects on the Tanzanian economy, and th at according to the SPS Agreement, Members 
should help developing countries comply with th eir SPS measures.  The European Communities 
responded that it was now satisfied the necessary gu arantees were in place, and that a new measure 
restoring trade with the four African countries would probably enter into force on 1 July 1998. 
15. Iceland's notification on meat and meat products  
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2000 (G/SPS/R/18, para. 27) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ISL/1 
Solution (if reported):  
 
38. Argentina expressed interest in the notifica tion of this measure permitting meat imports 
without heat treatment into Iceland since it appear ed to open the market to higher quality beef, 
although this was not entirely clear from the notifi cation.  Iceland confirmed that meat could be 
imported without heat treatment, provided all n ecessary certificates and documents were submitted. 
16. Korea – Import ban on frozen poultry 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1,  para. 45), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras. 
67-68), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras. 21-23), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 15-16) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/KOR/44 
Solution (if reported): Thailand's comments taken into account – measure amended. 
 
39. In October 1997, Thailand indicated that Ko rea had banned Thai frozen poultry because of 
listeria, although Korean experts had been satisfi ed after visiting facilities of the Thai poultry 
industry.  This ban had not been notified in advan ce.  Thailand was determined to resolve this matter 
with Korea. Korea asked for detailed information in writing. 
40. In March 1998, Thailand indicated that it had s ubmitted the requested information.  It sought 
clarification whether the measure was based on an international standard or on a risk assessment, 
particularly in light of information made av ailable by the WHO working group on food-borne 
listeriosis, which indicated that listeriosis had a ve ry low incidence in Asia.  Korea responded that its 
measure was not a ban, but that consignments had been rejected. 
41. In June 1998, Thailand noted that the proposed amendment to the Korean food code had been 
enacted retroactively to cover the disputed testi ng requirements and asked Korea not to enforce the 
testing requirements during the process of amendment of the food code.  Korea reported that bilateral 
consultations had been held.  The food code wa s being reviewed to improve food safety and to 
harmonize Korean regulations with international st andards.  All comments received were currently G/SPS/GEN/204 
Page 14  
 
being reviewed, although some delays had occurred.  Korea promised to inform Thailand of the final 
outcome. 
42. In September 1998, Thailand asked for confirmation that the Korean Food Code had been 
amended so that zero tolerance criteria for listeria would not apply to imported frozen chicken after 16 
June 1998.  Korea clarified that meat for further processing and cooking was excluded from the 
requirement and not subject to inspection un der the zero tolerance criteria for listeria. 
17. Korea – Shelf-life requirements  
Raised by: Australia, Canada, United States 
Supported by: Argentina, European Communities 
Dates raised: June 1995 (G/SPS/R/2, paras.  39-40), November 1995 (G/SPS/R/3, paras. 7-
8), May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5, paras. 42- 44), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras. 
20-21), July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, paras. 8- 9), October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, 
paras. 6-7) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/KOR/9, G/SPS/W/27, G/SPS/W/41, G/SPS/W/43, G/SPS/GEN/40 
Solution (if reported): The United States and Kor ea held formal consultations under dispute 
settlement (W/DS5), and notified a mutually agreed solution in July 1995.  
Canada initiated formal dispute settlement (W/DS20), and a mutually satisfactory solution was notified in April 1996.  
 43. In June 1995, the United States informed th e Committee of official consultations under 
Dispute settlement procedures with Korea regarding its government-mandated shelf-life requirements.  
Canada had joined these consultations.  Korea i ndicated that although consultations had been 
productive, there was a high degree of ambiguity in the implementation of the Agreement.  The 
parties had noted the lack of international standard s in the area, and countries maintained very diverse 
practices.  A mutually agreed solution was notifie d in July 1995.  In November 1995, the United 
States expressed serious concern that Korea was not implementing the agreed settlement. 
44. Also in November 1995, Canada indicated that  it had initiated formal  consultations with 
Korea related to shelf-life determination for bottled water and the prohibition of the use of ozonation.  
Korea confirmed that bottled water was excluded fro m the settlement reached with the United States, 
but was willing to enter into consultations with Ca nada.  A mutually satisfactory solution was notified 
in April 1996. 
45. In May 1996 Canada noted th at although a formal understanding had been reached with 
regard to some concerns regarding shelf-life, probl ems with the shelf life of bottled water continued.  
Korea had not offered any time-table for moving to a manufacturer-determined shelf life on bottled 
water.  Korea took note of this concern.  In Ju ly 1997, Canada reported that the matter had been 
pursued bilaterally, but no resolution had been found. 
46. In May 1996, Australia expressed serious concern with regard to Korea's shelf-life regulations 
on ultra heat treated milk in consumer packs (UHT  milk), which remained government mandated at a 
period substantially shorter than that applied in most countries.  Australia was unaware of any 
scientific justification for this limited shelf-life pe riod, and requested Korea to permit a manufacturer-
determined shelf life by 1 July 1996.  Korea took note of these concerns. 
47. In March 1997, Australia reported that Ko rea had yet to implement a manufacturer-
determined shelf life for UHT milk.  Australia ha d provided a scientific submission to Korean in 
November 1996, which had not been accepted.  S ubsequently, Australia had provided another 
submission upon request.  Korea indicated that it was reviewing the information provided by Australia  G/SPS/GEN/204 
 Page 15 
 
 
 and noted that its new system for shelf-life determ ination set a time-frame for the implementation of 
manufacturer-determined shelf-life period for UHT milk. 
48. In July 1997, Australia noted that Korea had not provided any justification for its non-
acceptance of manufacturer-determined shelf life, a nd requested an explanation in accordance with 
Article 5.8.  Korea indicated that manufacturer-det ermined shelf life would be applied to UHT milk 
before the end of 1998.  In October 1997, Australia  indicated that it had not received a satisfactory 
answer from Korea.  Korea replied that it was reviewing the possibility of extending the current 
mandatory shelf-life period for UHT milk even befo re manufacturer-determined shelf life applied at 
the end of 1998. 
18. Malaysia and Singapore - Notifications related to dioxin  
Raised by: Switzerland 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para. 16) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/MYS/6, G/SPS/N/SGP/7 
Solution (if reported): Problems with Malaysia r esolved, reported to be close to solution with 
Singapore in July 1999. 
 49. Switzerland expressed concern that it had been affected by restrictions on imports of 
European goods in response to the dioxin crisis in Belgium.  Some Members had not targeted their 
measures only to affected areas.  Switzerland reporte d that a solution had been found with Malaysia, 
and that the last few problems with Singapore would be resolved soon. 
19. Poland - Requirements for imports of milk and milk products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 70-71) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/POL/14 
Solution (if reported):  
 
50. The European Communities indicated that the Po lish sanitary requirements for milk and milk 
products resulted in unjustified trade distortions sin ce they required the application of heat treatment 
to products which were produced with raw milk.  The European Communities felt that there were 
equivalent procedures to ensure that Poland's le vel of protection was met, and invited Poland to 
engage in bilateral discussions on this measure.  Poland indicated that the EC request would be 
considered. 
20. Spain – Restriction on levels of copper and cadmium in imported squid 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Argentina 
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, par as. 16-17), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 56) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution (if reported):  
 
51. In October 1996, the United States noted that the Spanish regulation on levels of copper and 
other minerals in imported squid was discrim inatory since domestic and EC products were 
specifically exempted.  The European Communities replied that the scientific justification for 
imposing such a measure came from a WHO recommenda tion on maximum weekly intakes of metal.  G/SPS/GEN/204 
Page 16  
 
Harmonization of the permitted levels of various  metals across the European Communities was 
currently being discussed in Brussels.  Argen tina observed that the problem was not one of 
harmonization, but of national treatment. 
52. In March 1997, the United States recalled the di scriminatory nature of the measure.  The 
European Communities explained that although the norm only referred to third countries, in practice it 
was recognized by EC member States as well.  In addition, the majority of squid imported into Spain 
came from outside the European Communities.  Sin ce Spain had a particularly high consumption of 
the products in question, this had to be taken into account in addition to WHO recommendations.   
21. Switzerland -  Notifications regarding import requirements on meat and eggs 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Ch ile, Hungary, India, Israel, New Zealand 
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 39-41), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, 
paras. 29-30) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHE/14 a nd Corr.1, G/SPS/N/CHE/15, G/SPS/N/CHE/16 
Solution (if reported):  
 
53. In September 1998, the United States expressed concern that Swiss regulations on meat from 
animals treated with hormones, antibiotics and si milar products imported under the Swiss tariff rate 
quota (TRQ) were not based on science or risk assessme nt.  The fact that different requirements were 
applied to meat imported outside the tariff rate quot a called into question the validity of the alleged 
public health objective behind the regulation.  Th e United States indicated it was preparing formal 
comments and encouraged other Members to carefully consider the implications of the notified measure.  Canada noted that the purpose of the m easure was consumer information, yet the measure 
did not make it clear if labelling was carried through to the retail level.  Switzerland noted that thirty 
days were left of the comment period, and that all comments made would be taken into account when 
drafting the final proposal. 
54. In November 1998, the United States reiterated its  concerns regarding restrictions on meat 
imports under the Swiss TRQ, and added that the measure notified as G/SPS/N/CHE/15 would 
prohibit imports of eggs and egg products from bi rds raised in battery cages under the TRQ.  Such 
imports would be permitted outside the TRQ, subject  to prohibitively high duties, strict labelling and 
additional certification requirements.  The proposed regulations did not indicate what public health 
objective was involved.  The United States was con cerned that the measures did not appear to be 
based on a risk assessment.  Discrimination betw een products imported under the TRQ and outside 
the TRQ was unjustified.  Switzerland explained that  the measures related to the implementation of 
the new Swiss Federal Law on Agriculture of 29 Ap ril 1998.  Swiss authorities were still discussing 
the implementation of the Law, and questions  and comments would be taken into account. 
22. United States - Notification G/SPS/N/US A/133 on refrigeration and labelling 
requirements for shell eggs 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 37-38) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/133 
Solution (if reported):  
 
55. The European Communities queried whether the US measure was based on a risk assessment, 
and if this risk assessment was available.  Th e European Communities s ought written clarification 
from the United States regarding the non-application of the measure to units with 3000 hens or less,  G/SPS/GEN/204 
 Page 17 
 
 
 and asked the United States to explain the discrim ination between foreign and domestic eggs.  The 
European Communities also enquired whether the Un ited States would accept equivalent measures.  
The United States responded that the risk assessment was available on the internet, but that a copy 
would be provided to the European Communities.  The United States welcomed the EC request for 
consideration of equivalence, and indicated that answers to the mo re technical questions would be 
provided in due course. 
II. ANIMAL HEALTH AND ZOONOSES 
A. ISSUES RELATED TO TSE S 
23. Argentina – Import restrictions on bo vine semen, milk and milk products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, par as. 17-18), July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, paras 23-
24) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ARG/37, G/SPS/N/ARG/38, G/SPS/N/ARG/47, Corr.1 and Rev.1, 
G/SPS/GEN/114, G/SPS/GEN/131, G/SPS/GEN/135 
Solution (if reported): Measure revised  and notified (G/SPS/N/ARG/47/Rev.1). 
 
