G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
7 March 2017  
(17-1352) Page: 1/135 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures    
 
SPECIFIC TRADE CONCE RNS 
NOTE BY THE SECRETAR IAT1 
Revision  
At the 15 -16 March 2000 meeting of the Committee  on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
(the SPS Committee) , the Secretariat was requested to prepare a paper summarizing the specific 
trade concerns (STCs) that had been brought to the Committee's attention since 1995.2 
The Secretariat has revised this document annually to include new information provided by 
Members (G/SPS/GEN /204/Rev.1 to G/SPS/GEN /204/Rev. 16). The STCs in the 17th revision  of 
G/SPS/G EN/204 maintain the previously  assigned numbers according to the chronological order of 
the Committee meetings i n which they were first raised.  These numbers serve as unique identifiers 
and are  intended to facilitate the tracking of issues raised  over time .3 
 
The 17th revision of G/SPS/GEN/204 is divided into two sections : 
 
a.  General overview  of Specific Trade Concerns ; and 
b. Specific Trade Concern s discussed in 2016. 
 
Section 1  of the document contains summary statistics and graphs for all the STCs raised in the 
SPS Committee between the first regular meeting of 1995 and the last regular meeting of 2016. 
The STCs are categorized as relating to food safety, animal or plant health. This section also 
includes a summary table which identifies for each STC accordin g to the assigned number, 
the Member(s) maintaining the measure, the Member(s) raising the concern, as well as 
information on whe ther the STC has been reported to have been resolved . 
 
Section 2  of the document contains information regarding all STCs which were raised in the 
SPS Committee in 2016. This includ es (1) STCs raised for the first time in 2016; (2) STCs which 
were previously raised and discussed again in 2016; and (3)  STCs for which there was no 
substantive discuss ion in the Committee during 2016, but where Members reported that a 
previously raised issue had been resolved, partially resolved or where substantive action on the 
issue occurred in another WTO body during 2016 (e.g., establishment of a dispute resolution panel 
on the issue).  
                                                
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and oblig ations under the WTO.  
2 G/SPS/R/18, para.20.  
3 An "issue" in this document refers to a trade concern raised by a Member, which then receives an 
"specific trade concern (STC) " sequential number. When the same issue is raised by more than one Member, it 
falls under the same STC number. Also, when Members raise issues covering similar measures maintained by 
more than one Member, they are grouped under the same STC number. This explains the different number of 
STCs, issues and measures counted in this document.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Table of co ntents  
Page 
1   GENERAL OVERVIEW OF SPECIFIC TRADE CONCE RNS ................................ .................  5 
Chart 1.1 – Number of New STCs Raised  ................................ ................................ ................  5 
Chart 1.2a – STCs by Subject (1995 -2016)  ................................ ................................ ............  5 
Chart 1.2b – STCs Related to Animal Health & Zoonoses (1995 -2016)  ................................ ....... 6 
Chart 1.3a – Participation in Issues Raised by WTO Members (1995 -2016)  ................................  7 
Chart 1.3b – Number of New Issues Raised by Members  ................................ ..........................  7 
Chart 1.4 – Resolved STCs  ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 7 
Table 1.1 - List of Specific Trade Concerns (1995 –2016)  ................................ ..........................  8 
2   SPECIFIC TRADE CONCE RNS CONSIDERED IN 2016  ................................ ..................  28 
Chart 2.1 – STCs by Subject – 2016 ................................ ................................ ..................... 28 
Chart 2.2 - STCs Related to Animal Health & Zoonoses – 2016 ................................ ................ 28 
Chart 2.3 - Participation of Members in STCs – 2016 ................................ .............................. 29 
Table 2.1 – STCs Raised for the First Time in 2016  ................................ ................................ .30 
Table 2.2 - STCs Previously Raised and Discussed Again in 2016  ................................ ............. 31 
Table 2.3 - STCs Reported as Resolved, Partially Resolved or Where Substantive Action 
Occurred in Another WTO Body in 2016  ................................ ................................ ................ 33 
2.1   Australia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  34 
2.1.1    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 34 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  ................................ ................................ ..34 
2.2   Brazil  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  34 
2.2.1    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 34 
Measures on shrimp (STC 344)  ................................ ................................ ............................ 34 
2.3   China  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  35 
2.3.1    Food safety  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 35 
Import conditions related to phthalates (STC 345)  ................................ ................................ .35 
Import restrictions in response to the Japanese nuclear power plant accident (STC 35 4) ............. 36 
China's proposed amendments to the implementation regulations on safety assessment 
of agricultural GMOs (STC 395)  ................................ ................................ ........................... 40 
China 's import ban on fresh mangosteen (STC 416)  ................................ ............................... 43 
2.3.2    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 43 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  ................................ ................................ ..43 
China's measures on bovine meat (STC 383)  ................................ ................................ ......... 43 
China's import restrictions due to African swine fever (STC 392)  ................................ .............. 44 
China's import restrictions due to Schmallenberg virus (STC 405)  ................................ ............ 46 
China's import restrictions due to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (STC 406)  ......................... 47 
2.3.3    Other concerns  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 49 
Lack of transparency for certain SPS measures (STC 184)  ................................ ...................... 49 
2.4   Costa Rica  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  50 
2.4.1    Plant Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 50 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Costa Rica's suspension of the issuing of phytosanitary impo rt certificates for avocados 
(STC 394)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 50 
2.5   European Union  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 53 
2.5.1    Food safety  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 53 
Application and modification of the EU Regulation on Novel Foods (STC 238) ............................. 53 
Categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors (STC 382)  ................................ .............. 65 
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 (STC 396) ............................... 71 
EU restrictions on exports of pork from the State of Santa Catarina (STC 407)  .......................... 73 
EU MRLs for bitertanol, tebufenpyrad and chlormequat (G/SPS/N/EU/168) (STC 412)  ................ 74 
2.5.2    Plant Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 75 
EU ban on mangoes and certain vegetables from India (STC 374)  ................................ ............ 75 
2.5.3    Other concerns  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 77 
Agricultural biotechnology approval process (STC 110)  ................................ ........................... 77 
EU withdrawal of equivalence for process ed organic products (STC 378)  ................................ ...80 
2.6   Guatemala  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  83 
2.6.1    Food Safety  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 83 
Guatemala's restrictions on egg products (STC 413)  ................................ ............................... 83 
2.7   India  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  83 
2.7.1    Food Safety  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 83 
India's amended standards for food additives (STC 403)  ................................ ......................... 83 
2.7.2    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 85 
Restri ctions due to avian influenza (STC 185)  ................................ ................................ ........ 85 
2.7.3    Other Concerns  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......96 
India's amendment to its import policy conditions for apple s; Restriction to Nhava Sheva 
port (STC 397)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 96 
2.8   Indonesia  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  97 
2.8.1    Food Safety  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 97 
Indonesia's food safety measures affecting horticultural products and animal products 
(STC 414)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 97 
2.8.2    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 98 
Import restrictions on poultry meat (STC 286)  ................................ ................................ .......98 
2.9   Korea, Republic of  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 99 
2.9.1    Food safety  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 99 
Strengthened import restrictions on food and feeds products with regard to radionuclides 
(STC 359)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 99 
2.9.2    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 102 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  ................................ ................................  102 
Korea's import restrictions due to African swine fever (STC 393)  ................................ ...........  102 
2.10   Mexico  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  104  
2.10.1    Plant Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  104 
Measures on imports of hibiscus flowers (STC 386)  ................................ ..............................  104 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.11   Nigeria  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  105  
2.11.1    Food Safety  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  105 
Nigerian restrictions on exports of beef and poultry (STC 408)  ................................ ..............  105 
2.12   Russian Federation  ................................ ................................ .............................  106  
2.12.1    Food Safety  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  106 
The Russian Federation's import restrictions on processed fishery products from Estonia 
and Latvia (STC 390)  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 106 
Russian Federation import restrictions on certain animal products from Germany 
(STC 411) ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  109 
2.12.2    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 111 
Import ban on live pigs and  pork products due to African swine fever (STC 369)  .....................  111 
2.12.3    Other Concerns  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 112 
Russian Federation import measures (STC 409)  ................................ ................................ ... 112 
2.13   Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  ................................ ................................ ...................  113  
2.13.1    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 113 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  ................................ ................................  113 
2.14   Chinese Taipei  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 113  
2.14.1    Food Safety  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  113 
Chinese Taipei's strengthened import restrictions on food with regard to radionuclides 
(STC 387)  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  113 
2.15   South Africa  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 115  
2.15.1    Food Safety  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  115 
South Africa's revised veterinary health certificates for the import of cattle, sheep and 
goats from Botswana, Lesotho, Namibi a and Swaziland (STC 404)  ................................ .........  115 
2.16   Turkey  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................  116  
2.16.1    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 116 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  ................................ ................................  116 
2.17   United States of America  ................................ ................................ ....................  116  
2.17.1    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 116 
US non -acceptance of OIE categorization for BSE (STC 375)  ................................ .................  116 
2.17.2    Plant Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........  118 
US high cost of certification for mango exports (STC 373)  ................................ .....................  118 
2.17.3    Other Concerns  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 121 
Measures on cat fish (STC 289)  ................................ ................................ ..........................  121 
US seafood import monitoring programme (STC 415)  ................................ ...........................  125 
2.18   Certain Members  ................................ ................................ ................................  125  
2.18.1    Animal Health  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 125 
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  ................................ ................................  125 
 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1   GENERAL OVERVIEW  OF SPECIFIC TRADE CO NCER NS 
1.1.  Altogether, 416 STCs have been raised in the 22 years between 1995 and the end of 2016. 
Chart 1.1 shows the number of n ew STCs raised each year . Thirteen  new STCs were raised in 
2016. 
Chart 1.1 – Number of New STCs  Raised  
 
 
1.2.  Chart 1. 2a categorizes  the 416 STCs raised since 1995  into food safety, animal or plant 
health concerns . Overall, 32% of STCs relate to food safety concerns, 24% relate to plant health, 
and 6% relate to  other issues such as certificati on requirements , contr ol or inspection procedures . 
38% of STCs raised relate to animal health and zoonos es. 
Chart 1. 2a – STCs  by Subject  (1995 -2016) 
 
 
1.3.  STCs related to animal health and zoonoses are further divided into foot -and-mouth disease 
(FMD), transmissible spongiform enc ephalopathies (TSEs), avian influenza (AI) and other animal 
health concerns (OAH). Chart 1.2b shows that TSEs account for 31% of animal health concerns, 
while 23% relate to FMD and 9% to avian influenza concerns . The remaining 37% relate  to other 
animal he alth concerns.  
G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 6 - 
 
  Chart 1.2b – STCs  Related to Animal Health & Zoonos es (1995 -2016) 
 
 
1.4.  Developing countries are participating actively under this agenda item in the SPS Committee 
meetings. Chart 1. 3a indicates that over 22 years, d eveloping country Members have raised 240 
issues4, compared to 238 issues raised by developed country Members , and five issues  raised by 
least-developed country Members.5 One developing country Member has supported another 
Member raising an issue  318 times , compare d to 193 times developed country Members  supported 
an issue , and 14 times least-developed country Members  supported an issue . 222 measure s at 
issue w ere maintained by a develop ing country Member, and 220 measures were maintained b y a 
develop ed country Member. One issue has been raised regard ing measures maintained by a least-
developed cou ntry Member.  
1.5.  Chart  1.3b shows the number of new issues raised each year by each category of Member.  
1.6.  Charts 1.3a and 1.3b reflect the number of issues  raised by Mem bers at SPS Committee 
meetings , which are then numbered under STCs. The same issue can be raised by more than one 
Member, in which case it is grouped under the same STC  number . Therefore, the number of issues 
raised can be larger than  the number of STCs.6 
                                                
4 On many occasions more than one Member has raised, supported or maintained an issue . 
5 On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty 
establishing the European Community  (done at Lisbon, 13 December 2 007) e ntered 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 Uni on replaces and  succeeds the European Community.  However, the 
European Union is referred to as the European Community  when an STC w as raised or discussed before 
1 December 2009 . The European Union is counted as one Member. Similarly, when one Member speaks  on 
behalf of ASEAN, it is counted as one Member only.  
6 See footnote 3.  
G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 7 - 
 
  Chart 1.3a – Participation in Issues Raised by WTO Members (1995 -2016) 
 
Chart 1.3b – Number of New Issues  Raised by Members  
 
 
1.7.  Chart  1.4 shows  that out of the 416 STCs raised since 1995,  148 STCs (36%) have been 
reported resolve d. In 2016 specifically, t wo STCs were reported as resolved . 
1.8.  Since 1995, 32  STCs (8%) have been reported to be  partially resolved. In these  partially 
resolved STCs , trade may have been allowed for selected products or by some of the importing 
Members maint aining the measure in question.  
1.9.  No solutions have been reported for the remaining 236 STCs. Of these, 223 STCs were raised 
more than one year ago  with no reported re solution . However, some of these STCs may have been 
resolved without  the Committee being ma de aware of these developments.  
Chart 1.4 – Resolved STCs  
 
G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Table 1 .1 - List of Specific Trade Concerns (1995 –2016) 
STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status7 
1995 
1 Shelf-life requirements  Korea, Republic of  Australia, 
Canada, United 
States of 
America  PR 
2 Import clearance 
measures and practices  Korea, Republic of  United States 
of America  R 
1996 
3 Restrictions on gelatine  
imports  Norway  Brazil  R 
4 Measures relat ed to BSE  Argentina, Australia, 
Austria, Belgiu m, Brazil, 
Canada, Chile, 
Czech  Republic, France, 
Germany, Italy, 
Netherlands, Poland, 
Romania, Singapore, 
Slovak Republic, Slovenia, 
Spain, United States of 
America  Switzerland  R 
5 Import requirements for 
wine Brazil  European 
Union  R 
6 Importation of cheese  Canada  European 
Union  R 
7 Regionalization in relation 
to animal health  United States of America  European 
Union  NR 
8 Ban on salmon imports  Australia  Canada, United 
States of 
America  R 
9 Zero-tolerance f or 
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 Restrictio ns on imported 
wheat  Brazil  United States 
of America  R 
15 Zoosanitary import 
policies pertaining to BSE  Canada  European 
Union  NR 
16 Restrictions on imports of 
wheat and fruit  Chile United States 
of America  R 
17 Cosmetics and  BSE European Union  Australia  R 
18 Certification requirements 
for pet food  France, European Union  United States 
of America  NR 
19 Protected zones  European Union  Uruguay  NR 
                                                
7 NR = Not Reported, PR = Partially Resolved , R = Resolved.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 9 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status7 
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 Amer ica 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  Switz erland  Argentina  R 
29 Measures related to avian 
influenza  Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of  United States 
of America  NR 
30 Regulation concerning 
warehouses and silos  Czech Republic  European 
Union  R 
31 Rules on "specified risk 
materials" in products of 
animal origin  European Union  United States 
of America  NR 
32 Gelatine  imports  European Union  Brazil, United 
States of 
America  PR 
33 Salmonella -related 
restriction on fishmeal 
imports  European Union  Chile, Peru  PR 
34 Measures regarding FMD  Japan  Argentina , 
European 
Union  PR 
35 Import ban on frozen 
poultry  Korea, Republic of  Thailand  R 
36 Import prohibition of 
milled rice  Mexico  Thailand  R 
37 Actions taken by local 
governments  United States of America  Chile R 
1998 
38 Temporary prohibition of 
fresh pork  and products  Argentina  European 
Union  R 
39 Maximum levels for 
certain contaminants 
(aflatoxins) in foodstuffs  European Union  Argentina;  
Australia;  
Bolivia, 
Plurinational 
State of ; 
Brazil;  The 
Gambia;  India;  
Indonesia;  
Malaysia;  
Philippines;  
Senegal;  
Thailand R 
40 Trade restrictions in 
response to cholera  European Union  Tanzania  PR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 10 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status7 
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 prohibitio n 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 Restrict ions 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 radiat ion 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 liv e 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 labe lling 
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 
produ cts Argentina  European 
Union  R 
61 Import restrictions on 
bovine semen  India Canada, 
European 
Union  PR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 11 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status7 
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 veteri nary 
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 pro ducts  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 Amer ica 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.17  
 
- 12 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status7 
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 restrictio ns on soy 
sauce  European Union  Thailand  NR 
90 Restrictions on bovine 
products  Hungary  Canada  R 
91 Restrictions on  pork 
products  Hungary  Canada  R 
92 Restrictions on banana 
imports  Turkey  Ecuador  R 
93 Phytosanitary 
requirements for 
potatoes, garlic and 
onions  Venezuela, Bolivarian 
Republic of  Argentina  NR 
94 EC Directive 2000/42 /EC 
on pesticide residues  European Union  Côte d'Ivoire  NR 
95 Legislation on the 
fungicide thiabendazole 
(TBZ)  European Union  Israel  NR 
96 Geographical BSE risk 
assessment  Europ ean 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 m easures 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 o f 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.17  
 
- 13 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status7 
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 impo rts 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 ( EC 
Directive 96/23 /EC) European Union  Cuba NR 
132 Import restrictions on 
dairy products  Indonesia  Argentina  R 
133 Official control restrictions 
on citrus and other fresh 
fruits and vegetables  Japan  New Zealand, 
United States 
of America  NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 14 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status7 
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 State s 
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 Ame rica 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 pl ants 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.17  
 
- 15 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status7 
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 Restrictio ns 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 Un ion 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.17  
 
- 16 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status7 
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 Imple mentation 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  Europea n 
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 r esidue 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 Restri ctions 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 Regula tion on aflatoxins 
and Ocratoxin A in foods 
for infants and young 
children  European Union  China  NR 
199 Deviation from 
international standard for 
wood packing material  Spain, European Union  United States 
of America  R G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 17 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status7 
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 di rective  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 addit ives 
MRLs Japan  China, United 
States of 
America  PR 
213 Restrictions on beef  
imports  Japan  United States 
of America  NR 
214 Inspection regime for food 
processing establishments  Panama  United States 
of America  R 
215 Public Health Regulation 
11 Thailand  United States 
of America  NR 
216 Restrictions on Ya pears 
imports  United States of America  China  R 
217 Import restrictions on 
apples  Australia  New Zealand  NR 
218 Lack of recognition of 
regionalization and 
disease -free status for 
classical swine fever  Brazil European 
Union  NR 
219 EurepGAP requirements 
for bananas  European Union  Saint Vincent 
and the 
Grenadines  NR 
220 Proposed regulations for 
piper methysticum (kava -
kava)  United Kingdom, 
European Union  Fiji NR 
221 Safety insurance and 
quality improvement 
standards for feed and 
feed additives  Japan  China  R G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 18 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status7 
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 Amer ica 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 Restriction s 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 pot ato tubers  Dominican Republic  Canada  NR 
240 Biotech labelling and 
import approval process 
regulations  India United States 
of America  NR 
241 Import restrictions on 
wooden Christmas trees  United States of America  China  R 
242 Restrictions on US poultry 
exports European Union  United States 
of America  NR 
243 Lack of recognition of 
pest-free areas  Indonesia  United States 
of America  PR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 19 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status7 
244 Importation of live 
animals and meat 
products  Indonesia  Brazil  NR 
245 Restrictions on US pork 
and poultry imports  Roman ia 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 f or 
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  Europe an 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 
restricti ons  China  United States 
of America  NR 
260 Requirements for 
quarantine treatment of 
aircraft  Chile Argentina  R 
261 Varietal restrictions on US 
apples  China  United States 
of America  NR 
2008 
262 Restrictions on heat -
treated products in 
relation to avian  influenza  Egypt  European 
Union  R 
263 Import restrictions on 
cooked and frozen meat  Mexico  Brazil  NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 20 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status7 
264 Maximum residue levels 
for Ethephon in pineapple  European Union  Ecuador  NR 
265 Regulatory process 
economic analysis 
requirement  United States of Ame rica 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  Indones ia European 
Union  NR 
281 Import restrictions on 
gelatine from bovine hides 
and head skin due to BSE 
requirements  Colombia  Brazil  R 
282 Measures on food 
products containing meat, 
poultry or processed egg 
products  United States of America  China  NR 
283 Pesticide maximum 
residue levels (MRLs)  Japan  Brazil, Ecuador  PR 
284 Rule on importation of 
wooden handicrafts from 
China  United States of America  China  R 
285 Import restrictions on 
fresh pork meat and beef  United States of America  Brazil  PR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 21 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status7 
286 Import r estrictions 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 Unio n 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 
Enhanc ement Act  United States of America  China, India  NR 
300 Regulation  (EC) No. 
1099/2009  European Union  India NR 
301 US risk analysis for the 
entry of queen bees  United States of America  Argentina  NR 
302 Restrictions on products 
derived from 
biotechnology  Turkey  United States 
of America  NR 
303 Import restrictions on 
poultry meat Senegal  Brazil  NR 
304 Proposed MRL for 1 -
Methylcyclopropene in 
bananas  Canada  Ecuador  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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 22 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status7 
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 Impor t 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 S tates 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 A merica  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 melami ne 
plastic kitchenware  European Union  China;  Hong 
Kong, China  NR 
323 Import restrictions on 
pork and pork products  Malaysia  European 
Union  NR 
324 China's requirement for 
registration and 
supervision of foreign 
enterprises  China  India NR 
325 EU regulati ons 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, li mits 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 23 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status7 
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 proced ures on 
bovine and poultry meat 
from Argentina  Canada  Argentina  NR 
338 Import ban on live 
animals from the EU  Russian Federation  European 
Union  NR 
339 Restrictions on tomatoes  United States of America  Senegal  NR 
340 Requirements for 
importation of sheep  meat Turkey  Australia  NR 
341 Russia's listing of export 
establishments  Russian Federation  European 
Union  NR 
342 Restrictions on shrimp due 
to anti -oxidant residues  Japan  India R 
343 Permits on horticultural 
products  Indonesia  United States 
of America  NR 
344 Measures on shrimp  Brazil  Ecuador  NR 
2013 
345 Import conditions related 
to phthalates  China  European 
Union  R 
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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 24 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status7 
353 EU ren ewal 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 p ork 
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 
laborator ies 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 conditi ons on 
poultry  Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of  European 
Union  NR 
366 Quarantine requirement 
for blueberries  Japan  Argentina  NR 
367 Import requirements on 
traditional foods  Turkey  Japan  NR 
368 Import restrictions on 
confectionary products  Russian Federation  Ukraine NR 
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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 25 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status7 
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 vegetable s 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 mea t 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 f lowers  Mexico  Nigeria  R 
387 Chinese Taipei's 
strengthened import 
restrictions on food with 
regard to radionuclides  Chinese Taipei  Japan  NR 
388 US proposed rule for user 
fees for agricultural 
quarantine and inspection 
services  United States of America  Mexico NR 
389 Chinese import regime, 
including quarantine and 
testing procedures for fish  China  Norway  NR 
390 The Russian Federation's 
import restrictions on 
processed fishery products 
from Estonia and Latvia  Russian Federation  European 
Union  NR 
391 Malays ia'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  Europe an 
Union  NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 26 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status7 
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 Americ a NR 
397 India's amendment to its 
import policy conditions 
for apples; Restriction to 
Nhava Sheva port  India Chile, New 
Zealand  PR 
398 Viet Nam's restrictions on 
fruit due to fruit flies  Viet Nam  Chile 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 
2016 
404 South Africa's revised 
veterinary health 
certificates for the import 
of cattle, sheep and goats 
from Botswana, Lesotho, 
Namibia and Swazil and 
(G/SPS/N/ZAF/40)  South Africa  Namibia  NR 
405 China's import restrictions 
due to Schmallenberg 
virus China  European 
Union  NR 
406 China's import restrictions 
due to Highly Pathogenic 
Avian Influenza  China  European 
Union  NR 
407 EU restrictions on expor ts 
of pork from the State of 
Santa Catarina  European Union  Brazil  NR 
408 Nigerian restrictions on 
exports of beef and 
poultry  Nigeria  Brazil  NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 27 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status7 
409 Russian Federation import 
measures  Russian Federation  Ukraine  NR 
410 Costa Rica's regulation on 
registrat ion, use and 
control of pesticides and 
related subs tances 
(G/SPS/N/CRI/48/Add.1)  Costa Rica  Israel  NR 
411 Russian Federation import 
restrictions on certain 
animal products from 
Germany  Russian Federation  European 
Union  NR 
412 EU MRL s for bitertanol, 
tebufenpyrad and 
chlormequat 
(G/SPS/N/EU /168)  European Union  India NR 
413 Guatemala's restrictions 
on egg p roducts  Guatemala  Mexico  NR 
414 Indonesia's food safety 
measures affecting 
horticultural products and 
animal products  Indonesia  Philippines  NR 
415 US seafood import 
monitoring programme  United States of America  China  NR 
416 China's import ban on 
fresh mangosteen  China  Indonesia  NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 28 - 
 
  2  SPECIFIC TRADE CONCE RNS CONSIDERED IN 2016 
2.1.  A total of 37 STCs were brought to the attention of the Committee during 2016, of which 
13 were new STCs (Table 2.1)  and 24 had been raised  previously  (Table 2 .2). Three out of the 
24 previously raised  STCs, were reported in 2016 as resolved or partially resolved (Table 2.3). 
2.2.  Chart  2.1 shows all the STCs  raised in the Committee or for which a resolution was reported 
in 2016, divided by the subject  covered by the STC . Overall, 16 STCs  (43%) relate to food safety, 
eight STCs (22%) relate to other concerns and four STCs (11%) relate to plant health . 
The remaining nine STCs (24%) relate  to animal health and zoonos es, although  this category 
includes issues that are also relevant to  food safety , such as transmissible spongiform 
encephalopath ies (TSEs) . Among the nine animal  health STCs raised in 2016, two STCs (22%) 
refer to TSEs, one STC (11%) refers to foot-and-mouth  disease and one STC (11%) to avian 
influenza . The remaining five (56%) STCs refer to other  animal health issues . 
Chart 2.1 – STCs by Subject – 2016 
 
Chart 2.2 - STCs Related to Animal Health & Zoonos es – 2016 
 
G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 29 - 
 
  Chart 2.3 - Participation of Members in STCs  – 2016 
 
 
2.3.  Of the 37 STCs that were discussed in 2016, including those resolved or partially resolved, 
17 were raised by 19 developed country Members8, while 23 STCs were raised by 27 developing 
country Members .9 In 2016, no STCs were raised by le ast-developed country Members.  
2.4.  Seven STCs were supported by 12 d eveloped country Members and 11 STCs were supported 
by 57 developing country Members. Developing and developed count ry Members have raised or 
supported the same STC  nine times . Three STCs were supported by 11 least -developed country 
Members.  
2.5.  In 12 STCs, the measure at issue was maintained by a developed count ry Member, and in 
24 STCs it was maintained by a developing country Member. One STC was referred to measures 
maintained by " certain Members", possibly including develop ed and developing country Members. 
No STCs regarding measures maintained by a least -developed country Member were raised  in 
2016.10 
2.6.  In 2016, p anel proc eedings occurred in the context of the WTO dispute settlement system  
with respect to four STCs (185, 286, 359 and 369 ). 
2.7.  Table 2.1 presents STCs according to the Member(s) maintaining the measure s at issue  in 
the order of the alphabetic list of WTO Members . It provides a summary of the discussions on each 
STC in the SPS Committee in 2016 . 
 
                                                
8 Two of these STCs were raised by two developed country Members . 
9 One of these STCs was raised by three developing count ry Members; and two  of these STCs were 
raised  by two developing country Members  each.  
10 STCs can be raised , maintained or supported  by more than one Member, which explains the apparent 
double -counting shown in Charts 2.2 and 2.3 compared with the overall count of the 416 STCs raised since 
1995.  
G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 30 - 
 
  Table 2.1 – STCs Raised for the First Time in 201 6 
STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status11 
404 South Afric a's revised 
veterinary health 
certificates for the import of 
cattle, sheep and goats 
from Botswana, Lesotho, 
Namibia and Swaziland 
(G/SPS/N/ZAF/40)  South Africa  Namibia  NR 
405 China's import restrictions 
due to Schmallenberg virus  China  European Union  NR 
406 China's import restrictions 
due to Highly Pathogenic 
Avian Influenza  China  European Union  NR 
407 EU restrictions on exports 
of pork from the State of 
Santa Catarina  European Union  Brazil  NR 
408 Nigerian restrictions on 
exports of beef and poultry  Nigeria Brazil  NR 
409 Russian Federation import 
measures  Russian Federation  Ukraine  NR 
410 Costa Rica's regulation on 
registration, use and control 
of pesticides and related 
substances 
(G/SPS/N/CRI/48/Add.1)  Costa Rica  Israel  NR 
411 Russian Federation imp ort 
restrictions on certain 
animal products from 
Germany  Russian Federation  European Union  NR 
412 EU MRL s for bitertanol, 
tebufenpyrad and 
chlormequat 
(G/SPS/N/EU /168)  European Union  India NR 
413 Guatemala's restrictions on 
egg p roducts  Guatemala  Mexico  NR 
414 Indonesia's food safety 
measures affecting 
horticultural products and 
animal products  Indonesia  Philippines  NR 
415 US seafood import 
monitoring programme  United States of America  China  NR 
416 China's import ban on fresh 
mangosteen  China  Indonesi a NR 
 
                                                
11 NR = Not Reported, PR = Partially Resolved, R = Resolved.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 31 - 
 
  Table 2 .2 - STCs  Previously Raised and Discussed Again in 201 6 
STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) 
Maintaining the 
Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status12 
110 Agricultural biotechnology 
approval process  European Union  United States of 
America  PR 
184 Lack of transparency for 
certain SPS measures  China  United States of 
America  NR 
193 General import restrictions 
due to BSE  Certain Members  European 
Union, United 
States of 
America  PR 
238 Application and modification 
of the EU Regulation o n 
Novel Foods  European Union  Colombia, 
Ecuador, Peru  NR 
289 Measures on catfish  United States of America  China, Viet Nam  NR 
354 Import restrictions in 
response to the Japanese 
nuclear power plant accident  China, Certain Members  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 
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  Argentina, 
China, United 
States of 
America  NR 
383 China's measures on bovine  
meat China  India NR 
386 Measures on imports of 
hibiscus flowers  Mexico  Nigeria  R 
387 Chinese Taipei's 
strengthened import 
restrictions on food with 
regard to radionuclides  Chinese Taipei  Japan  NR 
390 The Russian Federation's 
import restrictions on 
processed fishery products 
from Estonia and Latvia  Russian Federation  European Union  NR 
392 China's import restrictions 
due to African swine fever  China  European Union  NR 
393 Korea's import restrictions 
due to African swine fever  Korea, Republic of  European Union  NR 
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 
                                                
12 NR = Not Reported, PR = Partially Resolved, R = Resolved.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 32 - 
 
  STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) 
Maintaining the 
Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status12 
396 EU proposal to amend 
Regulation (EC) No. 
1829/2003 to allow EU 
member States to restrict or 
prohibit the use of 
genetically modified food and 
feed European Union  Argentina, 
Paraguay, 
United States of 
America  NR 
397 India's amendment to its 
import policy conditions for 
apples; Restriction to Nhava 
Sheva port  India Chile, New 
Zealand  PR 
403 India's amended standards 
for food additives  India European Union  NR 
406 China's import restrictions 
due to Highly Pathog enic 
Avian Influenza  China  European Union  NR 
407 EU restrictions on exports of 
pork from the State of Santa 
Catarina  European Union  Brazil  NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 33 - 
 
  Table 2.3 - STCs Reported as Resolved , Partially Resolved  or Where Substantive Action 
Occurred in Another WTO Body in 201 6 
STC 
Number  Description of Measure  Member(s) Maintaining 
the Measure  Member(s) 
Raising the 
Issue  Status13 
185*  Restrictions due to avian 
influenza  India European 
Union , United 
States of 
America   NR /  
DS 430  
286* Import restrictions on 
poultry meat Indonesia  Brazil  NR /  
DS 484  
345 Import conditions related to 
phthalates  China  European Union  R 
359*  Strengthened import 
restrictions on food and 
feeds products with regard 
to radionuclides  Korea, Republic of  Japan  NR /  
DS 495  
369*  Russia's measu res on live 
pigs and pork products due 
to African Swine fever  Russian Federation  European Union  NR /  
DS 475  
386 Measures on imports of 
hibiscus flowers  Mexico  Nigeria  R 
397 India's amendment to its 
import policy conditions for 
apples; Restriction to Nha va 
Sheva port  India Chile, New 
Zealand  PR 
* Panel proceedings occurred in the context of the WTO dispute settlement system . For more information, see  
https://www.wto.org/english/trato p_e/dispu_e/dispu_e.htm .  
                                                
13 NR = Not Reported, PR = Partially Resolved, R = Resolved.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 34 - 
 
  2.1  Australia  
2.1.1   Animal Health  
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  
2.8.  See paragraphs  2.526. -2.589 . 
2.2  Brazil  
2.2.1   Animal Health  
Measures on shrimp (STC 344)  
Raised by:  Ecuador  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  October 2012 (G/SPS/R/69, paras. 180 -181), March 2013 (G/SPS/R/70, 
paras. 3.25 -3.26), March 2014 (G/SPS/R/74, paras. 3.9 -3.10), October 
2016 (G/SPS/R/84, paras. 3.40 -3.41)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.9.  In Octo ber 2012, Ecuador flagged the drastic decrease in its shrimp exports due to Brazil's 
Regulation 39, that placed conditions on the authorization for shrimp imports so as to prevent the 
introduction of white spot and yellow head virus. Ecuador had spent cons iderable resources in 
protecting and preserving its shrimp production from these two diseases through the residue and 
contaminant monitoring plans, which had been provided to Brazil. The Brazilian authorities had 
indicated that the measures adopted in Regu lation 39 had been lifted; however the Brazilian 
Ministry of Agriculture published another Standard 12 establishing procedures for import risk 
analysis that was yet to be implemented. Bilateral discussions had resulted in information 
exchange and Ecuador h oped for a rapid mutual solution to the issue.  
2.10.   Brazil noted that it had been informed of this trade concern at short notice and did not have 
sufficient time to prepare a substantive response. The concerns would be conveyed to the relevant 
authorities in th e hope that a solution could soon be found.  
2.11.   In March 2013, Ecuador reiterated its concern regarding Brazil's import ban on shrimp. 
Following Brazil's implementation of Regulation 39 on 4 November 1999, Ecuador's shrimp exports 
to Brazil first decreased and  then completely stopped in 2000. Brazil had justified its import 
restrictions on the basis that the measure protected the country from white and yellow spot 
diseases. However, following the implementation of the Residues and Contaminants Monitoring 
Plan i n 2007, Ecuador's shrimp entered markets that had stricter requirements than Brazil, 
e.g., the European Union, Japan and North America. Brazil had not provided the necessary 
information to justify its measures, nor a risk assessment , and Ecuador considered  that the 
measures were discriminatory and not in compliance with Article 2 of the SPS Agreement. Brazil's 
Ministry of Fisheries had announced on 21 February 2013 that the risk identification phase of this 
issue would be concluded in two weeks, but there w as still no official statement on its outcome. 
Ecuador urged Brazil to provide information on this issue.  
2.12.   Brazil confirmed that a risk analysis on Ecuadorian shrimp was being conducted and was 
now in the phase of risk and hazard identification. This was a complex exercise given that the 
issue dealt with an aquaculture product. For this reason it had not been possible to conclude and 
release the report of the risk identification phase in March, but the report was expected to be 
published soon. Brazil looked forward to moving on to the subsequent phases of the risk analysis 
as soon as the report on hazard identification was published.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 35 - 
 
  2.13.   At the March 2014 meeting Ecuador again urged Brazil to complete the risk assessment 
within a reasonable time and stressed that  Ecuador had quarantine mechanisms in place to detect 
white spot disease in its fisheries. Ecuador offered to provide information and enable inspections 
from the Brazilian authorities in order to ensure compliance with Brazil's requirements and 
accelerate the process of risk assessment.  
2.14.   Brazil noted that the risk assessment was a complex task, but the process was moving 
forward and Brazil had concluded its public consultations.  It was prepared to send an inspection 
delegation to Ecuador in June, as a follow -up to a questionaire sent in March.  
2.15.   In October 2016, Ecuador reiterated its concern regarding Brazil's suspension of shrimp 
imports from Ecuador. This measure was in effect since 2000 and aimed at protecting Brazil from 
endemic pathologies such as White s pot syndrome virus and Yellowhead disease. Both diseases 
also existed in Brazil. Ecuador emphasized the importance of shrimp exports for its economy, 
recalling that Brazil had initiated an import risk assessment (IRA) for Ecuadorian shrimp at the 
beginning  of 2011. The first of the four steps of the IRA had only been finalized in June 2013, and 
the second step had not yet been concluded. Ecuador insisted that it had provided sufficient 
information to Brazil throughout this time, and noted that in July 2014 a group of technical experts 
from Brazil had visited various entities in Ecuador. During the last meeting held in July 2016 the 
Brazilian officials in charge of the technical report recognized that the import risk assessment had 
exceeded the time usually d eemed necessary for such a process. Ecuador recalled that since 2007 
a residues and contaminants monitoring plan for all aquaculture establishments had been in place 
and its shrimp products regularly accessed markets with high SPS standards. Ecuador regret ted 
that despite its bilateral engagement with Brazil on the IRA, half of the process had not yet been 
concluded after six years, and shrimp exports from Ecuador had been stopped for more than a 
decade. Ecuador requested that Brazil swiftly provide the tim etable for the remaining steps of the 
IRA, and that the process move forward promptly in order for shrimp exports from Ecuador to 
regain access to the Brazilian market.  
2.16.   Brazil responded that in 2015 its health authorities requested that specific mandatory 
adjustment measures be implemented at the level of the Official Veterinary Services and private 
sector in Ecuador, and that missing information be shared. Brazil indicated that these measures –
disease -specific monitoring plans, submission of samples and co ntrols, training of staff and 
notification – were compulsory to allow imports of Ecuadorian shrimp into Brazil. Brazil explained 
that a final report with these various requests had been sent to the competent authorities in 
Ecuador, requesting a structured action plan integrating the mandatory measures within 60 days 
of receipt. However, Brazil reported it received Note 4 -7-0/2015 from Ecuador past the proposed 
timeline and still there was no compliance with the established requirements, which justified the 
delay. Brazil stated that it was waiting to receive the structured action plan containing the 
requested changes at the official veterinary services and private sector levels. The information in 
this plan would be used to support the risk assessment phase o f the IRA. Favourable results in the 
IRA, along with the finalized adjustment measures, would pave the way for authorizing shrimp 
imports from Ecuador.  
2.3  China  
2.3.1   Food safety  
Import conditions related to phthalates  (STC 3 45) 
Raised by:  European Union  
Supported  by:  
First date raised:  March 2013 ( G/SPS/R/70 , paras. 3.2 -3.3) 
Dates subsequently 
raised:  June 2013 ( G/SPS/R/71 , paras. 4.29-4.30)  
Status:  Resolved  
Solution:  In June 2016, the European Union reported that the testing requirements 
for phthalates in spirits and wine imposed by China since 2013 had been 
lifted. 
Date reported as 
resolved:  30 June 2016  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 36 - 
 
