WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
2 March 2004 
 (04-0915) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
   
SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
Revision  
 
 
 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 since 1995.2  The SPS Committee requested the Secretariat to update this document annually 
and it was revised in 2001, 2002 and 2003 to include new information provided by Members 
(G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.1, Rev.2 and Rev.3).  This fourth   revision includes all issues which have been 
raised at SPS Committee meetings through the tw enty-eighth regular meeting of the Committee on 
29-30 October 2003.   The document is organized alphabetically by Me mber, listing first the concerns raised related 
to measures maintained by a certain Member, and then providing a summary table of specific trade 
concerns raised by that Member.  The measures ma intained by a Member are categorized as relating 
to food safety, animal or plant health.   Altogether, 183 specific trade concerns were ra ised in the nine years from 1995 to the end of 
2003.  Figure 1 shows the number of new concerns rai sed each year.  Figure 2a shows trade concerns 
by subject.  Overall, 27 per cent of trade concerns relate to food safety concer ns, 29 per cent relate to 
plant health, and 3 per cent concern other issues su ch as certification requirements or translation.  
Forty-one per cent of concerns raised relate to an imal health and zoonoses, but this category includes 
issues such as transmissible spongiform encephalopath y (TSEs) that are also relevant for food safety.  
Figure 2b shows that TSEs account for 40 per cent of an imal health concerns, while issues related to 
foot-and-mouth disease account for 26 per cent. 
                                                     
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. 
2 G/SPS/R/18, para. 20. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page ii  
 
Figure 1 -   Number of New Issues Raised 
051015202530354045
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003no.
 
 
 
 
  
Figure 2a - Trade Concerns by Subject 
Food Safety
27%Plant Health
29%Other 
Concerns
3%
Animal Health 
& Zoonoses
41%
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page iii 
 
 
Figure 2b - Trade Concerns Related to Animal 
Health
TSEs
40%
FMD
26%Other Animal 
Concerns
34%
 
 
 Developing countries are participating activ ely under this agenda item in SPS Committee 
meetings.  As Figure 3 shows, developing country Members have raised 87 trade concerns, compared 
to 129 raised by developed country Members and two raised by least-developed country Members.3  
In 120 cases, a developing country Member has supported another Member raising an issue, 
compared to 86 for developed country Members and zero for least-developed country Members.  In 
115 cases, the measure at issue was maintained by a developed country Member, and in 86 cases it 
was maintained by a developing country Member.  No trade concerns regarding measures maintained 
by least-developed country Members have been raised.   
Figure 3 - Participation of Developing Countries
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140Members Raising the IssueSupporting MembersMembers Maintaining the
Measure in Question
Number of issues raised
Developed Countries Developing Countries Least-Developed Countries
 
 
                                                      
3 The European Communities was counted as one Member.  Similarly, when one Member spoke on 
behalf of ASEAN, it was counted as one Member only. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page iv  
 
 As Figure 4 shows, out of the 183 trade concerns  raised, only 29 solutions have been reported.  
In 15 cases, the Committee was info rmed that a partial solution had been found, although some 
difficulties persisted.  For example, trade may have been allowed for a limited number of products, or 
by only some of the importing Members maintaining the measures identified in a particular concern.  
For 139 concerns, no solution had been reported.   Not counting the 29 new issues raised in 2003, for 
which it may be too soon to expect a solution, there are 110 trade concerns that are at least a year old 
and for which no solution has been reported.  Of course, some of these concerns may have been 
solved without Members having so informed the Committe e.  Table 1 lists the issues that were raised 
for the first time in 2003.  Table 2 shows ot her items that were considered during 2003. 
 
Figure 4 - Solved Trade Concerns
020406080100120140160
Solution reported Partial soluti on reported No solution reported
 
 
  
Table 1 - Issues raised for the first time in 2003 
 
Item 
# Title Item 
# Title 
17 Import restrictions for Netherlands Truss 
tomatoes 87 Notification G/SPS/N/EEC /208 on sanitary 
conditions for the importation of live material 
for apiculture 
21 Notification G/SPS/N/BRA /74 and 75 on 
BSE related measures 111 Notification G/SPS/N/JPN/ 104 on the revision 
of standards and specifications for food and 
additives 
39 Quarantine measures for the entry and exit of 
aquatic products 112 Japan's Notification G/SPS/N/JPN/9 on uses 
of living modified organisms 
43 Import measures on live animals and meat 
products 120 Fumigation standards 
44 Restrictions on pork imports 121 Restrictions on imports of mangoes 
68 Restrictions on honey import 125 Guidelines for maximum residue levels 
(MRL) testing  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page v 
 
 
Item 
# Title Item 
# Title 
69 Maximum levels for aflatoxins for aflatoxins 
in corn and sampling contaminants in food 126 Notification G/ SPS/N/KOR/49 on 
transboundary movement of living modified 
organisms 
70 Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/196 on maximum 
residue levels in plant and animal products 131 Restrictions on Austrian products 
71 Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/191 and Add.1 on 
food and feed control 133 Restrictions on the importation of dry beans 
72 Notification G/SPS/N/DE U/9 and Add.1 on 
maximum tolerance levels for ocratoxin A in 
coffee 152 Requirements for heat treatment for meat and 
bone meal in poultry 
80 EC proposal on animal by-products 154 Import restrictions on potatoes 
81 Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/192 on 
transitional BSE measures 172 Notification G/SPS/N/USA/705 on 
implementation of the international standard 
for phytosanitary measures on wood 
packaging (ISPM 15) 
82 EC directive 2001/661/EC on FMD 179 Aromatic polycyclic hydrocarbures in pomace 
olive oil 
85 Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/190 on live 
animals and animal products 183 Implementaion of ISPM 15 
86 Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/198 on animal 
health conditions and certification 
requirements for live fish   
 
 
Table 2 – Other items considered during 2003 
 
Item 
# Title Item 
# Title 
1 BSE related measures 88 Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/1 31 on cut flowers 
9 Restrictions on pigmeat 95 Import restriction s on chicken meat  
10 Import restrictions on prawn and prawn 
products (G/SPS/N/AUS/124, 126) 100 Import restrictions on bovine semen 
11 Notification G/SPS/N/AU S/72 on quarantine 
requirements for chicken meat 103 Import restrictions on dairy products 
15 Import restrictions on durian 104 FMD restrictions 
24 Import requirements for seed potatoes 113 Restrictions on importation of sugar cane top 
from Indonesia 
37 Import ban on products of Dutch origin 115 Official control restrictions on citrus and other 
fresh fruits and vegetables 
38 Import requirements for cosmetics 140 Certification of meat and dairy products 
40 Regulation on wood packaging material 155 Restrictions on imports of pork sausages and 
other pork products, fresh, cured or salted 
42 FMD restrictions 157 Import ban on livestock 
54 Regulations on genetically modified food and 
feed 163 Restrictions on pigmeat 
55 Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/150 on traceability 
and labelling of genetically modified organisms and food and feed 173 Risk assessment on BSE 
63 Maximum levels for certain contaminants 
(aflatoxins) in foodstuffs 177 Phytosanitary requirements for garlic and 
potato imports 
65 Restrictions on the importation of fruit and 
fruit juices   
 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page vi  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
Page
 
 
ARGENTINA ...................................................................................................................... ...................1  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ARGENTINA ................................................1  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....1 
1. Argentina – BSE related measures .........................................................................................1  
2. Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea,  New Zealand, United States - Import 
restrictions affecti ng BSE-free countries................................................................................2  
3. Argentina – Import restrictions on bovine  semen, milk and milk products ...........................3  
4. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium,  Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, 
France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States a nd others – Measures related to BSE ..................4
 
5. Argentina - Temporary prohibition of fresh pork and products .............................................6  
Other Concerns................................................................................................................. ..............7  
6. Argentina - Pest risk ass essment requirements.......................................................................7  
CONCERNS RAISED BY ARGENTINA ...............................................................................................8  
AUSTRALIA...................................................................................................................... ....................9  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY AUSTRALIA .................................................9  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ..................9  
7. Australia – Restrictions on imports of sauces containing benzoic acid..................................9  
8. Australia and New Zealand – Import restrictions on cheese ..................................................9  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..10 
2. (and Argentina, Canada, Korea, New Zealand, United States) - Import restrictions 
affecting BSE-free countries ..................................................................................................2  
4. (and Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, 
Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland,  Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic, 
Slovenia, Spain, United States and others) – Measures related to BSE .................................4  
9. Australia – Restriction on pigmeat .......................................................................................10  
10. Australia - Import restrictions  on prawn and prawn products ..............................................11  
11. Australia - Notification G/SPS/N/AUS/72 on quarantine requirements for chicken 
meat ........................................................................................................................... ...........13  
12. Australia – Ban on salmon imports ......................................................................................14  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................14  
13. Australia - Access of Ca lifornia table grapes .......................................................................14  
14. Australia – Notification on methyl bromide.........................................................................15  
15. Australia – Import restrictions on durian..............................................................................16  
16. Australia – Restrictions on imports of tropical fresh fruit....................................................17   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page vii 
 
 
17. Australia – Import Requirements for Netherlands Truss Tomatoes.....................................18  
CONCERNS RAISED BY AUSTRALIA ..............................................................................................18  
BOLIVIA ........................................................................................................................ ......................19  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BOLIVIA ....................................................19  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..19 
18. Bolivia - FMD trade restrictions...........................................................................................19  
19. Bolivia - Restrictions on poultry meat imports ....................................................................19  
CONCERNS RAISED BY BOLIVIA ...................................................................................................20  
BRAZIL ......................................................................................................................... .......................20  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BRAZIL .....................................................20  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................20  
20. Brazil - Import requirements for wine..................................................................................20  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..21 
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, 
France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovak 
Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States and others) – Measures related to BSE.................4  
21. Brazil – Notification G/SPS/N/BRA/74 and 75 on BSE-related measures..........................21  
Other Animal Health Concerns................................................................................................... 21 
22. Brazil – Imports of live ostriches .........................................................................................21  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................22  
23. Brazil – Pest risk assessments fo r imports of plant origin....................................................22  
24. Brazil – Import requirements for seed potatoes....................................................................22  
25. Brazil – Import prohibition of coc onut palms and related products.....................................23  
26. Brazil – Restrictions on imported wheat ..............................................................................24  
CONCERNS RAISED BY BRAZIL .....................................................................................................24  
BULGARIA....................................................................................................................... ...................25  
CONCERNS RAISED BY BULGARIA ................................................................................................25  
CANADA ......................................................................................................................... .....................25  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CANADA ...................................................25  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................25  
27. Canada - Importation of cheese............................................................................................25  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..26 
2. (and Argentina, Australia, Korea, New Zealand, United States) - Import 
restrictions affecti ng BSE-free countries................................................................................2  
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belg ium, Brazil, Chile, Czech Republic, 
France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovak 
Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States and others) – Measures related to BSE.................4  
28. Canada - Measures affecting imports of  products containing Brazilian beef.......................26  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page viii  
 
29.
 Canada - Zoosanitary import policies pertaining to BSE .....................................................26  
30. Canada and the United States - Impor t restrictions due to FMD..........................................27  
CONCERNS RAISED BY CANADA ...................................................................................................27  
CHILE.......................................................................................................................... .........................28 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHILE ........................................................28  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................28  
31. Chile, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Hondur as, Slovak Republic – Zero-tolerance 
for salmonella  in imported poultry products ........................................................................28  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..29 
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belg ium, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, 
France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovak 
Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States and others) – Measures related to BSE.................4  
32. Chile - Pet food import requirements ...................................................................................29  
33. Chile - FMD restrictions....................................................................................................... 29 
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................30  
34. Chile – Restrictions on imports of wheat and fruit...............................................................30  
CONCERNS RAISED BY CHILE .......................................................................................................31  
CHINA .......................................................................................................................... ........................31  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINA .......................................................31  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................31  
35. China – Food safety regulations affecting agricultural products produced from 
modern biotechnology..........................................................................................................3 1 
36. China – Zero tolerance for e-coli..........................................................................................32  
37. China – Import ban on pro ducts of Dutch origin..................................................................33  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..34 
38. China - Import requirements for cosmetics ..........................................................................34  
39. China – Quarantine measures for the entry and exit of aquatic products.............................35  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................35  
40. China – Regulation on wood packaging material.................................................................35  
41. China – Import restrictions for citrus and other fruits related to fruit fly.............................36  
CONCERNS RAISED BY CHINA ......................................................................................................37  
COLOMBIA....................................................................................................................... ..................37  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY COLOMBIA ................................................37  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..37 
42. Colombia - FMD restrictions................................................................................................37  
CONCERNS RAISED BY COLOMBIA ...............................................................................................38  
COSTA RICA..................................................................................................................... ..................39  
CONCERNS RAISED BY COSTA RICA............................................................................................39   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page ix 
 
 
CÔTE D'IVOIRE.................................................................................................................. ...............39  
CONCERNS RAISED BY CÔTE  D' IVOIRE .....................................................................................39  
CROATIA........................................................................................................................ .....................39  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CROATIA ....................................................39  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... .....39  
43. Croatia – Import measures on live animals and meat products ............................................39  
44. Croatia – Restrictions on pork imports.................................................................................40  
CONCERNS RAISED BY CROATIA ..................................................................................................40  
CUBA ........................................................................................................................... .........................41  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CUBA ........................................................41  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..41 
45. Cuba – Import restrictions on spi ced pork and salted meat products ...................................41  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................41  
46. Cuba - Restrictions on apples and pears...............................................................................41  
CONCERNS RAISED BY CUBA........................................................................................................41  
CZECH REPUBLIC................................................................................................................. ...........42  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CZECH REPUBLIC .....................................42  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................42  
31. (and Chile, El Salvador, Honduras, Slovak Republic) – Zero-tolerance for 
salmonella  in imported poultry products..............................................................................28  
47. Czech Republic - Prohibition of poultry meat imports from Thailand.................................42  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..42 
48. Czech Republic – Regulation concer ning warehouses and silos..........................................42  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................43  
49. Czech Republic - Imports of potatoes ..................................................................................43  
CONCERNS RAISED BY CZECH REPUBLIC ...................................................................................43  
ECUADOR ........................................................................................................................ ...................44  
CONCERNS RAISED BY ECUADOR .................................................................................................44  
EGYPT.......................................................................................................................... ........................44  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EGYPT .......................................................44  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................44  
50. Egypt - Restrictions on canned tuna.....................................................................................44  
CONCERNS RAISED BY EGYPT ......................................................................................................44  
EL SALVADOR.................................................................................................................... ...............45  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EL SALVADOR ..........................................45  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................28  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page x  
 
31.
 (and Chile, Czech Republic, Honduras, Slovak Republic) – Zero-tolerance for 
salmonella  in imported poultry products..............................................................................28  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..45 
51. El Salvador – Restrictions on meat and dairy products........................................................45  
ESTONIA ........................................................................................................................ .....................45  
CONCERNS RAISED BY ESTONIA ..................................................................................................45  
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ..........................................................................................................4 5 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ........................45  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................45  
52. European Communities – Restrictions on shellfish..............................................................45  
53. European Communities – Pesticide and antib iotic limits in honey (Directive 96/23)..........46  
54. European Communities - Regulations on genetically modified food and feed ....................46  
55. European Communities – Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/150 on traceability and 
labelling of  genetically modified  organisms and food and feed..........................................49  
56. European Communities - Directive 2000/42 on pesticide residues......................................50  
57. European Communities - Legislation on the fungicide thiabendazole (TBZ)......................51  
58. European Communities - Import r estrictions on soy sauce..................................................51  
59. European Communities - Information on dioxin..................................................................52  
60. European Communities - Measures on food treated with ionizing radiation .......................53  
61. European Communities - Emergenc y measures on citrus pulp............................................54  
62. European Communities - Measure on establis hments operating in the animal feed 
sector ......................................................................................................................... ...........54  
63. European Communities - Maximum levels fo r certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in 
foodstuffs..................................................................................................................... .........55  
64. European Communities – Trade restrict ions in response to cholera ....................................58  
65. European Communities – Restrictions on the importation of fruits and fruit juices ............58  
66. European Communities (Belgium) - Measur es regarding canned tuna in oil.......................59  
67. European Communities (Spain ) – Restriction on levels of copper and cadmium in 
imported squid................................................................................................................. .....60  
68. European Communities – Restri ctions on honey imports ....................................................60  
69. European Communities – Maximum levels for aflatoxins in corn and sampling 
contaminants in food ........................................................................................................... .61 
70. European Communities – Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/196 on maximum residue 
levels in plant and animal products ......................................................................................61  
71. European Communities – Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/191 and Add.1 on food and 
feed controls .................................................................................................................. .......62  
72. European Communities (Germany) – Notification G/SPS/N/DEU/9 and Add.1 on 
maximum tolerance levels fo r ocratoxin A in coffee ...........................................................62  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..63  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page xi 
 
 
4. Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain (and Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Poland, Romania, Singapore, 
Slovak Republic, Slovenia, United States a nd others) – Measures related to BSE................4
 
73. European Communities – Transitional TSE measures .........................................................63  
74. European Communities – Geographical BSE risk assessment.............................................64  
75. European Communities – Restricti ons on the use of fishmeal .............................................64  
76. European Communities – Cosmetics and  BSE....................................................................66  
77. European Communities – Rules on "specified risk materials" in products of animal 
origin ......................................................................................................................... ...........66  
78. European Communities – Gelatin imports ...........................................................................67  
79. European Communities (France) – Certif ication requirements for pet food........................68  
80. European Communities –  Proposal on animal by-products ................................................69  
81. European Communities  - Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/192 on transitional BSE 
measures ....................................................................................................................... ........70  
82. European Communities – EC Directive 2001/661/EC on foot and mouth disease ..............71  
83. European Communities - Ban on antibiotics in feed............................................................71  
84. European Communities – Salmonella-related  restriction on fishmeal imports ....................72  
85. European Communities – Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/190 on live animals and 
animal products ................................................................................................................ ....72  
86. European Communities – Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/198 on animal health 
conditions and certification requirements for live fish.........................................................72  
87. European Communities – Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/208 on sanitary conditions for the importation of live material for apiculture................................................................73
 
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................73  
88. European Communities - Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/131 regarding cut flowers ...............73  
89. European Communities - Measures on imports of Egyptian potatoes .................................74  
90. European Communities - G/SPS/N/EEC/93 on wood packing material ..............................75  
91. European Communities - Citrus canker................................................................................75  
92. European Communities – Protected zones ...........................................................................76  
93. European Communities (Spain)- Phytosanitary regulations.................................................76  
Other Concerns................................................................................................................. ............77  
94. European Communities - Agricultural biotechnology approval process..............................77  
CONCERNS RAISED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES .........................................................................79  
THE GAMBIA ..................................................................................................................... ................80  
CONCERNS RAISED BY THE GAMBIA ............................................................................................80  
HONDURAS....................................................................................................................... ..................80  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY HONDURAS ...............................................80  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................28  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page xii  
 
31.
 (and Chile, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Slovak Republic) – Zero-tolerance for 
salmonella  in imported poultry products..............................................................................28  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..80 
95. Honduras – Import restrictions on chicken meat imports.....................................................80  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................82  
96. Honduras – Restrictions on imports of rough rice................................................................82  
HUNGARY........................................................................................................................ ...................82  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY HUNGARY .................................................82  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..82 
97. Hungary - Restrictions on bovine products ..........................................................................82  
98. Hungary - Restrictions on  pork products.............................................................................82  
CONCERNS RAISED BY HUNGARY ................................................................................................83  
ICELAND ........................................................................................................................ .....................83  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ICELAND ...................................................83  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................83  
99. Iceland - Notification on meat and meat products................................................................83  
INDIA.......................................................................................................................... ..........................84  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDIA ........................................................84  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..84 
100. India – Import restrictions on bovine semen ........................................................................84  
101. India – Restrictions on imports of horses .............................................................................85  
CONCERNS RAISED BY INDIA ........................................................................................................86  
INDONESIA...................................................................................................................... ...................86  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA ................................................86  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................86  
102. Indonesia – Ban on hormones in animal production ............................................................86  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..87 
103. Indonesia – Import restrictions on dairy products ................................................................87  
104. Indonesia - FMD restrictions................................................................................................87  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................88  
105. Indonesia - Restrictions on importation of fresh fruit ..........................................................88  
106. Indonesia - Fresh fruit and vegetables..................................................................................89  
CONCERNS RAISED BY INDONESIA ...............................................................................................89  
ISRAEL......................................................................................................................... ........................89  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ISRAEL ......................................................89  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..89  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page xiii 
 
 
107. Israel - Notification G/SPS/N/ISR/2 on TSE-related import restrictions of live 
cattle ......................................................................................................................... ............89  
108. Israel – Measures affecting imports of bovine meat.............................................................90  
CONCERNS RAISED BY ISRAEL .....................................................................................................90  
JAPAN .......................................................................................................................... ........................90  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN .......................................................90  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................90  
109. Japan - Regulation on food additives ...................................................................................90  
110. Japan - Amendment of the food sanitation law ....................................................................91  
111. Japan – Notification G/SPS/N/JPN/104 on the revision of standards and 
specifications for fo ods and additives ..................................................................................91  
112. Japan - Notification G/SPS/N/JPN/9 on uses of living modified organisms........................92  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..92 
113. Japan - Restrictions on importation of sugar cane top from Indonesia ................................92  
114. Japan - Measures regarding FMD ........................................................................................93  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................94  
115. Japan – Official control restrictions on citr us and other fresh fruits and vegetables............94  
116. Japan - Import measures on fire blight .................................................................................95  
117. Japan – Testing requirements for different  varieties of apples, cherries and 
nectarines..................................................................................................................... .........97  
118. Japan - Plant quarantine regulations.....................................................................................97  
119. Japan - Amendment of the Japanese Plant Protection Law..................................................98  
120. Japan – Fumigation standards ..............................................................................................98  
121. Japan – Restrictions on imports of mangoes ........................................................................99  
Other Concerns................................................................................................................. ............99  
122. Japan and Korea - Translation of regulations.......................................................................99  
REPUBLIC OF KOREA.............................................................................................................. .....100  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA .......................100  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ..............100  
123. Korea – Import ban on frozen poultry................................................................................100  
124. Korea – Shelf-life requirements .........................................................................................101  
125. Korea – Guidelines for maximum residue level (MRL) testing .........................................102  
126. Korea – Notification G/SPS/N/KOR/49 on transboundary movement of living 
modified organisms ............................................................................................................1 02 
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 103 
2. (and Argentina, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United States) - Import 
restrictions affecti ng BSE-free countries................................................................................2  
127. Korea – Import restrictions on beef....................................................................................103  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page xiv  
 
Other Concerns................................................................................................................. ..........103
 
122. (and Japan) - Translation of regulations ..............................................................................99  
128. Korea – Import clearance measures and practices..............................................................103  
LATVIA......................................................................................................................... .....................104  
CONCERNS RAISED BY LATVIA ..................................................................................................104  
MALAYSIA....................................................................................................................... .................104  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY MALAYSIA ..............................................104  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ..............104  
129. Malaysia and Singapore - Notifi cations related to dioxin ..................................................104  
CONCERNS RAISED BY MALAYSIA .............................................................................................105  
MEXICO......................................................................................................................... ....................105  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY MEXICO ..................................................105  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 105 
130. Mexico - Import restrictions on beef ..................................................................................105  
131. Mexico – Restrictions on Austrian Products ......................................................................105  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..............106  
132. Mexico – Import prohibition of milled rice........................................................................106  
133. Mexico – Restrictions on the Importation of Dry Beans....................................................108  
CONCERNS RAISED BY MEXICO .................................................................................................108  
MOLDOVA ........................................................................................................................ ................108  
CONCERNS RAISED BY MOLDOVA ..............................................................................................108  
NEW ZEALAND .................................................................................................................... ...........109  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY NEW ZEALAND .......................................109  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ..................9  
8. (and Australia) – Import restrictions on cheese .....................................................................9  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....2 
2. (and Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, United States) - Import restrictions 
affecting BSE-free countries ..................................................................................................2  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..............109  
134. New Zealand - Proposed import prohibition of commodity-country combinations 
of fresh cut flowers and foliage ..........................................................................................109  
CONCERNS RAISED BY NEW ZEALAND ......................................................................................109  
NORWAY......................................................................................................................... ..................110  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ......................110  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 110 
135. Norway – Restrictions on gelatin imports ..........................................................................110  
PANAMA......................................................................................................................... ...................110   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page xv 
 
 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY PANAMA .................................................110  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ..............110  
136. Panama - Restrictions on milk powder imports..................................................................110  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 111 
137. Panama's restrictions  on food products ..............................................................................111  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..............111  
138. Panama – Requirements for certification of consumer rice................................................111  
Other Concerns................................................................................................................. ..........111  
139. Panama's import licenses for agricultural products ............................................................111  
PERU........................................................................................................................... ........................112  
CONCERNS RAISED BY PERU ......................................................................................................112  
PHILIPPINES.................................................................................................................... ................112  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE PHILIPPINES .....................................112  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ..............112  
140. Philippines – Certification of  meat and dairy products ......................................................112  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..............113  
141. Philippines - Notification on Chinese fruit imports............................................................113  
CONCERNS RAISED BY THE PHILIPPINES ...................................................................................113  
POLAND......................................................................................................................... ....................114  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY POLAND ..................................................114  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ..............114  
142. Poland - Requirements for imports  of milk and milk products ..........................................114  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 114 
143. Poland - Notifications on veterinary m easures and measures on animal products 
including gelatin .............................................................................................................. ...114  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..............115  
144. Poland – Restrictions on wheat and oilseeds......................................................................115  
CONCERNS RAISED BY POLAND .................................................................................................116  
ROMANIA ........................................................................................................................ .................116  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ROMANIA ................................................116  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ..............116  
145. Romania – SPS measures on animal products....................................................................116  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....4 
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Be lgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech 
Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Singapore, Slovak 
Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States and others) – Measures related to BSE.................4  
CONCERNS RAISED BY ROMANIA ...............................................................................................116  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page xvi  
 
SENEGAL ........................................................................................................................ ..................117
 
CONCERNS RAISED BY SENEGAL ................................................................................................117  
SINGAPORE...................................................................................................................... ................104  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ..............104  
129. (and Malaysia) - Notifications related to dioxin................................................................104  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....4 
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Be lgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech 
Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Ne therlands, Poland, Romania, Slovak 
Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States and others) – Measures related to BSE.................4  
SLOVAK REPUBLIC ................................................................................................................ .......117  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC ..........................117  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................28  
31. (and Chile, Czech Republic, El Salvador , Honduras)– Zero-tolerance for 
salmonella  in imported poultry products..............................................................................28  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....4 
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Be lgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech 
Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Neth erlands, Poland, Romania, Singapore, 
Slovenia, Spain, United States and others) – Measures related to BSE .................................4  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..............117  
146. Slovak Republic – Restrictions on impor ts of apples, pears and quinces...........................117  
147. Slovak Republic – Import r estrictions on potatoes.............................................................118  
CONCERNS RAISED BY THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC ...........................................................................118  
SLOVENIA....................................................................................................................... ..................119  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....4 
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Be lgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech 
Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Neth erlands, Poland, Romania, Singapore, 
Slovak Republic, Spain, United States and others) – Measures related to BSE.....................4  
CONCERNS RAISED BY SLOVENIA ..............................................................................................119 
SOUTH AFRICA................................................................................................................... ............119  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SOUTH AFRICA .......................................119  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 119 
148. South Africa - Prohibition on bone-in beef imports from member States of the 
European Communities ......................................................................................................119  
149. South Africa – Restrictions on beef and pork.....................................................................120  
CONCERNS RAISED BY SOUTH AFRICA ......................................................................................120  
SWITZERLAND.................................................................................................................... ............120  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SWITZERLAND ........................................120  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ..............120  
150. Switzerland - Notifications regarding im port requirements on meat and eggs ..................120   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page xvii 
 
 
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..............121  
151. Switzerland - Notification on wheat, rye and triticale........................................................121  
CONCERNS RAISED BY SWITZERLAND .......................................................................................121  
SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND 
MATSU (CHINESE TAIPEI)......................................................................................................... ..122  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINESE TAIPEI ......................................122  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 122 
152. Chinese Taipei – Requirements for heat treatment for meat and bone meal in 
poultry ........................................................................................................................ ........122  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..............122  
153. Chinese Taipei - Policies  regarding qua rantine and non-quarantine pests ........................122  
154. Chinese Taipei – Import restrictions on potatoes ...............................................................123  
TANZANIA ....................................................................................................................... .................123  
CONCERNS RAISED BY TANZANIA ..............................................................................................123  
THAILAND....................................................................................................................... .................123  
CONCERNS RAISED BY THAILAND ..............................................................................................123  
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO ............................................................................................................ .124 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO .........................124  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 124 
155. Trinidad and Tobago - Restrictions on imports of pork sausages and other pork 
products, fresh, cured or salted...........................................................................................124  
TURKEY ......................................................................................................................... ...................125  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY TURKEY ..................................................125  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 125 
156. Turkey - Ban on pet food imports ......................................................................................125  
157. Turkey – Import ban on livestock.......................................................................................126  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..............127  
158. Turkey - Restrictions on banana imports............................................................................127  
UNITED STATES.................................................................................................................. ............128  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE UNITED STATES ...............................128  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ..............128  
159. United States – Restrictions on melons ..............................................................................128  
160. United States - Notification G/SPS/N/USA/133 on refrigeration and labelling 
requirements for shell eggs.................................................................................................128  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 129 
2. (and Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, New Zealand) - Import restrictions 
affecting BSE-free countries ..................................................................................................2  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page xviii  
 
4.
 (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Be lgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech 
Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Neth erlands, Poland, Romania, Singapore, 
Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, and others) – Measures related to BSE ...........................4  
161. United States – Import restrictions on meat and meat products .........................................129  
162. United States – Measures related to BSE ...........................................................................129  
163. United States – Restrictions on pigmeat.............................................................................130  
164. United States - Regionalization in relation to animal health ..............................................131  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..............131  
165. United States – Restrictions on imports of Chinese potted plants in growing 
medium......................................................................................................................... ......131  
166. United States - Import restrictions on potted plants from the European 
Communities .................................................................................................................... ..132  
167. United States – Imports of citrus fruit ................................................................................132  
168. United States – Imports of clementines..............................................................................133  
169. United States – Import restrictions on rhododendrons in growing medium.......................133  
170. United States – Interim rule affec ting solid wood packaging material...............................134  
171. United States - Actions taken by local governments..........................................................134  
172. United States – Notification G/SPS/N/USA/705 on implementation of the 
international standard for phytosanitary measures on wood packaging (ISPM 15) ...........135  
CONCERNS RAISED BY THE UNITED STATES .............................................................................135  
URUGUAY ........................................................................................................................ .................137  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY URUGUAY ...............................................137  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 137 
173. Uruguay – Risk assessment on  BSE..................................................................................137  
CONCERNS RAISED BY URUGUAY ..............................................................................................138  
VENEZUELA...................................................................................................................... ...............138  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY VENEZUELA ............................................138  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 138 
174. Venezuela – FMD Restrictions ..........................................................................................138  
175. Venezuela - Import conditions for pork meat and products ...............................................138  
176. Venezuela – Measures related to Avian Influenza .............................................................139  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..............139  
177. Venezuela - Phytosanitary requirement s for potatoes, garlic and onions...........................139  
Other Concerns................................................................................................................. ..........140  
178. Venezuela – Restrictions on imports of potatoes, fresh mushrooms, fresh tomatoes, 
fertilised eggs, day-old ch icks and meat products..............................................................140  
OTHER CONCERNS................................................................................................................. .......141  
FOOD SAFETY ............................................................................................................................... 141  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page xix 
 
 
179. Certain Members – Aromatic polycyclic hydrocarbures in pomace olive oil ....................141  
ANIMAL HEALTH ..........................................................................................................................141  
180. Certain Members - FMD-related import restrictions..........................................................141  
181. Certain Members – Notifications related to Avian Influenza.............................................143 
PLANT HEALTH .............................................................................................................................14 3 
182. Phytosanitary issues in general...........................................................................................143  
183. Implementation of ISPM 15 ...............................................................................................144  
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 1 
 
 
ARGENTINA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ARGENTINA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to TSEs 
 
1. Argentina – BSE related measures 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras.  60-63), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 
46-49), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 78-80) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ARG/65 
Solution: Not reported 
 1. Canada indicated that Argentina appeared to  have copied the EC geographical BSE risk 
categorization scheme (GBR), and had not followed an  international standard or conducted a risk 
assessment.  Canada had been given a Level 2 ra ting, although it had no BS E.  Argentina had not 
requested any data from Canada.  Furthermore, Ca nada questioned why the scheme had been notified 
as an emergency measure, and why Argentina had fo llowed the EC measures instead of carrying out 
its own analysis. The United States shared Canada's  concern and encouraged Argentina to consider 
the BSE risk assessment and data from the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.  
2. Argentina explained that its measures were base d on the available information.  If a Member 
felt the categorization was unjust, it should present the necessary technical information, in which case 
the review would be given priority.  Argentina be lieved its system was in compliance with the OIE 
Code.  Argentina had to take urgent action to update its BSE measures a nd any delay would have 
posed unacceptable risks to Argentina's own BSE status.  
3. In November 2002, Canada reported that it ha d provided a large body of information to 
Argentina but had not yet had a response.  Canada  did not have BSE and did not understand how it 
could have been given such a rating without any ri sk assessment having been conducted by Argentina.  
The United States, which was also free of BSE, shared Canada's concern.  The United States 
encouraged Argentina, as well as other countries, to make use of the information resulting from the 
BSE risk assessment undertaken by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.  
4. Argentina reported that it had reviewed the me asure and amended the provisions in Annex II 
which contained the country ranking based on a risk assessment.  These amendments would be 
undertaken soon.  Argentina was completing its anal ysis of the additional information submitted by 
Canada, and a reply would s oon be provided bilaterally. 
5. In April 2003, Canada reported that the aut horities in Argentina and Uruguay had agreed to 
undertake their own BSE risk assessments.  The Un ited States noted that Argentina's resolution 
allowed for the re-categorisation of the BSE status  of the United States.  However, a significant 
amount of scientific evidence had been provided to  Argentina which exceeded the OIE criteria for 
recognition as a BSE-free country.  Any restrictions  were unjustified and Argentina was requested to 
lift its restrictions on the importation of sweet bread s.  Argentina reported that substantive progress 
had been made on this issue and was confident that further bilateral consultations would result in its 
resolution. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 2  
 
2. Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, New Zeal and, United States - Import restrictions 
affecting BSE-free countries 
Raised by: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Repub lic, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Romania, 
Slovak Republic, Slovenia 
Supported by: European Communities, United States 
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  18-25), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 48) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/247, G/SPS/N/ARG/59, G/SPS/N/AUS/125, 
G/SPS/N/CAN/94, G/SPS/N/KOR/83, G/SPS/N/NZL/77, 
G/SPS/N/USA/379 
Solution: Not reported 
 
6. On behalf of a group of countries (see table a bove), Romania drew attention to a number of 
emergency notifications banning imports of certain  animal products from countries that were BSE-
free.  These measures violated the SPS Agreemen t since they were not based on a proper risk 
assessment.  The affected countries were willing to provide the necessary documentation of their 
BSE-free status.  The European Communities added th at testing or suspension of imports of milk, 
dairy products, collagen and gelatine for BSE was not in conformity with OIE guidelines, and 
requested Members to adapt their requirements to  the international standard.  The United States 
affirmed that BSE-related measures must be based on science and international standards.  The United 
States, although BSE-free, had also been affected by  import restrictions, some of them imposed by 
countries sponsoring the statement presented by Ro mania.  The United States had provided evidence 
on its freedom from BSE, its surveillance system a nd control measures to interested trade partners, 
and required similar data from c ountries that may pose a BSE risk.  The United States looked forward 
to receiving the necessary informa tion to assess the risks involved. 
7. New Zealand and Australia were concerned over the increase in known incidence of the 
disease in Europe as a result of intensified testing, and had issued emergency food standards to protect 
public health.  They were developing permanent measures, which would be notified to allow for 
comments from interested Members.  Canada had not recognized any of the countries of the joint 
declaration as BSE-free, and would evaluate individual countries based on a risk assessment as soon 
as the necessary information was received.  Kor ea indicated that a temporary measure had been 
introduced because of the increased  prevalence of BSE in Europe.  Korea would seek the additional 
information necessary for a more objective assessment of  the risks involved.  Argentina indicated that 
its emergency measure was based on the scientific info rmation available at the time, and stressed that 
any new information received would be considered.  Bu lgaria pointed out that according to Article 5.7 
Members were obliged to request additional information when temporary measures were 
implemented.  Brazil reaffirmed Members' right to  go beyond international guidelines based on a risk 
assessment, but stressed that this should only ta ke place once the necessary information had been 
provided. 
8. In July 2001, Bulgaria reitera ted its concern regarding import restrictions affecting BSE-free 
countries.    G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 3 
 
