WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
11 February 2010 
 (10-0766) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
Addendum  
 
 
ISSUES CONSIDERED IN 2009 
  
 This part of document G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10 c ontains summary information regarding all 
issues which were raised in the SPS Committee for the first time during 2009, and issues which were 
previously raised but on which further discussions  or activities occurred during 2009.  This includes 
issues for which there was no substantive discu ssion in the Committee during 2009, but where 
Members reported that a previously raised issue ha d been resolved, or where substantive action on the 
issue occurred in another WTO body during 2009 (e.g ., establishment of a dispute resolution panel on 
the issue). 
  A total of 29 specific trade concerns were brought to the attention of the Committee during 2009, of which 13 were new issues.  Figure 1 shows a ll trade concerns raised or for which a resolution 
or other action was reported in 2009 by subject.  Ov erall, eight issues (28 per cent) relate to food 
safety, four issues (14 per cent) relate to plant h ealth and 14 issues (48 per cent) relate to animal 
health and zoonoses; this category includes issues such as transmissible spongiform encephalopathy 
(TSEs) that are also relevant for food safety.  Fina lly, three issues relate to other concerns, namely, 
control, inspection and approval procedures.  Figur e 2 indicates that TSEs account for 36 per cent of 
animal health concerns raised in 2009, while issu es related to foot and mouth disease account for 29 
per cent, avian influenza for 14 per cent, and the remaining 21 per cent concern other animal health 
issues. 
                                                     
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
Page ii  
 
  FIGURE 1 - TRADE CONCERNS BY SUBJECT – 2009 
 
0246810121416
Total 14 8 4 3
New 6313Animal Health Food Safety Plant Health Other
 
 
  
 
FIGURE 2 - TRADE CONCERNS RELATED TO ANIMAL HEALTH & ZOONOSES - 2009 
 
TSE
36%
FMD
29%AI
14%OAH
21%
TSE
FMD
AI
OAH
 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
 Page iii 
 
 
  FIGURE 3 - PARTICIPATION OF MEMBERS - 2009 
 
141510
231821
10
0 5 10 15 20 25Members Maintaining
the Measure in
QuestionSupporting MembersMembers Raising the
IssueNumber of Members
Developed Countries Developing Countries Least-Developed Countries 
 Of the 29 trade concerns discussed in 2009, in ten cases a developed country Member has 
raised the issue, compared to 21 cases for de veloping country members.  On some occasions, 
developing and developed country Members have raised  or supported the same issue.  No cases were 
raised by a least-developed country Member in 2009.  Developed country Members have supported 
another Member raising the issue in 15 cases an d developing country Members have supported 
another Member in 18 cases.  One least-developed country Member has supported a trade concern in 
2009.  In 23 cases, the measure at issue was mainta ined by a developing country Member, and in 14 
cases it was maintained by a developed country Memb er.  On some occasions the measure at issue 
was maintained by a contribution of developed and developing countries.  No trade concerns 
regarding measures maintained by least-d eveloped country Members were raised. 
 Three trade concerns raised in 2009 were put on the agenda solely to re port that they had been 
resolved, and in one case, the Committee was informed  that a partial solution had been found.  One of 
the resolved issues related to food safety, and one to plant health pr otection.  The partially resolved 
issue related to BSE, while the other resolved i ssue related to other animal health concerns.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
Page iv  
 
  Table 1 – Issues Raised for the First Time in 2009 
Specific 
trade 
concern number  Member(s) Maintaining the 
Measure Title Status
2 
278 China  Hygienic standard for distilled spirits and 
integrated alcoholic beverages (G/SPS/N/CHN/111) NR 
279 Armenia, Bahrain, China, 
Gabon, Indonesia, Jordan, Suriname  Import restrictions on pork products due to 
Influenza A/H1N1  NR 
280 Indonesia  New meat import conditions  NR 
281 Colombia  Import restrictions on gelatine from bovine 
hides and head skin due to BSE requirements NR 
282 United States  Measures on food products containing meat, 
poultry or processed egg products NR 
283 Japan  Pesticide maximum residue levels (MRLs)  NR 
284 United States  Rule on importation of  wooden handicrafts 
from China NR 
285 United States  Import restrictions on fresh pork meat and 
beef NR 
286 Indonesia  Import restrictions on poultry meat NR 
287 South Africa  Import restrictions on fresh pork meat and 
beef NR 
288 Ukraine  Import measures on animals and animal 
products NR 
289 United States  Measures on catfish NR 
290 Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela  Suspension of inspection and delivery of 
plant and animal health certificates for 
imports from Colombia  NR 
                                                      
2 NR= Not Reported, P = Partially resolved, R= Resolved  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
 Page v 
 
 
  Table 2 – Other Items Considered During 2009 
Specific 
trade 
concern number  Member(s) Maintaining the 
Measure Title Status
3 
185 India  Restrictions due to avian influenza NR 
193 Certain Members  General import restrictions due to BSE PR 
206 Greece, European 
Communities4 Inspection and testing procedures for 
imported wheat NR 
214 Panama  Inspection regime for food processing 
establishments R 
238 European Communities  Application and modification of the EC 
Regulation on novel foods NR 
257 United States  Import restrictions on cooked poultry 
products from China NR 
260 Chile  Requirements for quarantine treatment of 
aircraft  R 
263 Mexico  Import restrictions on cooked and frozen 
meat NR 
267 Japan  Pesticide maximum residue level (MRL) 
enforcement system NR 
268 United States  Import restrictions on EC dairy products NR 
269 United States  Restrictions on apples NR 
270 Mexico  Import restrictions on rice R 
271 Mexico  Restrictions on imports of swine meat NR 
274 Korea  Korea's Livestock Epidemic Prevention Act NR 
275 Chinese Taipei  Maximum level for ractopamine  NR 
277 Canada, Mexico, United 
States  NAPPO draft standard for ships and cargoes 
from areas infested with Asian Gypsy Moth NR 
                                                      
3 NR= Not Reported, P = Partially resolved, R= Resolved 
4 On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty 
establishing the European Community  (done at Lisbon, 13 December 2007 ) entered into force.  On 29 
November 2009, the WTO received a Verbal Note (WT/L/779) from the Council of the European Union and the 
Commission of the European Communities stating that, by virtue of the Treaty of Lisbon , as of 
1 December 2009, the European Union replaces and succeeds the European Community. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
Page vi  
 
  Table of contents
 
 
Page  
ARMENIA........................................................................................................................ ......................1  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY ARMENIA .................................................1  
Other concerns................................................................................................................. ...............1  
279. Import restrictions on pork products due to  Influenza A/H1N1 - Maintained by 
Armenia, Bahrain, China, Gabon, In donesia, Jordan and Suriname ...................................1  
BAHRAIN........................................................................................................................ .......................3  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY BAHRAIN ..................................................3  
Other concerns................................................................................................................. ...............3  
279. Import restrictions on pork products due to  Influenza A/H1N1 - Maintained by 
Bahrain, Armenia, China, Gabon, Indon esia, Jordan, Suriname (See item 279, 
page 1) ........................................................................................................................ .........3  
BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA..................................................................................4  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEAS URES MAINTAINED BY THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF 
VENEZUELA ........................................................................................................................4  
Other concerns................................................................................................................. ...............4  
290. Suspension of inspection and delivery of pl ant and animal health certificates for 
imports from Colombia........................................................................................................4  
CANADA ......................................................................................................................... .......................4  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CANADA ...................................................4  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..................4  
277. NAPPO draft standard for ships and car goes from areas infested with Asian 
Gypsy Moth - Maintained by Canada, Mexico and the United States.................................4  
CHILE.......................................................................................................................... ...........................9  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CHILE .......................................................9  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. ...............9  
260. Requirements for quarantine treatment of aircraft...............................................................9  
CHINA .......................................................................................................................... ..........................9  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINA ......................................................9  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... ...................9  
278. Hygienic standard for distilled spirits  and integrated alcoholic beverages 
(G/SPS/N/CHN/111) ...........................................................................................................9  
Other concerns................................................................................................................. .............11  
279. Import restrictions on pork products due to  Influenza A/H1N1 - Maintained by 
China, Armenia, Bahrain, Gabon, Indon esia, Jordan and Suriname (See item 279, 
page 1) ........................................................................................................................ .......11   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
 Page vii 
 
 
  COLOMBIA....................................................................................................................... ..................11  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY COLOMBIA .............................................11  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............11  
281. Import restrictions on gelatine from bovine hides and head skin due to BSE 
requirements ................................................................................................................... ...11 
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ..........................................................................................................1 2 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEAS URES MAINTAINED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ...........12  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................12  
206. Inspection and testing procedures for imported wheat - Maintained by Greece ...............12  
238. Application and modification of th e EC Regulation on novel foods.................................13  
GABON.......................................................................................................................... .......................19  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY GABON ...................................................19  
Other concerns................................................................................................................. .............19  
279. Import restrictions on pork products due to  Influenza A/H1N1 - Maintained by 
Gabon, Armenia, Bahrain, China, Indon esia, Jordan and Suriname (See item 279, 
page 1) ........................................................................................................................ .......19  
INDIA.......................................................................................................................... ..........................19  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY INDIA ......................................................19  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............19  
185. Restrictions due to avian influenza....................................................................................19  
INDONESIA...................................................................................................................... ...................26  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA .............................................26  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............26  
280. New meat import conditions..............................................................................................26  
286. Import restrictions on poultry meat ...................................................................................27  
Other concerns................................................................................................................. .............28  
279. Import restrictions on pork products due to  Influenza A/H1N1 - Maintained by 
Indonesia, Armenia, Bahrain, China, Gabon, Jordan and Suriname (See item 279, page 1) ........................................................................................................................ .......28
 
JAPAN .......................................................................................................................... ........................28  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN .....................................................28  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................28  
267. Pesticide maximum residue level (MRL) enforcement system .........................................28  
283. Pesticide maximum resi due levels (MRLs).......................................................................29  
JORDAN......................................................................................................................... ......................31  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY JORDAN ..................................................31  
Other concerns................................................................................................................. .............31  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
Page viii  
 
  279.
 Import restrictions on pork products due to  Influenza A/H1N1 - Maintained by 
Jordan, Armenia, Bahrain, China, Gabon, Indonesia and Suriname (See item 279, page 1) ........................................................................................................................ .......31
 
KOREA.......................................................................................................................... .......................31  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY KOREA ...................................................31  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............31  
274. Korea's Livestock Epidemic Prevention Act ....................................................................31  
MEXICO......................................................................................................................... ......................32  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY MEXICO .................................................32  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............32  
263. Import restrictions on cooked and frozen meat .................................................................32  
271. Restrictions on imports of swine meat...............................................................................34  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................35  
270. Import restrictions on rice..................................................................................................35  
277. NAPPO draft standard for ships and car goes from areas infested with Asian 
Gypsy Moth - Maintained by Mexico, Canada and the United States (See item 
277, page 4) ................................................................................................................... ....36  
PANAMA......................................................................................................................... .....................36  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY PANAMA .................................................36  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............36  
214. Inspection regime for food processing establishments ......................................................36  
SOUTH AFRICA................................................................................................................... ..............37  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY SOUTH AFRICA ......................................37  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............37  
287. Import restrictions on fresh pork meat and beef ................................................................37  
SURINAME....................................................................................................................... ...................37  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY SURINAME .............................................37  
Other concerns................................................................................................................. .............37  
279. Import restrictions on pork products due to  Influenza A/H1N1 - Maintained by 
Suriname, Armenia, Bahrain, China, Ga bon, Indonesia and Jordan (See item 279, 
page 1) ........................................................................................................................ .......37  
SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND 
MATSU (CHINESE TAIPEI)......................................................................................................... ....38  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINESE TAIPEI ....................................38  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................38  
275. Maximum level for ractopamine........................................................................................38  
UKRAINE........................................................................................................................ .....................40  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY UKRAINE ................................................40   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
 Page ix 
 
 
  Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............40  
288. Import measures on animals and animal products.............................................................40  
UNITED STATES.................................................................................................................. ..............40  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEAS URES MAINTAINED BY THE UNITED STATES .............................40  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................40  
268. Import restrictions on EC dairy products...........................................................................40  
282. Measures on food products containing meat, poultry or processed egg products .............42  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............42  
257. Import restrictions on cooked poultry products from China..............................................42  
285. Import restrictions on fresh pork meat and beef ................................................................45  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................45  
269. Restrictions on apples........................................................................................................4 5 
277. NAPPO draft standard for ships and car goes from areas infested with Asian 
Gypsy Moth - Maintained by the Unite d States, Canada and Mexico (See item 
277, page 4) ................................................................................................................... ....47  
284. Rule on importation of wooden handicrafts from China ...................................................47  
Other concerns................................................................................................................. .............48  
289. Measures on catfish ...........................................................................................................4 8 
CERTAIN ME MBERS ................................................................................................................ .......49  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CERTAIN MEMBERS ..............................49  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............49  
193. General import restrictions due to BSE .............................................................................49     G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
   Page 1  
 
  ARMENIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ARMENIA Other concerns 279. Import restrictions on pork products due to Influenza A/H1N1 - Maintained by 
Armenia, Bahrain, China, Gabon, Indonesia, Jordan and Suriname 
Raised by: Mexico 
Supported by: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Dominican Republic, United States 
Dates raised: June 2009 (G/SPS/R/55, paras.  21-24), October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, paras. 
23-32) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/921, G/SPS/N/CHN/116, G/SPS/N/JOR/20, G/SPS/N/UKR/2 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
1. In June 2009, Mexico indicated concern over import restrictions on live pigs, pork products 
and sub-products due to Influenza A/H1N1.  Mexi co had complied with WTO and other relevant 
international recommendations since declaring the influenza outbreak on 23 April 2009.  Document G/SPS/GEN/921 provided information on the actions ta ken by the Mexican Government to control 
the disease, as well as information on the virus and it s form of dissemination.  Mexico urged Members 
to notify the Committee of measures taken with regard to the virus. 
2. The FAO and the OIE stated that there was no evidence of transmission of the virus through 
food, and Mexico was disappointed that Armenia,  Bahrain, China, Gabon, Indonesia, Jordan, and 
Surinam continued to restrict the import of pork and pork products without any legal or scientific 
basis.  Mexico was grateful to China, Indonesia and Jordan for holding bilateral consultations on the 
matter, and intended to hold bilatera l consultations with other countries. 
3. Australia, Brazil, Canada, the Dominican Republic  and the United States supported Mexico's 
concern and Brazil provided further information in document G/SPS/GEN/922. 
4. Indonesia thanked Mexico and the United States for the bilateral consultations and stressed 
Indonesia's commitment to protect its territory and industries from the virus. 
5. China underlined the fact that China was the mo st populous nation in the world, and stressed 
the burden this virus could have on its public health  system.  Despite measures to prevent entry of the 
disease into China, there had still been instances of  detection of the virus, which highlighted how 
contagious it was.  The provisional measures imposed  by China took into account its huge population, 
its susceptibility to the disease through human-to-human  transmission, the fact that China was the 
world's biggest producer of pork and that pork was the most consumed meat product in the country.  
China had lifted the ban on pork treated to 70 de grees centigrade.  Chinese experts would continue to 
work with other Members.  China had notified the WTO of its measures.   
6. Jordan stated that it had imposed only a temporary suspension on the transport and import of 
live swine, and that heat-treated pork products we re exempt from the suspension.  The temporary 
measures were under constant revision. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
Page 2  
 
