WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
6 February 2009 
 (09-0567) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
 
 
 
SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
 
Note by the Secretariat1 
 
Addendum  
  
RESOLVED ISSUES 
 
 
 This part of document G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9 c ontains summary information regarding all 
issues which were raised in the SPS Committee between 1995 and 200 8, and on which a resolution 
was reported prior to 2008.  
                                                     
 
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.9/Add.3 
Page ii  
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
Page
 
ARGENTINA ...................................................................................................................... ...................1  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY ARGENTINA .............................................1  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. ...............1  
4. Measures related to BSE – Maintained by Argentina, Australia, Austria, 
Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapo re, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, 
United States.................................................................................................................. ......1
 
60. Import restrictions on bovine semen and embryos, milk and milk products .......................3  
125. BSE-related measures..........................................................................................................5  
AUSTRALIA...................................................................................................................... ....................6  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY AUSTRALIA ..............................................6  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... ...................6  
45. Import restrictions on cheese ...............................................................................................6  
49. Restrictions on imports of sauces containing benzoic acid .................................................7  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. ...............8  
4. Measures related to BSE – Maintained by Argentina, Australia, Austria, 
Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapo re, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, 
United States [See Item 4, page 1].......................................................................................8
 
8. Ban on salmon imports ........................................................................................................8  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..................9  
86. Access of California table grapes ........................................................................................9  
194. Restrictions on fresh grapes...............................................................................................10  
BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA................................................................................11  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF 
VENEZUELA ......................................................................................................................11  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............11  
122. FMD Restrictions............................................................................................................... 11 
BOLIVIA ........................................................................................................................ ......................12  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY BOLIVIA .................................................12  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............12  
80. Restrictions on poultry meat imports.................................................................................12  
112. FMD trade restrictions.......................................................................................................12   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page iii 
 
 
  BRAZIL ......................................................................................................................... .......................13  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY BRAZIL ...................................................13  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............13  
4. Measures related to BSE – Maintained by Argentina, Australia, Austria, 
Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, 
Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapo re, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, 
United States [See Item 4, page 1].....................................................................................13  
156. Notification G/SPS/N/BRA/74 and 75  on BSE-related measures.....................................13  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................14  
14. Restrictions on imported wheat .........................................................................................14  
126. Import requirements for seed potatoes...............................................................................15  
CANADA ......................................................................................................................... .....................16  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CANADA .................................................16  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............16  
4. Measures related to BSE – Maintained by Argentina, Australia, Austria, 
Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, 
Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapo re, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, 
United States [See Item 4, page 1].....................................................................................16  
87. Measures affecting imports of prod ucts containing Brazilian beef ...................................16  
CHILE.......................................................................................................................... .........................17  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CHILE .....................................................17  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............17  
4. Measures related to BSE – Maintained by Argentina, Australia, Austria, 
Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapo re, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, 
United States [See Item 4, page 1].....................................................................................17
 
104. FMD restrictions............................................................................................................... .17 
113. Pet food import requirements ............................................................................................18  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................19  
16. Restrictions on imports of wheat and fruit.........................................................................19  
CHINA .......................................................................................................................... ........................19  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINA ....................................................19  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................19  
127. Import ban on products of Dutch origin ............................................................................19  
246. Import restrictions on products of animal origin due to dioxin .........................................21  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............22  
157. Quarantine measures for the entry and exit of aquatic products........................................22  
196. Measures on US poultry ....................................................................................................22  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page iv  
 
  Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................23
 
115. Import restrictions for citrus and ot her fruits related to fruit fly........................................23  
COLOMBIA....................................................................................................................... ..................24  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY COLOMBIA .............................................24  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............24  
116. FMD restrictions............................................................................................................... .24 
CUBA ........................................................................................................................... .........................25  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CUBA......................................................25  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............25  
129. Import restrictions on spiced pork and salted meat products.............................................25  
CZECH REPUBLIC................................................................................................................. ...........26  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CZECH REPUBLIC .................................26  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................26  
10. Imports of potatoes ............................................................................................................ 26 
51. Prohibition of poultry meat imports from Thailand...........................................................27  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............28  
4. Measures related to BSE – Maintained by Argentina, Australia, Austria, 
Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapo re, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, 
United States [See Item 4, page 1].....................................................................................28
 
30. Regulation concerning wa rehouses and silos ....................................................................28  
EL SALVADOR.................................................................................................................... ...............28  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY EL SALVADOR .......................................28  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............28  
71. Restrictions on meat and dairy products............................................................................28  
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ..........................................................................................................2 9 
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ...................29  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................29  
11. Restriction on levels of copper and cadmi um in imported squid – Maintained by 
Spain .......................................................................................................................... ........29  
39. Maximum levels for certain contamin ants (aflatoxins) in foodstuffs................................29  
53. Emergency measures on citrus pulp ..................................................................................32  
167. Restrictions on honey imports ...........................................................................................33  
231. Restrictions on Cinnamon..................................................................................................34   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page v 
 
 
  Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............35  
4. Measures related to BSE – Maintained by Argentina, Australia, Austria, 
Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapo re, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, 
United States [See Item 4, page 1].....................................................................................35
 
96. Geographical BSE risk assessment....................................................................................35  
107. Transitional TSE measures................................................................................................37  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................38  
27. Citrus canker.................................................................................................................. ....38  
HONDURAS....................................................................................................................... ..................39  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY HONDURAS ............................................39  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................39  
20. Restrictions on imports of rough rice ................................................................................39  
HUNGARY........................................................................................................................ ...................40  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY HUNGARY ..............................................40  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............40  
90. Restrictions on bovine products.........................................................................................40  
91. Restrictions on  pork products ...........................................................................................40  
ICELAND ........................................................................................................................ .....................41  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY ICELAND ................................................41  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............41  
75. Notification on meat and meat products............................................................................41  
INDONESIA...................................................................................................................... ...................41  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA .............................................41  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............41  
132. Import restrictions on dairy products.................................................................................41  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................42  
82. Restrictions on importation of fresh fruit ..........................................................................42  
ISRAEL......................................................................................................................... ........................43  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY ISRAEL ...................................................43  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............43  
22. Measures affecting imports of bovine meat.......................................................................43  
JAPAN .......................................................................................................................... ........................44  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN .....................................................44  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................44  
12. Testing requirements for different varieties of apples, cherries and nectarines.................44  
100. Import measures on apples due  to fire blight.....................................................................45  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page vi  
 
  172.
 Restrictions on imports of mangoes...................................................................................46  
REPUBLIC OF KOREA.............................................................................................................. .......47  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY REPUBLIC OF KOREA ............................47  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................47  
1. Shelf-life requirements ......................................................................................................47  
35. Import ban on frozen poultry.............................................................................................49  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................49  
202. Septoria controls on horticultural products........................................................................49  
Other concerns................................................................................................................. .............50  
2. Import clearance measures and practices...........................................................................50  
MALAYSIA....................................................................................................................... ...................51  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY MALAYSIA .............................................51  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................51  
66. Notifications related to dioxin ...........................................................................................51  
MEXICO......................................................................................................................... ......................52  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY MEXICO .................................................52  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................52  
36. Import prohibition of milled rice .......................................................................................52  
164. Restrictions on the importation of dry beans.....................................................................54  
NEW ZEALAND .................................................................................................................... .............55  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY NEW ZEALAND ......................................55  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................55  
45. Import restrictions on cheese .............................................................................................55  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................56  
101. Proposed import prohibition of commodity-c ountry combinations of fresh cut 
flowers and foliage ............................................................................................................ 56 
NORWAY......................................................................................................................... ....................56  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY NORWAY ................................................56  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............56  
3. Restrictions on gelatin imports ..........................................................................................56  
PANAMA......................................................................................................................... .....................57  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY PANAMA .................................................57  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............57  
226. Inspection regime for agricultural products.......................................................................57  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................58  
24. Requirements for certification of consumer rice ...............................................................58   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page vii 
 
 
  Other concerns................................................................................................................. .............59  
118. Import licenses for agricultural products...........................................................................59  
PHILIPPINES.................................................................................................................... ..................59  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY PHILIPPINES ..........................................59  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................59  
150. Certification of meat  and dairy products ...........................................................................59  
POLAND......................................................................................................................... ......................60  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY POLAND .................................................60  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................60  
57. Requirements for imports of milk and milk products........................................................60  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............61  
4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Fr ance, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, 
Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States [See Item 4, page 1]........................................................................................................... 61
 
68. Notifications on veterinary measures an d measures on animal products including 
gelatin ........................................................................................................................ ........61  
ROMANIA ........................................................................................................................ ...................62  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY ROMANIA ...............................................62  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............62  
4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Fr ance, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, 
Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States [See Item 4, page 1]........................................................................................................... 62
 
SINGAPORE...................................................................................................................... ..................62  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY SINGAPORE ............................................62  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................62  
66. Notifications related to dioxin ...........................................................................................62  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............63  
4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Fr ance, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, 
Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States 
[See Item 4, page 1]........................................................................................................... 63 
SLOVAK REPUBLIC ................................................................................................................ .........63  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY SLOVAK REPUBLIC ...............................63  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............63  
4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Fr ance, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, 
Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States [See Item 4, page 1]........................................................................................................... 63
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page viii  
 
  Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................63
 
41. Restrictions on imports of apples, pears and quinces ........................................................63  
42. Import restrictions on potatoes ..........................................................................................64  
SLOVENIA....................................................................................................................... ....................65  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY SLOVENIA ..............................................65  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............65  
4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Fr ance, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, 
Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States [See Item 4, page 1]........................................................................................................... 65
 
SWITZERLAND.................................................................................................................... ..............65  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY SWITZERLAND .......................................65  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................65  
54. Notifications regarding import re quirements on meat and eggs........................................65  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................66  
28. Notification on wheat, rye and triticale .............................................................................66  
SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND 
MATSU (CHINESE TAIPEI)......................................................................................................... ....66  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINESE TAIPEI ....................................66  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............66  
180. Heat treatment for meat and bone meal in poultry for pet food.........................................66  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................67  
181. Import restrictions on potatoes ..........................................................................................67  
TURKEY ......................................................................................................................... .....................68  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY TURKEY .................................................68  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............68  
76. Ban on pet food imports ....................................................................................................68  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................69  
92. Restrictions on banana imports..........................................................................................69  
UNITED STATES.................................................................................................................. ..............70  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY UNITED STATES .....................................70  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................70  
188. Delisting of France from countries authorized to export certain meat and meat 
products to the United States .............................................................................................70   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page ix 
 
 
  Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............71  
4. Measures related to BSE – Maintained by Argentina, Australia, Austria, 
Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapo re, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, 
United States [See Item 4, page 1].....................................................................................71
 
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................71  
69. Import restrictions on rhododendrons in growing medium ...............................................71  
73. Imports of citrus fruit........................................................................................................ .72 
182. Implementation of ISPM 15 ..............................................................................................72   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 1 
 
 
  ARGENTINA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ARGENTINA  
Animal Health 4. Measures related to BSE – Maintained by  Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Ge rmany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, 
Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States 
Raised by: Switzerland 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5 and Corr.1, paras. 6-9), October 1996 ( G/SPS/R/6, 
para. 53), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 56), July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, 
paras. 10-19), October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, paras. 15-17), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, para. 9), March 1998 (G /SPS/R/14, para. 14), June 1998 
(G/SPS/R/11, para. 29), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 26-30), 
November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras.  17-18), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, 
para. 8) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/56, G/SPS/N/AUS/57, G/SPS/N/CAN/18, G/SPS/N/CHL/1, 
G/SPS/N/CHL/6, G/SPS/N/CHL/31, G/SPS/N/CZE/14 and Add.1, G/SPS/N/SGP/1, G/SPS/W/68, G/SPS/W/79, G/SPS/GN/5, G/SPS/GEN/71
Solution: Slovak transit ban removed, mu tually satisfactory solution found with 
regard to Slovak importation of Swis s milk and milk products; Chilean 
import measure modified; some other measures withdrawn/revised 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as resolved: 1 March 1999 
 
1. In May 1996, Switzerland presented informati on on its BSE situation,  and noted that a 
number of countries had restricted imports of dairy products, although both the OIE and the WHO 
concluded that dairy products posed no risk in  respect of BSE.  In October 1996, Switzerland 
provided an update of its sanitary prescriptions, culli ng and veterinary measures to be adopted at the 
border.  In March 1997, Switzerland indicated that a lthough it was a country of low incidence of BSE, 
it had been subject to a number of BSE-related trade restrictions, some of which could not be justified 
under WTO rules.  The Chairman agreed to hold info rmal consultations with interested Members on 
21 March 1997. 
2. In July 1997, Switzerland reported that alt hough there had been some positive developments, 
problems remained.  Switzerland addressed some questions to the Members concerned, stressing its interest to find rapid solutions through bilatera l discussions.  Argentina in formed the Committee that 
it had replied to Swiss questions and would pr ovide more information; Switzerland expressed 
satisfaction with this progress.  Brazil noted that  its import prohibition of bovine semen was based on 
the classification of bovine semen as a medium risk  product, and on Brazil's BSE-free status.  At the 
subsequent meeting of the relevant MERCOSUR work ing group in July 1997, Brazil would attempt to 
reclassify bovine semen as low risk. 
3. Canada noted that there had been no changes to its import conditions for the importation of 
live cattle, bovine embryos, bovine semen, bovine m eat or meat products from Switzerland, although 
a draft document on BSE policies was being discussed.  Canada was receiving comments on its draft 
measure, which would be in accordance with the OI E Code.  Canada was concerned with the lack of G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 2  
 
  quantitative or qualitative parameters for the diffe rentiation between countri es with high and low 
incidence of BSE, and re-extended an  invitation for bilateral discussions. 
4. The United States stressed that it did not proh ibit the importation of meat.  BSE-related 
measures were subject to continued review based on scientific evidence, which, for example, had led 
to the opening of trade in bovine semen, altho ugh other matters remained unresolved.  The United 
States remained open to scientific discussion in th e area.  Switzerland noted that the United States 
required certification for dried meat, and hoped that the reviewed US policies would be in line with 
OIE recommendations. 
5. Romania informed the Committee that it had held bilateral discussions with Switzerland.  Its 
policies were in line with OIE recommendations, and would be notified shortly.  Switzerland 
expressed satisfaction with the results of bilateral ta lks.  Poland noted that imports to Poland were 
carried out on the grounds of individual import perm issions, but that no application had been received 
from Switzerland.  Switzerland requested bilateral cl arifications.  Singapore indicated that countries 
exporting beef were required to certify BSE-freedom fo r six years.  It believed this measure to be 
consistent with the SPS Agreement, and planned to notify it shortly. 
6. The Czech Republic was concerned about con tinued occurrence of BSE in Switzerland, 
especially since the Czech Republic was BSE-free.  However, imports of bovine semen, brain and 
embryos from Switzerland were not restricted.  The Czech Republic would prefer to continue 
discussion at the level of veterinary experts.  The European Communities noted that measures were 
taken on a national basis by EC member States, but we re screened for conformity with EC law before 
being notified to WTO.  In the case of BSE, this  had taken more time than expected, and although 
there was no common position within the European Communities, changes to the policy were being 
considered.  The European Communities indicat ed it was going beyond OIE recommendations, and 
indicated that it would be useful to conti nue discussions with the relevant experts. 
7. In October 1997, Switzerland indicated that its BSE-situation was improving, but that 
numerous restrictions continued to affect Swiss e xports of live cattle, genetic material, meat, and in 
certain cases milk products.  Bilate ral consultations were continuing.   Switzerland questioned why the 
Australian quarantine requirements for the importa tion of bovine embryos and semen applied to 
Switzerland only, and whether countries with actu al BSE incidents were subject to similar 
requirements.  Switzerland also wondered why the ob jective of the new requirements was to "develop 
import requirements…based on intern ational standards", whereas the notification indicated that no 
international standard existed.  Australia replied that it had developed generic conditions for 
importation of ruminants and rumi nant genetic material from member States of the European 
Communities, but had established bila teral conditions with other tradi ng partners.  The conditions in 
the notified draft requirements for Switzerland were in accordance with Australia's general import policy relating to BSE promulgated in January 1995, and were equiva lent to BSE requirements for all 
other countries.  International standards existed and Australia did not consider that the notified draft 
measures deviated from such standards. 
8. Switzerland questioned why the Czech import restri ction on imports of cattle over six months 
applied to Switzerland only, and whether countries w ith actual BSE incidents were subject to similar 
requirements.  The Czech Republic replied that an  individual import permit was required for traders 
interested in importing goods subject to veterinary  control, including live animals.  The Czech 
authorities considered the epizootic situation in the country of origin, frequency of newly found cases 
of contagious diseases, efficiency of eradication programmes, etc.  The import approach was always 
the same and included discussion with the veterinary authorities of the country of origin.  The system 
distinguished between countries with sporadic positiv e cases and those with continued occurrence of 
cases, like Switzerland.  Although the measur es in place in Switzerland corresponded to OIE 
recommendations, they had not fully eliminated BSE-related risks, and had not prevented new  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 3 
 
 
  infections.  Unlike other countries, Switzerland sla ughtered and destroyed only BSE-affected animals, 
not all animals kept and fed in the same place.  Such animals could be considered as a source of 
disease.  Trade between the Czech Republic a nd the European Commun ities was based on EC 
measures which represented a higher rate of preven tion than the OIE recommendations.  The Czech 
Republic offered to continue bilate ral discussions with Switzerland. 
9. In March 1998, Switzerland reported that most  BSE-related measures against its exports 
remained in place although they deviated from OI E recommendations.  However, some Members had 
eliminated or revised their measures, especially on genetic products.  With respect to the European 
Communities, Switzerland hoped that recent developments would lead to a more predictable situation.  
In June 1998, Switzerland and the Slovak Republic reported on pr ogress achieved during 
consultations and in September 1998, Switzerland reported that the transit ban had been removed, 
although discussions on market access for dairy products continued. 
10. In September 1998, Switzerland re iterated concerns with import prohibitions on Swiss bovine 
semen, which seemed to contradict WTO provision s regarding non-discrimination, risk assessment, 
notification and consultation.  Switzerland was still awaiting answers to its detailed questions to the 
relevant Members, or re-admission of Swiss expor ts.  The European Communities reported on useful 
bilateral contacts with Switzerland, and indicated that the European Communities was undertaking an 
inventory of all national BSE-rela ted measures in order to notify them.  In addition, the European 
Communities would propose that EC member Stat es harmonize their conditions for import from 
Switzerland.  Chile indicated that, based on OIE recommendations on BSE, it had authorized bovine 
semen imports from France and was processing a re quest from the United Kingdom.  No official 
request to export bovine semen ha d been received from Switzerland. 
11. In November 1998, Switzerland and the Slovak Rep ublic reported that they were close to a 
short-term solution regarding the Slovak import ban on Swiss dairy.  In the longer term, a few 
technical issues remained to be settled.  In Ma rch 1999, Switzerland informed the Committee that a 
mutually satisfactory solution regarding Slovak import ation of Swiss milk and milk products had been 
found.  Chile reported that its measure affecti ng imports of bovine semen had been modified. 
 
60. Import restrictions on bovine semen  and embryos, milk and milk products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: South Africa, Switzerland 
Dates raised: March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, paras.  17-18), July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, paras. 23-
24), November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 26-28), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 44-46), October 2001 (G/SPS/ R/25, paras. 18-19), June 2005 
(G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 51-52), October 2005 (G/SPS/R/39, para. 91), 
February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, para. 91) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ARG/37, G/SPS/N/ARG/38, G/SPS/N/ARG/47, Corr.1 and 
Rev.1, G/SPS/GEN/114, G/SPS/GEN/131, G/SPS/GEN/135 
Solution: Restrictions on bovine semen and embryos lifted 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 February 2006 
 
12. In March 1999, the European Communities noted it had been unable to obtain the text of 
Argentina's measure on bovine semen imports, and was submitting a series of questions.  Argentina G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 4  
 
  indicated that the measure had been notified (G/SPS/N/ARG/37).  It clarified that the request for the 
full text of the measure had not been received from the Commission, but from several EC member States.  Argentina committed to sending the re levant document to the European Commission. 
13. In July 1999, the European Communities ag ain expressed concern re garding Argentina's 
BSE-related restrictions on bovine semen, milk  and milk products.  G/SPS/N/ARG/38 concerned a 
draft measure which classified these products as lo w-risk products.  Subs equently notified import 
requirements (G/SPS/N/ARG/47) established country freedom from BSE or low BSE risk as preconditions for importing frozen bovine semen, although according to the OIE, bovine semen from 
healthy animals could be traded without BSE-re lated restrictions.  The European Communities 
indicated that it had received no answers to the que stions raised in March 1999, and raised several 
new questions. 
14. Argentina replied that it had provided answers to the EC questions both bilaterally and in 
G/SPS/GEN/135.  Argentina had received sever al comments on the measure notified in 
G/SPS/N/ARG/47, and had taken these comments into account.  Argentina was planning to issue a revision of G/SPS/N/ARG/47, and was committed to continue exchanging information with the 
European Communities to resolve all ques tions before the measure was adopted. 
15. In November 2000, the European Communities stated that Argentina was applying import 
restrictions on bovine semen that went well be yond international recommendations and were not 
justified.  The European Communities would continue  to pursue this issue bilaterally, and was hopeful 
of a resolution.  Argentina replied that it had no tified, in advance, its regulation as G/SPS/N/ARG/47, 
which was subsequently revised following comme nts by the European Communities and others 
(G/SPS/N/ARG/47/Rev.1).  This regulation establishe d criteria not only in relation to BSE concerns 
but also to two other diseases.  Argentina had resolv ed the problems identified bilaterally by many EC 
member States, in particular Germany and France.  Furthermore, an Argentine veterinary mission 
would be visiting various EC member States early in December and was prepared to also address this issue at that time. 
16. In July 2001, the European Communities referre d to the information on BSE circulated by 
OIE and WHO, concluding that there was no evid ence of BSE transmission via milk collected from 
healthy animals (G/SPS/GEN/221, 222, and 230).  However, Argentina was still imposing import 
restrictions on EC dairy products, in par ticular from the United Kingdom.  The European 
Communities had replied to Argentina's extensive qu estionnaire, but Argentina had failed to provide a 
risk assessment to justify its measures.  The Eur opean Communities urged Argentina either to provide 
a scientific justification, or to lift the trade rest rictions.  Otherwise the European Communities would 
have to consider an eventual recourse to Article 12.2 consultation procedures.  Argentina replied that 
in January 2001, its animal health service had ad opted a resolution which imposed restrictions on 
dairy products.  A new, less restrictive sanitary certificate would be notified soon.  Regarding human 
health, dairy products had been reclassified from medium to low risk, and the relevant decree 
eliminated the restrictions.  This reclassification was not yet complete, and one category of milk 
remained under restriction.  The United Kingdom was considered a high-risk country, but the situation was under analysis. 
17. In October 2001, the European Communities i ndicated that despite statements from the 
Argentine authorities that dairy products would be reclassified, Argen tina continued to place 
restrictions on baby food and on Baileys from Ireland;   Belgian chocolate;  bovine semen and dairy 
products from the Netherlands;  milk powder and cheese from Germany;  Swed ish cacao oil butter; 
and dairy products from the United Kingdom and Fr ance.  Furthermore, the European Communities 
disagreed with the classification of dairy products as low-risk, as opposed to no-risk, and criticized the 
lack of transparency of the Argentine measure.  The European Communities was considering eventual 
recourse to Article 12.2 consultation procedures.  Argentina explained that it did not maintain any  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 5 
 
 
  restriction on EC dairy products;  they just had to be certified as coming from establishments where 
no case, or suspected case, of BSE had been record ed.  A counter proposal from EC member States 
that milk come from establishments where there had been no case of BSE was currently being studied 
to determine equivalence.  Regarding transparency , all standards could be consulted on the web page 
of the Official Bulletin.  As Argentina continued e fforts to resolve this ques tion, it did not consider 
recourse to Article 12.2 consultations necessary. 
18. In June 2005, the European Communities recalle d that exports of bovine semen from some 
EC member States to Argentina we re still suffering restrictions.  According to OIE rules, bovine 
semen should not be subjected to restrictions rega rdless of the BSE status of the exporting country.  
The European Communities invited Argentinean authorities to replace their national bans by specific 
import requirements compliant with OIE standards a nd to finalize negotiations with the concerned EC 
member States in order to resume trade of bovin e semen and embryos.  Argentina replied that it was 
in the process of adjusting its legislation to the new OIE directive adopted in May 2005.  Argentina 
was currently working bilaterally with several EC  member States to reso lve the issue of export 
certificates. 
19. In February 2006, the European Communities re ported that Argentina's import restrictions on 
bovine semen and embryos due to BSE had recently been lifted and that some EC member States had already benefited from this change. 
 
