G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14  
 
4 March 2014  
(14-1315)  Page: 1/90  
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
 SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
Revision 
At the 15-16 March 2000 meeting of the SPS Committee, the Secretariat was requested to prepare 
a paper summarizing the specific trade concer ns 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 Members (G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.1 to 13). The specific trade concerns in 
the fourteenth revision of G/SPS/GEN/204 maintain the previously assigned numbers according to the chronological order of the Committee meetings in which they were first raised. These numbers 
serve as unique identifiers and are intended to facili tate tracking of individual trade concerns over 
time. 
 The fourteenth revision of G/SPS/GEN/204 is divided into two sections: 
 
a. STCs general overview; and 
b. STCs discussed in 2013. 
 
Section 1 of the document contains summary statistics and graphs for all the trade concerns raised in the SPS Committee between the first regular m eeting of 1995 and the last regular meeting of 
2013. The trade concerns are categorized as relating to food safety, animal or plant health. This 
section also includes a summary table which identifies for each specific trade concern according to 
the assigned number, the Member(s) maintaining the measure, the Member(s) raising the concern, as well as information on whether the issue has been reported to have been resolved. 
 
Section 2 of the document contains information regarding all issues which were raised in the SPS Committee in 2013. This includes (1) issues raised for the first time in 2013; (2) issues which 
were previously raised and on which further discu ssions or activities occurred during 2013; and 
(3) issues for which there was no substantive discussion in the Committee during 2013, but where Members reported that a previously raised issue had been resolved, or where substantive action 
on the issue occurred in another WTO body during 2013 (e.g., establishment of a dispute 
resolution panel on the issue). 
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. 
2 G/SPS/R/18, para.20. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Table of contents 
Page 
1   STCS GENERA L OVERVIEW .......................................................................................... 5  
Table 1 - List of Specific Trade Concerns (1995–2013) .................................................... 8  
2   STCS CONSID ERED IN 2013 ...................................................................................... 26  
Table 2.1 – Issues Raised for the First Time in 2013 ...................................................... 28  
Table 2.2 - Issues Previously Rais ed and Discussed Again in 2013 ................................ 29  
Table 2.3 - Issues Reported  as Resolved in 2013 ........................................................... 30  
2.1   Brazil ...................................................................................................................... 32  
2.1.1   Food safety ........................................................................................................... 32 
Measures on shri mp (STC  344)  .......................................................................................... 32 
2.2   China ...................................................................................................................... 33  
2.2.1   Food safety ........................................................................................................... 33 
Hygiene standard for distilled spirits and integrated alcoholic beverages (S TC 278)  ................... 33 
Chinese quarantine and testing pr ocedures for salm on (STC  319) ........................................... 35 
Import conditions related to phthalates  (STC 345) ................................................................ 38 
Import policy on swal low nests (S TC 360)  ........................................................................... 39 
Import restrictions in response to the Japa nese nuclear power plan t accident (STC 354) ............ 39 
2.2.2   Animal Health ....................................................................................................... 39 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193) ................................................................. 39 
Import restrictions on beef due to BSE (STC 363) ................................................................. 39 
2.3   Costa Rica ..............................................................................................................  40 
2.3.1   Food safety ........................................................................................................... 40 
MRLs for veterinary medicines in live animals (STC 349) ........................................................ 40 
2.4   European Union ...................................................................................................... 41  
2.4.1   Food safety ........................................................................................................... 41 
Application and modification of the EU Regulation on Nove l Foods (S TC 238)  ............................ 41 
Maximum residue levels of pesticides (STC 306) ................................................................... 47 
EU renewal of GMO a pprovals (S TC 353)  ............................................................................. 51 
2.4.2   Animal Health ....................................................................................................... 52 
Prohibition of use and sale of treated seed s (STC 350) .......................................................... 52 
EU temperature treatment requirements for imports of processed meat products 
(STC 351) ....................................................................................................................... 52 
2.4.3   Plan t Heal th ..........................................................................................................  53 
EU quarantine measures on certain pine trees and other products (STC 348) ............................ 53 
EU import requirements for orchid tissue  culture plantlets in  flasks (S TC 355)  .......................... 54 
Phytosanitary measures on ci trus black spot  (STC 356) ......................................................... 55 
2.4.4   Other concerns ...................................................................................................... 56 
EU Court of Justice ruling regarding pollen derived from GMOs (STC  327) ................................ 56 
2.5   France, Eu ropean Un ion ......................................................................................... 57  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.5.1   Food safety ........................................................................................................... 57 
Ban on Bispheno l A (STC  346)  ........................................................................................... 57 
2.6   India ................................................................................................................... ... 57 
2.6.1   Animal Health ....................................................................................................... 57 
Import conditions for pork and pork products (STC 358) ........................................................ 57 
2.6.2   Plan t Heal th ..........................................................................................................  58 
Import restrictions on apples , pears and citr us (STC  347)  ...................................................... 58 
2.7   Hong Kong, China ................................................................................................... 59  
2.7.1   Food safety ........................................................................................................... 59 
Import restrictions in response to the Japa nese nuclear power plan t accident (STC 354) ............ 59 
2.8   In donesia ...............................................................................................................  60 
2.8.1   Animal Health ....................................................................................................... 60 
Import restrictions on poultry meat (STC 286) ..................................................................... 60 
2.8.2   Plan t Heal th ..........................................................................................................  61 
Indonesia's port cl osures (S TC 330)  ................................................................................... 61 
2.9   Japan ................................................................................................................... .. 66 
2.9.1   Food safety ........................................................................................................... 66 
Japan's MRLs applied to sesame (STC 321) .......................................................................... 66 
Restrictions on shrimp due to an ti-oxidant residu es (STC  342) ............................................... 68 
2.9.2   Animal Health ....................................................................................................... 69 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193) ................................................................. 69 
Restrictions related to FMD (STC 332) ................................................................................. 69 
Import restrictions on beef due to BSE (STC 364) ................................................................. 70 
2.9.3   Plan t Heal th ..........................................................................................................  70 
Quarantine requirement for blueberries (STC 366) ................................................................ 70 
2.10   Korea, Re public of ................................................................................................ 71  
2.10.1   Food  safety ......................................................................................................... 71 
Strengthened import restrictions on fishery products with regard to radionuclides 
(STC 359) ....................................................................................................................... 71 
2.10.2   Animal Health ...................................................................................................... 71 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193) ................................................................. 71 
2.11   Malaysia ...............................................................................................................  72 
2.11.1   Food  safety ......................................................................................................... 72 
Import restrictions on pork and pork products (STC 323) ....................................................... 72 
2.12   Russian Federation ............................................................................................... 73  
2.12.1   Food  safety ......................................................................................................... 73 
Non-recognition of testing laboratori es for meat prod ucts (STC  361) ....................................... 73 
Import restrictions on conf ectionary produc ts (STC  368) ........................................................ 73 
2.13   Saudi Arabi a, Kingdom of ..................................................................................... 74  
2.13.1   Food  safety ......................................................................................................... 74 
Import conditions on  poultry (S TC 365)  .............................................................................. 74 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.14   South Africa ......................................................................................................... 7 4 
2.14.1   Animal Health ...................................................................................................... 74 
Import restrictions on beef due to BSE (STC 362) ................................................................. 74 
2.15   Chines e Taipei  ...................................................................................................... 75  
2.15.1   Food  safety ......................................................................................................... 75 
Import restrictions in response to the Japa nese nuclear power plan t accident (STC 354) ............ 75 
2.16   Turkey .................................................................................................................. 75  
2.16.1   Food  safety ......................................................................................................... 75 
Prohibition of certain food additive s in traditional foods (STC  367)  .......................................... 75 
2.16.2   Animal Health ...................................................................................................... 76 
Requirements for importation of sheep meat (STC 340) ......................................................... 76 
2.17   United States of America ...................................................................................... 77  
2.17.1   Food  safety ......................................................................................................... 77 
US proposed rule on good manufacturing  practice for human  food (S TC 352)  ........................... 77 
Accreditation of third-party bodies to conduct food safety audits and to issue 
certifications  (STC 357) .................................................................................................... 78 
2.18   Vi et Nam .............................................................................................................. 79 
2.18.1   Food  safety ......................................................................................................... 79 
Ban on offals (STC 314) .................................................................................................... 79 
2.19   Certai n Member s .................................................................................................. 83  
2.19.1   Food  safety ......................................................................................................... 83 
Import restrictions in response to the Japa nese nuclear power plan t accident (STC 354) ............ 83 
2.19.2   Animal Health ...................................................................................................... 84 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193) ................................................................. 84 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1  STCS GENERAL OVERVIEW  
1.1.  Altogether, 368 specific trade concerns were raised in the 19 years between 1995 and the 
end of 2013. Chart 1.1 shows the number of new concerns raised each year; 24 new concerns were raised in 2013. 
Chart 1.1 – Number of New Issues Raised 
 
2112423
13
102942
29
2131
1016 16
1322
16 1624
051015202530354045
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 
 
 
1.2.  Chart 1.2a categorizes the trade concerns raised over the 19 years into food safety, animal or plant health issues. Overall, 31% of trade concerns relate to food safety concerns, 24% relate 
to plant health, and 6% concern other issues such as certification requirements, control or 
inspection procedures. 39% of concerns raised re late to animal health and zoonoses. The animal 
health and zoonoses category is further divided into foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), transmissible 
spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), avian influenz a (AI) and other animal health concerns (OAH). 
Chart 1.2b shows that TSEs account for 33% of an imal health concerns, while issues related to 
FMD and to avian influenza account for 24% and 9%, respectively. The remaining 34% relate to OAH concerns. 
Chart 1.2a – Trade Concerns by Subject 
 
Animal 
Health
39%
Food Safety
31%Plant Health
24%Other
6%
 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 6 - 
 
   
Chart 1.2b – Trade Concerns Rela ted to Animal Health & Zoonoses 
 
TSE
33%
FMD
24%AI
9%OAH
34%
 
 
 
1.3.   Developing countries are participating actively under this agenda item in the SPS Committee meetings. Chart 1.3a indicates that over the 19 years, developing country Members have raised 
205 trade concerns (on many occasions more than one Member has raised, supported or 
maintained an issue) compared to 219 raised by developed country Members and five raised by least-developed country Members.
3 A developing country Member has supported another Member 
raising an issue in 277 cases, compared to 183 for developed country Members and three for 
least-developed country Members. In 206 cases, the measure at issue was maintained by a 
developed country Member, and in 191 cases it wa s maintained by a developing country Member. 
One trade concern regarding measures maintained by a least-developed country Member has been 
raised. Chart 1.3b shows the number of new issues raised each year by each category of Member.4 
                                               
3  On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty  on European Union and the Treaty 
establishing the European Community  (done at Lisbon, 13 December 2007) 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 su cceeds the European Community. The European Union 
was counted as one Member. Similarly, when one Member  spoke on behalf of ASEAN, it was counted as one 
Member only. 
4 As any individual trade concern can potentially be raised by more than one Member, this explains the 
apparent double-counting shown in Charts 1.3a and 1.3b  compared with the overall count of the 368 specific 
trade concerns raised since 1995. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 7 - 
 
  Chart 1.3a – Participation by WTO Members (1995-2013) 
 
206183219
191277205
135
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300Members Maintaining the
Measure in QuestionSupporting MembersMembers Raising the IssueNumber of Members
Least-Developed Countries Developing Countries Developed Countries
 
 
Chart 1.3b – Number of New Issues Raised by Members 
 
4101618
11
52129
20
1516
710
6
25788
21113
5522
20
12
1016
56101218
12
1016
311
05101520253035Number of Issues
Developed countries Developing countries Least-Developed Countries
 
 
 
1.4.   Chart 1.4 indicates that 141 trade concerns have been reported resolved out of the 
368 trade concerns raised over the 19 years. Forty issues were reported as resolved in 2013,. Thirty-one trade concerns have been reported to be partially solved. In these instances, trade may 
have been allowed for selected products or by some of the importing Members maintaining the 
measure in question. No solutions have been reported for the remaining 196 trade concerns. There are 172 trade concerns that are at least one year old and for which no solution has been reported. 
However, some of these concerns may have been resolved without the Committee being made 
aware of these developments. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 8 - 
 
  Chart 1.4 – Solved Trade Concerns 
 
196
141
31
050100150200250
No solution reported Solution reported Partial solution reportedNumber of Issues
Status
 
Table 1 - List of Specific  Trade Concerns (1995–2013) 
Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
1995 
1 Shelf-life requirements  Ko rea, 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 gelatin 
imports Norway Brazil R 
4 Measures related to BSE Argentina, Australia, 
Austria, Belgium, 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 
                                               
5 NR= Not Reported, P = Partially resolved, R= Resolved. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 9 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
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 
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 Gelatin imports  European Union Brazil, United 
States of 
America PR 
33 Salmonella-related 
restriction on fishmeal imports European Union Chile, Peru PR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 10 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
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 
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 PR 
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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 11 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
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 NR 
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 PR 
62 Restrictions on imports of 
horses India European Union NR 
63 Information on dioxin Certain Members European Union R 
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 gelatin 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 12 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
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 
88 Import restrictions due to 
FMD Canada, United States of 
America Hungary NR 
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 Directive 2000/42 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 13 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
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 NR 
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 
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 pigmeat 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 14 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
123 Restrictions on imports of 
potatoes, onions, fertilised eggs, day-old chicks and meat products Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of Canada, 
Colombia PR 
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 (Directive 
96/23) 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 PR 
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 NR 
138 Pest risk assessment 
requirements Argentina United States 
of America R 
139 Restriction on pigmeat  Australia European Union R 
140 Imports of live ostriches Brazil European Union R 
141 Pest risk assessments for 
imports of plant origin Brazil Canada NR 
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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 15 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
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 
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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 16 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
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 
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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 17 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
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 NR 
209 Plant health directive European Union United States 
of America NR 
210 Restrictions on imports of 
chicken meat  Guatemala Mexico NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 18 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 19 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
233 Phytosanitary import 
legislation Israel European Union R 
234 Suspension of importation 
of live poultry and poultry 
carcasses  Thailand Mexico NR 
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 NR 
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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 20 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
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 
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 NR 
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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 21 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
274 Korea's Livestock 
Epidemic Prevention Act Korea, Republic of Canada NR 
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 NR 
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 
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 PR 
286 Import restrictions on 
poultry meat Indonesia Brazil NR 
287 Import restrictions on 
fresh pork meat and beef South Africa Brazil PR 
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 NR 
292 Prohibition of ornamental 
plants larger than 18 inches  United States of America Costa Rica R G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 22 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
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 EC Regulation 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 
304 Proposed MRL for 1-
Methylcyclopropene in 
bananas Canada Ecuador NR 
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 NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 23 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
316 United States import 
restrictions on chrysanthemums  United States of America Costa Rica NR 
317 Mexico's BSE measures  Mexico Canada NR 
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 NR 
326 Restrictions on table 
grapes, apples and pears Thailand South Africa NR 
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 NR 
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 aluminum 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 24 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
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 NR 
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 NR 
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 
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 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 25 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
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 NR 
361 Non-recognition of testing 
laboratories for meat 
products Russian Federation India NR 
362 Import restrictions on beef 
due to BSE South Africa Brazil NR 
363 Import restrictions on beef 
due to BSE China Brazil NR 
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 
 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 26 - 
 
  2  STCS CONSIDERED IN 2013 
2.1.  A total of 79 specific trade concerns were brought to the attention of the Committee during 
2013, of which 24 were new issues (Table 2.1), 15 were previously raised (Table 2.2) and 40 were reported as resolved (Table 2.3). Chart 2.1 shows all trade concerns raised or for which a 
resolution was reported in 2013 in the Committee, by  subject. Overall, 30 issues (38%) relate to 
food safety, 16 issues (20%) relate to plant health  and five issues (6%) relate to other concerns. 
The remaining 28 issues (35%) relate to animal heal th and zoonoses; this category includes issues 
such as transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSEs) that are also relevant for food safety. 
TSEs account for 39% of animal health concerns raised in 2013, while issues related to foot-and-
mouth disease account for 22%. Issues related to avian influenza account for 7% and the remaining 32% concern other animal health issues. 
Chart 2.1 - Trade Concerns by Subject – 2013 
 
Animal Health Food Sa fety Plant Health Other
Total 28 30 16 5
New 61 35 005101520253035
 
 
Chart 2.2 - Trade Concerns Related to Animal Health & Zoonoses – 2013  
TSE
39%
FMD
22%
AI
7%OAH
32%
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 27 - 
 
  Chart 2.3 - Participation of Members – 2013 
 
333739
448047
020
0 2 04 06 08 0Members Maintaining the
Measure in QuestionSupporting MembersMembers Raising the IssueNumber of Members
Least-Developed Countries Developing Countries Developed Countries
 
 
2.2.  Of the 79 trade concerns discussed in 2013 (including those resolved), in 39 cases a 
developed country Member has raised the issue,  compared to 47 cases for developing country 
Members. On some occasions, developing and developed country Members have raised or supported the same issue. No cases were raised by a least-developed country Member in 2013. Developed country Members have supported another Member raising the issue in 37 cases and 
developing country Members have supported another Member in 80 cases. Two cases were 
supported by a least-developed country Member in 2013. 
2.3.  In 44 cases, the measure at issue was maintained by a developing country Member, and in 
33 cases it was maintained by a developed country Member. Some specific trade concerns are with 
regard to measures maintained by more than one Member, including combinations of developed and developing countries. No trade concerns regarding measures maintained by a least-developed 
country Member were raised.
6 
2.4.  Panel proceedings occurred in the context of the WTO dispute settlement resolution 
procedures with respect to two previously raised STCs (185 and 318).   
2.5.  The information that follows is presented according to the Member(s) maintaining the 
measure in the order of the alphabetic list of Members. It provides a summary of the discussions 
in the SPS Committee on the trade concern. 
                                               
6 As any individual trade concern can potentially be raised by more than one Member, this explains the 
apparent double-counting shown in Charts 1.3a and 1.3b  compared with the overall count of the 368 specific 
trade concerns raised since 1995. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 28 - 
 
  Table 2.1 – Issues Raised for the First Time in 2013 
Specific 
Trade 
Concern Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status
7 
345 Import conditions related to 
phthalates China European Union NR 
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 
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 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 NR 
361 Non-recognition of testing 
laboratories for meat products Russian Federation India NR 
362 Import restrictions on beef 
due to BSE South Africa Brazil NR 
363 Import restrictions on beef 
due to BSE China Brazil NR 
364 Import restrictions on beef 
due to BSE Japan Brazil NR 
365 Import conditions on 
poultry Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of European Union NR 
                                               
7 NR= Not Reported, P = Partially resolved, R= Resolved. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 29 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status7 
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 
 
Table 2.2 - Issues Previously Raised and Discussed Again in 2013 
Specific 
Trade Concern Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the Issue Status
8 
193 General import restrictions 
due to BSE Certain Members European 
Union, United 
States of 
America PR 
238 Application and modification 
of the EU Regulation on Novel Foods European Union Colombia, 
Ecuador, Peru NR 
278 Hygiene standard for 
distilled spirits and integrated alcoholic 
beverages China Mexico NR 
286 Import restrictions on 
poultry meat Indonesia Brazil NR 
306 Maximum residue levels of 
pesticides European Union India NR 
314 Ban on offals  Viet Nam United States 
of America, 
European Union NR 
319 Chinese quarantine and 
testing procedures for salmon  China Norway NR 
321 Japan's MRLs applied to 
sesame  Japan Paraguay NR 
323 Import restrictions on pork 
and pork products Malaysia European Union NR 
327 EU Court of Justice ruling 
regarding pollen derived from GMOs European Union Argentina NR 
330 Indonesia's port closures Indonesia China, 
European Union, New 
Zealand, United 
States of America  PR 
332 Restrictions related to FMD Japan Argentina NR 
340 Requirements for 
importation of sheep meat Turkey Australia NR 
342 Restrictions on shrimp due 
to anti-oxidant residues Japan India NR 
344 Measures on shrimp Brazil Ecuador NR 
                                               
8 NR= Not Reported, P = Partially resolved, R= Resolved. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 30 - 
 
  Table 2.3 - Issues Reported as Resolved in 2013 
Specific 
Trade 
Concern Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status
9 
5 Import requirements for 
wine Brazil European Union R 
17 Cosmetics and BSE European Union Australia R 
26 Phytosanitary issues in 
general  Certain Members United States 
of America R 
37 Actions taken by local 
governments United States of America Chile R 
43 Prohibition on bone-in beef 
imports from EC member 
States South Africa European Union R 
55 TSE-related import 
restrictions of live cattle  Israel European Union R 
128 Import requirements for 
cosmetics China European Union R 
134 SPS measures on animal 
products Romania Moldova, 
Republic of R 
138 Pest risk assessment 
requirements Argentina United States 
of America 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 
158 Restrictions on pork imports Croatia Slovenia R 
162 Fumigation standards Japan United States 
of America R 
171 Animal health conditions 
and certification 
requirements for live fish European Union Australia 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 
179 Guidelines for maximum 
residue level (MRL) testing Korea, Republic of United States 
of America R 
187 FMD restrictions Panama Argentina R 
197 Regulation on Ocratoxin A 
in coffee  European Union Colombia R 
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 
216 Restrictions on Ya pears 
imports United States of America China R 
221 Safety insurance and 
quality improvement 
standards for feed and feed 
additives Japan China R 
                                               
9 NR= Not Reported, P = Partially resolved, R= Resolved. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 31 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status9 
225 Restrictions on US poultry Mexico United States 
of America R 
230 Phytosanitary requirements 
on fresh oranges  Costa Rica Nicaragua R 
232 Import restrictions on EC 
beef due to BSE Israel European Union R 
241 Import restrictions on 
wooden Christmas trees  United States of America China R 
248 Regionalization for bovine 
and pig meat products Korea, Republic of Brazil R 
255 Application of 
regionalization and 
prohibition of bovine meat  China Brazil R 
262 Restrictions on heat-treated 
products in relation to avian 
influenza Egypt European Union R 
273 Health certificate ratification 
by national embassies Oman, Certain Members European Union R 
277 NAPPO draft standard for 
ships and cargoes from areas infested with Asian gypsy moth Canada, Mexico, United 
States of America China R 
281 Import restrictions on 
gelatine from bovine hides 
and head skin due to BSE 
requirements Colombia Brazil R 
284 Rule on importation of 
wooden handicrafts from China United States of America China R 
290 Suspension of inspection 
and delivery of plant and animal health certificates 
for imports Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of Colombia R 
297 Registration requirement 
for pet food export 
enterprises Canada China R 
308 Restrictions on bovines and 
bubalines for reproduction Brazil Colombia R 
312 Restrictions on beef exports 
due to BSE-related concerns Mexico Nicaragua R 
313 Import restrictions due to 
dioxin contamination in Germany Certain Members European Union R 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 32 - 
 
  2.1  Brazil 
2.1.1  Food safety 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) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally. 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.6.  In October 2012, Ecuador flagged the drasti c 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. 
2.7.  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. 
2.8.  In March 2013, Ecuador reiterated its concern regarding Brazil's import ban on shrimp. 
Following Brazil's implementation of Regulation 39 on 4 November 1999, Ecuador's shrimp exports 
to Brazil first decreased and then completely st opped 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 necessary 
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 the 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. 
2.9.  Brazil confirmed that a risk analysis on Ecuadorian shrimp was being 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 identification phase in Ma rch, 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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 33 - 
 
