WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION   
G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
2 March 2012 
 (12-1182) 
Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
Revision 
 
 
 At the 15-16 March 2000 meeting of the SPS Co mmittee, the Secretariat was requested to 
prepare a paper summarizing the specific trade con cerns that had been brought to the Committee's 
attention since 1995.2  The Secretariat has revised this docum ent annually to include new information 
provided by Members (G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.1 to 11).  The specific trade concerns in the twelfth 
revision of G/SPS/GEN/204 maintain the previously assigned numbers according to the chronological order of the Committee meetings in which they were first raised.  These numbers serve as unique 
identifiers and are intended to facilitate tracking of  individual trade concerns over time.  The new 
trade concerns raised in each Committee meeting are numbered in the order of the alphabetic list of 
Members maintaining the measures.   
 
 The twelfth revision of G/SPS/GEN/204 is divided into two sections:  
A. STCs general overview;  and 
B. STCs discussed in 2011. 
 
 Section A of the document contains summary st atistics and graphs for all the trade concerns 
raised in the SPS Committee between the first regular  meeting of 1995 and the last regular meeting of 
2011.  The trade concerns are categorized as relating to food safety, animal or plant health.  This 
section also includes a summary table which identifi es for each specific trade concern according to the 
assigned number, the Member(s) maintaining the meas ure, the Member(s) raising the concern, as well 
as information on whether  the issue has b een reported to have been resolved.   
  Section B of the document contains information regarding all issues which were raised in the 
SPS Committee in 2011.  This includes (1) issues raised for the first ti me in 2011;  (2) issues which 
were previously raised and on which further di scussions or activities occurred during 2011;  and (3) 
issues for which there was no substantive discu ssion in the Committee during 2011, but where 
Members reported that a previously raised issue ha d been resolved, or where substantive action on the 
issue occurred in another WTO body during 2011 (e.g ., establishment of a dispute resolution panel on 
the issue).  
 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. 
2 G/SPS/R/18, para.20. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page ii  
 
   
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
Page 
A.  STC'S  GENERAL  OVERVIEW  ............................................................................................. 1  
B.  STC'S  CONSIDERED  IN 2011  .............................................................................................. 20  
CHINA - CONCERNS RELATED TO MEAS URES MAINTAINED BY CHINA ...................... 22  
Food safety  .................................................................................................................. ......................... 22  
319. Chinese quarantine and testing procedures for salmon ............................................................. 22  
324. China's requirement for registration and supervision of foreign enterprises ............................ 23  
EUROPEAN UNION - CONCERNS RELA TED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY 
THE EUROPEAN UNION .................................................................................................... 23  
Food safety  .................................................................................................................. ......................... 23  
238. Application and modification of the EU Regulation on novel foods ........................................ 23  
306. Maximum residue levels  of pesticides ...................................................................................... 29  
322. EU regulation on polyamide and me lamine plastic kitchenware .............................................. 31  
325. EU regulations on cadmium in cocoa beans ............................................................................. 33  
327. EU Court of Justice ruling regard ing pollen derived from GMOs ............................................ 34  
Animal Health ................................................................................................................. ..................... 35  
300. EC Regulation No. 1099/2009 .................................................................................................. 35 
INDIA - CONCERNS RELATED TO MEAS URES MAINTAINED BY INDIA ......................... 37  
Animal Health ................................................................................................................. ..................... 37  
185. Restrictions due to avian influenza ...........................................................................................  37 
INDONESIA - CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY 
INDONESIA ..................................................................................................................... ....... 49 
Animal Health ................................................................................................................. ..................... 49  
305. Import restrictions on beef and recognition of the principle of regionalization ........................ 49  
Other concerns ................................................................................................................ ..................... 50  
286. Import restrictions on poultry meat ...........................................................................................  50 
JAPAN - CONCERNS RELATED TO MEAS URES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN ...................... 51  
Food safety  .................................................................................................................. ......................... 51  
283. Pesticide maximum residue levels (MRLs) .............................................................................. 51  
307. Prohibition of certain food additives .........................................................................................  53 
321. Japan's MRLs applied to sesame ............................................................................................... 55 
MALAYSIA - CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY 
MALAYSIA ...................................................................................................................... ....... 55 
Animal Health ................................................................................................................. ..................... 55  
323. Malaysia's import restrictions on pork and pork products ........................................................ 55   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page iii 
 
 
  MEXICO - CONCERNS RELA TED TO MEASURES MAINTA INED BY MEXICO ............... 56  
Animal Health ................................................................................................................. ..................... 56  
317. Mexico's BSE measures ......................................................................................................... ... 56 
PHILIPPINES - CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY 
PHILIPPINES ................................................................................................................... ...... 57 
Food safety  .................................................................................................................. ......................... 57  
320. Restrictions on imported fresh meat ......................................................................................... 5 7 
SOUTH AFRICA - CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY 
SOUTH AFRICA .................................................................................................................. .. 59 
Animal Health ................................................................................................................. ..................... 59  
287. Import restrictions on fresh pork meat and beef ....................................................................... 59  
SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND 
MATSU (CHINESE TAIPEI) - CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINESE TAIPEI ................................................................................ 60  
Food safety  .................................................................................................................. ......................... 60  
275. Restrictions on ractopamine in beef and pork ........................................................................... 60  
Animal Health ................................................................................................................. ..................... 63  
291. BSE measures .................................................................................................................. ......... 63 
THAILAND - CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY 
THAILAND ...................................................................................................................... ....... 65 
Plant Health .................................................................................................................. ........................ 65  
326. Thailand's restrictions on table grapes, apples and pears .......................................................... 65  
TURKEY - CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY TURKEY .............. 65  
Other concerns ................................................................................................................ ..................... 65  
302. Restrictions on products de rived from biotechnology .............................................................. 65  
UKRAINE - CONCERNS RELA TED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY UKRAINE ........... 69  
Animal Health ................................................................................................................. ..................... 69  
315. Ukraine import restrictions on p oultry and poultry products .................................................... 69  
UNITED STATES - CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY 
UNITED STATES ................................................................................................................. .. 69 
Food safety  .................................................................................................................. ......................... 69  
299. 
US 2009 Food Safety Enhancement Act................................................................................... 69  
328. US default MRLs limits of de termination or limits of quan tification on basmati rice ............. 72  
Animal Health ................................................................................................................. ..................... 73  
318. US failure to recognize South Patagonia as FMD-free and to import beef from north 
of the 42nd parallel .......................................................................................................... ......... 73 
Plant Health .................................................................................................................. ........................ 74  
102. Import restrictions on potted plants from the European Union ................................................. 74  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page iv  
 
  316. United States import restrictions on chrysanthemums .............................................................. 76  
VIET NAM - CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY VIET 
NAM ........................................................................................................................... .............. 77  
Food safety  .................................................................................................................. ......................... 77  
314. Viet Nam's ban on offals ...................................................................................................... ..... 77 
CERTAIN MEMBERS - CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY 
CERTAIN MEMBERS .......................................................................................................... 79  
Food safety  .................................................................................................................. ......................... 79  
313. Import restrictions due to dioxi n contamination in Germany ................................................... 79  
Animal Health ................................................................................................................. ..................... 79  
193. General import restrictions due to BSE .................................................................................... 79  
 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 1 
 
 
  A. STC'S  GENERAL  OVERVIEW   
1. Altogether, 328 specific trade concerns were ra ised in the seventeen years between 1995 and 
the end of 2011.  Figure 1 shows the number of ne w concerns raised each year;  16 new concerns 
were raised in 2011.   
 
FIGURE 1 – NUMBER OF NEW ISSUES RAISED  
 
 
 
2. Figure 2a categorizes the trade concerns raised  over the seventeen years into food safety, 
animal or plant health issues.  Overall, 29 per cen t of trade concerns relate to food safety concerns, 
25 per cent relate to plant health, and 6 per cent concern other issues such as certification 
requirements or translation.  Forty per cent of concer ns raised relate to animal health and zoonoses.  
The animal health and zoonoses category is furthe r divided into foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), 
transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), Avian Influenza (AI) and other animal health 
concerns (OAH).  Figure 2b shows th at TSEs account for 35 per cent of animal health concerns, while 
issues related to foot-and-mouth disease account for 24 per cent.  The remaining 41 per cent relate to 
other animal health concerns and avian influenza. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 2  
 
  FIGURE 2A – TRADE CONCERNS BY SUBJECT 
 
 
 
FIGURE 2B – TRADE CONCERNS RELATED TO ANIMAL HEALTH & ZOONOSES 
 
 
 
3. Developing countries are participating actively under this agenda item in the SPS Committee 
meetings.  Figure 3a indicates that over the seventeen  years, developing country Members have raised 
173 trade concerns (on many occasions more than one  Member has raised, supported or maintained an 
issue) compared to 201 raised by developed country Members and three raised by least-developed country Members.
3  A developing country Member has supporte d another Member raising an issue in 
209 cases, compared to 155 for developed country Members and one for least-developed country 
                                                      
3 The European Communities was counted as one Member.  Similarly, when one Member spoke on 
behalf of ASEAN, it was counted as one Member only.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Members.  In 196 cases, the measure at issue was maintained by a developed country Member, and in 
169 cases it was maintained by a developing country Member.  One trade concern regarding measures 
maintained by least-developed country Members has been raised.  Figure 3b shows the number of 
new issues raised each year by each category of Member. 
 
FIGURE 3A – PARTICIPATION BY WTO MEMBERS (1995-2011) 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 3B – NUMBER OF NEW ISSUES RAISED BY MEMBERS 
 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 4  
 
  4. Figure 4 indicates that 95 trade concerns have been reported resolved out of the 328 trade 
concerns raised over the seventeen years.  No issue was reported as r esolved in 2011.  Eighteen trade 
concerns have been reported to be partially solved .  In these instances, trade may have been allowed 
for selected products or by some of the importing Me mbers maintaining the measure in question.  No 
solutions have been reported for the remaining 215 trade concerns.  Excluding the 16 new issues 
raised in 2011, there are 199 trade concerns that are at least one year old and for which no solution 
have been reported.  However, some of these concerns may have been resolved without the 
Committee being made aware of these developments. 
 
FIGURE 4 – SOLVED TRADE CONCERNS 
 
 
 
  
LIST OF SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS (1995 – 2011) 
 
Specific 
trade 
concern number  Description of Measure Member(s) 
Maintaining the 
Measure Member(s) 
Raising the Issue Status
4 
1995 
1 Shelf-life requirements  Korea Australia, 
Canada, United States PR 
2 Import clearance measures and 
practices Korea United States R 
                                                      
4 NR= Not Reported, P = Partially resolved, R= Resolved  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Specific 
trade 
concern number  Description of Measure Member(s) 
Maintaining the 
Measure Member(s) 
Raising the Issue Status
4 
1996 
3 Restrictions on gelatin imports Norway Brazil R 
4 Measures related to BSE Argentina, 
Australia, Austria, 
Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, Germany, 
Italy, 
Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic, 
Slovenia, Spain, 
United States Switzerland R 
5 Import requirements for wine Brazil European Union5 NR 
6 Importation of cheese Canada European Union R 
7 Regionalization in relation to 
animal health United States European Union NR 
8 Ban on salmon imports Australia Canada, United 
States R 
9 Zero-tolerance for salmonella in 
imported poultry products  Chile, Czech 
Republic, El Salvador, Honduras, Slovak 
Republic United States NR 
10 Imports of potatoes Czech Republic European Union R 
11 Restriction on levels of copper and 
cadmium in imported squid Spain, European 
Union United States R 
12 Testing requirements for different 
varieties of apples, cherries and nectarines Japan United States R 
13 Translation of regulations Japan, Korea Argentina NR 
1997 
14 Restrictions on imported wheat Brazil United States R 
15 Zoosanitary import policies 
pertaining to BSE Canada European Union NR 
16 Restrictions on imports of wheat 
and fruit Chile United States R 
                                                      
5 On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty 
establishing the European Community  (done at Lisbon, 13 December 2 007) entered into force.  On 29 
November 2009, the WTO received a Verbal Note (WT/L/7 79) from the Council of th e European Union and the 
Commission of the European Communities stating that, by virtue of the Treaty of Lisbon , as of 
1 December 2009, the European Union replaces and succeeds the European Community. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 6  
 
  Specific 
trade 
concern number  Description of Measure Member(s) 
Maintaining the 
Measure Member(s) 
Raising the Issue Status
4 
17 Cosmetics and  BSE European Union Australia NR 
18 Certification requirements for pet 
food France, European 
Union United States NR 
19 Protected zones European Union Uruguay NR 
20 Restrictions on imports of rough 
rice Honduras United States R 
21 Fresh fruit and vegetables Indonesia Australia, United 
States NR 
22 Measures affecting imports of 
bovine meat Israel Uruguay R 
23 Plant quarantine regulations Japan United States NR 
24 Requirements for certification of 
consumer rice Panama United States R 
25 Restrictions on wheat and 
oilseeds.  Poland United States NR 
26 Phytosanitary issues in general  Certain Members United States NR 
27 Citrus canker European Union Argentina R 
28 Notification on wheat, rye and 
triticale Switzerland Argentina R 
29 Measures related to avian 
influenza Bolivarian 
Republic of Venezuela United States NR 
30 Regulation concerning warehouses 
and silos Czech Republic European Union R 
31 Rules on "specified risk materials" 
in products of animal origin European Union United States NR 
32 Gelatin imports  European Union Brazil, United 
States PR 
33 Salmonella-related restriction on 
fishmeal imports European Union Chile, Peru NR 
34 Measures regarding FMD Japan Argentina, 
European Union NR 
35 Import ban on frozen poultry Korea Thailand R 
36 Import prohibition of milled rice Mexico Thailand R 
37 Actions taken by local 
governments United States Chile NR 
1998 
38 Temporary prohibition of fresh 
pork and products  Argentina European Union R 
39 Maximum levels for certain 
contaminants (aflatoxins) in foodstuffs European Union Argentina, 
Australia,  Plurinational State of Bolivia, Brazil, Gambia, 
India, Indonesia, R  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Specific 
trade 
concern number  Description of Measure Member(s) 
Maintaining the 
Measure Member(s) 
Raising the Issue Status
4 
Malaysia, 
Philippines, Senegal, Thailand 
40 Trade restrictions in response to 
cholera European Union Tanzania PR 
41 Restrictions on imports of apples, 
pears and quinces Slovak Republic Hungary R 
42 Import restrictions on potatoes Slovak Republic Poland, European 
Union R 
43 Prohibition on bone-in beef 
imports from EC member States South Africa European Union NR 
44 Measures related to BSE United States European Union NR 
45 Import restrictions on cheese Australia, New 
Zealand Switzerland, 
European Union R 
46 Import prohibition of coconut 
palms and related products Brazil Philippines NR 
47 Measure on establishments 
operating in the animal feed sector European Union United States NR 
48 Import ban on livestock Turkey Hungary, United 
States PR 
49 Restrictions on imports of sauces 
containing benzoic acid Australia Philippines R 
50 Quarantine requirements for 
chicken meat Australia Thailand NR 
51 Prohibition of poultry meat 
imports from Thailand Czech Republic Thailand R 
52 Measures on food treated with 
ionizing radiation European Union United States NR 
53 Emergency measures on citrus 
pulp  European Union Brazil R 
54 Notifications regarding import 
requirements on meat and eggs Switzerland United States R 
55 TSE-related import restrictions of 
live cattle  Israel European Union NR 
56 Notification on amendment of the 
Japanese Plant Protection Law Japan United States NR 
57 Requirements for imports of milk 
and milk products Poland European Union R 
58 Notification on refrigeration and 
labelling requirements for shell 
eggs United States European Union NR 
59 Interim rule affecting solid wood 
packaging material United States Hong Kong, 
China NR 
1999 
60 Import restrictions on bovine 
semen and embryos, milk and milk 
products Argentina European Union R G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 8  
 
  Specific 
trade 
concern number  Description of Measure Member(s) 
Maintaining the 
Measure Member(s) 
Raising the Issue Status
4 
61 Import restrictions on bovine 
semen India Canada, European 
Union PR 
62 Restrictions on imports of horses India European Union NR 
63 Information on dioxin Certain Members European Union R 
64 Ban on antibiotics in feed Eur opean Union United States NR 
65 Import restrictions on beef Korea Argentina NR 
66 Notifications related to dioxin  Malaysia, 
Singapore Switzerland R 
67 Import restrictions on beef Mexico Argentina NR 
68 Notifications on veterinary 
measures and measures on animal products including gelatin Poland Switzerland, 
United States R 
69 Import restrictions on 
rhododendrons in growing medium United States European Union R 
70 Import conditions for pork meat 
and products  Bolivarian 
Republic of Venezuela European Union NR 
71 Restrictions on meat and dairy 
products El Salvador Uruguay R 
72 Measures regarding canned tuna in 
oil Belgium, 
European Union Philippines NR 
73 Imports of citrus fruit  United States Argentina R 
2000 
74 Restrictions on imports of tropical 
fresh fruit Australia Philippines NR 
75 Notification on meat and meat 
products  Iceland Argentina R 
76 Ban on pet food imports Turkey Hungary R 
77 Restrictions on canned tuna Egypt Thailand NR 
78 Notification on methyl bromid e Australia European Union R 
79 Import restrictions on durian Australia Thailand NR 
80 Restrictions on poultry meat 
imports Plurinational 
State of Bolivia Chile R 
81 Wood packing material European Union Canada R 
82 Restrictions on importation of 
fresh fruit Indonesia New Zealand R 
83 Restrictions on milk powder 
imports Panama European Union R 
2001 
84 Import restrictions affecting BSE-
free countries Argentina, 
Australia, Canada, Korea, Bulgaria, Croatia, 
Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, NR  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 9 
 
 
  Specific 
trade 
concern number  Description of Measure Member(s) 
Maintaining the 
Measure Member(s) 
Raising the Issue Status
4 
New Zealand, 
United States Poland, Romania, 
Slovak Republic, Slovenia 
85 Import restrictions on prawns and 
prawn products;  revised generic IRA for prawns and prawn products Australia China, Thailand NR 
86 Access of California table grapes Australia United States R 
87 Measures affecting imports of 
products containing Brazilian beef Canada Brazil R 
88 Import restrictions due to FMD Canada, United 
States Hungary NR 
89 Import restrictions on soy sauce European Union Thailand NR 
90 Restrictions on bovine products Hungary Canada R 
91 Restrictions on  pork products Hungary Canada R 
92 Restrictions on banana imports Turkey Ecuador R 
93 Phytosanitary requirements for 
potatoes, garlic and onions  Bolivarian 
Republic of Venezuela Argentina NR 
94 Directive 2000/42 on pesticide 
residues European Union Côte d'Ivoire NR 
95 Legislation on the fungicide 
thiabendazole (TBZ) European Union Israel NR 
96 Geographical BSE risk assessment European Union Canada, Chile, 
India R 
97 Restrictions on the use of fishm eal European Union Chile, Norway, 
Peru NR 
98 Restrictions on Egyptian potatoes European Union Egypt NR 
99 Restrictions on importation of 
sugar cane top from Indonesia Japan Indonesia NR 
100 Import measures on apples due to 
fire blight Japan United States R 
101 Proposed import prohibition of 
commodity-country combinations of fresh cut flowers and foliage New Zealand European Union R 
102 Import restrictions on potted plants 
from the European Communities United States European Union NR 
103 FMD-related import restrictions Certain Members Argentina, 
European Union PR 
104 FMD restrictions Chile Argentina R 
105 Restrictions on apples and pears Cuba Argentina NR 
106 Regulations on genetically 
modified food and feed European Union United States PR 
107 Transitional TSE measures  European Union Canada R G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 10  
 
  Specific 
trade 
concern number  Description of Measure Member(s) 
Maintaining the 
Measure Member(s) 
Raising the Issue Status
4 
108 Cut flowers European Union Ecuador, Israel NR 
109 Phytosanitary regulations (Canary 
Islands) Spain, European 
Union Argentina NR 
110 Agricultural biotechnology 
approval process European Union United States PR 
111 FMD restrictions Indonesia Argentina NR 
2002 
112 FMD trade restrictions Plurinational 
State of Bolivia Argentina R 
113 Pet food import requirements Chile Argentina R 
114 Food safety regulations affecting 
agricultural products produced from modern biotechnology China United States NR 
115 Import restrictions for citrus and 
other fruits related to fruit fly China Argentina R 
116 FMD restrictions Colombia Argentina R 
117 Traceability and labelling of 
genetically modified organisms and food and feed European Union Argentina, 
Canada, United States NR 
118 Import licenses for agricultural 
products Panama Canada R 
119 Notification on Chinese fruit 
imports Philippines China PR 
120 Restrictions on pigmeat United States European Union NR 
121 Imports of clementines  United States European Union R 
122 FMD restrictions Bolivarian 
Republic of Venezuela Argentina R 
123 Restrictions on imports of 
potatoes, onions, fertilised eggs, day-old chicks and meat products Bolivarian 
Republic of Venezuela Canada, 
Colombia NR 
124 Notifications related to avian 
influenza Certain Members United States NR 
125 BSE related measures Argentina Canada R 
126 Import requirements for seed 
potatoes Brazil Canada, European 
Union R 
127 Import ban on products of Dutch 
origin China European Union R 
128 Import requirements for cosmetics China European Union NR 
129 Import restrictions on spiced pork 
and salted meat products Cuba Argentina R 
130 Restrictions on shellfish European Union Indonesia NR 
131 Pesticide and antibiotic limits in 
honey (Directive 96/23) European Union Cuba NR  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 11 
 
 
  Specific 
trade 
concern number  Description of Measure Member(s) 
Maintaining the 
Measure Member(s) 
Raising the Issue Status
4 
132 Import restrictions on dairy 
products  Indonesia Argentina R 
133 Official control restrictions on 
citrus and other fresh fruits and vegetables Japan New Zealand, 
United States NR 
134 SPS measures on animal products Romania Moldova NR 
135 Restrictions on beef and pork South Africa Brazil PR 
136 Policies regarding quarantine and 
non-quarantine pests  Chinese Taipei United States NR 
137 Import restrictions on meat and 
meat products United States Switzerland NR 
138 Pest risk assessment requirements Argentina United States NR 
139 Restriction on pigmeat   Australia European Union R 
140 Imports of live ostriches Brazil European Union R 
141 Pest risk assessments for imports 
of plant origin Brazil Canada NR 
142 Zero tolerance for e-coli China United States NR 
143 Regulation on wood packaging 
material China European Union R 
144 Restrictions on the importation of 
fruits and fruit juices European Union Brazil NR 
145 Import restrictions on chicken 
meat imports Honduras Costa Rica NR 
146 Ban on hormones in animal 
production Indonesia United States NR 
147 Regulation on food additives Japan European Union NR 
148 Amendment of the food sanitation 
law Japan China NR 
149 Restrictions on food products Panama European Union R 
150 Certification of meat and dairy 
products Philippines Canada R 
151 Restrictions on imports of pork 
sausages and other pork products Trinidad and 
Tobago Argentina NR 
152 Restrictions on melons United States Mexico NR 
153 Restrictions on imports of Chinese 
potted plants in growing medium United States China NR 
154 Risk assessment on  BSE Uruguay Canada, United 
States PR 
2003 
155 Import requirements for 
Netherlands Truss Tomatoes Australia European Union R 
156 Notification G/SPS/N/BRA/74 and 
75 on BSE-related measures Brazil Canada R G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 12  
 
  Specific 
trade 
concern number  Description of Measure Member(s) 
Maintaining the 
Measure Member(s) 
Raising the Issue Status
4 
157 Quarantine measures for the entry 
and exit of aquatic products China European Union R 
158 Restrictions on pork imports Croatia Slovenia NR 
159 Proposal on animal by-products European Union United States NR 
160 Transitional BSE measures European Union United States NR 
161 EC Directive 2001/661/EC on foot 
and mouth disease European Union South Africa NR 
162 Fumigation standards Japan United States NR 
163 Restrictions on Austrian products Mexico European Union NR 
164 Restrictions on the importation of 
dry beans Mexico United States R 
165 Import restrictions on Spanish 
olive oil Bahrain, 
Kingdom of, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, United Arab Emirates European Union PR 
166 Import measures on live animals 
and meat products Croatia Hungary NR 
167 Restrictions on honey imports European Union United States R 
168 Maximum levels for aflatoxins in 
corn and sampling contaminants in food European Union Argentina NR 
169 EC proposed regulation on 
maximum residue levels of pesticides  European Union Arge ntina, China NR 
170 Live animals and animal products  European Union Australia NR 
171 Animal health conditions and 
certification requirements for live fish European Union Australia NR 
172 Restrictions on imports of 
mangoes Japan Brazil R 
173 Notification on uses of living 
modified organisms  Japan Australia NR 
174 Notification on transboundary 
movement of living modified 
organisms Korea Australia NR 
175 Notification on food and feed 
controls European Union United States NR 
176 Notification on maximum 
tolerance levels for Ocratoxin A in 
coffee  Germany, 
European Union Colombia, Papua 
New Guinea NR 
177 Sanitary conditions for the 
importation of live material for 
apiculture European Union Argentina NR  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 13 
 
 
  Specific 
trade 
concern number  Description of Measure Member(s) 
Maintaining the 
Measure Member(s) 
Raising the Issue Status
4 
178 Revision of standards and 
specifications for food and additives Japan China NR 
179 Guidelines for maximum residue 
level (MRL) testing Korea United States NR 
180 Heat treatment for meat and bone 
meal in poultry for pet food Chinese Taipei United States R 
181 Import restrictions on potatoes Chinese Taipei New Zealand R 
182 Implementation of ISPM 15 United States Argentina R 
183 Implementation of ISPM 15 Certain Members Chile, Uruguay NR 
2004 
184 Lack of transparency for certain 
SPS measures China United States NR 
185 Restrictions due to avian influenza India European Union NR 
186 Phytosanitary import restrictions India United States, 
European Union PR 
187 FMD restrictions Panama Argentina NR 
188 Delisting of France from countries 
authorized to export certain meat 
and meat products to the United States United States European Union R 
189 Prohibition on the use of specified 
risk materials and requirements for disabled cattle United States Argentina NR 
190 Regionalization and recognition of 
animal disease free status Certain Members European Union PR 
191 Maximum residue levels for 
pesticides on food European Union China NR 
192 Non-notification of various SPS 
measures India United States NR 
193 General import restrictions due to 
BSE Certain Members European Union PR 
194 Restrictions on fresh grapes Australia Chile R 
195 Restrictions on citrus Barbados Bolivarian 
Republic of Venezuela NR 
196 Measures on US poultry  China United States R 
197 Regulation on Ocratoxin A in 
coffee  European Union Colombia NR 
198 Regulation on aflatoxins and 
Ocratoxin A in foods for infants and young children European Union China NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 14  
 
  Specific 
trade 
concern number  Description of Measure Member(s) 
Maintaining the 
Measure Member(s) 
Raising the Issue Status
4 
199 Deviation from international 
standard for wood packing material Spain, European 
Union United States NR 
200 Ban on food grade wax India United States NR 
201 Standards and specifications for 
food additives (Boscalid) Japan China NR 
202 Septoria controls on horticultural 
products Korea United States R 
203 Rule on materials derived from 
cattle and record-keeping 
requirements United States Argentina, China NR 
204 Notification by Members of 
implementation of ISPM 15 Certain Members European Union R 
2005 
205 Slaughter of imported breeding 
cattle Plurinational 
State of Bolivia Mexico NR 
206 Inspection and testing procedures 
for imported wheat Greece, European 
Union Canada NR 
207 Directives on residual pesticide 
tolerance and inspection methods for tea European Union China NR 
208 Food and feed hygiene rules European Union Canada NR 
209 Plant health directive Europ ean Union United States NR 
210 Restrictions on imports of chicken 
meat  Guatemala Mexico NR 
211 Restrictions on the transit of 
avocados  Guatemala Mexico NR 
212 Positive list system for pesticides, 
veterinary drugs and feed additives 
MRLs Japan China, United 
States NR 
213 Restrictions on beef  imports  Japan United States NR 
214 Inspection regime for food 
processing establishments Panama United States R 
215 Public Health Regulation 11 Thailand United States NR 
216 Restrictions on Ya pears imports United States China NR 
217 Import restrictions on apples Australia New Zealand NR 
218 Lack of recognition of 
regionalization and disease-free status for classical swine fever Brazil European Union NR 
219 EurepGAP requirements for 
bananas European Union Saint Vincent and 
the Grenadines NR 
220 Proposed regulations for piper 
methysticum (kava-kava)  United Kingdom, 
European Union Fiji NR  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 15 
 