  2.17.   In March 2013, the European Union raised concerns regarding China's re cent measures on 
phthalates in spirits and wine. Some ports in China had requested a testing report on phthalates 
and had applied the migration limit of the food contact material as the maximum residue limit. On 
the basis of these limits, some EU consignme nts had not been released. The measure was applied 
without any lead time and the testing had been excessive and had only targeted imported 
products at such frequency. The European Union had been informed that China was only now 
developing a standard for ph thalates for food and that the testing had been performed in order to 
have data to set the appropriate level for the risk assessment in China. The European Union 
indicated its willingness to share any scientific aspects of risk assessment and testing metho ds on 
phthalates. At the same time, the European Union requested China to withdraw the current 
temporary measure, to base its decisions on science and to inform other trading partners with 
sufficient time, of any new, app ropriate and justified measures . 
2.18.   China stated that according to the results of the food safety risk monitoring conducted by its 
authorities, alcohol in imported distilled spirits might have been contaminated by phthalates. To 
tackle the problem, China had established expert panels and had o rganized meetings to discuss 
the issue. A seminar on the testing and risk assessment of phthalates was scheduled to be held in 
April. China was willing to discuss its measures on phthalates in food with the European Union and 
other relevant Members.  
2.19.   In Jun e 2013, the European Union reiterated its concern regarding China's import measures 
on phthalates in spirits and wine. In bilateral discussions China had indicated that the two 
territories shared the same legal framework regarding phthalates. Despite this,  there had been a 
disruption in trade and an unnecessary delay of EU consignments into China based on recent 
measures. China had said it was undertaking a risk assessment on phthalates in food and would 
base its risk management measures on the results. The  European Union was willing to share any 
scientific information that could aid China in this process. Further, the European Union urged China 
to remain transparent in this process and consistent with its own legal framework.  
2.20.   China observed that it had dis covered a risk of phthalates in both domestic and imported 
distilled spirits, and General Administration of Quality, Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine 
(AQSIQ ) had been monitoring phthalates in imported spirits since January 2013. In some of those 
spirits, China had discovered phthalate levels which exceeded the temporary maximum put in 
place during the investigatory period. Spirits with levels that exceeded the temporary maximum 
were not permitted onto the Chinese market. China had established expert p anels to conduct risk 
assessments on phthalates in food, and an EU -China workshop on risk assessments for phthalates 
in food was held on 17 April 2013. China would continue working with the European Union and 
related Members to find an effective solution t o this issue.  
2.21.   In June 2016, the European Union reported that the testing requirements for phthalates in 
spirits and wine imposed by China since 2013 had been lifted, following extensive cooperation 
between China and the European Union. The European Union r emained convinced that this 
temporary measure had been unjustified, disruptive and unnecessarily long to remove, but was 
grateful for its repeal by the Chinese government. The European Union expressed hopes that this 
experience would pave way for faster re solution of similar issues in the future. The European Union 
would continue monitoring trade to ensure it flowed without further obstacles.  
Import restrictions in response to the Japanese nuclear power plant accident (STC 354)  
Raised by:  Japan  
Supported b y:  
Dates raised:  June 2013 (G/SPS/R/71, paras. 4.7-4.11), March 2014 (G/SPS/R/74, 
paras. 3.11 -3.12), July 2014 (G/SPS/R/75, paras. 4.31 -4.32), October 
2014 (G/SPS/R/76, paras. 3.11 -3.12), March 2 015 (G/SPS/R/78, 
paras.  3.18-3.19), July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.39 -3.41), October 
2015 (G/SPS/R/81, paras. 3.32 -3.33) , March 2016 (G/SPS/R/82, 
paras.  3.24-3.25), June 2016 (G/SPS/R/83, paras. 4.30 -4.31), October 
2016 (G/SPS/R/84, paras. 3.14 -3.15)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 37 - 
 
  2.22.   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 radionu clides and, as of April 2012, had imposed a food intervention exemption 
level of 1mSv/year - equivalent to the Codex standard. However, the dietary exposure estimates 
from total diet studies were far below 1 mSv/year across all studies - including those co mpleted in 
Fukushima Prefecture. Based on this scientific data, Japan requested all Members to lift any import 
restrictions on Japanese exports. Japan thanked those Members that had already lifted most or all 
such measures, but noted that China, Hong Kong,  China and Chinese Taipei continued to maintain 
import bans on many Japanese food exports. Japanese foods placed on the market were safe for 
human consumption without any extra control measures; nonetheless, Japan was willing to certify 
compliance with the  radionuclide regulation for each consignment as a provisional measure. 
Hong Kong, China and Chinese Taipei had already begun to analyse the monitoring data provided 
by Japan, and Japan looked forward to the opportunity the meet with China regarding this t rade 
concern.  
2.23.   Chinese Taipei explained that although Japanese food exports contained acceptable trace 
levels of radionuclides, those levels still raised concern for Chinese Taipei and its consumers, 
consumer protection groups, and legislators. In order to assuage these concerns, Chinese Taipei 
requested further information from Japan, including about its surveillance methodology and control 
measures. Chinese Taipei also requested that foods exported from the five restricted prefectures 
be accompanied by a c ertificate of origin and a pre -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.  
2.24.   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 furthe r 
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 me asures according to any new 
updates.  
2.25.   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 produ cts 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 stand ards. 
2.26.   Japan explained that the detection of nuclear contamination in agricultural and food 
products noted by China only occurred in products that were not legally released to the market. 
Japan continued to monitor these products.  
2.27.   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 
reques ted the submission of an official pre -test certificate for fruits, vegetables, milk products, 
medicinal plants and fishery products from all other prefectures. Japan considered that these 
measures were more trade restrictive than necessary and not based on  the relevant international 
standard. Furthermore, China had not yet approved the form for t he requested certificate. 
Japan  requested that China expeditiously finalize its analysis of the proposed certificate, and either 
accept or specify amendments, if an y, to the proposed form.  
2.28.   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 infor mation from Japan in order to conduct a risk 
assessment. In addition, due to the risk of radioactive contamination of alcoholic beverages, a 
prohibition had been imposed in accordance with the enhanced inspection and quarantine 
measures of Japan. Based on the conclusions of its risk analyses, China had permitted a number of 
imports from two prefectures.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 38 - 
 
  2.29.   In July 2014, Japan reiterated its concern over import restrictions by China on Japanese 
food exports, following TEPCO's nuclear power station incident. Chi na 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, medicinal plants and their products from other 
prefectures. These measures were more trade res trictive 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 b an on the ten prefectures.  
2.30.   China explained that since the nuclear leak incident, serious contamination threats existed 
to Japan's agriculture and maritime products. Several adjustments had been made to inspection 
and quarantine measures since then. China h ad 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.  
2.31.   In October 2014, Japan recalled its concern over i mport restrictions by China on Japanese 
food exports, following TEPCO's nuclear power station incident. Japan regretted that no progress 
had been made since the July 2014 SPS Committee Meeting, as China maintained a ban on 
products from ten Japanese prefec tures. This ban might not be based on international standards 
and be more trade -restrictive than required to achieve the appropriate level of protection. 
In June 2013, Japan had provided China with monitoring results that had demonstrated that 
Japan's food  was safe for human consumption. 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 t he 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.  
2.32.   China explained that TEP CO's nuclear power stat ion incident, which had brought great 
losses to Japan, had posed serious threats to food safety. China had imposed corresponding 
measures on agricultural and marine products from Japan, based on risk assessment in compliance 
with int ernational practice. Ch ina had already adjusted the inspection and quarantine measures for 
Japanese food and agricultural products, and continued to apply restrictions only for high -risk 
products from seriously polluted regions. Following  Japan's request, China was currently ana lyzing 
the technical data provided and would review the measures accordingly.  
2.33.   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 sa me 
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 mor e trade -restrictive than required to 
achieve the appropriate level of protection. Japan reiterated its observations  presented  in October 
2014 in reference to events occurred in June 2013 . 
2.34.   China restated the observations presented during the 2014 October me eting.  Furthermore,  
China expressed concerns about reports by Japanese media about the monitoring procedures for 
nuclear pollution of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear power plant. According to Japanese media, the  
company responsible for the monitoring had use d simple detection methods and had directly 
discharged nuclear wastewater into the open sea. Additionally, no action had been taken after 
discovering a high presence of radioactive substances in some drainage channels. China invited 
Japan to verify the med ia reporting and noted that China would take measures according to the 
technical documents provided by Japan and to the experts' assessment results.  
2.35.   In July 2015, Japan reiterated  its concern regarding the import restrictions imposed by 
China on Japanese f ood 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 produc ts 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 reite rated its concerns that China had G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 39 - 
 
  deliberately avoided any progress on this issue for more than three years, and that its measures 
and actions were not in line with the requirement of several articles of the SPS Agreement 
including Article 2.3, Article 7 a nd Annex B as well as Article 8 and Annex C. Japan urged China to 
accept the proposed form of the pre -test certificate and to immediately lift the import ban on the 
ten Japanese prefectures. Japan stressed that it would consider every effective option for the 
resolution of this issue.  
2.36.   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 produ cts from seriously 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 exports 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 radioactive waste water, which had delayed the lifting of 
import restrictions. China was currently conducting a risk assessment  on the latest status of 
nuclear pollution, based on updated information received in April 2015.  
2.37.   Japan appreciated China's comments and welcomed more consultations between the 
competent authorities of both governments.  
2.38.   In October 2015, Japan reiterated its  concern regarding the import restrictions imposed by 
China on Japanese food exports after the accident at TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power 
Station. Japan recalled that de spite raising this concern in each Committee meeting since 
March  2014, no prog ress had been made. Japan regretted that China maintained a ban on 
products from ten prefectures without considering the additional information provided on pre -test 
certificates in June 2011. Japan stated that since then no substantive response from China 
indicating the scientific justification of  the ban had been received. Japan also questioned the 
duration of the risk assessment currently being conducted by China, which was taking too long. 
In September 2015, Japan had sent an official request to China re questing 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.  
2.39.   China stated th at 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.  
2.40.   In March 20 16, 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 and reported that at the end of October 2015, a letter had been received from  Beijing. 
Subsequent letters had been sent in response to China's requests, and no further clarifications 
from China had been received. China maintained the ban on certain products from 37 prefectures. 
Japan stated that, based on various trade data, demand  for Japanese food existed and a removal 
of the ban could increase exports. Japan looked forward to the resolution of this issue in the near 
future.  
2.41.   China reported that there had been no update since October 2015 since the risk assessment 
was still ongoing . China recalled its interventions in previous meetings on this issue.  
2.42.   In June 2016, Japan reiterated its concern regarding the import restrictions imposed by 
China on Japanese food exports in response to the nuclear power plant accident. Japan recalled 
that in the March 2016 SPS Committee meeting, China had reported that the risk assessment was 
still ongoing. Japan queried the timeframe for the completion of the risk. Japan observed that it 
would be able to cooperate with China to conduct the risk assessme nt more efficiently if it received 
more information on the process. Japan highlighted that there had been no easing of China's 
import restrictions since June 2011, although an increasing number of WTO Members had already 
lifted or eased their import restri ctions on Japanese foods. China's import ban was still stringently 
imposed on all types of foods and alcoholic beverages from ten Japanese prefectures. Many types 
of foods were still substantially unauthorized to be imported due to China's requirement that  the 
test results of radioactive strontium 90 and radioactive caesium be included in the export 
certificates of these products. Japan expressed its concern that, given the current level of G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 40 - 
 
  technology, approximately one month was required to acquire the tes t results of radioactive 
strontium 90, and as such the requirement of this test result made it impossible to export fresh 
foods such as vegetables and dairy products to China. Japan had sent several letters to Beijing on 
this issue. Japan emphasized the ne ed for import restriction s to be consistent with the 
SPS Agreement and further requested China to provide information on the current stage of the risk 
assessment process and the scientific justification for requiring the submission of test results of 
radioactive strontium 90.  
2.43.   China replied that it had provided the Committee with a detailed explanation and 
clarification in previous SPS Committee meetings, particularly with regard to the rationale, scope 
and adjustment of this measure. Currently, China was un dertaking a study on the updated 
information supplied by Japan and would adjust its measures on the basis of the risk assessment 
results.  
2.44.   In October 2016, Japan reiterated its concern regarding the import restrictions imposed by 
China on Japanese food expo rts in response to the nuclear power plant accident. Japan recalled 
that there had been no easing of China's import restrictions since June 2011, although an 
increasing number of WTO Members had already lifted or eased their import restrictions on 
Japanese  foods. China's import ban was still imposed on all types of food and alcoholic beverages 
from ten Japanese prefectures and on various types of food products from the remaining 
prefectures. Japan expressed its particular concern with regard to the ongoing risk assessment by 
China. Japan questioned China's endless risk assessment process, which seemed to be 
continuously held at the stage of considering the latest data submitted. Japan expressed its 
willingness to invite the relevant Chinese authorities to as sess first -hand the current food safety 
situation and visit the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.  
2.45.   China thanked Japan for providing information on the latest developments of its food safety 
controls from July and September 2016. China was currently re viewing the updated information 
and would adjust its measures on the basis of the risk assessment results.  
China's proposed amendments to the implementation regulations on safety assessment 
of agricultural GMOs (STC 395)  
Raised by:  Paraguay, United States of America  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.16 -3.18), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, 
paras. 3.42 -3.44) , March 2016 (G/SPS/R/82, paras. 3.59 -3.60), June 
2016 (G/SPS/R/83, paras. 4.47 -4.48), October 2016 (G/SPS/R/84, 
paras. 3.52 -3.53 ) 
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/N/CHN/881  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.46.   In July 2015, Paraguay raised a concern about the inclusion of some socio -economic aspects 
in the Chinese risk assessment process for GMOs, contrary  to Article 5 of SPS Agreement and to 
the guidance of the relevant international organizations recognized by 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 elements could undermine the production of safe food. 
Paraguay therefore requested China to reconsider the amendments to the regulations.  
2.47.   The United  States shared Paraguay's concern, 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 con cerns 
about the negative impact that policies related to regulatory approval procedures for biotech 
products could have on the ability of consumers and producers to reap the benefits of advances in 
technology through trade. The delays and lack of transpare ncy in China's current biotech approval 
process meant that several products were pending at various stages in the process, despite the 
SPS Agreement's prohibition on undue delays in approval procedures and its obligation regarding G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 41 - 
 
  standard processing perio ds 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 addi tional 
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 ke y tenets of timely, predictable science -based approvals required by 
the SPS Agreement.  
2.48.   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 meas ures 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.  
2.49.   In October 2015, the United States again raised concerns with China's Proposed 
Amendments to the Implementation Regulations on Safety Assessment of Agricultural Genetically 
Modified Organisms, which amends the requirements for the safety ass essment 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 Ch ina'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 comprehensi ve 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 thanked China for its engage ment and commitments to 
resolving this process.  
2.50.   Paraguay shared this concern about the inclusion of socio -economic aspects in the Chinese 
risk assessment process for GMOs, contrary to Article 5 of SPS Agreement and to the guidance of 
the relevant internati onal 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 re quested China 
to reconsider the amendments to the regulations.  
2.51.   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 as 
well as social and environmental concerns. The draft version of these management measures had 
been notified on 2 June and had been open ed to comments until 1 August 2015. China received 
comments from Australia, Brazil, Canada and the United States. China thanked Mem bers for their 
comments and was now in the process of reviewing and analysing them. Feedback to Members 
would be provided through the proper channels. China assured Members that, in line with the 
relevant requirements of the SPS Agreement, China's agricult ural 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.  
2.52.   In March 2016, the United States again  raised concerns with China's Proposed Amendments 
to the Implementation Regulations on Safety Assessment of Agricultural GMOs, which amended 
the requirements for the safety assessment for genetically engineered products, notified as 
G/SPS/N/CHN/881. The Un ited States stated that China approved only three of the 11 pending 
products that were poised for final approval. The pending products were subject to technical and 
administrative questions. The United States viewed this as an attempt to slow down new prod uct 
approvals by posing procedural questions, imposing regulatory requirements not used by other 
countries, and by asking questions outside of the contours of scientific evidence. Following the 
consensus between the Presidents of the two countries and comm itments made at the bilateral 
dialogues in November 2015, the United States expected that China's biotech reviews would move 
forward with greater transparency, timeliness, predictability and would rely on science as the only G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 42 - 
 
  criterion for evaluating the pr oducts of agriculture biotechnology. The United States reiterated that 
China had also committed to revise its regulations, based on comprehensive consultation with 
domestic and international stakeholders, and to enhance its capability of safety administrat ion and 
approval of agricultural products. Hence, the United States hoped to see China's concrete actions 
to achieve greater predictability in the approval process and to ensure that science based decisions 
were taken when amending its regulatory process, as indicated in G/SPS/N/CHN/881. In this 
regard, the United States looked forward to China's publication and notification of its final revision 
to Decree 8 upon completion of domestic procedures. Finally the United States noted that there 
were 22 products pending at various stages in China' regulatory process, including the eight 
products mentioned earlier, poised for final adoption. The United States appreciated the Chinese 
engagement to preserve a harmonious trade relationship.  
2.53.   China explained that its Proposed Amendments to the Implementation Regulations of Safety 
Assessment of Agricultural GMOs were aimed at improving the management of GMOs, in response 
to the rapid development of biotechnology, and social and environmental concerns. China reported 
that it was reviewing and analysing all comments and would provide Members with feedback 
through proper channels, while maintaining transparency. Further, China stated that its GMO 
safety management had always been based on internationally -acknowledged risk ana lysis 
principles, including risk assessment, risk management and risk communication. China also 
indicated that economic and social factors would not affect the scientific conclusions of risk 
assessment. This process, in turn, would make the decision -making  process more transparent, 
promote development and trade while complying with SPS rules. China hoped to continue the 
bilateral consultation mechanism and discuss GMO -related concerns thoroughly in order to 
facilitate trade in a mutually beneficial manner.  
2.54.   In June 2016, the United States again raised its concern with the approval delay for 
products of agricultural biotechnology in China, and sought an update from China on its revised 
regulation on safety assessment of agricultural GMOs. The United States exp ressed appreciation 
for the bilateral dialogue that had taken place between Chinese and US officials, and based on this 
engagement, looked forward to the implementation of concrete action by China to ensure greater 
transparency, timeliness, and predictabil ity in its approval process of biotech products. The United 
States requested with some urgency that action be taken regarding the eight products that were 
poised for final adoption in March 2016.  
2.55.   China reminded the Committee that a comprehensive system of regulations and technical 
protocols, all of which could be found on the website of the Ministry of Agriculture, had been put in 
place in accordance with the importance it attached to the safety management of agricultural 
GMOs. China declared that this GMO safety management was based on science and law, and that 
the procedure was clear and transparent. China indicated that the Implementation Regulations on 
Safety Assessment of Agricultural GMOs was still under revision, that comments from Members 
were welcom e and would be given full consideration, and that further feedback would be given to 
Members through proper channels.  
2.56.   In October 2016, the United States again raised its concern with the approval delay for 
products of agricultural biotechnology in China, a nd sought an update from China on its revised 
regulation on safety assessment of agricultural GMOs. The United States expressed appreciation 
for the bilateral dialogue that had taken place between Chinese and US officials, including the US -
China strategic and economic dialogue held in Beijing in June 2016, and looked forward to the 
implementation of concrete action by China to ensure greater transparency and timeliness, and to 
rely on science -based risk assessment as the only criterion for the evaluation bi otech products. 
The United States noted that China had taken a number of steps forward, including the issuance in 
July 2016 of its final revision of the regulation and the first meeting of its reconstituted national 
biosafety committee. The United States i ndicated that some uncertainty remained with regards to 
how these steps would translate into shorter and more predictable timelines for biotech approval. 
The United States also noted with some urgency that some products were still poised for final 
adoption , and stressed the importance of ongoing communication with these products' applicants. 
The United States encouraged China to take action on these pending products in a timely manner.  
2.57.   China stated that it attached great importance to safety management of a gricultural GMOs 
and its GMO safety management had always been based on internationally recognized risk analysis 
principles and scientific information. China recalled that it had notified its draft amendment to the 
implementation regulations on safety asse ssment of agricultural GMOs to the WTO in June 2015. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 43 - 
 
  The comments received during the 60 -day comment period were taken into careful consideration 
in finalizing the regulation. After fulfilling the WTO transparency requirements fully, the final rules 
entere d into force on 1 October 2016. This amendment aimed at making the GMO safety 
assessment procedure more streamlined, transparent and science -based. With regards to the 
delay of the assessment process, China informed the United States that three out of the eleven  
applications submitted by the United States had been approved. During the process, China always 
kept the procedure transparent and had provided the United States with the detailed reasons for 
the non -approval of the eight pending applications. China  had asked the United States to continue 
to provide additional necessary information to allow completion of t heir approval procedures. 
China  noted that after having received the supplementary information requested, its experts were 
currently conducting ass essments. China invited the United States to make use of bilateral 
mechanisms in order to further discuss this issue.  
China's import ban on fresh mangosteen  (STC 416)  
Raised by:  Indonesia  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  October 2016 (G/SPS/R/84, paras. 3.12 -3.13)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.58.   In October 2016, Indonesia expressed its concern regarding China's import ban on fresh 
mangosteen fruit since February 2013. Indonesia recognized China's right to adopt measures to 
protect human, animal and plant health, but considered the measures to be more trade restrictive 
than necessary and discriminatory. Indonesia reported that it had taken actions to resolve the 
alleged pest and heavy metal contamination detected on its mangosteen fruits. Such actions 
included field and laboratories verification, as well as negotiations with China on its proposed 
export protocol. Indonesia further expressed its appreciation to China for a field verification v isit 
held in August 2014, and hoped to receive the report soon. Indonesia requested that China comply 
with Articles 2.3, 5.6, 7, 8 and Annex C (1a) of the SPS Agreement in order to resume 
mangosteen trade between the two countries, and expressed its willin gness to continue bilateral 
engagement.  
2.59.   China stated that in 2013 it had detected quarantine pests and measured levels of cadmium 
above the level specified in its standard in Indonesia's mangosteen exports. China said that 
despite several bilateral consult ations, the two sides had not been able to agree on the protocol 
issues yet. China urged Indonesia to continue to work closely with the competent authority of 
China with a view to finding a mutually satisfactory solution to the pending issue.  
2.3.2   Animal Health  
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  
2.60.   See paragraphs 2.526. -2.589.  
China's measures on bovine 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) , March 2016 (G/SPS/R/79. paras. 3.48 -3.49)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 44 - 
 
   
2.61.   In March 2015, India raised its concerns about China's import ban on bovine meat due to 
the prevalence of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD)  in India. The ban had first 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 cou ntries. 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 AQSIQ had been provided to the Chinese 
authorities. India therefore requested China to carry out the required inspections at the earliest so 
that trade in bovine meat could restart smoothly.  
2.62.   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 th e 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 mee ting 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.  
2.63.   In July 2015, India recalled its concern about China's import ban on buf falo 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, Articl e 8.5.23), and was exporting frozen 
buffalo meat to several WTO Members.  
2.64.   China confirmed that the import ban on Indian artiodactyla and artiodactyla products was 
due to FMD concerns and recalled that a Memorandum 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 prepara tion of a field visit to India.  
2.65.   In March 2016, India reiterated its concern regarding Chin a's measures on bovine meat. 
In October 2015, a Chinese AQSIQ delegation had visited India and had concluded that India did 
not meet the OIE guidelines for FMD management. India reported that as per the OIE guidelines, 
India's FMD programme had been recognized as a controlled programm e and that India had been 
advised to de -mark FMD -free regions and seek corresponding OIE certificates. On the basis of 
being recognized as having a controlled programme for FMD, India requested China to consider the 
same and allow market access of bovine m eat to China.  
2.66.   China explained that it attached great importance to Indian buffalo meat exports to China. 
However, China's field investigation on Indian FMD prevention and control systems had concluded 
that FMD still existed in India and had pointed to inef ficiencies present in the system. China further 
explained that according to Chinese experts, India did not meet the requirements of OIE 
recognized FMD free status. Therefore, China notified the result o f the assessment to India on 
12 January 2016 and sugge sted that India carry out regionalization management in accordance 
with OIE standards. China invited India to re -apply after obtaining OIE recognition.  
China's import restrictions due to African swine fever  (STC 392)  
Raised by:  European Union  
Supported by :  
Dates raised:  July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.9 -3.10), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, 
paras. 3.66 -3.67) , March 2016 (G/SPS/R/82, paras. 3.41 -3.42), June 
2016 (G/SPS/R/83, paras. 4.13 -4.14), October 2016 (G/SPS/R/84, 
paras. 3.42 -3.43 )  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 45 - 
 
  Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.67.   In July 2015, the European Union raised concerns about China's bans due to African swine 
fever (ASF) and indicated that the vast majority of EU trading partners did not take a ny 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 scien tific 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 regionaliz ation obligations under the 
SPS Agreement and to allow the trade of all safe products.  
2.68.   China replied that its measures were entirely based on scienc e and safety considerations. 
It highlighted t he 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 dis ease entered the country. 
China  indicated that the measures were in line with relevant Chinese laws and regulati ons that 
prohibited imports of relevant animals and animal products from coun tries infected by ASF. 
Finally,  China stated that it needed to evaluate further the measures taken by the European Union, 
since a number of cases of ASF had still been detected in  recent months in the region of Podlaskie, 
Poland.  
2.69.   In October 2015, the European Union again raised concerns about China's bans due to ASF  
and reiterated the arguments presented in July 2015.  
2.70.   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 
country. China indicated that the measures were in line with relevant Chinese laws and regulations 
and stated that it needed to furt her evaluate the EU measures, since a number of ASF cases had 
still been detected in recent months in the region of Podlaskie, Poland.  
2.71.   In March 2016, the European Union again raised concerns about China's bans due to ASF. 
China had imposed a ban on EU pork  and pork products since February 2014 without applying 
regionalization, and without scientific justification or clarification on how and when it would 
recognize the stringent zoning measures put in place in the European Union to allow the prompt 
resumptio n of safe trade. The European Union highlighted that, like China, it was an important 
pork producer and thus needed to be prudent, citing the free flow of goods through the EU market 
as an example of guaranteeing safe trade within its own market , but also for its exports. 
The European Union had requested several times that China provide a risk assessment justifying 
the country -wide ban and the non -recognition of the EU zoning measures, but China had failed to 
respond. The European Union asked China to respe ct its regionaliz ation obligations under the 
SPS Agreement and to allow trade of safe products.  
2.72.   China replied that its measures were entirely based on scienc e and safety considerations. 
It was a major pig producer, and as such subject to great losses in ca se the disease entered the 
country. China indicated that the measures were in line with relevant Chinese laws and regulations 
and stated that it needed to further evaluate the EU measures, since five outbreaks in wild pigs 
had been reported in 2016, sugges ting that the disease might still exist in wild pigs in Poland. 
China encouraged the European Union to take effective measures to control the spread of ASF.  
2.73.   In June 2016, the European Union again raised its concern regarding China's country -wide 
ban on Pol and due to the outbreak of ASF in early 2014. Firstly, the European Union noted that the 
ban must be in line with the SPS Agreement , which required Members to recognize the concept of 
pest- or disease -free areas in their legislation, as confirmed by the pa nel report in India - 
Agricultural Products (DS430). Secondly, the European Union argued that China had not provided 
information on its procedures, including its processing period, to recognize regionalization and 
further urged China to provide this inform ation. Thirdly, the European Union requested China to G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 46 - 
 
  provide a risk assessment justifying the country -wide ban and non -recognition of the EU zoning 
measures. The European Union further underscored the effectiveness of its regionalization 
measures and high lighted its efforts to provide all the necessary evidence to China in order to 
demonstrate that safe trade could take place. The European Union urged China to respect its 
obligations under the SPS Agreement and to allow trade of all safe products from dise ase-free 
zones without further delay.  
2.74.   China replied that its measures were entirely based on science and safety considerations, 
highlighting that before the ASF outbreaks, the trade of pig and pig products between China and 
the European Union had been smoo th. China noted that it was the largest pig producer in the 
world and as such subject to great losses in case the disease ente red the country. Therefore, 
the ban had been imposed in line with relevant Chinese laws and regulations, as well as the 
SPS Agreem ent. China clarified that its measures prohibited the import of relevant animals and 
animal products from all ASF -infected Members, and were not targeted at any individual Member. 
In 2016, ASF outbreaks in domestic and wild pigs had been reporte d in Poland , and as such, 
China  had found it necessary to conduct a further evaluation of the measures taken by the 
European Union to control the disease, including its inspection range and sampling distribution. 
China indicated its willingness to continue discussion s at a technical level.  
2.75.   In October 2016, the European Union again raised its concern regarding China's country -
wide ban on pork products from Poland due to the outbreak of ASF in early 2014. The European 
Union noted the lack of transparency demonstrated by  China in this case and expressed concerns 
about the prospects of China lifting the ban in the future. The European Union noted that it was 
also an important pig producer and, like China, needed to be prudent regarding animal diseases, 
such as ASF. The Eur opean Union stated that the free flow of pig products on its own market had 
proven, time after time, that it dealt with animal disease outbreaks in an effective manner - also 
for exports. The European Union noted that the ban was not in line with the SPS A greement's 
principle of regionalization and the OIE's concept of disease -free zones, as confirmed by the panel 
report in India - Agricultural Products (DS430). The European Union argued that China had not 
provided information on its procedures and anticipa ted timeline to recognize regionalization and 
further urged China to provide this information. The European Union declared that the country -
wide ban in place was not supported by scientific justification and requested China to provide a 
risk assessment. Th e European Union urged China to respec t its obligations under the 
SPS Agreement (namely Articles 3, 5, 6 and 8) and to allow, without further delay, trade of all safe 
products from disease -free zones.  
2.76.   China recalled that ASF was one of the most serious inf ectious diseases for pigs, and that 
the bans imposed by China on infected countries were based on science and safety considerations. 
China stated that great importance was attached to this issue and its international obligations were 
respected. China noted  that before the ASF outbreaks, the trade of pig and pig products between 
China and the European Union had been smooth. In 2016, ASF outbreaks in domestic and wild 
pigs had been reported in Poland, and as such, China had found it necessary to conduct a fur ther 
evaluation of the measures taken by the European Union. China reminded Members that it was the 
largest pig producer in the world and could be subject to great losses if the disease were to enter 
the country, and that the ban had been imposed in line w ith relevant Chinese laws and 
regulations. China reported that a technical group had been established to deal with this issue, and 
encouraged the European Union to continue exchanging information within the bilateral setting in 
order to enhance mutual unde rstanding.  
China's import restrictions due to Schmallenberg virus  (STC 405)  
Raised by:  European Union  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  March 2016 (G/SPS/R/82, paras. 3.7 -3.8) 
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date report ed as 
resolved:    
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 47 - 
 
  2.77.   In March 2016, the European Union stated that since 2012 China had suspended imports of 
bovine semen and other genetic material from ruminants from EU member States affected by 
Schmallenberg virus. The ban was initially temporary but re mained presently in effect. The 
European Union considered the ban overly restrictive and claimed China was not respecting its 
obligations under the SPS Agreement. The disease was not listed by the OIE and therefore should 
not fall under any trade regulator y frameworks. The European Union had informed China of the 
disease situation, including conducting risk assessment missions in several EU member States, 
answering questionnaires and organizing technical committees with Chinese experts. The European 
Union w elcomed China's commitment to conduct a fourth expert mission. The European Union 
remained open to working with China to resolve this issue without further delay.  
2.78.   China stated its concerns over this disease. Its measures were based on the field risk 
assess ments conducted in several EU member States and the technical seminars held with 
experts. China had determined that the virus could be spread through insects and transferred by 
sperm; thus the disease could not be regionalized. China affirmed that its meas ures were based on 
science and complied with the SPS Agreement. China looked forward to further technical exchange 
with the European Union to reach consensus on Schmallenberg virus control and resume trade as 
soon as possible.  
China's import restrictions d ue to Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza  (STC 406)  
Raised by:  United States of America, European Union  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  March 2016 (G/SPS/R/82, paras. 3.9 -3.10. See also STC 385), June 
2016 (G/SPS/R/83, paras. 4.10 -4.11), October 2016 (G/SPS/R /84, 
paras. 3.33 -3.36)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.79.   In March 2016, the European Union expressed its concern over China's import restrictions 
on highly pathogenic avian influenza ( HPAI). It had raised the issue as a general STC in 
March  2015 and many Members had lifted their bans rather quickly. China continued to maintain 
its import policy despite the European Union's regionalization efforts. The OIE standard stated that 
the measure c ould be lifted after the application of a stamping out or a regionalization policy. 
The European Union considered China's policy as over -restrictive and not recognising the concept 
of pest - or disease -free areas. The European Union also requested China to clarify its procedures 
to recognise regionalization, especially given that China faced domestic HPAI outbreaks and also 
implemented its own regionalization policies. The European Union remained open to continue 
working with China to resolve this issue.  
2.80.   China explained that the measures had been taken after several EU member States had 
reported HPAI outbreaks. In accordance with OIE rules, China implemented zoning for low 
pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI)  rather than HPAI. China reaffirmed that its measures were 
consistent with international practice and the SPS Agreement. Once the risk was under control, 
China would commence a risk assessment, on which basis it might consider lifting the ban.  
2.81.   In June 2016, the European Union reiterated its concerns regarding  China's import 
restrictions on HPAI, highlighting that China still maintained a  country -wide ban on several 
EU member States, despite the European Union's regionalization efforts. Recalling China's 
intervention in the March 2016 SPS Committee reaffirming that its measures were consistent with 
international practice and the SPS Agreement, the European Union requested China and other 
Members to lift their country -wide bans and to recognize EU regionalization measures. 
The European Union reminded the Committe e that the OIE standard stated that HPAI measures 
could be lifted after the application of a stamping out policy. This policy was strictly implemented 
in the European Union whenever an outbreak occurred. The European Union considered China's 
policy as over ly trade restrictive as it did not recognize the concept of pest - or disease -free areas. 
Trading partners, including China had been kept informed of the measures implemented to ensure G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 48 - 
 
  safe trade, as well as other information on latest developments. The Eur opean Union requested 
China to clarify its scientific basis for the country -wide bans and its procedures to recognize 
regionalization, especially given that China faced domestic HPAI outbreaks and that it also 
implemented its own regionalization policies. The European Union further urged China to review its 
import policy in order to comply with its transparency and regionalization obligations under the 
SPS Agreement. The European Union remained open to continuing discussions with China in order 
to find a ti mely solution.  
2.82.   China explained that the measure had been taken in 2015 after several EU member States 
had reported HPAI outbreaks. China noted that the outbreak of HPAI in the European Union had 
still not ended, as an outbreak of HPAI had been reported in France in early 2016. Two of the HPAI 
strains (H5N8 and H5N9), previously reported in outbreaks in EU member States in 2015 had 
never been detected in China. China indicated that it had started the process to remove the ban 
and in particular, the HPAI ban for Spain had been lifted on the basis of the results of a risk 
assessment. China noted that its experts would shortly conduct an on -site risk assessment in the 
Netherlands and further invited EU member States to submit an official note to Chinese authorit ies 
indicating their intention to export poultry products to China, following which the ban release 
procedure would commence, taking into account the risk control measures.  
2.83.   In October 2016, the United States noted the importance of the OIE guidelines for H PAI to 
facilitate safe trade, and indicated that the United States would raise a more general concern on 
the adherence to these guidelines under agenda item 4(e). The United States expressed a specific 
concern regarding China's HPAI -related restriction on US poultry products, recalling that all HPAI 
cases in the United States had been successfully resolved in accordance with OIE guidelines since 
22 April 2016 and that the United States was free of HPAI since June 2016. The United States 
noted that it had a strong surveillance and response programme for HPAI. The United States had 
engaged with China on numerous occasions: providing regular updates on the detection of HPAI, 
proposing a protocol outlining the management of poultry products if HPAI were to be de tected, 
and inviting technical experts from China to review USDA's HPAI surveillance programme. In light 
of the HPAI -free situation, the United States called upon China to lift all remaining HPAI -related 
measures against US poultry products, and promised t o continue to inform Chinese officials about 
the state of HPAI surveillance.  
2.84.   The European Union reiterated its concerns regarding China's country -wide bans on several 
EU member States due to HPAI, recalling that it had on previous occasions encouraged Memb ers 
to recognize OIE standards and efficiency of the EU's regionalization measures. The European 
Union noted that China had previously declared that it applied regionalization for LPAI but not 
HPAI, and that bans might be lifted after a risk assessment , which would only start once risks were 
under control. The European Union disagreed with China's previous statement that China's 
measures were compatible with international standards. The European Union recalled that almost 
all WTO Members confronted with occ asional outbreaks of HPAI implemented regionalization 
policies in their management of the disease. The European Union further stated that , in full 
transparency , it had provided China all the necessary evidence to demonstrate that it had applied 
the stampin g-out policy described in the OIE Code, the existence of HPAI -free areas and that such 
areas were likely to remain disease -free. The European Union considered that China's decision not 
to accept zoning in relation with HPAI disregarded the relevant OIE  standard, Article 6 of the 
SPS Agreement and the Panel report of DS430. The European Union called on China to respect its 
WTO regionalization obligations and remained open to work with China to find a rapid solution.  
2.85.   With regards to the concerns raised  by the  European Union, China noted that the measure 
had been taken in 2015 in order to prevent the spread of HPAI into China after several EU member 
States had reported HPAI outbreaks. China indicated that it had been conducting HPAI risk 
assessments with the co llaboration of the European Union and made adjustments to its measures 
accordingly. China stated that the disease was still present in some EU member States, with most 
recent reports in France and Italy. China continued to perceive the risk of HPAI in the European 
Union as high and therefore had to take cautious measures to protect safety of the poultry 
industry and health of the whole population.  
2.86.   With regards to the US concerns, China noted that numerous HPAI cases had been found in 
many US states since De cember 2014 and that the epidemic still continued in 2016, the latest case 
having been reported in August. China recognized that both the European Union and the United G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 49 - 
 