56. In March 1999, the European Communities noted it had been unable to obtain the text of 
Argentina's measure on bovine semen imports , and was submitting a series of questions.  Argentina 
indicated that the measure had been notified (G/SPS/N/ARG/37).  It clarified that the request for the full text of the measure had not been received from the Commission, but from several EC member States.  Argentina to send the relevant  document to the European Commission. 
57. In July 1999, the European Communities ag ain expressed concern re garding Argentina's 
BSE-related restrictions on bovine semen, milk  and milk products.  G/SPS/N/ARG/38 concerned a 
draft measure which classified these products as lo w-risk products.  Subs equently notified import 
requirements (G/SPS/N/ARG/47) established country freedom from BSE or low BSE risk as preconditions for importing frozen bovine semen, although according to the OIE, bovine semen from 
healthy animals could be traded without BSE-re lated restrictions.  The European Communities 
indicated that it had received no answers to the que stions raised in March 1999, and raised several 
new questions. 
58. Argentina replied that it had provided answers to the EC questions both bilaterally and in 
G/SPS/GEN/135.  Argentina had received sever al comments on the measure notified in 
G/SPS/N/ARG/47, and had taken these comments into account.  Argentina was planning to issue a revision of G/SPS/N/ARG/47, and was committed to continue exchanging information with the 
European Communities to resolve all questi ons before the measure was adopted.   G/SPS/GEN/204 
Page 18  
 
24. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Br azil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, 
Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, United States and others – Measures related to BSE 
Raised by: Switzerland 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5 and Corr.1,  paras. 6-9), October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, 
para. 53), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras.  56), July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, paras. 
10-19), October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Re v.1, para. 15-17), March 1998 
(G/SPS/R/10, para. 9), June 1998 (G/ SPS/R/11, para. 29), September 1998 
(G/SPS/R/12, para. 26-30), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 17-18), 
March 1998 (G/SPS/R/14, para. 14), Ma rch 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, para. 8) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/56, G/SPS/N/AUS/57, G/SPS/N/CAN/18, G/SPS/N/CHL/1, 
G/SPS/N/CHL/6, G/SPS/N/CHL/31, G/SPS/N/CZE/14, G/SPS/W/68, G/SPS/W/79, G/SPS/GN/5, G/SPS/GEN/71 
Solution (if reported): Slovak transit ban removed, mutually satisfactory solu tion found with regard 
to Slovak importation of Swiss milk  and milk products; Chilean import 
measure modified; some other measures withdrawn/revised. 
 59. In May 1996, Switzerland presented informati on on its BSE situation,  and noted that a 
number of countries had restricted imports of dairy products, although both the OIE and the WHO 
concluded that dairy products posed no risk in  respect of BSE.  In October 1996, Switzerland 
provided an update of its sanitary prescriptions, culli ng and veterinary measures to be adopted at the 
border.   In March 1997, Switzerland indicated th at although it was a country of low incidence of 
BSE, it had been subject to a number of BSE-relate d trade restrictions, some of which could not be 
justified under WTO rules.  The Chairman agreed to hold informal consulta tions with interested 
Members on 21 March 1997. 
60. In July 1997, Switzerland reported that alt hough there had been some positive developments, 
problems remained.  Switzerland addressed some questions to the Members concerned, stressing its 
interest to find rapid solution through bilateral di scussions.  Argentina informed the Committee that it 
had replied to Swiss questions and would pr ovide more information; Switzerland expressed 
satisfaction with this progress.  Brazil noted that  its import prohibition of bovine semen was based on 
the classification of bovine semen as a medium risk  product, and on Brazil's BSE-free status.  At the 
subsequent meeting of the relevant MERCOSUR work ing group in July 1997, Brazil would attempt to 
reclassify bovine semen as low risk. 
61. Canada noted that there had been no changes to its import conditions for the importation of 
live cattle, bovine embryos, bovine semen, bovine m eat or meat products from Switzerland, although 
a draft document on BSE policies was being discussed.  Canada was receiving comments on its draft measure, which would be in accordance with the OI E Code.  Canada was concerned with the lack of 
quantitative or qualitative parameters for the diffe rentiation between countri es with high and low 
incidence of BSE, and re-extended an  invitation for bilateral discussions. 
62. The United States stressed that it did not proh ibit the importation of meat.  BSE-related 
measures were subject to continued review based on scientific evidence, which, for example, had led 
to the opening of trade in bovine semen, altho ugh other matters remained unresolved.  The United 
States remained open to scientific discussion in th e area.  Switzerland noted that the United States 
required certification for dried meat, and hoped that the reviewed US policies would be in line with 
OIE recommendations. 
63. Romania informed the Committee that it had held bilateral discussions with Switzerland.  Its 
policies were in line with OIE recommendations, and would be notified shortly.  Switzerland  G/SPS/GEN/204 
 Page 19 
 
 
 expressed satisfaction with the results of bilateral ta lks.  Poland noted that imports to Poland were 
carried out on the grounds of individual import perm issions, but that no application had been received 
from Switzerland.  Switzerland requested bilateral cl arifications.  Singapore indicated that countries 
exporting beef were required to certify BSE-freedom fo r six years.  It believed this measure to be 
consistent with the SPS Agreement, and planned to notify it shortly. 
64. The Czech Republic was concerned about con tinued occurrence of BSE in Switzerland, 
especially since the Czech Republic was BSE-free.  However, imports of bovine semen, brain and 
embryos from Switzerland were not restricted.  The Czech Republic would prefer to continue 
discussion at the level of veterinary experts.  The European Communities noted that measures were 
taken on a national basis by EC member States, but we re screened for conformity with EC law before 
being notified to WTO.  In the case of BSE, this  had taken more time than expected, and although 
there was no common position within the European Communities, changes to the policy were being 
considered.  The European Communities indicat ed it was going beyond OIE recommendations, and 
indicated that it would be useful to conti nue discussions with the relevant experts. 
65. In October 1997, Switzerland indicated that its BSE-situation was improving, but that 
numerous restrictions continued to affect Swiss e xports of live cattle, genetic material, meat, and in 
certain cases milk products.  Bilate ral consultations were continuing.   Switzerland questioned why the 
Australian quarantine requirements for the importa tion of bovine embryos and semen applied to 
Switzerland only, and whether countries with actu al BSE incidents were subject to similar 
requirements.  Switzerland also wondered why the ob jective of the new requirements was to "develop 
import requirements…based on intern ational standards", whereas the notification indicated that no 
international standard existed.  Australia replied that it had developed generic conditions for 
importation of ruminants and rumi nant genetic material from member States of the European 
Communities, but had established bila teral conditions with other tradi ng partners.  The conditions in 
the notified draft requirements for Switzerland were in accordance with Australia's general import policy relating to BSE promulgated in January 1995, and were equiva lent to BSE requirements for all 
other countries.  International standards existed and Australia did not consider that the notified draft 
measures deviated from such standards. 
66. Switzerland questioned why the Czech import restri ction on imports of cattle over six months 
applied to Switzerland only, and whether countries w ith actual BSE incidents were subject to similar 
requirements.  The Czech Republic replied that an  individual import permit was required for traders 
interested in importing goods subject to veterinary  control, including live animals.  The Czech 
authorities considered the epizootic situation in the country of origin, frequency of newly found cases 
of contagious diseases, efficiency of eradication programmes, etc.  The import approach was always 
the same and included discussion with the veterinary authorities of the country of origin.  The system 
distinguished between countries with sporadic positiv e cases and those with continued occurrence of 
cases, like Switzerland.  Although the measur es in place in Switzerland corresponded to OIE 
recommendations, they had not fully eliminated BSE-related risks, and had not prevented new 
infections.  Unlike other countries, Switzerland sla ughtered and destroyed only BSE-affected animals, 
not all animals kept and fed in the same place.  Such animals could be considered as a source of 
disease.  Trade between the Czech Republic a nd the European Commun ities was based on EC 
measures which represented a higher rate of preven tion than the OIE recommendations.  The Czech 
Republic offered to continue bilate ral discussions with Switzerland. 
67. In March 1998, Switzerland reported that most  BSE-related measures against its exports 
remained in place although they deviated from OI E recommendations.  However, some Members had 
eliminated or revised their measures, especially on genetic products.  With respect to the European 
Communities, Switzerland hoped that recent developments would lead to a more predictable situation.  
In June 1998, Switzerland and the Slovak Republic reported on pr ogress achieved during G/SPS/GEN/204 
Page 20  
 
consultations and in September 1998, Switzerland reported that the transit ban had been removed, 
although discussions on market access fo r dairy products continued.  
68. In September 1998, Switzerland re iterated concerns with import prohibitions on Swiss bovine 
semen, which seemed to contradict WTO provision s regarding non-discrimination, risk assessment, 
notification and consultation.  Switzerland was still awaiting answers to its detailed questions to the 
relevant Members, or re-admission of Swiss expor ts.  The European Communities reported on useful 
bilateral contacts with Switzerland, and indicated that the European Communities was undertaking an 
inventory of all national BSE-rela ted measures in order to notify them.  In addition, the European 
Communities would propose that EC member Stat es harmonize their conditions for import from 
Switzerland.  Chile indicated that, based on OIE recommendations on BSE, it had authorized bovine 
semen imports from France and was processing a re quest from the United Kingdom.  No official 
request to export bovine semen ha d been received from Switzerland. 
69. In November 1998, Switzerland and the Slovak Rep ublic reported that they were close to a 
short-term solution regarding the Slovak import ban on Swiss dairy.  In the longer term, a few 
technical issues remained to be settled.  In Ma rch 1999, Switzerland informed the Committee that a 
mutually satisfactory solution regarding Slovak import ation of Swiss milk and milk products had been 
found.  Chile reported that its measure affecti ng imports of bovine semen had been modified. 
25. Canada - Zoosanitary import policies pertaining to BSE 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras. 24-25) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CAN/18 
Solution (if reported):  
 
