G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
20 February 2018  
(18-1118) Page: 1/118 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
SPECIFIC TRADE CONCE RNS 
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
Revision  
At the 15 -16 March 2000 meeting of the Committee  on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
(the SPS Committee) , the Secretariat was requested to prepare a paper summarizing the specific 
trade concerns (STCs) that had been brought to the Committee's attention since 1995.2 
The Secretariat has revised this document annually to include new information provided by 
Memb ers (G/SPS/GEN /204/Rev.1 to G/SPS/GEN /204/Rev. 17). The STCs in the 18th revision  of 
G/SPS/GEN/204 maintain the previously  assigned numbers according to the chronological order of 
the Committee meetings i n which they were first raised.  These numbers serve a s unique identifiers 
and are  intended to facilitate the tracking of issues raised  over time.3 In preparing this document , 
the Secretariat has largely relied on the SPS Informati on Management System (SPS IMS).4 
 
The 18th revision of G/SPS/GEN/204 is divided into two sections : 
 
a. General overview  of Specific Trade Concerns ; and 
b. Specific Trade Concern s discussed in 2017. 
 
Section 1  of the document contains summary statistics and graphs for all the STCs raised in the 
SPS Commit tee between the first regular meeting of 1995 and the last regular meeting of 2017. 
The STCs are categorized as relating to food safety, animal or plant health. This section also 
includes a summary table which identifies for each STC according to the assig ned number, 
the Member(s) maintaining the measure, the Member(s) raising the concern, as well as 
information on whe ther the STC has been reported to have been resolved . 
 
Section 2  of the document contains information regarding all STCs which were raised in  the 
SPS Committee in 2017. This includ es (1) STCs raised for the first time in 2017; and (2) STCs 
which were previously raised and discussed again in 2017. Additionally, this section lists STCs for 
which there was no substantive discuss ion in the Committe e during 2017, but where Members 
reported that a previously raised issue had been resolved, partially resolved or where substantive 
action on the issue occurred in another WTO body during 2017 (e.g., establishment of a dispute 
resolution panel on the issue ). 
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  
2 G/SPS/R/18, para.20.  
3 An "issue" in this document refers to a trade concer n raised by a Member, which then receives a 
"specific trade concern (STC) " sequential number. When the same issue is raised by more than one Member, it 
falls under the same STC number. Also, when Members raise issues covering similar measures maintained by  
more than one Member, they are grouped under the same STC number. This explains the different number of 
STCs, issues and measures counted in this document.  
4 http://spsims.wto.org . G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Table of contents  
Page 
1   GENERAL OVERVIEW OF SPECIFIC TRADE CONCE RNS ................................ .................  5 
Chart 1.1 – Number of New STCs Raised  ................................ ................................ ................  5 
Chart 1.2a – STCs by Subject (1995 -2017)  ................................ ................................ ............  5 
Chart 1.2b – STCs Related to Animal Health & Zoonoses (1995 -2017)  ................................ ....... 6 
Chart 1.3a – Participation in Issues Raised by WTO Members (1995 -2017)  ................................  7 
Chart 1.3b – Number of New Issues Raised by Members  ................................ ..........................  7 
Chart 1.4 – Resolved STCs  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 8 
Table 1.1 - List of Specific Trade Concerns (1995 –2017)  ................................ ..........................  9 
2   SPECIFIC TRADE CONCE RNS CONSIDERED IN 20 17 ................................ ..................  29 
Chart 2.1 – STCs by Subject – 2017 ................................ ................................ ..................... 29 
Chart 2.2 - STCs Related to Animal Health & Zoonoses – 2017 ................................ ................ 29 
Chart 2.3 - Participation of Members in STCs – 2017 ................................ .............................. 30 
Table 2.1 – STCs Raised for the First Time  in 2017  ................................ ................................ .31 
Table 2.2 - STCs Previously Raised and Discussed Again in 2017  ................................ ............. 32 
Table 2.3 - STCs Reported as Resolved, Partially Resolved or Where Substantive Action 
Occurred in Another WTO Body in 2017  ................................ ................................ ................ 33 
2.1   Australia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  35 
2.1.1    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 35 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  ................................ ................................ ..35 
2.2   Bahrain, Kingdom of  ................................ ................................ ...............................  35 
2.2.1    Food Safety  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 35 
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Guide for Control of Imported Foods (STC 424)  ........................ 35 
2.3   Brazil  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  35 
2.3.1    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 35 
Measures on shrimp (STC 344)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 35 
2.3.2    Plant Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 38 
Brazil's measures on bananas (STC 423)  ................................ ................................ .............. 38 
2.4   China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  39 
2.4.1    Food safety  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 39 
Import restrictions in response to the Japanese nuclear power plant accident (STC 354)  ............. 39 
China's proposed amendments to the implementation regulations on safety assessment 
of agricultural GMOs (STC 395)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 43 
China's import ban on fresh mangosteen (STC 416)  ................................ ............................... 46 
2.4.2    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 47 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  ................................ ................................ ..47 
China's import restrictions due to African swine fever (STC 392)  ................................ .............. 47 
China's import restrictions due to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (STC 406)  ......................... 51 
2.4.3    Other concerns  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 53 
Lack of transparency for certain SPS measures (STC 184 ) ................................ ...................... 53 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.5   European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 57 
2.5.1    Food safety  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 57 
Applicat ion and modification of the EU Regulation on Novel Foods (STC 238) ............................. 57 
Categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors (STC 382) ................................ .............. 69 
France's dimethoate -related restrictions on imports (STC 422)  ................................ ................ 78 
EU maximum residue levels for acrinathrin, metalaxyl and thiabendazole (STC 428)  .................. 80 
EU maximum level of cadmium in foodstuffs (STC 430)  ................................ .......................... 81 
EU restrictions on poultry meat due to Salmonella detection (STC 432)  ................................ ....82 
2.5.2    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 82 
EU non -recognition of regionalization for Avian Influenza (STC 420)  ................................ ......... 82 
2.6   India  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  83 
2.6.1    Plant Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 83 
India's fumigation requirements for cashew nuts Indonesia (STC 427)  ................................ ......83 
India's fumigation requirements for teak tree wood (STC 434)  ................................ ................ 84 
2.7   Korea, Republic of  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 85 
2.7.1    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 85 
Genera l import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  ................................ ................................ ..85 
Korea's import restrictions due to African swine fever (STC 393)  ................................ ............. 85 
2.8   Kuwait  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  88 
2.8.1    Food Safety  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 88 
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Guide for Control of Imported Foods (STC 424)  ........................ 88 
2.9   Oman  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  88 
2.9.1    Food Safety  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 88 
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Guide for Control of Imported Foods (STC 424)  ........................ 88 
2.10   Qatar  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  88 
2.10.1    Food Safety  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 88 
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Guide for Control of Imported Foods (STC 424)  ........................ 88 
2.11   Russian Federation  ................................ ................................ ...............................  89 
2.11.1    Food Safety  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 89 
The Russian Federation's import restrictions on processed fishery products from Estonia 
and Latvia (STC 390)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 89 
Russian Federation import restrictions on certain animal products from Germany 
(STC 411) ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 94 
The Russian Federation's import restrictions on wine (STC 426)  ................................ ............... 96 
2.12   Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  ................................ ................................ .....................  97 
2.12.1    Food Safety  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 97 
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Guide for Control of Imported Foods (STC 424)  ........................ 97 
2.12.2    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 97 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  ................................ ................................ ..97 
Saudi Arabia's measures on shrimp (STC 425)  ................................ ................................ .......97 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.13   Chinese Taipei  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 98 
2.13.1    Food Safety  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 98 
Chinese Taipei's strengthened import restrictions on food with regard to radionuclides 
(STC 387)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 98 
2.14   South Africa  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 101  
2.14.1    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 101 
South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza 
(STC 431)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  101 
2.15   Thailand  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  101  
2.15.1    Plant Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  101 
Thailand's import restriction on papaya seeds (STC 421)  ................................ ......................  101 
2.16   Turkey  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  103  
2.16.1    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 103 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  ................................ ................................  103 
2.16.2    Plant Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  103 
Turkey 's restrictions on rough rice imports (STC 433)  ................................ ...........................  103 
2.17   United Arab Emirates  ................................ ................................ .........................  103  
2.17.1    Food Safety  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  103 
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Guide for Control of Imported Foods (STC 424)  ......................  103 
2.17.2    Plant Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  103 
United Arab Emirates measures on plant protection prod ucts (STC 429)  ................................ . 103 
2.18   United States of America  ................................ ................................ ....................  104  
2.18.1    Food Safety  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  104 
United  States MRLs for chlorpyrifos (STC 419)  ................................ ................................ ..... 104 
2.18.2    Other Concerns  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 105 
US seafood import monitoring programme (STC 415)  ................................ ...........................  105 
2.19   Viet Nam  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............  107  
2.19.1    Plant Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  107 
Viet Nam's suspension of groundnut seed imports (STC 418)  ................................ ................  107 
2.20   Certain Members  ................................ ................................ ................................  108  
2.20.1    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 108 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  ................................ ................................  108 
 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1   GENERAL OVERVIEW  OF SPECIFIC TRADE CO NCERNS  
1.1.  Altogether, 434 STCs have been raised in the 23 years between 1995 and the end of 2017. 
Chart 1.1 shows the number of n ew STCs raised each year . Seventeen  new STCs were raised in 
2017. 
Chart 1.1 – Number of New STCs  Raised  
 
1.2.  Chart 1. 2a categorizes  the 434 STCs raised since 1995  into food safety, animal or plant 
health or other concerns . Overall, 32% of STCs relate to food safety concerns, 25% relate to plant 
health, and 6% relate to  other issues such as certificati on requirements , control or inspection 
procedures . 37% of STCs raised relate to animal health and zoonos es. 
Chart 1. 2a – STCs  by Subject  (1995 -2017) 
 
1.3.  STCs related to animal health and zoonoses are further divided into foot -and-mouth disease 
(FMD), transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), avian influenza (AI)  and other animal 
health concerns (OAH). Chart 1.2b shows that TSEs account for 31% of animal health concerns, 
while 22% relate to FMD and 10% to avian influenza concerns. The remaining 37% relate  to other 
animal health concerns.  
051015202530354045
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20172112423
13
102843
29
2131
1016 16
1322
16 1624
1421
1417
Animal Health
37%Food Safety
32%Plant Health
25%
Other
6%G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 6 - 
 
  Chart 1.2b – STCs  Related to Animal Health & Zoonos es (1995 -2017) 
 
1.4.  Developing countries are participating actively under this agenda item in the SPS Committee 
meetings. Chart 1. 3a indicates that over 23 years, developing country Members have raised 
251 issues5, compared to 242 issues raised by developed country Members , and seven  issues 
raised by least -developed country Members.6 A developing country Member  has supported another 
Member raising an issue 344 times , compare d to 196 times developed country Member s supported 
an issue , and 20 times least-developed country Members  supported  an issue . 238 measure s at 
issue w ere maintained by a develop ing country Member, and 227 measures were maintained b y a 
develop ed country Member. One issue has been raised regarding measures maintained  by a least-
developed cou ntry Member.  
1.5.  Chart  1.3b shows the number of new issues raised each year by each category of Member.  
1.6.  Charts 1.3a and 1.3b reflect the number of issues  raised by Members at SPS Committee 
meetings , which are then numbered under STCs . The same issue can be raised by more than one 
Member, in which case it is grouped under the same STC  number . Therefore, the number of issues 
raised can be larger than  the number of STCs.7 
                                                
5 On many occasions more than one Me mber has raised, supported or maintained an issue . 
6 On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty 
establishing the European Community  (done at Lisbon, 13 December 2 007) entered into force. 
On 29 November 200 9, the WTO received a Verbal Note (WT/L/779) from the Council of the European Union 
and the Commission of the European Communities stating that, by virtue of the Treaty of Lisbon , as of 
1 December  2009, the European Union replaces and  succeeds the European  Community.  However, the 
European Union is referred to as the European Community  when an STC w as raised or discussed before 
1 December 2009 . The European Union is counted as one Member. Similarly, when one Member speaks on 
behalf of ASEAN, it is counted as  one Member only.  
7 See footnote 3.  
TSEs
31%
FMD
22%AI
10%OAH
37%TSEs
FMD
AI
OAHTransmissible 
spongiform 
encephalopathies
Foot-and-mouth 
disease
Avian influenza
Other animal health G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Chart 1.3a – Participation in Issues Raised by WTO Members (1995 -2017) 
 
Chart 1.3b – Number of New Issues  Raised by Members  
 
1.7.  Chart  1.4 shows  that out of the 434 STCs raised since 1995 , 165 STCs (38%) have been 
reported resolved , and 34 STCs (8%) have been reported to be  partially resolved. In these  
partially resolved STCs, trade may have been allowed for selected products or by some of the 
importing Members mainta ining the measure in question.  In 2017 specifically, 17 STCs were 
reported as resolved  and eight STCs were reported as partially resolved.  
1.8.  No solutions have b een reported for the remaining  235 STCs. Of these, 218 STCs were raised 
more than one year ago  with no reported re solution . However, some of these STCs may have been 
resolved without  the Committee being made aware of these developments.  
Members Raising the Issue Supporting Members Members Maintaining the
Measure242
196226251344
238
720
1Number of Members
Developed Countries Developing Countries Least-Developed Countries
4101720
9
52129
20
1516
710
6
25788
411
44
21113
5522
20
12
1016
56101218
12
1016
1015
1011
3
1 102Number of Issues
Developed countries Developing countries Least-Developed CountriesG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Chart 1.4 – Resolved STCs  
 
  
No solution reported Solution reported Partial solution reported235
165
34Number of STCs
StatusG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 9 - 
 
  Table 1 .1 - List of Specific Trade Concerns (1995 –2017) 
STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
1995 
1 Shelf-life requirements  Korea, Republic of  Australia, 
Canada, United 
States of 
America  PR 
2 Import clearance measures 
and practices  Korea, Republic of  United States 
of America  R 
1996 
3 Restrictions on gelatine  
imports  Norway  Brazil  R 
4 Measures related to BSE  Argentina, Australia, 
Austria, Belgiu m, Brazil, 
Canada, Chile, 
Czech  Republic, France, 
Germany, Italy, 
Netherlands, Poland, 
Romania, Singapore, 
Slovak Republic, Slovenia, 
Spain, United States of 
America  Switzerland  R 
5 Import requirements for 
wine Brazil  European 
Union  R 
6 Importation of cheese  Canada  European 
Union  R 
7 Regionalization in relation 
to animal health  United States of America  European 
Union  NR 
8 Ban on salmon imports  Australia  Canada, United 
States of 
America  R 
9 Zero-tolerance for 
salmonella in imported 
poultry products  Chile, Czech Republic, 
El Salvador, Honduras, 
Slovak Republic  United States 
of America  NR 
10 Imports of potatoes  Czech Republic  European 
Union  R 
11 Restriction on levels of 
copper and cadmium in 
imported squid  Spain, European Union  United States 
of America  R 
12 Testing requirements for 
different varieties of apples, 
cherries and nectarines  Japan  United States 
of America  R 
13 Translation of regulations  Japan;  Korea, Republic of  Argentina  NR 
1997 
14 Restrictions on imported 
wheat  Brazil  United States 
of America  R 
15 Zoosanitary import policies 
pertaining to BSE  Canada  European 
Union  NR 
16 Restrictions on imports of 
wheat and fruit  Chile United States 
of America  R 
17 Cosmetics and  BSE European Union  Australia  R 
18 Certification requirements 
for pet food  France, European Union  United States 
of America  NR 
19 Protected zones  European Union  Uruguay  NR 
20 Restrictions on imports of 
rough rice  Honduras  United States 
of America  R 
                                                
8 NR = Not Reported, PR = Partially Resolved, R = Resolved.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 10 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
21 Fresh fruit and vegetables  Indonesia  Australia, 
United States 
of America  NR 
22 Measures affecting imports 
of bovine meat  Israel  Uruguay  R 
23 Plant quarantine regulations  Japan  United States 
of America  NR 
24 Requirements for 
certification of consumer 
rice Panama  United States 
of America  R 
25 Restrictions on wheat and 
oilseeds  Poland  United States 
of America  NR 
26 Phytosanitary issues in 
general  Certain Members  United States 
of America  R 
27 Citrus canker  European Union  Argentina  R 
28 Notification on wheat, rye 
and triticale  Switzerland  Argentina  R 
29 Measures related to avian 
influenza  Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of  United States 
of America  NR 
30 Regulation concerning 
warehouses and silos  Czech Republic  European 
Union  R 
31 Rules on "specified risk 
materials" in products of 
animal origin  European Union  United States 
of America  NR 
32 Gelatine  imports  European Union  Brazil, United 
States of 
America  PR 
33 Salmonella -related 
restriction on fishmeal 
imports  European Union  Chile, Peru  PR 
34 Measures regarding FMD  Japan  Argentina, 
European 
Union  PR 
35 Import ban on frozen 
poultry  Korea, Republic of  Thailand  R 
36 Import prohibition of milled 
rice Mexico  Thailand  R 
37 Actions taken by local 
governments  United States of America  Chile R 
1998 
38 Temporary prohibition of 
fresh pork and products  Argentina  European 
Union  R 
39 Maximum levels for certain 
contaminants (aflatoxins) in 
foodstuffs  European Union  Argentina;  
Australia;  
Bolivia, 
Plurinational 
State of ; 
Brazil;  The 
Gambia;  India;  
Indonesia;  
Malaysia;  
Philippines;  
Senegal;  
Thailand  R 
40 Trade restrictions in 
response to cholera  European Union  Tanzania  PR 
41 Restrictions on imports of 
apples, pears and quinces  Slovak Republic  Hungary  R G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 11 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
42 Import restrictions on 
potatoes  Slovak Republic  Poland, 
European 
Union  R 
43 Prohibition on bone -in beef 
imports from EC member 
States  South Africa  European 
Union  R 
44 Measures related to BSE  United States of America  European 
Union  NR 
45 Import restrictions on 
cheese  Australia, New Zealand  European 
Union, 
Switzerland  R 
46 Import prohibition of 
coconut palms and related 
products  Brazil  Philippines  NR 
47 Measure on establishments 
operating in the animal 
feed sector  European Union  United States 
of America  NR 
48 Import ban on livestock  Turkey  Hungary, 
United States 
of America  R 
49 Restrictions on imports of 
sauces containing benzoic 
acid Australia  Philippines  R 
50 Quarantine requirements 
for chicken meat  Australia  Thailand  NR 
51 Prohibition of poultry meat 
imports  Czech Republic  Thailand  R 
52 Measures on food treated 
with ionizing radiation  European Union  United States 
of America  NR 
53 Emergency measures on 
citrus pulp  European Union  Brazil  R 
54 Notifications regarding 
import requirements on 
meat and eggs  Switzerland  United States 
of America  R 
55 TSE-related import 
restrictions of live cattle  Israel  European 
Union  R 
56 Notification on amendment 
of the Japanese Plant 
Protection Law  Japan  United States 
of America  NR 
57 Requirements for imports of 
milk and milk products  Poland  European 
Union  R 
58 Notification on refrigeration 
and labelling requirements 
for shell eggs  United States of America  European 
Union  NR 
59 Interim rule affecting solid 
wood packaging material  United States of America  Hong Kong, 
China  R 
1999 
60 Import restrictions on 
bovine semen and 
embryos, milk and milk 
products  Argentina  European 
Union  R 
61 Import restrictions on 
bovine semen  India Canada, 
European 
Union  PR 
62 Restrictions on imports of 
horses  India European 
Union  NR 
63 Information on dioxin  Certain Members  European 
Union  R G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 12 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
64 Ban on antibiotics in feed  European Union  United States 
of America  NR 
65 Import restrictions on beef  Korea, Republic of  Argentina  NR 
66 Notifications related to 
dioxin  Malaysia, Singapore  Switzerland  R 
67 Import restrictions on beef  Mexico  Argentina  NR 
68 Notifications on veterinary 
measures and measures on 
animal products including 
gelatine  Poland  Switzerland, 
United States 
of America  R 
69 Import restrictions on 
rhododendrons in growing 
medium  United States of America  European 
Union  R 
70 Import conditions for pork 
meat and products  Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of  European 
Union  NR 
71 Restrictions on meat and 
dairy products  El Salvador  Uruguay  R 
72 Measures regarding canned 
tuna in oil  Belgium, European Union  Philippines  NR 
73 Imports of citrus fruit  United States of America  Argentina  R 
2000 
74 Restrictions on imports of 
tropical fresh fruit  Australia  Philippines  NR 
75 Notification on meat and 
meat products  Iceland  Argentina  R 
76 Ban on pet food imports  Turkey  Hungary  R 
77 Restrictions on canned tuna  Egypt  Thailand  NR 
78 Notification on methyl 
bromide  Australia  European 
Union  R 
79 Import restrictions on 
durian  Australia  Thailand  NR 
80 Restrictions on poultry 
meat imports  Bolivia, Plurinational State 
of Chile R 
81 Wood  packing material  European Union  Canada  R 
82 Restrictions on importation 
of fresh fruit  Indonesia  New Zealand  R 
83 Restrictions on milk powder 
imports  Panama  European 
Union  R 
2001 
84 Import restrictions affecting 
BSE-free countries  Argentina;  Australia;  
Canada;  Korea, Republic 
of; New Zealand;  United 
States of America  Bulgaria, 
Croatia, 
Czech  Republic, 
Estonia, Latvia, 
Poland, 
Romania, 
Slovak 
Republic, 
Slovenia  NR 
85 Import restrictions on 
prawns and prawn 
products;  revised generic 
IRA for prawns and prawn 
products  Australia  China, Thailand  PR 
86 Access of California table 
grapes  Australia  United States 
of America  R 
87 Measures affecting imports 
of products containing 
Brazilian beef  Canada  Brazil  R G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 13 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
88 Import restrictions due to 
FMD Canada, United States of 
America  Hungary  R 
89 Import restrictions on soy 
sauce  European Union  Thailand  NR 
90 Restrictions on bovine 
products  Hungary  Canada  R 
91 Restrictions on  pork 
products  Hungary  Canada  R 
92 Restrictions on banana 
imports  Turkey  Ecuador  R 
93 Phytosanitary requirements 
for potatoes, garlic and 
onions  Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of  Argentina  NR 
94 EC Directive 2000/42 /EC on 
pesticide residues  European Union  Côte d'Ivoire  NR 
95 Legislation on the fungicide 
thiabendazole (TBZ)  European Union  Israel  NR 
96 Geographical BSE risk 
assessment  European Union  Canada, Chile, 
India R 
97 Restrictions on the use of 
fishmeal  European Union  Chile, Norway, 
Peru PR 
98 Restrictions on Egyptian 
potatoes  European Union  Egypt  NR 
99 Restrictions on importation 
of sugar cane top Japan  Indonesia  NR 
100 Import measures on apples 
due to fire blight  Japan  United States 
of America  R 
101 Proposed import prohibition 
of commodity -country 
combinations of fresh cut 
flowers and foliage  New Zealand  European 
Union  R 
102 Import restrictions on 
potted plants  United States of America  European 
Union  NR 
103 FMD-related import 
restrictions  Certain Members  Argentina, 
European 
Union  PR 
104 FMD restrictions  Chile Argentina  R 
105 Restrictions on apples and 
pears  Cuba Argentina  NR 
106 Regulations on genetically 
modified food and feed  European Union  United States 
of America  PR 
107 Transitional TSE measures  European Union  Canada  R 
108 Cut flowers  European Union  Ecuador, Israel  PR 
109 Phytosanitary regulations 
(Canary Islands)  Spain, European Union  Argentina  NR 
110 Agricultural biotechnology 
approval process  European Union  United States 
of America  PR 
111 FMD restrictions  Indonesia  Argentina  NR 
2002 
112 FMD trade restrictions  Bolivia, Plurinational State 
of Argentina  R 
113 Pet food import 
requirements  Chile Argentina  R 
114 Food safety regulations 
affecting agricultural 
products produced from 
modern biotechnology  China  United States 
of America  NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 14 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
115 Import restrictions for 
citrus and other fruits 
related to fruit fly  China  Argentina  R 
116 FMD restrictions  Colombia  Argentina  R 
117 Traceability and labelling of 
genetically modified 
organisms and food and 
feed European Union  Argentina, 
Canada, United 
States of 
America  NR 
118 Import licenses for 
agricultural products  Panama  Canada  R 
119 Notification on Chinese fruit 
imports  Philippines  China  PR 
120 Restrictions on pig meat  United States of America  European 
Union  NR 
121 Imports of clementines  United States of America  European 
Union  R 
122 FMD Restrictions  Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of  Argentina  R 
123 Restrictions on imports of 
potatoes, onions, fertilised 
eggs, day -old chicks and 
meat products  Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of  Canada, 
Colombia  R 
124 Notifications  related to 
avian influenza  Certain Members  United States 
of America  NR 
125 BSE related measures  Argentina  Canada  R 
126 Import requirements for 
seed potatoes  Brazil  Canada, 
European 
Union  R 
127 Import ban on products of 
Dutch origin  China  European 
Union  R 
128 Import requirements for 
cosmetics  China  European 
Union  R 
129 Import restrictions on 
spiced pork and salted 
meat products  Cuba Argentina  R 
130 Restrictions on shellfish  European Union  Indonesia  NR 
131 Pesticide and antibiotic 
limits in honey ( EC 
Directive 96/23 /EC) European Union  Cuba NR 
132 Import restrictions on dairy 
products  Indonesia  Argentina  R 
133 Official control restrictions 
on citrus and other fresh 
fruits and vegetables  Japan  New Zealand, 
United States 
of America  NR 
134 SPS measures  on animal 
products  Romania  Moldova, 
Republic of  R 
135 Restrictions on beef and 
pork South Africa  Brazil  R 
136 Policies regarding 
quarantine and non -
quarantine pests  Chinese Taipei  United States 
of America  NR 
137 Import restrictions on meat 
and meat products  United States of America  Switzerland  R 
138 Pest risk assessment 
requirements  Argentina  United States 
of America  R 
139 Restriction on pig meat   Australia  European 
Union  R G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 15 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
140 Imports of live ostriches  Brazil  European 
Union  R 
141 Pest risk assessments for 
imports of plant origin  Brazil  Canada  R 
142 Zero tolerance for e-coli China  United States 
of America  NR 
143 Regulation on wood 
packaging material  China  European 
Union  R 
144 Restrictions on the 
importation of fruits and 
fruit juices  European Union  Brazil  R 
145 Import restrictions on 
chicken meat imports  Honduras  Costa Rica  R 
146 Ban on hormones in animal 
production  Indonesia  United States 
of America  R 
147 Regulation on food 
additives  Japan  European 
Union  NR 
148 Amendment of the food 
sanitation law  Japan  China  NR 
149 Restrictions on food 
products  Panama  European 
Union  R 
150 Certification of meat and 
dairy products  Philippines  Canada  R 
151 Restrictions on imports of 
pork sausages and other 
pork products  Trinidad and Tobago  Argentina  NR 
152 Restrictions on melons  United States of America  Mexico  NR 
153 Restrictions on imports of 
Chinese potted plants in 
growing medium  United States of America  China  NR 
154 Risk assessment on  BSE Uruguay  Canada, United 
States of 
America  PR 
2003 
155 Import requirements for 
Netherlands truss tomatoes  Australia  European 
Union  R 
156 Notification 
G/SPS/N/BRA/74 and 
G/SPS/N/BRA/75 on BSE -
related measures  Brazil  Canada  R 
157 Quarantine measures for 
the entry and exit of 
aquatic products  China  European 
Union  R 
158 Restrictions on pork 
imports  Croatia  Slovenia  R 
159 Proposal on animal by -
products  European Union  United States 
of America  NR 
160 Transitional BSE measures  European Union  United States 
of America  NR 
161 EC Directive 2001/661/EC 
on foot-and-mouth  disease  European Union  South Africa  NR 
162 Fumigation standards  Japan  United States 
of America  R 
163 Restrictions on Austrian 
products  Mexico  European 
Union  NR 
164 Restrictions on the 
importation of dry beans  Mexico  United States 
of America  R G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 16 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
165 Import restrictions on 
Spanish olive oil  Bahrain, Kingdom of ; 
Kuwait, the State of ; 
Oman;  Qatar;  United Arab 
Emirates  European 
Union  PR 
166 Import measures on live 
animals and meat products  Croatia  Hungary  R 
167 Restrictions on honey 
imports  European Union  United States 
of America  R 
168 Maximum levels for 
aflatoxins in corn and 
sampling contaminants in 
food European Union  Argentina  NR 
169 EC proposed regulation on 
maximum residue levels of 
pesticides  European Union  Argentina, 
China  NR 
170 Live animals and animal 
products  European Union  Australia  NR 
171 Animal health conditions 
and certification 
requirements for live fish  European Union  Australia  R 
172 Restrictions on imports of 
mangoes  Japan  Brazil  R 
173 Notification on uses of 
living modified organisms  Japan  Australia  R 
174 Notification on 
transboundary movement 
of living modified organisms  Korea, Republic of  Australia  R 
175 Notification on food and 
feed controls  European Union  United States 
of America  NR 
176 Notification on maximum 
tolerance levels for 
Ocratoxin A in coffee  Germany, European Union  Colombia, 
Papua New 
Guinea  PR 
177 Sanitary conditions for the 
importation of live material 
for apiculture  European Union  Argentina  NR 
178 Revision of standards and 
specifications for food and 
additives  Japan  China  NR 
179 Guidelines for maximum 
residue level (MRL) testing  Korea, Republic of  United States 
of America  R 
180 Heat treatment for meat 
and bone meal in poultry 
for pet food  Chinese Taipei  United States 
of America  R 
181 Import restrictions on 
potatoes  Chinese Taipei  New Zealand  R 
182 Implementation of ISPM 15  United States of America  Argentina  R 
183 Implementation of ISPM 15  Certain Members  Chile, Uruguay  PR 
2004 
184 Lack of transparency for 
certain SPS measures  China  United States 
of America  NR 
185 Restrictions due to avian 
influenza  India European 
Union, United 
States of 
America  NR 
186 Phytosanitary import 
restrictions  India European 
Union, United 
States of 
America  PR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 17 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
187 FMD restrictions  Panama  Argentina  R 
188 Delisting of France from 
countries authorized to 
export certain meat and 
meat products to the United 
States  United States of America  European 
Union  R 
189 Prohibition on the use of 
specified risk materials and 
requirements for disabled 
cattle  United States of America  Argentina  NR 
190 Regionalization and 
recognition of animal 
disease free status  Certain Members  European 
Union  PR 
191 Maximum residue levels for 
pesticides on food  European Union  China  NR 
192 Non-notification of various 
SPS measures  India United States 
of America  NR 
193 General import restrictions 
due to BSE  Certain Members  European 
Union, United 
States of 
America  PR 
194 Restrictions on fresh grapes  Australia  Chile R 
195 Restrictions on citrus  Barbados  Venezuela, 
Bolivarian 
Republic of  NR 
196 Measures on US poultry  China  United States 
of America  R 
197 Regulation on Ocratoxin A 
in coffee  European Union  Colombia  R 
198 Regulation on aflatoxins 
and Ocratoxin  A in foods for 
infants and young children  European Union  China  NR 
199 Deviation from international 
standard for wood packing 
material  Spain, European Union  United States 
of America  R 
200 Ban on food grade wax  India United States 
of America  R 
201 Standards and 
specifications for food 
additives (boscalid)  Japan  China  NR 
202 Septoria controls on 
horticultural products  Korea, Republic of  United States 
of America  R 
203 Rule on materials derived 
from cattle and record -
keeping requirements  United States of America  Argentina, 
China  NR 
204 Notification by Members of 
implementation of ISPM 15  Certain Members  European 
Union  R 
2005 
205 Slaughter of imported 
breeding cattle  Bolivia, Plurinational State 
of Mexico  NR 
206 Inspection and testing 
procedures for imported 
wheat  Greece, European Union  Canada  R 
207 Directives on residual 
pesticide tolerance and 
inspection methods for tea  European Union  China  PR 
208 Food and feed hygiene 
rules European Union  Canada  R G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 18 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
209 Plant health directive  European Union  United States 
of America  NR 
210 Restrictions on imports of 
chicken meat  Guatemala  Mexico  NR 
211 Restrictions on the transit 
of avocados  Guatemala  Mexico  NR 
212 Positive list system for 
pesticides, veterinary drugs 
and feed additives MRLs Japan  China, United 
States of 
America  PR 
213 Restrictions on beef  imports  Japan  United States 
of America  NR 
214 Inspection regime for food 
processing establishments  Panama  United States 
of America  R 
215 Public Health Regulation 11  Thailand  United States 
of America  NR 
216 Restrictions on Ya pears 
imports  United States of America  China  R 
217 Import restrictions on 
apples  Australia  New Zealand  NR 
218 Lack of recognition of 
regionalization and disease -
free status for classical 
swine fever  Brazil  European 
Union  NR 
219 EurepGAP requirements for 
bananas  European Union  Saint Vincent 
and the 
Grenadines  NR 
220 Proposed regulations for 
piper methysticum (kava -
kava)  United Kingdom, 
European Union  Fiji NR 
221 Safety insurance and 
quality improvement 
standards for feed and feed 
additives  Japan  China  R 
222 Import suspension of heat -
processed straw and forage 
for feed  Japan  China  R 
223 Import requirements for 
Indian mangoes  Japan  India NR 
224 Restrictions on EC exports 
of plant and animal 
products  Japan  European 
Union  NR 
225 Restrictions on US poultry  Mexico  United States 
of America  R 
226 Inspection regime for 
agricultural products  Panama  Costa Rica  R 
227 BSE-related import 
restrictions on non -
ruminant products  Chinese Taipei  United States 
of America  NR 
228 Import procedures for fruits 
and vegetables  United States of America  European 
Union  NR 
229 Import restrictions on Enoki 
mushrooms  Canada  Chinese Taipei  R 
230 Phytosanitary requirements 
on fresh oranges  Costa Rica  Nicaragua  R 
231 Restrictions on cinnamon  European Union  Sri Lanka  R 
232 Import restrictions on EC 
beef due to BSE  Israel  European 
Union  R G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 19 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
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  R 
240 Biotech labelling and import 
approval process 
regulations  India United States 
of America  NR 
241 Import restrictions on 
wooden Christmas trees  United States of America  China  R 
242 Restrictions on US poultry 
exports  European Union  United States 
of America  NR 
243 Lack of recognition of pest -
free areas  Indonesia  United States 
of America  PR 
244 Importation of live animals 
and meat products  Indonesia  Brazil  NR 
245 Restrictions on US pork and 
poultry imports  Romania  United States 
of America  NR 
2007 
246 Import restrictions on 
products of animal origin 
due to dioxin  China  European 
Union  R 
247 BSE-related measures on 
beef products  Korea, Republic of  Canada  R 
248 Regionalization for bovine 
and pig meat products  Korea, Republic of  Brazil  R 
249 Reform of  Australia's IRA 
process  Australia  European 
Union  NR 
250 Trade restrictions related to 
national systems for 
determining maximum 
residue levels (MRLs) for 
pesticides  Certain Members  Argentina  NR 
251 Zero tolerance for 
pathogens on raw meat and 
poultry products  China  United States 
of America  NR 
252 Zero tolerance for 
salmonella in poultry and 
eggs  El Salvador  United States 
of America  NR 
253 Export certification 
requirements for dairy 
products  India United States 
of America  NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 20 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
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  PR 
265 Regulatory process 
economic analysis 
requirement  United States of America  Brazil  NR 
266 Price list for inspections  Malaysia  Brazil  NR 
267 Pesticide maximum residue 
level (MRL) enforcement 
system  Japan  China, United 
States of 
America  NR 
268 Import restrictions on EC 
dairy products  United States of America  European 
Union  NR 
269 Restrictions on apples  United States of America  China  NR 
270 Import restrictions on rice  Mexico  Pakistan  R 
271 Restrictions on imports of 
swine meat  Mexico  Brazil  NR 
272 Rapid Alert System 
regarding mango imports  European Union  Senegal  NR 
273 Health certificate 
ratification by national 
embassies  Oman, Certain Members  European 
Union  R 
274 Korea's Livestock Epidemic 
Prevention Act  Korea, Republic of  Canada  R 
275 Restrictions on ractopamine 
in beef and pork  Chinese Taipei  United States 
of America  NR 
276 Maximum residue levels for 
pesticides in cacao  European Union  Ecuador  PR 
277 NAPPO  draft standard for 
ships and cargoes from 
areas infested with Asian 
gypsy moth  Canada, Mexico, United 
States of America  China  R G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 21 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
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  R 
286 Import restrictions on 
poultry meat  Indonesia  Brazil  NR 
287 Import restrictions on fresh 
pork meat and beef  South Africa  Brazil  R 
288 Import measures on 
animals and animal 
products  Ukraine  European 
Union  R 
289 Measures on catfish  United States of America  China  NR 
290 Suspension of inspection 
and delivery of plant and 
animal health certificates 
for imports  Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of  Colombia  R 
2010 
291 BSE Measures  Chinese Taipei  Canada  R 
292 Prohibition of ornamental 
plants larger than 18 inches  United States of America  Costa Rica  R 
293 Risks arising from 
Carambola fruit fly in 
French Guyana  France, European Union  Brazil  NR 
294 Import restrictions on plant 
and plant products  Malaysia  Brazil  NR 
295 Artificial colour warning 
labels  European Union  United States 
of America  NR 
296 SPS notification practices  China  European 
Union  NR 
297 Registration requirement 
for pet food export 
enterprises  Canada  China  R 
298 Import restrictions on 
Brazilian beef Colombia  Brazil  NR 
299 US 2009 Food Safety 
Enhancement Act  United States of America  China, India  NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 22 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
300 Regulation  (EC) No. 
1099/2009  European Union  India NR 
301 US risk analysis for the 
entry of queen bees  United States of America  Argentina  NR 
302 Restrictions on products 
derived from biotechnology  Turkey  United States 
of America  NR 
303 Import restrictions on 
poultry meat Senegal  Brazil  NR 
304 Proposed MRL for 1 -
Methylcyclopropene in 
bananas  Canada  Ecuador  PR 
305 Import restrictions on beef 
and recognition of the 
principle of regionalization  Indonesia  Brazil  NR 
306 Maximum residue  levels of 
pesticides  European Union  India NR 
307 Prohibition of certain food 
additives  Japan  India NR 
308 Restrictions on bovines and 
bubalines for reproduction  Brazil  Colombia  R 
309 Labelling of products of 
animal origin Brazil  European 
Union  NR 
310 Measures on canned 
sardines  Brazil  Morocco  NR 
311 Restrictions on poultry and 
poultry products  Albania, Croatia  Chile R 
312 Restrictions on beef exports 
due to BSE -related 
concerns  Mexico  Nicaragua  R 
2011 
313 Import restrictions due to 
dioxin contamination in 
Germany  Certain Members  European 
Union  R 
314 Ban on offals  Viet Nam  United States 
of America, 
European 
Union  NR 
315 Ukraine import restrictions 
on poultry and poultry 
products  Ukraine  Mexico  NR 
316 United States import 
restrictions on 
chrysanthemums  United States of America  Costa Rica  NR 
317 Mexico's BSE measures  Mexico  Canada  R 
318 US failure to recognize 
South Patagonia as FMD -
free and to import beef 
from north of the 42nd 
parallel  United States of America  Argentina  NR 
319 Chinese quarantine and 
testing procedures for 
salmon  China  Norway  NR 
320 Restrictions on imported 
fresh meat Philippines  United States 
of America  NR 
321 Japan's MRLs applied to 
sesame  Japan  Paraguay  NR 
322 Polyamide and melamine 
plastic kitchenware  European Union  China;  Hong 
Kong, China  NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 23 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
323 Import restrictions on pork 
and pork products  Malaysia  European 
Union  NR 
324 China's requirement for 
registration and supervision 
of foreign enterprises  China  India NR 
325 EU regulations on cadmium 
in cocoa  European Union  Colombia, 
Ecuador  PR 
326 Restrictions on table 
grapes, apples and pears  Thailand  South Africa  PR 
327 EU Court of Justice ruling 
regarding pollen derived 
from GMOs  European Union  Argentina  NR 
328 US default MRLs, limits of 
determination or  limits of 
quantification on basmati 
rice United States of America  India R 
2012 
329 Testing methods for food 
additives  China  India NR 
330 Indonesia's port closures  Indonesia  China, 
European 
Union, 
New Zealand, 
United States 
of America  PR 
331 EU limits of aluminium  in 
flour products  European Union  China  NR 
332 Restrictions related to FMD  Japan  Argentina  NR 
333 Trade restrictive measures 
due to the Schmallenberg 
Virus Certain Members  European 
Union  NR 
334 MRLs for roasted and 
powdered coffee  Chinese Taipei  India R 
335 EU testing of pesticide 
residues  European Union  India NR 
336 US measures on fresh 
lemons from the north west 
region of Argentina  United States of America  Argentina  NR 
337 Delay in finalizing 
inspection procedures on 
bovine and poultry meat 
from Argentina  Canada  Argentina  NR 
338 Import ban on live animals 
from the EU  Russian Federation  European 
Union  NR 
339 Restrictions on tomatoes  United States of America  Senegal  NR 
340 Requirements for 
importation of sheep meat  Turkey  Australia  NR 
341 Russia's listing of export 
establishments  Russian Federation  European 
Union  NR 
342 Restrictions on shrimp due 
to anti -oxidant residues  Japan  India R 
343 Permits on horticultural 
products  Indonesia  United States 
of America  NR 
344 Measures on shrimp  Brazil  Ecuador  NR 
2013 
345 Import conditions related to 
phthalates  China  European 
Union  R G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 24 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
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  China, Certain Members  Japan  NR 
355 EU import requirements for 
orchid tissue culture 
plantlets in flasks  European Union  Chinese Taipei  NR 
356 Phytosanitary measures on 
citrus black spot  European Union  South Africa  NR 
357 Accreditation of third -party 
bodies to conduct food 
safety audits and to issue 
certifications  United States of America  China  NR 
358 Import conditions for pork 
and pork products  India European 
Union  NR 
359 Strengthened import 
restrictions on fishery 
products with regard to 
radionuclides  Korea, Republic of  Japan  NR 
360 Import policy on swallow 
nests  China  Indonesia  R 
361 Non-recognition of testing 
laboratories for meat 
products  Russian Federation  India NR 
362 Import restrictions on beef 
due to BSE  South Africa  Brazil  R 
363 Import restrictions on beef 
due to BSE  China  Brazil  R 
364 Import restrictions on beef 
due to BSE  Japan  Brazil  NR 
365 Import conditions on 
poultry  Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  European 
Union  NR 
366 Quarantine requirement for 
blueberries  Japan  Argentina  NR 
367 Import requirements on 
traditional foods  Turkey  Japan  NR 
368 Import restrictions on 
confectionary products  Russian Federation  Ukraine  NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 25 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
2014 
369 Import ban on live pigs and 
pork products due to 
African Swine Fever  Russian Federation  European 
Union  NR 
370 US imports of meat from 
Brazil  United States of America  Nicaragua  NR 
371 Import requirements for 
blueberries and avocados  India Chile NR 
372 Import restrictions on 
certain types of plant 
products  Russian Federation  European 
Union  NR 
373 US high cost of certification 
for mango exports  United States of America  India NR 
374 EU ban on mangoes and 
certain vegetables from 
India European Union  India NR 
375 US non -acceptance of OIE 
categorization for BSE  United States of America  India NR 
376 Australia's non -acceptance 
of OIE categorization for 
BSE Australia  India NR 
377 Brazil's regulation on 
international certificates for 
fish and fishery products  Brazil  China  NR 
378 EU withdrawal of 
equivalence for processed 
organic products  European Union  India NR 
379 Russia's market access 
requirements for bovine 
meat Russian Federation  India NR 
380 Import restrictions on fruits 
and vegetables  Russian Federation  European 
Union  NR 
381 Requirements for veterinary 
certificates  Russian Federation  Ukraine  NR 
382 Categorization of 
compounds as endocrine 
disruptors  European Union  United States 
of America  NR 
2015 
383 China's measures on bovine 
meat China  India NR 
384 General import restrictions 
due to African swine fever  Certain Members  European 
Union  NR 
385 General import restrictions 
due to highly pathogenic 
avian influenza  Certain Members  European 
Union  R 
386 Measures on imports of 
hibiscus flowers  Mexico  Nigeria  R 
387 Chinese Taipei's 
strengthened import 
restrictions on food with 
regard to radionuclides  Chinese Taipei  Japan  NR 
388 US proposed rule for user 
fees for agricultural 
quarantine and inspection 
services  United States of America  Mexico  NR 
389 Chinese import regime, 
including quarantine and 
testing procedures for fish  China  Norway  NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 26 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
390 The Russian Federation's 
import restrictions on 
processed fishery products 
from Estonia and Latvia  Russian Federation  European 
Union  NR 
391 Malaysia's import 
restrictions related to 
approval of poultry meat 
plants  Malaysia  Brazil  NR 
392 China's import restrictions 
due to African swine fever  China  European 
Union  NR 
393 Korea's import restrictions 
due to African swine fever  Korea, Republic of  European 
Union  NR 
394 Costa Rica's temporary 
suspension of the issuing of 
phytosanitary import 
certificates for avocados  Costa Rica  Guatemala, 
Mexico  NR 
395 China's proposed 
amendments to the 
implementation regulations 
on safety assessment of 
agricultural GMOs  China  Paraguay,  
United States 
of America  NR 
396 EU proposal to amend 
Regulation (EC) No. 
1829/2003 to allow EU 
member States to restrict 
or prohibit the use of 
genetically modified food 
and feed  European Union  Argentina, 
Paraguay,  
United States 
of America  NR 
397 India's amendment to its 
import policy conditions for 
apples; Restriction to 
Nhava Sheva port  India Chile, New 
Zealand  PR 
398 Viet Nam's restrictions on 
fruit due to fruit flies  Viet Nam  Chile R 
399 Viet Nam's restrictions on 
plant products  Viet Nam  Chile PR 
400 Undue delays in the start of 
Australia's risk analysis for 
avocados  Australia  Chile NR 
401 Undue delays in Viet Nam's 
approval process for dairy 
and meat products  Viet Nam  Chile NR 
402 Undue delays in Australia's 
approval process for 
chicken meat  Australia  Chile NR 
403 India's amended standards 
for food additives  India European 
Union  NR 
2016 
404 South Africa's revised 
veterinary health 
certificates for the import of 
cattle, sheep and goats 
from Botswana, Lesotho, 
Namibia and Swaziland 
(G/SPS/N/ZAF/40)  South Africa  Namibia  R 
405 China's import restrictions 
due to Schmallenberg virus  China  European 
Union  NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 27 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
406 China's import restrictions 
due to Highly Pathogenic 
Avian Influenza  China  European 
Union  NR 
407 EU restrictions on exports 
of pork from the State of 
Santa Catarina  European Union  Brazil  NR 
408 Nigerian restrictions on 
exports of beef and poultry  Nigeria  Brazil  NR 
409 Russian Federation import 
measures  Russian Federation  Ukraine  NR 
410 Costa Rica's regulation on 
registration, use and 
control of pesticides and 
related subs tances 
(G/SPS/N/CRI/48/Add.1)  Costa Rica  Israel  NR 
411 Russian Federation import 
restrictions on certain 
animal products from 
Germany  Russian Federation  European 
Union  NR 
412 EU MRL s for bitertanol, 
tebufenpyrad and 
chlormequat 
(G/SPS/N/EU /168)  European Union  India NR 
413 Guatemala's restrictions on 
egg p roducts  Guatemala  Mexico  NR 
414 Indonesia's food safety 
measures affecting 
horticultural products and 
animal products  Indonesia  Philippines  NR 
415 US seafood import 
monitoring programme  United States of America  China  NR 
416 China's import ban on fresh 
mangosteen  China  Indonesia  NR 
417 India's import requirements 
for teak tree wood  India Panama  NR 
2017 
418 Viet Nam's suspension of 
groundnut seed imports  Viet Nam  Senegal  NR 
419 United States MRLs for 
chlorpyrifos  United States of America  Israel  NR 
420 EU non -recognition of 
regionalization for Avian 
Influenza  European Union  Russian 
Federation  NR 
421 Chinese Taipei - Thailand's 
import restriction on 
papaya seeds  Thailand  Chinese Taipei  NR 
422 France's dimethoate -related 
restrictions on imports  France, European Union  United States 
of America  NR 
423 Brazil's measures on 
bananas  Brazil  Ecuador  NR 
424 Gulf Cooperation Council 
(GCC) Guide for Control of 
Imported Foods  Bahrain, Kingdom of; 
Kuwait, the State of; 
Oman; Qatar; Saudi 
Arabia, Kingdom of;  
United Arab Emirates  United States 
of America  NR 
425 Saudi Arabia's measures on 
shrimp  Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  Ecuador  NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 28 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status8 
426 The Russian Federation's 
import restrictions on wine  Russian Federation  Montenegro  NR 
427 India's fumigation 
requirements for  cashew 
nuts India Senegal  NR 
428 EU MRLS for acrinathrin, 
metalaxyl and 
thiabendazole  European Union  Peru NR 
429 United Arab Emirates 
measures on plant 
protection products  United Arab Emirates  Turkey  NR 
430 EU maximum level of 
cadmium in foodstuffs  European Union  Peru NR 
431 South Africa's import 
restrictions on poultry due 
to highly pathogenic avian 
influenza  South Africa  European 
Union  NR 
432 EU restrictions on poultry 
meat due to salmonella 
detection  European Union  Brazil  NR 
433 Turkey's restrictions on 
rough rice imports  Turkey  United States 
of America  NR 
434 India's fumigation 
requirements for teak tree 
wood (G/SPS/N/IND/149)  India Colombia  NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 29 - 
 
