G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15  
 
24 February 2015  
(15-1100)  Page: 1/77  
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 14). The specific trade concerns in 
the fifteenth 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 fifteenth revision of G/SPS/GEN/204 is divided into two sections: 
 
a. STCs general overview; and 
b. STCs discussed in 2014. 
 
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 
2014. 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 2014. This includes (1) issues raised for the first time in 2014; (2) issues which 
were previously raised and on which further discu ssions or activities occurred during 2014; and 
(3) issues for which there was no substantive discussion in the Committee during 2014, 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 2014 (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.15 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Table of contents 
Page 
1   STCS GENERA L OVERVIEW .......................................................................................... 5  
Table 1 - List of Specific Trade Concerns (1995–2014) .................................................... 8  
2   STCS CONSID ERED IN 2014 ...................................................................................... 26  
Table 2.1 – Issues Raised for the First Time in 2014 ...................................................... 28  
Table 2.2 - Issues Previously Rais ed and Discussed Again in 2014 ................................ 29  
Table 2.3 - Issues Reported  as Resolved in 2014 ........................................................... 29  
2.1   Australia ............................................................................................................... . 30 
2.1.1   Animal Health ....................................................................................................... 30 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193) ................................................................. 30 
Australia's non-acceptance of OIE categorization fo r BSE (STC  376) ........................................ 30 
2.2   Brazil ...................................................................................................................... 30  
2.2.1   Animal Health ....................................................................................................... 30 
Measures on shri mp (STC  344)  .......................................................................................... 30 
Brazil's regulation on international certificat es for fish and fisher y products (STC 377) ............... 31 
2.3   China ...................................................................................................................... 32  
2.3.1   Food safety ........................................................................................................... 32 
Import restrictions in response to the Japa nese nuclear power plan t accident (STC 354) ............ 32 
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 
Categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors (STC 382) ............................................. 40 
2.4.2   Animal Health ....................................................................................................... 41 
EU temperature treatment requirements for imports of processed meat products 
(STC 351) ....................................................................................................................... 41 
2.4.3   Plan t Heal th ..........................................................................................................  43 
Phytosanitary measures on ci trus black spot  (STC 356) ......................................................... 43 
EU ban on mangoes and certain vegetables from India (STC 374) ........................................... 44 
2.4.4   Other concerns ...................................................................................................... 45 
EU withdrawal of equivalence for pr ocessed organic prod ucts (STC  378)  .................................. 45 
2.5   India ................................................................................................................... ... 46 
2.5.1   Animal Health ....................................................................................................... 46 
Import conditions for pork and pork products (STC 358) ........................................................ 46 
2.5.2   Plan t Heal th ..........................................................................................................  48 
India's import requirements for blueberries and avocados (STC 371) ....................................... 48 
2.6   In donesia ...............................................................................................................  48 
2.6.1   Plan t Heal th ..........................................................................................................  48 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 3 - 
 
  Indonesia's port cl osures (S TC 330)  ................................................................................... 48 
2.7   Hong Kong, China ................................................................................................... 54  
2.7.1   Food safety ........................................................................................................... 54 
Import restrictions in response to the Japa nese nuclear power plan t accident (STC 354) ............ 54 
2.8   Japan ................................................................................................................... .. 55 
2.8.1   Food safety ........................................................................................................... 55 
Restrictions on shrimp due to an ti-oxidant residu es (STC  342) ............................................... 55 
2.9   Korea, Re public of .................................................................................................. 55  
2.9.1   Food safety ........................................................................................................... 55 
Strengthened import restrictions on fishery products with regard to radionuclides 
(STC 359) ....................................................................................................................... 55 
2.9.2   Animal Health ....................................................................................................... 56 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193) ................................................................. 56 
2.10   Russian Federation ............................................................................................... 57  
2.10.1   Food  safety ......................................................................................................... 57 
Import restrictions on conf ectionary produc ts (STC  368) ........................................................ 57 
2.10.2   Animal Health ...................................................................................................... 57 
Import ban on live pigs and pork produc ts due to African sw ine fever (S TC 369)  ....................... 57 
Russia's market access requirements  for bovine me at (STC  379) ............................................ 58 
2.10.3   Plan t Heal th ........................................................................................................ 59 
Import restrictions on certain types of plant products (STC 372) ............................................. 59 
Import restrictions on fruits  and vegetables  (STC 380) .......................................................... 59 
2.10.4   Other Concerns .................................................................................................... 60 
Requirements for veterinary  certificates  (STC 381) ............................................................... 60 
2.11   Saudi Arabi a, Kingdom of ..................................................................................... 61  
2.11.1   Animal Health ...................................................................................................... 61 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193) ................................................................. 61 
2.12   Chines e Taipei  ...................................................................................................... 61  
2.12.1   Food  safety ......................................................................................................... 61 
Import restrictions in response to the Japa nese nuclear power plan t accident (STC 354) ............ 61 
2.13   Turkey .................................................................................................................. 61  
2.13.1   Animal Health ...................................................................................................... 61 
Requirements for importation of sheep meat (STC 340) ......................................................... 61 
2.13.2   Animal Health ...................................................................................................... 63 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193) ................................................................. 63 
2.14   United States of America ...................................................................................... 64  
2.14.1   Food  safety ......................................................................................................... 64 
US default MRLs, limits of determination or limits of quantification on basmati rice 
(STC 328) ....................................................................................................................... 64 
2.14.2   Animal Health ...................................................................................................... 64 
US Imports of meat from Brazil (STC 370) ........................................................................... 64 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 4 - 
 
  US non-acceptance of OIE cate gorization for BSE (STC  375)  .................................................. 65 
2.14.3   Plan t Heal th ........................................................................................................ 66 
Interim rule affecting solid wood  packaging material (STC 59) ................................................ 66 
US high cost of certification for mango exports (STC 373) ...................................................... 66 
2.14.4   Other Concerns .................................................................................................... 67 
Measures on catf ish (STC  289)  .......................................................................................... 67 
2.15   Certai n Member s .................................................................................................. 68  
2.15.1   Food  safety ......................................................................................................... 68 
Import restrictions in response to the Japa nese nuclear power plan t accident (STC 354) ............ 68 
2.15.2   Animal Health ...................................................................................................... 70 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193) ................................................................. 70 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1  STCS GENERAL OVERVIEW 
1.1.  Altogether, 382 specific trade concerns were raised in the 20 years between 1995 and the 
end of 2014. Chart 1.1 shows the number of new concerns raised each year; 14 new concerns were raised in 2014. 
Chart 1.1 – Number of New Issues Raised 
 
 
 1.2.  Chart 1.2a categorizes the trade concerns raised over the 20 years into food safety, animal or plant health issues. Overall, 31% of trade concerns relate to food safety concerns, 25% relate 
to plant health, and 5% concern other issues such as certification requirements, control or 
inspection procedures. 39% of concerns raised re late to animal health and zoonoses. The animal 
health and zoonoses category is further divided into foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), transmissible 
spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), avian influenz a (AI) and other animal health concerns (OAH). 
Chart 1.2b shows that TSEs account for 34% of an imal health concerns, while issues related to 
FMD and to avian influenza account for 23% and 8%, respectively. The remaining 35% relate to 
other animal health concerns. 
Chart 1.2a – Trade Concerns by Subject (1995-2014) 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 6 - 
 
  Chart 1.2b – Trade Concerns Related to Animal Health & Zoonoses (1995-2014) 
 
 
 
1.3.  Developing countries are participating actively under this agenda item in the SPS Committee 
meetings. Chart 1.3a indicates that over the 20 years, developing country Members have raised 215 trade concerns (on many occasions more than one Member has raised, supported or 
maintained an issue) compared to 223 raised by developed country Members, and five raised by 
least-developed country Members.
3 A developing country Member has supported another Member 
raising an issue in 277 cases, compared to 183 for developed country Members, and three for 
least-developed country Members. In 213 cases, the measure at issue was maintained by a 
developed country Member, and in 197 cases it wa s maintained by a developing country Member. 
One trade concern regarding measures maintained by a least-developed country Member has been raised. Chart 1.3b shows the number of new issues raised each year by each category of Member.
4 
Chart 1.3a – Participation by WTO Members (1995-2014) 
 
                                               
3 On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty  on European Union and the Treaty 
establishing the European Community  (done at Lisbon, 13 December 2007) entered into force. On 
29 November 2009, the WTO received a Verbal Note (WT/L/779) from the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities stating that, by virtue of the Treaty of Lisbon , as of 
1 December 2009, the European Union replaces and su cceeds the European Community. The European Union 
was counted as one Member. Similarly, when one Member  spoke on behalf of ASEAN, it was counted as one 
Member only. 
4 As any individual trade concern can potentially be raised by more than one Member, this explains the 
apparent double-counting shown in Charts 1.3a and 1.3b  compared with the overall count of the 382 specific 
trade concerns raised since 1995. 
G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 7 - 
 
  Chart 1.3b – Number of New Issues Raised by Members 
 
 
 
1.4.  Chart 1.4 indicates that 144 trade concerns (38%) have been reported resolved out of the 
382 trade concerns raised over the 20 years. Three issues were reported as resolved in 2014. Thirty-one trade concerns (8%) have been report ed 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 207 trade concerns. There are 193 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.15 
 
- 8 - 
 
  Table 1 - List of Specific  Trade Concerns (1995–2014) 
Specific 
Trade 
Concern Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status
5 
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 gelatine 
imports Norway Brazil R 
4 Measures related to BSE Argentina, Australia, 
Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, 
Germany, Italy, 
Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapore, 
Slovak Republic, Slovenia, 
Spain, United States of America Switzerland R 
5 Import requirements for 
wine Brazil European Union R 
6 Importation of cheese Canada European Union R 
7 Regionalization in relation 
to animal health United States of America European Union NR 
8 Ban on salmon imports Australia Canada, United 
States of 
America R 
9 Zero-tolerance for 
salmonella in imported poultry products  Chile, Czech Republic, 
El Salvador, Honduras, Slovak Republic United States 
of America NR 
10 Imports of potatoes Czech Republic European Union R 
11 Restriction on levels of 
copper and cadmium in imported squid Spain, European Union United States 
of America R 
12 Testing requirements for 
different varieties of apples, cherries and 
nectarines Japan United States 
of America R 
13 Translation of regulations Japan; Korea, Republic of Argentina NR 
1997 
14 Restrictions on imported 
wheat Brazil United States 
of America R 
15 Zoosanitary import 
policies pertaining to BSE Canada European Union NR 
16 Restrictions on imports of 
wheat and fruit Chile United States 
of America R 
17 Cosmetics and BSE European Union Australia R 
18 Certification requirements 
for pet food France, European Union United States 
of America NR 
                                               