125. BSE-related measures 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, pa ras. 60-63), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
paras. 46-49), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 78-80) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ARG/65 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as resolved: 1 September 2004 
 
20. Canada indicated that Argentina appeared to  have copied the EC geographical BSE risk 
categorization scheme (GBR), and had not followed an  international standard or conducted a risk 
assessment.  Canada had been given a Level 2 ra ting, although it had no BS E.  Argentina had not 
requested any data from Canada.  Furthermore, Ca nada questioned why the scheme had been notified 
as an emergency measure, and why Argentina had fo llowed the EC measures instead of carrying out 
its own analysis.  The United States shared Canada 's concern and encouraged Argentina to consider 
the BSE risk assessment and data from the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. 
21. Argentina explained that its measures were base d on the available information.  If a Member 
felt the categorization was unjust, it should present the necessary technical information, in which case 
the review would be given priority.  Argentina be lieved its system was in compliance with the OIE 
Code.  Argentina had to take urgent action to update its BSE measures a nd any delay would have 
posed unacceptable risks to Argentina's own BSE status. 
22. In November 2002, Canada reported that it ha d provided a large body of information to 
Argentina but had not yet had a response.  Canada  did not have BSE and did not understand how it G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 6  
 
  could have been given such a rating without any ri sk assessment having been conducted by Argentina.  
The United States, which was also free of BSE, shared Canada's concern.  The United States 
encouraged Argentina, as well as other countries, to make use of the information resulting from the 
BSE risk assessment undertaken by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. 
23. Argentina reported that it had reviewed the me asure and amended the provisions in Annex II 
which contained the country ranking based on a risk assessment.  These amendments would be 
undertaken soon.  Argentina was completing its anal ysis of the additional information submitted by 
Canada, and a reply would s oon be provided bilaterally. 
24. In April 2003, Canada reported that the aut horities in Argentina and Uruguay had agreed to 
undertake their own BSE risk assessments.  The Un ited States noted that Argentina's resolution 
allowed for the re-categorization of the BSE status  of the United States.  However, a significant 
amount of scientific evidence had been provided to  Argentina which exceeded the OIE criteria for 
recognition as a BSE-free country.  Any restrictions  were unjustified and Argentina was requested to 
lift its restrictions on the importation of sweet bread s.  Argentina reported that substantive progress 
had been made on this issue and was confident that further bilateral consultations would result in its 
resolution. 
25. In September 2004, Canada informed the Secret ariat that the issue had been resolved with 
Argentina. 
 
AUSTRALIA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY AUSTRALIA  
Food safety 
45. Import restrictions on cheese 
Raised by: Switzerland, European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11 and Co rr.1, paras. 41-42b), November 1998 
(G/SPS/R/13, paras. 21-23), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, paras. 9-13), November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, para. 32) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/80, G/SPS/N/AUS/107, G/SPS/N/NZL/48 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as resolved: 1 November 2000 
 
26. In June 1998, Switzerland reported that, without  advance notice, New Zealand and Australia 
had stopped imports of hard cheeses made from unpasteu rized milk, on the grounds that they did not 
meet the sanitary requirements.  Australia and New Zealand responded that the relevant import 
measure required inactivation of pathogenic organism s.  This measure had been put in place before 
1 January 1995 and therefore not been notified, but compliance had recently been reinforced.  
ANZFA was evaluating the applications received from Switzerland and the European Communities.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 7 
 
 
  27. In November 1998, the European Communities requested Australia to identify the 
international standard on which its  import ban on Roquefort cheese was based, or to provide scientific 
justification and a risk assessment.  Australia r esponded that its food standards required all cheese to 
be made from pasteurized milk, or milk that had u ndergone an equivalent process.  Australia's risk 
assessment on Roquefort cheese had identified poten tial problems with pathogenic micro-organisms, 
in particular entero-hemorrhagic E-coli.  Furt her data from the Roquefort manufacturers had been 
received and were being evaluated.  In additio n to food safety assessments, Roquefort cheese was 
being evaluated for risks to animal health.  Draf t revised import conditions would be notified soon, 
and comments solicited.  A final decision was likel y in the first quarter of 1999 on both food safety 
and animal health aspects. 
28. In March 1999, Switzerland asked about the progress of ANZFA's procedures. Australia 
responded that ANZFA had conducted a risk assessme nt.  The documentation would be published on 
17 March 1999 for public comment, after which a final recommendation would be made.  Swiss 
officials in Canberra would be br iefed on 16 March 1999.  Regarding EC concerns, Australia reported 
that according to a risk assessment initiated by th e Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA), 
French Roquefort did not comply with Australian requirements.  French officials in Canberra would 
be briefed on the issue.  In November 2000, Swit zerland reported that a mutually satisfactory solution 
had been found. 
 
49. Restrictions on imports of sauces containing benzoic acid 
Raised by: Philippines 
Supported by: Malaysia 
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 83-85), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, 
paras. 24-25), July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15,  para. 68), June 2000 (G/SPS/R/19, 
para. 21), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 36) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/106;  see also G/SPS/13, G/SPS/GEN/137 and 
G/SPS/W/107/Rev.1 
Solution: Australian tolerance level modified in June 2000 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 October 2001 
 
29. In September 1998, the Philippines voiced con cerns that Australia's import prohibition on 
Philippine sauces containing benzoic acid were disc riminatory, since sauces from New Zealand were 
allowed entry even if they contained benzoic aci d.  Australia indicated willingness to pursue this 
matter with the Philippines.  Both Members noted th e absence of an international standard for benzoic 
acid in sauces.  In November 1998, the Philippines re ported that bilateral cons ultations had not been 
successful.  Australia explained that the different  rules applying to sauces from New Zealand were 
transitional, and stemmed from a treaty establishing a common food standards system for both 
countries.  Australia expected that the final sta ndard for food additives would be implemented in the 
first half of 1999. 
30. In July 1999, the Philippines again reported on bilateral consultati ons.  Completion of 
Australia's new food code was foreseen for late 1999.  Australia confirmed that benzoic acid would be 
allowed as an additive under the new food standards code. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 8  
 
  31. In June 2000, the Philippines requested an update  of the situation from Australia.  Australia 
reported that the relevant part of the Australian Food Standards Code had been revised.  The present 
restriction on benzoic acid would be removed and replaced on 22 June  2000 with a tolerance level of 
1000 milligrams per kilogram for benzoates in sauces, a pplicable to all products sold in the Australian 
market, whether domestic or imported. 
32. In October 2001, the Philippines confirmed that Au stralia had modified the tolerance level for 
benzoic acid in sauces, and that detention of Phili ppine sauces in Australia due to benzoic acid had 
not been noted in Hold Order Lists since June 2000. 
 
Animal Health 
4. Measures related to BSE – Maintained by  Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Ge rmany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, 
Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States [See Item 4, page 1]  
 
8. Ban on salmon imports 
Raised by: Canada, United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, paras. 13-15), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, 
para. 58) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/3 
Solution: Dispute settlement (W/DS18 and W/ DS26, respectively).  Mutually agreed 
resolution between Canada and Australia reported in May 2000 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 March 1997 
 
33. In October 1996, the United States reported th at Australia maintained a ban on North 
American fresh, chilled or frozen salmon on the gr ounds that imports might transmit diseases and 
pathogens to Australian fishery stocks.  In 1994, Australia published a draft risk assessment which 
indicated there was little risk from imported North American salmon.  However, Australia did not 
adjust its measure to reflect th e results of that risk assessment , but instead undertook another risk 
assessment, completed in May 1996, which again faile d to find a scientific basis for maintaining the 
ban.  The United States expected that when the fi nal report was published, the ban would be lifted, 
especially since the salmon in question complied with OIE standards. 
34. Australia indicated that the 1995 draft risk ass essment had been revised in response to the 
large number of comments received.  Comments, in cluding from the United Stated and Canada, had 
again been received on the 1996 draft risk assessment, which would be finalized by the end of 1996.  
Australia noted that the OIE standard  did not meet its appropriate leve l of protection.  In March 1997, 
Canada and the United States again noted their concer n that Australia had decided to maintain its ban 
on salmon imports.  Canada had formally requested  the establishment of a panel in the Dispute 
Settlement Body. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 9 
 
 
  Plant Health 
86. Access of California table grapes 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Philippines, European Communities 
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  92-94), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 65-
67), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, pa ra. 26), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, 
para. 39) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Mutually agreed solution on a series of risk management procedures 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 March 2002 
 
35. In March 2001, the United States indicated th at for the past 10 years there had been 
difficulties in exporting California table grapes to Au stralia.  Even under Australia's new IRA process, 
delays and requests for additional information a nd documentation had continued, although nearly a 
year had elapsed since the release of the impor t risk assessment (IRA).  Australia had conducted 
additional studies, the latest focusing on the glassy -winged sharpshooter and Pierce's Disease.  The 
United States maintained that these additional studi es were not justified, and urged Australia to 
modify its import restrictions consistent with the IRA and its obligations under Article 5.1.  Australia 
explained that the administrative process was not complete until the Director of Plant and Animal Quarantine made a final decision.  Australia was fr ee of Pierce's Disease and believed that there was a 
need for further scientific research.  A mission of scientists to the United States in 2000 had raised 
questions about changes in the risk profile which re quired more information.  Australia was willing to 
cooperate with the United States to learn more about  this disease and its vector.  The Philippines, on 
behalf of ASEAN, shared the US concern regard ing Australia's phytosanitary regulatory process. 
36. In July 2001, the United States expressed disappoi ntment at Australia's apparent abandonment 
of its commitment to a transparent, science-based risk assessment system.  The IRA process did not 
seem to have an end.  Australia had initiated ne w studies whose chief purpose seemed to be to delay 
lifting the import prohibition on Calif ornia table grapes.  Australia ha d pointed to the relatively recent 
introduction of a leaf-hopping insect, the glassy-winge d sharpshooter, although its own IRA had noted 
that the risks associated with this pest would be ne gligible.  Australia had decided more research on 
risk mitigation for glassy-winged sharpshooters woul d be necessary.  Table grapes in California were 
subject to numerous mitigations, and the United Stat es was willing to address legitimate scientific 
concerns.  However, additional research on a pest not found in shipments of table grapes was 
completely without scientific merit and was a delaying  tactic.  Australia indicated that the change in 
risk profile associated with the spread of Pierce 's disease, and of its vector, the glassy-winged 
sharpshooter, in California required additional sci entific information to ensure protection from 
quarantine risk. 
37. In October 2001, the United States informed the Committee that constructive consultations 
had been held to discuss quarantine procedures.  Both  countries had agreed to continue the dialogue to 
work toward a resolution of the outstanding issu es.  Australia was confident that a mutually 
acceptable solution could be found soon. 
38. In March 2002, the United States reported that  following consultations, Australia and the 
United States had agreed on a series of risk ma nagement procedures to allow for the export of G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 10  
 
  California table grapes to Australia.  The risk management practices would be re-evaluated after one 
year. 
 
194. Restrictions on fresh grapes 
Raised by: Chile 
Supported by: New Zealand, European Communities 
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, pa ra. 216), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, 
paras. 34-36), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/ Rev.1, paras. 62-64), March 2006 
(G/SPS/R/40, para. 51) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/148/Add.1, G/SPS/N/AUS/153/Add.1, 
G/SPS/N/AUS/148/Add.2, G/SPS/N/AUS/148/Add.3 
Solution: Imports from Chile pe rmitted under certain conditions 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 March 2006 
 
39. In October 2004, Chile stated that in 1998 Aust ralia was requested to indicate its market 
access requirements for table grapes.  Following initial meetings between the regulatory agencies, 
Chile understood that the import risk analysis w ould last approximately 12 months.  A number of 
technical meetings had since taken place, however , a solution had not been reached despite the 
provision of all required technical information.  The undue delays and changes in the procedures 
undertaken by Australia were a concern to Chile.  Australia noted the concerns expressed by Chile 
and indicated its commitment to work with Chile to  finalize the import risk analysis as quickly as 
possible. 
40. In March 2005, Chile recalled its concerns regarding the undue delays experienced by 
Chilean exporters of fresh grapes to Australia wh ich were contrary to the provisions of the SPS 
Agreement, notably Article 5.4 and Annex C.  In  2004, the IRA for Chilean fresh grapes had been 
revised.  In February 2005, the draft text of the new IRA for Chilean fresh grapes had been published 
and subjected to a 45-day consultation period.  Ch ile underlined its serious concerns that this IRA 
would not be finalized in time for the October e xport period for Chilean fresh grapes.  The European 
Communities recalled that the European Communities was facing similar problems for various food products.  He urged Australia to ensure that its  sanitary and phytosanitary measures were taken 
exclusively for sanitary and phytosanitary reasons and without undue delays. 
41. Australia clarified that Biosecurity Australia had become a prescribed agency in December 
2004 and shortly after had reviewed and reissued seve ral of the draft IRAs.  Two of these IRAs had 
recently been released for public comments(G/SPS/N/AUS/148/Add.1 and 
G/SPS/N/AUS/153/Add.1), while the revised draft IR A on importation of fresh grapes from Chile was 
currently available for public comment s on Biosecurity Australia's website. 
42. In June 2005, Chile noted that on 24 June, afte r a process of consultations and comments, the 
report had been forwarded to the Eminent Scientists  Group.  Chile hoped that the final authorization 
would be granted before the next gr ape shipping season in mid-October. 
43. The European Communities raised concerns re garding the transparency of the Australian 
quarantine regime for fruits and vege tables, and noted that long delays before the issuance of a risk 
assessment had prevented EC exporters from accessing the Australian market for years.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 11 
 
 
  44. Australia assured Chile that it was committed to  deliver a science-based risk assessment as 
soon as possible.  The final IRA for table grapes from Chile was notified to the SPS Committee in 
September 2005 (G/SPS/N/AUS/ 148/Add.2).  In D ecember 2005, Australia notified to the SPS 
Committee that imports of Chilean fresh table grap es were now authorized under certain conditions 
(G/SPS/N/AUS/ 148/Add.3). 
45. In March 2006, Chile reported that after discussions  with Australian authorities, a joint work 
plan had been agreed to resolve the issue. 
 
BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA  
Animal Health 
122. FMD Restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 20), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 46-47)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 March 2004 
 
46. Argentina requested the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to accept imports of animal-based 
products that had followed the risk mitigation proce dures identified in the OIE Animal Health Code.  
The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuel a stated that Argentina had not been listed as an FMD-free zone 
in an OIE Bulletin dated 17 March 2002, and that the Pan-American Health Office had reported on a 
new FMD outbreak in Argentina in a 6 March 2002 report. 
47. In June 2002, Argentina noted that despite bilateral contacts, the Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela had not provided any further informat ion nor its risk assessment to Argentina.  The 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela indicated that it recognized the region of Argentina south of the 
42nd parallel as free from FMD without vaccination, a nd was prepared to import meat from this 
region.  With respect to the other regions of Argentina, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 
followed the OIE recommendations, however it was w illing to consult with Argentina on the matter. 
48. In March 2004, the Argentina reported that  the issue of the Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela's FMD restrictions had been resolved. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 12  
 
  BOLIVIA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BOLIVIA  
Animal Health 80. Restrictions on poultry meat imports 
Raised by: Chile 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/ 20, para. 94), March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, 
paras. 33-35), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 132) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Agreement on a protocol and progress reported in July 2001 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 July 2001 
 
49. In November 2000, Chile reported that in Augus t 2000 it had consulted with the authorities of 
Bolivia, in the context of Article 5.8 of the SPS Agreement, regarding requ irements on poultry meat 
imports with respect to Inclusion body hepatitis.  This disease was endemic to Bolivia and restrictions 
on imports from Chile were not justified.  Chile hope d that this issue would soon be resolved.  The 
representative of Bolivia indicated that he woul d transmit this information to his authorities. 
50. In March 2001, Chile noted that Bolivia had fa iled to notify the measure, and requested that a 
scientific risk assessment be carried out as quickly as possible.  Bilateral discussions on the issue had 
ceased since August 2000.  Bolivia explained that import conditions for poultry and other agricultural 
products had been changed because of problems whic h Inclusion body hepatitis caused in the bird 
population and the associated negative economic impact.  During the last five years, Bolivia's state 
veterinary laboratories had determined the clinical  absence of Inclusion body hepatitis in Bolivia, but 
the disease had been diagnosed in Ch ile.  Regarding preventive vaccina tion, Bolivia stated that this 
was justifiable only if the virus was present on a fa rm.  Secondly, total protection against the disease 
was only possible if the serotype present in the vaccination was the same as that present in farm 
strains.  Thirdly, successful protection depended on other immuno-suppressant factors, and in Chile 
there was a risk of Avian infectious anaemia.  Bolivia's National Food and Agricultural Health 
Service was revising the standard, and would inform Ch ile of the results.  Bolivia wished to solve the 
matter expediently and to the benefit of both parties. 
51. In July 2001, Chile informed the Committee th at the sanitary authorities of both countries had 
agreed to work on a protocol, and thanked Bolivia for the progress made. 
 
112. FMD trade restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 30) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 13 
 
 
  Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 March 2004 
 
52. In March 2002, Argentina reported that it was e ngaged in bilateral cons ultations with Bolivia 
on this matter. 
53. In March 2004, Argentina indicated that the i ssue of Bolivia's FMD trade restrictions had 
been resolved. 
 BRAZIL C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BRAZIL  
Animal Health 4. Measures related to BSE – Maintained by  Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Ge rmany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, 
Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States [See Item 4, page 1] 
 
156. Notification G/SPS/N/BRA/74 a nd 75 on BSE-related measures 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, par as. 91-93), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, para. 163)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/BRA/74 and G/SPS/N/BRA/75 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 September 2004 
 
54. Canada expressed concern over the way Brazil applied the EC geographical BSE risk (GBR) 
system as the basis for classifying countries according to their BSE risk .  Canada requested that Brazil 
conduct its own BSE risk analysis and classification of Canada and stated that it had sent a copy of its 
BSE risk assessment to the Brazilian authorities for their consideration. 
55. The United States also questioned Brazil's use of the EC risk assessment classifications and 
noted that the European Communities had stated that  its risk assessment classification system was not 
meant to serve as an international standard.  Chap ter 2.3.13 of the OIE International Health Code 
established the criteria for the determination of BSE risk of a country or region.  The United States 
met the OIE criteria for a country free of BSE and ha d completed a risk assessment on all the factors 
for BSE occurrence.  Active surveillance for BSE continued at levels far exceeding those of the 
international standard and a strong BSE awareness programme had been devel oped for veterinarians, 
farmers and others working with ruminants.  The OIE Code recognized that certain tissues could be 
traded if they originated in countries, such as th e United States, which was free of BSE.  The United G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 14  
 
  States believed that any measures against its exports of cattle, beef or any other products because of 
BSE were unjustified and not cons istent with WTO obligations. 
56. Brazil noted that human health concerns were at the root of the measures which referred to 
both the OIE international standards and the EC class ification system.  Thus far, Brazil had not been 
able to conduct a risk assessment for all countries  and the provision of Canada's risk assessment 
would assist the Brazilian authorities in this regard.  Brazil would take into consideration decisions 
reached at the OIE International Committee mee ting in May 2003 when reviewing its measures. 
57. In June 2003, Brazil reported that it had notified six regulations relating to BSE. 
58. In September 2004, Canada informed the Secret ariat that the issue had been resolved with 
Brazil. 
 