  2  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCE RNS CONSIDERED IN 2017 
2.1.  A total of 32 STCs were brought to the attention of the Committee during 2017, of which 
17 were new STCs (Table 2.1)  and 15 had been raised  previously  (Table 2 .2). In addition, 30 STCs 
in 2017 were r eported as resolved, p artially resolved or where substantive action occurred in 
another WTO body (Table 2.3).  
2.2.  Chart  2.1 shows all the STCs  raised in the Committee , divided by the subject  covered by the 
STC. Overall, 15 STCs (47%) relate to food safety, seven STCs (22%) relate to plant health and 
two STCs (6%) relate to othe r concerns . The remaining eight STCs (25%) relate  to animal health 
and zoonos es, although  this category includes issues that are also relevant from a  food safety  
perspective , such as transmissible spongiform encephalopath ies (TSEs) . Among the eight animal 
health STCs raised in 201 7, three STCs (38%) refer to avian influenza and one STC (12%) to 
TSEs. The remaining four STCs (50%) refer to other  animal health issues . No new STCs refer to 
FMD. 
Chart 2.1 – STCs by Subject – 2017 
 
Chart 2.2 - STCs Related to Animal Health & Zoonos es – 2017 
 
Animal Health
Food Safety
Plant Health
Other815
7
237 7
0Total New
TSEs
12%
AI
38%OAH
50%TSEs
AI
OAHTransmissible 
spongiform 
encephalopathies
Avian influenza
Other animal health G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 30 - 
 
  Chart 2.3 - Participation of Members in STCs – 2017 
 
2.3.  Of the 32 STCs that were discussed in 201 7, 15 were raised by 17 developed country 
Members9, while 18 STCs were raised by 21 developing country Members .10 In 201 7, two STCs 
were raised by two least-developed country Members.  
2.4.  Six STCs were supported by 14 developed country Members and 13 STCs were supported by 
78 developing country Members. Developing and developed country Members have raised or 
supported th e same STC  nine times . Five STCs were supported by 18 least-developed country 
Members.  
2.5.  In nine STCs, the measure at issue was maintained by a developed count ry Member, and in 
21 STCs it was maintained by a developing country Member. In one STC , the measure at issue 
was maintained by six developing country Members. One STC was referred to measures 
maintained by " certain Members", possibly including develop ed and developing country Members. 
No STCs regarding measures maintained by a least -develop ed country Member were raised  in 
2017.11 
2.6.  In 201 7, there were active  proceedings in the context of the WTO dispute settlement system  
with respect to five STCs (185, 286, 359, 369 and 394 ). 
2.7.  Table 2.1 presents STCs according to the Member(s) maintaining the me asure s at issue  in 
the order of the alphabetic list of WTO Members . It provides a summary of the discussions on each 
STC in the SPS Committee in 201 7. 
 
                                                
9 Two of these STCs were raised by two developed country Members . 
10 One of these STCs was raised by three developing country Members; and another  by two developing 
country Members.  
11 STCs can be raised , maintained or supported  by more than one Member, which explains the apparent 
double -counting shown in Charts 2.2 and 2.3 compared with the overall count of the 434 STCs  raised since 
1995.  
Members Maintaining the MeasureSupporting MembersMembers Raising the Issue
91417
277821
0182Number of Members
Least-Developed Countries Developing Countries Developed CountriesG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 31 - 
 
  Table 2.1 – STCs Raised for the First Time in 201 7 
STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status12 
418 Viet Nam's suspension of 
groundnut seed imports  Viet Nam  Senegal  NR 
419 United States MRLs for 
chlorpyrifos  United States of America  Israel  NR 
420 EU non -recognition of 
regionalization for Avian 
Influenza  European Union  Russian 
Federation  NR 
421 Chinese Taipei - Thailand's 
import restriction on 
papaya seeds  Thailand  Chinese Taipei  NR 
422 France's dimethoate -related 
restrictions on imports  European Union (France)  United States 
of America  NR 
423 Brazil's measures on 
bananas  Brazil  Ecuador  NR 
424 Gulf Cooperation Council 
(GCC) Guide for Control of 
Imported Foods  Bahrain, Kingdom of; 
Kuwait, the State of; 
Oman; Qatar; Saudi 
Arabia, Kingdom of; 
United Arab Emirates  United States 
of America  NR 
425 Saudi Arabia's measures on 
shrimp  Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  Ecuador  NR 
426 The Russian Federation's 
import restrictions on wine  Russian Federation  Montenegro  NR 
427 India's fumigation 
requirements for cashew 
nuts India Senegal  NR 
428 EU MRLS for acrinathrin, 
metalaxyl and 
thiabendazole  European Union  Peru NR 
429 United Arab Emirates 
measures on plant 
protection products  United Arab Emirates  Turkey  NR 
430 EU maximum level of 
cadmium in foodstuffs  European Union  Peru NR 
431 South Africa's import 
restrictions on poultry due 
to highly pathogenic avian 
influenza  South Africa  European Union  NR 
432 EU restrictions on poultry 
meat due to salmonella 
detection  European Union  Brazil  NR 
433 Turkey's restrictions on 
rough rice imports  Turkey  United States 
of America  NR 
434 India's fumigation 
requirements for teak tree 
wood (G/SPS/N/IND/149)  India Colombia  NR 
 
                                                
12 NR = Not Reported, PR = Partially Resolved, R = Resolved.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 32 - 
 
  Table 2 .2 - STCs  Previously Raised and Discussed Again in 201 7 
STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status13 
184 Lack of transparency for 
certain SPS measures  China  Israel; United 
States of 
America  NR 
193 General import restrictions 
due to BSE   European 
Union; United 
States of 
America  PR 
238 Application and modification 
of the EU Regulation on 
Novel Foods  European Union  Colombia; 
Ecuador; Peru  NR 
344 Measures on shrimp  Brazil  Ecuador  NR 
354 Import restrictions in 
response to the Japanese 
nuclear power plant 
accident  China  Japan  NR 
382 European Union revised 
proposal for categorization 
of compounds as endocrine 
disruptors  European Union  Argentina; 
China; United 
States of 
America  NR 
387 Chinese Taipei's import 
restrictions in response to 
the nuclear power plant 
accident  Chinese Taipei  Japan  NR 
390 The Russian Federation's 
import restrictions on 
processed fishery products 
from Estonia and Latvia  Russian Federation  European Union  NR 
392 China's import restrictions 
due to African swine fever  China  European Union  NR 
393 Korea's import restrictions 
due to African swine fever  Korea, Republic of  European Union  NR 
395 China's proposed 
amendments to the 
implementation regulations 
on safety assessment of 
agricultural GMOs  China  Paraguay; 
United States of 
America  NR 
406 China's import restrictions 
due to Highly Pathogenic 
Avian Influenza  China  European 
Union; United 
States of 
America  NR 
411 Russian Federation import 
restrictions on certain 
animal products from 
Germany  Russian Federation  European Union  NR 
415 US seafood import 
monitoring programme  United States of America  China  NR 
416 China's import ban on fresh 
mangosteen  China  Indonesia  NR 
                                                
13 NR = Not Reported, PR = Partially Resolved, R = Resolved.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 33 - 
 
  Table 2.3 - STCs Reported as Resolved , Partially Resolved  or Where Substantive Action 
Occurred in Another WTO Body in 201 7 
STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status14 
48 Import ban on livestock  Turkey  Hungary; 
United States 
of America  R 
61 Import restrictions on 
bovine semen  India Canada; 
European 
Union  PR 
88 Import restrictions due to 
FMD Canada; United States of 
America  Hungary  R 
108 Cut flowers  European Union  Ecuador; Israel  PR 
123 Restrictions on imports of 
potatoes, onions, fertilised 
eggs, day -old chicks and 
meat products  Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of Canada; 
Colombia  R 
135 Restrictions on beef and 
pork South Africa  Brazil  R 
137 Import restrictions on meat 
and meat products  United States of America  Switzerland  R 
141 Pest risk assessments for 
imports of plant origin  Brazil  Canada  R 
185* Restrictions due to avian 
influenza  India European 
Union, United 
States of 
America  NR/  
DS 430  
208 Food and feed hygiene rules  European Union  Canada  R 
239 Tolerance levels for soil 
content on potato tubers  Dominican Republic  Canada  R 
264 Maximum residue levels for 
Ethephon in pineapple  European Union  Ecuador  PR 
274 Korea's Livestock Epidemic 
Prevention Act  Korea, Republic of  Canada  R 
276 Maximum residue levels for 
pesticides in cocoa  European Union  Ecuador  PR 
285 Import restrictions on fresh 
pork meat and beef  United States of America  Brazil  R 
286* Import restrictions on 
poultry meat  Indonesia  Brazil  NR/  
DS 484  
287 Import restrictions on fresh 
pork meat and beef  South Africa  Brazil  R 
291 BSE Measures  Chinese Taipei  Canada  R 
304 Proposed MRL for 1 -
Methylcyclopropene in 
bananas  Canada  Ecuador  PR 
317 Mexico's BSE measures  Mexico  Canada  R 
325 EU regulations on cadmium 
in cocoa  European Union  Colombia; 
Ecuador  PR 
326 Restrictions on table 
grapes, apples and pears  Thailand  South Africa  PR 
359* Strengthened import 
restrictions on food and 
feeds products with regard 
to radionuclides  Korea, Republic of  Japan  NR/  
DS 495  
                                                
14 NR = Not Reported, PR = Partially Resolved, R = Resolved.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 34 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status14 
362 Import restrictions on beef 
due to BSE  South Africa  Brazil  R 
363 Import restrictions on beef 
due to BSE  China  Brazil  R 
369* Russia's measures on live 
pigs and pork products due 
to African Swine fever  Russian Federation  European 
Union  NR/  
DS 475   
394* Costa Rica's suspension of 
the issuing of phytosanitary 
import certificates for 
avocados  Costa Rica  Mexico; 
Guatemala  NR/  
DS 524  
398 Viet Nam's restrictions on 
fruit due to fruit flies  Viet Nam  Chile R 
399 Viet Nam's restrictions on 
plant products  Viet Nam  Chile PR 
404 South Africa's revised 
veterinary health 
certificates for the import of 
cattle, sheep and goats 
from Botswana, Lesotho, 
Namibia and Swaziland  South Africa  Namibia  R 
 
* Panel proceedings occurred in the context of the WTO dispute settlement system. For more information, see 
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dispu_e.htm . 
 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 35 - 
 
  2.1  Australia  
2.1.1   Animal Health  
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  
2.8.  See paragraphs 2. 400.-2.467. 
2.2  Bahrain, Kingdom of  
2.2.1   Food Safety  
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Guide for Control of Imported Foods  (STC 424)  
Raised by:  United States of America  
Supported by:  Brazil  
Dates raised:  July 2017 (G/SPS/R/87, paras. 4.3 -4.4) 
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.9.  In July 2017, the United States expressed concerns on the proposed Guide for Control on 
Imported Foods (Guide), developed by the Gulf Cooperation Council (notified as 
G/SPS/N/BHR/164, G/SPS/N/QAT /22/Add.3, G/SPS/N/OMN/44/Rev.1 and 
G/SPS/N/SAU/14/Add.2). The United States expressed appreciation to GCC members for the 
extensive bilateral engagement and to Kuwait and the Kingdom of Bahrain for their June 
notifications on their non -implementation of t he Guide until further notice (G/SPS/N/KWT/4/Add.1 
and G/SPS/N/BHR/164/Add.1, respectively). The United States urged all GCC members to follow 
that example to prevent any confusion as to the status of the proposed food safety requirements.  
2.10.   Brazil shared th e concern of the United States and also welcomed Kuwait and Bahrain's 
notifications, as well as the continued engagement with the GCC.  
2.11.   Bahrain, on behalf of the GCC, thanked the United States and Brazil for their interest and 
engagement, and informed that the rest of the GCC members would be notifying their suspension 
of the implementation of the Guide.  
2.3  Brazil  
2.3.1   Animal Health  
Measures on shrimp (STC 344)  
Raised by:  Ecuador  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, paras. 180 -181), March 2013 (G/SPS/R/70, 
paras. 3.25 -3.26), March 2014 (G/SPS/R/74, paras. 3.9 -3.10), October 
2016 (G/SPS/R/84, paras. 3.40 -3.41) , March 2017 (G/SPS/R/86, 
paras.  9.1-9.4), July 2017 (G/SPS/R/87, paras. 4.35 -4.36)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 36 - 
 
  2.12.   In October 2012, Ecuador flagged the drastic decrease in its shrimp exports due to Brazil's 
Regulation 39, that placed conditions on the authorization for shrimp imports so as to prevent the 
introduction  of white spot and yellow head virus. Ecuador had spent considerable resources in 
protecting and preserving its shrimp production from these two diseases through the residue and 
contaminant monitoring plans, which had been provided to Brazil. The Brazilian  authorities had 
indicated that the measures adopted in Regulation 39 had been lifted; however the Brazilian 
Ministry of Agriculture published another Standard 12 establishing procedures for import risk 
analysis that was yet to be implemented. Bilateral di scussions had resulted in information 
exchange and Ecuador hoped for a rapid mutual solution to the issue.  
2.13.   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.  
2.14.   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 stopped in 2000. Brazil had justified its import 
restrictions on the basis that the measure protected the country from white and yellow spot 
diseases. However, following the imple mentation 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 phas e 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.  
2.15.   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 March, but the report was expected to be 
published soon. Brazil looked forward to moving on to the subsequent phases of the risk analysis 
as soon as the report on hazard identification was published.  
2.16.   At the March 2014 meeting Ecuador again urged Brazil to complete th e risk assessment 
within a reasonable time and stressed that Ecuador had quarantine mechanisms in place to detect 
white spot disease in its fisheries. Ecuador offered to provide information and enable inspections 
from the Brazilian authorities in order to ensure compliance with Brazil's requirements and 
accelerate the process of risk assessment.  
2.17.   Brazil noted that the risk assessment was a complex task, but the process was moving 
forward and Brazil had concluded its public consultations.  It was prepared to s end an inspection 
delegation to Ecuador in June, as a follow -up to a questionnaire  sent in March.  
2.18.   In October 2016, Ecuador reiterated its concern regarding Brazil's suspension of shrimp 
imports from Ecuador. This measure was in effect since 2000 and aimed at protecting Brazil from 
endemic pathologies such as White spot syndrome virus and Yellow head  disease. Both diseases 
also existed in Brazil. Ecuador emphasized the importance of shrimp exports for its economy, 
recalling that Brazil had initiated an impor t risk assessment (IRA) for Ecuadorian shrimp at the 
beginning of 2011. The first of the four steps of the IRA had only been finalized in June 2013, and 
the second step had not yet been concluded. Ecuador insisted that it had provided sufficient 
informatio n to Brazil throughout this time, and noted that in July 2014 a group of technical experts 
from Brazil had visited various entities in Ecuador. During the last meeting held in July 2016 the 
Brazilian officials in charge of the technical report recognized t hat the import risk assessment had 
exceeded the time usually deemed necessary for such a process. Ecuador recalled that since 2007 
a residues and contaminants monitoring plan for all aquaculture establishments had been in place 
and its shrimp products regu larly accessed markets with high SPS standards. Ecuador regretted 
that despite its bilateral engagement with Brazil on the IRA, half of the process had not yet been 
concluded after six years, and shrimp exports from Ecuador had been stopped for more than a  
decade. Ecuador requested that Brazil swiftly provide the timetable for the remaining steps of the 
IRA, and that the process move forward promptly in order for shrimp exports from Ecuador to 
regain access to the Brazilian market.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 37 - 
 
  2.19.   Brazil responded that in 2015 its health authorities requested that specific mandatory 
adjustment measures be implemented at the level of the Official Veterinary Services and private 
sector in Ecuador, and that missing information be shared. Brazil indicated that these measures –
disease -specific monitoring plans, submission of samples and controls, training of staff and 
notification – were compulsory to allow imports of Ecuadorian shrimp into Brazil. Brazil explained 
that a final report with these various requests had been sent to the competent authorities in 
Ecuador, requesting a structured action plan integrating the mandatory measures within 60 days 
of receipt. However, Brazil reported it received Note 4 -7-0/2015 from Ecuador past the proposed 
timeline and still there was no comp liance with the established requirements, which justified 
the delay. Brazil stated that it was waiting to receive the struct ured action plan containing 
the requested changes at the official veterinary services and private sector levels. The information 
in this plan would be used to support the risk assessment phase of the IRA. Favourable results in 
the IRA, along with the finalized adjustment measures, would pave the way for authorizing shrimp 
imports from Ecuador.  
2.20.   In March 2017, Ecuador referred to its pre viously raised concern regarding Brazil's 
suspension of shrimp imports from Ecuador following the implementation of Regulation No. 39/99 
on 4 November 1999. Shrimp imports were subject to authorization, once a prior risk analysis had 
been undertaken by the  Animal Protection Department in Brazil. Ecuador argued that the measure 
was not based on scientific evidence or on a risk assessment, as re quired by Articles 2.2. and 
5.1 of the SPS Agreement. Ecuador acknowledged Members' right under Article 5.7 to adopt  
provisional measures, but highlighted the obligation to obtain the necessary additional information 
for a more objective risk assessment and to review the measure in a reasonable period of time, 
whereas the measure at issue did not take into account Artic le 3.1 of the SPS Agreement or 
the OIE recommendations, particularly those in Chapters 2.2.2 and 2.2.7 of the Manual of 
Diagno stic Tests for Aquatic Animals.  
2.21.   Ecuador recalled that the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture had established a general 
procedure fo r undertaking import risk analysis of fish and fish products, as well as aquatic animals 
and propagating materials (Regulation No. 14). Ecuador insisted that it had provided sufficient 
information to Brazil, and noted that a group of technical experts from  Brazil had visited various 
entities in Ecuador. Ecuador underscored that it had implemented a series of measures to 
guarantee the quality of its shrimp, however, no import risk assessment had been undertaken up 
to the last Committee meeting in October 201 6. Ecuador highlig hted the obligation under 
Annex  C(1) of the SPS Agreement for Members to carry out a risk assessment with no undue 
delay.  
2.22.   Ecuador had been informed by its Embassy in Brasilia of the circulation of Memorandum 
Circular 6/2017/DSA -SDA/SDA/ MAPA of February 2017, which established a series of animal 
health requirements for the import of shrimps. Ecuador welcomed this decision which would clarify 
the conditions under which shrimps could access their market, however, it was currently awaiting 
official confirmation of this information and further requested Brazil to provide this confirmation in 
a timely manner. Ecuador also raised a series of questions, which it requested Brazil to transmit to 
it competent authority, in relation to the product co verage of the Circular and authorization 
procedures, among others. Ecuador had also learnt of an Executive Decision to transfer the 
Aquaculture and Fisheries Secretariat of the Ministry of Agriculture to the Ministry of Industry, 
Foreign Trade and Services . Ecuador expressed its concern that these administrative changes 
could result in undue delays, similar to delays experienced in 2015 due to the transfer of 
responsibilities to the Ministry of Agriculture.  
2.23.   Brazil indicated that it was unable to provide a c omplete response, since it had not been 
aware of the content of Ecuador's intervention. However, Brazil noted that the process for the 
authorization of shrimps from Ecuador was in its final phase and underscored that the process had 
taken into consideratio n the submissions from Ecuador, as well as all available scientific evidence. 
Brazil requested Ecuador to submit a written copy of its questions for onward communication to its 
capital.  
2.24.   In July 2017, Ecuador referred to its previously raised concern regard ing Brazil's suspension 
of shrimp imports from Ecuador, and recalled that it had provided Brazil with all the requested 
evidence but that after almost 20 years there was still no risk assessment. Ecuador also noted that 
SPS requirements for shrimps had bee n established in February 2017 and that in May 2017 Brazil 
had informed Ecuador of its equivalency for the inspection system for shellfish, and that enabled G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 38 - 
 
  plants were authorized to export. However, a group of Brazilian producers presented a court action 
which led to the suspension of the authorization to import shrimps from Ecuador. Ecuador 
highlighted the importance of exports for its economy and regretted the barriers imposed by Brazil 
on its most exported products, shrimp and bananas. Ecuador contended  that Brazil's measures 
were not in conformity with various provisions of the SPS Agreement and Article XI of the GATT.  
2.25.   Brazil underlined its open market for imports of shrimps from Ecuador, as reflected in its 
letter No. 926/2017 sent on 9 May informing E cuador's sanitary authorities of the recognition of 
equivalence of their fish inspection system. Brazil indicated that the plants previously qualified 
were allowed to export, prior approval of the labelling, while plants that had not yet been 
authorized to  export had to request authorization. Finally, Brazil drew attention to its document 
"Animal Health Requirements of Brazil for the importation of non -viable crustaceans and 
derivatives derived from extractive fisheries or aquaculture", of January 2017.  
2.3.2   Plant Health  
Brazil's measures on bananas  (STC 423)  
Raised by:  Ecuador  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  July 2017 (G/SPS/R/878, paras. 4.1 -4.2), November 2017 (G/SPS/R/88, 
paras. 3.28 -3.29)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.26.   In July 2017, Ecuador informed that Brazil had suspended its imports of bananas from 
Ecuador since 1997, due to alleged phytosanitary reasons. Ecuador reported on the measures 
taken to resolve the issue, including visits of experts from Brazil to its banan a plantations, the 
signing of agreements, the provision of technical reports and finally a work plan for the export of 
Ecuadorian bananas to Brazil, stressing the safety of the product. Ecuador affirmed that Brazil's 
de jure and de facto  restrictions were inconsistent with several provisions of the SPS Agreement. 
Ecuador remained positive on the implementation of the bilateral agreements on this issue and 
Brazil's 20 14 Normative Instruction No. 3.  
2.27.   Brazil responded that the Department of Plant Health of the Ministry of Agriculture, 
Livestock and Food Supply (MAPA) had set up a working group to finalize the risk analysis process 
regarding diseases that affected bananas originating in Ecuador. Brazil also reported that Ecuador 
had requested a modification of th e applicable Normative Instruction No. 3/2014, upon which 
Brazil had submitted new text to Ecuador. If this text was agreed upon, Brazil would proceed with 
the corresponding regulatory process.  
2.28.   In Novem ber 2017, Ecuador reiterated its concern over the imp ort suspension of Ecuadorian 
bananas to Brazil. Ecuador urged Brazil to comply with its Normative Instruction No. 3 of 21 March 
2014, which laid down sanitary and phytosanitary standards for bananas, based on which Ecuador 
submitted a working plan to Brazi l. Ecuador regretted that the import ban had already lasted for 
more than 20 years.  
2.29.   Brazil emphasized its bilateral engagement with Ecuador, noting that Ecuador's concern on 
the ban on shrimps had been resolved. Regarding bananas, Brazil explained that it s Ministry of 
Agriculture was reviewing Ecuador's working plan. Brazil aimed to streamline its standards with its 
normative instruction on technical standards for banana imports. Brazil also referred to its working 
meeting with Ecuadorian plant safety auth orities and remained positive about swift progress in 
resolving Ecuador's concern.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 39 - 
 
  2.4  China  
2.4.1   Food safety  
Import restrictions in response to the Japanese nuclear power plant accident (STC 354)  
Raised by:  Japan  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  June 2013 (G/SPS/R/71, paras. 4.7-4.11), March 2014 (G/SPS/R/74, 
paras. 3.11 -3.12), July 2014 (G/SPS/R/75, paras. 4.31 -4.32), October 
2014 (G/SPS/R/76, paras. 3.11 -3.12), March 2 015 (G/SPS/R/78, 
paras.  3.18-3.19), July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.39 -3.41), Octo ber 
2015 (G/SPS/R/81, paras. 3.32 -3.33) , March 2016 (G/SPS/R/82, 
paras.  3.24-3.25), June 2016 (G/SPS/R/83, paras. 4.30 -4.31), October 
2016 (G/SPS/R/84, paras. 3.14 -3.15) , March 2017 (G/SPS/R/86, 
paras.  3.10-3.11)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.30.   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 impos ed a food intervention exemption 
level of 1mSv/year - equivalent to the 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 Japanese 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 consi gnment as a provisional measure. 
Hong Kong, China and Chinese Taipei had already begun to analyse the monitoring data provided 
by Japan, and Japan looked forward to the opportunity the meet with China regarding this trade 
concern.  
2.31.   Chinese Taipei explained that although Japanese 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 pre -export l aboratory 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.  
2.32.   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 fu lly 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.  
2.33.   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 r equested 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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 40 - 
 
  2.34.   Japan explained that the detectio n of nuclear 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.  
2.35.   At the March 2014 meeting, Japan reiterated its concern over impo rt restrictions by China 
on Japanese food exports, mainly food and feed, following TEPCO's nuclear power station incident. 
China maintained the ban on all types of food and feed from ten prefectures in Japan and 
requested the submission of an official pre -test certificate for fruits, vegetables, milk products, 
medicinal plants and fishery products from all other prefectures. Japan considered that these 
measures were more trade restrictive than necessary and not based on the relevant international 
standard. Furthermore, China had not yet approved the form for t he requested certificate. 
Japan  requested that China expeditiously finalize its analysis of the proposed certificate, and either 
accept or specify amendments, if any, to the proposed form.  
2.36.   China explain ed that since the nuclear leak incident, serious contamination threats existed 
to Japan's maritime products. Several adjustments had been made to inspection and quarantine 
measures since then. China had requested information from Japan in order to conduct a risk 
assessment. In addition, due to the risk of radioactive contamination of alcoholic beverages, a 
prohibition had been imposed in accordance with the enhanced inspection and quarantine 
measures of Japan. Based on the conclusions of its risk analyses, China had permitted a number of 
imports from two prefectures.  
2.37.   In July 2014, Japan reiterated its concern over import restrictions by China on Japanese 
food exports, following TEPCO's nuclear power station incident. China maintained a ban on 
products from t en prefectures in Japan and requested the submission of an official pre -test 
certificate for fruits, vegetables, tea, milk, medicinal plants and their products from other 
prefectures. These measures were more trade restrictive than necessary, not based on the 
relevant Codex standards and applied in a manner that constituted a disguised restriction on 
international trade. Japan requested that China promptly accepted the proposed pre -test 
certificate and lift the import ban on the ten prefectures.  
2.38.   China expla ined that since the nuclear leak incident, serious contamination threats existed 
to Japan's agriculture and maritime products. Several adjustments had been made to inspection 
and quarantine measures since then. China had received Japan's request to lift th e import 
restrictions and was in the process of reviewing technical data and conducting research and risk 
analyses. The current measures would be reviewed accordingly.  
2.39.   In October 2014, Japan recalled its concern over import restrictions by China on Japanes e 
food exports, following TEPCO's nuclear power station incident. Japan regretted that no progress 
had been made since the July 2014 SPS Committee Meeting, as China maintained a ban on 
products from ten Japanese prefectures. This ban might not be based on international standards 
and be more trade -restrictive than required to achieve the appropriate level of protection. 
In June 2013, Japan had provided China with monitoring results that had demonstrated that 
Japan's food was safe for human consumption. Moreo ver, Japan raised its concern that additional 
prefectures were also subject to import bans on vegetables, fruits, tea, milk, medicinal plants and 
related products. While China had announced in 2011 that it would lift the import ban on those 
products, it ha d since been reluctant to do so, although Japan had proposed pre -test certificates. 
Japan was concerned that China deliberately avoided any progress on this issue, raising the doubt 
that China was applying its measures in a manner which might constitute a disguised restriction on 
international trade. Japan requested China to immediately accept Japan's pre -test certificates, and 
to lift the import ban without further delay.  
2.40.   China explained that TEP CO's nuclear power station incident, which had brought great 
losses to Japan, had posed serious threats to food safety. China had imposed corresponding 
measures on agricultural and marine products from Japan, based on risk assessment in compliance 
with int ernational practice. China had already adjusted the inspection and quarantine measures for 
Japanese food and agricultural products, and continued to apply restrictions only for high -risk 
products from seriously polluted regions. Following  Japan's request, China was currently analyzing 
the technical data pro vided and would review the measures accordingly.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 41 - 
 
  2.41.   In March 2015, Japan recalled its concern over import restrictions by China on Japanese 
food exports, following TEPCO's nuclear power station incident. Japan had expressed the same 
concern three times consec utively since last March and regretted that no progress had been made, 
since China still maintained a ban on products from ten Japanese prefectures. In Japan's view, this 
ban was not based on international standards and was more trade -restrictive than requ ired to 
achieve the appropriate level of protection. Japan reiterated its observations  presented  in October 
2014 in reference to events occurred in June 2013 . 
2.42.   China restated the observations presented during the 2014 October meeting.  Furthermore,  
China exp ressed concerns about reports by Japanese media about the monitoring procedures for 
nuclear pollution of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear power plant. According to Japanese media, 
the company responsible for the monitoring had used simple detection methods an d had directly 
discharged nuclear wastewater into the open sea. Additionally, no action had been taken after 
discovering a high presence of radioactive substances in some drainage channels. China invited 
Japan to verify the media reporting and noted that C hina would  take measures according to 
the technical documents provided by Japan and to the experts' assessment results.  
2.43.   In July 2015, Japan reiterated  its concern regarding the import restrictions imposed by 
China on Japanese food exports after the acciden t at TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power 
Station. Japan recalled that despite raising this concern in eac h Committee meeting since 
March  2014, no progress had been made. Japan regretted that China maintained a ban on 
products from ten prefectures witho ut considering additional information provided. Japan had 
proposed pre -test certificates in June 2011, answered all technical  questions asked in August 2012 
and shared a comprehensive monitoring result in June 2013. Japan reiterated its concerns that 
China  had deliberately avoided any progress on this issue for more than three years, and that its 
measures and actions were not in line with the requirement  of several articles of the 
SPS Agreement including Article 2.3, Article 7 and Annex B as well as Article  8 and An nex C. 
Japan  urged China to accept the proposed form of the pre -test certificate and to immediately lift 
the import ban on the ten Japanese prefectures. Japan stressed that it would consider every 
effective option for the resolution of this issue.  
2.44.   China explained that it had been adjusting its measures on Japanese imports in accordance 
with Japan's nuclear pollution status and its risk analysis results. Import restrictions were currently 
imposed only for high -risk products from seriously polluted r egions. China noted that through 
smooth bilateral cooperation, exports from Japan had increased each year since 2012, and in 2014 
represented more than 85% of the level of exports in 2010. China noted that the monitoring of the 
Fukushima Daiichi power plan t revealed that Japan's control measures were unsatisfactory, 
especially regarding the treatment of radioactive waste water, which had delayed the lifting of 
import restrictions. China was currently conducting a risk assessment on the latest status of 
nuclear pollution, based on updated information received in April 2015.  
2.45.   Japan appreciated China's comments and welcomed more consultations between the 
competent authorities of both governments.  
2.46.   In October 2015, Japan reiterated its concern regarding the import  restrictions imposed by 
China on Japanese food exports after the accident at TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power 
Station. Japan recalled that de spite raising this concern in each Committee meeting since 
March  2014, no progress had been made. Japan reg retted that China maintained a ban on 
products from ten prefectures without considering the additional information provided on pre -test 
certificates in June 2011. Japan stated that since then no substantive response from China 
indicating the scientific jus tification of  the ban had been received. Japan also questioned the 
duration of the risk assessment currently being conducted by China, which was taking too long. 
In September 2015, Japan had sent an official request to China requesting clarification and 
justification of its measures in light of the provisions of the SPS Agreement. Japan strongly urged 
China to complete its risk assessment and respond to the official request to facilitate progress on 
this concern.  
2.47.   China stated that it had provided a detailed  explanation and clarification at the last meeting 
of the Committee. China was currently conducting a risk assessment on the latest status of nuclear 
pollution and would adjust its measures according to the results.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 42 - 
 
