G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16  
 
23 February 2016  
(16-1101)  Page: 1/111  
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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.15). The 
specific trade concerns in the sixteenth 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 iden tifiers and are intended to facilitate tracking 
of individual trade concerns over time. 
 The sixteenth revision of G/SPS/GEN/204 is divided into two sections: 
 
a. STCs general overview; and 
b. STCs discussed in 2015. 
 
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 
2015. The trade concerns are categorized as relati ng 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 2015. This includes (1) issues raised for the first time in 2015; (2) issues which 
were previously raised and on which further discu ssions or activities occurred during 2015; and 
(3) issues for which there was no substantive discussion in the Committee during 2015, 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 2015 (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 thei r rights and obligations under the WTO. 
2 G/SPS/R/18, para.20. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Table of contents 
Page 
1   STCS GENERA L OVERVIEW .......................................................................................... 5  
Chart 1.1 – Number of New Issues Raised ............................................................................ 5  
Chart 1.2a – Trade Concerns  by Subject (1995-2015 ) ............................................................ 5  
Chart 1.2b – Trade Concerns Related to Animal Health & Zoon oses (1995 -2015) ....................... 6  
Chart 1.3a – Participation by WTO Members (1995-2015) ....................................................... 6  
Chart 1.3b – Number of New Issues Raised by Members ......................................................... 7  
Chart 1.4 – Solved Trade Concerns ...................................................................................... 7  
Table 1.1 - List of Specific Trade Concerns (1995–2015) ......................................................... 8  
2   STCS CONSID ERED IN 2015 ...................................................................................... 28  
Chart 2.1 - Trade Concer ns by Subject – 2015 ..................................................................... 28 
Chart 2.2 - Trade Concerns Related to Animal Health & Zoonoses – 2015 ................................. 28 
Chart 2.3 - Participatio n of Member s – 2015  ........................................................................ 29 
Table 2.1 – Issues Raised fo r the First Ti me in 2015 ............................................................. 30 
Table 2.2 - Issues Previously Raised and Discussed Again in 2015 ........................................... 32 
Table 2.3 - Issues Report ed as Resolv ed in 2015 .................................................................. 33 
2.1   Australia ............................................................................................................... . 34 
2.1.1   Animal Health ....................................................................................................... 34 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193) ................................................................. 34 
Australia's non-acceptance of OIE categorization fo r BSE (STC  376) ........................................ 34 
Undue delays in Australia's approval  process for chicke n meat (S TC 402)................................. 35 
2.1.2   Plan t Heal th ..........................................................................................................  35 
Undue delays in the start of Australia's risk analysis for av ocados (S TC 400)  ............................ 35 
2.2   China ...................................................................................................................... 36  
2.2.1   Food safety ........................................................................................................... 36 
Chinese quarantine and testing pr ocedures for salm on (STC  319) ........................................... 36 
Import restrictions in response to the Japa nese nuclear power plan t accident (STC 354) ............ 39 
Import policy on swal low nests (S TC 360)  ........................................................................... 40 
Chinese import regime, including quarantine and testing procedures for fish (S TC 389) ............. 40 
China's proposed amendments to the implementation regulations on safety assessment 
of agricultural GMOs (STC 395) .......................................................................................... 41 
2.2.2   Animal Health ....................................................................................................... 42 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193) ................................................................. 42 
China's measures on bo vine meat (STC 383) ....................................................................... 42 
China's import restrictions due to African swine fever (STC 392) ............................................. 43 
2.3   Costa Rica ..............................................................................................................  44 
2.3.1   Plan t Heal th ..........................................................................................................  44 
Costa Rica's suspension of the issuing of phytosanitary import certificates for avocados 
(STC 394) ....................................................................................................................... 44 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 3 - 
 
  2.4   European Union ...................................................................................................... 45  
2.4.1   Food safety ........................................................................................................... 45 
Application and modification of the EU Regulation on Nove l Foods (S TC 238)  ............................ 45 
Categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors (STC 382) ............................................. 55 
EU proposal to amend regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003 to allow EU member States to 
restrict or prohibit the use of genetica lly modified food an d feed (S TC 396)  .............................. 58 
2.4.2   Plan t Heal th ..........................................................................................................  59 
Phytosanitary measures on ci trus black spot  (STC 356) ......................................................... 59 
EU ban on mangoes and certain vegetables from India (STC 374) ........................................... 62 
2.4.3   Other concerns ...................................................................................................... 64 
EU withdrawal of equivalence for pr ocessed organic prod ucts (STC  378)  .................................. 64 
2.5   France, Eu ropean Un ion ......................................................................................... 66  
2.5.1   Food  Safety .......................................................................................................... 66 
France's ban on Bisphe nol A (BPA) (STC 346) ...................................................................... 66 
2.6   Hong Kong, China ..................................................................................................... 68 
2.6.1   Food  Safety .......................................................................................................... 68 
Import restrictions in response to the Japa nese nuclear power plan t accident (STC 354) ............ 68 
2.7   India ................................................................................................................... ... 68 
2.7.1   Food  Safety .......................................................................................................... 68 
India's amended standards for food additives (STC 403) ........................................................ 68 
2.7.2   Animal Health ....................................................................................................... 69 
Import conditions for pork and pork products (STC 358) ........................................................ 69 
2.7.3   Othe r Concer ns ..................................................................................................... 71 
India's amendment to its import policy conditions for apples; Restriction to Nhava Sheva 
port (STC 397) ................................................................................................................  71 
2.8   In donesia ...............................................................................................................  72 
2.8.1   Plan t Heal th ..........................................................................................................  72 
Indonesia's port cl osures (S TC 330)  ................................................................................... 72 
2.9   Korea, Re public of .................................................................................................. 78  
2.9.1   Food safety ........................................................................................................... 78 
Strengthened import restrictions on food and feeds products with regard to radionuclides 
(STC 359) ....................................................................................................................... 78 
2.9.2   Animal Health ....................................................................................................... 80 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193) ................................................................. 80 
Korea's import restrictions due to African swine fever (STC 393) ............................................. 81 
2.10   Malaysia ...............................................................................................................  82 
2.10.1   Plan t Heal th ........................................................................................................ 82 
Import restrictions on plant and plant produc ts (STC  294)  ..................................................... 82 
2.10.2   Other Concerns .................................................................................................... 82 
Malaysia's import restrictions related to a pproval of poultry meat  plants (S TC 391)  ................... 82 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.11   Mexico .................................................................................................................. 83  
2.11.1   Plan t Heal th ........................................................................................................ 83 
Measures on imports of hi biscus flowers (STC 386) ............................................................... 83 
2.12   Russian Federation ............................................................................................... 84  
2.12.1   Food Safety ......................................................................................................... 84 
The Russian Federation's import restrictions on processed fishery products from Estonia 
and Latvia (STC 390) ....................................................................................................... 84 
2.13   Saudi Arabi a, Kingdom of ..................................................................................... 86  
2.13.1   Animal Health ...................................................................................................... 86 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193) ................................................................. 86 
2.14   Chines e Taipei  ...................................................................................................... 86  
2.14.1   Food Safety ......................................................................................................... 86 
Import restrictions in response to the Japa nese nuclear power plan t accident (STC 354) ............ 86 
Chinese Taipei's strengthened import restrict ions on food with re gard to radionuclides 
(STC 387) ....................................................................................................................... 86 
2.15   Turkey .................................................................................................................. 87  
2.15.1   Animal Health ...................................................................................................... 87 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193) ................................................................. 87 
Requirements for importation of sheep meat (STC 340) ......................................................... 88 
2.16   United States of America ...................................................................................... 90  
2.16.1   Animal Health ...................................................................................................... 90 
US non-acceptance of OIE cate gorization for BSE (STC  375)  .................................................. 90 
2.16.2   Plan t Heal th ........................................................................................................ 91 
US high cost of certification for mango exports (STC 373) ...................................................... 91 
2.16.3   Other Concerns .................................................................................................... 93 
Measures on catf ish (STC  289)  .......................................................................................... 93 
US proposed rule for user fees for agricu ltural quarantine and inspection services 
(STC 388) ....................................................................................................................... 95 
2.17   Vi et Nam .............................................................................................................. 96 
2.17.1   Animal Health ...................................................................................................... 96 
Undue delays in Viet Nam's approval proc ess for dairy and meat  products (STC 401)................. 96 
2.17.2   Plan t Heal th ........................................................................................................ 97 
Viet Nam's restrictions on frui t due to fruit fl ies (STC  398)  ..................................................... 97 
Viet Nam's restrictions on plant products (STC 399) .............................................................. 98 
2.18   Certai n Member s .................................................................................................. 98  
2.18.1   Food Safety ......................................................................................................... 98 
Import restrictions in response to the Japa nese nuclear power plan t accident (STC 354) ............ 98 
2.18.2   Animal Health .................................................................................................... 102  
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193) ............................................................... 102  
General import restrictions due to  African swine fe ver (STC 384) .......................................... 110  
General import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian infl uenza (STC 385) ...................... 111 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 5 - 
 
  1  STCS GENERAL OVERVIEW 
1.1.  Altogether, 403 specific trade concerns were raised in the 21 years between 1995 and the 
end of 2015. Chart 1.1 shows the number of new concerns raised each year; 21 new concerns were raised in 2015. 
Chart 1.1 – Number of New Issues Raised 
051015202530354045
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20152112423
13
102942
29
2131
1016 16
1322
16 1624
1421
 
 
 
1.2.  Chart 1.2a categorizes the trade concerns raised over the 21 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 32% of an imal health concerns, while issues related to 
FMD and to avian influenza account for 23% and 8%, respectively. The remaining 37% relate to other animal health concerns. 
Chart 1.2a – Trade Concerns by Subject (1995-2015) 
Animal Health
39%Food Safety
31% Plant Health
25%
Other
5%
 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 6 - 
 
  Chart 1.2b – Trade Concerns Related to Animal Health & Zoonoses (1995-2015) 
TSEs
32%
FMD
23%AI
8%OAH
37%TSEs
FMD
AI
OAHTransmissible Spongiform 
Encephalopathies
Food and Mouth 
Disease
Avian influenza
Other Animal 
Health 
 
 
 1.3.  Developing countries are participating actively under this agenda item in the SPS Committee 
meetings. Chart 1.3a indicates that over the 21 years, developing country Members have raised 
230 trade concerns (on many occasions more than one Member has raised, supported or maintained an issue) compared to 234 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 313 cases, compared to 192 for developed country Members, and ten for least-
developed country Members. In 217 cases, the measure at issue was maintained by a developed 
country Member, and in 212 cases it was 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 (1995-2015) 
Members Raising the Issue Supporting Members Members Maintaining the
Measure234
192217230313
212
5101Number of Members
Developed Countries Developing Countries Least-Developed Countries
 
                                               
3 On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty  on European Union and the Treaty 
establishing the European Community  (done at Lisbon, 13 December 2007) entered into force. On 
29 November 2009, the WTO received a Verbal Note (WT/L/779) from the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities stating that, by virtue of the Treaty of Lisbon , as of 
1 December 2009, the European Union replaces and su cceeds the European Community. The European Union 
was counted as one Member. Similarly, when one Member  spoke on behalf of ASEAN, it was counted as one 
Member only. 
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 403 specific 
trade concerns raised since 1995. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 7 - 
 
  Chart 1.3b – Number of New Issues Raised by Members 
4101618
11
52129
20
1516
710
6
25788
411
21113
5522
20
12
1016
56101218
12
1016
1015
3
11Number of Issues
Developed countries Developing countries Least-Developed Countries
 
 
 
1.4.  Chart 1.4 indicates that 146 trade concerns (36%) have been reported resolved out of the 
403 trade concerns raised over the 21 years. Two issues were reported as resolved in 2015. 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 226 trade 
concerns. There are 206 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 
No solution reported Solution reported Partial solution reported226
146
31Number of Issues
Status
 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 8 - 
 
  Table 1.1 - List of Specific  Trade Concerns (1995–2015) 
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.16 
 
- 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.16 
 
- 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.16 
 
- 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.16 
 
- 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.16 
 
- 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.16 
 
- 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.16 
 
- 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.16 
 
- 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.16 
 
- 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.16 
 
- 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.16 
 
- 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.16 
 
- 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.16 
 
- 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.16 
 
- 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.16 
 
- 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.16 
 
- 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 China, Certain Members Japan NR 
355 EU import requirements 
for orchid tissue culture 
plantlets in flasks European Union Chinese Taipei NR 
356 Phytosanitary measures 
on citrus black spot European Union South Africa NR 
357 Accreditation of third-
party bodies to conduct 
food safety audits and to issue certifications United States of America China NR 
358 Import conditions for pork 
and pork products India European Union NR 
359 Strengthened import 
restrictions on fishery 
products with regard to 
radionuclides Korea, Republic of Japan NR 
360 Import policy on swallow 
nests China Indonesia R 
361 Non-recognition of testing 
laboratories for meat 
products Russian Federation India NR 
362 Import restrictions on beef 
due to BSE South Africa Brazil 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.16 
 
- 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 
2015 
383 China's measures on 
bovine meat China India NR 
384 General import restrictions 
due to African swine fever Certain Members European Union NR 
385 General import restrictions 
due to highly pathogenic avian influenza Certain Members European Union R 
386 Measures on imports of 
hibiscus flowers Mexico Nigeria NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 26 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
387 Chinese Taipei's 
strengthened import restrictions on food with regard to radionuclides Chinese Taipei Japan NR 
388 US proposed rule for user 
fees for agricultural 
quarantine and inspection 
services United States of America Mexico NR 
389 Chinese import regime, 
including quarantine and testing procedures for fish China Norway NR 
390 The Russian Federation's 
import restrictions on processed fishery products 
from Estonia and Latvia Russian Federation European Union NR 
391 Malaysia's import 
restrictions related to 
approval of poultry meat plants Malaysia Brazil NR 
392 China's import restrictions 
due to African swine fever China European Union NR 
393 Korea's import restrictions 
due to African swine fever Korea, Republic of European Union NR 
394 Costa Rica's temporary 
suspension of the issuing of phytosanitary import 
certificates for avocados Costa Rica Guatemala, 
Mexico NR 
395 China's proposed 
amendments to the 
implementation regulations on safety assessment of agricultural 
GMOs China Paraguay, 
United States 
of America NR 
396 EU proposal to amend 
regulation (EC) No. 
1829/2003 to allow EU member States to restrict 
or prohibit the use of 
genetically modified food and feed European Union Argentina, 
Paraguay, 
United States of America NR 
397 India's amendment to its 
import policy conditions for apples; Restriction to 
Nhava Sheva port India Chile, New 
Zealand NR 
398 Viet Nam's restrictions on 
fruit due to fruit flies Viet Nam Chile NR 
399 Viet Nam's restrictions on 
plant products Viet Nam Chile NR 
400 Undue delays in the start 
of Australia's risk analysis 
for avocados Australia Chile NR 
401 Undue delays in Viet 
Nam's approval process 
for dairy and meat products Viet Nam Chile NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 27 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status5 
402 Undue delays in 
Australia's approval process for chicken meat Australia Chile NR 
403 India's amended 
standards for food additives India European Union NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 28 - 
 
  2  STCS CONSIDERED IN 2015 
2.1.  A total of 40 specific trade concerns were brought to the attention of the Committee during 
2015, of which 21 were new issues (Table 2.1), 18 were previously raised (Table 2.2), and two 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 2015, by subject. Overall, thirteen issues (32%) relate to food safety, ten issues 
(25%) relate to plant health and five issues (13%) relate to other concerns. The remaining 
12 issues (30%) relate to animal health and zoonos es; nonetheless, 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 2015, while issues related to foot-and-
mouth disease account for 8%. Eight per cent of issues raised in 2015 relate to avian influenza. 
The remaining 59% of raised concerns refer to other animal health issues. 
Chart 2.1 - Trade Concerns by Subject – 2015 
Animal Health
Food Safety
Plant Health
Other12 13
10
57
15
1Total New
 
 
 
Chart 2.2 - Trade Concerns Related to Animal Health & Zoonoses – 2015 
TSEs
25%FMD
8%OAH
59%AI
8%
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 29 - 
 
  Chart 2.3 - Participation of Members – 2015 
Members Maintaining the
MeasureSupporting MembersMembers Raising the Issue
141823
226028
080Number of Members
Least-Developed Countries Developing Countries Developed Countries
 
 
 
2.3.  Of the 40 trade concerns discussed in 2015 (including those resolved), in 23 cases a developed country Member has raised the issue,  compared to 28 cases for developing country 
Members. On some occasions, developing and developed country Members have raised or 
supported the same issue. No cases were raised by a least-developed country Member in 2015. Developed country Members have supported another Member raising the issue in 18 cases and developing country Members have supported another Member in 60 cases. Eight cases were 
supported by a least-developed country Member in 2015. 
2.4.  In 22 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 five STCs (185, 286, 318, 359 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 403 specific trade concerns raised since 1995. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 30 - 
 
  Table 2.1 – Issues Raised for the First Time in 2015 
Specific 
Trade 
Concern Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status
7 
383 China's measures on bovine 
meat China India NR 
384 General import restrictions 
due to African swine fever Certain Members European Union NR 
385 General import restrictions 
due to highly pathogenic avian influenza Certain Members European Union R 
386 Measures on imports of 
hibiscus flowers Mexico Nigeria NR 
387 Chinese Taipei's 
strengthened import restrictions on food with 
regard to radionuclides Chinese Taipei Japan NR 
388 US proposed rule for user 
fees for agricultural 
quarantine and inspection services United States of America Mexico NR 
389 Chinese import regime, 
including quarantine and 
testing procedures for fish China Norway NR 
390 The Russian Federation's 
import restrictions on 
processed fishery products 
from Estonia and Latvia Russian Federation European Union NR 
391 Malaysia's import 
restrictions related to approval of poultry meat 
plants Malaysia Brazil NR 
392 China's import restrictions 
due to African swine fever China European Union NR 
393 Korea's import restrictions 
due to African swine fever Korea, Republic of European Union NR 
394 Costa Rica's temporary 
suspension of the issuing of 
phytosanitary import 
certificates for avocados Costa Rica Guatemala, 
Mexico NR 
395 China's proposed 
amendments to the implementation regulations 
on safety assessment of 
agricultural GMOs China Paraguay, 
United States of America NR 
396 EU proposal to amend 
regulation (EC) No. 
1829/2003 to allow EU member States to restrict 
or prohibit the use of 
genetically modified food and feed European Union Argentina, 
Paraguay, 
United States of America NR 
397 India's amendment to its 
import policy conditions for apples; Restriction to Nhava 
Sheva port India Chile, New 
Zealand NR 
                                               
7 NR = Not Reported, P = Partially resolved, R = Resolved. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 31 - 
 
  Specific 
Trade 
Concern 
Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status7 
398 Viet Nam's restrictions on 
fruit due to fruit flies Viet Nam Chile NR 
399 Viet Nam's restrictions on 
plant products Viet Nam Chile NR 
400 Undue delays in the start of 
Australia's risk analysis for 
avocados Australia Chile NR 
401 Undue delays in Viet Nam's 
approval process for dairy and meat products Viet Nam Chile NR 
402 Undue delays in Australia's 
approval process for chicken meat Australia Chile NR 
403 India's amended standards 
for food additives India European Union NR 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 32 - 
 
  Table 2.2 - Issues Previously Raised and Discussed Again in 2015 
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 
294 Import restrictions on plant 
and plant products Malaysia Brazil NR 
319 Chinese quarantine and 
testing procedures for 
salmon China Norway NR 
330 Indonesia's port closures Indonesia China, New 
Zealand, United 
States of America, 
European Union PR 
340 Requirements for importation 
of sheep meat Turkey Australia NR 
346 France's ban on Bisphenol A 
(BPA) France, European Union United States of 
America NR 
354 Import restrictions in 
response to the Japanese 
nuclear power plant accident China, Certain Members Japan NR 
356 EU phytosanitary measures 
on citrus black spot European Union  South Africa NR 
358 India's import conditions for 
pork and pork products India European Union NR 
359 Strengthened import 
restrictions on food and 
feeds products with regard to radionuclides Korea, Republic of  Japan 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 
378 EU withdrawal of equivalence 
for processed organic 
products European Union India NR 
382 European Union revised 
proposal for categorization of compounds as endocrine 
disruptors European Union United States of 
America NR 
                                               
8 NR = Not Reported, P = Partially resolved, R = Resolved. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 33 - 
 
  Table 2.3 - Issues Reported as Resolved in 2015 
Specific 
Trade 
Concern Number  Description of Measure Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue Status
9 
360 Import policy on swallow 
nests China Indonesia R 
385 General import restrictions 
due to highly pathogenic avian influenza Certain Members European Union R 
                                               
9 NR = Not Reported, P = Partially resolved, R = Resolved. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 34 - 
 
  2.1  Australia 
2.1.1  Animal Health General import restrictions  due to BSE (STC 193) 
2.7.  See paragraphs 2.401.–2.461. 
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), March 2015 (G/SPS/R/78, paras. 3.26-3.29), July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.31-3.34) 
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. 
2.12.  In March 2015, India reiterated its concern regarding Australia's non-acceptance of its OIE 
categorization as negligible risk country for BSE. India noted that Australia had chosen to 
implement its own categorization process and voiced concerns about the multiplicity of systems, as 
well as the risk that national categorization processes would contradict the OIE's categorization. 
India requested that Australia share the reasonin g behind its diverging view in determining a 
negligible risk country. 
2.13.  Australia indicated that, consistent with th e SPS Agreement, it reserved its right to conduct 
its own risk assessments on the status of India or any other Member in relation to diseases of 
biosecurity concern, including BSE, in accordance with its appropriate level of protection. 
2.14.  In July 2015, India restated its concern that the United States and Australia did not accept 
the OIE categorization of India as a negligible risk country for BSE. India had shared its OIE 
dossier with the United States, but had not received any response yet. India urged both countries to carry their assessment in accordance to OIE standards. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 35 - 
 
