WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
25 February 2005 
 (05-0790) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
Addendum  
 
 
PART 3  
  This part of document G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5 c ontains summary information regarding all 
issues which were raised in the SPS Committee between 1995 and 2004, and on which no further 
discussion or activities occurred during 2004.  However, issues raised as of 1995 but for which a resolution was reported prior to 2004, are not contained in this part but are contained in Part 4 of this 
document.   
                                                     
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page ii  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
Page
 
  
ARGENTINA ...................................................................................................................... ...................1
 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ARGENTINA ...........................................1  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....1 
69. Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea,  New Zealand, United States - Import 
restrictions affecti ng BSE-free countries................................................................................1  
70. Argentina – Import restrictions on bovine  semen, milk and milk products ...........................2  
71. Argentina - Temporary prohibition of fresh pork and products .............................................3  
Other Concerns................................................................................................................. ..............3  
72. Argentina -  Pest risk assessment requirements......................................................................3  
AUSTRALIA...................................................................................................................... ....................4  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY AUSTRALIA ............................................4  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....4 
69. (and Argentina, Canada, Korea, New Zealand, United States) - Import restrictions 
affecting BSE-free countries ..................................................................................................1  
73. Australia – Restriction on pigmeat .........................................................................................4  
74. Australia - Import restrictions  on prawn and prawn products ................................................5  
75. Australia - Notification G/SPS/N/AUS/72 on quarantine requirements for chicken 
meat ........................................................................................................................... .............7  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..................8  
76. Australia – Notification on methyl bromide...........................................................................8  
77. Australia – Import restrictions on durian................................................................................8  
78. Australia – Restrictions on imports of tropical fresh fruit....................................................10  
79. Australia – Import Requirements for Netherlands Truss Tomatoes.....................................10  
BOLIVIA ........................................................................................................................ ......................11  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BOLIVIA ...............................................11  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..11 
80. Bolivia - Restrictions on poultry meat imports ....................................................................11  
BRAZIL ......................................................................................................................... .......................12  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BRAZIL .................................................12  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................12  
81. Brazil - Import requirements for wine..................................................................................12  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..12 
82. Brazil – Imports of live ostriches .........................................................................................12   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page iii 
 
 
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................13  
83. Brazil – Pest risk assessments fo r imports of plant origin....................................................13  
84. Brazil – Import prohibition of coc onut palms and related products.....................................13  
CANADA ......................................................................................................................... .....................14  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CANADA ...............................................14  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................14  
85. Canada - Importation of cheese............................................................................................14  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..14 
69. (and Argentina, Australia, Korea, New Zealand, United States) - Import 
restrictions affecti ng BSE-free countries................................................................................1  
86. Canada - Zoosanitary import policies pertaining to BSE .....................................................14  
87. Canada and the United States - Impor t restrictions due to FMD..........................................15  
CHILE.......................................................................................................................... .........................15  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHILE ...................................................15  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................15  
88. Chile, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Hondur as, Slovak Republic – Zero-tolerance 
for salmonella  in imported poultry products ........................................................................15  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................16  
89. Chile – Restrictions on imports of wheat and fruit...............................................................16  
CHINA .......................................................................................................................... ........................17  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINA ..................................................17  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................17  
90. China – Food safety regulations affecting agricultural products produced from 
modern biotechnology..........................................................................................................1 7 
91. China – Zero tolerance for e-coli..........................................................................................18  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..18 
92. China - Import requirements for cosmetics ..........................................................................18  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................19  
93. China – Regulation on wood packaging material.................................................................19  
94. China – Import restrictions for citrus and other fruits related to fruit fly.............................20  
CROATIA........................................................................................................................ .....................21  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CROATIA ................................................21  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... .....21  
95. Croatia – Import measures on live animals and meat products ............................................21  
96. Croatia – Restrictions on pork imports.................................................................................21  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page iv  
 
CUBA ........................................................................................................................... .........................22
 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CUBA....................................................22  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................22  
97. Cuba - Restrictions on apples and pears...............................................................................22  
CZECH REPUBLIC................................................................................................................. ...........15  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CZECH REPUBLIC ...............................15  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................15  
88. (and Chile, El Salvador, Honduras, Slovak Republic) – Zero-tolerance for 
salmonella  in imported poultry products..............................................................................15  
EGYPT.......................................................................................................................... ........................22  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EGYPT ..................................................22  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................22  
98. Egypt - Restrictions on canned tuna.....................................................................................22  
EL SALVADOR.................................................................................................................... ...............15  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EL SALVADOR .....................................15  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................15  
88. (and Chile, Czech Republic, Honduras, Slovak Republic) – Zero-tolerance for 
salmonella  in imported poultry products..............................................................................15  
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ..........................................................................................................2 3 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES .................23  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................23  
99. European Communities – Restrictions on shellfish..............................................................23  
100. European Communities – Pesticide and antib iotic limits in honey (Directive 96/23)..........23  
101. European Communities - Regulations on genetically modified food and feed ....................24  
102. European Communities - Directive 2000/42 on pesticide residues......................................26  
103. European Communities - Legislation on the fungicide thiabendazole (TBZ)......................26  
104. European Communities - Import r estrictions on soy sauce..................................................27  
105. European Communities - Information on dioxin..................................................................28  
106. European Communities - Measures on food treated with ionizing radiation .......................29  
107. European Communities - Measure on establis hments operating in the animal feed 
sector ......................................................................................................................... ...........29  
108. European Communities – Restrictions on the importation of fruits and fruit juices ............30  
109. European Communities (Belgium) - Measur es regarding canned tuna in oil.......................31  
110. European Communities (Spain ) – Restriction on levels of copper and cadmium in 
imported squid................................................................................................................. .....31  
111. European Communities – Maximum levels for aflatoxins in corn and sampling 
contaminants in food ........................................................................................................... .32  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page v 
 
 
112. European Communities – Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/191 and Add.1 on food and feed controls .................................................................................................................. .......32
 
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..33 
113. European Communities – Transitional TSE measures .........................................................33  
114. European Communities – Geographical BSE risk assessment.............................................34  
115. European Communities – Cosmetics and  BSE....................................................................34  
116. European Communities – Rules on "specified risk materials" in products of animal 
origin ......................................................................................................................... ...........35  
117. European Communities – Gelatin imports ...........................................................................36  
118. European Communities (France) – Certif ication requirements for pet food........................37  
119. European Communities  - Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/192 on transitional BSE 
measures ....................................................................................................................... ........38  
120. European Communities – EC Directive 2001/661/EC on foot and mouth disease ..............38  
121. European Communities - Ban on antibiotics in feed............................................................39  
122. European Communities – Salmonella-related  restriction on fishmeal imports ....................39  
123. European Communities – Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/190 on live animals and 
animal products ................................................................................................................ ....40  
124. European Communities – Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/198 on animal health 
conditions and certification requirements for live fish.........................................................40  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................41  
125. European Communities - Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/131 regarding cut flowers ...............41  
126. European Communities - Measures on imports of Egyptian potatoes .................................42  
127. European Communities - G/SPS/N/EEC/93 on wood packing material ..............................42  
128. European Communities – Protected zones ...........................................................................43  
129. European Communities (Spain)- Phytosanitary regulations.................................................43  
HONDURAS....................................................................................................................... ..................44  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY HONDURAS ...........................................44  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................15  
88. (and Chile, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Slovak Republic) – Zero-tolerance for 
salmonella  in imported poultry products..............................................................................15  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..44 
130. Honduras – Import restrictions on chicken meat imports.....................................................44  
INDIA.......................................................................................................................... ..........................45  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDIA ....................................................45  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..45 
131. India – Import restrictions on bovine semen ........................................................................45  
132. India – Restrictions on imports of horses .............................................................................47  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page vi  
 
INDONESIA...................................................................................................................... ...................47
 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA ...........................................47  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................47  
133. Indonesia – Ban on hormones in animal production ............................................................47  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................48  
134. Indonesia - Fresh fruit and vegetables..................................................................................48  
ISRAEL......................................................................................................................... ........................48  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ISRAEL .................................................48  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..48 
135. Israel - Notification G/SPS/N/ISR/2 on TSE-related import restrictions of live 
cattle ......................................................................................................................... ............48  
JAPAN .......................................................................................................................... ........................49  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN ...................................................49  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..49 
136. Japan - Restrictions on importation of sugar cane top from Indonesia ................................49  
137. Japan - Measures regarding FMD ........................................................................................50  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................50  
138. Japan - Plant quarantine regulations.....................................................................................50  
139. Japan - Amendment of the Japanese Plant Protection Law..................................................51  
140. Japan – Fumigation standards ..............................................................................................51  
Other Concerns................................................................................................................. ............52  
141. Japan - Notification G/SPS/N/JPN/9 on uses of living modified organisms........................52  
142. Japan and Korea - Translation of regulations.......................................................................52  
REPUBLIC OF KOREA.............................................................................................................. .......53  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA ..................53  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..53 
69. (and Argentina, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United States) - Import 
restrictions affecti ng BSE-free countries................................................................................1  
143. Korea – Import restrictions on beef......................................................................................53  
144. Korea – Notification G/SPS/N/KOR/49 on transboundary movement of living 
modified organisms ............................................................................................................. .53 
Other Concerns................................................................................................................. ............52  
142. (and Japan) - Translation of regulations ..............................................................................52   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page vii 
 
 
MEXICO......................................................................................................................... ......................54  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY MEXICO ...............................................54  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..54 
145. Mexico - Import restrictions on beef ....................................................................................54  
146. Mexico – Restrictions on Austrian Products ........................................................................54  
NEW ZEALAND .................................................................................................................... ...............1  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY NEW ZEALAND ......................................1  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....1 
69. (and Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, United States) - Import restrictions 
affecting BSE-free countries ..................................................................................................1  
PANAMA......................................................................................................................... .....................55  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY PANAMA ...............................................55  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................55  
147. Panama - Restrictions on milk powder imports....................................................................55  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..55 
148. Panama's restrictions  on food products ................................................................................55  
Other Concerns................................................................................................................. ............56  
149. Panama's import licenses for agricultural products ..............................................................56  
POLAND......................................................................................................................... ......................56  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY POLAND ................................................56  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................56  
150. Poland – Restrictions on wheat and oilseeds........................................................................56  
ROMANIA ........................................................................................................................ ...................57  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ROMANIA .............................................57  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................57  
151. Romania – SPS measures on animal products......................................................................57  
SLOVAK REPUBLIC ................................................................................................................ .........15  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SLOVAK REPUBLIC .............................15  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................15  
88. (and Chile, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Honduras) – Zero-tolerance for 
salmonella  in imported poultry products..............................................................................15  
SOUTH AFRICA................................................................................................................... ..............57  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SOUTH AFRICA ...................................57  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..57 
152. South Africa - Prohibition on bone-in beef imports from member States of the 
European Communities ........................................................................................................57  
153. South Africa – Restrictions on beef and pork.......................................................................58  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page viii  
 
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO ............................................................................................................ ...59
 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO .....................59  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..59 
154. Trinidad and Tobago - Restrictions on imports of pork sausages and other pork 
products, fresh, cured or salted.............................................................................................59  
TURKEY ......................................................................................................................... .....................60  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY TURKEY ...............................................60  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..60 
155. Turkey – Import ban on livestock.........................................................................................60  
UNITED STATES.................................................................................................................. ..............61  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE UNITED STATES ...........................61  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................61  
156. United States – Restrictions on melons ................................................................................61  
157. United States - Notification G/SPS/N/USA/133 on refrigeration and labelling 
requirements for shell eggs...................................................................................................6 2 
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..62 
69. (and Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, New Zealand) - Import restrictions 
affecting BSE-free countries ..................................................................................................1  
87. (and Canada) - Import restric tions due to FMD...................................................................15  
158. United States – Import restrictions on meat and meat products ...........................................62  
159. United States – Measures related to BSE .............................................................................62  
160. United States – Restrictions on pigmeat...............................................................................63  
161. United States - Regionalization in relation to animal health ................................................64  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................64  
162. United States - Import restrictions on potted plants from the European 
Communities .................................................................................................................... ....64  
163. United States – Imports of clementines................................................................................65  
164. United States – Interim rule affec ting solid wood packaging material.................................65  
165. United States – Notification G/SPS/N/USA/705 on implementation of the 
international standard for phytosanitary measures on wood packaging (ISPM 15) .............66  
166. United States - Actions taken by local governments............................................................66  
VENEZUELA...................................................................................................................... .................67  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY VENEZUELA .........................................67  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..67 
167. Venezuela - Import conditions for pork meat and products .................................................67  
168. Venezuela – Measures related to Avian Influenza ...............................................................67   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page ix 
 
 
OTHER CONCERNS................................................................................................................. .........67  
ANIMAL HEALTH ...........................................................................................................................67  
169. Certain Members – Notifications related to Avian Influenza...............................................67  
PLANT HEALTH .............................................................................................................................68  
170. Phytosanitary issues in general.............................................................................................68   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 1 
 
 
ARGENTINA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ARGENTINA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to TSEs 
 
69. Argentina, Australia, Canada, Korea, New Zeal and, United States - Import restrictions 
affecting BSE-free countries 
Raised by: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Repub lic, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Romania, 
Slovak Republic, Slovenia 
Supported by: European Communities, United States 
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  18-25), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 48) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/247, G/SPS/N/ARG/59, G/SPS/N/AUS/125, 
G/SPS/N/CAN/94, G/SPS/N/KOR/83, G/SPS/N/NZL/77, G/SPS/N/USA/379 
Solution: Not reported 
 1. On behalf of a group of countries (see table a bove), Romania drew attention to a number of 
emergency notifications banning imports of certain  animal products from countries that were BSE-
free.  These measures violated the SPS Agreemen t since they were not based on a proper risk 
assessment.  The affected countries were willing to provide the necessary documentation of their 
BSE-free status.  The European Communities added th at testing or suspension of imports of milk, 
dairy products, collagen and gelatine for BSE was not in conformity with OIE guidelines, and 
requested Members to adapt their requirements to  the international standard.  The United States 
affirmed that BSE-related measures must be based on science and international standards.  The United 
States, although BSE-free, had also been affected by  import restrictions, some of them imposed by 
countries sponsoring the statement presented by Ro mania.  The United States had provided evidence 
on its freedom from BSE, its surveillance system a nd control measures to interested trade partners, 
and required similar data from c ountries that may pose a BSE risk.  The United States looked forward 
to receiving the necessary informa tion to assess the risks involved. 
2. New Zealand and Australia were concerned over the increase in known incidence of the 
disease in Europe as a result of intensified testing, and had issued emergency food standards to protect 
public health.  They were developing permanent measures, which would be notified to allow for 
comments from interested Members.  Canada had not recognized any of the countries of the joint 
declaration as BSE-free, and would evaluate individual countries based on a risk assessment as soon 
as the necessary information was received.  Kor ea indicated that a temporary measure had been 
introduced because of the increased  prevalence of BSE in Europe.  Korea would seek the additional 
information necessary for a more objective assessment of  the risks involved.  Argentina indicated that 
its emergency measure was based on the scientific info rmation available at the time, and stressed that 
any new information received would be considered.  Bu lgaria pointed out that according to Article 5.7 
Members were obliged to request additional information when temporary measures were 
implemented.  Brazil reaffirmed Members' right to  go beyond international guidelines based on a risk 
assessment, but stressed that this should only ta ke place once the necessary information had been 
provided. 
3. In July 2001, Bulgaria reitera ted its concern regarding import restrictions affecting BSE-free 
countries.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 2  
 
70. Argentina – Import restrictions on bo vine semen, milk and milk products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Switzerland, South Africa 
Dates raised: March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, par as. 17-18), July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, paras 23-
24), November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras.  26-28), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, 
paras. 44-46), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 18-19) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ARG/37, G/SPS/N/ARG/38, G/SPS/N/ARG/47, Corr.1 and Rev.1, 
G/SPS/GEN/114, G/SPS/GEN/131, G/SPS/GEN/135 
Solution: Measure revised and notified (G/SPS/N/ARG/47/Rev.1). 
 4. In March 1999, the European Communities noted it had been unable to obtain the text of 
Argentina's measure on bovine semen imports , and was submitting a series of questions.
  Argentina 
indicated that the measure had been notified (G/SPS/N/ARG/37).  It clarified that the request for the 
full text of the measure had not been received from the Commission, but from several EC member States.  Argentina committed to sending the re levant document to the European Commission. 
5. In July 1999, the European Communities ag ain expressed concern re garding Argentina's 
BSE-related restrictions on bovine semen, milk  and milk products.  G/SPS/N/ARG/38 concerned a 
draft measure which classified these products as lo w-risk products.  Subs equently notified import 
requirements (G/SPS/N/ARG/47) established country freedom from BSE or low BSE risk as preconditions for importing frozen bovine semen, although according to the OIE, bovine semen from 
healthy animals could be traded without BSE-re lated restrictions.  The European Communities 
indicated that it had received no answers to the que stions raised in March 1999, and raised several 
new questions. 
6. Argentina replied that it had provided answers to the EC questions both bilaterally and in 
G/SPS/GEN/135.  Argentina had received sever al comments on the measure notified in 
G/SPS/N/ARG/47, and had taken these comments into account.  Argentina was planning to issue a revision of G/SPS/N/ARG/47, and was committed to continue exchanging information with the 
European Communities to resolve all questi ons before the measure was adopted.   
7. In November 2000, the European Communities stated that Argentina was applying import 
restrictions on bovine semen that went well be yond international recommendations and were not 
justified.  The European Communities would continue  to pursue this issue bilaterally, and was hopeful 
of a resolution.  Argentina replied that it had no tified, in advance, its regulation as G/SPS/N/ARG/47, 
which was subsequently revised following comme nts by the European Communities and others 
(G/SPS/N/ARG/47/Rev.1).  This regulation establishe d criteria not only in relation to BSE concerns 
but also to two other diseases.  Argentina had resolv ed the problems identified bilaterally by many EC 
member States, in particular Germany and France.  Furthermore, an Argentine veterinary mission 
would be visiting various EC member States early in December and was prepared to also address this issue at that time. 
8. In July 2001, the European Communities referre d to the information on BSE circulated by 
OIE and WHO, concluding that there was no evid ence of BSE transmission via milk collected from 
healthy animals (G/SPS/GEN/221, 222, and 230).  However, Argentina was still imposing import 
restrictions on EC dairy products, in par ticular from the United Kingdom.  The European 
Communities had replied to Argentina's extensive qu estionnaire, but Argentina had failed to provide a 
risk assessment to justify its measures.  The Eur opean Communities urged Argentina either to provide 
a scientific justification, or to lift the trade rest rictions.  Otherwise the European Communities would 
have to consider an eventual recourse to Article 12.2 consultation procedures.  Argentina replied that 
in January 2001, its animal health service had ad opted a resolution which imposed restrictions on 
dairy products.  A new, less restrictive sanitary certificate would be notified soon.  Regarding human  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 3 
 
 
health, dairy products had been reclassified from medium to low risk, and the relevant decree 
eliminated the restrictions.  This reclassification was not yet complete, and one category of milk remained under restriction.  The United Kingdom was considered a high-risk country, but the situation was under analysis. 
9. In October 2001, the European Communities i ndicated that despite statements from the 
Argentine authorities that dairy products would be reclassified, Argen tina continued to place 
restrictions on baby food and on Baileys from Ire land; Belgian chocolate; bovine semen and dairy 
products from the Netherlands; milk powder and ch eese from Germany; Swedish cacao oil butter; and 
dairy products from the United Kingdom and Fran ce.  Furthermore, the European Communities 
disagreed with the classification of dairy products as low-risk, as opposed to no-risk, and criticized the 
lack of transparency of the Argentine measure.  The European Communities was considering eventual 
recourse to Article 12.2 consultation procedures.  Argentina explained that it did not maintain any 
restriction on EC dairy products; they just had to be certified as coming from establishments where no 
case, or suspected case, of BSE had been recorded .  A counter proposal from EC member States that 
milk come from establishments where there had been no case of BSE was currently being studied to 
determine equivalence.  Regarding transparency, a ll standards could be cons ulted on the web page of 
the Official Bulletin.  As Argentina continued effo rts to resolve this question, it did not consider 
recourse to Article 12.2 consultations necessary. 
Other Animal Health Concerns 
 
71. Argentina - Temporary prohibition of fresh pork and products  
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras. 34-35) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ARG/9 
Solution: Not reported 
 
10. The European Communities observed that the Argentine measure applied to the entire 
European Communities.  The European Commun ities had taken measures to regionalize the EC 
member States with restrictions with regard to Cl assic Swine Fever.  Argentina replied that it believed 
in the principle of regionalization, but had found th at there was no basis to assume compliance within 
the European Communities.  Argentina had requ ested information from a number of EC member 
States, but only four countries had responded.  Classic Swine Fever was a highly infective OIE List A disease which had not occurred in Argentina si nce 1985.  Argentina would assess information 
received so as to adjust its measure as appropriate. 
Other Concerns 
72. Argentina -  Pest risk assessment requirements 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada, European  Communities, New Zealand 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 80-82). 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ARG/67 and G/SPS/N/ARG/68 
Solution: Not reported 
 
11. The United States sought clarification on the criteria Argentina would use in determining 
whether or not a product tracing system thr ough the production and marketing chain met the 
requirements of this measure.  The measure al so referred to mutual agreements under which G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 4  
 
Argentina authorized imports of animals and animal products and the United States requested 
information about existing agreements that Argentin a might have concluded, as well as the criteria 
and procedures for future such agreements.  Furt hermore, the United States sought information on the 
role of equivalence under this measure, for exam ple, would Argentina recognize the overall inspection 
systems of exporting countries, or only verify compliance with Argentine requirements? 
12. Canada stated that certain elements of Argentina's measure were unnecessarily trade 
restrictive, such as the requirement for an a udited traceability system throughout the entire product 
and marketing chain for a wide range of products , live animals, reproductive material, soil dressing 
etc.  Canada was concerned that all foreign estab lishments would be subject to prior inspection and 
authorization that was only valid for two years.  This requirement provided no flexibility for cases 
where no risk problems were present, and could result  in high costs to exporters.  The representatives 
of New Zealand and of the European Communities suppor ted the concerns raised by the United States 
and Canada and expressed a systemic interest in the issue. 
13. Argentina requested the United States to provid e its questions in writing.  The notification 
was open for comments and the period for comments had been extended due to requests from trading 
partners.  Argentina noted that other countries, including the European Communities, approved plants 
for export to their markets only after visiting those pl ants, and then the conditio ns were maintained by 
Argentina. 
 