 
3. Argentina – Import restrictions on bo vine semen, milk and milk products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Switzerland, South Africa 
Dates raised: March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, par as. 17-18), July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, paras 23-
24), November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras.  26-28), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, 
paras. 44-46), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 18-19) 
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: Measure revised and notified (G/SPS/N/ARG/47/Rev.1). 
 9. 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 committed to sending the re levant document to the European Commission. 
10. 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. 
11. 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.   
12. In November 2000, the European Communities stated that Argentina was applying import 
restrictions on bovine semen that went well be yond international recommendations and were not 
justified.  The European Communities would continue  to pursue this issue bilaterally, and was hopeful 
of a resolution.  Argentina replied that it had no tified, in advance, its regulation as G/SPS/N/ARG/47, 
which was subsequently revised following comme nts by the European Communities and others 
(G/SPS/N/ARG/47/Rev.1).  This regulation establishe d criteria not only in relation to BSE concerns 
but also to two other diseases.  Argentina had resolv ed the problems identified bilaterally by many EC 
member States, in particular Germany and France.  Furthermore, an Argentine veterinary mission 
would be visiting various EC member States early in December and was prepared to also address this issue at that time. 
13. In July 2001, the European Communities referre d to the information on BSE circulated by 
OIE and WHO, concluding that there was no evid ence of BSE transmission via milk collected from 
healthy animals (G/SPS/GEN/221, 222, and 230).  However, Argentina was still imposing import 
restrictions on EC dairy products, in par ticular from the United Kingdom.  The European 
Communities had replied to Argentina's extensive qu estionnaire, but Argentina had failed to provide a 
risk assessment to justify its measures.  The Eur opean Communities urged Argentina either to provide 
a scientific justification, or to lift the trade rest rictions.  Otherwise the European Communities would 
have to consider an eventual recourse to Article 12.2 consultation procedures.  Argentina replied that 
in January 2001, its animal health service had ad opted a resolution which imposed restrictions on 
dairy products.  A new, less restrictive sanitary certificate would be notified soon.  Regarding human G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 4  
 
health, dairy products had been reclassified from medium to low risk, and the relevant decree 
eliminated the restrictions.  This reclassification was not yet complete, and one category of milk remained under restriction.  The United Kingdom was considered a high-risk country, but the situation was under analysis. 
14. In October 2001, the European Communities i ndicated that despite statements from the 
Argentine authorities that dairy products would be reclassified, Argen tina continued to place 
restrictions on baby food and on Baileys from Ire land; Belgian chocolate; bovine semen and dairy 
products from the Netherlands; milk powder and ch eese from Germany; Swedish cacao oil butter; and 
dairy products from the United Kingdom and Fran ce.  Furthermore, the European Communities 
disagreed with the classification of dairy products as low-risk, as opposed to no-risk, and criticized the 
lack of transparency of the Argentine measure.  The European Communities was considering eventual 
recourse to Article 12.2 consultation procedures.  Argentina explained that it did not maintain any 
restriction on EC dairy products; they just had to be certified as coming from establishments where no 
case, or suspected case, of BSE had been recorded .  A counter proposal from EC member States that 
milk come from establishments where there had been no case of BSE was currently being studied to 
determine equivalence.  Regarding transparency, a ll standards could be cons ulted on the web page of 
the Official Bulletin.  As Argentina continued effo rts to resolve this question, it did not consider 
recourse to Article 12.2 consultations necessary. 
4. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Br azil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, 
Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic, 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, paras. 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 and Add.1, 
G/SPS/N/SGP/1, G/SPS/W/68, G/SPS/W/79, G/SPS/GN/5, G/SPS/GEN/71 
Solution: Slovak transit ban removed, mutua lly satisfactory soluti on found with regard 
to Slovak importation of Swiss milk  and milk products; Chilean import 
measure modified; some other measures withdrawn/revised. 
 15. 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. 
16. 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 solutions through bilatera l discussions.  Argentina in formed 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  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 5 
 
 
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. 
17. 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. 
18. 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. 
19. 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 
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. 
20. 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. 
21. 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. 
22. 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 6  
 
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. 
23. 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 
consultations and in September 1998, Switzerland reported that the transit ban had been removed, 
although discussions on market access fo r dairy products continued.  
24. 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. 
25. 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. 
Other Animal Health Concerns 
 
5. 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: Not reported 
 
26. 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  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 7 
 
 
the European Communities.  Argentina had requ ested information from a number of EC member 
States, but only four countries had responded.  Classic Swine Fever was a highly infective OIE List A disease which had not occurred in Argentina si nce 1985.  Argentina would assess information 
received so as to adjust its measure as appropriate. 
Other Concerns 
6. Argentina -  Pest risk assessment requirements 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada, European  Communities, New Zealand 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 80-82). 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ARG/67 and G/SPS/N/ARG/68 
Solution: Not reported 
 
27. The United States sought clarification on the criteria Argentina would use in determining 
whether or not a product tracing system thr ough the production and marketing chain met the 
requirements of this measure.  The measure al so referred to mutual agreements under which 
Argentina authorized imports of animals and animal products and the United States requested 
information about existing agreements that Argentin a might have concluded, as well as the criteria 
and procedures for future such agreements.  Furt hermore, the United States sought information on the 
role of equivalence under this measure, for exam ple, would Argentina recognize the overall inspection 
systems of exporting countries, or only verify compliance with Argentine requirements? 
28. Canada stated that certain elements of Argentina's measure were unnecessarily trade 
restrictive, such as the requirement for an a udited traceability system throughout the entire product 
and marketing chain for a wide range of products , live animals, reproductive material, soil dressing 
etc.  Canada was concerned that all foreign estab lishments would be subject to prior inspection and 
authorization that was only valid for two years.  This requirement provided no flexibility for cases 
where no risk problems were present, and could result  in high costs to exporters.  The representatives 
of New Zealand and of the European Communities suppor ted the concerns raised by the United States 
and Canada and expressed a systemic interest in the issue. 
29. Argentina requested the United States to provid e its questions in writing.  The notification 
was open for comments and the period for comments had been extended due to requests from trading partners.  Argentina noted that other countries, including the European Communities, approved plants for export to their markets only after visiting those pl ants, and then the conditio ns were maintained by 
Argentina. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 8  
 
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY ARGENTINA  
Item 
Number 
 Country Maintaining the Measure   
Food Safety  
Item 55 European Communities  – Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/150 on traceability and labelling 
of  genetically modified organisms and food and feed  
Item  63 European Communities  – Maximum levels for certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in 
foodstuffs  
Item  99 Iceland's  notification on meat and meat products 
Animal Health and Zoonoses  
TSE Concerns 
Item 32 Chile- Pet food import requirements 
FMD Concerns 
Item 18 Bolivia –  FMD trade restrictions- 
Item180 Certain Members –  FMD-related import restrictions 
Item 33 Chile –  FMD Restrictions  
Item 42 Colombia –  FMD Restrictions 
Item 45 Cuba –  Import restrictions on spiced pork and salted meat products 
Item 103 Indonesia –  Import restrictions on dairy products 
Item 104 Indonesia –  FMD restrictions 
Item  114 Japan –  Measures regarding FMD  
Item 127 Korea –  Import restrictions on beef 
Item 130 Mexico –  Import restrictions on beef 
Item 155 Trinidad and Tobago  – Restrictions on imports of po rk sausages and other pork products, 
fresh cured or salted 
Item 174 Venezuela  – FMD restrictions 
Other Animal Health Concerns 
Item 87 European Communities – Apiculture restrictions  
Plant Health Concerns  
Item 41 China –  Import restrictions for citrus and other fruits related to fruit fly 
Item 46 Cuba –  Restrictions on apples and pears 
Item 91 European Communities –  Citrus canker 
Item 93 European Communities (Spain) –   Phytosanitary regulations 
Item 151 Switzerland –  Notifications on wheat, rye and triticale 
Item 167 United States –  Imports of citrus fruit 
Item 172 United States – ISPM 15 implementation on wood packaging material  
Item 177 Venezuela —Phytosanitary requirements for potatoes, garlic and onions  
Other Concerns  
Item 122 Japan and Korea –  Translation of regulations 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 9 
 
 
AUSTRALIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY AUSTRALIA  
Food Safety 7. 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), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 36) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/106;  see also G/SPS/13, G/SPS/GEN/137 and 
G/SPS/W/107/Rev.1 
Solution: Australian tolerance level modi fied in June 2000. In October 2001, the 
Philippines confirmed that sauces were no longer be ing detained. 
 
30. 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. 
31. 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. 
32. 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.   
33. In October 2001, the Philippines confirmed that Au stralia had modified the tolerance level for 
benzoic acid in sauces, and that detention of Phili ppine sauces in Australia due to benzoic acid had 
not been noted in Hold Order Lists since June 2000. 
8. 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), November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, para. 32) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/80, G/SPS/N/AUS/107, G/SPS/N/NZL/48 
Solution: Switzerland reported that a mutua lly satisfactory solution had been found. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 10  
 
34. 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. 
35. 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 
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. 
36. 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.  In November 2000, Swit zerland reported that a mutually satisfactory solution 
had been found. 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Other Animal Health Concerns 
 
9. Australia – Restriction on pigmeat   
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Canada 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 75-76), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, 
paras. 67-69) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 37. The European Communities noted that Australia banned imports of pigmeat from the 
European Communities, except Danish pigmeat subject  to a specific heat treatment.  Australia had 
began a risk assessment for pigmeat imports in  May 1998, and although the results had been 
scheduled for February 2000 they had not been presen ted and no alternative da te had been set.  Four 
and a half years was too long a delay to wait for a risk assessment to be undertaken.  The European 
Communities had formally proposed equivalent measur es, but Australia had not accepted these.  The 
European Communities requested Australia to  take a decision as quickly as possible. 
38. Australia indicated that a generic import risk an alysis (IRA) of the quarantine risks and risk 
management options associated with disease agents that may be introduced into Australia with 
pigmeat imported from a number of countries, incl uding EC member States was being conducted.  A 
technical issues paper issued early in 2001 identified a range of quarantine risks including foot-and-mouth disease, African swine fever, classical swine fever, as well as various other pig diseases.  The  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 11 
 
 
pigmeat IRA was necessarily comprehensive and co mplex;  Australia's pig industry had a very 
favourable health status.  In the case of EC exports, th e risk analysis had to deal with three OIE List A 
diseases, as well as a number of other serious diseases present in EC member States but absent in Australia.  For some serious diseases little scientific information was available and Australia had to 
commission significant research to provide independent scientific information on a range of issues 
including the transmissibility of Porcine Respiratory and Reproductive Syndrome (PRRS).  The 
results of some mayor research was expected to be available at the end of the year.  Technical input 
from the European Communities on PRRS and othe r diseases being considered in the import risk 
analysis would be welcomed. 
39. In April 2003, the European Communities noted that it had taken 17 years to obtain some 
access for processed meat from Denmark into Australia .  Furthermore, there was still no date given 
for the publication of the general risk assessment undertaken by Australia in 1998.  The European 
Communities questioned why there was still a debate  on the methodology to be used for conducting 
the risk assessment four-and-a half years after the risk assessment had begun.  The time necessary for 
completion of the IRA was excessive and the require ments for Danish imports were disproportionate  
to the risk.  The European Communities called on Au stralia to publish the IRA without further delay 
and to give positive consideration to equivalent me asures.  Canada also expressed frustration with the 
delays in Australia's IRA procedures. 
40. Australia observed that Aujetsky's disease wa s eradicated in Denmark only in 1992 and 
following that porcine reproductive and respirator y syndrome (PRRS) emerged.  This had to be 
considered in the import risk analysis commenced  in 1994.  The import of pigmeat from Denmark, 
subject to certain requirements, was approved in 19 97.  A generic import risk analysis on pigmeat was 
assessing import requests from a wide range of c ountries.  Various updates had been provided – 
including a recent update to the European Commiss ion.  Comments on the methodology paper were 
welcomed and a draft of the risk assessment would be available as soon as possible. The process was 
transparent and science-based.  Independent research on PRRS had demonstrated oral transmission of 
the virus via pigmeat.  Given the lack of scientific information on its transmission via meat, Australia 
was seeking the information needed for an informed quarantine policy decision  
10. Australia - Import restrictions  on prawn and prawn products 
Raised by: Thailand on behalf of ASEAN 
Supported by: Philippines on behalf of ASEAN, European Communities 
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  84-85), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 
109-111), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, pa ra-137), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, 
paras. 138-139), November 2002 (G/SPS/R /28, paras. 193-194),  April 2003  
(G/SPS/R/29, paras. 58-59), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 52-53) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/124, G/SPS/N/AUS/126 
Solution: Not reported 
 
41. In March 2001, Thailand, on behalf of ASEAN, drew attention to Australia's notifications 
regarding its risk analysis and interim measur e on prawn and prawn produc ts, which required risk 
management measures for White Spot Syndrome and Yellow Head Virus.  Prior to the deadline for 
comments, Australia had imposed an interim me asure on imports of uncooked prawn and prawn 
products from ASEAN countries, and which was based on the fact that the imported prawn might illegally be used as fishing bait.  ASEAN objected to the inclusion of ille gal domestic practices as a 
major element in risk analysis.  Thailand urged Aust ralia to lift this interim measure, which was more 
restrictive than necessary and inconsistent with Article  5.  Australia explained that the measures were 
the result of an outbreak of exotic White Spot Virus disease.  Investigations had revealed that far more 
imported prawns were being used for bait than had been previously thought, and a 15 g cut off point 
was introduced.  The additional measures applied onl y to whole green and unpeeled headless green G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 12  
 
prawns from areas not free of White Spot Disease.  The risk analysis was progressing and comments would be taken into account. 
42. In October 2001, Thailand again expressed serious  concern about the inclusion of Australia's 
domestic enforcement practices as a major element in Australia's risk analysis.  Thailand urged 
Australia to lift the interim measure s taken on the basis of this risk analysis, as ASEAN believed the 
measures were not based on scientific evidence and were more trade restrictive than necessary.  
Australia believed its measures to be scientifically valid.  The risk analysis was continuing and would 
result in final measures.  An application for equivalence for highly processed prawn products was 
being examined and, if approved, would result in less trade restrictive measures. 
43. In March 2002, Thailand sought info rmation regarding the status of Australia's risk analysis, 
noting that the original date for conclusion of th e risk assessment had been  June 2001.  Australia 
replied that work on the risk analysis was continui ng, and all stakeholders would be informed of the 
current status by letter.  In response to request s from importers, Biosecurity Australia was conducting 
an equivalence assessment to determine if there we re less trade restrictive alternative measures which 
could be applied to highly processed prawn products. 
44. In June 2002, Thailand requested information on the period of application of the interim 
measure related to white spot syndrome and its scientific basis.  Malaysia and the Philippines 
expressed interest in this issue.  Australia rep lied that a report had been published on progress made, 
including a summary of a meeting with stakeholders .  The next meeting of the risk analysis panel 
considering the issue was scheduled for late July 200 2, after which a draft risk analysis report would 
be issued.  The scientific concerns on white spot  syndrome which had led to the interim measure 
remained.  Australia had completed an equivale nce assessment, and on 25  June 2002 implemented 
changes in the requirements for highly processed prawn products. 
45. In November 2002, Thailand expressed concerns over the continuation of the interim measure 
imposed by Australia and urged Australia to comple te the risk analysis and abolish the measure as 
soon as possible.  The Philippines, speaking on behalf of ASEAN, supported the concerns expressed 
by Thailand and noted their interest in monitoring the issue.  Australia reported that the next step of 
the Australian IRA would be the release of a revised draft import risk analysis report.  In the meantime, the interim me asures from June 2002, including the am ended conditions, would continue.  
The interim measure was science-ba sed, temporary and applied only to a small proportion of prawn 
exports to Australia from Thailand and other countries.   Experts from the aquatic animal biosecurity 
team had recently visited Thailand to work out a cooperative technical assistance programme 
exploiting the feasibility of alternate measures, including area disease freedom, which might enhance 
prospects for trade in the prawn products of concern. 
46. In April 2003, Thailand observed that inte rim measures against the import of uncooked 
prawns and prawn products from ASEAN countries had been in place for over two years and there 
was no legitimate reason for the continuation of th ese emergency measures.  Australia stressed that 
the measures were limited to high risk products – uncooked prawns – that accounted for only 5% of 
the prawn products exported to Australia from Thaila nd.  Tests had indicated the positive presence of 
white spot virus in Thai uncooked prawn products shipped to Australia.  The disease was exotic to 
Australia.  Biosecurity Australia had commissione d a study on bait use which provided clear support 
for the measures taken.  Australia was committed to finalizing the IRA as soon as possible and was 
also working on technical assistance projects fo r alternative biosecurity measures for prawns, 
including aquatic disease zoning methodologies. 
47. In June 2003, Thailand reported that the interim measure was still in place and it appeared 
unlikely that the import risk analysis would be co ncluded within a short period of time.  Australia 
reported that it was making good progress in its import  risk analysis and a revised draft report was  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 13 
 
 
underway.  The  analysis was very complex and ch aracterized by a lack of information as Thailand 
had not provided new information on white spot syndrome virus.   
11. 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), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, 
para. 37), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27,  paras. 135-137), November 2002 
(G/SPS/R/28, paras. 190-192), April 20 03 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 60-62), June 
2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 54-56) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/72, G/SPS/ GEN/90, G/SPS/GEN/96, see also G/SPS/R/13, 
G/SPS/GEN/137 and GSPS/W/107/Rev.1 
Solution: Not reported 
 48. In September 1998, Thailand stated that Aust ralia'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 heating 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 and ot her quarantine authorities to discuss 
the issue, and Australia was prepared to provide any further information requested.  Australia was 
considering whether additional scientific research c ould be usefully conducted to enhance scientific 
understanding and methods of inactiva tion of various poultry pathogens. 
49. In October 2001, Thailand reported that the Department of Livestock Development was 
finalising its risk analysis on IBVD.  A public h earing would be held before the analysis was 
presented to Australia.  In May 2001, the OIE ha d agreed to conduct research on appropriate heat 
treatment to inactivate the IBD virus in poultry. 
50. In June 2002, Thailand informed  the Committee that its risk assessment on IBD virus in Thai 
cooked chicken meat to Australia showed that th e risk of introducing IBDV to backyard flocks 
through cooked chicken meat was negligible.  This  report had been submitted to Australia in May 
2002.  Thailand hoped that within its new food safety mandate, the OIE would undertake work on 
IBD.  Australia indicated that conditions for importa tion of cooked chicken had come into effect in 
August 1998, setting certain time and temperature cooking parameters.  Th ailand had applied for 
access for product from a certain facility, and had r ecently provided information.  Australia would 
provide a response once the Thai document had been considered by an expert review group.  The 
representative of the OIE reiterated his request that Members submit information on IBD to be able to 
make progress with the work undertaken by the OIE. 
51. In November 2002, Thailand indicated that it was still waiting for a response from Australia 
on the basis of the risk assessment results.  Australia  noted that at its recent meeting the Australian 
risk analysis panel had examined the Thai documen t in detail.  The panel had prepared technical 
comments and questions about aspects of the Thai ri sk assessment which would shortly be sent to the 
relevant Thai authorities.  The representative of the OIE took note of the risk analysis document, and 
indicated that as soon as the OIE received more info rmation and data from Members it would be in a 
position to review the OIE chapter through its expert working group. 
52. In April 2003, Thailand stated that Australia 's import risk analysis process was very 
complicated, unduly long and conducted without a specific timeframe.  Australia responded that G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 14  
 
current arrangements were the product of a sci ence-based risk assessment which had not been 
formally challenged.  Biosecurity Australia was st udying Thailand's risk analysis on cooked chicken 
meat, received in May 2002, along with additional in formation provided in Jan uary 2003.  Australia 
aimed to complete the current risk analysis on chicken as soon as possible. 
53. In June 2003, Thailand reported  that no progress had been made since it  provided scientific 
information to Australia in May 2002.  Australia noted that cooked chicken meat from Thailand was 
allowed into Australia if requirements were fulf illed, in accordance with scientific findings.  The 
representative of the OIE indicated that they ha d considered the issue in January 2002 and had 
requested more and new scientific information, however, no new information had been forthcoming. 
12. 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: Dispute settlement (W/DS18 and W/ DS26, respectively).  Mutually agreed 
resolution between Canada and Au stralia reported in May 2000. 
 
54. 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. 
55. 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. 
Plant Health 
13. Australia - Access of California table grapes 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Philippines on behalf of ASEAN, European Communities 
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  92-94), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 65-
67), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 26), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 
39). 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Mutually agreed solution on a seri es of risk management procedures to be 
re-evaluated in a year. 
 56. In March 2001, the United States indicated th at for the past 10 years there had been 
difficulties in exporting California table grapes to Au stralia.  Even under Australia's new IRA process, 
delays and requests for additional information a nd documentation had continued, although nearly a  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 15 
 
 
year had elapsed since the release of the impor t risk assessment (IRA).  Australia had conducted 
additional studies, the latest focussing on the gl assy-winged sharpshooter and Pierce's Disease.  The 
United States maintained that these additional studi es were not justified, and urged Australia to 
modify its import restrictions consistent with the IRA and its obligations under Article 5.1.  Australia 
explained that the administrative process was not complete until the Director of Plant and Animal 
Quarantine made a final decision.  Australia was fr ee of Pierce's Disease and believed that there was a 
need for further scientific research.  A mission of scientists to the United States in 2000 had raised 
questions about changes in the risk profile which re quired more information.  Australia was willing to 
cooperate with the United States to learn more about  this disease and its vector.  The Philippines, on 
behalf of ASEAN, shared the US concern regard ing Australia's phytosanitary regulatory process. 
57. In July 2001, the United States expressed disappoi ntment at Australia's apparent abandonment 
of its commitment to a transparent, science-based risk assessment system.  The IRA process did not seem to have an end.  Australia had initiated ne w studies whose chief purpose seemed to be to delay 
lifting the import prohibition on Calif ornia table grapes.  Australia ha d pointed to the relatively recent 
introduction of a leaf-hopping insect, the glassy-winge d sharpshooter, although its own IRA had noted 
that the risks associated with this pest would be ne gligible.  Australia had decided more research on 
risk mitigation for glassy-winged sharpshooters woul d be necessary.  Table grapes in California were 
subject to numerous mitigations, and the United Stat es was willing to address legitimate scientific 
concerns.  However, additional research on a pest not found in shipments of table grapes was completely without scientific merit and was a delaying  tactic.  Australia indicated that the change in 
risk profile associated with the spread of Pierce 's disease, and of its vector, the glassy-winged 
sharpshooter, in California required additional sci entific information to ensure protection from 
quarantine risk.   
58. In October 2001, the United States informed the Committee that constructive consultations 
had been held to discuss quarantine procedures.  Both  countries had agreed to continue the dialogue to 
work toward a resolution of the outstanding issu es.  Australia was confident that a mutually 
acceptable solution could be found soon. 
59. In March 2002, the United States reported that  following consultations, Australia and the 
United States had agreed on a series of risk ma nagement procedures to allow for the export of 
California table grapes to Australia.  The risk management practices would be re-evaluated after one year.   
14. Australia – Notification on methyl bromide 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 95-96) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/118 
Solution: Not reported 
 
60. The European Communities was concerned w ith Australia's proposed introduction of 
minimum standards for fumigation with methyl br omide, which required a minimum temperature of 
10 degrees for fumigation.  This new measure c ould significantly constrain EC exports.  The 
European Communities requested additional informa tion on Australia's risk assessment and any other 
relevant evidence.  Australia responded that th e proposed standard was the result of quarantine 
breaches involving ineffective fumigation treatment  of various imported goods.  To improve the 
efficacy of fumigation prior to export, Australia  developed a standard reflecting best practice 
guidelines in the use of methyl bromide.  Austra lia was still considering the comments it had received 
on its notification of this proposed measure, a nd implementation of the new measure would be 
delayed until early 2001.  With regard to the mini mum temperature requirement, this was based on G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 16  
 
expert advice and reflected the minimum temperatur e requirement established by the European Plant 
Protection Organization.   
15. Australia – Import restrictions on durian 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by: European Communities, India, Malaysia, Philippines on behalf of ASEAN 
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 11-14), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, 
paras. 107-108), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/ 27, paras. 133-134), November 2002 
(G/SPS/R/28, paras. 187-189), April 20 03 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 48-50), June 
2003, (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 50-53) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/217, G/SPS/GEN/218, G/SPS/N/AUS/83 
Solution: Not reported 
 
61. In November 2000, Thailand reported that it had sought access to the Australian market for 
durian since 1991, but Australia had notified its draft import risk analysis only in February 1999.  In 
August 2000, Australia informed Thailand that dur ian fruit imports would be permitted only under 
unduly restrictive conditions, including excessively trade restrictive sampling requirements.  Furthermore, the seasonal limitation on shipments,  as well as the requirement that fruit come only 
from the eastern region of Thailand, di d not appear to be justified.   
62. Australia noted that it had been difficult to obtain accurate information on the relevant 
anthropod pests and diseases present in Thailand, although the numerous bilateral contacts on this 
matter had resulted in an expansion of the scientific information available.  Australia noted that the 
draft conditions established for import of fresh du rian fruit had been discussed with the Thai 
government.  The Australian delegate explaine d the justification for the requirements and 
acknowledged that the conditions were very strict, bu t justified based on the pest and disease situation 
of Thailand.  Nonetheless, these conditions woul d be reviewed after one year of trade.  
63. In October 2001, Thailand indicated that desp ite numerous bilateral meetings, no agreement 
had been reached.  Thailand requested that Australia  seek to adjust its import restrictions to make 
them more commercially viable.  Australia replied that a risk analysis fo r durian had first been 
finalized in 2000.  The risk assessment indicated that other non-destructive methods of sampling 
could be substituted if efficacy data  could be presented to show they provided an equivalent level of 
protection.  However, no information had been received from Thailand that X-ray technology or 
irradiation could be equally effective.  Australia was keen to finalize bilateral arrangements so that 
inspections of packing houses and orchards could be gin in Thailand and import permits be issued.   
64. In June 2002, Thailand reiterate d concerns that Australia re quired cutting of the product for 
inspection purposes, and applied an excessive samp le size.  Malaysia and the Philippines supported 
the concerns expressed by Thailand on this issue.  Australia indicated their willingness to consider 
alternatives to destructive sampling if their efficacy was shown.  On the basis of joint trials, X-ray 
technology appeared promising.  
65. In November 2002, Thailand recalled that it ha d been seeking access to Australia's market for 
durian since 1991.  The matter had been pursued on a bilateral basis, but to date no agreement had 
been reached.  Thailand was of the view that Australia should have c oncluded its consideration of the 
alternative method of rapid scan for inspection of import durian.  The Philippines, on behalf of 
ASEAN, expressed systemic concerns and noted their interest in monitoring developments in this 
matter.  Australia reiterated that the import conditions  were subject to review after the first year of 
trade, and that other less destructive methods of inspection could be substituted for fruit cutting, if 
efficacy data showed that it could provide an e quivalent level of quarantine protection from the key  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 17 
 
 
pests of concern.  Australia was willing to continue to work with the Thai authorities to make progress 
on the assessment of non destructive inspection methods. 
66. In April 2003, Thailand stated that there had been little progress on its concerns as the 
measures proposed by Australia were not commercially viable.  Australia reported that alternative risk 
mitigation options such as pest free areas of pr oduction, pest free production sites and reproscan 
inspection methods were discussed by the joint Th ai-Australian working group on agriculture on 3-7 
March 2003.  The Thai authorities were considering th e pest free alternatives and had agreed to a joint 
collaborative trial of the reproscan inspection met hods for the fruiting season in late April and June.  
A longer term solution might be i rradiation and Australia understood th at Thailand could be interested 
in conducting trails as no efficacy da ta was currently available.   
67. In June 2003, Thailand indicated that Australia 's requirements for fresh durian imports were 
not consistent with the obligations  of Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement.  Australia replied that it had 
specified the use of internationa lly accepted measures su ch as destructive fruit cutting which was used 
by many countries.  Australia was prepared to c onsider alternative ways to address the quarantine 
risks associated with Thai durian fruit. 
16. Australia – Restrictions on imports of tropical fresh fruit 
Raised by: Philippines on behalf of 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: Not reported 
 
68. 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. 
69. 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. 
70. 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 
bulbs.  Australia noted that it was necessary to set priorities for risk assessment given scarce financial 
and human resources. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 18  
 
17. Australia – Import Requirements for Netherlands Truss Tomatoes 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand 
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 25, 27), June  2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 64 -
65) 
Relevant document(s): Raised Orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
71. The European Communities raised concerns that Australia was taking too long to conduct  an 
import risk assessment for truss tomatoes due to r easons other than technical issues.  The risk 
assessment was still incomplete after six years.  In  1999 Australia presented a draft risk assessment on 
tomatoes without green parts despite the Netherlands' explicit request  to export tomatoes on the truss.  
Truss tomatoes had been approved from New Zeal and after New Zealand had approved Australian 
imports of the same product.  On 26 March 2003, Biosecurity Australia unexpectedly indicated that 
there was no longer a need for a risk assessment for truss tomatoes.  However, import conditions were 
still pending as a draft review of the quarantine requi rements for the import of Dutch tomatoes needed 
to be circulated to stakeholders for comment.  The European Communities felt that the time period 
necessary for Australia to conduct its import risk analysis was disproportionate to the risk and 
discriminated unjustifiably between WTO Members. 
72. Australia explained that on 26 March, Biosecur ity Australia announced that imports of truss 
tomatoes would be assessed as an extension of th e technical policy recently developed for truss 
tomatoes from New Zealand – this would shorten the risk assessment process.  The draft review would include draft import conditions  and would be released to stakeholders with a 30-day comment 
period.  The finalized review document would be  available before the end of May 2003.   
73. In June 2003, Australia reported that the dr aft import policy for truss tomatoes from the 
Netherlands had been issued  and was publicly ava ilable and stakeholders invited to comment.  A 
response to the Netherlands request for mark et access would follow soon.  The European 
Communities expressed disappointment that the draft policy was still open for comments from 
stakeholders and therefore far from being finalized .  The Philippines, speaking on behalf of Indonesia 
and Thailand, supported the views of the European Communities. 
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY AUSTRALIA  
Item 
Number 
 Country Maintaining the Measure   
Food Safety  
Item 63 European Communities  – Maximum levels for certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in 
foodstuffs  
Item 124 Korea –  Shelf-life requirements 
Animal Health and Zoonoses  
TSE Concerns 
Item 76  EC – Cosmetics and BSE  
Other Animal Health Concerns 
Item 85 European Communities – Measures on alpaca  
Item 86 European Communities – Measures on live fish (carp)   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 19 
 
 
Item 
Number 
 Country Maintaining the Measure   
Plant Health Concerns  
Item 106 Indonesia –   Fresh fruit and vegetables 
Other Concerns 
Item 112 Japan   – Living Modified Organisms 
Item 126 Korea  – Living Modified Organisms 
 
 BOLIVIA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BOLIVIA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to FMD 
 
18. Bolivia - FMD trade restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, para. 30)  
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
74. Argentina informed that it was engaged in bilate ral consultations with Bolivia on this matter. 
Other Animal Health Concerns 19. Bolivia - Restrictions on poultry meat imports 
Raised by: Chile 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/29, pa ra. 94), March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 
33-35), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 132) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Agreement on a protocol a nd progress reported in July 2001. 
 
75. In November 2000, Chile reported that in Augus t 2000 it had consulted with the authorities of 
Bolivia, in the context of Article 5.8 of the SPS Agreement, regarding requ irements on poultry meat 
imports with respect to Inclusion body hepatitis.  This disease was endemic to Bolivia and restrictions 
on imports from Chile were not justified.  Chile hope d that this issue would soon be resolved.  The 
representative of Bolivia indicated that he woul d transmit this information to his authorities. 
76. In March 2001, Chile noted that Bolivia had fa iled to notify the measure, and requested that a 
scientific risk assessment be carried out as quickly as possible.  Bilateral discussions on the issue had 
ceased since August 2000.  Bolivia explained that import conditions for poultry and other agricultural 
products had been changed because of problems whic h Inclusion body hepatitis caused in the bird 
population and the associated negative economic impact.  During the last five years, Bolivia's state 
veterinary laboratories had determined the clinical  absence of Inclusion body hepatitis in Bolivia, but 
the disease had been diagnosed in Ch ile.  Regarding preventive vaccina tion, Bolivia stated that this G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 20  
 
was justifiable only if the virus was present on a fa rm.  Secondly, total protection against the disease 
was only possible if the serotype present in the vaccination was the same as that present in farm 
strains.  Thirdly, successful protection depended on other immuno-suppressant factors, and in Chile 
there was a risk of Avian infectious anaemia.  Bolivia's National Food and Agricultural Health 
Service was revising the standard, and would inform Ch ile of the results.  Bolivia wished to solve the 
matter expediently and to the benefit of both parties. 
77. In July 2001, Chile informed the Committee th at the sanitary authorities of both countries had 
agreed to work on a protocol, and thanked Bolivia for the progress made. 
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY BOLIVIA  
Item 
Number  Country Maintaining the Measure   
Food Safety  
Item  63 European Communities  – Maximum levels for certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in 
foodstuffs   
BRAZIL 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BRAZIL  
Food Safety 20. 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: Not reported 
 
78. 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. 
79. 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, 
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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 21 
 
 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to TSEs 21. Brazil – Notification G/SPS/N/BRA/74 and 75 on BSE-related measures 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras.  91-93), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, para. 163) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/74 and 75 
Solution: Not reported 
 
80. Canada expressed concern over the way Brazil applied the EC geographical BSE risk (GBR) 
system as the basis for classifying countries according to their BSE risk .  Canada requested that Brazil 
conduct its own BSE risk analysis and classification of Canada and stated that it had sent a copy of its 
BSE risk assessment to the Brazilian authorities for their consideration. 
81. The United States also questioned Brazil's use of the EC risk assessment classifications and 
noted that the European Communities had stated that  its risk assessment classification system was not 
meant to serve as an international standard.  Chap ter 2.3.13 of the OIE International Health Code 
established the criteria for the determination of BSE risk of a country or region.  The United States 
met the OIE criteria for a country free of BSE and ha d completed a risk assessment on all the factors 
for BSE occurrence.  Active surveillance for BSE continued at levels far exceeding those of the 
international standard and a strong BSE awareness programme had been devel oped for veterinarians, 
farmers and others working with ruminants.  The OIE Code recognized that certain tissues could be 
traded if they originated in countries, such as th e United States, which was free of BSE.  The United 
States believed that any measures against its exports of cattle, beef or any other products because of 
BSE were unjustified and not cons istent with WTO obligations. 
82. Brazil noted that human health concerns were at the root of the measures which referred to 
both the OIE international standards and the EC class ification system.  Thus far, Brazil had not been 
able to conduct a risk assessment for all countries  and the provision of Canada's risk assessment 
would assist the Brazilian authorities in this regard.  Brazil would take into consideration decisions 
reached at the OIE International Committee meeti ng in May 2003 when reviewing its measures.   
83. In June 2003, Brazil reported that it had notified six regulations relating to BSE. 
Other Animal Health Concerns 
22. Brazil – Imports of live ostriches 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, para. 97) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/BRA/67 
Solution: Not reported 
 
84. The European Communities stated th at they would bilaterally request clarification of the legal 
scope and scientific grounds for the measure.  Brazil reported that the import restriction on live 
ostriches was due to the possible threats posed to the Brazilian poultry industry.  The regulation that 
had been notified to the SPS Committee required th at the OIE existing standards for inspection, 
supervision and quarantine requirements, both at the point of origin and the point of destiny, be G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 22  
 
followed.  Brazil took note of the request from th e European Communities to provide the necessary 
risk assessment for the non OIE-listed diseases and agr eed to convey this request to the relevant 
authorities.  
Plant Health 
23. Brazil – Pest risk assessments for imports of plant origin 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: Australia, European Commun ities, New Zealand, Peru, United States 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28 , paras. 77-79) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/BRA/65 
Solution: Not reported 
 
85. Canada referred to Brazil's legislative requireme nt for pest risk assessments for all vegetable 
products imported into Brazil, published on 28 March 2002.  While Canada did not challenge the right 
of Brazil to conduct pest risk analysis for impor ted commodities, they cons idered the measure as 
unduly restrictive of trade, in particular given that imports would be suspended on 27 November 
2002, pending completion of the pest risk assessment s.  Canada had exported a number of products 
covered by this measure for many years without any particular concern, and requested Brazil to allow 
existing trade from well known sources to continue while the pest risk assessments were being 
completed.  In this regard, Canada was prepared to provide the information required to facilitate the 
early completion of any risk assessmen ts concerning products from Canada.  
86. The United States did not believe that it was neces sary or justifiable to ban or temporarily halt 
the importation of products while PRAs were being conducted unless there was a specific pest risk 
problem that would required such drastic action.  Australia, the European Communities, New Zealand 
and Peru shared the concerns expressed by Cana da and the United States and requested Brazil to 
withdraw the application of the measure.  
87. Brazil stated that one key concern was that  many PRAs were open-ended and the studies 
never came to completion.  Brazil was reassessing the matter and consideri ng alternatives to the 
PRAs, such as the possibility of extending the time- frame for implementation of the measure in the 
case of ongoing studies, including cases where documen ts had already been forwarded to Brazil. 
Brazil requested trading partners to identify their concerns in writing, so that responses could be 
provided by the competent authorities. 
24. Brazil – Import requirements for seed potatoes 
Raised by: European Communities, Canada 
Supported by: Canada 
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27 , par as. 24-26), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28 , 
paras. 63-68), October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 21-22) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
88. The European Communities reported stated that on 13 November 2001, the Brazilian 
authorities had given notice of new measures on import s of seed potatoes that Brazil had notified new 
measures on imports of seed potatoes, but had provided no delay for their implementation, no 
technical justification and had not respected the need  for transparency.  As on e of the main suppliers 
to Brazil, the European Communities had comment ed on the measures, but Brazil's initial response 
had not addressed the EC's concerns and, in par ticular, had not identified the pest risk assessment 
justifying its measure.  The requested information had been provided during bilateral consultations  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 23 
 
 
held before the SPS Committee meeting, and the European Communities looked forward to 
continuing the bilateral process with Brazil.  Cana da expressed concern with Brazil's required export 
certification for non quarantine regulated pests, in c ontradiction to internationally agreed principles 
and practices.  Canada was also involved in bilate ral discussion with the Brazilian authorities and had 
requested Brazil to withdraw its measure.  Br azil indicated that it hoped subsequent technical 
consultations would resolve the issue. 
89. In November 2002, Canada expressed concerns regarding Brazil's required certification for 
pests that were not of economic significance nor a si gnificant risk to plant health.  Canada considered 
this to be an issue of quality that was more appr opriately resolved between the buyer and the seller, 
and not by government certification schemes.  Although Canadian technical officials were working 
with Brazil to complete a risk assessment, this i ssue was not being resolved as quickly as warranted.  
The European Communities requested Brazil to modi fy its measures on the basis of the technical 
arguments and proposals that had been made b ilaterally and requested Brazil to postpone the 
implementation of these measures.  The United Stat es shared the concerns expressed by both Canada 
and the European Communities concerning the disr uption of trade in seed potatoes and requested 
Brazil to revise their policy as soon as possible. 
90. Brazil noted that consultations on the issue of  seed potatoes had been carried out for some 
time.  Brazilian experts were considering a new proposal from the European Communities and hoped 
to provide a reply as soon as possible.  The Br azilian Directive aimed at enhancing market 
opportunities in relation to previous regulations by  creating two new categories of imports for seed 
potatoes.  Brazil was interested in diversifying th eir source of suppliers of seed potatoes given the 
strategic importance of the sector for Brazil.  National producers were subject to the same 
considerations applicable to foreign providers, a nd his country's motivation c ould not be construed as 
restricting market access for seed potatoes.  Braz il invited the European Communities to send a team 
of experts to become familiar with their system, and witness the fact that national producers were 
subject to the same considerations as the foreign suppliers.  With respect to the comments made by 
Canada, Brazil recalled that the matter had b een extensively discussed by authorities from both 
countries.  The Brazilian legislation required that exporters of seed potatoes to Brazil had to have a 
certification system in place; apparently this w as not the case for Canada.  Brazil added that the 
concerns voiced by the United States would be  transmitted to the competent authorities.  
91. Canada clarified that Canada had a certification system for seed potatoes but that the 
certification system did not go into minor details on issues of quality.  In response to Brazil's 
invitation, the European Communities suggested that  Brazil should send a team of experts to inspect 
the production and food safety conditions within the European Communities. 
92. In October 2003, the European Communities re ported that following discussions with Brazil 
in October 2002, the European Communities had pr esented a proposal for a possible solution  which 
Brazil had agreed to study.  Brazil explained that it was in the process of discussing new regulations 
and hoped that the issue would be resolved shortly. 
25. 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: Not reported 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 24  
 
93. 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. 
94. 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. 
26. Brazil – Restrictions on imported wheat 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras.  16-17), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Import of certain classes of wheat allowed as of early 2001. 
 