70. The European Communities argued that the Canadian policy went beyond what could be 
scientifically justified, and was furthermore not in  conformity with the OIE Code.  The European 
Communities noted that (i) no distinction was made between high and low incidence countries;  (ii) 
there were provisions for whole-herd slaughter and slaughter of mother as well as of progeny despite 
BSE not being considered as a herd disease and unfina lized investigations on maternal transmission; 
and, (iii) the Canadian policy required BSE to have been notifiable for six years under an active 
surveillance programme and that imports would be  allowed only after six years of absence of the 
disease.  Also, the proposed policy implied that Canada would not accept meat from any country 
which had imported meat and bone meal from a c ountry which had a case of BSE.  Under these 
conditions only one EC member Stat e would qualify to export meat to Canada.  Canada explained that 
while the BSE policy was already in force, some  changes were proposed.  It was on these draft 
changes that comments were being sought.  The time for comments would be extended. 
26. European Communities – Measures related to BSE 
71. In May and October 1996, the European Comm unities informed the SPS Committee about the 
development of BSE, and the measures taken2.  This information is contained in G/SPS/W/67 and 
G/SPS/GN/8. 
72. In June 2000, the European Communities reminde d the Committee that since the inception of 
the 1996 BSE crisis, several countries had banned impor ts of a range of bovine products, including 
milk, milk products and bovine se men.  Although no Member was main taining restrictions on milk 
and milk products due to BSE, several Members were still applying import restrictions on bovine 
semen.  The European Communities was very concerned about the leg itimacy of the restrictions and 
                                                      
2 G/SPS/R/5 and Corr.1, paras. 6-9 and G/SPS/R/6, para. 53; see also G/SPS/N/EEC/30.  G/SPS/GEN/204 
 Page 21 
 
 
 reserved the right to take any necessary action with rega rds to unjustified trade barriers.  The nature of 
the EC concerns were detailed in G/SPS/GEN/187. 
(a) Cosmetics and BSE 
Raised by: Australia 
Supported by: Brazil, United States, Chile 
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras. 61-62), July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, paras. 22-24) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/20, G/SPS/N/EEC/43 
Solution (if reported):  
 
73. Australia expressed concern regarding an EC me asure specifying that cosmetics containing 
certain bovine, ovine and caprine tissues etc. should not be placed on the market.  This directive did 
not recognize the animal health status of supplyi ng countries.  The European Communities stressed 
that since BSE surveillance was still under developm ent and since detection was difficult, there was 
considerable uncertainty surrounding the global prevalence of BSE.  All comments received by the deadline would be taken into account, and the regula tion would enter into force on 1 July 1997.  In 
July 1998, the United States stressed  that the measure would reduce or eliminate US exports of tallow 
derivatives, soaps and cosmetics.  The European  Communities clarified that in light of WHO 
recommendations, measures had to be taken to redu ce the risk of transmission of TSEs to humans 
through the food or feed chain, pharmaceuticals or cosmetics.  Regarding BSE-freedom, the European 
Communities was not prepared to recognize any country as BSE-free, taking into account the difficulties of certifying such a status. 
(b) Rules on "specified risk materials" in products of animal origin 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Argentina, Australia, Brazil,  Canada, Chile, Colombia, Czech Republic, 
Mexico, New Zealand, Uruguay, Switzerland 
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev. 1, paras. 10-14), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, 
paras. 13-19), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras. 34-38) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/36, G/SPS/GEN/45, G/SPS/GEN/67 
Solution (if reported):  
 
74. In October 1997, the United States raised concerns with Decision 97/534 EC banning the use 
of certain specified risk materials, which might cause international shortages of needed medical 
products and have a major restrictive impact on trade in tallow and derivatives, gelatine, 
pharmaceuticals and many food products.  This ban se emed to be more restrictive than necessary to 
achieve its public health objectives, especially as it applied to the United States and other regions 
where BSE was not known to exist.  The European Communities indicated that since scientific studies 
had shown that its previous measures might not be su fficient, it had raised its level of protection.  
Members who considered themselves to present no risk with regard to TSEs could present an 
application for examination by the EC Scientific Committee.  Argentina indicated that in its view, 
measures which failed to distinguish between countri es infected with BSE and countries not infected 
were contrary to the OIE recommendations and the SPS Agreement.  He distributed copies of a BSE 
risk analysis.3 
                                                      
3 Argentine Scientific Advisory Committee on Bovine Sp ongiform Encephalopathy (1st Meeting), April 7-8-9-10, 
1997, Buenos Aires, Argentina, "Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentación".  G/SPS/GEN/204 
Page 22  
 
75. In March 1998, the United States reiterated that the European Communities should recognize 
the BSE-free status of the United States and other regions.  Several delegations welcomed the EC 
decision to provide additional time to review al l the scientific evidence and other important 
implications of the proposed measure and provide d comments.  The European Communities clarified 
that entry into force of its measure had been post poned from 1 April to 1 July 1998, and that BSE-free 
countries could apply for an additiona l derogation until 1 January 1999. 
76. In June 1998, the European Communities reporte d that EC member States were still unable to 
reach a common position on the issue, and that the EC  Decision would therefore not enter into force 
until 1 January 1999.  In the meantime, member Stat es had introduced a number of measures.  The EC 
Commission was also submitting new legislati on for approval, taking into account the OIE 
classification of countries with respect to BSE. 
(c) Gelatin imports 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by: Argentina, Australia, Chile, Mexico, Thailand, United States 
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev. 1, paras. 8-9), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, 
para. 16), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/ 12, paras. 22-23), November 1998 
(G/SPS/R/13, para. 19), July 1999 (G /SPS/R/15, paras. 9-11), November 
1999 (G/SPS/R/17, paras. 6-7), Marc h 2000 (G/SPS/R/18, paras. 21-22) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/133, G/SPS/N/EEC/74 
Solution (if reported):  
 
77. In October 1997, Brazil indicated that its gela tin exports had been negatively affected by 
French requirements for specific production methods , which in Brazil's view lacked scientific 
justification.  Where BSE had been diagnosed, raw materials for gelatin were considered low risk 
products.  In addition, there had never been a cas e of BSE in Brazil.  Th e European Communities 
responded that the French decision had been taken in the expectation of EC provisions which would 
introduce conditions related to microbiological an d chemical criteria, and minimum requirements 
related to BSE.  The OIE Code required certain prov isions which in the EC view Brazil did not fulfill, 
and Brazil had not presented an application to the European Communities to request recognition of its 
TSE-free status. 
78. Brazil reiterated its concerns in March 1998, and indicated that an EC questionnaire on 
animal feeding in Brazil would soon be officially pr ovided to the EC authorities.  In September 1998, 
Brazil reported that despite numerous bilateral ta lks, no progress had been made.  The European 
Communities noted that the origin of the problem wa s that Brazil considered itself as BSE-free, while 
in the EC view no country could be designated as B SE-free.  Both countries agreed that there had 
been some misunderstandings and were willing to  resolve them through further contacts.  In 
November 1998, Brazil welcomed a new French decision which took into account some of the Brazilian comments, and urged France to implement these new requirements as soon as possible. 
79. In July 1999, Brazil acknowledged the EC notifi cation on the matter, but remained concerned 
as its gelatin exports were still interrupted.  The proposed EC legislation, which was not based on a 
risk assessment, would severely impact the ability of  non-European countries to supply gelatin to the 
EC market.  Brazil asked that the European Communities accept other countries' measures as 
equivalent.  The European Communities explaine d its new measure, and invited all Members to 
comment in writing.  In November 1999, Both Members reported that they had decided to pursue the 
matter bilaterally.  In March 2000, Brazil a nd the European Comm unities made a joint 
communication announcing that cons trictive consultations had taken place, and that the European 
Communities would evaluate the relevant documentation provided by Brazil.  G/SPS/GEN/204 
 Page 23 
 
 
 27. France – Certification requirements for pet food 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Chile 
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras. 7-8), July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, paras. 20-21) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/18 
Solution (if reported):  
 
80. In March 1997, the United States expressed conc ern with regard to French certification 
requirements adopted under national legislation whic h blocked US exports of pet food and had not 
been notified to WTO.  Bilateral exchanges with  France had produced no progress.  The European 
Communities regretted that their internal procedur e for notification of national measures had delayed 
notification of the French measure in question.  The measure had been based on discussions and 
recommendations at the EC Commission level, r ecommendations by the WHO, as well as parallel 
scientific discussions in the United Kingdom and France. 
81. In July 1997, the United States again raised c oncerns with the French measure for protection 
from TSEs.  The measure did not account for the fact  that the United States was BSE-free, and did not 
seem to have a scientific basis.  Furthermore, the measure applied to species not affected by TSEs, 
such as poultry and fish.  Chile expressed concern re garding the effect the regulation might have on 
trade in fishmeal.  The European Communities point ed out a few inaccuracies in the US document, 
and noted that the provisions banning the use of  frozen animals or animal cadavers were not 
necessarily addressing health issues, but image and qua lity, and were therefore not strictly relevant 
under the SPS Agreement.  Discussion of the matter  continued within the European Communities. 
28. India – Import restrictions on bovine semen 
Raised by: Canada, European Communities 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, para. 19), (G/SPS/R/18, paras. 23-25), June 2000 
(G/SPS/R/19, paras. 24-25) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/113 
Solution (if reported):  
 