  2.48.   In March 2016, Japan reiterated its conc ern regarding the import restrictions imposed by 
China on Japanese food exports after the accident at TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power 
Station and reported that at the end of October 2015, a letter had been received from Beijing. 
Subsequent letters had been sent in response to China's requests, and no further clarifications 
from China had been received. China maintained the ban on certain products from 37 prefectures. 
Japan stated that, based on various trade data, demand for Japanese food existed an d a removal 
of the ban could increase exports. Japan looked forward to the resolution of this issue in the near 
future.  
2.49.   China reported that there had been no update since October 2015 since the risk assessment 
was still ongoing. China recalled its interven tions in previous meetings on this issue.  
2.50.   In June 2016, Japan reiterated its concern regarding the import restrictions imposed by 
China on Japanese food exports in response to the nuclear power plant accident. Japan recalled 
that in the March 2016 SPS Comm ittee meeting, China had reported that the risk assessment was 
still ongoing. Japan queried the timeframe for the completion of the risk. Japan observed that it 
would be able to cooperate with China to conduct the risk assessment more efficiently if it rec eived 
more information on the process. Japan highlighted that there had been no easing of China's 
import restrictions since June 2011, although an increasing number of WTO Members had already 
lifted or eased their import restrictions on Japanese foods. Chi na's import ban was still stringently 
imposed on all types of foods and alcoholic beverages from ten Japanese prefectures. Many types 
of foods were still substantially unauthorized to be imported due to China's requirement that the 
test results of radioact ive strontium 90 and radioactive caesium be included in the export 
certificates of these products. Japan expressed its concern that, given the current level of 
technology, approximately one month was required to acquire the test results of radioactive 
strontium 90, and as such the requirement of this test result made it impossible to export fresh 
foods such as vegetables and dairy products to China. Japan had sent several letters to Beijing on 
this issue. Japan emphasized the need for import restriction s to be consistent with the 
SPS Agreement and further requested China to provide information on the current stage of the risk 
assessment process and the scientific justification for requiring the submission of test results of 
radioactive strontium 90.  
2.51.   China re plied that it had provided the Committee with a detailed explanation and 
clarification in previous SPS Committee meetings, particularly with regard to the rationale, scope 
and adjustment of this measure. Currently, China was undertaking a study on the upda ted 
information supplied by Japan and would adjust its measures on the basis of the risk assessment 
results.  
2.52.   In October 2016, Japan reiterated its concern regarding the import restrictions imposed by 
China on Japanese food exports in response to the nuclear power plant accident. Japan recalled 
that there had been no easing of China's import restrictions since June 2011, although an 
increasing number of WTO Members had already lifted or eased their import restrictions on 
Japanese foods. China's import ban was still imposed on all types of food and alcoholic beverages 
from ten Japanese prefectures and on various types of food products from the remaining 
prefectures. Japan expressed its particular concern with regard to the ongoing risk assessment by 
China. Japan questioned China's endless risk assessment process, which seemed to be 
continuously held at the stage of considering the latest data submitted. Japan expressed its 
willingness to invite the relevant Chinese authorities to assess first -hand the cur rent food safety 
situation and visit the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.  
2.53.   China thanked Japan for providing information on the latest developments of its food safety 
controls from July and September 2016. China was currently reviewing the updated inf ormation 
and would adjust its measures on the basis of the risk assessment results.  
2.54.   In March 2017, Japan reiterated its concern regarding the import restrictions imposed by 
China on Japanese food exports in response to the nuclear power plant accident. Jap an recalled 
that China's import restrictions on Japanese products since June 2011 were amongst the most 
stringent measures, while an increasing number of WTO Members had already lifted or eased their 
import restrictions on Japanese foods. China's import ba n was still imposed on all types of food 
and alcoholic beverages from ten Japanese prefectures and on various types of food products from 
the remaining prefectures. Japan expressed its particular concern with China's ongoing risk 
assessment. In November 20 16, it had again submitted a large amount of documentation for G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 43 - 
 
  China's risk assessment process, which seemed to be continuously held at the stage of considering 
the latest data submitted. In addition, Japan called upon China to communicate science -based 
information on food safety matters to avoid misleading interpretations by the public on the safety 
of Japanese foods.  
2.55.   China recalled that it had imposed a ban on imports of certain high -risk products from ten 
nuclear -contaminated areas in Japan after the pow er plant accident in 2011, in full compliance 
with the SPS Agreement. China took note of the Japanese and international media reports, 
comments and studies that generally believed that the Japanese government lacked effective 
means to deal with radioactive  waste, the discharge of which posed risks to the marine 
environment and public health, that information disclosure was not transparent and that food 
safety related data were not sufficiently convincing. According to a report released in February 
2017, rad iation at the nuclear reactor was at its highest since the 2011 meltdown. China urged 
Japan to promptly communicate accurate and reliable food safety information. The consequences 
of radioactive leaks on the marine environment, food safety and human health  concerned all 
neighbouring Members, not only Japan. China noted that food safety risk assessment could be a 
lengthy process, especially on such a technical and complex topic. China urged Japan to take 
effective measures to ensure its food safety, while co ntinuing bilateral cooperation towards finding 
a solution.  
2.56.   Japan recalled that the matter at hand were the levels of radionuclides in food, which 
according to its measures were safe, and therefore China's attention should focus on food safety 
instead of en vironmental matters.  
2.57.   China responded that food safety was threatened by numerous contaminants which could 
originate from environmental pollution, and that food safety risk assessment involved the process 
of identifying, analyzing and characterizing a food -related health risk, including risks that might 
arise from contaminated water, soil and other aspects of the environment. China encouraged 
Japan to disclose all factual and accurate information on this issue.  
China's proposed amendments to the implementat ion regulations on safety assessment 
of agricultural GMOs (STC 395)  
Raised by:  Paraguay, United States of America  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.16 -3.18), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, 
paras. 3.42 -3.44) , March 2016 (G/SPS/R/82, paras. 3.59 -3.60), June 
2016 (G/SPS/R/83, paras. 4.47 -4.48), October 2016 (G/SPS/R/84, 
paras. 3.52 -3.53 ) , March 2017 (G/SPS/R/86, paras. 3.42 -3.43)  
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/N/CHN/881  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.58.   In July 2015, Paraguay raised a concern about the inclusion of some socio -economic aspects 
in the Chinese risk assessment process for GMOs, contrary to Article 5 of SPS Agreement and to 
the guidance of the relevant international organizations recognized by t he WTO. The amendments 
to the implementing regulations had been notified in G/SPS/N/CHN/881. Paraguay stated that the 
measures, which went beyond scientific principles, could lead to arbitrary or unjustified 
distinctions, and that the inclusion of these el ements could undermine the production of safe food. 
Paraguay therefore requested China to reconsider the amendments to the regulations.  
2.59.   The United States shared Paraguay's concern, and stressed the importance of notification of 
such measures to allow tradi ng partners to review proposed changes, provide and discuss 
comments, and see them being taken into account. The United States highlighted its concerns 
about the negative impact that policies related to regulatory approval procedures for biotech 
products c ould have on the ability of consumers and producers to reap the benefits of advances in 
technology through trade. The delays and lack of transparency in China's current biotech approval 
process meant that several products were pending at various stages in the process, despite the 
SPS Agreement's prohibition on undue delays in approval procedures and its obligation regarding G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 44 - 
 
  standard processing periods and for a mechanism to resolve complaints. China was seeking to 
remove the specific timelines governing its  regulatory review process, and was introducing new 
criteria referring to economic and social considerations. The United States had requested additional 
information from China in order to better understand the objectives behind the proposed changes. 
The Un ited States also wished to ensure that the measures would comply with the SPS Agreement, 
and requested that China delay the implementation of the revisions to allow for a substantive 
dialogue with its trading partners. The United States further requested t hat China approve the 
currently pending events in a timely fashion and that the proposed changes to China's approval 
system not depart from the key tenets of timely, predictable science -based approvals required by 
the SPS Agreement.  
2.60.   China replied that the changes to its regulations aimed to enhance the management of 
safety evaluations for agricultural GMOs. The draft version of these management measures had 
been notified on 2 June and was open to comments until 1 August 2015. China indicated that it 
had not  received comments from the United States and Paraguay, but would take any comments 
into consideration for further modification and improvement of the measures.  
2.61.   In October 2015, the United States again raised concerns with China's Proposed 
Amendments to th e Implementation Regulations on Safety Assessment of Agricultural Genetically 
Modified Organisms, which amends the requirements for the safety assessment for genetically 
engineered products (notified as G/SPS/N/CHN/881). The United States appreciated the e xtensive 
and productive bilateral meetings held with Chinese authorities since the July 2015 Committee 
meeting. The United States also welcomed China's reaffirmation of the importance of 
implementing timely, transparent, predictable, and science -based appr oval processes that were 
based on international standards, as well as China's commitment to revise and improve its 
regulation based on comprehensive consultations with domestic and international stakeholders and 
to enhance its capabilities in safety admini stration and safety approval of agricultural 
biotechnology products. The United States noted again that there were 24 products pending at 
various stages in China's regulatory process, including seven poised for final adoption that had 
been pending as long as since 2010, and requested that China approve these products in a timely 
and expeditious fashion. The United States thanked China for its engagement and commitments to 
resolving this process.  
2.62.   Paraguay shared this concern about the inclusion of socio -economic aspects in the Chinese 
risk assessment process for GMOs, contrary to Article 5 of SPS Agreement and to the guidance of 
the relevant international organizations. Paraguay stated that the measures, which went beyond 
scientific principles, could lead to arbitrary or unjustified distinctions, and that the inclusion of 
these elements could undermine the production of safe food. Paraguay therefore requested China 
to reconsider the amendments to the regulations.  
2.63.   China replied that the changes to its regulatio ns aimed to enhance the management of 
safety evaluations for agricultural GMOs in response to the rapid development of biotechnology as 
well as social and environmental concerns. The draft version of these management measures had 
been notified on 2 June an d had been open ed to comments until 1 August 2015. China received 
comments from Australia, Brazil, Canada and the United States. China thanked Members for their 
comments and was now in the process of reviewing and analysing them. Feedback to Members 
would be provided through the proper channels. China assured Members that, in line with the 
relevant requirements of the SPS Agreement, China's agricultural GMOs safety evaluation would be 
based on science, taking into account the relevant economic factors. Chin a remained ready to 
continue bilateral discussions and consultations with interested Members on this issue.  
2.64.   In March 2016, the United States again raised concerns with China's Proposed Amendments 
to the Implementation Regulations on Safety Assessment of Ag ricultural GMOs, which amended 
the requirements for the safety assessment for genetically engineered products, notified as 
G/SPS/N/CHN/881. The United States stated that China approved only three of the 11 pending 
products that were poised for final approv al. The pending products were subject to technical and 
administrative questions. The United States viewed this as an attempt to slow down new product 
approvals by posing procedural questions, imposing regulatory requirements not used by other 
countries, an d by asking questions outside of the contours of scientific evidence. Following the 
consensus between the Presidents of the two countries and commitments made at the bilateral 
dialogues in November 2015, the United States expected that China's biotech revi ews would move 
forward with greater transparency, timeliness, predictability and would rely on science as the only G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 45 - 
 
  criterion for evaluating the products of agriculture biotechnology. The United States reiterated that 
China had also committed to revise its regulations, based on comprehensive consultation with 
domestic and international stakeholders, and to enhance its capability of safety administration and 
approval of agricultural products. Hence, the United States hoped to see China's concrete actions 
to achieve greater predictability in the approval process and to ensure that science based decisions 
were taken when amending its regulatory process, as indicated in G/SPS/N/CHN/881. In this 
regard, the United States looked forward to China's publication and n otification of its final revision 
to Decree 8 upon completion of domestic procedures. Finally the United States noted that there 
were 22 products pending at various stages in China' regulatory process, including the eight 
products mentioned earlier, poised  for final adoption. The United States appreciated the Chinese 
engagement to preserve a harmonious trade relationship.  
2.65.   China explained that its Proposed Amendments to the Implementation Regulations of Safety 
Assessment of Agricultural GMOs were aimed at im proving the management of GMOs, in response 
to the rapid development of biotechnology, and social and environmental concerns. China reported 
that it was reviewing and analysing all comments and would provide Members with feedback 
through proper channels, w hile maintaining transparency. Further, China stated that its GMO 
safety management had always been based on internationally -acknowledged risk analysis 
principles, including risk assessment, risk management and risk communication. China also 
indicated that  economic and social factors would not affect the scientific conclusions of risk 
assessment. This process, in turn, would make the decision -making process more transparent, 
promote development and trade while complying with SPS rules. China hoped to contin ue the 
bilateral consultation mechanism and discuss GMO -related concerns thoroughly in order to 
facilitate trade in a mutually beneficial manner.  
2.66.   In June 2016, the United States again raised its concern with the approval delay for 
products of agricultural biotechnology in China, and sought an update from China on its revised 
regulation on safety assessment of agricultural GMOs. The United States expressed appreciation 
for the bilateral dialogue that had taken place between Chinese and US officials, and base d on this 
engagement, looked forward to the implementation of concrete action by China to ensure greater 
transparency, timeliness, and predictability in its approval process of biotech products. The United 
States requested with some urgency that action be taken regarding the eight products that were 
poised for final adoption in March 2016.  
2.67.   China reminded the Committee that a comprehensive system of regulations and technical 
protocols, all of which could be found on the website of the Ministry of Agriculture , had been put in 
place in accordance with the importance it attached to the safety management of agricultural 
GMOs. China declared that this GMO safety management was based on science and law, and that 
the procedure was clear and transparent. China indica ted that the Implementation Regulations on 
Safety Assessment of Agricultural GMOs was still under revision, that comments from Members 
were welcome and would be given full consideration, and that further feedback would be given to 
Members through proper ch annels.  
2.68.   In October 2016, the United States again raised its concern with the approval delay for 
products of agricultural biotechnology in China, and sought an update from China on its revised 
regulation on safety assessment of agricultural GMOs. The United  States expressed appreciation 
for the bilateral dialogue that had taken place between Chinese and  US officials, including the 
US-China strategic and economic dialogue held in Beijing in June 2016, and looked forward to the 
implementation of concrete actio n by China to ensure greater transparency and timeliness, and to 
rely on science -based risk assessment as the only criterion for the evaluation biotech products. 
The United States noted that China had taken a number of steps forward, including the issuance  in 
July 2016 of its final revision of the regulation and the first meeting of its reconstituted national 
biosafety committee. The United States indicated that some uncertainty remained with regards to 
how these steps would translate into shorter and more predictable timelines for biotech approval. 
The United States also noted with some urgency that some products were still poised for final 
adoption, and stressed the importance of ongoing communication with these products' applicants. 
The United States enco uraged China to take action on these pending products in a timely manner.  
2.69.   China stated that it attached great importance to safety management of agricultural GMOs 
and its GMO safety management had always been based on internationally recognized risk analysis 
principles and scientific information. China recalled that it had notif ied its draft amendment to the 
implementation regulations on safety assessment of agricultural GMOs to the WTO in June 2015. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 46 - 
 
  The comments received during the 60 -day comment period were taken into careful consideration 
in finalizing the regulation. After fu lfilling the WTO transparency requirements fully, the final rules 
entered into force on 1 October 2016. This amendment aimed at making the GMO safety 
assessment procedure more streamlined, transparent and science -based. With regards to the 
delay of the ass essment process, China informed the United States that three out of the eleven  
applications submitted by the United States had been approved. During the process, China always 
kept the procedure transparent and had provided the United States with the detail ed reasons for 
the non -approval of the eight pending applications. China had asked the United States to continue 
to provide additional necessary information to allow completion of t heir approval procedures. 
China  noted that after having received the supple mentary information requested, its experts were 
currently conducting assessments. China invited the United States to make use of bilateral 
mechanisms in order to further discuss this issue.  
2.70.   In March 2017, the United States again raised its concern with the  approval delay for 
products of agricultural biotechnology and the lack of transparency and predictability in China's 
agricultural biotechnology regulatory process. The United States expressed appreciation for the 
high level bilateral engagement on these i ssues with China, but regretted that after the revision of 
its regulation some uncertainty remained with regards to whether and how the revisions would 
translate into shorter and more predictable timelines for biotech approval. The United States also 
noted  that some products were still poised for final adoption, and stressed the importance of 
ongoing communication with the products' applicants. The United States encouraged China to take 
action on those pending products in a timely manner. Finally, the Unite d States appreciated 
China's engagement and commitment to support beneficial trade in the products of agricultural 
biotechnology.  
2.71.   China stated that it attached great importance to safety management of agricultural GMOs, 
and that its GMO safety management had always been based on internationally recognized risk 
analysis principles and scientific information. China recalled that it had notified to the WTO its draft 
amendment to the implementation regulations on safety assessment of agricultural GMOs, and had  
reflected WTO Members' comments in the final rule. China reported that the implementation 
regulations on safety assessment of agricultural GMOs had entered into force on 1 October 2016. 
That amendment would make the GMO safety assessment procedures more s treamlined, 
transparent and science -based. With regards to the assessment process, China informed the 
United States that the reason why eight applications had not been approved was that they had 
failed to pass the assessment of China's Safety Committee for  Agricultural GMOs - the detailed 
reasons had been notified to the applicants in writing. China had asked the United States to 
continue to provide additional necessary information to allow completion of their approval 
procedures, and that its experts were currently conducting assessments based on the 
supplementary information received. China invited the United States to make use of bilateral 
mechanisms to further discuss the issue.  
China's import ban on fresh mangosteen  (STC 416)  
Raised by:  Indonesia  
Suppo rted by:   
Dates raised:  October 2016 (G/SPS/R/84, paras. 3.12 -3.13) , March 2017 (G/SPS/R/86, 
paras. 3.28 -3.30), November 2017 (G/SPS/R/88, paras. 3.30 -3.31)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.72.   In October 2016, Indonesia expressed its concern regarding China's import ban on fresh 
mangosteen  fruit since February 2013. Indonesia recognized China's right to adopt measures to 
protect human, animal and plant health, but considered the measures to be more trade restrictive 
than necessary and discriminatory. Indonesia reported that it had taken act ions to resolve the 
alleged pest and heavy metal contamination detected on its mangosteen fruits. Such actions 
included field and laboratories verification, as well as negotiations with China on its proposed 
export protocol. Indonesia further expressed its  appreciation to China for a field verification visit G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 47 - 
 
  held in August 2014, and hoped to receive the report soon. Indonesia requested that China comply 
with Articles 2.3, 5.6, 7, 8 and Annex C (1a) of the SPS Agreement in order to resume 
mangosteen trade be tween the two countries, and expressed its willingness to continue bilateral 
engagement.  
2.73.   China stated that in 2013 it had detected quarantine pests and measured levels of cadmium 
above the level specified in its standard in Indonesia's mangosteen exports. China said that 
despite several bilateral consultations, the two sides had not been able to agree on the protocol 
issues yet. China urged Indonesia to continue to work closely with the competent authority of 
China with a view to finding a mutually satisfac tory solution to the pending issue.  
2.74.   In March 2017, Indonesia reiterated its concern regarding China's import ban on fresh 
mangosteen fruit since 2013. Indonesia recognized China's right to adopt measures to protect 
human, animal and plant health, but noted  SPS measures should not be discriminatory nor more 
trade restrictive than necessary. Indonesia reported that it had taken actions to resolve the alleged 
pest and heavy metal contamination detected on its mangosteen fruits. Such actions included field 
and laboratories verification, as well as accommodating China's Draft Export Protocol.  
2.75.   Indonesia explained that all procedures required for the export of mangosteen fruits to 
China had been completed, and therefore urged a positive response from China to reso lve the 
issue. Indonesia expressed its willingness to continue bilateral engagement.  
2.76.   China stated that in 2013 it had detected quarantine paraputo hispidus and other harmful 
organisms and had measured levels of cadmium in Indonesia's mangosteen exports ab ove the 
level specified in its standard. China noted that following several inspections and consultations, 
China and Indonesia had reached consensus on the Protocol of Phytosanitary Requirements for 
exporting mangosteens from Indonesia to China in Septembe r 2016. China reported that it was 
conducting the relevant internal legal procedures, and urged Indonesia to continue working closely 
with the competent authority of China with a view to finding a mutually satisfactory solution to the 
issue.  
2.77.   In November 2 017, Indonesia reiterated its concern regarding China's import ban on fresh 
mangosteen fruit. Indonesia reported on its corrective actions to resolve the contamination 
detected on its mangosteen fruit, which had been verified by China's General Administrat ion of 
Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ), resulting in a draft protocol for 
mangosteen exports. However, Indonesia regretted the protocol had not been signed. Indonesia 
added that it had engaged in bilateral negotiations with China and  had opened its market to garlic 
and other products from China, aiming at balancing bilateral trade. Indonesia finally requested 
that China comply with its obligations under the SPS Agreement.  
2.78.   China responded that in 2013, quarantine pests had been detect ed on fresh mangosteen 
from Indonesia, which resulted in an import suspension. China added that following bilateral 
consultations and an onsite investigation, both parties agreed on a protocol for plant quarantine 
requirements in September 2016. China urge d Indonesia to complete the pending follow -up work 
and promote the healthy development of trade of agricultural products between China and 
Indonesia.  
2.4.2   Animal Health  
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  
2.79.   See paragraphs 2.400.-2.467. 
China's import  restrictions due to African swine fever  (STC 392)  
Raised by:  European Union  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.9 -3.10), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, 
paras. 3.66 -3.67) , March 2016 (G/SPS/R/82, paras. 3.41 -3.42), June 
2016 (G/SPS/R/83, paras. 4.13 -4.14), October 2016 (G/SPS/R/84, 
paras. 3.42 -3.43 ) , March 2017 (G/SPS/R/86. paras. 3.33 -3.35), July G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 48 - 
 
  2017 (G/SPS/R/87, paras. 4.43 -4.44), November 2017 (G/SPS/R/88, 
paras. 3.35 -3-36) 
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.80.   In July 2015, the European Union raised concerns about China's bans due to African swine 
fever (ASF) and indicated that the vast majority of EU trading partners did not take any import 
measures against the European Union on African Swine Fever (ASF) grounds because they fully 
trusted the strict EU control system. China had imposed a ban on EU pork and pork products since 
February 2014 without applying regionalization, any scientific justification , or clarification on how 
and when it would recognise the stringent zoning measures put in place in the European Union to 
allow the prompt resumption of safe trade despite continuously receiving information from the 
European Union about these stringent con trol, surveillance and monitoring measures. 
The European Union had requested several times that China provide a risk assessment justifying 
the country -wide ban and the non -recognition of the EU zoning measures, but China had failed to 
respond. The European  Union asked China to respect its regionaliz ation obligations under the 
SPS Agreement and to allow the trade of all safe products.  
2.81.   China replied that its measures were entirely based on scienc e and safety considerations. 
It highlighted the threat represent ed by ASF in the world, and the fact that China was a major pig 
producer, and as such subject to great losses in case the dis ease entered the country. 
China  indicated that the measures were in line with relevant Chinese laws and regulations that 
prohibited  imports of relevant animals and animal products from coun tries infected by ASF. 
Finally,  China stated that it needed to evaluate further the measures taken by the European Union, 
since a number of cases of ASF had still been detected in recent months in t he region of Podlaskie, 
Poland.  
2.82.   In October 2015, the European Union again raised concerns about China's bans due to ASF  
and reiterated the arguments presented in July 2015.  
2.83.   China replied that its measures were entirely based on scienc e and safety consider ations. 
It was a major pig producer, and as such subject to great losses in case the disease entered the 
country. China indicated that the measures were in line with relevant Chinese laws and regulations 
and stated that it needed to further evaluate the EU  measures, since a number of ASF cases had 
still been detected in recent months in the region of Podlaskie, Poland.  
2.84.   In March 2016, the European Union again raised concerns about China's bans due to ASF. 
China had imposed a ban on EU pork and pork products since February 2014 without applying 
regionalization, and without scientific justification or clarification on how and when it would 
recognize the stringent zoning measures put in place in the European Union to allow the prompt 
resumption of safe trade. Th e European Union highlighted that, like China, it was an important 
pork producer and thus needed to be prudent, citing the free flow of goods through the EU market 
as an example of guaranteeing safe trade within its own market , but also for its exports. 
The European Union had requested several times that China provide a risk assessment justifying 
the country -wide ban and the non -recognition of the EU zoning measures, but China had failed to 
respond. The European Union asked China to respect its regionaliz ation obligations under the 
SPS Agreement and to allow trade of safe products.  
2.85.   China replied that its measures were entirely based on scienc e and safety considerations. 
It was a major pig producer, and as such subject to great losses in case the disease ente red the 
country. China indicated that the measures were in line with relevant Chinese laws and regulations 
and stated that it needed to further evaluate the EU measures, since five outbreaks in wild pigs 
had been reported in 2016, suggesting that the disea se might still exist in wild pigs in Poland. 
China encouraged the European Union to take effective measures to control the spread of ASF.  
2.86.   In June 2016, the European Union again raised its concern regarding China's country -wide 
ban on Poland due to the outb reak of ASF in early 2014. Firstly, the European Union noted that the 
ban must be in line with the SPS Agreement , which required Members to recognize the concept of G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 49 - 
 
  pest- or disease -free areas in their legislation, as confirmed by the panel report in India  - 
Agricultural Products (DS430). Secondly, the European Union argued that China had not provided 
information on its procedures, including its processing period, to recognize regionalization and 
further urged China to provide this information. Thirdly, the  European Union requested China to 
provide a risk assessment justifying the country -wide ban and non -recognition of the EU zoning 
measures. The European Union further underscored the effectiveness of its regionalization 
measures and highlighted its efforts  to provide all the necessary evidence to China in order to 
demonstrate that safe trade could take place. The European Union urged China to respect its 
obligations under the SPS Agreement and to allow trade of all safe products from disease -free 
zones with out further delay.  
2.87.   China replied that its measures were entirely based on science and safety considerations, 
highlighting that before the ASF outbreaks, the trade of pig and pig products between China and 
the European Union had been smooth. China noted tha t it was the largest pig producer in the 
world and as such subject to great losses in case the disease ente red the country. Therefore, 
the ban had been imposed in line with relevant Chinese laws and regulations, as well as the 
SPS Agreement. China clarifie d that its measures prohibited the import of relevant animals and 
animal products from all ASF -infected Members, and were not targeted at any individual Member. 
In 2016, ASF outbreaks in domestic and wild pigs had been reporte d in Poland, and as such, 
China had found it necessary to conduct a further evaluation of the measures taken by the 
European Union to control the disease, including its inspection range and sampling distribution. 
China indicated its willingness to continue discussions at a technical le vel. 
2.88.   In October 2016, the European Union again raised its concern regarding China's country -
wide ban on pork products from Poland due to the outbreak of ASF in early 2014. The European 
Union noted the lack of transparency demonstrated by China in this case  and expressed concerns 
about the prospects of China lifting the ban in the future. The European Union noted that it was 
also an important pig producer and, like China, needed to be prudent regarding animal diseases, 
such as ASF. The European Union stated that the free flow of pig products on its own market had 
proven, time after time, that it dealt with animal disease outbreaks in an effective manner - also 
for exports. The European Union noted that the ban was not in line with the SPS Agreement's 
principl e of regionalization and the OIE's concept of disease -free zones, as confirmed by the panel 
report in India - Agricultural Products (DS430). The European Union argued that China had not 
provided information on its procedures and anticipated timeline to rec ognize regionalization and 
further urged China to provide this information. The European Union declared that the country -
wide ban in place was not supported by scientific justification and requested China to provide a 
risk assessment. The European Union ur ged China to respec t its obligations under the 
SPS Agreement (namely Articles 3, 5, 6 and 8) and to allow, without further delay, trade of all safe 
products from disease -free zones.  
2.89.   China recalled that ASF was one of the most serious infectious diseases fo r pigs, and that 
the bans imposed by China on infected countries were based on science and safety considerations. 
China stated that great importance was attached to this issue and its international obligations were 
respected. China noted that before the AS F outbreaks, the trade of pig and pig products between 
China and the European Union had been smooth. In 2016, ASF outbreaks in domestic and wild 
pigs had been reported in Poland, and as such, China had found it necessary to conduct a further 
evaluation of the measures taken by the European Union. China reminded Members that it was the 
largest pig producer in the world and could be subject to great losses if the disease were to enter 
the country, and that the ban had been imposed in line with relevant Chines e laws and 
regulations. China reported that a technical group had been established to deal with this issue, and 
encouraged the European Union to continue exchanging information within the bilateral setting in 
order to enhance mutual understanding.  
2.90.   In March  2017, The European Union again raised its concern regarding China's country -wide 
ban on pork products from Poland due to the outbreak of African swine fever (ASF) in early 2014. 
The European Union recalled that China had indicated that its measures were s cience -based and 
that its laws and regulations prohibited the imports of relevant animals and animal products from 
countries where African swine fever was present, and that China would evaluate further the 
measures taken by the European Union. The European  Union noted that the ban imposed by China 
was not in line with the SPS principle of regionalization and the OIE concept of disease -free zones, 
as confirmed by the Panel Report in Russian Federation - Measures on the Importation of Live Pigs, 
Pork and Othe r Pig Products from the European Union (DS475) and earlier by the panel on India – G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 50 - 
 
  Measures Concerning the Importation of Certain Agricultural Products (DS430). The European 
Union urged China to provide information on its procedures and its anticipated tim eline to 
recognize regionalization. The European Union observed China's lack of transparency and that its 
country -wide ban was not supported by scientific justification. The European Union requested 
China to provide a risk assessment and to respect its obl igations under the SPS Agreement 
(namely Articles 3, 5, 6 and 8 and Annex C).  
2.91.   The European Union highlighted the adoption by the Dispute Settlement Body of the Panel 
Report, as amended by the Appellate Body Report, on Russia – Pigs (EU) (DS475), in which the 
European -wide and Poland -wide bans on those products were found to be WTO -inconsistent for not 
being based on international standards, nor on a risk assessment and for failure to adapt SPS 
measures to the disease -free characteristics of some regions. T he European Union welcomed the 
establishment of a Working Group between China and Poland to discuss the matter and urged 
China to allow trade of all safe products from disease -free zones without further delay.  
2.92.   China noted that before the ASF  outbreaks, the trade of pig and pig products between China 
and the European Union had been smooth, and that the bans it imposed on infected Members were 
based on science and safety considerations. China stated that it attached great importance to the 
issue and respected its international obligations and that its measure was non -discriminatory and 
consistent with the SPS Agreement. China reminded Members that it was the largest pig producer 
in the world and could be subject to great losses if the disease we re to enter the country, and that 
the ban had been imposed in line with relevant Chinese laws and regulations. China found it 
necessary to conduct a further evaluation of the measures taken by the European Union. China 
highlighted the 47 ASF outbreaks repo rted by the OIE in Poland in 2017, and while China noted 
the measures applied by Poland, it remained cautious on whether the inspection range, sampling 
distribution and wild boars -catching area could control the disease. China encouraged the 
European Union  to pursue cooperation within the bilateral technical setting in order to further 
strengthen information exchange.  
2.93.   In July 2017, the European Union again raised its concern regarding China's country -wide 
ban on pork products from Poland due to the outbrea k of African swine fever (ASF) in early 2014. 
The European Union thanked China for their bilateral discussions and hoped this would lead to 
further engagement. The European Union reiterated that China's legislation appeared not to allow 
for recognition of disease -free areas, despite OIE standards; urged China to provide information on 
its procedure and the anticipated processing time to recognize the European Union's zoning 
measures; and requested China to provide its scientific risk assessment for maintain ing a country -
wide ban instead of accepting importation from disease -free areas in Poland. The European Union 
stated that they had provided China with all the necessary evidence to demonstrate that there 
were disease -free areas in Poland and that they were  likely to remain disease -free.  
2.94.   China fully understood the concern of the European Union, but emphasized the acute, 
virulent and highly contagious insect -borne infectious nature of ASF, with China's pig population 
accounting for over 50% of the world's pi g population. China noted that ASF had become endemic 
in Poland, according to data that Poland had notified to OIE. Despite Poland's implementation of 
control measures, including regionalization, it had not effectively blocked ASF from spreading. 
China was  therefore still unable to recognize regionalization and other measures adopted by 
Poland. China remained open to bilateral technical cooperation and emphasized their joint 
technical expert group.  
2.95.   In November 2017, the European Union again raised concerns  over China's country -wide 
ban on pork products from several EU member States due to the outbreak of African swine fever 
(ASF). The European Union recalled that the issue had first been raised in July 2015, without a 
positive response from China to date. T he European Union stressed its regionalisation measures 
and the evidence presented to guarantee safe trade, urging China to recognize the concept of 
disease -free areas and respect its regionalization obligations in compliance  with the 
SPS Agreement and OIE  standards. The European Union also requested that China provide 
information on its procedure to recognize disease -free areas and on its standard processing period, 
and that China ensure that these procedures were undertaken and completed without undue 
delay. The European Union was encouraged by recent developments including the organization of 
a seminar in China with the relevant authorities to discuss a possible way forward and hope that 
this dialogue will deliver concrete r esults in the coming months.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 51 - 
 
  2.96.   China explained that it had implemented regionalization management measures, but 
remained cautious regarding major animal epidemic diseases that had never occurred in China, 
such as ASF, considering its stock density and limited epidemic disease control abil ity. Recently, 
African swine fever was still spreading in Europe. According to the rules of the SPS Agreement and 
China's current protection ability, China had to strictly prohibit imports of animals and animal 
products with a high risk.  
China's import res trictions due to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza  (STC 406)  
Raised by:  European Union, United States of America  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  March 2016 (G/SPS/R/82, paras. 3.9 -3.10. See also STC  385), June 
2016 (G/SPS/R/83, paras. 4.10 -4.11), October 2016 (G/SPS/R/84, 
paras. 3.33 -3.36) , Jul y 2017 (G/SPS/R/87, paras. 4.39 -4.41),  
November 2017 (G/SPS/R/88, paras. 3.39 -3.42)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.97.   In March 2016, the European Union expressed its concern over China's import restrictions 
on highly pathogenic avian influenza ( HPAI). It had raised the issue as a general STC in 
March  2015 and many Members had lifted their ba ns rather quickly. China continued to maintain 
its import policy despite the European Union's regionalization efforts. The OIE standard stated that 
the measure could be lifted after the application of a stamping out or a regionalization policy. 
The Europea n Union considered China's policy as over -restrictive and not recognising the concept 
of pest - or disease -free areas. The European Union also requested China to clarify its procedures 
to recognise regionalization, especially given that China faced domestic  HPAI outbreaks and also 
implemented its own regionalization policies. The European Union remained open to continue 
working with China to resolve this issue.  
2.98.   China explained that the measures had been taken after several EU member States had 
reported HPAI outbreaks. In accordance with OIE rules, China implemented zoning for low 
pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI)  rather than HPAI. China reaffirmed that its measures were 
consistent with international practice and the SPS Agreement. Once the risk was under cont rol, 
China would commence a risk assessment, on which basis it might consider lifting the ban.  
2.99.   In June 2016, the European Union reiterated its concerns regarding China's import 
restrictions on HPAI, highlighting that China still maintained a  country -wide b an on several 
EU member States, despite the European Union's regionalization efforts. Recalling China's 
intervention in the March 2016 SPS Committee reaffirming that its measures were consistent with 
international practice and the SPS Agreement, the Europe an Union requested China and other 
Members to lift their country -wide bans and to recognize EU regionalization measures. 
The European Union reminded the Committee that the OIE standard stated that HPAI measures 
could be lifted after the application of a st amping out policy. This policy was strictly implemented 
in the European Union whenever an outbreak occurred. The European Union considered China's 
policy as overly trade restrictive as it did not recognize the concept of pest - or disease -free areas. 
Tradin g partners, including China had been kept informed of the measures implemented to ensure 
safe trade, as well as other information on latest developments. The European Union requested 
China to clarify its scientific basis for the country -wide bans and its p rocedures to recognize 
regionalization, especially given that China faced domestic HPAI outbreaks and that it also 
implemented its own regionalization policies. The European Union further urged China to review its 
import policy in order to comply with its transparency and regionalization obligations under the 
SPS Agreement. The European Union remained open to continuing discussions with China in order 
to find a timely solution.  
2.100.   China explained that the measure had been taken in 2015 after several EU member States 
had reported HPAI outbreaks. China noted that the outbreak of HPAI in the European Union had 
still not ended, as an outbreak of HPAI had been reported in France in early 2016. Two of the HPAI G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 52 - 
 
  strains (H5N8 and H5N9), previously reported in outbreaks  in EU member States in 2015 had 
never been detected in China. China indicated that it had started the process to remove the ban 
and in particular, the HPAI ban for Spain had been lifted on the basis of the results of a risk 
assessment. China noted that it s experts would shortly conduct an on -site risk assessment in the 
Netherlands and further invited EU member States to submit an official note to Chinese authorities 
indicating their intention to export poultry products to China, following which the ban rel ease 
procedure would commence, taking into account the risk control measures.  
2.101.   In October 2016, the United States noted the importance of the OIE guidelines for HPAI to 
facilitate safe trade, and indicated that the United States would raise a more general c oncern on 
the adherence to these guidelines under agenda item 4(e). The United States expressed a specific 
concern regarding China's HPAI -related restriction on US poultry products, recalling that all HPAI 
cases in the United States had been successfully r esolved in accordance with OIE guidelines since 
22 April 2016 and that the United States was free of HPAI since June 2016. The United States 
noted that it had a strong surveillance and response programme for HPAI. The United States had 
engaged with China o n numerous occasions: providing regular updates on the detection of HPAI, 
proposing a protocol outlining the management of poultry products if HPAI were to be detected, 
and inviting technical experts from China to review USDA's HPAI surveillance programme.  In light 
of the HPAI -free situation, the United States called upon China to lift all remaining HPAI -related 
measures against US poultry products, and promised to continue to inform Chinese officials about 
the state of HPAI surveillance.  
2.102.   The European Union  reiterated its concerns regarding China's country -wide bans on several 
EU member States due to HPAI, recalling that it had on previous occasions encouraged Members 
to recognize OIE standards and efficiency of the EU's regionalization measures. The Europea n 
Union noted that China had previously declared that it applied regionalization for LPAI but not 
HPAI, and that bans might be lifted after a risk assessment , which would only start once risks were 
under control. The European Union disagreed with China's p revious statement that China's 
measures were compatible with international standards. The European Union recalled that almost 
all WTO Members confronted with occasional outbreaks of HPAI implemented regionalization 
policies in their management of the disea se. The European Union further stated that , in full 
transparency , it had provided China all the necessary evidence to demonstrate that it had applied 
the stamping -out policy described in the OIE Code, the existence of HPAI -free areas and that such 
areas we re likely to remain disease -free. The European Union considered that China's decision not 
to accept zoning in relation with HPAI disregarded the relevant OIE  standard, Article 6 of the 
SPS Agreement and the Panel report of DS430. The European Union called on China to respect its 
WTO regionalization obligations and remained open to work with China to find a rapid solution.  
2.103.   With regards to the concerns raised  by the E uropean Union, China noted that the measure 
had been taken in 2015 in order to prevent the spread of HPAI into China after several EU member 
States had reported HPAI outbreaks. China indicated that it had been conducting HPAI risk 
assessments with the collaboration of the European Union and made adjustments to its measures 
accordingly. China stated that the disease was still present in some EU member States, with most 
recent reports in France and Italy. China continued to perceive the risk of HPAI in the European 
Union as high and therefore had to take cautious measures to protect safety of the poultry 
industry and health of the whole population.  
2.104.   With regards to the US concerns, China noted that numerous HPAI cases had been found 
in many US states since December 2014 and  that the epidemic still continued in 2016, the latest 
case having been reported in August. China recognized that both the European Union and the 
United States had made use of bilateral channels to conduct technical communications, and 
encouraged both Memb ers to continue these discussions with relevant Chinese authorities.  
2.105.   In July 2017, the United States reiterated its concerns regarding China's highly pathogenic 
avian influenza (HPAI) -related restrictions on its poultry products, last raised in October 20 16. 
The United States reiterated its request for recognition of pest -free areas and authorization to 
import heat -treated poultry products, which could not transmit the virus. The United States 
highlighted its rigorous and effective monitoring system for avi an influenza, and its compliance 
with the transparency obligations, consistent with OIE guidelines. The United States expressed 
appreciation to Chinese officials for agreeing to participate in an avian influenza workshop in the 
United States in July 2017 a nd for conducting an avian influenza sys tem audit in the United States.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 53 - 
 