95. In March 1997, the United States raised concer n regarding Brazilian restrictions on wheat 
imports intended to prevent the establishment of the fungus tilletia controversa  (TCK bunt or Dwarf 
bunt).  However, a 1996 bilate ral agreement was based on the understanding 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 responde d that it had implemented new legislation on risk 
assessment and risk management for several produc ts as a result of harmonization 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 consultations between Braz ilian and US experts 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 Braz il from applying its internal legislation. 
96. In July 2001, the United States reported that  following extensive technical consultations, 
Brazil had issued new import instructions in early  2001 that allow import of certain classes of US 
wheat (G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United states c onsidered this trade concern resolved. 
CONCERNS RAISED BY BRAZIL  
Item 
Number  Country Maintaining the Measure   
Food Safety  
Item 61 European Communities  – Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/62 of emergency measures on citrus 
pulp 
Item 63 European Communities  – Maximum levels for certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in 
foodstuffs 
Item 65 European Communities –  Restrictions on the importation of fruits and fruit juices  
Animal Health and Zoonoses  
TSE Concerns 
Item 28 Canada – Measures affecting imports of products containing Brazilian beef   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 25 
 
 
Item 
Number 
 Country Maintaining the Measure   
Item 78 European Communities – Gelatin imports  
FMD Concerns 
Item 135 Norway – Restrictions on gelatin imports  
Item 149 South Africa – Restrictions on beef and pork  
Plant Health Concerns  
Item 121 Japan – Restrictions on mango  
 
BULGARIA 
CONCERNS RAISED BY BULGARIA  
Item 
Number 
 Countries Maintaining the Measure   
Animal Health and Zoonoses  
TSE Concerns 
Item 2 Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, New Zealand, United States  – Import restrictions 
affecting BSE-free countries  
 
CANADA C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CANADA  
Food Safety 27. 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: Not reported 
 
97. 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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 26  
 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to TSEs 
 
28. Canada - Measures affecting imports of products containing Brazilian beef 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 2-5) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/245, G/SPS/W/108, G/SPS/N/CAN/39, G/SPS/N/CAN/94 
Solution: Suspension lifted in February 2001. 
 
98. Canada outlined its BSE policy, and informed Members of recent actions taken regarding the 
application of this policy.  Imports from Brazil had recently been suspended because Brazil had not 
provided the information requested by Canada in or der to carry out a risk assessment.  Canada was 
especially concerned about the traceability of cattle  imported from BSE-infected countries.  Canada 
had lifted its suspension after receipt and analysis of documentation from Brazil and a visit to Brazil by scientists from Canada, the United States and Me xico.  Canada reported that Brazilian authorities 
had agreed to certification requirements.  Brazil regr etted that Canada had not handled this matter in a 
more transparent manner, with prior notification an d consultation.  Brazil recalled its BSE-free status 
according to OIE classification, and its ban on feed ing of ruminant material to cattle.  Brazil had 
suffered many adverse effects from Canada's hasty embargo.  This had raised awareness of certain shortcomings of the multilateral system in cases like this one.  Brazil announced its intention to 
present proposals to the SPS Committee and the General Council to address these problems. 
29. 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: Not reported 
 
99. 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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 27 
 
 
Concerns related to FMD 
30. Canada and the United States - Import restrictions due to FMD 
Raised by: Hungary  
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  90-91), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 133) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution (if reported): Not reported 
 
100. In March 2001, Hungary expressed concern about  reported US and Canadian import bans on 
Hungarian meat products in reaction to incidences of  FMD in France.  Canada and the United States 
clarified that they had not placed any restrictions  on the importation of prod ucts from Hungary.  In 
July 2001, Hungary reiterated its concern regarding US measures on meat and other animal products 
that were in force since May 2000.  Hungary referred to G/SPS/GEN/266, which listed Hungary as a 
country free of FMD and rinderpest.  The United States offered to work with the appropriate officials 
to explain the situation. 
CONCERNS RAISED BY CANADA  
Item 
Number  Country Maintaining the Measure   
Food Safety  
Item 55 European Communities  – Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/150 on traceability and labelling of  
genetically modified organisms and food and feed  
Item 124 Korea – Shelf-life requirements  
Item 140 Philippines – Certification of meat and dairy products  
Animal Health and Zoonoses  
TSE Concerns 
Item 1 Argentina – BSE related measures  
Item 21 Brazil – BSE measures  
Item 73 European Communities –  EC transitional TSE measures  
Item 74 European Communities –  EC geographical BSE risk assessment  
Item 97 Hungary –  Restrictions  on bovine products  
Item 98 Hungary –  Restrictions  on pork products  
Item 100 India – Import restrictions on bovine semen  
Item 173 Uruguay – BSE measures  
Other Animal Health Concerns 
Item 12 Australia – Ban on salmon imports   
Plant Health Concerns  
Item 23 Brazil – Pest risk assessments for imports of plant origin  
Item 24 Brazil – Import requirements for seed potatoes 
Item 90 European Communities – G/SPS/N/EEC/93 on wood packaging material 
Other Concerns  
Item 139 Panama's import licenses for agricultural products G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 28  
 
CHILE 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHILE  
Food Safety 31. 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), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GN/3, G/SPS/N/CZE/8, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Not reported 
 
101. 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. 
102. 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.  Czech requirements were laid out in the Draft Law on 
Foodstuff and Tobacco Products to be adopted in 1997, notified as G/SPS/N/CZE/8.  No assurances 
had been received from the United States that thes e requirements would be met.  The Czech Republic 
suggested bilateral consultations be tween veterinary experts.  The representatives of Honduras and El 
Salvador indicated that they would inform thei r authorities of the statement made by the United 
States. 
103. 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 
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. 
104. 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.  In February 20 01, the Czech Republic reported that its new Law on 
Foodstuff and Tobacco Products had been adopted (d ecree 298/1997), and than it had been in contact 
with the United States since then. 
105. In July 2001, the United States reported that  it was still discussing the matter with Chile 
(G/SPS/GEN/265).    G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 29 
 
 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to TSEs 
 
32. Chile - Pet food import requirements 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 21-23) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHL/104, G/SPS/GEN/302 
Solution: Not reported 
 
106. Argentina raised concerns about Chile draft standard that would require imports of pet food 
containing meat and bonemeal from ruminants to undergo thermal treatment (G/SPS/N/CHL/ 104)..  
This requirement was stricter than the OIE reco mmendations and lacked sufficient scientific grounds 
and risk analysis to justify this higher level of protection (G/SPS/GEN/302).  The EU Scientific Steering Committee had given Argentina a Level 1 rati ng, i.e. "highly unlikely that domestic cattle are 
(clinically or pre-clinically) infected with BSE agent".  The United States indicated that the OIE 
Animal Health Code did not recommend that c ountries free of BSE undertak e the treatment outlined 
in the notification.  The United States hoped that th e Chilean authorities would take the results of the 
Harvard Risk Analysis into account.   
107. Chile stressed that a distinction had to be made between countries free of BSE and countries 
free of TSEs;  the draft Chilean measure also incl uded the latter within its scope.  Chile further 
clarified that the procedures had to be applied to raw materials in pet food and not to the final product.   
Concerns related to FMD 
33. Chile - FMD restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Brazil, United States 
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, pa ras. 90-91), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 
40-41), June 2002 (G/ SPS/R/27, para. 126) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHL/102  
Solution: Not reported 
 
108. Argentina was concerned about Chile's draft regulations on fresh or frozen beef, which 
categorized countries according two categories: FMD-free with or without vaccination.  These draft rules seemed to be more restrictive than the OIE standard, which allowed for the possibility of 
permitting imports from FMD-infected countries or zones as long as certain risk mitigation 
procedures had been used.  Argentina requested Chile to provide sufficient scientific justification as 
required by Article 3.3.  Chile replied that that  it was premature to discuss the issue as the draft 
regulation had not yet been circulated internationa lly and a bilateral technical meeting was scheduled 
for early November.  The deadline for public co mments had only just passed and comments received 
had not yet been considered.  Chile had not yet been asked to provide a risk assessment by the 
Argentine authorities. 
109. In March 2002,  Argentina referred to Chil ean notification G/SPS/N/CHL/102 on fresh and 
frozen meat controls.  It appeared Chile would perm it imports from countries in one of two categories: 
FMD free without vaccination or FMD free with vaccination.  The draft Chilean regulation did not allow for the import of fresh or frozen bovine meat from countries with zones infected with FMD.  As 
such, the requirement was more demanding than the OIE Animal Health Code which permitted G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 30  
 
imports if risk mitigation procedures were followe d in countries where FMD was present.  Argentina 
requested Chile to amend its draft regulation to refl ect the OIE code, or to show sufficient scientific 
grounds for not applying the international refe rence standard. Brazil supported Argentina and the 
United States stated that they had sent  written comments to Chile and hoped that these comments 
would be taken into account.   
110. Chile explained that the entry into force of the measures in question had been postponed twice 
to enable other trading partners to make additio nal comments.  Controlling the 1987 outbreak of FMD 
in Chile had cost $8.5 million and forced the eradi cation of 30,000 animals – a considerable cost for 
Chile.  Nevertheless, Chile planned to allow for the possibility of importing from countries not recognized as FMD free by the OIE, on the basis of a risk assessment by the Chilean authorities.  In 
the case of Argentina, Chile had not learnt of the FMD outbreak in that country through their bilateral 
usual channels so the normal risk analysis pro cedures could not be applied and emergency measures 
had had to be instituted. 
111. In June 2002, Argentina reported that progress had been made towards resolving this issue at 
bilateral meetings. 
Plant Health 34. 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), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GN/14, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Restrictions on wheat removed in  October 1997.  Import access granted for 
certain fruit; consultations on other fruit continuing. 
 112. In March 1997, the United States expressed con cerns 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 replied 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 facilitate the entry of US exports.   
113. In July 2001, the United States reported th at following bilateral discussion, Chile had 
removed restrictions on US wheat in October 1997 (G/SPS/GEN/265).  Import access had also been granted for grapes, kiwis, avocados and lemons from California, apples and pears from Washington, and raspberries and shelled nuts from all US states .  According to the United States, Chile was 
preparing new rules to allow imports of additi onal products.  The United States was working with 
Chile on import conditions for other fruit.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 31 
 
 
CONCERNS RAISED BY CHILE  
Item 
Number 
 Country Maintaining the Measure   
 Animal Health and Zoonoses  
TSE Concerns 
Item 75 European Communities –  Restrictions on the use of fishmeal  
Other Animal Health Concerns 
Item 19 Bolivia –  Restrictions on poultry meat imports  
Item 84 European Communities – Salmonella-related restriction on fishmeal imports  
Plant Health Concerns  
Item 171 United States – Actions taken by local governments 
Item 183 Certain Members – Implementation of ISPM 15 on wood packaging material  
  
 
CHINA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINA  
Food Safety 35. China – Food safety regulations affecting agr icultural products produced from modern 
biotechnology 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Argentina, Australia, Canada 
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras.  12-14), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 21-
23), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 93-94) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHN/10 
Solution: Not reported 
 114. In March 2002, the United States but expressed serious concerns about China's Ministry of 
Agriculture implementing regulations for the manageme nt agricultural biotechnology products.  These 
regulations, originally published on 6 June 2001, were released, w ithout warning on 7 January 2002. 
The regulations, which required pre-market approva l and mandatory labelling of biotech products and 
affected GMO imports, were scheduled to go into effect on 20 March 2002.  The United States noted that China had not notified these regulations to  the WTO, precluding any chance for comment by 
interested WTO Members.  Furthermore, certain aspects of the new regulations appeared to be 
inconsistent with WTO rules, and establishe d different approval pro cedures for imported and 
domestic products.  The United States welcomed  the interim measures issued on 11 March 2002, 
which streamlined measures for the importati on of biotech agricultural products through 
20 December 2002.  Canada, Argentina and Austra lia associated themselves with the concerns 
expressed by the United States.   
115. China explained that public anxiety country ove r the safety of GM agricultural products and 
foods had led the Chinese Government to issue regula tory rules in May 2001.  As China was not at that 
time a WTO Member, it had no obligation to make a notification.  However, China intended to notify the three implementing measures i ssued in January 2002t once the Engl ish versions had been finalised. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 32  
 
China reported that bilateral consultations had been  held with the major parties concerned and that 
interim measures had been introduced to  avoid disruption of normal trade.   
116. In June 2002, the United States reported that Chin a's Ministry of Health had issued a decree 
on biotech safety and labelling on 8 April 2002.  The decree would take effect on 8 July, but the Ministry of Health had not issued implementing re gulations.  Additionally, the decree had not been 
notified.  The United States believed that mandato ry labelling for biotech products that were 
substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts had no scien tific justification.  Under such 
circumstances, labelling wrongly implied a possible ri sk to the consumer.  US companies exported to 
China over US$ 1 billion/year of biotechnology pro ducts, including soybeans and corn, and processed 
products.  The United States requested  an interim period for implemen tation of the decree, to allow 
sufficient time for compliance by exporters.  Canada  and Argentina shared the concerns expressed by 
the United States.  China explained that the failu re to notify the measure in advance had been 
inadvertent, and invited Members to send comments to its Enquiry Point or directly to the Ministry of 
Health.  China also expressed an interest in hol ding bilateral consultations  with interested WTO 
Members. 
117. In November 2002, the United States and Argentina expressed concern regarding the 
implementation dates proposed for the April regula tions and requested China to consider ways to 
reduce the possible trade effects.  Argentina also re ported that it had held bila teral consultations with 
China on this matter.  China clarified that notifica tion of the draft regulation had been submitted just 
prior to the last SPS Committee meeting.  China's Mini stry of Health had agreed to extend the interim 
period for one year. 
36. China – Zero tolerance for e-coli 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 87-88) 
Relevant document(s): G/TBT/N/CHN/6 
Solution: Not reported 
 
118. The United States recognized the need for China to reduce bacterial contamination on raw 
meats and poultry products to the lowest achievable  level but had two con cerns related to this 
notification.  The United States believed that the comp lete elimination of enteropathogenic bacteria in 
raw meats and poultry products was not achievable using existing technologies and practices and they 
were interested in more information related to th e risk assessment that had b een used as the basis for 
this zero tolerance.  Experience in the United States had shown that carcasses of normal healthy birds 
and animals could still contain a variety of bacteria , including those of concern to China, but proper 
preparation and handling could eliminate health co ncerns.  As the basis of China's notification 
appeared to be food safety and human health con cerns, the United States requested that China also 
notify this proposed regulation under the SPS Agreem ent.  China agreed to consult with the 
standardizing agency and take the necessary steps.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 33 
 
 
37. China – Import ban on products of Dutch origin 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, par as 31-32), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras 
73-74), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, par as. 82-83), June 2003 (G/SPS/R30, 
paras. 39-40) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Ban on Dutch products lifted 
 119. The European Communities stated  that the Chinese authorities had suspended imports of all 
products of animal origin from the Netherlands af ter detection of one positive consignment in a single 
category of products. The European Communities consider ed this measure to be more trade restrictive 
than necessary, and noted that in a similar situa tion with regard to Chinese products, the European 
Communities had given China sufficient time to solv e problems of detection of the presence of 
chloramphenicol in their products. 
120. China noted that the use of chloramphenicol in  animal foodstuffs had been prohibited in EC 
member States since 1994.  When the substance ha d been detected in Dutch products, China had 
imposed a provisional ban and immediately alerted the Dutch authorities.  China had received part of 
the information requested, and was waiting for furthe r information so as to review its measure.  The 
representative of China reported that the problem appa rently arose due to Dutch imports of feedstuffs 
from some eastern European countries, which gave rise to concerns regarding Dutch import control 
measures, residue monitoring systems and export control measures.   
121. In November 2002, the European Communities reported that some progress had been made, 
however they requested China to increase efforts to resolve the issu e.  The European Communities 
considered this a disproportionate reaction to a problem that could ha ve been resolved in a mutually 
satisfactory manner without disrupting trade.  Chin a observed that other countries had faced similar 
problems with Dutch products.  His country was working to remove the ban remaining for some products.  For this purpose, the Netherlands had been  invited to provide information to enable China 
to conduct a risk assessment, as soon as possible. 
122. In April 2003, the European Communities reported that China had lifted restrictions on 
certain products of no real trade significance, but no satisfactory solution had yet been found for a large number of animal products of Dutch origin, in  particular dairy products.  In December 2002, the 
European Communities had supplied the informatio n requested by China.  In March 2003,  China 
requested additional information and indicated that an inspection mission would be necessary before 
anything further could be done.  The European Co mmunities questioned why this inspection visit had 
not been proposed sooner. 
123. China responded that it had lifted the ban on certain products on 25 December 2002, after 
receipt of information from the European Commun ities.  For other products, China had been waiting 
for almost one year on the Netherlands' residue monitoring and assessment controls.  Based on the 
information provided to date, China had identified sign ificant defects with respect to conformity with 
the relevant EC directives, including sampling of da iry products and casings.  An inspection visit was 
necessary to address these outstanding issues.  Th e receipt of additional information from the 
Netherlands on 21 March 2003 would enable the visit of  China's inspection team in the near future.   
124. In June 2003, the European Communities reporte d that the Chinese embargo on products from 
the Netherlands had been lifted and the European  Communities believed this issue now resolved.  
China reaffirmed that the ban on Dutch products ha d been lifted after an inspection visit and the 
conclusion of a risk assessment. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 34  
 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to TSEs 
 
38. China - Import requirements for cosmetics 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras.  13-14), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 
50-51), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 39-40) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 125. The European Communities noted that China had imposed import restrictions on cosmetics 
beginning in March 2002.  The new regulations prohib ited cosmetics containing certain ingredients of 
animal origin from 18 countries having officially declared the existence of  BSE.  Cosmetics from 
these 18 countries required certification that they did not contain specified products of bovine or ovine 
origin.  According to China's notification, the jus tification of the measure was to prevent introducing 
BSE into China.  The European Communities considered that the m easures were in contradiction to 
the SPS Agreement.  China had notified its measur es as emergency measures, whereas BSE had been 
present in those countries for many years and th ere was no new scientific evidence indicating a 
particular risk from cosmetics.  In addition, th e measures had no scientific basis and went far beyond 
the OIE standard on BSE and were disproportionate co mpared to the risks.   The measures were also 
discriminatory, because they did not apply in th e same manner to all countries where identical 
sanitary conditions prevailed.  Th e European Communities requested that China make available the 
scientific justification and the risk assessment underlying the measure. 
126. China indicated that it only prohibited the im portation of cosmetics derived from bovine or 
ovine brains, placenta, nerves, etc. from BSE-infect ed countries and regions, in accordance with the 
OIE and WHO recommendations.  China had notifie d its measure and requested exporting countries 
to provide the names and signatures of the author ities responsible for issuing the certificates ensuring 
that the cosmetics met the Chinese requirements.   Several EC member States had proceeded 
accordingly and China had recognized, or was in th e process of recognizing, the competent certifying 
authorities of those member States.   
127. In November 2002, the European Communities repor ted good progress in resolving this issue.  
Extensive bilateral trade in cosmetics between Ch ina and the European Communities had taken place 
before China introduced the new provisions, and in pa rticular the protective measures related to BSE.  
EC experts on BSE-related risk assessment were to vi sit Beijing, and both countries were hopeful that 
the discussions would lead to a resolution of the problem. 
128. In June 2003, the European Communities repor ted that further progress was made as China 
had presented a list of prohibited products.  Ch ina responded that it was willing to review its 
regulations and welcom ed continued dialogue.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 35 
 
 
Other Animal Health Concerns 
39. China – Quarantine measures for the entry and exit of aquatic products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras.  33-35), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, para. 39, 
59-60) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHN/17 
Solution: Measure notified and comments solicited 
 
129. The European Communities noted that Decree No. 31, due to enter into force in June 2003, 
had not been notified to the WTO.  The European Co mmunities, therefore, were not able to assess the 
decree and comment on it.  The Chinese authorities were requested to notify the measure to the WTO 
and suspend its entry into force for four additiona l months to allow Members a chance to comment on 
it and for permits to be issued to  exporters.  The United States echoed the concerns of the European 
Communities. 
130. China explained that Decree 31 was notified to  the WTO as part of a notification covering 
China's existing laws on animal and plant quarantin e and on sanitation, inspection and certification of 
imports and exports of food produc ts at the time of its WTO accession.  The purpose of the Decree 
was to standardize the standards of quarantine for aquatic animals and to improve transparency of 
procedures in line with WTO obligations on transparency and consistency.  The regulation did not contain any new technical requirements and thus did not need to be notified to the WTO.  
Nonetheless, China would consider any comments fr om Members.  China had decided to delay the 
date of entry into force from 10 December 2002 until 12 June 2003, so as to minimize any trade 
impact.  On 23 December 2002, AQSIQ sent a notice to all foreign embassies in Beijing and 
requested them to identify which governmental au thorities had responsibility for issuing certificates 
for export to China, and to submit a model certificate so that China could verify the certificates. 
131. In June 2003, the European Communities reporte d that China had notified its Decree 31 on 
aquatic products and had provided a comment period.   
Plant Health 40. China – Regulation on wood packaging material 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, par as. 38-39), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 
39-40) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHN/14,  
Solution: Not reported 
 132. The European Communities stated that a num ber of aspects of the Chinese regulation on 
wood packaging material, notified as G/SPS/N/CHN/ 14, caused serious problems.  There were 
important discrepancies between the Chinese legislation and relevant guidelines from the IPPC, in particular ISPM 15.  The European Communities had gone to considerable lengths to address the 
concerns of the Chinese authorities, and a lot of progress had been made in particular following a visit 
from a number of experts to China.  The Europ ean Communities encouraged China to come into 
conformity with the IPPC standard as expeditiously  as possible, and to work towards resolving the 
issue. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 36  
 
133. China reported that during 2001 and 2002, large num bers of pests were regularly detected by 
the inspection and quarantine authorities of China in wood packaging material from the European 
Communities.  China had notified this situation to  the European Communities repeatedly, and finally 
decided to take emergency measures on 19 April 2002 in order to prevent the introduction of 
dangerous wood pests, and to ensure  the protection of the environment, forestry and tourism resources 
in the country.  The notification and the risk anal ysis report were sent to the European Communities 
for comments, to which China replied in detail on 17 June 2002.  Following that date no further 
comments had been received from the European Co mmunities; the measure had been imposed on 28 
June 2002, and notified to the WTO.  The measure  was based on scientific principles and on a risk 
analysis in line with the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement. 
134. In June 2003, the European Communities reported that they had now adopted the IPPC 
standard and China has promised to do the same.  China reaffirmed that it was committed to following 
the IPPC standard. 
41. China – Import restrictions for citrus and other fruits related to fruit fly 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras.  24-25), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 50-
51) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
135. Argentina noted that bilateral consultations were on-going with the Chinese authorities to 
overcome difficulties related to the export of apples, pears and citrus fruit to China due to the latter's 
fruit-fly restrictions.  Various procedures, including  the use of cold treatme nt, were being used to 
overcome these difficulties.  Argentina requested the Chinese authorities to provide a list of 
outstanding questions related to risk assessme nt and further information requests.   
136. China explained that Medfly and South American  fruit fly had not been reported in China and 
that a risk assessment by Chinese experts had conc luded that the risk of introducing these pests from 
Argentina was high.  China was requesting Argentina to provide data on the efficacy of cold treatment 
against fruit flies and to demonstrate that it coul d provide an equivalent level of protection in 
comparison with importing from pest-free areas.  Ch ina noted that establishing pest-free areas was not 
practicable for all pests, as recognized by the IP PC standard, and that countries with advanced 
research on fruit fly control and quarantine did no t accept importation from countries where the pest 
had previously been present, even if they were currently pest-free.  China was open to bilateral 
technical discussions and joint research with Argentina on this issue.   
137. In June 2002, Argentina informed that despite ha ving held bilateral cons ultations with China, 
the issue was not resolved.  China i ndicated that it was prepared to consider alternative treatments, but 
had not yet received any technical data demonstra ting that establishing pest free production places and 
cold treatment could provide equivalent prot ection to the establishment of pest-free areas.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 37 
 
 
CONCERNS RAISED BY CHINA  
Item 
Number  Country Maintaining the Measure   
Food Safety  
Item 70 European Communities – Maximum residue limits in plant and animal products  
Item 110 Japan's amendment of the food sanitation law  
Item 111 Japan – Maximum residue levels for chlorpyrifos 
Animal Health and Zoonoses  
TSE concerns  
Item 80 European Communities – Regulations on animal by-products  
Plant Health Concerns  
Item 141 Philippine –  Notification on Chinese fruit 
Item 165 United States —Restrictions on imports of Chinese potted plants in growing medium 
 
COLOMBIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY COLOMBIA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses  
Concerns related to FMD 
42. Colombia - FMD restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras.  18-19), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 44-
45), November 2002 , (G/SPS/R/28, pa ras. 56-58), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, 
paras. 74-75), June 2003 (G/SPS /R/30, para. 44), October 2003 
(G/SPS/R/31, para. 37) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Restrictions lifted on bovine meat from Argentina 
 
138. Argentina reported that Colombia had restricted  imports of certain products from Argentina 
on 26 September 2001, after the FMD outbreaks in Argentina.  Colombia had agreed to accept 
Argentine products for which risk mitigation techni ques could be applied according to the OIE code, 
and on 17 October 2001 had publis hed new measures specifying those processed products which 
could be imported.  An inspection visit by the Colombian sanitary services in late October 2001 complemented the information provided by the Ar gentine services.  Howeve r, Argentina was unable 
to export the products in question due to continue d information requests from Colombia.  Colombia 
noted that it had replied to comments and ques tions from Argentina in November 2001 and March 
2002.  Argentina did not have establishments author ised by the Colombian Livestock Institute (ICA) 
to export risk products to Colombia.  Colombia was considering the process and production methods 
at Argentine establishments to inac tivate the virus in risk materials,  and if satisfactory, Argentine 
establishments would receive the necessary ICA authorization. 
139. In June 2002, Argentina indicated that its e xports continued to be restricted.  Colombia 
recalled that no plants in Argen tina were currently certified to export to Colombia.  However, G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 38  
 
Colombia had identified 10 plants in Argentina for which it needed to update information, and another 
38 plants which it proposed to visit for the first time.  Only 21 of these establishments had provided 
the information needed for the Colombian Agricultural Institute to undertake certification visits. 
140. In November 2002, Argentina noted that Colo mbia continued to prohibit Argentine meat 
despite the fact that there had been no new outbreaks in Argentina for nine months.  Colombia still 
had not carried out inspections of 21 packing plan ts which Colombia claimed was necessary before 
trade in beef meat could resume.  Colombia stated that Argentina had blocked imports of fresh flowers from Colombia, and requested Argentina not  to link these two issues.  Argentina indicated 
that there was no linkage to Colombian flowers, and asked Colombia to provide information as to 
whether it would carry out the veterinary inspections  in Argentina so that beef meat exports could 
resume. 
141. In April 2003, Argentina noted that it ha d not received a reply from Colombia on the 
completed questionnaire concerning chilled products.  No in-situ in spections had taken place that 
would lead to a lifting of these restrictions nor  had Argentina received any requests for further 
information.  Noting Colombia's concern over cut fl owers, Argentina stated that it did not maintain 
any restriction on the import of flowers from Colombia.  Colombia stated that it enjoyed a favourable 
FMD situation but allowed the importation of low ri sk products.  High risk products, however, were 
banned from Argentina and this was notified to th e WTO. Establishments of origin had to be 
authorized by the Colombian sanitary service and a programme of visits to Argentina had been 
planned.  Information from Argentine authorities was required with regard to the serological and 
epidemiological assessment of FMD, vaccination c overage, and the dates on which the status of 
disease freedom both with or without vaccination were achieved.   Colombia considered the Argentine 
decision to suspend the import of cut flowers  in November 2001, without a WTO notification, to be 
unjustified. 
142. In June 2003, Argentina reported that progr ess had been made and that inspections of 
Argentine meat plants by Colombian officials were  being planned.  Colombia noted that once the 
necessary information was provided by Argentin a, Colombian authorities would carry out the 
necessary missions.  The good progress in the case of bovine exports from Argentina to Colombia was 
similar to the progress made on the issue of flower exports from Colombia to Argentina. 
143. In October 2003, Argentina reported that the issue had been resolved at the end of September 
2003, and that Colombia had eliminated its restricti ons.  Colombia confirmed that the issue had been 
resolved, and that exports of flowers from Colombia  to Argentina had also been discussed during the 
meeting. 
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY COLOMBIA  
Item 
Number  Country Maintaining the Measure   
Food Safety 
Item 72   European Communities (Germany) – Maximum tolerance levels fo r ocratoxin A in coffee  
Other Concerns  
Item 178 Venezuela  – Restrictions on imports of potatoes, fresh mushrooms, fresh tomatoes, 
fertilised eggs, day-old chicks and meat products  
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 39 
 
 
COSTA RICA 
CONCERNS RAISED BY COSTA RICA 
Item 
Number  Country Maintaining the Measure   
Animal Health and Zoonoses  
Other Animal Health Concerns  
Item 95 Honduras –  Import restrictions on chicken meat imports 
 
 
CÔTE D'IVOIRE  
CONCERNS RAISED BY CÔTE  D' IVOIRE  
Item 
Number  Country Maintaining the Measure   
Food Safety  
Item 56 European Communities – Directive 2000/42 on pesticide residues 
 
CROATIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CROATIA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to TSEs 
 
43. Croatia – Import measures on live animals and meat products 
Raised by: Hungary 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras.  28-31), October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 
132 – 134) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/416 
Solution: Not reported 
 
144. Hungary expressed concern with measures taken by Croatia to ban imports of live animals 
and meat products.  The ban, supposedly to provide protection against BSE, entered into force with 
immediate effect and was never notified.  The ba n applied to all meat products, including fish and 
poultry, as well as live animals.  These could only be imported if the exporting country certified that 
no animal protein had been used as feed.  As there was no scientific justification for the measures and 
since it did not apply to domestic producers, Hungary  considered the ban a disguised restriction on 
international trade.  The European Communiti es expressed support for Hungary's concerns.  The 
European Communities had requested information fr om Croatia but did not receive any reply.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 40  
 
145. Croatia maintained that the measure was imposed  to keep its present status as a BSE-free area 
in order to protect its exports of meat products .  The measures taken were in accordance with 
established international rules and with the measur es taken by the European Communities.  Countries 
which had provided the necessary in formation had been exempted fro m the ban, e.g., Bulgaria and 
Romania.  Croatia requested Hungary to submit the necessary information.   
146. In October 2003, Croatia reported that meeti ngs between veterinarians from Hungary and 
Croatia were held to resolve the issue.  The European Communities not ed that the statement made by 
Croatia at the June meeting and circulated in  document G/SPS/GEN/416, th at its measures were 
consistent with EC legislation was inaccurat e.  EC legislation did not prohibit imports. 
Other Animal Health Concerns 
 
44. Croatia – Restrictions on pork imports 
Raised by: Slovenia 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R29, paras. 203-204) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
147. Slovenia reported that decrees issued in Ma rch by the Croatian Ministry of Agriculture 
shortened the validity dates on veterinary import pe rmits from six to three months.  The reason given 
for this was market disturbances due to oversupply of meat in the Croatian market.  The measure was not notified to the WTO and was in breach of th e WTO Agreements on SPS, Agriculture and Import 
Licensing Procedures. 
148. Croatia stated that it had not adopted or implem ented any measures to restrict imports of pork 
meat and products.  As of January, Croatia was de veloping a computerized integrated system for 
veterinary control of border crossings.  This requi red adjustments to the procedures for application 
and issuance of veterinary approvals .  An important element of the new simplified system was that the 
period for issuance of approvals had been shortene d from 30 or 60 days to only 15 days.  Bilateral 
discussions between competent authorities would clarify the situation. 
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY CROATIA  
Item 
Number  Country Maintaining the Measure   
Animal Health and Zoonoses  
TSE Concerns 
Item 2 Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, New Zealand, United States — Import 
Restrictions affecting BSE-free countries 
 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 41 
 
 
CUBA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CUBA 
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to FMD 45. Cuba – Import restrictions on spiced pork and salted meat products 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras.  15-16), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, para. 
182)  
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/325 
Solution: Not reported 
 
149. Argentina indicated that exports of spiced pork and salted meat products to Cuba were 
prohibited due to Cuba's zero risk approach w ith regard to FMD (G/SPS/GEN/325).  Argentina had 
submitted evidence that the FMD virus would not be  transmitted as a result of the processing of these 
products.  Moreover, Argentina's proposed certifi cation fully complied with OIE standards.  
Nonetheless, Cuba only permitted imports of bov ine meat from countries free of FMD without 
vaccination.  Argentina requested Cuba to lift its restrictions, or to provide sufficient scientific 
evidence to justify its measure.  Cuba indicated th at bilateral consultations had been initiated on the 
issue. 
150. In November 2002, Argentina reported that a few technicalities needed to be sorted out before 
the issue was completely resolved. 
Plant Health 
46. Cuba - Restrictions on apples and pears 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2001  (G/SPS/R/25, para. 101) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
151. Argentina expressed concerns that Cuba did not accept cold treatment as a quarantine 
treatment for apples and pears.  Bilateral consultati ons had been held, and Argentina expected further 
information from Cuba on this issue. 
CONCERNS RAISED BY CUBA 
Item 
Number  Country Maintaining the Measure   
Food Safety  
Item 53 European Communities — Pesticide and antibiotic limits  in honey (Directive 96/23)  
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 42  
 
 
CZECH REPUBLIC 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CZECH REPUBLIC  
Food Safety 47. 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: Czech measure lifted in October 1999. 
 152. 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. 
153. 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.  
154. 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. 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Other Animal Health Concerns  48. 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: EC satisfied with Czech clarifications. 
 
155. 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 matter bilaterally with EC veterinary authorities.  In 
February 2001, the Czech Republic indicated th at the European Communities had accepted its 
clarifications.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 43 
 
 
Plant Health 
49. 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: Second active ingredient approved, imports from EC resumed. 
 156. 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. 
157. 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. 
158. In February 2001, the Czech Republic repor ted that the second active agent had been 
approved since 16 March 1998, and im ports from the EC had resumed. 
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY CZECH REPUBLIC  
Item 
Number  Country Maintaining the Measure   
Animal Health and Zoonoses  
TSE Concerns 
Item 2 Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, New Zealand, United States — Import restrictions 
affecting BSE-free countries  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 44  
 
 
ECUADOR C
ONCERNS RAISED BY ECUADOR  
Item 
Number 
 Country Maintaining the Measure   
Plant Health Concerns  
Item 88 European Communities  – Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/131 regarding cut flowers 
Item 158 Turkey –  Restriction on banana imports 
 
 
EGYPT 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EGYPT  
Food Safety 50. Egypt - Restrictions on canned tuna 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2000 (G /SPS/R/19, paras. 103-104) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/203 
Solution: Formal consultations requested by Thailand. 
 
