WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
6 February 2007 
 (07-0509) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
Addendum  
 
 
ISSUES CONSIDERED IN 2006 
  
 This part of document G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.6 c ontains summary information regarding all 
issues which were raised in the SPS Committee for the first time during 2006, and issues which were 
previously raised but on which further discussions  or activities occurred during 2006.  This includes 
issues for which there was no substantive discu ssion in the Committee during 2006, but where 
Members reported that a previously raised issue ha d been resolved, or where substantive action on the 
issue occurred in another WTO body during 2006 (e.g ., establishment of a dispute resolution panel on 
the issue). 
 
 A total of 28 specific trade concerns were brought to the attention of the Committee during 2006, of which ten were new issues.  Figure 1 shows all trade concerns raised or for which a resolution or other action was reported in 2006 by subject .  Overall, six issues (21 per cent) relate to 
food safety, and ten issues (56 per cent) relate to plant health.  The remaining 11 issues (39 per cent) 
relate to animal health and zoonoses; this cate gory includes issues such as transmissible spongiform 
encephalopathy (TSEs) that are also relevant for f ood safety.  Figure 2 indicates that TSEs account for 
27 per cent of animal health concerns raised in 2006, while issues related to foot and mouth disease 
and avian influenza each account for 18 per cent.  The remaining 37 per cent concern other animal 
health issues. 
                                                     
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
Page ii  
 
   
FIGURE 1:  TRADE CONCERNS BY SUBJECT – 2006 
  
024681012
Total 11 6 10 1
New 3430Animal Health Food Safety Plant Health Other
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 2:  TRADE CONCERNS RELATED TO ANIMAL HEALTH & ZOONOSES – 2006 
 
TSE
27%
FMD
18% AI
18%OAH
37%TSE
FMD
AI
OAH
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
 Page iii 
 
 
  FIGURE 3:  PARTICIPATION OF MEMBERS – 2006 
 
131018
152213
1
0 5 10 15 20 25Members Maintaining
the Measure in
QuestionSupporting MembersMembers Raising the
Issue
Developed Countries Developing Countries Least-Developed Countries
 
Of the 28 trade concerns dealt with in 2006, in  18 cases a developed country has raised the 
issue, compared to 13 for developing country Members and zero for least-developed countries  (on 
some occasions developing and developed country Memb ers have raised or supported the same issue).  
Developed country Members have  supported another Member raising the issue in ten cases and 
developing country Members have  supported another Member in 22 cases.  One least-developed 
country Member has supported a trade concern.  In 15  cases, the measure at i ssue was maintained by a 
developing country Member, and in 13 cases it was ma intained by a developed country Member.  No 
trade concerns regarding measures maintained by least-developed country Members were raised.  
Figure 4 shows that six trade concerns were reporte d solved in 2006.  In one case, the Committee was 
informed that a partial solution had been found and for the remaining 21 cases, no solution had been 
reported. 
FIGURE 4:  SOLVED TRADE CONCERNS - 2006 
6
121
03691215182124
Resolved P artially resolved Not reported
StatusNumber of IssuesG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
Page iv  
 
  Table 1 – Issues Raised for the First Time in 2006 
Item #  Title 
236 Argentina – Restrictions on beef exports under the Hilton Quota 
237 Brazil – Lack of regionalization for New castle disease and restriction on live birds 
239 Dominican Republic – Tolerance levels for soil content on potato tubers 
238 European Communities – Application and modification of the EC Regulation on novel foods 
242 European Communities – Restrictions on US poultry exports 
240 India – Biotech labelling and import approval process regulations 
243 Indonesia – Lack of recognition of pest-free areas 
244 Indonesia – Legislation on importation of live animals and meat products 
245 Romania – Restrictions on US pork and poultry exports 
241 United States – Import restrictions on wooden Christmas trees  
 
Table 2 – Other Items Considered During 2006 
Item #  Title  
217 Australia – Import restrictions on apples 
194 Australia – Restrictions  on table grapes 
205 Bolivia – Slaughter of imported breeding cattle 
16 Chile – Restrictions on imports of wheat and fruit  
115 China – Import restrictions for citrus and other fruits related to fruit fly 
219 European Communities – Eurep/Gap requirements for bananas 
231 European Communities – Import restrictions on cinnamon 
210 Guatemala – Restrictions on imports of chicken meat 
62 India – Restrictions on imports of live horses 
232 Israel – Import restrictions on EC beef due to BSE 
233 Israel – Absence of phytosanitary import legislation 
212 Japan – Amendment protocol on MRLs for pesticides, veterinary drugs and feed additives 
213 Japan – Restrictions on beef imports 
222 Japan – Import suspension of heat-processed straw and forage for feed 
164 Mexico – Restrictions on the importation of dry beans 
225 Mexico – Restrictions on US poultry 
102 United States – Import restrictions on potted plants from the European Communities 
235 Certain Members – Import restrictions on EC exports of live birds, meat, meat products and other 
derivates due to avian influenza  
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
 Page v 
 
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
ARGENTINA ...................................................................................................................... ...................1  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ARGENTINA ...........................................1  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....1 
236. Argentina – Restrictions on beef exports under the Hilton Quota..........................................1  
AUSTRALIA...................................................................................................................... ....................1  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY AUSTRALIA ............................................1  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..................1  
194. Australia – Restrictions on fresh grapes.................................................................................1  
217. Australia – Import restrictions on apples................................................................................2  
BOLIVIA ........................................................................................................................ ........................5  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BOLIVIA ..................................................5  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....5 
205. Bolivia - Slaughter of imported breeding cattle .....................................................................5  
BRAZIL ......................................................................................................................... .........................6  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BRAZIL ...................................................6  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....6 
237. Brazil – Lack of regionalization for Newcastle disease and restrictions on live 
birds.......................................................................................................................... ..............6  
CHILE.......................................................................................................................... ...........................7  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHILE .....................................................7  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..................7  
16. Chile – Restrictions on imports of wheat and fruit.................................................................7  
CHINA .......................................................................................................................... ..........................8  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINA ....................................................8  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..................8  
115. China – Import restrictions for citrus and other fruits related to fruit fly...............................8  
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC ............................................................................................................. ......9  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC .................9  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..................9  
239. Dominican Republic – Tolerance levels  for soil content on potato tubers.............................9  
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ..........................................................................................................1 0 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY  THE EUROPEAN 
COMMUNITIES ..................................................................................................................10  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................10  
231. European Communities -  Restrictions on cinnamon ...........................................................10  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
Page vi  
 
  242.
 European Communities -  Restrictions on US poultry exports.............................................11  
238. European Communities – Application and modification of the EC Regulation on 
novel foods .................................................................................................................... .......12  
Other Concerns................................................................................................................. ............15  
219. European Communities - EurepGAP  requirements for bananas ..........................................15  
GUATEMALA ...................................................................................................................... ...............16  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY GUATEMALA .......................................16  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..16 
210. Guatemala - Restrictions on imports of chicken meat..........................................................16  
INDIA.......................................................................................................................... ..........................17  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDIA ....................................................17  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................17  
240. India – Biotech labelling and impor t approval process regulations .....................................17  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..18 
62. India – Restrictions on imports of horses .............................................................................18  
INDONESIA...................................................................................................................... ...................19  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA ...........................................19  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..19 
244. Indonesia - Legislation on importation of live animals and meat products..........................19  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................20  
243. Indonesia - Lack of recognition of pest-free areas ...............................................................20  
ISRAEL......................................................................................................................... ........................21  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ISRAEL .................................................21  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..21 
232. Israel - Import restrictions on EC beef due to BSE ..............................................................21  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................22  
233. Israel - Absence of phytosanitary import legislation............................................................22  
JAPAN .......................................................................................................................... ........................23  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN ...................................................23  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................23  
212. Japan - Positive list system for pesticid es, veterinary drugs and feed additives 
MRLs........................................................................................................................... .........23  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..25 
213. Japan - Restrictions on beef  imports....................................................................................25  
222. Japan - Import suspension of heat-pro cessed straw and forage for feed ..............................26  
MEXICO......................................................................................................................... ......................28   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
 Page vii 
 
 
  CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY MEXICO ...............................................28  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..28 
225.  Mexico - Restrictions on US poultry....................................................................................28  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................30  
164. Mexico - Restrictions on the importation of dry beans ........................................................30  
ROMANIA ........................................................................................................................ ...................30  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ROMANIA .............................................30  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................30  
245. Romania – Restrictions on US pork and poultry imports.....................................................30  
UNITED STATES.................................................................................................................. ..............31  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE UNITED STATES ...........................31  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................31  
102. United States - Import restrictions on potted plants from the European 
Communities .................................................................................................................... ....31  
241. United States - Import restrictions on wooden Christmas trees ...........................................33  
OTHER CONCERNS................................................................................................................. .........34  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..34 
235. Certain Members - Import restrictions on EC exports of live birds, meat, meat 
products and other derivates due to avian influenza.............................................................34  
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
 Page 1 
 
 
  ARGENTINA  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ARGENTINA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Other animal health concerns 
 
236. Argentina – Restrictions on beef exports under the Hilton Quota 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: None 
Dates raised: March 2006 (G/SPS/R/40, para. 34) 
Relevant 
document(s): Raised orrally 
Solution: Not Reported. 
 