  2.106.   The European Union echoed the United States concern regarding the country bans, which 
also affected European Union members. The European Union recalled the Thematic Session on 
Regional ization and expressed its willingness to continue to engage with China on the matter.  
2.107.   China highlighted the global challenge posed by avian influenza. China underlined its 
special attention to prevention and control of the avian influenza virus risks, especially on HPAIV, 
as a major producer and consumer of poultry products. China drew atte ntion to the outbreaks 
notified by the United States in March and April 2017 and to the consensus reached with the 
United States that due to the specific epidemic pattern of HPAI, it was necessary to apply 
compartmentalization. Finally, China indicated tha t an expert mission of China had been in the 
United States to conduct an on -site review on the effectiveness of prevention and control 
measures, and the animal health status. Future steps were to be determined based on the 
evaluation of the expert group. C hina remained positive on finding a mutually satisfactory solution.  
2.108.   In November 2017, the United States reiterated its concern over China's Highly Pathogenic 
Avian Influenza (HPAI) -related restrictions on poultry products and requested that China follow 
OIE standards, particularly on regionalization. The United States regretted that despite being 
HPAI-free according to OIE guidelines, China still maintained the restriction. The United States 
urged China to remove all HPAI -related import restrictions and pr omised to continue to maintain 
its rigorous and effective surveillance for HPAI.  
2.109.   The European Union echoed the United States concern and the desire to have it resolved, 
as it faced the same issue.  
2.110.   China replied that it had found certain problems with the  prevention and control system of 
avian influenza in the United States in July 2017, based on its pre liminary risk assessment. 
China  had informed the United States of the problems detected, but had not yet received a 
response. China urged the United States  to provide feedback in writing, as well as the 
supplementary information requested. China explained that there had been bilateral discussions on 
biosafety compartmentalization and regionalization methods, and kept an open mind on both 
methods. China added  that it would submit its standards on biosafety compartmentalization in 
writing to the United States again. Finally, China suggested that both parties coordinate their 
standards on regionalization and biosafety compartmentalization under the OIE guideline s.  
2.111.   The United States appreciated China's compartmentalization proposal. However, it noted 
that each country should be evaluated for recognition of regionalization or compartmentalization 
separately, following the procedure established by the importing cou ntry. The United States added 
that since both countries were in different stages of the process, it requested that China remove all 
HPAI-related restrictions on imports from the United States in line with its HPAI -free status, 
according to OIE standards.  
2.4.3   Other concerns  
Lack of transparency for certain SPS measures  (STC 184)  
Raised by:  Israel, United States of America  
Supported by:  Australia,  Canada,  Chile,  Costa Rica,  European Union,  Guatemala,  Japan, 
Mexico,  Norway,  Singapore, Switzerland,  Thailand  
Dates  raised:  March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 32-33), June 2016 (G/SPS/R/83, 
paras.  4.51-4.55) , March 2017 (G/SPS/R/86, paras. 3.44 - 3.49), July 
2017 (G/SPS/R/87, paras. 4. 49-4.53), November 2017 (G/SPS/R/88, 
paras. 3.59 -3.62)  
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/N/CHN /22 
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.112.   In March 2004, the United States expressed concerns over Chin a's failure to notify nearly 
60 regulations covering food, forestry and fishery products issued since 2002.  Burdensome G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 54 - 
 
  certification requirements for fresh, chilled and frozen aquatic products were imposed by General 
Administration of Quality, Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ)  Decree 31, which 
entered into force on 1 July 2003, but were not notified to the WTO . Despite holding bilateral 
consultations with China, no progress had been made on this issue.  The United States urged China 
to comply with its SPS obligations and to notify new regulations so that Members had an 
opportunity to comment on them.  
2.113.   China stres sed that it had notified 213 SPS measures since its accession in 2001 and was 
committed to fulfilling its transparency obligations.  The comment period was calculated from the 
day the Secretariat circulated the notification.  There was no obligation to notif y AQSIQ Decree 31 
as it was an operational rule of a corresponding regulation that had already been notified to the 
WTO, and imposed no new technical requirements.  However, in the interest of enhanced 
transparency, Decree 31 had been notified in August 200 3 (G/SPS/N/CHN/22).  
2.114.   In June 2016, the United States reiterated its concern, first raised in March 2004, with 
China's lack of transparency for certain SPS measures. The Unit ed States recognized that China 
had been actively notifying the SPS measures of many of its agencies, and expressed appreciation 
for these efforts. However, recently many measures issued by some of China's principal regulatory 
agencies in relation to the implementation of China's 2015 Fo od Safety Law had not been notified. 
The United States indicated as an example a recent Chinese measure implementing the new 
official certificate requirement for imported foods, of which the United States had become 
acquainted through a letter sent by the AQSIQ to the United States embassy in Beijing on 9 May 
2016. The United States urged China to notify this measure, as well as all SPS measures that 
could impact international trade, in order to allow its trading partners to comment on them, and to 
take the se comments into account upon finalizing the measures. The United States again 
expressed appreciation to China for the substantive bilateral dialogue on transparency, and looked 
forward to further cooperation with China to improve food safety.  
2.115.   Australia re minded all Members that they should notify in accordance with their WTO 
obligations. While appreciating that it was sometimes difficult to determine whether a measure 
required notification or not, Australia encouraged Members, when in doubt, to notify.  
2.116.   The European Union supported the points made by the United States and Australia, and 
underlined its particular concern about the new Chinese certification regime. The European Union 
feared that this specific measure would not be justified by any risk assessme nt, as the products 
concerned (pasta, confectionary or baked products) were inherently safe, and would impose a 
disproportionate and unnecessary burden on the importing countries. The European Union looked 
forward to seeing the Chinese notification for thi s measure, and to work with China on this issue.  
2.117.   New Zealand shared the concerns of Australia, the European Union and the United States 
regarding China's lack of transparency, and especially highlighted Australia's more generic 
reminder to encourage all Me mbers to notify their SPS measures. New Zealand insisted on the 
values of the notification system in allowing Members to comment and clarify measures, as well as 
exchange experiences. New Zealand wondered whether a lack o f transparency in notifying 
SPS measures  could be associated with a lack of experience with the notification system, and 
recalled the value of the mentoring system put in place some years ago, wherein developed 
Members helped developing Members to manoeuvre the notification system.  
2.118.   China re sponded that, from 2013 to 2015, it had submitted 494 regular SPS notifications, 
providing the 60 -day comment period for all the notified measures. China explained that the 
example provided by the United States on the Official Certificate Requirements for Imported Food 
did not correspond to non -compliance with the notification requirement, as the Official Certificate 
Requirements had not been implemented, and the purpose of diplomatic letters was to inform 
trading partners and collect their comments in adva nce. China stated that the measure would be 
notified to the WTO, with the transitional comment period, after further evaluation. 
China  additionally argued that many of its SPS measures criticized for not having been notified 
were in line with international  standards, or did not have a significant effect on international trade, 
and thus in conformity with Annex B, paragraph 5 of the SPS Agreement. China further explained 
that according to its administrative legislation procedure, the notification to the WTO came after 
the online public comment period and first revision of a measure r ather than at the same time, 
in order to provide the WTO with the measure in a more advanced stage. China reminded the 
United States of its lack of transparency, providing as an e xample the Seafood Import Monitoring G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 55 - 
 
  Program published on the Federal Register on 5 February 2016 , which had not been notified to the 
WTO. China referred to data from the WTO SPS Information Management System (SPS IMS) 
indicating that the United States had  submitted 317 regular SPS notifications between 2013 to 
2015, among which only 15 provided for a 60 -day comment period. A large number of the 
measures were notified, sometimes unjustifiably, as trade -facilitating, and therefore did not 
provide any comment  period. China added that the United States seldom notified sub -federal laws 
or regulations, and thus violated transparency rules.  
2.119.   In March 2017, the United States reiterated its concern with China's lack of transparency 
for certain SPS measures. The Unite d States expressed a particular concern with the lack of 
notification of China's measures related to the implementation of its 2015 Food Safety Law. 
Further, the United States underlined China's State Council publication on 19 October 2016 of the 
Revised D raft Implementing Rules for the 2015 Food Safety Law as well as the Chinese General 
Administration of Quality, Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) letter dated 25 April 
2016, addressed to the United States embassy and other Diplomatic Missions i n Beijing, regarding 
the new requirement for official certification of all food exported to China, with an attestation that 
the imported food meets Chinese laws, regulations, and standards, also known as "Announcement 
#327". The United States noted that th is would be inconsistent with relevant Codex guidance, and 
would be a matter of concern under the SPS Agreement. The United States requested that China 
delay the envisaged enforcement date of October 2017of the new certificate requirement for 
imported food s, until the concerns of trading partners had been addressed.  
2.120.   The United States urged China to notify both the Revised Draft Implementing Rules and 
the AQSIQ certificate requirement to the WTO, and take its trading partners' comments into 
account before fi nalizing the measures. The United States asked that China notify all SPS 
measures that would have an impact on trade, including newly proposed and future measures that 
it would develop to implement the 2015 Food Safety Law. The United States expressed 
appreciation to China for the substantive bilateral dialogue, and looked forward to further 
cooperation with China to improve food safety in a transparent manner that was science -based 
and least -trade restrictive.  
2.121.   The European Union echoed the concerns regardi ng the notification of the new legislation 
development in China.  
2.122.   Japan shared the concern raised by the United States and the European Union, and 
insisted on the need for more information on such a requirement for new official certificates.  
2.123.   China responde d that the Chinese government took transparency seriously, fulfilling its 
obligations under the SPS Agreement. China was among Members who had notified the largest 
number of SPS measures, and was the Member who had most frequently provided a 60 -day 
comment  period. Over the past three years, from 2014 to 2016, Ch ina had notified a total of 
419 regular SPS measures to the WTO, providing the 60 -day comment period for all the notified 
measures. With specific reference to the two food safety measures flagged by the United States, 
the European Union and Japan, China reported to the Committee that the competent authority of 
China had already extensively consulted with the relevant stakeholders, including with those from 
the United States, the European Union and Jap an, and had reflected a number of comments in the 
revised rules. China commended the active effort of the United States, the European Union and 
Japan in providing comments in the public consultation process. China reported that it would soon 
notify the foo d imports certificate requirements, and that the draft Implementing Rules of the Food 
Safety Law had been placed on the 2017 legislative agenda of the State Council of China, with 
ongoing consultations.  
2.124.   China highlighted that transparency was an important  obligation shared by all WTO 
Members. China commented on the lack of transparency by the United States. Referring to data 
from the WTO SPS Information Management System (SPS IMS), it noted that the United States 
had submitted 110 regular SPS notifications  from 2014 to 2016, among which only 11 provided for 
a 60-day comment period. China further noted that a large number of the measures were notified 
as trade -facilitating, often unjustifiably, and did not provide any comment period. China added as 
a systemi c issue that the United States did not notify the acts enacted by its Congress, for 
example the US Food Safety Modernization Act, and seldom notified sub -federal laws or state 
regulations. Finally, China encouraged more discussions with the relevant Member s with a view to 
further improving transparency in the SPS area.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 56 - 
 
  2.125.   In July 2017, the United States reiterated its concerns over the official certificate 
requirement for imported foods, originally issued by China's General Administration of Quality 
Supervisi on, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) in April 2016, recalling its transparency concerns 
regarding the lack of notification of this measure. The United States appreciated China's 
notification as G/TBT/N/CHN/1209 on 19 June 2017, which indicated under descr iption and 
objective of the measure, the protection of human health and food safety. Therefore, the United 
States reiterated the request that China notify its measure to  the SPS Committee as well. 
The measure – entitled AQSIQ Food Bureau's Correspondence [ 2017] No. 83 in the TBT 
notification – would require a range of imported food products, including low -risk processed, shelf -
stable foods, to be accompanied by official certificates. The United States noted that AQSIQ 
Correspondence No. 83 would apply only to imports and would require official certification of low -
risk foods on a shipment -by-shipment basis. Correspondence No. 83 indicated that the official 
certificate would need to include product and shipment details which were outside the purview of 
the Un ited States Food and Drug Administration, a requirement which would go into effect on 
1 October 2017.  
2.126.   Given the impact these requirements could have, the U nited States enquired about 
(i) the scope of products covered by this measure, noting the importance of using the Harmonized 
Commodity Description and Coding System developed by the World Customs Organization, and to 
clarify that duplicate official certificates would not be required; (ii) the scientific justification of the 
requirements, including data do cumenting food -borne hazards associated with imported shelf -
stable processed foods; how such documented hazards would pose a human health risk to 
consumers, and evidence showing that shipment -by-shipment official certification was appropriate 
and proportio nate to address the risk; (iii) considering replacing the official certification 
requirement with a less trade restrictive measure that recognized the primary responsibility of food 
business operators for compliance, which would be consistent with domestic  Chinese requirements, 
as well as with Codex principles and guidelines; and (iv) the measures that would require the 
domestic certification of foods manufactured, processed, stored, transported and exported under 
the supervision of its domestic competent a uthority. The United States urged China to delay the 
implementation of this measure to allow for the discussion and resolution of these trade concerns. 
Finally, the United States appreciated China's willingness to cooperate and they looked forward to 
a con tinued engagement.  
2.127.   Israel shared the concerns of the United States, mainly the significant and unnecessary 
barriers to trade the measure would cause. Israel hoped that, in addition to the notification to the 
TBT Committee, China would follow with a notifi cation to the SPS Committee; and requested China 
to elaborate on the scientific justification and international standards their work was based on and 
the proportionate level of risk presented by the targeted products. Israel thanked China for its 
willingne ss to engage bilaterally.  
2.128.   Australia, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, European Union, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Singapore, 
and Switzerland shared the concerns expressed by the United States and Israel. They underlined, 
inter alia , their concerns over the lack of a  notification to the SPS Committee, the scope of the 
products affected by this measure (including low -risk products), the inconsistency with Codex 
standards, the possible duplication of certification, and the unrealistic  implementation date of 
1 October 20 17. In particular, the European Union underlined the ambiguity of some of the 
provisions and the difficulties this would pose for custom authorities. Several Members expressed 
appreciation of China's constructive bilateral meetings and clarifications.  
2.129.   China explained that in recent years it had observed a sustained and fast growth of 
imported food, becoming the largest importer of food and agricultural products. Imported food and 
agricultural products accounted for around 7.5% of its domestic food consumpt ion, imported dairy 
products for 17.1% and edible oil for 29.3% of domestic food consumption. China underlined the 
importance of strengthening cooperation on food safety and therefore drafted the measure at 
issue. China also noted that the requirement of o fficial certificates did not go against international 
conventions, and clarified that certificates were not required to demonstrate that the imported 
food completely met Chinese regulations, but only to prove that the production, processing, 
storage, trans portation and export processes of the food had been under the effective supervision 
of the competent authorities of exporting countries. In addition, China explained that the 
certificates could be issued by the competent authorities of exporting countries or regions, or their 
authorized institutions. China stated that the notified measure had included Members' suggestions 
and comments and welcomed further feedback on the notification to the TBT Committee G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 57 - 
 
  (G/TBT/N/CHN/1209). China explained that the certific ates mentioned in the notification included 
the bilateral sanitary certificate and phytosanitary certificate, which meant that the imported food 
already covered by these certificates did not require a new certificate. China looked forward to a 
strengthened  communication and cooperation with Members.  
2.130.   In November 2017, the United States reiterated its concern on China's proposed official 
certification requirements for imported food. The United States thanked China for its bilateral 
engagement and for its not ification to the WTO of the two -year transitional period for the 
implementation of the official certification requirement, dela ying its entry into force to 
30 September 2019. The United States noted that though the notification had been made to the 
TBT Com mittee, it indicated the protection of human health and food safety in the description and 
objective of the measure. The United States therefore requested China to keep the SPS Committee 
abreast of the measure's developments. The United States also request ed a clarification of the 
scope of the measure, given that AQSIQ Food Bureau's Correspondence No. 83 appeared to 
require a wide range of imported food products to be accompanied by official certificates on a 
shipment -by-shipment basis, including processed,  shelf-stable food, which would pose little to no 
risk to food safety and human health. The United States argued that China's proposed requirement 
was inconsistent with Codex guidelines and principles. Finally, the United States welcomed the 
clarifications  provided by China and the opportunity to work with China on the matter.  
2.131.   Singapore supported the concern and added that it looked forward to receiving responses 
to the questions posed to AQSIQ.  
2.132.   Japan, the European Union, Guatemala, and Thailand also shar ed the concern of the 
United States and urged China to provide timely and appropriate information on the revised draft 
and its implementation, noting that the measure would be disproportionate, go beyond 
international standards, and be trade disrupting.  
2.133.   China responded that it had carefully considered the comments submitted by Members and 
had decided to provide a unified transitional period of two years until 30 September 2019, as 
notified to the WTO. China explained that the measure had been drafted takin g into account the 
practical situation of other Members, and hoped that Members would provide a sample of 
certificates attached to food exported to China as soon as possible. The comments received would 
be delivered back to the capital for consideration.  
2.5  European Union  
2.5.1   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; Dominican Republic ; El Salvador ; Guatemala ; 
Honduras ; India; Indonesia ; Mexico ; Nicaragua ; 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/6 4, 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), March 2014  (G/SPS/R/74, 
paras.  3.15-3.18), July 2014 (G/SPS/R/75, paras. 4.38-4.40), October 
2014 (G/SPS/R/76, paras. 3.6-3.8), March 2015 (G/SPS/R/78, 
paras.  3.13-3.15), July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79 , paras. 3.24-3.26), October 
2015 (G/SPS/R/81 , paras. 3.19-3.22) , March 2016 (G/SPS/R/82, 
paras.  3.26-3.29), October 2016 (G/SPS/R/84, paras. 3.24 -3.26) , March 
2017 (G/SPS/R/86, para. 9.8)  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 58 - 
 
  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, G/SPS/N/EU/64, 
G/SPS/N/EU/64/Add.1 and G/SPS/N/EU/64/Add.2, G/SPS/GEN/1329, 
G/SPS/GEN/1 361, G/SPS/GEN /1383,  G/SPS/GEN/1422, 
G/SPS/GEN/1444 , G/SPS/GEN/1477, G/SPS/GEN/1526  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.134.   In March 2006, Colombia raised concerns on the application of the EC Regulation on Novel 
Foods (Regulation (EC) 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 c ould directly affect 
the trade potential of traditional and exotic foods. Some traditional and exotic products already 
had substantial presence in the US and Japanese food 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 
traditiona l 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 the 
potential to address specific social and environmental issues, such as pro viding alternatives to both 
the growing of narcotic crops and to the illegal felling of protected forests.  
2.135.   Colombia was aware of the importance of protecting consumer health. However, the 
amount of information on the safety of these traditional food produc ts 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 exporters. The proposed amendment of 
Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 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 Regulation (EC) No. 258/97: (i) the non -application of Regulation 
(EC) No. 258/97 to exotic, traditional products with a history of safe consumption in their region of 
origin; (ii) greater transparency and clarity in the procedures and de finition, giving credit to a safe 
consumption history of food in the country of origin; requirements, tests, and procedures in 
proportion 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.  
2.136.   Ecuador reported that the amendment would also affect the trade potential of traditional 
and exotic food from its country. In light of Ecu ador's great biodiversity, over the last decade 
international organizations like UNCTAD had been promoting the development of new export 
products ("Bio -Comercio"). In Ecuador , the export of traditional and exotic foods also had a major 
socio-economic impac t and related closely to efforts to overcome rural poverty. Ecuador invited 
the European Communities to carefully consider Colombia's recommendations regarding the 
amendment. The amendment of the regulation and its impact were of importance for many 
develo ping countries.  
2.137.   Peru added that currently, within the Convention on Biological Diversity, countries were 
discussing measures and mechanisms for the preservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. 
Contrary to that approach, the application of Regulation No. 258 would restrict greater sustainable 
use of traditional and exotic products, by diminishing their export potential. Peru stressed the high 
costs and the long period of time needed for products to be registered under Regulation (EC) 
No. 258/97 to allo w them to enter the European market. Peru also supported Colombia's 
recommendations regarding  the amendment (G/SPS/GEN/681).  
2.138.   Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica and Paraguay reported that their exports had also been affected 
by Regulation (EC) No. 258/97. Benin requ ested 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 
expressed their interest in the topic and shared the concerns of Colombia, Ecuador and Peru.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 59 - 
 
  2.139.   The European Communities confirmed that Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 was being 
reviewed and recognized that some modifications were needed. A 40 -page document which might 
answer a l ot of questions would be circulated as an SPS document shortly. The document clearly 
set out the purpose and scope of the Regulation, which was targeted at new food technologies, 
including genetically modified products. As the food industry was investing i n different new 
technologies, Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 aimed to reassure European consumers of the safety of 
those technologies. The vast majority of applications for authorization of novel foods had been 
from within the European Communities. The Europea n 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 ma rketed in an unsafe manner. 
The European Communities invited interested stakeholders to submit comments and make their 
views kno wn. 
2.140.   In June 2006, Peru raised further concerns regarding the EC Novel Foods Regulation. 
In Peru's view, one of the major problems of the EC regulation was that it did not distinguish 
between new foods that had not been consumed before anywhere, and those t hat 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 thi s 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 the 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 the special needs of d eveloping 
countries had been taking into account in accordance with Article 10 of the SPS Agreement 
(G/SPS/GEN/713).  
2.141.   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 Foods 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 ex ports and on products with export 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 suppo rting 
alternatives to narcotic crops, some of which were funded by the European Communities or its 
member States. The Philippines indicated that the effects of the Novel Foods Regulation and of 
EC regulations on genetically modified food were still being evaluated.  
2.142.   The European Communities stressed that the concerns expressed were being taken 
seriously, and that the Novel Foods Regulation was currently under review (G/SPS/GEN/699 and 
G/SPS/GEN/700). The original intention of the Novel Foods Regulati on had been trade -creating; 
its purpose was to authorize trade in novel foods. In addition, products that had already been 
traded prior to 1997 had been exempted. The regulation had been targe ted mainly at 
EC companies. The  regulation had been successful in that new foods were being approved on the 
basis of safety assessments. A statement that a product had been consumed for ce nturies 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.  
2.143.   In October 2006, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru reiterated concerns relating to Regulation 
(EC) No. 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 prod ucts as it was not flexible and 
made no distinction between novel (GMO) foods and traditional foods with any known risks. 
They noted that exotic products originating from Latin America were not the result of any type of 
genetic modification but rather form ed part of the biodiversity of the region and were consumed 
traditionally. Also there were inconsistencies in the way this regulation was applied throughout the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 60 - 
 
  European Communities. The European Communities had 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.  
2.144.   The European Communities was requested to promptly review Regulation (EC) No. 258/97, 
and to exclude from its scope  of application exotic traditional products r esulting from biodiversity. 
The European Communities was also encouraged to take into account scientific assessments and 
relevant evidence from other countries and competent international organizations when risk  
assessments were made, and to establish different procedures for foods of known risk and no 
known risk in the European Communities. The European Communities was also requested to take 
into account the history of the product, the consumption patterns and t raditional knowledge 
relating to its use and preparation, so as to provide for greater flexibility in the application of the 
regulation and facilitate the entry of exotic traditional products into the European market.  
2.145.   Bolivia, Brazil and the Philippines sh ared the c oncerns of Peru, Ecuador and Colo mbia. 
The Philippines highlighted the fact that the regulation could become an unjustified non -tariff 
barrier to the EC market in view of the unclear technical distinction between these products and 
other products . The Philippines expressed hope that progress would be made on the issue and a 
mutual solution found as soon as possible.  
2.146.   The European Communities reminded the Committee that the issue had been discussed in 
the SPS Committee on previous occasions and ther e 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 concerned submit data on the volume of trade and 
risk assessment s 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 held on the matter and the European Comm unities 
appreciated the contributions from the concerned Members.  
2.147.   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 indicated 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 was 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 p rocedures than other Novel Foods. The European Communities 
was looking to address the concerns identified by trading partners, while ensuring consumer 
safety.  
2.148.   In April 2008, Colombia, speaking on behalf of Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, 
Parag uay and Peru recalled the concerns previously expressed regarding the proposed revision of 
the Regulation (EC) No. 258/97, as contained in COM(2007)872. The proposed regulation had 
been notified to the TBT Committee, however these Members considered that i t 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 proport ions 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.  
2.149.   Colombia note d 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 th e 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 exclu ding 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 61 - 
 
  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 that of 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.  
2.150.   Brazil indicated that it supported the concerns raised by Colom bia on behalf of eight 
countries. Brazil was still analysing the relevant documents, but considered the issues raised by 
Colombia to be very important.  
2.151.   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 s hould 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 conte xt: 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.  
2.152.   In October 2008, Peru requested that there should be a no tification to the SPS Committee 
regarding the modification of the EC Novel Foods 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 t he EC Regulation on Novel Foods.  
2.153.   UNCTAD reported that it was contributing to the review of the EC Regulation on Novel 
Foods in three specific areas: (i) revising the procedure, which required mor e scientific 
clarification; (ii) facilitating dialogue between the European Communities an d developing 
countries; and (iii) analysing legal aspects of current regulations in the context of multilateral 
agreements.  
2.154.   The European Communities stated that the existing legislation was too ambitious in 
covering a who le range of novel foods. For this reason, the European Communities planned to 
revise the regulation, as had been notified to the TBT Committee. This proposal had been under 
negotiation in the EC Parliament and Council. However, there were concerns regardin g 
the approval of some products. For instance, matters became complicated when exporters 
requested the classification of food supplements as novel foods, rather than whole fruits and 
vegetables. However, the revised procedure was expected to be more flexib le, and some Novel 
Foods had already been approve d for entry into the EC market. The European Communities noted 
that in this specific case, the legal advice had been to only notify the proposed revision to the 
TBT Committee since it covered approval proced ures 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 conten t 
should be notified to  the SPS  Committee, even if these regulation s were also notified to the 
TBT Committee.  
2.155.   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 measur e 
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 Authority o f Peru, which certified the 
safety and compliance with a HACCP system, and that 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 meas ure and asked for an update on the modifica tion 
progress. Brazil,  Colombia, Ecuador, and Mexico supported P eru's concerns regarding the 
EC Regulation on Novel Foods.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 62 - 
 
  2.156.   The European Communities stated that on 15 January 2008, the EC Commission had 
submitted t o the Council and the European Parliament a proposal for the revision of the Novel 
Foods Regulation. The proposal was notified to WTO Memb ers 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 cou ntry 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.  
2.157.   In June 2011, Peru again raised concerns about Regul ation (EC) No. 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 trad itional foods and consequently impeded economic activities. 
In 2009, the European Communities  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 Parliament 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 t raditional foods by the end 
of 2011. Brazil, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Mexico and Paraguay supported the concerns 
raised by Peru and Colombia.  
2.158.   The European Union stated that foods were considered novel under the present Regulation 
(EC) No. 258/9 7 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 auth orizations 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 re lated 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.  
2.159.   In October 2011, Peru recalled its concerns about Regulation No. 258/97 
(G/SPS/GEN/1117). Brazil, Chile, Col ombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico and Paraguay shared the 
concerns raised by Peru.  
2.160.   The European Union reiterated the explanation that it had provided in June 2011 regarding 
the definition of novel foods and the current process of revision of the regulation.  
2.161.   In March 2012, Peru recalled its previously raised concerns about the EU Novel Foods 
Regulation 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 b iodiversity 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 the SPS Agreement , Peru urged the European Union to refrain from 
applying Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 to traditional products with a history of safe consumption 
outside the EU market.  
2.162.   Cuba supported the concerns of Peru and 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 the concerns and were closely following the issue.  
2.163.   The European Union restated the observations presented during the 2011 June and 
October meetings.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 63 - 
 
  2.164.   In July 2012, Peru once again rec alled 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 h ad 
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 produc ts wi th high nutritional value. 
Peru urged the European Union to refrain from applying Regulation  (EC) No. 258/97 to traditional 
products or to facilitate the entry of products with a history of safe consumption outside the 
EU market.  
2.165.   Cuba supported the co ncerns of Peru and 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.  
2.166.   The European Union explained that revision of novel foods rules had started in January 
2008 in an effort to facilitate applications for novel foods authorizations and to simplify EU mark et 
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 con sensus necessary to allow a revised 
Novel Foods 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 contain a centralized and quicker authorization 
procedure for novel foods and specific measures would be put in place for traditional foods fr om 
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.  
2.167.   In October 2012, Peru reiterated its c oncern that the application of Regulation (EC) 
No. 258/97 continued to restrict access of traditional products into the European Union. Regulation 
(EC) No. 258/97 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 request that the European Union exclude 
from the regulation traditional products arising from biodiversity and remo ve the unjustified 
hindrances to trade.  
2.168.   Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador and Venezuela supported Peru's concern 
and asserted that Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 constituted an unnecessary barrier to trade because 
it targeted products that wer e 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.  
2.169.   The European Union recalled that at the last meeting it had provided a detailed explanation 
on the state of play of the novel foods dossier; it was now engaged in prep aring a new legislative 
proposal on novel foods, expected to be adopted in 2013. The European Union would keep 
Members informed on the progress of novel food negotiations, on future measures applicable to 
traditional foods from third countries, and would n otify 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 esta blish 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.  
2.170.   In March 2013, Peru reiterated its previously rai sed concern with regard to EU Regulation 
(EC) No. 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 a n unjustified trade barrier for Peruvian traditional products 
derived from biodiversity, due to the high costs of the application required to access the market 
and to the time required for market access approval. The EU measure was contradictory to 
interna tional co -operation and technical assistance efforts for market development and for G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 64 - 
 
  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, but 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.  
2.171.   Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Paraguay echoed Peru's conce rn 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.  
2.172.   The European Union stated that the new legislative proposal was still tak ing shape and was 
due later that  year. Specific measures for traditional 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 re mained open to discuss the matter in more detail.  
2.173.   In October 2013, Peru reiterated its concern over the EU Regulation on Novel Foods, as it 
restricted the access of traditional biodiversity -based products into the European market. Peru had 
previously shown  the negative effects of this measure on exporters. The proposed amendment of 
Regulation No. 258/97 would exclude from its scope traditional biodiversity -based products which 
had previously been safely consumed in their country of origin. The aim of this w as to facilitate the 
export of these products from developing countries. Peru requested information on the status of 
the proposed amendment to Regulation No. 258/97, which would be an important step to access 
the European market.  
2.174.   Chile, Colombia, Costa Ric a, Cuba and El Salvador expressed their support for Peru's 
concerns.  
2.175.   The European Union confirmed that the European Commission intended to present a new 
novel foods proposal by the end of 2013. This would take into account the overarching agreement 
reached  by the EU co -legislators on future measures applicable to Novel Foods, including those 
which were traditional in third countries. The proposal would streamline the approval process and 
provide specific measures for traditional foods from third countries, intended to ease their access 
to EU markets for the benefit of consumers whilst ensuring their safety. The draft proposal would 
be circulated to all Members through notifications under the SPS and TBT Agreements to allow for 
any comments and concerns to be  well taken into account.  
2.176.   In March 2014 , Peru reiterated its concern over th e EU Regulation on Novel Foods and 
requested information on the status of the proposed amendment to Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 . 
2.177.   Ecuador noted that the revised EU legislation, COM(2 013)894 , still posed barriers to 
products of biodiversity and sought assurances that it was compliant with Articles 2.2 and 5.6 of 
the SPS  Agreement. The regulation created a disadvantage to small producers because the 
EU regulations required that the mark eting history of traditional biodiversity -based products be 
disclosed, and this information was rarely available in developing countries. Ecuador suggested 
that the European Union: (i) replace the existing process with a simplified risk -based authorization  
procedure; (ii)  define clearly the factors to be used to evaluate safety; and (iii) clarify the 
international standards and procedures on which EFSA would base its decisions and carry out the 
risk assessments.  
2.178.   Costa Rica, El Salvador and Nicaragua also ex pressed support for Peru's concerns.  
2.179.   The European Union announced that in December 2013, the Commission adopted a 
proposal for a new regulation on novel foods, accompanied by a further proposal on cloning. 
The proposed new regulation for novel foods focuse d on easing market access for traditional foods, 
including those produced by small producers. The objective was to simplify and streamline 
approval procedures while ensuring food safety. The proposal was notified to the WTO in 
December 2013 (G/SPS/N/EU/64)  and an exceptionally long comment period (120 days) had been G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 65 - 
 
  given. No  comments had been received to date and interested Members were encouraged to 
submit their comments by the 20 April 2014 deadline. The European Union encouraged Ecuador to 
submit their comments in writing so that they could be considered as part of the notification 
process.  
2.180.   In July 2014 , Peru reiterated its concern over the propo sed amendment of Regulation (EC) 
No. 258/97 (documents G/SPS/N/EU/64, G/SPS/N/EU/64/Add.1 and G/SPS/N/EU/64/Ad d.2) and 
referred to its comments on how to facilitate access to the EU market for biodiversity products 
from developing countries (G/SPS/GEN/1329). Peru highlighted its concerns on the proposed 
definitions of: (i) "novel food" - and requested the risk ass essment that establi shed 15 May 1997 
as the reference date; (ii) "traditional f ood from third country" – given that the majority of 
potentially exportable traditional foods derived from primary production; and (iii) "history of safe 
food use in a third country" - proposing a period of five years without any indication of risk to 
human health for demonstrating safe use , instead of the  25 year  time-period envisaged by the 
European Union . Peru requested that the European Union revise the se definitions to est ablish 
criteria that would allow traditional biodiversity products from developing countries real and timely 
access to the EU market.  
2.181.   Colombia, Costa Rica and Ecuador expressed their support for Peru's concerns.  
2.182.   The European Union recalled that in December  2013 it notified the proposal for a new 
regulation on novel foods, and an exceptionally long comment period (150 days in total) had been 
given to facilitate interested Members to dialogue with the European Union. The deadline to submit 
comments had been e xtended to 20 May 2014, and comments had been received from Canada, 
China, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru and the United States. EU experts were examining the comments 
and written replies would be provided soon. The European Union explained that the reference d ate 
of 15 May 1997 was already applied by the existing Regulation (EC) No. 258/97, and as the new 
proposal did not change the scope of the EU legislation, this date remained unchanged. A guidance 
document had been elaborated to explain how to establish the  use of a food to "a significant 
degree". On the definition of "traditional food from third country", this only referred to primary 
production. Sacha inchi oil could be placed on the EU market, whereas camu camu or rumberry 
were only known in the European Union to be used in food supplements. The 25 years history of 
safe use reflected experience gained by one generation of population consuming the food in 
question, and no toxicological data were required, only compositional data. The new proposals 
aimed to streamline the pre -market authorization procedure, in particular by faster and more 
proportionate safety assessments for traditional foods from third countries with a history of safe 
use. Detailed guidance on all information to be presented as part of the application would be 
provided. Recommendation 97/618/EC would be replaced by a new scientific guidance elaborated 
by EFSA by 31 October 2015, and would be subject to public consultation.  
2.183.   In October 2014 , Peru restated its concerns ov er the proposed amendme nt of 
EU Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 (G/SPS/GEN/1361) , again requesting the review of several 
definitions.  Furthermore, Peru addressed Article 9 of the proposed amendment, which sets forth 
the procedure for authorizing the placement of novel food on the EU market, requiring the 
exporter to present scientific evidence demonstrating the safety of the novel food in question. Peru 
challenged the consistency of EU's proposed regulation with Articles 2.2 and 5 of the 
SPS Agreement, which require the importing Memb er to adopt the least trade -restrictive measure, 
based on a risk assessment, and requested the European Union to provide the underpinning 
scientific basis.  
2.184.   Colombia and Guatemala expressed their support for Peru's concerns.  
2.185.   The European Union informed the Committee that Members' comments on the new 
proposed Regulation were being transmitted to the European Parliament and European Council for 
consideration before its final adoption. Regarding Peru's comments on Article 9, the European 
Union recalled that one  of the main objectives of the proposed Regulation was to facilitate and 
streamline the authorization of novel foods from third countries. European Commission 
Recommendation 97/618/EC reflected the scientific considerations underpinning the draft 
legislati on. As it was not possible to anticipate the potential risks associated with novel foods 
production processes, the European Union noted that a high level of food safety could only be 
achieved by putting in place a pre -market approval system, compatible wit h Article 8 and Annex C 
of the SPS Agreement. The European Union expressed its confidence that the proposed Regulation G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 66 - 
 
  was consistent with the SPS Agreement since it provided unified, simplified and shortened 
authorization procedures. The European Union re iterated its commitment to work closely with all 
Members to address their concerns and to provide detailed guidance to applicants regarding the 
authorization and notification procedures.  
2.186.   In March 2015, Peru reiterated its concerns ov er the proposed amendme nt of 
Regulation  (EC) No. 258/97 (G/SPS/GEN/1383). Peru challenged the consis tency of the 
EU proposed regulation with Articles 2.2 and 5 of the SPS Agreement, which require the importing 
Member to adopt the least trade -restrictive measure, based on a risk assessment, and requested 
the European Union to provide the underpinning scientific basis. Peru noted how trade statistics for 
kaniwa (or cañihua) exports showed the detrimental effects of the EU Regulation on Novel Foods 
on Peru's traditional products der ived from biodiversity. While Peru's global exports of kaniwa had 
increased by more than 317% in 2013 and about 206% in 2014, going to markets such as 
Australia, Canada and the United States, the marketing of this food in the European market was 
restricted  and its real potential was therefore reduced. Peru also requested the European Union to 
clarify the scope of the phrase "a large part of the population of a third country", contained in 
Article 2.2(c). The definition did not specify the percentage or numb er of people required for this 
part of the population to be considered "large", nor did it specify whether the population in 
question should constitute a representative sample of the country's population as a whole or 
whether it may concern specific areas.  
2.187.   The Plurinational State of Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador and 
Guatemala expressed their support for Peru's concerns.  
2.188.   The European Union recalled that the new proposal did not change the definition of novel 
food or the scope of the regulation, which covered foods, production processes and production 
methods new to the European Union for various reasons. This was in line with article 5.2 of the 
SPS Agreement. The European Union noted that in some cases safe consumption might requi re 
preparation or consumption habits only known to the consumers of the country producing the food 
in question. It was therefore not possible to anticipate the potential risk associated with such novel 
foods, production processes or production methods and to address them in an all -encompassing 
risk assessment. As a result, the high level of food safety pursued in the European Union could 
only be achieved on a case by case basis within the framework of a pre -market approval system. 
The EU scheme for novel food was in line with the SPS Agreement, as it was a pre -market 
approval based on scientific risk assessment, in line with Articles 5, 8 and Annex C. The European 
Union also reiterated its commitment to provide detailed guidance to applicants regarding the 
authorization and notification procedures and noted that products such as kaniwa should 
particularly benefit from the new Novel Food s Regulation, as they were likely to qualify for the 
simplified and shortened procedure for authorization of traditional food s from third countries. 
The European Union finally recalled that the discussion by the EU Parliament and the Council had 
not yet concluded; therefore no final text was available. The European Union would be in a position 
to provide a definitive answer to t he questions and concerns raised by WTO Members only when 
the final text was available.  
2.189.   In July 2015, Peru reiterated its concerns over the EU proposal for a regulation repealing 
Regulation (EC) No. 258/9 7 on novel foods notified in G/SPS/N/EU/64. Peru's t raditional 
biodiversity products with high export potential were being affected by the European Union's 
current regulation on novel foods, to the detriment of small and medium -sized Peruvian producers 
and exporters. Peru gave the example of "huito", the ma rketing of which is restricted in the 
European Union, as described in document G/SPS/GEN/1422. Peru requested that the European 
Union indicate the scientific basis for its regulation on novel foods and take into consideration the 
points raised by Peru at d ifferent meetings.  
2.190.   Colombia, Ecuador, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Costa Rica and Brazil 
supported Peru's statement, and highlighted the measures ' potential adverse effects on trade. 
They stated that the EU measure was not based on scientific principles and requested more 
information on its current status.  
2.191.   The European Union announced that the definitive text of the new regulation was not yet 
availa ble, although some progress had been made by the co -legislators. It was not possible to 
anticipate the potential risk associated with all novel foods, production processes and methods, 
and to address them in an all -encompassing risk assessment. The high le vel of food safety G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 67 - 
 
  pursued by the European Union could only be achieved on a case -by-case basis within the 
framework of a pre -market approval system, in accordance with A rticle 8 and Annex C of the 
SPS Agreement. Regarding "huito", there had been no applic ation for its authorization as novel 
food. Since the current Novel Foods Regulation had been in place since 1997, but there had been 
substantial imports of "huito" into the European Union in 2008, there seemed to be no causal 
relationship between the regul ation and the trade of this product into the European Union. Like all 
other traditional biodiversity foods, "huito" should particularly benefit from the new Novel Foods 
Regulation, since it was likely to qualify for the simplified, shorter procedure for su ch traditional 
foods. The European Union announced that once the regulation was adopted, guidance on all the 
information to be presented by applicants would be made available for public consultation and an 
information session would be organized. The Europe an Union remained committed to cooperating 
on this matter w ith all interested WTO Members.  
2.192.   In October 2015, Peru reiterated its concerns on the EU proposed Novel Foods Regulation, 
as notified in G/SPS/N/EU/64. Peru asserted that the proposed regulation was  not compatible with 
Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement, since the ban on the marketing of traditional 
biodiversity products was not justified by scientific evidence (G/SPS/GEN/1444). Peru observed 
that there was no scientific justification to require exporters to demonstrate safety of each product 
they wished to export to the European market and emphasized that Peru's traditional biodiversity 
products with high export potential were being affected by the European Union's current 
regulation. Per u gave the example of ornamental fish, which were of high importance for 
vulnerable regions of Peru and exported to over 80 countries, but would be subject to restrictions 
in the EU market due to this regulation. The proposed regulation did not take into a ccount the 
needs of developing countries regarding access for biodiversity products and generated high 
barriers to trade in the European market. Peru requested that the European Union respond to the 
questions it had submitted. Peru invited the European Uni on to provide information on the 
upcoming vote by the European Parliament on this regulation, as well as details on the content of  
the project, and future steps.  
2.193.   Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic and Guatemala supported the 
concer n and requested additional information on the scientific justification of the regulation. 
They also requested information on the discussions and voting process in the European Parliament, 
and on its adoption.  
2.194.   The European Union recalled that the co -legisla tors, the European Parliament and 
the Council, had made progress in the negotiations on the regulat ion and expressed hope that 
the novel foods legislation could be adopted in the current year. The European Union confirmed 
that it would hold a special infor mation session to present the new r egulation once finalized. 
After its adoption, a document containing detailed guidance for applicants on the information to be 
presented would be prepared and subject to public consultation. In responding to the specific 
queries raised, the European Union indicated that it was not possible to anticipate the potential 
risks associated with all novel foods, production processes and methods and to address them in an 
all-encompassing risk assessment. The high level of food safe ty pursued in the European Union 
could only be achieved on a case -by-case basis within the framework of a pre -market approval 
system, in accordance with Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement. The European Union 
noted that the proposed regulation was i n line with the SPS Agreement as it was based on 
scientific risk assessment. In addition, the regulation complied with Article 10 on special and 
differential treatment because it introduced a simplified procedure for the placement of traditional 
biodiversi ty foods on the EU market, once their history of safe use in third countries had been 
demonstrated if no safety concerns based on scientific evidence had been raised. The European 
Union queried Peru's example of ornamental fish, which was not considered fo od in the European 
Union. In addition, the European Union highlighted that Peru currently exported ornamental fish to 
the European Union on a regular basis.  
2.195.   Peru commented that the regulation would limit its exports to the European Union and 
requested that  Peru be informed ex -ante and not ex -post on this issue. The European Union 
indicated that information would be provided on the final text and on the practicalities of the 
regulation, once available. The European Union underscored the objective of the regu lation which 
was to shorten and simplify the current process, especially for traditional foods.  
2.196.   In March 2016, Peru raised its concerns over the new Regulation (EU) No. 2015/2283 on 
novel foods, which, like its predecessor Regulation (EC) No. 258/97, restr icted the entry into the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 68 - 
 