159. 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 
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. 
CONCERNS RAISED BY EGYPT  
Item 
Number  Country Maintaining the Measure   
Plant Health Concerns  
Item 89 European Communities  – Measures on imports of Egyptian potatoes 
 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 45 
 
 
EL SALVADOR 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EL SALVADOR  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Other Animal Health Concerns  51. El Salvador – Restrictions on meat and dairy products 
Raised by: Uruguay 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, para. 85), November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, 
para. 32) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution (if reported): Issue resolved. 
 
160. In November 1999, Uruguay reported on problems wi th exports of meat and dairy products to 
El Salvador on sanitary grounds, although no concrete  sanitary problems or regulations had been 
mentioned.  The representative of El Salvador indi cated that these concerns would be transmitted to 
the appropriate authorities.  In November 2000, Ur uguay reported that the issue that been resolved. 
ESTONIA 
CONCERNS RAISED BY ESTONIA  
Item 
Number  Country Maintaining the Measure   
Animal Health and Zoonoses  
TSE Concerns 
Item 2 Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, New Zealand, United States- Import restrictions 
affecting BSE-free countries 
 
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES  
Food Safety 
52. European Communities – Restrictions on shellfish 
Raised by: Indonesia 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, pa ras. 127-128), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
paras. 183-184) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 46  
 
161. In June 2002, Indonesia raised concerns rega rding an EC prohibition on shellfish from 
Indonesia due to biotoxic residues that had been app lied for two years.  The three gulfs in Indonesia 
which were not free of biotoxins were closed to shellfish fishing.  Indonesia had responded to a 
questionnaire from the European Communities and was waiting for the European Communities to 
send an inspection team.   
162. The European Communities indicated that given th e high risks associated with shellfish, it 
accepted products only from countries with an appr oved sanitary programme which included control 
procedures for the maritime production area.  The information provided by Indonesia had given the 
impression that controls were not mandatory, a nd in March 2001 the European Communities had sent 
a further questionnaire.  The European Communiti es indicated that as soon as the reply to the 
questionnaire was received, an EC evaluation team would visit Indonesia.   
163. In November 2002, Indonesia reported that an EC inspection team had visited Indonesia in 
October 2002.  Indonesia was of the view that the resolution of the problem would have a very positive effect on the fish industry in Indonesia, esp ecially at the production level.  The European 
Communities commended Indonesia for all the efforts th at the country had made to meet the safety 
requirements set out in EC legislation, and hoped that further progress would permit resolution of the 
problem. 
53. European Communities – Pesticide and antibiotic limits in honey (Directive 96/23) 
Raised by: Cuba 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27/Corr.1,  para. 130), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
para. 178) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 164. Cuba indicated that it had sought bilateral c onsultations with the European Communities on 
pesticide residues in honey.  Th e European Communities confirmed that it was examining a plan 
submitted by Cuba for residue analysis, and would continue to pursue this bilaterally. 
165. In November 2002, Cuba reported that progress ha d been made in bilate ral consultations with 
the European Communities on regulation EC 96/93  setting out residue limits for imported honey. 
54. European Communities - Regulations on genetically modified food and feed 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, Argentina, Canada, Israel, Jordan, Taipei, China, Singapore, 
Egypt 
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, pa ras. 40-44), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 
45-56), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, para s. 84-87), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, 
para. 168) 
Relevant document(s): G/TBT/N/EEC/6 and 7, G/SPS/N/EEC/149, G/SPS/N/EEC/150, 
G/SPS/GEN/397, G/SPS/GEN/398, G/SPS/GEN/399 
Solution: Not reported 
 
166. The United States expressed concerns that th e EC proposals on traceability and labelling of 
agricultural biotechnology products had been notified only under th e TBT Agreement and not the SPS 
Agreement, although the proposals made it clear that they were intended to address unforeseen 
adverse effects to human and animal health.  Canada and the United States sought clarification as to whether the draft regulations covered food safety or human health.  Argentina noted that genetically  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 47 
 
 
modified food did not affect health, and that th e compulsory labelling required by the proposed EC 
regulation was not consistent with  the TBT Agreement.  Argentina sought clarification as to whether 
the labelling requirements extended to pharmaceuti cal products for human or animal use.   
167. The European Communities observed that request s to prolong the consultation period had 
been accepted and this period would run until the end of the year.  The main objective of the proposed 
regulations was to ensure that consumers were dul y informed of the products they bought.  Two other 
key issues were traceability and labelling. Th e labelling of pharmaceuticals containing GM 
ingredients was covered by different legislation.  The European Communities stated that discussions 
should continue in the TBT Committee.   
168. In March 2002, the United States noted that the EC measure notified as G/SPS/N/EEC/149, 
would require a lengthy food safety review for all bi otech foods, and for the fi rst time, biotech feeds, 
which would also need to be labelled.  Products al ready authorized for food or feed use within the 
European Union would have to be re-authorized wi thin nine years of their first placement on the 
market.  The stated objective of this regulation w as to protect health, environment and consumers and 
to prevent deceptive practices.  However, the propo sed regulation failed to distinguish the protection 
of health and the environment from perceived consum er desires.  The regulation would be more trade 
restrictive than necessary and could create substa ntial difficulties for countries which imported US 
agricultural products for processing and further expor t, without addressing the identified concerns and 
potential hazards.  The United States suggested that without affordable testing and enforcement, the 
proposed regulation left room for fraud, and the European Commission should examine the feasibility 
of implementing the regulation, and analyze its potential regulatory impact.  
169. The United States further noted that the new EU Food Authority (EFA) would undertake the 
risk assessments for biotech food and feed, and prov ide technical and scientific information.  But the 
European Commission could propose an outcome incons istent with the risk assessment or other safety 
and technical information considered by EFA.  This le ft room for political interference of the type that 
had led to the existing moratorium on the approval  of biotech products.  Furthermore, the EC 
legislation set a "no risk" level which could eff ectively block the regulatory process since no product 
could ever be guaranteed to have "no risk".   
170. Canada believed that these proposed regulations fe ll within the scope of the SPS Agreement, 
and the primary concern of Canada was that cert ain elements of these propo sals lacked the needed 
scientific basis.  Argentina supported the US and Ca nadian statements.  Israel expressed concern with 
the trend of Members' requiring traceability and mandatory labelling for biotech food and feed 
products, a requirement not based on scientific in formation, and hoped that  Members could find less 
trade restrictive measures to address their concerns.  Jordan supported the consideration of the safety 
of GM products on the basis of risk assessment as  provided in the SPS Agreement.  Requirements 
imposed on processed products would result in unjus tified costs that affected the competitiveness of 
products, and resulted in greater rest rictions on developing countries.   Egypt supported the statements 
of the United States and Jordan.  Singapore request ed the European Communities to take account of 
all the concerns raised to ensure that the implem entation of the regulations did not impose a disguised 
restriction on trade, particularly for countri es which processed and re-exported goods imported from 
the United States. 
171. Chinese Taipei stated that safety assessment of a ll GM products should be based on scientific 
evidence to ensure that the prod ucts were as safe as their conventio nal counterparts.  Members should 
work together in particular to strengthen risk communication.  Chinese Taipei considered that an 
appropriate labelling scheme was necessary to respect  consumers' right to know and to choose, and 
had introduced voluntary labelling in January 2001.  Mandatory labelling would be applied in three 
phases starting in January 2003.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 48  
 
172. The European Communities recalled that these re gulations had also been notified under the 
TBT Agreement, and that the TBT Committee had held  detailed discussions at the technical level the 
previous week.  The European Communities believed that a large part of these proposals fell within 
the scope of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement,  but had notified these measures also under the SPS 
Agreement because many Members had expressed inte rest in the SPS Committee.  The time-period to 
allow Members to submit comments also in response to the SPS notifications had been extended.  The 
comments received had been very similar to those received in response to the TBT notification, and 
the European Communities subsequently circulat ed its response to comments received about both 
notifications.   
173. The European Communities further reported that the draft regulation had been adopted by the 
EC College of Commissioners and sent to the EU  Parliament and the EC Council for their final 
decisions.  The comments received by the EC Co mmission, as well as the responses to these, would 
be provided to the EC member States, the EC C ouncil and Parliament.  It was unclear how long the 
process would take and when any decisions might be made.  The European Communities noted that 
the EFA would be a scientific body with responsibility  to do independent risk assessment;  its advice 
would be sent to the EC Commission and Council for the appropriate risk management decisions. 
This procedure was consistent with the Codex gui delines, since it was not appropriate for the risk 
assessment body to also make the risk management decisions. 
174. In April 2003, the United States recalled its previous criticisms that the EC biotechnology 
policies breached both EC laws and WTO rules.  By blocking imports on an unscientific basis, the 
European Communities was interfering with the use of safe food products that could stem global 
hunger, improve nutrition and benefit the environment.  Canada and Argentina echoed the concerns of 
the United States.  Australia stated it shared many  of the concerns raised by the United States and 
Canada with regard to the lack of science based decision-making.   
175. The European Communities reported that on 17 March 2003, the Council of Ministers 
adopted a common position on biotechnology approval,  labelling and traceability and the legislative 
proposals had now returned to the European Par liament for a second reading under the co-decision 
procedures.  The second reading should be concluded at the beginning of July 2003, which implied 
that the proposals should be adopted before th e end of 2003.  Once approved, the labelling and 
traceability proposals should make it possible for th e moratorium on biotechnology approvals to be 
lifted since EC member States had imposed the moratorium in the absence of a clear regulation on traceability and labelling.   
176. The European Communities also indicated th at the biotechnology approval procedure 
envisaged in Directive 2001/18 was now operational and the EU Scientific Committee had given its 
opinion as to the procedure necessary to conduct a risk assessment.  The opinion was available on the 
internet.  Nineteen new or revised submissions had been received since the start of 2003 and the 
assessments had begun in accordance with the pr ovisions of the Directive.  The European 
Commission was awaiting comments from the Scientific Committee on the risk assessments.  The 
outcome of the risk assessments would depend on the quality and conformity of the scientific data 
being submitted to determine the effects of GM Os on human health and the environment.   
177. In June 2003, the United States, Canada and Ar gentina reported they had held consultations 
with the European Communities under the dispute settlement procedures on 19 June 2003, and were 
now considering further actions.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 49 
 
 
55. European Communities – Notification G/SPS/ N/EEC/150 on traceability and labelling of  
genetically modified organisms and food and feed 
Raised by: United States, Canada, Argentina 
Supported by: Argentina, Australia,  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, pa ras. 57-62), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
paras.95-96), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 88-90) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/150, G/SPS/N/EEC/149,  (G/SPS/GEN/354), 
G/SPS/GEN/337 and 338    
Solution: Not reported 
 178. The United States specified that the EC traceability  requirement was to apply to all biotech 
food and feed products at all stages of placing the product on the market.  The stated objective was to 
facilitate control of labelling claims, environmenta l monitoring and control of the product.  Food 
processors would be obliged to maintain specific in formation at each stage of placing the product on 
the market, including details as to whether the product contained or was produced from biotech products.  As a general rule, if a product contained ingredients cons isting of biotech products or 
produced from biotech events, these must be identifie d.  This included prod ucts made from but not 
containing biotech products, such as soybean oil.  The United States believed that this proposal would 
be expensive to implement, but would not be enfo rceable nor would it achieve its stated objectives.  
179. The United States was further concerned that the me asure was not targeted at health risks, and 
applied to products already approved for use within  the European Communiti es.  Traceback systems 
for food safety had been effectively used to reca ll food in the United States in response to health 
problems, based on batch and lot numbers on packag es.  However, the proposed traceability system 
would be applied across-the-board to products w hose safety had already b een assessed.  Before 
adopting the measure the United States urged the European Commission to as sess the feasibility of 
applying the measure reliably and accurately; consider less trade r estrictive means to achieve the 
objectives and evaluate the regulatory impact of the proposal.  
180. Australia indicated that it had submitted detailed written comments that questioned the 
scientific basis for the EC measures, the international standards to be used, and the nature of the risk 
assessment underpinning the EC measures.  Australia also questioned whether a less trade-restrictive 
measure could be used, and why the traceability system  for GM foods differed substantially from that 
for other foods.  Argentina shared the concer ns raised by the United States and Australia. 
181. Norway indicated doubts as to whether the SPS Agreement was relevant to the issue of 
GMOs and added that Norway strongly believed th at labelling and traceability were not contrary to 
WTO obligations.  The EC regulations took account of the Codex, the Cartagena Protocol and the 
OECD guidelines.  According to the Codex guide lines, food labelling should be used to avoid 
misleading or confusing the consumer with regard to the true nature of a food.  Consumers' distrust in 
food products would be greater if labelling and traceab ility were not required.  Norway believed that 
the EC measure addressed a legitimate objective that was not excessive in relation to its purpose. 
Cyprus stated his country's support of the EC position regarding information to consumers.  
182. The European Communities stated that all co mments would be considered and communicated 
to the appropriate bodies.  Current labelling re quirements in the European Communities required 
information on ingredients included in  food products;  all that was a dded in terms of labelling was to 
ensure the inclusion of GM products within the ge neral requirements.  There were four objectives of 
traceability:  (1)  to recall products in case of an unforeseen problem;  (2) to monitor potential risks 
for the environment;  (3)  to control the accuracy of information provided on the label;  and (4)  to 
inform consumers about what they ate and to  avoid deceptive practices.  The EC Commission G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 50  
 
considered that these four objectives were primarily  related to the TBT Agreement, and had notified 
this proposal to the SPS Agreement only for transparency.  
183. Canada observed that one of the stated objectiv es of the proposed regulation was to provide a 
high level of protection of human health.  Canada  accepted that consumers had the right to know 
many things, but found troublesome that these regulations focussed on products made from GM 
products but not on products made with GM pro cessing aids, even when there might be traces of the 
processing aids left in the product.  Several industries in Europe used GM processing aids.  The selective focus was also troubling in  that consumers did not need to  be informed if products were 
derived from mutagenesis, another fo rm of genetic alteration.   The focus of the EC regulations was 
overly specific and selective.  Furthermore, the ma ndatory nature of the tr aceability system created 
problems especially for enforcement.  Canada noted th at no international standard existed in this area; 
the Biosafety Protocol was not yet in effect and ne ither it nor the OECD guidelines were referred to in 
the SPS Agreement.  Canada looked forward to a sci entific assessment of the needs, challenges and 
benefits of the proposed mandatory traceability system .  In November 2002,  Argentina drew attention 
to the 21 questions for which his country w as seeking a written response from the European 
Communities (G/SPS/GEN/354).  Argentina enquired as to whether the latest version notified by the 
European Communities included the amendments made  by the European Parliament.  The European 
Communities noted that they had received the ques tions from Argentina at a late date, and would 
provide answers to the questions in writing.  Th e European Communities usually notified a draft text 
to the WTO to allow Members enough time to co mment while the proposed regulation was being 
circulated in the Parliament and Council.  Di scussions were still underway in these two bodies and as 
soon as a final regulation was adopted it would be no tified to the SPS Committee for information.  
184. In April 2003, Argentina enquired whether th e European Communities were in a position to 
answer specific questions it had raised in the last Committee meeting on the proposed traceability and 
labelling legislation.  The European Communities responded that the additional questions submitted 
by Argentina were being studied and that a reply,  based on the new version of the two legislative 
proposals, was being finalized.  The European Co mmunities also stated that detailed answers had 
already been given to many questions raised by  Argentina in documents G/SPS/GEN/337 and 338. 
56. European Communities - Directive 2000/42 on pesticide residues 
Raised by: Côte d'Ivoire 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 136-137) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
185. Côte d'Ivoire expressed concern regarding ne w EC maximum residue levels (MRLs) for 
pesticides in fruits and vegetables,  which would affect Côte d'Ivoire 's exports of pineapples, mangoes, 
papayas, cashew nuts, passion fruits and green beans.   Small farmers in Cô te d'Ivoire would be 
affected.  The MRLs did not seem to be consistent, or to be based on a pertinent risk assessment, for 
example in the case of Ethephon.  Technical questi ons posed in April 2001 through different channels 
had remained without answer.  Although technical as sistance for pineapple production was planned, it 
had not been carried out before the entry into for ce of the EC directive.  Côte d'Ivoire requested 
waivers from the EC directive.  Once the planned technical assistance had been carried out, adequate MRLs could be set with the collaboration of Code x.  The European Communities recalled that one 
year ago the Committee had been informed of an EC decision to delay for one year the application of 
a series of MRLs for ACP countries.  The year had now passed, and the directive was being implemented.  Special and differential treatment  had not solved the problem.  For discontinued 
substances, the MRLs were set at detection levels ; this was international practice.  The European 
Communities would consider Côte d'Ivoire's request.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 51 
 
 
57. European Communities - Legislation on the fungicide thiabendazole (TBZ) 
Raised by: Israel 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 128-129) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
186. Israel was concerned that legislation being cons idered by the European Parliament would ban 
fungicide residues in fruit juices, although they were considered safe according to Codex standards.  
Israel saw no scientific justification for banning th e use of these fungicides, and believed this would 
create unnecessary trade barriers.  Israel had rai sed both with the European Communities and with 
Germany a problem regarding German law which restricted residues of TBZ and Imazalil in citrus 
juices to such low levels that in effect this constitu ted a ban.  Israel requested a clarification regarding 
the EC position on the European Parliament initiativ e.  The European Communities explained that the 
European Parliament could introduce amendments to  Commission proposals, and that Israel would be 
kept informed of the situation. 
58. European Communities - Import restrictions on soy sauce 
Raised by: Thailand on behalf of ASEAN 
Supported by: Korea 
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  36-39), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 11-
14), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, pa ra. 106), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, 
paras. 134-136),  June 2002  (G/SPS/R/27, para. 132) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/100 
Solution: Not reported 
 
187. In March 2001, Thailand, on behalf of ASEAN, raised concerns with an EC regulation which 
set new maximum levels for lead, cadmium, merc ury and 3-MPCD in foodstuffs.  ASEAN believed 
that the EC maximum level of 3-MCPD in soy sauce was too low to be practicable, and constituted an 
unnecessary barrier to trade.  ASEAN asked the European Communities to provide technical 
information in order to reach a mutually satisfactor y solution.  Korea asked to be informed about the 
outcome of bilateral consultations between the Eu ropean Communities and Thailand.  The European 
Communities stated that several of its member States  had detected high levels of 3-MCPD in samples 
of soy sauce.  Recent toxicological studies had i ndicated that the substance acted as a non-genotoxic 
carcinogen in vivo .  The European Communities believed th at maximum levels should be set to 
encourage good manufacturing practices and to prot ect the health of consumers.  A proposed 
Commission Regulation set such limits, and was cu rrently under examination.  Thailand had been 
informed of the 3-MCPD levels reported in so y sauce from one manufacturer, but had not responded. 
188. In July 2001, the European  Communities informed the Co mmittee that the Scientific 
Committee of Food had recently revised its opini on on 3-MCPD in light of new toxicological 
information, concluding that 3-MCPD was not genot oxic in humans.  A tolerable daily intake had 
been set at 2 µg per kg of body weight.  A maximu m level for 3-MCPD, to take effect in April 2002, 
had been set at 0.02 mg/kg for both hydrolized vegetable protein and soy sauce.  However, in light of 
the new scientific opinion, the European Communitie s would consider whether the current maximum 
level remained appropriate.  The United States i ndicated that the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee 
on Food Additives (JECFA) had re-evaluated the safe ty of chlorinated propanols, and concluded that 
a person should not consume more than 120 mg/day of these contaminants.  The Codex representative 
added that the need to establish maximum levels for these contaminants would be considered by 
JECFA in March 2002. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 52  
 
189. In October 2001, Thailand indicated that it had taken measures to establish maximum 3-
MCPD limits and to modify production processes to  lower rates of contamination; its industry 
expected to be able to meet a 1 mg/kg limit with in one year.  JECFA had set a provisional maximum 
daily threshold level at 2 micrograms/kg of body wei ght per day.  Based on this limit for a person of 
50 kg bodyweight, a safe daily consumption of up to 10 g should be allowable.   However, Thailand 
noted that the limits applied by Members differed widely. 
190. In March 2002, the European Communities repor ted that the Scientific Committee had re-
evaluated the potential toxicity of 3-MCPD, and ha d concluded that the risks were not as high as 
initially believed.  A full evaluation of the toxi city of 3-MCPD was underway, pending receipt of 
additional information; in particular regarding ex posure levels.  The results of this study were 
expected for July 2002, at which time the EC require ment would be re-examined in light of the results 
of this study as well as of the JECFA review.   
191. The representative of Codex noted that the Codex Committee on Food Additives had the 
previous week discussed the subject of chloropropan ols, substances which could occur in hydrolized 
vegetable proteins and soy sauces.  JECFA had determ ined that the level of chloropropanols could be 
controlled if the levels of 3-MCPD were limited, and had developed recommende d daily intake levels.  
On this basis, the Food Additiv es committee was proceeding to develop maximum residue levels for 
3-MCPD for commodities of major trade interest. 
192. In June 2002, the European Communities confir med that 3-MCPD had been re-evaluated and 
found to be carcinogenic but not genotoxic, so the ALARA ("as low as reasonably achieveable") principle would no longer be applied.  However, the European Communities was seeking the 
necessary information . on exposure of consumers to 3-MCPD and other chloropropanols so that the 
Scientific Committee could undertake a risk assessment. 
59. 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: Not reported 
193. 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. 
194. 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. 
195. 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  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 53 
 
 
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. 
196. 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. 
197. 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. 
60. European Communities - Measures on food treated with ionizing radiation 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, par as. 37-38), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 
127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/61, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Not reported 
 
198. In September 1998, the United States sought cl arification on the EC measure on food and 
food ingredients treated with ionizing radiation.  The United States 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 United States 
emphasized that the list of products provided in an  annex to the EC directive 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 worked.  The European 
Communities indicated that the US suggestions w ould be forwarded to the competent EC services. 
199. In a document introduced in July 2001, the United States reported that two EC directives on 
food irradiation had been adopted in 1999 (G/SPS/G EN/265).  So far, only dried aromatic herbs, 
spices and vegetable seasonings had been included in  the positive list.  One of the directives required 
that the Commission draft a proposal by 31 December 2000.  The Commission had published a consultation paper, describing a possible strategy for expanding the positive list.  After considering 
comments, the Commission would submit the paper to  the Council and the European Parliament.  The 
United Stated had sent comments on the consultation pa per in January 2001, requesting that all foods 
which received a favourable opinion from the Scie ntific Committee for Food be included in the 
positive list.  The United States had also requested  information on how additional foods could be 
added to the positive list. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 54  
 
61. European Communities - Emerge ncy measures on citrus pulp  
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12,  paras. 49-50), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, 
para. 34) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/62 
Solution: Brazil reported in October 2001 that the emergency measures had been 
lifted. 
 200. In September 1998, Brazil expressed concer ns regarding EC emergency notification 
G/SPS/N/EEC/62, which mentioned very high leve ls of dioxin found in citrus pulp pellets from 
Brazil.  Brazil pointed out that this accident had already been fully dealt with.  Brazilian authorities 
were maintaining bilateral talks with the Eur opean Communities on the su bject.  The European 
Communities explained that this accident had i nvolved 90 000 tonnes of contaminated citrus pulp 
pellets destined for animal feed.  After scientific discussions, including Brazil's private sector, the EC 
authorities had decided that the lack of information on the origin of the contamination, the amount of 
stocks involved and the lack of a solution just ified the emergency measure.  The European 
Communities hoped that ongoing contacts with the Brazilian authorities would result in a solution 
before the end of the year.   
201. In October 2001,  Brazil reported that following two technical visits by EC officials to 
evaluate Brazilian control systems, the emergency me asures on dioxin in citrus pulp had been lifted. 
62. 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), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/58, G/SPS/GEN/88, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Not reported 
 202. 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. 
203. 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 
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. 
204. 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  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 55 
 
 
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. 
205. In July 2001, the United States reported that it did not require or support registration of 
animal feed establishments and considered the issue to still be unresolved (G/SPS/GEN/265). 
63. 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, Paki stan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines on behalf 
of 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), March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 29-30 and 86- 87), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 
39-43), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 27-31), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 140), June 2002 (G /SPS/R/27, paras. 38-39), November 
2002 (G/SPS/R/28, para. 175), April 20 03 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 51-52), June 
2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 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, G/SPS/R/28 
Solution: Maximum levels for some pr oducts and sampling procedures revised. 
 
206. 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. 
207. 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. 
208. 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 
Communities was considering trans itional arrangements, and the new measures would not enter into 
force before 1 January 1999. 
209. 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 56  
 
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. 
210. 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. 
211. 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. 
212. 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. 
213. In March 2001, Argentina raised concerns over EC maximum levels of contaminants in food 
products and sampling methods for aflatoxins in peanuts, other nuts, dried fruits and cereals.  
Argentina was preparing a technical submission for th e European Communities to be circulated before 
the next SPS Committee meeting. The European Communities agreed to carefully consider the 
technical document.  Regarding cereals, the Eu ropean Communities reminded Members that the 
relevant legislation had been adopted in 2000 a nd would come into effect as of 1 July 2001. 
214. Bolivia recalled the information it had provided regarding EC aflatoxin levels in Brazil nuts 
(G/SPS/GEN/93).  The European Communities had not provided a risk analysis for this measure.  Bolivia outlined the socio-economic and ecological implications of the m easure for the area of 
production, as well as the effects on the economy.  The European Communities indicated that the 
science had been explained in detail in the Committee.   An EC expert had visited Bolivia in May 2000 
to evaluate the situation.  The Commission belie ved that the problems in Bolivia stemmed from 
needed improvements in the production chain and th e equipment used.  A project to address these 
issues had been included in the EU Aid Programme. 
215. In July 2001, Bolivia expressed concern about the long time it was taking to resolve the issue.  
Argentina and Chile inquired about the technical assistance and special and differential treatment 
aspects of the issue.  The European Communities noted  that Bolivia was on a high priority list for EC 
cooperation activities.  The expert mission in Ma y 2000 had concluded that  Bolivian products had 
been meeting EC aflatoxin levels, and at least th ree private laboratories were equipped to carry out 
accurate tests.  The European Communities remained willing to di scuss technical difficulties and to 
agree on practical solutions. The European Co mmunities was promoting a project to improve  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 57 
 
 
production and storage processes and the livelihood of nut collectors, to be executed in 2002; it had 
proposed a certification procedure and hoped that Bolivia recognized the efforts being made to 
improve Brazil nut production in the region concerned.  Bolivia confirmed that bilateral meetings had 
taken place, including a discussion on possible techni cal cooperation programmes.  However, so far 
no practical measures had been taken to reduce the negative effect on trade. 
216. In October 2001, Bolivia reported that the European Communities still had not presented a 
risk analysis to justify its maximum levels for aflatoxins in Brazil nuts, nor applied special and 
differential treatment or justifie d why higher levels were permitted in similar products.  The measure 
was having a severe effect on the Bolivian economy.  Promises of technical assistance were not beneficial, and Bolivia wished to see a solution b ased on acceptance by the European Communities of 
a certificate.  The European Communities indicated that prolonged bilateral consultations had taken 
place prior to the entry into force of the measur e, and that expected trade concerns had not 
materialized. The risk assessment had been di scussed on numerous occasions in the SPS Committee 
and in JECFA.  EC technical assistance had the goal of ensuring compliance with EC standards.  A national certification and accreditation mechanism was being implemented which would allow the 
three Bolivian laboratories to issue internationally  recognized certificates.  However, no follow-up 
information had been received from Bolivia on this possible solution.  
217. In March 2002, Bolivia indicated that there ha d been no progress on the issue.  The European 
Communities reported that it had agreed to acce pt pre-shipment certification from accredited 
laboratories in Bolivia in order to avoid costly  sampling of the product upon arrival in Europe.  
However, no further information had been prov ided by Bolivia regarding the accreditation of 
laboratories nor a proposal for the pre-shipment ce rtificate.  Nonetheless, shipments of Brazil nuts 
from Bolivia met all of the EC's requirements, and the quantity of shipments continued to grow.   
218. In June 2002, Bolivia noted that although the la rger Bolivian exporters were able to meet the 
EC requirements at considerable costs and difficult ies, smaller exporters could not fulfill the EC's 
requirements.  Bolivia requested information on the manner in which the EC requirements for a 
quality control system were being applied.  Th e European Communities stressed again that no 
consignments of Brazil nuts from Bolivia had been bl ocked due to aflatoxin.  In fact, both the volume 
and value imported from Bolivia had increased in recent years.  The EC Scientific Committee for 
Food had identified aflatoxins as among the most carcinogenic and mutageni c substances known, and 
intake had to be reduced to the lowest levels  possible.  Although the European Commission had 
agreed to accept certification from authorized Bo livian laboratories, Bolivia had not provided the 
necessary information. 
219. In April 2003, Bolivia stated that a pr oposal had been submitted to the European 
Communities to strengthen the Bolivian system of ce rtification for export of Brazil nuts.  He hoped 
that a technical exchange would take place on this  proposal in the near future.  The European 
Communities noted that its authorities would need so me time to examine the Bolivian proposal.  The 
European Communities favoured certification at the point of departure by accredited laboratories and 
commended the Bolivian authorities for their proposal. 
220. In June 2003, Bolivia informed Members that a bilateral meeting had resulted in a favourable 
outcome and Bolivia should soon receive the re quired permission.  The European Communities 
indicated that the procedures for technical assistance were now in place and hoped the issue would soon be regarded as solved.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 58  
 
64. 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/54 
Solution: Measures revised. 
 221. 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 
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".  
222. 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. 
65. European Communities – Restrictions on the importation of fruits and fruit juices 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by: Argentina, Bolivia, China, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Uruguay  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, pa ras. 28-31), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, para. 
211), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/ 30, paras. 164-165) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/355, G/SPS/N/EEC/160 
Solution: Not reported 
 
223. Brazil raised concerns regarding the Eur opean Communities Directive 2002/71/CE, published 
on 19 August 2002, which established new maximum le vels for dimethoate residues in and on cereals, 
foodstuffs of animal origin and cer tain products of plant origin, incl uding fruit and vegetables.  Brazil 
noted that the EC directive would have the effect  of banning Brazilian orange juice from the European 
market and requested the European Communities to  review the directive, taking into account all 
scientific information available.  Bilateral discussi ons held on the previous day had been fruitful and 
Brazil requested a copy of the EC's scientific studies as soon as possible.  Brazil noted that the issue 
of MRLs for dimethoate would be reconsidered by Codex at its m eeting in June 2003, and requested 
the European Communities to suspend the implem entation of this directive pending to a full 
assessment of the situation.  Brazil also request ed the European Communities not to apply the same 
approach in the re-evaluation of 320 active substa nces that was now underway.  Argentina, Bolivia, 
Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and Urugua y supported the arguments made by Brazil, in 
particular, the need for scientific justificati on for maximum residue levels (MRLs), and expressed 
concern regarding the implications for developing country exports.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 59 
 
 
224. The European Communities stated that the document put forwar d by Brazil had not yet been 
discussed in Brussels.  Dimethoate was already under evaluation by the European Communities and 
was one of the several hundred plant protection produ cts which was being reas sessed for its safety to 
the environment, animal and public health.  The de cision to establish a limit of analytical detection 
had not been lightly taken, but the scientific evid ence suggested that the existing MRL was inadequate 
to provide for an appropriate level of health pr otection.  A number of years ago a recommendation 
had been made to the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues to withdraw the MRL for dimethoate.  
Under the circumstances the European Communi ties had considered it necessary to adopt this 
measure, although this was not a popular decision b ecause this substance was used by a range of EC 
growers of citrus and other fruit products, and they  were being obliged to withdraw its use.  The 
measure had been notified (G/SPS/N/EEC/160) and th at comments had been received and taken into 
account from a number of countries, including Brazil.  The fears expressed by several countries over the impact of the ongoing evaluation of a range of  other active substances would be communicated to 
the appropriate authorities. 
225. In April 2003, Brazil stated that it looked forw ard to a receiving a copy of the EC scientific 
studies that would serve as the basis for the new European regulation setting MRLs for dimethoate. 
226. In June 2003, Brazil noted that a shipment of  Brazilian apples had been rejected in Sweden 
and that this was one example of how it would be a ffected by the new MRLs.  The burden of proof for 
justification of the new measures was on the European Communities and its present approach was not in accordance with the principles for special and di fferential treatment.  China supported the concerns 
of Brazil.  The European Communities stated that bilateral consultations had been held with Brazil 
and hoped that the problem would be resolved soon.  The underlying problem was that many 
pesticides and chemical products which were in us e had never been properly evaluated.  Where no 
toxicological data existed, the European Communiti es would use the level of detection.  For products 
for which data was provided, the European Comm unities would proceed to establish an appropriate 
maximum residue level. 
66. European Communities (Belgium) - Measures regarding canned tuna in oil 
Raised by: Philippines 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, paras. 87-88), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, 
para. 44)  
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
227. 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 some products had to be  withdrawn  from sale and offered to pursue the matte r on a bilateral basis with the Philippines.  In 
bilateral discussions, Belgium transmitted, for consid eration by the Philippines, information that in 
Belgium's view provided a basis for its action to withdraw the subject products from sale.  The 
Philippines reiterated its objection to this action, which it considered was taken without sufficient 
legal basis. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 60  
 
67. European Communities (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), 
July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: In July 2001, the United States indicated that it was not experiencing any 
problems, and was continuing to monitor the situation. 
 228. 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.  
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. 
229. 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.   
230. In July 2001, the United States reported that it was not experiencing any problems in the area 
and was continuing to monitor the situation (G/SPS/GEN/265). 
68. European Communities – Restrictions on honey imports 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: China, Mexico 
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 25-27) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
231. The United States stated that on 22 May 2003, the European Communities initiated 
administrative steps to prohibit imports of honey fr om the United States.  EC Directive 96-23 required 
exporting countries to submit a residue plan.  If the residue plan did not contain sufficient guarantees 
of compliance with EC residue limits, the country would not be authorised to export honey to the 
European Communities.  The United States considered the EC regime to be far more trade restrictive 
than necessary, and whilst not having identical ru les, the United States had comprehensive control 
mechanisms.  Furthermore, honey was consumed in very small quantities and should be considered a 
"low risk" food.  The existing rules in the United St ates were more than adequate to avoid harm to 
human health.  China and Mexico supported the concerns raised by the United States. 
232. The European Communities explained that it was a net importer of honey and that measures 
were in place to protect consumers.  The request for a residue surveillance plan was a general rule 
which applied to all products, and a high level of surveillance was needed for honey as it tended to be 
consumed by children.  The United States had recei ved a warning in February 2003 that the absence 
of a residue plan would lead to their removal fro m the list of countries approved for import of honey  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 61 
 
 
to the European Communities.  The European Communities was, however, willing to examine any 
residue plans provided by the United States. 
69. European Communities – Maximum levels for aflatoxins in corn and sampling 
contaminants in food 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras.  32-33, October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 
52-53) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
233. Argentina reported that consultations between its authorities and the European Communities 
had taken place on 2 July concerning EC Regulati on 257/02 which imposed new maximum levels for 
aflatoxins in maize.  Argentina considered th e new measures to be scientifically unfounded and 
requested the European Communities to consider less  trade restrictive measures and the possibility of 
special and differential treatment.  The European  Communities noted that there were considerable 
health problems with aflatoxins and the difficultie s of establishing an appropriate limit.  The new 
regulation would be notified to the Committee before  it was applied and interested trading partners 
would have the opportunity to present their concerns  and objections.  In response to a question from 
Egypt, the European Communities clarified that  the new measure would apply only to maize. 
234. In October 2003, Argentina stated that the MRL for aflatoxin depended on the intended use of 
products and the levels were not consistent w ith international recommendations nor based on 
scientific evidence.  However, the new regulation modi fied the MRL for corn and was less restrictive.  
Argentina requested a review of the sampling levels  along with the scientific justification to support 
the measure.  The European Comm unities stated that it had conducted  scientific research to support 
the MRLs adopted for corn and that the levels c ould be met through good agriculture practice.  The 
MRL for corn was established to protect consumer health. 
70. European Communities – Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/196 on maximum residue levels in 
plant and animal products 
Raised by: China 
Supported by: Chile 
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 75-77) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/196 
Solution: Not reported 
 
235. China indicated that it was highly concerned with the approach taken by the European 
Communities on maximum residue levels in plant and animal products and had submitted comments 
on the notification.  China believed that the new rules were not in compliance with the SPS 
Agreement and requested information on the risk assess ment undertaken by the EC.  Brazil noted that 
it had previously raised similar concerns and requested a three year postponement of the measure.  
Chile expressed support for the position taken by Ch ina and Brazil and also requested information on 
the risk analysis and the scientific  basis for the maximum residue levels.  Brazil queried whether, for 
those pesticides where there was no scientific evid ence, a precautionary approach would be used. 
236. The European Communities replied that the draf t rule replaced and simplified four existing 
directives.  The new rule was scheduled to enter into force on 1 January 2005 and would lead to a G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 62  
 
harmonization of maximum residue levels in the European Communities.  The transitional process 
would be very long and additiona l comments could still be made.  The objective was to examine 325 
substances in order to update the available informat ion and to set maximum re sidue limits since zero 
level was difficult to achieve.  The new rule would not lead to a withdrawal of given authorizations 
except for use within the European Communities.  Imports from third countries would not be 
automatically banned, but could be accepted on the basis of maximum residue limits when it could be 
shown that these limits were sufficient to protect health.  Members and the Codex Alimentarius were 
invited to submit comments on which levels of  residues might be considered as acceptable. 
71. European Communities – Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/191 and Add.1 on food and feed 
controls 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada 
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 39-41) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/191 and Add.1 
Solution: Not reported 
 