  2.15.  Australia said it hoped previous bilate ral discussions with India had helped to clarify 
Australia's position and reiterated that it reserved its right to conduct its own risk assessments on India's or any other Member's status in relation to diseases of biosecurity concern, including BSE, in accordance with its appropriate level of protection. 
2.16.  India referred to the explicit recognition of OIE standards under Annex A.3 of the SPS 
Agreement, and invited the United States and Aust ralia to share any additional factors that would 
be taken into consideration in determining India's BSE status. 
Undue delays in Australia's approval  process for chicken meat (STC 402) 
Raised by: Chile 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, paras. 3.14-3.15) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.17.  In October 2015, Chile expressed concerns in relation to the Australian Government's delays 
in approving Chilean exports of poultry products. Chile had first expressed interest in gaining access to the Australian poultry meat market in 2008, subsequent to which a formal request was submitted in June 2013 to the Department of Agriculture. Since then, Chile had taken several 
actions in order to gain access to the Australian market, which included reaffirming its interest in 
April 2014, at the request of Australia. Chile noted that it had once again indicated its interest to export poultry meat to Australia at a bilatera l meeting on the Free Trade Agreement held in 
October 2014, following which Chile had been requested to submit information on Australian 
importers that would import poultry from Chile, in order to start the assessment process. Noting its optimal animal health conditions and efficient sanitary health services, Chile requested Australia 
to comply with the obligations of the SPS Agreement, particularly in relation to Articles 2.2, 5.4, 6, 
and Annex C (1a). 
2.18.  Australia responded that its Generic Import Risk Analysis Report for Chicken Meat (chicken 
meat IRA) for the importation of chicken meat from all countries, including Chile, had been 
released in 2008. The IRA recommended that the importation of chicken meat be permitted, 
subject to import conditions for nine disease agents of biosecurity concerns such as notifiable avian influenza virus, among others. Australia invited Chile to provide a proposed health certificate 
for the export of chicken meat to Australia based on the import conditions in the chicken meat 
IRA. 
2.1.2  Plant Health 
Undue delays in the start of Australia's risk analysis for avocados (STC 400) 
Raised by: Chile 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, paras. 3.11-3.12) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.19.  In October 2015, Chile raised concerns in relation to delays in gaining market access to 
Australia for its avocado exports. Chile explaine d that in 2006, it had requested market entry 
requirements for avocados into Australia, which resulted in Australia placing it on List B for pest risk assessment (PRA), which is of lower priority. In 2011, Australia informed Chile that it had 
begun the process of developing a PRA for Chilean avocados, and an inspection visit took place the 
following year. However, in 2013 Australia reported that the PRA had not started due to a lack of G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 36 - 
 
  resources. Chile further noted that it had communicated its interest in starting the PRA on several 
occasions, with no progress made. Chile affirmed that it was free from major pests of economic importance for plant products and urged Australia to begin its PRA in conformity with the SPS Agreement, in particular with Articles 2.2, 5.4 and Annex C (1a). 
2.20.  Australia responded that it had identified over 30 pests and diseases of quarantine concern 
to Australia, associated with avocados from Chile. Due to the large number of pests and diseases and the complexity of the import risk analysis (IRA) work and progress, Australia could not start 
the formal IRA until sufficient  resources were available. 
2.2  China 2.2.1  Food safety Chinese quarantine and testing pr ocedures for salmon (STC 319) 
Raised by: Norway 
Supported by: Switzerland, United States of America, European Union 
Dates raised: June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, paras. 19-24), October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, 
para. 196), March 2012 (G/SPS/R/66, paras. 44-46), July 2012 (G/SPS/R/67, paras. 40-42), October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, paras. 40-41), March 2013 (G/SPS/R/70, paras. 3. 34-3.36), June 2013 (G/SPS/R/71, 
paras. 4.22-4.24), October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 3.42-3.43), 
October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, paras. 3.23-3.24) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/1090 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.21.  In June 2011, Norway stated that after years of steady increase in its exports of fresh salmon to China, exports had dropped significan tly due to testing and quarantine procedures 
implemented by China on 13 December 2010. These we re followed by strengthened inspection and 
quarantine procedures as stated in Notice No. 9 2011, which had not been notified to the WTO. 
The Norwegian monitoring programmes, in operatio n since 1998, showed no presence of illegal 
substances in the fish products and had consistently documented low levels of contaminants. 
China's measures did not seem to be based on scientific principles or a risk assessment, and 
Norway requested an explanation for these measures and how they complied with the SPS Agreement. 
2.22.  The United States supported Norway and expressed their concern that China had 
implemented AQS1Q Order No. 9, Notice on Strengthening Inspection and Quarantine on Imported Salmon, in February 2011, without having notified the measure. The stated objective of this notice 
was to safeguard consumer health, however no risk assessment had been provided. The United 
States requested a copy of China's risk assessment, and requested that China rescind AQS1Q Order No. 9's documentation requirements until the measure had been notified. China was also asked to explain how the requirement for the exporter's vessel name and number related to 
ensuring that wild salmon was safe for human consumption. The European Union also called for 
transparency in all SPS matters. 
2.23.  China clarified that since 2010, the entry and exit inspection and quarantine bureaus in 
China had detected fish lice, pathogenic micro-organisms and excess veterinary drug residues in 
imported chilled salmon. In an attempt to protect their consumers, China had published a notice to strengthen the inspection and quarantine of imported salmon, based on the Administrative 
Measure for Inspection, Quarantine and Supervis ion on Import and Export of Feed and Feed 
Additives and its revision and amendment measures  of imports and exports of aquatic products, 
which were notified to the WTO. The measures taken were covered by these laws and regulations without any new element and therefore it was unnecessary to make another notification. China 
had already responded to Norway's concerns when it raised them in March 2011, during Norway's 
visit to China's AQSIQ and hoped that those replies addressed its concerns. China was open to further bilateral discussions with the European Union and the United States on this topic. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 37 - 
 
  2.24.  Norway stressed that ensuring seafood safety is a major objective of Norwegian authorities, 
who monitor the presence of undesirable substances, microorganisms and parasites in wild-caught and farmed seafood, as well as fish feed. Norw ay had been performing a risk assessment on 
seafood, based on studies of the most commercially important fish species in Norway. 
Stakeholders often held conflicting views on food safety and on the benefits of seafood and it was 
important to distinguish between fact and fiction. Norway was keen to further collaborate in this area with China. 
2.25.  China observed that Norway's concerns focussed on the detailed testing methods, however 
these purely technical matters had to be discussed among scientists. In March, scientists from both countries had held detailed discussions on this issue, and almost all of Norway's concerns had been clarified. China was disappointed with the lack of Norwegian efforts to resolve this issue, as 
when any cargo was identified to be carrying disease the problem was supposed to be rectified by 
the exporter. China welcomed Norway's and other interested parties participation in bilateral discussions as this issue had been on-going for two years. 
2.26.  In October 2011, Norway provided an update on recent developments in China's measures 
on salmon, in particular the new testing and quarantine measures on fresh salmon. The measures introduced in December 2010 by the implementati on of AQSIQ Order Number 9 had led to a 70% 
reduction in the volume of Norway's exports of fresh salmon to China. Norway had requested 
bilateral consultations between the relevant techni cal experts, and urged China to agree to hold 
this meeting before the end of 2011. China indi cated that the sharing of written documents and 
data was as important as physical talks, but Norway had not yet provided the necessary 
information. However, there had been smooth discussions on this issue in AQSIQ in Beijing. 
2.27.  In March 2012, Norway reiterated concerns about the new testing and quarantine measures 
introduced by China in December 2010, directed sp ecifically at fresh, chilled salmon from Norway. 
These measures were further strengthened in February 2011 by the implementation of AQSIQ 
Order No. 9 and had led to a dramatic reduction in the volume of Norway's exports of fresh salmon to China. SPS measures should be supported by a scientifically based risk analysis, but to date, 
Norway had not received a copy of China's risk assessment on salmon. Norway urged China to 
agree on a date for bilateral consultations at an expert level as soon as possible. 
2.28.  The European Union supported the need fo r transparency and good communication in this 
matter, and underscored the importance of open and direct contact with trading partners on 
measures of concern. 
2.29.  China repeated the explanation provided in June 2011 regarding the detection of fish lice, 
pathogenic micro-organisms and excess chemical  residues, among other issues, in imported 
salmon, and the measures it had taken to strength en the inspection and quarantine of imported 
salmon. These import inspection and quarantine procedures were not aimed at any particular Member, but quarantine issues were detected in numerous shipments of salmon from Norway. 
China was willing to adjust the relevant measures once Norway had addressed the quality issues. 
2.30.  In July 2012, Norway noted that after Dece mber 2010, China had begun to report a tenfold 
increase in the number of notifications of "contaminants" in Norwegian salmon, amounting to a total of 24 in 2011. A large number of these notifications identified a microorganism that was not 
an issue in Norwegian aquaculture due to the prevailing low water temperatures. Active 
co-operation between technical experts from both parties was necessary to discuss and clarify the issue and ultimately normalize trade, but it had not been possible to hold such technical bilateral 
meetings despite Norway's numerous requests. However, Norway was encouraged that during the 
recent Trade Policy Review, China agreed to address the issue in a meeting between relevant technical experts. 
2.31.  Switzerland shared the concerns raised by Norway and requested China and Norway to 
meet in order to resolve the issue. 
2.32.  China observed that Norway was one of the main suppliers of salmon to China; however, in 
recent years more and more shipments of unqualified salmon were being detected. In 2011, 
19 shipments of salmon were deemed as unqualified for the Chinese market. The diseases found in 
shipments of salmon from Norway were considered to pose food safety risks by the Chinese G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 38 - 
 
  National Food Safety authorities and their presence was prohibited in food products. China was in 
the process of revising the limits on pathogens in food products and would set new food safety standards. The new draft standard had been notified to the WTO for comments. China remained committed to continue bilateral discussions with Norway. 
2.33.  In October 2012, Norway reiterated that these measures posed serious challenges to 
Norway's trade of fresh salmon to China, as the quarantine measures implied that all consignments of fresh salmon would be tested and retained in custody awaiting the test results. 
The obligations under the SPS Agreement required that SPS measures be supported by a science-
based risk analysis, not more trade restrictive than necessary and applied in a transparent manner. The measures applied to salmon from Norway appeared not to be proportional to the situation and Norway requested China to provide th e risk analysis that supported the testing and 
quarantine measures. Norway recognized the communication between AQSIQ and the Norwegian 
Embassy in Beijing, but requested AQSIQ to agree to the request for technical consultations on this issue, in line with Article 5 of the SPS Agreement. 
2.34.  China reiterated that in recent years its inspection authorities had detected pathogenic 
germs and excessive veterinary drug residues in imported salmon. Based on the results of a risk 
assessment, Chinese experts were of the opinion th at the importation of salmon, especially chilled, 
fresh and farm-raised salmon, posed a high food safety risk. In order to protect the health of 
Chinese consumers, AQSIQ decided in early 2011 to further strengthen the inspection and quarantine of salmon imported into China from al l countries. The relevant measures were based on 
existing laws and regulations and were not new measures which needed to be notified to the WTO. 
Norway was one of the main suppliers of salmon to China, however, Norway had failed to meet 
China's inspection requirements in recent years. In 2011, 24 cases of unqualified aquatic products from Norway were reported, of which 19 cases involved salmon. China remained committed to 
continue bilateral discussions with Norway and looked forward to further communication in relation 
to the Sino-Norway Memorandum  of Understanding on SPS. 
2.35.  In March 2013, Norway reiterated its concerns regarding Chinese testing and quarantine 
measures for salmon, introduced in December 2010, and urged China to respond positively to its 
request for technical consultations with experts on this issue. 
2.36.  China indicated that since 2010, Chinese inspection and quarantine authorities had detected 
parasites, lice, pathogenic microorganisms and ve terinary drug residues exceeding standards in 
imported salmon from Norway and other countries. In January 2011, for the protection of 
consumer health, China had strengthened inspections and quarantine on imported salmon, in accordance with the Chinese food safety law. The media had recently reported on a type of 
amoebic parasite found in a Norwegian fish farm and which was suspected to be present in 
another four Norwegian fish farms. This parasite could infect marine fish, including salmon, with the amoebic gill disease, which had already impacted Norway in 2006 and had devastating effects 
on the growth of salmon in the fish farms of  Ireland and Scotland in 2012. China requested 
Norway to submit a list of fish farms and fish species that had been infected by the parasite, 
together with the measures taken by Norway in this regard. Based on the risk analysis of salmon, China would consider gradual adjustments to its measures under the premise of ensuring safety in 
the future. China expected Norway to continue to take relevant measures to carry out the 
inspection of exported aquatic products including salmon and to report information on the quality of fish and fish farms to China. 
2.37.  Norway acknowledged the right of China to  perform the necessary testing on seafood and 
on all products entering the country. However, Norway noted discrepancies between the outcomes 
of the inspections in Norway and the findings reported by China in its statement. For this reason, 
Norway emphasized the need for actual cooperation on a technical level to resolve this issue. 
2.38.  In June 2013, Norway reiterated its co ncern regarding China's testing and quarantine 
measures on salmon exported from Norway. In addition to these measures, China enforced a 
licensing system in a manner that de facto established quantitative restrictions on the import of 
salmon from Norway. While this system was prob ably outside the purview of the SPS Committee, 
it helped to illustrate the overall pattern of restriction. Although Norway generally had quite fruitful co-operation with the Chinese authorities regarding food safety and imports, it had yet to receive a 
response from China despite multiple requests for technical consultations on this issue. Norway 
recalled that at the SPS Committee meeting in October 2012, China stated that it had requested G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 39 - 
 
  information from Norway regarding the issue of am oebic gill parasite. However, Norway had been 
unable to verify that such a request was ever rece ived by Norwegian authorities. As such, Norway 
asked China to provide the necessary information in writing so that it could comply with China's request. Norway expressed its desire to move this issue towards positive resolution. 
2.39.  China responded that its entry and exit inspection and quarantine agencies had detected 
carcinogenic microbes and veterinary drug residues in salmon imported from Norway. These products, especially chilled, ready-to-eat salmon, posed a substantial threat to the health of 
consumers. As such, since 2011, the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and 
Quarantine (AQSIQ) had enhanced inspection and quarantine measures on imported salmon from all countries and areas. In light of the detection of parasitic infections in salmon in recent years, China would consider adjusting its import measures based on quality and risk analyses of salmon 
to ensure the safety of its consumers. 
2.40.  Norway stated that there was a discrepan cy in Chinese and Norwegian testing results and 
this pointed to the need for co-operation at a technical level. Norway requested that such a 
meeting take place in order to work with China towards a solution. 
2.41.  In October 2013, Norway recalled that it had raised this concern several times in the past, 
however, the quarantine and testing measures introduced by China in 2010 were still applied to 
Norwegian salmon. Norway repeated the need for technical consultations and hoped to see a 
prompt positive resolution to this issue. 
2.42.  China explained that its entry-exit insp ection and quarantine services had detected 
pathogenic microorganisms and excessive veterinary drug residues in salmon, including frozen 
salmon. Upon risk analysis, experts had consider ed that the pathogenic bacteria found in the 
ready-to-eat frozen salmon posed a substantial threat to consumer health. As such, since 2011, the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) had 
enhanced inspection and quarantine measures on imported salmon from all countries and areas. 
China expressed concern about infectious salmon anaemia (ISA) that had intensively occurred in Norwegian salmon since 2012, and feared that Norw egian salmon could be the source of Listeria 
monocytogenes. China stated its willingness to continue communications with the Norwegian 
authorities. 
2.43.  In October 2015, Norway raised concerns on China's new import control regime for 
Norwegian seafood, which included extensive testing for up to 40 substances and resulted in a 
prolonged quarantine period for consignments and increased costs. This regime applied not only to 
salmon, but to all kinds of seafood from Norway, leading to a severe reduction in trade. Norway 
indicated that it had not received adequate information from China, despite submitting several 
requests through various diplomatic channels over the last six months. In addition, Norwegian 
food safety authorities had not received any reports on findings that could warrant such an increase in testing. While supporting the right of Members to implement food safety measures, 
Norway was of the view that the changes in import control routines had not been implemented in a 
transparent, predictable and non-discriminatory manner. Norway requested China to provide qualified information on its import control and quarantine procedure regimes as soon as possible. In depth bilateral technical consultations with China would be necessary to address the full range 
of food safety issues regarding seafood trade, and Norway was willing to work with China to 
address this issue. 
2.44.  China explained that it had provided a deta iled explanation and clarification during the last 
Committee meeting and invited Norway to recall th e minutes of the last meeting. China further 
expressed its willingness to continue to work with Norway on this issue. 
Import restrictions in response to the Japa nese nuclear power plan t accident (STC 354) 
2.45.  See paragraphs 2.383.-2.400. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 40 - 
 
  Import policy on swallow nests (STC 360) 
Raised by: Indonesia 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 3.9-3.10), March 2015 (G/SPS/R/78, 
para. 3.50)  
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHN/472 
Status: Resolved 
Solution: Indonesia reported that its concern regarding China's import policy for 
bird nests had been resolved. 
Date reported as resolved: 26/03/2015 
 
2.46.  In October 2013, Indonesia raised concerns regarding the effects that China's registration requirements for foreign food-producing enterprises, notified in August 2011 (G/SPS/N/CHN/472), 
had on its exports of edible bird nests. Indonesia, the world's largest bird nest producer, had 
signed a protocol with China on the inspection , quarantine and hygiene requirements for the 
importation of bird nest products in April 2012. Since then, Indonesia had striven to comply with 
the Chinese requirements, among others on tracea bility. The Indonesian Agricultural Quarantine 
Agency had conducted feasibility assessments in eight bird nest processing plants, and invited the Chinese authorities to conduct a verification visit. No response had been received from China. Indonesia characterized China's registration requirements as complicated and burdensome, and 
urged China to bring its measures in line with WTO rules. 
2.47.  China noted that since the conclusion of the protocol, it had actively engaged with 
Indonesia, urging it to comply with the protocol and to inform China accordingly. China invited 
Indonesia to provide a veterinary and sanitary certificate model, certificates of origin, and 
documents on its control systems in order to resolve the problem as soon as possible. 
2.48.  In March 2015, Indonesia reported that specific trade concern number 360 concerning 
China's import policy for bird nests had been resolved. Indonesia expressed appreciation to the 
Government of China and welcomed fu rther cooperation in the future.  
2.49.  China thanked Indonesia for the update and expressed its intention to solve additional 
specific trade concerns and to continue bilateral discussions with Indonesia. 
Chinese import regime, including quarantine and testing procedures for fish (STC 389) 
Raised by: Norway 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.1-3.3) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.50.  In July 2015, Norway expressed concern about China's new import control regime for 
seafood from Norway, which included extensive te sting for up to 40 substances. As a result, the 
costs for importers and exporters were increased, and products were kept in quarantine for a 
longer period. However, China had not notified any finding that could explain such measure. 
Norway highlighted that the new regulation  was implemented in a non-transparent and 
discriminatory manner, since the increased testing only applied to Norwegian products. 
Furthermore, since 2011, Norway had repeatedly asked for consultations at technical level, but 
this request had never been addressed. Norway urged China to provide information on this new 
regime and on quarantine procedures in general, and on all specific measures applicable to Norwegian seafood. Norway also requested China bilateral consultations on food safety issues 
relating to trade in seafood. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 41 - 
 
  2.51.  China responded that uncompliant produc ts had been found on several occasions and 
constituted a risk for consumer health. The General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) had issued an announcement in 2011 to further strengthen inspection and quarantine of salmons imported from all Members. China stated that these 
measures were not new and were based on existing Chinese laws and regulations. Moreover, the 
measures were addressing the threat represente d by Norwegian aquatic products mentioned in 
several reports over the last years. China ha d therefore strengthened the inspection and 
quarantine of high risk products.  
2.52.  Norway reiterated its request for consultations with China at a technical level and informed 
the Committee that Norwegian food safety regulations were harmonised with the EU legislation, and as a result, were in compliance with EU requirements. 
China's proposed amendments to the implemen tation regulations on safety assessment 
of agricultural GMOs (STC 395) 
Raised by: Paraguay, United States of America 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.16-3.18), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, 
paras. 3.42-3.44) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHN/881 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.53.  In July 2015, Paraguay raised a concern about the inclusion of some socio-economic aspects 
in the Chinese risk assessment process for GMOs, contrary to Article 5 of SPS Agreement and to 
the guidance of the relevant international organi zations recognized by the WTO. The amendments 
to the implementing regulations had been notified  in G/SPS/N/CHN/881. Paraguay stated that the 
measures, which went beyond scientific principles, could lead to arbitrary or unjustified 
distinctions, and that the inclusion of these elemen ts could undermine the production of safe food. 
Paraguay therefore requested China to recons ider the amendments to the regulations. 
2.54.  The United States shared Paraguay's concer n, and stressed the importance of notification of 
such measures to allow trading partners to review proposed changes, provide and discuss 
comments, and see them being taken into account. The United States highlighted its concerns about the negative impact that policies related to regulatory approval procedures for biotech 
products could have on the ability of consumers an d producers to reap the benefits of advances in 
technology through trade. The delays and lack of transparency in China's current biotech approval 
process meant that several products were pending at various stages in the process, despite the 
SPS Agreement's prohibition on undue delays in approval procedures and its obligation regarding 
standard processing periods and for a mechanism to resolve complaints. China was seeking to remove the specific timelines governing its regulatory review process, and was introducing new criteria referring to economic and social considerations. The United States had requested additional 
information from China in order to better understand the objectives behind the proposed changes. 
The United States also wished to ensure that the measures would comply with the SPS Agreement, and requested that China delay the implementation of the revisions to allow for a substantive 
dialogue with its trading partners. The United States further requested that China approve the 
currently pending events in a timely fashion and that the proposed changes to China's approval 
system not depart from the key tenets of timely , predictable science-based approvals required by 
the SPS Agreement. 
2.55.  China replied that the changes to its regulations aimed to enhance the management of 
safety evaluations for agricultural GMOs. The draft version of these management measures had been notified on 2 June and was open to comments until 1 August 2015. China indicated that it 
had not received comments from the United States and Paraguay, but would take any comments 
into consideration for further modification and improvement of the measures. 
2.56.  In October 2015, the United States again raised concerns with China's Proposed 
Amendments to the Implementation Regulations on Safety Assessment of Agricultural Genetically G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 42 - 
 
  Modified Organisms, which amends the requirements for the safety assessment for genetically 
engineered products (notified as G/SPS/N/CHN/881) . The United States appreciated the extensive 
and productive bilateral meetings held with Chinese authorities since the July 2015 Committee meeting. The United States also welcomed China's reaffirmation of the importance of 
implementing timely, transparent, predictable, and science-based approval processes that were 
based on international standards, as well as China's commitment to revise and improve its regulation based on comprehensive consultations with domestic and international stakeholders and 
to enhance its capabilities in safety administration and safety approval of agricultural 
biotechnology products. The United States noted again that there were 24 products pending at 
various stages in China's regulatory process, including seven poised for final adoption that had been pending as long as since 2010, and requested that China approve these products in a timely 
and expeditious fashion. The United States than ked China for its engagement and commitments to 
resolving this process. 
2.57.  Paraguay shared this concern about the inclusion of socio-economic aspects in the Chinese 
risk assessment process for GMOs, contrary to Arti cle 5 of SPS Agreement and to the guidance of 
the relevant international organizations. Paraguay stated that the measures, which went beyond scientific principles, could lead to arbitrary or unjustified distinctions, and that the inclusion of 
these elements could undermine the production of  safe food. Paraguay therefore requested China 
to reconsider the amendments to the regulations. 
2.58.  China replied that the changes to its regulations aimed to enhance the management of 
safety evaluations for agricultural GMOs in response to the rapid development of biotechnology 
and social and environmental concerns. The draft version of these management measures had 
been notified on 2 June and had been open to comments until 1 August 2015. China received comments from Australia, Brazil, Canada and the United States. China thanked Members for their 
comments and was now in the process of review ing and analysing them. Feedback to Members 
would be provided through the proper channels. China assured Members that, in line with the relevant requirements of the SPS Agreement, China' s agricultural GMOs safety evaluation would be 
based on science, taking into account the relevant economic factors. China remained ready to 
continue bilateral discussions and consultations with interested Members on this issue. 
2.2.2  Animal Health General import restrictions  due to BSE (STC 193) 
2.59.  See paragraphs 2.401.–2.461. 
China's measures on bo vine meat (STC 383) 
Raised by: India 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2015 (G/SPS/R/78, paras. 3.2-3.3), July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, 
paras. 3.35-3.36) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.60.  In March 2015, India raised its concerns about China's import ban on bovine meat due to 
the prevalence of FMD in India. The ban had firs t been imposed by China in 1990 because of the 
incidence of rinderpest and FMD in India. Despite India being declared free from rinderpest in 1995 through an OIE resolution, China had not accepted India's rinderpest-free status until 2012. With 
regard to FMD, India had informed the Chinese authorities about the implementation of a strong 
FMD control programme through vaccinations that had created FMD-free areas, from where bovine meat was exported to various countries. China had signed a veterinary protocol for import of bovine meat from India in May 2013; nonetheless a visit for inspections of meat processing plants 
by the Chinese authorities from the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and 
Quarantine (AQSIQ) was still pending. India also  noted that all the information requested by G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 43 - 
 
