G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
14 March 2019  
(19-1552) Page: 1/151 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
SPECIFIC TRADE CONCE RNS 
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
Revision  
At the 15 -16 March 2000 meeting of the Committee  on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
(the SPS Committee) , the Secretariat was requested to prepare a paper summarizing the specific 
trade concerns (STCs) that had been brought to the Committee's attention since 1995.2 
The Secretariat has revised this document annually to include new information provided by Memb ers 
(G/SPS/GEN /204/Rev.1 to G/SPS/GEN /204/Rev. 18). The STCs in the 19th revision  of 
G/SPS/GEN/204 maintain the previously  assigned numbers according to the chronological order of 
the Committee meetings i n which they were first raised.  These numbers serve a s unique identifiers 
and are  intended to facilitate the tracking of issues raised  over time.3 In preparing this document , 
the Secretariat has largely relied on the SPS Informati on Management System (SPS IMS).4 
 
The 19th revision of G/SPS/GEN/204 is divided into two sections : 
 
a. General overview  of Specific Trade Concerns ; and 
b. Specific Trade Concern s discussed in 2018. 
 
Section 1  of the document contains summary statistics and graphs for all the STCs raised in the SPS 
Commit tee between the first regular meeting of 1995 and the last regular meeting of 2018. The STCs 
are categorized as relating to food safety, animal or plant health. This section also includes a 
summary table which identifies for each STC according to the assig ned number, the  Member(s) 
maintaining the measure, the Member(s) raising the concern, as well as information on whe ther the 
STC has been reported to have been resolved . 
 
Section 2  of the document contains information regarding all STCs which were raised in  the 
SPS Committee in 2018. This includ es (1) STCs raised for the first time in 2018; and (2) STCs which 
were previously raised and discussed again in 2018. Additionally, this section lists STCs for which 
there was no substantive discuss ion in the Committe e during 2018, but where Members reported 
that a previously raised issue had been resolved, partially resolved or where substantive action on 
the issue occurred in another WTO body during 2018 (e.g., establishment of a dispute resolution 
panel on the issue ). 
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice to 
the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  
2 G/SPS/R/18, para. 20. 
3 An "issue" in this document refers to a trade concern raised by a Member, which then receives a 
"specific trade concern (STC) " sequential number. When the same issue is raised by more than one Member, it 
falls under the same STC number. Also, w hen Members raise issues covering similar measures maintained by 
more than one Member, they are grouped under the same STC number. This explains the different number of 
STCs, issues and measures counted in this document.  
4 http://spsims.wto.org . G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Table of contents  
Page 
1   GENERAL OVERVIEW  OF SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS  ................................ .................  6 
Chart 1.1 – Number of New STCs Raised  ................................ ................................ ................  6 
Chart 1.2a – STCs by Subject (1995 -2018)  ................................ ................................ ............  6 
Chart 1.2b – STCs Related to Animal Health & Zoonoses (1995 -2018)  ................................ ....... 7 
Chart 1.3a – Participation in Issues Raised by WTO Members (1995 -2018)  ................................  8 
Chart 1.3b – Number of New Issues Raised by Members  ................................ ..........................  8 
Chart 1.4 – Resolved STCs  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 9 
Table 1.1 - List of Specific Trade Concerns (1995 –2018)  ................................ ......................... 10 
2   SPECIFIC TRADE C ONCERNS CONSIDERED I N 2018  ................................ ..................  31 
Chart 2.1 – STCs by Subject – 2018 ................................ ................................ ..................... 31 
Chart 2.2 - STCs Related to Animal Health & Zoonoses – 2018 ................................ ................ 31 
Chart 2.3 - Participation of Members in STCs – 2018 ................................ .............................. 32 
Table 2.1 – STCs Raised for the First Time in 2018  ................................ ................................ .33 
Table 2.2 - STCs Previously Raised and Discussed Again in 2018  ................................ ............. 35 
Table 2.3 - STCs Reported as Resolved, Partially Resolved or Where Substantive Action  
Occurred in Another WTO Body in 2018  ................................ ................................ ................ 37 
2.1   Brazil  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  38 
2.1.1    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 38 
Measures on shrimp (STC 344)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 38 
2.2   China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  41 
2.2.1    Food safety  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 41 
China's proposed a mendments to the implementation regulations on safety assessment of 
agricultural GMOs (STC 395)  ................................ ................................ ............................... 41 
2.2.2    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 45 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  ................................ ................................ ..45 
China's import restrictions due to African swine fever (STC 392)  ................................ .............. 45 
China's import restrictions due to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (STC 406)  ......................... 48 
2.2.3    Other concerns  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 52 
Lack of transparency for certain SPS measures (STC 184)  ................................ ...................... 52 
2.3   Costa Rica  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  58 
2.3.1    Plant Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 58 
Costa Rica's suspension of the issuing of phytosanitary import certificates for  
avocados (STC 394)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 58 
2.4   European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 61 
2.4.1    Food safety  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 61 
Categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors (STC 382)  ................................ .............. 61 
France's dimethoate -related restrictions on imports (STC 422)  ................................ ................ 75 
EU maximum residue levels for acrinathrin, met alaxyl and thiabendazole (STC 428)  .................. 78 
EU maximum level of cadmium in foodstuffs (STC 430)  ................................ .......................... 80 
EU restrictions on poultry meat due to Salmonella detection (STC 432)  ................................ ....84 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 3 - 
 
  EU Commission Decision 2002/994/EC on animal products (STC 442)  ................................ ......86 
EU restrictions on poultry meat and poultry meat preparations (Regulation (EU) No.  2018/700) 
(STC 443)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 87 
EU review of legislation on veterinary medicinal products (STC 446) ................................ ........ 88 
New EU definition of the fungicide folpet (STC 447)  ................................ ................................ 92 
EU MRLs for buprofezin, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, ioxynil, molinate, picoxystrobin and 
tepraloxydim (G/SPS/N/EU/264) (STC 448)  ................................ ................................ .......... 93 
2.4.2    Other Concerns  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......96 
European Court of Justice Opinion 528/16 on organisms obtained  by mutagenesis (STC  452) ......96 
2.5   Guatemala  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  97 
2.5.1    Food Safety  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 97 
Guatemala's restrictions on egg products (STC 413)  ................................ ............................... 97 
2.6   India  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  98 
2.6.1    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 98 
Import restrictions on bovine semen (STC 61)  ................................ ................................ .......98 
2.6.2    Plant Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  100 
India's fumigation requirements for cashew nuts (STC 427)  ................................ ..................  100 
2.7   Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  102  
2.7.1    Other Concerns  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 102 
Lack of transparency and undue delays in Indonesia's approval procedures for animal products 
(STC 441)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  102 
2.8   Japan  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  104  
2.8.1    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 104 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  ................................ ................................  104 
2.9   Korea, Republic of  ................................ ................................ ................................  104  
2.9.1    Food Safety  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..........  104 
Strengthened import restrictions on food and feeds products with regard to  
radionuclides (STC 359)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 104 
2.9.2    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 107 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  ................................ ................................  107 
Korea's import restrictions due to African swine fever (STC 393)  ................................ ...........  107 
2.10   Mexico  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  110  
2.10.1    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 110 
Restrictions on imports of swine meat (STC 271)  ................................ ................................ . 110 
Mexico's market access requirement for casein products (STC 436) ................................ ........  112 
2.11   New Zealand  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 112  
2.11.1    Plant Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  112 
New Zealand's dr aft import health standard for vehicles, machinery and equipment (STC  440).. 112 
2.12   Panama  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  114  
2.12.1    Food Safety  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  114 
Panama's restric tions on beef and poultry meat (STC 444)  ................................ ....................  114 G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.13   Russian Federation  ................................ ................................ .............................  114  
2.13.1    Food Safety  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  114 
The Russian Federation's import restrictions on processed fishery products from Estonia  
 and Latvia (STC 390)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 114 
Russian Federation import restrict ions on certain animal products from Germany (STC  411) ..... 120 
The Russian Federation's restrictions on beef and swine meat (G/SPS/N/RUS/14 5) (STC  445) ... 123 
The Russian Federation's bluetongue -related import restriction on ruminants (STC 449)  ...........  124 
2.13.2    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 125 
Russia's measures on live pigs and pork products due to African Swine Fever (STC 369)  ..........  125 
2.14   Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  ................................ ................................ ...................  126  
2.14.1    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 126 
Saudi Arabia's temporary ban on the importation of fish, crustaceans and other aquatic  
animal products (STC 437)  ................................ ................................ ................................  126 
South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to Highly Pathogenic Avian  
Influenza (STC 431)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  127 
2.15   Chinese Taipei  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 128  
2.15.1    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 128 
General import  restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  ................................ ................................  128 
2.16   Thailand  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  128 
2.16.1    Plant Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  128 
Thailand's import restriction on papaya seeds (STC 421)  ................................ ......................  128 
2.16.2    Other Concerns  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 131 
Thailand's import fees related to approval procedures for live animals and/or animal  
products (G/SPS/N/THA/243) (STC 451)  ................................ ................................ .............  131 
2.17   Ukraine  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  131  
2.17.1    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 131 
Ukraine import restrictions on poultry and poultry products (STC 315)  ................................ ... 131 
2.18   United States of America  ................................ ................................ ....................  132  
2.18.1    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 132 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  ................................ ................................  132 
2.18.2    Plant Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  132 
US import restri ctions on apples and pears (STC 439)  ................................ ..........................  132 
2.18.3    Other Concerns  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 134 
US seafood import monitoring programme (STC 415)  ................................ ...........................  134 
2.19   Viet Nam  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  136  
2.19.1    Food Safety  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  136 
Viet Nam's draft amendment to Circular 24 on MRLs for veterinary drugs (STC 435)  ................  136 
Viet Nam's import restrictions in the draft law of animal production (STC 450)  ........................  137 
2.19.2    Plant Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  139 
Viet Nam's suspe nsion of groundnut seed imports (STC 418)  ................................ ................  139 
2.19.3    Other Concerns  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 140 
Viet Nam's market access requirements for "white" offals (STC 438)  ................................ ...... 140 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.20   Certain Members  ................................ ................................ ................................  141  
2.20.1    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 141 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  ................................ ................................  141 
 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1  GENERAL OVERVIEW  OF SPECIFIC TRADE C ONCERNS  
1.1.  Altogether, 452 STCs have been raised in the 24 years between 1995 and the end of 2018. 
Chart 1.1 shows the number of n ew STCs raised each year . Eighteen  new STCs were raised in 2018. 
Chart 1.1 – Number of New STCs  Raised  
 
1.2.  Chart 1. 2a categorizes  the 452 STCs raised since 1995  into food safety, animal or plant health 
or other concerns . Overall , 33% of STCs relate to food safety concerns, 24% relate to plant health, 
and 7% relate to  other issues such as certificati on requirements , control or inspection procedures . 
36% of STCs raised relate to animal health and zoonos es. 
Chart 1. 2a – STCs  by Subject  (1995 -2018) 
 
1.3.  STCs related to animal health and zoonoses are further divided into foot -and-mouth disease 
(FMD), transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), avian influenza (AI) and other animal 
health concerns (OAH). Chart 1.2b shows that TSEs account for 30% of animal  health concerns, 
while 23% relate to FMD and 10% to avian influenza concerns. The remaining 37% relate to other 
animal health concerns.  
051015202530354045
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 20182112423
13
102843
29
2131
1016 16
1322
16 1624
1421
141718
Animal Health
36%Food safety
33%Other
7%
Plant Health
24%G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Chart 1.2b – STCs  Related to Animal Health & Zoonos es (1995 -2018) 
 
1.4.  Developing countries are participating actively under this agenda item in the SPS Committee 
meetings. Chart 1. 3a indicates that over 24 years, developing country Members have raised 
271 issues5, compared to 252 issues raised by developed country Members , and nine issues raised 
by least -developed country Members.6 A developing country Member  has supported another Member 
raising an issue  388 times , compared  to 212 times developed country Member s supported an issue , 
and 22 times least-developed country Members  supported  an issue. 268 measure s at issue w ere 
maintained by a develop ing country Member, and 244 measures were maintained b y a develop ed 
country Member. One issue has been raised regarding measures maintained  by a least-developed 
country Member.  
1.5.  Chart  1.3b shows the number of new issues raised each year by each category of Member.  
1.6.  Charts 1.3a and 1.3b reflect the number of issues  raised by Members at SPS Committee 
meetings , which are then numbered under STCs. The same issue can be raised by more than one 
Member, in which case it is grouped under the same STC  number . Therefore, the number of issues 
raised can be larger than  the number of STCs.7 
  
                                                
5 On many occasions more than one Member has raised, supported or maintained an issue . 
6 On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty 
establishing t he European Community  (done at Lisbon, 13 December 2 007) entered into force. On  29 November 
2009, the WTO received a Verbal Note (WT/L/779) from the Council of the European Union and the Commission 
of the European Communities stating that, by virtue of the  Treaty of Lisbon , as of 1  December  2009, the 
European Union replaces and  succeeds the European Community.  However, the European Union is referred to as 
the European Community  when an STC w as raised or discussed before 1  December 2009 . The European Union 
is counted as one Member. Similarly, when one Member speaks on behalf of ASEAN, it is counted as one Member 
only. 
7 See footnote 3.  
AI
10%
FMD
23%
OAH
37%TSE
30%AI
FMD
OAH
TSEAvian influenza
Foot-and-mouth 
disease
Other animal health
Transmissible 
spongiform 
encephalopathiesG/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Chart 1.3a – Participation in Issues Raised by WTO Members (1995 -2018) 
 
Chart 1.3b – Number of New Issues  Raised by Members  
 
1.7.  Chart  1.4 shows that out of the 452 STCs raised since 1995, 167 STCs (37%) have been 
reported resolved , and 33 STCs (8%) have been reported to be partially resolved. In these  partially 
resolved STCs , trade may have been allowed for selected products or by some of the importing 
Members mainta ining the measure in question.  In 201 8 specifically, two STCs were reported as 
resolved . 
1.8.  No solutions have been reported for the remaining  252 STCs. Of these , 214 STCs were raised 
more than one year ago  with no reported re solution . However, some of these STCs may have been 
resolved without  the Committee being made aware of these developments.  
Members Raising the Issue Supporting Members Members Maintaining the
Measure252
212244271388
268
922
1Number of Members
Developed Economies Developing Countries Least-developed countries
4101720
9
52129
20
1516
710
6
25788
411
4410
21114
5522
20
121116
56101318
12
1016
1315
1114
10
3
1 14Number of Issues
Developed Economies Developing Countries Least-developed countriesDeveloped Countries  
Developed Countries  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 9 - 
 
  Chart 1.4 – Resolved STCs  
 
 
  
No solution reported Solution reported Partial solution reported252
167
33Number of STCs
StatusG/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 10 - 
 
  Table 1 .1 - List of Specific Trade Concerns (1995 –2018) 
STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
1995 
1 Shelf-life requirements  Korea, Republic of  Australia, 
Canada, United 
States of 
America  PR 
2 Import clearance measures 
and practices  Korea, Republic of  United States 
of America  R 
1996 
3 Restrictions on gelatine  
imports  Norway  Brazil  R 
4 Measures related to BSE  Argentina, Australia, 
Austria, Belgiu m, Brazil, 
Canada, Chile, 
Czech  Republic, France, 
Germany, Italy, 
Netherlands, Poland, 
Romania, Singapore, 
Slovak Republic, Slovenia, 
Spain, United States of 
America  Switzerland  R 
5 Import requirements for 
wine Brazil  European 
Union  R 
6 Importation of cheese  Canada  European 
Union  R 
7 Regionalization in  relation to 
animal health  United States of America  European 
Union  NR 
8 Ban on salmon imports  Australia  Canada, United 
States of 
America  R 
9 Zero-tolerance for 
salmonella in imported 
poultry products  Chile, Czech Republic, 
El Salvador, Honduras, 
Slovak Republic  United States 
of America  NR 
10 Imports of potatoes  Czech Republic  European 
Union  R 
11 Restriction on levels of 
copper and cadmium in 
imported squid  Spain, European Union  United States 
of America  R 
12 Testing requirements for 
different varieties  of apples, 
cherries and nectarines  Japan  United States 
of America  R 
13 Translation of regulations  Japan;  Korea, Republic of  Argentina  NR 
1997 
14 Restrictions on imported 
wheat  Brazil  United States 
of America  R 
15 Zoosanitary  import policies 
pertaining to BSE  Canada  European 
Union  NR 
16 Restrictions on imports of 
wheat and fruit  Chile United States 
of America  R 
17 Cosmetics and  BSE European Union  Australia  R 
18 Certification requirements 
for pet food  France, European Union  United States 
of America  NR 
19 Protected zones  European Union  Uruguay  NR 
20 Restrictions on imports of 
rough rice  Honduras  United States 
of America  R 
                                                
8 NR = Not Reported, PR = Partially Resolved, R = Resolved.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 11 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
21 Fresh fruit and vegetables  Indonesia  Australia, 
United States 
of America  NR 
22 Measures affecting imports 
of bovine meat  Israel  Uruguay  R 
23 Plant quarantine regulations  Japan  United States 
of America  NR 
24 Requirements for 
certification of consumer 
rice Panama  United States 
of America  R 
25 Restrictions on wheat and 
oilseeds  Poland  United States 
of America  NR 
26 Phytosanitary issues in 
general  Certain Members  United States 
of America  R 
27 Citrus canker  European Union  Argentina  R 
28 Notification on wheat, rye 
and triticale  Switzerland  Argentina  R 
29 Measures related to avian 
influenza  Venezuela,  Bolivarian 
Republic of  United States 
of America  NR 
30 Regulation concerning 
warehouses and silos  Czech Republic  European 
Union  R 
31 Rules on "specified risk 
materials" in products of 
animal origin  European Union  United States 
of America  NR 
32 Gelatine  imports  European Union  Brazil, United 
States of 
America  PR 
33 Salmonella -related 
restriction on fishmeal 
imports  European Union  Chile, Peru  PR 
34 Measures regarding FMD  Japan  Argentina, 
European 
Union  PR 
35 Import ban on frozen 
poultry  Korea, Republic  of Thailand  R 
36 Import prohibition of milled 
rice Mexico  Thailand  R 
37 Actions taken by local 
governments  United States of America  Chile R 
1998 
38 Temporary prohibition of 
fresh pork and products  Argentina  European 
Union  R 
39 Maximum levels for certain 
contaminants (aflatoxins) in 
foodstuffs  European Union  Argentina;  
Australia;  
Bolivia, 
Plurinational 
State of ; 
Brazil;  The 
Gambia;  India;  
Indonesia;  
Malaysia;  
Philippines;  
Senegal;  
Thailand  R 
40 Trade restrictions in 
response to cholera  European Union  Tanzania  PR 
41 Restrictions on imports of 
apples, pears and quinces  Slovak Republic  Hungary  R G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 12 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
42 Import restrictions on 
potatoes  Slovak Republic  Poland, 
European 
Union  R 
43 Prohibition on bone -in beef 
imports from EC member 
States  South Africa  European 
Union  R 
44 Measures related to BSE  United States of America  European 
Union  NR 
45 Import restrictions on 
cheese  Australia, New Zealand  European 
Union, 
Switzerland  R 
46 Import prohibition of 
coconut palms and related 
products  Brazil  Philippines  NR 
47 Measure on establishments 
operating in the animal feed 
sector  European Union  United States 
of America  NR 
48 Import ban on livestock  Turkey  Hungary, 
United States 
of America  R 
49 Restrictions on imports of 
sauces containing benzoic 
acid Australia  Philippines  R 
50 Quarantine requirements for 
chicken meat  Australia  Thailand  NR 
51 Prohibition of poultry meat 
imports  Czech Republic  Thailand  R 
52 Measures on food treated 
with ionizing radiation  European Union  United States 
of America  NR 
53 Emergency measures on 
citrus pulp  European Union  Brazil  R 
54 Notifications regarding 
import requirements on 
meat and eggs  Switzerland  United States 
of America  R 
55 TSE-related import 
restrictions of live cattle  Israel  European 
Union  R 
56 Notification on amendment 
of the Japanese Plant 
Protection Law  Japan  United States 
of America  NR 
57 Requirements for imports of 
milk and milk products  Poland  European 
Union  R 
58 Notification on refrigeration 
and labelling requirements 
for shell eggs  United States of America  European 
Union  NR 
59 Interim rule affecting solid 
wood packaging material  United States of America  Hong Kong, 
China  R 
1999 
60 Import restrictions on 
bovine semen and embryos, 
milk and milk products  Argentina  European 
Union  R 
61 Import restrictions on 
bovine semen  India Canada, 
European 
Union  R 
62 Restrictions on imports of 
horses  India European 
Union  NR 
63 Information on dioxin  Certain Members  European 
Union  R G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 13 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
64 Ban on antibiotics in feed  European Union  United States 
of America  NR 
65 Import restrictions on beef  Korea, Republic of  Argentina  NR 
66 Notifications related to 
dioxin  Malaysia, Singapore  Switzerland  R 
67 Import restrictions on beef  Mexico  Argentina  NR 
68 Notifications on veterinary 
measures and measures on 
animal products including 
gelatine  Poland  Switzerland, 
United States 
of America  R 
69 Import restrictions on 
rhododendrons in growing 
medium  United States of America  European 
Union  R 
70 Import conditions for pork 
meat and products  Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of  European 
Union  NR 
71 Restrictions on meat and 
dairy products  El Salvador  Uruguay  R 
72 Measures regarding canned 
tuna in oil  Belgium, European Union  Philippines  NR 
73 Imports of citrus fruit  United States of America  Argentina  R 
2000 
74 Restrictions on imports of 
tropical fresh fruit  Australia  Philippines  NR 
75 Notification on meat and 
meat products  Iceland  Argentina  R 
76 Ban on pet food imports  Turkey  Hungary  R 
77 Restrictions on canned tuna  Egypt  Thailand  NR 
78 Notification on methyl 
bromide  Australia  European 
Union  R 
79 Import restrictions on 
durian  Australia  Thailand  NR 
80 Restrictions on poultry meat 
imports  Bolivia, Plurinational State 
of Chile R 
81 Wood  packing material  European Union  Canada  R 
82 Restrictions on importation 
of fresh fruit  Indonesia  New Zealand  R 
83 Restrictions on milk powder 
imports  Panama  European 
Union  R 
2001 
84 Import restrictions affecting 
BSE-free countries  Argentina;  Australia;  
Canada;  Korea, Republic 
of; New Zealand;  United 
States of America  Bulgaria, 
Croatia, 
Czech  Republic, 
Estonia, Latvia, 
Poland, 
Romania, 
Slovak 
Republic, 
Slovenia  NR 
85 Import restrictions on 
prawns and prawn products;  
revised generic IRA for 
prawns and prawn products  Australia  China, Thailand  PR 
86 Access of California table 
grapes  Australia  United States 
of America  R 
87 Measures affecting imports 
of products containing 
Brazilian beef  Canada  Brazil  R G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 14 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
88 Import restrictions due to 
FMD Canada, United States of 
America  Hungary  R 
89 Import restrictions on soy 
sauce  European Union  Thailand  NR 
90 Restrictions on bovine 
products  Hungary  Canada  R 
91 Restrictions on  pork 
products  Hungary  Canada  R 
92 Restrictions on banana 
imports  Turkey  Ecuador  R 
93 Phytosanitary requirements 
for potatoes, garlic and 
onions  Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of  Argentina  NR 
94 EC Directive 2000/42 /EC on 
pesticide residues  European Union  Côte d'Ivoire  NR 
95 Legislation on the fungicide 
thiabendazole (TBZ)  European Union  Israel  NR 
96 Geographical BSE risk 
assessment  European Union  Canada, Chile, 
India R 
97 Restrictions on the use of 
fishmeal  European Union  Chile, Norway, 
Peru PR 
98 Restrictions on Egyptian 
potatoes  European Union  Egypt  NR 
99 Restrictions on importation 
of sugar cane top Japan  Indonesia  NR 
100 Import measures on apples 
due to fire blight  Japan  United States 
of America  R 
101 Proposed import prohibition 
of commodity -country 
combinations of fresh cut 
flowers and foliage  New Zealand  European 
Union  R 
102 Import restrictions on 
potted plants  United States of America  European 
Union  NR 
103 FMD-related import 
restrictions  Certain Members  Argentina, 
European 
Union  PR 
104 FMD restrictions  Chile Argentina  R 
105 Restrictions on apples and 
pears  Cuba Argentina  NR 
106 Regulations on genetically 
modified food and feed  European Union  United States 
of America  PR 
107 Transitional TSE measures  European Union  Canada  R 
108 Cut flowers  European Union  Ecuador, Israel  PR 
109 Phytosanitary regulations 
(Canary Islands)  Spain, European Union  Argentina  NR 
110 Agricultural biotechnology 
approval process  European Union  United States 
of America  PR 
111 FMD restrictions  Indonesia  Argentina  NR 
2002 
112 FMD trade restrictions  Bolivia, Plurinational State 
of Argentina  R 
113 Pet food import 
requirements  Chile Argentina  R 
114 Food safety regulations 
affecting agricultural 
products produced from 
modern biotechnology  China  United States 
of America  NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 15 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
115 Import restrictions for citrus 
and other fruits related to 
fruit fly  China  Argentina  R 
116 FMD restrictions  Colombia  Argentina  R 
117 Traceability and labelling of 
genetically modified 
organisms and food and 
feed European Union  Argentina, 
Canada, United 
States of 
America  NR 
118 Import licenses for 
agricultural products  Panama  Canada  R 
119 Notification on Chinese fruit 
imports  Philippines  China  PR 
120 Restrictions on pig meat  United States of America  European 
Union  NR 
121 Imports of clementines  United States of America  European 
Union  R 
122 FMD Restrictions  Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of  Argentina  R 
123 Restrictions on imports of 
potatoes, onions, fertilised 
eggs, day -old chicks and 
meat products  Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of  Canada, 
Colombia  R 
124 Notifications  related to avian 
influenza  Certain Members  United States 
of America  NR 
125 BSE related measures  Argentina  Canada  R 
126 Import requirements for 
seed potatoes  Brazil  Canada, 
European 
Union  R 
127 Import ban on products of 
Dutch origin  China  European 
Union  R 
128 Import requirements for 
cosmetics  China  European 
Union  R 
129 Import restrictions on spiced 
pork and salted meat 
products  Cuba Argentina  R 
130 Restrictions on shellfish  European Union  Indonesia  NR 
131 Pesticide and antibiotic 
limits in honey ( EC Directive 
96/23 /EC) European Union  Cuba NR 
132 Import restrictions on dairy 
products  Indonesia  Argentina  R 
133 Official control restrictions 
on citrus and other fresh 
fruits and vegetables  Japan  New Zealand, 
United States 
of America  NR 
134 SPS measures  on animal 
products  Romania  Moldova, 
Republic of  R 
135 Restrictions on beef and 
pork South Africa  Brazil  R 
136 Policies regarding 
quarantine and non -
quarantine pests  Chinese Taipei  United States 
of America  NR 
137 Import restrictions on meat 
and meat products  United States of America  Switzerland  R 
138 Pest risk assessment 
requirements  Argentina  United States 
of America  R 
139 Restriction on pig meat   Australia  European 
Union  R G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 16 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
140 Imports of live ostriches  Brazil  European 
Union  R 
141 Pest risk assessments for 
imports of plant origin  Brazil  Canada  R 
142 Zero tolerance for e-coli China  United States 
of America  NR 
143 Regulation on wood 
packaging material  China  European 
Union  R 
144 Restrictions on the 
importation of fruits and 
fruit juices  European Union  Brazil  R 
145 Import restrictions on 
chicken meat imports  Honduras  Costa Rica  R 
146 Ban on hormones in animal 
production  Indonesia  United States 
of America  R 
147 Regulation on food additives  Japan  European 
Union  NR 
148 Amendment of the food 
sanitation law  Japan  China  NR 
149 Restrictions on food 
products  Panama  European 
Union  R 
150 Certification of meat and 
dairy products  Philippines  Canada  R 
151 Restrictions on imports of 
pork sausages and other 
pork products  Trinidad and Tobago  Argentina  NR 
152 Restrictions on melons  United States of America  Mexico  NR 
153 Restrictions on imports of 
Chinese potted plants in 
growing medium  United States of America  China  NR 
154 Risk assessment on  BSE Uruguay  Canada, United 
States of 
America  PR 
2003 
155 Import requirements for 
Netherlands truss tomatoes  Australia  European 
Union  R 
156 Notification 
G/SPS/N/BRA/74 and 
G/SPS/N/BRA/75 on BSE -
related measures  Brazil  Canada  R 
157 Quarantine measures for 
the entry and exit of aquatic 
products  China  European 
Union  R 
158 Restrictions on pork imports  Croatia  Slovenia  R 
159 Proposal on animal by -
products  European Union  United States 
of America  NR 
160 Transitional BSE measures  European Union  United States 
of America  NR 
161 EC Directive 2001/661/EC 
on foot-and-mouth  disease  European Union  South Africa  NR 
162 Fumigation standards  Japan  United States 
of America  R 
163 Restrictions on Austrian 
products  Mexico  European 
Union  NR 
164 Restrictions on the 
importation of dry beans  Mexico  United States 
of America  R G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 17 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
165 Import restrictions on 
Spanish olive oil  Bahrain, Kingdom of ; 
Kuwait, the State of ; 
Oman;  Qatar;  United Arab 
Emirates  European 
Union  PR 
166 Import measures on live 
animals and meat products  Croatia  Hungary  R 
167 Restrictions on honey 
imports  European Union  United States 
of America  R 
168 Maximum levels for 
aflatoxins in corn and 
sampling contaminants in 
food European Union  Argentina  NR 
169 EC proposed regulation on 
maximum residue levels of 
pesticides  European Union  Argentina, 
China  NR 
170 Live animals and animal 
products  European Union  Australia  NR 
171 Animal health conditions 
and certification 
requirements for live fish  European Union  Australia  R 
172 Restrictions on imports of 
mangoes  Japan  Brazil  R 
173 Notification on uses of living 
modified organisms  Japan  Australia  R 
174 Notification on 
transboundary movement of 
living modified organisms  Korea, Republic of  Australia  R 
175 Notification on food and 
feed controls  European Union  United States 
of America  NR 
176 Notification on maximum 
tolerance levels for 
Ocratoxin A in coffee  Germany, European Union  Colombia, 
Papua New 
Guinea  PR 
177 Sanitary conditions for the 
importation of live material 
for apiculture  European Union  Argentina  NR 
178 Revision of standards and 
specifications for food and 
additives  Japan  China  NR 
179 Guidelines for maximum 
residue level (MRL) testing  Korea, Republic of  United States 
of America  R 
180 Heat treatment for meat 
and bone meal in poultry for 
pet food  Chinese Taipei  United States 
of America  R 
181 Import restrictions on 
potatoes  Chinese Taipei  New Zealand  R 
182 Implementation of ISPM 15  United States of America  Argentina  R 
183 Implementation of ISPM  15 Certain Members  Chile, Uruguay  PR 
2004 
184 Lack of transparency for 
certain SPS measures  China  United States 
of America  NR 
185 Restrictions due to avian 
influenza  India European 
Union, United 
States of 
America  NR 
186 Phytosanitary import 
restrictions  India European 
Union, United 
States of 
America  PR G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 18 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
187 FMD restrictions  Panama  Argentina  R 
188 Delisting of France from 
countries authorized to 
export certain meat and 
meat products to the United 
States  United States of America  European 
Union  R 
189 Prohibition on the use of 
specified risk materials and 
requirements for disabled 
cattle  United States of America  Argentina  NR 
190 Regionalization and 
recognition of animal 
disease free status  Certain Members  European 
Union  PR 
191 Maximum residue levels for 
pesticides on food  European Union  China  NR 
192 Non-notification of various 
SPS measures  India United States 
of America  NR 
193 General import restrictions 
due to BSE  Certain Members  European 
Union , United 
States of 
America  PR 
194 Restrictions on fresh grapes  Australia  Chile R 
195 Restrictions on citrus  Barbados  Venezuela, 
Bolivarian 
Republic of  NR 
196 Measures on US poultry  China  United States 
of America  R 
197 Regulation on Ocratoxin A in 
coffee  European Union  Colombia  R 
198 Regulation on aflatoxins and 
Ocratoxin  A in foods for 
infants and young children  European Union  China  NR 
199 Deviation from international 
standard for wood packing 
material  Spain, European Union  United States 
of America  R 
200 Ban on food grade wax  India United States 
of America  R 
201 Standards and specifications 
for food additives (boscalid)  Japan  China  NR 
202 Septoria controls on 
horticultural products  Korea, Republic of  United States 
of America  R 
203 Rule on materials derived 
from cattle and record -
keeping requirements  United States of America  Argentina, 
China  NR 
204 Notification by Members of 
implementation of ISPM 15  Certain Members  European 
Union  R 
2005 
205 Slaughter of imported 
breeding cattle  Bolivia, Plurinational State 
of Mexico  NR 
206 Inspection and testing 
procedures for imported 
wheat  Greece, European Union  Canada  R 
207 Directives on residual 
pesticide tolerance and 
inspection methods for tea  European Union  China  PR 
208 Food and feed hygiene rules  European Union  Canada  R 
209 Plant health directive  European Union  United States 
of America  NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 19 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
210 Restrictions on imports of 
chicken meat  Guatemala  Mexico  NR 
211 Restrictions on the transit of 
avocados  Guatemala  Mexico  NR 
212 Positive list system for 
pesticides, veterinary drugs 
and feed additives MRLs Japan  China, United 
States of 
America  PR 
213 Restrictions on beef  imports  Japan  United States 
of America  NR 
214 Inspection regime for food 
processing establishments  Panama  United States 
of America  R 
215 Public Health Regulation 11  Thailand  United States 
of America  NR 
216 Restrictions on Ya pears 
imports  United States of America  China  R 
217 Import restrictions on 
apples  Australia  New Zealand  NR 
218 Lack of recognition of 
regionalization and disease -
free status for classical 
swine fever  Brazil  European 
Union  NR 
219 EurepGAP requirements for 
bananas  European Union  Saint Vincent 
and the 
Grenadines  NR 
220 Proposed regulations for 
piper methysticum (kava -
kava)  United Kingdom, European 
Union  Fiji NR 
221 Safety insurance and quality 
improvement standards for 
feed and feed additives  Japan  China  R 
222 Import suspension of heat -
processed straw and forage 
for feed  Japan  China  R 
223 Import requirements for 
Indian mangoes  Japan  India NR 
224 Restrictions on EC exports 
of plant and animal products  Japan  European 
Union  NR 
225 Restrictions on US poultry  Mexico  United States 
of America  R 
226 Inspection regime for 
agricultural products  Panama  Costa Rica  R 
227 BSE-related import 
restrictions on non -ruminant 
products  Chinese Taipei  United States 
of America  NR 
228 Import procedures for fruits 
and vegetables  United States of America  European 
Union  NR 
229 Import restrictions on Enoki 
mushrooms  Canada  Chinese Taipei  R 
230 Phytosanitary requirements 
on fresh oranges  Costa Rica  Nicaragua  R 
231 Restrictions on cinnamon  European Union  Sri Lanka  R 
232 Import restrictions on EC 
beef due to BSE  Israel  European 
Union  R 
233 Phytosanitary import 
legislation  Israel  European 
Union  R 
234 Suspension of importation 
of live poultry and poultry 
carcasses  Thailand  Mexico  NR G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 20 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
235 Import restrictions on EC 
exports of live birds, meat, 
meat products and other 
derivates due to avian 
influenza  Certain Members  European 
Union  PR 
2006 
236 Restrictions on beef exports 
under the Hilton Quota  Argentina  European 
Union  R 
237 Lack of regionalization for 
Newcastle disease and 
restrictions on live birds  Brazil  European 
Union  NR 
238 Application and modification 
of the EU Regulation on 
Novel Foods  European Union  Colombia, 
Ecuador, Peru  NR 
239 Tolerance levels for soil 
content on potato tubers  Dominican Republic  Canada  R 
240 Biotech labelling and import 
approval process regulations  India United States 
of America  NR 
241 Import restrictions on 
wooden Christmas trees  United States of America  China  R 
242 Restrictions on US poultry 
exports  European Union  United States 
of America  NR 
243 Lack of recognition of pest -
free areas  Indonesia  United States 
of America  PR 
244 Importation of live animals 
and meat products  Indonesia  Brazil  NR 
245 Restrictions on US pork and 
poultry imports  Romania  United States 
of America  NR 
2007 
246 Import restrictions on 
products of animal origin 
due to dioxin  China  European 
Union  R 
247 BSE-related measures on 
beef products  Korea, Republic of  Canada  R 
248 Regionalization for bovine 
and pig meat products  Korea, Republic of  Brazil  R 
249 Reform of  Australia's IRA 
process  Australia  European 
Union  NR 
250 Trade restrictions related to 
national systems for 
determining maximum 
residue levels (MRLs) for 
pesticides  Certain Members  Argentina  NR 
251 Zero tolerance for 
pathogens on raw meat and 
poultry products  China  United States 
of America  NR 
252 Zero tolerance for 
salmonella in poultry and 
eggs  El Salvador  United States 
of America  NR 
253 Export certification 
requirements for dairy 
products  India United States 
of America  NR 
254 Animal health requirements 
for poultry meat  El Salvador  United States 
of America  NR 
255 Application of 
regionalization and 
prohibition of bovine meat  China  Brazil  R G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 21 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
256 Import restrictions on 
cooked poultry products 
from China  European Union  China  PR 
257 Import restrictions on 
cooked poultry products 
from China  United States of America  China  R 
258 Import restrictions on beef 
and beef products due to 
Blue Tongue disease  Certain Members  European 
Union  NR 
259 Avian influenza restrictions  China  United States 
of America  NR 
260 Requirements for quarantine 
treatment of aircraft  Chile Argentina  R 
261 Varietal restrictions on US 
apples  China  United States 
of America  NR 
2008 
262 Restrictions on heat -treated 
products in relation to avian 
influenza  Egypt  European 
Union  R 
263 Import restrictions on 
cooked and frozen meat  Mexico  Brazil  NR 
264 Maximum residue levels for 
Ethephon in pineapple  European Union  Ecuador  PR 
265 Regulatory process 
economic analysis 
requirement  United States of America  Brazil  NR 
266 Price list for inspections  Malaysia  Brazil  NR 
267 Pesticide maximum residue 
level (MRL) enforcement 
system  Japan  China, United 
States of 
America  NR 
268 Import restrictions on EC 
dairy products  United States of America  European 
Union  NR 
269 Restrictions on apples  United States of America  China  NR 
270 Import restrictions on rice  Mexico  Pakistan  R 
271 Restrictions on imports of 
swine meat  Mexico  Brazil  NR 
272 Rapid Alert System 
regarding mango imports  European Union  Senegal  NR 
273 Health certificate ratification 
by national embassies  Oman, Certain Members  European 
Union  R 
274 Korea's Livestock Epidemic 
Prevention Act  Korea, Republic of  Canada  R 
275 Restrictions on ractopamine 
in beef and pork  Chinese Taipei  United States 
of America  NR 
276 Maximum residue levels for 
pesticides in cacao  European Union  Ecuador  PR 
277 NAPPO draft standard for 
ships and cargoes from 
areas infested with Asian 
gypsy moth  Canada, Mexico, United 
States of America  China  R 
2009 
278 Hygiene standard for 
distilled spirits and 
integrated alcoholic 
beverages  China  Mexico  NR G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 22 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
279 Import restrictions on pork 
products due to influenza 
A/H1N1  Armenia; Bahrain, 
Kingdom of ; China;  
Gabon;  Indonesia;  Jordan;  
Suriname  Mexico  NR 
280 New meat import conditions  Indonesia  European 
Union  NR 
281 Import restrictions on 
gelatine from bovine hides 
and head skin due to BSE 
requirements  Colombia  Brazil  R 
282 Measures on food products 
containing meat, poultry or 
processed egg products  United States of America  China  NR 
283 Pesticide maximum residue 
levels (MRLs)  Japan  Brazil, Ecuador  PR 
284 Rule on importation of 
wooden handicrafts from 
China  United States of America  China  R 
285 Import restrictions on fresh 
pork meat and beef  United States of America  Brazil  R 
286 Import restrictions on 
poultry meat  Indonesia  Brazil  NR 
287 Import restrictions on fresh 
pork meat and beef  South Africa  Brazil  R 
288 Import measures on animals 
and animal products  Ukraine  European 
Union  R 
289 Measures on catfish  United States of America  China  NR 
290 Suspension of inspection 
and delivery of plant and 
animal health certificates for 
imports  Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of  Colombia  R 
2010 
291 BSE Measures  Chinese Taipei  Canada  R 
292 Prohibition of ornamental 
plants larger than 18 inches  United States of America  Costa Rica  R 
293 Risks arising from 
Carambola fruit fly in French 
Guyana  France, European Union  Brazil  NR 
294 Import restrictions on plant 
and plant products  Malaysia  Brazil  NR 
295 Artificial colour warning 
labels  European Union  United States 
of America  NR 
296 SPS notification practices  China  European 
Union  NR 
297 Registration requirement for 
pet food export enterprises  Canada  China  R 
298 Import restrictions on 
Brazilian beef Colombia  Brazil  NR 
299 US 2009 Food Safety 
Enhancement Act  United States of America  China, India  NR 
300 Regulation  (EC) No. 
1099/2009  European Union  India NR 
301 US risk analysis for the 
entry of queen bees  United States of America  Argentina  NR 
302 Restrictions on products 
derived from biotechnology  Turkey  United States 
of America  NR 
303 Import restrictions on 
poultry meat Senegal  Brazil  NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 23 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
304 Proposed MRL for 1 -
Methylcyclopropene in 
bananas  Canada  Ecuador  PR 
305 Import restrictions on beef 
and recognition of the 
principle of regionalization  Indonesia  Brazil  NR 
306 Maximum residue levels of 
pesticides  European Union  India NR 
307 Prohibition of certain food 
additives  Japan  India NR 
308 Restrictions on bovines and 
bubalines for reproduction  Brazil  Colombia  R 
309 Labelling of products of 
animal origin Brazil  European 
Union  NR 
310 Measures on canned 
sardines  Brazil  Morocco  NR 
311 Restrictions on poultry and 
poultry products  Albania, Croatia  Chile R 
312 Restrictions on beef exports 
due to BSE -related concerns  Mexico  Nicaragua  R 
2011 
313 Import restrictions due to 
dioxin contamination in 
Germany  Certain Members  European 
Union  R 
314 Ban on offals  Viet Nam  United States 
of America, 
European 
Union  NR 
315 Ukraine import restrictions 
on poultry and poultry 
products  Ukraine  Mexico  R 
316 United States import 
restrictions on 
chrysanthemums  United States of America  Costa Rica  NR 
317 Mexico's BSE measures  Mexico  Canada  R 
318 US failure to recognize 
South Patagonia as FMD -
free and to import beef from 
north of the 42nd parallel  United States of America  Argentina  NR 
319 Chinese quarantine and 
testing procedures for 
salmon  China  Norway  NR 
320 Restrictions on imported 
fresh meat Philippines  United States 
of America  NR 
321 Japan's MRLs applied to 
sesame  Japan  Paraguay  NR 
322 Polyamide and melamine 
plastic kitchenware  European Union  China;  Hong 
Kong, China  NR 
323 Import restrictions on pork 
and pork products  Malaysia  European 
Union  NR 
324 China's requirement for 
registration and supervision 
of foreign enterprises  China  India NR 
325 EU regulations on cadmium 
in cocoa  European Union  Colombia, 
Ecuador  PR 
326 Restrictions on table grapes, 
apples and pears  Thailand  South Africa  PR G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 24 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
327 EU Court of Justice ruling 
regarding pollen derived 
from GMOs  European Union  Argentina  NR 
328 US default MRLs, limits of 
determination or limits of 
quantification on basmati 
rice United States of America  India R 
2012 
329 Testing methods for food 
additives  China  India NR 
330 Indonesia's port closures  Indonesia  China, 
European 
Union, 
New Zealand, 
United States 
of America  PR 
331 EU limits of aluminium  in 
flour products  European Union  China  NR 
332 Restrictions related to FMD  Japan  Argentina  NR 
333 Trade restrictive measures 
due to the Schmallenberg 
Virus Certain Members  European 
Union  NR 
334 MRLs for roasted and 
powdered coffee  Chinese Taipei  India R 
335 EU testing of pesticide 
residues  European Union  India NR 
336 US measures on fresh 
lemons from the north west 
region of Argentina  United States of America  Argentina  NR 
337 Delay in finalizing inspection 
procedures on bovine and 
poultry meat from Argentina  Canada  Argentina  NR 
338 Import ban on live animals 
from the EU  Russian Federation  European 
Union  NR 
339 Restrictions on tomatoes  United States of America  Senegal  NR 
340 Requirements for 
importation of sheep meat  Turkey  Australia  NR 
341 Russia's listing of export 
establishments  Russian Federation  European 
Union  NR 
342 Restrictions on shrimp due 
to anti -oxidant residues  Japan  India R 
343 Permits on horticultural 
products  Indonesia  United States 
of America  NR 
344 Measures on shrimp  Brazil  Ecuador  NR 
2013 
345 Import conditions related to 
phthalates  China  European 
Union  R 
346 Ban on Bisphenol A  France, European Union  United States 
of America  NR 
347 Import restrictions on 
apples, pears and citrus  India Argentina  NR 
348 EU quarantine measures on 
certain pine trees and other 
products  European Union  Russian 
Federation  NR 
349 MRLs for veterinary 
medicines in live animals  Costa Rica  Panama  NR 
350 Prohibition of use and sale 
of treated seeds  European Union  United States 
of America  NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 25 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
351 EU temperature treatment 
requirements for imports of 
processed meat products  European Union  Russian 
Federation  NR 
352 US proposed rule on good 
manufacturing practice for 
human food  United States of America  China  NR 
353 EU renewal of GMO 
approvals  European Union  Argentina  NR 
354 Import restrictions in 
response to the Japanese 
nuclear power plant 
accident  China, Certain Members  Japan  NR 
355 EU import requirements for 
orchid tissue culture 
plantlets in flasks  European Union  Chinese Taipei  NR 
356 Phytosanitary measures on 
citrus black spot  European Union  South Africa  NR 
357 Accreditation of third -party 
bodies to conduct food 
safety audits and to issue 
certifications  United States of America  China  NR 
358 Import conditions for pork 
and pork products  India European 
Union  NR 
359 Strengthened import 
restrictions on fishery 
products with regard to 
radionuclides  Korea, Republic of  Japan  NR 
360 Import policy on swallow 
nests  China  Indonesia  R 
361 Non-recognition of testing 
laboratories for meat 
products  Russian Federation  India NR 
362 Import restrictions on beef 
due to BSE  South Africa  Brazil  R 
363 Import restrictions on beef 
due to BSE  China  Brazil  R 
364 Import restrictions on beef 
due to BSE  Japan  Brazil  NR 
365 Import conditions on poultry  Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  European 
Union  NR 
366 Quarantine requirement for 
blueberries  Japan  Argentina  NR 
367 Import requirements on 
traditional foods  Turkey  Japan  NR 
368 Import restrictions on 
confectionary products  Russian Federation  Ukraine  NR 
2014 
369 Import ban on live pigs and 
pork products due to African 
Swine Fever  Russian Federation  European 
Union  NR 
370 US imports of meat from 
Brazil  United States of America  Nicaragua  NR 
371 Import requirements for 
blueberries and avocados  India Chile NR 
372 Import restrictions on 
certain  types of plant 
products  Russian Federation  European 
Union  NR G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 26 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
373 US high cost of certification 
for mango exports  United States of America  India NR 
374 EU ban on mangoes and 
certain vegetables from 
India European Union  India NR 
375 US non -acceptance of OIE 
categorization for BSE  United States of America  India NR 
376 Australia's non -acceptance 
of OIE categorization for 
BSE Australia  India NR 
377 Brazil's regulation on 
international certificates for 
fish and fishery products  Brazil  China  NR 
378 EU withdrawal of 
equivalence for processed 
organic products  European Union  India NR 
379 Russia's market access 
requirements for bovine 
meat Russian Federation  India NR 
380 Import restrictions on fruits 
and vegetables  Russian Federation  European 
Union  NR 
381 Requirements for veterinary 
certificates  Russian Federation  Ukraine  NR 
382 Categorization of 
compounds as endocrine 
disruptors  European Union  United States 
of America  NR 
2015 
383 China's measures on bovine 
meat China  India NR 
384 General import restrictions 
due to African swine fever  Certain Members  European 
Union  NR 
385 General import restrictions 
due to highly pathogenic 
avian influenza  Certain Members  European 
Union  R 
386 Measures on imports of 
hibiscus flowers  Mexico  Nigeria  R 
387 Chinese Taipei's 
strengthened import 
restrictions on food with 
regard to radionuclides  Chinese Taipei  Japan  NR 
388 US proposed rule for user 
fees for agricultural 
quarantine and inspection 
services  United States of America  Mexico  NR 
389 Chinese import regime, 
including quarantine and 
testing procedures for fish  China  Norway  NR 
390 The Russian Federation's 
import restrictions on 
processed fishery products 
from Estonia and Latvia  Russian Federation  European 
Union  NR 
391 Malaysia's import 
restrictions related to 
approval of poultry meat 
plants  Malaysia  Brazil  NR 
392 China's import restrictions 
due to African swine fever  China  European 
Union  NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 27 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
393 Korea's import restrictions 
due to African swine fever  Korea, Republic of  European 
Union  NR 
394 Costa Rica's temporary 
suspension of the issuing of 
phytosanitary import 
certificates for avocados  Costa Rica  Guatemala, 
Mexico  NR 
395 China's proposed 
amendments to the 
implementation regulations 
on safety assessment of 
agricultural GMOs  China  Paraguay,  
United  States 
of America  NR 
396 EU proposal to amend 
Regulation (EC) No. 
1829/2003 to allow EU 
member States to restrict or 
prohibit the use of 
genetically modified food 
and feed  European Union  Argentina, 
Paraguay,  
United States 
of America  NR 
397 India's amendment to its 
import policy conditions for 
apples; Restriction to Nhava 
Sheva port  India Chile, New 
Zealand  PR 
398 Viet Nam's restrictions on 
fruit due to fruit flies  Viet Nam  Chile R 
399 Viet Nam's restrictions on 
plant products  Viet Nam  Chile PR 
400 Undue delays in the start of 
Australia's risk analysis for 
avocados  Australia  Chile NR 
401 Undue delays in Viet Nam's 
approval process for dairy 
and meat products  Viet Nam  Chile NR 
402 Undue delays in Australia's 
approval process for chicken 
meat Australia  Chile NR 
403 India's amended standards 
for food additives  India European Union  NR 
2016 
404 South Africa's revised 
veterinary health certificates 
for the import of cattle, 
sheep and goats from 
Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia 
and Swaziland 
(G/SPS/N/ZAF/40)  South Africa  Namibia  R 
405 China's import restrictions 
due to Schmallenberg virus  China  European Union  NR 
406 China's import restrictions 
due to Highly Pathogenic 
Avian Influenza  China  European Union  NR 
407 EU restrictions on exports of  
pork from the State of 
Santa Catarina  European Union  Brazil  NR 
408 Nigerian restrictions on 
exports of beef and poultry  Nigeria  Brazil  NR 
409 Russian Federation import 
measures  Russian Federation  Ukraine  NR G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 28 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
410 Costa Rica's regulation on 
registration, use and control 
of pesticides and related 
substances 
(G/SPS/N/CRI/48/Add.1)  Costa Rica  Israel  NR 
411 Russian Federation import 
restrictions on certain 
animal products from 
Germany  Russian Federation  European Union  NR 
412 EU MRL s for bitertanol, 
tebufenpyrad and 
chlormequat 
(G/SPS/N/EU /168)  European Union  India NR 
413 Guatemala's restrictions on 
egg p roducts  Guatemala  Mexico  NR 
414 Indonesia's food safety 
measures affecting 
horticultural products and 
animal products  Indonesia  Philippines  NR 
415 US seafood import 
monitoring programme  United States of America  China  NR 
416 China's import ban on fresh 
mangosteen  China  Indonesia  NR 
417 India's import requirements 
for teak tree wood  India Panama  NR 
2017 
418 Viet Nam's suspension  of 
groundnut seed imports  Viet Nam  Senegal  NR 
419 United States MRLs for 
chlorpyrifos  United States of America  Israel  NR 
420 EU non -recognition of 
regionalization for Avian 
Influenza  European Union  Russian 
Federation  NR 
421 Chinese Taipei - Thailand's 
import restriction on papaya 
seeds  Thailand  Chinese Taipei  NR 
422 France's dimethoate -related 
restrictions on imports  France, European Union  United States of 
America  NR 
423 Brazil's measures on 
bananas  Brazil  Ecuador  NR 
424 Gulf Cooperation Council 
(GCC) Guide for Control of 
Imported Foods  Bahrain, Kingdom of; 
Kuwait, the State of; 
Oman; Qatar; Saudi 
Arabia, Kingdom of; United 
Arab Emirates  United States of 
America  NR 
425 Saudi Arabia's measures on 
shrimp  Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  Ecuador  NR 
426 The Russian Federation's 
import restrictions on wine  Russian Federation  Montenegro  NR 
427 India's fumigation 
requirements for cashew 
nuts India Senegal  NR 
428 EU MRLS for acrinathrin, 
metalaxyl and thiabendazole  European Union  Peru NR 
429 United Arab Emirates 
measures on plant 
protection products  United Arab Emirates  Turkey  NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 29 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
430 EU maximum level of 
cadmium in foodstuffs  European Union  Peru NR 
431 South Africa's import 
restrictions on poultry due 
to highly pathogenic avian 
influenza  South Africa  European Union  NR 
432 EU restrictions on poultry 
meat due to salmonella 
detection  European Union  Brazil  NR 
433 Turkey's restrictions on 
rough rice imports  Turkey  United States of 
America  NR 
434 India's fumigation 
requirements for teak tree 
wood (G/SPS/N/IND/149)  India Colombia  NR 
2018 
435 Viet Nam's draft 
amendment to Circular 24 
on MRLs for veterinary 
drugs  Viet Nam  United States of 
America  NR 
436 Mexico's market access 
requirement for casein 
products  Mexico  India NR 
437 Saudi Arabia's temporary 
ban on the importation of 
fish, crustaceans and other 
aquatic animal products  Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  Viet Nam  NR 
438 Viet Nam's market access 
requirements for ''white'' 
offals  Viet Nam  United States of 
America  NR 
439 US import restrictions on  
apples and pears  United States of America  European Union  NR 
440 New Zealand's draft import 
health standard for vehicles, 
machinery and equipment  New Zealand  Japan  NR 
441 Lack of transparency and 
undue delays in Indonesia's 
approval procedures for 
animal  products  Indonesia  European Union  NR 
442 EU Commission Decision 
2002/994/EC on animal 
products  European Union  China  NR 
443 EU restrictions on poultry 
meat and poultry meat 
preparations (Regulation 
(EU) No. 2018/700)  European Union  Brazil  NR 
444 Panama's restrictions on 
beef and poultry meat  Panama  Brazil  NR 
445 The Russian Federation's 
restrictions on beef and 
swine meat 
(G/SPS/N/RUS/145)  Russian Federation  Brazil  NR 
446 EU review of legislation on 
veterinary medicinal 
products  European Union  Argentina, 
United States of 
America  NR 
447 New EU definition of the 
fungicide folpet  European Union  China  NR G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 30 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
448 EU MRLs for buprofezin, 
diflubenzuron, 
ethoxysulfuron, ioxynil, 
molinate, picoxystrobin and 
tepraloxydim 
(G/SPS/N/EU/264)  European Union  Colombia, India  NR 
449 The Russian Federation's 
bluetongue -related i mport 
restriction on ruminants  Russian Federation  European Union  NR 
450 Viet Nam's import 
restrictions in the draft law 
of animal production  Viet Nam  United States  NR 
451 Thailand's import fees 
related to approval 
procedures for live animals 
and/or animal products 
(G/SPS/N/THA/243)  Thailand  United States  NR 
452 European Court of Justice 
Opinion 528/16 on 
organisms obtained by 
mutagenesis  European Union  United States  NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 31 - 
 
  2  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCE RNS CONSIDERED IN 2018 
2.1.  A total of 41 STCs were brought to the attention of the Committee during 2018, of which 
18 were new STCs (Table 2.1)  and 23 had been raised  previously  (Table 2 .2). In addition , five STCs 
in 201 8 were r eported as resolved, p artially resolved or where substantive action occurred in another 
WTO body (Table 2.3).  
2.2.  Chart  2.1 shows all the STCs  raised in the Committee , divided by the subject  covered by the 
STC. Overall, 18 STCs (44%) relate to food safety , six STCs (15%)  relate to other concerns  and five  
STCs (12%) relate to plant health . The remaining twelve  STCs (29%) relate  to animal health and 
zoonos es, although  this category includes issues that are also relevant from a  food safety  
perspective , such as transmissible spongiform encephalopath ies (TSEs) . Among the twelve animal 
health STCs raised in 201 8, two STCs refer to TSEs, two STCs to avian influenza and two STCs to 
FMD. The remaining six STCs (50%)  refer to other  animal health issues . 
Chart 2.1 – STCs by Subject – 2018 
 
Chart 2.2 - STCs Related to Animal Health & Zoonos es – 2018 
 
Animal Health
Food safety
Plant Health
Other12 18
56
39
24Total New
AI
16%
FMD
17%
OAH
50%TSE
17%
AI
FMD
OAH
TSEAvian influenza
Foot and mouth 
disease
Other animal health
Transmissible 
spongiform 
encephalopathiesG/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 32 - 
 
  Chart 2.3 - Participation of Members in STCs – 2018 
 
2.3.  Of the 41 STCs that were discussed in 201 8, 22 were raised by 25 developed country Members9, 
while 21 STCs were raised by 27 developing  country Members .10 In 201 8, three  STCs were raised 
by four least-developed country Members.11 
2.4.  Thirteen  STCs were supported by 24 developed country Members and 13 STCs were supported 
by 86 developing  country Members.12 Developing and developed country Members have raised or 
supported the same STC 11 times . Two STCs were supported by 15 least-developed country 
Members.13 
2.5.  In 14 STCs, the measure at issue was maintained by a developed count ry Member, and in 
26 STCs it was maintained by a developing country Member . One ST C was referred to measures 
maintained by " certain Members", possibly including develop ed and developing country Members. 
No STCs regarding measures maintained by a least -developed country Member were raised  in 
2018.14 
2.6.  In 201 8, there were active  proceedings in the context of the WTO dispute settlement system  
with respect to three  STCs (359, 369 and 394 ). 
2.7.  After table 2.3, the document  presents STCs according to the Member(s) maintaining the 
measure s at issue, by alphabetical order . It provides a summary of the discussions on each STC 
addressed in the SPS Committee in 201 8. 
                                                
9 Three of these STCs were raised by two developed  country Member s. 
10 One of these STCs was raised by four developing country Members; another by three developing 
country Members; and another one by two developing  country Members.  
11 One of these STCs was raised by two least -developed country Members.  
12 In particular, one of these STCs was supported by 28 developing country Members and two by 
12 developing country Members each.  
13 One STC was supported by 11 least -developed country Members and the other by four.  
14 STCs can be raised , maintained or supported  by more than one Member, which explains the apparent 
double -counting shown in Charts 2.2 and 2.3 compared with the overall count of the 452 STCs  raised since 1995.  
Members Maintaining The MeasureSupporting MembersMembers Raising the Issue
142425
268627
0154Number of  Members
Least Developed Countries Developing Countries Developed CountriesG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 33 - 
 
  Table 2.1 – STCs Raised for the First Time in 201 8 
STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) 
Maintaining the 
Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status15 
435 Viet Nam's draft 
amendment to Circular 24 
on MRLs for veterinary 
drugs  Viet Nam  United States 
of America  NR 
436 Mexico's market access 
requirement for casein 
products  Mexico  India NR 
437 Saudi Arabia's temporary 
ban on the importation of 
fish, crustaceans and other 
aquatic animal products  Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  Viet Nam  NR 
438 Viet Nam's market access 
requirements for ''white'' 
offals  Viet Nam  United States 
of America  NR 
439 US import restrictions on 
apples and pears  United States of America  European 
Union  NR 
440 New Zealand's draft import 
health standard for 
vehicles, machinery and 
equipment  New Zealand  Japan  NR 
441 Lack of transparency and 
undue delays in 
Indonesia's approval 
procedures for animal 
products  Indonesia  European 
Union  NR 
442 EU Commission Decision 
2002/994/EC on animal 
products  European Union  China  NR 
443 EU restrictions on poultry 
meat and poultry meat 
preparations (Regulation 
(EU) No. 2018/700)  European Union  Brazil  NR 
444 Panama's restrictions on 
beef and poultry meat  Panama  Brazil  NR 
445 The Russian Federation's 
restrictions on beef and 
swine meat 
(G/SPS/N/RUS/145)  Russian Federation  Brazil  NR 
446 EU review of legislation on 
veterinary medicinal 
products  European Union  Argentina, 
United States 
of America  NR 
447 New EU definition of the 
fungicide folpet  European Union  China  NR 
448 EU MRLs for buprofezin, 
diflubenzuron, 
ethoxysulfuron, ioxynil, 
molinate, picoxystrobin 
and tepraloxydim 
(G/SPS/N/EU/264)  European Union  Colombia, 
India NR 
449 The Russian Federation's 
bluetongue -related import 
restriction on ruminants  Russian Federation  European 
Union  NR 
                                                
15 NR = Not Reported, PR = Partially Resolved, R = Resolved.  G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 34 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) 
Maintaining the 
Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status15 
450 Viet Nam's import 
restrictions in the draft law 
of animal production  Viet Nam  United States  NR 
451 Thailand's import fees 
related to approval 
procedures for live animals 
and/or animal products 
(G/SPS/N/THA/243)  Thailand  United States  NR 
452 European Court of Justice 
Opinion 528/16 on 
organisms obtained by 
mutagenesis  European Union  United States  NR 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 35 - 
 
  Table 2 .2 - STCs  Previously Raised and Discussed Again in 201 8 
STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) 
Maintaining the 
Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status16 
61 Import restrictions on 
bovine semen  India Canada; 
European 
Union  R 
184 China's AQSIQ official  
certification requirements 
for food imports 
(G/TBT/N/CHN/1209) 
(previously raised as  
Lack of transparency for 
certain SPS measures ) China  Israel; United 
States of 
America  NR 
193 General import restrictions 
due to BSE  Certain Members  European 
Union; United 
States of 
America  PR 
271 Restrictions on imports of 
swine meat  Mexico  Brazil  NR 
315 Ukraine import restrictions 
on poultry and poultry 
products  Ukraine  Mexico  R 
344 Measures on shrimp  Brazil  Ecuador  NR 
382 European Union revised 
proposal for categorization 
of compounds as 
endocrine disruptors  European Union  Argentina; 
China; United 
States of 
America  NR 
390 The Russian Federation's 
import restrictions on 
processed fishery products 
from Estonia and Latvia  Russian Federation  European 
Union  NR 
392 China's import restrictions 
due to African swine fever  China  European 
Union  NR 
393 Korea's import restrictions 
due to African swine fever  Korea, Republic of  European 
Union  NR 
395 China's proposed 
amendments to the 
implementation 
regulations on safety 
assessment of agricultural 
GMOs  China  Paraguay; 
United States 
of America  NR 
406 China's import restrictions 
due to Highly Pathogenic 
Avian Influenza  China  European 
Union; United 
States of 
America  NR 
411 Russian Federation import 
restrictions on certain 
animal products from 
Germany  Russian Federation  European 
Union  NR 
413 Guatemala's restrictions 
on egg products  Guatemala  Mexico  NR 
415 US seafood import 
monitoring programme  United States of 
America  China  NR 
418 Viet Nam's suspension of 
groundnut seed imports  Viet Nam  Senegal  NR 
                                                
16 NR = Not Reported, PR = Parti ally Resolved, R = Resolved.  G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 36 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) 
Maintaining the 
Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status16 
421 Thailand's import 
restriction on papaya 
seeds  Thailand  Chinese Taipei  NR 
422 France's dimethoate -
related restrictions on 
imports  European Union  United  States 
of America  NR 
427 India's fumigation 
requirements for cashew 
nuts India Madagascar; 
Senegal  NR 
428 EU maximum residue 
levels for acrinathrin, 
metalaxyl and 
thiabendazole  European Union  Peru NR 
430 EU maximum level of 
cadmium in foodstuffs  European Union  Colombia; 
Ecuador; 
Madagascar; 
Peru NR 
431 South Africa's import 
restrictions on poultry due 
to Highly Pathogenic Avian 
Influenza  South Africa  European 
Union  NR 
432 EU restrictions on poultry 
meat due to Salmonella 
detection  European Union  Brazil  NR 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 37 - 
 
  Table 2.3 - STCs Reported as Resolved , Partially Resolved  or Where Substantive Action 
Occurred in Another WTO Body in 201 8 
STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) 
Maintaining the 
Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status17 
61 Import restrictions on 
bovine semen  India Canada; 
European 
Union  R 
315 Ukraine import restrictions 
on poultry and poultry 
products  Ukraine  Mexico  R 
359* Strengthened import 
restrictions on food and 
feeds products with regard 
to radionuclides  Korea, Republic of  Japan  NR / 
DS 495  
369* Russia's measures on live 
pigs and pork products due  
to African Swine F ever Russian Federation  European 
Union  NR / 
DS 475  
394* Costa Rica's suspension of 
the issuing of phytosanitary 
import certificates for 
avocados  Costa Rica  Guatemala; 
Mexico  NR / 
DS 524  
 
* Panel proceedings occurred in the context of the WTO dispute settlement system. For more information, see 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_e.htm . 
 