  2.2  China 
2.2.1  Food safety Hygiene standard for distilled spirits and in tegrated alcoholic beverages (STC 278) 
Raised by: Mexico 
Supported by: European Union, Paraguay, United States of America 
Dates raised: February 2009 (G/SPS/R/54, paras. 8-9), June 2009 (G/SPS/R/55, 
paras. 41-42), October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, paras. 33-34), October 2011 
(G/SPS/R/64, para. 195), March 20 12 (G/SPS/R/66, paras. 53-55), 
March 2013 (G/SPS/R/70, paras. 3.27-3.30) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHN/111, G/SPS/N/CHN/111/Suppl.1, G/SPS/N/CHN/377 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.10.  In February 2009, Mexico indicated that China's notified regulation (G/SPS/N/CHN/111) classified alcoholic beverages in three categories: distilled cereal spirits, distilled fruit spirits and 
other distilled spirits, establishing maximum levels of methanol of 0.6, 8.0 and 0.6 grams per litre, 
respectively. Since tequila was made from agave, it was to be classified in the "other distilled spirits" category. As such it would not have access to the Chinese market, since according to the relevant Mexican standard, tequila contained up to 3 grams of alcohol per litre. In 2001, in the 
context of China's WTO accession, Mexico and China had signed a Memorandum of Understanding 
through which China had recognized that tequila was a product originating in Mexico, produced according to Mexican standards and regulations. Mexico requested that China modify its draft 
measure, taking into account the special raw material from which tequila was made, and giving 
tequila the same treatment as distilled fruit spirits. Mexico's tequila producers had sent comments to this effect to China's Enquiry Point, and the Mexican Government would shortly be submitting 
comments as well. Mexico thanked China for a bilateral meeting on this subject and looked forward 
to finding a mutually acceptable solution. 
2.11.  China encouraged Mexico to submit comment s to China's Enquiry Point. Comments received 
during the comment period would be taken into account. China, of course, was allowed to take 
measures necessary to protect health. 
2.12.  In June 2009, Mexico recalled its concern with China's regulation for alcoholic beverages 
regarding maximum quantities of methanol. Mexico had provided its comments during the 
specified period, and hoped that these would be taken into account. 
2.13.  China clarified that the national standards were applied to all distilled and alcoholic 
beverages equally and were not aimed specifically at tequila. A written reply to Mexico's comments 
had been provided, and China hoped a mutually satisfactory solution would be found through the 
on-going technical discussions. 
2.14.  In October 2009, Mexico stated that the Federal Commission for Prevention of Sanitary 
Risks of the Ministry of Health, as well as the national tequila industry, had submitted comments 
on China's standard in September 2009. In additi on, a risk analysis had been submitted on the 
content of methanol in tequila. Bilateral meetings had taken place on the margins of the SPS Committee meeting and useful information had been obtained for the review of the standard. 
Mexico reiterated its commitment to work jointly with China on the issue. 
2.15.  China confirmed the reception of comments and supporting materials from Mexico. China 
was aware of the particularity of the processing  techniques of tequila. Chinese experts were 
currently reviewing comments from different stakeholders, and the comments and suggestions 
from Mexico would be taken into consideration in the review of the standard. 
2.16.  In October 2011, Mexico again expressed concerns on China's hygienic standard for distilled 
spirits and integrated alcoholic beverages, in particular the maximum established level for 
methanol in distilled beverages and the classification of tequila. Mexico had raised this issue in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 34 - 
 
  several bilateral meetings, submitted relevant scientific information to assist Chinese officials 
understand the unique features of tequila, and had also submitted a bibliographic analysis on the presence of methanol in distilled alcoholic beverages and its relation to consumer health. The private sector had also sent comments to the Chinese authorities. Mexico pointed out that certain 
alcoholic beverages with methanol levels higher than tequila, such as fruit marc spirits, were 
produced and sold internationally without any reported negative health effects, and that tequila's maximum methanol content of three grams per litre  was inherent to the product, not related to 
poor quality or processing. Mexico concluded that China's proposed maximum limit on methanol 
could be at odds with existing scientific evidence and, as such, unjustified. China indicated that it would carefully review the information from Mexico. 
2.17.  In March 2012, Mexico recalled that it had first raised its concerns regarding the maximum 
level established for methanol on alcoholic beverages and the lack of nomenclature classification 
that could cover tequila in China's hygiene standard for distilled spirits and integrated alcoholic beverages in February 2009. Mexico had held various bilateral meetings to discuss this issue, and 
in September 2011 had submitted comments on Ch ina's notification G/SPS/N/CHN/377. Mexico 
requested that the Chinese requirement be modified to reflect the maximum level of methanol permitted under the Mexican Standard for Tequila, 3.0 g/l ethanol 100 AA. This would allow tequila 
and other beverages produced from agave to access the Chinese market. Studies confirmed that 
the methanol limits proposed by Mexico did not pose a health risk. 
2.18.  The United States supported the concerns raised by Mexico, and requested China to provide 
a risk assessment to justify the measure, as well as an explanation of the regulation and the 
expected date of entry into force. The United States also asked China to provide a one year 
transition period for companies to comply with the regulation once China had provided its risk assessment and had notified the final measure to  the WTO. The European Union echoed these 
concerns, and noted that the measure created un necessary barriers to trade, and was not based 
on science. 
2.19.  China observed that bilateral meetings had taken place with Mexico and noted that the 
standard was based on Chinese consumption habits. China would take Members' comments into 
consideration and keep them informed. 
2.20.  In March 2013, Mexico reiterated its concern regarding the Chinese Hygiene Norm GB 2757-
2012 that established maximum levels for methanol in spirits and alcoholic beverages. Since 
Mexico had first raised this concern in 2009, it had held various bilateral meetings with China. In 
July 2010, Chinese authorities inspected the produc tion of tequila in Mexico and in 2011, Mexico 
provided a bibliographic analysis on methanol in alcoholic beverages and its effect on consumers' 
health. Nevertheless, in September 2012 China adopted the technical Regulation GB2757-2012 
imposing a limit of 2.0g/l methanol in alcoholic beverages. This limit excluded several fruit distillates and spirits derived from grapes, as well as tequila 100% agave, from the Chinese 
market. Mexico considered that this measure was not in compliance with Articles 2.2, 5.1 and 5.6 
of the SPS Agreement, especially as China had not provided any scientific evidence or a risk assessment to justify its restriction. In December 2012 and again in March 2013 Mexico had requested an explanation and the scientific justification for the measure, but had received no 
response. Mexico urged China to respond to these requests and to modify its measure in light of 
the available information. 
2.21.  The United States supported the concern raised by Mexico, as the measure could potentially 
bar exports of some US spirits to China. The United States requested China to ensure the 
regulation was based on science, provide a risk assessment and revise the methanol limit to allow for the trade of safely produced distilled spirits. 
2.22.  The European Union and Paraguay echoed these concerns and asked China to adopt a less 
trade restrictive measure based on scientific evidence. Paraguay also noted that Members had the obligation to provide scientific justification at the request of other Members. 
2.23.  China responded that the methanol limit was set to ensure safety in light of heavy 
consumption of alcohol by Chinese consumers. China had notified the draft twice, in January 2009 
and in July 2011, and had responded to the comments raised by Members. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 35 - 
 
  Chinese quarantine and testing pr ocedures for salmon (STC 319) 
Raised by: Norway 
Supported by: European Union, Switzerland, United States of America 
Dates raised: June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, paras 19-24), October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, 
para. 196), March 2012 (G/SPS/R/66, paras. 44-46), July 2012 (G/SPS/R/67, paras. 40-42), October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, paras. 40-41), March 2013 (G/SPS/R/70, paras. 3.34-3.36), June 2013 (G/SPS/R/71, 
paras. 4.22-4.24), October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 3.42-3.43) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/1090 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.24.  In June 2011, Norway stated that after years of steady increase in its exports of fresh 
salmon to China, exports had dropped significan tly due to testing and quarantine procedures 
implemented by China on 13 December 2010. These we re followed by strengthened inspection and 
quarantine procedures as stated in Notice No. 9 2011, which had not been notified to the WTO. 
The Norwegian monitoring programmes, in operatio n since 1998, showed no presence of illegal 
substances in the fish products and had consistently documented low levels of contaminants. China's measures did not seem to be based on scientific principles or a risk assessment, and 
Norway requested an explanation for these measures and how they complied with the SPS 
Agreement. 
2.25.  The United States supported Norway and expressed their concern that China had 
implemented AQS1Q Order No. 9, Notice on Strengthening Inspection and Quarantine on Imported 
Salmon, in February 2011, without having notified the measure. The stated objective of this notice 
was to safeguard consumer health, however no risk assessment had been provided. The United 
States requested a copy of China's risk assessment, and requested that China rescind AQS1Q 
Order No. 9's documentation requirements until the measure had been notified. China was also asked to explain how the requirement for the exporter's vessel name and number related to ensuring that wild salmon was safe for human consumption. 
2.26.  The European Union also called for transparency in all SPS matters. 
2.27.  China clarified that since 2010, the entry and exit inspection and quarantine bureaus in 
China had detected fish lice, pathogenic micro-organisms and excess veterinary drug residues in 
imported chilled salmon. In an attempt to protect their consumers, China had published a notice to 
strengthen the inspection and quarantine of imported salmon, based on the Administrative 
Measure for Inspection, Quarantine and Supervis ion on Import and Export of Feed and Feed 
Additives and its revision and amendment measures  of imports and exports of aquatic products, 
which were notified to the WTO. The measures taken were covered by these laws and regulations without any new element and therefore it was unnecessary to make another notification. China had already responded to Norway's concerns when it raised them in March 2011, during Norway's 
visit to China's AQSIQ and hoped that those replies addressed its concerns. China was open to 
further bilateral discussions with the European Union and the United States on this topic. 
2.28.  Norway stressed that ensuring seafood safety is a major objective of Norwegian authorities, 
who monitor the presence of undesirable substances, microorganisms and parasites in wild-caught 
and farmed seafood, as well as fish feed. Norw ay had been performing a risk assessment on 
seafood, based on studies of the most commercially important fish species in Norway. 
Stakeholders often held conflicting views on food safety and on the benefits of seafood and it was 
important to distinguish between fact and fiction. Norway was keen to further collaborate in this area with China. 
2.29.  China observed that Norway's concerns focussed on the detailed testing methods, however 
these purely technical matters had to be discussed among scientists. In March, scientists from 
both countries had held detailed discussions on this issue, and almost all of Norway's concerns had been clarified. China was disappointed with the lack of Norwegian efforts to resolve this issue, as 
when any cargo was identified to be carrying dise ase the problem was supposed to be rectified by G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 36 - 
 
  the exporter. China welcomed Norway's and other interested parties participation in bilateral 
discussions as this issue had been on-going for two years. 
2.30.  In October 2011, Norway provided an update on recent developments in China's measures 
on salmon, in particular the new testing and quarantine measures on fresh salmon. The measures 
introduced in December 2010 by the implementati on of AQSIQ Order Number 9 had led to a 70% 
reduction in the volume of Norway's exports of fresh salmon to China. Norway had requested bilateral consultations between the relevant techni cal experts, and urged China to agree to hold 
this meeting before the end of 2011. China indi cated that the sharing of written documents and 
data was as important as physical talks, but Norway had not yet provided the necessary information. However, there had been smooth discussions on this issue in AQSIQ in Beijing. 
2.31.  In March 2012, Norway reiterated concerns about the new testing and quarantine measures 
introduced by China in December 2010, directed sp ecifically at fresh, chilled salmon from Norway. 
These measures were further strengthened in February 2011 by the implementation of AQSIQ Order No. 9 and had led to a dramatic reduction in the volume of Norway's exports of fresh salmon 
to China. SPS measures should be supported by a scientifically based risk analysis, but to date, 
Norway had not received a copy of China's risk assessment on salmon. Norway urged China to agree on a date for bilateral consultations at an expert level as soon as possible. 
2.32.  The European Union supported the need fo r transparency and good communication in this 
matter, and underscored the importance of open and direct contact with trading partners on measures of concern. 
2.33.  China repeated the explanation provided in June 2011 regarding the detection of fish lice, 
pathogenic micro-organisms and excess chemical  residues, among other issues, in imported 
salmon, and the measures it had taken to strength en the inspection and quarantine of imported 
salmon. These import inspection and quarantine procedures were not aimed at any particular 
Member, but quarantine issues were detected in numerous shipments of salmon from Norway. 
China was willing to adjust the relevant measures once Norway had addressed the quality issues. 
2.34.  In July 2012, Norway noted that after Dece mber 2010, China had begun to report a tenfold 
increase in the number of notifications of "contaminants" in Norwegian salmon, amounting to a 
total of 24 in 2011. A large number of these notifications identified a microorganism that was not an issue in Norwegian aquaculture due to the prevailing low water temperatures. Active co-operation between technical experts from both parties was necessary to discuss and clarify the 
issue and ultimately normalize trade, but it had not been possible to hold such technical bilateral 
meetings despite Norway's numerous requests. However, Norway was encouraged that during the recent Trade Policy Review, China agreed to address the issue in a meeting between relevant 
technical experts. 
2.35.  Switzerland shared the concerns raised by Norway and requested China and Norway to 
meet in order to resolve the issue. 
2.36.  China observed that Norway was one of the main suppliers of salmon to China; however, in 
recent years more and more shipments of unqualified salmon were being detected. In 2011, 19 shipments of salmon were deemed as unqualified for the Chinese market. The diseases found in shipments of salmon from Norway were considered to pose food safety risks by the Chinese 
National Food Safety authorities and their presence was prohibited in food products. China was in 
the process of revising the limits on pathogens in food products and would set new food safety standards. The new draft standard had been notified to the WTO for comments. China remained 
committed to continue bilateral discussions with Norway. 
2.37.  In October 2012, Norway reiterated that these measures posed serious challenges to 
Norway's trade of fresh salmon to China, as the quarantine measures implied that all 
consignments of fresh salmon would be tested and retained in custody awaiting the test results. 
The obligations under the SPS Agreement required that SPS measures be supported by a science-based risk analysis, not more trade restrictive than necessary and applied in a transparent manner. The measures applied to salmon from Norway appeared not to be proportional to the 
situation and Norway requested China to provide th e risk analysis that supported the testing and 
quarantine measures. Norway recognized the communication between AQSIQ and the Norwegian G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 37 - 
 
  Embassy in Beijing, but requested AQSIQ to agree to the request for technical consultations on 
this issue, in line with Article 5 of the SPS Agreement. 
2.38.  China reiterated that in recent years its inspection authorities had detected pathogenic 
germs and excessive veterinary drug residues in imported salmon. Based on the results of a risk 
assessment, Chinese experts were of the opinion th at the importation of salmon, especially chilled, 
fresh and farm-raised salmon, posed a high food safety risk. In order to protect the health of Chinese consumers, AQSIQ decided in early 2011 to further strengthen the inspection and 
quarantine of salmon imported into China from al l countries. The relevant measures were based on 
existing laws and regulations and were not new measures which needed to be notified to the WTO. Norway was one of the main suppliers of salmon to China, however, Norway had failed to meet China's inspection requirements in recent years. In 2011, 24 cases of unqualified aquatic products 
from Norway were reported, of which 19 cases involved salmon. China remained committed to 
continue bilateral discussions with Norway and looked forward to further communication in relation to the Sino-Norway Memorandum  of Understanding on SPS. 
2.39.  In March 2013, Norway reiterated its concerns regarding Chinese testing and quarantine 
measures for salmon, introduced in December 2010, and urged China to respond positively to its request for technical consultations with experts on this issue. 
2.40.  China indicated that since 2010, Chinese inspection and quarantine authorities had detected 
parasites, lice, pathogenic microorganisms and ve terinary drug residues exceeding standards in 
imported salmon from Norway and other countries. In January 2011, for the protection of consumer health, China had strengthened inspections and quarantine on imported salmon, in 
accordance with the Chinese food safety law. The media had recently reported on a type of 
amoebic parasite found in a Norwegian fish farm and which was suspected to be present in another four Norwegian fish farms. This parasite could infect marine fish, including salmon, with 
the amoebic gill disease, which had already impacted Norway in 2006 and had devastating effects 
on the growth of salmon in the fish farms of  Ireland and Scotland in 2012. China requested 
Norway to submit a list of fish farms and fish species that had been infected by the parasite, 
together with the measures taken by Norway in this regard. Based on the risk analysis of salmon, 
China would consider gradual adjustments to its measures under the premise of ensuring safety in the future. China expected Norway to continue to take relevant measures to carry out the inspection of exported aquatic products including salmon and to report information on the quality 
of fish and fish farms to China. 
2.41.  Norway acknowledged the right of China to  perform the necessary testing on seafood and 
on all products entering the country. However, Norway noted discrepancies between the outcomes 
of the inspections in Norway and the findings reported by China in its statement. For this reason, 
Norway emphasized the need for actual cooperation on a technical level to resolve this issue. 
2.42.  In June 2013, Norway reiterated its co ncern regarding China's testing and quarantine 
measures on salmon exported from Norway. In addition to these measures, China enforced a 
licensing system in a manner that de facto established quantitative restrictions on the import of salmon from Norway. While this system was prob ably outside the purview of the SPS Committee, 
it helped to illustrate the overall pattern of restriction. Although Norway generally had quite fruitful 
co-operation with the Chinese authorities regarding food safety and imports, it had yet to receive a 
response from China despite multiple requests for technical consultations on this issue. Norway recalled that at the SPS Committee meeting in October 2012, China stated that it had requested 
information from Norway regarding the issue of am oebic gill parasite. However, Norway had been 
unable to verify that such a request was ever rece ived by Norwegian authorities. As such, Norway 
asked China to provide the necessary information in writing so that it could comply with China's 
request. Norway expressed its desire to move this issue towards positive resolution. 
2.43.  China responded that its entry and exit inspection and quarantine agencies had detected 
carcinogenic microbes and veterinary drug residues in salmon imported from Norway. These products, especially chilled, ready-to-eat salmon, posed a substantial threat to the health of 
consumers. As such, since 2011, the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and 
Quarantine (AQSIQ) had enhanced inspection and quarantine measures on imported salmon from all countries and areas. In light of the detection of parasitic infections in salmon in recent years, 
China would consider adjusting its import measures based on quality and risk analyses of salmon 
to ensure the safety of its consumers. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 38 - 
 
  2.44.  Norway stated that there was a discrepan cy in Chinese and Norwegian testing results and 
this pointed to the need for co-operation at a technical level. Norway requested that such a 
meeting take place in order to work with China towards a solution. 
2.45.  In October 2013, Norway recalled that it had raised this concern several times in the past, 
however, the quarantine and testing measures introduced by China in 2010 were still applied to 
Norwegian salmon. Norway repeated the need for technical consultations and hoped to see a prompt positive resolution to this issue. 
2.46.  China explained that its entry-exit insp ection and quarantine services had detected 
pathogenic microorganisms and excessive veterinary drug residues in salmon, including frozen salmon. Upon risk analysis, experts had consider ed that the pathogenic bacteria found in the 
ready-to-eat frozen salmon posed a substantial threat to consumer health. As such, since 2011, 
the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) had 
enhanced inspection and quarantine measures on imported salmon from all countries and areas. 
China expressed concern about infectious salmon anaemia (ISA) that had intensively occurred in 
Norwegian salmon since 2012, and feared that Norwegian salmon could be the source of Listeria 
monocytogenes . China stated its willingness to continue communications with the Norwegian 
authorities. 
Import conditions related to phthalates (STC 345) 
Raised by: European Union 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2013 (G/SPS/R/70, paras. 3.2-3.3), June 2013 (G/SPS/R/71, 
paras. 4.29-4.30) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally. 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.47.  In March 2013, the European Union raised concerns regarding China's recent measures on phthalates in spirits and wine. Some ports in China had requested a testing report on phthalates and had applied the migration limit of the food contact material as the maximum residue limit. On 
the basis of these limits, some EU consignments had not been released. The measure was applied 
without any lead time and the testing had been excessive and had only targeted imported products at such frequency. The European Union had been informed that China was only now 
developing a standard for phthalates for food and that the testing had been performed in order to 
have data to set the appropriate level for the risk assessment in China. The European Union indicated its willingness to share any scientific as pects of risk assessment and testing methods on 
phthalates. At the same time, the European Un ion requested China to withdraw the current 
temporary measure, to base its decisions on science and to inform other trading partners with sufficient time, of any new, appropriate and justified measures. 
2.48.  China stated that according to the results of  the food safety risk monitoring conducted by its 
authorities, alcohol in imported distilled spirits might have been contaminated by phthalates. To 
tackle the problem, China had established expert  panels and had organized meetings to discuss 
the issue. A seminar on the testing and risk assessment of phthalates was scheduled to be held in 
April. China was willing to discuss its measures on phthalates in food with the European Union and 
other relevant Members. 
2.49.  In June 2013, the European Union reiterated its concern regarding China's import measures 
on phthalates in spirits and wine. In bilateral discussions China had indicated that the two 
territories shared the same legal framework rega rding phthalates. Despite this, there had been a 
disruption in trade and an unnecessary delay of EU consignments into China based on recent measures. China had said it was undertaking a risk assessment on phthalates in food and would 
base its risk management measures on the results. The European Union was willing to share any 
scientific information that could aid China in this process. Further, the European Union urged China to remain transparent in this process and consistent with its own legal framework. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 39 - 
 
  2.50.  China observed that it had discovered a risk  of phthalates in both domestic and imported 
distilled spirits, and AQSIQ had been monitoring phthalates in imported spirits since January 2013. In some of those spirits, China had discovered phthalate levels which exceeded the temporary maximum put in place during the investigatory period. Spirits with levels that exceeded the 
temporary maximum were not permitted onto the Chinese market. China had established expert 
panels to conduct risk assessments on phthalates in food, and an EU-China workshop on risk assessments for phthalates in food was held on  17 April 2013. China would continue working with 
the European Union and related Members to find an effective solution to this issue. 
Import policy on swallow nests (STC 360) 
Raised by: Indonesia 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, para. 3.9-3.10) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHN/472 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.51.  In October 2013, Indonesia raised concerns regarding the effects that China's registration requirements for foreign food-producing enterprises, notified in August 2011 (G/SPS/N/CHN/472), had on its exports of edible bird nests. Indonesia, the world's largest bird nest producer, had 
signed a protocol with China on the inspection , quarantine and hygiene requirements for the 
importation of bird nest products in April 2012. Since then, Indonesia had striven to comply with the Chinese requirements, among others on tracea bility. The Indonesian Agricultural Quarantine 
Agency had conducted feasibility assessments in eight bird nest processing plants, and invited the 
Chinese authorities to conduct a verification visit. No response had been received from China. Indonesia characterized China's registration requirements as complicated and burdensome, and 
urged China to bring its measures in line with WTO rules. 
2.52.  China noted that since the conclusion of the protocol, it had actively engaged with 
Indonesia, urging it to comply with the protocol and to inform China accordingly. China invited Indonesia to provide a veterinary and sanitary certificate model, certificates of origin, and 
documents on its control systems in order to resolve the problem as soon as possible. 
Import restrictions in response to the Japa nese nuclear power plan t accident (STC 354) 
2.53.  See paragraphs 2.296.  to 2.300.   
2.2.2  Animal Health 
General import restrictions  due to BSE (STC 193) 
2.54.  See paragraphs 2.301.   to 2.345.    
Import restrictions on beef due to BSE (STC 363) 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 3.14-3.18) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.55.  In October 2013, Brazil raised concerns regarding import restrictions by China on beef, 
stemming from a notification of Bovine Spongifo rm Encephalopathy (BSE) by Brazil in December 
2012. Brazil had provided detailed information on the unique case and the implemented risk G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 40 - 
 
  mitigation procedures to the OIE and all concerned WTO Members, including China. The case had 
affected only one native cow which had not entered the food or feed chain, and the OIE had maintained Brazil's classification as a country with negligible risk for BSE. Brazil believed the import restrictions infringed Articles 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, and Annex C of the SPS Agreement, and urged 
China to withdraw its restrictions. 
2.56.  China noted that the BSE case had occurred in 2010 but that Brazil had failed to notify 
China in accordance with a bilateral protocol signed by the two countries, which required 
immediate notification of any animal disease of quarantine significance, including BSE, and 
subsequent suspension of exports. According to China, there was no accurate pathogenesis of 
atypical BSE and the risks associated with the outbreak were unclear. China expected further 
information from Brazil in order to complete a risk analysis. 
2.57.  Brazil noted that it had provided and woul d continue providing all the information requested 
by China, especially as regards the bilateral protocol between the two countries.  
2.3  Costa Rica 
2.3.1  Food safety 
MRLs for veterinary medicines in live animals (STC 349) 
Raised by: Panama 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2013 (G/SPS/R/70, paras. 3.55-3.56) 
Relevant document(s): G/SP S/N/CRI/69, G/SPS/N/CRI/136 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.58.  In March 2013, Panama expressed its concer n with regard to the notification submitted by 
Costa Rica on National Directive SENASA-DG-D003-2011 on MRLs for medicines in live animals 
(G/SPS/N/CRI/136). Although the Directive was no tified in January 2013, it had been in place 
since November 2011. Panama asked Costa Rica to explain how it had provided for a reasonable period of time for Members to  make comments; how those comments were taken into account; 
and how its trading partners had been informed about the content of the Directive. Given that the 
MRLs established by the new Directive were take n from the Codex Alimenta rius for liver tissues 
(limit of 100ìg/k) and from the FDA for muscle ti ssues (limit of 10ìg/k), Panama also requested 
Costa Rica to explain how it performed the calculations to obtain an accurate quantitative 
measurement of a single tissue, when the sample  analysed was a processed product that might 
contain mixed portions of different tissues. 
2.59.  Costa Rica replied that an SPS notification  was required only when new measures were not 
based on international standards. Given that Costa Rica's new Directive set the same MRLs that 
were established by the Codex Alimentarius and by the FDA, there was no need to notify it in advance, or to provide a timeframe for comments before the implementation of the Directive. However, for transparency purposes, Costa Rica had decided to notify the measure in January 
2013. Costa Rica also explained that its trading pa rtners had been aware of Costa Rica's MRLs for 
veterinary medicines since 2008 when the Central American Regulation on Residues and Veterinary Medicaments was notified to the WT O (G/SPS/N/CRI/69). The Regulation established 
that the MRLs for veterinary medicines were thos e set by the Codex Alimentarius, or by the FDA 
when they were not listed in the Codex Alimentarius. With regard to processed products, Costa Rica noted that no MRLs were set for animal by-products by the Codex Alimentarius, or by any 
other international agency, hence MRLs of raw material had to be taken as parameters. In this 
case, the raw material for processed meat products would be the muscle tissue. Costa Rica highlighted the specific case of the Ivermectin dewormer that was a very dangerous active principle for human health because of its high lipid solubility, its persistence in the animal body 
and its ability to cross the nerve barriers. Costa Rica had established the MRL for Ivermectin in 
muscle tissue at 10ìg/k to protect consumers' health. This MRL allowed the identification of animals that were treated with the medication and which were sent to slaughter too early without G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 41 - 
 