  7. In October 2009, Mexico raised concerns that  various Members, including China, Gabon, 
Indonesia and Jordan, continued to maintain unjus tified restrictions on pork products due to the 
Influenza A/H1N1 virus o ccurrence in humans in Mexico in April 2009.  Mexico had taken timely 
and effective measures to contain the virus and its sp read to the rest of the world, yet measures had 
been taken against Mexican pork products without lega l or scientific basis.  Mexico requested trading 
partners imposing such measures to immediately withdraw these unnecessary trade barriers.  
Influenza A/H1N1 had not been de tected in swine or poultry from Me xico, but only in humans.  The 
OIE, WHO and FAO had made it clear that the risk  of being infected by Influenza A/H1N1 through 
the consumption of pork meat was regarded as nonexi stent.  Mexico stressed the need for these 
international organizations, especially the OIE,  to accelerate research and available scientific 
information on the risk of propagation of Influen za A/H1N1 from humans to animals and vice versa.  
Mexico expressed appreciation to those Member s that had supported Mexico during the global 
pandemic and to Members that had fully withdr awn previously imposed trade restrictions. 
8. Canada recalled that WHO had declared a hum an influenza pandemic, and that managing the 
public health impacts of this outbreak was critical .  The trade measures adopted by several Members 
on swine, pork and pork products in response to the H1N1 influenza virus were without any scientific 
basis.  The safety of pork meat was based on globa l evidence and supported by statements from FAO, 
OIE and WHO;  detection of the pandemic H1N1 strain in animals was not contributing to the global human pandemic.  Canada thanked those trading pa rtners that had removed restrictions on imports 
from Canada, and expressed disappointment that ot her trading partners continued to maintain 
restrictions. 
9. The European Communities stated that EC au thorities continued to monitor closely the 
Influenza H1N1 virus incident in humans to ensure  a high level of awareness in the veterinary and 
producing community, and to effectively monitor th e animal population.  The European Communities 
had an adequate surveillance plan in place should any outbreak occur.  A statement from the OIE 
made it clear that the imposition of measures rela ted to the import of pi g and pig products from 
countries with human or animal cases was pointless and did not comply with international standards 
of the OIE and other competent international bodies.  Despite the clear statements by the international 
organizations, several Members continued to impo se unjustified bans or other unnecessary measures 
on pigs and pig meat from EC member States.  Such trade measures did not address the real challenge, which was the transmission of the virus between humans. 
10. The United States supported the interventions  of Mexico, Canada and the European 
Communities.  While some Members had lifted their bans on live swine, pork and pork products, they 
had instead imposed burdensome requirements wit hout scientific justification.  US agricultural 
products, including pork and live swine, were safe a nd trade restrictions on such products to prevent 
the spread of influenza were not supported by  scientific evidence, nor recommended by the 
international public health, food safety and animal  health bodies.  The United States urged all WTO 
Members to comply with their WTO obligations and to follow the advice of the relevant international 
organizations not to impose any H1N1 related bans, or testing requirements, and to rescind those bans 
currently in place, so that trade in pork a nd pork products was not unnecessarily disrupted. 
11. Australia, Brazil, Chile, Japan and New Zeal and supported the interventions of Mexico, 
Canada, the European Communities and the United States. 
12. Ghana requested that further information on Infl uenza A/H1N1 be released in order to stem 
public concern.  He noted that many developi ng countries put up trade restrictive measures in 
response to the public reaction to the pandemic, and that most of these countries did not have the capacity to do a proper risk analysis of the pandemic.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  13. OIE stated that Influenza virus A/H1N1 was being spread effectively from human to human, 
but that it was important to maintain surveillan ce in animals.  OIE encouraged Members to report 
cases of H1N1 found in swine associ ated with the human disease, and recalled that trade in pork and 
pork meat products did not represent any risk.  OIE al so stated that it would continue to monitor the 
event, in cooperation with other organizations. 
14. The Secretariat acknowledged that for some WT O Members, especially developing countries, 
it was not easy to identify where to obtain inform ation when a situation like the pandemic H1N1 
arose.  The Secretariat pointed out the usefulness of bringing th is kind of information to the 
Committee.  Regarding the H1N1 pandemic, inte rnational organizations including WHO, FAO and 
OIE, had provided information to the public through  several joint statements.  From the early stages 
of the pandemic, the international organizations clar ified that there was no justification for measures 
to restrict trade.  Due to concerns about imp lications the pandemic could have on trade, WTO had 
decided to join one of the statements.  Finally, the Se cretariat pointed out the need to consider ways to 
ensure that in this kind of situation informa tion was easily accessible to the public and to the 
authorities. 
15. China stated that following the outbreak of Influenza A/H1N1 in April 2009, China had 
adopted an emergency provisional measure to prevent the introduction of the virus into the country.  
The measure, notified to WTO, was in line with th e SPS Agreement, especially Article 5.7, and other 
principles of the Agreement had also been respected by applying regionalization treatment to affected 
countries and regions, and lifting the ban on cooke d pork products based on available scientific 
information, ensuring the measure was the least trade restrictive.  China was aware of the concerns on 
the issue and was actively seeking additional informa tion for a more objective assessment of the risk.  
China welcomed any input or scientific research that  could help finalize the assessment.  China would 
reconsider its provisional measure according to the conclusion of the assessment and would inform its 
trading partners of any changes. 
16. Jordan stated that the suspension of imports of  swine products had been lifted.  The concerns 
of Members regarding the temporary suspension of  imports of live swine had been included on the 
agenda of the technical standards committee of the Mi nistry of Agriculture for the purpose of revising 
the measure. 
 
BAHRAIN CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY BAHRAIN 
Other concerns 
279. Import restrictions on pork products due to Influenza A/H1N1 - Maintained by 
Bahrain, Armenia, China, Gabon, Indonesia, Jordan, Suriname (See item 279, page 1)  
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
Page 4  
 
  BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE BOLIVARIAN 
REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA 
Other concerns 290. Suspension of inspection and delivery of plan t and animal health certificates for imports 
from Colombia  
Raised by: Colombia 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2009  (G/SPS/R/56, para. 213) 
Relevant document(s): Raised Orally. S ubsequently circulated in G/SPS/GEN/983 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
17. In October 2009, Colombia informed the Committ ee of Venezuela's recent decision to stop 
issuing SPS certificates for certain goods coming from Colombia.  In response Venezuela requested 
that Colombia present the details of their concer n and assured the Committee that they would deal 
with this matter on a bi-lateral basis.  Informa tion from Colombia was subsequently circulated in 
G/SPS/GEN/983. 
 
CANADA CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CANADA Plant Health 
277. NAPPO draft standard for ships and car goes from areas infest ed with Asian Gypsy 
Moth - Maintained by Canada, Mexico and the United States 
Raised by: China 
Supported by: Indonesia, Japan, Korea 
Dates raised: October 2008 (G/SPS/R/53, pa ras. 112-120), February 2009 (G/SPS/R/54, 
paras. 128-135), June 2009 (G/SPS/R/55, 136-140), October 2009 
(G/SPS/R/56, paras. 151-156) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/880 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
  18. In October 2008, China raised concerns relati ng to a draft regional standard of the North 
American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) entitled "Guidelines for Regulating the Movement 
of Ships and Cargoes Aboard those Ships from Areas Infested with the Asian Gypsy Moth".  This 
standard would require NAPPO members (Canada, Mexico and the United States) to impose strict 
phytosanitary measures on ships and cargoes incl uding from China, Japan, Korea, Mongolia and 
Russia.  More detailed information was presented in G/SPS/GEN/880. 
19. China had the following concerns regardi ng the draft standard:  (1) if passed and 
implemented, it would have serious impacts on inte rnational trade;  (2) it was inconsistent with 
Articles 2.2 and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement;  and (3) it had ambiguities regarding the technical 
application of the measure in different NAPPO count ries and in different climatic conditions.  China 
urged NAPPO members to delay the implementati on of the standard until it was recognized by 
relevant organizations including the IPPC. 
20. Indonesia, Japan and Korea indicated that they sh ared the concerns raised by China regarding 
the draft NAPPO standard. 
21. The United States reported that the NAPPO standard pertaining to inspection and certification 
requirements related to the Asian Gypsy Moth ( AGM) was still in a draft form, and more changes 
could be made based on comments submitted by c oncerned countries.  China had declined an 
invitation to participate in a meeting held in Oct ober 2008 to allow trading partners to present their 
concerns regarding the standard.  A harmonized  standard among the three NAPPO members would 
allow ships to enter any port in a NAPPO country after being approved by the first port of call.  
Finally, the United States invited Members with concerns to engage in discussions with NAPPO 
members regarding this issue. 
22. Canada supported the United States and stated that previous incursions of AGM had caused 
serious and costly problems for Canada.  Mexico  supported the interventions made by the United 
States and Canada. 
23. China stated that technical comments had alr eady been sent to the NAPPO secretariat and 
hoped that further meetings coul d be held between NAPPO members and the concerned countries. 
24. The European Communities reported that it had not taken new measures on AGM, but it 
remained vigilant to any potential risk.  There were  parallels between this issue and ISPM 15 on wood 
packaging material that had previously been exte nsively discussed in the Co mmittee.  The European 
Communities hoped that similar solutions to the AGM problem could be found. 
25. Norway expressed interest in this issue and its impact on Norway's exports. 
26. Mali asked if there were quarantine measures ag ainst AGM and whether the pest existed in 
the NAPPO countries.  The United States clarified th at this pest was not present in NAPPO countries 
and that it was very invasive.  Based on this in formation, Mali agreed that NAPPO countries should 
take the necessary measures to prevent th e entry of AGM into their countries. 
27. In February 2009, the representative of Ch ina reported that it had maintained good 
communications with officials from NAPPO countries.  The draft standard had been revised and was 
undergoing a second comment soliciting process.  Technical expert groups from NAPPO had been sent to China, Japan and Korea for exchange of information, including on risk assessment.  China 
welcomed the open and transparent working proce dures of the NAPPO countries.  China requested 
NAPPO countries not to adopt the standard until comme nts and concerns were taken into account.  In 
addition, China recalled the provision in Article  2.2 of the SPS Agreement SPS measures must be 
based on scientific evidence.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
Page 6  
 
  28. China also reported that the occurrence of AGM had been significantly reduced in its 
territory, and joint surve illance with the United States in some  Chinese ports showed that no AGM 
was detected.  China further recalled the SPS Agre ement provision for the least trade-restrictive 
measure to be applied.  China acknowledged th e legitimate objective pursued by NAPPO, but any 
SPS measure must comply with the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement.  
29. Japan supported the statement by China, and al so appreciated NAPPO's  transparent and open 
procedures.  Japan underlined that the proposed sta ndard could result in a huge impact on the trade 
between Japan and NAPPO countries.  Japan was undertaking consultations  with its relevant 
stakeholders before submitting its comments to NAPPO, and requested that the draft standard on 
AGM not to be adopted until its comments were duly considered.   
30. Indonesia reported that it had similar concerns  on the draft NAPPO standard on AGM, which 
was a pest listed in its regulation for quarantin e measures.  Indonesia supported the objectives of 
RSPM 33, but further studies were needed on the po ssibility of the insects to  survive long distance 
journeys from Indonesia to North America in cargoes.   Lastly, Indonesia stated that it followed the 
recommendations and treatments provided in ISPM 15  in all of its shipping from Indonesia to North 
American countries.   
31. Korea shared the concerns raised by China a nd Japan, and expressed regret that the draft 
standard on AGM did not consider the low prevalence of this pest in Korea.  Korea argued that the 
draft standard might pose an excessive restriction on trade, and did not consider other less-restrictive 
treatments that were available.  Korea highlighted the need for scientific justification, which it had 
recently conveyed to NAPPO. 
32. Canada underlined that the NAPPO measure on AGM aimed at controlling a real risk to 
North American forests, which had been affected by AGM in the past resulting in a multi-million US 
dollar process for eradication.  NAPPO members we re aware of the trade impact and the costs 
associated with control measures, and it was in NAPPO  members' interest to keep shipping costs low 
for both imports and exports.  The draft regional st andard had been develope d to be no more trade 
restrictive than necessary to effectively address th e risks associated with AGM.  Regular meetings 
with trading partners had been held, including vis its from NAPPO members' experts to China, Japan 
and Korea.  The results from these consultations would be taken into account in the elaboration of the 
regional standard. 
33. The United States affirmed that AGM was a highly invasive pest, not present in North 
America, and which had been found  on a number of occasions in port areas in North America.  The 
NAPPO Pest Risk Assessment Panel had conducted a risk assessment which concluded that NAPPO 
members should adopt specific phytosanitary measur es to prevent the introduction of AGM in North 
America.  This risk assessment was available upon request, and was the basis for the draft NAPPO 
standard for AGM.  The draft standard had not been adopted by the NAPPO Executive Committee at 
its October 2008 annual meeting, due to the number of public comments which were still being 
reviewed.  In February 2009, a NAPPO delegati on had held a constructive meeting with Chinese 
regulatory officials to discuss the draft standa rd.  Similar cooperative initiatives were being 
undertaken with Japan and Korea.  The United Stat es assured its trading partners that the applied 
phytosanitary measures would be consiste nt with the WTO rights and obligations. 
34. 
Mexico corroborated the statements by the United States and Canada, and indicated that 
Mexico attached high importance to the topic.  Me xico looked forward to continuing to work with 
concerned trading partners to mitigate any potential risk of introduction of AGM into North America. 
35. Chile inquired whether phytosanitary standard s developed by regiona l organizations were 
considered international standards or regiona l standards according to the SPS Agreement.    G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
  36. The Secretariat clarified that the SPS Agreem ent makes clear reference to international 
standards for plant health as being the ones develo ped under the auspices of the secretariat of the 
IPPC in cooperation with regiona l organizations operating within the framework of the IPPC.  
Therefore, standards developed by regional organiza tions alone were not likely to be considered by 
the SPS Agreement as an international standard.  If WTO Members applied or incorporated those 
regional standards into their domestic legislati on, however, then the SPS Agreement would apply. 
37. In June 2009, China observed that the draft regional standard deve loped by NAPPO on AGM 
had a tremendous potential to impact trade between China and countries in North America.  The draft 
standard pertained to all ports in China, wherea s the AGM had historically been found only in the 
north-eastern part of China.  The occurrence of th e AGM in China had been reduced significantly, and 
a joint survey conducted by China and the USDA in 2008 identified no occurrence of AGM in China.  
China welcomed the open and transparent working pr ocedure of the NAPPO countries, and noted that 
it had sent written comments on the revised draft sta ndard at the end of February 2009.  China 
stressed the need for scientific justification for the proposed measure, and requested that different 
geographic and climatic characteris tics be taken into account.  Chin a invited NAPPO and its member 
countries to participate in a workshop in July that would highlight the preventive and control 
measures it had taken.  China was concerned with the operability of the current draft standards, 
especially with regard to certification and insp ection requirements, noting the impossibility of 
checking ships and cargo at night, as many ships de parted before dawn.  Moreover, as numerous non-
plant related cargo such as cars and steel also had to  be inspected, it would lead to an increase in 
costs, thus creating a barrier to trade. 
38. Japan supported the statement by China, and stress ed that the proposed standard could have a 
huge impact on international trade.  Japan had submitted its comments at the end of April and 
requested that the revised draft standard not be adopted until its comments were duly considered.  
Korea and Indonesia shared the concerns raised by China and Japan and also requested that Member's 
concerns be taken into account.   
39. Canada underlined that the NAPPO standard aimed at controlling a real risk to North 
American forests, which had been affected by AGM in the past with multi-million dollar costs for 
eradication.  Since March 2009, six ships had b een found with AGM egg masses on board.  NAPPO 
members were aware of the trade impact and the cost s associated with control measures, and it was in 
their own interest to keep shipping costs low for both imports and exports.  The draft regional standard had been developed to be no more trade restrictive than necessary to effectively address the 
risks associated with AGM.  Comme nts of all stakeholders would be taken into account when the 
standard was finalized in August 2009.  Once the regional standard had been adopted, Canada, the 
United States and Mexico would work in a coordina ted approach to consider  direct impacts of the 
standard on trade. 
40. The United States affirmed that AGM was a highly invasive pest, not present in North 
America, and which had been found  on a number of occasions in port areas in North America.  The 
regional standard was based on a risk assessment  which was available upon request.  The United 
States had been working diligently along with Mexico and Canada to solicit scientific and technical 
inputs from concerned countries.  NAPPO experts trav elled to China, Japan and Korea in February 
2009 to consult directly with regulatory officials, leading to constructive inputs.  In June 2009, the NAPPO forestry panel reviewed the comments receive d and a revised draft of the standard would be 
made available in August 2009.  The United States assu red its trading partners that the phytosanitary 
measures applied would be cons istent with WTO obligations. 
41. Mexico corroborated the statements by the United States and Canada.  Mexico looked 
forward to continuing to work with concerned tr ading partners to mitigate any potential risk of 
introduction of AGM into North America. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
Page 8  
 
  42. In October 2009, China noted that this was the f ourth time that it was raising this concern in 
an SPS Committee meeting.  The "Guidelines for Re gulating the Movement of Ships and Cargo from 
Areas Infested with the Asian Gypsy Moth" ha d been approved by the North American Plant 
Protection Organization (NAPPO) on 10 August 2009  with immediate eff ect.  The Guidelines 
identified risk management options for the moveme nt of ships and cargo from areas infected with 
Asian Gypsy Moth, such as inspection, systemic appro aches, pest-free areas, certification, rejection of 
the shipment, refusal of entry etc.  The guideline di d not mention specific countries but stated that the 
pest was "present in temperate As ia, has been reported east of the Ural Mountains, but no definitive 
distribution information in eastern Europe is avai lable."  China reiterated its serious concerns 
regarding this standard, and the hope that the memb er countries of NAPPO would take these concerns 
and comments into consideration when developing  specific implementation actions, in order to 
minimize the adverse impact of their SPS measures on international trade.   
43. Korea supported China's intervention and noted th at this standard was adopted without any 
critical reflection of concerned parties' comments, a lthough this standard coul d have a negative impact 
on the international trade.  Korea therefore asked NAPPO member countries to implement the 
standard in a manner which would minimize the nega tive impact on trade in accordance with the SPS 
Agreement and the relevant international standa rd.  These measures should reflect the role and 
responsibility of the exporting and impor ting country in a balanced manner.  
44. Japan supported the views of China and Korea, and intended to consult with NAPPO and its 
member countries on the implementation of this standa rd to ensure that the measure was economically 
and technically feasible and not more trade restrictive than necessary.   
45. Canada noted that the NAPPO measure on AGM wa s being put in place to control the risk to 
North America's forests.  NAPPO representatives ha d been diligent in ensuring that all concerned 
stakeholders, including the shipping industry, had b een consulted.  The standard would be phased in 
with full implementation taking place in March 2012.  The measure had taken all possible SPS 
measures into consideration and had been developed to be no more trade restrictive than necessary to 
manage the risk.  Furthermore, all NAPPO member countries were working with affected Members to 
come up with appropriate implementation plans and a number of Members had already participated in 
these meetings.  The risk of introduction of AGM was acute;  in 2009 Canadian authorities had detected egg masses on ten ships travelling from th e region, and each egg mass contained thousands 
of eggs. 
46. Chile questioned whether this issue belonged unde r the agenda item related to the monitoring 
of the use of international standards.  Was it a ppropriate for the SPS Committee to raise this matter 
with NAPPO since it was not one of the three sisters?   Chile suggested that th is types of issues could 
addressed under specific trade concerns.  
47. IPPC indicated that although regional plant pr otection organizations were recognized in the 
IPPC convention and often the regi onal organizations depos ited regional standards with the IPPC, this 
did not make these an international standard.  Th e IPPC work programme in cluded consideration of 
the need for an international standard on the moveme nt of pests via ship containers and vessels.  In 
such situations, the IPPC might use a regional st andard as the basis for the development of an 
international standard.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
 Page 9 
 
 
  CHILE 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHILE Animal Health 260. Requirements for quarant ine treatment of aircraft  
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2007 (G/SPS/R/46, par as. 16-17), June 2009 (G/SPS/R/55, para. 
55) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHL/253 
Solution: In June 2009, Argentina reported that its concern had been resolved.   
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as resolved: 23 June 2009 
 
48. In October 2007, Argentina indicated that in April 2007, Chile notified the quarantine 
treatment of aircraft landing in Chile from area s with high levels of pests (G/SPS/N/CHL/253).  
Fumigation with pesticides and insecticides was requi red every time the aircraft required cleaning.  
This treatment could prevent the export of live bees  from Argentina via any aircraft which landed in 
Chile.  Argentina had conveyed their concerns to the Chilean focal point to ensure that these measures 
not unduly affect Argentine exports, and more sp ecifically, that live bees not be killed by the 
fumigation. 
49. Chile clarified that the measure in question co rresponded to the updating of a law that had 
been in place since 2006, and that the amendments pr oposed were an attempt to facilitate rather than 
hinder trade.  A procedural manual had been devel oped that included clear technical specifications to 
ensure proper fumigation of the aircraft.  Regarding benign insects such as bees, the concentrations of 
insecticides would be far less than what was spec ified in the past.  Although there was no obligation 
to notify this measure, Chile had chosen to de monstrate implementation of the principles of 
transparency by going beyond what was required.  The measure had not yet entered into force and 
Chile was reviewing comments received from other c ountries.  Chile would have preferred to see this 
issue addressed bilaterally, and informal mee tings with Argentina had proceeded positively. 
50. In June 2009, Argentina reported that its concern had been resolved.  Chile confirmed that the 
issue had been clarified. 
 