 
  Specific 
trade 
concern number  Description of Measure Member(s) 
Maintaining the 
Measure Member(s) 
Raising the Issue Status
4 
221 Safety insurance and quality 
improvement standards for feed and feed additives Japan China NR 
222 Import suspension of heat-
processed straw and forage for feed  Japan China R 
223 Import requirements for Indian 
mangoes Japan India NR 
224 Restrictions on EC exports of 
plant and animal products Japan European Union NR 
225 Restrictions on US poultry Mexico United States NR 
226 Inspection regime for agricultural 
products  Panama Costa Rica R 
227 BSE-related import restrictions on 
non-ruminant products Chinese Taipei United States NR 
228 Import procedures for fruits and 
vegetables United States European Union NR 
229 Import restrictions on Enoki 
mushrooms from Chinese Taipei  Canada Chinese Taipei  R 
230 Phytosanitary requirements on 
fresh oranges  Costa Rica Nicaragua NR 
231 Restrictions on cinnamon European Union Sri Lanka R 
232 Import restrictions on EC beef due 
to BSE Israel European Union NR 
233 Phytosanitary import legislation Israel European Union R 
234 Suspension of importation of live 
poultry and poultry carcasses  Thailand Mexico NR 
235 Import restrictions on EC exports 
of live birds, meat, meat products 
and other derivates due to avian 
influenza Certain Members European Union PR 
2006 
236 Restrictions on beef exports under 
the Hilton Quota Argentina European Union R 
237 Lack of regionalization for 
Newcastle disease and restrictions 
on live birds Brazil European Union NR 
238 Application and modification of 
the EU Regulation on novel foods European Union Colombia, 
Ecuador, Peru NR 
239 Tolerance levels for soil content 
on potato tubers Dominican 
Republic Canada NR 
240 Biotech labelling and import 
approval process regulations India United States NR 
241 Import restrictions on wooden 
Christmas trees  United States China NR 
242 Restrictions on US poultry exports European Union United States NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 16  
 
  Specific 
trade 
concern number  Description of Measure Member(s) 
Maintaining the 
Measure Member(s) 
Raising the Issue Status
4 
243 Lack of recognition of pest-free 
areas Indonesia United States PR 
244 Importation of live animals and 
meat products Indonesia Brazil NR 
245 Restrictions on US pork and 
poultry imports Romania United States NR 
2007 
246 Import restrictions on products of 
animal origin due to dioxin China European Union R 
247 BSE-related measures on beef 
products Korea Canada NR 
248 Regionalization for bovine and pig 
meat products Korea Brazil NR 
249 Reform of  Australia's IRA 
process Australia European Union NR 
250 Trade restrictions related to 
national systems for determining maximum residue levels (MRLs) for pesticides  Certain Members Argentina NR 
251 Zero tolerance for pathogens on 
raw meat and poultry products  China United States NR 
252 Zero tolerance for salmonella in 
poultry and eggs  El Salvador United States NR 
253 Export certification requirements 
for dairy products  India United States NR 
254 Animal health requirements for 
poultry meat  El Salvador United States NR 
255 Application of regionalization and 
prohibition of bovine meat  China Brazil NR 
256 Import restrictions on cooked 
poultry products from China European Union China PR 
257 Import restrictions on cooked 
poultry products from China United States China R 
258 Import restrictions on beef and 
beef products due to Blue Tongue disease Certain Members European Union NR 
259 Avian influenza restrictions  China United States NR 
260 Requirements for quarantine 
treatment of aircraft  Chile Argentina R 
261 Varietal restrictions on US apples China United States NR 
2008 
262 Restrictions on heat-treated 
products in relation to avian 
influenza Egypt European Union NR 
263 Import restrictions on cooked and 
frozen meat Mexico Brazil NR  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 17 
 
 
  Specific 
trade 
concern number  Description of Measure Member(s) 
Maintaining the 
Measure Member(s) 
Raising the Issue Status
4 
264 Maximum residue levels for 
Ethephon in pineapple European Union Ecuador NR 
265 Regulatory process economic 
analysis requirement United States Brazil NR 
266 Price list for inspections Malaysia Brazil NR 
267 Pesticide maximum residue level 
(MRL) enforcement system Japan United States NR 
268 Import restrictions on EC dairy 
products United States European Union NR 
269 Restrictions on apples United States China NR 
270 Import restrictions on rice Mexico Pakistan R 
271 Restrictions on imports of swine 
meat Mexico Brazil NR 
272 Rapid Alert System regarding 
mango imports European Union Senegal NR 
273 Health certificate ratification by 
national embassies Oman, Certain 
Members European Union NR 
274 Korea's Livestock Epidemic 
Prevention Act Korea Canada NR 
275 Restrictions on ractopamine in 
beef and pork Chinese Taipei United States NR 
276 Maximum residue levels for 
pesticides in cacao  European Union Ecuador NR 
277 NAPPO draft standard for ships 
and cargoes from areas infested with Asian gypsy moth Canada, Mexico, 
United States China NR 
2009 
278 Hygienic standard for distilled 
spirits and integrated alcoholic beverages (G/SPS/N/CHN/111) China Mexico NR 
279 Import restrictions on pork 
products due to influenza A/H1N1 Bahrain, 
Kingdom of, Armenia, China, Gabon, Indonesia, 
Jordan, Suriname Mexico NR 
280 New meat import conditions  Indonesia European Union NR 
281 Import restrictions on gelatine 
from bovine hides and head skin 
due to BSE requirements Colombia Brazil NR 
282 Measures on food products 
containing meat, poultry or 
processed egg products  United States China NR 
283 Pesticide maximum residue levels 
(MRLs)  Japan Brazil NR 
284 Rule on importation of wooden 
handicrafts from China United States China NR G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 18  
 
  Specific 
trade 
concern number  Description of Measure Member(s) 
Maintaining the 
Measure Member(s) 
Raising the Issue Status
4 
285 Import restrictions on fresh pork 
meat and beef United States Brazil NR 
286 Import restrictions on poultry meat Indonesia Brazil NR 
287 Import restrictions on fresh pork 
meat and beef South Africa Brazil NR 
288 Import measures on animals and 
animal products Ukraine European Union R 
289 Measures on catfish United States China NR 
290 Suspension of inspection and 
delivery of plant and animal health certificates for imports Bolivarian 
Republic of Venezuela Colombia NR 
2010 
291 BSE Measures Chinese Taipei  Canada NR 
292 Prohibition of ornamental plants 
larger than 18 inches  United States Costa Rica NR 
293 Risks arising from Carambola fruit 
fly in French Guyana  France Brazil NR 
294 Import restrictions on plant and 
plant products  Malaysia Brazil NR 
295 Artificial colour warning labels  European Union United States NR 
296 SPS notification practices Ch ina European Union NR 
297 Registration requirement for pet 
food export enterprises in China Canada China NR 
298 Import restrictions on Brazilian 
beef Colombia Brazil NR 
299 US 2009 Food Safety 
Enhancement Act  United States China, India NR 
300 EC Regulation No. 1099/2009 European Union India NR 
301 US risk analysis for the entry of 
queen bees United States Argentina NR 
302 Restrictions on products derived 
from biotechnology Turkey United States NR 
303 Import restrictions on poultry meat Senegal Brazil NR 
304 Proposed MRL for 1-
Methylcyclopropene in bananas Canada Ecuador NR 
305 Import restrictions on beef and 
recognition of the principle of regionalization Indonesia Brazil NR 
306 Maximum residue levels of 
pesticides European Union India NR 
307 Prohibition of certain food 
additives Japan India NR 
308 Restrictions on bovines and 
bubalines for reproduction Brazil Colombia NR  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 19 
 
 
  Specific 
trade 
concern number  Description of Measure Member(s) 
Maintaining the 
Measure Member(s) 
Raising the Issue Status
4 
309 Labelling of products of animal 
origin (G/SPS/N/BRA/654) Brazil European Union NR 
310 Measures on canned sardines 
(G/SPS/N/BRA/666) Brazil Morocco NR 
311 Restrictions on poultry and poultry 
products  Albania, Croatia Chile NR 
312 Restrictions on beef exports due to 
BSE-related concerns Mexico Nicaragua NR 
2011 
313 Import restrictions due to dioxin 
contamination in Germany Certain Members European Union NR 
314 Viet Nam's ban on offals  Viet Nam United States NR 
315 Ukraine import restrictions on 
poultry and poultry products Ukraine Mexico NR 
316 United States import restrictions 
on chrysanthemums  United States Costa Rica NR 
317 Mexico's BSE measures  Mexico Canada NR 
318 US failure to recognize South 
Patagonia as FMD-free and to 
import beef from North of the 42nd Parallel  United States Argentina NR 
319 Chinese quarantine and testing 
procedures for salmon  China Norway NR 
320 Restrictions on imported fresh 
meat Philippines United States NR 
321 Japan's MRLs applied to sesame  Japan Paraguay NR 
322 EU Regulation on polyamide and 
melamine plastic kitchenware  European Union China, Hong 
Kong, China NR 
323 Malaysia's import restrictions on 
pork and pork products Malaysia European Union NR 
324 China's requirement for 
registration and supervision of foreign enterprises China India NR 
325 EU regulations on cadmium in 
cocoa beans European Union Ecuador NR 
326 Thailand's restrictions on table 
grapes, apples and pears Thailand South Africa NR 
327 EU Court of Justice ruling 
regarding pollen derived from GMOs European Union Argentina NR 
328 US default MRLs limits of 
determination or limits of quantification on basmati rice United States India NR 
 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 20  
 
  B. STC'S
 CONSIDERED  IN 2011 
5. A total of 31 specific trade concerns were brought to the attention of the Committee during 
2011, of which 16 were new issues.  Figure 5 shows a ll trade concerns raised or for which a resolution 
or other action was reported in 2011, by subject.  Ov erall, fifteen issues (48 per cent) relate to food 
safety, three issues (10 per cent) relate to plant h ealth and four issues (13 per cent) relate to other 
concerns.  The remaining 9 issues (29 per cent) rela te to animal health and zoonoses; this category 
includes issues such as tr ansmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSEs) that are also relevant for 
food safety.  TSEs account for 34 per cent of animal health concerns raised in 2011, while issues 
related to foot and mouth disease account for 33 per cent, avian influenza for 11 per cent, and the 
remaining 22 per cent concern other animal health issues. 
   
FIGURE 5 - TRADE CONCERNS BY SUBJECT – 2011 
 
FIGURE 6 - TRADE CONCERNS RELATED TO ANIMAL HEALTH & ZOONOSES – 2011 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 21 
 
 
  FIGURE 7 - PARTICIPATION OF MEMBERS – 2011 
 
 
6. Of the 31 trade concerns discussed in 2011, in 12 cases a developed country Member has 
raised the issue, compared to 21 cases for de veloping country Members.  On some occasions, 
developing and developed country Members have raised  or supported the same issue.  No cases were 
raised by a least-developed country Member in 2011.  Developed country Members have supported 
another Member raising the issue in 18 cases an d developing country Members have supported 
another Member in 3 cases.  One case was supported by a least-developed country Member in 2011. 
7.  In 15 cases, the measure at issue was ma intained by a developing country Member, 
and in 16 cases it was maintained by a developed count ry Member.  Some specific trade concerns are 
with regard to measures maintained by more th an one Member, including combinations of developed 
and developing countries.  No trade concerns re garding measures maintained by a least-developed 
country Member were raised. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 22  
 
  CHINA - CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINA 
Food safety 319. Chinese quarantine and testing procedures for salmon  
Raised by: Norway 
Supported by: United States, European Union 
Dates raised: June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, para. 19) 
Relevant document(s): Rai sed orally.  G/SPS/GEN/1090 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
8. In June 2011, Norway stated that after years of steady increase in its exports of fresh salmon 
to China, exports had dropped significantly due to testing and quarantine procedures implemented by 
China on 13 December 2010.  These were follo wed by strengthened insp ection and quarantine 
procedures as stated in Notice No. 9 2011, which ha d not been notified to the WTO.  The Norwegian 
monitoring programmes, in operation since 1998, show ed no presence of illegal substances in the fish 
products and had consistently doc umented low levels of contamin ants.  China's measures did not 
seem to be based on scientific principles or a risk  assessment, and Norway requested an explanation 
for these measures and how they complied with the SPS Agreement. 
9. The United States supported Norway and ex pressed their concern that China had 
implemented AQS1Q Order No. 9, Notice on Stre ngthening Inspection and Quarantine on Imported 
Salmon, in February 2011, without  having notified the measure.  The stated objective of this notice 
was to safeguard consumer health, however no risk assessment had been provided.  The United States 
requested a copy of China's risk assessment, and requested that China rescind AQS1Q Order No. 9's 
documentation requirements until the measure had been  notified.  China was also asked to explain 
how the requirement for the exporter's vessel name and number related to ensuring that wild salmon 
was safe for human consumption. 
10. The European Union also called fo r transparency in all SPS matters. 
11. China clarified that since 2010, the entry an d exit inspection and quarantine bureaus in China 
had detected fish lice, pathogenic micro-organism s and excess veterinary drug residues in imported 
chilled salmon.  In an attempt to protect their c onsumers, China had published a notice to strengthen 
the inspection and quarantine of imported salm on, based on the Administrative Measure for 
Inspection, Quarantine and Supervision on Import an d Export of Feed and Feed Additives and its 
revision and amendment measures of imports and expor ts of aquatic products, which were notified to 
the WTO.  The measures taken were covered by th ese laws and regulations without any new element 
and therefore it was unnecessary to make another notification.  China had already responded to 
Norway's concerns when it raised them in Marc h 2011, during Norway's visit to China's AQSIQ and 
hoped that those replies addressed its  concerns.  China was open to further bilateral discussions with 
the European Union and the United States on this topic. 
12. Norway stressed that ensuring sea-food safety is  a major objective of Norwegian authorities, 
who monitor the presence of undesirable substances, microorganisms and parasites in wild-caught and 
farmed seafood, as well as fish feed.  Norway  had been performing a risk assessment on seafood, 
based on studies of the most commercially important fish species in Norway.  Stakeholders often held  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 23 
 
 
  conflicting views on food safety and on the benefits  of seafood and it was important to distinguish 
between fact and fiction.  Norway was keen to  further collaborate in this area with China. 
13. China observed that Norway's concerns focu sed on the detailed testing methods, however 
these purely technical matters had to be discussed among scientists.  In March, scientists from both 
countries had held detailed discussions on this issue, and almost all of Norway's concerns had been 
clarified.  China was disappointed with the lack of  Norwegian efforts to reso lve this issue, as when 
any cargo was identified to be carrying disease the problem was supposed to be rectified by the 
exporter.  China welcomed Norway's and other inter ested parties participation in bilateral discussions 
as this issue had been on-going for two years. 
324. China's requirement for registration and supervision of foreign enterprises 
Raised by: India 
Supported by: European Union 
Dates raised: October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, paras 36-38) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally.  G/SPS/N/CHN/472) 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
14. In October 2011, India raised concerns over China's notification on "Provisions on the 
Administration of the Registration of Foreign Manufacturers of Imported Foods" 
(G/SPS/N/CHN/472) of 19 August 2011.  Foreign ma nufacturers of foods listed in a "Catalogue of 
Registration of Foreign Manufacturers of Imported F oods" would not be able to export their products 
to China without registration.  India enquired wh en this catalogue would be issued and requested 
further information on possible registration fees and processing times. 
15. The European Union echoed these concerns, and indicated that it had provided written 
comments on the notified measure, and hoped that  China would take them into account.  The 
requirements in the notified measure seemed burdens ome and costly, and not necessarily in line with 
the requirements of the SPS Agreement. 
16. China explained that the notified measure wa s not new, but would repeal the original 
registration requirement, established in March 2002.  The registration procedures would not include 
fees, only guidance on how to register.  The questio n whether there would be any other charges was 
still under discussion, and would be announced separat ely after approval.  Re gistration renewal should 
be requested before expiration, and as food enterpri ses were categorized according to different risk 
levels, the application process and specific veri fication requirements would differ accordingly. 
EUROPEAN UNION - CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE 
EUROPEAN UNION 
Food safety 
238. Application and modification of the EU Regulation on novel foods 
Raised by: Colombia, Ecuador, Peru 
Supported by: Argentina, Bolivia, Plurinational State of, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, 
Costa Rica, Cuba, Benin, El Salvador, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Mexico, 
Paraguay, Philippines, Uruguay, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 24  
 
  Dates raised: March 2006 (G/SPS/R/40, par as 21-29), June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, paras 35-
37), October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, pa ras 140-143), February 2007 
(G/SPS/R/44, para. 64), April 2008 (G /SPS/R/49, paras 48-52), October 
2008 (G/SPS/R/53, paras 19-23), Octo ber 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, paras 53-55), 
June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, para. 32), October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, paras 72-
73) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/681, G/SPS/GEN/699, G/SPS/GEN/700, G/SPS/GEN/713, 
G/SPS/GEN/714, G/SPS/GEN/733, G/SPS/GEN/735, G/SPS/GEN/1087, 
G/SPS/GEN/1117 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
17. In March 2006, Colombia raised concerns on th e application of the EC Regulation on Novel 
Foods (Regulation No 258/97) and with the draft project of the European Commission to amend the 
regulation, foreseen to enter into  force in 2007.  The amendment could directly affect the trade 
potential of traditional and exotic foods. 
18. Some traditional and exotic products already ha d substantial presence in the US and Japanese 
food markets, and European consum ers were now becoming interested in these food products.  It was 
important to recall, however, that these traditiona l foods had been consumed in South America for 
thousands of years.  This was in contrast to gene tically modified products which could be considered 
as real Novel Foods. 
19. Increased trade in traditional and exotic products  also had important socio-economic impacts, 
as the export of these products represented a measu re to decrease extreme rural poverty in South 
America and had potential to address specific social and environmental issues, such as providing alternatives to both the growing of narcotic crops  and to the illegal felling of protected forests. 
20. Colombia was aware of the importance of prot ecting consumer health.  However, the amount 
of information on the safety of these traditional fo od products required by the EC regulation and the 
costs to undertake scientific studies were not proportional to health risks and were excessive 
especially for small scale farmers and exporters.  The proposed amendment of Regulation 258 would 
result in a non-tariff barrier to trade with negative effects on the introduction of traditional foods into 
European markets, contrary to Articles 2.2 and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement. 
21. Columbia requested the European  Communities to consider the following points regarding the 
amendment of the Regulation 258/97: 
(a) The non-application of Regulation 258 to exotic , traditional products with a history of 
safe consumption in their region of origin; 
(b) Greater transparency and clarity in the pr ocedures and definition, giving credit to a 
safe consumption history of food in the country of origin; requirements, tests, and procedures in proportion with the nature of the foods concerned and the risks they could imply for consumers;  and all exotic traditional products to remain in the public 
domain and no private entity to be granted privileged access to the European market. 
22. Ecuador reported that the amendment would also  affect the trade potential of traditional and 
exotic food from its country.  In light of Ecua dor's great biodiversity, over the last decade 
international organizations like UNCTAD had b een promoting the development of new export  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 25 
 
 
  products ("Bio-Comercio").  In Ecuador also the export of traditional and exotic foods had major 
socio-economic impacts and related closely to effort s to overcome rural poverty.  Ecuador invited the 
European Communities to consider carefully Colomb ia's recommendations regarding the amendment.  
The amendment of the regulation and its impacts were of importance for many developing countries. 
23. Peru added that currently, within the Conve ntion on Biological Diversity, countries were 
discussing measures and mechanisms for the preserva tion and sustainable use of biodiversity.  
Contrary to that approach, the application of Regul ation 258 would restrict greater sustainable use of 
traditional and exotic products, by diminishing their export potential.  Peru stressed the high costs and 
the long period of time needed for products to be registered under Regulation 258 to allow them to enter the European market.  Peru also suppor ted the Colombia's recommendations regarding the 
amendment (G/SPS/GEN/681). 
24. Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica and Paraguay reported that  their exports had also been affected by 
Regulation 258/97.  Benin requested more informat ion on how a product was considered as "novel".  
Argentina and Mexico both indicated that they were still in the process of analyzing the implications 
of the regulation.  El Salvador, Honduras, India,  Uruguay and Venezuela expressed their interest in 
the topic and shared the concerns of Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. 
25. The European Communities confirmed that Regulation 258/97 was being reviewed and 
recognized that some modifications were needed.  A 40-page document which might answer a lot of 
questions would be circulated as an SPS document shortly.  The document set out clearly the purpose 
and scope of the regulation, which was targeted  at new food technologies, including genetically 
modified products.  As the food industry was inv esting in different new technologies, Regulation 258 
aimed to reassure European consumers of the safet y of those technologies.  The vast majority of 
applications for authorization of Novel Foods had been from within the Euro pean Communities.  The 
European policy was aimed at striking the right balance between encouraging technical innovation 
and ensuring that consumers are protected.  Some pr oducts marketed as "produc ts of biodiversity" had 
in the past turned out to be unsafe and harmed the users.  Dealing with such products was thus in the 
interest of all stakeholders, considering the damage to  the image of products if they were marketed in 
an unsafe manner.  The European Communities inv ited interested stakeholders to submit comments 
and make their views known. 
26. In June 2006, Peru raised further concerns re garding the EC novel food regulation.  In Peru's 
view, one of the major problems of the EC regula tion was that it did not distinguish between new 
foods that had not been consumed before anywhere , and those that were new only to the European 
Communities, which was the case for most of th e traditional exotic products originating from 
developing countries.  Peru requested that the European Communities provide information showing that it was necessary to apply this measure to traditional exotic products, in accordance with the 
provisions of the SPS Agreement.  Peru considered  that the regulation constituted an unnecessary and 
unjustified barrier to trade due to the cost and time required to gain approval for Novel Foods, even if 
they had a history of safe consumption in their c ountries of origin, and requested the exclusion of 
traditional exotic products from the novel food categor y.  Peru also requested that the European 
Communities explain how special needs of developing countries had been taking into account in accordance with Article 10 of the SPS Agreement (G/SPS/GEN/713). 
27. Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, India, Para guay and the Philippines shared the concerns 
raised by Peru.  Ecuador indicated that a study on  the impact of the novel food regulation was about to 
be finalized.  Preliminary results of this study showed that this regulation could have negative 
economic and social consequences for Ecuador's production system by having an effect both on 
current exports and on products w ith export potential in the Eu ropean Communities that were 
currently marketed in other countries (G/SPS/GEN/714).  Bolivia and Colombia highlighted that some 
of the products were currently being promoted inte r alia by policies supporting alternatives to narcotic G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 26  
 
  crops, some of which were funded by the Euro pean Communities or its member States.  The 
Philippines indicated that the effects of the novel fo od regulation and of EC regulations on genetically 
modified food were still being evaluated. 
28. The European Communities stres sed that the concerns expressed were being taken seriously, 
and that the novel food regulation was currently  under review (G/SPS/GEN/699 and 700).  The 
original intention of the novel food regulation had been trade-creating;  its purpose was to authorize 
trade in Novel Foods.  In addition, products that had already been traded prior to 1997 had been 
exempted.  The regulation had been targeted main ly at EC companies.  The regulation had been 
successful in that new foods were being approved on the basis of safety assessme nts.  A statement that 
a product had been consumed for centuries was not sufficient.  The European Communities 
highlighted that very few applications for approval of  traditional exotic products had been received, so 
that there were very few case studies.  Traditiona l exotic products was a broad category including 
some items where there had been safety concerns.  In  the context of the review of the regulation, the 
European Communities indicated that it would be helpful to receive more information on these 
products, including a clear definition of the products at issue whether they had been approved in other 
export markets, and safety-relate d data available, as well as information on the socio-economic 
impact. 
29. In February 2007, Peru noted that although it had not requested that this issue be on the 
agenda for this meeting, it would welcome an  update from the European Communities on current 
developments.  The European Communities indicat ed that the Novel Foods Regulation was being 
revised.  It had initially been designed to cove r a full range of Novel Foods, from GMO foods to 
products of biological diversity.  Following public consultations and the consideration of the views 
and comments received, revised legislation was being prepared.  The European Communities 
anticipated that the result would be a two-tiered pr ocess, with products that had a long history of safe 
use subjected to less rigorous procedures than other Novel Foods.  The European Communities was looking to address the concerns identified by tr ading partners, while ensuring consumer safety. 
30. In October 2007, Columbia, Ecuador and Peru reiterated concerns rela ting to EC Regulation 
258/97 on Novel Foods (G/SPS/GEN/733 and G/SPS/GEN/ 735).  They considered that the regulation 
constituted a non-justified barrier to trade in th ese products as it was not flexible and made no 
distinction between novel (GMO) foods and traditiona l foods with no known risks.  They noted that 
exotic products originating from Latin  America were not the result of any type of genetic modification 
but rather formed part of the biodiversity of the re gion and were consumed traditionally.  Also there 
were inconsistencies in the way this regulation was applied throughout the European Communities.  
The European Communities had not considered the fact  that many of the traditional products had been 
marketed in a number of countries with very strict sanitary standards as they posed no health risks to 
consumers. 
31. The European Communities was requested to pr omptly review Regulation 258/97, and to 
exclude from its scope of application exotic tr aditional products resulting from biodiversity.  The 
European Communities was also enco uraged to take into account scien tific assessments and relevant 
evidence from other countries and competent interna tional organizations when risk assessments were 
made, and to establish different procedures for foods of known risk and no known risk in the 
European Communities.  The Europe an Communities was also  requested take into account the history 
of the product, the consumption patterns and traditional knowledge rela ting to its use and preparation, 
so as to provide for greater flexibility in the appli cation of the regulation and facilitate the entry of 
exotic traditional products into the European market. 
32. Bolivia, Brazil and the Philippines shared the c oncerns of Peru, Ecuador and Columbia.  The 
Philippines highlighted the fact that the regulation could become an unjustified non-tariff barrier to the EC market in view of the unclear technical distinction between these pr oducts and other products.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 27 
 
 
  The Philippines expressed hope that progress would be  made on the issue and a mutual solution found 
as soon as possible. 
33. The European Communities reminded the Committee that the issue had been discussed in the 
SPS Committee on previous occasions and there ha d been various exchanges of communications 
between the Members concerned.  The Europ ean Communities acknowledged the problem with 
traditional products, which were not in the EC market  prior to 1997 and noted that the regulation was 
not discriminatory as EC producers had to under go similar risk evaluations.  Nonetheless, the 
European Communities imported an enormous volume of foods and vegetables.   They reiterated the 
request that the Members concerned submit data on the volume of trade and risk assessments carried out in other developed countries.  The European Communities indicated that the EC Commission was 
putting forward a new proposal that addressed the genuine concerns of Members.  A public 
consultation had been held on the matter and the European Communiti es appreciated the contributions 
from the concerned Members. 
34. In April 2008, Colombia, speaking on behalf of Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, 
Paraguay and Peru recalled the concerns previously  expressed regarding the proposed revision of the 
EC Regulation 258/97, as contained in COM(2007)872.   The proposed regulation had been notified to 
the TBT Committee, however these Members considered that it was appropriate to continue to 
consider this issue in the SPS Committee.  Th ese Members welcomed the proposed recognition of 
traditional food products from third countries, resulti ng from their biodiversity and with a history of 
safe use for large proportions of the populations of  these countries.  This recognition could facilitate 
trade, which was particularly important as the pr oduction of these traditional products was often part 
of programs to diversify agricultural production and exports. 
35. Colombia noted that a number of concerns rema ined.  The proposed definition of a traditional 
foodstuff was that it had been part of the diet of a large part of the population for at least one generation.  This definition could restrict those produc ts that were part of the dietary traditions of 
certain subpopulations or regions of the country.  It would also be useful to clarify how a "generation" 
was to be defined.  Another concern was that re quests for authorization would have to come from 
commercial operators, hence excluding such request s from the competent governmental authorities or 
producer associations.  These Members also suggested  that information regarding safe use of the 
traditional food in other countries should also be considered. 
36. The concerned Members recognized that although the proposed process had been 
considerably simplified, a period of five months was still foreseen for consideration of a request, and 
they suggested that three months should be suffici ent.  These Members remained concerned that the 
definition of a novel food remained a product that ha d not been consumed in the EC market prior to 
1997, which seemed to bear no relation to the scientif ic evidence regarding the safety of a product. 
37. Brazil indicated that it supported the concerns  raised by Colombia on behalf of eight 
countries.  Brazil was still analyzing the relevant documents, but considered  the issues raised by 
Colombia to be very important. 
38. The European Communities stated that a revision of the legislation was underway, in 
particular the provisions on traditional products and products of biological diversity, in response to 
concerns raised by various developing countri es.  A much simplified procedure was now being 
developed.  A range of legitimate and reasonable concerns had been expressed, and these should be 
communicated directly to the relevant EC servi ces, since the legislation was currently under 
consideration.  While the concern was that the EC le gislation might be a barrier to trade in traditional 
products, this should be seen in the broader cont ext:  The European Communities was by far the 
world's largest importer of fruits and vegetables,  especially from developing countries, hence the 
import regime in general w as extremely import friendly. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 28  
 
