G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13  
 
26 February 2013  
(13-1021)  Page: 1/91  
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
 SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
Revision 
At the 15-16 March 2000 meeting of the SPS Committee, the Secretariat was requested to prepare 
a paper summarizing the specific trade concer ns that had been brought to the Committee's 
attention since 1995.2 The Secretariat has revised this document annually to include new 
information provided by Members (G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.1 to 12). The specific trade concerns in 
the thirteenth revision of G/SPS/GEN/204 maintain the previously assigned numbers according to the chronological order of the Committee meetings in which they were first raised. These numbers 
serve as unique identifiers and are intended to facili tate tracking of individual trade concerns over 
time. The new trade concerns raised in each Co mmittee meeting are numbered in the order of the 
alphabetic list of Members maintaining the measures.  
The thirteenth revision of G/SPS/GEN/204 is divided into two sections: 
 
a. STCs general overview; and 
b. STCs discussed in 2012. 
 
Section 1 of the document contains summary statistics and graphs for all the trade concerns raised in the SPS Committee between the first regular m eeting of 1995 and the last regular meeting of 
2012. The trade concerns are categorized as relating to food safety, animal or plant health. This 
section also includes a summary table which identifies for each specific trade concern according to the assigned number, the Member(s) maintaining the measure, the Member(s) raising the 
concern, as well as information on whether the issue has been reported to have been resolved.  
 Section 2 of the document contains information regarding all issues which were raised in the SPS 
Committee in 2012. This includes (1) issues raised for the first time in 2012; (2) issues which were 
previously raised and on which further discussions or activities occurred during 2012; and (3) issues for which there was no substantive discussion in the Committee during 2012, but where Members reported that a previously raised issue had been resolved, or where substantive action 
on the issue occurred in another WTO body during 2012 (e.g., establishment of a dispute 
resolution panel on the issue). 
                                               
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. 
2 G/SPS/R/18, para.20. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Table of contents 
Page 
1   STCS GENERA L OVERVIEW .......................................................................................... 5  
2   STCS CONSID ERED IN 2012 ...................................................................................... 24  
2.1   Brazil ...................................................................................................................... 26  
2.1.1   Animal Health ....................................................................................................... 26 
Measures on shri mp (STC  344)  .......................................................................................... 26 
2.2   Canada .................................................................................................................. . 26 
2.2.1   Animal Health ....................................................................................................... 26 
Delay in finalizing inspection procedures on bovine and poultry meat from Argentina (STC 
337) .......................................................................................................................... .... 26 
2.3   China ...................................................................................................................... 27  
2.3.1   Food safety ........................................................................................................... 27 
Hygiene standard for distilled spirits and integrated alcoholic beverages (S TC 278)  ................... 27 
Chinese quarantine and testing pr ocedures for salm on (STC  319) ........................................... 28 
China's requirement for registration and su pervision of foreign enterprises (STC 324) ................ 30 
Testing methods for food  additives (STC 329) ...................................................................... 31 
2.3.2   Animal Health ....................................................................................................... 32 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193) ................................................................. 32 
2.4   European Union ...................................................................................................... 32  
2.4.1   Food safety ........................................................................................................... 32 
Application and modification of the EU Regulation on Nove l Foods (S TC 238)  ............................ 32 
Maximum residue levels of pesticides (STC 306) ................................................................... 38 
EU regulations on cadmium in cocoa (STC 325) .................................................................... 41 
EU limits of aluminium in flour products  (STC 331) ............................................................... 43 
EU testing of pesticide residues (STC 335) ........................................................................... 43 
2.5   India ................................................................................................................... ... 44 
2.5.1   Animal Health ....................................................................................................... 44 
Restrictions due to avia n influenza (STC 185) ...................................................................... 44 
2.6   In donesia ...............................................................................................................  55 
2.6.1   Food safety ........................................................................................................... 55 
Permits on horticultural products (STC 343) ......................................................................... 55 
2.6.2   Plan t Heal th ..........................................................................................................  55 
Indonesia's port cl osures (S TC 330)  ................................................................................... 55 
2.7   Japan ................................................................................................................... .. 58 
2.7.1   Food safety ........................................................................................................... 58 
Prohibition of certain f ood additives (STC 307) ..................................................................... 58 
Restrictions on shrimp due to an ti-oxidant residu es (STC  342) ............................................... 60 
2.7.2   Animal Health ....................................................................................................... 60 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193) ................................................................. 60 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 3 - 
 
  Restrictions related to FMD (STC 332) ................................................................................. 61 
2.8   Korea ................................................................................................................... .. 61 
2.8.1   Animal Health ....................................................................................................... 61 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193) ................................................................. 61 
BSE-related measures on b eef products (STC 247) ............................................................... 62 
2.9   Malaysia ................................................................................................................ . 63 
2.9.1   Food safety ........................................................................................................... 63 
Import restrictions on pork and pork products (STC 323) ....................................................... 63 
2.10   Russian Federation ............................................................................................... 64  
2.10.1   Animal Health ...................................................................................................... 64 
Import ban on live animal s from the EU  (STC 338) ............................................................... 64 
Russia's listing of export establishments (STC 341) ............................................................... 64 
2.11   South Africa ......................................................................................................... 6 5 
2.11.1   Animal Health ...................................................................................................... 65 
Import restrictions on fresh po rk meat and b eef (STC  287)  .................................................... 65 
2.12   Chines e Taipei  ...................................................................................................... 67  
2.12.1   Food  safety ......................................................................................................... 67 
Restrictions on ractopamine in  beef and pork  (STC 275) ........................................................ 67 
MRLs for roasted and powd ered coffee (STC 334) ................................................................. 70 
2.13   Th ailand ...............................................................................................................  71 
2.13.1   Plan t Heal th ........................................................................................................ 71 
Restrictions on table grapes, apples and pear s (STC 326) ...................................................... 71 
2.14   Turkey .................................................................................................................. 72  
2.14.1   Animal Health ...................................................................................................... 72 
Requirements for importation of sheep meat (STC 340) ......................................................... 72 
2.15   United States of America ...................................................................................... 73  
2.15.1   Food  safety ......................................................................................................... 73 
US 2009 Food Safety Enhancement Act (STC 299) ................................................................ 73 
US default MRLs, limits of determination or limits of quantification on basmati rice 
(STC 328) ....................................................................................................................... 76 
2.15.2   Animal Health ...................................................................................................... 77 
US risk analysis for the entr y of queen bees (STC 301) ......................................................... 77 
US failure to recognize South Patagonia as FM D-free and to import beef from North of the 
42nd Parallel (STC 318) .................................................................................................... 78 
2.15.3   Plan t Heal th ........................................................................................................ 80 
Prohibition of Ornamental Plants Larger than 18 in ches (STC  292)  .......................................... 80 
US measures on fresh lemons from the No rth West region of Argentina (S TC 336)  .................... 80 
Restrictions on tomatoes (STC 339) .................................................................................... 81 
2.15.4   Othe r concer ns .................................................................................................... 82 
Measures on catf ish (STC  289)  .......................................................................................... 82 
2.16   Vi et Nam .............................................................................................................. 83 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.16.1   Food  safety ......................................................................................................... 83 
Ban on offals (STC 314) .................................................................................................... 83 
2.17   Certai n Member s .................................................................................................. 86  
2.17.1   Animal Health ...................................................................................................... 86 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193) ................................................................. 86 
Trade restrictive measures due to the Schmallenberg Virus (STC 333) ..................................... 91 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1  STCS GENERAL OVERVIEW  
1.1.  Altogether, 344 specific trade concerns were raised in the 18 years between 1995 and the 
end of 2012. Chart 1.1 shows the number of new concerns raised each year; 16 new concerns were raised in 2012. 
Chart 1.1 – Number of New Issues Raised 
2112423
13
102942
29
2131
1016 16
1322
16 16
051015202530354045
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
 
 
1.2.  Chart 1.2a categorizes the trade concerns raised over the 18 years into food safety, animal 
or plant health issues. Overall, 30% of trade concerns relate to food safety concerns, 24% relate 
to plant health, and 6% concern other issues such as certification requirements or translation. 40% of concerns raised relate to animal health and zoonoses. The animal health and zoonoses 
category is further divided into foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), transmissible spongiform 
encephalopathies (TSEs), avian influenza (AI) and other animal health concerns (OAH). Chart 1.2b 
shows that TSEs account for 33% of animal health concerns, while issues related to foot-and-
mouth disease and to avian influenza account fo r 24% and 9%, respectively. The remaining 34% 
relate to other animal health concerns. 
Chart 1.2a – Trade Concerns by Subject 
Animal Health
40%
Food Safety
30%Plant Health
24%Other
6%
Animal Health
Food Safety
Plant Health
Other
 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 6 - 
 
  Chart 1.2b – Trade Concerns Rela ted to Animal Health & Zoonoses 
TSE
33%
FMD
24%AI
9%OAH
34% TSE
FMD
AI
OAH
 
 
1.3.   Developing countries are participating actively under this agenda item in the SPS Committee 
meetings. Chart 1.3a indicates that over the 18 years, developing country Members have raised 
189 trade concerns (on many occasions more than one Member has raised, supported or maintained an issue) compared to 212 raised by developed country Members and five raised by 
least-developed country Members.
3 A developing country Member has supported another Member 
raising an issue in 260 cases, compared to 180 for developed country Members and two for least-developed country Members. In 202 cases, the measure at issue was maintained by a developed country Member, and in 178 cases it was maintained by a developing country Member. One trade 
concern regarding measures maintained by least-developed country Members has been raised. 
Chart 1.3b shows the number of new issues raised each year by each category of Member. 
Chart 1.3a – Participation by WTO Members (1995-2012) 
202180212
178260189
125
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280Members Maintaining the
Measure in QuestionSupporting MembersMembers Raising the IssueNumber of Members
Least-Developed Countries Developing Countries Developed Countries
 
 
                                               
3  On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty  on European Union and the Treaty 
establishing the European Community  (done at Lisbon, 13 December 2007) entered into force. On 
29 November 2009, the WTO received a Verbal Note (WT/L/779) from the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities stating that, by virtue of the Treaty of Lisbon , as of 
1 December 2009, the European Union replaces and su cceeds the European Community. The European Union 
was counted as one Member. Similarly, when one Member  spoke on behalf of ASEAN, it was counted as one 
Member only. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 7 - 
 
  Chart 1.3b – Number of New Issues Raised by Members 
4101719
8
51929
19
1316
710
6558
6
21115
5521
19
13
1015
5691417
89
211
05101520253035Number of Issues
Developed countries Developing countries Least-Developed Countries
 
 
1.4.   Chart 1.4 indicates that 101 trade concerns have been reported resolved out of the 344 trade concerns raised over the 18 years. Three issues were reported as resolved in 2012, 
including one raised for the first time in 2012. Eighteen trade concerns have been reported to be 
partially solved. In these instances, trade may have been allowed for selected products or by some of the importing Members maintaining the measure in question. No solutions have been reported 
for the remaining 225 trade concerns. There are 210 trade concerns that are at least one year old 
and for which no solution has been reported. However, some of these concerns may have been resolved without the Committee being made aware of these developments. 
Chart 1.4 – Solved Trade Concerns 
 
G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 8 - 
 
  List of Specific Trade Concerns (1995–2012) 
Specific 
Trade 
Concern Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status
4 
1995 
1 Shelf-life requirements  Ko rea, Republic of Australia, 
Canada, United 
States of America PR 
2 Import clearance 
measures and practices Korea, Republic of United States 
of America R 
1996 
3 Restrictions on gelatin 
imports Norway Brazil R 
4 Measures related to BSE Argentina, Australia, 
Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, 
Germany, Italy, 
Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapore, 
Slovak Republic, Slovenia, 
Spain, United States of America Switzerland R 
5 Import requirements for 
wine Brazil European Union NR 
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 NR 
18 Certification requirements 
for pet food France, European Union United States 
of America NR 
19 Protected zones European Union Uruguay NR 
                                               
4 NR= Not Reported, P = Partially resolved, R = Resolved. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 9 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status4 
20 Restrictions on imports of 
rough rice Honduras United States 
of America R 
21 Fresh fruit and vegetables Indonesia Australia, 
United States 
of America NR 
22 Measures affecting 
imports of bovine meat Israel Uruguay R 
23 Plant quarantine 
regulations Japan United States 
of America NR 
24 Requirements for 
certification of consumer rice Panama United States 
of America R 
25 Restrictions on wheat and 
oilseeds Poland United States 
of America NR 
26 Phytosanitary issues in 
general Certain Members United States 
of America NR 
27 Citrus canker European Union Argentina R 
28 Notification on wheat, rye 
and triticale Switzerland Argentina R 
29 Measures related to avian 
influenza Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of United States 
of America NR 
30 Regulation concerning 
warehouses and silos Czech Republic European Union R 
31 Rules on "specified risk 
materials" in products of 
animal origin European Union United States 
of America NR 
32 Gelatin imports  European Union Brazil, United 
States of 
America PR 
33 Salmonella-related 
restriction on fishmeal imports European Union Chile, Peru NR 
34 Measures regarding FMD Japan Argentina, 
European Union NR 
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 NR 
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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 10 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status4 
40 Trade restrictions in 
response to cholera European Union Tanzania PR 
41 Restrictions on imports of 
apples, pears and quinces Slovak Republic Hungary R 
42 Import restrictions on 
potatoes Slovak Republic Poland, 
European Union R 
43 Prohibition on bone-in 
beef imports from EC 
member States South Africa European Union NR 
44 Measures related to BSE United States of America European Union NR 
45 Import restrictions on 
cheese Australia, New Zealand European 
Union, 
Switzerland R 
46 Import prohibition of 
coconut palms and related 
products Brazil Philippines NR 
47 Measure on 
establishments operating in the animal feed sector  European Union United States 
of America NR 
48 Import ban on livestock Turkey Hungary, 
United States of America PR 
49 Restrictions on imports of 
sauces containing benzoic 
acid Australia Philippines R 
50 Quarantine requirements 
for chicken meat Australia Thailand NR 
51 Prohibition of poultry meat 
imports Czech Republic Thailand R 
52 Measures on food treated 
with ionizing radiation European Union United States 
of America NR 
53 Emergency measures on 
citrus pulp  European Union Brazil R 
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 NR 
56 Notification on 
amendment of the 
Japanese Plant Protection Law Japan United States 
of America NR 
57 Requirements for imports 
of milk and milk products Poland European Union R 
58 Notification on 
refrigeration and labelling requirements for shell 
eggs United States of America European Union NR 
59 Interim rule affecting solid 
wood packaging material United States of America Hong Kong, 
China NR 
1999 
60 Import restrictions on 
bovine semen and embryos, milk and milk 
products Argentina European Union R G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 11 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status4 
61 Import restrictions on 
bovine semen India Canada, 
European Union PR 
62 Restrictions on imports of 
horses India European Union NR 
63 Information on dioxin Certain Members European Union R 
64 Ban on antibiotics in feed European Union United States 
of America NR 
65 Import restrictions on beef  Korea, Republic of Argentina NR 
66 Notifications related to 
dioxin Malaysia, Singapore Switzerland R 
67 Import restrictions on beef  Mexico Argentina NR 
68 Notifications on veterinary 
measures and measures 
on animal products 
including gelatin Poland Switzerland, 
United States 
of America R 
69 Import restrictions on 
rhododendrons in growing medium United States of America European Union R 
70 Import conditions for pork 
meat and products  Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of European Union NR 
71 Restrictions on meat and 
dairy products El Salvador Uruguay R 
72 Measures regarding 
canned tuna in oil Belgium, European Union Philippines NR 
73 Imports of citrus fruit  United States of America Argentina R 
2000 
74 Restrictions on imports of 
tropical fresh fruit Australia Philippines NR 
75 Notification on meat and 
meat products  Iceland Argentina R 
76 Ban on pet food imports Turkey Hungary R 
77 Restrictions on canned 
tuna Egypt Thailand NR 
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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 12 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status4 
85 Import restrictions on 
prawns and prawn products; revised generic IRA for prawns and prawn 
products Australia China, Thailand NR 
86 Access of California table 
grapes Australia United States 
of America R 
87 Measures affecting 
imports of products 
containing Brazilian beef Canada Brazil R 
88 Import restrictions due to 
FMD Canada, United States of 
America Hungary NR 
89 Import restrictions on soy 
sauce European Union Thailand NR 
90 Restrictions on bovine 
products Hungary Canada R 
91 Restrictions on pork 
products Hungary Canada R 
92 Restrictions on banana 
imports Turkey Ecuador R 
93 Phytosanitary 
requirements for potatoes, 
garlic and onions  Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of Argentina NR 
94 Directive 2000/42 on 
pesticide residues European Union Côte d'Ivoire NR 
95 Legislation on the 
fungicide thiabendazole 
(TBZ) European Union Israel NR 
96 Geographical BSE risk 
assessment European Union Canada, Chile, 
India R 
97 Restrictions on the use of 
fishmeal  European Union Chile, Norway, 
Peru NR 
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 NR 
109 Phytosanitary regulations 
(Canary Islands) Spain, European Union Argentina NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 13 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status4 
110 Agricultural biotechnology 
approval process European Union United States 
of America PR 
111 FMD restrictions Indonesia Argentina NR 
2002 
112 FMD trade restrictions Bolivia, Plurinational State 
of Argentina R 
113 Pet food import 
requirements Chile Argentina R 
114 Food safety regulations 
affecting agricultural products produced from 
modern biotechnology China United States 
of America NR 
115 Import restrictions for 
citrus and other fruits 
related to fruit fly China Argentina R 
116 FMD restrictions Colombia Argentina R 
117 Traceability and labelling 
of genetically modified 
organisms and food and 
feed European Union Argentina, 
Canada, United 
States of 
America NR 
118 Import licenses for 
agricultural products Panama Canada R 
119 Notification on Chinese 
fruit imports Philippines China PR 
120 Restrictions on pigmeat United States of America European Union NR 
121 Imports of clementines  United States of America European Union R 
122 FMD Restrictions Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of Argentina R 
123 Restrictions on imports of 
potatoes, onions, fertilised eggs, day-old chicks and 
meat products Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of Canada, 
Colombia NR 
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 NR 
129 Import restrictions on 
spiced pork and salted meat products Cuba Argentina R 
130 Restrictions on shellfish European Union Indonesia NR 
131 Pesticide and antibiotic 
limits in honey (Directive 
96/23) European Union Cuba NR 
132 Import restrictions on 
dairy products  Indonesia Argentina R 
133 Official control restrictions 
on citrus and other fresh fruits and vegetables Japan New Zealand, 
United States of America NR 
134 SPS measures on animal 
products Romania Moldova, 
Republic of NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 14 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status4 
135 Restrictions on beef and 
pork South Africa Brazil PR 
136 Policies regarding 
quarantine and non-
quarantine pests  Chinese Taipei United States 
of America NR 
137 Import restrictions on 
meat and meat products United States of America Switzerland NR 
138 Pest risk assessment 
requirements Argentina United States 
of America NR 
139 Restriction on pigmeat  Australia European Union R 
140 Imports of live ostriches Brazil European Union R 
141 Pest risk assessments for 
imports of plant origin Brazil Canada NR 
142 Zero tolerance for e-coli  China United States 
of America NR 
143 Regulation on wood 
packaging material China European Union R 
144 Restrictions on the 
importation of fruits and fruit juices European Union Brazil NR 
145 Import restrictions on 
chicken meat imports Honduras Costa Rica NR 
146 Ban on hormones in 
animal production Indonesia United States 
of America NR 
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 NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 15 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status4 
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 NR 
163 Restrictions on Austrian 
products Mexico European Union NR 
164 Restrictions on the 
importation of dry beans Mexico United States 
of America R 
165 Import restrictions on 
Spanish olive oil Bahrain, Kingdom of; 
Kuwait, the State of; 
Oman; Qatar; United Arab 
Emirates European Union PR 
166 Import measures on live 
animals and meat products Croatia Hungary R 
167 Restrictions on honey 
imports European Union United States 
of America R 
168 Maximum levels for 
aflatoxins in corn and sampling contaminants in 
food European Union Argentina NR 
169 EC proposed regulation on 
maximum residue levels 
of pesticides  European Union Argentina, 
China NR 
170 Live animals and animal 
products European Union Australia NR 
171 Animal health conditions 
and certification requirements for live fish European Union Australia NR 
172 Restrictions on imports of 
mangoes Japan Brazil R 
173 Notification on uses of 
living modified organisms  Japan Australia NR 
174 Notification on 
transboundary movement of living modified 
organisms Korea, Republic of Australia NR 
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 NR 
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 NR 
180 Heat treatment for meat 
and bone meal in poultry for pet food Chinese Taipei United States 
of America R G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 16 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status4 
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 NR 
2004 
184 Lack of transparency for 
certain SPS measures China United States 
of America NR 
185 Restrictions due to avian 
influenza India European 
Union, United 
States of 
America NR 
186 Phytosanitary import 
restrictions India European 
Union, United 
States of America PR 
187 FMD restrictions Panama Argentina NR 
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 NR 
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 NR 
200 Ban on food grade wax India United States 
of America NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 17 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status4 
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 NR 
208 Food and feed hygiene 
rules European Union Canada NR 
209 Plant health directive European Union United States 
of America NR 
210 Restrictions on imports of 
chicken meat  Guatemala Mexico NR 
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 NR 
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 NR 
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 NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 18 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status4 
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 NR 
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 NR 
231 Restrictions on cinnamon European Union Sri Lanka R 
232 Import restrictions on EC 
beef due to BSE Israel European Union NR 
233 Phytosanitary import 
legislation Israel European Union R 
234 Suspension of importation 
of live poultry and poultry carcasses  Thailand Mexico NR 
235 Import restrictions on EC 
exports of live birds, meat, meat products and 
other derivates due to 
avian influenza Certain Members European Union PR 
2006 
236 Restrictions on beef 
exports under the Hilton 
Quota Argentina European Union R 
237 Lack of regionalization for 
Newcastle disease and restrictions on live birds Brazil European Union NR 
238 Application and 
modification of the EU Regulation on Novel Foods European Union Colombia, 
Ecuador, Peru NR 
239 Tolerance levels for soil 
content on potato tubers Dominican Republic Canada NR 
240 Biotech labelling and 
import approval process 
regulations India United States 
of America NR 
241 Import restrictions on 
wooden Christmas trees  United States of America China NR 
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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 19 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status4 
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 NR 
249 Reform of Australia's IRA 
process Australia European Union NR 
250 Trade restrictions related 
to national systems for 
determining maximum residue levels (MRLs) for 
pesticides  Certain Members Argentina NR 
251 Zero tolerance for 
pathogens on raw meat 
and poultry products  China United States 
of America NR 
252 Zero tolerance for 
salmonella in poultry and 
eggs  El Salvador United States 
of America NR 
253 Export certification 
requirements for dairy products  India United States 
of America NR 
254 Animal health 
requirements for poultry 
meat  El Salvador United States 
of America NR 
255 Application of 
regionalization and 
prohibition of bovine meat  China Brazil NR 
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 NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 20 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status4 
263 Import restrictions on 
cooked and frozen meat Mexico Brazil NR 
264 Maximum residue levels 
for Ethephon in pineapple European Union Ecuador NR 
265 Regulatory process 
economic analysis 
requirement United States of America Brazil NR 
266 Price list for inspections Malaysia Brazil NR 
267 Pesticide maximum 
residue level (MRL) 
enforcement system Japan 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 NR 
274 Korea's Livestock 
Epidemic Prevention Act Korea, Republic of Canada NR 
275 Restrictions on 
ractopamine in beef and pork Chinese Taipei United States 
of America NR 
276 Maximum residue levels 
for pesticides in cacao  European Union Ecuador NR 
277 NAPPO draft standard for 
ships and cargoes from areas infested with Asian 
gypsy moth Canada, Mexico, United 
States of America China NR 
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 NR 
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 NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 21 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status4 
284 Rule on importation of 
wooden handicrafts from China United States of America China NR 
285 Import restrictions on 
fresh pork meat and beef United States of America Brazil NR 
286 Import restrictions on 
poultry meat Indonesia Brazil NR 
287 Import restrictions on 
fresh pork meat and beef South Africa Brazil NR 
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 NR 
2010 
291 BSE Measures Chinese Taipei Canada NR 
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 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 NR 
298 Import restrictions on 
Brazilian beef Colombia Brazil NR 
299 US 2009 Food Safety 
Enhancement Act  United States of America China, India NR 
300 EC Regulation 
No. 1099/2009 European Union India NR 
301 US risk analysis for the 
entry of queen bees United States of America Argentina NR 
302 Restrictions on products 
derived from 
biotechnology  Turkey United States 
of America NR 
303 Import restrictions on 
poultry meat Senegal Brazil NR 
304 Proposed MRL for 
1-Methylcyclopropene in 
bananas Canada Ecuador NR 
305 Import restrictions on beef 
and recognition of the principle of regionalization Indonesia Brazil NR 
306 Maximum Residue Levels 
of pesticides European Union India NR 
307 Prohibition of certain food 
additives Japan India NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 22 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status4 
308 Restrictions on bovines 
and bubalines for reproduction Brazil Colombia NR 
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 NR 
2011 
313 Import restrictions due to 
dioxin contamination in 
Germany Certain Members European Union NR 
314 Ban on offals Viet Nam European 
Union, United States of 
America 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 NR 
318 US failure to recognize 
South Patagonia as FMD-
free and to import beef from north of the 42
nd 
parallel  United States of America Argentina NR 
319 Chinese quarantine and 
testing procedures for 
salmon  China Norway NR 
320 Restrictions on imported 
fresh meat Philippines United States 
of America NR 
321 Japan's MRLs applied to 
sesame  Japan Paraguay NR 
322 Polyamide and melamine 
plastic kitchenware  European Union China; Hong 
Kong, China NR 
323 Import restrictions on 
pork and pork products Malaysia European Union NR 
324 China's requirement for 
registration and 
supervision of foreign 
enterprises China India NR 
325 EU regulations on 
cadmium in cocoa European Union Colombia, 
Ecuador NR 
326 Restrictions on table 
grapes, apples and pears Thailand South Africa NR 
327 EU Court of Justice ruling 
regarding pollen derived from GMOs European Union Argentina NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 23 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status4 
328 Default MRLs, limits of 
determination or limits of quantification on basmati rice United States of America India NR 
2012 
329 Testing methods for food 
additives  China India NR 
330 Indonesia's port closures Indonesia China, 
European Union, New 
Zealand, United 
States of America NR 
331 EU limits of aluminum in 
flour products  European Union China NR 
332 Restrictions related to 
FMD Japan Argentina NR 
333 Trade restrictive measures 
due to the Schmallenberg Virus Certain Members European Union NR 
334 MRLs for roasted and 
powdered coffee Chinese Taipei India R 
335 EU testing of pesticide 
residues European Union India NR 
336 US measures on fresh 
lemons from the north west region of Argentina  United States of America Argentina NR 
337 Delay in finalizing 
inspection procedures on 
bovine and poultry meat 
from Argentina Canada Argentina NR 
338 Import ban on live 
animals from the EU Russian Federation European Union NR 
339 Restrictions on tomatoes United States of America Senegal NR 
340 Requirements for 
importation of sheep meat Turkey Australia NR 
341 Russia's listing of export 
establishments Russian Federation European Union NR 
342 Restrictions on shrimp due 
to anti-oxidant residues Japan India NR 
343 Permits on horticultural 
products Indonesia United States 
of America NR 
344 Measures on shrimp Brazil Ecuador NR 
 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 24 - 
 
  2  STCS CONSIDERED IN 2012 
2.1.  A total of 35 specific trade concerns were brought to the attention of the Committee during 
2012, of which 16 were new issues. Chart 2.1 shows all trade concerns raised or for which a resolution was reported in 2012 in the Committee, by  subject. Overall, 17 issues (49%) relate to 
food safety, five issues (14%) relate to plant heal th and two issues (6%) relate to other concerns. 
The remaining 11 issues (3%) relate to animal health and zoonoses; this category includes issues such as transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSEs) that are also relevant for food safety. 
TSEs account for 9% of animal health concerns raised in 2012, while issues related to foot and 
mouth disease account for 36%, and the remaining 55% concern other animal health issues. No issues related to avian influenza were raised in 2012. 
Chart 2.1 - Trade Concerns by Subject – 2012 
Animal Health Food Safety Plant Health Other
Total 11 17 5 2
New 7630024681012141618
 
 
Chart 2.2 - Trade Concerns Related to Animal Health & Zoonoses – 2012 
TSE
9%
FMD
36%
AI
0%OAH
55%TSE
FMD
AI
OAH
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 25 - 
 
  Chart 2.3 - Participation of Members – 2012 
192415
164928
021
0 1 02 03 04 05 0Members Maintaining the
Measure in QuestionSupporting MembersMembers Raising the IssueNumber of Members
Least-Developed Countries Developing Countries Developed Countries
 
 
2.2.  Of the 35 trade concerns discussed in 2012, in 15 cases a developed country Member has raised the issue, compared to 28 cases for developing country Members. On some occasions, 
developing and developed country Members have raised or supported the same issue. One case 
was raised by a least-developed country Member in 2012. Developed country Members have supported another Member raising the issue in 24 cases and developing country Members have supported another Member in 49 cases. Two cases were supported by a least-developed country 
Member in 2012. 
2.3.  In 16 cases, the measure at issue was maintained by a developing country Member, and in 
19 cases it was maintained by a developed country Member. Some specific trade concerns are with 
regard to measures maintained by more than one Member, including combinations of developed 
and developing countries. No trade concerns regarding measures maintained by a least-developed country Member were raised. 
2.4.  In addition, further actions occurred in th e context of the WTO dispute settlement resolution 
procedures with respect to two previously raised STCs. 
2.5.  The information that follows is presented according to the Member(s) maintaining the 
measure. It provides a summary of the discussion s in the SPS Committee on the trade concern, 
and subsequent factual information regarding ST C s  t h a t  h a v e  b e c o m e  t h e  s u b j e c t  o f  f o r m a l  
dispute settlement resolution procedures. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 26 - 
 
  2.1  Brazil 
2.1.1  Animal Health Measures on shrimp (STC 344) 
Raised by: Ecuador 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, paras. 180-181) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.6.  In October 2012, Ecuador flagged the drasti c decrease in its shrimp exports due to Brazil's 
Standard 99, 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 Standard 99 had been lifted; however the Brazilian 
Ministry of Agriculture published another Standard 12 establishing procedures for import risk analysis that was yet to be implemented. Bilateral discussions had resulted in information exchange and Ecuador hoped for a rapid mutual solution to the issue. 
2.7.  Brazil noted that it had been informed of this trade concern at short notice and did not have 
sufficient time to prepare a substantive response. The concerns would be conveyed to the relevant authorities in the hope that a solution could soon be found. 
2.2  Canada 
2.2.1  Animal Health Delay in finalizing inspection procedures on  bovine and poultry meat from Argentina 
(STC 337) 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, para. 14) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.8.  In October 2012, Argentina expressed concerns at the delays in Canada opening its market 
for poultry and bovine meat despite favourable  risk assessments. Argentina noted that the 
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) had recognized the Argentine FMD-free area without vaccination. In September 2009, the CFIA indicate d that the risk assessment results regarding the 
FMD-free area with vaccination were  favourable to Argentina's export s of deboned, matured, fresh, 
chilled and frozen meat. Argentina's poultry was recognised as being free from Newcastle disease in 2004. Despite all required conditions having been satisfactorily met by 2011 (with the replies to 
questionnaires and audit of residues control by visiting bovine and poultry establishments in 
November 2010, among others), Canada continued to delay an audit visit to the inspection system of bovine and poultry meat which Canada itself required. Argentina maintained that this delay was 
inconsistent with Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement, and requested effective access to 
the Canadian market for bovine and poultry products from Argentina. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 27 - 
 