  States had made use of bilateral channels to conduct technical communications, and encou raged 
both Members to continue these discussions with relevant Chinese authorities.  
2.3.3   Other concerns  
Lack of transparency for certain SPS measures  (STC 184)  
Raised by:  United States of America  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 32-33), June 2016 (G/SPS/R/83, 
paras.  4.51-4.55)  
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/N/CHN/22  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.87.   In March 2004, the United States expressed concerns over Chin a's failure to notify nearly 
60 regulations c overing food, forestry and fishery products issued since 2002.  Burdensome 
certification requirements for fresh, chilled and frozen aquatic products were imposed by General 
Administration of Quality, Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ)  Decree 31,  which 
entered into force on 1 July 2003, but were not notified to the WTO.  Despite holding bilateral 
consultations with China, no progress had been made on this issue.  The United States urged China 
to comply with its SPS obligations and to notify new regu lations so that Members had an 
opportunity to comment on them.  
2.88.   China stressed that it had notified 213 SPS measures since its accession in 2001 and was 
committed to fulfilling its transparency obligations.  The comment period was calculated from the 
day the  Secretariat circulated the notification.  There was no obligation to notify AQSIQ Decree 31 
as it was an operational rule of a corresponding regulation that had already been notified to the 
WTO, and imposed no new technical requirements.  However, in the in terest of enhanced 
transparency, Decree 31 had been notified in August 2003 (G/SPS/N/CHN/22).  
2.89.   In June 2016, the United States reiterated its concern, first raised in March 2004, with 
China's lack of transparency for certain SPS measures. The Unit ed States recognized that China 
had been actively notifying the SPS measures of many of its agencies, and expressed appreciation 
for these efforts. However, recently many measures issued by some of China's principal regulatory 
agencies in relation to the implementat ion of China's 2015 Food Safety Law had not been notified. 
The United States indicated as an example a recent Chinese measure implementing the new 
official certificate requirement for imported foods, of which the United States had become 
acquainted through  a letter sent by the AQSIQ to the United States embassy in Beijing on 9 May 
2016. The United States urged China to notify this measure, as well as all SPS measures that 
could impact international trade, in order to allow its trading partners to comment on  them, and to 
take these comments into account upon finalizing the measures. The United States again 
expressed appreciation to China for the substantive bilateral dialogue on transparency, and looked 
forward to further cooperation with China to improve foo d safety.  
2.90.   Australia reminded all Members that they should notify in accordance with their WTO 
obligations. While appreciating that it was sometimes difficult to determine whether a measure 
required notification or not, Australia encouraged Members, when in  doubt, to notify.  
2.91.   The European Union supported the points made by the United States and Australia, and 
underlined its particular concern about the new Chinese certification regime. The European Union 
feared that this specific measure would not be justifie d by any risk assessment, as the products 
concerned (pasta, confectionary or baked products) were inherently safe, and would impose a 
disproportionate and unnecessary burden on the importing countries. The European Union looked 
forward to seeing the Chines e notification for this measure, and to work with China on this issue.  
2.92.   New Zealand shared the concerns of Australia, the European Union and the United States 
regarding China's lack of transparency, and especially highlighted Australia's more generic G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 50 - 
 
  remind er to encourage all Members to notify their SPS measures. New Zealand insisted on the 
values of the notification system in allowing Members to comment and clarify measures, as well as 
exchange experiences. New Zealand wondered whether a lack o f transparenc y in notifying 
SPS measures  could be associated with a lack of experience with the notification system, and 
recalled the value of the mentoring system put in place some years ago, wherein developed 
Members helped developing Members to manoeuvre the notific ation system.  
2.93.   China responded that, from 2013 to 2015, it had submitted 494 regular SPS notifications, 
providing the 60 -day comment period for all the notified measures. China explained that the 
example provided by the United States on the Official Certifi cate Requirements for Imported Food 
did not correspond to non -compliance with the notification requirement, as the Official Certificate 
Requirements had not been implemented, and the purpose of diplomatic letters was to inform 
trading partners and collect their comments in advance. China stated that the measure would be 
notified to the WTO, with the transitional comment period, after further evaluation. 
China  additionally argued that many of its SPS measures criticized for not having been notified 
were in l ine with international standards, or did not have a significant effect on international trade, 
and thus in conformity with Annex B, paragraph 5 of the SPS Agreement. China further explained 
that according to its administrative legislation procedure, the no tification to the WTO came after 
the online public comment period and first revision of a measure r ather than at the same time, 
in order to provide the WTO with the measure in a more advanced stage. China reminded the 
United States of its lack of transpare ncy, providing as an example the Seafood Import Monitoring 
Program published on the Federal Register on 5 February 2016 , which had not been notified to the 
WTO. China referred to data from the WTO SPS Information Management System (SPS IMS) 
indicating that  the United States had submitted 317 regular SPS notifications between 2013 to 
2015, among which only 15 provided for a 60 -day comment period. A large number of the 
measures were notified, sometimes unjustifiably, as trade -facilitating, and therefore did n ot 
provide any comment period. China added that the United States seldom notified sub -federal laws 
or regulations, and thus violated transparency rules.  
2.4  Costa Rica  
2.4.1   Plant Health  
Costa Rica's suspension of the issuing of phytosanitary 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) , March 2016 (G/SPS/R/82, paras. 3.50 -3.54), June 
2016 (G/SPS/R/83, paras. 4.22 -4.25), October 2016 (G/SPS/R/84, 
paras. 3.46 -3.48 )  
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:    
 
2.94.   In July 2015, Mexico raised conc erns regarding the emergency measure taken by Costa 
Rica's phsytosanitary service in April 2015 through 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 various 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 ba sis 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 pest 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 proporti onal to the risk, especially because there 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 51 - 
 
  of the Free Trade Agreement between Mexico and Latin America. Mexico fin ally 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.  
2.95.   Guatemala, South Africa and the United States shared Mexico's concern. Guatemala also 
requested information about Costa Rica's pest -free status. The United States worried that this 
suspension of the issuance of import permits for avocados from eight countries and Florida was 
part of a larger attempt to use S PS 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.  
2.96.   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 e stablished 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 p resence of the pest, which demonstrated the 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.  
2.97.   In October 2015, Mexico again rai sed 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 
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.  
2.98.   The United States shared this concern and worried that this su spension 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 inte rnational standards and guidelines, its scientific 
justification and its level of trade restrictiveness.  
2.99.   Costa Rica reaffirmed its commitment to transparency and to the multilateral system and  
restated the observations presented during the July 2015 meetin g. The current measure was 
temporary, and a risk assessment was under way. Costa Rica remained open to dialogue regarding 
the implementation of its SPS measures.  
2.100.   In March 2016, Mexico reiterated its concern regarding Costa Rica's suspension of the 
issuing of phytosanitary certificates for avocado imports. Mexico considered the measure to be in 
violation of fundamental principles of technical and scientific justification based on international 
standards, most -favoured nation, proportionality and transparency , thus violating the SPS 
Agreement and the SPS Chapter of NAFTA. Mexico had called for consultations with all relevant 
bodies under the FTA that Costa Rica and Mexico has signed. Mexico described the measure's 
significant negative impact on its avocado exp orts, and requested Costa Rica to immediately 
withdraw its measure in order to resume avocado trade between the two countries. In addition, 
Mexico requested Costa Rica to provide a prompt written response to the communications and 
questions sent by Mexico.  Mexico urged Costa Rica to accept Mexico's measures as sufficient to 
ensure that avocado sunblotch viroid would not spread to Costa Rica.  
2.101.   The United States shared Mexico's concerns and asked Costa Rica to take steps to restart 
issuing phytosanitary import  permits, since the suspension was not consistent with international 
standards and guidelines , nor scientifically justified. The United States expressed concerns 
regarding other agricultural trade issues with Costa Rica, including those affecting rice, oni ons, and 
potatoes. The United States informed that some importers had been denied import permits for G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 52 - 
 
  onions despite the absence of phytosanitary restrictions and that those importers had expressed a 
willingness to pay out -of-quota duties.  
2.102.   Ghana stated that  the notification by Costa Rica also suspended imports permits from 
seven other countries, including Ghana. Ghana requested to be removed from this list 
immediately, as sunblotch viroid was not present in Ghana. Ghana expressed gratitude to the 
African Uni on for making it possible for delegates to attend the SPS Committee meeting.  
2.103.   Guatemala and Venezuela shared Mexico's concern and indicated that they would follow 
this issue closely. Venezuela noted that, like Ghana, it was also one of the Members affected by 
the measure.  
2.104.   Costa Rica recalled that the State Phytosanitary Service (SFE) had suspended the issuance 
of import permits for Mexican avocados because of the confirmed presence of the avocado 
sunblotch viroid. Costa Rica explained that since the measure had been adopted provisionally, 
based on the available scientific data, it had been notified as an emergency measure on 5 May  
2015 in G/SPS/N/CRI/160. The SFE had quickly evaluated the scientific evidence, undertaking a 
pest risk analysis (PRA) which had b een notified to the WTO on 13 July 2015 as G/SPS/N/CRI/162, 
establishing a period of 60 days for comments. The comments of Mexico had been studied by the 
national authorities. On 12 October 2015, the relevant authorities of both countries had met in San 
Jose with the aim of reviewing Mexico's concerns. During the meeting, Costa Rica had indicated 
that the measures were based on the recognized rights within the SPS Agreement to protect the 
national phytosanitary status, based on scientific evidence. Costa Ri ca reported that it sent Mexico 
the most recent version of the PRA, providing a new opportunit y to comment. In addition, 
five bilateral meetings had taken place involving a range of specialists from both countries , and 
Costa Rica had rigorously responded t o suggestions made by the Mexican authorities. In December 
2015, Costa Rica had undertaken another assessment, which found Costa Rica free of the pest. 
Costa Rica indicated that the phytosanitary authorities were working on the notification of the 
definiti ve measures which would apply to avocado imports from Mexico. Costa Rica expressed its 
willingness to engage in open dialogue with the aim of responding to questions and technical 
concerns related to this measure , with Mexico and other trading partners.  
2.105.   In June 2016, Mexico reiterated its concern regarding Costa Rica's suspension of the 
issuing of phytosanitary certificates for avocado imports originating from Mexico. Mexico 
considered the measure to be in violation of fundamental principles of technical an d scientific 
justification based on international standards, most -favoured nation, proportionality and 
transparency principles as enshrined in the SPS Agreement and the SPS Chapter of NAFTA. Mexico 
noted its preference to promote dialogue between authoriti es in various consultative formats; 
however, these efforts had not been successful as no response had been received from Costa 
Rican authorities in regard to the issue. Mexico indicated that its avocado exports continued to be 
significantly affected by the  restrictions imposed by Costa Rica and further reiterated its request 
for Costa Rica to immediately withdraw its measure in order to resume avocado trade between the 
two countries.  
2.106.   The United States shared Mexico's concerns and urged Costa Rica to take st eps to 
recommence issuing phytosanitary import permits, since the suspension was not consistent with 
international standards and guidelines, nor scientifically justified. The United States also expressed 
concerns regarding other agricultural trade issues w ith Costa Rica, including those affecting rice, 
onions and potatoes. While recent progress had been made with respect to potatoes, some 
importers continued to be denied import permits for onions, despite the absence of phytosanitary 
restrictions.  
2.107.   Guatemala  supported Mexico's concerns and expressed a systemic interest, given the 
measure's lack of consistency with international rules, as well as lack of clarity regarding the 
scientific justification of the measure.  
2.108.   Costa Rica explained that its SFE had propos ed the measure in order to minimize the risk 
of introduction of the avocado sunblotch viroid. SFE had continued its analysis of collected 
scientific evidence with the aim of proposing measures that guaranteed its appropriate level of 
protection, while at t he same time being least trade restrictive. Costa Rica reiterated its willingness G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 53 - 
 
  and interest to continue technical discussions on a bilateral level in order to clarify any doubts 
regarding the applied measure.  
2.109.   In October 2016, Mexico reiterated its conce rn regarding Costa Rica's suspension of the 
issuing of phytosanitary certificates for avocado imports originating from Mexico. Mexico recalled 
its statement from June 2016.  
2.110.   The United States shared Mexico's concerns and asked Costa Rica to take steps to 
recommence issuing phytosanitary import permits since the suspension was not consistent with 
international standards and guidelines, nor scientifically justified. Guatemala supported Mexico's 
concerns and expressed a systemic interest in this issue.  
2.111.   Costa R ica recalled that the suspension concerned measures proposed to minimize the risk 
of introduction of the avocado sun blotch viroid. A pest risk analysis (PRA) had been notified in 
July 2015 (SPS/N/CRI/162), providing 60 days for comments. Costa Rica indica ted that in 
November 2015 it had circulated a revised PRA, taking into account some of the comments that it 
had received during the comment period. However, Mexican authorities had indicated that they 
disagreed with the findings and measures established by  this revised PRA. Costa Rica explained 
that it had therefore broadened the review of the PRA, including an extensive work at the 
laboratory level. Costa Rica would notify the final PRA and the definitive measures once this work 
was completed. Costa Rica r eaffirmed its commitment to find a mutually satisfactory solution for 
both sides.  
2.5  European Union  
2.5.1   Food safety  
Application and modification of the EU Regulation on Novel Foods  (STC 238)  
Raised by:  Colombia;  Ecuador;  Peru 
Supported by:  Argentina;  Benin ; Bolivia, Plurinational State of;  Brazil ; Chile; China ; 
Costa Rica ; Cuba; Dominican Republic ; El Salvador ; Guatemala ; 
Honduras ; India; Indonesia ; Mexico ; Nicaragua ; Paraguay ; Philippines ; 
Uruguay ; Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of  
Dates raised:  March 2006 (G/S PS/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), Octobe r 
2015 (G/SPS/R/81 , paras. 3.19-3.22) , March 2016 (G/SPS/R/82, 
paras.  3.26-3.29), October 2016 (G/SPS/R/84, paras. 3.24 -3.26)  
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 , G/SPS/GEN/1477, G/SPS/GEN/1526  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.112.   In March 2006, Colombia raised concerns on the application of the EC Regulation on Novel 
Foods (Regulation (EC) No. 258/97) and with the draft project of the European Commission to G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 54 - 
 
  amend the regulation, foreseen t o 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 food markets, and European consumers were 
now becoming interested in these food products. It was important to recall, however, that these 
traditional foods had been consumed in South America for thousands of years. This was in contrast 
to genetically modified products which could be considered as real  novel foods. Increased trade in 
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 the 
potential to address specific s ocial and environmental issues, such as providing alternatives to both 
the growing of narcotic crops and to the illegal felling of protected forests.  
2.113.   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 (EC) No. 258/97 would result in a non -tariff barrier to trade with negative effects on 
the introduction of traditional foods into European markets, contrary to Articles 2.2 and 5.6 of the 
SPS Agreement. Colombia requested the European Communities  to consider the following points 
regarding the amendment of Regulation (EC) No. 258/97: (i) the non -application of Regulation 
(EC) No. 258/97 to exotic, traditional products with a history of safe consumption in their region of 
origin; (ii) greater transp arency and clarity in the procedures and definition, giving credit to a safe 
consumption history of food in the country of origin; requirements, tests, and procedures in 
proportion with the nature of the foods concerned and the risks they could imply for c onsumers; 
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.  
2.114.   Ecuador reported that the amendment would also affect the trade potential of traditional 
and ex otic food from its country. In light of Ecuador's great biodiversity, over the last decade 
international organizations like UNCTAD had been promoting the development of new export 
products ("Bio -Comercio"). In Ecuador , the export of traditional and exotic foods also had a major 
socio-economic impact and related closely to efforts to overcome rural poverty. Ecuador invited 
the European Communities to carefully consider Colombia's recommendations regarding the 
amendment. The amendment of the regulation and it s impact were of importance for many 
developing countries.  
2.115.   Peru added that currently, within the Convention on Biological Diversity, countries were 
discussing measures and mechanisms for the preservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. 
Contrary to tha t approach, the application of Regulation No. 258 would restrict greater sustainable 
use of traditional and exotic products, by diminishing their export potential. Peru stressed the high 
costs and the long period of time needed for products to be registere d under Regulation (EC) 
No. 258/97 to allow them to enter the European market. Peru also supported Colombia's 
recommendations regarding  the amendment (G/SPS/GEN/681).  
2.116.   Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica and Paraguay reported that their exports had also been affected  
by Regulation (EC) 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, Ind ia, Uruguay and Venezuela 
expressed their interest in the topic and shared the concerns of Colombia, Ecuador and Peru.  
2.117.   The European Communities confirmed that Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 was being 
reviewed and recognized that some modifications were needed.  A 40-page document which might 
answer a lot of questions would be circulated as an SPS document shortly. The document clearly 
set out the purpose and scope of the Regulation, which was targeted at new food technologies, 
including genetically modified prod ucts. As the food industry was investing in different new 
technologies, Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 aimed to reassure European consumers of the safety of 
those technologies. The vast majority of applications for authorization of novel foods had been 
from wi thin the European Communities. The European policy was aimed at striking the right 
balance between encouraging technical innovation and ensuring that consumers are protected. 
Some products marketed as "products of biodiversity" had in the past turned out t o 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 55 - 
 
  European Communities invited interested stakeholders t o submit comments and make their views 
known.  
2.118.   In June 2006, Peru raised further concerns regarding the EC Novel Foods Regulation. 
In Peru's view, one of the major problems of the EC regulation was that it did not distinguish 
between new foods that had not been consumed before anywhere, and those that were new only 
to the European Communities, which was the case for most of the traditional exotic products 
originating from developing countries. Peru requested that the European Communities provide 
information showing that it was necessary to apply this measure to traditional exotic products, in 
accordance with the provisions of the SPS Agreement. Peru considered that the Regulation 
constituted an unnecessary and unjustified barrier to trade due to the cost and time required to 
gain approval for novel foods, even if they had a history of safe consumption in their countries of 
origin, and requested the exclusion of traditional exotic products from the novel food category. 
Peru also requested that the European Comm unities explain how the special needs of developing 
countries had been taking into account in accordance with Article 10 of the SPS Agreement 
(G/SPS/GEN/713).  
2.119.   Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, India, Paraguay and the Philippines shared the concerns 
raised by Peru. Ecuador indicated that a study on the impact of the Novel Foods Regulation was 
about to be finalized. Preliminary results of this study showed that this regulation could have 
negative economic and social consequences for Ecuador's production sys tem by having an effect 
both on current exports and on products with export potential in the European Communities that 
were currently marketed in other countries (G/SPS/GEN/714). Bolivia and Colombia highlighted 
that some of the products were currently bei ng promoted , inter alia , by policies supporting 
alternatives to narcotic crops, some of which were funded by the European Communities or its 
member States. The Philippines indicated that the effects of the Novel Foods Regulation and of 
EC regulations on ge netically modified food were still being evaluated.  
2.120.   The European Communities stressed that the concerns expressed were being taken 
seriously, and that the Novel Foods Regulation was currently under review (G/SPS/GEN/699 and 
G/SPS/GEN/700). The original int ention of the Novel Foods Regulati on had been trade -creating; 
its purpose was to authorize trade in novel foods. In addition, products that had already been 
traded prior to 1997 had been exempted. The regulation had been targe ted mainly at 
EC companies. Th e regulation had been successful in that new foods were being approved on the 
basis of safety assessments. A statement that a product had been consumed for ce nturies was not 
sufficient. The  European Communities highlighted that very few applications for ap proval of 
traditional exotic products had been received, so that there were very few case studies. 
"Traditional exotic products " was a broad category including some items where there had been 
safety concerns. In the context of the review of the regulation,  the European Communities 
indicated that it would be helpful to receive more information on these products, including a clear 
definition of the products at issue whether they had been approved in other export markets, and 
safety -related data available, as well as information on the socio -economic impact.  
2.121.   In October 2006, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru reiterated concerns relating to Regulation 
(EC) No. 258/97 on Novel Foods (G/SPS/GEN/733 and G/SPS/GEN/735). They considered that the 
regulation constituted a non -justified barrier to trade in these products as it was not flexible and 
made no distinction between novel (GMO) foods and traditional foods with any known risks. 
They noted that exotic products originating from Latin America were not the result of any typ e of 
genetic modification but rather formed part of the 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 had not  considered the fact that many of the 
traditional products had been marketed in a number of countries with very strict sanitary 
standards as they posed no health risks to consumers.  
2.122.   The European Communities was requested to promptly review Regulation (EC) No. 258/97, 
and to exclude from its scope of application exotic traditional products r esulting from biodiversity. 
The European Communities was also encouraged to take into account scientific assessments and 
relevant evidence from other countries and compet ent international organizations when risk 
assessments were made, and to establish different procedures for foods of known risk and no 
known risk in the European Communities. The European Communities was also requested to take 
into account the history of th e product, the consumption patterns and traditional knowledge G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 56 - 
 
  relating to its use and preparation, so as to provide for greater flexibility in the application of the 
regulation and facilitate the entry of exotic traditional products into the European marke t. 
2.123.   Bolivia, Brazil and the Philippines shared the c oncerns of Peru, Ecuador and Colo mbia. 
The Philippines highlighted the fact that the regulation could become an unjustified non -tariff 
barrier to the EC market in view of the unclear technical distinction between these products and 
other products. The Philippines expressed hope that progress would be made on the issue and a 
mutual solution found as soon as possible.  
2.124.   The European Communities reminded the Committee that the issue had been discussed in 
the SPS  Committee on previous occasions and there had been various exchanges of 
communications between the Members concerned. The European Communities acknowledged the 
problem with traditional products, which were not in the EC market prior to 1997 and noted that  
the regulation was not discriminatory , as EC producers had to undergo similar risk evaluations. 
Nonetheless, the European Communities imported an enormous volume of foods and vegetables. 
They reiterated the request that the Members concerned submit data o n 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  held on the matter and the European Communities 
appreciated the contributions from the concerned Members.  
2.125.   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 th e European Communities on current 
developments. The European Communities indicated that the Novel Foods Regulation was being 
revised. It had initially been designed to cover a full range of Novel Foods, from GMO foods to 
products of biological diversity. F ollowing public consultations and the consideration of the views 
and comments received, revised legislation was being prepared. The European Communities 
anticipated that the result would be a two -tiered process, with products that had a long history of 
safe use subjected to less rigorous procedures than other Novel Foods. The European Communities 
was looking to address the concerns identified by trading partners, while ensuring consumer 
safety.  
2.126.   In April 2008, Colombia, speaking on behalf of Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, 
Paraguay and Peru recalled the concerns previously expressed regarding the proposed revision of 
the Regulation (EC) No. 258/97, as contained in COM(2007)872. The proposed regulation had 
been notified to the TBT Committee, howev er 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 his tory 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 pro duction and exports.  
2.127.   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 t hose 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 that of a product that had not been consumed in the EC market 
prior to 1997, which seemed to bear no relation to the scientific evidence regarding the safety of a 
product.  
2.128.   Brazil indicated that it supp orted the concerns 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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 57 - 
 
  2.129.   The European Communities noted that it was currently revising legislat ion, 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 concer ns 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 s hould 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.  
2.130.   In October 2008, Peru r equested that there should be a notification to the SPS Committee 
regarding the modification of the EC Novel Foods Regulation. Many exporting Members failed to 
understand the content of the regulation, why some products were banned while others were not. 
Also, the regulation gave exporting countries, many of which  were developing countries, 
the burden of proof that their products were safe and complied with the EC Regulation. 
Brazil,  Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay and the Philippines shared Peru's 
concerns regarding the EC Regulation on Novel Foods.  
2.131.   UNCTAD reported that it was contributing to the review of the EC Regulation on Novel 
Foods in three specific areas: (i) revising the procedure, which required mor e scientific 
clarification;  (ii) facilitating dialogue between the European Communities an d developing 
countries; and (iii) analysing legal aspects of current regulations in the context of multilateral 
agreements.  
2.132.   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 Committee. 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 whole fruits and vegetables. 
However, the revised procedure wa s expected to be more flexible, and some Novel Foods had 
already been approve d for entry into the EC market. The European Communities noted that in this 
specific case, the legal advice had been to only notify the proposed revision to the TBT Committee 
since it covered approval procedures for Novel Foods in general. This did not preclude that the 
issue could be discussed at the SPS  Committee. In response to a query, the Secretariat clarified 
that it generally recommended that draft regulations with any SPS c onten t should be notified to 
the SPS  Committee, even if these regulations were also notified to the TBT Committee.  
2.133.   In October 2009, Peru recalled that the entry of traditional exotic products to the 
EC market had been seriously affected by the EC regulatio n 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 Authority of Peru, which certified the 
safety and compliance with a HACCP system, and that these products were fit for human 
consumption and could be marketed internationally. Peru expressed concern about the continuous 
loss of business op portunities due to this measure and asked for an update on the modifica tion 
progress. Brazil,  Colombia, Ecuador, and Mexico supported P eru's concerns regarding the 
EC Regulation on Novel Foods.  
2.134.   The European Communities stated that on 15 January 2008, the E C Commission had 
submitted to the Council and the European Parliament a proposal for the revision of the Novel 
Foods Regulation. The proposal was notified to WTO Memb ers in March 2008 under the 
TBT Agreement. The revised procedure was expected to be more f lexible 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 m arket 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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 58 - 
 
  2.135.   In June 2011, Peru again  raised concerns about Regulation (EC) No. 258/97, that 
particularly affected trade in Peruvian traditional foods that were safely sold in the United States 
and Japan (G/SPS/GEN/1087). Colombia shared the concern of Peru, as this regulation was an 
unjustif ied barrier to trade of traditional foods and consequently impeded economic activities. 
In 2009, the European Communities  had agreed  to change this regulation in a way that would take 
into account traditional foods. This modification had not been implement ed, however, because of 
disagreements that the European Council and the European Parliament had regarding products of 
cloned animals, although there was general agreement on traditional foods. Colombia encouraged 
the European Union to separate these issues  and resolve the matter of traditional foods by the end 
of 2011. Brazil, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Mexico and Paraguay supported the concerns 
raised by Peru and Colombia.  
2.136.   The European Union stated that foods were considered novel under the prese nt Regulation 
(EC) No. 258/97 if they were derived from new technological processes or if they had no 
significant history of consumption in Europe. On 15 January 2008, steps were taken to update the 
existing novel food rules in an effort to facilitate appl ications for novel food authorizations and to 
simplify market access to the European Union for traditional foodstuffs from third countries which 
had a history of safe food use. However, the initial proposal submitted to the co -legislators was 
not adopted. The main stumbling blocks related to provisions regarding food from cloned animals 
and nanotechnology. Any new regulation would contain a centralized and quicker authorization 
procedure for novel foods and specific measures for traditional foods, as agreem ent had indeed 
already been reached on this issue between the European co -legislators.  
2.137.   In October 2011, Peru recalled its concerns about Regulation No. 258/97 
(G/SPS/GEN/1117). Brazil, Chile, Col ombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico and Paraguay shared the 
concerns raised by Peru.  
2.138.   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.  
2.139.   In March 2012, Peru recalled its previously raised concern s about the EU Novel Foods 
Regulation that restricted foods which were not marketed in the European Union before May 1997 
(G/SPS/GEN/1137). The Regulation did not distinguish between foods and ingredients that were 
new in the strict sense , and traditional products derived from the 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 prov isions of the SPS Agreement, Peru urged the European Union to refrain from 
applying Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 to traditional products with a history of safe consumption 
outside the EU market.  
2.140.   Cuba supported the concerns of Peru and indicated that the meas ure 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 tra ditional products to the EU market. Argentina, Brazil, 
Chile and Paraguay indicated that they shared the concerns and were closely following the issue.  
2.141.   The European Union restated the observations presented during the 2011 June and 
October meetings.  
2.142.   In Jul y 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 tradition al 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 consum ption of traditional products wi th high nutritional value. 
Peru urged the European Union to refrain from applying Regulation  (EC) No. 258/97 to traditional 
products or to facilitate the entry of products with a history of safe consumption outside the 
EU market. 
2.143.   Cuba supported the concerns of Peru and indicated that the measure was discriminatory, 
highlighting the unjustified effect that the measure was having on the access of traditional G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 59 - 
 
  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.  
2.144.   The European Union explained that revision of novel foods rules had started in January 
2008 in an effort to facilitate applications for novel foods authorizati ons 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 h ope of facilitating the consensus necessary to allow a revised 
Novel Foods Regulation to be adopted into law. The European Union would make public the next 
steps it was taking once these were agreed. The Commission was currently preparing a legislative 
proposal based on the overall agreement reached with EU co -legislators, with adoption expected in 
2013. Any new regulation on novel foods would contain a centralized and quicker authorization 
procedure for novel foods and specific measures would be put in pla ce for traditional foods from 
third countries to access EU markets. A related legislative proposal on animal cloning was planned 
to be adopted by the Commission in 2013, based on the results of an impact assessment which 
was currently underway.  
2.145.   In October 2012, Peru reiterated its concern that the application of Regulation (EC) 
No. 258/97 continued to restrict access of traditional products into the European Union. Regulation 
(EC) No. 258/97 was in practice an unnecessary and unjustified barrier to trade, n ot adopted on 
the basis of an appropriate risk assessment taking into account scientific evidence, thus contrary 
to Article 5 of the SPS Agreement. Peru reiterated its request that the European Union exclude 
from the regulation traditional products arising  from biodiversity and remove the unjustified 
hindrances to trade.  
2.146.   Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador and Venezuela supported Peru's concern 
and asserted that Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 constituted an unnecessary barrier to trade because 
it targeted products that 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 obligation s. Brazil, Chile and Costa Rica 
reiterated their interests in developments regarding the reform of this Regulation.  
2.147.   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 novel food negotiations, on future measures applicable to 
traditional foods from t hird 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 in terested 
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.  
2.148.   In March 2013, Peru re iterated its previously raised concern with regard to EU Regulation 
(EC) No. 258/97 on Novel Foods whose application restricted access to the EU market for products 
which were not marketed in the European Union before May 1997 (G/SPS/GEN/1137). 
Peru consid ered 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 w as contradictory to 
international co -operation and technical assistance efforts for market development and for 
capacitation of small and medium producers. For example, camu camu ( Myrciaria dubia ), a sylvan 
fruit native to the western Amazon basin, was trad ed in countries like Japan and the United States 
and was listed in the Codex Classification of Foods and Feeds, but banned in the European Union. 
Peru requested information on the status of the new EU legislative proposal on novel foods and 
asked the Europ ean Union to reconsider those traditional products arising from biodiversity with a 
history of safe consumption outside the EU market.  
2.149.   Chile, Colombia, Ecuador and Paraguay echoed Peru's conce rn and looked forward to the 
EU legislative proposal to revise t he regulation. Colombia and Paraguay urged the European Union 
to take into account the history of safe consumption of such products.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 60 - 
 
  2.150.   The European Union stated that the new legislative proposal was still tak ing shape and was 
due later that  year. Specific me asures for traditional foods from third countries to ease their 
access to EU markets would be proposed. The overall purpose of the proposal was to streamline 
the approval procedure and provide for a centralized system of authorization. The new draft, once 
finalised, would be sent to all EU trading partners via notification  under both the SPS and the 
TBT Agreements to allow any comments and concerns to be taken into account. The European 
Union remained open to discuss the matter in more detail.  
2.151.   In October 20 13, Peru reiterated its concern over the EU Regulation on Novel Foods, as it 
restricted the access of traditional biodiversity -based products into the European market. Peru had 
previously shown the negative effects of this measure on exporters. The propose d 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 c ountries. Peru requested information on the status of 
the proposed amendment to Regulation No. 258/97, which would be an important step to access 
the European market.  
2.152.   Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba and El Salvador expressed their support for Peru's 
concerns. 
2.153.   The European Union confirmed that the European Commission intended to present a new 
novel foods proposal by the end of 2013. This would take into account the overarching agreement 
reached by the EU co -legislators on future measures applicable to Nove l 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.  
2.154.   In March 2014 , Peru reiterated its co ncern over th e EU Regulation on Novel Foods and 
requested information on the status of the proposed amendment to Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 . 
2.155.   Ecuador noted that the revised EU legislation, COM(2013)894 , still posed barriers to 
products of biodiversity and s ought assurances that it was compliant with Articles 2.2 and 5.6 of 
the SPS  Agreement. The regulation created a disadvantage to small producers because the 
EU regulations required that the marketing history of traditional biodiversity -based products be 
disclosed, and this information was rarely available in developing countries. Ecuador suggested 
that the European Union: (i) replace the existing process with a simplified risk -based authorization 
procedure; (ii)  define clearly the factors to be used to evalu ate safety; and (iii) clarify the 
international standards and procedures on which EFSA would base its decisions and carry out the 
risk assessments.  
2.156.   Costa Rica, El Salvador and Nicaragua also expressed support for Peru's concerns.  
2.157.   The European Union announc ed that in December 2013, the Commission adopted a 
proposal for a new regulation on novel foods, accompanied by a further proposal on cloning. 
The proposed new regulation for novel foods focused on easing market access for traditional foods, 
including thos e produced by small producers. The objective was to simplify and streamline 
approval procedures while ensuring food safety. The proposal was notified to the WTO in 
December 2013 (G/SPS/N/EU/64) and an exceptionally long comment period (120 days) had been 
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.  
2.158.   In July 2014 , Peru reiterated its concern over the propo sed amendment of Regulation (EC) 
No. 258/97 (documents G/SPS/N/EU/64, G/SPS/N/EU/64/Add.1 and G/SPS/N/EU/64/Add.2) and 
referred to its comments on how to facilitate access t o 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 establi shed 15 May 1997 
as the reference date; (ii) "traditional f ood from third country" – given that the majority of G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 61 - 
 
  potentially exportable traditional foods derived from primary production; and (iii) "history of safe 
food use in a third country" - proposing a period of five years without any indication of risk to 
human health for demonstrating safe use , instead of the  25 year  time-period envisaged by the 
European Union . Peru requested that the European Union revise the se definitions to establish 
criteria that would allow traditional biodiversity products  from developing countries real and timely 
access to the EU market.  
2.159.   Colombia, Costa Rica and Ecuador expressed their support for Peru's concerns.  
2.160.   The European Union recalled that in December 2013 it notified the proposal for a new 
regulation on novel foods , and an exceptionally long comment period (150 days in total) had been 
given to facilitate interested Members to dialogue with the European Union. The deadline to submit 
comments had been 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 European Union explained that the reference date 
of 15 May 1997 was already applied by the existing Regulation (EC) No. 258/97, and as the new 
proposal did not change the scope of the EU legislation, this date remained unchanged. A guidance 
document had been elaborated to explain how to establish the use of a food to "a significant 
degree". On the definition of "tr aditional food from third country", this only referred to primary 
production. Sacha inchi oil could be placed on the EU market, whereas camu camu or rumberry 
were only known in the European Union to be used in food supplements. The 25 years history of 
safe use reflected experience gained by one generation of population consuming the food in 
question, and no toxicological data were required, only compositional data. The new proposals 
aimed to streamline the pre -market authorization procedure, in particular b y 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 r eplaced by a new scientific guidance elaborated 
by EFSA by 31 October 2015, and would be subject to public consultation.  
2.161.   In October 2014 , Peru restated its concerns ov er the proposed amendment of 
EU Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 (G/SPS/GEN/1361) , again reques ting the review of several 
definitions.  Furthermore, Peru addressed Article 9 of the proposed amendment, which sets forth 
the procedure for authorizing the placement of novel food on the EU market, requiring the 
exporter to present scientific evidence demo nstrating the safety of the novel food in question. Peru 
challenged the consistency of EU's proposed regulation with Articles 2.2 and 5 of the 
SPS Agreement, which require the importing Member to adopt the least trade -restrictive measure, 
based on a risk a ssessment, and requested the European Union to provide the underpinning 
scientific basis.  
2.162.   Colombia and Guatemala expressed their support for Peru's concerns.  
2.163.   The European Union informed the Committee that Members' comments on the new 
proposed Regulation we re 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 facilita te 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 assoc iated 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 European Union e xpressed its confidence that the proposed Regulation 
was consistent with the SPS Agreement since it provided unified, simplified and shortened 
authorization procedures. The European Union reiterated its commitment to work closely with all 
Members to addres s their concerns and to provide detailed guidance to applicants regarding the 
authorization and notification procedures.  
2.164.   In March 2015, Peru reiterated its concerns ov er the proposed amendment of Regulation 
(EC) 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 underp inning scientific basis. Peru noted how trade statistics for 
kaniwa (or cañihua) exports showed the detrimental effects of the EU Regulation on Novel Foods G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 62 - 
 
  on Peru's traditional products derived from biodiversity. While Peru's global exports of kaniwa had 
increased by more than 317% in 2013 and about 206% in 2014, going to markets such as 
Australia, Canada and the United States, the marketing of this food in the European market was 
restricted and its real potential was therefore reduced. Peru also requested  the European Union to 
clarify the scope of the phrase "a large part of the population of a third country", contained in 
Article 2.2(c). The definition did not specify the percentage or number of people required for this 
part of the population to be consid ered "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.  
2.165.   The Plurinational State of Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominic an Republic, Ecuador and 
Guatemala expressed their support for Peru's concerns.  
2.166.   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 prod uction 
methods new to the European Union for various reasons. This was in line with article 5.2 of the 
SPS Agreement. The European Union noted that in some cases safe consumption might require 
preparation or consumption habits only known to the consumers o f the country producing the food 
in question. It was therefore not possible to anticipate the potential risk associated with such novel 
foods, production processes or production methods and to address them in an all -encompassing 
risk assessment. As a resul t, the high level of food safety pursued in the European Union could 
only be achieved on a case by case basis within the framework of a pre -market approval system. 
The EU scheme for novel food was in line with the SPS Agreement, as it was a pre -market 
approval based on scientific risk assessment, in line with Articles 5, 8 and Annex C. The European 
Union also reiterated its commitment to provide detailed guidance to applicants regarding the 
authorization and notification procedures and noted that products s uch as kaniwa should 
particularly benefit from the new Novel Food s Regulation, as they were likely to qualify for the 
simplified and shortened procedure for authorization of traditional foods from third countries. 
The European Union finally recalled that t he discussion by the EU Parliament and the Council had 
not yet concluded; therefore no final text was available. The European Union would be in a position 
to provide a definitive answer to the questions and concerns raised by WTO Members only when 
the fina l text was available.  
2.167.   In July 2015, Peru reiterated its concerns over the EU proposal for a regulation repealing 
Regulation (EC) No. 258/9 7 on novel foods notified in G/SPS/N/EU/64. Peru's traditional 
biodiversity products with high export potential were b eing affected by the European Union's 
current regulation on novel foods, to the detriment of small and medium -sized Peruvian producers 
and exporters. Peru gave the example of "huito", the 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.  
2.168.   Colombia, Ecuador, the Dominican Republic, Nic aragua, Guatemala, Costa Rica and Brazil 
supported Peru's statement, and highlighted the measures ' potential adverse effects on trade. 
They stated that the EU measure was not based on scientific principles and requested more 
information on its current stat us. 
2.169.   The European Union announced that the definitive 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, product ion processes and methods, 
and to address them in an all -encompassing risk 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 accor dance with A rticle 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 Foods Regulation had been in place since 1997, but there had been 
substantial imports of "h uito" 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 Foods 
Regulation, since it was likely to qualify for the simplified, shorter procedure for such traditional 
foods. The European Union announced that once the regulation was adopted, guidance on all the 
information to be presented by applicants would b e made available for public consultation and an G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 63 - 
 
  information session would be organized. The European Union remained committed to cooperating 
on this matter w ith all interested WTO Members.  
2.170.   In October 2015, Peru reiterated its concerns on the EU proposed Novel Foods Regulation, 
as notified in G/SPS/N/EU/64. Peru asserted that the proposed regulation was not compatible with 
Articles 5.1, 5.2 and 2.2 of the SPS Agreement, since the ban on the marketing of traditional 
biodiversity products was not justified by scientific evidence (G/SPS/GEN/1444). Peru observed 
that there was no scientific justification to require exporters to demonstrate safety of each product 
they wished to export to the European market and emphasized that Peru's traditional biodiversity 
produ cts with high export potential were being affected by the European Union's current 
regulation. Peru gave the example of ornamental fish, which were of high importance for 
vulnerable regions of Peru and exported to over 80 countries, but would be subject to  restrictions 
in the EU market due to this regulation. The proposed regulation did not take into account the 
needs of developing countries regarding access for biodiversity products and generated high 
barriers to trade in the European market. Peru requeste d that the European Union respond to the 
questions it had submitted. Peru invited the European Union to provide information on the 
upcoming vote by the European Parliament on this regulation, as well as details on the content of  
the project, and future ste ps. 
2.171.   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 proces s in the European Parliament, 
and on its adoption.  
2.172.   The European Union recalled that the co -legislators, the European Parliament and the 
Council, had made progress in the negotiations on the regulation and expressed hope that the 
novel foods legislation cou ld 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 a nd methods 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 Artic le 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 procedure 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 not considered food in the European 
Union. In addition, the European Union highlighted that Peru currently exported ornamental fish to 
the European Union on a regular basis.  
2.173.   Peru commented that the regulation would limit its exports to the European Union and 
requested that Peru be informed ex -ante and not ex -post on this issue. The European Union 
indicated that information would be provided on the final text and on the practica lities 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.  
2.174.   In March 2016, Peru raised its concerns over the new Regulatio n (EU) No. 2015/2283 on 
novel foods, which, like its predecessor Regulation (EC) No. 258/97, restricted the entry into the 
European market of certain foods and food ingredients qualified as "new foods" for not being 
marketed in the European Union before 15  May 1997. Peru expressed its appreciation for the 
seminar organized by the European Union on the margins of the current SPS Committee meeting, 
but noted that once again there was no scientific basis to justify the 25 -year history period of safe 
food use. Peru also highlighted the potential adverse impacts the regulations may have on SMEs in 
developing countries. Peru invited Members to review the examples of products affected by such 
regulations from previous submissions and cited in G/SPS/GEN/1477. Peru u rged the European 
Union to address its concerns regarding the new regulation, in particular to provide the necessary 
scientific justification for the regulation.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 64 - 
 