Plant Health 
14. Restrictions on imported wheat 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras.  16-17), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Import of certain classes of wheat allowed as of early 2001 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 July 2001 
 
59. In March 1997, the United States raised concer n regarding Brazilian restrictions on wheat 
imports intended to prevent the establishment of the fungus tilletia controversa  (TCK bunt or Dwarf 
bunt).  However, a 1996 bilate ral agreement was based on the understanding that the fungus in 
question could not be established in Brazil, and the United States was not aware of scientific evidence 
that might alter this conclusion.  Brazil responde d that it had implemented new legislation on risk 
assessment and risk management for several produc ts as a result of harmonization efforts in the 
MERCOSUR context.  Thus, a certificate of origin  was required for wheat, to establish that the 
product originated in a pest-free zone.  Scientific consultations between Braz ilian and US experts had 
yet to produce a final report on the risk posed by tilletia controversa  and tilletia indica  (Karnal bunt).  
The 1996 bilateral agreement did not preclude Braz il from applying its internal legislation. 
60. In July 2001, the United States reported that  following extensive technical consultations, 
Brazil had issued new import instructions in early  2001 that allow import of certain classes of US 
wheat (G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United States c onsidered this trade concern resolved. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 15 
 
 
  126. Import requirements for seed potatoes 
Raised by: Canada, European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, pa ras. 24-26), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
paras. 63-68), October 2003 (G/SPS /R/31, paras. 21-22), June 2004 
(G/SPS/R/34, paras. 55-56) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Change in Brazil's regulation 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 June 2004 
 
61. The European Communities reported that on 13  November 2001, the Brazilian authorities had 
given notice of new measures on imports of seed potatoes but had provided no delay for their implementation, no technical justif ication and had not respected the n eed for transparency.  As one of 
the main suppliers to Brazil, the European Comm unities had commented on the measures, but Brazil's 
initial response had not addressed the EC's concerns and,  in particular, had not identified the pest risk 
assessment justifying its measure.  The requested  information had been provided during bilateral 
consultations held before the SPS Committee me eting, and the European Communities looked 
forward to continuing the bilateral process with Brazil.  Canada expressed concern with Brazil's 
required export certification for non quarantine regulat ed pests, in contradiction to internationally 
agreed principles and practices.  Canada was also involved in bilateral discussion with the Brazilian 
authorities and had requested Brazil to withdraw  its measure.  Brazil indicated that it hoped 
subsequent technical consultations would resolve the issue. 
62. In November 2002, Canada expressed concerns  regarding Brazil's required certification for 
pests that were not of economic significance nor a si gnificant risk to plant health.  Canada considered 
this to be an issue of quality that was more appr opriately resolved between the buyer and the seller, 
and not by government certification schemes.  Although Canadian technical officials were working 
with Brazil to complete a risk assessment, this i ssue was not being resolved as quickly as warranted.  
The European Communities requested Brazil to modi fy its measures on the basis of the technical 
arguments and proposals that had been made b ilaterally and requested Brazil to postpone the 
implementation of these measures.  The United Stat es shared the concerns expressed by both Canada 
and the European Communities concerning the disr uption of trade in seed potatoes and requested 
Brazil to revise their policy as soon as possible. 
63. Brazil noted that consultations on the issue of seed potatoes had been carried out for some 
time.  Brazilian experts were considering a new proposal from the European Communities and hoped 
to provide a reply as soon as possible.  The Br azilian Directive aimed at enhancing market 
opportunities in relation to previous regulations by  creating two new categories of imports for seed 
potatoes.  Brazil was interested in diversifying th eir source of suppliers of seed potatoes given the 
strategic importance of the sector for Brazil.  National producers were subject to the same 
considerations applicable to foreign providers, a nd his country's motivation c ould not be construed as 
restricting market access for seed potatoes.  Braz il invited the European Communities to send a team 
of experts to become familiar with their system, and witness the fact that national producers were 
subject to the same considerations as the foreign suppliers.  With respect to the comments made by 
Canada, Brazil recalled that the matter had b een extensively discussed by authorities from both 
countries.  The Brazilian legislation required that  exporters of seed potatoes to Brazil have a 
certification system in place; apparently this w as not the case for Canada.  Brazil added that the 
concerns voiced by the United States would be transmitted to the competent authorities. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 16  
 
  64. Canada clarified that Canada had a certification system for seed potatoes but that the 
certification system did not go into minor details on issues of quality.  In response to Brazil's invitation, the European Communities suggested that  Brazil should send a team of experts to inspect 
the production and food safety conditions within the European Communities. 
65. In October 2003, the European Communities reported that following discussions with Brazil 
in October 2002, the European Communities had pr esented a proposal for a possible solution which 
Brazil had agreed to study.  Brazil explained that it was in the process of discussing new regulations and hoped that the issue would be resolved shortly. 
66. In June 2004, Canada reported that the issue of  Brazil's import requirements for seed potatoes 
had been resolved, and Brazil had made a number of adjustments to its regulation of non-quarantine 
pests.  Canada reminded Members of the importance of notifying their SPS measures sufficiently in 
advance to provide an opportunity to comment befo re regulations were finalized to avoid future 
problems of this nature.  Brazil concurred that the issue had been resolved. 
 
CANADA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CANADA  
Animal Health 4. Measures related to BSE – Maintained by  Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Ge rmany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, 
Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States [See Item 4, page 1] 
 
87. Measures affecting imports of products containing Brazilian beef 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 2-5) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/245, G/SPS/W/108, G/SPS/N/CAN/39, G/SPS/N/CAN/94 
Solution: Suspension lifted in February 2001 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 February 2001 
 
67. Canada outlined its BSE policy, and informed Members of recent actions taken regarding the 
application of this policy.  Imports from Brazil had recently been suspended because Brazil had not 
provided the information requested by Canada in or der to carry out a risk assessment.  Canada was 
especially concerned about the traceability of cattle  imported from BSE-infected countries.  Canada 
had lifted its suspension after receipt and analysis of documentation from Brazil and a visit to Brazil by scientists from Canada, the United States and Me xico.  Canada reported that Brazilian authorities 
had agreed to certification requirements.  Brazil regr etted that Canada had not handled this matter in a 
more transparent manner, with prior notification an d consultation.  Brazil recalled its BSE-free status 
according to OIE classification, and its ban on feed ing of ruminant material to cattle.  Brazil had 
suffered many adverse effects from Canada's hasty embargo.  This had raised awareness of certain  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 17 
 
 
  shortcomings of the multilateral system in cases like this one.  Brazil announced its intention to 
present proposals to the SPS Committee and the General Council to address these problems. 
 
CHILE 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHILE  
Animal Health 
4. Measures related to BSE – Maintained by  Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Ge rmany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, 
Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States [See Item 4, page 1] 
 
104. FMD restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Brazil, United States 
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 90-91), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, 
paras. 40-41), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, para. 126) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHL/102  
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 March 2004 
 
68. Argentina was concerned about Chile's draft regulations on fresh or frozen beef, which 
categorized countries according two categories:  FMD-free with or without vaccination.  These draft 
rules seemed to be more restrictive than the OIE standard, which allowed for the possibility of 
permitting imports from FMD-infected countries or zones as long as certain risk mitigation procedures had been used.  Argentina requested Chile to provide sufficient scientific justification as 
required by Article 3.3.  Chile replied that that  it was premature to discuss the issue as the draft 
regulation had not yet been circulated internationa lly and a bilateral technical meeting was scheduled 
for early November.  The deadline for public co mments had only just passed and comments received 
had not yet been considered.  Chile had not yet been asked to provide a risk assessment by the 
Argentine authorities. 
69. In March 2002, Argentina referred to Chil ean notification G/SPS/N/CHL/102 on fresh and 
frozen meat controls.  It appeared Chile would perm it imports from countries in one of two categories: 
FMD-free without vaccination or FMD-free with vaccination.  The draft Chilean regulation did not 
allow for the import of fresh or frozen bovine meat from countries with zones infected with FMD.  As 
such, the requirement was more demanding than the OIE Animal Health Code which permitted 
imports if risk mitigation procedures were followe d in countries where FMD was present.  Argentina 
requested Chile to amend its draft regulation to refl ect the OIE code, or to show sufficient scientific 
grounds for not applying the international refere nce standard.  Brazil supported Argentina and the 
United States stated that they had sent written comments to Chile and hoped that these comments 
would be taken into account. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 18  
 
  70. Chile explained that the entry into force of the measures in question had been postponed twice 
to enable other trading partners to make additio nal comments.  Controlling the 1987 outbreak of FMD 
in Chile had cost $8.5 million and forced the eradi cation of 30,000 animals – a considerable cost for 
Chile.  Nevertheless, Chile planned to allow for the possibility of importing from countries not recognized as FMD-free by the OIE, on the basis of a risk assessment by the Chilean authorities.  In 
the case of Argentina, Chile had not learnt of the FMD outbreak in that country through their bilateral 
usual channels so the normal risk analysis pro cedures could not be applied and emergency measures 
had had to be instituted. 
71. In June 2002, Argentina reported that progress had been made towards resolving this issue at 
bilateral meetings. 
72. In March 2004, Argentina reported that the issue of Chile's FMD restrictions had been 
resolved. 
 
113. Pet food import requirements 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 21-23) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHL/104, G/SPS/GEN/302 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 March 2004 
 
73. Argentina raised concerns about Chile's draft st andard that would require imports of pet food 
containing meat and bone-meal from ruminants to undergo thermal treatment (G/SPS/N/CHL/104)..  
This requirement was stricter than the OIE recomm endations and lacked sufficient scientific grounds 
and risk analysis to justify this higher level of protection (G/SPS/GEN/302).  The EU Scientific 
Steering Committee had given Argentina a Level 1 rati ng, i.e. "highly unlikely that domestic cattle are 
(clinically or pre-clinically) infected with BSE agent".  The United States indicated that the OIE 
Animal Health Code did not recommend that c ountries free of BSE undertak e the treatment outlined 
in the notification.  The United States hoped that th e Chilean authorities would take the results of the 
Harvard Risk Analysis into account. 
74. Chile stressed that a distinction had to be made between countries free of BSE and countries 
free of TSEs;  the draft Chilean measure also incl uded the latter within its scope.  Chile further 
clarified that the procedures had to be applied to ra w materials in pet food and not to the final product. 
75. In March 2004, Argentina reported that the issu e of Chile's import requirements for pet food 
had been resolved. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 19 
 
 
  Plant Health 
16. Restrictions on imports of wheat and fruit 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras.  18-19), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127), 
October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, para. 36) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GN/14, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Import access granted for wheat and fruits 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 October 2006 
 
76. In March 1997, the United States expressed con cerns that Chile's import requirements for 
wheat and fruit did not recognize regional conditions in line with the SPS Agreement, nor IPPC 
guidelines relating to pest-free areas.  With respect to wheat, Chile replied that the United States had 
not asked to be recognized as free of tilletia indica  (Karnal bunt).  Regarding fruit, Chile stressed that 
it had recognized areas free of the fruit flies anastrepha fraterculus and ceratitis capitata  
(Mediterranean fruit fly) in California, whic h would facilitate the entry of US exports. 
77. In July 2001, the United States reported th at following bilateral discussion, Chile had 
removed restrictions on US wheat in October 1997 (G/SPS/GEN/265).  Import access had also been granted for grapes, kiwis, avocados and lemons from California, apples and pears from Washington, and raspberries and shelled nuts from all US states .  According to the United States, Chile was 
preparing new rules to allow imports of additi onal products.  The United States was working with 
Chile on import conditions for other fruit. 
78. In October 2006, the United States and Ch ile both reported that following bilateral 
discussions held in August 2006, c oncerns relating to phytosanitary measures applied to US fruit 
exports to Chile had been resolved. 
 CHINA C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINA  
Food safety 127. Import ban on products of Dutch origin 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras 31-32), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
paras. 73-74), April 2003 (G/SPS/ R/29, paras. 82-83), June 2003 
(G/SPS/R/30, paras. 39-40) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 20  
 
  Solution: Ban on Dutch products lifted 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 June 2003 
 
79. The European Communities stated  that the Chinese authorities had suspended imports of all 
products of animal origin from the Netherlands af ter detection of one positive consignment in a single 
category of products.  The European Communities considered this measure to be more trade 
restrictive than necessary, and noted that in a sim ilar situation with regard to Chinese products, the 
European Communities had given China sufficient time  to solve problems of detection of the presence 
of chloramphenicol in their products. 
80. China noted that the use of chloramphenicol in  animal foodstuffs had been prohibited in EC 
member States since 1994.  When the substance ha d been detected in Dutch products, China had 
imposed a provisional ban and immediately alerted the Dutch authorities.  China had received part of the information requested, and was waiting for furthe r information so as to review its measure.  The 
representative of China reported that the problem appa rently arose due to Dutch imports of feedstuffs 
from some eastern European countries, which gave rise to concerns regarding Dutch import control 
measures, residue monitoring systems and export control measures. 
81. In November 2002, the European Communities reported that some progress had been made, 
however they requested China to increase efforts to resolve the issu e.  The European Communities 
considered this a disproportionate reaction to a problem that could ha ve been resolved in a mutually 
satisfactory manner without disrupting trade.  Chin a observed that other countries had faced similar 
problems with Dutch products.  His country was working to remove the ban remaining for some products.  For this purpose, the Netherlands had been  invited to provide information to enable China 
to conduct a risk assessment, as soon as possible. 
82. In April 2003, the European Communities reported that China had lifted restrictions on 
certain products of no real trade significance, but no satisfactory solution had yet been found for a 
large number of animal products of Dutch origin, in  particular dairy products.  In December 2002, the 
European Communities had supplied the informati on requested by China.  In March 2003, China 
requested additional information and indicated that an inspection mission would be necessary before 
anything further could be done.  The European Co mmunities questioned why this inspection visit had 
not been proposed sooner. 
83. China responded that it had lifted the ban on certain products on 25 December 2002, after 
receipt of information from the European Commun ities.  For other products, China had been waiting 
for almost one year on the Netherlands' residue monitoring and assessment controls.  Based on the 
information provided to date, China had identified sign ificant defects with respect to conformity with 
the relevant EC directives, including sampling of da iry products and casings.  An inspection visit was 
necessary to address these outstanding issues.  Th e receipt of additional information from the 
Netherlands on 21 March 2003 would enable the visit of China's inspection team in the near future. 
84. In June 2003, the European Communities repor ted that the Chinese embargo on products 
from the Netherlands had been lifted and the Europe an Communities believed this issue now resolved.  
China reaffirmed that the ban on Dutch products ha d been lifted after an inspection visit and the 
conclusion of a risk assessment. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 21 
 
 
  246. Import restrictions on products of animal origin due to dioxin 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: February 2007 (G/SPS/R/44, paras. 13-14), October 2007 (G/SPS/R/46, 
para. 36) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Consultations between the EC authorities and China's AQSIQ, at both the 
bilateral and multilateral level, had been  successful in finally putting an end 
to these restrictions. 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as resolved: 1 October 2007 
 
85. In February 2007, the European Communities ra ised concerns regarding China's import 
restrictions on products of animal origin from some EC member States due to alleged dioxin 
contamination.  There had been an isolated inci dent in January 2006, at which time all potentially 
contaminated products had quickly been recalled.  Trade had been re-established and EC exports had 
returned to normal within weeks, except with China.  China was the only WTO Member that 
continued to impose restrictions because of a pr oblem which no longer existed.  The European 
Communities had pursued bilateral contacts with  China's General Administration of Quality, 
Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) and provided all of the in formation requested by 
China.  The ban on products from some EC member  States was disproportionate to the potential risk, 
as the contamination problem no longer existed.  The representative of the European Communities 
requested China to remove its restrictions or to pr ovide a scientific justification for their maintenance. 
86. China confirmed that this issue had been th e focus of technical consultations with the 
European Communities.  In Belgium, Germany a nd the Netherlands, this was the second time there 
had been this type of problem.  Given the fluidity of movement of goods within the European Communities, the spread of contaminated products w as very likely.  China was waiting to receive the 
final EC investigation report on the incident so th at it could complete its risk assessment and take the 
appropriate measure. 
87. In October 2007, the European Communities repor ted on the resolution of the specific trade 
concern related to China's import restrictions on some products of animal origin from some EC 
member States due to alleged dioxin contamination.  Import restrictions were originally introduced 
because of an isolated incident which affected a limited number of agriculture products and for which 
prompt corrective action was taken.  Consultations  between the EC authorities and China's AQSIQ, at 
both the bilateral and multilateral level, had been  successful in finally putting an end to these 
restrictions. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 22  
 
  Animal Health 
157. Quarantine measures for the entry and exit of aquatic products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras.  33-35), June 2003 (G /SPS/R/30, para. 39, 
59-60) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHN/17 
Solution: Measure notified and comments solicited 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 June 2003 
 
88. The European Communities noted that Decree No. 31, due to enter into force in June 2003, 
had not been notified to the WTO.  The European Co mmunities, therefore, were not able to assess the 
decree and comment on it.  The Chinese authorities were requested to notify the measure to the WTO 
and suspend its entry into force for four additiona l months to allow Members a chance to comment on 
it and for permits to be issued to  exporters.  The United States echoed the concerns of the European 
Communities. 
89. China explained that Decree 31 was notified to  the WTO as part of a notification covering 
China's existing laws on animal and plant quarantin e and on sanitation, inspection and certification of 
imports and exports of food produc ts at the time of its WTO accession.  The purpose of the Decree 
was to standardize the standards of quarantine for aquatic animals and to improve transparency of 
procedures in line with WTO obligations on transparency and consistency.  The regulation did not 
contain any new technical requirements and thus did not need to be notified to the WTO.  
Nonetheless, China would consider any comments fr om Members.  China had decided to delay the 
date of entry into force from 10 December 2002 until 12 June 2003, so as to minimize any trade 
impact.  On 23 December 2002, AQSIQ sent a no tice to all foreign embassies in Beijing and 
requested them to identify which governmental au thorities had responsibility for issuing certificates 
for export to China, and to submit a model certificate so that China could verify the certificates. 
90. In June 2003, the European Communities reporte d that China had notified its Decree 31 on 
aquatic products and had provided a comment period. 
 
196. Measures on US poultry  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada 
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, par as. 26-29), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, 
para. 83) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as resolved: 1 March 2005 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 23 
 
 
  91. In October 2004, the United States raised concerns over China's nation-wide ban on US 
poultry products following the detection of low pathogeni c avian influenza in the state of Delaware in 
February 2004.  The import ban was not modifi ed accordingly when hi ghly pathogenic avian 
influenza was detected in the state of Texas, instead , it was applied to the entire territory of the United 
States despite the fact that the highly pathogenic av ian influenza outbreak was confined to a limited 
area.  The outbreaks were brought under control a nd eradication, cleaning and disinfection of the 
highly pathogenic infected premises was comp leted on 23 February 2004.  On 20 August 2004, 
trading partners were advised that the six-month period prescribed by the OIE had elapsed and that 
the United States was free of highly pathogenic avian influenza.  Despite this, China still maintained 
the ban on poultry products from the entire territory of  the United States.  These restrictions were not 
scientifically justified and were inconsistent with SPS obligations.  China was requested to lift the ban 
immediately and to ensure that future implementation of emergency measures were consistent with Article 6 of the SPS Agreement.  Canada noted similar concerns with China maintaining a comprehensive ban when regionalized measures were the appropriate response, and sought the 
removal of all measures with respect to Canada. 
92. China stated that provisional emergency measure s were adopted early in 2004 to prevent the 
entry and spread of low and highly pathogenic av ian influenza.  A ban on the importation of US 
poultry and poultry products was therefore implem ented.  China had communicated with the United 
States to conduct on-site inspections with the objec tive of regionalizing its ban on avian influenza as 
well as the possibility of lifting the ban on US poultr y.  A risk assessment was being conducted and a 
decision would be made based on the outcome of the risk assessment.  China's actions were consistent 
with Article 6 of the SPS Agreement and OIE guidelines and recommendations. 
93. In March 2005, the United States mentioned that since the SPS Committee meeting of 
October 2004, China had taken actions and the issue had been resolved. 
 
Plant Health 
115. Import restrictions for citrus and other fruits related to fruit fly 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Canada 
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, pa ras. 24-25), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, 
paras. 50-51), March 2006 (G/SPS/R/40, para. 50) 
Relevant document(s): Raised Orally  
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 March 2006 
 
94. Argentina noted that bilateral consultations were on-going with the Chinese authorities to 
overcome difficulties related to the export of apples, pears and citrus fruit to China due to the latter's 
fruit-fly restrictions.  Various procedures, including  the use of cold treatme nt, were being used to 
overcome these difficulties.  Argentina requested the Chinese authorities to provide a list of 
outstanding questions related to risk assess ment and further information requests. 
95. China explained that Medfly and South American  fruit fly had not been reported in China and 
that a risk assessment by Chinese experts had conc luded that the risk of introducing these pests from G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 24  
 
  Argentina was high.  China was requesting Argentina to provide data on the efficacy of cold treatment 
against fruit flies and to demonstrate that it coul d provide an equivalent level of protection in 
comparison with importing from pest-free areas.  Ch ina noted that establishing pest-free areas was not 
practicable for all pests, as recognized by the IP PC standard, and that countries with advanced 
research on fruit fly control and quarantine did no t accept importation from countries where the pest 
had previously been present, even if they were currently pest-free.  China was open to bilateral 
technical discussions and joint research with Argentina on this issue. 
96. In June 2002, Argentina informed the Co mmittee that despite having held bilateral 
consultations with China, the issue was not resolved.  China indicated that it was prepared to consider 
alternative treatments, but had not yet received any technical data demonstrating that establishing pest 
free production places and cold treatment could provide  equivalent protection to the establishment of 
pest-free areas. 
97. In March 2006, Argentina reported that this  specific trade concern had been resolved. 
 