  AQSIQ had been provided to the Chinese authoritie s. India therefore requested China to carry out 
the required inspections at the earliest so that trade in bovine meat could restart smoothly. 
2.61.  China noted that a questionnaire had been required to lift the ban and that the first expert 
panel meeting had been convened in December 2013. However, since the department of 
Agriculture of India had not sent any experts to the meeting, technical exchange on prevention 
and control of FMD could not be conducted. Furthermore, the technical data requested by China had not been provided until July 2014. And were currently being assessed. China would hold the 
second expert panel meeting in December 2015 in view of lifting the ban and hoped that the 
Indian Department of Agriculture would assign a contact person for technical issues to ensure smooth communication. 
2.62.  In July 2015, India recalled its concern about China's import ban on buffalo meat and the 
various exchanges of FMD-related information that had taken place since 2013. India had 
implemented the OIE recommendations, in particular on importation from FMD free countries or zones where vaccination is practised (Chapter 8.5, Article 8.5.23), and was exporting frozen 
buffalo meat to several WTO Members.  
2.63.  China confirmed that the import ban on Indian artiodactyla and artiodactyla products was 
due to FMD concerns and recalled that a Memorand um of Understanding had been signed by both 
parties in May 2013. It had received supplementary materials on India's disease status in 
March 2015, which were being reviewed in preparation of a field visit to India. 
China's import restrictions due to African swine fever (STC 392) 
Raised by: European Union 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.9-3.10), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, 
paras. 3.66-3.67) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.64.  In July 2015, the European Union raised co ncerns about China's bans due to African Swine 
Fever (ASF) and indicated that the vast majority of EU trading partners did not take any import 
measures against the European Union on African Swine Fever (ASF) grounds because they fully trusted the strict EU control system. China had imposed a ban on EU pork and pork products since 
February 2014 without applying regionalization, any scientific justification, or clarification on how 
and when it would recognise the stringent zoning measures put in place in the European Union to 
allow the prompt resumption of safe trade despite continuously receiving information from the 
European Union about these stringent control, surveillance and monitoring measures. The 
European Union had requested several times that China provide a risk assessment justifying the country-wide ban and the non-recognition of the EU zoning measures, but China had failed to respond. The European Union asked China to respect its regionalization obligations under the 
SPS Agreement and to allow the trade of all safe products. 
2.65.  China replied that its measures were entirely based on science and safety considerations. It 
highlighted the threat represented by ASF in the world, and the fact that China was a major pig 
producer, and as such subject to great losses in case the disease entered the country. 
China indicated that the measures were in line with relevant Chinese laws and regulations that prohibited imports of relevant animals and animal products from countries infected by ASF. Finally, 
China stated that it needed to evaluate further the measures taken by the European Union, since a 
number of cases of ASF had still been detected in recent months in the region of Podlaskie, Poland. 
2.66.  In October 2015, the European Union again raised concerns about China's bans due to 
African swine fever (ASF) and reiterated the arguments presented in July 2015.  
2.67.  China replied that its measures were entirely based on science and safety considerations. It 
was a major pig producer, and as such subject to great losses in case the disease entered the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 44 - 
 
  country. China indicated that the measures were in line with relevant Chinese laws and regulations 
and stated that it needed to further evaluate the EU measures, since a number of ASF cases had still been detected in recent months in the region of Podlaskie, Poland. 
2.3  Costa Rica 
2.3.1  Plant Health 
Costa Rica's suspension of the issuing of ph ytosanitary import certificates for avocados 
(STC 394) 
Raised by: Guatemala, Mexico 
Supported by: South Africa, United States of America 
Dates raised: July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.13-3.15), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, 
paras. 3.56-3.58) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CRI/160, G/SPS/N/CRI/160/Add.1, G/SPS/N/CRI/162 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.68.  In July 2015, Mexico raised concerns regarding the emergency measure taken by Costa 
Rica's phsytosanitary service in April 2015 throug h resolution DSFE 03-2015, notified to the WTO 
under G/SPS/N/CRI/160 and G/SPS/N/CRI/160/Add.1. Costa Rica had temporarily suspended the issuing of import certificates for avocados of va rious origins because of the supposed presence of 
the sunblotch viroid in imported avocados. Costa Rica had affirmed that the nature of the problem 
was urgent, but according to Mexico there was no international regulatory basis for this view. Indeed, the fact that Costa Rica had declared that its territory was free of a pest could not be a 
basis for the implementation of the emergency phytosanitary measure. The consequence was a 
complete interruption of trade, and Mexico did not believe that the measure was legitimate. Mexico requested a demonstration of the absence of the pe st in line with ISPM 04, Requirements for the 
Establishment of Pest Free Areas. The interruption of trade meant that Costa Rica's measure was 
not proportional to the risk, especially because ther e has been no notification of the pest in Mexico 
for 21 years. Mexico noted that the measure contravened the SPS Agreement and the SPS Chapter of the Free Trade Agreement between Mexico and Latin America. Mexico finally requested several 
documents from Costa Rica showing that Costa Rica was actually free of the pest, and information 
on shipments of avocados from Mexico that had shown positive results for the pest. 
2.69.  Guatemala, South Africa and the United St ates shared Mexico's concern. Guatemala also 
requested information about Costa Rica's pest free pest status. The United States worried that this 
suspension of the issuance of import permits fo r avocados from eight countries and Florida was 
part of a larger attempt to use SPS measures to protect sensitive domestic industries. In the 
US view, the measure raised concerns regarding its consistency with international standards and 
guidelines, its scientific justification and its level of trade restrictiveness. South Africa was concerned that it appeared on the list of countries affected by the suspension despite the fact that it was not exporting avocados to Costa Rica. South Africa requested to be removed from the list. 
2.70.  Costa Rica reaffirmed its commitment to transparency and to the multilateral system. 
It referred to measures taken to protect the country from the virus and repeated that this pest could cause considerable damage to the phytosanitary status of its crop. Studies carried out in 
2014-2015 by its SPS authorities had established that Costa Rica was free from the virus. As a 
result, the country had taken SPS measures against Peru and California to avoid the introduction of the pest. Costa Rica indicated that Mexico was its main provider of avocados and had reported 
the presence of the pest, which demonstrated th e presence of an imminent risk. The current 
measure was temporary, and a risk assessment was under way. Costa Rica indicated that its authorities were in close contact with Mexico. 
2.71.  In October 2015, Mexico again raised concerns regarding the emergency measure taken by 
Costa Rica's phytosanitary service in April 2015 through resolution DSFE 03-2015, notified to the 
WTO under G/SPS/N/CRI/160, G/SPS/N/CRI/160/Add.1 and G/SPS/N/CRI/162. Mexico reiterated the explanation that it had provided in July 2015. In Mexico's view the measure was in breach of G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 45 - 
 
  the SPS Agreement and the SPS Chapter of the Free Trade Agreement between Mexico and Latin 
America. Mexico requested that Costa Rica immediately remove the ban and respond in writing to questions it had submitted. Mexico viewed the measures imposed by Costa Rica as a negative 
precedent for the application of SPS measures without adherence to international standards. 
2.72.  The United States shared this concern and worried that this suspension on issuing import 
permits for avocados from eight countries and Florida was part of a larger attempt to use SPS measures to protect sensitive domestic industries. In the US view, the measure also raised 
concerns regarding its consistency with international standards and guidelines, its scientific 
justification and its level of trade restrictiveness. 
2.73.  Costa Rica reaffirmed its commitment to transparency and to the multilateral system and 
restated the observations presented during the July 2015 meeting. The current measure was 
temporary, and a risk assessment was under way. Co sta Rica remained open to dialogue regarding 
the implementation of its SPS measures. 
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), March 2015 (G/SPS/R/78, paras. 3.13-3.15), July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.24-3.26), October 
2015 (G/SPS/R/81, paras. 3.19-3.22) 
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, G/SPS/GEN/1383, G/SPS/GEN/1422, 
G/SPS/GEN/1444 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.74.  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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 46 - 
 
  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. 
2.75.  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 exporters.  The proposed amendment of Regulation No. 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 No. 258/97: (i) the non-applicatio n of Regulation No. 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 procedur es in proportion with the nature of the foods 
concerned and the risks they could imply for consumers; and (iii) all exotic traditional products to 
remain in the public domain and no private entity  to be granted privileged access to the European 
market. 
2.76.  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. 
2.77.  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 Regulation No. 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 No. 258 to allow them to enter the European market. Peru also supported Colombia's recommendations regarding the amendment (G/SPS/GEN/681). 
2.78.  Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica and Paraguay report ed that their exports had also been affected by 
Regulation No. 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. 
2.79.  The European Communities confirmed that Regulation No. 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 No. 258 aimed to reassure European co nsumers 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 th e past turned out to be unsafe and harmed the 
users. Dealing with such products was thus in the interest of all stakeholders, considering the 
damage to the image of products if they were  marketed in an unsafe manner. The European 
Communities invited interested stakeholders to submit comments and make their views known. 
2.80.  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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 47 - 
 
  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). 
2.81.  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. 
2.82.  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 no vel 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 had been targeted mainly at EC companies. The regulation had been successful in that new foods were being approved on the 
basis of safety assessments. A statement that a product had been consumed for 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 catego ry 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. 
2.83.  In October 2006, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru reiterated concerns relating to EC Regulation 
No. 258/97 on Novel Foods (G/SPS/GEN/733 and G/SPS/GEN/735). They considered that the 
regulation constituted a non-justified barrier to trade in these 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. 
2.84.  The European Communities was requested to promptly review Regulation No. 258/97, and 
to exclude from its scope of application exotic traditional products resulting from biodiversity. 
The European Communities was also encouraged to take into account scientific assessments and 
relevant evidence from other countries and co mpetent international organizations when risk 
assessments were made, and to establish differen t procedures for foods of known risk and no 
known risk in the European Communities. The Euro pean Communities was also requested take into 
account the history of the product, the consumption patterns and traditional knowledge relating to its use and preparation, so as to provide for greate r flexibility in the application of the regulation 
and facilitate the entry of exotic traditional products into the European market. 
2.85.  Bolivia, Brazil and the Philippines shared the concerns of Peru, Ecuador and Colombia. 
The Philippines highlighted the fact that the re gulation could become an unjustified non-tariff 
barrier to the EC market in view of the unclear  technical distinction between these products and 
other products. The Philippines expressed hope th at progress would be made on the issue and a 
mutual solution found as soon as possible. 
2.86.  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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 48 - 
 
  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. 
2.87.  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. 
2.88.  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 No. 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. 
2.89.  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. 
2.90.  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. 
2.91.  The European Communities noted that it was currently revising legislation, in particular the 
provisions on traditional products and products of biological diversity, in response to concerns raised by various developing countries. A much simplified procedure was now being developed. 
A range of legitimate and reasonable concerns had been expressed, and these should be 
communicated directly to the relevant EC services, since the legislation was currently under consideration. While the concern was that the EC legislation might be a barrier to trade in traditional products, this should be seen in the broader context: the European Communities was by 
far the world's largest importer of fruits and vegetables, especially from developing countries, 
hence the import regime in general was extremely import-friendly. 
2.92.  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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 49 - 
 
  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. 
2.93.  UNCTAD reported that it was contributing to the review of the EC Regulation on Novel Foods 
in three specific areas: (i) revising the procedure, which required more scientific clarification; (ii) facilitating dialogue between the Europe an Communities and developing countries; and 
(iii) analysing legal aspects of current regulations in the context of multilateral agreements. 
2.94.  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. 
2.95.  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 Pe ru's concerns regarding the EC regulation on 
Novel Foods. 
2.96.  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. 
2.97.  In June 2011, Peru again raised concerns about Regulation No. 258/97, that particularly 
affected trade in Peruvian traditional foods that were safely sold in the United States and Japan 
(G/SPS/GEN/1087). Colombia shared the concern of Peru, as this regulation was an unjustified barrier to trade of traditional foods and conseque ntly impeded economic activities. In 2009, the 
European Union had agreed to change this regulation in a way that would take into account 
traditional foods. This modification had not been  implemented, however, because of disagreements 
that the European Council and the European Parlia ment had regarding products of cloned animals, 
although there was general agreement on traditional foods. Colombia encouraged the European 
Union to separate these issues and resolve the matter of traditional foods by the end of 2011. 
Brazil, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Mexico and Paraguay supported the concerns raised by Peru and Colombia. 
2.98.  The European Union stated that foods were considered novel under the present Regulation 
No. 258/97 if they were derived from new technological processes or if they had no significant G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 50 - 
 
  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 pr ovisions 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. 
2.99.  In October 2011, Peru recalled its concerns about Regulation No. 258/97 
(G/SPS/GEN/1117). Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico and Paraguay shared the 
concerns raised by Peru. 
2.100.  The European Union reiterated the explanation that it had provided in June 2011 regarding 
the definition of novel foods and the current process of revision of the regulation. 
2.101.  In March 2012, Peru recalled its previously raised concerns about the EU Novel Foods 
regulation (No. 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. 
2.102.  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. 
2.103.  The European Union restated the observations presented during the 2011 June and 
October meetings. 
2.104.  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 applying Regulation No. 258/97 to traditional products or to facilitate the entry of products with a history of safe consumption outside the 
EU market. 
2.105.  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. 
2.106.  The European Union explained that revision of the novel foods rules had started in January 
2008 in an effort to facilitate applications for nove l foods authorizations and to simplify EU market 
access for traditional foodstuffs from third countries with a history of safe use. However, the 
co-legislators had not agreed to the proposed revision and the European Union was now engaged in preparing the next steps in the hope of facilitating the consensus necessary to allow a revised 
novel food regulation to be adopted into law. The European Union would make public the next 
steps it was taking once these were agreed. The Commission was currently preparing a legislative proposal based on the overall agreement reached with  EU co-legislators, with adoption expected in 
2013. Any new regulation on novel foods would co ntain a centralized and quicker authorization 
procedure for novel foods and specific measures would be put in place for traditional foods from 
third countries to access EU markets. A related legislative proposal on animal cloning was planned G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 51 - 
 
  to be adopted by the Commission in 2013, based on the results of an impact assessment which 
was currently underway. 
2.107.  In October 2012, Peru reiterated its concern that the application of Regulation No. 238/97 
continued to restrict access of traditional products into the European Union. Regulation No. 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. 
2.108.  Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador and Venezuela supported Peru's concern 
and asserted that Regulation No. 238/97 constitu ted 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. 
2.109.  The European Union recalled that at the last meeting it had provided a detailed explanation 
on the state of play of the Novel Foods dossier; it was now engaged in 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. 
2.110.  In March 2013, Peru reiterated its previously raised concern with regard to EU Regulation 
No. 258/97 on Novel Foods whose application restricted access to the EU market for products 
which were not marketed in the European Union before May 1997 (G/SPS/GEN/1137). Peru 
considered the Regulation to be an unjustified trade barrier for Peruvian traditional products 
derived from biodiversity, due to the high costs of the application required to access the market 
and to the time required for market access approval. The EU measure was contradictory to 
international co-operation and technical assistance efforts for market development and for 
capacitation of small and medium pr oducers. 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 F oods and Feeds, but banned in the European Union. 
Peru requested information on the status of the new EU legislative proposal on Novel Foods and asked the European Union to reconsider those traditional products arising from biodiversity with a 
history of safe consumption outside the EU market. 
2.111.  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. 
2.112.  The European Union stated that the new le gislative 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 part ners 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. 
2.113.  In October 2013, Peru reiterated its concer n 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 52 - 
 
  the proposed amendment to Regulation No. 258/97 , which would be an important step to access 
the European market. 
2.114.  Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba and El Salvador expressed their support for Peru's 
concerns. 
2.115.  The European Union confirmed that the European 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. 
2.116.  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. 
2.117.  Ecuador noted that the revised legislation, No. 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 di sadvantage 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. 
2.118.  Costa Rica, El Salvador and Nicaragua also expressed support for Peru's concerns. 
2.119.  The European Union announced that in December 2013, the Commission adopted a 
proposal for a new regulation on novel foods, a ccompanied 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 objective 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. 
2.120.  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: (i) "novel food" - and requested the risk assessment that established 15 May 1997 
as the reference date; (ii) "traditional food from third country" – given that the majority of potentially exportable traditional foods derived from primary production; and (iii) "history of safe food use in a third country"- proposing a period of  five years without any indication of risk to 
human health for demonstrating safe use, instead of the 25 year time-period envisaged by the 
European Union. Peru requested that the European Union revise these definitions to establish criteria that would allow traditional biodiversity products from developing countries real and timely 
access to the EU market. 
2.121.  Colombia, Costa Rica and Ecuador expressed their support for Peru's concerns. 2.122.  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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 53 - 
 
  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. 
2.123.  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 prop osed amendment, which sets forth the procedure 
for authorizing the placement of novel food on th e 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. 
2.124.  Colombia and Guatemala expressed their support for Peru's concerns. 
2.125.  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. 
2.126.  In March 2015, Peru reiterated its concerns over the proposed amendment of 
EU Regulation No. 258/97 (G/SPS/GEN/1383). Peru challenged the consistency of the EU proposed 
regulation with Articles 2.2 and 5 of the SPS Agreement, which require the importing Member to adopt the least trade-restrictive measure, based on a risk assessment, and requested the European Union to provide the underpinning scientific basis. Peru noted how trade statistics for 
kaniwa (or cañihua) exports showed the detrimental effects of the EU's Regulation on Novel Foods 
on Peru's traditional products derived from biodiv ersity. While Peru's global exports of kaniwa had 
increased by more than 317% in 2013 and ab out 206% in 2014, going to markets such as 
Australia, Canada and the United States, the marketing of this food in the European market was 
restricted and its real potential was therefore redu ced. Peru also requested the European Union to 
clarify the scope of the phrase "a large part of the population of a third country", contained in 
Article 2.2(c). The definition did not specify the pe rcentage or number of people required for this 
part of the population to be considered "large ", nor did it specify whether the population in 
question should constitute a representative sample of the country's population as a whole or whether it may concern specific areas. 
2.127.  The Plurinational State of Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador and 
Guatemala expressed their support for Peru's concerns. 
2.128.  The European Union recalled that the new proposal did not change the definition of novel 
food or the scope of the regulation, which covered foods, production processes and production 
methods new to the European Union for various reasons. This was in line with article 5.2 of the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 54 - 
 
  SPS Agreement. The European Union noted that in some cases safe consumption might require 
preparation or consumption habits only known to the consumers of the country producing the food 
in question. It was therefore not possible to anticipate the potential risk associated with such novel foods, production processes or production method s and to address them in an all-encompassing 
risk assessment. As a result, the high level of food safety pursued in the European Union could 
only be achieved on a case by case basis within  the framework of a pre-market approval system. 
The EU scheme for Novel Food was in line with the SPS Agreement, as it was a pre-market 
approval based on scientific risk assessment, in li ne with Articles 5, 8 and Annex C. The European 
Union also reiterated its commitment to provide detailed guidance to applicants regarding the authorization and notification procedures and noted that products such as kaniwa should particularly benefit from the new Novel Food Regulation, as they were likely to qualify for the 
simplified and shortened procedure for authorization of traditional foods from third countries. The 
European Union finally recalled that the discussion by the EU Parliament and the Council had not yet concluded; therefore no final text was availabl e. The European Union would be in a position to 
provide a definitive answer to the questions and concerns raised by WTO Members only when the 
final text was available. 
2.129.  In July 2015, Peru reiterated its concerns over the EU proposal for a regulation repealing 
Regulation (EC) No. 258/98 on novel foods notified in G/SPS/N/EU/64. Peru's traditional 
biodiversity products with high export potential were being affected by the European Union's current regulation on novel foods, to the detrimen t of small- and medium sized Peruvian producers 
and exporters. Peru gave the example of "huito",  the marketing of which is restricted in the 
European Union, as described in document G/SPS/GEN/1422. Peru requested that the European 
Union indicate the scientific basis for its regulation on novel foods and take into consideration the points raised by Peru at different meetings.  
2.130.  Colombia, Ecuador, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Costa Rica and Brazil 
supported Peru's statement, and highlighted the measures potential adverse effects on trade that the measure. They stated that the EU measur e was not based on scientific principles and 
requested more information on its current status. 
2.131.  The European Union announced that the defi nitive text of the new regulation was not yet 
available, although some progress had been made  by the co-legislators. It was not possible to 
anticipate the potential risk associated with all novel foods, production processes and methods, 
and to address them in an all-encompassing ri sk assessment. The high level of food safety 
pursued by the European Union could only be achieved on a case-by-case basis within the 
framework of a pre-market approval system, in accordance with Article 8 and Annex C of the 
SPS Agreement. Regarding "huito", there had been no application for its authorization as novel 
food. Since the current novel food regulation ha d been in place since 1997, but there had been 
substantial imports of "huito" into the European Union in 2008, there seemed to be no causal 
relationship between the regulation and the trade of  this product into the European Union. Like all 
other traditional biodiversity foods, "huito" should particularly benefit from the new novel food regulation, since it was likely to qualify for the simplified, shorter procedure for such traditional foods. The European Union announced that once th e regulation was adopted, guidance on all the 
information to be presented by applicants would be  made available for public consultation and an 
information session would be organized. The European Union remained committed to cooperating on this matter with all interested WTO Members. 
2.132.  In October 2015, Peru reiterated its concerns on the EU proposed novel foods regulation, 
as notified in G/SPS/N/EU/64. Peru asserted that the proposed regulation was not compatible with Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement,  since the ban on the marketing of traditional 
biodiversity products was not justified by scientific evidence (G/SPS/GEN/1444). Peru observed 
that there was no scientific justification to requir e exporters to demonstrate safety of each product 
they wished to export to the European market an d emphasized that Peru's traditional biodiversity 
products with high export potential were being affected by the European Union's current 
regulation. Peru gave the example of ornament al fish, which were of high importance for 
vulnerable regions of Peru and exported to over 80 countries, but would be subject to restrictions 
in the EU market due to this regulation. The proposed regulation did not take into account the 
needs of developing countries regarding access for biodiversity products and generated high 
barriers to trade in the European market. Peru requested that the European Union respond to the questions it had submitted. Peru invited the European Union to provide information on the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 55 - 
 
  upcoming vote by the European Parliament on this regulation, as well as details on the content of 
the project, and future steps. 
2.133.  Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic and Guatemala supported the 
concern and requested additional information on the scientific justification of the regulation. They 
also requested information on the discussions and voting process in the European Parliament, and 
on its adoption. 
2.134.  The European Union recalled that the co-l egislators, European Parliament and Council, had 
made progress in the negotiations on the regula tion and expressed hope that the novel foods 
legislation could be adopted in the current year. The European Union confirmed that it would hold a special information session to present the new regulation once finalized. After its adoption, a document containing detailed guidance for applicants on the information to be presented would be 
prepared and subject to public consultation. In responding to the specific queries raised, the 
European Union indicated that it was not possible to anticipate the potential risks associated with all novel foods, production processes and method s and to address them in an all-encompassing 
risk assessment. The high level of food safety  pursued in the European Union could only be 
achieved on a case-by-case basis within the framework of a pre-market approval system, in accordance with Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement. The European Union noted that the 
proposed regulation was in line with the SPS Agreement as it was based on scientific risk 
assessment. In addition, the regulation complied  with Article 10 on special and differential 
treatment because it introduced a simplified proced ure for the placement of traditional biodiversity 
foods on the EU market, once their history of safe  use in third countries had been demonstrated if 
no safety concerns based on scientific evidence  had been raised. The European Union queried 
Peru's example of ornamental fish, which was no t considered food in the European Union. In 
addition, the European Union highlighted that Pe r u  c u r r e n t l y  e x p o r t e d  o r n a m e n t a l  f i s h  t o  t h e  
European Union on a regular basis. 
2.135.  Peru commented that the regulation woul d limit its exports to the European Union and 
requested that Peru be informed ex-ante and no t ex-post on this issue. The European Union 
indicated that information would be provided on the final text and on the practicalities of the 
regulation, once available. The European Union underscored the objective of the regulation which was to shorten and simplify the current process, especially for traditional foods. 
Categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors (STC 382) 
Raised by: United States of America 
Supported by: Argentina, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa 
Rica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Guatemala, India, Jamaica, Kenya, 
Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, 
Paraguay, Peru, Senegal, Sierra Leon e, South Africa, Uruguay, Viet Nam  
Dates raised: March 2014 (G/SPS/R/74, paras. 4.3-4.4), March 2015 (G/SPS/R/78, 
paras. 3.20-3.22), July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.50-3.52), October 
2015 (G/SPS/R/81, paras. 3.34-3.37) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.136.  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 
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. 
2.137.  The European Union highlighted that several segments of its legislation contained 
provisions on endocrine disruptors; however, scienti fic criteria for the identification of endocrine G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 56 - 
 