CHINA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINA Food safety 
278. Hygienic standard for distilled spir its and integrated alcoholic beverages 
(G/SPS/N/CHN/111) G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
Page 10  
 
  Raised by: Mexico 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: February 2009 (G/SPS/R/54, pa ras. 8-9), June 2009 (G/SPS/R/55, paras. 
41-42), October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, paras. 33-34) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
51. In February 2009, Mexico indicated that Ch ina's notified regulation classified alcoholic 
beverages in three categories:  distilled cereal spir its, distilled fruit spirits and other distilled spirits, 
establishing maximum levels of methanol of 0.6, 8.0 and 0.6 grams per litre, respectively.  Since 
tequila was made from agave, it was to be classified in the "other distilled spirits" category.  As such 
it would not have access to the Chinese market, sin ce according to the relevant Mexican standard, 
tequila contained up to 3 grams of alcohol per litre.  In 2001, in the context of China's WTO 
accession, Mexico and China had signed a Memora ndum of Understanding through which China had 
recognized that tequila was a product origina ting in Mexico, produced according to Mexican 
standards and regulations.  Mexico requested that China modify its draft measure, taking into account 
the special raw material from which tequila was made, and giving tequila the same treatment as distilled fruit spirits.  Mexico's tequila producers had sent comments to this effect to China's Enquiry 
Point, and the Mexican Government would shortly be submitting comments as well.  Mexico thanked 
China for a bilateral meeting on this subject a nd looked forward to finding a mutually acceptable 
solution. 
52. China encouraged Mexico to submit comments to  China's Enquiry Point.  Comments received 
during the comment period would be taken into acc ount.  China, of course, was allowed to take 
measures necessary to protect health. 
53. In June 2009, Mexico recalled its concern w ith China's regulation for alcoholic beverages 
regarding maximum quantities of ethanol.  Mexico  had provided its comments during the specified 
period, and hoped that these would be taken into account. 
54. China clarified that the national standards were applied to all distilled and alcoholic beverages 
equally and were not aimed specifically at tequila .  A written reply to Mexico's comments had been 
provided, and China hoped a mutually satisfactory solution would be found through the ongoing technical discussions. 
55. In October 2009, Mexico stated that the Federal Commission for Prevention of Sanitary Risks 
of the Ministry of Health, as well as the national tequila industry, had submitted comments on China's 
standard in September 2009.  In addition, a risk an alysis had been submitted on the content of ethanol 
in tequila.  Bilateral meetings had taken place on  the margins of the Committee meeting and useful 
information had been obtained for the review of th e standard.  Mexico reiterated its commitment to 
work jointly with China on the issue. 
56. China confirmed the reception of comments a nd supporting materials from Mexico.  China 
was aware of the particularity of the processing tec hniques of tequila.  Chinese experts were currently 
reviewing comments from different stakeholders, and the comments and suggestions from Mexico 
would be taken into consideration in the review of the standard.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
 Page 11 
 
 
  Other concerns 
279. Import restrictions on pork products due to Influenza A/H1N1 - Maintained by China, 
Armenia, Bahrain, Gabon, Indonesia, Jordan and Suriname (See item 279, page 1)  
 COLOMBIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY COLOMBIA 
Animal Health 281. Import restrictions on gelatine from bovine hides and head skin due to BSE 
requirements 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2009 (G/SPS/R/55, paras. 27-29) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
57. In June 2009, Brazil referred to Chapter 11.6.1 of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code 
according to which there was no scientific eviden ce for banning imports of gelatine derived from 
cattle hides and skins, even when derived from the cattle's head or neck.  However, item 14.10.1 of 
the Andean Communities Resolution number 1130 stated that independently from the BSE status of the country, the imported gelatine must be prepared from hides and skins, excluding that derived from 
heads and necks, which was not in accordance with  OIE provisions.  Brazil had withdrawn a previous 
request to include this concern on the agenda of th e Committee, following bilateral consultations with 
Colombia in February 2009, as the Colombian au thorities had indicated that the Andean Committee 
on Animal Health would review and modify this pr ovision.  However, Brazil had not received notice 
of modification of the notification, and requested Colombia and other Andean countries to revise their 
national requirements without waiting for the Andean legislative process so as to immediately allow 
bilateral trade of gelatine.  Brazil also inquired whet her there was a timetable to review the legislative 
restrictions on gelatine exporters.   
58. Colombia responded that its government was wo rking with Andean Community authorities to 
resolve the issue raised by Brazil.  Although ther e was no timetable to review the restrictions, 
Columbia was willing to provide informati on bilaterally on the actions underway.   
59. OIE confirmed that gelatine produ ced from skins and hides was a safe commodity with regard 
to BSE.  At the recent OIE General Assembly, so me additional provisions with regard to gelatine 
manufactured from bones had been agreed, thus extending the range of products which were 
considered as safe for the production of gelatine. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
Page 12  
 
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE EUROPEAN 
COMMUNITIES 
Food safety 206. Inspection and testing procedures for imported wheat - Maintained by Greece 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1,  paras. 32-33), October 2005 (G/SPS/R/39, 
paras. 222-223), February 2006 (G /SPS/R/39, paras. 222-223), October 
2008 (G/SPS/R/53, para. 161 ), February  2009 (G/SPS/R/54, paras, 31-32), 
June 2009 (G/SPS/R/55, paras. 48-49) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
60. In March 2005, Canada reported that Gree ce had introduced new inspection and testing 
requirements for imports of grains from third c ountries in August 2004 that exceeded existing EC 
requirements by requiring the testing of 100 per cent of shipments.  Greece had provided no scientific 
rationale to justify the introduction of these measure s and Canada considered the Greek measures to 
be inconsistent with the SPS Agreement.  Cana da's concerns had already been unsuccessfully 
expressed on numerous occasions to both Greek and EC officials, including at technical level. 
61. The European Communities stated  that the Commission had been in extensive bilateral 
contacts with both Canadian and Greek authorities in an effort to find a solution.  Greece was in the 
process of adjusting three major aspects of the ministerial decision with the aim of bringing its 
measure into full compliance with the SPS Agreem ent.  In particular, Greek authorities were 
considering the repeal of the provisions establishing a dditional quality criteria, the re-establishment of 
the normal EC requirements with regards to t esting, sampling and inspection procedures and 
removing any provisions that might be viewed  as discriminatory against imported products. 
62. In February 2006, Canada stated that although the Greek authorities had made some useful 
amendments in late March 2005, the issue had recentl y deteriorated.  Canada noted in particular the 
frequency of inspections, the lengthy detention peri ods of up to two months, and Greece's requirement 
for a 1.5 per cent limit on fusarian damaged kernels in grain shipment.  In addition, in December 
2005, Greece had required that 100 per cent of a sh ipment be tested for the presence of GM wheat, 
regardless of the fact that no validated test fo r the presence of GM wheat existed.  Canada had 
unsuccessfully offered to accompany each shipment w ith a letter certifying the absence of registered 
GM wheat in Canada.  These requirements were di scriminatory as they only applied to cereals 
originating outside the European Communities. 
63. In October 2008, Canada again raised the issu e of Greece's excessive inspection and testing 
requirements of imported cereals, including Canadian  wheat exports, for the presence of genetically 
modified organisms even though genetically modified  wheat is not commerciall y produced in Canada.  
The issue had been raised for the fourth time, and the matter had no t been resolved.  The European 
Communities stated that although there was harmoni zation among the EC member States, there was a  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
 Page 13 
 
 
  degree of differences in the testing regimes of di fferent countries.  The European Communities would 
make every effort to resolve this issue. 
64. In February 2009, Canada recalled that this concern was mainly related to the excessive 
inspection and testing requirements for GMOs in im ported cereals.  Not only were these requirements 
onerous, but consignments could be held for up  to seven working days, which unnecessarily imposed 
additional costs and delays.  This was done despite  repeated assurances from Canada that GM wheat 
was not approved for commercial production in Cana da or, to the best of Canada's knowledge, 
anywhere in the world.  This measure was cl early discouraging imports of cereals from non-EC 
countries and was having an adverse effect on trad e.  Canada considered these measures to be 
contrary to Greece's obligations under the SPS Agreemen t.  Greece had not given any indication of its 
willingness to make further progress in resolving th is issue although Canada had raised the issue 
bilaterally several times with Greece and with the European Communities.  In September 2008, 
Canada's Ambassador to Greece had requested a mee ting with the former Greek Minister of Rural 
Development and Food, but had received no response.  An early meeting with the new Minister of Rural Development and Food had been requested with  the hope of resolving this longstanding issue, 
given that this remained a serious concern fo r the Government of Canada.  The European 
Communities recalled that this issue fell under th e competence of the European Communities.  The 
European Communities understood Canada's impati ence and frustration.  Each EC member State 
implemented the harmonized system, but sometimes there were differences in the implementation.  
The European Communities had intervened on a numb er of occasions to avoid trade disruptions, but 
even the threat of disruptions could in and of itself be disruptive.  The European Communities had 
highlighted to the Greek authorities that a number of matters had to be resolved, and would try to find 
a satisfactory solution. 
65. In June 2009, Canada expressed concerns at Gr eece's testing and inspection requirements of 
imported cereals for genetically modified organi sms.  These requirements were onerous, with 
consignments being held for a period of up to sev en working days following the taking of samples for 
testing, thus imposing additional costs and delays.  Canada's wheat exports to Greece had fallen from 
almost Can$49.5 million dollars in 2004, to only Ca n$8.8 million dollars in 20 08, with no exports in 
2005 and 2006, partly due to these measures.  GM wheat was not approved for commercial 
production in Canada.  These measure s were not based on any risk assessment and were contrary to 
the SPS Agreement.  At a meeting on 6 May 2009 be tween the Greek Minister of Rural Development 
and Food and Canada's Ambassador to Greece, Ca nada was informed that a new decision which 
would reduce testing requirements to five per cen t was being developed.  Greece had agreed to 
provide more details in response to a letter from Canada's Minister for Agriculture and Agri-food 
concerning this issue.  Canada looked forward to receiving a timely response from Greece in order to 
bring this issue to a conclusion. 
66. The European Communities acknowledged this pr oblem and stated that a number of legal 
issues had been raised in this rega rd within the EC framework in para llel with these bilateral efforts.  
The European Communities was awaiting a reply from  Greece and was looking forward to a solution 
to the problem. 
 
238. Application and modification of the EC Regulation on novel foods 
Raised by: Colombia, Ecuador, Peru 
Supported by: Argentina, Benin, Bolivarian Re public of Venezuela, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, 
Costa Rica, Cuba, El Salvador, H onduras, India, Mexico, Paraguay, 
Philippines, Uruguay  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
Page 14  
 
  Dates raised: March 2006 (G/SPS/R/40, paras.  21-29), June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, paras. 
35-37), October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, paras.140-143), February 2007 
(G/SPS/R/44, para. 64), April 2008 (G /SPS/R/49, paras. 48-52), October 
2008 (G/SPS/R/53, paras. 19-23), Oct ober 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, paras. 53-55)
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 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
67. In March 2006, Colombia raised concerns on th e application of the EC Regulation on Novel 
Foods (Regulation No 258/97) and with the draft project of the European Commission to amend the 
regulation, foreseen to enter into  force in 2007.  The amendment could directly affect the trade 
potential of traditional and exotic foods. Some trad itional and exotic products already had substantial 
presence in the US and Japanese food markets, a nd 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 year s.  This was in contrast to genetically modified 
products which could be considered as real Nove l Foods. Increased trade in traditional and exotic 
products also had important socio-economic imp acts, as the export of these products represented a 
measure to decrease extreme rural poverty in South America and had potential to address specific social and environmental issues, such as providing alternatives to both the growing of narcotic crops 
and to the illegal felling of protected forests. 
68. Colombia further stated to be 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 sm all scale farmers and exporters .  The proposed amendment of 
Regulation 258 would result in a non-tariff barrier to  trade with negative effects on the introduction of 
traditional foods into European markets, contrary  to Articles 2.2 and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement. 
69. Columbia requested the European  Communities to consider the following points regarding the 
amendment of the Regulation 258/97: 
70. The non-application of Regulation 258 to exotic , traditional products with a history of safe 
consumption in their region of origin; 
71. Greater transparency and clarity in the procedures and definition, giving credit to a safe 
consumption history of food in the country of orig in; requirements, tests, and procedures in proportion 
with the nature of the foods concerned and the risk s they could imply for consumers;  and all exotic 
traditional products to remain in the public domai n and no private entity to be granted privileged 
access to the European market. 
72. Ecuador reported that the amendment would also  affect the trade potential of traditional and 
exotic food from its country.  In light of Ecua dor's great biodiversity, over the last decade 
international organizations like UNCTAD had b een promoting the development of new export 
products ("Bio-Comercio").  In Ecuador also the export of traditional and exotic foods had major 
socio-economic impacts and related closely to effort s to overcome rural poverty.  Ecuador invited the 
European Communities to consider carefully Colomb ia's recommendations regarding the amendment.  
The amendment of the regulation and its impacts were of importance for many developing countries.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
 Page 15 
 
 
  73. Peru added that currently, within the Conve ntion on Biological Diversity, countries were 
discussing measures and mechanisms for the preserva tion and sustainable use of biodiversity.  
Contrary to that approach, the application of Regul ation 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 registered under Regulation 258 to allow them to 
enter the European market.  Peru also suppor ted the Colombia's recommendations regarding the 
amendment (G/SPS/GEN/681). 
74. Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica and Paraguay reported that  their exports had also been affected by 
Regulation 258/97.  Benin requested more informat ion on how a product was considered as "novel".  
Argentina and Mexico both indicated that they were still in the process of analyzing the implications 
of the regulation.  El Salvador, Honduras, India,  Uruguay and Venezuela and expressed their interest 
in the topic and shared the concer ns of Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. 
75. The European Communities confirmed that Regulation 258/97 was being reviewed and 
recognized that some modifications were needed.  A 40-page document which might answer a lot of 
questions would be circulated as an SPS document shortly.  The document set out clearly the purpose 
and scope of the regulation, which was targeted  at new food technologies, including genetically 
modified products.  As the food industry was inv esting in different new technologies, Regulation 258 
aimed to reassure European consumers of the safet y of those technologies.  The vast majority of 
applications for authorization of Novel Foods had been from within the Euro pean Communities.  The 
European policy was aimed at striking the right balance between encouraging technical innovation 
and ensuring that consumers are protected.  Some pr oducts marketed as "produc ts of biodiversity" had 
in the past turned out to be unsafe and harmed the users.  Dealing with such products was thus in the 
interest of all stakeholders, considering the damage to  the image of products if they were marketed in 
an unsafe manner.  The European Communities inv ited interested stakeholders to submit comments 
and make their views known. 
76. In June 2006, Peru raised further concerns re garding the EC novel food regulation.  In Peru's 
view, one of the major problems of the EC regula tion was that it did not distinguish between new 
foods that had not been consumed before anywhere , and those that were new only to the European 
Communities, which was the case for most of th e 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 c ountries of origin, and requested the exclusion of 
traditional exotic products from the novel food categor y.  Peru also requested that the European 
Communities explain how special needs of developing countries had been taking into account in accordance with Article 10 of the SPS Agreement (G/SPS/GEN/713). 
77. Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, India, Para guay and the Philippines shared the concerns 
raised by Peru.  Ecuador indicated that a study on  the impact of the novel food regulation was about to 
be finalized.  Preliminary results of this study showed that this regulation could have negative 
economic and social consequences for Ecuador's production system by having an effect both on 
current exports and on products w ith export potential in the Eu ropean Communities that were 
currently marketed in other countries (G/SPS/GEN/714).  Bolivia and Colombia highlighted that some 
of the products were currently being promoted inte r alia by policies supporting alternatives to narcotic 
crops, some of which were funded by the Euro pean Communities or its member States.  The 
Philippines indicated that the effects of the novel fo od regulation and of EC regulations on genetically 
modified food were still being evaluated. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
Page 16  
 
