WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/963 
7 October 2009 
 (09-4851) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures Original:   English 
  
 
TRANSITIONAL REVIEW MECHANISM PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH 18  
OF THE PROTOCOL ON THE ACCESSION OF THE  
PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA ("CHINA") 
 
Questions from the United States to China 
 
concerning Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures  
   The following communication, dated 2 October 2009, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of the United States
. 
 
_______________ 
 
Restrictions on trade in beef 
 
1. China continues to impose bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) related restrictions on 
imports of beef and beef products from the United St ates,  contrary to the guidelines of the World 
Organization for Animal Health (OIE).  The OIE clas sified the United States as "controlled risk" for 
BSE in May 2007.  The OIE Code provides for cond itions under which beef and beef products can be 
safely traded from all countries.  In the case of "controlled risk" countries, the OIE recognizes that 
trade in beef and beef products and cattle of all ages from a "controlled risk" country is safe, provided 
that certain slaughter and beef processing conditions  are met, including the removal of appropriate 
specified risk materials (SRMs) in a manner that avoids cross-contamination of meat.  The United 
States has satisfied these conditions by taking th e following steps to mitigate BSE risk:  (a) 
appropriate removal of SRMs; (b) im plementation of an appropriate feed ban that has been effectively 
enforced; (c) an active surveillance program that has exceeded OIE requirements, and (d) thorough 
epidemiological investigations of all BSE cases.  Since the May 2007 OIE classification of the United 
States as a "controlled risk" country, the govern ments of Canada, the Philippines, Indonesia, 
Malaysia, Ghana, Costa Rica and Belize, among others , have opened their markets to the full range of 
US beef and beef products consistent with OI E guidelines, recognizing that US BSE measures are 
effective.  To date, however, China has only offere d to accept products from animals that are under 30 
months of age. 
(a) In connection with last year’s transitiona l review before this  Committee, the United 
States asked China whether it had performed a risk assessment relevant to its BSE-related restrictions on imports of beef and beef products from the United States.  
China stated that it had "conducted the necessary risk assessments on beef imported 
from the United States and there had been many technical communications on 
numerous occasions".  However, no additio nal information was provided.  Please 
provide additional information on the risk  assessment, including an explanation of 
how that risk assessment supports the measur es that China is applying to US-origin 
beef and beef products.   
(b) Please explain China’s plans for opening its market to the full range of US beef and 
beef products consistent with OIE guidelines. G/SPS/GEN/963 
Page 2  
 
  BSE-related restrictions on other products  
 
2. China continues to impose additional BSE-relate d import restrictions on protein-free tallow.  
The OIE’s BSE chapter specifies that protein-free tall ow should be traded regardless of the BSE status 
of the exporting country without BSE-related restricti ons.  However, China continues to insist that the 
United States certify that the tallow not be pro cessed from certain SRMs, and that certain tallow 
processing methods commonly used in the United Stat es be prohibited.  Additionally, China insists 
that the United States certify that materials used to  produce tallow were not sourced from farms where 
a BSE-positive animal has been detected.  China’s position is not aligned w ith OIE guidelines and has 
effectively blocked imports of US -origin protein-free tallow.  The United States has provided China 
with several quantitative risk assessments that demo nstrate that any BSE-related risks associated with 
protein-free tallow are too small to calculate.   
(a) In connection with last year’s transitiona l review before this  Committee, the United 
States asked China whether it had performed a risk assessment relevant to its BSE-related restrictions on imports of protein-free tallow from the United States.  At last 
year’s transitional review before this Co mmittee, China stated that it had "conducted 
the necessary risk assessments on beef imported from the United States and there had been many technical communications on numerous occasions".  However, no additional information was provided, and China’s response was unclear as to whether it has also conducted a risk assessment releva nt to protein-free tallow.  Please provide 
additional information on any risk assessme nt that China has conducted which is 
relevant to its BSE-related restrictions on imports of US-origin protein-free tallow.   
H1N1 restrictions 
 