  complying with the established withdrawal period . An HPLC method with fluorescence detection 
was used to test the Ivermectin levels in liver and muscle tissues. Additionally, fortified samples were used to ensure control alongside the use of good laboratory practices. 
2.4  European Union 
2.4.1  Food safety 
Application and modification of the EU  Regulation on Novel Foods (STC 238) 
Raised by: Colombia, Ecuador, Peru 
Supported by: Argentina, Benin, Bolivia, Plurinational State of, Brazil, Chile, China, 
Costa Rica, Cuba, El Salvador, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Mexico, 
Paraguay, Philippines, Uruguay, Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 
Dates raised: March 2006 (G/SPS/R/40, paras. 21-29), June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, 
paras. 35-37), October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, paras. 140-143), February 2007 (G/SPS/R/44, para. 64), April 2008 (G/SPS/R/49, paras. 48-52), 
October 2008 (G/SPS/R/53, paras. 19-23), October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, 
paras. 53-55), June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, paras. 32-35), October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, paras. 72-73), March 2012 (G/SPS/R/66, paras. 50-52), July 2012 (G/SPS/R/67, paras. 56-58), October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, 
paras. 26-28), March 2013 (G/SPS/R/70, paras. 3.37-3.39), October 
2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 3.52-3.54) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/681, G/SPS/GEN/699, G/SPS/GEN/700, G/SPS/GEN/713, 
G/SPS/GEN/714, G/SPS/GEN/733, G/SPS/GEN/735, G/SPS/GEN/1087, G/SPS/GEN/1117, G/SPS/GEN/1137, G/SPS/GEN/1218 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.60.  In March 2006, Colombia raised concerns on the application of the EC Regulation on Novel 
Foods (Regulation No 258/97) and with the draft project of the European Commission to amend the regulation, foreseen to enter into force in 2007. The amendment could directly affect the trade 
potential of traditional and exotic foods. Some traditional and exotic products already had 
substantial presence in the US and Japanese fo od markets, and European consumers were now 
becoming interested in these food products. It  was important to recall, however, that these 
traditional foods had been consumed in South America for thousands of years. This was in contrast 
to genetically modified products which could be considered as real Novel Foods. Increased trade in 
traditional and exotic products also had important socio-economic impacts, as the export of these products represented a measure to decrease extreme rural poverty in South America and had 
potential to address specific social and environmental issues, such as providing alternatives to both 
the growing of narcotic crops and to th e illegal felling of protected forests. 
2.61.  Colombia was aware of the importance of protecting consumer health. However, the amount 
of information on the safety of these traditional food products required by the EC regulation and 
the costs to undertake scientific studies were not proportional to health risks and were excessive 
especially for small scale farmers and exporter s. The proposed amendment of Regulation 258 
would result in a non-tariff barrier to trade with negative effects on the introduction of traditional 
foods into European markets, contrary to Articles 2.2 and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement. Colombia 
requested the European Communities to consider the following points regarding the amendment of the Regulation 258/97: (i) the non-application of Regulation 258 to exotic, traditional products 
with a history of safe consumption in their region of origin; (ii) greater transparency and clarity in 
the procedures and definition, giving credit to a safe consumption history of food in the country of origin; requirements, tests, and procedures in pr oportion with the nature of the foods concerned 
and the risks they could imply for consumers; and (iii) all exotic traditional products to remain in 
the public domain and no private entity to be granted privileged access to the European market. 
2.62.  Ecuador reported that the amendment would also affect the trade potential of traditional 
and exotic food from its country. In light of Ec uador's great biodiversity, over the last decade 
international organizations like UNCTAD had be en promoting the development of new export G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 42 - 
 
  products ("Bio-Comercio"). In Ecuador also the export of traditional and exotic foods had major 
socio-economic impacts and related closely to efforts to overcome rural poverty. Ecuador invited the European Communities to consider carefully Colombia's recommendations regarding the amendment. The amendment of the regulation an d its impacts were of importance for many 
developing countries. 
2.63.  Peru added that currently, within the Conv ention on Biological Diversity, countries were 
discussing measures and mechanisms for the preservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. 
Contrary to that approach, the application of Re gulation 258 would restrict greater sustainable use 
of traditional and exotic products, by diminishin g their export potential. Peru stressed the high 
costs and the long period of time needed for products to be registered under Regulation 258 to allow them to enter the European market. Peru also supported Colombia's recommendations 
regarding the amendment (G/SPS/GEN/681). 
2.64.  Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica and Paraguay report ed that their exports had also been affected by 
Regulation 258/97. Benin requested more information on how a product was considered as 
"novel". Argentina and Mexico both indicated that they were still in the process of analysing the 
implications of the regulation. El Salvador, Honduras, India, Uruguay and Venezuela and expressed their interest in the topic and shared the concerns of Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. 
2.65.  The European Communities confirmed th at Regulation 258/97 was being reviewed and 
recognized that some modifications were needed. A 40-page document which might answer a lot of questions would be circulated as an SPS document shortly. The document set out clearly the purpose and scope of the regulation, which was targeted at new food technologies, including 
genetically modified products. As the food industry was investing in different new technologies, 
Regulation 258 aimed to reassure European consum ers of the safety of those technologies. The 
vast majority of applications for authorization of Novel Foods had been from within the European 
Communities. The European policy was aimed at striking the right balance between encouraging 
technical innovation and ensuring that consumers are protected. Some products marketed as "products of biodiversity" had in the past turned out to be unsafe and harmed the users. Dealing 
with such products was thus in the interest of all stakeholders, considering the damage to the 
image of products if they were marketed in an unsafe manner. The European Communities invited interested stakeholders to submit comments and make their views known. 
2.66.  In June 2006, Peru raised further concerns regarding the EC novel food regulation. In Peru's 
view, one of the major problems of the EC regula tion was that it did not distinguish between new 
foods that had not been consumed before anyw here, and those that were new only to the 
European Communities, which was the case for most of the traditional exotic products originating 
from developing countries. Peru requested that the European Communities provide information 
showing that it was necessary to apply this measure to traditional exotic products, in accordance with the provisions of the SPS Agreement. Peru considered that the regulation constituted an 
unnecessary and unjustified barrier to trade due to th e cost and time required to gain approval for 
Novel Foods, even if they had a history of safe consumption in their countries of origin, and requested the exclusion of traditional exotic products from the novel food category. Peru also requested that the European Communities explain how special needs of developing countries had 
been taking into account in accordance with Article 10 of the SPS Agreement (G/SPS/GEN/713). 
2.67.  Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, India, Paraguay and the Philippines shared the concerns 
raised by Peru. Ecuador indicated that a study on the impact of the novel food regulation was 
about to be finalized. Preliminary results of this study showed that this regulation could have 
negative economic and social consequences for Ecuador's production system by having an effect both on current exports and on products with ex port potential in the European Communities that 
were currently marketed in other countries (G/SPS/GEN/714). Bolivia and Colombia highlighted 
that some of the products were currently being promoted inter alia by policies supporting alte rnative s  t o narc otic  c rop s , s ome  of whic h we re  fund e d  b y the  Europ e an Communit ie s  or its member States. The Philippines indicated that th e effects of the novel food regulation and of 
EC regulations on genetically modified  food were still being evaluated. 
2.68.  The European Communities stressed that  the concerns expressed were being taken 
seriously, and that the novel food regulation was currently under review (G/SPS/GEN/699 and 
G/SPS/GEN/700). The original intention of the nove l food regulation had been trade-creating; its 
purpose was to authorize trade in Novel Foods. In addition, products that had already been traded G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 43 - 
 
  prior to 1997 had been exempted. The regulation ha d been targeted mainly at EC companies. The 
regulation had been successful in that new food s were being approved on the basis of safety 
assessments. A statement that a product had been consumed for centuries was not sufficient. The European Communities highlighted that very few applications for approval of traditional exotic 
products had been received, so that there were very few case studies. Traditional exotic products 
was a broad category including some items where there had been safety concerns. In the context of the review of the regulation, the European Communities indicated that it would be helpful to 
receive more information on these products, including a clear definition of the products at issue 
whether they had been approved in other export markets, and safety-related data available, as 
well as information on the socio-economic impact. 
2.69.  In October 2006, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru reiterated concerns relating to EC Regulation 
258/97 on Novel Foods (G/SPS/GEN/733 and G/SPS/GEN/735). They considered that the 
regulation constituted a non-justified barrier to trade in these products as it was not flexible and made no distinction between novel (GMO) foods and traditional foods with no known risks. They 
noted that exotic products originating from Latin America were not the result of any type of 
genetic modification but rather formed part of th e biodiversity of the region and were consumed 
traditionally. Also there were inconsistencies in the way this regulation was applied throughout the 
European Communities. The European Communities ha d not considered the fact that many of the 
traditional products had been marketed in a number of countries with very strict sanitary standards as they posed no health risks to consumers. 
2.70.  The European Communities was requested to promptly review Regulation 258/97, and to 
exclude from its scope of application exotic traditional products resulting from biodiversity. The 
European Communities was also encouraged to take into account scientific assessments and relevant evidence from other countries and co mpetent international organizations when risk 
assessments were made, and to establish differen t procedures for foods of known risk and no 
known risk in the European Communities. The Euro pean Communities was also requested take into 
account the history of the product, the consumption patterns and traditional knowledge relating to 
its use and preparation, so as to provide for greate r flexibility in the application of the regulation 
and facilitate the entry of exotic traditional products into the European market. 
2.71.  Bolivia, Brazil and the Philippines shared the concerns of Peru, Ecuador and Colombia. The 
Philippines highlighted the fact that the regulation could become an unjustified non-tariff barrier to 
the EC market in view of the unclear technica l distinction between these products and other 
products. The Philippines expressed hope that pr ogress would be made on the issue and a mutual 
solution found as soon as possible. 
2.72.  The European Communities reminded the Committee that the issue had been discussed in 
the SPS Committee on previous occasions and there had been various exchanges of communications between the Members concerned. The European Communities acknowledged the 
problem with traditional products, which were not in the EC market prior to 1997 and noted that 
the regulation was not discriminatory as EC producers had to undergo similar risk evaluations. Nonetheless, the European Communities imported an enormous volume of foods and vegetables. They reiterated the request that the Members conc erned submit data on the volume of trade and 
risk assessments carried out in other developed countries. The European Communities indicated 
that the EC Commission was putting forward a new proposal that addressed the genuine concerns of Members. A public consultation had been he ld on the matter and the European Communities 
appreciated the contributions from the concerned Members. 
2.73.  In February 2007, Peru noted that although it had not requested that this issue be on the 
agenda for this meeting, it would welcome an update from the European Communities on current 
developments. The European Communities indicate d that the Novel Foods Regulation was being 
revised. It had initially been designed to cover a full range of Novel Foods, from GMO foods to products of biological diversity. Following public consultations and the consideration of the views and comments received, revised legislation wa s being prepared. The European Communities 
anticipated that the result would be a two-tiered process, with products that had a long history of 
safe use subjected to less rigorous procedures than other Novel Foods. The European Communities was looking to address the concerns identified by trading partners, while ensuring consumer 
safety. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 44 - 
 
  2.74.  In April 2008, Colombia, speaking on behalf of Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, 
Paraguay and Peru recalled the concerns previous ly expressed regarding the proposed revision of 
the EC Regulation 258/97, as contained in COM(2007)872. The proposed regulation had been notified to the TBT Committee, however these Members considered that it was appropriate to 
continue to consider this issue in the SPS Committee. These Members welcomed the proposed 
recognition of traditional food products from third countries, resulting from their biodiversity and with a history of safe use for large proportions of the populations of these countries. This 
recognition could facilitate trade, which was particularly important as the production of these 
traditional products was often part of programs to  diversify agricultural production and exports. 
2.75.  Colombia noted that a number of concerns remained. The proposed definition of a 
traditional foodstuff was that it had been part of the diet of a large part of the population for at 
least one generation. This definition could restrict those products that were part of the dietary 
traditions of certain subpopulations or regions of the country. It would also be useful to clarify how a "generation" was to be defined. Another concern was that requests for authorization would have 
to come from commercial operators, hence excluding such requests from the competent 
governmental authorities or producer associations. These Members suggested that information regarding safe use of the traditional food in other countries should also be considered. The 
concerned Members recognized that although the proposed process had been considerably 
simplified, a period of five months was still foreseen for consideration of a request, and they suggested that three months should be sufficient. These Members remained concerned that the definition of a novel food remained a product that  had not been consumed in the EC market prior 
to 1997, which seemed to bear no relation to the scientific evidence regarding the safety of a 
product. 
2.76.  Brazil indicated that it supported the co ncerns raised by Colombia on behalf of eight 
countries. Brazil was still analysing the relevant documents, but considered the issues raised by 
Colombia to be very important. 
2.77.  The European Communities noted that it was currently revising legislation, in particular the 
provisions on traditional products and products of biological diversity, in response to concerns 
raised by various developing countries. A much simplified procedure was now being developed. A range of legitimate and reasonable concerns  had been expressed, and these should be 
communicated directly to the relevant EC services, since the legislation was currently under 
consideration. While the concern was that the EC legislation might be a barrier to trade in 
traditional products, this should be seen in the broader context: the European Communities was by far the world's largest importer of fruits and vegetables, especially from developing countries, 
hence the import regime in general was extremely import friendly. 
2.78.  In October 2008, Peru requested that there should be a notification to the SPS Committee 
regarding the modification of the EC Novel Food s Regulation. Many exporting Members failed to 
understand the content of the regulation, why some products were banned while others were not. 
Also, the regulation gave exporting countries, many of which were developing countries, the 
burden of proof that their products were safe  and complied with the EC Regulation. Brazil, 
Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay and the Philippines shared Peru's concerns 
regarding the EC Regulation on Novel Foods. 
2.79.  UNCTAD reported that it was contributing to the review of the EC Regulation on Novel Foods 
in three specific areas: (1) revising the procedure, which required more scientific clarification; 
(2) facilitating dialogue between the Europe an Communities and developing countries; and 
(3) analysing legal aspects of current regulations in the context of multilateral agreements. 
2.80.  The European Communities stated that the existing legislation was too ambitious in covering 
a whole range of Novel Foods. For this reason, the European Communities planned to revise the 
regulation, as had been notified to the TBT Commi ttee. This proposal had been under negotiation 
in the EC Parliament and Council. However, there were concerns regarding the approval of some 
products. For instance, matters became complicated when exporters requested the classification of 
food supplements as Novel Foods, rather than wh ole fruits and vegetables. However, the revised 
procedure was expected to be more flexible, and some Novel Foods had already been approved for 
entry into the EC market. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 45 - 
 
  2.81.  The European Communities noted that in th is specific case, the legal advice had been to 
only notify the proposed revision to the TBT Co mmittee since it covered approval procedures for 
Novel Foods in general. This did not preclude that the issue could be discussed at the SPS Committee. In response to a query, the Secretariat clarified that it generally recommended 
that draft regulations with any SPS content should be notified to the SPS Committee, even if these 
regulations were also notified to the TBT Committee. 
2.82.  In October 2009, Peru recalled that the entry of traditional exotic products to the EC market 
had been seriously affected by the EC regulation on novel foods. The measure contravened the 
activities that the European Communities themselves had been undertaking to support small producers and to open the EC market to new and exotic products. Various exotic products had been certified by the Health and Environment Au thority of Peru, which certified the safety and 
compliance with a HACCP system, and these products were fit for human consumption and could 
be marketed internationally. Peru expressed concern about the continuous loss of business opportunities due to this measure and asked for an  update on the modification progress. Brazil, 
Colombia, Ecuador, and Mexico supported Peru's concerns regarding the EC regulation on Novel 
Foods. 
2.83.  The European Communities stated that on 15 January 2008, the EC Commission had 
submitted to the Council and the European Parliament a proposal for the revision of the Novel 
Food Regulation. The proposal was notified to WTO Members in March 2008 under the TBT Agreement. The revised procedure was expected to be more flexible and some novel foods had already been approved for entry into the EC market. The reference period for establishing a history 
of safe food use had been changed to a period of 25 years, and consumption data could originate 
from any third country and not necessarily from the country that submitted the application. The 
possibility to apply for a novel food authorization had also been opened to any interested party. 
The proposal kept the main rules currently applicable to novel goods, but simplified EC market 
access for traditional foodstuffs from third countries which had a history of safe use and put in place proportionate regulatory measures. The proposal was still under negotiation and its adoption 
was foreseen for July 2010. 
2.84.  In June 2011, Peru again raised concer ns about Regulation 258/97, that particularly 
affected trade in Peruvian traditional foods that were safely sold in the United States and Japan (G/SPS/GEN/1087). Colombia shared the concern of Peru, as this regulation was an unjustified 
barrier to trade of traditional foods and conseque ntly impeded economic activities. In 2009, the 
European Union had agreed to change this regulation in a way that would take into account traditional foods. This modification had not been  implemented, however, because of disagreements 
that the European Council and the European Parlia ment had regarding products of cloned animals, 
although there was general agreement on traditional foods. Colombia encouraged the European Union to separate these issues and resolve the matter of traditional foods by the end of 2011. 
Brazil, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Mexico and Paraguay supported the concerns raised by 
Peru and Colombia. 
2.85.  The European Union stated that foods were considered novel under the present Regulation 
258/97 if they were derived from new technological processes or if they had no significant history 
of consumption in Europe. On 15 January 2008, steps were taken to update the existing novel food 
rules in an effort to facilitate applications for novel food authorizations and to simplify market access to the European Union for traditional foodstuffs from third countries which had a history of 
safe food use. However, the initial proposal submitted to the co-legislators was not adopted. The 
main stumbling blocks related to provisions regarding food from cloned animals and nanotechnology. Any new regulation would contain a centralized and quicker authorization 
procedure for novel foods and specific measures for traditional foods, as agreement had indeed 
already been reached on this issue between the European co-legislators. 
2.86.  In October 2011, Peru recalled its concerns about Regulation 258/97 (G/SPS/GEN/1117). 
Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico and Paraguay shared the concerns raised by 
Peru. 
2.87.  The European Union reiterated the explanat ion that it had provided in June 2011 regarding 
the definition of novel foods and the current process of revision of the regulation. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 46 - 
 
  2.88.  In March 2012, Peru recalled its previously raised concerns about the EU Novel Foods 
regulation (258/97) that restricted foods which were not marketed in the European Union before May 1997 (G/SPS/GEN/1137). The Regulation did not distinguish between foods and ingredients that were new in the strict sense and traditional products derived from the biodiversity of 
developing countries. The EU measures were unnecessary and excessive as they applied to 
products that had a history of safe consumption in other markets and presented no risk for consumer health. Recalling the provisions of th e SPS Agreement, Peru urged the European Union 
to refrain from applying Regulation No. 258/97 to traditional products with a history of safe 
consumption outside the EU market. 
2.89.  Cuba supported the concerns of Peru an d indicated that the measure was discriminatory. 
Colombia also supported Peru's concerns and urged the European Union to accelerate the 
modification of the regulation on novel foods, highlighting the unnecessary and unjustified effect 
that the delay was having on the access of traditional products to the EU market. Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Paraguay indicated that they shared th e concerns and were closely following the issue. 
2.90.  The European Union restated the observations presented during the 2011 June and October 
meetings. 
2.91.  In July 2012, Peru once again recalled its concerns about the EU novel foods regulation. 
Peru considered that its traditional products were a sign of the sustainable use of its biodiversity 
and argued that this regulation particularly affected trade in traditional foods. This regulation had negative economic and social impacts, including the loss of trade revenue, the administrative costs faced by importers and the potential effect on the general health of consumers worldwide as a 
result of the decrease in consumption of traditional products with high nutritional value. Peru 
urged the European Union to refrain from applyi ng Regulation No. 258/97 to traditional products 
or to facilitate the entry of products with a history of safe consumption outside the EU market. 
2.92.  Cuba supported the concerns of Peru an d indicated that the measure was discriminatory, 
highlighting the unjustified effect that the measure was having on the access of traditional products to the EU market. Colombia and Ecuador also supported Peru's concerns and urged the 
European Union to implement the reforms to the regulation on novel foods. 
2.93.  The European Union explained that revision of the novel foods rules had started in January 
2008 in an effort to facilitate applications for nove l foods authorizations and to simplify EU market 
access for traditional foodstuffs from third countries with a history of safe use. However, the co-
legislators had not agreed to the proposed revision and the European Union was now engaged in 
preparing the next steps in the hope of facilitating the consensus necessary to allow a revised novel food regulation to be adopted into law. The European Union would make public the next 
steps it was taking once these were agreed. The Commission was currently preparing a legislative 
proposal based on the overall agreement reached with  EU co-legislators, with adoption expected in 
2013. Any new regulation on novel foods would co ntain a centralized and quicker authorization 
procedure for novel foods and specific measures would be put in place for traditional foods from 
third countries to access EU markets. A related legislative proposal on animal cloning was planned to be adopted by the Commission in 2013, based on the results of an impact assessment which was currently underway. 
2.94.  In October 2012, Peru reiterated its co ncern that the application of Regulation 238/97 
continued to restrict access of traditional products into the European Union. Regulation 238/97 was in practice an unnecessary and unjustified barrier to trade, not adopted on the basis of an 
appropriate risk assessment taking into account scientific evidence, thus contrary to Article 5 of 
the SPS Agreement. Peru reiterated its reques t that the European Union exclude from the 
regulation traditional products arising from biodiversity and remove the unjustified hindrances to 
trade. 
2.95.  Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador and Venezuela supported Peru's concern 
and asserted that Regulation 238/97 constituted an unnecessary barrier to trade because it targeted products that were not widely traded in the EU market before 1997 without considering 
the history of safe consumption in other countries. Colombia regretted the EU delay in reforming 
this Regulation to bring it into compliance with WTO obligations. Brazil, Chile and Costa Rica reiterated their interests in developments regarding the reform of this Regulation. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 47 - 
 