AUSTRALIA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY AUSTRALIA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Other Animal Health Concerns 
 73. Australia – Restriction on pigmeat   
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Canada 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 75-76), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, 
paras. 67-69) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
14. The European Communities noted that Australia banned imports of pigmeat from the 
European Communities, except Danish pigmeat subject  to a specific heat treatment.  Australia had 
began a risk assessment for pigmeat imports in  May 1998, and although the results had been 
scheduled for February 2000 they had not been presen ted and no alternative da te had been set.  Four 
and a half years was too long a delay to wait for a risk assessment to be undertaken.  The European 
Communities had formally proposed equivalent measur es, but Australia had not accepted these.  The 
European Communities requested Australia to  take a decision as quickly as possible. 
15. Australia indicated that a generic import risk an alysis (IRA) of the quarantine risks and risk 
management options associated with disease agents that may be introduced into Australia with 
pigmeat imported from a number of countries, incl uding EC member States was being conducted.  A 
technical issues paper issued early in 2001 identified a range of quarantine risks including foot-and-mouth disease, African swine fever, classical swine fever, as well as various other pig diseases.  The 
pigmeat IRA was necessarily comprehensive and co mplex;  Australia's pig industry had a very 
favourable health status.  In the case of EC exports, th e risk analysis had to deal with three OIE List A  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 5 
 
 
diseases, as well as a number of other serious diseases present in EC member States but absent in Australia.  For some serious diseases little scientific information was available and Australia had to 
commission significant research to provide independent scientific information on a range of issues including the transmissibility of Porcine Respiratory and Reproductive Syndrome (PRRS).  The results of some mayor research was expected to be available at the end of the year.  Technical input 
from the European Communities on PRRS and othe r diseases being considered in the import risk 
analysis would be welcomed. 
16. In April 2003, the European Communities noted that it had taken 17 years to obtain some 
access for processed meat from Denmark into Australia .  Furthermore, there was still no date given 
for the publication of the general risk assessment undertaken by Australia in 1998.  The European 
Communities questioned why there was still a debate  on the methodology to be used for conducting 
the risk assessment four-and-a half years after the risk assessment had begun.  The time necessary for 
completion of the IRA was excessive and the require ments for Danish imports were disproportionate  
to the risk.  The European Communities called on Au stralia to publish the IRA without further delay 
and to give positive consideration to equivalent me asures.  Canada also expressed frustration with the 
delays in Australia's IRA procedures. 
17. Australia observed that Aujetsky's disease wa s eradicated in Denmark only in 1992 and 
following that porcine reproductive and respirator y syndrome (PRRS) emerged.  This had to be 
considered in the import risk analysis commenced  in 1994.  The import of pigmeat from Denmark, 
subject to certain requirements, was approved in 19 97.  A generic import risk analysis on pigmeat was 
assessing import requests from a wide range of c ountries.  Various updates had been provided – 
including a recent update to the European Commiss ion.  Comments on the methodology paper were 
welcomed and a draft of the risk assessment would be available as soon as possible. The process was 
transparent and science-based.  Independent research on PRRS had demonstrated oral transmission of the virus via pigmeat.  Given the lack of scientific information on its transmission via meat, Australia was seeking the information needed for an informed quarantine policy decision  
74. Australia - Import restrictions  on prawn and prawn products 
Raised by: Thailand on behalf of ASEAN 
Supported by: Philippines on behalf of ASEAN, European Communities 
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  84-85), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 
109-111), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, pa ra-137), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, 
paras. 138-139), November 2002 (G/SPS/R /28, paras. 193-194),  April 2003  
(G/SPS/R/29, paras. 58-59), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 52-53) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/124, G/SPS/N/AUS/126 
Solution: Not reported 
 
18. In March 2001, Thailand, on behalf of ASEAN, drew attention to Australia's notifications 
regarding its risk analysis and interim measur e on prawn and prawn produc ts, which required risk 
management measures for White Spot Syndrome and Yellow Head Virus.  Prior to the deadline for 
comments, Australia had imposed an interim me asure on imports of uncooked prawn and prawn 
products from ASEAN countries, and which was based on the fact that the imported prawn might illegally be used as fishing bait.  ASEAN objected to the inclusion of ille gal domestic practices as a 
major element in risk analysis.  Thailand urged Aust ralia to lift this interim measure, which was more 
restrictive than necessary and inconsistent with Article  5.  Australia explained that the measures were 
the result of an outbreak of exotic White Spot Virus disease.  Investigations had revealed that far more 
imported prawns were being used for bait than had been previously thought, and a 15 g cut off point 
was introduced.  The additional measures applied onl y to whole green and unpeeled headless green 
prawns from areas not free of White Spot Disease.  The risk analysis was progressing and comments would be taken into account. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 6  
 
19. In October 2001, Thailand again expressed serious  concern about the inclusion of Australia's 
domestic enforcement practices as a major element in Australia's risk analysis.  Thailand urged 
Australia to lift the interim measure s taken on the basis of this risk analysis, as ASEAN believed the 
measures were not based on scientific evidence and were more trade restrictive than necessary.  
Australia believed its measures to be scientifically valid.  The risk analysis was continuing and would 
result in final measures.  An application for equivalence for highly processed prawn products was 
being examined and, if approved, would result in less trade restrictive measures. 
20. In March 2002, Thailand sought info rmation regarding the status of Australia's risk analysis, 
noting that the original date for conclusion of th e risk assessment had been  June 2001.  Australia 
replied that work on the risk analysis was continui ng, and all stakeholders would be informed of the 
current status by letter.  In response to request s from importers, Biosecurity Australia was conducting 
an equivalence assessment to determine if there we re less trade restrictive alternative measures which 
could be applied to highly processed prawn products. 
21. In June 2002, Thailand requested information on the period of application of the interim 
measure related to white spot syndrome and its scientific basis.  Malaysia and the Philippines 
expressed interest in this issue.  Australia rep lied that a report had been published on progress made, 
including a summary of a meeting with stakeholders .  The next meeting of the risk analysis panel 
considering the issue was scheduled for late July 200 2, after which a draft risk analysis report would 
be issued.  The scientific concerns on white spot  syndrome which had led to the interim measure 
remained.  Australia had completed an equivale nce assessment, and on 25  June 2002 implemented 
changes in the requirements for highly processed prawn products. 
22. In November 2002, Thailand expressed concerns over the continuation of the interim measure 
imposed by Australia and urged Australia to comple te the risk analysis and abolish the measure as 
soon as possible.  The Philippines, speaking on behalf of ASEAN, supported the concerns expressed by Thailand and noted their interest in monitoring the issue.  Australia reported that the next step of 
the Australian IRA would be the release of a revised draft import risk analysis report.  In the 
meantime, the interim me asures from June 2002, including the am ended conditions, would continue.  
The interim measure was science-ba sed, temporary and applied only to a small proportion of prawn 
exports to Australia from Thailand and other countries.   Experts from the aquatic animal biosecurity 
team had recently visited Thailand to work out a cooperative technical assistance programme 
exploiting the feasibility of alternate measures, including area disease freedom, which might enhance 
prospects for trade in the prawn products of concern. 
23. In April 2003, Thailand observed that inte rim measures against the import of uncooked 
prawns and prawn products from ASEAN countries had been in place for over two years and there 
was no legitimate reason for the continuation of th ese emergency measures.  Australia stressed that 
the measures were limited to high risk products – uncooked prawns – that accounted for only 5% of 
the prawn products exported to Australia from Thaila nd.  Tests had indicated the positive presence of 
white spot virus in Thai uncooked prawn products shipped to Australia.  The disease was exotic to 
Australia.  Biosecurity Australia had commissione d a study on bait use which provided clear support 
for the measures taken.  Australia was committed to finalizing the IRA as soon as possible and was 
also working on technical assistance projects fo r alternative biosecurity measures for prawns, 
including aquatic disease zoning methodologies. 
24. In June 2003, Thailand reported that the interim measure was still in place and it appeared 
unlikely that the import risk analysis would be co ncluded within a short period of time.  Australia 
reported that it was making good progress in its import  risk analysis and a revised draft report was 
underway.  The  analysis was very complex and ch aracterized by a lack of information as Thailand 
had not provided new information on white spot syndrome virus.    G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 7 
 
 
75. Australia - Notification G/SPS/N/AUS/72 on quarantine requirements for chicken meat 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12,  paras. 42-45), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, 
para. 37), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27,  paras. 135-137), November 2002 
(G/SPS/R/28, paras. 190-192), April 20 03 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 60-62), June 
2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 54-56) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/72, G/SPS/ GEN/90, G/SPS/GEN/96, see also G/SPS/R/13, 
G/SPS/GEN/137 and GSPS/W/107/Rev.1 
Solution: Not reported 
 
25. In September 1998, Thailand stated that Aust ralia's requirement for the importation of 
chicken meat was in excess of what was needed to  protect health, and was not viable for commercial 
manufacturing.  The European Communities added that Australia's recommended temperature and time requirements created an extreme and unnecessary barrier to trade, and committed to providing a 
list of relevant questions to Australia.  Australia  replied that its import requirements were based on 
scientific principles and data.  AQIS had based the final heating requirements on research on the 
inactivation of infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) strain CS88, a highly virulent strain exotic to 
Australia.  Extensive consultations had been held with Thai and ot her quarantine authorities to discuss 
the issue, and Australia was prepared to provide any further information requested.  Australia was 
considering whether additional scientific research c ould be usefully conducted to enhance scientific 
understanding and methods of inactiva tion of various poultry pathogens. 
26. In October 2001, Thailand reported that the Department of Livestock Development was 
finalising its risk analysis on IBVD.  A public h earing would be held before the analysis was 
presented to Australia.  In May 2001, the OIE ha d agreed to conduct research on appropriate heat 
treatment to inactivate the IBD virus in poultry. 
27. In June 2002, Thailand informed  the Committee that its risk assessment on IBD virus in Thai 
cooked chicken meat to Australia showed that th e risk of introducing IBDV to backyard flocks 
through cooked chicken meat was negligible.  This  report had been submitted to Australia in May 
2002.  Thailand hoped that within its new food safety mandate, the OIE would undertake work on 
IBD.  Australia indicated that conditions for importa tion of cooked chicken had come into effect in 
August 1998, setting certain time and temperature cooking parameters.  Th ailand had applied for 
access for product from a certain facility, and had r ecently provided information.  Australia would 
provide a response once the Thai document had been considered by an expert review group.  The 
representative of the OIE reiterated his request that Members submit information on IBD to be able to 
make progress with the work undertaken by the OIE. 
28. In November 2002, Thailand indicated that it was still waiting for a response from Australia 
on the basis of the risk assessment results.  Australia  noted that at its recent meeting the Australian 
risk analysis panel had examined the Thai documen t in detail.  The panel had prepared technical 
comments and questions about aspects of the Thai ri sk assessment which would shortly be sent to the 
relevant Thai authorities.  The representative of the OIE took note of the risk analysis document, and 
indicated that as soon as the OIE received more info rmation and data from Members it would be in a 
position to review the OIE chapter through its expert working group. 
29. In April 2003, Thailand stated that Australia 's import risk analysis process was very 
complicated, unduly long and conducted without a specific timeframe.  Australia responded that 
current arrangements were the product of a sci ence-based risk assessment which had not been 
formally challenged.  Biosecurity Australia was st udying Thailand's risk analysis on cooked chicken G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 8  
 
meat, received in May 2002, along with additional in formation provided in Jan uary 2003.  Australia 
aimed to complete the current risk analysis on chicken as soon as possible. 
30. In June 2003, Thailand reported  that no progress had been made since it  provided scientific 
information to Australia in May 2002.  Australia noted that cooked chicken meat from Thailand was 
allowed into Australia if requirements were fulf illed, in accordance with scientific findings.  The 
representative of the OIE indicated that they ha d considered the issue in January 2002 and had 
requested more and new scientific information, however, no new information had been forthcoming. 
Plant Health 
76. Australia – Notification on methyl bromide 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 95-96) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/118 
Solution: Not reported 
 
31. The European Communities was concerned w ith Australia's proposed introduction of 
minimum standards for fumigation with methyl br omide, which required a minimum temperature of 
10 degrees for fumigation.  This new measure c ould significantly constrain EC exports.  The 
European Communities requested additional informa tion on Australia's risk assessment and any other 
relevant evidence.  Australia responded that th e proposed standard was the result of quarantine 
breaches involving ineffective fumigation treatment  of various imported goods.  To improve the 
efficacy of fumigation prior to export, Australia  developed a standard reflecting best practice 
guidelines in the use of methyl bromide.  Austra lia was still considering the comments it had received 
on its notification of this proposed measure, a nd implementation of the new measure would be 
delayed until early 2001.  With regard to the mini mum temperature requirement, this was based on 
expert advice and reflected the minimum temperatur e requirement established by the European Plant 
Protection Organization.   
77. Australia – Import restrictions on durian 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by: European Communities, India, Malaysia, Philippines on behalf of ASEAN 
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 11-14), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, 
paras. 107-108), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/ 27, paras. 133-134), November 2002 
(G/SPS/R/28, paras. 187-189), April 20 03 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 48-50), June 
2003, (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 50-53) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/217, G/SPS/GEN/218, G/SPS/N/AUS/83 
Solution: Not reported 
 32. In November 2000, Thailand reported that it had sought access to the Australian market for 
durian since 1991, but Australia had notified its draft import risk analysis only in February 1999.  In 
August 2000, Australia informed Thailand that dur ian fruit imports would be permitted only under 
unduly restrictive conditions, including excessively trade restrictive sampling requirements.  
Furthermore, the seasonal limitation on shipments,  as well as the requirement that fruit come only 
from the eastern region of Thailand, di d not appear to be justified.   
33. Australia noted that it had been difficult to obtain accurate information on the relevant 
anthropod pests and diseases present in Thailand, although the numerous bilateral contacts on this 
matter had resulted in an expansion of the scientific information available.  Australia noted that the  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 9 
 
 
draft conditions established for import of fresh du rian fruit had been discussed with the Thai 
government.  The Australian delegate explaine d the justification for the requirements and 
acknowledged that the conditions were very strict, bu t justified based on the pest and disease situation 
of Thailand.  Nonetheless, these conditions woul d be reviewed after one year of trade.  
34. In October 2001, Thailand indicated that desp ite numerous bilateral meetings, no agreement 
had been reached.  Thailand requested that Australia  seek to adjust its import restrictions to make 
them more commercially viable.  Australia replied that a risk analysis fo r durian had first been 
finalized in 2000.  The risk assessment indicated that other non-destructive methods of sampling 
could be substituted if efficacy data  could be presented to show they provided an equivalent level of 
protection.  However, no information had been received from Thailand that X-ray technology or 
irradiation could be equally effective.  Australia was keen to finalize bilateral arrangements so that 
inspections of packing houses and orchards could be gin in Thailand and import permits be issued.   
35. In June 2002, Thailand reiterate d concerns that Australia re quired cutting of the product for 
inspection purposes, and applied an excessive samp le size.  Malaysia and the Philippines supported 
the concerns expressed by Thailand on this issue.  Australia indicated their willingness to consider 
alternatives to destructive sampling if their efficacy was shown.  On the basis of joint trials, X-ray 
technology appeared promising.  
36. In November 2002, Thailand recalled that it ha d been seeking access to Australia's market for 
durian since 1991.  The matter had been pursued on a bilateral basis, but to date no agreement had 
been reached.  Thailand was of the view that Australia should have c oncluded its consideration of the 
alternative method of rapid scan for inspection of import durian.  The Philippines, on behalf of 
ASEAN, expressed systemic concerns and noted their interest in monitoring developments in this 
matter.  Australia reiterated that the import conditions  were subject to review after the first year of 
trade, and that other less destructive methods of inspection could be substituted for fruit cutting, if 
efficacy data showed that it could provide an e quivalent level of quarantine protection from the key 
pests of concern.  Australia was willing to continue to work with the Thai authorities to make progress 
on the assessment of non destructive inspection methods. 
37. In April 2003, Thailand stated that there had been little progress on its concerns as the 
measures proposed by Australia were not commercially viable.  Australia reported that alternative risk 
mitigation options such as pest free areas of pr oduction, pest free production sites and reproscan 
inspection methods were discussed by the joint Th ai-Australian working group on agriculture on 3-7 
March 2003.  The Thai authorities were considering th e pest free alternatives and had agreed to a joint 
collaborative trial of the reproscan inspection met hods for the fruiting season in late April and June.  
A longer term solution might be i rradiation and Australia understood th at Thailand could be interested 
in conducting trails as no efficacy da ta was currently available.   
38. In June 2003, Thailand indicated that Australia 's requirements for fresh durian imports were 
not consistent with the obligations  of Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement.  Australia replied that it had 
specified the use of internationa lly accepted measures su ch as destructive fruit cutting which was used 
by many countries.  Australia was prepared to c onsider alternative ways to address the quarantine 
risks associated with Thai durian fruit. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 10  
 
78. Australia – Restrictions on imports of tropical fresh fruit 
Raised by: Philippines on behalf of ASEAN 
Supported by: Brazil, European Communities, India, Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, United 
States 
Dates raised: March 2000 (G/SPS/R/18, para. 67), June 2000 (G/SPS/R/19, paras. 15-20) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/189, G/SPS/GEN/194 
Solution: Not reported 
 
39. In March 2000, the Philippines reported that its exports, including mangoes, bananas and 
pineapples, faced phytosanitary restrictions in Aust ralia.  Australia explained that in response to a 
request for access, Australia conducted an open, transp arent and consultative process of scientific risk 
assessment and risk management to  avoid the introduction of diseases.  Both countries indicated that 
they were conducting bilateral consultations on the matter. 
40. In June 2000, the Philippines pointed out th at major ASEAN exports to Australia faced 
stringent SPS measures that were not based on a risk assessment.  Thes e measures were more 
restrictive than necessary, and should be reviewed within a reasonable period of time.  Malaysia 
suggested Australia carry out ASEAN-wide risk assessments.  Australia offered detailed comments on 
each of the points raised by the Philippines and noted  that a formal response would be provided in due 
course.  In response to Malaysia, Australia explained that pest risk analysis was specific to the trading 
partners involved and varied accordi ng to the exporter's pest status. 
41. The United States urged Australia to expedite its decisions regarding market access for 
Florida citrus and California table grapes.  Australia  replied that an import risk analysis had been 
completed for table grapes, several appeals had been addressed, and the relevant information was 
about to be released.  In response to Brazil’s co mments regarding its market access applications for 
mango and papaya, Australia confirmed that these we re on the list of matters to be considered by 
Australian risk analysts.  With reference to India's concern about market access for mangoes, 
Australia reported that Indian authorities had prov ided helpful information regarding the efficacy of 
treatment for pests in mangoes, and that Australia  was currently evaluating that information.  
Regarding EC concerns, Australia confirmed that an import risk analysis was being conducted on 
bulbs.  Australia noted that it was necessary to set priorities for risk assessment given scarce financial and human resources. 
79. Australia – Import Requirements for Netherlands Truss Tomatoes 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand 
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 25, 27), June  2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 64 -
65) 
Relevant document(s): Raised Orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
42. The European Communities raised concerns that Australia was taking too long to conduct  an 
import risk assessment for truss tomatoes due to r easons other than technical issues.  The risk 
assessment was still incomplete after six years.  In  1999 Australia presented a draft risk assessment on 
tomatoes without green parts despite the Netherlands' explicit request  to export tomatoes on the truss.  
Truss tomatoes had been approved from New Zeal and after New Zealand had approved Australian 
imports of the same product.  On 26 March 2003, Biosecurity Australia unexpectedly indicated that 
there was no longer a need for a risk assessment for truss tomatoes.  However, import conditions were 
still pending as a draft review of the quarantine requi rements for the import of Dutch tomatoes needed  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 11 
 
 
to be circulated to stakeholders for comment.  The European Communities felt that the time period 
necessary for Australia to conduct its import risk analysis was disproportionate to the risk and 
discriminated unjustifiably between WTO Members. 
43. Australia explained that on 26 March, Biosecur ity Australia announced that imports of truss 
tomatoes would be assessed as an extension of th e technical policy recently developed for truss 
tomatoes from New Zealand – this would shorten the risk assessment process.  The draft review 
would include draft import conditions  and would be released to stakeholders with a 30-day comment 
period.  The finalized review document would be  available before the end of May 2003.   
44. In June 2003, Australia reported that the dr aft import policy for truss tomatoes from the 
Netherlands had been issued  and was publicly ava ilable and stakeholders invited to comment.  A 
response to the Netherlands request for mark et access would follow soon.  The European 
Communities expressed disappointment that the draft policy was still open for comments from stakeholders and therefore far from being finalized .  The Philippines, speaking on behalf of Indonesia 
and Thailand, supported the views of the European Communities. 
 
BOLIVIA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BOLIVIA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Other Animal Health Concerns 80. Bolivia - Restrictions on poultry meat imports 
Raised by: Chile 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/29, pa ra. 94), March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 
33-35), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 132) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Agreement on a protocol a nd progress reported in July 2001. 
 