COLOMBIA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY COLOMBIA  
Animal Health 116. FMD restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, pa ras. 18-19), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, 
paras. 44-45), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 56-58), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 74-75), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, para. 44), October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, para. 37) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Restrictions lifted on bovine meat from Argentina 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as resolved: 1 October 2003 
 
98. Argentina reported that Colombia had restricted  imports of certain products from Argentina 
on 26 September 2001, after the FMD outbreaks in Argentina.  Colombia had agreed to accept Argentine products for which risk mitigation techni ques could be applied according to the OIE code, 
and on 17 October 2001 had published new measures specifying those processed products which 
could be imported.  An inspection visit by the Colombian sanitary services in late October 2001 complemented the information provided by the Ar gentine services.  Howeve r, Argentina was unable 
to export the products in question due to continue d information requests from Colombia.  Colombia 
noted that it had replied to comments and qu estions from Argentina in November 2001 and 
March 2002.  Argentina did not have establishments authorized by the Colombian Livestock Institute 
(ICA) to export risk products to Colombia.  Co lombia was considering the process and production 
methods at Argentine establishments to inactivate the virus in risk materials, and if satisfactory, 
Argentine establishments would receive the necessary ICA authorization.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 25 
 
 
  99. In June 2002, Argentina indicated that its e xports continued to be restricted.  Colombia 
recalled that no plants in Argen tina were currently certified to export to Colombia.  However, 
Colombia had identified 10 plants in Argentina for which it needed to update information, and another 
38 plants which it proposed to visit for the first time.  Only 21 of these establishments had provided 
the information needed for the Colombian Agricultural Institute to undertake certification visits. 
100. In November 2002, Argentina noted that Colo mbia continued to prohibit Argentine meat 
despite the fact that there had been no new outbreaks in Argentina for nine months.  Colombia still had not carried out inspections of 21 packing plan ts which Colombia claimed was necessary before 
trade in beef meat could resume.  Colombia stated that Argentina had blocked imports of fresh flowers from Colombia, and requested Argentina not  to link these two issues.  Argentina indicated 
that there was no linkage to Colombian flowers, and asked Colombia to provide information as to 
whether it would carry out the veterinary inspections  in Argentina so that beef meat exports could 
resume. 
101. In April 2003, Argentina noted that it ha d not received a reply from Colombia on the 
completed questionnaire concer ning chilled products.  No in-situ  inspections had taken place that 
would lead to a lifting of these restrictions nor  had Argentina received any requests for further 
information.  Noting Colombia's concern over cut fl owers, Argentina stated that it did not maintain 
any restriction on the import of flowers from Colombia.  Colombia stated that it enjoyed a favourable FMD situation but allowed the importation of low ri sk products.  High risk products, however, were 
banned from Argentina and this was notified to the WTO.  Establishments of origin had to be 
authorized by the Colombian sanitary service and a programme of visits to Argentina had been 
planned.  Information from Argentine authorities was required with regard to the serological and 
epidemiological assessment of FMD, vaccination c overage, and the dates on which the status of 
disease freedom both with or without vaccination were achieved.  Colombia considered the Argentine 
decision to suspend the import of cut flowers in November 2001, without a WTO notification, to be unjustified. 
102. In June 2003, Argentina reported that progr ess had been made and that inspections of 
Argentine meat plants by Colombian officials were  being planned.  Colombia noted that once the 
necessary information was provided by Argentin a, Colombian authorities would carry out the 
necessary missions.  The good progress in the case of bovine exports from Argentina to Colombia was 
similar to the progress made on the issue of flower exports from Colombia to Argentina. 
103. In October 2003, Argentina reported that the issu e had been resolved at the end of September 
2003, and that Colombia had eliminated its restricti ons.  Colombia confirmed that the issue had been 
resolved, and that exports of flowers from Colombia  to Argentina had also been discussed during the 
meeting. 
 
CUBA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CUBA 
Animal Health 129. Import restrictions on spiced pork and salted meat products 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 26  
 
  Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 15-16), Novem
ber 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
para. 182) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/325 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as resolved: 1 March 2004 
 
104. Argentina indicated that exports of spiced pork and salted meat products to Cuba were 
prohibited due to Cuba's zero risk approach w ith regard to FMD (G/SPS/GEN/325).  Argentina had 
submitted evidence that the FMD virus would not be  transmitted as a result of the processing of these 
products.  Moreover, Argentina's proposed certifi cation fully complied with OIE standards.  
Nonetheless, Cuba only permitted imports of bov ine meat from countries free of FMD without 
vaccination.  Argentina requested Cuba to lift its restrictions, or to provide sufficient scientific 
evidence to justify its measure.  Cuba indicated th at bilateral consultations had been initiated on the 
issue. 
105. In November 2002, Argentina reported that a few technicalities needed to be sorted out before 
the issue was completely resolved. 
106. In March 2004, Argentina reported that the issue had been resolved with Cuba. 
 
CZECH REPUBLIC 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CZECH REPUBLIC  
Food safety 10. Imports of potatoes 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Argentina 
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, pa ra. 27), October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, 
paras. 51-53) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CZE/6, G/SPS/N/CZE/12, G/SPS/GEN/42 
Solution: Second active ingredient approved, imports from EC resumed 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 February 2001 
 
107. In October 1996, the European Communities e xpressed concern that the Czech Republic had 
not specified a final date for comments on G/ SPS/N/CZE/12.  The Czech Republic committed to 
pursuing the matter bilaterally with the European  Communities.  In October 1997, the European 
Communities expressed concern over Czech import requirements for ware potatoes, which it did not 
believe to be based on scientific principles.  Moreove r, equivalent methods of sprout treatment were 
not allowed.  The European Communities pointed out  that a Codex standard existed for the active 
ingredient involved.  Argentina was concerned that  the treatment had to be applied before harvest,  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 27 
 
 
  making a post-harvest decision to export to th e Czech Republic impossible, although alternative 
treatment methods existed.  Furthermore, it was not clear to Argentina whether the registration 
procedure concerned the entire product formula or only the active ingredient. 
108. The Czech Republic explained that imported plant products could not be circulated 
domestically if they contained residues of active pl ant protection ingredients not registered in the 
Czech Republic.  Only one active ingredient had been approved, but registration procedures for a 
second one were under way.  The Czech Republic belie ved that bilateral channels for resolving the 
issue, notably within the frame work of the European Associa tion Agreement, were far from 
exhausted. 
109. In February 2001, the Czech Republic repor ted that the second active agent had been 
approved since 16 March 1998, and imports from the European Communities had resumed. 
 
51. Prohibition of poultry meat imports from Thailand 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 81-82), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, 
paras. 39-40), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, para. 16), July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, 
para. 8), November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, para. 5) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CZE/16 
Solution: Czech measure lifted in October 1999 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as resolved: 1 October 1999 
 
110. In September 1998, Thailand indicated that si nce June 1998, the Czech Republic had stopped 
shipments of poultry meat from Thailand on the grounds  that it contained levels of arsenic acid above 
the acceptable Czech limits.  Thailand indicated that this measure was not scientifically justified and 
too trade restrictive, and asked whether the me asure was non-discriminatory.  The Czech Republic 
indicated that bilateral consu ltations had begun and would conti nue, and assured Thailand of the non-
discriminatory nature of its testing methodology. 
111. In November 1998, Thailand reporte d that bilateral consultations had been held, and that the 
Czech Republic had agreed to provide further clar ifications on the measure, as well as a scientific 
justification.  The Czech Republic indicated that th e exchange of information would take place before 
a mission of Czech experts to Thailand in the near future. 
112. In March 1999, Thailand and the Czech Republic reported that bilatera l consultations were 
progressing, and that the problem might be resolved  after a visit of Czech experts to Thailand, 
planned for April 1999.  In July 1999, Thailand repor ted that the visit of Czech experts had been re-
scheduled for September 1999.  The Czech Republic conf irmed that consultations were advancing.  In 
November 1999, the Chairman informed the Committ ee that the Czech Republic had recently notified 
the lifting of the measure from 1 October 1999. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 28  
 
  Animal Health 
4. Measures related to BSE – Maintained by  Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Ge rmany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, 
Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States [See Item 4, page 1] 
 
30. Regulation concerning warehouses and silos 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, para. 54) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: EC satisfied with Czech clarifications. 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 February 2001 
 
113. The European Communities sought clarificati on of a Czech regulation requiring warehouses 
and silos for animal feed to be under state cont rol for purposes of quality assurance.  The Czech 
Republic indicated that it wished to pursue the matter bilaterally with EC veterinary authorities.  In 
February 2001, the Czech Republic indicated th at the European Communities had accepted its 
clarifications. 
 
EL SALVADOR 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EL SALVADOR  
Animal Health 
71. Restrictions on meat and dairy products 
Raised by: Uruguay 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17,  para. 85), November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, 
para. 32) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 November 2000 
 
114. In November 1999, Uruguay reported on problems wi th exports of meat and dairy products to 
El Salvador on sanitary grounds, although no concrete  sanitary problems or regulations had been 
mentioned.  The representative of El Salvador indi cated that these concerns would be transmitted to 
the appropriate authorities.  In November 2000, Ur uguay reported that the issue had been resolved.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 29 
 
 
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES  
Food safety 11. Restriction on levels of copper and cadmiu m in imported squid – Maintained by Spain 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Argentina 
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, paras. 16-17), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, 
para. 56), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 July 2001 
 
115. In October 1996, the United States noted that the Spanish regulation on levels of copper and 
other minerals in imported squid was discrim inatory since domestic and EC products were 
specifically exempted.  The European Communities replied that the scientific justification for 
imposing such a measure came from a WHO recommenda tion on maximum weekly intakes of metal.  
Harmonization of the permitted levels of various  metals across the European Communities was 
currently being discussed in Brussels.  Argen tina observed that the problem was not one of 
harmonization, but of national treatment. 
116. In March 1997, the United States recalled the di scriminatory nature of the measure.  The 
European Communities explained that although the norm only referred to third countries, in practice it 
was recognized by EC member States as well.  In addition, the majority of squid imported into Spain 
came from outside the European Communities.  Sin ce Spain had a particularly high consumption of 
the products in question, this had to be taken into account in  addition to WHO recommendations. 
117. In July 2001, the United States reported that it was not experiencing any problems in the area 
and was continuing to monitor the situation (G/SPS/GEN/265). 
 
39. Maximum levels for certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in foodstuffs 
Raised by: Argentina, Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Gambia, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, 
Philippines, Senegal, Thailand 
Supported by: Canada, Colombia, Mexico, Paki stan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, South 
Africa, Turkey, United States, Uruguay 
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras. 24-31), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, 
paras. 15-19), September 1998 (G/SPS /R/12, paras. 11-14), November 
1998 (G/SPS/R/13, para. 26), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, paras. 64-66), 
March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 29-30 and 86-87), July 2001 
(G/SPS/R/22, paras. 39-43), Octobe r 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 27-31), 
March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 140), J une 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 38-
39), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, pa ra. 175), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 30  
 
  paras. 51-52), June 2003 (G/SPS /R/30, paras. 66), March 2004 
(G/SPS/R/33, paras. 48-49) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/51, G/SPS/GEN/50, G/SPS/GEN/52, G/SPS/GEN/54, 
G/SPS/GEN/55, G/SPS/GEN/56, G/SPS/GEN/57, G/SPS/GEN/58, G/SPS/GEN/61, G/SPS/GEN/62, G/SPS/GEN/63, G/SPS/GEN/93, G/SPS/R/28 
Solution: Maximum levels for some pr oducts and sampling procedures revised 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 March 2004 
 
118. In March 1998, a number of countries argued that the EC proposal to set new maximum 
levels for aflatoxins would impo se severe restrictions on trade while not resulting in a significant 
reduction in health risk to consumers.  The pr oposal did not seem to be based on a proper risk 
assessment.  Furthermore, the proposed sampli ng procedure was unduly costly, burdensome and 
unjust.  Although an international standard on the subject did not yet exist, the Codex Committee on 
Food Additives and Contaminants ( CCFAC) was considering the matter.  The complaining Members 
felt that the timing was unfortunate, and urged the European Communities to review the proposed measure. 
119. The European Communities noted that there had been no consensus in the CCFAC on the 
issue; although many countries supported the Codex norm, the European Communities did not.  The proposed measure reflected the EC level of protection.   With regard to the sampling procedure, since 
contamination appeared in a small percentage of ke rnels, one simple sample was not sufficient to 
minimize risk to consumers.  The proposed methods were already used by some EC member States.  
The European Communities planned to evaluate th e comments received until May 1998 and formalize 
the proposal in June 1998.  The measure would enter into effect relatively shortly afterwards. 
120. In June 1998, the European Communities reported that it had forwarded a revised proposal to 
its member States.  The EC Standing Committ ee on Foodstuffs would consider the proposed 
modifications on 17-18 June 1998.  Apart from revi sing some of the maximum levels, the European 
Communities was considering trans itional arrangements, and the new measures would not enter into 
force before 1 January 1999. 
121. In September 1998, Bolivia informed the Co mmittee that the proposed EC measure would 
have severe effects on Bolivian exports of Brazil nuts.  Bolivia requested to see the EC risk 
assessment, and indicated it was prepared to ente r into bilateral discussions with the European 
Communities in order to find a mutually agreeable  solution.  The United States encouraged the 
European Communities to take into account the recommendations contained in the FAO/WHO risk 
assessments establishing maximum levels for afla toxin in consumer-ready products.  The ASEAN 
countries expressed concern with maximum levels in milk, which would affect developing countries' 
feed exports. 
122. The European Communities noted that the dead line for comments had been extended to allow 
for further comments from Members.  The European  Communities had also revised its proposal, and 
was prepared to raise the proposed maximum levels in  nuts.  With regard to milk, the proposed EC 
levels were in line with the standards being discussed in Codex. 
123. In November 1998, the Chairman informed the Committee about bilateral consultations 
between Bolivia and the European Communities whic h he had been requested to facilitate.  The 
Chairman reported that the discussions had been very fruitful, and had helped Bolivia to better  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 31 
 
 
  understand the rationale behind the EC measures, as  well as the EC procedures followed.  They had 
also helped the EC understanding of the potential effect of some of its measures on the Bolivian 
industry.  Technical consultations were continuing. 
124. In March 1999, Bolivia reported that it had presen ted a plan to improve its Brazil nuts, and 
consultations with the European Communities were ongoing.  Bolivia considered that this was a good 
case for the application of special and differential tr eatment.  Peru indicated that several countries had 
brought their problems with the new EC regulation on aflatoxins to the attention of the European Communities through their missions in Brussels, without having obtained a satisfactory response.  In particular, the European Communities had not presented a risk assessment.  The European 
Communities assured Bolivia that their common examin ation of the problem w ould continue through 
a rapid procedure.  In response to other Members,  the European Communities indicated that there had 
been ample time for comments, and that the prop osal had been revised in response to comments 
received.  On cereals, the European Communities was prepared to continue accepting comments until 
1 July 1999 and to modify the measure if there was scientific justification. 
125. In March 2001, Argentina raised concerns over EC maximum levels of contaminants in food 
products and sampling methods for aflatoxins in peanuts, other nuts, dried fruits and cereals.  
Argentina was preparing a technical submission for th e European Communities to be circulated before 
the next SPS Committee meeting. The European Communities agreed to carefully consider the 
technical document.  Regarding cereals, the Eu ropean Communities reminded Members that the 
relevant legislation had been adopted in 2000 a nd would come into effect as of 1 July 2001. 
126. Bolivia recalled the information it had provided regarding EC aflatoxin levels in Brazil nuts 
(G/SPS/GEN/93).  The European Communities had not provided a risk analysis for this measure.  
Bolivia outlined the socio-economic and ecological implications of the m easure for the area of 
production, as well as the effects on the economy.  The European Communities indicated that the science had been explained in detail in the Committee.   An EC expert had visited Bolivia in May 2000 
to evaluate the situation.  The Commission belie ved that the problems in Bolivia stemmed from 
needed improvements in the production chain and th e equipment used.  A project to address these 
issues had been included in the EU Aid Programme. 
127. In July 2001, Bolivia expressed concern about the long time it was taking to resolve the issue.  
Argentina and Chile inquired about the technical assistance and special and differential treatment 
aspects of the issue.  The European Communities noted  that Bolivia was on a high priority list for EC 
cooperation activities.  The expert mission in Ma y 2000 had concluded that  Bolivian products had 
been meeting EC aflatoxin levels, and at least th ree private laboratories were equipped to carry out 
accurate tests.  The European Communities remained willing to di scuss technical difficulties and to 
agree on practical solutions.  The European Communities was promoting a project to improve production and storage processes and the livelihood of nut collectors, to be executed in 2002;  it had 
proposed a certification procedure and hoped that Bolivia recognized the efforts being made to 
improve Brazil nut production in the region concerned.  Bolivia confirmed that bilateral meetings had 
taken place, including a discussion on possible techni cal cooperation programmes.  However, so far 
no practical measures had been taken to reduce the negative effect on trade. 
128. In October 2001, Bolivia reported that the European Communities still had not presented a 
risk analysis to justify its maximum levels for aflatoxins in Brazil nuts, nor applied special and 
differential treatment or justifie d why higher levels were permitted in similar products.  The measure 
was having a severe effect on the Bolivian economy.  Promises of technical assistance were not 
beneficial, and Bolivia wished to see a solution b ased on acceptance by the European Communities of 
a certificate.  The European Communities indicated that prolonged bilateral consultations had taken 
place prior to the entry into force of the measur e, and that expected trade concerns had not 
materialized. The risk assessment had been di scussed on numerous occasions in the SPS Committee G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 32  
 
  and in JECFA.  EC technical assistance had the goal of ensuring compliance with EC standards.  A 
national certification and accreditation mechanism was being implemented which would allow the 
three Bolivian laboratories to issue internationally  recognized certificates.  However, no follow-up 
information had been received from Bolivia on this possible solution. 
129. In March 2002, Bolivia indicated that there ha d been no progress on the issue.  The European 
Communities reported that it had agreed to acce pt pre-shipment certification from accredited 
laboratories in Bolivia in order to avoid costly  sampling of the product upon arrival in Europe.  
However, no further information had been prov ided by Bolivia regarding the accreditation of 
laboratories nor a proposal for the pre-shipment ce rtificate.  Nonetheless, shipments of Brazil nuts 
from Bolivia met all of the EC's requirements, a nd the quantity of shipments continued to grow. 
130. In June 2002, Bolivia noted that although the la rger Bolivian exporters were able to meet the 
EC requirements at considerable costs and difficult ies, smaller exporters could not fulfill the EC's 
requirements.  Bolivia requested information on the manner in which the EC requirements for a 
quality control system were being applied.  Th e European Communities stressed again that no 
consignments of Brazil nuts from Bolivia had been bl ocked due to aflatoxin.  In fact, both the volume 
and value imported from Bolivia had increased in recent years.  The EC Scientific Committee for 
Food had identified aflatoxins as among the most carcinogenic and mutageni c substances known, and 
intake had to be reduced to the lowest levels  possible.  Although the European Commission had 
agreed to accept certification from authorized Bo livian laboratories, Bolivia had not provided the 
necessary information. 
131. In April 2003, Bolivia stated that a pr oposal had been submitted to the European 
Communities to strengthen the Bolivian system of ce rtification for export of Brazil nuts.  He hoped 
that a technical exchange would take place on this  proposal in the near future.  The European 
Communities noted that its authorities would need so me time to examine the Bolivian proposal.  The 
European Communities favoured certification at the point of departure by accredited laboratories and 
commended the Bolivian authorities for their proposal. 
132. In June 2003, Bolivia informed Members that a bilateral meeting had resulted in a favourable 
outcome and Bolivia should soon receive the re quired permission.  The European Communities 
indicated that the procedures for technical assistance were now in place and hoped the issue would soon be regarded as solved. 
133. In March 2004, Bolivia informed Members that bilateral consultations were held with the 
European Communities on 16 March 2004 and details of the assessment visit for the certification of 
chestnuts for export to the European Communities had been finalized.  The European Communities 
stated that it would continue to cooperate with Bolivia to finalize the assistance programme. 
 
53. Emergency measures on citrus pulp  
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12,  paras. 49-50), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, 
para. 34) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/62  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 33 
 
 
  Solution: Emergency measures lifted 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 October 2001 
 
134. In September 1998, Brazil expressed concer ns regarding EC emergency notification 
G/SPS/N/EEC/62, which mentioned very high leve ls of dioxin found in citrus pulp pellets from 
Brazil.  Brazil pointed out that this accident had already been fully dealt with.  Brazilian authorities 
were maintaining bilateral talks with the Eur opean Communities on the su bject.  The European 
Communities explained that this accident had invo lved 90,000 tonnes of contaminated citrus pulp 
pellets destined for animal feed.  After scientific discussions, including Brazil's private sector, the EC 
authorities had decided that the lack of information on the origin of the contamination, the amount of 
stocks involved and the lack of a solution just ified the emergency measure.  The European 
Communities hoped that ongoing contacts with the Brazilian authorities would result in a solution before the end of the year. 
135. In October 2001, Brazil reported that following two technical visits by EC officials to 
evaluate Brazilian control systems, the emergency me asures on dioxin in citrus pulp had been lifted. 
 
167. Restrictions on honey imports 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: China, Mexico 
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 25-27) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Following the guarantees receive d from the United States authorities in 
relation to their residue monitoring pl an, the United States was added to the 
list of third countries with an approved residue monitoring program for honey (Commission Decision 2004/432/EC of 29 April 2004 on the approval of residue monitoring plans submitted by third countries in 
accordance with Council Directive 96/23/EC). 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
136. The United States stated that on 22 May 2003, the European Communities initiated 
administrative steps to prohibit imports of honey fr om the United States.  EC Directive 96-23 required 
exporting countries to submit a residue plan.  If the residue plan did not contain sufficient guarantees 
of compliance with EC residue limits, the country would not be authorized to export honey to the 
European Communities.  The United States considered the EC regime to be far more trade restrictive 
than necessary, and whilst not having identical ru les, the United States had comprehensive control 
mechanisms.  Furthermore, honey was consumed in very small quantities and should be considered a 
"low risk" food.  The existing rules in the United St ates were more than adequate to avoid harm to 
human health.  China and Mexico supported the concerns raised by the United States. 
137. The European Communities explained that it was a net importer of honey and that measures 
were in place to protect consumers.  The request for a residue surveillance plan was a general rule G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 34  
 
  which applied to all products, and a high level of surveillance was needed for honey as it tended to be 
consumed by children.  The United States had recei ved a warning in February 2003 that the absence 
of a residue plan would lead to their removal fro m the list of countries approved for import of honey 
to the European Communities.  The European Communities was, however, willing to examine any 
residue plans provided by the United States. 
 