5 NR= Not Reported, P = Partially resolved, R= Resolved. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 9 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
19 Protected zones European Union Uruguay NR 
20 Restrictions on imports of 
rough rice Honduras United States 
of America R 
21 Fresh fruit and vegetables Indonesia Australia, 
United States 
of America NR 
22 Measures affecting 
imports of bovine meat Israel Uruguay R 
23 Plant quarantine 
regulations Japan United States 
of America NR 
24 Requirements for 
certification of consumer 
rice Panama United States 
of America R 
25 Restrictions on wheat and 
oilseeds  Poland United States 
of America NR 
26 Phytosanitary issues in 
general  Certain Members United States 
of America R 
27 Citrus canker European Union Argentina R 
28 Notification on wheat, rye 
and triticale Switzerland Argentina R 
29 Measures related to avian 
influenza Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of United States 
of America NR 
30 Regulation concerning 
warehouses and silos Czech Republic European Union R 
31 Rules on "specified risk 
materials" in products of animal origin European Union United States 
of America NR 
32 Gelatine imports  European Union Brazil, United 
States of 
America PR 
33 Salmonella-related 
restriction on fishmeal 
imports European Union Chile, Peru PR 
34 Measures regarding FMD Japan Argentina, 
European Union PR 
35 Import ban on frozen 
poultry Korea, Republic of Thailand R 
36 Import prohibition of 
milled rice Mexico Thailand R 
37 Actions taken by local 
governments United States of America Chile R 
1998 
38 Temporary prohibition of 
fresh pork and products  Argentina European Union R 
39 Maximum levels for 
certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in foodstuffs European Union Argentina; 
Australia; Bolivia, 
Plurinational 
State of; Brazil; The 
Gambia; India; 
Indonesia; Malaysia; 
Philippines; 
Senegal; Thailand R G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 10 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
40 Trade restrictions in 
response to cholera European Union Tanzania PR 
41 Restrictions on imports of 
apples, pears and quinces Slovak Republic Hungary R 
42 Import restrictions on 
potatoes Slovak Republic Poland, 
European Union R 
43 Prohibition on bone-in 
beef imports from EC 
member States South Africa European Union R 
44 Measures related to BSE United States of America European Union NR 
45 Import restrictions on 
cheese Australia, New Zealand European 
Union, 
Switzerland R 
46 Import prohibition of 
coconut palms and related 
products Brazil Philippines NR 
47 Measure on 
establishments operating in the animal feed sector  European Union United States 
of America NR 
48 Import ban on livestock Turkey Hungary, 
United States 
of America PR 
49 Restrictions on imports of 
sauces containing benzoic 
acid Australia Philippines R 
50 Quarantine requirements 
for chicken meat Australia Thailand NR 
51 Prohibition of poultry meat 
imports Czech Republic Thailand R 
52 Measures on food treated 
with ionizing radiation European Union United States 
of America NR 
53 Emergency measures on 
citrus pulp  European Union Brazil R 
54 Notifications regarding 
import requirements on 
meat and eggs Switzerland United States 
of America R 
55 TSE-related import 
restrictions of live cattle  Israel European Union R 
56 Notification on 
amendment of the 
Japanese Plant Protection Law Japan United States 
of America NR 
57 Requirements for imports 
of milk and milk products Poland European Union R 
58 Notification on 
refrigeration and labelling requirements for shell 
eggs United States of America European Union NR 
59 Interim rule affecting solid 
wood packaging material United States of America Hong Kong, 
China R 
1999 
60 Import restrictions on 
bovine semen and embryos, milk and milk 
products Argentina European Union R G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 11 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
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 gelatine Poland Switzerland, 
United States 
of America R 
69 Import restrictions on 
rhododendrons in growing medium United States of America European Union R 
70 Import conditions for pork 
meat and products  Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of European Union NR 
71 Restrictions on meat and 
dairy products El Salvador Uruguay R 
72 Measures regarding 
canned tuna in oil Belgium, European Union Philippines NR 
73 Imports of citrus fruit  United States of America Argentina R 
2000 
74 Restrictions on imports of 
tropical fresh fruit Australia Philippines NR 
75 Notification on meat and 
meat products  Iceland Argentina R 
76 Ban on pet food imports Turkey Hungary R 
77 Restrictions on canned 
tuna Egypt Thailand NR 
78 Notification on methyl 
bromide Australia European Union R 
79 Import restrictions on 
durian Australia Thailand NR 
80 Restrictions on poultry 
meat imports Bolivia, Plurinational State 
of Chile R 
81 Wood packing material European Union Canada R 
82 Restrictions on 
importation of fresh fruit Indonesia New Zealand R 
83 Restrictions on milk 
powder imports Panama European Union R 
2001 
84 Import restrictions 
affecting BSE-free countries Argentina; Australia; 
Canada; Korea, Republic of; New Zealand; United 
States of America Bulgaria, 
Croatia, Czech Republic, 
Estonia, Latvia, 
Poland, Romania, Slovak 
Republic, 
Slovenia NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 12 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
85 Import restrictions on 
prawns and prawn products; revised generic IRA for prawns and prawn 
products Australia China, Thailand PR 
86 Access of California table 
grapes Australia United States 
of America R 
87 Measures affecting 
imports of products 
containing Brazilian beef Canada Brazil R 
88 Import restrictions due to 
FMD Canada, United States of 
America Hungary NR 
89 Import restrictions on soy 
sauce European Union Thailand NR 
90 Restrictions on bovine 
products Hungary Canada R 
91 Restrictions on pork 
products Hungary Canada R 
92 Restrictions on banana 
imports Turkey Ecuador R 
93 Phytosanitary 
requirements for potatoes, 
garlic and onions  Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of Argentina NR 
94 Directive 2000/42 on 
pesticide residues European Union Côte d'Ivoire NR 
95 Legislation on the 
fungicide thiabendazole 
(TBZ) European Union Israel NR 
96 Geographical BSE risk 
assessment European Union Canada, Chile, 
India R 
97 Restrictions on the use of 
fishmeal  European Union Chile, Norway, 
Peru PR 
98 Restrictions on Egyptian 
potatoes European Union Egypt NR 
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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 13 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
109 Phytosanitary regulations 
(Canary Islands) Spain, European Union Argentina NR 
110 Agricultural biotechnology 
approval process European Union United States 
of America PR 
111 FMD restrictions Indonesia Argentina NR 
2002 
112 FMD trade restrictions Bolivia, Plurinational State 
of Argentina R 
113 Pet food import 
requirements Chile Argentina R 
114 Food safety regulations 
affecting agricultural products produced from modern biotechnology China United States 
of America NR 
115 Import restrictions for 
citrus and other fruits 
related to fruit fly China Argentina R 
116 FMD restrictions Colombia Argentina R 
117 Traceability and labelling 
of genetically modified 
organisms and food and 
feed European Union Argentina, 
Canada, United 
States of 
America NR 
118 Import licenses for 
agricultural products Panama Canada R 
119 Notification on Chinese 
fruit imports Philippines China PR 
120 Restrictions on pig meat United States of America European Union NR 
121 Imports of clementines  United States of America European Union R 
122 FMD Restrictions Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of Argentina R 
123 Restrictions on imports of 
potatoes, onions, fertilised eggs, day-old chicks and 
meat products Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of Canada, 
Colombia PR 
124 Notifications related to 
avian influenza Certain Members United States 
of America NR 
125 BSE related measures Argentina Canada R 
126 Import requirements for 
seed potatoes Brazil Canada, 
European Union R 
127 Import ban on products of 
Dutch origin China European Union R 
128 Import requirements for 
cosmetics China European Union R 
129 Import restrictions on 
spiced pork and salted meat products Cuba Argentina R 
130 Restrictions on shellfish European Union Indonesia NR 
131 Pesticide and antibiotic 
limits in honey (Directive 96/23) European Union Cuba NR 
132 Import restrictions on 
dairy products  Indonesia Argentina R 
133 Official control restrictions 
on citrus and other fresh fruits and vegetables Japan New Zealand, 
United States of America NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 14 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
134 SPS measures on animal 
products Romania Moldova, 
Republic of R 
135 Restrictions on beef and 
pork South Africa Brazil PR 
136 Policies regarding 
quarantine and non-
quarantine pests  Chinese Taipei United States 
of America NR 
137 Import restrictions on 
meat and meat products United States of America Switzerland NR 
138 Pest risk assessment 
requirements Argentina United States 
of America R 
139 Restriction on pig meat  Australia European Union R 
140 Imports of live ostriches Brazil European Union R 
141 Pest risk assessments for 
imports of plant origin Brazil Canada NR 
142 Zero tolerance for e-coli  China United States 
of America NR 
143 Regulation on wood 
packaging material China European Union R 
144 Restrictions on the 
importation of fruits and fruit juices European Union Brazil R 
145 Import restrictions on 
chicken meat imports Honduras Costa Rica R 
146 Ban on hormones in 
animal production Indonesia United States 
of America R 
147 Regulation on food 
additives Japan European Union NR 
148 Amendment of the food 
sanitation law Japan China NR 
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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 15 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
158 Restrictions on pork 
imports Croatia Slovenia R 
159 Proposal on animal by-
products European Union United States 
of America NR 
160 Transitional BSE measures European Union United States 
of America NR 
161 EC Directive 2001/661/EC 
on foot-and-mouth 
disease European Union South Africa NR 
162 Fumigation standards Japan United States 
of America R 
163 Restrictions on Austrian 
products Mexico European Union NR 
164 Restrictions on the 
importation of dry beans Mexico United States 
of America R 
165 Import restrictions on 
Spanish olive oil Bahrain, Kingdom of; 
Kuwait, the State of; 
Oman; Qatar; United Arab Emirates European Union PR 
166 Import measures on live 
animals and meat products Croatia Hungary R 
167 Restrictions on honey 
imports European Union United States 
of America R 
168 Maximum levels for 
aflatoxins in corn and 
sampling contaminants in 
food European Union Argentina NR 
169 EC proposed regulation on 
maximum residue levels of pesticides  European Union Argentina, 
China NR 
170 Live animals and animal 
products European Union Australia NR 
171 Animal health conditions 
and certification requirements for live fish European Union Australia R 
172 Restrictions on imports of 
mangoes Japan Brazil R 
173 Notification on uses of 
living modified organisms  Japan Australia R 
174 Notification on 
transboundary movement of living modified 
organisms Korea, Republic of Australia R 
175 Notification on food and 
feed controls European Union United States 
of America NR 
176 Notification on maximum 
tolerance levels for 
Ocratoxin A in coffee  Germany, European Union Colombia, 
Papua New 
Guinea PR 
177 Sanitary conditions for the 
importation of live material for apiculture European Union Argentina NR 
178 Revision of standards and 
specifications for food and additives Japan China NR 
179 Guidelines for maximum 
residue level (MRL) testing  Korea, Republic of United States 
of America R G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 16 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
180 Heat treatment for meat 
and bone meal in poultry for pet food Chinese Taipei United States 
of America R 
181 Import restrictions on 
potatoes Chinese Taipei New Zealand R 
182 Implementation of ISPM 
15 United States of America Argentina R 
183 Implementation of ISPM 
15 Certain Members Chile, Uruguay PR 
2004 
184 Lack of transparency for 
certain SPS measures China United States 
of America NR 
185 Restrictions due to avian 
influenza India European 
Union, United 
States of 
America NR 
186 Phytosanitary import 
restrictions India European 
Union, United States of 
America PR 
187 FMD restrictions Panama Argentina R 
188 Delisting of France from 
countries authorized to export certain meat and 
meat products to the 
United States United States of America European Union R 
189 Prohibition on the use of 
specified risk materials and requirements for 
disabled cattle United States of America Argentina NR 
190 Regionalization and 
recognition of animal 
disease free status Certain Members European Union PR 
191 Maximum residue levels 
for pesticides on food European Union China NR 
192 Non-notification of various 
SPS measures India United States 
of America NR 
193 General import restrictions 
due to BSE Certain Members European 
Union, United 
States of America PR 
194 Restrictions on fresh 
grapes Australia Chile R 
195 Restrictions on citrus Barbados Venezuela, 
Bolivarian Republic of NR 
196 Measures on US poultry  China United States 
of America R 
197 Regulation on Ocratoxin A 
in coffee  European Union Colombia R 
198 Regulation on aflatoxins 
and Ocratoxin A in foods 
for infants and young 
children European Union China NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 17 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
199 Deviation from 
international standard for wood packing material Spain, European Union United States 
of America R 
200 Ban on food grade wax India United States 
of America R 
201 Standards and 
specifications for food additives (boscalid) Japan China NR 
202 Septoria controls on 
horticultural products Korea, Republic of United States 
of America R 
203 Rule on materials derived 
from cattle and record-keeping requirements United States of America Argentina, 
China NR 
204 Notification by Members of 
implementation of ISPM 
15 Certain Members European Union R 
2005 
205 Slaughter of imported 
breeding cattle Bolivia, Plurinational State 
of Mexico NR 
206 Inspection and testing 
procedures for imported 
wheat Greece, European Union Canada R 
207 Directives on residual 
pesticide tolerance and 
inspection methods for tea  European Union China PR 
208 Food and feed hygiene 
rules European Union Canada NR 
209 Plant health directive European Union United States 
of America NR 
210 Restrictions on imports of 
chicken meat  Guatemala Mexico NR 
211 Restrictions on the transit 
of avocados  Guatemala Mexico NR 
212 Positive list system for 
pesticides, veterinary 
drugs and feed additives 
MRLs Japan China, United 
States of 
America PR 
213 Restrictions on beef 
imports  Japan United States 
of America NR 
214 Inspection regime for food 
processing establishments Panama United States 
of America R 
215 Public Health Regulation 
11 Thailand United States 
of America NR 
216 Restrictions on Ya pears 
imports United States of America China R 
217 Import restrictions on 
apples Australia New Zealand NR 
218 Lack of recognition of 
regionalization and 
disease-free status for classical swine fever Brazil European Union NR 
219 EurepGAP requirements 
for bananas European Union Saint Vincent 
and the Grenadines NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 18 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
220 Proposed regulations for 
piper methysticum (kava-kava)  United Kingdom, European 
Union Fiji NR 
221 Safety insurance and 
quality improvement standards for feed and 
feed additives Japan China R 
222 Import suspension of 
heat-processed straw and 
forage for feed  Japan China R 
223 Import requirements for 
Indian mangoes Japan India NR 
224 Restrictions on EC exports 
of plant and animal 
products Japan European Union NR 
225 Restrictions on US poultry Mexico United States 
of America R 
226 Inspection regime for 
agricultural products  Panama Costa Rica R 
227 BSE-related import 
restrictions on non-ruminant products Chinese Taipei United States 
of America NR 
228 Import procedures for 
fruits and vegetables United States of America European Union NR 
229 Import restrictions on 
Enoki mushrooms Canada Chinese Taipei R 
230 Phytosanitary 
requirements on fresh oranges  Costa Rica Nicaragua R 
231 Restrictions on cinnamon European Union Sri Lanka R 
232 Import restrictions on EC 
beef due to BSE Israel European Union R 
233 Phytosanitary import 
legislation Israel European Union R 
234 Suspension of importation 
of live poultry and poultry 
carcasses  Thailand Mexico NR 
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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 19 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
240 Biotech labelling and 
import approval process regulations India United States 
of America NR 
241 Import restrictions on 
wooden Christmas trees  United States of America China R 
242 Restrictions on US poultry 
exports European Union United States 
of America NR 
243 Lack of recognition of 
pest-free areas Indonesia United States 
of America PR 
244 Importation of live 
animals and meat products Indonesia Brazil NR 
245 Restrictions on US pork 
and poultry imports Romania United States 
of America NR 
2007 
246 Import restrictions on 
products of animal origin 
due to dioxin China European Union R 
247 BSE-related measures on 
beef products Korea, Republic of Canada R 
248 Regionalization for bovine 
and pig meat products Korea, Republic of Brazil R 
249 Reform of Australia's IRA 
process Australia European Union NR 
250 Trade restrictions related 
to national systems for 
determining maximum residue levels (MRLs) for 
pesticides  Certain Members Argentina NR 
251 Zero tolerance for 
pathogens on raw meat 
and poultry products  China United States 
of America NR 
252 Zero tolerance for 
salmonella in poultry and 
eggs  El Salvador United States 
of America NR 
253 Export certification 
requirements for dairy products  India United States 
of America NR 
254 Animal health 
requirements for poultry 
meat  El Salvador United States 
of America NR 
255 Application of 
regionalization and 
prohibition of bovine meat  China Brazil R 
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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 20 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
260 Requirements for 
quarantine treatment of aircraft  Chile Argentina R 
261 Varietal restrictions on US 
apples China United States 
of America NR 
2008 
262 Restrictions on heat-
treated products in 
relation to avian influenza Egypt European Union R 
263 Import restrictions on 
cooked and frozen meat Mexico Brazil NR 
264 Maximum residue levels 
for Ethephon in pineapple European Union Ecuador NR 
265 Regulatory process 
economic analysis 
requirement United States of America Brazil NR 
266 Price list for inspections Malaysia Brazil NR 
267 Pesticide maximum 
residue level (MRL) 
enforcement system Japan China, United 
States of 
America NR 
268 Import restrictions on EC 
dairy products United States of America European Union NR 
269 Restrictions on apples United States of America China NR 
270 Import restrictions on rice Mexico Pakistan R 
271 Restrictions on imports of 
swine meat Mexico Brazil NR 
272 Rapid Alert System 
regarding mango imports European Union Senegal NR 
273 Health certificate 
ratification by national embassies Oman, Certain Members European Union R 
274 Korea's Livestock 
Epidemic Prevention Act Korea, Republic of Canada NR 
275 Restrictions on 
ractopamine in beef and pork Chinese Taipei United States 
of America NR 
276 Maximum residue levels 
for pesticides in cacao  European Union Ecuador NR 
277 NAPPO draft standard for 
ships and cargoes from 
areas infested with Asian 
gypsy moth Canada, Mexico, United 
States of America China R 
2009 
278 Hygiene standard for 
distilled spirits and 
integrated alcoholic beverages China Mexico NR 
279 Import restrictions on 
pork products due to influenza A/H1N1  Armenia; Bahrain, 
Kingdom of; China; Gabon; Indonesia; 
Jordan; Suriname Mexico NR 
280 New meat import 
conditions  Indonesia European Union NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 21 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
281 Import restrictions on 
gelatine from bovine hides and head skin due to BSE requirements Colombia Brazil R 
282 Measures on food 
products containing meat, 
poultry or processed egg 
products  United States of America China NR 
283 Pesticide maximum 
residue levels (MRLs)  Japan Brazil, Ecuador PR 
284 Rule on importation of 
wooden handicrafts from China United States of America China R 
285 Import restrictions on 
fresh pork meat and beef United States of America Brazil PR 
286 Import restrictions on 
poultry meat Indonesia Brazil NR 
287 Import restrictions on 
fresh pork meat and beef South Africa Brazil PR 
288 Import measures on 
animals and animal products Ukraine European Union R 
289 Measures on catfish United States of America China NR 
290 Suspension of inspection 
and delivery of plant and 
animal health certificates for imports Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of Colombia R 
2010 
291 BSE Measures Chinese Taipei Canada NR 
292 Prohibition of ornamental 
plants larger than 18 
inches  United States of America Costa Rica R 
293 Risks arising from 
Carambola fruit fly in French Guyana  France, European Union Brazil NR 
294 Import restrictions on 
plant and plant products  Malaysia Brazil NR 
295 Artificial colour warning 
labels  European Union United States 
of America NR 
296 SPS notification practices China European Union NR 
297 Registration requirement 
for pet food export 
enterprises Canada China R 
298 Import restrictions on 
Brazilian beef Colombia Brazil NR 
299 US 2009 Food Safety 
Enhancement Act  United States of America China, India NR 
300 EC Regulation No. 
1099/2009 European Union India NR 
301 US risk analysis for the 
entry of queen bees United States of America Argentina NR 
302 Restrictions on products 
derived from 
biotechnology  Turkey United States 
of America NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 22 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
303 Import restrictions on 
poultry meat Senegal Brazil NR 
304 Proposed MRL for 1-
Methylcyclopropene in 
bananas Canada Ecuador NR 
305 Import restrictions on beef 
and recognition of the principle of regionalization Indonesia Brazil NR 
306 Maximum residue levels of 
pesticides European Union India NR 
307 Prohibition of certain food 
additives Japan India NR 
308 Restrictions on bovines 
and bubalines for reproduction Brazil Colombia R 
309 Labelling of products of 
animal origin Brazil European Union NR 
310 Measures on canned 
sardines  Brazil Morocco NR 
311 Restrictions on poultry 
and poultry products  Albania, Croatia Chile R 
312 Restrictions on beef 
exports due to BSE-related concerns Mexico Nicaragua R 
2011 
313 Import restrictions due to 
dioxin contamination in Germany Certain Members European Union R 
314 Ban on offals  Viet Nam United States 
of America, 
European Union NR 
315 Ukraine import restrictions 
on poultry and poultry 
products Ukraine Mexico NR 
316 United States import 
restrictions on 
chrysanthemums  United States of America Costa Rica NR 
317 Mexico's BSE measures  Mexico Canada NR 
318 US failure to recognize 
South Patagonia as FMD-
free and to import beef from north of the 42nd 
parallel  United States of America Argentina NR 
319 Chinese quarantine and 
testing procedures for 
salmon  China Norway NR 
320 Restrictions on imported 
fresh meat Philippines United States 
of America NR 
321 Japan's MRLs applied to 
sesame  Japan Paraguay NR 
322 Polyamide and melamine 
plastic kitchenware  European Union China; Hong 
Kong, China NR 
323 Import restrictions on 
pork and pork products Malaysia European Union NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 23 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
324 China's requirement for 
registration and supervision of foreign enterprises China India NR 
325 EU regulations on 
cadmium in cocoa European Union Colombia, 
Ecuador NR 
326 Restrictions on table 
grapes, apples and pears Thailand South Africa NR 
327 EU Court of Justice ruling 
regarding pollen derived 
from GMOs European Union Argentina NR 
328 US default MRLs, limits of 
determination or limits of 
quantification on basmati 
rice United States of America India R 
2012 
329 Testing methods for food 
additives  China India NR 
330 Indonesia's port closures Indonesia China, 
European 
Union, New Zealand, United States 
of America  PR 
331 EU limits of aluminium in 
flour products  European Union China NR 
332 Restrictions related to 
FMD Japan Argentina NR 
333 Trade restrictive measures 
due to the Schmallenberg 
Virus Certain Members European Union NR 
334 MRLs for roasted and 
powdered coffee Chinese Taipei India R 
335 EU testing of pesticide 
residues European Union India NR 
336 US measures on fresh 
lemons from the north 
west region of Argentina  United States of America Argentina NR 
337 Delay in finalizing 
inspection procedures on bovine and poultry meat 
from Argentina Canada Argentina NR 
338 Import ban on live 
animals from the EU Russian Federation European Union NR 
339 Restrictions on tomatoes United States of America Senegal NR 
340 Requirements for 
importation of sheep meat Turkey Australia NR 
341 Russia's listing of export 
establishments Russian Federation European Union NR 
342 Restrictions on shrimp due 
to anti-oxidant residues Japan India R 
343 Permits on horticultural 
products Indonesia United States 
of America NR 
344 Measures on shrimp Brazil Ecuador NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 24 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
2013 
345 Import conditions related 
to phthalates China European Union NR 
346 Ban on Bisphenol A France, European Union United States 
of America NR 
347 Import restrictions on 
apples, pears and citrus India Argentina NR 
348 EU quarantine measures 
on certain pine trees and 
other products European Union Russian 
Federation NR 
349 MRLs for veterinary 
medicines in live animals Costa Rica Panama NR 
350 Prohibition of use and sale 
of treated seeds European Union United States 
of America NR 
351 EU temperature treatment 
requirements for imports 
of processed meat 
products European Union Russian 
Federation NR 
352 US proposed rule on good 
manufacturing practice for human food United States of America China NR 
353 EU renewal of GMO 
approvals European Union Argentina NR 
354 Import restrictions in 
response to the Japanese nuclear power plant 
accident Certain Members Japan NR 
355 EU import requirements 
for orchid tissue culture 
plantlets in flasks European Union Chinese Taipei NR 
356 Phytosanitary measures 
on citrus black spot European Union South Africa NR 
357 Accreditation of third-
party bodies to conduct 
food safety audits and to issue certifications United States of America China NR 
358 Import conditions for pork 
and pork products India European Union NR 
359 Strengthened import 
restrictions on fishery 
products with regard to 
radionuclides Korea, Republic of Japan NR 
360 Import policy on swallow 
nests China Indonesia NR 
361 Non-recognition of testing 
laboratories for meat 
products Russian Federation India NR 
362 Import restrictions on beef 
due to BSE South Africa Brazil NR 
363 Import restrictions on beef 
due to BSE China Brazil NR 
364 Import restrictions on beef 
due to BSE Japan Brazil NR 
365 Import conditions on 
poultry Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of European Union NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 25 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
366 Quarantine requirement 
for blueberries Japan Argentina NR 
367 Import requirements on 
traditional foods Turkey Japan NR 
368 Import restrictions on 
confectionary products Russian Federation Ukraine NR 
2014 
369 Import ban on live pigs 
and pork products due to 
African Swine Fever Russian Federation European Union NR 
370 US Imports of meat from 
Brazil United States of America Nicaragua NR 
371 Import requirements for 
blueberries and avocados India Chile NR 
372 Import restrictions on 
certain types of plant 
products Russian Federation European Union NR 
373 US high cost of 
certification for mango 
exports United States of America India NR 
374 EU ban on mangoes and 
certain vegetables from India European Union India NR 
375 US non-acceptance of OIE 
categorization for BSE United States of America India NR 
376 Australia's non-acceptance 
of OIE categorization for BSE Australia India NR 
377 Brazil's regulation on 
international certificates 
for fish and fishery 
products Brazil China NR 
378 EU withdrawal of 
equivalence for processed 
organic products European Union India NR 
379 Russia's market access 
requirements for bovine meat Russian Federation India NR 
380 Import restrictions on 
fruits and vegetables Russian Federation European Union NR 
381 Requirements for 
veterinary certificates Russian Federation Ukraine NR 
382 Categorization of 
compounds as endocrine disruptors European Union United States 
of America NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 26 - 
 
  2  STCS CONSIDERED IN 2014 
2.1.  A total of 29 specific trade concerns were brought to the attention of the Committee during 
2014, of which 14 were new issues (Table 2.1), 12 were previously raised (Table 2.2), and three were reported as resolved (Table 2.3). 
2.2.  Chart 2.1 shows all trade concerns raised in the Committee or for which a resolution was 
reported in 2014, by subject. Overall, seven issues (24%) relate to food safety, eight issues (28%) relate to plant health and two issues (7%) relate to other concerns. The remaining 12 issues 
(41%) relate to animal health and zoonoses; noneth eless, this category includes issues such as 
transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) that are also relevant for food safety. TSEs 
account for 25% of animal health concerns raised in 2014, while issues related to foot-and-mouth disease account for 17%. There are no issues raised in 2014 that relate to avian influenza. The 
remaining 58% of raised concerns refer to other animal health issues. 
Chart 2.1 - Trade Concerns by Subject – 2014 
 
 
 
Chart 2.2 - Trade Concerns Related to Animal Health & Zoonoses – 2014 
 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 27 - 
 
  Chart 2.3 - Participation of Members – 2014 
 
 
2.3.  Of the 29 trade concerns discussed in 2014 (including those resolved), in 21 cases a 
developed country Member has raised the issue,  compared to 14 cases for developing country 
Members. On some occasions, developing and developed country Members have raised or 
supported the same issue. No cases were raised by a least-developed country Member in 2014. 
Developed country Members have supported anothe r Member raising the issue in seven cases and 
developing country Members have supported another Member in 25 cases. One case was supported by a least-developed country Member in 2014. 
2.4.  In 12 cases, the measure at issue was maintained by a developing country Member, and in 
14 cases it was maintained by a developed country Member. No trade concerns regarding measures maintained by a least-developed country Member were raised.
6 
2.5.  Panel proceedings occurred in the context of the WTO dispute settlement resolution 
procedures with respect to three STCs (185, 318 and 369). 
2.6.  The information that follows is presented according to the Member(s) maintaining the 
measure in the order of the alphabetic list of Members. It provides a summary of the discussions 
in the SPS Committee on the trade concern. 
 