  2.96.  The European Union recalled that at the la st meeting it had provided a detailed explanation 
on the state of play of the Novel Foods dossier; it was now engaged in preparing a new legislative proposal on Novel Foods, expected to be adopted in 2013. The European Union would keep Members informed on the progress of the novel food  negotiations, on future measures applicable 
to traditional foods from third countries, and would notify the new draft legislation to the WTO for 
comments. In order to help producers, importers and those responsible for placing products on the EU market a Novel Food Catalogue had been created, and a document indicating how interested 
operators may establish whether a food or food ingredient had a history of consumption in the 
European Union. The European Union remained committed to work with concerned partners towards an amicable solution of this matter. 
2.97.  In March 2013, Peru reiterated its previous ly raised concern with regard to EU Regulation 
258/97 on Novel Foods whose application restricted  access to the EU market for products which 
were not marketed in the European Union before May 1997 (G/SPS/GEN/1137). Peru considered the Regulation to be an unjustified trade barrier for Peruvian traditional products derived from 
biodiversity, due to the high costs of the applicatio n required to access the market and to the time 
required for market access approval. The EU measure was contradictory to international co-operation and technical assistance efforts for market development and for capacitation of small 
and medium producers. For example, camu camu ( Myrciaria dubia ), a sylvan fruit native to the 
western Amazon basin, was traded in countries like Japan and the United States and was listed in the Codex Classification of Foods and Feeds, bu t banned in the European Union. Peru requested 
information on the status of the new EU legislative proposal on Novel Foods and asked the 
European Union to reconsider those traditional products arising from biodiversity with a history of 
safe consumption outside the EU market. 
2.98.  Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Paraguay ec hoed Peru's concern and looked forward to the 
EU legislative proposal to revise the regulation . Colombia and Paraguay urged the European Union 
to take into account the history of safe consumption of such products. 
2.99.  The European Union stated that the new legislative proposal was still taking shape and was 
due later this year. Specific measures for traditio nal foods from third countries to ease their access 
to EU markets would be proposed. The overall purpose of the proposal was to streamline the approval procedure and provide for a centralized system of authorization. The new draft, once 
finalised, would be sent to all EU trading partners via notification under both the SPS and the TBT 
Agreements to allow any comments and concerns to be taken into account. The European Union 
remained open to discuss the matter in more detail. 
Maximum residue levels of  pesticides (STC 306) 
Raised by: India 
Supported by: Argentina, Brazil, Pakistan, Thailand 
Dates raised: October 2010 (G/SPS/R/61, paras. 17-19), March 2011 (G/SPS/R/62, 
paras. 56-58), June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, paras. 36-37), October 2011 
(G/SPS/R/64, paras. 67-68), March 2012 (G/SPS/R/66, paras. 56-58), July 2012 (G/SPS/R/67, paras. 38-39), October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, 
paras. 31-32), March 2013 (G/SPS/R/70, paras. 3.31-3.33), June 2013 
(G/SPS/R/71, paras. 4.25-4.26), October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 3.23-3.25) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/196/Add.2, G/SPS/N/EEC/196/Add.10, G/SPS/N/EEC/382, 
EU Revised Plant Protection Regulation 1107/2009, EC Regulation 396/2005, G/SPS/GEN/1139/Add.1 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.100.  In October 2010, India referred to three EU notifications on the adoption of Maximum 
Residue Limits (MRLs) for certain pesticides (G/SPS/N/EEC/196/Add.2, G/SPS/N/EEC/196/Add.10 and G/SPS/N/EEC/382) within the framework of the EU Revised Plant Protection Regulation 
1107/2009. EC Regulation 396/2005 established the legislative framework for MRLs of pesticides 
in or on food and feed of plant and animal orig in, which was notified by the European Commission G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 48 - 
 
  in April 2005. India was concerned that the MRLs for a number of chemicals were set at the "limit 
of detection" (LOD). This was the residue limit which could be detected using analytical methods/testing procedures available in Europe. Different climatic conditions in India required a different use of pesticides in agricultural produc tion. No scientific evidence had been provided to 
justify the setting of the MRL at the LOD, especially for imported products. For some substances, 
the MRLs in EU cereals was much higher than the approved level of the same substance in rice. The setting of MRLs at the LOD had impacted In dia's exports of agricultural products to the 
European Union, and India requested the European  Union to provide the validated testing methods 
it used to arrive at the LOD as well as the scientific basis and risk assessment for the MRLs. India considered that the EU MRLs resulted in the violat ion of Articles 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 5.1 and 5.4 of the 
SPS Agreement. 
2.101.  Thailand shared India's concerns, observing that in the recent EU notifications the 
proposed MRLs for some chemicals were much lower than the levels set by Codex. Brazil and Pakistan also shared India's concerns about the EU procedure for establishing MRLs. 
2.102.  The European Union explained that the new legislation on pesticide residues was in place 
since 1 September 2008. MRLs had undergone a common EU consumer intake assessment carried out by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to make sure that all classes of consumers, 
including vulnerable ones such as babies and children, were sufficiently protected. The validated 
analytical methods used by the European Union co uld be found on the website of the EU Reference 
Laboratories for Residues of Pesticides. The model used for estimating the dietary intake of 27 EU 
consumer groups was available on the EFSA website. The risk assessment methodology used for 
setting the MRLs came from the framework established by the Codex Alimentarius, as described by 
a 2002 Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues' (JMPR) report. An LOD was set when there was a safety concern for consumers from the use of a pesticide at high levels or when there was 
no authorized use on a specific crop within the European Union or third countries. The proposed 
revision of the EU MRLs had been notified to the WTO in 2003, 2005 and 2007, and all WTO Members and stakeholders had also been informed about all the individual values that were 
proposed. The MRLs were fixed and published in the Official Journal if no reaction to the 
notifications had been received. Nevertheless, appl icants in and outside the European Union could 
apply to have import tolerances set for higher MRLs in specific cases. Although the European Union was aware of the different geo-climatic conditions in India, data on the safety of imported products 
was still necessary. 
2.103.  In March 2011, India stated that the European Union had harmonised its pesticide residue 
levels under Regulation No. 396/2005 on MRLs for pe sticides on food and feed of plant and animal 
origin. A default level of 0.01 mg/kg had been applied on many chemicals, and the European 
Union had claimed that the MRLs had been set at  the Level of Determination (LOD). However, 
without a validated test, it was not clear how the LOD was set and consequently the scientific 
evidence for the MRL had not been provided despite substantially higher levels for the same 
chemicals existing in other countries. India re-stated its concerns relating to: (i) non- harmonization with international standards; (ii) lack of risk assessment; (iii) misuse of Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement; (iv) lack of attempt to mi nimize negative trade effects; and (v) European 
laws and regulations. 
2.104.  The European Union noted that trading partners could apply for higher MRLs by providing 
scientific evidence. With respect to the commodities  of interest to India, the European Union had 
indicated that given the economic significance of those commodities, it was prepared to modify the 
relevant MRLs. India had already submitted an application for a higher MRL which was under 
evaluation and, pending the outcome of that ev aluation, an import tolerance would be set. 
2.105.  In June 2011, India recalled that the Eu ropean Union had previously indicated that its 
trading partners could apply for higher MRLs by providing scientific evidence. However, the 
application of the precautionary principle in the ca se of chemicals that had been used for decades 
without any negative effects resulted in an unjusti fied trade barrier. The MRLs had been set at the 
level of detection (LOD) without a risk assessment. The LOD was the limit below which residues 
could not be detected by using sophisticated analytical methods, virtually a zero tolerance, and imported food items containing small traces of pesticides were being adversely affected. In 
addition, the European Union had not made, or not shared, any scientific assessments that 
justified the default MRL for some pesticides. The default MRLs created distrust as private labs were being used to run the assessments and at ti mes they used testing methods which were not in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 49 - 
 
  line with the European Commission guidelines on method validation and quality control procedures 
for pesticide residue analysis in food and feed. Furthermore, the aggressive business behaviour by 
private labs in approaching exporting countries like India for pre-screening services was a cause 
for concern. India requested that the European Union provide the scientific justification for the 
current MRLs for certain pesticides, rather than shifting the burden of proof onto exporters by 
requiring that they provide justifications when a pplying for higher MRLs. India urged the European 
Union to take effective steps to remove these trade restrictive measures. 
2.106.  The European Union stated that since 2008, a new legislative framework had been in 
operation which completed the harmonization and simplification of pesticide MRLs and eliminated all technical barriers to trade. The full details of the EU policy on pesticides had been presented at 
the March SPS Committee meeting. Trading partners could apply for an MRL that was greater than 
what was foreseen in the EU legislation by providing scientific evidence justifying the higher level. 
Regarding the commodities of interest to India,  the European Union was prepared to modify 
relevant MRLs assuming that the requisite information was provided. India had in fact already 
submitted an application for a higher MRL for Isoprothiolane on rice which was being evaluated by 
EFSA, however, further information was required fr om India. As far as grapes were concerned, 
data from 2011 indicated that no obstacles had been identified. 
2.107.  In October 2011, India recalled that the European Union had previously claimed to have a 
non-discriminatory, open, transparent and predictable procedure for setting MRLs. However, India questioned the scientific basis for using the level of detection (LOD) method and for setting MRLs 
for certain pesticides at default levels of 0.01 mg/kg, as well as the validation testing methods 
used by the European Union to arrive at the level of detection. The EU method of setting MRLs was 
discriminatory as it affected the trade of certain products and did not conform to the SPS Agreement. India had been informed that a Memb er could apply for a higher MRL, however the 
EU procedure was lengthy, costly and burdensome . India urged the European Union to replace its 
ad hoc discriminatory, opaque, and unscientific measures with more predictable and science-based ones. 
2.108.  The European Union recalled its statem ent at the June 2011 meeting and noted that 
setting the MRLs at the default level for some pesticides facilitated trade, in contrast to a zero-tolerance approach. Trade had not been interrupted as a result of this legislation, and particularly not in commodities of interest to India. In line with the EU legislation, India had applied for a 
higher MRL for Isoprothiolane on rice, and submitted complementary information. An opinion from 
the EFSA was expected in the first quarter of 20 12, and on the basis of  this evaluation, the 
European Union would decide whether a higher MRL could be safely set. 
2.109.  In March 2012, India reiterated that no Member should set MRLs without scientific 
justification. India welcomed the EU MRL for Isoprothiolane in rice, and sought clarification on the status of an import licence application for Tricyclazole by Dow Agro Sciences. India urged the 
European Union to replace default MRLs for a variety of pesticides, as the default levels of 
0.01 mg/kg, meant that imported foodstuffs cont aining even the smallest trace of pesticides 
(e.g., Cerbandazim) were banned in the European Union. India requested the scientific justification for fixing any MRLs at the level of detection, and recalled that under Article 12.6 the Committee 
could invite a relevant international body, such as Codex, to examine the scientific basis of a 
standard set by the European Union. 
2.110.  Pakistan stressed the importance of this issue for developing countries, and expressed 
hope that it would be soon resolved. 
2.111.  The European Union recalled that in September 2008 it had introduced a new legislative 
framework on pesticide residues (Regulation EC 396/2005) under which many pesticides MRLs had 
been set at the default level in order not to hinder trade. Trading partners that felt that a higher 
MRL was necessary should submit an application, with the appropriate scientific justification. The 
European Union would set a higher MRL where this was scientifically justified, as had been done for Isoprothiolane, where the MRL in rice had been raised to 5 mg/kg from its default level. This 
was done on the basis of a scientific opinion from EFSA, which stated that authorized use at that 
level would not pose a public health concern. Th e European Union also noted that EFSA strongly 
recommended that studies be carried out to investigate the effect of processing on the nature of 
Isoprothiolane residues. Following a decision by th e EU member States, it was agreed that the MRL G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 50 - 
 
  would therefore be fixed on a temporary basis on the understanding that it may be reviewed in the 
light of the results of the requested study on processing. 
2.112.  In July 2012, India reiterated that no Member should set MRLs without scientific 
justification, as doing so violated the SPS Ag reement. India requested the European Union to 
provide scientific justification for fixing any MRLs at the Level of Determination (LoD) for pesticides 
such as Carbendazim. The developer of Tricyclazole (Dow Agro Sciences) had filed an application for an import tolerance in accordance with Art. 6 (4) of Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005, however, it 
was unclear whether the data submitted was acceptable or not. India requested the European 
Union to clarify the situation and to work constructively on resolving the issue as the uncertainty and unpredictability adversely affected India's exports. 
2.113.  The European Union recalled that Regula tion (EC) No 396/2005, which had entered into 
force in 2008, essentially stated that before an MRL could be set for a pesticide, its safety must be 
confirmed on the basis of a scientific assessment.  In the spirit of the SPS Agreement, when 
drawing up this legislation, the European Union had sought to eliminate any inappropriate 
technical barriers to trade in the setting of MRLs by setting MRLs, for many pesticides - not in use 
in the European Union - at the default level. By doing this, the European Union, de facto, had also established a 'tolerance' - albeit a very low one - for pesticides that were not in use in the 
EU territory, and for which it was not in position to verify their safety or otherwise. The 
modification of such tolerance levels was not possible unless solid scientific data demonstrated the safety of the product. India could apply for an import tolerance in cases where it believed that an MRL higher than the default level was warranted. This procedure had been used successfully by 
India to apply for a higher import tolerance for Isoprothiolane, a pesticide used by India in the 
production of rice, a major export crop of in terest to India. The case of Isoprothiolane 
demonstrated that the procedure in place was non-discriminatory, transparent, delivered results 
and offered predictability to exporters. 
2.114.  In October 2012, India noted that no solution had yet been found to this concern. The 
European Union continued to set MRL levels at the Limit of Detection (LOD) for pesticides such as 
Carbendazim and Isoprothiolane, without any scientific justification contrary to the provisions of 
the SPS Agreement. India reiterated its reques t for the European Union to provide scientific 
justification for fixing MRLs at the limits of detection without scientific evidence. 
2.115.  The European Union stated that tradin g partners must follow the EU procedure for 
requesting the setting of MRLs based on actual use of a pesticide. Where a pesticide was not used 
within the European Union or was unknown, the European Union set the MRL at the lowest analytical level rather than apply a zero tolerance approach, to give traders some legal certainty. 
Before setting an MRL for a pesticide, the scientific opinion of EFSA was sought on each occasion. 
The European Union reiterated that its legislation was balanced, non-discriminatory, based on sound scientific assessments and predictable. The European Union suggested that India provide a 
list of the chemical substances used in India that it considered were not harmful to human health, 
so that the same could be the subject of an EFSA risk assessment. 
2.116.  In March 2013, India again requested the European Union to provide scientific justification 
for fixing MRLs for pesticides at the level of detection (LOD). The burden of proof could not be 
shifted to the exporting country. India asked the Eu ropean Union to provide updates on the import 
allowance level for pesticides such as Tricyclazole for which India had submitted data and urged the European Union to work constructively on resolving this issue. 
2.117.  Argentina shared India's concern and reca lled its position on this point in G/SPS/W/211. 
2.118.  The European Union stated that it had done its utmost to address India's concerns by 
providing a comprehensive overview of the legislat ion in place in the European Union, organizing 
several meetings with Indian representatives and providing technical support with respect to MRL-
setting and testing (see G/SPS/GEN/1139/Add.1). The European Union was not in a position to know whether pesticides that were unknown or not used in the European Union were safe or not, 
without the benefit of a proper risk assessment. In the absence of solid, scientific data that 
demonstrated the safety of a given pesticide, the European Union could not set arbitrary MRL 
values. If India would provide a list of the chemic al substances used in India that it considered 
were not harmful to human health, the Europe an Union and India could work together to G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 51 - 
 
  understand the extent of the concerns and seek to  resolve them. Tricyclazole may no longer be 
used in the European Union, as the scientific information on its toxicity was not sufficient to assess the risk to operators and the environment. The European Union had notified to the SPS Committee its intention to reduce the MRL for Tricyclazole, which was followed by an application from India to 
maintain the MRL on rice. This application was under assessment by EFSA and the outcome was 
expected shortly. The European Union reminded India that the decision-making procedure on the 
setting of import tolerances was balanced, transparent and predictable, and fully in line with the 
SPS Agreement. 
2.119.  In June 2013, India raised its concern ov er the EU MRLs of pesticides. The EU MRLs for 
imported foods and agricultural products did not follow any international standards and had no scientific basis, and were therefore in contravent ion of the SPS Agreement. India requested that 
the European Union provide scientific justification for its MRLs and that it change those levels that 
were not scientifically justified. India also requested an update within regard to tricyclazole. 
2.120.  The European Union noted India's concern, and regretted that there was little new to say 
with regard to this issue. When there was no use of a particular substance within the European 
Union and no third country had requested the Europe an Union to set an import tolerance, it was 
the EU practice to set MRLs at the lowest analytical level - the level of determination. This practice 
was widespread and followed elsewhere in the world. With regard to tricyclazole, in 2011 there had 
been a proposed reduction of the MRL from its cu rrent level of 1 mg/kg to 0.01 mg/kg. A request 
for an import tolerance for rice was filed by one of the manufacturers of tricyclazole upon which the European Food Safety Author ity had issued an opinion on 18 April 2013 that the request was 
not properly justified and therefore the European Union was considering lowering the existing MRL 
to the limit of determination (0.01 mg/kg) for rice . The European Union invited India to work with 
the EU authorities to resolve any concerns regarding tricyclazole and MRLs generally. 
2.121.  In October 2013, India reiterated its concern over EU MRLs of pesticides claiming that the 
EU MRLs for imported foods and agricultural products did not follow international standards and had no scientific basis, and were therefore in contravention of the SPS Agreement. India requested 
that the European Union provide scientific justification for its MRLs and that it adjust those levels 
that were not scientifically justified. India also requested an update with regard to tricyclazole. 
2.122.  Argentina shared India's concerns and highlighted the work undertaken by Codex on 
pesticides. There was a need to base new MRLs on Codex standards. Establishment of MRLs of 
pesticides without a scientific basic was in contradiction to the SPS Agreement and has become an 
unnecessary restriction on trade damaging agricult ural exporting countries, such as Argentina. 
2.123.  The European Union stated that its policy regarding pesticides was to provide a maximum 
level of safety for European consumers while remaining open towards its trading partners. The 
EU system was transparent and had proved to be effective as the European Union remained the world's largest importer of agri-food products. India's allegations were evidently unfounded and 
incorrect as could be seen by virtue of the increase in rice exports from India to the European 
Union, which had doubled in tonnage in the past year. The European Union was open to continue cooperating closely with India and to consider any specific requests to modify the MRLs for pesticides used in India, insofar as those pesticid es had been proven to be safe on the basis of 
adequate scientific data. 
EU renewal of GMO approvals (STC 353) 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2013 (G/SPS/R/71, paras. 4.5-4.6) 
Relevant document(s): EC Regulation 1829/2003 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.124.  In June 2013, Argentina raised its concerns over the EU renewal procedures and processes for GMO approvals. Argentina contended that risk assessment reviews should only be undertaken G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 52 - 
 
  in cases of new scientific justification. Furthe r, as the entire EU approval process took 
approximately four years, granting a licence for only ten years was impractical and without scientific justification. The EU process was alre ady overly burdensome and the new requirements 
were unclear, adding to the heavy burden of seeking GMO approval. Argentina asked the European 
Union to clarify and rectify their GMO approval process. 
2.125.  The European Union responded that it was not intending to adopt legislation as was done 
for the food/feed new authorizations but rather to prepare a guidance document which would 
complement Articles 11 and 23 of Regulation 1829/2003 already providing general guidance on 
the renewal process. The European Food Safety Authority was currently working on this more detailed guidance which should be available in autumn 2013, before the first renewal request expected in March 2014. 
2.4.2  Animal Health 
Prohibition of use and sale of treated seeds (STC 350) 
Raised by: United States of America 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2013 (G/SPS/R/70, paras. 3.57-3.58) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EU/39 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.126.  In March 2013, the United States noted that on 1 March 2013, the European Union submitted notification G/SPS/N/EU/39 regarding the prohibition of the use and sale in the 
European Union of seeds treated with plant protection products containing the active substances 
Clothianidin, Thiamethoxam or Imidacloprid. The European Union had provided an unusually short comment period of only 11 days. Given the complexi ty of this technical measure, the United States 
asked the European Union to extend the comment  period to the recommended 60-days, to allow 
trading partners to review and provide comments. 
2.127.  The European Union explained that the short deadline was due to reasons connected with 
the legislative process and to the great priority of  the issue for the European Union. Increasing bee 
mortality was an issue of concern worldwide and the proposal was based on science and justified 
by a very clear analysis published by EFSA last January. The proposal restricted the use of the three substances only on crops that were attractive to bees and provided derogations when the 
application of the substances took place after flower ing. At this stage, the actual trade effects of 
the proposal were considered to be very limited, if not negligible. The measure envisaged a temporary suspension of these substances for a 2-year period, during which time new scientific 
data would be brought to light and studied. The European Union welcomed an open and 
constructive dialogue with its trading partners with an interest in the proposal and stated that comments could be submitted at any time. 
EU temperature treatment requirements fo r imports of processed meat products 
(STC 351) 
Raised by: Russian Federation 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2013 (G/SPS/R/71, paras 4.1-4.2) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.128.  In June 2013, Russia raised concerns about the EU requirement that bovine and porcine 
meat products be heat-treated to 80 degrees Celsius and asked that the European Union bring its G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 53 - 
 
  requirements in line with international standards, which only required heat-treatment to 
70 degrees Celsius. Russia urged the European Unio n to finalize the legislative process under way 
that would bring the EU requirements into line with OIE recommendations. 
2.129.  The European Union noted that it was free from African swine fever (ASF, except for one 
island) and foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), both of which occur in Russia. The heat-treatment 
requirement of 80 degrees Celsius was applied to pr event the introduction of both diseases via the 
import of animal products. The request of Russia to  use heat treatment to 70 degrees Celsius for a 
minimum of 30 minutes for previously deboned and defatted meats was in line with OIE standards 
for the inactivation of FMD, but not for ASF. The European Union would thus amend its measures only in the case of species that are not susceptib le to ASF. The process of amending the existing 
import rules, to thereby meet the request of Russia, had already begun, and a proposal was 
expected to be adopted soon. 
2.4.3  Plant Health EU quarantine measures on certain pi ne trees and other products (STC 348) 
Raised by: Russian Federation 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2013 (G/SPS/R/70, para s. 3.14-3.17), June 2013 (G/SPS/R/71, 
paras. 4.44-4,45) 
Relevant document(s): Part A of Appendix 3 of EU Council Directive 2000/29  
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.130.  In March 2013, Russia expressed its concern that Part A of Appendix 3 of EU Council 
Directive 2000/29 prohibited imports into the European Union of Pinus, Picea and Tsuga plants, among others, from non-European countries. Russia considered that this restriction was not 
compliant with Articles 3 and 5 of the SPS Ag reement. Furthermore, the European Union had 
categorized the Russian territory into two areas and had applied the import ban to the so-called "Asian" side of Russia but not to the "European" side, which was discriminatory and not compliant with Article 2 of the SPS Agreement. No justificat ion had been provided by the European Union in 
support of this measure. This discriminatory trea tment had a high cost for Russia's economy, in 
particular for exporters of Pinus Sibiricus , for whom the redirection of their product to other 
markets had resulted in additional costs and lo wer product quality. Russia urged the European 
Union to provide scientific evidence to justify its measure and to remove its restriction. 
2.131.  The European Union noted that under the European plant health legislation there were 
very few cases where plant imports were prohibited. In such cases, each plant required an 
individual risk assessment which demonstrated that there were no plant health concerns in order 
to obtain a derogation. In March 2011, following a request from Russia to export Siberian Pine trees to the European Union, the European Union provided Russia with its justification for the import prohibition with a list of the quarantine pests considered to be relevant in that particular 
case. If Russia wished to export pine trees to th e European Union it had to submit a full dossier 
explaining how Russia intended to guarantee th at the EU requirements for plants of the Pinus  
species were fulfilled. Although the matter was first raised a number of years ago, the European 
Union had thus far received very limited information from Russia. The European Union highlighted 
that this matter, amongst others, was to be discussed bilaterally with Russia. In this context the European Union drew the attention of the Committee to its concerns with respect to the 
notification practices of Russia since acceding to  the WTO. The European Union indicated that it 
was willing to engage in a constructive dialogue to resolve trade irritants on both sides. On the issue of the specific trade concern, the Europe an Union recalled the necessity for submitting a 
complete dossier to support a derogation from the import prohibition on plants of the Pinus  
species. 
2.132.  Russia stated that the European Union should not justify its measures by bringing to light 
other difficulties experienced in its bilateral relations with Russia, and reiterated its request for G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 54 - 
 
  scientific evidence, as the information referenc ed by the European Union was not in Russia's 
possession. 
2.133.  The European Union replied that it made no link between the current specific trade concern 
of Russia and other issues on their bilateral agenda. The European Union had already provided its 
justification for the import prohibition in place, together with a list of the relevant quarantine 
pests, and thus, now looked forward to receiving the relevant Russian dossier to justify a derogation to the existing prohibition. 
2.134.  In June 2013, Russia reiterated its concern that EU Council Directive 2000/29 prohibited 
imports into the European Union of Pinus  plants, among others, and seed potatoes from Russia. 
Russia claimed that the restriction was not based on scientific evidence and Russia was not aware of any justification for the measure. The EU requir ement to provide a technical dossier to obtain a 
derogation to the restriction was not provided for in any international standard or agreement and 
was therefore considered discriminatory. Given the strong trade impact of the measure, Russia urged the European Union to remove its restriction. 
2.135.  The European Union noted that the request of  Russia for a derogation to be able to export 
potatoes and coniferous plants to the European Union had been intensively discussed in a bilateral setting, and technical discussions with EU member States had started. Nevertheless, to obtain the 
derogation, a technical dossier was needed. The EU request for information in order to carry out a 
specific risk assessment on this trade request from Russia was fully legitimate. The European Union repeated its engagement to find a satisfactory solution and looked forward to receiving the necessary technical information from Russia that would allow it to proceed. 
EU import requirements for orchid tissu e culture plantlets in flasks (STC 355) 
Raised by: Chinese Taipei 
Supported by: Senegal 
Dates raised: June 2013 (G/SPS/R/71, paras. 4.12.4.14) 
Relevant document(s): Council Directive 2000/29/EC, Annex 4 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.136.  In June 2013, Chinese Taipei raised its concerns regarding the EU import requirements for 
orchid tissue culture plantlets in flasks, contained in 2000/29/EC Annex 4, Points 32.1, 32.3, 34, 36.1, 45.1 and 36. These required the inspection and pest-free conditions for up to six pests. 
However, the risk of pests for tissue culture plantlets in flasks produced under sterile conditions - 
like those produced in Chinese Taipei - was much lower than the risk associated with plantlets raised in greenhouses. The EU requirements were, therefore, not scientifically justified. Chinese 
Taipei had asked the European Union in October 2012 and January 2013 to amend its regulations 
based on scientific evidence. The European Un ion responded in February 2013 that the risk 
assessment of the pest Bemisia tabaci  was on-going and that relevant rules would be amended 
upon completion of that assessment. When th e final assessment was published in April 2013, 
however, it made no mention of tissue culture plantlets and no amendments had been made. In 
April 2013, Chinese Taipei had reiterated that tissue culture plantlets grown under sterile conditions posed a much lower risk than their counterparts grown in greenhouses, and that, 
specifically, there was no risk of Bemisia tabaci  in those plantlets grown under sterile conditions. 
Chinese Taipei explained that the European Union had countered that this issue was not technical, 
but rather legislative in nature, and had asked Chinese Taipei for additional information on official 
controls and certification processes related to tissue culture plantlets in order to facilitate 
discussion among EU experts. Tissue culture pl antlets from Chinese Taipei were exported 
worldwide and no other Member required additional inspections for insect pests on plants cultivated under sterile conditions. Furthermore, many EU member States produced tissue culture 
plants for export under similar conditions and the techniques and procedures for these plants were 
clearly understood. The EU additional requirements placed a heavy burden, both in terms of money and labour, on Chinese Taipei, and were not consistent with Articles 2.2 and 5.2 of the SPS 
Agreement, as well as Articles VII.2.(a) and (g) of the IPPC. Chinese Taipei urged the European G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 55 - 
 