3. China continues to impose import restrictions  for US pork and pork products that are not 
consistent with international guidelines to control th e spread of the H1N1 virus.  The international 
scientific bodies of the Food and Agricultural Organi zation of the United Nations, the World Health 
Organization and the OIE, have repeatedly stated that the H1N1 Influenza A virus is not transmitted 
by food.  Furthermore, the OIE has stated that "t he imposition of ban measures related to the import of 
pigs and pig products does not comply with interna tional standards published by the OIE and all other 
competent standard setting international bodies for an imal health and food safety".  However, China 
has banned imports of live pigs and pork product from any states where human  cases of H1N1 A are 
present, and imposes overly restrictive disinfection requirements, effectively blocking all imports 
from the United States, since the vi rus is present in all 50 US states.  Technically, cooked product is 
allowed if containers are "disinfected" and bilate ral discussions are ongoing to identify a practical way 
to disinfect so that some trade can resume.  Regardless, any restrictions on US hogs, pork or pork products are inappropriate. 
(a) Please indicate whether China has performed a relevant risk assessment and, if so, 
explain how that risk assessment supports the measures that China is applying to imports of live hogs, pork, and pork products from the United States.  
(b) Please explain China’s plans for opening its market to the full range of US live hogs, 
pork, and pork products consistent with OIE, FAO and WHO guidelines. 
Pathogen standards 
 
4. The United States is concerned that China con tinues to de-list US poultry establishments, 
thereby preventing them from exporting their pr oducts to China, based on a zero-tolerance 
requirement for certain pathogens (e.g., Salmonella ) on raw meat and poultry products (see 
Standardization Administration of China (SAC) Nati onal Standard (GB) on Fr esh and Frozen Poultry  G/SPS/GEN/963 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Products (GB 16869-2005), effective 1 January 2006).  As the United States explained in connection 
with last year’s transitional review before this Committee, China’s policy appears to be inconsistent 
with the Codex Alimentarius  (Codex) guidelines set forth in CAC/GL21–1997, Principles for the 
establishment and application of microbiological criteria for foods, Chapter 4.1.  In particular, in the 
case of pathogens like Salmonella , the zero-tolerance requirement enforced by China on imported 
products is not technically feasible under typi cal Good Manufacturing Practices for poultry and 
therefore conflicts with the Codex guidelines.  The United States believes that a more effective food 
safety strategy involves the use of Hazard Analys is and Critical Control Points (HACCP) that 
incorporate process control measures, good hygi ene practices and good manufacturing practices to 
reduce levels of Salmonella  as far as possible.  Performance sta ndards can be used to measure the 
effectiveness of the prevention strategies.  As the United States has also previously explained, it is 
concerned because the zero-tolerance requirement that  China applies to imports does not appear to be 
enforced against domestic products or domestic esta blishments.  This rai ses concerns about the 
requirement’s consistency with China’s obligations under the SPS Agreement.   
(a) During last year’s transitional review before  this Committee, China explained that it 
was revising its sampling plans and microbi ological criteria for food-borne pathogens 
in order to make them identical to those of the International Commission of Microbiological Specifications for Foods (IC MSF).  China also i ndicated that these 
revisions would be completed in 2008.  We  are near the end of 2009; please explain 
the status of this effort.  
(b) In connection with last year’s transitiona l review before this  Committee, the United 
States asked China to explain the procedures th at China would use if it were to revise 
a national standard such as GB 16869-2005.  China did not respond to this question.  Please explain these procedures. 
Residue standards 
 
5. Since 2007, China has de-listed several US pork establishments due to a Chinese ban on 
ractopamine, a swine-feed ingredient, thereby pr eventing these establishments from exporting their 
products to China.  China’s ban on ractopamine is based on a blanket ban of a class of drugs called 
beta-agonists.  In bilateral meetings, China has acknowledged that it has imposed this ban without 
having performed a risk assessment to evaluate the risk of ractopamine to the human consumer.  The 
US Food and Drug Administration approved the use of ractopamine in the United States in 1999.  
Twenty-six countries have approved the use of ractopamine.  Additionally, the Joint Food and 
Agriculture Organization/World Health Or ganization Experts Committee on Food Additives 
(JECFA), the international scientific advisory body to Codex, has estab lished an acceptable daily 
intake for residues of ractopamine, and has recommended that maximum residue levels for 
ractopamine can be safely established.  Codex, in  turn, has reviewed ractopamine and established a 
draft standard, based on JECFA’s recommendations. 
(a) Please explain why China banned ractopamine without first conducting a risk 
assessment. 
(b) In bilateral meetings during the fall of 2007, the United States learned that China 
finally intended to conduct a risk assessm ent for ractopamine and that it would be 
completed by February 2008.  The manufact urer subsequently submitted its safety 
data on ractopamine to China’s Ministry of Agriculture.  To date, however, it appears 
that China has not completed its risk assess ment.  When will China complete its risk 
assessment? G/SPS/GEN/963 
Page 4  
 