  78. The European Communities stres sed that the concerns expressed were being taken seriously, 
and that the novel food regulation was currently  under review (G/SPS/GEN/699 and 700).  The 
original intention of the novel food regulation had been trade-creating;  its purpose was to authorize 
trade in Novel Foods.  In addition, products that had already been traded prior to 1997 had been 
exempted.  The regulation had been targeted main ly at EC companies.  The regulation had been 
successful in that new foods were being approved on the basis of safety assessme nts.  A statement that 
a product had been consumed for centuries was not sufficient.  The European Communities 
highlighted that very few applications for approval of  traditional exotic products had been received, so 
that there were very few case studies.  Traditiona l 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-relate d data available, as well as information on the socio-economic 
impact. 
79. In February 2007, Peru noted that although it had not requested that this issue be on the 
agenda for this meeting, it would welcome an  update from the European Communities on current 
developments.  The European Communities indicat ed that the Novel Foods Regulation was being 
revised.  It had initially been designed to cove r a full range of Novel Foods, from GMO foods to 
products of biological diversity.  Following public consultations and the consideration of the views 
and comments received, revised legislation was being prepared.  The European Communities 
anticipated that the result would be a two-tiered pr ocess, 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 tr ading partners, while ensuring consumer safety. 
80. In October 2007, Columbia, Ecuador and Peru reiterated concerns rela ting to EC Regulation 
258/97 on Novel Foods (G/SPS/GEN/733 and G/SPS/GEN/ 735).  They considered that the regulation 
constituted a non-justified barrier to trade in th ese products as it was not flexible and made no 
distinction between novel (GMO) foods and traditiona l foods with no known risks.  They noted that 
exotic products originating from Latin  America were not the result of any type of genetic modification 
but rather formed part of the biodiversity of the re gion 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. 
81. The European Communities was requested to pr omptly review Regulation 258/97, and to 
exclude from its scope of application exotic tr aditional products resulting from biodiversity.  The 
European Communities was also enco uraged to take into account scien tific assessments and relevant 
evidence from other countries and competent interna tional 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 Europe an Communities was also  requested take into account the history 
of the product, the consumption patterns and traditional knowledge rela ting to its use and preparation, 
so as to provide for greater flexibility in the appli cation of the regulation and facilitate the entry of 
exotic traditional products into the European market. 
82. 
Bolivia, Brazil and the Philippines shared the c oncerns of Peru, Ecuador and Columbia.  The 
Philippines highlighted the fact that the regulation could become an unjustified non-tariff barrier to 
the EC market in view of the unclear technical distinction between these pr oducts and other products.  
The Philippines expressed hope that progress would be  made on the issue and a mutual solution found 
as soon as possible.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
 Page 17 
 
 
  83. The European Communities reminded the Committee that the issue had been discussed in the 
SPS Committee on previous occasions and there ha d been various exchanges of communications 
between the Members concerned.  The Europ ean 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 under go 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 on the volume of trade and risk assessments carried out in other developed countries.  The European Communities indicated that the EC Commission was 
putting forward a new proposal that addressed the genuine concerns of Members.  A public consultation had been held on the matter and the European Communiti es appreciated the contributions 
from the concerned Members. 
84. 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 
EC Regulation 258/97, as contained in COM(2007)872.   The proposed regulation had been notified to 
the TBT Committee, however these Members considered that it was appropriate to continue to 
consider this issue in the SPS Committee.  Th ese Members welcomed the proposed recognition of 
traditional food products from third countries, resulti ng from their biodiversity and with a history of 
safe use for large proportions of the populations of  these countries.  This recognition could facilitate 
trade, which was particularly important as the pr oduction of these traditional products was often part 
of programs to diversify agricultural production and exports. 
85. Colombia noted that a number of concerns rema ined.  The proposed definition of a traditional 
foodstuff was that it had been part of the diet of a large part of the population for at least one 
generation.  This definition could restrict those produc ts 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 re quests for authorization would have to come from 
commercial operators, hence excluding such request s from the competent governmental authorities or 
producer associations.  These Members also suggested  that information regarding safe use of the 
traditional food in other countries should also be considered. 
86. 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 suffici ent.  These Members remained concerned that the 
definition of a novel food remained a product that ha d not been consumed in the EC market prior to 
1997, which seemed to bear no relation to the scientif ic evidence regarding the safety of a product. 
87. Brazil indicated that it supported the concerns  raised by Colombia on behalf of eight 
countries.  Brazil was still analyzing the relevant documents, but considered  the issues raised by 
Colombia to be very important. 
88. The European Communities noted that issue had been raised several times previously.  The 
European Communities was currently revising legisla tion, in particular the provisions on traditional 
products and products of biological diversity, in response to concerns raised by various developing 
countries.  A much simplified procedure was now  being developed.  A range of legitimate and 
reasonable concerns had been expressed, and these s hould be communicated directly to the relevant 
EC services, since the legislation was currently unde r consideration.  While the concern was that the 
EC legislation might be a barrier to trade in tr aditional products, this should be seen in the broader 
context:  The European Communities was by far the world's largest importer of  fruits and vegetables, 
especially from developing countries, hence the import regime in general was extremely import 
friendly. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
Page 18  
 
  89. In October 2008, Peru requested 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, wh ile 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. 
90. Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay and the Philippines shared 
Peru's concerns regarding the EC Regulation on Novel Foods. 
91. UNCTAD reported that it was contributing to the review of the EC Regulation on Novel 
Foods in three specific areas:  (1) revising the procedure, which required more scientific clarification;  
(2) facilitating dialogue between the European Communities and developing countries;  and (3) 
analyzing legal aspects of current regulations  in the context of multilateral agreements. 
92. 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 Committe e.  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 whol e fruits and vegetables.  However, the revised 
procedure was expected to be more flexible, a nd some Novel Foods had already been approved for 
entry into the EC market. 
93. The European Communities noted that in this sp ecific 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 th e issue could be discussed at the SPS Committee.  In 
response to a query, the Secretariat clarified that it generally recommended that draft regulations with 
any SPS content should be notified to the SPS Committee,  even if these regulations were also notified 
to the TBT Committee. 
94. In October 2009, Peru recalled that the entry of  traditional exotic products to the European 
market had been seriously affected by the EC re gulation on novel foods.  The measure contravened 
the activities that the European Communities them selves had been undertaking to support small 
producers and to open the EC market to new and ex otic products.  Various e xotic products had been 
certified by the Health and Environment Authority  of Peru, which certified their safety and 
compliance with a HACCP system, and these products  were fit for human consumption and could be 
marketed internationally.  Peru expressed concer n about the continuous loss of business opportunities 
due to this measure and asked for an update on the modification progress. 
95. Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, and Mexico s upported Peru's concerns regarding the EC 
regulation on Novel Foods. 
96. The European Communities stated that on 15 January 2008, the EC Commission had 
submitted to the Council and the European Parliament  a proposal for the revision of the Novel Food 
Regulation.  The proposal was notified to WTO Me mbers in March 2008 under the TBT Agreement.  
The revised procedure was expected to be more flexible and some novel foods had already been 
approved for entry into the EC market.  The refere nce period for establishing a history of safe food 
use had been changed to a period of 25 years, a nd consumption data could originate from any third 
country and not necessarily from the country that submitted the application.  The possibility to apply for a novel food authorization had also been opened to any interested party.  The proposal kept the 
main rules currently applicable to novel goods , but simplified EC market access for traditional 
foodstuffs from third countries which had a hist ory of safe use and put in place proportionate  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
 Page 19 
 
 
  regulatory measures.  The proposal was still unde r negotiation and its adoption was foreseen for 
July 2010. 
 
GABON 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY GABON 
Other concerns 
279. Import restrictions on pork products due to Influenza A/H1N1 - Maintained by Gabon, 
Armenia, Bahrain, China, Indonesia, Jordan and Suriname (See item 279, page 1) 
 INDIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDIA 
Animal Health 185. Restrictions due to avian influenza 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Australia, Canada, China, United States 
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, par as. 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 ), Fe bruary 2009 (G/SPS/R/54, paras. 17-
20), June 2009 (G/SPS/R/55, paras.  43-46), October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, 
paras. 40-43) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/IND/13/Add.1, G/SPS/N/IND/14, G/SPS/N/IND/46/Add.3 and 
Add.4 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
97. The European Communities rai sed concerns on measures applied by India on 3 March 2004 
on imports of live birds, fresh poultry meat and meat  products due to avian influenza.  These measures 
were not notified as required by the SPS Agreement.   In addition, India's restrictions were 
disproportionate to the health risks associated w ith imports from the European Communities since the 
European Communities were free of hi ghly pathogenic avian influenza.  India was requested to lift the 
restrictions on EC products.  The United States sh ared the concerns of th e European Communities. 
98. India explained that restrictions on poultry im ports were temporary measures to address the 
emerging threat of introduction of highly pathogeni c avian influenza.  The measures were intended to 
protect farmers for whom poultry production was an essential source of income.  Delays in the 
reporting of outbreaks increased the risk of the viru s spreading into other countries.  In addition, G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
Page 20  
 
  infected poultry did not always exhibit clinical signs  of the disease.  Once intr oduced into the country, 
the disease would be impossible to control.  In dia was taking all measures necessary to gather 
information on efforts to contain the disease gl obally and welcomed information from exporting 
Members who were free of the disease. 
99. In June 2004, the European Communities stated th at India continued to apply import bans on 
a range of poultry products from several countries allegedly in response to highly pathogenic avian 
influenza.  India was requested to review the cu rrent ban and lift all rest rictions on poultry products 
from the European Communities.  India responded that the measures prohibiting poultry and poultry 
products had been implemented as temporary measures.  New outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian influenza (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 con cerned about potential hu man development of the 
disease. 
100. In October 2004, the European Co mmunities stated that India had issued two notifications, on 
7 July and on 6 August, informing Members of th e relaxation of the ban for a range of products.  
However, the ban was disproportionate to the risk, had no scientific basis and should be confined to 
regions affected by the disease following OIE guidelines and recommendations.  India was requested to review its ban and bring its me asures into conformity with the SPS Agreement.  India stated that 
the ban was a temporary measure which was enfo rced due to the outbreak of avian influenza 
throughout the world.  The situati on had been under constant review since the imposition of the ban in 
February 2004.  The ban on imports of poultry w ith vaccination and specific pathogen free eggs was 
lifted in July 2004.  A subsequent review by an expert group resulted in the continuation of the ban on 
imports of certain products such as live and raw poultry and pig meat.  Processed products from HPAI 
infected countries were allowed into India, however , and the situation continued to be monitored. 
101. In June 2007, the United States noted that India was banning poultry, swine and other 
products in response to the detection of low pathogeni c avian influenza in wild birds in some parts of 
the United States.  These restrictions far exceeded the standards developed by the OIE for the control 
of avian influenza.  India failed to apply the con cept of regionalization to the United States.  India 
applied its ban against US products although no in cident of highly pathogenic avian influenza had 
occurred in the United States;  applied its ban to prod ucts that had been treated or processed in such a 
manner that the avian influenza virus was killed;  and applied its ban to species and products from 
animals that were not known to transmit the virus.   Although India had recently notified a change to 
its measures to allow the entry of dry processed pet food, it continued to pr ohibit other heat-treated 
pet foods that posed no animal health risk. 
102. The European Communities observed that it had si milar concerns regarding India's measures.  
Although it had been seeking to resolve the matter  bilaterally, problems continued to appear and 
reappear.  All Members were urged to apply the inte rnational standards, to ensure that the measures 
applied were proportionate to the risks.  India's me asure was applied even to products that had never 
been known to transmit avian influenza, including pork meat. 
103. India noted that high or low pathogenic strains of avian influenza had been reported in more 
than 60 countries, and the authorities were concerne d that the virus was spreading.  The virus had 
important human health implications , given its high fatality rate.  India had experienced an outbreak 
of highly pathogenic avian influenza in 2006 which ha d been successfully contained, and the country 
was now free of the disease.  India was trying to saf eguard animal and human health in its territory, 
and protect its family-run poultry industry.  It th erefore banned imports of poultry from any country 
which had experienced an outbreak of avian influenz a, whether highly pathogenic or low pathogenic.  
The United States had reported an outbreak of lo w pathogenic avian influenza.  Countries free from 
avian influenza could export livestock to India, and pathogen-free eggs fo r vaccine production were  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
 Page 21 
 
 
  permitted from any country, regardless of its avian infl uenza status.  Because many wild birds visited 
India, this was a vector of concern.  With regard  to pet food, India had revised its health protocol 
notified in June 2007, and w ould take into account the co mments made on this matter. 
104. In October 2007, the United States reiterated c oncerns regarding India's ban on imports of US 
poultry, swine and their products due to detections of low-pathogenic avian influenza (AI) in wild 
birds in the United States.  In June, the United St ates had noted that this prohibition went beyond the 
OIE guidelines and that India had not provided scientific  justification for this prohibition.  India had 
made two notifications related to AI (G/SPS/ N/IND/46/Add.3 and Add.4).  The Add.3 document 
extended AI-related import prohibition to include pig bristles.  Prohibiting the import of these products was not scientifically justified nor in co mpliance with the OIE guidelines based on the AI 
status of a country, region or zone.  The Unite d 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 urged India to 
put in place permanent measures for trade in poultr y products and AI, and to ensure that these 
measures were consistent with the provisions of the OIE Code chap ter on AI.  India's measures should 
distinguish between highly-pathogenic and low-pathoge nic strains of AI, and allow for the application 
of regionalization. 
105. The European Communities noted that it had pr oblems similar to those mentioned by the 
United States.  India failed to recognize the differe nce between high and low pathogenic influenza as 
well as the AI-related differences between wild birds and domestic animals.  The European 
Communities encouraged India to foll ow the recommendations from the OIE. 
106. India stressed the dangers related to AI and how widespread the virus ha d been.  In addition, 
AI was known to reoccur in countries where outbreaks had previously taken place.  India restricted 
imports from countries reporting AI.  The United St ates was currently positive for low pathogenic AI 
in poultry (LPNAIH5).  India's import restrictions due to outbreaks of AI in the United States were 
clarified in detail to the United States during the l ast trade policy forum 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 accordi ng to the OIE as per the list of diseases in Article 
2.1.3 of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code.  Fu rthermore, as noted by USDA's fact sheet on AI, 
LPAI had a high potential to mutate into highly pathogenic AI;  a view that India shared.  Nonetheless, India regularly reviewed its trade regul ations in the light of new developments on AI.  
Regarding the concerns with pork products, there were  numerous scientific reports that pigs could be 
easily infected by many human and AI viruses and, therefore, could provide an environment 
favourable for viral replication and genetic re-assortme nt.  The fast mutating nature of the AI virus, 
along with the possibility that the virus could re-c ombine with other subtypes, made pig and pig 
products a risk.  With regard to wild birds, cons ultations with experts had taken place and the Indian 
authorities were of the view that wild birds could no t be ignored with respect to AI.  The US and EC 
concerns would be reported back to India's technical experts for review. 
107. The OIE clarified the recommendations of the OI E and how they should be put in practice.  
The listing of diseases such as high pathogenic avia n influenza (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.  There was 
no scientific basis for restrictions on pigs and pig pro ducts in relation to AI, whether it be high or low 
pathogenic strains, and this point was clear in the OIE Terrestrial Code.  OIE was concerned that the 
imposition of measures that were not scientifically  based worsened the risk s for spread of disease 
because countries were discouraged from proper repor ting if they believed that the reporting would 
lead to unjustifiable measures.  It was of utmost importance that countries report their diseases. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
Page 22  
 
  108. In April 2008, the European Co mmunities indicated that India continued to ban certain EC 
animal products due to AI.  Although India had re laxed the ban for some products earlier in 2008, it 
continued to ban many commodities.  India impo sed the ban in response to both high and low 
pathogenic strains of AI.  The OIE, however, did not recommend trade bans if AI was present only in 
wild birds, or if low pathogenic strains were f ound.  The obligation to notify cases of low pathogenic 
AI to the OIE should not be misused as a reas on to impose trade restrictions, as the OIE had 
previously clarified.  Furthermore, heat-treated products could be safely traded regardless of the AI 
status of the exporting country.  The European Co mmunities considered also that India's ban on 
pigmeat and pork products based on AI concerns was disproporti onate to the risk.  Although the 
European Communities had requested information rega rding 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 disproporti onate to the risks and for some products were not 
based on scientific evidence.  In addition, HPAI  had been found in India, and the European 
Communities questioned whether Indian domestic products  would be subject to the same treatment as 
imported goods. 
109. The United States shared the concern that Indi a's measures were introduced and maintained 
without sufficient scientific basis or a risk assessmen t.  The measures were unjustifiably restrictive 
and too broad in geographi c and commodity application.  Bilate ral exchanges had allowed progress on 
some areas, but not regarding the AI measures.  Despite requests, the United States had not yet 
received copies of India's risk assessment.  Furt hermore, 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 reco gnize measures taken to inactivate the virus. 
110. Australia noted that it shared the concerns  of the European Communities and the United 
States, and urged India to base its meas ures on sound science and the OIE standards. 
111. Mali reported that since it 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. 
112. India noted that AI continued to spread, and that it had serious human health implications 
with hundreds of persons already affected.  Indi a had previously had an outbreak, and despite its 
efforts to eradicate the disease, new outbreaks had o ccurred.  Therefore India was extremely cautious 
to safeguard animal and human health, especially as India had widespread, small family poultry 
businesses.  India was not permitting imports from aff ected countries.  India viewed low and high 
pathogenic strains of AI with equal concern, regard less of whether in poultry or wild birds.  LPAI 
presented a high potential risk, as the science showed that the virus was constantly evolving and there 
was a possibility of LPAI mutating into a highly  pathogenic strain.  With respect to the OIE 
guidelines, India had voted against the resolution in  the last annual session which proposed that LPAI 
was not a concern for international trade.  India was not the only country taking such measures, and 
Egypt had apparently imposed similar requirements.   Pigs were potential hosts of both the AI and 
human viruses, and could serve as vessels where th e viruses could mix, therefore India was also 
prohibiting swine and pork products from AI-affected countries.  India was visited by wild birds, 
therefore the risk of transmission of AI through th is means could not be ig nored.  India had recently 
reviewed and modified its measures on pathogen-f ree 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 capital.  India assured all Members that it would abide by its 
WTO obligations.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
 Page 23 
 