  Union to bring its import requirements in line with existing scientific evidence and risk 
assessments. 
2.137.  Senegal expressed its surprise at the sugge stion of a pest-risk in plantlets produced under 
sterile conditions, and asked the European Union if pests had been found in such plantlets which 
could justify its measures. 
2.138.  The European Union explained that this i ssue had been the subject of intensive bilateral 
discussions, the most recent of which occurred one week prior to the 57th SPS Committee meeting. 
The EU policies and procedures had been in pl ace since 2002 and no trade problems had been 
experienced during that time, excluding the pr esent trade concern. The recently published 
assessment of the European Food Safety Authority regarding Bemisia tabaci , a known vector of 
certain plant disease, would be discussed with EU member States in the coming days. The 
European Union had requested that Chinese Taip ei provide a technical dossier outlining the 
cultivation of orchids in sterile plantlets and additional information regarding official controls and the certification process, and understood that this  dossier was forthcoming. Upon its receipt, the 
European Union would be able to fully consider th e issue and work bilaterally with Chinese Taipei 
to develop a successful conclusion to this trade concern. 
Phytosanitary measures on citrus black spot (STC 356) 
Raised by: South Africa 
Supported by: Argentina 
Dates raised: June 2013 (G/SPS/R/71, paras. 4.15-4.17) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/46, G/SPS/N/EEC/47 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.139.  In June 2013, South Africa raised concerns regarding the EU restrictive import measures 
on South African citrus exports infested with citrus black spot. This issue had been on-going since 
1992. During the July 1997 SPS Committee meeting, South Africa had circulated a statement, G/SPS/GEN/26, in regard to the EU notifications of modifications of phytosanitary measures on 
citrus black spot (G/SPS/N/EEC/46 and G/SPS/N/ EEC/47). At that time, South Africa contended 
that the EU measures were not scientifically justified and lacked a technical basis, as infested fruit 
did not pose a significant pest risk. Unfortunately the issue remained unresolved. The EU measures not only lacked scientific basis, but had also had an excessively negative effect on trade and, as 
such, were in contravention of the SPS Agreement. As previously noted in the SPS Committee, this 
issue had been raised in the context of the IPPC  dispute settlement procedure, and bilateral talks 
were set to continue on this matter. South Africa was still waiting for the results of an EU pest-risk 
analysis regarding Guignardia citicarpa  that was supposed to have been completed in 2011. South 
Africa urged the European Union to finish its pest  risk analysis and to implement measures that 
had a scientific basis. 
2.140.  Argentina supported South Africa's position, as  it was also a large exporter of citrus to the 
European Union. Argentina urged the European Union to complete its risk analysis swiftly and to 
put in place measures that were scientifically-based and not unduly restrictive of trade. 
2.141.  The European Union confirmed that this ma tter was the subject of the IPPC's first dispute 
settlement procedure and noted that its territory was free from citrus black spot, hence the 
restrictions in place reflected the EU desire to maintain this freedom. Detections of citrus black spot on South African fruit sent to the European Union had been on the rise therefore the 
European Union decided that after a certain numbe r of interceptions action may be taken. The 
European Union assured South Africa of close cooperation before any such decision was made. The European Union underlined that the European Food  Safety Authority was assessing whether citrus 
fruit itself could transmit citrus black spot disease. The draft pest-risk analysis should be available 
in July 2013, and would be open to public co nsultation. The European Union hoped that the 
discussions, both bilaterally and at the IPPC, and the expected forthcoming scientific information, 
would result in a solution that was agreeable to all involved. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 56 - 
 
  2.4.4  Other concerns 
EU Court of Justice ruling regarding pollen derived from GMOs (STC 327) 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Canada, Mexico, Paraguay, United States of America, Uruguay 
Dates raised: October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, paras. 44-46), June 2013 (G/SPS/R/71, 
paras. 4.36-4.38) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally. 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.142.  In October 2011, Argentina stated that on 6 September 2011, the European Court of 
Justice (ECJ) had adopted a new interpretation of the scope of EC Regulation No. 1829/2003, 
considering pollen derived from GM crops as an ingredient of honey and not a natural component. 
This was in conflict with the Codex standard for honey. The ruling resulted in legal uncertainty, 
which lead European importers to interrupt purchases of honey produced in Argentina pending the 
implementation of the ruling, to the detriment of the very small scale beekeepers and regional 
economies that depended on this activity. Arge ntina requested the European Union to promptly 
take all necessary measures to remove the uncertainty caused by the ECJ judgment, and to 
ensure that implementation of the ECJ judgment did not restrict honey imports. 
2.143.  Canada, Mexico, Paraguay, the United States and Uruguay shared the concerns of 
Argentina. Mexico expressed its appreciation fo r having been invited for further discussions in 
Brussels on the implementation of the ECJ decision . Brazil emphasized that the EU policy regarding 
GMOs was trade restrictive and observed that it faced similar problems concerning red beans. 
2.144.  The European Union observed that honey containing GM pollen had previously been 
considered to be outside the scope of the relevant legislation. Following the ruling, GM pollen in 
honey must be explicitly authorized before ente ring the EU market, and imported honey products 
which contained GMOs that were not authorized for use in pollen would not be allowed. Even though the specific GM crop in this case (MON 81 0) had been authorized in the European Union for 
more than ten years, it had not been authorized for uses which included pollen. The European 
Union was taking steps to fill the existing regulatory gaps until EFSA provided an opinion on the safety of the MON 810 pollen in honey, and was considering how to ensure the proper 
implementation of the ruling without unnecessarily disrupting the supply of honey to 
EU consumers. It would be holding open dialogues with its member States, all interested third countries and other stakeholders. 
2.145.  In June 2013, Argentina reiterated its co ncern regarding the ECJ ruling of September 2011 
that defined pollen as an ingredient of honey, while Codex and the EU Directive 2001/110/EC considered pollen as a natural component of honey. In light of this new definition, honey that contained GMO-derived pollen was subject to a pre-authorisation process and should be labelled in 
order to be marketed throughout the European Union. The European Commission's proposal to 
modify Directive 2001/110/EC on honey was being discussed in the EU Parliament and the Council. 
Argentina stressed that the implementation of the ECJ ruling should be based on scientific 
evidence, be the least trade restrictive as possible and be consistent with the WTO SPS 
Agreement. 
2.146.  The United States shared Argentina's concern and noted that the ECJ ruling posed a 
potential barrier to trade. The United States therefore encouraged the European Commission to act 
expeditiously on its intention to amend Council Di rective 1002/110/EC to clarify that pollen was a 
natural constituent of honey, as stated by Codex, and not an ingredient. The United States also encouraged the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (SCFCAH) to vote, at 
the earliest opportunity, to authorise the application to include pollen. 
2.147.  The European Union reported that the proposal to amend the Honey Directive was working 
its way through the legislative process. According to  this proposal, pollen would be considered as a 
natural constituent of honey and, as such, would not need to be mentioned in the list of 
ingredients. Nevertheless, the EU GMO legislation would continue to apply and the presence of G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 57 - 
 
  authorised GMO pollen in honey should continue to be labelled if it exceeded the threshold of 
0.9% of the total amount of honey. 
2.5  France, European Union 2.5.1  Food safety 
Ban on Bisphenol A (STC 346) 
Raised by: United States of America 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2013 (G/SPS/R/70, paras. 3.4-3.5) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.148.  In March 2013, the United States expressed concern regarding a French law adopted in 
December 2012 on food packaging made with Bisphe nol A (BPA). The legislation required all food 
packaging made with BPA to be accordingly labelle d. In addition, food packaging made with BPA 
would be prohibited after 1 January 2015. The Unit ed States indicated that this measure would 
have a significant negative effect on trade, du e to the wide range of products that would be 
subject to the law. Given the serious nature of the potential trade concerns, the United States strongly urged the European Union to notify this ban to the SPS or the TBT Committee at its 
earliest convenience and to provide a scientific risk assessment to support the restriction. 
2.149.  The European Union explained that its member States could adopt national measures in 
areas where no legislation existed at an EU-wide level, if they were in conformity with the Treaty 
on the Functioning of the European Union. In partic ular, the Treaty allows the adoption of national 
measures if they are deemed necessary in view of  protecting the health and lives of the citizens. 
France had justified its national measures on these grounds and had adopted its law on the basis 
of the hazard assessments conducted by the French Agency for Food, Environmental and 
Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES). Two repo rts on BPA were issued by ANSES: one report 
on the use of BPA in products and another that identified hazards for human health. The French legislation stipulated that from 1 January 2013 BPA could not be used in any materials and articles 
containing food intended for infants and children up to, and including, three years of age. From 
1 January 2015, it introduced a complete ban of the use of BPA in all food contact materials, and a labelling provision for pregnant women and young children in the interim period. The European 
Union was now awaiting the outcome of EFSA's on-going risk assessment on the use of BPA in all 
food contact applications, the first conclusions of which were expected to be available before the summer. The European Union indicated that once it had all the relevant information on which to 
base its decision, including the EFSA opinion and information on the availability of safe 
alternatives, it would decide on the French national measure and on BPA in food contact materials in the European Union. 
2.6  India 
2.6.1  Animal Health 
Import conditions for pork and pork products (STC 358) 
Raised by: European Union 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 3.4-3.6) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 58 - 
 
   
2.150.  In October 2013, the European Union noted that it had for several years been urging India to align its import conditions on pork and pork products with international standards. Currently, (a) India requested that the exporting country ce rtify freedom from a number of diseases for 
which the OIE had not set an international standard, yet India had not provided a science-based 
justification for these import conditions; (b) India required exporting countries to have country freedom without contemplating the possibility of trade from established disease-free regions; 
(c) specifically with regard to import conditions for processed meat of pork origin, India required 
that the exporting country certify that meat was processed so as to achieve an internal temperature of not less than 70°C for 30 minutes, without allowing any alternative treatments. These requirements by India were not based on the relevant OIE and CODEX standards. The 
European Union further noted that under the SPS Agreement, import conditions should not be 
stricter than the measures applicable to the domestic market, and Indian legislation allowed non-heat treated processed pig meat within its domestic market. 
2.151.  The European Union urged India to bring its measures in line with the international 
standards or, alternatively, to provide a science-bas ed risk analysis for each of the diseases for 
which India applied import conditions stricter than the international standards and also for its 
requirement to import only heat-treated processed pork meat. The European Union also urged 
India to recognise the principle of regionalisatio n, which was effectively applied in the European 
Union, instead of requiring country freedom for certain diseases. 
2.152.  India noted that a technical expert committee had been established within the Department 
of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries. This committee reviewed all the technical aspects 
concerned in order to reach a decision on the rele vant veterinary certificates. One meeting of the 
committee had already been held and another was scheduled to take place. 
2.6.2  Plant Health 
Import restrictions on apples, pears and citrus (STC 347) 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Chile, European Union 
Dates raised: March 2013 (G/SPS/R/70, paras. 3.6-3.13) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.153.  In March 2013, Argentina raised concerns regarding India's import restrictions on fresh apples and pears which were put in place on 1 April 2004. India had alleged that its authorities 
must conduct a pest risk analysis (PRA) for those products. Argentina submitted the required 
information to India in 2004, while requesting that  access to India's market for Argentine exports 
not be disrupted until the results of the PRA were known. In the minutes of the Joint Commission 
meeting of July 2006, India agreed to prioritise comp letion of the risk analysis required for market 
access prior to the following harvest of December  2006. In this meeting Argentina submitted the 
response to comments communicated by the Department of Agriculture & Cooperation (DAC) on the PRA-related issues. Argentina had invited India to inspect its production zones, and in 
November 2007 a technical inspection was carried out by the DAC. On this occasion, Argentina 
submitted additional information, as documented in the minutes of the bilateral meeting of November 2007. This matter was the subject of a bilateral meeting in the margins of this SPS 
Committee. In December 2008, comments were requested from India concerning the information 
presented in the 2007 bilateral meeting. In April 2009, India indicated that the pest risk analysis 
for pears and apples was being processed. However, despite repeated requests by Argentina, there had been no formal response from India on the outcome of this process. In order to help resolve 
this issue, Argentina proposed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with India on SPS issues 
but this had not materialized since 2006. 
2.154.  During the Joint Commission meeting held  in New Delhi in July 2006, Argentina had also 
submitted a technical dossier for the risk analysis of citrus products. As recorded in the minutes, G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 59 - 
 
  India agreed to promptly undertake a pest risk analysis for citrus fruits and to set up a bilateral 
working group on SPS issues to expeditiously fina lize the pending risk analysis and the SPS MOU. 
At the 2007 technical meeting, Argentina provided comments to the risk analysis document undertaken for citrus. In 2008 and 2009 there was an exchange of technical information. Since 
then, Argentina had not received any official response from India to the comments provided 
despite repeated requests in 2010 and 2011. 
2.155.  Argentina requested India to allow effective access of apples, pears and citrus into the 
I n d i a n  m a r k e t  i n  o r d e r  t o  c o m p l y  w i t h  i t s  f o rmal commitments and, thus, remedy the lengthy 
trade interruption of apples and citrus that am ounted to nine years - without being based on 
scientific evidence - and that caused commercial damage to its producers as a result of lost market share. 
2.156.  Chile supported Argentina's concern and reported that it had faced the same problems 
relating to its fruit exports to India. Although  Chilean export and safety conditions had been 
improved, Chile had not received any information from India regarding the specific requirements 
for obtaining market access. Chile requested a response from India to the questions it had 
submitted in writing. 
2.157.  The European Union also supported Argentina's concern and noted the lack of 
transparency in the approval process for exports of new plant and fruit commodities to India. The 
absence of a list of regulated pests in India elim inated the predictability of the conditions under 
which trading partners might be able to expo rt. The European Union noted India's lack of 
resources to process the many pending export applications for various export commodities which 
the European Union had great interest in exporting to India. 
2.158.  India explained that imports of apples, pear s and citrus fruit were governed by the existing 
pest risk analysis guidelines that prescribed specific MRLs for pesticides in line with international 
standards. All fruit products were therefore free to be imported to India if they met these specific 
tolerance limits. 
2.159.  Argentina clarified that its concern dealt with the phytosanitary requirements for the 
imports of fruit and not with the prescribed MRLs. It  awaited the results of the pest risk analysis in 
pears and apples, as well as a response to its comments on the pest risk analysis conducted for citrus fruits, in order to know the exact conditions required for imports of fruit. 
2.160.  India indicated that no trade ban had been imposed on imports of fruit coming from 
Argentina and that according to its database, Argentina had been exporting fruit to India and no 
import restrictions were in place. 
2.7  Hong Kong, China 
2.7.1  Food safety 
Import restrictions in response to the Japa nese nuclear power plan t accident (STC 354) 
2.161.  See paragraphs 2.296.  to 2.300.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 60 - 
 
  2.8  Indonesia 
2.8.1  Animal Health Import restrictions on poultry meat (STC 286) 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, paras. 14-15), October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, 
paras 79-80), October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 3.47-3.48) 
Relevant document(s): Indonesian Decree 50/Permentan/OT.140/9/2011 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.162.  In October 2009, Brazil raised concerns about restrictions on Brazilian poultry meat due to 
Indonesian legislation that was not in accordance with international standards. Although Indonesia 
claimed to accept the principle of regionalization, it had not presented any sanitary reasons for the restrictions on Brazilian poultry meat. Throughout 2009, Brazil and Indonesia had consulted on 
this trade barrier and Brazil had provided information showing that its poultry meat and by 
products complied with the relevant international standards and even with Indonesia's regulations. Brazil requested the sanitary justification for the restrictions, or that the restrictions be lifted. 
2.163.  Indonesia expressed his authorities' willing ness to have bilateral meetings with Brazil to 
find solutions on the issue. 
2.164.  In October 2011, Brazil observed that it fulfilled all OIE requirements related to poultry 
meat and exported poultry products to more than 170 countries, but the Indonesian market 
remained closed. In October 2009, Brazil had questioned the scientific basis of Indonesia's 
prohibition, but despite several bilateral meetings, the Indonesian market remained closed to Brazilian chicken, duck and turkey meat. Regard ing chicken meat, Indonesia had recently issued 
Decree 50/Permentan/OT.140/9/2011, which prohibited, without any scientific justification, 
imports of whole chicken and mechanically separated chicken meat products. In relation to duck and turkey meat, although Indonesia had agreed to send a mission to Brazil to approve establishments, it had not responded to repeated requests from Brazil to set a date for the 
mission. 
2.165.  Indonesia replied that the issue had been discussed extensively during the meeting of the 
bilateral Agriculture Working Group, and during the Brazil-Indonesia Joint Commission in October 
2011. During the consultations, Indonesia had informed Brazil that it needed more time to ensure 
internal coordination before sending the inspection mission to Brazil, and that the Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture would conduct its technical research in 2012. 
2.166.  In October 2013, Brazil reiterated its concerns over Indonesia's restriction on Brazilian 
poultry meat exports. Brazil exported poultry products to more than 170 countries and met all the relevant OIE requirements. In May 2009, Brazil had expressed its interest in exporting poultry 
meat to Indonesia and had since held bilateral consultations with Indonesian sanitary authorities. 
In October 2009, Brazil had had raised a concern about this prohibition, which did not seem to 
have scientific basis, and had reiterated that concern in 2011. Despite several bilateral meetings since then, import restrictions on poultry meat remained. Brazil submitted specific questions on 
Indonesia's recently enacted regulations in the context of the difficulties faced by Brazil's poultry 
meat exporters in general, and chicken meat exporters in particular, and requested that Indonesia confirm that the new regulations did not provide for legal restrictions to poultry imports. 
Furthermore, Brazil requested Indonesia to provide an exhaustive list of regulations applicable to 
imports of poultry, and explain the reasons for delays in the approval procedures of health certificates for poultry meat. 
2.167.  Indonesia reiterated that, in principle, it  did not prohibit poultry meat imports provided 
safety and halal food requirements were met. Re vised regulations setting out the requirements for 
poultry meat imports rules had been approved in  2013. Under the revised legislation, exporting G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 61 - 
 
  countries must be free from highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), Newcastle disease, and duck 
viral hepatitis, for a period of at least 90 days. The exporting poultry establishments must also implement a halal food system, which meant that the establishment exclusively produced halal products. The halal requirement applied to all slaughterhouses in the country of origin and imports 
of poultry products must pass the document inspection and field certification on the 
implementation of animal health systems and safety assurance for animal products, both at the level of establishments and country of origin. Indonesia assured that it would continue to work 
closely with Members to overcome this issue. 
2.8.2  Plant Health Indonesia's port closures (STC 330) 
Raised by: China, New Zealand, United States of America, European Union 
Supported by: Argentina; Australia; Canada; Chile; Japan; Korea, Republic of; South 
Africa; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; Uruguay 
Dates raised: March 2012 (G/SPS/R/66, paras. 19-25), July 2012 (G/SPS/R/67, paras. 
49-55), October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, paras. 45-48), March 2013 (G/SPS/R/70, paras. 3.40-3.43), June 2013 (G/SPS/R/71, paras. 4.39-4.43), October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 3.26-3.29) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/IDN/48, G/SP S/N/IDN/49, G/SPS/N/IDN/53, G/SPS/N/IDN/54, 
G/SPS/N/IDN/54/Corr.1 
Status: Partially resolved 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved: 16 October 2013 
 
2.168.  In March 2012, the United States raised concerns about Indonesia's plan to close several 
entry ports for imports of fruit and vegetables, including the main port of Jakarta (Tanjung Priok), originally scheduled for 19 March, but postponed until 19 June 2012. The port closure would 
threaten 90% of fresh fruit and vegetable exports to Indonesia, and the measure was not done in 
a transparent manner. The United States indicated its willingness to work with Indonesia to resolve 
any legitimate phytosanitary concerns Indonesia had with respect to fruit and vegetable imports, while also facilitating trade in these products. Th e United States urged Indonesia to notify these 
trade restrictions to the Committee and to provide scientific evidence to support them. 
2.169.  The European Union agreed that unnecessary  trade disruption would occur from the port 
closure and recalled that any SPS measure should be no more trade restrictive than required and 
in line with the SPS Agreement. The European Unio n similarly encouraged Indonesia to notify its 
draft measures to the WTO and to allow sufficient time for formal comments from trading partners and related discussions. 
2.170.  Australia also expressed concerns with In donesia's revised horticultural regulation, which 
was of major commercial interest to Australian exporters, and indicated its willingness to work collaboratively with Indonesia to resolve this issue. Chile indicated that it was closely following the concern and awaited the notification of Indonesia in order to work bilaterally on the issue. 
South Africa joined with other Members to request that Indonesia notify this regulation to the 
Committee with the necessary reasoning and docume ntation. South Africa indicated its willingness 
to cooperate with Indonesia to find a solution 
2.171.  Canada voiced concern that similar port closures could occur in the future for other 
commodities, for example, food of animal origin, which could have a negative impact on Canada's 
exports to Indonesia. 
2.172.  New Zealand noted particular concerns that the Jakarta seaport had not been included on 
the list of accepted entry points as 90% of NZ ho rticulture exports entered through that port. The 
port closures would result in higher costs and lo nger transport times, affecting the quality, value 
and shelf life of the perishable horticultural pr oducts. New Zealand requested justification for the 
implementation of this regulation and while noti ng Indonesia's comments regarding port capacity, 
observed that restricting the number of ports for horticulture imports would compound the problem by diverting trade to fewer and smaller port s. Although the delay in the implementation of G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 62 - 
 
  the regulations was welcomed, New Zealand requeste d that the regulations be rescinded as trade 
to Indonesia would otherwise not be viable. New Zealand looked forward to working constructively with Indonesia and highlighted the need for a transparent approach. 
2.173.  Indonesia reported that the Ministry of  Agriculture had published new regulations No. 15 
and No. 16 of 2012, which postponed the enforc ement of regulations No. 89 and No. 90 from 
19 March until 19 June 2012. The postponement of enforcement of the regulations was in order to provide sufficient time for stakeholders and tradin g partners to set up infrastructure such as 
warehouses, cold storage and transportation, so as to prevent distortion in the distribution of fresh 
fruits and vegetables. Both new regulations provided specific policies for several ports. As of 19 June 2012, all horticulture products should only enter through four ports -- the Belawan Sea 
Port in Medan, Makassar Sea Port, Tanjung Sea Port in Surabaya and Soekarno-Hatta Airport in 
Jakarta -- and should no longer enter through the Port of Jakarta (Tanjun Priok). The rationale for 
these new regulations was based on: (i) the identification of 19 cases threatening Indonesia's agriculture by the quarantine inspection and food se curity at Tanjung Priok; (ii) the limited ability 
of the quarantine and food safety laboratory to conduct examinations at Tanjung Priok; (iii) the 
absence of quarantine installations at entry ports; and (iv) inadequate number of quarantine inspectors in relation to the number of products to be examined. Indonesia indicated that it would 
notify and circulate the regulation as soon as possible. 
2.174.  In July 2012, New Zealand reported on fruitful discussions with Indonesia that had 
addressed and resolved some of the concerns re lated to the importation of NZ horticultural 
products. Indonesia should provide better clarity about its trade measures that may affect 
agricultural products through timely notifications under the relevant WTO agreements, and engage 
in consultations on these regulations with relevant WTO Members. 
2.175.  South Africa supported the request that regulations pertaining to the closure of the port be 
notified to the WTO. Indonesia's notification about the regulations in May 2012, however, did not 
provide a specific timeframe for Members to comme nt before the regulations were implemented on 
19 June 2012. South Africa had nonetheless provid ed comments on the regulations, but received 
no response from Indonesia. Indonesia was also asked to clarify media reports on the 
reinstatement of imports through Jakarta harbour for products from some Members, and to elaborate on what basis the exemption was made. South Africa wished to discuss the matter with Indonesia bilaterally on an urgent basis, in light of the start of South Africa's export season. 
2.176.  The European Union shared the concerns raised by New Zealand and stated that despite 
the new regulations implemented by Indonesia to open up additional ports for imports, the situation had not improved significantly. Indonesia had granted a few countries preferential access 
to the main entry port of Jakarta based on country recognition, but had not granted such access to 
the European Union despite its high food safety and plant health standards. This was clearly a 
trade restrictive measure and it created a competit ive disadvantage for EU exporters as bringing 
fruits and vegetables via other ports meant long er travel times, increasing costs and raised 
difficulties for the quality of the highly perishab le products. Additionally, the measure had not been 
notified to the WTO. The European Union urged In donesia to lift the unnecessarily trade restrictive 
measures and to implement measures in line with the SPS Agreement, including giving advance 
notification through the SPS notification system, allowing comments and allowing sufficient time 
for economic operators to adapt to any new measures. 
2.177.  Japan expressed interest on the measures related to the port closure put in place by 
Indonesia and stated its willingness to work closely with the Indonesian government on this issue. 
Australia shared New Zealand's concerns and thanked Indonesia for its constructive bilateral engagement on a range of SPS-related issues. Australia also encouraged Indonesia to notify all 
measures to the relevant WTO Committees. Korea also supported the concerns raised by New 
Zealand and welcomed Indonesia's recent decision  to postpone the implementation of the new 
import regulation on horticultural products until September. Korea sought bilateral discussions with Indonesia to find a solution. 
2.178.  Indonesia clarified that the previous regu lations of concern had been revoked and replaced 
by the decrees of the Ministry of Agriculture No  42/2012 and 43/2012, which had been notified to 
the WTO in July 2012 (G/SPS/N/IDN/53, G/SPS/N/IDN/54 and G/SPS/N/IDN/54/Corr.1). These 
concerned plant quarantine actions for the import of certain fresh fruits and/or fresh vegetables, 
and fresh plant products in the form of fresh bulb vegetables, into the territory of Indonesia G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 63 - 
 