  2.175.   Colombia noted that some of its concerns on the new legislation had been addressed in the 
seminar organized by the European Union, particularly on documentation requirements. However, 
Colombia remained concerned that the definition of a novel food remained a product not consumed 
in the EU market before 1997, and about the burden small producers in developing countries 
would face in complying with the regulation.  
2.176.   Guatemala also shared the concern, reaffirming that the measure needed a scientific basis 
and urging the European Union to take into account the implications for small -scale, rural 
producers . 
2.177.   The European Union had already informed the Committee under a previous agenda item 
that the new Regulation No. 2015/2283 had been adopted in November 2015 and would apply 
from 1 January 2018. Preparations for implementing the new rules were ongoing, incl uding 
guidance from E uropean Food Safety Autority  for applicants seeking authorization. The European 
Union noted that the proposed regulation was consistent with the SPS Agreement. As it was not 
possible to the address potential risks associated with novel  foods in an all -encompassing risk 
assessment, the high level of food safety pursued in the European Union could only be achieved on 
a case -by-case basis within the framework of a pre -market approval system, in accordance with 
Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement. The pre -market approval system foreseen in the 
regulation was based on scientific risk assessment in line with Articles 5, 8, and Annex C. 
Concerning the 25 -year period of consumption, although there was no consensus on an exact 
period, most  experts and regulators considered the period should cover one to several 
generations; 25 years translated to roughly one generation, which was in the lower -end of this 
spectrum. In addition, the regulation complied with Article 10 on special and different ial treatment 
because it introduced a simplified procedure for the placement of traditional biodiversity foods on 
the EU market, once their history of safe use in third countries had been demonstrated, and if no 
safety concerns based on scientific evidence  had been raised. The European Union was confident 
that the new regulation was fully consistent with the provisions of the SPS Agreement and 
remained committed to cooperating with all interested Members.  
2.178.   In October 2016, Peru recalled its concern regarding  the new Regulation  (EU) 
No. 2015/2283 on novel foods, which like its predecessor Regulation (EC) No. 258/97, restricted 
the entry into the European market of traditional biodiversity products not marketed in the 
European Union before 15 May 1997. Peru con sidered both regulations not to be based on 
scientific evidence and a risk assessment and therefore to be inconsistent with Articles 2, 5.1 and 
5.2 of the SPS Agreement. As an example, Peru invited Members to review the case of products of 
stevia, a specie s native to the tropical region of South America used as a sweetener, described in 
G/SPS/GEN/1526. In particular, Peru urged the European Union to consider its comments on the 
implications of implementing its regulation, which constituted an unjustified ba rrier to trade with 
negative impacts on small farmers and producers.  
2.179.   Colombia recognized the European Union's right to protect its population, but highlighted 
the burden and high costs its small producers would face in complying with the regulation. 
Colomb ia urged the European Union to take into account the concerns raised. Costa Rica 
highlighted that novel foods were a tool for fostering rural development and SMEs growth in 
countries largely depending on trade of biodiversity products. Guatemala also share d the concerns, 
and noted that this type of measures discouraged trade of biodiversity products. The measure 
jeopardized Guatemala's free trade agreements negotiated with the purpose of diversifying its 
exports. Ecuador requested that the European Union pr ovide the necessary scientific justification 
for the regulation. Ecuador also highlighted the need to consider special and differential treatment 
as well as technical cooperation activities.  
2.180.   The European Union recalled that the new regulation had been adop ted and would apply 
from January 2018. Implementation rules on administrative and scientific requirements for 
applicants would be finalized by the end of 2017 and duly notified under the SPS A greement. 
In addition, two European Food Safety Authority guidan ce documents for applicants seeking 
authorisation and for notifications of traditional foods woul d be published in November. 
The guidance documents had been subject to public consultation and had been discussed with 
stakeholders, including non -EU countries , in April 2016. Technical reports on the outcome of these 
consultations would be published. The European Union was confident that the new regulation was 
consistent with the SPS Agreement. As it was not possible to anticipate potential risks associated 
with novel foods or processing methods in one comprehensive risk assessment, the high -level of G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 65 - 
 
  food safety pursued in the European Union could only be achieved through a pre -market approval 
scheme, in accordance with Article 8 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement . The European Union 
considered the new regulation to be in line with special and differential treatment, as it provided 
for a simplified and faster procedure for traditional biodiversity prod ucts, including stevia. 
The European Union indicated that Peru's  application on stevia had not been approved due to lack 
of information. Concerning the 25 -year period of consumption, it translated to roughly one 
generation, which was on the lower end of the recommended spectrum. The European Union 
remained committed to  continue working with Members and addressing their concerns on this 
issue.  
Categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors (STC 382)  
Raised by:  Argentina, China, United States of America  
Supported by:  Australia , Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Canada,  Chile, Central African 
Republic,  Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, Guatemala, 
India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, Ma dagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, 
New Zealand, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Senegal, Sierra Leone, 
South Africa,  Chinese Taipe i, Thailand, Togo, Uruguay, Viet Nam , 
Zambia   
Dates raised:  March 2014 (G/SPS/R/74 , paras. 4.3 -4.4), March 2015 (G/SPS/R/78 , 
paras. 3.20 -3.22), July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79 , paras. 3.50 -3.52), October 
2015 (G/SPS/R/81, paras. 3.34 -3.37) , March 2016 (G/SPS/R/82, 
paras.  3.15-3.20), June 2016 (G/SPS/R/83, paras. 4.32 -4.37), October 
2016 (G/SPS/R/84, paras. 3.18 -3.23)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.181.   In March 2014, t he United States noted that the European Union planned to publish a 
roadmap outlining different options and a preliminary impact assessment in its process to assess, 
classify and regulate endocrine disruptors. The United States urged the European Union to swiftly 
notify the roadmap, any future proposals and the draft impact assessment, and to take into 
account comments from Members. The United States requested that the European Union explain 
its endocrine disruptor 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.  
2.182.   The European Union highlighted that several segments of its legislation contained 
provisions on endocrine disruptors; however, scientific cr iteria for the identification of endocrine 
disruptor substances were not yet available. The European Union noted that it had planned to 
propose scientific criteria to identify endocrine disruptors in its biocidal products regulation and 
plant protection pr oducts regulation by December 2013. However, i n light of the potential impacts 
of a choice of criteria, the European Commission decided to carry out a comprehensive impact 
assessment to analyse  the different policy options available to define criteria for the identification 
of endocrine disruptors, before making a revised proposal. This process was underway and the 
next step would be the publication of a roadmap, within the coming weeks, outlining the various 
policy options for the criteria to be assessed. The impact asse ssment would follow standard 
EU guidelines, take into account existing scientific studies and reports, relevant international on -
going work on this subject, and the impact on international trade. The European Union further 
clarified that a p ublic consultation would be launched as part of the process in the course of 2014, 
enabling all stakeholders and trading p artners to provide their input.  
2.183.   In March 2015, the United States raised concerns regarding the EU public consultation on 
defining crit eria for identifying endocrine disruptors in the context of the implementation of the 
plant protection product regulation and biocidal products regulation. The United States questioned 
the scientific evidence considered in developing and selecting each of the options presented in the 
roadmap and feared that risk might have not been taken into account. Implementation of any 
hazard -based "cut -off" option that did not consider risk from actual exposure could have severe 
implications for EU imports of agricultu ral goods, including those from the United States. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 66 - 
 
  Furthermore, banning chemicals and pesticides solely based on endocrine -disrupting properties 
might incentivize the use of more dangerous products, simply because they do not present 
endocrine -disrupting p roperties. 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.  
2.184.   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 effect s 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 informe d. 
2.185.   The European Union noted that there was currently no new EU legislative proposal on 
defining criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors. The European Commission was in the process 
of conducting a full impact assessment, where all health, environmenta l 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 recei ved and published on the EU Commission 
website, and an analytical report of these responses wou ld be provided in due course. 
A stakeholders' conference for all interested parties, including third countries, was planned for 
1 June 2015, while a dedicated we bpage 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 und er each option for the criteria outlined in the Roadmap, with 700 chemicals being 
screened. Only when the results of these screenings would be available, the European Commission 
would launch the studies assessing impacts on health, environment, trade, agri culture 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 pr esent their comments, in line with the 
transparency obligations of the SPS Agreement that the European Union promoted and would like 
to reinforce.  
2.186.   In July 2015, the United States recalled its concerns on EU roadmap outlining possible 
options for defining c riteria 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 
the Committee informed of relevant developments, and encouraged the European Union to publish 
the draft legislation, once de veloped, including any risk and impact assessments carried out.  
2.187.   Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, India, 
Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, and Peru also spoke about the revised EU proposal 
on end ocrine 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.  
2.188.   The European Union recalled that it was currently conducti ng an all -inclusive risk 
assessment, including impacts on international trade, and that the report of the public consultation 
conducted between September 2014 and January 2015 would be made public in the coming 
weeks. The European Union also noted that all  the relevant information about the impact 
assessment had been made available on their website. The European Union recalled that two 
studies were being conducted, one on the identification of the endocrine disruptors and another on 
the assessment of impact s. 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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 67 - 
 
  2.189.   In October 2015, the United States restated the observations p resented during the 2015 
July meeting and thanked the European Union for its report of the public consultation held in 
Brussels in July 2015 (G/SPS/GEN/1448) .  
2.190.   Argentina shared the US concern and reiterated that future actions should be taken on a 
case-by-case basis and based on solid scientific evidence after appropriate risk assessment. 
Special attention should be given to minimizing adverse impacts on international trade and 
especially on trade in agricultural products, but also to minimizing socioeconom ic 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 re levant stakeholders.  
2.191.   Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, Chile, China, 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 propo sal 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.  
2.192.   The European Union recalled that it w as 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 r ecalled that two studies were being conducted, one on the identification of 
the endocrine disruptors and another on the assessment of impacts. Once, and if, a legislative 
proposal were eventually to be made, it would be notified to the Committee and commen ts from 
Members would be taken into account before adoption of the final regulation.  
2.193.   In March 2016, Argentina again raised its concern with the EU revised proposal for 
categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors, both on defining criteria for ident ifying 
endocrine disruptors and on the future EU approach to establishing MRLs and import tolerances for 
said substances. Argentina urged the European Union to adopt a risk -based rather than a hazard -
based approach. Argentina requested more information on the socio-economic impact of the 
EU revised proposal on endocrine disruptors. Argentina also requested an update on information 
provided at the previous TBT Committee meeting on this topic.  
2.194.   China shared the concern while commending the European Union for i ts efforts to protect 
consumers' health. China urged the European Union to incorporate actual exposure in its 
regulations, to apply existing Codex standards to minimize trade impacts, and to notify its 
measures at an early stage to take into account Member s' comments.  
2.195.   The United States reaffirmed the importance of plant protection products and their uses 
and recalled its concerns about the EU roadmap, which outlined possible options for defining 
criteria to identify endocrine disruptors. The United States q uestioned the scientific evidence 
underlying the options, and the consideration of any hazard -based "cut -off" option instead of risk 
from actual exposure. The United States encouraged the European Union to share information on 
the methodology used in devel oping EU member States' impact assessments as well as an update 
on the EU's intentions to include socio -economic analysis in the impact assessment. The United 
States requested that the 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, for p ublic comment. 
Additionally, the United States raised a concern regarding Regulation  (EC) No. 1107/2009 that sets 
out a hazard -based approach, rather than risk -based, to determine whether substances should be 
authorized for use. According to this regulatio n, pesticides previously deemed safe under a risk -
based approach would no longer be authorized if they triggered a hazard "cut -off", as described in 
Regulation (EC) 1107/2009. The United States urged the European Union to communicate risks 
accurately to th e public and reaffirmed its commitment to collaboration to reduce the potentially 
severe impacts on trade.  
2.196.   Canada shared this concern, as in the last three SPS Committee meetings. Hazard 
identification was an important step in risk analysis, but needed to be placed into the context of G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 68 - 
 
  exposure. Canada continued to seek clarification on the EU regulations, as the proposed 
approaches could impede the use of safe crop protection products, thus restricting trade without 
evidence of increased safety. Canada note d that the EU impact studies would be released later in 
2016 and requested clarification on how the studies would be utilized and comments would be 
managed.  
2.197.   Brazil, Burundi (on behalf of the African Group), Central African Republic, Colombia, Chile, 
Domini can Republic, Guatemala, Jamaica, India, Kenya, Madagascar, Mexico, New Zealand, 
Nigeria, Senegal, Thailand, Togo, Viet Nam, and Zambia also spoke about the revised EU proposal 
on endocrine disruptors. They encouraged the European Union to, inter alia , follow a risk -based 
approach, minimize any potential trade impacts, adhere to relevant international standards and 
keep informing the Committee of any relevant developments, especially the forthcoming impact 
assessments.  
2.198.   The European Union clarified that the roadmap contained two elements: the approaches to 
identify criteria and the approaches to regulatory measures. Two options of the latter contained 
elements of risk assessment. The European Union stated that in response to a judgement of the 
EU General Cour t in December 2015, the European Commission had decided to accelerate its on -
going impact assessment work in order to be able to present the  results in summer of 2016. 
The report was in its final stages and would be publically available once formally appro ved. 
Two regulatory measures were being considered: one containing criteria applied to chemical 
substances falling under the Plant Protection Products Regulation, and the other containing criteria 
applicable under the Biocidal Products Regulation. Both mea sures would be notified to the WTO in 
draft forms for comments prior to adoption. The European Union recalled that in the impact 
assessment the potential trade impacts were being evaluated, together with impacts on 
agriculture, health, environment, and soc io-economic impacts. The European Union noted that the 
methodology used to screen which chemicals may fall under the different options for criteria to 
identify endocrine disruptors had been developed by the Joint Research Center of the European 
Commission and had been presented in November 2015. The methodology, results, and 
contractor's details would be published upon completion. Finally, the European Union highlighted 
that it was acting in a fully transparent manner and invited Members to visit the dedica ted website 
where all relevant information was available.  
2.199.   In June 2016, Argentina reiterated its concern with the EU's revised proposal for 
categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors, notified in G/SPS/N/EU/166. The hazard -
based approach would mod ify MRLs of previously approved phytosanitary products to default 
levels that lacked scientific justification, leading to disproportionate and unnecessary trade 
restrictions. Argentina requested that these levels be based on risk assessments and the possib ility 
to establish MRLs above default levels for substances posing an insign ificant exposure risk. 
Finally,  Argentina regretted that the draft regulation setting out scientific criteria for the 
determination of endocrine -disrupting properties for biocidal products pursuant to EU Regulation 
No. 528/2012 had been notified to the TBT Committee (G/TB T/N/EU/384), and not to the 
SPS Committee.  
2.200.   The United States raised its concern with three EU policies related to the approval and use 
of plant protection products.  First, the United States joined Argentina's  concern that the EU's 
proposed approach to endocrine disruptors (EDs) would impose unnecessary trade restrictions, 
and asked the European Union to provide the scientific evidence used to justify the establishmen t 
of definitive criteria to identify EDs. The United States regretted that the impact assessment on the 
EU proposal had been published with no opportunity for public comment. The United States 
formulated questions on (i) the meaning of "negligible risk" as  used in the proposal, including a 
specific clarification as to whether the European Union would use the current standard to set MRLs 
under Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005 for substances that did not trigger the "cut-off" criteria; 
(ii) whether all ED substan ces designated by the European Union under the World Health 
Organization/International Programme on Chemical Safety (WHO/IPCS) definition would be eligible 
for the derogation allowing for an evaluation "in light of current scientific knowledge", provided 
that they met the negligible risk standard; (iii) the possibility to file an application for an import 
tolerance, based on a risk assessment, for a substance designated as an ED and not authorized 
under EU regulation; (iv) whether the registration and MRL -setting of carcinogenic, mutagenic, or 
toxic for reproduction (CMR) substances would remain hazard -based, and the possible application 
for an import tolerance of a product ineligible for registration because of the hazard -based "cut off" 
criteria; and (v) t he list of substances the European Union expects to be identified as EDs, and the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 69 - 
 
  role of potency and exposure in the identification process. In these questions, the United States 
highlighted the potential absence of a risk -based approach and u se of exposu re information. 
The United States also invited the European Union to organize an information session, in light of 
Members interest in this topic.  
2.201.   Second, the United States again expressed its concern with the hazard -based approach set 
out by Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009, and asked the European Union to clarify how the hazard -
based "cut -off" criteria would be applied to substances approved before 2009 for which the 
renewal process was expected to begin in 2016. The United States again requested that the 
European Union place scientifically -justified risk assessments at the heart of the establishment of 
tolerances for pesticide residues in food. Third, the United States expressed a special concern with 
the French ban on fresh cherries imported from countries t hat had approved the use of 
dimethoate. The United States urged France to notify the ban to the WTO, and to provide scientific 
justification for it. The United States especially questioned the fact that the ban was based on the 
pesticide's authorization by  the Member rather than on pesticid e residues in the cherries. 
The United States asked France to use less trade -restrictive alternatives such as residue 
monitoring during import checks, and reaffirmed its commitment to work with both the European 
Union and  other trading partners on these concerns.  
2.202.   China shared the concerns of Argentina and the United States, and again urged the 
European Union to incorporate assessment of actual exposure in its regulations, to apply existing 
Codex standards to minimize trade  impacts, and to notify its measures at an early stage to take 
into account comments from Members.  
2.203.   Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, India, Kenya, 
Malaysia, Mexico, Paraguay, Chinese Taipei, Uruguay and Viet Nam shared  the concern expressed 
by Argentina, China and the United States. They highlighted, inter alia, the importance of this 
issue and its potential negative trade impacts, and the necessary support of scientific justification 
and risk assessment in establishing  such regulation. They encouraged the European Union to 
adhere to relevant international standards and to continue informing the Committee of any 
relevant developments. Many of them joined in the request for an  information session. 
Australia  echoed Argenti na's concern regarding notification of the proposed biocide regulations 
through an SPS notification.  
2.204.   The European Union recognized the international dimension of this issue and fully 
appreciated the concerns expressed by Members. The European Union again h ighlighted that the 
European Commission had proposed to adjust the plant protection products' derogations to base 
them on scientific evidence, including information on hazard, exposure and risk, to take 
appropriate decisions on endocrine disruptors in comp liance with  international obligations. 
The European Union reminded that the new criteria -setting proposals had been notified via the 
SPS and TBT channels for full transparency. The European Union further noted that although the 
regulation concerning biocid es had been notified under the TBT Agreement and not SPS, the 
European Union was not dogmatic about this choice and was prepared  to revise it if necessary. 
The European Union informed the Committee that the issue of the French ban due to dimethoate 
concern s was currently under internal discussion. The European Union expressed interest in 
holding an information session as suggested, and would consider it in due time. The European 
Union invited all Members to promptly submit their comments in writing.  
2.205.   In Octo ber 2016, Argentina reiterated its concern with the EU's revised proposal for 
categorization of compounds as endocrine disruptors (EDs), not ified in G/SPS/N/EU/166. 
The EU proposed hazard -based approach would not efficiently assess risks posed by ED substa nces 
to humans and the environment. In addition, MRLs for phytosanitary products already approved 
following a rigorous European Food Safety Authority risk assessment would now be regulated 
under a mere risk -identification approach inconsistent with Codex s tandards. Argentina further 
noted that the proposed hazard -based approach was incomplete as it did not include the essential 
elements of risk -characterisation, such as potency, severity and reversibility of effects. 
Such elements were necessary to assess r isks to humans or the e nvironment according to the 
SPS Agreement and the World Health Organization/International Programme on Chemical Safety 
(WHO/IPCS). Argentina considered that the impact -assessment option selected by the European 
Commission would have significant agriculture, food safety, trade and socio -economic impacts. 
Argentina hoped import tolerance derogations for agricultural products would be applied in a 
transparent and non -discriminatory manner, while avoiding technica l obstacles to trade. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 70 - 
 
  Argentina  requested the European Union to take countries' comments into account before adopting 
the measure. Finally, Argentina thanked the European Union for the information session held the 
day before, welcoming any additional information on the proposal.  
2.206.   China shared the concerns and highlighted that in June 2016 , 13 Members had sent a joint 
letter to the European Union on this matter. China thanked the European Union for notifying the 
proposed regulation, and for holding an information session and bilatera l consultations before the 
Committee meeting. Considering the potential significant impact of the measure, China requested 
that the European Union fully fulfil the transparency obligation and provide at least a six -month 
transition period between adoption and implementation. China asked the European Union to 
provide replies to the comments submitted and urged it to consider assessment of actual exposure 
and potency factors, rather than substances themselves in its measure , as well as to apply existing 
Codex  standards to minimize trade impacts.  
2.207.   The United States expressed its appreciation for the EU information session and for the 
extension of the comment period for the ED proposals. The United States raised concerns with two 
EU policies related to the approv al and use of plant protection products; namely the EU's recent 
proposal on EDs published on 15 June 2016 (G/SPS/N/EU/166); and the reauthorisation of 
pesticides under Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009. First, the United States expressed its concern 
that the E U's proposed approach to EDs would impose unnecessary trade restrictions and asked 
the European Union to provide the scientific evidence used to justify the establishment of definitive 
criteria to identify EDs. Neither Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 nor the  impact assessment 
published on 15 June , identified the scientific evidence considered in the development and 
selection of EDs "cut -off" criteria. The United States welcomed a revised proposal, soon to be 
available, that might clarify questions on the dero gation process and the application of the 
WHO/IPCS EDs definition. The United States hoped that the updates for the derogation process 
would define the meaning of "negligible risk", include the important aspects of exposure and 
potency, and follow a risk -based approach under which all substances designated as EDs under the 
WHO/IPCS definition would be eligible to be registered provided they met the "negligible risk" 
standard. The United States further hoped that these changes would address its previous 
questions regarding other substances that trigger "cut -off" criteria such as carcinogenic, mutagenic 
or toxic for reproduction (CMR) substances. The United States further stressed the importance of 
non-discrimination in the implementation of this measure, and requested that the European Union 
implement guidelines and processes for risk assessment that were consistent for all substances, 
in addition to pursuing a transparent and predictable approach throughout the risk management 
process. The United States noted  two key questions that had previously been raised regarding 
these proposals and were yet to be addressed: (i) the possibility to file an application for an import 
tolerance, based on a risk assessment, for a substance designated as an ED and not authorize d 
under EU regulation; and (ii) the list of substances the European Union expected to be identified as 
EDs under the WHO/IPCS definition as well as specific information regarding when and how 
potency and exposure would be taken into consideration.  
2.208.   Second, the United States again expressed its concerns with Regulation (EC) 
No. 1107/2009. The United States reiterated that in the European Union, original approvals 
appeared to be for ten years, while renewals were for 15 years. Substances approved before 2009 
would therefore be scheduled to be renewed in 2019, and the p rocess would begin in 2016. 
The United States also highlighted that under Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009, pesticides approved 
for several years and determined to be safe under a risk -based system w ould no longer be subject 
to a risk assessment if a pre -determined hazard criterion was identified. The United States asked 
the European Union to explain how the hazard -based "cut -off" criteria would be applied in practice 
to substances undergoing the rene wal process. The United States also raised concerns with the 
important trade impact that the regulation might have in the future, and requested that the 
measure be based on a risk assessment. The United States finally highlighted the need for close 
collabo ration with trading partners and expressed its commitment to continue working with the 
European Union on this issue.  
2.209.   Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, 
Egypt, Guatemala, Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico, New Ze aland, Paraguay, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, 
Uruguay and Viet nam shared the concerns expressed by Argentina, China and the United States. 
They highlighted, inter alia , the significance of the issue and the potential negative trade impact 
while also recognisi ng the European Union's right to protect its citizens. They expressed concern 
over the hazard -based approach and called on the European Union to adopt a risk -based approach. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 71 - 
 
  They all expressed their appreciation to the European Union for the information se ssion held the 
day before.  
2.210.   The European Union referred to the information session that had taken place prior to the 
Committee meeting and where experts from the European Commission had provided detailed 
information and answered questions from WTO Members o n all the  elements of the proposals. 
The European Union informed the Committee that a compilation of the responses to comments 
received would be circulated and noted that regarding implementation and practical consequences, 
uncertainty remained as to if an d when the proposal would be adopted. The European Union would 
continue to be as transparent as possible on the matter, and take proportionate and appropriate 
decisions in compliance with international obligations. The proposals were going through the 
relevant regulatory procedures and the European Union would consider all the comments received.  
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 (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) , March 2016 (G/SPS/R/82, paras. 3.61 -3.63)  
Relevant document(s):  G/TBT/N/EU/284  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.211.   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. Currently, 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 allo w member States to ban or restrict 
the use of these products without requiring scientific 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 goods 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 GMOs in the entire Europe an Union in accordance 
with multilateral rules.  
2.212.   Paraguay shared Argentina's concerns with respect to the EU proposal, which could have 
an effect on products used for several years and which had not had any adverse effect on human 
and animal health or on th e environment. The amendment would allow member States to take 
measures not be based on scientific evidence, which would th erefore not comply with the 
SPS Agreement. The European Union was a major trading partner for Paraguay and Argentina, and 
the proposa l was of great concern for their producers. Paraguay therefore asked the European 
Union to reconsider the amendment of the regulation.  
2.213.   The United States also shared the concern, raising procedural questions, since the 
EU proposal had only been notified to the TBT Committee, 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 Regul ation (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 ex pressed 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 arbitra ry 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 72 - 
 
  approved at the EU level were inconsiste nt with the European Union's obl igations 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.  
2.214.   Brazil, Canada and Uruguay also shared this co ncern, emphasizing the measure's potential 
negative effect on trade and seeking additional information.  
2.215.   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 
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.  
2.216.   In October 2015, Argentina aga in 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 tha t 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 amendment and implement the current EU legislation on 
authorization and approval of GMOs throughout the entire European Union in accordance with 
multilateral rules.  
2.217.   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 out " system for genetically enginee red imports. 
ComAgri also urged the Parliament's Environment, Public Health, and Food Safety Committee 
(ComEnvi) to reject the proposal. The United States requested more information on the review 
procedure of ComEnvi as well as about the status of an impac t statement and legal opinion to be 
developed by the European Commission on the behest 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 genetic ally 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 t he 
EC-Biotech (2006) dispute  and reiterated the explanation that it had provided in July 2015.  
2.218.   Brazil, Canada, Paraguay and Uruguay also shared this concern, emphasizing the 
measure's potential negative effect on trade and seeking additional information.  
2.219.   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 th e 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 Me mbers via the TBT channels. 
The European Union indicated that it had complied with its transpar ency 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 th e EU-level.  
2.220.   In March 2016, Argentina raised concerns over the draft legislation notified on 20 May 
2015 as G/TBT/N/EU/284, which aimed to amend the current system of authorization of GMOs 
provided under Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003, in order to allow memb er States to restrict or 
prohibit the use of GM food and feed in all or part of their territory, even if a favourable opinion 
had been granted by the European Food Safety Authority . Argentina requested the European Union 
to withdraw the draft amendment and  implement the current EU legislation on authorization and 
approval of GMOs throughout the entire European Union in accordance with multilateral rules.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 73 - 
 
  2.221.   Canada recalled that it had raised concerns over this proposal in past SPS and TBT 
Committee meetings. I n August 2015, Canada had submitted comments in response to the EU TBT 
notification, and had received a response. Canada continued to believe that any EU member State 
measure taken under this proposal could have the potential to disrupt trade and introduce  
uncertainty. Canada noted the recent opinion of the Legal Service of the European Council that the 
proposal was unlikely to be found consistent with the European Union's internal market rules or its 
WTO commitments. Canada requested information on the Eur opean Union's plan for the future. 
Canada would monitor the issue closely.  
2.222.   The European Union explained that the proposal had no relation to the protection of life or 
health of humans, animals or plants. As a consequence, the measure did not fall under the  scope 
of the SPS Agreement and therefore had been notified under the TBT Agreement. Several 
comments had been received from WTO Members and replies had been sent to these comments 
via the TBT channels. The European Union also mentioned that the proposal w as currently under 
discussion at the Council of Ministers and the legislative process was  ongoing . 
EU restrictions on exports of pork from the State of Santa Catarina (STC 407)  
Raised by:  Brazil  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  March 2016 (G/SPS/R/82, paras.  3.11-3.12), June 2016 (G/SPS/R/83, 
paras. 4.18-4.19)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.223.   In March 2016, Brazil expressed its concerns on restrictions on exports of pork from the 
State of S anta Catarina. Brazil had been requesting access to the EU market since 2007 and had 
implemented a ractopamine -free segregated production (RFP) sc heme in order to comply with 
EU regulations. Brazil also recalled that maximum residue levels (MRLs)  for racto pamine were 
adopted at the 35th Session of the CAC. Brazil questioned the EU's testing methods and results o f 
an audit of the RFP scheme and urged the European Union to lift the restrictions. Brazil highlighted 
that this issue would continue to be discusse d under the Brazil -EU SPS mechanism.  
2.224.   The European Union recalled that its policy on ractopamine required countries which had 
authorized its use in pig meat production to have a split production system in place to ensure that 
pig meat exported to the Europe an Union is not derived from animals treated with ractopamine at 
any stage of the production cycle. Audits carried out in 2011 and 2013 in Santa Catarina had 
concluded that Brazil could not provide adequate guarantees that meat produced in this state 
would  comply with EU regulations. The European Union remained open for further bilateral 
discussions based on any new information provided by Brazil.  
2.225.   In June 2016, Brazil reiterated its concerns about the restrictions on pork exports from the 
State of Santa Cat arina. Brazil had been requesting access to the EU market for over a decade, 
and had implemented a RFP scheme in order to comply with EU regulations. However, this scheme 
was not recognized by the European Union. Based on available scientific evidence and the 
implementation of effective control measures, Brazil had been able to ensure that its pork exports 
to the European Union were free from ractopamine residues. Brazil urged the European Union to 
lift its restrictions and to allow Brazilian pork exports u nder the RFP scheme.  
2.226.   The European Union recalled that the split system for pig production in the State of Santa 
Catarina had been assessed by the audit services of the European Commission in 2011 and 2013. 
These audits had concluded that Brazil could not p rovide the necessary guarantees that pig meat 
produced in Santa Catarina would comply with EU requirements. The European Union informed the 
Committee of the bilateral exchanges between the European Commission and Brazilian authorities, 
including a March 20 16 written request for Brazil to provide more information on its residue 
monitoring plan on porcine animals, particularly on any new developments in its split system. 
The European Commission was currently awaiting a reply to this letter or any additional G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 74 - 
 
  information on the monitoring plan. The European Union indicated that it had also informed Brazil 
that an on -site audit of the implementation of the residue monitoring plan would be necessary to 
re-assess the split system. The European Union remained open f or further bilateral discussions on 
the basis of any new information provided by Brazil.  
EU MRLs for bitertanol, tebufenpyrad and chlormequat (G/SPS/N/EU/168) (STC 412)  
Raised by:  India 
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  October 2016 (G/SPS/R/84, paras. 3.2 -3.4) 
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/N/EU/168  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.227.   In October 2016, India expressed concerns regarding proposed amendments to Regulation 
(EC) No. 396/2005 to change maximum residue levels (MRLs) for b itertanol, tebufenpyrad and 
chlormequat in certain products. India had provided detailed comments on the proposed regulation 
intended to come into effect in February 2017. India highlighted its particular concern with the 
lowering of MRLs for chlormequat i n table grapes from 0.05mg/kg to 0.01mg/kg, which would 
seriously impact Indian grape exports to the European Union, which accounted for almost 25% of 
India's grape exports. India further noted that according to a European Food Safety Authority 
(EFSA) stud y conducted in 2010, residue concentrates of chlormequat in table grapes were safe up 
to 1.06mg/kg. Codex had not fixed any acceptable daily intake limits for chlormequat in table 
grapes, but had recommended an MRL of 0.05mg per kg. India further highlight ed that other 
countries had set higher MRLs for chlormequat in table grapes, such as Australia and New Zealand 
at 0.75mg/kg or Japan at 0.10mg/kg. The scientific reference included in the EU notification did 
not provide any specific recommendation on grape s. Thus the proposed lower MRL had no 
scientific justification, was not based on any relevant international standard and would have 
negative trade effects.  
2.228.   India further expressed its concern with respect to residue levels for bitertanol in wheat, 
set at a  default level of 0.01mg/kg from 0.05mg/kg. India questioned the rationale behind the 
European Union decision of undertaking a detailed assessment on the Codex limit. India requested 
the European Union to provide relevant scientific justification in light of Articles 5.4 and 5.8 of the 
SPS Agreement, and to maintain the current MRLs. India welcomed bilateral discussions.  
2.229.   The European Union recognised Indian producers' and regulatory bodies' efforts to comply 
with the existing MRL of 0.05mg/kg for chlormequa t. Since 2010 table grapes from India had 
complied with this MRL. For the time being, the European Union had decided to maintain the 
current MRL of 0.05mg/kg in grapes because the manufacturer had submitted new trial data 
supporting this level, and to revi ew it on the basis of the 2017 Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on 
Pesticide Residues (JMPR)  evaluation aimed at establishing a Codex standard. In light of the 
above, the European Union considered that this concern of India had been addressed. The 
European Union expl ained that the default value of 0.01mg/kg for bitertanol resulted from a 
recommendation of the EU reference laboratories and not from EFSA's reasoned opinion. EFSA had 
highlighted that the lack of information on the toxicological relevance of certain impur ities 
prevented the assessment of Codex levels and the inclusion of such levels in the EU legislation. 
The same issue had been raised in a previous EFSA opinion in 2010. The European Union informed 
India that it could make a request for an import tolerance  under Arti cle 6(4) of Regulation (EC) 
No. 396/2005 and submit additional data that would support re -establishing an MRL and alleviate 
any concerns about the metabolites. The European Union finally expressed its openness to bilateral 
consultations.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 75 - 
 
  2.5.2   Plant H ealth  
EU ban on mangoes and certain vegetables 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, para s. 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) , March 2016 (G/SPS/R/82, paras. 3.57 -3.58), June 
2016 (G/SPS/R/83, paras. 4.26 -4.27)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.230.   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 organ isms 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 consideratio n of the outcome of several alternative methods for treating mangoes, such as hot 
water treatments or irradiation. As a result, the 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.  
2.231.   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 pla nts 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 certificatio n systems. 
In 2010 and 2013, the EU Food and Veterinary Office u ndertook 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 ha rmful 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 measures and upgrade  its certification syste m. 
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 sufficient guarantees from the Indian authorities; 
and (iii) the decrease in the number of interceptions on  plants and plant products for which 
imports from India are not prohibited. The European Union hoped that India would take the 
necessary measures to allow resumption of export of all plants and plant products to the European 
Union.  
2.232.   In October 2014 , India r eiterated its concern regarding the EU ban on its exports of 
mangoes and four other vegetables on the grounds of increasing numbers of interceptions of 
harmful pests and organisms. India had informed the European Union of various measures taken 
to reduce t he interceptions, such as treating mangoes with ho t water against fruit flies. 
EU authorities had agreed to visit the Indian pack houses and the systems in place, and India 
requested the European Union to remove the restrictions at the earliest.  
2.233.   The Europe an Union explained again the reasons for introducing its measures on five 
problematic commodities at the EU border . The European Union clarified that the current 
temporary ban was in force until the end of 2015, and that an audit report would be released i n 
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.  
2.234.   In March 2015 , India recalled its previously -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 packag ing, quarantine and G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 76 - 
 
  inspection system. India also recalled the Commission's Food and Veterinary Office (FVO) visit to 
India in September 2014, which had reported overall improvement in the con trol system. 
India requested that the European Union recognize t his improvement and lift the remaining ban.  
2.235.   Nigeria shared India's concern and noted that such measures could be an impediment to 
Nigeria's export diversification efforts.  
2.236.   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 occurring regularly. The European Union indicated 
that further analysis was needed and th at a further review would take place in 2015 on the basis 
of the evolution of import interceptions.  
2.237.   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 stren gthening 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.  
2.238.   The Dominic an Republic shared India's concerns, noting that it was currently facing a 
similar situation.  
2.239.   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 Indian competent authorities that they would apply 
a specific phytosanitary treatment on mangoe s before exportation. Despite the progress made, 
many interceptions of harmful organisms were still occurring. These repeated interceptions raised 
EU concerns over the effectiveness of India's phytosanitary export system. The European Union 
recalled that t he measures were temporary and would be reviewed before the end of 2015 on the 
basis of the evolution of import interceptions and the guarantees provided by the Indian 
competent authorities.  
2.240.   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 Union to review the action plan and the report of 
the EU audit to facilitate removing the ban as soon as possible.  
2.241.   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.  
2.242.   In March  2016, India recalled its concern regarding the EU ban on exports of mangoes and 
four types of vegetables, on the grounds of an 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 has been extended to December 2016. India requested the European Union 
to share its findings of the official assessment visit and the gaps in the control system which led to 
the extension of the ban.  
2.243.   The European Union confirmed that its measures had been introduced in April 2014 due to 
significant shortcomings detected during previous audits of the European Commission and a very 
high number of interceptions to prevent the introduction of harmful organisms. The ban on G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 77 - 
 
  mangoes had been lifted in February 2015 and imports of mangoes were allowed if the Indian 
competent authorities declared the measures taken to ensure freedom from harmful organisms. 
With regard to other vegetables (taro leaves, bitter gourd, eggplant and sn ake gourd), the 
measures remained in place and had been extended until the end of December 2016 because the 
number of interceptions had remained significantly high. These high numbers raised very serious 
concerns about the effectiveness of the Indian phyto sanitary export/control system, in relation not 
only to fresh fruits and vegetables but wood packaging materials as well. The European Union 
indicated that it maintained regular information exchanges with the Indian authorities which had 
been supported by technical assistance activities.  
2.244.   In June 2016, India recalled its concern regarding the EU ban on four types of vegetables, 
highlighting that this ban had been extended to December 2016. During the period of March 2015 
to March 2016, the number of intercep tions by the European Union on exported fruits and 
vegetables had decreased from 33 to nine. India emphasized that its implementation of various 
control measures had led to the decrease in the number of interceptions, which further warranted 
the European U nion's consideration of removing the ban on the four vegetable exports. India also 
indicated that there had been an improvement in the exporter certification system implemented by 
its NPPO, which had adopted the sampling procedures as per international SPS  standards ISPM 7, 
ISPM 23 and ISPM 31. With reference to these developments, India requested the European Union 
to revisit the issue and to review the ban imposed on the four vegetables.  
2.245.   The European Union confirmed that its measures had been put in place  due to significant 
shortcomings identified in the control systems in India during previous audits conducted by the 
European Commission. The European Union indicated that it maintained regular information 
exchanges with the Indian authorities which had bee n supported by technical assistance activities 
to improve the effectiveness of India's control systems. The European Union further acknowledged 
the recent decrease in the number of interceptions and reassured India that the situation would be 
reassessed af ter the summer of 2016, following which a decision would be taken on the possible 
revision of the current emergency measures. The European Union remained open to work 
cooperatively with India to find a solution to this concern.  
2.5.3   Other concerns  
Agricultural biotechnology approval process (STC 110)  
Raised by:  United States of America  
Supported by:  Argentina, Australia, Canada, Philippines  
Dates raised:  October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 102 -105), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, 
paras. 33-35), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, pa ras. 56 -57), November 2002 
(G/SPS/R/28, paras. 69-72), September 2006 (WT/DS291/R, 
WT/DS292/R, WT/DS293/R), June 2016 (G/SPS/R/83, paras. 4.44 -4.46)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Partially resolved  
Solution:  Consultations requested on 13/0 5/2003 (WT/DS291/1). Single panel 
established for disputes DS291, DS292 and DS293 on 29/08/2003.  
Panel report (WT/DS291/R) was adopted on 21/11/2006. Suspension of 
concessions authorized on 15/02/2008; Arbitration requested on 
7/02/2008 (WT/DS291/34).  
Panel report (WT/DS292/R) adopted on 21/11/2006. Mutually agreed 
solution notified on 15/07/2009 (WT/DS292/40).  
Panel report (WT/DS293/R) adopted on 21/11/2006. Mutually agreed 
solution notified on 19/03/2010 (WT/DS293/41).  
Date reported as 
resolved:  21 Nove mber 2006  
 