  2.9.  Canada responded that it fully intended to audit Argentina's beef and poultry meat inspection 
systems, but that recent budgetary and staffing restrictions forced the CFIA to postpone the visit until April 2013. 
2.3  China 
2.3.1  Food safety 
Hygiene standard for distilled spirits and in tegrated alcoholic beverages (STC 278) 
Raised by: Mexico 
Supported by: United States of America, European Union 
Dates raised: February 2009 (G/SPS/R/54, paras. 8-9), June 2009 (G/SPS/R/55, 
paras. 41-42), October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, paras. 33-34), October 2011 
(G/SPS/R/64, para. 195), March 2012 (G/SPS/R/66, paras. 53-55) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHN/111, G/SPS/N/CHN/111/Suppl.1, G/SPS/N/CHN/377 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.10.  In February 2009, Mexico indicated that China's notified regulation (G/SPS/N/CHN/111) 
classified alcoholic beverages in three categories: distilled cereal spirits, distilled fruit spirits and other distilled spirits, establishing maximum levels of methanol of 0.6, 8.0 and 0.6 grams per litre, respectively. Since tequila was made from agave, it was to be classified in the "other distilled 
spirits" category. As such it would not have access to the Chinese market, since according to the 
relevant Mexican standard, tequila contained up to 3 grams of alcohol per litre. In 2001, in the context of China's WTO accession, Mexico and China had signed a Memorandum of Understanding 
through which China had recognized that tequila was a product originating in Mexico, produced 
according to Mexican standards and regulations. Mexico requested that China modify its draft measure, taking into account the special raw material from which tequila was made, and giving 
tequila the same treatment as distilled fruit spirits. Mexico's tequila producers had sent comments 
to this effect to China's Enquiry Point, and the Mexican Government would shortly be submitting comments as well. Mexico thanked China for a bilateral meeting on this subject and looked forward to finding a mutually acceptable solution. 
2.11.  China encouraged Mexico to submit comment s to China's Enquiry Point. Comments received 
during the comment period would be taken into account. China, of course, was allowed to take measures necessary to protect health. 
2.12.  In June 2009, Mexico recalled its concern with China's regulation for alcoholic beverages 
regarding maximum quantities of ethanol. Mexico  had provided its comments during the specified 
period, and hoped that these would be taken into account. 
2.13.  China clarified that the national standards were applied to all distilled and alcoholic 
beverages equally and were not aimed specifically at tequila. A written reply to Mexico's comments 
had been provided, and China hoped a mutually sa tisfactory solution would be found through the 
on-going technical discussions. 
2.14.  In October 2009, Mexico stated that the Federal Commission for Prevention of Sanitary 
Risks of the Ministry of Health, as well as the national tequila industry, had submitted comments on China's standard in September 2009. In additi on, a risk analysis had been submitted on the 
content of ethanol in tequila. Bilateral meetings had taken place on the margins of the SPS 
Committee meeting and useful information had been obtained for the review of the standard. Mexico reiterated its commitment to work jointly with China on the issue. 
2.15.  China confirmed the reception of comments and supporting materials from Mexico. China 
was aware of the particularity of the processing  techniques of tequila. Chinese experts were 
currently reviewing comments from different stakeholders, and the comments and suggestions from Mexico would be taken into consideration in the review of the standard. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 28 - 
 
  2.16.  In October 2011, Mexico again expressed concerns on China's hygienic standard for distilled 
spirits and integrated alcoholic beverages, in particular the maximum established level for methanol in distilled beverages and the classification of tequila. Mexico had raised this issue in several bilateral meetings, submitted relevant scientific information to assist Chinese officials 
understand the unique features of tequila, and had also submitted a bibliographic analysis on the 
presence of methanol in distilled alcoholic beverages and its relation to consumer health. The private sector had also sent comments to the Chinese authorities. Mexico pointed out that certain 
alcoholic beverages with methanol levels higher than tequila, such as fruit marc spirits, were 
produced and sold internationally without any reported negative health effects, and that tequila's maximum methanol content of three grams per litre  was inherent to the product, not related to 
poor quality or processing. Mexico concluded that China's proposed maximum limit on methanol 
could be at odds with existing scientific evidence and, as such, unjustified. China indicated that it 
would carefully review the information from Mexico. 
2.17.  In March 2012, Mexico recalled that it had first raised its concerns regarding the maximum 
level established for methanol on alcoholic beverages and the lack of nomenclature classification 
that could cover tequila in China's hygiene standard for distilled spirits and integrated alcoholic beverages in February 2009. Mexico had held various bilateral meetings to discuss this issue, and 
in September 2011 had submitted comments on Ch ina's notification G/SPS/N/CHN/377. Mexico 
requested that the Chinese requirement be modified to reflect the maximum level of methanol permitted under the Mexican Standard for Tequila, 3.0 g/l ethanol 100 AA. This would allow tequila and other beverages produced from agave to access the Chinese market. Studies confirmed that 
the methanol limits proposed by Mexico did not pose a health risk. 
2.18.  The United States supported the concerns raised by Mexico, and requested China to provide 
a risk assessment to justify the measure, as well as an explanation of the regulation and the 
expected date of entry into force. The United States also asked China to provide a one year 
transition period for companies to comply with the regulation once China had provided its risk assessment and had notified the final measure to  the WTO. The European Union echoed these 
concerns, and noted that the measure created un necessary barriers to trade, and was not based 
on science. 
2.19.  China observed that bilateral meetings had taken place with Mexico and noted that the 
standard was based on Chinese consumption habits. China would take Members' comments into 
consideration and keep them informed. 
Chinese quarantine and testing pr ocedures for salmon (STC 319) 
Raised by: Norway 
Supported by: Switzerland, United States of America, European Union 
Dates raised: June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, paras. 19-24), October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, 
para. 196), March 2012 (G/SPS/R/66, paras. 44-46), July 2012 
(G/SPS/R/67, paras. 40-42), October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, paras. 40-41) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/1090 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.20.  In June 2011, Norway stated that after years of steady increase in its exports of fresh 
salmon to China, exports had dropped significan tly due to testing and quarantine procedures 
implemented by China on 13 December 2010. These we re followed by strengthened inspection and 
quarantine procedures as stated in Notice No. 9 2011, which had not been notified to the WTO. 
The Norwegian monitoring programmes, in operatio n since 1998, showed no presence of illegal 
substances in the fish products and had consistently documented low levels of contaminants. China's measures did not seem to be based on scientific principles or a risk assessment, and 
Norway requested an explanation for these measures and how they complied with the SPS 
Agreement. 
2.21.  The United States supported Norway and expressed their concern that China had 
implemented AQS1Q Order No. 9, Notice on Strengthening Inspection and Quarantine on Imported G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 29 - 
 
  Salmon, in February 2011, without having notified the measure. The stated objective of this notice 
was to safeguard consumer health, however no risk assessment had been provided. The United States requested a copy of China's risk assessment, and requested that China rescind AQS1Q Order No. 9's documentation requirements until the measure had been notified. China was also 
asked to explain how the requirement for the exporter's vessel name and number related to 
ensuring that wild salmon was safe for human consumption. 
2.22.  The European Union also called for transparency in all SPS matters. 
2.23.  China clarified that since 2010, the entry and exit inspection and quarantine bureaus in 
China had detected fish lice, pathogenic micro-organisms and excess veterinary drug residues in imported chilled salmon. In an attempt to protect their consumers, China had published a notice to strengthen the inspection and quarantine of imported salmon, based on the Administrative 
Measure for Inspection, Quarantine and Supervis ion on Import and Export of Feed and Feed 
Additives and its revision and amendment measures  of imports and exports of aquatic products, 
which were notified to the WTO. The measures taken were covered by these laws and regulations 
without any new element and therefore it was unnecessary to make another notification. China 
had already responded to Norway's concerns when it raised them in March 2011, during Norway's 
visit to China's AQSIQ and hoped that those replies addressed its concerns. China was open to 
further bilateral discussions with the European Union and the United States on this topic. 
2.24.  Norway stressed that ensuring seafood safety is a major objective of Norwegian authorities, 
who monitor the presence of undesirable substances, microorganisms and parasites in wild-caught and farmed seafood, as well as fish feed. Norw ay had been performing a risk assessment on 
seafood, based on studies of the most commercially important fish species in Norway. 
Stakeholders often held conflicting views on food safety and on the benefits of seafood and it was 
important to distinguish between fact and fiction. Norway was keen to further collaborate in this 
area with China. 
2.25.  China observed that Norway's concerns focussed on the detailed testing methods, however 
these purely technical matters had to be discussed among scientists. In March, scientists from 
both countries had held detailed discussions on this issue, and almost all of Norway's concerns had 
been clarified. China was disappointed with the lack of Norwegian efforts to resolve this issue, as when any cargo was identified to be carrying disease the problem was supposed to be rectified by the exporter. China welcomed Norway's and other interested parties participation in bilateral 
discussions as this issue had been on-going for two years. 
2.26.  In October 2011, Norway provided an update on recent developments in China's measures 
on salmon, in particular the new testing and quarantine measures on fresh salmon. The measures 
introduced in December 2010 by the implementati on of AQSIQ Order Number 9 had led to a 70% 
reduction in the volume of Norway's exports of fresh salmon to China. Norway had requested bilateral consultations between the relevant techni cal experts, and urged China to agree to hold 
this meeting before the end of 2011. China indi cated that the sharing of written documents and 
data was as important as physical talks, but Norway had not yet provided the necessary information. However, there had been smooth discussions on this issue in AQSIQ in Beijing. 
2.27.  In March 2012, Norway reiterated concerns about the new testing and quarantine measures 
introduced by China in December 2010, directed sp ecifically at fresh, chilled salmon from Norway. 
These measures were further strengthened in February 2011 by the implementation of AQSIQ Order No. 9 and had led to a dramatic reduction in the volume of Norway's exports of fresh salmon 
to China. SPS measures should be supported by a scientifically based risk analysis, but to date, 
Norway had not received a copy of China's risk assessment on salmon. Norway urged China to agree on a date for bilateral consultations at an expert level as soon as possible. 
2.28.  The European Union supported the need fo r transparency and good communication in this 
matter, and underscored the importance of open and direct contact with trading partners on measures of concern. 
2.29.  China repeated the explanation provided in June 2011 regarding the detection of fish lice, 
pathogenic micro-organisms and excess chemical  residues, among other issues, in imported 
salmon, and the measures it had taken to strength en the inspection and quarantine of imported G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 30 - 
 
  salmon. These import inspection and quarantine procedures were not aimed at any particular 
Member, but quarantine issues were detected in numerous shipments of salmon from Norway. China was willing to adjust the relevant measures once Norway had addressed the quality issues. 
2.30.  In July 2012, Norway noted that after Dece mber 2010, China had begun to report a tenfold 
increase in the number of notifications of "contaminants" in Norwegian salmon, amounting to a 
total of 24 in 2011. A large number of these notifications identified a microorganism that was not an issue in Norwegian aquaculture due to the prevailing low water temperatures. Active co-
operation between technical experts from both parties was necessary to discuss and clarify the 
issue and ultimately normalize trade, but it had not been possible to hold such technical bilateral meetings despite Norway's numerous requests. However, Norway was encouraged that during the recent Trade Policy Review, China agreed to address the issue in a meeting between relevant 
technical experts. 
2.31.  Switzerland shared the concerns raised by Norway and requested China and Norway to 
meet in order to resolve the issue. 
2.32.  China observed that Norway was one of the main suppliers of salmon to China; however, in 
recent years more and more shipments of unqualified salmon were being detected. In 2011, 19 shipments of salmon were deemed as unqualified for the Chinese market. The diseases found in 
shipments of salmon from Norway were considered to pose food safety risks by the Chinese 
National Food Safety authorities and their presence was prohibited in food products. China was in the process of revising the limits on pathogens in food products and would set new food safety standards. The new draft standard had been notified to the WTO for comments. China remained 
committed to continue bilateral discussions with Norway. 
2.33.  In October 2012, Norway reiterated that these measures posed serious challenges to 
Norway's trade of fresh salmon to China, as the quarantine measures implied that all 
consignments of fresh salmon would be tested and retained in custody awaiting the test results. 
The obligations under the SPS Agreement required that SPS measures be supported by a science-based risk analysis, not more trade restrictive than necessary and applied in a transparent 
manner. The measures applied to salmon from Norway appeared not to be proportional to the 
situation and Norway requested China to provide th e risk analysis that supported the testing and 
quarantine measures. Norway recognized the communication between AQSIQ and the Norwegian 
Embassy in Beijing, but requested AQSIQ to agree to the request for technical consultations on 
this issue, in line with Article 5 of the SPS Agreement. 
2.34.  China reiterated that in recent years its inspection authorities had detected pathogenic 
germs and excessive veterinary drug residues in imported salmon. Based on the results of a risk 
assessment, Chinese experts were of the opinion th at the importation of salmon, especially chilled, 
fresh and farm-raised salmon, posed a high food safety risk. In order to protect the health of Chinese consumers, AQSIQ decided in early 2011 to further strengthen the inspection and 
quarantine of salmon imported into China from al l countries. The relevant measures were based on 
existing laws and regulations and were not new measures which needed to be notified to the WTO. Norway was one of the main suppliers of salmon to China, however, Norway had failed to meet China's inspection requirements in recent years. In 2011, 24 cases of unqualified aquatic products 
from Norway were reported, of which 19 cases involved salmon. China remained committed to 
continue bilateral discussions with Norway and looked forward to further communication in relation to the Sino-Norway Memorandum  of Understanding on SPS. 
China's requirement for registration and supe rvision of foreign enterprises (STC 324) 
Raised by: India 
Supported by: European Union 
Dates raised: October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, paras. 36-38), March 2012 (G/SPS/R/66, 
paras. 36-38) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHN/472 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 31 - 
 
   
2.35.  In October 2011, India raised concerns ov er China's notification on "Provisions on the 
Administration of the Registration of Foreign Manufacturers of Imported Foods" (G/SPS/N/CHN/472) of 19 August 2011. Foreign manuf acturers of foods listed in a "Catalogue of 
Registration of Foreign Manufacturers of Import e d  F o o d s "  w o u l d  n o t  b e  a b l e  t o  e x p o r t  t h e i r  
products to China without registration. India enquired when this catalogue would be issued and requested further information on possible registration fees and processing times. 
2.36.  The European Union echoed these concerns , and indicated that it had provided written 
comments on the notified measure, and hoped that China would take them into account. The requirements in the notified measure seemed burdensome and costly, and not necessarily in line with the requirements of the SPS Agreement. 
2.37.  China explained that the notified measur e was not new, but would repeal the original 
registration requirement, established in March 200 2. The registration procedures would not include 
fees, only guidance on how to register. The question whether there would be any other charges 
was still under discussion, and would be announced separately after approval. Registration renewal 
should be requested before expiration, and as food enterprises were categorized according to different risk levels, the application process and specific verification requirements would differ 
accordingly. 
2.38.  In March 2012, India recalled that it had submitted comments on China's notification, 
requesting information on the issue date of this ca talogue, registration fees and processing times. 
Although China had indicated that the notified measure was not new, the current process was 
more stringent than the 2002 regulation. 
2.39.  While appreciating China's clarifications, the European Union supported India's call for 
greater clarity and additional information on the process. In particular, certain aspects of the 
registration process had not yet been outlined nor guidelines provided on the detailed process to 
be undertaken by exporters of products, with in dicative timelines. The European Union urged 
China to provide an appropriate transitional time period for trading partners to follow this new 
requirement. 
2.40.  China explained that the notified measur e was an amendment of the General Order No. 16, 
which was issued and implemented in 2002. The measure was notified to the WTO and comments 
were received and reviewed by China. The measur e provided a regulatory framework similar to the 
original regulation and only overseas production enterprises listed in this catalogue needed to 
register in accordance with the requirements. The date of entry into force of the regulation was March 2012 and the official implementation would provide a sufficient transitional period. China 
would take into account India's comments and urged other concerned parties to raise their issues 
with the designated Chinese department as early as possible in order to facilitate the preparation of a detailed response. 
Testing methods for food additives (STC 329) 
Raised by: India 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2012 (G/SPS/R/66, paras. 17-18) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.41.  In March 2012, India indicated that it had concerns with the 133 notifications issued by 
China in July, November and December 2011, proposing testing methods for identifying the physical and chemical index of substances in food products. India had responded to the notifications seeking additional information, including clarification on the purpose of the testing 
methods, and requested China to provide the scientific methodology used for setting these 
regulations. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 32 - 
 
  2.42.  China explained that it had not received India's questions in advance but would convey 
these to the relevant authorities, and proposed bilateral technical communications. 
2.3.2  Animal Health General import restrictions  due to BSE (STC 193) 
2.43.  See paragraphs 2.357.  2.390.   
2.4  European Union 2.4.1  Food safety 
Application and modification of the EU  Regulation on Novel Foods (STC 238) 
Raised by: Colombia, Ecuador, Peru 
Supported by: Argentina; Benin; Bolivia, Plurinational State of; Brazil; Chile; China; 
Costa Rica; Cuba; El Salvador; Honduras; India; Indonesia; Mexico; 
Paraguay; Philippines; Uruguay; Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 
Dates raised: March 2006 (G/SPS/R/40, paras. 21-29), June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, 
paras. 35-37), October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, paras. 140-143), February 
2007 (G/SPS/R/44, para. 64), April 2008 (G/SPS/R/49, paras. 48-52), October 2008 (G/SPS/R/53, paras. 19-23), October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, paras. 53-55), June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, paras. 32-35), October 2011 
(G/SPS/R/64, paras. 72-73), March 2012 (G/SPS/R/66, paras. 50-52), 
July 2012 (G/SPS/R/67, paras. 56-58), October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, paras. 26-28) 
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 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.44.  In March 2006, Colombia raised concerns on the application of the EC Regulation on Novel Foods (Regulation No 258/97) and with the draft project of the European Commission to amend the regulation, foreseen to enter into force in 2007. The amendment could directly affect the trade 
potential of traditional and exotic foods. Some traditional and exotic products already had 
substantial presence in the US and Japanese fo od markets, and European consumers were now 
becoming interested in these food products. It  was important to recall, however, that these 
traditional foods had been consumed in South America for thousands of years. This was in contrast 
to genetically modified products which could be considered as real Novel Foods. Increased trade in traditional and exotic products also had important socio-economic impacts, as the export of these 
products represented a measure to decrease extreme rural poverty in South America and had 
potential to address specific social and environmental issues, such as providing alternatives to both the growing of narcotic crops and to th e illegal felling of protected forests. 
2.45.  Colombia was aware of the importance of protecting consumer health. However, the amount 
of information on the safety of these traditional food products required by the EC regulation and 
the costs to undertake scientific studies were not proportional to health risks and were excessive 
especially for small scale farmers and exporter s. The proposed amendment of Regulation 258 
would result in a non-tariff barrier to trade with negative effects on the introduction of traditional 
foods into European markets, contrary to Articles 2.2 and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement. Colombia requested the European Communities to consider the following points regarding the amendment of 
the Regulation 258/97: (i) the non-application of Regulation 258 to exotic, traditional products 
with a history of safe consumption in their region of origin; (ii) greater transparency and clarity in the procedures and definition, giving credit to a safe consumption history of food in the country of origin; requirements, tests, and procedures in pr oportion with the nature of the foods concerned 
and the risks they could imply for consumers; and (iii) all exotic traditional products to remain in 
the public domain and no private entity to be granted privileged access to the European market. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 33 - 
 
  2.46.  Ecuador reported that the amendment would also affect the trade potential of traditional 
and exotic food from its country. In light of Ec uador's great biodiversity, over the last decade 
international organizations like UNCTAD had be en promoting the development of new export 
products ("Bio-Comercio"). In Ecuador also the export of traditional and exotic foods had major 
socio-economic impacts and related closely to efforts to overcome rural poverty. Ecuador invited 
the European Communities to consider carefully Colombia's recommendations regarding the amendment. The amendment of the regulation an d its impacts were of importance for many 
developing countries. 
2.47.  Peru added that currently, within the Conv ention on Biological Diversity, countries were 
discussing measures and mechanisms for the preservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Contrary to that approach, the application of Re gulation 258 would restrict greater sustainable use 
of traditional and exotic products, by diminishin g their export potential. Peru stressed the high 
costs and the long period of time needed for products to be registered under Regulation 258 to allow them to enter the European market. Peru also supported Colombia's recommendations 
regarding the amendment (G/SPS/GEN/681). 
2.48.  Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica and Paraguay report ed that their exports had also been affected by 
Regulation 258/97. Benin requested more information on how a product was considered as 
"novel". Argentina and Mexico both indicated that they were still in the process of analysing the 
implications of the regulation. El Salvador, Honduras, India, Uruguay and Venezuela and expressed their interest in the topic and shared the concerns of Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. 
2.49.  The European Communities confirmed th at Regulation 258/97 was being reviewed and 
recognized that some modifications were needed. A 40-page document which might answer a lot 
of questions would be circulated as an SPS document shortly. The document set out clearly the purpose and scope of the regulation, which was targeted at new food technologies, including 
genetically modified products. As the food industry was investing in different new technologies, 
Regulation 258 aimed to reassure European consum ers of the safety of those technologies. The 
vast majority of applications for authorization of Novel Foods had been from within the European 
Communities. The European policy was aimed at striking the right balance between encouraging 
technical innovation and ensuring that consumers are protected. Some products marketed as "products of biodiversity" had in the past turned out to be unsafe and harmed the users. Dealing with such products was thus in the interest of all stakeholders, considering the damage to the 
image of products if they were marketed in an unsafe manner. The European Communities invited 
interested stakeholders to submit comments and make their views known. 
2.50.  In June 2006, Peru raised further concerns regarding the EC novel food regulation. In Peru's 
view, one of the major problems of the EC regula tion was that it did not distinguish between new 
foods that had not been consumed before anyw here, and those that were new only to the 
European Communities, which was the case for most of the traditional exotic products originating 
from developing countries. Peru requested that the European Communities provide information 
showing that it was necessary to apply this measure to traditional exotic products, in accordance with the provisions of the SPS Agreement. Peru considered that the regulation constituted an unnecessary and unjustified barrier to trade due to th e cost and time required to gain approval for 
Novel Foods, even if they had a history of safe consumption in their countries of origin, and 
requested the exclusion of traditional exotic products from the novel food category. Peru also requested that the European Communities explain how special needs of developing countries had 
been taking into account in accordance with Article 10 of the SPS Agreement (G/SPS/GEN/713). 
2.51.  Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, India, Paraguay and the Philippines shared the concerns 
raised by Peru. Ecuador indicated that a study on the impact of the novel food regulation was 
about to be finalized. Preliminary results of this study showed that this regulation could have 
negative economic and social consequences for Ecuador's production system by having an effect both on current exports and on products with ex port potential in the European Communities that 
were currently marketed in other countries (G/SPS/GEN/714). Bolivia and Colombia highlighted 
that some of the products were currently being promoted inter alia  by policies supporting 
alte rnative s  t o narc otic  c rop s , s ome  of whic h we re  fund e d  b y the  Europ e an Communit ie s  or its member States. The Philippines indicated that the effects of the novel food regulation and of EC 
regulations on genetically modified food were still being evaluated. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 34 - 
 
  2.52.  The European Communities stressed that  the concerns expressed were being taken 
seriously, and that the novel food regulation was currently under review (G/SPS/GEN/699 and G/SPS/GEN/700). The original intention of the nove l food regulation had been trade-creating; its 
purpose was to authorize trade in Novel Foods. In addition, products that had already been traded 
prior to 1997 had been exempted. The regulation ha d been targeted mainly at EC companies. The 
regulation had been successful in that new food s were being approved on the basis of safety 
assessments. A statement that a product had been consumed for centuries was not sufficient. The 
European Communities highlighted that very few applications for approval of traditional exotic 
products had been received, so that there were very few case studies. Traditional exotic products was a broad category including some items where there had been safety concerns. In the context of the review of the regulation, the European Communities indicated that it would be helpful to 
receive more information on these products, including a clear definition of the products at issue 
whether they had been approved in other export markets, and safety-related data available, as 
well as information on the socio-economic impact. 
2.53.  In October 2006, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru reiterated concerns relating to EC Regulation 
258/97 on Novel Foods (G/SPS/GEN/733 and G/SPS/GEN/735). They considered that the regulation constituted a non-justified barrier to trade in these products as it was not flexible and 
made no distinction between novel (GMO) foods and traditional foods with no known risks. They 
noted that exotic products originating from Latin America were not the result of any type of genetic modification but rather formed part of th e biodiversity of the region and were consumed 
traditionally. Also there were inconsistencies in the way this regulation was applied throughout the 
European Communities. The European Communities ha d not considered the fact that many of the 
traditional products had been marketed in a number of countries with very strict sanitary standards as they posed no health risks to consumers. 
2.54.  The European Communities was requested to promptly review Regulation 258/97, and to 
exclude from its scope of application exotic traditional products resulting from biodiversity. The European Communities was also encouraged to take into account scientific assessments and 
relevant evidence from other countries and co mpetent international organizations when risk 
assessments were made, and to establish differen t procedures for foods of known risk and no 
known risk in the European Communities. The Euro pean Communities was also requested take into 
account the history of the product, the consumption patterns and traditional knowledge relating to 
its use and preparation, so as to provide for greate r flexibility in the application of the regulation 
and facilitate the entry of exotic traditional products into the European market. 
2.55.  Bolivia, Brazil and the Philippines shared the concerns of Peru, Ecuador and Columbia. The 
Philippines highlighted the fact that the regulation could become an unjustified non-tariff barrier to 
the EC market in view of the unclear technica l distinction between these products and other 
products. The Philippines expressed hope that pr ogress would be made on the issue and a mutual 
solution found as soon as possible. 
2.56.  The European Communities reminded the Committee that the issue had been discussed in 
the SPS Committee on previous occasions and there had been various exchanges of communications between the Members concerned. The European Communities acknowledged the 
problem with traditional products, which were not in the EC market prior to 1997 and noted that 
the regulation was not discriminatory as EC producers had to undergo similar risk evaluations. Nonetheless, the European Communities imported an enormous volume of foods and vegetables. 
They reiterated the request that the Members conc erned submit data on the volume of trade and 
risk assessments carried out in other developed countries. The European Communities indicated that the EC Commission was putting forward a new proposal that addressed the genuine concerns 
of Members. A public consultation had been he ld on the matter and the European Communities 
appreciated the contributions from the concerned Members. 
2.57.  In February 2007, Peru noted that although it had not requested that this issue be on the 
agenda for this meeting, it would welcome an update from the European Communities on current 
developments. The European Communities indicate d that the Novel Foods Regulation was being 
revised. It had initially been designed to cover a full range of Novel Foods, from GMO foods to products of biological diversity. Following public consultations and the consideration of the views 
and comments received, revised legislation wa s being prepared. The European Communities 
anticipated that the result would be a two-tiered process, with products that had a long history of safe use subjected to less rigorous procedures than other Novel Foods. The European Communities G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 35 - 
 
  was looking to address the concerns identified by trading partners, while ensuring consumer 
safety. 
2.58.  In April 2008, Colombia, speaking on behalf of Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, 
Paraguay and Peru recalled the concerns previous ly expressed regarding the proposed revision of 
the EC Regulation 258/97, as contained in COM(2007)872. The proposed regulation had been 
notified to the TBT Committee, however these Members considered that it was appropriate to continue to consider this issue in the SPS Committee. These Members welcomed the proposed 
recognition of traditional food products from third countries, resulting from their biodiversity and 
with a history of safe use for large proportions of the populations of these countries. This recognition could facilitate trade, which was particularly important as the production of these traditional products was often part of programs to  diversify agricultural production and exports. 
2.59.  Colombia noted that a number of concerns remained. The proposed definition of a 
traditional foodstuff was that it had been part of the diet of a large part of the population for at least one generation. This definition could restrict those products that were part of the dietary 
traditions of certain subpopulations or regions of the country. It would also be useful to clarify how 
a "generation" was to be defined. Another concern was that requests for authorization would have to come from commercial operators, hence excluding such requests from the competent 
governmental authorities or producer associations. These Members suggested that information 
regarding safe use of the traditional food in other countries should also be considered. The concerned Members recognized that although the proposed process had been considerably 
simplified, a period of five months was still foreseen for consideration of a request, and they 
suggested that three months should be sufficient. These Members remained concerned that the 
definition of a novel food remained a product that  had not been consumed in the EC market prior 
to 1997, which seemed to bear no relation to the scientific evidence regarding the safety of a 
product. 
2.60.  Brazil indicated that it supported the co ncerns raised by Colombia on behalf of eight 
countries. Brazil was still analysing the relevant documents, but considered the issues raised by 
Colombia to be very important. 
2.61.  The European Communities noted that it was currently revising legislation, in particular the 
provisions on traditional products and products of biological diversity, in response to concerns raised by various developing countries.. A much simplified procedure was now being developed. 
A range of legitimate and reasonable concerns had been expressed, and these should be 
communicated directly to the relevant EC services, since the legislation was currently under consideration. While the concern was that the EC legislation might be a barrier to trade in 
traditional products, this should be seen in the broader context: the European Communities was by 
far the world's largest importer of fruits and vegetables, especially from developing countries, hence the import regime in general was extremely import friendly. 
2.62.  In October 2008, Peru requested that there should be a notification to the SPS Committee 
regarding the modification of the EC Novel Food s Regulation. Many exporting Members failed to 
understand the content of the regulation, why some products were banned while others were not. Also, the regulation gave exporting countries, many of which were developing countries, the 
burden of proof that their products were safe  and complied with the EC Regulation. Brazil, 
Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay and the Philippines shared Peru's concerns regarding the EC Regulation on Novel Foods. 
2.63.  UNCTAD reported that it was contributing to the review of the EC Regulation on Novel Foods 
in three specific areas: (1) revising the procedure, which required more scientific clarification; (2) facilitating dialogue between the Europe an Communities and developing countries; and 
(3) analysing legal aspects of current regulations in the context of multilateral agreements. 
2.64.  The European Communities stated that the existing legislation was too ambitious in covering 
a whole range of Novel Foods. For this reason, the European Communities planned to revise the regulation, as had been notified to the TBT Commi ttee. This proposal had been under negotiation 
in the EC Parliament and Council. However, there were concerns regarding the approval of some 
products. For instance, matters became complicated when exporters requested the classification of food supplements as Novel Foods, rather than wh ole fruits and vegetables. However, the revised G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 36 - 
 
  procedure was expected to be more flexible, and some Novel Foods had already been approved for 
entry into the EC market. 
2.65.  The European Communities noted that in th is specific case, the legal advice had been to 
only notify the proposed revision to the TBT Co mmittee since it covered approval procedures for 
Novel Foods in general. This did not preclude that the issue could be discussed at the SPS 
Committee. In response to a query, the Secretariat clarified that it generally recommended that draft regulations with any SPS content should be notified to the SPS Committee, even if these 
regulations were also notified to the TBT Committee. 
2.66.  In October 2009, Peru recalled that the entry of traditional exotic products to the EC market 
had been seriously affected by the EC regulation on novel foods. The measure contravened the activities that the European Communities themselves had been undertaking to support small 
producers and to open the EC market to new and exotic products. Various exotic products had 
been certified by the Health and Environment Au thority of Peru, which certified the safety and 
compliance with a HACCP system, and these products were fit for human consumption and could 
be marketed internationally. Peru expressed concern about the continuous loss of business 
opportunities due to this measure and asked for an  update on the modification progress. Brazil, 
Colombia, Ecuador, and Mexico supported Peru's concerns regarding the EC regulation on Novel 
Foods. 
2.67.  The European Communities stated that on 15 January 2008, the EC Commission had 
submitted to the Council and the European Parliament a proposal for the revision of the Novel Food Regulation. The proposal was notified to WTO Members in March 2008 under the TBT 
Agreement. The revised procedure was expected to be more flexible and some novel foods had 
already been approved for entry into the EC market. The reference period for establishing a history of safe food use had been changed to a period of 25 years, and consumption data could originate 
from any third country and not necessarily from the country that submitted the application. The 
possibility to apply for a novel food authorization had also been opened to any interested party. The proposal kept the main rules currently applicable to novel goods, but simplified EC market 
access for traditional foodstuffs from third countries which had a history of safe use and put in 
place proportionate regulatory measures. The proposal was still under negotiation and its adoption was foreseen for July 2010. 
2.68.  In June 2011, Peru again raised concer ns about Regulation 258/97, that particularly 
affected trade in Peruvian traditional foods that were safely sold in the United States and Japan 
(G/SPS/GEN/1087). Colombia shared the concern of Peru, as this regulation was an unjustified barrier to trade of traditional foods and conseque ntly impeded economic activities. In 2009, the 
European Union had agreed to change this regulation in a way that would take into account 
traditional foods. This modification had not been  implemented, however, because of disagreements 
that the European Council and the European Parlia ment had regarding products of cloned animals, 
although there was general agreement on traditional foods. Colombia encouraged the European 
Union to separate these issues and resolve the matter of traditional foods by the end of 2011. 
Brazil, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Mexico and Paraguay supported the concerns raised by Peru and Colombia. 
2.69.  The European Union stated that foods were considered novel under the present Regulation 
258/97 if they were derived from new technological processes or if they had no significant history 
of consumption in Europe. On 15 January 2008, steps were taken to update the existing novel food 
rules in an effort to facilitate applications for novel food authorizations and to simplify market 
access to the European Union for traditional foodstuffs from third countries which had a history of safe food use. However, the initial proposal submitted to the co-legislators was not adopted. The 
main stumbling blocks related to provisions regarding food from cloned animals and 
nanotechnology. Any new regulation would contain a centralized and quicker authorization procedure for novel foods and specific measures for traditional foods, as agreement had indeed 
already been reached on this issue between the European co-legislators. 
2.70.  In October 2011, Peru recalled its concerns about Regulation 258/97 (G/SPS/GEN/1117). 
Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico and Paraguay shared the concerns raised by Peru. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 37 - 
 