  
                                                
17 NR = Not Reported, PR = Partially Resolved, R = Resolved.  G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 38 - 
 
  2.1  Brazil  
2.1.1   Animal Health  
Measures on shrimp (STC 344)  
Raised by:  Ecuador  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, paras. 180 -181), March 2013 (G/SPS/R/70, 
paras. 3.25 -3.26), March 2014 (G/SPS/R/74, paras. 3.9 -3.10), October 
2016 (G/SPS/R/84, paras. 3.40 -3.41) , March 2017 (G/SPS/R/86, 
paras.  9.1-9.4), July 2017 (G/SPS/R/87, paras. 4.35 -4.36) , November 
2018 (G/SPS/R/93, paras. 3.60 -3.61)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.8.  In October 2012, Ecuador flagged the drastic decrease in its shrimp exports due to Brazil's 
Regulation 39, that placed conditions on the authorization for shrimp imports so as to  prevent the 
introduction of white spot and yellow head virus. Ecuador had spent considerable resources in 
protecting and preserving its shrimp production from these two diseases through the residue and 
contaminant monitoring plans, which had been provided  to Brazil. The Brazilian authorities had 
indicated that the measures adopted in Regulation 39 had been lifted; however , the Brazilian Ministry 
of Agriculture published another Standard 12 establishing procedures for import risk analysis that 
was yet to be  implemented. Bilateral discussions had resulted in information exchange and Ecuador 
hoped for a rapid mutual solution to the issue.  
2.9.  Brazil noted that it had been informed of this trade concern at short notice and did not have 
sufficient time to prepare a substantive response. The concerns would be conveyed to the relevant 
authorities in the hope that a solution could soon be found.  
2.10.   In March 2013, Ecuador reiterated its concern regarding Brazil's import ban on shrimp. 
Following Brazil's implementation of Re gulation 39 on 4 November 1999, Ecuador's shrimp exports 
to Brazil first decreased and then completely stopped in 2000. Brazil had justified its import 
restrictions on the basis that the measure protected the country from white and yellow spot diseases. 
However, following the implementation of the Residues and Contaminants Monitoring Plan in 2007, 
Ecuador's shrimp entered markets that had stricter requirements than Brazil, e.g.,  the European 
Union, Japan and North America. Brazil had not provided the necess ary information to justify its 
measures, nor a risk assessment , and Ecuador considered that the measures were discriminatory 
and not in compliance with Article 2 of the SPS Agreement. Brazil's Ministry of Fisheries had 
announced on 21 February 2013 that th e risk identification phase of this issue would be concluded 
in two weeks, but there was still no official statement on its outcome. Ecuador urged Brazil to provide 
information on this issue.  
2.11.   Brazil confirmed that a risk analysis on Ecuadorian shrimp was b eing conducted and was now 
in the phase of risk and hazard identification. This was a complex exercise given that the issue dealt 
with an aquaculture product. For this reason it had not been possible to conclude and release the 
report of the risk identific ation phase in March, but the report was expected to be published soon. 
Brazil looked forward to moving on to the subsequent phases of the risk analysis as soon as the 
report on hazard identification was published.  
2.12.   At the March 2014 meeting Ecuador again u rged Brazil to complete the risk assessment within 
a reasonable time and stressed that Ecuador had quarantine mechanisms in place to detect white 
spot disease in its fisheries. Ecuador offered to provide information and enable inspections from the 
Brazilia n authorities in order to ensure compliance with Brazil's requirements and accelerate the 
process of risk assessment.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 39 - 
 
  2.13.   Brazil noted that the risk assessment was a complex task, but the process was moving forward 
and Brazil had concluded its public consultat ions. It was prepared to send an inspection delegation 
to Ecuador in June, as a follow -up to a questionnaire  sent in March.  
2.14.   In October 2016, Ecuador reiterated its concern regarding Brazil's suspension of shrimp 
imports from Ecuador. This measure was in effect since 2000 and aimed at protecting Brazil from 
endemic pathologies such as White spot syndrome virus and Yellow head  disease. Both diseases also 
existed in Brazil. Ecuador emphasized the importance of shrimp exports for its economy, recalling 
that Brazil had initiated an import risk assessment (IRA) for Ecuadorian shrimp at the beginning of 
2011. The first of the four step s of the IRA had only been finalized in June 2013, and the second 
step had not yet been concluded. Ecuador insisted that it had provided sufficient information to Brazil 
throughout this time, and noted that in July 2014 a group of technical experts from Br azil had visited 
various entities in Ecuador. During the last meeting held in July 2016 the Brazilian officials in charge 
of the technical report recognized that the import risk assessment had exceeded the time usually 
deemed necessary for such a process. Ecuador recalled that since 2007 a residues and contaminants 
monitoring plan for all aquaculture establishments had been in place and its shrimp products 
regularly accessed markets with high SPS standards. Ecuador regretted that despite its bilateral 
engag ement with Brazil on the IRA, half of the process had not yet been concluded after six years, 
and shrimp exports from Ecuador had been stopped for more than a decade. Ecuador requested that 
Brazil swiftly provide the timetable for the remaining steps of th e IRA, and that the process move 
forward promptly in order for shrimp exports from Ecuador to regain access to the Brazilian market.  
2.15.   Brazil responded that in 2015 its health authorities requested that specific mandatory 
adjustment measures be implemented a t the level of the Official Veterinary Services and private 
sector in Ecuador, and that missing information be shared. Brazil indicated that these measures –
disease -specific monitoring plans, submission of samples and controls, training of staff and 
notification – were compulsory to allow imports of Ecuadorian shrimp into Brazil. Brazil explained 
that a final report with these various requests had been sent to the competent authorities in Ecuador, 
requesting a structured action plan integrating the mandator y measures within 60 days of receipt. 
However, Brazil reported it received Note 4 -7-0/2015 from Ecuador past the proposed timeline and 
still there was no compliance with the established requirements, which justified the  delay. 
Brazil  stated that it was wai ting to receive the struct ured action plan containing the  requested 
changes at the official veterinary services and private sector levels. The information in this plan 
would be used to support the risk assessment phase of the IRA. Favourable results in the  IRA, along 
with the finalized adjustment measures, would pave the way for authorizing shrimp imports from 
Ecuador.  
2.16.   In March 2017, Ecuador referred to its previously raised concern regarding Brazil's suspension 
of shrimp imports from Ecuador following the implementation of Regulation No. 39/99 on 
4 November 1999. Shrimp imports were subject to authorization, once a prior risk analysis had been 
undertaken by the Animal Protection Department in Brazil. Ecuador argued that the measure was 
not based on scientif ic evidence or on a risk assessment, as re quired by Articles 2.2. and 5.1  of the 
SPS Agreement. Ecuador acknowledged Members' right under Article 5.7 to adopt provisional 
measures, but highlighted the obligation to obtain the necessary additional informati on for a more 
objective risk assessment and to review the measure in a reasonable period of time, whereas the 
measure at issue did not take into account Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement or the  OIE 
recommendations, particularly those in Chapters 2.2.2 and 2 .2.7 of the Manual of Diagno stic Tests 
for Aquatic Animals.  
2.17.   Ecuador recalled that the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture had established a general procedure 
for undertaking import risk analysis of fish and fish products, as well as aquatic animals and 
propa gating materials (Regulation No. 14). Ecuador insisted that it had provided sufficient 
information to Brazil, and noted that a group of technical experts from Brazil had visited various 
entities in Ecuador. Ecuador underscored that it had implemented a ser ies of measures to guarantee 
the quality of its shrimp, however, no import risk assessment had been undertaken up to the last 
Committee meeting in October 2016. Ecuador highlig hted the obligation under Annex  C(1) of the 
SPS Agreement for Members to carry o ut a risk assessment with no undue delay.  
2.18.   Ecuador had been informed by its Embassy in Brasilia of the circulation of Memorandum 
Circular 6/2017/DSA -SDA/SDA/MAPA of February 2017, which established a series of animal health 
requirements for the import of sh rimps. Ecuador welcomed this decision which would clarify the 
conditions under which shrimps could access their market, however, it was currently awaiting official G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 40 - 
 
  confirmation of this information and further requested Brazil to provide this confirmation i n a timely 
manner. Ecuador also raised a series of questions, which it requested Brazil to transmit to it 
competent authority, in relation to the product coverage of the Circular and authorization 
procedures, among others. Ecuador had also learnt of an Exe cutive Decision to transfer the 
Aquaculture and Fisheries Secretariat of the Ministry of Agriculture to the Ministry of Industry, 
Foreign Trade and Services. Ecuador expressed its concern that these administrative changes could 
result in undue delays, simi lar to delays experienced in 2015 due to the transfer of responsibilities 
to the Ministry of Agriculture.  
2.19.   Brazil indicated that it was unable to provide a complete response, since it had not been aware 
of the content of Ecuador's intervention. However, Bra zil noted that the process for the authorization 
of shrimps from Ecuador was in its final phase and underscored that the process had taken into 
consideration the submissions from Ecuador, as well as all available scientific evidence. Brazil 
requested Ecuad or to submit a written copy of its questions for onward communication to its capital.  
2.20.   In July 2017, Ecuador referred to its previously raised concern regarding Brazil's suspension 
of shrimp imports from Ecuador, and recalled that it had provided Brazil wit h all the requested 
evidence but that after almost 20 years there was still no risk assessment. Ecuador also noted that 
SPS requirements for shrimps had been established in February 2017 and that in May 2017 Brazil 
had informed Ecuador of its equivalency f or the inspection system for shellfish, and that enabled 
plants were authorized to export. However, a group of Brazilian producers presented a court action 
which led to the suspension of the authorization to import shrimps from Ecuador. Ecuador highlighted  
the importance of exports for its economy and regretted the barriers imposed by Brazil on its most 
exported products, shrimp and bananas. Ecuador contended that Brazil's measures were not in 
conformity with various provisions of the SPS Agreement and Arti cle XI of the GATT.  
2.21.   Brazil underlined its open market for imports of shrimps from Ecuador, as reflected in its letter 
No. 926/2017 sent on 9 May informing Ecuador's sanitary authorities of the recognition of 
equivalence of their fish inspection system. Bra zil indicated that the plants previously qualified were 
allowed to export, prior approval of the labelling, while plants that had not yet been authorized to 
export had to request authorization. Finally, Brazil drew attention to its document "Animal Health 
Requirements of Brazil for the importation of non -viable crustaceans and derivatives derived from 
extractive fisheries or aquaculture", of January 2017.  
2.22.   In November 2018, Ecuador reiterated its concern over Brazil's Regulation 39, highlighting 
that since i ts adoption in 1999 Brazil had suspended imports of all species of crustaceans including 
fresh, frozen and cooked products from Ecuador. Ecuador recalled that SPS requirements for shrimps 
had been established in February 2017 and that in May 2017 Brazil ha d informed Ecuador of its 
equivalency for the inspection system for shellfish, and that enabled plants were authorized to 
export. However, a group of Brazilian producers had presented a court action which led to the 
suspension of the authorization to impor t shrimps from Ecuador. Ecuador further noted that the 
measure had been adopted for precautionary reasons, without taking into account sanitary 
requirements. Moreover, Ecuador contended that Brazil's measures were not in conformity with 
various provisions of the SPS Agreement and Article XI of the GATT. Finally, Ecuador regretted that 
despite various meetings with Brazil at the highest level, no official ruling had been made regarding 
the precautionary measure issued by the Supreme Federal Court of Brazil.  
2.23.   Brazil recalled its previous interventions, explaining that the approval process for shrimp 
imports considered all information received from Ecuador, including scientific evidence. 
Brazil  explained that the animal health requirements for the importation of  shrimps had been 
established in February 2017 under the regulation "Animal Health Requirements of Brazil for the 
importation of non -viable crustaceans and derivatives derived from extractive fisheries or 
aquaculture" (Circular Memorandum 6/2017/DSA.SDA/SD A/MAPA). In May 2017, the Brazilian 
market was opened for imports of shrimps from Ecuador, as reflected in letter No. 926/2017 
informing Ecuador's sanitary authorities of the recognition of equivalence of their fisheries inspection 
system. Brazil explained  that the recent suspension of exports by the Brazilian Supreme Court had 
only a preventive nature, highlighting that it had already established animal and health shrimp 
import requirements from Ecuador and had also recognized the equivalence of its fisher ies inspection 
system. Brazilian Federal Executive authorities were providing all legal and technical information to 
guarantee fully informed judicial evaluations.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 41 - 
 
  2.2  China  
2.2.1   Food safety  
China's proposed amendments to the implementation regulations on safety as sessment 
of agricultural GMOs (STC 395)  
Raised by:  Paraguay, United States of America  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.16 -3.18), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, 
paras. 3.42 -3.44) , March 2016 (G/SPS/R/82, paras. 3.59 -3.60), June 
2016 (G/SPS/R/83, paras. 4.47 -4.48), October 201 6 (G/SPS/R/84, 
paras. 3.52 -3.53), March 2017 (G/SPS/R/86, paras. 3.42 -3.43) , March 
2018 (G/SPS/R/90, paras. 3.18 -3.19), July 2018 (G/SPS/R/92/Rev.1, 
paras. 4.91 -4.92), November 2018 (G/SPS/R/93, paras. 3.50 -3.51)  
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/N/CHN/881  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.24.   In July 2015, Paraguay raised a concern about the inclusion of some socio -economic aspects 
in the Chinese risk assessment process for GMOs, contrary to Article 5 of SPS Agreement and to the 
guidance of the relevant international organizations recognized by the WTO. The amendments to 
the implementing regulations had been notified in G/SPS/N/CHN/881. Paraguay stated that the 
measures, which went beyond s cientific principles, could lead to arbitrary or unjustified distinctions, 
and that the inclusion of these elements could undermine the production of safe food. Paraguay 
therefore requested China to reconsider the amendments to the regulations.  
2.25.   The United States shared Paraguay's concern, and stressed the importance of notification of 
such measures to allow trading partners to review proposed changes, provide and discuss 
comments, and see them being taken into account. The United States highlighted its conc erns about 
the negative impact that policies related to regulatory approval procedures for biotech products 
could have on the ability of consumers and producers to reap the benefits of advances in technology 
through trade. The delays and lack of transparen cy in China's current biotech approval process 
meant that several products were pending at various stages in the process, despite the SPS 
Agreement's prohibition on undue delays in approval procedures and its obligation regarding 
standard processing period s and for a mechanism to resolve complaints. China was seeking to 
remove the specific timelines governing its regulatory review process, and was introducing new 
criteria referring to economic and social considerations. The United States had requested addit ional 
information from China in order to better understand the objectives behind the proposed changes. 
The United States also wished to ensure that the measures would comply with the SPS Agreement, 
and requested that China delay the implementation of the r evisions to allow for a substantive 
dialogue with its trading partners. The United States further requested that China approve the 
currently pending events in a timely fashion and that the proposed changes to China's approval 
system not depart from the key  tenets of timely, predictable science -based approvals required by 
the SPS Agreement.  
2.26.   China replied that the changes to its regulations aimed to enhance the management of safety 
evaluations for agricultural GMOs. The draft version of these management measu res had been 
notified on 2 June and was open to comments until 1 August 2015. China indicated that it had not 
received comments from the United States and Paraguay, but would take any comments into 
consideration for further modification and improvement of the measures.  
2.27.   In October 2015, the United States again raised concerns with China's Proposed Amendments 
to the Implementation Regulations on Safety Assessment of Agricultural Genetically Modified 
Organisms, which amends the requirements for the safety asse ssment for genetically engineered 
products (notified as G/SPS/N/CHN/881). The United States appreciated the extensive and 
productive bilateral meetings held with Chinese authorities since the July 2015 Committee meeting. 
The United States also welcomed Chi na's reaffirmation of the importance of implementing timely, 
transparent, predictable, and science -based approval processes that were based on international G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 42 - 
 
  standards, as well as China's commitment to revise and improve its regulation based on 
comprehensiv e consultations with domestic and international stakeholders and to enhance its 
capabilities in safety administration and safety approval of agricultural biotechnology products. 
The United States noted again that there were 24 products pending at various stages in China's 
regulatory process, including seven poised for final adoption that had been pending as long as since 
2010, and requested that China approve these products in a timel y and expeditious fashion. 
The United States thanked China for its engagement and commitments to resolving this process.  
2.28.   Paraguay shared this concern about the inclusion of socio -economic aspects in the Chinese 
risk assessment process for GMOs, contrary to  Article 5 of SPS Agreement and to the guidance of 
the relevant international organizations. Paraguay stated that the measures, which went beyond 
scientific principles, could lead to arbitrary or unjustified distinctions, and that the inclusion of these 
elements could undermine the production of safe food. Paraguay therefore requested China to 
reconsider the amendments to the regulations.  
2.29.   China replied that the changes to its regulations aimed to enhance the management of safety 
evaluations for agricultural  GMOs in response to the rapid development of biotechnology as well as 
social and environmental concerns. The draft version of these management measures had been 
notified on 2 June and had been open ed to comments until 1 August 2015. China received comment s 
from Australia, Brazil, Canada and the United States. China thanked Members for their comments 
and was now in the process of reviewing and analysing them. Feedback to Members would be 
provided through the proper channels. China assured Members that, in l ine with the relevant 
requirements of the SPS Agreement, China's agricultural GMOs safety evaluation would be based on 
science, taking into account the relevant economic factors. China remained ready to continue 
bilateral discussions and consultations with  interested Members on this issue.  
2.30.   In March 2016, the United States again raised concerns with China's Proposed Amendments 
to the Implementation Regulations on Safety Assessment of Agricultural GMOs, which amended the 
requirements for the safety assessment  for genetically engineered products, notified as 
G/SPS/N/CHN/881. The United States stated that China approved only three of the 11 pending 
products that were poised for final approval. The pending products were subject to technical and 
administrative que stions. The United States viewed this as an attempt to slow down new product 
approvals by posing procedural questions, imposing regulatory requirements not used by other 
countries, and by asking questions outside of the contours of scientific evidence. Fol lowing the 
consensus between the Presidents of the two countries and commitments made at the bilateral 
dialogues in November 2015, the United States expected that China's biotech reviews would move 
forward with greater transparency, timeliness, predictabil ity and would rely on science as the only 
criterion for evaluating the products of agriculture biotechnology. The United States reiterated that 
China had also committed to revise its regulations, based on comprehensive consultation with 
domestic and intern ational stakeholders, and to enhance its capability of safety administration and 
approval of agricultural products. Hence, the United States hoped to see China's concrete actions to 
achieve greater predictability in the approval process and to ensure that science based decisions 
were taken when amending its regulatory process, as indicated in G/SPS/N/CHN/881. In this regard, 
the United States looked forward to China's publication and notification of its final revision to 
Decree  8 upon completion of domestic  procedures. Finally the United States noted that there were 
22 products pending at various stages in China' regulatory process, including the eight products 
mentioned earlier, poised for final adoption. The United States appreciated the Chinese engagement  
to preserve a harmonious trade relationship.  
2.31.   China explained that its Proposed Amendments to the Implementation Regulations of Safety 
Assessment of Agricultural GMOs were aimed at improving the management of GMOs, in response 
to the rapid development of b iotechnology, and social and environmental concerns. China reported 
that it was reviewing and analysing all comments and would provide Members with feedback through 
proper channels, while maintaining transparency. Further, China stated that its GMO safety 
management had always been based on internationally -acknowledged risk analysis principles, 
including risk assessment, risk management and risk communication. China also indicated that 
economic and social factors would not affect the scientific conclusions of risk assessment. 
This process, in turn, would make the decision -making process more transparent, promote 
development and trade while complying with SPS rules. China hoped to continue the bilateral 
consultation mechanism and discuss GMO -related concerns thoroughly in order to facilitate trade in 
a mutually beneficial manner.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 43 - 
 
  2.32.   In June 2016, the United States again raised its concern with the approval delay for products 
of agricultural biotechnology in China, and sought an update from China on its revised re gulation on 
safety assessment of agricultural GMOs. The United States expressed appreciation for the bilateral 
dialogue that had taken place between Chinese and US officials, and based on this engagement, 
looked forward to the implementation of concrete ac tion by China to ensure greater transparency, 
timeliness, and predictability in its approval process of biotech products. The United States requested 
with some urgency that action be taken regarding the eight products that were poised for final 
adoption in  March 2016.  
2.33.   China reminded the Committee that a comprehensive system of regulations and technical 
protocols, all of which could be found on the website of the Ministry of Agriculture, had been put in 
place in accordance with the importance it attached to the safety management of agricultural GMOs. 
China declared that this GMO safety management was based on science and law, and that the 
procedure was clear and transparent. China indicated that the Implementation Regulations on Safety 
Assessment of Agricultu ral GMOs was still under revision, that comments from Members were 
welcome and would be given full consideration, and that further feedback would be given to Members 
through proper channels.  
2.34.   In October 2016, the United States again raised its concern with the approval delay for 
products of agricultural biotechnology in China, and sought an update from China on its revised 
regulation on safety assessment of agricultural GMOs. The United States expressed appreciation for 
the bilateral dialogue that had taken place between Chinese and  US officials, including the US -China 
strategic and economic dialogue held in Beijing in June 2016, and looked forward to the 
implementation of concrete action by China to ensure greater transparency and timeliness, and to 
rely on science -based risk assessment as the only criterion for the evaluation biotech products. The 
United States noted that China had taken a number of steps forward, including the issuance in July 
2016 of its final revision of the regulation and the first meeti ng of its reconstituted national biosafety 
committee. The United States indicated that some uncertainty remained with regards to how these 
steps would translate into shorter and more predictable timelines for biotech approval. The United 
States also noted with some urgency that some products were still poised for final adoption, and 
stressed the importance of ongoing communication with these products' applicants. The United 
States encouraged China to take action on these pending products in a timely manner.  
2.35.   China stated that it attached great importance to safety management of agricultural GMOs 
and its GMO safety management had always been based on internationally recognized risk analysis 
principles and scientific information. China recalled that it had noti fied its draft amendment to the 
implementation regulations on safety assessment of agricultural GMOs to the WTO in June 2015. 
The comments received during the 60 -day comment period were taken into careful consideration in 
finalizing the regulation. After f ulfilling the WTO transparency requirements fully, the final rules 
entered into force on 1 October 2016. This amendment aimed at making the GMO safety assessment 
procedure more streamlined, transparent and science -based. With regards to the delay of the 
assessment process, China informed the United States that three out of the eleven  applications 
submitted by the United States had been approved. During the process, China always kept the 
procedure transparent and had provided the United States with the detai led reasons for the non -
approval of the eight pending applications. China had asked the United States to continue to provide 
additional necessary information to allow completion of t heir approval procedures. China noted that 
after having received the suppl ementary information requested, its experts were currently 
conducting assessments. China invited the United States to make use of bilateral mechanisms in 
order to further discuss this issue.  
2.36.   In March 2017, the United States again raised its concern with th e approval delay for products 
of agricultural biotechnology and the lack of transparency and predictability in China's agricultural 
biotechnology regulatory process. The United States expressed appreciation for the high level 
bilateral engagement on these issues with China, but regretted that after the revision of its regulation 
some uncertainty remained with regards to whether and how the revisions would translate into 
shorter and more predictable timelines for biotech approval. The United States also note d that some 
products were still poised for final adoption, and stressed the importance of ongoing communication 
with the products' applicants. The United States encouraged China to take action on those pending 
products in a timely manner. Finally, the Unit ed States appreciated China's engagement and 
commitment to support beneficial trade in the products of agricultural biotechnology.  G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 44 - 
 
  2.37.   China stated that it attached great importance to safety management of agricultural GMOs, 
and that its GMO safety management had always been based on internationally recognized risk 
analysis principles and scientific information. China recalled that it had notified to the WTO its draft 
amendment to the implementation regulations on safety assessment of agricultural GMOs, and had  
reflected WTO Members' comments in the final rule. China reported that the implementation 
regulations on safety assessment of agricultural GMOs had entered into force on 1 October 2016. 
That amendment would make the GMO safety assessment procedures more s treamlined, transparent 
and science -based. With regards to the assessment process, China informed the United States that 
the reason why eight applications had not been approved was that they had failed to pass the 
assessment of China's Safety Committee for  Agricultural GMOs - the detailed reasons had been 
notified to the applicants in writing. China had asked the United States to continue to provide 
additional necessary information to allow completion of their approval procedures, and that its 
experts were currently conducting assessments based on the supplementary information received. 
China invited the United States to make use of bilateral mechanisms to further discuss the issue.  
2.38.   In March 2018, the United States reiterated its concern regarding China's pr oposed 
amendment to the implementation regulations on safety assessment of agricultural GMOs. 
The United States expressed its disappointment with the lengthy delays in product approvals by 
China, noting that there were currently ten products poised for fin al adoption, some of which had 
been under review since 2011. The United States highlighted the obligation under the 
SPS Agreement for Members to provide timely information to applicants on the processing periods, 
the completeness of documentation, and also  to explain any delays in the process. The United States 
further requested China to provide such information to applicants, and to approve these products 
without further delay.  
2.39.   China emphasized the importance it placed on managing the safety of agricultura l GMOs, 
highlighting that they were conducted on the basis of scientific assessment principles, consistent 
with international practice. In addition, its procedures were transparent and standardized, and no 
delays had been experienced in the examination and  approval process. China also reminded the 
Committee that the measure had been notified in 2015, following which submitted comments, 
including those of the United States, had been reviewed and taken into consideration in the amended 
administrative measure issued in 2016. China provided an overview of its revised administrative 
measure, highlighting that the measure had not reduced the frequency of decisions taken; instead 
statistics had shown that imports of agriculture GMOs had rapidly increased, indicatin g the smooth 
trade of GMOs.  
2.40.   In July 2018, the United States reiterated its concern regarding China's biotech approval 
system and its consistency with WTO SPS obligations. The United States expressed its 
disappointment with the lengthy delays and extensive data requirements for product approvals by 
China, noting that there were currently ten products poised for final adoption, some of which had 
been under review since 2011. The United States highlighted Members' obligation under the 
SPS Agreement to provide precise and timely information to applicants on the processing periods, 
information requirements, and also to explain any delays in the process. The United States indicated 
that in March 2018 it had requested China to provide this information to applicants . China had held 
a meeting of its National Biosafety Committee to review applications, and the results of the meeting 
were expected within 270 days. The United States requested China to provide precise and complete 
information to applicants on the results of that meeting, highlighting that any lack of communication 
of these results would have a damaging impact on agriculture for the United States, but also on all 
China's trading partners. The United States further expressed its concern regarding the new dat a 
requirements imposed by China in March 2018 for some products that were pending final approval. 
The United States urged China to refrain from revising regulations that resulted in increased 
timelines, decreased transparency and predictability. The United  States also requested China to 
inform all applicants of any new data requirements, to notify these to the WTO, as well as to publish 
these requirements. The United States looked forward to continuing discussions with China on this 
important issue.  
2.41.   China e xplained that the measure had been amended on the basis of scientific assessment 
principles. China indicated that it had notified to the WTO and trading partners a proposed 
amendment, taking into account other countries' practices and Members comments. Chi na indicated 
its willingness to continue bilateral discussions with the United States.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 45 - 
 
  2.42.   In November 2018, The United States reiterated its concern over undue delays and the lack 
of predictability, transparency, and scientific basis for products approvals by  China, highlighting the 
long-standing, robust and mutually beneficial trade of biotechnology products between their 
countries. The United States indicated that in March and July 2018 ten products remained poised for 
final adoption, most of which had been under review for five or more years. The United States asked 
China to provide precise and complete information to applicants on the processing periods, 
information requirements, as well as to explain any delays in the process. The United States noted 
that no meeting of China's National Biosafety Committee (NBC) had been held thus far in 2018, 
whereas its domestic legislation on biotech approvals required that the NBC met at least twice a 
year. Finally, the United States urged China to take into account its SPS commitments in any revision 
of its biotech regulation.  
2.43.   China explained that the measure had been amended in 2016 on the basis of scientific 
assessment principles, and the approval procedures were open and transparent. China had notified 
to the WTO and trading partners a proposed amendment, taking into account other countries' 
practices and Members' comments. Finally, China remained open for further bilateral discussions 
with the United States on this matter.  
2.2.2   Animal Health  
General import restrictions due  to BSE (STC 193)  
2.44.   See paragraphs 2. 529.-2.599. 
China's import restrictions due to African swine fever  (STC 392)  
Raised by:  European Union  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.9 -3.10), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, 
paras. 3.66 -3.67) , March 2016 (G/SPS/R/82, paras. 3.41 -3.42), June 
2016 (G/SPS/R/83, paras. 4.13 -4.14), October 201 6 (G/SPS/R/84, 
paras. 3.42 -3.43), March 2017 (G/SPS/R/86. paras. 3.33 -3.35), July 
2017 (G/SPS/R/87, paras. 4.43 -4.44), November 2017 (G/SPS/R/88, 
paras. 3.35 -3-36), March 2018 (G/SPS/R/90, paras. 3.45 -3.46)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.45.   In July 2015, the European Union raised concerns about China's bans due to African swine 
fever (ASF) and indicated that the vast majority of EU trading partners did not take any import 
measures against the European Union on African Swine Fever (ASF) grounds because they fully 
trusted the strict EU control system. China had imposed a ban on EU p ork and pork products since 
February 2014 without applying regionalization, any scientific justification, or clarification on how 
and when it would recognise the stringent zoning measures put in place in the European Union to 
allow the prompt resumption of  safe trade despite continuously receiving information from the 
European Union about these stringent control, surveillance and monitoring measures. The  European 
Union had requested several times that China provide a risk assessment justifying the country -wide 
ban and the non -recognition of the EU zoning measures, but China had failed to respond. The 
European Union asked China to respect its regionaliz ation obligations under the SPS  Agreement and 
to allow the trade of all safe products.  
2.46.   China replied that it s measures were entirely based on scienc e and safety considerations. 
It highlighted the threat represented by ASF in the world, and the fact that China was a major pig 
producer, and as such subject to great losses in case the dis ease entered the country. 
China indicated that the measures were in line with relevant Chinese laws and regulations that 
prohibited imports of relevant animals and animal products from coun tries infected by ASF. 
Finally,  China stated that it needed to evaluate further the measures t aken by the European Union, 
since a number of cases of ASF had still been detected in recent months in the region of Podlaskie, 
Poland.  G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 46 - 
 
  2.47.   In October 2015, the European Union again raised concerns about China's bans due to ASF  
and reiterated the arguments pre sented in July 2015.  
2.48.   China replied that its measures were entirely based on scienc e and safety considerations. 
It was a major pig producer, and as such subject to great losses in case the disease entered the 
country. China indicated that the measures were  in line with relevant Chinese laws and regulations 
and stated that it needed to further evaluate the EU measures, since a number of ASF cases had 
still been detected in recent months in the region of Podlaskie, Poland.  
2.49.   In March 2016, the European Union ag ain raised concerns about China's bans due to ASF. 
China had imposed a ban on EU pork and pork products since February 2014 without applying 
regionalization, and without scientific justification or clarification on how and when it would recognize 
the strin gent zoning measures put in place in the European Union to allow the prompt resumption 
of safe trade. The European Union highlighted that, like China, it was an important pork producer 
and thus needed to be prudent, citing the free flow of goods through th e EU market as an example 
of guaranteeing safe trade within its own market , but also for its exports. The  European Union had 
requested several times that China provide a risk assessment justifying the country -wide ban and 
the non -recognition of the EU zoni ng measures, but China had failed to respond. The European Union 
asked China to respect its regionaliz ation obligations under the SPS  Agreement and to allow trade 
of safe products.  
2.50.   China replied that its measures were entirely based on scienc e and safety c onsiderations. 
It was a major pig producer, and as such subject to great losses in case the disease entered the 
country. China indicated that the measures were in line with relevant Chinese laws and regulations 
and stated that it needed to further evaluate  the EU measures, since five outbreaks in wild pigs had 
been reported in 2016, suggesting that the disease might still exist in wild pigs in Poland. 
China  encouraged the European Union to take effective measures to control the spread of ASF.  
2.51.   In June 2016, the European Union again raised its concern regarding China's country -wide 
ban on Poland due to the outbreak of ASF in early 2014. Firstly, the European Union noted that the 
ban must be in line with the SPS Agreement , which required Members to recognize th e concept of 
pest- or disease -free areas in their legislation, as confirmed by the panel report in India - Agricultural 
Products (DS430). Secondly, the European Union argued that China had not provided information 
on its procedures, including its processin g period, to recognize regionalization and further urged 
China to provide this information. Thirdly, the European Union requested China to provide a risk 
assessment justifying the country -wide ban and non -recognition of the EU zoning measures. 
The European Union further underscored the effectiveness of its regionalization measures and 
highlighted its efforts to provide all the necessary evidence to China in order to demonstrate that 
safe trade could take place. The European Union urged China to resp ect its obligations under the 
SPS Agreement and to allow trade of all safe products from disease -free zones without further delay.  
2.52.   China replied that its measures were entirely based on science and safety considerations, 
highlighting that before the ASF ou tbreaks, the trade of pig and pig products between China and the 
European Union had been smooth. China noted that it was the largest pig producer in the world and 
as such subject to great losses in case the disease ente red the country. Therefore, the  ban h ad been 
imposed in line with relevant Chinese laws and regulations, as well as the SPS  Agreement. 
China  clarified that its measures prohibited the import of relevant animals and animal products from 
all ASF -infected Members, and were not targeted at any in dividual Member. In 2016, ASF outbreaks 
in domestic and wild pigs had been reporte d in Poland, and as such, China  had found it necessary 
to conduct a further evaluation of the measures taken by the European Union to control the disease, 
including its inspe ction range and sampling distribution. China indicated its willingness to continue 
discussions at a technical level.  
2.53.   In October 2016, the European Union again raised its concern regarding China's country -wide 
ban on pork products from Poland due to the out break of ASF in early 2014. The European Union 
noted the lack of transparency demonstrated by China in this case and expressed concerns about 
the prospects of China lifting the ban in the future. The European Union noted that it was also an 
important pig p roducer and, like China, needed to be prudent regarding animal diseases, such as 
ASF. The European Union stated that the free flow of pig products on its own market had proven, 
time after time, that it dealt with animal disease outbreaks in an effective ma nner - also for exports. 
The European Union noted that the ban was not in line with the SPS Agreement's principle of 
regionalization and the OIE's concept of disease -free zones, as confirmed by the panel report in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 47 - 
 
  India - Agricultural Products (DS430). The  European Union argued that China had not provided 
information on its procedures and anticipated timeline to recognize regionalization and further urged 
China to provide this information. The European Union declared that the country -wide ban in place 
was n ot supported by scientific justification and requested China to provide a risk assessment. 
The European Union urged China to respec t its obligations under the SPS  Agreement (namely 
Articles 3, 5, 6 and 8) and to allow, without further delay, trade of all s afe products from disease -
free zones.  
2.54.   China recalled that ASF was one of the most serious infectious diseases for pigs, and that the 
bans imposed by China on infected countries were based on science and safety considerations. 
China  stated that great importance was attached to this issue and its international obligations were 
respected. China noted that before the ASF outbreaks, the trade of pig and pig products between 
China and the European Union had been smooth. In 2016, ASF outbre aks in domestic and wild pigs 
had been reported in Poland, and as such, China had found it necessary to conduct a further 
evaluation of the measures taken by the European Union. China reminded Members that it was the 
largest pig producer in the world and c ould be subject to great losses if the disease were to enter 
the country, and that the ban had been imposed in line with relevant Chinese laws and regulations. 
China reported that a technical group had been established to deal with this issue, and encourag ed 
the European Union to continue exchanging information within the bilateral setting in order to 
enhance mutual understanding.  
2.55.   In March 2017, The European Union again raised its concern regarding China's country -wide 
ban on pork products from Poland due t o the outbreak of African swine fever (ASF) in early 2014. 
The European Union recalled that China had indicated that its measures were science -based and 
that its laws and regulations prohibited the imports of relevant animals and animal products from 
count ries where African swine fever was present, and that China would evaluate further the 
measures taken by the European Union. The European Union noted that the ban imposed by China 
was not in line with the SPS principle of regionalization and the OIE concept  of disease -free zones, 
as confirmed by the Panel Report in Russian Federation - Measures on the Importation of Live Pigs, 
Pork and Other Pig Products from the European Union (DS475) and earlier by the panel on India – 
Measures Concerning the Importation o f Certain Agricultural Products (DS430). The European Union 
urged China to provide information on its procedures and its anticipated timeline to recognize 
regionalization. The European Union observed China's lack of transparency and that its country -wide 
ban was not supported by scientific justification. The European Union requested China to provide a 
risk assessment and to respect its obligations under the SPS Agreement (namely Articles 3, 5, 6 and 
8 and Annex C).  
2.56.   The European Union highlighted the adopti on by the Dispute Settlement Body of the Panel 
Report, as amended by the Appellate Body Report, on Russia – Pigs (EU) (DS475), in which the 
European -wide and Poland -wide bans on those products were found to be WTO -inconsistent for not 
being based on intern ational standards, nor on a risk assessment and for failure to adapt 
SPS measures to the disease -free characteristics of some regions. The European Union welcomed 
the establishment of a Working Group between China and Poland to discuss the matter and urged  
China to allow trade of all safe products from disease -free zones without further delay.  
2.57.   China noted that before the ASF outbreaks, the trade of pig and pig products between China 
and the European Union had been smooth, and that the bans it imposed on in fected Members were 
based on science and safety considerations. China stated that it attached great importance to the 
issue and respected its international obligations and that its measure was non -discriminatory and 
consistent with the SPS Agreement. China  reminded Members that it was the largest pig producer 
in the world and could be subject to great losses if the disease were to enter the country, and that 
the ban had been imposed in line with relevant Chinese laws and regulations. China found it 
necessar y to conduct a further evaluation of the measures taken by the European Union. 
China  highlighted the 47 ASF outbreaks reported by the OIE in Poland in 2017, and while China 
noted the measures applied by Poland, it remained cautious on whether the inspectio n range, 
sampling distribution and wild boars -catching area could control the disease. China encouraged the 
European Union to pursue cooperation within the bilateral technical setting in order to further 
strengthen information exchange.  
2.58.   In July 2017, the European Union again raised its concern regarding China's country -wide ban 
on pork products from Poland due to the outbreak of African swine fever (ASF) in early 2014. 
The European Union thanked China for their bilateral discussions and hoped this would le ad to further G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 48 - 
 
  engagement. The European Union reiterated that China's legislation appeared not to allow for 
recognition of disease -free areas, despite OIE standards; urged China to provide information on its 
procedure and the anticipated processing time to recognize the European Union's zoning measures; 
and requested China to provide its scientific risk assessment for maintaining a country -wide ban 
instead of accepting importation from disease -free areas in Poland. The European Union stated that 
they had pro vided China with all the necessary evidence to demonstrate that there were disease -
free areas in Poland and that they were likely to remain disease -free.  
2.59.   China fully understood the concern of the European Union, but emphasized the acute, virulent 
and high ly contagious insect -borne infectious nature of ASF, with China's pig population accounting 
for over 50% of the world's pig population. China noted that ASF had become endemic in Poland, 
according to data that Poland had notified to OIE. Despite Poland's i mplementation of control 
measures, including regionalization, it had not effectively blocked ASF from spreading. China was 
therefore still unable to recognize regionalization and other measures adopted by Poland. 
China  remained open to bilateral technical cooperation and emphasized their joint technical expert 
group.  
2.60.   In November 2017, the European Union again raised concerns over China's country -wide ban 
on pork products from several EU member States due to the outbreak of African swine fever (ASF). 
The Eur opean Union recalled that the issue had first been raised in July 2015, without a positive 
response from China to date. The European Union stressed its regionalisation measures and the 
evidence presented to guarantee safe trade, urging China to recognize t he concept of disease -free 
areas and respect its regionalization obligations in compliance  with the SPS  Agreement and OIE 
standards. The European Union also requested that China provide information on its procedure to 
recognize disease -free areas and on it s standard processing period, and that China ensure that these 
procedures were undertaken and completed without undue delay. The European Union was 
encouraged by recent developments including the organization of a seminar in China with the 
relevant authori ties to discuss a possible way forward and hope that this dialogue will deliver 
concrete r esults in the coming months.  
2.61.   China explained that it had implemented regionalization management measures, but 
remained cautious regarding major animal epidemic diseas es that had never occurred in China, such 
as ASF, considering its stock density and limited epidemic disease control ability. Recently, African 
swine fever was still spreading in Europe. According to the rules of the SPS Agreement and China's 
current prote ction ability, China had to strictly prohibit imports of animals and animal products with 
a high risk.  
2.62.   In March 2018, the European Union again raised concerns over China's country -wide ban on 
pork products from Poland and other EU member States due to Afri can swine fever (ASF). 
The European Union recalled that the issue had first been raised in July 2015, without a positive 
response from China to date. The European Union emphasized its regionalization measures and the 
evidence presented to guarantee safe tr ade, urging China to recognize the concept of disease -free 
areas and respect its regionalization obligations in compliance with the SPS Agreement and OIE 
standards. The European Union also requested that China provide information on its procedure to 
recogn ize disease -free areas and on its standard processing period, and that China ensure that these 
procedures were undertaken and completed without undue delay. The European Union indicated its 
willingness to continue working intensively and constructively wit h China towards finding a common 
solution, in line with international standards and obligations.  
2.63.   China highlighted the serious nature of ASF, noting that there was no effective vaccine to 
date, and that this disease had shown a continuous spread in Europe,  in recent years. China 
confirmed that there had been no occurrence of ASF in China, and further indicated that according 
to the SPS Agreement and China's current protection ability, China had to strictly prohibit imports 
of animals and animal products wit h a high risk.  
China's import restrictions due to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza  (STC 406)  
Raised by:  European Union, United States of America  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  March 2016 (G/SPS/R/82, paras. 3.9 -3.10. See also STC 385), June 2016 
(G/SPS/R/83, paras. 4.10 -4.11), October 2016 (G/SPS/R/84, G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 49 - 
 
  paras.  3.33-3.36) , July 2017 (G/SPS/R/87, paras. 4.39 -4.41), November 
2017 (G/SPS/R/88, paras. 3.39 -3.42) , March 2018 (G/SPS/R/9 0, 
paras.  3.49-3.51), July 2018 (G/SPS/R/92/Rev.1, paras. 4.53 -4.54), 
November 2018 (G/SPS/R/93, paras. 3.62 -3.64)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.64.   In March 2016, the European Union expressed its concern over China's import restrictions on 
highly pathogenic avian influenza ( HPAI). It had raised the issue as a general STC in March  2015 
and many Members had lifted their bans rather quickly. China contin ued to maintain its import policy 
despite the European Union's regionalization efforts. The OIE standard stated that the measure could 
be lifted after the application of a stamping out or a regionalization policy. The  European Union 
considered China's poli cy as over -restrictive and not recognising the concept of pest - or disease -free 
areas. The European Union also requested China to clarify its procedures to recognise 
regionalization, especially given that China faced domestic HPAI outbreaks and also implem ented its 
own regionalization policies. The European Union remained open to continue working with China to 
resolve this issue.  
2.65.   China explained that the measures had been taken after several EU member States had 
reported HPAI outbreaks. In accordance with O IE rules, China implemented zoning for low 
pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI)  rather than HPAI. China reaffirmed that its measures were 
consistent with international practice and the SPS Agreement. Once the risk was under control, 
China  would commence a risk assessment, on which basis it might consider lifting the ban.  
2.66.   In June 2016, the European Union reiterated its concerns regarding China's import restrictions 
on HPAI, highlighting that China still maintained a  country -wide ban on several EU  member Stat es, 
despite the European Union's regionalization efforts. Recalling China's intervention in the March 2016 
SPS Committee reaffirming that its measures were consistent with international practice and the 
SPS Agreement, the European Union requested China and  other Members to lift their country -wide 
bans and to recognize EU regionalization measures. The  European Union reminded the Committee 
that the OIE standard stated that HPAI measures could be lifted after the application of a stamping 
out policy. This poli cy was strictly implemented in the European Union whenever an outbreak 
occurred. The European Union considered China's policy as overly trade restrictive as it did not 
recognize the concept of pest - or disease -free areas. Trading partners, including China had been 
kept informed of the measures implemented to ensure safe trade, as well as other information on 
latest developments. The European Union requested China to clarify its scientific basis for the 
country -wide bans and its procedures to recognize regio nalization, especially given that China faced 
domestic HPAI outbreaks and that it also implemented its own regionalization policies. The European 
Union further urged China to review its import policy in order to comply with its transparency and 
regionaliza tion obligations under the SPS Agreement. The European Union remained open to 
continuing discussions with China in order to find a timely solution.  
2.67.   China explained that the measure had been taken in 2015 after several EU member States 
had reported HPAI out breaks. China noted that the outbreak of HPAI in the European Union had still 
not ended, as an outbreak of HPAI had been reported in France in early 2016. Two of the HPAI 
strains (H5N8 and H5N9), previously reported in outbreaks in EU member States in 2015  had never 
been detected in China. China indicated that it had started the process to remove the ban and in 
particular, the HPAI ban for Spain had been lifted on the basis of the results of a risk assessment. 
China noted that its experts would shortly cond uct an on -site risk assessment in the Netherlands 
and further invited EU member States to submit an official note to Chinese authorities indicating 
their intention to export poultry products to China, following which the ban release procedure would 
commenc e, taking into account the risk control measures.  
2.68.   In October 2016, the United States noted the importance of the OIE guidelines for HPAI to 
facilitate safe trade, and indicated that the United States would raise a more general concern on the 
adherence to t hese guidelines under agenda item 4(e). The United States expressed a specific 
concern regarding China's HPAI -related restriction on US poultry products, recalling that all HPAI 
cases in the United States had been successfully resolved in accordance with O IE guidelines since G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 50 - 
 
  22 April 2016 and that the United States was free of HPAI since June 2016. The United States noted 
that it had a strong surveillance and response programme for HPAI. The United States had engaged 
with China on numerous occasions: provid ing regular updates on the detection of HPAI, proposing a 
protocol outlining the management of poultry products if HPAI were to be detected, and inviting 
technical experts from China to review USDA's HPAI surveillance programme. In light of the HPAI -
free s ituation, the United States called upon China to lift all remaining HPAI -related measures against 
US poultry products, and promised to continue to inform Chinese officials about the state of HPAI 
surveillance.  
2.69.   The European Union reiterated its concerns reg arding China's country -wide bans on several 
EU member States due to HPAI, recalling that it had on previous occasions encouraged Members to 
recognize OIE standards and efficiency of the EU's regionalization measures. The European Union 
noted that China had  previously declared that it applied regionalization for LPAI but not HPAI, and 
that bans might be lifted after a risk assessment , which would only start once risks were under 
control. The European Union disagreed with China's previous statement that China 's measures were 
compatible with international standards. The European Union recalled that almost all WTO Members 
confronted with occasional outbreaks of HPAI implemented regionalization policies in their 
management of the disease. The European Union furth er stated that , in full transparency , it had 
provided China all the necessary evidence to demonstrate that it had applied the stamping -out policy 
described in the OIE Code, the existence of HPAI -free areas and that such areas were likely to remain 
disease -free. The European Union considered that China's decision not to accept zoning in relation 
with HPAI disregarded the relevant OIE  standard, Article 6 of the SPS  Agreement and the Panel 
report of DS430. The European Union called on China to respect its WTO regionalization obligations 
and remained open to work with China to find a rapid solution.  
2.70.   With regards to the concerns raised  by the E uropean Union, China noted that the measure 
had been taken in 2015 in order to prevent the spread of HPAI into China afte r several EU member 
States had reported HPAI outbreaks. China indicated that it had been conducting HPAI risk 
assessments with the collaboration of the European Union and made adjustments to its measures 
accordingly. China stated that the disease was still  present in some EU member States, with most 
recent reports in France and Italy. China continued to perceive the risk of HPAI in the European 
Union as high and therefore had to take cautious measures to protect safety of the poultry industry 
and health of the whole population.  
2.71.   With regards to the US concerns, China noted that numerous HPAI cases had been found in 
many US states since December 2014 and that the epidemic still continued in 2016, the latest case 
having been reported in August. China recognized  that both the European Union and the United 
States had made use of bilateral channels to conduct technical communications, and encouraged 
both Members to continue these discussions with relevant Chinese authorities.  
2.72.   In July 2017, the United States reitera ted its concerns regarding China's highly pathogenic 
avian influenza (HPAI) -related restrictions on its poultry products, last raised in October 20 16. 
The United States reiterated its request for recognition of pest -free areas and authorization to import 
heat-treated poultry products, which could not transmit the virus. The United States highlighted its 
rigorous and effective monitoring system for avian influenza, and its compliance with the 
transparency obligations, consistent with OIE guidelines. The Unit ed States expressed appreciation 
to Chinese officials for agreeing to participate in an avian influenza workshop in the United States in 
July 2017 and for conducting an avian influenza sys tem audit in the United States.  
2.73.   The European Union echoed the United States concern regarding the country bans, which also 
affected European Union members. The European Union recalled the Thematic Session on 
Regionalization and expressed its willingness to continue to engage with China o n the matter.  
2.74.   China highlighted the global challenge posed by avian influenza. China underlined its special 
attention to prevention and control of the avian influenza virus risks, especially on HPAIV, as a major 
producer and consumer of poultry products. China drew attention to the outbreaks notified by the 
United States in March and April 2017 and to the consensus reached with the United States that due 
to the specific epidemic pattern of HPAI, it was necessary to apply compartmentalization. Finally, 
China indicated that an expert mission of China had been in the United States to conduct an on -site 
review on the effectiveness of prevention and control measures, and the animal health status. Future 
steps were to be determined based on the evaluation of the expert group. China remained positive 
on finding a mutually satisfactory solution.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 51 - 
 
  2.75.   In November 2017, the United States reiterated its concern over China's Highly Pathogenic 
Avian Influenza (HPAI) -related restrictions on poultry products and requested that  China follow OIE 
standards, particularly on regionalization. The United States regretted that despite being HPAI -free 
according to OIE guidelines, China still maintained the restriction. The United States urged China to 
remove all HPAI -related import rest rictions and promised to continue to maintain its rigorous and 
effective surveillance for HPAI.  
2.76.   The European Union echoed the United States concern and the desire to have it resolved, as 
it faced the same issue.  
2.77.   China replied that it had found certain pr oblems with the prevention and control system of 
avian influenza in the United States in July 2017, based on its pre liminary risk assessment. China  had 
informed the United States of the problems detected, but had not yet received a response. 
China  urged th e United States to provide feedback in writing, as well as the supplementary 
information requested. China explained that there had been bilateral discussions on biosafety 
compartmentalization and regionalization methods, and kept an open mind on both metho ds. China 
added that it would submit its standards on biosafety compartmentalization in writing to the United 
States again. Finally, China suggested that both parties coordinate their standards on regionalization 
and biosafety compartmentalization under th e OIE guidelines.  
2.78.   The United States appreciated China's compartmentalization proposal. However, it noted that 
each country should be evaluated for recognition of regionalization or compartmentalization 
separately, following the procedure established by th e importing country. The United States added 
that since both countries were in different stages of the process, it requested that China remove all 
HPAI-related restrictions on imports from the United States in line with its HPAI -free status, 
according to O IE standards.  
2.79.   In March 2018, the United States reiterated its concern over China's Highly Pathogenic Avian 
Influenza (HPAI) -related restrictions on poultry products and requested that China follow OIE 
standards, particularly on regionalization. The United States regretted that despite being HPAI -free, 
according to OIE guidelines, China still maintained the restriction. China had also not requested any 
additional information from the United States, further to its audit in July 2017. The United States 
urged C hina to remove all HPAI -related import restrictions and indicated its commitment to maintain 
its rigorous and effective surveillance for HPAI.  
2.80.   China replied that it had found problems with the prevention and control system of avian 
influenza in the United States in July 2017, based on its preliminary risk assessment. China had 
informed the United States of the problems detected, but had not yet received a response. 
China  urged the United States to provide feedback in writing, as well as the requested supple mentary 
information. China explained that there had been bilateral discussions on biosafety 
compartmentalization and regionalization methods, and kept an open mind on both methods. China 
added that it would again submit its standards on biosafety compartme ntalization, in writing, to the 
United States. Finally, China suggested that both parties establish coordinated standards on 
regionalization and biosafety compartmentalization under the OIE guidelines.  
2.81.   The United States clarified that, while it understood that China would like to purse 
compartmentalization, a formal compartmentalization proposal had not been received from China. 
Moreover, the United States noted that each country should separately be evaluated for recognition 
of regionalization or compartme ntalization, following the procedure established by the importing 
country. The United States added that since both countries were in different stages of the process, 
it requested China to finalize the regionalization protocol that was provided following th e July 2017 
visit, and to remove all HPAI -related restrictions on imports from the United States, in line with its 
HPAI-free status, according to OIE standards.  
2.82.   In July 2018, the United States reiterated its concerns over China's HPAI -related restrictions 
on US poultry products and requested China to follow OIE standards, particularly on regionalization. 
The United States regretted that despite being HPAI -free according to OIE guidelines, China still 
maintained the restriction. China had not requested any a dditional information to lift the restrictions, 
after its audit in 2017. The United States urged China to remove all HPAI -related import restrictions 
and indicated its commitment to maintain its rigorous and effective surveillance for HPAI.  G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 52 - 
 