  39. In October 2008, Peru requested that there should be a notification to the SPS Committee 
regarding the modification of the EC Novel Foods  Regulation.  Many exporting Members failed to 
understand the content of the regulation, why some products were banned, wh ile others were not.  
Also, the regulation gave exporting countries, many of which were developing countries, the burden 
of proof that their products were safe  and complied with the EC Regulation. 
40. Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay and the Philippines shared 
Peru's concerns regarding the EC Regulation on Novel Foods. 
41. UNCTAD reported that it was contributing to the review of the EC Regulation on Novel 
Foods in three specific areas:  (1) revising the procedure, which required more scientific clarification;  
(2) facilitating dialogue between the European Communities and developing countries;  and (3) 
analyzing legal aspects of current regulations  in the context of multilateral agreements. 
42. The European Communities stated that the existing legislation was too ambitious in covering 
a whole range of Novel Foods.  For this reason, the European Communities planned to revise the 
regulation, as had been notified to the TBT Committe e.  This proposal had been under negotiation in 
the EC Parliament and Council.  However, there were concerns regarding the approval of some 
products.  For instance, matters became complicated  when exporters requested the classification of 
food supplements as Novel Foods, rather than whol e fruits and vegetables.  However, the revised 
procedure was expected to be more flexible, a nd some Novel Foods had already been approved for 
entry into the EC market. 
43. The European Communities noted that in this sp ecific case, the legal advice had been to only 
notify the proposed revision to the TBT Committee since it covered approval procedures for Novel 
Foods in general.  This did not preclude that th e issue could be discussed at the SPS Committee.  In 
response to a query, the Secretariat clarified that it generally recommended that draft regulations with 
any SPS content should be notified to the SPS Committee,  even if these regulations were also notified 
to the TBT Committee. 
44. In October 2009, Peru recalled that the entry of  traditional exotic products to the European 
market had been seriously affected by the EC re gulation on novel foods.  The measure contravened 
the activities that the European Communities them selves had been undertaking to support small 
producers and to open the EC market to new and ex otic products.  Various e xotic products had been 
certified by the Health and Environment Authority of Peru, which certified the safety and compliance 
with a HACCP system, and these products were f it for human consumption and could be marketed 
internationally.  Peru expressed concern about th e continuous loss of business opportunities due to 
this measure and asked for an update on the modification progress. 
45. Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, and Mexico s upported Peru's concerns regarding the EC 
regulation on Novel Foods. 
46. The European Communities stated that on 15 January 2008, the EC Commission had 
submitted to the Council and the European Parliament  a proposal for the revision of the Novel Food 
Regulation.  The proposal was notified to WTO Me mbers in March 2008 under the TBT Agreement.  
The reference period for establishing a history of safe food use had been changed to a period of 25 years, and consumption data could originate fro m any third country and not necessarily from the 
country that submitted the application.  The possi bility to apply for a novel food authorization had 
also been opened to any interested party.  The prop osal kept the main rules currently applicable to 
novel goods, but simplified EC market access for tr aditional foodstuffs from third countries which had 
a history of safe use and put in place proportionate regulatory measures.  The proposal was still under 
negotiation and its adoption was foreseen for July 2010.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 29 
 
 
  47. In June 2011, Peru again raised concerns about  Regulation 258/97 that restricted foods which 
had been categorized as novel foods.  This particularly  affected trade in Peruvian traditional foods that 
were safely sold in the United States and Japan (G/SPS/GEN/1087). 
48. Colombia shared the concern of Peru, as this regulation was an unjustified barrier to trade of 
traditional foods and consequently impeded economi c activities.  In 2009, the European Union had 
agreed to change this regulation in a way that would take into account tr aditional foods.  This 
modification had not been implemented, however , because of disagreements that the European 
Council and the European Parliament had regardi ng products of cloned animals, although there was 
general agreement on traditional foods.  Colombia en couraged the European Union to separate these 
issues and resolve the matter of tr aditional foods by the end of 2011. 
49. Brazil, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Indonesia, Mexico and Paraguay s upported the concerns 
raised by Peru and Colombia. 
50. The European Union recalled that on 15 January 2008, steps were taken to update the existing 
novel food rules in an effort to facilitate applica tions for novel food author izations and to simplify 
market access to the Eu ropean Union for traditional foodstuffs from third countries which had a 
history of safe food use.  However, the initial pr oposal submitted to the co-legislators was not 
adopted.  The main stumbling blocks related to provisions regarding food from cloned animals and 
nanotechnology.  Any new regulation would contain a centralized and quicker authorization procedure for novel foods and specific measures for traditional foods, as agreement had indeed 
already been reached on this issue be tween the European co-legislators. 
51. In October 2011, Peru recalled its concerns a bout Regulation 258/97 that restricted foods 
which were not marketed in the European Union be fore May 1997 and had therefore been categorized 
as novel foods (G/SPS/GEN/1117).  This particularly a ffected trade in Peruvian  traditional foods that 
were safely sold in the United States and Japan .  Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, 
Mexico and Paraguay shared the concerns raised by Peru. 
52. The European Union stated that there was as  yet no new novel food regulation.  Nonetheless, 
agreement had already been reached between the Eu ropean co-legislators that any new regulation 
would contain a centralized and quicker author ization procedure for novel foods and specific 
measures for traditional foods. 
306. Maximum residue levels of pesticides 
Raised by: India 
Supported by: Brazil, Pakistan, Thailand 
Dates raised: October 2010 (G/SPS/R/61, pa ras. 17-19), March 2011 (G/SPS/R/62, paras 
56-58), October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, paras 67-68) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally.  G/SPS/N/EEC/196/Add.2, G/SPS/N/EEC/196/Add.10, 
G/SPS/N/EEC/382, EU Revised Plant Protection Regulation 1107/2009, EC 
Regulation 396/2005. 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
53. In October 2010, India referred to three EU no tifications on the adoption of MRLs for certain 
pesticides (G/SPS/N/EEC/196/Add.2, G/SPS/N/EEC/196/Add.10 and G/SPS/N/EEC/382) within the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 30  
 
  framework of the EU Revised Plant Protection Regulation 1107/2009.  EC Regulation 396/2005 
established the legislative framework for MRLs of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and 
animal origin, which was notified by the Europ ean Commission in April 2005.  India was concerned 
that the MRLs for a number of chemicals were set at the "limit of detection" (LOD).  This was the residue limit which could be detected using analyti cal methods/testing procedures available in Europe.  
Different climatic conditions in India required a diffe rent use of pesticides in agricultural production.  
No scientific evidence had been provided to justify the setting of the MRL at the LOD, especially for 
imported products.  For some subs tances, the MRLs in EU cereals was much higher than the approved 
level of the same substance in rice.  The setting of  MRLs at the LOD had impacted India's exports of 
agricultural products to the European Union, and In dia requested the European Union to provide the 
validated testing methods it used to arrive at  the LOD as well as the scientific basis and risk 
assessment for the MRLs.  India considered that  the EU MRLs resulted in the violation of 
Articles 2.2, 2.3, 3.1, 5.1 and 5.4 of the SPS Agreement. 
54. Thailand shared India's concerns, observing that  in the recent EU notifications the proposed 
MRLs for some chemicals were much lower than the levels set by Codex.  The representatives of 
Brazil and Pakistan also shared India's concer ns about the EU procedure for establishing MRLs. 
55. The European Union explained that the new le gislation on pesticide residues was in place 
since 1 September 2008.  MRLs had undergone a co mmon EU consumer intake assessment carried 
out by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)  to make sure that all classes of consumers, 
including vulnerable ones such as babies and children,  were sufficiently protected.  The validated 
analytical methods used by the European Union co uld be found on the website of the EU Reference 
Laboratories for Residues of Pesticides.  The model used for estimating the dietary intake of 27 EU 
consumer groups was available on the EFSA website .  The risk assessment methodology used for 
setting the MRLs came from the framework establishe d by the Codex Alimentarius, as described by a 
2002 Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues' (JMPR) report.  An L OD was set when there 
was a safety concern for consumers from the use of a pesticide at high levels or when there was no 
authorized use on a specific crop within the Euro pean Union or third countries.  The proposed 
revision of the EU MRLs had been notified to  the WTO in 2003, 2005 and 2007, and all WTO 
Members and stakeholders had also been informed about all the individual values that were proposed.  
The MRLs were fixed and pub lished in the Official Journal if no r eaction to the notifications had been 
received.  Nevertheless, applicants in and outside  the European Union coul d apply to have import 
tolerances set for higher MRLs in  specific cases.  Although the Eu ropean Union was aware of the 
different geo-climatic conditions in  India, data on the safety of imported products was still necessary. 
56. In March 2011, India stated that the European  Union had harmonised its pesticide residue 
levels under Regulation No. 396/2005  on MRLs for pesticides on food and feed of plant and animal 
origin.  A default level of 0.01mg/kg had been a pplied on many chemicals, and the European Union 
had claimed that the MRLs had been set at the Le vel of Determination (LOD) .  However, without a 
validated test, it was not clear how the LOD was se t and consequently the MRL, as scientific evidence 
had not been provided despite substantially higher levels for the same chemicals existing in other 
countries.  India re-stated its concer ns relating to:  (i) non- harmonizati on with international standards;  
(ii) lack of risk assessment;  (iii) misuse of Article  5.7 of the SPS Agreement;  (iv) lack of attempt to 
minimize negative trade effects;  and (v) European Laws and Regulations. 
57. The European Union noted that trading partne rs could apply for higher MRLs by providing 
scientific evidence.  With respect to the commodities of interest to India, the European Union had 
indicated that given the economic significance of those commodities, it was prepared to modify the 
relevant MRLs.  India had already submitted an  application for a higher MRL which was under 
evaluation and, pending the outcome of that evaluation, an import tolerance would be set.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 31 
 
 
  58. In June 2011, India recalled that the European Union had previously indicated that its trading 
partners could apply for higher MRLs  by providing scientific evidence.  However, the application of 
the precautionary principle in the case of chemi cals that had been used for decades without any 
negative effects resulted in an unjustified trade barr ier.  The MRLs had been set at the level of 
detection (LOD) without a risk assessment.  Th e LOD was the limit below which residues could not 
be detected by using sophisticated analytical me thods, virtually a zero tole rance, and imported food 
items containing small traces of pesticides were bei ng adversely affected.  In addition, the European 
Union had not made, or not shared, any scientific a ssessments that justified the default MRL for some 
pesticides.  The default MRLs created distrust as pr ivate labs were being used to run the assessments 
and at times they used testing methods which were not in line with the European Commission 
guidelines on method validation and qu ality control procedures for pesticide residue analysis in food 
and feed.  Furthermore, the aggressive business beha viour by private labs in approaching exporting 
countries like India for pre-screening services was a cause for concern.  India requested that the 
European Union provide the scientific justification fo r the current MRLs for certain pesticides, rather 
than shifting the burden of proof onto exporters by requiring that they provide justifications when 
applying for higher MRLs.  India urged the European Union to take effective steps to remove these 
trade restrictive measures. 
59. The European Union stated that the new le gislative framework in operation since 2008 had 
completed the harmonization and simplification of pesticide MRLs and eliminated all technical 
barriers to trade.  The full details of the EU polic y on pesticides had been presented at the March SPS 
Committee meeting.  India had already submitted an  application for a higher MRL for isoprothiolane 
on rice which was being evaluated by the European  Food Safety Authority (EFSA), however, further 
information was required from India.  As far as gr apes were concerned, data from 2011 indicated that 
no obstacles had been identified. 
60. In October 2011, India recalled that the Europ ean Union had previously claimed to have a 
non-discriminatory, open, transparent and predicta ble procedure for setting MRLs.  However, India 
questioned the scientific basis for using the level of detection (LOD) method and for setting MRLs for 
certain pesticides at default levels of 0.01 mg/kg,  as well as the validation testing methods used by the 
European Union to arrive at the level of de tection.  The EU method of setting MRLs was 
discriminatory as it affected the trade of certain pr oducts and did not conform to the SPS Agreement.  
India had been informed that a Member could a pply for a higher MRL, however the EU procedure 
was lengthy, costly and burdensome.  India urged the European Union to replace its ad hoc 
discriminatory, opaque, and unscientific measures with more predictable and science-based ones. 
61. The European Union stated that the procedure to  apply for an MRL that was greater than what 
was foreseen in the EU legislation was non-discrimin atory, open and transparent.  Setting the MRLs 
at the default level for some pesticides facilitated tr ade, in contrast to a zero-tolerance approach.  
Trade had not been interrupted as a result of this le gislation, and particularly not in commodities of 
interest to India.    An opinion from the EFSA on India's application for a higher MRL for 
isoprothiolane on rice was expected in the first quarter  of 2012, and on the basis of this evaluation, the 
European Union would decide whether a higher MRL could be safely set. 
322. EU regulation on polyamide and melamine plastic kitchenware  
Raised by: China, Hong Kong, China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2011 (G/SPS/R/62, paras 155-157), June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, 
paras 46-48), October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, paras 49-51) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally. 
Solution:  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 32  
 
  Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
62. In March 2011, Hong Kong, China reported that  on 22 March 2011, the European Union had 
enacted Commission Regulation No. 284/2011, outlining a more stringent set of testing controls for 
the imports of polyamide and melamine plastic kitc henware, originating in or consigned from China 
and Hong Kong, China.  Hong Kong, China was concer ns that while the regulation would take effect 
on 1 July, it had not yet been notified.  Hong Kong, China was also concerned that the restrictions 
were discriminatory, and that despite bilateral di scussions, Hong Kong, China`s concerns had not yet 
been addressed. 
63. China supported the views expressed by Hong Kong, China and noted that the EU restrictions 
were discriminatory as they only applied to China and Hong Kong, China.  China requested that the 
European Union provide scientific justification for the measures, and postpone the effective date of 
the regulation. 
64. The European Union recalled that in accordance with the Committee's working procedure, the 
European Union should have been informed at le ast ten days in advance of the meeting of the 
intention to raise such a specific trade concern.  As this had not been the case, th e European Union 
would not reply in detail to the concern raised in the formal meeting.  The European Union stated, 
however, that the matter had already been discussed  bilaterally with China in the margins of the 
meeting that same morning and that another bila teral meeting with Hong Kong, China was being set 
up to take place before the next Committee meeting. 
65. In June 2011, China indicated that the Eur opean Union had not provided an adequate 
transition period for manufacturers to adapt to EU  Regulation 284/2011.  Although the EU framework 
legislation 669/2009 had been notified, it was a very  general regulation that Members could not use to 
predict the application of specific measures to partic ular products.  China requ ested that the European 
Union notify EU Regulation 284/2011 and provide  a reasonable comment period.  The European 
Union was requested to provide all notifications a nd alerts concerning plastic kitchenware received by 
the rapid alert system, not only those originating in or consigned from China and Hong Kong, China, and ensure that its measures were not arbitrary or  unjustifiably discriminatory.  Furthermore, the 
European Union should ensure the plastic food c ontact material product standards in 2002/72/EC and 
the 15 mg/kg formaldehyde limit in Regulation 284/ 2011 were based on international standards;  or 
else provide data, risk analysis, and testing reports  of the substances found in plastic kitchenware in 
order to prove the measures were based on sufficient scientific evidence. 
66. Hong Kong, China remained unconvinced that  the measure introduced by the European 
Union was non-discriminatory, given that the regulation imposed a more stringent import requirement 
on consignments from Hong Kong, China vis-à-vis t hose from other countries with a similar export or 
re-export trade.  It did not appear that the EU re gulation referred to any international standard, and 
Hong Kong, China urged the European Union to notif y the regulation and to conduct an early review 
of the measure with the purpose of repealing any di scriminatory measure against the relevant products 
originating in or consigned from Hong Kong, China. 
67. The European Union stated the regulation ha d its legal basis in Regulation 882/2004 on 
official food and feed controls and in Directive 2002/72 on provisions relating to plastic materials and 
articles intended to come into contact with foods tuffs.  These regulations were notified in 2002 and 
2003, respectively.  Mandatory border controls for plastic kitchenware imported from China and 
Hong Kong, China had been imposed as of 1 July 2011 due to the high number of alerts received 
regarding the non-compliance of these products.  Th e EU Food Veterinary Office (FVO) inspection  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 33 
 
 
  missions to China and Hong Kong, China also reporte d there were insufficient export control systems 
in place for these products.  While the particular me asures in question were applied only to China and 
Hong Kong, China, the measures were not discrimin atory because they were applied solely for the 
reasons identified.  The measures were proportionate  and did not impose burdens additional to what 
was applicable to European products.  The measur es were also limited to the extent necessary to 
control the risk identified, and were scientifically justified on the basis of an opinion from EFSA.  The 
measures would remain in place until the situatio n changed and the border controls revealed a 
significant drop in non-conforming products.  The European Union was willing to offer assistance 
regarding how the relevant procedures must be applied in practice, had published guidelines on the 
implementation of the regulation and provided information on the EU  website regarding technical 
information on the physical checks that were applied. 
68. In October 2011, China reported that c with EU officials had not resolved the problem.  China 
again requested all notifications  concerning plastic kitchenware under the Rapid Alert System, not 
only those from China and Hong Kong, China, to ensu re that the EU measures were not arbitrary or 
unjustifiably discriminatory.  China also repeated its  request that the European Union provide data, its 
risk analysis, and testing reports of the substances found in plastic kitchenware, to prove the measures 
were based on sufficient scientific evidence. 
69. Hong Kong, China restated its concern that th e EU measure was discriminatory, as it imposed 
more stringent import requirements on consignmen ts from Hong Kong, China compared to other 
countries and urged the European Union to eliminat e any discrimination against products originating 
in or consigned from Hong Kong, China. 
70. The European Union indicated that it had e xplained the scope of the regulation and its 
applicability in bilateral discussions with China, in  November 2010, and also with Hong Kong, China, 
and had sent copies of the final draft regulation to the respective relevant authorities both before and 
after the discussions.  An EU contact point had been established to help exchanges between the 
competent authorities.  The measure had been notif ied to the WTO at the beginning of July 2011 
(G/SPS/N/EEC/406) to ensure that Members woul d better understand the discussions on this trade 
concern.  Mandatory border controls for plastic  kitchenware imported from China and Hong Kong, 
China had been imposed as of 1 July 2011 due to the high number of alerts received regarding the 
non-compliance of these products.  The inspecti on missions carried out by the EU Food and 
Veterinary Office (FVO) to China and Hong Kong, Ch ina had also shown that China had deficiencies 
in its export control systems for these products.  The particular measures in question were applied 
only to China and Hong Kong, China, but were not discriminatory.  The measures did not impose 
burdens additional to what was applicable to EU products, were limited to the extent necessary to 
control the identified risks, and were scientifica lly justified on the basis of an opinion from EFSA.  
The measures would remain in place until the borde r controls revealed a significant drop in non-
conforming products, and China's e xport controls were improved. 
325. EU regulations on cadmium in cocoa beans 
Raised by: Ecuador 
Supported by: Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua, Peru, 
Venezuela 
Dates raised: October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, paras 39-41) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally. 
Solution:  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 34  
 
  Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
71. In October 2011, Ecuador expressed concern th at the European Union was considering 
modifying the maximum level of cadmium in coco a and cocoa products, and was planning to apply a 
maximum limit between 0.3 and 0.5 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), in the context of Regulation 
(EU) No 420/2001.  Ecuador urged the European Un ion to base any maximum limits on cadmium on 
appropriate scientific studies.  The Joint F AO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) 
had established a level of acceptable weekly co nsumption of 5.8 micrograms of cadmium per 
kilogram of body weight (µg/kg), more than twic e the tolerable weekly intake concluded by the 
European Food Safety Agency (EFSA).  Ecuador requested further information on the EU risk analysis, and stressed that any possible maximum residue limit (MRL) should be set as low as 
reasonably possible (ALARP principle).  Some of Ecuador's soil contained cadmium, but it had 
adopted mitigation measures so as to produce high- quality cocoa not detrimental to human health. 
72. Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Repub lic, Nicaragua, Peru and Venezuela shared 
the concerns raised by Ecuador.  They asked th e European Union to provide the technical and 
scientific basis on which it was considering regulatin g cadmium in cocoa and chocolate, and stressed 
that any possible maximum limits should be based on science. 
73. The European Union recalled that neither it nor Codex had established a maximum level for 
cadmium in cocoa or cocoa products to date.  However, JECFA had reviewed its toxicity in 
commodities in 2010 and set the tolerable weekly intake at approximately six micrograms per 
kilogram of body weight.  In contrast, EFSA had id entified a lower tolerable weekly intake of 2.5 
µg/kg of body weight in 2009 and in 2010.  Based  on the 2009 and 2010 EFSA scientific opinions for 
cadmium, the European Union had initiated a review  of maximum levels for cadmium in different 
types of foodstuffs, including chocolate and cocoa products sold to the final consumer, since cocoa and chocolate products contribute significantly to human exposure and in particular exposure of 
children.  Discussions were still on-going, but any li mits would be based on realistic occurrence data 
of cadmium in cocoa and cocoa products compiled fr om different geographical origins and would be 
set as low as reasonably achievable. 
327. EU Court of Justice ruling re garding pollen derived from GMOs 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Canada, Mexico, Pa raguay, United States, Uruguay 
Dates raised: October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, paras 44-46) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally. 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
74. In October 2011, Argentina stated that on 6 Se ptember 2011, the European Court of Justice 
(ECJ) had adopted a new interpretation of the sc ope of EC Regulation No. 1829/2003, considering 
pollen derived from GM crops as an ingredient of honey and not a natural component.  This was in 
conflict with the Codex standard for honey.  Th e ruling resulted in legal uncertainty, which lead 
European importers to interrupt purchases of  honey produced in Argentina pending the 
implementation of the ruling, to the detriment of the very small scale beekeepers and regional  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 35 
 
 
  economies that depended on this activity.  Argentina requested the European Union to promptly take 
all necessary measures to remove the uncertainty caused by the ECJ judgment, and to ensure that 
implementation of the ECJ judgment did not restrict honey imports. 
75. Canada, Mexico, Paraguay, the United States and Uruguay shared the concerns of Argentina.  
Mexico expressed its appreciation for having been invited for further discussions in Brussels on the 
implementation of the ECJ decision.  Brazil empha sized that the EU policy regarding GMOs was 
trade restrictive and observed that it faced similar problems concerning red beans. 
76. The European Union observed that honey containing GM pollen had previously been 
considered to be outside the scope  of the relevant legislation.  Following the ruling, GM pollen in 
honey must be explicitly authorized before en tering the EU market, a nd imported honey products 
which contained GMOs that were not authorized for use in pollen would not be allowed.  Even though 
the specific GM crop in this case (MON 810) had b een authorized in the European Union for more 
than ten years, it had not been authorized for u ses which included pollen.  The European Union was 
taking steps to fill the existing regulatory gaps until EFSA provided an opinion on the safety of the MON 810 pollen in honey, and was considering how to ensure the proper implementation of the 
ruling without unnecessarily disrupting the supply of hone y to EU consumers.  It would be holding 
open dialogues with its member States, all inte rested third countries and other stakeholders. 
Animal Health 
300. EC Regulation No. 1099/2009 
Raised by: India 
Supported by: China, Viet Nam 
Dates raised: June 2010 (G/SPS/R/59, pa ras. 24-27), October 2010 (G/SPS/R/61, 
paras 31-33), March 2011 (G/SPS/ R/62, paras 48-50), June 2011 
(G/SPS/R/63, paras 40-41) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally.   
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
77. In June 2010, India raised concerns about EC  Regulation No. 1099/2009 dated 24 September 
2009 regarding the humane treatment of animals at th e time of slaughter, which was to enter into 
force on 1 January 2013.  Under Article 12 of the re gulation, the import of meat from third countries 
must be supplemented by a health certificate indicat ing that requirements at least equivalent to those 
established in Chapters II and III of the regulation ha d been met.  According to India, this specific 
regulation had not been notified by the European Union despite being a trade-restricting measure.  
India sought clarification on the justification for th is regulation and for animal welfare requirements 
that may not fall under the SPS Agreement.  India al so inquired about:  (i) how equivalence may be 
assessed, including details of the certification process;   and (ii) how EU experts would ensure that 
animals were slaughtered in humane conditions a nd received clearance from the European Union. 
78. China supported the concerns raised by India a nd noted that it would continue to follow the 
issue. 
79. The European Union reported that the regulation would enter into force on 1 January 2013 
and was based on two publicly available scientific op inions which had been forwarded to the Indian 
authorities.  The European Union clarified that regu lations regarding animal welfare conditions at the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 36  
 
  time of stunning and slaughter had been in place since 1993, and that regul ation No. 1099/2009 re-
addressed the issues, but did not impose new require ments.  The European Union believed that the 
measures were not more restrictive than necessary a nd that the regulation recognized the principle of 
equivalence.  The system had proved to be effe ctive over a 15 year time period and other countries 
had developed similar legislation, based on the OIE C ode and consistent with in ternational standards.  
Nevertheless, the European Union would ensure continued cooperation among experts to address any 
concerns before the legislation entered into force in 2013. 
80. The OIE clarified that if the measures were to control animal health, including ante- and post-
mortem inspections, then they were relevant to SPS.  Although animal welfare was not a SPS-related 
issue, OIE members had adopted a resolution in 20 04 for OIE to undertake further work on animal 
welfare issues, and OIE members had the opportunity  to comment on those standards, particularly 
through the Animal Welfare Working Group. 
81. In October 2010, India again expressed concer n that the EU regulation contained animal 
welfare requirements that would be trade restrictiv e, and as the slaughter of animals was a sanitary 
issue, this measure should be notified to the WT O.  Although the regulation was based on OIE 
standards, only those OIE standards that had the ob jective to control animal health, including ante- 
and post- mortem inspections, fell within the sc ope of the SPS Agreement.  The new regulation 
introduced animal welfare requirements beyond those that had been in place since 1993, and therefore 
the European Union should notify the regulation to the WTO and give Members time to submit 
comments.  India asked:  how trade issues would be linked with animal welfare issues;  how equivalence of measures would be assessed;  wh ether the provisions of Article 12 of the EU 
regulation were in line with any WTO agreements;  and whether Article 5 of the regulation would 
require that all establishments exporting meat r eceive a prior clearance from the European Union. 
82. Viet Nam noted that it shared India's concerns , in particular relating to fishery products. 
83. The European Union indicated that the re gulation was based on scientific findings, in 
particular two scientific opinions by the European  Food Safety Authority in 2004 and 2006.  These 
scientific opinions were publicly available and had b een provided to India.  As a major importer of 
meat products, and as a result of consumer prefer ences, the European Union required that certain 
animal welfare conditions be met at the time of slaughter.  The measures contained in Article 12 of 
Regulation 1099/2009 were not more trade restrictiv e than those currently enforced.  There was no 
obligation for countries to apply the same or identical  measures, but measures that were equivalent in 
achieving the same aims were acceptable.  The prin ciple of equivalence had existed and been applied 
since 1993.  The regulation took into account the international animal welfare standards on the 
slaughter of animals developed by the OIE.  It wa s the role of the EU Food and Veterinary Office to 
evaluate the equivalence of measures implemented in  countries exporting to the European Union.  The 
European Union welcomed collaboration between experts on animal welfare, as in the ongoing 
bilateral agreement with India, to exchange  technical knowledge and achieve a common 
understanding on equivalency. 
84. In March 2011, India repeated its concern that  the EU's regulation introduced animal welfare 
requirements beyond those that had been in place since 1993, and that it should be notified to the 
WTO.  India was particularly concerned that the pr ovisions of Article 12 of the EU regulation were 
not in line with WTO agreements and that Article  5 would require that all establishments exporting 
meat receive a prior clearance from the European Union. 
85. The European Union, supported by Chile, regr etted that the topic was being discussed again 
as discussions at the October 2010 meeting had confirme d that animal welfare was not covered by the 
SPS Agreement.  The European Union maintained that the regulation was based on science and took 
into account the OIE's animal welfare standards on th e slaughter of animals, and that third countries  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 37 
 