  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. 
2.138.  In March 2015, the United States raised concerns regarding the EU public consultation on 
defining criteria for identifying endocrine disrupto rs in the context of the implementation of the 
plant protection product regulation and biocidal pr oducts regulation. The United States questioned 
the scientific evidence considered in developing an d selecting each of the options presented in the 
Roadmap and feared that risk might have not been taken into account. Implementation of any 
hazard-based "cut off" option that did not consider risk from actual exposure could have severe 
implications for EU imports of agricultural goods, including those from the United States. Furthermore, banning chemicals and pesticides so lely based on endocrine-disrupting properties 
might incentivize the use of more dangerous products, simply because they do not present 
endocrine-disrupting properties. The United States encouraged the European Union to explain in a 
public document how significant stakeholders' comments would be taken into account and urged the Commission to adopt an approach that fully considered the vital role that pesticide chemicals 
play in food safety and security. 
2.139.  Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, India, Kenya, 
Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, South Africa and Uruguay shared the US concern 
regarding the socio-economic effects that the EU measure would have on their countries if the 
legislation was to be approved. Various Members asked if the European Union had considered conducting an economic impact assessment for such a regulation and looked forward to being further informed. 
2.140.  The European Union noted that there was currently no new EU legislative proposal on 
defining criteria for identifying endocrine disrup tors. The European Commission was in the process 
of conducting a full impact assessment, where all health, environmental and socio-economic 
aspects, including impacts on international trade, would be addressed. Following the publication of 
the Roadmap in June 2014, a public consultation had been held from September 2014 to January 2015. Over 27,000 responses had been received and published on the EU Commission 
website, and an analytical report of these responses would be provided in due course. A 
stakeholders' conference for all interested parties, including third countries, was planned for the 1 June 2015, while a dedicated webpage with information on the ongoing impact assessment would be available soon on the DG-SANTE website. In parallel, the necessary studies to support 
the impact assessment were ongoing. The first one would estimate which substances would be 
identified under each option for the criteria ou tlined in the Roadmap, with 700 chemicals being 
screened. Only when the results of these screenings  would be available, the European Commission 
would launch the studies assessing impacts on health, environment, trade, agriculture and socio-
economic effects in general and include them in the impact assessment report that would accompany any legislative proposal. If and when such proposal would be made, the legislative 
draft would be notified to the WTO to allow Members to present their comments, in line with the 
transparency obligations of the SPS Agreement that the European Union promoted and would like to reinforce. 
2.141.  In July 2015, the United States recalled its concerns on EU roadmap outlining possible 
options for defining criteria to identify endocrine disruptors, specifically as they related to plant 
protection products. Referring to the public consultation held in Brussels on 1 July 2015, the United States questioned the scientific evidence underlying the options, and the consideration of 
any hazard-based "cut off" option instead of risk from actual exposure. It encouraged the 
European Union to share information on the methodology used in developing EU member States' impact assessments. The United States requested that the European Union recognize risk-based 
endocrine programmes developed by other countries. It also request that the European Union keep G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 57 - 
 
  the Committee informed of relevant developments, and encouraged the European Union to publish 
the draft legislation, once developed, includin g any risk and impact assessments carried out. 
2.142.  Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, India, 
Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, an d Peru also spoke about the revised EU proposal 
on endocrine disruptors. They urged the European Union to take into account all the comments 
made during the public consultation and requested that the Committee be informed of any relevant developments. 
2.143.  The European Union recalled that it was currently conducting an all-inclusive risk 
assessment, including impacts on international trade, and that the report of the public consultation conducted between September 2014 and January 2015 would be made public in the coming weeks. The European Union also noted that all the relevant information about the impact 
assessment had been made available on their we bsite. The European Union recalled that two 
studies were being conducted, one on the identifica tion of the endocrine disruptors and another on 
the assessment of impacts. Once, and if, a legislative proposal was eventually made, it would be 
notified to the Committee and comments from Members would be taken into account before 
adoption of the final regulation. 
2.144.  In October 2015, the United States recalled its concerns about the EU "roadmap" which 
outlined possible options for defining criteria to identify endocrine disruptors, specifically as they 
related to plant protection products. It thanked the European Union for its report of the public consultation held in Brussels in July 2015 (G/SPS/GEN/1448) but questioned the scientific evidence underlying the options, and the consider ation of any hazard-based "cut off" option 
instead of risk from actual exposure. It encour aged the European Union to share information on 
the methodology used in developing EU member States' impact assessments. The United States requested that the European Union recognize risk-based endocrine programmes developed by 
other countries. It also requested that the European Union keep the Committee informed of 
relevant developments, and encouraged the European  Union to publish the draft legislation, once 
developed, including any risk and impact assessments carried out. 
2.145.  Argentina shared the US concern and reiterated that future actions should be taken on a 
case-by-case basis and based on solid scientifi c evidence after appropriate risk assessment. 
Special attention should be given to minimizing adverse impacts on international trade and especially on trade in agricultural products, but also to minimizing socioeconomic losses in 
commodity-producing countries, in particular developing countries. Argentina also thanked the 
European Union for its report of the consultation and requested that the rest of the process be conducted in a transparent manner inclusive of all relevant stakeholders. 
2.146.  Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, Ch ina, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, 
India, Jamaica, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Viet Nam also spoke about the revised EU proposal on endocrine disruptors. 
They encouraged the European Union, inter alia , to follow a risk-based approach, adhere to 
relevant international standards and to keep informing the Committee of any relevant developments. 
2.147.  The European Union recalled that it was currently conducting an all-inclusive impact 
assessment, including impacts on international trade. The European Union also noted that all the 
relevant information about the impact assessment had been made available on their website. The European Union recalled that two studies were being conducted, one on the identification of 
the endocrine disruptors and another on the asse ssment of impacts. Once, and if, a legislative 
proposal were eventually to be made, it would be notified to the Committee and comments from Members would be taken into account before adoption of the final regulation. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 58 - 
 
  EU proposal to amend regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003 to allow EU member States to 
restrict or prohibit the use of geneti cally modified food and feed (STC 396) 
Raised by: Argentina, Paraguay, United States of America 
Supported by: Brazil, Canada, Uruguay 
Dates raised: July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.19-3.23), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, 
paras. 3.38-3.41) 
Relevant document(s): G/TBT/N/EU/284 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.148.  In July 2015, Argentina raised concerns about this amendment, notified in G/TBT/N/EU/284, which would allow EU member States to restrict or prohibit the use of genetically 
modified food and feed approved at EU level. Curr ently, member States had the right to restrict or 
prohibit imports of such products when there was scientific proof that they represented a risk for 
health or for the environment. The new EU proposal would allow member States to ban or restrict 
the use of these products without requiring scient ific evidence. In the past, the European Union 
and its member States had attempted to justify restrictions on use of GMOs for scientific reasons, without success. This new proposal could be considered as an alternative way to reach the same objective. The measure would enable EU member States to create unnecessary barriers to 
international trade. It would also introduce unpredictability in commodity trade, and would affect 
the single market and the free movement of good s in the European Union. Argentina therefore 
invited the European Union to reconsider this  draft amendment and to implement the current 
EU legislation on authorization and approval of GM Os in the entire European Union in accordance 
with multilateral rules. 
2.149.  Paraguay shared Argentina's concerns with respect to the EU proposal, which could have 
an effect on products used for several years an d which had not had any adverse effect on human 
and animal health or on the environment. The amendment would allow member States to take measures not be based on scientific evidence, which would therefore not comply with the SPS Agreement. The European Union was a major trading partner for Paraguay and Argentina, and 
the proposal was of great concern for their prod ucers. Paraguay therefore asked the European 
Union to reconsider the amendment of the regulation. 
2.150.  The United States also shared the concern, raising procedural questions, since the 
EU proposal had only been notified to the TBT Co mmittee, but should also have been notified to 
the SPS Committee in accordance with Article 7 and Annex B of the SPS Agreement, and the SPS Committee's Recommended Transparency Procedures contained in G/SPS/7/Rev.3. 
The amendment related to Regulation (EC) No . 1829/2003 that was an SPS measure because it 
governed the health and safety approvals of biotech products. This measure had been notified to the SPS Committee in G/SPS/N/EEC/149, with several addenda and corrigenda. The United States also expressed substantive concerns regarding the amendment's potential adverse effects on 
trade, including unfair competition, regulatory  uncertainty, increased costs, and damages to 
integrated supply chains. The proposal could lead to a proliferation of arbitrary and discriminatory measures and to a lack of clarity and certainty. Finally, the United States recalled the EC-Biotech 
(2006) dispute, in which the DSB had found that nine EU member State bans of biotech products 
approved at the EU level were inconsistent with the European Union's obligations under the SPS Agreement. Yet some EU member States had maintained such bans, and adopted new ones. 
The United States urged the European Union not to adopt the proposal. 
2.151.  Brazil, Canada and Uruguay also shared this concern, emphasizing the measure's potential 
negative effect on trade and seeking additional information. 
2.152.  The European Union explained that the proposal was not an SPS measure. It had no 
relation to the protection of life or health, since restrictions linked to health risks or to the 
environment were excluded. As a consequence, the measure did not fall under the scope of the SPS Agreement. The European Commission would report the comments received from the 
WTO Members to its co-legislators. The European Union indicated that it had complied with its G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 59 - 
 
  transparency obligations by notifying the legislation, which clearly indicated that member States 
could not invoke the risks to health or life to impose a ban or a restriction on GMOs. 
2.153.  In October 2015, Argentina again raised concerns about this amendment, notified in 
G/TBT/N/EU/284, which would allow EU member States to restrict or prohibit the use of genetically 
modified food and feed approved at EU level. Argentina reiterated the explanation that it had 
provided in July 2015. Additionally, Argentina recalled a recent statement by the Committee on Agriculture of the European Parliament stating that this measure should be compatible with the 
international obligations of the European Union in the WTO and Article 34 of the Treaty on the 
Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which prohibits quantitative restrictions on exports between EU member States and all measures having equivalent effect. Argentina requested the European Union to withdraw the draft amendmen t and implement the current EU legislation on 
authorization and approval of GMOs throughout the entire European Union in accordance with 
multilateral rules. 
2.154.  The United States shared Argentina's concerns and requested clarifications on the status of 
the proposal within the relevant EU bodies. The United States reported that on 3 September 2015 
the European Parliament's Agriculture and Rural Development Committee (ComAgri) rejected the European Commission's proposed national "opt ou t" system for genetically engineered imports. 
ComAgri also urged the Parliament's Environmen t, Public Health, and Food Safety Committee 
(ComEnvi) to reject the proposal. The United St ates requested more information on the review 
procedure of ComEnvi as well as about the status of an impact statement and legal opinion to be developed by the European Commission on the be hest of the European Parliament. The United 
States appreciated the EU efforts to keep the SPS Committee apprised of actions related to its 
regulations on approvals of genetically engineered  products, including with respect to Commission 
withdrawal of its current proposal and any subsequent actions, such as consideration of alternative 
proposals that the Commission may or may not undertake. Finally, the United States recalled the 
EC-Biotech (2006) dispute and reiterated the ex planation that it had provided in July 2015. 
2.155.  Brazil, Canada, Paraguay and Uruguay also shared this concern, emphasizing the 
measure's potential negative effect on tr ade and seeking additional information. 
2.156.  The European Union explained that the proposal was not an SPS measure. It had no 
relation to the protection of life or health, since restrictions linked to health risks or to the environment were excluded. As a consequence, the measure did not fall under the scope of the 
SPS Agreement and therefore it had been notified under the TBT Agreement. The European 
Commission would reply to the comments received from WTO Members via the TBT channels. The European Union indicated that it had complied with its transparency obligations by notifying 
the legislation, which clearly indicated that EU member States could not invoke considerations 
linked to risks to health or protection of the environment as justification to impose a ban or a restriction on GMOs approved at the EU-level. 
2.4.2  Plant Health 
Phytosanitary measures on citrus black spot (STC 356) 
Raised by: South Africa 
Supported by: Argentina, Brazil, Zambia 
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), July 
2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.67-3.69), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, 
paras. 3.72-3.74) 
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:   
 
2.157.  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/204/Rev.16 
 
- 60 - 
 
  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. 
2.158.  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. 
2.159.  The European Union confirmed that this ma tter was the subject of the IPPC's first dispute 
settlement procedure and noted that its territory was free from citrus black spot, hence the restrictions in place reflected the EU desire to maintain this freedom. Detections of citrus black 
spot on South African fruit sent to the European Union had been on the rise, therefore the 
European Union decided that after a certain num ber 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. 
2.160.  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. 
2.161.  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, 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. 
2.162.  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 Pl ant 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 61 - 
 
  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. 
2.163.  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 acknowledged South Africa's efforts to 
remedy the situation and expressed its willingness to comply with its responsibilities under the 
IPPC dispute resolution process, but was also looking forward to a bilateral dialogue with 
South Africa's officials. 
2.164.  In July 2015, South Africa reiterated its concerns on EU restrictive import requirements 
regarding citrus fruit. EU measures on citrus black spot (CBS) implemented since 2014, were significantly more stringent than previous ones, lacked a scientific basis, implied additional costs 
and had severe negative influence on South Africa's citrus industry. South Africa recalled that it 
had asked the IPPC secretariat to establish an expert committee in line with Article XIII of the IPPC to provide an independent science-based opinion.  South Africa urged the IPPC to expedite the 
process. 
2.165.  The European Union stressed that the measur es were in place to prevent the entry of CBS 
to EU territory. The strengthening of the requir ements was the result of the risk assessment 
conducted by EFSA in February 2014 and the re curring number of interceptions. The European 
Union noted that there had been 28 interceptions in 2014 and four in 2015. Given the 
circumstances, the European Union was maintainin g its import requirements and would consider 
taking further measures. The European Union acknowledged South Africa's efforts to remedy the 
situation, however the efforts has not yet resulted in a reduction of imports interceptions. 
The European Union welcomed bilateral discussion between the technical bodies of both countries to resolve the matter. With regard to the work in  IPPC, the European Union indicated that it would 
provide its comments on the draft terms of re ference proposed by the IPPC secretariat. 
2.166.  The IPPC noted that this was the first formal dispute under the IPPC, and would serve as a 
learning experience. The IPPC reiterated was facing significant difficulties in finding neutral scientific experts on CBS. The IPPC had expanded its search by including experts in the area of risk 
assessment as it is related to CBS. The IPPC en couraged Members to come forward with names of 
experts, and explained that the terms of referenc e of the panel were subject to the negotiation 
between the parties. 
2.167.  In October 2015, South Africa reiterated its concerns regarding restrictive EU import 
requirements on citrus fruit. South Africa restat ed the observations presented during the July 2015 
meeting. 
2.168.  Brazil and Zambia shared South Africa's concern, and Brazil offered support to help 
expedite the IPPC process so that it could be concluded with the necessary urgency. 
2.169.  The European Union stressed that the measur es were in place to prevent the entry of CBS 
to EU territory. The strengthening of the requir ements was the result of the risk assessment 
conducted by EFSA in February 2014 and the re curring number of interceptions. The European 
Union noted that there had been 28 interceptions in 2014 and nine in 2015. Given the circumstances, the European Union was maintainin g its import requirements and would consider 
taking further measures. The European Union acknowledged South Africa's efforts to remedy the 
situation, however the efforts had not yet resulted in a sufficient reduction of interceptions. The European Union welcomed bilateral discussion between the technical bodies to resolve the matter. With regard to the work in IPPC, the Eu ropean Union highlighted the importance of the 
terms of reference in this first ever IPPC proced ure, so as to lay down a solid and legally sound 
foundation not only for the current dispute but also for the IPPC Dispute Settlement Procedure in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 62 - 
 
  general. Furthermore, the European Union signal led its being fully committed to supporting the 
IPPC process and that it would provide its comments on the draft terms of reference. 
EU ban on mangoes and certain ve getables from India (STC 374) 
Raised by: India 
Supported by: Dominican Republic, Nigeria 
Dates raised: July 2014 (G/SPS/R/75, paras. 4.7-4.8), October 2014 (G/SPS/R/76, 
paras. 3.18-3.19), March 2015 (G/SPS/R/78, paras. 3.41-3.42), July 
2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.47-3.49), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, 
paras. 3.54-3.55) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.170.  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. 
2.171.  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 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. 
2.172.  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. 
2.173.  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. 
2.174.  In March 2015, India recalled its previo usly-raised concern regarding the EU ban on 
exports of mangoes and four types of vegetables. India reported that the ban on mangoes had been lifted in February 2015; however the ban on four types of vegetables remained. India had 
informed the European Union on various measures to improve its packaging, quarantine and G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 63 - 
 
  inspection system. India also recalled the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) visit to 
India in September 2014, which had reported ov erall improvement in the control system. India 
requested that the European Union recognize th is improvement and lift the remaining ban. 
2.175.  Nigeria shared India's concern and noted that such measures could be an impediment to 
Nigeria's export diversification efforts. 
2.176.  The European Union explained that the ban was temporary, to prevent the introduction 
into and spread within the European Union of harmful organisms with regard to bitter gourd, taro, 
eddo, eggplant and snake gourds originating from India. The European Union confirmed that the 
audit mentioned by India had shown significant improvements in India's phytosanitary export 
certification system; nevertheless, interceptions of harmful organism in consignments of non-prohibited commodities from India were still o ccurring regularly. The European Union indicated 
that further analysis was needed and that a further review would take place in 2015 on the basis 
of the evolution of import interceptions. 
2.177.  In July 2015, India recalled its concern regarding the EU ban on exports of mangoes and 
four types of vegetables, on the grounds of the increasing number of interceptions of harmful 
pests and organisms since May 2014. The ban on mangoes had been lifted in February 2015; however the ban on vegetables continued. India had shared information with the European Union 
on various control measures including the stre ngthening of plant quarantine systems and the 
increasing of sampling intensity. India also recalled the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) visit to India in September 2014, which had reported overall improvement in the control system. 
2.178.  The Dominican Republic shared India's co ncerns, noting that it was currently facing a 
similar situation. 
2.179.  The European Union confirmed that its measures had been introduced on 24 April 2014 to 
prevent the introduction of harmful organisms. The European Union explained that the ban on 
mangoes had been lifted in February 2015 based on the positive feedback received after the visit 
of EU inspectors and the confirmation from the In dian competent authorities that they would apply 
a specific phytosanitary treatment on mangoes before exportation. Despite the progress made, 
many interceptions of harmful organisms were stil l occurring. These repeated interceptions raised 
EU concerns over the effectiveness of India's phytosanitary export system. The European Union 
recalled that the measures were temporary and wo uld be reviewed before the end of 2015 on the 
basis of the evolution of import interception s and the guarantees provided by the Indian 
competent authorities. 
2.180.  In October 2015, India recalled its concern regarding the EU ban on exports of mangoes 
and four types of vegetables, on the grounds of the increasing number of interceptions of harmful 
pests and organisms since May 2014. The ban on mangoes had been lifted in February 2015; however the ban on vegetables continued. India had shared an action plan in August 2015 with 
the European Union related to the four remaining vegetables included in the ban but had yet to 
receive a response. India requested the European Unio n to review the action plan and the report of 
the EU audit to facilitate removing the ban as soon as possible. 
2.181.  The European Union confirmed that its measures had been introduced on 24 April 2014 to 
prevent the introduction of harmful organisms and reiterated the explanation that it had provided 
in July 2015. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 64 - 
 
  2.4.3  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), March 2015 (G/SPS/R/78, paras. 3.47-3.49), July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.58-3.66), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, 
paras. 3.45-3.47) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/1354, G/SPS/GEN/1354/Rev.1 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
 2.182.  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. 
2.183.  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 toward s engaging with India at a technical level on 
this issue, within the appropriate framework. 
2.184.  India explained that the criteria for de signating 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 in this regard, including a list of notifications regarding requirements for organic products. India also queried whether the internat ional standard-setting bodies had undertaken any 
work in this regard. 
2.185.  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. 
2.186.  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). 
2.187.  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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 65 - 
 