                                               
6 As any individual trade concern can potentially be raised by more than one Member, this explains the 
apparent double-counting shown in Charts 2.2 and 2.3 compared with the overall count of the 382 specific trade concerns raised since 1995. 
G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 28 - 
 
  Table 2.1 – Issues Raised for the First Time in 2014 
Specific 
Trade 
Concern Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status
7 
369 Import ban on live pigs and 
pork products due to African Swine Fever Russian Federation European Union NR 
370 US Imports of meat from 
Brazil United States of America Nicaragua NR 
371 Import requirements for 
blueberries and avocados India Chile NR 
372 Import restrictions on 
certain types of plant 
products Russian Federation European Union NR 
373 US high cost of certification 
for mango exports United States of America India NR 
374 EU ban on mangoes and 
certain vegetables from 
India European Union India NR 
375 US non-acceptance of OIE 
categorization for BSE United States of America India NR 
376 Australia's non-acceptance 
of OIE categorization for 
BSE Australia India NR 
377 Brazil's regulation on 
international certificates for 
fish and fishery products Brazil China NR 
378 EU withdrawal of 
equivalence for processed organic products European Union India NR 
379 Russia's market access 
requirements for bovine 
meat Russian Federation India NR 
380 Import restrictions on fruits 
and vegetables Russian Federation European Union NR 
381 Requirements for veterinary 
certificates Russian Federation Ukraine NR 
382 Categorization of 
compounds as endocrine 
disruptors European Union United States 
of America NR 
 
                                               
7 NR= Not Reported, P = Partially resolved, R= Resolved. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 29 - 
 
  Table 2.2 - Issues Previously Raised and Discussed Again in 2014 
Specific 
Trade 
Concern Number  Description of Measure Member(s) 
Maintaining the 
Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status
8 
193 General import restrictions 
due to BSE Certain Members European 
Union, United States of 
America PR 
238 Application and modification 
of the EU Regulation on 
Novel Foods European Union Colombia, 
Ecuador, Peru NR 
289 Measures on catfish United States of America China NR 
330 Indonesia's port closures Indonesia China, 
European 
Union, New Zealand, United States of 
America  PR 
340 Requirements for importation 
of sheep meat Turkey Australia NR 
344 Measures on shrimp Brazil Ecuador NR 
351 EU temperature treatment 
requirements for imports of 
processed meat products European Union Russian 
Federation NR 
354 Import restrictions in 
response to the Japanese 
nuclear power plant accident Certain Members Japan NR 
356 Phytosanitary measures on 
citrus black spot European Union South Africa NR 
358 Import conditions for pork 
and pork products India European Union NR 
359 Strengthened import 
restrictions on fishery 
products with regard to radionuclides Korea, Republic of Japan NR 
368 Import restrictions on 
confectionary products Russian Federation Ukraine NR 
 
 
Table 2.3 - Issues Reported as Resolved in 2014 
Specific 
Trade 
Concern Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status
9 
5 Measures on catfish United States of America China R 
328 US default MRLs, limits of 
determination or limits of quantification on basmati rice United States of America India R 
342 Restrictions on shrimp due 
to anti-oxidant residues Japan India R 
                                               
8 NR= Not Reported, P = Partially resolved, R= Resolved. 
9 NR= Not Reported, P = Partially resolved, R= Resolved. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 30 - 
 
  2.1  Australia 
2.1.1  Animal Health General import restrictions  due to BSE (STC 193) 
2.7.  See paragraphs 2.221.–2.275. 
Australia's non-acceptance of OIE categorization for BSE (STC 376) 
Raised by: India 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2014 (G/SPS/R/75, paras. 4.11-4.12), October 2014 (G/SPS/R/76, 
paras. 3.24-3.25) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.8.  In July 2014 India raised its concern regarding Australia's non-acceptance of OIE categorization for BSE. Under Australia's new requirements, countries had to obtain clearance on 
their BSE categorization to be able to export beef  products to Australia. India noted that Australia 
had also chosen to implement its own categorization process and voiced its concern with the potential multiplicity of systems, as well as the risk posed if national categorization processes ran counter to OIE's categorization. India requested that Australia accept its categorization as 
designated by the OIE, in order to resolve this issue. 
2.9.  Australia noted that this concern was being raised for the first time in the Committee and 
that bilateral discussions had been held on the marg ins of the meeting to identify India's concerns. 
Australia reserved its right to conduct its own assessment on the status of India or any other 
Member, in relation to diseases of biosecurity concern, including BSE, in accordance with its current policies and appropriate level of protection. 
2.10.  In October 2014 India expressed its concern, once again, regarding Australia's non-
acceptance of its OIE categorization as negligible risk country for BSE, and requested again that Australia accept the OIE categorization. 
2.11.  Australia reiterated that it reserved its ri ght to conduct its own risk assessments and offered 
to conduct meetings in Delhi or at the margin of the ongoing SPS Committee meeting in order to 
resolve this issue bilaterally. 
2.2  Brazil 
2.2.1  Animal Health 
Measures on shrimp (STC 344) 
Raised by: Ecuador 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, paras. 180-181), March 2013 (G/SPS/R/70, 
paras. 3.25-3.26), March 2014 (G/SPS/R/74, paras. 3.9-3.10) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.12.  In October 2012, Ecuador flagged the drastic decrease in its shrimp exports due to Brazil's 
Regulation 39, that placed conditions on the authorization for shrimp imports so as to prevent the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 31 - 
 
  introduction of white spot and yellow head virus. Ecuador had spent considerable resources in 
protecting and preserving its shrimp production from these two diseases through the residue and contaminant monitoring plans, which had been provided to Brazil. The Brazilian authorities had indicated that the measures adopted in Regulation 39 had been lifted; however the Brazilian 
Ministry of Agriculture published another Standard 12 establishing procedures for import risk 
analysis that was yet to be implemented. Bilateral discussions had resulted in information exchange and Ecuador hoped for a rapid mutual solution to the issue. 
2.13.  Brazil noted that it had been informed of this trade concern at short notice and did not have 
sufficient time to prepare a substantive response. The concerns would be conveyed to the relevant authorities in the hope that a solution could soon be found. 
2.14.  In March 2013, Ecuador reiterated its concern regarding Brazil's import ban on shrimp. 
Following Brazil's implementation of Regulation 39 on 4 November 1999, Ecuador's shrimp exports 
to Brazil first decreased and then completely st opped in 2000. Brazil had justified its import 
restrictions on the basis that the measure protected the country from white and yellow spot 
diseases. However, following the implementation of the Residues and Contaminants Monitoring 
Plan in 2007, Ecuador's shrimp entered markets that had stricter requirements than Brazil, e.g., the European Union, Japan and North America. Brazil had not provided the necessary 
information to justify its measures, nor a risk assessment and Ecuador considered that the 
measures were discriminatory and not in compliance with Article 2 of the SPS Agreement. Brazil's Ministry of Fisheries had announced on 21 February  2013 that the risk identification phase of this 
issue would be concluded in two weeks, but there was still no official statement on its outcome. 
Ecuador urged Brazil to provide information on this issue. 
2.15.  Brazil confirmed that a risk analysis on  Ecuadorian shrimp was being conducted and was 
now in the phase of risk and hazard identification. This was a complex exercise given that the 
issue dealt with an aquaculture product. For this reason it had not been possible to conclude and 
release the report of the risk identification phase in March, but the report was expected to be published soon. Brazil looked forward to moving on  to the subsequent phases of the risk analysis 
as soon as the report on hazard identification was published.  
2.16.  At the March 2014 meeting Ecuador again urged Brazil to complete the risk assessment 
within a reasonable time and stressed that Ecuador had quarantine mechanisms in place to detect white spot disease in its fisheries. Ecuador offered to provide information and enable inspections 
from the Brazilian authorities in order to ensure compliance with Brazil's requirements and 
accelerate the process of risk assessment. 
2.17.  Brazil noted that the risk assessment was a complex task, but the process was moving 
forward and Brazil had concluded its public consultations. It was prepared to send an inspection 
delegation to Ecuador in June, as a follow-up to a questionnaire sent in March. 
Brazil's regulation on internat ional certificates for fish and fishery products (STC 377) 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2014 (G/SPS/R/75, paras. 4.13-4.14) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/BRA/901 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.18.  In July 2014, China raised its concerns regarding Brazil's regulation on international 
certificates for fish and fishery products. Brazil's regulation standardized international certificates 
for fish and fishery products exported to Brazil and required all countries, except Argentina, Canada, Chile and Uruguay, to provide certificates for these food products. The entry into force of the regulation had been notified on 1 January 2014, however, the new version of the certificate 
had only been circulated by Brazil on 21 January 2014. On receipt of the sample certificate, China 
had requested Brazil to grant a transitional period  for the replacement of the certificate with the 
additional suggestion that the old certificate rema in valid before both parties confirmed the new G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 32 - 
 
  certificate. The request for a transitional period was refused, but Brazil had agreed that detained 
goods would be cleared if the old certificate were replaced. In April 2014, China issued a new certificate for the goods at the Brazilian ports, however, 170 batches of goods bearing the new certificate were retained at the port. China urged Brazil to grant a transitional period for the 
replacement of its old certificate and to promptly  allow the clearance of the batch of detained 
goods. 
2.19.  Brazil indicated that it would not be able to provide a detailed response as they had been 
informed of this trade concern at a short notice . Additional information had been requested from 
China to assist Brazil in identifying the problem. However, based on initial information received from its authorities, and subject to further verification, the list of 170 detained goods was outdated. Brazil indicated its commitment to resolve the issue and requested China to provide the 
relevant details, including the number of detained goods and the reasons identified for the 
detention of the goods. 
2.3  China 
2.3.1  Food safety 
Import restrictions in response to the Japa nese nuclear power plan t accident (STC 354) 
2.20.  See paragraphs 2.210-2.220. 
2.3.2  Animal Health 
General import restrictions  due to BSE (STC 193) 
2.21.  See paragraphs 2.221.–2.275. 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; Guatemala; Honduras; India; Indonesia; Mexico; Nicaragua; Paraguay; Philippines; Uruguay; Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 
Dates raised: March 2006 (G/SPS/R/40, paras. 21-29), June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, 
paras. 35-37), October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, paras. 140-143), February 
2007 (G/SPS/R/44, para. 64), April 2008 (G/SPS/R/49, paras. 48-52), 
October 2008 (G/SPS/R/53, paras. 19-23), October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, paras. 53-55), June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, paras. 32-35), October 2011 
(G/SPS/R/64, paras. 72-73), March 2012 (G/SPS/R/66, paras. 50-52), 
July 2012 (G/SPS/R/67, paras. 56-58), October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, paras. 26-28), March 2013 (G/SPS/R/70, paras. 3.37-3.39), October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 3.52-3.54), March 2014 
(G/SPS/R/74, paras. 3.15-3.18), July 2014 (G/SPS/R/75, paras. 4.38-
4.40), October 2014 (G/SPS/R/76 paras. 3.6–3.8) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/681, G/SPS/GEN/699, G/SPS/GEN/700, G/SPS/GEN/713, 
G/SPS/GEN/714, G/SPS/GEN/733, G/SPS/GEN/735, G/SPS/GEN/1087, G/SPS/GEN/1117, G/SPS/GEN/1137, G/SPS/GEN/1218, G/SPS/N/EU/64, 
G/SPS/N/EU/64/Add.1 and G/SPS/N/EU/64/Add.2, G/SPS/GEN/1329, 
G/SPS/GEN/1361 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 33 - 
 
   
2.22.  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. 
2.23.  Colombia was aware of the importance of protecting consumer health. However, the amount 
of information on the safety of these traditional food products required by the EC regulation and 
the costs to undertake scientific studies were not proportional to health risks and were excessive 
especially for small scale farmers and exporter s. The proposed amendment of Regulation 258 
would result in a non-tariff barrier to trade with negative effects on the introduction of traditional 
foods into European markets, contrary to Articles 2.2 and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement. Colombia requested the European Communities to consider the following points regarding the amendment of the Regulation 258/97: (i) the non-application of Regulation 258 to exotic, traditional products 
with a history of safe consumption in their region of origin; (ii) greater transparency and clarity in 
the procedures and definition, giving credit to a safe consumption history of food in the country of origin; requirements, tests, and procedures in pr oportion with the nature of the foods concerned 
and the risks they could imply for consumers; and (iii) all exotic traditional products to remain in 
the public domain and no private entity to be granted privileged access to the European market. 
2.24.  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. 
2.25.  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). 
2.26.  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. 
2.27.  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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 34 - 
 
  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. 
2.28.  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). 
2.29.  Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, India, Paraguay and the Philippines shared the concerns 
raised by Peru. Ecuador indicated that a study on the impact of the novel food regulation was about to be finalized. Preliminary results of this study showed that this regulation could have 
negative economic and social consequences for Ecuador's production system by having an effect 
both on current exports and on products with ex port potential in the European Communities that 
were currently marketed in other countries (G/SPS/GEN/714). Bolivia and Colombia highlighted that some of the products were currently being promoted inter alia by policies supporting 
alte rnative s  t o narc otic  c rop s , s ome  of whic h we re  fund e d  b y the  Europ e an Communit ie s  or its 
member States. The Philippines indicated that th e effects of the novel food regulation and of 
EC regulations on genetically modified  food were still being evaluated. 
2.30.  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. 
2.31.  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. 
2.32.  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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 35 - 
 
  2.33.  Bolivia, Brazil and the Philippines shared the concerns of Peru, Ecuador and Colombia. The 
Philippines highlighted the fact that the regulation could become an unjustified non-tariff barrier to the EC market in view of the unclear technica l distinction between these products and other 
products. The Philippines expressed hope that pr ogress would be made on the issue and a mutual 
solution found as soon as possible. 
2.34.  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. 
2.35.  In February 2007, Peru noted that although it had not requested that this issue be on the 
agenda for this meeting, it would welcome an update from the European Communities on current 
developments. The European Communities indicate d that the Novel Foods Regulation was being 
revised. It had initially been designed to cover a full range of Novel Foods, from GMO foods to products of biological diversity. Following public consultations and the consideration of the views 
and comments received, revised legislation wa s being prepared. The European Communities 
anticipated that the result would be a two-tiered process, with products that had a long history of safe use subjected to less rigorous procedures than other Novel Foods. The European Communities 
was looking to address the concerns identified by trading partners, while ensuring consumer 
safety. 
2.36.  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. 
2.37.  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. 
2.38.  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. 
2.39.  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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 36 - 
 
  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. 
2.40.  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. 
2.41.  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. 
2.42.  The European Communities stated that the existing legislation was too ambitious in covering 
a whole range of Novel Foods. For this reason, the European Communities planned to revise the 
regulation, as had been notified to the TBT Commi ttee. This proposal had been under negotiation 
in the EC Parliament and Council. However, there were concerns regarding the approval of some 
products. For instance, matters became complicated when exporters requested the classification of 
food supplements as Novel Foods, rather than wh ole fruits and vegetables. However, the revised 
procedure was expected to be more flexible, and some Novel Foods had already been approved for 
entry into the EC market. The European Communities noted that in this specific case, the legal 
advice had been to only notify the proposed revision to the TBT Committee since it covered 
approval procedures for Novel Foods in general. This did not preclude that the issue could be discussed at the SPS Committee. In response to a qu ery, 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. 
2.43.  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. 
2.44.  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. 
2.45.  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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 37 - 
 
  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. 
2.46.  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. 
2.47.  In October 2011, Peru recalled its concerns about Regulation 258/97 (G/SPS/GEN/1117). 
Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico and Paraguay shared the concerns raised by 
Peru. 
2.48.  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. 
2.49.  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. 
2.50.  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. 
2.51.  The European Union restated the observations presented during the 2011 June and October 
meetings. 
2.52.  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. 
2.53.  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. 
2.54.  The European Union explained that revision of the novel foods rules had started in January 
2008 in an effort to facilitate applications for nove l foods authorizations and to simplify EU market 
access for traditional foodstuffs from third countries with a history of safe use. However, the co-G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 38 - 
 
  legislators had not agreed to the proposed revision and the European Union was now engaged in 
preparing the next steps in the hope of facilitating the consensus necessary to allow a revised novel food regulation to be adopted into law. The European Union would make public the next steps it was taking once these were agreed. The Commission was currently preparing a legislative 
proposal based on the overall agreement reached with  EU co-legislators, with adoption expected in 
2013. Any new regulation on novel foods would co ntain a centralized and quicker authorization 
procedure for novel foods and specific measures would be put in place for traditional foods from 
third countries to access EU markets. A related legislative proposal on animal cloning was planned 
to be adopted by the Commission in 2013, based on the results of an impact assessment which was currently underway. 
2.55.  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. 
2.56.  Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador and Venezuela supported Peru's concern 
and asserted that Regulation 238/97 constituted an unnecessary barrier to trade because it targeted products that were not widely traded in the EU market before 1997 without considering 
the history of safe consumption in other countries. Colombia regretted the EU delay in reforming 
this Regulation to bring it into compliance with WTO obligations. Brazil, Chile and Costa Rica 
reiterated their interests in developments regarding the reform of this Regulation. 
2.57.  The European Union recalled that at the la st meeting it had provided a detailed explanation 
on the state of play of the Novel Foods dossier; it was now engaged in preparing a new legislative 
proposal on Novel Foods, expected to be adopted in 2013. The European Union would keep Members informed on the progress of the novel food  negotiations, on future measures applicable 
to traditional foods from third countries, and would notify the new draft legislation to the WTO for 
comments. In order to help producers, importers and those responsible for placing products on the EU market a Novel Food Catalogue had been created, and a document indicating how interested operators may establish whether a food or food ingredient had a history of consumption in the 
European Union. The European Union remained committed to work with concerned partners 
towards an amicable solution of this matter. 
2.58.  In March 2013, Peru reiterated its previous ly raised concern with regard to EU Regulation 
258/97 on Novel Foods whose application restricted  access to the EU market for products which 
were not marketed in the European Union before May 1997 (G/SPS/GEN/1137). Peru considered the Regulation to be an unjustified trade barrier for Peruvian traditional products derived from 
biodiversity, due to the high costs of the applicatio n required to access the market and to the time 
required for market access approval. The EU measure was contradictory to international co-operation and technical assistance efforts for market development and for capacitation of small and medium producers. For example, camu camu ( Myrciaria dubia ), a sylvan fruit native to the 
western Amazon basin, was traded in countries like Japan and the United States and was listed in 
the Codex Classification of Foods and Feeds, bu t banned in the European Union. Peru requested 
information on the status of the new EU legislative proposal on Novel Foods and asked the 
European Union to reconsider those traditional products arising from biodiversity with a history of 
safe consumption outside the EU market. 
2.59.  Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Paraguay ec hoed Peru's concern and looked forward to the 
EU legislative proposal to revise the regulation . Colombia and Paraguay urged the European Union 
to take into account the history of safe consumption of such products. 
2.60.  The European Union stated that the new legislative proposal was still taking shape and was 
due later that year. Specific measures for traditional foods from third countries to ease their 
access to EU markets would be proposed. The overall purpose of the proposal was to streamline 
the approval procedure and provide for a centralized  system of authorization. The new draft, once 
finalised, would be sent to all EU trading partners via notification under both the SPS and the TBT 
Agreements to allow any comments and concerns to be taken into account. The European Union 
remained open to discuss the matter in more detail. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 39 - 
 
  2.61.  In October 2013, Peru reiterated its concern over the EU Regulation on Novel Foods, as it 
restricted the access of traditional biodiversity-based products into the European market. Peru had previously shown the negative effects of this me asure on exporters. The proposed amendment of 
Regulation No. 258/97 would exclude from its scope traditional biodiversity-based products which 
had previously been safely consumed in their country of origin. The aim of this was to facilitate the 
export of these products from developing countries. Peru requested information on the status of the proposed amendment to Regulation No. 258/97 , which would be an important step to access 
the European market. 
2.62.  Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba and El Salvador expressed their support for Peru's 
concerns. 
2.63.  The European Union confirmed that the Eu ropean Commission intended to present a new 
Novel Food proposal by the end of 2013. This wo uld take into account the overarching agreement 
reached by the EU co-legislators on future measures applicable to Novel Foods, including those which were traditional in third countries. The proposal would streamline the approval process and 
provide specific measures for traditional foods from third countries, intended to ease their access 
to EU markets for the benefit of consumers whilst ensuring their safety. The draft proposal would be circulated to all Members through notifications under the SPS and TBT Agreements to allow for 
any comments and concerns to be well taken into account. 
2.64.  In March 2014, Peru reiterated its concern over the EU Regulation on Novel Foods and 
requested information on the status of the proposed amendment to Regulation No. 258/97. 
2.65.  Ecuador noted that the revised legislation, 2013/894, still posed barriers to products of 
biodiversity and sought assurances that it was compliant with Articles 2.2 and 5.6 of the SPS 
Agreement. The regulation created a disadvantage  to small producers because the EU regulations 
required that the marketing history of traditional biodiversity-based products be disclosed, and this 
information was rarely available in developing countries. Ecuador suggested that the European 
Union: (i) replace the existing process with a simplified risk-based authorization procedure; (ii) define clearly the factors to be used to evaluate safety; and (iii) clarify the international 
standards and procedures on which EFSA would base its decisions and carry out the risk 
assessments. 
2.66.  Costa Rica, El Salvador and Nicaragua also expressed support for Peru's concerns. 2.67.  The European Union announced that in December 2013, the Commission adopted a proposal 
for a new regulation on novel foods, accompanied by a further proposal on cloning. The proposed 
new regulation for novel foods focused on easing  market access for traditional foods, including 
those produced by small producers. The object ive was to simplify and streamline approval 
procedures while ensuring food safety. The proposal was notified to WTO in December 2013 
(G/SPS/N/EU/64) and an exceptionally long comment period (120 days) had been given. No comments had been received to date and interested Members were encouraged to submit their 
comments by the 20 April 2014 deadline. The European Union encouraged Ecuador to submit their 
comments in writing so that they could be considered as part of the notification process. 
2.68.  In July 2014, Peru reiterated its concer n over the proposed amendment of Regulation 
No. 258/97 (documents G/SPS/N/EU/64, G/SPS/N/ EU/64/Add.1 and G/SPS/N/EU/64/Add.2) and 
referred to its comments on how to facilitate access to the EU market for biodiversity products 
from developing countries (G/SPS/GEN/1329). Peru highlighted its concerns on the proposed definitions of: (1) "novel food" - and requested the risk assessment that established 15 May 1997 
as the reference date; (2) "traditional food from third country" – given that the majority of 
potentially exportable traditional foods derived from primary production; and (3) "history of safe food use in a third country"- proposing a period of  five years without any indication of risk to 
human health for demonstrating safe use, instead of the 25 year time-period envisaged by the 
European Union. Peru requested that the European Union revise these definitions to establish criteria that would allow traditional biodiversity products from developing countries real and timely access to the EU market. 
2.69.  Colombia, Costa Rica and Ecuador expressed their support for Peru's concerns. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 40 - 
 