  (c) At the July 2009 Codex Commission meeti ng, delegates considered adoption of 
international maximum residue level sta ndards for ractopamine.  A decision on 
adoption of the standards was delayed at  the request of China and a few other 
delegations pending two specific residue studies from China.  Has China submitted these studies to JECFA for formal review?  If not, when does China expect to submit 
the data? 
Avian influenza (AI)  
 
6. The United States is concerned about China’s con tinued actions with regard to incidents of 
low pathogenicity notifiable avian influenza (LPNA I) in the United States and, in particular, the 
ongoing suspension of poultry from Virginia, Kentucky  and Idaho, and the import suspension in 2008 
of poultry and poultry products originating from Arkansas.  The United States has an open and transparent animal disease reporting system cons istent with OIE guidelines, and a wealth of 
information about animal disease o ccurrences in the United States is  available via the internet and 
other sources.  The United States urges China’s regulatory ministries to recognize and distinguish the 
different disease risks associated with incidents of highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) and 
those of LPNAI before taking actions that can have a negative impact on trade.  As the OIE confirms, 
substantial scientific evidence exists to demonstr ate that LPNAI presents no serious threat to human 
health and animal health.  In connection with last y ear’s transitional review before this Committee, the 
United States submitted several questions about China’ s AI bans, but China did not respond to any of 
them.  The United States requests that China respo nd to the following questions during this year’s 
transitional review: 
(a) Please explain whether China has taken in to account relevant OIE guidelines with 
regard to its treatment of imports of poultry and poultry products.  If not, please 
explain why China has not taken these guidelines into account. 
(b) Has China performed any risk assessments re levant to its import suspension for 
poultry and poultry products originati ng from Virginia, Kentucky, Idaho and 
Arkansas as identified above?  If so, please  explain how these risk assessments 
support the measures that China is applying.  If not, please explain why China does not defer to OIE guidelines. 
7. China has also suspended the importation of heat-treated/cooked poultry and poultry products 
from Virginia and Arkansas for LPNAI.  Additionally , China does not allow the trans-shipment of 
poultry and poultry products (including heat-treat ed/cooked products) through these two states.  The 
OIE’s AI chapter clearly st ates that products that have been heat-t reated in a manner to inactivate the 
virus should not be subject to an AI-related suspensi on.  In connection with last year’s transitional 
review before this Committee, the United Stat es submitted several questions about China’s 
restrictions on heat-treated/cooked products, but Ch ina did not respond to any of them.  The United 
States requests that China respond to the following que stions during this year ’s transitional review: 
(a) Please explain why China has not taken into account relevant OIE guidelines with 
regard to its treatment of imports of h eat-treated poultry and poultry products from 
Virginia, Kentucky, Idaho and Arkansas. 
(b) Has China performed a risk assessment relevant to the extension of its import 
suspension to heat-treated/cooked poultry and poultry products originating from 
Virginia, Kentucky, Idaho and Arkansas?  If so, please explain how this risk 
assessment supports the measures that China is applying.  If not, please explain why 
China does not defer to OIE guidelines.  G/SPS/GEN/963 
 Page 5 
 
 
  (c) Has China conducted any risk assessments relative to suspending imports of US-
origin poultry and poultry products (includi ng heat-treated/cooked products) that are 
trans-shipped through Virginia, Kentucky, Idaho and Arkansas?  If so, please explain 
how these risk assessments support the measures that China is applying.  If not, please explain why China does not defer to OIE guidelines. 
__________