  2.71.  The European Union reiterated the explanat ion that it had provided in June 2011 regarding 
the definition of novel foods and the current process of revision of the regulation. 
2.72.  In March 2012, Peru recalled its previously raised concerns about the EU Novel Foods 
regulation (258/97) that restricted foods which were not marketed in the European Union before 
May 1997 (G/SPS/GEN/1137). The Regulation did not distinguish between foods and ingredients 
that were new in the strict sense and traditional products derived from the biodiversity of developing countries. The EU measures were unnecessary and excessive as they applied to 
products that had a history of safe consumption in other markets and presented no risk for 
consumer health. Recalling the provisions of th e SPS Agreement, Peru urged the European Union 
to refrain from applying Regulation No. 258/97 to traditional products with a history of safe consumption outside the EU market. 
2.73.  Cuba supported the concerns of Peru an d indicated that the measure was discriminatory. 
Colombia also supported Peru's concerns and urged the European Union to accelerate the modification of the regulation on novel foods, highlighting the unnecessary and unjustified effect 
that the delay was having on the access of traditional products to the EU market. Argentina, Brazil, 
Chile and Paraguay indicated that they shared th e concerns and were closely following the issue. 
2.74.  The European Union restated the observations presented during the 2011 June and October 
meetings. 
2.75.  In July 2012, Peru once again recalled its concerns about the EU novel foods regulation. 
Peru considered that its traditional products were a sign of the sustainable use of its biodiversity and argued that this regulation particularly affected trade in traditional foods. This regulation had 
negative economic and social impacts, including the loss of trade revenue, the administrative costs 
faced by importers and the potential effect on the general health of consumers worldwide as a result of the decrease in consumption of traditional products with high nutritional value. Peru 
urged the European Union to refrain from applyi ng Regulation No. 258/97 to traditional products 
or to facilitate the entry of products with a history of safe consumption outside the EU market. 
2.76.  Cuba supported the concerns of Peru an d indicated that the measure was discriminatory, 
highlighting the unjustified effect that the measure was having on the access of traditional 
products to the EU market. Colombia and Ecuador also supported Peru's concerns and urged the European Union to implement the reforms to the regulation on novel foods. 
2.77.  The European Union explained that revision of the novel foods rules had started in 
January 2008 in an effort to facilitate applications for novel foods authorizations and to simplify 
EU market access for traditional foodstuffs from third countries with a history of safe use. However, the co-legislators had not agreed to the proposed revision and the European Union was 
now engaged in preparing the next steps in the ho pe of facilitating the consensus necessary to 
allow a revised novel food regulation to be adopted into law. The European Union would make public the next steps it was taking once these were agreed. The Commission was currently 
preparing a legislative proposal based on the ov erall 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 from third countries to access EU markets. A related legislative proposal on 
animal cloning was planned to be adopted by th e Commission in 2013, based on the results of an 
impact assessment which was currently underway. 
2.78.  In October 2012, Peru reiterated its co ncern that the application of Regulation 238/97 
continued to restrict access of traditional products into the European Union. Regulation 238/97 
was in practice an unnecessary and unjustified barrier to trade, not adopted on the basis of an appropriate risk assessment taking into account scientific evidence, thus contrary to Article 5 of 
the SPS Agreement. Peru reiterated its reques t that the European Union exclude from the 
regulation traditional products arising from biodiversity and remove the unjustified hindrances to trade. 
2.79.  Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador and Venezuela supported Peru's concern 
and asserted that Regulation 238/97 constituted an unnecessary barrier to trade because it 
targeted products that were not widely traded in the EU market before 1997 without considering G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 38 - 
 
  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. 
2.80.  The European Union recalled that at the la st meeting it had provided a detailed explanation 
on the state of play of the Novel Foods dossier; it was now engaged in preparing a new legislative 
proposal on Novel Foods, expected to be adopted in 2013. The European Union would keep Members informed on the progress of the novel food  negotiations, on future measures applicable 
to traditional foods from third countries, and would notify the new draft legislation to the WTO for 
comments. In order to help producers, importers and those responsible for placing products on the EU market a Novel Food Catalogue had been created, and a document indicating how interested operators may establish whether a food or food ingredient had a history of consumption in the 
European Union. The European Union remained committed to work with concerned partners 
towards an amicable solution of this matter. 
Maximum residue levels of  pesticides (STC 306) 
Raised by: India 
Supported by: Brazil, Pakistan, Thailand 
Dates raised: October 2010 (G/SPS/R/61, paras. 17-19), March 2011 (G/SPS/R/62, 
paras. 56-58), June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, paras. 36-37), October 2011 
(G/SPS/R/64, paras. 67-68), March 2012 (G/SPS/R/66, paras. 56-58), 
July 2012 (G/SPS/R/67, paras. 38-39), October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, 
paras. 31-32) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/196/Add.2, G/SPS/N/EEC/196/Add.10, G/SPS/N/EEC/382, 
EU Revised Plant Protection Regulation 1107/2009, EC Regulation 
396/2005. 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.81.  In October 2010, India referred to three EU notifications on the adoption of Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) for certain pesticides (G/SPS/N/EEC/196/Add.2, G/SPS/N/EEC/196/Add.10 
and G/SPS/N/EEC/382) within the framework of the EU Revised Plant Protection Regulation 
1107/2009. EC Regulation 396/2005 established the legislative framework for MRLs of pesticides 
in or on food and feed of plant and animal orig in, which was notified by the European Commission 
in April 2005. India was concerned that the MRLs for a number of chemicals were set at the "limit 
of detection" (LOD). This was the residue limit which could be detected using analytical methods/testing procedures available in Europe. Different climatic conditions in India required a 
different use of pesticides in agricultural produc tion. No scientific evidence had been provided to 
justify the setting of the MRL at the LOD, especially for imported products. For some substances, the MRLs in EU cereals was much higher than the approved level of the same substance in rice. The setting of MRLs at the LOD had impacted In dia's exports of agricultural products to the 
European Union, and India requested the European  Union to provide the validated testing methods 
it used to arrive at the LOD as well as the scientific basis and risk assessment for the MRLs. India considered that the EU MRLs resulted in the violat ion of Articles 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 5.1 and 5.4 of the 
SPS Agreement. 
2.82.  Thailand shared India's concerns, observing that in the recent EU notifications the proposed 
MRLs for some chemicals were much lower than the levels set by Codex. Brazil and Pakistan also 
shared India's concerns about the EU procedure for establishing MRLs. 
2.83.  The European Union explained that the new legislation on pesticide residues was in place 
since 1 September 2008. MRLs had undergone a common EU consumer intake assessment carried out by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to make sure that all classes of consumers, 
including vulnerable ones such as babies and children, were sufficiently protected. The validated 
analytical methods used by the European Union co uld be found on the website of the EU Reference 
Laboratories for Residues of Pesticides. The model used for estimating the dietary intake of 27 EU 
consumer groups was available on the EFSA website. The risk assessment methodology used for 
setting the MRLs came from the framework established by the Codex Alimentarius, as described by G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 39 - 
 
  a 2002 Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues' (JMPR) report. An LOD was set when there 
was a safety concern for consumers from the use of a pesticide at high levels or when there was no authorized use on a specific crop within the European Union or third countries. The proposed revision of the EU MRLs had been notified to the WTO in 2003, 2005 and 2007, and all WTO 
Members and stakeholders had also been informed about all the individual values that were 
proposed. The MRLs were fixed and published in the Official Journal if no reaction to the notifications had been received. Nevertheless, appl icants in and outside the European Union could 
apply to have import tolerances set for higher MRLs in specific cases. Although the European Union 
was aware of the different geo-climatic conditions in India, data on the safety of imported products was still necessary. 
2.84.  In March 2011, India stated that the European Union had harmonised its pesticide residue 
levels under Regulation No. 396/2005 on MRLs for pe sticides on food and feed of plant and animal 
origin. A default level of 0.01 mg/kg had been applied on many chemicals, and the European 
Union had claimed that the MRLs had been set at  the Level of Determination (LOD). However, 
without a validated test, it was not clear how the LOD was set and consequently the scientific 
evidence for the MRL had not been provided despite substantially higher levels for the same chemicals existing in other countries. India re-stated its concerns relating to: (i) non- 
harmonization with international standards; (ii) lack of risk assessment; (iii) misuse of Article 5.7 
of the SPS Agreement; (iv) lack of attempt to mi nimize negative trade effects; and (v) European 
laws and regulations. 
2.85.  The European Union noted that trading partners could apply for higher MRLs by providing 
scientific evidence. With respect to the commodities  of interest to India, the European Union had 
indicated that given the economic significance of those commodities, it was prepared to modify the relevant MRLs. India had already submitted an application for a higher MRL which was under 
evaluation and, pending the outcome of that ev aluation, an import tolerance would be set. 
2.86.  In June 2011, India recalled that the European Union had previously indicated that its 
trading partners could apply for higher MRLs by providing scientific evidence. However, the 
application of the precautionary principle in the ca se of chemicals that had been used for decades 
without any negative effects resulted in an unjusti fied trade barrier. The MRLs had been set at the 
level of detection (LOD) without a risk assessment. The LOD was the limit below which residues could not be detected by using sophisticated analytical methods, virtually a zero tolerance, and 
imported food items containing small traces of pesticides were being adversely affected. In 
addition, the European Union had not made, or not shared, any scientific assessments that justified the default MRL for some pesticides. The default MRLs created distrust as private labs 
were being used to run the assessments and at ti mes they used testing methods which were not in 
line with the European Commission guidelines on method validation and quality control procedures for pesticide residue analysis in food and feed. Furthermore, the aggressive business behaviour by 
private labs in approaching exporting countries like India for pre-screening services was a cause 
for concern. India requested that the European Union provide the scientific justification for the 
current MRLs for certain pesticides, rather than shifting the burden of proof onto exporters by 
requiring that they provide justifications when a pplying for higher MRLs. India urged the European 
Union to take effective steps to remove these trade restrictive measures. 
2.87.  The European Union stated that since 2008, a new legislative framework had been in 
operation which completed the harmonization and simplification of pesticide MRLs and eliminated 
all technical barriers to trade. The full details of the EU policy on pesticides had been presented at 
the March SPS Committee meeting. Trading partners could apply for an MRL that was greater than what was foreseen in the EU legislation by providing scientific evidence justifying the higher level. 
Regarding the commodities of interest to India,  the European Union was prepared to modify 
relevant MRLs assuming that the requisite information was provided. India had in fact already submitted an application for a higher MRL for Isoprothiolane on rice which was being evaluated by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), howeve r, further information was required from India. 
As far as grapes were concerned, data from 2011 indicated that no obstacles had been identified. 
2.88.  In October 2011, India recalled that the European Union had previously claimed to have a 
non-discriminatory, open, transparent and predictable procedure for setting MRLs. However, India 
questioned the scientific basis for using the level of detection (LOD) method and for setting MRLs 
for certain pesticides at default levels of 0.01 mg/kg, as well as the validation testing methods used by the European Union to arrive at the level of detection. The EU method of setting MRLs was G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 40 - 
 
  discriminatory as it affected the trade of certain products and did not conform to the SPS 
Agreement. India had been informed that a Member could apply for a higher MRL, however the EU procedure was lengthy, costly and burdensome. In dia urged the European Union to replace its ad 
hoc discriminatory, opaque, and unscientific measures with more predictable and science-based 
ones. 
2.89.  The European Union recalled its statement at the June 2011 meeting and noted that setting 
the MRLs at the default level for some pesticides facilitated trade, in contrast to a zero-tolerance 
approach. Trade had not been interrupted as a result of this legislation, and particularly not in 
commodities of interest to India. In line with th e EU legislation, India had applied for a higher MRL 
for Isoprothiolane on rice, and submitted complementary information. An opinion from the EFSA was expected in the first quarter of 2012, and on the basis of this evaluation, the European Union 
would decide whether a higher MRL could be safely set. 
2.90.  In March 2012, India reiterated that no Member should set MRLs without scientific 
justification. India welcomed the EU MRL for Isoprothiolane in rice, and sought clarification on the 
status of an import licence application for Tricyclazole by Dow Agro Sciences. India urged the 
European Union to replace default MRLs for a variety of pesticides, as the default levels of 0.01 mg/kg, meant that imported foodstuffs cont aining even the smallest trace of pesticides 
(e.g., Cerbandazim) were banned in the European Union. India requested the scientific justification 
for fixing any MRLs at the level of detection, and recalled that under Article 12.6 the Committee could invite a relevant international body, such as Codex, to examine the scientific basis of a standard set by the European Union. 
2.91.  Pakistan stressed the importance of this issue for developing countries, and expressed hope 
that it would be soon resolved. 
2.92.  The European Union recalled that in September 2008 it had introduced a new legislative 
framework on pesticide residues (Regulation EC 396/2005) under which many pesticides MRLs had 
been set at the default level in order not to hinder trade. Trading partners that felt that a higher MRL was necessary should submit an application, with the appropriate scientific justification. The 
European Union would set a higher MRL where this was scientifically justified, as had been done 
for Isoprothiolane, where the MRL in rice had been raised to 5 mg/kg from its default level. This was done on the basis of a scientific opinion from EFSA, which stated that authorized use at that level would not pose a public health concern. Th e European Union also noted that EFSA strongly 
recommended that studies be carried out to investigate the effect of processing on the nature of 
Isoprothiolane residues. Following a decision by th e EU member States, it was agreed that the MRL 
would therefore be fixed on a temporary basis on the understanding that it may be reviewed in the 
light of the results of the requested study on processing. 
2.93.  In July 2012, India reiterated that no Member should set MRLs without scientific 
justification, as doing so violated the SPS Ag reement. India requested the European Union to 
provide scientific justification for fixing any MRLs at the Level of Determination (LoD) for pesticides 
such as Carbendazim. The developer of Tricyclazole (Dow Agro Sciences) had filed an application for an import tolerance in accordance with Art. 6 (4) of Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005, however, it 
was unclear whether the data submitted was acceptable or not. India requested the European 
Union to clarify the situation and to work constructively on resolving the issue as the uncertainty 
and unpredictability adversely affected India's exports. 
2.94.  The European Union recalled that Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, which had entered into 
force in 2008, essentially stated that before an MRL could be set for a pesticide, its safety must be 
confirmed on the basis of a scientific assessment.  In the spirit of the SPS Agreement, when 
drawing up this legislation, the European Union had sought to eliminate any inappropriate 
technical barriers to trade in the setting of MRLs by setting MRLs, for many pesticides - not in use 
in the European Union - at the default level. By doing this, the European Union, de facto, had also established a 'tolerance' - albeit a very low one - for pesticides that were not in use in the EU territory, and for which it was not in position to verify their safety or otherwise. The modification of 
such tolerance levels was not possible unless solid scientific data demonstrated the safety of the 
product. India could apply for an import tolerance in cases where it believed that an MRL higher than the default level was warranted. This procedure had been used successfully by India to apply 
for a higher import tolerance for Isoprothiolane, a pesticide used by India in the production of rice, 
a major export crop of interest to India. The case of Isoprothiolane demonstrated that the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 41 - 
 
  procedure in place was non-discriminatory, transparent, delivered results and offered predictability 
to exporters. 
2.95.  In October 2012, India noted that no solution had yet been found to this concern. The 
European Union continued to set MRL levels at the Limit of Detection (LOD) for pesticides such as 
Carbendazim and Isoprothiolane, without any scientific justification contrary to the provisions of 
the SPS Agreement. India reiterated its reques t for the European Union to provide scientific 
justification for fixing MRLs at the limits of detection without scientific evidence. 
2.96.  The European Union stated that tradin g partners must follow the EU procedure for 
requesting the setting of MRLs based on actual use of a pesticide. Where a pesticide was not used within the European Union or was unknown, the European Union set the MRL at the lowest analytical level rather than apply a zero tolerance approach, to give traders some legal certainty. 
Before setting an MRL for a pesticide, the scientific opinion of EFSA was sought on each occasion. 
The European Union reiterated that its legislation was balanced, non-discriminatory, based on sound scientific assessments and predictable. The European Union suggested that India provide a 
list of the chemical substances used in India that it considered were not harmful to human health, 
so that the same could be the subject of an EFSA risk assessment. 
EU regulations on cadmium in cocoa (STC 325) 
Raised by: Colombia, Ecuador 
Supported by: Brazil; Cameroon; Costa Rica; Cuba; Dominican Republic; Ghana; 
Guatemala; Jamaica; Mexico; Nicaragua; Peru; Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 
Dates raised: October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, paras. 39-41), July 2012 (G/SPS/R/67, 
paras. 141-143), October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, paras. 36-39) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/1173/Rev.1 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.97.  In October 2011, Ecuador expressed concern that the European Union was considering modifying the maximum level of cadmium in cocoa and cocoa products, and was planning to apply 
a maximum limit between 0.3 an d 0.5 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), in the context of 
Regulation (EU) No 420/2001. Ecuador urged the European Union to base any maximum limits on cadmium on appropriate scientific studies. The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food 
Additives (JECFA) had established a level of acceptable weekly consumption of 5.8 micrograms of 
cadmium per kilogram of body weight (µg/kg), more than twice the tolerable weekly intake 
concluded by the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA). Ecuador requested further information on 
the EU risk analysis, and stressed that any possible maximum residue limit (MRL) should be set as 
low as reasonably possible (ALARP principle). Some of Ecuador's soil contained cadmium, but it had adopted mitigation measures so as to produce high-quality cocoa not detrimental to human health. 
2.98.  Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Re public, Nicaragua, Peru and Venezuela shared 
the concerns raised by Ecuador. They asked the European Union to provide the technical and scientific basis on which it was considering regulating cadmium in cocoa and chocolate, and 
stressed that any possible maximum limits should be based on science. 
2.99.  The European Union recalled that neither it nor Codex had established a maximum level for 
cadmium in cocoa or cocoa products to date. However, JECFA had reviewed its toxicity in 
commodities in 2010 and set the tolerable weekly intake at approximately six micrograms per 
kilogram of body weight. In contrast, EFSA had identified a lower tolerable weekly intake of 2.5 µg/kg of body weight in 2009 and in 2010. Based on the 2009 and 2010 EFSA scientific opinions for cadmium, the European Union had initiated a review of maximum levels for cadmium 
in different types of foodstuffs, including chocolate and cocoa products sold to the final consumer, 
since cocoa and chocolate products contribute significantly to human exposure and in particular exposure of children. Discussions were still on-going, but any limits would be based on realistic G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 42 - 
 
  occurrence data of cadmium in cocoa and cocoa products compiled from different geographical 
origins and would be set as low as reasonably achievable. 
2.100.  In July 2012, Ecuador, on behalf also of Cameroon, Colombia, Ghana, Mexico, Nicaragua 
and Peru, recalled the previously raised concern ab out the EU decision to amend Regulation (EC) 
No. 1881/2006 to modify the maximum acceptable levels of cadmium in cacao and chocolate 
products (G/SPS/GEN/1173/Rev.1). The co-authors requested the European Union to clearly demonstrate the relative contribution of chocolate to dietary cadmium exposure and its adverse 
effects. In light of the significant differences in the JECFA and EFSA recommendations for tolerable 
weekly intake (TWI) and tolerable monthly intake (TMI) levels for cadmium, they urged the European Union to convene a joint EFSA-JECFA meet ing with a view to reaching an agreement on 
the methodology used to establish such limits, and the outcomes. They stressed that the European 
Union should ensure that any limit it applied was in accordance with the SPS Agreement, and 
should take into account new data to review and harmonize methodologies to determine the cadmium content in relevant chocolate products. They also requested that, if the new measure 
were adopted, the European Union allow a transiti o n  p e r i o d  o f  a t  l e a s t  f i v e  y e a r s ,  t o  p e r m i t  
producers to adapt to the measures. Cameroon, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, 
Ghana, Guatemala, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua,  Peru and Venezuela echoed this concern. 
2.101.  The European Union noted that this was not a new concern, and that they were prepared 
to respond despite this being raised under "Other Business". The EU clarified that any amendment to Regulation 1881/2006 was intended to focus primarily on foodstuffs for which no maximum levels for cadmium currently existed. Maximum levels  for other foodstuffs - such as vegetables and 
cereals which also contributed cadmium to the daily diet - already existed and therefore would not 
be treated in the proposal currently under discussion. The new proposal would instead focus on those foodstuffs such as chocolate/cocoa products and baby foods, for which no maximum levels 
were established. The European competent authorities were currently evaluating the data provided 
by cocoa producers in the past months and EU member States would discuss the maximum residue limits (MRLs) for cadmium in cocoa products this autumn. Differing consumption patterns 
of different chocolate products would be taken into consideration in the establishment of the MRLs, 
and a reasonable transition period provided. The European Union took this issue very seriously and looked forward to continuing dialogue with interested Members. 
2.102.  Codex stated that the issue of MRLs for cadmium in cocoa products was currently under 
discussion, and relevant data provided by member s would be evaluated by JECFA. The issue would 
be addressed at the next session of Executive Committee of the Codex Alimentarius Commission in June 2013. 
2.103.  In October 2012, Ecuador explained that it had learned through the Directorate General for 
Health and Consumers (DG-SANCO) of the European Commission that new maximum levels of cadmium in food were being considered. A summary report of the Standing Committee on the 
Food Chain and Animal Health showed a clear discrimination between cocoa products and other 
food stuffs. The European Commission's proposal focused only on products for which no maximum levels existed; but differentiated between chocolate and cocoa products on the one hand and vegetables and cereal products. For the latter products, due to concerns about costs, more time 
would be given to farmers and food business operators to put measures in place to reduce 
cadmium levels. This discriminatory treatment was arbitrary, unjustified, and disproportionate and could result in unnecessary restrictions to international trade. Ecuador requested that chocolate 
and cocoa products receive equal treatment as vegetables and cereals, to prevent any unjustified 
discrimination. Furthermore, if new cadmium levels were set, these should be based on an appropriate risk assessment, and co mply with the WTO principles of proportionality, transparency 
and consideration of the special needs of developing countries. 
2.104.  Cameroon, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Repu blic, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru and 
Venezuela supported the concern by Ecuador, further noting that the EU measure would adversely affect the small and subsistence farmers and producers of cocoa in developing countries. The EFSA 
scientific opinion indicated that chocolate and cocoa products were not the main source of 
cadmium intake, however the major contributors of cadmium in the diet were not included in the proposed EU regulation. There was no Codex st andard for cadmium nor agreed international 
analytical methods or procedures to determine the presence of cadmium, which made it difficult to 
compare the levels of cadmium in these foods. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 43 - 
 
  2.105.  The representative of the WHO indicated that JECFA was scheduled to consider cadmium 
levels in cocoa at its meeting in June 2013. JECFA had issued a call for data, but not yet received any data from exporting countries regarding their controls on levels of cadmium in cocoa products, or information on cadmium levels at different processing stages. 
2.106.  The European Union acknowledged the conc erns of exporting Members and noted that the 
discussions were still at the technical level with no maximum levels yet proposed. The proposal would initially focus on foodstuffs such as choc olate, cocoa products and baby foods, for which 
maximum levels did not yet exist, and at a later stage would review other food commodities for 
which maximum levels already existed. The meeting of the International Cocoa Organization (ICCO) in October 2012 had provided an opportunity  for an exchange of views on the issue and 
the data provided by some Members on cadmium in cocoa products would be considered. The 
European Union was confident that a balanced proposal would result from the legislative process 
and that any negative effects would be kept to a minimum. 
EU limits of aluminium in flour products (STC 331) 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2012 (G/SPS/R/66, paras. 26-27) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/341 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.107.  In March 2012, China expressed concerns about EU limits on alum inium content in flour 
products (EC669/2009 and EC887/2010), and excessi ve testing. The strict requirement by the 
European Union had impacted China's exports of flour products. The current EU standard based on a 2008 EFSA recommendation set out a maximum aluminium content of 10 mg/kg, so as to ensure 
that the weekly intake of aluminium was below 1 mg/kg of body weight. However, in 2011, JECFA 
changed this weekly intake of aluminium to 2 mg/kg of body weight. China urged the European 
Union to reassess the limits for aluminium content in flour products on the basis of the new data from JECFA, as unnecessary restrictions on internat ional trade, on the premise of safety grounds, 
should be avoided. 
2.108.  The European Union highlighted the heal th risks of aluminium, whose use as a food 
additive had been prohibited based on the 2008 EFSA opinion. A low tolerance had been 
established for naturally occurring aluminium in flour. When the level of aluminium detected in 
food exceeds 10 mg/kg, it is a clear indication that a food additive containing aluminium has been used. In 2011, there were 35 notifications in th e EU rapid alert system for food and feed (RASSF) 
o n  h i g h  l e v e l s  o f  a l u m i n i u m  i n  n o o d l e s  f r o m  C h i n a ,  w i t h  l e v e l s  u p  t o  5 0  m g / k g .  S i n c e  O c t o b e r 
2010, dried noodles from China had been subjecte d to an increased control frequency of 10%, 
which would continue until there was a clear indication that Chinese noodle manufacturers were no longer using additives containing aluminium. 
EU testing of pesticide residues (STC 335) 
Raised by: India 
Supported by: Pakistan, Viet Nam 
Dates raised: July 2012 (G/SPS/R/67, paras. 24-26) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EU/22 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.109.  In July 2012, India expressed concerns over  the EU notification which proposed to include 
in Annex I of Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005 new fruits, vegetables and cereals that had become available on the EU market (G/SPS/N/EU/22). In the modified regulation, paddy rice would be G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 44 - 
 
  tested for residues instead of the whole rice grain. Testing for MRLs was usually undertaken on the 
food ready for consumption. In the case of rice, which could not be consumed raw, testing should be on the whole grain rice instead of the paddy rice. Paddy rice would always have higher levels of pesticide residues as pesticides were sprayed directly on it, but paddy rice was not directly 
consumed. This was recognized, for example, in Part 180, title 40 of the US Code of Federal 
Regulations on "Tolerances and Exemptions for Pesticide Chemical Residues in Food". Exporters would find it more difficult than necessary to  meet the proposed EU requirements, thereby 
impacting trade, and India requested that the European Union provide its scientific justification for 
the proposed change. Pakistan and Viet Nam expressed their interest in the issue. 
2.110.  The European Union explained that the reason for the proposed changes was to respond to 
consumers' demands to include new fruit, vegetabl es and cereals which had more recently become 
available on the EU market, and to  modify the parts of products on which the residues should be 
analysed. The European Union had not modified any practices on testing of pesticides residues. On 
the contrary, the rules had been made more transparent for all trade partners through the 
publication of all available validation methods for pesticide residues and by providing, through 
WTO channels, information on all activities related to the regulation. After consideration of comments received and further exchanges with stakeholders, the European Union had decided to 
keep the current practice concerning rice, which meant that residues would be analysed on the 
whole grain product and not paddy rice. The EU underlined that its legislative procedure was non-discriminatory, transparent and able to take third country requests favourably into consideration, as in this case. 
2.5   India 
2.5.1  Animal Health Restrictions due to avian influenza (STC 185) 
Raised by: European Union, United States of America 
Supported by: Australia, Canada, China 
Dates raised: March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, pa ras. 18-20 ), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, 
paras. 42-43), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 59-60), June 2007 
(G/SPS/R/45, paras. 21-23 ), October 2007 (G/SPS/R/46, paras. 29-32 ), April 2008 (G/SPS/R/49, paras. 33-38), June 2008 (G/SPS/R/51, 
paras. 31-35), October 2008 (G/SPS/R/53, paras. 29-34 ), February 
2009 (G/SPS/R/54, paras. 17-20), June 2009 (G/SPS/R/55, paras. 43-46), October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, paras. 40-43), March 2010 
(G/SPS/R/58, paras. 37-40), June 2010 (G/SPS/R/59, paras. 39-41 ), 
October 2010 (G/SPS/R/61, paras. 25-28), March 2011 (G/SPS/R/62, paras. 37-40), June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, paras. 64-68), October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, paras. 81-93) (G/S PS/R/64/Add.2, paras. 1-2) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/IND/13/Add. 1, G/SPS/N/IND/14, G/SPS/N/IND/46/Add.3, 
G/SPS/N/IND/46/Add.4, G/SPS/N/IND/46/Add.5, G/SPS/GEN/1138, 
WT/DS430/1, WT/DS430/3 
Solution: Dispute settlement panel established on 25 June 2012. Panel request: 
document WT/DS430/3 
Status: . 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.111.  In March 2004, the European Communities raised concerns on measures applied by India 
on 3 March 2004 on imports of live birds, fresh poultry meat and fresh poultry meat products due 
to avian influenza. Contrary to Annex B of the SPS Agreement, these measures had not been notified. In addition, India's restriction on EC products was disproportionate to the health risks associated with these imports since the European Communities was free of highly pathogenic avian 
influenza. The European Communities reminded India of existing OIE standards on avian influenza 
and requested that India lift the restrictions on EC products. 
2.112.  The United States stated that it shar ed the concerns of the European Communities. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 45 - 
 