  2.83.   China informed the Committee of the technical communications held with the United States, 
and explained that, in September 2017, the United States had been informed of problems found 
during the field inspection conducted in July 2017. China expressed its hope that both s ides continue 
to facilitate technical communication on the issue.  
2.84.   In November 2018, the United Stated reiterated its concern on China's HPAI -related 
restrictions on US poultry products and requested China to follow OIE standards, particularly on 
regionaliz ation. The United Sates regretted that despite being HPAI -free according to OIE guidelines, 
China still maintained restrictions. China had conducted an audit of the US avian influenza control 
system in July 2017, and had not requested further information t o lift restrictions afterwards. 
The United States urged China to remove all HPAI -related import restrictions and indicated its 
commitment to continue maintaining its rigorous and effective surveillance for HPAI in compliance 
with OIE transparency obligatio ns. 
2.85.   China expressed its preference for using compartmentalization rather than regionalization for 
poultry. China indicated that it would conduct consultations on the avian influenza epidemic 
management model based on the principles of reciprocity and synch ronization to resolve this issue. 
Finally, China expressed its commitment to continue discussions on regionalization and 
compartmentalization with the United States to resolve these concerns as soon as possible.  
2.86.   The United States clarified that it had not received a formal compartmentalization proposal 
from China. Further, the United States noted that each country should be evaluated for recognition 
of regionalization or compartmentalization separately, following the procedure established by the 
importing c ountry. The United States added that since both countries were in different stages of the 
process, it requested China to finalize the regionalization protocol that was provided following the 
July 2017 visit, and to remove all HPAI -related restrictions on i mports from the United States, in line 
with its HPAI -free status, according to OIE standards.  
2.2.3   Other concerns  
Lack of transparency for certain SPS measures  (STC 184)  
Raised by:  Israel, United States of America  
Supported by:  Australia ; Canada ; Chile; Costa Rica ; European Union ; Guatemala ; Japan ; 
Korea, Republic of ; Mexico ; Norway ; Singapore ; Switzerland ; Thailand  
Dates raised:  March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 32-33), June 2016 (G/SPS/R/83, 
paras.  4.51-4.55) , March 2017 (G/SPS/R/86, paras. 3.44 - 3.49),  July 
2017 (G/SPS/R/87, paras. 4. 49-4.53), November 2017 (G/SPS/R/88, 
paras. 3.59 -3.62) , March 2018 (G/SPS/R/90, paras. 3.35 -3.37), July 
2018 (G/SPS/R/92/Rev.1, paras. 4.64 -4.72)  
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/N/CHN/22  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.87.   In March 2004, the United States expressed concerns over Chin a's failure to notify nearly 
60 regulations covering food, forestry and fishery products issued since 2002.  Burdensome 
certification requirements for fresh, chilled and  frozen aquatic products were imposed by General 
Administration of Quality, Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ)  Decree 31, which entered 
into force on 1 July 2003, but were not notified to the WTO.  Despite holding bilateral consultations 
with Ch ina, no progress had been made on this issue.  The United States urged China to comply with 
its SPS obligations and to notify new regulations so that Members had an opportunity to comment 
on them.  
2.88.   China stressed that it had notified 213 SPS measures since i ts accession in 2001 and was 
committed to fulfilling its transparency obligations.  The comment period was calculated from the day 
the Secretariat circulated the notification.  There was no obligation to notify AQSIQ Decree 31 as it 
was an operational rule o f a corresponding regulation that had already been notified to the WTO, G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 53 - 
 
  and imposed no new technical requirements.  However, in the interest of enhanced transparency, 
Decree 31 had been notified in August 2003 (G/SPS/N/CHN/22).  
2.89.   In June 2016, the United Stat es reiterated its concern, first raised in March 2004, with China's 
lack of transparency for certain SPS measures. The Unit ed States recognized that China had been 
actively notifying the SPS measures of many of its agencies, and expressed appreciation for these 
efforts. However, recently many measures issued by some of China's principal regulatory agencies 
in relation to the implementation of China's 2015 Food Safety Law had not been notified. The United 
States indicated as an example a recent Chinese measu re implementing the new official certificate 
requirement for imported foods, of which the United States had become acquainted through a letter 
sent by the AQSIQ to the United States embassy in Beijing on 9 May 2016. The United States urged 
China to notify this measure, as well as all SPS measures that could impact international trade, in 
order to allow its trading partners to comment on them, and to take these comments into account 
upon finalizing the measures. The United States again expressed appreciation  to China for the 
substantive bilateral dialogue on transparency, and looked forward to further cooperation with China 
to improve food safety.  
2.90.   Australia reminded all Members that they should notify in accordance with their WTO 
obligations. While appreciati ng that it was sometimes difficult to determine whether a measure 
required notification or not, Australia encouraged Members, when in doubt, to notify.  
2.91.   The European Union supported the points made by the United States and Australia, and 
underlined its part icular concern about the new Chinese certification regime. The European Union 
feared that this specific measure would not be justified by any risk assessment, as the products 
concerned (pasta, confectionary or baked products) were inherently safe, and woul d impose a 
disproportionate and unnecessary burden on the importing countries. The European Union looked 
forward to seeing the Chinese notification for this measure, and to work with China on this issue.  
2.92.   New Zealand shared the concerns of Australia, the Eu ropean Union and the United States 
regarding China's lack of transparency, and especially highlighted Australia's more generic reminder 
to encourage all Members to notify their SPS measures. New Zealand insisted on the values of the 
notification system in allowing Members to comment and clarify measures, as well as exchange 
experiences. New Zealand wondered whether a lack o f transparency in notifying SPS measures  could 
be associated with a lack of experience with the notification system, and recalled the va lue of the 
mentoring system put in place some years ago, wherein developed Members helped developing 
Members to manoeuvre the notification system.  
2.93.   China responded that, from 2013 to 2015, it had submitted 494 regular SPS notifications, 
providing the 60 -day comment period for all the notified measures. China explained that the example 
provided by the United States on the Official Certificate Requireme nts for Imported Food did not 
correspond to non -compliance with the notification requirement, as the Official Certificate 
Requirements had not been implemented, and the purpose of diplomatic letters was to inform trading 
partners and collect their comments  in advance. China stated that the measure would be notified to 
the WTO, with the transitional comment period, after further evaluation. China  additionally argued 
that many of its SPS measures criticized for not having been notified were in line with inter national 
standards, or did not have a significant effect on international trade, and thus in conformity with 
Annex B, paragraph 5 of the SPS Agreement. China further explained that according to its 
administrative legislation procedure, the notification to the WTO came after the online public 
comment period and first revision of a measure r ather than at the same time, in  order to provide 
the WTO with the measure in a more advanced stage. China reminded the United States of its lack 
of transparency, providing  as an example the Seafood Import Monitoring Program published on the 
Federal Register on 5 February 2016 , which had not been notified to the WTO. China referred to 
data from the WTO SPS Information Management System (SPS IMS) indicating that the United 
States had submitted 317 regular SPS notifications between 2013 to 2015, among which only 
15 provided for a 60 -day comment period. A large number of the measures were notified, sometimes 
unjustifiably, as trade -facilitating, and therefore did not provide any  comment period. China added 
that the United States seldom notified sub -federal laws or regulations, and thus violated 
transparency rules.  
2.94.   In March 2017, the United States reiterated its concern with China's lack of transparency for 
certain SPS measures. T he United States expressed a particular concern with the lack of notification 
of China's measures related to the implementation of its 2015 Food Safety Law. Further, the United G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 54 - 
 
  States underlined China's State Council publication on 19 October 2016 of the R evised Draft 
Implementing Rules for the 2015 Food Safety Law as well as the Chinese General Administration of 
Quality, Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) letter dated 25 April 2016, addressed to 
the United States embassy and other Diplomatic Mi ssions in Beijing, regarding the new requirement 
for official certification of all food exported to China, with an attestation that the imported food meets 
Chinese laws, regulations, and standards, also known as "Announcement #327". The United States 
noted  that this would be inconsistent with relevant Codex guidance, and would be a matter of 
concern under the SPS Agreement. The United States requested that China delay the envisaged 
enforcement date of October 2017of the new certificate requirement for impor ted foods, until the 
concerns of trading partners had been addressed.  
2.95.   The United States urged China to notify both the Revised Draft Implementing Rules and the 
AQSIQ certificate requirement to the WTO, and take its trading partners' comments into account 
before finalizing the measures. The United States asked that China notify all SPS measures that 
would have an impact on trade, including newly proposed and future measures that it would develop 
to implement the 2015 Food Safety Law. The United States expres sed appreciation to China for the 
substantive bilateral dialogue, and looked forward to further cooperation with China to improve food 
safety in a transparent manner that was science -based and least -trade restrictive.  
2.96.   The European Union echoed the concerns  regarding the notification of the new legislation 
development in China.  
2.97.   Japan shared the concern raised by the United States and the European Union, and insisted 
on the need for more information on such a requirement for new official certificates.  
2.98.   China responded that the Chinese government took transparency seriously, fulfilling its 
obligations under the SPS Agreement. China was among Members who had notified the largest 
number of SPS measures, and was the Member who had most frequently provided a 60 -day 
comment period. Over the past three years, from 2014 to 2016, Ch ina had notified a total of 
419 regular SPS measures to the WTO, providing the 60 -day comment period for all the notified 
measures. With specific reference to the two food safety measures fla gged by the United States, the 
European Union and Japan, China reported to the Committee that the competent authority of China 
had already extensively consulted with the relevant stakeholders, including with those from the 
United States, the European Union  and Japan, and had reflected a number of comments in the 
revised rules. China commended the active effort of the United States, the European Union and 
Japan in providing comments in the public consultation process. China reported that it would soon 
notify  the food imports certificate requirements, and that the draft Implementing Rules of the Food 
Safety Law had been placed on the 2017 legislative agenda of the State Council of China, with 
ongoing consultations.  
2.99.   China highlighted that transparency was an i mportant obligation shared by all WTO Members. 
China commented on the lack of transparency by the United States. Referring to data from the WTO 
SPS Information Management System (SPS IMS), it noted that the United States had submitted 110 
regular SPS notif ications from 2014 to 2016, among which only 11 provided for a 60 -day comment 
period. China further noted that a large number of the measures were notified as trade -facilitating, 
often unjustifiably, and did not provide any comment period. China added as a  systemic issue that 
the United States did not notify the acts enacted by its Congress, for example the US Food Safety 
Modernization Act, and seldom notified sub -federal laws or state regulations. Finally, China 
encouraged more discussions with the relevan t Members with a view to further improving 
transparency in the SPS area.  
2.100.   In July 2017, the United States reiterated its concerns over the official certificate 
requirement for imported foods, originally issued by China's General Administration of Quality 
Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) in April 2016, recalling its transparency concerns 
regarding the lack of notification of this measure. The United States appreciated China's notification 
as G/TBT/N/CHN/1209 on 19 June 2017, which indicated und er description and objective of the 
measure, the protection of human health and food safety. Therefore, the United States reiterated 
the request that China notify its measure to  the SPS Committee as well. The  measure – entitled 
AQSIQ Food Bureau's Correspo ndence [2017] No. 83 in the TBT notification – would require a range 
of imported food products, including low -risk processed, shelf -stable foods, to be accompanied by 
official certificates. The United States noted that AQSIQ Correspondence No. 83 would app ly only to 
imports and would require official certification of low -risk foods on a shipment -by-shipment basis. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 55 - 
 
  Correspondence No. 83 indicated that the official certificate would need to include product and 
shipment details which were outside the purview o f the United States Food and Drug Administration, 
a requirement which would go into effect on 1  October 2017.  
2.101.   Given the impact these requirements could have, the U nited States enquired about 
(i) the scope of products covered by this measure, noting the imp ortance of using the Harmonized 
Commodity Description and Coding System developed by the World Customs Organization, and to 
clarify that duplicate official certificates would not be required; (ii) the scientific justification of the 
requirements, including  data documenting food -borne hazards associated with imported shelf -stable 
processed foods; how such documented hazards would pose a human health risk to consumers, and 
evidence showing that shipment -by-shipment official certification was appropriate and p roportionate 
to address the risk; (iii) considering replacing the official certification requirement with a less trade 
restrictive measure that recognized the primary responsibility of food business operators for 
compliance, which would be consistent with domestic Chinese requirements, as well as with Codex 
principles and guidelines; and (iv) the measures that would require the domestic certification of 
foods manufactured, processed, stored, transported and exported under the supervision of its 
domestic com petent authority. The United States urged China to delay the implementation of this 
measure to allow for the discussion and resolution of these trade concerns. Finally, the United States 
appreciated China's willingness to cooperate and they looked forward to a continued engagement.  
2.102.   Israel shared the concerns of the United States, mainly the significant and unnecessary 
barriers to trade the measure would cause. Israel hoped that, in addition to the notification to the 
TBT Committee, China would follow with a notification to the SPS Committee; and requested China 
to elaborate on the scientific justification and international standards their work was based on and 
the proportionate level of risk presented by the targeted products. Israel thanked China for its 
willingness to engage bilaterally.  
2.103.   Australia, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, European Union, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Singapore, 
and Switzerland shared the concerns expressed by the United States and Israel. They underlined, 
inter alia , their concerns over the lack of a notification to the SPS Committee, the scope of the 
products affected by this measure (including low -risk products), the inconsistency with Codex 
standards, the possible duplication of certification, and the unrealistic  implementation date of 
1 October 2017. In particular, the European Union underlined the ambiguity of some of the 
provisions and the difficulties this would pose for custom authorities. Several Members expressed 
appreciation of China's constructive bilateral meetings and clarificati ons.  
2.104.   China explained that in recent years it had observed a sustained and fast growth of imported 
food, becoming the largest importer of food and agricultural products. Imported food and agricultural 
products accounted for around 7.5% of its domestic food  consumption, imported dairy products for 
17.1% and edible oil for 29.3% of domestic food consumption. China underlined the importance of 
strengthening cooperation on food safety and therefore drafted the measure at issue. China also 
noted that the require ment of official certificates did not go against international conventions, and 
clarified that certificates were not required to demonstrate that the imported food completely met 
Chinese regulations, but only to prove that the production, processing, stora ge, transportation and 
export processes of the food had been under the effective supervision of the competent authorities 
of exporting countries. In addition, China explained that the certificates could be issued by the 
competent authorities of exporting c ountries or regions, or their authorized institutions. China stated 
that the notified measure had included Members' suggestions and comments and welcomed further 
feedback on the notification to the TBT Committee (G/TBT/N/CHN/1209). China explained that the  
certificates mentioned in the notification included the bilateral sanitary certificate and phytosanitary 
certificate, which meant that the imported food already covered by these certificates did not require 
a new certificate. China looked forward to a str engthened communication and cooperation with 
Members.  
2.105.   In November 2017, the United States reiterated its concern on China's proposed official 
certification requirements for imported food. The United States thanked China for its bilateral 
engagement and fo r its notification to the WTO of the two -year transitional period for the 
implementation of the official certification requirement, dela ying its entry into force to 30  September 
2019. The United States noted that though the notification had been made to th e TBT Committee, 
it indicated the protection of human health and food safety in the description and objective of the 
measure. The United States therefore requested China to keep the SPS Committee abreast of the 
measure's developments. The United States als o requested a clarification of the scope of the G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 56 - 
 
  measure, given that AQSIQ Food Bureau's Correspondence No. 83 appeared to require a wide range 
of imported food products to be accompanied by official certificates on a shipment -by-shipment 
basis, including p rocessed, shelf -stable food, which would pose little to no risk to food safety and 
human health. The United States argued that China's proposed requirement was inconsistent with 
Codex guidelines and principles. Finally, the United States welcomed the clari fications provided by 
China and the opportunity to work with China on the matter.  
2.106.   Singapore supported the concern and added that it looked forward to receiving responses to 
the questions posed to AQSIQ.  
2.107.   Japan, the European Union, Guatemala, and Thailand also shared the concern of the United 
States and urged China to provide timely and appropriate information on the revised draft and its 
implementation, noting that the measure would be disproportionate, go beyond international 
standards, and be trade disru pting.  
2.108.   China responded that it had carefully considered the comments submitted by Members and 
had decided to provide a unified transitional period of two years until 30 September 2019, as notified 
to the WTO. China explained that the measure had been draf ted taking into account the practical 
situation of other Members, and hoped that Members would provide a sample of certificates attached 
to food exported to China as soon as possible. The comments received would be delivered back to 
the capital for conside ration.  
2.109.   In March 2018, the United States reiterated its concern on China's proposed official 
certification requirements for imported food. The United States thanked China for its bilateral 
engagement and for its notification to the WTO of the two -year tran sitional period for the 
implementation of the official certification requirement. The United States welcomed the 
clarifications provided by China and requested confirmation that China was considering revision of 
the measure in the coming months. The United  States further requested information on the 
associated timelines for such a revision and urged China to notify any revision to the SPS Committee. 
The United States highlighted the wide range of imported food products covered by the measure, 
including proc essed, shelf -stable food, which would pose little to no risk to food safety and human 
health. The United States also noted the potential administrative and financial burden to both 
exporting countries and China, due to the measure. The United States recall ed the existing Codex 
guidelines and principles on official certification requirements and urged China to consider aligning 
its measure to these international guidelines. Finally, the United States welcomed the opportunity 
to work further with China on the  matter.  
2.110.   The European Union, Guatemala, Japan, Korea, Singapore and Thailand also shared the 
concern of the United States and urged China to provide information on the revised draft and its 
implementation, noting that the measure would be disproportionate,  go beyond international 
standards, and be trade disrupting. Guatemala further looked forward to receiving a response to its 
questions submitted in August 2017.  
2.111.   China recalled its response in previous SPS Committee meetings, highlighting that it had 
carefu lly considered the comments submitted by Members and had decided to postpone enforcement 
of the measure to 1 October 2019, as notified to the WTO. China explained that the measure had 
been drafted taking into account the practical situation of other Member s, and further indicated that 
it would take into consideration all reasonable comments from Members, with a view to adjust the 
measure and minimize negative trade effects. Finally, China invited Members to coordinate with 
Chinese authorities to continue di scussions on the technical details.  
2.112.   In July 2018, the United States appreciated China's September 2017 announcement of the 
two-year transitional period before enforcement of the official certification requirements. The United 
States understood that China w as planning further changes and clarifications to the measure and 
requested confirmation of China's intention to notify a revised measure to the WTO SPS and TBT 
Committees concurrently. The revised notification should identify the risk to be mitigated by t he 
certification requirements, and clarify the scope of products subject to certification. The United 
States further reiterated its concern on several issues, including the scope of the products covered 
by the measure, which appeared to include processed, shelf-stable food that ordinarily posed little 
or no risk for food -borne illness; the lack of scientific justification for the requirement, or evidence 
that official certification would address an identified public health concern; that the requirement G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 57 - 
 
  appeared to deviate from the relevant Codex guidelines and principles on official certification 
requirements; and that there appeared to be no requirements for domestic production corresponding 
to those imposed on imports. Finally, the United States expressed its willingness to continue to 
cooperate with China to assess whether the requirements were consistent with legitimate food safety 
and health protection goals.  
2.113.   Guatemala expressed appreciation to China for its presentation in the SPS workshop on 
Annex C an d the explanation of their domestic restructuring process with regards to AQSIQ and 
Customs. Guatemala requested China to clarify whether the restructuring would cause changes in 
the regulations notified in 2017 and whether the new structure would be notif ied to the WTO, as a 
notification would allow for a better understanding of the processes, stages and respective actions. 
Guatemala also requested China to consider reviewing the measure regarding low risk products such 
as processed products.  
2.114.   The European Union welcomed the objective of the new General Administration of Customs 
of China to simplify and accelerate procedures of custom clearance for imported goods. In this 
context, the European Union wondered if the new requirement would not create an adminis trative 
burden which would be disproportionate to the risk. Recalling its previous intervention, the European 
Union stressed that official certifications should be required only to manage real risks, and, therefore, 
should be limited to high -risk products.   
2.115.   Switzerland informed the Committee of the productive meeting held with China and 
welcomed China's decision to delay the enforcement of the measure to 1 October 2019, which 
demonstrated its willingness to consider feedback from Members, to make the measur e more 
effective and practical, and to minimize negative effects on trade. The measure was scheduled to 
enter in force in approximately 14 months, providing time for Swiss competent authorities and 
private operators exporting to China to prepare. Switzerla nd encouraged China to use this time to 
engage in discussions to reply to questions and comments received.  
2.116.   Japan expressed concerns regarding the measure's scientific background and the avoidance 
of duplication of certificates.  
2.117.   Thailand pointed out that th e measure covered a wide range of imported foods, including 
processed and shelf -stable foods, which posed low or no risk to human health, thus going beyond 
international standards. Thailand also requested China to align the measure with Codex guidelines 
and principles and to notify it to the SPS Committee.  
2.118.   Korea requested China to clarify the risk addressed by the measure. Korea also considered 
that requiring certification for all foods, including low -risk processed, shelf -stable foods on a batch -
by-batch b asis, as stated in China's notification of this measure to the WTO TBT Committee in 
June 2017, was inconsistent with Codex guidelines and principles. Korea requested China to revise 
the measure and notify it to the SPS Committee.  
2.119.   Singapore expressed its in terest in this issue and looked forward to further discussions with 
China to minimize any potential disruptions to trade.  
2.120.   China emphasised that food safety was a current global challenge, and that only cooperation 
among countries could ensure safety of the  global food supply chain. Regarding certification 
requirements, China highlighted that international organizations such as OIE, IPPC and Codex, had 
developed relevant certification requirements and guidelines, and that some Members had similar 
regulations . After taking full consideration of Member's comments, China had decided to postpone 
the enforcement of its measure to 1 October 2019. However, China noted that some Members 
believed that governments should not issue certificates for low -risk foods, while  not being able to 
provide the legal basis to define low -risk foods. Further, China added that some Members did not 
supervise foods meant for export. Thus, China wondered who would guarantee the safety of food 
imported into China. The certificates under co nsideration included veterinary health certificates and 
certain sanitary certificates which had been widely accepted to certify that the production, 
processing, storage, transportation and export processes of foods had been under the effective 
supervision of competent authorities of the exporting parties. This way, China argued that the 
frequency of inspections and sampling could be reduced, allowing a quick clearance, facilitating trade 
and enhancing consumer confidence. China also informed the Committee t hat the institutional G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 58 - 
 
  restructuring plan of the State Council had been reviewed and approved in March 2018, clarifying 
that the responsibilities for the exit, entry, inspection and quarantine of the former AQSIQ would be 
integrated to the General Administr ation of Customs, pending formal approval, once the institutional 
restructuring had been completed.  
2.3  Costa Rica  
2.3.1   Plant Health  
Costa Rica's suspension of the issuing of phytosanitary import certificates for avocados  
(STC 394)  
Raised by:  Guatemala,  Mexico  
Supported by:  Ghana; South Africa; United States of America; Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of  
Dates raised:  July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.13 -3.15), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, 
paras. 3.56 -3.58), March 2016 (G/SPS/R/82, paras. 3.50-3.54) , June 
2016 (G/SPS/R/83, paras. 4.22-4.25), October 2016 (G/SPS/R/84, 
paras. 3.46 -3.48)  
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/N/CRI/160, G/SPS/N/CRI/160/Add.1, G/SPS/N/CRI/162  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:  DSU panel establishment requested on 22  November 2018 
(WT/DS524/2).  
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.121.   In July 2015, Mexico raised concerns regarding the emergency measure taken by Costa 
Rica's phytosanitary  service in April 2015 through resolution DSFE 03 -2015, notified to the WTO 
under G/SPS/N/CRI/160 and G/SPS/N/CRI/160/Add.1. Costa Rica had temporarily suspended the 
issuing of import certificates for avocados of various origins because of the supposed pre sence of 
the sunblotch viroid in imported avocados. Costa Rica had affirmed that the nature of the problem 
was urgent, but according to Mexico there was no international regulatory basis for this view. Indeed, 
the fact that Costa Rica had declared that its  territory was free of a pest could not be a basis for the 
implementation of the emergency phytosanitary measure. The consequence was a complete 
interruption of trade, and Mexico did not believe that the measure was legitimate. Mexico requested 
a demonstra tion of the absence of the pest in line with ISPM 04, Requirements for the Establishment 
of Pest Free Areas. The interruption of trade meant that Costa Rica's measure was not proportional 
to the risk, especially because there has been no notification of th e pest in Mexico for 21 years. 
Mexico noted that the measure contravened the SPS Agreement and the SPS Chapter of the Free 
Trade Agreement between Mexico and Latin America. Mexico finally requested several documents 
from Costa Rica showing that Costa Rica was actually free of the pest, and information on shipments 
of avocados from Mexico that had shown positive results for the pest.  
2.122.   Guatemala, South Africa and the United States shared Mexico's concern. Guatemala also 
requested information about Costa Rica's  pest free pest status. The United States worried that this 
suspension of the issuance of import permits for avocados from eight countries and Florida was part 
of a larger attempt to use SPS measures to protect sensitive domestic industries. In the US view , 
the measure raised concerns regarding its consistency with international standards and guidelines, 
its scientific justification and its level of trade restrictiveness. South Africa was concerned that it 
appeared on the list of countries affected by the s uspension despite the fact that it was not exporting 
avocados to Costa Rica. South Africa requested to be removed from the list.  
2.123.   Costa Rica reaffirmed its commitment to transparency and to the multilateral system. 
It referred to measures taken to protect t he country from the virus and repeated that this pest could 
cause considerable damage to the phytosanitary status of its crop. Studies carried out in 2014 -2015 
by its SPS authorities had established that Costa Rica was free from the virus. As a result, the  
country had taken SPS measures against Peru and California to avoid the introduction of the pest. 
Costa Rica indicated that Mexico was its main provider of avocados and had reported the presence 
of the pest, which demonstrated the presence of an imminent risk. The current measure was 
temporary, and a risk assessment was under way. Costa Rica indicated that its authorities were in 
close contact with Mexico.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 59 - 
 
  2.124.   In October 2015, Mexico again raised concerns regarding the emergency measure taken by 
Costa Rica's p hytosanitary service in April 2015 through resolution DSFE 03 -2015, notified to the 
WTO under G/SPS/N/CRI/160, G/SPS/N/CRI/160/Add.1 and G/SPS/N/CRI/162. Costa Rica had 
temporarily suspended the issuing of import certificates for avocados of various origin s because of 
the supposed presence of the sun blotch viroid in imported avocados. Costa Rica had affirmed that 
the nature of the problem was urgent, but according to Mexico there was no international regulatory 
basis for this view. Indeed, the fact that Co sta Rica had declared that its territory was free of a pest 
could not be a basis for the implementation of the emergency phytosanitary measure. 
The consequence was a complete interruption of trade, and Mexico did not believe that the measure 
was legitimate . In Mexico's view the measure was in breach of the SPS Agreement and the SPS 
Chapter of the Free Trade Agreement between Mexico and Latin America. Mexico requested that 
Costa Rica immediately remove the ban and respond in writing to questions it had submi tted. Mexico 
viewed the measures imposed by Costa Rica as a negative precedent for the application of 
SPS measures without adherence to international standards.  
2.125.   The United States shared this concern and worried that this suspension on issuing import 
permit s for avocados from eight countries and Florida was part of a larger attempt to use 
SPS measures to protect sensitive domestic industries. In the US view, the measure also raised 
concerns regarding its consistency with international standards and guideline s, its scientific 
justification and its level of trade restrictiveness.  
2.126.   Costa Rica reaffirmed its commitment to transparency and to the multilateral system. 
It referred to measures taken to protect the country from the virus and repeated that this pest cou ld 
cause considerable damage to the phytosanitary status of its crop. Studies carried out in 2014 -2015 
by its SPS authorities had established that Costa Rica was free from the virus. Costa Rica indicated 
that Mexico was its main provider of avocados and ha d reported the presence of the pest, which 
demonstrated an imminent risk. The current measure was temporary, and a risk assessment was 
under way. Costa Rica remained open to dialogue regarding the implementation of its SPS measures.  
2.127.   In March 2016, Mexico r eiterated its concern regarding Costa Rica's suspension of the issuing 
of phytosanitary certificates for avocado imports. Mexico considered the measure to be in violation 
of fundamental principles of technical and scientific justification based on internat ional standards, 
most-favoured nation, proportionality and transparency, thus violating the SPS Agreement and the 
SPS Chapter of NAFTA. Mexico had called for consultations with all relevant bodies under the FTA 
that Costa Rica and Mexico has signed. Mexico  described the measure's significant negative impact 
on its avocado exports, and requested the Costa Rica to immediately withdraw its measure in order 
to resume avocado trade between the two countries. In addition, Mexico requested the Costa Rica 
to provid e a prompt written response to the communications and questions sent by Mexico. Mexico 
urged Costa Rica accept Mexico's measures as sufficient to ensure that avocado sunblotch viroid 
would not spread to Costa Rica.  
2.128.   The United States shared Mexico's concern s and asked Costa Rica to take steps to restart 
issuing phytosanitary import permits, since the suspension was not consistent with international 
standards and guidelines nor scientifically justified. The United States expressed concerns regarding 
other agr icultural trade issues with Costa Rica, including those affecting rice, onions, and potatoes. 
The United States informed that some importers had been denied import permits for onions despite 
the absence of phytosanitary restrictions and that those importer s had expressed a willingness to 
pay out -of-quota duties.  
2.129.   Ghana stated that the notification by Costa Rica also suspended imports permits from seven 
other countries, including Ghana. Ghana requested to be removed from this list immediately, as 
sunblotch vi roid was not present in Ghana. Ghana expressed gratitude to the African Union for 
making it possible for delegates to attend the SPS Committee meeting.  
2.130.   Guatemala and Venezuela shared Mexico's concern and indicated that they would follow this 
issue closely.  Venezuela noted that, like Ghana, it was also one of the Members affected by the 
measure.  
2.131.   Costa Rica recalled that the State Phytosanitary Service (SFE) had suspended the issuance 
of import permits for Mexican avocados because of the confirmed presence of  the avocado sunblotch 
viroid. Costa Rica explained that since the measure had been adopted provisionally, based on the G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 60 - 
 
  available scientific data, it had been notified as an emergency measure on 5 May  2015 in 
G/SPS/N/CRI/160. The SFE had quickly evaluated the scientific evidence, undertaking a pest risk 
analysis (PRA) which had been notified to the WTO on 13 July 2015 as G/SPS/N/CRI/162, 
establishing a period of 60 days for comments. Further, the comments of Mexico had been studied 
by the national authoriti es. On 12 October 2015, the relevant authorities of both countries had met 
in San Jose with the aim of reviewing Mexico's concerns. During the meeting, Costa Rica had 
indicated that the measures were based on the recognized rights within the SPS Agreement to 
protect the national phytosanitary status, based on scientific evidence. Costa Rica reported that it 
sent Mexico the most recent version of the PRA, providing a new opportunity to comment. 
In addition, five bilateral meetings had taken place involving a  range of specialists from both 
countries and Costa Rica had rigorously responded to suggestions made by the Mexican authorities. 
In December 2015, Costa Rica had undertaken another assessment, which found Costa Rica free of 
the pest. Costa Rica indicated that the phytosanitary authorities were working on the notification of 
the definitive measures which would apply to avocado imports from Mexico. Costa Rica expressed 
its willingness to engage in open dialogue with the aim of responding to questions and tec hnical 
concerns related to this measure with Mexico and other trading partners.  
2.132.   In June 2016, Mexico reiterated its concern regarding Costa Rica's suspension of the issuing 
of phytosanitary certificates for avocado imports originating from Mexico. Mexico c onsidered the 
measure to be in violation of fundamental principles of technical and scientific justification based on 
international standards, most -favoured nation, proportionality and transparency principles as 
enshrined in the SPS Agreement and the SPS C hapter of NAFTA. Mexico noted its preference to 
promote dialogue between authorities in various consultative formats; however, these efforts had 
not been successful as no response had been received from Costa Rican authorities in regard to the 
issue. Mexic o indicated that its avocado exports continued to be significantly affected by the 
restrictions imposed by Costa Rica and further reiterated its request for Costa Rica to immediately 
withdraw its measure in order to resume avocado trade between the two cou ntries.  
2.133.   The United States shared Mexico's concerns and urged Costa Rica to take steps to 
recommence issuing phytosanitary import permits, since the suspension was not consistent with 
international standards and guidelines, nor scientifically justified. The  United States also expressed 
concerns regarding other agricultural trade issues with Costa Rica, including those affecting rice, 
onions and potatoes. While recent progress had been made with respect to potatoes, some importers 
continued to be denied impor t permits for onions, despite the absence of phytosanitary restrictions.  
2.134.   Guatemala supported Mexico's concerns and expressed a systemic interest, given the 
measure's lack of consistency with international rules, as well as lack of clarity regarding the 
scientific justification of the measure.  
2.135.   Costa Rica explained that its state phytosanitary service (SFE) had proposed the measure in 
order to minimize the risk of introduction of the avocado sunblotch viroid. SFE had continued its 
analysis of collected scient ific evidence with the aim of proposing measures that guaranteed its 
appropriate level of protection, while at the same time being least trade restrictive. Costa Rica 
reiterated its willingness and interest to continue technical discussions on a bilateral level in order 
to clarify any doubts regarding the applied measure.  
2.136.   In October 2016, Mexico reiterated its concern regarding Costa Rica's suspension of the 
issuing of phytosanitary certificates for avocado imports originating from Mexico. Mexico considered  
the measure to be in violation of fundamental principles of technical and scientific justification based 
on international standards, most -favoured nation, proportionality and transparency principles as 
enshrined in the SPS Agreement and the SPS Chapter of  the Free Trade Agreement between Mexico 
and Latin America. Mexico noted its preference to promote dialogue between authorities in various 
consultative formats; however, these efforts had not been successful as no response had been 
received from Costa Rica n authorities in regard to the issue. Mexico indicated that its avocado 
exports continued to be significantly affected by the restrictions imposed by Costa Rica and further 
reiterated its request for Costa Rica to immediately withdraw its measure in order to resume avocado 
trade between the two countries.  
2.137.   The United States shared Mexico's concerns and asked Costa Rica to take steps to 
recommence issuing phytosanitary import permits since the suspension was not consistent with 
international standards and gui delines, nor scientifically justified. Guatemala supported Mexico's 
concerns and expressed a systemic interest in this issue.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 61 - 
 
  2.138.   Costa Rica recalled that the suspension concerned measures proposed to minimize the risk 
of introduction of the avocado sun blotch  viroid. A pest risk analysis (PRA) had been notified in 
July 2015 ( G/SPS/N/CRI/162), providing 60 days for comments. Costa Rica indicated that in 
November 2015 it had circulated a revised PRA, taking into account  some of the comments that it 
had received during the comment period. However, Mexican authorities had indicated that they 
disagreed with the findings and measures established by this revised PRA. Costa Rica explained that 
it had therefore broadened the re view of the PRA, including an extensive work at the laboratory 
level. Costa Rica would notify the final PRA and the definitive measures once this work was 
completed. Costa Rica reaffirmed its commitment to find a mutually satisfactory solution for both 
sides. 
2.139.   In accordance with the provisions of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing 
the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Mexico requested consultations with Costa Rica on 8 March 2017 
(WT/DS524/1), and requested the establishment of a panel on 22 Nov ember 2018 (WT/DS524/2).  
2.4  European Union  
2.4.1   Food safety  
Categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors (STC 382)  
Raised by:  Argentina, China, United States of America  
Supported by:  Australia; Benin; Brazil; Burkina Faso; Burundi; Canada; Central African 
Republic; Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; Dominican Republic; Ecuador; 
Egypt; El Salvador; The Gambia; Ghana; Guatemala; Guinea; 
Honduras; Indonesia; Jamaica; Kenya; Korea, Republic of; 
Madagascar; Malaysia; Mexico; New Zealand; Nigeria; Pakistan; 
Panama; Par aguay; Peru; Philippines; Senegal; Sierra Leone; South 
Africa; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; Togo; Uruguay; Viet Nam; Zambia  
Dates raised:  March 2014 (G/SPS/R/74 , paras. 4.3 -4.4), March 2015 (G/SPS/R/78 , 
paras. 3.20 -3.22), July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79 , paras. 3.50 -3.52), October 
2015 (G/SPS/R/81, paras. 3.34 -3.37) , March 2016 (G/SPS/R/82, 
paras.  3.15-3.20), June 2016 (G/SPS/R/83, paras. 4.32 -4.37), October 
2016 (G/SPS/R/84, paras. 3.18 -3.23) , March 2017 (G/SPS/R/86, 
paras.  3.16-3.20), July 2017 (G/SPS/R /87, paras. 4.19 -4.26), 
November 2017 (G/SPS/R/88, paras. 3.47 -3.52) , March 2018 
(G/SPS/R/90, paras. 3.24 -3.30), July 2018 (G/SPS/R/92/Rev.1, 
paras.  4.79-4.87), November 2018 (G/SPS/R/93, paras. 3.24 -3.30)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.140.   In March 2014, t he United States noted that the European Union planned to publish a 
roadmap outlining different options and a preliminary impact assessment in its process to assess, 
classify and regulate endocrine disruptors. The United States urged the European Union to swiftly 
notify the roadmap, any future proposals and the draft impac t assessment, and to take into account 
comments from Members. The United States requested that the European Union explain its 
endocrine disruptor assessment program, particularly the timing for public consultations, as well as 
the timeframe for notificatio ns and the manner in which Members' comments would be taken into 
consideration.  
2.141.   The European Union highlighted that several segments of its legislation contained provisions 
on endocrine disruptors; however, scientific criteria for the identification of end ocrine disruptor 
substances were not yet available. The European Union noted that it had planned to propose 
scientific criteria to identify endocrine disruptors in its biocidal products regulation and plant 
protection products regulation by December 2013. However, i n light of the potential impacts of a 
choice of criteria, the European Commission decided to carry out a comprehensive impact 
assessment to analyse  the different policy options available to define criteria for the identification of 
endocrine disr uptors, before making a revised proposal. This process was underway and the next G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 62 - 
 
  step would be the publication of a roadmap, within the coming weeks, outlining the various policy 
options for the criteria to be assessed. The impact asse ssment would follow s tandard EU  guidelines, 
take into account existing scientific studies and reports, relevant international on -going work on this 
subject, and the impact on international trade. The European Union further clarified that a public 
consultation would be launched  as part of the process in the course of 2014, enabling all stakeholders 
and trading p artners to provide their input.  
2.142.   In March 2015, the United States raised concerns regarding the EU public consultation on 
defining criteria for identifying endocrine disru ptors in the context of the implementation of the plant 
protection product regulation and biocidal products regulation. The United States questioned the 
scientific evidence considered in developing and selecting each of the options presented in the 
roadmap  and feared that risk might have not been taken into account. Implementation of any 
hazard -based "cut -off" option that did not consider risk from actual exposure could have severe 
implications for EU imports of agricultural goods, including those from the United States. 
Furthermore, banning chemicals and pesticides solely based on endocrine -disrupting properties 
might incentivize the use of more dangerous products, simply because they do not present 
endocrine -disrupting properties. The United States encoura ged the European Union to explain in a 
public document how significant stakeholders' comments would be taken into account and urged the 
Commission to adopt an approach that fully considered the vital role that pesticide chemicals play 
in food safety and se curity.  
2.143.   Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, India, Kenya, 
Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, South Africa and Uruguay shared the US concern 
regarding the socio -economic effects that the EU measure would have on their countries if the 
legislation was to be approved. Various Members asked if the European Union had considered 
conducting an economic impact assessment for such a regulation and looked forward to being further 
informed.  
2.144.   The European Union noted that the re was currently no new EU legislative proposal on 
defining criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors. The European Commission was in the process 
of conducting a full impact assessment, where all health, environmental and socio -economic aspects, 
includ ing impacts on international trade, would be addressed. Following the publication of the 
roadmap in June 2014, a public consultation had been held  from September 2014 to January  2015. 
Over 27,000 responses had been received and published on the EU Commissi on website, and an 
analytical report of these responses wou ld be provided in due course. A  stakeholders' conference for 
all interested parties, including third countries, was planned for 1  June 2015, while a dedicated 
webpage with information on the ongoin g impact assessment would be available soon on the DG -
SANTE website. In parallel, the necessary studies to support the impact assessment were ongoing. 
The first one would estimate which substances would be identified under each option for the criteria 
outlined in the Roadmap, with 700 chemicals being screened. Only when the results of these 
screenings would be available, the European Commission would launch the studies assessing impacts 
on health, environment, trade, agriculture and socio -economic effects i n general and include them 
in the impact assessment report that would accompany any legislative proposal. If and when such 
proposal would be made, the legislative draft would be notified to the WTO to allow Members to 
present their comments, in line with t he transparency obligations of the SPS Agreement that the 
European Union promoted and would like to reinforce.  
2.145.   In July 2015, the United States recalled its concerns on EU roadmap outlining possible 
options for defining criteria to identify endocrine disrup tors, specifically as they related to plant 
protection products.  Referring to the public consultation held in Brussels on 1 July 2015, the  United 
States questioned the scientific evidence underlying the options, and the consideration of any 
hazard -based "c ut-off" option instead of risk from actual exposure. It encouraged the European 
Union to share information on the methodology used in developing EU member States' impact 
assessments. The United States requested that the European Union recognize risk -based endocrine 
programmes developed by other countries. It also request that the European Union keep the 
Committee informed of relevant developments, and encouraged the European Union to publish the 
draft legislation, once developed, including any risk and impa ct assessments carried out.  
2.146.   Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, India, 
Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, and Peru also spoke about the revised EU proposal 
on endocrine disruptors. They urged the Eu ropean Union to take into account all the comments made G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 63 - 
 
  during the public consultation and requested that the Committee be informed of any relevant 
developments.  
2.147.   The European Union recalled that it was currently conducting an all -inclusive risk 
assessment,  including impacts on international trade, and that the report of the public consultation 
conducted between September 2014 and January 2015 would be made public in the coming weeks. 
The European Union also noted that all the relevant information about the impact assessment had 
been made available on their website. The E uropean Union recalled that two  studies were being 
conducted, one on the identification of the endocrine disruptors and another on the assessment of 
impacts. Once, and if, a legislative p roposal was eventually made, it  would be notified to the 
Committee and comments from Members would be taken into account before adoption of the final 
regulation.  
2.148.   In October 2015, the United States restated the observations presented during the 2015 
July meetin g and thanked the European Union for its report of the public consultation held in Brussels 
in July 2015 (G/SPS/GEN/1448) .  
2.149.   Argentina shared the US concern and reiterated that future actions should be taken on a 
case-by-case basis and based on solid scient ific evidence after appropriate risk assessment. Special 
attention should be given to minimizing adverse impacts on international trade and especially on 
trade in agricultural products, but also to minimizing socioeconomic losses in commodity -producing 
countries, in particular developing countries. Argentina also thanked the European Union for its 
report of the consultation and requested that the rest of the process be conducted in a transparent 
manner inclusive of all relevant stakeholders.  
2.150.   Brazil, Burkina  Faso, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, India, 
Jamaica, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru, Senegal, Sierra Leone and 
Viet Nam also spoke about the revised EU proposa l on endocrine disruptors. They  encouraged the 
European Union, inter alia , to follow a risk -based approach, adhere to relevant international 
standards and to keep informing the Committee of any relevant developments.  
2.151.   The European Union recalled that it was currently conducting an all -inclusive impact 
assessment, including impacts on international trade. The European Union also noted that all the 
relevant information about the impact assessment had been made available on their website. 
The European Union recalled that two studies were being conducted, one on the identification of the 
endocrine disruptors and another on the assessment of impacts. Once, and if, a legislative proposal 
were eventually to be made, it would be notified to the Committee and comments from Members 
would be taken into account before adoption of the final regulation.  
2.152.   In March 2016, Argentina again raised its concern with the EU revised proposal for 
categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors, both on defining criteria for identifying 
endocrine disruptors and on t he future EU approach to establishing MRLs and import tolerances for 
said substances. Argentina urged the European Union to adopt a risk -based rather than a hazard -
based approach. Argentina requested more information on the socio-economic impact of the 
EU revised proposal on endocrine disruptors. Argentina also requested an update on information 
provided at the previous TBT Committee meeting on this topic.  
2.153.   China shared the concern while commending the European Union for its efforts to protect 
consumers' hea lth. China urged the European Union to incorporate actual exposure in its regulations, 
to apply existing Codex standards to minimize trade impacts, and to notify its measures at an early 
stage to take into account Members' comments.  
2.154.   The United States reaff irmed the importance of plant protection products and their uses and 
recalled its concerns about the EU roadmap, which outlined possible options for defining criteria to 
identify endocrine disruptors. The United States questioned the scientific evidence un derlying the 
options, and the consideration of any hazard -based "cut -off" option instead of risk from actual 
exposure. The United States encouraged the European Union to share information on the 
methodology used in developing EU member States' impact asses sments as well as an update on 
the EU's intentions to include socio -economic analysis in the impact assessment. The United States 
requested that the European Union recognize risk -based endocrine programmes developed by other 
countries. It also requested th at the European Union keep the Committee informed of relevant G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 64 - 
 
  developments, and encouraged the European Union to publish the draft legislation, once developed, 
including any risk and impact assessments carried out, for public comment. Additionally, the Uni ted 
States raised a concern regarding Regulation  (EC) No. 1107/2009 that sets out a hazard -based 
approach, rather than risk -based, to determine whether substances should be authorized for use. 
According to this regulation, pesticides previously deemed safe  under a risk -based approach would 
no longer be authorized if they triggered a hazard "cut -off", as described in Regulation (EC) 
1107/2009. The United States urged the European Union to communicate risks accurately to the 
public and reaffirmed its commitme nt to collaboration to reduce the potentially severe impacts on 
trade.  
2.155.   Canada shared this concern, as in the last three SPS Committee meetings. Hazard 
identification was an important step in risk analysis, but needed to be placed into the context of 
exposu re. Canada continued to seek clarification on the EU regulations, as the proposed approaches 
could impede the use of safe crop protection products, thus restricting trade without evidence of 
increased safety. Canada noted that the EU impact studies would b e released later in 2016 and 
requested clarification on how the studies would be utilized and comments would be managed.  
2.156.   Brazil, Burundi (on behalf of the African Group), Central African Republic, Colombia, Chile, 
Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Jamaica, In dia, Kenya, Madagascar, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, 
Senegal, Thailand, Togo, Viet Nam, and Zambia also spoke about the revised EU proposal on 
endocrine disruptors. They encouraged the European Union to, inter alia , follow a risk -based 
approach, minimize any potential trade impacts, adhere to relevant international standards and keep 
informing the Committee of any relevant developments, especially the forthcoming impact 
assessments.  
2.157.   The European Union clarified that the roadmap contained two elements: the approaches to 
identify criteria and the approaches to regulatory measures. Two options of the latter contained 
elements of risk assessment. The European Union stated that in response to a judgement of the 
EU General Court in December 2015, the European Com mission had decided to accelerate its on -
going impact assessment work in order to be able to present the  results in summer of 2016. 
The report was in its final stages and would be publically available once formally approved. 
Two regulatory measures were be ing considered: one containing criteria applied to chemical 
substances falling under the Plant Protection Products Regulation, and the other containing criteria 
applicable under the Biocidal Products Regulation. Both measures would be notified to the WTO i n 
draft forms for comments prior to adoption. The European Union recalled that in the impact 
assessment the potential trade impacts were being evaluated, together with impacts on agriculture, 
health, environment, and socio -economic impacts. The European Un ion noted that the methodology 
used to screen which chemicals may fall under the different options for criteria to identify endocrine 
disruptors had been developed by the Joint Research Center of the European Commission and had 
been presented in November 2 015. The methodology, results, and contractor's details would be 
published upon completion. Finally, the European Union highlighted that it was acting in a fully 
transparent manner and invited Members to visit the dedicated website where all relevant 
information was available.  
2.158.   In June 2016, Argentina reiterated its concern with the EU's revised proposal for 
categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors, notified in G/SPS/N/EU/166. The hazard -based 
approach would modify MRLs of previously approved phyt osanitary products to default levels that 
lacked scientific justification, leading to disproportionate and unnecessary trade restrictions. 
Argentina requested that these levels be based on risk assessments and the possibility to establish 
MRLs above defaul t levels for substances posing an insign ificant exposure risk. Finally,  Argentina 
regretted that the draft regulation setting out scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine -
disrupting properties for biocidal products pursuant to EU Regulation N o. 528/2012 had been notified 
to the TBT Committee (G/TB T/N/EU/384), and not to the SPS  Committee.  
2.159.   The United States raised its concern with three EU policies related to the approval and use 
of plant protection products. First, the United States joined Argentina's  concern that the 
EU's proposed approach to endocrine disruptors (EDs) would impose unnecessary trade restrictions, 
and asked the European Union to provide the scientific evidence used to justify the establishment of 
definitive criteria to identify  EDs. The United States regretted that the impact assessment on the 
EU proposal had been published with no opportunity for public comment. The United States 
formulated questions on (i) the meaning of "negligible risk" as used in the proposal, including a 
specific clarification as to whether the European Union would use the current standard to set MRLs G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 65 - 
 
  under Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005 for substances that did not trigger the "cut-off" criteria; 
(ii) whether all ED substances designated by the European Union  under the World Health 
Organization/International Programme on Chemical Safety (WHO/IPCS) definition would be eligible 
for the derogation allowing for an evaluation "in light of current scientific knowledge", provided that 
they met the negligible risk sta ndard; (iii) the possibility to file an application for an import tolerance, 
based on a risk assessment, for a substance designated as an ED and not authorized under EU 
regulation; (iv) whether the registration and MRL -setting of carcinogenic, mutagenic, o r toxic for 
reproduction (CMR) substances would remain hazard -based, and the possible application for an 
import tolerance of a product ineligible for registration because of the hazard -based "cut off" criteria; 
and (v) the list of substances the European U nion expects to be identified as EDs, and the role of 
potency and exposure in the identification process. In these questions, the United States highlighted 
the potential absence of a risk -based approach and u se of exposure information. The  United States 
also invited the European Union to organize an information session, in light of Members interest in 
this topic.  
2.160.   Second, the United States again expressed its concern with the hazard -based approach set 
out by Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009, and asked the Europ ean Union to clarify how the hazard -
based "cut -off" criteria would be applied to substances approved before 2009 for which the renewal 
process was expected to begin in 2016. The United States again requested that the European Union 
place scientifically -justified risk assessments at the heart of the establishment of tolerances for 
pesticide residues in food. Third, the United States expressed a special concern with the French ban 
on fresh cherries imported from countries that had approved the use of dimethoa te. The United 
States urged France to notify the ban to the WTO, and to provide scientific justification for it. The 
United States especially questioned the fact that the ban was based on the pesticide's authorization 
by the Member rather than on pesticid e residues in the cherries. The  United States asked France to 
use less trade -restrictive alternatives such as residue monitoring during import checks, and 
reaffirmed its commitment to work with both the European Union and other trading partners on 
these con cerns.  
2.161.   China shared the concerns of Argentina and the United States, and again urged the European 
Union to incorporate assessment of actual exposure in its regulations, to apply existing Codex 
standards to minimize trade impacts, and to notify its measures  at an early stage to take into account 
comments from Members.  
2.162.   Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, India, Kenya, 
Malaysia, Mexico, Paraguay, Chinese Taipei, Uruguay and Viet Nam shared the concern expressed 
by Argentina,  China and the United States. They highlighted, inter alia , the importance of this issue 
and its potential negative trade impacts, and the necessary support of scientific justification and risk 
assessment in establishing such regulation. They encouraged th e European Union to adhere to 
relevant international standards and to continue informing the Committee of any relevant 
developments. Many of them joined in the request for an  information session. Australia  echoed 
Argentina's concern regarding notification of the proposed biocide regulations through an SPS 
notification.  
2.163.   The European Union recognized the international dimension of this issue and fully 
appreciated the concerns expressed by Members. The European Union again highlighted that the 
European Commiss ion had proposed to adjust the plant protection products' derogations to base 
them on scientific evidence, including information on hazard, exposure and risk, to take appropriate 
decisions on endocrine disruptors in compliance with  international obligation s. The  European Union 
reminded that the new criteria -setting proposals had been notified via the SPS and TBT channels for 
full transparency. The European Union further noted that although the regulation concerning biocides 
had been notified under the TBT A greement and not SPS, the European Union was not dogmatic 
about this choice and was prepared  to revise it if necessary. The  European Union informed the 
Committee that the issue of the French ban due to dimethoate concerns was currently under internal 
discussion. The European Union expressed interest in holding an information session as suggested, 
and would consider it in due time. The European Union invited all Members to promptly submit their 
comments in writing.  
2.164.   In October 2016, Argentina reiterated its c oncern with the EU's revised proposal for 
categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors (EDs), not ified in G/SPS/N/EU/166. 
The European Union proposed hazard -based approach would not efficiently assess risks posed by 
ED substances to humans and the e nvironment. In addition, MRLs for phytosanitary products already G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 66 - 
 
  approved following a rigorous European Food Safety Authority risk assessment would now be 
regulated under a mere risk -identification approach inconsistent with Codex standards. Argentina 
further noted that the proposed hazard -based approach was incomplete as it did not include the 
essential elements of risk -characterisation, such as potency, severity and reversibility of effects. 
Such elements were necessary to assess risks to humans or the e nvironment according to the 
SPS Agreement and the World Health Organization/International Programme on Chemical Safety 
(WHO/IPCS). Argentina considered that the impact -assessment option selected by the European 
Commission would have significant agriculture,  food safety, trade and socio -economic impacts. 
Argentina hoped import tolerance derogations for agricultural products would be applied in a 
transparent and non -discriminatory manner, while avoiding technica l obstacles to trade. 
Argentina  requested the Eur opean Union to take countries' comments into account before adopting 
the measure. Finally, Argentina thanked the European Union for the information session held the 
day before, welcoming any additional information on the proposal.  
2.165.   China shared the concerns  and highlighted that in June 2016 , 13 Members had sent a joint 
letter to the European Union on this matter. China thanked the European Union for notifying the 
proposed regulation, and for holding an information session and bilateral consultations before t he 
Committee meeting. Considering the potential significant impact of the measure, China requested 
that the European Union fully fulfil the transparency obligation and provide at least a six -month 
transition period between adoption and implementation. Chin a asked the European Union to provide 
replies to the comments submitted and urged it to consider assessment of actual exposure and 
potency factors, rather than substances themselves in its measure , as well as to apply existing 
Codex standards to minimize t rade impacts.  
2.166.   The United States expressed its appreciation for the EU information session and for the 
extension of the comment period for the ED proposals. The United States raised concerns with two 
EU policies related to the approval and use of plant prot ection products; namely the EU's recent 
proposal on EDs published on 15 June 2016 (G/SPS/N/EU/166); and the reauthorisation of pesticides 
under Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009. First, the United States expressed its concern that the EU's 
proposed approach to  EDs would impose unnecessary trade restrictions and asked the European 
Union to provide the scientific evidence used to justify the establishment of definitive criteria to 
identify EDs. Neither Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 nor the impact assessment publi shed on 
15 June, identified the scientific evidence considered in the development and selection of EDs "cut -
off" criteria. The United States welcomed a revised proposal, soon to be available, that might clarify 
questions on the derogation process and the a pplication of the WHO/IPCS EDs definition. The United 
States hoped that the updates for the derogation process would define the meaning of "negligible 
risk", include the important aspects of exposure and potency, and follow a risk -based approach 
under whic h all substances designated as EDs under the WHO/IPCS definition would be eligible to 
be registered provided they met the "negligible risk" standard. The United States further hoped that 
these changes would address its previous questions regarding other su bstances that trigger "cut -
off" criteria such as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction (CMR) substances. The United 
States further stressed the importance of non -discrimination in the implementation of this measure, 
and requested that the Europ ean Union implement guidelines and processes for risk assessment that 
were consistent for all substances, in  addition to pursuing a transparent and predictable approach 
throughout the risk management process. The United States noted two key questions that had 
previously been raised regarding these proposals and were yet to be addressed: (i) the possibility 
to file an application for an import tolerance, based on a risk assessment, for a substance designated 
as an ED and not authorized under EU regulation; a nd (ii) the list of substances the European Union 
expected to be identified as EDs under the WHO/IPCS definition as well as specific information 
regarding when and how potency and exposure would be taken into consideration.  
2.167.   Second, the United States again expressed its concerns with Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009. 
The United States reiterated that in the European Union, original approvals appeared to be for ten 
years, while renewals were for 15 years. Substances approved before 2009 would therefore be 
schedu led to be renewed in 2019, and the p rocess would begin in 2016. The  United States also 
highlighted that under Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009, pesticides approved for several years and 
determined to be safe under a risk -based system would no longer be subjec t to a risk assessment if 
a pre -determined hazard criterion was identified. The United States asked the European Union to 
explain how the hazard -based "cut -off" criteria would be applied in practice to substances 
undergoing the renewal process. The United States also raised concerns with the important trade 
impact that the regulation might have in the future, and requested that the measure be based on a G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 67 - 
 
  risk assessment. The United States finally highlighted the need for close collaboration with trading 
partners and expressed its commitment to continue working with the European Union on this issue.  
2.168.   Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, 
Egypt, Guatemala, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, New Zealand, Paraguay, Chinese  Taipei, Thailand, 
Uruguay and Viet nam shared the concerns expressed by Argentina, China and the United States. 
They highlighted, inter alia , the significance of the issue and the potential negative trade impact 
while also recognising the European Union's right to protect its citizens. They expressed concern 
over the hazard -based approach and called on the European Union to adopt a risk -based approach. 
They all expressed their appreciation to the European Union for the information session held the day 
before. 
2.169.   The European Union referred to the information session th at had taken place prior to 
the Committee meeting and where experts from the European Commission had provided detailed 
information and answered questions from WTO Members on all the  elements of the proposals. 
The European Union informed the Committee that a compilation of the responses to comments 
received would be circulated and noted that regarding implementation and practical consequences, 
uncertainty remained as to if and when th e proposal would be adopted. The European Union would 
continue to be as transparent as possible on the matter, and take proportionate and appropriate 
decisions in compliance with international obligations. The proposals were going through the relevant 
regulatory procedures and the European Union would consider all the comments received.  
2.170.   In March 2017, The United States reiterated its concern regarding the European Union's 
proposal for categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors (EDs) and amending Re gulation 
No. 1107/2009, which would require the withdrawal of existing authorizations for certain substances 
without a risk assessment. The United States thanked the European Union for their written 
responses, while noting that they did not provide scienti fic justification for the establishment of 
hazard -based criteria. While the proposed criteria for identifying EDs did not consider potency and 
exposure factors, they would still be used to both identify hazard and deny authorization for certain 
pesticides.  The United States again asked the European Union to explain how the hazard -based "cut -
off" criteria would be applied in practice to pesticides determined to be safe under a risk -based 
approach and undergoing the renewal process. In particular, the United States expressed concerns 
with the European Union setting MRLs at low default levels without scientific justification for 
substances no longer approved under the hazard -based approach.  
2.171.   The United States also expressed its concern with the European Union's decision in December 
2016 to split the proposal into two stand -alone policies: a proposal to establish criteria for identifying 
EDs; and another one to amend the derogation criteria from "negligible exposure" to "negligible 
risk". The split approach could impact more importantly on trade if the two policies were not finalized 
simultaneously. In this context, the United States asked if it would be possible to file an import 
tolerance for a substance designated as ED or carcinogenic, mutagenic, or toxic for r eproduction 
(CMR), and which did not benefit from the E uropean Union's derogation. The  United States again 
urged the European Union to base its SPS measures on a transparent and risk based approach and 
highlighted that the proposal would severely impact tr ade while marginally improving human or 
environmental health. The United States indicated that it would provide additional written questions 
regarding the proposed derogation process.  
2.172.   Argentina echoed the statement made by the United States, emphasizing th at the European 
Union's proposed hazard -based approach would not effic iently assess risks posed by ED  substances 
and did not include essential elements of risk characterization such as potency, severity and 
reversibility of effects. Argentina questioned th e selection of criteria under option 2 rather than 
option 4, which would have been less trade burdensome while guaranteeing a similar level of human 
health protection. It shared the concern voiced by the United States regarding the European Union's 
recent decision to split the original draft regulation notified in G/SPS/N/EU/166 into two proposals, 
leaving out the derogation process. If the European Union approved the  proposal based on this new 
approach, it would need to notify it, as it would constitute a different measure severely impacting 
on trade without scientific justification.  
2.173.   Australia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Ri ca, Ecuador, Egypt, 
El Salvador, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, India, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nigeria, the 
Philippines, South Africa, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, Uruguay and Viet Nam shared the concerns 
expressed by Argentina and the United States, and called upon the European Union to adopt a risk -G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 68 - 
 
  based approach in compliance with the SPS Agreement. They underline d, inter alia , their special 
concerns over the hazard -based approach, the split of the proposal between identification criteria 
and derogations, and the importance of this issue and its potential negative trade impacts. 
In particular, Canada estimated that  the proposed regulation could affect 60% of their plant 
protection products for wheat and soy crops, and up to 75% in the case of canola production. 
Australia and Kenya also noted that under the proposed regulation, many plant protection products 
which pr esented no alternatives would be banned. Many Members expressed their appreciation to 
the European Union for their transparency efforts, and Austr alia encouraged the  European Union to 
provide updates on the work of the European Food Safety Authority and Eu ropean Chemicals Agency 
in reviewing and prioritizing chemicals as EDs.  
2.174.   The European Union reiterated its commitment to transparency, recalling that it had duly 
notified the proposals and circulated a compilation of the responses to comments received in 
February 2017. The proposals, which were going through the relevant regulatory procedures, had 
been revised to clarify burden of proof and criteria scope, but no substantial change had been 
introduced to the proposal originally notified. The decision to spli t the plant protection products 
proposal into two separate texts, one on identification criteria and another on the technical 
amendment to the clause on negligible exposure, was to facilitate decision -making. The European 
Union encouraged Members to share their statements in writing and reiterated its commitment to 
continue informing the Committee of further developments.  
2.175.   In July 2017, Argentina reiterated its concern over the European Union's policy on pesticides 
which established criteria to identify subs tances with endocrine disrupting properties, emphasizing 
the policy's hazard -based rather than risk -based approach and its potential trade impact. Argentina 
added that the European Union Standing Committee on Plants, Animal, Food and Feed (SCoPAFF) 
had app roved the proposed criteria in July 2017, and that without a veto from the European 
Parliament and the EU Council of Ministers, the proposal would enter into force in October 2017, to 
be implemented six months later. Argentina observed that substances curr ently authorized after 
having gone through a European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) risk assessment, could later be 
banned, including substances with an insignificant risk of endocrine disruption - even in contradiction 
with Codex standards. Argentina also questioned the division of the original proposal into two texts. 
Argentina further echoed the questions posed by the United States in the past and urged the 
European Union to provide practical information on the procedure it would follow for the withdrawal  
of authorizations.  
2.176.   China reiterated its concern regarding the European Union proposal and questioned the 
hazard -based approach of the EU proposal. China argued that the proposal would have a severe 
impact on trade while marginally improving human or envir onmental health, and expressed a special 
concern on the division of the proposal. China underscored the market uncertainty created by the 
reduction of allowed substances.  
2.177.   The United States reiterated its concern that the pesticide policy in the European Un ion was 
insufficiently grounded in science and risk, and could potentially disrupt international trade without 
providing a meaningful benefit to public health. The United States expressed particular concern over 
the lack of transparency and predictability in the implementation of the hazard provisions of 
Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 and queried about MRLs that would be set at trade -restrictive default 
levels. The United States noted cases where the decisions of the European Food Safety Authority 
(EFSA) fai led to take all available data into consideration and differed substantially from the findings 
of other national and international authorities, resulting in the proposed withdrawal of authorizations 
for use of these substances for a wide range of food crop s. The United States was additionally 
concerned that measures to withdraw authorizations of pesticides and prohibit crops treated with 
those pesticides  were being notified to the TBT  Committee and the decision to withdraw the 
corresponding MRL would only b e notified to the SPS Committee after the decisions to withdraw 
authorizations had been finalized. The United States requested that these measures be notified to 
the SPS Committee when comments and additional data could still be taken into consideration an d 
queried about the procedures for setting MRLs and import tolerances under Regulation (EC) 
No. 396/2005.  
2.178.   The United States remained concerned with the division of the draft legal text into two stand -
alone components, one proposal to establish criteria for  identifying endocrine disruptors and another 
to amend the derogation criteria. The United States thanked the European Union for engaging in 
bilateral consultations, looked forward to receiving responses to the questions submitted to the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 69 - 
 