 
  were not obliged to adopt the same requirements ra ther ones that were equivalent.  Any remaining 
areas of concern could be clarified within the on-going free trade agreement negotiations between 
India and the European Union. 
86. India noted that discussions at the October 2010 meeting had not been conclusive on whether 
or not animal welfare was covered by the SPS Agreement. 
87. In June 2011, India  inquired whether the European Union would notify EC Regulation No. 
1099/2009.  India requested clarification of whethe r Article 12 of the Regulation required that the 
health certificate be supplemented by an attestation certifying that requirements laid down in Chapters 
II and III or equivalent practices would be followed, and what woul d be the parameters for assessing 
equivalence in such a case.  India also sought clar ification regarding who was required to make the 
attestation and whether the certificate could be issu ed by persons involved in slaughter operations in 
third countries as referred to in Article 7 of the Regulation. 
88. The European Union responded that the SPS Agr eement does not cover animal welfare.  The 
European Union also failed to understand the relevan ce of this to trade as India did not export pig, 
poultry or bovine meat to the European Union, nor had India provided any data on future plans to do 
so.  .  The European Union was willing to work w ith the relevant Indian authorities to address any 
impact that this legislation might have on  India-EU trade, both current and potential. 
INDIA - CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDIA 
Animal Health 185. Restrictions due to avian influenza 
Raised by: European Union 
Supported by: Australia, Canada, China, United States 
Dates raised: March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras 18-20 ), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras 42-
43), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, par as 59-60), June 2007 (G/SPS/R/45, 
paras. 21-23 ), October 2007 (G/SPS/R/46, paras 29-32 ), April 2008 (G/SPS/R/49, paras 33-38), June 2008 (G/SPS/R/51, paras 31-35), October 
2008 (G/SPS/R/53, paras 29-34 ), Fe bruary 2009 (G/SPS/R/54, paras 17-
20), June 2009 (G/SPS/R/55, par as 43-46), October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, 
paras 40-43), March 2010 (G/SPS/R/58, paras 37-40), June 2010 
(G/SPS/R/59, paras 39-41 ), October 2010 (G/SPS/R/61, paras 25-28), March 2011 (G/SPS/R/62, paras 37-40), June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, paras 64-
68), October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, paras 81-93) (G/SPS/R/64/Add.2, paras 1-2) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/IND/13/Add.1, G/SPS/N/IND/14, G/SPS/N/IND/46/Add.3 and 
Add.4 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
89. In June 2004, the European Communities stated th at India continued to apply import bans on 
a range of poultry products, including live birds,  fresh meat and fresh meat products from several 
countries allegedly in response to highly pathenogenic  avian influenza (HPAI), since February 2004.  
These blanket import bans were disproportionate to the risk and should be confined to imports from G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 38  
 
  regions affected by the disease in accordance  with OIE recommendations.  The European 
Communities was officially free of this disease, according to the OIE criteria, and had implemented safeguard measures to protect this sanitary status.  He asked that India review the current ban and lift 
all restrictions on poultry products from the European Communities. 
90. India responded that measures prohibiting poultry and poultry products had been 
implemented as temporary measures.  New outbreaks of HPAI in WTO Members, but not within the 
territories of the European Communities, had been reported as recently as 4 June 2004.  Since poultry 
production in India was typically a family-run business,  Indian authorities were particularly concerned 
about potential human development of the disease. 
91. In October 2004, the European Communities e xpressed concerns that India continued to 
impose a ban on some live animals and a range of products of animal orig in due to the risk of entry of 
HPAI into India.  India had issued two notifications, on 7 July and on 6 August, informing Members of the relaxation of the ban for a range of products.  However, the ban was disproportionate to the risk 
and there was no scientific basis for some of the measures imposed by India.  The ban should be 
confined to regions affected by the disease following OIE guidelines and recommendations.  The 
European Communities had been decl ared by the OIE as being free of  HPAI and safeguard measures 
had been put in place to protect and maintain this sa nitary status.  India was requested to review its 
ban and bring its measures into conf ormity with the SPS Agreement. 
92. India reiterated that the ban was a temporary me asure which was enforced due to the outbreak 
of avian influenza throughout the world.  The prev alence of the family-based poultry industry and the 
significant numbers involved in the industry would make it impossible to control the disease if it 
spread to India.  The situation had been under co nstant review since the imposition of the ban in 
February 2004.  The ban on imports of poultry w ith vaccination and specific pathogen free eggs was 
lifted in July 2004.  A subsequent review by an expert group resulted in the continuation of the ban on 
imports of certain products such as live and raw poultry and pig meat.  Processed products from HPAI 
infected countries were allowed into India, however , and the situation continued to be monitored. 
93. In June 2007,tThe United States noted that India was banning poultry, swine and other 
products in response to the detection of low pathoge nic avian influenza (AI) in wild birds in some 
parts of the United States.  These restrictions far ex ceeded the standards developed by the OIE for the 
control of AI.  India failed to apply the concept of  regionalization to the United States.  India applied 
its ban against US products although no incident of HPAI had occurred in the United States;  applied 
its ban to products that had been treated or processe d in such a manner that the AI virus was killed;  
and applied its ban to species and products from animals that were not known to transmit the virus.  
Although India had recently notified a change to its measures to allow the entry of dry processed pet 
food, it continued to prohibit other heat-treated  pet foods that posed no animal health risk. 
94. The European Communities observed that they  had similar concerns regarding India's 
measures.  Although they had been seeking to reso lve the matter bilaterally, problems continued to 
appear and reappear.  All Members should apply th e international standards, to ensure that the 
measures applied were proportionate to the risks.  India's measure was applied even to products that 
had never been known to transmit AI, including pork meat. 
95. India noted that high or low pathogenic strains of AI had been reported in more than 60 
countries, and his authorities were concerned that the virus was spreading.  The virus had important 
human health implications, given its high fatality ra te.  India had experienced an outbreak of HPAI in 
2006 which had been successfully contained, and th e country was now free of the disease.  India was 
trying to safeguard animal and human health in its territory, and protect its family-run poultry industry.  It therefore banned imports of poultry fr om any country which had experienced an outbreak 
of AI, whether highly pathogenic or low pathogenic.  The United States had reported an outbreak of  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 39 
 
 
  low pathogenic AI.  Countries free from AI could e xport livestock to India, and pathogen-free eggs 
for vaccine production were permitted from any countr y, regardless of its AI status.  Because many 
wild birds visited India, this was a vector of concer n.  With regard to pet food, India had revised its 
health protocol notified in June 2007, and would ta ke into account the comments made on this matter. 
96. In October 2007, the United States reiterated c oncerns regarding India's ban on imports of US 
poultry, swine and their products due to detections of low-pathogenic AI in wild birds in the United 
States.    India had made two notifications rela ted to AI (G/SPS/N/IND/46/Add.3 and Add.4).  The 
Add.3 document extended AI-related import prohibition to include pig bristles.  Prohibiting the import 
of these products was not scientifically justified nor in compliance with the OIE guidelines based on 
the AI status of a country, region or zone.  The United States requested that India remove all import 
restrictions on US origin live pigs and porcine products.  India's Add.4 extended for a further six 
months the emergency measures it had put in pl ace in August 2006.  The United States expressed 
concerns with regard to India's continued emergency measures relate d to AI.  The United States urged 
India to put in place permanent measures for trade in poultry products and AI, and to ensure that these 
measures were consistent with the provisions of the OIE Code chap ter on AI.  India's measures should 
distinguish between highly-pathogenic and low-pathoge nic strains of AI, and allow for the application 
of regionalization. 
97. The European Communities stated that India fa iled to recognize the difference between high 
and low pathogenic influenza as well as the AI-rela ted differences between wild birds and domestic 
animals.  The European Communities again enc ouraged India to follow the recommendations from 
the OIE. 
98. India stressed the dangers related to AI and how widespread the virus had been.  Following 
the 2006  HPAI outbreak in India, the country was extremely cautious to safeguard its animal and 
human health, particularly in view of the family  run poultry industry in India and because AI was 
known to reoccur in countries where outbreaks had previously taken place.  India restricted imports from countries reporting AI.  The United States w as currently positive for low pathogenic AI in 
poultry (LPNAIH5).  India's import restrictions due to outbreaks of AI in the United States were 
clarified in detail to the United States during the l ast trade policy forum meeting held in New Deli.  
He contested the claim that India's regulations were not based on science by observing that the 
presence of LPAI in poultry was a notifiable disease acco rding to the OIE as per the list of diseases in 
Article 2.1.3 of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code.  Furthermore, as noted by USDA's factsheet on AI, LPAI had a high potential to mutate into highl y pathogenic AI;  a view that India shared.  
Nonetheless, India regularly reviewed its trade regul ations in the light of new developments on AI.  
Regarding the concerns with pork products, there were  numerous scientific reports that pigs could be 
easily infected by many human and AI viruses and, therefore, could provide an environment favourable for viral replication and genetic re-assortme nt.  The fast mutating nature of the AI virus, 
along with the possibility that the virus could re-c ombine with other subtypes, made pig and pig 
products a risk.  With regard to wild birds, the re presentative indicated that consultations with experts 
had taken place and that the Indian authorities were of  the view that wild birds could not be ignored 
with respect to AI.  The US and EC concerns woul d be reported back to India's technical experts for 
review. 
99. OIE clarified the recommendations of the OIE and how they should be put in practice.  The 
listing of diseases such as HPAI and low pathogenic no tifiable avian influenza (LPNAI) was first and 
foremost for disease reporting purposes and related to th e question of transparency.  Findings of AI in 
wild birds and of LPNAI should not lead to import bans.  There needed to be a distinction drawn 
between reporting and the imposition of measures.  OIE reiterated that there was no scientific basis 
for restrictions on pigs and pig produc ts in relation to AI, whether it be  high or low pathogenic strains, 
and this point was clear in the OIE terrestrial code.  OIE was concerned that the imposition of 
measures that were not scientifically based worsen ed the risks for spread  of disease because countries G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 40  
 
  were discouraged from proper reporting if they believe d that the reporting would lead to unjustifiable 
measures.  It was of utmost importance that countries report their diseases. 
100. In March 2008, the European Communities indicat ed that India continued to ban certain EC 
animal products due to AI.  Although India had earlie r this year relaxed the ban for some products, it 
continued to ban many commodities.  India impo sed the ban in response to both high and low 
pathogenic strains of AI.  The OIE, however, did not recommend trade bans if AI was present only in 
wild birds, or if low pathogenic strains were f ound.  The obligation to notify cases of low pathogenic 
AI to the OIE should not be misused as a reas on to impose trade restrictions, as the OIE had 
previously clarified in this Committee.  Furthermor e, heat-treated products could be safely traded 
regardless of the AI status of the exporting country .  The European Communiti es considered also that 
India's ban on pig meat and pork pr oducts based on AI concerns was disproportionate to the risk.  
Although the European Communities had requested info rmation regarding what needed to be done to 
regain free status, India had not provided any response.  As indicated previously, the European Communities was of the view that India's measures were disproportionate to the risks and for some 
products were not based on scientific evidence.  In addition, HPAI had been found in India , and the 
European Communities questioned whether Indian do mestic products would be subject to the same 
treatment as imported goods. 
101. The United States shared the concern that Indi a's measures were introduced and maintained 
without sufficient scientific basis or a risk assessmen t.  The measures were unjustifiably restrictive 
and too broad in geographi c and commodity application.  Bilate ral exchanges had allowed progress on 
some areas, but not regarding the AI measures.  Despite requests, the United States had not yet 
received copies of India's risk assessment.  Furt hermore, these emergency import prohibitions had 
been extended again (G/SPS/N/IND/46/Add.5), after having been in place for almost two years.  The United States urged India to lift AI measures that were not based on science, and in particular to 
distinguish between high and low pathogenic strains, recognize disease-free zones, not apply measures to swine and pork products, and to reco gnize measures taken to inactivate the virus. 
102. Australia shared the concerns of the Europ ean Communities and the United States, and urged 
India to base its measures on sound science and OIE standards. 
103. Mali reported that since his country did not know how to do a risk assessment with regard to 
AI, it had closed its borders to poultry im ports from countries which had the disease. 
104. India noted that AI continued to spread, and that it had serious human health implications 
with hundreds of persons already affected.  Indi a had previously had an outbreak, and despite its 
efforts to eradicate the disease, new outbreaks had o ccurred.  India viewed low and high pathogenic 
strains of AI with equal concern, regardless of  whether in poultry or wild birds, and was not 
permitting imports from affected countries.  Low pa thogenic AI presented a high potential risk, as the 
science showed that the virus was constantly evol ving and there was a possibility of low pathogenic 
AI mutating into a highly pathogenic strain.  With respect to the OIE guidelines, India had voted 
against the resolution in the last annual session wh ich proposed that low pathogenic AI was not a 
concern for international trade.  India was not th e only country taking such measures, and Egypt had 
apparently imposed similar requirements.  India had recently reviewed and modified its measures on pathogen free eggs, and pet food, and agreed to provide information to the European Communities 
shortly.  The concerns raised by other Member s would be communicated to technical experts in 
capital.  India assured all Members that it would abide by its WTO obligations. 
105. The European Communities clarified that in case of  Egypt, the measures were applied to very 
different commodities.  Although both countries had measures related to AI, these could not be easily 
compared.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 41 
 
 
  106. In June 2008, the European Communities reported that India continued to apply a ban on the 
imports of poultry, swine, and th eir products, from areas that had repor ted outbreaks of either low - or 
high-pathogenic AI in wild bird populations only.  In addition, India restricted the importation of 
products also from areas where low pathogenic AI had been found, disregarding the OIE standards 
which assured the complete elimination of risks and allowed products to be safely traded.  The ban on 
imports of pigs and pig meat was not justified according to the OIE, nor had India provided scientific 
justification for the ban.  India's restrictions were disproportionate and the European Communities 
requested India to review its measures without delay. 
107. Canada supported the EC arguments, noting that according to the OIE, pigs did not represent 
a threat for transmitting AI.  Furthermore, India should recognize the principle of regionalization 
when applying a ban based on AI.  Canada request ed that India follow the OIE's standards and 
remove the import restrictions currently in place. 
108. The United States supported the concerns raised , observing that India's measure had been 
introduced and maintained without scientific evidence or risk assessment.  India's argument that low 
pathogenic AI had the potential to mutate into the highly pathogenic form, and that virus re-
assortment could occur in swine, had been addressed  by the OIE.  The United States had requested a 
copy of India's risk assessment that supporte d its ban, but this had not been provided. 
109. China supported the concerns raised and requested  India to revisit its measure in order to 
comply with OIE recommendations. 
110. India clarified that it did not allow the importation of poultry and pork products, including 
processed meats, from areas where outbreaks of AI ha d been reported.  India reiterated that it was 
equally concerned about low and hi ghly pathogenic AI, as well as with AI found in wild birds only.  
A number of scientific studies had shown the possib ility of low pathogenic forms of AI mutating into 
highly pathogenic strains.  A report from FAO had also  shown that mutation was feasible.  An official 
US web site asserted that low pathogenic forms of AI  had the potential to mutate into HPAI.  India 
remained concerned that the low pathogenic viru ses also posed risks to hum an health.  Regarding 
pigs, scientific evidence showed that pigs could host the virus and were known to be a mixing vessel 
for some diseases, hence they could infect humans wi th AI.  As new scientific evidence evolved, India 
had lifted its bans on some products , such as eggs and pet food.  Further reviews would be done in the 
future.  India took note of Members' requests for c opies of the risk assessment  and for the recognition 
of regionalization, and those concerns woul d be conveyed to experts in the capital. 
111. In October 2008, the European Communities ack nowledged India's efforts to remove its 
import restrictions on processed pig meat.  However,  India continued to apply a ban on live animals 
and on a wide range of products of animal origin.  This ban had been based on the risk of entry into 
India of several diseases, in particular AI.  These restrictions did not conform to the OIE standards.  India was also invited to acknowledge that heat-treat ed meat and meat products could be safely traded 
regardless of the AI status of the exporting country.   Moreover, India had no t responded to the request 
for providing scientific justification and its risk  assessment on pig meat and pig meat products.   
112. The United States expressed concerns regarding India's extension of its emergency measures 
prohibiting a wide range of products because of AI.  These measures were not based on scientific 
evidence or on risk assessment.  The United States rene wed the request to India to provide a copy of 
their AI risk assessment.  Finally, India was request ed to modify its measure to address the concerns 
expressed by several Members. 
113. In response to the US request, India proposed that a technical discussion between India and 
other technical experts be held.  The United States i nvited India to bring its technical experts to the 
next meeting of the SPS Committee and again request ed a copy of India's risk assessment.  India G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 42  
 
  suggested that instead of waiting for the next meet ing the experts could meet before then, perhaps 
through a video conference, which could allow a r esolution before the next meeting. India reported 
that the import restriction of AI related prod ucts had been discussed in the OIE, in the SPS 
Committee, and in various bilateral meetings with  countries including the European Communities and 
the United States.    India had been reviewing the policy of AI and its trade implications every six 
months.  This led to the removal of import restri ctions on different processed pig products from AI-
positive countries.  India would con tinue to review its restrictions and keep only those which affected 
human and animal health.  India suggested that the discussion should stay among experts. 
114. The OIE stated that countries should notify the presence of AI in domestic and wild birds.  
However, notification of the early detection of AI in wild birds was requested for purposes of 
transparency and should not lead to trade restricti ons.  OIE urged OIE members to send their scientific 
evidence to OIE, to be considered when making n ecessary amendments to the standards established in 
the OIE codes. 
115. In February 2009, the United States expressed  disappointment that India continued to 
maintain its emergency measures prohibiting a wi de range of products because of AI without 
scientific evidence or a risk assessment.  Appr opriate measures for AI did not include trade 
restrictions on swine or swine products, trade measur es related to notifiable AI in wild birds, or 
prohibitions on heat-treated products.  In add ition, Members should distinguish between highly 
pathogenic and low pathogenic AI.  The United Stat es welcomed India's previous proposal for a 
technical level meeting to discuss the issue,  and again urged India to present its risk assessment so 
that a technical discussion could be scheduled. 
116. The European Communities welcomed the recen t lifting by India of some AI-related 
restrictions, but supported the US concerns that th e remaining restrictions were unjustified and went 
against the OIE Code, in particular the lack of di stinction between outbreaks of highly pathogenic and 
low pathogenic AI. 
117. India explained that since many countries re ported AI, and because of the human health 
implications, it was natural that Members were ex tremely cautious to safeguard animal and human 
health.  This was particularly true in India, sin ce its poultry industry was largely family-run.  Many 
Members had adopted AI measures, including impor t bans.  India had banned imports of poultry and 
swine products from countries reporting both low and hi ghly pathogenic AI, since one strain of the 
virus could mutate into the other.  An FAO pub lication acknowledged that mutation to virulence had 
been demonstrated, and the USDA website also admitt ed this.  At the OIE General Session, India had 
voted against the resolution stating that low pathoge nic AI was not a trade concern.  India believed 
that trade interests should not take precedence ove r human health concerns, but accepted that science 
was evolving and had provisions for reviewing its AI measures.  As a result, trade restrictions on 
certain products from AI  positive countries had b een lifted.  India had recently reviewed the 
restrictions on pig meat and found there was minima l risk, especially when processed.  India had thus 
decided to lift restrictions on pig products a nd on processed poultry products.  The reviews would 
continue.  The representative of India had taken not e of the US concerns, had had bilateral meetings 
with the United States and the European Communi ties, and would convey their concerns to his 
authorities. 
118. OIE indicated that AI was a major challenge for trade in poultry products.  The relevant 
standards were in place and the OIE did not recei ve many comments from OIE members; the standard 
seemed to be well accepted.  Currently the OIE wa s looking at conditions for trade in pet food and 
various by-products such as feather meal.  Member s should review the AI standards and raise any 
concerns at the OIE.  The representative of the OIE clarified that there were a number of publications on AI, some by the OIE, some by FAO, some joint.  For international trade, the relevant standard was 
in the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 43 
 
 
  119. In June 2009, The European Communities appreci ated the bilateral meetings with India but 
remained concerned that India's measures were not consistent with OIE standards.  Despite having 
raised the concern previously, India continued to make no distinction between low and high 
pathogenic AI, and had still not shared its scientific  justification for the measures.  The European 
Communities regretted that India did not adhere to the principle of regionalization, and furthermore 
that India banned imports of live pigs citing AI fe ars but had no such ban on the domestic market.  
The European Communities called upon India to base its import requirements on the relevant international standards. 
120. The United States shared the concern raised by the European Communities and noted that 
India prohibited the import of a large number of items , in disregard of the relevant OIE Chapter.  The 
United States requested that the bans on swine be lifte d and that scientific justification be provided for 
all measures.  In addition, the United States request ed India to provide a copy of its risk assessment 
for the measures relating to AI. 
121. India stated that the ban on pork products was taken to prevent an outbreak of AI.  The 
measures were based not only on OIE guidelines, but  on relevant scientific literature.  Technical 
experts re-evaluated the scientific information ev ery six months, and now imports were banned only 
from those countries reporting H5 and H7 strains of low pathogenic AI.  India was concerned that the low pathogenic virus could mutate into the high pa thogenic virus, which had a greater impact on 
animal and human health.  Trade concerns should not interfere with the protection of human and 
animal health.  All restrictions regarding pork an d poultry products except live pigs had been lifted 
from areas reporting AI, because the AI virus could mutate in the pigs, as both human and AI viruses 
had established stable virus lineages in pigs.  Indi a applied the same measures to domestic products as 
to imports.  India thanked the European Communiti es for fruitful bilateral discussions on 22 June 
2009, and expressed its commitment to dialogues with all interested Members. 
122. OIE drew attention to the informal dispute resolution procedure of the OIE as a means to 
resolve technical differences relating to provisions of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code. 
123. In October 2009, the European Communities recalled that India still fail to base its 
requirements on OIE standards, and still maintained a ban on live pigs, pig semen and products such 
as feathers for reasons of AI.  Furthermore, I ndia did not recognize the regionalization principle, 
applied strictly in the European Communities wh ere affected zones were placed under strict 
biosecurity measures, and instead India required to tal country freedom from AI.  Although India had 
announced unprocessed meat would no longer be bloc ked for reasons of AI, India's requirements 
stated that only heat-treated pig meat could be im ported, a measure not in line with international 
standards.  The European Communities requested I ndia to provide scientific evidence justifying its 
strict measures;  to bring its import requirements in line with international sta ndards;  and to recognize 
the regionalization principle as app lied in the European Communities. 
124. The United States stated that India's ban and AI import requirements were not in line with 
OIE standards.  India continued to prohibit the import of pigs and of a wide range of avian species and 
avian products without a risk assessment that s upported the measure.  India had maintained an 
emergency measure in one form or another since 2002 and its emergency notifications since 2004 had 
essentially blocked all imports.  Sufficient time had passed for India to complete an import risk assessment and to adopt OIE-consistent measures.  The United States requested India to provide its 
risk assessment and to modify its measures to address the concerns expressed by a number of 
Members. 
125. India stated that the notification issued on 28 August 2009 prohibited the import of poultry 
and poultry products and live pigs from count ries reporting both highly pathogenic and low 
pathogenic AI.  India's technical experts had observe d that symptoms of highly pathogenic AI were G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 44  
 
  noticeable and the infection could be controlled, but low pathogenic AI might pass unnoticed and the 
control of the infection could become difficult.  A dditionally, there was no data available confirming 
that low pathogenic AI could not mutate into high ly pathogenic AI.  Imports were currently allowed 
based on the AI status of the exporting country.  The Indian authorities had commissioned a lab-based 
study of domestic pigs to confirm the chances of gene tic re-assortment of the virus in live pigs that 
could produce new influenza viruses.  As notified, India permitted the import of poultry products from 
countries reporting AI subject to a conformity assessm ent.  Comments received from trading partners 
on this notification were under examination. 
126. OIE stated that there were some differences at a scientific and technical level in relation to 
this matter, and reminded Members of the OIE's informal mechanism to resolve differences at a 
scientific and technical level. 
127. In March 2010, the United States stated that India was alone among the world's leading 
trading partners in imposing severe import requirements related to AI, that were not in line with those 
established by the OIE.  India continued to mainta in emergency measures prohibiting a wide range of 
pig and avian products.  Furthermore, India had not  provided timely emergency notifications to the 
WTO Secretariat, as it had extended its AI em ergency measures on 28 August 2009, but not yet 
notified it.  The United States had for several year s repeatedly requested a copy of India's risk 
assessment, but this was never provided. 
128. The European Union supported the US concerns regarding India's ban on import of a number 
of products and live animals that, according to the OI E, should not be restricted.  The European Union 
highlighted the importance of the use of the SPS notification system by India.  The European Union 
also repeatedly requested India' s risk assessment for its AI measure, but had not obtained it.  
Moreover, India did not recognize the regionalizati on principle, as applied in the European Union 
whenever an outbreak of AI occurred. 
129. OIE encouraged WTO Members to implement the OIE standards on AI, since they were based 
on science and had been democratically approved.   
130. India reported that as notified, it imposed an  import ban on live pigs, poultry and other 
poultry products from countries reporting either the H5 or H7 strains of AI.  There was no import ban on live pigs, poultry or poultry products from countries reporting AI in wild birds, other than poultry.  
The ban was imposed on countries with both Low Pathogenic AI (LPAI) and High Pathogenic AI (HPAI), as the LPAI virus might mutate into HPAI vi rus.  India conducted a detailed risk analysis for 
the importation of animal and animal products, by a committee of experts, based on the existing 
global situation of AI, available sc ientific literature and the OIE st andards.  The justification for 
imposing the ban on live pigs was due to the fact  that pigs were known to act as mixing vessels for 
human, animal and other influenza viruses.  The ba n on pigs would be review ed after the completion 
of some technical studies. 
131. In June 2010, the European Union reiterated the concerns regarding India's restrictions due to 
AI and the lack of notification by India on the issu e.  India had announced via its website that it would 
review its import conditions related to AI every si x months however, that information had not been 
notified to the WTO.  The European Union recalled that on several occasions India had been requested to provide scientific justification for impos ing import restrictions above the OIE standard on 
AI.  During its May 2010 General Assembly, the OIE had confirmed that its AI standard was well 
supported by scientific evidence, and it had also been cl arified that there was no risk related to trade in 
fresh meat with regard to low pathogenic AI.  The European Union also requested India to recognize 
the regionalization principle of the SPS Agreement, which was strictly applied in the European Union 
when an outbreak of AI occurred.  The European Union requested that India fulfil its transparency  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 45 
 
 
  obligations, and either bring import requirements fully in line with international standards, or share 
the scientific evidence invoked to justify its measures. 
132. The United States supported the concerns raised by the European Union, stating that India 
stood alone with respect to the scope of its AI -related bans, which were not in line with OIE 
standards.  The United States expressed disappoi ntment that these bans continued as emergency 
measures, thereby prohibiting the imports of live pi gs and a wide range of avian species and avian 
products without a risk assessment.  The United States noted that, on numerous occasions, India had 
not provided a timely notification of its AI-related import restrictions.  For example the last notification was on 31 March 2009, extending the ban fo r six months.  However, the ban continued to 
be applied despite the lack of a new notificati on.  The United States and the European Union had 
repeatedly asked India to provide its risk assessments to support the imposition of import 
requirements beyond OIE recommendations.  The United States urged India to provide its risk assessment and modify its measures to address the concerns repeatedly expressed by several Members. 
133. India replied that the situation had rema ined unchanged although, based on changed 
conditions, India had allowed some re strictions to be temporarily lifted.  The Indian Department of 
Animal Husbandry had reviewed its sanitary conditi ons and removed AI relate d restrictions for the 
import of pork products (raw and processed pork).  India reported that presently there was no ban on 
the import of pork products (raw and processed pork) from AI positive countries.  However, the import of live pigs continued to be prohibited from AI -positive countries.  Furthermore, the import of 
processed poultry and poultry meat products were allowed from AI positive countries subject to 
conformity assessment for both low and high pathog enic avian influenza (LPAI and HPAI).  India 
cited scientific evidence that LPAI had the potential to  mutate into HPAI, particularly in wild aquatic 
birds. 
134. In October 2010, the United States indicated that India continued to maintain the AI bans as 
emergency measures, and prohibited the import of live pigs and a wide range of avian species and 
products without providing a scientific  justification for exceeding the international standards.  Despite 
repeated requests, India had not provided its risk assessment until the October 2010 SPS Committee 
meeting.  Moreover, India had failed repeatedly to not ify its AI related import restrictions in a timely 
manner.  In March 2010, India had announced a new extension of its emergency measures, and also 
that products from countries reporting any notifiable AI in domesticated or wild birds would be 
banned.  Those new measures had not been notified to the WTO. 
135. The European Union shared the US concerns about the emergency measures taken by India 
and the lack of transparency.  India had failed to provide an opportunity for WTO Members to comment before measures were put in place.  I ndia had not made public the outcome of the last 
review of its import conditions on AI, although it had reported to  the SPS Committee that this took 
place every six months.  The European Union called on India to share its risk assessment or other 
scientific justification for its import measures, a nd to recognise the principle of regionalization as 
foreseen under the SPS Agreement. 
136. India recalled that it had continuously explaine d the reasons for its measures, and changes to 
these.  At the last Committee meeting, India had re ported on the lifting of the ban on imports of pork 
products, although imports of live pig was still prohibited from AI positive countries.  Processed 
poultry and poultry meat products were allowed from AI positive countries subject to certain 
conformity assessment requirements, thereby facilitati ng trade while continuing to protect human and 
animal health.  India remained concerned that LPAI had the potential to mutate  into highly pathogenic 
strains.  India noted that Article 10.4.1 of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code prohibited trade in 
poultry and its products from LPAI positive countries.  India had provided its risk assessment on AI 
directly to the United States, and was willing to share it with other Members upon request. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 46  
 