82. In March 1999, the European Communities indi cated that bilateral contact with India 
regarding import restrictions on bo vine semen had not been successful, and submitted a list of specific 
questions.  In March 2000, the European Communitie s reported that no information had been received 
from India, although there had been some bilatera l and multilateral contacts.  India presented some 
information to the EC delegate at that time. 
83. In March 2000, Canada expressed concern that  India was banning imports of bovine semen 
from Canada because of BSE concerns, although Ca nada was BSE-free, and although BSE was not 
transmissible through semen according to the OIE.  India clarified that the measure was a licensing 
process, not a ban, which had been imposed to avoi d inadvertent introduction of BSE or scrapie into 
India.  India had prepared a questionnaire for its tr ading partners and was planning to carry out a risk 
assessment based on the responses.  The representative of India indicated that he would bring the 
Canadian concerns to the attention of his authoriti es in order to solve the problem bilaterally as soon 
as possible. 
84. In June 2000, Canada informed the Committee that bilateral consultations had failed to 
resolve the matter, and that India continued to rest rict Canadian exports of bovine semen despite (i)  
Canada being BSE-free, (ii) OIE confirmation that BSE was not transmissible through semen, (iii) the G/SPS/GEN/204 
Page 24  
 
OIE specifically not calling for restrictions on trad e in bovine semen, and (iv) the absence of a risk 
assessment to justify India's ban on bovine semen.  Ca nada asked that India remove this restriction.  
India noted that recent bilateral consultations had b een helpful and that efforts were being made to 
find a solution to the dispute. 
29. Israel - Notification G/SPS/N/ISR/2 on TSE-rel ated import restrictions of live cattle  
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Switzerland 
Dates raised: November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 35-36) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ISR/2 
Solution (if reported):  
 
85. The European Communities said that it was not entirely clear how Israel categorized 
countries' BSE status, and that the notification did not provide sufficient information.  It listed a 
number of requirements which appeared not to  be justified, and were not based on OIE 
recommendations.  The European Communities requested  an explanation of the notified legislation, 
and submitted a number of questions for written comment by Israel.  Israel requested the EC questions 
in writing. 
30. Israel – Measures affecting imports of bovine meat 
Raised by: Uruguay 
Supported by: Argentina, Brazil 
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras.  9-11), July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, para. 6) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution (if reported):  
 
86. In March 1997, Uruguay indicated that Israel had adopted BSE-related measures, including 
requirements that bovine meat come from cattle with a maximum age of 36 months, which had not 
been notified to WTO.  Since the measure did not  take into account the sanitary conditions in the 
country of origin, the potential effect on bilateral tr ade was serious.  Israel replied that it had notified 
exporting countries of the planned measure which w as based on a questionnaire  circulated to beef 
exporting countries.  Israel took note of the concer ns expressed.  In July 1997, Uruguay reported that 
bilateral consultation were taking place a nd that progress had been satisfactory. 
31. Poland - Notifications on veterinary meas ures and measures on animal products 
including gelatin 
Raised by: Switzerland, United States 
Supported by: Brazil, European Communities 
Dates raised: June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras.  48-49), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 
46-48) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/POL/3, G/SPS/N/POL/5, G/SPS/N/POL/13, G/SPS/N/POL/14 and 
Add.1 
Solution (if reported):  
 87. In June 1998, the United States sought clarificatio n of the status of this temporary ban, its 
scientific basis, and whether future amendments were being considered.  Brazil, the European 
Communities, Switzerland and the United States e xpressed hope that the disease status of the 
supplying country, scientific factors related to th e infectivity of gelatin and gelatin-containing 
products, as identified by the OIE, and non-discr imination between supplie rs with similar BSE 
conditions would all be taken into account in future  amendments.  Poland indicated that the measure  G/SPS/GEN/204 
 Page 25 
 
 
 in question would remain in force until the end of  June 1998, and would be replaced by a measure 
reflecting the present state of scientific knowledge.  Regarding different treatment of Switzerland, the 
United Kingdom and Ireland, the new regulations  had not yet been adopted by the Polish 
Government.  Poland committed to providing a response on the basis of written questions from 
Switzerland. 
88. In September 1998, Switzerland reported on info rmal consultations w ith Poland regarding 
border measures in relation to BSE which diffe rentiated only between countries with a higher 
incidence of BSE and those of low inciden ce.  This constituted a departure from OIE 
recommendations, which also took into account surve illance and prevention systems.  The European 
Communities indicated that imports from herds wi thout BSE history should be accepted even for 
products in the highest risk category.  Poland explai ned that the measure had been taken in relation to 
the BSE situation in the concerned countries.   Bilateral consultations we re ongoing with the United 
Kingdom, Ireland and Switzerland.  The BSE situat ion was under permanent surveillance and all 
results would be taken into account during th e year-end review of Poland's regulations. 
32. South Africa - Prohibition on bone-in beef imports from member States of the European 
Communities 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras.  32-33), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12 and 
Corr.1, paras. 19-21) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ZAF/2, G/SPS/GEN/95 
Solution (if reported):  
 
89. In March 1998, the European Communities noted that the South African ban on beef imports 
applied to all EC member States.  This was unjustif ied in light of measures taken at EC and national 
level in countries were BSE cases had occurred.  In addition, South African requirements were not in 
accordance with OIE standards.  South Africa stress ed that the European Communities were a major 
supplier of meat to South Africa, and that South Africa had no interest in having consumers consider 
EC meat as unsafe.  However, South Africa wanted to maintain its BSE-free status, and protect human 
and animal health.  South Africa invited the Eu ropean Communities to provide written comments. 
90. In September 1998, the European Communities agai n raised this issue.  South Africa replied 
that written comments from the European Communiti es had only recently been received.  In March 
and July 1998, South Africa had provided to the European Communities a written explanation of the 
measure in question.  Furthermore, South Afri ca had reiterated its invitation to the European 
Communities to submit evidence which would permit a re-evaluation of its decision, possibly on an 
individual EC member State basis.  In accordance with Article 5.7, South Africa would review its 
measure in the light of additional information.  The European Communities recognized that it had yet 
to provide a written reply to South Africa's request  for information, and welcomed the invitation for 
bilateral discussions of the issue. 
33. United States – Measures related to BSE 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Argentina, Chile, New Zealand, Switzerland 
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/ 10, paras. 10-12), June 1998 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/66, G/SPS/N/USA/106 
Solution (if reported):  
 G/SPS/GEN/204 
Page 26  
 
91. In March 1998, the European Communities compla ined that recent US measures were neither 
in conformity with the SPS Agreement nor with the OIE, and were singling out Europe.  The 
European Communities rejected US claims that inadequate surveillance in relation to BSE was a 
problem within the European Communities and indi cated that the European  Communities was about 
to introduce a harmonized surveillance system.  The United States replied that it was receiving 
numerous comments to its interim measure, which was intended to protect animal and consumer 
health from BSE in light of the unclear information on the distribution of BSE on the European Continent.  Trade would resume when the countries in  question had systems that met US criteria.  The 
United States would evaluate the data submitted,  and would take the necessary measures based on 
science and risk assessment.  Argentina noted that BSE was a European problem with important 
potential consequences for the rest of the world, a nd that it required a joint effort of political and 
scientific authorities to find a solution based on th e available knowledge to avoid unnecessary trade 
disruption. 
92. In June 1998, the European Communities drew attention to the recent OIE indication that 
when a country had no native cases of BSE and surve illance systems were in place for seven years, 
trade in meat could take place.   The OIE also pr ovided the basis on which trade could take place with 
countries of low incidence of BSE.  The criteria on which US decisions would be based were still not 
clear to the European Communities.  The United States announced that comments and information 
received were being incorporated into the risk assessment, taking into account the discussions in the 
OIE framework.  The updated rule would soon be  published and notified, and responses would be 
provided to all comments received.  
B. 
ISSUES RELATED TO FOOD -AND-MOUTH DISEASE (FMD) 
34. Japan - Measures regarding FMD 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, para. 46) 
Relevant document(s): G/TBT/Notif.97.357 
Solution (if reported):  
 
93. Argentina raised questions on the notified TBT measure, which authorized imports of FMD 
inactivated vaccine (but only the O type of FM D inactivated virus), and exempted traders from 
undergoing the usual approval procedures.  Three c ountries were designated as suppliers: Germany, 
the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.  Argentin a sought clarification regarding (a) the current 
FMD-status of Japan since the decision to import FMD vaccines took effect; (b) the criteria used to 
designate only three sources of supply; (c) whether Japan considered itself a "zero-risk" country and 
whether a risk assessment had been  carried out in support of this "zero-risk" status; and (d) since 
Argentina was declared free of FMD with vaccina tion by the OIE, how Japan viewed its current 
policy not to import Argentine meat.  Japan explaine d that the notified measure was an amendment to 
the approval procedures regarding the import of vacc ines for emergencies.  It was a precautionary 
measure following the outbreak of FMD in Chinese  Taipei in March 1997.  Argentina indicated it 
would provide its questions in writing to Japan.   G/SPS/GEN/204 
 Page 27 
 
 
 35. Korea – Import restrictions on beef 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, paras. 13-14) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/109 and G/SPS/GEN/130 
Solution (if reported):  
 
94. Argentina raised concerns regarding Korea's denial of access to Argentine beef without 
specifying its sanitary requirements or visiting Argen tina to verify its sanitary status.  Korea replied 
that since it  had been free of FMD for 60 years, it applied very strict requirements.  Korea believed it 
was acting consistently with OIE recommendations, and offered to discuss the matter bilaterally. 
36. Mexico - Import restrictions on beef 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para. 12) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/109 and G/SPS/GEN/129 
Solution (if reported):  
 
95. Argentina indicated it had not received a satisfact ory answer to repeated requests that Mexico 
provide information on its specific sanitary requi rements for beef imports and the related risk 
assessments.  Argentina recalled that it was free of FMD.  Mexico took note of Argentina's concerns 
and expressed hope to resolve the matter bilaterally. 
37. Norway – Restrictions on gelatin imports 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1996 (G/SPS/R/4, para . 47), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 24-
25), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 19-20) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution (if reported): Import conditions clarified. 
 