  2.70.  The European Union recalled that in December 2013 it notified the proposal for a new 
regulation on novel foods, and an exceptionally lo ng comment period (150 days in total) had been 
given to facilitate interested Members to dialogue with the European Union. The deadline to submit comments had been extended to 20 May 2014, and comments had been received from Canada, 
China, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru and the United  States. EU experts were examining the comments 
and written replies would be provided soon. The Eu ropean Union explained that the reference date 
of 15 May 1997 was already applied by the existi ng Regulation No. 258/97/EC, and as the new 
proposal did not change the scope of the EU legisl ation, this date remained unchanged. A guidance 
document had been elaborated to explain how to establish the use of a food to "a significant 
degree". On the definition of "traditional food from third country", this only referred to primary production. Sacha inchi oil could be placed on the EU market, whereas camu camu or rumberry 
were only known in the European Union to be used in food supplements. The 25 years history of 
safe use reflected experience gained by one ge neration of population consuming the food in 
question, and no toxicological data were required, only compositional data. The new proposals 
aimed to streamline the pre-market authorization procedure, in particular by faster and more 
proportionate safety assessments for traditional foods from third countries with a history of safe use. Detailed guidance on all information to be presented as part of the application would be 
provided. Recommendation 97/618/EC would be replaced by a new scientific guidance elaborated 
by EFSA by 31 October 2015, and would be subject to public consultation. 
2.71.  In October 2014, Peru restated its concerns  over the proposed amendment of EU Regulation 
No. 258/97 (G/SPS/GEN/1361), again requesting the review of several definitions. Furthermore, 
Peru addressed Article 9 of the proposed amendment, which sets forth the procedure for 
authorizing the placement of novel food on the EU market, requiring the exporter to present 
scientific evidence demonstrating the safety of th e novel food in question. Peru challenged the 
consistency of EU's proposed Regulation with Articles 2.2 and 5 of the SPS Agreement, which 
require the importing Member to adopt the least trade-restrictive measure, based on a risk assessment, and requested the European Union to  provide the underpinning scientific basis. 
2.72.  Colombia and Guatemala expressed their support for Peru's concerns. 
2.73.  The European Union informed the Committee that Members' comments on the new 
proposed Regulation were being transmitted to the European Parliament and European Council for consideration before its final adoption. Regarding Peru's comments on Article 9, the European 
Union recalled that one of the main objectives of the proposed Regulation was to facilitate and 
streamline the authorization of novel foods from third countries. European Commission Recommendation 97/618/EC reflected the scientific considerations underpinning the draft 
legislation. As it was not possible to anticipate the potential risks associated with novel foods 
production processes, the European Union noted that a high level of food safety could only be achieved by putting in place a pre-market approval system, compatible with Article 8 and Annex C 
of the SPS Agreement. The Europe an Union expressed its confidence that the proposed Regulation 
was consistent with the SPS Agreement since it provided unified, simplified and shortened authorization procedures. The European Union reit erated its commitment to work closely with all 
Members to address their concerns and to provid e detailed guidance to applicants regarding the 
authorization and notification procedures. 
Categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors (STC 382) 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2014 (G/SPS/R/74, paras. 4.3-4.4) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.74.  In March 2014, the United States noted that the European Union planned to publish a road map outlining different options and a preliminary impact assessment in its process to assess, 
classify and regulate endocrine disruptors. The Un ited States urged the European Union to swiftly 
notify the roadmap, any future proposals and th e draft impact assessment, and to take into G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 41 - 
 
  account comments from Members. The United States requested that the European Union explain 
its endocrine disruptor assessment program, particularly the timing for public consultations, as well as the timeframe for notifications and the manner in which Members' comments would be taken into consideration. 
2.75.  The European Union highlighted that several segments of its legislation contained provisions 
on endocrine disruptors; however, scientific criter ia for the identification of endocrine disruptor 
substances were not yet available. The European Union noted that it had planned to propose 
scientific criteria to identify endocrine disruptors in its biocidal products regulation and plant 
protection products regulation by December 2013. However, in light of the potential impacts of a choice of criteria, the European Commission decided to carry out a comprehensive impact assessment to analyse the different policy options av ailable to define criteria for the identification 
of endocrine disruptors, before making a revised proposal. This process was underway and the 
next step would be publication of a roadmap, within the coming weeks, outlining the various policy options for the criteria to be assessed. The impact assessment would follow standard 
EU guidelines, take into account existing scientific studies and reports, relevant international on-
going work on this subject, and the impact on international trade. The European Union further clarified that a public consultation would be launched as part of the process in the course of 2014, 
enabling all stakeholders and trading partners to provide their input. 
2.4.2  Animal Health EU temperature treatment requirements fo r imports of processed meat products 
(STC 351) 
Raised by: Russian Federation 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2013 (G/SPS/R/71, paras 4.1-4.2), March 2014 (G/SPS/R/74, 
paras. 3.21-3.22), July 2014 (G/SPS/R/75, paras. 4.32-4.24) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/1328 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.76.  In June 2013, Russia raised concerns about the EU requirement that bovine and porcine 
meat products be heat-treated to 80°C and aske d that the European Union bring its requirements 
in line with international standards, which only required heat-treatment to 70°C. Russia urged the 
European Union to finalize the legislative proce ss under way that would bring the EU requirements 
into line with OIE recommendations. 
2.77.  The European Union noted that it was free from African swine fever (ASF, except for one 
island) and foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), both of which occur in Russia. The heat-treatment 
requirement of 80°C was applied to prevent the intr oduction of both diseases via the import of 
animal products. The request of Russia to use heat treatment to 70°C for a minimum of 30 minutes for previously deboned and defatted meats was in line with OIE standards for the 
inactivation of FMD, but not for ASF. The European Union would thus amend its measures only in 
the case of species that are not susceptible to AS F. The process of amending the existing import 
rules, to thereby meet the request of Russia, had already begun, and a proposal was expected to 
be adopted soon. 
2.78.  In March 2014, Russia reiterated its concerns regarding the EU heat treatment regimen for 
meat products, treated stomachs, bladders and intestines obtained from domestic cattle and 
farmed wild cloven-hoofed animals (except pigs), as well as domestic sheep and goats. Although 
the European Union recognized Kaliningrad as a sepa rate region in terms of veterinary concerns, it 
authorized imports from this region only of produc ts subject to a heat treatment of at least 80°C. 
Products from the rest of Russia were prohibited, other than to transit through the European 
Union. In response to a Russian request in March 2013 that the European Union establish the 
minimum core temperature of 70°C for heat treatment of such products and restore the right to export from the mainland of Russia, the European Union only agreed to the 70°C treatment for 
products from the Kaliningrad region, but required a longer exposure time than that requested. In G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 42 - 
 
  response to a March 2014 request for the scienti fic justification of the EU requirements, the 
European Commission had explained that the OIE Te rrestrial Animal Health Code did not establish 
special procedures for the destruction of the ASF virus in meat. Consequently, the European Commission decided to apply the procedures in EU  legislation for classical swine fever and other 
viral diseases, i.e. 80°C. Russia noted that this co ntradicted the provisions of the OIE Code that 
defined a minimum core temperature of 70°C (regimen D) as sufficient to inactivate classical swine fever virus. See also G/SPS/GEN/1328. 
2.79.  The European Union highlighted that the issue had been subject to intensive bilateral 
exchanges during recent years. Imports of meat products from pigs and ruminants used to be 
permitted from Russia since 1997 if they had been heat-treated to a minimum of 80°C. The animal 
health situation had deteriorated in Russia, wi th classical swine fever and African swine fever 
spreading due to inadequate controls. Russia did not apply regionalization within its territory and 
did not have an OIE officially recognized foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) status. The European Union encouraged Russia to set in motion the process to regionalize major animal diseases in their 
territory and to seek FMD recognition from the OIE. 
2.80.  In July 2014, Russia recalled that it had raised this concern for the first time in June 2013. 
In 2010, the competent Russian authority had init iated the authorization process for exports of 
raw meat preparation derived from cattle, pigs and poultry produced in the Kaliningrad region into 
the European Union. Russia had requested modified conditions of heat treatment for these products. As a result of joint long-term work undertaken by the Russian authorities and DG SANCO, EU Regulation No. 1162/2012 had been issued, which regulates the procedure for the 
export of animal products from the Kaliningrad region into the European Union. However, Russia 
noted that this regulation had since created many difficulties for its ready-to-eat meat product exports from the rest of Russia, and had resulted  in Russia's exclusion from the list of third 
countries authorized to export these products in to the European Union. To date, Russia had been 
unable to obtain a satisfactory science-based expl anation for the EU's decision to maintain the 
80°C heat treatment regime for pork. Russia requested a speedy resolution to this issue. 
2.81.  The European Union indicated that it was willing to amend Commission Decision 
2007/777/EC in order to re-establish the right of the whole country of Russia to export pig- and 
ruminant-origin meat products to the European Union. This position had already been communicated to Russia via bilateral channels. The European Union underlined that establishments 
approved to export the identified products were  situated exclusively in the Kaliningrad region. 
Before approving establishments in the rest of Ru ssia, an audit from the EU Food and Veterinary 
Office would be required to verify a satisfactory  animal and public health situation, which was 
standard procedure. The European Union was willing to consider the most adequate and effective 
import requirements according to the sanitary situation of the exporting party. The European 
Union would also review its requirements on processed pig products if and when the relevant OIE 
standards were modified or new scientific studies demonstrated that less stringent treatments 
could provide sufficient safety with regard to Afri can swine fever. In the case of ruminant-origin 
meat products, Russia did not apply the policy of regionalization in accordance with international standards nor did it have a favourable FMD status officially recognized by the OIE. For this reason, 
the European Union would not be in a position to relax its import requirements regarding 
ruminant-origin meat products. The European Union remained committed to continuing discussions on this issue and urged Russia to apply the princi ple of regionalization for major animal diseases 
within its territory. In response, Russia noted that regionalization was not relevant for FMD in the 
case of prepared meat products. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 43 - 
 
  2.4.3  Plant Health 
Phytosanitary measures on citrus black spot (STC 356) 
Raised by: South Africa 
Supported by: Argentina 
Dates raised: June 2013 (G/SPS/R/71, paras. 4.15-4.17), March 2014 (G/SPS/R/74, 
paras. 3.31-3.32), October 2014 (G/SPS/R/76, paras. 3.16-3.17) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/ 26, G/SPS/N/EEC/46, G/SPS/N/EEC/47 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.82.  In June 2013, South Africa raised concerns regarding the EU restrictive import measures on South African citrus exports infested with citrus  black spot. This issue had been on-going since 
1992. During the July 1997 SPS Committee meeting, South Africa had circulated a statement, 
G/SPS/GEN/26, in regard to the EU notifications of modifications of phytosanitary measures on 
citrus black spot (G/SPS/N/EEC/46 and G/SPS/N/ EEC/47). At that time, South Africa contended 
that the EU measures were not scientifically justified and lacked a technical basis, as infested fruit 
did not pose a significant pest risk. Unfortunately the issue remained unresolved. The EU measures not only lacked scientific basis, but had also had an excessively negative effect on trade and, as 
such, were in contravention of the SPS Agreement. As previously noted in the SPS Committee, this 
issue had been raised in the context of the IPPC  dispute settlement procedure, and bilateral talks 
were set to continue on this matter. South Africa was still waiting for the results of an EU pest-risk 
analysis regarding Guignardia citicarpa  that was supposed to have been completed in 2011. 
South Africa urged the European Union to finish it s pest risk analysis and to implement measures 
that had a scientific basis. 
2.83.  Argentina supported South Africa's position, as it was also a large exporter of citrus to the 
European Union. Argentina urged the European Union to complete its risk analysis swiftly and to 
put in place measures that were scientifically-based and not unduly restrictive of trade. 
2.84.  The European Union confirmed that this matter was the subject of the IPPC's first dispute 
settlement procedure and noted that its territory was free from citrus black spot, hence the 
restrictions in place reflected the EU desire to maintain this freedom. Detections of citrus black 
spot on South African fruit sent to the European Union had been on the rise, therefore the European Union decided that after a certain numbe r of interceptions action may be taken. The 
European Union assured South Africa of close cooperation before any such decision was made. The 
European Union underlined that the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was assessing whether citrus fruit itself could transmit citrus black spot disease. The draft pest-risk analysis 
should be available in July 2013, and would be op en to public consultation. The European Union 
hoped that the discussions, both bilaterally an d at the IPPC, and the expected forthcoming 
scientific information, would result in a solution that was agreeable to all involved. 
2.85.  In March 2014, South Africa reiterated its concerns over the restrictive requirements 
regarding citrus fruit imports by the European Union. In December 2013, the European Union 
published an emergency measure on further restrictions to prevent the introduction of the citrus black spot pathogen into EU territory. The EFSA pest risk analysis on citrus black spot was made 
available in February 2014. South Africa reviewed its risk management practices related to citrus 
black spot on an annual basis and significant improvements had been made, as documented to the European Union. South Africa maintained that the EU measures were more stringent than 
technically justified, and disproportionate in ligh t of the area of the European Union that could 
possibly be endangered by citrus black spot. 
2.86.  The European Union confirmed that EFSA had carried out a pest risk analysis on citrus black 
spot. As part of the process, a public consultation with scientific experts was held and all the 
resulting comments were made public. EFSA's assessment confirmed that citrus black spot 
presented a high risk to the European Union as environmental conditions in some parts of the European Union were favourable for the introducti on, establishment and spread of the disease via 
the import of citrus fruit. It was also underlined that while EU prevention measures were sufficient, G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 44 - 
 
  they should be reinforced in some cases. Since the process of revising its general import 
requirements in respect of citrus black spot would take time, the European Union was considering interim measures for the import of citrus fruit from South Africa due to the number of non-compliant consignments during the previous seas on. The European Union acknowledged the efforts 
being made by South Africa to ensure a safer trade in citrus fruits. 
2.87.  In October 2014, South Africa recalled that it had previously raised concerns over restrictive 
EU requirements for citrus fruit. Despite comments submitted by South Africa as well as by an 
international group of scientific experts, EFSA had released its final risk assessment on citrus black 
spot in February 2014, maintaining its opinion that commercial citrus fruit from areas where citrus black spot was present presented a risk to the European Union. Based on this conclusion, the 
European Commission Standing Committee on Plant Health had decided on additional import 
measures for citrus fruit from South Africa, which had taken effect in July 2014. In South Africa's 
opinion, these significantly more stringent measures were unjustified restrictions on trade, and were disproportionate to any possible risk to the European Union. The measures implied additional 
costs and had severe negative influence on South Africa's citrus industry. South Africa had 
voluntarily suspended exports from certain areas for the rest of 2014, and had asked the secretariat of the IPPC to establish an expert committee in line with Article XIII of the IPPC to 
provide an independent science-based opinion. Sout h Africa had been engaging with the European 
Union for 22 years without a successful outcome. South Africa would again review its citrus black spot risk management system for the 2015 export season, and would continue to strengthen its 
citrus industry. South Africa upheld its science-based opinion that EU phytosanitary import 
requirements in respect of citrus black spot for fresh consumption fruit were more stringent than 
technically justifiable. 
2.88.  The European Union stressed that the measures were in place to prevent the entry of citrus 
black spot, since there had been an increasing number of interceptions in 2014. The European 
Union was currently free from citrus black spot, and the disease would have severe socio-economic implications if imported. EFSA had established a scientific panel and was in the process of 
organizing a dialogue. The European Union ackn owledged South Africa's efforts to remedy the 
situation and expressed its willingness to comply wi th its responsibilities under the IPPC dispute 
resolution process, but was also looking forward to a bilateral dialogue with South Africa's officials. 
EU ban on mangoes and certain ve getables from India (STC 374) 
Raised by: India 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2014 (G/SPS/R/75, paras. 4.7-4.8), October 2014 (G/SPS/R/76, 
paras. 3.18-3.19) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.89.  In July 2014, India noted that, as of 1 May 2014, the European Union had banned the 
import of mangoes and four other vegetables from India, on the grounds of the increasing number of interceptions of harmful pests and organisms in the consignments exported to the European 
Union. India had held discussions with the European Union to share information on the various 
control measures which it had taken to address this issue. The EU ban had been imposed prior to the consideration of the outcome of several alternative methods for treating mangoes, such as hot 
water treatments or irradiation. As a result, th e entire mango crop destined for the EU market 
could not be exported. An EU technical team would visit India in September 2014 to inspect the various facilities and India welcomed an early solution to this concern. 
2.90.  The European Union explained that its measures had been introduced on 24 April 2014, due 
to the growing number of interceptions at the EU  border of consignments of plants and plant 
products with harmful organisms. Several meetings had been held with India to discuss problems related to its insufficient phytosanitary export checks and inadequate certification systems. In 
2010 and 2013, the EU Food and Veterinary Office undertook two missions to India, which 
revealed significant shortcomings in the certification system of plants exported to the European G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 45 - 
 
  Union. To date, there had been no improvement in this situation, and the number of consignments 
of plant products with harmful organisms intercepted at the EU border continued to grow. On this basis, the European Union had temporarily prohibited the import of five commodities until the end of 2015 to allow India to take corrective measur es and upgrade its certification system. This 
temporary ban would be reviewed in light of: (i) the outcome of future audits, the first one 
planned for September 2014; (ii) the receipt of suff icient guarantees from the Indian authorities; 
and (iii) the decrease in the number of intercep tions on plants and plant products for which 
imports from India are not prohibited. The Euro pean Union hoped that India would take the 
necessary measures to allow resumption of export of all plants and plant products to the European 
Union. 
2.91.  In October 2014, India reiterated its concern regarding the EU ban on its exports of 
mangoes and four other vegetables on the ground s of increasing numbers of interceptions of 
harmful pests and organisms. India had informed the European Union of various measures taken to reduce the interceptions, such as treating  mangoes with hot water against fruit flies. 
EU authorities had agreed to visit the Indian pa ck houses and the systems in place, and India 
requested the European Union to remove the restrictions at the earliest. 
2.92.  The European Union explained again the reasons for introducing its measures on five 
problematic commodities at the EU border. Th e European Union clarified that the current 
temporary ban was in force until the end of 2015, and that an audit report would be released in the next few weeks. Before reviewing the ban, the European Union was looking forward to sufficient guarantees from India that it would take effective corrective measures. 
2.4.4  Other concerns 
EU withdrawal of equivalence for pr ocessed organic products (STC 378) 
Raised by: India 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2014 (G/SPS/R/75, paras. 4.15-4.18), October 2014 (G/SPS/R/76, 
paras. 3.37-3.40) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/1354, G/SPS/GEN/1354/Rev.1 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
 2.93.  In July 2014, India indicated its concerns with the EU withdrawal of equivalence for 
processed organic products, which it had previously recognized since 2006. The equivalence 
agreement with the European Union provided that processed and unprocessed organic food products from India could be exported to the European Union pursuant to certification from the 
bodies accredited under India's National Programme for Organic Products (NPOP). In order to 
expand its exports, in September 2012 India had published guidelines that would permit certain 
imported ingredients products. These guidelines, wh ich provided that the percentage of imported 
ingredients would be within the range of 5%, were shared with the European Union who made no 
comment. However, EU Regulation No. 125/2013 wi th effect from 1 April 2013 removed processed 
organic products from the equivalence agreement, on the grounds that the agreement required that all of the ingredients must be grown in In dia. India clarified that no processed organic 
products containing imported ingredients were exported to the European Union. India requested 
that the equivalence recognition be restor ed as it had withdrawn the 2012 guidelines. 
2.94.  The European Union responded that India's concern was not an issue under the scope of the 
SPS Agreement. This position had previously been communicated to India during bilateral 
meetings held in April 2014 and on the margins of  the current meeting of the SPS Committee. The 
European Union reiterated its commitment towards engaging with India at a technical level on this issue, within the appropriate framework. 
2.95.  India explained that the criteria for designating a product as organic were far more stringent 
than the requirements for non-organic products and as such, notification of these requirements would fall within the scope of the SPS Agreement. India requested clarification from the Secretariat G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 46 - 
 
  in this regard, including a list of notifications regarding requirements for organic products. India 
also queried whether the international standard-setting bodies had undertaken any work in this regard. 
2.96.  The Secretariat noted that most notifications regarding organic products had been 
submitted under the TBT Agreement, as could be seen from the SPS and TBT Information 
Management Systems (IMS). There was no WTO lega l interpretation addressing organic products. 
The Codex had undertaken work regarding, in partic ular, the labelling of organic food products, but 
as confirmed by the representatives, neither the IP PC nor the OIE had any activities in that regard. 
The information provided by the Secretariat was subsequently issued in G/SPS/GEN/1354. 
2.97.  In October 2014, the Secretariat informed Members about inaccuracies in document 
G/SPS/GEN/1354, which provided information about SPS and TBT notifications on organic 
products, and on relevant Codex work. These inaccuracies would be corrected and a revised 
document would be circulated as soon as possible (G/SPS/GEN/1354/Rev.1, dated 7 November 2014). 
2.98.  India reiterated its concerns with the EU withdrawal of equivalence for processed organic 
products, which it had previously recognized since 2006. The September 2012 guidelines would permit certain imported ingredients, such as herbs, flavours, additives and colours, to be blended 
with Indian organic value-added products. India clarified again that no processed organic products 
containing imported ingredients were exported to the European Union since its 2012 guidelines had recently been withdrawn. India requested that the equivalence recognition be restored. 
2.99.  The United States was looking forward to the revised document and expressed its view that 
organic products did not fall under the ambit of the SPS Committee. 
2.100.  The European Union explained that its position that organic production was not covered by 
the SPS Agreement had not changed. Furthermore, as this concern related to a lack of compliance 
with rules of origin, the issue had no relation to SPS or food safety requirements. The European 
Union expressed its willingness to convey India' s concerns to the services of the European 
Commission responsible for organic products. The European Union had contacted the competent 
authority in India to start a dialogue at technical level. 
2.5  India 2.5.1  Animal Health Import conditions for pork and pork products (STC 358) 
Raised by: European Union 
Supported by: Canada 
Dates raised: October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 3.4-3.6), March 2014 (G/SPS/R/74, 
paras. 3.23-3.25), July 2014 (G/SPS/R/75, paras. 4.27-4.28), October 2014 (G/SPS/R/76, paras. 3.31-3.33) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.101.  In October 2013, the European Union noted that it had for several years been urging India to align its import conditions on pork and pork products with international standards. Currently, 
(a) India requested that the exporting country ce rtify freedom from a number of diseases for 
which the OIE had not set an international standard, yet India had not provided a science-based justification for these import conditions; (b) India required exporting countries to have country 
freedom without contemplating the possibility of trade from established disease-free regions; 
(c) specifically with regard to import conditions for processed meat of pork origin, India required that the exporting country certify that meat was processed so as to achieve an internal temperature of not less than 70°C for 30 minutes, without allowing any alternative treatments. 
These requirements by India were not based on the relevant OIE and CODEX standards. The G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 47 - 
 