231. Restrictions on Cinnamon 
Raised by: Sri Lanka 
Supported by: China 
Dates raised: October 2005 (G/SPS/R/39, pa ras. 52-58), February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, 
paras. 52-58), October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, para. 38) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/597 
Solution: Codex standard adopted in 2006 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as resolved: 1 October 2006 
 
138. In October 2005 and February 2006, Sri Lanka reported problems with exports of Ceylon 
cinnamon ( Cinnamomum zeylanicum ) to the European Communities, in particular to Germany, on the 
grounds that the cinnamon contained sulphur  dioxide (SO2) (G/SPS/GEN/597).  Directive 
No. 95/2/EC and its subsequent amendments on the import of foods tuffs listed conditionally permitted 
preservatives and additives including SO2 and sulphites and maximum tolerated levels in a number of 
products, but not in cinnamon.  The chemical evaluation undertaken by the FAO/WHO Joint Expert 
Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 1998 had shown that the use of SO2 in acceptable 
quantities as a food additive did not produce any adverse effects on human health.  The presence of a certain amount of SO2 as a food additive had also been permitted in Codex and EC standards.  SO2 
fumigation had been applied by the cinnamon industr y in Sri Lanka as an acceptable method to obtain 
a better colour and to prevent fungus and insects, an d as there was no direct application of sulphur to 
cinnamon, no residual content of SO2was exp ected to be present in the final product. 
139. The current EC restrictions would drastically reduce Sri Lanka's exports to the EC market, 
and might also have an effect on Sri Lanka's expor ts to other markets.  Sri Lanka questioned the 
consistency of the EC measure with Article 3.3 of  the SPS Agreement.  The Codex General Standards 
for Food Additives indicated that the lack of reference to a particular  additive or to the use of an 
additive in a specific food did not imply that the ad ditive was unsafe or unsuitable for use in food.  
Sri Lanka queried whether the EC Scientific Co mmittee for Food had undertaken an assessment of the 
risk posed by Sri Lanka's cinnamon on human health .  In addition, Sri Lanka sought clarification 
regarding what relevant economic factors had le d the European Communities to decide that a de facto  
import ban was the appropriate leve l of protection required in this situation and if the European 
Communities had taken into account the objective of minimizing negative trade effects when 
determining the appropriate level of SPS protection.  Sri Lanka s uggested there was scope for the 
European Communities to provide longer time-frames  for Sri Lanka to comply with EC SPS measures 
on cinnamon, as provided for in Article 10.2 of the SPS Agreement.  Sri Lanka requested the 
European Communities to suspend its current de facto  ban while his country pursued the development 
of a Codex standard on MRLs for cinnamon.  Sri La nka also requested, as a transitional measure, that 
the European Communities accept Sri Lankan cinnam on with an SO2 content up to 150 ppm until the 
maximum residue limit for SO2 in cinnamon we re defined at the international level.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 35 
 
 
  140. China requested that the Eur opean Communities provide a risk analysis and safety assessment 
report and expressed hope the issue could be resolve through bilateral consultations. 
141. The European Communities recognized that the EC legislation on food additives and 
contaminants had no provision for sulphur dioxide in  cinnamon, and changing the legislation to allow 
SO2 in cinnamon could be a lengthy process.  Th e European Commission had explored the possibility 
of providing technical assistance to Sri Lanka to assist in the preparation of this dossier.  The 
European Commission had brought EC member States' attention to th e need to approve SO2 as an 
additive in cinnamon and encouraged member St ates to adapt their import policies pending the 
modification of the EC legislation. 
142. The representative of Codex confirmed that the use of SO2 as an additive was currently under 
discussion at step 3 in the framework of the C odex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants 
(CCFAC).  The pace of finalization of the discu ssions depended on contri butions and views of 
CCFAC participants.  Sulphur dioxide had been evaluated by the JECFA in 1998 and was currently allowed on a few commodities.  The CCFAC would meet  the last week of April 2006, which provided 
an occasion for Members to stress the importance and urgency of developing a MRL for SO2 in 
cinnamon. 
143. In October 2006, Sri Lanka reported that through bilateral discussion, concerns regarding the 
issue of EC restrictions on the importation of cinnam on had been resolved to their mutual satisfaction.  
In July 2006, an international standard for cinnam on was established and it ha d also been approved by 
Civil Society Coalition (CSC) in Geneva.  Sri Lanka noted that these issues had been resolved through 
the cooperation of the European Communities. 
 
Animal Health 
4. Measures related to BSE – Maintained by  Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Ge rmany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, 
Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States [See Item 4, page 1] 
 
96. Geographical BSE risk assessment 
Raised by: Canada, Chile, India 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, par as. 22-26), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, 
paras. 35-36), June 2007 (G/SPS/R/45, paras. 44-45) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as resolved: 1 June 2007 
 
144. In 2001, Canada requested information on the EC geographical BSE risk assessment (GBR) 
process, the consistency of its application and how assessments could be reviewed when risks 
changed.  Canada noted that the OIE was developing a system to verify countries' own assessments of 
their BSE status, and wondered how it would rela te to the EC system.  The United States was G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 36  
 
  concerned that the European Communities was appl ying similarly stringent measures to countries 
with significantly different risk factors, a practice which lacked scientific justification and ran counter 
to existing international standards.  It was not entirely transparent how country classifications would 
be determined nor what requirements would be applied in the meantime.  The United States had 
submitted detailed comments identifying a number of problems with the methodology and with the 
information related to the United States.  The Unite d States urged countries to take the OIE standard 
into account when developing their BSE measures.  The OIE representative clarified that the OIE would deal only with recognition of BSE freedom, not with the other four categories contained in the 
International Animal Health Code (G/SPS/ GEN/266).  The Commission on FMD and other 
Epizootics had received the mandate to develop gui delines to help member countries carry out their 
risk assessment, taking into account th e experience from GBR assessments. 
145. The European Communities explained that GBRs were based on information provided by 
trading partners in a 1998 questionnaire.  The GBR methodology had been established by the EC 
Scientific Steering Committee.  The new EC B SE-TSE measure was in conformity with the OIE 
Code, but the GBR pre-dated the current OIE Code .  Any new scientific evidence could be submitted 
to the Commission and a re-evaluation of a GBR would be considered once additional stability 
measures had been implemented, allowing three to five years to take into account the incubation 
period of BSE.  The European Communities explai ned the stability factors that were taken into 
consideration;  these were considered on a case-by-case basis.  The European Communities 
considered that the GBR reflected the internatio nal standard, and was willing to cooperate with 
Members and provide information.  Knowledge about this disease should be shared to minimize trade 
effects where possible. 
146. In June 2005, India expressed c oncerns regarding the categorization of India in the suspected 
list of the GBR.  The assumptions made by th e European Communities while conducting the risk 
assessment needed to be reconsidered, as BSE had ne ver been reported in Indian cattle and buffalos.  
India had made these concerns known to the Eur opean Communities on several occasions.  The EC 
categorization had the potential to disrupt India's beef  trade not only with EC member States but also 
with its other trading partners. 
147. The European Communities described its BSE impo rt regime in relation to beef and beef 
products as proportionate, non-discriminatory and scien ce-based.  The recent findings of BSE in both 
the United States and Canada had not led to me asures from the European Communities.  The EC 
classification system had been introduced due to insufficient progress in the OIE with the 
development of an international framework on trade in beef and beef products and BSE.  In that 
context, the European Communities encouraged all OIE members, including India, to work towards 
OIE country classifications which would allo w the European Communities to abandon its 
classification.  The European Communities clarifie d that, unless the OIE failed to classify countries, 
India's existing classification would not be revisited since it had been carried out on an independent 
basis by EC scientists. 
148. In February 2006, Chile noted that while it had never registered any cases of BSE, in 2005 the 
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) evaluated Chile as being a country where BSE was likely to occur or had been confirmed (Category 3 of th e GBR).  Chile disagreed with EFSA's analysis, 
particularly the time-frame and some of the da ta underpinning the analysis.  Chile had sent 
documentation to EFSA and the European Commission but had not received any reply or comment.  
EFSA's classification cast doubt on the BSE situati on in Chile and had negative impacts on Chile's 
industry.  An ad hoc group of the OIE had noted that Chile satisfied requirements for a country provisionally free of BSE.  Chile urged EFSA to recognize the OIE evaluation. 
149. The European Communities noted that while EFSA  had classified Chile as a Category 3 risk, 
the European Communities remained open to reassessi ng the status in the light of the OIE revised  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 37 
 
 
  code on BSE.  If the OIE were to classify Ch ile as provisionally free, the European Communities 
would take this into c onsideration.  However only Argentina, Iceland, Singapore and Uruguay were in 
this particular category.  Even if a country was categorized as a Category 3 risk of BSE, trade could 
still take place if appropriate measures were in place. 
150. In June 2007, Canada indicated that his aut horities considered both specific trade concerns 
numbers 96 and 107, to be resolved as they had b een overtaken by the OIE's new risk assessment 
framework and categorization system for BSE risk posed by countries.  The EC geographical BSE 
risk assessment had led to concerns regarding the c onsistency of the risk analysis and the possibility 
of reviewing risk assessments over time.  The EC transitional TSE measures resulted in the 
classification of countries according to four levels of risk, but only recognized two levels of risk 
management.  The OIE had made amendments to the Animal Health Code, which updated the risk 
assessment framework and BSE categor ization.  As previously reported, Canada was recognized as a 
controlled risk country for BSE.  The Europ ean Communities had decided to use the new OIE 
standards. 
151. The European Communities noted that the EC measures on BSE had always been intended to 
be interim measures.  The Europ ean Communities had clearly indicated that the measures would be 
adapted in light of OIE standards, but that interi m measures were required to protect health while the 
OIE completed its work.  The interim measures had been proportionate, fair and science-based, 
especially when compared to the measures impos ed by other Members.  When cases of BSE had 
occurred in Canada and the United States, the EC  measures had not been changed in any way, 
whereas many other Members had imposed unjustif ied measures.  Now the OIE had completed an 
excellent job in preparing appropriate standard s, and the European Communities had adapted its 
measures immediately to ensure full conformity with  the new OIE standards.  This modification had 
already been notified to the SPS Committee, and th e European Communities was the first Member to 
fully adopt the new OIE Code.  Members had voiced their confidence in the international standards 
earlier, and the European Communities invited all Members to quickly adopt the OIE standards on 
BSE. 
 
107. Transitional TSE measures  
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, par as. 5-8), June 2007 (G/SPS/R/45, paras. 44-
45) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 June 2007 
 
152. Canada expressed concern about loss of access to the EC markets for pet food, live bovine 
animals, embryos, ova and tallow in the wake of the adoption of transitional TSE measures by the European Communities.  Canada stated that the EC  regulations classified countries according to four 
levels of risk, but applied only two levels of risk  management.  According to the OIE criteria, Canada 
was BSE-free, yet Canadian exports faced identical tr ade restrictions to EC member States in which 
BSE was prevalent.  These problems would be com pounded by EC animal waste regulations due in 
2002 which threatened to prohibit the few remaining an imal products that Cana da could still export to G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 38  
 
  the European Communities.  Canada requested to be removed from the scope of application of these 
measures.  The United States agreed that the Eur opean Communities was applying stringent measures 
to countries that were either not affected by BSE, or which had significantly different risk factors.  
This approach lacked scientific justification and ran counter to international standards.  The European 
Communities explained that the transitional measur es laid down import conditions for products of 
bovine, ovine and caprine origin, and would be exte nded to cover certification of other products of 
animal origin.  Pet food was included to protect consumers' health.  An exemption was made for 
countries classified in category one (presence of BSE unlikely), but neither Canada nor the United States were in this category. 
153. In June 2007, Canada indicated that his aut horities considered both specific trade concerns 
numbers 96 and 107, to be resolved as they had b een overtaken by the OIE's new risk assessment 
framework and categorization system for BSE risk posed by countries.  The EC geographical BSE 
risk assessment had led to concerns regarding the c onsistency of the risk analysis and the possibility 
of reviewing risk assessments over time.  The EC transitional TSE measures resulted in the 
classification of countries according to four levels of risk, but only recognized two levels of risk 
management.  The OIE had made amendments to the Animal Health Code, which updated the risk 
assessment framework and BSE categor ization.  As previously reported, Canada was recognized as a 
controlled risk country for BSE.  The Europ ean Communities had decided to use the new OIE 
standards. 
154. The European Communities noted that the EC measures on BSE had always been intended to 
be interim measures.  The Europ ean Communities had clearly indicated that the measures would be 
adapted in light of OIE standards, but that interi m measures were required to protect health while the 
OIE completed its work.  The interim measures had been proportionate, fair and science-based, 
especially when compared to the measures impos ed by other Members.  When cases of BSE had 
occurred in Canada and the United States, the EC  measures had not been changed in any way, 
whereas many other Members had imposed unjustif ied measures.  Now the OIE had completed an 
excellent job in preparing appropriate standard s, and the European Communities had adapted its 
measures immediately to ensure full conformity with  the new OIE standards.  This modification had 
already been notified to the SPS Committee, and th e European Communities was the first Member to 
fully adopt the new OIE Code.  Members had voiced their confidence in the international standards 
earlier, and the European Communities invited all Members to quickly adopt the OIE standards on 
BSE. 
 
Plant Health 
27. Citrus canker 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Brazil, Chile, South Africa, Uruguay 
Dates raised: July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, paras.  30-31), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras. 6-
8), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras. 31-33) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/46, G/SPS/N/EEC/47, G/SPS/GEN/21, G/SPS/GEN/26 
Solution: Measure revised 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 March 2004 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 39 
 
 
  155. In July 1997, Argentina requested bilateral consultations with EC experts on the proposed 
measure on citrus canker, and that the measure be  suspended during these cons ultations.  South Africa 
requested that the European Communities reassess its measures in light of the fact that South Africa 
was free from citrus canker.  The European Commun ities noted that it was preparing a response to the 
Argentine concern, and was open to consultations w ith interested parties.  The European Communities 
was moving from a system with internal restrictio ns in the production areas of Italy, Greece and 
Corsica to a truly single market with free movement of goods.  With no restriction on internal movement of fruit, and considering the risk of introduction and the relate d economic consequences, 
alternative protection for the main producing areas had to be considered.  This included monitoring 
requirements in the exporting country, treatment and certification.  The European Communities 
considered that its measures were based on science and minimized trade effects. 
156. In March 1998, the European Communities re ported that, in response to constructive 
consultations organized by the Chairman and invo lving Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Brazil and South 
Africa, the measure had been revised and subseque ntly adopted.  The revised text included the 
possibility for recognition of equivalent certificati on systems.  Argentina agreed, but noted that 
negotiations on equivalence were not yet finished. 
157. In June 1998, the European Communities indicated  that it had come to the conclusion that, for 
the time being, Argentina could not objectively dem onstrate the equivalence of its control measures 
with EC requirements.  Argentina requested info rmation on the risk assessment undertaken by the 
European Communities. 
158. In March 2004, Argentina reported that the i ssue had been resolved with the European 
Communities. 
 
HONDURAS 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY HONDURAS  
Plant Health 
20. Restrictions on imports of rough rice 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 55), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Restrictions lifted 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 July 2001 
 
159. In March 1997, the United States expressed concern that Honduras had not lifted its 
restrictions on imports of rough rice.  Honduras assured the Committee that  its authorities would 
attempt to find a rapid solution to the problem. 
160. In July 2001, the United States reported that Honduras had lifted its restrictions in 1997 
(G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United States cons iders this trade concern resolved. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 40  
 
  HUNGARY 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY HUNGARY  
Animal Health 90. Restrictions on bovine products 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 16-17) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/230 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 September 2004 
 
161. Canada indicated that Hungary had suspended imports of all bovine products from Canada 
due to fears over BSE, although Canada was BSE -free and BSE could not be transmitted by bovine 
semen.  Canada was willing to continue working w ith the Hungarian authorities to resolve this matter 
as quickly as possible.  The United States drew attention to the OIE document (G/SPS/GEN/230) 
which listed products that were sa fe from BSE and encouraged Memb ers to review their measures 
accordingly.  Hungary reported that since several  Members had recently imposed import bans on 
certain BSE-free countries, Hungarian consumers had begun to question the safety of animals and 
products from these countries.  Hungarian authoriti es had made prion tests a mandatory condition for 
veterinary import licenses for live cattle, fresh meats and non-heat-treated products of bovine origin.  
Bovine semen was not subject to the import restrictions. 
162. In September 2004, Canada reported that the issue of Hungary's restrictions on bovine 
products had been resolved. 
 
91. Restrictions on  pork products 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 31-32) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 September 2004 
 
163. Canada reported that as of Ja nuary 2001, Hungarian importers of pork products from Canada 
had not been able to obtain import certificates from Hungary's veterinary services.  A similar disruption had occurred the previous year, and had been resolved through bilateral discussion.  
Canada asked Hungary to resume issuing import permits, or to provide a legitimate scientific 
justification for the measure.  Hungary refe rred to fears over BSE transmission and cross- G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 41 
 
 
  contamination of foodstuffs, and w as willing to enter into bilateral consultations on the matter.  
Canada requested clarification on the relevance of  feed cross-contamination to the importation of 
frozen pork. 
164. In September 2004, Canada reporte d that the issue of Hungary's  restrictions on pork products 
had been resolved. 
 
ICELAND 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ICELAND  
Animal Health 
75. Notification on meat and meat products  
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2000 (G/SPS/R/18, para. 27) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ISL/1 
Solution: Market opening measure confirmed 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 March 2004 
 
165. Argentina expressed interest in the notifica tion of this measure permitting meat imports 
without heat treatment into Iceland since it appear ed to open the market to higher quality beef, 
although this was not entirely clear from the notifi cation.  Iceland confirmed that meat could be 
imported without heat treatment, provided all n ecessary certificates and documents were submitted. 
166. In March 2004, Argentina reported that the issu e of Iceland's notification on meat and meat 
products had been resolved. 
 
INDONESIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA  
Animal Health 132. Import restrictions on dairy products  
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, par as. 17-18), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
paras. 54-55), April 2003 (G/SPS/ R/29, paras. 72-73), June 2003 
(G/SPS/R/30, para. 43), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 50-51) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally, G/SPS/GEN/324 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 42  
 
  Solution: Plants authorized to export to Indonesia 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 March 2004 
 
167. Argentina stated that as a result of the outbreak of FMD in 2001, Indonesia had banned 
imports of milk products, incons istent with the SPS Agreement and OIE guidelines.  The OIE Code 
stipulated that milk products be accepted if the sanitary authority of the exporting country certified 
that the necessary requirements had been introduced .  Indonesian had not provided the opportunity for 
the Argentine National Agriculture and Food Qualit y and Health Service (SENASA) to certify the 
requirements set forth by the OIE.  Indonesia indicated that import restrictions imposed on Argentina 
due to FMD only applied to fresh milk.  Other da iry products, including skimmed milk, cream, butter, 
cheese and yoghurt, were not restricted.  Restrictions on fresh milk were based on the fact that Argentina was not listed by the OIE as a country with zones free of FMD. 
168. In November 2002, Argentina indicated that some practical difficulties still impeded 
Argentine dairy products, other than liquid milk, from entering Indonesia.  Indonesia reported that as 
Argentina fulfilled the first provisions a questionn aire which would provided to them, Indonesia 
would send an inspection team to Argentina.  Indonesia hoped that this would lead to a resolution of the problem. 
169. In April 2003, Argentina reported that it ha d completed the questionnaire and extended an 
invitation to Indonesia but Indonesia had not yet sent an inspection team.  Restrictions on imports of 
Argentine milk remained and Argentina requested  clarification from Indonesia.  Indonesia recalled 
that a questionnaire had been sent to Argentina on 27 January 2003.  Out of five plants in Argentina, 
only one had the necessary controls.  If Argent ina could provide information on its control 
programmes, an investigating officer would be sent to conduct an on-site review of the plants in 
Argentina.  Indonesia was confident that furthe r bilateral efforts would resolve this issue. 
170. In June 2003, Argentina reported that good prog ress had been made toward the resolution of 
the problem.  Indonesia confirmed that the bilatera l consultations had led to an agreement to send 
Indonesian inspectors to Argentina. 
171. In March 2004, Argentina informed Members th at Indonesian officials had conducted a risk 
analysis on Argentine dairy produc ts and concluded that Argentina's exports did not pose a FMD 
threat.  Restrictions on Argentina were lifted a nd this issue was consider ed resolved.  Indonesia 
reported that an inspection team from Indonesia had visited Argentina on 12-20 January 2004 and 
Argentina's monitoring system with respect to FMD was found to be satisfactory.  Two of the five 
plants inspected met Indonesia's requirements and were eligible to export milk powder to Indonesia as 
long as they continued to meet the OIE recommendations and guidelines. 
 Plant Health 82. Restrictions on importation of fresh fruit 
Raised by: New Zealand 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 8-10), March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, 
paras. 44-45), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 54-55)  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 43 
 
 
  Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/219 
Solution: Restrictions lifted on 26 October 2001 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 26 October 2001 
 
172. In November 2000, New Zealand noted that Indonesia had imposed restrictions on fresh fruit 
from New Zealand since the discovery of two fruit flies in a residential area of New Zealand in 
May 1996.  No fruit flies were ever found outsid e a 200 meter zone around the initial incursion, and 
no fruit flies were trapped after three weeks.  A number of WTO Members imposed restrictions on 
New Zealand fruit products following the initial incurs ion, but these restrictions were progressively 
lifted.  Indonesia, however, continued to prohibit im ports of fruit produced within a 15-km radius of 
the incursion and required cold treatment of all fru it from New Zealand.  At bilateral consultations 
held in November 2000, Indonesia had undertaken to  review the informati on which New Zealand had 
already provided.  Indonesia took note of New Zealand' s concerns, and clarified that it needed further 
documentation supporting New Zealand's claim of fr eedom from Mediterranean fruit fly.  However, 
Indonesia had no intention of maintaining measures which were not justifiable under the SPS 
Agreement and remained open to further consultations  in order to achieve an acceptable resolution. 
173. In March 2001, New Zealand reported that bila teral consultations had taken place, and that 
Indonesia had indicated willingness to inspect the fruit fly surveillance and phytosanitary export 
assurance systems in New Zealand.  Indonesia confirmed that officials were planning to visit New Zealand in the near future.  Indonesia hoped that th e visit would result in an expeditious solution.  
Indonesian officials visited New Zealand in May 2001 to review New Zeal and's surveillance and 
export assurance systems.  They verified that the fru it fly has been successfu lly eradicated.  Indonesia 
agreed the requirement of cold treatment and Mediterranean fruit fly free production areas were no 
longer necessary.  It advised that it would lift existing restrictions on the importation of fresh fruit from New Zealand on 1 August 2001.  Indonesia not ified (G/SPS/N/IDN/16) on 26 October 2001 that 
it was lifting its restrictions on New Zealand fresh fruit effective from the date of notification. 
 