96. In March 1996, Brazil informed the Committee th at Norway had halted the issuance of import 
licenses for Brazilian gelatin because of the existence of FMD in Brazil.  Consultations with Norway 
had been initiated in 1995, and Norwegian aut horities had reportedly declared the problem was 
solved.  Nevertheless, import licenses continued to be  denied.  Norway stated that the ban on gelatin 
imports from Brazil would be lifted in the context of recent changes to import regulations.  The two 
Members agreed to continue their consultations. 
97. In September 1998, Brazil reported that bilatera l contacts had not resulted in a lifting of the 
ban.  Norway explained the conditions it applied to imports of Brazilian gelatin, and stated that 
applications fulfilling these conditions would be  accepted.  In November 1998, Brazil thanked 
Norway for having clarified its import requirement s.  Brazil would have no problem meeting these 
requirements and looked forward to r esuming its gelatin exports to Norway. G/SPS/GEN/204 
Page 28  
 
38. Turkey – Import ban on livestock 
Raised by: United States, Hungary 
Supported by: Australia, European Communities, New Zealand, Uruguay 
Dates raised: June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, para. 33), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12,  
paras. 7-10), June 2000 (G/SPS/R/19, paras. 12-14) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution (if reported):  
 98. In June 1998, the United States sought clarific ation from Turkey whether its FMD-related 
import ban on cattle and meat produc ts had ever been officially published or notified to the WTO.  
The United States requested an explanation of the measu re's scientific basis, especially in view of the 
FMD-free status of the United States.  In Septem ber 1998, the United States noted that Turkey had 
extended its import ban for the eighth time.  Turkey replied that the policy was geared at preventing 
the spread of FMD in the country.  A rigorous na tion-wide eradication programme was in place, and 
considerable progress had been made.  Turkey belie ved that the application of temporary measures 
with the objective of creating the necessary animal h ealth conditions within its  borders was justified, 
but was open to dialogue with its trading part ners to reach a mutually agreeable solution. 
99. In June 2000, Hungary recalled that several Members had challenged the WTO-consistency 
of Turkey's import restrictions on live cattle and beef meat.  Hungary had been free from FMD for nearly 20 years, and had pursued FMD control policies which made vaccination redundant.  Hungary 
suggested the Turkish ban violated Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.  Based on Articles 5.1 and 5.8, 
Hungary asked Turkey to provide its risk assessme nt on the importation of live cattle and beef from 
FMD-free countries.  New Zealand asked if Turkey had an import licensing system, and if so, how 
risk was assessed and how licenses were issued.  Tu rkey committed to providing a report on an 
interdepartmental review of the sanitary measures.   
C. 
OTHER ISSUES CONCERNING ANIMAL HEALTH  
39. Argentina - Temporary prohibition of fresh pork and products  
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras. 34-35) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ARG/9 
Solution (if reported):  
 
100. The European Communities observed that the Argentine measure applied to the entire 
European Communities.  The European Commun ities had taken measures to regionalize the EC 
member States with restrictions with regard to Cl assic Swine Fever.  Argentina replied that it believed 
in the principle of regionalization, but had found th at there was no basis to assume compliance within 
the European Communities.  Argentina had requ ested information from a number of EC member 
States, but only four countries had responded.  He noted that Classic Swine Fever was a highly infective OIE List A disease which had not occurre d in Argentina since 1985.  Argentina would assess 
information received so as to adjust its measure as appropriate.  G/SPS/GEN/204 
 Page 29 
 
 
 40. Australia - Notification G/SPS/N/AUS/72 on quarantine requirements for chicken meat 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 42-45) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/72, G/SPS /GEN/90, G/SPS/GEN/96, see also G/SPS/13, 
G/SPS/GEN/137 and GSPS/W/107/Rev.1 
Solution (if reported):  
 101. Thailand believed that Australia's requirement  for the importation of chicken meat was in 
excess of what was needed to protect health, and was not viable for commercial manufacturing.  The 
European Communities added that Australia's recommended temperature and time requirements created an extreme and unnecessary barrier to trade, and committed to providing a list of relevant 
questions to Australia.  Australia replied that  its import requirements were based on scientific 
principles and data.  AQIS had based the final hea ting requirements on research on the inactivation of 
infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) strain CS88, a highly virulent strain exotic to Australia.  
Extensive consultations had been held with Thai a nd other quarantine authorities to discuss the issue, 
and Australia was prepared to provide any further information requested.  Australia was considering 
whether additional scientific research could be u sefully conducted to enhance scientific understanding 
and methods of inactivation of various poultry pathogens. 
41. Australia – Ban on salmon imports 
Raised by: Canada, United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, par as. 13-15), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 58) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/3 
Solution (if reported): Dispute settlement (W/DS18 and W/DS26, respectively).  Mutually agreed 
resolution between Canada and Au stralia reported in May 2000. 
 
102. In October 1996, the United States reported th at Australia maintained a ban on North 
American fresh, chilled or frozen salmon on the gr ounds that imports might transmit diseases and 
pathogens to Australian fishery stocks.  In 1994, Australia published a draft risk assessment which 
indicated there was little risk from imported North American salmon.  However, Australia did not 
adjust its measure to reflect th e results of that risk assessment , but instead undertook another risk 
assessment, completed in May 1996, which again faile d to find a scientific basis for maintaining the 
ban.  The United States expected that when the fi nal report was published, the ban would be lifted, 
especially since the salmon in question complied with OIE standards. 
103. Australia indicated that the 1995 draft risk ass essment had been revised in response to the 
large number of comments received.  Comments, in cluding from the United Stated and Canada, had 
again been received on the 1996 draft risk assessment, which would be finalized by the end of 1996.  
Australia noted that the OIE standard  did not meet its appropriate leve l of protection.  In March 1997, 
Canada and the United States again noted their concer n that Australia had decided to maintain its ban 
on salmon imports.  Canada had formally requested  the establishment of a panel in the Dispute 
Settlement Body G/SPS/GEN/204 
Page 30  
 
42. Czech Republic – Regulation concerning warehouses and silos 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, para. 54) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution (if reported):  
 
104. The European Communities sought clarificati on of a Czech regulation requiring warehouses 
and silos for animal feed to be under state cont rol for purposes of quality assurance.  The Czech 
Republic indicated that it wished to pursue the matte r bilaterally with EC veterinary authorities. 
43. El Salvador – Restrictions on meat and dairy products 
Raised by: Uruguay 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, para 85) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution (if reported):  
 
105. Uruguay reported on problems with exports of meat and dairy products to El Salvador on 
sanitary grounds, although no concrete sanitary proble ms or regulations had been mentioned.  The 
representative of El Salvador indicated that these c oncerns would be transmitted to the appropriate 
authorities. 
44. European Communities - Ban on antibiotics in feed 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, Canada 
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, paras. 26-29) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution (if reported):  
 
106. The United States noted the failure of the Eu ropean Communities to notify the ban on four 
antibiotics used in animal feed  to enhance production that had been adopted in December 1998.  
Canada and Australia shared the US concern, a nd Canada requested to be informed when the 
European Communities reviewed its  measure, which it understood to be provisional.  The European 
Communities replied that this was an interim prot ective measure which would be re-examined before 
the end of December 2000.  The resu lts of the re-examination would be  shared with Members, as well 
as published electronically.  The measure had not been notified because it did not contain any provision applicable to imports, and therefore had no effect on trade.   
45. European Communities – Salmonella-related restriction on fishmeal imports 
Raised by: Chile and Peru 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, paras. 48-50) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution (if reported):  
 
107. Chile and Peru sought clarification regarding th e EC directive governing exports of fishmeal, 
which was not applied to substitutes to fishmeal .  These substituted could also potentially be  G/SPS/GEN/204 
 Page 31 
 
 
 contaminated with salmonella, as had been confirmed by recent research carried out in the United 
Kingdom.  The European Communities indicated that  the directive was justified on the basis of 
available scientific information, although worki ng groups were considering whether similar criteria 
should be applied to feedingstuffs of vegetable orig in.  Some EC member States had introduced heat 
treatment requirements, although others had fo und that there were not sufficient grounds for 
introducing such criteria. 
108. Chile also raised concerns with unilateral im port prohibitions by France and Italy affecting 
fishmeal for feeding ruminants, including mixtur es with bone meal, with the alleged objective of 
preventing risk arising from contamination.  The European Communities answer ed that it needed to 
effectively enforce its mammalian protein feed ban to ruminants, but was facing practical difficulties 
in segregating the origins of various raw materi als, including fish.  The European Communities 
indicated it would examine the issue together with the two member States involved. 
46. India – Restrictions on imports of horses 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, para. 20) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/112 
Solution (if reported):  
 
109. The European Communities indicated that trad e in horses with India had been interrupted, 
although the necessary health guarantees had not been identified.  Import restrictions were based on 
the presence of contagious equine metritis.  The EC representative presented a series of questions to 
India, including a request for justification of Indi a applying a measure which was more stringent than 
the OIE Code. 
 
47. United States - Regionalization in relation to animal health 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5, para. 15) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/37 
Solution (if reported):  
 
110. The European Communities welcomed a US notification on the introduction of 
regionalization in import policy and internal contro l policy in relation to animal health, but was 
concerned that the proposed measure did not meet th e criteria of a true regionalization approach in 
conformity with what had been discussed at the OI E.  The United States stressed the purpose of the 
proposed measure was to facilitate trade and to fu lfil the obligation of the United States under the SPS 
Agreement, in particular Article 5.2 on risk assessment. 
48. Venezuela - Import conditions for pork meat and products  
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para. 67) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution (if reported):  
 G/SPS/GEN/204 
Page 32  
 
111. The European Communities reported that Venezu ela had denied access to Danish pork meat 
and products without clearly indicating the import conditions or the relevant provisions.  The EC 
representative urged the Venezuelan authorities to not ify the relevant measures, giving other Members 
a chance to comment. 
49. Venezuela – Measures related to Avian Influenza 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, para. 25) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/19 
Solution (if reported):  
 
112. The United States informed that non-pathogenic Avian Influenza had been detected in a few 
north-eastern US states.  As a consequence, Vene zuela had banned the importation of US poultry and 
products.  The United States contested the scientific basis for this measure and was concerned that it 
had not been notified. 
 