  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. 
2.188.  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. 
2.189.  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. 
2.190.  In March 2015, India raised concerns re garding the EU withdrawal of equivalence for 
processed organic products, which had previously been 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. These guidelines provided th at the percentage of imported ingredients would 
be within the range of 5%. However, EU regulation No. 125/2013 with effect from 1 April 2013 
had removed processed organic products from the equivalence agreement, on the grounds that the agreement required that all of the ingredient s be grown in India. India clarified that no 
processed organic products containing imported ingredients were exported to the European Union. 
India requested that the equivalence recognition be restored since it had withdrawn the 
2012 guidelines. 
2.191.  The European Union responded that India's concern was not an issue under the scope of 
the SPS Agreement. The European Union reiterated its commitment towards engaging with India 
at a technical level on this issue, within the appr opriate framework. An audit of the EU's Food and 
Veterinary Office (FVO) would take place in India on 13-24 April 2015. 
2.192.  The United States supported the EU response, noting that organic standards and organic 
certification programmes were not under  the scope of the SPS Agreement. 
2.193.  In July 2015, India recalled its concerns regarding the EU withdrawal of equivalence for 
processed organic products, which it had previously recognized since 2006. India restated the 
explanation that it had provided in July 2014 an d March 2015. EU regulation No. 125/2013 with 
effect from 1 April 2013 had removed processed organic products from the equivalence agreement, on the grounds that the agreement requ ired that all of the ingredients be grown in 
India. India noted that no processed organic products containing imported ingredients were 
exported to the European Union, and again re quested that the equivalence recognition be 
restored, since it had withdrawn the 2012 guidelines that would permit certain imported 
ingredients.  
2.194.  The European Union restated its opinion that India's concern was not under the purview of 
the SPS Committee. India's concerns were being discussed bilaterally in the appropriate forum. 
2.195.   The United States supported the EU re sponse and explained that organic programmes did 
not address risks to plant, animal or human health. Their requirements were similar to those of 
halal labelling and thus would fall under the TBT Agreement. 
2.196.  India noted that packaging and labelling re quirements directly related to food safety fell 
under Annex A of the SPS Agreement. India also highlighted that document 
G/SPS/GEN/1354/Rev.1 listed 24 notifications related to organic products, and that Codex had developed standards on organic products. Furthermore, according to India, language used in 
EU regulation No. EC834/2007 linked organic products  with protection of human, animal and plant 
health. 
2.197.  Chile expressed the view that Codex standards did not define the scope of the 
SPS Agreement. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 66 - 
 
  2.198.  Ecuador requested clarification on the relevant Committee to discuss organic products 
requirements. 
2.199.  Codex explained that its Guidelines for th e Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing 
of Organically Produced Foods contained a definition of organic products but did not establish any 
food safety standards, nor any MRLs for food products. 
2.200.  The Secretariat explained that many Codex standards included requirements related to 
nutrition, labelling and packaging for food products  and were thus relevant for the TBT Committee. 
The Secretariat informed notifying Members when it was not clear whether a particular notification 
should be notified under the SPS or the TBT Agre ement, but ultimately the Member decided under 
which Agreement it wished to submit a particular notification. Some notifications related e.g., to residues of organic pesticides had been notified  under the SPS Agreement, and many notifications 
related to organic agriculture had been made under the TBT Agreement. 
2.201.  The European Union noted that India's sele ctive reading of EU regulations led to the wrong 
conclusion. It confirmed that the regulation was not aimed at food safety, nor related to the 
SPS Committee. 
2.202.  In October 2015, India recalled its concerns regarding the EU withdrawal of equivalence for 
processed organic products, which had previously been recognized since 2006. EU regulation 
No. 125/2013, with effect from 1 April 2013, had removed processed organic products from the 
equivalence agreement, on the grounds that the agreement required that all of the ingredients be grown in India. India noted that no processed organic products containing imported ingredients were exported to the European Union, and agai n requested that the equivalence recognition be 
restored, since it had withdrawn the 2012 guidelines that would have permitted use of certain 
imported ingredients. 
2.203.  Chile stated that it had a similar agreement with the European Union; however it was clear 
this issue was related to TBT measures rather than SPS measures. 
2.204.  The European Union restated its opinion that India's concern was not under the purview of 
the SPS Committee and expressed willingness to continue bilateral discussions with Indian 
authorities in the appropriate framework as demonstrated by the discussions that had taken place 
in India earlier in October 2015. 
2.5  France, European Union 2.5.1  Food Safety 
France's ban on Bisphenol A (BPA) (STC 346) 
Raised by: United States of America 
Supported by: Brazil 
Dates raised: March 2013 (G/SPS/R/70, paras. 3.4-3.5), March 2015 (G/SPS/R/78, 
paras. 3.23-3.25), July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.53-3.55) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
 2.205.  In March 2013, the United States expressed concern regarding a French law adopted in December 2012 on food packaging made with Bisphe nol A (BPA). The legislation required all food 
packaging made with BPA to be accordingly labelle d. In addition, food packaging made with BPA 
would be prohibited after 1 January 2015. The Unit ed States indicated that this measure would 
have a significant negative effect on trade, du e to the wide range of products that would be 
subject to the law. Given the serious nature of the potential trade concerns, the United States 
strongly urged the European Union to notify this ban to the SPS or the TBT Committee at its earliest convenience and to provide a scientific risk assessment to support the restriction. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 67 - 
 
  2.206.  The European Union explained that its member States could adopt national measures in 
areas where no legislation existed at an EU-wide level, if they were in conformity with the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. In partic ular, the Treaty allows the adoption of national 
measures if they are deemed necessary in view of  protecting the health and lives of the citizens. 
France had justified its national measures on these grounds and had adopted its law on the basis 
of the hazard assessments conducted by the French Agency for Food, Environmental and 
Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES). Two repo rts on BPA were issued by ANSES: one report 
on the use of BPA in products and another that identified hazards for human health. The French 
legislation stipulated that from 1 January 2013 BPA could not be used in any materials and articles containing food intended for infants and childre n up to, and including, three years of age. 
From 1 January 2015, it introduced a complete ban of  the use of BPA in all food contact materials, 
and a labelling provision for pregnant women and young children in the interim period. The 
European Union was now awaiting the outcome of EFSA's on-going risk assessment on the use of 
BPA in all food contact applications, the first conclusions of which were expected to be available 
before the summer. The European Union indicated that once it had all the relevant information on 
which to base its decision, including the EFSA opinion and information on the availability of safe alternatives, it would decide on the French national measure and on BPA in food contact materials 
in the European Union. 
2.207.  In March 2015, the United States recalled its concerns over France's ban on the use of the 
chemical Bisphenol A (BPA) in the production of food containers and food contact surfaces, including cans, for baby food beginning 1 Janua ry 2013 and for all foods beginning on 1 January 
2015. The United States urged the European Union to notify this ban to the SPS Committee and 
requested France to provide its risk assessmen t supporting the ban. The United States also 
highlighted the lack of scientific basic for the ban by recalling the assessment on BPA released by 
the US Food and Drug Administration, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the German 
Federal Risk Assessment Institute (BfR). Accordin g to the United States, all agencies found no 
safety issues with BPA, that exposure to BPA from the diet or a combination of sources was 
considerably under the safe level, and therefore poses no health risk to consumers. The United 
States therefore urged France to rescind the ban on BPA. 
2.208.  The European Union explained that as a general rule, EU member States may adopt their 
own national measures in areas that are not harmonised at an EU level. For areas that are 
harmonized at EU level, member States may, in addition, temporarily suspend or restrict 
application of the harmonized EU provisions within their territory when, as a result of new information or reassessment of existing information, it has detailed grounds for concluding that the 
use of the material endangers human health. For areas where there is no harmonized measure, 
member States may adopt national provisions if th ey are deemed necessary in view of protecting 
the health and lives of citizens. According to the European Union, France had justified its national 
measures on these grounds. 
2.209.  The European Union further explained that BPA had raised divergent views from scientists 
for many years, referring to both the US and EU  risk assessments on BPA. France adopted its 
national law in December 2012 on the basis of  an assessment of the health effects of BPA 
conducted by the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety. 
This was subsequently underpinned by a specific risk assessment on BPA by the French Agency, 
which was published in April 2013. EFSA had completed its comprehensive evaluation of the risks 
to public health from BPA, which was publishe d only in January 2015. The French Agency and 
EFSA had discussed the diverging views, which was foreseen in EU food law and may occur as part of the normal scientific risk assessment process. The European Union was now evaluating the 
opinion of EFSA on BPA in full as a matter of priority and would assess the adequacy of existing 
EU measures as well as measures adopted by me mber States. The European Union ensured that 
decisions taken on the risk management concerning BPA in food contact materials at EU level would be communicated effectively to all stakeholders, including third countries. If any changes to 
the EU legislation were to be proposed, they would be duly notified to the WTO SPS Committee to 
allow WTO Members to share their scientific data or opinions and make their observations that would be taken into account, assessed and prop erly responded to within the WTO framework. 
2.210.  In July 2015, the United States recalled its concern over France's ban of the use of the 
chemical Bisphenol A (BPA) in the production of food containers and food contact surfaces, including cans, for baby food beginning 1 January 2013 and for all foods beginning 1 January 
2015. The United States again questioned the scientific justification for the ban, and recalled the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 68 - 
 
  assessments of BPA released by the European Fo od Safety Agency (EFSA) and the US Food and 
Drug Administration (FDA). The United States reiterated its request for a scientific justification for the ban, which threatened to have a significant ne gative trade impact on the US food industry, and 
any other company whose products were packaged using safe levels of BPA. The United States 
requested that the European Union provide information on when the ban would be enforced and 
how it would be monitored. It also requested to be informed about the European Commission's current examination of the ban for possible violation of EU single market rules. 
2.211.  Brazil shared US concerns, noting that the ban was inconsistent with the SPS Agreement 
as it was not based on science and was more trade restrictive than necessary. 
2.212.  The European Union noted again that BP A had raised divergent views from scientists 
across the world for many years and that several countries, including some EU member States, the 
United States and Canada had introduced restrictio ns on the use of BPA in food contact materials. 
Some EU member States had imposed additional restrictions. The European Union reiterated that EU member States had the right to adopt their own national measures in areas that were not 
harmonised at EU level, and to temporarily suspend or restrict application of EU provisions within 
their territory in areas harmonized at EU level when there was new information about human health risks. According to the European Union, France had justified its national measures on these 
grounds. The European Union recalled that France had adopted its national law on the basis of an 
assessment by the French agency in 2011, subsequently underpinned by a specific risk assessment published in April 2013. From 1 January 2015, the ban on BPA in France included all food packaging, containers and utensils and was enforced by random checks on the market or 
checks targeted at operators. According to Fr ance, the ban was directed towards products for 
which BPA was intentionally used in the manufactu ring process. The French Agency and EFSA had 
discussed the diverging views and the detail of th e meeting had been published on EFSA website. 
The European Union was now evaluating the EFSA opinion as a matter of priority, and would 
shortly set out a series of options for the risk ma nagement of BPA at EU level. Any changes to the 
EU legislation on BPA in food contact materials would be communicated effectively to all 
stakeholders, including third countries and duly notified to the WTO SPS Committee. 
2.6  Hong Kong, China 2.6.1  Food Safety Import restrictions in response to the Japa nese nuclear power plan t accident (STC 354) 
2.213.  See paragraphs 2.383.-2.400. 
2.7  India 2.7.1  Food Safety 
India's amended standards for food additives (STC 403) 
Raised by: European Union 
Supported by: Chile, United States of America 
Dates raised: October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, paras. 3.16-3.18) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status:  
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
 2.214.  In October 2015, the European Union raised its concerns on India's Draft Food Safety and 
Standard Amendment Regulation, as detailed in G/SPS/N/IND/108. The European Union welcomed 
the user-friendly and simple approach to the listing of food additives in food products, as well as 
the hierarchical listing of food additives. However, the European Union observed that the 
regulation needed further clarification and improvement in several areas. The draft regulation recommended maximum levels of additives only where Codex had set such levels in the General G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 69 - 
 
  Standard for Food Additives (GSFA). The European Union noted that the GSFA had expressly 
stated that a lack of reference to a particular additi ve or to a particular use of an additive in a food 
in GSFA did not imply that the non-listed additive  was unsafe or unsuitable for use. The European 
Union further noted that the GSFA was neither complete nor exhaustive and that many Members 
had implemented maximum levels of additives on a scientific basis where no Codex standard 
existed. In addition, for wines and spirits, in the European Union's view, India had not taken into consideration the adoption of standards by other international standard-setting bodies, such as the 
International Organization for Vine and Wine (OIV). In this regard, the European Union outlined 
several steps that India could take to avoid unnecessarily disrupting trade, such as setting standards that took into account the safety of products and benefits for consumers, which were 
proportionate, necessary, as well as scientifically and technologically justified. The European Union 
requested India to take into account all of its comments, including any additional comments 
submitted after the 4 October deadline, and welcomed a written response from India at the earliest convenience. The European Union further urged India to notify the measure to the 
WTO Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade. 
2.215.  The United States supported the concer n and highlighted that although it supported 
aligning food standards to Codex, the Codex standard was not designed to be a comprehensive 
standard for all additives commonly used in the production of wine and distilled spirits. 
The standard did not include some main additi ves commonly used in the production of these 
beverages. The United States indicated that it had submitted comments and urged India to take these comments into account in finalizing the measure. Chile also supported the concern and 
noted that it would submit comments to India. 
2.216.  India responded that it had notified the measure in August 2015 and had provided time for 
comments until 4 October 2015. India hoped that the concerned Members had submitted their 
comments in writing, so that the concerns could be addressed appropriately by the authorities. 
2.7.2  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), March 2015 (G/SPS/R/78, paras. 3.35-3.36), July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.42-3.43), October 
2015 (G/SPS/R/81, paras. 3.70-3.71) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/IND/98 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.217.  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, 
(i) India requested that the exporting country cert ify 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; (ii) India required exporting countries to have country 
freedom without contemplating the possibility of trade from established disease-free regions; 
(iii) specifically with regard to import conditions for processed meat of pork origin, India required 
that the exporting country certify that meat was processed so as to achieve an internal 
temperature of not less than 70°C for 30 minutes, without allowing any alternative treatments. These requirements by India were not based on the relevant OIE and CODEX standards. The European Union further noted that under the SP S 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. 
2.218.  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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 70 - 
 
  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. 
2.219.  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. 
2.220.  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. 
2.221.  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. 
2.222.  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. 
2.223.  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: 
(i) to require that the exporting country certify freedom only from diseases for which there were 
OIE standards and not from other diseases; (ii) to  require cooking of pig meat and to recognize 
the curing processes in accordance with the relevant Codex standards; (iii) to apply the same 
conditions to non-heat treated processed pig meat, weather imported or produced in India; and 
(iv) to provide a sound scientific justification to diverge from international standards. 
2.224.  India noted that the sanitary requirements were being revised and that the Secretariat and 
Members would be informed in due time. 
2.225.  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. 
2.226.  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 
veterinary certification. Canada requested that India provide the Committee with a timeline for 
publishing revised import conditions for pork and pork products. 
2.227.  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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 71 - 
 
  2.228.  In March 2015, the European Union recalled its concerns regarding India's import 
requirements for pork and pork products, and note d that at the last four Committee meetings it 
had requested India to bring such measures into  l i n e  w i t h  O I E  s t a n d a r d s .  T h e  E u r o p e a n  U n i o n  
welcomed the effort made by India in its new import measures on pork and pork products as 
notified to the WTO. However, India had not yet adopted the regionalization principle, requiring a 
w h o l e  c o u n t r y  t o  b e  f r e e  f r o m  a n i m a l  d i s e a s e s .  India also still required exporting countries to 
certify freedom from diseases for which there were no OIE standards. The European Union 
requested that India provide scientific justification for such measures and fully respect its 
obligations under the SPS Agreement. The Europe an Union also requested that India publish 
amended measures in a timely and transparent manner. The European Union remained open to 
cooperating with India to resolve this issue. 
2.229.  India explained that the measures were currently under review and had been notified on 
16 March 2015 (G/SPS/N/IND/98). India invited all Members to submit their comments in writing through the relevant authorities for due consideration. 
2.230.  In July 2015, the European Union thanked India for the notification on its certificate for 
import of pork and pork products (G/SPS/N/IND/98). The European Union welcomed India's introduction of the regionalization and of references  to alternative requirements to the Indian laws 
based on OIE and Codex standards. The European Union urged India to take into account its 
comments in finalizing the certificate and to allow imports quickly. The European Union requested that India provide a solid risk analysis demonstrat ing, for example, that the diseases included in 
the health certificate were transmitted by pork or  pork products and that they pose a significant 
risk to India. The European Union asked India to make a series of specific changes to the 
certificates. The European Union was concerned because despite repeated requests, it had not received any scientific justification from India for deviating from the OIE standards, and because 
the Indian requirements would unnecessarily and unjustifiably restrict trade in safe products. The 
European Union requested that India notify the health certificate for imports of live pigs. The European Union welcomed future discussions to allow imports of safe products to India. 
2.231.  India explained that the requirements we re being developed taking into account comments 
received from Members in accordance with pa ragraph 5(d) of Annex B. Comments had been 
received from Canada, South Africa and the Unit ed States, but not from the European Union. 
2.232.  In October 2015, the European Union recalled its concerns regarding India's import 
requirements for pork and pork products, and note d that it had been requesting for many years 
that India bring its measures in line with OIE standards. At the July 2015 meeting it had thanked 
India for the notification on its certificate for im port of pork and pork products (G/SPS/N/IND/98). 
The European Union repeated the arguments made during the July 2015 meeting. 
2.233.  India thanked the European Union and stated that this issue demonstrated India's 
commitment to harmonize its regulations with international standards. India had received 
comments from Canada and the United States on G/SPS/N/IND/98 within the 60-day comment 
period. Consultations on comments received had concluded in September 2015. India explained that the veterinary certificates needed to be legally vetted, which could take time. 
2.7.3  Other Concerns 
India's amendment to its import policy condit ions for apples; Restriction to Nhava Sheva 
port (STC 397) 
Raised by: Chile, New Zealand 
Supported by: United States of America, European Union 
Dates raised: October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, paras. 3.2-3.6) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:  
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 72 - 
 
  2.234.  In October 2015, New Zealand raised concerns regarding India's amendment to its import 
policy that limited the entry of apple imports to the Nhava Sheva Port of Mumbai, with all other 
ports consequently closed. Historically, New Zealand's apple exports had been able to enter India through six ports and as result, the process of restricting entry to only one port had caused 
congestion. New Zealand further observed that this  measure had neither been notified to the WTO 
nor was justified and was in breach of Articles 5 and 7 of the SPS Agreement. While New Zealand 
thanked India for the bilateral discussions to date , it also urged India to notify its amended 
measure to the WTO and to provide the rationale for its decision to limit port access, as well as the 
time-frame for this measure. 
2.235.  Chile shared New Zealand's concerns and further requested India to provide the reasoning 
and scientific basis for only allowing apple imports from a single port. In addition, Chile requested 
an explanation of the rationale regarding: the abse nce of a notification to the WTO, in conformity 
with Article 7 and Annex B; compliance with Article 8 and Annex C; and the justification for applying an emergency measure in relation to Articles 5.4 and 5.5 of the SPS Agreement. 
2.236.  The United States and the European Unio n supported this concern, emphasizing the need 
for clarification of the objective of the measure and urged India to notify the measure immediately. The United States noted that given the urgency of the announcement and the restrictiveness of 
the measure, it was left to speculate that the measure had been implemented due to an 
SPS concern. The United States was concerned that the single port in India could not meet the storage and infrastructure requirements required to handle the volume of US apple exports to India expected this year. Similarly, the European Union indicated concerns about the potential 
increase in transportation costs. The United States requested that India provide a cogent 
explanation of its reasons consistent with its WTO obligations for resorting to this action. 
2.237.  India had indicated at the beginning of the meeting, when the agenda was adopted, that it 
would not respond to this concern, as it was not an SPS-related issue. After Members expressed 
their concerns, India reiterated that the measure in question was not an SPS measure and as such, could not be in violation of the SPS Agreement. India emphasized that the agricultural 
nature of the products covered did not automatica lly make the measure itself an SPS measure, as 
defined in Annex A of the SPS Agreement. 
2.238.  Chile noted that in situation such as this one, a Member could place on record its view that 
a measure on which a specific trade concern had been raised was not covered by the 
SPS Agreement. It was not necessary to raise this before the adoption of the agenda. Chile further 
indicated that a response such as India's was legi timate and asked that the response be included 
in the record. In addition, Chile queried whether the measure would fall under Import Licensing or 
another agreement. 
2.8  Indonesia 2.8.1  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), March 2015 (G/SPS/R/78, paras. 3.44-3.46) 
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: Partial resolution applies only to the United States. 
Date reported as 
resolved: 16 October 2013 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 73 - 
 
   
2.239.  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. 
2.240.  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. 
2.241.  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. 
2.242.  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. 
2.243.  New Zealand noted particular concerns that the Jakarta seaport had not been included on 
the list of accepted entry points as 90% of NZ horticulture exports entered through that port. The port closures would result in higher costs and longer transport times, affecting the quality, 
value and shelf life of the perishable horticultural products. New Zealand requested justification for 
the implementation of this regulation and wh ile noting Indonesia's comments regarding port 
capacity, observed that restricting the number of ports for horticulture imports would compound the problem by diverting trade to fewer and smaller ports. Although the delay in the 
implementation of the regulations was welcomed, New Zealand requested that the regulations be 
rescinded as trade to Indonesia would otherwise not be viable. New Zealand looked forward to 
working constructively with Indonesia and high lighted the need for a transparent approach. 
2.244.  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. 
2.245.  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.16 
 
- 74 - 
 
  2.246.  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. 
2.247.  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. 
2.248.  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. 
2.249.  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 m eetings in Jakarta with interested Members and 
had addressed most of the issues bilaterally, but remained open for further bilateral discussions. 
2.250.  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. 
2.251.  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.16 
 
- 75 - 
 
  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. 
2.252.  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. 
2.253.  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, Makassar 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. 
2.254.  In March 2013, China expressed concern with Indonesian Regulations No. 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 United States, Canada, Australia and Japan. China hoped that both sides would further stre ngthen their inspection services under the 
framework of the SPS Consultation and Co-operation Memorandum of Understanding that China 
and Indonesia had signed in December 2008, and quickly resolve the inspection and quarantine 
problem. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 76 - 
 