  effective 19 June 2012. Since the March 2012 SPS Committee meeting, Indonesia had conducted 
constructive bilateral and technical meetings in Jakarta with interested Members and had addressed most of the issues bilaterally, but remained open for further bilateral discussions. 
2.179.  In October 2012, China expressed concer n with Indonesia's amended plant quarantine 
measures for the importation of fresh fruits and vegetables, which entered into force in June 2012 
and was notified to the WTO in July 2012. The re quirements included the accreditation of food 
safety and control systems and the designation of  four ports - not including Jakarta's Tanjung 
Priok sea port - for entry of fruits and vegetables. The restriction on use of Indonesia's major 
trading ports would negatively impact trade with China, as 90% of Chinese fruit and vegetable exports entered Indonesia through Jakarta. China had a long history of trade in fruits and vegetables with Indonesia and its regulatory system monitored risks from fruit and vegetable 
exports. China questioned the scientific justificat ion for the measure, as the pests highlighted by 
Indonesia did not occur in China. The international practice was for the importing country to first strengthen its inspection system at ports of en try to ensure the safety of imported food and 
vegetables, before implementing a process to accredit the food safety control systems of the 
exporting country. China had submitted a formal application for accreditation of its food safety control system and encouraged Indonesia to schedule an inspection visit to review China's 
quarantine systems. 
2.180.  The European Union echoed China's concern with Indonesia's restrictive quarantine 
measures for the import of fresh fruits and vegetables, and fresh plant products in the form of fresh bulbs. At the last WTO SPS Committee, Indonesia had stated that it had addressed most of 
the issues bilaterally and had provided access to the main entry port of Jakarta to a number of 
countries based on country recognition. Only a limited number of countries had been granted preferential access to Indonesia, while other co untries could only use a limited number of entry 
ports and remained excluded from using the main port in Jakarta. Despite bilateral discussions 
with Indonesia, EU exports remained unnecessar ily blocked or exposed to higher costs, and 
Indonesia had provided no justification for these trade restrictive measures and the discriminatory 
preferential access. The European Union urged Indonesia to lift the unnecessarily trade restrictive 
measures and to implement measures in line with the SPS Agreement, including giving advance notification, so that comments of trading partners could be taken into account before trade disruptive measures were imposed. 
2.181.  Thailand echoed the concerns of China an d the European Union, indicating that it was a 
major exporter of fruits and vegetables to Indo nesia and that its exports had been negatively 
affected. Thailand requested Indonesia to remove the measure in order to minimize barriers and 
strengthen trade. 
2.182.  Indonesia recognized that the publication of its Ministry of Agriculture Regulation No 
42/2012 and 43/2012 had raised concerns among some  Members regarding the limitation of ports 
of entry for certain fresh fruits and vegetables, and fresh plant products in the form of fresh bulb 
vegetables. Indonesia had not closed its ports for the importation of horticulture products, but was seeking to prevent the spread of plant diseases and pests through effective management and regulation. Its largest sea port, Tanjung Priok, did not have appropriate facilities to implement 
quarantine measures such as the physical examination and detention of horticultural products. To 
prevent the spread of plant diseases and pests, an d given the high volume of activity at Tanjung 
Priok, imports had been re-routed to other ports which had the requisite infrastructure. These 
ports were Belawan Sea Port in Medan, Makassa r Sea Port, Tanjung Sea Port in Surabaya and 
Soekarno-Hatta International Airport in Jakarta. Indonesia was taking measures to improve the quarantine installation facility in Tanjung Priok, including by establishing an integrated system 
between the quarantine, customs and other relevant  agencies; developing and improving existing 
infrastructure to accommodate imported commodities in the port area during quarantine inspections; and providing specifically for the entry and exit of containers. The first stage of this improvement programme should be finished by the end of 2013. These comprehensive steps were 
deemed necessary based on the results of  a 2010-2011 assessment carried out by plant 
quarantine officials, which identified 15 exotic plant diseases that never previously existed in Indonesia. In most cases these plant diseases were found in horticulture products entering 
Tanjung Priok port. Indonesia remained concerned about the increasing number of interceptions 
that posed a serious threat to its plant and consumer protection. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 64 - 
 
  2.183.  In March 2013, China expressed concern with Indonesian Regulations 89, 90, 42 and 43 
(G/SPS/N/IDN/48, G/SPS/N/IDN/49, G/SPS/N/IDN/53, G/SPS/N/IDN/54), issued in December 2011, that revised the inspection and quarantine measures for imported fresh fruits and vegetables. The regulations required accreditat ion of food safety and control systems and 
permitted the entry of fresh fruit and vegetables only through four specific Indonesian ports that 
did not include the Priok Sea port of Jakarta. This restriction negatively affected trade with China, as 90% of Chinese fruit and vegetable exports to Indonesia, entered through Jakarta. China also 
voiced concern regarding Decrees No. 30 and No. 60 (G/SPS/N/IDN/58), issued in 2012 that 
required a safety licence, issued by the Ministry  of Trade, for the import of certain fruit and 
vegetable products. Since Indonesia had delayed th e granting of these licences, the export of 
Chinese agricultural products to Indonesia had ex perienced a sharp decline. The Ministry of Trade 
of Indonesia had also restricted the import volume licence and required that fruit and vegetable 
products be inspected at the ports of the country of origin before exporting. From August to November 2012, China had invited Indonesia four times to verify the Chinese inspection and 
quarantine safety system. Indonesia had systematic ally requested investigations of the pest-free 
area for fruit flies of garlic in China. Given that garlic is not a host of fruit flies, China invited Indonesia to verify its inspection system more generally, not limiting the investigation to garlic. In 
December 2012, Indonesia responded that it would not conduct an investigation in China without 
feedback on the proposed investigation on fruit flies in garlic. China had successfully established a safety system for the export of fruit and vegetables, and exported fruit to over 18 countries, including the European Union, the United States, Canada, Australia and Japan. China hoped that 
both sides would further strengthen their inspection services under the framework of the SPS 
Consultation and Co-operation Memorandum of Understanding that China and Indonesia had signed in December 2008, and quickly resolve the inspection and quarantine problem. 
2.184.  The European Union supported the concern rais ed by China, highlighting that the denial of 
access to the port of Jakarta significantly increa sed the costs of exports to Indonesia. Indonesia 
justified its measure by stating that it had found an increasing number of interceptions that posed 
a serious threat to its plant and consumer protection, however, Indonesia had never reported 
interceptions on any EU products. Despite several bilateral discussions with Indonesia, the European Union had not received any clarification that would justify these trade restrictive measures or explain the discriminatory preferential  access to the port of Jakarta for only a few 
countries. The European Union urged Indonesia to lift these unnecessarily trade restrictive 
measures without delay, and to only set SPS measur es with a view to minimize any negative trade 
effects in a non-discriminatory manner. 
2.185.  Argentina, Chile, Korea, Chinese Taipei and Uruguay also reported that the port closure 
was affecting their trade and stated their willingness to hold consultations with Indonesia to find a swift solution on this matter. Chile indicated th at it had provided Indonesia with the necessary 
information to confirm that its products were free from fruit flies and other pests, but had not 
received any response. Argentina noted that this issue should be solved as swiftly as possible as the concerned products (fruits) were seasonal and perishable products. 
2.186.  Indonesia highlighted its strong bilateral trade ties with China and emphasized that China 
represented the biggest supplier of agricultural pr oducts to Indonesia. The Indonesian government 
was still in the process of developing port infrastructure in Jakarta, including inspection facilities for quarantine and custom agencies. The new inspection system should be finalized by the end of 
this year and in the meantime trading partners should use the other specified ports after fulfilling 
the required food safety investigation and certification procedures. Indonesia urged Members to get information on how to obtain accreditation through their embassies in Jakarta. 
2.187.  In June 2013, China expressed concern with Indonesia's plant inspection and quarantine 
measures for fresh fruit and vegetables that required inspection before export, access into the country only through minor ports and quota restrictions. China had established an inspection and quarantine supervision system for its exported fruit and vegetables and had never received any 
indication from Indonesia with regard to pest problems in Chinese fruit. Jakarta's port closure 
increased transport costs, affected the preservation of the products and reduced market competitiveness. China asked Indonesia to cancel the requirement of third party inspection after 
mutual recognition of the newly established supervision system carried out by competent 
authorities of China and Indonesia. China also encouraged Indonesia to implement the agreement 
signed by both parties in Jakarta in May 2013 and to conduct field investigations to grant 
certification for eight kinds of fruit and vegetabl e products. Finally, China requested that Indonesia G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 65 - 
 
  eliminate the quotas for fruit and vegetable products from China, to promote smooth development 
of trade between the two countries. 
2.188.  The European Union shared the concerns ra ised by China, highlighting that Jakarta's port 
closure significantly increased the costs of export s to Indonesia. Indonesia had claimed that its 
measure was justified by interceptions that posed a serious threat to its plant and consumer 
protection, however, Indonesia had never report ed interceptions on any EU products. Despite 
several bilateral discussions, the European Union had not received any clarification that would 
justify Indonesia's trade restrictive measures or explain the discriminatory preferential access to 
the port of Jakarta. The European Union therefore urged Indonesia to lift these unjustified and discriminatory restrictions on EU products. 
2.189.  South Africa also shared China's concerns that Jakarta's port closure and the mandatory 
use of SGS certification hampered trade flows into Indonesia and increased transport and 
certification costs. Despite submitting all required information with regard to the safety of its exports, South Africa had not received a favourable response from Indonesia. South Africa 
therefore requested that Indonesia lift these unjustified and discriminating measures. 
2.190.  Chile, Korea and Chinese Taipei also shar ed China's concerns and hoped that the problem 
would soon be resolved. Chile reported that it had obtained a bilateral meeting with Indonesia 
after providing all information required on its fruit exports. 
2.191.  Indonesia noted that this issue was in the process of being resolved bilaterally with China. 
A meeting with the Ministry of Agriculture of Indonesia had taken place on 22 May 2013 and the 
two countries had agreed to complete an extendable  protocol of import and export inspection and 
quarantine requirements for agricultural and food products. Indonesia explained that its measures 
had been adopted to ensure consumer safety, as in the past, exotic quarantine pests were intercepted in potatoes imported from one of the Members who had now raised a concern against 
Indonesia. Indonesia also noted that the port of Jakarta would be re-opened as soon as the port 
infrastructure and the inspection facilities fo r quarantine and customs agencies were ready. 
2.192.  In October 2013, China noted that since December 2011, Indonesia's Department of 
Agriculture had issued successive ministeria l orders (G/SPS/N/IDN/48, G/SPS/N/IDN/49, 
G/SPS/N/IDN/53, G/SPS/N/IDN/54) amending the inspection and quarantine requirements for imported fresh fruits and vegetables. China assert ed that these orders, requiring accreditation of 
control systems, limiting the number of import lic ences, requiring that exports come from zones 
free from fruit fly, and limiting the point of entry to specific ports excluding Jakarta's main port 
Tanjung Priok, seriously affected its fruit and ve getable exports. The two countries had traded for 
years on the basis of established inspection an d supervision systems, and Indonesia had never 
informed China about any pest- or food safety- related problems. China had proposed a mutual 
recognition agreement on the inspection and quaran tine of fruits and vegetables to Indonesia on 
25 April 2013, and urged Indonesia to study it as so on as possible. China also requested Indonesia 
to remove quota limitations on Chinese fruits and vegetables, and to provide scientific justification 
for its measures. 
2.193.  Chile noted that it had engaged in bilateral negotiations with Indonesia, and hoped that 
this issue would be resolved before the next meeting of the Committee. 
2.194.  The European Union shared the concerns raised by China, noting that trade in certain 
horticultural products continued to be unnecessarily hampered because of the closure of several entry points, including Tanjung Priok. The opening of that port to some countries based on receipt 
of information on their food safety and plant health conditions, but not to others, appeared 
discriminatory. The European Union had provided all the requested information on the EU food safety and plant protection systems as requested,  but Indonesia continued to maintain the entry 
restriction. 
2.195.  Indonesia recalled several pest outbreaks it had suffered in the past, including papaya 
infestation by Paracoccus  sp. and spread of Globodera rostochiensis  in potato, and noted that in 
addition to pests, some imported fresh produce posed a food safety threat, exceeding permitted 
mycotoxin and chemical limits. Indonesia's quarantine facilities were limited and the workload too 
great for plant quarantine officers. Tanjung Priok port was undergoing necessary facility G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 66 - 
 
  improvements in an effort to mitigate SPS risks. This risk mitigation, Indonesia stressed, was 
carried out in accordance with Article 6 of the SPS Agreement. Indonesia was not closing the port completely, but opening it under certain conditions. It had also amended its horticultural and animal product regulations, eliminating certain verification requirements in the country of origin, 
and requiring that registered importers should impo rt at least 80% of the volume of their import 
permit to maintain their status as a registered importer. 
2.9  Japan 
2.9.1  Food safety 
Japan's MRLs applied to sesame (STC 321) 
Raised by: Paraguay 
Supported by: Argentina, Ecuado r, India, Indonesia, Mexico 
Dates raised: June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, paras 30-31), March 2013 (G/SPS/R/70, 
paras. 3.44-3.49), October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 3.49-3.51) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/1091, G/SPS/GEN/1220 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.196.  In June 2011, Paraguay expressed concerns that Japan's MRLs for pesticides in sesame were more restrictive than those applied to other similar products, and had a negative impact on 
trade (G/SPS/GEN/1091). The application of an across-the-board uniform limit was inconsistent 
with the principles of the SPS Agreement. 
2.197.  Japan observed that there were no Codex MRLs for sesame. Japan applied a uniform limit 
of 0.01 ppm as this was unlikely to damage human health based on the concept of acceptable 
exposure that had been scientifically assessed by JEFCA. These uniform limits had been notified to 
the WTO. The European Union also imposed the same uniform limit. Japan could establish MRLs for 
compound/commodity combinations which were not registered in its legislation, in response to 
exporting country applications for import tolerances. Japan invited Paraguay to file an application for an import tolerance with the Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare, and to provide the necessary data for assessment. Paraguay should be aware, however, th at the MRL set by the 
European Union for the compound in sesame was 0.05 ppm. 
2.198.  In March 2013, Paraguay reiterated its concern regarding Japan's application of MRLs for 
pesticide in sesame that had resulted in the rejection or quarantine of some sesame shipments 
from Paraguay. Paraguay had been making efforts to ensure the quality of its products and was 
implementing specific regulations and risk miti gation plans for producers to adapt to market 
requirements. However, adapting to MRL requiremen ts that were much lower than those of similar 
products and of other international markets woul d imply high costs. Japan required a limit of 
0.01ppm for sesame, while for similar products like broccoli, maní, rice and wheat, the limit was set at 0.05ppm or above. Paraguay requested Japan to make a specific regulation for sesame based on scientific evidence and equivalent to th ose of similar products. Paraguay reiterated its 
willingness to work with the Japanese government to solve this issue. 
2.199.  Ecuador, Indonesia and Mexico supported Paraguay's concern and recalled that MRLs must 
be based on science and international standards. 
2.200.  Japan explained that it needed data and information from Paraguay to change the MRL for 
pesticides in sesame. Japan had requested this data from Paraguay immediately after Paraguay raised this issue in the Committee meetings held in June 2011, but until now it had not received 
this data. Japan reiterated its willingness to address this issue with the Paraguayan government. 
2.201.  Ecuador and Argentina reminded Japan that the burden of scientific proof to justify an SPS 
measure must be borne by the country applying the measure and not the other way around. India highlighted the fact that if there are no international standards and if Members do not have a G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 67 - 
 
  justification based on data, they have no right to set arbitrary MRLs that are especially harmful for 
developing countries. 
2.202.  Paraguay agreed that the burden of pr oof must be borne by the country applying the 
measure and noted that accommodating Japan's specific request for evidence was not easy, given 
the large number of sesame producers in the country. Nevertheless, Paraguay reiterated its 
willingness to work with Japan to solve this issue. 
2.203.  Japan repeated its need for co-operation and input from other Members to be able to base 
its MRL on scientific data. 
2.204.  In October 2013, Paraguay reiterated its concerns over Japan's application of MRLs to 
sesame and maintained that uniform limits were inconsistent with the SPS Agreement since they were not based on scientific principles and were maintained without sufficient scientific evidence. 
Carbaryl and Imidacloprid were not included in the MRL table for sesame prepared by the Japan 
Food Chemical Research Foundation. Paraguay understood that under Japanese regulations, the uniform tolerance limit for pesticides not listed in such table was of 0.01 mg/kg, however, Japan 
allowed higher tolerance limits for other import s, such as sunflower seed, rapeseed, and other 
oilseeds. Paraguay believed that the limits were arbitrary and inconsistent with the concept of appropriate level of protection, as higher limits existed for routinely consumed products such as 
rice and spinach. Codex has not established MRLs for sesame, but has established limits for 
Carbaryl and Imidacloprid in food products consumed by humans, including several products classified in the oilseed group together with sesame. Some demanding markets, such as the European Union, had set tolerance limits at 0.05 mg/kg. Paraguay had taken steps to ensure the 
quality and safety of sesame, by ensuring th at exports were accompanied by the relevant 
laboratory reports indicating that they complied with Japanese regulations. Paraguay appreciated 
the bilateral meeting with Japan and hoped that a satisfactory solution would soon be found. 
2.205.  Ecuador shared Paraguay's concern. Wh en international standards did not exist, the 
relevant SPS measures must be based on scientific evidence. The approach of applying MRLs to positive lists was not in line with the SPS Agreement and had negative consequences for exports of 
cocoa from Ecuador. The burden should not be on the exporter to verify that MRL limits were safe 
as this directly contravened the SPS Agreement. Ecuador expressed its willingness to continue consultations on this issue. 
2.206.  Japan reiterated that it set individual MRLs for substances in food based on scientific data. 
A scientific justification was provided by the Food Safety Commission on each occasion, before any 
MRL was fixed, and Japan notified Members promptly before doing so. MRLs were set based on scientific data, such as residue trial data, using Good Agricultural Practices; meaning that even if 
the same pesticide were used, the MRL varied depending on commodities and environments. Japan 
claimed that this practice followed the internatio nal standard. However, the system prescribed that 
when there was no use of a substance in Japan, and no request had been submitted by a Member 
for an import tolerance to be set, and there was no relevant international standard, the MRL was 
set at the uniform level of 0.01 ppm. Japan did not use these pesticides for sesame, thus it was not familiar with the international standards on  Carbaryl and Imidacloprid. Japan had requested 
Paraguay to submit scientific data, including residue trial data, so that the necessary scientific 
assessments could be carried out. Japan was able to detect Carbaryl and Imidacloprid at 
0.01 mg/kg. Japan further expressed its availability  to expand on any additional information such 
as method of analysis or sampling plans used in import checks. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 68 - 
 
  Restrictions on shrimp due to an ti-oxidant residues (STC 342) 
Raised by: India 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, paras. 24-25), March 2013 (G/SPS/R/70, 
paras. 3.53-3.54), June 2013 (G/SPS/R/71, paras. 4.31-4.32), October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 3.39-3.41) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally. 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.207.  In October 2012, India expressed concern regarding Japan's introduction of mandatory testing for residue levels of Ethoxyquin, an anti-oxidant commonly used as a preservative in feed 
for aquatic animals. In 2005, Japan had notified a measure based on its Food Sanitation Act that 
regulated a positive list of agricultural chemicals and additives in food. This defined permissible residue levels of Ethoxyquin at 0.01 ppm for some products, but did not include MRLs in shrimp. 
Japan's new MRLs for shrimp was too stringent compared to the Codex MRL of 3 ppm, was not 
based on scientific evidence and did not take into account the objective of minimizing negative trade effects. 
2.208.  Japan observed that no Codex standard for Ethoxyquin in shrimp had existed at the time it 
changed its legislation. As India had not requeste d the establishment of a specific MRL for this 
product, the default tolerance level of 0.01 pp m applied. A risk assessment for Ethoxyquin in 
shrimp was currently underway, so the default level was applied in the meantime. Japan remained 
committed to continuing consultations with India to resolve this matter. 
2.209.  In March 2013, India raised concerns regarding the systemic issue of setting arbitrary 
MRLs at the level of determination or detection,  without scientific evidence. On 1 August 2012, 
Japan had introduced limits for residues of the pesticide Ethoxyquin in shrimp with a threshold 
level set at 0.01ppm, the level of determination. In contrast, the MRL for Ethoxyquin in fish, including salmon, trout, eel and tuna, had been set at 1ppm. Furthermore, Codex had only set 
MRLs for Ethoxyquin for pears, at 3 ppm. No othe r Member had prescribed MRLs for Ethoxyquin in 
shrimp and no other international agencies had regulated Ethoxyquin in fish. There was also no 
scientific evidence on the toxicity or carcinogenic ity of the pesticide. India was the largest supplier 
of shrimp to Japan and this measure had an adverse effect on its exports. India urged Japan to 
base its decisions on scientific principles. Information was also requested on the status of the MRL 
review undertaken by the Food Safety Commission of Japan. 
2.210.  Japan explained that in response to India's request, it had conducted a risk assessment to 
review the existing MRLs for Ethoxyquin in shrimp. There was concern that Ethoxyquin was 
genotoxic and Japan's Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare was now conducting additional studies to generate data on the genotoxicity. In dia would be informed as soon as the data was 
available. Ethoxyquin was also under review for genotoxicity by the European Food Safety 
Authority. 
2.211.  In June 2013, India raised its concern over Japan's MRLs of Ethoxyquin in shrimp. India 
understood that there had been evidence raising co ncerns over the genotoxicity of Ethoxyquin, but 
did not understand why the MRLs for fish (1 ppm) were higher than those for shrimp (0.01 ppm). 
India had experienced a substantial economic loss due to Japan's MRLs, which were without scientific justification. 
2.212.  Japan reiterated that it set individual MRLs in food based on scientific data. The MRL in fish 
was based on residue trial data for fish, but there was no such data for shrimp. Furthermore, as there was no Codex standard for Ethoxyquin in shrimp, nor had any foreign country requested that Japan set a specific maximum level in shrimp, the uniform limit of 0.01 ppm had been applied. 
Japan was reviewing the uniform limit pursuant to a request for a specific limit from India, 
received September 2012. Multiple reports from Japanese authorities, as well as the European Food Safety Authority, had raised concern about the potential genotoxicity of Ethoxyquin. Japan 
reiterated that it would continue to review the status of this limit and consider new data and G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 69 - 
 
  reports as they became available. Japan expressed its desire to continue working with India on this 
issue through bilateral channels. 
2.213.  In October 2013, India noted that Japan had been examining consignments of shrimp for 
Ethoxyquin levels since August 2012. India asserted that the Ethoxyquin levels in these 
consignments was extremely low, ranging fr om 0.02 ppm to 0.05 ppm, according to the 
information provided by the relevant Japanese authority. India noted that Japan had fixed a 
provisional MRL of 0.01 ppm on finfish claiming that they did not have sufficient data to fix a final 
MRL on fish. India suggested that a provisional MR L be fixed also for shrimps based on preliminary 
study results, until reliable data could be obtained. India urged Japan to expedite their consideration and to indicate the timeframe for a final decision on this issue. 
2.214.  Japan stated that it had been conducting risk assessments and, in the process, the concern 
about genotoxicity of Ethoxyquin had been raised . Japan had prepared a draft assessment report 
which it had made available to the public, and it was in the process of evaluating the comments submitted. Japan had proposed a draft MRL of 0.2 ppm based on the assessment report. Japan 
was willing to continue working with India on this issue through bilateral channels. 
2.215.  Codex informed the Committee that Ethoxyquin had been placed on Codex's priority list for 
evaluation and thus would be considered at the international level. 
2.9.2  Animal Health 
General import restrictions  due to BSE (STC 193) 
2.216.  See paragraphs 2.301.  to 2.345.    Restrictions related to FMD (STC 332) 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2012 (G/SPS/R/67, paras 16-17), October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, 
paras. 3.30-3.31) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally. 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.217.  In July 2012, Argentina expressed concerns about Japan's undue delay in responding to 
Argentina's requests for recognition as an FMD-free area without vaccination, and Japan's failure to open its market to deboned fresh and mature beef meat. Argentina's first request dated to April 
2003. After no response, in March 2004, Argentina submitted to Japan's Ministry of Agriculture, 
Fishery and Forestry (MAFF) a specific report concerning the FMD-free area without vaccination and a technical proposal for risk mitigation in the import of meat from FMD-free areas with 
vaccination. Japan refused to address both subjects at the same time and instead proposed to first 
focus on the recognition of the FMD-free area without vaccination and afterwards discuss the 
exportation from the FMD-free area with vaccination. In June 2005, Argentina sent a technical mission to Japan to formally request recognition as an FMD-free area in line with Article 6 of the 
SPS Agreement. On that occasion, the MAFF authorities stated: (i) the need to conduct a technical 
mission of experts from the National Institute of Animal Health to Argentina, which took place in December 2007, and (ii) that Argentina had to reply to a lengthy questionnaire, which was only 
received after more than three years (in December 2008) and which, among other things, 
proposed to follow eight steps to advance the procedure (including that of carrying out a risk analysis for both areas). In January 2010, Argentina had replied to the questionnaire for the risk 
analysis of the FMD-free area without vaccination, submitting additional technical information. 
Since then, no replies had been received from Japan to enquiries, meetings and notes submitted on several occasions during 2010 and 2011. Argentina was officially recognized by the OIE as a country free of FMD with three areas: one area FMD-free without vaccination (Patagonia) and two 
areas FMD-free with vaccination (north region and the border region). In spite of this fact and 
despite the intense efforts undertaken for almost ten years, Japan had not yet formally recognized G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 70 - 
 