ISRAEL 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ISRAEL  
Animal Health 22. Measures affecting imports of bovine meat 
Raised by: Uruguay 
Supported by: Argentina, Brazil 
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras.  9-11), July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, para. 6), 
November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, para. 32) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 November 2000 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 44  
 
  174. In March 1997, Uruguay indicated that Israel had adopted BSE-related measures, including 
requirements that bovine meat come from cattle with a maximum age of 36 months, which had not 
been notified to WTO.  Since the measure did not  take into account the sanitary conditions in the 
country of origin, the potential effect on bilateral tr ade was serious.  Israel replied that it had notified 
exporting countries of the planned measure which w as based on a questionnaire  circulated to beef 
exporting countries.  Israel took note of the concer ns expressed.  In July 1997, Uruguay reported that 
bilateral consultation were taking place and that progress had been sa tisfactory.  In November 2000, 
Uruguay reported that the issue had been resolved. 
 
JAPAN 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN  
Plant Health 12. Testing requirements for different varieties of apples, cherries and nectarines 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, paras. 11-12), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, 
para. 57), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265, WT/DS/76/R, WT/DS/76/AB/R 
Solution: Dispute settlement (WT/DS/76) .  Panel established 18 November 1997; 
panel report issued 27 October 1998;  Appellate Body report issued 
22 February 1999;  reports adopted 19 March 1999.  Mutually agreed solution reported September 2001 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as resolved: 1 July 2001 
 
175. In October 1996, the United States reported  that, under a 1995 bilateral agreement, Japan 
allowed two varieties of US apples into its ma rket.  US suppliers had to conduct lengthy and 
expensive tests to demonstrate that combined tr eatment of methyl bromide and cold storage was 
effective in killing codling moths on both varieties.   These and other tests had demonstrated that the 
effectiveness of this treatment did not vary among different varieties of fru it.  Nevertheless, Japan 
continued to block the introduction of new varieties of US fruit by requiring such redundant testing.  
The United States had formally initiated a consulta tion process with Japan under Article 5.8 of the 
SPS Agreement.  Japan indicated that the formal exchange would be followed by a clarification 
process involving technical experts until a solution was reached based on scientific principles.  In 
March 1997, the United States indicated it was reviewing new information provided by Japan.  Japan noted that bilateral efforts would cont inue in order to reach a solution. 
176. In a document introduced in July 2001, the United States indicated that despite extensive 
consultations with Japan, the United States was still  awaiting implementation of the Panel decision 
(G/SPS/GEN/265).  A mutually satisfactor y solution was notified in August 2001. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 45 
 
 
  100. Import measures on apples due to fire blight 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: New Zealand, European Communities 
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 27-29), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, 
paras. 9-11), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 36-38), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 52-53) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally; G/SPS/GEN/299, WT/DS245/R, WT/DS245/AB/R 
Solution: Dispute settlement WT/DS245.  Pa nel established 3 June  2002; panel report 
issued 15 July 2003, Appellate Body report issued 26 November 2003, reports adopted 10 December 2003.  Article 21.5 panel and Article 22.6 
arbitration established on 30 July 2004 .  Article 21.5 panel report issued 
23 June 2005.  Mutually agreed solution reported 2 February 2005 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as resolved: 2 February 2005 
 
177. In July 2001, the United States maintained that  Japan's requirements for imported apples were 
unduly restrictive.  The United States and Japan ha d agreed on joint scientific research on apples and 
fire blight, and the United States was disappointed that  Japan had not relaxed its import restrictions in 
accordance with the results of the research.  New Zealand agreed that  Japan's phytosanitary measures 
with respect to fire blight were not technically ju stifiable and should be modified accordingly.  New 
Zealand intended to engage Japan in further bilate ral discussions on this issue.  Chile requested that 
the follow-up to this situation be reported to the Committee.  Japan confirme d that the joint research 
had been completed, and indicated that a risk an alysis was being conducted based on the results.  
There were some difficulties in finalizing the eval uation based solely on these results.  Japan desired 
to continue the technical discussion between plant health authorities of both countries. 
178. In October 2001, the United States reported on  bilateral discussions on Japan's quarantine 
procedures on US apples.  Although joint scientific research demonstrated that mature symptom-less 
fruit was not a pathway for the transmission of fire  blight, a mutually acceptable technical solution 
had not been found.  The United States was cons idering what further steps, including dispute 
settlement, it could take on the matter.  New Z ealand announced it would also seek bilateral 
discussions with Japan on its import requirements for apples.  Japan stated that in order to complete the technical evaluation, additional information ha d been requested from the United States.  Further 
bilateral contacts between the US and Japan ese experts were considered appropriate. 
179. In March 2002, the United States recalled that Jap an's quarantine restrictions prohibited apple 
imports from orchards in which any fire blight had been detected and required:  three annual 
inspections of US orchards for the presence of fire blight, disqualification from export if fire blight 
were detected in a 500-meter bu ffer zone around the orchard, a nd post-harvest treatment with 
chlorine.  The United States considered that these restrictions were not consistent with Japan's 
obligations under Article 11 of the GATT, or unde r the SPS Agreement.  The United States had 
requested consultations under Ar ticles 1 and 4 of the Dispute Se ttlement Understanding on 1 March 
2002.  New Zealand and the European Communities also  expressed the view that  Japan's restrictions 
on apples were more trade restrictive than necessary a nd stated their interest in a resolution of this 
issue. 
180. Japan explained that the risk from the entry of fi re blight was very serious.  The United States 
had not provided Japan with sufficient scientific ev idence to amend its phytosanitary measures.  At a 
bilateral expert meeting in October 2001, Japan ha d identified the data that was needed and Japan G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 46  
 
  hoped that the technical data would be provided by th e United States so as to al low a resolution of this 
issue. 
181. In June 2002, the United States reported that hi s country had requested the establishment of a 
dispute resolution panel with respect to Japan's meas ures related to fire blight.  New Zealand indicated 
that Japan's measures lacked scientific justificati on and limited NZ exports of horticultural products. 
New Zealand and the European Communities indicated  that their countries shared the US concerns 
and would participate in the dispute resolution proced ure as third parties.  Japan indicated that during 
the bilateral consultations held following the US  request, Japan had indicated its willingness to 
consider relevant data submitted by the United St ates, however nothing had been provided.  Fire 
blight was a serious plant quarantine disease which did not occur in Japan and which could severely 
damage the production of apples, pears and other fruit s.  Japan's measures were  indispensable in order 
to prevent the entry of fire blight, and were fu lly justified on the basis of scientific evidence. 
 
172. Restrictions on imports of mangoes 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by: India 
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, pa ras. 34-35), October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, 
paras. 25-26), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 65-67), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 25-26), March 2005  (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 81-82)
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Regulations modified to permit imports 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 March 2005 
 
182. Brazil indicated that it had been seeking approval to export mangoes to Japan for 18 years.  
Japan demanded steam treatment in spite of the sa tisfactory level of the measures taken by Brazil, 
Chile and other potential exporters to avoid fruit fly.  Japan had continuously demanded more 
information and had not taken previous scientific studies into account.  Although Japan had offered 
technical assistance, this had not facilitated the pro cess.  Brazil considered that Japan's measures were 
inconsistent with the provisions of the SPS Agreem ent on equivalence, regionalization and technical 
cooperation. 
183. Japan stated that Brazil had requested technical assistance in 1986 but had stopped the 
technical assistance in 1990 becau se it wished to develop its own technique based on hot-water 
treatment.  This design was launched in 1998.  Both  countries agreed on this and the final data was 
submitted in 2001.  Supplementary information was needed, however, before Japan could approve the 
measures and conclude the necessary technical studies. 
184. In October 2003, Brazil stressed that Japan's  restrictions on imports of mangoes were 
unjustified as mangoes were produced in an area 2,0 00 km away from the area where the fruit fly was 
found.  Brazil was waiting for the completion of  the public consultation process in Japan and 
requested Japan to act swiftly to allow the importa tion of mangoes.  Japan reported its authorities had 
recently received data from Brazil on the trapping of  fruit flies and was in the process of reviewing 
the information.  Brazil had subm itted technical information in Oc tober 2001 and the technical studies 
by Japan were progressing well.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 47 
 
 
  185. In March 2004, Brazil stated that the Japanese authorities had reacted favourably to technical 
data provided by Brazil the previous year.  The evaluation process had entered a new phase and Brazil 
hoped to come to a satisfactory solution including the signing of a protocol on packaging, storage and transportation of mangoes to Japan.  India noted th at, while India was a fruit fly free area its request 
for market access for mangoes into Japan had been under review for ten years.  India had submitted 
data to Japan and hoped for a favourable response.  Japan  stated that technical evaluation of data 
submitted by Brazil was in the final stages.  With respect to India's concerns, Japan had not received 
technical data from India but looked forward to receiving such data. 
186. In June 2004, Brazil reported that after the l ast meeting, Brazilian and Japanese phytosanitary 
authorities had held two technical meetings in Japan  to discuss a phytosanitary protocol that would 
allow Brazilian mango exports to Japan.  In the l ast meeting, the Japanese authorities had confirmed 
that negotiations on the protocol ha d been concluded, and certificati on of consignments remained the 
only outstanding issue.  The Japanese authorities had i ndicated that this issue could be resolved in 
parallel with the public consultation phase and Br azil encouraged Japan to initiate the public 
consultation soon.  Japan confirmed that the tec hnical evaluation on the Mediterranean fruit fly had 
been completed and a bilateral meeting had been held to coordinate plant quarantine measures for 
market access and requirements for hot water di pping.  The new protocol was expected to be 
implemented based on the outcomes of these bilateral discussions. 
187. In March 2005,  Brazil informed the Committee that on 29 September 2004, Japan had 
modified its phytosanitary regulations and establis hed specific norms for the import of mangoes from 
Brazil.  In December 2004, Japanese inspectors had gone to Brazil to examine packing houses.  On 
12 January 2005, the first shipment of Brazilian mangoes had been exported to Japan, which marked 
the beginning of a regular flow of exports of mangoe s to Japan.  To date, eight shipments of mangoes 
(variety Tommy Atkins) had been exported without restrictions.  Japan noted that the measure was 
taken through the appropriate p est risk assessment process based on technical data submitted by 
Brazil. 
 
REPUBLIC OF KOREA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY REPUBLIC OF KOREA  
Food safety 1. Shelf-life requirements  
Raised by: Australia, Canada, United States 
Supported by: Argentina, European Communities 
Dates raised: June 1995 (G/SPS/R/2, pa ras. 39-40), November 1995 (G/SPS/R/3, 
paras. 7-8), May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5, paras. 42-44), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, 
paras. 20-21), July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, paras. 8-9), October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, paras. 6-7), Ju ly 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/KOR/9, G/SPS/W/27, G/SPS/W/41, G/SPS/W/43, 
G/SPS/GEN/40, G/SPS/GEN/265 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 48  
 
  Solution: The United States and Korea held  formal consultations under dispute 
settlement (W/DS5), and notified a mutually agreed solution in July 1995. Canada initiated formal dispute se ttlement (W/DS20), and a mutually 
satisfactory solution was notified in April 1996 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as resolved: 1 July 2001 
 
188. In June 1995, the United States informed th e Committee of official consultations under 
Dispute settlement procedures with Korea regarding its government-mandated shelf-life requirements.  
Canada had joined these consultations.  Korea i ndicated that although consultations had been 
productive, there was a high degree of ambiguity in the implementation of the Agreement.  The parties had noted the lack of international standard s in the area, and countries maintained very diverse 
practices.  A mutually agreed solution was notifie d in July 1995.  In November 1995, the United 
States expressed serious concern that Korea was not implementing the agreed settlement. 
189. Also in November 1995, Canada indicated that  it had initiated formal  consultations with 
Korea related to shelf-life determination for bottled water and the prohibition of the use of ozonation.  
Korea confirmed that bottled water was excluded fro m the settlement reached with the United States, 
but was willing to enter into consultations with Ca nada.  A mutually satisfactory solution was notified 
in April 1996. 
190. In May 1996 Canada noted th at although a formal understanding had been reached with 
regard to some concerns regarding shelf life, probl ems with the shelf life of bottled water continued.  
Korea had not offered any time-table for moving to a manufacturer-determined shelf life on bottled 
water.  Korea took note of this concern.  In Ju ly 1997, Canada reported that the matter had been 
pursued bilaterally, but no resolution had been found. 
191. In May 1996, Australia expressed serious concern with regard to Korea's shelf-life regulations 
on ultra heat treated milk in consumer packs (UHT  milk), which remained government mandated at a 
period substantially shorter than that applied in most countries.  Australia was unaware of any 
scientific justification for this limited shelf-life pe riod, and requested Korea to permit a manufacturer-
determined shelf life by 1 July 1996.  Korea took note of these concerns. 
192. In March 1997, Australia reported that Ko rea had yet to implement a manufacturer-
determined shelf life for UHT milk.  Australia had provided a scientific submission to Korea in 
November 1996, which had not been accepted.  S ubsequently, Australia had provided another 
submission upon request.  Korea indicated that it was reviewing the information provided by Australia 
and noted that its new system for shelf-life determ ination set a time-frame for the implementation of a 
manufacturer-determined shelf-life period for UHT milk. 
193. In July 1997, Australia noted that Korea had not provided any justification for its non-
acceptance of manufacturer-determined shelf life, a nd requested an explanation in accordance with 
Article 5.8.  Korea indicated that manufacturer-det ermined shelf life would be applied to UHT milk 
before the end of 1998.  In October 1997, Australia  indicated that it had not received a satisfactory 
answer from Korea.  Korea replied that it was reviewing the possibility of extending the current 
mandatory shelf-life period for UHT milk even befo re manufacturer-determined shelf life applied at 
the end of 1998. 
194. In July 2001, the United States indicated that it  considered the trade concern to be resolved 
(G/SPS/GEN/265).  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 49 
 
 
  35. Import ban on frozen poultry 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Re v.1, para. 45), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, 
paras. 67-68), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/ 11, paras. 21-23), September 1998 
(G/SPS/R/12, paras. 15-16) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/KOR/44 
Solution: Measure amended 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 September 1998 
 
195. In October 1997, Thailand indicated that Ko rea had banned Thai frozen poultry because of 
listeria, although Korean experts had been satisfi ed after visiting facilities of the Thai poultry 
industry.  This ban had not been notified in advan ce.  Thailand was determined to resolve this matter 
with Korea. Korea asked for detailed information in writing. 
196. In March 1998, Thailand indicated that it had s ubmitted the requested information.  It sought 
clarification whether the measure was based on an international standard or on a risk assessment, 
particularly in light of information made av ailable by the WHO working group on food-borne 
listeriosis, which indicated that listeriosis had a ve ry low incidence in Asia.  Korea responded that its 
measure was not a ban, but that consignments had been rejected. 
197. In June 1998, Thailand noted that the proposed amendment to the Korean food code had been 
enacted retroactively to cover the disputed testi ng requirements and asked Korea not to enforce the 
testing requirements during the process of amendment of the food code.  Korea reported that bilateral 
consultations had been held.  The food code wa s being reviewed to improve food safety and to 
harmonize Korean regulations with international st andards.  All comments received were currently 
being reviewed, although some delays had occurred.  Korea promised to inform Thailand of the final 
outcome. 
198. In September 1998, Thailand asked for confirmation that the Korean Food Code had been 
amended so that zero tolerance criteria for listeri a would not apply to imported frozen chicken after 
16 June 1998.  Korea clarified that meat for further processing and cooking was excluded from the 
requirement and not subject to inspection un der the zero tolerance criteria for listeria. 
 
Plant Health 
202. Septoria controls on horticultural products 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, par as. 40-41), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, 
para 84) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 50  
 
  Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 March 2005 
 
199. The United States stated that since April 2004,  Korea had banned imports of citrus from 
California due to concerns of the fungi septoria citri .  The United States was working closely with 
Korean plant health officials to address this con cern although no cases of the fungi had been detected 
in any US shipment of citrus.  The United States had proposed sev eral measures to address Korean's 
plant health protection concerns and technical di scussions would be held on 4 November 2004.  The 
United States hoped that discussions on the protocol would be finalized and trade resumed quickly as 
the harvesting season would shortly begin. 
200. Korea stated that septoria citri  was one of the most serious quarantine pests in Korea.  The 
US proposed protocol did not fully address Ko rea's concerns.  A ban was imposed on fruits 
originating from two specific areas in the Unite d States where the fungi was repeatedly detected. 
201. In March 2005, the United States and Korea re ported that this issue had been resolved 
following technical meetings. 
 
Other concerns 
2. Import clearance measures and practices 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Certain Members 
Dates raised: June 1995 (G/SPS/R/2, paras. 39-40), May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5, paras. 4-5), 
October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, para. 54) , March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 54), 
July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, para. 77), October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, 
paras. 42-43), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/W/64, G/SPS/W/66, G/SPS/GN/6, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Consultations under Dispute Se ttlement initiated (WT/DS3, WT/DS41); 
mutually satisfactory solution found 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 July 2001 
 
202. In June 1995, the United States informed the Co mmittee that it had held formal consultations 
with Korea regarding its inspection and testing met hods.  Korea indicated that although consultations 
had been productive, there was a high degree of ambi guity in the implementation of the Agreement.  
The parties had noted the lack of international st andards in the area, and countries maintained very 
diverse practices.  In May 1996, the United States expressed serious concern regarding Korea's import 
clearance measures and practices, which were not based on science, did not conform to international 
practice or standards, and were deliberately empl oyed to discourage food and agricultural imports.  
The United States had submitted a formal request for consultations.  Korea replied that these issues 
had been discussed extensively in a series of bila teral consultations with the United States and other 
countries.  Korea had taken various measures to comply with the SPS Agreement, but encountered  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 51 
 
 
  problems common to developing countries: a low level of sanitary infrastructure, lack of experience 
and information, and lack of relevant internationa l standards.  However, Korea would continue to 
adapt its measures to the SPS Agreement. 
203. In October 1996, the United States reported on ongoing discussions with Korea.  The United 
States expected reforms to shorten the import clearance process in Korea without additional 
burdensome requirements, with a period for comme nts by WTO Members.  Korea answered that an 
ambitious reform programme had been launched the previous year, including the establishment of an 
advanced inspection and quarantine system by the end of 1996.  In March 1997, the United States 
noted that consultations continued.  Although Korea had implemented some changes, concerns 
remained.  Korea indicated that it would continue its efforts to conform its sanitary and phytosanitary 
legislation to the SPS Agreement. 
204. In July 1997, the United States reported that af ter five rounds of consultations under the WTO 
dispute settlement procedure, some Korean import cl earance laws and regulatio ns had been reformed.  
However, since January new problems had arisen.  The United States would continue to address these concerns in bilateral consultations until clearance times in Korean ports we re similar to those in 
similar ports.  Korea took note of the US comments.   In October 1997, the United States noted that 
although some progress had been made, there seemed to be problems with the implementation of 
certain changes Korea had agreed to make.  The repr esentative of Korea indicated that in his view the 
new import clearance system was in full complia nce with the SPS Agreement, however, the US 
concerns would be conveyed to the competent authorities in the capital. 
205. In July 2001, the United States indicated that bilateral consu ltations initiated under the dispute 
settlement framework resulted in a mutually sa tisfactory and positive outcome (G/SPS/GEN/265).  
The United States considered th is trade concern resolved. 
 