  2.255.  The European Union supported the concern rais ed by China, highlighting that the denial of 
access to the port of Jakarta significantly increa sed the costs of exports to Indonesia. Indonesia 
justified its measure by stating that it had found an increasing number of interceptions that posed a serious threat to its plant and consumer protection, however, Indonesia had never reported 
interceptions on any EU products. Despite several bilateral discussions with Indonesia, the 
European Union had not received any clarification that would justify these trade restrictive measures or explain the discriminatory preferential  access to the port of Jakarta for only a few 
countries. The European Union urged Indonesia to lift these unnecessarily trade restrictive 
measures without delay, and to only set SPS measur es with a view to minimize any negative trade 
effects in a non-discriminatory manner. 
2.256.  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. 
2.257.  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. 
2.258.  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. 
2.259.  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. 
2.260.  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. 
2.261.  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. 
2.262.  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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 77 - 
 
  two countries had agreed to complete an extendable  protocol of import and export inspection and 
quarantine requirements for agricultural and food products. Indonesia explained that its measures had been adopted to ensure consumer safety, as in the past, exotic quarantine pests were intercepted in potatoes imported from one of the Members who had now raised a concern against 
Indonesia. Indonesia also noted that the port of Jakarta would be re-opened as soon as the port 
infrastructure and the inspection facilities fo r quarantine and customs agencies were ready. 
2.263.  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. 
2.264.  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. 
2.265.  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. 
2.266.  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. 
2.267.  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. 
2.268.  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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 78 - 
 
  2.269.  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 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. 
2.270.  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.  
2.271.  In March 2015, Chile recalled its concern regarding the loss of access for its fruit exports 
through the Jakarta port, due to resolutions No. 42 and 43 issued by Indonesia's Ministry of 
Agriculture in June 2012. Chile had provided Indonesia with all the necessary documentation 
establishing its fruit fly-free status, and had invited Indonesian authorities to conduct a technical visit to Chile, which had not yet occurred. To date, Chile had not been recognized as free of fruit flies by Indonesia, although Chile had fulfilled th e international standards set by IPPC. Chile noted 
that Indonesia's measure was not in line with the objectives of the SPS Agreement and further 
urged Indonesia to announce a solution at the next Committee meeting. 
2.272.  Chinese Taipei shared Chile's concerns with regard to Indonesia's import licensing regime 
for agricultural products. Chinese Taipei noted that the regime was complex, burdensome and time 
consuming, and was not in line with the national treatment obligation. Chinese Taipei requested that Indonesia bring its import procedures into conformity with all relevant WTO agreements. 
2.273.  Indonesia explained that the measures had been taken to effectively control pest 
outbreaks and not to ban the importation of frui ts and vegetables through Tanjung Priok port. 
Indonesia clarified that resolutions No. 42 and 43 issued by its Ministry of Agriculture were in accordance with Article 6 of the SPS Agreement.  Indonesia confirmed the receipt of additional 
documents provided by Chile and informed Chile that the documents were currently being 
reviewed by the relevant authority. 
2.9  Korea, Republic of 
2.9.1  Food safety 
Strengthened import restrictions on food and feeds products with regard to 
radionuclides (STC 359) 
Raised by: Japan 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 3.7-3.9), March 2014 (G/SPS/R/74, 
paras. 3.19-3.20), July 2014 (G/SPS/R/75, paras. 4.29-4.30), October 2014 (G/SPS/R/76, paras. 3.9-3.10), March 2015 (G/SPS/R/78, 
paras. 3.16-3.17) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution: Dispute settlement panel established on 28 September 2015. Panel 
request: document WT/DS495/3 
Date reported as resolved:  
 
 
2.274.  Japan expressed concerns regarding Korea's fishery import restrictions, including a ban on imports from eight prefectures and additional test ing and certification requirements in all cases 
where radioactive Cesium was detected, even in quantities below the Korean limit of 100 Bq/kg. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 79 - 
 
  This requirement applied exclusively to Japanese  products; Korean and other trading partners' 
products could be distributed as long as the radioactive Cesium level remained below 100 Bq/kg. 
2.275.  Japan reiterated that contaminated water at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station 
had been detected only within an area of 0.3 square kilometres inside the port, and that the 
problem of contaminated water should not be equated with the safety of Japanese fishery 
products. Japan's central and local governments had taken measures to prevent the distribution of fishery products where required, and the amount of samples exceeding the limit of 100 Bq/kg had 
drastically decreased both in the Fukushima prefec ture (from 53% in March/June 2011 to 2.2% in 
July/September 2013) and elsewhere (from 6.5% to 0.4% during the same periods). Japan recalled that SPS measures must not arbitrarily or unjustifiably discriminate between trading partners and urged Korea to provide a scientific basis for its measures or explain concretely how 
the available scientific evidence was insufficient to carry out a risk assessment. 
2.276.  Korea indicated that its measures were in accordance with Article 5.7 of the 
SPS Agreement, as a result of insufficient scientific evidence and the potentially far-reaching 
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. 
2.277.  In March 2014, Japan reiterated its concerns regarding Korea's food, fisheries and feed 
import restrictions. These included a ban on imports from eight prefectures and additional testing 
and certification requirements in all cases where radioactive Cesium was detected, even in quantities below the Korean limit of 100 Bq/kg. This requirement applied exclusively to Japanese 
products; Korean and other trading partners' products could be distributed as long as the 
radioactive Cesium level remained below 100 Bq/kg. Japan noted that Korea also required 
inspection certificates on feed exported from certain areas in Japan. 
2.278.  Korea explained that its measures were in accordance with Article 5.7 of the 
SPS Agreement, as a result of insufficient scientific evidence and the potentially far-reaching 
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. 
2.279.  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: 
(i) to provide an explanation of the objectives and reasons for Korea's SPS measures; (ii) to identify the risks that its measures intend to address; (iii) to indicate the level of protection 
that its measures intend to achieve; and (iv) to provide a copy of any risk assessments 
undertaken. In June 2014, Japan had reiterated  its written request. Furthermore, Korea's 
measures had not been published and the Korean enquiry point had not responded to requests for additional information. If Korea continued ignoring Japan's requests, Japan would have no choice 
but to resort to other actions under the WTO. 
2.280.  Korea explained that its measures were in accordance with Article 5.7 of the 
SPS Agreement, to protect human health and food safety from radioactive contamination. Korea 
was in the process of reviewing information provided by Japan in January 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. 
2.281.  In October 2014, Japan reiterated its concern regarding Korea's import restrictions on 
fishery and food products, as these bans and additional testing requirements for radionuclides were non-transparent, not based on science, discriminatory and more trade-restrictive than necessary. Japan had held numerous bilateral meetings and provided detailed information to 
Korea, and sought to use the tools set forth in the SPS Agreement to reach an amicable solution. 
While Korea had recently started to provide some responses to Japan's questions raised under Articles 4, 5.8 and 7 of the SPS Agreement, these were insufficient. Yet, Japan welcomed Korea's G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 80 - 
 
  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 reassess ment 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. 
2.282.  Korea clarified that its measures were in accordance with Article 5.7 of the 
SPS Agreement, to protect human health and food safety from radioactive contamination. Korea 
had been seeking to obtain additional information for a more objective and science-based risk 
assessment, but received insufficient data from Japan. The latest technical meeting had been held on 18 September 2014. Korea was willing to conduct additional expert meetings and hoped for full 
co-operation with Japan to finalize its review process and resolve this issue. 
2.283.  In March 2015, Japan reiterated its concern regarding the additional import bans and 
testing requirements maintained by the Government of Korea on Japanese food products. Japan 
considered that these bans and the additional  testing requirements were non-transparent, 
discriminatory, more trade-restrictive than necess ary and lacked a scientific basis. Japan had held 
numerous bilateral meetings and provided detailed information to Korea, seeking to use the tools set forth in the SPS Agreement to reach an amicable solution. In addition, at the request of the 
Korean government, Japan had hosted on-site visits by a Korean investigative committee in 
December 2014 and January 2015, and had assisted the committee's members in fully understanding the extent of the measures that Ja pan had taken to secure the safety of Japanese 
fishery products. In contrast, Korea had failed to respond to Japan's requests and had provided no 
information on the timeline and steps towards the lifting of its measures. To illustrate the damage of this ban, Japan reported the example of th e Tohoku area, where around 70% of farmed sea 
squirt was previously exported to Korea. The Tohoku sea squirt farmers were now facing a ban 
despite the fact that more than 150 samples from sea squirt had been inspected, with radioactive cesium either significantly below Korea's safety thresholds or so low as to be non-detectable. Japan stressed the fact that Korea's ban on such products lacked any scientific basis and reiterated 
that if Korea continued ignoring Japan's requests, Japan would have no choice but to resort to 
other actions under the WTO. 
2.284.  Korea noted that the necessary procedures to resolve this issue in a bilateral way had been 
in place since Japan had first raised this issue in the SPS Committee. Korea explained that the ban 
had been adopted as a provisional measure in acco rdance with Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement. 
At the same time, Korea had sought to obtain additional information from the Japanese 
government and had organized a private experts committee to review this information and to 
verify the scientific evidence. Korean experts had also visited Japan three times since last December. Korea was in the process of reviewing all the information obtained and hoped for full co-operation with Japan to solve this issue bilaterally. 
2.285.  In accordance with the provisions of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing 
the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Japan requested consultations with Korea on 21 May 2015 (WT/DS495/1). The Dispute Settlement Body established a panel on 28 September 2015 
(WT/DS495/3). 
2.9.2  Animal Health General import restrictions  due to BSE (STC 193) 
2.286.  See paragraphs 2.401.–2.461. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 81 - 
 
  Korea's import restrictions due to African swine fever (STC 393) 
Raised by: European Union 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.11-3.12), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, 
paras. 3.68-3.69) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:  
 
2.287.  In July 2015, the European Union raised a concern about the import restrictions on pork 
and pork products put in place in February 2014 by Korea on African Swine Fever (ASF) grounds. The European Union repeated that trade could take place safely, and affirmed that Korea 
disrespected the SPS Agreement regarding regionalization. Korea continuously received detailed 
information on the control, surveillance and moni toring measures of the European Union. Korea's 
risk assessment process lacked of clarity about the required steps and the use of information 
provided by the European Union. The European Union called on Korea to respect its regionalization 
obligations under the SPS Agreement and to allow trade of all safe products. The European Union also restated its availability to continue working with Korea and any other trading partners with a view to finding a rapid solution on this matter. 
2.288.  Korea responded that it had banned pork and pork products from Poland since the first 
case of ASF was reported in February 2014, in agreement with Poland. In response to the European Union for regionalization, Korea had implemented the necessary steps to assess the 
current situation in Poland, and sent experts to have an on-site inspection. The preliminary 
assessment on ASF had been delivered to Poland and an exchange of views was still under way. As a result, Korea had been consistent with Arti cles 6.2 and 6.3 of the SPS Agreement and hoped 
to continue bilateral discussion on the basis of science and data. 
2.289.  In October 2015, the European Union recalled its concerns regarding Korea's import 
restrictions on pork and pork products due to African swine fever (ASF) taken since February 2014. Korea had continuously received detailed information from the European Union. Korea's risk 
assessment process lacked clarity about the required  steps and the use of information provided by 
the European Union, in particular on its control, surveillance and monitoring measures. The European Union called on Korea to respect its regionalization obligations under the SPS 
Agreement and to allow trade of safe products. The European Union also restated its availability to 
continue working with Korea and any other trading pa rtners with a view to finding a rapid solution 
on this matter. 
2.290.  Korea recalled that it had banned pork and pork products from Poland since the first case 
of ASF was reported in February 2014, in agreement with Poland. At the request of the European Union, Korea had implemented the necessary steps to assess the current situation in Poland, and hired experts to that effect. Korea had completed its preliminary assessment after considering 
Poland's comments received in May 2015 and had decided to move on to the next steps. 
Korea requested that Poland and the European Union take proactive control measures to prevent the spread of ASF and cooperate fully to expedite the risk assessment process, which needed to 
incorporate a distinction between affected and unaffected areas. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 82 - 
 
  2.10  Malaysia 
2.10.1  Plant Health Import restrictions on plant and plant products (STC 294) 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by: Japan 
Dates raised: March 2010 (G/SPS/R/58, paras. 25-27), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, 
paras. 3.59-3.60) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:  
 
2.291.  In March 2010, Brazil expressed concerns related to Malaysia's import restrictions on 
plants and plants products due to a regulation on South American leaf blight disease. 
Brazil considered that the regulation did not have a scientific justification. Malaysia's import restrictions were apparently based on a provision in the constitutive of the Asia and Pacific Plant 
Protection Commission (APPPC) on South American le af blight disease. However, other parties to 
the APPPC did not apply this provision to Brazil. A representative of FAO conducted a pest risk analysis to verify whether the South American leaf blight disease represented a risk to Malaysia, but no risks had been identified. Therefore, Brazil  requested that Malaysia allow the importation of 
plants and plants products from Brazil. 
2.292.  Japan observed that the trade restriction was also a concern for Japan. Japan recognized 
the efforts of the APPPC to amend its regulation so  as to be consistent with the SPS Agreement. 
2.293.  Malaysia indicated that it had not received any information from Brazil in advance of the 
meeting and, thus, could not consult with his technical officials. Malaysia invited Brazil to send its concern in writing so a response could be provided. 
2.294.  In October 2015, Brazil again raised concerns related to Malaysia's import restrictions on 
plants and plant products due to a regulation on  South American leaf blight disease. Since 2010, 
when the issue had been raised for the first time, the measure had remained unchanged on the basis that it was consistent with Asia and Pacific Plant Protection Commission (APPPC) 
phytosanitary standards. Brazil recalled that the regulation had no scientific justification and 
increased exporting costs through unnecessary laboratory analysis. In 2009, FAO had completed a pest risk analysis and no risks to Malaysia had been identified. A bilateral meeting had been held 
in the margins of the Committee meeting and woul d be followed by another one in Kuala Lumpur. 
2.295.  Malaysia reported that it was reviewing import conditions on South American leaf blight 
disease and welcomed its bilateral discussions with Brazil on this matter. 
2.10.2  Other Concerns 
Malaysia's import restrictions related to a pproval of poultry meat plants (STC 391) 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.7-3.8) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:  
 
2.296.  In July 2015, Brazil raised concerns regarding the Malaysian Government's delays in approving Brazilian poultry meat export plants and the lack of definition of the applicable G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 83 - 
 
  international sanitary certification. Brazil had been negotiating access to the Malaysian poultry 
meat market since 2010, and had not received a mission from Malaysia to audit Brazilian plants before March 2014. Since then, the Brazil had only  received a feedback about one establishment. 
According to Brazil, this situation was in breach of paragraph 1(a) of Annex C of the 
SPS Agreement. Brazil had also proposed an intern ational sanitary certificate to support its exports 
of poultry meat, but Malaysia had provided no answer to this request. Malaysia had not presented scientific evidence for the lack of approval of th e audited facilities. The final audit report and the 
response to the proposed certificate had also been unduly delayed. Brazil affirmed that the 
Malaysian measure did not comply with the provis ions of Articles 2 and 5 of the SPS Agreement 
since it resulted in arbitrary and unjustified di scrimination between Members and in disregard of 
the objective of minimizing negative trade effect s. The measure was also inconsistent with the 
provisions on control, inspection and approval procedures contained in Article 8 and Annex C of the 
SPS Agreement, as it created undue and unnecessa ry delays in the opening of the Malaysian 
market. Therefore, Brazil requested the Malaysia n authorities to approve the Brazilian poultry 
meat export plants and to react to the proposal ma de by Brazil regarding the international sanitary 
certificate. 
2.297.  Malaysia replied that, as mentioned by Brazil, there had been an inspection. The result had 
been communicated to Brazil, one plant had been approved, and three had been rejected because 
they failed to comply with the Malaysian halal standard. Malaysia encouraged the Brazilian Embassy to send a written request to the Malaysian veterinary services. 
2.11  Mexico 
2.11.1  Plant Health 
Measures on imports of hi biscus flowers (STC 386) 
Raised by: Nigeria 
Supported by: Burkina Faso, Senegal  
Dates raised: March 2015 (G/SPS/R/78, paras. 3.6-3.8), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, 
paras. 3.48-3.50) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:  
 
2.298.  In March 2015, Nigeria expressed concerns on certain verification procedures being used 
by Mexico on imported hibiscus flowers from Nigeri a. Following the Mexican quarantine authorities' 
request to change the certificate, Nigeria had developed an online platform to generate electronic phytosanitary certificates and had held bilateral discussions with Mexico's quarantine authority. 
The validation procedures were causing delays for Nigeria's exports of hibiscus flowers and real 
losses in some cases. Nigeria thanked the Mexican delegate for the efforts made to convene a bilateral meeting on the margins of the Committee meeting, but noted that no timelines had been agreed for the resolution of the issue. 
2.299.  Burkina Faso echoed Nigeria's concern since it was experiencing similar problems with 
exports to Indonesia. Senegal also shared the concern, noting that Senegal was currently trying to develop its hibiscus flower sector and would consider the possibility of exporting to Mexico. 
2.300.  Mexico explained that 14 shipments of Hibiscus flowers with false SPS certificates had been 
intercepted during 2014. Mexican authorities had since maintained ongoing communication with 
Nigeria and had held a meeting in capital and a bilateral meeting on the margins of the Committee 
meeting with the aim of guaranteeing the authentici ty of the certificates produced by the Nigerian 
authorities. While setting a timeline was not possible due to certain aspects that still needed to be concluded, Mexico confirmed its willingness to find a prompt solution to the problem. 
2.301.  In October 2015, Nigeria restated its concerns on certain verification procedures being 
used by Mexico on imported hibiscus flowers fr om Nigeria. Following the Mexican quarantine 
authorities' request to change the certificate, Nigeria had developed an online platform to generate G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 84 - 
 
  electronic phytosanitary certificates and had held bilateral discussions with Mexico's quarantine 
authority. The validation procedures were causing delays for Nigeria's exports of hibiscus flowers 
and significant losses in some cases. Nigeria also expressed further concern that sesame had now been included in the list of validation requests from Mexico. Nigeria thanked Mexico for the 
bilateral meeting on the margins of the Committee meeting and for reassurances of Mexico's 
efforts to resolve this issue as soon as possible. Nigeria stated that it was prepared to utilize the procedures for good offices of the Chairperson as contained in G/SPS/61 should its concerns 
remain unaddressed by Mexico. 
2.302.  Burkina Faso echoed Nigeria's concern as a producer of hibiscus and in the interest of 
facilitating trade of this product. Senegal also shared the concern, noting the importance of following guidelines for documentation and certificates to prevent any delays. 
2.303.  Mexico noted that at the outset the issue had been that false SPS certificates had 
accompanied hibiscus shipments from Nigeria. Both countries had exchanged documentation and had decided to improve communication and coordination at the national level, set up contact 
points and seek out the best way to address the concerns raised. Mexico also noted that hibiscus 
trade had not been stopped entirely. Delays had been due to the review and validation of the certificates. 
2.12  Russian Federation 
2.12.1  Food Safety The Russian Federation's import restrictions on processed fishery products from Estonia 
and Latvia (STC 390) 
Raised by: European Union 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.4-3.6), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, 
paras. 3.27-3.29) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:  
 
2.304.  In July 2015, the European Union indicated that, as of 4 June, the Russian Federation 
introduced a ban on imports of all fishery products from Estonia and Latvia, allegedly due to deficiencies detected during recent inspections. The European Union stated that the measure had 
been notified very late, was inconsistent with the SPS Agreement and taken in violation of Russia's 
WTO Accession commitments which included not to suspend exports from groups of establishments without having provided first the technical information and scientific justification of 
the risks detected, and not to take such measures before the expiry of the timeframe provided for 
the adoption of corrective measures. Indeed, Russi a had not provided evidence of immediate risk 
to consumers caused by deficiencies in the control systems of Estonia and Latvia, which had been regularly inspected by the Russian Federation in recent years without having identified any major 
problems. The measures were clearly more trade restrictive than necessary and the ban had been 
announced before the official reports of the inspections were provided to the competent authorities of Latvia or Estonia. The European Union expre ssed its willingness to cooperate with the Russian 
Federation to address their concerns but requested the Russian Federation to lift the ban, to bring 
its measures in line with international standards, and to respect its WTO obligations. 
2.305.  The Russian Federation replied that conclu sions by Russian experts about deficiencies in 
the work of the Latvian and Estonian competent au thorities overlapped with the results of previous 
investigations by the European Union, and the presence of a risk was also confirmed by the 
notifications of the EU Commission in the rapid alert system. Russia stressed the importance and urgency of the report made by the European  Union about the safety of food products. 
An inspection in 2013 had showed that Latvia and Estonia had not taken measures to withdraw 
unsafe products from the market. According to Russia, the European Union had failed to take necessary measures in relation to establishments where violations were detected and to inform its G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 85 - 
 
  trade partners. Indeed, between 2013 and July 2015, Russian inspections had revealed more than 
2,000 cases of unreliable certification, and yet, no effective measures had been taken against the violators. The Russian Federation had concluded th at the guarantees given by the European Union 
were not reliable. As a result, Russia was forced to impose temporary restrictions, as stated in 
official letters to the European Union. The measures were not bans, but temporary restrictions, 
and complied with the SPS Agreement, which a llowed Members to adopt measures to protect 
human, animal or plant health. 
2.306.  The European Union clarified that they did not dispute Russia's right to take SPS measures, 
but expected proportionate measures taken in a transparent manner and in accordance with the SPS Agreement.  
2.307.  In October 2015, the European Union reiterated its concerns regarding the Russian 
Federation's restrictions on imports of all fishery products from Estonia and Latvia, allegedly due to 
deficiencies in the safety systems. The European Union stated that the measure had been notified 
a month after implementation as an emergency measure. This was inconsistent with the 
SPS Agreement and in contravention of the Russian Federation's WTO accession commitments, 
which included not to suspend exports from groups of establishments without first having provided 
the technical information and scientific justification of the risks detected, and not to take such 
measures before the expiry of the timeframe pr ovided for the adoption of corrective measures. 
The Russian Federation had not presented a risk assessment or provided evidence of immediate 
risk to consumers caused by deficiencies in the control systems of Estonia and Latvia, which had been regularly inspected by the Russian Federation in recent years without having identified any 
major problems. The European Union highlighted that Article 2.1 required that measures taken to 
protect human, animal or plant life or health must be consistent with the provisions of the Agreement. In addition, the European Union recalled that Articles 2.2 and 5.6 required measures 
to be based on scientific evidence and not to be more trade restrictive than necessary. 
Furthermore, the Russian Federation had adopted th e ban just one day after the submission of the 
preliminary report of the audit to the competent au thorities, in contrast with the reasonable time 
commitment it made prior to its accession. The co mments provided by Latvia and Estonia on the 
audits had not received a response by the Russian Federation, more than three months after the submission. The European Union indicated its willingness to cooperate with the Russian Federation on this issue and requested the Russian Federation to lift the ban, bring its measures in line with 
international standards, and respect its WTO obligations. 
2.308.  The Russian Federation responded that it was justified in imposing temporary restrictions 
on fishery products from Latvia and Estonia. Upon inspection, the Russian authorities found that 
Latvia and Estonia were unable to produce safe products that complied with requirements from 
both importing and exporting countries. Therefore,  the Russian Federation had concluded that the 
guarantees provided by the EU veterinary services  were not reliable. Many of these products had 
continued to be marketed and exported to the Russian Federation, which called for another round 
of inspections. The Russian Federation was cooper ating with veterinary services of Latvia and 
Estonia to objectively assess the safety systems of fish processing establishments. Comments on 
the preliminary report had been received, but Latvian and Estonian authorities could not show that 
the withdrawal of potentially hazardous products was timely and effective enough. The Russian 
Federation was concerned that trading partners were not being informed about product safety problems. The temporary restrictions were in compliance with the international Eurasian Economic 
Union legal framework and with international standards. Before imposing the restrictions, relevant 
information had been published on the official website and consultations had been held with Latvian and Estonian authorities. Final reports of the inspections had just been sent to the 
veterinary services. The Russian Federation asked Latvia and Estonia to carry out their own 
inspection of the establishments and of their compliance with the Eurasian Economic Union veterinary requirements. The competent authorities of Latvia and Estonia had indicated that they 
did not oppose the Russian Federation's decisions and the EU representatives had agreed that the 
certification of products from Latvia and Estonia to Russia should be suspended. However, 
certification had not been suspended. Neverthele ss, the Russian Federation was ready to find a 
solution on this issue. 
2.309.  The European Union replied that some of the information which had been provided by the 
Russian Federation contradicted EU information, reiterating that no major problems had been found in the numerous inspections held by the Russian Federation. Furthermore, the European 
Union indicated its concern with the statement that the EU had voluntarily agreed to suspend the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 86 - 
 