45. In November 2000, Chile reported that in Augus t 2000 it had consulted with the authorities of 
Bolivia, in the context of Article 5.8 of the SPS Agreement, regarding requ irements on poultry meat 
imports with respect to Inclusion body hepatitis.  This disease was endemic to Bolivia and restrictions 
on imports from Chile were not justified.  Chile hope d that this issue would soon be resolved.  The 
representative of Bolivia indicated that he woul d transmit this information to his authorities. 
46. In March 2001, Chile noted that Bolivia had fa iled to notify the measure, and requested that a 
scientific risk assessment be carried out as quickly as possible.  Bilateral discussions on the issue had 
ceased since August 2000.  Bolivia explained that import conditions for poultry and other agricultural 
products had been changed because of problems whic h Inclusion body hepatitis caused in the bird 
population and the associated negative economic impact.  During the last five years, Bolivia's state 
veterinary laboratories had determined the clinical  absence of Inclusion body hepatitis in Bolivia, but 
the disease had been diagnosed in Ch ile.  Regarding preventive vaccina tion, Bolivia stated that this 
was justifiable only if the virus was present on a fa rm.  Secondly, total protection against the disease 
was only possible if the serotype present in the vaccination was the same as that present in farm 
strains.  Thirdly, successful protection depended on other immuno-suppressant factors, and in Chile 
there was a risk of Avian infectious anaemia.  Bolivia's National Food and Agricultural Health 
Service was revising the standard, and would inform Ch ile of the results.  Bolivia wished to solve the 
matter expediently and to the benefit of both parties. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 12  
 
47. In July 2001, Chile informed the Committee th at the sanitary authorities of both countries had 
agreed to work on a protocol, and thanked Bolivia for the progress made. 
 
BRAZIL 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BRAZIL  
Food Safety 
81. Brazil - Import requirements for wine 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5, para . 13), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 23) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/BRA/13/Rev.1 
Solution: Not reported 
 
48. In May 1996, the European Communities expr essed concern that proposed Brazilian import 
requirements for wine had not been notified.  Th e European Communities was concerned that Brazil 
was apparently requiring that establishments in exporting countries be inspected and approved by 
Brazilian authorities.  The European Communiti es considered its own requirements for wine 
production to be at least equivalent to those in Braz il with respect to the safety of the product for the 
consumer, and planned to present written comment s to Brazil once an SPS notification had been 
made. 
49. In March 1997, the European Communities qu estioned Brazil's measure on wine exports, 
notified as G/SPS/N/BRA/13/Rev.1 on 6 February 1997, stating that it was not clear what requirements producers faced.  The European  Communities questioned whether inspection 
requirements for individual establishments were based on science, and expressed concern over 
certification requirements for individual consignments  rather than more general, generic types of 
certification.  Brazil noted that the proposed legi slation would not be adop ted before 16 May 1997, 
and that the full text of the proposed legislati on was available from the Brazilian Enquiry Point.  
Although Brazil insisted that its legislation was in conformity with the SPS Agreement, and not 
substantially different from legislation in place in several European countries, it was open for bilateral 
discussions on the subject. 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Other Animal Health Concerns 
 82. Brazil – Imports of live ostriches 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, para. 97) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/BRA/67 
Solution: Not reported  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 13 
 
 
50. The European Communities stated th at they would bilaterally request clarification of the legal 
scope and scientific grounds for the measure.  Brazil reported that the import restriction on live 
ostriches was due to the possible threats posed to the Brazilian poultry industry.  The regulation that 
had been notified to the SPS Committee required th at the OIE existing standards for inspection, 
supervision and quarantine requirements, both at the point of origin and the point of destiny, be 
followed.  Brazil took note of the request from th e European Communities to provide the necessary 
risk assessment for the non OIE-listed diseases and agr eed to convey this request to the relevant 
authorities.  
Plant Health 
83. Brazil – Pest risk assessments for imports of plant origin 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: Australia, European Commun ities, New Zealand, Peru, United States 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28 , paras. 77-79) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/BRA/65 
Solution: Not reported 
 
51. Canada referred to Brazil's legislative requireme nt for pest risk assessments for all vegetable 
products imported into Brazil, published on 28 March 2002.  While Canada did not challenge the right 
of Brazil to conduct pest risk analysis for impor ted commodities, they cons idered the measure as 
unduly restrictive of trade, in particular given that imports would be suspended on 27 November 
2002, pending completion of the pest risk assessment s.  Canada had exported a number of products 
covered by this measure for many years without any particular concern, and requested Brazil to allow 
existing trade from well known sources to continue while the pest risk assessments were being 
completed.  In this regard, Canada was prepared to provide the information required to facilitate the 
early completion of any risk assessmen ts concerning products from Canada.  
52. The United States did not believe that it was neces sary or justifiable to ban or temporarily halt 
the importation of products while PRAs were being conducted unless there was a specific pest risk 
problem that would required such drastic action.  Australia, the European Communities, New Zealand 
and Peru shared the concerns expressed by Cana da and the United States and requested Brazil to 
withdraw the application of the measure.  
53. Brazil stated that one key concern was that  many PRAs were open-ended and the studies 
never came to completion.  Brazil was reassessing the matter and consideri ng alternatives to the 
PRAs, such as the possibility of extending the time- frame for implementation of the measure in the 
case of ongoing studies, including cases where documen ts had already been forwarded to Brazil. 
Brazil requested trading partners to identify their concerns in writing, so that responses could be 
provided by the competent authorities. 
84. Brazil – Import prohibition of coconut palms and related products 
Raised by: Philippines 
Supported by: Malaysia, Sri Lanka 
Dates raised: June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, par as. 25-26), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12 and 
Corr.1, paras. 5-6) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/BRA/1 
Solution: Not reported 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 14  
 
54. In June 1998, the Philippines submitted a series of detailed questions to  Brazil regarding its 
import prohibition of coconut palms and related products.  Brazil answered that the measure was in 
place to prevent the spread of quarantine pests.  Brazil continued to import coconut palms and related 
products from pest-free countries, if shipments were accompanied by a phyto sanitary certificate, but 
only one country had applied for pest-free status.  Br azil stressed that its measure was in conformity 
with the SPS Agreement and the text of the IPPC, and that the risk assessment methodology used had 
been notified. 
55. In September 1998, the Philippines reported that  it had received no clear answers from Brazil, 
and reiterated its questions.  Braz il specified which diseases it was concerned about.  Its phytosanitary 
requirements had been extended to desiccated coconut, as there was a risk of transmission of pests or 
exotic pathogens.  Nonetheless, Brazil was prep ared to discuss proposals for risk evaluation and 
recognition of pest-free areas. 
 
CANADA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CANADA  
Food Safety 
85. Canada - Importation of cheese 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Switzerland 
Dates raised: May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5, para. 14) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CAN/8 
Solution: Not reported 
 
56. The European Communities raised concerns w ith a proposed Canadian requirement that 
cheese be pasteurized or produced from pasteurized milk.  The Eu ropean Communities considered 
that its measures, including production requireme nts, safe and correct sourcing and subsequent 
supervision in the various production stages from fa rm to consumer, provided at least equivalent 
guarantees in terms of food safety.  The European Communities observed that a number of Members 
maintained restrictions on imports of raw milk  cheeses from the European Communities which were 
not justifiable on health grounds.  Canada noted  that on request it would provide scientific 
documentation in support of the proposal, and that an  expert advisory committee had been appointed 
to examine the matter. 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to TSEs 
 
86. Canada - Zoosanitary import policies pertaining to BSE 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras. 24-25) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CAN/18 
Solution: Not reported 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 15 
 
 
57. The European Communities argued that the Ca nadian policy went beyond what could be 
scientifically justified, and was furthermore not in  conformity with the OIE Code.  The European 
Communities noted that (i) no distinction was made between high and low incidence countries;  (ii) 
there were provisions for whole-herd slaughter and slaughter of mother as well as of progeny despite 
BSE not being considered as a herd disease and unfina lized investigations on maternal transmission; 
and, (iii) the Canadian policy required BSE to have been notifiable for six years under an active 
surveillance programme and that imports would be  allowed only after six years of absence of the 
disease.  Also, the proposed policy implied that Canada would not accept meat from any country 
which had imported meat and bone meal from a c ountry which had a case of BSE.  Under these 
conditions only one EC member Stat e would qualify to export meat to Canada.  Canada explained that 
while the BSE policy was already in force, some  changes were proposed.  It was on these draft 
changes that comments were being sought.  The time for comments would be extended. 
Concerns related to FMD 
87. Canada and the United States - Import restrictions due to FMD 
Raised by: Hungary  
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  90-91), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 133) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution (if reported): Not reported 
 
58. In March 2001, Hungary expressed  concern about reported US and Canadian import bans on 
Hungarian meat products in reaction to incidences of  FMD in France.  Canada and the United States 
clarified that they had not placed any restrictions  on the importation of prod ucts from Hungary.  In 
July 2001, Hungary reiterated its concern regarding US measures on meat and other animal products 
that were in force since May 2000.  Hungary referred to G/SPS/GEN/266, which listed Hungary as a 
country free of FMD and rinderpest.  The United States offered to work with the appropriate officials 
to explain the situation. 
 
CHILE 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHILE  
Food Safety 88. Chile, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Honduras , Slovak Republic – Zero-tolerance for 
salmonella  in imported poultry products 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, par as. 18-25), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras. 
52-53), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GN/3, G/SPS/N/CZE/8, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Not reported 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 16  
 
59. In October 1996, the United States indicated that a number of Members discriminated 
between standards for control of salmonella  in domestic versus importe d poultry products.  Chile, the 
Czech Republic, El Salvador, Slova kia and Honduras applied so-ca lled zero-tolerance standards, 
which was a misleading name since none of these Members appeared to have eradication or 
surveillance systems in place to  establish non-existence of salmonella  in domestic products. 
60. The Slovak Republic responded that it did not apply a zero-tolerance standard, but rather 
required ante- and post-mortem treatment of sl aughter poultry, for domestic and imported poultry 
meat.  The Czech Republic clarified that its regulations required negative results on salmonella  tests 
in poultry holdings and slaughterhouses.  Czech requirements were laid out in the Draft Law on 
Foodstuff and Tobacco Products to be adopted in 1997, notified as G/SPS/N/CZE/8.  No assurances 
had been received from the United States that thes e requirements would be met.  The Czech Republic 
suggested bilateral consultations be tween veterinary experts.  The representatives of Honduras and El 
Salvador indicated that they would inform thei r authorities of the statement made by the United 
States. 
61. Chile observed that bilateral consultations on salmonella  had started in 1992.  The US 
concern was probably due to a misunderstanding of  Chile's sanitary requirements, which required 
tests to determine the level of salmonella.  The resu lt was compared with the level of prevalence in the 
exporting country, which was part of Chile's risk assessment procedure.  Chile was aware that the 
United States had difficulties in complying with this  requirement given the high level of prevalence of 
salmonella  domestically.  Given the US situation, the Chilean government was prepared to show a 
certain flexibility and would consider imports of  irradiated poultry from the United States as a 
possible alternative. 
62. In March 1997, the United States reiterated its concerns.  In particular, Chile had not 
substantiated its claim that salmonella was less prev alent in domestic poultry stocks compared to the 
imported product, and the Czech Republic conti nued to maintain a zero-tolerance policy.  
Furthermore, the United States was interested to know when legislation would be implemented to 
harmonize requirements for poultry meat imports in the Central American Common market.  In 
response, Chile recalled its arguments made at the previous meeting, and remained open to further 
discussion with the United States.  In February 20 01, the Czech Republic reported that its new Law on 
Foodstuff and Tobacco Products had been adopted (d ecree 298/1997), and than it had been in contact 
with the United States since then. 
63. In July 2001, the United States reported that it was still discussing the matter with Chile 
(G/SPS/GEN/265).   
Plant Health 
89. Chile – Restrictions on imports of wheat and fruit 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras.  18-19), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GN/14, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Restrictions on wheat removed in  October 1997.  Import access granted for 
certain fruit; consultations on other fruit continuing. 
 64. In March 1997, the United States expressed concer ns that Chile's import requirements for 
wheat and fruit did not recognize regional conditions in line with the SPS Agreement, nor IPPC 
guidelines relating to pest-free areas.  With respect to wheat, Chile replied that the United States had 
not asked to be recognized as free of tilletia indica  (Karnal bunt).  Regarding fruit, Chile stressed that  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 17 
 
 
it had recognized areas free of the fruit flies anastrepha fraterculus  and ceratitis capitata  
(Mediterranean fruit fly) in California, which would facilitate the entry of US exports.   
65. In July 2001, the United States reported that  following bilateral discussion, Chile had 
removed restrictions on US wheat in October 1997 (G/SPS/GEN/265).  Import access had also been granted for grapes, kiwis, avocados and lemons from California, apples and pears from Washington, 
and raspberries and shelled nuts from all US states .  According to the United States, Chile was 
preparing new rules to allow imports of additi onal products.  The United States was working with 
Chile on import conditions for other fruit. 
 
CHINA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINA  
Food Safety 90. China – Food safety regulations affecting agr icultural products produced from modern 
biotechnology 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Argentina, Australia, Canada 
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras.  12-14), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 21-
23), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 93-94) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHN/10 
Solution: Not reported 
 
66. In March 2002, the United States but expressed serious concerns about China's Ministry of 
Agriculture implementing regulations for the manageme nt agricultural biotechnology products.  These 
regulations, originally published on 6 June 2001, were released, w ithout warning on 7 January 2002. 
The regulations, which required pre-market approva l and mandatory labelling of biotech products and 
affected GMO imports, were scheduled to go into effect on 20 March 2002.  The United States noted that China had not notified these regulations to  the WTO, precluding any chance for comment by 
interested WTO Members.  Furthermore, certain aspects of the new regulations appeared to be 
inconsistent with WTO rules, and establishe d different approval pro cedures for imported and 
domestic products.  The United States welcomed  the interim measures issued on 11 March 2002, 
which streamlined measures for the importati on of biotech agricultural products through 
20 December 2002.  Canada, Argentina and Austra lia associated themselves with the concerns 
expressed by the United States.   
67. China explained that public anxiety country ove r the safety of GM agricultural products and 
foods had led the Chinese Government to issue regula tory rules in May 2001.  As China was not at that 
time a WTO Member, it had no obligation to make a notification.  However, China intended to notify the three implementing measures i ssued in January 2002t once the Engl ish versions had been finalised. 
China reported that bilateral consultations had been  held with the major parties concerned and that 
interim measures had been introduced to  avoid disruption of normal trade.   
68. In June 2002, the United States reported that Ch ina's Ministry of Health had issued a decree 
on biotech safety and labelling on 8 April 2002.  The decree would take effect on 8 July, but the Ministry of Health had not issued implementing re gulations.  Additionally, the decree had not been 
notified.  The United States believed that mandato ry labelling for biotech products that were 
substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts had no scien tific justification.  Under such 
circumstances, labelling wrongly implied a possible ri sk to the consumer.  US companies exported to 
China over US$ 1 billion/year of biotechnology pro ducts, including soybeans and corn, and processed G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 18  
 
products.  The United States requested  an interim period for implemen tation of the decree, to allow 
sufficient time for compliance by exporters.  Canada  and Argentina shared the concerns expressed by 
the United States.  China explained that the failu re to notify the measure in advance had been 
inadvertent, and invited Members to send comments to its Enquiry Point or directly to the Ministry of 
Health.  China also expressed an interest in hol ding bilateral consultations  with interested WTO 
Members. 
69. In November 2002, the United States and Ar gentina expressed concern regarding the 
implementation dates proposed for the April regula tions and requested China to consider ways to 
reduce the possible trade effects.  Argentina also re ported that it had held bila teral consultations with 
China on this matter.  China clarified that notifica tion of the draft regulation had been submitted just 
prior to the last SPS Committee meeting.  China's Mini stry of Health had agreed to extend the interim 
period for one year. 
91. China – Zero tolerance for e-coli 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 87-88) 
Relevant document(s): G/TBT/N/CHN/6 
Solution: Not reported 
 
70. The United States recognized the need for China to reduce bacterial contamination on raw 
meats and poultry products to the lowest achievable  level but had two con cerns related to this 
notification.  The United States believed that the comp lete elimination of enteropathogenic bacteria in 
raw meats and poultry products was not achievable using existing technologies and practices and they 
were interested in more information related to th e risk assessment that had b een used as the basis for 
this zero tolerance.  Experience in the United States had shown that carcasses of normal healthy birds and animals could still contain a variety of bacteria , including those of concern to China, but proper 
preparation and handling could eliminate health co ncerns.  As the basis of China's notification 
appeared to be food safety and human health con cerns, the United States requested that China also 
notify this proposed regulation under the SPS Agreem ent.  China agreed to consult with the 
standardizing agency and take the necessary steps.  
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to TSEs 
 
92. China - Import requirements for cosmetics 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras.  13-14), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 
50-51), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 39-40) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
71. The European Communities noted that China ha d imposed import restrictions on cosmetics 
beginning in March 2002.  The new regulations prohib ited cosmetics containing certain ingredients of 
animal origin from 18 countries having officially declared the existence of  BSE.  Cosmetics from 
these 18 countries required certification that they did not contain specified products of bovine or ovine 
origin.  According to China's notification, the jus tification of the measure was to prevent introducing 
BSE into China.  The European Communities considered that the m easures were in contradiction to  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 19 
 
 
the SPS Agreement.  China had notified its measur es as emergency measures, whereas BSE had been 
present in those countries for many years and th ere was no new scientific evidence indicating a 
particular risk from cosmetics.  In addition, th e measures had no scientific basis and went far beyond 
the OIE standard on BSE and were disproportionate co mpared to the risks.   The measures were also 
discriminatory, because they did not apply in th e same manner to all countries where identical 
sanitary conditions prevailed.  Th e European Communities requested that China make available the 
scientific justification and the risk assessment underlying the measure. 
72. China indicated that it only prohibited the im portation of cosmetics derived from bovine or 
ovine brains, placenta, nerves, etc. from BSE-infect ed countries and regions, in accordance with the 
OIE and WHO recommendations.  China had notifie d its measure and requested exporting countries 
to provide the names and signatures of the author ities responsible for issuing the certificates ensuring 
that the cosmetics met the Chinese requirements.   Several EC member States had proceeded 
accordingly and China had recognized, or was in th e process of recognizing, the competent certifying 
authorities of those member States.   
73. In November 2002, the European Communities repor ted good progress in resolving this issue.  
Extensive bilateral trade in cosmetics between Ch ina and the European Communities had taken place 
before China introduced the new provisions, and in pa rticular the protective measures related to BSE.  
EC experts on BSE-related risk assessment were to vi sit Beijing, and both countries were hopeful that 
the discussions would lead to a resolution of the problem. 
74. In June 2003, the European Communities repor ted that further progress was made as China 
had presented a list of prohibited products.  Ch ina responded that it was willing to review its 
regulations and welcom ed continued dialogue. 
Plant Health 
93. China – Regulation on wood packaging material 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, par as. 38-39), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 
39-40) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHN/14,  
Solution: Not reported 
 75. The European Communities stated that a num ber of aspects of the Chinese regulation on 
wood packaging material, notified as G/SPS/N/CHN/ 14, caused serious problems.  There were 
important discrepancies between the Chinese legislation and relevant guidelines from the IPPC, in 
particular ISPM 15.  The European Communities had gone to considerable lengths to address the 
concerns of the Chinese authorities, and a lot of progress had been made in particular following a visit from a number of experts to China.  The Europ ean Communities encouraged China to come into 
conformity with the IPPC standard as expeditiously  as possible, and to work towards resolving the 
issue. 
76. China reported that during 2001 and 2002, large num bers of pests were regularly detected by 
the inspection and quarantine authorities of China in wood packaging material from the European 
Communities.  China had notified this situation to  the European Communities repeatedly, and finally 
decided to take emergency measures on 19 April 2002 in order to prevent the introduction of 
dangerous wood pests, and to ensure  the protection of the environment, forestry and tourism resources 
in the country.  The notification and the risk anal ysis report were sent to the European Communities 
for comments, to which China replied in detail on 17 June 2002.  Following that date no further G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 20  
 
comments had been received from the European Co mmunities; the measure had been imposed on 28 
June 2002, and notified to the WTO.  The measure  was based on scientific principles and on a risk 
analysis in line with the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement. 
77. In June 2003, the European Communities reported that they had now adopted the IPPC 
standard and China has promised to do the same.  China reaffirmed that it was committed to following 
the IPPC standard. 
94. China – Import restrictions for citrus and other fruits related to fruit fly 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras.  24-25), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 50-
51) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 78. Argentina noted that bilateral consultations were on-going with the Chinese authorities to 
overcome difficulties related to the export of apples, pears and citrus fruit to China due to the latter's 
fruit-fly restrictions.  Various procedures, including  the use of cold treatme nt, were being used to 
overcome these difficulties.  Argentina requested the Chinese authorities to provide a list of 
outstanding questions related to risk assessme nt and further information requests.   
79. China explained that Medfly and South American  fruit fly had not been reported in China and 
that a risk assessment by Chinese experts had conc luded that the risk of introducing these pests from 
Argentina was high.  China was requesting Argentina to provide data on the efficacy of cold treatment 
against fruit flies and to demonstrate that it coul d provide an equivalent level of protection in 
comparison with importing from pest-free areas.  Ch ina noted that establishing pest-free areas was not 
practicable for all pests, as recognized by the IP PC standard, and that countries with advanced 
research on fruit fly control and quarantine did no t accept importation from countries where the pest 
had previously been present, even if they were currently pest-free.  China was open to bilateral 
technical discussions and joint research with Argentina on this issue.   
80. In June 2002, Argentina informed that despite ha ving held bilateral cons ultations with China, 
the issue was not resolved.  China i ndicated that it was prepared to consider alternative treatments, but 
had not yet received any technical data demonstra ting that establishing pest free production places and 
cold treatment could provide equivalent prot ection to the establishment of pest-free areas.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 21 
 
 
CROATIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CROATIA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to TSEs 
 
95. Croatia – Import measures on live animals and meat products 
Raised by: Hungary 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras.  28-31), October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 
132 – 134) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/416 
Solution: Not reported 
 
81. Hungary expressed concern with measures taken by Croatia to ban imports of live animals 
and meat products.  The ban, supposedly to provide protection against BSE, entered into force with 
immediate effect and was never notified.  The ba n applied to all meat products, including fish and 
poultry, as well as live animals.  These could only be imported if the exporting country certified that 
no animal protein had been used as feed.  As there was no scientific justification for the measures and 
since it did not apply to domestic producers, Hungary  considered the ban a disguised restriction on 
international trade.  The European Communiti es expressed support for Hungary's concerns.  The 
European Communities had requested information fr om Croatia but did not receive any reply.  
82. Croatia maintained that the measure was imposed  to keep its present status as a BSE-free area 
in order to protect its exports of meat products .  The measures taken were in accordance with 
established international rules and with the measur es taken by the European Communities.  Countries 
which had provided the necessary in formation had been exempted fro m the ban, e.g., Bulgaria and 
Romania.  Croatia requested Hungary to submit the necessary information.   
83. In October 2003, Croatia reported that meeti ngs between veterinarians from Hungary and 
Croatia were held to resolve the issue.  The European Communities not ed that the statement made by 
Croatia at the June meeting and circulated in  document G/SPS/GEN/416, th at its measures were 
consistent with EC legislation was inaccurat e.  EC legislation did not prohibit imports. 
Other Animal Health Concerns 
 
96. Croatia – Restrictions on pork imports 
Raised by: Slovenia 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R29, paras. 203-204) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
84. Slovenia reported that decrees issued in Ma rch by the Croatian Ministry of Agriculture 
shortened the validity dates on veterinary import pe rmits from six to three months.  The reason given 
for this was market disturbances due to oversupply of meat in the Croatian market.  The measure was G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 22  
 
not notified to the WTO and was in breach of th e WTO Agreements on SPS, Agriculture and Import 
Licensing Procedures. 
85. Croatia stated that it had not adopted or implemented any measures to restrict imports of pork 
meat and products.  As of January, Croatia was de veloping a computerized integrated system for 
veterinary control of border crossings.  This requi red adjustments to the procedures for application 
and issuance of veterinary approvals .  An important element of the new simplified system was that the 
period for issuance of approvals had been shortene d from 30 or 60 days to only 15 days.  Bilateral 
discussions between competent authorities would clarify the situation. 
 