MALAYSIA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY MALAYSIA  
Food safety 
66. Notifications related to dioxin  
Raised by: Switzerland 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para. 16) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/MYS/6, G/SPS/N/SGP/7 
Solution: Problems with Malaysia and Si ngapore were resolved in July 1999 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 July 1999 
 
206. Switzerland expressed concern that it had been affected by restrictions on imports of 
European goods in response to the dioxin crisis in Belgium.  Some Members had not targeted their 
measures only to affected areas.  Switzerland reporte d that a solution had been found with Malaysia, 
and that the last few problems with Singapore would be resolved soon. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 52  
 
  MEXICO 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY MEXICO  
Plant Health 36. Import prohibition of milled rice 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Re v.1, para. 44), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, 
paras. 69-70), June 1998 (G/SPS/ R/11, para. 24), September 1998 
(G/SPS/R/12, paras. 17-18), November  1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 14-16), 
March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, para. 15), July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para. 7), 
November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, para . 86), March 2000 (G/SPS/R/18, 
para. 26), June 2000 (G/SPS/R/19, paras. 22-23), November 2000 
(G/SPS/R/20, paras. 23-25), March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 46-47), 
October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 112-113), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, 
para. 138), June 2002 (G /SPS/R/27, para. 131) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/MEX/44, G/SPS/N/MEX/45, G/SPS/N/MEX/55, 
G/SPS/N/MEX/153, G/SPS/N/MEX/172, G/SPS/GEN/82, G/SPS/GEN/105, G/SPS/GEN/172, G/SPS/GEN/216 
Solution: Revised regulation published on 15 April 2002 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as resolved: 1 June 2002 
 
207. In October 1997, Thailand reported that Mexico  prohibited importation of Thai milled rice 
because of the fungus tilletia barclayana  (Kernel smut), although Mexi can experts visiting Thailand 
had concluded the fungus would be removed during milling, and although the fungus existed in 
Mexico.  Mexico had informed Thailand that the prohibition would be replaced  by a new regulation, 
but despite high-level consultati ons no progress had been achieved.  Mexico assured the Committee 
that the matter would be followed up.  In March 1998, Thailand indicated that it had received no 
replies to its written communication to Mexico.  Th e Mexican delegate replied that he would convey 
the information to his authorities, who were studying the matter.  Thailand expressed its disappointment at the lack of progress again in June 1998, and Mexico stated that the issue was still under consideration.  In September 1998, Mexico reported on official contacts between the two 
countries.  Mexico was conducting a risk assessment , but had not received the necessary information 
from Thailand. 
208. In November 1998, Thailand reported that it had proposed holding consultations with the 
Chairman, but that Mexico had not agreed.  He str essed that there was no data demonstrating the risk 
of transmission of the fungus tilletia barclayana  from Thai milled rice.  Mexico had requested 
information on a different pest for its risk as sessment, but Thailand did not see the connection 
between the two issues, as this new pest was not  listed in the regulation establishing the Mexican 
quarantine measures.  Thailand was concerned that  Mexico might request information on one pest 
after another.  Mexico repeated that the requested information had not been provided.  Both countries 
indicated consultations would continue. 
209. In March 1999, Thailand indicated that a lthough it had no obligation to do so, it was 
providing the information requested by Mexico.  Me xico noted that its measures had been notified,  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 53 
 
 
  and the text of the measures provided to Thailand.  Mexico would review the latest information and 
act accordingly.  In July 1999, Thailand reporte d that it had handed over additional documents to 
Mexico.  Some progress had been made at bilatera l consultations, where it had been clarified that 
tilletia barclayana was a quarantine disease only for seed imports, not with regard to rice imported for 
consumption.  Mexico had also found no reports of the presence of the khapra beetle in Thailand, and 
would thus modify its regulati on which had listed Thailand as a country affected by this pest. 
210. In November 1999, Mexico informed the Comm ittee that the phytosanitary regulations were 
being revised and would be published for comments.  Mexico had provided Thailand with the text of 
the draft measures.  Thailand indicated it was looki ng forward to the publication of the final measure 
and its notification to WTO.  In March 2000, Th ailand noted that Mexico had taken new measures 
replacing the ban, but these measures included unusual and unnecessary requirements such as 
fumigation at point of entry.  Mexico invited Thailand to send official comments on the new draft 
regulation. 
211. In June 2000, Thailand reported that bilateral consultations had taken place.  Thailand had 
posed a list of questions regarding the measure no tified in G/SPS/N/MEX/153.  Mexico explained that 
the questions and comments from Thailand were being reviewed by the competent Mexican 
authorities.  The sub-committee considering the matter would meet in July 2000, and responses to each of the comments would be published in the O fficial Journal before the final standard was 
published. 
212. In November 2000, Thailand reported that alt hough every effort had been made to find 
resolution to this problem, the issue was still unr esolved.  Thailand had not been informed of the 
status of the matter since the meeting of the Me xican phytosanitary committee in July and August 
2000, and was interested in the expected date of  amendment of the relevant Mexican standard.  
Mexico had no further information. 
213. In March 2001, Thailand reported that during bi lateral consultations, Mexico had indicated 
that it had removed the prohibition on Thai milled  rice, and that Thailand was no longer listed as a 
country under quarantine against Khapra beetle.  Thailand requested that Mexico notify this 
amendment to the SPS Committee.  Thailand was satis fied with the interim measure which allowed 
for the importation of Thai rice upon request by im porters.  However, Thailand was concerned that 
the final publication of the phytosanitary requirem ents had not yet been adopted, meaning that the 
lifting of the ban could not be implemented on a permanent basis.  Thailand would pursue the 
measure bilaterally with Mexico.  Mexico explained that the definitive publication of the measure in 
the Official Journal had not yet been possible due to  administrative procedures requiring legislation.  
However, Mexico would issue phytosanitary certifi cates until the time of publication.  Imports had to 
fulfill certain criteria, including international phytos anitary certificates, inspection at point of entry, 
sampling for laboratory analysis and fumigation with methyl bromide.  Fumigation at place of origin would only be accepted if the product was in plastic bags. 
214. In October 2001, Thailand recalled that in  March 2001 Mexico had announced that 
restrictions against Thai milled rice had b een lifted on condition that it underwent fumigation 
treatment.  Despite this statement, notificati on G/SPS/N/MEX/172 showed that Thailand remained on 
Mexico's list of countries affected by the Khapra be etle and subject to quarantine requirements.  In 
subsequent bilateral consul tations, Thailand had been informed that  it would be removed from the list.  
Mexico expressed surprise at Thailand's statemen t since as of March, Mexico had imported over 
1,000 tonnes of Thai rice.  The product mentioned on the notification in question was not Thai rice. 
215. 
In March 2002, Thailand noted that a bilatera l meeting with Mexico on the matter had been 
held earlier in the week.  Mexico reported that r estrictions on milled rice from Thailand had been G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 54  
 
  lifted as of March 2001, however the publication of the modified regulation had been delayed but 
would take place within 30 days. 
216. In June 2002, Thailand informed the Committee that on 15 April 2002, Mexico had published 
the revised regulation.  Thailand appreciat ed Mexico's cooperation on this matter. 
 164. Restrictions on the importation of dry beans 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada, Nicaragua 
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras.  28-30), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, para.71), 
June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, para. 39) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/379, G/SPS/N/MEX/68, WT/DS284 
Solution: Consultations requested under dis pute settlement produced by Nicaragua -
Mutually satisfactory solution reported by Nicaragua in March 2004, and 
by the United States in June 2006. 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 June 2006 
 
217. The United States reported that Mexico had unjustifiably implemented a temporary 
suspension on the importation of dried beans from the United States on 21 January 2003.  Canada and Nicaragua stated that they shared the concerns of  the United States.  Canada noted that no provision 
had been made in the Mexican measure for shipments en route.  Nicaragua indicated that access of its 
black beans to the Mexican market had been bl ocked for what it considered arbitrary reasons. 
218. Mexico replied that high level discussions ha d taken place between the Mexican authorities 
and the United States and Canada.  Mexico would communicate in the next few days what steps it 
would take to resolve this issue.  Mexico w ould reply at a latter date to comments raised by 
Nicaragua. 
219. In March 2004, Mexico informed the  Committ ee that the issue of restrictions on the 
importation of dry beans had been resolved with Ni caragua.  Nicaragua stated that on 8 March 2004, 
the Dispute Settlement Body was notified of Nicaragua 's withdrawal of consultations with Mexico on 
this issue. 
220. In June 2006, the United States informed the Comm ittee that the issue had been resolved with 
Mexico. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 55 
 
 
  NEW ZEALAND 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY NEW ZEALAND  
Food safety 45. Import restrictions on cheese 
Raised by: Switzerland, European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11 and Co rr.1, paras. 41-42b), November 1998 
(G/SPS/R/13, paras. 21-23), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, paras. 9-13), 
November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, para. 32) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/80, G/SPS/N/AUS/107, G/SPS/N/NZL/48 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as resolved: 1 November 2000 
 
221. In June 1998, Switzerland reported that, without  advance notice, New Zealand and Australia 
had stopped imports of hard cheeses made from unpasteu rized milk, on the grounds that they did not 
meet the sanitary requirements.  Australia and New Zealand responded that the relevant import 
measure required inactivation of pathogenic organism s.  This measure had been put in place before 
1 January 1995 and therefore not been notified, but compliance had recently been reinforced.  
ANZFA was evaluating the applications received from Switzerland and the European Communities. 
222. In November 1998, the European Communities requested Australia to identify the 
international standard on which its  import ban on Roquefort cheese was based, or to provide scientific 
justification and a risk assessment.  Australia r esponded that its food standards required all cheese to 
be made from pasteurized milk, or milk that had u ndergone an equivalent process.  Australia's risk 
assessment on Roquefort cheese had identified poten tial problems with pathogenic micro-organisms, 
in particular entero-hemorrhagic E-coli.  Furt her data from the Roquefort manufacturers had been 
received and were being evaluated.  In additio n to food safety assessments, Roquefort cheese was 
being evaluated for risks to animal health.  Draf t revised import conditions would be notified soon, 
and comments solicited.  A final decision was likel y in the first quarter of 1999 on both food safety 
and animal health aspects. 
223. In March 1999, Switzerland asked about the progress of ANZFA's procedures. Australia 
responded that ANZFA had conducted a risk assessme nt.  The documentation would be published on 
17 March 1999 for public comment, after which a final recommendation would be made.  Swiss 
officials in Canberra would be br iefed on 16 March 1999.  Regarding EC concerns, Australia reported 
that according to a risk assessment initiated by th e Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA), 
French Roquefort did not comply with Australian requirements.  French officials in Canberra would be briefed on the issue.  In November 2000, Swit zerland reported that a mutually satisfactory solution 
had been found. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 56  
 
  Plant Health 
101. Proposed import prohibition of commodity -country combinations of fresh cut flowers 
and foliage 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Colombia 
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, par as. 68-70), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 44) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/NZL/24, G/SPS/N/NZL/142 
Solution: Proposed measures withdrawn 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 March 2002 
 
224. The European Communities was concerned that according to the proposed measure, plants 
not traded for two years might be subject to a prohibition, pending a new risk assessment.  This 
practice was not in accordance with international st andards, and was unnecessary and unjustified.  
Colombia expressed interest in participating in  bilateral exchanges and in receiving relevant 
information.  New Zealand explained that in 1997 it had commenced a review of its import 
requirements for cut flowers as imports were stea dily growing.  New draft standards had been 
approved and notified in 1998, and were  being reviewed in light of the most up to date scientific data.  
At an initial step the review included the suspensi on of historic phytosanitary requirements for some 
countries.  New Zealand had notified its plan to further consolidate the approved country-commodity 
schedules to include only those commodities that ha d actually been exported to New Zealand in the 
past two years.  New Zealand would continue to  address the EC concerns on a bilateral basis. 
225. In March 2002, New Zealand stated that th e proposed measures had been withdrawn. 
 
NORWAY 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY NORWAY  
Animal Health 
3. Restrictions on gelatin imports 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1996 (G/SPS/R/4, para. 47), Septembe r 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, 
paras. 24-25), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 19-20) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Import conditions clarified 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as resolved: 1 November 1998 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 57 
 
 
  226. In March 1996, Brazil informed the Committee th at Norway had halted the issuance of import 
licenses for Brazilian gelatin because of the existence of FMD in Brazil.  Consultations with Norway 
had been initiated in 1995, and Norwegian aut horities had reportedly declared the problem was 
solved.  Nevertheless, import licenses continued to be  denied.  Norway stated that the ban on gelatin 
imports from Brazil would be lifted in the context of recent changes to import regulations.  The two 
Members agreed to continue their consultations. 
227. In September 1998, Brazil reported that bilatera l contacts had not resulted in a lifting of the 
ban.  Norway explained the conditions it applied to imports of Brazilian gelatin, and stated that 
applications fulfilling these conditions would be  accepted.  In November 1998, Brazil thanked 
Norway for having clarified its import requirement s.  Brazil would have no problem meeting these 
requirements and looked forward to r esuming its gelatin exports to Norway. 
 
PANAMA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY PANAMA  
Animal Health 
226. Inspection regime for agricultural products  
Raised by: Costa Rica 
Supported by: Argentina, Canada, Colomb ia, United States, European Communities 
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, pa ras. 39-41), February 2007 (G/SPS/R/44, 
para. 63), June 2007 (G/SPS/R/45, paras. 48-49) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/PAN/43, G/SPS/GEN/582 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as resolved: 1 June 2007 
 
228. In June 2005, Costa Rica noted that, as de veloped in document G/SPS/GEN/582, Panama's 
new inspection system, notified in April 2005 as G/SPS/N/PAN/43, posed problems to several Costa 
Rican firms trying to export tomato  paste, milk and animal products to Panama.  Panama had changed 
its rules regarding the inspection of plants without prior notification to the WTO and provision of an adaptation period.  Although Costa Rican enterp rises already had certifications from Panama's 
Ministry of Health for exports of sweetened milk  and animal products to Panama, now according to 
the new rules they also had to undergo inspection by  the Ministry of Agriculture.  Costa Rica had 
unsuccessfully requested Panama to avoid the second in spection.  Costa Rica had also requested that 
Panama provide the risk assessment and scientific justification supporting this new requirement. 
229. Argentina, Canada, Colombia, the European  Communities and the United States reported 
experiencing similar difficulties accessing the Panama nian market.  Argentina had sanitary difficulties 
in relation to FMD and bureaucratic difficulties whic h did not seem to be designed to protect animal 
health in Panama (see Panama- FMD restrictions ).  The European Communities had suddenly been 
faced with a new Panamanian health legislation re ferring, firstly, to a system which seemed to link 
obtaining an import license for Panama to a paymen t and, secondly, to an inspection system which 
would be paid for by the exporting country.  The United States recalled an is sue raised at the March 
2005 meeting of the Committee concerning the expansi on of Panama's inspection programme to most G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 58  
 
  food processing establishments and the non notification of  this significant change in Panama's import 
regime.  Canada had been experiencing problems with Panama's requirement for plant-by-plant 
approvals for meat exports and the recent changes to Panama's inspection regime. 
230. Panama reminded the Committee that it was the fi rst time that this issue of plant inspection 
was raised by Costa Rica before the SPS Committ ee.  Panama's inspection regime followed the 
fundamental principles of the SPS Agreement and of  OIE and IPPC standards.  Risk assessment 
methods comprised two parts:  the protection of Panama's health status and the functioning of the Ministry of Agriculture.  The excellent quality of Panama's exports of cattle  and dairy products was 
due to a stringent application of the SPS measure s domestically and to imports.  Because of its 
geographical situation as a hub for world trade, Pana ma was exposed to a greater risk of introduction 
of pest and animal diseases and therefore had to undertake a risk assessment prior to authorizing 
imports from countries affected by exotic di seases.  The risk assessme nt undertaken by the 
Panamanian authorities would shortly be given to the Costa Rican delegation. 
231. In February 2007, Panama recalled Costa Rica's  concerns regarding its inspection regime, in 
particular with regard to "dulce de leche" and tomatoes, as detailed in document G/SPS/GEN/582.  
Following a number of bilateral meetings, in Oc tober 2006 Costa Rican officials had issued a 
communication indicating the resolution of these issues. 
232. In June 2007, Costa Rica recognized that Panama had established a new regulation, and on 
the basis of an analysis of this, Costa Rica c oncluded that its concerns had been resolved. 
 
Plant Health 
24. Requirements for certification of consumer rice 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 15), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Import restrictions removed 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 July 2001 
 
233. In March 1997, the United States noted that Pana ma required imports of consumer rice to be 
certified free from the fungus tilletia barclayana  (Kernel smut), although this fungus already existed 
in Panama.  Furthermore, the fungus in questio n could not be transmitted through milled rice.  
Panamanian officials had allegedly suggested that  current domestic supply co nditions had influenced 
their decisions.  The representative of Panama rep lied that she would forward a report from capital to 
the US Department of Agriculture. 
234. In July 2001, the United States indicated that Panama had removed its import restrictions on 
rice in late 1997, and that the matter was resolved (G/SPS/GEN/265). 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 59 
 
 
  Other concerns 
118. Import licenses for agricultural products 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 26), February 2007 (G/SPS/R/44, para. 61) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 February 2007 
 
235. Canada stated that high level meetings were underway regardi ng the automaticity of Panama's 
import licensing procedures.  Panama stated that Ca nada's concerns were be ing considered by the 
appropriate authorities. 
236. In February 2007, Canada indicated that it considered this specific trade concern to be 
resolved.  Canada had previously been concerned that the issuance of SPS-related import licenses was 
being hindered for non-SPS reasons, however that c oncern had been resolved through a bilateral 
discussion.  Panama confirmed that the issue had been resolved and stressed their objective of 
smoother trade relations. 
 
PHILIPPINES 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY PHILIPPINES  
Food safety 
150. Certification of meat and dairy products 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: Australia, Korea, Republic of, New Zealand, United States, European 
Communities 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28,  paras. 98-100), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, 
paras. 70-71) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/PHL/44 
Solution: Implementation of MO7 deferred indefinitely 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 April 2003 
 
237. Canada expressed concerns about the eff ects of the memorandum order MO7 from the 
Philippines Department of Agriculture, noting that it would have serious e ffects upon its exports of 
meat and dairy products.  While Ca nada did not quarrel with the requi rement that imports be produced 
in plants applying HACCP procedures and that there be a certification to this effect, it was not clear whether Philippine producers were subject to simila r requirements.  The requirement of a third party G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 60  
 
  independent certification was unwar ranted and not the least trade restrictive option.  Canada's 
governmental authority, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, was prepared to certify that exports to 
the Philippines had been produced in HACCP compliant plants and there was no need for additional 
certification by a third party.  The European Co mmunities, Australia, Korea, New Zealand and the 
United States shared this concern.  The EC certif ication requirements already put a lot of emphasis on 
HACCP compliance.  Australia felt that the Philippi ne's proposed measures were not in accordance 
with SPS obligations. 
238. The Philippines clarified that certification of HACCP compliance by third party auditors was 
required in the light of several documented cases of contaminated products entering the country.  The Philippines was concerned that not all shipme nts came from well established HACCP compliant 
plants.  The measures were not meant to replace  or duplicate the exporting country's inspection 
system but to complement it.  The Philippines believe d that appropriate and sufficient time had been 
provided to trading partners and foresaw no problem that trade restrictions might occur especially for 
countries claiming to be HACCP compliant.  The Ph ilippines indicated that HACCP was a universal 
guideline approved and propagated by FAO and WHO. 
239. In April 2003, Canada reported that on 24 Februa ry 2003, the Minister of Agriculture of the 
Philippines had announced that implementation of Memorandum Order 7 requiring third party 
certification for HACCP plants had been postponed.   The European Commun ities, New Zealand and 
the United States shared Canada's appreciation of th is decision.  The Philippines confirmed that MO7 
had been deferred indefinitely. 
 POLAND C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY POLAND  
Food safety 57. Requirements for imports of milk and milk products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 70-71) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/POL/14 
Solution: Poland's accession to the European Union 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 June 2004 
 
240. The European Communities indicated that the Po lish sanitary requirements for milk and milk 
products resulted in unjustified trade distortions sin ce they required the application of heat treatment 
to products which were produced with raw milk.  The European Communities felt that there were 
equivalent procedures to ensure that Poland's le vel of protection was met, and invited Poland to 
engage in bilateral discussions on this measure.  Poland indicated that the EC request would be 
considered. 
241. In June 2004, the European Communities reported that this issue had been resolved with the 
accession of Poland into the European Union.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 61 
 
 
  Animal Health 
4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by  Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Ge rmany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, 
Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States [See Item 4, page 1] 
 
68. Notifications on veterinary measures and me asures on animal products including gelatin 
Raised by: Switzerland, United States 
Supported by: Brazil, European Communities 
Dates raised: July 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras. 48-49), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, 
paras. 46-48), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22,  para. 127), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, 
paras. 40-42) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/POL/3, G/SPS/N/POL/5, G/SPS/N/POL/13, G/SPS/N/POL/14 
and Add.1, G/SPS/N/POL/25, G/SPS/GEN/265, G/SPS/GEN/322 
Solution: Regulation amended and rest rictions on gelatine from bovine hides 
removed 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as resolved: 1 June 2002 
 
242. In June 1998, the United States sought clarificatio n of the status of this temporary ban, its 
scientific basis, and whether future amendments were being considered.  Brazil, the European 
Communities, Switzerland and the United States e xpressed hope that the disease status of the 
supplying country, scientific factors related to th e infectivity of gelatin and gelatin-containing 
products, as identified by the OIE, and non-discr imination between supplie rs with similar BSE 
conditions would all be taken into account in future  amendments.  Poland indicated that the measure 
in question would remain in force until the end of  June 1998, and would be replaced by a measure 
reflecting the present state of scientific knowledge.  Regarding different treatment of Switzerland, the 
United Kingdom and Ireland, the new regulations  had not yet been adopted by the Polish 
Government.  Poland committed to providing a response on the basis of written questions from 
Switzerland. 
243. In September 1998, Switzerland reported on info rmal consultations w ith Poland regarding 
border measures in relation to BSE which diffe rentiated only between countries with a higher 
incidence of BSE and those of low inciden ce.  This constituted a departure from OIE 
recommendations, which also took into account surve illance and prevention systems.  The European 
Communities indicated that imports from herds wi thout BSE history should be accepted even for 
products in the highest risk category.  Poland explai ned that the measure had been taken in relation to 
the BSE situation in the concerned countries.  B ilateral consultations we re ongoing with the United 
Kingdom, Ireland and Switzerland.  The BSE situat ion was under permanent surveillance and all 
results would be taken into account during th e year-end review of Poland's regulations. 
244. In July 2001, the United States indicated  that bilateral discussions on certification 
requirements for bovine gelatin continued (G/SPS/GEN/265). 
245. In June 2002, Switzerland stated that Poland continued to restrict imports of bovine semen 
and gelatin from Switzerland although the OIE had c oncluded that bovine semen and gelatine did not 
present a risk regardless of the BSE status of the exporting country (G/SPS/GEN/322).  The G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 62  
 
  representative of the European Communities indicated that EC member States had similar concerns 
regarding Poland's measure.  The representative of  the OIE clarified that Chapter 4 of the 
International Animal Health Code recommended no restriction on bovine semen.  No BSE risk had 
been identified from gelatin made exclusively from hides, however certain treatments were 
recommended with respect to gelatin made from bones if the exporting country were not free from 
BSE. 
246. Poland clarified that bovine semen had never been covered by the Polish regulation in 
question.  Its restrictions on imports of several animal products from Switzerland had been notified in 
G/SPS/N/POL/25.  Furthermore, there had just b een further amendments to the regulation, and 
restrictions on gelatine from bovine hides had been removed.  Poland announced its intention to notify 
this new regulation. 
 