III. PLANT HEALTH 
50. Australia – Restrictions on imports of tropical fresh fruit 
Raised by: Philippines, ASEAN 
Supported by: Brazil, European Communities, India, Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, United 
States 
Dates raised: March 2000 (G/SPS/R/18, para. 67), June 2000 (G/SPS/R/19, paras. 15-20) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/189, G/SPS/GEN/194 
Solution (if reported):  
 
113. In March 2000, the Philippines reported that its exports, including mangoes, bananas and 
pineapples, faced phytosanitary restrictions in Aust ralia.  Australia explained that in response to a 
request for access, Australia conducted an open, transp arent and consultative process of scientific risk 
assessment and risk management to  avoid the introduction of diseases.  Both countries indicated that 
they were conducting bilateral consultations on the matter. 
114. In June 2000, the Philippines pointed out th at major ASEAN exports to Australia faced 
stringent SPS measures that were not based on a risk assessment.  Thes e measures were more 
restrictive than necessary, and should be reviewed within a reasonable period of time.  Malaysia 
suggested Australia carry out ASEAN-wide risk assessments.  Australia offered detailed comments on 
each of the points raised by the Philippines and noted  that a formal response would be provided in due 
course.  In response to Malaysia, Australia explained that pest risk analysis was specific to the trading 
partners involved and varied accordi ng to the exporter's pest status. 
115. The United States urged Australia to expedite its decisions regarding market access for 
Florida citrus and California table grapes.  Australia  replied that an import risk analysis had been 
completed for table grapes, several appeals had been addressed, and the relevant information was 
about to be released.  In response to Brazil’s co mments regarding its market access applications for 
mango and papaya, Australia confirmed that these we re on the list of matters to be considered by 
Australian risk analysts.  With reference to India's concern about market access for mangoes, 
Australia reported that Indian authorities had prov ided helpful information regarding the efficacy of 
treatment for pests in mangoes, and that Australia  was currently evaluating that information.  
Regarding EC concerns, Australia confirmed that an import risk analysis was being conducted on  G/SPS/GEN/204 
 Page 33 
 
 
 bulbs.  Australia noted that it was necessary to set priorities for risk assessment given scarce financial 
and human resources. 
51. Brazil – Import prohibition of coconut palms and related products 
Raised by: Philippines 
Supported by: Malaysia, Sri Lanka 
Dates raised: June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, par as. 25-26), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12 and 
Corr.1, paras. 5-6) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/BRA/1 
Solution (if reported):  
 
116. In June 1998, the Philippines submitted a series of  detailed questions to Brazil regarding its 
import prohibition of coconut palms and related products.  Brazil answered that the measure was in 
place to prevent the spread of quarantine pests.  Brazil continued to import coconut palms and related 
products from pest-free countries, if shipments were accompanied by a phyto sanitary certificate, but 
only one country had applied for pest-free status.  Br azil stressed that its measure was in conformity 
with the SPS Agreement and the text of the IPPC, and that the risk assessment methodology used had 
been notified. 
117. In September 1998, the Philippines reported that it had received no clear answers from Brazil, 
and reiterated its questions.  Braz il specified which diseases it was concerned about.  Its phytosanitary 
requirements had been extended to desiccated coconut, as there was a risk of transmission of pests or 
exotic pathogens.  Nonetheless, Brazil was prep ared to discuss proposals for risk evaluation and 
recognition of pest-free areas. 
52. Brazil – Restrictions on imported wheat 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras. 16-17) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution (if reported):  
 
118. The United States raised concern regarding Br azilian restrictions on wheat imports intended 
to prevent the establis hment of the fungus tilletia controversa  (TCK bunt or Dwarf bunt).  However, a 
1996 bilateral agreement was based on the understandi ng that the fungus in question could not be 
established in Brazil, and the United States was not aware of scientific evidence that might alter this conclusion.  Brazil responded that  it had implemented new legisla tion on risk assessment and risk 
management for several products as a result of ha rmonization efforts in the MERCOSUR context.  
Thus, a certificate of origin was required for wheat, to  establish that the product originated in a pest-
free zone.  Scientific consultati ons between Brazilian and US expert s had yet to produce a final report 
on the risk posed by tilletia controversa  and tilletia indica  (Karnal bunt).  The 1996 bilateral 
agreement did not preclude Brazil from applying its internal legislation. 
53. Chile – Restrictions on imports of wheat and fruit 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras. 18-19) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GN/14 
Solution (if reported):  G/SPS/GEN/204 
Page 34  
 
 119. The United States expressed concerns that Chile 's import requirements for wheat and fruit did 
not recognize regional conditions in line with the SPS Agreement, nor IPPC guidelines relating to 
pest-free areas.  With respect to wheat, Chile repl ied that the United States had not asked to be 
recognized as free of tilletia indica  (Karnal bunt).  Regarding fruit, Chile stressed that it had 
recognized areas free of the fruit flies anastrepha fraterculus  and ceratitis capitata  (Mediterranean 
fruit fly) in California, which would f acilitate the entry of US exports.   
54. Czech Republic - Imports of potatoes 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Argentina 
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, pa ra. 27), October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, 
paras. 51-53) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CZE/6, G/SPS/N/CZE/12, G/SPS/GEN/42 
Solution (if reported):  
 120. In October 1996, the European Communities e xpressed concern that the Czech Republic had 
not specified a final date for comments on G/ SPS/N/CZE/12.  The Czech Republic committed to 
pursuing the matter bilaterally with the European  Communities.  In October 1997, the European 
Communities expressed concern over Czech import requirements for ware potatoes, which it did not believe to be based on scientific principles.  Moreove r, equivalent methods of sprout treatment were 
not allowed.  The European Communities pointed out  that a Codex standard existed for the active 
ingredient involved.  Argentina was concerned that  the treatment had to be applied before harvest, 
making a post-harvest decision to export to th e Czech Republic impossible, although alternative 
treatment methods existed.  Furthermore, it was not clear to Argentina whether the registration 
procedure concerned the entire product formula or only the active ingredient. 
121. The Czech Republic explained that imported plant products could not be circulated 
domestically if they contained residues of active pl ant protection ingredients not registered in the 
Czech Republic.  Only one active ingredient had been approved, but registration procedures for a 
second one were under way.  The Czech Republic belie ved that bilateral channels for resolving the 
issue, notably within the frame work of the European Associa tion Agreement, were far from 
exhausted. 
55. European Communities - Citrus canker 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Brazil, Chile, South Africa ,Uruguay 
Dates raised: July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, paras.  30-31), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras. 6-8), 
June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras. 31-33) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/46, G/SPS/N/EEC/47, G/SPS/GEN/21, G/SPS/GEN/26 
Solution (if reported): Measure revised in 1998, problems persisting. 
 
122. In July 1997, Argentina requested bilateral consultations with EC experts on the proposed 
measure on citrus canker, and that the measure be  suspended during these cons ultations.  South Africa 
requested that the European Communities reassess its measures in light of the fact that South Africa 
was free from citrus canker.  The European Commun ities noted that it was preparing a response to the 
Argentine concern, and was open to consultations w ith interested parties.  The European Communities 
was moving from a system with internal restrictio ns in the production areas of Italy, Greece and 
Corsica to a truly single market with free movement of goods.  With no restriction on internal 
movement of fruit, and considering the risk of introduction and the relate d economic consequences, 
alternative protection for the main producing areas had to be considered.  This included monitoring  G/SPS/GEN/204 
 Page 35 
 
 
 requirements in the exporting country, treatment  and certification. The European Communities 
considered that its measures were based on science and minimized trade effects. 
123. In March 1998, the European Communities re ported that, in response to constructive 
consultations organized by the Chairman and invo lving Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Brazil and South 
Africa, the measure had been revised and subseque ntly adopted.  The revised text included the 
possibility for recognition of equivalent certificati on systems.  Argentina agreed, but noted that 
negotiations on equivalence were not yet finished. 
124. In June 1998, the European Communities indicated  that it had come to the conclusion that, for 
the time being, Argentina could not objectively dem onstrate the equivalence of its control measures 
with EC requirements.  Argentina requested info rmation on the risk assessment undertaken by the 
European Communities. 
56. European Communities – Protected zones 
Raised by: Uruguay 
Supported by: Chile, Mexico, South Africa 
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 60) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution (if reported):  
 
125. Uruguay expressed concern about an EC decision to eliminate the criteria for protected zones 
within the European Communities, as this might  result in a strengthening of phytosanitary 
requirements for the whole Community.  This could also have negative consequences for citrus fruit 
exports from Chile.  Delegations requested a clarificat ion of the scientific basis for this proposal.  The 
representative of the European Commu nities indicated he would forward the concerns to the relevant 
authorities.  He clarified that according to th e policy, access to the European Communities would 
depend on the conditions in the country of origin. 
57. Honduras – Restrictions on imports of rough rice 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 55) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution (if reported):  
 
126. The United States expressed concern that Hondur as had not lifted its restrictions on imports 
of rough rice.  Honduras assured the Committee that  its authorities would attempt to find a rapid 
solution to the problem. 
58. Indonesia - Fresh fruit and vegetables 
Raised by: Australia, United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 22) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/IDN/2 
Solution (if reported):  
 
127. Australia and the United States sought clarificati on with regard to the scope of the Indonesian 
regulation on fresh fruit and vegetabl es.  In bilateral discussions with Australia, Indonesian authorities G/SPS/GEN/204 
Page 36  
 
had referred to a problem arising from national pr actice, which precluded the circulation of draft 
regulations.  The United States and Australia urged Indonesia to consider legislative adjustments to 
enable WTO Members to receive information on proposed measures sufficiently in time to be 
assessed.  Australia appreciated Indonesian efforts to meet requests for additional information.  
Indonesia regretted that the draft regulation had not yet been finalized, but assured the Committee that 
a document containing detailed information about th e proposed regulations would be provided in due 
course. 
59. Japan – Testing requirements for different varieties of apples, cherries and nectarines 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, par as. 11-12), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 57) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution (if reported): Dispute settlement (W/DS/ 76) – Parties reportedly close to a solution. 
 