  137. OIE expressed an interest in receiving India's risk assessment.  The OIE representative 
stressed that the OIE standards did not justify trade restrictions on the basis of reports of LPAI in wild 
birds.  AI was widespread in wild birds and the OI E requested that this be notified so as to provide 
valuable data, but did not recommend any trade restrictions on this basis. 
138. In March 2011, the European Union indicated that  the risk assessment provided by India did 
not provide scientific basis to India's AI restric tions.  The European Unio n asked the OIE whether 
India's risk assessment provided grounds for chang es to the existing OIE standards.  The European 
Union also urged India to recognize the principle of  regionalization, and brin g its import requirements 
in line with international standards. 
139. The United States stated that it was still review ing India's risk assessment on AI.  The United 
States would raise its scientific concerns with India bilaterally and would keep the Committee 
informed of its discussions with Indi a, the European Union and the OIE. 
140. OIE stated that the OIE did receive India's risk  assessment, and that the OIE had subsequently 
sent a response requesting clarification on the nature of the document. 
141. India indicated that he would follow up on the response sent by the OIE, and flagged the need 
to first discuss the risk assessment India had provided before proceeding further. 
142. In June 2011, the European Union recalled that India had finally provided a risk assessment in 
October 2010, but observed that the risk analysis provided by India did not provide any additional 
scientific information that justified a deviation from the existing OIE standards on AI.  The risk 
assessment was incomplete and lacked the necessary elements.  Furthermore, the paper from India 
had not triggered any change to the existing OIE standard during the latest OIE General Session in 
May 2011, and the existing standards remained the be nchmark against which to measure restrictions.  
India was therefore requested to bring its import requirements fully in line with international 
standards and to recognize the concept of regionali zation, as applied in the European Union, in 
implementing its measure. 
143. The United States supported the concerns of the Eu ropean Union, and agreed that India's risk 
assessment was not consistent with international st andards for conducting a risk analysis, nor did it 
contain sufficient scientific evidence to support India's ban.  India's restrictions related to AI did not 
conform to OIE standards and were not scientifically justified.  Repeated attempts to make progress 
with India at a technical level had reached an impass e.  The United States proposed to prepare a list of 
concerns regarding the assessment, together with th e European Union and the OIE, and asked India to 
address these concerns no later than 15 August 2011.  India should also lift its current restrictions 
while the United States and India worked together on a valid science-based assessment.  If the issues 
could not be resolved through collaboration, the Un ited States would petition the OIE to help mediate 
the issue and to provide expertise to ensure that the matter was resolved in a manner consistent with 
international standards and India's WTO obliga tions.  The United States hoped to report a positive 
resolution to the next Committee meeting in October 2011. 
144. Australia shared the concerns of the European  Union and the United States, and encouraged 
all Members to take a measured approach to instances of notifiable AI and not to implement unnecessarily trade restrictive measures in relation to this disease. 
145. OIE stated that they had received a letter from India clarifying that the provision of the risk 
assessment document to the OIE had been for in formation purposes.  The OIE would be happy to 
review India's risk assessment if so requested, as we ll as to initiate a dispute mediation process if both 
parties agreed.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 47 
 
 
  146. India clarified that during the October 2010 Comm ittee meeting, they had provided their risk 
assessment supporting the ban on imports of poultr y and poultry products from AI  positive countries 
with the United States and the Eu ropean Union, as requested.  This  was not the final risk assessment 
document, which would take some time.  India we lcomed inputs on the information it shared, and was 
examining a response from the European Union.  The EU-India joint working group would also 
discuss this issue on 17 July 2011.  India encouraged trading partners to address this issue in bilateral 
discussions. 
147. In October 2011, the United States recalled th at it had raised this concern on numerous 
occasions, as bilateral efforts to resolve the matter had not succeeded, and on 19  July 2011, India had 
published an extension of the restrictions.  The Unit ed States did not consider that the restrictions 
were justified by the risk assessment provided by  India, and had requested the removal of the 
restrictions or modification of the risk assessment by 19 August 2011, but no response had been received.  The United States and European Union ha d thus jointly requested the OIE to provide an 
expert opinion of the risk assessment document pr ovided by India.  The OIE had provided a copy of 
its expert opinion to India, the European Commission and the United States on 4 October 2011, and 
the United States requested that the OIE be given the floor to summarize its findings. 
148. The European Union also indicated that, as it had already stated earlier, the risk analysis 
provided by India was not complete and did not ev aluate the likelihood of entry, establishment or 
spread of the disease, and the associated potential biological and economic consequences, nor had the document led to any changes to the OIE standards.   The European Union urged India to bring its 
import requirements fully into line with the releva nt international standards, including through the 
recognition of regionalization.   
149. After offering the floor to other Members, the Ch airman gave the floor to the OIE.  However, 
India requested, as a point of order, clarification of  the procedures regarding participation of observer 
organizations in the discussion of specific trade con cerns.  The Secretariat noted that according to the 
rules of procedure of the Committee, observers c ould be given the floor under any agenda item, and 
that it was the practice in the Committee to give international organizations the floor regarding 
specific trade concerns that rela ted to international standards. 
150. OIE indicated that, at the request of the Eur opean Union and the United States, it had asked 
two experts to review India's risk assessment.  The experts had concluded that the scope and purpose 
of the risk assessment was not clearly defined, and that the assessment was poorly supported by 
references to the relevant scientific literature.  Th e experts had concluded that the document did not 
meet the definition of an import risk analysis as set  out in Chapter 2.1 of the OIE Terrestrial Animal 
Health Code. 
151. India clarified that it had not formally provided any scientific risk assessment to the OIE.  In 
October 2010, India had provided a summary report on an informal basis to the European Union and 
the United States.  India clarified that the document had also been provided to the OIE on an informal 
basis, and that it was a summary document, not a fu ll risk assessment.  India considered that it was 
inappropriate for the OIE to comment on an inco mplete document and also questioned whether the 
OIE had a mandate to validate a risk analysis of a Member.  Furthermore, in a letter dated 
September 2011, India had requested the OIE to review  its guidelines in order to prevent the spread of 
important diseases to developing countries that did no t have the resources to contain and control such 
diseases.  India has also detailed the justifications for its restrictions varying from the OIE guidelines 
in that letter, and was awaiting a reply from the OIE.  
152. The United States observed that the OIE's comments confirmed that India's measures were 
not in accordance with the international standards, nor were they supported by a risk assessment.  If G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 48  
 
  this was not a final risk assessment, India should i mmediately remove the trade restrictions that had 
been maintained for nearly five year s without sufficient scientific support. 
153. OIE indicated that at the SPS Committee meeting in October 2010, they had received from 
India a copy of the same risk analysis document which they had been requested to review by the 
European Union and the United States. 
154. Chile, Argentina and Peru noted that the expe rt opinion provided by the OIE was different 
than information provided in the past regarding how  particular measures compared with the relevant 
international standards, and suggested that the Co mmittee should in future c onsider whether it was the 
appropriate role of the international standard-setti ng bodies to validate the risk analysis relied upon by 
a Member.   
155. The European Union recalled that it had previ ously questioned whether India's measures were 
based on a valid risk assessment, and stressed that  the key question now was whether India would 
continue to maintain these measures, or bri ng them into line with the OIE standards. 
156. As a subsequent point of order, India questi oned whether the OIE should have been permitted 
to take the floor on this issue as per the procedur es and provisions of the Committee and Agreement.  
Under Annex 3 of WT/L/161, the purpose of granting ob server status was to enab le an organization to 
follow discussions on matters of direct interest to  them.  The agreement between the WTO and the 
OIE (WT/L/272) also indicated that the OIE would be invited to participate in deliberations on agenda 
items on which the OIE had an interest.  The OIE was a highly reputed organization recognized for its 
standard-setting for animal health and zoonosis, howe ver India did not consider that it was appropriate 
for an observer to judge a Member’s rights and oblig ations.  India considered that other Members had 
the right to comment on each other's measures and po licies, but that this right was not extended to 
observers and that allowing observers to expr ess judgements on Members' policies had serious 
systematic consequences.  Under Article 13 of th e SPS Agreement, a Member was fully responsible 
for the observation of all of the obligations set out therein, and in India's view the OIE could not be considered to have an interest in how India was carrying out its risk assessment.  India stated that 
allowing OIE to comment even before India was given an opportunity to speak was a clear case of 
inconsistency with due procedures as laid down in WT/L/161.  India thus requested that what it 
considered to be the unauthorized intervention of the OIE not be reflected in the report of the Committee meeting.    
157. The United States recalled that on numerous occasions since this issue had been raised the 
OIE had provided clarification when a Member has claimed that its measure was consistent with the 
international standards for avian influenza.  India had indicated for many years that its measure was 
justified by a risk assessment, which was finally provided in October 2010.  It was only in June 2011 
that India indicated that this was a draft risk assessment, and at that time India had invited comments on its document.  It was in this light that the Un ited States and European Union had requested the OIE 
to review the document, and the assessment of th e OIE should be reflected in the report of the 
meeting.  The United States welcomed the suggesti on that the Committee consider the issue of the 
role of observers, and in particular of the Three Sist er organizations, in the work of the Committee.   
158. The European Union indicated that it understood the concern that the international 
organizations should not interpret the rights and obligations of Members under the SPS Agreement.  
These three organizations had a specific role to play in the Committee as the developers of the 
reference standards, hence the current practice in the Committee to rely on the advice and information 
provided by these organizations with regard to thei r standards and guidelines.  The question that had 
been posed to the OIE in this case was whether the import risk assessment conformed to the OIE 
guidelines for such an assessment.  The European Union did not understand the statement from the 
OIE to be an interpretation of the rights and obl igations of any Member under the SPS Agreement.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 49 
 
 
  159. The Chairman recalled that Rule 36 of th e Rules of Procedure of the SPS Committee 
(G/L/170) indicated that a summary report of each m eeting would be prepared by the Secretariat.  As 
there was no consensus in the Committee to not in clude the statement of the OIE as requested by 
India, the Chairman ruled that the summary report s hould clearly reflect the debate on this matter.  In 
accordance with Rule 36, any delegation could request, within 10 days of the close of the meeting, the 
opportunity to verify those portions of the draft repor t containing their statements prior to the issuance 
of the summary report. 
INDONESIA - CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA 
Animal Health 305. Import restrictions on beef and recognition of the principle of regionalization 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2010 (G/SPS/R/61, pa ras. 15-16), March 2011 (G/SPS/R/62, paras 
41-42), October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64/Add.1, paras 1-2)  
Relevant document(s): Indonesia's Regul ation 82/200, G/SPS/N/IDN/40 and 43 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
160. In October 2010, Brazil expressed concerns ove r Indonesia's Regulation 82/200, which did 
not seem to comply with Article 6 of the SPS Agreem ent.  Indonesia had notified revisions to the law 
which would have permitted recognition of disease- free regions, and the authorities had engaged in 
bilateral discussions regarding im ports of meat from Brazil.  In August 2010, however, the Indonesian 
courts had annulled that aspect of the legislation.  Brazil expected the Indonesian authorities to take 
all necessary measures to revise the law, and to notify this to the WTO.  Brazil already had OIE 
recognition of its FMD-free status. 
161. Indonesia observed that the country had about  7,000 islands, and it had taken Indonesia 
almost 100 years to eradicate FMD.  The Governme nt had sought to develop regulations that were 
consistent with international standards, but these had been challenged in the constitutional court.  
Imports from regions where FMD had not been comp letely eradicated were therefore prohibited. 
162. In March 2011, Brazil restated its concern over Indonesia's Regulation 82/200.  On 18 
November 2010, Indonesia had submitted a notifi cation (G/SPS/N/IDN/43) which did not recognize 
the principle of regionalization and forbade the import of poultry meat. 
163. Indonesia recalled that it had sought to develo p regulations that were consistent with 
international standards, but these had been challe nged in the constitutional court.  Imports from 
regions where FMD had not been completely eradicated were therefore prohibited. 
164. In October 2011, Brazil recalled that it had rai sed this concern on numerous occasions, in the 
Committee and during bilateral meetings.  Brazi l requested that Indonesia take the necessary 
measures to guarantee the recognition of the principl e of regionalization.  In April 2009 Indonesia had 
notified to the WTO (G/SPS/N/IDN/40) the Law n°18/ 2009 which, if enforced, would have allowed 
recognition of Food-and-Mouth Disease-Free Zones.  In August 2010 however, Indonesian courts had 
cancelled that aspect of the legislation, and on  18 November 2010, Indonesia had submitted a 
notification (G/SPS/N/IDN/43) which did not recogn ize the principle of regionalization and which G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 50  
 
  prohibited imports of meat from FMD-free zones.  Brazil noted that the regulation had come into 
force as Decree 50/Permentan/OT.140/9/2011, and th at the final text did not modify the import 
system for meats.  Hence despite OIE standards,  Indonesia still did not recognize the regionalization 
principle and prohibited the importation of meat fro m FMD Free Zones.  Br azil asked that Indonesia 
take all necessary measures to guarantee the revi sion of Decree 50/Permentan/OT.140/9/2011, in 
order to comply with multilateral rules. 
165. Indonesia replied that the issue had been discu ssed extensively during bilateral meetings.  
Indonesia noted that in the Law n° 18/2009, the im port regulations on animal and animal products had 
been amended from zone-based to country-based to  protect Indonesia from threats posed by countries 
which had FMD.  With regards to the sanitary requi rements for the import of live cattle, beef and its 
by-products, imports could only originate from a country with a disease-free status.  Indonesia noted 
that it was considering a new revision of its import regulations. 
Other concerns 
286. Import restrictions on poultry meat 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, pa ras. 14-15), October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, 
paras 79-80) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally. I ndonesian Decree 50/Permentan/OT.140/9/2011 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
166. In October 2009, Brazil raised concerns about restrictions on Brazilian poultry meat due to 
Indonesian legislation that was not in accordance with international standards.  Although Indonesia 
claimed to accept the principle of regionalization,  it had not presented any sanitary reasons for the 
restrictions on Brazilian poultry meat.  Throughout 2009, Brazil and Indonesi a had consulted on this 
trade barrier and Brazil had provided information showing that its poultry meat and by products 
complied with the relevant international standard s and even with Indonesia's regulations.  Brazil 
requested the sanitary justification for the restri ctions, or that the restrictions be lifted. 
167. Indonesia expressed his authorities' willingness to have bilateral meetings with Brazil to find 
solutions on the issue. 
168. In October 2011, Brazil observed that it fulfilled all OIE requirements related to poultry meat 
and exported poultry products to more  than 170 countries, but the Indonesian market remained closed.  
In October 2009, Brazil had questioned the scientific  basis of Indonesia's prohibition, but despite 
several bilateral meetings, the Indonesian market remained closed to Braz ilian chicken, duck and 
turkey meat.  Regarding chicken meat, Indonesia had recently issued Decree 
50/Permentan/OT.140/9/2011, which prohibited, withou t any scientific justification, imports of whole 
chicken and mechanically separated  chicken meat products.  In re lation to duck and turkey meat, 
although Indonesia had agreed to send a mission to Brazil to approve establishments, it had not 
responded to repeated requests from Brazil to set a date for the mission. 
169. Indonesia replied that the issue had been discu ssed extensively during the meeting of the 
bilateral Agriculture Working Group, and dur ing the Brazil-Indonesia Joint Commission in  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 51 
 
 
  October 2011.  During the consultations, Indonesia ha d informed Brazil that it needed more time to 
ensure internal coordination before sending the insp ection mission to Brazil, and that the Indonesian 
Ministry of Agriculture would con duct its technical research in 2012. 
JAPAN - CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN 
Food safety 
283. Pesticide maximum residue levels (MRLs)  
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by: China, Ecuador 
Dates raised: June 2009 (G/SPS/R/55, paras.  36-38), October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, paras. 
50-52), October 2010 (G/SPS/R/61, par as. 37-38), June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, 
paras. 168-170), October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, paras. 55-56) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally. 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
170. In June 2009, Brazil noted that Japan imposed stricter pesticide residue limits than Codex, 
because it required industry-wide testing for one MRL violation and a 100 per cent test-and-hold 
policy in case a second violation involving the same  pesticide and commodity took place within one 
year.  Brazil had difficulty in exporting green coffee beans to Japan, as Japan's MRL was 30 times 
lower than that of Codex.  In a bilateral meeti ng, Japan had stated that the revision of these MRLs 
would take place within two years.  Brazil had request ed an interim transitiona l mechanism as trade in 
coffee was worth over US$300 million per year.  Brazil exported coffee to over 100 countries and requested Japan to modify their procedures in lin e with international standards, or provide a 
transitional period while the Japanese authorities d ecided on the revision of the requirement without 
any negative impact on Brazilian coffee exports. 
171. China supported Brazil's concern, and requested th at Japan's temporary standards be based on 
scientific justification and a risk analysis.  Th ese measures had been applied for a period of three 
years, adversely affecting Chinese food exports to Japan.  Furthermore, Japan's uniform standard of 
0.01 ppm for several pesticides was arbitrary and without  scientific justification.  China requested that 
Japan brings its requirements into line with the relevant internationa l standards.  China's exporters 
indicated that imported products were subjected  to a greater number of random inspections.  
Furthermore, inspections were carried out only on certain imported products, even though the same 
pesticides were also used domestically in Japan.  China urged Japan to apply its measures uniformly 
without any discrimination.    
172. Japan clarified that the MRLs were based on scientific assessment, and Codex and other 
international standards were taken into account wh en enforcing the measures.  Japan had notified the 
WTO before establishing these MRLs and had recei ved comments.  The SPS Agreement was taken 
into consideration, and the measures were applie d equally to imported a nd domestic products.  The 
frequency of inspections was increased based on findi ngs of violations.  Japan confirmed that the 
Codex MRLs would be the basis of the current re vision, which would occur by December at the 
earliest.  Japan expressed its commitment to c ontinuing bilateral discussions with Brazil. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 52  
 
  173. In October 2009, China recalled that after th e implementation of Japan's positive list system 
for chemical residues, China and many other Memb ers had expressed concerns regarding the issue of 
"uniform standards".  Japan had indicated that the st andard would be revised on the basis of scientific 
evaluations and MRLs would be established for more chemical residues.  In recent years, almost all notices that China received from Japan regarding produc ts that exceeded pesticide limits were caused 
by the "uniform standards".  These had severely aff ected China's trade with Japan.  Also, after the 
implementation of Japan's positive list system, a se ries of regulatory measures such as intensified 
inspection, quarantine and supervision, had been undertaken.  China urged Japan to develop science-
based residue limits for the items of concern as s oon as possible, to alleviate unnecessary restrictions 
to international trade. 
174. Ecuador supported China's concern regarding MRLs applied by Japan.  Ecuador's cacao 
exports had faced difficulties of market access, a nd although various meeti ngs had taken place, no 
solution had been found.  Ecuador requested Japan to modify its MRLs in accordance with 
international standards. 
175. Japan stated that the uniform standard was based on the evaluations by the FAO/WHO Joint 
Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and/or on the tolerance exposure amounts that the US 
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) adopted for food additives. 
176. In October 2010, Ecuador again raised c oncerns over Japan's 2006 Food Health Act 
establishing new MRLs for food products of pl ant and animal origin, intended for human 
consumption.  Products with con centrations of residues above those limits could not be imported, 
processed, used or stored for sale in Japan.  The Food Health Act established a list of 158 chemicals 
and their corresponding MRLs for food, and substances.   The establishment of such stringent limits 
had meant that shipments of Ecuadorian cocoa in which 24D was present had been rejected by Japan, 
causing significant costs to Ecuador cocoa exporters  and producers.  Despite constructive bilateral 
discussions, no solution had been fo und, and Ecuador requested more  information on the process used 
by Japan to set its MRLs measures and asked for swif t notification by Japan of anomalies or lack of 
compliance with cocoa exports regulations. 
177. Japan stated that based on th e Japanese Positive List System, the Ministry of Health, Labour 
and Welfare (MHLW) established individual MRLs in food commodities through safety evaluations and residue studies.  Japan adopted Codex MRLs as Japanese MRLs where the necessary 
requirements were met.  If Ecuador wanted Japan  to establish MRLs for specific pesticides, an 
application had to be submitted to the Ministry of H ealth.  In addition, Japan would consider relevant 
applications for modifications and revise current MRLs as appropriate. 
178. In June 2011, Ecuador expressed concern about Japan's decision to apply MRLs to additives 
based on a positive list system.  Similar concerns had been raised by Paraguay (G/SPS/GEN/1091), and Ecuador was hopeful that a solution could be found.  The current approach was particularly 
damaging to the livelihood of Ecuador's small producers and exporters of cocoa. 
179. Brazil expressed their support of the in terventions by Ecuador and Paraguay. 
180. Japan observed that they had not previously r eceived information from Ecuador regarding this 
issue, but were keen to work with  Ecuador on this issue bilaterally. 
181. In October 2011, Ecuador recalled that in June 2005, Japan had notified its intention to apply 
a positive list system for the adoption of MRLs, how ever, the document annexed to the notification 
did not indicate that the MRLs would be 0.01 ppm.  The result was that while 12 companies used to 
export cacao to Japan, now only five could do so.  In 2006, sales to Japan were US$20.7 million, and 
accounted for 12.4 million metric tons.  However,  between 2007 and 2010 both the volume and value  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 53 
 
 
  of exports dropped by more than 60 per cent.  Si nce the issue was first raised, many Members had 
repeatedly asked Japan to provide its risk analysis to  scientifically justify the application of the MRLs.  
Ecuador urged Japan to consider the EU methodology  of analyzing residues in the kernel and not on 
the husk, and to accept the International Cocoa Or ganization (ICCO) standards.  Paraguay shared the 
views of Ecuador and emphasized that the MRLs must be science-based. 
182. Japan observed that it had repeatedly requested  the Government of Ecuador to file an 
application with the relevant Japanese authorities to  revise the MRLs, providing sufficient data.  The 
current 0.01 ppm limit was the same  used by the European Union.  Before the MRL was set, Japan 
had notified the WTO in accordance with the SPS Agreement. 
307. Prohibition of certain food additives 
Raised by: India 
Supported by: European Union 
Dates raised: October 2010 (G/SPS/R/61, paras. 20-21), October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, 
paras 61-62) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally.  G/SPS/N/JPN/255. 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
183. In October 2010, India expressed concerns ove r Japan's proposed withdrawal of 80 food 
additives in May 2011, which had been notified to the WTO in July (G/SPS/N/JPN/255).  The 
decision to prohibit the use of these additives was a pparently based on a survey and the analysis of 
public comments.  The survey cons idered the sale, manufacturing, import, processing, use, storage 
and display of such substances in Japan's market .  India was concerned that the requirements of 
Article 2 of the SPS Agreement had not been full y considered, as the survey did not provide any 
indications that the additives were hazardous to  human health, nor had a risk assessment been 
undertaken by the Japanese authorities, and internati onal standards had not been followed.  Of the 80 
food additives to be withdrawn, at least 33 substances were allo wed in other countries, including 
Korea and the United States, in line with Codex or country specific standards.  India urged Japan to 
follow the provisions of the SPS Agreement before d eciding to prohibit the use of the food additives, 
and suggested that Codex could be requested to  examine the risks associated with those food 
additives. 
184. Japan recalled that according to the revision of the Japanese Food Sanitation Law in 1995, 
natural additives became subject to prior approval by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare.  
Therefore, whether natural or synthetic, no addi tive could be used unless it was approved by the 
Ministry.  The concept of "existing food additives"  was established in 1995 an d referred to substances 
that were derived from natural origin and that ha d been used before 1995 without prior approval.  
However, their safety had not been verified or  examined based on a safety assessment, and Japan 
would be systematically verifying the safety of exis ting food additives.  Japan considered that it was 
justifiable to eliminate those substances for which th ere was no actual use or distribution in Japan, and 
hence not lead to any restriction of trade.  Japan had previously directly contacted embassies and trade 
groups in response to requests received on this issue.   In 2009, Japan had carried out a survey on 125 
substances and, based on the survey results, had prohibited these 80 additives since they were no 
longer in use in the domestic market.  Should Me mbers nevertheless have further comments on this 
notification, these should be submitted by 17 November 2010 at the latest. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 54  
 
  185. In March 2011, India recalled its concerns about  31 of the 80 food additives that Japan had 
notified as no longer being distributed in Japan (G /SPS/N/JPN/255).  In March 2011, the original list 
had been reduced to 50, however, India still ha d concerns regarding 18 food additives to be 
withdrawn from the Japanese market on 18 May 2011. 
186. The European Union also requested clarification on a number of food additives planned to be 
withdrawn and which, according to the webpage of the Japanese Ministry of Health, still remained on 
the list.  The European Union would continue its  bilateral discussions with Japan to address its 
outstanding concerns. 
187. Japan stated that safety verification of existi ng food additives were being carried, as some 
were used without a risk assessment.  Japan ha d notified the WTO in July 2010 (G/SPS/N/JPN/255) 
and had received several comments.  In October 2010 Japan had asked India to submit evidence that 
certain substances were in use in Ja pan so as to change the status of those food additives.  However, 
India`s comments had been received after the comment  period had lapsed.  Japan would publish a list 
of 55 substances for withdrawal from the Japanese ma rket in the official Gazette, in May 2011. 
188. In June 2011, India remained concerned that food additives were being prohibited on the basis 
that they were not in use in Japan, without a risk  assessment.  Some of the food additives that were 
restricted in Japan were in use in other countri es, and such a measure to prohibit these additives 
without any scientific basis violated the SPS Agre ement.  India requested that Japan provide a 
scientific justification for this decision, and that  it permit the use of these additives whilst the issue 
was under review. 
189. Japan stated that a number of substances on th e list of existing food additives had been used 
without a scientifically-based safety assessment.  Si nce 1996, Japan had been systematically carrying 
out safety verifications of the listed substances to  establish requirements based on science.  There was 
no indication that some of the food additives on the list were actually in use in the Japanese market, 
and Japan intended to delist these substances.  Howeve r, this was to facilitate the safety verification 
process, not to restrict international trade.  As of 6 May 2011, 55 substances had been withdrawn from 
the list of existing food additives.  Japan encourag ed India to provide information documenting the 
use of these substances in the Japanese market before Japan finalized the revision process.  Many 
Members had commented on G/SPS/N/JPN/255 at the October 2010 meeting, and Japan responded to India's comments in November 2010.  However, I ndia had submitted its comments four months after 
the conclusion of the notification period, so Jap an would use this information in the future. 
190. In October 2011, India recalled that Japan had st ated at the last Committee meeting that it was 
willing to update the list of food additives, if Indi a provided information that these items were actually 
in use in the Japanese market.  In  this regard, India was working to get the necessary information and 
provide the relevant documents to Japan as soon as possible.  In the meantime, India urged Japan to 
temporarily permit the use of these additives while Japan conducted the risk assessments. 
191. Japan reiterated that as of 6 May 2011, 55 s ubstances had been withdrawn from the list of 
existing food additives, as the list of food additiv es was up-dated by removing those that were no 
longer in use in the Japanese market .  However, in accordance with the Food and Sanitation Act, if an 
application were filed that provide d relevant evidence that any of the withdrawn substances were still 
in circulation in the Japanese market, the authorities would update the list.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 55 
 