2.246.   In October 2001, the United States expressed concern regarding the lack of a functioning 
approval process in the European Communities for agricultural biotechnology products.  Since 
1998, a de facto moratorium on approval of biotechnology produc ts had been in place.  The United 
Stated believed that under the SPS Agreement the European Communities was obligated to have a 
functioning approval process and decisions on pending applications should not be delayed.  The G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 78 - 
 
  United States urged the European Co mmission to restart the approval process as soon as possible.  
Canada was concerned that the European Communities was fundamentally altering the regulation 
of agriculture and food products to discriminate on the basis of how a product was produced rather 
than the product's characteristics.  Canada also considered the proposed new EC regulations to be 
arbitrary, as they required labelling for highly refined products, such as oil that did not contain 
detectable DNA or protein, while not requiring similar contro ls on products that could present equal 
risk but were produced with other methods of development such as mutation breeding or 
mutagenesis.  Moreover, the proposed regulations discriminated against products produced from 
genetically modified products, but no t against products produced with genetically modified 
organisms such as cheese and wine.  Canada argued that the proposed regulations were not 
commensurate with the risks and lacked scientific basis.  Furthermore, the proposed regulations 
were fundamentally unworkable, as demonstrated by the one percent threshold for the 
adventitious presence of GMOs.  
2.247.   The European Commission reaffirmed its interest and positive actions aimed at allowing 
the authorization procedures to continue.  The recent meeting of the Europ ean Environment Council 
had started a very important discussion on proposals presented by the Commission to restart the 
authorization procedure.  
2.248.   In March 2002, the United States reported that no progress had been made on the EC 
approval system despite stat ements by various Commission officials.  The de facto moratorium had 
resulted in the loss of over $200 million per year in US agricultural exports.  New information given 
by Commission officials in February 2002 that the approval process would be restarted l ater in 
2002 was welcome.  Frustration in US commercial and political circles continued to increase.  While 
the United States welcomed the establishment of the European Food Safety Authority, this did not 
address the fundamental problem of individual EC memb er States holding the approval process 
hostage to political concerns, with disregard for science and sound regulatory decision -making.  
Canada supported the US comments and noted that the March 1998 EC moratorium represented a 
de facto ban on a wide range o f products.  As such it violated not just the SPS Agreement, but also 
Article XI of the GATT.  Argentina echoed the concerns expressed by the United States and Canada.  
2.249.   The European Communities noted the absence of procedures at the international level for 
approval of these types of products.  The European Communities was following closely the work of 
the Codex ad hoc Taskforce on Biotechnology.  Considerable efforts had been made to put together 
a consistent body of legislation to set up an authorization proced ure for products resulting from 
biotechnology, with the aim of giving the producer legal certainty and transparency.  The newly 
established EC Food Safety Authority was responsible for risk assessment and risk communication, 
but further time was needed to c omplete the work by the European Parliament and the member 
States.  
2.250.   In June 2002, the United States indicated their frustration with the situation and noted 
that it was considering what steps to pursue.  Canada observed that the EC moratorium essentially 
operated as a ban on imports of certain products for over four years, without any scientific basis.  
The moratorium resulted in trade disruptions and discrimination based on production methods 
without regard to the assessment of risks.  Canada considered the EC  moratorium to be 
inconsistent with the SPS Agreement and the GATT, and requested the European Communities to 
put in place a science -based approval process, as well as to consider alternative measures.  The 
European Communities replied that the matter was f ollowing political procedures as previously 
described.  At this time, the European Parliament was considering the matter, and the Council of 
Ministers should examine the documents in the coming months.  Internal procedures had to be 
followed to apply the pro posed Directive.  
2.251.   In November 2002, the United States stated that the EC moratorium had resulted in 
approximately 1 billion dollars loss of US exports to the European Communities.  Even senior 
European Commission officials had publicly stated that the morato rium was illegal.  The United 
States indicated that despite the recent adoption of Directive  2001/18/EC , the moratorium 
remained in place and trade continued to be blocked.  The United States was of the view that the 
Commission had the authority and the powe r to act in the face of this illegal moratorium and it had 
chosen not to do so.  The Commission's failure to take action on this issue was a matter of growing 
concern to the United States.  Canada shared the concerns expressed by the United States and 
regret ted the inability of the European authorities to take steps to ensure that EC member States G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 79 - 
 
  met their SPS obligations.  Canada called upon the European Communities to lift the moratorium as 
soon as possible.  
2.252.   Australia supported the views expressed by the Un ited States and Canada about the lack 
of scientific basis for the EC moratorium.  Australia was also concerned about the EC related 
proposals on genetically modified food and feed, and the traceability and labelling of genetically 
modified organisms (GMOs).  Australia requested further information as to whether the European 
Communities had conducted a science -based risk assessment for its traceability regulations or 
based its measure on an international standard. The European Communities had confirmed in thei r 
previous responses that the research undertaken had confirmed that those GM foods and 
GM plants and derived products so far developed and marketed following usual risk assessment 
procedures had not shown any new risk to human health or the environment, b eyond the usual 
uncertainties of conventional plant breeding, or risks that were likely to put in danger the chosen 
level of health or environmental protection in the European Communities.  Given this explanation, 
Australia requested further clarification a s to how, in the absence of an identifiable risk to human 
health, the proposed traceability system met SPS requirements.  
2.253.   The Philippines shared the concerns expressed by the United States and reiterated his 
country's position regarding traceability of GMOs . The Philippines noted that the European 
Communities had failed to demonstrate any scientific evidence that GMOs were not as safe as their 
conventional counterparts, and that there were not less trade -restrictive measures available to 
manage the risk.  
2.254.   The European Communities noted that the Commission and the EC member States 
remained determined to put in place a regulatory framework to allow GMO and GM products to be 
marketed freely within the European Communities and noted that the progress had been made  in 
that respect.  The European Communities requested patience and understanding on this very 
sensitive dossier which was being dealt with at the highest level within the European Communities.  
2.255.   In accordance with the provisions of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing 
the Settlement of Disputes (DSU),  Canada requested consultations with the European 
Communities on 13 May 2003 (WT/DS291/1). The Dispute Settlement  Body (DSB) established a 
single panel for disputes DS291, DS292 and DS293 on 29 Augu st 2003.  The DSB ado pted the 
panel report s (WT/DS291/R , WT/DS292/R, WT/DS293/R ) on 21 November 2006 . On 17 January 
2008, the United States requested authorization from the DSB to suspend concessions and other 
obligations.  On 8 February 2008 , the DSB agreed  that the matter be referred to arbitration 
pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU . In accordance with the parties' joint request, the Arbitrator 
suspended the arbitration proceedings from 18 February 2008 until the United States requests 
their resumption und er the circumstances agreed between the parties on 14 January 2008.  
Mutually agreed solutions were notified on 15 July 2009 (WT/DS292/40) and 19 March 2010 
(WT/DS293/41).   
2.256.   In June 2016, the United States shared its ongoing concerns with the delays in the 
European Union to approve products of biotechnology, hindering the ability of producers to bring 
new products to the market. As an example, the United States mentioned three soybean products 
that had been approved by the EU scientific body in June and July 2015, but were still awaiting the 
final approval by the Commission. The three applications for soybean products had been reviewed 
by member States in January 2016 and awaited action by the Commission. The United States 
expressed concern that their adoption  by the Commission would be kept on hold until action was 
taken by the European Union to reauthorize glyphosate. The United States urged the European 
Union to approve these biotech products in a timely manner, regardless of unrelated matters, in 
order to c omply with their obligations under the SPS Agreement.  
2.257.   Canada shared the concern expressed by the United  States with undue delays in 
EU authorizations of the commercialization of biotech products. Canada urged the European Union 
to rectify the situation and  adopt the authorizations in a timelier manner. As an illustration of the 
delays, Canada stated that the average authorization by the European Union for a biotech product 
took over six years, and that the College of Commissioners took on average three and a half 
months after the vote in the Appeal Committee to make a decision on a biotech product. Canada 
expressed regret that such unjustified delays had recently impeded Canadian producers from 
commercializing certain soybean products from the 2016 season to  the European Union.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 80 - 
 
  2.258.   The European Union responded that applications for GMOs approvals continued to be duly 
processed in line with the current EU legal framework and that as of 2015, 19 food and feed 
authorizations had been adopted. With regards to the thr ee pending soybean applications, their 
authorization process by the Commission was in its final stages.  
EU withdrawal of equivalence for processed 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) , March 2016 (G/SPS/R/82, paras. 3.64 -3.66), June 
2016 (G/SPS/R/83, paras. 4. 49-4.50)  
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/GEN/1354, G/SPS/GEN/1354/Rev.1  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.259.   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 un der India's National Programme for Organic Products (NPOP). In order to 
expand its exports, in September 2012 India published guidelines that would permit certain 
imported ingredients products. These guidelines, which provided that the percentage of import ed 
ingredients would be within the range of 5%, were shared with the European Union who made no 
comment. However, Regulation (EU) No. 125/2013 with effect from 1 April 2013 removed 
processed organic products from the equivalence agreement, on the grounds t hat the agreement 
required that all of the ingredients must 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 resto red as it had withdrawn its 2012 guidelines.  
2.260.   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 o n the margins of the current meeti ng of the SPS Committee. 
The European Union reiterated its commitment towards engaging with India at a technical level on 
this issue, within the appropriate framework.  
2.261.   India explained that the criteria for designating a pr oduct 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, in cluding a list of notifications regarding requirements for organic 
products. India also queried whether the international standard -setting bodies had undertaken any 
work in this regard.  
2.262.   The Secretariat noted that most notifications regarding organic produc ts had been 
submitted under the TBT Agreement, as could be seen from the SPS and TBT Information 
Management Systems (IMS). There was no WTO legal interpretation addressing organic products. 
The Codex had undertaken work regarding, in particular, the labell ing of organic food products, but 
as confirmed by the representatives, neither the IPPC nor the OIE had any activities in that regard. 
The information provided by the Secretariat was subsequently issued in G/SPS/GEN/1354.  
2.263.   In October 2014 , the Secretariat i nformed 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 s oon as possible (G/SPS/GEN/1354/Rev.1, dated 7 November 
2014).  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 81 - 
 
  2.264.   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 cer tain imported ingredients, such as herbs, flavours, additives and colours, to be blended 
with Indian organic value -added products. India clarified again that no processed organic products 
containing imported ingredients were exported to the European Union since its 2012 guidelines 
had recently been withdrawn. India requested that the equivalence recognition be restored.  
2.265.   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.  
2.266.   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.  
2.267.   In March 2015, India raised concerns regarding 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 Septem ber 2012 India had published guidelines that would permit certain 
imported ingredients. These guidelines provided that the percentage of imported ingredients would 
be within the range of 5%. However, Regulation (EU) No. 125/2013 , with effect from 1 April 2 013, 
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 clarified that no 
processed organic products containing imported ingredients were ex ported to the European Union. 
India requested that the equivalence recognition be restored since it had withdrawn its 
2012 guidelines.  
2.268.   The European Union responded that India's concern was not an issue under the scope of 
the SPS Agreement. The European Uni on reiterated its commitment towards engaging with India 
at a technical level on this issue, within the appropriate framework. An audit of the EU's Food and 
Veterinary Office (FVO) would take place in India on 13 -24 April 2015.  
2.269.   The United States supported the EU response, noting that organic standards and organic 
certification programmes were not under the scope of the SPS Agreement.  
2.270.   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 and March 2015. Regulation (EU) 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 again requested that the equivalence recognition be 
restored, since it had withdrawn the 2012 guidelines that would permi t certain imported 
ingredients.  
2.271.   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 bilatera lly in the appropriate forum.  
2.272.    The United States supported the EU response 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 t he TBT Agreement.  
2.273.   India noted that packaging and labelling requirements 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 82 - 
 
  Regulation (EC) No. 834/2007 linked organic products with protection of human, animal and plant 
health.  
2.274.   Chile expressed the view that Codex standa rds did not define the scope of the 
SPS Agreement.  
2.275.   Ecuador requested clarification on the relevant Committee to discuss organic products 
requirements.  
2.276.   Codex explained that its Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing 
of Organicall y Produced Foods contained a definition of organic products but did not establish any 
food safety standards, nor any MRLs for food products.  
2.277.   The Secretariat explained that many Codex standards included requirements related to 
nutrition, labelling and packa ging 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 Agreement, 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 t he TBT Agreement.  
2.278.   The European Union noted that India's selective 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.  
2.279.   In October 2015, India recalled its co ncerns regarding the EU withdrawal of equivalence for 
processed organic products, which had previously been recognized since 2006. Regulation (EU) 
No. 125/2013, with effect from 1 April 2013, had removed processed organic products from the 
equivalence agre ement, 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 again requested that the equivalence re cognition be 
restored, since it had withdrawn the 2012 guidelines that would have permitted use of certain 
imported ingredients.  
2.280.   Chile stated that it had a similar agreement with the European Union; however it was clear 
this issue was related to TBT measur es rather than SPS measures.  
2.281.   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 de monstrated by the discussions that had taken place 
in India earlier in October 2015.  
2.282.   In March 2016, India recalled its statements from previous SPS Committee meetings and 
reported the most recent developments. In April 2015, an FVO mission had taken place to inspect 
the control systems but the report had not been received until February 2016. The report did not 
address the equivalence issue and India remained unaware of any gaps or of the steps the 
European Union was taking to address this issue. India rest ated its position that if any regulation 
addresses food safety in the context of Article 2.1 or Annex A , it falls under the scope of the 
SPS Agreement.  
2.283.   The European Union reiterated its position that this i ssue did not fall under the 
SPS Agreement. The Eur opean Union remained open to continue discussions with India on this 
matter in the appropriate framework.  
2.284.   The United States associated itself with the European Union and reiterated its view that 
this issue was not SPS -related.  
2.285.   In June 2016, India recalled the concern raised at previous SPS Committee meetings and 
reported that in April 2015, a mission had taken place to inspect the control systems , but the 
report had not been received until February 2016. The new issue at hand was the EU demand for 
reciproci ty and mutual benefits. India requested that the European Union communicate in writing G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 83 - 
 
  its precondition to grant only reciprocal equivalence for organic products, in order to pave the way 
forward for this issue to be resolved.  
2.286.   The European Union reiterated  its view that this issue did not fall under the 
SPS Agreement. The European Union was unprepared to provide any response in the 
SPS Committee but remained open to continue discussions with India on this matter in the 
appropriate forum.  
2.6  Guatemala  
2.6.1   Food Safe ty 
Guatemala's restrictions on egg products  (STC 413)  
Raised by:  Mexico  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  October 2016 (G/SPS/R/84, paras. 3.5 -3.6) 
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.287.   In Octobe r 2016, Mexico expressed its concern on Guatemala's restrictions on egg 
products. Mexico considered the measure to be in violation of fundamental principles of technical 
and scientific justification based on international standards, principles enshrined in  the SPS 
Agreement and the free trade agreement between Mexico and Central America. Mexico noted its 
preference to promote dialogue; however, these efforts had not been successful. Guatemala 
continued to impose import restrictions on Mexican egg products , even though its legislation 
allowed imports of heat treated avian products. Mexico indicated that its egg products exports 
were significantly affected by the restrictions and requested that Guatemala withdraw its measure 
in order to resume egg products tra de between the two countries.  
2.288.   Guatemala replied that in October, Guatemala had informed Mexico that it was currently 
conducting a risk assessment and would contact Mexico upon the conclusion of the analysis.  
2.7  India  
2.7.1   Food Safety  
India's amended standards for food additives (STC 403)  
Raised by:  European Union  
Supported by:  Chile, New Zealand, United States of America  
Dates raised:  October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, paras. 3.16 -3.18) , March 2016 
(G/SPS/R/82, paras. 3.30 -3.33)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Statu s:  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.289.   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 
Standard for Food Additives (GSFA). The European Union noted that the GSFA had expressly G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 84 - 
 
  stated that a lack of reference to a particular additive 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 ad ditives 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 deadli ne, and welcomed a written response from India at the 
earliest convenience. The European Union further urged India t o notify the measure to the 
WTO Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade.  
2.290.   The United States supported the concern and highlighted that altho ugh 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 additives 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 t o India.  
2.291.   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 approp riately by the authorities.  
2.292.   In March 2016, the European Union reiterated its concerns on India's Draft Food Safety 
and Standard Amendment Regulation, notified in G/SPS/N/IND/108. The European Union again 
welcomed the user -friendly and simple approach to th e listing of food additives in food products, 
as well as the hierarchical listing of food additives. However, the European Union observed that the 
regulation, if maintained as notified, risked disrupting both national Indian production and imports 
to India . The draft regulation recommended maximum levels of additives only where Codex had 
set such levels in the General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA). The European Union noted that 
the GSFA had expressly stated that a lack of reference to a particular addi tive or use of an additive 
in a food product did not imply that the non -listed additive was un safe or unsuitable for use. 
The European Union further noted that the GSFA was neither complete nor exhaustive and that 
many Members had implemented maximum level s 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 OIV of which India was also a member. The European Union urged India to 
maintain its engagement in the Codex and OIV work, including in the Electronic Working Group 
under CCFA (Codex Committee on Food Additives) on wine additives standards, where 
deliberations were expected to be focused on not limiting the use of wine additives but either 
allowing the usage on basis of Good Manufacturing Practices or by setting a numerical value to the 
use of additives in wine production. The European Union concluded by asking India to modify the 
2015 regulation based also on the EU comments to the above -mentioned WTO SPS notification and 
to provide a written reply to the EU comments. The European Union remained available to 
cooperate with India to further discuss this  and related matters in detail.  
2.293.   The United States shared this concern and stated that its comments and those from a 
domestic wine industry association had been submitted in January 2016, but had yet to receive a 
response. The United States requested such r esponse to be provided and invited Indian experts to 
attend a technical forum to be hosted by the World Wine Trade Group in May 2016.  
2.294.   Chile and New Zealand shared the concern and echoed sentiments already expressed 
regarding the inclusion of commonly -used and safe additives, and encouraged India to work 
closely with the Codex working group as the proposal was further developed.  
2.295.   India reported that its Food Safety and Standards Authority had attempted to harmonize 
the standards of food additives with those o f Codex. The Authority was working on finalizing the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 85 - 
 
  list of food additives as soon as possible and comments from interested stakeholders were being 
taken into consideration.  
2.7.2   Animal Health  
Restrictions due to avian influenza (STC 185)  
Raised by:  European U nion, United States of America  
Supported by:  Australia, Canada, China  
Dates raised:  March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 18-20 ), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, 
paras.  42-43), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 59 -60), June 2007 
(G/SPS/R/45, paras. 21 -23 ), October 2007  (G/SPS/R/46, paras. 29 -32), 
April 2008 (G/SPS/R/49, paras. 33 -38), June 2008 (G/SPS/R/51, 
paras.  31-35), October  2008 (G/SPS/R/53, paras. 29 -34), February 
2009 (G/SPS/R/54, paras. 17 -20), June 2009 (G/SPS/R/55, paras. 43-
46), October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, par as. 40 -43), March 2010 
(G/SPS/R/58, paras. 37 -40), June  2010 (G/SPS/R/59, paras. 39 -41), 
October 2010 (G/SPS/R/61, paras. 25 -28), March 2011 (G/SPS/R/62, 
paras. 37 -40), June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, paras. 64 -68), October 2011 
(G/SPS/R/64, paras. 81 -93) (G/SPS/R/ 64/Add.2, paras. 1 -2) 
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/N/IND/13/Add.1, G/SPS/N/IND/14, G/SPS/N/IND/46/Add.3, 
G/SPS/N/IND/46/Add.4, G/SPS/N/IND/46/Add.5, G/SPS/GEN/1138, 
WT/DS430/1, WT/DS430/3 , WT/DS430/R, WT/430/AB/R, WT/DS430/16, 
WT/DS430/17  
Status:  Not repo rted 
Solution:  Dispute settlement panel report and Appellate Body report adopted. 
Authorization to retaliate requested (including 22.6 arbitration) on 19 
July 2016 . Dispute settlement panel established on 25 June 2012. DSB 
adoption of Panel and Appellat e Body reports on 19 June 2016.  
Panel request: document WT/DS430/3 . Panel report: document 
WT/DS430/R. Appellate Body report: document WT/430/AB/R. Recourse 
to Article 22.2 of the DSU by the United States: document 
WT/DS430/16. Recourse to Article 22.6 of th e DSU by India: document 
WT/DS430/17 . 
Date reported as 
resolved:    
2.296.   In March 2004, the European Communities raised concerns on measures applied by India 
on 3 March 2004 on imports of live birds, fresh poultry meat and fresh poultry meat products due 
to av ian influenza. Contrary to Annex B of the SPS Agreement, these measures had not been 
notified. In addition, the EC stated that India's restriction on EC products was disproportionate to 
the health risks associated with these imports since the European Comm unities was free of highly 
pathogenic avian influenza. The European Communities reminded India of existing OIE standards 
on avian influenza and requested that India lift the restrictions on EC products.  
2.297.   The United States stated that it shared the concerns of the European Communities.  
2.298.   India explained that restrictions on poultry imports were temporary measures to address 
the emerging threat of introduction of highly pathogenic avian influenza. The measures were 
intended to protect farmers for whom poultry pr oduction was an essential source of income. 
Delays in the reporting of outbreaks increased the risk of the virus spreading into other countries. 
In addition, poultry infected by the virus did not always exhibit clini cal signs of the disease. 
Given  the stru cture of the poultry industry in India, it would be impossible to control the spread of 
the disease once introduced. India was taking all measures necessary to gather information on 
efforts to contain the disease globally and welcomed information from expo rting Members who 
were free of the disease.  
2.299.   In June 2004, the European Communities stated that India continued to apply import bans 
on a range of poultry products, including live birds, fresh meat and fresh meat products from 
several countries, allegedly i n response to highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), since 
February 2004. These blanket import bans were disproportionate to the risk and should be G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 86 - 
 
  confined to imports from regions affected by the disease, in accordance with OIE 
recommendations. The Eur opean Communities was officially free of this disease, according to the 
OIE criteria, and had implemented safeguard measures to pr otect this sanitary status. 
The European Communities asked that India review the current ban and lift all restrictions on 
poultry products from the European Communities.  
2.300.   India responded that measures prohibiting poultry and poultry products had been 
implemented as temporary measures. New outbreaks of HPAI in WTO Members, but not within the 
territories of the European Communities,  had been reported as  recently as 4 June 2004. 
Since  poultry production in India was typically a family -run business, Indian authorities were 
particularly concerned about potential human development of the disease.  
2.301.   In October 2004, the European Communities  expressed concerns that India continued to 
impose a ban on some live animals and a range of products of animal origin due to the risk of 
entry of HPAI into India. India had issued two notifications, on 7 July and on 6 August, informing 
Members of the rela xation of the ban for a range of products. However, the ban was 
disproportionate to the risk and there was no scientific basis for some of the measures imposed by 
India. The ban should be confined to regions affected by the disease following OIE guidelines  and 
recommendations. The European Communities recalled that it was free of HPAI and maintained 
this sanitary status. India was requested to review its ban and bring its measures into conformity 
with the SPS Agreement.  
2.302.   India reiterated that the ban was a t emporary measure which was enforced due to the 
outbreak of avian influenza throughout the world. The prevalence of the family -based poultry 
industry and the significant numbers involved in the industry would make it impossible to control 
the disease if it spread to India. The situation had been under constant review since the imposition 
of the ban in February 2004. The ban on imports of poultry with vaccination and specific pathogen 
free eggs was lifted in July 2004. A subsequent review by an expert group r esulted in the 
continuation of the ban on imports of certain products such as live and raw poultry and pig meat. 
Processed products from HPAI infected countries were allowed into India, however, and the 
situation continued to be monitored.  
2.303.   In June 2007, th e United States noted that India was banning poultry, swine and other 
products in response to the detection of low pathogenic avian influenza (AI) in wild birds in some 
parts of the United States. These restrictions far exceeded the standards developed by the OIE for 
the control of AI. India failed to apply the concept of regionalization to the United States. 
India applied its ban against US products although no incident of HPAI had occurred in the United 
States; applied its ban to products that had been tr eated or processed in such a manner that the 
AI virus was killed; and applied its ban to species and products from animals that were not known 
to transmit the virus. Although India had recently notified a change to its measures to allow the 
entry of dry pr ocessed pet food, it continued to prohibit other heat -treated pet foods that posed no 
animal health risk.  
2.304.   The European Communities observed that they had similar concerns regarding India's 
measures. Although they had been seeking to resolve the matter bila terally, problems continued to 
appear and reappear. All Members should apply the international standards, to ensure that the 
measures applied were proportionate to the risks. India's measure was applied even to products 
that had never been known to transmi t AI, including pork meat.  
2.305.   India noted that high or low pathogenic strains of AI had been reported in more than 
60 countries, and his its authorities were concerned that the virus was spreading. The virus had 
important human health implications, given its high fatality rate. India had experienced an 
outbreak of HPAI in 2006 which had been successfully contained, and the country was now free of 
the disease. India was trying to safeguard animal and human health in its territory, and protect its 
family -run pou ltry industry. It therefore banned imports of poultry from any country which had 
experienced an outbreak of AI, whether highly pathogenic or low pathogenic. The United States 
had reported an outbreak of low pathogenic AI. Countries free from AI could expor t livestock to 
India, and pathogen -free eggs for vaccine production were permitted from any country, regardless 
of its AI status. Because many wild birds visited India, this was a vector of concern. With regard to 
pet food, India had revised its health pro tocol notified in June 2007, and would take into account 
the comments made on this matter.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 87 - 
 
  2.306.   In October 2007, the United States reiterated concerns regarding India's ban on imports of 
US poultry, swine and their products due to detections of low -pathogenic A I in wild birds in the 
United States. India had made two notifications related to AI (G/SPS/N/IND/46/Add.3 and 
G/SPS/N/IND/46/Add.4). The Add.3 document extended AI -related import prohibition to include 
pig bristles. Prohibiting the import of these product s was not scientifically justified nor in 
compliance with the OIE guidelines based on the AI status of a country, region or zone. The United 
States requested that India remove all import restrictions on US origin live pigs and porcine 
products. India's Add .4 extended for a further six months the emergency measures it had put in 
place in August 2006. The United States expressed concerns with regard to India's continued 
emergency measures related to AI. The United States urged India to put in place permanent 
measures for trade in poultry products and AI, and to ensure that these measures were consistent 
with the provisions of the OIE Code chapter on AI. India's measures should distinguish between 
highly -pathogenic and low -pathogenic strains of AI, and allow fo r the application of regionalization.  
2.307.   The European Communities stated that India failed to recognize the difference between 
high and low pathogenic influenza as well as the AI -related differences between wild birds and 
domestic animals. The European Commun ities again encouraged India to follow the 
recommendations from the OIE.  
2.308.   India stressed the dangers related to AI and how widespread the virus had been. Following 
the 2006 HPAI outbreak in India, the country was extremely cautious to safeguard its animal a nd 
human health, particularly in view of the family - run poultry industry in India and because AI was 
known to reoccur in countries where outbreaks had previously taken place. India restricted imports 
from countries reporting AI. The United States was curr ently positive for low pathogenic AI in 
poultry (LPNAIH5). India's import restrictions due to outbreaks of AI in the United States were 
clarified in detail to the United States during the last Ttrade Ppolicy Fforum meeting held in New 
Deli. India contested  the claim that its regulations were not based on science by observing that the 
presence of LPAI in poultry was a notifiable disease according to the OIE as per the list of diseases 
in Article 2.1.3 of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code. Furthermore, as no ted by USDA's factsheet 
on AI, LPAI had a high potential to mutate into highly pathogenic AI; a view that India shared. 
Nonetheless, India regularly reviewed its trade regulations in the light of new developments on AI. 
Regarding the concerns with pork pro ducts, there were numerous scientific reports that pigs could 
be easily infected by many human and AI viruses and, therefore, could provide an environment 
favourable for viral replication and genetic re -assortment. The fast mutating nature of the AI virus,  
along with the possibility that the virus could re -combine with other subtypes, made pig and pig 
products a risk. With regard to wild birds, India indicated that consultations with experts had taken 
place and that the Indian authorities were of the view t hat wild birds could not be ignored with 
respect to AI. The US and EC concerns would be reported back to India's technical experts for 
review.  
2.309.   OIE clarified the recommendations of the OIE and how they  should be put in practice. 
The listing of diseases such  as HPAI and low pathogenic notifiable avian influenza (LPNAI) was first 
and foremost for disease reporting purposes and related to the question of transparency. Findings 
of AI in wild birds and of LPNAI should not lead to import bans. There needed to be a  distinction 
drawn between reporting and the imposition of measures. OIE reiterated that there was no 
scientific basis for restrictions on pigs and pig products in relation to AI, whether it be high or low 
pathogenic strains, and this point was clear in th e OIE Tterrestrial Ccode. OIE was concerned that 
the imposition of measures that were not scientifically based worsened the risks for spread of 
disease because countries were discouraged from proper reporting if they believed that the 
reporting would lead to unjustifiable measures. It was of utmost importance that countries report 
their diseases.  
2.310.   In March 2008, the European Communities indicated that In dia continued to ban certain 
EC animal products due to AI. Although India had earlier this year relaxed th e ban for some 
products, it continued to ban many commodities. India imposed the ban in response to both high 
and low pathogenic strains of AI. The OIE, however, did not recommend trade bans if AI was 
present only in wild birds, or if low pathogenic strain s were found. The obligation to notify cases of 
low pathogenic AI to the OIE should not be misused as a reason to impose trade restrictions, as 
the OIE had previously clarified in this Committee. Furthermore, heat -treated products could be 
safely traded re gardless of the AI status of the exporting country. The European Communities 
considered also that India's ban on pig meat and pork products based on AI concerns was 
disproportionate to the risk. Although the European Communities had requested information G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 88 - 
 
  regarding what needed to be done to regain free status, India had not provided any response. 
As indicated previously, the European Communities was of the view that India's measures were 
disproportionate to the risks and for some products were not based on s cientific evidence. In 
addition, HPAI had been found in India, and the European Communities questioned whether Indian 
domestic products would be subject to the same treatment as imported goods.  
2.311.   The United States shared the concern that India's measures wer e introduced and 
maintained without sufficient scientific basis or a risk assessment. The measures were unjustifiably 
restrictive and too broad in geographic and commodity application. Bilateral exchanges had 
allowed progress on some areas, but not regardi ng the AI measures. Despite requests, the United 
States had not yet received copies of India's risk assessment. Furthermore, these emergency 
import prohibitions had been extended again (G/SPS/N/IND/46/Add.5), after having been in place 
for almost two years . The United States urged India to lift AI measures that were not based on 
science, and in particular to distinguish between high and low pathogenic strains, recognize 
disease -free zones, not apply measures to swine and pork products, and to recognize meas ures 
taken to inactivate the virus.  
2.312.   Australia shared the concerns of the European Communities and the United States, and 
urged India to base its measures on sound science and OIE standards.  
2.313.   Mali reported that since his country did not know how to do a risk  assessment with regard 
to AI, it had closed its borders to poultry imports from countries which had the disease.  
2.314.   India noted that AI continued to spread, and that it had serious human health implications 
with hundreds of persons already affected. India ha d previously had an outbreak, and despite its 
efforts to eradicate the disease, new outbreaks had occurred. India viewed low and high 
pathogenic strains of AI with equal concern, regardless of whether in poultry or wild birds, and was 
not permitting import s from affected countries. Low pathogenic AI presented a high potential risk, 
as the science showed that the virus was constantly evolving and there was a possibility of low 
pathogenic AI mutating into a highly pathogenic strain. With respect to the OIE gu idelines, 
India had voted against the resolution in the last annual session which proposed that low 
pathogenic AI was not a concern for international trade. India was not the only country taking 
such measures, and Egypt had apparently imposed similar requi rements. India had recently 
reviewed and modified its measures on pathogen free eggs, and pet food, and agreed to provide 
information to the European Communities shortly. The concerns raised by other Members would be 
communicated to technical experts in ca pital. India assured all Members that it would abide by its 
WTO obligations.  
2.315.   The European Communities clarified that in the case of Egypt, the measures were applied 
to very different commodities. Although both countries had measures related to AI, these co uld 
not be easily compared.  
2.316.   In June 2008, the European Communities reported that India continued to apply a ban on 
the imports of poultry, swine, and their products, from areas that had reported outbreaks of either 
low- or high - pathogenic AI in wild bird populations only. In addition, India restricted the 
importation of products also from areas where low pathogenic AI had been found, disregarding the 
OIE standards which assured the complete elimination of risks and allowed products to be safely 
traded. The  ban on imports of pigs and pig meat was not justified according to the OIE, nor had 
India provided scientific justification for the ban. India's restrictions were disproportionate and the 
European Communities requested India to review its measures without  delay.  
2.317.   Canada supported the EC arguments, noting that according to the OIE, pigs did not 
represent a threat for transmitting AI. Furthermore, India should recognize the principle of 
regionalization when applying a ban based on AI. Canada requested that In dia follow the OIE's 
standards and remove the import restrictions currently in place.  
2.318.   The United States supported the concerns raised, observing that India's measure had been 
introduced and maintained without scientific evidence or risk assessment. India's  argument that 
low pathogenic AI had the potential to mutate into the highly pathogenic form, and that virus re -
assortment could occur in swine, had been addressed by the OIE. The United States had requested 
a copy of India's risk assessment that supported  its ban, but this had not been provided.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 89 - 
 
  2.319.   China supported the concerns raised and requested India to revisit its measure in order to 
comply with OIE recommendations.  
2.320.   India clarified that it did not allow the importation of poultry and pork products, includ ing 
processed meats, from areas where outbreaks of AI had been reported. India reiterated that it was 
equally concerned about low and highly pathogenic AI, as well as with AI found in wild birds only. 
A number of scientific studies had shown the possibilit y of low pathogenic forms of AI mutating 
into highly pathogenic strains. A report from FAO had also shown that mutation was feasible. An 
official US web site asserted that low pathogenic forms of AI had the potential to mutate into HPAI. 
India remained con cerned that the low pathogenic viruses also posed risks to human health. 
Regarding pigs, scientific evidence showed that pigs could host the virus and were known to be a 
mixing vessel for some diseases, hence they could infect humans with AI. As new scient ific 
evidence evolved, India had lifted its bans on some products, suc h as eggs and pet food. 
Further  reviews would be done in the future. India took note of Members' requests for copies of 
the risk assessment and for the recognition of regionalization, an d those concerns would be 
conveyed to experts in the capital.  
2.321.   In October 2008, the European Communities acknowledged India's efforts to remove its 
import restrictions on processed pig meat. However, India continued to apply a ban on live animals 
and on a w ide range of products of animal origin. This ban had been based on the risk of entry into 
India of several diseases, in particular AI. These restrictions did not conform to the OIE standards. 
India was also invited to acknowledge that heat -treated meat and  meat products could be safely 
traded regardless of the AI status of the exporting country. Moreover, India had not responded to 
the request for providing scientific justification and its risk assessment on pig meat and pig meat 
products.  
2.322.   The United State s expressed concerns regarding India's extension of its emergency 
measures prohibiting a wide range of products because of AI. These measures were not based on 
scientific evidence or on risk assessment. The United States renewed the request to India to 
provide a copy of their AI risk assessment. Finally, India was requested to modify its measure to 
address the concerns expressed by several Members.  
2.323.   In response to the US request, India proposed that a technical discussion between India 
and other technical ex perts be held. The United States invited India to bring its technical experts 
to the next meeting of the SPS Committee and again requested a copy of India's risk assessment. 
India suggested that instead of waiting for the next meeting the experts could mee t before then, 
perhaps through a video conference, which could allow a resolution  before the next meeting. 
India reported that the import restriction of AI - related products had been discussed in the OIE, in 
the SPS Committee, and in various bilateral meet ings with countries including the European 
Communities and the United States. India had been reviewing the policy of AI and its trade 
implications every six months. This led to the removal of import restrictions on different processed 
pig products from AI -positive countries. India would continue to review its restrictions and keep 
only those which affected human and animal health. India suggested that the discussion should 
stay among experts.  
2.324.   The OIE stated that countries should notify the presence of AI in  domestic and wild birds. 
However, notification of the early detection of AI in wild birds was requested for purposes of 
transparency and should not lead to trade restrictions. OIE urged OIE members to send their 
scientific evidence to the OIE, to be consi dered when making necessary amendments to the 
standards established in the OIE codes.  
2.325.   In February 2009, the United States expressed disappointment that India continued to 
maintain its emergency measures prohibiting a wide range of products because of AI wi thout 
scientific evidence or a risk assessment. Appropriate measures for AI did not include trade 
restrictions on swine or swine products, trade measures related to notifiable AI in wild birds, or 
prohibitions on heat -treated products. In addition, Members  should distinguish between highly 
pathogenic and low pathogenic AI. The United States welcomed India's previous proposal for a 
technical level meeting to discuss the issue, and again urged India to present its risk assessment 
so that a technical discussio n could be scheduled.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 90 - 
 
