WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/594 
3 October 2005 
 (05-4399) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
  
 
TRANSITIONAL REVIEW MECHANISM PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 18  
OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE ACCESSION OF THE  
PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA ("CHINA") 
 
Questions from the United States to China concerning 
 
Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  
 
BSE-related ban on beef 
 
1. China has prohibited the import of cattle, beef  and processed beef products from the United 
States since 25 December 2003 due to its concerns  about bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE).  
Since that time, the United States has repeatedly pr ovided China with extens ive technical information 
on all aspects of its BSE-related surveillance and mi tigation measures, internationally recognized as 
effective and appropriate, for both food safety and animal health.  To the United States’ knowledge, 
China has not provided any scientific  justification for its measures to  include restrictions that go 
beyond the relevant international standards.  
(a) Has China conducted a science-based risk assess ment to justify its ban on US beef?  
If so, please provide details of the risk assessment. 
(b) Is China reviewing the US market access request for beef in light of the revised 
standards of 2004 on de-boned skeletal muscle meat issued by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE)? 
(c) China has tentatively agreed to send a BSE/ meat safety technical team to the United 
States from 23-29 October 2005 to gather information on the United States’ BSE-related surveillance and mitigation meas ures.  Please clarify what additional 
information and steps, beyond the visit of th is technical team, are required for China 
to act on the United States’ market access request for beef. 
BSE-related ban on low-risk products 
 2. . China maintains a de facto  ban on US-origin non-ruminant  pet food, rendered products, 
porcine proteins and spray-dried blood based on co ncerns about BSE even though these products pose 
no risk of BSE and should not be banned under ex isting OIE guidelines.  On 28 September 2004, the 
General Administration for Quality Supervisi on, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) issued 
Notice 407, which requires an import protocol for these products before they can be imported.  A 
bilateral import protocol was signed on 18 Nove mber 2004 for US non-ruminant pet food, rendered 
products, porcine proteins and sp ray-dried blood, but China now insists on a series of onerous, 
detailed and unnecessary information requirements regarding animal origin of materials.  These requirements that are not consistent with OIE gui delines and contrast sharply with US requirements 
for animal origin products from China.  These add itional information requirements were not specified 
in the import protocol 
 G/SPS/GEN/594 
Page 2  
 
 (a) Please provide scientific justification for Ch ina’s insistence that US facilities provide 
detailed information about origin of ma terials used to produce their products, 
particularly in light of the fact that these are non-ruminant origin materials and OIE guidelines do not call for such stipulations. 
(b) Please provide information on any remaining steps that China will require before it 
will issue import permits for US non-rumina nt pet food, rendere d products, porcine 
proteins and spray-dried blood.  
Fire blight 
 
3. The WTO Appellate Body in Japan ─ Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples  
(WT/DS245/AB/R) ( Japan-Apples ) endorsed the United States’ argument that any hypothetical 
concerns regarding the spread of fire blight could be addressed by restricting exports of fruit to mature 
symptomless fruit.  China currently bans the importation of all but two varieties of US apples, and bans all US pear varieties, allege dly due to phytosanitary concerns regarding fire blight.  Additionally, 
China is the only country in the world that maintains fire blight-related import prohibitions on US 
plums.  
(a) Has China conducted science-based risk assessme nts to justify its current prohibitions 
on US apples, pears, and plums?  If so, please provide details of each risk assessment.  
(b) Is China reviewing the US market access requests for apples, pears and plums in light 
of the Japan-Apples  decision? 
Quarantine Inspection Permits 
 
4. The United States remains concerned about the quarantine import permit (QIP) procedures 
provided for in AQSIQ Ordinance 7, Administrative Measures for the Entry-Exit Inspection and 
Quarantine for Grains and Feed Stuff  (effective 1 March 2002), and AQSIQ Decree 25, 
Administrative Measures for Entry Animal and Plant Quarantine  (effective 1 September 2002).  
AQSIQ requires that importers obtain an import inspection permit prior to signing an import contract 
for grain or feed.  Port quarantine authorities may return or destroy any cargoes without a prior import 
inspection permit.  This import inspection permit is in addition to other import licenses, including a 
tariff-rate quota import certificate (in the case of TRQ commodities like wheat) and a safety certificate 
(in the case of certain commodities), and it does not re place inspection at the port.  Similar procedures 
apply under Decree 25, pursuant to which importers  are required to obtain a quarantine permit for a 
wide range of animal and plant products before an  import contract can be signed.  The United States 
continues to receive reports from traders regardi ng both the burdensome nature of the procedures and 
selective enforcement by AQSIQ under Ordinance 7 and Decree 25. 
5. On 30 August 2004, China issued a measure ex empting certain animal and plant products 
from entry quarantine review and approval, e ffective 1 September 2004.  The measure, AQSIQ 
Announcement 111, appears to exempt certain anim al and plant products from the requirement to 
obtain a quarantine import inspection permit in a dvance of entry and prior to signing an import 
contract.  The United States welcomes this measure, as traders have expressed continued concern regarding the burdensome nature of the quarantine permit proce dures.  Announcement 111 lists the 
generic names of certain products in the animal products and plant products categories that are 
exempted from the quarantine permit requirement, but does not provide sufficient detail for traders or 
a description of these products based on the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) Number.   
(a) Please provide a description of exempted products by HTS Number.    G/SPS/GEN/594 
 Page 3 
 