ROMANIA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ROMANIA  
Animal Health 
4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by  Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Ge rmany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, 
Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States [See Item 4, page 1] 
 
SINGAPORE 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SINGAPORE  
Food safety 66. Notifications related to dioxin  
Raised by: Switzerland 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para. 16) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/MYS/6, G/SPS/N/SGP/7 
Solution: Problems with Malaysia and Si ngapore were resolved in July 1999 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 July 1999 
 
247. Switzerland expressed concern that it had been affected by restrictions on imports of 
European goods in response to the dioxin crisis in Belgium.  Some Members had not targeted their 
measures only to affected areas.  Switzerland reporte d that a solution had been found with Malaysia, 
and that the last few problems with Singapore would be resolved soon. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 63 
 
 
  Animal Health 
4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by  Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Ge rmany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, 
Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States [See Item 4, page 1] 
 
SLOVAK REPUBLIC C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SLOVAK REPUBLIC  
Animal Health 4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by  Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Ge rmany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, 
Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States [See Item 4, page 1] 
 
Plant Health 
41. Restrictions on imports of apples, pears and quinces 
Raised by: Hungary 
Supported by: Bulgaria, European Communities 
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras. 20-21), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, 
paras. 27-30), September 1998 (G/SPS /R/12 and Corr.1, paras. 31-34), 
October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 33) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/SVK/8 and Rev.1, G/SPS/N/SVK/11, G/SPS/GEN/79 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 October 2001 
 
248. In March 1998, Hungary indicated that althoug h the Slovak Republic had made changes to its 
measure on importation of apples, pears and quinc es as notified, the certification and information 
requirements were extremely burdensome.  The measur e appeared to be more restrictive than required 
to protect health, was not based on scientific prin ciples and constituted a disguised restriction on 
trade.  The Slovak Republic answered that th e measure was intended for protection against the 
introduction of fire blight ( Erwinia amylovora ), which did not occur in Slovakia.  The revised 
measure, which extended import possibilities, was c onsistent with the SPS Agreement, but the Slovak 
Republic remained open to bilateral discussions. 
249. In June 1998, Hungary ac knowledged improvements made by the Slovak Republic, but 
stressed that the measure was not consistent  with recommendations by the European and 
Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO).   The licensing system, which applied to each 
consignment, remained too burdensome.  The Slova k Republic replied that it imported 35 per cent of 
its apples, pears and quinces, which showed that there were no serious market access impediments.  
Given the potential economic costs of introductio n of the disease, and since available scientific 
information was not sufficient, a precautionary appro ach was adopted in line with Article 5.7.  The G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 64  
 
  Slovak Republic was exchanging information with countries applying similar phytosanitary measures, 
and was ready to continue discussion with its trad ing partners.  In September 1998, Hungary again 
acknowledged that the Slovak measure had been impr oved, although a partial ban still applied, for 
which no scientific justification had been given.  The Slovak Republic reitera ted its earlier arguments 
that it had put in place a temporary measure accord ing to Article 5.7.  In October 2001, Hungary 
reported that a mutually acceptable solution had been found. 
 
42. Import restrictions on potatoes 
Raised by: Poland, European Communities 
Supported by: Argentina, Chile, Hungary 
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, pa ras. 22-23), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, 
para. 21), July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para. 65), November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, 
para. 84) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/SVK/9, G/SPS/N/SVK/15, G/SPS/GEN/65, G/SPS/GEN/115, 
G/SPS/GEN/159 and G/SPS/GEN/165  
Solution: Accession of the Slovak Republic to the European Union 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as resolved: 1 June 2004 
 
250. In March 1998, the European Communities pointed out that notification of the Slovak 
measure on potatoes as an emergency measure did not appear to be justified, and that less trade-restrictive measures could attain the required leve l of protection.  The Slovak Republic responded that 
problems seemed to stem from the registration pr ocedure, rather than from the phytosanitary 
requirements per se .  Slovak authorities were about to remove the current strict registration 
requirements and establish a maximum residue level. 
251. In March 1999, Poland reported that following b ilateral consultations, the Slovak Republic 
had lifted its earlier import ban on Polish ware potat oes, but that it had been replaced with testing 
requirements for potato spindle tuber viroid.  Po land considered this requirement an unjustified 
obstacle to trade since no comment period had been provided and since the imported potatoes were treated to impede germination and were thus unl ikely to introduce diseases to crop plants.  The 
representative of the Slovak Republic indicated he would transmit the Polish comments to his authorities.  In July 1999, both delegations reporte d that consultations regarding potatoes and fruit, 
including apples, pears and quinces had taken place, and had been expanded to  include Slovak exports 
of cereals, maize and malt to Poland.  In N ovember 1999, Poland informed the Committee on the 
development of the issue.  The Slovak Republic thou ght it was more appropriate to discuss this matter 
at the expert level.  The Slovak Republic stresse d that it wanted to avoid importation of potato 
bacterial diseases.  Import measures had been notif ied (G/SPS/N/SVK/15), and were based on a pest 
risk analysis. 
252. In June 2004, the European Communities reported that this issue had b een resolved by the 
accession of the Slovak Republic to the European Union. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 65 
 
 
  SLOVENIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SLOVENIA  
Animal Health 4. Measures related to BSE - Maintained by  Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Ge rmany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, 
Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States [See Item 4, page 1] 
 
SWITZERLAND 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SWITZERLAND  
Food safety 
54. Notifications regarding import  requirements on meat and eggs 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Ch ile, Hungary, India, Israel, New Zealand 
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 39-41), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, 
paras. 29-30), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, para. 90) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHE/14 and Corr.1, G/SPS/N/CHE/15, G/SPS/N/CHE/16, 
G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Changes, taking into account comments received, were notified to the TBT
Committee. 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as resolved: 1 October 2004 
 
253. In September 1998, the United States expressed concern that Swiss regulations on meat from 
animals treated with hormones, antibiotics and si milar products imported under the Swiss tariff rate 
quota (TRQ) were not based on science or risk assessme nt.  The fact that different requirements were 
applied to meat imported outside the tariff rate quot a called into question the validity of the alleged 
public health objective behind the regulation.  Th e United States indicated it was preparing formal 
comments and encouraged other Members to carefully consider the implications of the notified measure.  Canada noted that the purpose of the m easure was consumer information, yet the measure 
did not make it clear if labelling was carried through to the retail level.  Switzerland noted that thirty 
days were left of the comment period, and that all comments made would be taken into account when 
drafting the final proposal. 
254. In November 1998, the United States reiterated its  concerns regarding restrictions on meat 
imports under the Swiss TRQ, and added that the measure notified as G/SPS/N/CHE/15 would prohibit imports of eggs and egg products from bi rds raised in battery cages under the TRQ.  Such 
imports would be permitted outside the TRQ, subject  to prohibitively high duties, strict labelling and 
additional certification requirements.  The proposed regulations did not indicate what public health 
objective was involved.  The United States was con cerned that the measures did not appear to be 
based on a risk assessment.  Discrimination betw een products imported under the TRQ and outside G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 66  
 
  the TRQ was unjustified.  Switzerland explained that  the measures related to the implementation of 
the new Swiss Federal Law on Agriculture of 29 Ap ril 1998.  Swiss authorities were still discussing 
the implementation of the Law, and questions  and comments would be taken into account. 
255. In July 2001, the United States indicated  that it considered the issue unresolved 
(G/SPS/GEN/265).  Switzerland had notified amended measures under the TBT Agreement, on which 
the United States had formally commented. 
256. In October 2004, Switzerland reported that this i ssue had been resolved.  Substantial changes  
had been made to the regulation to take in to account comments received during the public 
consultation process.  These changes were notified to the TBT Committee in 1999 and were no longer 
considered SPS issues.  The United States concurred that the issue was resolved. 
 
Plant Health 
28. Notification on wheat, rye and triticale 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, para . 32), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, para. 91) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHE/5 
Solution: Recognition of disease free status 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 October 2004 
 
257. Argentina expressed concern with regard to risi ng trade barriers on wheat grain for industrial 
and planting purposes.  Argentina was free from tilletia indica  (Karnal bunt).  Argentina requested a 
full draft of the proposed Swiss measure notifie d as G/SPS/N/CHE/5, includ ing access to the risk 
analysis and other scientific documents which substantiated the proposal.  Switzerland assured 
Argentina that the scientific b asis for the notified measure would be provided as soon as possible. 
258. In October 2004, Switzerland stated that this issue was resolved as Argentina was free from 
triticale indica and therefore the measure did not appl y to them.  Argentina concurred that the issue 
was resolved. 
 
SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU 
(CHINESE TAIPEI) 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINESE TAIPEI  
Animal Health 
180. Heat treatment for meat and bone meal in poultry for pet food 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 67 
 
 
  Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 17-18) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Deleted heat treatment requirement 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 January 2005 
 
259. The United States indicated that the heat treat ment requirements of Chinese Taipei for dried 
pet food produced in areas affected by Exo tic Newcastle Disease exceeded the relevant OIE 
guidelines and were not supported by scientific ev idence.  Chinese Taipei required that poultry 
ingredients containing bone meal or poultry meat fro m affected areas be processed so that the interior 
of the bone was heated to 60 degrees Celsius for 30 mi nutes, in contrast with OIE guidelines.  Chinese 
Taipei's heat treatment requirements also app lied to poultry originating in disease-free areas. 
260. Chinese Taipei stated that the regulation for pet food was under review  and amendments had 
been proposed. 
261. In January 2005, Chinese Taipei reported th at the Quarantine Requirements for the 
Importation of Dog and Cat Food were amended on 1 April 2004.  The United States confirmed that 
this matter was resolved.  The requirements for heat treatment fo r meat and bone meal in poultry were 
deleted. 
 
Plant Health 
181. Import restrictions on potatoes 
Raised by: New Zealand 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 15-16) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: New regulations entered into force on 10 January 2005 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 January 2005 
 
262. New Zealand reported that it had been experienci ng delays with its request for market access 
for potato exports to Chinese Taipei despite fulfillin g all the requirements.  New Zealand had also 
responded to requests by Chinese Taipei for additio nal information which concerned pests not found 
in New Zealand and pests not found on the potato co mmodity exported, but only on the potato plant.  
In considering New Zealand's request, Chinese Taip ei had agreed to use ISPM 10 which provided 
guidance on the Requirements for the Establishment of Pest Free Places of Production and Pest Free 
Production Sites. 
263. Chinese Taipei recalled that New Zealand had first requested access on 20 September 1995, 
basing this request on ISPM 4 Requirements for the Establishment of Pest Free Areas.  In February 2002, New Zealand withdrew its initial re quest but asked that its proposal be considered 
under ISPM 10 Requirements for the Establishment of Pest Free Places of Production and Pest Free G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 68  
 
  Production Sites.  In July 2002, a new pest risk asse ssment was completed.  After a visit by officials 
from Chinese Taipei, New Zealand was asked to provi de an updated pest list which was received in 
April 2003. 
264. In January 2005, Chinese Taipei and New Zeal and reported that a draft of The Quarantine 
Requirements for the Importation of Table Potatoes from New Zealand was notified as 
G/SPS/N/TPKM/43, and entered in to force on 10 January 2005. 
 
TURKEY 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY TURKEY  
Animal Health 
76. Ban on pet food imports 
Raised by: Hungary 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2000 (G/SPS/R/26, para . 6), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 129-
130), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 57) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/316, WT/DS256/1 
Solution: Ban lifted 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as resolved: 1 June 2004 
 
265. The representative of Hungary stated that in March 2001, Turkey ha d banned the importation 
of pet food from all European countries as a resu lt of the BSE epidemic.  Although Hungary was a 
BSE-free country, it was included in the ban's covera ge due to the Turkish authorities' concern about 
cross-infection.  After the Turkish authorities ha d provided an explanation in June 2001, Hungarian 
companies stopped using raw materials derived fro m ruminants in pet food mix, but the ban on 
Hungarian exports remained in place.  Hungary ask ed where the Turkish regulation was published and 
when it had been notified to the WTO.  Hungary al so as requested an explanation of the underlying 
scientific justification for the ban and asked whethe r Turkish suppliers were treated identically to 
foreign suppliers.  The United States and European Communities associated themselves with the comments made by Hungary and requested to be informed of further developments.  Turkey 
explained that the problem may have arisen as a result of some missing laboratory analysis, as no 
import ban was in place.  Once that information ha d been provided, the importation procedures would 
be complete. 
266. In June 2002, Hungary indicated that Turkey had not provided an official response to the 
questions submitted to it.  Hungary had request ed consultations under the DSU on 5 May 2002.  
Although some progress had been made at the cons ultations, the problem was still pending.  Hungary 
hoped to find an amicable solution by the 5 July 20 02 DSU deadline.  Turkey indicated that since the 
issue was now a formal dispute, confidentiality re quirements had to be respected.  Turkey would 
inform the Committee of further developments at a later stage. 
267. In June 2004, Turkey reported that the ban on imports on pet foods from Hungary had been 
lifted and the issue considered resolved.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 69 
 
 
  Plant Health 
92. Restrictions on banana imports 
Raised by: Ecuador 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  97-98), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 36-
38), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, para. 57) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/249, G/SPS/GEN/275, G/SPS/GEN/276 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 June 2004 
 
268. In March 2001, Ecuador indicated that Turk ish authorities were issuing phytosanitary 
certificates for a specific and limited volume of bana nas only.  Ecuador believed that the control 
certificates were not only de facto  quantitative restrictions, but also imposed unnecessary and 
unjustified administrative burdens.  Ecuador asked Turkey for a wr itten response to a number of 
questions submitted, and planned to pursue the matter bilaterally.  Turkey replied that due to resource 
constraints, Turkey could not verify whole shipme nts at once.  Turkey had published all relevant 
regulations, as well as testing and sampling met hods.  These were the same for both domestic 
producers and importers and in conform ity with international standards. 
269. In July 2001, Ecuador indicated that the replies received in response to its questions regarding 
the "Kontrol Belgesi" certificates did not seem to co rrespond to the information provided by exporters 
and importers.  Obtaining the certificates had taken up to three times as long as claimed by Turkey, 
there were inconsistencies regarding the duration and validity of the certificates.  In the case of 
bananas, the expiration dates regularly coincided w ith the beginning of Turkey's banana harvest.  In 
addition, the certificates were granted for a ma ximum of one thousand tons, and thus acted as 
quantitative restrictions.  Turkey claimed that one  could obtain several certificates, but exporters 
indicated that one had to use one certificate before a new one was granted.  Turkey replied that the 
certificate was a reference document used in custom s proceedings and food safety analysis during the 
importation process.  The system was described in the Official Gazette, and was not used to limit 
quantities.  Issuance of the certific ates took between three and seven working days if the information 
was complete, and the validation period was between four and twelve months.  Turkey was ready to 
discuss the issue bilaterally.  Chile and Colombia requested to be info rmed of future developments of 
the issue.  The European Comm unities requested to see Turkey's responses to Ecuador's questions. 
270. In June 2004, Turkey reported that the issue of  restrictions on banana  imports from Ecuador 
had been resolved. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 70  
 
  UNITED STATES 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY UNITED STATES  
Food safety 188. Delisting of France from countries authorized  to export certain meat and meat products 
to the United States 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 148-149), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, 
paras. 44-45), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 88-89) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as resolved: 1 October 2004 
 
271. The European Communities stated that on 24 Fe bruary 2004, the United States suspended 
France's eligibility to export meat and meat products  to the United States.  The hasty nature of the 
decision meant that France did not have the opport unity to respond to questions raised during an 
earlier inspection.  Furthermore, this decision was mo re trade-restrictive than required to protect the 
safety of consumers. The United Stated explained that this action was based on process control and 
sanitation deficiencies identified over a multi-period in establishments certified by France as meeting US sanitary requirements.  Based on information from French authorities that corrective action had 
been taken to address concerns raised in previous  inspections, US officials scheduled the audit of 
January-February 2004, and clarified in advance th e risk of suspension for non-performance.  The 
second audit identified the same deficiencies.  Fr ench authorities had agreed to submit a new 
corrective action plan to the USDA.  The tr aining of French inspection personnel in the 
implementation of pathogen re duction and hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) 
systems was key to addressing the defi ciencies identified in this audit. 
272. In June 2004, the European Communities reporte d the lack of progress made on this issue.  
French veterinary services and eleven establishments authorized to export meat products to the United 
States were audited by the USDA early in 2004.  Although six of these establishments had not had 
any major infractions, the US suspension in Februa ry 2004 applied to all eleven establishments.  The 
French authorities had forwarded a detailed plan of ac tion to the US.  The offer by the United States 
to train French veterinary inspectors was apprec iated, however, some of the restrictions were 
disproportionate and discriminatory.  The United States was requested to lift the prohibition on the six establishments with no infractions. 
273. The United States responded that United States a nd French inspection officials had discussed 
the audit findings and follow-up actions, and Fr ance acknowledged the deficiencies and agreed to 
submit a new action plan to the USDA.  The USDA would complete its review shortly and 
communicate findings to the French authorities.  The USDA had identified experts in the European 
Union and could provide training of French insp ection personnel in the implementation of HACCP 
system.  A technical seminar would be held in  September 2004 for senior foreign meat inspection 
officials on the verification and enforcement of  pathogen reduction HACCP requirements in meat 
export establishments.  France had indicated that it w ould send two senior officials to this seminar.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 71 
 
 
  The United States emphasized its commitment to work  with France to reinstate their eligibility to 
export meat and meat exports to the United States. 
274. In October 2004, the European Communities reported that the USDA had carried out 
inspections in France and concluded that the Fren ch regulatory system met US requirements and was 
eligible to export meat-based products to the Unite d States.  The United States reported that a follow-
up audit of the headquarters of the French In spection Service, three local offices and four 
establishments was conducted in September and Oc tober.  The audit concluded that French 
establishments met the US requirements and the su spension on French meat-based products was lifted 
on 15 October 2004. 
 Animal Health 4. Measures related to BSE – Maintained by  Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, 
Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Ge rmany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, 
Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States [See Item 4, page 1] 
 
Plant Health 69. Import restrictions on rhododendrons in growing medium 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para . 66), November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, para. 83), 
March 2000 (G/SPS/R/18, para. 68) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/121 
Solution: Final rule published in Decemb er 1999, importation allowed under certain 
conditions 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as resolved: 1 March 2000 
 
275. In March 1999, the European Communities indicated that delays in the publication of a final 
rule on the importation of rhododendrons were resulting in de facto  restrictions on EC exports.  The 
representative of the European Comm unities asked for information on the status of the pest risk 
analysis and of the final rule.  The United States replied that the final rule for the importation of 
rhododendrons in growing medium from the EC had been completed pending final review, and would 
be published within one month after the meeting.  The European Communities requested an update on 
the status of the rule in November 1999, and the Un ited States answered that it would be published in 
the near future.  In March 2000, the United States in formed the Committee that the final rule had been 
published on 30 December 1999, allowing the im portation of rhododendrons under conditions 
designed to prevent the introduction of pests. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
Page 72  
 
  73. Imports of citrus fruit  
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, para . 89), June 2000 (G/SPS/R/19, para. 10), 
July 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 94-96) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
 
Solution: Favourable conclusion reported in June 2000.  New concerns raised in 
October 2001.  Issue reported resolved in March 2004 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as resolved: 1 March 2004 
 
276. In November 1999, Argentina expressed conc erns regarding the postponement of US 
measures dealing with imports of citrus fruit fro m north-western Argentina.  Negotiation of the 
measure had taken seven years and been finalized one  year earlier.  Argentina appealed to the United 
States to publish the measure before another ha rvest was lost for Argentine producers.  The 
representative of the United States answered that th e draft measures had passed the technical level and 
promised to draw the attention of hi s authorities to Argentina's concerns. 
277. In June 2000, Argentina reported that after years of negotiations with the United States 
regarding citrus produced in north-west Argen tina, a favourable conclusion had been reached. 
278. In July 2001, Argentina expressed concerns rela ted to a California court decision to overturn a 
USDA/APHIS risk assessment which had allowed the import of lemons, oranges and grapefruits from 
north western Argentina starting June 2000.  In Argentina's opinion, the judge's reasoning went 
beyond the terms of the SPS Agreement.  As imports  from other destination were not subject to zero 
risk, Argentina felt this amounted to discrimination.   In addition the judge had ruled that APHIS had 
not measured the economic impact of imports on pr oducers in the United States, an economic test 
inadmissible under the SPS Agreement.  Argentina requested US authorities to ensure compliance 
with the SPS Agreement by bodies other than the ce ntral government, according to Article 13.  The 
United States confirmed that no problems had b een reported during the two seasons that Argentina 
had had access to the US market for citrus.  US regu lations were subject to judicial review and had 
been challenged through a District Court in Ca lifornia.  Although the Federal Government had 
disputed the case, the Court had ruled in favour of  the complainant in September 2001.  The United 
States indicated that the executive branch agencies were consulting about how to proceed and would 
take Argentina's comments into account. 
279. In March 2004, Argentina reported that the issu e of US imports of citrus fruits had been 
resolved. 
 
182. Implementation of ISPM 15 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Chile 
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 50-51) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/705  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.3 
 Page 73 
 
 
  Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 1 March 2006 
 
280. Argentina agreed that wood packaging could sp read pests, however, the US measures could 
have a negative impact on Argentin a's exports.  The US notification did not provide sufficient time for 
implementing the measures needed for compliance.   For instance, Argen tina needed sufficient 
resources and time to establish the required treatme nt centres for wood packaging materials.  Chile 
supported the statement made by Argentina. 
281. The United States stated that it had received 54 comments from seven other Members on its 
proposed measure and that APHIS was in the pro cess of evaluating these comments to determine how 
to take them into account.  The January implem entation date would be postponed and the measure 
would be phased in over time.  The United States encouraged other Members to adopt ISPM 15 as a means of controlling the spread of raw wood pests. 
282. In March 2006, Argentina reported that this trade concern had been resolved. 
 
__________