1. In March 2006, the European Communities reported that Argentina had placed restrictions on 
its own beef exports, reducing in pa rticular the quantity of beef it exported under the so-called Hilton 
Quota.  The European Communities understood that th is measure was taken due to concerns about the 
quantities and prices of beef available on the Argen tine domestic market.  However, according to the 
European Communities, this trade disruption could lead to a weaken ing of the SPS controls necessary 
to ensure that beef exports met the SPS requireme nts of the European Communities.  The European 
Communities sought assurances that its sanitary requirements could be met, particularly in terms of traceability, if export quantities were substantially redu ced.  Argentina indicated that it had taken note 
of the concern of the European Communities. 
AUSTRALIA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY AUSTRALIA  
Plant Health 194. Australia – Restrictions on fresh grapes 
Raised by: Chile 
Supported by: European Communities, New Zealand 
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, para. 216), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, 
paras 34-36), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras 62-64), March 2006 
(G/SPS/R/40, para. 51). 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/ 148/Add.1, G/SPS/N/AUS/153/Add.1, 
G/SPS/N/AUS/148/Add.2, G/SPS/N/AUS/ 148/Add.3 
Solution: Resolved  
 2. In October 2004, Chile stated that in 1998 Aust ralia was requested to indicate its market 
access requirements for table grapes.  Following initial meetings between the regulatory agencies, Chile understood that the import risk analysis w ould last approximately 12 months.  A number of 
technical meetings had since taken place, however , a solution had not been reached despite the 
provision of all required technical information.  The undue delays and changes in the procedures 
undertaken by Australia were a concern to Chile.  Australia noted the concerns expressed by Chile G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
Page 2  
 
  and indicated its commitment to work with Chile to  finalize the import risk analysis as quickly as 
possible. 
3. In March 2005, Chile recalled its concerns regarding the undue delays experienced by 
Chilean exporters of fresh grapes to Australia wh ich were contrary to the provisions of the SPS 
Agreement, notably Article 5.4 and Annex C.  In  2004, the IRA for Chilean fresh grapes had been 
revised.  In February 2005, the draft text of the new IRA for Chilean fresh grapes had been published 
and subjected to a 45-day consultation period.  Ch ile underlined its serious concerns that this IRA 
would not be finalized in time for the October e xport period for Chilean fresh grapes.  The European 
Communities recalledthat the European Communitie s was facing similar problems for various food 
products.  He urged Australia to ensure that its  sanitary and phytosanitary measures were taken 
exclusively for sanitary and phytosanitary reasons and without undue delays.  
4. Australia clarified that Biosecurity Australia had become a prescribed agency in December 
2004 and shortly after had reviewed and reissued seve ral of the draft IRAs.  Two of these IRAs had 
recently been released for public comments(G/SPS/N/AUS/ 148/Add.1 and G/SPS/N/AUS/153/Add.1), while the revised draft IR A on importation of fresh grapes from Chile was 
currently available for public comments on Biosecurity Australia's website.   
5. In June 2005,  Chile noted that on 24 June, afte r a process of consultations and comments, the 
report had been forwarded to the Eminent Scientists  Group.  Chile hoped that the final authorization 
would be granted before the next gr ape shipping season in mid-October. 
6. The European Communities raised concerns re garding the transparency of the Australian 
quarantine regime for fruits and vege tables, and noted that long delays before the issuance of a risk 
assessment had prevented EC exporters from acc essing the Australian market for years.   
7. Australia assured Chile that it was committed to  deliver a science-based risk assessment as 
soon as possible.  The final IRA for table grapes from Chile was notified to the SPS Committee in 
September 2005 (G/SPS/N/AUS/ 148/Add.2).  In D ecember 2005, Australia notified to the SPS 
Committee that imports of Chilean fresh table grap es were now authorized under certain conditions 
(G/SPS/N/AUS/ 148/Add.3).  
8. In March 2006, Chile reported that after discussions  with Australian authorities, a joint work 
plan had been agreed to resolve the issue. 
217. Australia – Import restrictions on apples 
Raised by: New Zealand 
Supported by: Chile, European Communities, United States 
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 13-15), October 2005/February 2006 
(G/SPS/R/39, paras. 64-68), March 200 6 (G/SPS/R/40, paras. 38-40), June 
2006 (G/SPS/R/42, paras. 32-34), Oct ober 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, paras. 30-32) 
Relevant 
document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
9. In June 2005, New Zealand explained that  it had been actively pursuing access to the 
Australian apple market since 1986.  Fresh apples were the second most significant horticultural export of New Zealand after kiwifruit.  Austra lia's ban on New Zealand apples was based on the 
perceived risk of fire blight transmission, altho ugh science had clearly demonstrated that the risk of 
mature symptomless apples in trade being vectors for the transmission of fire blight was negligible.  
Since 1999, when New Zealand made its fourth application for regaining access to the Australian  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  apple market, the Australian authorities had only rel eased two draft risk analyses, systematically 
followed by a round of comments.  This undue delay of six years was unacceptable   
10. Chile, the European Communities and the United St ates indicated that they had experienced 
similar difficulties.  The European Communities hoped that since Australia was reviewing the 
scientific justification of its 2004 risk assessment in light of the Panel findings in the Japan-Apples 
case, its phytosanitary import policy might improve.  The United States recalled that the major plant 
pest of concern was fire blight.  As mentioned earlier, a WTO dispute settlement Panel had recently 
found that stringent control requirements were not justified on the basis of the available scientific 
evidence, which clearly demonstrated that mature  symptomless apple fruit did not pose a risk of 
transmitting fire blight.  It encouraged Austra lia to expeditiously modify its existing import 
prohibitions on apples and other fruits due to fire blight concerns.  Chile requested to be kept 
informed of any progress on this issue. 
11. Australia reminded the Committee that recent changes to Austra lia's biosecurity agency had 
caused some delays in the time taken to complete a number of risk analyses.  Australia was committed 
to deliver a science-based risk  assessment for New Zealand apples as soon as possible.   
12. In February 2006, New Zealand informed the Committee that since June 2005, Australia had 
issued a new revised draft import risk analysis for New Zealand apples.  This new revised draft 
allowed the import of New Zealand apples into Au stralia under certain conditions.  Australia had 
already proposed a similar conditional access in res ponse to previous requests without justifying the 
scientific basis of these conditions.  Australia requi red not only that orchards be inspected by their 
own officials and found free of fire blight, but also that apples be immersed in chlorine prior to 
export.  These measures were unjustified.  Australia  also prohibited imports of New Zealand apples 
into Western Australia because of apple scab disea se, although another outbreak of apple scab had 
been reported in Western Australia at the time the revi sed draft import risk analysis had been released.  
New Zealand considered that Australia's biosecurity  import risk analysis process, based on cycles of 
drafts and consultations, resulted in undue delays and constituted a di sguised restriction on trade.  
These undue delays created uncertainty about whet her and when the Australian Government would 
complete its import risk analysis. 
13. The United States recalled that there was an  outstanding US request for access to the 
Australian market.  Given both the strong science and the legal record established by the WTO dispute settlement process with regard to the risk of transmitting fire blight via mature symptomless 
apples, Australia should remove its unjustified import prohibitions and ensure that its import 
requirements were based on science and consistent with the SPS Agreement. 
14. The European Communities recalled that in J une 2005, Australia had suspended its import 
risk assessment for New Zealand apples pending a revi ew in the light of the Japan-Apples case.  Then 
a new revised draft had been submitted for consider ation, leading to more delays.  The European 
Communities had similar experiences with Australia in  trying to get access for chicken meat and pig 
meat.   
15. Australia stressed that all the relevant scientific  information, including that considered in the 
Japan-Apples case, had been taken into account in the assessment of the risks from New Zealand 
apples.  The new draft report was available for co mments until 30 March 2006.  After consideration of 
comments received, a final review of the draft repo rt would be undertaken by an eminent group of 
scientists.  If this group confirmed that all releva nt information has been taken into account in the 
analysis (including stakeholder comments), the report and its recommendations on import conditions 
would be transmitted to the Director of Animal a nd Plant Quarantine for a policy determination.  The 
revised draft report took account of Australia’s level of protection (ALOP).  Fire blight was one of a 
number of pest and diseases of quara ntine concern dealt with in the revised draft report.  The report G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
Page 4  
 