  European Union fol lowing the March 2017 SPS Committee Meeting, and remained open to sharing 
those questions with other interested Members.  
2.179.   Australia, Benin, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican 
Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, The Gambia, Guat emala, India, Israel, Kenya, Madagascar, Mexico, 
Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru, Senegal, South Africa, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, Togo, Uruguay, and 
Zambia indicated that they shared this concern and called upon the European Union to adopt a risk -
based approach i n compliance with the SPS Agreement. Members underlined, inter alia , their special 
concerns over the hazard -based approach; the split of the proposal between criteria to identify 
endocrine disruptors and the criteria for derogations; the approval of the pr oposal on the reduction 
in allowed pesticides and its potential negative trade impact. Australia encouraged the European 
Union to provide updates on the work of the European Food Safety Authority and European 
Chemicals Agency in reviewing and prioritizing chemicals as endocrine disruptors.  
2.180.   Canada expressed concern over the language introduced in the Revised Plant Protection 
Products Draft criteria, presented on 30 May, referring to "known" and "presumed" endocrine 
disruptors. Canada requested the European U nion to clarify that these terms would not result in a 
wider scope of endocrine disruptors. Canada also enquired whether the decisions for setting MRLs 
and import tolerance levels would continue to be made on the basis of risk assessments, as set out 
in Re gulation (EC) No. 396/2005. Canada appreciated the European Union's efforts in developing 
this proposal as well as the intense consultations that had taken place around the SPS Committee 
meetings.  
2.181.   India emphasised that the "hazard based cut -off criteria" a pproach of the regulation would 
disrupt international trade without providing a meaningful benefit to public health. Further, this 
approach would not include a risk assessment, and has left open the scope for the interpretation of 
"negligible risk" and oth er terms, which would result in lack of clarity in its implementation.  
2.182.   The European Union reiterated its commitment to transparency, recalling that it had duly 
notified its draft acts, received and responded to Members' comments. The European Union recalle d 
the information session of October 2016 and document G/SPS/GEN/1494/Rev.1 about the ongoing 
review of pesticides MRLs. The proposed criteria had been endorsed by its member States and, 
barring any objection by the European Council and Parliament, the cri teria would be adopted by the 
European Commission in three months. They would then enter into force 20 days after their 
publication, and become applicable six months after that date. Regarding concerns raised on the 
criteria, the European Union recalled th at in the absence of these criteria, its legislation would require 
the application of the so -called interim criteria, leading to more stringent conditions. Finally, the 
European Union had taken note of specific questions received, in particular those submi tted by the 
United States, and confirmed it would provide responses. With respect to the concerns raised 
regarding a possible change in the European Union policy on pesticides in general and their MRLs, 
the European Union confirmed that there had been no s uch change. The European Union reiterated 
its commitment to keeping the SPS Committee informed about any future developments.  
2.183.   In November 2017, Argentina reiterated its concern over the European Union's process to 
define criteria to identify endocrine disr upting properties. Argentina noted the European Parliament's 
recent rejection of the draft implementing regulation that would have amended Regulation (EU) 
No. 1107/2009 Annex 2, which established definitive and specific scientific criteria for the 
determin ation of endocrine disruptive properties, as adopted by the European Union Standing 
Committee on Plants, Animal, Food and Feed (SCoPAFF) in July 2017. Argentina requested an update 
of the following steps. Argentina was concerned about current discussions i n the European Union 
about restricting imports of substances on the basis of hazard identification rather than of a 
comprehensive risk assessment. Argentina reiterated its request that the European Union maintain 
import tolerances with MRLs above default v alues, in accordance with its Regulation (EC) 396/2005.  
2.184.   China echoed the Argentina's concern and recommended that the European Union adopt the 
Codex standards, in accordance with the SPS Agreement.  
2.185.   The United States reiterated its concerns on the EU pestic ides policy. The United States 
argued that the EU hazard -based pesticide regulations were insufficiently grounded on science and 
risk, and would harm global agriculture production, food security and international trade, without 
making a meaningful contribu tion to public health. The United States reaffirmed its stance against G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 70 - 
 
  the hazard -based criteria of the European Union to ban substances identified as endocrine disruptors, 
and its concern over the effects that the prolonged uncertainty on the matter was h aving on 
producers. The United States recalled that the European Union would apply interim criteria in the 
absence of adoption of the proposed criteria, and therefore asked about the difference between the 
list of substances that would fall under the inter im criteria and those that would fall under the criteria 
rejected by the European Parliament. The United States emphasised the existence of other 
approaches that could provide the high level of human health and environmental protection sought 
by the Europe an Union without disrupting international trade and asked the European Union how it 
would ensure consistency with the SPS Agreement if it withdrew MRLS without conducting risk 
assessments or considering import tolerances or relevant Codex MRLs. Finally, th e United States 
looked forward to receiving responses to the written question submitted to the European Union after 
the March 2017 SPS Committee meeting.  
2.186.   Canada stated its concern over the EU approach to the categorization of compounds as 
endocrine disrup tors. Canada expressed its disappointment that a regulatory amendment for 
derogation based on negligible risk had not been introduced in the European Parliament, and the 
delay and uncertainty this created. Canada sought assurances from the European Union t hat 
decisions on setting MRLs would continue to be made on the basis of risk assessments, as set out in 
Regulation (EC) 396/2005.  
2.187.   Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, India, Israel, Madagascar, Mozambique, 
New Zealand, Nigeria, Peru, Senega l, Thailand, Togo, and Uruguay indicated that they shared this 
concern and called upon the European Union to base its measures on adequate scientific risk 
assessments and to consider Codex MRLs. They also requested the European Union to keep Members 
abreas t of their next steps on this issue.  
2.188.   The European Union reiterated its commitment to transparency, noting that all the 
information regarding this matter was available on the Eur opean Commission's website. 
The proposal on defining the criteria to identify endocrine disruptors for plant protection products 
had been recently rejected by the European Parliament and the European Commission was 
considering the next steps. Import tolerance requests for substances falling under the cut -off criteria 
would be carefu lly evaluated on a case -by-case basis, considering the objectives of consumer 
protection as well as the European Union's obligations under the SPS Agreement. Due to transitional 
measures of Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 and the delays in the renewal progra mmes of the 
approved active substances, the European Union did not yet have experience on MRL and import 
tolerance setting for substances falling under the cut -off criteria. The European Union reiterated that 
its measures were neither discriminatory nor a disguised restriction to trade, but would be applied 
domestically and internationally. Finally, the European Union undertook to k eep Members duly 
informed about  further developments.  
2.189.   In March 2018, Argentina reiterated its concern over the European Union's  process to define 
criteria to identify endocrine disrupting properties. Argentina thanked the European Union for the 
update provided in December 2017 through document G/SPS/GEN/1594, and further requested the 
European Union to notify the substantive chang es which had been made to the proposal. 
Argentina  remained concerned that the EU policy continued to be based on a hazard identification 
approach instead of a complete scientific risk assessment, which was counter to the principles of the 
SPS Agreement. Ar gentina emphasized the systemic impact that this policy would have on 
agricultural exports to the EU market, specifically highlighting that 39% of Argentine exports to the 
European Union could be affected by this policy. Argentina further observed that phy tosanitary 
products currently authorized, after having gone through an EFSA risk assessment, could later be 
regulated on the basis of hazard identification, which could lead to MRLs being established at limits 
of detection, without corresponding scientific  basis - and even in contradiction of Codex standards. 
Argentina reiterated its request that the European Union maintain import tolerances with MRLs above 
default values, in accordance with its Regulation (EC) 396/2005.  
2.190.   China echoed Argentina's concern, al so noting that the criteria appeared to be policy -
oriented, rather than based on rigorous scientific risk assessment as required under the 
SPS Agreement. China urged the European Union to consider the existing scientific basis when 
assessing risks to life or health and to minimize the negative effects of trade. China also 
recommended that "negligible risk" be modified to "be acceptable to human and environmental 
risks", and that the European Union adopt Codex standards where they exist, in accordance with t he 
harmonization principle of the SPS Agreement. China also signalled its interest in following the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 71 - 
 
  developments on this issue and further encouraged the European Union to update the SPS 
Committee.  
2.191.   India supported the concerns raised, and requested the Eur opean Union to adopt a risk 
assessment approach for regulating pesticides and establishing import tolerances, without creating 
unnecessary barriers to trade.  
2.192.   The United States reiterated its concerns on the EU pesticides policy. The United States 
argued th at the hazard -based pesticide regulations were insufficiently grounded on science and risk, 
and would harm agricultural trade, without making a meaningful contribution to public health or 
environmental protection. The United States requested clarification on the appropriate level of 
protection being sought by the European Union through implementation of Regulation 1107/2009. 
In addition, the United States noted that adoption of the revised criteria, currently under review by 
the European Parliament, would l ead to a ban on many more substances than those previously 
suggested in the European Union's 2016 notification. The United States further queried how the 
European Union would ensure consistency with the SPS Agreement if it withdrew MRLs without 
conducting risk assessments. The United States emphasized the existence of other approaches that 
could provide the high levels of public health and environmental protection being sought by the 
European Union, without forgoing the scientific risk assessment framework.  The United States 
welcomed the European Union's efforts to update the Committee (G/SPS/GEN/1594), but registered 
its regret that the substantive concerns of over 30 Members had still not been addressed. Finally, 
the United States looked forward to receivi ng responses to the written questions that had been 
submitted after the March 2017 SPS Committee meeting, and also hoped that the comments 
submitted on related texts in other fora (i.e. EU's REFIT consultation on legislation, EFSA/ECHA 
guidance) would be t aken into consideration.  
2.193.   Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, 
Kenya, Korea, New Zealand, Nigeria, Panama, Peru, Chinese Taipei, Thailand and Uruguay indicated 
that they shared this concern and called upon t he European Union to reconsider their measure 
considering the significant negative impact that it would have on trade. They also called upon the 
European Union to base its measures on adequate scientific risk assessments and to consider Codex 
MRLs. Brazil further noted that it had conducted its own impact assessment of pesticides using the 
criteria being discussed by the European Commission, but with different outcomes. In this regard, 
Brazil underscored the challenges arising from establishing criteria to define endocrine disruptors.  
2.194.   Canada further expressed its disappointment that a regulatory amendment for derogation 
based on negligible risk had not been introduced in the revised regulatory proposal which had been 
approved by the Standing Committee on Pla nts, Animals, Food and Feed in December 2017. 
Canada  sought assurances from the European Union that decisions on setting MRLs would continue 
to be made on the basis of complete risk assessments, as set out in Regulation (EC) 396/2005. 
Canada looked forward  to continued updates from the European Union on the next steps for the 
criteria, as well as information on the timelines for the entry into the force of the proposal. Canada 
also sought information on how the European Union planned to work with its tradin g partners to 
develop a revised measure in a manner which was consistent with its international obligations and 
which avoided unnecessary disruptions to market access.  
2.195.   The European Union reiterated its commitment to transparency, noting that it had 
communi cated the latest state of play in document G/SPS/GEN/1594. The European Union recalled 
that in October 2017, the European Parliament had rejected the criteria for plant protection products 
which had been agreed by EU member States. A new version of the dra ft criteria for plant protection 
products had subsequently been developed and was currently under the scrutiny of the European 
Parliament. The European Union also reminded the Committee that the proposed regulation criteria 
for identifying endocrine disrup tors in biocidal products had been adopted and subsequently 
published in November 2017 as regulation (EU) 2017/21003. The criteria would be applicable from 
7 June 2018. A technical guidance document was also being developed by the European Chemicals 
Agency  (ECHA) and EFSA for the implementation of the new scientific criteria for pesticides and 
biocides, with an expected completion date in June 2018. Several Members had submitted comments 
on this guidance document which were being taken into consideration. T he European Union reminded 
the Committee that the proposal to amend the derogation, based on negligible risk of exposure, 
remained on hold until agreement on the criteria was adopted. Import tolerance requests for 
substances falling under the cut -off crite ria would also be carefully evaluated on a case -by-case 
basis, considering the objectives of consumer protection, as well as the European Union's obligations G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 72 - 
 
  under the SPS Agreement. Finally, the European Union undertook to keep Members duly informed 
about  further developments.  
2.196.   In July 2018, the United States reiterated its concern on the European Union's hazard -based 
approach to regulating substances identified as endocrine disruptors, and  noted that on 20 April 
2018 the European Commission had formally adopted criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors in 
plant protection products, that would be implemented as of 10 November 2018. The United States 
requested clarification on how the int erim criteria would be applied between now and November 
2018, in light of the EU Commissioner's 2017 statement which called into question whether the 
interim criteria were fit for purpose. The United States also drew Members' attention to the 
EU notificati on (G/TBT/N/EU/554) of a proposal to withdraw authorization for the active substance 
pymetrozine, which was considered to have endocrine disrupting properties in accordance with 
Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009, despite not having a final EFSA assessment on t he potential for 
endocrine disruption. The United States requested clarification on the appropriate level of protection 
that these actions would achieve, underscoring that the identification of hazards without identifying 
potential risks would likely be mo re trade -restrictive than necessary.  
2.197.   The United States noted the European Union's efforts to clarify its policy for managing import 
tolerances for substances that triggered the hazard -based cut -offs. However, the case -by-case 
approach to consider import to lerances, while factoring in legitimate factors and the precautionary 
principle, would not address Members' concerns, and would cause considerable uncertainty for 
applicants and producers. The United States requested clarification on the "legitimate factor s", other 
than risk, that would be considered by the European Union in establishing import tolerances and 
how these other factors related to achieving an appropriate level of protection. The United States 
recalled the Dispute Settlement Body rulings which indicated that precaution did not override 
Members' risk assessment obligations arising from Articles 5.1 and 5.2. The United States also 
queried how the European Union's reliance on the precautionary principle would conform with the 
requirement in Regulat ion (EC) No. 396/2005 to conduct risk assessments in establishing import 
tolerances. The United States further highlighted that many of the substances impacted by the 
EU regulation were effectively and transparently managed under risk -based systems in othe r 
countries, thus querying the European approach to manage these substances through a ban or by 
establishing limited case -by-case import tolerances.  
2.198.   The United States also expressed concerns regarding the newly proposed revisions to the 
European Union's tr ansitional arrangements for products that had been produced prior to the 
modification of MRLs. According to this proposal, domestic products could still be placed on the 
EU market under previous MRLs, even after new MRLs had been implemented, unlike import ed 
products which would not be able to benefit from previous MRLs. The United States explained that 
this revision would particularly affect products with long production and distribution cycles, since the 
proposed transition periods were insufficient for t hese products to clear the channels of trade. 
In particular, this would create cases where third -country products, legally produced in accordance 
with EU standards, would no longer be eligible for import into the European Union. The United States 
emphasize d the existence of other approaches that could provide the high level of human health and 
environmental protection being sought by the European Union, without posing unnecessary barriers 
to trade. Finally, the United States noted that it remained unclear h ow the European Union would 
ensure consistency of its regulatory approach with the SPS Agreement.  
2.199.   China echoed the concerns of the United States, noting that the criteria in Regulation (EU) 
No. 2018/605 appeared to be based on a hazard assessment. EFSA had  published the Guidance for 
the Identification of Endocrine Disruptors in the context of Regulations (EU) No. 528/2012 and (EC) 
No. 1107/2009 on 7 June 2018, in collaboration with the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). 
China  urged the European Union to noti fy the EFSA Guidance to WTO Members with a comment 
period, and to adopt Codex MRLs to minimize the impact on international trade.  
2.200.   India shared the concerns raised, and requested the European Union to adopt a risk 
assessment approach for regulating pesticid es and establishing import tolerances, without creating 
unnecessary barriers to trade. India also reminded Members that Codex followed a risk assessment 
approach for the safety evaluation of pesticides, and that approach ensured health protection of 
consum ers. Finally, India emphasized that a hazard -based approach was unjustified and would 
create unnecessary barriers to trade.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 73 - 
 
  2.201.   Argentina reiterated its concern over the European Union's policy on pesticides and the 
adoption of a hazard -based approach for iden tifying substances with endocrine disrupting properties. 
Argentina noted the adoption of Regulation (EU) No. 2018/605, modifying Annex II to Regulation 
(EC) No. 1107/2009, which would come into force as of 10 November 2018. Argentina expressed 
concern abou t the systemic and trade impact of the measure, which violated core provisions of the 
SPS Agreement, such as the obligation to undertake a risk assessment and to apply the least trade 
restrictive measure. Argentina indicated that following the discussions in the June meeting of the 
EU Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, the procedures for granting import 
tolerances under Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005 would continue to be applied, including the 
undertaking of risk assessments by the relevant  member State and EFSA, on a case -by-case basis. 
Argentina urged the European Union to comply with this requirement. Argentina argued that import 
tolerances should be maintained both for substances that would ultimately be covered by the criteria 
for deter mining endocrine disrupting properties, and for any other substance banned by the 
European Union on the basis of the hazard identification criteria set forth in Regulation (EC) 
No. 1107/2009. Argentina asked the European Union to provide information on the  approach that 
would finally be applied, and to examine the proposal on waivers in order to at least exempt the 
substances that represented a minimal risk to public health, due to low exposure levels. In this 
regard, Argentina reminded the European Union o f its statements at previous SPS Committee 
meetings.  
2.202.   Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ghana, Guatemala, Kenya, Korea, 
New Zealand, Nigeria, Panama, Peru, Chinese Taipei, Thailand and Uruguay indicated that they 
shared this concern an d called upon the European Union to reconsider the measure considering the 
significant negative impact that it would have on trade. They also called upon the European Union 
to base its measures on adequate scientific risk assessments and to consider Codex MRLs. 
Brazil  reminded the Committee that the WHO International Programme on Chemical Safety's 
definition of endocrine disruptors could serve as a basis for discussions. Australia, New Zealand and 
Thailand also sought additional information on the Commissio n's plans for the derogation. In 
particular, Thailand requested the European Union to develop draft criteria for derogation by defining 
the meaning of negligible risk and establishing negligible risk criteria. Ghana and Kenya stressed 
that the EU policy wo uld lead to the withdrawal of many important pesticides currently used in 
commodity -producing countries. As a result, farmers would have to use expensive alternatives which 
were not readily available in developing countries. Ghana underscored that this wou ld have far -
reaching consequences on the pest management gains made over the years and also negatively 
impact food security, distort trade in agriculture and lead to socio -economic losses, which would be 
in contradiction with the UN Millennium Development Goals, aimed at reducing poverty and 
eliminating hunger.  
2.203.   Canada reiterated its disappointment that the technical amendment for derogation based on 
negligible risk had not been included in the final regulatory amendment of Regulation (EU) 
No. 2018/605. Cana da explained that without the inclusion of this technical amendment, default 
MRLs for food and feeds would be required once a substance was identified as an endocrine 
disrupting chemical, regardless of the actual risk under real world exposure scenario. Ca nada sought 
assurances from the European Union that once a substance was identified as an endocrine disruptor, 
import tolerances would continue to be based on complete risk assessments, as set out in Regulation 
(EC) No. 396/2005. Canada expressed its appre ciation for EU efforts to inform the Committee on 
developments in this area, but also sought information on how the European Union planned to work 
with its trading partners to implement the measure in a manner consistent with its international 
obligations and without unnecessary disruptions to market access.  
2.204.   The European Union explained that the adoption of the criteria for plant protection products 
had been notified in G/SPS/N/EU/166/Add.2 and would apply as of 10 November 2018, also to 
ongoing approvals o r renewals of active substances. The European Union also confirmed that the 
guidance document for the implementation of the adopted criteria had been published by EFSA and 
ECHA on 7 June 2018. The criteria were the same for biocides as for plant protection  products in 
order to ensure a harmonized approach. The European Union recalled that the criteria were based 
on the WHO definition, required consideration of all relevant scientific information, and applied a 
weight of evidence approach. Regarding the prop osals for derogation (i.e. the technical amendment 
to the clause on negligible exposure), discussions with member States would begin soon. In relation 
to import tolerances, the European Union confirmed that the procedures of Regulation (EC) 
No. 396/2005 wo uld apply, including a full risk assessment, followed by a case -by-case decision, 
taking into account the scientific advice and other relevant legitimate factors, in accordance with G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 74 - 
 
  risk analysis principles. The European Union also explained that the consi deration of other legitimate 
factors was not new, as it was already included in Article 14.2(f) of Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005. 
The procedure for import tolerances would be published on the Commission website.  
2.205.   In November 2018, Argentina reiterated its co ncern over the European Union's policy on 
pesticides and the adoption of a hazard -based approach for identifying substances with endocrine 
disrupting properties. Argentina noted the adoption of Regulation (EU) No. 2018/605, modifying 
Annex II to Regulation  (EC) No. 1107/2009, which would come into force as of 10 November 2018. 
Argentina expressed concern about the systemic and trade impact of the measure, which violated 
core provisions of the SPS Agreement, such as the obligation to undertake a risk assessm ent and to 
apply the least trade restrictive measure. Argentina requested again that the European Union 
continue applying the procedures for granting import tolerances under Regulation (EC) 
No. 396/2005. Argentina queried how the EU reliance on the precaut ionary principle would conform 
with the requirement in Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005 to conduct risk assessments in establishing 
import tolerances and recalled that any precautionary measure would need to comply with Article  5.7 
of the SPS Agreement. Argent ina also queried when import tolerances guidance under discussion in 
the EU Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed would be published and applied. 
Argentina referred to the GMO case and emphasized the need to carry out assessment procedures 
for import tolerances without undue delay. Argentina asked the European Union to provide 
information on the approach that would finally be applied, and to examine the proposal on waivers 
in order to at least exempt the substances that represented a minimal risk to public health, due to 
low exposure levels. Finally, Argentina urged the European Union to reconsider its hazard -based 
regulatory approach to pesticides.  
2.206.   The United States reiterated its concern on the EU hazard -based approach to pesticide 
regulati on, and the implementation of criteria for identifying and subsequently banning endocrine -
active substances. The United States requested clarification on the appropriate level of protection 
that these actions would achieve, underscoring that the identifica tion of hazards without identifying 
potential risks would likely be more trade -restrictive than necessary. Furthermore, the United States 
again requested an explanation of the "legitimate factors", other than risk, considered when 
evaluating import toleran ces, and how these factors rationally related to achieving an appropriate 
level of protection. The United States also drew Members' attention to the EU notification 
(G/SPS/N/EU/263) of a proposal to lower the maximum residue limits (MRLs) for iprodione to trade -
restrictive default levels, despite a final EFSA assessment which found no risks to consumers for a 
number of commodities, many of which also had Codex MRLs. Iprodione was an important crop 
protection tool for US agricultural producers, being highly effective against a number of fungal 
diseases. Finally, the United States noted that it remained unclear how the European Union would 
ensure consistency of its regulatory approach to pesticides with the SPS Agreement.  
2.207.   China reiterated its concerns over the  European Union's process to define criteria to identify 
endocrine disrupting properties in Regulation (EU) No. 2018/605, which appeared to be based on a 
hazard assessment. China urged the European Union to consider the existing scientific evidence 
when as sessing risks to life or health and to adopt Codex standards where they exist, to minimize 
the impact on international trade.  
2.208.   India echoed the concerns raised, in particular on the hazard -based regulation approach, 
which was highly trade restrictive.  
2.209.   Austr alia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, ECOWAS, El Salvador, Guatemala, 
Honduras, Korea, Malaysia, New Zealand, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Chinese Taipei and Thailand 
indicated that they shared this concern and called upon the European Union to rec onsider their 
measure, considering the significant negative impact that it would have on trade. They also called 
upon the European Union to base its measures on adequate scientific risk assessments and to 
consider Codex MRLs. Brazil reiterated the view tha t safe and modern plant protection products 
could be of the upmost importance for the protection of plants while promoting agricultural yield and 
productivity in tropical regions. Guatemala highlighted that certain products were necessary given 
the climate  conditions in such regions, in particular as a consequence to climate change.  
2.210.   Canada reiterated its disappointment that the technical amendment for derogations based 
on negligible risk had not been included in the final regulatory amendment of Regulation (EU) 
No. 2018/605. Canada sought assurances from the European Union that once a substance was 
identified as an endocrine disruptor, import tolerances would continue to be based on complete risk G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 75 - 
 
  assessments, as set out in Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005. Final ly, Canada sought information on 
how the European Union planned to work with its trading partners to implement the measure in a 
manner consistent with its international obligations and without unnecessary disruptions to market 
access.  
2.211.   The European Union co nfirmed that new criteria to identify endocrine disruptors for biocides 
applied from 7 June 2018 (Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2100), whereas for pesticides they would 
apply as of 10 November 2018 (Regulation (EU) 2018/605). The criteria would also apply  to ongoing 
renewal or approval procedures of active substances. The European Union also confirmed that the 
guidance document for the implementation of the adopted criteria had been published by EFSA and 
ECHA on 7 June 2018. The criteria were the same for biocides as for pesticides in order to ensure a 
harmonized approach. The criteria were based on the WHO definition, required consideration of all 
relevant scientific information and applied a weight of evidence approach. Regarding the proposals 
for derogat ion (i.e. the possible inclusion of the clause on negligible risk from exposure), discussions 
with member States had started, and a qualified majority in favour of the derogation was needed to 
proceed with the inclusion. In relation to import tolerances, t he European Union confirmed that the 
procedures of Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005 would apply, including a full risk assessment, followed 
by a case -by-case decision, taking into account all relevant factors, in accordance with risk analysis 
principles. In ad dition, the Regulation included transitional measures for products produced prior to 
the modification of MRLs to remain on the market until the end of their shelf life, even after the date 
of application of the new MRLs, six months after the date of entry into force. However, when a health 
concern was identified, such transition measures would not be provided. The European Union 
reminded that early warning was available. As an example, TBT notifications on the non -renewal of 
active substance approval were a ccompanied by a statement on possible impact on MRLs. 
Recent  examples had shown that two years could elapse between such notifications and the 
application of the lowered MRLs. The procedure for import tolerances would be published on the 
Commission website . 
France's dimethoate -related restrictions on imports (STC 422)  
Raised by:  United States of America  
Supported by:  Argentina,  Canada, Turkey  
Dates raised:  July 2017 (G/SPS/R/87, paras. 27 -32; See also STC 382 ), November 
2017 (G/SPS/R/ 88, paras. 3.53 -3.55) , March 2018 (G/SPS/R/90, 
paras.  3.31-3.34), July 2018 (G/SPS/R/92/Rev.1, paras. 4.88 -4.90)  
Relevant document(s):   
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.212.   In July 2017, the Chairperson noted that this concern was first raised in June 2016 as part 
of the concern regarding the European Union's revised proposal for the categorization of compounds 
as endocrine disruptors. It was now being raised as a separate sp ecific trade concern, and would 
thus be so reflected in the IMS.  
2.213.   The United States reiterated its concern over actions taken by France to ban the importation 
of fresh cherries from countries that had approved the use of the pesticide dimethoate on cherries . 
The United States noted that the ban had not been based on a risk assessment of the safety of 
residues and that the measure had been renewed despite being inconsistent with the November 
2016 EFSA decision and the regulation approved in February 2017 by S CoPAFF on MRLs for 
dimethoate (and its metabolite omethoate). The United States recalled that the European 
Commission and a majority of member States deemed France's requests for a European emergency 
measure to be unjustified and highlighted that the measu re had a significant impact on trade without 
achieving a significant public health benefit. The United States further added that the measure had 
only been notified after its implementation and after the US request. It had then been notified as an 
emergency  measure, without a specified comment period. Finally, the United States questioned the 
scientific basis for applying the measure only to fresh cherries when other commodities could also 
contain dimethoate residues. The United States expressed its willingn ess to exchange scientific G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 76 - 
 
  information with France on the safety of dimethoate and its metabolites, as well as to explore less 
trade -restrictive measures.  
2.214.   Argentina endorsed the statement of the United States, highlighting the measure's lack of 
scientific justification and that it was more trade -restrictive than necessary, noting alternative 
measures such as the use of MRLs and the monitoring of residues during import controls. 
Argentina  urged France and other Members imposing pesticide -related restrictions , to act in 
accordance with the SPS Agreement.  
2.215.   Canada echoed the United States and remained concerned about the renewal of a temporary 
restriction as a national emergency measure. Canada recalled that in October 2016 and July 2017 
it had asked France for e vidence that the current MRL of 0.2 mg/kg was insufficient to protect human 
health and for alternative appropriate levels of MRL for di methoate. Canada  highlighted the lack of 
scientific evidence of the measures imposed by France and expressed its general concern regarding 
bans based on substance authorizations, regardless of residue levels. Canada urged France to 
conduct a risk assessment to justify the application of a more restrictive MRL than the one applied 
by the European Union.  
2.216.   The European Union rec alled that on 28 April 2017, France had introduced a protective 
measure suspending the importation of fresh cherries for consumption from member States and 
non-EU countries that had approved the use of the pesticide dimethoate on cherry trees. France had 
justified the measure because of unacceptable toxicological risks posed by the consumption of 
certain dimethoate metabolites. The European Union clarified that France was particularly concerned 
by the identification of a possible acute risk by EFSA, leading  to France's request to the European 
Commission for emergency measures to ban the use of dimethoate for cherry trees. In  the absence 
of EU measures, France had introduced a national emergency measure. The  European Union finally 
indicated that new studies h ad been submitted to EFSA for evaluation, expecting a conclusion in 
spring 2018.  
2.217.   The United States thanked the European Union and looked forward to further bilateral 
discussions. The United States added that plant metabolism studies and toxicological data on 
relevant dimethoate metabolites had been previously submitted to and reviewed by the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and that omethoate, the only metabolite that was 
found to be toxicologically relevant by the EPA for risk assessmen t purposes (as well as 
enforcement), had also been evaluated by EFSA, with separate protective MRLs voted and approved 
by EU member States in February 2017.  
2.218.   In November 2017, the United States reiterated its concern over actions taken by France to 
ban the importation of fresh cherries from the United States and other countries that had approved 
the use of the pesticide dimethoate on cherries. The United States expressed concern over the 
decision to restrict imports of commodities based on the authorization of a pesticide in the country 
of origin rather than based on a scientific assessment of risk, and regardless of whether or not 
residues of the pesticide were present in the imported commodities. The United States noted that 
publicly available evaluations f rom other regulatory authorities had determined that dimethoate 
metabolites were not toxicologically relevant, as did the draft Rapporteur Assessment Report of the 
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The United States informed it had received from Franc e a 
response to its comments, but regretted that it referred to data gaps when the United States argued 
the data was available. Finally, the United States requested France not to renew its ban for a third 
consecutive year.  
2.219.   Canada echoed the US concern, req uested information about the measures that would apply 
from 1 January 2018, and encouraged France to adopt measures in line with those of the European 
Commission, which were scientifically justified and not discriminatory against products from 
countries wh ere dimethoate was authorised for use. Canada urged France to conduct a risk 
assessment to determine if the current MRL established by the European Union was insufficient 
before enacting more trade restrictive measures.  
2.220.   The European Union referred to the r esponse provided in the July 2017 SPS Committee 
meeting. To the question on the rationale behind the application of the measure only to fresh cherries 
when other commodities could also contain dimethoate residues, the European Union stated that 
it was base d on consumption patterns, which were higher for cherries than for other commodities G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 77 - 
 
  which could contain dimethoate residues. The European Union finally indicated that new studies had 
been submitted for evaluation to EFSA, with a conclusion expected in spr ing of 2018 . 
2.221.   In March 2018, the United States reiterated its concern regarding actions taken by France 
to ban the importation of fresh cherries from the United States and other countries that had approved 
the use of the pesticide dimethoate on cherries. Th e United States expressed concern over the 
decision to restrict imports of commodities based on the authorization of a pesticide in the country 
of origin rather than based on a scientific assessment of risk, and regardless of whether or not 
residues of the  pesticide were present in the imported commodities. The United States indicated that 
it had provided data, in response to France's notification (G/SPS/N/FRA/13), showing that 
dimethoate had not been used in the State of California for over five years. Fur thermore, the United 
States argued that in regions where dimethoate might be used, it had been applied as a post -harvest 
application, which did not result in residues on the fruit. The United States noted that it had received 
from France a response to its submitted comments, but regretted that its substantive concerns had 
not been addressed. The United States indicated that it had demonstrated that pesticide 
authorization status was not a reliable indicator of actual exposure to residues and on this basis, 
requested France to clarify whether less trade restrictive measures had been considered. The United 
States also highlighted that it had satisfied the data -gaps for dimethoate metabolites and further 
urged France to follow the MRLs established by the Europe an Commission, upon completion of the 
EU re -evaluation of dimethoate. Finally, the United States requested France not to renew its ban for 
a third consecutive year.  
2.222.   Canada echoed the US concern, requested information about any new measure that would 
apply later in 2018, and encouraged France to adopt measures in line with those of the European 
Commission. Canada noted that France had lifted its ban on cherries from countries where 
dimethoate use was authorized, but remained concerned that France might imple ment another 
temporary measure banning cherries from countries that had registered dimethoate use. 
Canada  urged France to conduct a risk assessment to determine if the current MRL established by 
the European Union was insufficient, before implementing more  trade restrictive measures.  
2.223.   Turkey supported the concerns raised, indicating that although dimethoate use had been 
prohibited in Turkey, it still had been unable to export cherries to France. Turkey urged France to 
apply the least trade restrictive measur es and indicated its willingness to continue bilateral 
discussions on the issue.  
2.224.   The European Union referred to its previous responses provided in the 2017 SPS Committee 
meetings and indicated that the measure, which had been introduced in April 2017, had  expired at 
the end of 2017. In terms of the next steps, the European Union explained that EFSA would evaluate 
new studies, particularly in view of the open questions on metabolites, and that an EFSA conclusion 
was expected later in 2018. The European Unio n noted that it was too early to know whether new 
measures would be introduced by France in 2018. The European Union further indicated that any 
such measure would be notified to the Committee.  
2.225.   In July 2018, the United States reiterated its concern raised i n previous SPS Committee 
meetings regarding actions taken by France in 2016 and 2017 to ban the importation of fresh 
cherries from the United States and other countries that had approved the use of the pesticide 
dimethoate on cherries. The United States ex pressed regret that France had renewed this ban for 
2018 and noted its concern that a precedent was being set where the decision to restrict imports of 
commodities was solely being based on the authorization of a pesticide in the country of origin, 
regardl ess of whether pesticide residues were actually present in the imported commodities. 
The United States indicated that it had provided France with usage data, showing that dimethoate 
had not been used in the State of California for over five years. Furtherm ore, the United States 
argued that in regions where dimethoate might be used, it had been applied as a post -harvest 
application, which was unlikely to result in residues on the fruit. The United States requested France 
to explain how the health of French c onsumers was enhanced by restricting US cherries that had 
never been treated with dimethoate and contained no dimethoate residues. The United States further 
requested France to clarify whether less trade restrictive measures had been considered. The United  
States noted that the ban had been notified as an emergency measure on 4 May 2018, and invited 
France to explain how the current scientific evidence was insufficient and to identify the actions 
undertaken over the past years to obtain the scientific evide nce that could justify the emergency 
measure. The United States indicated that US cherry producers were able to supply French 
consumers with high quality products that complied with the European food safety standards, and G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 78 - 
 
  urged France to minimize unnecessa ry trade barriers by ensuring that measures were only applied 
to the extent necessary to protect health.  
2.226.   Canada echoed the US concern regarding France's renewal of the measure, noting that 
dimethoate was authorized for use in Canada to control a wide numbe r of pests on agricultural crops, 
including cherries. While Canada acknowledged France's right to take SPS measures, Canada had 
concerns regarding the scientific basis and the unnecessary trade -restrictive nature of the renewed 
measure. Between 2016 to 201 8, Canada had submitted comments on France's emergency 
measures, indicating its concerns with the lack of evidence provided by France to demonstrate that 
the current EU MRL was insufficient to protect consumers, and with the lack of consideration of an 
appropriate MRL for dimethoate. Canada noted that if there was a scientific basis for the zero -
tolerance approach to dimethoate, WTO Members should only require that the product be free of 
any residues of that substance, and not ban imports from countries tha t allow the use of the 
substance. Given that this emergency measure had been notified for the third time since 2016, 
Canada urged France to conduct a comprehensive risk assessment to determine if the current 
EU MRL was insufficient before implementing the trade restrictive measure. Canada also requested 
that, if the current MRL was found to be insufficient, that France conduct a risk assessment to 
determine a more appropriate MRL.  
2.227.   The European Union explained that France had published on 6 April 2018, a pro tective 
measure suspending the importation and placing on the market of fresh cherries from member 
States or non EU countries where the use of plant protection products containing the active 
substance dimethoate was authorized for the treatment of cherry t rees. The measure had entered 
into force on 11 April 2018 and would expire after 12 months. The measure had been notified and 
the French authorities would shortly send a response to the comments received from Canada. 
The European Union explained that Franc e had justified the measure on the basis of concerns related 
to the unacceptable toxicological risk of certain metabolites. In terms of the next steps, the European 
Union indicated that EFSA would evaluate new studies, particularly in view of the open ques tions on 
the metabolites, and that an EFSA conclusion was expected later in 2018. Following which, the 
measure would be reviewed in light of the EFSA conclusions.  
EU maximum residue levels for acrinathrin, metalaxyl and thiabendazole  (STC 428)  
Raised by:  Peru 
Supported by:  Bolivia, Plurinational State of; Brazil; Colombia; Costa Rica; Dominican 
Republic; Ecuador; Guatemala; Nigeria; United States of America  
Dates raised:  November 2017 (G/SPS/R/88, paras. 3.2 -3.5), March 2018 (G/SPS/R/90, 
paras. 3.38 -3.40)  
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/N/EU/174; G/SPS/GEN/1586; G/SPS/GEN/1494/Rev.1  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.228.   In November 2017, Peru raised a concern over the European Union's lowering of MRLs for 
three pesticides, acrinathrin, metalaxyl and thiabendazole, under Regulation (EU) 2017/1164, which 
would enter into force on 21 January 2018. Peru stressed that imports of fruits and vegetables into 
the European Union would be affected, and highlighted the impact this alrea dy had on its mango 
production, as 62% of its exports were destined to the European Union. Peru requested a scientific 
justification for the measure, which would lower the MRLs for thiabendazole from 5 to 0.01  mg/kg, 
a level more restrictive than the relevant Codex standard of 5  mg/kg. Peru explained that the 
pesticides were used to protect fruits against diseases caused by fungi, in particular anthracnosis, 
and guarantee their shelf life. Peru presented document G/SPS/GEN/1586, which contained 
informa tion about the measure's impact on Peruvian exports. Peru finally argued that the measure 
might be inconsistent with Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS Agreement.  
2.229.   Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Nigeria, 
and the United States shared the concern raised by Peru. The United States indicated a particular 
interest because for sweet potato the thiabendazole MRL would be lowered from 15  mg/kg to the 
default level of 0.01  mg/kg, due to a lack of residue trial data on swee t potato. The  data was being G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 79 - 
 
  generated and would be submitted at the earliest possible. The United States explained that no risk 
to consumers had been identified, and that thiabendazole was used as an emergency crop protection 
tool to manage black rot for which no viable alternative existed. Without an adequate MRL to support 
exports to the European Union, sweet potato growers would either lose market access or risk a black 
rot outbreak, which could be devastating to the industry and result in unnecessary f ood waste. 
The United States planned to submit an import tolerance application and requested an expedited 
review.  
2.230.   Colombia emphasized the effect the measure would have on its banana and melon exports. 
The Dominican Republic requested an explanation of the measu re under Article 5.8 of the 
SPS Agreement because of the measure's impact on mango trade. Costa Rica urged the European 
Union to consider the Codex MRL for thiabendazole. Members underlined the importance of basing 
measures on risk assessment and scie ntific evidence and emphasized that Codex was the reference 
as the relevant international standard.  
2.231.   The European Union explained that the proposed MRLs were based on the European Food 
Safety Authority's (EFSA) identification of dietary intake concerns and  data gaps in their assessment 
of MRLs for thiabendazole in mangoes. The European Union reported that comments received from 
Members in response to notification G/SPS/N/EU/174 had not presented specific new data for re -
evaluation and invited Members to app ly for import tolerances for affected products accompanied 
by substantial new data addressing EFSA's concerns. The European Union noted that some mango 
producing countries had replaced thiabendazole with alternative substances. Finally , the European 
Union reminded Members that it had provided an information note in June 2016 on the on -going 
review of EU MRLs, which ha d been updated in June 2017. It  was available on the European 
Commission webpage on pesticides, and had been circulated as document G/SPS/GEN/ 1494/Rev.1.  
2.232.   In March 2018, Peru reiterated its concern regarding the lowering of EU MRLs for acrinathrin, 
metalaxyl and thiabendazole under Regulation (EU) 2017/1164, which had entered into force on 
21 January 2018. Peru emphasized the negative impact of t his measure on its fruit and vegetable 
exports to the European Union. In particular, Peru highlighted its concerns with EFSA's categorization 
of mango, which had led to more restrictive EU MRLs being applied than the Codex standard of 
5 mg/kg. Peru request ed that the European Union review this measure which it viewed as more 
trade restrictive than necessary, without scientific basis and inconsistent with Articles 2 and 5 of the 
SPS Agreement.  
2.233.   Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala a nd the United States 
shared the concern raised by Peru, underlining the importance of basing measures on scientific 
evidence and using Codex standards. The United States expressed its disappointment with the 
European Union's decision to lower the thiabenda zole MRL on sweet potatoes to 0.01  mg/kg, even 
though no risk to consumers had been identified and confirmatory residue trial data were under 
development for submission. The United States requested clarification on the European Union's 
process, including t he time -frame, for considering comments submitted by Members. In particular, 
the United States highlighted the short timing between its submission of comments, in response to 
the EU notification, and the subsequent vote by EU member States on thiabendazole  MRLs, a few 
days later. The United States further noted that sweet potato growers would face great difficulties 
in exporting to the European Union and in controlling black rot during the time that it would take 
the European Union to re -establish an import  tolerance. The United States indicated that it planned 
to submit an import tolerance application and hoped that the EU would consider an expedited review.  
2.234.   The European Union recalled its previous intervention in the November 2017 SPS Committee, 
explaining  that the proposed MRLs were based on EFSA's identification of dietary intake concerns 
and data gaps in their assessment of MRLs for thiabendazole in mangoes. The European Union 
reported that comments received from Members in response to notification G/SPS /N/EU/174 had 
not presented specific new data for re -evaluation and invited Members to apply for import tolerances 
for affected products accompanied by substantial new data addressing EFSA's concerns. 
The European Union also indicated that the Standing Com mittee had discussed the concerns of 
trading partners, including whether processing factors could be applied for mangoes; however, it 
concluded that there was insufficient data or justification for further action. The European Union 
noted that there were o ther available plant protection products which could replace thiabendazole, 
and that a list of these possible alternatives had been transmitted to some interested trading 
partners. This list could also be made available to other Members. Finally, the Europ ean Union 
reminded Members that it had provided an information note in 2016 on the ongoing review of G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 80 - 
 
  EU MRLs, which had been updated in June 2017 (G/SPS/GEN/1494/Rev.1), and urged Members to 
make their concerns known as early as possible in the process.  
EU maximum level of cadmium in foodstuffs  (STC 430)  
Raised by:  Peru 
Supported by:  Bolivia, Plurinational State of; Brazil; Costa Rica; Dominican Republic; 
El Salvador; Ghana; Guatemala; Indonesia; Nicaragua; Nigeria; Panama; 
Trinidad and Tobago; United States of America  
Dates raised:  November 2017  (G/SPS/R/88, paras. 3.8 -3.10) , March 2018 
(G/SPS/R/90, paras. 3.15 -3.17), July 2018 (G/SPS/R/92/Rev.1, 
paras.  4.31-4.33, 4.73 -4.78), November 2018 (G/SPS/R/93, paras. 3.31 -
3.37)  
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/GE N/1587 ; G/SPS/GEN/1624; G/SPS/GEN/1646  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.235.   In November 2017, Peru raised a concern over the maximum levels of cadmium in chocolates 
and other cocoa products proposed by the European Union Commission Regulation (EU) 
No. 488/2014, which would come into force in January 2019. Peru highlighted that it was the second 
largest exporter of cocoa after Ecuador, and emphasized the importance of cocoa and chocolate 
exports to its economy. Peru queried  whether the measure was based on "as low as reasonably 
achievable" (ALARA) principles. The risk analysis for substances of this kind should be conducted 
using the margin of exposure (MOE) approach. Peru reported that the Codex Committee on 
Contaminants in  Food was developing a Codex standard on maximum levels of cadmium in chocolate 
and other cocoa products, and was expected to publish it in 2019. Peru submitted further details in 
document G/SPS/GEN/1587.  
2.236.   Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, the Dominican  Republic, Ghana, Guatemala, 
Madagascar, and Nigeria shared Peru's concerns and requested that the European Union consider 
delaying the implementation of this measure until Codex had developed relevant international 
standards, or to exclude chocolates from  the scope of application of the measure. Colombia also 
requested assistance to mitigate the trade impact of this measure along with a longer transition 
period, taking into account the needs of developing country Members. Costa Rica added that intrinsic 
difficulties in controlling the level of cadmium in cocoa production be taken into account when setting 
these levels. The ECOWAS representative indicated that ECOWAS members also shared the concern.  
2.237.   The European Union highlighted its efforts to alleviate th e difficulties of trading partners in 
complying with this measure, such as agreeing to a transitional period of five years in October 2012, 
which had deferred the application date to January 2019, and setting maximum limits for blended 
products instead of cocoa beans to facilitate trade. The European Union further elaborated that these 
limits were based on EFSA recommendations that exposure to cadmium should be reduced and that 
in the light of available science, excluding chocolate and cocoa products from t his measure would 
not achieve the desired level of protection.  
2.238.   In March 2018, Peru reiterated its concern over the maximum levels of cadmium in 
chocolates and other cocoa products proposed by the European Union Commission Regulation (EU) 
No. 488/2014. Peru  highlighted the social and economic importance of cocoa and chocolate exports 
to its economy, underscoring the potential negative impact of the regulation on its exports. Peru 
further observed that the regulation did not establish maximum levels for cadmi um in cocoa beans, 
only in chocolate. Peru recalled the findings of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which 
indicated that it was unlikely that there would be adverse effects in an individual exposed to dietary 
cadmium in the European Union. Peru also noted that JECFA considered foods to be a risk when it 
contributed 5% or more of the maximum tolerable daily intake of the contaminant. Based on the 
JECFA parameter, Peru argued there was no justification for including chocolate in the regulation, 
as it only contributed 4.3% to dietary cadmium exposure, and further concluded that the 
EU regulation was not in line with the SPS Agreement. Peru drew Members' attention to the ongoing 
development of a Codex standard for cadmium maximum levels and highlighte d that this standard G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 81 - 
 
  could serve as a reference point for trade. Finally, Peru urged the European Union to exclude 
chocolate and cocoa products from the scope of its regulation.  
2.239.   Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and Panama sh ared Peru's 
concern, and requested that the European Union exclude chocolate and cocoa products from its 
regulation pending the development of Codex standards on maximum levels of cadmium.  
2.240.   The European Union recalled its intervention in the November 2017 C ommittee meeting, 
highlighting that the measure was based on EFSA recommendations that exposure to cadmium 
should be reduced, and that in light of available science, excluding chocolate and cocoa products 
from this measure would not achieve the desired lev el of protection. The EFSA assessment had taken 
into consideration EU consumption patterns. In addition, the European Union was of the view that 
the exposure assessment undertaken by JECFA gave no basis for amending the EU maximum levels 
for cadmium. The E uropean Union reminded Members of its efforts to alleviate the difficulties of 
trading partners in complying with this measure, such as agreeing to a transitional period of five 
years, which had deferred the application date to January 2019, and setting ma ximum limits for 
blended products instead of cocoa beans to facilitate trade. The European Union further noted its 
active participation in Codex discussions on establishing an international standard for cadmium 
maximum levels.  
2.241.   In July 2018, Ecuador raised a concern on the private application of Regulation (EU) 
No. 488/2014, modifying a previous regulation on maximum levels of cadmium in foodstuffs 
(including chocolate and certain cocoa based products). Although the implementation of the measure 
had been sch eduled to take place as of 1 January 2019, Ecuadorian exporters had been reporting 
that EU importers seemed to be applying it already and incorrectly, that is, not to the finished 
products (chocolates and certain cocoa -based products) as provided in the me asure, but to the input 
material (cocoa beans). Ecuador explained that while this was not a private standard, it referred to 
the incorrect application by private entities of Regulation (EU) No. 488/2014. Therefore, Ecuador 
requested the European Union to o ffer the necessary monitoring guarantees to ensure the proper 
application of this Regulation, to avoid an unnecessary barrier to trade, much more burdensome 
that what the Regulation provided for, even prior to its official implementation. Finally, Ecuador 
expressed its willingness to the share the reports from its exporters with the European Union.  
2.242.   Colombia expressed its interest in the topic and provided further details under STC No. 430, 
with which this concern was related. Guatemala also shared the conce rn. 
2.243.   The European Union underlined its understanding and sympathy towards Ecuador's concern. 
EU Regulation (EU) No. 488/2014 established maximum levels of cadmium for finished products 
directly sold to consumers, and did not apply to cocoa beans or intermed iate cocoa products, which 
were the products exported from Latin America to the European Union. The European Union 
reminded Members of the exceptionally long transitional period of five years exclusively granted for 
cocoa and chocolate products, until 1 Ja nuary 2019. Private operators applied cadmium limits to 
imported cocoa beans instead of to finished products, without respecting the transitional period of 
five years granted by the Regulation, which was incorrect and not in line with the Regulation. 
Howev er, the European Union considered that this concern went beyond the scope SPS Agreement. 
In this regard, the European Union pointed out that the concern focused on actions of commercial 
operators, over whom official authorities from the European Union did not have jurisdiction. 
The European Union believed that this concern should be raised in other fora, such as the 
International Cocoa Organization. In the area of  technical assistance, there was an on -going STDF 
project preparation grant to develop regional strategies and a project proposal to establish mitigation 
and remediation methods for cadmium contamination in cocoa beans in Latin America and the 
Caribbean, s pecifically targeted to assist in complying with EU requirements. In addition, the recently 
launched EU initiative Development -Smart Innovation through Research in Agriculture (DeSIRA) 
included two proposals on climate -relevant innovation for sustainable c ocoa production, with 
activities related to cadmium. The European Union explained that these two projects were scheduled 
to start during 2019 and would focus on Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Ecuador and Peru.  
2.244.   Peru reiterated its concern over the maximum levels of cadmium in chocolates and other 
cocoa products proposed by Regulation (EU) No. 488/2014, highlighting the potential negative 
impact on trade of cocoa beans with the European Union and other internation al markets. 
Peru highlighted that JECFA, at its 77th meeting, had not considered the contribution of products 
containing cocoa or cocoa products to total cadmium dietary exposure for high consumers of such G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 82 - 
 
  products to be of concern. The EU Regulation, whic h was based on a hazard approach, had set a 
very low maximum level of cadmium in chocolate and other cocoa products. Peru observed that the 
entry into force of the regulation on 1 January 2019 would harm Peruvian cocoa producers and 
exporters, and many oth er WTO Members, as well as undermine alternative development farming 
programmes being implemented with the help of international partners, such as the European Union. 
Peru reiterated its request for the European Union to exclude chocolate and other cocoa p roducts 
from the scope of its regulation until there was updated scientific information regarding the level of 
risk to human health from cadmium. If the consideration of this request was not possible, 
Peru further urged the European Union to extend the ent ry into force of the regulation to 1 January 
2022, pending the adoption of Codex maximum levels of cadmium.  
2.245.   Colombia echoed Peru's concerns on this issue, also highlighting the significant economic 
and social impact to its cocoa sector. Colombia outlined i ts national agricultural policy for cocoa 
cultivation that sought to replace illegal products by incentivizing producers to change their crops, 
which was supported by the European Union and other WTO Members. Colombia remained concerned 
that the results of  these efforts could be undermined due to the regulation. Colombia further 
highlighted other national and international initiatives to address the issue of cadmium, including an 
STDF -funded project for Latin America and the Caribbean. In accordance with Ar ticle 10 of the 
SPS Agreement, Colombia requested a longer transition time -frame for the implementation of the 
regulation and urged the European Union to consider excluding chocolate from the scope of its 
regulation, bearing in mind that there were no Code x maximum levels for cadmium in chocolate. 
Colombia also requested the European Union to provide additional resources to continue their 
research on cadmium in cocoa and to implement the necessary mitigation measures.  
2.246.   Madagascar supported the concerns raise d and requested the European Union to consider a 
new transitional period for the implementation of Regulation (EU) No. 488/2014. This would give 
Codex the time to finalize and publish their ongoing work on the definition of maximum levels of 
cadmium in cho colate and cocoa products. In addition, it would allow countries exporting to the 
European Union time to adjust to the new regulatory standards. Madagascar further emphasized 
that the current date for adoption of the regulation (i.e. 1 January 2019), would  have a significant 
economic impact on its producers.  
2.247.   Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Ghana, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama, and Trinidad 
and Tobago shared the concerns, and requested that the European Union exclude chocolate and 
cocoa products from it s regulation and/or postpone the implementation of the regulation until the 
development of Codex standards on maximum levels of cadmium. Indonesia and the United States 
also echoed the concerns and urged the European Union to set its maximum levels in acco rdance 
with scientific evidence. Trinidad and Tobago further noted the research conducted on the mitigation 
of cadmium bioaccumulation in cocoa beans, which had showed encouraging results with respect to 
the use of genetic and soil enhancement strategies. However, Trinidad and Tobago also highlighted 
that mitigation methods were constrained by their costs and the timing of the results, which further 
underscored the negative impact that the proposed regulation would have on the international 
market price for  cocoa beans and overall cocoa bean trade.  
2.248.   Codex informed the Committee that two maximum levels for cadmium had already been 
adopted at the Commission's meeting held the previous week, one had been discontinued due to 
lack of data, and that Codex would con tinue work on two other maximum levels. Codex also informed 
the Committee that Peru had noted its reservation on the adoption of the two maximum levels as it 
considered the levels too strict.  
2.249.   The European Union recalled its previous interventions, highligh ting that the limits in 
Regulation (EU) No. 488/2014 were based on risk assessments and scientific opinions from EFSA, 
which clearly concluded that cadmium exposure should be reduced and that certain population 
subgroups already exceeded the tolerable week ly intake. The European Union thanked Codex for 
the information provided and noted that the EU limits for chocolate containing a high amount of 
cocoa (>50%) were consistent with the adopted Codex maximum levels. The European Union 
reminded Members of its e fforts to alleviate the difficulties of trading partners in complying with this 
measure, such as agreeing to a transitional period of five years, which had deferred the application 
date to January 2019, and setting maximum levels for blended products inste ad of cocoa beans to 
facilitate trade. The European Union further explained that this health protection measure could not 
be delayed any longer. In relation to technical assistance, the European Union recalled the STDF 
project, among other initiatives, to mitigate the impact of the measure. Regarding problems with G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 83 - 
 
  importers, the European Union referred to its previous statements. The European Union remained 
open to bilateral discussions with Members.  
2.250.   In November 2018, Peru reiterated its concern over the ma ximum levels of cadmium in 
chocolates and other cocoa products proposed by Regulation (EU) No. 488/2014, and observed that 
the entry into force of the regulation on 1 January 2019 would have a negative impact on trade of 
cocoa beans with the European Union . According to Peru, the new maximum levels of cadmium were 
not justified by scientific evidence (G/SPS/GEN/1646). JECFA considered a food to represent a risk 
when it contributed 5% or more of the maximum tolerable intake of the contaminant, and since 
chocolate and cocoa products contributed only 4.3% to dietary cadmium exposure, there were no 
grounds for including them in the regulation. Peru also noted inconsistencies in the EU Regulation, 
which established the same maximum levels of cadmium, 0.10 mg/kg, for potatoes and chocolate 
with up to 30% cocoa, in spite of the fact that potatoes contributed a much higher percentage than 
chocolate (13.2%) to overall cadmium dietary exposure, and had a different consumption pattern. 
Therefore, the EU Regulation was i n violation of articles 2.2, 2.3, 5.1 and 5.4 of the SPS Agreement, 
since it was not based on scientific principles, no proper risk assessment had been conducted, and 
the objective of minimizing the negative effects on trade when determining the appropriat e level of 
sanitary protection had not been considered. The entry into force of the regulation would harm 
Peruvian cocoa bean producers, and many other WTO Members, as well as undermine Peru's joint 
efforts with the international community, including the U nited States and the European Union, to 
combat illicit drug trafficking within the framework of comprehensive and sustainable programmes 
for the development of alternatives to coca leaf production. Peru reiterated its request for the 
European Union to excl ude chocolate and chocolate products from the scope of its regulation until 
there was updated scientific evidence on the level of risk to human health from cadmium, and Codex 
would finalize the adoption of maximum levels for cocoa. Peru concluded by reques ting the European 
Union to postpone the entry into force of the regulation to 1 January 2022.  
2.251.   Côte d'Ivoire echoed Peru's concerns on this issue, and explained that efforts were being 
currently undertaken in the country to diversify exports and increase th e production of higher value 
processed products. The entry into force of the EU Regulation, not based on a risk assessment, 
would negatively impact on exports of cocoa products, allowing trade in cocoa beans only, which 
was more sensitive to price fluctuat ions. While Côte d'Ivoire recognized the legitimate right of the 
European Union to take measures to protect its population, it urged the European Union to review 
its Regulation until the adoption of Codex maximum levels for cadmium in chocolate.  
2.252.   Colombia r eiterated its concern over the proposed Regulation (EU) No. 488/2014, 
highlighting again the significant economic and social impact on the cocoa sector. Colombia recalled 
that its national agriculture policy aimed to replace illicit crops by incentivizing producers to change 
poppy and coca crops by seeding cacao. As a result, cultivation and exports of cocoa to the European 
Union had increased. Colombia remained concerned that the positive results obtained with the 
support of international cooperation initi atives, including the WTO through the STDF, and EU funding, 
would be affected by the application of the EU Regulation. In accordance with Article 10 of the 
SPS Agreement, Colombia requested the European Union to provide additional resources to continue 
research on cadmium in cocoa and to implement the necessary mitigation measures. Also, referring 
to JECFA's scientific opinion and Article 3 of the SPS Agreement, Colombia requested the exclusion 
of chocolate from the scope of the regulation. Finally, Colombi a invited the European Union to 
consider notifying draft SPS legislation at an earlier stage, so as to allow sufficient time for comments 
to be considered.  
2.253.   The Plurinational State of Bolivia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Nicaragua, and Trinidad 
and Tobag o shared the concerns, and requested that the European Union exclude chocolate and 
cocoa products from the scope of its regulation and/or to extend the entry into force of the regulation 
to 1 January 2022, pending the development of Codex standards on maxi mum levels of cadmium. 
Ecuador highlighted that certain trade operators applied the regulation before its entry into force 
and incorrectly, that is, not to the finished products as provided in the measure, but to the raw 
material (cocoa beans). This issue had resulted in the development of a national agenda for cadmium 
reduction, involving the public and private sectors, to implement mitigation activities, which would 
require additional resources and time. Trinidad and Tobago highlighted the negative impact  of the 
proposed regulation on diversification initiatives in the cocoa sector.  
2.254.   El Salvador, Panama, the United States, and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela also 
echoed the concerns, emphasizing that the regulation created unnecessary barriers to trade . G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 84 - 
 