 
  321. Japan's MRLs applied to sesame  
Raised by: Paraguay 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, para. 30) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/1091 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
192. In June 2011, Paraguay expressed concerns that Japan's MRLs for pestic ides in sesame were 
more restrictive than those applied to other si milar products, and had a negative impact on trade 
(G/SPS/GEN/1091).  The application of an across-the- board uniform limit was inconsistent with the 
principles of the SPS Agreement. 
193. Japan observed that there were no Codex MRLs for sesame.  Japan applied a uniform limit of 
0.01 ppm as this was unlikely to damage human health based on the concept of acceptable exposure 
that had been scientifically assessed by JEFCA.  Th ese uniform limits had been notified to the WTO. 
The European Union also imposed the same uni form limit.  Japan could establish MRLs for 
compound/commodity combinations which were not re gistered in its legislation, in response to 
exporting country applications for import tolerances.  Japan invited Paraguay to file an application for 
an import tolerance with the Ministry of Health  Labour and Welfare, and to provide the necessary 
data for assessment.  Paraguay should be aware, how ever, that the MRL set by the European Union 
for the compound in sesame was 0.05 ppm. 
MALAYSIA - CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY MALAYSIA 
Animal Health 323. Malaysia's import restrictio ns on pork and pork products 
Raised by: European Union 
Supported by: Canada, United States 
Dates raised: October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, paras. 32-35) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally. 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
194. In October 2011, the European Union indicated that it had concerns w ith Malaysia's import 
restrictions on pork and pork products, imposed 1 Ju ly 2011.  In bilateral discussions, however, the 
European Union had received guarantees that the restri ctions would shortly be lifted.  The European 
Union would continue to work closely with Malaysia  to ensure that EU exports could resume in line 
with WTO obligations. 
195. Canada shared the EU concerns as its pork and pork product exports had also been banned 
since 1 July 2011 without notification.  Malaysia had not advised Canada a bout the revision to its 
import requirements or the ban, a nd Canada had received conflicting information from Malaysia with G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 56  
 
  respect to import requirements for pork.  Canada encouraged Malaysia to base import conditions on 
science, and consider a systems approval approach for pork imports, rather than a plant-by-plant 
approval. 
196. The United States also expressed concerns that the new import requirements had been 
imposed without valid scientific evidence.  The Unite d States had been told in June 2011 that it could 
continue to export pork and pork pr oducts if it submitted an estab lishment questionnaire by 1 July 
2011;  however, imports had been stopped.  The Unit ed States would continue to work with Malaysia 
to facilitate an audit of US food safety systems, but expected a successful audit that would allow all 
federally inspected pork establishments to  be eligible to export to Malaysia. 
197. Malaysia observed that bilatera l consultations on this issue were on-going with the affected 
Members and it hoped to resolve the issue as soon as possible. 
MEXICO - CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY MEXICO 
Animal Health 317. Mexico's BSE measures  
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: European Union 
Dates raised: June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, para. 14) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
198. In June 2011, Canada recalled that since 2003, Canada had requ ested that Mexi co accept beef 
imports from cows over 30 months old.  In 2007, the OIE recognized Canada as a "controlled" BSE-
risk country and the status has since been rec onfirmed every year.  In 2008, Mexico too was 
recognized as a "controlled" BSE-risk country.  Ca nada had engaged with Mexico at all levels 
concerning this issue.  On 12 June, Mexico shared a technical report which highlighted the basis of 
Mexico's current decision, however Canada did not  consider that this report provided scientific 
evidence to support Mexico's measure.  Canada re quested Mexico's participation in a high-level 
technical meeting to further discuss scientific evidence on BSE-related measures. 
199. The European Union shared the concerns rai sed by Canada as Mexico also continued to 
impose BSE-related import restrictions on beef and beef products from EU member States with 
controlled risk status.  As Mexico allowed impor ts of beef and beef-re lated products from other 
similarly categorized countries, these restrictions a ppeared to be discriminatory.  The United States 
also urged Mexico to base its BSE import requireme nts on science, consistent with the OIE standards 
for "controlled" risk countries, as a zero risk  standard was both unworkable and inappropriate. 
200. Mexico indicated that it had provided a tec hnical report to Canada on 10 June 2011, which 
provided details on the Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease-rela ted risks of eating meat from cattle over 30 
months old.  The technical report referred to inform ation that had been provide d by Canada in a report 
dated 23 July 2003.  The Canadian report highlighted that in spite of the removal of high-risk tissue from BSE-infected animals, there still remained so me risk to the consumer.  The risk analysis 
provided by Canada had been based on cattle that were less than 30 months  old, and Mexico had 
requested a risk analysis on animals older than 30 months.  However, Canadi ans apparently did not  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 57 
 
 
  consume meat from cattle older than 30 months, as was stated in a Canadian Medical Association 
Journal article dated 9 Novemb er 2010, presented at the March Committee meeting.  Mexico's 
technical report highlighted that some countries we re found to have a higher incidence of Creutzfeldt-
Jakob disease due to the consumption of meat that had been infected with BSE, and Canada was 
ranked number eight in the occurrence of the Creu tzfeldt-Jakob disease.  According to a Canadian 
Ministry of Health meeting on 26 August 2010, Canada  had not at that time established the origin of 
the disease.  Mexico stressed that its risk analysis  did not require the complete absence of BSE, and 
Mexico was willing to continue to work on this issue bilaterally with Canada. 
PHILIPPINES - CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY PHILIPPINES 
Food safety 
320. Restrictions on imported fresh meat 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada, European Union 
Dates raised: June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, para . 25), October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, paras 74-
76) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally.  Administrative Order Number 22 (AO 22) 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
201. In June 2011, the United States stated that Administrative Order Number 22 (AO 22) of the 
Philippines, and its draft successor, had disproportionately affected trade from other countries.  It was not clear why the prescribed cold chain require ment for frozen, chilled meat and chilled meat 
products, which are primarily importe d, was not being equally applied to fresh meat.  The traceability, 
packaging and labeling requirements in both AO 22 and the new draft Administrative Order imposed 
additional burdens on the marketing and sale of froze n meat and meat products in the Philippines, yet 
there was apparently no risk assessment to support the adoption of these measures.  There seemed to 
be no scientific justification for this requirement, which appeared to discriminate against imports, and 
which undermined the food safety advantages of frozen  meat.  The failure to follow any standard 
international practice created the impression that the se measures were simply to restrict trade.  The 
United States requested a copy of the Philippines' risk assessment and the suspension of AO 22 and its 
draft successor, as well its notification to the WTO. 
202. Canada expressed its concern that AO 22, as well as its draft replacement, only addressed the 
safety of frozen chilled meat and provided no scienti fic rationale for imposing different food safety 
measures than for fresh meat.  These measures seemed  to disproportionately affect imported meat.  
The measure had been implemented without notifi cation to the WTO, and given the lack of a 
scientific rationale, Canada requested that AO 22 be suspended until the replacement measures were 
amended to include comparable food safety requirements for fresh meat. 
203. The European Union supported the concerns of the United States and observed that the 
revision of AO 22 was currently going through a domestic consultation process and requested 
clarification as to why the requirements for warm meat, which is mostly locally produced, were lower 
than those for frozen chilled meat, which is mostly imported.  The new legislation issued in 2010 was 
not notified to the WTO, no supporting risk assess ment had been provided, and there was no G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 58  
 
  opportunity for comments to be taken into account.  The European Union, therefore, requested the 
suspension of AO 22. 
204. The Philippines stated that the rules and regul ations for the handling of frozen and chilled 
meat and meat products were contained in AO 22, which was a post-border measure aimed at 
improving the country's meat hygiene and meat safety system up to the point of retail sale.  AO 22 
was to be implemented by local government units , with assistance from the national meat inspection 
service.  AO 22 did not impose additional requirement s and did not modify the provisions related to 
pre-border measures for the export of meat and meat products to the Philippines.  The basis for this 
measure was the USDA code for frozen meat, wh ich required that thawi ng be done under chilled 
conditions and a cold chain be maintained until c onsumed.  This was recommended also by the Codex 
Code of Practice for the Processing and Handling of  Quick Frozen Foods (CAC/RCP 8-1976) and the 
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and so the Philippines had adopted the best standards.  The 
Philippines assumed that the United States and other trading partners had c onducted a risk assessment 
for their codes of practice and so there was no need  for the Philippines to do its own risk assessment 
when imposing the same measures.  Neither were th e Philippines obliged to notify a measure based on 
the Codex Code of Practice.  AO 22 was not discrim inatory as it applied to both imported and locally 
produced meat.  However, AO 22 did not apply to freshly slaughtered meat, which was a different 
product.  There were no Codex standards for wa rm meat products and th e Philippines acknowledged 
that a risk assessment for freshly slaughtered meat  was required. This would be carried out, and 
guidelines developed, based on available studi es and data provided by trading partners. 
205. The United States noted that the measures, which the Philippines said were based in part on a 
USDA risk assessment, needed to be proportional to the risks identified in th at risk assessment.  The 
management tools and decisions by the Philippines went far beyond what was identified in the risk 
assessment, and the United States requested that th e Philippines provide additional scientific evidence 
to justify its measures. 
206. In October 2011, the United States remained c oncern that Administrative Order Number 22 
(AO 22) of the Philippines had disproportionately affected trade from other countries.  The United 
States requested the suspension of AO 22  as well its notification to the WTO. 
207. Canada and the European Union shared the con cerns of the United States.  Canada noted its 
current work with the Philippine officials to provi de scientific data and analysis to support a risk 
assessment on the handling practices  of fresh meat in the Philippin es, and requested that AO 22 be 
suspended until the replacement measures were amen ded to include food safety requirements for fresh 
meat comparable to those established for frozen ch illed meat.  The European Union noted that no 
supporting risk assessment had been provided by the Philippines, and since the measure had not been 
notified to the WTO there was no opportunity for co mments from trading partners to be taken into 
account. 
208. The Philippines responded that AO 22 was a post-border measure on the handling of frozen 
and chilled meat and meat products that aimed at  improving the country's meat hygiene and safety 
system up to the point of retail sale.  AO 22 was based on the USDA code for frozen meat and  the Codex Code of Practice for the Pr ocessing and Handling of Quick Fr ozen.  The Philippines noted the 
constructive discussion they recently had with the Un ited States and looked forward to resolve this 
issue quickly.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 59 
 
 
  SOUTH AFRICA - CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SOUTH 
AFRICA 
Animal Health 287. Import restrictions on fresh pork meat and beef 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, paras. 16-17), October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, 
paras 94-95) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally. 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
209. In October 2009, Brazil reported that since 2006, Brazil had been exchanging information 
with South African authorities regarding restricti ons on pork and beef products from Brazil.  Three 
rounds of questions had been asked, and three san itary negotiating missions had been sent to South 
Africa.  South Africa had not provided any final results  of its risk analysis on beef and pork.  Brazil 
requested more conclusive information on the risk analysis processes that had been carried out, since 
Brazil fulfilled the requirements established by the OIE. 
210. South Africa confirmed that a number of inte ractions had taken place with regards to the 
import of pork and beef into South Africa, most recen tly in July 2009.  However, there were still some 
issues that required clarification with regards to the import of pork.  The import of matured de-boned 
beef should be approved pending agreement on certificates. 
211. In October 2011, Brazil expressed concerns that since 2005, South Africa had suspended 
imports of beef and pork meat from Brazil due to a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in the country.  
Numerous attempts to reopen the South African market to Brazilian pork had been blocked by 
repeated unnecessary requests for add itional information.  Brazil had also sent at least four missions 
to South Africa and had invited South Africa to hold bilateral meetings on the margins of SPS 
Committee meetings.  Since 2006, Brazil had provided  information on the country's sanitary status 
and responded to all questions from South Africa.  In  February 2010, intense negotiations had finally 
resulted in the authorization of exports of Brazili an bovine meat to South Africa, but not Brazilian 
pork meat.  Although bovine and swine herds could be affected by FMD, the 2005 outbreak had 
affected only the bovine herd, and South Africa's delay in accepting Brazilian pork meat could not be 
scientifically justified.  Brazil requested that Sout h Africa make a final, scientifically sound decision 
and promptly allow the importation of Brazilian pork meat. 
212. South Africa affirmed that it was committed to resolve the problem soon, as demonstrated by 
the technical cooperation between the South Afri can and Brazilian officials.  South Africa had 
experienced several devastating outbreaks of diseases in the pig population, including classical swine 
fever and porcine reproductive and respiratory syndro me (PRSS), which had adversely affected South 
African pig production and cost close to a million dolla rs to eradicate.  FMD was not the only disease 
of concern when importing pork meat.  Although South Africa generally applied the concept of safe commodities as determined by the OIE, the OIE guidelines did not address all of the diseases of 
concern.  South Africa continued to seek advice from the OIE on how to proceed regarding certain 
imports, considering the health status of its pig population.  In particular, the OIE did not have G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 60  
 
  guidelines for the importation of meat that di fferentiated between pa thogenic and apathogenic 
diseases.  South Africa ultimately aimed to develop a health certificate for the importation of pork 
which would ensure protection of its swine population. 
SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU 
(CHINESE TAIPEI) - CONCERNS RELA TED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY 
CHINESE TAIPEI  
Food safety 275. Restrictions on ractopamine in beef and pork 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Brazil, Canada, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Peru, Switzerland 
Dates raised: October 2008 (G/SPS/R/53, par as. 8-12), October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, paras 
141-147), March 2011 (G/SPS/R/53, pa ras 51-55), June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, 
paras 53-59), October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, paras 63-66) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally. G/SPS/N/TPKM/114 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
213. In October 2008, the United States stated that the US pork industry had suffered for more than 
a year due to the lack of science-based maximu m residue limits (MRL) for ractopamine in Chinese 
Taipei.  Chinese Taipei had previously notifie d the SPS Committee of its science-based decision 
regarding ractopamine but then had failed to implement the measure as proposed (G/SPS/N/TPKM/114).  US exports had dropped due to the need to source pork from animals not 
treated with ractopamine in order to meet the zer o-tolerance requirements.  The United States urged 
Chinese Taipei to implement its notified meas ure, which would facilitate US pork exports. 
214. Canada stated that its authorities had approved th e use of ractopamine as an ingredient in pig 
feed since July 2005 and in cattle feed since Ma y 2007.  Health Canada had concluded that the 
product was safe to use after conducting several tests.   Canada encouraged all Members to accept the 
use of ractopamine as long as residues in ed ible tissues were within the safe levels. 
215. Chinese Taipei stated that the use of ractopa mine was forbidden by many WTO Members.  
The Codex Alimentarius Commission had also been  unable to make a final decision on MRLs for 
ractopamine. 
216. Codex reported that the MRLs for ractopamine had been extensively discussed but no 
conclusion had yet been reached.  Codex invited Members to submit more information regarding 
ractopamine for consideration by the next Codex Commission meeting. 
217. The European Communities reported that it had consulted the European Food Safety 
Authority (EFSA) on the safety of ractopamine incl uding the establishment of MRLs.  The European 
Communities hoped to have the information by ea rly 2009, which could be sent to the FAO/WHO 
Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) for further evaluation. 
218. In October 2009, Brazil noted that extensive di scussions on this matter occurred during the 
last two sessions of the Codex Alimentarius  Commission and at the 18th session of the Codex 
Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods .  Despite the evidence presented by JECFA, an  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 61 
 
 
  MRL had not been adopted by the Codex.  Brazil was concerned about the repeated postponement of 
a decision in spite of the existence of strong scientif ic evidence in favour of the adoption of this MRL. 
Since an MRL was needed in order to facilitate in ternational trade, Brazil hoped that a decision would 
be made at the next meeting of the Codex Commission. 
219. Canada noted that Canadian exporters had al so experienced trade difficulties in several 
markets due to the absence of an MRL for ractopami ne.  In 2005 Health Cana da approved the use of 
ractopamine in swine feed and established an MRL for ractopamine in pork.  Canada supported the 
adoption by Codex of the proposed MRLs for ract opamine and was pleased when, in September 2007, 
the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods recommended the adoption of 
ractopamine MRLs at step 8.  Canada was disappoi nted that this was not adopted at the 2009 Codex 
Commission meeting and expressed hope that it would be adopted at the 2010 meeting. 
220. The United States stated that adoption of intern ational standards for ractopamine should be an 
important priority for all WTO Members.  Years of scientific evidence proved that ractopamine could be used safely.  Ractopamine had been approved by over 25 countries and was currently at Step 8 in 
the Codex process.  Some Members, however, impos ed ractopamine bans without sufficient scientific 
evidence to support them.  Codex had not adopted the draft MRLs at the 2009 Commission meeting 
because of a request from a major trading partner that one further scientific review be done by 
JECFA.  The United States urged that trading partner to provide JECFA with the necessary 
information so that this study could be complete d, and expressed the hope that the Codex Commission 
would move forward with adoption of th e standard once that study was complete. 
221. The European Communities noted that in 2008 EFSA, which was responsible for risk 
assessment, gave a standard opinion regarding the ha rmfulness of this substance.  China had also 
conducted a study on the effect of ractopamine on the tissue of pigs.  The Codex Commission decided that JECFA should evaluate the Chinese studies befo re coming to a decision with respect to the MRL 
for ractopamine. 
222. China noted his authorities' commitment to en suring that the international standard on 
ractopamine was of the highest quality.  China woul d continue to actively participate in the Codex 
standard development process by carrying out experi ments and sharing data with JECFA.  Norway 
supported the interventions of the European Commun ities and China, stressing the need for JECFA to 
evaluate the last data submitted by Chin a before coming to a final conclusion. 
223. Australia agreed with the interv entions of Brazil, Canada and th e United States on this issue.  
Codex had made a risk management decision based  on a risk assessment of the available data, and 
Australia supported the adoption of the draft proposed MRL for ractopamine. 
224. Codex noted that JECFA had conducted an eval uation in accordance with the procedure in 
place for veterinary drugs.  As noted by Austra lia, the risk management decision made by the 
Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs was then  forwarded to the Codex Commission, but at the 
Commission there was no consensus.  Rather, at th e Commission session delegates referred to further 
studies and scientific data on the matter.  It was agr eed that JECFA would review the data that it had 
not previously reviewed.  Two meetings of JECF A were scheduled for 2010 and they would make 
every effort to have the outcome of the review of  this data available for the next session of the 
Commission in July 2010. 
225. In March 2011, the United States stated that in January 2011 Chinese Taipei had ordered the 
cessation of the sale of US beef in grocery stores when two shipments of US beef had tested positive 
for ractopamine.  Ractopamine was approved for use in 26 countries and in 2007 Chinese Taipei had 
determined that, based on scientif ic evidence, ractopamine was safe for use in cattle and swine.  
However, Chinese Taipei's notification of the impl ementation of MRLs, consistent with the draft G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 62  
 
  Codex standard, had been delayed by domestic opposition and had resulted in significant trade 
barriers to US exports. 
226. Canada indicated that it had already raised its concerns with Chinese Taipei bilaterally and on 
the margins of Committee meetings.  While Code x had not yet adopted MRLs for ractopamine, 
Canada believed that the scientific work c onducted by Codex and the Joint FAO/WHO Export 
Committee on Food Additives fully supported their a doption.  Hence, Canada requested that Chinese 
Taipei reconsider its current prohibition. 
227. Chinese Taipei stated that although it had cons idered establishing MRLs for ractopamine, the 
process had been suspended due to criticism in cluding from the scientific community.  The 33rd 
Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission had al so been unable to reach a decision and Chinese 
Taipei was therefore of the opinion that further scientific research and evaluation were needed. 
228. WHO reported that the compilation of scientific information on ractopamine was available on 
the JEFCA website and that the conclusions were  clear.  The only outstanding issue related to 
consumption of and exposure to ractopamine from lung tissue.  At the last Codex Committee of 
Residue of Veterinary Drugs several participants  had requested further clarification from China 
concerning the variability of concentration in lung tissue. 
229. The European Union, Norway and Switzerland stated that there were no Codex MRLs for 
ractopamine and that in the absence of internati onal standards, they did not accept imported products 
treated with ractopamine. 
230. In June 2011, the United States recalled that in  2007, Chinese Taipei had notified its intention 
to implement MRLs for ractopamine use in cattle and pigs consistent with  the draft Codex MRLs, 
based on its own assessment that the product was safe fo r use in cattle and swine.  .  However, staunch 
opposition of pork producers to foreign pork being impor ted resulted in delays in the implementation 
of the draft MRLs.  The United States remained concerned about these actions because there was no 
scientific basis for questioning the safety of the use of ractopamine within the MRLs set by the United 
States, Canada, Japan, Korea and many other countries.  Chinese Taipei's failure  to ensure that its 
measures were science-based sent confusing signals to its own public on food safety issues.  The 
failure to adopt ractopamine MRLs resulted in si gnificant barriers to trade and would ultimately 
contribute to higher prices for consumers.  In orde r to avoid further unjustified restrictions, Chinese 
Taipei should immediately implement the 10 ppb MRL that it notified in August 2007.  The United States encouraged Chinese Taipei and all Members to ensure measures were based on science, and not 
to use media to unnecessarily scare consumer s in order to maintain trade barriers. 
231. Canada shared the concerns of the United States  regarding the lack of scientific justification 
for the prohibition of ractopamine in pork and beef, and the creation of considerable uncertainty for 
beef and pork exporters.  These concerns had been  discussed bilaterally with Chinese Taipei, most 
recently at the 13 June 2011 meeting of the Cana da-Chinese Taipei Agriculture Working Group in 
Ottawa.  The scientific assessments conducted by  Codex and JECFA supported the adoption of MRLs 
for ractopamine.  Given the extensive scientific evidence, Canada requested Chinese Taipei to 
reconsider its current prohibition. 
232. Both Brazil and Costa Rica expressed systemic  concerns on the prohibition of ractopamine, 
including the lack of a scientific basis for such prohi bitions.  They were also concerned that the MRLs 
for ractopamine had not yet been adopted by Codex. 
233. The European Union highlighted that as there wa s no international standard for ractopamine, 
every Member was free to adopt its own national measures as long as they were in line with the SPS 
Agreement.  The European Union did not allow th e use of ractopamine, nor any similar substances,  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 63 
 
 
  and did not accept imports of products from animals tr eated with ractopamine.  In the interest of 
protecting the health of its consumers, the European  Union maintained a preference for meat and meat 
products not treated by substances such as ractopa mine, a fact which was widely known by those 
countries seeking to export meat and meat products to the European Union. 
234. China and Norway supported the views of the European Union.  China stated that more 
scientific work was needed to address the concerns of  Members, and that a consensus must be reached 
before international standards were adopted.  All Members had the right to adopt SPS measures as 
long as a risk assessment had been completed. 
235. Switzerland stated that as a general rule it only authorized the administration of veterinary 
drugs to animals for therapeutic purposes;   other chemical substances with no vital benefits were 
strictly regulated, and growth promoters like ractopa mine were prohibited.  The current Codex debate 
clearly showed that no scientific consensus existed regarding the safety of ractopamine.  The lack of certainty in the risk assessment, as identified by EFS A in April 2009, combined with questions on risk 
management, led Switzerland to oppose the adoption of Codex MRLs for ractopamine. 
236. Chinese Taipei responded that it had first prohi bited ractopamine in 2006, and no MRL had 
been established.  According to its legislation, therefore, any detection of ractopamine in meat 
products constituted a breach of the law.  While it had notified in 2007 that it was considering the 
establishment of an MRL for ractopamine, the draft proposal had attracted considerable criticism and 
questioning from the scientific community, consumer groups, and other interested parties.  For these 
reasons, Chinese Taipei concluded that it must conti nue to investigate the adverse effects of this drug 
on human health, while increasing its efforts regarding risk communication. 
237. In October 2011, the United States observed that the failure of Chinese Taipei to adopt 
measures based on its own risk assessment resulted in significant trade barriers for US exports of beef 
and pork, and again requested Chinese Taipei to  implement the 10 ppb MRL that it had notified in 
August 2007.  The United States encouraged Chinese Ta ipei and all Members to ensure that measures 
were based on science, and not to use media to unnecessarily scare consumers in order to maintain 
trade barriers. 
238. Canada shared the concerns of the United States  regarding the lack of scientific justification 
for the prohibition of ractopamine in pork and beef, and the creation of considerable uncertainty for 
beef and pork exporters, anda requested Chinese Ta ipei to reconsider its current prohibition. 
239. Brazil, Costa Rica, Ecuador and Peru expressed  systemic concerns on the prohibition of 
ractopamine, including the lack of a scientific basi s for such prohibitions, and were also concerned 
that the MRLs for ractopamine had not yet been  adopted by Codex.  Brazil emphasized that 
ractopamine had been proven safe and effective as a veterinary drug that increased feed efficiency, 
had undergone human and animal safety studi es and been approved in 26 countries. 
240. Chinese Taipei responded that it was continuing to investigate the adverse effects of this drug 
on human health, as it had fully explained at prev ious SPS Committee meetings, while increasing its 
efforts regarding risk communication. 
Animal Health 
291. BSE measures 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: United States, European Union G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 64  
 