  European Union further noted that under the SPS Agreement, import conditions should not be 
stricter than the measures applicable to the domestic market, and Indian legislation allowed non-heat treated processed pig meat within its domestic market. 
2.102.  The European Union urged India to bring its measures in line with the international 
standards or, alternatively, to provide a science-bas ed risk analysis for each of the diseases for 
which India applied import conditions stricter than the international standards and also for its requirement to import only heat-treated processed pork meat. The European Union also urged 
India to recognise the principle of regionalisatio n, which was effectively applied in the European 
Union, instead of requiring country freedom for certain diseases. 
2.103.  India noted that a technical expert committee had been established within the Department 
of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries. This committee reviewed all the technical aspects 
concerned in order to reach a decision on the rele vant veterinary certificates. One meeting of the 
committee had already been held and another was scheduled to take place. 
2.104.  In March 2014, the European Union recalled its concerns on India's import requirements 
for pork and pork products and reiterated its requ est that such measures be brought in line with 
the OIE standards. Alternatively, India could provid e a science-based risk analysis for each of the 
diseases for which India applied import conditions stricter than the international standards, and 
also for its requirement to only allow imports of  heat-treated processed pork meat. The European 
Union also urged India to recognize the principle of regionalization, which was effectively applied in the European Union, instead of requiring country freedom for certain diseases. 
2.105.  Canada shared many of the concerns rais ed by the European Union. Canada's exports of 
pork and pork products to India had been bloc ked due to India's onerous import requirements. 
Canada's concern was with respect to India's requirements for countries to certify freedom from diseases for which the OIE had not set a standard. Canada looked forward to an update from India 
on the process and timeline anticipated to comple te India's review of its import requirements. 
2.106.  India explained that its import requiremen ts required freedom from certain diseases which 
were exotic to India. With a strengthened bo rder surveillance system now in place, as 
communicated via bilateral channels, a technical expert committee was in the process of reviewing 
the import health certificate requirements, in ligh t of the OIE standards, but without compromising 
domestic health requirements. 
2.107.  In July 2014, the European Union recalled its concerns on India's import requirements for 
pork and pork products and noted that it had for many years been requesting India to bring such 
measures in line with international standards. Specifically, the European Union requested India: (a) to require that the exporting country certify freedom only from diseases for which there were 
OIE standards and not from other diseases; (b) to require cooking of pig meat and to recognize 
the curing processes in accordance with the relevant Codex standards; (c) to apply the same conditions to non-heat treated processed pig meat, weather imported or produced in India; and 
(d) to provide a sound scientific justification to diverge from international standards.  
2.108.  India noted that the sanitary requirements were being revised and that the Secretariat and 
Members would be informed in due time. 
2.109.  In October 2014, the European Union recalled its concerns regarding India's import 
requirements for pork and pork products, and noted that it had been requesting India for many 
years to bring such measures in line with the international standards of the OIE. While according to international standards veterinary authorities should not require any condition to allow trade of 
"safe commodities", India had imposed trade bans  and had never provided any sound scientific 
justification. The European Union repeated its re quest from July 2014. While India had promised to 
review its import requirements on multiple occasions, this had not yet led to tangible results. The 
European Union urged India to respect its obligations under the SPS Agreement, OIE and Codex 
Alimentarius, and to lift its longstanding barrier to trade immediately. 
2.110.  Canada echoed the concerns of the Euro pean Union and emphasized that India had not 
provided any scientific rationale for its deviation from international standards. Canada also noted 
that India required freedom from several animal diseases for which the OIE did not recommend G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 48 - 
 
  veterinary certification. Canada requested that India provide the Committee with a timeline for 
publishing revised import conditions for pork and pork products. 
2.111.  India noted that the sanitary import re quirements were being revised and that Members 
would be informed in due time. India further explained that the mentioned revision was delayed by 
the recent cases of African swine fever in the European Union. 
2.5.2  Plant Health India's import requirements for bl ueberries and avocados (STC 371) 
Raised by: Chile 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2014 (G/SPS/R/75, paras. 4.1-4.2) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.112.  In July 2014, Chile expressed its concerns regarding India's import requirements for 
blueberries and avocados from Chile, which began in 2010. Although India had notified its 
measures to the WTO in 2012, these technical requirements were unjustified because they did not take into account Chile's fruit fly-free status, which had been previously recognized by India in 2005. In particular, India's request for the use of methyl bromide fumigation on avocados and 
blueberries would affect the quality of the final product. Chile requested that India take into 
consideration the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement in finding a solution to this concern. 
2.113.  India responded that, having received Chile's request in 2010, it had conducted pest risk 
analyses and had subsequently notified its regulations to the WTO in 2012. Comments received 
from Chile on its notifications had been acknowledged, which were mainly related to several pests in avocados and blueberries. India's import requir ements, including fumigation by methyl bromide, 
could be relaxed if Chile provided the necessary documentation and proof regarding its pest-free 
area status from spodoptera eridania and s. frug iperda in the area of production of blueberries 
intended for export to India. For avocados, India requested Chile to submit the necessary technical information on the non-host status of avocado for the pests under discussion, their distribution 
within Chile and the location of avocado production areas. 
2.6  Indonesia 2.6.1  Plant Health 
Indonesia's port closures (STC 330) 
Raised by: China; New Zealand; United States of America; European Union 
Supported by: Argentina; Australia; Canada; Chile; Chinese Taipei; Japan; Korea, 
Republic of; South Africa; Thailand; Uruguay 
Dates raised: March 2012 (G/SPS/R/66, paras. 19-25), July 2012 (G/SPS/R/67, paras. 
49-55), October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, paras. 45-48), March 2013 
(G/SPS/R/70, paras. 3.40-3.43), June 2013 (G/SPS/R/71, paras. 4.39-
4.43), October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 3.26-3.29), July 2014 (G/SPS/R/75, paras. 4.19-4.22) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/IDN/48, G/SP S/N/IDN/49, G/SPS/N/IDN/53, G/SPS/N/IDN/54, 
G/SPS/N/IDN/54/Corr.1, G/SPS/N/IDN/58 
Status: Partially resolved 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved: 16 October 2013 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 49 - 
 
  2.114.  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. 
2.115.  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. 
2.116.  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 
2.117.  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. 
2.118.  New Zealand noted particular concerns that the Jakarta seaport had not been included on 
the list of accepted entry points as 90% of NZ ho rticulture exports entered through that port. The 
port closures would result in higher costs and lo nger transport times, affecting the quality, value 
and shelf life of the perishable horticultural pr oducts. New Zealand requested justification for the 
implementation of this regulation and while noti ng Indonesia's comments regarding port capacity, 
observed that restricting the number of ports for horticulture imports would compound the problem by diverting trade to fewer and smaller port s. Although the delay in the implementation of 
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. 
2.119.  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. 
2.120.  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.15 
 
- 50 - 
 
  2.121.  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. 
2.122.  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. 
2.123.  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. 
2.124.  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. 
2.125.  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. 
2.126.  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.15 
 
- 51 - 
 
  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. 
2.127.  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. 
2.128.  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. 
2.129.  In March 2013, China expressed concern with Indonesian Regulations 89, 90, 42 and 43 
(G/SPS/N/IDN/48, G/SPS/N/IDN/49, G/SPS/N/IDN/53, G/SPS/N/IDN/54), issued in December 
2011, that revised the inspection and quarantine measures for imported fresh fruits and 
vegetables. The regulations required accreditat ion of food safety and control systems and 
permitted the entry of fresh fruit and vegetables only through four specific Indonesian ports that 
did not include the Priok Sea port of Jakarta. This restriction negatively affected trade with China, 
as 90% of Chinese fruit and vegetable exports to Indonesia, entered through Jakarta. China also 
voiced concern regarding Decrees No. 30 and No. 60 (G/SPS/N/IDN/58), issued in 2012 that required a safety licence, issued by the Ministry  of Trade, for the import of certain fruit and 
vegetable products. Since Indonesia had delayed th e granting of these licences, the export of 
Chinese agricultural products to Indonesia had ex perienced a sharp decline. The Ministry of Trade 
of Indonesia had also restricted the import volume licence and required that fruit and vegetable 
products be inspected at the ports of the country of origin before exporting. From August to 
November 2012, China had invited Indonesia four times to verify the Chinese inspection and quarantine safety system. Indonesia had systematic ally requested investigations of the pest-free 
area for fruit flies of garlic in China. Given that garlic is not a host of fruit flies, China invited 
Indonesia to verify its inspection system more generally, not limiting the investigation to garlic. In December 2012, Indonesia responded that it would not conduct an investigation in China without feedback on the proposed investigation on fruit flies in garlic. China had successfully 
established a safety system for the export of fr uit and vegetables, and exported fruit to over 
18 countries, including the European Union, the Un ited States, Canada, Australia and Japan. China 
hoped that both sides would further strengthen their inspection services under the framework of 
the SPS Consultation and Co-operation Memorandum of Understanding that China and Indonesia 
had signed in December 2008, and quickly reso lve the inspection and quarantine problem. 
2.130.  The European Union supported the concern rais ed by China, highlighting that the denial of 
access to the port of Jakarta significantly increa sed the costs of exports to Indonesia. Indonesia G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 52 - 
 
  justified its measure by stating that it had found an increasing number of interceptions that posed 
a serious threat to its plant and consumer protection, however, Indonesia had never reported interceptions on any EU products. Despite several bilateral discussions with Indonesia, the European Union had not received any clarification that would justify these trade restrictive 
measures or explain the discriminatory preferential  access to the port of Jakarta for only a few 
countries. The European Union urged Indonesia to lift these unnecessarily trade restrictive measures without delay, and to only set SPS measur es with a view to minimize any negative trade 
effects in a non-discriminatory manner. 
2.131.  Argentina, Chile, Korea, Chinese Taipei and Uruguay also reported that the port closure 
was affecting their trade and stated their willingness to hold consultations with Indonesia to find a swift solution on this matter. Chile indicated th at it had provided Indonesia with the necessary 
information to confirm that its products were free from fruit flies and other pests, but had not 
received any response. Argentina noted that this issue should be solved as swiftly as possible as the concerned products (fruits) were seasonal and perishable products. 
2.132.  Indonesia highlighted its strong bilateral trade ties with China and emphasized that China 
represented the biggest supplier of agricultural pr oducts to Indonesia. The Indonesian government 
was still in the process of developing port infrastructure in Jakarta, including inspection facilities 
for quarantine and custom agencies. The new inspection system should be finalized by the end of 
this year and in the meantime trading partners should use the other specified ports after fulfilling the required food safety investigation and certification procedures. Indonesia urged Members to get information on how to obtain accreditation through their embassies in Jakarta. 
2.133.  In June 2013, China expressed concern with Indonesia's plant inspection and quarantine 
measures for fresh fruit and vegetables that required inspection before export, access into the country only through minor ports and quota restrictions. China had established an inspection and 
quarantine supervision system for its exported fruit and vegetables and had never received any 
indication from Indonesia with regard to pest problems in Chinese fruit. Jakarta's port closure increased transport costs, affected the preservation of the products and reduced market 
competitiveness. China asked Indonesia to cancel the requirement of third party inspection after 
mutual recognition of the newly established supervision system carried out by competent authorities of China and Indonesia. China also encouraged Indonesia to implement the agreement 
signed by both parties in Jakarta in May 2013 and to conduct field investigations to grant 
certification for eight kinds of fruit and vegetabl e products. Finally, China requested that Indonesia 
eliminate the quotas for fruit and vegetable products from China, to promote smooth development of trade between the two countries. 
2.134.  The European Union shared the concerns ra ised by China, highlighting that Jakarta's port 
closure significantly increased the costs of export s to Indonesia. Indonesia had claimed that its 
measure was justified by interceptions that posed a serious threat to its plant and consumer 
protection, however, Indonesia had never report ed interceptions on any EU products. Despite 
several bilateral discussions, the European Union had not received any clarification that would justify Indonesia's trade restrictive measures or explain the discriminatory preferential access to the port of Jakarta. The European Union therefore urged Indonesia to lift these unjustified and 
discriminatory restrictions on EU products. 
2.135.  South Africa also shared China's concerns that Jakarta's port closure and the mandatory 
use of SGS certification hampered trade flows into Indonesia and increased transport and 
certification costs. Despite submitting all required information with regard to the safety of its 
exports, South Africa had not received a favourable response from Indonesia. South Africa therefore requested that Indonesia lift these unjustified and discriminating measures. 
2.136.  Chile, Korea and Chinese Taipei also shar ed China's concerns and hoped that the problem 
would soon be resolved. Chile reported that it had obtained a bilateral meeting with Indonesia after providing all information required on its fruit exports. 
2.137.  Indonesia noted that this issue was in the process of being resolved bilaterally with China. 
A meeting with the Ministry of Agriculture of Indonesia had taken place on 22 May 2013 and the 
two countries had agreed to complete an extendable  protocol of import and export inspection and 
quarantine requirements for agricultural and food products. Indonesia explained that its measures G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 53 - 
 
  had been adopted to ensure consumer safety, as in the past, exotic quarantine pests were 
intercepted in potatoes imported from one of the Members who had now raised a concern against Indonesia. Indonesia also noted that the port of Jakarta would be re-opened as soon as the port infrastructure and the inspection facilities fo r quarantine and customs agencies were ready. 
2.138.  In October 2013, China noted that since December 2011, Indonesia's Department of 
Agriculture had issued successive ministeria l orders (G/SPS/N/IDN/48, G/SPS/N/IDN/49, 
G/SPS/N/IDN/53, G/SPS/N/IDN/54) amending the inspection and quarantine requirements for 
imported fresh fruits and vegetables. China assert ed that these orders, requiring accreditation of 
control systems, limiting the number of import lic ences, requiring that exports come from zones 
free from fruit fly, and limiting the point of entry to specific ports excluding Jakarta's main port Tanjung Priok, seriously affected its fruit and ve getable exports. The two countries had traded for 
years on the basis of established inspection an d supervision systems, and Indonesia had never 
informed China about any pest- or food safety- related problems. China had proposed a mutual 
recognition agreement on the inspection and quaran tine of fruits and vegetables to Indonesia on 
25 April 2013, and urged Indonesia to study it as so on as possible. China also requested Indonesia 
to remove quota limitations on Chinese fruits and vegetables, and to provide scientific justification for its measures. 
2.139.  Chile noted that it had engaged in bilateral negotiations with Indonesia, and hoped that 
this issue would be resolved before the next meeting of the Committee. 
2.140.  The European Union shared the concerns raised by China, noting that trade in certain 
horticultural products continued to be unnecessarily hampered because of the closure of several 
entry points, including Tanjung Priok. The opening of that port to some countries based on receipt 
of information on their food safety and plant health conditions, but not to others, appeared 
discriminatory. The European Union had provided all the requested information on the EU food 
safety and plant protection systems as requested,  but Indonesia continued to maintain the entry 
restriction. 
2.141.  Indonesia recalled several pest outbreaks it had suffered in the past, including papaya 
infestation by Paracoccus  sp. and spread of Globodera rostochiensis  in potato, and noted that in 
addition to pests, some imported fresh produce posed a food safety threat, exceeding permitted mycotoxin and chemical limits. Indonesia's quarantine facilities were limited and the workload too great for plant quarantine officers. Tanjung Priok port was undergoing necessary facility 
improvements in an effort to mitigate SPS risks. This risk mitigation, Indonesia stressed, was 
carried out in accordance with Article 6 of the SPS Agreement. Indonesia was not closing the port completely, but opening it under certain conditions. It had also amended its horticultural and 
animal product regulations, eliminating certain verification requirements in the country of origin, 
and requiring that registered importers should impo rt at least 80% of the volume of their import 
permit to maintain their status as a registered importer. 
2.142.  In July 2014, Chile expressed its concern at  the lack of access for its fruit exports through 
the Jakarta port, due to Resolutions No. 42 and No. 43 which had been issued by Indonesia's 
Ministry of Agriculture, effective June 2012. Chile had provided Indonesia with all the necessary documentation establishing its fruit fly-free status, and had requested that this be formally 
recognized. To date, Chile had not been recognized  as free of fruit flies by Indonesia, although 
other countries had been granted that status. The Indonesian authorities had not yet carried out a technical visit to Chilean sites, despite the invitation. Chile noted that Indonesia's measure was not 
in keeping with the objective of the SPS Agreemen t and further urged Indonesia to find a solution 
to its concern as soon as possible. 
2.143.  Korea reiterated Chile's concern, indicating that it had experienced difficulties in exporting 
its fresh agricultural produce to Indonesia since the port closure. Several bilateral discussions had 
been held and the requested information provided  to the Indonesian government, including the 
results of a fruit flies survey. Korea urged Indonesia to resolve this issue as soon as possible. Japan further supported this concern and requested Indonesia to find a solution to this issue. 
2.144.  Indonesia recalled the closure of Jakarta port had been undertaken to protect consumers 
from the threat of new pests and diseases identified in fresh produce imported through the port. Indonesia was free from Medfly and precautionary actions were being taken in particular on G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 54 - 
 
  products from countries which had Medfly. The Indonesian Quarantine Agency (IQA) had 
information that Medfly had been found in the Valpar aiso region in Chile, in a grape plantation area 
in 2013. Owing to the Medfly's ability to fly long distances, IQA was concerned that products from Chile could adversely affect various fruit and vegetable plantations in Indonesia. Given its limited 
capacity to control the potential spread of Medf ly, Indonesia could only approve products from 
countries with Medfly-free status or subject to treatments in compliance with the IPPC guidance. 
2.145.  Chile stressed that as of 2013, IPPC provided for the retention of the recognition of a 
country's pest-free status when an outbreak was quickly detected and controlled. Chile again 
invited Indonesia's technical experts to visit Chile to verify the swift management and eradication of these outbreaks. Furthermore, Chile had not received any warning prior to restrictions being imposed on its fruit exports. Chile reiterated its commitment to bilateral efforts to resolve this 
trade concern. 
2.146.  In July 2014, Chile again expressed its conc ern at the lack of access for its fruit exports 
through the Jakarta port. Chile had provided Indonesia with all the necessary documentation 
establishing its fruit fly-free status, and had requested that this be formally recognized. To date, 
Chile had not been recognized as free of fruit flies by Indonesia, although other countries had been granted that status. The Indonesian authorities had not yet carried out a technical visit to Chilean 
sites, despite the invitation. Chile noted that Indonesia's measure was not in keeping with the 
objective of the SPS Agreement and further urged Indonesia to find a solution to its concern as soon as possible. 
2.147.  Korea shared Chile's concern, indicating that  it had experienced difficulties in exporting its 
fresh agricultural produce to Indonesia since the port closure. Several bilateral discussions had 
been held and the requested information provided  to the Indonesian government, including the 
results of a fruit flies survey. Korea urged Indonesia to resolve this issue as soon as possible. 
Japan further supported this concern and requested Indonesia to find a solution to this issue. 
2.148.  Indonesia recognized that the publication of its regulations
10 had raised concerns among 
some WTO Members. Indonesia recalled the closure of Jakarta port had been undertaken to 
protect consumers from the threat of new pests and diseases identified in fresh produce imported 
through the port. Indonesia was free from Medfly and precautionary actions were being taken in particular on products from countries which had Medfly. The Indonesian Quarantine Agency (IQA) had information that Medfly had been found in the Valparaiso region in Chile, in a grape plantation 
area in 2013. Owing to the Medfly's ability to fly long distances, IQA was concerned that products 
from Chile could adversely affect various fruit and vegetable plantations in Indonesia. Given its limited capacity to control the potential spread of Medfly, Indonesia could only approve products 
from countries with Medfly-free status or subject to treatments in compliance with the IPPC 
guidance. 
2.149.  Chile stressed that as of 2013, IPPC provided for the retention of the recognition of a 
country's pest-free status when an outbreak was quickly detected and controlled. Chile again 
invited Indonesia's technical experts to visit Chile to verify the swift management and eradication of these outbreaks. Furthermore, Chile had not received any warning prior to restrictions being imposed on its fruit exports. Chile reiterated its commitment to bilateral efforts to resolve this 
trade concern 
2.7  Hong Kong, China 2.7.1  Food safety 
Import restrictions in response to the Japa nese nuclear power plan t accident (STC 354) 
2.150.  See paragraphs 2.210.–2.220. 
                                               