  appropriately took into account the variations in th e phytosanitary status of different regions within 
Australia. 
16. In June 2006, New Zealand reported that it had commented on a draft risk assessment.  
Contrary to evidence considered in the Japan – Apples  case, Australia maintained that mature apples 
were a vector for fire blight.  New Zealand was of the view that volume estimates in the risk 
assessment should contain only New Zealand exports.   Biosecurity Australia had indicated that the 
process might conclude at the end of 2006.  If this problem - which had existed for four years - could 
not be resolved bilaterally, New Zealand would not rule out other WTO actions.  
17. The United States reiterated its request that Au stralia revise its approach in light of the 
scientific evidence and of WTO jurisprudence. 
18. Australia indicated that 40 submissions commenting on the draft import risk assessment had 
been received, and that some technical exchange was continuing.  The draft import risk assessment 
took into account Australia's appropriate level of prot ection; fire blight was only one of the pests of 
concern.  The final report would be reviewed by an  eminent scientist group to ensure that stakeholder 
comments had been properly taken into account. 
19. In October 2006, New Zealand recalled that in December 2005, Australia had released a third 
revised draft Import Risk Analysis (IRA) for New Zealand apples, and New Zealand, in consultation 
with their pip fruit industry, had provided a compre hensive submission to Biosecurity Australia on 
this revised draft.  New Zealand noted that sin ce June 2006, Biosecurity Australia had completed its 
consideration for stakeholder comments on the revised  draft and a final draft report had been referred 
to Australia's Eminent Scientific Group (ESG), which had also finished its consideration of the draft 
final report and made recommendations to Biosecur ity Australia.  New Zealand had not received these 
recommendations and urged Australia to  make them available in the interest of transparency.  While 
New Zealand was reassured by the progress made in finalizing the issue with Australia, it still had 
concerns regarding the content and substance of the draft IRA.  Aust ralia still maintained that matures 
apples were a vector for the fire blight disease, i rrespective of the science c onsidered in the Japan 
apples dispute which had demonstrated that the risk  was negligible.  New Zealand was also concerned 
about the pests and diseases addressed by Australia in the revised import risk analysis and hoped that 
the volume of imports assessed in the final IR A would take into account only trade from New 
Zealand.  New Zealand indicated its commitment to resolving the issue bilaterally with Australia, but 
was prepared to explore other dispute settlement options under the WTO system if the issue was not 
resolved in the near future.   
20. The United States shared the concerns of New Zealand and indicated that the United States 
had also provided a comprehensive submission to Biosecurity Australia on its revised draft IRA.  The United States expected that Australia's final policy determination for New Zealand would be 
consistent with the wealth of scientific evidence av ailable on the issue and the legal record established 
by the WTO dispute settlement process. 
21. Australia reported that in acco rdance with Australia's normal procedure, the draft final IRA 
was sent to the independent Eminent Scientific Group (ESG) on 1 August 2006 for review.  That 
group had 60 days to conduct its review and as i ndicated by New Zealand, the ESG had completed the 
review and the report had been transmitted to Austra lia's Director of Animal and Plant Quarantine.  
Biosecurity Australia was expected to take in to account any recommendati ons made by the ESG in 
producing its final IRA report and the report would be published.  Austra lia further noted that the final 
IRA could be appealed on the basis of any problems with the process but not in terms of the actual 
science in the report.  Once any appeal process had been completed, a final report and recommendations would be provided to the Director  of Animal and Plant Quarantine for a final 
quarantine policy determination.  The whole process w as expected to be completed by the end of 2006  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
  and Australia indicated that the recommendations made by the ESG would be conveyed in an 
appropriate fashion as determined by the Director of Animal and Plant Quarantine. 
BOLIVIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BOLIVIA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to TSE 
 205. Bolivia - Slaughter of imported breeding cattle 
Raised by: Mexico 
Supported by: None 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev. 1, paras. 45-47), June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, 
paras. 19-20) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
22. In March 2005, Mexico stated that Bolivia ha d slaughtered a number of Mexican cows in 
2004 on the grounds that Mexico was a high-risk country  for BSE.  Mexico considered this to be in 
breach of Articles 2.2, 2.3, 5, 6 and Annex C of th e SPS Agreement.  BSE was classified as an exotic 
illness in Mexico, as Mexico was free of the disease.  At the end of 1996, the Mexican animal health 
authorities had implemented an epidemiological su rveillance programme for BSE, based on the OIE 
recommendations.    
23. Bolivia clarified that the Mexican cattle had b een slaughtered because they had arrived at 
Bolivia's airport without the relevant animal health  permit.  Bolivian health authorities had required 
the re-exportation or the disposal of the cattle, howev er due to inaction by the Mexican authorities, the 
cattle had been slaughtered.  Mexico concluded th at the issue with Bolivia had been resolved. 
24. In June 2006, Mexico recalled that a Mexican association, FOGAMEX, had been invited to 
show some cattle at a fair in Santa Cruz, Bo livia.  Although the requirements communicated by 
Bolivia's animal health authority (SENASAG) ha d been fulfilled and an import permit had been 
obtained, when the cattle arrived in Bolivia, SENAS AG had seized the animals and ordered that they 
be returned to Mexico.  However, since foot a nd mouth disease exists in Bolivia while it does not 
exist in Mexico, it was not possible to return the animals to Mexico.  After weeks of negotiations, and 
after the Bolivian authorities had revoked the impor t permit although the cattle had already arrived, 
Bolivia decided to slaughter the cattle.  Months la ter, in the context of a lawsuit filed by FOGAMEX 
against SENASAG, the Bolivian Supreme Court in Santa Cruz found that SENASAG had withheld 
the import permits without legal basis and orde red SENASAG to cover th e damages.  Formal 
consultations held in La Paz, Bolivia, in 2005 had not led to an agreement.  Since then, bilateral 
efforts had continued to try to obtain an offici al and public apology from the Bolivian Government 
and payment for damages caused. 
25. Bolivia indicated that, as explained at the previ ous meeting, in the absence of OIE guidance, 
the competent Bolivian authorities had followe d national and Andean Community sanitary 
requirements, which required a risk assessment before an import permit was issued.  The animal health authorities received insufficient documentatio n to carry out a risk assessment only two days 
before the cattle arrived.  According to the Andean regulations, the cattle thus had to be slaughtered or G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
Page 6  
 
  re-exported.  After granting a reasonable period to allow the interested parties to organize the re-
exportation of the cattle, which had not been possibl e, the Bolivian authorities had slaughtered the 
cattle to ensure adequate health protection in Bo livia and in the region.  Bilateral efforts were 
underway to find a mutually satisfactory solution to Mexico's concern about the economic damage 
suffered by the Mexican exporter. 
BRAZIL 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BRAZIL  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Other animal health concerns 
 
237. Brazil – Lack of regionalization for Newc astle disease and restrictions on live birds 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2006 (G/SPS/R/40, paras. 30-33) 
Relevant 
document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
 
26. The European Communities raised concerns re garding import restrictions applied to EC 
products related to the failure to recognize regi onalization and the disease-free status of some EC 
member States.  France had made several offici al requests for recognition of regionalization for 
Newcastle disease to the Brazilian authorities dur ing 2005 and 2006, however   no recognition of 
regionalization had been made by the Brazilian competent authorities. 
27. The EC member States did not understand why Br azil refused to recognize regionalization for 
Newcastle disease while the Eu ropean Communities recognized regionalization of Brazil for 
Newcastle disease and for other major animal di seases.  A situation where a whole country was 
affected by a ban when only a limited part of its territory was affected by a disease did not fit the concept of regionalization promoted by the SPS Agre ement.  Trade had to be allowed from other 
areas or regions within a country where the disease  did not exist.  The European Communities urged 
Brazil to respect Article 6 of the SPS Agreement, to  follow the international rules set up by the OIE 
and to respond positively to legitimate requests for th e application of the principle of regionalization 
for EC member States. 
28. Brazil reported that due to an outbreak of Newcastle disease in the French department of the 
Loire Atlantique, reported to the OIE on 27 July  2005, on 5 August 2005 Braz il suspended imports of 
live birds and avian genetic material, exclusively from that French department.  Another case was 
notified to the OIE on 21 October 2005 in the Port  de Calais department, whereupon Brazil extended 
the import restrictions to the whole of the French  territory.  A further outbreak of Newcastle disease 
was subsequently notified in another French de partment on 18 November 2005.  French health 
authorities denied any epidemiological connecti on between the outbreaks and reported that the 
outbreaks had been related to contamination by mi grating birds.  On 25 February 2006, a case of 
highly pathogenic  (AI) was identified in France, whic h once again was attributed to contamination by 
migrating birds.  
29. In the light of all the outbreaks attributed to migrating birds, Brazil decided to monitor the 
situation in France with regard to  bird diseases, in order to protect its own population.  Brazil wished  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
  to maintain good trade relations with France and the European Communities, and applied fully the 
provisions of Article 6 on regionalization.  Howeve r, the outbreaks of Newcastle disease, the available 
information and the recent occurrence of AI were a ll relevant.  Brazil was the world's largest exporter 
of chicken, and needed to maintain its status as free of AI. 
CHILE 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHILE  
Plant Health 16.  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), 
October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, para. 36) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GN/14, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Resolved 
 
30. 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 
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.   
31. 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. 
32. In October 2006, the United States and Chile  both reported that following bilateral 
discussions held in August 2006, c oncerns relating to phytosanitary measures applied to US fruit 
exports to Chile had been resolved.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
Page 8  
 
  CHINA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINA  
Plant Health 115. 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), March 2006 (GSPS/R/40, para. 50) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Resolved 
 
33. 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.   
34. 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.   
35. In June 2002, Argentina informed the Co mmittee that despite having held bilateral 
consultations with China, the issue was not resolved.  China indicated that it was prepared to consider 
alternative treatments, but had not yet received any technical data demonstrating that establishing pest 
free production places and cold treatment could provide  equivalent protection to the establishment of 
pest-free areas. 
36. In March 2006, Argentina reported that this  specific trade concern had been resolved.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
 Page 9 
 
 
  DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC  
Plant Health 239. Dominican Republic – Tolerance levels  for soil content on potato tubers 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, pa ras. 17-18), October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, 
paras. 33-34) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
37. In June 2006, Canada stated that it had been  negatively affected by the unacceptably low 
tolerance levels set by the Dominican Republic for soil content on potato tubers  which were ten times 
lower than those indicated in the international sta ndard.  This measure seemed to target Canada as 
other exporters were not subject to the same requi rement, which was impossible to meet and was not 
based on a risk assessment.  Despite numerous efforts at the bilateral level a nd an invitation extended 
to the Dominican Republic to visit the potato produc tion sites, the issue remained unresolved.  Canada 
urged the Dominican Republic to am end its tolerance level to bring it in line with international 
practice. 
38. The Dominican Republic explained that the meas ure was not discriminatory as it applied to 
all countries exporting to the Dominican Republic, where there was a risk of introduction of 
nematodes.  An official communication had been sen t to Canada in this regard and they hoped to 
resolve the issue promptly. 
39. In October 2006, Canada reporte d that it had held bilateral me etings to discuss Canada's  
concerns with the Dominican Republic requirement s for Canadian potato.  In September 2006, the 
Dominican Republic sent representatives to Canada to get first hand information on Canadian potato 
production, distribution and transportation systems and to take samples for test ing. At the conclusion 
of the visit, Canada thought they had reached an  agreement on the conditions for Canadian potato to 
be exporter to the Dominican Republic.  Canada reiterated  that there had been no agreement on 
acceptable soil tolerance level as a result of misc ommunication of the results of the September 
meeting and indicated their interest to continue th e technical discussion on the issue while hoping that 
the issue could be resolved on the basis of accepta ble international practices for soil tolerance.  
40. The Dominican Republic observed that following  the recommendations of a multidisciplinary 
team of experts working on potato certification a nd working on phytosanitary measures, they had 
agreed on a soil tolerance level of 1g of soil per kg of potato for consumption and 5g of soil per kg of 
seed potato.  Canadian and Dominican Republic expe rts were right and agreed that over the next 2 
years the situation was to be carefully monitor a nd possibly could agreed to increase to the soil 
tolerance level to 85g of soil per kg of potato.  Howe ver, the Dominican Republic agreed with Canada 
that there had been miscommunication and expressed th eir desire to continue monitoring the situation 
while hoping that an understanding could be reached at a bilateral level. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
Page 10  
 
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY  THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES  
Food Safety 231. European Communities -  Restrictions on cinnamon 
Raised by: Sri Lanka 
Supported by: China 
Dates raised: October 2005/February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 52-58), October 2006 
(G/SPS/R/43, para. 38). 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/597 
Solution: Resolved 
 