  certification of products from Latvia and Estonia, which did not reflect the EU information. 
The European Union reiterated the transparency  of its own information and urged the Russian 
Federation to repeal its measures. 
2.13  Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of 
2.13.1  Animal Health 
General import restrictions  due to BSE (STC 193) 
2.310.  See paragraphs 2.401.–2.461. 
2.14  Chinese Taipei 
2.14.1  Food Safety Import restrictions in response to the Japa nese nuclear power plan t accident (STC 354) 
2.311.  See paragraphs 2.383.-2.400. 
Chinese Taipei's strengthened import restrictions on food with regard to radionuclides 
(STC 387) 
Raised by: Japan 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2015 (G/SPS/R/78, paras. 3.9-3.10), July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, 
paras. 3.35-3.36), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, paras. 3.30-3.31) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.312.  In March 2015, Japan expressed its concer ns over the import ban imposed by Chinese 
Taipei on food exports from five Japanese pref ectures after the accident at TEPCO's Fukushima 
Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, as well as over the draft strengthened import regulations that required a pre-test certificate issued by the Japanese Government for almost all Japanese foods 
from all remaining prefectures. Japan had repeatedly provided Chinese Taipei with comprehensive 
monitoring results to demonstrate that Japanese food was safe for human consumption. Four years had passed since the nuclear accident in 2011. In the meantime 13 Members such as Australia and Viet Nam had lifted their import restrictions. Many other Members, including the 
European Union, the United States and Singapore had eased their import restrictions based on 
sound scientific data. Japan believed that the measures maintained by Chinese Taipei were not based on relevant international standards and we re more trade-restrictive than required. Japan 
therefore requested that Chinese Taipei lift the import ban on the five prefectures and withdraw 
the draft strengthened import regulations notified to the SPS Committee last November. 
2.313.  Chinese Taipei noted that, although all the inspected batches proceeding from Japan were 
in compliance with Chinese Taipei's regulation, consumer protection groups and the public were 
still concerned about the safety of food imported from Japan. The notified draft control measure requiring that food products imported from Japa n be accompanied by pre-export radiation test 
certificates and certificates of origin was developed as a consequence of the radioactive 
contaminated water leak accident from Fukushima nuclear power plant in 2013. Chinese Taipei 
expressed its willingness to continue bilateral talks and looked forward to finding a mutual satisfactory solution on this matter. 
2.314.  In July 2015, Japan reiterated its concerns  over the import ban imposed by Chinese Taipei 
on food exports from five Japanese prefectures after the accident at TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station, as well as over the strengthened import restrictions imposed since 
15 May 2015. According to information published by Chinese Taipei, none of the more than G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 87 - 
 
  70,000 samples of Japanese food products tested had exceeded Chinese Taipei's limit levels of 
radioactive cesium, which seemed to confirm the appropriateness of Japan's measures taken after 
the incident. Japan also noted that Chinese Taipei's import restrictions were not based on science, nor based on the relevant international standards, and were more trade restrictive than required. 
Japan requested that Chinese Taipei complete its risk assessment and immediately remove its 
measures. Japan also expressed hope that bilateral consultations would help find a mutually acceptable solution. 
2.315.  Chinese Taipei confirmed the implementation of control measures consisting in the 
temporary suspension of inspection applications for food produced in the Fukushima and the other 
four nearby prefectures since March 2011. However, in March 2015 food products from the restricted prefectures had entered the Chinese Taip ei market using false labelling. Consequently, 
Chinese Taipei had implemented control measures requiring certificates of origin and, for specific 
food products and prefectures, radioactive ex amination reports. Chinese Taipei also noted 
concerns over the continuous leakage of radioactive contaminated water from Fukushima nuclear 
power plant since 2013. Chinese Taipei reiterated its commitment to bilateral efforts to find a 
solution to this matter. 
2.316.  In October 2015, Japan reiterated its concerns over the import ban imposed by Chinese 
Taipei on food from five Japanese prefectures after the accident at TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi 
Nuclear Power Station, as well as over the strengthened import restrictions imposed since 15 May 2015. Japan stressed that although an incident where some Japanese food products had been imported with false labelling was unfortunate, it should be clearly distinguished from the 
import ban. Japan noted that Chinese Taipei's import restrictions were not based on scientific 
evidence. Japan also questioned the extent to which Japan's treatment of radioactive 
contaminated water was relevant to food safety in this situation. With regard to alleged consumer 
concerns in Chinese Taipei about Japanese food safety, Japan noted that there had been a steady 
increase in food imports from Japan by Chinese Ta ipei over the past three years. Japan requested 
that Chinese Taipei complete its risk assessment and immediately remove its measures, even if on 
a step-by-step basis. Japan also expressed hope that bilateral consultations would result in a 
mutually acceptable solution.  
2.317.  Chinese Taipei confirmed the continued temporary suspension of inspection applications for 
food produced in the Fukushima and four other nearby prefectures since March 2011. According to 
information published by Japan, food products were still found to have radioactive residues and, in 
July 2015, several cases had been confirmed to have levels exceeding the tolerance levels proposed by Japan. Chinese Taipei reiterated its commitment to bilateral efforts to find a solution 
to this matter. 
2.15  Turkey 2.15.1  Animal Health 
General import restrictions  due to BSE (STC 193) 
2.318.  See paragraphs 2.401.–2.461. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 88 - 
 
  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 
2014 (G/SPS/R/76, paras. 3.34-3.36), March 2015 (G/SPS/R/78, 
paras. 3.33-3.34) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/TUR/9 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.319.  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. 
2.320.  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. 
2.321.  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. 
2.322.  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. 
2.323.  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 Anne x B. Australia looked forward to the resolution 
of this issue. 
2.324.  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. 
2.325.  In October 2013, Australia reiterated its concerns regarding Turkey's requirements for the 
import of sheep meat and its June 2013 meeting statement. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 89 - 
 
  2.326.  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. 
2.327.  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 
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. 
2.328.  Turkey reiterated its October 2013 meeting statement. 
2.329.  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. 
2.330.  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. 
2.331.  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. 
2.332.  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. 
2.333.  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. 
2.334.  In March 2015, Australia repeated its conc erns over Turkey's requirements for sheep meat 
imports, which it had raised at each Committee meeting since October 2012. Australia reported 
that it had held productive bilateral discussion s with Turkey in the margins and hoped these 
discussions would lead to a satisfactory resolution  of the issue. Turkey had advised that it had 
prepared a draft veterinary health certificate for sheep meat and undertook to provide a copy of 
the certificate and information on certification requirements upon receipt of an official written 
request from Australia. 
2.335.  Turkey explained that during a bilateral m eeting, both delegations had determined that the 
measure was based on OIE standards. Turkey reiter ated that certification requirements would be G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 90 - 
 
  made available upon request and stressed that the measure was not intended to be a trade 
barrier. Turkey was open for further consultation with Australia to resolve this issue. 
2.16  United States of America 2.16.1  Animal Health 
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), March 2015 (G/SPS/R/78, paras. 3.26-3.29), July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.31-3.34), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, 
paras. 3.63-3.64) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not Reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:  
 
2.336.  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. 
2.337.  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. 
2.338.  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. 
2.339.  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. 
2.340.  In March 2015, 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 the 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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 91 - 
 
  2.341.  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 10 September 2014, and was currently reviewing India's status, with an opportunity for public comments. 
2.342.  In July 2015, India restated its concern that the United States and Australia did not accept 
the OIE categorization of India as a negligible risk country for BSE. India had shared its OIE 
dossier with the United States, but had not received any response yet. India urged both countries to carry their assessment in accordance to OIE standards. 
2.343.  The United States restated its commitment to align its import regulations governing BSE 
with that of OIE guidelines as reflected in USDA APHIS final rule published in 2013. It was 
currently reviewing India's OIE dossier, and the result would be published and public comments 
welcomed. 
2.344.  India referred to the explicit recognition of OIE standards under Annex A.3 of the 
SPS Agreement, and invited the United States and Australia to share any additional factors that would be taken into consideration in determining India's BSE status. 
2.345.  In October 2015, India restated its concern that the United States did not accept the OIE 
categorization of India as a negligible risk count ry for BSE. India had shared its OIE dossier with 
the United States, but had not received any response yet. India urged the United States to carry 
out the assessment in accordance with OIE standards. 
2.346.  The United States reiterated its commitment to align its import regulations governing BSE 
with that of OIE guidelines as reflected in USDA APHIS final rule published in 2013. It was 
currently reviewing India's OIE dossier, and the result would be published and public comments 
welcomed. 
2.16.2  Plant Health US high cost of certificatio n for mango exports (STC 373) 
Raised by: India 
Supported by: Brazil, 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), March 2015 (G/SPS/R/78, paras. 3.39-3.40), July 
2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.44-3.46), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, paras. 3.51-3.53) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.347.  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. 
2.348.  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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 92 - 
 
  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. 
2.349.  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. 
2.350.  The Dominican Republic expressed its support for India's concern and requested further 
information from the United States on the costs of import procedures. 
2.351.  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. 
2.352.  In March 2015, India reiterated its concern regarding the high cost of certification for 
mango exports to the United States. In previous  meetings, the United States had offered the 
possibility of irradiation upon arrival. This solution had been discussed in a bilateral meeting held 
on 3 to 4 March 2015. India requested that the Unit ed States circulate a draft work plan for the 
irradiation upon arrival requirement. 
2.353.  The United States reported that the bilateral discussion in March 2015 had been 
productive. Two options had been discussed: (i) expansion of the current irradiation programme 
for mangoes (and pomegranates) in India throug h the approval of two additional irradiation 
facilities in India; and (ii) irradiation of Indian -origin mangoes (and pomegranates) upon arrival in 
the United States. The United States welcomed further engagement with India on this issue. 
2.354.  In July 2015, India restated its concerns about 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. India noted the high cost of certification that it had to bear, which amounted to approximately 12% of the FOB costs per metric ton of mangoes exported to the United States. 
India recalled that in a bilateral meeting held in March 2015, the United States had offered the 
possibility of irradiation upon arrival, and Indi a had requested circulation of the corresponding 
draft work plan.  
2.355.  Brazil and the Dominican Republic shared India's concern. Brazil noted that during the 
2015 mango exports season, Brazil had spent half a million US dollars for the on-the-spot 
inspection carried by the US inspectors. Brazil noted that the procedures were costly and duplicative, and urged the United States to ease its requirements. The Dominican Republic 
requested further information from the United States on the costs of import procedures. 
2.356.  The United States confirmed that India ha d exported mangoes every year since the market 
was opened in 2007, and the value of those exports had risen to reach nearly 2 million US dollars 
in 2014. The United States recalled the two op tions that had been di scussed in March 2015: 
(i) expansion of the current irradiation programm e by resolving substantial deficiencies of new 
irradiation facilities in Vashi and Innova; and (ii) irradiation upon arrival in the United States. Additional information on the second option had been sent to India in June 2015. The United 
States welcomed further engagement with Indi a to resolve these concerns and would plan a 
second visit when India's facilities were ready for certification. The United States noted that only G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 93 - 
 
  the irradiation facility at Nasik was currently certified. The United States also welcomed bilateral 
consultations with Brazil and the Dominican Republic. 
2.357.  In October 2015, India restated its concerns about 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. India noted the high cost of certification that it had to bear, which amounted to approximately 12% of the FOB costs per metric ton of mangoes exported to the United States. 
India recalled that in a bilateral meeting held in March 2015, the United States had offered the 
possibility of irradiation upon arrival, and Indi a had requested circulation of the corresponding 
draft work plan. 
2.358.  The Dominican Republic shared India's concern and considered the best option for a 
solution was to require treatment of the mangoes upon entry into the United States. Brazil also 
shared India's concern and noted that US inspections had nearly double the cost of those conducted by Brazilian inspectors. Brazil stated that India's options presented a good basis to 
begin discussions on a potential solution. 
2.359.  The United States confirmed that India ha d exported mangoes every year since the market 
was opened in 2007, and the value of those exports had risen to reach nearly US$2 million in 
2014. The United States recalled the two opti ons that had been discussed in March 2015: 
(i) expansion of the current irradiation programme by resolving the substantial deficiencies of the 
new irradiation facilities in Vashi and Innova; and (ii) irradiation upon arrival in the United States. Additional information on the second option had been sent to India in June 2015. The United 
States welcomed further engagement with Indi a to resolve these concerns and would plan a 
second visit when India's facilities were ready for certification. The United States noted that only 
the irradiation facility at Nasik was currently certified. The United States looked forward to 
continue discussions on this issue with India and any other interested trading partners. 
2.16.3  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), March 
2015 (G/SPS/R/78, paras. 3.37-3.38), July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.27-3.28), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, paras. 3.25-3.26) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/2171 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.360.  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. 
2.361.  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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 94 - 
 
  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. 
2.362.  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. 
2.363.  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. 
2.364.  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 regulati ons of aquatic products instead of terrestrial 
animal meat products. 
2.365.  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. 
2.366.  In March 2015, China recalled that in the 2014 Farm Bill of the United States, the 
regulatory food safety oversight of all Siluriformes fish was moved from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to the United States Department of Agriculture's Food Safety Inspection 
Service (FSIS). FDA was traditionally in charge of  other food products, including aquatic products. 
The proposed rule on mandatory inspection of catfish and catfish products, notified to the 
Committee in March 2011, would thus duplicate inspections already conducted by FDA on all 
catfish products. China also recalled the report  published by the United States Government 
Accountability Office in May 2012. According to China, the report observed that the USDA proposed rule on mandatory inspections would duplicate existing government programmes and 
would not improve consumer safety. The USDA risk assessment published in July 2012 showed 
that the probability of food poisoning from catfish is very low, with only one salmonella outbreak linked to catfish in the past 20 years. China believed that the inspection programme was not based on a serious risk assessment, which violated US obligations under the SPS Agreement. China 
urged the United States to regulate catfish on a scientific basis, and to maintain the catfish 
inspection programme under the regulatory system of aquatic products. 
2.367.  The United States explained that the Food  Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, known as 
the 2008 Farm Bill mandated that catfish be regu lated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and 
directed USDA to promulgate a rule to define catfish and provide for its mandatory inspection. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 95 - 
 
  The Agricultural Act of 2014, known as the 2014 Farm Bill had made FSIS responsible for 
Siluriformes fish including catfish. 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. 
2.368.  In July 2015, China recalled its concerns regarding US regulations on the mandatory 
inspection of catfish and catfish product notified  in March 2011, which transferred the regulatory 
food safety oversight of all Siluriformes fish from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to the 
United States Department of Agriculture's Food Sa fety Inspection Service (FSIS). As a result, the 
United States applied terrestrial animal meat insp ection procedures for the imports of Siluriformes 
fish, including catfish. According to China, th e inspection programme was not based on science 
and would result in a disguised restriction on international trade. China also recalled that according 
to the 2012 US Government Accountability Office re port, the risk of food poisoning from catfish 
might be overestimated. China urged the United States to revoke all legislation on mandatory inspection of Siluriformes fish and to maintain the catfish inspection programme under the FDA 
regulatory system of aquatic products. 
2.369.  The United States explained that the regulation was based on relevant international 
standards and would also apply to domestic products. The United States welcomed comments from 
Members in this regard. 
2.370.  In October 2015, China raised its concern regarding the US regulation on Mandatory 
Inspection of Catfish and Catfish Products, which transferred the regulatory food safety oversight 
of catfish from FDA to the Food Safety Inspection  Service (FSIS) of the United States Department 
of Agriculture (USDA). The 2014 US Farm Bill had extended the product range covered through 
this transfer from catfish to all Siluriformes fi sh. China observed that the USDA had previously 
been responsible for meat, poultry and processed eggs, while FDA had been in charge of other 
food products, including aquatic products. As such, China queried the application of terrestrial 
animal meat inspection procedures to aquatic products, highlighting that this approach was without precedent worldwide. China further note d that there was no evidence showing that 
Siluriformes fish posed a higher food-borne risk than other aquatic products and thus queried the 
rationale for changing the regulatory responsibility from FDA to USDA only for Siluriformes fish instead of all aquatic products. In addition, China believed that the US measure was not based on a scientific risk assessment in accordance with Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement. China noted that 
the distinction between Siluriformes fish and other aquatic products could also result in a disguised 
restriction on international trade and as such, China urged the United States to base its regulation on relevant international standards or on a scientific risk assessment. 
2.371.  The United States replied that its me asure had been published in February 2011 and 
notified to the SPS Committee in G/SPS/N/USA/2171. In particular, the United States noted the previous exchanges with China regarding the statutory details that underpinned this proposed rule, 
which remained unchanged. FSIS would continue to work to finalize its rule on fish inspection. 
The United States assured Members that it had closely reviewed the comments provided by its trading partners and that the final rule would be consistent with its international obligations. 
US proposed rule for user fees for agricult ural quarantine and inspection services 
(STC 388) 
Raised by: Mexico 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2015 (G/SPS/R/78, paras. 3.11-3.12), July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, 
paras. 3.56-3.57), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, paras. 3.61-3.62) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.372.  In March 2015, Mexico raised a concern regarding the United States proposed rule for user fees for agricultural quarantine and inspection services. Mexico was particularly concerned about 
an increase of over 200% in the inspection serv ices fees for commercial trucks with electronic G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 96 - 
 
  transmitters, and an increase of 52% of the cu rrent fee for other types of commercial trucks. 
Mexican agricultural exports entered the United States mainly via land. Since Mexico was one of the main trading partners of the United States and the main source of agricultural products, this measure would not only affect transportation costs for Mexico, but it would also have a direct 
effect on the prices for final consumers, generating inflation and putting at risk small and medium 
producers and thousands of jobs directly or indirectly related to this sector. Mexico also noted that the measure could be considered discriminatory against Mexican imports, violating the Article 2.3, 
since most other trading partners did not export via land and traded much smaller volumes with 
the United States. The regulation also countervailed Members' obligations on transparency, as it had not been officially notified to the WTO. In Me xico's view the regulation was also incompatible 
with Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement, which required that any fees imposed for 
procedures on imported products be limited to the processing cost and be no higher than the 
actual cost of the services. The Mexican Government and private sector had participated in the consultation procedures and had submitted their concerns. Mexico hoped that its comments would 
be taken into consideration and invited the United States to comply with the provisions of the 
SPS Agreement. 
2.373.  The United States noted that the APHIS proposed rule had been published on 25 April 
2014. Due to the interest in this proposed rule  by stakeholders, the comment period had been 
extended to 24 July 2014. Comments had been re ceived from over 200 stakeholders and the 
review by APHIS was still ongoing. The United States assured Mexico that it would carefully consider its and other comments before proceeding with any decisions on the matter. 
2.374.  In July 2015, Mexico recalled its concern on an APHIS proposed rule for user fees for 
agricultural quarantine and inspection services. Higher transportation costs would result in higher prices for customers, threatening the livelihood of small-scale producers. In Mexico's views the 
measure violated the MFN principle, as well as Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement. 
Mexico urged the United States to take Members' comments into account. 
2.375.  The United States explained that the rulemaking process was still ongoing and that 
Mexico's comments would be considered before any decision was taken. The United States 
welcomed future bilateral discussions. 
2.376.  In October 2015, Mexico recalled its concern on an APHIS proposed rule for user fees for 
agricultural quarantine and inspection services. Higher transportation costs would result in higher 
prices for customers, threatening the livelihood of small-scale producers. In Mexico's view the 
measure violated the GATT, MFN principle, as well as Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement. Mexico requested an update on the draft regulation and urged the United States to take Members' 
comments into account as well as to comply with the transparency provisions of the 
SPS Agreement. 
2.377.  The United States explained that the rulemaking process was still ongoing and that 
Mexico's comments would be considered before any decision was taken. 
2.17  Viet Nam 2.17.1  Animal Health Undue delays in Viet Nam's approval proce ss for dairy and meat products (STC 401) 
Raised by: Chile 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, para. 3.13) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.378.  In October 2015, Chile raised its concern regarding undue delays in Viet Nam's approval 
process for meat and dairy products, noting that while it had expressed interest in exporting dairy G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 97 - 
 
  and meat products to Viet Nam from 2009, a response was only received in 2011 from Viet Nam's 
Official Veterinary Service requesting more in formation. Chile further explained that it had 
submitted all the necessary information, along with  proposals for sanitary export certificates for 
the specified products in 2012. This resulted in Viet Nam approving the certificates for dairy 
products in February 2015. While Chile expressed its appreciation for this result, it indicated that it 
still had not received authorization for the list of certificates which would allow exports from the dairy sector. In relation to meat products, Chile informed the Committee that although Viet Nam 
had communicated its approval of 10 meat processing  establishments in 2013, the approval of the 
respective certificates was still under review by Viet Nam. Chile outlined the various steps it had taken to provide new, updated and previously su bmitted information to Viet Nam based on its 
several requests, as recently as in July 2015. Chile underscored that while it had not received any 
reply during this period, it had been informed by  capital officials that a recent communication had 
been received from Viet Nam. Chile affirmed that its animal health conditions were optimal, free from major diseases that could limit exports and that the quality of its sanitary health services 
guaranteed this status. Chile appreciated the positive bilateral relationship with Viet Nam and 
hoped that the issue would be rapidly resolved, in accordance with Articles 2.2, 5 and 6, and Annex C (1a) of the SPS Agreement. 
2.17.2  Plant Health 
Viet Nam's restrictions on frui t due to fruit flies (STC 398) 
Raised by: Chile 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, paras. 3.7-3.8) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.379.  In October 2015, Chile expressed concerns about Viet Nam's restrictions on its horticultural products due to fruit fly. In August 2015, Viet Nam had informed Chile of its suspension of fruit imports, as Chile was not recognized as free of fruit flies and would not regain 
its status until Viet Nam was able to carry out a PRA. Chile explained that since 1980, it had 
operated a fruit fly programme administered by the National Plant Protection Organization (NPPO), through which Chile maintained the National Frui t Fly Detection System (SNDMF). SNDMF ensured 
that Chile was free from the Medite rranean fruit fly and from other exotic fruit flies of economic 
significance, based on the IPPC guidelines. Chile  had eradicated fruit flies from each of the 
outbreak areas for three biological life cycles of the insects. Currently, there were two 
Mediterranean fruit fly outbreaks in Chile, for which a timely corrective action plan had been 
initiated to achieve eradication. Chile indicated that since it had taken action to eradicate the pest, there had been no exports of fruit from the pest-i nfected areas and all fruit exports were inspected 
prior to shipping. As such, Chile considered Viet Nam's measure to be disproportionate and without 
scientific basis, and urged Viet Nam to comply with the SPS Agreement, in particular with Articles 
2.2, 2.3, 3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6 and 6. Finally, Chile thanked Viet Nam for the bilateral discussions held and expressed its willingness to continue to address the issue in a positive manner. 
2.380.  Viet Nam replied that the temporary suspension of issuing import permits, due to 
Mediterranean fruit flies, was aimed at protecting Viet Nam's plant health from risks arising from pests. Chile had experienced outbreaks of Medi terranean fruit flies from March to May 2015. 
In October 2014, Viet Nam's Ministry of Agricu lture and Rural Development had published the list 
of pests, where fruit flies had been assigned to qu arantine pest group 1. This group listed high risk 
pests that had never been previously introduced in to Viet Nam. The Circular had been notified to 
the WTO (G/SPS/N/VNM/63 and G/SPS/N/VNM/63/Add.1) and Viet Nam further noted that the 
temporary suspension was aligned with ISPM 11. Although Viet Nam had sent official letters to 
Chile requesting more information on the outbreaks in order to carry out a PRA and other regulatory quarantine procedures, Viet Nam had not yet received adequate information to start the 
process. Viet Nam requested that Chile work closely with the competent authorities in Viet Nam to 
resume the discussions. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 98 - 
 