CUBA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CUBA 
Plant Health 97. Cuba - Restrictions on apples and pears 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2001  (G/SPS/R/25, para. 101) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
86. Argentina expressed concerns that Cuba did not accept cold treatment as a quarantine 
treatment for apples and pears.  Bilateral consultati ons had been held, and Argentina expected further 
information from Cuba on this issue. 
 
EGYPT 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EGYPT  
Food Safety 98. Egypt - Restrictions on canned tuna 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2000 (G /SPS/R/19, paras. 103-104) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/203 
Solution: Formal consultations requested by Thailand. 
 
87. Thailand, acknowledging Egypt's decision to r estrict food imports containing genetically 
modified organisms (GMOs), insisted that Thai canned tuna did not contain soybean oil produced 
from genetically modified plants.  Thailand noted th at it was not possible to identify the origin of 
soybean oil since the final processing stages destr oyed genetic material.  Thailand considered the 
restrictions on Thai canned tuna to be discriminat ory, and asked the Egyptian Government to lift the 
restrictions as soon as possible.  Egypt took note of Thailand's concerns and agreed to report back to 
the Committee in due course.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 23 
 
 
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES  
Food Safety 99. European Communities – Restrictions on shellfish 
Raised by: Indonesia 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, pa ras. 127-128), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
paras. 183-184) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 88. In June 2002, Indonesia raised concerns re garding an EC prohibition on shellfish from 
Indonesia due to biotoxic residues that had been app lied for two years.  The three gulfs in Indonesia 
which were not free of biotoxins were closed to shellfish fishing.  Indonesia had responded to a 
questionnaire from the European Communities and was waiting for the European Communities to 
send an inspection team.   
89. The European Communities indicated that given th e high risks associated with shellfish, it 
accepted products only from countries with an appr oved sanitary programme which included control 
procedures for the maritime production area.  The information provided by Indonesia had given the 
impression that controls were not mandatory, a nd in March 2001 the European Communities had sent 
a further questionnaire.  The European Communiti es indicated that as soon as the reply to the 
questionnaire was received, an EC evaluation team would visit Indonesia.   
90. In November 2002, Indonesia reported that an EC inspection team had visited Indonesia in 
October 2002.  Indonesia was of the view that the resolution of the problem would have a very 
positive effect on the fish industry in Indonesia, esp ecially at the production level.  The European 
Communities commended Indonesia for all the efforts th at the country had made to meet the safety 
requirements set out in EC legislation, and hoped that further progress would permit resolution of the 
problem. 
100. European Communities – Pesticide and antibiotic limits in honey (Directive 96/23) 
Raised by: Cuba 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27/Corr.1,  para. 130), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
para. 178) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 91. Cuba indicated that it had sought bilateral c onsultations with the European Communities on 
pesticide residues in honey.  Th e European Communities confirmed that it was examining a plan 
submitted by Cuba for residue analysis, and would continue to pursue this bilaterally. 
92. In November 2002, Cuba reported that progress had been made in bilateral consultations with 
the European Communities on regulation EC 96/93  setting out residue limits for imported honey. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 24  
 
101. European Communities - Regulations on genetically modified food and feed 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, Argentina, Canada, Israel, Jordan, Taipei, China, Singapore, 
Egypt 
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, pa ras. 40-44), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 
45-56), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, para s. 84-87), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, 
para. 168) 
Relevant document(s): G/TBT/N/EEC/6 and 7, G/SPS/N/EEC/149, G/SPS/N/EEC/150, 
G/SPS/GEN/397, G/SPS/GEN/398, G/SPS/GEN/399 
Solution: Panel established on 29 August 
 
93. The United States expressed concerns that th e EC proposals on traceability and labelling of 
agricultural biotechnology products had been notified only under th e TBT Agreement and not the SPS 
Agreement, although the proposals made it clear that they were intended to address unforeseen 
adverse effects to human and animal health.  Canada and the United States sought clarification as to whether the draft regulations covered food safety or human health.  Argentina noted that genetically 
modified food did not affect health, and that th e compulsory labelling required by the proposed EC 
regulation was not consistent with  the TBT Agreement.  Argentina sought clarification as to whether 
the labelling requirements extended to pharmaceuti cal products for human or animal use.   
94. The European Communities observed that requests to prolong the consultation period had 
been accepted and this period would run until the end of the year.  The main objective of the proposed 
regulations was to ensure that consumers were dul y informed of the products they bought.  Two other 
key issues were traceability and labelling. Th e labelling of pharmaceuticals containing GM 
ingredients was covered by different legislation.  The European Communities stated that discussions 
should continue in the TBT Committee.   
95. In March 2002, the United States noted that the EC measure notified as G/SPS/N/EEC/149, 
would require a lengthy food safety review for all bi otech foods, and for the fi rst time, biotech feeds, 
which would also need to be labelled.  Products al ready authorized for food or feed use within the 
European Union would have to be re-authorized wi thin nine years of their first placement on the 
market.  The stated objective of this regulation w as to protect health, environment and consumers and 
to prevent deceptive practices.  However, the propo sed regulation failed to distinguish the protection 
of health and the environment from perceived consum er desires.  The regulation would be more trade 
restrictive than necessary and could create substa ntial difficulties for countries which imported US 
agricultural products for processing and further expor t, without addressing the identified concerns and 
potential hazards.  The United States suggested that without affordable testing and enforcement, the 
proposed regulation left room for fraud, and the European Commission should examine the feasibility 
of implementing the regulation, and analyze its potential regulatory impact.  
96. The United States further noted that the new EU Food Authority (EFA) would undertake the 
risk assessments for biotech food and feed, and prov ide technical and scientific information.  But the 
European Commission could propose an outcome incons istent with the risk assessment or other safety 
and technical information considered by EFA.  This le ft room for political interference of the type that 
had led to the existing moratorium on the approval  of biotech products.  Furthermore, the EC 
legislation set a "no risk" level which could eff ectively block the regulatory process since no product 
could ever be guaranteed to have "no risk".   
97. Canada believed that these proposed regulations fell within the scope of the SPS Agreement, 
and the primary concern of Canada was that cert ain elements of these propo sals lacked the needed 
scientific basis.  Argentina supported the US and Ca nadian statements.  Israel expressed concern with 
the trend of Members' requiring traceability and mandatory labelling for biotech food and feed  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 25 
 
 
products, a requirement not based on scientific in formation, and hoped that  Members could find less 
trade restrictive measures to address their concerns.  Jordan supported the consideration of the safety 
of GM products on the basis of risk assessment as  provided in the SPS Agreement.  Requirements 
imposed on processed products would result in unjus tified costs that affected the competitiveness of 
products, and resulted in greater rest rictions on developing countries.   Egypt supported the statements 
of the United States and Jordan.  Singapore request ed the European Communities to take account of 
all the concerns raised to ensure that the implem entation of the regulations did not impose a disguised 
restriction on trade, particularly for countri es which processed and re-exported goods imported from 
the United States. 
98. Chinese Taipei stated that safet y assessment of all GM products should be based on scientific 
evidence to ensure that the prod ucts were as safe as their conventio nal counterparts.  Members should 
work together in particular to strengthen risk communication.  Chinese Taipei considered that an 
appropriate labelling scheme was necessary to respect  consumers' right to know and to choose, and 
had introduced voluntary labelling in January 2001.  Mandatory labelling would be applied in three 
phases starting in January 2003.  
99. The European Communities recalled that these re gulations had also been notified under the 
TBT Agreement, and that the TBT Committee had held  detailed discussions at the technical level the 
previous week.  The European Communities believed that a large part of these proposals fell within 
the scope of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement,  but had notified these measures also under the SPS 
Agreement because many Members had expressed inte rest in the SPS Committee.  The time-period to 
allow Members to submit comments also in response to the SPS notifications had been extended.  The 
comments received had been very similar to those received in response to the TBT notification, and 
the European Communities subsequently circulat ed its response to comments received about both 
notifications.   
100. The European Communities further reported that the draft regulation had been adopted by the 
EC College of Commissioners and sent to the EU  Parliament and the EC Council for their final 
decisions.  The comments received by the EC Co mmission, as well as the responses to these, would 
be provided to the EC member States, the EC C ouncil and Parliament.  It was unclear how long the 
process would take and when any decisions might be made.  The European Communities noted that 
the EFA would be a scientific body with responsibility  to do independent risk assessment;  its advice 
would be sent to the EC Commission and Council for the appropriate risk management decisions. This procedure was consistent with the Codex gui delines, since it was not appropriate for the risk 
assessment body to also make the risk management decisions. 
101. In April 2003, the United States recalled its previous criticisms that the EC biotechnology 
policies breached both EC laws and WTO rules.  By blocking imports on an unscientific basis, the 
European Communities was interfering with the use of safe food products that could stem global 
hunger, improve nutrition and benefit the environment.  Canada and Argentina echoed the concerns of 
the United States.  Australia stated it shared many  of the concerns raised by the United States and 
Canada with regard to the lack of science based decision-making.   
102. The European Communities reported that on 17 March 2003, the Council of Ministers 
adopted a common position on biotechnology approval,  labelling and traceability and the legislative 
proposals had now returned to the European Par liament for a second reading under the co-decision 
procedures.  The second reading should be concluded at the beginning of July 2003, which implied 
that the proposals should be adopted before th e end of 2003.  Once approved, the labelling and 
traceability proposals should make it possible for th e moratorium on biotechnology approvals to be 
lifted since EC member States had imposed the moratorium in the absence of a clear regulation on 
traceability and labelling.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 26  
 
103. The European Communities also indicated th at the biotechnology approval procedure 
envisaged in Directive 2001/18 was now operational and the EU Scientific Committee had given its 
opinion as to the procedure necessary to conduct a risk assessment.  The opinion was available on the 
internet.  Nineteen new or revised submissions had been received since the start of 2003 and the 
assessments had begun in accordance with the pr ovisions of the Directive.  The European 
Commission was awaiting comments from the Scientific Committee on the risk assessments.  The 
outcome of the risk assessments would depend on the quality and conformity of the scientific data 
being submitted to determine the effects of GM Os on human health and the environment.   
104. In June 2003, the United States, Canada and Ar gentina reported they had held consultations 
with the European Communities under the dispute settlement procedures on 19 June 2003, and were 
now considering further actions. 
102. European Communities - Directive 2000/42 on pesticide residues 
Raised by: Côte d'Ivoire 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 136-137) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
105. Côte d'Ivoire expressed concern regarding ne w EC maximum residue levels (MRLs) for 
pesticides in fruits and vegetables,  which would affect Côte d'Ivoire 's exports of pineapples, mangoes, 
papayas, cashew nuts, passion fruits and green beans.   Small farmers in Cô te d'Ivoire would be 
affected.  The MRLs did not seem to be consistent, or to be based on a pertinent risk assessment, for 
example in the case of Ethephon.  Technical questi ons posed in April 2001 through different channels 
had remained without answer.  Although technical as sistance for pineapple production was planned, it 
had not been carried out before the entry into for ce of the EC directive.  Côte d'Ivoire requested 
waivers from the EC directive.  Once the planned technical assistance had been carried out, adequate MRLs could be set with the collaboration of Code x.  The European Communities recalled that one 
year ago the Committee had been informed of an EC decision to delay for one year the application of 
a series of MRLs for ACP countries.  The year had now passed, and the directive was being 
implemented.  Special and differential treatment  had not solved the problem.  For discontinued 
substances, the MRLs were set at detection levels ; this was international practice.  The European 
Communities would consider Côte d'Ivoire's request. 
103. European Communities - Legislation on the fungicide thiabendazole (TBZ) 
Raised by: Israel 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 128-129) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
106. Israel was concerned that legislation being cons idered by the European Parliament would ban 
fungicide residues in fruit juices, although they were considered safe according to Codex standards.  
Israel saw no scientific justification for banning th e use of these fungicides, and believed this would 
create unnecessary trade barriers.  Israel had rai sed both with the European Communities and with 
Germany a problem regarding German law which restricted residues of TBZ and Imazalil in citrus juices to such low levels that in effect this constitu ted a ban.  Israel requested a clarification regarding 
the EC position on the European Parliament initiativ e.  The European Communities explained that the 
European Parliament could introduce amendments to  Commission proposals, and that Israel would be 
kept informed of the situation.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 27 
 
 
104. European Communities - Import restrictions on soy sauce 
Raised by: Thailand on behalf of ASEAN 
Supported by: Korea 
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  36-39), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 11-
14), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, pa ra. 106), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, 
paras. 134-136),  June 2002  (G/SPS/R/27, para. 132) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/100 
Solution: Not reported 
 
107. In March 2001, Thailand, on behalf of ASEAN, raised concerns with an EC regulation which 
set new maximum levels for lead, cadmium, merc ury and 3-MPCD in foodstuffs.  ASEAN believed 
that the EC maximum level of 3-MCPD in soy sauce was too low to be practicable, and constituted an 
unnecessary barrier to trade.  ASEAN asked the European Communities to provide technical 
information in order to reach a mutually satisfactor y solution.  Korea asked to be informed about the 
outcome of bilateral consultations between the Eu ropean Communities and Thailand.  The European 
Communities stated that several of its member States  had detected high levels of 3-MCPD in samples 
of soy sauce.  Recent toxicological studies had i ndicated that the substance acted as a non-genotoxic 
carcinogen in vivo .  The European Communities believed th at maximum levels should be set to 
encourage good manufacturing practices and to prot ect the health of consumers.  A proposed 
Commission Regulation set such limits, and was cu rrently under examination.  Thailand had been 
informed of the 3-MCPD levels reported in so y sauce from one manufacturer, but had not responded. 
108. In July 2001, the European  Communities informed the Co mmittee that the Scientific 
Committee of Food had recently revised its opini on on 3-MCPD in light of new toxicological 
information, concluding that 3-MCPD was not genot oxic in humans.  A tolerable daily intake had 
been set at 2 µg per kg of body weight.  A maximu m level for 3-MCPD, to take effect in April 2002, 
had been set at 0.02 mg/kg for both hydrolized vegetable protein and soy sauce.  However, in light of the new scientific opinion, the European Communitie s would consider whether the current maximum 
level remained appropriate.  The United States i ndicated that the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee 
on Food Additives (JECFA) had re-evaluated the safe ty of chlorinated propanols, and concluded that 
a person should not consume more than 120 mg/day of these contaminants.  The Codex representative 
added that the need to establish maximum levels for these contaminants would be considered by 
JECFA in March 2002. 
109. In October 2001, Thailand indicated that it had taken measures to establish maximum 3-
MCPD limits and to modify production processes to  lower rates of contamination; its industry 
expected to be able to meet a 1 mg/kg limit with in one year.  JECFA had set a provisional maximum 
daily threshold level at 2 micrograms/kg of body wei ght per day.  Based on this limit for a person of 
50 kg bodyweight, a safe daily consumption of up to 10 g should be allowable.   However, Thailand 
noted that the limits applied by Members differed widely. 
110. In March 2002, the European Communities repor ted that the Scientific Committee had re-
evaluated the potential toxicity of 3-MCPD, and ha d concluded that the risks were not as high as 
initially believed.  A full evaluation of the toxi city of 3-MCPD was underway, pending receipt of 
additional information; in particular regarding ex posure levels.  The results of this study were 
expected for July 2002, at which time the EC require ment would be re-examined in light of the results 
of this study as well as of the JECFA review.   
111. The representative of Codex noted that the Codex Committee on Food Additives had the 
previous week discussed the subject of chloropropan ols, substances which could occur in hydrolized 
vegetable proteins and soy sauces.  JECFA had determ ined that the level of chloropropanols could be 
controlled if the levels of 3-MCPD were limited, and had developed recommende d daily intake levels.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 28  
 
On this basis, the Food Additiv es committee was proceeding to develop maximum residue levels for 
3-MCPD for commodities of major trade interest. 
112. In June 2002, the European Communities confir med that 3-MCPD had been re-evaluated and 
found to be carcinogenic but not genotoxic, so the ALARA ("as low as reasonably achieveable") principle would no longer be applied.  However, the European Communities was seeking the 
necessary information . on exposure of consumers to 3-MCPD and other chloropropanols so that the 
Scientific Committee could undertake a risk assessment. 
105. European Communities - Information on dioxin 
Raised by: None, information provided by the European Communities. 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, par as. 17-22), March 2000 (G/SPS/R/18, para. 19), 
June 2000 (G/SPS/R/19, para. 9) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/123 and Add.1-4 
Solution: Not reported 
113. In July 1999, the European Communities provided information on the dioxin contamination 
which had occurred in Belgium in January 1999, an d on the steps it had taken to manage the health 
risks.  Many countries had responded by imposing trade restrictions.  The European Communities 
stressed that there was no longer any justification for maintaining import bans, regretting that several 
countries had not notified their bans.  The Europ ean Communities reserved its right to take action 
with regard to unjustified trade barriers. 
114. Malaysia expressed disappointment to be receiving in formation at such a late stage.  It would 
only be in a position to lift its import ban when it was fully satisfied that there was no more danger 
from EC products.  Australia, Canada, Chile, Brazi l, South Africa and the United States appreciated 
the information provided by the European Commun ities throughout the dioxin crisis.  Australia and 
the United States had notified any ac tion taken with respect to diox in.  Canada had banned Belgian 
imports, but was reviewing the products and areas cove red by the ban.  The Philippines indicated that 
its measures had taken into account the EC meas ures regarding dioxin, and were being reassessed. 
115. The WHO noted that it had convened an expert c onsultation in 1998 to evaluate the tolerable 
daily dose of dioxin to which humans could be exposed  without harm.  Codex reported that at the July 
1999 meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Co mmission, countries had requested that an 
intergovernmental group prepare a code of prac tice on animal feed.  The European Communities 
added that it had established a working group w ithin its Standing Committee on Animal Nutrition 
which was examining legislation regarding an imal nutrition to prevent future accidents. 
116. In March 2000, the European Communities provided an update on the dioxin situation.  While 
some Members had adjusted their trade measures as th e situation evolved, othe rs continued to apply 
unnecessarily strict measures.  The European Comm unities looked forward to receiving answers to 
the questions it had raised in G/SPS/GEN/123/Add.3. 
117. In June 2000, the European Communities explaine d that all previously restricted products 
could be circulated and exported without any addi tional certification.  While there was a general 
acceptance by Members that EC and Belgian produc ts no longer represented a health risk, some 
Members had neither lifted their measures nor respon ded to a January 2000 letter requesting that they 
remove them.  The European Communities repeated that it reserved its right to take any necessary 
action with regard to unjustified trade barriers.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 29 
 
 
106. European Communities - Measures on food treated with ionizing radiation 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, par as. 37-38), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 
127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/61, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Not reported 
 118. In September 1998, the United States sought cl arification on the EC measure on food and 
food ingredients treated with ionizing radiation.  The United States was taking similar steps towards 
recognizing that this technology could play a role in ensuring the wholesomeness and safety of food, and had sent official comments to the European  Communities.  However, the United States 
emphasized that the list of products provided in an  annex to the EC directive should be expanded to 
cover other food products such as pork, beef, poultry,  fruits and vegetables.  The United States also 
requested explanation of how the approval process for treatment facilities worked.  The European 
Communities indicated that the US suggestions w ould be forwarded to the competent EC services. 
119. In a document introduced in July 2001, the United States reported that two EC directives on 
food irradiation had been adopted in 1999 (G/SPS/G EN/265).  So far, only dried aromatic herbs, 
spices and vegetable seasonings had been included in  the positive list.  One of the directives required 
that the Commission draft a proposal by 31 December 2000.  The Commission had published a consultation paper, describing a possible strategy for expanding the positive list.  After considering 
comments, the Commission would submit the paper to  the Council and the European Parliament.  The 
United Stated had sent comments on the consultation pa per in January 2001, requesting that all foods 
which received a favourable opinion from the Scie ntific Committee for Food be included in the 
positive list.  The United States had also requested  information on how additional foods could be 
added to the positive list. 
107. European Communities - Measure on establishmen ts operating in the animal feed sector  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Argentina 
Dates raised: June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras.  50-56), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 
35-36), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/58, G/SPS/GEN/88, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Not reported 
 