237. The United States stated that the notified me asure would establish an extensive series of 
official controls on feed and food to be implemente d by 1 January 2005.  EC member States' control 
systems would be harmonized, integrating specific c ontrols at all stages of production in all food and 
feed sectors.  "Control plans" from exporting count ries would have to be submitted annually to the 
European Communities.  All exporting countries  would have to demonstrate compliance or 
equivalence to the EC food safety measures for all products to be expor ted as a precondition for 
market access.  Control plans required informati on on all legislation, organization of competent 
authorities, training of staff, resources available and assurance of equivalence of domestic safety 
measures.  While the United States agreed this appr oach was appropriate for high risk products such 
as meat and poultry, it felt that this level of risk management was not appropriate for other types of 
food for which any identified risks were generally quite low. 
238. Canada shared the concerns raised by the United States and noted that it had recently 
submitted comments to the European Communities.  Ca nada sought more information  regarding the 
requirements for non-EC countries. 
239.  The European Communities explained that the regulation should facilitate conformity of 
imported food with EC health standards and pr inciples for checking food stuffs.  Written comments 
received by the 27 July 2003 deadline would be cons idered by the EC Enquiry Point and Council of 
Ministers.  As for the control plans, much of the requested information was already available on 
internet sites, i.e., USDA and FDA.  The regul ation, which was based on Codex recommendations, 
would facilitate trade through more transparency and the exchange of information on controls or 
checks for third countries.   
72. European Communities (Germany) – Notification G/SPS/N/DEU/9 and Add.1 on 
maximum tolerance levels for ocratoxin A in coffee  
Raised by: Colombia 
Supported by: Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru 
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 47-49) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/DEU/9 and Add.1, G/SPS/GEN/434 
Solution: Not reported 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 63 
 
 
240. Colombia stated that on 17 June 2003, German y had notified a draft regulation for MRLs for 
ocratoxin in products,  including soluble and roasted coffee.  In September 2003, the application of 
the measure had been postponed until December  2003.  Colombia believed that the MRL was 
disproportionate to the risks and that the scientif ic evidence regarding risk s to human health was 
inconclusive.  The economic losses could be signi ficant for Colombia as it exported 1.7 million bags 
of coffee to Germany, which was equivalent to 17 per cent of its total coffee exports.  The testing 
could result in 6 per cent of all coffee entering Ge rmany from Colombia being rejected.  Colombia 
questioned the relationship between th is measure and the EC regulations. 
241. Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemal a, Mexico and Peru shared the concerns 
expressed by Colombia.  Brazil noted that the high er MRL for soluble product compared to the 
roasted coffee was unusual, as normally products for direct consumption had lower levels of MRLs. 
242. The European Communities explained that each EC  member State retained the right to adopt 
national legislation for the protection of human health  when no EC standard existed.  Since there was 
no MRL ocratoxin A for coffee in the European  Communities, Germany could establish its own 
MRLs.  The measure was based on new scientific  evidence.  The European Commission had 
organized a meeting between Colombian and German toxicology experts, and replies to Colombia's 
questions would be circulated to all Members shortly.  
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to TSEs 
 
73. European Communities – Transitional TSE measures  
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 5-8) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
243. Canada expressed concern about loss of access to the EC markets for pet food, live bovine 
animals, embryos, ova and tallow in the wake of the adoption of transitional TSE measures by the 
European Communities.  Canada stated that the EC  regulations classified countries according to four 
levels of risk, but applied only two levels of risk  management.  According to the OIE criteria, Canada 
was BSE-free, yet Canadian exports faced identical tr ade restrictions to EC member States in which 
BSE was prevalent.  These problems would be comp ounded by EC animal waste regulations due next 
year which threatened to prohibit the few remaini ng animal products that Ca nada could still export to 
the European Communities.  Canada requested to be removed from the scope of application of these 
measures.  The United States agreed that the Eur opean Communities was applying stringent measures 
to countries that were either not affected by BSE, or which had significantly different risk factors.  
This approach lacked scientific justification and ran counter to international standards.  The European 
Communities explained that the transitional measur es laid down import conditions for products of 
bovine, ovine and caprine origin, and would be exte nded to cover certification of other products of 
animal origin.  Pet food was included to protect  consumers' health. An exemption was made for 
countries classified in category one (presence of BSE unlikely), but neither Canada nor the United States were in this category.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 64  
 
74. European Communities – Geographical BSE risk assessment  
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 22-26) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  Not reported 
 
244. Canada requested information on the EC geogr aphical BSE risk assessment (GBR) process, 
the consistency of its application and how assessme nts could be reviewed when risks changed.  
Canada noted that the OIE was developing a system to verify countries' own assessments of their BSE status, and wondered how it would rela te to the EC system.  The United States was concerned that the 
European Communities was applying  similarly stringent measures to countries with significantly 
different risk factors, a practice which lacked sci entific justification and ran counter to existing 
international standards.  It was not entirely transparent how country classifications would be 
determined nor what requirements would be a pplied in the meantime.  The United States had 
submitted detailed comments identifying a number of problems with the methodology and with the 
information related to the United States.  The Unite d States urged countries to take the OIE standard 
into account when developing their BSE measures.  The OIE representative clarified that the OIE 
would deal only with recognition of BSE freedom, not with the other four categories contained in the 
International Animal Health Code (G/SPS/ GEN/266).  The Commission on FMD and other 
Epizootics had received the mandate to develop gui delines to help member countries carry out their 
risk assessment, taking into account th e experience from GBR assessments. 
245. The European Communities explained that GBRs were based on information provided by 
trading partners in a 1998 questionnaire.  The GBR methodology had been established by the EC 
Scientific Steering Committee.  The new EC B SE-TSE measure was in conformity with the OIE 
Code, but the GBR pre-dated the current OIE Code .  Any new scientific evidence could be submitted 
to the Commission and a re-evaluation of a GBR would be considered once additional stability 
measures had been implemented, allowing three to five years to take into account the incubation 
period of BSE.  The EC representative explained the stability factors that were taken into 
consideration; these were considered on a case-by- case basis.  The European  Communities considered 
that the GBR reflected the international standard , and was willing to cooperate with Members and 
provide information.  Knowledge about this disease should be shared to minimize trade effects where 
possible. 
75. European Communities – Restrictions on the use of fishmeal  
Raised by: Chile, Peru 
Supported by: Ecuador, United States, Iceland 
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras.  17-21), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 
12-17), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, 31-32) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/256, G/SPS/GEN/264 
Solution: Not reported 
 
246. In July 2001, Peru expressed concern about the EC prohibition on the use of fishmeal in the 
elaboration of ruminant feed, which had no scientif ic basis, was not based on a risk assessment, and 
was more trade-restrictive than required.  The comp etent authorities in Peru had shown that fishmeal 
and fish oil were safe to human and animal h ealth, and had high nutritional value.  Since the 
prohibition had a very serious impact on the Peruvian economy, Peru asked the European 
Communities to lift this restriction as soon as possible.   Chile underlined that fishmeal was not at all 
related to BSE.  At bilateral meetings, the Eur opean Communities had explained that the restriction 
was related to cross-contamination of fishmeal  and other animal meals within the European  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 65 
 
 
Communities.  Chile requested the European Comm unities to exclude fishmeal from the prohibition, 
and to be more flexible with standards applied to  processing plants in the meantime.  The European 
Communities had classified Chile as having minimal BSE risk, and Chile ha d offered to provide 
quality and traceability certificates.  Chile was surprised  that there were no restrictions on vegetable 
meals, which could also be mixed with meat a nd bone meal (MBM) in feed.  In addition, MBM 
continued to be used as pet food in the European  Communities.  The United States urged Members to 
reacquaint themselves with the relevant OI E guidelines and recommendations (G/SPS/GEN/230). 
247. The OIE representative drew attention to the WHO/FAO/OIE conference held in June 2001 
on BSE, public health, animal health and trade (G /SPS/GEN/260).  The expert s at this meeting had 
concluded that the basis of the EC ban on feedi ng rendered animal protein to farm animals was to 
avoid risk of cross-contamination of the animal feed  system.  Discussions had highlighted the lack of 
technical means to verify the absence of banned products in meals at very low levels.  The European Communities confirmed that the ban on the use of fish meal in ruminant feed was a safeguard measure 
reflecting failures in the implementation of rules on animal feed.  Imports of fishmeal had not been 
prohibited, but its use was subject to strict conditions.  The European Communities wished to 
minimize trade effects and was ready to evaluate with Chile, Peru and other countries the 
consequences, if any, on their exports. 
248. In October 2001, Peru indicated that the Eu ropean Communities recognized that there was no 
scientific evidence demonstrating that BSE could be  transmitted through fishmeal, but maintained its 
restrictions to address an internal problem of cr oss-contamination and fraudulent practices.  Peru 
requested that the European Comm unities lift the restrictions as soon as possible.  Chile noted that 
applying the same restrictions on fishmeal as for MBM had no scientific basis and was not consistent 
with OIE or WHO recommendations.  Chile was concerned over the length of time that the 
provisional measure had been in place and the suggest ion that a new diagnostic test of the presence of 
animal proteins in feed would need to be devel oped before the measure could be rescinded.  Chile 
would explore all options available under the SPS Agre ement to have the restrictions lifted.  The 
United States underlined the need for BSE control me asures to reflect the different risk status of 
particular products and countries.  Iceland obj ected strongly to the EC measures which were 
tantamount to an import ban on fishmeal for animal feed. 
249. The European Communities clarified that the legislation was a provisional measure that 
covered the internal use of fishmeal.  As all pr oducers were requested to fulfil the same conditions, 
the measure was not discriminatory.  A derogation allowed the use of fishmeal in feeds for non-
ruminant animals provided certain strict produc tion and handling conditions were met.  The 
development of a reliable, but l ess laborious detection test would be a decisive element when 
reviewing the feed ban, and efforts were underw ay in the Communities in this regard.  The 
representative of the European Communities questioned claims that the EC regulations had an adverse 
impact on trade. 
250. In March 2002, Peru stated that there was a l ack of political will on the part of the European 
Communities to reach a solution to this problem.  Fish meal posed no risk of BSE for human or animal 
health, but the EC measure created doubts among other countries, which resulted in a negative impact 
on fishmeal trade.  Furthermore, as the EC measure  had been extended indefinitely, it could no longer 
be justified as a provisional measure.  
251. The European Communities noted that the measur e was maintained due to demonstrated cases 
of cross-contamination detected through the EC's detection system.  One tool which could help 
resolve this issue was a reliable test which c ould distinguish mammalian meals from fishmeal.  
Unfortunately, although under development, such a t est would not be available in the near future. The 
European Communities requested Peru  to provide evidence of trade disruption as a result of the EC 
measure, as no disruption was apparent in EU trade statistics.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 66  
 
76. European Communities – 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: Not reported 
 
252. 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. 
77. European Communities – 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), July 2001 
(G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/36, G/SPS/GEN/45, G/SPS/GEN/67, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Not reported 
 
253. 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.4 
254. 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 
                                                      
4 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/Rev.4 
 Page 67 
 
 
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. 
255. 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. 
256. In July 2001, the United States indicated that the EC legislation on specified risk materials 
had entered into force for third countries on 1 April 2001 (G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United States 
encouraged the European Comm unities to ensure that its measures took account of the disease 
situation in countries where BSE did not occur, such as the United States. 
78. European Communities – Gelatin imports  
Raised by: Brazil, United States 
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), 
March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 95-96), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 52-
53), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 34) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/133, G/SPS/N/EEC/74 
Solution: In October 2001, Brazil reported that the European Communities had lifted 
its restrictions in June 2001.  US concern ongoing. 
 257. 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. 
258. 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. 
259. 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 68  
 
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 tructive consultations had taken place, and that the European 
Communities would evaluate the relevant documentation provided by Brazil. 
260. In March 2001, the United States indicated that  since May 2000, EC and US authorities had 
been discussing the continuation of US gelatin sh ipments based on the equi valence of US and EC 
safety systems.  Despite continuing efforts of US  regulatory authorities and industry, the European 
Communities had not agreed to accept equivale nce based on export certificates issued by US 
authorities.  As a result, there had been no expor ts of US food grade gelatin to the European 
Communities since June 2000.  The United States appreci ated EC efforts to review information, and 
urged the Commission to accept the equivalence of  US certificates.  The European Communities 
stated that both sides had a clear idea of the problems involved, which were primarily of a judicial nature.  The European Communities was proposing flex ible solutions which both parties might find 
acceptable. 
261. In July 2001, the United States reported that d espite ongoing efforts, US shipments of gelatin 
had been discontinued since June 2000 because the European Communities had not agreed to accept 
equivalence-based export certificates.  The United States had demonstrated that US gelatin food 
safety systems met the EC appropriate level of prot ection.  The European Communities clarified that 
US gelatin was not prohibited, but that negotiati ons were underway on a specific certificate for the 
United States.  The equivalence of the US prod uction system had been established on all but two 
points, where compliance with additional requirement s must be certified.  Since December 2000, the 
only pending question was that FDA, as a matter of policy, did not certify compliance with foreign 
rules, while the European Communities required certification by a competent authority.   
262. In October 2001, Brazil reported that intense bilateral consultations on Brazilian processing 
methods and controls had resulted in the European  Communities lifting its restrictions as of 13 June 
2001. 
79. European Communities (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), 
July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/18, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Not reported 
 
263. 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. 
264. 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  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 69 
 
 
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. 
265. In July 2001, the United States reported that its exports continued to be hampered by French 
certification requirements, which differed from those applied by other EC member States 
(G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United States questioned the scientific foundation for excluding animal meat 
or bone meal from pet food produced in countries where BSE does not occur. 
80. European Communities –  Proposal on animal by-products 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Brazil, China, Australia, Canada 
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29  par as. 40-45), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30 paras. 47-
49), October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31 paras. 27-30) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Additional time for compliance for third parties until 31 December 2003, EC 
offering targeted transitional measures to third countries on a case-by-case 
basis.  Concerns on risk assessment not fully addressed. 
 
266. The United States stated that EC regulation 1774/2002 would severely restrict or prohibit a 
range of animal by-products intended for use in feed, industrial or other non-food purposes.  Due to 
the lack of transparency of this regulation, the lack of sufficient tim e and information for exporters to 
comply and the EC failure to adequately address th e concerns of third countries, the United States 
requested a delay in the implementation of the re gulation.  The United States was also concerned 
about derogations for certain EC member States that were not available to third countries, the lack of 
scientific justification for the regulation and the la ck of a risk assessment for the proposed inter-
species feed ban.  Brazil shared the co ncerns raised by the United States.  
267. China requested the European Communities to delay the regulation's implementation until 
1 May 2005.  Australia stated that without clarif ications and equivalence determinations, it would 
have difficulty in complying by 1 May 2003 and might seek a delay in the full implementation of the regulation.  Canada stated that it did not see how pr actical implementation of this regulation would be 
possible by 1 May 2003 and was of the view th at a delay in implementation was warranted and 
required. 
268. The European Communities stated that the objectives of the draft regulation were to ban the 
recycling of dead animals, offer alternatives to denaturation, take account of environmental 
requirements, control traceability of sub-products and simplify the patchwork of existing legislation.  
Information meetings on 13 Nove mber 2002 and 28 March 2003 were or ganized and an explanatory 
document had been produced.  The measures were b ased on solid science, even though no formal risk 
assessment had been conducted for each chapter of  the text, and the European Communities were 
willing to make all relevant inform ation available to trading partners.  Certain EC member States and 
third countries had expressed concern over the date of entry into force of the regulation.  As a result, 
the European Commission was studying transitiona l arrangements which would enable temporary 
flexibility on certain provisions.  Any temporary fl exibility or new measures on certification of third 
country products would be decided on and notif ied to WTO Members with a new deadline for 
comment.  
269. In June 2003, China reported that it had subm itted comments on the EC regulation on animal 
by-products but had not received any reply.  China would need a transitional period of two years to 
adjust.  The United States stated that concerns raised at the last SPS Committee meeting were still 
valid.  The European Communities confirmed that  comments made by China would be carefully G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 70  
 
examined and that China would receive a response.  The European Communities would take a flexible 
view on transitional measures for third countries. 
270. In October 2003, the United States reported that despite bilateral techni cal discussions and the 
lack of scientific risk assessments, disruption of US exports of pet food was likely.  Canada welcomed 
the decision to postpone implementation of the regul ation for third parties beyond 1 May 2003.  EC 
member States benefited from 16 tr ansitional measures to allow them to adjust to the new regulations, 
and Canada asked to also benefit from such tran sitional measures.  China requested a transitional 
review of the regulation and c ontinued bilateral discussions. 
271. The European Communities explained that tran sitional measures had been adopted for EC 
members States and additional time for compliance for all third parties allowed until 31 December 
2003 (EC 1812/2003).  Certification of imports had been reviewed and notified.  The European 
Communities had decided to offer targeted transitio nal measures to third co untries on a case-by-case 
basis.   A technical agreement, based on comme nts received from Australia, Canada, China and the 
United States, would be notified shortly.  The Eu ropean Communities were awaiting the conclusions 
of a scientific review to produce the risk assessme nt which would be available in February 2004. 
81. European Communities  - Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/192 on transitional BSE measures 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 97-98)) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/192 
Solution: Not reported 
 
272. The United States noted that according to Re gulation 999/2001, th e categorization of 
countries with regard to risk of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) would be made 
within six months of submission of the informatio n.  Although, the newly notified measure extended 
the transitional measure until 30 June 2005, th e United States was concerned whether this was 
sufficient time for the European Co mmunities to complete the classifications.  There was no scientific 
justification for applying BSE-related rest rictions on products from the United States. 
273. The European Communities explained that th e notification concerned an amendment to 
Article 23 of EC Regulation 999/2001 establishing rules for the eradication, prevention and control of certain TSEs.  It included BSE and all TSEs.  The amendment extended transitional measures 
established under Article 23 of this regulation.  Th e regulation provided rules to determine the BSE 
status of particular countries which conditioned th e application of measures covering the import of 
certain animals and animal products.  Until the stat us determination was made , transitional measures 
were applied and were to remain in force until 30 J une 2003.  An assessment of the cases began at the 
end of 2001.  However, modification of the categor ization criteria was necessary to obtain a status 
reflecting actual risk.  These criteria were taken from the international code of OIE but it appeared that the OIE was not ready to propose a list of BSE-free countries.  Likewise, in the European Communities, scientific risk assessments for all countri es were not yet finished, and the EC Scientific 
Committee had adopted opinions for only around one- third of countries asking for a determination of 
their status.  Therefore, the transitional measures were being prolonged by two years until 1 July 2005.  The European Commission would use this period to advance the work in the OIE on 
determining the BSE and TSE status of countries and complete the scientific risk assessments.  The 
European Communities was examini ng the substantial documentation submitted by the United States 
in January 2003, and would report to  the United States on the results of  the risk assessment as soon as 
possible.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 71 
 
 
Concerns related to FMD 
82. European Communities – EC Directive 2001/661/EC on foot and mouth disease 
Raised by: South Africa 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 38-39) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/373 
Solution: Not reported 
 
274. South Africa stated that its concerns were detailed in G/SPS/GEN/373.  South Africa and 
Namibia are identified as zones free from FMD without vaccination by the OIE.  EC Directive 2001/661 recognized the free-zone status, allowing the import of fresh meat from South Africa except for areas within the FMD control zone of Sout h Africa.  However, Directive 2001/661 required 
supplementary guarantees for the export of ovine and caprine meat from the FMD free zones without 
vaccination and was inconsistent w ith Article 2.1.120 of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code of the 
OIE.  Article 2.1.2.20 does not require the deboning of meat if the meat originates from FMD free countries or zones where vaccination is not practiced. 
275. The European Communities explained that C ouncil Directive 72/462 differentiated between 
various types of FMD.  The Directive provided that  the import of fresh meat from regions which were 
FMD free without vaccination but where vaccination ag ainst SAT or Asiat 1 viruses was practiced in 
another region of the country could only be aut horized under certain conditions.  One of the 
conditions was that the meat be mature, de-bone d, with lymph nodes removed and that importation 
take place only three weeks after slaughter.  Thes e conditions applied to South Africa due to the 
presence of SAT in a part of South Africa even thoug h certain areas were officially FMD-free without 
vaccination.  The EC legislation, dating fro m 1972, was to be updated as SAT was no longer 
considered differently from other virus strains.  This  would occur with the entry into force of Council 
Directive 99/2002 on 1 January 2005. However, the European Communities was concerned that there 
had been four outbreaks of FMD in Namibia orig inating from Zimbabwe, where there were hundreds 
of cases.  In these circumstances, it was prudent to authorize only the importation of de-boned, mature 
meat.  Once the new Directive was in force, the European Communities would review its measure in 
light of the FMD situation in South Africa and its neighbouring countries. 
Other Animal Health Concerns  
83. 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: Not reported 
 
276. 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.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 72  
 
84. 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: Not reported 
 
277. Chile and Peru sought clarification regarding th e EC directive governing exports of fishmeal, 
which was not applied to substitutes to fishmeal .  These substitutes could also potentially be 
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. 
278. 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. 
85. European Communities – Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/190 on live animals and animal 
products 
Raised by: Australia 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 68-69) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/190 
Solution: Not reported 
 
279. Australia stated that the notified measure would affect its alpaca exports to EC member States 
although Australia had been free from blue tongue for more than a decade, as recognized by many 
countries.  Australia had submitted scientific evidence to the European  Communities on several 
occasions and requested an update on this issue. 
280. The European Communities clarified that th e new notification was not due to a new 
regulation but merely a result of a simplification ex ercise which did not address Australia's situation.  
The European Communities indicat ed that it would respond to Australia's request directly. 
86. European Communities – Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/198 on animal health conditions 
and certification requirements for live fish 
Raised by: Australia 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 70-71) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/198 
Solution: Not reported 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 73 
 
 
281. Australia indicated that this new measure could affect its carp exports to EC member States.  
The United Kingdom had rejected live fish from Austra lia due to concerns about the existence of an 
unknown carrier state.  Australia had suggested prior disinfection as a possible solution and had requested the risk assessment on which the measur e was based, but received no response.  This 
requirement was not in line with OIE standards. 
282. The European Communities replied that the tim e period for replying to comments had not yet 
expired.  The European Communities believed that  the measures could be considered standard 
measures and that no risk assessme nt was necessary, although it was prepared to discuss the issue 
bilaterally with interested trading partners. 
87. European Communities – Notification G/SPS/ N/EEC/208 on sanitary conditions for the 
importation of live material for apiculture 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Australia, New Zealand, United States 
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 42-44) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/208 and Add.1, G/SPS/N/ARG/71 
Solution: Not reported 
 
283. Argentina stated it recognized the need to minimize the risks of introducing pests of 
apiculture and that it had its own measures (G /SPS/N/ARG/71).  However, the EC measure, which 
restricted the importation of queen bees and accompanying working bees from third countries, was unjustified.  The EC measure required exporting count ries to prove that they were free of the small 
hive beetle ( Aethina tumida ) and of the Tropilaelaps  mite.  Argentina was free from the pests and 
considered the EC response to its comments unsa tisfactory.  Argentina requested the European 
Communities to defer implementation of the measure. 
284. The United States expected that the new regula tion would take into account disease free areas, 
for example, Hawaii was free from the two pests.  Au stralia supported the US position and stated that 
the EC proposed requirement was unreasonable and n eeded to take into account disease free status.  
New Zealand supported the comments made by Argentina, the United States and Australia. 
285. The European Communities stated that the first no tification was of a draft decision to restrict 
the importation of queen bees and their escorts to st op the introduction of the two parasites.  These 
two parasites, although not included on the OIE list,  posed a serious risk as they damaged hives and 
caused economic losses.  Comments from Members ha d been taken into account and amendments to 
the measure had been notified.  Disease free zone s and health certificates covering these two pests 
would enable the safe import of b ees into the Europ ean Communities. 
Plant Health 88. European Communities - Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/131 regarding cut flowers 
Raised by: Ecuador, Israel 
Supported by: Kenya 
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, pa ras. 45-48), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
para. 179), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 94-96) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/131, G/SPS/GEN/278 
Solution: Not reported 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 74  
 
286. Ecuador indicated that it had submitted a list of  questions regarding the scientific grounds for 
the EC measure on cut flowers, the risk analysis, the methods to be used at entry ports, special 
treatment for developing countries, and possible a lternative measures.  Israel expressed concern over 
changes in inspection procedures that could detrimenta lly affect deliveries to its major export market.  
Kenya asked to receive a copy of the EC r esponse to Ecuador's questions.  The European 
Communities explained that the notification covere d four harmful non-native organisms that were 
regularly intercepted on certain commodities including cut flowers:  Amauromyza maculosa , Bemisia 
tabaci  (non-European populations), Liriomyza sativae  and Thrips palmi .  At present, most cut flowers 
were not subject to plant health checks, but it a ppeared they were a pathway for the organisms in 
question, and control measures needed to be strengthened.  To assess the comments made by 
Members, the proposed date of entry into force of  the draft amended regulation had been deferred. 
287. In November 2002, Israel expressed concern w ith EC Regulation 2002/36/EEC.  While Israel 
appreciated that the European Communities had modi fied and delayed the entry into force of the 
proposed revision until April 2003, Israel was of the view that until the European Communities had 
finalized its pest risk assessment the new regulation should be a temporary, not a permanent, measure.  
Israel was further concerned that the European Communities was not taking measures to control pests 
already established in the EC member States from spr eading to new areas, and requested consultations 
with the European Communities and other interest ed Members. Kenya also expressed hope that a 
solution would be found to the problem.  The European Communities replied that the question was complex and went beyond a simple matter of the use of the precautionary principle.  The ambitious 
pest eradication measures of th e European Communities should not be undermined by imports.  The 
European Communities agreed to bilateral consultations with Israel and Kenya. 
288. In April 2003, Israel noted that EC notifi cation G/SPS/N/EEC/131 concerned an amendment 
to regulation 2000/29/EC which came into force on 1 April 2003, and might have significant effects 
on the export of plant products from a number of Me mbers.  At bilateral consultations with the 
European Communities in March 2003, Israel expres sed concerns regarding differentiation between 
European and non-European varieties of Bemisia tabaci  and the existence of the non-European variety 
in some EC member States.  Israel was in the pr ocess of analyzing the two pest risk analyses produced 
by the European Communities.  Kenya stated it shar ed Israel's concerns with regard to unnecessary 
delays and adverse effects on cut flowers exports .  Bilateral consultations with the European 
Communities on technical assistance for capacity bu ilding had not progressed as desired, although 
Kenya was still hopeful of an amicable solution. 
289. The European Communities recalled that the measures had been enacted after constant 
interceptions of pests on products like fresh flowers led EC member States to review their protective 
measures.    The proposed measures were notified to  the WTO on 19 July 2001 and were to take effect 
on 1 January 2002.  However, the European Co mmunities had postponed entry into force until 
1 April 2003 after consideration of the difficulties fa ced by certain exporting countries.  Nevertheless, 
the European Communities had a responsibility to ma intain its appropriate level of protection and 
could not indefinitely postpone the implementati on of these measures.  The European Communities 
had taken all necessary measures to avoid any br eakdown to trade and offered to hold bilateral 
consultations on the matter. 
89. European Communities - Measures on imports of Egyptian potatoes 
Raised by: Egypt 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 125-126) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 75 
 
 
290. Egypt expressed concern that EC measures agains t imports of Egyptian potatoes, allegedly as 
protection against the disease Pseudomonas solanacearum , severely restricted imports.  Importation of 
Egyptian potatoes was prohibited unless they origin ated from agreed pest-free areas, and could be 
suspended if five interceptions of the bacteriu m occurred during the 2000-2001 import season.  Egypt 
believed that these measures might not be in acco rdance with the relevant provision of the SPS 
Agreement and the GATT 1994, and had prepared qu estions for the European Communities.  The 
European Communities indicated that the questions would be answered, and clarified that Egyptian 
potatoes received special treatment in the Europ ean Communities.  Imports were allowed until the 
fifth detection of brown rot, which was a disease on the quarantine lists of IPPC and EPPO, while the 
normal EC standard prohibited imports  after one detection.  The special treatment had been granted in 
consideration of Egypt's special efforts to c ontrol the disease.  The European Communities had 
received and was studying a document from Egypt containing a contingency plan for brown rot potatoes.  Egypt had also requested determination of new free areas for export for the next season, and 
the request was being considered. 
90. European Communities - G/SPS/N/EEC/93 on wood packing material 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: Chile, Japan, Korea, United States 
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 33-35) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/93 
Solution: Not reported 
 
291. Canada recognized that wood packing material was widely considered to be at risk of 
containing plant pests.  However, it was used for a very large volume of products moving in 
international trade, and the proposed EC measure w ould cover 69% of Canada's  exports to the EC.  
Furthermore, the IPPC was working on a comprehensiv e standard for all countries and all pests, to be 
completed by July 2002, it would be best for all countries to focus their efforts on developing an international standard and refrain from taking unilate ral actions in this regard.  The United States 
considered that it would be impossible to impl ement the certification and marking requirements 
within the time-period set out in the EC notifica tion.  Korea stressed the need for the European 
Communities to implement the least trade restrictive measure which would be effective, and in this 
respect to take into consideration the historic experience of trade without pest introduction, the 
processing of the packing materials, and the actual pest risks involved. 
292. The European Communities replied that pine w ood nematode had been detected in packing 
materials in 1998 and 1999, despite the existing EC  requirements on wood packing materials.  The EC 
Regulatory Committee for Plant Health was examin ing the comments which had been submitted on 
the EC notification.  The European Communities w as actively contributing to the IPPC efforts to 
develop an international standard, however this did not replace the n eed for an emergency measure to 
protect EC forests.  It was now obvious that the EC measure would not be finalized and implemented 
on the 1 January 2000 date as initially proposed, a nd that bilateral and mu ltilateral consultations 
would continue. 
91. 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: Measure revised in 1998, problems persisting. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 76  
 
293. 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 
requirements in the exporting country, treatment  and certification. The European Communities 
considered that its measures were based on science and minimized trade effects. 
294. 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. 
295. 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. 
92. 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: Not reported 
 
296. 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. 
93. European Communities (Spain)- Phytosanitary regulations 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, pa ras. 97-98), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 
42) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 297. Argentina expressed concerns about the differe nce between phytosanitary regulations in the 
Canary Islands and the European Communities, partic ularly as regarded apple and pear imports.  As 
Argentina had demonstrated the equivalence of  its measures in a communication to the EC 
representative in March 2001, there seemed to be no reason to prohibit exports of apples and pears to 
the Canary Islands.  Argentina questioned why the Canary Islands had been exempted from the scope  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 77 
 
 
of EC Directive 2029, and asked for a probable date  for the implementation of this regulation.  
Argentina requested the acceptance of the equivale nt measures proposed in March.  The European 
Communities stated that it would provide Argen tina with a bilateral reply in due course. 
298. In March 2002, Argentina stated that certain points had been cleared up in bilateral 
consultations with the European Communities a nd Spain and that any further progress would be 
reported to the Committee. 
Other Concerns 
94. European Communities - Agricultural biotechnology approval process 
Raised by: United States  
Supported by: Canada, Argentina, Australia, Philippines 
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, pa ras. 102-105), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, 
paras. 33-35), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/ 27, paras. 56-57), November 2002 
(G/SPS/R/28, paras. 69-72) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
299. The United States expressed concern regarding th e lack of a functioning approval process in 
the European Communities for agricultural bi otechnology products.  Since 1998, a de facto 
moratorium on approval of biotechnology products  had been in place.  The United Stated believed 
that under the SPS Agreement the European Communities was obligated to have a functioning approval process and decisions on pending applications  should not be delayed.  The United States 
urged the European Commission to restart the approval process as soon as possible.  Canada was concerned that the European Communities was funda mentally altering the regulation of agriculture 
and food products to discriminate on the basis of how a product was produced rather than the 
product's characteristics.  Canada al so considered proposed new EC regulations to be arbitrary, as 
they required labelling for highly re fined products, such as oil that did not contain detectable DNA or 
protein, while not requiring similar controls on  products that could present equal risk but were 
produced with other methods of development such as mutation breeding or mutagenesis.  Moreover, 
the proposed regulations discriminated against pr oducts produced from genetically modified products, 
but not against products produced with genetically  modified organisms such as cheese and wine.  
Canada argued that the proposed regulations were  not commensurate with the risks and lacked 
scientific basis.  Furthermore, the proposed re gulations were fundamentally unworkable, as 
demonstrated by the one per cent threshold for the adventitious presence of GMOs.   
300. The European Commission reaffirmed its inter est and positive actions aimed at allowing the 
authorization procedures to continue.  The recent meeting of the European Environment Council had 
started a very important discussion on proposals presented by the Commission to restart the 
authorization procedure. 
301. In March 2002, the United States reported that no progress had been made on the EC approval 
system despite statements by various Commission officials.  The de facto moratorium had resulted in the loss of over $200 million per year in US agri cultural exports.  New information given by 
Commission officials in February 2002 that the a pproval process would be restarted later in 2002 was 
welcome.  Frustration in US commercial and political  circles continued to increase.  While the United 
States welcomed the establishment of the European Food Safety Authority, this did not address the 
fundamental problem of individual EC member States holding the approval process hostage to political concerns, with disregard for science and sound regulatory decision-making.  Canada 
supported the US comments and noted that the Marc h 1998 EC moratorium represented a de facto ban G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 78  
 
on a wide range of products.  As such it violated not  just the SPS Agreement, but also Article XI of 
the GATT.  Argentina echoed the concerns e xpressed by the United States and Canada.  
302. The European Communities noted the absence of procedures at the international level for 
approval of these types of products.  The European  Communities was following closely the work of 
the Codex ad hoc Taskforce on Biotechnology.  Consid erable efforts had been made to put together a 
consistent body of legislation to set up an authorization procedure for products resulting from 
biotechnology, with the aim of giving the producer legal certainty and transparency.  The newly established EC Food Safety Authority was responsib le for risk assessment and risk communication, 
but further time was needed to complete work by th e European Parliament and the member States.   
303. In June 2002, the United States indicated their fru stration with the situation and noted that it 
was considering what steps to pursue.  Canada ob served that the EC moratorium essentially operated 
as a ban on imports of certain products for over four years, without any scientific basis.  The moratorium resulted in trade disruptions and discrimination based on pr oduction methods without 
regard to the assessment of risks.  Canada consider ed the EC moratorium to be inconsistent with the 
SPS Agreement and the GATT, and requested the Eu ropean Communities to put in place a science-
based approval process, as well as to consider alternative measures.  The European Communities 
replied that the matter was followi ng political procedures as previously  described.  At this time, the 
European Parliament was considering the matter, and the Council of Ministers should examine the 
documents in the coming months.  Internal pro cedures had to be followed to apply the proposed 
Directive. 
304. In November 2002, the United States stated that the EC moratorium had resulted in 
approximately 1 billion dollars loss of US exports  to the European Comm unities.  Even senior 
European Commission officials had publicly stated  that the moratorium was illegal.  The United 
States indicated that despite the recent adoption of EC Directive 01/18, the moratorium remained in 
place and trade continued to be blocked.  The United States was of the view that the Commission had the authority and the power to act in the face of this  illegal moratorium and it had chosen not to do so.  
The Commission's failure to take action on this i ssue was a matter of growing concern to the United 
States.  Canada shared the concerns expressed by the United States and regretted the inability of the 
European authorities to take steps to ensure that EC  member States met their SPS obligations.  Canada 
called upon the European Communities to lift the moratorium as soon as possible. 
305. Australia supported the views expressed by the United States and Canada about the lack of 
scientific basis for the EC moratorium.  Australia was also concerned about the EC related proposals 
on genetically modified food and feed, and the tr aceability and labelling of genetically modified 
organisms (GMOs).  Australia requested further in formation as to whether the European Communities 
had conducted a science-based risk assessment for its traceability regulations or based its measure on 
an international standard.  The European Communities had confirmed in their previous responses that 
the research undertaken had confirmed that those GM  foods and GM plants and derived products so 
far developed and marketed following usual risk as sessment procedures had not shown any new risk 
to human health or the environment, beyond the us ual uncertainties of conventional plant breeding, or 
risks that were likely to put in danger the chosen level of health or environmental protection in the 
European Communities.  Given this explanation, Aust ralia requested further clarification as to how, in 
the absence of an identifiable risk to human h ealth, the proposed traceability system met SPS 
requirements.  
306. The Philippines shared the concerns expressed  by the United States and reiterated his 
country's position regarding traceability of GMOs.  The Philippines noted that the European Communities had failed to demonstrate any scientific  evidence that GMOs were not as safe as their 
conventional counterparts, and that there were not less trade restrictive measu res available to manage 
the risk.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 79 
 