  Viet Nam's restrictions on plant products (STC 399) 
Raised by: Chile 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, paras. 3.9-3.10) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.381.  In October 2015, Chile raised a concern on Viet Nam's restrictions on the entry of kiwis, 
apples, cherries and grapes. Chile explained that it  had a history of exporting fruits to Viet Nam 
and that during that time it had never received notifications of detected pests in its exported products. Since 2011, Chile had been submitting phytosanitary information on these fruits in order 
for Viet Nam to develop pest risk analyses (PRAs). Two regulations, among others, had been 
subsequently notified by Viet Nam in 2014 (G/SPS/N/VNM/53 and G/SPS/N/VNM/56), which outlined new regulations for PRAs. In February 2015, Viet Nam shared the PRA for Chilean fruit 
products but Chile noted several inaccuracies in the document, related to the listed pests. 
Chile subsequently requested that Viet Nam provide responses to its comments, as well as confirmation that exports of the four fruits could continue while the respective PRAs and a bilateral agreement for conditions of exports were bein g completed. Inspectors from Viet Nam were 
subsequently invited to perform a verification of the production and export systems of Chilean fruit 
products. However, in the same month, Chile rece ived Viet Nam's response to its comments with a 
60-day deadline to respond. In particular, Chile was concerned about the new measures which 
required radiation treatment of fruit, as this had never been required in the history of its trade 
with Viet Nam or by any other Member. Chile asked Viet Nam to consider its commitments under the SPS Agreement and expressed its willingness to continue bilateral discussions in order to agree 
on new measures that would provide appropriate phytosanitary security without affecting normal 
trade. 
2.382.  Viet Nam responded that it was revising its regulations in order to comply with 
international practices. It had circulated G/SP S/N/VNM/53 and G/SPS/N/VNM/53/Add.1 in order to 
notify Members about the Circular from Viet Nam' s Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development 
regarding the list of regulated articles and regulated articles subject to PRA, prior to importation into Viet Nam. Viet Nam noted that import permits would continue to be issued for commodities 
that had historic trade to Viet Nam and that Chilean export of vegetables for human consumption 
had been authorized, and were not impacted by th is regulation. Viet Nam highlighted that the PRA 
had already been completed and that it was awaiti ng Chile's response. Viet Nam further indicated 
its willingness to discuss and resolve any issue aris ing from implementation of the new regulation. 
2.18  Certain Members 2.18.1  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), March 2015 (G/SPS/R/78, paras. 3.18-3.19), July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.39-3.41), October 
2015 (G/SPS/R/81, paras. 3.32-3.33) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as resolved:   
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 99 - 
 
  2.383.  In June 2013, Japan raised concerns over restrictions on Japanese food exports in the 
wake of the Fukushima incident. Following the incident, Japan had been closely monitoring food products for the presence of radionuclides and, as of April 2012, had imposed a food intervention 
exemption level of 1mSv/year - equivalent to th e Codex standard. However, the dietary exposure 
estimates from total diet studies were far below 1 mSv/year across all studies - including those 
completed in Fukushima Prefecture. Based on this scientific data, Japan requested all Members to lift any import restrictions on Japanese exports. Japan thanked those Members that had already 
lifted most or all such measures, but noted that China, Hong Kong, China and Chinese Taipei 
continued to maintain import bans on many Japane se food exports. Japanese foods placed on the 
market were safe for human consumption without any extra control measures; nonetheless, Japan was willing to certify compliance with the radionuclide regulation for each consignment as a 
provisional measure. Hong Kong, China and Chinese Taipei had already begun to analyse the 
monitoring data provided by Japan, and Japan l ooked forward to the opportunity the meet with 
China regarding this trade concern. 
2.384.  Chinese Taipei explained that although Ja panese food exports contained acceptable trace 
levels of radionuclides, those levels still raised concern for Chinese Taipei and its consumers, consumer protection groups, and legislators. In order to assuage these concerns, Chinese Taipei 
requested further information from Japan, including about its surveillance methodology and control 
measures. Chinese Taipei also requested that foods exported from the five restricted prefectures be accompanied by a certificate of origin and a pr e-export laboratory report certifying that they 
had been tested for radioactivity. The relevant supplementary documents had been received from 
Japan on 13 June 2013 and were under review. Chinese Taipei expressed its desire to continue 
normal communications and co-operation with Japan in the future. 
2.385.  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. 
2.386.  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. 
2.387.  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. 
2.388.  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. 
2.389.  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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 100 - 
 
  2.390.  In July 2014, Japan reiterated its concern over import restrictions by China on Japanese 
food exports, following TEPCO's nuclear power station incident. China maintained a ban on products from ten prefectures in Japan and requested the submission of an official pre-test certificate for fruits, vegetables, tea, milk, me dicinal plants and their products from other 
prefectures. These measures were more trade restrictive than necessary, not based on the 
relevant Codex standards and applied in a manner that constituted a disguised restriction on international trade. Japan requested that China promptly accepted the proposed pre-test 
certificate and lift the import ban on the ten prefectures. 
2.391.  China explained that since the nuclear leak incident, serious contamination threats existed 
to Japan's agriculture and maritime products. Se veral adjustments had been made to inspection 
and quarantine measures since then. China 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. 
2.392.  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  achieve the appropriate level of protection. 
In June 2013, Japan had provided China with mo nitoring 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 Japan had proposed pre-test certificates. Japan was concerned that China deliberately avoided any progress on this issue, raising the doubt 
that China was applying its measures in a manner which might constitute a disguised restriction on 
international trade. Japan requested China to immediately accept Japan's pre-test certificates, and to lift the import ban without further delay. 
2.393.  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 analyzing the technical data provided and would review the measures accordingly. 
2.394.  In March 2015, Japan recalled its concern over import restrictions by China on Japanese 
food exports, following TEPCO's nuclear power station incident. Japan had expressed the same 
concern three times consecutively since last March and regretted that no progress had been made, 
since China still maintained a ban on products from  ten Japanese prefectures. In Japan's view, this 
ban was not based on international standards and was more trade-restrictive than required to achieve the appropriate level of protection. In June 2013, Japan had provided China with monitoring results that demonstrated that Japan's food was safe for human consumption. 
Japan was also concerned about additional prefectures subject to import bans on vegetables, fruit, 
tea, milk, medicinal plants and related products. While China had announced in 2011 that it would lift the import ban on these products, it had since been reluctant to do so, despite Japan's proposal 
of pre-test certificates. Japan was concerned that China deliberately avoided any progress on this 
issue, raising the doubt that its measures were applied as a disguised restriction on international trade. Japan requested that China immediately accept Japan's pre-test certificates, and lift the 
import ban without further delay. 
2.395.  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. China expressed concerns about reports by Japanese 
media about the monitoring procedures for nucle ar pollution of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear 
power plant. According to Japanese media, the company responsible for the monitoring had used simple detection methods and had directly discharged nuclear wastewater into the open sea. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 101 - 
 
  Additionally, no action had been taken after discove ring a high presence of radioactive substances 
in some drainage channels. China invited Japan to  verify the media reporting and noted that China 
would take measures according to the technical documents provided by Japan and to the experts' assessment results. 
2.396.  In July 2015, Japan reiterated its concern regarding the import restrictions imposed by 
China on Japanese food exports after the accident at TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. Japan recalled that despite raising this concern in each Committee meeting since March 
2014, no progress had been made. Japan regretted that China maintained a ban on products from 
ten prefectures without considering additional information provided. Japan had proposed pre-test certificates in June 2011, answered all technical questions asked in August 2012 and shared a comprehensive monitoring result in June 2013. Japan reiterated its concerns that China had 
deliberately avoided any progress on this issue fo r more than three years, and that its measures 
and actions were not in line with the requirement of several articles of the SPS Agreement including Article 2.3, Article 7 and Annex B as well as Article 8 and Annex C. Japan urged China to 
accept the proposed form of the pre-test certific ate and to immediately lift the import ban on the 
ten Japanese prefectures. Japan stressed that it  would consider every effective option for the 
resolution of this issue. 
2.397.  China explained that it had been adjusting its measures on Japanese imports in accordance 
with Japan's nuclear pollution status and its risk analysis results. Import restrictions were currently imposed only for high-risk products from seriou sly polluted regions. China noted that through 
smooth bilateral cooperation, exports from Japan had increased each year since 2012, and in 2014 
represented more than 85% of the level of export s in 2010. China noted that the monitoring of the 
Fukushima Daiichi power plant revealed that Japan's control measures were unsatisfactory, especially regarding the treatment of radioactiv e waste water, which had delayed the lifting of 
import restrictions. China was currently conducting a risk assessment on the latest status of 
nuclear pollution, based on updated information received in April 2015. 
2.398.  Japan appreciated China's comments and welcomed more consultations between the 
competent authorities of both governments. 
2.399.  In October 2015, Japan reiterated its concern regarding the import restrictions imposed by 
China on Japanese food exports after the accident at TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. Japan recalled that despite raising this concern in each Committee meeting since 
March 2014, no progress had been made. Japan regretted that China maintained a ban on 
products from ten prefectures without considering the additional informatio n provided on pre-test 
certificates in June 2011. Japan stated that since then no substantive response from China 
indicating the scientific justification of the ba n had been received. Japan also questioned the 
duration of the risk assessment currently being conducted by China, which was taking too long. In September 2015, Japan had sent an official request to China requesting clarification and 
justification of its measures in light of the provisions of the SPS Agreement. Japan strongly urged 
China to complete its risk assessment and respond to  the official request to facilitate progress on 
this concern. 
2.400.  China stated that it had provided a detailed explanation and clarification at the last 
meeting of the Committee. China was currently conducting a risk assessment on the latest status 
of nuclear pollution and would adjust its measures according to the results. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 102 - 
 
  2.18.2  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. 3.28-3.30), July 2014 (G/SPS/R/75, 
paras. 4.33-4.37), October 2014 (G/SPS/R/76, paras. 3.26-3.30), March 
2015 (G/SPS/R/78, paras. 3.30-3.32), July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.29-3.30), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, para. 3.65) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Partially resolved 
Solution: Solutions notified regarding certain members 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
2.401.  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 measur es 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 co untries 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. 
2.402.  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. 
2.403.  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. 
2.404.  In October 2004, the European Communities informed the Committee that several WTO 
Members had reviewed their bans on EC beef and small bovine ruminant products and replaced 
them with specific requirements in accordance  with OIE standards. The European Communities 
urged all those Members who had not yet done so to  align their regulations in accordance with OIE 
standards. The United States noted that some Members were reviewing their import restrictions on US beef and also urged all those Members who ha d not done so to align their regulations in 
accordance with OIE standards. 
2.405.  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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 103 - 
 
  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. 
2.406.  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. 
2.407.  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. 
2.408.  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. 
2.409.  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. 
2.410.  The representative of the OIE urged Members to abide by the standards enacted by the 
OIE. 
2.411.  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. 
2.412.  OIE explained that the BSE standards had been democratically adopted by OIE members, 
and were in fact very conservative. The OIE was considering removing the age requirement, and 
relaxing the restrictions on gelatine. There was still a wide margin of safety built into the standards, and it was worrying that there was a lack of willingness on the part of Members to 
apply them. 
2.413.  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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 104 - 
 
  2.414.  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. 
2.415.  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. 
2.416.  Switzerland supported the concerns raised by the European Union, stating that 
WTO Members should base their measures on the OIE recommendations and available data on 
BSE. 
2.417.  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. 
2.418.  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. 
2.419.  In March 2011, the European Union urged Members to lift unnecessary restrictions 
negatively affecting EU beef exports. The OIE standard highlighted that there should not be 
restrictions on some bovine products regardless of the BSE-risk status of the country. 
Unfortunately, several unjustified restrictions from Members only allowed imports from countries 
with a negligible BSE-risk assessment. In addition, there had also been a number of discriminatory practices and inconsistencies in the level of protection of some countries. The European Union urged Members to align their requirements with OIE standards and acknowledged the many 
countries that had started the assessment process to allow imports. 
2.420.  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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 105 - 
 
  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 eventually allow the import of EU beef products. The European Union urged Members to fully take in to account the OIE standards and establish fair, 
non-discriminatory, transparent, and scientifically based rules. 
2.421.  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. 
2.422.  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. 
2.423.  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. 
2.424.  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 lo ng 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. 
2.425.  Korea indicated its willingness to continue bilateral discussions on this issue. 
2.426.  China recalled its cooperation with the European Union, including in 2011 a joint BSE 
prevention and control training that resulted in a productive exchange on the relevant science and technology, and the standards of the OIE. Although no consensus was reached on certain issues, 
China would continue to bilateral discussions on the relevant technical issues. 
2.427.  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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 106 - 
 
  2.428.  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 classificati on 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. 
2.429.  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. 
2.430.  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. 
2.431.  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. 
2.432.  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. 
2.433.  China indicated that the issues surrounding BSE were particularly sensitive and technical, 
involving not only the proper handling of animal health and husbandry, but also directly affecting 
China-EU co-operation and trade. China had provid ed thorough information to the European Union 
in relation to its scientific justification. Recognizing the importance of the issue particularly for 
exports from the Netherlands and Ireland, China ha d jointly organized co-operation activities with 
the European Union including technical exchanges among experts, seminars and technical visits. 
These exchanges focused on topics related to the science, technology and the OIE standards. 
However, no consensus had been reached on some issues. China would continue co-operation exchanges with EU technical experts in a scientific and pragmatic manner in order to solve the 
relevant technical problems. China had signed an MOU with Ireland for the establishment of a joint 
working group on BSE. 
2.434.  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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 107 - 
 
  2.435.  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. 
2.436.  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. 
2.437.  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. 
2.438.  The European Union could not accept that the horse meat issue be linked with the 
effectiveness of its oversight system, given the ve ry detailed explanation that it had provided to 
the SPS Committee under a previous agenda item . The information provided clearly showed how 
the European Union had quickly and transparently identified a case of fraud and this issue was being addressed with full determination. 
2.439.  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. 
2.440.  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. 
2.441.  In June 2013, the European Union reported that the General Session of the OIE had 
positively evaluated and recognised the EU risk status related to BSE. The European Union 
appreciated Brazil's relaxation of its BSE-related import measures and encouraged Brazil to bring 
these conditions further in line with the OIE standard and to notify these changes to allow partners to provide comments. Unjustifiable trade restrictions were still in place in a number of other countries and the European Union urged China to base its measure on the OIE standard and lift 
the ban on EU beef. The European Union welcomed  the on-going work carried out by Korea and 
urged Korea to deal swiftly with all EU applicat ions. The US and Australia's on-going process to 
align their BSE import conditions with OIE standards was appreciated and closely followed by the 
European Union and further progress towards real trade market access was now expected without 
undue delays. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 108 - 
 
  2.442.  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. 
2.443.  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. 
2.444.  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. 
2.445.  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 a pplied 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 7
th China-EU Summit. Although the 
experts on both sides had not reached consensus, a joint expert team had been established with 
relevant members in order to overcome technical issues. 
2.446.  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. 
2.447.  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. 
2.448.  China noted that the latent period of BSE was long, as it had previously explained. 
2.449.  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. 
2.450.  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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 109 - 
 
  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.  
2.451.  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.  
2.452.  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. 
2.453.  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. 
2.454.  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. 
2.455.  Saudi Arabia thanked the European Union for its comments and co-operation, and 
emphasized that it would not hesitate to facilitate trade with Members. 
2.456.  In March 2015, the European Union reiterated the importance of this concern; 
SPS measures adopted by Members had to be based on relevant international standards. 
Unjustifiable trade restrictions relating to BSE were  still in place in a number of Members, although 
OIE standards for safe trade had existed for more  than ten years. The European Union welcomed 
the growing number of WTO Members recognizing the EU control system and the EU member 
States' negligible or controlled risk status. The European Union urged all Members to align their BSE requirements with OIE standards. 
2.457.  Specifically, the European Union welcomed the progress made by China, allowing beef 
exports from one EU member State and the lifting  of the ban on two others. The European Union 
also welcomed the beginning of exports from one of its member States to the United States. The European Union urged China and the United States to provide more information on their G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 110 - 
 
  import procedures that would allow exports from other member States. The European Union also 
urged Australia, South Korea and Ukraine to proc ess the import applications submitted by the 
European Union in a speedy manner. The European Union reported that it had put in place a robust system for BSE in all of its member States, following the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health 
Code. This system guaranteed that all bovine pr oducts placed on the EU market, imported and 
exported were safe. Against this background, the European Union urged all Members to lift the BSE ban on bovine and bovine products for the entire European Union within a reasonable period 
of time. 
2.458.  China explained that it attached great im portance to exports of beef from the European 
Union and was actively carrying out technical exchange and co-operation with the relevant EU member States to solve technical problems. China further explained that it had carried out 
separate risk assessments for the relevant EU member States. For the member States without 
BSE cases, accelerated procedures were impose d. China noted that Hungary had exported to 
China while Latvia had signed a beef export protoc ol. China had also lifted the ban on some beef 
products from the Netherlands and Ireland. China was looking forward to enhanced technical 
exchange and consultation with the European Union to properly solve this issue. 
2.459.  In July 2015, the European Union reiterated the importance of this long-standing concern 
and restated the observations presented during  the March 2015 meeting. The European Union 
again urged all Members to align their BSE requirements with OIE standards and welcomed progress made by China and United States by allowing imports from some member States to take place. The European Union urged Australia, Ukraine and Korea to progress rapidly to speed their 
import approval procedures. The European Union recalled also the international obligations of 
WTO Members, and its own high level of transp arency towards other countries by providing 
technical information about the EU anim al health and food safety system. 
2.460.  China reiterated the explanation that it had provided in March 2015 and recalled its 
interest in looking forward to enhanced technical exchange and consultation with the European Union on the prevention and control of BSE and other animal disease. 
2.461.  In October 2015, the European Union reiterated the importance of this long-standing 
concern and again urged all Members to align their BSE requirements with OIE standards. The European Union recalled also the international obligations of WTO Members and its own high level of transparency towards other countries by providing technical information about the EU animal 
health and food safety system. The European Unio n re-stated that science on BSE is indisputably 
clear to allow safe trade of many products and re gretted, once more, the fact that many countries 
never provided a risk assessment justifying thei r deviations from international standards. The 
European Union looked forward to progress made with regard to the United States and welcomed 
the beginning of exports from one EU member St ate to China. The European Union also urged 
China to complete the procedures that would allow beef imports from all other interested 
EU member States. Finally, the European Union urged Australia, Korea and Ukraine to speed up 
their import approval procedures. 
General import restrictions due to African swine fever (STC 384) 
Raised by: European Union 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2015 (G/SPS/R/78, para. 3.4) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/1159 
Status: Not reported 
Solution:  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.462.  In March 2015, the European Union appreciated those trading partners that had not taken any import measures due to the African swine fever (ASF) outbreaks, trusting the strict EU control 
system. At the same time the European Union expressed concerns with the country-wide bans 
imposed by several other trading partners and stressed the importance and effectiveness of regionalization measures. The European Union had de monstrated that it took all outbreaks of ASF 
very seriously, ensuring delivery of safe pork meat and products both to the EU market and to G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.16 
 
- 111 - 
 
  third countries. The robustness of the EU system, including its surveillance and control measures, 
had been detailed earlier in the meeting. Th e European Union reminded Members of their 
regionalization obligations under Article 6 of  the SPS Agreement and referred to document 
G/SPS/GEN/1159, where it had described how regionalization for animal diseases could be 
implemented successfully. The European Union invited all WTO Members keeping 
disproportionately trade-restrictive measures to respect their regionalization obligations and to lift all country-wide bans. 
General import restrictions due to highly  pathogenic avian influenza (STC 385) 
Raised by: European Union 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2015 (G/SPS/R/78, para. 3.5), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, 
paras. 3.75-3.76) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Status: Resolved 
Solution: A number of Members had lifted their bans. 
Date reported as 
resolved: 15 October 2015 
 
2.463.  In March 2015, the European Union also expressed concerns about Members maintaining country-wide bans on EU poultry products. The Euro pean Union remarked that the early detection, 
control and eradication measures for avian influenza that were legally binding in EU member 
States had proved to be effective. The European Union was disappointed that some Members had 
put temporary bans in place that had never been lifted or justified, while other Members had not informed the European Union about the steps or time required to recognize regionalization. The 
European Union made reference to the Committee's Guidelines to Further the Practical 
Implementation of Article 6 of the SPS Agreemen t (G/SPS/48) and invited all Members to allow 
trade of all safe products, especi ally from non-affected zones. 
2.464.  In October 2015, the European Union reported that specific trade concern No. 385 
(General import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian influenza) could be considered resolved as a number of Members had lifted their bans. 
2.465.  The Chairperson thanked the European Union and encouraged Members to continue 
informing the Secretariat of any resolved specific trade concerns. 
 
__________