  Furthermore, the United States urged the European Union to consider the objective of minimizing 
negative trade effects and to ensure that the level of protection achieved by its measure would be 
scientifically justified.  
2.255.   Costa Rica expressed its systemic  interest in this concern, and reminded Members that 
cadmium, being present in the soil, was present naturally in cocoa. Costa Rica asked the European 
Union to take this element into consideration in its research on this matter.  
2.256.   The European Union recalled  its previous interventions, highlighting that the limits in 
Regulation (EU) No. 488/2014 were not based on a hazard -based approach, but on risk assessments 
and scientific opinions from EFSA. Furthermore, the European Union noted that the EU limits for 
chocolate containing a high amount of cocoa (>50%) were consistent with adopted Codex maximum 
levels. The European Union reminded Members of its efforts to alleviate the difficulties of trading 
partners in complying with this measure, such as agreeing to a tr ansitional period of five years. The 
European Union also pointed out that the ultimate goal of the European Union was to protect the 
health of EU consumers, and explained that EFSA's risk assessment showed that taking into account 
the EU Tolerable Weekly I ntake (TWI) and consumption patterns, the mean dietary exposure to 
cadmium in EU countries was close to or slightly exceeded the TWI. The European Union further 
noted that certain subgroups of the population (mainly children) may even exceed the TWI by abo ut 
two-fold. Furthermore, based on the risk assessment, it was considered necessary to limit the 
exposure of EU consumers to cadmium for all commodities, including chocolate. EU maximum levels 
were set on the basis of occurrence data at a level which was a s low as reasonably achievable, and 
this was 0.10 mg/kg for potatoes and for milk chocolate containing less than 30% total dry cocoa 
solids. Finally, the European Union informed the Committee on future technical assistance projects 
on low cadmium and clima te relevant innovation to promote sustainable cocoa production in 
Colombia, Ecuador and Peru.  
EU restrictions on poultry meat due to Salmonella detection  (STC 432)  
Raised by:  Brazil  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  November 2017 (G/SPS/R/88, paras. 3.13 -3.14), March 2018 
(G/SPS/R/90, paras. 3.54 -3.55), July 2018 (G/SPS/R/92/Rev.1, 
paras.  4.57-4.58)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.257.   In November 2017, Brazil raised concerns over the reinforced border testing controls in the 
European Union, which had resulted in increased reports of salmonella detections in poultry. 
Additionally, Brazil pointed out that distinct microbiological criteria for fresh meat products and 
poultry meat preparations were u njustified, as the two products were similar. Brazil argued there 
was incorrect risk management and communication, contra ry to the principles of the 
SPS Agreement, and asked the European Union to provide scientific justification for these measures.  
2.258.   The Eu ropean Union acknowledged the difference in microbiological criteria for Salmonella 
for the two product categories as pointed out by Brazil, indicating that the scientific considerations 
were based on the opinion of the Scientific Committee on Veterinary M easures relating to Public 
Health on Salmonella in Foodstuffs. The European Union stated that there was no justification to 
revise the criteria. The European Union added that all shipments from Brazil were subject to pre -
export testing as a reaction to the  meat fraud scandal, and on the basis of the results of an audit 
carried out in April 2017. However, despite the pre -export tests, the prevalence of Salmonella found 
in poultry meat consignments from Brazil at the EU border was close to 8% and this was a m atter 
of concern. The European Union noted its willingness to continue bilateral discussions on this issue.  
2.259.   In March 2018, Brazil reiterated concerns over the reinforced border testing controls in the 
European Union, which had resulted in increased reports  of salmonella detections in poultry. 
In addition, Brazil pointed out that distinct microbiological criteria for fresh meat products and G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 85 - 
 
  poultry meat preparations were unjustified, as the two products were similar. Brazil explained that 
it exported a consi derable volume of uncooked salted poultry meat and seasoned poultry meat to 
the European Union, which were both commercially defined as "poultry meat preparations". 
However, Brazil argued that the food safety specifications for salted poultry meat should b e the 
same as those applied to fresh poultry meat, since their intrinsic characteristics relevant to microbial 
food safety were virtually identical. In addition, both products were uncooked, had similar muscle 
fibre structure and were not intended for imme diate human consumption. Brazil queried the scientific 
justification for the adoption of different food safety criteria for these products. Brazil also indicated 
that over 95% of the notifications of positive results in Salmonella detection by the European  Union's 
Rapid Alert System for Food and Feeds (RASFF) were related to Salmonella in salted poultry meat, 
with no public health significance. Brazil further highlighted that the Standing Committee on Plants, 
Animals, Food and Feed was scheduled to discuss the delisting of Brazilian establishments which 
were currently authorized to export products of animal origin. Brazil emphasized that such a decision 
could have a negative result on Brazil's exports to the European Union and would constitute an 
unjustified  barrier to trade.  
2.260.   The European Union acknowledged the difference in microbiological criteria for Salmonella 
for the two product categories as pointed out by Brazil, indicating that the scientific considerations 
were based on the opinion of the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public 
Health on Salmonellae in Foodstuffs. The European Union stated that there was no justification for 
revising the criteria, and that they applied to both domestic production and imports into the 
European Un ion. The European Union added that shipments from Brazil were subject to laboratory 
testing at 20% frequency at the EU borders in addition to the checks that were requested to be 
carried out by the Brazilian authorities on each consignment before the expor t takes place. 
These  controls were put in place last year following the meat fraud scandal and on the basis of the 
results of an audit carried out in May 2017. However, despite the pre -export tests, the prevalence 
of Salmonella found in poultry meat consig nments from Brazil at the EU border was close to 7% and 
this was a matter of concern. The European Union informed the Committee that the European 
Commission had recently carried out an audit in Brazilian poultry meat establishments, and that the 
report was  under preparation. The European Union also explained that the delisting of Brazilian 
establishments was a separate issue under consideration by EU authorities, as it related to recurrent 
Salmonella detection in specific establishments, despite requests fo r Brazil to take appropriate 
measures. In relation to the problems of risk management and communication raised by Brazil in 
the November 2017 SPS Committee meeting, the European Union underscored its transparent 
system, highlighting that information on det ections in both intra -European and international trade 
could be found in RASFF. Finally, the European Union noted that its measures were consistent with 
the SPS Agreement, and further indicated its willingness to continue bilateral discussions on this 
issue. 
2.261.   In July 2018, Brazil reiterated its concerns over the reinforced border testing controls in the 
European Union due to alleged salmonella detections in poultry. Brazil argued that the European 
Union authorities had intensified microbiological inspection procedures for Brazilian poultry without 
technical or scientific justification. Brazil drew Members' attention to the changes in EU sanitary 
measures introduced after the WTO dispute on poultry meat in 2002. The European Union had 
banned the same two types  of salmonella banned by Brazil with regards to fresh chicken, while for 
salted poultry it banned more than 2.000 types of salmonella, which were deactivated by cooking 
processes. The European Union applied separate microbiological criteria for fresh chick en and 
processed chicken meat even though both were intended to be cooked before consumption and had 
identical intrinsic characteristics with regards to food safety. Brazil had regularly submitted 
inspection reports related to the detection of salmonella i n shipments entering the European Union, 
with investigations on the RASFF notification system in cooperation with European authorities. 
According to recent data from the European Union, only 326 of the 5,508 shipments of poultry meat 
and poultry meat prepa rations that had been sampled and analysed at EU border posts for 
salmonella detection were found to be affected by salmonella. Less than 10% of those cases had 
been related to the two types of salmonella that justified the rejection of the product or its withdrawal 
from the market according to Regulation (EC) No. 2073/2005. Therefore, Brazil considered that risks 
to human health would not justify the measure in place.  
2.262.   The European Union recalled the EU criteria based on the 2003 scientific opinion of the 
Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to public health on salmonella in foodstuffs 
published in 2003, which took into account consumption patterns and behaviours and the risk of 
cross-contamination. The European Union stressed that these requ irements were equally applied to G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 86 - 
 
  domestic and imported products. Adding salt to poultry meat changed the tariff rate but also the 
legal status of the products in the European Union. Shipments from Brazil were subject to testing at 
20% frequency at EU borde rs, in addition to pre -export checks that had to be carried out by the 
Brazilian authorities. The frequency of these controls had increased after the meat fraud scandal in 
2017 and audits of the European Commission. According to EU findings, despite the at testation by 
Brazilian authorities certifying the absence of salmonella accompanying the consignments, the 
prevalence of salmonella in poultry meat detected at the EU border was still close to 6%, which was 
considered a matter of concern. The European Unio n concluded that both the microbiological criteria 
and the reinforced controls were fully justified and consistent with the SPS Agreement.  
EU Commission Decision 2002/994/EC on animal products  (STC 442)  
Raised by:  China  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  July 2018 (G/SPS/R/92/Rev.1, paras. 4.9 -4.10), November 2018 
(G/SPS/R/93, paras. 3.52 -3.53)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.263.   In July 2018, China raised a concern over EU Commission Decision 2002/994/EC, explaining 
that each consignment of aquaculture fish, shrimp, crayfish, rabbit meat, poultry meat products, 
eggs and eggs products, bee products and casings from China had to be tested by Chinese competent 
authorities for chlorampheni col and nitrofurans before being exported to the EU market. In addition, 
China explained that testing and certificates for malachite green and crystal violet were also required 
by the European Union for imports of aquaculture products. China informed the C ommittee that a 
formal letter had been sent to the EU delegation on 14 October 2016, requesting the withdrawal of 
these requirements. Likewise, China had also provided a report on the quality of products of animal 
origin, including poultry meat and casings , exported from China to the European Union. However, 
China regretted that no comments on the submitted document had been received. China conducted 
strict inspections on around 40,000 batches of the products mentioned. In 2017, only one batch of 
products h ad been positive to one residue, and since 2010, the maximum number of relevant Rapid 
Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) notifications per year had been eight, which represented 
0.02% of the total number of all exported batches. China urged the Europea n Union to amend 
Decision 2002/994/EC and to withdraw the unreasonable restrictions.  
2.264.   The European Union recalled that the measures contained in Decision 2002/994/EC had been 
introduced due to the detection of forbidden substances in animal products from Ch ina. 
The European Union clarified that the exports of the products were still allowed, with additional 
requirements, for safety reasons. The measure had been implemented as an instrument to protect 
EU consumers. Since 2002, it had been repeatedly reviewed on the basis of Chinese requests and 
the progress made in residue controls, leading to a reduction in the number of products to which the 
measure applied. The European Union argued that the repeated amendments were the expression 
of the EU commitment to ad apt the measure based on information and guarantees provided by 
China; and considered data on RASFF notifications an important element in the risk assessment. 
This issue had also been discussed in a recent meeting between the EU Agriculture Commissioner 
and the Minister of General Administration of Customs of China. The European Union expressed its 
willingness to adapt the measure at the request of the Chinese authorities and supported by related 
information on control inspections.  
2.265.   In November 2018, China r eiterated its concern over EU Commission Decision 2002/994/EC, 
highlighting that each consignment of poultry meat, casings, aquaculture fishery products and 
crayfish from China had to be tested for chloramphenicol, nitrofuran, malachite green, crystal viol et 
and their metabolites before being exported to the EU market. China explained that in accordance 
with the "farm to table" concept it implemented strict inspection and quarantine procedures for 
animal products exported to the European Union. Moreover, th e European Union had recognized 
China's food safety and residue regulatory systems, conducting several on -site reviews over the past G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 87 - 
 
  years. On this basis, China urged the European Union to consider removing additional testing 
requirements on the above -mentioned substances, to reduce unnecess ary costs and facilitate trade.  
2.266.   The European Union recalled that the measures contained in Decision 2002/994/EC had been 
introduced due to the detection of forbidden substances in products of animal origin. The European 
Union noted that exports were still allowed, with additional requirements for safety reasons. Since 
2002, the measure had been repeatedly reviewed on the basis of information and guarantees 
provided by China, demonstrating progress made in residue controls . Finally, the European Union 
announced that the issue would be further discussed during the visit of the EU Agriculture 
Commissioner to China in November.  
EU restrictions on poultry meat and poultry meat preparations (Regulation (EU) 
No. 2018/700)  (STC 44 3) 
Raised by:  Brazil  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  July 2018 (G/SPS/R/92/Rev. 1, paras. 4.11 -4.13; See also STC 432 ) 
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.267.   In July 2018, Brazil reported that since the adoption of Regulation (EU) No. 2018/700, 
shipments from 21 Brazilian establishments, with sanitary certificates issued after 16 May 2018, had 
been denied access to the European Union. Regulation (EU) No. 2018/7 00 had justified the delisting 
of Brazilian establishments based on on -going investigations and on recent actions of the judiciary 
in Brazil, arguing that the establishments affected by those measures would not comply with relevant 
EU requirements. This Re gulation had then led to the EU suspension of imports from specific 
establishments due to alleged cases of non -compliance due to the presence of salmonella in poultry 
meat and poultry meat preparations originating from Brazilian establishments, which was t he subject 
of a separate specific trade concern, STC No. 432, presented by Brazil. In this concern, 
Brazil  addressed the decision to suspend exports from specific establishments, due to an alleged 
lack of guarantees related to judicial investigations.  
2.268.   Brazil stated that EU restrictions in Regulation (EU) No. 2018/700 targeted specific private 
companies, leading to 12 exporting establishments being delisted. Between January 2017 and March 
2018, two of the delisted establishments had not exported to the Europ ean Union. The remaining 
ten establishments had 8,417 sanitary certificates issued for exports to the European Union, and 
41 RASFF notifications throughout the whole period, representing a 0.5% rate of non -conformities 
in total shipments and a 1.35% rate i n inspected shipments. Brazil therefore questioned the scientific 
principle and the sanitary basis of the EU Regulation (EU) No. 2018/700. Brazil emphasised that it 
had adopted a strict stance in the prevention and punishment of crime against food safety, adding 
that through regular inspections the Federal Police and the Ministry of Agriculture had punished 
individuals and companies not complying with sanitary measures. Finally, Brazil requested the 
European Union to withdraw Regulation (EU) No. 2018/700.  
2.269.   The European Union drew the Committee's attention to the EU prelisting system based on a 
systems audit approach that relied on guarantees provided by the competent authorities of the 
exporting country that the exports met the level of sanitary protection se t by the European Union. 
On that basis, the European Union accepted the list of the exporting establishments proposed by the 
authorities of the exporting country without prior audits or inspections, and the system was applied 
to all EU trading partners. Th e European Union believed that its approach facilitated trade flows by 
avoiding undue delays, burdensome procedures and unnecessary costs. However, the European 
Union clarified that when an exporting country failed to deliver on the guarantees provided, th e 
European Union needed to take actions to ensure that the level of protection was maintained. 
The decision to withdraw the authorisation of certain Brazilian establishments to export specified 
products of animal origin to the European Union had been taken  on the basis of serious concerns, 
and after careful consideration of recurrent salmonella findings at EU borders, despite pre -export 
testing and certification; the failure of the competent authorities to take effective corrective G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 88 - 
 
  measures; and cases of fr aud both involving Brazilian authorities and concerning laboratory results 
supporting certification of meat and meat products exported to the European Union. As a result, the 
confidence of the European Union on the reliability of the Brazilian official con trol system had been 
seriously affected. In this regard, the European Union considered that products from the concerned 
establishments could constitute a health risk and, therefore, could not continue to be authorised to 
enter the EU market. The measures h ad been proportionate and least trade restrictive as instead of 
banning the imports of the concerned products from Brazil, protective measures had been applied 
only to those establishments that had been either involved in fraud cases, or had shown serious and 
repeated salmonella -positive results. In this respect, the European Union believed that the adopted 
measures were consistent with the provisions of the SPS Agreement. The measures would be 
reviewed in light of new information and further developments.  
EU review of legislation on veterinary medicinal products  (STC 446)  
Raised by:  Argentina,  United States of America  
Supported by:  Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia,  Paraguay  
Dates raised:  July 2018 (G/SPS/R/92/Rev.1, paras. 4.19 -4.30), November 2018 
(G/SPS/R/93, paras. 3.38 -3.47)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.270.   In July 2018, Argentina raised concerns regarding the European Union's proposed regulation 
on veterinary medicinal products, stating that the adoption of provisions regarding the use of 
antimicrobials in the veterinary sector would have a significant impact on international trade. 
Argentina reiterated its commitment to the fight against AMR; its active participation in  Codex 
Alimentarius and OIE work; and its conviction that an appropriate solution should be reached by 
consensus within a multilateral setting in a manner compatible to the WTO SPS Agreement.  
2.271.   Argentina was concerned that the proposed text, which was to be formally adopted by the 
European Parliament and the Council of Europe, would require exporters of animals and animal 
products to meet EU standards concerning the use of certain antimicrobial medicinal products, as 
well as specific usage provisions, as a co ndition for maintaining access to the EU market, despite 
the differences in the prevailing sanitary conditions. Argentina further added that recommendations 
from international organizations such as Codex Alimentarius, did not suggest that measures of this 
type should be taken with regard to antimicrobials, which implied a lack of certainty as to the results 
that could be achieved through these measures, a lack of scientific basis and a disproportionate 
reaction to the risk.  
2.272.   Argentina contended that the prov isions that the European Union deemed appropriate to 
resolve sanitary matters, specific to the European Union and its regions, could not be applied on an 
extraterritorial basis to countries that did not share the same sanitary conditions. Further, through 
this new regulation, the European Union would be applying a reciprocity approach that lacked 
scientific basis, preventing access to the EU market for animal products from third countries where 
antimicrobial medicinal products were subject to different usag e authorization standards.  
2.273.   Argentina requested the European Union to consider the equivalence of third country 
regulations on the use of antimicrobial medicines in the veterinary sector based on rigorous scientific 
assessment vis -à-vis the level of sanitar y protection set by the European Union; clarify the criteria 
used to list antimicrobial medicinal products to which this reciprocity policy would apply; and take 
appropriate steps to avoid undue restrictions on international trade of animals and foods of a nimal 
origin as a consequence of the application of new provisions on the use of antimicrobial medicinal 
products in the veterinary sector.  
2.274.   The United States shared this concern, emphasising that the measure would require foreign 
producers to abide by EU p roduction methodology requirements related to antibiotic use restrictions 
in livestock, and would not target residues of concern, or the presence of resistance genes. 
The United States also informed the Committee that it had joined several WTO Members in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 89 - 
 
  addressing concerns over this measure in a joint letter to EU Commission President Juncker. 
The EU restrictions would require other Members to adopt essentially the same comprehensive 
EU regulatory programme, without taking into consideration different cond itions present in their 
territories. Applied extraterritorially, these restrictions would undermine multilateral efforts to 
combat AMR, such as those undertaken through the Codex Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance, 
established to develop science -based guidelines on the management of foodborne AMR and to 
consider development of guidance on integrated surveillance of AMR, among others. In light of the 
ongoing multilateral efforts to develop standards on AMR, the United States urged the European 
Union to d elay the adoption of new legislation until the guidelines were made available by Codex.  
2.275.   Colombia shared the concern and thanked the European Union for the information provided 
under item 3(a)(iii).  
2.276.   Chile also expressed interest in this topic, given its pot ential consequences for international 
trade. Chile trusted that, through the comments from Members in this Committee, the European 
Union would take into consideration the work of the OIE and Codex Alimentarius in line with Article 
3 of the SPS Agreement on  harmonization, as well as science -based risk assessments, as per Article 
5 of the SPS Agreement.  
2.277.   Canada expressed concerns that the EU proposed approach would likely have an 
unnecessary restrictive impact on international trade and that it would undermine  the ongoing 
multilateral efforts to combat this problem. Canada was of the view that AMR was a complex global 
issue and that tackling AMR requires a coordinated international approach. Canada recognised the 
coordinated efforts taken by several internation al bodies, and supported the collaborative leadership 
of the WHO, OIE, the FAO and Codex to promote a prudent use of antimicrobials in animals and 
public health to address AMR. Canada was concerned that despite the significant potential impact 
on trade, th e draft regulation had not been notified to the SPS Committee. Canada urged the 
European Union to notify this measure to allow Members the opportunity to provide comments and 
to take these comments into account. Different conditions and disease prevalence in third countries 
could result in approved usages of drugs that differed from those in the European Union. 
Canada  requested that the European Union provide the rationale and scientific justification for 
prohibiting certain veterinary antimicrobial drugs i n the European Union and imports from third 
countries; the considerations that would be taken into account when preparing the list of medically 
important antimicrobials to be prohibited for veterinary uses in the European Union and third 
countries exportin g to the European Union; and that the list be shared with third countries at the 
earliest opportunity.  
2.278.   Brazil shared the concern, underlining that the proposed amendments to the EU legislation 
could significantly impact trade. Brazil had previously shared its concerns with the European Union, 
in coordination with other WTO Members. Brazil regretted that the European Union had moved 
forward with a proposal that might prohibit exporting companies to engage in trade with the 
European Union if their national go vernments authorized the use of certain veterinary antimicrobial 
drugs under different conditions than those permitted by the European Union, or if the exporters did 
not comply with certain EU requirements. The adoption of these measures could undermine th e on-
going work of international standard -setting organizations developing multilateral harmonized 
guidelines to deal with AMR. It was unclear how the EU proposed legislation would converge with 
the international criteria for maximum residue levels (MRLs) already established in accordance with 
a scientific risk assessment. Finally, Brazil requested the European Union to take into consideration 
the multilateral efforts on AMR regulation, particularly the on -going work of international standard -
setting organi zations to establish international standards on the use of veterinary medicinal 
products.  
2.279.   Australia expressed its support to the joint work of WHO, OIE and FAO in setting international 
standards for AMR. The application of risk measures to prevent and redu ce AMR should be based on 
internationally agreed standards, and supported by scientific data. Australia also stressed the 
importance of retaining access to effective antimicrobials to protect animal health and to avoid 
adverse animal welfare outcomes. Aust ralia strongly discouraged regional and individual countries' 
efforts to introduce AMR -related risk management measures inconsistent with agreed standards and 
not supported by science that could distort trade. Australia encouraged all countries to adhere t o 
their international obligations, stressing that unilateral procedures related to AMR trade policies 
outside the international standard -setting organizations had the potential to undermine collaborative 
global efforts. Australia emphasized its commitment to an effective and robust system for the G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 90 - 
 
  prevention and containment of AMR, and explained that it had adopted one of the most conservative 
approaches to the use of antimicrobials in livestock production in the world. However, Australia 
stressed that antim icrobials were important for animal health and welfare, biosecurity and 
production, and that it was critical for the Australian livestock sector to retain access to these 
antimicrobials to treat, prevent and control diseases. Australia underlined its low r ate of AMR in food 
animals due to its favourable animal health status, extensive farming systems, stringent border 
controls, good biosecurity measures to prevent the introduction, establishment and spread of 
endemic and exotic diseases, and strong regulati ons governing the registration and the use of 
antimicrobials. Finally, Australia expressed its concern that any measures to restrict access to the 
prophylactic use of antimicrobials in food animals would have significant adverse impact on exports 
of Austra lian and other livestock animal products.  
2.280.   The European Union recalled the information provided under agenda item 3 (a)(iii), and 
expressed appreciation for Members' shared recognition of the importance of AMR for global health. 
The European Union stressed that it promoted prudent and responsible use of antimicrobials 
worldwide and highlighted the growing international consensus on the need to phase out the use of 
antimicrobials as growth promoters. The European Union reiterated that the original proposal ha d 
been notified under the TBT Agreement because at that time it did not include SPS elements relevant 
to international trade. In addition, the European Union explained that it had not had the opportunity 
to notify the current version of the Regulation unde r any WTO Agreements because the 
EU co legislators had introduced import -related AMR measures in the draft Regulation at the latest 
stage of the legislative process. The European Union emphasized that the measure would be notified. 
Concerning the criteria for antimicrobials reserved for humans, the European Union observed that 
no decision had been taken yet. However, the European Union emphasised that any implementation 
would be based on risk assessments provided by the European Medicine Agency, the Europea n Food 
Safety Authority and other relevant EU agencies, taking into account relevant recommendations 
from international organizations.  
2.281.   Regarding the impact and the consistency with WTO requirements, the European Union 
reiterated that detailed rules on how to apply these measures would be available in delegated acts 
meeting all the relevant requirements, compatible with all the international agreements, including 
WTO obligations, and would be legally sound, proportionate, non -discriminatory and based on 
science. The European Union expressed its willingness to continue its engagement with Codex, WHO, 
FAO and OIE on the development of a consistent international framework and standards related to 
AMR. Finally, the European Union stated that this Regulation would  contribute to the fight against 
the global spread of AMR.  
2.282.   In November 2018, Argentina reiterated its concern regarding the European Union's 
proposed regulation on veterinary medicinal products, stating that it was not based on a risk 
assessment nor in lin e with Codex guidelines and principles. Further, through this new regulation, 
the European Union would be applying mutatis mutandis a reciprocity approach that lacked scientific 
basis, preventing access to the EU market for animal products from third count ries where 
antimicrobial medicinal products were subject to different usage authorization standards. 
Argentina  requested the European Union to consider the equivalence of third country regulations on 
the use of antimicrobial medicines based on rigorous sci entific assessment vis -à-vis the level of 
sanitary protection set by the European Union.  
2.283.   Argentina noted that the issue of antimicrobial resistance had received greater attention in 
various international fora, such as the United Nations, G20, FAO, WHO as well as the OIE and Codex 
Alimentarius. Antimicrobial resistance was a complex topic that posed significant challenges, which 
required coordinated efforts based on science. Argentina further asked the European Union to 
develop the new regulation in compliance with the SPS Agreement and to avoid any barrier to trade. 
Finally, Argentina urged the  European Union to provide the list of permitted antimicrobials for human 
and animal use, and encouraged the European Union to notify the revised measures to both the TBT 
and SPS Committees.  
2.284.   The United States also reiterated its concern, emphasizing that t he measure would require 
foreign producers to abide by EU production standards regarding the use of antimicrobial veterinary 
drugs, without taking into consideration animal health conditions in their own territories. The United 
States further explained tha t the measure would ban the use of certain veterinary drugs based on 
approval in the exporting country and would not target residues of concern. Furthermore, the 
EU legislation prevented third countries from taking into account regional conditions and dise ase G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 91 - 
 
  prevalence. The United States urged the European Union to consider the ongoing global effort 
undertaken in the Codex Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance (TFAMR) to develop standards on 
antimicrobial resistance, and to delay implementation of its leg islation until after the Task Force 
concluded its work. Finally, the United States asked the European Union to notify the revised 
legislation.  
2.285.   Colombia and Paraguay shared the concern raised by Argentina and the United States. 
Paraguay reiterated its suppo rt for the ongoing multilateral efforts to combat AMR, highlighting 
national initiatives currently under development.  
2.286.   Canada expressed its disappointment with the European Parliament's vote in favour of the 
new regulation on veterinary medical products to manage health risks from AMR. Canada recognized 
that AMR represented a serious public health issue that required high attention, but was concerned 
that the EU approach to managing such risks unnecessarily restricted trade and possibly undermined 
the ongoin g multilateral efforts to combat AMR. Canada was of the view that AMR was a complex 
global issue and recognized the coordinated efforts undertaken by several international bodies to 
promote the prudent use of antimicrobials in animal and public health. Can ada encouraged the 
European Union to support these ongoing efforts. Canada urged the European Union to notify the 
implementing measures given its significant potential impact on trade, to allow Members the 
opportunity to provide comments and to take these comments into account. Different conditions and 
diseases in third countries could result in approved usages of drugs that differed from those in the 
European Union. Canada requested that the European Union provide the rationale and scientific 
justification  for prohibiting certain veterinary antimicrobial drugs in the European Union and imports 
from third countries and to provide the considerations that would be taken into account when 
preparing the list of medically important antimicrobials to be prohibited  for veterinary use in the 
European Union and in third countries exporting to the European Union.  
2.287.   Brazil shared the concern, highlighting the ongoing multilateral efforts undertaken by 
international standard -setting organizations to address AMR. Brazil was  of the view that AMR needed 
to be addressed multilaterally, and that unilateral decisions to ban the use of certain veterinary 
drugs and prohibit imports from countries where these products had been authorized was 
incompatible with Article 3 of the SPS Ag reement and more trade -restrictive than necessary. 
Brazil  emphasized the work of the Codex TFAMR and the "Code of Practice to Minimize and Contain 
Antimicrobial Resistance", supported by WHO, OIE, FAO and G20. Finally, Brazil requested the 
European Union t o establish MRLs based on risk assessments.  
2.288.   Australia reiterated its support for the joint work of WHO, OIE and FAO in setting 
international standards for AMR. The application of risk measures to prevent and reduce AMR should 
be based on internationally ag reed standards and supported by scientific data. Australia also stressed 
the importance of retaining access to effective antimicrobials to protect animal health and to avoid 
adverse animal welfare outcomes. Australia discouraged regional and individual cou ntries' efforts to 
introduce AMR -related risk management measures that were inconsistent with agreed standards, 
not supported by science, and that could distort trade. Unilateral initiatives related to AMR trade 
policies outside the international standard -setting organizations had the potential to undermine 
collaborative global efforts and the integrity of these organizations. Australia emphasized its 
commitment to an effective and robust system for the prevention and containment of AMR and 
explained that i t had adopted one of the most conservative approaches to the use of antimicrobials 
in livestock production in the world. However, Australia stressed that antimicrobials were important 
for animal health, welfare and biosecurity and that it was critical for the Australian livestock sector 
to retain access to these antimicrobials to treat, prevent and control diseases. Australia underlined 
its low rate of AMR in food animals due to its favourable animal health status, extensive farming 
systems, stringent borde r controls, efficient security measures to prevent the introduction of 
endemic and exotic diseases, and strong regulations governing the registration and use of 
antimicrobials. Finally, Australia expressed its concern that any measures to restrict access t o the 
prophylactic use of antimicrobials in food animals would have significant adverse impact on exports 
of Australian and other livestock animal products.  
2.289.   The European Union noted that the revised regulation on veterinary medicinal products 
established a  framework for the authorisation, distribution and use of veterinary drugs in the 
European Union. The European Union recalled that the original proposal, drafted in September 2014, 
had been notified under the TBT Committee in April 2015. Formal adoption, p ublication and entry 
into force was expected to take place in November 2018, and the new regulation would be applicable G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 92 - 
 
  after three years. The European Union further explained that the key objectives of the new regulation 
aimed at addressing the global pub lic health risk of AMR. The new regulation was based on a wide 
range of actions following the "One Health" approach internationally recognized as the most effective 
to tackle AMR. These actions included the strengthening of the principles behind the pruden t and 
responsible use of antimicrobials, a ban on the preventive use of antibiotics in groups of animals, 
restrictions on metaphylactic use, the possibility to reserve certain antimicrobials for humans only, 
and compulsory data collection on sales and use of antimicrobials.  
2.290.   The European Union recalled that the ban on using antimicrobials for growth promotion was 
not new in the European Union, highlighting that the ban on using antibiotics as feed additives, in 
force since 2006, was based on a scientific opi nion. Furthermore, the total ban was also in line with 
the growing international recognition of the need to phase out the use of antimicrobials as growth 
promoters, some of which were critically important for human medicine. The European Union recalled 
that AMR organisms and resistance determinants might spread to humans and animals through the 
consumption of food and feed originated in and outside the European Union. Therefore, certain non -
discriminatory and proportionate provisions were introduced in the regulation to prevent operators 
in non -EU countries from using antimicrobials for growth promotion or antimicrobials designated in 
the European Union for human use only, insofar as relevant in respect of animals or products of 
animal origin exported to the  European Union.  
2.291.   The European Union recalled that the new regulation would impose stricter requirements to 
operators in the European Union than to operators in non -EU countries, in particular for rules related 
to prophylaxis and metaphylaxis. The European Union noted that the new import requirements 
should be considered as part of the overall fight against the global spread of AMR, and not as trade 
barriers. The European Union reiterated its interest in the work carried out by WHO and OIE as well 
as the wor k of the UN Interagency Coordination Group (IACG) and the ad hoc Codex TFAMR.  
New EU definition of the fungicide folpet  (STC 447 ) 
Raised by:  China  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  July 2018 (G/SPS/R/92/Rev.1, paras. 4.34 -4.35), November 2018 
(G/SPS/R/93, paras. 3.54 -3.55)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.292.   In July 2018, China raised a concern on the new definition and MRL for folpet contained in 
Regulation (EU) No. 2016/156. China explained  that the Regulation defined the residue of folpet as 
the sum of folpet and phthalimide, whereas China stated that phthalimide was not only the 
metabolite of folpet, and that folpet was not only the result of phthalimide, which meant that the 
presence of p hthalimide might be irrelevant to folpet. Further, China argued that the Regulation's 
residue definition for folpet did not comply with the Codex definition. China noted that EFSA had 
published on its website a notification on the period for public consult ation on folpet and that its 
evaluation report recommended a revision of the residue definition for monitoring purposes. China 
encouraged the European Union to issue relevant regulations to review the definition and MRLs 
contained in the Regulation.  
2.293.   The Eu ropean Union replied that the current EU definition of the fungicide folpet was "the 
sum of folpet and phthalimide, expressed as folpet equivalents". The European Union explained that 
the definition was so formulated because folpet was known to be extensiv ely metabolised in plants 
to phthalimide as the only relevant metabolite, and that phthalimide was formed by the degradation 
of folpet. However, the European Union indicated that internal discussions had been taking place to 
review the definition of the re sidue folpet in light of the findings that phthalimide might originate 
from several sources other than folpet. This would be considered during the on -going renewal 
procedure of the approval of the active substance folpet. The European Union also added that  EFSA 
expected to finalize by 2019 a peer review procedure based on the draft renewal report prepared by G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 93 - 
 
  the rapporteur member State. Finally, the European Union expressed its commitment to keep China 
updated on further developments on this issue.  
2.294.   In Novem ber 2018, China again raised its concern with the new definition and MRL for folpet 
contained in Regulation (EU) No. 156/2016. The new regulation defined residues of folpet as the 
sum of folpet and phthalimide, whereas China stated that phthalimide was not  only a metabolite of 
folpet as it could also metabolize from phosmet or bentazone insecticides, which meant that the 
presence of phthalimide might be irrelevant to folpet. Further, China argued that the regulation's 
residue definition for folpet did not c omply with the Codex definition. China recalled that EFSA had 
published on its website an evaluation report on a folpet public consultation, recommending a 
revision of the residue definition for monitoring purposes. China encouraged the European Union to 
issue relevant regulations to review the definition as early as possible, in line with the Codex 
definition.  
2.295.   The European Union recalled its previous intervention, highlighting that the residue definition 
of the fungicide folpet would be considered during t he on -ongoing renewal procedure of the approval 
of this active substance. The European Union explained that a significant part of this process was 
the EFSA peer review exercise, to be finalized early next year. Finally, the European Union expressed 
its com mitment to keep China updated on further developments on this issue.  
EU MRLs for buprofezin, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron, ioxynil, molinate, picoxystrobin 
and tepraloxydim (G/SPS/N/EU/264)  (STC 448 ) 
Raised by:  Colombia, India 
Supported by:  Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, 
Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Turkey,  United States of 
America  
Dates raised:  November 2018 (G/SPS/R/93, paras. 3.1 -3.10) 
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/N/EU/264, G/TBT/N/EU/418, G/TBT/N/EU/447, G/TBT/N/EU/437  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.296.   In November 2018, India raised a concern regarding the lowering of EU MRL for buprofezin  
to default levels, as notified by the European Union in G/SPS/N/EU/264 on 19 July 2018. India noted 
that the measure was more trade restrictive than necessary to protect against risks to human health 
and argued that as per Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement , the European Union should have taken 
into consideration the existing Codex MRLs, as well as the MRLs of other Members. Specifically, in 
relation to grapes, the Codex MRL for buprofezin was 1 ppm, and in the case of rice, the limits in 
the United States, China and Japan were 1.5 ppm, 0.3 ppm and 0.5 ppm respectively. India 
requested the European Union to provide the rationale for deviating from Codex standards, and for 
not considering MRLs set by other countries. India further observed that the modified me asure did 
not provide an adequate transitional time period for commodities produced in accordance with the 
existing EU MRL, prior to its modification. India noted that in January 2011, the European 
Commission had amended the Council Directive to include bu profezin as an active substance from 
1 February 2012 to 31 January 2021. Following which in April 2018, the expiration of the approval 
for buprofezin had been postponed until 31 January 2023 for use in fruits and vegetables at 0.5  ppm, 
and in cereals, incl uding rice at 0.5 ppm. However, in July 2018, the European Union had proposed 
default levels for buprofezin. India argued that the EU decision was based on the perceived 
uncertainty around genotoxic potential, relating to the heat treatment of buprofezin a nd the 
production of aniline. India underscored that this chemical was normally present in many raw fruits 
and vegetables. India urged the European Union to conduct broad -based stakeholder consultations, 
as several countries, including India, would face su bstantial trade impacts due to the proposed 
measure. India hoped that the European Union would conduct a timely and objective science -based 
risk assessment consistent with its obligations under the SPS Agreement.  
2.297.   Colombia raised similar concerns in relati on to EU MRLs for several pesticides, highlighting 
the importance of this issue for trade in cereals and food products of animal and plant origin, 
including fruits and vegetables. In particular, Colombia was concerned with the lowering of the MRLs G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 94 - 
 
  for bupr ofezin to the default level of 0.1 ppm, as this substance was key in controlling quarantine 
pests for bananas, which for Colombia and other countries was done through the use of tree bag 
wrappings filled with buprofezin. This approach avoided damage to the  fruit and allowed lower 
exposure to the product, when compared with insecticide spray. Colombia observed that there was 
no competitive substitute for the substance, which would make it more difficult to control pests for 
fruits, and negatively affect Colo mbia's exports of banana to the European Union's market. 
Colombia  further underscored the potential social impact due to the importance of employment in 
the regions where the crop was grown. Colombia highlighted the commitment of its banana 
producers to im plementing international quality standards linked with good agricultural practices, 
such as GlobalGap, Rainforest Alliance and Fair Trade. Colombia noted that the EU measure had 
been based on the possible production of aniline, a sub -product which was carc inogenic, and could 
be present in foods treated with buprofezin when subject to high temperatures during processing. 
However, Colombia highlighted that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) had 
included aniline in Group 3 as non -carcinogen ic for humans. In addition, the US Environmental 
Protection Agency and the European Union's Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limit 
Values (SCOEL) had not given conclusive evidence regarding the carcinogenicity of aniline. 
Colombia  requested th e European Union to use a risk assessment approach in its decisions and to 
maintain the current MRL for buprofezin or establish a reference level of 0.3 ppm in line with Codex 
standards. Finally, Colombia requested the European Union to grant a transitiona l period sufficient 
for producers to adapt to the new measure.  
2.298.   Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, 
Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Turkey and the United States echoed the concerns raised by Colombia and 
India, und erscoring the need for a risk -based approach to implementing SPS measures, in line with 
the SPS Agreement. Some Members requested an appropriate transitional period for producers to 
adapt to the measure, and also urged the European Union to maintain the EU  MRL of 0.5 ppm or to 
at least apply the Codex MRL of 0.3 ppm for buprofezin in banana. Costa Rica highlighted the 
economic and social impact of the lowering of EU MRLs for buprofezin given the importance of its 
banana exports. Costa Rica had also carried out chemical risk assessments analyzing buprofezin on 
bananas, which had concluded that there was no sizable health risk for consumers of the fruit. 
Chile nd Turkey indicated that they had already submitted comments to the European Union. 
In addition to bu profezin, Argentina noted similar concerns with ioxynil. Panama also specifically 
indicated its concerns with buprofezin, diflubenzuron, ethoxysulfuron and picoxystrobin.  
2.299.   Brazil recalled its previous comments in the TBT Committee on the Commission 
Implemen ting Regulation (EU) 2017/360, notified under the TBT Agreement, which authorized the 
use of buprofezin only as an insecticide and acaricide on non -edible crops. Brazil noted that the 
regulation had the objective of protecting human and animal health, char acterized by the attention 
to operators' and workers' safety and the risk to aquatic organisms. In this regard, Brazil indicated 
that it had previously asked the European Union to clarify the reasons for not also notifying the 
measure to the SPS Committee.  In addition, Brazil drew Members' attention to its trade concern on 
picoxystrobin, which had also been raised in the TBT Committee.  
2.300.   Canada indicated concerns with the EU proposal to lower the MRL for picoxystrobin to the 
limit of analytical detection. Can ada sought to better understand EFSA's rationale for publishing an 
inconclusive peer review for picoxystrobin, citing a lack of information to complete the risk 
assessment. Canada was alarmed that a consumer health concern had been raised during the 
assess ment without conclusive evidence of the risk to human health. Canada had conducted a 
scientific risk assessment on picoxystrobin and determined that the active substance would not be 
of concern to human health when used according to label directions. Canad a highlighted the 
importance of picoxystrobin as a key active substance used in Canada's grain and oilseed production. 
Canada requested the European Union to conduct a fulsome risk assessment and establish import 
tolerances in order to minimize the impact on international trade.  
2.301.   The United States noted that these substances had been subject to multiple evaluations by 
the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR), which found that the available data was 
acceptable for the purposes of completing risk  assessments and establishing Codex MRLs. 
In addition, the authorization holders for these pesticides had conducted and committed to supplying 
additional data that would address the European Union's concerns, however, the European Union 
had declined to rev iew these data before withdrawing the authorizations for these chemicals and 
lowering their MRLs to default levels. The United States queried how an applicant might be expected 
to demonstrate the safety of substances, as required by EU legislation, when th e European Union G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 95 - 
 
  was not satisfied with data that had been evaluated and accepted by other scientific authorities. 
The United States had submitted several import MRL applications for these substances and hoped 
for a timely and objective science -based risk assessment to inform decisions on these requests, 
consistent with the European Union's obligations under the SPS Agreement.  
2.302.   The European Union explained that the proposed lowering of MRLs for buprofezin was 
necessary to protect consumers, as an assessment by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 
had identified important consumer health concerns. Available information showed that under high -
temperature processing conditions, buprofezin was degraded into several metabolites, including 
aniline. The Europea n Union noted that aniline was a carcinogen for which a genotoxic mechanism 
could not be excluded and therefore no threshold for acceptable exposure could be assumed. As a 
result, the approval of the active substance buprofezin had been restricted to uses in non -edible 
crops only. In this regard, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/360 had been notified 
under the TBT Agreement as G/TBT/N/EU/418. The European Union also provided responses to 
several issues raised by its trading partners in relation to aniline originating from different sources, 
IARC's conclusion that aniline was not carcinogenic for human beings, and alignment of EU MRLs 
with existing Codex standards. The European Union underscored that it aimed to minimize the 
exposure of consumers to aniline; it based its risk management measures on the evaluations carried 
out by its own risk assessment body; and that the EU policy was to implement Codex MRLs into 
EU MRL legislation where Codex MRLs were found to be sufficiently protective for Europ ean 
consumers. The European Union further clarified that it had not introduced a reservation at the 2013 
CCPR meeting, because the establishment of the Codex MRL for buprofezin predated EFSA's 
identification of consumer health concerns. However, the Europe an Union would be submitting a 
concern form to Codex mentioning the EFSA findings and conclusions in order to raise international 
awareness.  
2.303.   The European Union explained its concerns surrounding diflubenzuron, highlighting that 
EFSA had identified substant ial safety concerns during its evaluation of the substance, due to the 
genotoxic carcinogenic metabolite 4 -chloroaniline (PCA). Since toxicological reference values for PCA 
could not be set and consequently no safe residue levels could be identified, the a pproved use of 
the substance was restricted to non -edible crops only. In this regard, Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2017/855 had been notified as a draft to the TBT Committee, in document 
G/TBT/N/EU/447. The European Union further noted that sinc e it had not been demonstrated that 
residues of diflubenzuron above the limit of analytical determination (LOD) were safe for 
EU consumers, it had been proposed to lower the MRLs to the LOD. The formal adoption of the draft 
legislative act was expected in January 2019, and the new MRLs were expected to be applicable 
from July 2019 onwards. The European Union invited interested parties, with information that, might 
in their view, allow the establishment of safe residue levels, to submit an application under the 
relevant EU legislative frameworks. The European Union indicated that it would also be submitting 
a concern form to Codex.  
2.304.   The European Union explained that during the evaluation and peer review of the substance 
picoxystrobin, a number of concerns had been identified and detailed in the relevant EFSA conclusion 
related to the clastogenic and aneugenic potential of metabolite IN -H8612 formed as a residue. 
The European Union indicated that, based on the data available in the dossier, it had not been 
possible to complete the assessment of genotoxicity for the substance. This led to the non -approval 
of the substance, which had been notified in G/TBT/N/EU/437, as the European Union considered 
that it had not been demonstrated that residues of the substance ab ove LOD were safe for 
EU consumers. On this basis, it was proposed to lower the MRLs to the LOD. The formal adoption of 
the draft legislative act was expected in January 2019, and the new MRLs were expected to be 
applicable from July 2019 onwards. The Euro pean Union would also be submitting a concern form 
to Codex. The European Union invited interested parties, with information that might, in their view, 
allow the establishment of safe residue levels, to submit an application under the relevant 
EU legislati ve frameworks. The European Union also indicated that it had been made aware of the 
existence of an additional US study, however, this study had not been submitted in the context of a 
regulatory procedure provided for in the EU legislation. As such, it cou ld not be taken into account 
for decision -making.  
2.305.   The European Union also provided information on iprodione, which had been classified as a 
carcinogen in line with the UN Global Harmonized System for Classification and Labelling (UNGHS). 
The 2016 EFSA asse ssment had also advised the classification of this substance as a carcinogen 
(Category 1B) and as toxic for reproduction (Category 2), based on concrete evidence from in vitro  G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 96 - 
 
  tests. Due to these results and several other concerns with this substance, the approval for use of 
this substance in the European Union had not been renewed. The draft regulation was notified to 
non-EU countries on 25 July 2017 under the TBT Agreement, and responses provided to comments 
received from the United States and Turkey. The  European Union further explained that following 
the non -renewal decision, EU member States had to withdraw their authorizations for plant 
protection products containing iprodione by 5 June 2018 at the latest. A draft regulation deleting 
iprodione MRLs was  prepared by the Commission and notified to the SPS Agreement in July 2018. 
The European Union indicated that comments had been received from seven countries, mainly 
requesting transitional measures and referring to the EFSA opinion. These comments had bee n 
shared with EU member States, prior to the last meeting of the Standing Committee on Plant, 
Animals, Food and Feed on pesticide MRLs which took place in September 2018. Following 
discussions in that meeting, the draft regulation had received a unanimous favourable opinion from 
EU member States. In addition, due to the genotoxicity concerns for one metabolite, EU member 
States had decided that transitional measures could not be granted. The European Union noted that 
the regulation would come into force in summer 2019, highlighting that two years would have passed 
since the first notification of the measure in July 2017, which had provided sufficient time for trading 
partners to adapt to the measure. The European Union informed the Committee that it would se nd 
a concern form to Codex requesting a re -evaluation of the substance and a revision of the MRLs. 
Finally, the European Union indicated that import tolerances for iprodione could still be requested, 
but that it would have to address the genotoxicity conce rn for the metabolite.  
2.4.2   Other Concerns  
European Court of Justice Opinion 528/16 on organisms obtained by mutagenesis  
(STC  452) 
Raised by:  United States of America  
Supported by:  Argentina, Paraguay  
Dates raised:  November 2018 (G/SPS/R/93, paras. 3.20 -3.23) 
Relevant document(s):   
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.306.   In November 2018,  the United States raised its concerns about the European Court of Justice 
(ECJ) ruling regarding the forms of mutagenesis that qualified for the exemption contained in 
EU Directive 2001/18/EC on the Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically M odified 
Organisms. The United States noted that the ruling carried the effect that all products of genome 
editing were subject to the risk assessment and review requirements, labelling, and monitoring 
obligations, as well as traceability laws currently app lied to products falling under the scope of 
Directive 2001/18/EC. The European Union was taking steps to now clarify how the Commission and 
the EU member States would implement this ruling. The United States was concerned that the 
implementation of this ru ling would lead to unjustified barriers to trade in products of genome 
editing, as well as stifle the agricultural research and innovation necessary to prevent hunger and 
malnutrition in the coming decades, while ensuring environmental sustainability of ag ricultural 
activities. The United States invited the European Union to provide the scientific basis for the 
regulatory distinctions made across the products of mutagenesis, whereby products of random 
mutations induced by chemicals or radiation were exempte d from any regulatory review, and 
products with precise mutations induced through biotechnology were subject to protracted 
premarket regulatory review. The United States also requested the European Union to inform the 
Committee of its plans to implement th e ECJ ruling, particularly with respect to how it was 
considering risk in assessing options related to import controls, detection and traceability. Finally, 
the United States noted its long experience with the European Union, in the context of the EC Biote ch 
dispute settlement proceedings, and subsequent efforts to reach compliance. The United States 
urged the European Union to work with other countries that were taking science -based approaches 
to the oversight of products of genome editing.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 97 - 
 
  2.307.   Argentina and P araguay shared the concerns raised by the United States, and requested the 
European Union to implement the ruling in a manner consistent with the provisions of the WTO, 
particularly those of the SPS Agreement.  
2.308.   The European Union explained that the ECJ had provided important clarification on the scope 
of application of the EU GMO legislation (Directive 2001/18/EC) in relation to organisms obtained by 
mutagenesis techniques. As a consequence, the GMO legislation was applicable to organisms 
obtained by new mut agenesis techniques. According to the Court judgement, organisms obtained 
by means of techniques or methods of mutagenesis, which had conventionally been used in a number 
of applications and had a long safety record, were exempted. The European Commission was 
currently analyzing the ruling together with EU member States to ensure its proper implementation. 
Operators in and outside the European Union remained responsible for ensuring that products which 
were placed on the market were safe and complied with a ll relevant regulatory requirements. 
The European Union further explained that the ruling had not extended the scope of the legislation, 
but had clarified how it should be read. The current EU legislation on GMOs was based on science 
and had been in place since the 1990s, following which it had been updated in 2001. In the European 
Union's view, this regulation was consistent with the WTO Agreements, and the European 
Commission had no plans to propose an amendment to the current legislation in the short ter m. 
2.309.   The European Union also addressed several concerns raised in other fora regarding the 
distinction between these products obtained by mutagenesis techniques and other products obtained 
by conventional techniques. The European Union noted that different s cientific bodies and experts 
had acknowledged that identifying the techniques used to obtain certain products could be 
challenging. EU member States and the Commission were currently considering the issue. 
In addition, the joint research centre (JRC) was a ddressing the issue together with the European 
Network of GMO laboratories to support the competent authorities of member States in this task. 
The European Union recalled that the question of detection of certain GM products was already posed 
by some proce ssed products in which no DNA was present, e.g. GM sugar. In this respect, the 
legislation included the need to ensure traceability throughout the chain, even when detection at a 
later stage was not possible. The European Union indicated that the Commissio n would carefully 
analyze the ruling from a legal perspective, including the status of products obtained from new 
techniques, and reflect on further action. The European Union also addressed comments related to 
the difference in its approach as compared to  other parts of the world. In this regard, the European 
Union underscored its precautionary approach to the development of environmental and safety 
regulations, which was enshrined in its treaties, and reflected the high importance that EU citizens 
attache d to safe food and environmental protection. The European Union remained open to continue 
discussing this issue on a bilateral basis within the framework of the regular dialogue on 
biotechnology with its trade partners.  
2.5  Guatemala  
2.5.1   Food Safety  
Guatemala's re strictions on egg products  (STC 413)  
Raised by:  Mexico  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  October 2016 (G/SPS/R/84, paras. 3.5 -3.6), November 2018 
(G/SPS/R/93, paras. 3.48 -3.49)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.310.   In October 2016, Mexico expressed its concern on Guatemala's restrictions on egg products. 
Mexico considered the measure to be in violation of fundamental principles of technical and scientific 
justification based on international standards, principles ens hrined in the SPS Agreement and the 
free trade agreement between Mexico and Central America. Mexico noted its preference to promote 
dialogue; however, these efforts had not been successful. Guatemala continued to impose import 
restrictions on Mexican egg p roducts even though its legislation allowed imports of heat treated G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 98 - 
 
  avian products. Mexico indicated that its egg products exports were significantly affected by the 
restrictions and requested that Guatemala withdraw its measure in order to resume egg prod ucts 
trade between the two countries.  
2.311.   Guatemala replied that in October, Guatemala had informed Mexico that it was currently 
conducting a risk assessment and would contact Mexico upon the conclusion of the analysis.  
2.312.   In November 2018, Mexico reiterated its concern over Guatemala's restrictions on egg 
products, highlighting that the measure in question violated fundamental principles of technical and 
scientific justification based on international standards. Mexico explained that these principles were 
enshrin ed in the SPS and TBT Agreements, as well as in the free trade agreement between Mexico 
and Central America. The continuous discussions held with Guatemala had not succeeded in 
resolving this matter, despite Mexico's self -declaration as an HPAI -free area. Mexico expressed 
concerns regarding undue delays in communications by Guatemala given discussions had been 
ongoing since 2010. Mexico further recalled that its egg products exports were significantly affected 
by the restrictions, and requested that Guatema la withdraw its measures, which had no scientific 
justification and were not based on any relevant international standard.  
2.313.   Guatemala replied that in October 2016, it had informed Mexico that it was reviewing the 
information provided. This issue had been fu rther discussed in 2016 and 2017, and in June 2018, 
Guatemala had informed Mexico on the prohibition of imports of poultry products in response to an 
outbreak of H7N3 highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in two Mexican states. Guatemala noted 
that its measures were in line with the OIE standards, and was awaiting additional information from 
Mexico. Guatemala remained committed to continue bilateral discussions on this matter.  
2.6  India  
2.6.1   Animal  Health  
Import restrictions on bovine semen  (STC 61 ) 
Raised by:  Canada,  European Union  
Supported by:  United States of America  
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), 
March 2018 (G/SPS/R/90, para. 3.61)  
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/GEN/113; RD/SPS/28/Rev.1  
Status: Resolved  
Solution:  On 2 November 2017, information was received from Canada on the 
resolution of this STC. On 1 March 2018, the European Union informed 
Members of the resolution of its concerns regarding India's import 
restrictions on bovine semen, which had initially been raised by 
Canada and supported by the European Union.  
Date reported as 
resolved:  1 March 2018   
 
2.314.   In March 1999, the European Communities indicated that bilateral contact with India 
regarding import restrictions on bovine semen had not been successful, and submitted a list of 
specific questions. In March 2000, the European Communities reported that no information had been 
received from India, although there had been some bilateral and multilateral contacts. 
India presented some information to the EC delegate at that time.  
2.315.   In March 2000, Canada expressed concern that India was banning imports of bovine s emen 
from Canada because of BSE concerns, although Canada 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 avoid inadvert ent introduction of BSE or scrapie into 
India. India had prepared a questionnaire for its trading partners and was planning to carry out a 
risk assessment based on the responses. The representative of India indicated that he would bring G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 99 - 
 
  the Canadian concer ns to the attention of his authorities in order to solve the problem bilaterally as 
soon as possible.  
2.316.   In June 2000, Canada informed the Committee that bilateral consultations had failed to 
resolve the matter, and that India continued to restrict Canadian e xports 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 trade in bovine semen, and (iv) the absence of 
a risk assessment to jus tify India's ban on bovine semen. Canada asked that India remove this 
restriction. India noted that recent bilateral consultations had been helpful and that efforts were 
being made to find a solution to the dispute.  
2.317.   In November 2000, Canada, supported by t he European Communities, reiterated its 
concerns regarding India's BSE -related restrictions on bovine semen imports, despite Canada's BSE 
freedom, and despite agreement in the OIE and other veterinary bodies that BSE was not transmitted 
by semen. In Septem ber 2000, India had indicated that it intended to continue this unjustified 
prohibition, despite the lack of risk assessment for the measure. India reported that detailed bilateral 
consultations were ongoing. The Indian Animal Husbandry Commission had met on 11 September 
2000 and had noted the findings of the EC Scientific Steering Committee (SSC) regarding the 
difficulty of making precise estimates of the risks of infectivity of various products including semen.  
2.318.   India further reported that it had sought de tailed information from the OIE regarding the 
basis for determining that BSE was not transmitted by semen, as well as information on the criteria 
for determining if a country or zone was free from BSE. However, to date no reply had been received 
from the O IE.  
2.319.   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 bo vine 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.  
2.320.   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 advantage 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 take 
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 through semen. 
India and Canada intended to raise the issue at the OIE.  
2.321.   In July 2001, Canada r eported that it was engaged 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 changed, and that 
the changes would soon be notified.  
2.322.   In April 2003, Canada stated that although a successful conclusion had been reported to the 
Committee in July 2001, a further problem had been encountered and an import licence request was 
rejected by India due to some a pparent connection 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 c oncerns to the appropriate authorities.  
2.323.   In November 2017, the Secretariat informed that in September 2017 it had contacted all 
Members who had raised specific trade concerns (STCs) that had not been discussed in the previous 
year, to request an update on t heir status. In furtherance of this request, information was received 
from Canada on the resolution of this STC. The Secretariat indicated that the information received 
had been circulated in document RD/SPS/28 of 31 October 2017, and that the SPS IMS woul d be 
updated on this basis, using the date of the November 2017 SPS Committee meeting as the date of 
resolution of the relevant STCs.  G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 100 - 
 
  2.324.   In March 2018, the European Union informed Members of the resolution of its concerns 
regarding India's import restrictions  on bovine semen, which had initially been raised by Canada and 
supported by the European Union. The European Union thanked India for their cooperation on this 
issue.  
2.6.2   Plant  Health  
India's fumigation requirements for cashew nuts (STC 4 27) 
Raised by:  Madagascar,  Senegal  
Supported by:  Burkina Faso,  Colombia,  Ghana,  Kenya,  Mali, Mozambique,  Nigeria,  
Russian Federation,  Togo,  Ukraine,  United States of America  
Dates raised:  July 2017 (G/SPS/R/87, paras. 4.11 -4.13; See also STC 186; 
STC 417; STC 434 ), November 2017 (G/SPS/R/88, paras. 3.20 -3.25), 
July 2018 (G/SPS/R/92/Rev.1, paras. 4.40 -4.47), November 2018 
(G/SPS/R/93, paras. 3.70 -3.71)  
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/N/IND/149  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.325.   In July 2017, Senegal reported that since January 2017, India mandated the use of methyl 
bromide fumigation. However, Senegal noted that methyl bromide use had been discontinued by 
several countries because of its high toxicity and its negative effects on the ozon e layer, as reflected 
in the Montreal Protocol. Senegal explained that it had abandoned the use of methyl bromide in 
2002 and stressed that no cases of non -conformity with sanitary requirements had been detected. 
Senegal noted that in practice the restrict ion was not being enforced on products from Senegal, and 
thanked India for its cooperation, but underlined that the measure was still in force and its need for 
certainty for future shipments.  
2.326.   Burkina Faso, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria and Togo reported that they were also affected 
by the measure. Togo further indicated that India had also notified of the required use of the 
fumigant for its timber exports. These Members invited India to apply the principle of equivalence 
and stressed the negative effects of t he use of methyl bromide. The Russian Federation also 
expressed its interest in this concern and in the implementation of the measure.  
2.327.   India replied that relaxation of the measure had been extended up to 31 December 2017 to 
allow fumigation on arrival. Ind ia also directed Members to additional information available on the 
website http://www.agricoop.nic.in/. India requested Senegal to provide bio efficacy data to NPPO 
India regarding the effectiveness of alternative fumigants.  
2.328.   In November 2017, Senegal reit erated its concern over India's methyl bromide fumigation 
requirements for cashew nuts. Senegal noted that methyl bromide use had been discontinued by 
several countries due to its high toxicity and negative effects on the ozone layer. Senegal reported 
on the exchange of documents with India and scientific publications regarding the effectiveness of 
aluminium phosphate as an alternative fumigant, and urged India to accept its use.  
2.329.   The United States associated itself with the concern expressed by Senegal on the fumigation 
of imported products with methyl bromide, particularly as it affected peas and pulses. The United 
States expressed its commitment to continue to find alternatives to methyl bromide fumigation as a 
pest mitigation measure, and encouraged Indi a to consider that methyl bromide was not necessary 
in cases of negligible pest risk.  
2.330.   Burkina Faso, Colombia, Madagascar, Mozambique, Nigeria, Togo, and Ukraine shared 
Senegal's concern. Madagascar reported that it had held bilateral discussions with India  on the 
fumigation requirement for agricultural products. Burkina Faso referred to its cashew nuts exports, 
urging India to accept the principle of equivalence in order to facilitate trade of agricultural products. 
Ukraine shared the concern as it prohibit ed the use of methyl bromide for fumigation and had 
therefore submitted alternatives to India. Togo urged India to accept aluminium phosphate as an G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 101 - 
 
  alternative fumigant. Colombia supported the systemic concern on India's fumigation requirement 
and its envi ronmental and trade implications.  
2.331.   India responded that its phytosanitary requirements were consistent with its WTO 
obligations. India reiterated that until 31 December 2017, agricultural imports from countries whose 
products could not be fumigated with met hyl bromide at the port of export could be fumigated upon 
arrival in India. Finally, India had also made a formal request to Senegal for information to consider 
its request for alternative fumigants.  
2.332.   The United States commented that India had only responde d to Senegal without providing 
a response to the concerns raised by other Members, and requested that India circulate a document 
with the fumigation requirement applicable to other Members, in particular to the United States.  
2.333.   India reiterated that its phyt osanitary requirements were consistent with its WTO obligations 
and that the information was available on its official website http://www.agricoopnic.in.  
2.334.   In July 2018, Madagascar informed the Committee of its bilateral discussions with India 
regarding the fumigation of plant products exports and of the 26 June 2018 Memorandum of the 
Indian Undersecretary on the relaxation of fumigation regulations for imports of agricultural 
commodities. Madagascar reiterated its request that India officially recognise alum inium phosphide 
(phosphine ) as an equivalent product to methyl bromide for the fumigation of vegetable products 
for importation, in accordance with the IPPC's 2017 recommendations; grant African countries 
(including Madagascar) the same rights conferred to  other Members to use phosphine  to fumigate 
their products exported to the Indian market; and finalise a Memorandum of Understating (MoU) 
with each African partner on the phytosanitary conditions applicable to exports of plant products, as 
it had with othe r trading partners (Mauritius and Russia). The current practice of the Indian Ministry 
of Agriculture to extend the export authorization for plant products every six months reduced 
predictability and did not comply with the SPS principle of transparency. M adagascar finally 
expressed its willingness to continue dialogue and trade with India, and its hope to sign a 
Memorandum of Understanding with India before the end of September 2018.  
2.335.   Senegal expressed appreciation to India for its collaboration on this issue, and hoped that, 
following positive bilateral consultations with India, the specific trade concern would be resolved.  
2.336.   Ukraine shared the concerns and thanked India for its efforts to reflect on alternative 
methods and for allowing a temporary extensi on. However, Ukraine expressed wished to find a 
permanent solution. Ukraine had provided scientific information regarding the efficacy of alternative 
fumigants to the Indian NPPO in December 2016 and during bilateral meetings on the margins of 
the SPS Comm ittee meeting in July 2017. Ukraine requested clarification from India regarding 
exceptions granted to some countries and urged India to recognise alternative phytosanitary 
measures.  
2.337.   Kenya observed that India represented an important market for many countr ies, and 
expressed its willingness to find a pragmatic, global solution on this matter. Kenya also requested 
India to allow an alternative to methyl bromide.  
2.338.   Mali echoed the concerns expressed and invited India to review its measure.  
2.339.   Ghana requested India to provide further information regarding the agreement reached with 
Senegal and to extend it to other African countries.  
2.340.   India informed the Committee that cashew nuts had been shifted to Schedule VII of the 
Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India ) Order of 2003, by which pest -free consignments 
with a phytosanitary certificate could be ensured through various means by exporting countries. 
Methyl bromide fumigation was not the only means to do so, but if pest concerns were found in 
consignments upon  arrival to India, methyl bromide fumigation was required. This was a general 
order, applicable to all trading partners. Regarding other agricultural products, India recalled that 
until 31 December 2018, agricultural imports from other countries, whose pro ducts had not been 
fumigated with methyl bromide at the port of export, could be fumigated upon arrival in India. India 
added that the Montreal Protocol allowed for the use of methyl bromide for quarantine purposes; 
and indicated that more information coul d be found on the website http://agricoop.nic.in/.  G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 102 - 
 