120. In June 1998, the United States raised its concer ns with regard to an  EC measure which set 
conditions and arrangements for approving and registering establis hments and intermediaries 
operating in the animal feed sector.  The United St ates sought clarification regarding criteria used, 
justification and coverage of the measure and the procedures  involve d, and asked for an update on its 
implementation status. 
121. The European Communities replied that it was putting in place the legislative framework for 
the establishment of a single market in regard to  animal, plant and cons umer health.  It was 
establishing harmonized standards so that products c ould circulate freely within the Community.  The 
European Communities provided an explanation of  the criteria used and risks addressed by the 
framework, and clarified that it applied only to feedi ngstuffs for farm animals, not to pet food.  The 
European Communities clarified that by the e nd of 1998, EC member States must provide the 
Commission with a list of establishments considered  eligible, which could be modified later on.  
Establishments would be inspected by the EC Commission.  The European  Communities considered G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 30  
 
its registration requirements to be flexible and not  very onerous.  Argentina requested a written copy 
of the EC statement. 
122. In September 1998, the United States reported it was encouraged by the EC willingness to 
consult on this draft directive with a view to safe guarding public and animal health while minimizing 
trade disruptions.  The European Communities noted that the new regime was similar to the previous 
one, but was more flexible in that on-the-spot inspection in third countries was optional.  The 
European Communities assured the United States that  prompt answers would be provided to all 
questions raised. 
123. In July 2001, the United States reported that it did not require or support registration of 
animal feed establishments and considered the issue to still be unresolved (G/SPS/GEN/265). 
108. European Communities – Restrictions on the importation of fruits and fruit juices 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by: Argentina, Bolivia, China, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Uruguay  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, pa ras. 28-31), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, para. 
211), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/ 30, paras. 164-165) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/355, G/SPS/N/EEC/160 
Solution: Not reported 
 
124. Brazil raised concerns regarding the Eur opean Communities Directive 2002/71/CE, published 
on 19 August 2002, which established new maximum le vels for dimethoate residues in and on cereals, 
foodstuffs of animal origin and cer tain products of plant origin, incl uding fruit and vegetables.  Brazil 
noted that the EC directive would have the effect  of banning Brazilian orange juice from the European 
market and requested the European Communities to  review the directive, taking into account all 
scientific information available.  Bilateral discussi ons held on the previous day had been fruitful and 
Brazil requested a copy of the EC's scientific studies as soon as possible.  Brazil noted that the issue of MRLs for dimethoate would be reconsidered by Codex at its m eeting in June 2003, and requested 
the European Communities to suspend the implem entation of this directive pending to a full 
assessment of the situation.  Brazil also request ed the European Communities not to apply the same 
approach in the re-evaluation of 320 active substa nces that was now underway.  Argentina, Bolivia, 
Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and Urugua y supported the arguments made by Brazil, in 
particular, the need for scientific justificati on for maximum residue levels (MRLs), and expressed 
concern regarding the implications for developing country exports.  
125. The European Communities stated that the document put forwar d by Brazil had not yet been 
discussed in Brussels.  Dimethoate was already under evaluation by the European Communities and 
was one of the several hundred plant protection produ cts which was being reas sessed for its safety to 
the environment, animal and public health.  The de cision to establish a limit of analytical detection 
had not been lightly taken, but the scientific evid ence suggested that the existing MRL was inadequate 
to provide for an appropriate level of health pr otection.  A number of years ago a recommendation 
had been made to the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues to withdraw the MRL for dimethoate.  
Under the circumstances the European Communi ties had considered it necessary to adopt this 
measure, although this was not a popular decision b ecause this substance was used by a range of EC 
growers of citrus and other fruit products, and they  were being obliged to withdraw its use.  The 
measure had been notified (G/SPS/N/EEC/160) and th at comments had been received and taken into 
account from a number of countries, including Brazil.  The fears expressed by several countries over 
the impact of the ongoing evaluation of a range of  other active substances would be communicated to 
the appropriate authorities.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 31 
 
 
126. In April 2003, Brazil stated that it looked forw ard to a receiving a copy of the EC scientific 
studies that would serve as the basis for the new European regulation setting MRLs for dimethoate. 
127. In June 2003, Brazil noted that a shipment of  Brazilian apples had been rejected in Sweden 
and that this was one example of how it would be a ffected by the new MRLs.  The burden of proof for 
justification of the new measures was on the European Communities and its present approach was not 
in accordance with the principles for special and di fferential treatment.  China supported the concerns 
of Brazil.  The European Communities stated that bilateral consultations had been held with Brazil 
and hoped that the problem would be resolved soon.  The underlying problem was that many 
pesticides and chemical products which were in us e had never been properly evaluated.  Where no 
toxicological data existed, the European Communiti es would use the level of detection.  For products 
for which data was provided, the European Comm unities would proceed to establish an appropriate 
maximum residue level. 
109. European Communities (Belgium) - Measures regarding canned tuna in oil 
Raised by: Philippines 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, paras. 87-88), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, 
para. 44)  
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 128. The Philippines expressed concern regarding a Belgian decision to withdraw from sale 
Philippine canned tuna in oil based  on allegations of contaminatio n with biphenol-A-diglycydyl and 
biphenol-F-diglycydyl.  The European Communities responded that some products had to be  
withdrawn  from sale and offered to pursue the matte r on a bilateral basis with the Philippines.  In 
bilateral discussions, Belgium transmitted, for consid eration by the Philippines, information that in 
Belgium's view provided a basis for its action to withdraw the subject products from sale.  The Philippines reiterated its objection to this action, which it considered was taken without sufficient 
legal basis. 
110. European Communities (Spain) – Restrictio n on levels of copper and cadmium in 
imported squid 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Argentina 
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, par as. 16-17), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 56), 
July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: In July 2001, the United States indicated that it was not experiencing any 
problems, and was continuing to monitor the situation. 
 129. In October 1996, the United States noted that the Spanish regulation on levels of copper and 
other minerals in imported squid was discrim inatory since domestic and EC products were 
specifically exempted.  The European Communities replied that the scientific justification for 
imposing such a measure came from a WHO recommenda tion on maximum weekly intakes of metal.  
Harmonization of the permitted levels of various  metals across the European Communities was 
currently being discussed in Brussels.  Argen tina observed that the problem was not one of 
harmonization, but of national treatment. 
130. In March 1997, the United States recalled the di scriminatory nature of the measure.  The 
European Communities explained that although the norm only referred to third countries, in practice it G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 32  
 
was recognized by EC member States as well.  In addition, the majority of squid imported into Spain 
came from outside the European Communities.  Sin ce Spain had a particularly high consumption of 
the products in question, this had to be taken into account in addition to WHO recommendations.   
131. In July 2001, the United States reported that it was not experiencing any problems in the area 
and was continuing to monitor the situation (G/SPS/GEN/265). 
111. European Communities – Maximum levels for aflatoxins in corn and sampling 
contaminants in food 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras.  32-33, October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 
52-53) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
132. Argentina reported that consultations between its authorities and the European Communities 
had taken place on 2 July concerning EC Regulati on 257/02 which imposed new maximum levels for 
aflatoxins in maize.  Argentina considered th e new measures to be scientifically unfounded and 
requested the European Communities to consider less  trade restrictive measures and the possibility of 
special and differential treatment.  The European  Communities noted that there were considerable 
health problems with aflatoxins and the difficultie s of establishing an appropriate limit.  The new 
regulation would be notified to the Committee before  it was applied and interested trading partners 
would have the opportunity to present their concerns  and objections.  In response to a question from 
Egypt, the European Communities clarified that  the new measure would apply only to maize. 
133. In October 2003, Argentina stated that the MRL for aflatoxin depended on the intended use of 
products and the levels were not consistent w ith international recommendations nor based on 
scientific evidence.  However, the new regulation modi fied the MRL for corn and was less restrictive.  
Argentina requested a review of the sampling levels  along with the scientific justification to support 
the measure.  The European Comm unities stated that it had conducted  scientific research to support 
the MRLs adopted for corn and that the levels c ould be met through good agriculture practice.  The 
MRL for corn was established to protect consumer health. 
112. European Communities – Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/191 and Add.1 on food and feed 
controls 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada 
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 39-41) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/191 and Add.1 
Solution: Not reported 
 
134. The United States stated that the notified me asure would establish an extensive series of 
official controls on feed and food to be implemente d by 1 January 2005.  EC member States' control 
systems would be harmonized, integrating specific c ontrols at all stages of production in all food and 
feed sectors.  "Control plans" from exporting count ries would have to be submitted annually to the 
European Communities.  All exporting countries  would have to demonstrate compliance or 
equivalence to the EC food safety measures for all products to be expor ted as a precondition for 
market access.  Control plans required informati on on all legislation, organization of competent  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 33 
 
 
authorities, training of staff, resources available and assurance of equivalence of domestic safety measures.  While the United States agreed this appr oach was appropriate for high risk products such 
as meat and poultry, it felt that this level of risk management was not appropriate for other types of 
food for which any identified risks were generally quite low. 
135. Canada shared the concerns raised by the United States and noted that it had recently 
submitted comments to the European Communities.  Ca nada sought more information  regarding the 
requirements for non-EC countries. 
136.  The European Communities explained that the regulation should facilitate conformity of 
imported food with EC health standards and pr inciples for checking food stuffs.  Written comments 
received by the 27 July 2003 deadline would be cons idered by the EC Enquiry Point and Council of 
Ministers.  As for the control plans, much of the requested information was already available on 
internet sites, i.e., USDA and FDA.  The regul ation, which was based on Codex recommendations, 
would facilitate trade through more transparency and the exchange of information on controls or 
checks for third countries.   
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to TSEs 
 
113. European Communities – Transitional TSE measures  
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 5-8) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
137. Canada expressed concern about loss of access to the EC markets for pet food, live bovine 
animals, embryos, ova and tallow in the wake of the adoption of transitional TSE measures by the European Communities.  Canada stated that the EC  regulations classified countries according to four 
levels of risk, but applied only two levels of risk  management.  According to the OIE criteria, Canada 
was BSE-free, yet Canadian exports faced identical tr ade restrictions to EC member States in which 
BSE was prevalent.  These problems would be comp ounded by EC animal waste regulations due next 
year which threatened to prohibit the few remaini ng animal products that Ca nada could still export to 
the European Communities.  Canada requested to be removed from the scope of application of these 
measures.  The United States agreed that the Eur opean Communities was applying stringent measures 
to countries that were either not affected by BSE, or which had significantly different risk factors.  
This approach lacked scientific justification and ran counter to international standards.  The European 
Communities explained that the transitional measur es laid down import conditions for products of 
bovine, ovine and caprine origin, and would be exte nded to cover certification of other products of 
animal origin.  Pet food was included to protect  consumers' health. An exemption was made for 
countries classified in category one (presence of BSE unlikely), but neither Canada nor the United 
States were in this category.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 34  
 
114. European Communities – Geographical BSE risk assessment  
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 22-26) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  Not reported 
 
138. Canada requested information on the EC geogr aphical BSE risk assessment (GBR) process, 
the consistency of its application and how assessme nts could be reviewed when risks changed.  
Canada noted that the OIE was developing a system to verify countries' own assessments of their BSE status, and wondered how it would rela te to the EC system.  The United States was concerned that the 
European Communities was applying  similarly stringent measures to countries with significantly 
different risk factors, a practice which lacked sci entific justification and ran counter to existing 
international standards.  It was not entirely transparent how country classifications would be 
determined nor what requirements would be a pplied in the meantime.  The United States had 
submitted detailed comments identifying a number of problems with the methodology and with the 
information related to the United States.  The Unite d States urged countries to take the OIE standard 
into account when developing their BSE measures.  The OIE representative clarified that the OIE 
would deal only with recognition of BSE freedom, not with the other four categories contained in the 
International Animal Health Code (G/SPS/ GEN/266).  The Commission on FMD and other 
Epizootics had received the mandate to develop gui delines to help member countries carry out their 
risk assessment, taking into account th e experience from GBR assessments. 
139. The European Communities explained that GBRs were based on information provided by 
trading partners in a 1998 questionnaire.  The GBR methodology had been established by the EC 
Scientific Steering Committee.  The new EC B SE-TSE measure was in conformity with the OIE 
Code, but the GBR pre-dated the current OIE Code .  Any new scientific evidence could be submitted 
to the Commission and a re-evaluation of a GBR would be considered once additional stability 
measures had been implemented, allowing three to five years to take into account the incubation 
period of BSE.  The EC representative explained the stability factors that were taken into 
consideration; these were considered on a case-by- case basis.  The European  Communities considered 
that the GBR reflected the international standard , and was willing to cooperate with Members and 
provide information.  Knowledge about this disease should be shared to minimize trade effects where 
possible. 
115. European Communities – Cosmetics and  BSE 
Raised by: Australia 
Supported by: Brazil, United States, Chile 
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras. 61-62), July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, paras. 22-24) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/20, G/SPS/N/EEC/43 
Solution: Not reported 
 
140. Australia expressed concern regarding an EC me asure specifying that cosmetics containing 
certain bovine, ovine and caprine tissues etc. should not be placed on the market.  This directive did 
not recognize the animal health status of supplyi ng countries.  The European Communities stressed 
that since BSE surveillance was still under developm ent and since detection was difficult, there was 
considerable uncertainty surrounding the global prevalence of BSE.  All comments received by the deadline would be taken into account, and the regula tion would enter into force on 1 July 1997.  In 
July 1998, the United States stressed  that the measure would reduce or eliminate US exports of tallow 
derivatives, soaps and cosmetics.  The European  Communities clarified that in light of WHO 
recommendations, measures had to be taken to redu ce the risk of transmission of TSEs to humans  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 35 
 
 
through the food or feed chain, pharmaceuticals or cosmetics.  Regarding BSE-freedom, the European 
Communities was not prepared to recognize any country as BSE-free, taking into account the difficulties of certifying such a status. 
116. European Communities – Rules on "specified risk  materials" in products of animal origin 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Argentina, Australia, Brazil,  Canada, Chile, Colombia, Czech Republic, 
Mexico, New Zealand, Uruguay, Switzerland 
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev. 1, paras. 10-14), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, 
paras. 13-19), June 1998 (G/SPS/R /11, paras. 34-38), July 2001 
(G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/36, G/SPS/GEN/45, G/SPS/GEN/67, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Not reported 
 141. In October 1997, the United States raised concerns with Decision 97/534 EC banning the use 
of certain specified risk materials, which might cause international shortages of needed medical 
products and have a major restrictive impact on trade in tallow and derivatives, gelatine, 
pharmaceuticals and many food products.  This ban se emed to be more restrictive than necessary to 
achieve its public health objectives, especially as it applied to the United States and other regions 
where BSE was not known to exist.  The European Communities indicated that since scientific studies 
had shown that its previous measures might not be su fficient, it had raised its level of protection.  
Members who considered themselves to present no risk with regard to TSEs could present an 
application for examination by the EC Scientific Committee.  Argentina indicated that in its view, 
measures which failed to distinguish between countri es infected with BSE and countries not infected 
were contrary to the OIE recommendations and the SPS Agreement.  He distributed copies of a BSE 
risk analysis.
2 
142. In March 1998, the United States reiterated that the European Communities should recognize 
the BSE-free status of the United States and other regions.  Several delegations welcomed the EC 
decision to provide additional time to review al l the scientific evidence and other important 
implications of the proposed measure and provide d comments.  The European Communities clarified 
that entry into force of its measure had been post poned from 1 April to 1 July 1998, and that BSE-free 
countries could apply for an additiona l derogation until 1 January 1999. 
143. In June 1998, the European Communities reporte d that EC member States were still unable to 
reach a common position on the issue, and that the EC  Decision would therefore not enter into force 
until 1 January 1999.  In the meantime, member Stat es had introduced a number of measures.  The EC 
Commission was also submitting new legislati on for approval, taking into account the OIE 
classification of countries with respect to BSE. 
144. In July 2001, the United States indicated that the EC legislation on specified risk materials 
had entered into force for third countries on 1 April 2001 (G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United States 
encouraged the European Comm unities to ensure that its measures took account of the disease 
situation in countries where BSE did not occur, such as the United States. 
                                                      
2 Argentine Scientific Advisory Committee on Bovine Sp ongiform Encephalopathy (1st Meeting), April 7-8-9-10, 
1997, Buenos Aires, Argentina, "Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Alimentación".  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 36  
 
117. European Communities – Gelatin imports  
Raised by: Brazil, United States 
Supported by: Argentina, Australia, Chile, Mexico, Thailand, United States 
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev. 1, paras. 8-9), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, 
para. 16), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/ 12, paras. 22-23), November 1998 
(G/SPS/R/13, para. 19), July 1999 (G /SPS/R/15, paras. 9-11), November 
1999 (G/SPS/R/17, paras. 6-7), Marc h 2000 (G/SPS/R/18, paras. 21-22), 
March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 95-96), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 52-
53), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 34) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/133, G/SPS/N/EEC/74 
Solution: In October 2001, Brazil reported that the European Communities had lifted 
its restrictions in June 2001.  US concern ongoing. 
 145. In October 1997, Brazil indicated that its gela tin exports had been negatively affected by 
French requirements for specific production methods , which in Brazil's view lacked scientific 
justification.  Where BSE had been diagnosed, raw materials for gelatin were considered low risk 
products.  In addition, there had never been a cas e of BSE in Brazil.  Th e European Communities 
responded that the French decision had been taken in the expectation of EC provisions which would 
introduce conditions related to microbiological an d chemical criteria, and minimum requirements 
related to BSE.  The OIE Code required certain prov isions which in the EC view Brazil did not fulfill, 
and Brazil had not presented an application to the European Communities to request recognition of its 
TSE-free status. 
146. Brazil reiterated its concerns in March 1998, and indicated that an EC questionnaire on 
animal feeding in Brazil would soon be officially pr ovided to the EC authorities.  In September 1998, 
Brazil reported that despite numerous bilateral ta lks, no progress had been made.  The European 
Communities noted that the origin of the problem wa s that Brazil considered itself as BSE-free, while 
in the EC view no country could be designated as B SE-free.  Both countries agreed that there had 
been some misunderstandings and were willing to  resolve them through further contacts.  In 
November 1998, Brazil welcomed a new French decision which took into account some of the 
Brazilian comments, and urged France to implement these new requirements as soon as possible. 
147. In July 1999, Brazil acknowledged the EC notifi cation on the matter, but remained concerned 
as its gelatin exports were still interrupted.  The proposed EC legislation, which was not based on a 
risk assessment, would severely impact the ability of  non-European countries to supply gelatin to the 
EC market.  Brazil asked that the European Communities accept other countries' measures as 
equivalent.  The European Communities explaine d its new measure, and invited all Members to 
comment in writing.  In November 1999, both Members reported that they had decided to pursue the matter bilaterally.  In March 2000, Brazil a nd the European Comm unities made a joint 
communication announcing that cons tructive consultations had taken place, and that the European 
Communities would evaluate the relevant documentation provided by Brazil. 
148. In March 2001, the United States indicated that  since May 2000, EC and US authorities had 
been discussing the continuation of US gelatin sh ipments based on the equi valence of US and EC 
safety systems.  Despite continuing efforts of US  regulatory authorities and industry, the European 
Communities had not agreed to accept equivale nce based on export certificates issued by US 
authorities.  As a result, there had been no expor ts of US food grade gelatin to the European 
Communities since June 2000.  The United States appreci ated EC efforts to review information, and 
urged the Commission to accept the equivalence of  US certificates.  The European Communities 
stated that both sides had a clear idea of the problems involved, which were primarily of a judicial nature.  The European Communities was proposing flex ible solutions which both parties might find 
acceptable.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 37 
 
 
149. In July 2001, the United States reported that d espite ongoing efforts, US shipments of gelatin 
had been discontinued since June 2000 because the European Communities had not agreed to accept 
equivalence-based export certificates.  The United States had demonstrated that US gelatin food 
safety systems met the EC appropriate level of prot ection.  The European Communities clarified that 
US gelatin was not prohibited, but that negotiati ons were underway on a specific certificate for the 
United States.  The equivalence of the US prod uction system had been established on all but two 
points, where compliance with additional requirement s must be certified.  Since December 2000, the 
only pending question was that FDA, as a matter of policy, did not certify compliance with foreign rules, while the European Communities required certification by a competent authority.   
150. In October 2001, Brazil reported that intense bilateral consultations on Brazilian processing 
methods and controls had resulted in the European  Communities lifting its restrictions as of 13 June 
2001. 
118. European Communities (France) – Certification requirements for pet food 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Chile 
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras. 7-8), July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, paras. 20-21), 
July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/18, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Not reported 
 151. In March 1997, the United States expressed conc ern with regard to French certification 
requirements adopted under national legislation whic h blocked US exports of pet food and had not 
been notified to WTO.  Bilateral exchanges with  France had produced no progress.  The European 
Communities regretted that their internal procedur e for notification of national measures had delayed 
notification of the French measure in question.  The measure had been based on discussions and 
recommendations at the EC Commission level, r ecommendations by the WHO, as well as parallel 
scientific discussions in the United Kingdom and France. 
152. In July 1997, the United States again raised c oncerns with the French measure for protection 
from TSEs.  The measure did not account for the fact  that the United States was BSE-free, and did not 
seem to have a scientific basis.  Furthermore, the measure applied to species not affected by TSEs, 
such as poultry and fish.  Chile expressed concern re garding the effect the regulation might have on 
trade in fishmeal.  The European Communities point ed out a few inaccuracies in the US document, 
and noted that the provisions banning the use of  frozen animals or animal cadavers were not 
necessarily addressing health issues, but image and qua lity, and were therefore not strictly relevant 
under the SPS Agreement.  Discussion of the matter  continued within the European Communities. 
153. In July 2001, the United States reported that its exports continued to be hampered by French 
certification requirements, which differed from those applied by other EC member States 
(G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United States questioned the scientific foundation for excluding animal meat or bone meal from pet food produced in countries where BSE does not occur. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 38  
 
119. European Communities  - Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/192 on transitional BSE measures 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 97-98)) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/192 
Solution: Not reported 
 