  these areas. Bearing this in mind and considerin g Articles 2.2, 5.1, 3, 6 and 8, among other 
provisions of the SPS Agreement, Argentina requ ested that Japan conclude without undue delay 
the on-going proceedings in line with the international standards. 
2.218.  Japan responded that an additional questionnaire would soon be sent to Argentina to 
request further information necessary for the development of a risk assessment. Japan's SPS 
measures were based on a risk assessment taking  into account the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health 
Code and the disease-free status officially recognized by the OIE. It was important to take fully 
into account the available scientific evidence and to ensure transparency in the process of risk 
assessment, and Japan would continue to work closely with Argentina to resolve this issue. 
2.219.  In October 2013, Argentina referred to its position taken in July 2012, and reiterated its 
call for a prompt solution to the matter. 
2.220.  Japan explained that it was completing an import risk analysis in accordance with the 
standard approval procedures, consisting of 12 steps. Argentina's beef was at step three and Japan was waiting for additional inputs from Argentina. 
Import restrictions on beef due to BSE (STC 364) 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 3.14-3.18) 
Relevant document(s):  
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.221.  In October 2013, Brazil raised concerns regarding import restrictions by Japan on beef, 
stemming from a notification of Bovine Spongifo rm Encephalopathy (BSE) by Brazil in December 
2012. Brazil had provided detailed information on the unique case and the implemented risk 
mitigation procedures to the OIE and all concerned WTO Members, including Japan. The case had 
affected only one native cow which had not entered the food or feed chain, and the OIE had maintained Brazil's classification as a country with negligible risk for BSE. Brazil believed the import restrictions infringed Articles 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, and Annex C of the SPS Agreement, and urged 
Japan to withdraw its restrictions. 
2.222.  Japan noted that its Food Safety Commission had conducted a risk assessment based on 
the BSE-related scientific information submitted by  Brazil, but would need additional information 
on BSE measures in Brazil. Japan would move forward as expeditiously as possible once provided 
with the requested information. 
2.9.3  Plant Health 
Quarantine requirement for blueberries (STC 366) 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 3.21-3.22) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.223.  In October 2013, Argentina raised concerns regarding the interruption of its fresh 
blueberry exports to Japan in November 2010, wh en the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture had 
imposed the requirement of a negotiated quarantine treatment for fruit flies. Argentina had submitted technical information in April 2011, and in October 2012 it had proposed methyl G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 71 - 
 
  bromide as a quarantine treatment for fruit fly. In January 2013, Japan had indicated that it would 
carry out a pest risk analysis on the basis of the information provided and would evaluate the proposal of methyl bromide quarantine treatment for fruit fly and inform Argentina of its results. In June 2013, Argentina requested to know the state of  progress of the evaluation of said quarantine 
treatment, expecting a prompt answer. Noting th e importance of blueberry farming in domestic 
employment, income and value of Argentine fruit expo rts, Argentina asked Japan to give priority to 
the proposed quarantine treatment. 
2.224.  Japan explained that it had imposed an import ban on blueberries based on a pest risk 
analysis, and that its competent authorities were in the process of examining Argentina's proposed quarantine treatment. Japan had 138 outstanding requests with regard to plant quarantine, and sought understanding for its current situation. 
2.10  Korea, Republic of 
2.10.1  Food safety Strengthened import restrictions on fisher y 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) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.225.  In October 2013, Japan expressed concerns regarding Korea's fishery import restrictions, 
including a ban on imports from eight prefectu res and additional testing and certification 
requirements in all cases where radioactive Cesi um 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. 
2.226.  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 prefec ture (from 53% in March/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 basis for its measures or explain concretely how the available scientific evidence was insufficient to carry out a risk assessment. 
2.227.  Korea indicated that its measures were in accordance with Article 5.7 of the SPS 
Agreement, as a result of insufficient scienti fic 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. 
2.10.2  Animal Health 
General import restrictions  due to BSE (STC 193) 
2.228.  See paragraphs 2.301.  to 2.345.    G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 72 - 
 
  2.11  Malaysia 
2.11.1  Food safety Import restrictions on pork and pork products (STC 323) 
Raised by: European Union 
Supported by: Canada, United States of America 
Dates raised: October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, paras. 32-35), October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, 
paras. 55-56), October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 3.37-3.38) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally. 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.229.  In October 2011, the European Union indicated that it had concerns with Malaysia's import 
restrictions on pork and pork products, imposed 1 July 2011. In bilateral discussions, however, the 
European Union had received guarantees that the restrictions would shortly be lifted. The European Union would continue to work closely with Malaysia to ensure that EU exports could 
resume in line with WTO obligations. 
2.230.  Canada shared the EU concerns as its pork and pork product exports had also been banned 
since 1 July 2011 without notification. Malaysia had not advised Canada about the revision to its import requirements or the ban, and Canada had received conflicting information from Malaysia 
with respect to import requirements for pork. Canada encouraged Malaysia to base import 
conditions on science, and consider a systems approval approach for pork imports, rather than a plant-by-plant approval. 
2.231.  The United States also expressed concerns that the new import requirements had been 
imposed without valid scientific evidence. The United States had been told in June 2011 that it could continue to export pork and pork products if it submitted an establishment questionnaire by 
1 July 2011; however, imports had been stopped. Th e United States would continue to work with 
Malaysia to facilitate an audit of US food safe ty systems, but expected a successful audit that 
would allow all federally inspected pork establishments to be eligible to export to Malaysia. 
2.232.  Malaysia observed that bilateral consultation s on this issue were on-going with the affected 
Members and it hoped to resolve the issue as soon as possible. 
2.233.  In October 2012, the European Union indicated that it still had concerns with Malaysia's 
import restrictions on pork and pork products. In recent bilateral discussions, Malaysia had 
indicated that it had addressed some of the outstanding EU concerns and would continue to follow-
up closely with the European Union to find a rapid and durable soluti on. The European Union 
welcomed the positive signal and would continue to engage in constructive dialogue with Malaysia, 
with a view to rapidly resolving the issue through a transparent import process in Malaysia that 
guaranteed sustainable trade. 
2.234.  Malaysia reported that bilateral discussions were on-going and that it hoped to find a 
mutual solution to the matter as soon as possible. 
2.235.  In October 2013, the European Union continued to be confronted with trade restrictions on 
pork and pork products in Malaysia despite having raised its concern at prior meetings of the Committee. Malaysia imposed animal health related conditions for several animal diseases which 
deviated from OIE standards and were not based on a risk assessment. The process of approval 
for foreign abattoirs was unnecessarily lengthy an d burdensome, and applications for approval 
were often not addressed by the Malaysian Department of Veterinary Service. In addition, 
EU exporters were confronted with a non-automatic import permit system which was unnecessarily 
lengthy and burdensome, and not transparent. Th e European Union was pleased to report that 
Malaysia had expressed its commitment to find a solution to the matter during a bilateral meeting held earlier during the week. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 73 - 
 
  2.236.  Malaysia noted that there had been bilateral discussions and positive developments on 
both sides, and hoped to find a rapid solution to the issue. 
2.12  Russian Federation 2.12.1  Food safety 
Non-recognition of testing laboratories for meat products (STC 361) 
Raised by: India 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 3.12-3.13) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.237.  In October 2013, India raised its concern regarding the inability to export bovine meat and 
agricultural products to Russia. It had requested Russian veterinary experts to inspect Indian units and laboratories, and a delegation from the Customs Union Authorities of Kazakhstan (SVPSGO) 
had conducted site visits, including to meat-proce ssing units, in October 2011. India had compiled 
with all of the requirements identified in the report issued as a result of such visits and sent all the 
relevant information to the SVPSGO in January 2012. However, Russia had still not recognised the units and laboratories. Consequently, the export of bovine meat and egg powder to Russia had not 
resumed, although India's track record in the expo rt of boneless bovine meat to over 16 countries 
worldwide was unblemished. India appreciated Russia's willingness to hold bilateral consultations and expert-level discussions. 
2.238.  Russia stated that the inspections identified a number of inconsistencies with respect to 
sanitary and veterinary requirements. Given such inconsistencies and the epizootic situation in India, it was premature to schedule expert consultations. Russia was ready to engage in further 
bilateral consultations to find a mutually beneficial resolution. 
Import restrictions on confec tionary products (STC 368) 
Raised by: Ukraine 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 13.1-13.2) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.239.  In October 2013, Ukraine raised concerns about the non-transparent manner in which Russia had banned imports of confectionary products  on 29 July 2013. This measure, based on the 
Resolution of the Federal Service on Customers' Rights Protection and Human Well-being 
Surveillance of Russia (No.01/8612-13-23), had no t been notified and Russia's SPS Enquiry Point 
did not provide the relevant information requested by Ukraine on 8 August 2013. No official evidence concerning the alleged presence of contam inants (such as benzopiren) had been officially 
submitted to Ukraine. Despite bilateral consultations the import ban was still in place. Ukraine 
believed that the measure was unnecessary and unjustifiably strict, maintained without sufficient scientific evidence, and applied in a discriminat ory manner, contrary to Annex C of the SPS 
Agreement. Ukraine requested Russia to provide an official detailed justification of its measure, or 
to immediately lift the ban and to bring its measure into line with the SPS Agreement and with its accession commitments. 
2.240.  Russia indicated that the reason for suspending Ukrainian confectionary product imports 
was largely outside the scope of the SPS Agreement. Not all imports of confectionary products had G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 74 - 
 
  been suspended, but only of one particular bran d from Ukraine. The ban was related to the long-
term detection of labelling violations in these particular goods, and the fight against deceptive 
trade practices. The indication of the product categories did not correspond to the definitions in the Russian technical regulations. Russia had already held three rounds of consultations with the 
competent authorities of Ukraine, and an action plan developed to restart imports of confectionary 
products. Russia had provided an answer to Ukrain e's request for notification but apparently this 
had not been satisfactory to Ukraine. A second se t of answers by the competent authority made it 
clear that the measure in place was the same as that applied to domestic products. Russia 
considered that this trade concern had been resolved. 
2.13  Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of 2.13.1  Food safety 
Import conditions on poultry (STC 365) 
Raised by: European Union 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 3.19-3.20) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.241.  In October 2013, the European Union raised concerns regarding a poultry import ban and 
general unjustified delays and unclear import conditions in Saudi Arabia. The poultry ban had been maintained for more than ten years without scientific justification, despite positive steps towards a 
solution. Saudi Arabia referred to national and Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) standards, but did 
not specify which rules applied to the import of specific products, including poultry or poultry meat. The "GCC Guide for Food Import Control" refe renced by Saudi Arabia had only been notified 
to the WTO in draft form, in 2011. The European  Union also considered that Saudi Arabia's 
approval fees exceeded the related costs, noting that Saudi Arabia required EU member States to 
cover all the costs of inspection visits, and al so to pay a fee of EUR 20,000 per establishment. 
2.242.  Saudi Arabia expressed its willingness to work with the European Union towards a solution, 
and noted that lifting the ban was a matter of priority. 
2.14  South Africa 2.14.1  Animal Health 
Import restrictions on beef due to BSE (STC 362) 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 3.14-3.18) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.243.  In October 2013, Brazil raised concerns regarding import restrictions by South Africa on 
beef, stemming from a notification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) by Brazil in 
December 2012. Brazil had provided detailed info rmation on the unique case and the implemented 
risk mitigation procedures to the OIE and all co ncerned WTO Members, including South Africa. The 
case had affected only one native cow which had not entered the food or feed chain, and the OIE 
had maintained Brazil's classification as a country with negligible risk for BSE. Brazil believed the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 75 - 
 
  import restrictions infringed Articles 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, and Annex C of the SPS Agreement, and urged 
South Africa to withdraw its restrictions. 
2.244.  South Africa explained that it had forwarde d a proposed health certificate for consideration 
by the Brazilian authorities in October 2013. 
2.245.  Brazil thanked South Africa, and hoped for a prompt lifting of the restrictions. 
2.15  Chinese Taipei 2.15.1  Food safety 
Import restrictions in response to the Japa nese nuclear power plan t accident (STC 354) 
2.246.  See paragraphs 2.296.  to 2.300.   2.16  Turkey 2.16.1  Food safety 
Prohibition of certain food additi ves in traditional foods (STC 367) 
Raised by: Japan 
Supported by: Chile, European Union, United States of America 
Dates raised: October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 3.55-3.58) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/TUR/31 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.247.  In October 2013, Japan expressed concerns regarding Turkey's new measures which 
prohibit the use of several additives in some of its traditional foods. Recognizing the importance of traditional foods, Japan noted that Turkey's regu lations do not provide a description of kofte. 
Japan requested that Turkey provide a scientific ju stification, in terms of food safety, for the 
prohibition of the use of glutamic acid which is listed in table 3 of the Codex General Standard for Food Additives. If the objective of the prohibition was to preserve traditional culture, then Turkey 
should bring this matter to the attention of the TBT Committee. 
2.248.  The European Union also indicated its serious concerns with respect to Turkey's new 
m e a s u r e s  o n  f o o d  a d d i t i v e s ,  h i g h l i g h t i n g  procedural and content-related shortcomings. 
Furthermore, Turkey did not provide a meaningful  opportunity for trading partners to comment, 
since the measures were notified after their entry into force. The European Union urged Turkey to 
notify its measure under the TBT Agreement and to clearly define which products fell within the category of traditional products. The European Unio n also questioned Turkey's claims that its new 
requirements on food additives complied with EU legislation and that they were in line with the 
CODEX General Standards. 
2.249.  The United States expressed its support for the statements made by the European Union 
and Japan. Chile also shared Japan's concern and underscored the importance of following 
international standards and of providing 60 days to comment on notifications. 
2.250.  Turkey recalled that it had notified its new regulations under G/SPS/N/TUR/31. As a 
candidate country to the European Union, Turk ey had aligned its animal and plant health 
legislation so as to comply with the EU regulations on food additives. However, additional 
provisions covering traditional Turkish products ha d also been introduced. This was done in order 
to protect the originality of these products, taking into consideration consumption habits and 
traditional ingredients. Some of the additives prohibited for use in these traditional products were 
listed in annex 6 of the Codex General Standard  for Food Additives. The traditional products 
themselves contained glutamic acid as part of their own substances and did not require glutamic G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 76 - 
 
  acid as an additive. The products were specific to Turkey and should not differ from the familiar 
taste nor cause a consumer reaction in the domest ic market. Additionally, Turkey reported that 
monosodium glutamate was prohibited in fermented Turkey sausages and pastrami. With regard to bread, any food additive other than ascorbic acid was prohibited in products. Additives would be 
permitted for products which were subject to international trade in order to protect their 
specialties. Turkey's regulation generally complied with the EU regulation, with the following exceptions: (i) some food additives were banned in some traditional foods; (ii) no food additives 
could be used in non-pre-packaged breads; (iii) pig origin additives could not be used in foods, 
food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings in  consideration of religious sensitivities (iv) the 
origin of the food additives must be stated on th e labels to take into account the preferences of 
vegetarians; and (v) if the additive was of animal origin, the animal name must be stated on the 
labels. 
2.16.2  Animal Health Requirements for importatio n of sheep meat (STC 340) 
Raised by: Australia 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, paras. 19-20), March 2013 (G/SPS/R/70, 
paras. 3.18-3.19), June 2013 (G/SPS/R/71, paras. 4.27-4.28), October 
2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 3.35-3.36) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally. 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.251.  In October 2012, Australia raised concerns about the undue delay by Turkey in providing information regarding its measures on the importation of sheep meat, requested in April 2011. 
Australia recalled Turkey's obligations under the SPS Agreement to act in a transparent manner 
and to ensure that any SPS measure be based on scientific evidence, only applied to the extent 
necessary, and not unjustifiably discriminate between Members. 
2.252.  Turkey responded that its authorities were still working on the requirements and 
certification procedures for the importation of sheep  meat, and that these would be in line with the 
SPS Agreement. Turkey also committed to sharing the outcomes with Australia as soon as these 
were completed. 
2.253.  In March 2013, Australia reiterated its concern with regard to the undue delays by Turkey 
in responding to its request for information on the import ban on sheep meat, which it first raised in April 2011. Australia highlighted that it was a safe and reliable supplier of sheep meat to 
approximately 100 countries and that it consistently met the relevant international SPS standards 
for trade in sheep meat. Australia reminded Turkey of its obligations under the SPS Agreement, with specific reference to Articles 2, 7 and Annex B of the Agreement. Australia advised that it had held bilateral discussions with Turkey in the marg ins of the meeting and hoped the issue would be 
resolved as soon as possible. 
2.254.  Turkey stated that fruitful bilateral disc ussions had resulted in the two countries agreeing 
upon a uniform health certificate model for beef and veal products. Turkey was aligning its national 
regulations with the EU acquis. Furthermore, a framework Law No. 5996 on Veterinary Services, 
Plant Health, Food and Feed had entered into forced in 2011, which was notified to the WTO. Turkey was in the process of preparing a uniform model certificate for sheep and goat meat, and 
was working to determine the minimum health requirements for these products. However, trade of 
live cattle and sheep continued without any disruptions. 
2.255.  In June 2013, Australia reiterated its concerns regarding Turkey's requirements for the 
import of sheep meat. Australia had been seeking information from Turkey regarding its import 
measures since April 2011, but despite raising this concern at both the 55
th and 56th SPS 
Committee meetings, it had yet to receive a response. Australia was a safe and reliable supplier of sheep meat to some 100 countries and had consistently met all relevant international SPS G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 77 - 
 
  measures for such trade. Turkey's measures appeared to contravene its obligations under the SPS 
Agreement, including Articles 2 and 7 and Annex B.  Australia looked forward to the resolution of 
this issue. 
2.256.  Turkey responded that it was in the process of aligning its food safety legislation with that 
of the European Union. It had enacted many im plementation measurements, but still needed to 
propose guidelines for sheep and goat meat. Turkey stated that it would send its model health certificate for sheep and goat meat to Australia and other interested Members once it was 
prepared. 
2.257.  In October 2013, Australia reiterated its concerns regarding Turkey's requirements for the 
import of sheep meat and its June 2013 meeting statement.  
2.258.  Turkey reiterated that it was in the process of aligning its food safety legislation with that 
of the European Union. In this context, Turkey had so far prepared certificates for beef, bovine 
meat, livestock and fishery products, while a uniform model certificate for other animal-origin products, including sheep- and goat-meat, was under process. 
2.17  United States of America 
2.17.1  Food safety US proposed rule on good manufacturi ng practice for human food (STC 352) 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2013 (G/SPS/R/71, paras. 4.3-4.4) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/2502, G/SPS/N/USA/2503 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.259.  In June 2013, China raised concerns with the US proposed rule on "Current Good 
Manufacturing Practice and Hazard Analysis and Risk-based Preventive Controls for Human Food", 
notified in G/SPS/N/USA/2502 and G/SPS/N/USA/2503. Part 117, Subpart C, regarding the preventive control measures put in place and monitored by operators of food enterprises, 
exceeded international standards without scientific justification and was therefore in contravention 
of the SPS Agreement. The overbroad nature of  this requirement would result in reduced 
effectiveness and increased labour costs, thus resu lting in a barrier to trade. China suggested that 
instead the United States should require good manufacturing practices and sanitation standard 
operating procedures, and furthermore employ the equivalence principle. Additionally, China took 
issue with the inclusion of radioactivity hazard analysis in the draft Part 117.130(b)(4), as the 
internationally recognized HACCP system only required the identification of biological, chemical, 
and physical hazards. The probability of such a hazard was extremely low and did not justify the 
cost of running such monitoring programs within the food industry. The United States could raise the issue of inclusion of radioactivity into the HACCP system at the meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission to allow for a more thorough discussion. Lastly, the requirement in the 
draft Part 117.126 that all food enterprises establish a written safety plan, exceeded the 
requirements of HACCP and the Codex standards. As  such, China requested that the United States 
provide a scientific basis for these requirements. Ch ina suggested that a more gradual approach to 
the establishment of hazard analysis within food enterprises was appropriate given the varying 
degrees of risk associated with different products and the disparity in resources among countries. 
2.260.  The United States thanked China for its comments and recalled that these measures had 
been notified to the SPS Committee on 30 April 2013, and would be available for comment through 
16 September 2013. The United States urged China and other Members, as well as any other interested members of the international communi ty, to provide comments on the proposed rule. 
Comments should be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking portal, available at: 
http://www.regulations.gov, in order to ensure th at those comments became part of the public 
record. The docket numbers for the proposed rule in the eRulemaking portal were: FDA-2011-N-G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 78 - 
 
  0920 for preventive controls for human food, and FDA-2011-N-0921 for produce safety. 
Comments made outside of the public record could not be considered by the FDA in the process of finalizing the proposed rules. 
Accreditation of third-party bodies to conduct food safety audits and to issue 
certifications (STC 357) 
Raised by: China 
Supported by: Belize, Brazil, Korea, Republic of 
Dates raised: October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 3.1-3.3) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/2570 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.261.  In October 2013, China raised concerns regarding the US proposed FSMA-related rule 
allowing for accreditation of third-party auditors/cer tification bodies to conduct food safety audits 
of foreign entities and to issue food and facility certifications (G/SPS/N/USA/2570). China noted 
that the statistics provided by the United States had demonstrated a generally safer level of 
imported foods than foods domestically produced in the United States. China requested the United 
States to provide scientific justification for proposing this overly burdensome and costly rule on imported foods. China considered that the proposed rule discriminated unjustifiably between 
foreign and domestic sources of supply and went beyond international standards without scientific 
justification. China urged the United States to accept the results of internationally accredited certification/audit bodies, and queried how the Un ited States would recognize the equivalence of 
foreign food safety programmes, systems and standards. Referencing Article 13 of the SPS 
Agreement, China enquired what measures the United States would take to ensure that third-party auditors/certification bodies were WTO-compliant, and recalled that under Article 10 of the SPS 
Agreement, Members are to take into account the special needs of developing country Members in 
the preparation of SPS measures. China urged the United States to seriously fulfil its WTO obligations, take concrete steps to base its rule  on the disciplines of the SPS Agreement and the 
relevant international standards, to ensure that the final rule would not create unnecessary 
obstacles to international trade. 
2.262.  Belize, Brazil and Korea shared China's concerns. Brazil noted in particular the role of 
private third-party auditors and certification bodies, and, with reference to Article 13 of the SPS 
Agreement, queried how the United States would ensure that such bodies complied with the 
relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement. Brazil also requested more information on how the United States would recognize the equivalence of foreign systems. 
2.263.  The United States recalled that it had pr ovided information on the proposed rule in the 
Committee and elsewhere, including in China, and invited Members to submit their comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal ( http://www.regulations.gov ) by 26 November 2013. The 
comment period had been extended to 120 days, to ensure that Members had enough time to 
provide their comments. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 79 - 
 