41. In October 2005 and February 2006, Sri Lanka reported problems with exports of Ceylon 
cinnamon ( Cinnamomum zeylanicum)  to the European Communities, in particular to Germany,  on the 
grounds that the cinnamon contained sulphur dioxide (SO2) (G/SPS/GEN/597).  Directive No. 
95/2/EC and its subsequent amendments on the import of foodstuffs liste d conditionally permitted 
preservatives and additives including SO2 and sulphites and maximum tolerated levels in a number of 
products, but not in cinnamon.  The chemical evaluation undertaken by the FAO/WHO Joint Expert 
Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 1998 had shown that the use of SO2  in acceptable 
quantities as a food additive did not produce any adverse effects on human health.  The presence of a certain amount of SO2
 as a food additive had also been permitte d in Codex and EC standards.  SO2  
fumigation had been applied by the cinnamon industr y in Sri Lanka as an acceptable method to obtain 
a better colour and to prevent fungus and insects, an d as there was no direct application of sulphur to 
cinnamon, no residual content of SO2was expect ed to be present in the final product.  
42. The current EC restrictions would drastically reduce Sri Lanka’s exports to the EC market, 
and might also have an effect on Sri Lanka's expor ts to other markets.  Sri Lanka questioned the 
consistency of the EC measure with Article 3.3 of  the SPS Agreement.  The Codex General Standards 
for Food Additives indicated that the lack of reference to a particular  additive or to the use of an 
additive in a specific food did not imply  that the additive was unsafe or uns uitable for use in food.  Sri 
Lanka queried whether the EC Scientific Committe e for Food had undertaken an assessment of the 
risk posed by Sri Lanka's cinnamon on human health .  In addition, Sri Lanka sought clarification 
regarding  what relevant economic factors had led the European Communities to decide that a de facto  
import ban was the appropriate leve l of protection required in this situation and if the European 
Communities had taken into account the objective of minimizing negative trade effects when 
determining the appropriate level of SPS protection.  Sri Lanka s uggested there was scope for the 
European Communities to provide longer time-frames  for Sri Lanka to comply with EC SPS measures 
on cinnamon, as provided for in Article 10.2 of the SPS Agreement.  Sri Lanka requested the 
European Communities to suspend its current de facto  ban while his country pursued the development 
of a Codex standard on MRLs for cinnamon.  Sri La nka also requested, as a transitional measure, that 
the European Communities accept Sr i Lankan cinnamon with an SO2  content up to  150ppm until the 
maximum residue limit for SO2 in cinnamon were  defined at the international level.  
43. China requested that the Eur opean Communities provide a risk analysis and safety assessment 
report and expressed hope the issue could be resolve through bilateral consultations. 
44. The European Communities recognized that the EC legislation on food additives and 
contaminants had no provision for sulphur dioxide in  cinnamon, and changing the legislation to allow  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
 Page 11 
 
 
  SO2  in cinnamon could be a lengthy process.  The European Commission had explored the possibility 
of providing technical assistance to Sri Lanka  to assist in the preparation of this dossier.  The 
European Commission had brought EC member States’ attention to the need to approve SO2  as an 
additive in cinnamon and encouraged member St ates to adapt their import policies pending the 
modification of the EC legislation. 
45. The representative of Codex confirmed that the use of SO 2 as an additive was currently under 
discussion at step 3 in the framework of the C odex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants 
(CCFAC).  The pace of finalization of the discu ssions depended on contri butions and views of 
CCFAC participants.  Sulphur dioxide had been evaluated by the JECFA  in 1998 and was currently allowed on a few commodities.  The CCFAC would meet  the last week of April 2006, which provided 
an occasion for Members to stress the importance and urgency of developing a MRL for SO2 in 
cinnamon. 
46. In October 2006, Sri Lanka reported that through bilateral discussion, concerns regarding the 
issue of EC restrictions on the importation of cinnam on had been resolved to their mutual satisfaction.  
In July 2006, an international standard for cinnam on was established and it ha d also been approved by 
Civil Society Coalition (CSC) in Geneva.  Sri Lanka noted that these issues had been resolved through 
the cooperation of the European Communities 
242. European Communities -  Restrictions on US poultry exports 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: None 
Dates raised: October 2006 (G /SPS/R/43, paras. 28-29). 
Relevant 
document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
47. In October 2006, the United States raised con cerns regarding the delay by the European 
Communities to finalize and implement a draft re gulation that approved antimicrobial treatments 
(AMTs) on poultry subject to certain restrictions.  The United States recalled that in August 1997, the 
European Communities stopped imports of US poultry meat on the basis of the use of AMTs in its 
production.  However, in January 2006 the Europe an Food Safety Authorit y (EFSA) had concluded 
that the antimicrobial washes at issue were safe, confirming an April 2003 opinion by the EC 
scientific committee on veterinary measures related to  public health.  Despite the decision by the 
European Communities to propose new legislation that provided the framework to approve these 
products for use on poultry, the European Commun ities had yet to approve importation of poultry 
treated with these products.  The United States ur ged the European Communities to authorize these 
products so that US poultry exports which met rigorous US safety standards could also meet EC standards.   
48. The European Communities appreciated the US c oncerns regarding the delay but noted that it 
was important that the genuine and long-standing co ncerns in the European Communities over the use 
of AMTs were taken fully into account in the a pproval process.  The circumstances that led to the 
effective ban on poultry meat from United States in 1997 did not relate exclusively to AMTs.  The use 
of AMTs in food of animal origin was not permitted at present in the European Communities inter 
alia because of concerns that the use of such treat ments could disguise other hygiene problems.  The 
European Communities expressed disappointment that while it was possible for US exports to meet 
EC hygiene requirements without the use of AMTs, the United States was still insisting on the use of 
these products.  The European Communities was in th e process of finding a solution and this included 
a recent decision in principle that AMTs could be used to tackle surface contamination.  A draft G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
Page 12  
 
  regulation had been prepared which allowed for th e use of such substances under specific conditions.  
The European Communities was still identifying the specific conditions to accompany the draft 
regulation, in order to ensure that AMTs were not used to hide other problems.  However, the 
European Communities expressed hope that bilateral information exchanges with the United States 
could lead to a mutually agreeable solution.  
238. European Communities – Application and modification of the EC Regulation on novel 
foods 
Raised by: Columbia, Ecuador, Peru 
Supported by: Argentina, Benin, Bolivia, Braz il, Chile, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras, 
India, Mexico, Paraguay, Philippines, Uruguay, Venezuela  
Dates raised: March 2006 (G/SPS/R/40, paras.  21-29), June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, paras. 35-
37), October 2006 (G/SPS/R/ 43, paras.131-134)  
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/GEN/681, G/SPS/GEN/699, G/SPS/GEN/700, G/SPS/GEN/713, 
G/SPS/GEN/714, G/SPS/GEN/733, G/SPS/GEN/735 
Solution:  Not reported 
 49. In March 2006, Colombia raised concerns on the application of the EC Regulation on novel 
foods (Regulation No 258/97) and with the draft project of the European Commission to amend the 
regulation, foreseen to enter into  force in 2007.  The amendment could directly affect the trade 
potential of traditional and exotic foods.  Some trad itional and exotic products already had substantial 
presence in the US and Japanese food markets, a nd European consumers were now becoming 
interested in these food products.  It was important  to recall, however, that these traditional foods had 
been consumed in South America for thousands of year s.  This was in contrast to genetically modified 
products which could be considered as real novel food s.  Columbia reported that the increased trade in 
traditional and exotic products also had important  socio-economic impacts, as the export of these 
products represented a measure to decrease extreme rural poverty in South America and had potential 
to address specific social and environmental issues, such as providing alternatives to both the growing of narcotic crops and to the illega l felling of protected forests.  
50. Colombia was aware of the importance of prot ecting consumer health.  However, the amount 
of information on the safety of these traditional fo od products required by the EC regulation and the 
costs to undertake scientific studies were not proportional to health risks and were excessive 
especially for small scale farmers and exporters.  The proposed amendment of Regulation 258 would 
result in a non-tariff barrier to trade with negative effects on the introduction of traditional foods into 
European markets, contrary to Articles 2.2 and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement. 
51. Columbia requested the European  Communities to consider the following points regarding the 
amendment of the Regulation 258/97: 
• The non-application of Regulation 258 to exo tic, traditional products with a history of 
safe consumption in their region of origin; 
• Greater transparency and clarity in the pro cedures and definition, giving credit to a safe 
consumption history of food in the country of origin; 
• Requirements, tests, and procedures in proportion with the nature of the foods concerned 
and the risks they could imply for consumers;  and 
• All exotic traditional products to remain in the public domain and no private entity to be 
granted privileged access to  the European market.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
 Page 13 
 
 
  52. Ecuador reported that the amendment would also  affect the trade potential of traditional and 
exotic food from his country.  In light of Ecuador's great biodiversity, over the last decade international organizations like UNCTAD had b een promoting the development of new export 
products ("Bio-Comercio").  In Ecuador also the export of traditional and exotic foods had major 
socio-economic impacts and related closely to effort s to overcome rural poverty.  Ecuador invited the 
European Communities to consider carefully Colomb ia's recommendations regarding the amendment.  
The amendment of the regulation and its impacts were of importance for many developing countries. 
53. Peru observed that currently, within the Conve ntion on Biological Diversity, countries were 
discussing measures and mechanisms for the preserva tion and sustainable use of biodiversity.  
Contrary to that approach, the application of Regul ation 258 would restrict greater sustainable use of 
traditional and exotic products, by diminishing their export potential.  Peru stressed the high costs and 
the long period of time needed for products to be registered under Regulation 258 to allow them to enter the European market.  Peru also suppor ted the Colombia's recommendations regarding the 
amendment (G/SPS/GEN/681). 
54. Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica and Paraguay reported that  their exports had also been affected by 
Regulation 258/97.  Benin requested more informat ion on how a product was considered as "novel".  
Argentina and Mexico both indicated that they were still in the process of analyzing the implications 
of the regulation.  El Salvador, Honduras, India,  Uruguay and Venezuela expressed their interest in 
the topic and shared the concerns of Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. 
55. The European Communities confirmed that Regulation 258/97 was being reviewed and 
recognized that some modifications were needed.  He referred to a 40-page document  which might 
answer a lot of questions and which would be circ ulated as an SPS document shortly.  The document 
set out clearly the purpose and scope of the regula tion, which was targeted at new food technologies, 
including genetically modified products.  As the food industry was investing in different new 
technologies, Regulation 258 aimed to reassure European consumers of the safety of those technologies.  The vast majority of applications fo r authorization of novel foods had been from within 
the European Communities.  The European policy was aimed at striking the right balance between 
encouraging technical innovation and ensuring that  consumers are protected.   Some products 
marketed as "products of biodiversity" had in the pa st turned out to be unsafe and harmed the users.  
Dealing with such products was thus in the interest of all stakeholders, considering the damage to the 
image of products if they were marketed in an  unsafe manner.  The European Communities invited 
interested stakeholders to submit comments and make their views known. 
56. In June 2006, Peru raised further concerns re garding the EC novel food regulation.  In Peru's 
view, one of the major problems of the EC regula tion was that it did not distinguish between new 
foods that had not been consumed before anywhere , and those that were new only to the European 
Communities, which was the case for most of th e traditional exotic products originating from 
developing countries.  Peru requested that the European Communities provide information showing 
that it was necessary to apply this measure to traditional exotic products, in accordance with the 
provisions of the SPS Agreement.  Peru considered  that the regulation constituted an unnecessary and 
unjustified barrier to trade due to the cost and time  required to gain approval for novel foods, even if 
they had a history of safe consumption in their c ountries of origin, and requested the exclusion of 
traditional exotic products from the novel food categor y.  Peru also requested that the European 
Communities explain how special needs of developing countries had been taking into account in 
accordance with Article 10 of the SPS Agreement (G/SPS/GEN/713). 
57. Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, India, Para guay and the Philippines shared the concerns 
raised by Peru.  Ecuador indicated that a study on  the impact of the novel food regulation was about to 
be finalized.  Preliminary results of this study showed that this regulation could have negative 
economic and social consequences for Ecuador's production system by having an effect both on G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
Page 14  
 