  Dates raised: March 2010 (G/SPS/R/58, par as. 19-20), June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, para. 69-
72) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally. 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
241. In March 2010, Canada expressed concerns ove r Chinese Taipei's BSE measures.  In May 
2007, the OIE recognized Canada as a "controlled B SE risk" country, and in July 2007 Chinese Taipei 
resumed partial trade with Canada by allowing access for boneless beef from animals under 30 
months of age.  However, despite numerous techni cal discussions, an inspection visit to Canada, the 
completion of a risk assessment, and a formal ar rangement on conditions for bone-in beef from 
animals under 30 months, no further market access had been granted by Chinese Taipei.  In January 
2010, Chinese Taipei approved an amendment to its  food sanitation act banning the import of offal 
and certain other bovine products from countries affect ed by BSE.  Canada was concerned about the 
recent amendments to Chinese Taipei's legislation, a nd requested that all necessary steps be taken to 
ensure that the import conditions by Chinese Taipei  were consistent with the recommendations and 
guidelines provided by the OIE. 
242. Chinese Taipei explained that the recent 16th a nd 17th cases of BSE in Canada necessitated a 
new risk assessment of bone-in beef.  Pending co mpletion of the new risk assessment, the current 
regulations on imports of bone-in beef from Cana da would remain in force.  Chinese Taipei 
maintained that its BSE regulation w as consistent with the SPS Agreement. 
243. In June 2011, Canada continue d to be concerned regarding Chinese Taipei's BSE-related 
restrictions and their negative effect on the Canadian beef industry.  The 2007, OIE recognition of 
Canada as a BSE controlled risk country had been reconfirmed every year and most recently at the 
OIE meeting in May 2011.  The OIE standard rec ognized that all beef products from countries within 
this risk category were safe without age restricti ons, under conditions that Ca nada met.  Canada had 
regularly raised this issue bilaterally with Chin ese Taipei on the margins of the Committee meetings, 
and had repeatedly requested that Chinese Taip ei expand Canadian beef access based on the OIE 
standards.  At several high level meetings, includi ng the 13 June Canada-Chinese Taipei Agriculture 
Working Group meeting in Ottawa, Chinese Taipei had not identified any remaining technical issues 
for Canada to address, nor any scientific reasons  for not granting expande d access.  Accordingly, 
Canada looked forward to working with Chinese Ta ipei to complete the remaining steps based on 
science, and hoped to report at the October 2011 Committee meeting that th e issue was resolved. 
244. The United States supported the concerns of Ca nada.  In October 2009, Chinese Taipei had 
agreed to provide access for all US  beef and beef products, consiste nt with its OIE controlled risk 
classification.  However, in January 2010 Chinese Ta ipei's legislature banned import of all US ground 
beef, offal, and certain other beef products in viol ation of the October 2009 bilateral protocol.  This 
measure was unjustified and inconsis tent with the SPS Agreement.  Chinese Taipei should review its 
current measures and replace these with measures b ased on science, reflecting the controlled risk 
status the OIE has granted to both the United States and Canada. 
245. The European Union shared the concerns rais ed by Canada and the United States.  The 
European Union noted that it could not export bo vine products to Chinese Taipei even though EU 
member States were classified by OIE as having cont rolled or negligible BSE risk status, while other 
Members with similar risk status were able to e xport to Chinese Taipei.  Chinese Taipei had been 
provided with the details of the EU BSE control measures.  Chinese Taipei was urged to bring its  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 65 
 
 
  import conditions into line with the interna tional standard on BSE as required under the SPS 
Agreement, and to allow imports of EU bovine products. 
246. Chinese Taipei stated that ri sk communication was as vital as risk assessment, emphasizing 
that there was a need to communicate effectively w ith the public - including consumers, experts, 
academics, legislators, and any other interest groups  - to alleviate their concerns and minimize the 
possible negative impact on trade.  Chinese Taipei acknowledged Canada's BSE-controlled risk status 
as recognized by the OIE, but noted that because an  18th BSE case had been confirmed in Canada, the 
risk assessment of Canadian beef (with the update d information provided by Canada) was still under 
review. 
THAILAND - CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THAILAND 
Plant Health 
326. Thailand's restrictions on table grapes, apples and pears 
Raised by: South Africa 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, paras. 42-43) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally. 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
247. In October 2011, South Africa indicated that its  exports of fresh fruit, particularly table 
grapes, apples and pears, had been stopped as a resu lt of Thailand's new Plant Quarantine Act No. 3.  
The Act prohibited imports of certain fresh produce un til a pest risk analysis (PRA) was completed.  
An interim provision allowed the entry of products  imported to Thailand prior to the prohibition, 
pending completion of the PRA.  South Africa had s ought to invoke this provision, which allowed for 
a case-by-case approval, and had proposed certain minimum requirements until the PRA was 
completed.  South Africa urged Thailand to apply the interim arrangement to its exports, and to 
conclude the PRA so that trade in the affected products could resume. 
248. Thailand confirmed that the import of certain fresh fruit and plants was prohibited until the 
national plant protection organization (NPPO) had co mpleted a PRA.  South Africa had been granted 
an interim exemption for its corn exports, but ha d not requested exemptions for any other fresh 
produce within the set deadline.  Thailand suggested that the NPPOs of both countries engage directly 
to find a mutually satisfactory solution to the issue. 
TURKEY - CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY TURKEY 
Other concerns 302. Restrictions on products derived from biotechnology 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Argentina, Canada, Paraguay G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 66  
 
  Dates raised: June 2010 (G/SPS/R/59, par as. 30-33), October 2010 (G/SPS/R/61, paras 
34-36), March 2011 (G/SPS/R/62, par as 59-61), June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, 
paras 49), October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, paras 69-71) 
Relevant document(s): Rasied orally + G/SPS/N/TUR/7, 8 10 and 11 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
249. In June 2010, the United States raised concerns about the development of Turkey's regulatory 
system for agricultural biotechnology (G/SPS/N/TUR/8) .  In the eight months since Turkey had begun 
implementing new biotech measures, Turkey had announced both a Biosafety Law, and several 
implementation measures.  However, only two of those implementation measures had been notified to the WTO and one of those was notified as "effectiv e immediately" with no comment period.  The 
United States was concerned that compliance re quirements were not shared publicly, and that 
regulations prohibiting the presence of biotechnology in  products for infants and children did not refer 
to a risk assessment, hence leading to a lack of predictability in the approval process.  The United 
States asked for clarification on the status of cu rrent approvals, the approvals process, and how the 
process would change after the Biosafety Law was enforced on 26 September 2010. 
250. Canada stated that it would continue to mon itor the implementation of Turkey's Biosafety 
Law and its impact on Canadian exports of geneti cally and non-genetically modified commodities.  
Canada hoped that the new law would take into acco unt scientific assessments and would not be more 
trade restrictive than necessary. 
251. Argentina supported the concerns raised by the United States, noting that the Turkish 
standards were not consistent with the SPS Agreem ent or Codex standards, and were unfavourable to 
modern biotechnology pro ducts.  Argentina expressed deep concern about the measures and hoped 
that they would be revised based on the SPS Agreement and Codex standards. 
252. Turkey stated that it had notified in 2009 and 2010 its legislation related to biosafety issues 
whose objectives were to:  (i) establish and implement a biosafety system for human, animal and plant 
health;  (ii) ensure the conservation of the envir onment and biodiversity and their sustainability;  and 
(iii) establish science-based regulation and monitoring principles and procedures.  Previous Turkish 
legislations and the Cartagena Protocol had been used as reference documents, as well as EU accession documents.  Turkey had endeavored to a ddress the concerns raised by the United States, 
Canada and Argentina regarding its  notifications, including issues caused by mistranslation.  Turkey 
indicated that it would draft and notify secondary regulations to the WTO, to clarify 
misunderstandings. 
253. In October 2010, the United States welcomed Tu rkey's notification of the implementation of 
its new biotech measures; however the developmen t and implementation of the law had not been 
transparent nor timely.  The United States appreciated the valuable trade in agricultural products with 
Turkey and wished to re-establis h market access for the previously approved products without delay.  
The United States remained concerned that the syst em prohibited the presence of biotech products in 
products for infants and children, as well as the cu ltivation of biotechnology without reference to a 
risk assessment or scientific ev idence.  The United States sought clarifications on the process and 
criteria used to evaluate approval decisions, and encouraged Turkey to establish written procedures 
outlining those processes and criteria, as well as to confirm that they were based on science. 
254. Argentina expressed concern that the Turkish st andards were not consistent with the SPS 
Agreement or Codex standards, and were unfa vourable to modern biotechnology products.  The  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 67 
 
 
  representative of Canada stated that the new law had to take into account scientific assessments and 
not be more trade restrictive than necessary.  Cana da also urged Turkey to consider delaying the 
implementation of the regulation for six months until at least 26 February 2011. 
255. Turkey stated that the objectives of its legislation were to  protect human, animal and plant 
health against risks emerging from GMOs and GMO- based products.  Previous Turkish legislations 
and the Cartagena Protocol had been used as reference documents, as well as EU accession 
documents.  There were around 12,000 protected species in Turkey, 3,700 of those being only endemic to Turkey.  More than 700 agricultural products could be naturally grown in Turkey, 
therefore it was critical for Turkey to protect its ri ch biodiversity from the risks arising from biotech 
products.  Turkey had endeavoured to address the co ncerns raised by various Members regarding its 
notifications, including issues caused by mistranslation.  Turkey indicated that it would draft and 
notify secondary regulations to the WTO, to cl arify misunderstandings.  Turkey welcomed the 
opinions of its trading partners to improve its legislations.  Turkey further asserted that the 
implementation of its legislation was science- based and fully complied with WTO and other 
international rules, as well as with the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol.  In addition, Turkey expressed 
that no particular trade restriction had been re ported during the preparation and adoption of the 
legislation or after its enforcement. 
256. In March 2011, the United States noted that th e development and implementation of Turkey's 
law on new biotech measures had not been transpar ent.  Turkey had approved the use of three 
soybean varieties for feed on 26 January, however they had not yet been approved for food use and no 
other varieties had been approved for either food  or feed use despite applications having been 
submitted.  The United States remained concerned th at the system prohibited the presence of biotech 
products in products for infants and children, as we ll as its cultivation without a risk assessment or 
scientific evidence.  The United States sought clarif ications on the process and criteria used to make 
decisions. 
257. Canada and Argentina noted that they had raised  concerns in writing that Turkey's proposed 
regulations were not based on science and, were still awaiting a response from Turkey.  As the new 
GMO regulations had already been implemented,  both Canada and Argentina asked how trading 
partners' comments would be taken into account, and urged Turkey to reconsider its regulations in 
light of those concerns. 
258. Turkey stated that replies had been sent to  Canada and Argentina in December 2010 and 
copies would be given to the respective representatives at the end of the meeting.  Turkey had notified 
its new measure with sufficient time for Member s to provide comments (G/SPS/N/TUR/7, 8, 10 and 
11).  Turkey had received comments from five Memb ers and had allowed eight months between the 
notification and the implementation of the legislati on.  The comments received by Turkey related to:  
(i) terminology;  (ii) translation issues;  and (iii) other questions and comments.  All relevant 
comments had been taken into account during the pr eparation of the secondary legislation.  The 
legislation was based on the principles of the UNC BB Protocol, and attempted to manage the risks 
associated with GMO products.  The legislation had been implemented for six months and so far, no 
trade restrictions had been reported. 
259. In June 2011, the United States expressed concer ns regarding the 1 April extension of the 
Biosafety Law to prohibit the use of products derived from biotechnology for industrial purposes, 
including cotton fibre from biotech cotton.  The action was implemented w ithout advance notice and 
caused additional disruption to trade.  This reinfor ced previously raised concerns with the Biosafety 
Law, including the apparent lack of scientific justifi cation, lack of transparency, lack of predictability 
for approvals, extreme liability provisions, and lack of response to requests for clarification.  The 
United States remained eager to work with Turkey  to develop solutions to these concerns and to 
prevent future trade disruptions. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 68  
 
  260. Canada reiterated that several provisions of the regulation lacked a scientific basis and were 
unduly trade restrictive, in particular the provisi ons related to the GMO approval process, a ban on 
GMO cultivation, mandatory labeling, and the cer tification and inspection regime.  Canada had 
appreciated its discussions with Turkey on 29 June 2011, and wished to prevent unnecessary 
disruptions to trade. 
261. Argentina and Paraguay supported the concerns of the United States and Canada, and urged 
Turkey to bring its biotechnology regulati ons into line with the SPS Agreement. 
262. Turkey referred to its previous responses cont ained in G/SPS/R59, R/61 and R/62.  The draft 
biosafety law was notified in January 2010,  adopted in March 2010 and implemented on 26 
September 2010.  During the six-month peri od between March and Se ptember 2010, relevant 
secondary regulations were released and notified in a timely manner.  Citing Article 7 and Annex B of 
the SPS Agreement, Turkey stated that it did not  take into account comments regarding matters 
outside the scope of the SPS Agreement in the prep aration of the regulation.  The biosafety measures 
were science-based and in compliance with WTO rul es, and no trade restriction had been reported by 
any trading company.  In fact, there were a number of examples of increases of imports of 
biotechnology products from the United States, Brazil,  and Paraguay into Turkey since the passage of 
the biosafety measures, raising questions as to the relevance of this trade concern since the import 
volume of transgenic products into Turkey was booming. 
263. In October 2011, the United States stated that Tu rkey's new biosafety la w restricted access for 
many US products derived from agricultural biotec hnology.  Trade had been re-established only for 
some products previously approved for import.  Th e January 2011 approval of three soy beans events 
for feed use was welcome, however, these events had previously been permitted also for use in food 
production.  No other events were approved for eith er food or feed use, although such products were 
permitted prior to the biosafety law.  Despite nume rous bilateral discussions, many of the provisions 
of the regulatory system remained unclear.  The system prohibited the presence of biotechnology in products for infants and children, or the cultivati on of biotechnology crops, without a risk assessment 
or scientific evidence.  The criteria to evaluate bi otech products for import was not clear, which lead 
to unpredictability in the approva l process.  Turkey's ban on industrial use and cotton certification 
requirements appeared unnecessary and raised c oncerns among importers about possible legal 
consequences.  The recent decision to  allow soy bean oil to be used in the paint sector was a step in 
the right direction.  The United States reiterated its in terest to work with Turkey to develop solutions 
that would resolve the current problems and prevent future disruptions to trade. 
264. Canada supported the United States.  Canada a ppreciated Turkey's recent response to its letter 
on GMO regulation, but a number of questions and c oncerns which had been raised at previous SPS 
Committee meetings and bilaterally re mained.  Several provisions of th e regulation lacked a scientific 
basis and were unduly restrictive on trade, in par ticular the provisions related to the GMO approval 
process, the liability provision, a ban on GMO cultiva tion, mandatory labeling, and the certification 
and inspection regime.  Canada also asked Turkey to notify its implementation directives in order to 
clarify the authorization status of GMOs in Turk ey.  Argentina supported the concerns of the United 
States and Canada, and urged Turkey to bring its biotechnology regulations into line with the SPS 
Agreement. 
265. Turkey responded that its biosafety regula tions had been notified in 2009 and 2010 
(G/SPS/N/TUR/7 and G/SPS/N/TUR/8).  Turkey had taken into consideration the comments from 
five Members during the preparation of the legislati on.  Implementation of the legislation started on 
26 September 2010, following a six-month transition pe riod, and since then 184 transactions had been 
completed and over one million tons of products de rived from GMOs imported into Turkey.  About 
one-third of these imports came from the United States, about 16 per cent from Argentina and 3 per cent from Canada.  Around 80 applications for author ization were being examined by the scientific  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 69 
 
 
  committee in the relevant ministry, however, there were  limits to their technical capacity to expedite 
the process.  No application for authorization had been  rejected to date.  Furthermore, since the last 
SPS Committee meeting, agricultural imports had con tinued to increase at a significant rate;  there 
were no disruptions of trade due to the biotechnolo gy legislation.  Turkey was willing to further 
clarify the legislation and its implementation to interested Members. 
UKRAINE - CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY UKRAINE Animal Health 315. Ukraine import restrictions on  poultry and poultry products 
Raised by: Mexico 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2011 (G/SPS/R/62, paras. 32-34) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/UKR/54 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
266. In March 2011, Mexico expressed concerns with  Ukraine's emergency notification regarding 
the reappearance of Newcastle Disease (G/SPS/N/UK R/54), and noted that Mexico  provided timely 
reports on new outbreaks.  Mexico asked Ukraine to  modify its measures and apply the concept of 
regionalization. 
267. Ukraine indicated that its decision had been ta ken in light of information from the OIE, 
according to which Mexico had reported the disease without compartmentaliza tion in 2010.  Hence 
the principle of regionalization was not relevant  in this case.  However, Ukraine was open to 
discussing the issue bilaterally. 
268. The OIE indicated that the OIE did not rec ognize Newcastle Disease-fre edom in the same 
way that it recognized Foot and Mouth Disease-fr eedom, and the best way to demonstrate freedom 
from Newcastle Diseas e was to indicate that a country was in  full compliance with the relevant OIE 
Code chapters.  The OIE would be happy to help resolve this matter using its informal mediation 
mechanism. 
UNITED STATES - CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY UNITED 
STATES 
Food safety 
299. US 2009 Food Safety Enhancement Act  
Raised by: China, India 
Supported by: Costa Rica, India, Jama ica, Mexico, Pakistan, Philippines 
Dates raised: June 2010 (G/SPS/R/59, par as. 21-23), March 2011 (G/SPS/R/62, paras. 
43-47), June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, paras.  42-45), October 2011 (G/SPS/R/53, 
paras. 52-54) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally.  G/SPS/N/USA/690/Add.11, G/SPS/N/USA/704/Add.2 
Solution:  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 70  
 
  Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
269. In June 2010, China expressed concerns relate d to the US 2009 Food Safety Enhancement 
Act.  The US Congress had proposed several new measures, including required registration for export 
food companies, follow up inspections, compulsory certification for high risk imported products and the expansion of FDA authority.  China asked th e United States to notify these new measures and to 
provide the opportunity for Members to make comments before the adoption of the legislation. 
270. India expressed the need to understand the pr oposed legislation.  Indian industry had 
questions regarding the duration of the registrati on process, whether it was modeled on international 
standards, whether foreign government and sector asso ciations would be notified before or after a 
food facility was inspected, and how the fast-track process for registration would work.  Once it had a 
better understanding of this process, India would seek further clarification. 
271. The United States clarified that the US Congr ess was in the process of considering this 
legislation and it was not clear when the bill would b ecome law, if at all.  Accordingly, because the 
Food Safety Enhancement Act was not a SPS measur e, the United States did not believe it was 
appropriate to comment on it at this time.  However, if this bill or any other food safety legislation did 
become law, the United States would alert its trading partners, and would notify the WTO 
accordingly. 
272. In March 2011, China, supported by Costa Rica and Pakistan, stated that despite promises to 
that effect, the United States had not notified the dr aft US Food Safety Modernization Act before the 
Act was formally adopted in January 2011.  Hence,  Members were only provided an opportunity to 
comment on the Act when it was notified by the Unite d States on 2 March 2011.  China asked that the 
United States notify draft regulations from the Act so that Members would have an opportunity to 
provide comments. 
273. Jamaica raised several concerns regarding the US Food Safety Modernization Act relating to:  
(i) guidelines on the mandatory preventative controls for food facilities;  (ii) produce safety standards 
in place in Jamaica and other Caricom countries;  (iii) the status of the Jamaican Bureau of Standards' 
inspection checklist vis-à-vis the mandatory inspecti on of foreign facilities commencing in 2012;  (iv) 
special and differential treatment with regards to the implementation period for enhancing food 
tracing and record-keeping;  (v) foods tested by an  accredited laboratory in Jamaica and whether they 
would need to be tested in the United States;  (vi)  the determination of the eligibility of a body listed 
as one of the Accreditation Bodies;  and (vii) training and funding on the interpretation and implementation of the Act. 
274. The Philippines requested that the measures and standards of the Act not be unnecessarily 
burdensome nor unduly increase the cost of compliance for small industries. 
275. Mexico expressed concern regarding the administ ration of foods and that some elements of 
the Act were not based on science.  Mexico noted that it would submit its co mments to the relevant 
authorities. 
276. The United States indicated that Members would be given an opportunity to comment on 
draft regulations before they were finalized a nd binding on affected parties, including food 
manufacturers and importers.  The FSMA require d that FDA publish regulations and guidance 
documents to implement the provisions of the la w and the FDA would publish those documents over 
the next several years.  Regarding Jamaica`s comments on food controls, regulations would be  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 71 
 
 
  developed and Jamaica w ould have the opportunity to comment during the drafting process.  The 
concerns regarding the inspection frequency and checklists, would be forwarded to the FDA for 
consideration.  The United States further noted that concerning Jamaica's queries on food tracing, 
record-keeping and laboratory accreditation, draft regulations would take into consideration 
information provided by Members as well as existing arrangements.  Finally, it was noted that the 
FDA was still developing plans with  regards to capacity development. 
277. In June 2011, India indicated that the US Food Safety and Modernization Act (FSMA) 
introduced an elaborate multi-layered scheme of check s within the food supply chain to minimize the 
possibility of food contamination, putting extra bur den on exporters and lead ing to higher transaction 
costs.  In this light, India sought clarification on several key issues, including the foreign supplier 
verification programme, the voluntary qualified im porter programme, certification and audit, and 
regulations to be introduced under the FSMA.  India urged the United States to  ensure the FSMA is in 
line with the SPS Agreement and the Codex prin ciples and guidelines for the design, operation, 
assessment and accreditation of food import and ex port inspection and certification systems. 
278. China expressed disappointment that the United St ates did not notify nor provide a sufficient 
comment period.  To avoid unnecessary restrictions on trade, the United States should consider the 
compatibility of the FSMA regulations with those of developing country Members with whom the 
United States had signed bilateral SPS protocols.   Bearing in mind the importance of food and 
agricultural exports for developing country Memb ers, the United States should provide a sufficient 
transition period, as well as technical assistance, for developing country Members to adapt to the new 
requirements. 
279. Mexico remained concerned about the admi nistrative procedures in Section 207, the 
requirements for accreditation, the inspection proced ures regarding control and approval in Section 
306, the possibility of recognition of equivalence between countries or Memoranda of Understanding, 
and Section 301 regarding foreign suppliers.  Mexico appreciated the US presentation at the last 
Committee meeting and the meetings between  Mexican and FDA authorities in June. 
280. The United States emphasized its commitment to implementing FSMA in a transparent 
manner according to its WTO obligations, and keep ing in mind Codex standards, guidelines, and 
texts.  It had notified FSMA as G/SPS/N/USA/2156 in February 2011, and the FDA had conducted 
numerous outreach sessions including a special session at the March SPS Committee meeting to 
provide detailed explanati ons of the law.  The United Stat es had received comments from China and 
Mexico, but not from India, before the June me eting.  The FDA had not yet implemented the 
provisions regarding foreign supplier and volunt ary importer programmes and welcomed Members' 
comments when these provisions were notified, in pa rticular scientific evidence on potential health 
and safety concerns and data on ec onomic impacts.  The United States reported that it would notify all 
implementing regulations to fore ign stakeholders through the WTO, as they are developed and 
consistent with its international obligations.  A series of events had been organized between FDA 
representatives in Delhi and relevant Indian author ities, including a briefing on the FSMA in February 
2011, a discussion regarding third party certification in  May 2011, a series of four-day workshops to 
over 175 participants in May 2011, and a meeting of  senior Indian officials and exporters in October 
2011. 
281. In October 2011, China emphasized the importance of food and agricultural exports for 
developing country Members, and urged the United States to provide a sufficient transition period 
before implementation of the US Food Safety  Modernization Act (FSMA), as well as technical 
assistance for Members to adap t to the new requirements. 
282. India stated that the FSMA created extra burdens  for exporters and lead to higher transaction 
costs.  India argued that various provisions of the FSMA did not reflect the core principles of G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 72  
 
  equivalence (Article 4) and harm onization (Article 3) of the SPS Agreement, and urged the United 
States to ensure the FSMA was in  line with the SPS Agreement so as not to affect trade between 
Members.  India's key concerns related to the re gistration of Foreign Food Facilities, the Voluntary 
Qualified Importer Program, Certif ication and Audit and the Foreign Supplier Verification Program. 
283. The United States noted that FDA was as tr ansparent as possible, including making 
presentations to the SPS Committee, holding numer ous outreach sessions with all stakeholders, 
keeping current information on the Web.  The Un ited States was committed to implement FSMA in a 
transparent manner consistent with its WTO obligati ons and would take into account relevant Codex 
standards and guidelines.  The FDA had issued in terim final rules requiring persons submitting prior 
notice of imported food to report any other count ries' refusal of the food (G/SPS/N/USA/690/Add.11) 
and had also amended criteria used to order admi nistrative detention of food for human or animal 
consumption (G/SPS/N/USA/704/Add.2).  The FDA had not yet issued regulations for the FSMA 
provisions for the foreign supplier and voluntary importer programmes.  Members could comment 
when the proposed rules were notified.  The Unit ed States welcomed Members' perspectives on 
implementation of the FSMA. 
328. US default MRLs limits of determination or limits of quantification on basmati rice 
Raised by: India 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, para. 47) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally. 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
284. In October 2011, India stated that in August 201 1, the US FDA issued an import alert because 
of the presence of the fungicide Tricyclazole in a shipment of Basmati rice.  The shipment was 
detained without informing either the Indian G overnment or the exporte r, and all subsequent 
consignments of Basmati rice by that exporter were detained without physical examination.  The US 
tolerance was at the Limit of Quantification, and co nsignments were being rejected for Tricyclazole 
residues exceeding 0.01 ppm.  These detentions and the imposition of testing charges had resulted in 
huge losses to the exporter.  Tricyclazole was a fungici de used for treatment of Blast in rice.  The US 
tolerance limits conflicted with Article 5.4 of th e SPS Agreement, which required Members to take 
into account the objective of minimizing negative trad e effects, as Tricyclazole was widely used in 
India, China, Japan and Thailand for treatment of Bl ast.  Further, Article 5.5 was not respected as the 
FDA permitted MRLs of Tricyclazole in rice bran, rice hulls and rice polishings of up to 30 ppm.  No risk assessment, as mandated by Articles 2.2 and 5.1,  seems to have been undertaken while setting the 
tolerance limit for Tricyclazole.  India argued that th e practice of setting default limits was contrary to 
the core principles of the SPS Agreement as there a ppeared to be no scientific justification, and it 
seemed to be contrary to the princi ple of harmonization of Article 3. 
285. The United States replied that under the US Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, a food was 
deemed adulterated if it contained a pesticide fo r which there was no EPA-established tolerance or 
exemption, and food that is adulterated is not ad mitted into the United States.  Several firms and 
products, had been added to FDA's Import Alert #99- 08, "Detention Without Physical Examination of 
Processed Foods due to Illegal Pesticide Residues"  Products, including persimmon and rice flour, as 
well as basmati rice from three countries, had been subject to an Import Alert due to detection of 
Tricyclazole.  The Government of India and the ex porter were notified about the detention.  When a  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 73 
 
 
  shipment was detained, the importer had the opport unity to demonstrate that the shipment did not 
contain the residue, and FDA usually accepted privat e laboratory analysis as evidence that there are 
no residues.  No tolerances for the use of Tricycl azole as a pesticide in rice had been established by 
EPA.  The EPA had established to lerances for rice for three alternative fungicides, namely 
Azoxystrobin, Propiconazole, and Trifloxystrobin.  I ndia could use one of the alternative fungicides to 
combat rice Blast or work with EPA to establish a to lerance for Tricyclazole in the United States.  The 
Codex had not established a maximum tolerance level for Tricyclazole in any food.  The United States 
encouraged India to work with EPA and FDA to address the concerns. 
Animal Health 
318. US failure to recognize South Patagonia as FMD-free and to import beef from north of 
the 42nd parallel  
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, para . 17), October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, paras 96-
97) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally. 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
286. In June 2011, Argentina expressed its concern th at the United States failed to recognize South 
Patagonia as a FMD-free region without vaccination, d espite the OIE recognition of this status for 
South Patagonia since 2002.  The request for recogn ition had been sent to the United States in 2003, 
and a risk analysis conducted in 2007 gave satisfactory results , however no recognition had been 
granted.  Argentina was also concerned about the delay in the US authorization of imports of fresh, 
chilled and frozen beef from the region north of th e 42nd parallel.  The OIE recognized the rest of 
Argentina as an FMD-free area with vaccination in  2007.   The US Department of Agriculture 
(USDA) had carried out an audit in 2006, but had ne ver reported the results.  The delays in processing 
both of these requests were not due to scientific r easons and were therefore in contravention of 
Articles 3 and 6, and Annex C, of the SPS Agreement. 
287. The United States stated that USDA was consider ing several requests from Argentina to allow 
imports of lamb and beef into the United States.  USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
(APHIS) had made significant progress in recognizing the FMD-free status of South Patagonia.  In 
light of the information Argentina provided in 2009,  which was used to update the 2005 risk analysis, 
APHIS was able to conclude that the import of ruminants and ruminant products from this region 
presented a negligible risk of FMD.  This informa tion was used in preparing a draft report to Congress 
on the risk associated with importing ruminants or ruminant products from Southern Patagonia.  By 
law, the report had to be submitted to the Co ngress before USDA could move forward with 
administrative rule-making.  APHIS had also complete d the risk analysis regarding the region north of 
the 42nd parallel and would subsequently draft a proposal to allow the importation of beef under 
certain conditions. 
288. In October 2011, Argentina recalled that the United States had indicated at the previous 
meeting that the information provided by Argen tina on ruminant and ruminant products from the 
region of Patagonia was useful to prepare a report to Congress as required by US Law, in particular 
the Agriculture and Rural Developm ent, Food and Drug Administration Appropriations Act of 2009, G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 74  
 