154. The United States noted that according to Re gulation 999/2001, th e categorization of 
countries with regard to risk of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) would be made 
within six months of submission of the informatio n.  Although, the newly notified measure extended 
the transitional measure until 30 June 2005, th e United States was concerned whether this was 
sufficient time for the European Co mmunities to complete the classifications.  There was no scientific 
justification for applying BSE-related rest rictions on products from the United States. 
155. The European Communities explained that th e notification concerned an amendment to 
Article 23 of EC Regulation 999/2001 establishing rules for the eradication, prevention and control of certain TSEs.  It included BSE and all TSEs.  The amendment extended transitional measures 
established under Article 23 of this regulation.  Th e regulation provided rules to determine the BSE 
status of particular countries which conditioned th e application of measures covering the import of 
certain animals and animal products.  Until the stat us determination was made , transitional measures 
were applied and were to remain in force until 30 J une 2003.  An assessment of the cases began at the 
end of 2001.  However, modification of the categor ization criteria was necessary to obtain a status 
reflecting actual risk.  These criteria were taken from the international code of OIE but it appeared that the OIE was not ready to propose a list of BSE-free countries.  Likewise, in the European 
Communities, scientific risk assessments for all countri es were not yet finished, and the EC Scientific 
Committee had adopted opinions for only around one- third of countries asking for a determination of 
their status.  Therefore, the transitional measures were being prolonged by two years until 1 July 2005.  The European Commission would use this period to advance the work in the OIE on 
determining the BSE and TSE status of countries and complete the scientific risk assessments.  The 
European Communities was examini ng the substantial documentation submitted by the United States 
in January 2003, and would report to  the United States on the results of  the risk assessment as soon as 
possible. 
Concerns related to FMD 
120. European Communities – EC Directive 2001/661/EC on foot and mouth disease 
Raised by: South Africa 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 38-39) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/373 
Solution: Not reported 
 
156. South Africa stated that its concerns were detailed in G/SPS/GEN/373.  South Africa and 
Namibia are identified as zones free from FMD without vaccination by the OIE.  EC Directive 
2001/661 recognized the free-zone status, allowing the import of fresh meat from South Africa except 
for areas within the FMD control zone of Sout h Africa.  However, Directive 2001/661 required 
supplementary guarantees for the export of ovine and caprine meat from the FMD free zones without vaccination and was inconsistent w ith Article 2.1.120 of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code of the  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 39 
 
 
OIE.  Article 2.1.2.20 does not require the deboning of meat if the meat originates from FMD free countries or zones where vaccination is not practiced. 
157. The European Communities explained that C ouncil Directive 72/462 differentiated between 
various types of FMD.  The Directive provided that  the import of fresh meat from regions which were 
FMD free without vaccination but where vaccination ag ainst SAT or Asiat 1 viruses was practiced in 
another region of the country could only be aut horized under certain conditions.  One of the 
conditions was that the meat be mature, de-bone d, with lymph nodes removed and that importation 
take place only three weeks after slaughter.  Thes e conditions applied to South Africa due to the 
presence of SAT in a part of South Africa even thoug h certain areas were officially FMD-free without 
vaccination.  The EC legislation, dating fro m 1972, was to be updated as SAT was no longer 
considered differently from other virus strains.  This  would occur with the entry into force of Council 
Directive 99/2002 on 1 January 2005. However, the European Communities was concerned that there 
had been four outbreaks of FMD in Namibia orig inating from Zimbabwe, where there were hundreds 
of cases.  In these circumstances, it was prudent to authorize only the importation of de-boned, mature meat.  Once the new Directive was in force, the European Communities would review its measure in 
light of the FMD situation in South Africa and its neighbouring countries. 
Other Animal Health Concerns  
121. European Communities - Ban on antibiotics in feed 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, Canada 
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, paras. 26-29) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
158. The United States noted the failure of the Eu ropean Communities to notify the ban on four 
antibiotics used in animal feed  to enhance production that had been adopted in December 1998.  
Canada and Australia shared the US concern, a nd Canada requested to be informed when the 
European Communities reviewed its  measure, which it understood to be provisional.  The European 
Communities replied that this was an interim prot ective measure which would be re-examined before 
the end of December 2000.  The resu lts of the re-examination would be  shared with Members, as well 
as published electronically.  The measure had not been notified because it did not contain any provision applicable to imports, and therefore had no effect on trade.   
122. European Communities – Salmonella-related restriction on fishmeal imports 
Raised by: Chile and Peru 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, paras. 48-50) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
159. Chile and Peru sought clarification regarding th e EC directive governing exports of fishmeal, 
which was not applied to substitutes to fishmeal .  These substitutes could also potentially be 
contaminated with salmonella, as had been confirmed by recent research carried out in the United 
Kingdom.  The European Communities indicated that  the directive was justified on the basis of 
available scientific information, although worki ng groups were considering whether similar criteria 
should be applied to feedingstuffs of vegetable orig in.  Some EC member States had introduced heat 
treatment requirements, although others had fo und that there were not sufficient grounds for 
introducing such criteria. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 40  
 
160. Chile also raised concerns with unilateral im port prohibitions by France and Italy affecting 
fishmeal for feeding ruminants, including mixtur es with bone meal, with the alleged objective of 
preventing risk arising from contamination.  The European Communities answer ed that it needed to 
effectively enforce its mammalian protein feed ban to ruminants, but was facing practical difficulties in segregating the origins of various raw materi als, including fish.  The European Communities 
indicated it would examine the issue together with the two member States involved. 
123. European Communities – Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/190 on live animals and animal 
products 
Raised by: Australia 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 68-69) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/190 
Solution: Not reported 
 
161. Australia stated that the notified measure would affect its alpaca exports to EC member States 
although Australia had been free from blue tongue for more than a decade, as recognized by many 
countries.  Australia had submitted scientific evidence to the European  Communities on several 
occasions and requested an update on this issue. 
162. The European Communities clarified that th e new notification was not due to a new 
regulation but merely a result of a simplification ex ercise which did not address Australia's situation.  
The European Communities indicat ed that it would respond to Australia's request directly. 
124. European Communities – Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/198 on animal health conditions and 
certification requirements for live fish 
Raised by: Australia 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 70-71) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/198 
Solution: Not reported 
 
163. Australia indicated that this new measure could affect its carp exports to EC member States.  
The United Kingdom had rejected live fish from Austra lia due to concerns about the existence of an 
unknown carrier state.  Australia had suggested prior disinfection as a possible solution and had requested the risk assessment on which the measur e was based, but received no response.  This 
requirement was not in line with OIE standards. 
164. The European Communities replied that the tim e period for replying to comments had not yet 
expired.  The European Communities believed that  the measures could be considered standard 
measures and that no risk assessme nt was necessary, although it was prepared to discuss the issue 
bilaterally with interested trading partners.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 41 
 
 
Plant Health 
125. European Communities - Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/131 regarding cut flowers 
Raised by: Ecuador, Israel 
Supported by: Kenya 
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, pa ras. 45-48), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
para. 179), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 94-96) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/131, G/SPS/GEN/278 
Solution: Not reported 
 165. Ecuador indicated that it had submitted a list of  questions regarding the scientific grounds for 
the EC measure on cut flowers, the risk analysis, the methods to be used at entry ports, special 
treatment for developing countries, and possible a lternative measures.  Israel expressed concern over 
changes in inspection procedures that could detrimenta lly affect deliveries to its major export market.  
Kenya asked to receive a copy of the EC r esponse to Ecuador's questions.  The European 
Communities explained that the notification covere d four harmful non-native organisms that were 
regularly intercepted on certain commodities including cut flowers:  Amauromyza maculosa , Bemisia 
tabaci  (non-European populations), Liriomyza sativae  and Thrips palmi .  At present, most cut flowers 
were not subject to plant health checks, but it a ppeared they were a pathway for the organisms in 
question, and control measures needed to be strengthened.  To assess the comments made by Members, the proposed date of entry into force of  the draft amended regulation had been deferred. 
166. In November 2002, Israel expressed concern w ith EC Regulation 2002/36/EEC.  While Israel 
appreciated that the European Communities had modi fied and delayed the entry into force of the 
proposed revision until April 2003, Israel was of the view that until the European Communities had 
finalized its pest risk assessment the new regulation should be a temporary, not a permanent, measure.  
Israel was further concerned that the European Communities was not taking measures to control pests 
already established in the EC member States from spr eading to new areas, and requested consultations 
with the European Communities and other interest ed Members. Kenya also expressed hope that a 
solution would be found to the problem.  The European Communities replied that the question was 
complex and went beyond a simple matter of the use of the precautionary principle.  The ambitious 
pest eradication measures of th e European Communities should not be undermined by imports.  The 
European Communities agreed to bilateral consultations with Israel and Kenya. 
167. In April 2003, Israel noted that EC notifi cation G/SPS/N/EEC/131 concerned an amendment 
to regulation 2000/29/EC which came into force on 1 April 2003, and might have significant effects 
on the export of plant products from a number of Me mbers.  At bilateral consultations with the 
European Communities in March 2003, Israel expres sed concerns regarding differentiation between 
European and non-European varieties of Bemisia tabaci  and the existence of the non-European variety 
in some EC member States.  Israel was in the pr ocess of analyzing the two pest risk analyses produced 
by the European Communities.  Kenya stated it shar ed Israel's concerns with regard to unnecessary 
delays and adverse effects on cut flowers exports .  Bilateral consultations with the European 
Communities on technical assistance for capacity bu ilding had not progressed as desired, although 
Kenya was still hopeful of an amicable solution. 
168. The European Communities recalled that the measures had been enacted after constant 
interceptions of pests on products like fresh flowers led EC member States to review their protective 
measures.    The proposed measures were notified to  the WTO on 19 July 2001 and were to take effect 
on 1 January 2002.  However, the European Co mmunities had postponed entry into force until 
1 April 2003 after consideration of the difficulties fa ced by certain exporting countries.  Nevertheless, 
the European Communities had a responsibility to ma intain its appropriate level of protection and 
could not indefinitely postpone the implementati on of these measures.  The European Communities G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 42  
 
had taken all necessary measures to avoid any br eakdown to trade and offered to hold bilateral 
consultations on the matter. 
126. European Communities - Measures on imports of Egyptian potatoes 
Raised by: Egypt 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 125-126) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
169. Egypt expressed concern that EC measures agains t imports of Egyptian potatoes, allegedly as 
protection against the disease Pseudomonas solanacearum , severely restricted imports.  Importation of 
Egyptian potatoes was prohibited unless they origin ated from agreed pest-free areas, and could be 
suspended if five interceptions of the bacteriu m occurred during the 2000-2001 import season.  Egypt 
believed that these measures might not be in acco rdance with the relevant provision of the SPS 
Agreement and the GATT 1994, and had prepared qu estions for the European Communities.  The 
European Communities indicated that the questions would be answered, and clarified that Egyptian 
potatoes received special treatment in the Europ ean Communities.  Imports were allowed until the 
fifth detection of brown rot, which was a disease on the quarantine lists of IPPC and EPPO, while the 
normal EC standard prohibited imports  after one detection.  The special treatment had been granted in 
consideration of Egypt's special efforts to c ontrol the disease.  The European Communities had 
received and was studying a document from Egypt containing a contingency plan for brown rot potatoes.  Egypt had also requested determination of new free areas for export for the next season, and 
the request was being considered. 
127. European Communities - G/SPS/N/EEC/93 on wood packing material 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: Chile, Japan, Korea, United States 
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 33-35) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/93 
Solution: Not reported 
 
170. Canada recognized that wood packing material was widely considered to be at risk of 
containing plant pests.  However, it was used for a very large volume of products moving in 
international trade, and the proposed EC measure w ould cover 69% of Canada's  exports to the EC.  
Furthermore, the IPPC was working on a comprehensiv e standard for all countries and all pests, to be 
completed by July 2002, it would be best for all countries to focus their efforts on developing an 
international standard and refrain from taking unilate ral actions in this regard.  The United States 
considered that it would be impossible to impl ement the certification and marking requirements 
within the time-period set out in the EC notifica tion.  Korea stressed the need for the European 
Communities to implement the least trade restrictive measure which would be effective, and in this 
respect to take into consideration the historic experience of trade without pest introduction, the 
processing of the packing materials, and the actual pest risks involved. 
171. The European Communities replied that pine w ood nematode had been detected in packing 
materials in 1998 and 1999, despite the existing EC  requirements on wood packing materials.  The EC 
Regulatory Committee for Plant Health was examin ing the comments which had been submitted on 
the EC notification.  The European Communities w as actively contributing to the IPPC efforts to 
develop an international standard, however this did not replace the n eed for an emergency measure to 
protect EC forests.  It was now obvious that the EC measure would not be finalized and implemented  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 43 
 
 
on the 1 January 2000 date as initially proposed, a nd that bilateral and mu ltilateral consultations 
would continue. 
128. European Communities – Protected zones 
Raised by: Uruguay 
Supported by: Chile, Mexico, South Africa 
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 60) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
172. Uruguay expressed concern about an EC decision to eliminate the criteria for protected zones 
within the European Communities, as this might  result in a strengthening of phytosanitary 
requirements for the whole Community.  This could also have negative consequences for citrus fruit 
exports from Chile.  Delegations requested a clarificat ion of the scientific basis for this proposal.  The 
representative of the European Commu nities indicated he would forward the concerns to the relevant 
authorities.  He clarified that according to th e policy, access to the European Communities would 
depend on the conditions in the country of origin. 
129. European Communities (Spain)- Phytosanitary regulations 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, pa ras. 97-98), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 
42) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
173. Argentina expressed concerns about the differe nce between phytosanitary regulations in the 
Canary Islands and the European Communities, partic ularly as regarded apple and pear imports.  As 
Argentina had demonstrated the equivalence of  its measures in a communication to the EC 
representative in March 2001, there seemed to be no reason to prohibit exports of apples and pears to 
the Canary Islands.  Argentina questioned why the Canary Islands had been exempted from the scope 
of EC Directive 2029, and asked for a probable date  for the implementation of this regulation.  
Argentina requested the acceptance of the equivale nt measures proposed in March.  The European 
Communities stated that it would provide Argen tina with a bilateral reply in due course. 
174. In March 2002, Argentina stated that certain points had been cleared up in bilateral 
consultations with the European Communities a nd Spain and that any further progress would be 
reported to the Committee. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 44  
 
HONDURAS 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY HONDURAS  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Other Animal Health Concerns 130. Honduras – Import restrictions on chicken meat imports 
Raised by: Costa Rica 
Supported by: Argentina, Chile, Thailand,  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 22-27), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, 
paras. 63-64) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/347/Rev.1., G/SPS/GEN/362, G/SPS/GEN/363, 
G/SPS/N/HND/3, G/SPS/GEN/347/Add.1  
Solution: Not reported 
 175. Costa Rica reported that in March 2002, Hondur as had applied import restrictions on poultry 
meat from Costa Rica,  admitting imports of poultry meat only from countries that were free from avian influenza, avian infectious laryngotracheitis , Newcastle disease and avian salmonellosis.  Costa 
Rica recognized Honduras' efforts to improve its sanitary situation, but questioned whether the 
measure was scientifically justified and whether Hondur as had carried out a relevant risk analysis.  In 
this regard, it would be to the benefit of all if  Honduras shared its scientific evidence with other 
members of the organization.  Honduras was trying to  reverse the burden by insisting that Costa Rica 
demonstrate its disease free status regarding these f our avian diseases.  Costa Rica's avian health 
status was in line with the parameters recognized by the OIE, and its poultry meat exports did not 
constitute a risk for the avian health status of Honduras.  Costa Rica requested Honduras to respond to 
the questions contained in G/SPS/GEN/347/Rev.1 and requested that Honduras lift the measure.  
Argentina, Chile and Thailand supported the con cerns expressed by Costa Rica.  Chile requested 
information from the OIE on this issue, in partic ular concerning standards for the transmission of 
different avian diseases through fresh poultry meat.  Chile also requested a copy of the risk 
assessment carried out by Honduras.  
176. Honduras explained the background to his count ry's decision to impose restrictions on 
chicken meat imports from Costa Rica.  The Agricu lture and Livestock Secretariat had developed a 
national programme for the prevention, control and eradication of avian diseases, including avian 
influenza, avian infectious laryngotracheitis, Ne wcastle disease and avian salmonellosis.  This 
programme had been notified to all WTO member s (G/SPS/N/HND/3).  In October 2001, Honduras 
had notified that it had achieved free status for the four avian diseases mentioned above.  Honduras 
had requested that Costa Rica, as well as other co untries, provide the necessary documentation that 
guaranteed equivalence between the exporting countr y's avian health status, as well as access for 
technical experts to carry out the relevant inspecti ons.  His authorities had not been able to determine 
that the poultry health programmes of Costa Rica we re equivalent because they had been unable to 
carry out the relevant inspections and obtain th e necessary technical information requested from Costa 
Rica.  The scientific evidence requ ested by Costa Rica was contained in the OIE Bulletin, N°6, pages 
810 to 815, and Honduras welcomed the updating of standards by the OIE. 
177. The representative of the OIE stated that OIE standards existed for avian infectious 
laryngotracheitis, avian salmonellosis, and Newcas tle disease, and for the highly pathogenic form 
only of avian influenza.  The OIE standards fo r avian infectious laryngotracheitis and avian 
salmonellosis contained recommendations only for live  birds, for day-old chicks, and for hatching 
eggs but no recommendations  for poultry meat.  In other words, at present there were no official OIE  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 45 
 
 
standards for poultry meat for these two diseases, how ever these chapters had not been reviewed for 
some time.  The lack of a standard concerning poultr y meat could mean either that there were no risks 
associated with trade in poultry meat for these dise ases, or that the OIE had not come out with a 
recommendation on poultry meat which meant that tr ading partners would be expected to negotiate 
between themselves using risk analysis in order to reach science based conclusions.  In the absence of 
an official OIE standard, the OIE had replied to a re quest from the Director of Animal Health in Costa 
Rica that there was no scientific evidence indicating th at avian infectious laryngotracheitis or avian 
salmonellosis could be transmitted thro ugh poultry meat.  This was not an official OIE standard but a 
scientific opinion from the OIE.  If there was suffici ent trade disruption due to the lack of an OIE 
standard for poultry meat for these diseases, the OIE would include updating these standards in its 
future work programme.   
178. In April 2003, Costa Rica noted that bilateral consultations were progressing 
(G/SPS/GEN/347/Add.1).  Honduras reported that after the November 2002 meeting of the SPS 
Committee, an agreement was reached on how to progress towards re-establishing trade of poultry 
meat and products from Costa Rica. 
INDIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDIA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to TSEs 
 
131. India – Import restrictions on bovine semen 
Raised by: Canada, European Communities 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, para. 19), (G/SPS/R/18, paras. 23-25), June 2000 
(G/SPS/R/19, paras. 24-25), November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 18-22), March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 40-43), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 51), 
April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 76-77) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/113 
Solution: Change of relevant regulations a nd expected solution reported in July 2001. 
 
179. In March 1999, the European Communities indi cated that bilateral contact with India 
regarding import restrictions on bo vine semen had not been successful, and submitted a list of specific 
questions.  In March 2000, the European Communitie s reported that no information had been received 
from India, although there had been some bilatera l and multilateral contacts.  India presented some 
information to the EC delegate at that time. 
180. In March 2000, Canada expressed concern that  India was banning imports of bovine semen 
from Canada because of BSE concerns, although Ca nada was BSE-free, and although BSE was not 
transmissible through semen according to the OIE.  India clarified that the measure was a licensing 
process, not a ban, which had been imposed to avoi d inadvertent introduction of BSE or scrapie into 
India.  India had prepared a questionnaire for its tr ading partners and was planning to carry out a risk 
assessment based on the responses.  The representative of India indicated that he would bring the 
Canadian concerns to the attention of his authoriti es in order to solve the problem bilaterally as soon 
as possible. 
181. In June 2000, Canada informed the Committee that bilateral consultations had failed to 
resolve the matter, and that India continued to rest rict Canadian exports of bovine semen despite (i)  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 46  
 
Canada being BSE-free, (ii) OIE confirmation that BSE was not transmissible through semen, (iii) the 
OIE specifically not calling for restrictions on trad e in bovine semen, and (iv) the absence of a risk 
assessment to justify India's ban on bovine semen.  Ca nada asked that India remove this restriction.  
India noted that recent bilateral consultations had b een helpful and that efforts were being made to 
find a solution to the dispute. 
182. In November 2000, Canada, supported by the Eu ropean Communities, reiterated its concerns 
regarding India's BSE-related restrictions on bovi ne semen imports, despite  Canada's BSE freedom, 
and despite agreement in the OIE and other veteri nary bodies that BSE was not transmitted by semen.  
In September 2000, India had indicated that it intende d to continue this unjustified prohibition, despite 
the lack of risk assessment for the measure.  Indi a reported that detailed bila teral consultations were 
ongoing.  The Indian Animal Husbandry Commi ssion had met on 11 September 2000 and had noted 
the findings of the EC Scientific Steering Committe e (SSC) regarding the difficulty of making precise 
estimates of the risks of infectivity of various products including semen. 
183. India further reported that it had sought detaile d information from the OIE regarding the basis 
for determining that BSE was not transmitted by sem en, as well as information on the criteria for 
determining if a country or zone was free from BSE.   However, to date no reply had been received 
from the OIE.  
184. The European Communities observed that India was referring to a scientific opinion which 
had been published in 1998, which had subsequently been modified through various meetings of the 
OIE.  The representative of the OIE indicated that the issue of bovine semen had been examined on 
various occasions at the OIE, and the results of these examinations had been provided to India, 
however, the OIE would again send India all of the relevant information. 
185. In March 2001, Canada and India announced that  they had agreed to informal discussions 
under the SPS Agreement and hoped that the matter would be resolved soon.   Canada recalled the 
OIE statement confirming that BSE could not be transmitted by semen (G/SPS/GEN/230).  India 
stressed that it was not trying to give an unfair a dvantage to domestic producers.  The socio-religious 
conditions related to the treatment of cows in India were such that India had to be extremely cautious.  
India asked Canada to cooperate with India's risk assessment, which would ta ke at least another six 
months to complete.  Canada questioned the need to  carry out the risk assessment, since according to 
the OIE there was no risk of disease transmission thr ough semen.  India and Canada intended to raise 
the issue at the OIE. 
186. In July 2001, Canada reported that it was e ngaged in bilateral consultations under the SPS 
Agreement with India.  There had been certain positive developments and Canada hoped to quickly 
resolve the issue.  India indicated that the relevant  regulations had been cha nged, and that the changes 
would soon be notified. 
187. In April 2003, Canada stated that although a successful conclusion had been reported to the 
Committee in July 2001, a further problem had be en encountered and an import licence request was 
rejected by India due to some apparent conn ection between BSE and bovine semen.  Canada 
questioned the scientific basis for the action and stated that the OIE's recommendations supported 
Canada's view.  Canada requested that India remove this restriction.  India agreed to convey Canada's 
concerns to the appropriate authorities.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 47 
 
 
Other Animal Health Concerns  
132. India – Restrictions on imports of horses 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, para. 20) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/112 
Solution: Not reported 
 
188. The European Communities indicated that trad e in horses with India had been interrupted, 
although the necessary health guarantees had not been identified.  Import restrictions were based on 
the presence of contagious equine metritis.  The EC representative presented a series of questions to 
India, including a request for justification of Indi a's measure which was more stringent than the OIE 
Code. 
 
INDONESIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA  
Food Safety 
133. Indonesia – Ban on hormones in animal production 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, Canada, Mexico 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 83-86) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/IDN/17 
Solution: Not reported 
 
189. The United States indicated that the implementa tion of this regulation would effectively ban 
the use of several growth hormones and there was no scientific evidence to support this measure.  US 
regulatory agencies had been conducting research si nce the 1950s on the use and safety of approved 
growth hormones.  A concensus had been reached re garding the safety of these hormones if used with 
good veterinary practices.  The United States request ed Indonesia to put forward scientific data in 
support of its proposed ban.  In the event that no scientific data existed, the United States requested 
Indonesia to reconsider this proposal as soon as possible. 
190. Canada, supported by Australia and Mexico, expressed concerns regarding Indonesia's 
apparent import ban on live cattle and beef derived from cattle treated with synthetic growth hormones.  A number of questions surrounding th e risk-based nature of these measures were 
highlighted, particularly given the precedence est ablished in the WTO regarding measures prohibiting 
growth hormones.  They requested Indonesia to i ndicate whether it had conducted a risk assessment 
and to provide the details of the risk based ra tional for its measures.  The European Communities 
noted that there was a WTO finding on the issue and that it intended to bring its legislation into compliance with the ruling of the panel.  Much wo rk had been undertaken in this regard and the 
European Communities expected to soon be able to en sure that the EC ban was fully compatible with 
the WTO.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 48  
 
191. Indonesia noted that his country had not yet im plemented the regulation, but had notified to 
Members the fact that they were going to amend the decree concerning classification of veterinary drugs.  Although Indonesia had not yet banned horm one growth promoters, there were some reasons 
to believe that growth hormones c ould be hazardous to human health, due in part to the fact that 
developed countries' consumption patterns were differe nt to those in Indonesia.  Indonesia further 
noted that the use of hormone growth promoters in poultry had been banned internationally.  
Plant Health 
134. Indonesia - Fresh fruit and vegetables 
Raised by: Australia, United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 22) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/IDN/2 
Solution: Not reported 
 
192. Australia and the United States sought clarificati on with regard to the scope of the Indonesian 
regulation on fresh fruit and vegetabl es.  In bilateral discussions with Australia, Indonesian authorities 
had referred to a problem arising from national pr actice, which precluded the circulation of draft 
regulations.  The United States and Australia urged Indonesia to consider legislative adjustments to 
enable WTO Members to receive information on proposed measures sufficiently in time to be 
assessed.  Australia appreciated Indonesian efforts to meet requests for additional information.  
Indonesia regretted that the draft regulation had not yet been finalized, but assured the Committee that 
a document containing detailed information about th e proposed regulations would be provided in due 
course. 
 
ISRAEL  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ISRAEL  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to TSEs 
 
135. Israel - Notification G/SPS/N/ISR/2 on TSE-rel ated import restrictions of live cattle  
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Switzerland 
Dates raised: November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 35-36) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ISR/2 
Solution: Not reported 
 
193. The European Communities said that it was not entirely clear how Israel categorized 
countries' BSE status, and that the notification did not provide sufficient information.  It listed a 
number of requirements which appeared not to  be justified, and were not based on OIE 
recommendations.  The European Communities requested  an explanation of the notified legislation, 
and submitted a number of questions for written comment by Israel.  Israel requested the EC questions 
in writing.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 49 
 
 
JAPAN 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to FMD 136. Japan - Restrictions on importation of sugar cane top from Indonesia 
Raised by: Indonesia 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras.  32-35), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 
24-25), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28,  paras. 185-186), June 2003 
(G/SPS/R/30, paras. 57-58) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/266, Annex 1, G/SPS/GEN/240 
Solution: Not reported 
 194. In July 2001, Indonesia raised concerns regard ing Japan's restrictions on the importation of 
sugar cane top for fear of contamination with FMD, although Indonesia was recognized as free from FMD.  Indonesia had cooperated with Japan's assessme nt of the FMD situation in Indonesia, but was 
concerned about delays and inform ation requirements.  Indonesia inte nded to provide the information, 
but requested a clear schedule to ensure a speedy solution.  Indonesia and Argentina requested the 
OIE to explain whether these restrictions could be ju stified.  Japan replied that it had notified the 
animal health authorities in Indonesia of the additi onal information needed for the analysis and was 
waiting for Indonesia's response.  The OIE confirmed that Indonesia had been recognized as free from 
FMD without vaccination (G/SPS/GEN/266, Annex 1).  The International Animal Health Code contained a list of products which could transm it FMD, and the list did not include sugar cane 
(G/SPS/GEN/240).  The Code considered that othe r products, such as cerea ls, fruits, vegetables and 
roots did not present a risk.   
195. In October 2001, Indonesia reported that in a ddition to informal bilateral consultations, 
Indonesia had also provided detailed information re quested in a questionnaire from Japan.  Indonesia 
was willing to furnish all necessary documentation, as any protraction of this problem would have 
detrimental effects on the Indonesian economy.  Japan  stated that at a bilateral meeting certain 
misunderstandings had been cleared up.  Japan l ooked forward to receiving such information as was 
necessary to resolve this problem. 
196. In November 2002, Indonesia noted that th e Japanese animal health inspection team had 
carried out an FMD risk assessment in Indonesia in  June 2002.  Indonesia recalled that the OIE had 
recognized the country as FMD free without vaccina tion and requested Japan to take this into 
consideration.  Japan stated th at the issue could not be resolv ed until the risk assessment was 
completed.  Further data had been sought from Indonesia in order to finalize the risk assessment. 
197. In June 2003, Indonesia raised concerns that Japan continued to ban imports of sugar cane top 
from Indonesia and as a result the Indonesian indus try had collapsed.  Japan had not acknowledged 
that Indonesia was free from FMD despite the fact the Indonesia's FMD-free status had been regularly 
confirmed by the OIE.  Indonesia welcomed furt her Japanese missions to Indonesia but requested 
Japan to specify more clearly the issues of their c oncern.  Japan responded that  technical consultations 
had been held and more experts had been dispatch ed in June 2002 in order to provide Japan with 
additional scientific information.  Further scientific assessments would now be carried out and Japan 
looked forward to continued consultations. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 50  
 
137. Japan - Measures regarding FMD 
Raised by: Argentina, European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1,  para. 46), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 
15-17) 
Relevant document(s): G/TBT/Notif.97.357 
Solution: Not reported 
 198. Argentina raised questions on the notified TBT measure, which authorized imports of FMD 
inactivated vaccine (but only the O type of FM D inactivated virus), and exempted traders from 
undergoing the usual approval procedures.  Three c ountries were designated as suppliers: Germany, 
the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.  Argentin a sought clarification regarding (a) the current 
FMD-status of Japan since the decision to import FMD vaccines took effect; (b) the criteria used to 
designate only three sources of supply; (c) whether Japan considered itself a "zero-risk" country and 
whether a risk assessment had been  carried out in support of this "zero-risk" status; and (d) since 
Argentina was declared free of FMD with vaccina tion by the OIE, how Japan viewed its current 
policy not to import Argentine meat.  Japan explaine d that the notified measure was an amendment to 
the approval procedures regarding the import of vacc ines for emergencies.  It was a precautionary 
measure following the outbreak of FMD in Chinese  Taipei in March 1997.  Argentina indicated it 
would provide its questions in writing to Japan.  
199. In March 2002, the European Communities stated  that slow administrative procedures had 
caused unjustified disruptions in the trade of several  EC member States with Japan.  In spite of the 
formal recognition by the OIE of EC member States as FMD free, Japanese procedures for 
recognizing the FMD free status of these countri es dragged on.  The European Communities noted 
that they had done everything possible to meet the Japanese requirements and expressed disappointment that Japan would not begin the re-opening process until after the official FMD free declaration by the OIE on 19 September 2001.  The EC noted that the re-opening process itself was extremely cumbersome and combined with delays in organizing a Japanese inspection mission, the 
effect was unnecessary delay in reopening of the ma rket.  Furthermore, the European Communities 
felt that the use of questionnaires was only justified at the time of the outbreak, and that import requirements should be made clear from the outset.  The representative of the European Communities 
requested an indication of when Japan would rec ognize the EC FMD disease-free status.  Japan noted 
that the risk assessment for FMD had been delayed due to late responses from France, Ireland and the 
Netherlands.  
Plant Health 
138. Japan - Plant quarantine regulations 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 26), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/JPN/19, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Not reported 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 51 
 
 
200. In March 1997, the United States informed the Committee of bilateral discussion with Japan 
regarding its plant quarantine regulations.  Both Members agreed that the communication process had 
flowed smoothly, and that this was a good example of how the transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement could enhance the understanding betw een Members on points of concern.  Japan 
maintained that its proposed regulation was based on the pest-risk analysis guidelines of the IPPC. 
201. In July 2001, the United States reported that it had continued to hold bilateral consultations 
with Japan on aspects of its quarantine regulatio ns, including measures rela ted to apple imports 
(G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United States considers this trade concern unresolved. 
139. Japan - Amendment of the Japanese Plant Protection Law 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, Canada, Chile, Europ ean Communities, New Zealand, Philippines 
on behalf of ASEAN, Uruguay 
Dates raised: November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, pa ras. 31-34), November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, 
para. 82), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/100, G/SPS/N/JPN/37, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Not reported 
 
202. In November 1998, the United States noted that the draft regulation proposed the addition of 
27 pests to the list of non-quarantine pests in Ja pan's Plant Protection La w.  The United States, 
although encouraged by certain aspects of Japan's pr oposal, continued to have concerns regarding the 
basis and application of Japan's phytosanitary legisla tion.  The legislative amendments did not appear 
to alter the current practice of requiring fumigation and other costly treatment for most non-quarantine 
pests, including those pests which we re widespread in Japan and not subject to internal regulatory or 
quarantine controls.  The United States urged Japan to  take into consideration the IPPC definition of a 
quarantine pest.  The European Co mmunities asked Japan to explain the scientific rationale behind its 
measure, and the risk assessment it was based on.  Japan replied that its defi nition of quarantine pests 
complied with the IPPC definition.  The list of non- quarantine pests would be reviewed in the future 
with a view to expansion.  Japan welcomed c ontinued bilateral consultations on the matter. 
203. In November 1999, the European Communities reca lled its request for an explanation of the 
Japanese measure, to which it had not received a re ply.  Japan announced that the matter would be 
pursued bilaterally. 
204. In July 2001, the United States indicated that it continued to pursue the matter bilaterally with 
Japan. 
140. Japan – Fumigation standards 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 31-32) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
205. The United States reported that a newly adopted measure by Japan's Ministry of Agriculture, 
Fisheries and Food prohibited the re-fumigation of  fruit or rice which had previously undergone 
fumigation in the United States.  Japan had not no tified this measure and the United States requested 
clarification from Japan on the objective of the measure, its scope, implementation, enforcement and 
projected trade effects, as well as a delay in its implementation. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 52  
 
206. Japan stated that it would transmit the United St ates' concern to its authorities and respond in 
due course. 
Other Concerns 
141. Japan - Notification G/SPS/N/JPN/9 on uses of living modified organisms  
Raised by: Australia 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 72-74) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/JPN/9 
Solution: Not reported 
 
207. Australia indicated that Japan's notifica tion regarding its proposed draft law on the 
conservation and sustainable use of living modified organisms raised a number of concerns.  Australia 
was a major grain exporter and was especially in terested in the documents which should accompany 
shipments.  Japan had not responded to Australia's query.  The United States was also concerned how 
Japan intended to implement the Cartagena Biosafet y Protocol and in particular the documentation 
requirements. 
208. Japan replied that it had ratified the Cartag ena Biosafety Protocol on 10 June 2003 and its 
measures were consistent with the agreement.  Ja pan would shortly provide responses to the questions 
it had received from Australia. 
142. Japan and Korea - Translation of regulations 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Thailand 
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, para. 26) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/JPN/1, G/SPS/N/KOR/29, G/SPS/N/KOR/20, G/SPS/N/KOR/31 
Solution: Not reported 
 
209. Argentina regretted that the regulations notified by Japan and Korea were not available in one 
of the three WTO working languag es.  The Chairman recalled that Annex B, paragraph 8 of the SPS 
Agreement requires developed country Members to "p rovide copies of the documents or, in case of 
voluminous documents, summaries of the documents covered by a specific notification in English, 
French or Spanish", if there is a specific requ est from another Member.  Japan observed that it 
normally provided summaries of the documents in E nglish.  Thailand suggested that countries give 
sufficient detail in the description of content of th eir notifications to enable relevant comments by 
recipient Members. 
 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 53 
 
 
REPUBLIC OF KOREA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to FMD 143. Korea – Import restrictions on beef 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, paras. 13-14) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/109 and G/SPS/GEN/130 
Solution: Not reported 
 
210. Argentina raised concerns regarding Korea's denial of access to Argentine beef without 
specifying its sanitary requirements or visiting Argen tina to verify its sanitary status.  Korea replied 
that since it  had been free of FMD for 60 years, it applied very strict requirements.  Korea believed it 
was acting consistently with OIE recommendations, and offered to discuss the matter bilaterally. 
144. Korea – Notification G/SPS/N/KOR/49 on tran sboundary movement of living modified 
organisms 
Raised by: Australia 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 72-74) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/KOR/49 
Solution: Not reported 
 
211. Australia indicated that Korea's notifica tion on the transboundary movement of living 
modified organisms raised a number of concerns .  Australia was a major grain exporter and was 
especially interested in the documents which s hould accompany shipments.  Korea had responded to 
Australia's query, and Australia was examining this  response.  The United States was also concerned 
how Korea intended to implement the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol and in particular the 
documentation requirements. 
212. Korea stated that it was acting in line with th e transparency requirements and would continue 
to do so. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 54  
 
MEXICO 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY MEXICO  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Issues related to FMD 
 
145. Mexico - Import restrictions on beef 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para. 12) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/109 and G/SPS/GEN/129 
Solution: Not reported 
 
213. Argentina indicated it had not received a satisfact ory answer to repeated requests that Mexico 
provide information on its specific sanitary requi rements for beef imports and the related risk 
assessments.  Argentina recalled that it was free of FMD.  Mexico took note of Argentina's concerns 
and expressed hope to resolve the matter bilaterally. 
146. Mexico – Restrictions on Austrian Products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras.  36-37), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, para. 42) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
214. The European Communities stated that Fran ce, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United 
Kingdom had officially regained their OIE FMD-free status without vaccination after the 2001 
outbreak.  However, Mexico continued trade restric tions against Austrian animal products, despite the 
fact that Austria had not had a FMD outbreak since 1991.  Austria had applied to be recognized as 
FMD-free by the Mexican authorities.  Mexico i ndicated that Austria failed to meet certain 
requirements to be recognized as FMD-free and enc ouraged the Austrian authorities to complete a 
second questionnaire requesting more details. 
215. In June 2003, the European Communities reported that bilateral consultations had been held, 
and Mexico confirmed that it expected  the issue to be resolved soon. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 55 
 
 
PANAMA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY PANAMA  
Food Safety 147. Panama - Restrictions on milk powder imports 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, par as. 15-16), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 
135) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/220 
Solution: Not reported 
 216. In November 2000, the European Communities indicated that since April 2000 the 
Panamanian authorities had delayed issuing the necessary import permits and certificates for the 
import of milk powder for human consumption from Denmark, resulting in a de facto ban on these products.  No explanation had been provided in  response to EC requests, and no notification 
submitted to the WTO.  The European Communities re quested a response by Pa nama to the questions 
contained in G/SPS/GEN/220.  The representative of Panama agreed to submit the questions to his 
capital, and indicated the willingness of Panama to  consult with the European Communities on this 
matter. 
217. In July 2001, Panama informed the Committe e that it had provided responses to the EC 
questions regarding powdered milk from Denmark.  In these responses, Panama reiterated that it 
applied the same sanitary measures to domestic and imported products.  The European Communities 
indicated that the Commission would study the answers and report back to Panama.  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Other Animal Health Concerns 
 
148. Panama's restrictions on food products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G /SPS/R/28, paras. 195-196) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution:  Not reported 
218. The European Communities stated  that Panama had instituted a range of severe measures on 
imports of animal products.  Although the law was intended to address risks related to FMD, BSE, 
Newcastle disease and other exotic diseases, the Eu ropean Communities considered the law to be 
disproportionate and not science-based.  In additio n, the measure had not been notified.  Panama 
indicated that it hoped to be able to provide a prompt response.  
 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 56  
 
Other Concerns 
149. Panama's import licenses for agricultural products 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para.26) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
219. Canada stated that high level meetings were underway regardi ng the automaticity of Panama's 
import licensing procedures.  Panama stated that Ca nada's concerns were be ing considered by the 
appropriate authorities. 
 
POLAND 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY POLAND  
Plant Health 150. Poland – Restrictions on wheat and oilseeds 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, pa ras. 13-14), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, 
para. 27), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Not reported 
 220. In March 1997, the United States questioned the phytosanitary health basis for Poland's 
restrictions which applied to weed seeds that existed world-wide, some of them known to be 
established in Poland.  Poland replied that the measur e did not affect trade with the United States, as 
no shipment of US grain or oilseeds had been reje cted because of quarantine risks.  In November 
1998, the Chairman reported that he and the Secret ariat had been requested to facilitate bilateral 
consultations between the United States and Pola nd regarding tolerance levels for weed seed, 
particularly of the genus Ambrosia .  These consultations had focussed on technical aspects of pest risk 
analysis, and both parties had agreed to continue the discussions. 
221. In July 2001, the United States indicated that it continued to pursue the matter bilaterally with 
Poland. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 57 
 
 
ROMANIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ROMANIA  
Food Safety 151. Romania – SPS measures on animal products 
Raised by: Moldova 
Supported by: China 
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 35-37) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/334 
Solution: Not reported 
 
222. Moldova indicated that Romania had begun to impose EC requirements on imports of meat 
and animal products although Romania di d not meet these requirements domestically 
(G/SPS/GEN/334).  As a result, meat, milk and egg exports from Moldova were  in effect banned from 
the Romanian market, which normally absorbed abou t 80 per cent of Moldova agricultural exports.  
Romania had not provided any scientific justification for its measure.  Its failure to notify the measure 
meant that exporters had not had any time to adap t to the new requirements.  China expressed support 
for the concerns expressed by Moldova and urged Romania to review its measures in this area. 
223. Romania argued that the measure in question was a result of its harmonization with the  
acquis communautaire  of the European Union, and was neces sary to ensure consumer protection.  
Romania stated that this was not a new SPS measure,  so it had not been notified.  Nonetheless, the 
Romanian Ministry of Agriculture was consideri ng ways to address the difficulties posed to Moldova 
from its implementation. 
 