10 Ministry of Agriculture Regulation No 42/2012 and 43/2012. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 55 - 
 
  2.8  Japan 
2.8.1  Food safety Restrictions on shrimp due to an ti-oxidant residues (STC 342) 
Raised by: India 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, paras. 24-25), March 2013 (G/SPS/R/70, 
paras. 3.53-3.54), June 2013 (G/SPS/R/71, paras. 4.31-4.32), October 
2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 3.39-3.41), October 2014 (G/SPS/R/76, 
paras. 341-342) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: RESOLVED 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved: 15 October 2014 
 
2.9  Korea, Republic of 
2.9.1  Food safety 
Strengthened import restrictions on fisher y products with regard to radionuclides 
(STC 359) 
Raised by: Japan 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, pars. 3.7-3.9). March 2014 (G/SPS/R74, 
paras. 3.19-3.20), July 2014 (G/SPS/R/75, paras. 4.29-4.30), October 
2014 (G/SPS/R/76, paras. 3.9-3.10) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.151.  In October 2013, Japan expressed concerns regarding Korea's fishery import restrictions, 
including a ban on imports from eight prefectu res and additional testing and certification 
requirements in all cases where radioactive Cesi um was detected, even in quantities below the 
Korean limit of 100 Bq/kg. This requirement applied exclusively to Japanese products; Korean and 
other trading partners' products could be distributed as long as the radioactive Cesium level 
remained below 100 Bq/kg. Japan reiterated that contaminated water at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station had been detected only within an area of 0.3 square kilometres inside the 
port, and that the problem of contaminated water should not be equated with the safety of 
Japanese fishery products. Japan's central and local governments had taken measures to prevent the distribution of fishery products where requir ed, and the amount of samples exceeding the limit 
of 100 Bq/kg had drastically decreased both in th e Fukushima prefecture (from 53% in March/June 
2011 to 2.2% in July/September 2013) and else where (from 6.5% to 0.4% during the same 
periods). Japan recalled that SPS measures must not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between trading partners and urged Korea to provid e a scientific basis for its measures or explain 
concretely how the available scientific evidence was insufficient to carry out a risk assessment. 
2.152.  Korea indicated that its measures were in accordance with Article 5.7 of the SPS 
Agreement, as a result of insufficient scienti fic evidence and the potentially far-reaching 
cumulative effects of radioactive contamination on human health. Korea was reviewing the 
information provided by Japan but needed more  time to come to a final determination. 
2.153.  In March 2014, Japan reiterated its concerns regarding Korea's food, fisheries and feed 
import restrictions. These included a ban on imports from eight prefectures and additional testing 
and certification requirements in all cases where radioactive Cesium was detected, even in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 56 - 
 
  quantities below the Korean limit of 100 Bq/kg. This requirement applied exclusively to Japanese 
products; Korean and other trading partners' products could be distributed as long as the radioactive Cesium level remained below 100 Bq/kg. Japan noted that Korea also required inspection certificates on feed exported from certain areas in Japan. 
2.154.  Korea explained that its measures were in accordance with Article 5.7 of the SPS 
Agreement, as a result of insufficient scienti fic evidence and the potentially far-reaching 
cumulative effects of radioactive contamination on  food safety and human health. Korea was in the 
process of reviewing requested information provided by Japan in January 2014, but given the 
complexity of the issue, needed more time to come to a final determination. Korea was willing to engage with Japanese experts and discuss bilaterally  in order to finalize this process promptly. 
2.155.  In July 2014, Japan reiterated its concerns regarding Korea's food, fisheries and livestock 
products import restrictions. These bans and additional testing requirements for radionuclides were 
non-transparent, not based on science, discriminatory and more trade-restrictive than necessary. Japan had held numerous bilateral meetings and provided detailed information to Korea, and had 
offered additional meetings between experts, but Korea had not agreed to participate. In March 
2014, according to Articles 4 and 5.8 of the SPS Agreement, Japan had requested Korea: (1) to 
provide an explanation of the objectives and reas ons for Korea's SPS measures; (2) to identify the 
risks that its measures intend to address; (3) to indicate the level of protection that its measures 
intend to achieve; and (4) to provide a copy of any risk assessments undertaken. In June 2014, Japan had reiterated its written request. Furthe rmore, Korea's measures had not been published 
and the Korean enquiry point had not responded to requests for additional information. If Korea 
continued ignoring Japan's requests, Japan would have no choice but to resort to other actions 
under the WTO. 
2.156.  Korea explained again that its measures were in accordance with Article 5.7 of the SPS 
Agreement, to protect human health and food safety from radioactive contamination. Korea was in 
the process of reviewing information provided by Japan in January 2014. In parallel, Korea had held several expert meetings with Japan, and was willing to hold technical experts meetings and 
conduct on-site visits after reviewing the information, if necessary. 
2.157.  In October 2014, Japan reiterated its concern regarding Korea's import restrictions on 
fishery and food products and stated it sought to use the tools set forth in the SPS Agreement to reach an amicable solution. While Korea had recent ly started to provide some responses to Japan's 
questions raised under Articles 4, 5.8 and 7 of the SPS Agreement, these were insufficient. Yet, 
Japan welcomed Korea's indication that it was conducting a review, and its clarification on the appropriate level of protection underpinning its measures in relation to the radionuclide thresholds 
established in Codex STAN 193-1995. Japan was concerned about the lack of transparency 
surrounding Korea's review of the measures taken between 2011 and 2013, and encouraged Korea to provide more information on its review meetings and timeframes. Japan hoped that this review 
would include an objective, transparent and science-based reassessment of Korea's measures in 
accordance with international standards, such as Codex Working Principle CAC/GL 62-2007. Japan reiterated that if Korea continued ignoring Japan's requests, Japan would have no choice but to resort to other actions under the WTO. 
2.158.  Korea reiterated that its measures were in accordance with Article 5.7 of the SPS 
Agreement and stated that it had been seeking to obtain additional information for a more 
objective and science-based risk assessment, but received insufficient data from Japan. The latest 
technical meeting had been held on 18 Septembe r 2014. Korea was willing to conduct additional 
expert meetings and hoped for full co-operation with Japan to finalize its review process and resolve this issue. 
2.9.2  Animal Health 
General import restrictions  due to BSE (STC 193) 
2.159.  See paragraphs 2.221.–2.275. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 57 - 
 
  2.10  Russian Federation 
2.10.1  Food safety Import restrictions on confec tionary products (STC 368) 
Raised by: Ukraine 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 13.1-13.2), March 2014 
(G/SPS/R/74, paras. 3.13-3.14) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.160.  In October 2013, Ukraine raised concerns about the non-transparent manner in which 
Russia had banned imports of confectionary products  on 29 July 2013. This measure, based on the 
Resolution of the Federal Service on Customers' Rights Protection and Human Well-being Surveillance of Russia (No.01/8612-13-23), had no t been notified and Russia's SPS Enquiry Point 
did not provide the relevant information requested by Ukraine on 8 August 2013. No official 
evidence concerning the alleged presence of contam inants (such as benzopiren) had been officially 
submitted to Ukraine. Despite bilateral consultations the import ban was still in place. Ukraine believed that the measure was unnecessary and unjustifiably strict, maintained without sufficient 
scientific evidence, and applied in a discriminat ory manner, contrary to Annex C of the SPS 
Agreement. Ukraine requested Russia to provide an official detailed justification of its measure, or to immediately lift the ban and to bring its measure into line with the SPS Agreement and with its 
accession commitments. 
2.161.  Russia indicated that the reason for suspending Ukrainian confectionary product imports 
was largely outside the scope of the SPS Agreement. Not all imports of confectionary products had 
been suspended, but only of one particular bran d from Ukraine. The ban was related to the long-
term detection of labelling violations in these particular goods, and the fight against deceptive 
trade practices. The indication of the product categories did not correspond to the definitions in the Russian technical regulations. Russia had already held three rounds of consultations with the 
competent authorities of Ukraine, and an action plan developed to restart imports of confectionary 
products. Russia had provided an answer to Ukrain e's request for notification but apparently this 
had not been satisfactory to Ukraine. A second se t of answers by the competent authority made it 
clear that the measure in place was the same as that applied to domestic products. Russia 
considered that this trade concern had been resolved. 
2.162.  In March 2014, Ukraine reiterated its concerns regarding the non-transparent manner in 
which Russia had banned imports of confectionary products as of 29 July 2013. Ukraine 
appreciated the site visit conducted by Russia in October 2013 and the answers provided in March 2014, but despite the bilateral consultations, the im port ban was still in place. Ukraine requested 
again that Russia provide an official detailed justification of its measure or promptly lift the ban 
and bring its measure in line with the SPS Agreement. 
2.163.  Russia explained that suspension of impo rts of Ukrainian confectionaries was related to 
false labelling information and not SPS issues. Information requested from Ukraine had not yet 
been provided. Russia hoped to receive the relevant information soon in order to resume trade of 
these products with improved consumer information. 
2.10.2  Animal Health 
Import ban on live pigs and pork produc ts due to African swine fever (STC 369) 
Raised by: European Union 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2014 (G/SPS/R/74, paras. 3.3-3.4) G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 58 - 
 
  Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/1305, G/SPS/GEN/1313, G/SPS/GEN/1315, 
G/SPS/N/RUS/48, G/SPS/N/RUS/49 
Status: Panel established on 22 July 2014 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.164.  In March 2014, the European Union raised concerns regarding measures taken by Russia 
in response to the finding of African swine fever (ASF) virus in four wild boars in two EU member States: Lithuania and Poland (G/SPS/GEN/1305 and G/SPS/GEN/1313). The European Union had immediately delimited the affected areas and imposed stringent control measures. However, 
Russia had banned imports of live pigs, pork and certain other products from the entire 
EU territory, not just from the affected regions. Russia's claim that it was concerned about the spread of the disease into its own territory was unfounded as ASF was widespread in Russia. The 
disease was present in both wild boar and domest ic pig populations in Russia, as Russia had taken 
insufficient measures to prevent the spread of ASF virus. Scientific studies showed that the virus found in Lithuania and Poland originated in Russia. The European Union thus contended that 
Russia's measure was disproportionate, more trade restrictive than necessary and discriminatory, 
and urged Russia to bring its measures in line with its WTO obligations and with international standards. 
2.165.  Russia noted that ASF had inflicted significant damage on the Russian economy since the 
first outbreak was confirmed in 2008. After this outbreak and much mortality among susceptible 
animals, a special commission was established in 2013 for the prevention and eradication of ASF. 
During this period, Russia had kept all trading partners fully informed on possible vectors of 
spread, and had requested that the European Union consolidate its efforts for ASF control. 
Apparently, the European Union had underestimated the degree of the threat. Russia stressed that it imposed temporary restrictions on the importatio n of live pigs and pig products not subjected to 
adequate heat treatment only from those countries that had made relevant notifications to the OIE 
(Poland and Lithuania), not other EU member Stat es. However, Russia insisted on EU compliance 
with the requirements of the veterinary certificates agreed in December 2012. These required certification that no cases of ASF had been found during the last 36 months within the territory of 
an EU member State (excluding Sardinia). There were currently insufficient guarantees that a zone 
or compartment had been effectively establishe d and that the movement of goods within the 
EU territory was fully controlled. Furthermore, this was not a matter that could only be resolved 
without the involvement of the other members of the Eurasian Economic Community: Belarus and 
Kazakhstan. 
Russia's market access requirements for bovine meat (STC 379) 
Raised by: India 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2014 (G/SPS/R/76, paras. 3.1) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.166.  In October 2014, India reported on progress achieved bilaterally to resolve this concern, 
and thanked Russia for its support. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 59 - 
 
  2.10.3  Plant Health 
Import restrictions on certain ty pes of plant products (STC 372) 
Raised by: European Union 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2014 (G/SPS/R/75, paras. 4.3-4.4) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.167.  In July 2014, the European Union expressed its concern regarding Russia's restrictions on 
EU exports of potatoes and certain other plant products. Since 1 July 2013, a ban had been imposed on the exports of several plant products on the basis of a limited number of interceptions 
of harmful organisms. In 2014, after having cond ucted inspections in several EU member States, 
Russia had allowed the import of seed potatoes and some other plants from some member States. The European Union considered this a positive step, but voiced concern on the need for clarity in 
the import requirements for these commodities and consistency in their application to all 
EU exporters. A complete ban, however, was still in place on imports of EU ware potatoes. The European Union considered the ban to be of a discriminatory nature as similar measures were not imposed on ware potato imports from other trad ing partners, many of which did not have the 
same high phytosanitary status as the European Union and hence presented higher phytosanitary 
risks. The European Union urged Russia to clarify the manner in which phytosanitary import requirements were defined and enforced for similar products of different origins. The European 
Union further indicated its willingness to engage in technical discussions on any guarantees 
deemed necessary to resume its exports. 
2.168.  Russia clarified that its restrictions did not apply to potted plants grown in greenhouses or 
to pre-base planting materials. Quarantined organisms in plant products imported from 
EU member States had been detected on a regular basis, originating mostly from Italy, Netherlands, Poland and Spain. Following several efforts to assist the European Union in eliminating the identified non compliances, Russia had introduced temporary restrictions on the 
imports of seed and ware potatoes and planting materials on 1 July 2013, which were 
subsequently notified to the WTO. Russia was co ncerned about the level of coordination between 
the European Union and national organizations re sponsible for plant protection and the manner in 
which inspections were undertaken, which were not in accordance with ISPMs. The existing 
situation, including the lack of EU compliance with Russia's phytosanitary standards, did not permit the lifting of the temporary measures. Russia acknowledged the complexity of the current 
situation, and voiced its willingness to consult with the European Union and work within the 
framework of the pre-shipment inspection scheme, us ed in previous years, in order to address and 
solve the current problem in an expeditious manner. 
Import restrictions on fruits and vegetables (STC 380) 
Raised by: European Union 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2014 (G/SPS/R/76, paras. 3.2-3.3) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/RUS/69 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.169.  In October 2014, the European Union raised its concern regarding Russia's temporary 
restrictions on imports of certain fruits and vegetables from Poland, taken for phytosanitary and 
other reasons. These restrictions had been introduced as of 1 August 2014, and notified as G/SPS/N/RUS/69. The European Union questioned th e consistency of this trade restriction with 
international principles, and whether it was supported by a risk assessment. Given the low rate of G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 60 - 
 
  Polish phytosanitary non-compliance compared to the total number of consignments exported to 
Russia, the measures taken by Russia were disproportionate and more trade restrictive than necessary for the pests Frankliniella occidentalis and Grapholita molesta. The Russian measures were not transparent, since the Russian Federal Se rvice had not provided regular notifications of 
interceptions to Poland in accordance with th e IPPC and ISPM 13. Russia had not replied to 
EU requests for information on scope and meth ods of pest monitoring. The European Union 
reminded Russia of the principle of non-discrimination, which required that measures applied on 
exporting countries should not be more stringent than measures applied to the same pests within 
the importing country. Despite numerous invitations to establish an effective system of data exchange with Russia, many notifications were received with delay, thus hampering official investigations to enable appropriate corrective actions. The European Union was confident that the 
Polish phytosanitary certification system was effective and fully consistent with international 
standards, and underlined that the Polish National Plant Protection Organization had taken further measures to eliminate cases of non-compliance and was ready to demonstrate their effectiveness 
in a systems audit. Moreover, the European Union noted that in many cases the MRLs applied by 
Russia for nitrates and pesticides were far below those set by Codex Alimentarius. In some cases the findings of Russian laboratories could not be  confirmed by Poland, which would be the subject 
of a meeting between Polish and Russian laborato ry experts. The European Union requested Russia 
to immediately repeal its measures and to align them with international standards and its WTO obligations. 
2.170.  Russia enquired whether a National Plant Pr otection Organization existed at EU level, and 
whether Poland had delegated powers to the European Commission to discuss the ban. The 
Russian Federal Service for Veterinary and Phyt osanitary Surveillance (Rosselkhoznadzor) had 
repeatedly notified both the European Commission's Directorate-General for Health and 
Consumers and the Polish State Plant Health and Seed Inspection Service about the non-
compliance of Polish commodities with Russia n phytosanitary requirements. Since 2008, the 
phytosanitary status of commodities imported from Poland was insufficient, which had led to 
increasing numbers of interceptions every year, suggesting that Polish pest control might not be 
sufficient. Moreover, there had been several violations of international and Russian phytosanitary requirements of high risk commodities from Poland in 2013. To avoid such situations, two 
meetings with Poland had been held in 2013 and 2014, at which Poland had promised to 
undertake actions to prevent phytosanitary certification of contaminated products and to issue 
phytosanitary certificates in accordance with international requirements. The Russian Federation noted, however, that Poland had not taken thes e actions, although certain Polish products 
imported to Russia had posed a public health threat due to pesticide residues and nitrates levels 
which neither complied with Russian nor EU standards. Given these systematic violations and failure to prevent the problems, Russia imposed science- and risk-based temporary restrictions on 
imports of certain regulated Polish commodities. Russia reminded Members that it had harmonized 
its plant quarantine legislation with the principles  of international standards at Russia's accession 
to the WTO. Accordingly, the Russian Federation  requested the European Union to specify the 
concrete clause, article or section of the SPS Ag reement, IPPC, ISPM or other documents violated 
by Russian measures. 
2.10.4  Other Concerns Requirements for veterinary  certificates (STC 381) 
Raised by: Ukraine 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2014 (G/SPS/R/76, paras. 3.4-3.5) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.171.  In October 2014, Ukraine raised concerns regarding Russia's unilateral introduction of new 
requirements for veterinary certificates for Ukrain ian goods subject to veterinary supervision on 1 
September 2014. Ukraine doubted the compliance of  Russia's measures with Articles 2 and 5 of 
the SPS Agreement. Ukraine requested that Russia comply with its obligations, particularly those G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 61 - 
 