128. In October 1996, the United States reported  that, under a 1995 bilateral agreement, Japan 
allowed two varieties of US apples into its ma rket.  US suppliers had to conduct lengthy and 
expensive tests to demonstrate that combined tr eatment of methyl bromide and cold storage was 
effective in killing codling moths on both varieties.   These and other tests had demonstrated that the 
effectiveness of this treatment did not vary among different varieties of fru it.  Nevertheless, Japan 
continued to block the introduction of new varieties of US fruit by requiring such redundant testing.  
The United States had formally initiated a consulta tion process with Japan under Article 5.8 of the 
SPS Agreement.  Japan indicated that the formal exchange would be followed by a clarification 
process involving technical experts until a solution was reached based on scientific principles.  In 
March 1997, the United States indicated it was reviewing new information provided by Japan.  Japan 
noted that bilateral efforts would cont inue in order to reach a solution. 
60. Japan - Plant quarantine regulations 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 26) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/JPN/19 
Solution (if reported):  
 
129. The United States informed the Committee of bi lateral discussion with Japan regarding its 
plant quarantine regulations.  Both Members ag reed that the communication process had flowed 
smoothly, and that this was a good example of how the transparency provisio ns of the SPS Agreement 
could enhance the understanding betw een Members on points of concern.   Japan maintained that its 
proposed regulation was based on the pest -risk analysis guidelines of the IPPC. 
61. Japan - Notification on amendment of the Japanese Plant Protection Law 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, Canada, Chile, Europ ean Communities, New Zealand, Philippines 
(ASEAN), Uruguay 
Dates raised: November 1998 (G/SPS/13, paras. 31-34), November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, 
para. 82) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/100, G/SPS/N/JPN/37 
Solution (if reported):  
  G/SPS/GEN/204 
 Page 37 
 
 
 130. In November 1998, the United States noted that the draft regulation proposed the addition of 
27 pests to the list of non-quarantine pests in Ja pan's Plant Protection La w.  The United States, 
although encouraged by certain aspects of Japan's pr oposal, continued to have concerns regarding the 
basis and application of Japan's phytosanitary legisla tion.  The legislative amendments did not appear 
to alter the current practice of requiring fumigation and other costly treatment for most non-quarantine 
pests, including those pests which we re widespread in Japan and not subject to internal regulatory or 
quarantine controls.  The United States urged Japan to  take into consideration the IPPC definition of a 
quarantine pest.  The European Co mmunities asked Japan to explain the scientific rationale behind its 
measure, and the risk assessment it was based on.  Japan replied that its defi nition of quarantine pests 
complied with the IPPC definition.  The list of non- quarantine pests would be reviewed in the future 
with a view to expansion.  Japan welcomed c ontinued bilateral consultations on the matter. 
131. In November 1999, the European Communities reca lled its request for an explanation of the 
Japanese measure, to which it had not received a re ply.  Japan announced that the matter would be 
pursued bilaterally. 
62. Mexico – Import prohibition of milled rice 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1,  para. 44), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras. 
69-70), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, para . 24), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, 
paras. 17-18), November 1998 (G/SPS /R/13, paras. 14-16), March 1999 
(G/SPS/R/14, para. 15), July 1999 (G /SPS/R/15, para. 7), November 1999 
(G/SPS/R/17, para. 86), March 2000 (G /SPS/R/18, para. 26), June 2000 
(G/SPS/R/19, paras. 22-23) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/MEX/44, G/SPS/N/MEX/45, G/SPS/N/MEX/55, 
G/SPS/N/MEX/153, G/SPS/GEN/82, G/SPS/GEN/105, G/SPS/GEN/172  
Solution (if reported): New measure notif ied in March 2000, problems remaining. 
 
132. In October 1997, Thailand reported that Mexico  prohibited importation of Thai milled rice 
because of the fungus tilletia barclayana  (Karnal smut), although Mexi can experts visiting Thailand 
had concluded the fungus would be removed during milling, and although the fungus existed in 
Mexico.  Mexico had informed Thailand that the prohibition would be replaced  by a new regulation, 
but despite high-level consultati ons no progress had been achieved.  Mexico assured the Committee 
that the matter would be followed up.  In March 1998, Thailand indicated that it had received no 
replies to its written communication to Mexico.  Th e Mexican delegate replied that he would convey 
the information to his authorities, who were studying the matter.  Thailand expressed its 
disappointment at the lack of progress again in June 1998, and Mexico stated that the issue was still under consideration.  In September 1998, Mexico reported on official contacts between the two 
countries.  Mexico was conducting a risk assessment , but had not received the necessary information 
from Thailand. 
133. In November 1998, Thailand reported that it had proposed holding consultations with the 
Chairman, but that Mexico had not agreed.  He str essed that there was no data demonstrating the risk 
of transmission of the fungus tilletia barclayana  from Thai milled rice.  Mexico had requested 
information on a different pest for its risk as sessment, but Thailand did not see the connection 
between the two issues, as this new pest was not  listed in the regulation establishing the Mexican 
quarantine measures.  Thailand was concerned that  Mexico might request information on one pest 
after another.  Mexico repeated that the requested information had not been provided.  Both countries 
indicated consultations would continue. G/SPS/GEN/204 
Page 38  
 
134. In March 1999, Thailand indicated that a lthough it had no obligation to do so, it was 
providing the information requested by Mexico.  Me xico noted that its measures had been notified, 
and the text of the measures provided to Thailand.  Mexico would review the latest information and 
act accordingly.  In July 1999, Thailand reporte d that it had handed over additional documents to 
Mexico.  Some progress had been made at bilatera l consultations, where it had been clarified that 
tilletia barclayana  was a quarantine disease only for seed imports, not with regard to rice imported for 
consumption.  Mexico had also found no reports of the presence of the khapra beetle in Thailand, and 
would thus modify its regulati on which had listed Thailand as a country affected by this pest. 
135. In November 1999, Mexico informed the Comm ittee that the phytosanitary regulations were 
being revised and would be published for comments.  Mexico had provided Thailand with the text of 
the draft measures.  Thailand indicated it was looki ng forward to the publication of the final measure 
and its notification to WTO.  In March 2000, Th ailand noted that Mexico had taken new measures 
replacing the ban, but these measures included unusual and unnecessary requirements such as 
fumigation at point of entry.  Mexico invited Thailand to send official comments on the new draft 
regulation. 
136. In June 2000, Thailand reported that bilateral consultations had taken place.  Thailand had 
posed a list of questions regarding the measure no tified in G/SPS/N/MEX/153.  Mexico explained that 
the questions and comments from Thailand were being reviewed by the competent Mexican authorities.  The sub-committee considering the matter would meet in July 2000, and responses to each of the comments would be published in the O fficial Journal before the final standard was 
published. 
63. Panama – Requirements for certification of consumer rice 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 15) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution (if reported):  
 
137. The United States noted that Panama required im ports of consumer rice to be certified free 
from the fungus tilletia barclayana  (Kernel smut), although this fungus  already existed in Panama.  
Furthermore, the fungus in question could not be transmitted through milled rice.  Panamanian 
officials had allegedly suggested that current domestic supply conditions had influenced their 
decisions.  The representative of Panama replied th at she would forward a report from capital to the 
US Department of Agriculture. 
64. Phytosanitary issues in general  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 12) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution (if reported):  
 
138. The United States noted that the mere existe nce of a plant disease or pest in traded 
agricultural goods did not necessarily constitute a ri sk to the importing country if, for scientific 
reasons, the pest or disease could not establish itself in the area into which it was being imported.  
Likewise, if the disease or pest was already prevalen t in the importing country, import controls were 
unlikely to serve any significant health objectiv e.  The United States urged Members to ensure 
compliance with the principle of national treatment as well as other key provisions.  G/SPS/GEN/204 
 Page 39 
 
 
 65. Poland – Restrictions on wheat and oilseeds 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, pa ras. 13-14), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, 
para. 27) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution (if reported):  
 139. In March 1997, the United States questioned the phytosanitary health basis for Poland's 
restrictions which applied to weed seeds that existed world-wide, some of them known to be 
established in Poland.  Poland replied that the measur e did not affect trade with the United States, as 
no shipment of US grain or oilseeds had been reje cted because of quarantine risks.  In November 
1998, the Chairman reported that he and the Secret ariat had been requested to facilitate bilateral 
consultations between the United States and Pola nd regarding tolerance levels for weed seed, 
particularly of the genus Ambrosia .  These consultations had focussed on technical aspects of pest risk 
analysis, and both parties had agreed to continue the discussions. 
66. Slovak Republic – Restrictions on imports of apples, pears and quinces 
Raised by: Hungary 
Supported by: European Communities, Bulgaria  
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras.  20-21), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras. 27-
30), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12 and Corr.1, paras. 31-34) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/SVK/8 and Rev.1, G/SPS/N/SVK/11, G/SPS/GEN/79 
Solution (if reported): Measure improved, problems persisting. 
 
140. In March 1998, Hungary indicated that althoug h the Slovak Republic had made changes to its 
measure on importation of apples, pears and quinc es as notified, the certification and information 
requirements were extremely burdensome.  The measur e appeared to be more restrictive than required 
to protect health, was not based on scientific prin ciples and constituted a disguised restriction on 
trade.  The Slovak Republic answered that th e measure was intended for protection against the 
introduction of fire blight (Erwinia amylovora), which did not occur in Slovakia.  The revised 
measure, which extended import possibilities, was c onsistent with the SPS Agreement, but the Slovak 
Republic remained open to bilateral discussions. 
141. In June 1998, Hungary ac knowledged improvements made by the Slovak Republic, but 
stressed that the measure was not consistent  with recommendations by the European and 
Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO).   The licensing system, which applied to each 
consignment, remained too burdensome.  The Slova k Republic replied that it imported 35 per cent of 
its apples, pears and quinces, which showed that there were no serious market access impediments.  Given the potential economic costs of introductio n of the disease, and since available scientific 
information was not sufficient, a precautionary appro ach was adopted in line with Article 5.7.  The 
Slovak Republic was exchanging information with countries applying similar phytosanitary measures, 
and was ready to continue discussion with its trad ing partners.  In September 1998, Hungary again 
acknowledged that the Slovak measure had been impr oved, although a partial ban still applied, for 
which no scientific justification had been given.  The Slovak Republic reitera ted its earlier arguments 
that it had put in place a temporary measure according to Article 5.7. 
67. Slovak Republic – Import restrictions on potatoes 
Raised by: European Communities, Poland G/SPS/GEN/204 
Page 40  
 
Supported by: Argentina, Chile, Hungary 
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, par as. 22-23), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, para. 
21), July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para. 65), November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, para. 84) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/SVK/9, G/SPS/N/SVK/15, G/SPS/GEN/65, G/SPS/GEN/115, 
G/SPS/GEN/159 and G/SPS/GEN/165  
Solution (if reported): Measure revised in March 1999, problems persisting. 
 