 
 (b) Announcement 111 indicates that China’s d ecision to exempt certain products is 
based on risk assessments.  Please provide details of those risk assessments. 
(c) Please describe the process by which indivi dual products are cons idered for removal 
from the QIP list.  E.g., is there an appli cation process or a regularized review of the 
products on the list?  
Decree 73 
 
6. AQSIQ Decree 73, Items on Handling the Review and Approval for Entry Animal and Plant 
Quarantine  went into effect on 1 July 2004, but has still not been notified to the SPS Committee.  
AQSIQ Decree 73 modifies the requirements for app licants of quarantine inspection permits,  and 
mixes product quality requirements with SPS measures. This decree also increases commercial risk 
for exporters, but fails to identify the phytosan itary risk that necessitates the measure.   
(a) Please explain the necessity of requiring inspection and quarantine requirements to be 
incorporated into commercial contracts.   While the United States understands the 
need to provide the name of the exporter  in a transaction, please explain why China 
needs the name of the supplier to be indicated in the application form for the 
quarantine permit for soybeans. 
(b) Please explain the necessity, from a plant health perspective, of requiring importers to 
obtain import inspection permits before signing a contract. 
Zero Pathogen Rules  
 7. China’s fresh and frozen poultry regulation (GB16869-2002), although notified on 
9 August 2002 to the WTO Technical Barriers to Trade Committee in G/TBT/N/CHN/6, contains 
many SPS-related requirements, a number of which do not appear to be in compliance with OIE 
standards and current scientific t esting practices.  G/TBT/N/CH/6 esta blishes a zero tolerance limit for 
the presence of Salmonella bacteria in raw, uncooke d products.  The regulation was published without 
any accompanying public health risk data to support the establishment of such a restrictive measure.  
Similar zero-tolerance standards on fresh and frozen poultry products exist for E. Coli  and Listeria 
pathogens without any published health risk data jus tifying the standards.  Current science indicates 
that the complete elimination of enteropathogeni c bacteria on raw meat and poultry products is 
unachievable without first subjecting such pr oducts to a process of irradiation.   
(a) Please explain what steps China is taking to adopt requirements consistent with those 
put forth by the OIE for the regulation of Salmonella bacteria, E. Coli  and Listeria in 
raw, uncooked products. 
(b) Please provide details of the scientific jus tification used by China to regulate the 
presence of enteropathogenic bacteria  on raw meat and poultry products. 
Avian Influenza 
 
8. The United States appreciates China’s a nnouncement on 27 December 2004 lifting its 
nationwide ban on imports of live poultry and poultr y products from the United States due to Avian 
Influenza.  We look forward to China’s total rem oval of these controls for poultry products in full 
accordance with OIE guidelines.   
 G/SPS/GEN/594 
Page 4  
 
 (a) Please provide information on any remaining steps that China will require before it 
will permit imports of US live poultry and poultry products from the states of 
Connecticut and Rhode Island,  consistent with OIE criteria with respect to highly 
pathogenic Avian Influenza? 
Regulatory Transparency 
 
9. The United States would like to recognize the significant strides China has made in improving 
its regulatory transparency concerning the no tification and implementation of SPS regulatory 
measures.  The number of SPS measures that China has notified to the WTO Secretariat has increased 
substantially.  China made 15 SPS notifications in 2002, 28 SPS notifications in 2003, 37 SPS 
notifications in 2004 and 4 SPS notifications in the first nine months of 2005, for a total of 84 SPS 
notifications (excluding addenda).  According to  our analysis, these data show that China’s SPS 
National Notification Authority has become the 13
th most active in the world and the 4th most active in 
Asia after Korea, Japan and Thailand.  China is also notifying the draft regulatory requirements of a 
greater number of ministries and agencies, especially  those of the Ministry of Health and the State 
Standardization Administration.  We expect that China’s notification of regulations drafted by the 
State Environmental Protection Agency (seven of which established SPS criteria and went into effect 
in 2003 and 2004) will occur sometime in the near futu re.  In light of the fact that China has as many 
as 10 different legal bodies drafting, implementing and enforcing SPS requirements, please explain 
the steps that China is taking to ensure that a ll measures modifying SPS requirements are notified to 
the WTO Secretariat for comment by Members at the draft stage.   
 
__________