SOUTH AFRICA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SOUTH AFRICA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to TSEs 
 
152. South Africa - Prohibition on bone-in beef imports from member States of the European 
Communities 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras.  32-33), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12 and 
Corr.1, paras. 19-21) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ZAF/2, G/SPS/GEN/95 
Solution: Not reported 
224. In March 1998, the European Communities noted that the South African ban on beef imports 
applied to all EC member States.  This was unjustif ied in light of measures taken at EC and national 
level in countries were BSE cases had occurred.  In addition, South African requirements were not in 
accordance with OIE standards.  South Africa stress ed that the European Communities were a major 
supplier of meat to South Africa, and that South Africa had no interest in having consumers consider G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 58  
 
EC meat as unsafe.  However, South Africa wanted to maintain its BSE-free status, and protect human 
and animal health.  South Africa invited the Eu ropean Communities to provide written comments. 
225. In September 1998, the European Communities agai n raised this issue.  South Africa replied 
that written comments from the European Communiti es had only recently been received.  In March 
and July 1998, South Africa had provided to the European Communities a written explanation of the 
measure in question.  Furthermore, South Afri ca had reiterated its invitation to the European 
Communities to submit evidence which would permit a re-evaluation of its decision, possibly on an 
individual EC member State basis.  In accordance with Article 5.7, South Africa would review its 
measure in the light of additional information.  The European Communities recognized that it had yet 
to provide a written reply to South Africa's request  for information, and welcomed the invitation for 
bilateral discussions of the issue. 
Concerns related to FMD 
 
153. South Africa – Restrictions on beef and pork 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, par as 19-20), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, para. 
176) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Imports of meat and pork from Br azilian regions free of FMD authorized.  
Problems remaining concerning administrative procedures for meat 
products. 
 226. Brazil stated that in February 2002, South Africa had suspended imports of beef and pork 
from Brazil, because FMD vaccination was practised th ere.  South Africa's import ban was not based 
on the OIE standards nor on scientific evidence or risk assessment nor had the measure been notified. 
Brazil requested South Africa to lift the ban and accept the risk mitigation procedures established by the OIE.  South Africa indicated that they were co mmitted to bilateral consultations with a view to 
find a quick solution to the problem.  In November 2002, Brazil reported that South Africa had 
authorized imports of meat and pork from Brazilian regions free of FMD.  Some difficulties remained 
regarding administrative procedures for meat products , but were expected to be resolved soon.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 59 
 
 
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to FMD 154. Trinidad and Tobago - Restrictions on import s of pork sausages and other pork products, 
fresh, cured or salted 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, pa ras. 32-34), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29 paras. 
65-66), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, par as. 45-46), October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, 
paras. 31-32) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
227. Argentina reported that the health authorities from Trinidad and Tobago had provided two 
responses regarding import requirements for Argentine pork products, fresh cured or salted.  The first response indicated that imports of Argentine por k products were currently banned because of the 
FMD outbreak that had occurred in 2001, and that imports would not be able to resume until the 
health status of Argentina changed to that of a country free of FMD without vaccination.  The second 
response stated that imports of pork products we re allowed only from those countries that had FMD 
free status without vaccination for at least three y ears before the date of export  These requirements 
were stricter than the OIE Animal Health Code, l acked a scientific basis and were not proportionate to 
the objectives pursued.  Argentina a lifting of the ban and copies of the scientific evidence that 
justified the measure.. 
228. Trinidad and Tobago indicated that the issue of importation of Argentine pork products had 
been the subject of ongoing bilateral consultati ons.  As a member of the Caribbean Community 
(CARICOM), Trinidad and Tobago adhered to a regi onal policy for the importation of meat and meat 
products according to which, in the event that  an exporting country had experienced an FMD 
outbreak, imports would only be allowed after disease-free status had been achieved without 
vaccination.  The regional decision reflected consensus among member States.  These requirements were transparent and applied in an equitable manner to all countries that had experienced FMD 
outbreaks. Trinidad and Tobago  reaffirmed the count ry's willingness to continue the bilateral process. 
229. In April 2003, Argentina reported that despite  the willingness of Trinidad and Tobago to 
engage in bilateral consultations, no progress had yet been achieved at the technical level.  Trinidad 
and Tobago explained that the OIE Code stated that affected products should not be accepted from 
vaccinated animals. Re-opening of markets was based on consensus among CARICOM members.    Accordingly, Argentina had been advised that the matter should be pursued through the CARICOM 
Secretariat, which Argentinal had done.  CARICOM was committed to finding a mutually agreeable 
solution and had convened a meeting of the region's chief veterinary officers to discuss the matter on 
7-8 April 2003.  It was expected that the ma tter would be fully resolved at the time.   
230. In June 2003, Argentina indicated that its au thorities had provided Trinidad and Tobago the 
information agreed upon after the last Committee meeting.  CARICOM was committed to sending a 
technical mission to Argentina with the aim of accepting Argentine exports.  Trinidad and Tobago 
confirmed that a risk assessment mission was expected to take place within the next two months. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 60  
 
231. In October 2003, Argentina reported that since the last meeting, its authorities had provided 
information to Trinidad and Tobago on the foot-a nd-mouth disease status of Argentina.  However, a 
visit by three veterinarians from the CARICOM to  dairy factories and sausage production plants had 
been cancelled due to a new outbreak of FMD.  The representative of Trinidad and Tobago clarified that Argentina had postponed the trip, scheduled for 8-12 September, due to the appearance of an 
isolated case of FMD.  CARICOM had yet to be a dvised by Argentina of new dates for the visit.  
Trinidad and Tobago stated that its restriction would not be removed until the risk assessment was 
completed. 
TURKEY 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY TURKEY  
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to FMD 
 
155. Turkey – Import ban on livestock 
Raised by: United States, Hungary 
Supported by: Australia, European Communities, New Zealand, Uruguay 
Dates raised: June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, para. 33), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12,  
paras. 7-10), June 2000 (G/SPS/R/19, paras. 12-14), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, 
para. 127), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 33), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, 
paras. 205-206), June 2003  (G/SPS/R/30, para. 67) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN265 
Solution: The United States reported in July 2001 that its concerns were resolved.  
Hungary's concerns are outstanding. 
 232. In June 1998, the United States sought clarific ation from Turkey whether its FMD-related 
import ban on cattle and meat produc ts had ever been officially published or notified to the WTO.  
The United States requested an explanation of the measu re's scientific basis, especially in view of the 
FMD-free status of the United States.  In Septem ber 1998, the United States noted that Turkey had 
extended its import ban for the eighth time.  Turkey replied that the policy was geared at preventing 
the spread of FMD in the country.  A rigorous na tion-wide eradication programme was in place, and 
considerable progress had been made.  Turkey belie ved that the application of temporary measures 
with the objective of creating the necessary animal h ealth conditions within its  borders was justified, 
but was open to dialogue with its trading part ners to reach a mutually agreeable solution. 
233. In June 2000, Hungary recalled that several Members had challenged the WTO-consistency 
of Turkey's import restrictions on live cattle and beef meat.  Hungary had been free from FMD for 
nearly 20 years, and had pursued FMD control policies which made vaccination redundant.  Hungary 
suggested the Turkish ban violated Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.  Based on Articles 5.1 and 5.8, 
Hungary asked Turkey to provide its risk assessme nt on the importation of live cattle and beef from 
FMD-free countries.  New Zealand asked if Turkey had an import licensing system, and if so, how 
risk was assessed and how licenses were issued.  Tu rkey committed to providing a report on an 
interdepartmental review of the sanitary measures.   
234. In July 2001, the United States indicated th at Turkey had assured the United States in 
September 1999 that the import ban was no longer in force (G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United States considered this trade concern reso lved.  In October 2001, Hungary repor ted that its con cerns were still 
outstanding.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 61 
 
 
235. In April 2003, Hungary again raised concerns over the on-going restrictions on imports of live 
cattle and beef maintained by Turkey.  Accordi ng to the OIE, Hungary had been free from FMD for 
nearly 20 years.  Hungarian live cattle and beef wa s also free from BSE.  Hungary had questioned this 
measure several times bilaterally and in the SPS Committee but had not received any explanation or 
risk assessment studies from Turkey.  Turkey e xplained that many coun tries had imposed import 
restrictions or bans on live animals and animal products originating from some European countries 
due to BSE and FMD to protect their public health and livestock.  Turkey had simply taken the same 
measures based on available information and to sa tisfy the widespread public concern over BSE.  
236. In June 2003, Turkey stated that cattle and beef imports from some EC member States and 
from Hungary had been temporarily suspended as ca ttle from these countries had not been vaccinated 
or achieved immunity against FMD and rinderpest whic h was present in Turkey at that time.  The ban 
had been lifted in 1999, however, due to BSE con cerns, the import of livestock had been partly 
banned again. 
UNITED STATES  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE UNITED STATES  
Food Safety 
156. United States – Restrictions on melons 
Raised by: Mexico 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G /SPS/R/28, paras. 180-181) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/366 
Solution: Not reported 
 
237. Mexico indicated that on 28 October 2002, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 
imposed an emergency import ban on cantaloupe me lons imported from Mexico.  Mexico considered 
this measure as being disproportionate and not b ased on scientific evidence of any health risk 
(G/SPS/GEN/366).  Mexico requested the United States to suspend the import ban on cantaloupe melons and to comply with its obl igations under the SPS Agreement.   
238. The United States noted that FDA sampling of imported produce found that samples of 
cantaloupe melons from most growing regions in Me xico tested positive for salmonella. The samples 
had been collected both in the fall/winter and spri ng/summer seasons, and it appeared that unsanitary 
conditions in the growing and packing of canta loupe melons had resulte d in four salmonella 
outbreaks.  The import alert recommended officials to detain cantaloupe melons from Mexico at all US ports without physical examination.  The Oct ober import alert expanded pr ior import alerts that 
had targeted specific imports and growers whose produc ts had been linked to outbreaks or had tested 
positive for salmonella.  On 28 October 2002, the United States had announced that they would 
continue to work with Mexico on a food safety pr ogramme for production, packing and shipping of 
fresh cantaloupe melons.  The Mexican Governme nt had proposed a certification programme based 
on good agricultural practices and good manufacturing practices that w ould allow the FDA to identify 
firms that had adopted and implemented such a pr ogramme.  This certification programme was still 
under development and the United States looked forward to its early implementation.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 62  
 
157. United States - Notification G/SPS/N/ USA/133 on refrigeration and labelling 
requirements for shell eggs 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 37-38) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/133 
Solution: Not reported 
 
239. The European Communities queried whether the US measure was based on a risk assessment, 
and if this risk assessment was available.  Th e European Communities s ought written clarification 
from the United States regarding the non-application of the measure to units with 3000 hens or less, 
and asked the United States to explain the discrim ination between foreign and domestic eggs.  The 
European Communities also enquired whether the Un ited States would accept equivalent measures.  
The United States responded that the risk assessment was available on the internet, but that a copy 
would be provided to the European Communities.  The United States welcomed the EC request for 
consideration of equivalence, and indicated that answers to the mo re technical questions would be 
provided in due course. 
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to TSEs 
 
158. United States – Import restrictions on meat and meat products 
Raised by: Switzerland 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 10-12) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/321 
Solution: Not reported 
 
240. Switzerland reported that following the outbreak of  BSE in Switzerland, the United States had 
banned imports of meat and meat products from Sw itzerland (G/SPS/GEN/321).  The ban applied also 
to meat products processed in Switzerland with me at imported from countries free of BSE, such as 
Argentina or Brazil.  Switzerland had a low incide nce of BSE in terms of the OIE International 
Animal Health Code and the US measure did not fo llow the international standards.  Moreover, the 
US double inspection procedure was in violation of  the SPS Agreement. Bilateral consultations had 
clarified some of the questions raised by Switzerla nd, and would hopefully soon lead to a resumption 
of trade in meat and meat products.  The Europ ean Communities requested to be informed of the 
outcome of the discussions between Switzerland and the United States.  
241. The United States noted that there was a further complication pertaining to the FMD status of 
certain countries providing meat to Switzerland fo r processing and subsequent export to the United 
States. 
159. United States – Measures related to BSE 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Argentina, Chile, New Zealand, Switzerland 
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/ 10, paras. 10-12), June 1998 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/66, G/SPS/N/USA/106 
Solution: Not reported  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 63 
 
 
 242. In March 1998, the European Communities compla ined that recent US measures were neither 
in conformity with the SPS Agreement nor with the OIE, and were singling out Europe.  The 
European Communities rejected US claims that inadequate surveillance in relation to BSE was a 
problem within the European Communities and indi cated that the European  Communities was about 
to introduce a harmonized surveillance system.  The United States replied that it was receiving 
numerous comments to its interim measure, which was intended to protect animal and consumer 
health from BSE in light of the unclear information on the distribution of BSE on the European continent.  Trade would resume when the countries in  question had systems that met US criteria.  The 
United States would evaluate the data submitted,  and would take the necessary measures based on 
science and risk assessment.  Argentina noted that BSE was a European problem with important 
potential consequences for the rest of the world, a nd that it required a joint effort of political and 
scientific authorities to find a solution based on th e available knowledge to avoid unnecessary trade 
disruption. 
243. In June 1998, the European Communities drew attention to the recent OIE indication that 
when a country had no native cases of BSE and surve illance systems were in place for seven years, 
trade in meat could take place.   The OIE also pr ovided the basis on which trade could take place with 
countries of low incidence of BSE.  The criteria on which US decisions would be based were still not 
clear to the European Communities.  The United States announced that comments and information 
received were being incorporated into the risk assessment, taking into account the discussions in the 
OIE framework.  The updated rule would soon be  published and notified, and responses would be 
provided to all comments received.  
Other Animal Health Concerns 
160. United States – Restrictions on pigmeat 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para . 11), October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras.33-
34) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/214/Add.1 
Solution: Not reported 
 244. The European Communities drew the Co mmittee's attention to notification 
G/SPS/N/USA/214/Add.1, which recognized Portugal as free of African swine fever.  The phrasing of 
the US notification gave the erroneous impression  that Portugal was "in a region infected with 
classical swine fever", whereas Portugal was recognized as free of classical swine fever by the OIE.  
Several EC member States remained on the US list of countries infected with classical swine fever 
solely because of delays in the US legislative procedure for reclassification, possibly for political 
reasons.  The European Communities was hopeful that the publication of a final classical swine fever 
rule would follow shortly.  The European Commun ities had signed a bilateral veterinary agreement 
with the United States in 1999 on the understa nding that a final rule was imminent.   
245. The United States noted that an outbreak of Afri can swine fever was reported in Portugal in 
1999 and that on 7 January 2000, the United States had notified measures taken in this regard.  In 
spite of the change in African swine fever status , the export of pork products to the United States 
could not commence due to the presence of other anim al diseases. The United States stated that they 
had legitimate scientific concerns related to cl assical swine fever in the European Communities 
following recent outbreaks in Germany, Spain and Luxembourg. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 64  
 
246. In October 2003, the European Communities st ated that it had provided the necessary 
information and renewed its request to the United St ates to adhere to commitments made in the 1998 
bilateral agreement between the United States a nd the European Communities on issues relating to 
animal health. 
247. The United States explained that it had been wo rking closely with the European Communities 
and interested EC member States on this regiona lization request.  The United States had published a 
final rule in April 2003 which recognised that certain areas of the European Communities were 
disease free.  On 16 October 2003, APHIS ruled that  East Anglia, in the United Kingdom, was disease 
free and was continuing its evaluation of the status of other EC member States.  Outbreaks of both classical swine fever and FMD in France, Spain and Luxembourg had complicated and delayed the 
response to the regionalization request. 
161. United States - Regionalization in relation to animal health 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5, para. 15) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/37 
Solution: Not reported 
 
248. The European Communities welcomed a US notification on the introduction of 
regionalization in import policy and internal contro l policy in relation to animal health, but was 
concerned that the proposed measure did not meet th e criteria of a true regionalization approach in 
conformity with what had been discussed at the OI E.  The United States stressed the purpose of the 
proposed measure was to facilitate trade and to fu lfil the obligation of the United States under the SPS 
Agreement, in particular Article 5.2 on risk assessment. 
Plant Health 
162. United States - Import restrictions on po tted plants from the European Communities 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 30-31) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
249. The European Communities indicated that exports of plants in growing medium had been 
impeded for over 20 years because the United States conduc ted a pest risk assessme nt 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 a nd not proportional to th e potential risk.  The 
European Communities requested the United St ates 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 certificati on proposal submitted by the Commission or its 
member States, with the understanding that any modi fications to existing US regulations would have 
to be scientifically justified and be subject to the US rulemaking process.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 65 
 
 
163. United States – Imports of clementines  
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras.  7-10), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 58-
59) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 250. The European Communities reported that on 30 November 2001, USDA APHIS announced 
an immediate temporary ban on citrus fruit imports  from Spain following two reported interceptions 
of live Mediterranean fruit fly larvae.  The finds were made in cold-treated clementines from Spain 
stored in close proximity to, and possibly even mixed with, fruits from other sources.  Imports of 
Spanish citrus into the United States had taken pl ace in accordance with a pr otocol agreed in 1987 
comprising pre-shipment inspection, cold treatment , checks at the point of entry and measures that 
should be taken in the event of pest findings.  The European Communities considered the US measure 
disproportionate to the extent and nature of the fi ndings given the impact on trade, and discriminatory 
since other foreign suppliers, also using cold tr eatment, could still export clementines to the United 
States.  The European Communities was also dismayed  by the US decision to study revisions to the 
cold treatment procedure and issue a final rule  accordingly – a procedure which would take a 
considerable period of time.  
251. In June 2002 the European Communities reporte d that Spain and the United States continued 
bilateral efforts to find a resolution to this probl em.  The European Communities expressed concern as 
to whether exports would be allowed to resume by the following season on the basis of a new import 
protocol, given that the slow procedures being fo llowed by the United States might not be concluded 
in time for the new season.  The European Communities indicated that if this were to occur they might 
invoke the dispute resolution procedures.  The United States expressed appreciation for the 
cooperation of the Spanish authorities in the matte r and noted that the comment period had been 
extended in order to permit all relevant parties the opportunity to comment on the US risk assessment. 
164. United States – Interim rule affecting solid wood packaging material 
Raised by: none; Hong Kong, China is affected 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13,  paras. 3-12), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, 
paras. 2-3), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 35) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/107, G/SPS/N/USA/137, G/SPS/N/CAN/44 
Solution: Not reported 
252. In November 1998, the United States provided information on an amendment of the 
regulations applicable to unmanufactured wood, adding treatment and documentation requirements 
for imports from China, including Hong Kong, China.  Hong Kong, China found the rule arbitrary and 
discriminatory.  Although Hong Kong, China recogn ized that fumigation with methyl bromide was 
effective, it was concerned that the use of this substance had undesirable side-effects on human health 
and the environment.  Bilateral consultations w ith the United States had taken place.  The United 
States encouraged Members to comment on its draft measure.  Canada indicated that it had also 
imposed a measure on unmanufactured wood imports from China to avoid introduction of the Asian 
Longhorned Beetle.  A technical expert would be  sent to Hong Kong, China to study ways to 
implement this measure with a minimal disruption of  international trade.  In March 1999, the United 
States announced that an advance notice of proposed  rule making had been published on 20 January 
1999, and that comments were welcome until 22 Ma rch 1999.  The European Communities indicated G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 66  
 
that it had been monitoring similar problems, and woul d provide more information at a later date.  In 
October 2001, Hong Kong, China reported th at no new developments had occurred. 
165. United States – Notification G/SPS/N/USA/705 on implementation of the international 
standard for phytosanitary measures on wood packaging (ISPM 15) 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Chile 
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 50-51) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/705 
Solution: Not reported 
 
253. Argentina agreed that wood packaging could sp read pests, however, the US measures could 
have a negative impact on Argentin a's exports.  The US notification did not provide sufficient time for 
implementing the measures needed for compliance.   For instance, Argen tina needed sufficient 
resources and time to establish the required treatme nt centres for wood packaging materials.  Chile 
supported the statement made by Argentina. 
254. The United States stated that it had received 54 comments from seven other Members on its 
proposed measure and that APHIS was in the pro cess of evaluating these comments to determine how 
to take them into account.  The January implem entation date would be postponed and the measure 
would be phased in over time.  The United States encouraged other Members to adopt ISPM 15 as a means of controlling the spread of raw wood pests. 
166. United States - Actions taken by local governments 
Raised by: Chile 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1997 (G /SPS/R/9/Rev. 1, para. 47) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
255. Chile noted that legal actions taken by local  governments could disrupt trade flows.  For 
example, Californian judges had requested the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to undertake 
an environmental analysis before allowing imports. In another instance, after Chilean phytosanitary 
authorities had taken a decision regarding the entry of weeds, they were threatened to be subject to 
legal proceedings initiated by the exporting c ountry, unless the exporting country was declared a 
"low-risk" or a "zero-risk" country.  Another relate d issue concerned the need for the streamlining or 
reform of national regulatory frameworks.  As many  as five signatures were sometimes required to 
clear the entry of goods into a territory. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
 Page 67 
 
 
VENEZUELA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY VENEZUELA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Other Animal Health Concerns  167. Venezuela - Import conditions for pork meat and products  
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para. 67) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
256. The European Communities reported that Venezu ela had denied access to Danish pork meat 
and products without clearly indicating the import conditions or the relevant provisions.  The EC 
representative urged the Venezuelan authorities to not ify the relevant measures, giving other Members 
a chance to comment. 
168. Venezuela – Measures related to Avian Influenza 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, para . 25), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/19, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Not reported 
 
257. In July 1997, the United States informed th at non-pathogenic Avian Influenza had been 
detected in a few north-eastern US states.  As a consequence, Venezuela had banned the importation of US poultry and products.  The United States contes ted the scientific basis for this measure and was 
concerned that it had not been notified. 
258. In July 2001, the United States indicated that  Venezuela had acted in June 2000 to allow 
market access for US processed  poultry (G/SPS/GEN/265).  Venezuelan authorities had not 
responded to requests from the United States to pursu e this matter bilaterally.  The United States 
believed that the measures lacked scientific justifi cation and considered this trade concern unresolved. 
OTHER CONCERNS 
A
NIMAL HEALTH  
Other Animal Health Concerns  169. Certain Members – Notifications related to Avian Influenza 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 63-66) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.2 
Page 68  
 
 259. The United States noted that although internati onal standards existed with regard to avian 
influenza, differences in the understanding and in terpretation of these standards was resulting in 
unjustified trade barriers.  The OIE considered hi ghly pathogenic avian influenza as a List A disease, 
however low pathogenic strains were not considered to have any significant animal health or socio-
economic consequences.  However, some Members had restricted imports of poultry products from 
the United States due to a strain of low pathogenic avian influenza in two poultry flocks in the state of Virginia.  The United States requested that the OIE national and regional offices take a pro-active role 
in advising their members on this matter.  Japan obs erved that there was a possibility of variation in 
the strains, with a case of a low pathogenic strain causing an outbreak that later varied to a high 
pathogenic strain.  Japan had provided scientific ev idence in this regard to  the United States, and 
believed that its measure was fully justified.  
260. The OIE confirmed that the OIE Animal Hea lth Code referred to highly pathogenic or 
virulent avian influenza;  most strains of avian in fluenza were of low pathogenicity and did not cause 
economic effects.  However, the OIE Manual of Sta ndards also made reference to low pathogenicity 
viruses in laboratory tests through mutation showing highly pathogenic effects in the field.  The OIE 
was working on a definition to include such viruses.  The Philippines noted that the OIE Manual also 
included some text related to low pathogenic strain s as these strains could also cause clinical disease 
and problems. 
P
LANT HEALTH  
170. Phytosanitary issues in general  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 12) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
261. The United States noted that the mere existe nce of a plant disease or pest in traded 
agricultural goods did not necessarily constitute a ri sk to the importing country if, for scientific 
reasons, the pest or disease could not establish itself in the area into which it was being imported.  
Likewise, if the disease or pest was already prevalen t in the importing country, import controls were 
unlikely to serve any significant health objectiv e.  The United States urged Members to ensure 
compliance with the principle of national treatment as well as other key provisions. 
__________