 
  113. The European Communities clarified that in the case of Egypt, the measures were applied to 
very different commodities.  Alth ough both countries had measures re lated to AI, these could not be 
easily compared. 
114. In June 2008, the European Communities reported that India continued to apply a ban on the 
imports of poultry, swine, and th eir products, from areas that had repor ted outbreaks of either low - or 
high-pathogenic avian influenza in wild bird populations only.  In addition, India restricted the 
importation of products also from areas where LPAI  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. 
115. Canada supported the EC arguments, noting that according to the OIE, pigs did not represent 
a threat for transmitting avian influenza.  Furthe rmore, India should recognize the principle of 
regionalization when applying a ban based on avian infl uenza.  Canada requested that India follow the 
OIE's standards and remove the import restrictions currently in place. 
116. The United States supported the concerns raised , observing that India's measure had been 
introduced and maintained without scientific eviden ce or risk assessment.  India's argument that LPAI 
had the potential to mutate into the highly pathogeni c form, and that virus re-assortment could occur 
in swine, had been addressed by the OIE.  The Un ited States had requested a copy of India's risk 
assessment that supported its ban, but this had not  been provided.  China supported the concerns 
raised and requested India to revisit its measur e in order to comply with OIE recommendations. 
117. India reiterated that it did not allow the impor tation of poultry and pork products, including 
processed meats, from areas where outbreaks of avian influenza had been reported.  India was equally 
concerned about low and highly pathogenic avian in fluenza, as well as with avian influenza found in 
wild birds only.  A number of scientific studies ha d shown the possibility of low pathogenic forms of 
avian influenza mutating into highly pathogenic st rains.  A report from FAO had also shown that 
mutation was feasible.  An official US web site as serted that low pathogenic forms of avian influenza 
had the potential to mutate into HPAI.  At the OIE General Session in May 2007, India had voted 
against the resolution that stated that LPAI did not pose a risk to international trade.  India remained 
concerned that the low pathogenic viruses also po sed 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 wi th avian influenza.  As new scientific evidence 
evolved, India had lifted its bans on some products, such as eggs and pet food.  Further reviews would 
be done in the future.  India took note of Member s' requests for copies of the risk assessment and for 
the recognition of regionalization, and those concer ns would be conveyed to experts in the capital. 
118. In October 2008, the European Communities ack nowledged India's efforts to remove its 
import restrictions on processed pig meat.  However,  India continued to apply a ban on live animals 
and on a wide range of products of animal origin.  This ban had been based on the risk of entry into 
India of several diseases, in particular avian influe nza.  These restrictions did not conform to the OIE 
standards.  India was also invited to acknowledge th at heat-treated meat and meat products could be 
safely traded regardless of the avian influenza stat us 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.  The European Communities ur ged India to review the import restrictions on 
live animals and different products of animal origin. 
119. The United States expressed concerns regarding India's extension of its emergency measures 
prohibiting a wide range of products because of avia n influenza.  These measures were not based on 
scientific evidence or on risk assessment.  The Unite d States renewed the request to India to provide a G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
Page 24  
 
  copy of their avian influenza risk assessment.  Fina lly, India was requested to modify its measure to 
address the concerns expressed by several Members in the Committee. 
120. In response to the US request, India proposed that a technical discussion between India and 
other technical experts be held.  The United States i nvited India to bring its technical experts to the 
next meeting of the SPS Committee and again requ ested a copy of India's risk assessment. 
121. India suggested that instead of waiting for the next meeting the experts could meet before 
then, perhaps through a video conference, which c ould allow a resolution before the next meeting. 
122. India reported that the import restriction of avian influenza related products had been 
discussed in the OIE, in the SPS Committee, and in  various bilateral meetings with countries 
including the European Communities and the United States.  India treated high pathogenic and low 
pathogenic types of the virus in both poultry or wild  birds with equal concern.  Also, India did not 
import pig meat from countries with avian influenza outbreaks.  India had been reviewing the policy of avian influenza and its trade implications ever y six months.  This led to the removal of import 
restrictions on different processed pig products fro m avian influenza positive countries.  India would 
continue to review its restrictions and keep only t hose which affected human and animal health.  India 
suggested that the discussion should stay among e xperts from India and other concerned partners. 
123. OIE stated that countries should notify the presence of avian influenza in domestic and wild 
birds.  However, notification of the early detection of avian influenza in wild birds was requested for 
purposes of transparency and should not lead to trad e restrictions.  Also, the representative urged OIE 
Members to send their scientific evidence to OI E, to be considered when making necessary 
amendments to the standards established in the OIE codes. 
124. In February 2009, the United States expressed  disappointment that India continued to 
maintain its emergency measures prohibiting a wide  range of products because of avian influenza 
without scientific evidence or a risk assessment.  Appropriate measu res for avian influenza did not 
include trade restrictions on swine or swine pr oducts, trade measures related to notifiable avian 
influenza in wild birds, or prohibitions on heat -treated products.  In addition, Members should 
distinguish between highly pathogenic and low pat hogenic avian influenza.  The US representative 
reminded the Committee that India had proposed a mee ting at a technical level to discuss the issue at 
the October 2008 Committee meeting and that th e United States welcomed their suggestion.  
However, the United States on numerous occasions had asked for a copy of India's scientific 
justification as a basis for such technical discussions , but had not received the documents to date.  The 
United States again urged India to present its risk assessment so that a technical discussion could be 
scheduled.   
125. The European Communities welcomed the recent lifting by India of some avian influenza-
related restrictions, but supported the US concerns that the remaining restrictions were unjustified and 
went against the OIE Code, in particular the lack of distinction between outbreaks of highly 
pathogenic and low pathogenic avian influenza.  
126. India explained that since many countries repor ted avian influenza, 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 Indi a, since its poultry industry was largely family-run.  
Many Members had adopted avian influenza meas ures, including import bans.  India had banned 
imports of poultry and swine products from countri es reporting both low and highly pathogenic avian 
influenza, since one strain of the virus could mutate into the other.  An FAO publication 
acknowledged that mutation to virulence had be en demonstrated, and the USDA website also 
admitted this.  At the OIE General Session, India had voted against the resolution stating that low 
pathogenic avian influenza was not a trade concern.  India believed that trade interests should not take  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
 Page 25 
 
 
  precedence over human health concerns, but accepted that science was evolving and had provisions 
for reviewing its avian influenza measures.  As a result, trade restrictions on certain products from 
avian influenza-positive countries had been lifted.  I ndia 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 bi lateral meetings with the United States and the 
European Communities, and would convey their concerns to appropriate authorities. 
127. OIE indicated that avian influenza 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 me al.  Members should review the avian influenza 
standards and raise any concerns at the OIE.  The OIE clarified that there were a number of publications on avian influenza, some by the OIE, so me by FAO, some joint.  For international trade, 
the relevant standard was that in the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code. 
128. In June 2009, the European Comm unities stated that it appreciated the bilateral meetings with 
India but remained concerned that India's measures we re not consistent with OIE standards.  Despite 
having raised the concern previously, India conti nued to make no distinction between low and high 
pathogenic influenza, 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 avian influenza fears but had no such ban on 
the domestic market.  The European Communities called upon India to base its import requirements 
on the relevant international standards. 
129. 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 swine be lifte d and that scientific justification be provided for 
all measures.  In addition, the United States request ed India to provide a copy of its risk assessment 
for the measures relating to avian influenza. 
130. India stated that the ban on pork products was ta ken to prevent an outbreak of avian influenza.  
The measures were based not only on OIE guidelines,  but on relevant scientific literature.  Technical 
experts re-evaluated the scientific information ev ery six months, and now imports were banned only 
from those countries reporting H5 and H7 strains of  low pathogenic influenza.  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 shoul d not interfere with the protection of human and 
animal health.  All restrictions regarding pork an d poultry products except live pigs had been lifted 
from areas reporting avian influenza, because the avia n influenza virus could mutate in the pigs, as 
both human and avian influenza viruses had establishe d stable virus lineages in pigs.  India applied 
the same measures to domestic products as to im ports.  India thanked the European Communities for 
fruitful bilateral discussions on 22 June 2009, and expressed its commitment to dialogues with all 
interested Members. 
131. OIE drew attention to the informal dispute resolution procedure of the OIE as a means to 
resolve technical differences relating to provisions of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code.  
132. In October 2009, the European Communities stated that India still did not base its 
requirements on OIE standards, and still maintained a ban on live pigs, pig semen and products such 
as feathers for reasons of avian influenza.  Furt hermore, India did not recognize the regionalization 
principle, applied strictly in the European Comm unities where affected zones were placed under strict 
biosecurity measures, and instead India required total country freedom from avian influenza.  
Although India had announced that unprocessed meat  would no longer be bl ocked for reasons of G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
Page 26  
 
  avian influenza, India's requirements stated that only heat-treated pig meat could be imported, a 
measure not in line with international standards.   The European Communities requested India to 
provide scientific evidence justifying its strict measur es;  to bring its import requirements in line with 
international standards;  and to recognize the re gionalization principle as applied in the European 
Communities.  
133. The United States stated that India's ban and av ian influenza import requirements were not in 
line with the OIE standards.  India continued to pr ohibit the import of pigs and a wide range of avian 
species and avian products without a risk asse ssment that supported the measures.  India had 
maintained an emergency measure in one form or another since 2002 and its emergency notifications 
since 2004 had essentially blocked all imports.  Sufficie nt time had passed for India to complete an 
import risk assessment and to adopt  OIE-consistent measures.  The United States requested India to 
provide its risk assessment and to modify its measures to address the concerns expressed by a number of Members. 
134. India stated that the notification issued in 28 August 2009 prohibited the import of poultry 
and poultry products and live pigs from count ries reporting both highly pathogenic and low 
pathogenic avian influenza.  India's technical experts had observed that symptoms of highly 
pathogenic avian influenza were noticeable and the infection could be controlled, but low pathogenic 
avian influenza might pass unnoticed and the contro l of the infection could become difficult.  
Additionally, there was no data available confirmi ng that low pathogenic avian influenza could not 
mutate into highly pathogenic avian influenza.  Imports were currently allowed based on the avian 
influenza status of the exporting country.  The Indian authorities had commissioned a lab-based study 
of domestic pigs to confirm the ch ances of genetic re-assortment of the virus in live pigs that could 
produce new influenza viruses.  As notified, I ndia permitted the import of poultry products from 
countries reporting avian influenza subject to a co nformity assessment.  Comments received from 
trading partners on this notifi cation were under examination.  
135. The OIE stated that there were some differences  at a scientific and technical level in relation 
to this matter, and reminded Members of the OIE' s informal mechanism to resolve differences at a 
scientific and technical level. 
 
INDONESIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA 
Animal Health 
280. New meat import conditions 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2009 (G/SPS/R/55, paras.  25-26), October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, paras. 
44-45) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:  
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
 Page 27 
 
 
  136. In June 2009, the European Communities stated that Indonesia's import restrictions with 
regard to BSE were unjustified and higher than OIE standards.  Indonesia prohibited imports from 
Members with an undetermined or controlled BS E risk, as well as products which the OIE had 
identified as safely tradable irrespective of the B SE risk status of the exporting country.  The 
European Communities welcomed Indonesia's new legislation incorporating the principle of 
regionalization, but questioned the justification fo r limiting its applicability only to foot and mouth 
disease, which was not in line with the OIE Terrestrial  Animal Health Code.  It appeared that none of 
the EC comments were taken into account when th e new import conditions came into existence in 
April 2009.  The European Communities requested  Indonesia to accept regionalization commitments 
and to provide clear scientific justification fo r measures which went beyond the OIE standards. 
137. Indonesia expressed willingness to further discuss the matter during bilateral consultations. 
138. In October 2009, the European Communities stated  that the concern related to Indonesia's 
import regime was first introduced in April 2009, and related to the burdensome accreditation process 
and the non-respect of international standards in ma ny areas, mainly related to BSE and other diseases 
for which Indonesia imposed unnecessary and unjustif ied measures.  The European Communities had 
communicated its concerns in writing and at various  bilateral meetings with Indonesia.  It had 
requested a justification for the deviation from in ternational standards, as well as Indonesia's risk 
analysis, but no answer had been provided. 
139. Indonesia stated that its Agriculture Regulation Number 20 of 2009 concerning the import 
and distribution of carcass meat and/or edible offa l complied with international standards.  Since 4 
September 2009, the Agriculture Ministry Decr ee 3229 allowed the importation of de-boned meat 
from Ireland, and the establishment approval procedure followed a risk assessment for BSE on a 
country-by-country basis.  Constructive commitm ents had been made in October 2009 between 
Indonesia and the European Communiti es in regards to this issue. 
 
286. Import restrictions on poultry meat 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, paras. 14-15) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:  
 
140. 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 Indonesi a had consulted on this 
trade barrier and Brazil had provided information showing that its poultry meat and by-products 
complied with the relevant international standard s and even with Indonesia's regulations.  Brazil 
requested the sanitary justification for the restri ctions, or that the restrictions be lifted. 
141. Indonesia expressed his authorities willingness to ha ve bilateral meetings with Brazil to find 
solutions on the issue. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
Page 28  
 
  Other concerns 
279. Import restrictions on pork products due to Influenza A/H1N1 - Maintained by 
Indonesia, Armenia, Bahrain, China, Gabon, Jordan and Suriname (See item 279, page 1)  
 JAPAN 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN 
Food safety 267. Pesticide maximum residue level (MRL) enforcement system 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: China, New Zealand 
Dates raised: June 2008 (G/SPS/R/51, paras.  15-17), October 2008 (G/SPS/R/53, paras. 
15-18), February 2009 (G/SPS/R/54, paras. 33-34) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
142. In June 2008, the United States noted that in May 2006, Japan's Ministry of Health, Labour 
and Welfare (MHLW) imposed a testing and sanctions  policy that involved increased testing (30 per 
cent country-wide) after the occurrence of one MRL violation.  If a second violation involving the same pesticide and commodity occurred within on e year of the first, a 100 per cent test-and-hold 
policy was enforced on all exports of that commodi ty from that country.  The United States believed 
that the sanctions under inspection and control prog rammes should be limited to  the violating supplier 
as long as there was no indication that a country-wide problem existed.  The United States considered 
that this would be the least trade restrictive measure  and the most appropriate policy.  This was also 
the policy applied by the United States itself. 
143. China supported the concerns raised by th e United States and invited Japan to provide 
scientific justification for its measure, in order to comply with the SPS Agreement. 
144. Japan stated that the MRLs fo r agricultural chemicals in food were developed based on 
scientific assessments, and took into account the MRLs  established by Codex and by other countries.  
Before adopting a new MRL, Japan notified its pr oposal to the WTO and considered any comments 
from Members, as appropriate.  The MRLs app lied equally to domestic and imported products.  
Whenever non-compliance with an MRL was f ound in imported products, Japan strengthened 
inspections of agricultural chemical residues.  The degree, frequency, or extent of enhanced 
inspection was determined by the circumstances.  Each violation was handled on a case-by-case basis, 
but always conducted in a rational and reasonable manner, for instance, by limiting the enhanced 
inspections to the violating exporter only. 
145. In October 2008, the United States again rai sed its concerns about Japan's enforcement 
system for MRLs.  In particular, there was no re ason for Japan to employ country-wide sanctions  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
 Page 29 
 
 
  where there was no indication of a country-wide prob lem.  In cases of individual company violations, 
sanctions should be applied at the individual company level. 
146. New Zealand noted that its exports had been subj ect to testing by Japan.  New Zealand asked 
for further clarification regarding the reasons be hind testing products, especially asparagus products 
as these were normally frozen. 
147. China shared the US concerns regarding Japan's testing regime. 
148. Japan responded that in order to enforce thei r MRLs, Japan conducted monitoring inspections 
of agricultural chemical residues in imported food.  These controls were strengthened if imported products did not comply with the established MRLs .  Multiple violations had been detected on 
imported products from the United States, giving rise to increased monitoring. 
149. In February 2009, the United States indicated that Japan's MRL enforcement policy imposed 
on US specialty products continued to be of great c oncern.  This policy imposed industry-wide testing 
for pesticides after one MRL violation by a singl e party.  If a second violation involving the same 
pesticide and commodity occurred within one year , a 100 per cent test-and-hold policy of all exports 
from that country was enforced. 
150. Japan indicated that the MRLs had been deve loped based on scientific assessments, taking 
into account Codex standards, and that they were  applied both to domestic and imported products.  
When there were instances of non-compliance, insp ections were strengthened, taking into account 
various factors, on a case-by-case basis.  Japan had confirmed that the US regulation on pesticide 
residues was equivalent to Japan's.  Where US MRLs  were equal to or stricter than Japan's, the 
enhanced inspections were limited to the specifi c exporter.  In cases where the US MRL was higher 
than Japan's, Japan needed to ensure that US exporters as a whol e complied with Japan's MRL.  Such 
evidence should be provided by the US Government itself, or in some other way.  In fact, Japan's inspection records showed that multiple violations had been detected by the enhanced inspections 
after an initial violation.  This suggested that  responsibility of the exporter alone did not always 
ensure compliance with Japan's MR Ls.  Japan needed a mechanism to  ensure that exporters complied 
with Japan's MRLs, e.g. a compliance programme established by industry or information on their 
compliance history.  If the United States provided such  information, it would enable Japan to consider 
limiting the enhanced inspection to the specific exporter.  Japan hoped to continue technical 
discussions with the United States. 
 