  current exports and on products w ith export potential in the Eu ropean Communities that were 
currently marketed in other countries (G/SPS/GEN/714).  Bolivia and Colombia highlighted that some of the products were currently being promoted inter alia  by policies supporting alternatives to 
narcotic crops, some of which were funded by th e European Communities or its member States.  The 
Philippines indicated that the effects of the novel fo od regulation and of EC regulations on genetically 
modified food were still being evaluated. 
58. The European Communities stres sed that the concerns expressed were being taken seriously, 
and that the novel food regulation was currently  under review (G/SPS/GEN/699 and 700).  The 
original intention of the novel food regulation had been trade-creating;  its purpose was to authorize 
trade in novel foods.  In addition, products that had already been traded prior to 1997 had been 
exempted.  The regulation had been targeted main ly at EC companies.  The regulation had been 
successful in that new foods were being approved on the basis of safety assessme nts.  A statement that 
a product had been consumed for centuries was not suffi cient.  Very few applications for approval of 
traditional exotic products had been received, so th at there were very few case studies.  Traditional 
exotic products was a broad category including some items where there had been safety concerns.  In 
the context of the review of the regulation, th e European Communities indicated that it would be 
helpful to receive more information on these products, including a clear definition of the products at 
issue whether they had been approved in other export  markets, and safety-related data available, as 
well as information on the socio-economic impact. 
59. In October 2006, Peru, Ecuador and Columbia re iterated concerns related to the European 
Communities Regulation 258/97 on Novel Foods.  They maintained that the regulation constituted a 
non-technical barrier to trade in these products as it  was not flexible, made no distinction between 
strictly novel foods known risk and no known risk and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and 
scientifically unjustified.  They noted that exotic products originating from Latin America were not as 
a result of any type of genetic modification but rather  formed part of the biodiversity of the region and 
were consumed traditionally.  Furthermore, there ha d been inconsistencies in the procedures for the 
application of this regulation throughout the Eu ropean Communities.  The European Communities 
had not considered the fact that many of the tr aditional products had been marketed in a number of 
countries with very strict sanitary standards a nd there were methodological guidelines in order to 
obtain an authorization.   
60. The European Communities were requested to pr omptly review regulation 258/97, excluding 
from its scope of application exotic traditional pr oducts resulting from biodiversity, and to take into 
account scientific assessments and relevant evidence from other countries and competent international 
organizations when risk assessments are made.  Th e European Communities could adopt an exclusive 
regulation that separated GMOs from unwanted associ ation with exotic products, and that established 
different procedures for novel foods of known risk a nd no known risk in the European Communities.  
The European Communities were also  requested take into account the history of the product in the 
world, the consumption patterns and traditional know ledge in its use and preparation.  This would 
provide for greater flexibility in the application of th e regulation and thus facilitate the entry of exotic 
traditional products into the European market. 
61. Bolivia, Brazil and the Philippines shared the c oncerns of Peru, Ecuador and Columbia.  The 
Philippines highlighted the fact that the regulation could become an unjustified non-tariff barrier to the EC market in view of the unclear technical di stinction between these  products and other products.   
62. The European Communities reported that ther e had been various exchanges of formal 
communications between the Members concerned.   The European Communities acknowledged the 
problem with products (products of biodiversity or  traditional products), which were not in the EC 
market prior to 1997 and noted that the regulati on was not discriminatory as EC producers had to 
undergo similar risk evaluations.  These products, what ever their potential, were incremental to the  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
 Page 15 
 
 
  enormous volume of imports of f oods and vegetables currently in the EC market.  The Eueropean 
Communities reiterated its request that the Member s concerned should submit data on the volume of 
such trade and risk assessments carried out in ot her developed countries.  The European Communities 
indicated that it was putting forward a new proposal that addressed the genuine concerns of Members.  However, there was a need for a more proportionate regime to improve the imports of these product.  
A public consultation had been held on the matter  and the European Communities appreciated the 
contributions from the concerned countries. 
Other Concerns 
219. European Communities - Eurep GAP requirements for bananas 
Raised by: St. Vincent and the Grenadines 
Supported by: Argentina, Belize, Cuba, Domini ca, Ecuador, Egypt, Indonesia, Jamaica, 
Kenya, Mexico, Peru and South Africa 
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1,  paras. 16-20), October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, 
paras. 40-41). 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
63. In June 2005, St. Vincent and the Grenadines re ported that EurepGap certification, introduced 
in 1997,  had now been made a condition for cont inued trade into UK supermarkets.  Some of the 
measures in the EurepGap certification programme  were clearly within the scope of the SPS 
Agreement.  Jamaica indicated similar problems with EurepGap requirements for fresh fruit and 
vegetable entry into the European Communities.  Si nce a reading of the EC food and feed regulation 
indicated that the Eurep/Gap requirements were private sector requirements, Jamaica asked what 
recourse was available to exporting countries.  
64. The European Communities clarified that EurepGap was a private sector consortium 
representing the interests of major retailers.  Even if these standards, in certain cases, exceeded the 
requirements of EC SPS standards, the European Co mmission could not object to them as they did not 
conflict with EC legislation.  The European Co mmunities encouraged developing country Members, 
and particularly least-developed country Member s, to discuss this issue with non-governmental 
organizations since, in many respects, the Eure pGap requirements reflected their concerns.   
65. Peru recalled that  Article 13 of the SPS Agreement referred to implementation by non-
governmental entities within the territory of the Member.  Ecuador noted concerns regarding the 
impact of this issue on trade towards the European  Communities.  Mexico indicated that it was only 
when SPS measures were adopted by governmental authorities that a Member had the obligation to 
ensure that governmental and non-governmental en tities involved were implementing them properly, 
as provided for in Article 13.  Annex 3 of the TB T Agreement established a code of good practice for 
non-governmental standard-setting in stitutions developing food quality st andards.  This code had been 
accepted by many of these organizations.  Mexico  suggested that the SPS Committee examine these 
provisions of the TBT Agreement before reaching any conclusion on the issue.  
66. Argentina noted that international agreements existed to ensure that SPS measures were not 
unnecessarily stringent so as to act as barriers to international trade, and countries had devoted 
substantial resources to participate in standards development and implementation.  If the private 
sector adopted unnecessarily restrictive standards affecting trade, and countries had no forum in 
which to advocate rationalization of these standards, twenty years of discussions in international fora G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
Page 16  
 
  would have been wasted.  Argentina argued that the rational and legal aspects of these kinds of 
regulations had to be addressed. 
67. In October 2006, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines indicated that their concerns with respect 
to the EurepGAP issue remained th e same, even after the informal session held before the meeting to 
explain the issue of private standards.  The cost implications of these private standards, which were 
often of greater rigidity than the internationall y set standards were very huge, especially for small 
farmers in small and vulnerable economies.  Arge ntina, Belize, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Indonesia, 
Kenya and South Africa shared the concerns of Sa int Vincent and the Grenadines and suggested that 
the issue of private and commercial standards in  general should be included on the agenda of 
upcoming SPS Committee meetings. 
GUATEMALA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY GUATEMALA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Other animal health concerns 210. Guatemala - Restrictions on imports of chicken meat  
Raised by: Mexico 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev. 1, paras. 28-29), June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, 
paras. 27-29), October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, paras. 148-149) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
68. In March 2005, Mexico recalled that his c ountry had raised a concern on Guatemala's 
restrictions on imports of chicken meat.  Progress towards a solution to the problem had been made 
recently and Mexico would continue to monitor the is sue bilaterally and in the context of the Regional 
Organization for Agricultural Health (OIRSA).   Guatemala confirmed its willingness to continue 
working on this issue with Mexico. 
69. In June 2006, Mexico noted c ontinuing problems related to Guatemala's import prohibition on 
poultry meat products and sub-products (including eggs).  The long delays with which Guatemala's 
Ministry of Agriculture (MAGA) had responded to  the multiple requests for importation of such 
products from Mexico violated the timeframes established by Guatemal an authorities.  In April 2005, 
Mexico had sent MAGA the model zoosanitary certif icates for approval, acco mpanied by information 
on avian diseases in Mexico.  Although in Nove mber 2005, during a meeting of a bilateral SPS 
technical expert group, Guatemalan authorities ha d committed to carry out a risk assessment and 
provide a response, no response had yet been receive d.  During January and February 2006, Mexico 
had asked Guatemala to remove restrictions impor ted in response to an alleged outbreak of low 
pathogenic avian influenza, taking into account OIE guidance.  At the same time, Mexico requested 
information on Guatemala's avian influenza situati on in order to open Mexico's market for poultry 
products from Guatemala.  Bilateral meetings  had been held in the margins of the 34th meeting of the 
SPS Committee.  In June 2006, Mexico had received a communication from MAGA indicating that due to the difference in sanitary status between the two countries, Guatemala would not lift its import 
restrictions on poultry products and sub-products from Mexico.  At the same time, Guatemala 
declined to respond to Mexico's questionnaire on Gu atemala's avian influenza situation.  Mexico  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
 Page 17 
 
 
  considered that Guatemala's actions violated th e OIE Code and the SPS Agreement, and hoped that 
Guatemala would soon respond to Mexico's request s, allowing trade of poultry products and sub-
products between both countries. 
70. The European Communities indicated that exports  from EC member States to Guatemala had 
been disrupted because of avian influenza con cerns.  The European Communities emphasized that 
such measures should be proportional to the risk, ta king into account Article 6 of the SPS Agreement.  
The European Communities intended to  pursue the issue bilaterally. 
71. Guatemala indicated it would work bilaterally to resolve the issue related to EC exports. 
72. In October 2006, Mexico reported that althoug h it had taken various measures at bilateral 
level to reach a solution, Guatemala continued to be  in breach of its obligation under Articles 5 and 6 
of the SPS Agreement.  Mexico requested Guatemala to suspend the restrictions imposed on Mexican 
poultry imports. 
73. Guatemala indicated that a meeting of the technical bodies of both Members was to be held 
on 17-18 October 2006, where an analysis of the situa tion would be made.  At the meeting, the health 
situation of both countries, domestic quarantine m easures and the situation regarding avian influenza 
were to be reviewed.  Guatelamala was hopeful that  the meeting would enable technicians from both 
parties to reach a satisfactory solution. 
INDIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDIA  
Food Safety 240. India – Biotech labelling and import approval process regulations 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Argentina, Brazil, Canada 
Dates raised: June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, paras. 15-16),  
Relevant 
document(s): G/TBT/N/IND/17, G/TBT/N/IND/12 
Solution:  Not reported 
 