  2.113.  India explained that restrictions on poultry imports were temporary measures to address 
the emerging threat of introduction of highly pathogenic avian influenza. The measures were 
intended to protect farmers for whom poultry pr oduction was an essential source of income. 
Delays in the reporting of outbreaks increased the risk of the virus spreading into other countries. 
In addition, poultry infected by the virus did not al ways exhibit clinical signs of the disease. Given 
the structure of the poultry industry in India, it  would be impossible to control the spread of the 
disease once introduced. India was taking all measures necessary to gather information on efforts 
to contain the disease globally and welcomed information from exporting Members who were free 
of the disease. 
2.114.  In June 2004, the European Communities stated that India continued to apply import bans 
on a range of poultry products, including live birds, fresh meat and fresh meat products from 
several countries allegedly in response to highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), since 
February 2004. These blanket import bans were disproportionate to the risk and should be confined to imports from regions affected by th e disease in accordance with OIE recommendations. 
The European Communities was officially free of this disease, according to the OIE criteria, and 
had implemented safeguard measures to protect this sanitary status. The European Communities asked that India review the current ban and lift all restrictions on poultry products from the 
European Communities. 
2.115.  India responded that measures prohibiting poultry and poultry products had been 
implemented as temporary measures. New outbreaks of HPAI in WTO Members, but not within the 
territories of the European Communities, had been  reported as recently as 4 June 2004. Since 
poultry production in India was typically a family-run business, Indian authorities were particularly 
concerned about potential human development of the disease. 
2.116.  In October 2004, the European Communities  expressed concerns that India continued to 
impose a ban on some live animals and a range of products of animal origin due to the risk of 
entry of HPAI into India. India had issued two no tifications, on 7 July and on 6 August, informing 
Members of the relaxation of the ban for a range of products. However, the ban was 
disproportionate to the risk and there was no scien tific basis for some of the measures imposed by 
India. The ban should be confined to regions affe cted by the disease following OIE guidelines and 
recommendations. The European Communities recalled that it was free of HPAI and maintained this sanitary status. India was requested to review its ban and bring its measures into conformity 
with the SPS Agreement. 
2.117.  India reiterated that the ban was a temporary measure which was enforced due to the 
outbreak of avian influenza throughout the worl d. The prevalence of the family-based poultry 
industry and the significant numbers involved in the industry would make it impossible to control 
the disease if it spread to India. The situation ha d been under constant review since the imposition 
of the ban in February 2004. The ban on imports of  poultry with vaccination and specific pathogen 
free eggs was lifted in July 2004. A subsequent review by an expert group resulted in the 
continuation of the ban on imports of certain products such as live and raw poultry and pig meat. Processed products from HPAI infected countries  were allowed into India, however, and the 
situation continued to be monitored. 
2.118.  In June 2007, the United States noted that India was banning poultry, swine and other 
products in response to the detection of low pathogenic avian influenza (AI) in wild birds in some parts of the United States. These restrictions far exceeded the standards developed by the OIE for 
the control of AI. India failed to  apply the concept of regionalizat ion to the United States. India 
applied its ban against US products although no  incident of HPAI had occurred in the United 
States; applied its ban to products that had been treated or processed in such a manner that the 
AI virus was killed; and applied its ban to species and products from animals that were not known 
to transmit the virus. Although India had recently notified a change to its measures to allow the entry of dry processed pet food, it continued to prohibit other heat-treated pet foods that posed no animal health risk. 
2.119.  The European Communities observed that they had similar concerns regarding India's 
measures. Although they had been seeking to reso lve the matter bilaterally, problems continued to 
appear and reappear. All Members should apply the international standards, to ensure that the 
measures applied were proportionate to the risks. India's measure was applied even to products 
that had never been known to transmit AI, including pork meat. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 46 - 
 
  2.120.  India noted that high or low pathogenic strains of AI had been reported in more than 
60 countries, and his authorities were concerned that the virus was spreading. The virus had important human health implications, given its high fatality rate. India had experienced an 
outbreak of HPAI in 2006 which had been successfully contained, and the country was now free of 
the disease. India was trying to safeguard animal and human health in its territory, and protect its 
family-run poultry industry. It therefore banned imports of poultry from any country which had experienced an outbreak of AI, whether highly pa thogenic or low pathogenic. The United States 
had reported an outbreak of low pathogenic AI. Countries free from AI could export livestock to 
India, and pathogen-free eggs for vaccine production were permitted from any country, regardless of its AI status. Because many wild birds visited Indi a, this was a vector of concern. With regard to 
pet food, India had revised its health protocol notified in June 2007, and would take into account 
the comments made on this matter. 
2.121.  In October 2007, the United States reiterated concerns regarding India's ban on imports of 
US poultry, swine and their products due to detections of low-pathogenic AI in wild birds in the 
United States. India had made two notifications related to AI (G/SPS/N/IND/46/Add.3 and 
G/SPS/N/IND/46/Add.4). The Add.3 document extended AI-related import prohibition to include pig bristles. Prohibiting the import of these products was not scientifically justified nor in 
compliance with the OIE guidelines based on the AI status of a country, region or zone. The United 
States requested that India remove all import restrictions on US origin live pigs and porcine products. India's Add.4 extended for a further six months the emergency measures it had put in place in August 2006. The United States expressed concerns with regard to India's continued 
emergency measures related to AI. The United States urged India to put in place permanent 
measures for trade in poultry products and AI, and to ensure that these measures were consistent with the provisions of the OIE Code chapter on AI. India's measures should distinguish between 
highly-pathogenic and low-pathogenic strains of AI, and allow for the application of regionalization. 
2.122.  The European Communities stated that India failed to recognize the difference between 
high and low pathogenic influenza as well as the AI-related differences between wild birds and 
domestic animals. The European Communities again encouraged India to follow the 
recommendations from the OIE. 
2.123.  India stressed the dangers related to AI and how widespread the virus had been. Following 
the 2006 HPAI outbreak in India, the country was extremely cautious to safeguard its animal and 
human health, particularly in view of the family run poultry industry in India and because AI was 
known to reoccur in countries where outbreaks had previously taken place. India restricted imports from countries reporting AI. The United States was currently positive for low pathogenic AI in 
poultry (LPNAIH5). India's import restrictions due to outbreaks of AI in the United States were 
clarified in detail to the United States during the last trade policy forum meeting held in New Deli. India contested the claim that its regulations we re not based on science by observing that the 
presence of LPAI in poultry was a notifiable diseas e according to the OIE as per the list of diseases 
in Article 2.1.3 of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Furthermore, as noted by USDA's factsheet on AI, LPAI had a high potential to mutate into highly pathogenic AI; a view that India shared. Nonetheless, India regularly reviewed its trade regulations in the light of new developments on AI. 
Regarding the concerns with pork products, there were numerous scientific reports that pigs could 
be easily infected by many human and AI viruse s and, therefore, could provide an environment 
favourable for viral replication and genetic re-assort ment. The fast mutating nature of the AI virus, 
along with the possibility that the virus could re-combine with other subtypes, made pig and pig 
products a risk. With regard to wild birds, India indicated that consultations with experts had taken place and that the Indian authorities were of the view that wild birds could not be ignored with 
respect to AI. The US and EC concerns would be reported back to India's technical experts for 
review. 
2.124.  OIE clarified the recommendations of the OIE and how they should be put in practice. The 
listing of diseases such as HPAI and low pathogenic notifiable avian influenza (LPNAI) was first and 
foremost for disease reporting purposes and related to the question of transparency. Findings of AI 
in wild birds and of LPNAI should not lead to import bans. There needed to be a distinction drawn between reporting and the imposition of measures. OIE reiterated that there was no scientific basis 
for restrictions on pigs and pig products in relation to AI, whether it be high or low pathogenic 
strains, and this point was clear in the OIE terrestrial code. OIE was concerned that the imposition of measures that were not scientifically based worsened the risks for spread of disease because G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 47 - 
 
  countries were discouraged from proper reporting if  they believed that the reporting would lead to 
unjustifiable measures. It was of utmost importance that countries report their diseases. 
2.125.  In March 2008, the European Communities indicated that India continued to ban certain EC 
animal products due to AI. Although India had earlier this year relaxed the ban for some products, 
it continued to ban many commodities. India impo sed the ban in response to both high and low 
pathogenic strains of AI. The OIE, however, did not recommend trade bans if AI was present only in wild birds, or if low pathogenic strains were found. The obligation to notify cases of low 
pathogenic AI to the OIE should not be misused as a reason to impose trade restrictions, as the 
OIE had previously clarified in this Committee. Furthermore, heat-treated products could be safely traded regardless of the AI status of the export ing country. The European Communities considered 
also that India's ban on pig meat and pork products based on AI concerns was disproportionate to 
the risk. Although the European Communities had requested information regarding what needed to 
be done to regain free status, India had not provided any response. As indicated previously, the European Communities was of the view that India's measures were disproportionate to the risks 
and for some products were not based on scientific evidence. In addition, HPAI had been found in 
India, and the European Communities questioned whether Indian domestic products would be subject to the same treatment as imported goods. 
2.126.  The United States shared the concern that India's measures were introduced and 
maintained without sufficient scientific basis or a risk assessment. The measures were unjustifiably 
restrictive and too broad in geographic and co mmodity application. Bilateral exchanges had 
allowed progress on some areas, but not regarding the AI measures. Despite requests, the United 
States had not yet received copies of India's risk assessment. Furthermore, these emergency 
import prohibitions had been extended again (G/SPS/N/IND/46/Add.5), after having been in place for almost two years. The United States urged India to lift AI measures that were not based on 
science, and in particular to distinguish between  high and low pathogenic strains, recognize 
disease-free zones, not apply measures to swine and pork products, and to recognize measures taken to inactivate the virus. 
2.127.  Australia shared the concerns of the Eu ropean Communities and the United States, and 
urged India to base its measures on sound science and OIE standards. 
2.128.  Mali reported that since his country did not know how to do a risk assessment with regard 
to AI, it had closed its borders to poultry imports from countries which had the disease. 
2.129.  India noted that AI continued to spread, and that it had serious human health implications 
with hundreds of persons already affected. India had previously had an outbreak, and despite its efforts to eradicate the disease, new outbreaks had occurred. India viewed low and high 
pathogenic strains of AI with equal concern, regardless of whether in poultry or wild birds, and was 
not permitting imports from affected countries. Lo w pathogenic AI presented a high potential risk, 
as the science showed that the virus was constant ly evolving and there was a possibility of low 
pathogenic AI mutating into a highly pathogenic strain. With respect to the OIE guidelines, India 
had voted against the resolution in the last annual session which proposed that low pathogenic AI was not a concern for international trade. India was not the only country taking such measures, and Egypt had apparently imposed similar requirem ents. India had recently reviewed and modified 
its measures on pathogen free eggs, and pet f ood, and agreed to provide information to the 
European Communities shortly. The concerns raised by other Members would be communicated to technical experts in capital. India assured all Members that it would abide by its WTO obligations. 
2.130.  The European Communities clarified that in case of Egypt, the measures were applied to 
very different commodities. Although both countries had measures related to AI, these could not be easily compared. 
2.131.  In June 2008, the European Communities reported that India continued to apply a ban on 
the imports of poultry, swine, and their products, from areas that had reported outbreaks of either 
low- or high-pathogenic AI in wild bird popu lations only. In addition, India restricted the 
importation of products also from areas where low pathogenic AI had been found, disregarding the 
OIE standards which assured the complete elimination of risks and allowed products to be safely 
traded. The ban on imports of pigs and pig meat was not justified according to the OIE, nor had G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 48 - 
 
  India provided scientific justification for the ban. India's restrictions were disproportionate and the 
European Communities requested India to review its measures without delay. 
2.132.  Canada supported the EC arguments, noting that according to the OIE, pigs did not 
represent a threat for transmitting AI. Furthermore, India should recognize the principle of 
regionalization when applying a ban based on AI. Canada requested that India follow the OIE's 
standards and remove the import restrictions currently in place. 
2.133.  The United States supported the concerns raised, observing that India's measure had been 
introduced and maintained without scientific evid ence or risk assessment. India's argument that 
low pathogenic AI had the potential to mutate into the highly pathogenic form, and that virus re-assortment could occur in swine, had been addre ssed by the OIE. The United States had requested 
a copy of India's risk assessment that supported its ban, but this had not been provided. 
2.134.  China supported the concerns raised and requested India to revisit its measure in order to 
comply with OIE recommendations. 
2.135.  India clarified that it did not allow the importation of poultry and pork products, including 
processed meats, from areas where outbreaks of AI had been reported. India reiterated that it was 
equally concerned about low and highly pathogenic AI, as well as with AI found in wild birds only. A number of scientific studies had shown the possibility of low pathogenic forms of AI mutating 
into highly pathogenic strains. A report from FAO had also shown that mutation was feasible. An 
official US web site asserted that  low pathogenic forms of AI had the potential to mutate into HPAI. 
India remained concerned that the low pathogenic viruses also posed risks to human health. Regarding pigs, scientific evidence showed that pi gs could host the virus and were known to be a 
mixing vessel for some diseases, hence they could infect humans with AI. As new scientific 
evidence evolved, India had lifted its bans on so me products, such as eggs and pet food. Further 
reviews would be done in the future. India took note of Members' requests for copies of the risk 
assessment and for the recognition of regionalizat ion, and those concerns would be conveyed to 
experts in the capital. 
2.136.  In October 2008, the European Communities acknowledged India's efforts to remove its 
import restrictions on processed pig meat. However, India continued to apply a ban on live animals 
and on a wide range of products of animal origin. This ban had been based on the risk of entry into India of several diseases, in particular AI. These restrictions did not conform to the OIE standards. India was also invited to acknowledge that heat-treated meat and meat products could be safely 
traded regardless of the AI status of the export ing country. Moreover, India had not responded to 
the request for providing scientific justification an d its risk assessment on pig meat and pig meat 
products.  
2.137.  The United States expressed concerns regarding India's extension of its emergency 
measures prohibiting a wide range of products because of AI. These measures were not based on scientific evidence or on risk assessment. The United States renewed the request to India to 
provide a copy of their AI risk assessment. Finally, India was requested to modify its measure to 
address the concerns expressed by several Members. 
2.138.  In response to the US request, India proposed that a technical discussion between India 
and other technical experts be held. The United States invited India to bring its technical experts 
to the next meeting of the SPS Committee and agai n requested a copy of India's risk assessment. 
India suggested that instead of waiting for the ne xt meeting the experts could meet before then, 
perhaps through a video conference, which could allow a resolution before the next meeting. India 
reported that the import restriction of AI relate d products had been discussed in the OIE, in the 
SPS Committee, and in various bilateral meetings with countries including the European Communities and the United States. India had b een reviewing the policy of AI and its trade 
implications every six months. This led to the removal of import restrictions on different processed 
pig products from AI-positive countries. India would continue to review its restrictions and keep only those which affected human and animal health. India suggested that the discussion should stay among experts. 
2.139.  The OIE stated that countries should notify the presence of AI in domestic and wild birds. 
However, notification of the early detection of AI in wild birds was requested for purposes of G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 49 - 
 
  transparency and should not lead to trade restrictions. OIE urged OIE members to send their 
scientific evidence to OIE, to be considered wh en making necessary amendments to the standards 
established in the OIE codes. 
2.140.  In February 2009, the United States ex pressed disappointment that India continued to 
maintain its emergency measures prohibiting a wide range of products because of AI without 
scientific evidence or a risk assessment. Appr opriate measures for AI did not include trade 
restrictions on swine or swine products, trade measures related to notifiable AI in wild birds, or 
prohibitions on heat-treated products. In addi tion, Members should distinguish between highly 
pathogenic and low pathogenic AI. The United States welcomed India's previous proposal for a technical level meeting to discuss the issue, and again urged India to present its risk assessment 
so that a technical discussion could be scheduled. 
2.141.  The European Communities welcomed the recent lifting by India of some AI-related 
restrictions, but supported the US concerns that the remaining restrictions were unjustified and went against the OIE Code, in particular the lack of distinction between outbreaks of highly 
pathogenic and low pathogenic AI. 
2.142.  India explained that since many countries  reported AI, and because of the human health 
implications, it was natural that Members were extremely cautious to safeguard animal and human 
health. This was particularly true in India, since its poultry industry was largely family-run. Many 
Members had adopted AI measures, including import bans. India had banned imports of poultry and swine products from countries reporting both lo w and highly pathogenic AI, since one strain of 
the virus could mutate into the other. An FAO publication acknowledged that mutation to virulence 
had been demonstrated, and the USDA website al so admitted this. At the OIE General Session, 
India had voted against the resolution stating that low pathogenic AI was not a trade concern. India believed that trade interests should not take precedence over human health concerns, but 
accepted that science was evolving and had provisions for reviewing its AI measures. As a result, 
trade restrictions on certain products from AI positive countries had been lifted. India had recently reviewed the restrictions on pig meat and found there was minimal risk, especially when 
processed. India had thus decided to lift restri ctions on pig products and on processed poultry 
products. The reviews would continue. India had taken note of the US concerns, had had bilateral meetings with the United States and the Europe an Communities, and would convey their concerns 
to the relevant authorities. 
2.143.  The OIE indicated that AI was a major challenge for trade in poultry products. The relevant 
standards were in place and the OIE did not receive many comments from OIE members; the standard seemed to be well accepted. Currently the OIE was looking at conditions for trade in pet 
food and various by-products such as feather meal. Members should review the AI standards and 
raise any concerns at the OIE. The OIE clarified that there were a number of publications on AI, some by the OIE, some by FAO, some joint. For international trade, the relevant standard was in 
the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code. 
2.144.  In June 2009, The European Communities appreciated the bilateral meetings with India but 
remained concerned that India's measures were no t consistent with OIE standards. Despite having 
raised the concern previously, India continued to make no distinction between low and high 
pathogenic AI, and had still not shared its scientific justification for the measures. The European 
Communities regretted that India did not adhere  to the principle of regionalization, and 
furthermore that India banned imports of live pigs  citing AI fears but had no such ban on the 
domestic market. The European Communities called upon India to base its import requirements on 
the relevant international standards. 
2.145.  The United States shared the concern rais ed by the European Communities and noted that 
India prohibited the import of a large number of items, in disregard of the relevant OIE Chapter. 
The United States requested that the bans on sw ine be lifted and that scientific justification be 
provided for all measures. In addition, the United States requested India to provide a copy of its 
risk assessment for the measures relating to AI. 
2.146.  India stated that the ban on pork produc ts was taken to prevent an outbreak of AI. The 
measures were based not only on OIE guidelines, but on relevant scientific literature. Technical experts re-evaluated the scientific information every six months, and now imports were banned G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 50 - 
 
  only from those countries reporting H5 and H7 strains of low pathogenic AI. India was concerned 
that the low pathogenic virus could mutate into the high pathogenic virus, which had a greater 
impact on animal and human health. Trade concerns  should not interfere with the protection of 
human and animal health. All restrictions regardin g pork and poultry products except live pigs had 
been lifted from areas reporting AI, because the AI virus could mutate in the pigs, as both human 
and AI viruses had established stable virus lineages in pigs. India applied the same measures to domestic products as to imports. India thanked the European Communities for fruitful bilateral 
discussions on 22 June 2009, and expressed its commitment to dialogues with all interested 
Members. 
2.147.  OIE drew attention to the informal dispute resolution procedure of the OIE as a means to 
resolve technical differences relating to provisions of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code. 
2.148.  In October 2009, the European Communities recalled that India still failed to base its 
requirements on OIE standards, and still maintained a ban on live pigs, pig semen and products such as feathers for reasons of AI. Furthermore, India did not recognize the regionalization 
principle, applied strictly in the European Communities where affected zones were placed under 
strict biosecurity measures, and instead India required total country freedom from AI. Although India had announced unprocessed meat would no lo nger be blocked for reasons of AI, India's 
requirements stated that only heat-treated pig meat could be imported, a measure not in line with 
international standards. The European Communities requested India to provide scientific evidence justifying its strict measures; to bring its import requirements in line with international standards; and to recognize the regionalization principl e as applied in the European Communities. 
2.149.  The United States stated that India's ban and AI import requirements were not in line with 
OIE standards. India continued to prohibit the import of pigs and of a wide range of avian species and avian products without a risk assessment that  supported the measure. India had maintained 
an emergency measure in one form or another since 2002 and its emergency notifications since 
2004 had essentially blocked all imports. Sufficient time had passed for India to complete an import risk assessment and to adopt OIE-consistent measures. The United States requested India 
to provide its risk assessment and to modify its measures to address the concerns expressed by a 
number of Members. 
2.150.  India stated that the notification issued on  28 August 2009 prohibited the import of poultry 
and poultry products and live pigs from countries reporting both highly pathogenic and low 
pathogenic AI. India's technical experts had observed  that symptoms of highly pathogenic AI were 
noticeable and the infection could be controlled, but low pathogenic AI might pass unnoticed and the control of the infection could become difficult. Additionally, there was no data available 
confirming that low pathogenic AI could not mutate into highly pathogenic AI. Imports were 
currently allowed based on the AI status of th e exporting country. The Indian authorities had 
commissioned a lab-based study of domestic pigs to confirm the chances of genetic re-assortment 
of the virus in live pigs that could produce new influenza viruses. As notified, India permitted the 
import of poultry products from countries reporting AI subject to a conformity assessment. Comments received from trading partners on this notification were under examination. 
2.151.  OIE stated that there were some differences at a scientific and technical level in relation to 
this matter, and reminded Members of the OIE's informal mechanism to resolve differences at a 
scientific and technical level. 
2.152.  In March 2010, the United States stated that India was alone among the world's leading 
trading partners in imposing severe import requirements related to AI, that were not in line with 
those established by the OIE. India continued to maintain emergency measures prohibiting a wide range of pig and avian products. Furthermore,  India had not provided timely emergency 
notifications to the WTO Secretariat, as it had extended its AI emergency measures on 
28 August 2009, but not yet notified it. The United States had for several years repeatedly requested a copy of India's risk assessment, but this was never provided. 
2.153.  The European Union supported the US concerns regarding India's ban on imports of a 
number of products and live animals that, according to the OIE, should not be restricted. The 
European Union highlighted the importance of the us e of the SPS notification system by India. The 
European Union also repeatedly requested India's risk assessment for its AI measure, but had not G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 51 - 
 
  obtained it. Moreover, India did not recognize the regionalization principle, as applied in the 
European Union whenever an outbreak of AI occurred. 
2.154.  OIE encouraged WTO Members to implement the OIE standards on AI, since they were 
based on science and had been democratically approved. 
2.155.  India reported that as notified, it imposed an import ban on live pigs, poultry and other 
poultry products from countries reporting either the H5 or H7 strains of AI. There was no import ban on live pigs, poultry or poultry products from countries reporting AI in wild birds, other than 
poultry. The ban was imposed on countries with both LPAI and HPAI, as the LPAI virus might 
mutate into HPAI virus. India conducted a detailed risk analysis for the importation of animal and animal products, by a committee of experts, based on  the existing global situation of AI, available 
scientific literature and the OIE standards. The justification for imposing the ban on live pigs was 
due to the fact that pigs were known to act as mixing vessels for human, animal and other 
influenza viruses. The ban on pigs would be re viewed after the completion of some technical 
studies. 
2.156.  In June 2010, the European Union reiterated the concerns regarding India's restrictions 
due to AI and the lack of notification by India on the issue. India had announced via its website 
that it would review its import conditions related to AI every six months however, that information 
had not been notified to the WTO. The European Union recalled that on several occasions India 
had been requested to provide scientific justification for imposing import restrictions above the OIE standard on AI. During its May 2010 General Assembly, the OIE had confirmed that its AI standard was well supported by scientific evidence, and it had also been clarified that there was no risk 
related to trade in fresh meat with regard to low pathogenic AI. The European Union also 
requested India to recognize the regionalization pr inciple of the SPS Agreement, which was strictly 
applied in the European Union when an outbreak  of AI occurred. The European Union requested 
that India fulfil its transparency obligations, and either bring import requirements fully in line with 
international standards, or share the scientific evidence invoked to justify its measures. 
2.157.  The United States supported the concerns raised by the European Union, stating that India 
stood alone with respect to the scope of its AI -related bans, which were not in line with OIE 
standards. The United States expressed disappoin tment that these bans continued as emergency 
measures, thereby prohibiting the imports of live pigs and a wide range of avian species and avian 
products without a risk assessment. The United States noted that, on numerous occasions, India 
had not provided a timely notification of its AI-r elated import restrictions. For example the last 
notification was on 31 March 2009, extending the ban for six months. However, the ban continued to be applied despite the lack of a new notification. The United States and the European Union had 
repeatedly asked India to provide its risk assessments to support the imposition of import 
requirements beyond OIE recommendations. The United States urged India to provide its risk assessment and modify its measures to address the concerns repeatedly expressed by several 
Members. 
2.158.  India replied that the situation had remained unchanged although, based on changed 
conditions, India had allowed some restrictions to be temporarily lifted. The Indian Department of Animal Husbandry had reviewed its sanitary conditions and removed AI related restrictions for the 
import of pork products (raw and processed pork).  India reported that presently there was no ban 
on the import of pork products (raw and processed pork) from AI positive countries. However, the import of live pigs continued to be prohibited from AI -positive countries. Furthermore, the import 
of processed poultry and poultry meat products were allowed from AI positive countries subject to 
conformity assessment for both LPAI and HPAI. India cited scientific evidence that LPAI had the potential to mutate into HPAI, particularly in wild aquatic birds. 
2.159.  In October 2010, the United States indicated that India continued to maintain the AI bans 
as emergency measures, and prohibited the import of live pigs and a wide range of avian species and products without providing a scientific justification for exceeding the international standards. Despite repeated requests, India had not provided  its risk assessment until the October 2010 SPS 
Committee meeting. Moreover, India had failed repeatedly to notify its AI related import 
restrictions in a timely manner. In March 2010, India had announced a new extension of its emergency measures, and also that products from countries reporting any notifiable AI in 
domesticated or wild birds would be banned. Those new measures had not been notified to the 
WTO. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 52 - 
 
  2.160.  The European Union shared the US concerns about the emergency measures taken by 
India and the lack of transparency. India had faile d to provide an opportunity for WTO Members to 
comment before measures were put in place. India had not made public the outcome of the last review of its import conditions on AI, although it had reported to the SPS Committee that this took 
place every six months. The European Union called on India to share its risk assessment or other 
scientific justification for its import measures, and to recognise the principle of regionalization as foreseen under the SPS Agreement. 
2.161.  India recalled that it had continuously explained the reasons for its measures, and changes 
to these. At the last Committee meeting, India had reported on the lifting of the ban on imports of 
pork products, although imports of live pigs were  still prohibited from AI positive countries. 
Processed poultry and poultry meat products were allowed from AI positive countries subject to 
certain conformity assessment requirements, thereby facilitating trade while continuing to protect 
human and animal health. India remained concerned that LPAI had the potential to mutate into highly pathogenic strains. India noted that Articl e 10.4.1 of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code 
prohibited trade in poultry and its products from LPAI-positive countries. India had provided its 
risk assessment on AI directly to the United States, and was willing to share it with other Members upon request. 
2.162.  OIE expressed an interest in receiving India's risk assessment. The OIE stressed that the 
OIE standards did not justify trade restrictions on the basis of reports of LPAI in wild birds. AI was widespread in wild birds and the OIE requested that this be notified so as to provide valuable data, but did not recommend any trade restrictions on this basis. 
2.163.  In March 2011, the European Union indica ted that the risk assessment provided by India 
did not provide scientific basis to India's AI restrictions. The European Union asked the OIE whether India's risk assessment provided grounds for changes to the existing OIE standards. The 
European Union also urged India to recognize the pr inciple of regionalization, and bring its import 
requirements in line with international standards. 
2.164.  The United States stated that it was still reviewing India's risk assessment on AI. The 
United States would raise its scientific concerns with India bilaterally and would keep the 
Committee informed of its discussions with India, the European Union and the OIE. 
2.165.  OIE stated that the OIE did receive India's risk assessment, and that the OIE had 
subsequently sent a response requesting clarification on the nature of the document. 
2.166.  India indicated that it would follow up on the response sent by the OIE, and flagged the 
need to first discuss the risk assessment India had provided before proceeding further. 
2.167.  In June 2011, the European Union recalled that India had finally provided a risk 
assessment in October 2010, but observed that the risk analysis provided by India did not provide 
any additional scientific information that justified a deviation from the existing OIE standards on AI. The risk assessment was incomplete and lack ed the necessary elements. Furthermore, the 
paper from India had not triggered any change to the existing OIE standard during the latest OIE 
General Session in May 2011, and the existing standards remained the benchmark against which to measure restrictions. India was therefore requested to bring its import requirements fully in line with international standards and to recognize the concept of regionalization, as applied in the 
European Union, in implementing its measure. 
2.168.  The United States supported the concerns of the European Union, and agreed that India's 
risk assessment was not consistent with internatio nal standards for conducting a risk analysis, nor 
did it contain sufficient scientific evidence to support India's ban. India's restrictions related to AI 
did not conform to OIE standards and were not scientifically justified. Repeated attempts to make progress with India at a technical level had reached an impasse. The United States proposed to 
prepare a list of concerns regarding the assessm ent, together with the European Union and the 
OIE, and asked India to address these concerns no  later than 15 August 2011. India should also 
lift its current restrictions while the United States and India worked together on a valid science-based assessment. If the issues could not be resolved through collaboration, the United States 
might petition the OIE to help mediate the issue and to provide expertise to ensure that the matter 
was resolved in a manner consistent with international standards and India's WTO obligations. The G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 53 - 
 