  European market of certain foods and food ingredients qualified as "new foods" for not being 
marketed in the European Union before 15 May 1997. Peru expressed its appreciation for the 
seminar organized by the European Union on the margins of the current SPS Committee meeting, 
but noted that once again there was no scientific basis to justify the 25 -year history period of safe 
food use. Peru also highlighted the potential adverse impacts the regulations may have on SMEs in 
developing  countries. Peru invited Members to review the examples of products affected by such 
regulations from previous submissions and cited in G/SPS/GEN/1477. Peru urged the European 
Union to address its concerns regarding the new regulation, in particular to pro vide the necessary 
scientific justification for the regulation.  
2.197.   Colombia noted that some of its concerns on the new legislation had been addressed in the 
seminar organized by the European Union, particularly on documentation requirements. However, 
Colombia  remained concerned that the definition of a novel food remained a product not consumed 
in the EU market before 1997, and about the burden small producers in developing countries 
would face in complying with the regulation.  
2.198.   Guatemala also shared the concern, reaffirming that the measure needed a scientific basis 
and urging the European Union to take into account the implications for small -scale, rural 
producers.  
2.199.   The European Union had already informed the Committee under a previous agenda item 
that th e new Regulation No. 2015/2283 had been adopted in November 2015 and would apply 
from 1 January 2018. Preparations for implementing the new rules were ongoing, including 
guidance from E uropean Food Safety Autority  for applicants seeking authorization. The European 
Union noted that the proposed regulation was consistent with the SPS Agreement. As it was not 
possible to the address potential risks associated with novel foods in an all -encompassing risk 
assessment, the high level of food safety pursued in the European Union could only be achieved on 
a case -by-case basis within the framework of a pre -market approval system, in accordance with 
Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement. The pre -market approval system foreseen in the 
regulation was based on scient ific risk assessment in line with Articles 5, 8, and Annex C. 
Concerning the 25 -year period of consumption, although there was no consensus on an exact 
period, most experts and regulators considered the period should cover one to several 
generations; 25 ye ars translated to roughly one generation, which was in the lower -end of this 
spectrum. In addition, the regulation complied with Article 10 on special and differential treatment 
because it introduced a simplified procedure for the placement of traditional biodiversity foods on 
the EU market, once their history of safe use in third countries had been demonstrated, and if no 
safety concerns based on scientific evidence had been raised. The European Union was confident 
that the new regulation was fully consist ent with the provisions of the SPS Agreement and 
remained committed to cooperating with all interested Members.  
2.200.   In October 2016, Peru recalled its concern regarding the new Regulation  (EU) 
No. 2015/2283 on novel foods, which like its predecessor Regulation  (EC) No. 258/97, restricted 
the entry into the European market of traditional biodiversity products not marketed in the 
European Union before 15 May 1997. Peru considered both regulations not to be based on 
scientific evidence and a risk assessment and th erefore to be inconsistent with Articles 2, 5.1 and 
5.2 of the SPS Agreement. As an example, Peru invited Members to review the case of products of 
stevia, a species native to the tropical region of South America used as a sweetener, described in 
G/SPS/GEN /1526. In particular, Peru urged the European Union to consider its comments on the 
implications of implementing its regulation, which constituted an unjustified barrier to trade with 
negative impacts on small farmers and producers.  
2.201.   Colombia recognized the  European Union's right to protect its population, but highlighted 
the burden and high costs its small producers would face in complying with the regulation. 
Colombia urged the European Union to take into account the concerns raised. Costa Rica 
highlighted  that novel foods were a tool for fostering rural development and SMEs growth in 
countries largely depending on trade of biodiversity products. Guatemala also shared the concerns, 
and noted that this type of measures discouraged trade of biodiversity produ cts. The measure 
jeopardized Guatemala's free trade agreements negotiated with the purpose of diversifying its 
exports. Ecuador requested that the European Union provide the necessary scientific justification 
for the regulation. Ecuador also highlighted th e need to consider special and differential treatment 
as well as technical cooperation activities.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 69 - 
 
  2.202.   The European Union recalled that the new regulation had been adopted and would apply 
from January 2018. Implementation rules on administrative and scientific  requirements for 
applicants would be finalized by the end of 2017 and duly notified under the SPS A greement. 
In addition, two European Food Safety Authority guidance documents for applicants seeking 
authorisation and for notifications of traditional foods  would be published in November. 
The guidance documents had been subject to public consultation and had been discussed with 
stakeholders, including non -EU countries, in April 2016. Technical reports on the outcome of these 
consultations would be published.  The European Union was confident that the new regulation was 
consistent with the SPS Agreement. As it was not possible to anticipate potential risks associated 
with novel foods or processing methods in one comprehensive risk assessment, the high -level of 
food safety pursued in the European Union could only be achieved through a pre -market approval 
scheme, in accordance with Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement. The European Union 
considered the new regulation to be in line with special and differenti al treatment, as it provided 
for a simplified and faster procedure for traditional biodiversity prod ucts, including stevia. 
The European Union indicated that Peru's application on stevia had not been approved due to lack 
of information. Concerning the 25 -year period of consumption, it translated to roughly one 
generation, which was on the lower end of the recommended spectrum. The European Union 
remained committed to continue working with Members and addressing their concerns on this 
issue.  
2.203.   In March 2017, P eru referred to its previously raised concern regarding the EU Regulation 
on novel foods which restricted the entry into the European market of traditional biodiversity 
products not marketed in the European Union before 15 May 1997. This concern had previo usly 
been raised in several SPS Committee meetings. Peru outlined that although the European Union 
had notified the modifications to the regulation, through bilateral channels, as well as through 
EFSA, to date no information had been circulated regarding t he conformity of these regulations to 
the SPS Agreement. Peru argued that implementation of this regulation constituted an unjustified 
barrier to the Peruvian food trade and urged the European Union to provide the scientific 
justification underpinning the regulation, as well as to align its regulation with the SPS Agreement. 
Peru reserved the right to include this concern on the agenda of the next Committee meeting.  
Categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors (STC 382)  
Raised by:  Argentina, China, U nited States of America  
Supported by:  Australia , Benin , Brazil , Burkina Faso , Burundi , Canada , Central African 
Republic , Chile, Colombia , Costa Rica , Dominican Republic , Ecuador , 
Egypt , The Gambia , Guatemala , Guinea , India, Indonesia , Jamaica , 
Kenya , Madagascar , Malaysia , Mexico , New Zealand , Nigeria , Pakistan , 
Paraguay , Peru, Philippines , Senegal , Sierra Leone , South Africa , Chinese 
Taipei , Thailand , Togo, Uruguay , Viet Nam , Zambia  
Dates raised:  March 2014 (G/SPS/R/74 , paras. 4.3 -4.4), March 2015 (G/SPS/R/78 , 
paras. 3.20 -3.22), July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79 , paras. 3.50 -3.52), October 
2015 (G/SPS/R/81, paras. 3.34 -3.37) , March 2016 (G/SPS/R/82, 
paras.  3.15-3.20), June 2016 (G/SPS/R/83, paras. 4.32 -4.37), October 
2016 (G/SPS/R/84, paras. 3.18 -3.23) , March 2017 (G/SPS/R/86, 
paras.  3.16-3.20), July 2017 (G/SPS/R/87, paras. 4.19 -4.26), November 
2017 (G/SPS/R/88, paras. 3.47 -3.52)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.204.   In March 2014, t he United States noted that the European Union planned to publish a 
roadmap outlining different options and a preliminary impact assessment in its process to assess, 
classify and regulate endocrine disruptors. The United States urged the European Union to swiftly 
notify the roadmap, any future proposals and the draft impact assessment, and to take into 
account comments from Members. The United States requested that the European Union explain 
its endocrine disruptor assessm ent program, particularly the timing for public consultations, as 
well as the timeframe for notifications and the manner in which Members' comments would be 
taken into consideration.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 70 - 
 
  2.205.   The European Union highlighted that several segments of its legislation c ontained 
provisions on endocrine disruptors; however, scientific criteria for the identification of endocrine 
disruptor substances were not yet available. The European Union noted that it had planned to 
propose scientific criteria to identify endocrine dis ruptors in its biocidal products regulation and 
plant protection products regulation by December 2013. However, i n light of the potential impacts 
of a choice of criteria, the European Commission decided to carry out a comprehensive impact 
assessment to analyse the different policy options available to define criteria for the identification 
of endocrine disruptors, before making a revised proposal. This process was underway and the 
next step would be the publication of a roadmap, within the coming weeks, out lining the various 
policy options for the criteria to be assessed. The impact asse ssment would follow standard 
EU guidelines, take into account existing scientific studies and reports, relevant international on -
going work on this subject, and the impact on  international trade. The European Union further 
clarified that a public consultation would be launched as part of the process in the course of 2014, 
enabling all stakeholders and trading p artners to provide their input.  
2.206.   In March 2015, the United States ra ised concerns regarding the EU public consultation on 
defining criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors in the context of the implementation of the 
plant protection product regulation and biocidal products regulation. The United States questioned 
the scientific evidence considered in developing and selecting each of the options presented in the 
roadmap and feared that risk might have not been taken into account. Implementation of any 
hazard -based "cut -off" option that did not consider risk from actual exposure could have severe 
implications for EU imports of agricultural goods, including those from the United States. 
Furthermore, banning chemicals and pesticides solely based on endocrine -disrupting properties 
might incentivize the use of more dangerous products, simply because they do not present 
endocrine -disrupting properties. The United States encouraged the European Union to explain in a 
public document how significant stakeholders' comments would be taken into account and urged 
the Commission to ado pt an approach that fully considered the vital role that pesticide chemicals 
play in food safety and security.  
2.207.   Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, India, Kenya, 
Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, South Africa an d Uruguay shared the US concern 
regarding the socio -economic effects that the EU measure would have on their countries if the 
legislation was to be approved. Various Members asked if the European Union had considered 
conducting an economic impact assessmen t for such a regulation and looked forward to being 
further informed.  
2.208.   The European Union noted that there was currently no new EU legislative proposal on 
defining criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors. The European Commission was in the process 
of conducting a full impact assessment, where all health, environmental and socio -economic 
aspects, including impacts on international trade, would be addressed. Following the publication of 
the roadmap in June 2014, a public consultation had been held  from S eptember 2014 to 
January  2015. Over 27,000 responses had been received and published on the EU Commission 
website, and an analytical report of these responses wou ld be provided in due course. 
A stakeholders' conference for all interested parties, including  third countries, was planned for 
1 June 2015, while a dedicated webpage with information on the ongoing impact assessment 
would be available soon on the DG -SANTE website. In parallel, the necessary studies to support 
the impact assessment were ongoing. Th e first one would estimate which substances would be 
identified under each option for the criteria outlined in the Roadmap, with 700 chemicals being 
screened. Only when the results of these screenings would be available, the European Commission 
would launc h the studies assessing impacts on health, environment, trade, agriculture and socio -
economic effects in general and include them in the impact assessment report that would 
accompany any legislative proposal. If and when such proposal would be made, the le gislative 
draft would be notified to the WTO to allow Members to present their comments, in line with the 
transparency obligations of the SPS Agreement that the European Union promoted and would like 
to reinforce.  
2.209.   In July 2015, the United States recalled i ts concerns on EU roadmap outlining possible 
options for defining criteria to identify endocrine disruptors, specifically as they related to plant 
protection products.  Referring to the public consultation held in Brussels on 1 July 2015, 
the United States questioned the scientific evidence underlying the options, and the consideration 
of any hazard -based "cut -off" option instead of risk from actual exposure. It encouraged the 
European Union to share information on the methodology used in developing EU membe r States' G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 71 - 
 
  impact assessments. The United States requested that the European Union recognize risk -based 
endocrine programmes developed by other countries. It also request that the European Union keep 
the Committee informed of relevant developments, and enco uraged the European Union to publish 
the draft legislation, once developed, including any risk and impact assessments carried out.  
2.210.   Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, India, 
Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand , Nigeria, and Peru also spoke about the revised EU proposal 
on endocrine disruptors. They urged the European Union to take into account all the comments 
made during the public consultation and requested that the Committee be informed of any 
relevant devel opments.  
2.211.   The European Union recalled that it was currently conducting an all -inclusive risk 
assessment, including impacts on international trade, and that the report of the public consultation 
conducted between September 2014 and January 2015 would be made  public in the coming 
weeks. The European Union also noted that all the relevant information about the impact 
assessment had been made available on their website. The E uropean Union recalled that 
two studies were being conducted, one on the identification of the endocrine disruptors and 
another on the assessment of impacts. Once, and if, a legislative p roposal was eventually made, 
it would be notified to the Committee and comments from Members would be taken into account 
before adoption of the final regulat ion. 
2.212.   In October 2015, the United States restated the observations presented during the 2015 
July meeting and thanked the European Union for its report of the public consultation held in 
Brussels in July 2015 (G/SPS/GEN/1448) .  
2.213.   Argentina shared the US conce rn and reiterated that future actions should be taken on a 
case-by-case basis and based on solid scientific evidence after appropriate risk assessment. 
Special attention should be given to minimizing adverse impacts on international trade and 
especially on  trade in agricultural products, but also to minimizing socioeconomic losses in 
commodity -producing countries, in particular developing countries. Argentina also thanked the 
European Union for its report of the consultation and requested that the rest of t he process be 
conducted in a transparent manner inclusive of all relevant stakeholders.  
2.214.   Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, 
India, Jamaica, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru, Seneg al, Sierra 
Leone and Viet Nam also spoke about the revised EU proposa l on endocrine disruptors. 
They encouraged the European Union, inter alia , to follow a risk -based approach, adhere to 
relevant international standards and to keep informing the Committee of any relevant 
developments.  
2.215.   The European Union recalled that it was currently conducting an all -inclusive impact 
assessment, including impacts on international trade. The European Union also noted that all the 
relevant information about the impact assess ment had been made available on their website. 
The European Union recalled that two studies were being conducted, one on the identification of 
the endocrine disruptors and another on the assessment of impacts. Once, and if, a legislative 
proposal were even tually to be made, it would be notified to the Committee and comments from 
Members would be taken into account before adoption of the final regulation.  
2.216.   In March 2016, Argentina again raised its concern with the EU revised proposal for 
categorization of com pounds as endocrine disruptors, both on defining criteria for identifying 
endocrine disruptors and on the future EU approach to establishing MRLs and import tolerances for 
said substances. Argentina urged the European Union to adopt a risk -based rather tha n a hazard -
based approach. Argentina requested more information on the socio-economic impact of the 
EU revised proposal on endocrine disruptors. Argentina also requested an update on information 
provided at the previous TBT Committee meeting on this topic.  
2.217.   China shared the concern while commending the European Union for its efforts to protect 
consumers' health. China urged the European Union to incorporate actual exposure in its 
regulations, to apply existing Codex standards to minimize trade impacts, and t o notify its 
measures at an early stage to take into account Members' comments.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 72 - 
 
  2.218.   The United States reaffirmed the importance of plant protection products and their uses 
and recalled its concerns about the EU roadmap, which outlined possible options for defi ning 
criteria to identify endocrine disruptors. The United States questioned the scientific evidence 
underlying the options, and the consideration of any hazard -based "cut -off" option instead of risk 
from actual exposure. The United States encouraged the E uropean Union to share information on 
the methodology used in developing EU member States' impact assessments as well as an update 
on the EU's intentions to include socio -economic analysis in the impact assessment. The United 
States requested that the Euro pean Union recognize risk -based endocrine programmes developed 
by other countries. It also requested that the European Union keep the Committee informed of 
relevant developments, and encouraged the European Union to publish the draft legislation, once 
developed, including any risk and impact assessments carried out, for public comment. 
Additionally, the United States raised a concern regarding Regulation  (EC) No. 1107/2009 that sets 
out a hazard -based approach, rather than risk -based, to determine whether s ubstances should be 
authorized for use. According to this regulation, pesticides previously deemed safe under a risk -
based approach would no longer be authorized if they triggered a hazard "cut -off", as described in 
Regulation (EC) 1107/2009. The United St ates urged the European Union to communicate risks 
accurately to the public and reaffirmed its commitment to collaboration to reduce the potentially 
severe impacts on trade.  
2.219.   Canada shared this concern, as in the last three SPS Committee meetings. Hazard 
identification was an important step in risk analysis, but needed to be placed into the context of 
exposure. Canada continued to seek clarification on the EU regulations, as the proposed 
approaches could impede the use of safe crop protection products, thus restricting trade without 
evidence of increased safety. Canada noted that the EU impact studies would be released later in 
2016 and requested clarification on how the studies would be utilized and comments would be 
managed.  
2.220.   Brazil, Burundi (on behalf of th e African Group), Central African Republic, Colombia, Chile, 
Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Jamaica, India, Kenya, Madagascar, Mexico, New Zealand, 
Nigeria, Senegal, Thailand, Togo, Viet Nam, and Zambia also spoke about the revised EU proposal 
on endocrine  disruptors. They encouraged the European Union to, inter alia , follow a risk -based 
approach, minimize any potential trade impacts, adhere to relevant international standards and 
keep informing the Committee of any relevant developments, especially the for thcoming impact 
assessments.  
2.221.   The European Union clarified that the roadmap contained two elements: the approaches to 
identify criteria and the approaches to regulatory measures. Two options of the latter contained 
elements of risk assessment. The European Union stated that in response to a judgement of the 
EU General Court in December 2015, the European Commission had decided to accelerate its on -
going impact assessment work in order to be able to present the  results in summer of 2016. 
The report was in its  final stages and would be publically available once formally approved. 
Two regulatory measures were being considered: one containing criteria applied to chemical 
substances falling under the Plant Protection Products Regulation, and the other containing c riteria 
applicable under the Biocidal Products Regulation. Both measures would be notified to the WTO in 
draft forms for comments prior to adoption. The European Union recalled that in the impact 
assessment the potential trade impacts were being evaluated,  together with impacts on 
agriculture, health, environment, and socio -economic impacts. The European Union noted that the 
methodology used to screen which chemicals may fall under the different options for criteria to 
identify endocrine disruptors had been  developed by the Joint Research Center of the European 
Commission and had been presented in November 2015. The methodology, results, and 
contractor's details would be published upon completion. Finally, the European Union highlighted 
that it was acting in  a fully transparent manner and invited Members to visit the dedicated website 
where all relevant information was available.  
2.222.   In June 2016, Argentina reiterated its concern with the EU's revised proposal for 
categorization of compounds as endocrine disrupto rs, notified in G/SPS/N/EU/166. The hazard -
based approach would modify MRLs of previously approved phytosanitary products to default 
levels that lacked scientific justification, leading to disproportionate and unnecessary trade 
restrictions. Argentina requ ested that these levels be based on risk assessments and the possibility 
to establish MRLs above default levels for substances posing an insign ificant exposure risk. 
Finally,  Argentina regretted that the draft regulation setting out scientific criteria for  the 
determination of endocrine -disrupting properties for biocidal products pursuant to EU Regulation G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 73 - 
 
  No. 528/2012 had been notified to the TBT Committee (G/TB T/N/EU/384), and not to the 
SPS Committee.  
2.223.   The United States raised its concern with three EU pol icies related to the approval and use 
of plant protection products. First, the United States joined Argentina's  concern that the 
EU's proposed approach to endocrine disruptors (EDs) would impose unnecessary trade 
restrictions, and asked the European Union to provide the scientific evidence used to justify the 
establishment of definitive criteria to identify EDs. The United States regretted that the impact 
assessment on the EU proposal had been published with no opportunity for public comment. The 
United Sta tes formulated questions on (i) the meaning of "negligible risk" as used in the proposal, 
including a specific clarification as to whether the European Union would use the current standard 
to set MRLs under Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005 for substances that did not trigger the "cut-off" 
criteria; (ii)  whether all ED substances designated by the European Union under the World Health 
Organization/International Programme on Chemical Safety (WHO/IPCS) definition would be eligible 
for the derogation allowing for a n evaluation "in light of current scientific knowledge", provided 
that they met the negligible risk standard; (iii) the possibility to file an application for an import 
tolerance, based on a risk assessment, for a substance designated as an ED and not auth orized 
under EU regulation; (iv) whether the registration and MRL -setting of carcinogenic, mutagenic, or 
toxic for reproduction (CMR) substances would remain hazard -based, and the possible application 
for an import tolerance of a product ineligible for reg istration because of the hazard -based "cut off" 
criteria; and (v) the list of substances the European Union expects to be identified as EDs, and the 
role of potency and exposure in the identification process. In these questions, the United States 
highlight ed the potential absence of a risk -based approach and u se of exposure information. 
The United States also invited the European Union to organize an information session, in light of 
Members interest in this topic.  
2.224.   Second, the United States again expressed i ts concern with the hazard -based approach set 
out by Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009, and asked the European Union to clarify how the hazard -
based "cut -off" criteria would be applied to substances approved before 2009 for which the 
renewal process was expect ed to begin in 2016. The United States again requested that the 
European Union place scientifically -justified risk assessments at the heart of the establishment of 
tolerances for pesticide residues in food. Third, the United States expressed a special conc ern with 
the French ban on fresh cherries imported from countries that had approved the use of 
dimethoate. The United States urged France to notify the ban to the WTO, and to provide scientific 
justification for it. The United States especially questioned the fact that the ban was based on the 
pesticide's authorization by the Member rather than on pesticid e residues in the cherries. 
The United States asked France to use less trade -restrictive alternatives such as residue 
monitoring during import checks, and  reaffirmed its commitment to work with both the European 
Union and other trading partners on these concerns.  
2.225.   China shared the concerns of Argentina and the United States, and again urged the 
European Union to incorporate assessment of actual exposure in i ts regulations, to apply existing 
Codex standards to minimize trade impacts, and to notify its measures at an early stage to take 
into account comments from Members.  
2.226.   Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, India, Kenya, 
Malaysia, Mexico, Paraguay, Chinese Taipei, Uruguay and Viet Nam shared the concern expressed 
by Argentina, China and the United States. They highlighted, inter alia , the importance of this 
issue and its potential negative trade impacts, and the necessary supp ort of scientific justification 
and risk assessment in establishing such regulation. They encouraged the European Union to 
adhere to relevant international standards and to continue informing the Committee of any 
relevant developments. Many of them joined in the request for an  information session. 
Australia  echoed Argentina's concern regarding notification of the proposed biocide regulations 
through an SPS notification.  
2.227.   The European Union recognized the international dimension of this issue and fully 
apprec iated the concerns expressed by Members. The European Union again highlighted that the 
European Commission had proposed to adjust the plant protection products' derogations to base 
them on scientific evidence, including information on hazard, exposure and risk, to take 
appropriate decisions on endocrine disruptors in compliance with  international obligations. 
The European Union reminded that the new criteria -setting proposals had been notified via the 
SPS and TBT channels for full transparency. The European  Union further noted that although the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 74 - 
 
  regulation concerning biocides had been notified under the TBT Agreement and not SPS, the 
European Union was not dogmatic about this choice and was prepared  to revise it if necessary. 
The European Union informed the C ommittee that the issue of the French ban due to dimethoate 
concerns was currently under internal discussion. The European Union expressed interest in 
holding an information session as suggested, and would consider it in due time. The European 
Union invite d all Members to promptly submit their comments in writing.  
2.228.   In October 2016, Argentina reiterated its concern with the EU's revised proposal for 
categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors (EDs), not ified in G/SPS/N/EU/166. 
The EU proposed hazard -based approach would not efficiently assess risks posed by ED substances 
to humans and the environment. In addition, MRLs for phytosanitary products already approved 
following a rigorous European Food Safety Authority risk assessment would now be regulated 
under a mere risk -identification approach inconsistent with Codex standards. Argentina further 
noted that the proposed hazard -based approach was incomplete as it did not include the essential 
elements of risk -characterisation, such as potency, severity and  reversibility of effects. 
Such elements were necessary to assess risks to humans or the e nvironment according to the 
SPS Agreement and the World Health Organization/International Programme on Chemical Safety 
(WHO/IPCS). Argentina considered that the impac t-assessment option selected by the European 
Commission would have significant agriculture, food safety, trade and socio -economic impacts. 
Argentina hoped import tolerance derogations for agricultural products would be applied in a 
transparent and non -discriminatory manner, while avoiding technica l obstacles to trade. 
Argentina  requested the European Union to take countries' comments into account before adopting 
the measure. Finally, Argentina thanked the European Union for the information session held the 
day before, welcoming any additional information on the proposal.  
2.229.   China shared the concerns and highlighted that in June 2016 , 13 Members had sent a joint 
letter to the European Union on this matter. China thanked the European Union for notifying the 
proposed regulation, and for holding an information session and bilateral consultations before the 
Committee meeting. Considering t he potential significant impact of the measure, China requested 
that the European Union fully fulfil the transparency obligation and provide at least a six -month 
transition period between adoption and implementation. China asked the European Union to 
provide replies to the comments submitted and urged it to consider assessment of actual exposure 
and potency factors, rather than substances themselves in its measure , as well as to apply existing 
Codex standards to minimize trade impacts.  
2.230.   The United States exp ressed its appreciation for the EU information session and for the 
extension of the comment period for the ED proposals. The United States raised concerns with two 
EU policies related to the approval and use of plant protection products; namely the EU's re cent 
proposal on EDs published on 15 June 2016 (G/SPS/N/EU/166); and the reauthorisation of 
pesticides under Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009. First, the United States expressed its concern 
that the EU's proposed approach to EDs would impose unnecessary trade  restrictions and asked 
the European Union to provide the scientific evidence used to justify the establishment of definitive 
criteria to identify EDs. Neither Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 nor the impact assessment 
published on 15 June , identified the sci entific evidence considered in the development and 
selection of EDs "cut -off" criteria. The United States welcomed a revised proposal, soon to be 
available, that might clarify questions on the derogation process and the application of the 
WHO/IPCS EDs defi nition. The United States hoped that the updates for the derogation process 
would define the meaning of "negligible risk", include the important aspects of exposure and 
potency, and follow a risk -based approach under which all substances designated as EDs under the 
WHO/IPCS definition would be eligible to be registered provided they met the "negligible risk" 
standard. The United States further hoped that these changes would address its previous 
questions regarding other substances that trigger "cut -off" cri teria such as carcinogenic, mutagenic 
or toxic for reproduction (CMR) substances. The United States further stressed the importance of 
non-discrimination in the implementation of this measure, and requested that the European Union 
implement guidelines and processes for risk assessment that were consistent for all substances, 
in addition to pursuing a transparent and predictable approach throughout the risk management 
process. The United States noted two key questions that had previously been raised regardin g 
these proposals and were yet to be addressed: (i) the possibility to file an application for an import 
tolerance, based on a risk assessment, for a substance designated as an ED and not authorized 
under EU regulation; and (ii) the list of substances the European Union expected to be identified as 
EDs under the WHO/IPCS definition as well as specific information regarding when and how 
potency and exposure would be taken into consideration.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 75 - 
 
  2.231.   Second, the United States again expressed its concerns with Regulat ion (EC) 
No. 1107/2009. The United States reiterated that in the European Union, original approvals 
appeared to be for ten years, while renewals were for 15 years. Substances approved before 2009 
would therefore be scheduled to be renewed in 2019, and the process would begin in 2016. 
The United States also highlighted that under Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009, pesticides approved 
for several years and determined to be safe under a risk -based system would no longer be subject 
to a risk assessment if a pre -determined hazard criterion was identified. The United States asked 
the European Union to explain how the hazard -based "cut -off" criteria would be applied in practice 
to substances undergoing the renewal process. The United States also raised concerns with th e 
important trade impact that the regulation might have in the future, and requested that the 
measure be based on a risk assessment. The United States finally highlighted the need for close 
collaboration with trading partners and expressed its commitment t o continue working with the 
European Union on this issue.  
2.232.   Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, 
Egypt, Guatemala, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, New Zealand, Paraguay, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, 
Uruguay and Viet nam shared the concerns expressed by Argentina, China and the United States. 
They highlighted, inter alia , the significance of the issue and the potential negative trade impact 
while also recognising the European Union's right to protect its citizens. They  expressed concern 
over the hazard -based approach and called on the European Union to adopt a risk -based approach. 
They all expressed their appreciation to the European Union for the information session held the 
day before.  
2.233.   The European Union referred to t he information session th at had taken place prior to 
the Committee meeting and where experts from the European Commission had provided detailed 
information and answered questions from WTO Members on all the  elements of the proposals. 
The European Union inf ormed the Committee that a compilation of the responses to comments 
received would be circulated and noted that regarding implementation and practical consequences, 
uncertainty remained as to if and when the proposal would be adopted. The European Union wo uld 
continue to be as transparent as possible on the matter, and take proportionate and appropriate 
decisions in compliance with international obligations. The proposals were going through the 
relevant regulatory procedures and the European Union would con sider all the comments received.  
2.234.   In March 2017, The United States reiterated its concern regarding the European Union's 
proposal for categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors (EDs) and amending Regulation 
No. 1107/2009, which would require the wi thdrawal of existing authorizations for certain 
substances without a risk assessment. The United States thanked the European Union for their 
written responses, while noting that they did not provide scientific justification for the 
establishment of hazard -based criteria. While the proposed criteria for identifying EDs did not 
consider potency and exposure factors, they would still be used to both identify hazard and deny 
authorization for certain pesticides. The United States again asked the European Union to explain 
how the hazard -based "cut -off" criteria would be applied in practice to pesticides determined to be 
safe under a risk -based approach and undergoing the renewal process. In particular, the United 
States expressed concerns with the European Union setting MRLs at low default levels without 
scientific justification for substances no longer approved under the hazard -based approach.  
2.235.   The United States also expressed its concern with the European Union's decision in 
December 2016 to split the proposal i nto two stand -alone policies: a proposal to establish criteria 
for identifying EDs; and another one to amend the derogation criteria from "negligible exposure" to 
"negligible risk". The split approach could impact more importantly on trade if the two polic ies 
were not finalized simultaneously. In this context, the United States asked if it would be possible 
to file an import tolerance for a substance designated as ED or carcinogenic, mutagenic, or toxic 
for reproduction (CMR), and which did not benefit from  the E uropean Union's derogation. 
The United States again urged the European Union to base its SPS measures on a transparent and 
risk based approach and highlighted that the proposal would severely impact trade while 
marginally improving human or environme ntal health. The United States indicated that it would 
provide additional written questions regarding the proposed derogation process.  
2.236.   Argentina echoed the statement made by the United States, emphasizing that the 
European Union's proposed hazard -based ap proach would not effic iently assess risks posed by 
ED substances and did not include essential elements of risk characterization such as potency, 
severity and reversibility of effects. Argentina questioned the selection of criteria under option 2 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 76 - 
 
  rather th an option 4, which would have been less trade burdensome while guaranteeing a similar 
level of human health protection. It shared the concern voiced by the United States regarding the 
European Union's recent decision to split the original draft regulation notified in G/SPS/N/EU/166 
into two proposals, leaving out the derogation process. If the European Union approved 
the proposal based on this new approach, it would need to notify it, as it would constitute a 
different measure severely impacting on trade wi thout scientific justification.  
2.237.   Australia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Ri ca, Ecuador, Egypt, 
El Salvador, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, India, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Nigeria, the 
Philippines, South Africa, Chinese Taipei, Thaila nd, Uruguay and Viet Nam shared the concerns 
expressed by Argentina and the United States, and called upon the European Union to adopt a 
risk-based approach in compliance with the SPS Agreement. They underlined, inter alia , their 
special concerns over the hazard -based approach, the split of the proposal between identification 
criteria and derogations, and the importance of this issue and its potential negative trade impacts. 
In particular, Canada estimated that the proposed regulation could affect 60% of th eir plant 
protection products for wheat and soy crops, and up to 75% in the case of canola production. 
Australia and Kenya also noted that under the proposed regulation, many plant protection 
products which presented no alternatives would be banned. Many M embers expressed their 
appreciation to the European Union for their transparency efforts, and Austr alia encouraged 
the European Union to provide updates on the work of the European Food Safety Authority and 
European Chemicals Agency in reviewing and priori tizing chemicals as EDs.  
2.238.   The European Union reiterated its commitment to transparency, recalling that it had duly 
notified the proposals and circulated a compilation of the responses to comments received in 
February 2017. The proposals, which were going t hrough the relevant regulatory procedures, had 
been revised to clarify burden of proof and criteria scope, but no substantial change had been 
introduced to the proposal originally notified. The decision to split the plant protection products 
proposal into two separate texts, one on identification criteria and another on the technical 
amendment to the clause on negligible exposure, was to facilitate decision -making. The European 
Union encouraged Members to share their statements in writing and reiterated its  commitment to 
continue informing the Committee of further developments.  
2.239.   In July 2017, Argentina reiterated its concern over the European Union's policy on 
pesticides which established criteria to identify substances with endocrine disrupting properties, 
emphasizing the policy's hazard -based rather than risk -based approach and its potential trade 
impact. Argentina added that the European Union Standing Committee on Plants, Animal, Food 
and Feed (SCoPAFF) had approved the proposed criteria in July 2017, and  that without a veto from 
the European Parliament and the EU Council of Ministers, the proposal would enter into force in 
October 2017, to be implemented six months later. Argentina observed that substances currently 
authorized after having gone through a European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) risk assessment, 
could later be banned, including substances with an insignificant risk of endocrine disruption - even 
in contradiction with Codex standards. Argentina also questioned the division of the original 
propo sal into two texts. Argentina further echoed the questions posed by the United States in the 
past and urged the European Union to provide practical information on the procedure it would 
follow for the withdrawal of authorizations.  
2.240.   China reiterated its con cern regarding the European Union proposal and questioned the 
hazard -based approach of the EU proposal. China argued that the proposal would have a severe 
impact on trade while marginally improving human or environmental health, and expressed a 
special con cern on the division of the proposal. China underscored the market uncertainty created 
by the reduction of allowed substances.  
2.241.   The United States reiterated its concern that the pesticide policy in the European Union 
was insufficiently grounded in science and risk, and could potentially disrupt international trade 
without providing a meaningful benefit to public health. The United States expressed particular 
concern over the lack of transparency and predictability in the implementation of the hazard 
provisi ons of Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 and queried about MRLs that would be set at trade -
restrictive default levels. The United States noted cases where the decisions of the European Food 
Safety Authority (EFSA) failed to take all available data into conside ration and differed 
substantially from the findings of other national and international authorities, resulting in the 
proposed withdrawal of authorizations for use of these substances for a wide range of food crops. 
The United States was additionally conce rned that measures to withdraw authorizations of G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 77 - 
 
  pesticides and prohibit crops treated with those pesticides  were being notified to the 
TBT Committee and the decision to withdraw the corresponding MRL would only be notified to the 
SPS Committee after the d ecisions to withdraw authorizations had been finalized. The United 
States requested that these measures be notified to the SPS Committee when comments and 
additional data could still be taken into consideration and queried about the procedures for setting 
MRLs and import tolerances under Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005.  
2.242.   The United States remained concerned with the division of the draft legal text into two 
stand -alone components, one proposal to establish criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors and 
another to amend the derogation criteria. The United States thanked the European Union for 
engaging in bilateral consultations, looked forward to receiving responses to the questions 
submitted to the European Union following the March 2017 SPS Committee Meetin g, and remained 
open to sharing those questions with other interested Members.  
2.243.   Australia, Benin, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican 
Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, The Gambia, Guatemala, India, Israel, Kenya, Madagascar, Mexico, 
Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru, Senegal, South Africa, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, Togo, Uruguay, and 
Zambia indicated that they shared this concern and called upon the European Union to adopt a 
risk-based approach in compliance with the SPS Agreement. Memb ers underlined, inter alia , their 
special concerns over the hazard -based approach; the split of the proposal between criteria to 
identify endocrine disruptors and the criteria for derogations; the approval of the proposal on the 
reduction in allowed pestic ides and its potential negative trade impact. Australia encouraged the 
European Union to provide updates on the work of the European Food Safety Authority and 
European Chemicals Agency in reviewing and prioritizing chemicals as endocrine disruptors.  
2.244.   Canada  expressed concern over the language introduced in the Revised Plant Protection 
Products Draft criteria, presented on 30 May, referring to "known" and "presumed" endocrine 
disruptors. Canada requested the European Union to clarify that these terms would no t result in a 
wider scope of endocrine disruptors. Canada also enquired whether the decisions for setting MRLs 
and import tolerance levels would continue to be made on the basis of risk assessments, as set out 
in Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005. Canada apprec iated the European Union's efforts in developing 
this proposal as well as the intense consultations that had taken place around the SPS Committee 
meetings.  
2.245.   India emphasised that the "hazard based cut -off criteria" approach of the regulation would 
disrupt i nternational trade without providing a meaningful benefit to public health. Further, this 
approach would not include a risk assessment, and has left open the scope for the interpretation of 
"negligible risk" and other terms, which would result in lack of c larity in its implementation.  
2.246.   The European Union reiterated its commitment to transparency, recalling that it had duly 
notified its draft acts, received and responded to Members' comments. The European Union 
recalled the information session of October 201 6 and document G/SPS/GEN/1494/Rev.1 about the 
ongoing review of pesticides MRLs. The proposed criteria had been endorsed by its member States 
and, barring any objection by the European Council and Parliament, the criteria would be adopted 
by the European C ommission in three months. They would then enter into force 20 days after their 
publication, and become applicable six months after that date. Regarding concerns raised on the 
criteria, the European Union recalled that in the absence of these criteria, its  legislation would 
require the application of the so -called interim criteria, leading to more stringent conditions. 
Finally, the European Union had taken note of specific questions received, in particular those 
submitted by the United States, and confirmed  it would provide responses. With respect to the 
concerns raised regarding a possible change in the European Union policy on pesticides in general 
and their MRLs, the European Union confirmed that there had been no such change. The European 
Union reiterate d its commitment to keeping the SPS Committee informed about any future 
developments.  
2.247.   In November 2017, Argentina reiterated its concern over the European Union's process to 
define criteria to identify endocrine disrupting properties. Argentina noted the European 
Parliament's recent rejection of the draft implementing regulation that would have amended 
Regulation (EU) No. 1107/2009 Annex 2, which established definitive and specific scientific criteria 
for the determination of endocrine disruptive propertie s, as adopted by the European Union 
Standing Committee on Plants, Animal, Food and Feed (SCoPAFF) in July 2017. Argentina 
requested an update of the following steps. Argentina was concerned about current discussions in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 78 - 
 
  the European Union about restricting imports of substances on the basis of hazard identification 
rather than of a comprehensive risk assessment. Argentina reiterated its request that the 
European Union maintain import tolerances with MRLs above default values, in accordance with its 
Regulatio n (EC) 396/2005.  
2.248.   China echoed the Argentina's concern and recommended that the European Union adopt 
the Codex standards, in accordance with the SPS Agreement.  
2.249.   The United States reiterated its concerns on the EU pesticides policy. The United States 
argued  that the EU hazard -based pesticide regulations were insufficiently grounded on science and 
risk, and would harm global agriculture production, food security and international trade, without 
making a meaningful contribution to public health. The United Sta tes reaffirmed its stance against 
the hazard -based criteria of the European Union to ban substances identified as endocrine 
disruptors, and its concern over the effects that the prolonged uncertainty on the matter was 
having on producers. The United States  recalled that the European Union would apply interim 
criteria in the absence of adoption of the proposed criteria, and therefore asked about the 
difference between the list of substances that would fall under the interim criteria and those that 
would fall  under the criteria rejected by the European Parliament. The United States emphasised 
the existence of other approaches that could provide the high level of human health and 
environmental protection sought by the European Union without disrupting internati onal trade and 
asked the European Union how it would ensure consistency with the SPS Agreement if it withdrew 
MRLS without conducting risk assessments or considering import tolerances or relevant Codex 
MRLs. Finally, the United States looked forward to rec eiving responses to the written question 
submitted to the European Union after the March 2017 SPS Committee meeting.  
2.250.   Canada stated its concern over the EU approach to the categorization of compounds as 
endocrine disruptors. Canada expressed its disappoint ment that a regulatory amendment for 
derogation based on negligible risk had not been introduced in the European Parliament, and the 
delay and uncertainty this created. Canada sought assurances from the European Union that 
decisions on setting MRLs would c ontinue to be made on the basis of risk assessments, as set out 
in Regulation (EC) 396/2005.  
2.251.   Australia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, India, Israel, Madagascar, 
Mozambique, New Zealand, Nigeria, Peru, Senegal, Thailand, Togo, and Uruguay indica ted that 
they shared this concern and called upon the European Union to base its measures on adequate 
scientific risk assessments and to consider Codex MRLs. They also requested the European Union 
to keep Members abreast of their next steps on this issue.  
2.252.   The European Union reiterated its commitment to transparency, noting that all the 
information regarding this matter was available on the Eur opean Commission's website. 
The proposal on defining the criteria to identify endocrine disruptors for plant protec tion products 
had been recently rejected by the European Parliament and the European Commission was 
considering the next steps. Import tolerance requests for substances falling under the cut -off 
criteria would be carefully evaluated on a case -by-case basis , considering the objectives of 
consumer protection as well as the European Union's obligations under the SPS Agreement. Due to 
transitional measures of Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 and the delays in the renewal 
programmes of the approved active substance s, the European Union did not yet have experience 
on MRL and import tolerance setting for substances falling under the cut -off criteria. The European 
Union reiterated that its measures were neither discriminatory nor a disguised restriction to trade, 
but w ould be applied domestically and internationally. Finally, the European Union undertook to 
keep Members duly informed about  further developments.  
France's dimethoate -related restrictions on imports (STC 422)  
Raised by:  United States of America  
Supported by: Argentina,  Canada  
Dates raised:  July 2017 (G/SPS/R/87, paras. 27 – 32), November 2017 (G/SPS/R/ 88, 
paras. 3.53 -3.55)  
Relevant document(s):  STC 382  
Status:  Not reported  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 79 - 
 
  Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.253.   In July 2017, the Chairperson noted that this concern was first raised in June 2016 as part 
of the concern regarding the European Union's revised proposal for the categorization of 
compounds as endocrine disruptors. It was now being raised as a separate specific trade concern, 
and would thus  be so reflected in the IMS.  
2.254.   The United States reiterated its concern over actions taken by France to ban the 
importation of fresh cherries from countries that had approved the use of the pesticide dimethoate  
on cherries. The United States noted that the ban had not been based on a risk assessment of the 
safety of residues and that the measure had been renewed despite being inconsistent with the 
November 2016 EFSA decision and the regulation approved in Februa ry 2017 by SCoPAFF on MRLs 
for dimethoate (and its metabolite omethoate). The United States recalled that the European 
Commission and a majority of member States deemed France's requests for a European 
emergency measure to be unjustified and highlighted th at the measure had a significant impact on 
trade without achieving a significant public health benefit. The United States further added that the 
measure had only been notified after its implementation and after the US request. It had then 
been notified as an emergency measure, without a specified comment period. Finally, the United 
States questioned the scientific basis for applying the measure only to fresh cherries when other 
commodities could also contain dimethoate residues. The United States expressed its willingness 
to exchange scientific information with France on the safety of dimethoate and its metabolites, as 
well as to explore less trade -restrictive measures.  
2.255.   Argentina endorsed the statement of the United States, highlighting the measure's lack of  
scientific justification and that it was more trade -restrictive than necessary, noting alternative 
measures such as the use of MRLs and the monitoring of residues during import controls. 
Argentina urged France and other Members imposing pesticide -related restrictions, to act in 
accordance with the SPS Agreement.  
2.256.   Canada echoed the United States and remained concerned about the renewal of a 
temporary restriction as a national emergency measure. Canada recalled that in October 2016 and 
July 2017 it had asked  France for evidence that the current MRL of 0.2 mg/kg was insufficient to 
protect human health and for alternative appropriate levels of MRL for di methoate. 
Canada  highlighted the lack of scientific evidence of the measures imposed by France and 
expressed  its general concern regarding bans based on substance authorizations, regardless of 
residue levels. Canada urged France to conduct a risk assessment to justify the application of a 
more restrictive MRL than the one applied by the European Union.  
2.257.   The Euro pean Union recalled that on 28 April 2017, France had introduced a protective 
measure suspending the importation of fresh cherries for consumption from member States and 
non-EU countries that had approved the use of the pesticide dimethoate on cherry trees . France 
had justified the measure because of unacceptable toxicological risks posed by the consumption of 
certain dimethoate metabolites. The European Union clarified that France was particularly 
concerned by the identification of a possible acute risk by  EFSA, leading to France's request to the 
European Commission for emergency measures to ban the use of dimethoate for cherry trees. 
In the absence of EU measures, France had introduced a national emergency measure. 
The European Union finally indicated that  new studies had been submitted to EFSA for evaluation, 
expecting a conclusion in spring 2018.  
2.258.   The United States thanked the European Union and looked forward to further bilateral 
discussions. The United States added that plant metabolism studies and toxi cological data on 
relevant dimethoate metabolites had been previously submitted to and reviewed by the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and that omethoate, the only metabolite that was 
found to be toxicologically relevant by the EPA for  risk assessment purposes (as well as 
enforcement), had also been evaluated by EFSA, with separate protective MRLs voted and 
approved by EU member States in February 2017.  
2.259.   In November 2017, the United States reiterated its concern over actions taken by Fr ance 
to ban the importation of fresh cherries from the United States and other countries that had G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 80 - 
 
  approved the use of the pesticide dimethoate on cherries. The United States expressed concern 
over the decision to restrict imports of commodities based on th e authorization of a pesticide in 
the country of origin rather than based on a scientific assessment of risk, and regardless of 
whether or not residues of the pesticide were present in the imported commodities. The United 
States noted that publicly availab le evaluations from other regulatory authorities had determined 
that dimethoate metabolites were not toxicologically relevant, as did the draft Rapporteur 
Assessment Report of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The United States informed it 
had rec eived from France a response to its comments, but regretted that it referred to data gaps 
when the United States argued the data was available. Finally, the United States requested France 
not to renew its ban for a third consecutive year.  
2.260.   Canada echoed th e US concern, requested information about the measures that would 
apply from 1 January 2018, and encouraged France to adopt measures in line with those of the 
European Commission, which were scientifically justified and not discriminatory against products 
from countries where dimethoate was authorised for use. Canada urged France to conduct a risk 
assessment to determine if the current MRL established by the European Union was insufficient 
before enacting more trade restrictive measures.  
2.261.   The European Union referred to the response provided in the July 2017 SPS Committee 
meeting. To the question on the rationale behind the application of the measure only to fresh 
cherries when other commodities could also contain dimethoate residues, the European Union 
stated  that it was based on consumption patterns, which were higher for cherries than for other 
commodities which could contain dimethoate residues. The European Union finally indicated that 
new studies had been submitted for evaluation to EFSA, with a conclusio n expected in spring of 
2018. 
EU maximum residue levels for acrinathrin, metalaxyl and thiabendazole  (STC 428)  
Raised by:  Peru 
Supported by:  Bolivia, Plurinational State of; Brazil; Colombia; Costa Rica; Dominican 
Republic; Ecuador; Guatemala; Nigeria; Un ited States of America  
Dates raised:  November 2017 (G/SPS/R/88, paras. 3.2 -3.5) 
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/N/EU/174; G/SPS/GEN/1586; G/SPS/GEN/1494/Rev.1  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.262.   In November 2017, Peru raised a concern over the European Union's lowering of MRLs for 
three pesticides, acrinathrin, metalaxyl and thiabendazole, under Regulation (EU) 2017/1164, 
which would enter into force on 21 January 2018. Peru stressed that imports of fruits and 
vegetables into the European Union would be affected, and highlighted the impact this already had 
on its mango production, as 62% of its exports were destined to the European Union. Peru 
requested a scientific justification for the measure, w hich would lower the MRLs for thiabendazole 
from 5 to 0.01mg/kg, a level more restrictive than the relevant Codex standard of 5mg/kg. Peru 
explained that the pesticides were used to protect fruits against diseases caused by fungi, in 
particular anthracnosi s, and guarantee their shelf life. Peru presented document G/SPS/GEN/1586, 
which contained information about the measure's impact on Peruvian exports. Peru finally argued 
that the measure might be inconsistent with Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS Agreement.  
2.263.   Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, 
Nigeria, and the United States shared the concern raised by Peru. The United States indicated a 
particular interest because for sweet potato the thiabendazole MRL would be low ered from 
15mg/kg to the default level of 0.01mg/kg, due to a lack of residue trial data on sweet potato. 
The data was being generated and would be submitted at the earliest possible. The United States 
explained that no risk to consumers had been identifie d, and that thiabendazole was used as an 
emergency crop protection tool to manage black rot for which no viable alternative existed. 
Without an adequate MRL to support exports to the European Union, sweet potato growers would 
either lose market access or r isk a black rot outbreak, which could be devastating to the industry G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 81 - 
 
  and result in unnecessary food waste. The United States planned to submit an import tolerance 
application and requested an expedited review.  
2.264.   Colombia emphasized the effect the measure wo uld have on its banana and melon exports. 
The Dominican Republic requested an explanation of the measu re under Article 5.8 of the 
SPS Agreement because of the measure's impact on mango trade. Costa Rica urged the European 
Union to consider the Codex MRL fo r thiabendazole. Members underlined the importance of basing 
measures on risk assessment and scientific evidence and emphasized that Codex was the 
reference as the relevant international standard.  
2.265.   The European Union explained that the proposed MRLs were b ased on the European Food 
Safety Authority's (EFSA) identification of dietary intake concerns and data gaps in their 
assessment of MRLs for thiabendazole in mangoes. The European Union reported that comments 
received from Members in response to notificatio n G/SPS/N/EU/174 had not presented specific 
new data for re -evaluation and invited Members to apply for import tolerances for affected 
products accompanied by substantial new data addressing EFSA's concerns. The European Union 
noted that some mango produci ng countries had replaced thiabendazole with alternative 
substances. Finally the European Union reminded Members that it had provided an information 
note in June 2016 on the on -going review of EU MRLs, which ha d been updated in June 2017. 
It was available on the European Commission webpage on pesticides, and had been circulated as 
document G/SPS/GEN/1494/Rev.1.  
EU maximum level of cadmium in foodstuffs  (STC 430)  
Raised by:  Peru 
Supported by:  Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Dominican Republic,  Ghana , 
Guatemala, Madagascar,  Nigeria  
Dates raised:  November 2017  (G/SPS/R/88, paras. 3.8 - 3.10)  
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/GEN/1587  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.266.   In November 2017, Peru raised a concern over the maximum levels of cadmium in 
chocolates and other cocoa products proposed by the European Union Commission Regulation (EU) 
No. 488/2014, which would come into force in January 2019. Peru highlighted that it was the 
second largest exporter of cocoa after Ecuador, a nd emphasized the importance of cocoa and 
chocolate exports to its economy. Peru queried whether the measure was based on "as low as 
reasonably achievable" (ALARA) principles. The risk analysis for substances of this kind should be 
conducted using the marg in of exposure (MOE) approach. Peru reported that the Codex Committee 
on Contaminants in Food was developing a Codex standard on maximum levels of cadmium in 
chocolate and other cocoa products, and was expected to publish it in 2019. Peru submitted 
further  details in document G/SPS/GEN/1587.  
2.267.   Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, the Dominican Republic, Ghana, Guatemala, 
Madagascar, and Nigeria shared Peru's concerns and requested that the European Union consider 
delaying the implementation of this measure u ntil Codex had developed relevant international 
standards, or to exclude chocolates from the scope of application of the measure. Colombia also 
requested assistance to mitigate the trade impact of this measure along with a longer transition 
period, taking into account the needs of developing country Members. Costa Rica added that 
intrinsic difficulties in controlling the level of cadmium in cocoa production be taken into account 
when setting these levels. The ECOWAS representative indicated that ECOWAS memb ers also 
shared the concern.  
2.268.   The European Union highlighted its efforts to alleviate the difficulties of trading partners in 
complying with this measure, such as agreeing to a transitional period of five years in October 
2012, which had deferred the appli cation date to January 2019, and setting maximum limits for 
blended products instead of cocoa beans to facilitate trade. The European Union further elaborated 
that these limits were based on EFSA recommendations that exposure to cadmium should be G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 82 - 
 
  reduced a nd that in the light of available science, excluding chocolate and cocoa products from this 
measure would not achieve the desired level of protection.  
EU restrictions on poultry meat due to Salmonella detection  (STC 432)  
Raised by:  Brazil  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  November 2017 (G/SPS/R/88, paras. 3.13 -3.14) 
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.269.   In November 2017, Brazil raised concerns over the reinforced border testing controls in the 
European Union, which had resulted in increased reports of salmonella detections in poultry. 
Additionally, Brazil pointed out that distinct microbiological criteria for fresh meat products and 
poultry meat preparations were unjustified, as the two products  were similar. Brazil argued there 
was incorrect risk management and communication, contra ry to the principles of the 
SPS Agreement, and asked the European Union to provide scientific justification for these 
measures.  
2.270.   The European Union acknowledged the d ifference in microbiological criteria for Salmonella 
for the two product categories as pointed out by Brazil, indicating that the scientific considerations 
were based on the opinion of the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public 
Health on Salmonella in Foodstuffs. The European Union stated that there was no justification to 
revise the criteria. The European Union added that all shipments from Brazil were subject to pre -
export testing as a reaction to the meat fraud scandal, and on the  basis of the results of an audit 
carried out in April 2017. However, despite the pre -export tests, the prevalence of Salmonella 
found in poultry meat consignments from Brazil at the EU border was close to 8% and this was a 
matter of concern. The European Union noted its willingness to continue bilateral discussions on 
this issue.  
2.5.2   Animal Health  
EU non -recognition of regionalization for Avian Influenza  (STC 420)  
Raised by:  Russian Federation  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  March 2017 (G/SPS/R/86, paras. 3.8 -3.9) 
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.271.   In March 2017, The Russian Federation expressed its concern with the EU's non -
recognition of Russian regionalization for avian influenza since November 2016. The Russian 
Federation had been affected by an outbreak of avian influenza and had applied regiona lization to 
guarantee trade of poultry products in compliance with both its WTO commitments and OIE 
standards. While the Russian Federation recognized EU regionalization for avian influenza, the 
European Union banned imports of poultry products from the en tire Russian territory, despite 
establishing zones of control and monitoring as well as promptly sharing information with the 
European Union. The Russian Federation voiced its special concern with the European Union's 
stringent interpretation of certain ar ticles from the OIE Terrestrial Code, especially its requirement 
to submit virus isolates to the EU reference laboratory. In September 2014, following an avian 
influenza outbreak in Altai, the European Union had refused to resume exports until the virus 
isolate was sent to the EU reference laboratory. The Russian Federation noted that it G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 83 - 
 
  systematically sent virus isolates to its national reference laboratory, which complied with OIE 
standards. It did not object to submitting the virus isolates to the EU ref erence laboratory, but 
considered the mandatory nature of the requirement unnecessarily trade -restrictive. In September 
2016, the EU and Russian reference laboratories had signed a memorandum of understanding on 
the transfer of materials and had since exch anged virus isolates. The Russian Federation hoped 
that this cooperation would facilitate trade and lead to the EU recognition of Russian 
regionalization for avian influenza.  
2.272.   The European Union responded that it was in contact with Russia in order to acqu ire the 
relevant information necessary to assess Russia's request for regionalization. The evaluation of the 
Russian Federation's request for recognition of regionalization would be completed as soon as all 
necessary information had been received in line w ith OIE guidelines. The European Union 
welcomed further bilateral discussion on this matter.  
2.6  India  
2.6.1   Plant Health  
India's fumigation requirements for cashew nuts Indonesia (STC 427)  
Raised by:  Senegal  
Supported by:  Burkina Faso, Colombia, Kenya, Madagascar,  Mozambique, Nigeria,  
Russian Federation, Togo, Ukraine,  United States of America  
Dates raised:  July 2017  (G/SPS/R/87, paras. 4.11 -4.13), November 2017 
(G/SPS/R/88, paras. 3.20 -3.25)  
Relevant document(s):   
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported  as 
resolved:    
 
2.273.   In July 2017, Senegal reported that since January 2017, India mandated the use of methyl 
bromide fumigation. However, Senegal noted that methyl bromide use had been discontinued by 
several countries because of its high toxicity and its negative effects on the ozone layer, as 
reflected in the Montreal Protocol. Senegal explained that it had abandoned the use of methyl 
bromide in 2002 and stressed that no cases of non -conformity with sanitary requirements had 
been detected. Senegal noted that in practice the restriction was not being enforced on products 
from Senegal, and thanked India for its cooperation, but underlined that the measure was still in 
force and its need for certainty for future shipments.  
2.274.   Burkina Faso, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria and Togo repor ted that they were also affected 
by the measure. Togo further indicated that India had also notified of the required use of the 
fumigant for its timber exports. These Members invited India to apply the principle of equivalence 
and stressed the negative eff ects of the use of methyl bromide. The Russian Federation also 
expressed its interest in this concern and in the implementation of the measure.  
2.275.   India replied that relaxation of the measure had been extended up to 31 December 2017 
to allow fumigation on ar rival. India also directed Members to additional information available on 
the website http://www.agricoop.nic.in/. India requested Senegal to provide bio efficacy data to 
NPPO India regarding the effectiveness of alternative fumigants.  
2.276.   In November 2017, S enegal reiterated its concern over India's methyl bromide fumigation 
requirements for cashew nuts. Senegal noted that methyl bromide use had been discontinued by 
several countries due to its high toxicity and negative effects on the ozone layer. Senegal re ported 
on the exchange of documents with India and scientific publications regarding the effectiveness of 
aluminium phosphate as an alternative fumigant, and urged India to accept its use.  
2.277.   The United States associated itself with the concern expressed by Senegal on the 
fumigation of imported products with methyl bromide, particularly as it affected peas and pulses. 
The United States expressed its commitment to continue to find alternatives to methyl bromide G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 84 - 
 
  fumigation as a pest mitigation measure, and enco uraged India to consider that methyl bromide 
was not necessary in cases of negligible pest risk.  
2.278.   Burkina Faso, Colombia, Madagascar, Mozambique, Nigeria, Togo, and Ukraine shared 
Senegal's concern. Madagascar reported that it had held bilateral discussion s with India on the 
fumigation requirement for agricultural products. Burkina Faso referred to its cashew nuts exports, 
urging India to accept the principle of equivalence in order to facilitate trade of agricultural 
products. Ukraine shared the concern as  it prohibited the use of methyl bromide for fumigation 
and had therefore submitted alternatives to India. Togo urged India to accept aluminium 
phosphate as an alternative fumigant. Colombia supported the systemic concern on India's 
fumigation requirement and its environmental and trade implications.  
2.279.   India responded that its phytosanitary requirements were consistent with its WTO 
obligations. India reiterated that until 31 December 2017, agricultural imports from countries 
whose products could not be fumig ated with methyl bromide at the port of export could be 
fumigated upon arrival in India. Finally, India had also made a formal request to Senegal for 
information to consider its request for alternative fumigants.  
2.280.   The United States commented that India had  only responded to Senegal without providing 
a response to the concerns raised by other Members, and requested that India circulate a 
document with the fumigation requirement applicable to other Members, in particular to the United 
States.  
2.281.   India reiterate d that its phytosanitary requirements were consistent with its WTO 
obligations and that the information was available on its official website http://www.agricoopnic.in . 
India's fumigation requirements for teak tree wood  (STC 434)  
Raised by:  Colombia  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  November 2017 (G/SPS/R/88, paras. 3.17 -3.19); See also STC 417  
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/N/IND/149  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.282.   In November 2017, Colombia raised a concern over India's requirement that teakwood be 
fumigated with methyl bromide at the port of export, as notified in G/SPS/N/IND/149, with a 
transition period ending on 31 December 2017. Colombia noted that, as other WTO Members, it 
did not approve the use of the substance, f ollowing the Montreal Protocol to the Vienna Convention 
for the Protection of the Ozone Layer recommendation to gradually eliminate this substance. 
Colombia elaborated that it had requested that India accept the use of alternatives such as 
phosphine for te akwood treatment, as it had accepted it for teakwood exports from other trading 
partners. Colombia argued this would meet the appropriate level of phytosanitary protection, while 
also complying with the aforementioned international convention.  
2.283.   Belize, Cost a Rica and Liberia shared the concern. Costa Rica mentioned other possible 
alternatives to methyl bromide fumigation, including the use of sunlight to increase the 
temperature, crop rotation, the use of other herbicides, and using microorganisms to control  
weeds and other pests.  
2.284.   India noted that it had relaxed methyl bromide fumigation requirements until 31 December 
2017 and agricultural imports from countries whose products could not be fumigated with methyl 
bromide at the port of export could be fumigate d upon arrival in India. The Montreal Protocol 
allowed for the use of methyl bromide for quarantine purposes. Additional information was 
available on the website of India's Department of Agriculture Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, 
http://www.agricoop.nic. in. India also reported that its NPPO had formally requested Colombia for 
information to consider its request to use an alternative fumigant.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 85 - 
 
  2.7  Korea, Republic of  
2.7.1   Animal Health  
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  
2.285.   See paragraphs 2. 400.-2.467. 
Korea's import restrictions due to African  swine fever (STC 393)  
Raised by:  European Union  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.11 -3.12), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, 
paras. 3.68 -3.69) , March 2016 (G/SPS/R/82, paras. 3.43 -3.44), June 
2016 (G/SPS/R/83, paras. 4.15 -4.17), October 2016 ( G/SPS/R/84, 
paras. 3.44 -3.45) , March 2017 (G/SPS/R/86, paras. 3.36 -3.38), Jul y 
2017 (G/SPS/R/87, paras. 4.45 -4.46), November 2017 (G/SPS/R/88, 
paras. 3.37 -3.38)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Statu s: Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.286.   In July 2015, the European Union raised a concern about the import restrictions on pork 
and pork products put in place in February 2014 by Korea on African swine fever (ASF) grounds. 
The European Union repeated that trade could take place safely, and affirmed that Korea 
disrespected the SPS Agreement regarding regionalization. Korea continuously received detailed 
information on the control, surveillance and monitoring measures  of the European Union . 
Korea's  risk assessment process lacked clarity about the required steps and the use of information 
provided by the European Union. The European Union called on Korea to respect its regionalization 
obligations under the SPS Agreement and to allow trade of  all safe products. The European Union 
also restated its availability to continue working with Korea and any other trading partners with a 
view to finding a rapid solution on this matter.  
2.287.   Korea responded that it had banned pork and pork products from Polan d since the first 
case of ASF was reported in February 2014, in agreement with Poland. In response to the 
European Union for regionalization, Korea had implemented the necessary steps to assess the 
current situation in Poland, and sent experts to have an o n-site inspection. The preliminary 
assessment on ASF had been delivered to Poland and an exchange o f views was still under way. 
As a result, Korea had been consistent with Articles 6.2 and 6.3 of the SPS Agreement and hoped 
to continue bilateral discussion  on the basis of science and data.  
2.288.   In October 2015, the European Union recalled its concerns regarding Korea's import 
restrictions on pork and pork products due to ASF taken since February 2014. Korea had 
continuously received detailed information from the  European Union. Korea's risk assessment 
process lacked clarity about the required steps and the use of information provided by the 
European Union, in particular on its control, surveillance and monitoring measures. The  European 
Union called on Korea to re spect its regionalization obligations under the SPS Agreement and to 
allow trade of safe products. The European Union also restated its availability to continue working 
with Korea and any other trading partners with a view to finding a rapid solution on th is matter.  
2.289.   Korea recalled that it had banned pork and pork products from Poland since the first case 
of ASF was reported in February 2014, in agreement with Poland. At the request of the European 
Union, Korea had implemented the necessary steps to assess t he current situation in Poland, and 
hired experts to that effect. Korea had completed its preliminary assessment after considering 
Poland's comments received in May 2015 and had decided to m ove on to the next steps. 
Korea  requested that Poland and the Euro pean Union take proactive control measures to prevent 
the spread of ASF and cooperate fully to expedite the risk assessment process, which needed to 
incorporate a distinction between affected and unaffected areas.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 86 - 
 
  2.290.   In March 2016, the European Union stressed  the importance of regionalization and the 
massive potential trade impact of failing to recognize effective regionalization measures and, in 
that context, reiterated its concerns regarding Korea's import restrictions on pork and pork 
products due to ASF. T he European Union stated that despite having raised this concern at the July 
and October 2015 SPS Committee meetings, and having had several bilateral discussions, import 
restrictions remained. Korea had informed the European Union in October 2015 that it had decided 
to proceed to the next step of its risk assessment process. However, that risk assessment process 
lacked clarity about the required steps and the use of information provided by the European Union, 
in particular on its control, surveillance and monitoring measures. The European Union called on 
Korea to respect its regionalization obligations under the SPS Agreement and to allow trade of safe 
products. The European Union also restated its availability to continue working with Korea and any 
other t rading partners with a view to finding a rapid solution to the matter.  
2.291.   Korea stated that it was reviewing the European Union request for regionalization carefully 
as it was ASF -free and the disease was highly -contagious. Korea had sent an evaluation 
questi onnaire to the Polish government in December 2015 and  was awaiting a response. 
An EU delegation from DG -SANCO had a technical meeting in Korea with re levant expert 
authorities. Both sides had exchanged views on this issue, including current risk assessment  
procedures and potential ways forward. Korea requested that the European Union cooperate fully 
in order to expedite the risk assessment process.  
2.292.   In June 2016, the European Union stressed the importance of the recognition of 
regionalization measures by tra ding partners, and in that context reiterated its concern regarding 
Korea's import restrictions on pork and pork products due to ASF. The European Union stated that 
despite having raised this concern at previous SPS Committee meetings and having had severa l 
bilateral discussions, import restrictions still remained. Korea had informed the European Union in 
October 2015 that, as result of a preliminary risk assessment, it had decided to proceed to the 
next step of its process and assess the possibility of app lying regionalization. The European Union 
explained that , in practice , this represented the second step in an eight step process which, based 
on its understanding, would need to be satisfactorily concluded before Poland would be able to 
export pork meat to  Korea from disease -free zones. The European Union emphasized that it 
regularly provided Korea with detailed information regarding its stringent control, surveillance, and 
monitoring measures. After two and a half years of deliberation and information shar ing, including 
on-site inspection, Korea had not provided the timeline for concluding the final import risk 
analysis. The European Union requested Korea to limit its numerous information requests to what 
was necessary to complete the risk assessment and to  allow trade of safe products from disease -
free areas in Poland, or provide clarification on the scientific basis for the maintenance of the ban.  
2.293.   The Russian Federation drew Member 's attention to the epidemic ASF situation and called 
for bilateral cooperat ion on this issue.  
2.294.   Korea stated that it was reviewing Poland's responses to the questionnaire which had been 
submitted in May 2016. Korea noted the highly contagious nature of the disease and the lack of a 
preventive vaccine to halt ASF spread, while under scoring that it remained ASF -free. Since the 
March 2016 SPS Committee meeting, Korea and the European Commission had held a bilateral 
meeting, on the margins of the 84th OIE General Session, to discuss progress in the risk 
assessment process and the way fo rward. Korea further indicated that on 24 June, the European 
Commission had notified the fourth ASF outbreak in pigs in Poland. A comprehensive review of the 
situation, including this recent information, was currently being undertaken. Korea requested that  
the European Union cooperate fully in order to expedite the risk assessment process.  
2.295.   In October 2016, the European Union stressed the importance of the recognition of 
regionalization measures by trading partners, and in that context reiterated its concern  regarding 
Korea's import restrictions on pork and pork products due to ASF. The European Union recalled 
that Korea had performed a preliminary risk -assessment and on -site inspection in 2014, followed 
by the decision in 2015 to perform a risk analysis. The  risk analysis had been suspended in August 
2016 following FMD outbreaks in Poland. The European Union considered that the risk assessment 
ought to be pursued, as the European Union had (as always) adapted its regionalization measures 
in line with OIE stan dards to ensure that only safe pork products were placed on the EU market 
and exported to countries outside the European Union. The European Union insisted that it had 
provided Korea with the necessary information to demonstrate the existence of disease -free areas 
in Poland and that they were likely to remain so. The European Union therefore urged Korea to G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 87 - 
 
  respect its obligations under Articles 3, 6 and 8 of the SPS Agreement and to continue and 
conclude quickly the import approval procedure by continuing t he risk analysis, taking into account 
the information that had been collected before its suspension, limiting the information requests to 
what was necessary and providing, in a transparent manner, a timeline for concluding the analysis.  
2.296.   Korea recalled the highly contagious nature of ASF and the lack of a preventive vaccine to 
halt its spread, while underscoring that it remained ASF -free. Korea confirmed that it had 
suspended the risk assessment procedure for recognition of ASF regionalization following the 2016 
outbreak of various cases in Poland in pig farms. Two additional areas were affected by this 
outbreak, and Korea declared that the suspension would hold until the newly affected areas 
recovered their ASF free status in accordance with the OIE standard s. Korea notified Poland in 
October 2016 that it could resume the import risk analysis procedures if the Polish government 
requested them for specific regions free from ASF. Korea noted that in light of the possible causes 
of ASF stated by the European Com mission Animal Health Regulatory Committee, the Polish 
government needed to further review its biosecurity measures. Korea hoped that Poland would 
succeed in controlling the spread of ASF, and indicated that it would cooperate to resume the 
process soon.  
2.297.   In March 2017, The European Union stressed the importance of recognition by trading 
partners of regionalization measures and reiterated its concern regarding Korea's import 
restrictions on pork and pork products due to ASF, despite several bilateral meeting s. The 
European Union recalled that Korea had performed a preliminary risk -assessment and on -site 
inspection in Poland in 2014, followed by the decision in 2015 to  perform a risk assessment. 
The risk assessment had been suspended in August 2016 following A SF outbreaks in P oland. 
The European Union requested that the risk assessment be pursued, as it had adapted its 
regionalization measures based on OIE standards to ensure that only safe pork products were 
placed on the EU market and exported to countries ou tside the European Union. The European 
Union insisted that it had provided Korea with the necessary information to demonstrate the 
existence of disease -free areas in Poland. The European Union therefore urged Korea to respect its 
obligations under the SPS Agreement and promptly conclude the import approval procedure based 
solely on collected information necessary to complete the recognition of regionalisation.  
2.298.   Referring again to the dispute Russia – Pigs (EU) (DS475), the European Union highlighted 
that th e Panel had found that the bans in place were neither based on international standards, nor 
on a risk assessment. Moreover, given that the European Union had demonstrated that there were 
regions in Poland which were disease -free and likely to remain diseas e-free, the Poland -wide ban 
and the ban on the Baltic States were found to be WTO -inconsistent.  
2.299.   Korea referred to previous statements by China and the Russian Federation, and reiterated 
the highly contagious nature of ASF and the lack of a preventive vacc ine to halt its spread. Korea 
reported that it imported more than 300,000 tonnes of pork meat every year, approximately half 
of which originated from the European Union. Korea further elaborated on the regionalization 
requirement under Article 6.3 of the S PS Agreement and Article 15.1.3 of the OIE Terrestrial 
Animal Health Code, and recognised that while they were informed that there had been no new 
ASF outbreaks in commercial pig farms, outbreaks of ASF in wild boars had been continuously 
reported to the O IE as recently as March 2017 in the Polish regions of Podlaskie, Lubelskie and 
Mazowieckie. Korea observed that the ASF -free status had to include the ASF outbreak in wild 
boars, and therefore had requested Poland to redefine its ASF -free areas or zones ac cording to OIE 
regulations. Korea urged the European Union to provide a clearly defined ASF -free region, having 
reviewed the newly affected areas. The same message had been communicated through the 
Korean Embassy in Poland as well as in bilateral meetings with the European Union on the margins 
of the SPS Committee meetings.  
2.300.   In July 2017, the European Union reiterated its concern over Korea's ban on pork and pork 
products from Poland since early 2014, without taking into account the European Union's 
regiona lization measures. The European Union regretted that despite bilateral meetings, the ban 
remained in place. The European Union recalled that Korea had performed a preliminary risk 
assessment and an on -site inspection in December 2014, and had received resp onses to its 
questions. The European Union reminded Korea of its obligation to limit the information requested 
to what was necessary to complete the recognition of regionalization, and to take into account the 
information it already had; and urged Korea to  continue with the risk analysis and the recognition G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 88 - 
 
  of regionalization without further undue delays. The European Union remained open to continue 
working with Korea.  
2.301.   Korea replied that the import risk analysis had temporarily been suspended due to the 
unstable outbreak situation in Poland in 2016, including the continuous ASF outbreaks in domestic 
pigs in August 2016 and the expansion of contaminated areas. In order to resume its import risk 
analysis, Korea had requested Poland and the European Union to n otify the list of ASF -free areas 
that satisfied OIE standards. These had been specified in May 2017, and Korea had resumed the 
relevant procedures. However, Korea remained concerned with the increasing outbreaks of ASF in 
domestic pigs on small -scale farms  in Poland. Korea believed that this showed that Poland's ASF 
control measures still needed to go further in order to contain ASF. Korea was still holding bilateral 
consultations with the European Union on this matter.  
2.302.   In November 2017, the European Union  reiterated its concern over Korea's ban on pork 
and pork products from Poland since February 2014, which did not take into account the European 
Union regionalization measures. The European Union regretted that despite bilateral meetings the 
import restric tion remained. Korea had performed a preliminary risk assessment and an on -site 
inspection in December 2014, and had received responses to its questions. Korea had indicated 
that as a result of the preliminary risk assessment, it would proceed with a risk analysis. Finally, 
the European Union urged Korea to comply with its WTO obligations by putting in place measures 
that were not more trade restrictive than necessary, applying regionalization, only requesting 
necessary information to complete the recogniti on of regionalization, and taking into account 
information already available  
2.303.   Korea drew attention to the increasing number of ASF cases in in Poland, with 87 cases 
recorded in domestic pigs from January to September 2017, a number four times larger than 
recorded between 2014 and 2016. Korea also reported that the European Animal Health 
Regulatory Committee had stated that lack of biosecurity measures and illegal transactions in pigs 
and pork meat were the main causes of ASF in Polish domestic pig farms. Ko rea expressed its 
concern that the ASF -free zone in Poland was not effectively managed, and requested pertinent 
information on the spread of ASF on domestic pig farms, according to OIE standards. Korea hoped 
the epidemiological situation in Poland would be  under control in order to resolve this issue.  
2.8  Kuwait  
2.8.1   Food Safety  
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Guide for Control of Imported Foods  (STC 424)  
2.304.   See paragraphs 2.9 -2.11. 
2.9  Oman  
2.9.1   Food Safety  
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Guide for Control of Imported Foods  (STC  424)  
2.305.   See paragraphs 2. 9.-2.11. 
2.10  Qatar  
2.10.1   Food Safety  
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Guide for Control of Imported Foods  (STC 424)  
2.306.   See paragraphs 2. 9.-2.11. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 89 - 
 
  2.11  Russian Federation  
2.11.1   Food Safety  
The Russian Federation's import restrictions on processed fishery produc ts from Estonia 
and Latvia (STC 390)  
Raised by:  European Union  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.4 -3.6), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, 
paras. 3.27 -3.29) , March 2016 (G/SPS/R/81, paras. 3.38 -3.40), June 
2016 (G/SPS/R/83, paras. 4.42-4.43), October 2016 (G/SPS/R/84, 
paras. 3.31 -3.32 ) , Marc h 2017 (G/SPS/R/86, paras. 3.21 -3.24), Jul y 
2017 (G/SPS/R/87, paras. 4.33 -4.34), November 2017 (G/SPS/R/88, 
paras. 3.45 -3.46)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.307.   In July 2015, the European Union indicated that, as of 4 June, the Russian Federation 
introduced a ban on imports of all fishery products from Estonia and Latvia, allegedly due to 
deficiencies detected during recent inspections. The European Union stated that the measure had 
been notified very late, was inconsistent with the SPS Agreement and taken in violation of Russia's 
WTO Accession commitments , which included not to suspend exports from groups of 
establish ments without having provided first the technical information and scientific justification of 
the risks detected, and not to take such measures before the expiry of the timeframe provided for 
the adoption of corrective measures. Indeed, Russia had not prov ided evidence of immediate risk 
to consumers caused by deficiencies in the control systems of Estonia and Latvia, which had been 
regularly inspected by the Russian Federation in recent years , without having identified any major 
problems. The measures were clearly more trade restrictive than necessary and the ban had been 
announced before the official reports of the inspections were provided to the competent authorities 
of Latvia or Estonia. The European Union expressed its willingness to cooperate with the Russian 
Federation to address their concerns but requested the Russian Federation to lift the ban, to bring 
its measures in line with international standards, and to respect its WTO obligations.  
2.308.   The Russian Federation replied that conclusions by Russian ex perts about deficiencies in 
the work of the Latvian and Estonian competent authorities overlapped with the results of previous 
investigations by the European Union, and the presence of a risk was also confirmed by the 
notifications of the EU Commission in the rapid alert system. Russia stressed the importance and 
urgency of the report made by the European Union about the safety of food products. 
An inspection in 2013 had showed that Latvia and Estonia had not taken measures to withdraw 
unsafe products from the market. According to Russia, the European Union had failed to take 
necessary measures in relation to establishments where violations were detected and to inform its 
trade partners. Indeed, between 2013 and July 2015, Russian inspections had revealed mo re than 
2,000 cases of unreliable certification, and yet, no effective measures had been taken against the 
violators. The Russian Federation had concluded that the guarantees given by the European Union 
were not reliable. As a result, Russia was forced to impose temporary restrictions, as stated in 
official letters to the European Union. The measures were not bans, but temporary restrictions, 
and complied with the SPS Agreement, which allowed Members to adopt measures to protect 
human, animal or plant healt h. 
2.309.   The European Union clarified that they did not dispute Russia's right to take SPS measures, 
but expected proportionate measures taken in a transparent manner and in accordance with the 
SPS Agreement.  
2.310.   In October 2015, the European Union reiterated its c oncerns regarding the Russian 
Federation's restrictions on imports of all fishery products from Estonia and Latvia, allegedly due to 
deficiencies in the safety systems. The European Union stated that the measure had been notified 
a month after implementati on as an emergency measure. This was inconsistent with the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 90 - 
 