74. In June 2006, the United States referred to India's notifications to the TBT Committee 
affecting trade in biotechnology products.  The Ministry of Commerce and Industry's "Supplement to the Government of India's Foreign Trade Policy,  Condition 18" (G/TBT/N/IND/17) would require 
that its Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (G EAC) provide pre-approval of imports.  The 
Ministry of Health and Family Welfare's proposed  mandatory labelling requirement for biotechnology 
products (G/TBT/N/IND/12) would also require pr e-approval by the GEAC.  The United States 
requested that these measures be notified to the SPS Committee to allow an opportunity for comments 
and that their implementation be delayed until a number of issues could be resolved.  In particular, the United States was concerned about:  the lack of cl arity with regard to the scope and process of the 
proposed measures and their scientific justificatio n;  what procedures would be in place for pre-
approval of imports and once approved;  what pro cedures would be in place domestically and at the 
ports for enforcement;  and what was the scope and the justification to require that the process of 
production be included on the label.  Without clar ification of these questions, US exports to India 
would be negatively affected.    G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
Page 18  
 
  75. Argentina, Brazil and Canada shared the con cerns raised by United States and asked that 
Members be given an opportunity to comment on the measures before their adoption.  Canada 
indicated that it would provide comments on the releva nt TBT notifications and also invited India to 
notify its measures to the SPS Committee and take into account comments of other Members.   
76. India took note of the concerns raised a nd stressed that the proposed regulation on pre-
approvals was not new as it had already been notified in 1989.  The purpose of the current proposal 
was to make the requirements mandatory.  The obj ective of the mandatory labelling requirement was 
to provide correct information to consumers about the nature of the food.  India was committed to 
following the transparency requirements and would consider notifying the relevant measures to the 
SPS Committee and would take into account commen ts received before the measures entered into 
force.   
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Other animal health concerns  62.  India – Restrictions on imports of horses 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, para. 20), October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, paras. 22-
24) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/112 
Solution: Not reported 
 
77. In March 1999, the European Communities indicat ed that trade 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 metriti s.  The European Comm unities presented a series 
of questions to India, including a request for justif ication of India's measure which was more stringent 
than the OIE Code. 
78. In October 2006, the European Communities agai n raised concerns regarding India's import 
conditions for live horses from some EC member St ates on the basis of Contagious Equine Metritis 
(CEM).  India's requirements that allowed only for the importation of breeding horses from countries which had been free of CEM for a minimum of thr ee years was not based on international standards 
and recommendations, in particular Article 2.5.1.1 of  the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code which 
set conditions of live horses to be exported safely in respect of CEM.  India had not provided any 
scientific justification for import requirements cont aining higher protection measures than reflected in 
international standards, and thus was not complyin g with Article 3.3 of the SPS Agreement.  Despite 
numerous bilateral discussions on the issue during 2005 and 2006, no progr ess had been made.  No 
response had been received to a document submitte d by the United Kingdom in January 2006 with 
further scientific evidence that ex port of breading horses from that country posed no risk for the 
Indian equine population.  The European Communiti es urged India to bring their import requirements 
for CEM in line with OIE recommendations.  
79. India stated that it allowed the import of live horses, including breeding horses, under existing 
health protocols.  Although it was free from CEM,  India allowed imports of male horses less than 
seven years of age and female horses less than five years of age.  India indicated that some CEM-
positive countries in the European region were regular ly exporting live horses to India.  With regard 
to the OIE guidelines, consultation with the releva nt technical experts was being done and a report on  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
 Page 19 
 
 
  the issue was expected very soon.  India was willing to discuss the issue bilate rally with the European 
Communities.  
80. The European Communities stressed the fact that  some EC member States were experiencing 
restrictions on the export of live horses to India, and welcomed the opportunity for further bilateral 
discussions. 
INDONESIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to FMD 244. Indonesia - Legislation on importation of live animals and meat products 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by: Argentina, Australia, New Zealand 
Dates raised: October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, paras. 17-21) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/N/IDN/30 
Solution: Not reported 
 
81. In October 2006, Brazil expressed concern rega rding Indonesia's Government Regulation 
82/2000 applicable to quarantine import procedur es for animals and related products.  Brazil noted 
that Regulation 82/2000 did not comply with the regionalization provisions of Article 6 of the SPS 
Agreement or with Chapter 1.3.5 of the OIE Territo rial Animal Health Code as it did not take into 
account the sanitary characteristics of the areas fro m which the products originated, but required the 
whole territory of an exporting country to be free of any diseases that were not present in Indonesia.  
As a result of Indonesia's regulation, Brazil was frequently facing import restrictions on a broad 
variety of its products on the basis of the food-a nd-mouth disease (FMD), even from FMD free zones.  
In particular, there was no scientific justificati on for import restrictions on goods which could not 
under any circumstance transmit the FMD agent, m eat products submitted to treatments which were 
internationally recognized as capable  of inactivating the FMD virus, and restrictions on heat-treated 
vegetable products.  These unjustified import restri ctions resulted in huge financial losses.  Brazil 
urged Indonesia to adopt national protection levels  based on risk assessments, taking into account the 
relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement and OIE standards.  
82. Argentina, Australia and New Zealand expressed similar concerns regarding Indonesia's draft 
Regulation (G/SPS/N/IDN/30) on the importation of meat  products.  They indicated their intentions to 
submit comments on the draft regulation before the comment deadline.  Argentina urged Indonesia to 
adjust its risk analysis to the OIE standards, while New Zealand further noted that Indonesia had not 
indicated in its notification when the draft Decree might be adopted.  They encouraged Indonesia to 
work with other Members to address their c oncerns before adopting the draft Decree. 
83. Indonesia reported that with regards to the im portation of live animals and meat products, 
Indonesia had been conducting a review on its legi slation and would soon notify to the WTO a new 
decree on import of meat of various types of species.  The new regulation replaced the existing 
regulation (Decree 745/1992) on the requirements of meat importation.  One of the eventual requirements for countries to be eligible to e xport meat and meat products intended for human G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
Page 20  
 
  consumption to Indonesia was their FMD free status.  Recognition of the disease-free status would be 
based on an OIE declaration.  A  further requi rement for FMD-free countries to export meat to 
Indonesia would be a desk audit and on-site audit to be carried out by the Director General of 
Livestock Services (DGLS).  In relation to animal  importation, existing regulation would remain in 
effect.   
84. With regards to BSE, Indonesia stated that the requirements for the importation of live 
ruminants and ruminant products from countries or z ones declared as negligible BSE risk by the OIE 
had been set out in a new decree.  In principle, under the new regulation, live ruminants and ruminant 
products from countries or zones declared as negligib le BSE risk by the OIE were allowed to be 
imported to Indonesia.  Imports of meat and meat products from BSE-risk countries were prohibited.  
However, there were exceptions that included meat and meat products originating from de-boned 
meat as specified in Article 2.3.1.3.1 of OIE Code .  The additional requirements to export meat and 
meat products to Indonesia were that such comm odities should have originated from an establishment 
approved by the DGLS and also met the healthy food requirement of Indonesia. 
85. The representative of the OIE clarified that Article 1 of the BSE chapter contained a list of 
safe commodities that were judged to present no BSE risk no matter the BSE status of the exporting 
country.  This included de-boned skeletal muscle meat that could be imported from a country 
irrespective of its BSE status. 
Plant Health 
243. Indonesia - Lack of recognition of pest-free areas 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia 
Dates raised: October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, paras. 14-16) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/N/IDN/24 
Solution: Not reported 
 
86. In October 2006, the United States expressed concerns regarding Indonesia's Decree 37 
implemented in March 2006, whic h established new phytosanitary requirements on fruit imports that 
failed to recognize fruit fly free areas in the United St ates.  For decades, US fruits originating from 
pest-free areas had been shipped to Indonesia wit hout any quarantine incidence.  The new measure 
had resulted in US fresh fruit being subjected to unw arranted pest treatment before being exported to 
Indonesia.  The United States noted that the Inte rnational Standards for Phytosanitary Measures 
(ISPM) guidelines used by the United States were rec ognized by their trading partners worldwide, but 
Indonesia had failed to amend its assessment of the fru it fly status in the United States even after the 
United States had extensively communicated and provi ded Indonesia's Ministry of Agriculture with 
the information requested.  The measures imposed by Indonesia for quarantine fruit flies were overly 
restrictive and scientifically unjustified and had impacted exports of eleven types of US fruits, 
including apples and grapes.  The United States requ ested Indonesia to allow the entry of US grapes 
accompanied by a Federal phytosanitary certificate and additional documentation attesting that the 
grapes were grown in a fruit fly-free area.   
87. Australia shared the concerns of the United St ates and indicated that it was working directly 
with Indonesia and hoped to resolve the issue in the near future. 
88. Indonesia reported that the issue had been di scussed with the United States in a bilateral 
meeting.  Based on their discussion, Indonesia was confident that the matter would be resolved  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
 Page 21 
 
 
  amicably in the near future.  Indo nesia indicated that it was to send an expert team to do an on-site 
inspection of a Mediterranean fruit fly-free area fo r grapes in the State of California.  Indonesia 
needed further information on the sites to be vi sited, including the production area of grapes in 
specific sites in California, substantial geographical information, a list of registered grape growers in 
the production area of California, information on su rface processing, packaging and storage facilities, 
and the procedure of phytosanitary certification.  Indonesia reiterated its commitment to resolving the 
matter as early as possible and in a mutually beneficial manner.   
ISRAEL  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ISRAEL  
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to TSEs 
 