  United States hoped to report a positive resolu tion to the next Committee meeting in October 
2011. 
2.169.  Australia shared the concerns of the European Union and the United States, and 
encouraged all Members to take a measured approach to instances of notifiable AI and not to 
implement unnecessarily trade restrictive measures in relation to this disease. 
2.170.  OIE stated that they had received a letter from India clarifying that the provision of the 
risk assessment document to the OIE had been for information purposes. The OIE would be happy 
to review India's risk assessment if so requested, as well as to initiate a dispute mediation process 
if both parties agreed. 
2.171.  India clarified that during the October 2010 Committee meeting, they had provided their 
risk assessment supporting the ban on imports of poultry and poultry products from AI positive 
countries to the United States and the European Un ion, as requested. This was not the final risk 
assessment document, which would take some time. India welcomed inputs on the information it shared, and was examining a response from the Eu ropean Union. The EU-India joint working group 
would also discuss this issue on 17 July 2011. Indi a encouraged trading partners to address this 
issue in bilateral discussions. 
2.172.  In October 2011, the United States recalled that it had raised this concern on numerous 
occasions, as bilateral efforts to resolve the matter had not succeeded, and on 19 July 2011, India 
had published an extension of the restrictions. The United States did not consider that the restrictions were justified by the risk assessm ent provided by India, and had requested the 
removal of the restrictions or modification of  the risk assessment by 19 August 2011, but no 
response had been received. The United States and European Union had thus jointly requested the 
OIE to provide an expert opinion of the risk a ssessment document provided by India. The OIE had 
provided a copy of its expert opinion to India, the European Commission and the United States on 
4 October 2011, and the United States requested that the OIE be given the floor to summarize its 
findings. 
2.173.  The European Union also indicated that, as it had already stated earlier, the risk analysis 
provided by India was not complete  and did not evaluate the likelih ood of entry, establishment or 
spread of the disease, and the associated potential biological and economic consequences, nor had the document led to any changes to the OIE standards. The European Union urged India to bring its import requirements fully into line with the relevant international standards, including through 
the recognition of regionalization.  
2.174.  After offering the floor to other Member s, the Chairman gave the floor to the OIE. 
However, India requested, as a point of order, clarification of the procedures regarding 
participation of observer organizations in the discussion of specific trade concerns. The Secretariat 
noted that according to the rules of procedure of the Committee, observers could be given the 
floor under any agenda item, and that it was the practice in the Committee to give international 
organizations the floor regarding specific trade concerns that related to international standards. 
2.175.  OIE indicated that, at the request of th e European Union and the United States, it had 
asked two experts to review India's risk assessm ent. The experts had concluded that the scope 
and purpose of the risk assessment was not clearl y defined, and that the assessment was poorly 
supported by references to the relevant scientific literature. The experts had concluded that the 
document did not meet the definition of an import  risk analysis as set out in Chapter 2.1 of the 
OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code. 
2.176.  India clarified that it had not formally provided any scientific risk assessment to the OIE. In 
October 2010, India had provided a summary report  on an informal basis to the European Union 
and the United States. India clarified that the docu ment had also been provided to the OIE on an 
informal basis, and that it was a summary document, not a full risk assessment. India considered 
that it was inappropriate for the OIE to comment on an incomplete document and also questioned whether the OIE had a mandate to validate a risk analysis of a Member. Furthermore, in a letter dated September 2011, India had requested the OIE to review its guidelines in order to prevent 
the spread of important diseases to developing countries that did not have the resources to G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 54 - 
 
  contain and control such diseases. India had also detailed the justifications for its restrictions 
varying from the OIE guidelines in that letter, and was awaiting a reply from the OIE.  
2.177.  The United States observed that the OIE's comments confirmed that India's measures 
were not in accordance with the international standards, nor were they supported by a risk 
assessment. If this was not a final risk assessment, India should immediately remove the trade 
restrictions that had been maintained for nearly five years without sufficient scientific support. 
2.178.  OIE indicated that at the SPS Committee meeting in October 2010, they had received from 
India a copy of the same risk analysis document which they had been requested to review by the 
European Union and the United States. 
2.179.  Chile, Argentina and Peru noted that the expert opinion provided by the OIE was different 
than information provided in the past regarding how particular measures compared with the 
relevant international standards, and suggested that the Committee should in future consider 
whether it was the appropriate role of the international standard-setting bodies to validate the risk analysis relied upon by a Member.  
2.180.  The European Union recalled that it had previously questioned whether India's measures 
were based on a valid risk assessment, and stressed that the key question now was whether India would continue to maintain these measures, or bring them into line with the OIE standards. 
2.181.  As a subsequent point of order, India questioned whether the OIE should have been 
permitted to take the floor on this issue as per the procedures and provisions of the Committee and Agreement. Under Annex 3 of WT/L/161, the purpose of granting observer status was to enable an organization to follow discussions on matters of direct interest to them. The agreement 
between the WTO and the OIE (WT/L/272) also indicated that the OIE would be invited to 
participate in deliberations on agenda items on which the OIE had an interest. The OIE was a highly reputed organization recognized for its standard-setting for animal health and zoonosis, 
however India did not consider that it was appropriate for an observer to judge a Member's rights 
and obligations. India considered that other Members had the right to comment on each other's measures and policies, but that this right was not extended to observers and that allowing 
observers to express judgements on Members' policies had serious systematic consequences. 
Under Article 13 of the SPS Agreement, a Member was fully responsible for the observation of all of the obligations set out therein, and in India's view the OIE could not be considered to have an 
interest in how India was carrying out its risk assessment. India stated that allowing OIE to 
comment even before India was given an opportunity to speak was a clear case of inconsistency 
with due procedures as laid down in WT/L/161. India thus requested that what it considered to be the unauthorized intervention of the OIE not be reflected in the report of the Committee meeting.  
2.182.  The United States recalled that on numerou s occasions since this issue had been raised the 
OIE had provided clarification when a Member has claimed that its measure was consistent with the international standards for avian influenza. India had indicated for many years that its 
measure was justified by a risk assessment, which was finally provided in October 2010. It was 
only in June 2011 that India indicated that this wa s a draft risk assessment, and at that time India 
had invited comments on its document. It was in th is light that the United States and European 
Union had requested the OIE to review the docu ment, and the assessment of the OIE should be 
reflected in the report of the meeting. The United States welcomed the suggestion that the 
Committee consider the issue of the role of obse rvers, and in particular of the Three Sister 
organizations, in the work of the Committee.  
2.183.  The European Union indicated that it understood the concern that the international 
organizations should not interpret the rights and obligations of Members under the SPS Agreement. These three organizations had a specific role to play in the Committee as the 
developers of the reference standards, hence the current practice in the Committee to rely on the 
advice and information provided by these organizations with regard to their standards and guidelines. The question that had been posed to th e OIE in this case was whether the import risk 
assessment conformed to the OIE guidelines for such an assessment. The European Union did not 
understand the statement from the OIE to be an inte rpretation of the rights and obligations of any 
Member under the SPS Agreement.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 55 - 
 
  2.184.  The Chairman recalled that Rule 36 of  the Rules of Procedure of the SPS Committee 
(G/L/170) indicated that a summary report of each  meeting would be prepared by the Secretariat. 
As there was no consensus in the Committee to no t include the statement of the OIE as requested 
by India, the Chairman ruled that the summary re port should clearly reflect the debate on this 
matter. In accordance with Rule 36, any delegation  could request, within 10 days of the close of 
the meeting, the opportunity to verify those po rtions of the draft report containing their 
statements prior to the issuance of the summary report. 
2.185.  In accordance with the provisions of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing 
the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), the United Stat es requested consultations with India on 8 March 
2012 (WT/DS430/1). The Dispute Settlement Body established a panel on 25 June 2012 (WT/DS430/3). 
2.6  Indonesia 
2.6.1  Food safety Permits on horticultural products (STC 343) 
Raised by: United States of America 
Supported by: New Zealand 
Dates raised: October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, paras. 177-179) 
Relevant document(s): G/LIC/Q/IDN/32, Ministry of Agriculture Regulation 60 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.186.  In October 2012, the United States stated that it was concerned about Indonesia's Ministry 
of Trade Regulation 30, notified to the Import Licensing Committee as G/LIC/Q/IDN/32; and 
Ministry of Agriculture Regulation 60. Neither of  these measures had been notified to the SPS 
Committee for comments by trading partners, yet both identified food safety as a primary 
objective. Both regulations resulted in the implementation of an import permit system with the 
potential to disrupt trade, but gave exporters and importers little information and no time to comply with the requirements. Accordingly, Indone sia was requested to notify both Regulations 30 
and 60 and to provide time for comments before  implementation, and also to provide scientific 
evidence that the import permit system was necessary to protect human, animal and plant health. 
New Zealand supported the concerns of the United States and encouraged Indonesia to provide greater clarity on its measures through timely notification to the relevant WTO Committees. 
2.187.  Indonesia acknowledged the concerns of the United States and New Zealand regarding the 
Regulation 60 of the Ministry of Agriculture and th e Ministry of Trade Regulation 30. Regulation 60 
had been notified as an SPS measure, but the document had not yet been circulated. Indonesia 
noted that it had discussed the issue bilaterally with the United States and would follow-up. 
2.6.2  Plant Health Indonesia's port closures (STC 330) 
Raised by: China, New Zealand, United States of America, European Union 
Supported by: Australia; Canada; Chile; Japan; Korea, Republic of; South Africa; 
Thailand 
Dates raised: March 2012 (G/SPS/R/66, paras. 19-25), July 2012 (G/SPS/R/67, 
paras. 49-55), October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, paras. 45-48) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/IDN/53,  G/SPS/N/IDN/54, G/SPS/N/IDN/54/Corr.1 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 56 - 
 
  2.188.  In March 2012, the United States raised concerns about Indonesia's plan to close several 
entry ports for imports of fruit and vegetables, including the main port of Jakarta (Tanjung Priok), originally scheduled for 19 March, but postponed until 19 June 2012. The port closure would threaten 90% of fresh fruit and vegetable exports to Indonesia, and the measure was not done in 
a transparent manner. The United States indicated its willingness to work with Indonesia to resolve 
any legitimate phytosanitary concerns Indonesia had with respect to fruit and vegetable imports, while also facilitating trade in these products. Th e United States urged Indonesia to notify these 
trade restrictions to the Committee and to provide scientific evidence to support them. 
2.189.  The European Union agreed that unnecessary  trade disruption would occur from the port 
closure and recalled that any SPS measure should be no more trade restrictive than required and in line with the SPS Agreement. The European Unio n similarly encouraged Indonesia to notify its 
draft measures to the WTO and to allow sufficient time for formal comments from trading partners 
and related discussions. 
2.190.  Australia also expressed concerns with In donesia's revised horticultural regulation, which 
was of major commercial interest to Australian exporters, and indicated its willingness to work 
collaboratively with Indonesia to resolve this issue. Chile indicated that it was closely following the concern and awaited the notification of Indonesia in order to work bilaterally on the issue. 
South Africa joined with other Members to request that Indonesia notify this regulation to the 
Committee with the necessary reasoning and docume ntation. South Africa indicated its willingness 
to cooperate with Indonesia to find a solution 
2.191.  Canada voiced concern that similar port closures could occur in the future for other 
commodities, for example, food of animal origin, which could have a negative impact on Canada's 
exports to Indonesia. 
2.192.  New Zealand noted particular concerns that the Jakarta seaport had not been included on 
the list of accepted entry points as 90% of NZ ho rticulture exports entered through that port. The 
port closures would result in higher costs and lo nger transport times, affecting the quality, value 
and shelf life of the perishable horticultural pr oducts. New Zealand requested justification for the 
implementation of this regulation and while noting Indonesia's comments regarding port capacity, 
observed that restricting the number of ports for horticulture imports would compound the problem by diverting trade to fewer and smaller port s. Although the delay in the implementation of 
the regulations was welcomed, New Zealand requeste d that the regulations be rescinded as trade 
to Indonesia would otherwise not be viable. New Zealand looked forward to working constructively 
with Indonesia and highlighted the need for a transparent approach. 
2.193.  .Indonesia reported that the Ministry of Agriculture had published new regulations No. 15 
and No. 16 of 2012, which postponed the enforc ement of regulations No. 89 and No. 90 from 
19 March until 19 June 2012. The postponement of enforcement of the regulations was in order to provide sufficient time for stakeholders and tradin g partners to set up infrastructure such as 
warehouses, cold storage and transportation, so as to prevent distortion in the distribution of fresh 
fruits and vegetables. Both new regulations provided specific policies for several ports. As of 19 June 2012, all horticulture products should only enter through four ports -- the Belawan Sea 
Port in Medan, Makassar Sea Port, Tanjung Sea Port in Surabaya and Soekarno-Hatta Airport in 
Jakarta -- and should no longer enter through the Port of Jakarta (Tanjun Priok). The rationale for 
these new regulations was based on: (i) the identification of 19 cases threatening Indonesia's agriculture by the quarantine inspection and food se curity at Tanjung Priok; (ii) the limited ability 
of the quarantine and food safety laboratory to conduct examinations at Tanjung Priok; (iii) the 
absence of quarantine installations at entry ports; and (iv) inadequate number of quarantine inspectors in relation to the number of products to be examined. Indonesia indicated that it would 
notify and circulate the regulation as soon as possible. 
2.194.  In July 2012, New Zealand reported on fruitful discussions with Indonesia that had 
addressed and resolved some of the concerns re lated to the importation of NZ horticultural 
products. Indonesia should provide better clarity about its trade measures that may affect 
agricultural products through timely notifications under the relevant WTO agreements, and engage 
in consultations on these regulations with relevant WTO Members. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 57 - 
 
  2.195.  South Africa supported the request that regulations pertaining to the closure of the port be 
notified to the WTO. Indonesia's notification about the regulations in May 2012, however, did not provide a specific timeframe for Members to comme nt before the regulations were implemented on 
19 June 2012. South Africa had nonetheless provid ed comments on the regulations, but received 
no response from Indonesia. Indonesia was also asked to clarify media reports on the 
reinstatement of imports through Jakarta harbour for products from some Members, and to elaborate on what basis the exemption was made. South Africa wished to discuss the matter with 
Indonesia bilaterally on an urgent basis, in light of the start of South Africa's export season. 
2.196.  The European Union shared the concerns raised by New Zealand and stated that despite 
the new regulations implemented by Indonesia to open up additional ports for imports, the situation had not improved significantly. Indonesia had granted a few countries preferential access 
to the main entry port of Jakarta based on country recognition, but had not granted such access to 
the European Union despite its high food safety and plant health standards. This was clearly a 
trade restrictive measure and it created a competit ive disadvantage for EU exporters as bringing 
fruits and vegetables via other ports meant long er travel times, increasing costs and raised 
difficulties for the quality of the highly perishab le products. Additionally, the measure had not been 
notified to the WTO. The European Union urged In donesia to lift the unnecessarily trade restrictive 
measures and to implement measures in line with the SPS Agreement, including giving advance 
notification through the SPS notification system, allowing comments and allowing sufficient time for economic operators to adapt to any new measures. 
2.197.  Japan expressed interest on the measures related to the port closure put in place by 
Indonesia and stated its willingness to work closely with the Indonesian government on this issue. 
Australia shared New Zealand's concerns and thanked Indonesia for its constructive bilateral engagement on a range of SPS-related issues. Australia also encouraged Indonesia to notify all 
measures to the relevant WTO Committees. Korea also supported the concerns raised by 
New Zealand and welcomed Indonesia's recent decision to postpone the implementation of the new import regulation on horticultural products until September. Korea sought bilateral discussions 
with Indonesia to find a solution. 
2.198.  Indonesia clarified that the previous regu lations of concern had been revoked and replaced 
by the decrees of the Ministry of Agriculture No  42/2012 and 43/2012, which had been notified to 
the WTO in July 2012 (G/SPS/N/IDN/53, G/SPS/N/IDN/54 and G/SPS/N/IDN/54/Corr.1). These 
concerned plant quarantine actions for the import of certain fresh fruits and/or fresh vegetables, 
and fresh plant products in the form of fresh bulb vegetables, into the territory of Indonesia effective 19 June 2012. Since the March 2012 SPS Committee meeting, Indonesia had conducted 
constructive bilateral and technical meetings in Jakarta with interested Members and had 
addressed most of the issues bilaterally, but remained open for further bilateral discussions. 
2.199.  In October 2012, China expressed concer n with Indonesia's amended plant quarantine 
measures for the importation of fresh fruits and vegetables, which entered into force in June 2012 
and was notified to the WTO in July 2012. The re quirements included the accreditation of food 
safety and control systems and the designation of  four ports - not including Jakarta's Tanjung 
Priok sea port - for entry of fruits and vegetables. The restriction on use of Indonesia's major 
trading ports would negatively impact trade with China, as 90% of Chinese fruit and vegetable 
exports entered Indonesia through Jakarta. China had a long history of trade in fruits and vegetables with Indonesia and its regulatory system monitored risks from fruit and vegetable 
exports. China questioned the scientific justificat ion for the measure, as the pests highlighted by 
Indonesia did not occur in China. The international practice was for the importing country to first strengthen its inspection system at ports of en try to ensure the safety of imported food and 
vegetables, before implementing a process to accredit the food safety control systems of the 
exporting country. China had submitted a formal application for accreditation of its food safety control system and encouraged Indonesia to schedule an inspection visit to review China's quarantine systems. 
2.200.  The European Union echoed China's concern with Indonesia's restrictive quarantine 
measures for the import of fresh fruits and vegetables, and fresh plant products in the form of fresh bulbs. At the last WTO SPS Committee, Indonesia had stated that it had addressed most of 
the issues bilaterally and had provided access to the main entry port of Jakarta to a number of 
countries based on country recognition. Only a limited number of countries had been granted preferential access to Indonesia, while other co untries could only use a limited number of entry G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 58 - 
 
  ports and remained excluded from using the main port in Jakarta. Despite bilateral discussions 
with Indonesia, EU exports remained unnecessar ily blocked or exposed to higher costs, and 
Indonesia had provided no justification for these trade restrictive measures and the discriminatory 
preferential access. The European Union urged Indonesia to lift the unnecessarily trade restrictive 
measures and to implement measures in line with the SPS Agreement, including giving advance 
notification, so that comments of trading partners could be taken into account before trade disruptive measures were imposed. 
2.201.  Thailand echoed the concerns of China an d the European Union, indicating that it was a 
major exporter of fruits and vegetables to Indo nesia and that its exports had been negatively 
affected. Thailand requested Indonesia to remove the measure in order to minimize barriers and strengthen trade. 
2.202.  Indonesia recognized that the publicatio n of its Ministry of Agriculture Regulation 
No 42/2012 and 43/2012 had raised concerns among some Members regarding the limitation of ports of entry for certain fresh fruits and vegetables, and fresh plant products in the form of fresh 
bulb vegetables. Indonesia had not closed its ports for the importation of horticulture products, but 
was seeking to prevent the spread of plant diseases and pests through effective management and regulation. Its largest sea port, Tanjung Priok, did not have appropriate facilities to implement 
quarantine measures such as the physical examination and detention of horticultural products. To 
prevent the spread of plant diseases and pests, an d given the high volume of activity at Tanjung 
Priok, imports had been re-routed to other ports which had the requisite infrastructure. These ports were Belawan Sea Port in Medan, Makassa r Sea Port, Tanjung Sea Port in Surabaya and 
Soekarno-Hatta International Airport in Jakarta. Indonesia was taking measures to improve the 
quarantine installation facility in Tanjung Priok, including by establishing an integrated system between the quarantine, customs and other relevant  agencies; developing and improving existing 
infrastructure to accommodate imported commodities in the port area during quarantine 
inspections; and providing specifically for the entry and exit of containers. The first stage of this improvement programme should be finished by the end of 2013. These comprehensive steps were 
deemed necessary based on the results of  a 2010-2011 assessment carried out by plant 
quarantine officials, which identified 15 exotic plant diseases that never previously existed in Indonesia. In most cases these plant diseases were found in horticulture products entering Tanjung Priok port. Indonesia remained concerned about the increasing number of interceptions 
that posed a serious threat to its plant and consumer protection. 
2.7  Japan 2.7.1  Food safety 
Prohibition of certain f ood additives (STC 307) 
Raised by: India 
Supported by: European Union 
Dates raised: October 2010 (G/SPS/R/61, paras. 20-21), March 2011 (G/SPS/R/62, 
paras. 62-64), June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, paras. 38-39), October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, paras. 61-62), March 2012 (G/SPS/R/66, paras. 42-43) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/JPN/255 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.203.  In October 2010, India expressed concerns  over Japan's proposed withdrawal of 80 food 
additives in May 2011, which had been notified to the WTO in July (G/SPS/N/JPN/255). The 
decision to prohibit the use of these additives wa s apparently based on a survey and the analysis 
of public comments. The survey considered th e sale, manufacturing, import, processing, use, 
storage and display of such substances in Japan's market. India was concerned that the 
requirements of Article 2 of the SPS Agreement ha d not been fully considered, as the survey did 
not provide any indications that the additives were hazardous to human health, nor had a risk assessment been undertaken by the Japanese authorities, and international standards had not 
been followed. Of the 80 food additives to be withdrawn, at least 33 substances were allowed in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 59 - 
 
  other countries, including Korea and the United States, in line with Codex or country specific 
standards. India urged Japan to follow the provisions of the SPS Agreement before deciding to prohibit the use of the food additives, and sugg ested that Codex could be requested to examine 
the risks associated with those food additives. 
2.204.  Japan recalled that according to the revision of the Japanese Food Sanitation Law in 1995, 
natural additives became subject to prior approval by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare. 
Therefore, whether natural or synthetic, no additi ve could be used unless it was approved by the 
Ministry. The concept of "existing food additives" was established in 1995 and referred to 
substances that were derived from natural origin and that had been used before 1995 without prior approval. However, their safety had not be en verified or examined based on a safety 
assessment, and Japan would be systematically veri fying the safety of existing food additives. 
Japan considered that it was justifiable to eliminate those substances for which there was no 
actual use or distribution in Japan, and hence would not result in any restriction of trade. Japan had previously directly contacted embassies and trade groups in response to requests received on 
this issue. In 2009, Japan had carried out a surv ey on 125 substances and, based on the survey 
results, had prohibited these 80 additives since they  were no longer in use in the domestic market. 
Should Members nevertheless have further comments on this notification, these should be 
submitted by 17 November 2010 at the latest. 
2.205.  In March 2011, India recalled its concerns  about 31 of the 80 food additives that Japan 
had notified as no longer being distributed in Japan. In March 2011, the original list had been 
reduced to 50, however, India still had concerns regarding 18 food additives to be withdrawn from 
the Japanese market on 18 May 2011. 
2.206.  The European Union also requested clarification on a number of food additives planned to 
be withdrawn and which, according to the webp age of the Japanese Ministry of Health, still 
remained on the list. The European Union would continue its bilateral discussions with Japan to 
address its outstanding concerns. 
2.207.  Japan reiterated that it was carrying out a safety verification of existing food additives, as 
some were being used without a risk assessment. Japan had notified the WTO in July 2010 
(G/SPS/N/JPN/255) and had received several comments. At the October 2010 meeting, Japan had asked India to submit evidence that certain substances were in use in Japan so as to change the status of those food additives. However, Indi a's comments had been received after the comment 
period had lapsed. Japan would publish a list of 55 substances for withdrawal from the Japanese 
market in the official Gazette, in May 2011. 
2.208.  In June 2011, India remained concerned that food additives were being prohibited on the 
basis that they were not in use in Japan, withou t a risk assessment. Some of the food additives 
that were restricted in Japan were in use in other countries, and such a measure to prohibit these additives without any scientific basis violated the SPS Agreement. India requested that Japan 
provide a scientific justification for this decision, and that it permit the use of these additives whilst 
the issue was under review. 
2.209.  Japan stated that a number of substances on the list of existing food additives had been 
used without a scientifically-based safety assessment. Since 1996, Japan had been systematically 
carrying out safety verifications of the listed substances to establish requirements based on 
science. There was no indication that some of the food additives on the list were actually in use in the Japanese market, and Japan intended to delist these substances. However, this was to 
facilitate the safety verification process, not to  restrict international trade. As of 6 May 2011, 
55 substances had been withdrawn from the list of existing food additives. Japan encouraged India 
to provide information documenting the use of th ese substances in the Japanese market before 
Japan finalized the revision process. Many Members had commented on G/SPS/N/JPN/255 at the 
October 2010 meeting, and Japan responded to India's comments in November 2010. However, India had submitted its comments four months after the conclusion of the notification period, so Japan would use this information in the future. 
2.210.  In October 2011, India recalled its concern. In light of Japan's indication that it was willing 
to update the list of food additives, if India provided information that these items were actually in use in the Japanese market, India was working to get the necessary information and provide the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 60 - 
 
  relevant documents to Japan as soon as possible. In the meantime, India urged Japan to 
temporarily permit the use of these additives while Japan conducted the risk assessments. 
2.211.  Japan reiterated that as of 6 May 2011, 55 substances had been withdrawn from the list of 
existing food additives, as the list of food addi tives was up-dated by removing those that were no 
longer in use in the Japanese market. However, in accordance with the Food and Sanitation Act, if 
an application were filed that provided relevant evidence that any of the withdrawn substances were still in circulation in the Japanese market, the authorities would update the list. 
2.212.  In March 2012, India indicated that the list of food additives being delisted by Japan 
included eight substances currently used by Indi an food manufacturers. India remained concerned 
that food additives were being prohibited on the ba sis that they were not in use in Japan, despite 
the fact that they did not constitute health risks. This hindered exports of food containing these 
substances to Japan without sufficient justification. India could provide a list of Members who 
permitted these substances. Clarification was also sought regarding the database used by Japan in prohibiting these products, and the process for updating the list. 
2.213.  Japan explained that it had been waiting for the complete application from India since 
June 2011. India should apply for approval of the specific substances of interest to its exporters, and Japan was willing to explain the detailed application process in bilateral meetings. 
Restrictions on shrimp due to an ti-oxidant residues (STC 342) 
Raised by: India 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, paras. 24-25) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.214.  In October 2012, India expressed concern regarding Japan's introduction of mandatory 
testing for residue levels of ethoxyquin, an anti-oxidant commonly used as a preservative in feed for aquatic animals. In 2005, Japan had notified a measure based on its Food Sanitation Act that regulated a positive list of agricultural chemicals and additives in food. This defined permissible 
residue levels of ethoxyquin at 0.01 ppm for some products, but did not include MRLs in shrimp. 
Japan's new MRLs for shrimp was too stringent compared to the Codex MRL of 3 ppm, was not based on scientific evidence and did not take into account the objective of minimizing negative 
trade effects. 
2.215.  Japan observed that no Codex standard for ethoxyquin in shrimp had existed at the time it 
changed its legislation. As India had not requeste d the establishment of a specific MRL for this 
product, the default tolerance level of 0.01 ppm applied. A risk assessment for ethoxyquin in 
shrimp was currently underway, so the default level was applied in the meantime. Japan remained committed to continuing consultations with India to resolve this matter. 
2.7.2  Animal Health 
General import restrictions  due to BSE (STC 193) 
2.216.  See paragraphs 2.357.  2.390.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 61 - 
 
  Restrictions related to FMD (STC 332) 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2012 (G/SPS/R/67, paras. 16-17) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.217.  In July 2012, Argentina expressed concerns about Japan's undue delay in responding to 
Argentina's requests for recognition as an FMD-free area without vaccination, and Japan's failure 
to open its market to deboned fresh and mature  beef meat. Argentina's first request dated to 
April 2003. After no response, in March 2004, Argentina submitted to Japan's Ministry of 
Agriculture, Fishery and Forestry (MAFF) a specific report concerning the FMD-free area without 
vaccination and a technical proposal for risk mitigation in the import of meat from FMD-free areas with vaccination. Japan refused to address both subj ects at the same time and instead proposed to 
first focus on the recognition of the FMD-free ar ea without vaccination and afterwards discuss the 
exportation from the FMD-free area with vaccination. In June 2005, Argentina sent a technical mission to Japan to formally request recognition as an FMD-free area in line with Article 6 of the SPS Agreement. On that occasion, the MAFF authorities stated: (i) the need to conduct a technical 
mission of experts from the National Institute of Animal Health to Argentina, which took place in 
December 2007, and (ii) that Argentina had to reply to a lengthy questionnaire, which was only received after more than three years (in December 2008) and which, among other things, 
proposed to follow eight steps to advance the procedure (including that of carrying out a risk 
analysis for both areas). In January 2010, Argentina had replied to the questionnaire for the risk analysis of the FMD-free area without vaccination, submitting additional technical information. 
Since then, no replies had been received from Japan to enquiries, meetings and notes submitted 
on several occasions during 2010 and 2011. Argentina was officially recognized by the OIE as a country free of FMD with three areas: one area FMD-free without vaccination (Patagonia) and two 
areas FMD-free with vaccination (north region and the border region). In spite of this fact and 
despite the intense efforts undertaken for almost ten years, Japan had not yet formally recognized 
these areas. Bearing this in mind and considerin g Articles 2.2, 5.1, 3, 6 and 8, among other 
provisions of the SPS Agreement, Argentina requ ested that Japan conclude without undue delay 
the on-going proceedings in line with the international standards. 
2.218.  Japan responded that an additional ques tionnaire would soon be sent to Argentina to 
request further information necessary for the development of a risk assessment. Japan's SPS 
measures were based on a risk assessment taking  into account the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health 
Code and the disease-free status officially recognized by the OIE. It was important to take fully into account the available scientific evidence and to ensure transparency in the process of risk 
assessment, and Japan would continue to work closely with Argentina to resolve this issue. 
2.8  Korea 
2.8.1  Animal Health General import restrictions  due to BSE (STC 193) 
2.219.  See paragraphs 2.357.  2.390.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 62 - 
 
  BSE-related measures on b eef products (STC 247) 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: European Union 
Dates raised: February 2007 (G/SPS/R/44, paras. 15-18 ) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally; WT/DS/391/R 
Solution: Mutually agreed solution notified on 19 June 2012. Panel report 
circulated to Members on 3 July 2012. 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 19 June 2012 
 