 
307. The European Communities noted that the Commi ssion and the EC member States remained 
determined to put in place a regulatory framework to allow GMO and GM products to be marketed 
freely within the European Commun ities and noted that the progress had been made in that respect.  
The European Communities requested patience an d understanding on this very sensitive dossier 
which was being dealt with at the highest  level within the European Communities. 
CONCERNS RAISED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES  
Item 
Number 
 Country Maintaining the Measure   
Food Safety  
Item 8 Australia and New Zealand – Import restrictions on cheese  
Item 20 Brazil – Import requirements for wine  
Item 27 Canada – Importation of cheese  
Item 37 China –   Import ban on products of Dutch origin  
Item 109 Japan's regulation on food additives 
Item 136 Panama –  Restrictions on milk powder imports 
Item 142 Poland –  Requirements for imports of milk and milk products 
Item 160 United States –  Notification G/SPS/N/USA/133 on refrigeration and labelling 
requirements for shell eggs 
Item 179 Certain Members – Restrictions on Pomace Olive Oil  
Animal Health and Zoonoses  
TSE Concerns 
Item 3 Argentina – Import restrictions on bovine sem en, milk and milk products 
Item 29 Canada –  Zoosanitary import policies pertaining to BSE 
Item 38 China –  Import requirements for cosmetics 
Item 100 India – Import restrictions on bovine semen 
Item 107 Israel – Notification G/SPS/N/ISR/2 on TSE-related import restrictions of live cattle 
Item 148 South Africa — Prohibition on bone-in-beef imports from member States of the European 
Communities 
Item 162 United States  – Measures related to BSE 
FMD Concerns 
Item 180 Certain Members — FMD-related import restrictions  
Item 114 Japan –  Measures regarding FMD  
Item 131 Mexico – Restrictions on Austrian products  
Other Animal Health Concerns 
Item 5 Argentina – Temporary prohibition of fresh pork and products  
Item 9 Australia – Restriction on pigmeat  
Item 22 Brazil –  Imports  of live ostriches  
Item 39 China – Inspection and quarantine me asures for aquatic products  
Item 48 Czech Republic – Regulation concerning warehouses and silos  
Item 101 India –   Restrictions on imports of horses  
Item 137 Panama's restrictions on food products 
Item 163 United States –   Restrictions on pigmeat  
Item 164 United States – Regionalization in relation to animal health  
Item 175 Venezuela – Import conditions for pork and meat products  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 80  
 
Item 
Number 
 Country Maintaining the Measure   
Plant Health Concerns  
Item 14 Australia — Notification on methyl bromide 
Item 17 Australia – Dutch Truss tomatoes  
Item 24 Brazil – Import requirements for seed potatoes 
Item 40 China – Regulation on wood packaging material 
Item 49 Czech Republic –Imports of Potatoes  
Item 134 New Zealand  – Proposed import prohibition of commodity-country combinations of fresh 
cut flowers and foliage 
Item 147 Slovak Republic  – Import restrictions on potatoes  
Item 166 United States — Import restrictions on potted plant s from the European Communities  
Item 168 United States  – Imports of clementines 
Item 169 United States  – Import restrictions on rhodode ndrons in growing medium 
 
THE GAMBIA 
CONCERNS RAISED BY THE GAMBIA  
Item 
Number 
 Country Maintaining the Measure   
Food Safety  
Item 63 European Communities – Maximum levels for certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in 
foodstuffs  
 
HONDURAS 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY HONDURAS  
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Other Animal Health Concerns 95. Honduras – Import restrictions on chicken meat imports 
Raised by: Costa Rica 
Supported by: Argentina, Chile, Thailand,  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 22-27), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, 
paras. 63-64) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/347/Rev.1., G/SPS/GEN/362, G/SPS/GEN/363, 
G/SPS/N/HND/3, G/SPS/GEN/347/Add.1  
Solution: Not reported 
 308. Costa Rica reported that in March 2002, Hondur as had applied import restrictions on poultry 
meat from Costa Rica,  admitting imports of poultry meat only from countries that were free from 
avian influenza, avian infectious laryngotracheitis , Newcastle disease and avian salmonellosis.  Costa 
Rica recognized Honduras' efforts to improve its sanitary situation, but questioned whether the 
measure was scientifically justified and whether Hondur as had carried out a relevant risk analysis.  In  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 81 
 
 
this regard, it would be to the benefit of all if  Honduras shared its scientific evidence with other 
members of the organization.  Honduras was trying to  reverse the burden by insisting that Costa Rica 
demonstrate its disease free status regarding these f our avian diseases.  Costa Rica's avian health 
status was in line with the parameters recognized by the OIE, and its poultry meat exports did not 
constitute a risk for the avian health status of Honduras.  Costa Rica requested Honduras to respond to 
the questions contained in G/SPS/GEN/347/Rev.1 and requested that Honduras lift the measure.  
Argentina, Chile and Thailand supported the con cerns expressed by Costa Rica.  Chile requested 
information from the OIE on this issue, in partic ular concerning standards for the transmission of 
different avian diseases through fresh poultry meat.  Chile also requested a copy of the risk 
assessment carried out by Honduras.  
309. Honduras explained the background to his count ry's decision to impose restrictions on 
chicken meat imports from Costa Rica.  The Agricu lture and Livestock Secretariat had developed a 
national programme for the prevention, control and eradication of avian diseases, including avian 
influenza, avian infectious laryngotracheitis, Ne wcastle disease and avian salmonellosis.  This 
programme had been notified to all WTO member s (G/SPS/N/HND/3).  In October 2001, Honduras 
had notified that it had achieved free status for the four avian diseases mentioned above.  Honduras 
had requested that Costa Rica, as well as other co untries, provide the necessary documentation that 
guaranteed equivalence between the exporting countr y's avian health status, as well as access for 
technical experts to carry out the relevant inspecti ons.  His authorities had not been able to determine 
that the poultry health programmes of Costa Rica we re equivalent because they had been unable to 
carry out the relevant inspections and obtain th e necessary technical information requested from Costa 
Rica.  The scientific evidence requ ested by Costa Rica was contained in the OIE Bulletin, N°6, pages 
810 to 815, and Honduras welcomed the updating of standards by the OIE. 
310. The representative of the OIE stated that OIE standards existed for avian infectious 
laryngotracheitis, avian salmonellosis, and Newcas tle disease, and for the highly pathogenic form 
only of avian influenza.  The OIE standards fo r avian infectious laryngotracheitis and avian 
salmonellosis contained recommendations only for live  birds, for day-old chicks, and for hatching 
eggs but no recommendations  for poultry meat.  In other words, at present there were no official OIE 
standards for poultry meat for these two diseases, how ever these chapters had not been reviewed for 
some time.  The lack of a standard concerning poultr y meat could mean either that there were no risks 
associated with trade in poultry meat for these dise ases, or that the OIE had not come out with a 
recommendation on poultry meat which meant that tr ading partners would be expected to negotiate 
between themselves using risk analysis in order to reach science based conclusions.  In the absence of 
an official OIE standard, the OIE had replied to a re quest from the Director of Animal Health in Costa 
Rica that there was no scientific evidence indicating th at avian infectious laryngotracheitis or avian 
salmonellosis could be transmitted thro ugh poultry meat.  This was not an official OIE standard but a 
scientific opinion from the OIE.  If there was suffici ent trade disruption due to the lack of an OIE 
standard for poultry meat for these diseases, the OIE would include updating these standards in its 
future work programme.   
311. In April 2003, Costa Rica noted that bilateral consultations were progressing 
(G/SPS/GEN/347/Add.1).  Honduras reported that after the November 2002 meeting of the SPS 
Committee, an agreement was reached on how to progress towards re-establishing trade of poultry 
meat and products from Costa Rica. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 82  
 
Plant Health 
96. Honduras – Restrictions on imports of rough rice 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 55), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Honduras lifted its restrictions in 1997, and the United States considers the 
concern resolved. 
312. In March 1997, the United States expressed concern that Honduras 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. 
313. In July 2001, the United States reported that Honduras had lifted its restrictions in 1997 
(G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United States cons iders this trade concern resolved. 
HUNGARY 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY HUNGARY  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to TSEs 
 
97. Hungary - Restrictions on bovine products 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 16-17) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/230 
Solution: Not reported 
314. Canada indicated that Hungary had suspended imports of all bovine products from Canada 
due to fears over BSE, although Canada was BSE -free and BSE could not be transmitted by bovine 
semen.  Canada was willing to continue working w ith the Hungarian authorities to resolve this matter 
as quickly as possible.  The United States drew attention to the OIE document (G/SPS/GEN/230) which listed products that were sa fe from BSE and encouraged Memb ers to review their measures 
accordingly.  Hungary reported that since several  Members had recently imposed import bans on 
certain BSE-free countries, Hungarian consumers had begun to question the safety of animals and 
products from these countries.  Hungarian authoriti es had made prion tests a mandatory condition for 
veterinary import licenses for live cattle, fresh meats and non-heat-treated products of bovine origin.  
Bovine semen was not subject to the import restrictions. 
98. Hungary - Restrictions on  pork products 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 31-32) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 83 
 
 
315. Canada reported that as of Ja nuary 2001, Hungarian importers of pork products from Canada 
had not been able to obtain import certificates from Hungary's veterinary services.  A similar disruption had occurred the previous year, and had been resolved through bilateral discussion.  
Canada asked Hungary to resume issuing import permits, or to provide a legitimate scientific 
justification for the measure.  Hungary refe rred to fears over BSE transmission and cross-
contamination of foodstuffs, and w as willing to enter into bilateral consultations on the matter.  
Canada requested clarification on the relevance of  feed cross-contamination to the importation of 
frozen pork. 
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY HUNGARY  
Item 
Number  Country Maintaining the Measure   
Animal Health and Zoonoses  
TSE Concerns 
Item 43 Croatia – Restrictions on live animal imports  
Item 156 Turkey's ban on pet food imports —Request for information from Hungary 
FMD Concerns 
Item 30 Canada and the United States —Import restrictions due to FMD  
Item 157 Turkey – Import ban on livestock  
Plant Health Concerns  
Item 146 Slovak Republic --  Restrictions on imports of apples, pears and quinces 
 
ICELAND 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ICELAND  
Food Safety 99. Iceland - 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: Clarification provided 
 
316. 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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 84  
 
INDIA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDIA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to TSEs 
 
100. 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), November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 18-22), March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 40-43), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 51), 
April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 76-77) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/113 
Solution: Change of relevant regulations a nd expected solution reported in July 2001. 
 
317. 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. 
318. 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. 
319. 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 
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. 
320. In November 2000, Canada, supported by the Eu ropean Communities, reiterated its concerns 
regarding India's BSE-related restrictions on bovi ne semen imports, despite  Canada's BSE freedom, 
and despite agreement in the OIE and other veteri nary bodies that BSE was not transmitted by semen.  
In September 2000, India had indicated that it intende d to continue this unjustified prohibition, despite 
the lack of risk assessment for the measure.  Indi a reported that detailed bila teral consultations were 
ongoing.  The Indian Animal Husbandry Commi ssion had met on 11 September 2000 and had noted 
the findings of the EC Scientific Steering Committe e (SSC) regarding the difficulty of making precise 
estimates of the risks of infectivity of various products including semen. 
321. India further reported that it had sought detaile d information from the OIE regarding the basis 
for determining that BSE was not transmitted by sem en, as well as information on the criteria for  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 85 
 
 
determining if a country or zone was free from BSE.   However, to date no reply had been received 
from the OIE.  
322. The European Communities observed that India was referring to a scientific opinion which 
had been published in 1998, which had subsequently been modified through various meetings of the 
OIE.  The representative of the OIE indicated that the issue of bovine semen had been examined on 
various occasions at the OIE, and the results of these examinations had been provided to India, 
however, the OIE would again send India all of the relevant information. 
323. In March 2001, Canada and India announced that  they had agreed to informal discussions 
under the SPS Agreement and hoped that the matter would be resolved soon.   Canada recalled the 
OIE statement confirming that BSE could not be transmitted by semen (G/SPS/GEN/230).  India 
stressed that it was not trying to give an unfair a dvantage to domestic producers.  The socio-religious 
conditions related to the treatment of cows in India were such that India had to be extremely cautious.  
India asked Canada to cooperate with India's risk assessment, which would ta ke at least another six 
months to complete.  Canada questioned the need to  carry out the risk assessment, since according to 
the OIE there was no risk of disease transmission thr ough semen.  India and Canada intended to raise 
the issue at the OIE. 
324. In July 2001, Canada reported that it was e ngaged in bilateral consultations under the SPS 
Agreement with India.  There had been certain positive developments and Canada hoped to quickly 
resolve the issue.  India indicated that the relevant  regulations had been cha nged, and that the changes 
would soon be notified. 
325. In April 2003, Canada stated that although a successful conclusion had been reported to the 
Committee in July 2001, a further problem had be en encountered and an import licence request was 
rejected by India due to some apparent conn ection between BSE and bovine semen.  Canada 
questioned the scientific basis for the action and stated that the OIE's recommendations supported 
Canada's view.  Canada requested that India remove this restriction.  India agreed to convey Canada's 
concerns to the appropriate authorities. 
Other Animal Health Concerns  101. 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: Not reported 
 
326. 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's measure which was more stringent than the OIE 
Code. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 86  
 
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY INDIA  
Item 
Number 
 Country Maintaining the Measure   
Food Safety  
Item 63 European Communities – Maximum levels for certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in 
foodstuffs  
 
 
INDONESIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA  
Food Safety 102. Indonesia – Ban on hormones in animal production 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, Canada, Mexico 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 83-86) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/IDN/17 
Solution: Not reported 
 
327. The United States indicated that the implementa tion of this regulation would effectively ban 
the use of several growth hormones and there was no scientific evidence to support this measure.  US 
regulatory agencies had been conducting research si nce the 1950s on the use and safety of approved 
growth hormones.  A concensus had been reached re garding the safety of these hormones if used with 
good veterinary practices.  The United States request ed Indonesia to put forward scientific data in 
support of its proposed ban.  In the event that no scientific data existed, the United States requested 
Indonesia to reconsider this proposal as soon as possible. 
328. Canada, supported by Australia and Mexico, expressed concerns regarding Indonesia's 
apparent import ban on live cattle and beef derived from cattle treated with synthetic growth 
hormones.  A number of questions surrounding th e risk-based nature of these measures were 
highlighted, particularly given the precedence est ablished in the WTO regarding measures prohibiting 
growth hormones.  They requested Indonesia to i ndicate whether it had conducted a risk assessment 
and to provide the details of the risk based ra tional for its measures.  The European Communities 
noted that there was a WTO finding on the issue and that it intended to bring its legislation into compliance with the ruling of the panel.  Much wo rk had been undertaken in this regard and the 
European Communities expected to soon be able to en sure that the EC ban was fully compatible with 
the WTO.   
329. Indonesia noted that his country had not yet im plemented the regulation, but had notified to 
Members the fact that they were going to amend the decree concerning classification of veterinary drugs.  Although Indonesia had not yet banned horm one growth promoters, there were some reasons 
to believe that growth hormones c ould be hazardous to human health, due in part to the fact that 
developed countries' consumption patterns were differe nt to those in Indonesia.  Indonesia further 
noted that the use of hormone growth promoters in poultry had been banned internationally.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 87 
 
 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to FMD 103. Indonesia – Import restrictions on dairy products  
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras.  17-18), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 
54-55), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, para s. 72-73), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, 
paras. 43) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally, G/SPS/GEN/324 
Solution: Not reported 
 330. Argentina stated that as a result of the outbreak of FMD in 2001, Indonesia had banned 
imports of milk products, incons istent with the SPS Agreement and OIE guidelines.  The OIE Code 
stipulated that milk products be accepted if the sanitary authority of the exporting country certified 
that the necessary requirements had been introduced .  Indonesian had not provided the opportunity for 
the Argentine National Agriculture and Food Qualit y and Health Service (SENASA) to certify the 
requirements set forth by the OIE.  Indonesia indicated that import restrictions imposed on Argentina 
due to FMD only applied to fresh milk.  Other da iry products, including skimmed milk, cream, butter, 
cheese and yoghurt, were not restricted.  Restrictions on fresh milk were based on the fact that Argentina was not listed by the OIE as a country with zones free of FMD. 
331. In November 2002, Argentina indicated that some practical difficulties still impeded 
Argentine dairy products, other than liquid milk, from entering Indonesia.  Indonesia reported that as 
Argentina fulfilled the first provisions a questionn aire which would provided to them, Indonesia 
would send an inspection team to Argentina.  Indonesia hoped that this would lead to a resolution of 
the problem.   
332. In April 2003, Argentina reported that it ha d completed the questionnaire and extended an 
invitation to Indonesia but Indonesia had not yet sent an inspection team.  Restrictions on imports of 
Argentine milk remained and Argentina requested  clarification from Indonesia.  Indonesia recalled 
that a questionnaire had been sent to Argentina on 27 January 2003.  Out of five plants in Argentina, 
only one had the necessary controls.  If Argent ina could provide information on its control 
programmes, an investigating officer would be sent to conduct an on-site review of the plants in 
Argentina.  Indonesia was confident that furthe r bilateral efforts would resolve this issue. 
333. In June 2003, Argentina reporte d that good progress had been made toward the resolution of 
the problem.  Indonesia confirmed that the bilatera l consultations had led to an agreement to send 
Indonesian inspectors to Argentina. 
104. Indonesia - FMD restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras.  92-93) (see also #8 5 ), October 2003 
(G/SPS/R/31, paras. 35-36) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/240 
Solution: Not reported 
 334. Argentina noted it had raised concerns about  Indonesia's FMD restrictions on certain 
products.  Although Indonesia had info rmed Argentina that certain products had been re-classified, G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 88  
 
the changes had not been implemented and Ar gentina was still unable to export the products 
concerned, mainly vegetables and corn.  Indonesia stated that the ban on Argentine corn had been 
lifted as of August 2001.  Indonesia looked forw ard to holding further bilateral discussions. 
335. In October 2003, Argentina recalled that I ndonesian restrictions went beyond the OIE 
recommendations (G/SPS/GEN/240) and included products not affected by FMD, i.e., cereals.  
Argentina requested Indonesia to provide scientific  evidence to justify the measures or else lift the 
measures.  Argentina had provided documentation in an  informal bilateral meeting with Indonesia and 
proposed a visit of experts to resolve the issue.  Indonesia stated that FMD was a serious risk as 
Indonesia was free of the disease.  The ban was periodically evaluated and could be temporary.  A visit by experts from Indonesia was being consider ed.  Progress on this issue was being made in 
consultations with Argentina and the Committee would be informed. 
Plant Health 
105. Indonesia - Restrictions on importation of fresh fruit 
Raised by: New Zealand 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20,  paras. 8-10), March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, 
paras. 44-45, July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 54-55) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/219 
Solution:  Restrictions lifted on 26 October 2001. 
 336. In November 2000, New Zealand noted that Indonesia had imposed restrictions on fresh fruit 
from New Zealand since the discovery of two fruit flies in a residential area of New Zealand in May 1996.  No fruit flies were ever found outside a 200  meter zone around the initial incursion, and no 
fruit flies were trapped after three weeks.  A number of WTO Members imposed restrictions on New 
Zealand fruit products following the initial incursion, but these restrictions were progressively lifted.  
Indonesia, however, continued to prohibit imports of fruit produced within a 15-km radius of the 
incursion and required cold treatment of all fruit from New Zealand.  At bilateral consultations held in 
November 2000,  Indonesia had undertaken to review the information which New Zealand had 
already provided.  Indonesia took note of New Zealand' s concerns, and clarified that it needed further 
documentation supporting New Zealand's claim of fr eedom from Mediterranean fruit fly.  However, 
Indonesia had no intention of maintaining measures which were not justifiable under the SPS Agreement and remained open to further consultations  in order to achieve an acceptable resolution. 
337. In March 2001, New Zealand reported that bila teral consultations had taken place, and that 
Indonesia had indicated willingness to inspect the fruit fly surveillance and phytosanitary export 
assurance systems in New Zealand.  Indonesia confirmed that officials were planning to visit New 
Zealand in the near future.  Indonesia hoped that th e visit would result in an expeditious solution.  
Indonesian officials visited New Zealand in May 2001 to review New Zeal and's surveillance and 
export assurance systems.  They verified that the fru it fly has been successfu lly eradicated.  Indonesia 
agreed the requirement of cold treatment and Mediterranean fruit fly free production areas were no 
longer necessary.  It advised that it would lift existing restrictions on the importation of fresh fruit 
from New Zealand on 1 August 2001.  Indonesia not ified (G/SPS/N/IDN/16) on 26 October 2001 that 
it was lifting its restrictions on New Zealand fresh fruit effective from the date of notification.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 89 
 
 
106. 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: Not reported 
 
338. 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 
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. 
CONCERNS RAISED BY INDONESIA  
Item 
Number 
 Country Maintaining the Measure   
Food Safety  
Item 52 European Communities – Restrictions on shellfish  
Item 63 European Communities – Maximum levels for certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in 
foodstuffs  
Animal Health and Zoonoses  
FMD Concerns 
Item 113 Japan – Restrictions on importation of sugar cane top from Indonesia  
ISRAEL  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ISRAEL  
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to TSEs 
 
107. 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: Not reported 
 
339. 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 90  
 
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. 
108. 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), 
November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, para. 32) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Issue resolved. 
 340. 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 and that progress had been sa tisfactory.  In November 2000, 
Uruguay reported that the issue had been resolved. 
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY ISRAEL  
Item 
Number 
 Country Maintaining the Measure   
Food Safety  
Item 57 European Communities — Legislation on the fungicide thiabendazole (TBZ)  
Plant Health Concerns  
Item 88 European Communities — Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/131 regarding cut flowers 
JAPAN 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN  
Food Safety 
109. Japan - Regulation on food additives 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 35-37) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
341. The European Communities indicated that a list of substances, including food additives, 
aromas, food ingredients and extract solvents, were not formally authorized by Japanese law, which 
could constitute barriers to food product exports to Japan.  Some of the additives had already been authorized by Japan for other purposes.  The Eur opean Communities requested Japan to approve those  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 91 
 
 
substances that had been evaluated by the Eu ropean Communities on scientific grounds, and noted 
that all of the substances had been evaluated at th e international level by the scientific committee of 
the Codex Alimentarius Commission.  The European  Communities reported that a number of bilateral 
meetings had already taken place.  The United Stat es shared the concerns expressed by the European 
Communities and urged Japan to c onsider expedited approval for these food additives that were 
commonly used and considered safe.  
342. Japan stated that it had recently enacted a new policy for evaluating the safety and the 
necessity of the use of food additives and for author izing their use.  Japanese authorities were putting 
together a list of food additives that were consider ed safe and necessary to use for certain foods.  The 
use of  food additives varied from country to countr y depending upon custom s and habits, and a 
number of food additives authorized by the Europ ean Communities were not authorized in Japan and 
vice versa.  Japan suggested further b ilateral consultations on this issue. 
110. Japan - Amendment of the food sanitation law 
Raised by: China 
Supported by: Korea 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 40-42) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/JPN/84, G/SPS/N/JPN/86 
Solution: Not reported 
 
343. China raised concerns over Japan's amendment of the food sanitation law and the procedures 
followed.  Japan's emergency notification (G/SPS/N/ JPN/84), issued on 18 July 2002, indicated that 
the amendment prohibiting the sale, manufacturing and import of specific food, food additives, apparatus and container/packages when considerab le amounts of foods were assumed not to be in 
conformity with the provisions of the Food San itation Law would enter into force on 7 September 
2002.  A related emergency notif ication had been made on 7 September 2002 (G/SPS/N/JPN/86). 
China questioned the appropriateness of the use of  emergency notifications, as Members could not 
comment before the measure had been enforced.  China requested Japan to provide the scientific 
evidence, including a risk analysis, that supported the measures taken.  Korea indicated that it had 
requested information on Japan's amendment on 3 September 2002, and were awaiting a response.  
344. Japan indicated that they had already recei ved comprehensive comments from China on the 
amendment of the food sanitation law within the fr amework of the Trade Policy Review of Japan.  
The use of the emergency notifications were in  accordance with the recommended procedures for 
transparency, however, Japan was pr epared to consider the matter further on a bilateral basis.  
111. Japan – Notification G/SPS/N/JPN/104 on the revision of standards and specifications 
for foods and additives 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 45-46) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/JPN/104 
Solution: Not reported 
 
345. China expressed concerns over Japan's maximum residue levels (MRLs) for several pesticide 
residues, in particular MRLs for chlorpyrifos.  The limits for chlorpyrifos in spinach and other 
products were not science-based.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 92  
 
346. Japan noted that answers to questions rai sed by China had been provided through the 
Japanese Embassy in China.  With regards to the MRL for spinach, this product was not included in 
the notification.  The MRL for the 15 pesticid es were based on toxicological risk assessments 
including residue data and were no mo re stringent than Codex standards. 
112. Japan - Notification G/SPS/N/JPN/9 on uses of living modified organisms  
Raised by: Australia 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 72-74) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/JPN/9 
Solution: Not reported 
 
347. Australia indicated that Japan's notifica tion regarding its proposed draft law on the 
conservation and sustainable use of living modified organisms raised a number of concerns.  Australia 
was a major grain exporter and was especially in terested in the documents which should accompany 
shipments.  Japan had not responded to Australia's query.  The United States was also concerned how 
Japan intended to implement the Cartagena Biosafet y Protocol and in particular the documentation 
requirements. 
348. Japan replied that it had ratified the Cartag ena Biosafety Protocol on 10 June 2003 and its 
measures were consistent with the agreement.  Ja pan would shortly provide responses to the questions 
it had received from Australia. 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to FMD 113. Japan - Restrictions on importation of sugar cane top from Indonesia 
Raised by: Indonesia 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras.  32-35), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 
24-25), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28,  paras. 185-186), June 2003 
(G/SPS/R/30, paras. 57-58) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/266, Annex 1, G/SPS/GEN/240 
Solution: Not reported 
 349. In July 2001, Indonesia raised concerns regard ing Japan's restrictions on the importation of 
sugar cane top for fear of contamination with FMD, although Indonesia was recognized as free from FMD.  Indonesia had cooperated with Japan's assessme nt of the FMD situation in Indonesia, but was 
concerned about delays and inform ation requirements.  Indonesia inte nded to provide the information, 
but requested a clear schedule to ensure a speedy solution.  Indonesia and Argentina requested the 
OIE to explain whether these restrictions could be ju stified.  Japan replied that it had notified the 
animal health authorities in Indonesia of the additi onal information needed for the analysis and was 
waiting for Indonesia's response.  The OIE confirmed that Indonesia had been recognized as free from 
FMD without vaccination (G/SPS/GEN/266, Annex 1).  The International Animal Health Code contained a list of products which could transm it FMD, and the list did not include sugar cane 
(G/SPS/GEN/240).  The Code considered that othe r products, such as cerea ls, fruits, vegetables and 
roots did not present a risk.    G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 93 
 
 
350. In October 2001, Indonesia reported that in a ddition to informal bilateral consultations, 
Indonesia had also provided detailed information re quested in a questionnaire from Japan.  Indonesia 
was willing to furnish all necessary documentation, as any protraction of this problem would have 
detrimental effects on the Indonesian economy.  Japan  stated that at a bilateral meeting certain 
misunderstandings had been cleared up.  Japan l ooked forward to receiving such information as was 
necessary to resolve this problem. 
351. In November 2002, Indonesia noted that th e Japanese animal health inspection team had 
carried out an FMD risk assessment in Indonesia in  June 2002.  Indonesia recalled that the OIE had 
recognized the country as FMD free without vaccina tion and requested Japan to take this into 
consideration.  Japan stated th at the issue could not be resolv ed until the risk assessment was 
completed.  Further data had been sought from Indonesia in order to finalize the risk assessment. 
352. In June 2003, Indonesia raised concerns that Japan continued to ban imports of sugar cane top 
from Indonesia and as a result the Indonesian indus try had collapsed.  Japan had not acknowledged 
that Indonesia was free from FMD despite the fact the Indonesia's FMD-free status had been regularly 
confirmed by the OIE.  Indonesia welcomed furt her Japanese missions to Indonesia but requested 
Japan to specify more clearly the issues of their c oncern.  Japan responded that  technical consultations 
had been held and more experts had been dispatch ed in June 2002 in order to provide Japan with 
additional scientific information.  Further scientific assessments would now be carried out and Japan 
looked forward to continued consultations. 
114. Japan - Measures regarding FMD 
Raised by: Argentina, European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1,  para. 46), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 
15-17) 
Relevant document(s): G/TBT/Notif.97.357 
Solution: Not reported 
 
353. 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.  
354. In March 2002, the European Communities stated  that slow administrative procedures had 
caused unjustified disruptions in the trade of several  EC member States with Japan.  In spite of the 
formal recognition by the OIE of EC member States as FMD free, Japanese procedures for recognizing the FMD free status of these countri es dragged on.  The European Communities noted 
that they had done everything possible to meet the Japanese requirements and expressed 
disappointment that Japan would not begin the re-opening process until after the official FMD free 
declaration by the OIE on 19 September 2001.  The EC noted that the re-opening process itself was extremely cumbersome and combined with delays in organizing a Japanese inspection mission, the 
effect was unnecessary delay in reopening of the ma rket.  Furthermore, the European Communities G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 94  
 
felt that the use of questionnaires was only justified at the time of the outbreak, and that import requirements should be made clear from the outset.  The representative of the European Communities 
requested an indication of when Japan would rec ognize the EC FMD disease-free status.  Japan noted 
that the risk assessment for FMD had been delayed due to late responses from France, Ireland and the 
Netherlands.  
Plant Health 115. Japan – Official control restrictions on citrus and other fresh fruits and vegetables 
Raised by: United States and New Zealand 
Supported by: Australia, European Communities 
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras.  27-30), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 
59-62), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, para s. 55-57), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, 
paras. 61-63), October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras.19-20) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/357 
Solution: Not reported 
 355. The United States indicated that Japan continue d to impose costly and unjustified quarantine 
actions when pests were detected on imported US fruits and vegetables, even though the same species 
were commonly found in Japan.  In many instances these actions included treatment that damaged and 
destroyed the commodity in question.  Japanese practices lacked a scientific basis and were 
inconsistent with IPPC standards on official cont rol and risk assessment for quarantine pests.  The 
result was an arbitrary and unpredictable system fa cing US horticultural exports to Japan.  The United 
States supported Japan's efforts to bring its plant la ws into line with international standards and hoped 
that bilateral technical discussions would result in  the termination of unjustified requirements. The 
European Communities supported the US statement.   New Zealand noted concerns with Japan's 
continuing practice of fumigati ng consignments of New Zeala nd's fresh products, due to the 
interception of pests that did not meet the definition of quarantine pests under the IPPC.  
356. Japan recalled that during bilateral consultati ons with the United States in November 2001, 
the United States had requested Japan to abolish fu migation upon detection of California red scale and 
Fuller rose weevil in US produce, on the grounds that these were non-quarantine pests endemic in 
Japan.  However, California red scale was under dom estic control in Japan as a target pest of 
forecasting programmes and was therefore subject to fumigation if detected at import inspection.  Fuller rose weevil had limited detection with only three points within Japan and was under 
government-oriented control aimed at eradication.   It was not possible under these conditions to 
exclude those species from quarantine pests.  Jap an noted that they remained open to further 
consultations. 
357. In November 2002, New Zealand expressed concern with Japan's official control restrictions, 
detailed in G/SPS/GEN/357.  New Zealand requested Japan to confirm that it would not take any 
action, such as fumigation, on any pest found on imported produce if that pest was already present in Japan but not under official control as defined by the IPPC  The United States recalled its concerns 
over the basis and application of Japan's phytosanitary  legislation, in particular with respect to 
horticultural products that continued to face unjustified quarantine actions at Japan's ports of entry.  
Even when Japan required no domestic quarantine tr eatment for the same species of pests, the 
treatment imposed on imported produce include d fumigation which in many cases ruined the 
products.  The United States considered Japan's actions to be highly disruptive of trade.  Australia and 
the European Communities expressed their concern regarding Japan's official control restrictions and 
supported the statements made by Ne w Zealand and the United States.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 95 
 
 
358. Japan recognized that the IPPC standards shoul d be one of the basis in a possible future 
quarantine system for Japan.  Japan was examining whether its appropriate le vel of protection could 
be maintained by applying plant quarantine measures in line with the new IPPC definition, taking into 
account Japan's climate and the large volume of impor ts into Japan.  A number of pests were presently 
under study and although a final c onclusion had not yet been reached, discussions were underway to 
identify practical measures to reduce the effects of Japan's official control measures on international 
trade. 
359. In April 2003, New Zealand stress ed that Japan's policy was not consistent with the relevant 
international definition in ISPM-5 of the IPPC and Supplement No.1.  Bilateral discussions between 
New Zealand and Japan continued and New Zealand requested  a policy statement  from Japan by 1 
January 2003.  To date, no such statement had been forthcoming.  Japan had still not brought its 
phytosanitary measures in line with IPPC definitions and guidelines.  The United States stated that it 
shared the concerns and frustrations of New Zeal and and continued to experience trade disruptions 
due to Japan's phytosanitary legislation and unju stified quarantine actions.  The United States had 
requested information on which pests were considered  quarantine risks but did not receive a reply.  
Australia and the European Commun ities shared the concerns of New Zealand and the United States. 
360. Japan stated that it was under no obligation to make a policy statement regarding non-
quarantine pests, however, in the interest of tran sparency, Japan would provide a statement.  Japan 
respected international rules, including IPPC guidelines, and took appropriate measures where necessary on the basis of its national plant protection laws.  Further examination was necessary to see if Japan's current measures were consistent w ith international standards and representatives from 
outside government would be invite d to review the situation.   
361. In June 2003, New Zealand indicated that it was  pleased to learn that Japan was reviewing its 
system  in order to change it.  The United Stat es stated it was disappointed with the discriminatory 
nature of Japan's measures, its failure to notif y internal regulations and the general lack of 
transparency within its system.  Australia express ed support for statements made by New Zealand and 
the United States.  Japan reported that bilatera l consultations had been  conducted and further 
examination would be necessary befo re conclusions could be drawn. 
362. In October 2003, New Zealand reported that there had not been any response from Japan 
since bilateral contacts in April and June 2003.  Japan responded that it was seeking to resolve the 
issue through technical discussions between relevant national experts.  A bilateral meeting was to be 
held in November to discuss orchard controls a nd pre-clearance inspection systems.  Japan reported 
that in June it had established a consultative group consisting of different st akeholders to examine 
whether its measures were consistent with internatio nal standards.  This group had already met three 
times 
116. Japan - Import measures on fire blight 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: New Zealand, European Communities 
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras.  27-29), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 9-
11), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 36- 38), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 
52-53) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally; G/SPS/GEN/299, WT/DS245/R, WT/DS245/AB/R 
Solution: Consultations requested on 1 Ma rch 2002;  panel requested on 22 May 2002;  
panel established 3 June 2002; panel re port issued 15 July 2003, Appellate 
Body report issued 26 November 2003. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 96  
 
363. In July 2001, the United States maintained that  Japan's requirements for imported apples were 
unduly restrictive.  The United States and Japan ha d agreed on joint scientific research on apples and 
fire blight, and the United States was disappointed that  Japan had not relaxed its import restrictions in 
accordance with the results of the research.  New Zealand agreed that  Japan's phytosanitary measures 
with respect to fire blight were not technically ju stifiable and should be modified accordingly.  New 
Zealand intended to engage Japan in further bilate ral discussions on this issue.  Chile requested that 
the follow-up to this situation be reported to the Committee.  Japan confirme d that the joint research 
had been completed, and indicated that a risk an alysis was being conducted based on the results.  
There were some difficulties in finalizing the eval uation based solely on these results.  Japan desired 
to continue the technical discussion between plant health authorities of both countries. 
364. In October 2001, the United States reported on  bilateral discussions on Japan's quarantine 
procedures on US apples.  Although joint scientific research demonstrated that mature symptom-less fruit was not a pathway for the transmission of fire  blight, a mutually acceptable technical solution 
had not been found.  The United States was cons idering what further steps, including dispute 
settlement, it could take on the matter.  New Z ealand announced it would also seek bilateral 
discussions with Japan on its import requirements for apples.  Japan stated that in order to complete 
the technical evaluation, additional information ha d been requested from the United States. Further 
bilateral contacts between the US and Japan ese experts were considered appropriate. 
365. In March 2002, the United States recalled that Jap an’s quarantine restrictions prohibited apple 
imports from orchards in which any fire blight  had been detected and required: three annual 
inspections of US orchards for the presence of fire blight, disqualification from export if fire blight 
were detected in a 500-meter bu ffer zone around the orchard, a nd post-harvest treatment with 
chlorine.  The United States considered that these restrictions were not consistent with Japan's 
obligations under Article 11 of the GATT, or unde r the SPS Agreement.  The United States had 
requested consultations under Ar ticles 1 and 4 of the Dispute Se ttlement Understanding on 1 March 
2002.  New Zealand and the European Communities also  expressed the view that  Japan's restrictions 
on apples were more trade restrictive than necessary a nd stated their interest in a resolution of this 
issue.  
366. Japan explained that the risk from the entry of fi re blight was very serious.  The United States 
had not provided Japan with sufficient scientific ev idence to amend its phytosanitary measures.  At a 
bilateral expert meeting in October 2001, Japan ha d identified the data that was needed and Japan 
hoped that the technical data would be provided by th e United States so as to al low a resolution of this 
issue.  
367. In June 2002, the United States reported that hi s country had requested the establishment of a 
dispute resolution panel with respect to Japan's meas ures related to fire blight.  New Zealand indicated 
that Japan's measures lacked scientific justificati on and limited NZ exports of horticultural products. 
New Zealand and the European Communities indicated  that their countries shared the US concerns 
and would participate in the dispute resolution proced ure as third parties.  Japan indicated that during 
the bilateral consultations held following the US  request, Japan had indicated its willingness to 
consider relevant data submitted by the United St ates, however nothing had been provided.  Fire 
blight was a serious plant quarantine disease which did not occur in Japan and which could severely 
damage the production of apples, pears and other fruit s.  Japan's measures were  indispensable in order 
to prevent the entry of fire blight, and were fu lly justified on the basis of scientific evidence.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 97 
 
 
117. 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), 
July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Dispute settlement (W/DS/76) - mu tually satisfactory solution notified in 
August 2001. 
 368. 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. 
369. In a document introduced in July 2001, the United States indicated that despite extensive 
consultations with Japan, the United States was still  awaiting implementation of the Panel decision 
(G/SPS/GEN/265).  A mutually satisfactor y solution was notified in August 2001. 
118. Japan - Plant quarantine regulations 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 26), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/JPN/19, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Not reported 
 
370. In March 1997, the United States informed the Committee of bilateral discussion with Japan 
regarding its plant quarantine regulations.  Both Members agreed that the communication process had 
flowed smoothly, and that this was a good example of how the transparency provisions 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. 
371. In July 2001, the United States reported that it had continued to hold bilateral consultations 
with Japan on aspects of its quarantine regulatio ns, including measures rela ted to apple imports 
(G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United States considers this trade concern unresolved. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 98  
 
119. Japan - Amendment of the Japanese Plant Protection Law 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, Canada, Chile, Europ ean Communities, New Zealand, Philippines 
on behalf of ASEAN, Uruguay 
Dates raised: November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, pa ras. 31-34), November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, 
para. 82), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/100, G/SPS/N/JPN/37, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Not reported 
 372. 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. 
373. 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. 
374. In July 2001, the United States indicated that it continued to pursue the matter bilaterally with 
Japan. 
120. Japan – Fumigation standards 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 31-32) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
375. The United States reported that a newly adopted measure by Japan's Ministry of Agriculture, 
Fisheries and Food prohibited the re-fumigation of  fruit or rice which had previously undergone 
fumigation in the United States.  Japan had not no tified this measure and the United States requested 
clarification from Japan on the objective of the measure, its scope, implementation, enforcement and 
projected trade effects, as well as a delay in its implementation. 
376. Japan stated that it would transmit the United St ates' concern to its authorities and respond in 
due course.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 99 
 
 
121. Japan – Restrictions on imports of mangoes 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras.  34-35), October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 
25-26) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
377. Brazil indicated that it had been seeking approval to export mangoes to Japan for 18 years.  
Japan demanded steam treatment in spite of the sa tisfactory level of the measures taken by Brazil, 
Chile and other potential exporters to avoid fruit fly.  Japan had continuously demanded more 
information and had not taken previous scientific studies into account.  Although Japan had offered 
technical assistance, this had not facilitated the pro cess.  Brazil considered that Japan's measures were 
inconsistent with the provisions of the SPS Agreem ent on equivalence, regionalization and technical 
cooperation. 
378. Japan stated that Brazil had requested technical assistance in 1986 but had stopped the 
technical assistance in 1990 becau se it wished to develop its own technique based on hot-water 
treatment.  This design was launched in 1998.  Both  countries agreed on this and the final data was 
submitted in 2001.  Supplementary information was needed, however, before Japan could approve the 
measures and conclude the necessary technical studies. 
379. In October 2003, Brazil stressed that Japan's  restrictions on imports of mangoes were 
unjustified as mangoes were produced in an area 2000 km away from the area where the fruit fly was 
found.  Brazil was waiting for the completion of  the public consultation process in Japan and 
requested Japan to act swiftly to allow the importa tion of mangoes.  Japan reported its authorities had 
recently received data from Brazil on the trapping of  fruit flies and was in the process of reviewing 
the information.  Brazil had subm itted technical information in Oc tober 2001 and the technical studies 
by Japan were progressing well. 
Other Concerns 
122. 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: Not reported 
 
380. 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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 100  
 
REPUBLIC OF KOREA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA  
Food Safety 123. 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: Thailand's comments taken into account – measure amended. 
 