232. Israel - Import restrictions on EC beef due to BSE 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2005/February 2 006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 41-42), March 2006 
(G/SPS/R/40, paras. 44-45) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
89. In October 2005, the European Communities noted that exports of EC beef into Israel were 
currently allowed only from a limited number of EC  member States and restricted to calves younger 
than 6-8 months.  No native case of BSE had been detected in some of the EC member States whose 
beef imports were prohibited.  BSE protective me asures were equally implemented through the whole 
EC territory and equally applied to beef for cons umption within the European Communities and beef 
for export.  With regard to the restriction to calves younger than 6-8 months, amendments to the Terrestrial Animal Health Code adopted by the OIE in May 2005 included the addition of deboned 
skeletal muscle meat of animals less than 30 mont hs to the list of products which could be safely 
traded, under certain conditions, regardless of th e BSE status of the exporting country.   
90. Israel reported that his country had alread y engaged bilaterally with the European 
Communities on this issue in order to find a mutually satisfactory solution. 
91. In March 2006, the European Communities reported that Israel continued its restrictions on 
beef from EC member States.  However, Israel's  veterinary services had indicated its willingness to 
address this issue on the basis of further OIE developments during the coming months, and the 
European Communities would inform the SPS Comm ittee of the final results of its bilateral 
consultations with Israel. 
92. Israel noted that in general imports of beef and bovine products we re permitted, provided 
there was no record of BSE in the exporting country  and that the import was approved by the Israeli 
veterinary service. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
Page 22  
 
  Plant Health 
233. Israel - Absence of phytosanitary import legislation 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2005/February 2 006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 39-40), March 2006 
(G/SPS/R/40, paras. 36-37), June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, paras. 30-31) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
93. In October 2005, the European Communities reporte d that this trade concern had been raised 
bilaterally on several occasions since 1984.  Dr aft import legislation had been provided to the 
European Communities in November 2003.  Its re vision, which addressed some of the comments 
made by the European Communities in May 2004, ha d been issued in January 2005 to be presented 
for revision, approval and publication by the Israe li competent authorities.  However the legislation 
was still at the draft stage, despite repeated promises by Israel that a final text would be published in 
2005.  The European Communities considered that th e lack of phytosanitary legislation contravened 
Article 7 of the SPS Agreement and created unpredic tability for EC exporters of plants and plant 
products.  Furthermore, the draft import legislation maintained the system of import licenses and permits currently imposed by Israel.  Israel indicat ed that these concerns would be transmitted to the 
relevant Israeli authorities and addressed as soon as possible. 
94. In March 2006, the European Communities noted that the continuing absence of 
phytosanitary import legislation in Israel led to uncer tainty for EC exporters a nd was in  contradiction 
with international standards.  Although some co rrective actions had been taken by Israel, the 
legislation continued to be in a draft stage, and fi nal approval by Israel's relevant authorities was still 
pending.  The European Communities urged Israel  to adopt national legislation containing 
phytosanitary import requirements as soon as possible. 
95. Israel stressed it's full commitment to comply with the obligations of the SPS Agreement.  
Israel was aware of the importance of a coherent  and transparent legislation to allow the smooth 
development of international trade.  Israel ha d informed its trading partners that new and 
comprehensive draft legislation was under preparation.  This legislation would be submitted to Israel's 
newly elected parliament.  Israel had undertaken measures which showed its willingness to respond to 
its trading partners' concerns. 
96. In June 2006, the European Communities comp lained that Israel's phytosanitary import 
legislation was still at a draft stage, although efforts were being made to publish the final legislation.  
The European Communities invited Israel to finally adopt this legislation. 
97. Israel explained that the plant protection and inspection services of Israel were revising and 
modifying Israel's import regulations for plants and plant products.  The regulations had existed since 
1971, and had been revised and modified since then  to comply with the SPS Agreement.  Various 
products and commodities were allowed according to th eir phytosanitary risk and imports permits for 
new products were granted after a pest risk analysis .  The revision process, which required attention to 
hundreds of products, was taking longer than expect ed.  The import requirements for most products 
were already specified in the import permits and co uld be found on the website of the Ministry of 
Agriculture, but the interagency legislative process had not yet been completed.  The Ministry of 
Agriculture was expected to send its final draft ph ytosanitary import legislation to the Ministry of 
Justice within weeks; then the draft would be sent to  the Israeli Parliament.  Israel's plant protection  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
 Page 23 
 
 
  and inspection services were doing their utmost to facilitate trade with the European Communities and 
with other trading partners..  
JAPAN 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN  
Food Safety 
212. Japan - Positive list system for pesticides, veterinary drugs and feed additives MRLs 
Raised by: China, United States 
Supported by: Australia, Philippines 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 19-21), Octobe r 2005/February 2006 
(G/SPS/R/39, paras. 49-51 and 61-63) , June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, paras. 22-
24) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
98. In March 2005, China noted that the proposed adoption of a single standard limit of 0.1ppm 
for 700 types of pesticides, veterinary drugs and f eed additives for which no specific residue limit had 
been established would jeopardize Chinese exports of vegetables to Japan.  China requested that Japan 
assess the possible impact of such an amendment on exports to Japan , provide opportunities to discuss 
the results of this assessment and consider soluti ons to minimize its impact.  Japan should also 
provide the science-based risk assessment that had led to the amendment of the MRLs.  Should there 
be any notification in the future on this issue, Japan should provide a comment period of at least 60 
days as of the date of distribution and extend th is upon request, and allow an adequate adaptation 
period in accordance with the Doha decision.  Chin a also sought clarifications on Japan's detection 
methods for residues.  The Philippines supported China's concerns on this issue and requested 
relevant information from Japan in order to assess the possible implications of this proposed 
amendment on the Philippines' exports. 
99. Japan clarified that the its new positive list sy stem, based on the revised Food Sanitation Law, 
was aimed at regulating the distribution of foods th at contained agricultural chemicals, veterinary 
drugs and feed additives for which no MRLs had yet been established.  Before the positive list system 
entered into force, the Ministry of Health, Labo ur and Welfare would compare its provisional MRLs 
with the Codex standards. 
100. In February 2006, the United States reported that  in June 2005, Japan had notified its final 
draft of thousands of new provisional maximum r esidue limits (MRLs) for over 700 pesticides, 
veterinary drugs and feed additives covering all basic commodity groups.  In November 2005, the 
provision of a six-month transition period before official enforcement of the provisional MRLs had 
been notified.  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fo restry and Fisheries of Japan (MAFF) had announced 
in December 2005 the implementation and enforcem ent of the provisional MRLs on rice, wheat, 
barley and possibly other commodities.  The United States was concerned about the effect of these 
new MRLs on agricultural exports to Japan and re quested Japan to clarify its plans regarding the 
enforcement of these MRLs.  
101. China requested Japan to gran t at least an additional 18 months for developing country 
Members to adjust the application of agriculture chemicals, conduct training and education activities, 
provide guidance to farmers and make laboratory preparations.  Although Japan argued that it had G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
Page 24  
 
  taken three years to prepare the draft of its positi ve list system and had already notified this three 
times, each time the number of MRLs and produc t coverage varied.  A two-year adaptation period 
was appropriate to allow the decline of pesticide residues in soil and air after their use had ceased.  
Moreover, considering the number of MRLs iden tified, a phased introduction of the new MRL 
requirements was necessary.  Furt hermore, Japan had published only some of the testing methods 
used to develop the MRLs, and many of these testi ng methods were only illustrated by flow charts.  
China requested that Japan notify in advance all available and newly developed testing technology 
and methods for all provisional MRLs listed in the positive list system, and provide a 60-day 
comment period and a 6-month adaptation period. 
102. Australia expressed appreciation for Japan's collaborative attitude when developing this 
comprehensive new positive list and encouraged Japan  to provide some clarification regarding the 
nature of testing requirements. 
103. Japan clarified that, in accordance with the amendment of the Food Sanitation Law of May 
2003, the positive list system for pesticides, veteri nary drugs and feed additives in food would be 
implemented as of May 2006 as had been officially  announced in December 2005.  From August to 
October 2005, Japan had explained to governmental  organisations of countries exporting rice, wheat 
and barley to Japan that the new inspection system  was to be implemented in December 2005.  Japan 
could not extend the adaptation period as the framewo rk of the system had been published three times 
since 2003.  The final draft had been released in  November 2005, and Japan considered that a six-
month implementation period was sufficient.  Japan  had developed and published analytical methods 
for more than 500 substances when developing the positive list system a nd would continue to 
establish and publish analytical methods for additiona l substances.  Japan would provide China with 
technical advice about analytical methods if requested.   
104. In June 2006, China noted that Japan's positive list system for agricultural chemical residues 
in food had entered into force on 29 May 2006.  Whil e recognizing Japan's right to revise its residue 
standards to safeguard the health of its citizens,  China was concerned since Japan was the largest 
importer of food from China.  Japan had only published testing methods for 553 agricultural 
chemicals;  testing methods for another 200 chemical s were still lacking, which could seriously affect 
efforts of developing country Members to study th ese methods.  In addition, Japan was not following 
the Codex guidelines for judging test results.  Ch ina requested Japan to publish all testing methods, 
notify them, offer a 60 day comment period, provide a six month transitional period before they entered into force and offer technical training and education to China. 
105. China further asked Japan to explain why it ha d started implementing the positive list system 
in December 2005 by requiring that rice be tested according to the new MRLs, well ahead of the May 
2006 implementation date.  This had raised costs for Chinese rice exports and interrupted trade, since 
farmers had no time to adjust their chemical use.  From January to June 2006, on three occasions, China had been given only two weeks to comment on certain MRLs, which was too short.  China 
requested an explanation of the relationship betw een these MRLs and the positive list system.  In 
China's view, these changes should be notified to the WTO.  Finally, China noted that both the 
Japanese and English versions of the positive list sy stem contained many editing errors and that 
therefore there were constant changes and asked Jap an to provide a clear and comprehensive list of 
MRLs for agricultural chemicals at an early date.  Previous efforts to resolve the problems had not 
succeeded, and China urged Japan to address China's concerns in a scientific way. 
106. Japan confirmed that its positive list system fo r agricultural chemicals including pesticides, 
veterinary drugs and feed additives had taken e ffect on 29 May 2006.  For the establishment of 
provisional MRLs, Japan had taken into account C odex standards;  existing residue levels for 
pesticides set under the Agricultural Chemicals Re gulation Law or limits of determination for 
veterinary drugs set under the Pharmaceutical Affa irs Law;  and MRLs set by other countries where  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
 Page 25 
 