  Section 737.  The United States had also indicated  that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection 
Service (APHIS) had completed the risk analysis fo r the rest of Argentina and had drafted proposed 
regulations to allow for the importation of meat pr oducts.  However, in spite of this, trade had not 
resumed and imports from Argentina continued to be restricted without any scientific basis.  
Argentina requested the United States to complete its  risk analysis and allow access to the US market 
for meat products. 
289. The United States stated that it was working closely with the Argentine authorities and 
APHIS had made significant progress in recognizing the FMD free status of South Patagonia.  The information provided by Argentina had been used to  complete and update the risk analysis and to 
prepare the report to Congress in accordance with the Appropriations Act.  APHIS had completed the 
assessment and was drafting a proposal to allow th e importation of beef under certain conditions.  
When the assessment and rules were completed in the near future, the United States would be able to 
provide market access for Argentine beef. 
Plant Health 
102. Import restrictions on potted plants from the European Union 
Raised by: European Union 
Supported by: China 
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, par as. 30-31 ), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, 
paras 58-60), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/ Rev.1, paras 70-71), October 2005 
(G/SPS/R/39, paras 72-73), March 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, para. 40), February 
2007 (G/SPS/R/44, para. 62), Octobe r 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, paras 77-78) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/1059  
Solution: Reported as resolved in June 2006, with the issuance of the US final rule on 
plants in growing media.  However, in February 2007, the EC reported that 
the issue remained unresolved due to continued difficulties faced by one EC 
Member state.  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
290. In July 2001, the European Communities indicated that exports of plants in growing medium 
had been impeded for over 20 years because the Un ited States conducted a pest risk assessment for 
each type of plant before allowing imports, and each assessment took several years to complete.  In addition, the requirements for accepted species were very rigid and not proportional to the potential risk.  The European Communities requested the Unit ed States to adjust its import requirements and 
administrative procedures to allow for market access.   The United States replied that its requirements 
reflected the need to avoid introduction of pest s and diseases that could seriously undermine native 
ecosystems as well as cultivated plants.  The root s of potted plants, even in an approved medium, 
could not be examined for signs of disease, and other mitigation measures were necessary.  The 
United States was preparing a technical proposal for review by the Commission and EC member States, and had proposed the formation of a joint technical working group to address the issue.  USDA 
was willing to review any systems certification pr oposal submitted by the Commission or its member 
States, with the understanding that any modifications  to existing US regulations would have to be 
scientifically justified and be subject to the US rulemaking process.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 75 
 
 
  291. In March 2005, the European Communities reitera ted concerns that for more than 20 years 
this sector had attempted to obtain better conditi ons for access to the US market.  The most recent 
visit in May 2003 had resulted in a US assessme nt that EC member States had very high SPS 
standards and were expected to meet US requireme nts.  However, the difficulties were continuing.  
For instance, a Danish request for approval to ex port Schlumbergera to the United States had been 
submitted ten years ago and the corresponding US pest  risk assessment had become available only in 
June 2004.  The European Communities urged the Unite d States to review its internal administrative 
procedures in the phytosanitary field to ensure these did not create unjustified trade restriction. 
292. China shared the concerns of the European Communities.  In 1980, China had started to 
export potted plants in growing media to the United States, and experienced problems similar to those 
of the European Communities.  Although in 1996 China had signed a work plan for exporting plants 
in growing media to the United States, to date, China could not export to the United States. 
293. The United States recognized the importance of this issue to the European Communities and 
had taken a number of steps to ensure that the co ncerns were handled as expeditiously as possible.  
The United States was examining how and whether its  import regulations for nursery stock, including 
plants in growing media, might be changed.  An  advanced notice of proposed rulemaking had been 
published in December 2004, and all Members c ould provide comments on that proposal.  The 
proposal sought to streamline the specific proces s questioned by both the European Communities and 
China.  The United States hoped to publish a pr oposed rule for Schlumbergera from the European 
Communities in the near future. 
294. In June 2005, the European Communities reca lled that on 27 April 2005, the US authorities 
had notified as G/SPS/N/USA/1059 a draft rule proposing the inclusion of two species from the 
Netherlands and Denmark in the c onditional positive list of plants established in approved growing 
media that might be imported into the United St ates.  The European Communities welcomed the 
progress made on this issue and requested that new applications for similar species from similar production systems or country pest status be treated as an extension of this proposed rule.  This 
request was legitimate, proportionate to the risk and trade facilitating by nature.  The European 
Communities invited the United States to pu blish the final rule as soon as possible. 
295. The United States indicated that the comment period for its draft rule had closed on 
27 June 2005.  The United States requested a written c opy of the EC statement to further consider its 
request.  However, considering any additions or revisions to a proposed rule that had been both 
notified and published might  slow down final action. 
296. In February 2006, the European Communities reca lled that this issue had been pursued in 
bilateral discussions for the past 25 years.  Specifi cally at issue was the request from Denmark and the 
Netherlands for approval of particular plant sp ecies (Schlumbergera spp and Rhipsalidosis spp, 
respectively).  In April 2005, the United States has notified a draft rule on the "Importation of 
Christmas Cactus and Easter Cactus in Growing Media from the Netherlands and Denmark" 
(G/SPS/N/USA/1059) with a comment period ending in  June 2005.  The United States was invited to 
publish the final rule as soon as possible and to cons ider new applications for species with similar 
production systems or country pest status as an extension of the existing proposed rule. 
297. The United States noted that since June 2005, the United States had conducted a thorough 
review of all comments received and had begun draf ting a final regulation.  No revisions to the 
proposed rule were currently being considered in or der to avoid any delays in the publication of the 
final rule, however it was not possible to give a specific time frame for such a publication.  In 
addition, the United States was also considering chan ges to its entire regulatory framework for import 
measures affecting plants in growing media, as notified in G/SPS/N/USA/1043 in March 2005.  
Comments on this notification were currently being reviewed.  The United States would ensure that G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 76  
 
  any modification to the existing regulations would meet both the plant health protection requirements 
and the requirements of the SPS Agreement. 
298. At the June 2006 meeting of the SPS Committee,  the European Communities indicated that 
the issuance of the US final rule on plants in gr owing media, including Schlumbergera, would resolve 
this issue. 
299. In February 2007, the European Communities recalled that they had previously reported that 
their concerns regarding US measures on plants an d growing media had been resolved as the United 
States had indicated that it would publish a final ru le which addressed these concerns.  Unfortunately, 
one EC member State continued to face difficulties in exporting to the United States.  The European Communities therefore considered that, for the time being, this issue was as yet unresolved. 
300. In October 2011, the European Union recalled th at it first raised this issue in July 2001 
focussing on import restrictions on potted plants.  Specific bilateral efforts had been on-going at 
technical level since 2008, however, the issue rema ined unresolved.  US procedures to set import 
requirements for plants, fruits and vegetables were organized in three principle phases, and each of 
these steps was time consuming.  The European Union made every effort to ensure that EU 
applications were well-prepared and in conformity  with all requirements, and expected the United 
States to deal with all EU applications rapidly. 
301. The United States replied that the USDA AP HIS had provided detailed responses to the 
multiple requests for market access from various EU member States.  Progress had been made on 
several of these issues.  In November 2010, the US market was opened to wall rocket from the United 
Kingdom, which had been identified as a top priority by the European Union.  APHIS was close to 
publishing a final rule that would address the issue of bromeliads, which was the EU priority for 
plants in growing media.  APHIS was also working to  develop a joint protocol for the export of apples 
and pears from several EU member States, and c ontinued to work on numerous other market access 
requests identified as EU priorities.  In addition,  APHIS had made consid erable progress on other 
requests, for instance on apricots and avocados from Spain.  The US approach of requesting additional 
information or clarification on a particular point  often helped avoid dela ys and resulted in fewer 
denials. 
316. United States import restrictions on chrysanthemums 
Raised by: Costa Rica 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2011 (G/SPS/R/62, paras. 35-36) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
302. In March 2011, Costa Rica stated that it w as free from Chrysanthemum White Rust and had 
requested the United States to reduce post-entry quarantine to two months.  However, the United 
States continued to request a post-entry quarantin e of six months.  On 27 April 2010, APHIS had 
provided a post-entry permit restricting chrysanth emums from Costa Rica to 2000 cuttings, this was a 
disproportionate measure since chrysanthemums fro m Costa Rica could not spread Chrysanthemum 
White Rust.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 77 
 
 
  303. The United States responded that the APHIS was re-examining the quarantine status of 
Chrysanthemum White Rust and would address Cost a Rica's concerns.  However, Chrysanthemum 
White Rust remained a pest of quarantine signifi cance in the United States and the United States 
continues to eradicate for it.  Once determined, th e necessary steps for potential changes in regulatory 
requirements for imports would be communicated to Costa Rica. 
VIET NAM - CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY VIET NAM Food safety 314. Viet Nam's ban on offals  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, European Union 
Dates raised: March 2011 (G/SPS/R/62, paras.  28-31), June 2011 (G/SPS/R/63, paras. 
60-63), October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, paras. 57-60) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally. 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
304. In March 2011, the United States expressed conc erns about Viet Nam`s implementation of a 
temporary ban on the importation of offal products as of 7 July 2010.  While Viet Nam had cited food 
safety concerns for the implementation of the ban, in spite of repeated requests from several trading 
partners, Viet Nam had neither notified the WTO of this measure, nor had it provided any scientific 
justification for the ban.  The United States had raised  this issue bilaterally in the margins of previous 
Committee meetings and at Transpacific Partnership meetings, but was yet to see any change in the 
ban. 
305. Canada supported the concerns of the United St ates.  Canada was informed of the ban only 
after it had been imposed, and was not provided any scientific explanation for the action.  This ban 
had resulted in the immediate ban of trade valued at 4.2 million Canadian dollars in 2009.  Canada 
had made numerous requests for Viet  Nam to remove the ban, and th e Canadian embassy in Viet Nam 
had been informed that Viet Nam intended to pa rtially lift the ban.  However, Viet Nam had 
subsequently introduced additional SPS requireme nts on offal imports, which Canada hoped were 
science-based. 
306. The European Union, New Zealand and Austra lia supported the concerns expressed by the 
United States and Canada. 
307. Viet Nam responded that the emergency me asures taken to temporarily suspend the 
importation of offals were in response to grave public health concerns.  According to a 2009 WHO 
report, eight million Vietnamese people had health pr oblems related to food.  Viet Nam was aware of 
the concerns raised by its trading partners and was looking for solutions.  However, as a developing 
country with limited resources, it would take some time to strengthen the inspection procedures and provide uniform guidelines.  Viet Nam had already lifted its temporary ban on offals from poultry and 
pork and was currently in discussion with the United St ates and other trading partners to find adequate 
solutions for both Viet Nam's human health situation and trade. 
308. In June 2011, the United States noted Viet Nam had lifted its ban on hearts, livers, and 
kidneys derived from cattle, swine, and poultry, but the ban on all other offal products continued.  To G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 78  
 
  date, no scientific justification had been provide d for the ban, despite many requests for such 
information, and the United States urged Viet Nam to lift its unjustified ban immediately. 
309. The European Union expressed similar concerns a nd indicated that the ban seriously affected 
EU exports of offal.  The ban was not consis tent with Viet Nam's obligations under the SPS 
Agreement, as the measure had not been notified;  no scientific justification had been provided despite 
requests from trading partners, and there were no similar measures on domestic offal, thereby 
discriminating against foreign imports.  The recent revision of the ban, which would allow resumption of imports of some red offal, was a positive step, but the ban on other types of offal remained in place.  
Viet Nam was urged to immediately lift its ban on all offal or, alternatively, to provide a risk assessment and scientific justification.  Viet Na m should refrain from implementing such measures in 
the future, and comply with the transparency requirements and other obligations under the SPS 
Agreement. 
310. New Zealand supported the systemic concerns expressed by the United States and the 
European Union, specifically with regard to the l ack of notification and scientific justification, and 
requested Viet Nam to lift the ban as soon as possible. 
311. Viet Nam responded that there was no formal regulation banning imports of offal.  During 
2009 and early 2010, imported frozen animal and an imal products were found to violate the food 
safety requirements of Viet Nam;  within that time period, Viet Nam detected and disposed of 94 tons 
of meat, 42,57 tons of offal, and 234,000 chickens .  In order to protect Vietnamese consumers, the 
government issued Letter 1152 reque sting relevant agencies to better control imported animal 
products.  The Ministry of Agriculture and Rura l Development (MARD) enacted Circular 25 on 
registration and management to control the import of animal products, and Ci rcular 29 on criteria for 
testing and control to regulate the level of contam inants in animal products.  To continue trade in 
animal offal, the MARD Department of Animal H ealth enacted an official letter on 23 March 2011 to 
guide the import of red offal.  On 1 June 2011,  the MARD sent Letter 1528 to Viet Nam's customs 
offices to inform them of the deci sion to allow trade in red offal.   According to data from the 
Department of Animal Health, from March to Ma y 2011 Viet Nam imported 170 tons of red offal 
from the United States and Canada.  Viet Nam still banned all trade in white offal and intended to 
conduct a risk assessment on white offal.  Viet Nam was willing to meet bilaterally with interested 
Members, and sought more information and data wi th which to conduct the risk assessment with the 
goal of opening trade in white offal. 
312. In October 2011, the European Union indicated th at Viet Nam's ban, in place since July 2010, 
seriously affected EU exports of offal, and recalled that Viet Nam had previously indicated its 
intention to conduct a risk-assessment.  Viet Na m claimed to have taken these measures because 
imported frozen animals and animal products were found to violate its food safety requirements.  
However, Viet Nam had indicated that no viola tions were found on EU products, and as such import 
bans on EU offal were not justif ied.  Moreover, since there we re no similar measures on domestic 
offal, the measure discriminated against foreign im ports.  The European Union welcomed Viet Nam's 
partial lifting of the ban on red o ffal, and looked forward to Viet Nam's commitment to lift the ban by 
end of 2011. 
313. The United States shared concerns about Viet  Nam's restrictions on offal without any 
scientific justification or notification being provided to the WTO or trading partners.  After months of 
discussions, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (MARD) had provided an official 
indication in July 2011 that it would lift its ban on  red offal, and later on products derived from cattle.  
However, all other products, such as stomachs and intestines derived from cattle, swine, and poultry, 
remained banned.  The United States urged Viet Na m to lift all of the bans on offal immediately.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 79 
 
 
  314. New Zealand continued to supported the systemic  concerns of the European Union and the 
United States, specifically with regard to the l ack of notification and scientific justification. 
315. Viet Nam reiterated that the temporary measure was geared at protecting human health from 
risks arising from contaminants, toxins or disease-caus ing organisms in food, and that the measure did 
not aim to impose trade restrictions.  In light of the concerns of its trading partners, Viet Nam was 
considering how to prevent a negative trade impact from the measure, and had already lifted the ban 
on red offals.  However, as a developing country with limited resources, the Vietnamese authorities 
needed time to collect the inform ation for risk assessments.  Viet Nam urged trading partners to 
provide relevant information and techni cal cooperation to facilitate the process. 
CERTAIN MEMBERS - CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY 
CERTAIN MEMBERS 
Food safety 313. Import restrictions due to dioxin contamination in Germany 
Raised by: European Union 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2011 (G/SPS/R/62, paras. 26-27) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ARG/41, G/SPS/N/ARG/41/Add.1 
 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
316. In March 2011, the European Union expressed c oncerns regarding import restrictions due to 
dioxin contamination in Germany.  In light of the fact that Germany was managing the situation 
efficiently, many countries had lifted their restric tions.  However, a number of Members continued to 
impose import restrictions which affected anim al products from the European Union.  The 
contamination was under control and the European Union urged Members to immediately lift their 
import restrictions. 
317. Argentina responded that Argentina was one of the countries that had imposed import 
restrictions in response to the dioxin contaminati on. Argentina had notified the WTO that it had set up 
a surveillance programme for certain pr oducts from Germany and the Netherlands 
(G/SPS/N/ARG/41).  However, in light of the information provided by the European Union, 
Argentina had since lifted these measures (G/SPS/N/ARG/41/Add.1). 
Animal Health 
193. General import restrictions due to BSE 
Raised by: European Union 
Supported by: Canada, Japan, Korea, Switzerland, United States, Uruguay 
Dates raised: June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras.  37-38), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 
85-86), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1,  paras. 75-76), February 2007 
(G/SPS/R/44, para. 29), October 2008 (G/SPS/R/53, paras. 24-28), February 2009 (G/SPS/R/54, paras. 11-12), June 2009 (G/SPS/55, para. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 80  
 
  47), October 2009 (G/SPS/R/56, para . 46), March 2010 (G/SPS/R/56, 
paras. 35-36 ), June 2010 (G/SPS/ R/59, para. 44 ), October 2010 
(G/SPS/R/61, para. 24), March 2011 (G /SPS/R/62, para 65), June 2011 
(G/SPS/R/63, paras. 73-74), October 2011 (G/SPS/R/64, paras 98-99) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally. 
Solution: Partial solution notified 
Status: Partially resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
318. In June 2004, the European Communities raised concerns about unjustifie d import restrictions 
on EC exports due to conc erns about BSE.  To sa tisfy consumer demands, the European Communities 
had adopted comprehensive measures to address risk s relating to BSE.  These measures applied both 
to products intended for consumption within the European Communities, and to those destined for 
export.  The system of geographical assessment us ed in the European Co mmunities had successfully 
identified countries in which the disease was still pr esent.  The European Communities called on other 
countries to replace import bans, which exceeded OIE recommendations and yet did not fully address 
potential internal risks, with specific import require ments in accordance with OIE standards.  Many 
products, such as semen, embryos and dairy products could be traded with predefined guarantees.  
Members were urged to take into  consideration OIE recommendations for international trade and to 
stop discriminating among Members with similar BSE conditions. 
319. Canada recalled that at its last meeting the OIE had reconfirmed that some products, such as 
semen, embryos, hides, and milk, did not contribute to  the transmission of BSE.  Hence the imports of 
these types of products did not provide a poten tial pathway for introduction of the disease. 
320. In October 2004, the European Communities informed the Committe e that several WTO 
Members had reviewed their bans on EC beef and small bovine ruminant products and replaced them 
with specific requirements in accordance with OIE standards.  The European Communities urged all 
those Members who had not yet done so to align thei r regulations in accordance with OIE standards.  
The United States noted that some Members were reviewing their import restrictions on US beef and also urged all those Members who had not done so to align their regulations in accordance with OIE 
standards. 
321. In June 2005, the European Communities reporte d that the number of countries that had lifted 
their respective bans on EC bovines and bovine pro ducts in accordance with OIE standards had been 
regularly growing, including also non-Members of the WTO.  According to the revised BSE chapter of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code, many bovi ne derivated products, including deboned skeletal 
muscle and blood products, could be safely traded  regardless of the BSE status of the exporting 
country.  The European Communities invited the remaining WTO Members to replace their import 
bans with specific import requirements in accordance with OIE standards. 
322. In February 2007, the United States expressed concern that US ruminant and non-ruminant 
products continued to face BSE-related restricti ons.  Although there had been some progress and a 
number of Members had removed measures, US pr oducts continued to face overly restrictive 
measures which exceeded the OIE standards.  The United States had undertaken extensive 
surveillance and put in place interlocking safeguards, nonetheless many restrictions remained in place.  
The United States asked Members to review th e evidence now available and to revise their 
requirements accordingly. 
323. In October 2008, the European Communities reca lled the concerns previously raised by 
Canada regarding Korea's restric tion on beef imports.  The European  Communities also had concerns  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 81 
 
 
  regarding restrictions maintained by other WTO Members on beef exported from the European 
Communities even though these beef products were c onsidered safe and in compliance with the BSE 
chapter of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code. 
324. Canada shared the EC concerns and asked Members to base their measures on the BSE 
chapter provisions of OIE Terrestrial Animal Heal th Code.  In May 2007, Canada was officially 
recognized by the OIE as controlled-risk for BSE and this was reconfirmed in May 2008.  Canada was 
grateful to the increasing number of WTO Members that restored full or partial access for beef and cattle.  The representative of Canada urged other Me mbers to resume full trade in beef and cattle 
based on the OIE designation. 
325. Uruguay supported the concerns of the European  Communities and Canada.  With regard to 
animal health regulations applied to trade, Urugua y stated that all WTO Members should conform to 
the OIE designation and to the standard s of the three sisters in general. 
326. Switzerland supported the EC concer n on restrictions due to BSE. 
327. The representative of the OIE urged Members to abide by the standards enacted by the OIE. 
328. In February 2009, the European Communities drew  attention to the OIE standard for BSE, 
which did not recommend trade restrictions on de-bon ed beef from animals aged less than 30 months.  
The European Communities met this standard, but its  exports were still facing trade restrictions.  
National restrictions maintained despite the OIE Code  undermined this standard that had been adopted 
after long negotiations, thus damaging the credibility of  the OIE.  The OIE was planning to update the 
Code, because there was compelli ng evidence that the age require ment was not necessary, but the 
European Communities questioned whether this w as worthwhile if Members did not apply the 
standard in any case.  Trade in beef was importa nt, and BSE issues were among the concerns most 
frequently raised in the SPS Committee.  The Eur opean Communities appealed to Members to make 
greater efforts to base their measures on the releva nt OIE standards.  Jordan was now accepting the 
OIE Code, as did the European Communities,  and others should follow this example. 
329. OIE explained that the BSE standards had been democratically adopted by OIE members, and 
were in fact very conservative.  The OIE was c onsidering removing the age requirement, and relaxing 
the restrictions on gelatine.  There was still a wide margin of safety built into the standards, and it was 
worrying that there was a lack of willingn ess on the part of Members to apply them. 
330. In June 2009, the European Communities again dr ew attention to restrictions on bovine meat 
and related products still imposed by many Members.  The Europ ean Communities requested that 
unjustified and discriminatory restrictions be remo ved.  The OIE Code stated that no bans were 
necessary even if a country reported cases of BSE.  EC measures to control BSE were exemplary and 
went far beyond OIE requirements, and the Europ ean Communities urged Members to establish fair, 
non-discriminatory and transparent rules for the import of bovine products. 
331. In October 2009, the European Communities recalle d that they had repeatedly raised concerns 
about unjustified restrictions by some WTO Me mbers on imports of bovine, ovine and related 
products allegedly in response  to transmissible spongiform encephalopathy.  Any measures should be 
based on the relevant international standards.  While were aligning their processes to OIE 
recommendations, other Members still required unn ecessary certification, applied burdensome and 
lengthy procedures and discriminated between countri es without scientific  basis.  EC measures to 
eradicate and control BSE were comprehensive and offered every guarantee that EC exports were 
safe.  Finally, the European Communities urged Member s to fully take into consideration the latest 
OIE BSE guidelines and to establish fair, non- discriminatory and transparent rules. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
Page 82  
 
  332. In March 2010, the European Union reported that certain WTO Members still maintained 
unjustified import restrictions argua bly to protect against Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies 
(TSE).  The European Union urged Members to lift any unnecessary, disproportionate, or 
discriminatory restrictions which negatively aff ected EU exports.  The OIE recommendations on 
BSE, which were reviewed in May 2009, included th e possibility to import meat or even live animals 
from countries having a "negligible", "controlled", or "undetermined" BSE risk status, as long as the 
OIE rules on surveillance and control were followed.  In addition, for certain products under specific 
conditions, such as de-boned skeletal muscle meat, m ilk and milk products, semen and embryos there 
should be no BSE import requirements regardless of the BSE risk or the age of the cattle population of the exporting country, zone or compartment. 
333. Switzerland  supported the concerns raised by the European Union, stating that WTO 
Members should base their measures on the OIE recommendations and available data on BSE. 
334. In June 2010, the European Union reported that certain WTO Members still maintained 
unjustified import restrictions to protect agains t Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSE). 
The European Union urged Members to lift any unnecessary, disproportionate, or discriminatory 
restrictions which negatively affected EU exports.  The European Union recalled that OIE had issued 
BSE standards based on scientific risk assessme nts and defined the conditions under which 
commodities could be safely traded.  In May 2010, additional wording was inserted in Article 11.6 of 
the OIE - Terrestrial Animal Health Code to clarify that, providing the commodities had been 
imported in accordance with those conditions, the status of the importing countries would not be 
affected.  The European Union recalled that ac cording to OIE recommendations, it is possible to 
import meat or even live animals from count ries having a "negligible", "controlled", or 
"undetermined" BSE risk status, as long as OIE rule s on surveillance and control were followed.  In 
addition, for certain products under specific conditi ons, such as de-boned skeletal muscle meat, milk 
and milk products, semen and embr yos, there should be no BSE import requirements regardless of the 
BSE risk or the age of the cattle population of th e exporting country, zone or compartment.  The 
representative of the European Union stated th at some Members had recently announced new 
measures which, without any scientific justificati on, deviated from OIE standards.  The European 
Union urged Members to align themselves with the OIE process and to process applications from the 
European Union. 
335. In October 2010, the European Union noted that restrictions of imports  due to BSE remained 
of great concern and urged Members to lift any unnecessary, disproportionate and discriminatory 
restrictions.  A number of WTO Members continued to impose unjustified import restrictions, such as 
allowing imports only from countries that had a ne gligible risk status according to the OIE 
classification or where no cases of BSE had been no tified at all.  There had been, however, some 
positive developments.  The Philippines had announced  the lifting of import restrictions on beef from 
most of EU member States, and Egypt was now allowing imports of de-boned beef from animals 
younger than 48 months.  The European Union urge d Members to quickly align their requirements 
with the OIE standards, and to establish fair, non-di scriminatory, transparent and scientifically sound 
import requirements. 
336. In March 2011, the European Union urged Me mbers to lift unnecessary restrictions negatively 
affecting EU beef exports.  The OI E standard highlighted that there should not be restrictions on some 
bovine products regardless of the BSE-risk status  of the country.  Unfortunately, several unjustified 
restrictions from Members only allowed imports  from countries with a negligible BSE-risk 
assessment.  In addition, there had also been a num ber of discriminatory practices and inconsistencies 
in the level of protection of some countries.  The European Union urged Members to align their 
requirements with OIE standards and acknowledge d the many countries that had started the 
assessment process to allow imports.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.12 
 Page 83 
 
 
  337. In June 2011, the European Union expressed concerns that several Members had not yet 
implemented the OIE standard on BSE and continued to  impose bans or trade restrictions on EU beef 
products.  These Members should either implement the OIE standard, or else share their scientific risk assessment.  To date, the European Union had not seen any scientific justification for restrictions that 
went beyond the OIE standards.  The European Union welcomed the implementation of the OIE 
standards by several Members, as well as the proce ss begun by the United States and Australia, which 
would eventually allow the import of EU beef produ cts.  The European Union urged Members to fully 
take into account the OIE standards and establi sh fair, non-discriminatory, transparent, and 
scientifically based rules. 
338. Canada was pleased to note that a large number of Members had approved the import of 
Canadian beef based on the OIE standards, and join ed the European Union in asking Members to base 
their measures on OIE standards. 
339. In October 2011, the European Union remained concern that several Members continued to 
impose bans or restrictive conditio ns on products from EU member States allegedly because of BSE, 
but without respecting the international standa rds as required by the SPS Agreement.  The OIE 
standard on BSE was very well de veloped and provided details re garding the disease and conditions 
for the safe trade of bovine products.  This m eant that there was no need for additional risk 
assessments or for any trade restrictions at a ll on the well-defined safe products, such as deboned 
meat, regardless of the BSE risk status of the count ry.  Despite having raised this same concern for a 
long time, no one had ever provided a scientific risk  assessment that would justify any deviation from 
the international standard.  In this regard, the Euro pean Union urged, in particular, China, Japan and 
South Korea to bring their requirements into lin e with the international standard and the SPS 
Agreement.  The European Union welcomed recent de velopments in Australia and urged Australia to 
finalize this process quickly.  The United Stat es was also moving towards the adoption of 
comprehensive BSE rules and the European Union e xpected to see this process rapidly lead to US 
requirements fully in line with the OIE standard and a tangible outcome for trade.  The European 
Union urged all Members to fully align their BSE -related requirements with the OIE standards and 
thus establish fair, non-discriminatory, transpar ent and scientifically justified requirements. 
340. Japan and Korea both expressed their understanding  of the EU concern and indicated that 
they would continue discussions on this issue in b ilateral meetings.  China indicated that it sought 
further information from the European Union in or der to finish its risk analysis.  There was a 
successful dialogue between both Members, and Ch ina called on the European Union to provide 
further information and maintain its close re lationship with the Chinese scientific panel. 
  
__________