  relating to equivalence and consultations. To avoid misunderstandings on the interpretation of 
laboratory tests, Ukraine had previously proposed research under bilateral governmental supervision on subjects including mutual recognition of laboratory results and joint laboratory assessments, as well as the validation and accreditation of methods that differ at the level of 
standards application. Ukraine informed the Committee that on 11 August 2014 the Ukraine State 
Veterinary and Phytosanitary Service had sent revise d forms of veterinary certificates in Russian to 
Rosselkhoznadzor. In response, Rosselkhoznadzor had informed the Ukraine about a large number 
of inconsistencies in the certificate forms. Ukraine pointed to Russia's obligations within the 
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which provided that parties agree bilaterally on sample forms of veterinary certificates for imported products of animal origin. Ukraine urged Russia to explain its non-implementation of Ar ticle 14 of the CIS Agreement and its accession 
commitments. Ukraine expressed its openness for full cooperation with Russia to resolve this 
concern in the interest of trade. 
2.172.  Russia clarified that a veterinary certificate was a legally binding document used by 
exporting countries to confirm the safety of its products and compliance with the veterinary 
requirements of the importing country. While Ukrain e, as a member of CIS, had thus far used a 
simplified form of the veterinary certificate, diff iculties arose when Ukraine signed the EU-Ukraine 
Association Agreement. This agreement covered,  inter alia, the implementation of EU SPS 
legislation. The resulting reconstruction of Ukraine's current veterinary and phytosanitary control system had not been notified to Rosselkhoznadzor, constituting a violation of WTO transparency principles. During trilateral consultations betw een Russia, Ukraine and the European Union to 
discuss the Association Agreement's economic impl ications for Russia, Ukraine had proposed the 
development of a co-operation road map with Rosselkhoznadzor, the first point of which was to shift to the system of international veterinary certificates. However, according to an agreement 
reached on 12 September 2014, Ukraine could en joy the privileges of CIS membership, and 
therefore use the simplified veterinary certificates, until 31 December 2015. Russia had provided comments on the new draft certificates submitte d by Ukraine on 1 September 2014, correcting a 
number of mistakes. Russia expressed surprise at Ukraine's concern, since the change in 
certificates related to Ukraine's own proposal, and since Ukraine was able to use the simplified veterinary certificates until the end of 2015. 
2.11  Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of 
2.11.1  Animal Health 
General import restrictions  due to BSE (STC 193) 
2.173.  See paragraphs 2.221.–2.275. 
2.12  Chinese Taipei 
2.12.1  Food safety Import restrictions in response to the Japa nese nuclear power plan t accident (STC 354) 
2.174.  See paragraphs 2.210-2.220. 
2.13  Turkey 2.13.1  Animal Health Requirements for importatio n of sheep meat (STC 340) 
Raised by: Australia 
Supported by: United States of America 
Dates raised: October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, paras. 19-20), March 2013 (G/SPS/R/70, 
paras. 3.18-3.19), June 2013 (G/SPS/R/71, paras. 4.27-4.28), October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 3.35-3.36), March 2014 (G/SPS/R/74, paras. 3.26-3.27), July 2014 (G/SPS/R/75, paras. 4.25-4.26), October G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 62 - 
 
  2014 (G/SPS/R/76, paras. 3.34-3.36)  
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/TUR/9 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.175.  In October 2012, Australia raised concerns about the undue delay by Turkey in providing information regarding its measures on the importation of sheep meat, requested in April 2011. 
Australia recalled Turkey's obligations under the SPS Agreement to act in a transparent manner 
and to ensure that any SPS measure be based on scientific evidence, only applied to the extent 
necessary, and not unjustifiably discriminate between Members. 
2.176.  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. 
2.177.  In March 2013, Australia reiterated its concern with regard to the undue delays by Turkey 
in responding to its request for information on the import ban on sheep meat, which it first raised in April 2011. Australia highlighted that it was a safe and reliable supplier of sheep meat to 
approximately 100 countries and that it consistently met the relevant international SPS standards 
for trade in sheep meat. Australia reminded Turkey of its obligations under the SPS Agreement, with specific reference to Articles 2, 7 and Annex B of the Agreement. Australia advised that it had held bilateral discussions with Turkey in the marg ins of the meeting and hoped the issue would be 
resolved as soon as possible. 
2.178.  Turkey stated that fruitful bilateral disc ussions had resulted in the two countries agreeing 
upon a uniform health certificate model for beef and veal products. Turkey was aligning its national 
regulations with the EU acquis. Furthermore, a framework Law No. 5996 on Veterinary Services, 
Plant Health, Food and Feed had entered into forced in 2011, which was notified to the WTO. Turkey was in the process of preparing a uniform model certificate for sheep and goat meat, and 
was working to determine the minimum health requirements for these products. However, trade of 
live cattle and sheep continued without any disruptions. 
2.179.  In June 2013, Australia reiterated its concerns regarding Turkey's requirements for the 
import of sheep meat. Australia had been seeking information from Turkey regarding its import 
measures since April 2011, but despite raising this concern at both the 55
th and 56th SPS 
Committee meetings, it had yet to receive a response. Australia was a safe and reliable supplier of sheep meat to some 100 countries and had consistently met all relevant international SPS 
measures for such trade. Turkey's measures appeared to contravene its obligations under the SPS 
Agreement, including Articles 2 and 7 and Annex B.  Australia looked forward to the resolution of 
this issue. 
2.180.  Turkey responded that it was in the process of aligning its food safety legislation with that 
of the European Union. It had enacted many im plementation measurements, but still needed to 
propose guidelines for sheep and goat meat. Turkey stated that it would send its model health certificate for sheep and goat meat to Australia and other interested Members once it was 
prepared. 
2.181.  In October 2013, Australia reiterated its concerns regarding Turkey's requirements for the 
import of sheep meat and its June 2013 meeting statement.  
2.182.  Turkey reiterated that it was in the process of aligning its food safety legislation with that 
of the European Union. In this context, Turkey had so far prepared certificates for beef, bovine 
meat, livestock and fishery products, while a uniform model certificate for other animal-origin 
products, including sheep- and goat-meat, was under process. 
2.183.  In March 2014, Australia reiterated its conc erns over Turkey's requirements for the import 
of sheep meat, which it had raised at each Committee meeting since October 2012. In February 2012, Australia had provided Turkey with a draft bilingual sheep meat certificate based on G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 63 - 
 
  EU requirements. Turkey had not acknowledged receipt of the draft certificate nor provided advice 
on its acceptability. Turkey's lack of response was not consistent with its obligations under the SPS Agreement. 
2.184.  Turkey reiterated its October 2013 meeting statement. 
2.185.  In July 2014, Australia reiterated its concer ns over Turkey's requirements for the import of 
sheep meat. Turkey had indicated at previous meetings that it was in the process of aligning its food safety legislation with that of the European Union. However, Australia currently exported 
sheep meat to the European Union. In February 2012, Australia had provided Turkey with a draft 
bilingual sheep meat certificate based on EU requirements but Turkey had not acknowledged 
receipt of the draft certificate nor provided advice on its acceptability. Turkey's lack of response 
was not consistent with its obligations under the SPS Agreement. 
2.186.  Turkey indicated again that the development of a uniform model certificate for other 
products of animal origin, including sheep- and goat-meat, was underway. Efforts to determine the health requirements for the appropriate level of protection for the import of sheep- and goat-meat 
were also in process. Turkey was committed to resolving this trade concern and highlighted that 
the first Turkey-Australia Agricultural Steering Committee meeting would be held in October 2014, and field visits would be made to Australian abattoirs and meat processing facilities. 
2.187.  In October 2014, Australia reiterated its concerns over Turkey's requirements for sheep 
meat imports, which it had raised at each Committee meeting since October 2012, and reiterated its statement from the July 2014 meeting. 
2.188.  The United States shared Australia's concern and noted that importing countries should 
develop science-based standards in a timely manner when certification was required. The United 
States appreciated Turkey's willingness to work with US authorities to develop new certificates on import requirements, and requested that imports not be disrupted during the process of 
developing new standards. 
2.189.  Turkey noted that after bilateral meetings with Australia it had adopted its Law on 
Veterinary Services, Plant Health, Food and Feed, notified as G/SPS/N/TUR/9. Turkey had also 
prepared model health certificates for beef, bovine meat, livestock and fishery products aligned 
with EU standards. Development of a uniform model certificate for other products of animal origin, including sheep and goat meat, was underway. Efforts to determine the appropriate level of protection for imports of sheep and goat meat were also in process. Turkey was committed to 
resolving this trade concern, but highlighted th at the first meeting of the Turkey-Australia 
agricultural steering committee planned for October 2014 had been delayed due to the heavy schedule of the Australian Minister of Agriculture.  Turkey reiterated its openness for dialogue and 
close co-operation with Australia at different levels. 
2.13.2  Animal Health General import restrictions  due to BSE (STC 193) 
2.190.  See paragraphs 2.221.–2.275. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 64 - 
 
  2.14  United States of America 
2.14.1  Food safety US default MRLs, limits of determination or limits of quantification on basmati rice 
(STC 328) 
Raised by: United States of America; European Union 
Supported by: Australia; Canada; Chile; 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), October 2014 
(G/SPS/R/76, paras. 341-342) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: RESOLVED 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved: 15 October 2014 
 
2.14.2  Animal Health 
US Imports of meat from Brazil (STC 370) 
Raised by: Nicaragua 
Supported by: El Salvador 
Dates raised: March 2014 (G/SPS/R/74, paras. 3.5-3.8) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/1330 
Status: Not Reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:  
 
2.191.  In March 2014, Nicaragua raised concerns regarding a proposed new US rule for the entry 
of beef from Brazil, which Nicaragua indicated wo uld increase the risk of foot-and-mouth disease 
(FMD) spreading to Central America. A lot of effort had gone into ensuring that Central America was free of FMD and to prevent the spread of FMD into the region. Currently, the United States allowed importation of beef only from FMD-free countries, with or without vaccination. While the 
OIE recognized Santa Catarina, Brazil, as an FMD-free area, the north of Brazil was not FMD-free 
and there was no guarantee that the disease woul d not spread to neighbouring areas. Nicaragua 
also highlighted the importance of traceability programmes for the identification of affected 
animals. The cattle traceability programme was voluntary and only applied to cattle whose meat 
was destined for countries that required traceabi lity of the beef from birth. This lack of a 
mandatory traceability system could affect Brazil's capacity to monitor, detect and respond to 
emergency events. Nicaragua stressed that the FMD virus was difficult to eradicate with 
vaccination as it was a disease susceptible to variation. An outbreak of FMD in Nicaragua would have a devastating effect to the country's economy,  given that the beef and livestock industry was 
the main pillar of its national economy. 
2.192.  El Salvador outlined that FMD was an exotic illness and joint efforts of countries were 
necessary to maintain Central America's FMD-free status without vaccination. It supported Nicaragua's concerns as the country depended mainly on exports of agricultural goods and a 
possible outbreak of FMD could bring about sign ificant economic consequences. Guatemala also 
supported the concern since imports of agriculture products of cattle origin from FMD-free countries with vaccination could put the country at great risk. 
2.193.  Brazil described Nicaragua's concern as based on purely commercial grounds, which were 
outside the scope of the Committee. Furthermore,  B r a z i l  e x p o r t e d  m e a t  t o  m o r e  t h a n  1 0 0  
countries, and was clearly a trustworthy partner. The United States had concluded a thorough risk analysis of Brazil's sanitary system, in accordance with OIE recommendations and the provisions of 
the SPS Agreement, which confirmed the high sanitary  and food safety conditions of Brazilian beef 
products. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 65 - 
 
  2.194.  The United States responded highlighting its efforts to prevent the entry and spread of 
FMD. APHIS was proposing changes to its regulations to allow the importation of fresh beef from 14 states in Brazil. After a careful analysis and several site visits to Brazil, APHIS had determined that Brazil could detect, control and report FMD in case of an outbreak. The United States recalled 
that the planned change in US regulations was a proposed rule and urged Nicaragua to submit its 
comments on the rule. 
US non-acceptance of OIE cate gorization for BSE (STC 375) 
Raised by: India 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2014 (G/SPS/R/75, paras. 4.9-4.10), October 2014 (G/SPS/R/76, 
paras. 3.22-3.23) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not Reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:  
 
2.195.  In July 2014, India raised its concern regarding the US request for India's OIE dossier, 
which it had previously submitted to the OIE in order to gain recognition of its status as a negligible risk country for BSE. India noted that the United States had chosen to disregard the OIE's designation, which was contrary to accepted international practice among Members, and had 
instead requested India to share its OIE dossier in order to enable the United States to conduct 
their own assessment of India's status. Given the significant trade interest, India had requested the OIE to share its dossier with the United States, but further requested that the United States 
recognize its official OIE status. 
2.196.  The United States reiterated its commitmen t to aligning its import regulations governing 
BSE with OIE guidelines and further highlighted that in 2013, USDA APHIS had published a final 
rule in the Federal Register that ensured that US BSE import regulations were aligned with 
international animal health standards that support safe trade in bovines and bovine products. In that rule, it had been noted that the review of information for India was ongoing. If the findings supported concurrence with OIE's designation, a notice would be published in the Federal Register. 
However, the United States indicated that it had been unable to complete its review due to the 
lack of access to India's OIE dossier, in spite of repeated requests since 2010. Although India had authorized the OIE to share a copy of the dossier in May 2014, this information had still not been 
received. The United States reiterated its request for India to provide the necessary information to 
facilitate the evaluation and indicated its willingne ss to continue working with India on the issue. 
2.197.  In October 2014, India restated its concern that the United States did not accept the OIE 
categorization of India as a negligible risk country for BSE. India recalled that OIE defined the 
standards for six diseases including BSE, and that India followed these standards in line with the SPS Agreement. India reminded Members to apply OIE designations instead of conducting their own national assessments, and noted that the United States had chosen to disregard the OIE 
designation, which was contrary to accepted international practice among Members. India 
requested the United States to recognize its official OIE BSE status. 
2.198.  The United States reiterated its commitmen t to aligning its import regulations governing 
BSE with OIE guidelines. The United States had received India's OIE dossier on 18 September 
2014, and was currently reviewing India's status, with an opportunity for public comments. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 66 - 
 
  2.14.3  Plant Health 
Interim rule affecting solid wood packaging material (STC 59) 
Raised by: Hong Kong; China 
Supported by: European Union 
Dates raised: November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 3-12), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, 
paras. 2-3), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 35) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/107, G/SPS/N/USA/137, G/SPS/N/CAN/44 
Status: RESOLVED 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved: August 2014 
 
US high cost of certificatio n for mango exports (STC 373) 
Raised by: India 
Supported by: Dominican Republic 
Dates raised: July 2014 (G/SPS/R/75 paras. 4.5 - 4.6), October 2014 (G/SPS/R/76, 
paras. 3.13-3.15) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.199.  In July 2014, India raised its concerns on the high cost of certification for mango exports 
to the United States. Since April 2007, India had been granted access to export mangoes to the 
United States on the basis that its mangoes would first be irradiated, under the supervision of US inspectors, to mitigate the risk of fruit flie s and stone weevil. India noted the high cost of 
certification that it had to bear, which involved funding the travel and accommodation of 
US inspectors at the irradiation facility and other US officials involved in the process at various other locations. These costs reflected 12% of the FOB costs per metric ton of mangoes exported to the United States. India requested that the United  States recognize India's conformity assessment 
procedures, as was done for organic certification, or find other means to reduce the costs and 
enable Indian mangoes to remain competitive in the US market. Failure to find a solution could 
result in loss of India's market share. 
2.200.  The United States noted that India had been the first country to ship irradiated 
commodities to the United States and that the valu e of these exports had steadily grown, reaching 
US$1.6 million dollars in 2013. Several efforts had been undertaken to reduce the costs of the 
preclearance programme, such as collaboration on budget and financial issues. The United States 
had also amended its regulations to facilitate the importation of Indian mangoes by allowing 
irradiation upon arrival in the United States. The United States requested India to submit a formal request for amendment of the US operational work plan. 
2.201.  In October 2014, India reiterated its concern regarding the high cost of certification for 
mango exports to the United States. Since 2007, India had been granted access to export mangoes to the United States on the basis that they would be irradiated, under the supervision of 
US inspectors, to mitigate the risk of fruit fl ies and stone weevil and noted they had shipped 
1,600 metric tons of mangos to the United States. India noted that bearing the high cost of certification rendered its mangoes uncompetitive. While a trust fund had been created, India had 
suggested preclearance by the National Plant Protection Authorities, which had not been agreed 
on. In previous meetings, the United States had offered irradiation upon arrival which, however, would result in an economically unfeasible situation. Taking into account the past seven years of Indian mango exports to the United States, India requested mutual recognition of equivalence of 
mango certification and conformity assessment procedures in order to reduce costs and to 
facilitate trade, as had been done for organic certification. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 67 - 
 
  2.202.  The Dominican Republic expressed its support for India's concern and requested further 
information from the United States on the costs of import procedures. 
2.203.  The United States recalled that India had been the first country to export irradiated 
mangoes to the United States. While the value of Indian mango exports had risen every year 
since, the United States had attempted to accommodate India's concern by amending its 
legislation for irradiation upon importation to lower the costs of clearance. The United States reiterated that it was looking forward to receiving further proposals from India on how to lower the 
costs of mango clearance. 
2.14.4  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), October 2014 (G/SPS/R/76, paras. 3.20-3.21) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/2171 
Status: Not Reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:  
 
2.204.  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 requeste d 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. 
2.205.  The United States stated that the Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, signed into 
law on 18 June 2008, amended the Federal Meat Insp ection 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. 
2.206.  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. 
2.207.  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.15 
 
- 68 - 
 
  2.208.  In October 2014 China recalled that in March 2011, the United States had notified its 
regulations for mandatory inspection of catfish and catfish products, intending to transfer the regulatory responsibility from the Food and Drug  Administration (FDA) to the US Department of 
Agriculture (USDA). In 2014, USDA had been mandat ed to draft rules concerning the requirements 
for inspection of catfish and catfish products, which had included catfish regulation with that of 
terrestrial animal meat products. The biological characteristics, farming, processing and inspection of catfish products, however, were different from that of terrestrial animal meat products. The OIE 
had established terrestrial and aquatic animal health codes respectively, and there was no 
evidence that catfish products had higher food safety risks than other aquatic products. China raised its concern that USDA's inspection programme imposed additional costs on foreign catfish producers by requiring equivalence programmes. China believed that the inspection programme 
was a trade barrier and violated US obligations under WTO agreements. China urged the United 
States to adjust its mandatory inspection measure based on science, and to implement catfish inspection under the management regulations of aquatic products instead of terrestrial animal 
meat products. 
2.209.  The United States explained that the Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 had 
mandated that catfish be regulated under the Federa l Meat Inspection Act. The Agricultural Act of 
2014 had made the Food Safety and Inspection Se rvice (FSIS) responsible for fish safety and 
inspection. The United States noted that FSIS was currently working on finalizing the catfish inspection rules, and that trading partners would be  notified as soon as these rules were finalized. 
2.15  Certain Members 
2.15.1  Food safety 
Import restrictions in response to the Japa nese nuclear power plan t accident (STC 354) 
Raised by: Japan 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2013 (G/SPS/R/71, paras. 4.7-4.11), March 2014 (G/SPS/R/74, 
paras. 3.11-3.12), July 2014 (G/SPS/R/75, paras. 4.31-4.32), October 
2014 (G/SPS/R/76, paras. 3.11-3.12)  
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.210.  In June 2013, Japan raised concerns over restrictions on Japanese food exports in the 
wake of the Fukushima incident. Following the incident, Japan had been closely monitoring food products for the presence of radionuclides and, as of April 2012, had imposed a food intervention 
exemption level of 1mSv/year - equivalent to th e Codex standard. However, the dietary exposure 
estimates from total diet studies were far below 1 mSv/year across all studies - including those completed in Fukushima Prefecture. Based on this scientific data, Japan requested all Members to lift any import restrictions on Japanese exports. Japan thanked those Members that had already 
lifted most or all such measures, but noted that China, Hong Kong, China and Chinese Taipei 
continued to maintain import bans on many Japanese food exports. Japanese foods placed on the market were safe for human consumption without any extra control measures; nonetheless, Japan 
was willing to certify compliance with the radionuclide regulation for each consignment as a 
provisional measure. Hong Kong, China and Chinese Taipei had already begun to analyse the monitoring data provided by Japan, and Japan l ooked forward to the opportunity the meet with 
China regarding this trade concern. 
2.211.  Chinese Taipei explained that although Ja panese food exports contained acceptable trace 
levels of radionuclides, those levels still raised concern for Chinese Taipei and its consumers, consumer protection groups, and legislators. In order to assuage these concerns, Chinese Taipei 
requested further information from Japan, including about its surveillance methodology and control 
measures. Chinese Taipei also requested that foods exported from the five restricted prefectures be accompanied by a certificate of origin and a pr e-export laboratory report certifying that they 
had been tested for radioactivity. The relevant supplementary documents had been received from G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 69 - 
 