  2.18  Viet Nam 
2.18.1  Food safety Ban on offals (STC 314)  
Raised by: United States of America, European Union 
Supported by: Australia, Canada, Chile, New Zealand 
Dates raised: March 2011 (G/SPS/R/62, paras. 28-31), June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, 
paras. 60-63), October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, paras. 57-60), March 2012 
(G/SPS/R/66, paras. 39-41), July 2012 (G/SPS/R/67, paras. 31-35), 
October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, paras. 33-35), March 2013 (G/SPS/R/70, paras. 3.50-3.52), June 2013 (G/SPS/R/71, paras. 4.18-4.21), October 
2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 3.32-3.34) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally. 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.264.  In March 2011, the United States expresse d concerns about Viet Nam's implementation of 
a temporary ban on the importation of offal produc ts as of 7 July 2010. While Viet Nam had cited 
food safety concerns for the implementation of the ban, in spite of repeated requests from several 
trading partners, Viet Nam had neither notified the WTO of this measure, nor had it provided any 
scientific justification for the ban. The United States had raised this issue bilaterally in the margins 
of previous Committee meetings and at Transpacif ic Partnership meetings, but was yet to see any 
change in the ban. 
2.265.  Canada supported the concerns of the United States. Canada was informed of the ban only 
after it had been imposed, and was not provided  any scientific explanation for the action. This 
action had resulted in the immediate ban of trade valued at 4.2 million Canadian dollars in 2009. 
Canada had made numerous requests for Viet Nam to remove the ban, and the Canadian embassy 
in Viet Nam had been informed that Viet Nam intended to partially lift the ban. However, Viet Nam had subsequently introduced additional SPS requirements on offal imports, which Canada hoped were science-based. 
2.266.  The European Union, New Zealand and Australia supported the concerns expressed by the 
United States and Canada. 
2.267.  Viet Nam responded that the emergency measures taken to temporarily suspend the 
importation of offals were in response to grav e public health concerns. According to a 2009 WHO 
report, eight million Vietnamese people had health  problems related to food. Viet Nam was aware 
of the concerns raised by its trading partners and was looking for solutions. However, as a 
developing country with limited resources, it woul d take some time to strengthen the inspection 
procedures and provide uniform guidelines. Viet Nam had already lifted its temporary ban on offals from poultry and pork and was currently in discussion with the United States and other trading partners to find adequate solutions for both Viet Nam's human health situation and trade. 
2.268.  In June 2011, the United States expressed concerns that Viet Nam continued to restrict 
trade in offal as of July 2010 without providing an y scientific justification or notification. Viet Nam 
had since lifted its ban on hearts, livers, and kidn eys derived from cattle, swine, and poultry, but 
the ban on all other offal products continued. To date, no scientific justification had been provided 
for the ban, despite many requests for such inform ation, and the United States urged Viet Nam to 
lift its unjustified ban immediately. 
2.269.  The European Union expressed similar concerns and indicated that the ban seriously 
affected EU exports of offal. The ban was not consistent with Viet Nam's obligations under the SPS Agreement, as the measure had not been notified; no scientific justification had been provided despite requests from trading partners, and there were no similar measures on domestic offal, 
thereby discriminating against foreign imports. The recent revision of the ban, which would allow 
resumption of imports of some red offal, was a positive step, but the ban on other types of offal G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 80 - 
 
  remained in place. Viet Nam was urged to immediately lift its ban on all offal or, alternatively, to 
provide a risk assessment and scientific justificatio n. Viet Nam should refrain from implementing 
such measures in the future, and comply with th e transparency requirements and other obligations 
under the SPS Agreement. 
2.270.  New Zealand supported the systemic conc erns expressed by the United States and the 
European Union, specifically with regard to the lack of notification and scientific justification, and requested Viet Nam to lift the ban as soon as possible. 
2.271.  Viet Nam responded that there was no formal regulation banning imports of offal. During 
2009 and early 2010, imported frozen animal and animal products were found to violate the food s a f e t y  r e q u i r e m e n t s  o f  V i e t  N a m ;  w i t h i n  t h a t  t i m e  p e r i o d ,  V i e t  N a m  d e t e c t e d  a n d  d i s p o s e d  o f  94 tons of meat, 42,57 tons of offal, and 234,000 chickens. In order to protect Vietnamese 
consumers, the government issued Letter 1152 requesting relevant agencies to better control 
imported animal products. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) enacted Circular 25 on registration and management to cont rol the import of animal products, and Circular 
29 on criteria for testing and control to regulate the level of contaminants in animal products. To 
continue trade in animal offal, the MARD Department of Animal Health enacted an official letter on 23 March 2011 to guide the import of red offal. On 1 June 2011, the MARD sent Letter 1528 to 
Viet Nam's customs offices to inform them of the decision to allow trade in red offal. According to 
data from the Department of Animal Health, from March to May 2011 Viet Nam imported 170 tons of red offal from the United States and Canada. Viet Nam still banned all trade in white offal and intended to conduct a risk assessment on white offa l. Viet Nam was willing to meet bilaterally with 
interested Members, and sought more information and data with which to conduct the risk 
assessment with the goal of opening trade in white offal. 
2.272.  In October 2011, the European Union indicated that Viet Nam's ban continued to seriously 
affect EU exports of offal, and recalled that Viet Nam had previously indicated its intention to 
conduct a risk-assessment. Viet Nam claimed to have taken these measures because imported frozen animals and animal products were found to  violate its food safety requirements. However, 
Viet Nam had indicated that no violations were fo und on EU products, and as such import bans on 
EU offal were not justified. Moreover, since there were no similar measures on domestic offal, the measure discriminated against foreign imports. The European Union welcomed Viet Nam's partial lifting of the ban on red offal, and looked forwar d to Viet Nam's commitment to lift the ban by end 
of 2011. 
2.273.  The United States shared concerns about Viet Nam's restrictions on offal without any 
scientific justification or notification being provided to the WTO or trading partners. After months 
of discussions, MARD had provided an official indica tion in July 2011 that it would lift its ban on red 
offal, and later on products derived from cattle. However, all other products, such as stomachs and 
intestines derived from cattle, swine, and poultry, remained banned. The United States urged 
Viet Nam to lift all of the bans on offal immediately. 
2.274.  New Zealand repeated its support of the systemic concerns expressed by the European 
Union and the United States, specifically with regard to the lack of notification and scientific justification. 
2.275.  Viet Nam reiterated that the temporary measure was geared at protecting human health 
from risks arising from contaminants, toxins or disease-causing organisms in food, and that the measure did not aim to impose trade restrictions. In light of the concerns of its trading partners, 
Viet Nam was considering how to prevent a negative trade impact from the measure, and had 
already lifted the ban on red offals. However, as a developing country with limited resources, the 
Vietnamese authorities needed time to collect the information for risk assessments. Viet Nam 
urged trading partners to provide relevant information and technical cooperation to facilitate the 
process. 
2.276.  In March 2012, the European Union expressed its continuing concerns with Viet Nam's ban 
on imported offals, and particularly white offals. Although Viet Nam had previously stated that the 
temporary measure was to protect human health, it had not yet provided a risk assessment. This 
measure had affected EU exports but there was no indication of any safety problems with EU offals. The ban was neither justified nor proportionate and since there were no similar G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 81 - 
 
  measures on domestic offal, the measure discriminated against foreign imports. The European 
Union urged Viet Nam to immediately lift any remaining restrictions on imports of offals. 
2.277.  The United States shared the EU concerns and observed that the measure had not been 
notified nor information provided to trading part ners to support the purported safety concerns. 
While the ban had been lifted on red offal, all other offal products, known as white offal, such as 
stomachs and intestines, remained banned. Viet Nam was urged to provide a scientific assessment or to immediately lift the ban on all offal. 
2.278.  Viet Nam reiterated the objectives of the temporary measure. In light of the concerns of 
trading partners and to facilitate the trade of food products, including offal, Viet Nam had issued a number of documents, such as Food Safety laws, to facilitate the control and regulation of food imports. The ban on red offal had been lifted an d the ban on white offal remained because of the 
lack of a clear definition of offal in international standards. Viet Nam's experts were working in 
close cooperation with trading partners to clearly define offal and to discuss other related issues in order to find appropriate solutions. Once again Viet Nam urged interested trading partners to 
provide relevant information and technical cooperation to facilitate the completion of the research 
process. 
2.279.  In July 2012, the United States recalled that in July 2010, Viet Nam imposed a temporary 
ban on the importation of offals from all countries, including the United States. The measure was 
never notified to the WTO and no scientific data ha d been provided that justified Viet Nam's food 
safety concerns. After months of discussions, in April 2011 Viet Nam provided official notification that it would lift the ban on imports of pork and poultry hearts, livers and kidneys (red offal), and 
in May 2011, for the same products derived from cattle, but this was not done. In November 2011, 
Viet Nam indicated that it would complete a regulatory review within three months of the offal trade suspension. Having received no information on the status of the review, in May 2012 the 
United States again sent a letter to Viet Nam. The United States remained concerned by Viet 
Nam's continued ban on offal products derived from cattle, swine and poultry and urged Viet Nam to immediately lift all of the bans on offal. 
2.280.  The European Union supported the concerns raised by the United States. The ban had only 
been partially lifted for red offals in 2011, and Viet Nam had indicated that further lifting of the ban was pending the outcome of the risk assessm ent. The European Union welcomed Viet Nam's 
recent communication that the ban would soon be lifted. 
2.281.  New Zealand expressed a systemic concern as the measure of concern had not been 
notified nor scientific justification provided, and requested that the ban be lifted as soon as 
possible. Australia welcomed the fact that Viet Nam had lifted the ban on red offal but expressed 
disappointment that trade in white offal was still prohibited as it had a significant impact on 
Australian trade. 
2.282.  Viet Nam recalled the objectives of the measure and noted that it had strengthened its 
technical regulations and improved its human capacity to facilitate the quality control of food and 
food stuff; as a result, the import of red offal ha d resumed in 2011. The reopening of its market to 
white offal was under consideration and Viet Nam remained open to bilateral discussions with its trading partners. 
2.283.  In October 2012, the European Union stated that Vietnam had clarified that the ban was 
temporarily imposed due to food safety concerns  and had lifted the ban on red-offal following 
bilateral discussions and confirmation that no problems were detected in offal imported from the 
European Union. However, the ban on white offal remained, and without a risk assessment. The 
European Union urged Vietnam to rapidly find a solution in order to lift the unjustified measure. 
2.284.  Australia, New Zealand, and the United States also noted that the existing ban on white 
offal was affecting their trade and re quested Vietnam to lift the ban. 
2.285.  Viet Nam recalled that this was a temporary measure to protect human health. Limitations 
of resources and human capacity had delayed the removal of the ban on white offals, however the 
issue was under consideration. Viet Nam appreciated the relationship with its trading partners and 
was willing to work with them to find an amicable solution. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 82 - 
 
  2.286.  In March 2013, the European Union expressed its continuing concern with the import ban 
on offal imposed by Viet Nam for almost three year s. Viet Nam had, in the past, clarified that the 
ban was temporarily imposed due to food safety concerns detected in imported offal. However, Viet Nam had also confirmed that no problems were detected in offal imported into Viet Nam from 
EU countries. In addition, Viet Nam had not provided any risk assessment to justify the ban, 
despite several requests. Although the ban on red-offal had been lifted, a ban remained in place on white offal, which continued to impact EU export s. The European Union indicated its willingness to 
work together with Viet Nam to find a speedy solution and further urged Viet Nam to lift the 
unjustified measure. 
2.287.  The United States recalled that the tempor ary ban on the importation of offal imposed by 
Viet Nam, in July 2010, was never notified to the WTO and that no scientific data had been 
provided to justify the ban. In April 2011, Viet Nam provided official notification that it would lift 
the ban on imports of pork and poultry hearts, livers and kidneys (so-called "red offal"), and in May 2011, of these same products derived from ca ttle. However, this was not done. In November 
2011, Viet Nam had committed to complete a regulatory review within three months to lift the 
offal trade suspension. However, in May 2012, having  received no information on the status of the 
review, the United States sent a letter inquiry to  Viet Nam. The United States remained highly 
concerned by Viet Nam's continued ban and urged Viet Nam to immediately lift the ban on US offal 
products. 
2.288.  Viet Nam explained that the measure was adopted in response to a number of cases of 
contaminated offal imported into Viet Nam between 2010 and 2011. During the bilateral work with 
the United States and other trading partners, Viet Nam had gained important knowledge about the 
hygiene and food safety control systems of these countries and a report had to be prepared based 
on this information. Viet Nam hoped to lift the ban within a few months. A new safety law required 
establishments that intended to export white offal to Vietnam to obtain accreditation. Viet Nam 
would work further with the European Union and the United States to reopen the market for white offal in the future. 
2.289.  In June 2013, the European Union reiterated that Viet Nam's ban on white offal was not 
proportionate, as Viet Nam had confirmed that there were no problems with imports of any offals from the European Union. During previously held bilateral discussions, as well as within the SPS Committee, Viet Nam had expressed its intention to lift the ban. Three years on, however, the ban 
remained. The European Union was willing to continue to work towards a resolution to this issue, 
and urged Viet Nam to rapidly lift this unjustified ban. 
2.290.  The United States expressed its solidarity with the European Union in regard to Viet Nam's 
ban on selected offal products. This ban raised serious questions about Viet Nam's compliance with 
its WTO obligations. The United States urged Viet Nam to lift this ban immediately and to ensure that any new regulations were transparent, scien ce-based and not unduly restrictive of trade. 
2.291.  Australia expressed support for the EU and US positions and raised its concern that, 
without a risk-assessment, the ban was unwarranted. Australia appreciated Viet Nam's repeal of the ban on red offal, but urged it to move forward in regard to white offal products. 
2.292.  Viet Nam noted that the bans were put in place out of concern for public safety. New 
import measures were being considered by the Ministry of Agriculture, Development and Customs 
and Viet Nam would look to interested trading partners assist in this process. 
2.293.  In October 2013, the European Union welcomed the lifting of Viet Nam's ban on red offal, 
and appreciated information from Viet Nam indicati ng that the ban on white offal had also been 
lifted. However, Viet Nam had imposed several new import conditions on white offal, including additional registration requirements and a restriction to use only three points of entry into the 
country. Viet Nam had not notified trading partners about this change in import conditions, which 
the European Union considers overly burdensome and lengthy. 
2.294.  The United States also thanked Viet Nam for its announcement on removing trade 
restrictions on offal, but expressed concern at possible additional conditions and attestations 
required by Viet Nam for specific products. The United States requested a complete list of the 
Vietnamese import requirements and the scientifi c justification to support those requirements. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 83 - 
 
  2.295.  Australia and Chile shared the concerns expressed by the European Union and the United 
States, and urged Viet Nam to work with trading partners to establish import conditions based on scientific principles. 
2.19  Certain Members 
2.19.1  Food safety 
Import restrictions in response to the Japa nese nuclear power plan t accident (STC 354) 
Raised by: Japan 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2013 (G/SPS/R/71, paras. 4.7-4.11) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.296.  In June 2013, Japan raised concerns over restrictions on Japanese food exports in the wake of the Fukushima incident. Following the incident, Japan had been closely monitoring food 
products for the presence of radionuclides and, as of April 2012, had imposed a food intervention 
exemption level of 1mSv/year - equivalent to th e Codex standard. However, the dietary exposure 
estimates from total diet studies were far below 1 mSv/year across all studies - including those completed in Fukushima Prefecture. Based on this scientific data, Japan requested all Members to 
lift any import restrictions on Japanese exports. Japan thanked those Members that had already 
lifted most or all such measures, but noted that China, Hong Kong, China and Chinese Taipei continued to maintain import bans on many Japane se food exports. Japanese foods placed on the 
market were safe for human consumption without any extra control measures; nonetheless, Japan 
was willing to certify compliance with the radionuclide regulation for each consignment as a provisional measure. Hong Kong, China and Chinese Taipei had already begun to analyse the 
monitoring data provided by Japan, and Japan l ooked forward to the opportunity the meet with 
China regarding this trade concern. 
2.297.  Chinese Taipei explained that although Ja panese food exports contained acceptable trace 
levels of radionuclides, those levels still raised concern for Chinese Taipei and its consumers, 
consumer protection groups, and legislators. In order to assuage these concerns, Chinese Taipei 
requested further information from Japan, including about its surveillance methodology and control measures. Chinese Taipei also requested that foods exported from the five restricted prefectures 
be accompanied by a certificate of origin and a pr e-export laboratory report certifying that they 
had been tested for radioactivity. The relevant supplementary documents had been received from Japan on 13 June 2013 and were under review. Chinese Taipei expressed its desire to continue 
normal communications and co-operation with Japan in the future. 
2.298.  Hong Kong, China explained that its import restrictions were based on public health 
concerns over food imported from the five affected prefectures in Japan. It was waiting for further information from Japan in order to fully assess the threat level presented by Japanese imports. 
Hong Kong, China stated that it would continue to monitor information from Japan and other 
relevant international organizations and would adjust its import measures according to any new updates. 
2.299.  China responded that it only restricted the import of products produced in seriously 
nuclear-contaminated areas and those products seen as high-risk. The detection of nuclear contamination in food and agricultural products in Japan had been on-going. China requested that 
Japan urge its relevant departments and enterprises to take measures that would ensure all food 
and agricultural exports were uncontaminated by nuclear matter and could satisfy the Chinese national standards. 
2.300.  Japan explained that the detection of nuc lear contamination in agricultural and food 
products noted by China only occurred in products that were not legally released to the market. 
Japan continued to monitor these products. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 84 - 
 
  2.19.2  Animal Health 
General import restrictions  due to BSE (STC 193) 
Raised by: United States of America, European Union 
Supported by: Canada, Switzerland, Uruguay 
Dates raised: June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 37-38), 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, paras. 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) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally. 
Status: Partially resolved 
Solution: Solutions notified regarding certain Members 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.301.  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 address 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 bans, 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 guarantees. Members were urged to take into 
consideration OIE recommendations for international trade and to stop discriminating among Members with similar BSE conditions. 
2.302.  Canada recalled that at its last meeting the OIE had reconfirmed that some products, such 
as semen, embryos, hides, and milk, did not cont ribute to the transmission of BSE. Hence the 
imports of these types of products did not prov ide a potential pathway for introduction of the 
disease. 
2.303.  In October 2004, the European Communities informed 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 done so to  align their regulations in accordance with OIE 
standards. The United States noted that some Members were reviewing their import restrictions on US beef and also urged all those Members who ha d not done so to align their regulations in 
accordance with OIE standards. 
2.304.  In June 2005, the European Communities re ported 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-Me mbers 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 safe ly traded regardless of the BSE status of the 
exporting country. The European Communities invited the remaining WTO Members to replace 
their import bans with specific import requirements in accordance with OIE standards. 
2.305.  In February 2007, the United States expressed concern that US ruminant and non-
ruminant products continued 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 85 - 
 
  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. 
2.306.  In October 2008, the European Communities  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 though these beef pr oducts were considered safe and in compliance 
with the BSE chapter of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code. 
2.307.  Canada shared the EC concerns and asked Members to base their measures on the BSE 
chapter provisions of 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. Canada urged other Members to resume full trade in beef and cattle based on the OIE 
designation. 
2.308.  Uruguay supported the concerns of the European Communities and Canada. With regard to 
animal health regulations applied to trade, Uruguay stated that all WTO Members 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. 
2.309.  The representative of the OIE urged Members to abide by the standards enacted by the 
OIE. 
2.310.  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 da maging the credibility of the OIE. The OIE was 
planning to update the Code, because there was compelling 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 frequently 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 follow this example. 
2.311.  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 wide 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. 
2.312.  In June 2009, the European Communities again drew attention to restrictions on bovine 
meat and related products still imposed by many  Members. The European Communities requested 
that unjustified and discriminatory restrictions be removed. The OIE Code stated that no bans 
were necessary even if a country reported case s  o f  B S E .  E C  m e a s u r e s  t o  c o n t r o l  B S E  w e r e  
exemplary and 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. 
2.313.  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 discriminat ed 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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 86 - 
 
  2.314.  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, or 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 "undetermined" 
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  BSE import requirements regardless of the BSE 
risk or the age of the cattle population of the exporting country, zone or compartment. 
2.315.  Switzerland supported the concerns rais ed by the European Union, stating that WTO 
Members should base their measures on the OIE recommendations and available data on BSE. 
2.316.  In June 2010, the European Union reported that certain WTO Members still maintained 
unjustified import restrictions to protect agains t TSE. The European Union urged Members to lift 
any unnecessary, disproportionate, or discriminatory restrictions which negatively affected EU 
exports. The European Union recalled that OIE ha d issued BSE standards based on scientific risk 
assessments and defined the conditions under which commodities 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 not be  affected. The European Union recalled the OIE 
recommendations, and observed that some Me mbers had recently announced new measures 
which, without any scientific justification, deviated from OIE standards. The European Union urged 
Members to align themselves with the OIE process and to process applications from the European 
Union. 
2.317.  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 discriminatory 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 notified at all. There had been, however, some positive developments. The Philippines had announced the lifting of import 
restrictions on beef from most of EU member States, and Egypt was now allowing imports of de-
boned beef from animals younger than 48 months. The 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. 
2.318.  In March 2011, the European Union urged Members to lift unnecessary 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 Members 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 their requirements with OIE standards and acknowledged the many 
countries that had started the assessment process to allow imports. 
2.319.  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 im plement the OIE standard, or else share their 
scientific risk assessment. To date, the European Union had not seen any scientific justification for restrictions 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 eventual ly 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. 
2.320.  Canada was pleased to note that a large number of Members had approved the import of 
Canadian beef based on the OIE standards, and joined the European Union in asking Members to base their measures on OIE standards. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 87 - 
 
  2.321.  In October 2011, the European Union recalled that it had repeatedly raised concerns that 
several Members continued to impose bans or restrictive 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 country. 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 and 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 moving 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. 
2.322.  Japan and Korea both expressed their under standing of the EU concern and indicated that 
they would continue 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 Union to provide further 
information and maintain its close relationship with the Chinese scientific panel. 
2.323.  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 inte rnational 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. Despite 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 requirements into line with the international st andards 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 implementation 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 requirements. 
2.324.  Korea indicated its willingness to continue bilateral discussions on this issue. 2.325.  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 relevant 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. 
2.326.  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 assessment on beef imports from France and the Netherlands. This risk assessment was 
conducted in a neutral and fair manner on the basis 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. 
2.327.  In July 2012, the European Union observ ed 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 as 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 same 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 that would justify deviations from 
the OIE standard, or to immediately start the administrative procedures to implement the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 88 - 
 
  international standards. The European Union requested Japan to continue progress on pending 
applications so that trade could soon resume. Th e 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. 
2.328.  China indicated that bilateral talks had taken place with the European Union on the BSE 
issue at various levels. China had repeatedly pres ented 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. 
2.329.  Japan recalled that its food safety commi ttee 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. Japa n remained open for further co-operation with 
the European Union to resolve the issue. 
2.330.  Korea noted the on-going active communi cation between Korea and the European Union 
on the issue at the technical level. Additional discussions at the technical level were needed, and 
were in the interest of both sides. 
2.331.  In October 2012, the European Union observed that many trading partners continued to 
impose unjustified bans 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 import 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 impo rts of beef had been 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 Euro pean Union noted the recent steps taken in the 
United States and Australia towards bringing 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. 
2.332.  China indicated that the issues surrounding BSE were particularly 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 provid ed thorough information to the European Union 
in relation to its scientific justification. Recognizing the importance of the issue particularly for 
exports from the Netherlands and Ireland, China ha d jointly organized co-operation activities with 
the European Union including technical exchanges among experts, seminars and technical visits. 
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 manner in order to solve the 
relevant technical problems. China had signed an MOU with Ireland for the establishment of a joint 
working group on BSE. 
2.333.  Korea indicated that it was actively engaged in bilateral discussions with the European 
Union, including discussions this same week, and would continue to have discussions with the 
European Union in this regard. 
2.334.  Japan reported that the risk assessment process was underway, specifically for beef from 
France and the Netherlands. Japan would continue close consultations with the European Union 
and its member States. 
2.335.  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. Furthermore, 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 safety system, and had not G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 89 - 
 
  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, give n that Korea had opened its market to other 
trading partners which had the same BSE status as EU member States. The European Union noted the on-going 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 delay. 
The European Union urged all Members to fully align with the OIE standards and establish fair, non-discriminatory, transparent and science-based rules. 
2.336.  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 knowledge 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 BSE 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 
technical issues and indicated that it would review its measures concerning BSE according to the outcomes of future risk assessments. 
2.337.  The European Union could not accept that the horse meat issue be linked with the 
effectiveness of its oversight system, given the ve ry 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. 
2.338.  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 consumer's health, and would continue to have close dialogue with the EU delegation. 
2.339.  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 up to 
30 months from the United States, Canada, France and the Netherlands. The European Union thanked Japan for the changes in its measures an d for its continued engagement in the process. 
2.340.  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 standard 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 EU beef. The European Union welcomed  the on-going work carried out by Korea and 
urged Korea to deal swiftly with all EU applicat ions. The US and Australia's on-going process to 
align their BSE import conditions with OIE standards was appreciated and closely followed by the European Union and further progress towards real trade market access was now expected without 
undue delays. 
2.341.  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 matter. Korea looked forward to continued co-
operation with the European Union to move the process forward in a timely manner. 
2.342.  China recalled that BSE continued to be a very sensitive and highly technical issue for 
which scientific knowledge was still insufficient. 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 continue cooperating and communicating with EU technical experts. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.14 
 
- 90 - 
 
  2.343.  In October 2013, the European Union highlighted the importance of this concern as it 
related to one of the basic requirements under th e 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 finalizi ng its risk assessment. The European Union called 
upon Australia to finalize the process, which should lead to effective market access without undue delays. 
2.344.  China noted that the latent period of BSE wa s 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 Ch ina-EU Summit. Although the experts on both 
sides had not reached consensus, a joint expert team had been established with relevant members in order to overcome technical issues. 
2.345.  Korea acknowledged the European Union's concern and emphasized that its government 
h a d  b e e n  c o n d u c t i n g  i m p o r t  r i s k  a n a l y s i s  o n  s o m e  E U  m e m b e r  S t a t e s '  b e e f .  R e s p o n s e s  t o  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. 
__________