  2.341.   Regarding Madagascar's request, India regretted that Madagascar had provided generic 
information instead of scientific data to prove other fumigation molecules as effective against various 
stages of insect s in imported consignments, soil nematodes and plant pathogens. India further 
reported that an Indian delegation had visited Madagascar in February 2018 and the issue had been 
further discussed with Madagascar's NPPO.  
2.342.   In November 2018, Ukraine reiterated i ts concern about India's fumigation requirements 
with methyl bromide on certain plant products, but expressed appreciation to India for providing 
temporary extensions to allow trade while alternative fumigation measures were under 
consideration. However, U kraine looked forward to achieving a permanent resolution. Ukraine drew 
Members' attention on the IPPC "Recommendations on replacement or reduction of the use of Methyl 
Bromide as phytosanitary measure". Ukraine explained that phosphine was recommended as a 
replacement for grains, oil seeds, dried food stuff beverages including coffee, cocoa, herbs, tree 
nuts, fiber crops including cotton and others. In addition, Ukraine recalled that methyl bromide had 
not been listed under the State Register of Pesticides  and Agrochemicals permitted for the used as 
fumigants for grains in Ukraine and could not be used for the export of grain shipment. 
Ukraine  argued that according to Article 4 of the SPS Agreement exporting Members should 
recognize pest risk management mea sures that were alternatives to those initially required by 
importing Members. Ukraine added that in December 2016 it had submitted to India's National Plant 
Protection Organization the scientific information on the efficiency of application of alternative  
fumigants, including phosphine, and had provided further relevant scientific information during 
bilateral discussions held in July 2017 and 2018. Furthermore, Ukraine reported that India exempted 
some countries from the general fumigation requirements and  also allowed the use of phosphine 
instead of methyl bromide. Ukraine requested India clarify these provisions and emphasised that 
these alleged practices were contrary to WTO rules, including the MFN principle. Finally, Ukraine 
encouraged India to impleme nt less trade restrictive and more predictable SPS measures, pointing 
out that the 2017 IPPC recommendations on plant health and environmental protection would 
represent a reasonable alternative to India's current requirement to use methyl bromide.  
2.343.   India r ecalled that until 31 December 2018, agricultural imports from other countries, whose 
products had not been fumigated with methyl bromide at the port of export, could be fumigated 
upon arrival in India, and indicated that more information could be found on  the website 
http://agricoop.nic.in/. India also added that the Montreal Protocol allowed for the use of methyl 
bromide for quarantine purposes. India explained that the Indian authority had received from 
Ukraine the request for consideration of alternativ e methods of fumigation, and reported that in its 
response to Ukraine, India had requested clarifications and data to be able to conduct further 
examinations on this matter. Finally, India expressed its commitment to keep working at the 
technical level to resolve this concern as well as to maintain an appropriate level of protection in 
accordance with the principles of the SPS Agreement.  
2.7  Indonesia  
2.7.1   Other Concerns  
Lack of transparency and undue delays in Indonesia's approval procedures for animal 
products (ST C 441 ) 
Raised by:  European Union  
Supported by:  Brazil  
Dates raised:  July 2018 (G/SPS/R/92/Rev.1, paras.4.4 -4.8), November 2018 
(G/SPS/R/93, paras. 3.76 -3.79)  
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/N/IDN/121  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.344.   In July 2018, the European Union raised a concern over the lack of transparency and undue 
delays in Indonesia's approval procedures for animal products, reporting that, for many years, 
European member States had not received feedback from Indonesia on thei r export applications, 
some of them filed in 2013. The European Union noted that members States which had applied for G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 103 - 
 
  market access to export several products of animal origin, such as beef, dairy and poultry products, 
had not received any reply from Indon esia to simple questions, such as applicable questionnaires, 
next steps in the approval process, timeline for audits and whether additional information was 
required.  
2.345.   According to the European Union, as Indonesian import approval procedures and standards 
processing periods were unknown, they were inconsistent with Article 8 and Annex C. The European 
Union stressed that WTO Members should ensure that approval procedures were undertaken without 
undue delays and in no less favourable manner for imported than fo r domestic products. Further, 
the European Union added that WTO Members should promptly examine the completeness of 
applications and provide the necessary feedback in case of any decision on the application and, upon 
request, provide information on the sta ndard processing periods.  
2.346.   The European Union expressed appreciation for the preliminary feedback received from 
Indonesia on market access applications for plant products. However, the European Union regretted 
that it had so far been unable to make progress  on some of the delays faced by EU members States 
on market access applications. The European Union was particularly concerned by the lack of 
feedback on market access applications for animal products and regarding restrictions related to 
outbreaks of high ly pathogenic avian influenza and requested clarification on the procedures to lift 
these restrictions. The European Union regretted the lack of answers to EU comments on notification 
G/SPS/N/IDN/121, as well as the lack of feedback on the rationale behind  the new Indonesian fees 
regulation, and asked for clarification on the procedures. The European Union urged Indonesia to 
engage in discussions with the European Union and to finalize pending market access applications 
from EU members States.  
2.347.   Brazil expres sed its interest on this concern, from a systemic point of view.  
2.348.   Indonesia stated that this specific trade concern demonstrated the close trade ties between 
the European Union and Indonesia, and thanked the European Union for the regular bilateral 
consulta tions, including the last bilateral meeting that had recently been conducted in Jakarta. 
Indonesia reaffirmed its commitment to implementing the SPS Agreement and to respect the 
reciprocal treatment between Indonesia and EU members States. Indonesia explai ned that its 
procedures to import animal products were based on legal instruments formulated in response to 
the increasing need for risk analyses due to the global movement of animal products, aimed at 
consumer health protection. Indonesia added that the r isk analyses on the health status of imported 
animal products took into consideration the status of communicable diseases in the products' country 
of origin, in line with Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS Agreement; and that the risk analyses, including 
the arra ngement for payment of related fees, was in conformity with Annex C of the SPS Agreement. 
Moreover, Indonesia clarified that its licensing scheme was applied to all importing entities, following 
the MFN principle. Addressing the EU concern on transparency in Indonesia's approval procedures, 
Indonesia drew Members' attention to its efforts to raise its capacity in this area; including regular 
monitoring of its import approval procedures, inter alia on animal products. Indonesia had also 
invited various WTO M embers to a forum on the implementation of SPS measures in Indonesia, 
underlining that inputs from Members would be essential to further develop its import approval 
procedures.  
2.349.   In November 2018, the European Union raised a concern over the lack of transpar ency and 
undue delays in Indonesia's approval procedures for animal products, reporting that, for many years, 
European member States had not received feedback from Indonesia on their export applications, 
some of them filed in 2013. The European Union expla ined that in July 2018, Indonesia had provided 
information on questionnaires, but had not explained how to make progress on approval procedures 
for imports. According to the European Union, as Indonesian import approval procedures and 
standard processing p eriods were unknown, they were inconsistent with Article 8 and Annex C. 
Recalling previous interventions, the European Union stressed that WTO Members should ensure 
that approval procedures were undertaken without undue delays and in no less favourable man ner 
for imported than for domestic products. Further, the European Union added that WTO Members 
should promptly examine the completeness of applications and provide the necessary feedback in 
case of any decision on the application and, upon request, provid e information on the standard 
processing periods. The European Union expressed appreciation for preliminary meetings with 
Indonesia and Indonesia's commitment to provide feedback on EU member states' applications for 
dairy products. However, the European U nion regretted that it had so far been unable to make 
progress. The European Union urged Indonesia to respect its obligations, be transparent about its G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 104 - 
 
  approval procedure, and finalize the pending market applications from EU members states without 
further undue delays. Finally, the European Union looked forward to a more effective and regular 
dialogue with Indonesia.  
2.350.   Brazil and the Philippines shared the concern raised by the European Union and expressed 
their appreciation for bilateral discussions with Ind onesia. The Philippines stressed difficulties related 
to the transparency and predictability of certain requirements, which affected the export not only of 
animal products but generally of all agriculture products exported to Indonesia.  
2.351.   Indonesia explained  that the requirements for importing animal -based food products had 
been applied based on risk analysis and the applicable law. In relation to the legal basis, Indonesia 
listed several regulations for the implementation of the import policy, Law No. 18 of 2009 as 
amended by Law No. 41 of 2014 concerning animal husbandry and animal health; Government 
Regulation No. 95 of 2012 concerning Veterinary Public Health and Animal Welfare; Minister of 
Agriculture Regulation No. 34 of 2016 as amended by Minister of Ag riculture Regulation No. 34 of 
2016, as amended by Minister of Agriculture Regulation No. 23 of 2018, concerning imports of 
carcasses, meat, and offal; and Minister of Agriculture Regulation No. 17 of 2016, concerning the 
import of boneless meat originatin g from countries or zones in the country of origin. 
Indonesia  clarified that these regulations were enacted to specify the requirements for imports of 
animals into Indonesia. Complimentary to the requirements set in these regulations, various 
procedures an d permit approvals were foreseen. Indonesia reiterated that its procedures and 
permits were applied to all Members in a non -discriminatory way and in accordance with MFN 
treatment. In addition, Indonesia reported that the implementation of its import polic y which 
included a detailed technical process was in line with Article 5.2 of the SPS Agreement.  
2.352.   Regarding the alleged lack of transparency, lack of responses from Indonesian authorities, 
and delays in approval procedures for imports, Indonesia drew Member s' attention to the online 
system that could help monitor the process of filling an import approval for animal products. 
Indonesia also reported on a forum organized with several representatives from WTO Members and 
business associations in Jakarta to coll ect useful inputs to develop the online system. Furthermore, 
the forum was an occasion to inform relevant stakeholders about the implementation of changes in 
procedures. Finally, Indonesia expressed its willingness to continue to work with the European Uni on 
to find a solution to this issue.  
2.8  Japan  
2.8.1   Animal Health  
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  
2.353.   See paragraphs 2.529. -2.599 . 
2.9  Korea, Republic of  
2.9.1   Food Safety  
Strengthened import restrictions on food and feeds products with regard to  radionuclides 
(STC 359)  
Raised by:  Japan  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, pars. 3.7 -3.9), March 2014 (G/SPS/R/74, 
paras. 3.19 -3.20), July 2014 (G/SPS/R/75, paras. 4.29 -4.30), October 
2014 (G/SPS/R/76, paras. 3.9 -3.10), March 2015 (G/SPS/R/78, 
paras.  3.16-3.17)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 105 - 
 
  Solution:  DSU consultations requested on 21  May 2015 (WT/DS495/1). Panel 
established on 28  September 2015. Panel report circulated on 22  
February 2018. Panel report under appeal on 9 April 2018.  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.354.   In October 2013, Japan expressed concerns regarding Korea's fishery import restrictions, 
including a ban on imports from eight prefectures and additional testing and certification 
requirements in all cases where radioactive Cesium was detected, even in qua ntities below the 
Korean limit of 100 Bq/kg. This requirement applied exclusively to Japanese products; Korean and 
other trading partners' products could be distributed as long as the radioactive Cesium level 
remained below 100 Bq/kg.  
2.355.   Japan reiterated that  contaminated water at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station 
had been detected only within an area of 0.3 square kilometres inside the port, and that the problem 
of contaminated water should not be equated with the safety of Japanese fishery products . Japan's 
central and local governments had taken measures to prevent the distribution of fishery products 
where required, and the amount of samples exceeding the limit of 100 Bq/kg had drastically 
decreased both in the Fukushima prefecture (from 53% in Ma rch/June 2011 to 2.2% in 
July/September 2013) and elsewhere (from 6.5% to 0.4% during the same periods). Japan recalled 
that SPS measures must not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between trading partners and 
urged Korea to provide a scientific ba sis for its measures or explain concretely how the available 
scientific evidence was insufficient to carry out a risk assessment.  
2.356.   Korea indicated that its measures were in accordance with Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement, 
as a result of insufficient scient ific evidence and the potentially far -reaching cumulative effects of 
radioactive contamination on human health. Korea was reviewing the information provided by Japan 
but needed more time to come to a final determination.  
2.357.   In March 2014 , Japan reiterated its  concerns regarding Korea's food, fisheries and feed 
import restrictions. These included a ban on imports from eight prefectures and additional testing 
and certification requirements in all cases where radioactive Cesium was detected, even in quantities 
below the Korean limit of 100 Bq/kg. This requirement applied exclusively to Japanese products; 
Korean and other trading partners' products could be distributed as long as the radioactive Cesium 
level remained below 100 Bq/kg. Japan noted that Korea also req uired inspection certificates on feed 
exported from certain areas in Japan.  
2.358.   Korea explained that its measures were in accordance with Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement, 
as a result of insufficient scientific evidence and the potentially far -reaching cumulat ive effects of 
radioactive contamination on food safety and human health. Korea was in the process of reviewing 
requested information provided by Japan in January 2014, but given the complexity of the issue, 
needed more time to come to a final determinatio n. Korea was willing to engage with Japanese 
experts and discuss bilaterally in order to finalize this process promptly.  
2.359.   In July 2014 , Japan reiterated its concerns regarding Korea's food, fisheries and livestock 
products import restrictions. These bans an d additional testing requirements for radionuclides were 
non-transparent, not based on science, discriminatory and more trade -restrictive than necessary. 
Japan had held numerous bilateral meetings and provided detailed information to Korea, and had 
offered  additional meetings between experts, but Korea had not agreed to participate. In March 
2014, according to Articles 4 and 5.8 of the SPS Agreement, Japan had requested Korea: (1) to 
provide an explanation of the objectives and reasons for Korea's SPS measu res; (2) to identify the 
risks that its measures intend to address; (3) to indicate the level of protection that its measures 
intend to achieve; and (4) to provide a copy of any risk assessments undertaken. In June 2014, 
Japan had reiterated its written re quest. Furthermore, Korea's measures had not been published 
and the Korean enquiry point had not responded to requests for additional information. If Korea 
continued ignoring Japan's requests, Japan would have no choice but to resort to other actions under  
the WTO.  
2.360.   Korea explained that its measures were in accordance with Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement, 
to protect human health and food safety from radioactive contamination. Korea was in the process 
of reviewing information provided by Japan in January 201 4. In parallel, Korea had held several G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 106 - 
 
  expert meetings with Japan, and was willing to hold technical experts meetings and conduct on -site 
visits after reviewing the information, if necessary.  
2.361.   In October 2014 , Japan reiterated its concern regarding Korea's  import restrictions on fishery 
and food products, as these bans and additional testing requirements for radionuclides were non -
transparent, not based on science, discriminatory and more trade -restrictive than necessary. 
Japan  had held numerous bilateral m eetings and provided detailed information to Korea, and sought 
to use the tools set forth in the SPS Agreement to reach an amicable solution. While Korea had 
recently started to provide some responses to Japan's questions raised under Articles 4, 5.8 and 7  
of the SPS Agreement, these were insufficient. Yet, Japan welcomed Korea's indication that it was 
conducting a review, and its clarification on the appropriate level of protection underpinning its 
measures in relation to the radionuclide thresholds establ ished in Codex STAN 193 -1995. Japan was 
concerned about the lack of transparency surrounding Korea's review of the measures taken between 
2011 and 2013, and encouraged Korea to provide more information on its review meetings and 
timeframes. Japan hoped tha t this review would include an objective, transparent and science -based 
reassessment of Korea's measures in accordance with international standards, such as Codex 
Working Principle CAC/GL 62 -2007. Japan reiterated that if Korea continued ignoring Japan's 
requests, Japan would have no choice but to resort to other actions under the WTO.  
2.362.   Korea clarified that its measures were in accordance with Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement, 
to protect human health and food safety from radioactive contamination. Korea had been seeking 
to obtain additional information for a more objective and science -based risk assessment, but 
received insufficient data from Japan. The latest technical meeting had been held on 18 September 
2014. Korea was willing to conduct additional expert  meetings and hoped for full co -operation with 
Japan to finalize its review process and resolve this issue.  
2.363.   In March 2015 , Japan reiterated its concern regarding the additional import bans and testing 
requirements maintained by the Government of Korea on J apanese food products. Japan considered 
that these bans and the additional testing requirements were non -transparent, discriminatory, more 
trade -restrictive than necessary and lacked a scientific basis. Japan had held numerous bilateral 
meetings and provid ed detailed information to Korea, seeking to use the tools set forth in the 
SPS Agreement to reach an amicable solution. In addition, at the request of the Korean government, 
Japan had hosted on -site visits by a Korean investigative committee in December 2 014 and 
January  2015, and had assisted the committee's members in fully understanding the extent of the 
measures that Japan had taken to secure the safety of Japanese fishery products. In contrast, Korea 
had failed to respond to Japan's requests and had pr ovided no information on the timeline and steps 
towards the lifting of its measures. To illustrate the damage of this ban, Japan reported the example 
of the Tohoku area, where around 70% of farmed sea squirt was previously exported to Korea. 
The Tohoku sea  squirt farmers were now facing a ban despite the fact that more than 150 samples 
from sea squirt had been inspected, with radioactive cesium either significantly below Korea's safety 
thresholds or so low as to be non -detectable. Japan stressed the fact th at Korea's ban on such 
products lacked any scientific basis and reiterated that if Korea continued ignoring Japan's requests, 
Japan would have no choice but to resort to other actions under the WTO.  
2.364.   Korea noted that the necessary procedures to resolve this  issue in a bilateral way had been 
in place since Japan had first raised this issue in the SPS Committee. Korea explained that the ban 
had been adopted as a provisional measure in accordance with Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement. 
At the same time, Korea ha d sought to obtain additional information from the Japanese government 
and had organized a private experts committee to review this information and to verify the scientific 
evidence. Korean experts had also visited Japan three times since last December. Ko rea was in the 
process of reviewing all the information obtained and hoped for full co -operation with Japan to solve 
this issue bilaterally.  
2.365.   In accordance with the provisions of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing 
the Settlement of Disputes  (DSU), Japan requested consultations with Korea on 21 May 2015 
(WT/DS495/1). The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established a panel on 28 September 2015 
(WT/DS495/4). The panel report was issued on 22 February 2018 (WT/DS495/R). Panel report under 
appeal o n 9 April 2018.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 107 - 
 
  2.9.2   Animal Health  
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  
2.366.   See paragraphs 2.529. -2.599 . 
Korea's import restrictions due to African  swine fever (STC 393)  
Raised by:  European Union  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.11 -3.12), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, 
paras. 3.68 -3.69) , March 2016 (G/SPS/R/82, paras. 3.43 -3.44), June 
2016 (G/SPS/R/83, pa ras. 4.15 -4.17), October 2016 ( G/SPS/R/84, 
paras. 3.44 -3.45) , March 2017 (G/SPS/R/86, paras. 3.36 -3.38), Jul y 
2017 (G/SPS/R/ 87, paras. 4.45 -4.46), November 2017 (G/SPS/R/88, 
paras. 3.37 -3.38) , March 2018 (G/SPS/R/90, paras. 3.47 -3.48)   
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.367.   In July 2015, the European Union raised a concern about the import restrictions on pork and 
pork products put in place in February 2014 by Korea on African swine fever (ASF) grounds. 
The European Union repeated that trade could take place safely, and affir med that Korea 
disrespected the SPS Agreement regarding regionalization. Korea continuously received detailed 
information on the control, surveillance and monitoring measures  of the European Union. 
Korea's  risk assessment process lacked clarity about the r equired steps and the use of information 
provided by the European Union. The European Union called on Korea to respect its regionalization 
obligations under the SPS Agreement and to allow trade of all safe products. The European Union 
also restated its ava ilability to continue working with Korea and any other trading partners with a 
view to finding a rapid solution on this matter.  
2.368.   Korea responded that it had banned pork and pork products from Poland since the first case 
of ASF was reported in February 2014,  in agreement with Poland. In response to the European Union 
for regionalization, Korea had implemented the necessary steps to assess the current situation in 
Poland, and sent experts to have an on -site inspection. The preliminary assessment on ASF had 
been delivered to Poland and an exchange o f views was still under way. As  a result, Korea had been 
consistent with Articles 6.2 and 6.3 of the SPS Agreement and hoped to continue bilateral discussion 
on the basis of science and data.  
2.369.   In October 2015, the Euro pean Union recalled its concerns regarding Korea's import 
restrictions on pork and pork products due to ASF taken since February 2014. Korea had continuously 
received detailed information from the European Union. Korea's risk assessment process lacked 
clarity about the required steps and the use of information provided by the European Union, in 
particular on its control, surveillance and monitoring measures. The  European Union called on Korea 
to respect its regionalization obligations under the SPS Agreemen t and to allow trade of safe 
products. The European Union also restated its availability to continue working with Korea and any 
other trading partners with a view to finding a rapid solution on this matter.  
2.370.   Korea recalled that it had banned pork and pork p roducts from Poland since the first case of 
ASF was reported in February 2014, in agreement with Poland. At the request of the European Union, 
Korea had implemented the necessary steps to assess the current situation in Poland, and hired 
experts to that ef fect. Korea had completed its preliminary assessment after considering Poland's 
comments received in May 2015 and had decided to m ove on to the next steps. Korea  requested 
that Poland and the European Union take proactive control measures to prevent the sp read of ASF 
and cooperate fully to expedite the risk assessment process, which needed to incorporate a 
distinction between affected and unaffected areas.  
2.371.   In March 2016, the European Union stressed the importance of regionalization and the 
massive potential  trade impact of failing to recognize effective regionalization measures and, in that G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 108 - 
 
  context, reiterated its concerns regarding Korea's import restrictions on pork and pork products due 
to ASF. The European Union stated that despite having raised this con cern at the July and October 
2015 SPS Committee meetings, and having had several bilateral discussions, import restrictions 
remained. Korea had informed the European Union in October 2015 that it had decided to proceed 
to the next step of its risk assessme nt process. However, that risk assessment process lacked clarity 
about the required steps and the use of information provided by the European Union, in particular 
on its control, surveillance and monitoring measures. The European Union called on Korea to r espect 
its regionalization obligations under the SPS Agreement and to allow trade of safe products. The 
European Union also restated its availability to continue working with Korea and any other trading 
partners with a view to finding a rapid solution to t he matter.  
2.372.   Korea stated that it was reviewing the European Union request for regionalization carefully 
as it was ASF -free and the disease was highly -contagious. Korea had sent an evaluation 
questionnaire to the Polish government in December 2015 and  was awaiting a response. 
An EU delegation from DG -SANCO had a technical meeting in Korea with re levant expert authorities. 
Both sides had exchanged views on this issue, including current risk assessment procedures and 
potential ways forward. Korea request ed that the European Union cooperate fully in order to expedite 
the risk assessment process.  
2.373.   In June 2016, the European Union stressed the importance of the recognition of 
regionalization measures by trading partners, and in that context reiterated its con cern regarding 
Korea's import restrictions on pork and pork products due to ASF. The European Union stated that 
despite having raised this concern at previous SPS Committee meetings and having had several 
bilateral discussions, import restrictions still re mained. Korea had informed the European Union in 
October 2015 that, as result of a preliminary risk assessment, it had decided to proceed to the next 
step of its process and assess the possibility of applying regionalization. The European Union 
explained t hat, in practice , this represen ted the second step in an eight -step process which, based 
on its understanding, would need to be satisfactorily concluded before Poland would be able to export 
pork meat to Korea from disease -free zones. The European Union em phasized that it regularly 
provided Korea with detailed information regarding its stringent control, surveillance, and monitoring 
measures. After two and a half years of deliberation and information sharing, including on -site 
inspection, Korea had not prov ided the timeline for concluding the final import risk analysis. 
The European Union requested Korea to limit its numerous information requests to what was 
necessary to complete the risk assessment and to allow trade of safe products from disease -free 
areas  in Poland, or provide clarification on the scientific basis for the maintenance of the ban.  
2.374.   The Russian Federation drew Member 's attention to the epidemic ASF situation and called 
for bilateral cooperation on this issue.  
2.375.   Korea stated that it was reviewing  Poland's responses to the questionnaire which had been 
submitted in May 2016. Korea noted the highly contagious nature of the disease and the lack of a 
preventive vaccine to halt ASF spread, while underscoring that it remained ASF -free. Since the March 
2016 SPS Committee meeting, Korea and the European Commission had held a bilateral meeting, 
on the margins of the 84th OIE General Session, to discuss progress in the risk assessment process 
and the way forward. Korea further indicated that on 24 June, the E uropean Commission had notified 
the fourth ASF outbreak in pigs in Poland. A comprehensive review of the situation, including this 
recent information, was currently being undertaken. Korea requested that the European Union 
cooperate fully in order to exped ite the risk assessment process.  
2.376.   In October 2016, the European Union stressed the importance of the recognition of 
regionalization measures by trading partners, and in that context reiterated its concern regarding 
Korea's import restrictions on pork and po rk products due to ASF. The European Union recalled that 
Korea had performed a preliminary risk -assessment and on -site inspection in 2014, followed by the 
decision in 2015 to perform a risk analysis. The risk analysis had been suspended in August 2016 
following FMD outbreaks in Poland. The European Union considered that the risk assessment ought 
to be pursued, as the European Union had (as always) adapted its regionalization measures in line 
with OIE standards to ensure that only safe pork products were pla ced on the EU market and 
exported to countries outside the European Union. The European Union insisted that it had provided 
Korea with the necessary information to demonstrate the existence of disease -free areas in Poland 
and that they were likely to remai n so. The European Union therefore urged Korea to respect its 
obligations under Articles 3, 6 and 8 of the SPS Agreement and to continue and conclude quickly the 
import approval procedure by continuing the risk analysis, taking into account the information  that G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 109 - 
 
  had been collected before its suspension, limiting the information requests to what was necessary 
and providing, in a transparent manner, a timeline for concluding the analysis.  
2.377.   Korea recalled the highly contagious nature of ASF and the lack of a pre ventive vaccine to 
halt its spread, while underscoring that it remained ASF -free. Korea confirmed that it had suspended 
the risk assessment procedure for recognition of ASF regionalization following the 2016 outbreak of 
various cases in Poland in pig farms . Two additional areas were affected by this outbreak, and Korea 
declared that the suspension would hold until the newly affected areas recovered their ASF free 
status in accordance with the OIE standards. Korea notified Poland in October 2016 that it coul d 
resume the import risk analysis procedures if the Polish government requested them for specific 
regions free from ASF. Korea noted that in light of the possible causes of ASF stated by the European 
Commission Animal Health Regulatory Committee, the Polis h government needed to further review 
its biosecurity measures. Korea hoped that Poland would succeed in controlling the spread of ASF, 
and indicated that it would cooperate to resume the process soon.  
2.378.   In March 2017, The European Union stressed the importa nce of recognition by trading 
partners of regionalization measures and reiterated its concern regarding Korea's import restrictions 
on pork and pork products due to ASF, despite several bilateral meetings. The European Union 
recalled that Korea had perform ed a preliminary risk -assessment and on -site inspection in Poland in 
2014, followed by the decision in 2015 to  perform a risk assessment. The  risk assessment had been 
suspended in August 2016 following ASF outbreaks in P oland. The  European Union requested that 
the risk assessment be pursued, as it had adapted its regionalization measures based on OIE 
standards to ensure that only safe pork products were placed on the EU market and exported to 
countries outside the European Union. The European Union insisted  that it had provided Korea with 
the necessary information to demonstrate the existence of disease -free areas in Poland. 
The European Union therefore urged Korea to respect its obligations under the SPS Agreement and 
promptly conclude the import approval p rocedure based solely on collected information necessary 
to complete the recognition of regionalisation.  
2.379.   Referring again to the dispute Russia – Pigs (EU) (DS475), the European Union highlighted 
that the Panel had found that the bans in place were neither  based on international standards, nor 
on a risk assessment. Moreover, given that the European Union had demonstrated that there were 
regions in Poland which were disease -free and likely to remain disease -free, the Poland -wide ban 
and the ban on the Baltic  States were found to be WTO -inconsistent.  
2.380.   Korea referred to previous statements by China and the Russian Federation, and reiterated 
the highly contagious nature of ASF and the lack of a preventive vaccine to halt its spread. Korea 
reported that it import ed more than 300,000 tonnes of pork meat every year, approximately half of 
which originated from the European Union. Korea further elaborated on the regionalization 
requirement under Article 6.3 of the SPS Agreement and Article 15.1.3 of the OIE Terrestria l Animal 
Health Code, and recognised that while they were informed that there had been no new ASF 
outbreaks in commercial pig farms, outbreaks of ASF in wild boars had been continuously reported 
to the OIE as recently as March 2017 in the Polish regions of  Podlaskie, Lubelskie and Mazowieckie. 
Korea observed that the ASF -free status had to include the ASF outbreak in wild boars, and therefore 
had requested Poland to redefine its ASF -free areas or zones according to OIE regulations. Korea 
urged the European Union to provide a clearly defined ASF -free region, having reviewed the newly 
affected areas. The same message had been communicated through the Korean Embassy in Poland 
as well as in bilateral meetings with the European Union on the margins of the SPS Com mittee 
meetings.  
2.381.   In July 2017, the European Union reiterated its concern over Korea's ban on pork and pork 
products from Poland since early 2014, without taking into account the European Union's 
regionalization measures. The European Union regretted that despite bilateral meetings, the ban 
remained in place. The European Union recalled that Korea had performed a preliminary risk 
assessment and an on -site inspection in December 2014, and had received responses to its 
questions. The European Union reminded K orea of its obligation to limit the information requested 
to what was necessary to complete the recognition of regionalization, and to take into account the 
information it already had; and urged Korea to continue with the risk analysis and the recognition 
of regionalization without further undue delays. The European Union remained open to continue 
working with Korea.  G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 110 - 
 
  2.382.   Korea replied that the import risk analysis had temporarily been suspended due to the 
unstable outbreak situation in Poland in 2016, includin g the continuous ASF outbreaks in domestic 
pigs in August 2016 and the expansion of contaminated areas. In order to resume its import risk 
analysis, Korea had requested Poland and the European Union to notify the list of ASF -free areas 
that satisfied OIE s tandards. These had been specified in May 2017, and Korea had resumed the 
relevant procedures. However, Korea remained concerned with the increasing outbreaks of ASF in 
domestic pigs on small -scale farms in Poland. Korea believed that this showed that Pola nd's ASF 
control measures still needed to go further in order to contain ASF. Korea was still holding bilateral 
consultations with the European Union on this matter.  
2.383.   In November 2017, the European Union reiterated its concern over Korea's ban on pork and 
pork products from Poland since February 2014, which did not take into account the European Union 
regionalization measures. The European Union regretted that despite bilateral meetings the import 
restriction remained. Korea had performed a preliminary risk  assessment and an on -site inspection 
in December 2014, and had received responses to its questions. Korea had indicated that as a result 
of the preliminary risk assessment, it would proceed with a risk analysis. Finally, the European Union 
urged Korea to comply with its WTO obligations by putting in place measures that were not more 
trade restrictive than necessary, applying regionalization, only requesting necessary information to 
complete the recognition of regionalization, and taking into account inform ation already available  
2.384.   Korea drew attention to the increasing number of ASF cases in in Poland, with 87 cases 
recorded in domestic pigs from January to September 2017, a number four times larger than 
recorded between 2014 and 2016. Korea also reported th at the European Animal Health Regulatory 
Committee had stated that lack of biosecurity measures and illegal transactions in pigs and pork 
meat were the main causes of ASF in Polish domestic pig farms. Korea expressed its concern that 
the ASF -free zone in P oland was not effectively managed, and requested pertinent information on 
the spread of ASF on domestic pig farms, according to OIE standards. Korea hoped the 
epidemiological situation in Poland would be under control in order to resolve this issue.  
2.385.   In Mar ch 2018, the European Union reiterated its concern over Korea's ban on pork and pork 
products from Poland since February 2014, which did not take into account the European Union's 
regionalization measures. The European Union indicated that, since the ban, Korea had continued 
to receive detailed information on all outbreaks. Korea had performed a preliminary risk assessment 
and an on -site inspection in December 2014, following which it had informed the European Union, 
in October 2015, that a risk analysis ha d been initiated. However, there had been no progress to 
date. The European Union urged Korea to finalize the risk assessment, adopt trade measures which 
were consistent with the SPS Agreement, and only request the necessary information to complete 
the ass essment. The European Union expressed its willingness to continue working with Korea and 
looked forward to a quick resolution of this concern.  
2.386.   Korea drew attention to the increasing number of ASF cases in Poland, particularly in small 
domestic pig farms, a nd further recalled that the report of the European Animal Health Regulatory 
Committee had indicated possible causes for the outbreak. Korea expressed its concern that the 
proposed ASF -free zone was not effectively managed, and further indicated that it ha d requested 
pertinent information on the spread of ASF in domestic pig farms. However, no response had yet 
been received from Poland.  
2.10  Mexico  
2.10.1   Animal Health  
Restrictions on imports of swine meat  (STC 271)  
Raised by:  Brazil  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  June 2008 (G/SPS/R/51, paras. 25-26), February 2009 (G/SPS/R/54, 
paras. 21 -23), October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, paras. 35 -36), March 2018 
(G/SPS/R/90, para. 3.44) , July 2018 (G/SPS/R/92/Rev.1, paras. 4.55-
4.56)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 111 - 
 
  Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.387.   In June 2008, Brazil raised concerns about Mexico's delay in recognizing Brazil's FMD -free 
areas, and failure to allow importation of Brazilian pig meat. The recognition process had been 
delayed by unjustifiable requests for additional information, resulti ng in a lengthy and costly process. 
Since June 2007, Brazil had requested Mexico to recognize the State of Santa Catarina as an FMD -
free area without vaccination, based on OIE's decision at its 75th General Session. However, no 
response had been given, eve n though these concerns were raised by Brazil in bilateral 
consultations. Taking into account the recent decision by the Committee on regionalization, Brazil 
requested that a working plan containing time -lines and a date for finalizing the recognition proc ess 
be established.  
2.388.   Mexico confirmed that Brazil had presented information to the competent authorities at the 
Mexico National Service for Agro -food Health, Safety and Quality (SENASICA -SAGARPA). 
Those  authorities were presently conducting technical analys es and Mexico hoped to provide a 
positive response to Brazil in the near future.  
2.389.   In February 2009, Brazil recalled that the State of Santa Catarina had been recognized as 
FMD free in 2007. In 2008, Brazil had requested the establishment of a working plan f or recognition 
of this disease -free area, taking into account the Committee's Decision on Article 6 (G/SPS/48). 
Brazil had made important investments to achieve freedom from FMD without vaccination. Mexican 
authorities had promised a response, but none had  been received, and no progress had been made. 
Brazil had proposed a new approach: Brazil had invited Mexico to use the good offices mechanism 
of Article 12.2 of the SPS Agreement and paragraph 6 of the Committee's working procedures, with 
the presence of a specialist from the OIE. Brazil was waiting for Mexico's response to this proposal 
and looked forward to the friendly and timely resolution of this issue based on OIE standards.  
2.390.   Mexico indicated that for pig meat, the information Brazil had provided to t he Mexican 
authorities was being studied. Mexico had asked for information on Brazil's toxic residue control 
plan, which had been received in August 2008. In October 2008, Mexico had requested additional 
information about this toxic residue control plan, a nd again in February 2009, without receiving a 
response. Mexico's consideration of this issue would be able to continue when the information was 
received. The suggestion to use the Good Offices mechanism had only recently been received and 
forwarded to the  capital. Brazil suggested that Mexico's request for information was related to a 
different trade concern regarding heat -treated meat (see STC 263 above). Brazil's residue plan was 
available on a website. All information on FMD freedom was available to Mex ico, and in addition, the 
OIE had studied the information and there had been several bilateral meetings. There was no missing 
information at this stage, but if necessary, the information would be provided again.  
2.391.   In October 2009, Brazil stated that Brazil's  pork had been facing serious restrictions to the 
Mexican market since 2006. Mexico's lack of recognition had resulted in import restrictions for Santa 
Catarina's pork exports. Brazil had tried without success to resolve the issue through bilateral 
discuss ions, and had proposed the use of the good offices of the SPS Committee chair. Mexico had 
not responded to this proposal. In July 2009, Brazil had received a new request from Mexico for very 
extensive information, much of which had already been previously provided. Brazil hoped that the 
new questionnaire was not a means to delay the opening of the Mexican market, and looked forward 
to Mexico's agreement to use the Chairperson's good offices.  
2.392.   Mexico stated that on 3 July 2009, three questionnaires were submi tted to the Veterinary 
Services of Brazil regarding the import of beef, poultry and pork; however, Brazil had not provided 
any response to the questionnaires. On 20 July 2009, Mexico, through SENASICA, sent remarks 
relating to Brazil's toxic residues progr am but no response had been received. Mexico was willing to 
continue bilateral discussions on the matter, and encouraged Brazil to provide the requested 
additional information needed to work further on the issue.  
2.393.   In March 2018, Brazil informed the Committe e of the withdrawal of its specific trade concern 
against Mexico following recent bilateral discussions, and further indicated that a timeframe had 
been agreed to resolve this concern.  G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 112 - 
 
  2.394.   In July 2018, Brazil informed the Committee of the continuous bilateral  dialogue with Mexico 
since 2007 on its sanitary requirements to export swine meat, following the OIE recognition of the 
State of Santa Catarina as free of foot and mouth disease without vaccination. Brazil also added that 
it had unsuccessfully suggested t he use of the good offices of the SPS Committee Chair under 
Article  12.2 of the SPS Agreement and paragraph 6 of the SPS Committee's working procedures, 
with the presence of an OIE specialist. Brazil acknowledged the steps taken by Mexico, including 
inspec tions of slaughter sites in 2010 and 2014, as well as new proposals for joint sanitary 
certification for swine meat since 2015. However, Brazil regretted that no slaughterhouses had since 
been certified for exports and that the Mexican market remained effe ctively closed. Mexico had 
recently requested additional time to assess the documentation provided and to schedule a new 
inspection mission. Brazil urged Mexico to address the technical obstacles related to this issue 
without further delay, in compliance w ith Annex C of the SPS Agreement.  
2.395.   Mexico informed the Committee of the bilateral meeting held with Brazil prior to the 
SPS Committee meeting, where it had explained the status of the request and the following steps. 
The sanitary authorities of both countri es had held productive meetings since the last SPS Committee 
meeting.  
Mexico's market access requirement for casein products (STC 436)  
Raised by:  India 
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  March 2018 (G/SPS/R/90, paras. 3.6 -3.7) 
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.396.   In March 2018, India raised a concern over Mexico's market access requirement for casein 
products, explaining that the OIE had recognized its official control programme for foot and mouth 
disease, in accordance with the provisions of the Terrestrial Code. In particular, India noted that the 
OIE Terrestrial Code recommended the importation of milk products from FMD -infected countries or 
zones where an official programme exists. India also explained that the processing of casein ensured 
the destruction of any  undesired microbes. All the technical information required by Mexico had also 
been submitted by India's authorities. India highlighted the importance of casein as an export 
commodity and requested Mexico to allow its casein exports which had been certifie d by the 
competent authorities. India thanked Mexico for its bilateral engagements and looked forward to the 
resolution of this issue.  
2.397.   Mexico informed the Committee that efforts were being made through bilateral discussions 
to resolve the issue. Mexico affirmed its commitment to recognize and systematically implement all 
fundamental principles of the SPS Agreement, and expressed its willi ngness to continue efforts to 
reach a solution.  
2.11  New Zealand  
2.11.1   Plant Health  
New Zealand's draft import health standard for vehicles, machinery and equipment  
(STC  440)  
Raised by:  Japan  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  July 2018 (G/SPS/R/92/Rev.1, paras. 4.2 -4.3), November 2018 
(G/SPS/R/93, paras. 3.68 -3.69)  
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/N/NZL/570; G/SPS/N/NZL/570/Add.1  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 113 - 
 
  Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.398.   In July 2018, Japan raised a concern regarding New Zealand's Import Health Standard for 
Vehicles, Machinery and Equipment from Japan, notified in document G/SPS/N/NZL/570/Add.1 on 
30 May 2018. Japan noted that only nine days had been granted to provide com ments and 93 days 
between the notification and its entry into force. Approximately 300,000 new and used vehicles and 
machinery were exported to New Zealand every year. Satisfying the new requirements implied 
extensive costs and efforts and, thus, also suff icient time to prepare. Japan expressed appreciation 
to New Zealand's efforts to extend the deadline for comments (up to 33 days). However, Japan 
regretted that its request for the extension up to six months of the entry into force had not been 
accepted. J apan argued that New Zealand's measures should be based on scientific principles in 
accordance with the SPS Agreement, and assumed that the basis of the new measures proposed by 
New Zealand referred to the report "Risk analysis of Halyomorpha halys (brown marmorated stink 
bug) on all pathways" issued by New Zealand in November 2012. However, Japan noted that the 
mentioned report did not provide any explicit scientific evidence to justify the new measures on new 
vehicles and machinery imported from Japan. In  addition, Japan recalled that SPS measures should 
not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate among Members. Whereas fumigation or heat treatments 
on used vehicles and machinery from Japan would be mandatory from 1 September to 30 April every 
year; they  would not be mandatory for products from the United States or Italy. Finally, Japan 
requested that New Zealand provide at least 60 days for comments, and to ensure at least six 
months between the notification and the entry into force of the measure.  
2.399.   New Z ealand noted that the notification mentioned by Japan was an addendum to the 
previous notification which had been notified in December 2017, providing 60 days for comments. 
New Zealand acknowledged Japan's comments and emphasised the significant risk to Ne w Zealand, 
which led to measures being taken to ensure safe trade, while adhering to all SPS Agreement 
obligations. New Zealand added that a technical meeting in Tokyo as well as bilateral meetings on 
the margins of the current meeting had been held on thi s issue.  
2.400.   In November 2018, Japan reiterated its concern on New Zealand's SPS measures for 
vehicles, machinery and equipment from Japan notified on 30 May 2018. Japan recalled that a 
specific trade concern had been raised at the July 2018 Committee meeting,  stressing that measures 
implemented by New Zealand should be based on sufficient scientific evidence, should not arbitrarily 
discriminate among Members, and should ensure sufficient time for comments. Despite the concern 
raised in July 2018, the new measu res had entered into force on 1 September 2018. 
Japan  highlighted that the measures put in place by New Zealand lacked scientific justification. 
Furthermore, the time -period between the notification and the entry into force of the measure had 
been insuffic ient. Japan encouraged New Zealand to base its measures on scientific principles, in 
accordance with Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement, and reported that the scientific evidence provided 
by New Zealand had not included clarification on: (i) detection data o f Halyomorpha halys (brown 
marmorated stink bug) from consignments, especially machinery exported to New Zealand from 
Japan; (ii) analysis of likelihood based on effective accumulated temperature on the introduction 
and establishment of Halyomorpha halys i n New Zealand; and (iii) the rationale to establish on 
1 September 2018 as entry into force of the regulation. Japan urged New Zealand to clarify these 
points and review the existing pest risk analysis. Japan also reminded New Zealand that 
SPS measures sho uld not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate among Members where identical or 
similar conditions prevailed. Finally, Japan highlighted that New Zealand had requested heat or 
fumigation treatment of used vehicles and used machinery for a certain period  of time. However, 
Japan noted that this requirement had not been mandatory for other countries.  
2.401.   New Zealand considered the brown marmorated stink bug (BMSB) a very serious pest with 
potentially significant implications on agriculture, aquaculture, and New  Zealand's environment. 
New Zealand underlined that BMSB had been intercepted in vehicles and machinery arriving from 
Japan, and noted that there were very limited options to manage BMSB. New Zealand was of the 
view that the measures put in place were cons istent with SPS principles and New Zealand's 
appropriate level of protection. In addition, New Zealand expressed its appreciation for the 
collaborative work with Japan and hoped to continue to work together in resolving this matter.  G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 114 - 
 
  2.12  Panama  
2.12.1   Food Safety  
Panama's restrictions on beef and poultry meat (STC 444)  
Raised by:  Brazil  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  July 2018 (G/SPS/R/92/Rev.1, paras. 4.14 -4.16) 
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.402.   In July 2018, Brazil informed the Committee that following a 2016 inspection mission carried 
out by Panama to audit Brazilian thermo -processed beef and poultry, seven audited establishments 
had been cleared for export. However, shortly afterwards, Panama h ad published seven resolutions 
suspending the previous approvals. Brazil regretted that, despite its requests, Panama had not 
presented technical justifications for these resolutions. Brazil pointed to a statement made by the 
Panamanian Authority for Food Safety, explaining that one of the objectives of the suspensions was 
the promote the strengthening of the national agricultural sector. Brazil argued that the restrictions 
did not have a scientific basis, and did not take into account human, animal and pla nt health. Finally, 
Brazil urged Panama to re -evaluate the decision to suspend the authorizations of Brazilian 
establishments based on their 2016 approval.  
2.403.   Panama regretted that this item had been included in the agenda, and noted the preliminary 
nature of  its response as it had only recently been informed of this concern. In a bilateral meeting 
held, Panama had expressed its openness to dialogue. The relevant processes and evaluations were 
being examined to grant export permits to business, provided the co rresponding sanitary measures 
had been met. After visiting the facilities of the company whose permit had been withdrawn because 
the appropriate sanitary conditions had not been in place, Panamanian authorities were assessing 
the renewal of the authorisati on. 
2.13  Russian Federation  
2.13.1   Food Safety  
The Russian Federation's import restrictions on processed fishery products from Estonia 
and Latvia (STC 390)  
Raised by:  European Union  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.4 -3.6), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, 
paras. 3.27 -3.29) , March 2016 (G/SPS/R/81, paras. 3.38 -3.40), June 
2016 (G/SPS/R/83, paras. 4.42 -4.43), October 201 6 (G/SPS/R/84, 
paras. 3.31 -3.32), Marc h 2017 (G/SPS/R/86, paras. 3.21 -3.24), Jul y 
2017 (G/SPS/R/87, paras. 4.33 -4.34), November 2017 (G/SPS/R/88, 
paras. 3.45 -3.46)  March 2018 (G/SPS/R/90, paras. 3.22 -3.23), July 
2018 (G/SPS/R/92/Rev.1, paras. 4.59 -4.61), November 2018 
(G/SPS/R/93, 3.56 -3.57)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.404.   In July 2015, the European Union indicated that, as of 4 June, the Russian Federation 
introduced a ban on imports of all fishery products from Estonia and Latvia, allegedly due to 
deficiencies detected during recent inspections. The European Union stated t hat the measure had G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 115 - 
 
  been notified very late, was inconsistent with the SPS Agreement and taken in violation of Russia's 
WTO Accession commitments , which included not to suspend exports from groups of establishments 
without having provided first the technic al information and scientific justification of the risks 
detected, and not to take such measures before the expiry of the timeframe provided for the 
adoption of corrective measures. Indeed, Russia had not provided evidence of immediate risk to 
consumers ca used by deficiencies in the control systems of Estonia and Latvia, which had been 
regularly inspected by the Russian Federation in recent years , without having identified any major 
problems. The measures were clearly more trade restrictive than necessary a nd the ban had been 
announced before the official reports of the inspections were provided to the competent authorities 
of Latvia or Estonia. The European Union expressed its willingness to cooperate with the Russian 
Federation to address their concerns bu t requested the Russian Federation to lift the ban, to bring 
its measures in line with international standards, and to respect its WTO obligations.  
2.405.   The Russian Federation replied that conclusions by Russian experts about deficiencies in the 
work of the Lat vian and Estonian competent authorities overlapped with the results of previous 
investigations by the European Union, and the presence of a risk was also confirmed by the 
notifications of the EU Commission in the rapid alert system. Russia stressed the imp ortance and 
urgency of the report made by the European Union about the safety of food products. An  inspection 
in 2013 had showed that Latvia and Estonia had not taken measures to withdraw unsafe products 
from the market. According to Russia, the European U nion had failed to take necessary measures in 
relation to establishments where violations were detected and to inform its trade partners. Indeed, 
between 2013 and July 2015, Russian inspections had revealed more than 2,000 cases of unreliable 
certification , and yet, no effective measures had been taken against the violators. The Russian 
Federation had concluded that the guarantees given by the European Union were not reliable. As a 
result, Russia was forced to impose temporary restrictions, as stated in off icial letters to the 
European Union. The measures were not bans, but temporary restrictions, and complied with the 
SPS Agreement, which allowed Members to adopt measures to protect human, animal or plant 
health.  
2.406.   The European Union clarified that they did n ot dispute Russia's right to take SPS measures, 
but expected proportionate measures taken in a transparent manner and in accordance with the 
SPS Agreement.  
2.407.   In October 2015, the European Union reiterated its concerns regarding the Russian 
Federation's restr ictions on imports of all fishery products from Estonia and Latvia, allegedly due to 
deficiencies in the safety systems. The European Union stated that the measure had been notified a 
month after implementation as an emergency measure. This was inconsisten t with the 
SPS Agreement and in contravention of the Russian Federation's WTO accession commitments, 
which included not to suspend exports from groups of establishments without first having provided 
the technical information and scientific justification of  the risks detected, and not to take such 
measures before the expiry of the timeframe provided for the adoption of corrective measures. 
The Russian Federation had not presented a risk assessment or provided evidence of immediate risk 
to consumers caused by  deficiencies in the control systems of Estonia and Latvia, which had been 
regularly inspected by the Russian Federation in recent years without having identified any major 
problems. The European Union highlighted that Article 2.1 required that measures ta ken to protect 
human, animal or plant life or health must be consistent with the provisions of the Agreement. 
In addition, the European Union recalled that Articles 2.2 and 5.6 required measures to be based on 
scientific evidence and not to be more trade r estrictive than necessary. Furthermore, the Russian 
Federation had adopted the ban just one day after the submission of the  preliminary report of the 
audit to the competent authorities, in contrast with the reasonable time commitment it made prior 
to its a ccession. The comments provided by Latvia and Estonia on the audits had not received a 
response by the Russian Federation, more than three months after the submission. The European 
Union indicated its willingness to cooperate with the Russian Federation on  this issue and requested 
the Russian Federation to lift the ban, bring its measures in line with international standards, and 
respect its WTO obligations.  
2.408.   The Russian Federation responded that it was justified in imposing temporary restrictions on 
fishery  products from Latvia and Estonia. Upon inspection, the Russian authorities found that Latvia 
and Estonia were unable to produce safe products that complied with requirements from both 
importing and exporting countries. Therefore, the Russian Federation ha d concluded that the 
guarantees provided by the EU veterinary services were not reliable. Many of these products had 
continued to be marketed and exported to the Russian Federation, which called for another round G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 116 - 
 
  of inspections. The Russian Federation was cooperating with veterinary services of Latvia and Estonia 
to objectively assess the safety systems of fish processing establishments. Comments on the 
preliminary report had been received, but Latvian and Estonian authorities could not show that the 
withdr awal of potentially hazardous products was timely and effective enough. The Russian 
Federation was concerned that trading partners were not being informed about product safety 
problems. The temporary restrictions were in compliance with the international E urasian Economic 
Union legal framework and with international standards. Before imposing the restrictions, relevant 
information had been published on the official website and consultations had been held with Latvian 
and Estonian authorities. Final reports of the inspections had just been sent to the veterinary 
services. The Russian Federation asked Latvia and Estonia to carry out their own inspection of the 
establishments and of their compliance with the Eurasian Economic Union veterinary requirements. 
The competent authorities of Latvia and Estonia had indicated that they did not oppose the Russian 
Federation's decisions and the EU representatives had agreed that the certification of products from 
Latvia and Estonia to Russia should be suspended. However, c ertification had not been suspended. 
Nevertheless, the Russian Federation was ready to find a solution on this issue.  
2.409.   The European Union replied that some of the information which had been provided by the 
Russian Federation contradicted EU information, rei terating that no major problems had been found 
in the numerous inspections held by the Russian Federation. Furthermore, the European Union 
indicated its concern with the statement that the  European Union had voluntarily agreed to suspend 
the certification of products from Latvia and Estonia, which did not reflect the EU  information. 
The European Union reiterated the transparency of its own  information and urged the Russian 
Federation to repeal its measures.  
2.410.   In March 2016, the European Union reiterated its c oncerns regarding the Russian 
Federation's restrictions on imports of all fishery products from Estonia and Latvia. The European 
Union recalled that in June 2015, the Russian Federation had introduced a ban on all fishery products 
from the two EU member St ates. The European Union considered the measures not based on 
scientific evidence or risk assessment, applied beyond the extent necessary to protect human health, 
and more trade restrictive than necessary. The Russian Federation had not presented a risk 
assessment or provided evidence of immediate risk to consumers caused by deficiencies in the 
control systems of Estonia and Latvia, which had been regularly inspected by the Russian Federation 
in recent years without having ide ntified any major problems. The  European Union stated that the 
measures did not meet the Russian Federation's WTO accession commitments, which included not 
to suspend exports from groups of establishments without first having provided the technical 
information and scientific justificati on of the risks detected, and not to take such measures before 
the expiry of the timeframe provided for the adoption of corrective measures. Furthermore, the 
Russian Federation had adopted the ban just one day after the submission of the preliminary report  
of the audit to the competent authorities, in contrast with the reasonable time commitment it had 
made prior to its accession. With regard to the EU rapid alert system for food and feed (RASFF) the 
European Union underlined that it was a transparent syste m which made available, not only to the 
authorities in the European Union but also to non -EU countries, information on the detection of 
incompliant products. It was an essential component of an effective and efficient food safety system. 
It was regrettable  to see this information being misused by some trading partners for imposing 
disproportionate trade bans, particularly when those partners did not apply the same level of 
transparency to their own products. The European Union noted that Latvia and Estonia had both 
acted without delay in response to the findings of Russia. One of the actions taken was the immediate 
withdrawal from the market of the concerned products. Not 20% as Russia has claimed, but 100% 
of the products had been withdrawn. Furthermore, bo th EU member States put in place corrective 
measures within the timeframes Russia set, which was two months. These actions were brought to 
the attention of Russia in writing. Russia however had not shown any willingness to take into account 
these correctiv e actions and the restrictions had not been lifted. The European Union requested the 
Russian Federation to immediately lift the ban and respect its WTO obligations while expressing its 
readiness to discuss the matter with the Russian authorities in a const ructive and cooperative 
manner.  
2.411.   The Russian Federation stated that it looked forward to close cooperation between the 
regulatory authorities . However, the import requirements of the Russian Federation and the Eurasian 
Economic Union needed to be followed. The Russian Federation had opened its market to EU member 
States through its accession obligations and found that EU guarantees had not been reliable as 
regular detection of banned contaminants, such as poly -aromatic hydrocarbons and benzopyrene, 
had occur red through monitoring programmes. The Russian Federation claimed that notifications G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 117 - 
 
  from the EU RASFF to withdraw potentially hazardous products were not timely or effective, as only 
around 20% were withdrawn and the rest exported. In addition, the Russia n Federation had not 
received responses to questions submitted to Latvian authorities regarding an establishment that 
had exported potentially unsafe products and whether or not additional testing for benzopyrene had 
taken place. As mentioned previously, t he Russian Federation was closely cooperating with the 
veterinary services of Latvia and Estonia to assess the safety systems implemented. However, 
questions remained and the Russian Federation believed that there was a lack of transparency, as 
RASFF notif ications sent to third countries seemed to be simplified, containing no specific information 
on the establishments or consignments where violations had been detected, which impeded the 
withdrawal of potentially hazardous products. The Chief Veterinary Offi cer of Latvia had officially 
informed the Russian Federation that it was the European Commission which had notified all RASFF 
registered cases when harmful substances had been detected in EU products to the Russian 
Federation. No information on excessive l evels of benzopyrene in Latvian products had been 
provided. The Russian Federation would continue cooperating in order to resume imports of canned 
fish and planned to carry out another round of inspections of processing plants in Latvia and Estonia 
in Marc h-April 2016. The competent authorities had been notified.  
2.412.   The European Union noted the Russian Federation's statement and expressed its surprise 
that the facts presented by the Russian Federation did not correspond to the information it 
possessed.  
2.413.   In June  2016, the European Union reiterated its concerns regarding the Russian Federation's 
restrictions on imports of all fishery products from Estonia and Latvia. The European Union recalled 
that in June 2015, the Russian Federation had introduced a ban on all fishery products from the two 
EU member States. The European Union considered that the measures were not based on scientific 
evidence or a risk assessment, were applied beyond the extent necessary to protect human health, 
and were more trade restrictive th an necessary. The European Union stated that the measures did 
not meet the Russian Federation's WTO accession commitments, which included not to take 
temporary suspension measures of imports from a group of establishments before the expiry of the 
time-frame provided for the adoption of corrective measures. In response to a statement made by 
the Russian Federation at the previous Committee meeting, the European Union argued that the 
EURASFF was timely, and that following actions taken by Estonia and Latvia, all concerned products 
had been withdrawn from the market, contrary to the Russian Federation's claim. The European 
Union also insisted that the RASFF was a transparent system which made available, not only to the 
authorities in the European Union but also  to non -EU countries, information on the detection of 
incompliant products. The European Union noted that it had not received any request for clarification 
from the Russian Federation on the issue at hand, despite the possibility to do so. The European 
Union regretted to see the RASFF information being misused by some trading partners for imposing 
disproportionate trade bans, particularly when those partners did not apply the same level of 
transparency to their own products. The European Union requested the  Russian Federation to 
immediately lift the ban and respect its WTO obligations while expressing its readiness to discuss 
the matter with the Russian authorities.  
2.414.   The Russian Federation stated that it was ready for close cooperation with the Estonian and 
Latvian regulatory authorities; however, the import requirements of the Russian Federation and the 
Eurasian Economic Union needed to be followed. The Russian Federation reiterated that the 
restrictions were temporary and would be reconsidered as soon as the  detected violations to the 
import requirements, of which the competent authorities in Estonia and Latvia were informed, were 
removed. The Russian Federation noted that relative progress had been made between the Russian 
Federation and the competent author ities, but this progress was still insufficient as the Russian 
Federation was unable to obtain information concerning the detection of certain harmful sea 
contaminants, as well as certain measures expected to prevent the access of dangerous products to 
the market. The Russian Federation explained that the Estonian and Latvian veterinary services had 
provided them with an updated list of the establishments authorized to export their products to the 
Eurasian Union (EAU); however, when specialists were sent fr om the EAU to inspect these fish 
processing plants, two out of the three Latvian plants and one out of the ten Estonian plants 
spontaneously refused to be inspected. The Russian Federation considered this to be evidence that 
the competent authorities could  not guarantee compliance of their products with EAU import 
requirements.  
2.415.   In October 2016, the European Union reiterated its concerns regarding the Russian 
Federation's restrictions on imports of all fishery products from Estonia and Latvia, in place since  G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 118 - 
 