142. In March 1998, the European Communities pointed out that notification of the Slovak 
measure on potatoes as an emergency measure did not appear to be justified, and that less trade-
restrictive measures could attain the required leve l of protection.  The Slovak Republic responded that 
problems seemed to stem from the registration pr ocedure, rather than from the phytosanitary 
requirements per se .  Slovak authorities were about to remove the current strict registration 
requirements and establish a maximum residue level. 
143. In March 1999, Poland reported that following b ilateral consultations, the Slovak Republic 
had lifted its earlier import ban on Polish ware potat oes, but that it had been replaced with testing 
requirements for potato spindle tuber viroid.  Po land considered this requirement an unjustified 
obstacle to trade since no comment period had been provided and since the imported potatoes were treated to impede germination and were thus unl ikely to introduce diseases to crop plants.  The 
representative of the Slovak Republic indicated he would transmit the Polish comments to his authorities.  In July 1999, both delegations reporte d that consultations regarding potatoes and fruit, 
including apples, pears and quinces had taken place, and had been expanded to  include Slovak exports 
of cereals, maize and malt to Poland.  In N ovember 1999, Poland informed the Committee on the 
development of the issue.  The Slovak Republic thou ght it was more appropriate to discuss this matter 
at the expert level.  The Slovak Republic stresse d that it wanted to avoid importation of potato 
bacterial diseases.  Import measures had been notif ied (G/SPS/N/SVK/15), and were based on a pest 
risk analysis. 
68. Switzerland - Notification on wheat, rye and triticale 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, para. 32) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHE/5 
Solution (if reported):  
 
144. Argentina expressed concern with regard to risi ng trade barriers on wheat grain for industrial 
and planting purposes.  Argentina was free from tilletia indica  (Karnal bunt).  Argentina requested a 
full draft of the proposed Swiss measure notifie d as G/SPS/N/CHE/5, includ ing access to the risk 
analysis and other scientific documents which substantiated the proposal.  Switzerland assured 
Argentina that the scientific b asis for the notified measure would be provided as soon as possible. 
69. United States – Imports of citrus fruit  
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, para . 89), June 2000 (G/SPS/R/19, para. 10) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution (if reported): Favourable c onclusion reported in June 2000. 
 
145. In November 1999, Argentina expressed conc erns regarding the postponement of US 
measures dealing with imports of citrus fruit fro m north-western Argentina.  Negotiation of the  G/SPS/GEN/204 
 Page 41 
 
 
 measure had taken seven years and been finalized one  year earlier.  Argentina appealed to the United 
States to publish the measure before another ha rvest was lost for Argentine producers.  The 
representative of the United States answered that th e draft measures had passed the technical level and 
promised to draw the attention of hi s authorities to Argentina's concerns. 
146. In June 2000, Argentina reported that after years of negotiations with the United States 
regarding citrus produced in north-west Argen tina, a favourable conclusion had been reached. 
70. United States – Import restrictions on rhododendrons in growing medium 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para . 66), November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, para. 83), 
March 2000 (G/SPS/R/18, para. 68) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/121 
Solution (if reported): Final rule published in December 1999, importation allowed under certain 
conditions. 
 147. In March 1999, the European Communities indicated that delays in the publication of a final 
rule on the importation of rhododendrons were resulti ng in de facto restrictions on EC exports.  He 
asked for information on the status of the pest risk analysis and of the final rule.  The United States 
replied that the final rule for the importation of  rhododendrons in growing medium from the EC had 
been completed pending final revi ew, and would be published within one month after the meeting.  
The European Communities re quested an update on the status of the rule in November 1999, and the 
United States answered that it would be published in the near future.  In March 2000, the United 
States informed the Committee that the final ru le had been published on 30 December 1999, allowing 
the importation of rhododendrons under conditions designed to prev ent the introduction of pests. 
71. United States – Interim rule affecting solid wood packaging material 
Raised by: none; Hong Kong, China is affected 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13,  paras. 3-12), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, 
paras. 2-3) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/107, G/SPS/N/USA/137, G/SPS/N/CAN/44 
Solution (if reported):  
 148. In November 1998, the United States provided information on an amendment of the 
regulations applicable to unmanufactured wood, adding treatment and documentation requirements 
for imports from China, including Hong Kong, China.  Hong Kong, China found the rule arbitrary and 
discriminatory.  Although Hong Kong, China recogni zed that fumigation with Methyl Bromide was 
effective, it was concerned that the use of this substance had undesirable side-effects on human health 
and the environment.  Bilateral consultations w ith the United States had taken place.  The United 
States encouraged Members to comment on its draft measure.  Canada indicated that it had also imposed a measure on unmanufactured wood imports from China to avoid introduction of the Asian 
Longhorned Beetle.  A technical expert would be  sent to Hong Kong, China to study ways to 
implement this measure with a minimal disruption of  international trade.  In March 1999, the United 
States announced that an advance notice of proposed  rule making had been published on 20 January 
1999, and that comments were welcome until 22 Ma rch 1999.  The European Communities indicated 
that it had been monitoring similar problems, and would provide more inform ation at a later date. G/SPS/GEN/204 
Page 42  
 
72. United States - Actions taken by local governments 
Raised by: Chile 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1997 (G /SPS/R/9/Rev. 1, para. 47) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution (if reported):  
 
149. Chile noted that legal actions taken by local  governments could disrupt trade flows.  For 
example, Californian judges had requested the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to undertake 
an environmental analysis before allowing imports. In another instance, after Chilean phytosanitary 
authorities had taken a decision regarding the entry of weeds, they were threatened to be subject to 
legal proceedings initiated by the exporting c ountry, unless the exporting country was declared a 
"low-risk" or a "zero-risk" country.  Another relate d issue concerned the need for the streamlining or 
reform of national regulatory frameworks.  As many  as five signatures were sometimes required to 
clear the entry of goods into a territory. 
IV. OTHER CONCERNS 
73. Korea – Import clearance measures and practices 
Raised by: United States  
Supported by: Several delegations 
Dates raised: June 1995 (G/SPS/R/2, paras.  39-40), May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5, paras. 4-5), 
October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, para. 54), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 54), 
July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, para. 77), Oct ober 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, paras. 
42-43) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/W/64, G/SPS/W/66, G/SPS/GN/6 
Solution (if reported): Consulta tions under Dispute Settlement in itiated (WT/DS3, WT/DS41), still 
pending. 
 150. In June 1995, the United States informed the Co mmittee that it had held formal consultations 
with Korea regarding its inspection and testing met hods.  Korea indicated that although consultations 
had been productive, there was a high degree of ambi guity in the implementation of the Agreement.  
The parties had noted the lack of international st andards in the area, and countries maintained very 
diverse practices.    In May 1996, the United St ates expressed serious concern regarding Korea's 
import clearance measures and practices, which were not based on science, did not conform to international practice or standa rds, and were deliberately employed to discourage food and 
agricultural imports.  The United States had submitte d a formal request for consultations.  Korea 
replied that these issues had been discussed extensively in a series of bilateral consultations with the 
United States and other countries.  Korea had ta ken various measures to comply with the SPS 
Agreement, but encountered problems common to developing countries: a low level of sanitary 
infrastructure, lack of experience and information, and lack of relevant in ternational standards.  
However, Korea would continue to ad apt its measures to the SPS Agreement. 
151. In October 1996, the United States reported on ongoing discussions with Korea.  The United 
States expected reforms to shorten the import clearance process in Korea without additional 
burdensome requirements, with a period for comme nts by WTO Members.  Korea answered that an 
ambitious reform programme had been launched the previous year, including the establishment of an 
advanced inspection and quarantine system by the end of 1996.  In March 1997, the United States 
noted that consultations continued.  Although Korea had implemented some changes, concerns 
remained.  Korea indicated that it would continue its efforts to conform its sanitary and phytosanitary 
legislation to the SPS Agreement.  G/SPS/GEN/204 
 Page 43 
 
 
 152. In July 1997, the United States reported that af ter five rounds of consultations under the WTO 
dispute settlement procedure, some Korean import cl earance laws and regulatio ns had been reformed.  
However, since January new problems had arisen.  The United States would continue to address these concerns in bilateral consultations until clearance times in Korean ports we re similar to those in 
similar ports.  Korea took note of the US comments.   In October 1997, the United States noted that 
although some progress had been made, there seemed to be problems with the implementation of 
certain changes Korea had agreed to make.  The repr esentative of Korea indicated that in his view the 
new import clearance system was in full complia nce with the SPS Agreement, however, the US 
concerns would be conveyed to the competent authorities in the capital. 
74. Japan and Korea - Translation of regulations 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Thailand 
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, para. 26) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/JPN/1, G/SPS/N/KOR/29, G/SPS/N/KOR/20, G/SPS/N/KOR/31 
Solution (if reported):  
 
153. Argentina regretted that the regulations notified by Japan and Korea were not available in one 
of the three WTO working languag es.  The Chairman recalled that Annex B, paragraph 8 of the SPS 
Agreement requires developed country Members to "p rovide copies of the documents or, in case of 
voluminous documents, summaries of the documents covered by a specific notification in English, 
French or Spanish", if there is a specific requ est from another Member.  Japan observed that it 
normally provided summaries of the documents in E nglish.  Thailand suggested that countries give 
sufficient detail in the description of content of th eir notifications to enable relevant comments by 
recipient Members. 
 
__________