  Japan on 13 June 2013 and were under review. Chinese Taipei expressed its desire to continue 
normal communications and co-operation with Japan in the future. 
2.212.  Hong Kong, China explained that its import restrictions were based on public health 
concerns over food imported from the five affected prefectures in Japan. It was waiting for further 
information from Japan in order to fully assess the threat level presented by Japanese imports. 
Hong Kong, China stated that it would continue to monitor information from Japan and other relevant international organizations and would adjust its import measures according to any new 
updates. 
2.213.  China responded that it only restricted the import of products produced in seriously 
nuclear-contaminated areas and those products seen as high-risk. The detection of nuclear contamination in food and agricultural products in Japan had been on-going. China requested that 
Japan urge its relevant departments and enterprises to take measures that would ensure all food 
and agricultural exports were uncontaminated by nuclear matter and could satisfy the Chinese national standards. 
2.214.  Japan explained that the detection of nuc lear contamination in agricultural and food 
products noted by China only occurred in products that were not legally released to the market. Japan continued to monitor these products. 
2.215.  At the March 2014 meeting, Japan reiterated its concern over import restrictions by China 
on Japanese food exports, mainly food and feed , following TEPCO's nuclear power station incident. 
China maintained the ban on all types of food  and feed from 10 prefectures in Japan and 
requested the submission of an official pre-test certificate for fruits, vegetables, milk products, 
medicinal plants and fishery products from all other prefectures. Japan considered that these 
measures were more trade restrictive than necessary and not based on the relevant international standard. Furthermore, China had not yet approved the form for the requested certificate. Japan 
requested that China expeditiously finalize its analysis of the proposed certificate, and either 
accept or specify amendments, if any, to the proposed form. 
2.216.  China explained that since the nuclear leak incident, serious contamination threats existed 
to Japan's maritime products. Several adjustments had been made to inspection and quarantine 
measures since then. China had requested information from Japan in order to conduct a risk assessment. In addition, due to the risk of radi oactive contamination of alcoholic beverages, a 
prohibition had been imposed in accordance with the enhanced inspection and quarantine 
measures of Japan. Based on the conclusions of its risk analyses, China had permitted a number of 
imports from two prefectures. 
2.217.  In July 2014, Japan recalled its concern over import restrictions by China on Japanese food 
exports, following TEPCO's nuclear power station in cident and reiterated its March 2014 statement. 
Japan requested that China promptly accepted the proposed pre-test certificate and lift the import 
ban on the ten prefectures. 
2.218.  China reiterated its concerns. It had received Japan's request to lift the import restrictions 
and was in the process of reviewing technical data and conducting research and risk analyses. The current measures would be reviewed accordingly. 
2.219.  In October 2014, Japan recalled its concern over import restrictions by China on Japanese 
food exports, following TEPCO's nuclear power stat ion incident. Japan regretted that no progress 
had been made since the July 2014 SPS Committee Meeting, as China maintained a ban on products from ten Japanese prefectures. This ban might not be based on international standards 
and be more trade-restrictive than required to ac hieve the appropriate level of protection. In June 
2013, Japan had provided China with monitoring results that had demonstrated that Japan's food was safe for human consumption. Moreover, Japan raised its concern that additional prefectures 
were also subject to import bans on vegetables, fruits, tea, milk, medicinal plants and related 
products. While China had announced in 2011 that it would lift the import ban on those products, it had since been reluctant to do so, although Ja pan had proposed pre-test certificates. Japan was 
concerned that China deliberately avoided any progre ss on this issue, raising the doubt that China 
was applying its measures in a manner which might constitute a disguised restriction on G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 70 - 
 
  international trade. Japan requested China to immediately accept Japan's pre-test certificates, and 
to lift the import ban without further delay. 
2.220.  China explained that TEPCO's nuclear po wer station incident, which had brought great 
losses to Japan, had posed serious threats to food safety. China had imposed corresponding 
measures on agricultural and marine products from Japan, based on risk assessment in compliance 
with international practice. China had already adjusted the inspection and quarantine measures for Japanese food and agricultural products, and cont inued to apply restrictions only for high-risk 
products from seriously polluted regions. Following Japan's request, China was currently analysing 
the technical data provided and would review the measures accordingly. 
2.15.2  Animal Health General import restrictions  due to BSE (STC 193) 
Raised by: European Union; United States of America 
Supported by: Canada; Switzerland; Uruguay 
Dates raised: June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 37-38), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, 
paras. 85-86), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 75-76), February 2007 (G/SPS/R/44, para. 29), October 2008 (G/SPS/R/53, paras. 24-28), February 2009 (G/SPS/R/54, paras. 11-12), June 2009 (G/SPS/55, 
para. 47), October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, para. 46), March 2010 
(G/SPS/R/58, paras. 35-36), June 2 010 (G/SPS/R/59, para. 44), October 
2010 (G/SPS/R/61, para. 24), March 2011 (G/SPS/R/62, para. 65), June 
2011 (G/SPS/R/63, paras. 73-74), October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, 
paras 98-99), March 2012 (G/SPS/R/66, paras. 28-31), July 2012 (G/SPS/R/67, paras. 45-48), October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, paras. 49-52), 
March 2013 (G/SPS/R/70, paras. 3.20-3.24), June 2013 (G/SPS/R/71, 
paras. 4.33-4.35), October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 3.44-3.46), March 2014 (G/SPS/R/74, paras. 3.11-3.12), July 2014 (G/SPS/R/75, paras. 4.31-4.32), October 2014 (G/SPS/R/76, paras. 3.11-3.12)  
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Partially resolved 
Solution: Solutions notified regarding certain Members 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.221.  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. 
2.222.  In October 2004, the United States also raised concerns on this issue by noting that some 
Members were reviewing their import restrictions on US beef and also urged all those Members 
who had not done so to align their regulations in accordance with OIE standards. 
2.223.  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. 
2.224.  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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 71 - 
 
  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. 
2.225.  In June 2005, the European Communities re ported that the number of countries that had 
lifted their respective bans on EC bovines and bovine products in accordance with OIE standards 
had been regularly growing, including also non-Me mbers of the WTO. According to the revised BSE 
chapter of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code, many bovine derived products, including deboned 
skeletal muscle and blood products, could be safe ly traded regardless of the BSE status of the 
exporting country. The European Communities invited the remaining WTO Members to replace 
their import bans with specific import requirements in accordance with OIE standards. 
2.226.  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. 
2.227.  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. 
2.228.  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. 
2.229.  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. 
2.230.  The representative of the OIE urged Members to abide by the standards enacted by the 
OIE. 
2.231.  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. 
2.232.  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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 72 - 
 
  2.233.  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. 
2.234.  In October 2009, the European Communities  recalled that they had repeatedly raised 
concerns about unjustified restrictions by some WTO Members on imports of bovine, ovine and 
related products allegedly in response to transmissible spongiform encephalopathy. Any measures should be based on the relevant international standards. While many were aligning their processes to OIE recommendations, other Members still required unnecessary certification, applied 
burdensome and lengthy procedures and discriminat ed between countries without scientific basis. 
EC measures to eradicate and control BSE were comprehensive and offered every guarantee that EC exports were safe. The European Communities urged Members to fully take into consideration 
the latest OIE BSE guidelines and to establish fair, non-discriminatory and transparent rules. 
2.235.  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. 
2.236.  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. 
2.237.  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 discriminat ory restrictions which negatively affected 
EU exports. The European Union recalled that OIE had 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 Members had recently announced new measures which, without any scientific justification, deviated from OIE standards. The European 
Union urged Members to align themselves with th e OIE process and to process applications from 
the European Union. 
2.238.  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. 
2.239.  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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 73 - 
 
  urged Members to align their requirements with OIE standards and acknowledged the many 
countries that had started the assessment process to allow imports. 
2.240.  In June 2011, the European Union expressed concerns that several Members had not yet 
implemented the OIE standard on BSE and continued to impose bans or trade restrictions on 
EU beef products. These Members should either implement the OIE standard, or else share their 
scientific risk assessment. To date, the European Union had not seen any scientific justification for restrictions that went beyond the OIE standards. The European Union welcomed the 
implementation of the OIE standards by several Members, as well as the process begun by the 
United States and Australia, which would eventual ly allow the import of EU beef products. The 
European Union urged Members to fully take into account the OIE standards and establish fair, non-discriminatory, transparent, and scientifically based rules. 
2.241.  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. 
2.242.  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. 
2.243.  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. 
2.244.  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. 
2.245.  Korea indicated its willingness to continue bilateral discussions on this issue. 2.246.  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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 74 - 
 
  2.247.  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. 
2.248.  In July 2012, the European Union observ ed that many trading partners continued to 
impose unjustified bans or restrictions relating to BSE, although more than half of these countries 
did not benefit from official BSE classification  by the OIE as did the EU member States. The 
European Union urged Korea to make tangible and predictable progress to bring its import conditions into line with the OIE standards. This request was particularly urgent as Korea had 
opened its market to other trading partners which had the same BSE status as most of the 
EU member States. China was still keeping its market closed, claiming a lack of scientific information, although there was sufficient evidence  regarding the EU BSE situation. The European 
Union requested China to provide the scientific risk assessment that would justify deviations from 
the OIE standard, or to immediately start the administrative procedures to implement the international standards. The European Union requested Japan to continue progress on pending 
applications so that trade could soon resume. Th e European Union noted the recent steps taken in 
the United States towards bringing its requirements  into line with the OIE standards, and urged all 
Members to fully align with the OIE standards and establish fair, non-discriminatory, transparent and science-based rules. 
2.249.  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. 
2.250.  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. 
2.251.  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. 
2.252.  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. 
2.253.  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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 75 - 
 
  2.254.  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. 
2.255.  Japan reported that the risk assessment process was underway, specifically for beef from 
France and the Netherlands. Japan would continue close consultations with the European Union 
and its member States. 
2.256.  In March 2013, the European Union welcomed the notification from Thailand on the 
alignment of its SPS measures with the international standards on BSE, and appreciated that 
Japan had authorised access of bovine meat from  EU member States. Nevertheless, many trading 
partners continued to impose unjustified bans or restrictions relating to BSE, although some of them did not benefit from official BSE classification by the OIE as did EU member States. 
Furthermore, in some cases EU products faced discrimination compared to other trading partners 
with a similar or even less favourable risk status . China was still keeping its market closed, despite 
the detailed information provided about the EU animal and food safety system, and had not 
provided a risk assessment to justify its measure. The European Union urged China to bring its 
import conditions into line with the OIE standards and to remove the unjustified restrictions against EU beef and beef products. The European  Union welcomed the process in Korea to assess 
applications received from some EU member States and urged Korea to proceed in a speedy 
manner to ensure market access for EU beef, give n that Korea had opened its market to other 
trading partners which had the same BSE status as EU member States. The European Union noted the on-going processes in the United States and Australia towards aligning their import conditions 
with the OIE standards and looked forward to effective market access without any further delay. 
The European Union urged all Members to fully align with the OIE standards and establish fair, non-discriminatory, transparent and science-based rules. 
2.257.  China indicated that in its many bilateral discussions it had repeatedly informed the 
European Union on its policies regarding BSE. BSE was still a high risk disease in the EU area, as in the last three years approximately 90 BSE cases had been reported. In addition, BSE continued to 
be a very sensitive and complicated issue for which scientific knowledge was insufficient to be able 
to interpret the transmission mechanism of the disease worldwide. The recent horse meat issue in the European Union further reinforced its lack of confidence in the EU control system for animal and animal products. China's BSE restrictive measures, put in place in 2004, were based on a risk 
analysis and the changes in its trading measures for Canadian beef in 2012, were based on the 
results of its risk assessment. China invited EU  member States to exchange information on 
technical issues and indicated that it would review its measures concerning BSE according to the 
outcomes of future risk assessments. 
2.258.  The European Union could not accept that the horse meat issue be linked with the 
effectiveness of its oversight system, given the very detailed explanation that it had provided to 
the SPS Committee under a previous agenda item . The information provided clearly showed how 
the European Union had quickly and transparently identified a case of fraud and this issue was being addressed with full determination. 
2.259.  Korea indicated that it had closely discussed this issue with the EU delegation and had 
already started a risk analysis on beef from EU member States. Korea would proceed carefully with 
the risk analysis in order to protect consumer's health, and would continue to have close dialogue with the EU delegation. 
2.260.  Japan reported that its Food Safety Commission had completed an evaluation report in 
October 2012 and on the basis of its findings had lifted the ban on imports of cattle aged up to 30 months from the United States, Canada, France and the Netherlands. The European Union 
thanked Japan for the changes in its measures an d for its continued engagement in the process. 
2.261.  In June 2013, the European Union reported that the General Session of the OIE had 
positively evaluated and recognised the EU risk status related to BSE. The European Union appreciated Brazil's relaxation of its BSE-related import measures and encouraged Brazil to bring 
these conditions further in line with the OIE standard and to notify these changes to allow partners 
to provide comments. Unjustifiable trade restrictions were still in place in a number of other countries and the European Union urged China to base its measure on the OIE standard and lift G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 76 - 
 
  the ban on EU beef. The European Union welcomed  the on-going work carried out by Korea and 
urged Korea to deal swiftly with all EU applicat ions. The US and Australia's on-going process to 
align their BSE import conditions with OIE standards was appreciated and closely followed by the European Union and further progress towards real trade market access was now expected without 
undue delays. 
2.262.  Korea noted that it had been conducting a risk analysis on imported EU beef and had been 
in close dialogue with the European Union on the matter. Korea looked forward to continued co-
operation with the European Union to move the process forward in a timely manner. 
2.263.  China recalled that BSE continued to be a very sensitive and highly technical issue for 
which scientific knowledge was still insufficient. A risk analysis was carried out with the co-operation of relevant EU member States, but experts of both parties had failed to reach 
consensus. Further research, communication and discussion were necessary. China expressed its 
willingness to continue cooperating and communicating with EU technical experts. 
2.264.  In October 2013, the European Union highlighted the importance of this concern as it 
related to one of the basic requirements under th e SPS Agreement: that SPS measures adopted by 
Members be based on the relevant international standards. The European Union appreciated Singapore's relaxation of its BSE-related import  measures and encouraged Singapore to bring 
these conditions further in line with the OIE standards and to notify these changes so that trading 
partners could provide comments. The European Union also noted in this regard that it had been three years since it had submitted its application to Australia and that Australia had not provided 
any scientific justification for the delay in finalizi ng its risk assessment. The European Union called 
upon Australia to finalize the process, which should lead to effective market access without undue 
delays. 
2.265.  China noted that the latent period of BSE wa s long and as there were no cases in China, an 
import prohibition of bovine cattle and related products was in place as a safety measure. 
According to Chinese legislation, it could conduct inspection and quarantine activities only after the BSE ban on certain EU member States had been lifted. Since 2010, OIE had released reports that 
a number of EU member States (France, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, etc.) still suffered 
from BSE and China noted that these had not applied for the ban to be lifted in China. Technical exchanges, including a seminar on BSE jointly held with the European Union, and the assignment of a technical person to participate in BSE prevention training had taken place. In March 2012, 
EU beef exports had been discussed at the 7th Ch ina-EU Summit. Although the experts on both 
sides had not reached consensus, a joint expert team had been established with relevant members in order to overcome technical issues. 
2.266.  Korea acknowledged the European Union's concern and emphasized that its government 
h a d  b e e n  c o n d u c t i n g  i m p o r t  r i s k  a n a l y s i s  o n  s o m e  E U  m e m b e r  S t a t e s '  b e e f .  R e s p o n s e s  t o  questionnaires were awaited so as to proceed with the IRA process in a timely manner while 
conducting a close dialogue with Members in this regard. 
2.267.  In March 2014, the European Union again highlighted the importance of this concern. 
Unjustifiable trade restrictions relating to BSE were  still in place in a number of Members, although 
OIE standards for safe trade had existed for more  than 10 years. The European Union urged China 
to base its measures on the OIE standards and lift the ban on EU beef. The European Union 
welcomed the on-going work in Korea and urged Korea to deal swiftly with all EU applications. Australia's and the US on-going processes to align their BSE import conditions with OIE standards 
was appreciated, but should be completed without delay so as to now permit trade to occur. 
Australia should move from the eligibility already granted to some EU member States into real trade by setting out all the necessary subsequent st eps, including health certificates. The European 
Union looked forward to tangible results in the near future. 
2.268.  China noted that the latent period of BSE was long, as it had previously explained. 2.269.  Korea indicated that its authorities had been conducting import risk analysis on beef from 
some EU member States. Responses to questionnaires were awaited so as to proceed with the risk 
analysis in a timely manner. Korea maintained a close dialogue with the concerned Members in 
this regard. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15 
 
- 77 - 
 
  2.270.  In July 2014, once again, the European Union reiterated this concern. The European Union 
welcomed the recent opening of China allowing imports of live cattle from one EU member State as well as the announcement to lift the ban for meat from cattle under 12 months of age from another member State, but only after going throug h a lengthy approval procedure. Therefore, the 
European Union requested China to rapidly finalize  all outstanding EU applications, some of them 
pending since 2005, and to increase transparency on the procedures required to lift the ban and on the risk analysis justifying it. The European Union welcomed the recent entry into force of the 
US BSE rule, but urged the United States to complete without further delay the evaluation 
procedures that would allow actual trade to take place. The European Union noted that Australia's alignment of its BSE import conditions with OIE standards was not yet satisfactory and requested Australia to quickly finalize its processes for effective market access.  
2.271.  China explained that as a country with a negligible BSE risk status, as recognized by the 
OIE in 2014, it took a cautious attitude on BSE measures. China had organized BSE risk assessment expert panels and provided questionnaires to applicant countries. For BSE-free 
countries such as Hungary and Latvia, beef access  procedures had been initiated, while for BSE 
risk countries like France, Ireland and the Netherlands, technical exchanges and consultations were still ongoing. The responses to the questionnaires would be reviewed and measures revised 
accordingly.  
2.272.  In October 2014, the European Union reiter ated the importance of this concern and urged 
all Members to align their BSE requirements with OIE standards. The European Union welcomed the growing number of WTO Members recognizing the EU control system and the EU member 
States' negligible or controlled risk status. The European Union urged China, the USA and Australia 
to adjust their BSE requirements fully in line wi th OIE requirements, and to speed up the approval 
processes of bovine and beef products from the European Union. Furthermore, China's recent 
lifting of its ban on live cattle imports from one EU member State only suggested differentiation 
between identical or similar BSE conditions found in several EU member States. The European Union welcomed Saudi Arabia's recent lifting of restrictions on beef imports from the European 
Union. The European Union raised, for the first time, similar concerns regarding Turkey's import 
restrictions on beef from the European Union. The European Union had identified in particular 
testing requirements that were unjustifiable and too trade restrictive. The European Union stated that it was willing to continue to work closely with Turkey to avoid inconsistencies, and to find a 
quick, comprehensive and practical solution. 
2.273.  Turkey responded that its bovine import requirements were in line with international rules 
and that there were no unjustified restrictions  on beef imports from the European Union. 
Importation was allowed from EU member States with negligible BSE risk status. 
2.274.  China explained that it had taken a cautious approach to BSE measures to protect public 
health and food safety. In 2014, according to OIE statistics, two BSE cases had occurred in 
Germany and one in Romania, which had raised doubts that the BSE risk was under control in the 
region. China had engaged in technical exchanges with the European Union and its member States 
to solve relevant technical issues. Since the BSE risk status, prevention and control levels were not fully harmonized among EU member States, China had carried out separate risk assessments. 
China had recently lifted the ban on veal from the Netherlands and had sped up the access 
approval procedures. Regarding BSE-free countries, China had accelerated relevant beef access procedures by signing a protocol with Latvia and by agreeing on a draft protocol with Hungary. 
China expressed its willingness to enhance the technical exchanges with the European Union to 
solve this issue. 
2.275.  Saudi Arabia thanked the European Union for its comments and co-operation, and 
emphasized that it would not hesitate to facilitate trade with Members. 
__________