  June 2015. The European Union declared that this ban was inconsistent with various articles of the 
SPS Agreement as well as with the Russian Federation's WTO accession commitments. The  European 
Union called on the Russian Federation to promptly share the outcomes of the inspections conducted 
in the summer of 2016. The European Union argued that the withdrawal of some establishments 
from the auditing list did not, as described by the Russian Federation in previous statements, 
constitute evidence of non -comp liance, but were related to delays in carrying out the audits. 
The European Union reiterated its call on the Russian Federation to remove the ban while expressing 
its readiness to cooperate with the Russian Federation in a constructive manner.  
2.416.   The Russian Federation stated that it was ready to cooperate with the competent authorities 
from Estonia and Latvia, and recalled that systemic deficiencies in the work of these authorities had 
led to violation of fishery products safety and given way to the temporary  restrictions. The Russian 
Federation however noted that cooperation was in progress and that a number of entities had been 
delisted. Re -inspections had been conducted by the relevant authorities of the Eurasian Economic 
Union members, and had showed that some positive measures had been taken in Estonia and Latvia. 
However, certain problematic measures relating to the access of dangerous products to the market 
had not yet been addressed, and the Russian Federation stated that it was waiting for the competen t 
author ities to provide more data. The  Russian Federation would inform the Latvian and Estonian 
authorities about the next steps as soon as it received and considered the relevant data.  
2.417.   In March 2017, The European Union reiterated its concerns regarding t he Russian 
Federation's restrictions on imports of processed fishery products from Estonia and Latvia. 
The European Union recalled that in June 2015, following an audit carried out in some establishments 
in Latvia and Estonia, Russia had introduced a ban o n the import of all fishery products from those 
two EU member States. The European Union stated that the ban was inconsistent with various 
provisions of the SPS Agreement because it was not based on science, did not respect the necessity 
principle and was more restrictive than necessary. The European Union also noted that the measures 
did not respect the Russian Federation's WTO accession commitments.  
2.418.   The European Union underlined that Latvia and Estonia had acted without delay in response 
to the findings of the Russian Federation in 2015, and had put in place corrective measures within 
the timeframes set by the Russian Federation. Those actions had been brought to the attention of 
the Russian Federation, which carried out subsequent audits in 2016 to verif y the corrective actions. 
The European Union added that Latvia and Estonia had addressed all the requests from the Russian 
Federation authorities for information or clarification, but the results of their audits had not been 
communicated and the bans remai ned in place. The European Union reiterated its call to the Russian 
Federation to repeal the ban while expressing its readiness to work with the Russian Federation in a 
constructive and cooperative manner.  
2.419.   The Russian Federation responded that the tempora ry restriction imposed on supplies of 
canned products from a number of fish processing plants in Latvia and Estonia was well founded. 
The Russian Federation had informed the SPS Committee of the matter on numerous occasions: 
The violations in the process o f ensuring the safety of fishery products were caused by systematic 
deficiencies in the work of competent authorities and the establishments of the countries concerned 
as confirmed by the inspections carried out by the experts.  
2.420.   The Russian Federation obse rved that the attention drawn by the Rosselkhozdnadzor to the 
issue and an additional joint inspection at the fish processing plants of Latvia and Estonia had led to 
positive measures by the veterinary services. However, some matters remained outstanding. 
Pursuant to the relevant procedures, the results and conclusions of inspections were being finalized 
by the competent authorities of the Eurasian Economic Union (representatives of which had also 
taken part in the inspection). The Russian Federation would transmit the report of the inspection to 
Latvia and Estonia in the near future, and remained prepared to make all the necessary efforts to 
find a solution to the issue.  
2.421.   In July 2017, the European Union reiterated its concerns regarding the Russian Federat ion's 
restrictions on imports of all fishery products from Estonia and Latvia. The European Union reiterated 
that the restrictions were inconsistent with the SPS Agreement and did not respect Russia's WTO 
accession commitments. The European Union underline d that Latvia and Estonia had acted without 
delay in response to the findings of the Russian Federation in 2015, and had put in place corrective 
measures within the timeframes set b y the Russian Federation. Those  actions had been brought to 
the attention o f the Russian Federation, which carried out subsequent audits in 2016 to verify the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 119 - 
 
  corrective actions, but the results of their audits had not been communicated and the bans remained 
in place. The European Union reiterated its call to the Russian Federati on to repeal the ban while 
expressing its readiness to work with the Russian Federation in a constructive and cooperative 
manner.  
2.422.   The Russian Federation responded that the temporary restriction imposed on supplies of fish 
products in Latvia and Estonia wa s due to violations in the process of ensuring the safety of fishery 
products, as confirmed by experts' inspections. The Russian Federation explained that it was working 
in coordinating with other Eurasian Economic Union member countries and that it was op en to further 
cooperation and discussions.  
2.423.   In November 2017, the European Union reiterated its concerns regarding the Russian 
Federation's import restrictions on all fishery products from Estonia and Latvia, which followed an 
audit of a few establishments  by the Russian Federation in 2015. The European Union argued that 
these measures were inconsistent with the SPS Agreement, unjustifiable on sanitary grounds, and 
not in compliance with the Russian Federation's WTO accession commitments. The European Union  
added that Latvia and Estonia reacted without delay to the findings and had put in place corrective 
measures within the requested time -frame, and had been subsequently audited by the Russian 
Federation in June 2016. The European Union regretted that it on ly received the report of these 
audits the day before the Committee meeting. Estonia and Latvia had held bilateral discussions with 
the Russian Federation to show their readiness to resolve this concern. The European Union called 
for an immediate repeal of  the measure  
2.424.   The Russian Federation recalled that the temporary restriction had been the result of onsite 
inspections that found systemic deficiencies in fish processing. More recent inspections noted the 
progress made in complying with requirements of the Eurasian Eco nomic Union, but did not fully 
address the safety concerns. Finally, the Russian Federation awaited responses from Latvia and 
Estonia to the preliminary report of its inspection.  In March 2018, the European Union reiterated its 
concerns regarding the Russi an Federation's import restrictions on all fishery products from Estonia, 
which followed an audit of a few establishments by the Russian Federation in 2015. The European 
Union argued that these measures were inconsistent with the SPS Agreement, unjustifiab le on 
sanitary grounds, and not in compliance with the Russian Federation's WTO accession commitments. 
The European Union indicated that Estonia had been audited by the Russian Federation in June 2016, 
however, the findings of this audit had only been prov ided in October 2017. In addition, Estonia had 
held several bilateral discussions with the Russian Federation, without further success. The European 
Union welcomed the re -authorization of one fishery products establishment in December 2017, but 
expressed i ts regret that the same approach had not been applied to other concerned 
establishments. The European Union urged the Russian Federation to immediately repeal the 
measure.  
2.425.   The Russian Federation indicated that considerable progress had been made since the last 
Committee meeting, highlighting that further to inspections in 2016, restrictions had been lifted on 
one Estonian establishment in December 2017. The Russian Federation further noted that it would 
consider lifting more restrictions, upon submission of  information on how the remaining deficiencies 
identified during the inspection visit were being addressed. The Russian Federation also recalled that 
Estonia had agreed to another inspection visit in July 2018, which it hoped would produce positive 
results . 
2.426.   In July 2018, the European Union reiterated its view that these measures were inconsistent 
with the SPS Agreement and with WTO accession commitments of the Russian Federation. Estonia 
had held several bilateral discussions with the Russian Federation, wi thout much progress. 
The European Union welcomed the re -authorization for exports of one establishment, but regretted 
the continuous ban on every other establishment. Estonia had accepted Russia's proposal for a third 
round of inspections, without receivin g a confirmation on the date of the audit from the Russian 
Federation. The European Union urged the Russian Federation to immediately repeal the measure.  
2.427.   The Russian Federation recalled that the measure had been put in place after inspections 
conducted by the competent Russian authority in 2016. In February 2018, the Russian Federation 
had informed the Estonian Veterinary and Food Board of an inspection visit to evaluate the corrective 
actions that had been taken. In July 2018 Estonia had agreed to receive the inspection visit. 
However, the Russian Federation explained that the visit had been postponed due to other 
commitments of inspectors, and had been tentatively rescheduled for September 2018.  G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 120 - 
 
  2.428.   The European Union clarified that the inspections and the ban  on Estonian fish processing 
plants had been in place since 2015, not 2016, as indicated by the Russian Federation.  
2.429.   In November 2018, the European Union reiterated its concerns regarding import restrictions 
on fisheries products from Estonia, highlighting that these measures were inconsistent with several 
provisions of the SPS Agreement as well as with the Russian Federation's WTO accession 
commitments. Estonia had held several bilateral discussions with the Russian Federation, without 
much progress. The Eu ropean Union welcomed the re -authorization for exports of one 
establishment, but regretted the continuous ban on every other establishment. The European Union 
welcomed the Russian Federation's acceptance earlier in the year to conduct another round of audi ts 
on Estonian establishments in 2018, but regretted that despite Estonian's efforts, no dates had been 
confirmed yet. The European Union urged the Russian Federation to repeal the measure, which was 
inconsistent with several provisions of the SPS Agreemen t. 
2.430.   The Russian Federation provided information on progress made, highlighting that 500 tonnes 
of fishery products had been exported from one establishment in Estonia and another in Latvia in 
2018. The Russian Federation further noted that it would discuss with Estonia conditions and dates 
of future inspection visits. Finally, the Russian Federation expressed its willingness to resolve this 
issue.  
Russian Federation import restrictions on certain animal products from Germany  
(STC  411)  
Raised by:  European Uni on 
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  June 2016 (G/SPS/R/83, paras. 4.7-4.8), October 2016 (G/SPS/R/84, 
paras. 3.38 -3.39) , March 2017 (G/SPS/R/86, paras. 3.25 -3.27), Jul y 
2017 (G/SPS/R/87, paras. 4.37 -4.38), November 2017 (G/SPS/R/88, 
paras. 3.43 -3.44) , March 2018 (G/SPS/R/90, paras. 3.20 -3.21), July 
2018 (G/SPS/R/92/Rev.1, paras. 4.62 -4.63), November 2018 
(G/SPS/R/93, paras. 3.58 -3.59)   
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/GEN/1216  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.431.   In June 2016, the European Union stated that since February 2013, the Russian Federation 
had introduced a complete ban on imports of fresh and chilled pig meat, beef and poultry meat from 
the entire territory of Germany, followed by a ban on imports of fin ished meat and milk products 
from three German federal states: Bavaria, Lower Saxony and North Rhine Westphalia. These import 
restrictions had been implemented due to claims by the Russian Federation that German veterinary 
services had not undertaken prope r controls on the exports of such products. The European Union 
noted that the restrictions were not based on scientific evidence or a risk assessment and were 
inconsistent with several provisions of the SPS Agreement. The European Union further indicated 
that in 2013 it had communicated its concerns with respect to these restrictions in its officially 
submitted comments on the notified Russian Federation measure, as well as in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1216. Continuous efforts had been made by German authorities t o address the issue, 
including conducting supervisory controls of the official veterinarians responsible for establishments 
listed for Russian export, and establishing an export coordination unit as a contact point for the 
Russian authorities and the priva te sector. Inspection visits had also been carried out by Russian 
authorities. Despite all efforts, the restrictions still remained in place. The European Union argued 
that there was no justification for the restrictions and requested the Russian Federatio n to promptly 
repeal these measures. The European Union indicated its willingness to engage in discussions with 
the Russian authorities.  
2.432.   The Russian Federation stated that more than 600 German processing plants producing 
animal products were authorized to export to the Russian Federation under the guarantees of the 
German competent authorities. However, more than 90% had never been inspected by Russian 
authorities. The Russian Federation observed that due to several factors, such as unfavourable G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 121 - 
 
  laboratory monitoring results, border control violations, and errors in the certification of animal 
products, the Russian authorities had arranged several audits of the processing plants and elements 
of the system, in order to ensure the safety of animal products exp orted from Germany. 
Inspections  had been carried out between 2012 and 2015, during which time several restrictions 
were imposed on imports to the Russian market from individual firms and some regions due to non -
compliance with Russian SPS requirements. The  Russian Federation noted that it subsequently 
implemented a ban, following the failure of all German states to  meet its SPS requirements. 
The Russian Federation indicated that although it had informed the German authorities of the 
recorded violations and requested appropriate measures be taken to prevent export of unsafe 
products to the Russian market, no proper response had been received from the German veterinarian 
authorities. The Russian Federation further expressed concerns with the reliability of the  guarantees 
of the German authorities, based on subsequent Russian inspections. Cooperation efforts between 
the Russian Federation and Germany had resulted in an update of the list of German exporting 
establishments, delisting more than 300 non -compliant p lants. In parallel, measures had been taken 
to resume imports from establishments which had addressed identified deficiencies and from plants 
previously subject to restrictions due to laboratory monitoring results. The Russian Federal Service 
for Surveilla nce on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbeing ( Rospotrebnadzor ) had been 
involved in the drafting of guidelines concerning inspection of German plants, in order to facilitate 
compliance with the Russian requirements. The Russian Federation further noted that consideration 
of the removal of the ban would be dependent on the implementation of the guidelines by the 
German Veterinary Services, submission of a document confirming the removal of deficiencies, and 
re-inspection by officials from the Rospot rebnadzor, taking into account other ongoing inspections. 
The Russian Federation emphasized that the upcoming work would heavily rely on collaboration 
between German and Russian authorities.  
2.433.   In October 2016, the European Union recalled that since February 2013, the Russian 
Federation had maintained a ban on imports of pig, beef and poultry meat from Germany, followed 
by a ban on imports of finished meat and milk products from three German federal states: Bavaria, 
Lower Saxony and North Rhine Westphalia. The se import restrictions had been implemented due to 
claims by the Russian Federation that German veterinary services had not undertaken proper 
controls on the exports of such products. The European Union reaffirmed that the restrictions were 
inconsistent wi th several provisions of the SPS Agreement. The European Union noted that the 
German and Russian authorities were working on the issue, and expressed hope that their discussion 
would result in positive developments. The European Union argued that there was  no justification 
for the restrictions and requested the Russian Federation to promptly repeal these measures. 
The European Union reaffirmed its willingness to engage in discussions with the Russian authorities.  
2.434.   The Russian Federation recalled that restric tions had been imposed on certain German 
export products following the results of inspections carried out between 2012 and 2015, which 
revealed non -compliance of these products with Russian SPS requirements. The safety guarantee 
for the importation of thes e products to the Russian Federation had not yet been confirmed. 
The Russian Federation recalled that its Rospotrebnadzor had been involved in developing a manual 
for inspections containing Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) requirements. The Russian Federatio n 
indicated that this manual had been sent to Germany for comments and expected further 
cooperation with the competent German authorities.  
2.435.   In March 2017, The European Union recalled that since 2013, the Russian Federation had 
maintained a ban on imports of  pig, beef and poultry meat from Germany, and a ban on imports of 
meat and milk products from three German federal states. These import restrictions had been 
implemented due to claims by the Russian Federation that German veterinary services had not 
undert aken proper controls on the exports of these products. The European Union (i) reaffirmed that 
the restrictions were inconsistent with several provisions of the SPS Agreement; (ii) regretted that, 
despite the work done by the German authorities, after four years the bans still remained in place; 
and (iii) urged the Russian Federation to repeal the measures. Finally, the European Union reaffirmed 
its willingness to cooperate with the Russian authorities.  
2.436.   The Russian Federation recalled that temporary restrict ions on supplies of livestock and dairy 
products from Germany were imposed following results of inspections in 2013 and 2015, which had 
revealed non -compliance with Russian SPS requirements. The Russian Federation announced that it 
was developing an instru ction on the compliance of inspections with the requirements of the Russian 
Federation and the Eurasian Economic Union.  G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 122 - 
 
  2.437.   The Russian Federation reported that the latest developments had been discussed by the 
Head of the Russian Rosselkhozdnadzor and the Sta te Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Food and 
Agriculture of Germany in January 2017 in Berlin, and during the visit of Mr. Helmut Brunner, 
Minister  of Food, Agriculture and Forestry of the Land of Bavaria to Moscow in March 2017. 
Following  those consul tations, technical consultations on the issue with representatives of the 
German Veterinary Services were scheduled for April 2017.  
2.438.   In July 2017, the European Union recalled that since 2013, the Russian Federation had 
maintained a ban on imports of pig, be ef and poultry meat from Germany, and a ban on imports of 
meat and milk products from three German federal states. The European Union (i) reiterated that 
the restrictions were inconsistent with several provisions of the SPS Agreement; (ii) regretted that 
despite the efforts made by the German authorities, the ban remained in place; and (iii) urged the 
Russian Federation to repeal these restrictions. The European Union welcomed further discussions 
with the Russian Federation to find a solution in a timely ma nner.  
2.439.   The Russian Federation recalled that the restrictions had been imposed following the 
detection of unsafe products through laboratory monitoring, border controls and inspections carried 
out in 2013 and 2015, highlighting systemic non -compliance. Foll owing the discussions in the 
SPS Committee and bilateral consultations, the parties agreed to introduce guidelines for the 
inspection of German establishments by the national competent authority, in order to comply with 
the regulations of the Eurasian Econ omic Union (EAEU) and of the Russian Federation. The Russian 
Federation reported on technical consultations held on 4 April 2017 in Moscow between the 
Rospotrebnadzor and the competent German authority. The Russian Federation remained convinced 
that these consultations would facilitate a harmonized approach to ensure the safety of the 
concerned products.  
2.440.   In November 2017, the European Union reiterated its concern regarding the Russian 
Federation's import ban on fresh and chilled pig meat, beef and poultry meat from the entire territory 
of Germany imposed in early 2013, and the subsequent ban on finished meat and milk products 
from three German Federal States. The European Union repeated its earlier statements on the 
inconsistency of the measure with the SPS  Agreement and expressed its disappointment that the 
ban remained in force despite efforts made by Germ any and the European Union. The  European 
Union urged the Russian Federation to repeal its measures without further delay.  
2.441.   The Russian Federation recalle d that the temporary import restriction stemmed from the 
detection of unsafe products and multiple mistakes in animal products certificates found during 2013 
and 2015 inspections, and their systemic nature. The Russian Federation also noted the agreement 
that Germany would implement guidelines to verify its compliance with the requirements of the 
Eurasian Economic Union and of the Russian Federation, and that draft guidelines were under review 
by both parties.  
2.442.   In Mach 2018, the European Union reiterated its  concerns regarding the Russian Federation's 
import ban on fresh and chilled pig meat, beef and poultry meat from the entire territory of Germany 
imposed in early 2013, and the subsequent ban on finished meat and milk products from three 
German Federal Sta tes. The European Union welcomed the recent developments, whereby the 
Russian Federation had lifted restrictions on three dairy plants. However, the European expressed 
its disappointment that the overall ban still remained in force, despite all efforts mad e by Germany 
and the European Union. The European Union repeated its previous statements on the inconsistency 
of the measure with the SPS Agreement, and also indicated that it viewed the request by the Russian 
Federation for a fourth round of inspections a s unreasonable. The European Union further noted that 
the inspection of individual establishments was neither efficient nor proportionate. Instead, a 
systems audit approach was more appropriate, in line with Codex guidelines. The European Union 
urged the R ussian Federation to repeal its measures without further delay.  
2.443.   The Russian Federation noted that there had been tangible progress since the last Committee 
meeting. In particular, restrictions on three dairy establishments had been lifted in January 2018, 
following the submission of information by Germany. The Russian Federation had also requested 
German authorities to provide information on state -run laboratory monitoring for three other 
establishments, and on laboratory control for another establishment. These requests were still 
pending.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 123 - 
 
  2.444.   In July 2018, the European Union reiterated its views regarding the inconsistency with the 
SPS Agreement of the restrictions imposed since 2013. The European Union expressed its 
appreciation for the Russian Federation's d ecision to lift the restrictions on three dairy plants in two 
German Federal States, and three more which had been recently announced. The European Union 
however regretted that bans remained in force despite the efforts made by Germany and the 
European Uni on, and further considered unreasonable the request by the Russian Federation for a 
fourth round of inspections. A systems audit approach following Codex guidelines would be more 
efficient and proportionate than the inspection of individual establishments.  The European Union 
requested the Russian Federation to repeal its measures without further delay.  
2.445.   The Russian Federation observed that at the time the restriction had been put in place, there 
had been 66 dairy plants and 28 meat plants authorised to expor t products to the Russian 
Federation. Following the inspections carried out by Germany, aimed at checking the conformity of 
those establishments with the relevant regulatory requirements of the Russian Federation and the 
Eurasian Economic Union, Germany ha d requested the delisting of 20 dairy plants and 20 meat 
plants. Therefore, 28 dairy plants and eight meat plants had remained on the list. In order to lift the 
restrictions from those reaming establishments, the Russian authorities had requested that the 
violations identified in those establishments be adequately addressed. Restrictions on three dairy 
plants had been lifted in January 2018, and on three more in July 2018, following the reception of 
complete information on corrective actions taken for those  establishments. Of the remaining 22 dairy 
plants, some information had been provided regarding eight establishments, with some missing 
information, while no information had been provided for the remaining 14. Concerning meat 
processing plants, of the eigh t establishments on the list, partial information had only been provided 
regarding two of them. The Russian Federation looked forward to receiving the pending information 
from Germany on the remaining establishments.  
2.446.   In November 2018, the European Union re iterated its concern over the Russian Federation's 
import restrictions on certain animal products from Germany imposed since 2013, highlighting that 
these measures were inconsistent with several provisions of the SPS Agreement. The European 
Union reported that six establishments had been re -authorized to export to the Russian Federation 
and hoped that the remaining plants would regain access to the Russian market soon. The European 
Union noted that interested establishments had already submitted relevant la boratory and inspection 
information to the Russian Federation. The European Union also clarified that several establishments, 
which had submitted relevant information, had renounced to export to the Russian Federation. 
Finally, the European Union urged the  Russian Federation to repeal its measures without further 
delay.  
2.447.   The Russian Federation confirmed that six German dairy plants had regained access to the 
Russian market, and would be able to export as soon as mutual economic sanctions would be lifted. 
The Russian Federation continued to review the list of eligible establishments, based on the 
information provided by the German competent authorities. The Russian Federation expressed its 
willingness to continue its cooperation with Germany to resolve this is sue. 
The Russian Federation's restrictions on beef and swine meat (G/SPS/N/RUS/145)  
(STC  445) 
Raised by:  Brazil  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  July 2018 (G/SPS/R/92/Rev.1, paras. 4.17 -4.18) 
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/N/RUS/145  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.448.   In July 2018, Brazil raised concerns on the Russian Federation's restrictions on beef and 
swine meat notified in G/SPS/N/RUS/145. Brazilian exports of swine and bovine meat to the Russian 
Federation had been suspended from 60 establishments since 1 Decembe r 2017, due to the alleged 
detection of ractopamine in shipments from four establishments. After the measure had been notified 
in 20 November 2017, Brazil opened an investigation and despite not identifying any non -conformity, 
it had increased its controls  on the four establishments. Brazil had further sent the Russian G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 124 - 
 
  Federation the reports with negative results for ractopamine from the four investigated 
establishments; evaluations of the segregation process in swine production; and reports on 
increased of ficial and private controls and laboratory tests. Brazil added that Russian authorities had 
been invited to Brazil to visit local producers, and that it had radically revised its legislation on the 
use of hormones as growth promoters. The use of ractopamin e in breeding cattle was prohibited. 
Therefore, Brazil argued that there was no basis to restrict the import of bovine meat by the Russian 
Federation. Regarding the production of swine meat, Brazil noted that the segregation system had 
been implemented, an d had been providing ractopamine -free meat exports to the Russian 
Federation since 2013. Brazil regretted that despite dialogue with the Russian Federation, it had 
been impossible to establish effective measures to return to a normal trade flow. Brazil rea ffirmed 
its commitment to establishing control systems and processes that guaranteed the compliance and 
fulfilment of sanitary requirements of Brazilian meat products exported to the Russian Federation 
and all other markets.  
2.449.   The Russian Federation expresse d its willingness to resolve this issue with Brazil. 
The Russian Federation explained that the food and safety regulations of the Russian Federation and 
the Eurasian Economic Union allowed no residues of ractopamine in meat or meat products. In this 
contex t, an arrangement had been made between the Russian Federation and Brazil, establishing 
that the Brazilian Secretariat of Animal and Plant Health would check each batch of meat products 
to ensure that no ractopamine residues were present in products for ex port to the Russian 
Federation. In November 2017, the Russian Federal Service for Veterinary and Phytosanitary 
Surveillance informed the Brazilian Secretariat for Animal and Plant Health that ractopamine had 
been detected in meat products originating from Brazil, and due to a lack of remedial actions by 
Brazil, the Russian Federation had suspended imports of meat products from Brazil. The Russian 
Federation had not received sufficient assurances that the causes of this situation had been 
investigated and fu rther recurrences ruled out, and in particular, the source of ractopamine in meat 
products destined for the Russian Federation had been not identified.  
The Russian Federation's bluetongue -related import restriction on ruminants  (STC 449 ) 
Raised by:  Europea n Union  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  November 2018 (G/SPS/R/93, paras. 3.11 -3.12) 
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/N/RUS/145  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.450.   I In November 2018, the European Union raised its concern regarding the Russian 
Federation's import restriction in relation to bluetongue. The European Union explained that several 
years ago, the Russian Federation had banned imports of all susceptible live animals and their 
genetic material from the areas affected by the disease, following the notification of outbreaks in 
limited areas of the European Union. In response to the Russian Federation's notification of these 
measures in 2014 and 2016, the European  Union had expressed in writing, and through bilateral 
exchanges, its view that the measures were not in line with Chapter 8.3 of the OIE Terrestrial Code. 
The European Union underscored that the OIE recommendations indicated that the export of 
susceptible  animals and their genetic material from areas affected by the disease should be allowed 
under certain conditions, such as vaccination, laboratory testing or protection of animals from 
vectors in vector -protected establishments. These conditions were also reflected in the relevant 
veterinary export certificates agreed between the European Union and the Russian Federation. 
However, this arrangement was not being respected, and despite its repeated requests, the Russian 
Federation had not provided the scienti fic justification for its measures. The European Union urged 
the Russian Federation to bring its measures in line with the international standards, and allow the 
resumption of trade in ruminants and their genetic material without further delay.  
2.451.   The Russian  Federation explained that bluetongue was a wide -spread, dangerous viral 
disease of small ruminants and cattle, notifiable to the OIE, which had become established in 
Western Europe. Five Mediterranean countries had declared themselves as endemic. The Russ ian 
Federation underscored its interest in the regular import of breeding cattle and small ruminants, and 
maintaining trade links with its traditional partners in the European Union. In this regard, appropriate G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 125 - 
 
  measures had been taken during the bluetongue  outbreak in the European Union, in order not to 
completely stop the mutually beneficial trade in live animals. These measures had included the 
signing of the veterinary certificates agreed by the European Union and the Russian Federation, 
recognition and regular update of the bluetongue -free zone, as well as close contact between 
research institutes and veterinary services of the Russian Federation and the European Union, which 
had to date ensured safe supplies of live animals from individual farms. This a pproach had proven 
successful, as trade had been maintained at a high level, and the Russian Federation had also 
remained free from bluetongue. The Russian Federation further noted that from 1 October 2016 to 
31 December 2020, import and marketing of breed ing cattle, breeding pigs, sheep and goats, horses, 
poultry, eggs and semen, and embryos thereof were exempted from value -added tax in the Russian 
Federation. The Russian Federation indicated that it was taking the necessary steps to update its 
veterinary legislation in light of the current epidemic risks and economic interests of Russian 
importers. In this regard, the draft regulation from the Ministry of Agriculture on bluetongue spread, 
which was currently being reviewed, was destined to eliminate curren t contradictions between the 
veterinary certificate and the domestic legislation. The Russian Federation called for the European 
Union's understanding, and for continued constructive work in the prevention of the spread of 
bluetongue in Europe.  
2.13.2   Animal Heal th 
Russia's measures on live pigs and pork products due to African Swine Fever  (STC 369)  
Raised by:  European Union  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  March 2014 (G/SPS/R/74, paras. 3.3 -3.4) 
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/GEN/1305, G/SPS/GEN/1313, G/SPS/GEN/1315,  
G/SPS/N/RUS/48, G/SPS/N/RUS/49  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:  DSU consultations requested on 8  April 2014 (WT/DS475/1). Panel 
established on 22  July 2014. Appellate Body report (WT/DS475/AB/R) 
and Panel report (WT/DS475/R and WT/DS475/R /Add.1) adopted on 
21 March 2017. Matter referred to 22.6 arbitration on 3 January 2018. 
The DSB established a compliance panel (Art. 21.5) on 5 December 
2018 (WT/DS475/22). Compliance panel proceedings ongoing.  
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.452.   In March 2014, the European Union raised concerns regarding measures taken by Russia in 
response to the finding of African swine fever (ASF) virus in four wild boar in two EU member States: 
Lithuania and Poland (G/SPS/GEN/1305 and G/SPS/GEN/1313). The Euro pean Union had 
immediately delimited the affected areas and imposed stringent control measures. However, Russia 
had banned imports of live pigs, pork and certain other products from the entire EU territory, not 
just from the affected regions. Russia's clai m that it was concerned about the spread of the disease 
into its own territory was unfounded as ASF was widespread in Russia. The disease was present in 
both wild boar and domestic pig populations in Russia, as Russia had taken insufficient measures to 
prevent the spread of ASF virus. Scientific studies showed that the virus found in Lithuania and 
Poland originated in Russia. The European Union thus contended that Russia's measure was 
disproportionate, more trade restrictive than necessary and discriminator y, and urged Russia to 
bring its measures in line with its WTO obligations and with international standards.  
2.453.   Russia noted that ASF had inflicted significant damage on the Russian economy since the 
first outbreak was confirmed in 2008. After this outbreak a nd much mortality among susceptible 
animals, a special commission was established in 2013 for the prevention and eradication of ASF. 
During this period, Russia had kept all trading partners fully informed on possible vectors of spread, 
and had requested th at the European Union consolidate its efforts for ASF control. Apparently the 
European Union had underestimated the degree of the threat. Russia stressed that it imposed 
temporary restrictions on the importation of live pigs and pig products not subjected to adequate 
heat treatment only from those countries that had made relevant notifications to the OIE (Poland 
and Lithuania), not other EU member States. However, Russia insisted on EU compliance with the 
requirements of the veterinary certificates agreed i n December 2012. These required certification 
that no cases of ASF had been found during the last 36 months within the territory of an EU member G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 126 - 
 
  State (excluding Sardinia). There were currently insufficient guarantees that a zone or compartment 
had been ef fectively established and that the movement of goods within the EU territory was fully 
controlled. Furthermore, this was not a matter that could only be resolved without the involvement 
of the other members of the Eurasian Economic Community: Belarus and K azakhstan. See also 
G/SPS/GEN/1315.  
2.454.   In accordance with the provisions of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing 
the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), the European Union requested consultations with Russia on 8  April 
2014 (WT/DS475/1). The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established a panel on 22 July 2014 
(WT/DS475/3). The panel report was issued on 19 August 2016 (WT/DS475/R). The appellate body 
report was issued on 23 February 2017 (WT/DS475/AB/R). The European Union requested the 
authorization to suspend concessions pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU. The Russian Federation 
objected to the level of suspension of concessions and referred the matter to arbitration pursuant to 
Article 22.6 of the DSU on 19 July 2016 (WT/DS430/17). Article 21.5 consul tations requested on 
30 January 2018 (by Russian Federation) and 7 February 2018 (by European Union). The European 
Union requested the establishment of a compliance panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU on 
18 October 2018 (WT/DS475/21). The DSB establi shed a compliance panel (Art. 21.5) on 
5 December 2018 (WT/DS475/22).  
2.14  Saudi Arabia, Ki ngdom of  
2.14.1   Animal Health  
Saudi Arabia's temporary ban on the importation of fish, crustaceans and other aquatic 
animal products  (STC 437 ) 
Raised by:  Viet Nam  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  March 2018 (G/SPS/R/90, paras. 3.8 -3.9) 
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/N/SAU/336  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.455.   In March 2018, Viet Nam raised a concern over Saudi Arabia's temporary ban on the 
importation of fish, crustaceans and other aquatic animal products, which had been notified as an 
emergency measure in document G/SPS/N/SAU/336 on 30 January 2018. Viet Nam n oted that the 
Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) had imposed the ban on the basis of the Quarterly Aquatic 
Animal Disease Report (Asia -Pacific Region, April – June 2017) and on an inspection visit in 
December 2017, in relation to white spot disease (WSD)  and acute hepatopancreatic necrosis 
disease (AHPND). Viet Nam stated that the inspection visit had been limited to a few establishments, 
and not to the entire fishery safety control system, which it viewed as inconsistent with Codex 
standards. In addition , the inspection report had not been sent to Viet Nam for consultation ahead 
of the imposition of the ban, which Viet Nam argued was not in line with international practices. 
Viet Nam further highlighted some inconsistencies in the information provided in Saudi Arabia's 
notification, and emphasized that the ban was more trade restrictive than necessary, and was 
inconsistent with several provisions of the SPS Agreement. Viet Nam observed that WSD also 
occurred in Saudi Arabia. It had further requested inform ation on Saudi Arabia's WSD -free status 
for shrimp; however, no response had been received as yet. Viet Nam stated that there was no risk 
posed by highly processed or cooked shrimp products and that these products were considered safe 
in commerce by the OI E. Viet Nam further indicated that both diseases had been well controlled in 
Viet Nam for several years, and therefore urged Saudi Arabia to lift its temporary ban. Finally, 
Viet Nam expressed its willingness to resolve the issue in a cooperative manner.  
2.456.   Saudi Arabia stated that the temporary ban on the importation of fish, crustaceans and other 
aquatic animal products from Viet Nam had been imposed as a precautionary measure. Saudi Arabia 
highlighted that it had taken this measure on the basis of Section 4.15 of the Guidelines for Food 
Import Control Systems (GSO/CAC/GL 47:2007), as well as the mission report and 
recommendations from the technical team which had visited Viet Nam. Saudi Arabia further outlined G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 127 - 
 
  several discrepancies which had been found duri ng the technical visit to Viet Nam. Finally, 
Saudi  Arabia indicated its willingness to engage in bilateral discussions to resolve the issue.  
South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza  
(STC 431 ) 
Raised by:  European Union  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  November 2017 (G/SPS/R/88, paras. 3.11 -3.12; See also STC 385, 
STC 406), March 2018 (G/SPS/R/90, paras. 3.52 -3.53), July 2018 
(G/SPS/R/92/Rev.1, paras. 4.51 -4.52), November 2018 (G/SPS/R/93, 
paras. 3.66 -3.67)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.457.   In November 2017, the European Union raised concerns over country -wide bans on imports 
of poultry products from several EU member States due to HPAI, despite most of them have been 
recognized as free from HPAI for months. The European Union explained that South Africa's decision 
not to accept HPAI zoning even after it had received relevant evidence disregarded the 
regionalization obligation under the SP S Agreement. The European Union noted that this situation 
has significant impacts on EU trade of poultry to South Africa. The European Union highlighted its 
bilateral engagement with South Africa, including a study visit to the European Union in 2016.  
2.458.   South Africa acknowledged past discussions with the European Union and the visit to 
understand the EU regionalization mechanism that took place in 2016. South Africa however 
expressed concerns regarding the effectiveness of the control and preventive measures in the 
European Union, and noted it would have another visit to assess these controls.  
2.459.   In March 2018, the European Union reiterated concerns over country -wide bans on imports 
of poultry products from several EU member States due to HPAI, despite all but on e of them having 
been recognized as free from HPAI for months. The European Union recalled the OIE standard which 
stated that HPAI -related trade restrictive measures could be lifted after the application of a stamping 
out policy. This stamping out policy h ad been implemented in the affected areas of the European 
Union, and all trading partners, including South Africa, had been informed of this and other 
developments. The European Union explained that South Africa's decision not to accept HPAI zoning 
even af ter receiving relevant evidence disregarded the international standard and regionalization 
obligation under the SPS Agreement. The European Union indicated its bilateral engagement with 
South Africa, including an audit visit to three EU member States, and further urged South Africa to 
lift the country -wide bans without delay.  
2.460.   South Africa repeated its concerns regarding the effectiveness of HPAI -related control and 
preventive measures in the European Union. South Africa indicated its commitment to conduct 
inspection missions to EU member States, in order to evaluate the control measures and to ensure 
that no risk would be posed in poultry trade. South Africa further informed the Committee that its 
inspectors were currently in Spain, after having visited Hung ary and Poland, following which the 
outcome of these visits would be communicated to the European Union.  
2.461.   In July 2018, the European Union regretted to report that South Africa still did not apply 
regionalization, and maintained country -wide bans on imports  of poultry products from several 
EU members States due to HPAI. The European Union stressed that all but one of the EU member 
States concerned had been recognized as free from HPAI for months; that OIE standards stated that 
HPAI-related trade restrictive measures could be lifted three months after the whole country, or part 
of it, regained freedom of HPAI, following the application of a stamping -out policy; and that OIE 
requirements had been strictly applied by the European Union. The European Union furthe r reported 
that South Africa had audited three EU member States: Spain, Poland and Hungary. The European 
Union also stressed that the HPAI outbreak in the European Union had been the result of the 
movement of migratory birds, and not the result of internat ional trade in poultry products. Finally, 
the European Union urged South Africa to lift the remaining country -wide bans to EU member States.  G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 128 - 
 
  2.462.   South Africa repeated its concerns on the effectiveness of HPAI -related controls and 
preventive measures in the Eur opean Union. Preliminary inspections had been conducted in Hungary, 
Poland and Spain, and reports had been sent to each country, requesting factual corrections and 
additional information. The inspections had shown differences in the implementation of OIE 
standards by EU members States. Finally, South Africa informed the Committee that it was 
considering ways to progress with the remaining EU member countries still affected by trade bans.  
2.463.   In November 2018, the European Union regretted to report that South Af rica still did not 
apply regionalization, and maintained country -wide bans on imports of poultry products from several 
EU members States due to HPAI. The European Union stressed that these restricted and unjustified 
measures had been maintained by South Af rica despite the fact that EU member States affected by 
the bans had been recognized as free from HPAI for months; that OIE standards stated that HPAI -
related trade restrictive measures could be lifted three months after the whole country, or part of it, 
regained freedom of HPAI, following the application of a stamping -out policy; and that OIE 
requirements had been strictly applied by the European Union. The European Union considered these 
measures to be in contradiction to Article 6 of the SPS Agreement, w hich required recognition of the 
concept of disease free areas. The European Union reported that South Africa had audited three 
EU member States and was aware that the HPAI outbreak in the European Union had resulted from 
the movement of migratory birds, a nd not the result of international trade in poultry products. The 
European Union further had explained its control measures and regionalization system in bilateral 
discussions with South Africa. The European Union expressed its willingness to further discu ss any 
necessary guarantee to minimize the disruption of trade in future outbreaks, in line with OIE Code. 
Finally, the European Union urged South Africa to respect its obligations and allow trade in all poultry 
products from the disease -free zones without  any further delay.  
2.464.   South Africa repeated its concerns on the effectiveness of HPAI -related controls and 
preventive measures in the European Union. Preliminary inspections had been conducted in Hungary, 
Poland and Spain and reports would be sent. South Afr ica also reported that it had engaged in 
bilateral discussions with the European Commission in Johannesburg on 9 -10 October 2018. 
South  Africa highlighted that it had never doubted the EU legislation on the control of HPAI. However, 
the inspections had sho wn differences in the implementation of the legislation by EU members 
States. Furthermore, South Africa noted that in some parts the EU legislation was not equivalent to 
OIE guidelines. Finally, South Africa informed the Committee that it was considering d ifferent options 
to facilitate the evaluation of HPAI control implemented in the European Union, once freedom was 
declared.  
2.15  Chinese Taipei  
2.15.1   Animal Health  
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  
2.465.   See paragraphs 2.529. -2.599 . 
2.16  Thailand  
2.16.1   Plant Health  
Thailand's import restriction on papaya seeds  (STC 421)  
Raised by:  Chinese Taipei  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  March 2017 (G/SPS/R/86, paras. 9.5 -9.7), Jul y 2017 (G/SPS/R/87, 
paras. 4.14 -4.16), Novembe r 2017 (G/SPS/R/88, paras. 3.32 -3.33) , 
March 2018 (G/SPS/R/90, paras. 3.41 -3.42), July 2018 
(G/SPS/R/92/Rev.1, paras. 3.48 -3.49), November 2018 (G/SPS/R/93, 
paras. 3.72 -3.73)  
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/N/THA/158  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 129 - 
 
  Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.466.   In March 2017, Chinese Taipei referred to Thailand's import restrictions on papaya seeds. 
It observed that although a risk assessment had been conducted 9 years ago, and despite repeated 
requests, no proper response had been received from Thailand. Prior to 2008, papaya seeds ha d 
been exported to Thailand. Chinese Taipei observed that Thailand itself did not attribute the ban on 
papaya seeds to any pest issue in Chinese Taipei, but was simply the result of a regulatory 
amendment in 2007. Thailand had requested detailed informatio n for conducting a risk assessment 
prior to reopening its market. However, Chinese Taipei argued that this approach was inconsistent 
with IPPC ISPM No.  2 Framework for Pest Risk Analysis.  
2.467.   Chinese Taipei had provided detailed historical records of trade, as  well as a pest list, in 
response to Thailand's request in April 2008. Additional data on papaya seed varieties had also been 
requested in June 2010 and promptly provided. Since then, Chinese Taipei had sought on multiple 
occasions an update on the progres s of the risk assessment, without substantive response. In March 
2016, Thailand further requested supplementary information on three kinds of pests with a risk of 
being spread by the papaya seed trade: Candidatus phytoplasma solani, Tobacco ringspot virus and 
Tomato spotted wilt virus. In response, Chinese Taipei had provided in August 2016 scientific 
evidence showing that there was no record of these pests being spread through the trade of papaya 
seed, and that these pests had never been found in papaya se eds in its territory. Discussions had 
taken place on the margins of the SPS Committee and Chinese Taipei indicated that the dossiers of 
scientific evidence, requested in October 2017, had now been received and would be reviewed by 
Chinese Taipei's experts,  following which feedback would shortly be provided to Thailand's 
competent authority. Chinese Taipei also indicated that it looked forward to receiving the import 
protocols.  
2.468.   Chinese Taipei underscored its efforts to provide the relevant information in a t imely manner 
and urged Thailand to move forward or to provide proper scientific justification, arguing that 
Thailand's restrictions were inconsistent with Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the SPS Agreement, as well as 
Article 7.2 of the International Plant Protectio n Convention. Chinese Taipei encouraged Thailand to 
comply with its WTO commitments, in particular Articles 5.6 and 5.8 of the SPS  Agreement, and to 
re-open its market to papaya seeds without further undue delay.  
2.469.   In July 2017, Chinese Taipei referred to Th ailand's import restrictions on papaya seeds. 
Although a risk assessment had been conducted nine years ago, and despite repeated requests, no 
proper response had been received from Thailand. Prior to 2008, papaya seeds had been exported 
to Thailand. Chines e Taipei observed that Thailand itself did not attribute the ban on papaya seeds 
to any pest issue in Chinese Taipei; it was the result of a regulat ory amendment in 2007. 
Thailand  had requested detailed information for conducting a risk assessment prior to  reopening its 
market, but Chinese Taipei argued that this approach was inconsistent with IPPC ISPM No. 2 
Framework for Pest Risk Analysis. Chinese Taipei had provided detailed historical records of trade, 
as well as a pest list, in response to Thailand's request in April 2008. Additional data on papaya seed 
varieties had also been requested in June 2010 and promptl y provided. Since then, Chinese  Taipei 
had sought an update on the progress of the risk assessment on multiple occasions, without 
substantive re sponse.  
2.470.   Chinese Taipei also indicated that, after introducing the concern under the agenda item 
"Other Business" at the March 2017 SPS Committee meeting, Thailand had said that papaya seeds 
risked the spread of the pests Candidatus phytoplasma solani and T obacco ringspot virus (TRSV). 
In July 2017, Thailand had indicated that it would remove Candidatus phytoplasma solani from its 
quarantine pest list and that it would further discuss its proposed risk mitigation measures for TRSV. 
Finally, Chinese Taipei ur ged Thailand to promulgate the import protocol for its papaya seeds, and 
insisted that the current import restriction was inconsistent with several provisions of the 
SPS Agreement and the IPPC.  
2.471.   Thailand drew attention to notification G/SPS/N/THA/158 of 200 7, according to which 
prohibited products could only be imported after the completion of their pest risk analysis, providing 
an exemption to allow existing commodities' trade to continue until their pest risk analysis was 
completed. For the exemption to ap ply, however, the NPPO of the exporting country had to submit 
an import request with evidence of previous imports, which in the case of Chinese Taipei did not G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 130 - 
 
  include papaya seeds. Thailand added that it had conducted a pest risk analysis for papaya seeds as 
a new commodity and had finalized its quarantine pest list, as communicated to Chinese Taipei's 
Department of Agriculture. Thailand announced that it was in the process of drafting the import 
protocol for papaya seeds, to be sent for approval by its Qua rantine Technical Subcommittee. 
Thailand finally expressed its willingness to work closely on this matter with Chinese Taipei.  
2.472.   In November 2017, Chinese Taipei reiterated its concern on Thailand's import restriction on 
papaya seeds imposed since 2008. Chi nese Taipei reported that it was currently reviewing Thailand's 
draft quarantine requirements for its papaya seeds. Chinese Taipei confirmed that the exported 
papaya seed was free from tobacco ringspot virus (TRSV) and urged Thailand to lift the import 
restriction and comply with its WTO obligations.  
2.473.   Thailand explained that the reason for the initial ban on the import of papaya seeds from 
Chinese Taipei was due to a regulatory amendment. An exemption was granted to existing traded 
commodities, but Chinese Taipei's request to include papaya seeds in the exemption was received 
only after the time -frame. Therefore, it faced a delay in its market access. Thailand added that the 
draft import protocol for papaya seeds had been approved by its Quarantine Technical  
Subcommittee. If it was accepted by Chinese Taipei, it would be submitted to Thailand's Pest 
Quarantine Committee for final approval to resume imports of papaya seeds from Chinese Taipei.  
2.474.   In March 2018, Chinese Taipei reiterated its concern regarding Thai land's import restriction 
on papaya seeds imposed since 2008. Chinese Taipei reported that it had reviewed Thailand's draft 
quarantine requirements for its papaya seeds and had submitted comments in January 2018, where 
it had indicated that the different m odes of transportation had no effect on the pest risk of its papaya 
seeds. Chinese Taipei noted that it had proven that its measures could effectively control any risks 
relating to tobacco ringspot virus (TRSV) and further indicated that its exports of pap aya seeds had 
never been intercepted or invaded by any pests. Chinese Taipei urged Thailand to lift the import 
restriction and comply with its WTO obligations.  
2.475.   Thailand responded that it had held several bilateral meetings with Chinese Taipei and that 
a draft import protocol, based on the available scientific information, had been submitted to Chinese 
Taipei in the last bilateral meeting. However, an agreement on the import protocol had not yet been 
reached. Thailand expressed its willingness to continue wo rking with Chinese Taipei for the mutual 
resolution of this concern.  
2.476.   In July 2018, Chinese Taipei reiterated its concern regarding Thailand's import restriction on 
papaya seeds imposed since 2008. Chinese Taipei expressed appreciation to Thailand for the o n-site 
visit by an expert delegation in May 2018. However, Chinese Taipei regretted that the issue had not 
been resolved, and urged Thailand to comply with Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the SPS Agreement and 
Article 7.2 of the International Plant Protection Conve ntion and to finalise the legislative process to 
grant access to its papaya seeds as soon as possible.  
2.477.   Thailand reported on the progress made to resolve this issue, including a draft import 
protocol that had been agreed to by both sides and an on -site insp ection in Chinese Taipei. 
Thailand  added that it would propose the draft import protocol to the Committee on Plant Quarantine 
for approval, after which it would notify the measure to allow the importation of papaya seeds from 
Chinese Taipei.  
2.478.   In November 20 18, Chinese Taipei reiterated its concern regarding Thailand's import 
restriction on papaya seeds imposed since 2008. Chinese Taipei expressed appreciation to Thailand 
for the proposal to submit the import protocol to the Committee on Plant Quarantine for approval. 
However, Chinese Taipei regretted that the final report had not been published and requested 
Thailand to adopt the final import protocol and ensure market access for its papaya seeds in 
Thailand.  
2.479.   Thailand welcomed the opportunity to provide clarifications on the concern raised by Chinese 
Taipei and stressed that the issue remained unsolved because Chinese Taipei failed to submit the 
request for export of papaya seeds under the transitory provision of the regulatory amendment. 
Thailand explain ed that during this transitory time all its trading partners, including Chinese Taipei, 
were informed to submit the request to apply the import exemption under the transitory provision. 
Thailand expressed its commitment to solve Chinese Taipei's concern.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 131 - 
 
  2.16.2   Other Concerns  
Thailand's import fees related to approval procedures for live animals and/or animal 
products (G/SPS/N/THA/243)  (STC 451)  
Raised by:  United States  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  November 2018 (G/SPS/R/93, paras. 3.18 -3.19) 
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/N/THA/243  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.480.   In November 2019, the United States raised concerns regarding Thailand's food safety 
inspection fees, in the form of import permit fees on all shipments of uncooked meat, poultry and 
meat offal. The United States indicated that these fees, which had the sa me objective of preventing 
the spread of animal diseases as the corresponding domestic slaughtering fees for the same 
products, were significantly higher than the domestic fees, and appeared disproportionate to the 
cost of services rendered. The United Sta tes noted that despite several bilateral meetings held over 
a number of years, Thailand had still not provided a justification for the disparity between the two 
sets of fees. The United States underscored the obligation under Annex C, that any fees charged  for 
the procedures on imported products be equitable in relation to those on like domestic products, 
and be no higher than the actual cost of the service. The United States argued that the higher fees 
acted as a disguised restriction on US exports, and re quested Thailand to ensure that the fees levied 
on imported products were the same as those levied on domestic products.  
2.481.   Thailand highlighted the right of Members, as embodied in Article 2.1, to take SPS measures 
as necessary to protect human, animal or pl ant life or health. Thailand explained that, in order to 
protect human and animal health, it was necessary to charge import inspection fees for both animal 
products and live animals of all species. These fees were set at the rate defined in the Ministerial  
Regulation under the Animal Epidemic Act. Thailand clarified that the fees covered the operational 
expenses related to the cost of food safety and veterinary inspection services, which were necessary 
to ensure that the products were free from microbial, b iological and chemical hazards, as well as 
animal pathogens. Thailand underscored that no special or differential treatment was granted to any 
individual trading partner. Unlike for imported animal products, the inspection service fees for 
domestic product s were charged to domestic business operators along each step of the food 
production chain. This was done to ensure that the products complied with national legislation and 
were safe for consumers. Thailand argued that the combined cost of the fees charged  at each step 
which domestic producers had to bear was higher than the import inspection fee. For this reason, 
Thailand indicated that its approach complied with Annex C(1)(f) of the SPS Agreement.  
2.17  Ukraine  
2.17.1   Animal Health  
Ukraine import restrictions on poult ry and poultry products  (STC 315)  
Raised by:  Mexico  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  March 2011 (G/SPS/R/62, paras. 32 -34), July 2018 (G/SPS/R/92, 
paras. 4.95 -4.96)  
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/N/UKR/54  
Status:  Resolved  
Solution:  Mexico announced that its concern regarding STC 315 was resolved.  
Date reported as 
resolved:  12 July 2018  
 
2.482.   In March 2011, Mexico expressed concerns with Ukraine's emergency notification regarding 
the reappearance of Newcastle Disease (G/SPS/N/UKR/54), and  noted that Mexico timeously G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 132 - 
 
  provided reports on new outbreaks. Mexico asked Ukraine to modify its measures and apply the 
concept of regionalisation  
2.483.   Ukraine indicated that Ukraine's decision had been taken in light of information from the 
OIE, according to  which Mexico had reported the disease without compartmentalisation in 2010. 
Hence the principle of regionalisation was not relevant in this case. However, Ukraine was open to 
discussing the issue bilaterally.  
2.484.   The OIE indicated that the OIE did not recogni ze Newcastle Disease -freedom in the same 
way that it recognized Foot and Mouth Disease -freedom, and the best way to demonstrate freedom 
from Newcastle Disease was to indicate that a country was in full compliance with the relevant OIE 
Code chapters. The OI E would be happy to help resolve this matter using its informal mediation 
mechanism.  
2.485.   In July 2018, Mexico announced that its concern regarding STC 315 on Ukraine's import 
restrictions on poultry and poultry products was now resolved. Mexico expressed its g ratitude to 
Ukraine.  
2.486.   Ukraine indicated that it had held constructive discussions with Mexico and confirmed that 
the issue was resolved.  
2.18  United States of America  
2.18.1   Animal Health  
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  
2.487.   See paragraphs 2.529. -2.599 . 
2.18.2   Plant Health  
US import restrictions on apples and pears  (STC 439 ) 
Raised by:  European Union  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  March 2018 (G/SPS/R/90, paras. 3.13 -3.14), July 2018 
(G/SPS/R/92/Rev.1, paras. 4.36 -4.37), November 2018 (G/SPS/R93, 
paras. 3.74 -3.75)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.488.   I In March 2018, the European Union raised a concern regarding the US import restrictions 
on apples and pears, explaining that for many years it had market  access to the United States 
through a pre -clearance inspection system. However, very limited EU exports had taken place due 
to the costly nature of the pre -clearance system. As an alternative, the European Union had applied 
in 2008 to export apples and pe ars to the United States under a systems approach. Despite finalizing 
the scientific and technical work in 2014, there had been lengthy delays in the US approval 
procedure. The European Union indicated that the last administrative step, which was to publis h the 
final rule, had been put on hold by the United States, resulting in blocked trade of apples and pears 
from the European Union. The European Union noted that this was inconsistent with the 
SPS Agreement, particularly in relation to avoiding undue dela ys in approval procedures. 
The European Union urged the United States to respect its SPS obligations and to allow the 
immediate start of trade of apples and pears under a systems approach.  
2.489.   The United States indicated that there had been considerable progre ss on the several 
requests from the European Union to establish and expand access for its apple and pear exports to 
the US market. In 2010, seven EU member States (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 133 - 
 
  Portugal and Spain) had requested access to th e US market using a systems approach and an 
additional request had been submitted by Poland in 2014. The United States explained that the 
USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) had published a proposed rule in 2016 to 
authorize imports of apples and pears from eight EU member States under a systems approach that 
minimized pest risk. Comments received from the public on the proposed rule were currently being 
evaluated, following which the final rule would be published. The United States indi cated that it had 
been responsive to the EU requests, as it had conducted site visit audits of apple and pear production 
sites in four of the eight EU member States, in addition to finalizing the work plan. The United States 
further explained that both of these activities were normally conducted only after the publication of 
the final rule. The United States noted that it would continue to provide regular updates to the 
European Union and its member States on the status of the rulemaking process.  
2.490.   In July 20 18, the European Union reiterated its concern regarding the US import restrictions 
on apples and pears, and regretted that it had not received confirmation on the final phase of the 
applications of eight EU member States to export apples and pears to the U nited States under a 
systems approach, despite many years of joint technical work. The European Union added that in 
practice the US pre -clearance system hindered EU exports, as demonstrated by the limited volumes 
exported from the European Union to the Uni ted States. As an alternative, in 2008 the European 
Union had applied to export apples and pears to the United States under a systems approach, to 
replace the pre -clearance system. The last administrative step towards the adoption of the final rule 
by the US Administration had been pending for over one year without scientific justification, which 
was inconsistent with the SPS Agreement, particularly in relation to avoiding undue delays in 
approval procedures. The European Union requested the United States t o respect its obligations and 
to allow trade of apples and pears to start immediately under the agreed systems approach 
conditions, to immediately publish the final rule, and to communicate to the European Union the 
planned date for adoption.  
2.491.   The United St ates highlighted the considerable progress made on several requests by the 
European Union to establish and expand access for EU apple and pear exports to the US market. 
The United States explained that the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (A PHIS) had 
published a proposed rule in 2016 to authorize imports of apples and pears from eight EU member 
States (Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Netherlands, Portugal, Belgium and Poland) under a systems 
approach that minimized pest risk; and that in 2017,  it had conducted a site visit to several of the 
EU members States included in the proposed rule. The United States had worked with the European 
Commission and interested members States to finalize the work plan to implement the regulatory 
changes in the p roposed rule, and hoped that USDA APHIS would publish the final rule soon. Finally, 
the United States highlighted that EU exports of apples and pears to the United States had exhibited 
a rising trend since 2012.  
2.492.   In November 2018, the European Union reitera ted its concern regarding the US import 
restrictions on apples and pears under the systems approach and regretted that the United States 
had not provided a solution to this matter. The European Union recalled that since 2007 the European 
Union had been abl e to export apples and pears to the United States under the pre -clearance system. 
The European Union further explained that in practice, the US pre -clearance system hindered 
EU exports, as demonstrated by the limited volumes exported from the European Unio n to the United 
States. The quantity had even further decreased in recent years. As an alternative, in 2008 the 
European Union had applied to export apples and pears to the United States under a systems 
approach, to replace the pre -clearance system. The Eu ropean Union noted that preparatory work 
had been finalized in a satisfactory manner, addressing phytosanitary concerns. However, the last 
administrative step towards the adoption of the final rule by the US Administration had been pending 
for over one yea r without scientific justification, which was inconsistent with the SPS Agreement, 
particularly in relation to avoiding undue delays in approval procedures. The European Union 
underscored that there were no phytosanitary justifications for postponing the p ublication of the 
final rule. Furthermore, the European Union noted that the United States had not provided details 
on the timing for the publication of this rule. The European Union requested the United States to 
respect its obligations and to allow trade  in apples and pears to start immediately under the agreed 
systems approach conditions and to immediately publish the final rule. The European Union 
reiterated its willingness to continue to work with the United States to find a solution on this matter.  
2.493.   The United States highlighted the considerable progress made on several requests by the 
European Union to establish and expand access for EU apple and pear exports to the US market. 
The United States explained that the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection  Service (APHIS) had G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 134 - 
 
  published a proposed rule in 2016 to authorize imports of apples and pears from eight EU member 
States (Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Netherlands, Portugal, Belgium and Poland) under a systems 
approach that minimized pest risk; and th at in 2017, it had conducted a site visit to several of the 
EU members States included in the proposed rule. The United States had worked with the European 
Commission and interested member States to finalize the work plan to implement the regulatory 
change s in the proposed rule, and hoped that USDA APHIS would publish the final rule soon. 
The United States also reported that since 2013, exports of pears and apples from the United States 
to the European Union had continued to increase. Finally, the United States highlighted its 
commitment to transparency.  
2.18.3   Other Concerns  
US seafood import monitoring programme (STC 415)  
Raised by:  China  
Supported by:  Chile, Russian Federation  
Dates raised:  October 2016 (G/SPS/R/84, paras. 3.9 -3.11) , March 2017 (G/SPS/R/86, 
paras. 3.39 -3.41), July 2017 (G/SPS/R/87, paras. 4.47 -4.48), November 
2017 (G/SPS/R/88, paras. 3.63 -3.65) , March 2018 (G/SPS/R/90, 
paras.  3.56-3.57), July 2018 (G/SPS/R/92/Rev.1, paras. 4.93 -4.95)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.494.   In October 2016, China raised its concern regarding the US Seafood Import Monitoring 
Program (SIMP), published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 
February 2016. China praised US efforts to combat illegal, unreported, and unreg ulated (IUU) fishing 
and seafood fraud. However, China considered the proposed rule to be inconsistent with a number 
of key principles of the WTO such as transparency, national treatment, scientific justification and 
least trade restrictiveness. China urge d the United States to notify the measure as soon as possible, 
and to provide Members with at least a 60 -day comment period and a 6 -month transition period. 
China also noted that US traceability requirements and catch certification for at -risk species appl ied 
only to imported fish and fish products, and not to domestic products. Additionally, the measure was 
not based on science as it would finally apply to all imported aquatic products, regardless of risk 
levels, and making no distinctions between aquacult ure products and wild capture fisheries. 
China  indicated that the regulation required more information than necessary and overlapped with 
other rules, including the International Trade Data System (ITDS), which increased costs and 
generated unnecessary mar ket access delays. China added that the rule would do little to combat 
illegal fishing. China requested more information and expressed its availability to work closely with 
the United States with a view to combating IUU fishing and seafood fraud in a WTO c onsistent 
manner. China looked forward to seeing the US notification for this measure.  
2.495.   Chile shared China's concern indicating that it would follow this issue closely and hoped that 
the measure would be notified soon.  
2.496.   The United States noted that this issu e did not fall under the SPS Agreement.  The objective 
of the proposed rule was to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud. The proposed rule would require 
importers to report certain information upon entry into the United States to help trace back the 
shipmen t to the catch or harvest point. The United States further explained that the rule had been 
developed through a transparent process of public notice and comments involving domestic and 
foreign stakeholders, as well as exporting authorities. The NOAA had re ceived many comments, 
including from China, which were being considered in the first phase of the programme covering a 
reduced list of species. The rule would eventually cover all seafood species in subsequent phases. 
The United States finally highlighted its common objective with China to combat IUU fishing and 
seafood fraud and expressed its interest in a continued engagement on this issue.  
2.497.   In March 2017, China raised its concern regarding the US Seafood Import Monitoring 
Program (SIMP), published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 135 - 
 