381. 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. 
382. 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. 
383. 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 
being reviewed, although some delays had occurred.  Korea promised to inform Thailand of the final 
outcome. 
384. 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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 101 
 
 
124. 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), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/KOR/9, G/SPS/W/27, G/SPS/W/41, G/SPS/W/43, 
G/SPS/GEN/40, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: The United States and Korea held  formal consultations under dispute 
settlement (W/DS5), and notified a mutual ly agreed solution in July 1995.  
In July 2001, the United States indicat ed that the problem was resolved. 
Canada initiated formal dispute settlement (W/DS20), and a mutually satisfactory solution was notified in April 1996.  
 385. 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. 
386. 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. 
387. 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. 
388. 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. 
389. In March 1997, Australia reported that Ko rea had yet to implement a manufacturer-
determined shelf life for UHT milk.  Australia had provided a scientific submission to Korea 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 
and noted that its new system for shelf-life determ ination set a time-frame for the implementation of a 
manufacturer-determined shelf-life period for UHT milk. 
390. 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 102  
 
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. 
391. In July 2001, the United States indicated that it  considered the trade concern to be resolved 
(G/SPS/GEN/265). 
125. Korea – Guidelines for maximum residue level (MRL) testing 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, European Communities, New Zealand 
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 11-14) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/KOR/123 
Solution: Not reported 
 
392. The United States expressed concern that Kore a's changed import regulation was onerous and 
not supported by science.  Under the new import inspection programme imported grains, fruits and 
vegetables would be subjected to annual MRL tests for the presence of 196 ag ricultural chemicals.  
Importers would have to bear the US$1,800 cost of such tests, whereas domestic producers were 
exempt from the mandatory testing requirements.  Do mestic producers were subject to random test for 
which the Korean Government bore the costs.  Australia, the European Communities and New 
Zealand also requested Korea to amend the measure which they described was contrary to Annex C of 
the SPS Agreement. 
393. Korea responded that it had amended the regul ations to meet its appropriate level of 
protection and noted that there were no comments on the issue when the SPS notification was circulated at the beginning of the year.  Technical de velopments had reduced the cost of testing and as 
such Korea planned to considerably reduce the t esting fees.  The United States replied that it had 
submitted comments on Korea's notification in Marc h and had two meetings in September with 
Korean officials regarding this issue. 
126. Korea – Notification G/SPS/N/KOR/49 on tran sboundary movement of living modified 
organisms 
Raised by: Australia 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 72-74) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/KOR/49 
Solution: Not reported 
 
394. Australia indicated that Korea's notifica tion on the transboundary movement of living 
modified organisms raised a number of concerns .  Australia was a major grain exporter and was 
especially interested in the documents which s hould accompany shipments.  Korea had responded to 
Australia's query, and Australia was examining this  response.  The United States was also concerned 
how Korea intended to implement the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol and in particular the 
documentation requirements. 
395. Korea stated that it was acting in line with th e transparency requirements and would continue 
to do so.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 103 
 
 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to FMD 127. 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: Not reported 
 
396. 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. 
Other Concerns 
128. 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), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/W/64, G/SPS/W/66, G/SPS/GN/6, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Consultations under Dispute Se ttlement initiated (WT/DS3, WT/DS41); 
mutually satisfactory solution found.  
 
397. 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 States expressed serious concern regarding Korea's import 
clearance measures and practices, which were not based on science, did not conform to international 
practice or standards, and were deliberately empl oyed to discourage food and agricultural imports.  
The United States had submitted a formal request for consultations.  Korea replied that these issues 
had been discussed extensively in a series of bila teral consultations with the United States and other 
countries.  Korea had taken 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 internationa l standards.  However, Korea would continue to 
adapt its measures to the SPS Agreement. 
398. 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/Rev.4 
Page 104  
 
399. 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. 
400. In July 2001, the United States indicated that bilateral consu ltations initiated under the dispute 
settlement framework resulted in a mutually sa tisfactory and positive outcome (G/SPS/GEN/265).  
The United States considered th is trade concern resolved. 
 
LATVIA 
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY LATVIA  
Item 
Number 
 Country Maintaining the Measure   
Animal Health and Zoonoses  
TSE Concerns 
Item 2 Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, New Zealand, United States —Import restrictions 
affecting BSE-free countries 
  
MALAYSIA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY MALAYSIA  
Food Safety 129. 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 a nd Singapore were resolved  in July 1999. 
 
401. 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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 105 
 
 
CONCERNS RAISED BY MALAYSIA  
Item 
Number 
 Country Maintaining the Measure   
Food Safety  
Item 63 European Communities – Maximum levels for certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in 
foodstuffs  
 
 
MEXICO 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY MEXICO  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Issues related to FMD 
 130. 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: Not reported 
 
402. 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. 
131. Mexico – Restrictions on Austrian Products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras.  36-37), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, para. 42) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
403. The European Communities stated that Fran ce, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United 
Kingdom had officially regained their OIE FMD-free status without vaccination after the 2001 outbreak.  However, Mexico continued trade restric tions against Austrian animal products, despite the 
fact that Austria had not had a FMD outbreak since 1991.  Austria had applied to be recognized as 
FMD-free by the Mexican authorities.  Mexico i ndicated that Austria failed to meet certain 
requirements to be recognized as FMD-free and enc ouraged the Austrian authorities to complete a 
second questionnaire requesting more details. 
404. In June 2003, the European Communities reported that bilateral consultations had been held, 
and Mexico confirmed that it expected  the issue to be resolved soon. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 106  
 
Plant Health 
132. 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), November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 23-25), March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 46-47) , October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 
112-113), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, pa ra. 138), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, 
para. 131) 
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/N/MEX/172, G/SPS/GEN/82, G/SPS/GEN/105, 
G/SPS/GEN/172, G/SPS/GEN/216 
Solution:  Revised regulation published on 15 April 2002. 
 405. In October 1997, Thailand reported that Mexico  prohibited importation of Thai milled rice 
because of the fungus tilletia barclayana  (Kernel 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. 
406. 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. 
407. 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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 107 
 
 
408. 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. 
409. 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. 
410. In November 2000, Thailand reported that alt hough every effort had been made to find 
resolution to this problem, the issue was still unr esolved.  Thailand had not been informed of the 
status of the matter since the meeting of the Me xican phytosanitary committee in July and August 
2000, and was interested in the expected date of  amendment of the relevant Mexican standard.  
Mexico had no further information. 
411. In March 2001, Thailand reported that during bi lateral consultations, Mexico had indicated 
that it had removed the prohibition on Thai milled  rice, and that Thailand was no longer listed as a 
country under quarantine against Khapra beetle.  Thailand requested that Mexico notify this 
amendment to the SPS Committee.  Thailand was satis fied with the interim measure which allowed 
for the importation of Thai rice upon request by im porters.  However, Thailand was concerned that 
the final publication of the phytosanitary requirem ents had not yet been adopted, meaning that the 
lifting of the ban could not be implemented on a permanent basis.  Thailand would pursue the 
measure bilaterally with Mexico.  Mexico explained that the definitive publication of the measure in 
the Official Journal had not yet been possible due to  administrative procedures requiring legislation.  
However, Mexico would issue phytosanitary certifi cates until the time of publication.  Imports had to 
fulfill certain criteria, including international phytos anitary certificates, inspection at point of entry, 
sampling for laboratory analysis and fumigation with methyl bromide.  Fumigation at place of origin would only be accepted if the product was in plastic bags. 
412. In October 2001, Thailand recalled that in  March 2001 Mexico had announced that 
restrictions against Thai milled rice had b een lifted on condition that it underwent fumigation 
treatment.  Despite this statement, notificati on G/SPS/N/MEX/172 showed that Thailand remained on 
Mexico's list of countries affected by the Khapra be etle and subject to quarantine requirements.  In 
subsequent bilateral consul tations, Thailand had been informed that  it would be removed from the list.  
Mexico expressed surprise at Thailand's statemen t since as of March, Mexico had imported over 
1,000 tonnes of Thai rice.  The product mentioned on the notification in question was not Thai rice. 
413. In March 2002, Thailand noted that a bilatera l meeting with Mexico on the matter had been 
held earlier in the week.  Mexico reported that r estrictions on milled rice from Thailand had been 
lifted as of March 2001, however the publication of the modified regulation had been delayed but 
would take place within 30 days. 
414. In June 2002, Thailand informed the Committee that on 15 April 2002, Mexico had published 
the revised regulation.  Thailand appreciated  Mexico's cooperation on this matter.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 108  
 
133. Mexico – Restrictions on the Importation of Dry Beans 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada, Nicaragua 
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 28-30) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/379, G/SPS/N/MEX/68, WT/DS284 
Solution: Not reported 
 
415. The United States reported that Mexico had unjustifiably implemented a temporary 
suspension on the importation of dried beans from the United States on 21 January 2003.  Canada and Nicaragua stated that they shared the concerns of  the United States.  Canada noted that no provision 
had been made in the Mexican measure for shipments en route.  Nicarugua indicated that access of its 
black beans to the Mexican market had been bloc ked for what it considered arbitrary reasons.   
416. Mexico replied that high level discussions ha d taken place between the Mexican authorities 
and the United States and Canada.  Mexico would communicate in the next few days what steps it 
would take to resolve this issue.  Mexico w ould reply at a latter date to comments raised by 
Nicaragua.  
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY MEXICO  
Item 
Number 
 Country Maintaining the Measure   
Food Safety  
Item 159 United States— Restrictions on melons  
 
 
MOLDOVA 
CONCERNS RAISED BY MOLDOVA  
Item 
Number 
 Country Maintaining the Measure   
Food Safety  
Item 145 Romania— SPS measures on animal products  
 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 109 
 
 
NEW ZEALAND 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY NEW ZEALAND  
Plant Health 134. New Zealand - Proposed import prohibitio n of commodity-country combinations of 
fresh cut flowers and foliage 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Colombia 
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, par as. 68-70), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 44) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/NZL/24, G/SPS/N/NZL/142 
Solution: Proposed measures withdrawn 
 
417. The European Communities was concerned that according to the proposed measure, plants 
not traded for two years might be subject to a prohibition, pending a new risk assessment.  This 
practice was not in accordance with international st andards, and was unnecessary and unjustified.  
Colombia expressed interest in participating in  bilateral exchanges and in receiving relevant 
information.  New Zealand explained that in 1997 it had commenced a review of its import 
requirements for cut flowers as imports were stea dily growing.  New draft standards had been 
approved and notified in 1998, and were  being reviewed in light of the most up to date scientific data.  
At an initial step the review included the suspensi on of historic phytosanitary requirements for some 
countries.  New Zealand had notified its plan to further consolidate the approved country-commodity 
schedules to include only those commodities that ha d actually been exported to New Zealand in the 
past two years.  New Zealand would continue to  address the EC concerns on a bilateral basis. 
418. In March 2002, New Zealand stated that th e proposed measures had been withdrawn. 
CONCERNS RAISED BY NEW ZEALAND  
Item 
Number 
 Country Maintaining the Measure   
Plant Health Concerns  
Item 105 Indonesia —Restrictions on importation of fresh fruit 
Item 115 Japan —Official control restrictions on citr us and other fresh fruits and vegetables 
Item 154 Chinese Taipei – Restrictions on imports of potatoes  
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 110  
 
NORWAY 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to FMD 135. 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: Import conditions clarified. 
 
419. 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. 
420. 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. 
PANAMA C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY PANAMA  
Food Safety 136. Panama - Restrictions on milk powder imports 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, par as. 15-16), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 
135) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/220 
Solution: Not reported 
 
421. In November 2000, the European Communities indicated that since April 2000 the 
Panamanian authorities had delayed issuing the necessary import permits and certificates for the 
import of milk powder for human consumption from Denmark, resulting in a de facto ban on these products.  No explanation had been provided in  response to EC requests, and no notification 
submitted to the WTO.  The European Communities re quested a response by Pa nama to the questions 
contained in G/SPS/GEN/220.  The representative of Panama agreed to submit the questions to his 
capital, and indicated the willingness of Panama to  consult with the European Communities on this 
matter.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 111 
 
 
422. In July 2001, Panama informed the Committe e that it had provided responses to the EC 
questions regarding powdered milk from Denmark.  In these responses, Panama reiterated that it 
applied the same sanitary measures to domestic and imported products.  The European Communities 
indicated that the Commission would study the answers and report back to Panama.  
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Other Animal Health Concerns 
 
137. Panama's restrictions on food products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G /SPS/R/28, paras. 195-196) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution:  Not reported 
423. The European Communities stated  that Panama had instituted a range of severe measures on 
imports of animal products.  Although the law was intended to address risks related to FMD, BSE, 
Newcastle disease and other exotic diseases, the Eu ropean Communities considered the law to be 
disproportionate and not science-based.  In additio n, the measure had not been notified.  Panama 
indicated that it hoped to be able to provide a prompt response.  
Plant Health 
138. Panama – Requirements for certification of consumer rice 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 15), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Import restrictions removed in 1997, concern resolved. 
 
424. In March 1997, the United States noted that Pana ma required imports 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 questio n could not be transmitted through milled rice.  
Panamanian officials had allegedly suggested that  current domestic supply co nditions had influenced 
their decisions.  The representative of Panama rep lied that she would forward a report from capital to 
the US Department of Agriculture. 
425. In July 2001, the United States indicated that Panama had removed its import restrictions on 
rice in late 1997, and that the matter was resolved (G/SPS/GEN/265). 
Other Concerns 
139. Panama's import licenses for agricultural products 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para.26) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 112  
 
426. Canada stated that high level meetings were underway regardi ng the automaticity of Panama's 
import licensing procedures.  Panama stated that Ca nada's concerns were be ing considered by the 
appropriate authorities.  
PERU 
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY PERU 
Item 
Number 
 Country Maintaining the Measure   
Animal Health and Zoonoses  
TSE Concerns 
Item 75 European Communities — Restrictions on the use of fishmeal 
Other Animal Health Concerns 
Item 84 European Communities – Salmonella-related restriction on fishmeal imports  
 
 
PHILIPPINES 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE PHILIPPINES  
Food Safety 
140. Philippines – Certification of meat and dairy products 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: Australia, European Communiti es, Korea, New Zeal and, United States 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 98-100), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, 
paras. 70-71) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/PHL/44 
Solution: Implementation of MO7 deferred indefinitely 
 
427. Canada expressed concerns about the eff ects of the memorandum order MO7 from the 
Philippines Department of Agriculture, noting that it would have serious e ffects upon its exports of 
meat and dairy products.  While Ca nada did not quarrel with the requi rement that imports be produced 
in plants applying HACCP procedures and that there be a certification to this effect, it was not clear 
whether Philippine producers were subject to simila r requirements.  The requirement of a third party 
independent certification was unwar ranted and not the least trade restrictive option.  Canada's 
governmental authority, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, was prepared to certify that exports to 
the Philippines had been produced in HACCP compliant plants and there was no need for additional 
certification by a third party.  The European Co mmunities, Australia, Korea, New Zealand and the 
United States shared this concern.  The EC certif ication requirements already put a lot of emphasis on 
HACCP compliance.  Australia felt that the Philippi ne's proposed measures were not in accordance 
with SPS obligations.   
428. The Philippines clarified that certification of HACCP compliance by third party auditors was 
required in the light of several documented cases of contaminated products entering the country.  The Philippines was concerned that not all shipme nts came from well established HACCP compliant 
plants.  The measures were not meant to replace  or duplicate the exporting country's inspection 
system but to complement it.  The Philippines believe d that appropriate and sufficient time had been 
provided to trading partners and foresaw no problem that trade restrictions might occur especially for  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 113 
 
 
countries claiming to be HACCP compliant.  The Ph ilippines indicated that HACCP was a universal 
guideline approved and propagated by FAO and WHO. 
429. In April 2003, Canada reported that on 24 Februa ry 2003, the Minister of Agriculture of the 
Philippines had announced that implementation of Memorandum Order 7 requiring third party 
certification for HACCP plants had been postponed.   The European Commun ities, New Zealand and 
the United States shared Canada's appreciation of th is decision.  The Philippines confirmed that MO7 
had been deferred indefinitely. 
Plant Health 
141. Philippines - Notification on Chinese fruit imports 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 141) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/PHL/35 and Add.1 
Solution: Temporary ban lifted on the c ondition that those places identified as sources 
of infested exports undertake treatment to effectively kill the insect 
 430. China reported that the Philippines had applie d an emergency restriction on imports of fruit 
from China, notified in G/SPS/N/PHL/35.  The notification indicated that the measure was imposed 
because codling moth had been detected in imports of certain fruits.  However, technical experts of 
both countries had re-identified the intercepted ins ect as peach fruit moth, a common pest.  On this 
basis, the Philippines lifted the quarantine ban, but the addendum to the notification did not clarify the mistaken identification of the pest (G/SPS/N/PHL/35/Add.1).   
431. The Philippines confirmed that further investiga tion had revealed that the intercepted insect 
was not codling moth, but Carposina nipponensis, a sp ecies not previously known in the Philippines.  
The Philippines had lifted the temporary ban on the condition that those places identified as sources of 
infested exports would undertake treatment to effe ctively kill the insect.  This decision was reflected 
in the addendum to the notification, although the Phil ippines agreed to furthe r correct the information 
provided in the notification, to avoid confusion and possible unnecessary restrictions on Chinese 
agricultural products by other Members.  
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY THE PHILIPPINES  
Item 
Number 
 Country Maintaining the Measure   
Food Safety  
Item 7 Australia — Restrictions on imports of sauces containing benzoic acid  
Item 66 European Communities (Belgium) — Measures regarding canned tuna oil  
Item 63 European Communities— Maximum levels for certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in 
foodstuffs  
Plant Health Concerns  
Item 16 Australia— Restrictions on imports of tropical fresh fruit 
Item 25 Brazil —Import prohibition of coconut palms and related products 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 114  
 
POLAND 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY POLAND  
Food Safety 142. 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: Not reported 
 
432. 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. 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to TSEs 
 
143. 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), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 
40-42) 
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, G/SPS/N/POL/25, G/SPS/GEN/265, G/SPS/GEN/322 
Solution: In June 2002, Poland noted th at the regulation had been amended and 
restrictions on gelatine from bovine hides removed 
 433. 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 
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. 
434. 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  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 115 
 
 
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. 
435. In July 2001, the United States indicated  that bilateral discussions on certification 
requirements for bovine gelatin continued (G/SPS/GEN/265). 
436. In June 2002, Switzerland stated that Poland continued to restrict imports of bovine semen 
and gelatin from Switzerland although the OIE had c oncluded that bovine semen and gelatine did not 
present a risk regardless of the BSE status of the exporting country (G/SPS/GEN/322).  The 
representative of the European Communities indicated that EC member States had similar concerns 
regarding Poland's measure.  The representative of  the OIE clarified that Chapter 4 of the 
International Animal Health Code recommended no restriction on bovine semen.  No BSE risk had 
been identified from gelatin made exclusively from hides, however certain treatments were 
recommended with respect to gelatin made from bones if the exporting country were not free from 
BSE. 
437. Poland clarified that bovine semen had never been covered by the Polish regulation in 
question.  Its restrictions on imports of several animal products from Switzerland had been notified in 
G/SPS/N/POL/25.  Furthermore, there had just b een further amendments to the regulation, and 
restrictions on gelatine from bovine hides had been removed.  Poland announced its intention to notify 
this new regulation. 
Plant Health 
144. 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), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Not reported 
 438. 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. 
439. In July 2001, the United States indicated that it continued to pursue the matter bilaterally with 
Poland. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 116  
 
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY POLAND  
Item 
Number 
 Country Maintaining the Measure   
Animal Health and Zoonoses  
TSE Concerns 
Item 2 Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, New Zealand, United States —Import restrictions 
affecting BSE-free countries 
Plant Health Concerns  
Item 147 Slovak Republic —Import restrictions on potatoes 
 
 
ROMANIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ROMANIA  
Food Safety 
145. Romania – SPS measures on animal products 
Raised by: Moldova 
Supported by: China 
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 35-37) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/334 
Solution: Not reported 
 
440. Moldova indicated that Romania had begun to impose EC requirements on imports of meat 
and animal products although Romania di d not meet these requirements domestically 
(G/SPS/GEN/334).  As a result, meat, milk and egg exports from Moldova were  in effect banned from 
the Romanian market, which normally absorbed abou t 80 per cent of Moldova agricultural exports.  
Romania had not provided any scientific justification for its measure.  Its failure to notify the measure 
meant that exporters had not had any time to adap t to the new requirements.  China expressed support 
for the concerns expressed by Moldova and urged Romania to review its measures in this area. 
441. Romania argued that the measure in question was a result of its harmonization with the  
acquis communautaire  of the European Union, and was neces sary to ensure consumer protection.  
Romania stated that this was not a new SPS measure,  so it had not been notified.  Nonetheless, the 
Romanian Ministry of Agriculture was consideri ng ways to address the difficulties posed to Moldova 
from its implementation. 
CONCERNS RAISED BY ROMANIA  
Item 
Number 
 Country Maintaining the Measure   
Animal Health and Zoonoses  
TSE Concerns 
Item 2 Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, New Zealand, United States —Import restrictions 
affecting BSE-free countries  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 117 
 
 
  
SENEGAL 
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY SENEGAL  
Item 
Number  Country Maintaining the Measure   
Food Safety  
Item 63 European Communities— Maximum levels for certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in 
foodstuffs  
 
 
SLOVAK REPUBLIC 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC  
Plant Health 146. 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 Co rr.1, paras. 31-34), October 2001 
(G/SPS/R/25, para. 33) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/SVK/8 and Rev.1, G/SPS/N/SVK/11, G/SPS/GEN/79 
Solution: Hungary reported a mutua lly acceptable solution in October 2001. 
 
442. 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. 
443. 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 accord ing to Article 5.7.  In October 2001, Hungary 
reported that a mutually acceptable solution had been found. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 118  
 
147. Slovak Republic – Import restrictions on potatoes 
Raised by: European Communities, Poland 
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: Measure revised in Ma rch 1999, problems persisting. 
 
444. 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. 
445. 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. 
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC  
Item 
Number 
 Country Maintaining the Measure   
Animal Health and Zoonoses  
TSE Concerns 
Item 2 Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, New Zealand, United States —Import restrictions 
affecting BSE-free countries  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 119 
 
 
SLOVENIA 
CONCERNS RAISED BY SLOVENIA  
Item 
Number 
 Country Maintaining the Measure   
Animal Health and Zoonoses  
TSE Concerns 
Item 2 Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, New Zealand, United States —Import restrictions 
affecting BSE-free countries 
  
SOUTH AFRICA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SOUTH AFRICA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to TSEs 
 
148. 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: Not reported 
 
446. 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. 
447. 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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 120  
 
Concerns related to FMD 
 
149. South Africa – Restrictions on beef and pork 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, par as 19-20), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, para. 
176) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Imports of meat and pork from Br azilian regions free of FMD authorized.  
Problems remaining concerning administrative procedures for meat 
products. 
 448. Brazil stated that in February 2002, South Africa had suspended imports of beef and pork 
from Brazil, because FMD vaccination was practised th ere.  South Africa's import ban was not based 
on the OIE standards nor on scientific evidence or risk assessment nor had the measure been notified. 
Brazil requested South Africa to lift the ban and accept the risk mitigation procedures established by the OIE.  South Africa indicated that they were co mmitted to bilateral consultations with a view to 
find a quick solution to the problem.  In November 2002, Brazil reported that South Africa had 
authorized imports of meat and pork from Brazilian regions free of FMD.  Some difficulties remained 
regarding administrative procedures for meat products , but were expected to be resolved soon.  
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY SOUTH AFRICA  
Item 
Number 
 Country Maintaining the Measure   
Animal Health and Zoonoses  
FMD Concerns 
Item 82 European Communities – Measures related to FMD 
 
SWITZERLAND 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SWITZERLAND  
Food Safety 
150. 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), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHE/14 and Corr.1, G/SPS/N/CHE/15, G/SPS/N/CHE/16, 
G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Not reported 
 449. 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  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 121 
 
 
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. 
450. 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. 
451. In July 2001, the United States indicated  that it considered the issue unresolved 
(G/SPS/GEN/265).  Switzerland had notified amended measures under the TBT Agreement, on which 
the United States had formally commented. 
Plant Health 
151. 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: Not reported 
 
452. 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. 
CONCERNS RAISED BY SWITZERLAND  
Item 
Number  Country Maintaining the Measure   
Food Safety  
Item 8 Australia and New Zealand— Import restrictions on cheese  
Item 129 Malaysia and Singapore — Notifications related to dioxin  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 122  
 
Item 
Number 
 Country Maintaining the Measure   
Animal Health and Zoonoses  
TSE Concerns 
Item 4 Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium,  Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, 
Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, 
Spain, United States and others — Measures related to BSE 
Item 143 Poland— Notifications on veterinary measures  and measures on animal products 
including gelatin 
Item 161 United States —Import restrictions on meat and meat products 
SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU 
(CHINESE TAIPEI) 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINESE TAIPEI  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Other Animal Health Concerns 
 
152. Chinese Taipei – Requirements for heat treatm ent for meat and bone meal in poultry 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 17-18) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
453. The United States indicated that the heat treat ment requirements of Chinese Taipei for dried 
pet food produced in areas affected by Exo tic Newcastle Disease exceeded the relevant OIE 
guidelines and were not supported by scientific ev idence.  Chinese Taipei required that poultry 
ingredients containing bone meal or poultry meat fro m affected areas be processed so that the interior 
of the bone was heated to 60 degrees Celsius for 30 mi nutes, in contrast with OIE guidelines.  Chinese 
Taipei's heat treatment requirements also app lied to poultry originating in disease-free areas. 
454. Chinese Taipei stated that the regulation for pet food was under review  and amendments had 
been proposed. 
Plant Health  
153. Chinese Taipei - Policies  regarding quarantine and non-quarantine pests  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras 33-34) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 123 
 
 
455. The United States expressed concern that Chin ese Taipei's Plant Production and Quarantine 
Act did not distinguish between quarantine and no n-quarantine pests which was detrimental to US 
exports.  Chinese Taipei had agreed to amend this act , however this was expected to take some time. 
In response, Chinese Taipei indicated that problem s arose due to inconsistency between the Chinese 
and English version of the Act.  His authorities had agreed to amend the Act to bring it into 
conformity with the standards of the IPPC. 
154. Chinese Taipei – Import restrictions on potatoes 
Raised by: New Zealand 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 15-16) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
456. New Zealand reported that it had been experienci ng delays with its request for market access 
for potato exports to Chinese Taipei despite fulfillin g all the requirements.  New Zealand had also 
responded to requests by Chinese Taipei for additio nal information which concerned pests not found 
in New Zealand and pests not found on the potato co mmodity exported, but only on the potato plant.  
In considering New Zealand's request, Chinese Taip ei had agreed to use ISPM 10 which provided 
guidance on the Requirements for the Establishment of Pest Free Places of Production and Pest Free 
Production Sites. 
457. Chinese Taipei recalled that New Zealand had first requested access on 20 September 1995, 
although New Zealand did not provide an assurance that its potatoes were free from nematodes until 
April 2001.  In February 2002, New Zealand withdrew its initial request but asked that its proposal be 
considered under ISPM 10.  In July 2002, a new pest  risk assessment was completed.  After a visit by 
officials from Chinese Taipei, Ne w Zealand was asked to provide an updated pest list which was 
received in April 2003.  Further information on the status of pests had been requested in September 
but not yet received.  This was needed before an import quarantine regulation could be prepared. 
TANZANIA 
CONCERNS RAISED BY TANZANIA  
Item 
Number 
 Country Maintaining the Measure   
Food Safety  
Item 64 European Communities— Trade restrictions in response to cholera  
THAILAND 
CONCERNS RAISED BY THAILAND  
Item 
Number  Country Maintaining the Measure   
Food Safety  
Item 47 Czech Republic— Prohibition of poultry meat imports from Thailand  
Item 50 Egypt— Restrictions on canned tuna  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 124  
 
Item 
Number 
 Country Maintaining the Measure   
Item 58 European Communities— Import restrictions on soy sauce  
Item 63 European Communities— Maximum levels for certain contaminants(aflatoxins) in 
foodstuffs  
Item 123 Korea— Import ban on frozen poultry  
Animal Health and Zoonoses  
Other Animal Health Concerns 
Item 10 Australia— Import Restrictions on prawn and prawn products  
Item 11 Australia— Quarantine requirements for chicken meat  
Plant Health Concerns  
Item 15 Australia— Import restrictions on durian 
Item 132 Mexico —Import prohibition of milled rice 
 
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to FMD 155. Trinidad and Tobago - Restrictions on im ports of pork sausages and other pork 
products, fresh, cured or salted 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, pa ras. 32-34), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29 paras. 
65-66), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, par as. 45-46), October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, 
paras. 31-32) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 458. Argentina reported that the health authorities from Trinidad and Tobago had provided two 
responses regarding import requirements for Argentine pork products, fresh cured or salted.  The first response indicated that imports of Argentine por k products were currently banned because of the 
FMD outbreak that had occurred in 2001, and that imports would not be able to resume until the 
health status of Argentina changed to that of a country free of FMD without vaccination.  The second 
response stated that imports of pork products we re allowed only from those countries that had FMD 
free status without vaccination for at least three y ears before the date of export  These requirements 
were stricter than the OIE Animal Health Code, l acked a scientific basis and were not proportionate to 
the objectives pursued.  Argentina a lifting of the ban and copies of the scientific evidence that 
justified the measure.. 
459. Trinidad and Tobago indicated that the issue of importation of Argentine pork products had 
been the subject of ongoing bilateral consultati ons.  As a member of the Caribbean Community 
(CARICOM), Trinidad and Tobago adhered to a regi onal policy for the importation of meat and meat 
products according to which, in the event that  an exporting country had experienced an FMD  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 125 
 
 
outbreak, imports would only be allowed after disease-free status had been achieved without 
vaccination.  The regional decision reflected consensus among member States.  These requirements were transparent and applied in an equitable manner to all countries that had experienced FMD 
outbreaks. Trinidad and Tobago  reaffirmed the count ry's willingness to continue the bilateral process. 
460. In April 2003, Argentina reported that despite  the willingness of Trinidad and Tobago to 
engage in bilateral consultations, no progress had yet been achieved at the technical level.  Trinidad 
and Tobago explained that the OIE Code stated that affected products should not be accepted from 
vaccinated animals. Re-opening of markets was based on consensus among CARICOM members.    Accordingly, Argentina had been advised that the matter should be pursued through the CARICOM 
Secretariat, which Argentinal had done.  CARICOM was committed to finding a mutually agreeable 
solution and had convened a meeting of the region's chief veterinary officers to discuss the matter on 
7-8 April 2003.  It was expected that the ma tter would be fully resolved at the time.   
461. In June 2003, Argentina indicated that its au thorities had provided Trinidad and Tobago the 
information agreed upon after the last Committee meeting.  CARICOM was committed to sending a 
technical mission to Argentina with the aim of accepting Argentine exports.  Trinidad and Tobago 
confirmed that a risk assessment mission was expected to take place within the next two months. 
462. In October 2003, Argentina reported that since the last meeting, its authorities had provided 
information to Trinidad and Tobago on the foot-a nd-mouth disease status of Argentina.  However, a 
visit by three veterinarians from the CARICOM to  dairy factories and sausage production plants had 
been cancelled due to a new outbreak of FMD.  The representative of Trinidad and Tobago clarified that Argentina had postponed the trip, scheduled for 8-12 September, due to the appearance of an 
isolated case of FMD.  CARICOM had yet to be a dvised by Argentina of new dates for the visit.  
Trinidad and Tobago stated that its restriction would not be removed until the risk assessment was 
completed. 
TURKEY 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY TURKEY  
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to TSEs 
 
156. Turkey - Ban on pet food imports 
Raised by: Hungary 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2000 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 6) , June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 129-130) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/316, WT/DS256/1 
Solution: Not reported 
463. The representative of Hungary stated that in March 2001, Turkey ha d banned the importation 
of pet food from all European countries as a resu lt of the BSE epidemic.  Although Hungary was a 
BSE-free country, it was included in the ban's covera ge due to the Turkish authorities' concern about 
cross-infection.  After the Turkish authorities ha d provided an explanation in June 2001, Hungarian 
companies stopped using raw materials derived fro m ruminants in pet food mix, but the ban on 
Hungarian exports remained in place.  Hungary ask ed where the Turkish regulation was published and 
when it had been notified to the WTO.  Hungary al so as requested an explanation of the underlying 
scientific justification for the ban and asked whethe r Turkish suppliers were treated identically to 
foreign suppliers.  The United States and European Communities associated themselves with the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 126  
 
comments made by Hungary and requested to be informed of further developments.  Turkey 
explained that the problem may have arisen as a result of some missing laboratory analysis, as no 
import ban was in place.  Once that information ha d been provided, the importation procedures would 
be complete.  
464. In June 2002, Hungary indicated that Turkey had not provided an official response to the 
questions submitted to it.  Hungary had request ed consultations under the DSU on 5 May 2002.  
Although some progress had been made at the cons ultations, the problem was still pending.  Hungary 
hoped to find an amicable solution by the 5 July 20 02 DSU deadline.  Turkey indicated that since the 
issue was now a formal dispute, confidentiality re quirements had to be respected.  Turkey would 
inform the Committee of further developments at a later stage. 
Concerns related to FMD 
 
157. 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), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, 
para. 127), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 33), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, 
paras. 205-206), June 2003  (G/SPS/R/30, para. 67) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN265 
Solution: The United States reported in July 2001 that its concerns were resolved.  
Hungary's concerns are outstanding. 
 465. 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. 
466. 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.   
467. In July 2001, the United States indicated th at Turkey had assured the United States in 
September 1999 that the import ban was no longer in force (G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United States considered this trade concern reso lved.  In October 2001, Hungary repor ted that its con cerns were still 
outstanding. 
468. In April 2003, Hungary again raised concerns over the on-going restrictions on imports of live 
cattle and beef maintained by Turkey.  Accordi ng to the OIE, Hungary had been free from FMD for 
nearly 20 years.  Hungarian live cattle and beef wa s also free from BSE.  Hungary had questioned this  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 127 
 
 
measure several times bilaterally and in the SPS Committee but had not received any explanation or 
risk assessment studies from Turkey.  Turkey e xplained that many coun tries had imposed import 
restrictions or bans on live animals and animal products originating from some European countries 
due to BSE and FMD to protect their public health and livestock.  Turkey had simply taken the same 
measures based on available information and to sa tisfy the widespread public concern over BSE.  
469. In June 2003, Turkey stated that cattle and beef imports from some EC member States and 
from Hungary had been temporarily suspended as ca ttle from these countries had not been vaccinated 
or achieved immunity against FMD and rinderpest whic h was present in Turkey at that time.  The ban 
had been lifted in 1999, however, due to BSE con cerns, the import of livestock had been partly 
banned again. 
Plant Health 158. Turkey - Restrictions on banana imports 
Raised by: Ecuador 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  97-98), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 36-
38) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/249, G/SPS/GEN/275, G/SPS/GEN/276 
Solution: Formal consultations requested by Ecuador on 10 September 2001 (DS237). 
 