2.220.  In February 2007, Canada recalled that in response to finding a case of BSE in Canada in 
May 2003, Korea had implemented a ban on imports of beef from Canada. Canada had taken effective measures to control the risk of BSE, often exceeding OIE standards. Furthermore, the 
OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code indicated that no restrictions should be applied on boneless 
beef from animals aged 30 months or less, rega rdless of the BSE status of the exporting country. 
More than 30 trading partners had resumed importing Canadian beef, but Korea continued to block 
imports. In January 2007, Canada had, under Article 5.8 of the SPS Agreement, formally 
requested Korea to provide a justification for this measure. Canada was disappointed in Korea's response, which was to request additional information. On the basis of the information already provided to Korea, other trading partners had assessed risks and concluded that Canadian beef 
was safe to import. The information has also been sufficient for the OIE Central Bureau to 
determine Canada's BSE status. Canada requested Korea to lift its restrictions and grant access to Canadian beef according to the OIE guidelines. 
2.221.  The European Communities indicated that th ey shared Canada's concerns and were facing 
similar problems with Korea. This was not a new issue. The European Communities strongly urged all Members to apply the OIE standards, especially with respect to BSE. 
2.222.  Korea stated that import restrictions had been imposed on certain products due to the BSE 
outbreak in Canada. Korea had taken the necessary steps to permit the resumption of beef trade. 
It was clear that under the terms of the SPS Agreement, Korea could assess the risk from each Member individually. The risk analysis on Cana dian meat had been delayed when new BSE cases 
were reported in January 2006. Korea was concerned that there might be a problem related to the 
effectiveness of the feed ban measures, and the continued appearance of cases raised questions that had not been clearly answered by Canada. However, in accordance with Article 5, Korea would 
continue to discuss this matter with Canada. 
2.223.  Canada stressed that the OIE Code allowed for trade in boneless beef from animals below 
30 months regardless of the BSE status of the exporting country. The few cases of BSE in cattle 
born after the feed ban had no epidemiological significance. Although Canada was willing to 
provide any relevant information required, it had been unaware that there were any outstanding requests for information. 
2.224.  In accordance with the provisions of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing 
the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Canada requested consultations with Korea on 9 April 2009 
(WT/DS/391/1). The Dispute Settlement Body (D SB) established a panel on 31 August 2009. 
Canada and Korea notified the DSB that they had reached a mutually agreed solution on 19 June 
2012. The panel report (WT/DS391/R) was circulated to Members on 3 July 2012, reporting on the 
solution reached by the parties.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 63 - 
 
  2.9  Malaysia 
2.9.1  Food safety Import restrictions on pork and pork products (STC 323) 
Raised by: European Union 
Supported by: Canada, United States of America 
Dates raised: October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, paras. 32-35), October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, 
paras. 55-56) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.225.  In October 2011, the European Union indicated that it had concerns with Malaysia's import 
restrictions on pork and pork products, imposed 1 July 2011. In bilateral discussions, however, the 
European Union had received guarantees that the restrictions would shortly be lifted. The European Union would continue to work closely with Malaysia to ensure that EU exports could 
resume in line with WTO obligations. 
2.226.  Canada shared the EU concerns as its pork and pork product exports had also been banned 
since 1 July 2011 without notification. Malaysia had not advised Canada about the revision to its import requirements or the ban, and Canada had received conflicting information from Malaysia 
with respect to import requirements for pork. Canada encouraged Malaysia to base import 
conditions on science, and consider a systems approval approach for pork imports, rather than a plant-by-plant approval. 
2.227.  The United States also expressed concerns that the new import requirements had been 
imposed without valid scientific evidence. The United States had been told in June 2011 that it could continue to export pork and pork products if it submitted an establishment questionnaire by 
1 July 2011; however, imports had been stopped. Th e United States would continue to work with 
Malaysia to facilitate an audit of US food safe ty systems, but expected a successful audit that 
would allow all federally inspected pork establishments to be eligible to export to Malaysia. 
2.228.  Malaysia observed that bilateral consultation s on this issue were on-going with the affected 
Members and it hoped to resolve the issue as soon as possible. 
2.229.  In October 2012, the European Union indicated that it still had concerns with Malaysia's 
import restrictions on pork and pork products. In recent bilateral discussions, Malaysia had 
indicated that it had addressed some of the outstanding EU concerns and would continue to follow-
up closely with the European Union to find a rapid and durable soluti on. The European Union 
welcomed the positive signal and would continue to engage in constructive dialogue with Malaysia, 
with a view to rapidly resolving the issue through a transparent import process in Malaysia that 
guaranteed sustainable trade. 
2.230.  Malaysia reported that bilateral discussions were on-going and that it hoped to find a 
mutual solution to the matter as soon as possible. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 64 - 
 
  2.10  Russian Federation 
2.10.1  Animal Health Import ban on live animals from the EU (STC 338) 
Raised by: European Union 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, paras. 15-16) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.231.  In October 2012, the European Union raised a concern regarding measures taken by Russia to ban imports of live non-breeding pigs and ruminants from the whole EU territory and 
breeding pigs from part of the European Union due to alleged Brucella  findings. Russia had not 
provided scientific evidence to justify the ban, nor information on the proportionality of the measure nor the negative effects the ban sought to limit. Russia had identified only two cases of 
concern related to live animals, which the European Union deemed insufficient to provide 
justification for the complete ban. Russia had not provided a risk assessment warranting a total ban on imports, and the European Union asked Russia to lift the import ban on live breeding and non-breeding pigs. 
2.232.  Russia asserted that joint inspections by Russian and Belarus-Kazakhstan-Russia Customs 
Union experts found numerous and repeated violations in animal surveillance, and the ban on live animals from the European Union was preceded by a risk assessment. Following negotiations, the 
European Union had agreed to take additional measures to ensure the safety of animals and 
animal products intended for the Russian market. The import ban was necessary to protect against animal diseases and unsafe animal products, but Russia was ready for further dialogue with the 
European Union. 
Russia's listing of export establishments (STC 341) 
Raised by: European Union 
Supported by: Morocco, Norway, United States of America 
Dates raised: October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, paras. 21-23) 
Relevant document(s): Customs Union decision 830, Customs Union decision 834 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.233.  In October 2012, the European Union raised concerns that Russia had systematically refused the guarantees provided by EU member States for the listing of new establishments 
interested in exporting to Russia. No scientific justification was provided nor explanation given as 
to why member State guarantees, which were relied upon in the past, were no longer trusted. 
Further, Russia had increased restrictions through the temporary suspension of imports from certain EU establishments without scientific justif ication. Restrictions were introduced on casings 
establishments despite the low risk profile of th is commodity, as recognized by the OIE. Similar 
unfounded restrictions had been introduced on dairy and meat product establishments following a regional outbreak of Noro virus, apparently base d on the assumption that the outbreak was due to 
inadequate veterinary supervision, without any real consideration of the risk at stake or the 
epidemiological link. The European Union requested Russia to lift its restrictions and facilitate the listing of establishments, and to take only pr oportionate measures if and when there was a 
scientific basis. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 65 - 
 
  2.234.  Morocco, Norway and the United States shared similar concerns regarding the listing of 
establishments. Norway specifically was concerned about the listing of companies that intended to export to Russia, as well as the process of re authorizing already inspected companies which were 
temporarily not allowed to export to Russia. The United States expressed concerns with Russia 
maintaining registry requirements for certain products while it had agreed in its accession process 
and Customs Union decision 830 to remove these requirements. Morocco shared similar concerns, and requested Russia to provide these new listings to the concerned countries in order to avoid 
economic repercussions. 
2.235.  Russia affirmed that it intended to comply with all the SPS-related commitments 
undertaken during its accession. It sought to implement its obligations under the WTO without disrupting or impairing its trade with former trading partners. The customs union regulation on 
joint inspection, Customs Union decision 834, consid ered the audit of foreign surveillance systems 
to establish their equivalence as the main mechanism to ensure the safety of imports. This was the same principle used by the European Union. Th ose establishments that had previously had the 
right to export to Russia could continue to do so, and imports from others would be permitted 
following a successful audit. The issue with regard to casings was that some products certified as coming from the European Union appeared to be sourced elsewhere. Russia was open to further 
discuss these matters with the European Union. 
2.11  South Africa 2.11.1  Animal Health Import restrictions on fresh pork meat and beef (STC 287) 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, paras. 16-17), October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, 
paras. 94-95), March 2012 (G/SPS/R/66, paras. 59-60), July 2012 (G/SPS/R/67, paras. 36-37) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.236.  In October 2009, Brazil reported that si nce 2006, Brazil had been exchanging information 
with South African authorities regarding restrictions on pork and beef products from Brazil. Three 
rounds of questions had been asked, and three sanitary negotiating missions had been sent to 
South Africa. South Africa had not provided any final results of its risk analysis on beef and pork. Brazil requested more conclusive information on the risk analysis processes that had been carried 
out, since Brazil fulfilled the requirements established by the OIE. 
2.237.  South Africa confirmed that a number of interactions had taken place with regards to the 
import of pork and beef into South Africa, most recently in July 2009. However, there were still some issues that required clarification with regards to the import of pork. The import of matured 
de-boned beef should be approved pending agreement on certificates. 
2.238.  In October 2011, Brazil expressed concerns that since 2005, South Africa had suspended 
imports of beef and pork meat from Brazil du e to a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in the 
country. Numerous attempts to reopen the South African market to Brazilian pork had been 
blocked by repeated unnecessary requests for additional information. Brazil had also sent at least four missions to South Africa and had invited South Africa to hold bilateral meetings on the 
margins of SPS Committee meetings. Since 2006, Braz il had provided information on the country's 
sanitary status and responded to all question s from South Africa. In February 2010, intense 
negotiations had finally resulted in the authorization of exports of Brazilian bovine meat to South Africa, but not Brazilian pork meat. Although bovi ne and swine herds could be affected by FMD, 
the 2005 outbreak had affected only the bovine herd, and South Africa's delay in accepting 
Brazilian pork meat could not be scientifically just ified. Brazil requested that South Africa make a 
final, scientifically sound decision and promptly allow the importation of Brazilian pork meat. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 66 - 
 
  2.239.  South Africa affirmed that it was committed to resolve the problem soon, as demonstrated 
by the technical cooperation between South African and Brazilian officials. South Africa had experienced several devastating outbreaks of dise ases in the pig population, including classical 
swine fever and porcine reproductive and resp iratory syndrome (PRSS) , which had adversely 
affected South African pig production and cost close to a million dollars to eradicate. FMD was not 
the only disease of concern when importing pork meat. Although South Africa generally applied the concept of safe commodities as determined by the OIE, the OIE guidelines did not address all of 
the diseases of concern. South Africa continued to seek advice from the OIE on how to proceed 
regarding certain imports, considering the health st atus of its pig population. In particular, the OIE 
did not have guidelines for the importation of meat that differentiated between pathogenic and 
apathogenic diseases. South Africa ultimately aimed to develop a health certificate for the 
importation of pork which would ensure  protection of its swine population. 
2.240.  In March 2012, Brazil recalled that South Africa banned Brazilian swine and bovine meat 
since 2005, and after intense negotiations and four  technical missions, had authorized imports of 
bovine meat in February 2010. Although Brazil had answered all questions in relation to the control 
of swine disease, the repeated questions from South Africa had become a major and unnecessary 
obstacle to trade. The ban was unjustified as the FMD status of Brazil was higher than that of 
South Africa, and Brazil requested South Africa to promptly adapt its measures to the 
requirements foreseen in the SPS Agreement, so  that exports of the affected products could 
resume soon. 
2.241.  South Africa stated that the concerns raised by Brazil were important to both countries and 
that it was committed to solve the issue. Since 2005, South Africa had experienced outbreaks of 
devastating animal diseases in the pig populati on, which were costly to eradicate. Porcine, 
reproductive and respiratory syndrome and cla ssical swine fever had been eradicated from 
South Africa, which would seek advice from the OIE on how to proceed on certain imports while 
continuing to ensure the protection of its pig herd health. South Africa was in the final stages of developing an effective health certificate for the import of pork, and remained willing to continue 
bilateral discussions with Brazil and other interested countries. 
2.242.  In July 2012, Brazil noted that South Africa  was the only country that still maintained an 
embargo against Brazilian products even though South Africa itself had been reporting cases of FMD in its territory, and Brazil's sanitary status in the OIE was higher than that of South Africa. 
The ban was unjustified and excessive. Since 2010, the embargo had been enforced mainly 
against Brazilian swine meat, while authorizing the import of some cuts of bovine meat, a position that was highly questionable from a scientific perspective as the 2005 outbreak only affected the 
Brazilian bovine herd. In 2010, South Africa had sent Brazil questions about diseases other than 
FMD. The requested information exceeded the nece ssary data requirements and seemed intended 
to delay the lifting of the embargo. The Brazilian  government had engaged in consultations with 
South Africa and would evaluate the results of these consultations and decide on future steps. 
Brazil sought a negotiated outcome within the scope of the SPS Committee. 
2.243.  South Africa responded that the concern was very important to both countries and that it 
was committed to finding a solution. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 67 - 
 
  2.12  Chinese Taipei 
2.12.1  Food safety Restrictions on ractopamine in beef and pork (STC 275) 
Raised by: United States of America 
Supported by: Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru 
Dates raised: October 2008 (G/SPS/R/53, paras. 8-12), October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, 
paras. 141-147), March 2011 (G/SPS/R/62, paras. 51-55), June 2011 
(G/SPS/R/63, paras. 53-59), October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, paras. 63-66), 
March 2012 (G/SPS/R/66, paras. 32-35), July 2012 (G/SPS/R/67, para. 14)  
Relevant document(s): G/SP S/N/TPKM/114, G/SPS/GEN/1182 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.244.  In October 2008, the United States stated that the US pork industry had suffered for more 
than a year due to the lack of science-based maximum residue limits (MRL) for ractopamine in 
Chinese Taipei. Chinese Taipei had previously notified the SPS Committee of its science-based decision regarding ractopamine but then had failed to implement the measure as proposed. US exports had dropped due to the need to source  pork from animals not treated with ractopamine 
in order to meet the zero-tolerance requiremen ts. The United States urged Chinese Taipei to 
implement its notified measure, which would facilitate US pork exports. 
2.245.  Canada stated that its authorities had approved the use of ractopamine as an ingredient in 
pig feed since July 2005 and in cattle feed since May 2007. Health Canada had concluded that the 
product was safe to use after conducting several tests. Canada encouraged all Members to accept the use of ractopamine as long as residues in edible tissues were within the safe levels. 
2.246.  Chinese Taipei stated that the use of ractopamine was forbidden by many WTO Members. 
The Codex Alimentarius Commission had also been unable to make a final decision on MRLs for ractopamine. 
2.247.  The representative of Codex reported that the MRLs for ractopamine had been extensively 
discussed but no conclusion had yet been reached. Codex invited Members to submit more 
information regarding ractopamine for consideration by the next Codex Commission meeting. 
2.248.  The European Communities reported that it had consulted the European Food Safety 
Authority (EFSA) on the safety of ractopamine in cluding the establishment of MRLs. The European 
Communities hoped to have the information by early 2009, which could be sent to the FAO/WHO Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) for further evaluation. 
2.249.  In October 2009, Brazil noted that extensive discussions on this matter occurred during 
the last two sessions of the Codex Alimentarius Commission and at the 18th session of the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Fo ods. Despite the evidence presented by JECFA, 
an MRL had not been adopted by the Codex. Brazil was concerned about the repeated 
postponement of a decision in spite of the existenc e of strong scientific evidence in favour of the 
adoption of this MRL. Since an MRL was needed in  order to facilitate international trade, Brazil 
hoped that a decision would be made at the next meeting of the Codex Commission. 
2.250.  Canada noted that Canadian exporters had also experienced trade difficulties in several 
markets due to the absence of an MRL for ractopamine. In 2005 Health Canada approved the use of ractopamine in swine feed and established an MRL for ractopamine in pork. Canada supported 
the adoption by Codex of the proposed MRLs for ractopamine and was pleased when, in September 
2007, the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods recommended the adoption of ractopamine MRLs at step 8. Canada was disappointed that this was not adopted at the 2009 Codex Commission meeting and expressed hope that it would be adopted at the 2010 meeting. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 68 - 
 
  2.251.  The United States stated that adoption of international standards for ractopamine should 
be an important priority for all WTO Members. Year s of scientific evidence proved that ractopamine 
could be used safely. Ractopamine had been approved by over 25 countries and was currently at Step 8 in the Codex process. Some Members, however, imposed ractopamine bans without 
sufficient scientific evidence to support them. Codex had not adopted the draft MRLs at the 2009 
Commission meeting because of a request from a major trading partner that one further scientific review be done by JECFA. The United States urge d that trading partner to provide JECFA with the 
necessary information so that this study could be completed, and expressed the hope that the 
Codex Commission would move forward with adoption of the standard once that study was complete. 
2.252.  The European Communities noted that last year EFSA, which was responsible for risk 
assessment, gave a standard opinion regarding the harmfulness of this substance. China had also 
conducted a study on the effect of ractopamine on the tissue of pigs. The Codex Commission decided that JECFA should evaluate the Chinese studies before coming to a decision with respect 
to the MRL for ractopamine. 
2.253.  China noted his authorities' commitment to ensuring that the international standard on 
ractopamine was of the highest quality. China would continue to actively participate in the Codex 
standard development process by carrying out expe riments and sharing data with JECFA. Norway 
supported the interventions of the European Communities and China, stressing the need for JECFA to evaluate the last data submitted by China before coming to a final conclusion. 
2.254.  Australia agreed with the interventions of Brazil, Canada and the United States on this 
issue. Codex had made a risk management decisi on based on a risk assessment of the available 
data, and Australia supported the adoption of the draft proposed MRL for ractopamine. 
2.255.  Codex noted that JECFA had conducted an ev aluation in accordance with the procedure in 
place for veterinary drugs. As noted by Australia, the risk management decision made by the 
Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs was then forwarded to the Codex Commission, but at the Commission there was no consensus. Rather, at the Commission session delegates referred to 
further studies and scientific data on the matter. It was agreed that JECFA would review the data 
that it had not previously reviewed. Two meetings of JECFA were scheduled for 2010 and they would make every effort to have the outcome of the review of this data available for the next session of the Commission in July 2010. 
2.256.  In March 2011, the United States stated that in January 2011, Chinese Taipei had ordered 
the cessation of the sale of US beef in grocery stores when two shipments of US beef had tested 
positive for ractopamine. Ractopamine was approved for use in 26 countries and in 2007 
Chinese Taipei had determined that, based on scientific evidence, ractopamine was safe for use in 
cattle and swine. However, Chinese Taipei's notifica tion of the implementation of MRLs, consistent 
with the draft Codex standard, had been delayed by domestic opposition and had resulted in 
significant trade barriers to US exports. 
2.257.  Canada indicated that it had already raised its concerns with Chinese Taipei bilaterally and 
on the margins of Committee meetings. While Codex had not yet adopted MRLs for ractopamine, Canada believed that the scientific work cond ucted by Codex and the Joint FAO/WHO Export 
Committee on Food Additives fully supported th eir adoption. Hence, Canada requested that 
Chinese Taipei reconsider its current prohibition. 
2.258.  Chinese Taipei stated that the use of ractopamine in food-producing animals was forbidden 
by many Members. Although Chinese Taipei had co nsidered establishing MRLs for ractopamine, the 
process had been suspended due to criticism including from the scientific community. The 33
rd 
Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission had also been unable to reach a decision and 
Chinese Taipei was therefore of the opinion that further scientific research and evaluation were 
needed. 
2.259.  WHO reported that the compilation of sci entific information on ractopamine was available 
on the JEFCA website and that the conclusions were clear. The only outstanding issue related to 
consumption of and exposure to ractopamine from lung tissue. At the last Codex Committee on G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 69 - 
 
  Residues of Veterinary Drugs several participants had requested further clarification from China 
concerning the variability of concentration in lung tissue. 
2.260.  The European Union, Norway and Switzerland stated that there were no Codex MRLs for 
ractopamine and that in the absence of international standards, they did not accept imported 
products treated with ractopamine. 
2.261.  In June 2011, the United States reiterated that ractopamine was approved for use in 
26 countries and that Chinese Taipei's 2007 assessment concluded it was safe for use in cattle and 
swine. That same year, Chinese Taipei notified in G/SPS/N/TPKM/114 that it intended to 
implement MRLs for ractopamine use in cattle and pigs consistent with the draft Codex MRLs. However, staunch opposition of pork producers to fo reign pork being imported resulted in delays in 
the implementation of the draft MRLs. The United  States remained concerned about these actions 
because there was no scientific basis for questioning the safety of the use of ractopamine within 
the MRLs set by the United States, Canada, Japan, Korea and many other countries. Chinese Taipei's failure to ensure that its measures were science-based sent confusing signals to its own 
public on food safety issues. The failure to adopt ractopamine MRLs resulted in significant barriers 
to trade and would ultimately contribute to higher  prices for consumers. In order to avoid further 
unjustified restrictions, Chinese Taipei should immediately implement the 10 ppb MRL that it 
notified in August 2007. The United States encour aged Chinese Taipei and all Members to ensure 
measures were based on science, and not to use media to unnecessarily scare consumers in order to maintain trade barriers. 
2.262.  Canada shared the concerns of the United States regarding the lack of scientific 
justification for the prohibition of ractopamine in pork and beef, and the creation of considerable 
uncertainty for beef and pork exporters. These concerns had been discussed bilaterally with Chinese Taipei, most recently at the 13 June  2011 meeting of the Canada-Chinese Taipei 
Agriculture Working Group in Ottawa. Based on a comprehensive risk assessment, Canada had 
approved the use of ractopamine as an ingredient  in feed for pigs in 2005 and for cattle in 2007; 
administrative MRLs for ractopamine in edible swine and cattle tissues were also established. The 
scientific assessments conducted by Codex and JECFA supported the adoption of MRLs for 
ractopamine. Given the extensive scientific evidence, Canada requested Chinese Taipei to reconsider its current prohibition. 
2.263.  Both Brazil and Costa Rica expressed system ic concerns on the prohibition of ractopamine, 
including the lack of a scientific basis for such prohibitions. They were also concerned that the 
MRLs for ractopamine had not yet been adopted by Codex. 
2.264.  The European Union highlighted that as there was no international standard for 
ractopamine, every Member was free to adopt its own national measures as long as they were in 
line with the SPS Agreement. The European Unio n did not allow the use of ractopamine, nor any 
similar substances, and did not accept imports of products from animals treated with ractopamine. 
In the interest of protecting the health of its consumers, the European Union maintained a 
preference for meat and meat products not treated by substances such as ractopamine, a fact which was widely known by those countries seekin g to export meat and meat products to the 
European Union. 
2.265.  China and Norway supported the views of the European Union. China stated that more 
scientific work was needed to address the concer ns of Members, and that a consensus must be 
reached before international standards were ad opted. All Members had the right to adopt SPS 
measures as long as a risk assessment had been completed. 
2.266.  Switzerland stated that as a general rule it  only authorized the administration of veterinary 
drugs to animals for therapeutic purposes; other chemical substances with no vital benefits were 
strictly regulated, and growth promoters like ractopamine were prohibited. The current Codex 
debate clearly showed that no scientific consensu s existed regarding the safety of ractopamine. 
The lack of certainty in the risk assessment, as identified by EFSA in April 2009, combined with questions on risk management, led Switzerland to oppose the adoption of Codex MRLs for 
ractopamine. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 70 - 
 
  2.267.  Chinese Taipei responded that it had first prohibited ractopamine in 2006, and no MRL had 
been established. According to its legislation, therefore, any detection of ractopamine in meat products constituted a breach of the law. While it  had notified in 2007 that it was considering the 
establishment of an MRL for ractopamine, the draft proposal had attracted considerable criticism 
and questioning from the scientific community, consumer groups, and other interested parties. For 
these reasons, Chinese Taipei concluded that it must continue to investigate the adverse effects of this drug on human health, while increasing  its efforts regarding risk communication. 
2.268.  In October 2011, the United States restated the concerns raised during the 2011 June 
meeting. The United States encouraged Chinese Ta ipei and all Members to ensure that measures 
were based on science, and not to use media to unnecessarily scare consumers in order to maintain trade barriers. Canada shared the conc erns of the United States and restated the 
observations it had presented during the 2011 June meeting. 
2.269.  Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Peru expr essed systemic concerns on the prohibition of 
ractopamine, including the lack of a scientific basis for such prohibitions, and were also concerned 
that the MRLs for ractopamine had not yet been  adopted by Codex. Brazil emphasized that 
ractopamine had been proven safe and effective as a veterinary drug that increased feed efficiency, had undergone human and animal safety studies and been approved in 26 countries. 
2.270.  Chinese Taipei responded that it was contin uing to investigate the adverse effects of this 
drug on human health, as it had fully explained at previous SPS Committee meetings, while increasing its efforts regarding risk communication. 
2.271.  In March 2012, the United States restated the concerns raised during the 2011 June and 
October meetings. It concluded urging Chinese Taipei to immediately implement the MRL it had 
notified in 2007, and to, along with all Members, ensure that measures were based on science. 
2.272.  Canada shared the US concerns. Based on a comprehensive risk assessment, Canada had 
approved the use of ractopamine in animal prod uction. Although Codex had not yet adopted MRLs 
for ractopamine, Canada was of the view that the scientific work conducted by JECFA fully supported their adoption. Canada was encouraged by Chinese Taipei's establishment of a cross-
departmental task force in early 2012 to consult with stakeholders and to provide expert scientific 
opinion on ractopamine. To avoid further unnecess ary trade disruptions, Canada requested that 
Chinese Taipei proceed as soon as possible with the adoption of MRLs for ractopamine for meat and meat products as notified to the Committee in 2007. 
2.273.  Brazil highlighted its concern that MRLs for ractopamine had not yet been adopted by 
Codex, despite the technical justifications available regarding the use of ractopamine. 
2.274.  Chinese Taipei took note of the remarks, which it would convey to its competent 
authorities. 
2.275.  In July 2012, Codex highlighted information from various Codex committees 
(G/SPS/GEN/1182) and reported that the 35th session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission 
adopted a number of standards and related texts, including the MRL for ractopamine, which was 
exceptionally adopted by vote as opposed to the usual adoption by consensus. 
MRLs for roasted and powdered coffee (STC 334) 
Raised by: India 
Supported by: Colombia, European Union 
Dates raised: July 2012 (G/SPS/R/67, paras. 20-23) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/TP KM/255, G/SPS/N/TPKM/255/Add.1 
Solution: Concern resolved following th e publication by Chinese Taipei of a 
modified draft regulation finalizing the tolerance for Ochratoxin A in roasted and powdered coffee at 5 parts per billion. 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 18 October 2012 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 71 - 
 
   
2.276.  In July 2012, India stated that Chinese Taip ei's Food and Drug Administration had notified 
a draft regulation on tolerance levels of mycotoxins in food which would amend the tolerance level for ochratoxin A in coffee (G/SPS/N/TPKM/255). The draft set an MRL of 5 ppb for mycotoxin in 
roasted coffee powder and instant coffee. Codex had not prescribed limits for ochratoxin A in 
coffee, and only the European Union had notified MRLs for ochratoxin A at 5 ppb and for soluble 
coffee at 10 ppb. The uniform limit for roasted and gr ound coffee, as well as soluble coffee, set by 
Chinese Taipei seemed arbitrary and not based on  scientific evidence, as during the manufacture 
of soluble coffee ochratoxin A was concentrated, le ading to a higher presence of this compound 
than in ground coffee. Chinese Taipei's requir ements would adversely affect India's growing 
exports of coffee. India urged Chinese Taipei's competent authority to take into consideration 
India's comments when finalizing the measure on tolerances of mycotoxins in foods. 
2.277.  The European Union shared the concerns of India, and had submitted comments on the 
SPS notification. The new levels proposed for ochratoxin A in soluble coffee would need to be 
scientifically justified. Chinese Taipei was encouraged to notify again the new amended measure to 
the SPS Committee so that all trading partners could comment on the amended proposed level. 
2.278.  Colombia requested Chinese Taipei to provide the technical basis on which the limits for 
ochratoxin A had been set, and recalled that Codex had not yet established limits for this toxin. 
2.279.  Chinese Taipei stated that in recent years consumption of coffee had increased and that 
the tropical climate of Chinese Taipei favoured the growth of mould on this product. The government had carried out a local background survey and a risk assessment on ochratoxin A in 
coffee, taking into account the measures of other countries, before drafting the proposed 
requirement. The draft standard was notified to  the WTO on 19 April 2012, with a deadline for 
comments of 11 June 2012. Nonetheless, Chinese Taipei would still accept further comments on 
the draft, and encouraged India to submit its co mments in writing to the competent authorities. 
2.280.  In October 2012, the European Union reported that its specific trade concern on Chinese 
Taipei's MRLs for Roasted and Powdered Coffee (No. 334) had been resolved following the 
publication by Chinese Taipei of a modified draf t regulation, notified in G/SPS/N/TPKM/255/Add.1. 
The European Union thanked Chinese Taipei for its co-operation in resolving the concern. Chinese Taipei expressed appreciation for the EU interv ention and the comments submitted by Members. 
Chinese Taipei had finalized the tolerance for Ochratoxin A in roasted and powdered coffee at 
5 parts per billion (ppb). The standard had been  in effect since 28 August 2012 and the WTO had 
been notified accordingly. Chinese Taipei wished to continue to collaborate with Members on SPS issues. The Chair congratulated the European Unio n and Chinese Taipei on the resolution of the 
concern and thanked them for informing the Committee. Members were encouraged to inform the 
SPS Committee on the resolution of trade concerns. 
2.13  Thailand 
2.13.1  Plant Health 
Restrictions on table grapes, apples and pears (STC 326) 
Raised by: South Africa 
Supported by: Senegal 
Dates raised: October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, paras. 42-43), October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, 
paras. 42-44) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.281.  In October 2011, South Africa indicated that its exports of fresh fruit, particularly table grapes, apples and pears, had been stopped as a result of Thailand's new Plant Quarantine Act 
No. 3. The Act prohibited imports of certain fresh produce until a pest risk analysis (PRA) was 
completed. An interim provision allowed the entry of products imported to Thailand prior to the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 72 - 
 
  prohibition, pending completion of the PRA. South Africa had sought to invoke this provision, which 
allowed for a case-by-case approval, and had proposed certain minimum requirements until the PRA was completed. South Africa urged Thailand to  apply the interim arrangement to its exports, 
and to conclude the PRA so that trade in the affected products could resume. 
2.282.  Thailand confirmed that the importation of  certain fresh fruit and plants was prohibited 
until the national plant protection organization (NPPO) had completed a PRA. South Africa had been granted an interim exemption for its corn ex ports, but had not requested exemptions for any 
other fresh produce within the set deadline. Thaila nd suggested that the NPPOs of both countries 
engage directly to find a mutually satisfactory solution to the issue. 
2.283.  In October 2012, South Africa recalled that its exports of fresh fruit, particularly table 
grapes, apples and pears, had been stopped as a result of Thailand's new Plant Quarantine Act. 
The Act prohibited imports of certain fresh produce until a PRA was completed. An interim 
provision allowed the entry of products imported to Thailand prior to the prohibition, pending completion of the PRA. Since its application to be recognized as an historical exporter had not been 
submitted within the first deadline, South Africa had sought to invoke this provision under the 
case-by-case approval process and had proposed certain minimum requirements until the PRA was completed. Despite this, South African fresh fruit, although historically exported to Thailand, was 
now excluded from the Thai market. Although Sout h Africa had provided the information necessary 
to conduct the required PRAs, the Thai authorities had not indicated when the PRAs were likely to be concluded. Consultations at technical and diplomatic levels had been pursued over the past four and a half years, in order to resume trade under the interim provision for historical exporters to 
Thailand. Although South Africa welcomed the recently concluded agreement which allowed its 
exports of fresh citrus fruit into Thailand, it remained concerned that the ban on table grapes, apples and pears, as well as stone fruit, continued. The ban had disrupted successful, safe fruit 
exports to Thailand, depriving South African producers and exporters of a growing market and 
limiting the choice of Thai consumers. South Africa urged Thailand to lift the ban, so historic trade could resume, and to conclude the required PRAs with urgency. 
2.284.  Senegal asked for information on the phytosanitary reason for this ban on table grapes 
and apples. 
2.285.  Thailand confirmed that the importation of  certain fresh fruit and plants was prohibited 
under the Thai Plant Quarantine Act, until the NPPO had completed a PRA. All of the relevant 
measures had been notified to the WTO. South Africa's request to export table grapes and other 
fruits to Thailand was now in the PRA process by the Thai NPPO. The PRA process required different treatments of different pests, which could involve a lengthy technical discussion. 
Thailand's exports of fresh produce to South Africa, such as mangosteen and longan, were subject 
to a similar PRA process. Thailand indicated that it had approved the PRA for citrus from South Africa, allowing importation of citrus fruits. Thailand suggested that the NPPOs of both countries 
engage directly to find a mutually satisfactory solution to the issue. 
2.14  Turkey 2.14.1  Animal Health Requirements for importatio n of sheep meat (STC 340) 
Raised by: Australia 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, paras. 19-20) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.286.  In October 2012, Australia raised concerns about the undue delay by Turkey in providing 
information regarding its measures on the importation of sheep meat, requested in April 2011. 
Australia recalled Turkey's obligations under the SPS Agreement to act in a transparent manner G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 73 - 
 
  and to ensure that any SPS measure be based on scientific evidence, only applied to the extent 
necessary, and not unjustifiably discriminate between Members. 
2.287.  Turkey responded that its authorities were still working on the requirements and 
certification procedures for the importation of sheep  meat, and that these would be in line with the 
SPS Agreement. Turkey also committed to sharing the outcomes with Australia as soon as these 
were completed. 
2.15  United States of America 
2.15.1  Food safety 
US 2009 Food Safety Enhancement Act (STC 299) 
Raised by: China, India 
Supported by: Costa Rica, Jamaica, Mexico, Pakistan, Philippines 
Dates raised: June 2010 (G/SPS/R/59, paras. 21-23), March 2011 (G/SPS/R/62, 
paras. 43-47), June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, paras. 42-45), October 2011 
(G/SPS/R/64, paras. 52-54), March 2012 (G/SPS/R/66, paras. 61-63) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/690/Add.11, G/SPS/N/USA/704/Add.2, 
G/SPS/N/USA/2156, G/SPS/N/USA/2156/Add.1, 
G/SPS/N/USA/2156/Add.2, G/SPS/N/USA/2156/Add.2/Rev.1, 
G/SPS/N/USA/2156/Add.3, G/SPS/N/USA/2156/Add.3/Rev.1, G/SPS/N/USA/2156/Add.3/Rev.1/Corr.1, G/SPS/N/USA/2156/Add.4, 
G/SPS/N/USA/703/Add.3, G/TBT/W/349 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.288.  In June 2010, China expressed concerns related to the US 2009 Food Safety Enhancement Act. The US Congress had proposed several new measures, including required registration for 
export food companies, follow-up inspections, co mpulsory certification for high risk imported 
products and the expansion of FDA authority. Chin a asked the United States to notify these new 
measures and to provide the opportunity for Members to make comments before the adoption of the legislation. 
2.289.  India expressed the need to understand th e proposed legislation. Indian industry had 
questions regarding the duration of the registration process, whether it was modelled on international standards, whether foreign government and sector associations would be notified 
before or after a food facility was inspected, and how the fast-track process for registration would 
work. Once it had a better understanding of this process, India would seek further clarification. 
2.290.  The United States clarified that the US Congress was in the process of considering this 
legislation and it was not clear when the bill would become law, if at all. Accordingly, because the 
Food Safety Enhancement Act was not a SPS measure, the United States did not believe it was appropriate to comment on it at this time. However, if this bill or any other food safety legislation did become law, the United States would alert its trading partners, and would notify the WTO 
accordingly. 
2.291.  In March 2011, China, supported by Costa Rica and Pakistan, stated that despite promises 
to that effect, the United States had not notifi ed the draft US Food Safety Modernization Act 
(FSMA) before the Act was formally adopted in January 2011. Hence, Members were only provided 
an opportunity to comment on the Act when it wa s notified by the United States on 2 March 2011. 
China asked that the United States notify draft regulations from the Act so that Members would 
have an opportunity to provide comments. 
2.292.  Jamaica raised several concerns regarding the FSMA relating to: (i) guidelines on the 
mandatory preventative controls for food facilities; (ii) produce safety standards in place in Jamaica and other CARICOM countries; (iii) the status of the Jamaican Bureau of Standards' 
inspection checklist vis-à-vis the mandatory inspection of foreign facilities commencing in 2012; G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 74 - 
 