  2.326.   The European Communities welcomed the recent lifting by India of some AI -related 
restrictions, but supported the US concerns that the remaining restrictions were unjustified and 
went against the OIE Terrestrial Code, in particular the  lack of distinction between outbreaks of 
highly pathogenic and low pathogenic AI.  
2.327.   India explained that since many countries reported AI, and because of the human health 
implications, it was natural that Members were extremely cautious to safeguard animal and human 
health. This was particularly true in India, since its poultry indust ry was largely family -run. 
Many  Members had adopted AI measures, including import bans. India had banned imports of 
poultry and swine products from countries reporting both low and highly pathogenic AI, since one 
strain of the virus could mutate into the other. An FAO publication acknowledged that mutation to 
virulence had been demonstrated, and the USDA website also admitted this. At the OIE General 
Session, India had voted agai nst the resolution stating that low pathogenic AI was not a trade 
concern. India believed that trade interests should not take precedence over human health 
concerns, but accepted that science was evolving and had provisions for reviewing its AI 
measures. A s a result, trade restrictions on certain products from AI positive countries had been 
lifted. India had recently reviewed the restrictions on pig meat and found there was minimal risk, 
especially when processed. India had thus decided to lift restrictions  on pig products and on 
processed poultry products. The reviews would continue. India had taken note of the US concerns, 
had had bilateral meetings with the United States and the European Communities, and would 
convey their concerns to the relevant authori ties. 
2.328.   The OIE indicated that AI was a major challenge for trade in poultry products. The relevant 
standards were in place and the OIE did not receive many comments from OIE members; the 
standard seemed to be well accepted. Currently the OIE was looking at conditions for trade in pet 
food and various by -products such as feather meal. Members should review the AI standards and 
raise any concerns at the OIE. The OIE clarified that there were a number of publications on AI, 
some by the OIE, some by FAO, some jo int. For international trade, the relevant standard was in 
the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code.  
2.329.   In June 2009, The European Communities appreciated the bilateral meetings with India but 
remained concerned that India's measures were not consistent with OI E standards. Despite having 
raised the concern previously, India continued to make no distinction between low and high 
pathogenic AI, and had still not shared its scientific justification for the measures. The European 
Communities regretted that India did not adhere to the principle of regionalization, and 
furthermore that India banned imports of live pigs citing AI fears, but had no such ban on the 
domestic market. The European Communities called upon India to base its import requirements on 
the relevant i nternational standards.  
2.330.   The United States shared the concern raised by the European Communities and noted that 
India prohibited the import of a large number of items, in disregard of the relevant OIE Chapter. 
The United States requested that the bans on sw ine be lifted and that scientific justification be 
provided for all measures. In addition, the United States requested India to provide a copy of its 
risk assessment for the measures relating to AI.  
2.331.   India stated that the ban on pork products was taken to  prevent an outbreak of AI. 
The measures were based not only on OIE guidelines, but on relevant scientific literature. 
Technical experts re -evaluated the scientific information every six months, and now imports were 
banned only from those countries reporting  H5 and H7 strains of low pathogenic AI. India was 
concerned that the low pathogenic virus could mutate into the high pathogenic virus, which had a 
greater impact on animal and human health. Trade concerns should not interfere with the 
protection of human and animal health. All restrictions regarding pork and poultry products except 
live pigs had been lifted from areas reporting AI, because the AI virus could mutate in the pigs, as 
both human and AI viruses had established stable virus lineages in pigs. Ind ia applied the same 
measures to domestic products as to imports. India thanked the European Communities for fruitful 
bilateral discussions on 22 June 2009, and expressed its commitment to dialogues with all 
interested Members.  
2.332.   OIE drew attention to the inf ormal dispute resolution procedure of the OIE as a means to 
resolve technical differences relating to provisions of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 91 - 
 
  2.333.   In October 2009, the European Communities recalled that India still failed to base its 
requirements on O IE standards, and still maintained a ban on live pigs, pig semen and products 
such as feathers for reasons of AI. Furthermore, India did not recognize the regionalization 
principle, applied strictly in the European Communities where affected zones were pla ced under 
strict biosecurity measures, and instead India required total country freedom from AI. Although 
India had announced unprocessed meat would no longer be blocked for reasons of AI, India's 
requirements stated that only heat -treated pig meat could b e imported, a measure not in line with 
international standards. The European Communities requested India to provide scientific evidence 
justifying its strict measures; to bring its import requirements in line with international standards; 
and to recognize the regionalization principle as applied in the European Communities.  
2.334.   The United States stated that India's ban and AI import requirements were not in line with 
OIE standards. India continued to prohibit the import of pigs and of a wide range of avian spec ies 
and avian products without a risk assessment that supported the measure. India had maintained 
an emergency measure in one form or another since 2002 and its emergency notifications since 
2004 had essentially blocked all imports. Sufficient time had pas sed for India to complete an 
import risk assessment and to adopt OIE -consistent measures. The United States requested India 
to provide its risk assessment and to modify its measures to address the concerns expressed by a 
number of Members.  
2.335.   India stated tha t the notification issued on 28 August 2009 prohibited the import of poultry 
and poultry products and live pigs from countries reporting both highly pathogenic and low 
pathogenic AI. India's technical experts had observed that symptoms of highly pathogenic  AI were 
noticeable and the infection could be controlled, but low pathogenic AI might pass unnoticed and 
the control of the infection could become difficult. Additionally, there was no data available 
confirming that low pathogenic AI could not mutate into  highly pathogenic AI. Imports were 
currently allowed based on the AI status of the exporting country. The Indian authorities had 
commissioned a lab -based study of domestic pigs to confirm the chances of genetic re -assortment 
of the virus in live pigs that  could produce new influenza viruses. As notified, India permitted the 
import of poultry products from countries reporting AI subject to a conformity assessment. 
Comments received from trading partners on this notification were under examination.  
2.336.   OIE state d that there were some differences at a scientific and technical level in relation to 
this matter, and reminded Members of the OIE's informal mechanism to resolve differences at a 
scientific and technical level.  
2.337.   In March 2010, the United States stated that  India was alone among the world's leading 
trading partners in imposing severe import requirements related to AI, that were not in line with 
those established by the OIE. India continued to maintain emergency measures prohibiting a wide 
range of pig and av ian products. Furthermore, India had not provided timely emergency 
notifications to the WTO Secretariat, as it had extended its AI emergency measures on 28 August 
2009, but not yet notified it. The United States had for several years repeatedly requested a  copy 
of India's risk assessment, but this was never provided.  
2.338.   The European Union supported the US concerns regarding India's ban on imports of a 
number of products and live animals that, according to the OIE , should not be restricted. 
The European Union h ighlighted the importance of the use of the SPS notification system by India. 
The European Union also repeatedly requested India's risk assessment for its AI measure, but had 
not obtained it. Moreover, India did not recognize the regionalization principle,  as applied in the 
European Union whenever an outbreak of AI occurred.  
2.339.   OIE encouraged WTO Members to implement the OIE standards on AI, since they were 
based on science and had been democratically approved.  
2.340.   India reported that as notified, it imposed an im port ban on live pigs, poultry and other 
poultry products from countries reporting either the H5 or H7 strains of AI. There was no import 
ban on live pigs, poultry or poultry products from countries reporting AI in wild birds, other than 
poultry. The ban w as imposed on countries with both LPAI and HPAI, as the LPAI virus might 
mutate into HPAI virus. India conducted a detailed risk analysis for the importation of animal and 
animal products, by a committee of experts, based on the existing global situation o f AI, available 
scientific literature and the OIE standards. The justification for imposing the ban on live pigs was G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 92 - 
 
  due to the fact that pigs were known to act as mixing vessels for human, animal and other 
influenza viruses. The ban on pigs would be revie wed after the completion of some technical 
studies.  
2.341.   In June 2010, the European Union reiterated the concerns regarding India's restrictions 
due to AI and the lack of notification by India on the issue. India had announced via its website 
that it would revi ew its import conditions related to AI every six months. hHowever, that 
information had not been notified to the WTO. The European Union recalled that on several 
occasions India had been requested to provide scientific justification for imposing import 
restrictions above the OIE standard on AI. During its May 2010 General Assembly, the OIE had 
confirmed that its AI standard was well supported by scientific evidence, and it had also been 
clarified that there was no risk related to trade in fresh meat with r egard to low pathogenic AI. 
The European Union also requested India to recognize the regio nalization principle of the 
SPS Agreement, which was strictly applied in the European Union when an outbreak of AI 
occurred. The European Union requested that India fu lfil its transparency obligations, and either 
bring import requirements fully in line with international standards, or share the scientific evidence 
invoked to justify its measures.  
2.342.   The United States supported the concerns raised by the European Union, sta ting that India 
stood alone with respect to the scope of its AI -related bans, which were not in line with OIE 
standards. The United States expressed disappointment that these bans continued as emergency 
measures, thereby prohibiting the imports of live pi gs and a wide range of avian species and avian 
products without a risk assessment. The United States noted that, on numerous occasions, India 
had not provided a timely notification of its AI -related import restrictions. For example, the last 
notification w as on 31 March 2009, extending the ban for six months. However, the ban continued 
to be applied despite the lack of a new notification. The United States and the European Union had 
repeatedly asked India to provide its risk assessments to support the impos ition of import 
requirements beyond OIE recommendations. The United States urged India to provide its risk 
assessment and modify its measures to address the concerns repeatedly expressed by several 
Members.  
2.343.   India replied that the situation had remained unc hanged, although, based on changed 
conditions, India had allowed some restrictions to be temporarily lifted. The Indian Department of 
Animal Husbandry had reviewed its sanitary conditions and removed AI related restrictions for the 
import of pork products (raw and processed pork). India reported that presently there was no ban 
on the import of pork products (raw and processed pork) from AI - positive countries. However, the 
import of live pigs continued to be prohibited from AI -positive countries. Furthermo re, the import 
of processed poultry and poultry meat products were allowed from AI - positive countries subject to 
conformity assessment for both LPAI and HPAI. India cited scientific evidence that LPAI had the 
potential to mutate into HPAI, particularly in  wild aquatic birds.  
2.344.   In October 2010, the United States indicated that India continued to maintain the AI bans 
as emergency measures, and prohibited the import of live pigs and a wide range of avian species 
and products, without providing a scientific just ification for exceeding the international standards. 
Despite repeated requests, India had not provided its risk assessment until the October 2010 
SPS Committee meeting. Moreover, India had failed repeatedly to notify its AI - related import 
restrictions in a timely manner. In March 2010, India had announced a new extension of its 
emergency measures, and also that products from countries reporting any notifiable AI in 
domesticated or wild birds would be banned. Those new measures had not been notified to the 
WTO.  
2.345.   The European Union shared the US concerns about the emergency measures taken by 
India and the lack of transparency. India had failed to provide an opportunity for WTO Members to 
comment before measures were put in place. India had not made public the outcome of the last 
review of its import conditions on AI, although it had reported to the SPS Committee that this took 
place every six months. The European Union called on India to share its risk assessment or other 
scientific justification for its import  measures, and to recognise the principle of regionalization as 
foreseen under the SPS Agreement.  
2.346.   India recalled that it had continuously explained the reasons for its measures, and changes 
to these. At the last Committee meeting, India had reported on the  lifting of the ban on imports of 
pork products, although imports of live pigs were still prohibited from AI positive countries. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 93 - 
 
  Processed poultry and poultry meat products were allowed from AI positive countries subject to 
certain conformity assessment re quirements, thereby facilitating trade while continuing to protect 
human and animal health. India remained concerned that LPAI had the potential to mutate into 
highly pathogenic strains. India noted that Article 10.4.1 of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code 
prohibited trade in poultry and its products from LPAI -positive countries. India had provided its 
risk assessment on AI directly to the United States, and was willing to share it with other Members 
upon request.  
2.347.   OIE expressed an interest in receiving India's risk assessment. The OIE stressed that the 
OIE standards did not justify trade restrictions on the basis of reports of LPAI in wild birds. AI was 
widespread in wild birds and the OIE requested that this be notified so as to provide valuable data, 
but did not recommend any trade restrictions on this basis.  
2.348.   In March 2011, the European Union indicated that the risk assessment provided by India 
did not provide scientific basis to India's AI restrictions. The European Union asked the OIE 
whether India's risk assessment provided grounds for changes to the existing OIE standards. 
The European Union also urged India to recognize the principle of regionalization, and bring its 
import requirements in line with international standards.  
2.349.   The United States stated that it was still reviewing Ind ia's risk assessment on AI. 
The United States would raise its scientific concerns with India bilaterally and would keep the 
Committee informed of its discussions with India, the European Union and the OIE.  
2.350.   OIE stated that the  OIEit did receive India's risk assessment, and that the OIE had 
subsequently sent a response requesting clarification on the nature of the document.  
2.351.   India indicated that it would follow up on the response sent by the OIE, and flagged the 
need to first dis cuss the risk assessment India had provided before proceeding further.  
2.352.   In June 2011, the European Union recalled that India had finally provided a risk 
assessment in October 2010, but observed that the risk analysis provided by India did not provide 
any ad ditional scientific information that justified a deviation from the existing OIE standards on 
AI. The risk assessment was incomplete and lacked the necessary elements. Furthermore, the 
paper from India had not triggered any change to the existing OIE stand ard during the latest OIE 
General Session in May 2011, and the existing standards remained the benchmark against which 
to measure restrictions. India was therefore requested to bring its import requirements fully in line 
with international standards and to  recognize the concept of regionalization, as applied in the 
European Union, in implementing its measure.  
2.353.   The United States supported the concerns of the European Union, and agreed that India's 
risk assessment was not consistent with international standard s for conducting a risk analysis, nor 
did it contain sufficient scientific evidence to support India's ban. India's restrictions related to AI 
did not conform to OIE standards and were not scientifically justified. Repeated attempts to make 
progress with I ndia at a technical level had reached an impasse. The United States proposed to 
prepare a list of concerns regarding the assessment, together with the European Union and the 
OIE, and asked India to address these concerns no later than 15 August 2011. India  should also 
lift its current restrictions while the United States and India worked together on a valid science -
based assessment. If the issues could not be resolved through collaboration, the United States 
might petition the OIE to help mediate the issue and to provide expertise to ensure that the matter 
was resolved in a manner consistent with international standards a nd India's WTO obligations. 
The United States hoped to report a positive resolution to the next Committee meeting in October 
2011.  
2.354.   Australi a shared the concerns of the European Union and the United States, and 
encouraged all Members to take a measured approach to instances of notifiable AI and not to 
implement unnecessarily trade restrictive measures in relation to this disease.  
2.355.   OIE stated th at they had received a letter from India clarifying that the provision of the 
risk assessment document to the OIE had been for information purposes. The OIE would be happy 
to review India's risk assessment if so requested, as well as to initiate a dispute mediation process 
if both parties agreed.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 94 - 
 
  2.356.   India clarified that during the October 2010 Committee meeting, they had provided their 
risk assessment supporting the ban on imports of poultry and poultry products from AI - positive 
countries to the United States  and the European Union, as requested. This was not the final risk 
assessment document, which would take some time. India welcomed inputs on the information it 
shared, and was examining a response from the European Union. The EU -India Joint Working 
Group w ould also discuss this issue on 17 July 2011. India encouraged trading partners to address 
this issue in bilateral discussions.  
2.357.   In October 2011, the United States recalled that it had raised this concern on numerous 
occasions, as bilateral efforts to resol ve the matter had not succeeded, and on 19 July 2011, India 
had published an extension of the restrictions. The United States did not consider that the 
restrictions were justified by the risk assessment provided by India, and had requested the 
removal of t he restrictions or modification of the risk assessment by 19 August 2011, but no 
response had been received. The United States and European Union had thus jointly requested the 
OIE to provide an expert opinion of the risk assessment document provided by In dia. The OIE had 
provided a copy of its expert opinion to India, the European Commission and the United States on 
4 October 2011, and the United States requested that the OIE be given the floor to summarize its 
findings.  
2.358.   The European Union also indicated t hat, as it had already stated earlier, the risk analysis 
provided by India was not complete and did not evaluate the likelihood of entry, establishment or 
spread of the disease, and the associated potential biological and economic consequences, nor had 
the document led to any changes to the OIE standards. The European Union urged India to bring 
its import requirements fully into line with the relevant international standards, including through 
the recognition of regionalization.  
2.359.   After offering the floor to other Members, the Chairman gave the floor to the OIE. 
However, India requested, as a point of order, clarification of the procedures regarding 
participation of observer organizations in the discussion of specific trade concerns. The Secretariat 
noted that  according to the rules of procedure of the Committee, observers could be given the 
floor under any agenda item, and that it was the practice in the Committee to give international 
organizations the floor regarding specific trade concerns that related to i nternational standards.  
2.360.   OIE indicated that, at the request of the European Union and the United States, it had 
asked two experts to review India's risk assessment. The experts had concluded that the scope 
and purpose of the risk assessment was not clearly defined, and that the assessment was poorly 
supported by references to the relevant scientific literature. The experts had concluded that the 
document did not meet the definition of an import risk analysis as set out in Chapter 2.1 of the 
OIE Terrestrial A nimal Health Code.  
2.361.   India clarified that it had not formally provided any scientific  risk assessment to the OIE. 
In October 2010, India had provided a summary report on an informal basis to the European Union 
and the United States. India clarified that the document had also been provided to the OIE on an 
informal basis, and that it was a summary document, not a full risk assessment. India considered 
that it was inappropriate for the OIE to comment on an incomplete document and also questioned 
whether the OIE  had a mandate to validate a risk analysis of a Member. Furthermore, in a letter 
dated September 2011, India had requested the OIE to review its guidelines in order to prevent 
the spread of important diseases to developing countries that did not have the r esources to 
contain and control such diseases. India had also detailed the justifications for its restrictions 
varying from the OIE guidelines in that letter, and was awaiting a reply  from the OIE.  
2.362.   The United States observed that the OIE's comments confirm ed that India's measures 
were not in accordance with the international standards, nor were they supported by a risk 
assessment. If this was not a final risk assessment, India should immediately remove the trade 
restrictions that had been maintained for nea rly five years without sufficient scientific support.  
2.363.   OIE indicated that at the SPS Committee meeting in October 2010, they had received from 
India a copy of the same risk analysis document which they had been requested to review by the 
European Union and the United States.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 95 - 
 
  2.364.   Chile, Argentina and Peru noted that the expert opinion provided by the OIE was different 
than information provided in the past regarding how particular measures compared with the 
relevant international standards, and suggested that the Committee should in future consider 
whether it was the appropriate role of the international standard -setting bodies to validate the risk 
analysis relied upon by a Member.  
2.365.   The European Union recalled that it had previously questioned whether India's measur es 
were based on a valid risk assessment, and stressed that the key question now was whether India 
would continue to maintain these measures, or bring them into line with the OIE standards.  
2.366.   As a subsequent point of order, India questioned whether the OIE s hould have been 
permitted to take the floor on this issue as per the procedures and provisions of the Committee 
and Agreement. Under Annex 3 of WT/L/161, the purpose of granting observer status was to 
enable an organization to follow discussions on matters  of direct interest to them. The agreement 
between the WTO and the OIE (WT/L/272) also indicated that the OIE would be invited to 
participate in deliberations on agenda items on which the OIE had an interest. The OIE was a 
highly reputed organization recog nized for its standard -setting for animal health and zoonosis, 
however India did not consider that it was appropriate for an observer to judge a Member's rights 
and obligations. India considered that other Members had the right to comment on each other's 
measures and policies, but that this right was not extended to observers and that allowing 
observers to express judgements on Members' policies had serious systematic consequences. 
Under Article 13 of the SPS Agreement, a Member was fully responsible for th e observation of all 
of the obligations set out therein, and in India's view the OIE could not be considered to have an 
interest in how India was carrying out its risk assessment. India stated that allowing OIE to 
comment even before India was given an opp ortunity to speak was a clear case of inconsistency 
with due procedures as laid down in WT/L/161. India thus requested that what it considered to be 
the unauthorized intervention of the OIE not be reflected in the r eport of the Committee meeting.  
2.367.   The Unite d States recalled that on numerous occasions since this issue had been raised the 
OIE had provided clarification when a Member has claimed that its measure was consistent with 
the international standards for avian influenza. India had indicated for many ye ars that its 
measure was justified by a risk assessment, which was finally provided in October 2010. It was 
only in June 2011 that India indicated that this was a draft risk assessment, and at that time India 
had invited comments on its document. It was in  this light that the United States and European 
Union had requested the OIE to review the document, and the assessment of the OIE should be 
reflected in the report of the meeting. The United States welcomed the suggestion that the 
Committee consider the is sue of the role of observers, and in particular of the Three Sister 
organizations, in the work of the Committee.  
2.368.   The European Union indicated that it understood the concern that the international 
organizations should not interpret the rights and oblig ations of Members under the 
SPS Agreement. These three organizations had a specific role to play in the Committee as the 
developers of the reference standards, hence the current practice in the Committee to rely on the 
advice and information provided by these organizations with regard to their standards and 
guidelines. The question that had been posed to the OIE in this case was whether the import risk 
assessment conformed to the OIE guidelines for such an assessment. The European Union did not 
understand the s tatement from the OIE to be an interpretation of the rights and obligations of any 
Member under the SPS Agreement.  
2.369.   The Chairman recalled that Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure of the SPS Committee 
(G/L/170) indicated that a summary report of each meeting would be prepared by the Secretariat. 
As there was no consensus in the Committee to not include the statement of the OIE as requested 
by India, the Chairman ruled that the summary report should clearly reflect the debate on this 
matter. In accordance with Rule 36, any delegation could request, within 10 days of the close of 
the meeting, the opportunity to verify those portions of the draft report containing their 
statements prior to the issuance of the summary report.  
2.370.   In accordance with the provisions of th e Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing 
the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), the United States requested consultations with India on 6 March 
2012 (WT/DS430/1). The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established a panel on 25 June 2012 
(WT/DS430/3). The D SB adopted the Appellate Body report (WT/DS430/AB/R) and Panel report 
(WT/DS430/R and Add.1) on 19 June 2015. On 7 July 2016, the United States requested G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 96 - 
 
  authorization from the DSB, under Article 22.2 of the DSU, to suspend concessions and other 
obligation s (WT/DS430/16). On 19 July 2016, the DSB agreed that the matter be referred to 
arbitration pursuant to India's recourse to Article 22.6 of the DSU on 18 July 2016 
(WT/DS430/17).  
2.371.   On 18 July 2016, besides objecting to the level of suspension of concessions or other 
obligations claimed by the United States in its request under Article 22.2 of the DSU, India 
informed the DSB that it had adopted the necessary measures to comply with the 
recommendations and rulings in this dispute. In particular, India informed the DSB that it had 
issued a notification that came into effect on 8 July 2016, allowing the importation of poultry and 
poultry products from countries, zones/compartments free from avian influenza virus, and 
providing for the process for recognition of su ch areas. On 22 September 2016, India informed the 
DSB that it had adopted additional measures to address concerns bilaterally expressed by the 
United States in respect of the measures notified on 18 July 2016. India considered that through 
these measures it had complied with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB by bringing its 
measures into conformity with its WTO obligations. In its communication to the DSB, India thus 
urged the United States to terminate the Article 22.6 proceedings in this dispute . In addition, India 
noted that it had unsuccessfully attempted to reach a sequencing agreement with the United 
States.  
2.7.3   Other Concerns  
India's amendment to its import policy conditions 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), March 2016 (G/SPS/R/82, 
paras. 3.69 -3.72), October 2016 (G/SPS/R/84, paras. 3.49 -3.51)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status: Not reported  
Solution:  Partially resolved  
Date reported as 
resolved:  16 March 2016  
 
2.372.   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 Mumb ai, 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.  
2.373.   Chile shared New Zealand's concerns and further requested India to provide the reasoning 
and scientific basis for only allowing apple impor ts from a single port. In addition, Chile requested 
an explanation of the rationale regarding: (i) the absence of a notification to the WTO, in 
conformity with Article 7 and Annex B; (ii) compliance with Article 8 and Annex C; and 
(iii) the justification f or applying an emergency measure in relation to Articles 5.4 and 5.5 of the 
SPS Agreement.  
2.374.   The United States and the European Union 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 c osts. The United States requested that India provide a cogent 
explanation of its reasons consistent with its WTO obligations for resorting to this action.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 97 - 
 
  2.375.   India had indicated at the beginning of the meeting, when the agenda was adopted, that it 
would not r espond 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 automatically make the measure itself an SPS measure, as 
defined in Annex A of the SPS Agreement.  
2.376.   Chile noted that in situation s such as this one, a Member could place on record its view 
that a measure on  which a specific trade concern had been ra ised 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 legitimate and asked that the response b e included 
in the record. In addition, Chile queried whether the measure would fall under Import Licensing or 
another agreement.  
2.377.   In March 2016, the United States thanked India for rescinding its port restrictions on 
apples and welcomed the removal of the m easure. The United States also expressed appreciation 
for India's efforts to ensure the immediate notification of any such future actions of a similar 
nature to the relevant WTO committee.  
2.378.   New Zealand echoed the United States' sentiments and thanked India for opening the 
ports. However, New Zealand understood that two out of the original six ports remained closed. If 
that was indeed the case, New Zealand encouraged India to also allow apples to be imported 
through those ports.  
2.379.   The European Union thanked Ind ia for reopening the ports and looked forward to the 
opening of the other ports, as well as receiving any future notifications from India on similar 
measures.  
2.380.   India stated that as far as it was concerned, the issue was not an SPS issue and therefore 
did no t accept it being listed as a resolved issue in this Committee.  
2.381.   In October 2016, New Zealand recalled that this concern had been raised in October 2015 
following India's amendment to its import policy. This policy limited the entry of imported apples 
into India to one port instead of six. New Zealand explained that in January 2016, India had 
amended its import policy conditions for apples and re -allowed entry into most of its ports. 
However, two ports were still not permitted to receive apple shipments, inc luding Tuticorin which 
was the third most used port previous to the amendment. New Zealand queried as to why the two 
ports remained closed and urged India to allow apples to be imported through them. New Zealand 
looked forward to further bilateral discussi on on this issue in order to pave the way toward a 
solution.  
2.382.   The United States echoed New Zealand's concern and noted that it had expressed it in this 
and other WTO bodies.  
2.383.   India took note of the concern raised by New Zealand and indicated that the issue w as 
currently being examined in consultations with the administrative ministry and authorities. India 
expressed its appreciation for the bilateral exchanges with New Zealand and looked forward to 
continued engagement on this issue.  
2.8  Indonesia  
2.8.1   Food Safety  
Indonesia's food safety measures affecting horticultural products and animal products  
(STC 414) 
Raised by:  Philippines  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  October 2016 (G/SPS/R/84, paras. 3.7 -3.8) 
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 98 - 
 
  Solutio n:  
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.384.   In October 2016, the Philippines expressed its concern regarding Indonesia's food safety 
measures affecting horticultural products and animal products, and in particular with Ministry of 
Agriculture (MoA) Regulations No.  88/2011, No. 42/2012 and No. 04/2015. The Philippines 
regretted that no progress had been made through all bila teral avenues tried so far. 
The Philippines considered the regulations to be in violation , among others , of Articles 2.2, 4, 5.4 
and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement as well as the national treatment principle under Article III of GATT 
1994. The measures had no scientific justification and were more trade restrictive than necessary 
to achieve Indonesia's appropriate level of protection (ALOP). Exports of horticultural exports had 
been growing until 2011, when the measures were first imposed, without posing any serious 
health or safety risks. Furthermore, Indonesia's closure of its main entry port in Jakarta in 2012 
heavily impacted Philippine exports of ba nanas and shallots. Indonesia had unduly delayed the 
processing of the Philippines' applications for recognition of its food safety control system for 
horticultural products, laboratory accreditation and accreditation for animal products, despite 
follow -up in writing and bilateral discussions on numerous occasions. Indonesia's latest measures 
under MOA Regulation No. 04/2015 further overshadowed efforts to recognise the Philippines' food 
safety control system. The Philippines recognized that some measures, currently being reviewed 
by dispute settlement panels, might not be covered by the SPS Agreement, but noted that the 
combined effect of both SPS and non -SPS measures made Indonesia's system more potently trade 
restrictive. The Philippines expressed its app reciation for Indonesia's availability on the margins of 
the current Committee meeting and remained committed to continue bilateral discussions to 
resolve this issue.  
2.385.   Indonesia indicated that some regulations at issue were no longer in force. A revision of  
MoA Regulation No. 88/2011 had been notified (G/SPS/N/IDN/94) and implemented in February 
2016. The regulation set out food safety control systems recognition and laboratory registration 
requirements to export fresh foods of plant origin to Indonesia. Sin ce 2012, the Philippines had 
submitted applications for food safety recognition systems for bananas, shallots and pineapples 
and had applied for registration of its food safety testing laboratory in June 2016. However, 
Indonesia was still waiting for addit ional data necessary for conducting the risk assessment. 
The requirements applied to all WTO Members and, so far, 26 countries had been granted access 
to the Indonesian market. Indonesia thanked the Philippines for the explanations received during 
their bi lateral talks in the margins of the Committee, and expressed its willingness to continue 
bilateral discussions towards finding a solution.  
2.8.2   Animal Health  
Import restrictions on poultry meat (STC 286)  
Raised by:  Brazil  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, paras. 14 -15), October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, 
paras 79 -80), October 2013 (G/SPS/R/73, paras. 3.47 -3.48)  
Relevant document(s):  Indonesian Decree 50/Permentan/OT.140/9/2011 , WT/DS484/1  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:  Dispute settlement panel e stablished. Ongoing panel proceedings.  
Dispute settlement panel established on 3 December 2015 and 
composed on 3 March 2016. Panel request: document WT/DS484/1.  
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.386.   In October 2009, Brazil raised concerns about restrictions on Brazilian poultry meat due to 
Indonesian legislation that was not in accordance with international standards. Although Indonesia 
claimed to accept the principle of regionalization, it had not presented any sanitary reasons for the 
restrictions on Brazilian  poultry meat. Throughout 2009, Brazil and Indonesia had consulted on 
this trade barrier, and Brazil had provided information showing that its poultry meat and by 
products complied with the relevant international standards and even with Indonesia's regulat ions. 
Brazil requested the sanitary justification for the restrictions, or that the restrictions be lifted.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 99 - 
 
  2.387.   Indonesia expressed his authorities' willingness to have bilateral meetings with Brazil to 
find solutions on the issue.  
2.388.   In October 2011, Brazil obse rved that it fulfilled all OIE requirements related to poultry 
meat and exported poultry products to more than 170 countries, but the Indonesian market 
remained closed. In October 2009, Brazil had questioned the scientific basis of Indonesia's 
prohibition,  but despite several bilateral meetings, the Indonesian market remained closed to 
Brazilian chicken, duck and turkey meat. Regarding chicken meat, Indonesia had recently issued 
Decree 50/Permentan/OT.140/9/2011, which prohibited, without any scientific jus tification, 
imports of whole chicken and mechanically separated chicken meat products. In relation to duck 
and turkey meat, although Indonesia had agreed to send a mission to Brazil to approve 
establishments, it had not responded to repeated requests from Brazil to set a date for the 
mission.  
2.389.   Indonesia replied that the issue had been discussed extensively during the meeting of the 
bilateral Agriculture Working Group, and during the Brazil -Indonesia Joint Commission in October 
2011. During the consultations,  Indonesia had informed Brazil that it needed more time to ensure 
internal coordination before sending the inspection mission to Brazil, and that the Indonesian 
Ministry of Agriculture would conduct its technical research in 2012.  
2.390.   In October 2013, Brazil r eiterated its concerns over Indonesia's restriction on Brazilian 
poultry meat exports. Brazil exported poultry products to more than 170 countries and met all the 
relevant OIE requirements. In May 2009, Brazil had expressed its interest in exporting poultr y 
meat to Indonesia and had since held bilateral consultations with Indonesian sanitary authorities. 
In October 2009, Brazil had raised a concern about this prohibition, which did not seem to have 
scientific basis, and had reiterated that concern in 2011. Despite several bilateral meetings since 
then, import restrictions on poultry meat remained. Brazil submitted specific questions on 
Indonesia's recently enacted regulations in the context of the difficulties faced by Brazil's poultry 
meat exporters in gene ral, and chicken meat exporters in particular, and requested that Indonesia 
confirm that the new regulations did not provide for legal restrictions to poultry imports. 
Furthermore, Brazil requested Indonesia to provide an exhaustive list of regulations app licable to 
imports of poultry, and explain the reasons for delays in the approval procedures of health 
certificates for poultry meat.  
2.391.   Indonesia reiterated that, in principle, it did not prohibit poultry meat imports, provided 
safety and halal food requirem ents were met. Revised regulations setting out the requirements for 
poultry meat import rules had been approved in 2013. Under the revised legislation, exporting 
countries must be free from highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), Newcastle disease, and d uck 
viral hepatitis, for a period of at least 90 days. The exporting poultry establishments must also 
implement a halal food system, which meant that the establishment exclusively produced halal 
products. The halal requirement applied to all slaughterhouse s in the country of origin and imports 
of poultry products must pass the document inspection and field certification on the 
implementation of animal health systems and safety assurance for animal products, both at the 
level of establishments and country of  origin. Indonesia assured that it would continue to work 
closely with Members to overcome this issue.  
2.392.   In accordance with the provisions of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing 
the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Brazil requested consultations  with Indonesia on 16 October 
2014 (WT/DS484/1). The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established a panel on 3 December 2015 
(WT/DS484/9). The panel was composed on 3 March 2016.  
2.9  Korea, Republic of  
2.9.1   Food safety  
Strengthened import restrictions on food and feed s products with regard to 
radionuclides (STC 359)  
Raised by:  Japan  
Supported by:   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 100 - 
 
  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, para s. 3.9 -3.10), March 2015 (G/SPS/R/78, 
paras.  3.16-3.17) , WT/DS495/3  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:  Dispute settlement panel established. Ongoing panel proceedings.  
Dispute settlement panel established on 28 September 2015 and 
composed on 27 January 2016. Panel request: document WT/DS495/3.  
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
 
2.393.   Japan expressed concerns regarding Korea's fishery import restrictions, including 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 distribut ed as long as the radioactive cesium level remained below 100 Bq/kg.  
2.394.   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 
proble m 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 lim it of 100 Bq/kg had 
drastically decreased both in the Fukushima prefecture (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 unju stifiably 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.  
2.395.   Korea indicated that its measures we re 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.  
2.396.   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 certificat ion 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.  
2.397.   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 201 4, 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.  
2.398.   In July 2014, Japan reiterated its concerns r egarding 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 he ld 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 requeste d 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 provid e 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 101 - 
 
  contin ued ignoring Japan's requests, Japan would have no choice but to resort to other actions 
under the WTO.  
2.399.   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 con tamination. 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 t he information, if necessary.  
2.400.   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 recen tly started to provide some responses to Japan's questions raised under 
Articles 4, 5.8 and 7 of the SPS Agreement, these were insufficient. Yet, Japan welcomed Korea's 
indication that it was conducting a review, and its clarification on the appropriate le vel 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 encour aged Korea to provide more 
information on its review meetings and timeframes. Japan hoped that this review would include an 
objective, transparent and science -based reassessment of Korea's measures in accordance with 
international standards, such as Codex Working Principle CAC/GL 62 -2007. Japan reiterated that if 
Korea continued ignoring Japan's requests, Japan would have no choice but to resort to other 
actions under the WTO.  
2.401.   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 technic al 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.  
2.402.   In March 2015, Japan reiterated its concern regarding t he 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 n ecessary 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 Japan had taken to secure the safety of Japan ese 
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 the 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 of sea squirt had been inspected, with radioactive 
cesium either significantly be low 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 resor t to 
other actions under the WTO.  
2.403.   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 provisio nal measure in accordance 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 sci entific 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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 102 - 
 
  2.404.   In accordance with the p rovisions 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). The panel was composed on 8 February 2016.  
2.9.2   Animal Health  
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  
2.405.   See paragraphs 2.526. -2.589.  
Korea's import restrictions due to African  swine fever (STC 393)  
Raised by:  European Union  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79, paras. 3.11 -3.12), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, 
paras. 3.68 -3.69) , March 2016 (G/SPS/R/82, paras. 3.43 -3.44), June 
2016 (G/SPS/R/83, paras. 4.15 -4.17), October 2016 ( G/SPS/R/84, 
paras. 3.44 -3.45)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status: Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.406.   In July 2015, the European Union raised a concern about the import restrictions on pork 
and pork products put in place in February 2014 by Korea on African swine fever (ASF) grounds. 
The European Union repeated that trade could take place safely, and affirmed that Korea 
disrespected the SPS Agreement regarding regionalization. Korea continuously received detailed 
information on the control, surveillance and monitoring measures  of the European Union . 
Korea's  risk assessment process lacked clarity about the required steps and the use of information 
provided by the European Union. The European Union called on Korea to respect its regionalization 
obligations under the SPS Agreement and to allow trade of  all safe products. The European Union 
also restated its availability to continue working with Korea and any other trading partners with a 
view to finding a rapid solution on this matter.  
2.407.   Korea responded that it had banned pork and pork products from Polan d since the first 
case of ASF was reported in February 2014, in agreement with Poland. In response to the 
European Union for regionalization, Korea had implemented the necessary steps to assess the 
current situation in Poland, and sent experts to have an o n-site inspection. The preliminary 
assessment on ASF had been delivered to Poland and an exchange o f views was still under way. 
As a result, Korea had been consistent with Articles 6.2 and 6.3 of the SPS Agreement and hoped 
to continue bilateral discussion  on the basis of science and data.  
2.408.   In October 2015, the European Union recalled its concerns regarding Korea's import 
restrictions on pork and pork products due to ASF taken since February 2014. Korea had 
continuously received detailed information from the  European Union. Korea's risk assessment 
process lacked clarity about the required steps and the use of information provided by the 
European Union, in particular on its control, surveillance and monitoring measures. The  European 
Union called on Korea to re spect its regionalization obligations under the SPS Agreement and to 
allow trade of safe products. The European Union also restated its availability to continue working 
with Korea and any other trading partners with a view to finding a rapid solution on th is matter.  
2.409.   Korea recalled that it had banned pork and pork products from Poland since the first case 
of ASF was reported in February 2014, in agreement with Poland. At the request of the European 
Union, Korea had implemented the necessary steps to assess t he current situation in Poland, and 
hired experts to that effect. Korea had completed its preliminary assessment after considering 
Poland's comments received in May 2015 and had decided to m ove on to the next steps. 
Korea  requested that Poland and the Euro pean Union take proactive control measures to prevent 
the spread of ASF and cooperate fully to expedite the risk assessment process, which needed to 
incorporate a distinction between affected and unaffected areas.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 103 - 
 