283. Pesticide maximum residue levels (MRLs)  
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by: China 
Dates raised: June 2009 (G/SPS/R/55, paras.  36-38), October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, paras. 
50-52) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:  
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
Page 30  
 
  151. In June 2009, Brazil noted that Japan imposed stricter pesticide residue limits than Codex, 
because it required industry-wide testing for one MRL violation and a 100 per cent test-and-hold 
policy in case a second violation involving the same  pesticide and commodity took place within one 
year.  Brazil had difficulty in exporting green coffee beans to Japan, as Japan's MRL was 30 times lower than that of Codex.  In a bilateral meeti ng, Japan had stated that the revision of these MRLs 
would take place within two years.  Brazil had request ed an interim transitiona l mechanism as trade in 
coffee was worth over US$300 million per year.  Brazil exported coffee to over 100 countries and requested Japan to modify their procedures in lin e with international standards, or provide a 
transitional period while the Japanese authorities d ecided on the revision of the requirement without 
any negative impact on Brazilian coffee exports. 
152. China supported Brazil's concern, and requested th at Japan's temporary standards be based on 
scientific justification and a risk analysis.  Th ese measures had been applied for a period of three 
years, adversely affecting Chinese food exports to Japan.  Furthermore, Japan's uniform standard of 
0.01 ppm for several pesticides was arbitrary and without  scientific justification.  China requested that 
Japan brings its requirements into line with the relevant internationa l standards.  China's exporters 
indicated that imported products were subjected  to a greater number of random inspections.  
Furthermore, inspections were carried out only on certain imported products, even though the same 
pesticides were also used domestically in Japan.  China urged Japan to apply its measures uniformly 
without any discrimination. 
153. Japan clarified that the MRLs were based on scientific assessment, and Codex and other 
international standards were taken into account wh en enforcing the measures.  Japan had notified the 
WTO before establishing these MRLs and had recei ved comments.  The SPS Agreement was taken 
into consideration, and the measures were applie d equally to imported a nd domestic products.  The 
frequency of inspections was increased based on findi ngs of violations.  Japan confirmed that the 
Codex MRLs would be the basis of the current re vision, which would occur by December at the 
earliest.  Japan expressed its commitment to c ontinuing bilateral discussions with Brazil. 
154. In October 2009, China recalled that after th e implementation of Japan's positive list system 
for chemical residues, China and many other Memb ers had expressed concerns regarding the issue of 
"uniform standards".  Japan had indicated that the st andard would be revised on the basis of scientific 
evaluations and MRLs would be established for more chemical residues.  In recent years, almost all notices that China received from Japan regarding produc ts that exceeded pesticide limits were caused 
by the "uniform standards".  These had severely aff ected China's trade with Japan.  Also, after the 
implementation of Japan's positive list system, a se ries of regulatory measures such as intensified 
inspection, quarantine and supervision, had been undertaken.  China urged Japan to develop science-
based residue limits for the items of concern as s oon as possible, to alleviate unnecessary restrictions 
to international trade. 
155. Ecuador supported China's concern regarding MRLs applied by Japan.  Ecuador's cacao 
exports had faced difficulties of market access, a nd although various meeti ngs had taken place, no 
solution had been found.  Ecuador requested Japan to modify its MRLs in accordance with 
international standards. 
156. Japan stated that the uniform standard was based on the evaluations by the FAO/WHO Joint 
Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and/or on the tolerance exposure amounts that the US 
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) adopted for food additives. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
 Page 31 
 
 
  JORDAN 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY JORDAN Other concerns 279. Import restrictions on pork products due to Influenza A/H1N1 - Maintained by Jordan, 
Armenia, Bahrain, China, Gabon, Indonesia and Suriname (See item 279, page 1)  
 
KOREA CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY KOREA Animal Health 274. Korea's Livestock Epidemic Prevention Act 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2008 (G/SPS/R/53, paras.  6-7), February 2009 (G/SPS/R/54, paras. 
13-14) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Consultations requested on 9 Apr il 2009;  request for establishment of a 
Panel on 9 July 2009;  Panel composed on 13 November 2009 (WT/DS391)
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
157. In October 2008, Canada raised concerns that  Korea's Livestock Epidemic Prevention Act 
violated the tenets of animal health and food saf ety principles as its requirements were not based on 
science.  These amendments were not consistent with WTO obligations and did not take into 
consideration the provisions of the BSE chapter of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code.  Korea 
continued to restrict the import of beef products fro m countries with any previous experience of BSE.  
Canada requested Korea to amend its regula tions to comply with the SPS Agreement. 
158. Korea maintained that the Act was consistent with the SPS Agreement, and that Korea had 
conducted the necessary risk assessments. 
159. In February 2009, Canada again expressed con cerns regarding recent amendments to Korea's 
Livestock Epidemic Prevention Act, including its consistency with the SPS Agreement and with the 
OIE Code.  However, this represente d only one of a series of barriers Canada was facing in its efforts 
to resume trade in beef with Korea.  While  matters had appeared to progress following the 
October 2008 meeting of the SPS Committee, there ha d been no significant progress after an on-site 
visit by Korean officials in November 2008.  Since May 2007, the OIE recognized Canada as a 
controlled-risk country for BSE, which according to the OIE Code allowed for safe trade in all beef 
and cattle under conditions which Cana da could meet.  Canada regrette d that the issue could not be 
resolved at a technical level on a strictly scientif ic basis and was considering all options, including 
recourse to formal WTO dispute settlement procedures .  Canada remained hopeful that this would not 
be necessary, but could not allow the issue to c ontinue unresolved;  five years was long enough. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
Page 32  
 
  160. Korea indicated that the Livestock Epidemic  Prevention Act was consistent with the SPS 
Agreement.  The Act required a risk analysis for beef imports in all cases.  The risk analysis for 
Canada was underway;  Canada's BSE measures we re under review.  More detailed consultations 
were required after the on-site inspection of November 2008, including information on Canada's 
fifteenth BSE case. 
 MEXICO CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY MEXICO 
Animal Health 263. Import restrictions on cooked and frozen meat 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: April 2008 (G/SPS/R/49, paras.  19-20), June 2008 (G/SPS/R/51, paras. 36-
39), February 2009 (G/SPS/R/54, pa ras. 24-26), June 2009 (G/SPS/R/55, 
para. 179) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
161. In April 2008, Brazil noted its concerns about Mexico's restrictions on cooked frozen meat 
from areas free of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).  A ccording to the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health 
Code, heat-treatment of meat guaranteed its safet y.  Therefore, there was no scientific basis for 
Mexico's decision not to permit meat from Brazil.  This decision was also not in line with NAFTA 
practices, since both the United States and Cana da imported this product from Brazil.  Brazil 
requested details from Mexico on the criteria used fo r the evaluation of processing facilities.  This was 
not the first time that there had been undue delays  in Mexico's response to such problems;  these had 
previously occurred in the sending of auditing t eams to Brazil.  Brazil was concerned with the 
unpredictable and protectionist practices of Mexico. 
162. Mexico recalled that a bilateral exchange  had taken place in A ugust 2007, regarding a 
Memorandum of Understanding between sanitary servi ces to cooperate in certain areas and address 
trade concerns.  A monitoring group had met to disc uss bilateral issues, and had agreed on the need 
for a technical subgroup to meet to discuss this issue, however the subgroup had not yet met.  Mexico was now analyzing the detailed information on cooked  frozen meat that it had received from Brazil, 
and would continue to work with  Brazil on all bilateral SPS issues. 
163. In June 2008, Brazil reiterated concerns about Mexico's requi rements on the importation of 
Brazilian cooked and frozen meat.  As recognized in  Article 3.6.2.1. of the OIE Terrestrial Code, 
cooking of meat completely inactivated the FMD virus.  In addition, Mexico's ban on Brazilian 
cooked meat was contrary to the decisions of its  NAFTA partners which imported cooked and frozen 
meat from Brazil.  Mexico had sent a communication indicating the need to approve meat processing 
facilities in order to allow exports.  Brazil had theref ore requested further details about the criteria for 
these evaluations.  The approval procedure should be done on a sample basis.  Furthermore, there had  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
 Page 33 
 
 
  been continuous delays by the Mexican authoriti es in sending an inspection group to conduct on-site 
visits.  Brazil urged Mexico to apply the SPS Agreement provisions and OIE recommendations, and 
to eliminate its import restrictions, as cooked and frozen meat did not pose risks of transmitting the 
FMD virus. 
164. Mexico stressed the positive developments in the consultations held with Brazil since the 
issue was first raised.  The Mexican National Se rvice for Agro-food Health, Safety and Quality 
(SENASICA-SAGARPA) had requested more informa tion about the companies that produced food 
and canned meat foods, including their official rec ognition, information about the national programme 
on toxic residues, and information about compliance with specific official requirements in force in 
Mexico.  Imports could be permitte d only after the fulfilment of those requirements.  Mexico further 
raised concerns about Brazil's refusal to import pathogen-free eggs from Mexico.  This restriction 
started in 2005, after the outbreak of low pathogeni c avian influenza in the country.  Mexico had 
provided information and requested an on-site eval uation, but no response had been provided by the 
Brazilian authorities. 
165. Brazil contested the linkages between the restri ctions on importation of Mexican eggs and the 
recognition of FMD-free zones in Brazil.  Regardi ng Mexico's complaint on the restriction on eggs, 
bilateral technical consultations had been held, and Brazil was waiting to receive the complementary 
information that it had requested of Mexico. 
166. Mexico reported that it was carrying out the necessary analysis on recognition of FMD-free 
areas in Brazil, but the existent Mexican official requirements needed to be complied with.  With respect to exports of eggs, the information request ed by Brazil would be provided as soon as possible. 
167. In February 2009, Brazil recalled that Mexico  was restricting access of cooked and frozen 
meat from FMD-free areas.  Brazil considered that Mexico's restrictions were not based on scientific 
evidence since OIE standards were clear that heat treatment could be used to inactivate the FMD 
virus.  Bilateral meetings at technical and even ministerial level had been held, but with no reaction 
from Mexican authorities.  Brazil and Mexico had signed a memorandum of understanding in 2007 
which established a technical gr oup to discuss SPS matters.  Despite Brazilian proposals to arrange a 
first group meeting, including requests at ministeria l level, the meeting had not taken place.  Brazil 
was disappointed at the lack of response, but hope d for friendly and expeditious consultations on the 
matter.   
168. Mexico indicated that there had been some progress at a meeting on 19 September 2008.  He 
reiterated that Mexico had received informati on on the toxic residue control plan, but on two 
occasions Mexico had asked for add itional information, and this add itional information had not been 
provided.  Once this information was received and had been analyzed, the next step would be the 
analysis of the establishments interested in exporti ng to Mexico.  Brazil requested a bilateral meeting 
on the margins of the SPS Committee meeting to cl arify what information had been sent and what 
might be missing. 
169. In June 2009, Brazil pr ovided information on progress made regarding the export of cooked 
and frozen meat to Mexico.  A bilateral work ing group on technical and agricultural cooperation 
between Brazil and Mexico had met, and it was agreed that Mexico would send an inspection mission between 15-20 October 2009. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
Page 34  
 
  271. Restrictions on imports of swine meat 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2008 (G/SPS/R/51, paras. 25-26), February 2009 (G/SPS/R/54, paras. 
21-23), October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, paras. 35-36) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
170. In June 2008, Brazil raised concerns about Me xico's delay in recognizing Brazil's FMD-free 
areas, and failure to allow importation of Braz ilian pig meat.  The recognition process had been 
delayed by unjustifiable requests for additional inform ation, resulting in a lengthy and costly process.  
Since June 2007, Brazil had requested Mexico to recognize the State of Santa Catarina as an FMD-
free area without vaccination, based on OIE's decision at its 75th General Session.  However, no 
response had been given, even though these concerns were raised by Brazil in bilateral consultations.  
Taking into account the recent decision by the Co mmittee on regionalization, Brazil requested that a 
working plan containing time-lines and a date fo r finalizing the recogniti on process be established. 
171. Mexico confirmed that Brazil had presented in formation to the competent authorities at the 
Mexico National Service for Agro-food Health, Sa fety and Quality (SENASICA-SAGARPA).  Those 
authorities were presently conducting technical analyses and Mexico hoped to provide a positive 
response to Brazil in the near future. 
172. In February 2009, Brazil recalled that the Stat e of Santa Catarina had been recognized as 
FMD free in 2007.  In 2008, Brazil had requested the establishment of a working plan for recognition of this disease-free area, taking into account the Committee's Decision on Article 6 (G/SPS/48).  
Brazil had made important investments to achieve  freedom from FMD without vaccination.  Mexican 
authorities had promised a response, but none had b een received, and no progress had been made.  
Brazil had proposed a new approach:  Brazil had i nvited Mexico to use the good offices mechanism of 
Article 12.2 of the SPS Agreement and paragraph 6 of the Committee' s working procedures, with the 
presence of a specialist from the OIE.  Brazil was waiting for Mexico's response to this proposal and 
looked forward to the friendly and timely resolution of this issue based on OIE standards.  
173. Mexico indicated that for pig meat, the info rmation Brazil had provided to the Mexican 
authorities was being studied.  Mexico had asked for information on Brazil's toxic residue control plan, which had been received in August 2008.  In October 2008, Mexico had requested additional 
information about this toxic residue control plan, and again in February 2009, without receiving a 
response.  Mexico's consideration of this issue w ould be able to continue when the information was 
received.  The suggestion to use the Good Offices mechanism had only recently been received and 
forwarded to the capital.  Brazil suggested that Me xico's request for information was related to a 
different trade concern regarding heat-treated m eat (see STC 263 above).  Br azil's residue plan was 
available on a website.  All information on FMD fr eedom was available to Mexico, and in addition, 
the OIE had studied the information and there had been several bilateral meetings.  There was no 
missing information at this stage, but if necessar y, the information would be provided again. 
174. In October 2009, Brazil stated that Brazil's pork had been facing serious restrictions to the 
Mexican market since 2006.  Mexico's lack of rec ognition had resulted in impor t restrictions for Santa  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
 Page 35 
 
 
  Catarina's pork exports.  Brazil had tried without  success to resolve the issue through bilateral 
discussions, and had proposed the use of the good offi ces of the SPS Committee  chair.  Mexico had 
not responded to this proposal.  In July 2009, Braz il had received a new request from Mexico for very 
extensive information, much of which had already been previously provided.  Brazil hoped that the 
new questionnaire was not a means to delay the opening of the Mexican market, and looked forward 
to Mexico's agreement to use the Chairperson's good offices. 
175. Mexico stated that on 3 July 2009, three qu estionnaires were submitted to the Veterinary 
Services of Brazil regarding the import of beef, poultry and pork;  however Brazil had not provided 
any response to the questionnaires.  On 20 July  2009, Mexico, through SENASICA, sent remarks 
relating to Brazil's toxic residues program but no response had been received.  Mexico was willing to 
continue bilateral discussions on the matter, and en couraged Brazil to provide the requested additional 
information needed to work  further on the issue. 
 
Plant Health 270. Import restrictions on rice 
Raised by: Pakistan 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2008 (G/SPS/R/51, par as. 23-24), October 2008 (G/SPS/R/53, para. 
42), June 2009 (G/SPS/R/55, Para.54) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Agreement reached 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as resolved:  
 
176. In June 2008, Pakistan noted that since 200 5, Mexico banned the importation of Pakistani 
rice.  Both countries had engaged in bilateral cons ultations since 2006, but with marginal progress to 
date.  Pakistan was willing to ap ply mitigation treatments on its rice, if necessary, but no further 
information had been provided by  the Mexican authorities.  Pakist an considered that Mexico was 
failing to respect its obligations under Articles 4 and 5 of the SPS Agreement.  Pakistan urged Mexico 
to eliminate the import restrictions imposed on Pakist ani rice, and stressed that Pakistan was ready to 
respond to any request from Mexico. 
177. Mexico observed that it did not agree with the c oncerns raised by Pakistan related to Articles 
4 and 5.  Mexico was currently conducting a pest ri sk analysis in accordance with IPPC's standards, 
before allowing the importation of rice from Pakistan .  In this pest risk analysis, Mexico was 
assessing all the potential pests, and not only the gorgojo khapra (Trogoderma granarium).  In 
addition, in every meeting of the Mexico-Pakista n Commission, Mexico had informed Pakistan about 
the latest developments of the risk analysis.  A memorandum of understa nding between both countries 
acknowledged the need to complete a risk assessment  before allowing imports of rice from Pakistan.  
The results of the pest risk analysis would be conveyed to Pakistan as soon as it was concluded.  
Mexico reiterated its willingness to bilaterally  work with Pakistan on this matter. 
178. In October 2008, Mexico reported that the concern raised by Pakistan regarding restriction of 
rice imports was resolved, however, Mexico had not yet completed its assessment of plant health risks.  Pakistan thanked the Govern ment of Mexico for the efforts undertaken to carry out the required G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
Page 36  
 
  pest risk assessment.  Pakistan al so requested a time-line from Mexico  for each step of the pest risk 
assessment process on plant health. 
179. In June 2009, Pakistan reported that an agre ement had been reached with Mexico on this 
issue, and all that was now required was that th e final agreed procedures be published.  Mexico 
confirmed that only some regulatory aspects had yet to be concluded with regard to the importation of 
rice from Pakistan. 
 