  February 2016, which had entered into effect in January 2017 without being notified to the WTO for 
comments by Members. China stated that the proposed rule was inconsistent with a number of key 
WTO principles, such as transparency, national treatment, scientific justification and least trade 
restrictiveness. China also noted that the United States' traceability requirements and catch 
certification for at -risk species applied only to imported fish and  fish products, and not to domestic 
products. Additionally, the measure was not based on science as it would apply to all imported 
aquatic products, regardless of risk levels and without distinction between aquaculture products and 
wild capture fisheries. China indicated that the regulation required more information than necessary 
and overlapped with other rules, including the International Trade Data System (ITDS), which 
increased costs and generated unnecessary market access delays. China added that the r ule would 
do little to combat illegal fishing and urged the United States to postpone its implementation until 
Members' comments were sought and taken into consid eration.  
2.498.   The Russian Federation shared China's concern regarding the US Seafood Monitoring 
Program, and noted that it had raised the same issue in the Council for Trade in Goods, and 
encouraged cooperation between interested Members. The Philippines and Ecuador registered their 
interest in the matter.  
2.499.   The United States stated that the issue did no t fall under the scope of the SPS Agreement. 
The objective of the proposed rule was to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud. The proposed rule 
would require importers to report certain information upon entry into the United States, to help trace 
back the s hipment to the catch or harvest point, in order to prevent the United States market from 
being used as a place to sell fraudulently marketed seafood or seafood products produced from 
IUU fishing. The rule was explained to be part of a new, comprehensive se afood traceability program 
that also included comparable information requirements for domestic fisheries. The United States 
further explained that the rule had been developed through a transparent process of public notice 
and comments involving domestic an d foreign stakeholders, as well as exporting authorities. 
The United States underlined the rule's one -year implementation time -frame, its streamlined 
requirements for small scale fishers, and an indefinite suspension of requirements for shrimp and 
abalone.  The United States looked forward to a continuing engagement with China and other trading 
partners on the implementation of the rule, and on combatting IUU fishing and protecting oceans 
more broadly.  
2.500.   In July 2017, China appreciated that the United States had revised some of the provisions 
regarding the United States Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP), published by the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in early 2016. However, China still had some 
concerns related to transparency, national treatment, scientific justification and least trade -
restrictiveness. China highlighted that the traceability requirements and catch -certification for at -
risk species applied only to imported fish and fish products, and not to domestic products, an d that 
the measure was not based on science as it would apply to all imported aquatic products, regardless 
of risk levels and without distinction between aquaculture products and wild capture fisheries. 
The regulation required more information than necessa ry and overlapped with other rules, including 
the International Trade Data System (ITDS), which increased costs and generated unnecessary 
market access delays. China urged the United States to notify the SIMP to the WTO for comments 
by Members.  
2.501.   The United  States reiterated that the final rule was not an SPS measure and therefore fell 
outside the scope of the SPS Agreement. The United States explained that the objective of the final 
rule was to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and se afood fraud. It thus 
required domestic importers to report certain information upon entry into the United States and to 
retain other information that would allow shipments to be traced back to the point of catch or harvest 
in order to prevent its market fr om being used to sell fraudulently marketed seafood or seafood 
products produced from IUU fishing. The United States looked forward to continuing engagement 
with China on the implementation of the rule, but did not believe the SPS Committee was the 
appropr iate forum for this engagement.  
2.502.   In November 2017, China reiterated its concern on the US seafood import monitoring 
programme. China highlighted the differences between the US bills related to the trade of aquatic 
products, namely the Seafood Import Monito ring Program (SIMP) and the Fish and Fish Product 
Import Regulations, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. China urged the United States to 
consider removing aquaculture products from the bills to promote the healthy development of G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 136 - 
 
  bilateral trade in thes e products. China requested updates on the relevant bills under the regional 
fishery management organizations and the relevant international management organizations.  
2.503.   The Russian Federation shared China's concern, noting that trade -related measures should  
be adopted and implemented in a fair and transparent manner, and only after prior consult ation with 
interested Members.  
2.504.   The United States reiterated that the final rule was not an SPS measure and therefore fell 
outside the scope of the SPS Agreement. The United States also reiterated that the objective of the 
final rule was to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and seafood fraud, and 
thus required the US importers to report certain information upon entry into the United States and 
retain other information that would allow the shipments to be traced back to the point of catch or 
harvest in order to protect its market from being used to sell fraudulently marketed seafood or 
seafood products produced from IUU fishing.  
2.505.   In March 2018, China  reiterated its concern on the Seafood Import Monitoring Programme 
and the Fish and Fish Product Import Regulations under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 
China  noted that aquaculture products had no relation to the false capture of marine mammals, and 
that the traceability of aquaculture products outside the United States did not help to prevent illegal, 
unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and fraud in aquatic products. China requested an 
explanation of the rationale for the inclusion of aquaculture products in the scope of application of 
the two bills, and further urged the United States to consider removing these products from the bills 
and to formulate laws consistent with the SPS Agreement.  
2.506.   The United States reiterated that the final rule was not an SPS measure and therefore fell 
outside the scope of the SPS Agreement. The United States also reiterated that the objective of the 
final rule was to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud, and thus required US importers to report 
certain information upon entry into the United States and retain other information that would allow 
the shipments to be traced back to the point of catch or harvest in order to protect its market from 
being used to sell fraudulently marketed seafood or seafood products produced fr om IUU fishing. 
The United Stated also indicated its willingness to have bilateral discussions on the other measure 
mentioned by China, which was outside the scope of this trade concern on the US seafood import 
monitoring programme. The United States looke d forward to its continued engagement with China.  
2.507.   In July 2018, China reiterated its concern on the Seafood Import Monitoring Programme 
(SIMP), noting that the United States insisted that SIMP aimed to combat illegal, unreported and 
unregulated (IUU) fishi ng and seafood fraud. However, based on its review, China considered that 
the requirements of the programme were SPS -related, according to the definition of SPS measures 
in Annex A(1) of the SPS Agreement. China also considered that the traceability of aqu aculture 
products outside the United States did not help to prevent IUU fishing and fraud in aquatic products. 
China understood from the TBT Committee meeting that the United States was planning to extend 
the measure to prawns and abalones in December 2018 . China requested clarification on the 
rationale for indicating that the requirements were not SPS -related, and including additional species 
into the programme's scope of application. China urged the United States to consider removing 
aquaculture products and delaying the implementation of the measures on prawns and abalones.  
2.508.   The Russian Federation expressed interest in the issue.  
2.509.   The United States thanked China for the bilateral discussions and for its continued interest 
in SIMP, which aimed at combating IUU fishing and seafood fraud. The United States underscored 
that the final rule was not an SPS measure and therefore fell outside the scope of the SPS Agreement.  
2.19  Viet Nam  
2.19.1   Food Safety  
Viet Nam's draft amendment to Circular 24 on MRLs for veterinary drugs  (STC 435)  
Raised by:  United States of America  
Supported by:  Canada; New Zealand  
Dates raised:  March 2018 (G/SPS/R/90, paras. 3.2 -3.5)  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 137 - 
 
  Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/N/VNM/82  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.510.   I In March 2018,  the United States raised a concern regarding Viet Nam's draft amendment 
to Circular 24 (G/SPS/N/VNM/82) which, as currently drafted, would rescind MRLs for several 
veterinary drugs that were currently aligned with Codex MRLs. The United States observed th at 
Viet Nam had not provided scientific justification for rescinding the Codex aligned MRLs. The United 
States indicated that it had welcomed the announcement by Viet Nam's Prime Minister, during his 
May 2017 visit to the United States, that Viet Nam would  continue to follow Codex standards for the 
veterinary drug MRLs in question. However, there still remained uncertainty regarding the status of 
the proposed ban on certain veterinary drugs, since there was no official document indicating that 
the draft ban  would not go into effect. The United States, while acknowledging appreciation for the 
extensive bilateral engagement with Viet Nam on the issue, indicated disappointment that the issue 
remained unresolved. The United States further urged Viet Nam to maint ain MRLs for veterinary 
drugs in accordance with Codex standards and requested that Viet Nam notify an addendum to the 
WTO withdrawing G/SPS/N/VNM/82, in order to provide certainty for US exporters.  
2.511.   Canada shared the concerns of the United States regarding  Viet Nam's draft amendment to 
Circular 24, which proposed zero tolerances for a number of veterinary drugs, including ractopamine, 
which already had a Codex MRL. Canada stated that Viet Nam's proposed zero tolerance approach 
would effectively ban imports of meat products containing any residue of these veterinary drugs, 
even if within the Codex established MRLs. Canada noted that it had submitted detailed comments 
on Viet Nam's notification (G/SPS/N/VNM/82), and requested the scientific justification for t he zero 
tolerance approach. Despite several bilateral efforts to resolve the issue, Viet Nam had still not 
withdrawn its proposal nor made known its future intentions, which had resulted in uncertainty for 
Canadian meat exporters. Canada urged Viet Nam to withdraw its proposal, to inform the Committee 
of its withdrawal and to establish MRLs for ractopamine and other veterinary drugs, based on Codex 
MRLs.  
2.512.   New Zealand supported the concerns of the United States, in particular noting the lack of 
scientific jus tification for rescinding the Codex aligned MRLs.  
2.513.   Viet Nam welcomed Members' feedback and underscored its commitment to uphold 
transparency in the process. Viet Nam informed Members that its Ministry of Health was still in the 
process of reviewing the regu lation and receiving comments from relevant authorities, with a view 
to finalize the draft regulation. Members would be notified once there was an update on the status 
of Circular 24. Viet Nam further stated that its regulation was based on the guidelines of international 
standard setting bodies and that there was no arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination against 
Members or disguised restriction to international trade.  
Viet Nam's import restrictions in the draft law of animal production  (STC 450)  
Raised by: United States of America  
Supported by:  Canada; Paraguay  
Dates raised:  November 2018 (G/SPS/R/93, paras. 3.13 -3.17) 
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/N/VNM/82, G/SPS/N/VNM/95, G/SPS/N/VNM/95/Add.2  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.514.   In November 2018, the United States raised its concern regarding Viet Nam's draft Livestock 
Production Law, which could restrict US exports of livestock products, including meat and poultry to 
Viet Nam. The United States thanked Viet Nam for the extensive bilateral discussions on the issue, 
but highlighted that its concerns had not been fully addressed. The United States observed that the 
law could be debated and voted on by Viet Nam's National Assembly as early as November 2018, 
and further requested that Viet Nam provide an update on the status of the draft law. In particular, 
the United States drew attention to Article 12, clause 7 of the draft law which would ban the import G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 138 - 
 
  of livestock products produced using chemicals prohibited for domestic production  in Viet Nam, 
despite assurances from Viet Nam that it would harmonize its MRLs for imported goods to Codex 
standards. The United States reminded Viet Nam of its obligations under the SPS Agreement, in 
particular Articles 3 and 5, and sought clarification on how Viet Nam would ensure that the measures 
taken on chemicals prohibited for domestic production were based on science. The United States 
also queried the appropriate level of protection that Viet Nam was seeking through such bans on 
domestic chemical usage in animal production, considering existing scientific evidence, including by 
Codex, which showed that such chemicals were being used to produce safe food. The United States 
encouraged Viet Nam to adopt Codex MRLs of veterinary drugs in foods, and req uested Viet Nam to 
delay adoption of this law, until Article 12, clause 7 had been revised to align with Viet Nam's 
SPS commitments, and had addressed the identified trade concerns.  
2.515.   Canada shared the concerns raised by the United States with respect to the  latest version 
of Viet Nam's draft law of animal production. Canada thanked Viet Nam for productive bilateral 
meetings, but expressed its concern regarding the provision contained in Article 12.7 that banned 
imports of products containing residues of vete rinary drugs which were prohibited domestically in 
Viet Nam. This provision would ban imports of meat products that contained residues of several 
veterinary drugs, including ractopamine, for which there were existing Codex standards for safe use. 
Canada no ted that this provision was essentially the same proposed ban that the Vietnamese 
Ministry of Health had notified on 7 September 2016, under G/SPS/N/VNM/82. On 4 November 2016, 
Canada had submitted detailed comments on that proposal, including a request th at Viet Nam 
maintain MRLs for ractopamine and other veterinary drugs based on Codex MRLs and provide the 
rationale and scientific justification for taking a zero -tolerance approach. To date Viet Nam had not 
responded to Canada's formal comments. Canada ind icated that it had held several bilateral 
meetings, including at the highest levels, raising concerns about Viet Nam's proposed ban. However, 
despite these meetings and Viet Nam's indication that the concerns of trading partners were being 
taken into accou nt, the latest version of the draft law of livestock production (draft 6) of August 
2018 contained a provision which would legislate essentially the same ban which Canada had been 
objecting to since 2016. Canada noted that Viet Nam had notified this draft law on 30 October 2018 
as G/SPS/N/VNM/95/Add.2, providing Members with a 60 -day comment period ending 29 December 
2018. Canada observed that Viet Nam's National Assembly would be reviewing the draft law on 
7 November 2018, and voting on it on 20 November 2 018, prior to the end of the notification's 
comment period. As such, Canada requested that Viet Nam delay the review and voting on this draft 
law until after the conclusion of the comment period of the WTO notification, so that Viet Nam could 
take into acc ount the comments of trading partners. In addition, Canada continued to request that 
Viet Nam remove the provision that banned imports of products containing residues of ractopamine 
and other veterinary drugs for which there were existing Codex standards f or safe use. Canada also 
requested that Viet Nam maintain MRLs for ractopamine and other veterinary drugs based on Codex 
MRLs. Canada looked forward to continue working with Viet Nam to resolve this issue.  
2.516.   Paraguay stated its interest in this trade concern  and indicated that it would continue to 
closely follow developments on this issue.  
2.517.   Viet Nam underscored its commitment to ensuring transparency, highlighting that it had 
notified its draft law on livestock production as G/SPS/N/VNM/95 on 10 March 2018. Vi et Nam 
welcomed comments and feedback from all WTO Members on the matter. Viet Nam informed the 
Committee that the drafting agency, the Department of Livestock Production in the Ministry of 
Agriculture and Rural Development, was still in the process of rev iewing the draft law including 
comments from Members. Viet Nam noted that it had recently notified the final draft to the WTO on 
30 October 2018 for further comments from Members. In relation to the ban on the chemicals, 
Viet Nam emphasized that its legisl ative system differed from that of other countries. Viet Nam 
explained that the three -step legislative process started with a more general law, which did not 
provide details for each substance, followed by a decree related to the designation of the duty an d 
responsibility of the government agency and the competent authorities responsible for developing 
the list of substances and chemicals subject to the ban. Lastly, a Circular was developed by the 
Ministry of Agriculture to regulate in detail the substances  to be banned, especially as it related to 
the group of beta -agonists, including ractopamine.  
2.518.   Viet Nam noted Canada's concerns with Circular No. 24 which had been notified in 2016, 
and would be reviewed in the future. Viet Nam explained that the Circular s till remained in effect, 
which meant that Viet Nam accepted the residue levels of ractopamine which had been adopted G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 139 - 
 
  according to the existing Codex guidance. Viet Nam underscored that its measures were based on 
international guidelines and that they did n ot constitute a disguised restriction on international trade.  
2.19.2   Plant Health  
Viet Nam's suspension of groundnut seed imports  (STC 418)  
Raised by:  Senegal  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  March 2017 (G/SPS/R/86, paras. 3.3 -3.4), July 2017 ( G/SPS/R/87, 
paras. 4.17-4.18), November 2017 (G/SPS/R/88, paras. 3.26 -3.27) , 
July 2018 (G/SPS/R/92/Rev.1, paras. 4.48 -4.49)   
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.519.   In March 2017, Senegal noted that, as of 11 July 2016, Viet Nam had suspended its imports 
of groundnut seeds from Senegal following Decision No. 2838/QD -BNN-BVTV, due to the detection 
of two destructive pests in groundnut seeds exported to Viet Nam. Senegal confirmed that one 
fumigation company had not respected pre -fumigation procedures and its quarantine authorities had 
taken corrective measures, including strengthening procedures for issuing quality certificates and 
establishing a roadmap to further protect plant health. Senegal appealed to Viet N am, which was a 
major importer of Senegalese groundnut seeds, to undertake a risk analysis of their measures and 
remained open to bilateral discussion.  
2.520.   Viet Nam stated that between February and June 2016 it had intercepted 48 containers of 
groundnut seeds infected with two regulated quarantine pests absent from its territory. Viet Nam 
noted that despite alerting the Senegalese authorities of the detection of incompliant consignments, 
Senegal had not tightened its controls sufficiently. Viet Nam's temporary suspension was in 
compliance with IPPC and domestic regulation and was aimed at preventing the spread of the two 
pests in its territory. As bilaterally notified, Viet Nam encouraged Senegal to improve cooperation 
and provide technical reports to assess the  situation. Viet Nam welcomed further bilateral discussion 
to resolve the matter.  
2.521.   In July 2017, Senegal reported that after raising th e concern in the March 2017 
SPS Committee meeting, Viet Nam had requested a more detailed report of the phytosanitary risk  
analysis applied to the groundnut industry, which had been provided in June 2017. Viet Nam had 
acknowledged receipt and requested an official translation into English. Senegal noted that no 
notification of non -conformity had been issued and expressed appr eciation for Viet Nam's 
collaboration on this issue.  
2.522.   Viet Nam explained that in 2015 it had issued a new list of commodities subject to pest risk 
analysis before importation. Viet Nam appreciated Senegal's effort to provide information in English 
and looke d forward to deliver a final response to this issue at their next bilateral meeting.  
2.523.   In November 2017, Senegal reiterated its concern on Viet Nam's provisional suspension on 
groundnut imports from Senegal and reported on the provisions taken to ensure comp liance with 
the phytosanitary requirements, including an audit by a Chinese quarantine service mission.  
2.524.   Viet Nam reiterated that there had been detections of groundnuts infested with live insect 
quarantine pests. Viet Nam reported that Senegal had been not ified, and that its temporary 
suspension was in line with IPPC guidelines. Viet Nam also reported that it was currently reviewing 
the technical information received from Senegal's National Plant Protection Agency.  In July 2018, 
Senegal reiterated its conce rns regarding Viet Nam's temporary suspension of groundnut seed 
imports for quarantine purposes since 2016. Senegal reported on the documentation it had 
submitted and requested Viet Nam to follow -up on this issue to ensure that its operators received 
the appropriate information.  G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 140 - 
 
  2.525.   Viet Nam informed the Committee that it had recently received a technical information 
package on pest risk analysis in French from Senegal's NPPO, after translation, was under 
assessment by the Plant Protection Department.  
2.19.3   Other Con cerns  
Viet Nam 's market access requirements for "white" offals (STC 438)  
Raised by:  United States of America  
Supported by:  New Zealand  
Dates raised:  March 2018 (G/SPS/R/90, paras. 3.10 -3-12) 
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.526.   In March 2018, the United States raised concerns regarding Viet Nam's market access 
requirement for ''white'' offals. The United States noted that Viet Nam had signed a letter of 
Agreement with the United States in 2006, as part of its WTO accession, accepting the export 
certificate issued by the USDA FSIS as proof that its exported meat and poultry products had been 
inspected and passed by FSIS. However, since the implementation of Circular 25 in 2011, 
US exporte rs now faced a burdensome administrative process due to the requirement for meat, 
poultry and fishery establishments to submit a questionnaire for subsequent approval by Viet Nam's 
National Agro -Forestry -Fisheries Quality Assurance Department (NAFIQAD), in  order to be eligible 
to export to Viet Nam. The United States indicated that its understanding of the Circular 25 approach 
was that Viet Nam would accept and review questionnaires on an ongoing basis and that as FSIS 
inspected and passed new establishment s, Viet Nam would add these facilities to its list of entities 
eligible to export to Viet Nam. Instead, the United States noted that Viet Nam had appeared to 
institute a process of registration of individual facilities, rather than focusing on the overall 
effectiveness of the FSIS inspection and certification system. Such an approach was contrary to 
Codex guidelines, which stated that the importing country should evaluate the effectiveness of the 
inspection and certification system of the exporting country,  rather than engage in an establishment 
by establishment approach. The United States observed that the regulation had created uncertainty 
for market access, and had stalled the addition of new establishments and the flow of exports to 
Viet Nam. In addition , there had been changes in the administrative responsibility for the 
implementation of Circular 25, which had resulted in extensive delays in the reopening of Viet Nam's 
market. The United States acknowledged the bilateral engagements with Viet Nam and ur ged Viet 
Nam to resolve the issue expeditiously.  
2.527.   New Zealand shared the concern raised by the United States, in particular as it related to 
the consistency of the regulation with Codex guidelines on evaluating the effectiveness of the 
inspection and certi fication system of the exporting country. New Zealand also noted that its 
exporters faced similar issues to those reported by the United States.  
2.528.   Viet Nam explained that during the visit of its inspection team to the United States in 2014, 
several instance s of non -compliance had been identified in some US establishments. Viet Nam 
indicated that it had informed the United States of these issues and had also temporarily halted the 
addition of new registrations, until the corrective and preventive methods had been taken at these 
establishments. Viet Nam stated that several requests had been made for USDA and FSIS 
representatives to facilitate a visit of the Vietnamese delegation to a number of establishments that 
had been registered for exporting ''white'' offa ls to Viet Nam. The purpose of the mission would be 
to inspect and review US regulatory programmes and food safety systems, in order to ensure that 
all establishments met the requirements. Viet Nam indicated its willingness to continue working 
closely with  US authorities on the issue, and further underscored its commitment to ensure that its 
SPS regulations were consistent with international standards and the SPS Agreement.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 141 - 
 
  2.20  Certain Members  
2.20.1   Animal Health  
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  
Raise d by:  European Union;  United States of America  
Supported by:  Canada;  Switzerland;  Uruguay  
Dates raised:  June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 37-38; See also STC 84 ), October 2004 
(G/SPS/R/35, paras. 85-86), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 75 -
76), February 2007 (G/SPS/R/44, para. 29), October 2008 
(G/SPS/R/53, paras. 24 -28), February 2009 (G/SPS/R/54, paras. 11 -
12), June 2009 (G/SPS/55, para. 47), October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, 
para. 46), March  2010 (G/SPS/R/58, paras. 35 -36), June 2010 
(G/SPS/R/59, para. 44 ), October 2010 (G/SPS/R/61, para. 24), March 
2011 (G/SPS/R/62, para. 65), June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, paras. 73 -74), 
October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, paras.  98-99), March 2012 (G/SPS/R/66, 
paras. 28-31), July 2012 (G/SPS/R/67, paras. 45 -48), October 2012 
(G/SPS/R/69, para s. 49 -52), March 2013 (G/SPS/R/70, paras. 3.20 -
3.24), June 2013 (G/SPS/R/71, paras. 4.33 -4.35), October 2013 
(G/SPS/R/73, paras. 3.44 -3.46), March 2014 (G/SPS/R/74, 
paras.  3.28-3.30) , July 2014 (G/SPS/R/75, paras.  4.33-4.37), October 
2014 (G/SPS/R/76, para s. 3.26 -3.30), March 2015 (G/SPS/R/78, 
paras.  3.30-3.32), July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras.  3.29-3.30), Octob er 
2015 (G/SPS/R/81, para. 3.65 ), March 2016 (G/SPS/R/82, para. 3.45), 
June 2016 (G/SPS/R/83, para. 4.12), October 2016 (G/SPS/R/84, 
para. 3.37) , March  2017 (G/SPS/R/86, paras. 3.31 -3.32), July 2017 
(G/SPS/R/87, para. 4.42), November 2017 (G/SPS/R/88, para. 3.34) , 
March 2018 (G/SPS/R/90, para. 3.43), July 2018 (G/SPS/R/92/Rev.1, 
para. 4.50), November 2018 (G/SPS/R/93, para. 3.65)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Partially resolved  
Solution:  Soluti ons notified regarding certain m embers  
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.529.   In June 2004, the European Communities raised concerns about unjustified import 
restrictions on EC exports due to concerns about BSE. To satisfy consumer demands, the European 
Communities had adopted comprehensive measures to addre ss risks relating to BSE. 
These  measures applied both to products intended for consumption within the European 
Communities  and to those destined for export. The system of geographical assessment used in the 
European Communities had successfully identified countries in which the disease was still present. 
The European Communities called on other countries to replace import ban s, which exceeded OIE 
recommendations and yet did not fully address potential internal risks, with specific import 
requirements in accordance with OIE standards. Many products, such as semen, embryos and dairy 
products, could be traded with predefined guar antees. Members were urged to take into 
consideration OIE recommendations for international trade and to stop discriminating among 
Members with similar BSE conditions.  
2.530.   In October 2004, the United States also raised concerns on this issue by noting that som e 
Members were reviewing their import restrictions on US beef and also urged all those Members who 
had not done so to align their regulations in accordance with OIE standards.  
2.531.   Canada recalled that at its last meeting the OIE had reconfirmed that some produ cts, such 
as semen, embryos, hides, and milk, did not contribute to the transmission of BSE. Hence the 
imports of these types of products did not provide a potential pathway for introduction of the disease.  
2.532.   In October 2004, the European Communities informe d the Committee that several 
WTO Members had reviewed their bans on EC beef and small bovine ruminant products and replaced 
them with specific requirements in accordance with OIE standards. The European Communities 
urged all those Members who had not yet d one so to align their regulations in accordance with OIE G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 142 - 
 
  standards. The United States noted that some Members were reviewing their import restrictions on 
US beef and also urged all those Members who had not done so to align their regulations in 
accordance with OIE standards.  
2.533.   In June 2005, the European Communities reported that the number of countries that had 
lifted their respective bans on EC bovines and bovine products in accordance with OIE standards had 
been regularly growing, including also non -Members  of the WTO. According to the revised BSE 
chapter of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code, many bovine derived products, including deboned 
skeletal muscle and blood products, could be safely traded regardless of the BSE status of the 
exporting country. The E uropean Communities invited the remaining WTO Members to replace their 
import bans with specific import requirements in accordance with OIE standards.  
2.534.   In February 2007, the United States expressed concern that US ruminant and non -ruminant 
products continue d to face BSE -related restrictions. Although there had been some progress and a 
number of Members had removed measures, US products continued to face overly restrictive 
measures which exceeded the OIE standards. The United States had undertaken extensive 
surveillance and put in place interlocking safeguards, nonetheless many restrictions remained in 
place. The United States asked Members to review the evidence now available and to revise their 
requirements accordingly.  
2.535.   In October 2008, the European Communit ies recalled the concerns previously raised by 
Canada regarding Korea's restriction on beef imports. The European Communities also had concerns 
regarding restrictions maintained by other WTO Members on beef exported from the European 
Communities even thoug h these beef products were considered safe and in compliance with the BSE 
Chapter of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code.  
2.536.   Canada shared the EC concerns and asked Members to base their measures on the BSE 
chapter provisions of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code. In May 2007, Canada was officially 
recognized by the OIE as controlled -risk for BSE and this was reconfirmed in May 2008. Canada was 
grateful to the increasing number of WTO Members that restored full or partial access for beef and 
cattle. Can ada urged other Members to resume full trade in beef and cattle based on the OIE 
designation.  
2.537.   Uruguay supported the concerns of the European Communities and Canada. With regard to 
animal health regulations applied to trade, Uruguay stated that all WTO Memb ers should conform to 
the OIE designation and to the standards of the three sisters in general. Switzerland also supported 
the EC concern on restrictions due to BSE . 
2.538.   The representative of the OIE urged Members to abide by the standards enacted by the OIE.  
2.539.   In February 2009, the European Communities drew attention to the OIE standard for BSE, 
which did not recommend trade restrictions on de -boned beef  from animals aged less than 
30 months. The European Communities met this standard, but its exports were still  facing trade 
restrictions. National restrictions maintained despite the OIE Code undermined this standard that 
had been adopted after long negotiations, thus damaging the credibility of the OIE. The OIE was 
planning to update the Code, because there was c ompelling evidence that the age requirement was 
not necessary, but the European Communities questioned whether this was worthwhile if Members 
did not apply the standard in any case. Trade in beef was important, and BSE issues were among 
the concerns most f requently raised in the SPS Committee. The European Communities appealed to 
Members to make greater efforts to base their measures on the relevant OIE standards. Jordan was 
now accepting the OIE Code, as did the European Communities, and others should foll ow this 
example.  
2.540.   OIE explained that the BSE standards had been democratically adopted by OIE members, 
and were in fact very conservative. The OIE was considering removing the age requirement, and 
relaxing the restrictions on gelatine. There was still a wid e margin of safety built into the standards, 
and it was worrying that there was a lack of willingness on the part of Members to apply them.  
2.541.   In June 2009, the European Communities again drew attention to restrictions on bovine 
meat and related products stil l imposed by many Members. The European Communities requested 
that unjustified and discriminatory restrictions be removed. The OIE Code stated that no bans were G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 143 - 
 
  necessary even if a country reported cases of BSE. EC measures to control BSE were exemplary an d 
went far beyond OIE requirements, and the European Communities urged Members to establish fair, 
non-discriminatory and transparent rules for the import of bovine products.  
2.542.   In October 2009, the European Communities recalled that they had repeatedly raised  
concerns about unjustified restrictions by some WTO Members on imports of bovine, ovine and 
related products allegedly in response to transmissible spongiform encephalopathy. Any measures 
should be based on the relevant international standards. While many  were aligning their processes 
to OIE recommendations, other Members still required unnecessary certification, applied 
burdensome and lengthy procedures and discriminated between countries without scientific basis. 
EC measures to eradicate and control BSE were comprehensive and offered every guarantee that 
EC exports were safe. The European Communities urged Members to fully take into consideration 
the latest OIE BSE guidelines and to establish fair, non -discriminatory and transparent rules.  
2.543.   In March 2010, the European Union reported that certain WTO Members still maintained 
unjustified import restrictions arguably to protect against Transmissible Spongiform 
Encephalopathies (TSE). The European Union urged Members to lift any unnecessary, 
disproportionate, o r discriminatory restrictions which negatively affected EU exports. The OIE 
recommendations on BSE, which were reviewed in May 2009, included the possibility to import meat 
or even live animals from countries having a "negligible", "controlled", or "undete rmined" BSE risk 
status, as long as the OIE rules on surveillance and control were followed. In addition, for certain 
products under specific conditions, such as de -boned skeletal muscle meat, milk and milk products, 
semen and embryos, there should be no B SE import requirements regardless of the BSE risk or the 
age of the cattle population of the exporting country, zone or compartment.  
2.544.   Switzerland supported the concerns raised by the European Union, stating that 
WTO Members should base their measures on the  OIE recommendations and available data on BSE.  
2.545.   In June 2010, the European Union reported that certain WTO Members still maintained 
unjustified import restrictions to protect against TSE. The European Union urged Members to lift any 
unnecessary, disproportionate, or discriminatory restrictio ns which negatively affected EU  exports. 
The European Union recalled that the OIE had issued BSE standards based on scientific risk 
assessments and defined the conditions under which commodi ties could be safely  traded. In  May 
2010, additional wording was inserted in Article 11.6 of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code to 
clarify that, providing the commodities had been imported in accordance with those conditions, the 
status of the importing countries would no t be affected. The European Union recalled the OIE 
recommendations, and observed that some Members had recently announced new measures which, 
without any scientific justification, deviated from OIE standards. The European Union urged Members 
to align thems elves with the OIE process and to process applications from the European Union.  
2.546.   In October 2010, the European Union noted that restrictions of imports due to BSE remained 
of great concern and urged Members to lift any unnecessary, disproportionate and disc riminatory 
restrictions. A number of WTO Members continued to impose unjustified import restrictions, such as 
allowing imports only from countries that had a negligible risk status according to the OIE 
classification or where no cases of BSE had been notif ied at all. There had been, however, some 
positive developments. The Philippines had announced the lifting of import restrictions on beef from 
most EU member States, and Egypt was now allowing imports of de -boned beef from animals 
younger than 48 months. T he European Union urged Members to quickly align their requirements 
with the OIE standards, and to establish fair, non -discriminatory, transparent and scientifically sound 
import requirements.  
2.547.   In March 2011, the European Union urged Members to lift unneces sary restrictions 
negatively affecting EU beef exports. The OIE standard highlighted that there should not be 
restrictions on some bovine products regardless of the BSE -risk status of the country. Unfortunately, 
several unjustified restrictions from Member s only allowed imports from countries with a negligible 
BSE-risk assessment. In addition, there had also been a number of discriminatory practices and 
inconsistencies in the level of protection of some countries. The European Union urged Members to 
align t heir requirements with OIE standards and acknowledged the many countries that had started 
the assessment process to allow imports.  G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 144 - 
 
  2.548.   In June 2011, the European Union expressed concerns that several Members had not yet 
implemented the OIE standard on BSE and continued to impose bans or trade restrictions on EU  beef 
products. These Members should either implement the OIE standard, or else share their scientific 
risk assessment. To date, the European Union had not seen any scientific justification for restrictio ns 
that went beyond the OIE standards. The European Union welcomed the implementation of the OIE 
standards by several Members, as well as the process begun by the United States and Australia, 
which would eventually allow the import of EU beef products. The European Union urged Members 
to fully take into account the OIE standards and establish fair, non -discriminatory, transparent, and 
scientifically based rules.  
2.549.   Canada was pleased to note that a large number of Members had approved the import of 
Canadian be ef based on the OIE standards, and joined the European Union in asking Members to 
base their measures on OIE standards.  
2.550.   In October 2011, the European Union recalled that it had repeatedly raised concerns that 
several Members continued to impose bans or res trictive conditions on products from EU member 
States allegedly because of BSE, but without respecting the international standards as required by 
the SPS Agreement. The OIE standard on BSE was very well developed and provided details 
regarding the disease and conditions for the safe trade of bovine products. This meant that there 
was no need for additional risk assessments or for any trade restrictions at all on the well -defined 
safe products, such as deboned meat, regardless of the BSE risk status of the c ountry. 
Despite  having raised this same concern for a long time, no one had ever provided a scientific risk 
assessment that would justify any deviation from the international standard. In this regard, the 
European Union urged, in particular, China, Japan a nd South Korea to bring their requirements into 
line with the international standards and the SPS Agreement. The European Union welcomed recent 
developments in Australia and urged Australia to finalize this process quickly. The United States was 
also movin g towards the adoption of comprehensive BSE rules and the European Union expected to 
see this process rapidly lead to US requirements fully in line with the OIE standard and a tangible 
outcome for trade. The European Union urged all Members to fully align their BSE -related 
requirements with the OIE standards and thus establish fair, non -discriminatory, transparent and 
scientifically justified requirements.  
2.551.   Japan and Korea both expressed their understanding of the EU concern and indicated that 
they would con tinue discussions on this issue in bilateral meetings. China indicated that it sought 
further information from the European Union in order to finish its risk analysis. There was a fruitful 
dialogue between both Members, and China called on the European Uni on to provide further 
information and maintain its close relationship with the Chinese scientific panel.  
2.552.   In March 2012, the European Union recalled that it had repeatedly raised concerns about 
the continued bans or restrictive conditions on bovine products  from EU member States - allegedly 
because of BSE - that did not respect the international standards as required by the  SPS Agreement. 
The OIE standard on BSE provided details regarding the disease and conditions for the safe trade of 
bovine products. Desp ite the long history of this concern, no Member had ever provided a scientific 
risk assessment that would justify any deviation from the international standard. The European 
Union urged, in particular, China, Japan and South Korea to bring their requiremen ts into line with 
the international standards and the SPS Agreement, and Australia to quickly finalize its assessment 
process. The recent steps by the United States to align its import conditions with the OIE standard 
were welcomed, and a fast implementati on of conditions in line with OIE standards was expected. 
The European Union urged all Members to fully align their BSE -related requirements with the OIE 
standards and thus establish fair, non -discriminatory, transparent and scientifically justified 
requir ements.  
2.553.   Korea indicated its willingness to continue bilateral discussions on this issue.  
2.554.   China recalled its cooperation with the European Union, including in 2011 a joint BSE 
prevention and control training that resulted in a productive exchange on the rel evant science and 
technology, and the standards of the OIE. Although no consensus was reached on certain issues, 
China would continue to bilateral discussions on the relevant technical issues.  
2.555.   Japan reported that it had already started discussions with the  European Union, and that its 
Food Safety Commission Risk Assessment Body was requested in December 2011 to conduct a risk G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 145 - 
 
  assessment on beef imports from France and the Netherlands. This risk assessment was conducted 
in a neutral and fair manner on the ba sis of scientific data. The Food Safety Commission would 
assess the risk of beef from the other EU member States when the necessary information was 
verified, including through onsite investigation and collection of data.  
2.556.   In July 2012, the European Union ob served that many trading partners continued to impose 
unjustified bans or restrictions relating to BSE, although more than half of these countries did not 
benefit from official BSE classification by the OIE a s did the EU member States. The  European Union 
urged Korea to make tangible and predictable progress to bring its import conditions into line with 
the OIE standards. This request was particularly urgent as Korea had opened its market to other 
trading partners which had the sa me BSE status as most of the  EU member States. China was still 
keeping its market closed, claiming a lack of scientific information, although there was sufficient 
evidence regarding the EU BSE situation. The European Union requested China to provide the 
scientific risk assessment tha t would justify deviations from the OIE standard, or to immediately 
start the administrative procedures to implement the international standards. The European Union 
requested Japan to continue progress on pending applications so that trade could soon resum e. 
The European Union noted the recent steps taken in the United States towards bringing its 
requirements into line with the OIE standards, and urged all Members to fully align with the OIE 
standards and establish fair, non -discriminatory, transparent and science -based rules.  
2.557.   China indicated that bilateral talks had taken place with the European Union on the BSE 
issue at various levels. China had repeatedly presented its views on BSE and emphasized that no 
international organization could deny countries the  right to present their views based on science. 
A lot of work had been carried out by China on risk analysis regarding BSE.  
2.558.   Japan recalled that its food safety committee had started the risk assessment of beef from 
France and the Netherlands, and this was being discussed by experts. As for other EU member 
States, additional consultations were needed. Japan remained open for further co -operation with the 
European Union to resolve the issue.  
2.559.   Korea noted the ongoing active communication between Korea and the E uropean Union on 
the issue at the technical level. Additional discussions at the technical level were needed, and were 
in the interest of both sides.  
2.560.   In October 2012, the European Union observed that many trading partners continued to 
impose unjustified ba ns or restrictions relating to BSE, although some of these countries did not 
benefit from official BSE classification by the OIE as did the EU member States. The European Union 
once again urged Korea to make tangible and predictable progress to bring its i mport conditions into 
line with the OIE standards and requested China to quickly proceed with pending market access 
applications. The European Union welcomed the recent developments in Japan, where the risk 
assessment with regard to imports of beef had bee n submitted for public consultation. As a result of 
the scientific outcome, the European Union looked forward to beef exports being resumed in the 
near future. The European Union noted the recent steps taken in the United States and Australia 
towards bring ing their requirements into line with the OIE standards, and urged all Members to fully 
align with the OIE standards and establish fair, non -discriminatory, transparent and science -based 
rules.  
2.561.   China indicated that the issues surrounding BSE were particula rly sensitive and technical, 
involving not only the proper handling of animal health and husbandry, but also directly affecting 
China -EU co -operation and trade. China had provided thorough information to the European Union 
in relation to its scientific jus tification. Recognizing the importance of the issue particularly for 
exports from the Netherlands and Ireland, China had jointly organized co -operation activities with 
the European Union including technical exchanges among experts, seminars and technical v isits. 
These exchanges focused on topics related to the science, technology and the OIE standards. 
However, no consensus had been reached on some issues. China would continue co -operation 
exchanges with EU technical experts in a scientific and pragmatic ma nner in order to solve the 
relevant technical problems. China had signed a MOU with Ireland for the establishment of a joint 
working group on BSE.  G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 146 - 
 
  2.562.   Korea indicated that it was actively engaged in bilateral discussions with the European Union, 
including disc ussions this same week, and would continue to have discussions with the European 
Union in this regard.  
2.563.   Japan reported that the risk assessment process was underway, specifically for beef from 
France and the Netherlands. Japan would continue close consultat ions with the European Union and 
its member States.  
2.564.   In March 2013, the European Union welcomed the notification from Thailand on the 
alignment of its SPS measures with the international standards on BSE, and appreciated that Japan 
had authorised access of bovine meat from EU member States. Nevertheless, many trading partners 
continued to impose unjustified bans or restrictions relating to BSE, although some of them did not 
benefit from official BSE classification by the OIE as did EU member States. Furtherm ore, in some 
cases EU products faced discrimination compared to other trading partners with a similar or even 
less favourable risk status. China was still keeping its market closed, despite the detailed information 
provided about the EU animal and food saf ety system, and had not provided a risk assessment to 
justify its measure. The European Union urged China to bring its import conditions into line with the 
OIE standards and to remove the unjustified restrictions against EU beef and beef products. 
The European Union welcomed the process in Korea to assess applications received from some 
EU member States and urged Korea to proceed in a speedy manner to ensure market access for 
EU beef, given that Korea had opened its market to other trading partners which ha d the same BSE 
status as EU member States. The European Union noted the ongoing processes in the United States 
and Australia towards aligning their import conditions with the OIE standards and looked forward to 
effective market access without any further d elay. The European Union urged all Members to fully 
align with the OIE standards and establish fair, non -discriminatory, transparent and science -based 
rules.  
2.565.   China indicated that in its many bilateral discussions it had repeatedly informed the European 
Union on its policies regarding BSE. BSE was still a high risk disease in the EU area, as in the last 
three years approximately 90 BSE cases had been reported. In addition, BSE continued to be a very 
sensitive and complicated issue for which scientific knowle dge was insufficient to be able to interpret 
the transmission mechanism of the disease worldwide. The recent horse meat issue in the European 
Union further reinforced its lack of confidence in the EU control system for animal and animal 
products. China's B SE restrictive measures, put in place in 2004, were based on a risk analysis and 
the changes in its trading measures for Canadian beef in 2012, were based on the results of its risk 
assessment. China invited EU member States to exchange information on tech nical issues and 
indicated that it would review its measures concerning BSE according to the outcomes of future risk 
assessments.  
2.566.   The European Union could not accept that the horse meat issue be linked with the 
effectiveness of its oversight system, given the very detailed explanation that it had provided to the 
SPS Committee under a previous agenda item. The information provided clearly showed how the 
European Union had quickly and transparently identified a case of fraud and this issue was being 
addressed  with full determination.  
2.567.   Korea indicated that it had closely discussed this issue with the EU delegation and had 
already started a risk analysis on beef from EU member States. Korea would proceed carefully with 
the risk analysis in order to protect consum er's health, and would continue to have close dialogue 
with the EU delegation.  
2.568.   Japan reported that its Food Safety Commission had completed an evaluation report in 
October 2012 and on the basis of its findings had lifted the ban on imports of cattle aged u p to 
30 months from the United States, Canada, France and the Netherlands. The European Union 
thanked Japan for the changes in its measures and for its continued engagement in the process.  
2.569.   In June 2013, the European Union reported that the General Session of the OIE had 
positively evaluated and recognised the EU risk status related to BSE. The European Union 
appreciated Brazil's relaxation of its BSE -related import measures and encouraged Brazil to bring 
these conditions further in line with the OIE standar d and to notify these changes to allow partners 
to provide comments. Unjustifiable trade restrictions were still in place in a number of other countries 
and the European Union urged China to base its measure on the OIE standard and lift the ban on G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 147 - 
 
  EU beef.  The European Union welcomed the on -going work carried out by Korea and urged Korea to 
deal swiftly with all EU applications. The US and Australia's ongoing process to align their BSE import 
conditions with OIE standards was appreciated and closely followe d by the European Union and 
further progress towards real trade market access was now expected without undue delays.  
2.570.   Korea noted that it had been conducting a risk analysis on imported EU beef and had been 
in close dialogue with the European Union on the m atter. Korea  looked forward to continued 
co-operation with the European Union to move the process forward in a timely manner.  
2.571.   China recalled that BSE continued to be a very sensitive and highly technical issue for which 
scientific knowledge was still insuf ficient. A risk analysis was carried out with the co -operation of 
relevant EU member States, but experts of both parties had failed to reach consensus. Further 
research, communication and discussion were necessary. China expressed its willingness to contin ue 
cooperating and communicating with EU technical experts.  
2.572.   In October 2013, the European Union highlighted the importance of this concern as it related 
to one of the basic requirements under the SPS Agreement: that SPS measures adopted by Members 
be based  on the relevant international standards. The European Union appreciated Singapore's 
relaxation of its BSE -related import measures and encouraged Singapore to bring these conditions 
further in line with the OIE standards and to notify these changes so that  trading partners could 
provide comments. The European Union also noted in this regard that it had been three years since 
it had submitted its application to Australia and that Australia had not provided any scientific 
justification for the delay in finali zing its risk assessment. The European Union called upon Australia 
to finalize the process, which should lead to effective market access without undue delays.  
2.573.   China noted that the latent period of BSE was long and as there were no cases in China, an 
import  prohibition of bovine cattle and related products was in place as a safety measure. 
According  to Chinese legislation, it could conduct inspection and quarantine activities only after the 
BSE ban on certain EU member States had been lifted. Since 2010, OIE  had released reports that a 
number of EU member States (France, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, etc.) still suffered from 
BSE and China noted that these had not applied for the ban to be lifted in China. 
Technical  exchanges, including a seminar on BSE jointly held with the European Union, and the 
assignment of a technical person to participate in BSE prevention training had  taken place. In  March 
2012, EU  beef exports had been discussed at the 7th China -EU Summit. Although the experts on 
both sides h ad not reached consensus, a joint expert team had been established with relevant 
members in order to overcome technical issues.  
2.574.   Korea acknowledged the European Union's concern and emphasized that its government had 
been conducting import risk analysis on s ome EU member States' beef. Responses to questionnaires 
were awaited so as to proceed with the IRA process in a timely manner while conducting a close 
dialogue with Members in this regard.  
2.575.   In March 2014 , the European Union again highlighted the importance of this concern. 
Unjustifiable trade restrictions relating to BSE were still in place in a number of Members, although 
OIE standards for safe trade had existed for more than 10 years. The European Union urged China 
to base its measures on the OIE standards  and lift the ban on EU beef. The European Union welcomed 
the on -going work in Korea and urged Korea to deal swiftly with all EU applications. Australia's and 
the US on -going processes to align their BSE import conditions with OIE standards was appreciated , 
but should be completed without delay so as to now permit trade to occur. Australia should move 
from the eligibility already granted to some EU member States into real trade by setting out all the 
necessary subsequent steps, including health certificates . The European Union looked forward to 
tangible results in the near future.  
2.576.   China noted that the latent period of BSE was long , as it had previously explained . 
2.577.   Korea indicated that its authorities had been conducting import risk analysis on beef from 
some EU member States. Responses to questionnaires were awaited so as to proceed with the risk 
analysis in a timely manner. Korea maintained a close dialogue with the concerned Members in this 
regard.  G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 148 - 
 
  2.578.   In July 2014, once again, the European Union reiterated  this concern . The European Union 
welcomed the recent opening of China allowing imports of live cattle from one EU member State as 
well as the announcement to lift the ban for meat from cattle under 12 months of age from another 
member State, but only after goi ng through a lengthy approval procedure. Therefore, the European 
Union requested China to rapidly finalize all outstanding EU applications, some of them pending since 
2005, and to increase transparency on the procedures required to lift the ban and on th e risk analysis 
justifying it. The European Union welcomed the recent entry into force of the US BSE rule, but urged 
the United States to complete without further delay the evaluation procedures that would al low 
actual trade to take place. The European Union  noted that Australia's alignment of its BSE import 
conditions with OIE standards was not yet satisfactory and requested Australia to quickly finalize its 
processes for effective market access.  
2.579.   China explained that as a country with a negligible BSE risk status, as recognized by the OIE 
in 2014, it took a cautious attitude on BSE measures. China had organized BSE risk assessment 
expert panels and provided questionnaires to applicant countries. For BSE -free countries such as 
Hungary and Latvia, beef access procedures had been initiated, while for BSE risk countries like 
France, Ireland and the Netherlands, technical exchanges and consultations were still ongoing. 
The responses to the questionnaires would be reviewed an d measures revised accordingly.  
2.580.   In Octob er 2014 , the European Union reiterated the importance of this concern  and urged 
all Members to align their BSE requirements with OIE standards . The European Union welcomed the 
growing number of WTO Members recognizing the EU control system and the EU membe r States' 
negligible or controlled risk status. The European Union urged China, the USA and Australia to adjust 
their BSE requirements fully in line with OIE requirements, and to speed up the approval processes 
of bovine and beef products from the European  Union. Furthermore, China's recent lifting of its ban 
on live cattle imports from one EU member State only suggested differentiation between identical 
or similar BSE conditions found in several EU member States. The European Union welcomed Saudi 
Arabia's recent lifting of restrictions on beef i mports from the European Union. The European Union 
raised, for the first time, similar concerns regarding Turkey's import restrictions on beef from the 
European Union. The European Union had identified in particular testing requirements that were 
unjustifiable and too trade restrictive. The European Union stated that it was willing to continue to 
work closely with Turkey to avoid inconsistencies, and to find a quick, comprehensive and practical 
solution.  
2.581.   Turkey respon ded that its bovine import requirements were in line with international rules 
and that there were no unjustified restrictions on beef imports from the European Union. Importation 
was allowed from EU member States with negligible BSE risk status.  
2.582.   China expl ained that it had taken a cautious approach to BSE measures to protect public 
health and food safety. In 2014, according to OIE statistics, two BSE cases had occurred in Germany 
and one in Romania, which had raised doubts that the BSE risk was under contro l in the region. 
China had engaged in technical exchanges with the European Union and its member States to solve 
relevant technical issues. Since the BSE risk status, prevention and control levels were not fully 
harmonized among EU member States, China had  carried out separate risk assessments. China had 
recently lifted the ban on veal from the Netherlands and had sped up the access approval procedures. 
Regarding BSE -free countries, China had accelerated relevant beef access procedures by signing a 
protocol  with Latvia and by agreeing on a draft protocol with Hungary. China expressed its 
willingness to enhance the technical exchanges with the European Union to solve this issue.  
2.583.   Saudi Arabia thanked the European Union for its comments and co -operation, and 
emphasized that it would not hesitate to facilitate trade with Members.  
2.584.   In March 2015 , the European Union reiterated the imp ortance of this concern; SPS  measures 
adopted by Members had to be based on relevant international standards. Unjustifiable trade 
restrictions relating to BSE were still in place in a number of Members, although OIE standards for 
safe trade had existed for more than ten years. The European Union welcomed the growing number 
of WTO Members recognizing the EU control system and the EU membe r States' negligible or 
controlled risk status. The European Union urged all Members to align their BSE requirements with 
OIE standards.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 149 - 
 
  2.585.   Specifically, the European Union welcomed the progress made by China, allowing beef 
exports from one EU member State an d the lifting of the ban on two others. The European Union 
also welcomed the beginning of exports from one of its member States to the United States. 
The European Union urged China and the United States to provide more information on their import 
procedure s that would allow exports from other member States. The European Union also urged 
Australia, South Korea and Ukraine to process the import applications submitted by the European 
Union in a speedy manner. The European Union reported that it had put in plac e a robust system 
for BSE in all of its member States, following the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code. This system 
guaranteed that all bovine products placed on the EU market, imported and exported were safe. 
Against this background, the European Union u rged all Members to lift the BSE ban on bovine and 
bovine products for the entire European Union within a reasonable period of time.  
2.586.   China explained that it attached great importance to exports of beef from the European 
Union and was actively carrying out technical exchange and co -operation with the relevant 
EU member States to solve technical problems. China further explained that it had carried out 
separate risk assessments for the relevant EU member States. Fo r the member States without 
BSE cases, accele rated procedures were imposed. China noted that Hungary had exported to China 
while Latvia had signed a beef export protocol. China had also lifted the ban on some beef products 
from the Netherlands and Ireland. China was looking forward to enhanced techni cal exchange and 
consultation with the European Union to properly solve this issue.  
2.587.   In July 2015, the European Union reiterated the importance of this long -standing concern 
and restated the observations presented during the March 2015 meeting. The European  Union again 
urged all Members to align their BSE requirements with OIE standards and welcomed progress made 
by China and United States by allowing imports from some member States to take place. 
The European Union urged Australia, Ukraine and Korea to prog ress rapidly to speed their import 
approval procedures. The European Union recalled also the international obligations of 
WTO Members, and its own high level of transparency towards other countries by providing technical 
information about the EU animal hea lth and food safety system.  
2.588.   China reiterated the explanation that it had provided in March 2015 and recalled its interest 
in looking forward to enhanced technical exchange and consultation with the European Union on the 
prevention and control of BSE and ot her animal disease.  
2.589.   In October 2015, the European Union reiterated the importance of this long -standing concern 
and again urged all Members to align their BSE requirements with OIE standards. The  European 
Union recalled also the international obligations of WTO Members and its own high level of 
transparency towards other countries by providing tec hnical information about the EU  animal health 
and food safety system. The European Union re -stated that science on BSE is indisputably clear to 
allow safe trade o f many products and regretted, once more, the fact that many countries never 
provided a risk assessment justifying their deviations from international standards. The European 
Union looked forward to progress made with regard to the United States and welcom ed the beginning 
of exports from one EU member State to China. The European Union also urged China to complete 
the procedures that would allow beef impor ts from all other interested EU  member States. Finally, 
the European Union urged Australia, Korea and U kraine to speed up their import approval 
procedures.  
2.590.   In March 2016, the European Union reiterated the importance of this long -standing concern. 
A few countries still kept a ban in place, even though the scientific evidence had proven that safe 
trade of bee f could take place regardless of BSE country risk status. The European Union again urged 
all Members to respect international rules and align their measures with OIE standards. While some 
Members had lifted the bans, the European Union regretted, once more , the fact that many countries 
never provided a risk assessment justifying their deviations from international standards. 
The European Union welcomed the recent lifting of the ban by Japan for two further EU member 
States, making a total of seven EU member  States that could now export beef to Japan. In relation 
to China and the United States, the European Union welcomed the start of the process for current 
applications which it hoped would be expeditious. The European Union also welcomed Argentina and 
Ukraine's lifting of the bans, citing this as a good example of rapid implementation. Finally, the 
European Union encouraged all Members, such as Australia and Korea, to proceed in a swift manner 
to lift the bans and hoped that the backlog of applications submi tted by EU member States would 
soon disappear.  G/SPS/GEN/204/ Rev.19  
 
- 150 - 
 
  2.591.   In June 2016, the European Union reiterated the importance of this long -standing concern. 
A few countries still kept a ban in place, even though the scientific evidence had proven that safe 
trade of beef could  take place regardless of BSE country risk status. The European Union again urged 
all Members to respect international rules and align their measures with OIE standards. While some 
Members had lifted the bans, the European Union regretted, once more, the f act that many countries 
never provided a risk assessment justifying their deviations from international standards. 
The European Union welcomed the recent lifting of the ban by Japan for two further EU  member 
States, making a total of seven EU member States  that could now export beef to Japan. In relation 
to China and the United States, the European Union welcomed the start of the process for current 
applications which it hoped would be expeditious. The European Union also welcomed Argentina and 
Ukraine's li fting of the bans, citing this as a good example of rapid implementation. Finally, the 
European Union encouraged all Members, such as Australia and Korea, to proceed in a swift manner 
to lift the bans and hoped that the backlog of applications submitted by  EU member States would 
soon disappear.  
2.592.   In October 2016, the European Union reiterated the importance of this long -standing 
concern, recalling its conviction that BSE -related science was solid and that the relevant OIE 
standards guaranteed safe trade. On t he other hand, the European Union recalled that some 
WTO Members kept longstanding, discriminatory and unjustified bans in place due to BSE arguing 
the need for a further (and often too long) assessment before imports could take place, even for 
commodities  (e.g. beef) declared by the OIE as safe. All of this was contrary to various principles of 
the SPS Agreement and the OIE. On a positive note, the European Union welcomed the recent 
market access granted by the United States to an additional EU member Stat e, as well as the 
beginning of exports to China from some EU member States. The European Union urged these and 
other Members - such as Australia, Malaysia and South Korea - to swiftly proceed in order to ensure 
that beef from the European Union could be ex ported and hoped that the backlog of applications 
submitted by EU member States would soon disappear.  
2.593.   In March 2017, The European Union reiterated the importance of this long -standing concern, 
recalling its conviction that BSE -related science was solid and  that the European Union fully followed 
the relevant OIE standards that guaranteed safe trade. However, some WTO Members kept bans in 
place due to BSE, arguing the need for further assessments before imports could take place and 
which could amount to undue  delays and lack of transparency in the approval procedures, contrary 
to Article 8 of the SPS Agreement. The European Union also stressed the SPS requirement that WTO 
Members not discriminate between Members where identical or similar conditions prevail, a s was 
the case in European Union member States, following the strict implementation of the European 
Union's harmonized SPS framework.  
2.594.   The European Union welcomed the recent market access granted by the United States to an 
additional EU member State, and t he lifting of China's impo rt ban on products from some EU  member 
States. The European Union urged those and other Members - such as Malaysia and Korea - to 
ensure that beef from the European Union could soon be exported and address the backlog of 
applicati ons submitted by EU member States.  
2.595.   In July 2017, the European Union reiterated the importance of this long -standing concern, 
recalling its conviction that BSE -related science was solid and that the European Union fully 
guaranteed safe trade of beef. Howev er, it noted that some WTO Members had kept BSE -related 
bans in place, arguing the need for further assessments, which could amount to undue delays in the 
approval procedures, contrary to Article 8 of the SPS Agreement. The European Union also stressed 
that it had a harmonized SPS framework which was strictly implemented in all its member States, 
and therefore urged Members not to discriminate among its member States. The European Union 
appreciated the progress made by Australia, the United States and China  and encouraged them to 
finalize all pending applications submitted by EU member States. The European Union also urged 
other Members, including Malaysia, South Africa and South Korea, to proceed in a speedy manner 
on pending applications submitted by EU me mber States. Finally, the European Union reiterated its 
openness to continue working with all trading partners.  
2.596.   In November 2017, the European Union reiterated the importance of this concern, recalling 
BSE-related science on the safe trade of beef regardl ess of the BSE country risk status, as stated by 
the OIE. The European Union regretted that after fifteen years, some countries maintained their 
BSE-related bans, which contradicted their obligations under the SPS Agreement. The European 
Union also underli ned the lack of transparency of some Members' import procedures, noting that G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.19  
 
- 151 - 
 
  South Korea had not responded to the market access application submitted by EU member States 
since 2006, urging for an expedient resolution on this issue. The European Union also urged other 
Members, including Malaysia, to promptly allow imports of safe be ef from the European Union. 
The European Union also urged the United States and China to continue lifting their import bans for 
all pending EU member States. The European Union al so appreciated positive developments in 
Chinese Taipei and Japan.  
2.597.   In March 2018, the European Union reiterated the importance of this concern, recalling BSE -
related science on the safe trade of beef regardless of the BSE country risk status, as stated by t he 
OIE. The European Union regretted that some countries maintained their BSE -related bans, which 
contradicted their obligations under the SPS Agreement. The European Union also underlined the 
lack of transparency of some Members' import procedures, as wel l as undue delays in approval 
procedures of some Members. The European Union appreciated the positive developments in China, 
Japan, Korea, Chinese Taipei and the United States, and further urged all Members to promptly allow 
imports of safe beef from the E uropean Union.  
2.598.   In July 2018, the European Union reiterated the importance of this concern, noting that there 
was no longer an BSE -related crisis, and that science had proven that safe trade of beef could take 
place regardless of the BSE country risk status . The European Union requested WTO Members to lift 
BSE-related import bans, not to require overly burdensome information, nor to treat safe 
commodities, as defined by OIE, as non -safe commodities. The European Union urged Members to 
observe international s tandards, or to provide a risk assessment to justify deviations, and not to 
discriminate between countries with the same BSE status. The European Union regretted the undue 
delays faced regarding approval procedures in many countries, and urged countries to  lift remaining 
BSE-related restrictions on imports for all EU members States and to apply international standards. 
The European Union appreciated the positive developments in China, Chinese Taipei and Japan 
regarding EU member States' applications for bee f, and hoped that they would proceed with other 
pending market access applications. The European Union also urged Korea to finalize EU member 
States applications which have been pending for a very long time.  
2.599.   In November 2018, the European Union reiterated its concern, noting unjustified undue 
delays in several Members regarding import approval procedures for safe commodities as defined 
by OIE. The European Union noted that longer approval procedures due to insufficient resources 
would constitute significant  trade barriers in violation of Article 8 of the SPS Agreement. 
The European Union welcomed positive developments in China, Japan, and Chinese Taipei regarding 
certain EU member States applications, and hoped that they would proceed swiftly with all pendin g 
EU applications. The European Union urged Korea to finalize pending EU member States applications 
without any further delays. Finally, the European Union urged all Members to align their BSE 
requirements with OIE standards and to lift restrictions, parti cularly to allow trade in safe 
commodities (e.g. beef) regardless of the BSE country status.  
__________