  2.410.   In March 2016, the European Union stressed  the importance of regionalization and the 
massive potential trade impact of failing to recognize effective regionalization measures and, in 
that context, reiterated its concerns regarding Korea's import restrictions on pork and pork 
products due to ASF. T he European Union stated that despite having raised this concern at the July 
and October 2015 SPS Committee meetings, and having had several bilateral discussions, import 
restrictions remained. Korea had informed the European Union in October 2015 that it had decided 
to proceed to the next step of its risk assessment process. However, that risk assessment process 
lacked clarity about the required steps and the use of information provided by the European Union, 
in particular on its control, surveillance and monitoring measures. The European Union called on 
Korea to respect its regionalization obligations under the SPS Agreement and to allow trade of safe 
products. The European Union also restated its availability to continue working with Korea and any 
other t rading partners with a view to finding a rapid solution to the matter.  
2.411.   Korea stated that it was reviewing the European Union request for regionalization carefully 
as it was ASF -free and the disease was highly -contagious. Korea had sent an evaluation 
questi onnaire to the Polish government in December 2015 and was awaiting a response. An EU 
delegation from DG -SANCO had a technical meeting in Korea with re levant expert authorities. 
Both sides had exchanged views on this issue, including current risk assessment  procedures and 
potential ways forward. Korea requested that the European Union cooperate fully in order to 
expedite the risk assessment process.  
2.412.   In June 2016, the European Union stressed the importance of the recognition of 
regionalization measures by tra ding partners, and in that context reiterated its concern regarding 
Korea's import restrictions on pork and pork products due to ASF. The European Union stated that 
despite having raised this concern at previous SPS Committee meetings and having had severa l 
bilateral discussions, import restrictions still remained. Korea had informed the European Union in 
October 2015 that, as result of a preliminary risk assessment, it had decided to proceed to the 
next step of its process and assess the possibility of app lying regionalization. The European Union 
explained that , in practice , this represented the second step in an eight step process which, based 
on its understanding, would need to be satisfactorily concluded before Poland would be able to 
export pork meat to  Korea from disease -free zones. The European Union emphasized that it 
regularly provided Korea with detailed information regarding its stringent control, surveillance, and 
monitoring measures. After two and a half years of deliberation and information shar ing, including 
on-site inspection, Korea had not provided the timeline for concluding the final import risk 
analysis. The European Union requested Korea to limit its numerous information requests to what 
was necessary to complete the risk assessment and to  allow trade of safe products from disease -
free areas in Poland, or provide clarification on the scientific basis for the maintenance of the ban.  
2.413.   The Russian Federation drew Member 's attention to the epidemic ASF situation and called 
for bilateral cooperat ion on this issue.  
2.414.   Korea stated that it was reviewing Poland's responses to the questionnaire which had been 
submitted in May 2016. Korea noted the highly contagious nature of the disease and the lack of a 
preventive vaccine to halt ASF spread, while under scoring that it remained ASF -free. Since the 
March 2016 SPS Committee meeting, Korea and the European Commission had held a bilateral 
meeting, on the margins of the 84th OIE General Session, to discuss progress in the risk 
assessment process and the way fo rward. Korea further indicated that on 24 June, the European 
Commission had notified the fourth ASF outbreak in pigs in Poland. A comprehensive review of the 
situation, including this recent information, was currently being undertaken. Korea requested that  
the European Union cooperate fully in order to expedite the risk assessment process.  
2.415.   In October 2016, the European Union stressed the importance of the recognition of 
regionalization measures by trading partners, and in that context reiterated its concern  regarding 
Korea's import restrictions on pork and pork products due to ASF. The European Union recalled 
that Korea had performed a preliminary risk -assessment and on -site inspection in 2014, followed 
by the decision in 2015 to perform a risk analysis. The  risk analysis had been suspended in August 
2016 following FMD outbreaks in Poland. The European Union considered that the risk assessment 
ought to be pursued, as the European Union had (as always) adapted its regionalization measures 
in line with OIE stan dards to ensure that only safe pork products were placed on the EU market 
and exported to countries outside the European Union. The European Union insisted that it had 
provided Korea with the necessary information to demonstrate the existence of disease -free areas 
in Poland and that they were likely to remain so. The European Union therefore urged Korea to G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 104 - 
 
  respect its obligations under Articles 3, 6 and 8 of the SPS Agreement and to continue and 
conclude quickly the import approval procedure by continuing t he risk analysis, taking into account 
the information that had been collected before its suspension, limiting the information requests to 
what was necessary and providing, in a transparent manner, a timeline for concluding the analysis.  
2.416.   Korea recalled the highly contagious nature of ASF and the lack of a preventive vaccine to 
halt its spread, while underscoring that it remained ASF -free. Korea confirmed that it had 
suspended the risk assessment procedure for recognition of ASF regionalization following the 2016 
outbreak of various cases in Poland in pig farms. Two additional areas were affected by this 
outbreak, and Korea declared that the suspension would hold until the newly affected areas 
recovered their ASF free status in accordance with the OIE standard s. Korea notified Poland in 
October 2016 that it could resume the import risk analysis procedures if the Polish government 
requested them for specific regions free from ASF. Korea noted that in light of the possible causes 
of ASF stated by the European Com mission Animal Health Regulatory Committee, the Polish 
government needed to further review its biosecurity measures. Korea hoped that Poland would 
succeed in controlling the spread of ASF, and indicated that it would cooperate to resume the 
process soon.  
2.10  Mexico  
2.10.1   Plant Health  
Measures on imports of hibiscus flowers (STC 386)  
Raised by:  Nigeria  
Supported by:  Burkina Faso, Senegal  
Dates raised:  March 2015 (G/SPS/R/78, para s. 3.6-3.8), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, 
paras. 3.48 -3.50)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:  In March 2016, Nigeria reported that its concerns over Mexico's 
measures on imports of hibiscus flowers (STC 386) had been resolved.  
Mexico confirmed the resolution .  
Date reported as 
resolved:  16 March 2016 
 
2.417.   In March 2015, Nigeria expressed concerns on certain verification procedures being used 
by Mexico on imported hibiscus flowers from Nigeria. Following the Mexican quarantine authorities' 
request to change the certificate, Nigeria had developed an online platfo rm 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 thank ed 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.  
2.418.   Burkina Faso echoed Nigeria's concern since it was experiencin g 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.  
2.419.   Mexico explained that 14 shipments of H ibiscus 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 authenticity 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 soluti on to the problem.  
2.420.   In October 2015, Nigeria restated its concerns on certain verification procedures being 
used by Mexico on imported hibiscus flowers from Nigeria. Following the Mexican quarantine 
authorities' request to change the certificate, Nigeria ha d 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 105 - 
 
  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.  
2.421.   Burkina Faso echoed Nig eria'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.  
2.422.   Mexico noted that a t 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 a nd 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.  
2.423.   In March 2016, Nigeria reported that its concerns over Mexic o's measures on imports of 
hibiscus flowers (STC 386) had been resolved. Nigeria expressed its gratitude to Mexico, the 
Secretariat and to the SPS Committee for the roles played in resolving the issue.  
2.424.   Mexico confirmed the resolution and that it was please d to have successfully resolved the 
issue thanks to the commitment of the authorities in both countries. Mexico also highlighted the 
resolution of the issue as an example of the SPS Committee's effective role in settling trade 
concerns.  
2.11  Nigeria  
2.11.1   Food Safety  
Nigerian restrictions on exports of beef and poultry (STC 408)  
Raised by:  Brazil  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  March 2016 (G/SPS/R/82, paras. 3.13 -3.14)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.425.   In March 2016, Brazil expressed its concerns over Nigeria's import restrictions on all types 
of refrigerated or frozen meat and foods containing meat due to deficiencies in the Nigerian cold 
chain. In June 2010, Brazil had sent Nigeria proposals of inter national sanitary certificates for meat 
and Nigeria had responded that meat imports were forbidden in accordance with the 2007 
legislation. Brazil also highlighted Nigeria's Trade Policy Reviews in 1998 and 2005 in which Nigeria 
had agreed to reduce the li st of prohibited products to align with WTO rules. Brazil requested an 
explanation of the reasons for maintaining this legislation and feedback on the international 
sanitary certificates. Brazil urged Nigeria to lift these requirements. It remained committ ed to 
continue bilateral discussions, and expressed its appreciation for Nigeria's availability on the 
margins of the current Committee meeting.  
2.426.   Nigeria thanked Brazil for the constructive bilateral meeting held on the margins of the 
current SPS Committee meeting. Nigeria clarified that the import list was currently under review 
and the restrictions on meat were being applied on an MFN basis. The measures were applied to 
protect health and life due to a lack of importers' capacity to cope with safety requir ements. 
Nigeria hoped that the measures could be relaxed upon the provision of technical assistance. 
Nigeria confirmed its commitment to review its trade and SPS policies and to continue working 
with Brazil to resolve this issue.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 106 - 
 
  2.12  Russian Federation  
2.12.1   Food Sa fety 
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) , March 2016 (G/SPS/R/81, paras. 3.38 -3.40), June 
2016 (G/SPS/R/83, paras. 4.42 -4.43), October 2016 (G/SPS/R/84, 
paras. 3.31 -3.32 )  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.427.   In July 2015, the Europe an 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 scien tific justification of 
the risks detected, and not to take such measures before the expiry of the timeframe provided for 
the adoption of corrective measures. Indeed, Russia had not 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 expressed its willingness to cooperate with the Russian 
Federation to address their concerns but requested the Russian Federation to lift the ban, to bring 
its measures in line with international standards, and to respect its WTO obligations.  
2.428.   The Russian Federation replied that conclusions by Russian experts about deficiencies in 
the work of the Latvian and Estonian compet ent authorities overlapped with the results of previous 
investigations by the European Union, and the presence of a risk was also confirmed by the 
notifications of the EU Commission in the rapid alert system. Russia stressed the importance and 
urgency of t he report made by the European Union about the safety of food products. 
An inspection in 2013 had showed that Latvia and Estonia had not taken measures to withdraw 
unsafe products from the market. According to Russia, the European Union had failed to take 
necessary measures in relation to establishments where violations were detected and to inform its 
trade partners. Indeed, between 2013 and July 2015, Russian inspections had revealed more than 
2,000 cases of unreliable certification, and yet, no effective measures had been taken against the 
violators. The Russian Federation had concluded that the guarantees given by the European Union 
were not reliable. As a result, Russia was forced to impose temporary restrictions, as stated in 
official letters to the Eur opean Union. The measures were not bans, but temporary restrictions, 
and complied with the SPS Agreement, which allowed Members to adopt measures to protect 
human, animal or plant health.  
2.429.   The European Union clarified that they did not dispute Russia's righ t to take SPS measures, 
but expected proportionate measures taken in a transparent manner and in accordance with the 
SPS Agreement.  
2.430.   In October 2015, the European Union reiterated its concerns regarding the Russian 
Federation's restrictions on imports of a ll 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 Agreemen t 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 107 - 
 
  the technical information and scientific justification of the risks detected, an d not to take such 
measures before the expiry of the timeframe provided for the adoption of corrective measures. 
The Russian Federation had not presented a risk assessment or provided evidence of immediate 
risk to consumers caused by deficiencies in the co ntrol 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, a nimal 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 necessa ry. 
Furthermore, the Russian Federation had adopted the ban just one day after the submission of the 
preliminary report of the audit to the competent authorities, in contrast with the reasonable time 
commitment it made prior to its accession. The comments provided by Latvia and Estonia on the 
audits had not received a response by the Russian Federation, more than three months after the 
submission. The European Union indicated its willingness to cooperate with the Russian Federation 
on this issue and request ed the Russian Federation to lift the ban, bring its measures in line with 
international standards, and respect its WTO obligations.  
2.431.   The Russian Federation responded that it was justified in imposing temporary restrictions 
on fishery products from Latvia a nd 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 cooperating with veteri nary 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 haz ardous 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 o f 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 be en suspended. Nevertheless, the Russian Federation was ready to find a 
solution on this issue.  
2.432.   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 
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.  
2.433.   In March 2016, the European Union reiterated its concerns regarding the Russian 
Feder ation's restrictions on imports of all fishery products from Estonia and Latvia. The European 
Union recalled that in June 2015, the Russian Federation had introduced a ban on all fishery 
products from the two EU member States. The European Union considered  the measures not 
based on scientific evidence or risk assessment, applied beyond the extent necessary to protect 
human health, and more trade restrictive than necessary. The Russian Federation had not 
presented a risk assessment or provided evidence of im mediate 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 ide ntified any major problems. 
The European Union stated that the mea sures did not meet the Russian Federation's WTO 
accession commitments, which included not to suspend exports from groups of establishments 
without first having provided the technical information and scientific justification of the risks 
detected, and not t o take such measures before the expiry of the timeframe provided for the 
adoption of corrective measures. Furthermore, the Russian Federation had adopted the ban just G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 108 - 
 
  one day after the submission of the preliminary report of the audit to the competent auth orities, in 
contrast with the reasonable time commitment it had made prior to its accession. With regard to 
the EU rapid alert system for food and feed (RASFF) the European Union underlined that it was a 
transparent system which made available, not only to  the authorities in the European Union but 
also to non -EU countries, information on the detection of incompliant products. It was an essential 
component of an effective and efficient food safety system. It was regrettable to see this 
information being misu sed by some trading partners for imposing disproportionate trade bans, 
particularly when those partners did not apply the same level of transparency to their own 
products. The European Union noted that Latvia and Estonia had both acted without delay in 
response to the findings of Russia. One of the actions taken was the immediate withdrawal from 
the market of the concerned products. Not 20% as Russia has claimed, but 100% of the products 
had been withdrawn. Furthermore, both EU member States put in place co rrective measures within 
the timeframes Russia set, which was two months. These actions were brought to the attention of 
Russia in writing. Russia however had not shown any willingness to take into account these 
corrective actions and the restrictions had not been lifted. The European Union requested the 
Russian Federation to immediately lift the ban and respect its WTO obligations while expressing its 
readiness to discuss the matter with the Russian authorities in a constructive and cooperative 
manner.  
2.434.   The Russian Federation stated that it looked forward to close cooperation between the 
regulatory authorities . However, the import requirements of the Russian Federation and the 
Eurasian Economic Union needed to be followed. The Russian Federation had opened i ts market to 
EU member States through its accession obligations and found that EU guarantees had not been 
reliable as regular detection of banned contaminants, such as poly -aromatic hydrocarbons and 
benzopyrene, had occurred through monitoring programmes. The Russian Federation claimed that 
notifications from the EU RASFF to withdraw potentially hazardous products were not timely or 
effective, as only around 20% were withdrawn and the rest exported. In addition, the Russian 
Federation had not received respo nses to questions submitted to Latvian authorities regarding an 
establishment that had exported potentially unsafe products and whether or not additional testing 
for benzopyrene had taken place. As mentioned previously, the Russian Federation was closely 
cooperating with the veterinary services of Latvia and Estonia to assess the safety systems 
implemented. However, questions remained and the Russian Federation believed that there was a 
lack of transparency, as RASFF notifications sent to third countries se emed to be simplified, 
containing no specific information on the establishments or consignments where violations had 
been detected, which impeded the withdrawal of potentially hazardous products. The Chief 
Veterinary Officer of Latvia had officially inform ed the Russian Federation that it was the European 
Commission which had notified all RASFF registered cases when harmful substances had been 
detected in EU products to the Russian Federation. No information on excessive levels of 
benzopyrene in Latvian pro ducts had been provided. The Russian Federation would continue 
cooperating in order to resume imports of canned fish and planned to carry out another round of 
inspections of processing plants in Latvia and Estonia in March -April 2016. The competent 
authori ties had been notified.  
2.435.   The European Union noted the Russian Federation's statement and expressed its surprise 
that the facts presented by the Russian Federation did not correspond to the information it 
possessed.  
2.436.   In June 2016, the European Union reiterate d its concerns regarding the Russian 
Federation's restrictions on imports of all fishery products from Estonia and Latvia. The European 
Union recalled that in June 2015, the Russian Federation had introduced a ban on all fishery 
products from the two EU me mber States. The European Union considered that the measures were 
not based on scientific evidence or a risk assessment, were applied beyond the extent necessary 
to protect human health, and were more trade restrictive than necessary. The European Union 
stated that the measures did not meet the Russian Federation's WTO accession commitments, 
which included not to take temporary suspension measures of imports from a group of 
establishments before the expiry of the time -frame provided for the adoption of corr ective 
measures. In response to a statement made by the Russian Federation at the previous Committee 
meeting, the European Union argued that the EURASFF was timely, and that following actions 
taken by Estonia and Latvia, all concerned products had been wit hdrawn from the market, 
contrary to the Russian Federation's claim. The European Union also insisted that the RASFF was a 
transparent system which made available, not only to the authorities in the European Union but 
also to non -EU countries, information o n the detection of incompliant products. The European G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 109 - 
 
  Union noted that it had not received any request for clarification from the Russian Federation on 
the issue at hand, despite the possibility to do so. The European Union regretted to see the RASFF 
information being misused by some trading partners for imposing disproportionate trade bans, 
particularly when those partners did not apply the same level of transparency to their own 
products. The European Union requested the Russian Federation to immediately lift the ban and 
respect its WTO obligations while expressing its readiness to discuss the matter with the Russian 
authorities.  
2.437.   The Russian Federation stated that it was ready for close cooperation with the Estonian 
and Latvian regulatory authorities; howe ver, the import requirements of the Russian Federation 
and the Eurasian Economic Union needed to be followed. The Russian Federation reiterated that 
the restrictions were temporary and would be reconsidered as soon as the detected violations to 
the import requirements, of which the competent authorities in Estonia and Latvia were informed, 
were removed. The Russian Federation noted that relative progress had been made between the 
Russian Federation and the competent authorities, but this progress was still insufficient as the 
Russian Federation was unable to obtain information concerning the detection of certain harmful 
sea contaminants, as well as certain measures expected to prevent the access of dangerous 
products to the market. The Russian Federation exp lained that the Estonian and Latvian veterinary 
services had provided them with an updated list of the establishments authorized to export their 
products to the Eurasian Union (EAU); however, when specialists were sent from the EAU to 
inspect these fish pr ocessing plants, two out of the three Latvian plants and one out of the ten 
Estonian plants spontaneously refused to be inspected. The Russian Federation considered this to 
be evidence that the competent authorities could not guarantee compliance of their products with 
EAU import requirements.  
2.438.   In October 2016, the European Union reiterated its concerns regarding the Russian 
Federation's restrictions on imports of all fishery products from Estonia and Latvia, in place since 
June 2015. The European Union decl ared that this ban was inconsistent with various articles of the 
SPS Agreement as well as with the Russian Federation's WTO accession commitments. 
The European Union called on the Russian Federation to promptly share the outcomes of the 
inspections conduct ed in the summer of 2016. The European Union argued that the withdrawal of 
some establishments from the auditing list did not, as described by the Russian Federation in 
previous statements, constitute evidence of non -compliance, but were related to delays in carrying 
out the audits. The European Union reiterated its call on the Russian Federation to remove the ban 
while expressing its readiness to cooperate with the Russian Federation in a constructive manner.  
2.439.   The Russian Federation stated that it was ready  to cooperate with the competent 
authorities from Estonia and Latvia, and recalled that systemic deficiencies in the work of these 
authorities had led to violation of fishery products safety and given way to the temporary 
restrictions. The Russian Federati on however noted that cooperation was in progress and that a 
number of entities had been delisted. Re -inspections had been conducted by the relevant 
authorities of the Eurasian Economic Union members, and had showed that some positive 
measures had been tak en in Estonia and Latvia. However, certain problematic measures relating 
to the access of dangerous products to the market had not yet been addressed, and the Russian 
Federation stated that it was waiting for the competent author ities to provide more data.  
The Russian Federation would inform the Latvian and Estonian authorities about the next steps as 
soon as it received and considered the relevant data.  
Russian Federation import restrictions on certain animal products from Germany  
(STC  411)  
Raised by:  European Union  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  June 2016 (G/SPS/R/83, paras. 4.7-4.8), October 2016 (G/SPS/R/84, 
paras. 3.38 -3.39)  
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/GEN/1216  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 110 - 
 
  2.440.   In June 2016, the European Union stated that since February 2013, the Russian Federation 
had introduced a complete ban on imports of fresh and chilled pig meat, beef and poultry meat 
from the entire territory of Germany, followed by a ban on imports of finished meat and milk 
product s from three German federal states: Bavaria, Lower Saxony and North Rhine Westphalia. 
These import restrictions had been implemented due to claims by the Russian Federation that 
German veterinary services had not undertaken proper controls on the exports o f such products. 
The European Union noted that the restrictions were not based on scientific evidence or a risk 
assessment and were inconsistent with several provisions of the SPS Agreement. The European 
Union further indicated that in 2013 it had communic ated its concerns with respect to these 
restrictions in its officially submitted comments on the notified Russian Federation measure, as 
well as in document G/SPS/GEN/1216. Continuous efforts had been made by German authorities 
to address the issue, includ ing conducting supervisory controls of the official veterinarians 
responsible for establishments listed for Russian export, and establishing an export coordination 
unit as a contact point for the Russian authorities and the private sector. Inspection visit s had also 
been carried out by Russian authorities. Despite all efforts, the restrictions still remained in place. 
The European Union argued that there was no justification for the restrictions and requested the 
Russian Federation to promptly repeal these measures. The European Union indicated its 
willingness to engage in discussions with the Russian authorities.  
2.441.   The Russian Federation stated that more than 600 German processing plants producing 
animal products were authorized to export to the Russian Feder ation under the guarantees of the 
German competent authorities. However, more than 90% had never been inspected by Russian 
authorities. The Russian Federation observed that due to several factors, such as unfavourable 
laboratory monitoring results, border control violations, and errors in the certification of animal 
products, the Russian authorities had arranged several audits of the processing plants and 
elements of the system, in order to ensure the safety of animal products exported from Germany. 
Inspect ions had been carried out between 2012 and 2015, during which time several restrictions 
were imposed on imports to the Russian market from individual firms and some regions due to 
non-compliance with Russian SPS requirements. The Russian Federation noted t hat it subsequently 
implemented a ban, following the failure of all German states to  meet its SPS requirements. 
The Russian Federation indicated that although it had informed the German authorities of the 
recorded violations and requested appropriate measu res be taken to prevent export of unsafe 
products to the Russian market, no proper response had been received from the German 
veterinarian authorities. The Russian Federation further expressed concerns with the reliability of 
the guarantees of the German a uthorities, based on subsequent Russian inspections. Cooperation 
efforts between the Russian Federation and Germany had resulted in an update of the list of 
German exporting establishments, delisting more than 300 non -compliant plants. In parallel, 
measure s had been taken to resume imports from establishments which had addressed identified 
deficiencies and from plants previously subject to restrictions due to laboratory monitoring results. 
The Russian Federal Service for Surveillance on Consumer Rights Prot ection and Human Wellbeing 
(Rospotrebnadzor ) had been involved in the drafting of guidelines concerning inspection of German 
plants, in order to facilitate compliance with the Russian requirements. The Russian Federation 
further noted that consideration of  the removal of the ban would be dependent on the 
implementation of the guidelines by the German Veterinary Services, submission of a document 
confirming the removal of deficiencies, and re -inspection by officials from the Rospotrebnadzor, 
taking into acco unt other ongoing inspections. The Russian Federation emphasized that the 
upcoming work would heavily rely on collaboration between German and Russian authorities.  
2.442.   In October 2016, the European Union recalled that since February 2013, the Russian 
Federatio n had maintained a ban on imports of pig, beef and poultry meat from Germany, followed 
by a ban on imports of finished meat and milk products from three German federal states: 
Bavaria, Lower Saxony and North Rhine Westphalia. These import restrictions had been 
implemented due to claims by the Russian Federation that German veterinary services had not 
undertaken proper controls on the exports of such products. The European Union reaffirmed that 
the restrictions were inconsistent with several provisions of th e SPS Agreement. The European 
Union noted that the German and Russian authorities were working on the issue, and expressed 
hope that their discussion would result in positive developments. The European Union argued that 
there was no justification for the r estrictions and requested the Russian Federation to promptly 
repeal these measures. The European Union reaffirmed its willingness to engage in discussions 
with the Russian authorities.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 111 - 
 
  2.443.   The Russian Federation recalled that restrictions had been imposed on c ertain German 
export products following the results of inspections carried out between 2012 and 2015, which 
revealed non -compliance of these products with Russian SPS requirements. The safety guarantee 
for the importation of these products to the Russian F ederation had not yet been confirmed. 
The Russian Federation recalled that its Rospotrebnadzor had been involved in developing a 
manual for inspections containing Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) requirements. The Russian 
Federation indicated that this manua l had been sent to Germany for comments and expected 
further cooperation with the competent German authorities.  
2.12.2   Animal Health  
Import ban on live pigs and pork products due to African swine fever (STC 369)  
Raised by:  European Union  
Supported by:   
Dates ra ised: March 2014 (G/SPS/R/74, paras. 3.3 -3.4) 
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/GEN/1305, G/SPS/GEN/1313, G/SPS/GEN/1315, 
G/SPS/N/RUS/48, G/SPS/N/RUS/49 , WT/DS475/1 , WT/DS475/R , 
WT/DS475/R/Add.1 , WT/DS475/AB/R , WT/DS475/AB/R/Add.1  
Status:  Not reported  
Solutio n: Panel report circulat ed on 19 August 2016. Appellate Body Report 
circulated on 23 February 2017.  Dispute settlement panel established on 
22 July 2014. Panel report circulated  on 19 August 2016. [Appellate 
Body Report c irculated on 23 February 2017.]  
Panel request: document WT/DS475/1. Panel report: documents 
WT/DS475/R and WT/DS475/R/Add.1. Appellate Body report: documents 
WT/DS475/AB/R and WT/DS475/AB/R/Add.1.  
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.444.   In March 2014, the European Union raised concerns regarding me asures taken by Russia 
in response to the finding of African swine fever (ASF) virus in four wild boars in two EU member 
States: Lithuania and Poland (G/SPS/GEN/1305 and G/SPS/GEN/1313). The European Union had 
immediately delimited the affected areas and i mposed stringent control measures. However, 
Russia had banned imports of live pigs, pork and certain other products from the entire EU 
territory, not just from the affected regions. Russia's claim that it was concerned about the spread 
of the disease into its own territory was unfounded as ASF was widespread in Russia. The disease 
was present in both wild boar and domestic pig populations in Russia, as Russia had taken 
insufficient measures to prevent the spread of ASF virus. Scientific studies showed that the virus 
found in Lithuania and Poland originated in Russia. The European Union thus contended that 
Russia's measure was disproportionate, more trade restrictive than necessary and discriminatory, 
and urged Russia to bring its measures in line with its WT O obligations and with international 
standards.  
2.445.   Russia noted that ASF had inflicted significant damage on the Russian economy since the 
first outbreak was confirmed in 2008. After this outbreak and much mortality among susceptible 
animals, a special commis sion was established in 2013 for the prevention and eradication of ASF. 
During this period, Russia had kept all trading partners fully informed on possible vectors of 
spread, and had requested that the European Union consolidate its efforts for ASF control . 
Apparently, the European Union had underestimated the degree of the threat. Russia stressed that 
it imposed temporary restrictions on the importation of live pigs and pig products not subjected to 
adequate heat treatment only from those countries that ha d made relevant notifications to the OIE 
(Poland and Lithuania), not other EU member States. However, Russia insisted on EU compliance 
with the requirements of the veterinary certificates agreed in December 2012. These required 
certification that no cases of ASF had been found during the last 36 months within the territory of 
an EU member State (excluding Sardinia). There were currently insufficient guarantees that a zone 
or compartment had been effectively established and that the movement of goods within the 
EU territory was fully controlled. Furthermore, this was not a matter that could only be resolved 
without the involvement of the other members of the Eurasian Economic Community: Belarus and 
Kazakhstan.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 112 - 
 
  2.446.   In accordance with the provisions of the Understa nding on Rules and Procedures Governing 
the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), the European Union requested  consultations with Russia on 
8 April 2013 (WT/DS475/1). The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established a panel on 22 July 
2014 (WT/DS475/3). The panel was  composed on 23 October 2014. On 19 August 2016, the panel 
report was circulated to Members. On 23 February 2017, the Appellate Body re port was circulated 
to Members.  
2.12.3   Other Concerns  
Russian Federation import measures  (STC 409)  
Raised by:  Ukraine  
Supported  by:  
Dates raised:  June 2016 (G/SPS/R/83, paras. 4.2-4.4). See also STC 368.  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.447.   In June 2016, Ukraine expressed its concerns regarding two specific import  measures of 
the Russian Federation affecting (i) confectionary products; and (ii) edible salt. First, Ukraine 
recalled that it had previously voiced its concerns regarding the Russian Federation's introduction 
of Resolution No. 01/8612 -13-23 on 29 July 20 13, which prohibited imports of Ukrainian 
confectionary products. Despite the requests by Ukrainian producers for relevant documentation 
from the Rospotrebnadzor, no official evidence concerning the alleged presence of benzopyrene in 
milk chocolate had bee n submitted to Ukraine. Ukraine further noted that the Russian Federation's 
claim regarding toxic impurities in the confectionary products was subsequently replaced by 
allegations of violations related to confectionary labelling. Ukraine considered that th e unfounded 
claims could arbitrarily block the imports of Ukrainian products into the Russian Federation and 
further highlighted that no substantive evidence had been submitted to support the labelling claim. 
Ukraine noted the impact of the measure on its confectionary exports and also highlighted the 
changing nature of the types of restrictions placed on various confectionary producers, as well as 
the rules applied to Ukrainian confectionary products in transit through the Russian Federation to 
third count ries. Despite bilateral consultations, the import restrictio ns were still in place. 
Ukraine  underscored its various efforts to find a positive solution which had included interventions 
in the SPS and Agriculture Committees, and the General Council.  
2.448.   Secondl y, Ukraine raised its concerns regarding the Russian Federation's prohibition of 
imports of edible salt, which had been introduced on 26 January 2015, which Ukraine has also 
raised in the TBT Committee. This measure had directly impacted major Ukrainian ed ible salt 
producers and had resulted in a drastic decrease in exports. Ukraine further emphasized that its 
producers were well established suppliers of high quality edible salt, exporting to the Russian 
Federation as a primary supplier for many decades and  to more than 30 markets, including other 
countries of the Eurasian Economic Union such as Belarus and Kazakhstan. No similar concerns 
from these export destinations had been raised. Ukraine noted that no official evidence concerning 
the alleged breach of import requirements regarding the additive iodine or unacceptable 
organoleptic indices had been submitted. Ukraine further observed that its examination of Russian 
import requirements for edible salt and its repeated testing of the targeted product had 
demonstrated full conformity with the Russian Federation's requirements. These conformity 
assessment results had been provided to the competent Russian authorities. Ukraine queried the 
basis for the import restrictions and sought clarification of the per ceived non -compliance. 
Finally,  Ukraine requested the Russian Federation to respond, within a reasonable period of time, 
to the list of detailed questions that it had submitted.  
2.449.   The Russian Federation stated that the legal nature of its imposed measure had been  
misunderstood and explained that the temporary suspension of the imports of certain Ukrainian 
products was outside the scope of the SPS Agreement. The measures were related to the long -
term detection of labelling violations in certain goods, such as confe ctionary products, and the 
fight against deceptive trade practices which violated the Eurasian Economic Union technical G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 113 - 
 
  regulation requirements on the labelling of food products adop ted on 9 December 2011. 
The Russian Federation indicated that it had respo nded to Ukraine's concerns in a transparent 
manner and had informed the competent authorities of the relevant necessary steps. The Russian 
Federation signalled its willingness to further discuss this issue.  
2.13  Saudi Arabia, Ki ngdom of  
2.13.1   Animal Health  
General im port restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  
2.450.   See paragraphs 2.526. -2.589.  
2.14  Chinese Taipei  
2.14.1   Food Safety  
Chinese Taipei's strengthened import restrictions on food with regard to radionuclides 
(STC 387)  
Raised by:  Japan  
Supported by:   
Dates raised:  March 2015 (G/SP S/R/78 , paras. 3.9 -3.10), July 2015 (G/SPS/R/79 , 
paras.  3.35-3.36), October 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, paras. 3.30 -3.31) , March 
2016 (G/SPS/R/82, paras. 3.21 -3.23), June 2016 (G/SPS/R/83, paras. 
4.28-4.29), October 2016 (G/SPS/R/84, paras. 3.16 -3.17)  
See also STC 3 54. 
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.451.   In March 2015, Japan expressed its concerns over the import ban imposed by Chinese 
Taipei on food exports from five Japanese prefectures after the ac cident 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 s afe for human consumption. 
Four years had passed since the nuclear accident in 2011. In the meantime , 13 Members such as 
Australia and Viet Nam,  had lifted their import restrictions. Many other Members, including the 
European Union, the United States and Singapore had eased their import restrictions based on 
sound scientific data. Japan believed that the measures maintained by Chinese Taipei w ere not 
based on relevant international standards and were more trade -restrictive than required. Japan 
therefore requested that Chinese Taipei lift the import ban on the five prefectures and withdraw 
the draft strengthened import regulations notified to th e SPS Committee last November.  
2.452.   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 Japan be accompanied by pre -export radiation test 
certificates and certificates of origin was developed as a consequence of the radioactive 
contaminated wate r 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.  
2.453.   In July 2015, Japan reiterated its concerns over t he 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 infor mation published by Chinese Taipei, none of the more than G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 114 - 
 
  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 inci dent. 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 a nd immediately remove its 
measures. Japan also expressed hope that bilateral consultations would help find a mutually 
acceptable solution.  
2.454.   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 Taipei market using false labelling. Consequently, 
Chinese Taipei had implemented control measures requiring certificates of origin and, for specific 
food products and prefectures, radioactive examination reports. Chinese Taipei also noted 
concerns over the continuous leakage of radioactive contaminated water from  Fukushima nuclear 
power plant since 2013. Chinese Taipei reiterated its commitment to bilateral efforts to find a 
solution to this matter.  
2.455.   In October 2015, Japan reiterated its concerns over the import ban imposed by Chinese 
Taipei on food from five Japan ese prefectures after the accident at TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi 
Nuclear Power Station, as well as over the strengthened import re strictions imposed since 
15 May 2015. Japan stressed that although an incident where some Japanese food products had 
been impor ted 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 ra dioactive 
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 Taipe i 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.  
2.456.   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.  
2.457.   In Marc h 2016, 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. Japan reported that, despite receiving what it regarded as a p ositive 
response from Chinese Taipei affirming its commitment to bilateral efforts, as well as high -level 
leadership meetings held on the margins of the APEC Ministerial Meeting in November 2015, no 
progress had been made in resolving the issue. Japan note d that the ban was not scientifically 
justifiable as radioactive residues exceeding standard limits were only found in certain types of 
food, mostly wild mushrooms and game meat. Japan encouraged Chinese Taipei to move the 
process forward to resolve the is sue as soon as possible.  
2.458.   Chinese Taipei described the measures in place and stated that they were necessary to 
address public health concerns, especially given the fact that contaminated water and materials 
had not been entirely cleaned and contaminated wa ter continued to leak from the plant site. 
According to recent trade data, consumers were regaining confidence in Japanese products. 
Chinese Taipei reported that it had set up a joint working group with the Japanese Government 
and looked forward to coopera ting closely with Japan under this joint -working mechanism.  
2.459.   Japan questioned the relevancy of contaminated water and public concern on food safety. 
Data from various sources showed a growing demand for Japanese food. Japan thanked other 
Members who had alr eady lifted or eased their import restrictions.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 115 - 
 
  2.460.   In June 2016, Japan reiterated its concerns regarding the import ban imposed by Chinese 
Taipei on food from five Japanese prefectures in response to the nuclear power plant accident. 
Japan noted that the ban was not scientifically justifiable as radioactive residues exceeding the 
regulatory limits were only found in certain types of food. In addition, no residues exceeding the 
regulatory limits had been found at Chinese Taipei's border, out of the more than 80 ,000 samples 
tested to date. Japan further observed that a press release from the authorities of Chinese Taipei 
had indicated that there was neither a plan nor a timetable to relax the import restrictions on food 
products from Japan. Japan underscored that  import restrictions sh ould be consistent with the 
SPS Agreement and encouraged further cooperation in addressing this issue.  
2.461.   Chinese Taipei reiterated that its temporary import ban and radioactive pre -test certificate 
requirements were necessary to protec t public health, especially given the fact that contaminated 
water and materials had not been entirely cleaned as yet. Chinese Taipei indicated that since the 
nuclear power plant incident, it had requested further information from Japan, including on its 
surveillance results and control measures, in order to undertake an evaluation. As a result of the 
credible control measures implemented by the competent authority of Chinese Taipei, consumers 
were regaining confidence in the safety of Japanese food product s, as demonstrated by increased 
trade figures. Chinese Taipei indicated its commitment to monitor the effectiveness of Japan's 
radionuclide management system and ensure a comprehensive evaluation of its relevant control 
measures. Chinese Taipei looked forw ard to further cooperating with Japan on this issue.  
2.462.   In October 2016, Japan reiterated its concerns regarding the import ban imposed by 
Chinese Taipei on food from five Japanese prefectures in response to the nuclear power plant 
accident. The ban was not s cientifically justifiable as radioactive residues exceeding the regulatory 
limits were only found in certain types of food. Japan recognized Chinese Taipei's commitment to 
bilateral discussions and expressed its willingness to continue cooperating with Chi nese Taipei 
towards a satisfactory solution.  
2.463.   Chinese Taipei recalled that a temporary suspension of inspection applications for food 
imported from the Fukushima and other four nearby prefectures was in place since March 2011. 
Food from other prefectures wa s inspected for radionuclide residues at port of entry on a batch -
by-batch basis. In May 2015, Chinese Taipei amended its measures to require radioactive 
examination reports for specific food products from several prefectures and adopted flexible and 
pragm atic methods to allow safe trade of Japanese food products. Chinese Taipei remained 
concerned with radionuclide contaminated water and materials, which continued to leak from the 
plant site. Chinese Taipei highlighted that the measures implemented, includi ng import restrictions 
and pre -test certificates, were necessary to address public health concerns. Increased trade 
figures demonstrated that consumers were regaining confidence in the safety of Japanese food 
products. Chinese Taipei reiterated its commitm ent to continue monitoring the effectiveness of 
Japan's radionuclide management system and ensure a comprehensive evaluation of its relevant 
surveillance and control measures. Chinese Taipei had appointed an inter -ministerial team to work 
on this issue, in cluding risk communication, and looked forward to further cooperating with Japan.  
2.15  South Africa  
2.15.1   Food Safety  
South Africa's revised veterinary health certificates for the import of cattle, sheep and 
goats from Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and Swaziland (STC 40 4) 
Raised by:  Namibia  
Supported by:  Botswana, Swaziland  
Dates raised:  March 2016 (G/SPS/R/82, paras. 3.3 -3.6) 
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/N/ZAF/40  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 116 - 
 
  2.464.   In March 2016, Namibia expressed its con cern over South Africa's revised veterinary 
health certificates for the import of cattle, sheep and goats from Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia and 
Swaziland, as notified in G/SPS/N/ZAF/40. Namibia reported that since placing this STC on the 
agenda, bilateral di scussions had taken place and a roadmap towards reaching an amicable 
solution had been agreed upon. Agreed outcomes of the bilateral meeting included the date of 
finalisation of standard operating procedures for livestock imports from Namibia, a meeting of  
relevant authorities prior to finalisation, and agreement that Ministers of Agriculture would provide 
feedback to industry, with a joint session to be held at the end of April 2015 to endorse the 
procedures. Namibia remained confident that this bilateral process would result in an amicable 
solution for both parties, and would keep the Committee informed on the progress made in this 
regard.  
2.465.   Botswana supported Namibia's concern and proposed an amendment to item 2(a) of the 
Cattle Export Certificate for it to  better reflect Articles 11.8.3 -11.8.4 of the OIE Terrestrial Code , as 
the condition prescribed in South Africa's notification was more stringent.  
2.466.   Swaziland also shared this concern and stated that the new requirements increased 
administrative and financia l burdens on small -scale farmers. Swaziland looked forward to solve the 
issue bilaterally, within the agreed timelines. Swaziland encouraged South Africa to engage with 
the Southern African Customs Union (SACU) prior to imposing revisions to the measure in  the 
future.  
2.467.   South Africa confirmed that bilateral consultations had taken place. South Africa stressed 
that a comment period had been provided and encouraged interested Members to engage 
bilaterally if they had any further comments.  
2.16  Turkey  
2.16.1   Animal Health  
General import restrictions due to BSE (STC 193)  
2.468.   See paragraphs 2.526. -2.589.  
2.17  United States of America  
2.17.1   Animal Health  
US non -acceptance of OIE categorization 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) , March 2016 (G/SPS/R/81, paras. 3.46 -3.47)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised or ally 
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
2.469.   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 stat us. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 117 - 
 