277. NAPPO draft standard for ships and car goes from areas infest ed with Asian Gypsy 
Moth - Maintained by Mexico, Canada and the United States (See item 277, page 4)   
 
PANAMA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY PANAMA Animal Health 214. Inspection regime for food processing establishments 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev. 1, paras. 25-27), February 2009 
(G/SPS/R/54, para. 37) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/PAN/1, G/SPS/N/PAN/28, G/SPS/N/PAN/37 
Solution: Panama no longer requires inspec tion of individual establishments, but 
allows the US Food Safety and Inspection Service to certify them for 
export. 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 25 February 2009 
 
180. The United States indicated that Panama had broadened its establishment inspection 
requirements to most food processing establishments  in January 2005, without notifying the WTO and 
providing interested Members an opportunity to comme nt.  This was in contradiction with Article 7 
and Annex B of the SPS Agreement.  In addition, Panama had not provided any risk assessment that 
supported these new measures, despite formal requests by  the United States.  Canada recalled that it 
also had experienced problems in the past w ith the establishment-by-establishment accreditation 
approach used by Panama, and urged Panama to c onsider the quicker and less expensive alternative 
approach of systems approval. 
181. Panama pointed out that this regime had been notified to the SPS Committee and Members 
provided an opportunity to comment on it (G/SPS/N/PAN/1, G/SPS/N/PAN/28 and G/SPS/N/PAN/37).  This was the first time, since th e implementation of Panama's inspection regime 
for the inspection of food establishments in 1995, that  an issue in relation with this system had been 
raised at the WTO.  Panama's legislation required that imports of animals and animal products from 
countries affected by exotic illnesses be subject to a risk analysis carried out by Panamanian health  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
 Page 37 
 
 
  authorities because Panama, as a hub for world trade tran sit, was exposed to a greater risk of illness 
from exotic animals and plants. 
182. In February 2009, the United States thanked Pana ma for the resolution of this concern.  The 
United States and Panama had worked together regu larly to address their respective concerns.  As a 
result, Panama no longer requires inspection of i ndividual establishments, but allowed the US Food 
Safety and Inspection Service to certify them for export. 
 
SOUTH AFRICA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SOUTH AFRICA Animal Health 
287. Import restrictions on fresh pork meat and beef 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, paras. 16-17) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
183. In October 2009, Brazil reported that since 2006, Brazil had been exchanging information 
with South African authorities regarding restricti ons on pork and beef products from Brazil.  Three 
round of questions had been asked, and three sanita ry negotiating missions had been sent to South 
Africa.  South Africa had not provided any final results  of its risk analysis on beef and pork.  Brazil 
requested more conclusive information on the risk analysis processes that had been carried out, since 
Brazil fulfilled the requirements established by the OIE. 
184. South Africa confirmed that a number of inte ractions had taken place with regards to the 
import of pork and beef into South Africa, most recen tly in July 2009.  However, there were still some 
issues that required clarification with regards to the import of pork.  The import of matured de-boned 
beef should be approved pending agreement on certificates. 
 
SURINAME 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SURINAME Other concerns 279. Import restrictions on pork products due to Influenza A/H1N1 - Maintained by 
Suriname, Armenia, Bahrain, China, Gabon, Indonesia and Jordan (See item 279, page 1)  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
Page 38  
 
  SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU 
(CHINESE TAIPEI) 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MA INTAINED BY CHINESE TAIPEI 
Food safety 275. Maximum level for ractopamine  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada 
Dates raised: October 2008 (G/SPS/R/53, paras. 8-12), October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, 
paras. 141-147) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:  
 
 185. In October 2008, the United States stated that the US pork industry had suffered for more than 
a year due to the lack of science-based maximu m residue limits (MRL) for ractopamine in Chinese 
Taipei.  Chinese Taipei had previously notifie d the SPS Committee of its science-based decision 
regarding ractopamine but then ha d failed to implement the measure as proposed.  US exports had 
dropped due to the need to source pork from animals not  treated with ractopamine in order to meet the 
zero-tolerance requirements.  The United States urged Chinese Taipei to implement its notified 
measure, which would f acilitate US pork exports. 
186. Canada stated that its authorities had approved th e use of ractopamine as an ingredient in pig 
feed since July 2005 and in cattle feed since Ma y 2007.  Health Canada had concluded that the 
product was safe to use after conducting several tests.   Canada encouraged all Members to accept the 
use of ractopamine as long as residues in ed ible tissues were within the safe levels. 
187. Chinese Taipei stated that the use of ractopa mine was forbidden by many WTO Members.  
The Codex Alimentarius Commission had also been  unable to make a final decision on MRLs for 
ractopamine. 
188. The representative of Codex reported that the MRLs for ractopamine had been extensively 
discussed but no conclusion had yet been reached.  Codex invited Members to submit more information regarding ractopamine for consider ation by the next Codex Commission meeting. 
189. The European Communities reported that it had consulted the European Food Safety 
Authority on the safety of ractopamine includi ng the establishment of MRLs.  The European 
Communities hoped to have the information by ea rly 2009, which could be sent to the FAO/WHO 
Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) for further evaluation. 
190. In October 2009, Brazil noted that extensive di scussions on this matter occurred during the 
last two sessions of the Codex Alimentarius  Commission and at the 18th session of the Codex 
Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods .  Despite the evidence presented by JECFA, an 
MRL had not been adopted by the Codex.  Brazil was concerned about the repeated postponement of 
a decision in spite of the existence of strong scientif ic evidence in favour of the adoption of this MRL.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
 Page 39 
 
 
  Since an MRL was needed in order to facilitate in ternational trade, Brazil hoped that a decision would 
be made at the next meeting of the Codex Commission. 
191. Canada noted that Canadian exporters had al so experienced trade difficulties in several 
markets due to the absence of an MRL for ractopami ne.  In 2005 Health Cana da approved the use of 
ractopamine in swine feed and established an MRL for ractopamine in pork.  Canada supported the 
adoption by Codex of the proposed MRLs for ract opamine and was pleased when, in September 2007, 
the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods recommended the adoption of 
ractopamine MRLs at step 8.  Canada was disappoi nted that this was not adopted at the 2009 Codex 
Commission meeting and expressed hope that it would be adopted at the 2010 meeting. 
192. The United States stated that adoption of intern ational standards for ractopamine should be an 
important priority for all WTO Members.  Years of scientific evidence proved that ractopamine could 
be used safely.  Ractopamine had been approved by over 25 countries and was currently at Step 8 in 
the Codex process.  Some Members, however, impos ed ractopamine bans without sufficient scientific 
evidence to support them.  Codex had not adopted the draft MRLs at the 2009 Commission meeting because of a request from a major trading partner that one further scientific review be done by 
JECFA.  The United States urged that trading partner to provide JECFA with the necessary 
information so that this study could be complete d, and expressed the hope that the Codex Commission 
would move forward with adoption of th e standard once that study was complete. 
193. The European Communities noted that last year  the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA), 
which was responsible for risk asse ssment, gave a standard opinion regarding the harmfulness of this 
substance.  China had also conducted a study on the effect of ractopamine on the tissue of pigs.  The 
Codex Commission decided that JECFA should eval uate the Chinese studies before coming to a 
decision with respect to the MRL for ractopamine. 
194. China noted his authorities' commitment to en suring that the international standard on 
ractopamine was of the highest quality.  China woul d continue to actively participate in the Codex 
standard development process by carrying out ex periments and sharing data with JECFA.  The 
representative of Norway supported the interventi ons of the European Communities and China, 
stressing the need for JECFA to evaluate the last data submitted by China before coming to a final 
conclusion. 
195. Australia agreed with the interv entions of Brazil, Canada and th e United States on this issue.  
Codex had made a risk management decision based  on a risk assessment of the available data, and 
Australia supported the adoption of the draft proposed MRL for ractopamine. 
196. Codex noted that JECFA had conducted an eval uation in accordance with the procedure in 
place for veterinary drugs.  As noted by Austra lia, the risk management decision made by the 
Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs was then  forwarded to the Codex Commission, but at the 
Commission there was no consensus.  Rather, at th e Commission session delegates referred to further 
studies and scientific data on the matter.  It was agr eed that JECFA would review the data that it had 
not previously reviewed.  Two meetings of JECF A were scheduled for 2010 and they would make 
every effort to have the outcome of the review of  this data available for the next session of the 
Commission in July 2010. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
Page 40  
 
  UKRAINE 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY UKRAINE Animal Health 288. Import measures on animals and animal products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Canada, Iceland, Norway, United States 
Dates raised: October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, paras. 18-20) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/UKR/3/Rev.1/Corr.1 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
197. In October 2009, the European Communities rai sed concerns with regards to the imposition 
of an inspection requirement on a ll establishments wanting to continue exporting a wide range of 
animal and animal products to Ukraine.  There was no justification for the sudden introduction of such 
comprehensive inspections.  The European Comm unities questioned the scope, range of products 
covered and how the inspections woul d be carried out.  Assurance was needed that trade would not be 
unjustifiably and unnecessarily disrupted.  The measure would take effect on 14 January 2010, and the 
Ukraine should clarify that if it had not completed inspections by 14 January this would not result in 
the rejection of goods, as had been stated in bilatera l meetings with the Ukraine Veterinary Services.  
The European Communities requested  the postponement of the entr y into force of the measure. 
198. Canada, Iceland, Norway and the United States expressed similar concerns with respect to 
Ukraine's new import conditions on animal products.  They indicated that their respective authorities 
had submitted comments to Ukraine regarding the new measure. 
199. Ukraine stated that the measure was intended to protect health and safety within it's territory.  
Ukraine would take note of the concerns raised and the comments that had been received during the 
comment period for the original notification.  Notification G/SPS/N/UKR/3/Rev.1/Corr.1 had been 
distributed to WTO Members with a deadline for comments of 30 November 2009.  Ukraine authorities had been in contact with the concerne d Members and remained willing to further rectify 
and revise the text of the measure so that it provi ded more legal certainty and comfort for trading 
partners. 
 
UNITED STATES 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MA INTAINED BY THE UNITED STATES 
Food safety 
268. Import restrictions on EC dairy products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: New Zealand  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
 Page 41 
 
 
  Dates raised: June 2008 (G/SPS/R/51, paras. 18-20), February 2009 (G/SPS/R/54, paras. 
27-28) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:  
 
200. In June 2008, the European Communities reporte d that for several years it had undertaken 
efforts to improve the market access for its dairy pr oducts into the United States.  These had included 
requests for recognition of equivalence of its SPS m easures and systems.  The US regulatory regime 
governing the trade of dairy products dated fro m the 1920's and involved different governmental 
levels, such as federal and state levels, as well  as individual representatives.  The European 
Communities had pursued several options, but with no success.  The European Communities 
underlined the importance of the United States cons idering the multiple requests for recognition of 
equivalence. 
201. New Zealand noted that, as a major producer and exporter of dairy products, including fresh 
milk ingredients and its products, it would like to be  kept informed about the developments on this 
issue. 
202. The United States noted that any EC member State, as well as any other Member, were free 
to, and did, export many dairy products to the US market.  Countries could ship "Non-Grade A" 
manufactured products such as cheeses, butter, ic e cream, and other frozen desserts.  It was the 
responsibility of the supplier of f ood products for importation into the United States to ensure that the 
food complied with the applicable US laws and FDA regulations.  In the United States, a segment of 
pasteurized milk products, which were generally refe rred to as "Grade A" products, were subject to a 
specific set of hygiene and safety standards, describ ed in the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance.  Products 
designated as "Grade A" could only be produced by "Grade A" facilities.  These products included 
fluid milk, cultured and acidified milk, cream, sour cream, half-and-half, cottage cheese, yogurt and those dried dairy products that were used as i ngredients in these products.  The US Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) would revisit the EC concerns  and work with the EC Health and Consumer 
Protection Directorate-General on this matter. 
203. In February 2009, the European Communities i ndicated that there had been some progress 
with the US-EC equivalence exer cise on dairy products, but that there were still obstacles, in 
particular in relation to the US definition of Gr ade A dairy products.  The definition was on a case-by-
case basis, but apparently there were discussions about a more precise definition.  The European 
Communities was concerned that if this definition were too tightly drawn, it could exclude certain 
products.  The United States explained that there wa s no pending legislation in Congress affecting the 
definition of Grade A dairy products.  The US Nati onal Conference of Interstate Milk Shippers was 
holding its biennial meeting in April.  Two pr oposals had been submitted for consideration at the 
meeting which sought to define "m ilk products" for purposes of the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance.  
Neither of those proposals would expand the scope of products currently included in the Grade A 
programme.  The US Food and Drug Administratio n (FDA) had sent a letter to DG SANCO and was 
willing to resume discussions about Grade A dairy product equivalence.  FDA anticipated moving 
forward with the bilateral efforts in this area soon. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
Page 42  
 
  282. Measures on food products containing meat, poultry or processed egg products  
Raised by: China 
Supported by: Japan, Korea 
Dates raised: June 2009 (G/SPS/R/55, paras. 32-35) 
Relevant document(s): Raised Orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
204. In June 2009, the representative of China observed that US notification G/SPS/N/USA/1913 
allowed only those countries whose administrative scheme for food safety and inspection services 
regarding food products contai ning small amounts of meat, poultry or processed egg products was 
identified as equivalent to that of the Unite d States to export food products containing these 
ingredients.  This recent measure was based on th e Federal Inspection Law enacted in 1972.  China 
requested the United States to provide the releva nt risk assessment supporting these new measures, or 
to withdraw the measures if there was no scientific justification.  China was of the view that the 
measure was not in accordance with Articl es 2.2 and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement. 
205. Korea shared the concern of China, as Korea ha d previously exported products to the United 
States containing small amounts of meat and poultry without any problem.  Korea requested that the United States comply with international standards in  this regard, as well as w ith Paragraph 2 of Annex 
B of the SPS Agreement, according to which Memb ers should allow a reasonable period of time 
between the adoption of SPS regulations and their entr y into force, in order to allow producers and 
exporters to adapt to the new requirements.  Most products affected by this measure, such as gravy, 
had a very low level of poultry a nd meat content, and many had undergone heat treatment processes. 
206. Japan shared the concerns of China and Kor ea and asked the United States to apply the 
measure with as much flexibility as possible so as to minimize its trade restrictive effects.  
207. The United States explained that the bases of these restrictions were the Federal Meat 
Inspection Act, Poultry Products Inspection Act,  and the Egg Product Inspection Act.  Recent 
inspections by the USDA Food Safety Inspection Se rvice (FSIS) found that some products entering 
the United States contained ingredients that did not  originate from an approved source.  Any product 
found to be in violation of the requirement, as  identified through routine FSIS inspections, was 
rejected.  In order to comply with the require ment, importers seeking a permit after 22 June 2009 
would need to provide an attestation along with the permit application that the meat or poultry 
ingredient was from an approved source.  The USDA would announce require ments for egg products 
in the near future, as there were also public hea lth concerns in this regard.  Members would be 
informed of all relevant measures and modifications , and were encouraged to work with the FSIS. 
 
Animal Health 
257. Import restrictions on cooked poultry products from China 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
 Page 43 
 
 
  Dates raised: October 2007 (G/SPS/R/46, par as. 11-12), April 2008 (G/SPS/R/49, paras. 
39-40), June 2008 (G/SPS/R/51, paras.  29-30), October 2008 (G/SPS/R/53, 
paras. 35-36 ), February 2009 (G/ SPS/R/54, paras. 15-16), October 2009 
(G/SPS/R/56, paras. 37-39) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Consultations requested on 17 April 2009;  request for establishment of a 
panel on 23 June 2009;  Panel composed on 23 September 2009 
(WT/DS392) 
Date reported as 
resolved:  
 
208. In October 2007, China stated that the OIE ha d explicitly pointed out in the Avian Influenza 
Guideline that restrictive measures associated with  avian influenza should not be applied to cooked 
poultry meat that had been subjected to heat treat ment to destroy the viru s.  Nonetheless the United 
States prohibited the importation of such cooked poultry meat processed from poultry originated in 
China.  Although the United States admitted that there was no technical problem for the importation 
of such cooked poultry meat and it was only a matter of legal procedure, the US Congress had passed 
in August the Agriculture Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2008, of which Section 731 prohibited 
the importation of such products from China.  China questioned the scientific justification behind such 
a decision, how this section took into considerati on the SPS principle of minimizing negative effects 
on trade and the principle of risk assessment.  China hoped that the United States would abolish 
Section 731 and lift the ban as soon as possible. 
209. The United States noted that the Agriculture A ppropriations bill had not yet passed Congress, 
and was subject to potentially su bstantial change before it was signed into law by the President. 
210. In April 2008, China indicated  that despite numerous bilate ral meetings, including on the 
recognition of equivalence, China's cooked poultr y products were still denied access to the US 
market.  The United States had admitted that there were no technical problems with the importation of 
cooked poultry from China, yet imports remained re stricted due to legal problems.  The Agriculture 
Appropriations bill, which contained a specific provi sion to not allow imports from China, had been 
signed into law.  This prohibition was contrary to  Articles 2.2 and 2.3 of the SPS Agreement, as the 
law was discriminatory and not science-based.  This  development set a bad precedent, showing that 
SPS measures could be easily overturned by legislation that paid no attention to scientific factors. 
211. The United States explained that the Agricultu re Appropriations bill prohibited the use of 
federal funds by USDA to continue work on this ru le.  China's concerns would be brought to the 
attention of the appropriate authorities in Washington , with the aim to resolve this problem as soon as 
possible. 
212. In June 2008, China reported that its con cerns on the US ban on imported Chinese cooked 
poultry dated back to 2004.  China had been inform ed that all technical issues, including recognition 
of the equivalence of its sanitary system, had been resolved during bilateral consultations.  However, 
the US Agriculture Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Y ear 2008, Section 7333, stipulated that the funds 
made available by that bill could not be used to  establish or implement a rule allowing Chinese 
poultry products to be imported into the United States .  This legislation disregarded the fact that the 
USDA had undertaken a risk assessment which c oncluded that Chinese cooked poultry did not pose 
risks to health.  China consider ed the law to be discriminatory, and not based on science.  China 
requested an update of the situation, and an indication of when Chinese cooked poultry products 
would be allowed into the US market. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
Page 44  
 