  (iv) special and differential treatment with regards to the implementation period for enhancing 
food tracing and record-keeping; (v) foods tested by an accredited laboratory in Jamaica and whether they would need to be tested in the United  States; (vi) the determination of the eligibility 
of a body listed as one of the accreditation bodies; and (vii) training and funding on the 
interpretation and implementation of the Act. 
2.293.  The Philippines requested that the measur es and standards of the Act not be unnecessarily 
burdensome nor unduly increase the cost of compliance for small industries. Mexico expressed 
concern regarding the administration of foods and that some elements of the Act were not based 
on science. Mexico noted that it would submit its comments to the relevant authorities. 
2.294.  The United States indicated that Members would be given an opportunity to comment on 
draft regulations before they were finalized and be came binding on affected parties, including food 
manufacturers and importers. The FSMA required  that FDA publish regulations and guidance 
documents to implement the provisions of the law and the FDA would publish those documents 
over the next several years. Regarding Jamaica's comments on food controls, regulations would be 
developed and Jamaica would have the opportunity to comment during the drafting process. The 
concerns regarding the inspection frequency and checklists, would be forwarded to the FDA for consideration. The United States further noted that concerning Jamaica`s queries on food tracing, 
record-keeping and laboratory accreditation, draft regulations would take into consideration 
information provided by Members as well as existi ng arrangements. Finally, it was noted that the 
FDA was still developing plans with regards to capacity development. 
2.295.  In June 2011, India indicated that the FSMA introduced an elaborate multi-layered scheme 
of checks within the food supply chain to minimi ze the possibility of food contamination, putting 
extra burden on exporters and leading to higher transaction costs. In this light, India sought 
clarification on several key issues, including the foreign supplier verification programme, the 
voluntary qualified importer programme, certification and audit, and regulations to be introduced 
under the FSMA. India urged the United States to ensure the FSMA was in line with the SPS Agreement and the Codex principles and guidelin es for the design, operation, assessment and 
accreditation of food import and export inspection and certification systems. 
2.296.  China expressed disappointment that th e United States did not notify nor provide a 
sufficient comment period. To avoid unnecessary restrictions on trade, the United States should consider the compatibility of the FSMA regulations with those of developing country Members with 
whom the United States had signed bilateral SPS pr otocols. Bearing in mind the importance of food 
and agricultural exports for developing country Members, the United States should provide a 
sufficient transition period, as well as technica l assistance, for developing country Members to 
adapt to the new requirements. 
2.297.  Mexico remained concerned about the administrative procedures in Section 207, the 
requirements for accreditation, the inspection procedures regarding control and approval in 
Section 306, the possibility of recognition of equivalence between countries or Memoranda of 
Understanding, and Section 301 regarding foreign suppliers. Mexico appreciated the US presentation at the last Committee meeting and the meetings between Mexican and FDA authorities in June. 
2.298.  The United States emphasized its commi tment to implementing FSMA in a transparent 
manner according to its WTO obligations, and keeping in mind Codex standards, guidelines, and texts. It had notified FSMA as G/SPS/N/USA/2156 in February 2011, and the FDA had conducted 
numerous outreach sessions including a special session at the March SPS Committee meeting to 
provide detailed explanations of the law. The United States had received comments from China and Mexico, but not from India, before the June  meeting. The FDA had not yet implemented the 
provisions regarding foreign supplier and voluntary importer programmes and welcomed Members' 
comments when these provisions were notified, in pa rticular scientific evidence on potential health 
and safety concerns and data on economic impacts. The United States reported that it would notify all implementing regulations to foreign stakehol ders through the WTO, as they were developed 
and consistent with its international obligations. A series of events had been organized between 
FDA representatives in Delhi and relevant Indian authorities, including a briefing on the FSMA in February 2011, a discussion regarding third party certification in May 2011, a series of four-day 
workshops to over 175 participants in May 2011, an d a meeting with senior Indian officials and 
exporters in October 2011. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 75 - 
 
  2.299.  In October 2011, China emphasized the importance of food and agricultural exports for 
developing country Members, and urged the United St ates to provide a sufficient transition period 
before implementation of the FSMA, as well as te chnical assistance for Members to adapt to the 
new requirements. 
2.300.  India stated that the FSMA created ex tra burdens for exporters and led to higher 
transaction costs. India argued that various pr ovisions of the FSMA did not reflect the core 
principles of equivalence (Article 4) and harmonization (Article 3) of the SPS Agreement, and 
urged the United States to ensure the FSMA was in line with the SPS Agreement so as not to affect 
trade between Members. India's key concerns related to the registration of Foreign Food Facilities, 
the Voluntary Qualified Importer Program, Certification and Audit and the Foreign Supplier Verification Program. 
2.301.  The United States noted that FDA was as transparent as possible, including making 
presentations to the SPS Committee, holding numerous outreach sessions with all stakeholders, keeping current information on the Web. The Unit ed States was committed to implement FSMA in 
a transparent manner consistent with its WTO obligations and would take into account relevant 
Codex standards and guidelines. The FDA had issued interim final rules requiring persons submitting prior notice of imported food to report any other countries' refusal of the food 
(G/SPS/N/USA/690/Add.11) and had also amended criteria used to order administrative detention 
of food for human or animal consumption (G/S PS/N/USA/704/Add.2). The FDA had not yet issued 
regulations for the FSMA provisions for the fore ign supplier and voluntary importer programmes. 
Members could comment when the proposed rules were notified. The United States welcomed 
Members' perspectives on implementation of the FSMA. 
2.302.  In March 2012, India recalled that in October 2011 it had raised concerns that the FSMA 
put extra burden on exporters, and reiterated the provisions of greatest concern. India urged the 
United States to communicate the timeframe for the issuance of these regulations, and asked 
whether the regulations would provide for bilateral mutual recognition agreements that could help Indian exporters access the US market. India also requested information on how much time would 
be provided to exporters to meet new requirements , as this would require technical assistance and 
better understanding to ensure all regulations were fully followed. India also requested clarification 
about the additional costs to exporters for the registration of foreign suppliers. 
2.303.  China echoed the concerns of India,  and recalled the US document G/TBT/W/349 
concerning the use of the International Labora tory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) Mutual 
Recognition Arrangement (MRA) and the International Accreditation Forum (IAF) Multilateral Recognition Arrangement (MLA) by central governme nt bodies. China requested confirmation that 
the US FDA had taken concrete steps to accept test results issued by testing laboratories from 
exporting Members accredited under the ILAC MRA framework. 
2.304.  The United States recalled that it notified  FSMA and certain user fee rates in February and 
October 2011, respectively (G/SPS/N/USA/2156 and addenda). An interim final rule had been 
notified (G/SPS/N/USA/703/Add.3) to amend FD A's regulation on the record availability 
requirements. The amendment expands FDA's access authority to records relating to any other article of food that the Secretary of Health Human Services reasonably believes is likely to be 
affected in a similar manner. Trading partners should submit comments on the notified measures. 
The United States hoped to soon publish proposed rules relating to preventive controls for human 
foods and animal feed, produce safety, foreign supplier verification, and third-party accreditation. 
The FDA would be mindful of the Codex Alimentarius standards, guidelines and related texts, while 
ensuring FSMA programmes provided the appropriate level of health protection for US consumers. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 76 - 
 
  US default MRLs, limits of determination or limits of quantification on basmati rice 
(STC 328) 
Raised by: India 
Supported by: New Zealand 
Dates raised: October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, para. 47-48), March 2012 (G/SPS/R/66, 
paras. 47-49), July 2012 (G/SPS/R/67, paras. 29-30) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.305.  In October 2011, India stated that in August 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued an import alert because of the presence  of the fungicide Tricyclazole in a shipment of 
basmati rice. The shipment was detained without informing either the Indian Government or the 
exporter, and all subsequent consignments of basmat i rice by that exporter were detained without 
physical examination. The US tolerance was at the Limit of Quantification, and consignments were 
being rejected for Tricyclazole residues exceed ing 0.01 ppm. These detentions and the imposition 
of testing charges had resulted in huge losses to the exporter. Tricyclazole was a fungicide used for treatment of Blast in rice. The US tolerance limits conflicted with Article 5.4 of the SPS Agreement, which required Members to take in to account the objective of minimizing negative 
trade effects, as Tricyclazole was widely used in India, China, Japan and Thailand for treatment of 
Blast. Further, Article 5.5 was not respected as the FDA permitted MRLs of Tricyclazole in rice 
bran, rice hulls and rice polishings of up to 30 ppm. No risk assessment, as mandated by Articles 
2.2 and 5.1, seems to have been undertaken while setting the tolerance limit for Tricyclazole. 
India argued that the practice of setting default limits was contrary to the core principles of the 
SPS Agreement as there appeared to be no scientific justification, and it seemed to be contrary to 
the principle of harmonization of Article 3. 
2.306.  The United States replied that under the US Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, a food was 
deemed adulterated if it contained a pesticide for which there was no Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-established tolerance or exemption, an d food that is adulterated is not admitted into 
the United States. Several firms and products had been added to FDA's Import Alert #99-08, 
"Detention Without Physical Examination of Processed Foods due to Illegal Pesticide Residues" Products, including persimmon and rice flour, as well as basmati rice from three countries, had 
been subject to an Import Alert due to detection of Tricyclazole. The Government of India and the 
exporter were notified about the detention. When a shipment was detained, the importer had the opportunity to demonstrate that the shipment did not contain the residue, and FDA usually 
accepted private laboratory analysis as evidence that there were no residues. No tolerances for the 
use of Tricyclazole as a pesticide in rice had been established by EPA. The EPA had established tolerances for rice for three alternative fungicides, namely Azoxystrobin, Propiconazole, and Trifloxystrobin. India could use one of the alternative fungicides to combat rice Blast or work with 
EPA to establish a tolerance for Tricyclazole in the United States. The Codex had not established a 
maximum tolerance level for Tricyclazole in any food. The United States encouraged India to work with EPA and FDA to address the concerns. 
2.307.  In March 2012, India reiterated its concerns regarding US rejections of basmati rice due to 
the presence of Tricyclazole. India recalled the US response at the October meeting, and argued, 
that under Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement scientific justification should be provided for fixing any 
MRL for pesticides and that a Limit of Detection requirement must be justified. Tricyclazole was 
registered and used in the European Union, China and Japan for rice, with MRLs of 1 ppm, 2 ppm and 3 ppm, respectively. According to Article 5.7, Members could adopt the standards of other countries when there was no relevant international standard. India urged the Committee to invite 
the Codex Alimentarius Commission to examine the scientific basis of the US measure, under 
Article 12.6. US authorities had agreed to bilateral discussions and India urged the United States to allow imports based on the domestic standard of the exporting country, until both countries 
were able to finalize the MRL based on scientific justification. 
2.308.  The United States noted that a food was deemed adulterated if it contained a pesticide for 
which there was no EPA-established tolerance or  exemption, and FDA had found residues of G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 77 - 
 
  Tricyclazole and other pesticides at unapproved levels in shipments of basmati rice. When a 
shipment was detained, the importer had the opportunity to demonstrate that the individual shipment did not contain the residue, and multiple shipments had been released in cases where approved laboratory findings demonstrated compliance with US tolerances, and one firm had been 
removed from Import Alert. Since the last Committee meeting, more chemicals without US 
tolerances had been detected in Indian basmati ri ce shipments into the United States. This raised 
fundamental concerns as to whether good agricu ltural practices were in place, rather than 
indiscriminate use of pesticides. One of the manufacturers of Tricyclazole had submitted a petition 
to the EPA in February 2011 to establish an import tolerance on basmati rice. The United States encouraged India to continue working with FDA and EPA to address the concerns of the Import Alert, and the presence of Tricyclazole and other pesticides. 
2.309.  India reiterated its request under Article 12.6 for the Committee to invite the Codex 
Alimentarius Commission to consider the scientific basis of the US measure, since no standards currently existed in relation to the issue. The Chair stated that India's request under Article 12.6 
would require separate consideration and reminded India that the Committee would need to take a 
decision by consensus on this issue. The Chair in vited India to submit its request in writing, for 
consideration by the Committee at the next regular session. New Zealand asked that India give a 
detailed account of the background of this issue in its request under Article 12.6. 
2.310.  In July 2012, India requested the United Stat es to provide the scientific justification for its 
MRLs for pesticides in light of Articles 2.2 and 5.1 of the SPS Agreement. Additionally, India requested the United States to provide a scientific justification for establishing MRLs for pesticides 
at the limits of determination (LoD). India was working with the EPA to address its concerns on the 
import alert, which had been issued due to the presence of Tricyclazole and other pesticides. In this regard a letter had been set by Dow Chemicals to the US authorities providing details for 
fixing MRLs for tricyclazole at LoD. India urge d the United States to expedite the process. 
2.311.  The United States reiterated that repeated violations of US law could result in putting a 
firm on an import alert, subjecting that firm to detention without physical examination. Since the 
initial detection of Tricyclazole in June 2011, the FDA had added 11 Indian firms to its import alert 
list, and a further seven pesticides were detected at unapproved levels. Since October 2011, the FDA had collected 70 samples of basmati rice from India, detecting pesticide residues of illegal substances in 36 shipments. Shipments that were able to demonstrate that they met US 
requirements were released into the US market , otherwise entry was refused. FDA was working 
with the Export Inspection Council in India to establish a voluntary compliance programme to monitor basmati rice shipped to the United States and ensure it was free of the pesticide. The All 
India Rice Export Association had also reported the initiation of outreach efforts on good 
agricultural practices to limit the use of illegal pesticides and chemicals in an effort to improve farming practices. The United States reiterated that the detention of shipments of basmati rice was 
due to the use of unapproved pesticides and enco uraged India to inform exporters about the US 
tolerance regulations; to address the concerns of th e US import alert; and to work closely with the 
FDA and the Export Inspection Council to resolve this public health concern. 
2.15.2  Animal Health 
US risk analysis for the entry of queen bees (STC 301) 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2010 (G/SPS/R/59, paras. 28-29), October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, 
paras. 53-54) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.312.  In June 2010, Argentina raised concerns about US risk analysis for the importation of queen bees from Argentina into the North American market. Argentina had conducted research 
and provided information to the US Animal and Pl ant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). There had G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 78 - 
 
  been a constructive exchange and Argentina hoped to soon report the satisfactory conclusion of 
the risk assessment. 
2.313.  The United States reported that due to the importance of beekeeping in US agriculture, 
there was a high level of protection against foreign bee pests and diseases. On 7 June 2010, the 
US Department of Agriculture (USDA) had starte d a national bee pest and disease survey to 
determine the prevalence of parasites and diseas e-causing micro-organisms that could contribute 
to the observed decline of American honey b ee colonies. Two laws, the Honey Bee Act and the 
Plant Protection Act, direct the USDA to enforce sanitary regulations to protect honey bee colonies, 
and the United States had published science-bas ed risk assessment procedures for approving 
imports of bees. With respect to Argentina's request for a risk assessment, the United States had provided the findings of an assessment to the Argentine authorities in 2004, identifying three pests 
of concern in Argentine bees: Africanized honey bee, Braula schmitzi (bee louse), and Varroa 
destructor (mite). In September 2009, the United States had informed Argentina that the risk assessment was being revised to reflect changes in bee health and risks worldwide. Information 
collected from the national survey launched in June 2010 would inform further risk assessment of 
Argentine queen bees. 
2.314.  In October 2012, Argentina expressed its concern about the delays by the United States in 
granting authorization for the importation of queen bees. Argentina had requested access to the 
US market in 2000 and had submitted all the information requested by USDA/APHIS in order to facilitate the pest risk analysis (PRA). It was not until 2004 that the United States requested further information, including the provision of the genetic characterization of Argentina's queen 
bees, which was submitted. In 2008, after three years of research, with the participation of 
laboratories from Spain, an ad hoc scoping study was presented which demonstrated the absence of Africanized bees and of parasitic exotic plag ues in Argentina. In 2009, USDA/APHIS informed 
Argentina that the PRA of queen bees was not a re gulatory priority and that is would not proceed 
with the assessment. This situation was inconsistent with Articles 5, 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement and Argentina was concerned that the information which it had submitted in a timely 
manner would no longer be valid when USDA/APHIS finally decided to consider its request. 
2.315.  The United States indicated that a number of factors had contributed to the declining 
health of honey bee colonies in the United States over the past few years. Some of the factors affecting honey bees included the introduction into  the United States of several foreign bee pests 
and new diseases caused by viruses. For this reason, an effective level of security had been 
established to prevent the introduction of fore ign bee pests and diseases, which could rapidly 
spread throughout the United States. A science-based risk assessment procedure had been 
published for approval of countries' exports of b ees, including from Argentina, to the US market. 
In compliance with the risk assessment procedur e and based on changes in bee health and risks 
worldwide, the United States had requested technical information from Argentina on several 
occasions and letters were exchanged in 2011 and 2012. After reviewing the data, the USDA 
informed its counterpart SENASA in September 2012 that Argentina's request for access for bees could not be considered until further information and disease information was provided. There was no delay in the US PRA, but, as stated in September 2012, Argentina needed to provide 
information regarding the presence of diseases in Argentina's bee population and on the regulatory 
control of imports of honey bees into Argentina. The United States urged Argentina to quickly respond to this request for information in order to expedite their request and resolve the concern. 
US failure to recognize South Patagonia as FMD-free and to import beef from North of 
the 42nd Parallel (STC 318) 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, paras. 17-18), October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, 
paras. 96-97), July 2012 (G/SPS/R/67, paras. 43-44), , WT/DS447/2 
Relevant document(s): WT/DS447/1, WT/DS447/1/Corr.1, WT/DS447/2 
Solution: DSU consultations requested on 30 August 2012 
Status:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 79 - 
 
  2.316.  In June 2011, Argentina expressed its concern that the United States failed to recognize 
South Patagonia as a FMD-free region without vaccination, despite the OIE recognition of this status for South Patagonia since 2002. The request for recognition had been sent to the United States in 2003, and a risk analysis conducted in 2007 gave satisfactory results, however no 
recognition had been granted. Argentina was also concerned about the delay in the US 
authorization of imports of fresh, chilled and frozen beef from the region north of the 42nd 
parallel. The OIE recognized the rest of Argentina as an FMD-free area with vaccination in 2007. 
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) had carried out an audit in 2006, but had never 
reported the results. The delays in processing both of these requests were not due to scientific reasons and were therefore in contravention of Articles 3 and 6, and Annex C, of the SPS Agreement. 
2.317.  The United States stated that USDA was considering several requests from Argentina to 
allow imports of lamb and beef into the United States. USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) had made significant progress in recognizing the FMD-free status of South 
Patagonia. In light of the information Argentina provided in 2009, which was used to update the 
2005 risk analysis, APHIS was able to conclude that the import of ruminants and ruminant products from this region presented a negligible risk of FMD. This information was used in 
preparing a draft report to Congress on the risk associated with importing ruminants or ruminant 
products from Southern Patagonia. By law, the report had to be submitted to the Congress before USDA could move forward with administrative ru le-making. APHIS had also completed the risk 
analysis regarding the region north of the 42nd parallel and would subsequently draft a proposal to 
allow the importation of beef under certain conditions. 
2.318.  In October 2011, Argentina recalled the US comments that the information provided by 
Argentina was useful to prepare a report to Congress as required by the Agriculture and Rural 
Development, Food and Drug Administration Appropriations Act of 2009, Section 737. The United 
States had also indicated that APHIS had completed the risk analysis for the rest of Argentina and had drafted proposed regulations to allow for the importation of meat products. However, in spite 
of this, trade had not resumed and imports from Argentina continued to be restricted without any 
scientific basis. Argentina requested the United States to complete its risk analysis and allow access to the US market for meat products. 
2.319.  The United States stated that it was working closely with the Argentine authorities and 
APHIS had made significant progress in recognizing the FMD-free status of South Patagonia. APHIS 
had completed the risk assessment and was drafting a proposal to allow the importation of beef under certain conditions. When the assessment and rules were completed in the near future, the 
United States would be able to provide market access for Argentine beef. 
2.320.  In July 2012, Argentina reiterated its concerns regarding undue delays in the US 
authorization of imports of fresh, chilled or frozen bovine meat from FMD-free with vaccination 
areas, and in the recognition of areas as FMD-free without vaccination, requests made in 2006 and 
2003, respectively. After finalizing its risk analysis, the United States had committed itself to allow imports of meat from FMD-free with vaccination areas, under certain conditions. The United States had also stated that the import of ruminants and ruminant products from the FMD-free without 
vaccination areas represented a negligible FMD risk to animal health. The United States had 
informed Argentina that it would prepare a report for the US Congress. Argentina questioned the need for the intervention of a political organ, an d the legal basis for this process. Although the 
scientific phase had been completed with favourable results of the risk analysis for both areas, 
there had been no advancement on the requests. Ar gentina requested the United States to explain 
the delays in the administrative procedures to allow the import of meat from both areas of 
Argentina, and to indicate the time foreseen for the completion of the process. 
2.321.  The United States reported that in 2007 it had published a proposed rule recognizing 
Southern Patagonia as FMD-free. Several stakeholders had expressed grave concerns regarding the potential risks of the spread of FMD to the Un ited States. Given this response, the US Congress 
had required USDA to submit a report to Co ngress regarding the FMD risk associated with 
importing animal products from Southern Patagonia in 2009. Since that time, USDA had been in consultation with the relevant stakeholders and legislative bodies to review the issue. Imports of 
cooked products from Argentina were not prohibited. The United States recognized the priority 
Argentina placed on the request and was committed to resolving the concern as expeditiously as possible.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 80 - 
 
  2.322.  In accordance with the provisions of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing 
the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Argentina requested consultations with the United States on 30 August 2012 (WT/DS447/1). Argentina requested the establishment of a panel on 6 December 2012 (WT/DS447/2). 
2.15.3  Plant Health 
Prohibition of Ornamental Plants Larger than 18 inches (STC 292) 
Raised by: Costa Rica 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2010 (G/SPS/R/58, paras. 21-22) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Concern resolved following the publication by the United States of a 
modified regulation addressing the concerns of Costa Rica. 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 10 July 2012 
 
2.323.  In March 2010, Costa Rica referred to the US restrictions on the importation of ornamental 
plants larger than 18 inches, based on the US Code of Federal Regulation, section 37, part 319, 
title 7 (7 CFR § 319.37). Costa Rica reported that in early 2000 it had conducted a risk assessment to support its request for the United States to lift its restrictions. Based on a US request, Costa Rica had established and operated a Clean Stock Program, aimed at reducing the number of 
interceptions of exports of ornamental plants to the United States. The Clean Stock Program for 
Dracaena marginata started to operate in 2005, and it involved authorities from Costa Rica and the United States. The Program concluded its work in December 2008. However, more than one 
year after the conclusion of the Program, the Un ited States had not yet initiated a process to 
modify its regulation restricting the importation of ornamental plants larger than 18 inches. A working plan had been elaborated by the regula tory agencies of both countries, nevertheless, 
Costa Rica was concerned that despite the agreem ent on the technical issues of the plan, the 
United States was taking too long to revise its restrictions. 
2.324.  The United States reported that the au thorities of both countries had been working 
cooperatively on issues related to the importation of tropical foliage, particularly dracaena spp.. 
The on-going work addressed the development of greater surveillance and inspection protocols to 
reduce the high number of interceptions. The US  Department of Agriculture (USDA) was working 
with Costa Rica on a work plan and a proposed rule to allow the safe entry of oversized dracaena 
spp. To complete the science-based review proc ess, the USDA was awaiting a response on the 
draft work plan by Costa Rica, so as to expand the current Clean Stock Program. 
2.325.  In July 2012, Costa Rica reported that its specific trade concern on the "Prohibition of 
Ornamental Plants Larger than 18 inches" (No. 292) had been resolved following the publication by 
the United States of a modified regulation addr essing the concerns of Costa Rica. The United 
States thanked Costa Rica for its outstanding co-operation and collaborative efforts in resolving the concern. 
US measures on fresh lemons from the No rth West region of Argentina (STC 336) 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2012 (G/SPS/R/67, paras. 27-28) 
Relevant document(s): WT/DS448/1 and WT/DS448/1/Corr.1, WT/DS448/2 
Solution: DSU consultations requested on 30 August 2012 
Status:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.326.  In July 2012, Argentina expressed its concerns about the delay for reopening the US fresh 
lemon market for exports from its North West region. After six years of negotiations, Argentina G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 81 - 
 
  and the United States had agreed on the risk mi tigation measures for citrus canker and other 
pests, and in August 2000, the United States had opened its citrus markets for Argentinian exports. Argentina recalled that in September 2001, the United States suspended the import of citrus products from the North West region of Argentina following a court ruling. Negotiations to 
reopen the market were initiated in 2005, when citrus canker had spread to Florida and could no 
longer be the reason to restrict imports from Argentina. The US Department of Agriculture/ Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDA/APHIS) requested, inter alia , that the fruit must 
originate from areas free of Citrus Variegated Chlorosis (CVC). This requirement was 
disproportionate and unjustified, as no other market in the world considered CVC to be a pest requiring quarantine measures for fresh lemons. Although Argentina had agreed to carry out a study of disease transmissibility, this was not possible as the absence of the disease in lemon trees 
did not allow for the isolation of the bacteria. In November 2011, in agreement with APHIS, 
Argentina sent a report demonstrating the absence of CVC in lemons. In May 2012, Argentina requested an answer from the United States an d on 4 June 2012, APHIS replied that despite the 
fact that the report indicated absence of CVC, there was no information indicating the conditions 
under which the lemon trees could become infected with the bacteria. In ignoring the scientific evidence presented, the United States was acting inconsistently with Articles 2.2, 5.1, 5.6 and 8 of 
the SPS Agreement, and the unjustified delay in reopening the market was seriously affecting the 
regional economy. 
2.327.  The United States stated that APHIS had worked with Argentina's SENASA for several 
years to develop a pest risk assessment and a set of risk mitigation measures that would permit 
the safe import of lemons from the North West region. APHIS was currently evaluating the 
occurrence and transmissibility of diseases such as  CVC, citrus canker and other pests of concern, 
as well as potential mitigation measures, before it could consider allowing imports from this 
region. The United States was not ignoring the scientific evidence from Argentina, and had sent a 
letter on 4 June 2012 to SENASA communicating the outcome of APHIS' evaluation of Argentina's 
report on the transmissibility of CVC in lemons, and indicating that it would subsequently share a 
pest risk assessment for consultation. APHIS was waiting for SENASA's response to the letter. The 
United States remained committed to work closely with Argentina. 
2.328.  In accordance with the provisions of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing 
the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Argentina requested consultations with the United States on 
30 August 2012 (WT/DS448/1). Argentina requested the establishment of a panel on 
6 December 2012 (WT/DS448/2). 
Restrictions on tomatoes (STC 339) 
Raised by: Senegal 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, paras. 17-18) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/2019 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.329.  In October 2012, Senegal raised concerns regarding US restrictions on imports of 
tomatoes due to alleged presence of the pest tuta absoluta . In the framework of the African 
Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), a team of experts from the United States had made recommendations regarding Senegal's tomato production which were complied with. In 2009, 
when information was received of the reappearance of the tuta absoluta  in parts of Europe 
originating from Latin America, Senegal effectively banned imports from infested areas, particularly Morocco, as notified in G/SPS/N/SEN/7 in 2010. The US ban on imports of tomatoes had not been notified or verified with the Senegalese authorities, although subsequently a bilateral 
technical meeting had been held to seek resolution of the issue. 
2.330.  The United States highlighted that the issue raised by Senegal was discussed in a bilateral 
technical discussion and an agreement to work together to address the concern was reached, with 
progress to be reported at the next meeting. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 82 - 
 