  2.470.   The United States reiterated its commitment to aligning its import regulations governing 
BSE with OIE guidelines and further highlighted that in 2013, USDA Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service  (APHIS ) had published a final rule in the Federal Reg ister 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 f indings 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 
willingness to continue working with India on the issue.  
2.471.   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 recalle d 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 th at the United States had chosen to disregard the OIE 
designation, which was contrary to accepted internationa l practice among Members. 
India requested the United States to recognize its official OIE BSE status.  
2.472.   The United States reiterated its commitment t o 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 o pportunity for public comments.  
2.473.   In March 2015 , India restated  its concern that the Unite d 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 internationa l practice am ong Members. 
India requested the United States to recognize its official OIE BSE status.  
2.474.   The United States reiterated its commitment 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.  
2.475.   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 count ry 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.  
2.476.   The United States restated its commitment to align its import r egulations 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.  
2.477.   India referred to the explicit rec ognition of OIE stand ards 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.  
2.478.   In October 2015, India restated its concer n that the United States 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 the United States to carry 
out the ass essment in accordance with OIE standards.  
2.479.   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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 118 - 
 
  2.480.   In March 2016, India reiterated its concerns with the US non -acceptance of the OIE 
categorization of India as a "negligible risk country" for BSE. India recalled that it was considere d 
as a negligible risk country by the OIE, based on the dossier it had submitted. India reported that 
the United States refused to accept this categorization, prompting India to send the dossier to the 
United States to carry out an independent assessment. India was concerned that this led to double 
certification requirements - one specific to the United States and the other for other Members. 
India requested that the United States accept the OIE categorization and act upon the submitted 
dossier so that a st andard certificate could be issued by the Indian authorities for all Members.  
2.481.   The United States expressed its full commitment to align its import regulations, governing 
BSE with OIE guidelines. The United States reported that in 2013, USDA's APHIS had publ ished a 
final rule in the Federal Register which ensures that US BSE import regulations are in line with 
international animal health standards that support safe trade in bovines and bovine products. 
On 4 December 2015, USDA APHIS had published a Notice in the Federal Register advising the 
public of preliminary concurrence with the OIE's BSE negligible risk designations for 16 regions, 
including India. The United States stated that other countries covered by this Notice were Bulgaria, 
Cyprus, Czech Republic,  Estonia, France, Hungary, the Republic of Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein, 
Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Romania, Slovak Republic and Switzerland. The United States 
indicated that the comment period for the Notice had closed on 4 February 2016, and the next 
step would be the publication of the second Notice finalizing US recognition of these 16 regions, 
including India, as negligible risk for BSE.  
2.17.2   Plant Health  
US high cost of certification for mango exports (STC 373)  
Raised by:  India 
Supported by:  Brazil, Dom inican 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) , March 2016  (G/SPS/R/82, paras. 3.55 -3.56), June 
2016 (G/SPS/R/83, paras. 4.20 -4.21)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.482.   In July 2014, India raised its concerns on the high cost of certification for m ango 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 flies a nd 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. The se 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.  
2.483.   The United States noted that India had been the first country to ship irradiated 
commodities to the United  States and that the value of these exports had steadily grown, reaching 
US$1.6 million dollars in 2013. Several efforts had been undertaken to reduce the costs of the 
preclearance programme, such as collaboration on budget and financial issues. The United  States 
had also amended its regulations to facilitate the importation of Indian mangoes by allowing 
irradiation upon arrival in the United States. The United States requested India to submit a formal 
request for amendment of the US operational work plan.  
2.484.   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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 119 - 
 
  mangoes to the United States on the basis that they would be irradiated, unde r the supervision of 
US inspectors, to mitigate the risk of fruit flies and stone weevil a nd 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 c osts and to 
facilitate trade, as had been done for organic certification.  
2.485.   The Dominican Republic expressed its support for India's concern and requested further 
information from the United States on the costs of import procedures.  
2.486.   The United States recalle d 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 ir radiation 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.  
2.487.   In March 2015, India reiterated its concern regardi ng 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. In dia requested that the United States circulate a draft work plan for the 
irradiation upon arrival requirement.  
2.488.   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 through 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 Sta tes welcomed further engagement with India on this issue.  
2.489.   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 India had requested circulation of the corresponding 
draft work plan.  
2.490.   Brazil and the Domin ican 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 
duplicati ve, 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.  
2.491.   The United States confirmed that India had 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 options that had be en discussed in March 2015: 
(i) expansion of the current irradiation programme by resolving su bstantial 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 India 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 also welcomed bilateral  
consultations with Brazil and the Dominican Republic.  
2.492.   In October 2015, India restated the observations presented during the 2015 July meeting.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 120 - 
 
  2.493.   The Dominican Republic shared India's concern and considered the best option for a 
solution was to require treat ment 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.  
2.494.   The United States confirmed that India had 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 options that had be en 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 India to resolve these concerns and would plan a 
second visit when India's facilities were ready for certification. The Unit ed 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.  
2.495.   In March 2016, India recalled its concerns reg arding the US high cost of certification for 
mango exports it had raised in previous SPS Committee meetings , and thanked the United States 
for bilateral discussions at the technical level to resolve this issue. India highlighted two issues, 
increasing the number of facilities for irradiation of mangoes before export, and the requirement 
that the irradiation process be carried out in the presence of the US certified technical experts 
only. India reported that there had been progress in the recognition of additional facilities for 
irradiation. However, the high cost is a result of flying -in the US technical experts. India stated 
that the same irradiation could be carried out in the presence of trained Indian officials appointed 
by the United States to reduce t he cost of certification. India also recalled an alternative option of 
irradiation on arrival, which proved to be equally costly.  
2.496.   The United States restated that Indian mangoes had been approved for export to the 
United States in April 2007, with India bec oming the first country to ship irradiated commodities to 
the United States. The United States had worked closely with its counterparts in the Indian 
government and had provided the Ministry of Agriculture with the necessary documentation and 
procedures to  allow importation of Indian mangoes, subject to irradiation upon arrival in the 
United States. USDA APHIS plant health experts had productive discussions with their Indian 
counterparts at a bilateral meeting on 23 -24 February 2016. The United States also reported that 
the re -certification visit to the Vashi irradiation facility by the A PHIS team had taken place on 
25 February 2016. APHIS looked forward to working with India to certify the facility for the start of 
the mango export season. Until that time, the existing irradiation facility at Nasik was the only 
facility currently certified to irradiate mangoes for shipment to the United States.  
2.497.   In June 2016, India provided an update on the recent developments regarding its 
previously raised concern on the hi gh cost of US certification for mango exports. India reported 
that a USDA APHIS inspector had visited India in April 2016 in order to approve two additional 
irradiation facilities. One irradiation facility had been approved by USDA APHIS on 7 April 2016, 
following which exports of irradiated mangos from the facility to the United States had 
commenced. The certification of the second facility had been approved on 22 June 2016, and the 
first consignment of irradiated mangoes had been exported to the United St ates on 23 June 2016. 
India recognized the substantial progress made on the issue and thanked the United States for 
approving the two facilities for mango exports. India further stated that a meeting had been held 
between the United States and Indian techn ical authorities in February 2016, where it had been 
agreed to develop a proposed work plan for irradiating mangoes upon arrival in the United States. 
India noted that it was currently in the process of putting together the technical details requested 
by the US authorities and further requested the United States to continue its cooperation on this 
issue.  
2.498.   The United States recalled that Indian mangoes had been exported to the United States 
since April 2007, and that this trade had been facilitated through a bilateral arrangement for pre 
clearance based on irradiation in India. The United States also noted that the USDA was in the 
process of certifying two new irradiation facilities, which would be fully up and running by the end 
of 2016. The United States hig hlighted that its requirements for inspection and irradiation of 
mangoes from India were fully consistent with its obligations under the SPS agreement, and that 
its experts had closely worked with India on this trade facilitating bilateral arrangement. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 121 - 
 
  The United States further noted that subsequent discussions on this matter in the Committee 
would not be appropriate given the fruitful progress.  
2.17.3   Other Concerns  
Measures on catfish (STC 289)  
Raised by:  China  
Supported by:  Thailand  
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) , March 
2016 (G/SPS/R/82, paras. 3.34 -3.37) , June 2016 (G/SPS/R/83, 
paras.  4.38-4.41), October 2016 (G/SPS/R/84, paras. 3.27 -3.30)  
Relevant document(s):  G/SPS/N/USA/2171  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.499.   In October 2009, China raised co ncerns 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). USDA was mandated to draft a series of rules 
concerning the production and inspection requirements for catfish before the beginning of 2010; 
and countries wanting to export or to continue exporting catfish to the Un ited 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. Chi na requested 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 existing trade between China and the United States 
would be taken into consideration when developing the new regulatory system.  
2.500.   The United States stated that the Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, signed into 
law o n 18 June 2008, amended the Federal Meat Inspection Act and required USDA's Food Safety 
Inspection Service (FSIS) to establish a new federal programme for the production and inspection 
of catfish. In preparation of the anticipated changes to the federal re gulations, USDA had visited 
and communicated with many Members to alert them 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 p roposed regulation as soon as possible.  
2.501.   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 State s would respect the traditional transitional period of 5 years considering China's 
developing country status.  
2.502.   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 were 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 c atfish before implementation. The United States would make 
every effort to minimize disruptions to trade once the catfish inspection program began.  
2.503.   In October 2014 , China recalled that in March 2011, the United States had notified its 
regulations for manda tory inspection of catfish and catfish products, intending to transfer the 
regulatory responsibility from the FDA to the USDA. In 2014, USDA had been mandated to draft G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 122 - 
 
  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 establ ished terrestrial and aquatic 
animal health codes respectively, and there was no evidence that catfish products had higher food 
safety risks tha n other aquatic products. China  raised its concern that USDA's inspection 
programme imposed additional costs on foreign catfish producers by requiring equivalence 
programmes. China believed that the inspection programme was a trade barrier and violated 
US obligations under WTO agreements. China urged the United States to adjust its mandatory 
inspection measure based  on science, and to implement catfish inspection under the management 
regulations of aquatic products instead of terrestrial animal meat products.  
2.504.   The United States explained that the Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 had 
mandated that catfish be re gulated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act. The Agricultural Act of 
2014 had made the 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 p artners 
would be notified as soon as these rules were finalized.  
2.505.   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 FDA to the USDA 's 
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 al l 
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 belie ved 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 u nder the regulatory system of aquatic products.  
2.506.   The United States explained that the Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, known as 
the 2008 Farm Bill , mandated that catfish be regulated under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and 
directed USDA to promul gate a rule to define catfish and provide for its mandatory inspection. 
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.  
2.507.   In July 2015, China recalled its concerns regarding US regulations on the mandatory 
inspection of catfish and catfish product notif ied in March 2011, which transferred the regulatory 
food safety oversight of all Siluriformes fish from the FDA to the USDAs  FSIS. As a result, the 
United States applied terrestrial animal meat inspection procedures for the imports of Siluriformes 
fish, in cluding catfish. According to China, the 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 report, the risk o f 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.  
2.508.   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.  
2.509.   In October 2015, China raised its concern regarding t he US regulation on Mandatory 
Inspection of Catfish and Catfish Products, which transferred the regulatory food safety oversight 
of catfish from FDA to the FSIS of the USDA. The 2014 US Farm Bill had extended the product 
range covered through this transfer  from catfish to all Siluriformes fish. 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 applicati on G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 123 - 
 
  of terrestrial animal meat inspection procedures to aquatic products, highlighting that this 
approach was without precedent worldwide. China further noted that there was no evidence 
showing that Siluriformes fish posed a higher food -borne risk than othe r 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 ass essment 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 Stat es 
to base its regulation on relevant international standards or on a scientific risk assessment.  
2.510.   The United States replied that its measure had been published in February 2011 and 
notified to the SPS Committee in G/SPS/N/USA/2171. In particular, the Unite d 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 i ts rule on fish inspection. 
The United States assured Members that it h ad closely reviewed the comments provided by its 
trading partners and that the final rule would be consistent with its international obligations.  
2.511.   In March 2016, China again raised its concern regarding the US regulation on Mandatory 
Inspection of Catfish a nd Catfish Products, which transferred the regulatory food safety oversight 
of catfish from FDA to the FSIS of the USDA. The regulation had taken effect on 1 March 2016 and 
applied terrestrial animal meat inspection procedures to aquatic products, which wa s without 
precedent worldwide. China further noted 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 US DA only for Siluriformes fish instead of all 
aquatic products. China again noted that the distinction between Siluriformes fish and other 
aquatic products could also result in a disguised restriction on international trade. China urged the 
United States to  abolish all non -conforming legislation related to mandatory inspection of 
Siluriformes fish and to base its regulation on relevant international standards or on a scientific 
risk assessment.  
2.512.   Viet Nam shared the concerns expressed by China and echoed that the measure was not 
based on scientific evidence. Viet Nam, like China, questioned the application of terrestrial 
inspection regimes to only one type of aquatic animal. Viet Nam stated that in implementing this 
legislation, the United States had not taken into consideration existing trade in catfish and catfish 
products with Viet Nam and other countries. Viet Nam requested that the United States address 
these concerns as the regulation in its current form would result in disguised trade restrictions.  
2.513.   Thaila nd also shared this concern even though the export value of catfish from Thailand to 
other countries was low. Thailand requested the United States to provide clarification and 
justification on this matter.  
2.514.   The United States replied that the measure had bee n published in February 2011 and 
notified to the WTO in G/SPS/N/USA/2171. The final USDA rule on catfish inspection had been 
published on 2 December 2015, with the addendum notified on 3 December 2015. The rule had 
been carefully developed to take into acc ount all comments and o bligations under WTO rules. 
The United States remained committed to facilitate a smooth introduction of the inspection 
programme and FSIS would conduct outreach to all trading partners regarding implementation.  
2.515.   In June 2016, China ag ain 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 USDA. The regulation had 
taken effect on 1 March 2016 and applied terrestrial animal meat inspection procedures to aquatic 
products, which was without precedent worldwide. China insisted that this inspection programme 
was inconsistent with certain requirements of GATT 1994 and  the SPS Agreement. China stated 
that the regulation was not based on scientific principles or on a scientific risk assessment, and 
constituted a disguised restriction on trade. China queried the rationale for changing the regulatory 
responsibility from FD A to USDA only for Siluriformes fish instead of all aquatic products, and 
observed that this constituted an arbitrary and unjustifiable distinction. China requested that the 
United States provide a written explanation on the US Senate vote on 25 May 2016 a gainst the 
regulation, and the steps following this vote. China urged the United States to remove its 
mandatory inspection for Siluriformes fish and maintain the FDA inspection program.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 124 - 
 
  2.516.   VietNam shared the concerns expressed by China and echoed that the mea sure was not 
based on scientific evidence, and constituted a disguised restriction on trade. Viet Nam indicated 
that it felt encouraged by the US Senate vote of 25 May 2016, and expressed its expectation that 
the programme be removed following action by th e US House of Representatives and 
US Administration. Viet Nam reminded that the programme, if maintained, would fail to comply 
with the SPS Agreement, and thus urged for its repeal.  
2.517.   Thailand also shared the concerns expressed by China and Viet Nam, and urg ed the United 
States to align its measure with international standards and to comply them with the 
SPS Agreement.  
2.518.   The United States replied that the FSIS had been conducting outreach events such as 
bilateral meetings and a regional seminar to the potential ly affected trading partners, in order to 
ensure a smooth transition and avoid disrupting imports following the new rule. The United States 
indicated that any Member interested in hosting an educational outreach meeting for their national 
inspection team c ould contact FSIS. The United States maintained that the final rule at play was 
consistent with the SPS Agreement, and declared that if the FSIS had not finished its equivalence 
determination after 1 September 2017, the United States would take steps to en sure that trade 
continue smoothly for all countries that had previously submitted their equivalence documentation. 
The United States had no information on whether or not the House of Representatives would 
consider a resolution similar to that of the Senate , and in the meantime would continue to 
implement the rule.  
2.519.   In October 2016, China again 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 USDA and accorded 
unjustified discriminatory treatment to siluriformes and their products. China drew Members' 
attention to document G/SPS/GEN/1527 which provided further  information on this i ssue. 
The US regulation had taken effect on 1 March 2016 and applied terrestrial animal meat inspection 
procedures to siluriformes (including catfish) and derivate products. China stated that the 
regulation was not based on scientific principles or on a ri sk assessment. Referring to the results of 
various US government reports, China argued that catfish did not pose a higher risk compared 
with other aquatic products, and that the effectiveness of the FSIS siluriformes inspection 
programme was uncertain. Chi na stated that the US regulation failed to respect international 
norms and imposed unnecessary restrictions to trade, causing important financial losses to its 
industry and affecting tens of thousands of jobs. China again urged the United States to conside r 
the comments it had provided and bring its measure into full compliance with the provisions of the 
WTO Agreements.  
2.520.   Viet Nam shared China's concerns and also argued that the measure was not based on 
scientific research or on a risk assessment. Viet Nam de clared that it had exported catfish to the 
United States for nearly 20 years without raising any food safety concerns, and that the 2012 
USDA FSIS risk assessment report had concluded that "illness from catfish [was] an uncommon 
event." Viet Nam indicated that it felt encouraged by the US Senate action on 25 May 2016 to pass 
a resolution to overturn the USDA programme, as well as the letters recently signed by the 
majority of the House of Representatives to support the Senate resolution. Viet Nam expected t hat 
the US administration would take similar steps and remove the programme, which otherwise 
would fail to comply with the SPS Agreement.  
2.521.   Thailand echoed the concerns expressed by China and Viet Nam, recalling that the 
programme was not supported by a risk  assessment and viola ted various articles of the 
SPS Agreement.  
2.522.   The United States reiterated its commitment to working with its trading partners during 
the implementation of the measure in order to ensure a smooth transition and avoid disrupting 
imports fo llowing the new rule. The United States reminded Members that FSIS had been 
conducting outreach events such as bilateral technical meetings and regional implementation 
seminars. The United States indicated that any Member interested in hosting an education al 
meeting for their national inspection team could contact FSIS.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 125 - 
 
  US seafood import monitoring programme (STC 415)  
Raised by:  China  
Supported by:  Chile 
Dates raised:  October 2016 (G/SPS/R/84, paras. 3.9 -3.11)  
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Not reported  
Solution:   
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.523.   In October 2016, China raised its concern regarding the US Seafood Import Monitoring 
Program (SIMP), published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 
February 2016. China p raised US efforts to combat illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) 
fishing and seafood fraud. However, China considered the proposed rule to be inconsistent with a 
number of key principles of the WTO such as transparency, national treatment, scientific  
justification and least trade restrictiveness. China urged the United States to notify the measure as 
soon as possible, and to provide Members with at least a 60 -day comment period and a 6 -month 
transition period. China also noted that US traceability req uirements and catch certification for at -
risk species applied only to imported fish and fish products, and not to domestic products. 
Additionally, the measure was not based on science as it would finally apply to all imported aquatic 
products, regardless o f risk levels, and making no distinctions between aquaculture products and 
wild capture fisheries. China indicated that the regulation required more information than 
necessary and overlapped with other rules, including the International Trade Data System ( ITDS), 
which increased costs and generated unnecessary market access delays. China added that the rule 
would do little to combat illegal fishing. China requested more information and expressed its 
availability to work closely with the United States with a view to combating IUU fishing and 
seafood fraud in a WTO consistent manner. China looked forward to seeing the US notification for 
this measure.  
2.524.   Chile shared China's concern indicating that it would follow this issue closely and hoped 
that the measure woul d be notified soon.  
2.525.   The United States noted that this issue did not fall under the SPS 
Agreement.  The objective of the proposed rule was to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud. The 
proposed rule would require importers to report certain information upon e ntry into the United 
States to help trace back the shipment to the catch or harvest point. The United States further 
explained that the rule had been developed through a transparent process of public notice and 
comments involving domestic and foreign stake holders, as well as exporting authorities. The NOAA 
had received many comments, including from China, which were being considered in the first 
phase of the programme covering a reduced list of species. The rule would eventually cover all 
seafood species in  subsequent phases. The United States finally highlighted its common objective 
with China to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud and expressed its interest in a continued 
engagement on this issue.  
2.18  Certain Members  
2.18.1   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), F ebruary 
2007 (G/SPS/R/44, para. 29), October 2008 (G/SPS/R/53, paras. 24 -
28), February 2009 (G/SPS/R/54, paras. 11 -12), June 2009 (G/SPS/55, 
para. 47), October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, para. 46), March  2010 
(G/SPS/R/58, paras. 35 -36), June 2010 (G/SPS/R/59, para.  44), October G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 126 - 
 
  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), Octob er 2015 (G/SPS/R/81, para. 3.65 ), March 2016 
(G/SPS/R/82, para. 3.45), June 2016 (G/SPS/R/83, para. 4.12), October 
2016 (G/SPS/R/84, para. 3.37 ) 
Relevant document(s):  Raised orally  
Status:  Partially resolved  
Solution:  Soluti ons notified regarding certain m embers  
Date reported as 
resolved:    
 
2.526.   In June 2004, the European Communities raised concerns about unjustified import 
restrictions on EC ex ports due to concerns about BSE. To satisfy consumer demands, the European 
Communities had adopted comprehensive measures to addre ss risks relating to BSE. 
These  measures applied both to products intended for consumption within the European 
Communities  and to those destined for export. The system of geographical assessment used in the 
European Communities had successfully identified countries in which the disease was still present. 
The European Communities called on other countries to replace import bans, w hich 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 guarante es. Members were urged to take into 
consideration OIE recommendations for international trade and to stop discriminating among 
Members with similar BSE conditions.  
2.527.   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.  
2.528.   Canada recalled that at its last meeting the OIE had reconfirmed that some products,  such 
as semen, embryos, hides, and milk, did not contribute to the transmission of BSE. Hence the 
imports of these types of products did not provide a potential pathway for introduction of the 
disease.  
2.529.   In October 2004, the European Communities informed th e 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 had not done so to align their regulations in 
accordance with  OIE standards.  
2.530.   In June 2005, the European Communities reported 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 -Members of the WTO. According to the revised BSE 
chapter of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code, many bovine derived products, including deboned 
skeletal muscle and blood products, could be safely traded regardless of the BSE status of the 
exporting country. The Europ ean Communities invited the remaining WTO Members to replace 
their import bans with specific import requirements in accordance with OIE standards.  
2.531.   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 surve illance and put in place interlocking safeguards, nonetheless many restrictions G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 127 - 
 
  remained in place. The United States asked Members to review the evidence now available and to 
revise their requirements accordingly.  
2.532.   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 th ese beef products were considered safe and in compliance 
with the BSE Chapter of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code.  
2.533.   Canada shared the EC concerns and asked Members to base their measures on the BSE 
chapter provisions of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Heal th 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.  
2.534.   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 . 
2.535.   The representative of the OIE urged Members to abide by the standards enacted by the 
OIE. 
2.536.   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 fac ing trade 
restrictions. National restrictions maintained despite the OIE Code undermined this standard that 
had been adopted after long negotiations, thus damaging the credibility of the OIE. The OIE was 
planning to update the Code, because there was compe lling 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 frequ ently 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 t his example.  
2.537.   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 ma rgin 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.  
2.538.   In June 2009, the European Communities again drew attention to restrictions on bovine 
meat and related products still im posed 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 cases of BSE. EC measures to control BSE were 
exemplary and we nt far beyond OIE requirements, and the European Communities urged Members 
to establish fair, non -discriminatory and transparent rules for the import of bovine products.  
2.539.   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 wer e aligning their processes 
to OIE recommendations, other Members still required unnecessary certification, applied 
burdensome and lengthy procedures and discriminated between countries without scientific basis. 
EC measures to eradicate and control BSE were  comprehensive and offered every guarantee that 
EC exports were safe. The European Communities urged Members to fully take into consideration 
the latest OIE BSE guidelines and to establish fair, non -discriminatory and transparent rules.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 128 - 
 
  2.540.   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 di scriminatory 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 "undetermin ed" 
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 i mport requirements regardless of the BSE 
risk or the age of the cattle population of the exporting country, zone or compartment.  
2.541.   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. 
2.542.   In June 2010, the European Union reported that certain WTO Members still maintained 
unjustified import restrictions to protect against TSE. The European Union urged Members to lift 
any unnecessary, disproportiona te, or discriminatory restrictio ns which negatively affected 
EU exports. The European Union recalled that the OIE had issued BSE standards based on 
scientific risk assessments and defined the conditions under which commodi ties could be safely 
traded. In  May 2010, 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 the  OIE process and to process applications from 
the European Union.  
2.543.   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 res trictions. 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. Th ere had 
been, however, some positive developments. The Philippines had announced the lifting of import 
restrictions on beef from most EU member States, and Egypt was now allowing imports of 
de-boned beef from animals younger than 48 months. The European Un ion urged Members to 
quickly align their requirements with the OIE standards, and to establish fair, non -discriminatory, 
transparent and scientifically sound import requirements.  
2.544.   In March 2011, the European Union urged Members to lift unnecessary restricti ons 
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 requireme nts with OIE standards and acknowledged the many 
countries that had started the assessment process to allow imports.  
2.545.   In June 2011, the European Union expressed concerns that several Members had not yet 
implemented the OIE standard on BSE and continued to i mpose bans or trade restrictions on 
EU beef products. These Members should either implement the OIE standard, or else share their 
scientific risk assessment. To date, the European Union had not seen any scientific justification for 
restrictions that went b eyond 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 Unio n urged Members to fully take into account the OIE standards and establish fair, 
non-discriminatory, transparent, and scientifically based rules.  
2.546.   Canada was pleased to note that a large number of Members had approved the import of 
Canadian beef based on th e OIE standards, and joined the European Union in asking Members to 
base their measures on OIE standards.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 129 - 
 
  2.547.   In October 2011, the European Union recalled that it had repeatedly raised concerns that 
several Members continued to impose bans or restrictive condi tions 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. 
Despit e 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.  
2.548.   Japan and Korea both expressed their understanding of the EU concern and indicated that 
they would continue discussi ons 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.  
2.549.   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 membe r States - allegedly 
because of BSE - that did not respect the international standards as required by the  
SPS Agreement. The OIE standard on BSE provided details regarding the disease and conditions 
for the safe trade of bovine products. Despite the long h istory 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 w ith the international standards and the SPS Agreement, and Australia to 
quickly finalize its assessment process. The recent steps by the United States to align its import 
conditions with the OIE standard were welcomed, and a fast implementation of conditio ns 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.  
2.550.   Korea indicated its willingness to continue bilateral discussions on this issue.  
2.551.   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.  
2.552.   Japan reported that it had already started discussions with the European Unio n, 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 scienti fic data. The Food Safety Commission 
would assess the risk of beef from the other EU member States when the necessary information 
was verified, including through onsite investigation and collection of data.  
2.553.   In July 2012, the European Union observed that ma ny trading partners continued to 
impose unjustified bans or restrictions relating to BSE, although more than half of these countries 
did not benefit from official BSE classification by the OIE a s 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 sa me BSE status as most of the 
EU member Sta tes. 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 justif y deviations from 
the OIE standard, or to immediately start the administrative procedures to implement the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 130 - 
 
  international standards. The European Union requested Japan to continue progress on pending 
applications so that trade could soon resume. The Europea n 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.  
2.554.   China indicated that bilateral talks had taken place with the European Union on the BSE 
issue at various levels. China had repeatedly presented its views on BSE and emphasized that no 
international organization could deny countries the right to pres ent their views based on science. 
A lot of work had been carried out by China on risk analysis regarding BSE.  
2.555.   Japan recalled that its food safety committee had started the risk assessment of beef from 
France and the Netherlands, and this was being discusse d by experts. As for other EU member 
States, additional consultations were needed. Japan remained open for further co -operation with 
the European Union to resolve the issue.  
2.556.   Korea noted the ongoing active communication between Korea and the European Union on 
the issue at the technical level. Additional discussions at the technical level were needed, and were 
in the interest of both sides.  
2.557.   In October 2012, the European Union observed that many trading partners continued to 
impose unjustified bans or restrict ions 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 
conditio ns into line with the OIE standards and requested China to quickly proceed with pending 
market access applications. The European Union welcomed the recent developments in Japan, 
where the risk assessment with regard to imports of beef had been submitted fo r public 
consultation. As a result of the scientific outcome, the European Union looked forward to beef 
exports being resumed in the near future. The European Union noted the recent steps taken in the 
United States and Australia towards bringing their requ irements 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.  
2.558.   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 provided thorough information to the European Union 
in relation to its scientific justification. Re cognizing the importance of the issue particularly for 
exports from the Netherlands and Ireland, China had jointly organized co -operation activities with 
the European Union including technical exchanges among experts, seminars and technical visits. 
These e xchanges 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 a MOU with Ireland for the establishment of a joint 
working group on BSE.  
2.559.   Korea indicated that it was actively engaged in bilateral discussions with the European 
Union, including discussions this s ame week, and would continue to have discussions with the 
European Union in this regard.  
2.560.   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.  
2.561.   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 fr om 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 c ases 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, an d had not G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 131 - 
 
  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 wel comed the process in Korea to assess 
applications received from some EU member States and urged Korea to proceed in a speedy 
manner to ensure market access for EU beef, given that Korea had opened its market to other 
trading partners which had the same BSE  status as EU member States. The European Union noted 
the ongoing processes in the United States and Australia towards aligning their import conditions 
with the OIE standards and looked forward to effective market access without any further delay. 
The Euro pean Union urged all Members to fully align with the OIE standards and establish fair, 
non-discriminatory, transparent and science -based rules.  
2.562.   China indicated that in its many bilateral discussions it had repeatedly informed the 
European Union on its poli cies 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 insuff icient 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 a nd indicated that it would review its measures concerning BSE according to the 
outcomes of future risk assessments.  
2.563.   The European Union could not accept that the horse meat issue be linked with the 
effectiveness of its oversight system, given the very detai led 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 det ermination.  
2.564.   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, a nd would continue to have close dialogue 
with the EU delegation.  
2.565.   Japan reported that its Food Safety Commission had completed an evaluation report in 
October 2012 and on the basis of its findings had lifted the ban on imports of cattle aged up to 
30 months  from the United States, Canada, France and the Netherlands. The European Union 
thanked Japan for the changes in its measures and for its continued engagement in the process.  
2.566.   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 notif y 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 applications. The US and Australia's ongoing process to 
align their BSE import conditions with OIE standards was appreciated and closely followed by the 
Europ ean Union and further progress towards real trade market access was now expected without 
undue delays.  
2.567.   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.  
2.568.   China recalled that BSE continued to be a very sensitive and highly technical issue for 
which scientific knowledge was still insufficient. A ris k analysis was carried out with the 
co-operation of relevant EU member States, but experts of both parties had failed to reach 
consensus. Further research, communication and discussion were necessary. China expressed its 
willingness to continue cooperating  and communicating with EU technical experts.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 132 - 
 
  2.569.   In October 2013, the European Union highlighted the importance of this concern as it 
related to one of the basic requirements under the SPS Agreement: that SPS measures adopted by 
Members be based on the releva nt 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 
partn ers 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 finalizing its risk assessment. The European Union called 
upon Australia to finalize the process, which should lead to effective market access without undue 
delays.  
2.570.   China noted that the latent period of BSE was long and as there were no cases in China, an 
import prohibition o f bovine cattle and related products was in place as a safety measure. 
According to Chinese legislation, it could conduct inspection and quarantine activities only after the 
BSE ban on certain EU member States had been lifted. Since 2010, OIE had released reports that 
a number of EU member States (France, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, etc.) still suffered 
from BSE and China noted that these had not applied for the ban to be lifted in China. 
Technical  exchanges, including a seminar on BSE jointly held  with the European Union, and the 
assignment of a technical person to participate in BSE prevention training had  taken place. In 
March 2012, EU  beef exports had been discussed at the 7th China -EU Summit. Although the 
experts on both sides had not reached c onsensus, a joint expert team had been established with 
relevant members in order to overcome technical issues.  
2.571.   Korea acknowledged the European Union's concern and emphasized that its government 
had been conducting import risk analysis on some EU member St ates' beef. Responses to 
questionnaires were awaited so as to proceed with the IRA process in a timely manner while 
conducting a close dialogue with Members in this regard.  
2.572.   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 ba n 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 steps, including health certificates. The European 
Union looked forward to tangible results in the near future.  
2.573.   China noted that the latent period of BSE was long , as it had previously explained . 
2.574.   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.  
2.575.   In July 2014, once again, the European Union reiterated  this concern . The Eu ropean Union 
welcomed the recent opening of China allowing imports of live cattle from one EU member State as 
well as the announcement to lift the ban for meat from cattle under 12 months of age from 
another member State, but only after going through a len gthy approval procedure. Therefore, the 
European Union requested China to rapidly finalize all outstanding EU applications, some of them 
pending since 2005 , and to increase transparency on the procedures required to lift the ban and 
on th e risk analysis ju stifying 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 al low actual trade to take place. The European Union noted that Aust ralia'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.  
2.576.   China explained that as a country with a negligible BSE risk status, as recog nized 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 133 - 
 
  countries such as Hungary and Latvia, beef access procedures had b een 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.  
2.577.   In October 2014 , the Eu ropean Union reiterated the importance of this concern  and urged 
all Members to align their BSE requirements with OIE standards . The European Union welcomed 
the growing number of WTO Members recognizing the EU control system and the EU member 
States' negli gible or controlled risk status. The European Union urged China, the USA and Australia 
to adjust their BSE requirements fully in line with OIE requirements, and to speed up the approval 
processes of bovine and beef products from the European Union. Further more, China's recent 
lifting of its ban on live cattle imports from one EU member State only suggested differentiation 
between identical or similar BSE conditions found in several EU member States. The European 
Union welcomed Saudi Arabia's recent lifting of restrictions on beef i mports from the European 
Union. The European Union raised, for the first time, similar concerns regarding Turkey's import 
restrictions on beef from the European Union. The European Union had identified in particular 
testing require ments 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.  
2.578.   Turkey responded that its bo vine 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.  
2.579.   China explained that it h ad 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 se parate 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 an d 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.  
2.580.   Saudi Arabia thanked the European Union for its comments and co -operation, and 
emphasized that i t would not hesitate to facilitate trade with Members.  
2.581.   In March 2015 , the European Union reiterated the imp ortance of this concern; 
SPS measures adopted by Members had to be based on relevant international standards. 
Unjustifiable trade restrictions relati ng 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' negli gible or controlled risk status. The European Union urged all Members to align their 
BSE requirements with OIE standards.  
2.582.   Specifically, the European Union welcomed the progress made by China, allowing beef 
exports from one EU member State and the lifting o f the ban on two others. The European Union 
also welcomed the beginning of exports from one of its member States to the United States. 
The European Union urged China and the United States to provide more information on their 
import procedures that would al low exports from other member States. The European Union also 
urged Australia, South Korea and Ukraine to process the import applications submitted by the 
European Union in a speedy manner. The European Union reported that it had put in place a 
robust syst em for BSE in all of its member States, following the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health 
Code. This system guaranteed that all bovine products placed on the EU market, imported and 
exported were safe. Against this background, the European Union urged all Member s to lift the 
BSE ban on bovine and bovine products for the entire European Union within a reasonable period 
of time.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 134 - 
 
  2.583.   China explained that it attached great importance to exports of beef from the European 
Union and was actively carrying out technical excha nge 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. Fo r the member States without 
BSE cases, accelerated procedure s were imposed. China noted that Hungary had exported to 
China while Latvia had signed a beef export protocol. China had also lifted the ban on some beef 
products from the Netherlands and Ireland. China was looking forward to enhanced technical 
exchange an d consultation with the European Union to properly solve this issue.  
2.584.   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 ur ged 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 transparency towards other countries by providing 
technical information about the EU animal health and food sa fety system.  
2.585.   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 dise ase. 
2.586.   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 a nd its own high 
level of transparency towards other countries by providing technical information about the EU 
animal health and food safety system. The European Union re -stated that science on BSE is 
indisputably clear to allow safe trade of many products and regretted, once more, the fact that 
many countries never provided a risk assessment justifying their deviations from 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 State to China. The European Union 
also urged China to complete the procedures that would allow beef impor ts from all other 
interested EU  member States. Finally, the European Union urged Australia, Korea and Ukraine to 
speed up their import approval procedures.  
2.587.   In March 2016, the European Union reiterated the importance of this long -standing 
concern. A few countries still kept a ban in place, even though the scientific evidence had proven 
that safe trade of beef could take pla ce regardless of BSE country risk status. The European Union 
again urged all Members to respect international rules and align their measures with OIE 
standards. While some Members had lifted the bans, the European Union regretted, once more, 
the fact that many countries never provided a risk assessment justifying their deviations from 
international standards. The European Union welcomed the recent lifting of the ban by Japan for 
two further EU member States, making a total of seven EU member States that cou ld now export 
beef to Japan. In relation to China and the United States, the European Union welcomed the start 
of the process for current applications which it hoped would be expeditious. The European Union 
also welcomed Argentina and Ukraine's lifting of the bans, citing this as a good example of rapid 
implementation. Finally, the European Union encouraged all Members, such as Australia and 
Korea, to proceed in a swift manner to lift the bans and hoped that the backlog of applications 
submitted by EU membe r States would soon disappear.  
2.588.   In June 2016, the European Union reiterated the importance of this long -standing concern. 
A few countries still kept a ban in place, even though the scientific evidence had proven that safe 
trade of beef could take place rega rdless of BSE country risk status. The European Union again 
urged all Members to respect international rules and align their measures with OIE standards. 
While some Members had lifted the bans, the European Union regretted, once more, the fact that 
many co untries never provided a risk assessment justifying their deviations from international 
standards. The European Union welcomed the recent lifting of the ban by Japan for two further 
EU member States, making a total of seven EU member States that could now export beef to 
Japan. In relation to China and the United States, the European Union welcomed the start of the 
process for current applications which it hoped would be expeditious. The European Union also 
welcomed Argentina and Ukraine's lifting of the ban s, citing this as a good example of rapid 
implementation. Finally, the European Union encouraged all Members, such as Australia and G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.17  
 
- 135 - 
 
  Korea, to proceed in a swift manner to lift the bans and hoped that the backlog of applications 
submitted by EU member State s would soon disappear.  
2.589.   In October 2016, the European Union reiterated the importance of this long -standing 
concern, recalling its conviction that BSE -related science was solid and that the relevant OIE 
standards guaranteed safe trade. On the other hand, t he European Union recalled that some WTO 
Members kept longstanding, discriminatory and unjustified bans in place due to BSE arguing the 
need for a further (and often too long) assessment before imports could take place, even for 
commodities (e.g. beef) dec lared by the OIE as safe. All of this was contrary to various principles 
of the SPS Agreement and the OIE. On a positive note, the European Union welcomed the recent 
market access granted by the United States to an additional EU member State, as well as th e 
beginning of exports to China from some EU member States. The European Union urged these and 
other Members - such as Australia, Malaysia and South Korea - to swiftly proceed in order to 
ensure that beef from the European Union could be exported and hoped  that the backlog of 
applications submitted by EU member States would soon disappear.  
 
__________