470. In March 2001, Ecuador indicated that Turk ish authorities were issuing phytosanitary 
certificates for a specific and limited volume of bana nas only.  Ecuador believed that the control 
certificates were not only de facto  quantitative restrictions, but also imposed unnecessary and 
unjustified administrative burdens.  Ecuador asked Turkey for a wr itten response to a number of 
questions submitted, and planned to pursue the matter bilaterally.  Turkey replied that due to resource 
constraints, Turkey could not verify whole shipme nts at once.  Turkey had published all relevant 
regulations, as well as testing and sampling met hods.  These were the same for both domestic 
producers and importers and in conform ity with international standards. 
471. In July 2001, Ecuador indicated that the replies received in response to its questions regarding 
the "Kontrol Belgesi" certificates did not seem to co rrespond to the information provided by exporters 
and importers.  Obtaining the certificates had taken up to three times as long as claimed by Turkey, 
there were inconsistencies regarding the duration and validity of the certificates.  In the case of 
bananas, the expiration dates regularly coincided w ith the beginning of Turkey's banana harvest.  In 
addition, the certificates were granted for a ma ximum of one thousand tons, and thus acted as 
quantitative restrictions.  Turkey claimed that one  could obtain several certificates, but exporters 
indicated that one had to use one certificate before a new one was granted.  Turkey replied that the 
certificate was a reference document used in custom s proceedings and food safety analysis during the 
importation process.  The system was described in the Official Gazette, and was not used to limit 
quantities.  Issuance of the certific ates took between three and seven working days if the information 
was complete, and the validation period was between four and twelve months.  Turkey was ready to 
discuss the issue bilaterally.  Chile and Colombia requested to be info rmed of future developments of 
the issue.  The European Comm unities requested to see Turkey's responses to Ecuador's questions. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 128  
 
UNITED STATES  
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE UNITED STATES  
Food Safety 159. United States – Restrictions on melons 
Raised by: Mexico 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G /SPS/R/28, paras. 180-181) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/366 
Solution: Not reported 
 
472. Mexico indicated that on 28 October 2002, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 
imposed an emergency import ban on cantaloupe me lons imported from Mexico.  Mexico considered 
this measure as being disproportionate and not b ased on scientific evidence of any health risk 
(G/SPS/GEN/366).  Mexico requested the United States to suspend the import ban on cantaloupe melons and to comply with its obl igations under the SPS Agreement.   
473. The United States noted that FDA sampling of imported produce found that samples of 
cantaloupe melons from most growing regions in Me xico tested positive for salmonella. The samples 
had been collected both in the fall/winter and spri ng/summer seasons, and it appeared that unsanitary 
conditions in the growing and packing of canta loupe melons had resulte d in four salmonella 
outbreaks.  The import alert recommended officials to detain cantaloupe melons from Mexico at all US ports without physical examination.  The Oct ober import alert expanded pr ior import alerts that 
had targeted specific imports and growers whose produc ts had been linked to outbreaks or had tested 
positive for salmonella.  On 28 October 2002, the United States had announced that they would 
continue to work with Mexico on a food safety pr ogramme for production, packing and shipping of 
fresh cantaloupe melons.  The Mexican Governme nt had proposed a certification programme based 
on good agricultural practices and good manufacturing practices that w ould allow the FDA to identify 
firms that had adopted and implemented such a pr ogramme.  This certification programme was still 
under development and the United States looked forward to its early implementation.  
160. 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: Not reported 
 
474. 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, 
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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 129 
 
 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to TSEs 
 
161. United States – Import restrictions on meat and meat products 
Raised by: Switzerland 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 10-12) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/321 
Solution: Not reported 
 
475. Switzerland reported that following the outbreak of  BSE in Switzerland, the United States had 
banned imports of meat and meat products from Sw itzerland (G/SPS/GEN/321).  The ban applied also 
to meat products processed in Switzerland with me at imported from countries free of BSE, such as 
Argentina or Brazil.  Switzerland had a low incide nce of BSE in terms of the OIE International 
Animal Health Code and the US measure did not fo llow the international standards.  Moreover, the 
US double inspection procedure was in violation of  the SPS Agreement. Bilateral consultations had 
clarified some of the questions raised by Switzerla nd, and would hopefully soon lead to a resumption 
of trade in meat and meat products.  The Europ ean Communities requested to be informed of the 
outcome of the discussions between Switzerland and the United States.  
476. The United States noted that there was a further complication pertaining to the FMD status of 
certain countries providing meat to Switzerland fo r processing and subsequent export to the United 
States. 
162. 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: Not reported 
 
477. 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. 
478. 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 130  
 
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.  
Other Animal Health Concerns 
163. United States – Restrictions on pigmeat 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para . 11), October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras.33-
34) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/214/Add.1 
Solution: Not reported 
 
479. The European Communities drew the Co mmittee's attention to notification 
G/SPS/N/USA/214/Add.1, which recognized Portugal as free of African swine fever.  The phrasing of 
the US notification gave the erroneous impression  that Portugal was "in a region infected with 
classical swine fever", whereas Portugal was recognized as free of classical swine fever by the OIE.  
Several EC member States remained on the US list of countries infected with classical swine fever 
solely because of delays in the US legislative procedure for reclassification, possibly for political 
reasons.  The European Communities was hopeful that the publication of a final classical swine fever 
rule would follow shortly.  The European Commun ities had signed a bilateral veterinary agreement 
with the United States in 1999 on the understa nding that a final rule was imminent.   
480. The United States noted that an outbreak of Afri can swine fever was reported in Portugal in 
1999 and that on 7 January 2000, the United States had notified measures taken in this regard.  In 
spite of the change in African swine fever status , the export of pork products to the United States 
could not commence due to the presence of other anim al diseases. The United States stated that they 
had legitimate scientific concerns related to cl assical swine fever in the European Communities 
following recent outbreaks in Germany, Spain and Luxembourg. 
481. In October 2003, the European Communities st ated that it had provided the necessary 
information and renewed its request to the United St ates to adhere to commitments made in the 1998 
bilateral agreement between the United States a nd the European Communities on issues relating to 
animal health. 
482. The United States explained that it had been wo rking closely with the European Communities 
and interested EC member States on this regiona lization request.  The United States had published a 
final rule in April 2003 which recognised that certain areas of the European Communities were 
disease free.  On 16 October 2003, APHIS ruled that  East Anglia, in the United Kingdom, was disease 
free and was continuing its evaluation of the status of other EC member States.  Outbreaks of both classical swine fever and FMD in France, Spain and Luxembourg had complicated and delayed the response to the regionalization request.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 131 
 
 
164. 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: Not reported 
 
483. 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. 
Plant Health 
165. United States – Restrictions on imports of Chinese potted plants in growing medium 
Raised by: China 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 43-45) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
484. China indicated that US prohibitions on the importation of Chinese penjing in growing 
medium continued almost six years after the risk anal ysis had been finished and the protocol had been 
signed.  The United States had relied on the excuse  of domestic legal procedures and the need to 
coordinate work between the relevant government  agencies to delay solving the problem.  China 
requested the United States to notify its work procedures concerning the removal of measures 
prohibiting imports of plants and pl ant products in compliance with th e transparency provisions of the 
SPS Agreement.  China failed to understand why th e United States had proposed to solve only the 
problem of the importation of one of the types of  penjing plants in growing medium, instead of 
considering the five types for which the risk analysis had been completed.  The European 
Communities supported the concerns raised by Chin a and noted that they had run into the same 
difficulties with other varieties of potted plants.  The European Communities urged the United States 
to find a rapid solution to the problem. 
485. The United States noted that the issue of penjing in growing medium had been the subject of 
extensive discussions with China.  The United States  had been working actively to evaluate China's 
proposed importation, but the importation of plants in growing medium was more complicated from a 
risk mitigation perspective than importation of bare  root plants.  While examination of bare root 
plants could detect certain pests or disease problem s, inspection of potted plants necessarily involved 
the removal of the plant from the pot and the gr owing medium, and could damage the plant and 
reduce its commercial value.  Although the assessmen t of the risk to plant health posed by the 
importation of the five species of penjing was essen tially concluded, other risks needed to be 
evaluated before determination if the importa tion presented an acceptable risk.  US regulatory 
requirements for imported plants and growing medium  reflected the need to  prevent the introduction 
of pests and disease that could seriously undermin e or compromise native ecosystems, as well as 
cultivated plants, and this work was ongoing.  Th e 1997 protocol between the United States and China 
reflected agreement on the technical issues rela ting to production, inspection, and quarantine 
requirements for Chinese penjing that were necess ary but not sufficient conditions for imports to 
occur.  The protocol could not take effect until the risk assessments had been completed, and the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 132  
 
necessary regulatory and notification processes had run their course.  The United States 
acknowledged the importance that China attached to this issue, and indicated their commitment to 
reaching a mutually satisfactory resolution as soon as possible. 
166. United States - Import restrictions on po tted plants from the European Communities 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 30-31) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
486. The European Communities indicated that exports of plants in growing medium had been 
impeded for over 20 years because the United States conduc ted a pest risk assessme nt for each type of 
plant before allowing imports, and each assessment took  several years to complete.  In addition, the 
requirements for accepted species were very rigid a nd not proportional to th e potential risk.  The 
European Communities requested the United St ates to adjust its import requirements and 
administrative procedures to allow for market access.   The United States replied that its requirements 
reflected the need to avoid introduction of pest s and diseases that could seriously undermine native 
ecosystems as well as cultivated plants.  The root s of potted plants, even in an approved medium, 
could not be examined for signs of disease, and other mitigation measures were necessary.  The 
United States was preparing a technical proposal for review by the Commission and EC member States, and had proposed the formation of a joint technical working group to address the issue.   USDA was willing to review any systems certificati on proposal submitted by the Commission or its 
member States, with the understanding that any modi fications to existing US regulations would have 
to be scientifically justified and be subject to the US rulemaking process. 
167. United States – Imports of citrus fruit  
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, pa ra. 89), June 2000 (G/SPS/R/19, para. 10), 
July 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 94-96 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Favourable conclusion reported in  June 2000.  New concerns raised in 
October 2001. 
 487. 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 
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. 
488. 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. 
489. In July 2001, Argentina expressed concerns rela ted to a California court decision to overturn a 
USDA/APHIS risk assessment which had allowed the import of lemons, oranges and grapefruits from 
north western Argentina starting June 2000.  In Argentina's opinion, the judge's reasoning went 
beyond the terms of the SPS Agreement.  As imports  from other destination were not subject to zero 
risk, Argentina felt this amounted to discrimination.   In addition the judge had ruled that APHIS had 
not measured the economic impact of imports on pr oducers in the United States, an economic test  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 133 
 
 
inadmissible under the SPS Agreement.  Argentina requested US authorities to ensure compliance 
with the SPS Agreement by bodies other than the ce ntral government, according to Article 13.  The 
United States confirmed that no problems had b een reported during the two seasons that Argentina 
had had access to the US market for citrus.  US regu lations were subject to judicial review and had 
been challenged through a District Court in Ca lifornia.  Although the Federal Government had 
disputed the case, the Court had ruled in favour of  the complainant in September 2001.  The United 
States indicated that the executive branch agencies were consulting about how to proceed and would 
take Argentina's comments into account.  
168. United States – Imports of clementines  
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras.  7-10), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 58-
59) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
490. The European Communities reported that on 30 November 2001, USDA APHIS announced 
an immediate temporary ban on citrus fruit imports  from Spain following two reported interceptions 
of live Mediterranean fruit fly larvae.  The finds were made in cold-treated clementines from Spain 
stored in close proximity to, and possibly even mixed with, fruits from other sources.  Imports of 
Spanish citrus into the United States had taken pl ace in accordance with a pr otocol agreed in 1987 
comprising pre-shipment inspection, cold treatment , checks at the point of entry and measures that 
should be taken in the event of pest findings.  The European Communities considered the US measure 
disproportionate to the extent and nature of the fi ndings given the impact on trade, and discriminatory 
since other foreign suppliers, also using cold tr eatment, could still export clementines to the United 
States.  The European Communities was also dismayed  by the US decision to study revisions to the 
cold treatment procedure and issue a final rule  accordingly – a procedure which would take a 
considerable period of time.  
491. In June 2002 the European Communities reporte d that Spain and the United States continued 
bilateral efforts to find a resolution to this probl em.  The European Communities expressed concern as 
to whether exports would be allowed to resume by the following season on the basis of a new import 
protocol, given that the slow procedures being fo llowed by the United States might not be concluded 
in time for the new season.  The European Communities indicated that if this were to occur they might 
invoke the dispute resolution procedures.  The United States expressed appreciation for the 
cooperation of the Spanish authorities in the matte r and noted that the comment period had been 
extended in order to permit all relevant parties the opportunity to comment on the US risk assessment. 
169. 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: Final rule published in Decemb er 1999, importation allowed under certain 
conditions. 
 492. 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.  The 
representative of the European Comm unities asked for information on the status of the pest risk G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 134  
 
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 review, and would 
be published within one month after the meeting.  The European Communities requested an update on 
the status of the rule in November 1999, and the Un ited States answered that it would be published in 
the near future.  In March 2000, the United States in formed the Committee that the final rule had been 
published on 30 December 1999, allowing the im portation of rhododendrons under conditions 
designed to prevent the introduction of pests. 
170. United States – Interim rule affecting solid wood packaging material 
Raised by: none; Hong Kong, China is affected 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13,  paras. 3-12), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, 
paras. 2-3), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 35) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/107, G/SPS/N/USA/137, G/SPS/N/CAN/44 
Solution: Not reported 
493. 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 recogn ized 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 woul d provide more information at a later date.  In 
October 2001, Hong Kong, China reported th at no new developments had occurred. 
171. 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: Not reported 
494. 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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 135 
 
 
172. United States – Notification G/SPS/N/USA/705 on implementation of the international 
standard for phytosanitary measures on wood packaging (ISPM 15) 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Chile 
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 50-51) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/705 
Solution: Not reported 
 
495. Argentina agreed that wood packaging could sp read pests, however, the US measures could 
have a negative impact on Argentin a's exports.  The US notification did not provide sufficient time for 
implementing the measures needed for compliance.   For instance, Argen tina needed sufficient 
resources and time to establish the required treatme nt centres for wood packaging materials.  Chile 
supported the statement made by Argentina. 
496. The United States stated that it had received 54 comments from seven other Members on its 
proposed measure and that APHIS was in the pro cess of evaluating these comments to determine how 
to take them into account.  The January implem entation date would be postponed and the measure 
would be phased in over time.  The United States encouraged other Members to adopt ISPM 15 as a 
means of controlling the spread of raw wood pests. 
CONCERNS RAISED BY THE UNITED STATES  
Item 
Number 
 Country Maintaining the Measure   
Food Safety  
Item 31 Chile, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Slovak Republic —Zero tolerance for 
salmonella in imported poultry products 
Item 36 China— Zero tolerance for e-coli  
Item 35 China – Food Safety Regulations affecting agric ultural products produced from modern 
biotechnology  
Item 54 European Communities — Regulations on genetica lly modified food and feed  
Item 55 European Communities — Notifications G/SPS//N/EEC/150 on traceability and labelling 
of genetically modified organisms and food and feed  
Item 60 European Communities — Measures on food treated with ionizing radiation  
Item 62 European Communities — Measure on establishments opera ting in the animal feed 
sector  
Item 67 European Communities (Spain) — Restriction on levels of coppers and cadmium in 
imported squid  
Item 68 European Communities – Restrictions on honey imports  
Item 71 European Communities – Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/191 and Add.1  on food and feed 
control   
Item 102 Indonesia— Ban on hormones in animal production  
Item 124 Korea —  Shelf-life requirements  
Item 125 Korea – Maximum residue level (MRL) testing  
Item 150 Switzeraland — Notifications regarding import re quirements on meat and eggs  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 136  
 
Item 
Number 
 Country Maintaining the Measure   
Animal Health and Zoonoses  
TSE Concerns 
Item 77 European Communities —Rules on "specified risk materials" in products of animal origin 
Item 78 European Communities —Gelatin imports 
Item 79 European Communities (France)— Certification requirements for pet food   
Item 143 Poland— Notification on veterinary measures and me asures on animal products including 
gelatin  
Item 80 European Communities – Proposal on animal by-product  
Item 81 European Communities – Transitional measures on BSE  
Item 148 South Africa— Prohibition on bone-in beef imports from member states of the EC  
Item 173 Uruguay —Risk assessment on BSE 
FMD Concerns 
Item 157 Turkey— Import ban on livestock  
Other Animal Health Concerns 
Item 12 Australia— Ban on salmon imports  
Item 181 Certain Members'— Notifications related to Avian Influenza  
Item 39 China – Certification requirements for aquatic products  
Item 83 European Communities— Ban on antibiotics in feed  
Item 152 Chinese Taipei – Heat treatment for meat and bone meal in poultry  
Item 176 Venezuela— Measures related to Avian Influenza  
Plant Health Concerns  
Item 13 Australia —Access of California table grapes 
Item 26 Brazil —Restrictions on imported wheat 
Item 34 Chile— Restrictions on imports of wheat and fruit 
Item 153 Chinese Taipei's  policies regarding quarantine and non-quarantine pests 
Item 96 Honduras —Restrictions on imports of rough rice 
Item 106 Indonesia —Fresh fruit and vegetables 
Item 115 Japan —Official control restrictions on citr us and other fresh fruits and vegetables 
Item 116 Japan —Import measures on fire blight 
Item 117 Japan— Testing requirements for different vari eties of apples, cherries and nectarines 
Item 118 Japan —Plant quarantine regulations 
Item 119 Japan —Notification on amendment of the Japanese Plant Protection Law 
Item 120 Japan – Fumigation requirements  
Item 133 Mexico – Restrictions on dry beans  
Item 138 Panama— Requirements for certification of consumer rice 
Item 182 Phytosanitary Issues in general 
Item 144 Poland —Restrictions on wheat and oilseeds 
Item 147 Slovak Republic —Import restrictions on potatoes 
Other Concerns 
 
Item 6 Argentina —Pest risk assessment requirements 
Item 94 European Communities —Agricultural biotechnology approval process 
Item 128 Korea— Import clearance measures and practices  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 137 
 
 
URUGUAY 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY URUGUAY  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to TSEs 
 
173. Uruguay – Risk assessment on  BSE 
Raised by: United States, Canada 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 89-92), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, 
para.78, 81) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/URY/5/Rev.1 
Solution: Not reported 
497. The United States observed that Uruguay ha d notified its adoption of the EC BSE 
geographical base risk approach for classifying c ountries.  The United States recalled its BSE-free 
status and the Harvard risk assessment on BSE, and asked that Uruguay take these into account.  
Canada indicated that it was providing information to Uruguay which would c onfirm Canada's status 
as free of BSE.  The European Co mmunities noted that the EC risk classification on BSE was never 
intended to serve as the international norm.  Memb ers should continue efforts to develop OIE risk 
classifications in relation to BSE at the interna tional level.  The European Communities hoped an 
agreement would be reached in the OIE by June-July 2003. 
498. Uruguay stated that it was highly dependent on animal product exports.  If BSE appeared in 
Uruguay it would not only affect the health and lif e of people and animals, but would have an 
economically devastating effect.  Uruguay had adopt ed the emergency measures due to the growing 
number of countries with BSE over the last year an d the increased risk of introducing the disease into 
the country.  According to OIE data, at the end of 2000 there were 12 countries with local outbreaks, 
while that figure currently stood at 22.  Uruguay had adopted the risk assessment criteria established 
by the European Communities until such time as the OIE produced a list of countries classified in 
relation to BSE, and would review its legislation when the OIE finished its  work in this area. 
499. In April 2003, Canada reported that Argentin a and Uruguay had agreed to undertake their 
own BSE risk assessment instead of relying on the EC  BSE risk assessment as the basis for their BSE-
related measures and classification of countries.  Urug uay stated that it was dependent on meat related 
products for 8 per cent of its GDP.  Since 1996, a nu mber of emergency measures had been taken to 
ensure that BSE did not enter the country.  In 2001, a decree was promulgated which would restrict 
food products on the basis of their BSE categorization.  At the present time, this decree was 
suspended and bilateral discussions were ongoing.  Information from both Canada and the United 
States was being reviewed and final categorization of both country's BSE status should be concluded 
within a short period of time.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 138  
 
C
ONCERNS RAISED BY URUGUAY  
Item 
Number 
 Country Maintaining the Measure   
Animal Health and Zoonoses  
TSE Concerns 
Item 108 Israel— Measures affecting imports of bovine meat  
Other Animal Health Concerns 
Item 51 El Salvador— Restrictions on meat and dairy products  
Plant Health Concerns  
Item 92 European Communities —Protected zones 
VENEZUELA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY VENEZUELA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to FMD 174. Venezuela – FMD Restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 20) , June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 46- 47) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
500. Argentina requested Venezuela to accept imports of animal-based products that had followed 
the risk mitigation procedures identified in the OI E Animal Health Code.  Venezuela stated that 
Argentina had not been listed as an FMD-free zone  in an OIE Bulletin dated 17 March 2002, and that 
the Pan-American Health Office had reported on a new FMD outbreak in Argentina in a 6 March 
2002 report. 
501. In June 2002, Argentina noted that despite b ilateral contacts, Venezuela had not provided any 
further information nor its risk assessment to Arge ntina.  Venezuela indicat ed that it recognized the 
region of Argentina south of the 42nd parallel as free from FMD without vaccination, and was 
prepared to import meat from this region.  With r espect to the other regions of Argentina, Venezuela 
followed the OIE recommendations, however it was w illing to consult with Argentina on the matter. 
Other Animal Health Concerns  175. 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: Not reported  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 139 
 
 
502. 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. 
176. Venezuela – Measures related to Avian Influenza 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, para . 25), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/19, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Not reported 
 
503. In July 1997, the United States informed th at non-pathogenic Avian Influenza had been 
detected in a few north-eastern US states.  As a consequence, Venezuela had banned the importation 
of US poultry and products.  The United States contes ted the scientific basis for this measure and was 
concerned that it had not been notified. 
504. In July 2001, the United States indicated that  Venezuela had acted in June 2000 to allow 
market access for US processed  poultry (G/SPS/GEN/265).  Venezuelan authorities had not 
responded to requests from the United States to pursu e this matter bilaterally.  The United States 
believed that the measures lacked scientific justifi cation and considered this trade concern unresolved. 
Plant Health 
177. Venezuela - Phytosanitary requirement s for potatoes, garlic and onions  
Raised by: Argentina  
Supported by: United States, Canada 
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  26-28), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 131), 
October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 99- 100), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 
43), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 54- 55), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 
53-54), June 2003 (S/SPS/R/30, par as.36-38), October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, 
paras. 23-24) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 505. In March 2001, Argentina provided informa tion on Venezuela's import restrictions on 
Argentine garlic because of Urocystis cepulae that had been imposed since 1997.  According to the 
terms of the Andean Pact no quarantine measures ha d been adopted against Argentina.  Regarding 
potatoes, Argentina had begun efforts to gain acce ss to the Venezuelan market in 1996, and had 
provided the necessary information for a risk assessment.  Argentina expressed concern at the 
seeming lack of will on the part of Venezuela to ma ke progress on both issues.  In addition, Argentina 
was concerned about a lack of coherence in th e application of resolution 431 of the mandatory 
sanitary and phytosanitary standards of the Andean  Community, which it would raise with the Andean 
Community.  Venezuela explained that there was no  lack of will to move forward on these issues.  
Regarding garlic, the administrative process to set up the necessary protocols was ongoing.  With 
respect to potatoes, Venezuela believed that Argentine and Andean Community phytosanitary 
standards were not compatible.   Colombia requested  Argentina to submit its concerns to the Andean 
Community. 
506. In July 2001, Argentina inform ed the Committee that bilateral meetings had been held, and 
although the problem had not been completely solv ed, Venezuela had demonstrated a will to find a G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 140  
 
solution.  In October 2001, Argentina requested a technical reply from Venezuela to the questions 
raised during a recent bilateral meeting on the sanitary restrictions on potato imports, so as to facilitate the start of trading in this product.  Venezuela rep lied that it was seeking to prevent the introduction of 
pests that existed in Argentina but were exotic to Venezuela.  The sanita ry services were evaluating 
the appropriateness of alternative methods, such as pest free areas, that would meet Argentina's 
legitimate trade concerns and Venezuel a's appropriate level of protection. 
507. In March 2002,  Argentina informed that bila teral negotiations with the Venezuelan health 
authorities had taken place, but in the protocols ag reed for importation on potatoes, garlic and onion 
the matter of certification and inspection visits by Ve nezuelan officials was left outstanding.  In view 
of the seasonal nature of these commodities, Argentin a was concerned that if the inspection visits did 
not take place soon, no exports would be possible be fore 2003.  In response, Venezuela noted that 
they  were awaiting a proposal from Argentina on a convenient date for the inspection visit. 
508. In June 2002, Argentina stated that there had been no progress in resolving the problems 
arising from Venezuela's restrictions on potatoes, garlic and onions.  Argentina was waiting for the 
onsite visit which Venezuela indicated was necessary before trade could resume.  Venezuela stated 
that some revisions to its requirements had been made, and it was now organizing a technical visit to 
examine the pest surveillance systems in Arge ntine producing areas, with the hope of finding a 
solution to the problem. 
509. In April 2003, Argentina informed the Comm ittee that Venezuelan technical experts had 
visited Argentina to verify its claims of freedom from onion smut ( Urocystis cepulae ).  Discussions 
had entered the final phase and the Argentine auth orities awaited the publication of the Venezuelan 
expert report which should allow the resolution of this issue.  Venezuela reported that bilateral 
consultations with Argentina had taken place prio r to the Committee meeting and that the expert 
report should be available soon. 
510. In June 2003, Argentina reported that it still had not received the fi nal report and urged 
Venezuela to inform Argentina about the results of  the visit so that trade could be initiated.  
Venezuela clarified that imports from Argentina were not prohibited but subject to certain 
requirements.  Furthermore, Venezuela had unde rtaken a risk assessment  which provided the 
necessary justifications.  The results of this assessment would be communicated to the Argentine 
health services as a part of th e mutually agreed work plan. 
511. In October 2003, Argentina noted that Venezuelan officials had visited Argentina in 
December 2002 to confirm the absence of oni on smut.  Argentina had received a report from 
Venezuela just the previous week and hoped it mean t the issue was resolved.  The United States and 
Canada shared Argentina's concerns over delays or denial of import permits without scientific 
justifications.  Venezuela noted that the report ha d been sent to Argentina in March and an import 
protocol could now be completed. 
Other Concerns 
178. Venezuela – Restrictions on imports of po tatoes, fresh mushrooms, fresh tomatoes, 
fertilised eggs, day-old chicks and meat products 
Raised by: Colombia 
Supported by: Chile, United States, Canada 
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 27-29) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally  
Solution: Not reported 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 141 
 
 
512. Colombia stated that Venezuela was not gran ting sanitary certificates for potatoes, fresh 
mushrooms, fresh tomatoes, fertile eggs, day-ol d chicks and meat produc ts and requested that 
Venezuela notify the measure which served as the basi s for the discretionary granting or non-issuance 
of health certificates for Colombian exports, or to  lift this measure.  Chile, the United States and 
Canada supported the concerns expressed by Colombia.   
513. Venezuela provided details of import levels fo r potatoes, mushrooms and fresh tomatoes in 
2001, which showed that import licenses were being granted.  Venezuela had temporarily suspended 
SPS licensing for fertile eggs and day-old chicks as a result of an outbreak of avian flu in Colombia, a 
disease alien to Venezuela, from January 2002.  On 8 February 2002, the prohibition on fertile eggs 
was removed.  Notification of the lifting of restri ctions against day-old ch icks was made on 7 March 
2002.  For meat products, Venezuela noted that her country regularly imported beef on the hoof, 
slaughtered and processed beef and swine products.  In reply to the comments of other Members, she 
stated that it was important not to confuse problem s of administrative capacity and management with 
discretionary licensing.  
OTHER CONCERNS 
FOOD SAFETY  
179. Certain Members – Aromatic polycyc lic hydrocarbures in pomace olive oil 
Raised by: European Communities  
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, para. 166) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
514. The European Communities reported on the final results of the investigation concerning the 
problems with olive oil contamination in Spain in  2002.  The contamination had occurred due to a 
manufacturing error, but the problem had since been resolved.  The restrictions which some Members 
continued to impose on Spanish olive oil were therefore no longer justified. 
ANIMAL HEALTH  
Concerns related to FMD 
180. Certain Members - FMD-related import restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina, European Communities 
Supported by: Bolivia, Brazil, Uruguay 
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras.  56-64), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 
20-23), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 48-49), November 2002 
(G/SPS/R/28, paras. 52-53) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/269 
Solution: New Zealand, Indonesia, Ukraine a nd Switzerland lifted restrictions against 
EC member States after they regained FMD-free status.  Problems with other Members persisting. 
 515. In July 2001, the European  Communities observed that many Members had imposed 
restrictions on products that had been treated in a ccordance with the international standard to destroy 
the FMD virus, and had kept them in place beyond the recognized waiting period of three months.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 142  
 
The principles of proportionality, justification of  measures and regionalization in accordance with the 
OIE Code and Article 6 had not been followed.  Although border controls within the European 
Communities had been eliminated, they had been  replaced by other control instruments.   
516. Argentina expressed concern that many products from Argentina were facing scientifically 
unjustified restrictions that violated Articles 2. 1, 3.1 and 5.1 and the OIE Code.  Plant products, 
except straw and forage, should normally not be  affected by FMD-related measures.   
517. Australia explained that it was asking for r easonable information to allow a scientific 
judgement in the face of a different clinical pres entation in sheep.  Recently, additional restrictions on 
Denmark and Austria and on race horses from the European Communities had been lifted.  Australia would re-examine the restrictions as requested info rmation was received.  The United States clarified 
that its FMD measures on EC countries affected only the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Netherlands 
and France.  The United States had lifted restrictions on EC member States that had not had FMD cases in May 2001, and was currently evaluating the situation in France and Ireland.  The OIE 
representative drew the attention of the Committee to G/SPS/GEN/266, which in Annex 1 contained a 
list of countries that had been confirmed as free of FMD without vaccination, including several EC 
member States.  G/SPS/GEN/240 contained the rele vant Code chapter on FMD, which had been 
thoroughly reviewed betw een 1990 and 1997 and should be ta ken into account by WTO Members. 
518. The European Communities noted its long tradition of good trade with Uruguay and 
Argentina, and hoped the situation would soon be resolved.  In the EC view, Australia's questionnaire 
was out of proportion with the problem to be addressed.  It was not acceptable that non-affected countries received a questionnaire corresponding to an a ffected country wanting to be declared free of 
FMD.  The European Communities appreciated the US reaction regarding unaffected countries, and 
asked the United States to follow the example of Ca nada and New Zealand in handling the crisis.  
Brazil and Bolivia expressed concern that Members were departing from the principles of the SPS Agreement. 
519. In October 2001, the European Communities expressed concern over continued Australian 
restrictions, which affected member States in wh ich there had been no outbreaks of FMD and were 
based on a failure by these countries to reply to an Australian questionnaire.  Canadian and US 
restrictions against Greece also affected a member State where no outbreak had occurred and that had been declared FMD-free in the m eantime.  The European  Communities also brought to the attention 
of the Committee continued US, Japanese and Mexican restrictions against France, the Netherlands and Ireland.  New Zealand, Indonesia, Ukraine and Switzerland had lifted restrictions against member 
States after they had regained FMD-free status.   
520. Australia reported that it was now able to recognize all member States except the United 
Kingdom as FMD-free.  Japan stated that bilateral consultations were continuing with France, Ireland 
and the Netherlands.  The United States reported that  import restrictions con tinued to apply to the 
United Kingdom, the Netherlands, France and Ireland.  The United States reco gnized that the disease 
outbreaks in these countries were limited, no remain ing technical concerns existed, and the United 
States was taking the necessary regulatory actions to publicize the proposals in the Federal Register.  Concerning Greece, the product ban pre-dated the cu rrent FMD outbreak and w as a separate issue.  
Canada recalled that Greece had only recently expr essed an interest in exporting meat products to 
Canada, and the request was being evaluated.  
521. In June 2002, the European Communities re ported that most Members had lifted their 
restrictions related to the FMD outbreak in Europe .  The OIE had just revised its list of countries 
recognized as FMD-free, which included all 15 EC  member States.  However, some Members 
continued to apply restrictions or requirements which served as administrative bans on EC products, 
in particular UK meat and meat products.  Argentin a noted that they also continued to suffer long-
term negative effects from measures kept in place without justification.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
 Page 143 
 
 
522. Japan reported that the Domestic Animal Inf ectious Disease Control Law had been amended 
on 14 June, permitting resumption of imports of po rk meat and products from France and Ireland.  
The comment period regarding a proposed lifting of the import ban on Dutch products had just 
concluded, and the ban could be lifted as early as mid-July. 
523. In November 2002 the European Communities noted disappointment that some unnecessary 
and unreasonable FMD trade barriers continued to affect EC exports, in violation of the SPS 
Agreement.  Mexico imposed a number of BSE-related measures that had a detrimental effect on exports from Austria, although Austria had regi stered no cases of FMD in the course of the 2001 
outbreaks.  Bilateral meetings on the matter had been unsuccessful.  Mexico indicated that it recognized Austria as being FMD free but were waiting to receive a request from Austria for plant 
inspections.  Argentina supported the comments made  by the European Comm unities with regards to 
FMD-related measures taken by certain Members. 
Other Animal Health Concerns  
181. Certain Members – Notifications related to Avian Influenza 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 63-66) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
524. The United States noted that although internati onal standards existed with regard to avian 
influenza, differences in the understanding and in terpretation of these standards was resulting in 
unjustified trade barriers.  The OIE considered hi ghly pathogenic avian influenza as a List A disease, 
however low pathogenic strains were not considered to have any significant animal health or socio-
economic consequences.  However, some Members had restricted imports of poultry products from 
the United States due to a strain of low pathogenic avian influenza in two poultry flocks in the state of Virginia.  The United States requested that the OIE national and regional offices take a pro-active role 
in advising their members on this matter.  Japan obs erved that there was a possibility of variation in 
the strains, with a case of a low pathogenic strain causing an outbreak that later varied to a high 
pathogenic strain.  Japan had provided scientific ev idence in this regard to  the United States, and 
believed that its measure was fully justified.  
525. The OIE confirmed that the OIE Animal Hea lth Code referred to highly pathogenic or 
virulent avian influenza;  most strains of avian in fluenza were of low pathogenicity and did not cause 
economic effects.  However, the OIE Manual of Sta ndards also made reference to low pathogenicity 
viruses in laboratory tests through mutation showing highly pathogenic effects in the field.  The OIE 
was working on a definition to include such viruses.  The Philippines noted that the OIE Manual also 
included some text related to low pathogenic strain s as these strains could also cause clinical disease 
and problems. 
P
LANT HEALTH  
182. 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: Not reported G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.4 
Page 144  
 
 526. 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. 
183. Implementation of ISPM 15 
Raised by: Chile 
Supported by: Argentina, Colombia, Mexico, Paraguay, Uruguay 
Dates raised: October 2003 (G /SPS/R31, paras. 135-137) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/435 
Solution: Not reported 
 
527. Chile stated that Members should take into c onsideration the zone of production of the wood 
and allow sufficient time for countries to adapt thei r treatment methods to meet the ISPM 15 standard 
when adopting the measures.  Compliance with the st andard required the private sector to make large 
scale investments, a certification process to regist er the mark on packaging, establishment of an 
accreditation system, and the setting up of supervisor y and audit systems.  Chile's concerns were 
detailed in document G/SPS/GEN/435.  
528. Uruguay stated that it was the implementation of the standard that was the problem.  
Argentina supported the comments make by Chile and Uruguay.  Mexico stated that problems could arise with implementing this standard and that discu ssions on this issue should continue in the context 
of the SPS Committee.  Paraguay and Colomb ia supported the comments made by others. 
529. Canada commented that the standard was not ne w as it had been adopted by the IPPC in June 
2002.  Canada had planned to implement the standa rd in June 2003 but  delayed its implementation 
until January 2004 to give Members sufficient time to adapt wood treatment processes.  Canada would provide a transition period and recommended that the issue be discussed under Agenda 
Item 7(a) regarding the use of international standards. 
__________