  2.15.4  Other concerns 
Measures on catfish (STC 289) 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, paras. 21-22), October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, 
paras. 29-30) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/2171 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.331.  In October 2009, China raised concerns about the US Federal Meat Inspection Act which potentially could have a significant impact on the international trade of catfish. According to the 
Act, regulatory responsibility for catfish was shifted from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 
to the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). US DA was mandated to draft a series of rules 
concerning the production and inspection requirements for catfish before the beginning of 2010; 
countries wanting to export or to continue exporting catfish to the United States were required to 
have their inspection system recognized by the USDA as equivalent to the US system. China had 
serious concerns about the possible negative impact  this change of the regulatory system could 
have on the current catfish trade. China reques ted an explanation of the sudden change of the 
regulatory system, and whether any SPS risk factors had triggered the decision. China also 
questioned whether the US policy would remain consistent in order to avoid any adverse effect to the existing trade of catfish, and whether the ex isting trade between China and the United States 
would be taken into consideration when developing the new regulatory system. 
2.332.  The United States stated that the Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, signed into 
law on 18 June 2008, amended the Federal Meat Inspection Act and required USDA's Food Safety 
Inspection Service (FSIS) to establish a new fede ral programme for the production and inspection 
of catfish. In preparation of the anticipated chan ges to the federal regulations, USDA had visited 
and communicated with many Members to alert th em to the new law. Members were encouraged 
to participate in the rule-making process once it was announced and notified via the WTO, and to 
identify any potential concerns with the proposed regulation as soon as possible. 
2.333.  In October 2012, China recalled that in March 2011, the United States notified a 
requirement for mandatory inspection of catfish and catfish products which included catfish 
regulation with that of terrestrial animal meat products. Aquatic animal products presented lower 
risks than terrestrial animal products, and China sought an explanation and risk assessment from the United States. Moreover, China hoped that if  the regulation were to be implemented, the 
United States would respect the traditional transitional period of 5 years considering China's 
developing country status. 
2.334.  The United States recalled that the Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 mandated 
that catfish be regulated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act. A proposed rule for the inspection 
of catfish was notified to the WTO and comments accepted until 24 June 2011. The US Department 
of Agriculture was still reviewing the comments and would notify the adoption of the final rules for 
inspection of catfish before implementation. Th e United States would make every effort to 
minimize disruptions to trade once the catfish inspection program began. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 83 - 
 
  2.16  Viet Nam 
2.16.1  Food safety Ban on offals (STC 314) 
Raised by: United States of America, European Union 
Supported by: Australia, Canada, New Zealand 
Dates raised: March 2011 (G/SPS/R/62, paras. 28-31), June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, 
paras. 60-63), October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, paras. 57-60), March 2012 
(G/SPS/R/66, paras. 39-41), July 2012 (G/SPS/R/67, paras. 31-35), 
October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, paras. 33-35) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.335.  In March 2011, the United States expresse d concerns about Viet Nam's implementation of 
a temporary ban on the importation of offal produc ts as of 7 July 2010. While Viet Nam had cited 
food safety concerns for the implementation of the ban, in spite of repeated requests from several 
trading partners, Viet Nam had neither notified the WTO of this measure, nor had it provided any scientific justification for the ban. The United States had raised this issue bilaterally in the margins of previous Committee meetings and at Transpacif ic Partnership meetings, but was yet to see any 
change in the ban. 
2.336.  Canada supported the concerns of the United States. Canada was informed of the ban only 
after it had been imposed, and was not provided  any scientific explanation for the action. This 
action had resulted in the immediate ban of trade valued at 4.2 million Canadian dollars in 2009. 
Canada had made numerous requests for Viet Nam to remove the ban, and the Canadian embassy in Viet Nam had been informed that Viet Nam intended to partially lift the ban. However, Viet Nam 
had subsequently introduced additional SPS requirements on offal imports, which Canada hoped 
were science-based. 
2.337.  The European Union, New Zealand and Australia supported the concerns expressed by the 
United States and Canada. 
2.338.  Viet Nam responded that the emergency measures taken to temporarily suspend the 
importation of offals were in response to grav e public health concerns. According to a 2009 WHO 
report, eight million Vietnamese people had health  problems related to food. Viet Nam was aware 
of the concerns raised by its trading partners and was looking for solutions. However, as a 
developing country with limited resources, it woul d take some time to strengthen the inspection 
procedures and provide uniform guidelines. Viet Nam had already lifted its temporary ban on offals 
from poultry and pork and was currently in discussion with the United States and other trading 
partners to find adequate solutions for both Viet Nam's human health situation and trade. 
2.339.  In June 2011, the United States expressed concerns that Viet Nam continued to restrict 
trade in offal as of July 2010 without providing an y scientific justification or notification. Viet Nam 
had since lifted its ban on hearts, livers, and kidn eys derived from cattle, swine, and poultry, but 
the ban on all other offal products continued. To date, no scientific justification had been provided for the ban, despite many requests for such inform ation, and the United States urged Viet Nam to 
lift its unjustified ban immediately. 
2.340.  The European Union expressed similar concerns and indicated that the ban seriously 
affected EU exports of offal. The ban was not consistent with Viet Nam's obligations under the SPS 
Agreement, as the measure had not been notified; no scientific justification had been provided 
despite requests from trading partners, and there were no similar measures on domestic offal, thereby discriminating against foreign imports. The recent revision of the ban, which would allow resumption of imports of some red offal, was a positive step, but the ban on other types of offal 
remained in place. Viet Nam was urged to immediately lift its ban on all offal or, alternatively, to 
provide a risk assessment and scientific justificatio n. Viet Nam should refrain from implementing G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 84 - 
 
  such measures in the future, and comply with th e transparency requirements and other obligations 
under the SPS Agreement. 
2.341.  New Zealand supported the systemic conc erns expressed by the United States and the 
European Union, specifically with regard to the lack of notification and scientific justification, and 
requested Viet Nam to lift the ban as soon as possible. 
2.342.  Viet Nam responded that there was no formal regulation banning imports of offal. During 
2009 and early 2010, imported frozen animal and animal products were found to violate the food 
s a f e t y  r e q u i r e m e n t s  o f  V i e t  N a m ;  w i t h i n  t h a t  t i m e  p e r i o d ,  V i e t  N a m  d e t e c t e d  a n d  d i s p o s e d  o f  
94 tons of meat, 42,57 tons of offal, and 234,000 chickens. In order to protect Vietnamese consumers, the government issued Letter 1152 requesting relevant agencies to better control imported animal products. The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) enacted 
Circular 25 on registration and management to cont rol the import of animal products, and Circular 
29 on criteria for testing and control to regulate the level of contaminants in animal products. To continue trade in animal offal, the MARD Department of Animal Health enacted an official letter on 
23 March 2011 to guide the import of red offal. On 1 June 2011, the MARD sent Letter 1528 to 
Viet Nam's customs offices to inform them of the decision to allow trade in red offal. According to data from the Department of Animal Health, from March to May 2011 Viet Nam imported 170 tons 
of red offal from the United States and Canada. Viet Nam still banned all trade in white offal and 
intended to conduct a risk assessment on white offa l. Viet Nam was willing to meet bilaterally with 
interested Members, and sought more information and data with which to conduct the risk assessment with the goal of opening trade in white offal. 
2.343.  In October 2011, the European Union indicated that Viet Nam's ban continued to seriously 
affect EU exports of offal, and recalled that Viet Nam had previously indicated its intention to conduct a risk-assessment. Viet Nam claimed to have taken these measures because imported 
frozen animals and animal products were found to  violate its food safety requirements. However, 
Viet Nam had indicated that no violations were fo und on EU products, and as such import bans on 
EU offal were not justified. Moreover, since there were no similar measures on domestic offal, the 
measure discriminated against foreign imports. The European Union welcomed Viet Nam's partial 
lifting of the ban on red offal, and looked forwar d to Viet Nam's commitment to lift the ban by end 
of 2011. 
2.344.  The United States shared concerns about Viet Nam's restrictions on offal without any 
scientific justification or notification being provided to the WTO or trading partners. After months 
of discussions, MARD had provided an official indica tion in July 2011 that it would lift its ban on red 
offal, and later on products derived from cattle. However, all other products, such as stomachs and 
intestines derived from cattle, swine, and poultry, remained banned. The United States urged Viet 
Nam to lift all of the bans on offal immediately. 
2.345.  New Zealand repeated its support of the systemic concerns expressed by the European 
Union and the United States, specifically with regard to the lack of notification and scientific 
justification. 
2.346.  Viet Nam reiterated that the temporary measure was geared at protecting human health 
from risks arising from contaminants, toxins or disease-causing organisms in food, and that the 
measure did not aim to impose trade restrictions. In light of the concerns of its trading partners, 
Viet Nam was considering how to prevent a negative trade impact from the measure, and had already lifted the ban on red offals. However, as a developing country with limited resources, the 
Vietnamese authorities needed time to collect the information for risk assessments. Viet Nam 
urged trading partners to provide relevant information and technical cooperation to facilitate the process. 
2.347.  In March 2012, the European Union expressed its continuing concerns with Viet Nam's ban 
on imported offals, and particularly white offals. Although Viet Nam had previously stated that the temporary measure was to protect human health, it had not yet provided a risk assessment. This measure had affected EU exports but there was no indication of any safety problems with EU 
offals. The ban was neither justified nor proportionate and since there were no similar measures 
on domestic offal, the measure discriminated against foreign imports. The European Union urged Viet Nam to immediately lift any remaining restrictions on imports of offals. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 85 - 
 
  2.348.  The United States shared the EU concerns and observed that the measure had not been 
notified nor information provided to trading part ners to support the purported safety concerns. 
While the ban had been lifted on red offal, all other offal products, known as white offal, such as stomachs and intestines, remained banned. Viet Nam was urged to provide a scientific assessment 
or to immediately lift the ban on all offal. 
2.349.  Viet Nam reiterated that the temporary measure was geared at protecting human health 
from high risks from contaminants, toxins or disease-causing organisms in food. In light of the 
concerns of trading partners and to facilitate the trade of food products, including offal, Viet Nam 
had issued a number of documents, such as Food Safety laws, to facilitate the control and regulation of food imports. The ban on red offal had been lifted and the ban on white offal remained because of the lack of a clear definition of offal in international standards. Viet Nam's 
experts were working in close cooperation with trading partners to clearly define offal and to 
discuss other related issues in order to find appropriate solutions. Once again Viet Nam urged interested trading partners to provide relevant information and technical cooperation to facilitate 
the completion of the research process. 
2.350.  In July 2012, the United States recalled that in July 2010, Viet Nam imposed a temporary 
ban on the importation of offals from all countries, including the United States. The measure was 
never notified to the WTO and no scientific data ha d been provided that justified Viet Nam's food 
safety concerns. After months of discussions, in April 2011 Viet Nam provided official notification that it would lift the ban on imports of pork and poultry hearts, livers and kidneys (red offal), and in May 2011, for the same products derived from cattle, but this was not done. In November 2011, 
Viet Nam indicated that it would complete a regulatory review within three months of the offal 
trade suspension. Having received no information on the status of the review, in May 2012 the United States again sent a letter to Viet Nam. The United States remained concerned by Viet 
Nam's continued ban on offal products derived from cattle, swine and poultry and urged Viet Nam 
to immediately lift all of the bans on offal. 
2.351.  The European Union supported the concerns raised by the United States. The ban had only 
been partially lifted for red offals in 2011, and Viet Nam had indicated that further lifting of the 
ban was pending the outcome of the risk assessm ent. The European Union welcomed Viet Nam's 
recent communication that the ban would soon be lifted. 
2.352.  New Zealand expressed a systemic concern as the measure of concern had not been 
notified nor scientific justification provided, and requested that the ban be lifted as soon as 
possible. Australia welcomed the fact that Viet Nam had lifted the ban on red offal but expressed 
disappointment that trade in white offal was still prohibited as it had a significant impact on 
Australian trade. 
2.353.  Viet Nam reiterated that the temporary measure aimed at protecting human health from 
high risks from contaminants, toxins and disease-causing organisms in food. It had strengthened 
its technical regulations and improved its human ca pacity to facilitate the quality control of food 
and food stuff; as a result, the import of red offal had resumed in 2011. The reopening of its market to white offal was under consideration and Viet Nam remained open to bilateral discussions with its trading partners. 
2.354.  In October 2012, the European Union stated that Vietnam had clarified that the ban was 
temporarily imposed due to food safety concerns  and had lifted the ban on red-offal following 
bilateral discussions and confirmation that no problems were detected in offal imported from the 
European Union. However, the ban on white offal remained, and without a risk assessment. The 
European Union urged Vietnam to rapidly find a solution in order to lift the unjustified measure. 
2.355.  Australia, New Zealand, and the United States also noted that the existing ban on white 
offal was affecting their trade and re quested Vietnam to lift the ban. 
2.356.  Viet Nam reiterated that this was a temporary measure to protect human health from 
harmful contaminants, toxins or disease-causing organisms in offal while it improved its human capacity to ensure inspection. Limitations of resources and human capacity had delayed the 
removal of the ban on white offals, however the issue was under consideration. Viet Nam G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 86 - 
 
  appreciated the relationship with its trading partners and was willing to work with them to find an 
amicable solution. 
2.17  Certain Members 2.17.1  Animal Health 
General import restrictions  due to BSE (STC 193) 
Raised by: United States of America, European Union 
Supported by: Canada, Switzerland, Uruguay 
Dates raised: June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 37-38), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, 
paras. 85-86), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 75-76), February 2007 (G/SPS/R/44, para. 29), October 2008 (G/SPS/R/53, paras. 24-
28), February 2009 (G/SPS/R/54, paras. 11-12), June 2009 (G/SPS/55, 
para. 47), October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, para. 46), March 2010 (G/SPS/R/58, paras. 35-36 ), J une 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) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Solutions notified regarding certain Members 
Status: Partially resolved 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.357.  In June 2004, the European Communities raised concerns about unjustified import 
restrictions on EC exports due to concerns about BSE. To satisfy consumer demands, the European 
Communities had adopted comprehensive measures  to address risks relating to BSE. These 
measures applied both to products intended for consumption within the European Communities, 
and to those destined for export. The system of  geographical assessment used in the European 
Communities had successfully identified countries in which the disease was still present. The European Communities called on other countries to replace import bans, which exceeded OIE 
recommendations and yet did not fully address potential internal risks, with specific import 
requirements in accordance with OIE standards.  Many products, such as semen, embryos and 
dairy products, could be traded with predefined guarantees. Members were urged to take into 
consideration OIE recommendations for international trade and to stop discriminating among 
Members with similar BSE conditions. 
2.358.  Canada recalled that at its last meeting the OIE had reconfirmed that some products, such 
as semen, embryos, hides, and milk, did not cont ribute to the transmission of BSE. Hence the 
imports of these types of products did not prov ide a potential pathway for introduction of the 
disease. 
2.359.  In October 2004, the European Communities informed the Committee that several WTO 
Members had reviewed their bans on EC beef and small bovine ruminant products and replaced 
them with specific requirements in accordance  with OIE standards. The European Communities 
urged all those Members who had not yet done so to  align their regulations in accordance with OIE 
standards. The United States noted that some Members were reviewing their import restrictions on 
US beef and also urged all those Members who ha d not done so to align their regulations in 
accordance with OIE standards. 
2.360.  In June 2005, the European Communities re ported that the number of countries that had 
lifted their respective bans on EC bovines and bovine products in accordance with OIE standards had been regularly growing, including also non-Me mbers of the WTO. According to the revised BSE 
chapter of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code, many bovine derived products, including deboned 
skeletal muscle and blood products, could be safe ly traded regardless of the BSE status of the 
exporting country. The European Communities invited the remaining WTO Members to replace their import bans with specific import requirements in accordance with OIE standards. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 87 - 
 
  2.361.  In February 2007, the United States expressed concern that US ruminant and non-
ruminant products continued to face BSE-related restrictions. Although there had been some progress and a number of Members had removed measures, US products continued to face overly 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. 
2.362.  In October 2008, the European Communities  recalled the concerns previously raised by 
Canada regarding Korea's restriction on beef imports. The European Communities also had concerns regarding restrictions maintained by other WTO Members on beef exported from the 
European Communities even though these beef pr oducts were considered safe and in compliance 
with the BSE chapter of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code. 
2.363.  Canada shared the EC concerns and asked Members to base their measures on the BSE 
chapter provisions of OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code. In May 2007, Canada was officially 
recognized by the OIE as controlled-risk for BSE and this was reconfirmed in May 2008. Canada 
was grateful to the increasing number of WTO Members that restored full or partial access for beef and cattle. Canada urged other Members to resume full trade in beef and cattle based on the OIE 
designation. 
2.364.  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 
2.365.  The representative of the OIE urged Members to abide by the standards enacted by the 
OIE. 
2.366.  In February 2009, the European Communities  drew attention to the OIE standard for BSE, 
which did not recommend trade restrictions on de-boned beef from animals aged less than 
30 months. The European Communities met this standard, but its exports were still facing trade 
restrictions. National restrictions maintained despite the OIE Code undermined this standard that 
had been adopted after long negotiations, thus da maging the credibility of the OIE. The OIE was 
planning to update the Code, because there was compelling evidence that the age requirement 
was not necessary, but the European Communities questioned whether this was worthwhile if 
Members did not apply the standard in any case. Trade in beef was important, and BSE issues 
were among the concerns most frequently raised in the SPS Committee. The European Communities appealed to Members to make greater efforts to base their measures on the relevant 
OIE standards. Jordan was now accepting the OIE Code, as did the European Communities, and 
others should follow this example. 
2.367.  OIE explained that the BSE standards had been democratically adopted by OIE members, 
and were in fact very conservative. The OIE was considering removing the age requirement, and 
relaxing the restrictions on gelatine. There was still a wide margin of safety built into the standards, and it was worrying that there was a lack of willingness on the part of Members to 
apply them. 
2.368.  In June 2009, the European Communities again drew attention to restrictions on bovine 
meat and related products still imposed by many  Members. The European Communities requested 
that unjustified and discriminatory restrictions be removed. The OIE Code stated that no bans 
were necessary even if a country reported case s  o f  B S E .  E C  m e a s u r e s  t o  c o n t r o l  B S E  w e r e  
exemplary and went far beyond OIE requirements, and the European Communities urged Members to establish fair, non-discriminatory and transparent rules for the import of bovine products. 
2.369.  In October 2009, the European Communities  recalled that they had repeatedly raised 
concerns about unjustified restrictions by some WTO Members on imports of bovine, ovine and related products allegedly in response to transmissible spongiform encephalopathy. Any measures should be based on the relevant international standards. While many were aligning their processes 
to OIE recommendations, other Members still required unnecessary certification, applied 
burdensome and lengthy procedures and discriminat ed between countries without scientific basis. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 88 - 
 
  EC measures to eradicate and control BSE were comprehensive and offered every guarantee that 
EC exports were safe. The European Communities urged Members to fully take into consideration 
the latest OIE BSE guidelines and to establish fair, non-discriminatory and transparent rules. 
2.370.  In March 2010, the European Union reported that certain WTO Members still maintained 
unjustified import restrictions arguably to protect against Transmissible Spongiform 
Encephalopathies (TSE). The European Union urged Members to lift any unnecessary, disproportionate, or discriminatory restrictions which negatively affected EU exports. The OIE 
recommendations on BSE, which were reviewed in  May 2009, included the possibility to import 
meat or even live animals from countries having  a "negligible", "controlled", or "undetermined" 
BSE risk status, as long as the OIE rules on surveillance and control were followed. In addition, for certain products under specific conditions, such as de-boned skeletal muscle meat, milk and milk 
products, semen and embryos, there should be no  BSE import requirements regardless of the BSE 
risk or the age of the cattle population of the exporting country, zone or compartment. 
2.371.  Switzerland supported the concerns rais ed by the European Union, stating that WTO 
Members should base their measures on the OIE recommendations and available data on BSE. 
2.372.  In June 2010, the European Union reported that certain WTO Members still maintained 
unjustified import restrictions to protect agains t TSE. The European Union urged Members to lift 
any unnecessary, disproportionate, or discriminatory restrictions which negatively affected EU 
exports. The European Union recalled that OIE ha d issued BSE standards based on scientific risk 
assessments and defined the conditions under which commodities could be safely traded. In May 2010, additional wording was inserted in Article 11.6 of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code to 
clarify that, providing the commodities had been imported in accordance with those conditions, the 
status of the importing countries would not be  affected. The European Union recalled the OIE 
recommendations, and observed that some Me mbers had recently announced new measures 
which, without any scientific justification, deviated from OIE standards. The European Union urged 
Members to align themselves with the OIE process and to process applications from the European 
Union. 
2.373.  In October 2010, the European Union noted that restrictions of imports due to BSE 
remained of great concern and urged Members to lift any unnecessary, disproportionate and discriminatory restrictions. A number of WTO Members continued to impose unjustified import restrictions, such as allowing imports only from countries that had a negligible risk status 
according to the OIE classification or where no cases of BSE had been notified at all. There had 
been, however, some positive developments. The Philippines had announced the lifting of import 
restrictions on beef from most of EU member States, and Egypt was now allowing imports of de-
boned beef from animals younger than 48 months. The European Union urged Members to quickly 
align their requirements with the OIE standards, and to establish fair, non-discriminatory, transparent and scientifically sound import requirements. 
2.374.  In March 2011, the European Union urged Members to lift unnecessary restrictions 
negatively affecting EU beef exports. The OIE standard highlighted that there should not be 
restrictions on some bovine products regardless of the BSE-risk status of the country. Unfortunately, several unjustified restrictions from Members only allowed imports from countries 
with a negligible BSE-risk assessment. In addition, there had also been a number of discriminatory 
practices and inconsistencies in the level of protection of some countries. The European Union urged Members to align their requirements with OIE standards and acknowledged the many 
countries that had started the assessment process to allow imports. 
2.375.  In June 2011, the European Union expressed concerns that several Members had not yet 
implemented the OIE standard on BSE and continued to impose bans or trade restrictions on EU 
beef products. These Members should either im plement the OIE standard, or else share their 
scientific risk assessment. To date, the European Union had not seen any scientific justification for restrictions that went beyond the OIE standards. The European Union welcomed the implementation of the OIE standards by several Members, as well as the process begun by the 
United States and Australia, which would eventual ly allow the import of EU beef products. The 
European Union urged Members to fully take into account the OIE standards and establish fair, non-discriminatory, transparent, and scientifically based rules. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 89 - 
 
  2.376.  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. 
2.377.  In October 2011, the European Union recalled that it had repeatedly raised concerns that 
several Members continued to impose bans or restrictive conditions on products from EU member 
States allegedly because of BSE, but without respecting the international standards as required by the SPS Agreement. The OIE standard on BSE was very well developed and provided details 
regarding the disease and conditions for the safe trade of bovine products. This meant that there 
was no need for additional risk assessments or for any trade restrictions at all on the well-defined safe products, such as deboned meat, regardless of the BSE risk status of the country. Despite 
having raised this same concern for a long time, no one had ever provided a scientific risk 
assessment that would justify any deviation from the international standard. In this regard, the 
European Union urged, in particular, China, Japan and South Korea to bring their requirements into line with the international standards and the SPS Agreement. The European Union welcomed 
recent developments in Australia and urged Australia to finalize this process quickly. The United 
States was also moving towards the adoption of comprehensive BSE rules and the European Union expected to see this process rapidly lead to US requirements fully in line with the OIE standard 
and a tangible outcome for trade. The European Union urged all Members to fully align their BSE-
related requirements with the OIE standards and thus establish fair, non-discriminatory, transparent and scientifically justified requirements. 
2.378.  Japan and Korea both expressed their under standing of the EU concern and indicated that 
they would continue discussions on this issue in bilateral meetings. China indicated that it sought 
further information from the European Union in order to finish its risk analysis. There was a fruitful dialogue between both Members, and China called on the European Union to provide further 
information and maintain its close relationship with the Chinese scientific panel. 
2.379.  In March 2012, the European Union recalled that it had repeatedly raised concerns about 
the continued bans or restrictive conditions on bovine products from EU member States - allegedly 
because of BSE - that did not respect the international standards as required by the SPS 
Agreement. The OIE standard on BSE provided details regarding the disease and conditions for the safe trade of bovine products. Despite the long history of this concern, no Member had ever 
provided a scientific risk assessment that would justify any deviation from the international 
standard. The European Union urged, in particular, China, Japan and South Korea to bring their 
requirements into line with the international st andards and the SPS Agreement, and Australia to 
quickly finalize its assessment process. The recent steps by the United States to align its import 
conditions with the OIE standard were welcomed, and a fast implementation of conditions in line 
with OIE standards was expected. The European Union urged all Members to fully align their BSE-related requirements with the OIE standards and thus establish fair, non-discriminatory, 
transparent and scientifically justified requirements. 
2.380.  Korea indicated its willingness to continue bilateral discussions on this issue. 2.381.  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. 
2.382.  Japan reported that it had already started discussions with the European Union, and that 
its Food Safety Commission Risk Assessment Body was requested in December 2011 to conduct a 
risk assessment on beef imports from France and the Netherlands. This risk assessment was 
conducted in a neutral and fair manner on the basis of scientific data. The Food Safety Commission 
would assess the risk of beef from the other EU  member States when the necessary information 
was verified, including through onsite investigation and collection of data. 
2.383.  In July 2012, the European Union observ ed that many trading partners continued to 
impose unjustified bans or restrictions relating to BSE, although more than half of these countries 
did not benefit from official BSE classification  by the OIE as did the EU member States. The 
European Union urged Korea to make tangible and predictable progress to bring its import conditions into line with the OIE standards. This request was particularly urgent as Korea had G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 90 - 
 
  opened its market to other trading partners which had the same BSE status as most of the EU 
member States. China was still keeping its market closed, claiming a lack of scientific information, although there was sufficient evidence regarding the EU BSE situation. The European Union requested China to provide the scientific risk a ssessment 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 pending 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 establish fair, non-discriminatory, transparent and science-based rules. 
2.384.  China indicated that bilateral talks had taken place with the European Union on the BSE 
issue at various levels. China had repeatedly pres ented its views on BSE and emphasized that no 
international organization could deny countries the right to present their views based on science. A lot of work had been carried out by China on risk analysis regarding BSE. 
2.385.  Japan recalled that its food safety commi ttee had started the risk assessment of beef from 
France and the Netherlands, and this was being discussed by experts. As for other EU member 
States, additional consultations were needed. Japa n remained open for further co-operation with 
the European Union to resolve the issue. 
2.386.  Korea noted the on-going active communi cation between Korea and the European Union 
on the issue at the technical level. Additional discussions at the technical level were needed, and were in the interest of both sides. 
2.387.  In October 2012, the European Union observed that many trading partners continued to 
impose unjustified bans or restrictions relating to BSE, although some of these countries did not benefit from official BSE classification by the OIE as did the EU member States. The European 
Union once again urged Korea to make tangible and predictable progress to bring its import 
conditions into line with the OIE standards and requested China to quickly proceed with pending market access applications. The European Union welcomed the recent developments in Japan, 
where the risk assessment with regard to impo rts of beef had been submitted for public 
consultation. As a result of the scientific outcome, the European Union looked forward to beef exports being resumed in the near future. The Euro pean Union noted the recent steps taken in the 
United States and Australia towards bringing their requirements into line with the OIE standards, 
and urged all Members to fully align with the OIE standards and establish fair, non-discriminatory, 
transparent and science-based rules. 
2.388.  China indicated that the issues surrounding BSE were particularly sensitive and technical, 
involving not only the proper handling of animal health and husbandry, but also directly affecting 
China-EU co-operation and trade. China had provid ed thorough information to the European Union 
in relation to its scientific justification. Recognizing the importance of the issue particularly for 
exports from the Netherlands and Ireland, China ha d jointly organized co-operation activities with 
the European Union including technical exchanges among experts, seminars and technical visits. These exchanges focused on topics related to the science, technology and the OIE standards. However, no consensus had been reached on some issues. China would continue co-operation 
exchanges with EU technical experts in a scientific and pragmatic manner in order to solve the 
relevant technical problems. China had signed an MOU with Ireland for the establishment of a joint working group on BSE. 
2.389.  Korea indicated that it was actively engaged in bilateral discussions with the European 
Union, including discussions this same week, and would continue to have discussions with the European Union in this regard. 
2.390.  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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.13 
 
- 91 - 
 
  Trade restrictive measures due to the Schmallenberg Virus (STC 333) 
Raised by: European Union 
Supported by: Switzerland 
Dates raised: July 2012 (G/SPS/R/67, paras. 18-19) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/1161 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.391.  In July 2012, the European Union stated that it had been fully transparent with 
stakeholders and third country partners since th e detection of the Schmallenberg virus (SBV). 
Recent evidence confirmed that SBV had a minor impact on livestock production, and that the risk of infection to humans exposed to SBV was absent or extremely low. In May 2012, OIE's World 
Assembly of Delegates had concluded that the ri sk posed by commodities such as meat, milk, 
semen and embryos was negligible, that the conditions to consider the infection as an emerging disease were no longer met and that the disease di d not meet the criteria for listing by the OIE. 
The European Union requested all countries that had adopted restrictive measures on EU products 
to remove those restrictions. Any WTO Member maintaining trade restrictions should be able to provide scientific justification for the measure and demonstrate that the measure was proportionate to the risk. These Members should also be able to demonstrate that they were free 
from SBV and that similar measures were also  applied against other viruses of the Simbu 
serogroup, both in their own territory and when dealing with other trading partners. The European Union urged Members to withdraw all restrictions imposed on its exports due to the occurrence of 
Schmallenberg virus. More detailed information can be found in G/SPS/GEN/1161. 
2.392.  Switzerland indicated that it had also encountered restrictions on its exports of live animals 
and genetic material, even though SBV had neve r been detected in the country. Switzerland 
agreed that SBV should be treated in the same way as other viruses of the same group, and that 
SBV-related trade restrictions on exports of ruminants and their products were unjustified. Switzerland requested that such restri ctions be withdrawn without delay. 
 
__________