  SPS Agreement and in contravention of the Russian Federation's WTO accession commitments, 
which included not to suspend exports from groups of establishments without first having provided 
the techn ical information and scientific justification of the risks detected, and not to take such 
measures before the expiry of the timeframe provided for the adoption of corrective measures. 
The Russian Federation had not presented a risk assessment or provided e vidence of immediate 
risk to consumers caused by deficiencies in the control systems of Estonia and Latvia, which had 
been regularly inspected by the Russian Federation in recent years without having identified any 
major problems. The European Union highli ghted that Article 2.1 required that measures taken to 
protect human, animal or plant life or health must be consistent with the provisions of the 
Agreement. In addition, the European Union recalled that Articles 2.2 and 5.6 required measures 
to be based o n scientific evidence and not to be more trade restrictive than necessary. 
Furthermore, the Russian Federation had adopted the ban just one day after the submission of 
the preliminary report of the audit to the competent authorities, in contrast with the r easonable 
time commitment it made prior to its accession. The comments provided by Latvia and Estonia on 
the audits had not received a response by the Russian Federation, more than three months after 
the submission. The European Union indicated its willing ness to cooperate with the Russian 
Federation on this issue and requested the Russian Federation to lift the ban, bring its measures in 
line with international standards, and respect its WTO obligations.  
2.311.   The Russian Federation responded that it was justifi ed in imposing temporary restrictions 
on fishery products from Latvia and Estonia. Upon inspection, the Russian authorities found that 
Latvia and Estonia were unable to produce safe products that complied with requirements from 
both importing and exporting  countries. Therefore, the Russian Federation had concluded that the 
guarantees provided by the EU veterinary services were not reliable. Many of these products had 
continued to be marketed and exported to the Russian Federation, which called for another r ound 
of inspections. The Russian Federation was cooperating with veterinary services of Latvia and 
Estonia to objectively assess the safety systems of fish processing establishments. Comments on 
the preliminary report had been received, but Latvian and Est onian authorities could not show that 
the withdrawal of potentially hazardous products was timely and effective enough. The Russian 
Federation was concerned that trading partners were not being informed about product safety 
problems. The temporary restrict ions were in compliance with the international Eurasian Economic 
Union legal framework and with international standards. Before imposing the restrictions, relevant 
information had been published on the official website and consultations had been held with 
Latvian and Estonian authorities. Final reports of the inspections had just been sent to the 
veterinary services. The Russian Federation asked Latvia and Estonia to carry out their own 
inspection of the establishments and of their compliance with the Euras ian Economic Union 
veterinary requirements. The competent authorities of Latvia and Estonia had indicated that they 
did not oppose the Russian Federation's decisions and the EU representatives had agreed that the 
certification of products from Latvia and E stonia to Russia should be suspended. However, 
certification had not been suspended. Nevertheless, the Russian Federation was ready to find a 
solution on this issue.  
2.312.   The European Union replied that some of the information which had been provided by the 
Russian Federation contradicted EU information, reiterating that no major problems had been 
found in the numerous inspections held by the Russian Federation. Furthermore, the European 
Union indicated its concern with the statement that the  European Union had voluntarily agreed to 
suspend the certification of products from Latvia and Estonia, which did not reflect the 
EU information. The  European Union reiterated the transparency of its own  information and urged 
the Russian Federation to repeal its measures.  
2.313.   In March 2016, the European Union reiterated its concerns regarding the Russian 
Federation's restrictions on imports of all fishery products from Estonia and Latvia. The European 
Union recalled that in June 2015, the Russian Federation had introduced a ban o n all fishery 
products from the two EU member States. The European Union considered the measures not 
based on scientific evidence or risk assessment, applied beyond the extent necessary to protect 
human health, and more trade restrictive than necessary. Th e Russian Federation had not 
presented a risk assessment or provided evidence of immediate risk to consumers caused by 
deficiencies in the control systems of Estonia and Latvia, which had been regularly inspected by 
the Russian Federation in recent years w ithout having ide ntified any major problems. 
The European Union stated that the measures did not meet the Russian Federation's WTO 
accession commitments, which included not to suspend exports from groups of establishments 
without first having provided the technical information and scientific justification of the risks G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 91 - 
 
  detected, and not to take such measures before the expiry of the timeframe provided for the 
adoption of corrective measures. Furthermore, the Russian Federation had adopted the ban just 
one da y after the submission of the preliminary report of the audit to the competent authorities, in 
contrast with the reasonable time commitment it had made prior to its accession. With regard to 
the EU rapid alert system for food and feed (RASFF) the European Union underlined that it was a 
transparent system which made available, not only to the authorities in the European Union but 
also to non -EU countries, information on the detection of incompliant products. It was an essential 
component of an effective and efficient food safety system. It was regrettable to see this 
information being misused by some trading partners for imposing disproportionate trade bans, 
particularly when those partners did not apply the same level of transparency to their own 
products. T he European Union noted that Latvia and Estonia had both acted without delay in 
response to the findings of Russia. One of the actions taken was the immediate withdrawal from 
the market of the concerned products. Not 20% as Russia has claimed, but 100% of the products 
had been withdrawn. Furthermore, both EU member States put in place corrective measures within 
the timeframes Russia set, which was two months. These actions were brought to the attention of 
Russia in writing. Russia however had not shown any willingness to take into account these 
corrective actions and the restrictions had not been lifted. The European Union requested the 
Russian Federation to immediately lift the ban and respect its WTO obligations while expressing its 
readiness to discuss th e matter with the Russian authorities in a constructive and cooperative 
manner.  
2.314.   The Russian Federation stated that it looked forward to close cooperation between the 
regulatory authorities . However, the import requirements of the Russian Federation and the  
Eurasian Economic Union needed to be followed. The Russian Federation had opened its market to 
EU member States through its accession obligations and found that EU guarantees had not been 
reliable as regular detection of banned contaminants, such as poly -aromatic hydrocarbons and 
benzopyrene, had occurred through monitoring programmes. The Russian Federation claimed that 
notifications from the EU RASFF to withdraw potentially hazardous products were not timely or 
effective, as only around 20% were withdraw n and the rest exported. In addition, the Russian 
Federation had not received responses to questions submitted to Latvian authorities regarding an 
establishment that had exported potentially unsafe products and whether or not additional testing 
for benzopy rene had taken place. As mentioned previously, the Russian Federation was closely 
cooperating with the veterinary services of Latvia and Estonia to assess the safety systems 
implemented. However, questions remained and the Russian Federation believed that there was a 
lack of transparency, as RASFF notifications sent to third countries seemed to be simplified, 
containing no specific information on the establishments or consignments where violations had 
been detected, which impeded the withdrawal of potential ly hazardous products. The Chief 
Veterinary Officer of Latvia had officially informed the Russian Federation that it was the European 
Commission which had notified all RASFF registered cases when harmful substances had been 
detected in EU products to the R ussian Federation. No information on excessive levels of 
benzopyrene in Latvian products had been provided. The Russian Federation would continue 
cooperating in order to resume imports of canned fish and planned to carry out another round of 
inspections of  processing plants in Latvia and Estonia in March -April 2016. The competent 
authorities had been notified.  
2.315.   The European Union noted the Russian Federation's statement and expressed its surprise 
that the facts presented by the Russian Federation did not cor respond to the information it 
possessed.  
2.316.   In June 2016, the European Union reiterated its concerns regarding the Russian 
Federation's restrictions on imports of all fishery products from Estonia and Latvia. The European 
Union recalled that in June 2015, the  Russian Federation had introduced a ban on all fishery 
products from the two EU member States. The European Union considered that the measures were 
not based on scientific evidence or a risk assessment, were applied beyond the extent necessary 
to protect human health, and were more trade restrictive than necessary. The European Union 
stated that the measures did not meet the Russian Federation's WTO accession commitments, 
which included not to take temporary suspension measures of imports from a group of 
establishments before the expiry of the time -frame provided for the adoption of corrective 
measures. In response to a statement made by the Russian Federation at the previous Committee 
meeting, the European Union argued that the EURASFF was timely, and that  following actions 
taken by Estonia and Latvia, all concerned products had been withdrawn from the market, 
contrary to the Russian Federation's claim. The European Union also insisted that the RASFF was a G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 92 - 
 
  transparent system which made available, not only t o the authorities in the European Union but 
also to non -EU countries, information on the detection of incompliant products. The European 
Union noted that it had not received any request for clarification from the Russian Federation on 
the issue at hand, de spite the possibility to do so. The European Union regretted to see the RASFF 
information being misused by some trading partners for imposing disproportionate trade bans, 
particularly when those partners did not apply the same level of transparency to thei r own 
products. The European Union requested the Russian Federation to immediately lift the ban and 
respect its WTO obligations while expressing its readiness to discuss the matter with the Russian 
authorities.  
2.317.   The Russian Federation stated that it was rea dy for close cooperation with the Estonian 
and Latvian regulatory authorities; however, the import requirements of the Russian Federation 
and the Eurasian Economic Union needed to be followed. The Russian Federation reiterated that 
the restrictions were te mporary and would be reconsidered as soon as the detected violations to 
the import requirements, of which the competent authorities in Estonia and Latvia were informed, 
were removed. The Russian Federation noted that relative progress had been made between  the 
Russian Federation and the competent authorities, but this progress was still insufficient as the 
Russian Federation was unable to obtain information concerning the detection of certain harmful 
sea contaminants, as well as certain measures expected to  prevent the access of dangerous 
products to the market. The Russian Federation explained that the Estonian and Latvian veterinary 
services had provided them with an updated list of the establishments authorized to export their 
products to the Eurasian Uni on (EAU); however, when specialists were sent from the EAU to 
inspect these fish processing plants, two out of the three Latvian plants and one out of the ten 
Estonian plants spontaneously refused to be inspected. The Russian Federation considered this to 
be evidence that the competent authorities could not guarantee compliance of their products with 
EAU import requirements.  
2.318.   In October 2016, the European Union reiterated its concerns regarding the Russian 
Federation's restrictions on imports of all fishery products from Estonia and Latvia, in place since 
June 2015. The European Union declared that this ban was inconsistent with various articles of the 
SPS Agreement as well as with the Russian Federation's WTO accession commitments. 
The European Union called on the Russian Federation to promptly share the outcomes of the 
inspections conducted in the summer of 2016. The European Union argued that the withdrawal of 
some establishments from the auditing list did not, as described by the Russian Federation in 
previous statements, constitute evidence of non -compliance, but were related to delays in carrying 
out the audits. The European Union reiterated its call on the Russian Federation to remove the ban 
while expressing its readiness to cooperate with the Russian F ederation in a constructive manner.  
2.319.   The Russian Federation stated that it was ready to cooperate with the competent 
authorities from Estonia and Latvia, and recalled that systemic deficiencies in the work of these 
authorities had led to violation of fisher y products safety and given way to the temporary 
restrictions. The Russian Federation however noted that cooperation was in progress and that a 
number of entities had been delisted. Re -inspections had been conducted by the relevant 
authorities of the Euras ian Economic Union members, and had showed that some positive 
measures had been taken in Estonia and Latvia. However, certain problematic measures relating 
to the access of dangerous products to the market had not yet been addressed, and the Russian 
Federa tion stated that it was waiting for the competent author ities to provide more data. 
The Russian Federation would inform the Latvian and Estonian authorities about the next steps as 
soon as it received and considered the relevant data.  
2.320.   In March 2017, The Eu ropean Union reiterated its concerns regarding the Russian 
Federation's restrictions on imports of processed fishery products from Estonia and Latvia. The 
European Union recalled that in June 2015, following an audit carried out in some establishments 
in Latvia and Estonia, Russia had introduced a ban on the import of all fishery products from those 
two EU member States. The European Union stated that the ban was inconsistent with various 
provisions of the SPS Agreement because it was not based on science, did not respect the 
necessity principle and was more restrictive than necessary. The European Union also noted that 
the measures did not respect the Russian Federation's WTO accession commitments.  
2.321.   The European Union underlined that Latvia and Estonia had acted without delay in 
response to the findings of the Russian Federation in 2015, and had put in place corrective 
measures within the timeframes set by the Russian Federation. Those actions had been brought to G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 93 - 
 
  the attention of the Russian Federation, whic h carried out subsequent audits in 2016 to verify the 
corrective actions. The European Union added that Latvia and Estonia had addressed all the 
requests from the Russian Federation authorities for information or clarification, but the results of 
their aud its had not been communicated and the bans remained in place. The European Union 
reiterated its call to the Russian Federation to repeal the ban while expressing its readiness to 
work with the Russian Federation in a constructive and cooperative manner.  
2.322.   The Russian Federation responded that the temporary restriction imposed on supplies of 
canned products from a number of fish processing plants in Latvia and Estonia was well founded. 
The Russian Federation had informed the SPS Committee of the matter on num erous occasions: 
The violations in the process of ensuring the safety of fishery products were caused by systematic 
deficiencies in the work of competent authorities and the establishments of the countries 
concerned as confirmed by the inspections carried out by the experts.  
2.323.   The Russian Federation observed that the attention drawn by the Rosselkhozdnadzor to 
the issue and an additional joint inspection at the fish processing plants of Latvia and Estonia had 
led to positive measures by the veterinary servic es. However, some matters remained 
outstanding. Pursuant to the relevant procedures, the results and conclusions of inspections were 
being finalized by the competent authorities of the Eurasian Economic Union (representatives of 
which had also taken part i n the inspection). The Russian Federation would transmit the report of 
the inspection to Latvia and Estonia in the near future, and remained prepared to make all the 
necessary efforts to find a solution to the issue.  
2.324.   In July 2017, the European Union reite rated its concerns regarding the Russian 
Federation's restrictions on imports of all fishery products from Estonia and Latvia. The European 
Union reiterated that the restrictions were inconsistent with the SPS Agreement and did not 
respect Russia's WTO acc ession commitments. The European Union underlined that Latvia and 
Estonia had acted without delay in response to the findings of the Russian Federation in 2015, and 
had put in place corrective measures within the timeframes set b y the Russian Federation. 
Those actions had been brought to the attention of the Russian Federation, which carried out 
subsequent audits in 2016 to verify the corrective actions, but the results of their audits had not 
been communicated and the bans remained in place. The European U nion reiterated its call to the 
Russian Federation to repeal the ban while expressing its readiness to work with the Russian 
Federation in a constructive and cooperative manner.  
2.325.   The Russian Federation responded that the temporary restriction imposed on su pplies of 
fish products in Latvia and Estonia was due to violations in the process of ensuring the safety of 
fishery products, as confirmed by experts' inspections. The Russian Federation explained that it 
was working in coordinating with other Eurasian Ec onomic Union member countries and that it was 
open to further cooperation and discussions.  
2.326.   In November 2017, the European Union reiterated its concerns regarding the Russian 
Federation's import restrictions on all fishery products from Estonia and Latvia,  which followed an 
audit of a few establishments by the Russian Federation in 2015. The European Union argued that 
these measures were inconsistent with the SPS Agreement, unjustifiable on sanitary grounds, and 
not in compliance with the Russian Federation 's WTO accession commitments. The European Union 
added that Latvia and Estonia reacted without delay to the findings and had put in place corrective 
measures within the requested time -frame, and had been subsequently audited by the Russian 
Federation in Ju ne 2016. The European Union regretted that it only received the report of these 
audits the day before the Committee meeting. Estonia and Latvia had held bilateral discussions 
with the Russian Federation to show their readiness to resolve this concern. The European Union 
called for an immediate repeal of the measure  
2.327.   The Russian Federation recalled that the temporary restriction had been the result of 
onsite inspections that found systemic deficiencies in fish processing. More recent inspections 
noted the pr ogress made in complying with requirements of the Eurasian Economic Union, but did 
not fully address the safety concerns. Finally, the Russian Federation awaited responses from 
Latvia and Estonia to the preliminary report of its inspection.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 94 - 
 
  Russian Federat ion import restrictions on certain animal products from Germany  
(STC  411)  
Raised by:  European Union  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  June 2016 (G/SPS/R/83, paras. 4.7-4.8), October 2016 (G/SPS/R/84, 
paras. 3.38 -3.39) , March 2017 (G/SPS/R/86, paras. 3.25 -3.27), Jul y 
2017 (G/SPS/R/87, paras. 4.37 -4.38), November 2017 (G/SPS/R/88, 
paras. 3.43 -3.44)  
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/GEN/1216  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.328.   In June 2016, the European Union stated that since February 2013, the Russian Federation 
had introduced a complete ban on imports of fresh and chilled pig meat, beef and poultry meat 
from the entire territory of Germany, followed by a ban on imports of finished meat and milk 
products from three German fede ral states: Bavaria, Lower Saxony and North Rhine Westphalia. 
These import restrictions had been implemented due to claims by the Russian Federation that 
German veterinary services had not undertaken proper controls on the exports of such products. 
The Eur opean Union noted that the restrictions were not based on scientific evidence or a risk 
assessment and were inconsistent with several provisions of the SPS Agreement. The European 
Union further indicated that in 2013 it had communicated its concerns with r espect to these 
restrictions in its officially submitted comments on the notified Russian Federation measure, as 
well as in document G/SPS/GEN/1216. Continuous efforts had been made by German authorities 
to address the issue, including conducting superviso ry controls of the official veterinarians 
responsible for establishments listed for Russian export, and establishing an export coordination 
unit as a contact point for the Russian authorities and the private sector. Inspection visits had also 
been carried out by Russian authorities. Despite all efforts, the restrictions still remained in place. 
The European Union argued that there was no justification for the restrictions and requested the 
Russian Federation to promptly repeal these measures. The European U nion indicated its 
willingness to engage in discussions with the Russian authorities.  
2.329.   The Russian Federation stated that more than 600 German processing plants producing 
animal products were authorized to export to the Russian Federation under the guarante es of the 
German competent authorities. However, more than 90% had never been inspected by Russian 
authorities. The Russian Federation observed that due to several factors, such as unfavourable 
laboratory monitoring results, border control violations, and errors in the certification of animal 
products, the Russian authorities had arranged several audits of the processing plants and 
elements of the system, in order to ensure the safety of animal products exported from Germany. 
Inspections had been carried ou t between 2012 and 2015, during which time several restrictions 
were imposed on imports to the Russian market from individual firms and some regions due to 
non-compliance with Russian SPS requirements. The Russian Federation noted that it subsequently 
implemented a ban, following the failure of all German states to  meet its SPS requirements. 
The Russian Federation indicated that although it had informed the German authorities of the 
recorded violations and requested appropriate measures be taken to prevent export of unsafe 
products to the Russian market, no proper response had been received from the German 
veterinarian authorities. The Russian Federation further expressed concerns with the reliability of 
the guarantees of the German authorities, based on sub sequent Russian inspections. Cooperation 
efforts between the Russian Federation and Germany had resulted in an update of the list of 
German exporting establishments, delisting more than 300 non -compliant plants. In parallel, 
measures had been taken to resu me imports from establishments which had addressed identified 
deficiencies and from plants previously subject to restrictions due to laboratory monitoring results. 
The Russian Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and Human Wellbei ng 
(Rospotrebnadzor ) had been involved in the drafting of guidelines concerning inspection of German 
plants, in order to facilitate compliance with the Russian requirements. The Russian Federation 
further noted that consideration of the removal of the ban would be dependent on the 
implementation of the guidelines by the German Veterinary Services, submission of a document 
confirming the removal of deficiencies, and re -inspection by officials from the Rospotrebnadzor, G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 95 - 
 
  taking into account other ongoing inspec tions. The Russian Federation emphasized that the 
upcoming work would heavily rely on collaboration between German and Russian authorities.  
2.330.   In October 2016, the European Union recalled that since February 2013, the Russian 
Federation had maintained a ban o n imports of pig, beef and poultry meat from Germany, followed 
by a ban on imports of finished meat and milk products from three German federal states: 
Bavaria, Lower Saxony and North Rhine Westphalia. These import restrictions had been 
implemented due to claims by the Russian Federation that German veterinary services had not 
undertaken proper controls on the exports of such products. The European Union reaffirmed that 
the restrictions were inconsistent with several provisions of the SPS Agreement. The Eur opean 
Union noted that the German and Russian authorities were working on the issue, and expressed 
hope that their discussion would result in positive developments. The European Union argued that 
there was no justification for the restrictions and requeste d the Russian Federation to promptly 
repeal these measures. The European Union reaffirmed its willingness to engage in discussions 
with the Russian authorities.  
2.331.   The Russian Federation recalled that restrictions had been imposed on certain German 
export pro ducts following the results of inspections carried out between 2012 and 2015, which 
revealed non -compliance of these products with Russian SPS requirements. The safety guarantee 
for the importation of these products to the Russian Federation had not yet be en confirmed. 
The Russian Federation recalled that its Rospotrebnadzor had been involved in developing a 
manual for inspections containing Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) requirements. The Russian 
Federation indicated that this manual had been sent to Germa ny for comments and expected 
further cooperation with the competent German authorities.  
2.332.   In March 2017, The European Union recalled that since 2013, the Russian Federation had 
maintained a ban on imports of pig, beef and poultry meat from Germany, and a ban  on imports of 
meat and milk products from three German federal states. These import restrictions had been 
implemented due to claims by the Russian Federation that German veterinary services had not 
undertaken proper controls on the exports of these produc ts. The European Union (i) reaffirmed 
that the restrictions were inconsistent with several provisions of the SPS Agreement; (ii) regretted 
that, despite the work done by the German authorities, after four years the bans still remained in 
place; and (iii) u rged the Russian Federation to repeal the measures. Finally, the European Union 
reaffirmed its willingness to cooperate with the Russian authorities.  
2.333.   The Russian Federation recalled that temporary restrictions on supplies of livestock and 
dairy products f rom Germany were imposed following results of inspections in 2013 and 2015, 
which had revealed non -compliance with Russian SPS requirements. The Russian Federation 
announced that it was developing an instruction on the compliance of inspections with the 
requirements of the Russian Federation and the Eurasian Economic Union.  
2.334.   The Russian Federation reported that the latest developments had been discussed by the 
Head of the Russian Rosselkhozdnadzor and the State Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Food 
and Agriculture of Germany in January 2017 in Berlin, and during the visit of Mr. Helmut Brunner, 
Minister of Food, Agriculture and Forestry of the Land of Bavaria to Moscow in March 2017. 
Following those consultations, technical consultations on the issue wit h representatives of the 
German Veterinary Services were scheduled for April 2017.  
2.335.   In July 2017, the European Union recalled that since 2013, the Russian Federation had 
maintained a ban on imports of pig, beef and poultry meat from Germany, and a ban on i mports of 
meat and milk products from three German federal states. The European Union (i) reiterated that 
the restrictions were inconsistent with several provisions of the SPS Agreement; (ii) regretted that 
despite the efforts made by the German authoritie s, the ban remained in place; and (iii) urged the 
Russian Federation to repeal these restrictions. The European Union welcomed further discussions 
with the Russian Federation to find a solution in a timely manner.  
2.336.   The Russian Federation recalled that the restrictions had been imposed following the 
detection of unsafe products through laboratory monitoring, border controls and inspections 
carried out in 2013 and 2015, highlighting systemic non -compliance. Following the discussions in 
the SPS Committee and b ilateral consultations, the parties agreed to introduce guidelines for the 
inspection of German establishments by the national competent authority, in order to comply with G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 96 - 
 
  the regulations of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and of the Russian Federation.  The Russian 
Federation reported on technical consultations held on 4 April 2017 in Moscow between the 
Rospotrebnadzor and the competent German authority. The Russian Federation remained 
convinced that these consultations would facilitate a harmonized appr oach to ensure the safety of 
the concerned products.  
2.337.   In November 2017, the European Union reiterated its concern regarding the Russian 
Federation's import ban on fresh and chilled pig meat, beef and poultry meat from the entire 
territory of Germany impose d in early 2013, and the subsequent ban on finished meat and milk 
products from three German Federal States. The European Union repeated its earlier statements 
on the inconsistency of the measure with the SPS Agreement and expressed its disappointment 
that the ban remained in force despite efforts made by Germ any and the European Union. 
The European Union urged the Russian Federation to repeal its measures without further delay.  
2.338.   The Russian Federation recalled that the temporary import restriction stemmed from the 
detection of unsafe products and multiple mistakes in animal products certificates found during 
2013 and 2015 inspections, and their systemic nature. The Russian Federation also noted the 
agreement that Germany would implement guidelines to verify  its compliance with the 
requirements of the Eurasian Economic Union and of the Russian Federation, and that draft 
guidelines were under review by both parties.  
The Russian Federation's import restrictions on wine  (STC 426)  
Raised by:  Montenegro  
Supported  by: Moldova, Republic of  
Dates raised:  July 2017 (G/SPS/R/87, paras. 4.8 -4.10), Novembe r 2017 (G/SPS/R/88, 
paras. 3.56 -3.58)  
Relevant document(s):   
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.339.   In July 2017, Montenegro raised a concern over the Russian Federation's measures on 
imports of wine products. Montenegro stressed that there had been no prior record of non -
compliance of its wine products with the Russian Federation's required standards. M ontenegro 
indicated that the import restrictions had been introduced on 26 April without advance and/or 
official notification. The reason provided for said restriction, according to the official website of the 
Rospotrebnadzor (the Russian Federal Service f or Surveillance on Consumer Rights Protection and 
Human Wellbeing) was related to an increased content of pesticides (Metalaxyl) and phthalate 
plasticizer particles. Montenegro regretted that despite bilateral meetings and the exchange of 
information, the restrictive measures continued. Finally, Montenegro requested a joint testing 
procedure of the confiscated wine, within a reasonable time frame, to clarify the disputed facts.  
2.340.   The Republic of Moldova supported Montenegro's concern and its proposed joint c ontrol, 
adding that a similar approach could also be of use in addressing its ongoing trade concerns with 
the Russian Federation.  
2.341.   The Russian Federation thanked Montenegro for their bilateral meeting, and clarified that 
its competent authority, Rospotrebn adzor, had detected an incompliance of the affected 
Montenegrin wine producer with its sanitary and epidemiological legislation and hygienic norms. 
The Russian Federation recalled that the Rospotrebnadzor had informed the company but that no 
information ha d been provided by it or the competent Montenegrin authorities, following which the 
temporary import restriction had been imposed. The Russian Federation remained open to bilateral 
discussions with the competent authorities of Montenegro.  
2.342.   In November 2017 , Montenegro reiterated its concern on the Russian Federation's 
restrictive measures applied to imports of wine from Montenegro, and provided an update on the 
efforts and actions taken by Montenegro since the previous SPS Committee meeting. Montenegro 
recalled that the import restrictions had been introduced in 2016 without advance or official 
notification to the authorities in Montenegro and the companies involved. Montenegro reported G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 97 - 
 
  that it had submitted two official letters to the Russian Federation aut horities requesting additional 
information and clarification on the scientific evidence and nature of the imposed restriction, had 
offered bilateral consultations and indicated that joint control of the wine would offer the best 
course to resolve the issue . Montenegro pledged its full cooperation to the Russian Federation and 
its willingness to have the Russian Federation carry out a verification of its wine production 
compliance with the Russian Federation standards. Montenegro expressed its deep regret fo r the 
lack of response on the part of the Russian Federation to its correspondence and the lacking 
intention to engage in bilateral consultation or undertake corrective measures to lift the existing 
restriction. Montenegro urged the Russian Federation to l ift the restriction and to find a mutually 
agreed solution including the review of the SPS conformity of Montenegrin wine to facilitate the full 
return of the exported confiscated wine.  
2.343.   Moldova referred to its statement made in the July 2017 SPS Committee  meeting and 
reiterated its support to Montenegro's proposal of a joint control of the confiscated Montenegrin 
wine to ensure a better understanding of the Russian Federation food safety standards and 
procedures in order to take corrective actions. Moldova  urged the Russian Federation to 
constructively engage in bilateral consultations to find a mutually acceptable solution in line with 
WTO rules.  
2.344.   The Russian Federation stated that the temporary import restriction was imposed due to 
the detection that Mont enegrin wines failed to meet the Eurasian Economic Union's and the 
Russian Federation's requirements. The Russian Federation indicated that Montenegro's 
communications were currently under consideration, but that they did not provide information 
about the actions taken by Montenegro to identify cases of contamination of wines imported to the 
Russian Federation. The Russian Federation expected constructive cooperation with Montenegro in 
this area.  
2.12  Saudi Arabia, Ki ngdom of  
2.12.1   Food Safety  
Gulf Cooperation Council  (GCC) Guide for Control of Imported Foods  (STC 424)  
2.345.   See paragraphs 2. 9.-2.11. 
2.12.2   Animal Health  
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  
2.346.   See paragraphs 2.400.-2.467. 
Saudi Arabia's measures on shrimp  (STC 425)  
Raised by:  Ecuador  
Supported by:   
Dates  raised:  July 2017 (G/SPS/R/87, paras. 4.6 -4-7) 
Relevant document(s):   
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.347.   In July 2017, Ecuador raised concerns over Saudi Arabia's ban on shrimps from Ecuador 
based on an OIE  registry indicating the presence of infectious hypodermic necrosis and infectious 
hematopoietic necrosis in shrimp in some zones of Ecuador, and the lack of information about 
diseases such as infectious myonecrosis (IMNV), white tail disease and Taura syn drome (TSV). 
Ecuador noted that infectious hypodermic necrosis and infectious hematopoietic necrosis were 
globally present, including in Saudi Arabia. Ecuador explained that IMNV and white tail disease had 
been monitored but had not been reported in Ecuado r, and that TSV has not been reported in 
laboratory analyses for the past seven years. Ecuador further stressed its national control plan, G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 98 - 
 
  which included a periodic analysis of shrimp, the results of which were notified to the OIE every six 
months. Finally , Ecuador argued that Saudi Arabia's measure was inconsistent with various 
provisions of the SPS Agreement.  
2.348.   Saudi Arabia thanked Ecuador for raising this concern and reaffirmed its commitment to 
remove any unnecessary barriers to trade. Saudi Arabia expla ined that according to the OIE, 
Ecuador was not yet free from the infectious hypodermal and haematopoietic necrosis, and that its 
shrimps' health status was not yet defined with respect to the infectious yellow head virus 
genotype 1, myonecrosis, Taura syn drome and white tail disease. Saudi Arabia clarified that the 
import suspension of frozen and chilled shrimps from Ecuador was temporary, until the issue was 
resolved, and that certain shrimp products from Ecuador were exempt from said measure. Saudi 
Arabia welcomed the continued cooperation with Ecuador and encouraged further bilateral 
discussions.  
2.13  Chinese Taipei  
2.13.1   Food Safety  
Chinese Taipei's strengthened import restrictions on food with regard to radionuclides 
(STC 387)  
Raised by:  Japan  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  March 2015 (G/SPS/R/78 , paras. 3.9 -3.10), July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79 , 
paras.  3.35-3.36), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, paras. 3.30 -3.31), March 
2016 (G/SPS/R/82, paras. 3.21 -3.23), June 2016 (G/SPS/R/83, paras. 
4.28-4.29), October 2016 (G/SPS/R/84, pa ras. 3.16 -3.17), March 2017 
(G/SPS/R/86, paras. 3.10 -3.11) ; See also STC 354.  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.349.   In March 2015, Japan expressed its concerns over the import ban imposed by Chinese 
Taipei on food exports from five Japanese prefectures after the accident at TEPCO's Fukushima 
Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, as well as over the draft strengthened import re gulations that 
required a pre -test certificate issued by the Japanese Government for almost all Japanese foods 
from all remaining prefectures. Japan had repeatedly provided Chinese Taipei with comprehensive 
monitoring results to demonstrate that Japanese f ood was s afe for human consumption. 
Four years had passed since the nuclear accident in 2011. In the meantime , 13 Members such as 
Australia and Viet Nam,  had lifted their import restrictions. Many other Members, including the 
European Union, the United Sta tes and Singapore had eased their import restrictions based on 
sound scientific data. Japan believed that the measures maintained by Chinese Taipei were not 
based on relevant international standards and were more trade -restrictive than required. Japan 
therefore requested that Chinese Taipei lift the import ban on the five prefectures and withdraw 
the draft strengthened import regulations notified to the SPS Committee last November.  
2.350.   Chinese Taipei noted that, although all the inspected batches proceeding fro m Japan were 
in compliance with Chinese Taipei's regulation, consumer protection groups and the public were 
still concerned about the safety of food imported from Japan. The notified draft control measure 
requiring that food products imported from Japan be  accompanied by pre -export radiation test 
certificates and certificates of origin was developed as a consequence of the radioactive 
contaminated water leak accident from Fukushima nuclear power plant in 2013. Chinese Taipei 
expressed its willingness to con tinue bilateral talks and looked forward to finding a mutual 
satisfactory solution on this matter.  
2.351.   In July 2015, Japan reiterated its concerns over the import ban imposed by Chinese Taipei 
on food exports from five Japanese prefectures after the accident a t TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi 
Nuclear Power Station, as well as over the strengthened import restrictions imposed since 
15 May 2015. According to information published by Chinese Taipei, none of the more than G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 99 - 
 
  70,000  samples of Japanese food products tested h ad exceeded Chinese Taipei's limit levels of 
radioactive cesium, which seemed to confirm the appropriateness of Japan's measures taken after 
the incident. Japan also noted that Chinese Taipei's import restrictions were not based on science, 
nor based on th e relevant international standards, and were more trade restrictive than required. 
Japan requested that Chinese Taipei complete its risk assessment and immediately remove its 
measures. Japan also expressed hope that bilateral consultations would help find a mutually 
acceptable solution.  
2.352.   Chinese Taipei confirmed the implementation of control measures consisting in the 
temporary suspension of inspection applications for food produced in the Fukushima and the other 
four nearby prefectures since March 2011. How ever, in March 2015 food products from the 
restricted prefectures had entered the Chinese Taipei market using false labelling. Consequently, 
Chinese Taipei had implemented control measures requiring certificates of origin and, for specific 
food products an d prefectures, radioactive examination reports. Chinese Taipei also noted 
concerns over the continuous leakage of radioactive contaminated water from Fukushima nuclear 
power plant since 2013. Chinese Taipei reiterated its commitment to bilateral efforts to  find a 
solution to this matter.  
2.353.   In October 2015, Japan reiterated its concerns over the import ban imposed by Chinese 
Taipei on food from five Japanese prefectures after the accident at TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi 
Nuclear Power Station, as well as over the strengthened import re strictions imposed since 
15 May 2015. Japan stressed that although an incident where some Japanese food products had 
been imported with false labelling was unfortunate, it should be clearly distinguished from the 
import ban. Japan not ed that Chinese Taipei's import restrictions were not based on scientific 
evidence. Japan also questioned the extent to which Japan's treatment of radioactive 
contaminated water was relevant to food safety in this situation. With regard to alleged consumer  
concerns in Chinese Taipei about Japanese food safety, Japan noted that there had been a steady 
increase in food imports from Japan by Chinese Taipei over the past three years. Japan requested 
that Chinese Taipei complete its risk assessment and immediate ly remove its measures, even if on 
a step -by-step basis. Japan also expressed hope that bilateral consultations would result in a 
mutually acceptable solution.  
2.354.   Chinese Taipei confirmed the continued temporary suspension of inspection applications for 
food produced in the Fukushima and four other nearby prefectures since March 2011. According to 
information published by Japan, food products were still found to have radioactive residues and, in 
July 2015, several cases had been confirmed to have levels excee ding the tolerance levels 
proposed by Japan. Chinese Taipei reiterated its commitment to bilateral efforts to find a solution 
to this matter.  
2.355.   In March 2016, Japan reiterated its concerns over the import ban imposed by Chinese 
Taipei on food from five Japan ese prefectures after the accident at TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi 
Nuclear Power Station. Japan reported that, despite receiving what it regarded as a positive 
response from Chinese Taipei affirming its commitment to bilateral efforts, as well as high -level 
leadership meetings held on the margins of the APEC Ministerial Meeting in November 2015, no 
progress had been made in resolving the issue. Japan noted that the ban was not scientifically 
justifiable as radioactive residues exceeding standard limits were on ly found in certain types of 
food, mostly wild mushrooms and game meat. Japan encouraged Chinese Taipei to move the 
process forward to resolve the issue as soon as possible.  
2.356.   Chinese Taipei described the measures in place and stated that they were necessary  to 
address public health concerns, especially given the fact that contaminated water and materials 
had not been entirely cleaned and contaminated water continued to leak from the plant site. 
According to recent trade data, consumers were regaining confide nce in Japanese products. 
Chinese Taipei reported that it had set up a joint working group with the Japanese Government 
and looked forward to cooperating closely with Japan under this joint -working mechanism.  
2.357.   Japan questioned the relevancy of contaminated water and public concern on food safety. 
Data from various sources showed a growing demand for Japanese food. Japan thanked other 
Members who had already lifted or eased their import restrictions.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 100 - 
 
  2.358.   In June 2016, Japan reiterated its concerns regarding the i mport ban imposed by Chinese 
Taipei on food from five Japanese prefectures in response to the nuclear power plant accident. 
Japan noted that the ban was not scientifically justifiable as radioactive residues exceeding the 
regulatory limits were only found in certain types of food. In addition, no residues exceeding the 
regulatory limits had been found at Chinese Taipei's border, out of the more than 80,000 samples 
tested to date. Japan further observed that a press release from the authorities of Chinese Ta ipei 
had indicated that there was neither a plan nor a timetable to relax the import restrictions on food 
products from Japan. Japan underscored that import restrictions sh ould be consistent with the 
SPS Agreement and encouraged further cooperation in addr essing this issue.  
2.359.   Chinese Taipei reiterated that its temporary import ban and radioactive pre -test certificate 
requirements were necessary to protect public health, especially given the fact that contaminated 
water and materials had not been entirely clea ned as yet. Chinese Taipei indicated that since the 
nuclear power plant incident, it had requested further information from Japan, including on its 
surveillance results and control measures, in order to undertake an evaluation. As a result of the 
credible control measures implemented by the competent authority of Chinese Taipei, consumers 
were regaining confidence in the safety of Japanese food products, as demonstrated by increased 
trade figures. Chinese Taipei indicated its commitment to monitor the effec tiveness of Japan's 
radionuclide management system and ensure a comprehensive evaluation of its relevant control 
measures. Chinese Taipei looked forward to further cooperating with Japan on this issue.  
2.360.   In October 2016, Japan reiterated its concerns regardi ng the import ban imposed by 
Chinese Taipei on food from five Japanese prefectures in response to the nuclear power plant 
accident. The ban was not scientifically justifiable as radioactive residues exceeding the regulatory 
limits were only found in certai n types of food. Japan recognized Chinese Taipei's commitment to 
bilateral discussions and expressed its willingness to continue cooperating with Chinese Taipei 
towards a satisfactory solution.  
2.361.   Chinese Taipei recalled that a temporary suspension of inspect ion applications for food 
imported from the Fukushima and other four nearby prefectures was in place since March 2011. 
Food from other prefectures was inspected for radionuclide residues at port of entry on a batch -
by-batch basis. In May 2015, Chinese Taip ei amended its measures to require radioactive 
examination reports for specific food products from several prefectures and adopted flexible and 
pragmatic methods to allow safe trade of Japanese food products. Chinese Taipei remained 
concerned with radionuc lide contaminated water and materials, which continued to leak from the 
plant site. Chinese Taipei highlighted that the measures implemented, including import restrictions 
and pre -test certificates, were necessary to address public health concerns. Increas ed trade 
figures demonstrated that consumers were regaining confidence in the safety of Japanese food 
products. Chinese Taipei reiterated its commitment to continue monitoring the effectiveness of 
Japan's radionuclide management system and ensure a compreh ensive evaluation of its relevant 
surveillance and control measures. Chinese Taipei had appointed an inter -ministerial team to work 
on this issue, including risk communication, and looked forward to further cooperating with Japan.  
2.362.   In March 2017, Japan agai n raised its concern regarding Chinese Taipei's import ban on 
food from five Japanese prefectures in response to the nuclear power plant accident. Japan 
recognized Chinese Taipei's efforts since August 2016, including on -site visits to farms and food 
proce ssing plants as well as to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Chinese Taipei had 
considered lifting the ban but was still in the process of informing the public. In N ovember 2016, 
it had held public hearings which had been allegedly held in a hasty manner. Additional hearings 
that had been scheduled to take place before January 2017 had been delayed. Meanwhile, Chinese 
Taipei had introduced new labelling requirements after finding that  certain food products contained 
soy sauce from the five prefectures subject to the import ban, in spite of testing negative for 
radionuclide residues and being regularly imported by Chinese Taipei. Japan urged Chinese Taipei 
to adopt measures that were co nsistent with the WTO Agreements.  
2.363.   Chinese Taipei recalled that it had reviewed its current measures following its cross 
ministerial expert delegation visit to Japan in August 2016. Chinese Taipei referred to previous 
statements and reiterated its willingn ess to cooperate with Japan to solve this issue bilaterally.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 101 - 
 
  2.14  South Africa  
2.14.1   Animal Health  
South Africa's import restrictions on poultry due to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza  
(STC 431)  
Raised by:  European Union  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  November 2017 (G/SPS/R/88, paras. 3.11 -3.12) 
Relevant document(s):   
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.364.   In November 2017, The European Union raised concerns over country -wide bans on 
imports of poultry products from several EU member States due to HPAI, despite most of them 
have been recognized as free from HPAI for months. The European Union explained that South 
Africa's decision not to accept HPAI zoning even after it had received relevant evidence 
disregarded the regionalization obligation under the SPS Agreement. The European Union noted 
that this situation has significant impacts on EU trade of poultry t o South Africa. The European 
Union highlighted its bilateral engagement with South Africa, including a study visit to the 
European Union in 2016.  
2.365.   South Africa acknowledged past discussions with the European Union and the visit to 
understand the EU regional ization mechanism that took place in 2016. South Africa however 
expressed concerns regarding the effectiveness of the control and preventive measures in the 
European Union, and noted it would have another visit to assess these controls.  
2.15  Thailand  
2.15.1   Plant Heal th 
Thailand's import restriction on papaya seeds  (STC 421)  
Raised by:  Chinese Taipei  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  March 2017 (G/SPS/R/86, paras. 9.5 -9.7), Jul y 2017 (G/SPS/R/87, 
paras. 4.14 -4.16), Novembe r 2017 (G/SPS/R/88, paras. 3.32 -3.33)  
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/N/THA/158  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.366.   In March 2017, Chinese Taipei referred to Thailand's import restrictions on papaya seeds. 
It observed that although a risk assessment had been conducted 9 years ago, and despite 
repeated requests, no proper response had been received from Thailand. Prior t o 2008, papaya 
seeds had been exported to Thailand. Chinese Taipei observed that Thailand itself did not attribute 
the ban on papaya seeds to any pest issue in Chinese Taipei, but was simply the result of a 
regulatory amendment in 2007. Thailand had reques ted detailed information for conducting a risk 
assessment prior to reopening its market. However, Chinese Taipei argued that this approach was 
inconsistent with IPPC ISPM No.2 Framework for Pest Risk Analysis.  
2.367.   Chinese Taipei had provided detailed historic al records of trade, as well as a pest list, in 
response to Thailand's request in April 2008. Additional data on papaya seed varieties had also 
been requested in June 2010 and promptly provided. Since then, Chinese Taipei had sought on 
multiple occasions a n update on the progress of the risk assessment, without substantive G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 102 - 
 
  response. In March 2016, Thailand further requested supplementary information on three kinds of 
pests with a risk of being spread by the papaya seed trade: Candidatus phytoplasma solani, 
Tobacco ringspot virus and Tomato spotted wilt virus. In response, Chinese Taipei had provided in 
August 2016 scientific evidence showing that there was no record of these pests being spread 
through the trade of papaya seed, and that these pests had never been found in papaya seeds in 
its territory. Discussions had taken place on the margins of the SPS Committee and Chinese Taipei 
indicated that the dossiers of scientific evidence, requested in October 2017, had now been 
received and would be reviewed by Ch inese Taipei's experts, following which feedback would 
shortly be provided to Thailand's competent authority. Chinese Taipei also indicated that it looked 
forward to receiving the import protocols.  
2.368.   Chinese Taipei underscored its efforts to provide the rel evant information in a timely 
manner and urged Thailand to move forward or to provide proper scientific justification, arguing 
that Thailand's restrictions were inconsistent with Articles 2, 3 and 5 of the SPS Agreement, as 
well as Article 7.2 of the Inter national Plant Protection Convention. Chinese Taipei encouraged 
Thailand to comply with its WTO commitments, in particular Articles 5.6 and 5.8 of the 
SPS Agreement, and to re -open its market to papaya seeds without further undue delay.  
2.369.   In July 2017, Chin ese Taipei referred to Thailand's import restrictions on papaya seeds. 
Although a risk assessment had been conducted nine years ago, and despite repeated requests, no 
proper response had been received from Thailand. Prior to 2008, papaya seeds had been exp orted 
to Thailand. Chinese Taipei observed that Thailand itself did not attribute the ban on papaya seeds 
to any pest issue in Chinese Taipei; it was the result of a regulat ory amendment in 2007. 
Thailand  had requested detailed information for conducting a  risk assessment prior to reopening its 
market, but Chinese Taipei argued that this approach was inconsistent with IPPC ISPM No. 2 
Framework for Pest Risk Analysis. Chinese Taipei had provided detailed historical records of trade, 
as well as a pest list, i n response to Thailand's request in April 2008. Additional data on papaya 
seed varieties had also been requested in June 2010 and promptl y provided. Since then, 
Chinese  Taipei had sought an update on the progress of the risk assessment on multiple occasion s, 
without substantive response.  
2.370.   Chinese Taipei also indicated that, after introducing the concern under the agenda item 
"Other Business" at the March 2017 SPS Committee meeting, Thailand had said that papaya seeds 
risked the spread of the pests Candidatu s phytoplasma solani and Tobacco ringspot virus (TRSV). 
In July 2017, Thailand had indicated that it would remove Candidatus phytoplasma solani from its 
quarantine pest list and that it would further discuss its proposed risk mitigation measures for 
TRSV. Finally, Chinese Taipei urged Thailand to promulgate the import protocol for its papaya 
seeds, and insisted that the current import restriction was inconsistent with several provisions of 
the SPS Agreement and the IPPC.  
2.371.   Thailand drew attention to notifica tion G/SPS/N/THA/158 of 2007, according to which 
prohibited products could only be imported after the completion of their pest risk analysis, 
providing an exemption to allow existing commodities' trade to continue until their pest risk 
analysis was complet ed. For the exemption to apply, however, the NPPO of the exporting country 
had to submit an import request with evidence of previous imports, which in the case of Chinese 
Taipei did not include papaya seeds. Thailand added that it had conducted a pest risk  analysis for 
papaya seeds as a new commodity and had finalized its quarantine pest list, as communicated to 
Chinese Taipei's Department of Agriculture. Thailand announced that it was in the process of 
drafting the import protocol for papaya seeds, to be s ent for approval by its Quarantine Technical 
Subcommittee. Thailand finally expressed its willingness to work closely on this matter with 
Chinese Taipei.  
2.372.   In November 2017, Chinese Taipei reiterated its concern on Thailand's import restriction 
on papaya se eds imposed since 2008. Chinese Taipei reported that it was currently reviewing 
Thailand's draft quarantine requirements for its papaya seeds. Chinese Taipei confirmed that the 
exported papaya seed was free from tobacco ringspot virus (TRSV) and urged Thai land to lift the 
import restriction and comply with its WTO obligations.  
2.373.   Thailand explained that the reason for the initial ban on the import of papaya seeds from 
Chinese Taipei was due to a regulatory amendment. An exemption was granted to existing trade d 
commodities, but Chinese Taipei's request to include papaya seeds in the exemption was received 
only after the time -frame. Therefore, it faced a delay in its market access. Thailand added that the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 103 - 
 
  draft import protocol for papaya seeds had been approved by its Quarantine Technical 
Subcommittee. If it was accepted by Chinese Taipei, it would be submitted to Thailand's Pest 
Quarantine Committee for final approval to resume imports of papaya seeds from Chinese Taipei.  
2.16  Turkey  
2.16.1   Animal Health  
General import rest rictions due to BSE (STC 193)  
2.374.   See paragraphs 2.400.-2.467. 
2.16.2   Plant  Health  
Turkey's restrictions on rough rice imports  (STC 433)  
Raised by:  United States of America  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  November 2017 (G/SPS/R/88, paras. 3.15 –3.16) 
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/N/TUR/203  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.375.   In November 2017, the United States raised concerns over Turkey's continued restrictions 
on rough rice imports due to Aphelenchoides besseyi , a nematode that was widespread in Turkey. 
The United States referred to IPPC standard ISPM No. 5, according to which a plant disease or pest 
could not be considered a quarantine pest if it was widespread within a given territory and not 
under official co ntrol, and to Article 2.3 of the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures. The United States highlighted its efforts to receive market access for 
rough rice under the same conditions that Turkey applied to its domestic industry. The United 
States regretted that Turkey had failed to provide scientific justification for the restrictions and 
requested that Turkey ensure that its rough rice import standards were consistent with its WTO 
obligations and aligned with international standa rds. 
2.376.   Turkey noted that the relevant regulation had been notified as G/SPS/N/TUR/203 and 
argued that it was in line with Article 7 of the IPPC, which granted countries the right to regulate in 
order to prevent the introduction and spread of pests in their t erritories. Turkey stressed its 
domestic quarantine measures and the limited existence of the organism in Turkey.  
2.17  United Arab Emirates  
2.17.1   Food Safety  
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) Guide for Control of Imported Foods  (STC 424)  
2.377.   See paragraphs 2. 9.-2.11. 
2.17.2   Plant Health  
United Arab Emirates measures on plant protection products  (STC 429)  
Raised by:  Turkey  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  November 2017 (G/SPS/R/88, paras. 3.6 -3.7) 
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 104 - 
 