  213. The United States indicated that her country pl aced great importance on the fact that its SPS 
measures were based on science.  China's concerns w ould continue to be raised with the appropriate 
authorities within the United States with the hope th at this situation could be resolved as soon as 
possible. 
214. In October 2008, China reiterated its concerns  regarding US import restrictions on cooked 
poultry products from China, even though there we re no technical problems with these products.  
However, the US Agriculture Appropriations Bill banned the use of federa l funds to allow poultry 
products to be imported from China. 
215. The United States affirmed that it would con tinue to raise China's concerns with the 
appropriate authorities in Washington and hoped to resolve the issue as soon as possible. 
216. In February 2009, China reitera ted concerns about the US Agri cultural Appropriations Bill for 
fiscal year 2008, which had seriously affected Chin a's exports of cooked pou ltry products.  Although 
all technical problems had been resolved after nume rous bilateral consultations, the United States still 
maintained an import ban because the Bill's section 733 indicated that no funds made available in the 
Bill be used to establish or implement a rule allo wing poultry products to be imported to the United 
States from China.  China was seriously concerned ab out this discriminatory legislation, which was in 
obvious violation of US international obligations.  China hoped to resolve this problem in a science-based and pragmatic manner and asked the United St ates for an update.  The United States indicated 
that the US authorities placed great importance on ensuring that measures were based on science.  China's concerns would be brought to the attention of the appropriate authorities in Washington with the aim of resolving the issue as soon as possible. 
217. In October 2009, China stated he United Stat es had modified the relevant clauses of the 
Omnibus Appropriations Act 2009, and the newly adopted Agriculture Appropriation Act of 2010 
allowed imports of processed poultry or poultry produc ts from China only if certain criteria were met.  
The criteria included audits of inspection systems and on-site reviews of slaughter and processing facilities, laboratories and other control operations;  a significantly increased level of port of entry re-
inspection;  and the creation of an information-sh aring programme with other countries.  While China 
noted the progress on the issue,  the new measures were discriminato ry as they specified conditions 
applicable only to China. 
218. China further stated that the planned auditing and inspection requirements were excessively 
stringent and the certifying procedure was complic ated.  Additionally, the new provision ignored the 
agreement reached in 2007 between the United St ates and China on relevant technical issues 
concerning the import of poultry and poultry products from China, and the achievements China had 
made on developing disease-free areas in accordance w ith OIE standards.  China requested the United 
States to fulfil its WTO obligations and to take ac tive steps to eliminate discriminatory measures and 
normalize bilateral poultry trade. 
219. The United States stated that it placed great importance on ensuring that its measures were 
based on science and in compliance with the WTO SPS Agreement.  The Agriculture Appropriations 
legislation approved in 2009 permitted USDA to ma ke a determination with respect to China's 
application to export poultry products to the United St ates, provided that the Secretary of Agriculture 
made certain commitments to Congr ess.  Such commitments set fort h what would ordinarily occur 
under the standard procedure that would apply to an  application to export poultry products from any 
country.  USDA would undertake certain transparency and notification obligations with respect to 
Congress, but it would not have any effect on the subs tantive treatment of China's application or of 
any imports from China. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
 Page 45 
 
 
  285. Import restrictions on fresh pork meat and beef 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, paras 11-13) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:  
 
220. In October 2009, Brazil raised concerns regardi ng US import restrictions on fresh pork, beef 
and beef products from Brazil.  Brazil had requested the US authorities to begin a risk assessment on 
beef products in 1999, but despite bilateral exchange s of information for a d ecade, the risk assessment 
had still not been finished.  In January of 2009,  the United States had informed Brazil that it was 
giving full attention to the issue of Brazilian beef, but Brazil was still waiting for the result of the risk 
assessment process. 
221. Regarding pork, in 2006 Brazil had been informed that their national inspection system was 
eligible for consideration under the risk ass essment process due to its well-known safety and 
biosecurity standards.  In 2007, Brazil requested acces s for the State of Santa Catarina, since it was an 
FMD-free zone without vaccination, as recognized by the OIE in 2007.  All technical information was 
forwarded to the US authorities in 2007.  At th e beginning of 2009, Brazil was informed of the 
conclusion of the risk analysis technical process a nd approved the working plan for pork meat.  Since 
then, Brazil had been waiting for the publication of  the proposed rule.  According to the US 
legislation, however, after the publication of the pr oposed rule, effective mark et access could still take 
from 18 months to 2 years.  This unjustifiable administrative delay had motivated Brazil to raise a specific trade concern on the matter in April 2008,  as it was important to have a predictable and 
reliable timetable for the conclusion of the risk analysis process. 
222. The United States stated that the risk evalua tions were completed and USDA was currently 
drafting a proposed rule to recognize Santa Catarina as eligible to ship pork to the United States.  
Regarding beef, the United States was working to co mplete the review of the FMD risk mitigation 
measures.  The United States recognized the importance of the request and would continue to work closely with Brazil to complete the rulemaking processes for fresh pork and beef as expeditiously as 
possible. 
 
Plant Health 
269. Restrictions on apples 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2008 (G/SPS/R/51, paras.  21-22), October 2008 (G/SPS/R/53, paras. 
37-38), February 2009 (G/SPS/R/ 54, paras. 29-30), June 2009 
(G/SPS/R/55, paras. 50-51) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
Page 46  
 
  Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
 223. In June 2008, China noted that it had submitted an application to export apples to the United 
States, accompanied by the necessary technical material s.  Additional materials had been provided in 
accordance with the US requirements on pest risk analysis.  However, the US pest risk analysis had 
been unduly delayed.  China was free of fruit flies in apple planting areas, and it used fruit-bagging techniques to prevent pests and disease infections as the bagged fruits were totally isolated from the 
environment.  China was also free of fire blight and there were no quarantine risks for Chinese apples.  
Furthermore, China had provided all the technical materials requested by the United States, and had 
held bilateral technical consultations with the co mpetent authorities.  However, the US pest risk 
analysis on Chinese apples had still not been completed after ten years.  China urged the United States 
to complete the relevant procedures as soon as possible. 
224. The United States noted that given the significant number of pests of quarantine significance 
that needed to be addressed in Chin a's request, the pest risk assessment  had proven to be challenging.  
The United States had been seeking to finalize the lis t of apple pests in China since 2004.  Dozens of 
pests of potential quarantine significance had been id entified.  A final list of pests needed to be 
developed in order to evaluate the risks associated  with Chinese apples and to identify the appropriate 
mitigations measures.  The United States would contin ue to work on this issue to address the scientific 
matters associated with the risk assessment. 
225. In October 2008, China reported that it had subm itted an application for the export of apples 
to the United States in 1998, with the necessary techni cal materials for a pest risk analysis.  However, 
the process of pest risk analysis had been delayed fo r more than ten years with the claim of repeated 
technical problems.  This had seriously impede d the export of Chinese apples.  Chinese apples had 
similar production areas, disease and pest occurrences , and regulations as pears in China.  The United 
States allowed the importation of pears based on a risk  assessment.  This showed that there should not 
be any quarantine problem for Chinese appl es to be exported to the United States. 
226. The United States reported that since 2004, it had sought to finalize the list of apple pests of 
China.  However, more scientific informati on was needed from the Chinese authorities to know 
whether some pests occurred in areas of Ch ina where apple production was concentrated. 
227. In February 2009, China indicated that althoug h there had been technical discussions on this 
subject, there had been no progress.  China remained concerned about undue delays in the pest risk 
assessment process.  China was free of fire blight and fruit flies in the apple-growing regions.  In 
addition, fruit bagging was used, so there w as no quarantine risk.  Chinese apples had similar 
production areas, diseases, pest occu rrences and regulations as pears in China.  The United States had 
allowed importation of pears based on a risk assessme nt, so there should be no quarantine problem for 
apples.  China indicated that according to Article 5. 7, a risk assessment should be carried out within a 
reasonable period of time and asked the United States to complete its assessment as soon as possible.   
228. The United States indicated a willingness to c ontinue working with China to address the 
scientific issues related to the market access re quest for Chinese apples.  The United States had 
identified an extensive list of quara ntine pests associated with apples from China, which made the risk 
assessment a challenging task.  In addition, the Un ited States was reviewing the information provided 
on the pests of concern to determine whether it pr ovided a clear and complete scientific understanding 
of the pest situation, and was awaiting additional information from China.  For example, China would  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
 Page 47 
 
 
  have to provide scientific evidence to support its cl aims that some pests did not occur in the apple 
producing areas.  The United States would review this  information, once received, along with all other 
submissions, and continue to work with China to a ddress the scientific issues associated with the risk 
assessment. 
229. In June 2009, China stated that it remained c oncerned about undue delays in the pest risk 
assessment process.  A period of 14 years had gone by and there had been no advancements with 
regard to the risk assessment pro cess.  China requested further clarif ications in this regard and hoped 
for the resumption of trade in apples between the United States and China.  
230. The United States stated that the risk assessment process was underway but not yet 
completed, and expressed hope for a qu ick conclusion to the process. 
 
277. NAPPO draft standard for ships and car goes from areas infest ed with Asian Gypsy 
Moth - Maintained by the United States, Canada and Mexico (See item 277, page 4)  
 284. Rule on importation of wooden handicrafts from China 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2009 (G/SPS/R/55, paras.  39-40), October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, paras. 
47-49) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/1921 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
231. In June 2009, China expressed gratitude to the United States for a bilateral meeting regarding 
the new notification that all wooden handicrafts w ould have to be subject to heat treatment and 
fumigation.  China requested that the requirement be limited only to those products for which there 
was an identified risk, and that the measure co mply with Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement. 
232. The United States recalled that between 2002 a nd 2005, during routine inspections at US 
ports of entry, significant pests were found 418 tim es including in artificial Christmas trees, wooden 
home products and wood handicraft items, despite certification by China.  The United States 
continued to allow wood products from China s ubject to a new bark-removal condition.  Upon 
completion of the risk assessment in 2008, the Un ited States shared its findings with China and 
initiated several bilateral technical meetings to e xplain its position to ensure that all interested 
stakeholders were well informed.  The new rule for importation was circulated to all Members on 
27 April 2009, and the comment period closed on 8 June 2009. The United States thanked Members 
for providing comments and assured that these would be  reviewed before a final determination on the 
matter. 
233. In October 2009, China reiterated concerns re garding US regulations on wooden handicrafts 
from China.  The draft regulation broadened the scope  of regulated products to all wooden handicrafts 
from China, which had to be subjected to fumiga tion or heat treatment and accompanied by a plant G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
Page 48  
 
  quarantine certificate.  Risks, however, were only associated with wooden hand icrafts with bark with 
diameter over one centimetre.  The US heat treatment  requirement went far beyond the IPPC standard.  
China requested that the United States base its meas ures on the relevant international standards, in 
particular ISPM 32, and to eliminate the certificate requirement for low risk wooden handicrafts in the 
final measure. 
234. The United States stated that in April 2009, the USDA proposed to allow the importation of 
wooden handicrafts from China under certain conditions .  The proposal would allow trade to resume 
in a broad range of Chinese-origin wooden handicraf ts while continuing to protect the United States 
against the introduction of plant pests, such as wo od boring beetles.  The United States had taken 
measures in response to finding pests on wood handic raft products, including artificial Christmas 
trees, trellis towers, other home and garden wood déco r, and wood handicraft items.  Pests were found 
on 418 different occasions between 200 2 and 2005.  The intercepted pests were closely related to the 
Asian longhorned beetle, which had previously been introduced into the United States in shipments of 
wood packing material from China.  The comment period on the proposed rule had closed on 8 June 2009, and all comments would be considered prior to making determination to issue a final rule. 
235. The IPPC stated that ISPM 15 concerned wood packaging material and that in 2008 the 
Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM) had recogni zed that handicrafts were also an issue.  
The topic "Wood products and handicrafts made from raw wood" had been included on the IPPC 
work programme.  A specialized technical panel woul d draft a specification for this new standard in 
2010. 
 
Other concerns 
289. Measures on catfish 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, paras. 21-22) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
236. In October 2009, China raised concerns about  the US Federal Meat Inspection Act which 
potentially could have a significant impact on the intern ational trade of catfish.  According to the Act, 
regulatory responsibility for catfish was shifted from the FDA to USDA.  USDA was mandated to 
draft a series of rules concerning the production an d inspection requirements for catfish before the 
beginning of 2010;  countries wanting to export or to continue exporting catfish to the United States were required to have their inspection system re cognized by the USDA as equivalent to the US 
system.  China had serious concerns about the possi ble negative impact this change of the regulatory 
system could have on the current  catfish trade.  China 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 consiste nt 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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
 Page 49 
 
 
  237. United States stated that the Food Conservation and Energy Act of 2008, signed into law on 
18 June 2008, amended the Federa l Meat Inspection Act and require d 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 regulations, 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 SPS 
Secretariat,  and to identify any potential concerns  with the proposed regulation as soon as possible. 
 
CERTAIN MEMBERS CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CERTAIN MEMBERS 
Animal Health 
193. General import restrictions due to BSE 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Canada, Switzerland, United States, Uruguay 
Dates raised: June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras.  37-38), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 
85-86), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1,  paras. 75-76), February 2007 
(G/SPS/R/44, para. 29), October 2008 (G/SPS/R/53, paras. 24-28), February 2009 (G/SPS/R/54, paras. 11-12), June 2009 (G/SPS/55, para. 
47), October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, para. 47) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Partial solution notified 
Status: Partially resolved 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
238. In June 2004, the European Communities raised concerns about unjustifie d import restrictions 
on EC exports due to conc erns about BSE.  To sa tisfy consumer demands, the European Communities 
had adopted comprehensive measures to address risk s 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 us ed in the European Co mmunities had successfully 
identified countries in which the disease was still pr esent.  The European Communities called on other 
countries to replace import bans, which exceeded OIE recommendations and yet did not fully address 
potential internal risks, with specific import require ments in accordance with OIE standards.  Many 
products, such as semen, embryos and dairy products could be traded with predefined guarantees.  
Members were urged to take into  consideration OIE recommendations for international trade and to 
stop discriminating among Members with similar BSE conditions. 
239. 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 poten tial pathway for introduction of the disease. 
240. In October 2004, the European Communities informed the Committe e 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 thei r regulations in accordance with OIE standards.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
Page 50  
 
  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. 
241. In June 2005, the European Communities reporte d that the number of countries that had lifted 
their respective bans on EC bovines and bovine pro ducts 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 b ovine derivate products, including deboned skeletal 
muscle and blood products, could be safely traded  regardless of the BSE status of the exporting 
country.  The European Communities invited the remaining WTO Members to replace their import 
bans with specific import requirements in accordance with OIE standards. 
242. In February 2007, the United States expressed concern that US ruminant and non-ruminant 
products continued to face BSE-related restricti ons.  Although there had been some progress and a 
number of Members had removed measures, US pr oducts continued to face overly restrictive 
measures which exceeded the OIE standards.  The United States had undertaken extensive 
surveillance and put in place interlocking safeguards, nonetheless many restrictions remained in place.  
The United States asked Members to review th e evidence now available and to revise their 
requirements accordingly. 
243. In October 2008, the European Communities reca lled the concerns previously raised by 
Canada regarding Korea's restric tion on beef imports.  The European  Communities also had concerns 
regarding restrictions maintained by other WTO Members on beef exported from the European 
Communities even though these beef products were c onsidered safe and in compliance with the BSE 
chapter of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code. 
244. Canada shared the EC concerns and asked Members to base their measures on the BSE 
chapter provisions of 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.  The representative of Canada urged other Me mbers to resume full trade in beef and cattle 
based on the OIE designation. 
245. Uruguay supported the concerns of the European  Communities and Canada.  With regard to 
animal health regulations applied to trade, Urugua y stated that all WTO Members should conform to 
the OIE designation and to the standard s of the three sisters in general. 
246. Switzerland supported the EC concer n on restrictions due to BSE. 
247. The representative of the OIE urged Members to abide by the standards enacted by the OIE. 
248. In February 2009, the European Communities drew  attention to the OIE standard for BSE, 
which did not recommend trade restrictions on de-bon ed beef from animals aged less than 30 months.  
The European Communities met this standard, but its  exports were still facing trade restrictions.  
National restrictions maintained despite the OIE Code  undermined this standard that had been adopted 
after long negotiations, thus damaging the credibility of  the OIE.  The OIE was planning to update the 
Code, because there was compelli ng evidence that the age require ment was not necessary, but the 
European Communities questioned whether this w as worthwhile if Members did not apply the 
standard in any case.  Trade in beef was importa nt, and BSE issues were among the concerns most 
frequently raised in the SPS Committee.  The Eur opean Communities appealed to Members to make 
greater efforts to base their measures on the releva nt OIE standards.  Jordan was now accepting the 
OIE Code, as did the European Communities, and others should follow this example.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.10/Add.1 
 Page 51 
 
 
  249. The OIE explained that the BSE standards had b een democratically adopted by OIE members, 
and were in fact very conservative.  The OIE was considering removing the age requirement, and 
relaxing the restrictions on gelatine.  There was still a wide margin of safety built into the standards, 
and it was worrying that there was a lack of w illingness on the part of Members to apply them. 
250. In June 2009, the European Communities again dr ew attention to restrictions on bovine meat 
and related products still imposed by many Members.  The Europ ean Communities requested that 
unjustified and discriminatory restrictions be remo ved.  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 
went far beyond OIE requirements, and the Europ ean Communities urged Members to establish fair, 
non-discriminatory and transparent rules for the import of bovine products. 
251. In October 2009, the European Communities recalle d that they had repeatedly raised concerns 
about unjustified restrictions by some WTO Me mbers on imports of bovine, ovine and related 
products allegedly in response to transmissible s pongiform encephalopathy.  Any measures should be 
based on the relevant international standards.  While were aligning their processes to OIE 
recommendations, other Members still required unn ecessary 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.  Finally, the European Communities urged Member s to fully take into consideration the latest 
OIE BSE guidelines and to establish fair, non-discriminatory and transparent rules. 
 
__________