  Date reported as  
resolved:   
 
2.378.   In November 2017, Turkey raised a concern regarding the United Arab Emirates Ministerial 
Decree No. 799 of 2005 as amended by Ministerial Decree No. 2364 of 2014, which required, for 
the registration of a pesticide, a certificate of registration from the c ountry of origin, a certificate of 
registration in an OECD member State, and a trading certificate of the pesticide from an OECD 
member State. Turkey asked for the scientific reasons behind these requirements, highlighting 
that fulfilling these conditions was not always possible and created unjustifiable discrimination 
between WTO Members. Turkey reported that bilateral meetings with the United Arab Emirates 
had not led to progress.  
2.379.   The Chairperson noted that United Arab Emirates were not present at the me eting.  
2.18  United States of America  
2.18.1   Food Safety  
United States MRLs for chlorpyrifos  (STC 419)  
Raised by:  Israel  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  March 2017 (G/SPS/R/86, paras. 3.5 -3.7) 
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/N/USA/2912  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.380.   In March 2017, Israel expressed its concern regarding the United States proposed rule to 
withdraw its food pesticide residue tolerances for chlorpyrifos . Following the notification of the 
proposed text in November 2016 (G/SPS/N/USA/2912), Israel had submitted comments to the 
United States and discussed the issue bilaterally at various fora. Israel explained that chlorpyrifos 
was produced in Israel, used o n some 20 major crops exported to the United States, and 
considered an efficient and cost -effective broad spectrum pesticide. It was less disruptive to 
beneficial insects than alternative pesticides and a good rotational option. Also, for several 
important  pests, growers had limited or no viable alternatives to chlorpyrifos. Israel noted that the 
United States' decision was based on three studies conducted in residential areas using 
chlorpyrifos for indoor pest control, which could cause hand -to-mouth conta ct as well as dermal or 
inhalation exposure. According to Israel, the results of these studies did not suggest that the 
relevant Codex MRLs (insecticide ID 17) were unsafe for agricultural products. Israel believed that 
the United States' deviation from th e existing international standard was not scientifically justified. 
The United States needed to develop individual risk assessments on the use of chlorpyrifos for 
each agricultural crop of concern, taking into account all available scientific evidence as w ell as the 
objective to minimize negative trade effects.  
2.381.   Ecuador echoed Israel's concern, underlining that chlorpyrifos was broadly used worldwide 
and in Ecuador since 1989 on a variety of crops, including bananas majorly exported to the United 
States. Ec uador called for the United States to scientifically justify its measure and highlight the 
risks to human health, considering that the measure seemed to be based on studies carried out on 
the agricultural use of chlorpyrifos. Ecuador also asked if the Unit ed States would undertake 
individual risk assessments for different agricultural products based on Codex standards. Finally, 
Ecuador expressed a special concern with the adoption date of 31 March 2017 and the strong 
effects that it would have on trade.  
2.382.   The United States confirmed that all comments received would be considered by the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in finalizing the proposed measure. While the United 
States appreciated that many comments called on EPA to base its residue levels on Code x 
standards, it recalled the right of Members, in line with the SPS Agreement, to carry out their own G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 105 - 
 
  risk assessments. Further information on the scientific assessments used was available in 
G/SPS/N/USA/2912.  
2.18.2   Other Concerns  
US seafood import monitoring pr ogramme (STC 415)  
Raised by:  China  
Supported by:  Chile, Russian Federation  
Dates raised:  October 2016 (G/SPS/R/84, paras. 3.9 -3.11) , March 2017 (G/SPS/R/86, 
paras. 3.39 -3.41), July 2017 (G/SPS/R/87, paras. 4.47 -4.48), November 
2017 (G/SPS/R/88, paras. 3.63-3.65)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.383.   In October 2016, China raised its concern regarding the US Seafood Import Monitoring 
Program (SIMP), published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 
February 2016. China praised US efforts to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) 
fishing and seafood fraud. However, China considered the proposed rule to be inconsistent with a 
number of key principles of t he WTO such as transparency, national treatment, scientific 
justification and least trade restrictiveness. China urged the United States to notify the measure as 
soon as possible, and to provide Members with at least a 60 -day comment period and a 6 -month 
transition period. China also noted that US traceability requirements and catch certification for at -
risk species applied only to imported fish and fish products, and not to domestic products. 
Additionally, the measure was not based on science as it would f inally apply to all imported aquatic 
products, regardless of risk levels, and making no distinctions between aquaculture products and 
wild capture fisheries. China indicated that the regulation required more information than 
necessary and overlapped with o ther rules, including the International Trade Data System (ITDS), 
which increased costs and generated unnecessary market access delays. China added that the rule 
would do little to combat illegal fishing. China requested more information and expressed its 
availability to work closely with the United States with a view to combating IUU fishing and 
seafood fraud in a WTO consistent manner. China looked forward to seeing the US notification for 
this measure.  
2.384.   Chile shared China's concern indicating that it woul d follow this issue closely and hoped 
that the measure would be notified soon.  
2.385.   The United States noted that this issue did not fall under the SPS Agreement.  
The objective of the proposed rule was to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud. The proposed 
rule w ould require importers to report certain information upon entry into the United States to help 
trace back the shipment to the catch or harvest point. The United States further explained that the 
rule had been developed through a transparent process of publ ic notice and comments involving 
domestic and foreign stakeholders, as well as exporting authorities. The NOAA had received many 
comments, including from China, which were being considered in the first phase of the programme 
covering a reduced list of spec ies. The rule would eventually cover all seafood species in 
subsequent phases. The United States finally highlighted its common objective with China to 
combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud and expressed its interest in a continued engagement on 
this issue.  
2.386.   In March 2017, China raised its concern regarding the US Seafood Import Monitoring 
Program (SIMP), published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 
February 2016, which had entered into effect in January 2017 without being notifi ed to the WTO 
for comments by Members. China stated that the proposed rule was inconsistent with a number of 
key WTO principles, such as transparency, national treatment, scientific justification and least 
trade restrictiveness. China also noted that the U nited States' traceability requirements and catch 
certification for at -risk species applied only to imported fish and fish products, and not to domestic 
products. Additionally, the measure was not based on science as it would apply to all imported G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 106 - 
 
  aquatic products, regardless of risk levels and without distinction between aquaculture products 
and wild capture fisheries. China indicated that the regulation required more information than 
necessary and overlapped with other rules, including the International T rade Data System (ITDS), 
which increased costs and generated unnecessary market access delays. China added that the rule 
would do little to combat illegal fishing and urged the United States to postpone its implementation 
until Members' comments were sough t and taken into consid eration.  
2.387.   The Russian Federation shared China's concern regarding the US Seafood Monitoring 
Program, and noted that it had raised the same issue in the Council for Trade in Goods, and 
encouraged cooperation between interested Members.  The Philippines and Ecuador registered their 
interest in the matter.  
2.388.   The United States stated that the issue did not fall under the scope of the SPS Agreement. 
The objective of the proposed rule was to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud. The proposed 
rule would require importers to report certain information upon entry into the United States, to 
help trace back the shipment to the catch or harvest point, in order to prevent the United States 
market from being used as a place to sell fraudulently markete d seafood or seafood products 
produced from IUU fishing. The rule was explained to be part of a new, comprehensive seafood 
traceability program that also included comparable information requirements for domestic 
fisheries. The United States further explain ed that the rule had been developed through a 
transparent process of public notice and comments involving domestic and foreign stakeholders, as 
well as exporting authorities. The United States underlined the rule's one -year implementation 
time-frame, its s treamlined requirements for small scale fishers, and an indefinite suspension of 
requirements for shrimp and abalone. The United States looked forward to a continuing 
engagement with China and other trading partners on the implementation of the rule, and o n 
combatting IUU fishing and protecting oceans more broadly.  
2.389.   In July 2017, China appreciated that the United States had revised some of the provisions 
regarding the United States Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP), published by the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in early 2016. However, China still had some 
concerns related to transparency, national treatment, scientific justification and least trade -
restrictiveness. China highlighted that the traceability requirements and catc h-certification for at -
risk species applied only to imported fish and fish products, and not to domestic products, and that 
the measure was not based on science as it would apply to all imported aquatic products, 
regardless of risk levels and without disti nction between aquaculture products and wild capture 
fisheries. The regulation required more information than necessary and overlapped with other 
rules, including the International Trade Data System (ITDS), which increased costs and generated 
unnecessary m arket access delays. China urged the United States to notify the SIMP to the WTO 
for comments by Members.  
2.390.   The United States reiterated that the final rule was not an SPS measure and therefore fell 
outside the scope of the SPS Agreement. The United States explained that the objective of the 
final rule was to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and seafood fraud. It 
thus required domestic importers to report certain information upon entry into the United States 
and to retain other inform ation that would allow shipments to be traced back to the point of catch 
or harvest in order to prevent its market from being used to sell fraudulently marketed seafood or 
seafood products produced from IUU fishing. The United States looked forward to cont inuing 
engagement with China on the implementation of the rule, but did not believe the SPS Committee 
was the appropriate forum for this engagement.  
2.391.   In November 2017, China reiterated its concern on the US seafood import monitoring 
programme. China highli ghted the differences between the US bills related to the trade of aquatic 
products, namely the Seafood Import Monitoring Program (SIMP) and the Fish and Fish Product 
Import Regulations, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. China urged the United States t o 
consider removing aquaculture products from the bills to promote the healthy development of 
bilateral trade in these products. China requested updates on the relevant bills under the regional 
fishery management organizations and the relevant internationa l management organizations.  
2.392.   The Russian Federation shared China's concern, noting that trade -related measures should 
be adopted and implemented in a fair and transparent manner, and only after prior consult ation 
with interested Members.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 107 - 
 
  2.393.   The United States reiterated that the final rule was not an SPS measure and therefore fell 
outside the scope of the SPS Agreement. The United States also reiterated that the objective of 
the final rule was to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing and seaf ood fraud, 
and thus required the US importers to report certain information upon entry into the United States 
and retain other information that would allow the shipments to be traced back to the point of catch 
or harvest in order to protect its market from  being used to sell fraudulently marketed seafood or 
seafood products produced from IUU fishing.  
2.19  Viet Nam  
2.19.1   Plant Health  
Viet Nam's suspension of groundnut seed imports  (STC 418)  
Raised by:  Senegal  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  March 2017 (G/SPS/R/86, paras. 3.3 -3.4), July 2017 ( G/SPS/R/87, 
paras. 4.17 -4.18), November 2017 (G/SPS/R/88, paras. 3.26 -3.27)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.394.   In March 2017, Senegal noted that, as of 11 July 2016, Viet Nam had suspended its 
imports of groundnut seeds from Senegal following Decision No. 2838/QD -BNN-BVTV, due to the 
detection of two destructive pests in groundnut seeds exported to Viet Nam. Senegal confirmed 
that one fumigation company had not r espected pre -fumigation procedures and its quarantine 
authorities had taken corrective measures, including strengthening procedures for issuing quality 
certificates and establishing a roadmap to further protect plant health. Senegal appealed to Viet 
Nam, w hich was a major importer of Senegalese groundnut seeds, to undertake a risk analysis of 
their measures and remained open to bilateral discussion.  
2.395.   Viet Nam stated that between February and June 2016 it had intercepted 48 containers of 
groundnut seeds infe cted with two regulated quarantine pests absent from its territory. Viet Nam 
noted that despite alerting the Senegalese authorities of the detection of incompliant 
consignments, Senegal had not tightened its controls sufficiently. Viet Nam's temporary 
suspension was in compliance with IPPC and domestic regulation and was aimed at preventing the 
spread of the two pests in its territory. As bilaterally notified, Viet Nam encouraged Senegal to 
improve cooperation and provide technical reports to assess the sit uation. Viet Nam welcomed 
further bilateral discussion to resolve the matter.  
2.396.   In July 2017, Senegal reported that after raising th e concern in the March 2017 
SPS Committee meeting, Viet Nam had requested a more detailed report of the phytosanitary risk 
analysis applied to the groundnut industry, which had been provided in June 2017. Viet Nam had 
acknowledged receipt and requested an official translation into English. Senegal noted that no 
notification of non -conformity had been issued and expressed appreci ation for Viet Nam's 
collaboration on this issue.  
2.397.   Viet Nam explained that in 2015 it had issued a new list of commodities subject to pest 
risk analysis before importation. Viet Nam appreciated Senegal's effort to provide information in 
English and looked forward to deliver a final response to this issue at their next bilateral meeting.  
2.398.   In November 2017, Senegal reiterated its concern on Viet Nam's provisional suspension on 
groundnut imports from Senegal and reported on the provisions taken to ensure compl iance with 
the phytosanitary requirements, including an audit by a Chinese quarantine service mission.  
2.399.   Viet Nam reiterated that there had been detections of groundnuts infested with live insect 
quarantine pests. Viet Nam reported that Senegal had been not ified, and that its temporary 
suspension was in line with IPPC guidelines. Viet Nam also reported that it was currently reviewing 
the technical information received from Senegal's National Plant Protection Agency.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 108 - 
 
  2.20  Certain Members  
2.20.1   Animal Health  
General impo rt restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  
Raised by:  European Union;  United States of America  
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, pa ras. 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), March 
2014 (G/SPS/R/74, paras. 3.28 -3.30) , July 2014 (G/S PS/R/75, 
paras.  4.33-4.37), October 2014 (G/SPS/R/76, paras. 3.26 -3.30), March 
2015 (G/SPS/R/78, paras. 3.30 -3.32), July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, 
paras.  3.29-3.30), Octob er 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, para. 3.65 ), March 2016 
(G/SPS/R/82, para. 3.45), June 2016 (G/SPS/R/83,  para. 4.12), October 
2016 (G/SPS/R/84, para. 3.37) , March 2017 (G/SPS/R/86, paras. 3.31 -
3.32), July 2017 (G/SPS/R/87, para. 4.42), November 2017 
(G/SPS/R/88, para. 3.34) ; See also STC 84.  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Partially resolved  
Solution:  Soluti ons notified regarding certain m embers  
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.400.   In June 2004, the European Communities raised concerns about unjustified import 
restrictions on EC exports due to concerns about BSE. To satisfy consumer demands, the European 
Communities had adopted comprehensive measures to addre ss risks relating to BSE. 
These  measures applied both to products intended for consumption within the European 
Communities  and to those destined for export. The system of geographical assessme nt 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 po tential 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 recommendati ons for international trade and to stop discriminating among 
Members with similar BSE conditions.  
2.401.   In October 2004, the United States also raised concerns on this issue by noting that some 
Members were reviewing their import restrictions on US beef and also  urged all those Members 
who had not done so to align their regulations in accordance with OIE standards.  
2.402.   Canada recalled that at its last meeting the OIE had reconfirmed that some products, such 
as semen, embryos, hides, and milk, did not contribute to th e transmission of BSE. Hence the 
imports of these types of products did not provide a potential pathway for introduction of the 
disease.  
2.403.   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. Th e United States noted that some Members were reviewing their import restrictions on G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 109 - 
 
  US beef and also urged all those Members who had not done so to align their regulations in 
accordance with OIE standards.  
2.404.   In June 2005, the European Communities reported th at the number of countries that had 
lifted their respective bans on EC bovines and bovine products in accordance with OIE standards 
had been regularly growing, including also non -Members of the WTO. According to the revised BSE 
chapter of the Terrestrial A nimal Health Code, many bovine derived products, including deboned 
skeletal muscle and blood products, could be safely traded regardless of the BSE status of the 
exporting country. The European Communities invited the remaining WTO Members to replace 
their import bans with specific import requirements in accordance with OIE standards.  
2.405.   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 
progr ess and a number of Members had removed measures, US products continued to face overly 
restrictive measures which exceeded the OIE standards. The United States had undertaken 
extensive surveillance and put in place interlocking safeguards, nonetheless many  restrictions 
remained in place. The United States asked Members to review the evidence now available and to 
revise their requirements accordingly.  
2.406.   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 products were considered safe and in compliance 
with the BSE Chapter of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code.  
2.407.   Canada shared the EC concerns and asked Members to base their measures on the BSE 
chapter provisions of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code. In May 2007, Canada was officially 
recognized by the OIE as controlled -risk for BSE and this was reconfirmed in May 2008. 
Canada  was grateful to the increasing number of WTO Members that restored full or partial access 
for beef and cattle. Canada urged other Members to resume full trade in beef and cattle based on 
the OIE designation.  
2.408.   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 . 
2.409.   The representative of the OIE urged Members to abide by the standards enacted by the 
OIE. 
2.410.   In February 2009, the European Communities drew attention to the OIE s tandard 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 t he OIE Code undermined this standard that 
had been adopted after long negotiations, thus damaging the credibility of the OIE. The OIE was 
planning to update the Code, because there was 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 appeal ed 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.  
2.411.   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 b uilt into the 
standards, and it was worrying that there was a lack of willingness on the part of Members to 
apply them.  
2.412.   In June 2009, the European Communities again drew attention to restrictions on bovine 
meat and related products still imposed by many Me mbers. The European Communities requested G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 110 - 
 
  that unjustified and discriminatory restrictions be removed. The OIE Code stated that no bans 
were necessary even if a country reported cases of BSE. EC measures to control BSE were 
exemplary and went far beyond OI E requirements, and the European Communities urged Members 
to establish fair, non -discriminatory and transparent rules for the import of bovine products.  
2.413.   In October 2009, the European Communities recalled that they had repeatedly raised 
concerns about unju stified restrictions by some WTO Members on imports of bovine, ovine and 
related products allegedly in response to transmissible spongiform encephalopathy. Any measures 
should be based on the relevant international standards. While many were aligning their  processes 
to OIE recommendations, other Members still required unnecessary certification, applied 
burdensome and lengthy procedures and discriminated between countries without scientific basis. 
EC measures to eradicate and control BSE were comprehensive a nd offered every guarantee that 
EC exports were safe. The European Communities urged Members to fully take into consideration 
the latest OIE BSE guidelines and to establish fair, non -discriminatory and transparent rules.  
2.414.   In March 2010, the European Union r eported 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 res trictions 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 sta tus, 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 requiremen ts regardless of the BSE 
risk or the age of the cattle population of the exporting country, zone or compartment.  
2.415.   Switzerland supported the concerns raised by the European Union, stating that 
WTO Members should base their measures on the OIE recommendations  and available data on 
BSE. 
2.416.   In June 2010, the European Union reported that certain WTO Members still maintained 
unjustified import restrictions to protect against TSE. The European Union urged Members to lift 
any unnecessary, disproportionate, or discrimin atory restrictio ns which negatively affected 
EU exports. The European Union recalled that the OIE had issued BSE standards based on 
scientific risk assessments and defined the conditions under which commodi ties could be safely 
traded. In  May 2010, addition al 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 Un ion 
recalled the OIE recommendations, and observed that some Members had recently announced new 
measures which, without any scientific justification, deviated from OIE standards. The European 
Union urged Members to align themselves with the OIE process and  to process applications from 
the European Union.  
2.417.   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 num ber 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, ho wever, some positive developments. The Philippines had announced the lifting of import 
restrictions on beef from most EU member States, and Egypt was now allowing imports of 
de-boned beef from animals younger than 48 months. 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.  
2.418.   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. 
Unfortunat ely, 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 count ries. 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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 111 - 
 
  2.419.   In June 2011, the European Union expressed concerns that several Members had  not yet 
implemented the OIE standard on BSE and continued to impose bans or trade restrictions on 
EU beef products. These Members should either implement the OIE standard, or else share their 
scientific risk assessment. To date, the European Union had not  seen any scientific justification for 
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 eve ntually 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.  
2.420.   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.  
2.421.   In October 2011, the European Union recalled that it had repeatedly raised concerns tha t 
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 deve loped 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.  
2.422.   Japan and Korea both expressed their understanding 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 b oth Members, and China called on the European Union to provide further 
information and maintain its close relationship with the Chinese scientific panel.  
2.423.   In March 2012, the European Union recalled that it had repeatedly raised concerns about 
the continued bans or restrictive conditions on bovine products from EU member States - allegedly 
because of BSE - that did not respect the international standards as required by the  
SPS Agreement. The OIE standard on BSE provided details regarding the disease and condi tions 
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 standards and the SPS Agreement, and Australia to 
quickly finalize its assessment process. The recent steps by the United States to align its import 
conditions with the OI E 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.  
2.424.   Korea indicated its willingness to continue bilateral discussions on this issue.  
2.425.   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.  
2.426.   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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 112 - 
 
  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 collec tion of data.  
2.427.   In July 2012, the European Union observed 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 part ners which had the sa me BSE status as most of the 
EU member States. China was still keeping its market closed, claiming a lack of scientific 
information, although there was sufficient evidence regarding the EU BSE situation. The European 
Union requested Ch ina to provide the scientific risk assessment that would justify deviations from 
the OIE standard, or to immediately start the administrative procedures to implement the 
international standards. The European Union requested Japan to continue progress on pe nding 
applications so that trade could soon resume. The European Union noted the recent steps taken in 
the United States towards bringing its requirements into line with the OIE standards, and urged all 
Members to fully align with the OIE standards and est ablish fair, non -discriminatory, transparent 
and science -based rules.  
2.428.   China indicated that bilateral talks had taken place with the European Union on the BSE 
issue at various levels. China had repeatedly presented its views on BSE and emphasized that no 
international organization could deny countries the right to present their views based on science. 
A lot of work had been carried out by China on risk analysis regarding BSE.  
2.429.   Japan recalled that its food safety committee had started the risk assessment of be ef from 
France and the Netherlands, and this was being discussed by experts. As for other EU member 
States, additional consultations were needed. Japan remained open for further co -operation with 
the European Union to resolve the issue.  
2.430.   Korea noted the ong oing active communication 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.  
2.431.   In October 2012, the European Union observed that many tr ading 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 imports 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 European 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.  
2.432.   China indicat ed 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 provided 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 had 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 t echnical experts in a scientific and pragmatic manner in order to solve the 
relevant technical problems. China had signed a MOU with Ireland for the establishment of a joint 
working group on BSE.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 113 - 
 
  2.433.   Korea indicated that it was actively engaged in bilateral di scussions with the European 
Union, including discussions this same week, and would continue to have discussions with the 
European Union in this regard.  
2.434.   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.  
2.435.   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 classifica tion 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 info rmation provided about the EU animal and food safety system, and had not 
provided a risk assessment to justify its measure. The European Union urged China to bring its 
import conditions into line with the OIE standards and to remove the unjustified restric tions 
against EU beef and beef products. The European Union welcomed the process in Korea to assess 
applications received from some EU member States and urged Korea to proceed in a speedy 
manner to ensure market access for EU beef, given that Korea had ope ned its market to other 
trading partners which had the same BSE status as EU member States. The European Union noted 
the ongoing processes in the United States and Australia towards aligning their import conditions 
with the OIE standards and looked forward  to effective market access without any further delay. 
The European Union urged all Members to fully align with the OIE standards and establish fair, 
non-discriminatory, transparent and science -based rules.  
2.436.   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 sens itive 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 c ontrol 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 i nvited 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.  
2.437.   The European Union could not accept that the horse meat issue be linked  with the 
effectiveness of its oversight system, given the very detailed explanation that it had provided to 
the SPS Committee under a previous agenda item. The information provided clearly showed how 
the European Union had quickly and transparently identi fied a case of fraud and this issue was 
being addressed with full determination.  
2.438.   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 care fully with 
the risk analysis in order to protect consumer's health, and would continue to have close dialogue 
with the EU delegation.  
2.439.   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 and for its continued engagement in the process.  
2.440.   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 brin g 
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 m easure on the OIE standard and lift G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 114 - 
 
  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 applications. The US and Australia's ongoing 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.  
2.441.   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.  
2.442.   China recalled that BSE continued to be a very sensitive and highly technic al 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 we re necessary. China expressed its 
willingness to continue cooperating and communicating with EU technical experts.  
2.443.   In October 2013, the European Union highlighted the importance of this concern as it 
related to one of the basic requirements under the SPS A greement: 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 wit h 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 provid ed 
any scientific justification for the delay in finalizing its risk assessment. The European Union called 
upon Australia to finalize the process, which should lead to effective market access without undue 
delays.  
2.444.   China noted that the latent period of BSE was long and as there were no cases in China, an 
import prohibition of bovine cattle and related products was in place as a safety measure. 
According to Chinese legislation, it could conduct inspection and quarantine activities only after the 
BSE ban on ce rtain 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 i n China. 
Technical  exchanges, including a seminar on BSE jointly held with the European Union, and the 
assignment of a technical person to participate in BSE prevention training had  taken place. 
In March 2012, EU  beef exports had been discussed at the 7th China -EU Summit. Although the 
experts on both sides had not reached consensus, a joint expert team had been established with 
relevant members in order to overcome technical issues.  
2.445.   Korea acknowledged the European Union's concern and emphasized that its gov ernment 
had been conducting import risk analysis on some EU member States' beef. Responses to 
questionnaires were awaited so as to proceed with the IRA process in a timely manner while 
conducting a close dialogue with Members in this regard.  
2.446.   In March 2014 , the European Union again highlighted the importance of this concern. 
Unjustifiable trade restrictions relating to BSE were still in place in a number of Members, although 
OIE standards for safe trade had existed for more than 10 years. The European Union urged China 
to base its measures on the OIE standards and lift the ban on EU beef. The European Union 
welcomed the on -going work in Korea and urged Korea to deal swiftly with all EU applications. 
Australia's and the US on -going processes to align their BSE  import conditions with OIE standards 
was appreciated, but should be completed without delay so as to now permit trade to occur. 
Australia should move from the eligibility already granted to some EU member States into real 
trade by setting out all the nece ssary subsequent steps, including health certificates. The European 
Union looked forward to tangible results in the near future.  
2.447.   China noted that the latent period of BSE was long , as it had previously explained . 
2.448.   Korea indicated that its authorities had be en conducting import risk analysis on beef from 
some EU member States. Responses to questionnaires were awaited so as to proceed with the risk 
analysis in a timely manner. Korea maintained a close dialogue with the concerned Members in 
this regard.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 115 - 
 
  2.449.   In July  2014, once again, the European Union reiterated  this concern . The European Union 
welcomed the recent opening of China allowing imports of live cattle from one EU member State as 
well as the announcement to lift the ban for meat from cattle under 12 months  of age from 
another member State, but only after going through a lengthy approval procedure. Therefore, the 
European Union requested China to rapidly finalize all outstanding EU applications, some of them 
pending since 2005 , and to increase transparency o n the procedures required to lift the ban and 
on th e risk analysis justifying it. The European Union welcomed the recent entry into force of the 
US BSE rule, but urged the United States to complete without further delay the evaluation 
procedures that would  allow actual trade to take place. The European Union noted that Australia's 
alignment of its BSE import conditions with OIE standards was not yet satisfactory and requested 
Australia to quickly finalize its processes for effective market access.  
2.450.   China ex plained that as a country with a negligible BSE risk status, as recognized by the 
OIE in 2014, it took a cautious attitude on BSE measures. China had organized BSE risk 
assessment expert panels and provided questionnaires to applicant countries. For BSE -free 
countries such as Hungary and Latvia, beef access procedures had been initiated, while for BSE 
risk countries like France, Ireland and the Netherlands, technical exchanges and consultations 
were still ongoing. The responses to the questionnaires would b e reviewed an d measures revised 
accordingly.  
2.451.   In October 2014 , the European Union reiterated the importance of this concern  and urged 
all Members to align their BSE requirements with OIE standards . The European Union welcomed 
the growing number of WTO Members recognizing the EU control system and the EU member 
States' negligible or controlled risk status. The European Union urged China, the USA and Australia 
to adjust their BSE requirements fully i n line with OIE requirements, and to speed up the approval 
processes of bovine and beef products from the European Union. Furthermore, China's recent 
lifting of its ban on live cattle imports from one EU member State only suggested differentiation 
between identical or similar BSE conditions found in several EU member States. The European 
Union welcomed Saudi Arabia's recent lifting of restrictions on beef i mports from the European 
Union. The European Union raised, for the first time, similar concerns regard ing Turkey's import 
restrictions on beef from the European Union. The European Union had identified in particular 
testing requirements that were unjustifiable and too trade restrictive. The European Union stated 
that it was willing to continue to work clos ely with Turkey to avoid inconsistencies, and to find a 
quick, comprehensive and practical solution.  
2.452.   Turkey responded that its bovine import requirements were in line with international rules 
and that there were no unjustified restrictions on beef imports from the European Union. 
Importation was allowed from EU member States with negligible BSE risk status.  
2.453.   China explained that it had taken a cautious approach to BSE measures to protect public 
health and food safety. In 2014, according to OIE statistics, tw o BSE cases had occurred in 
Germany and one in Romania, which had raised doubts that the BSE risk was under control in the 
region. China had engaged in technical exchanges with the European Union and its member States 
to solve relevant technical issues. Si nce the BSE risk status, prevention and control levels were not 
fully harmonized among EU member States, China had carried out separate risk assessments. 
China had recently lifted the ban on veal from the Netherlands and had sped up the access 
approval pro cedures. Regarding BSE -free countries, China had accelerated relevant beef access 
procedures by signing a protocol with Latvia and by agreeing on a draft protocol with Hungary. 
China expressed its willingness to enhance the technical exchanges with the Eur opean Union to 
solve this issue.  
2.454.   Saudi Arabia thanked the European Union for its comments and co -operation, and 
emphasized that it would not hesitate to facilitate trade with Members.  
2.455.   In March 2015 , the European Union reiterated the imp ortance of this conc ern; 
SPS measures adopted by Members had to be based on relevant international standards. 
Unjustifiable trade restrictions relating to BSE were still in place in a number of Members, although 
OIE standards for safe trade had existed for more than ten years . The European Union welcomed 
the growing number of WTO Members recognizing the EU control system and the EU member 
States' negligible or controlled risk status. The European Union urged all Members to align their 
BSE requirements with OIE standards.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 116 - 
 
  2.456.   Speci fically, the European Union welcomed the progress made by China, allowing beef 
exports from one EU member State and the lifting of the ban on two others. The European Union 
also welcomed the beginning of exports from one of its member States to the United States. 
The European Union urged China and the United States to provide more information on their 
import procedures that would allow exports from other member States. The European Union also 
urged Australia, South Korea and Ukraine to process the import ap plications submitted by the 
European Union in a speedy manner. The European Union reported that it had put in place a 
robust system for BSE in all of its member States, following the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health 
Code. This system guaranteed that all bovin e products placed on the EU market, imported and 
exported were safe. Against this background, the European Union urged all Members to lift the 
BSE ban on bovine and bovine products for the entire European Union within a reasonable period 
of time.  
2.457.   China exp lained that it attached great importance to exports of beef from the European 
Union and was actively carrying out technical exchange and co -operation with the relevant 
EU member States to solve technical problems. China further explained that it had carrie d out 
separate risk assessments for the relevant EU member States. Fo r the member States without 
BSE cases, accelerated procedures were imposed. China noted that Hungary had exported to 
China while Latvia had signed a beef export protocol. China had also l ifted the ban on some beef 
products from the Netherlands and Ireland. China was looking forward to enhanced technical 
exchange and consultation with the European Union to properly solve this issue.  
2.458.   In July 2015, the European Union reiterated the importance  of this long -standing concern 
and restated the observations presented during the March 2015 meeting. The European Union 
again urged all Members to align their BSE requirements with OIE standards and welcomed 
progress made by China and United States by all owing imports from some member States to take 
place. The European Union urged Australia, Ukraine and Korea to progress rapidly to speed their 
import approval procedures. The European Union recalled also the international obligations of 
WTO Members, and its  own high level of transparency towards other countries by providing 
technical information about the EU animal health and food safety system.  
2.459.   China reiterated the explanation that it had provided in March 2015 and recalled its 
interest in looking forward t o enhanced technical exchange and consultation with the European 
Union on the prevention and control of BSE and other animal disease.  
2.460.   In October 2015, the European Union reiterated the importance of this long -standing 
concern and again urged all Members to  align their BSE requirements with OIE standards. 
The European Union recalled also the international obligations of WTO Members and its own high 
level of transparency towards other countries by providing tec hnical information about the 
EU animal health and  food safety system. The European Union re -stated that science on BSE is 
indisputably clear to allow safe trade of many products and regretted, once more, the fact that 
many countries never provided a risk assessment justifying their deviations from intern ational 
standards. The European Union looked forward to progress made with regard to the United States 
and welcomed the beginning of exports from one EU member State to China. The European Union 
also urged China to complete the procedures that would allow beef impor ts from all other 
interested EU  member States. Finally, the European Union urged Australia, Korea and Ukraine to 
speed up their import approval procedures.  
2.461.   In March 2016, the European Union reiterated the importance of this long -standing 
concern. A few countries still kept a ban in place, even though the scientific evidence had proven 
that safe trade of beef could take place regardless of BSE country risk sta tus. The European Union 
again urged all Members to respect international rules and align their measures with OIE 
standards. While some Members had lifted the bans, the European Union regretted, once more, 
the fact that many countries never provided a risk assessment justifying their deviations from 
international standards. The European Union welcomed the recent lifting of the ban by Japan for 
two further EU member States, making a total of seven EU member States that could now export 
beef to Japan. In relat ion to China and the United States, the European Union welcomed the start 
of the process for current applications which it hoped would be expeditious. The European Union 
also welcomed Argentina and Ukraine's lifting of the bans, citing this as a good examp le of rapid 
implementation. Finally, the European Union encouraged all Members, such as Australia and 
Korea, to proceed in a swift manner to lift the bans and hoped that the backlog of applications 
submitted by EU member States would soon disappear.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 117 - 
 
  2.462.   In Jun e 2016, the European Union reiterated the importance of this long -standing concern. 
A few countries still kept a ban in place, even though the scientific evidence had proven that safe 
trade of beef could take place regardless of BSE country risk status. Th e European Union again 
urged all Members to respect international rules and align their measures with OIE standards. 
While some Members had lifted the bans, the European Union regretted, once more, the fact that 
many countries never provided a risk assessm ent justifying their deviations from international 
standards. The European Union welcomed the recent lifting of the ban by Japan for two further 
EU member States, making a total of seven EU member States that could now export beef to 
Japan. In relation to China and the United States, the European Union welcomed the start of the 
process for current applications which it hoped would be expeditious. The European Union also 
welcomed Argentina and Ukraine's lifting of the bans, citing this as a good example of r apid 
implementation. Finally, the European Union encouraged all Members, such as Australia and 
Korea, to proceed in a swift manner to lift the bans and hoped that the backlog of applications 
submitted by EU member States would soon disappear.  
2.463.   In October 20 16, the European Union reiterated the importance of this long -standing 
concern, recalling its conviction that BSE -related science was solid and that the relevant OIE 
standards guaranteed safe trade. On the other hand, the European Union recalled that some WTO 
Members kept longstanding, discriminatory and unjustified bans in place due to BSE arguing the 
need for a further (and often too long) assessment before imports could take place, even for 
commodities (e.g. beef) declared by the OIE as safe. All of this  was contrary to various principles 
of the SPS Agreement and the OIE. On a positive note, the European Union welcomed the recent 
market access granted by the United States to an additional EU member State, as well as the 
beginning of exports to China from some EU member States. The European Union urged these and 
other Members - such as Australia, Malaysia and South Korea - to swiftly proceed in order to 
ensure that beef from the European Union could be exported and hoped that the backlog of 
applications sub mitted by EU member States would soon disappear.  
2.464.   In March 2017, The European Union reiterated the importance of this long -standing 
concern, recalling its conviction that BSE -related science was solid and that the European Union 
fully followed the relevant OIE standards that guaranteed safe trade. However, some WTO 
Members kept bans in place due to BSE, arguing the need for further assessments before imports 
could take place and which could amount to undue delays and lack of transparency in the approval 
procedures, contrary to Article 8 of the SPS Agreement. The European Union also stressed the SPS 
requirement that WTO Members not discriminate between Members where identical or similar 
conditions prevail, as was the case in European Union member States, follo wing the strict 
implementation of the European Union's harmonized SPS framework.  
2.465.   The European Union welcomed the recent market access granted by the United States to 
an additional EU member State, and the lifting of China's impo rt ban on products from som e 
EU member States. The European Union urged those and other Members - such as Malaysia and 
Korea - to ensure that beef from the European Union could soon be exported and address the 
backlog of applications submitted by EU member States.  
2.466.   In July 2017, the  European Union reiterated the importance of this long -standing concern, 
recalling its conviction that BSE -related science was solid and that the European Union fully 
guaranteed safe trade of beef. However, it noted that some WTO Members had kept BSE -related 
bans in place, arguing the need for further assessments, which could amount to undue delays in 
the approval procedures, contrary to Article 8 of the SPS Agreement. The European Union also 
stressed that it had a harmonized SPS framework which was strictl y implemented in all its member 
States, and therefore urged Members not to discriminate among its member States. The European 
Union appreciated the progress made by Australia, the United States and China and encouraged 
them to finalize all pending applicat ions submitted by EU member States. The European Union also 
urged other Members, including Malaysia, South Africa and South Korea, to proceed in a speedy 
manner on pending applications submitted by EU member States. Finally, the European Union 
reiterated i ts openness to continue working with all trading partners.  
2.467.   In November 2017, the European Union reiterated the importance of this concern, recalling 
BSE-related science on the safe trade of beef regardless of the BSE country risk status, as stated 
by the OIE. The European Union regretted that after fifteen years, some countries maintained their 
BSE-related bans, which contradicted their obligations under the SPS Agreement. The European 
Union also underlined the lack of transparency of some Members' import procedures, noting that G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.18  
 
- 118 - 
 
  South Korea had not responded to the market access application submitted by EU member States 
since 2006, urging for an expedient resolution on this issue. The European Union also urged other 
Members, including Malaysia, to promptly allow imports of safe be ef from the European Union. 
The European Union also urged the United States and China to continue lifting their import bans 
for all pending EU member States. The European Union also appreciated positive developments in 
Chinese Taipe i and Japan.  
 
__________