 
  residue standards were based upon the toxicological  data required by the Joint WHO/FAO Expert 
Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and the Joint WHO/FAO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR).  Since these MRLs had been establis hed through a globally accepted approach, Japan 
believed them to be consistent with WTO principl es.  Japan used a toxicological threshold of 1.5 
μg/day to determine the uniform limit, based on JECFA, US FDA and JMPR evaluations.  The 
uniform limit had been set at 0.01 ppm, based on the food consumption patterns of the Japanese 
population.  Japan had published analytical methods for 623 substances and woul d continue to finalize 
and publish the remaining analytical methods for ot her substances.  When Japan newly established or 
amended standards, including MRLs, under the Food Sanitation Law, these were explained to foreign 
embassies in advance of WTO notification.  After this meeting, comments were requested within two 
weeks, after which the notification was sent to WTO, with a 60-day comment period. 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to TSEs 213. Japan - Restrictions on beef  imports  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/ Rev.1, paras. 30-31), June 2005 
(G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 53-55) , October 2005/February 2006 
(G/SPS/R/39, paras. 43-45), March 2006 (G/SPS/R/40, paras. 46-47) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 10-14 
Solution: Not reported 
 
107. In March 2005, the United States emphasized its concerns regarding Japan's continuing 
restrictions on US beef based on the detection, in  December 2003, of a single case of BSE in an 
imported cow.  It recalled its ongoing cooperation w ith Japan, over the past 14 months, to resolve all 
scientific and health concerns about the safety of  US beef.,  The October 2004 bilateral agreement 
required the United States to provide all the scientif ic information requested by Japan and to allow 
access for Japanese technical officials to US facilities.  Effective firewalls had been in place for many 
years to prevent the establishment and spread of BSE within the United States.  In response to the 
single case of BSE, the United States had implemented several additional regulatory measures to further strengthen existing safeguards, had comple ted a comprehensive epidemiological investigation 
and taken many other actions described in the report of the March meeting.  Given that there had been 
no indigenous cases of  BSE reported, there wa s sufficient scientific evidence for Japan to 
immediately remove restrictions on US beef and beef products.    
108. Japan indicated that the US beef  issue was one of the most important policy agenda items for 
the Japanese government.  Japan recalled that the October 2004 bilateral framework agreement to 
resume the two-way trade in beef was subject to the respective domestic approval processes including 
deliberation by each Member's food safety comm issions.  The Japanese Food Safety Commission 
would undertake a risk assessment for imports of  US beef as soon as it had completed its risk 
assessment of domestic BSE measures.  
109. In June 2005, the United States emphasized ove r the past 17 months, the United States had 
provided Japan with extensive technical informa tion on all aspects of its BSE-related protection 
measures, internationally recognized as effectiv e and appropriate, for both food safety and animal 
health.  The United States stressed that, according to the revised OIE standards, the recent detection of 
one BSE-infected animal blocked from the food and feed chain could not be used as an excuse to G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
Page 26  
 
  restrict imports of US beef products.  The Eur opean Communities invited Japan to replace its import 
ban with specific requirements in accordance with OIE standards.  Jap an reported that the Food Safety 
Commission had completed the risk assessment  on domestic beef on 6 May 2005 and was now 
carrying out the risk assessment on US beef.  
110. In February 2006, the European Communities re ported that Japan had recently reopened its 
market for beef exports from some EC member Stat es, but in accordance with Articles 2.3 and 3.3 of 
the SPS Agreement, Japan should reopen its market to bovine products from al l EC member States.  
The protective BSE measures, including the implemen tation and enforcement of the feed ban, the 
removal of specified risk materials and the elaboration of an identification, registration and traceability system for bovines and their products able to warrantee the age of each bovine, could fully 
satisfy the safety of consumers anywhere in the wo rld.  The United States noted that Japan had re-
opened its market for some US beef products but ma intained scientifically unjustified restrictions on 
other products, inconsistent w ith international standards. 
111. Japan observed that numerous countries still suspended beef imports from BSE-infected 
countries and that international standards on BSE ch anged every year.  On the basis of its risk 
analysis, Japan had decided to reduce its beef  imports from a few BSE-affected countries. 
112. In March 2006, the European Communities indicated  that despite bilateral efforts following 
the consideration of this issue at the last SPS Co mmittee meeting, progress on this issue had not been 
satisfactory.  In the light of favourable devel opments of the disease situation in the European 
Communities and due to recent changes in the OIE Te rrestrial Animal Health Code chapter on BSE, it 
was time for Members to implement internationa l standards for BSE.  The European Communities 
could satisfy Japan's requirements related to the feed  ban and its enforcement;  the removal of specific 
risk materials;  and an effective system of id entification and registration and traceability for bovines 
and their products.  Japan had denied the EC reque st to perform BSE risk assessments for interested 
EC member States, in contravention of Articles 2.3 and 3.3 of the SPS Agreement.  The European 
Communities invited Japan to review its ban on impo rts of EC beef on the basis of a risk assessment 
and noted that useful discussions had been held just prior to the meeting. 
113. Japan indicated that Japan had decided in January 2006 to hold technical consultations 
between experts from Japan and from those EC member  States interested in exporting beef to Japan. 
Concerns related to FMD 
222. Japan - Import suspension of heat-processed straw and forage for feed  
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1,  paras. 33-34), June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, 
paras. 25-26) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
114. China recalled that, following an FMD outbr eak in May 2005 in a few Chinese provinces, 
Japan had issued an overall import suspension of stra w and forage for feed from China at the end of 
May 2005.  However, the straw and forage exported to Japan originated from FMD-free areas, and 
was subject to heat treatment more than suffici ent to kill FMD viruses, under joint monitoring of 
Chinese and Japanese inspectors.  Japan's ban lacked  scientific evidence in contravention to the SPS  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
 Page 27 
 
 
  Agreement.  China invited Japan ese officials to undertake the necessary controls and discussions with 
the competent departments.   
115. Japan recalled that it had suspended imports of  heat-processed straw and forage from China at 
the end of May 2005 to respond to repetitive detec tion of faeces in imported straw and intentional 
replacement of heat-treated with non heat-treated  straw, in violation of Japan's animal health 
requirements and of Article 2.2.10.28 of the OI E Code.  These products had been accompanied by a 
genuine Chinese animal health authority certificate, in  violation of paragraph 6 of Article 1.3.4.72 of 
the OIE Code.  Considering the recent rapid sp read of FMD in China, Japan had suspended 
importation of heat-processed straw and forage un til the Chinese Government addressed these issues.   
116. In June 2006, China recalled that Japan's measure s with regard to import of straw and forage 
for feed required unnecessary additional assurances, exceeding the OIE standard.  There was no risk 
of transmission of any disease after straw and forage were heat-treated at a temperature of 80 degrees or more for at least 10 minutes.  Japan was using the FMD situation in Chin a as an excuse for trade 
restrictions and was not applying the concept of  zoning/regionalization as there were no new cases of 
FMD in the counties where straw and forage were produced.  China requested Japan to consider the 
complaints of the Chinese industry as well as of Jap anese importers and to amend its unscientific and 
unnecessary trade restrictions following OIE standards and WTO rules. 
117. Japan observed that any straw and forage othe r than rice straw were permitted for importation 
into Japan on the condition that pests were not detected in the process of import inspection.  
Regardless of its use in Japan, the importation of rice straw was prohibited from all countries other 
than Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Kore a and Chinese Taipei.  If rice straw went through 
disinfection treatment, such as heat  treatment with water vapour, it c ould be imported into Japan.  In 
order to prevent the introduction of FMD into Japan, imports of heat-treated straw and forage for feed 
from China were permitted only if there was no FMD infection around the areas where raw materials were produced, processed and stored and appropriate heat treatment was carried out.  Japan had to 
suspend the importation of heat-treated rice straw in May 2005 after repeated violations of the 
requirements detected at some ports of entry into Jap an.  In addition, China had officially notified to 
the OIE the spread of the infected area and th e increase in the number of areas of foot and mouth 
disease.  Japan had not received sufficient data from the China to support the claim that rice straw was 
produced in disease-free areas.  Once the data requirements were complete, Japan would review the situation to decide whether the import suspension could be lifted and whether any other pre-export 
measures were necessary. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
Page 28  
 
  MEXICO 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY MEXICO  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to avian influenza 225.  Mexico - Restrictions on US poultry 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada 
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1,  paras. 26-29), March 2006 (G/SPS/R/40, 
paras. 41-43) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/MEX/200 
Solution: Not reported 
 
118. In June 2005, the United States stated that Me xico was banning imports of poultry and poultry 
products from an entire US state in which cases of low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) had been 
reported in some areas.  Mexico also required avia n influenza (AI) testing for layer and broiler flocks 
regardless of whether or not AI had been reported.   Only two subtypes of AI (H5 and H7) had been 
found to mutate into the highly pathogenic forms of  the disease. Low pathogenic strains of AI did not 
cause systemic disease and had not been shown to be of  consequence for animal health or food safety.  
The OIE did not recommend any trade restrictions on poultry and poultry products when cases of low 
pathogenic strains of AI of non-H5 and H7 subtyp es were reported and only limited measures for low 
pathogenic strains of the H5 and H7 subtypes.  Th e relevant scientific evidence showed that the LPAI 
virus did not appear in the muscle tissue of an inf ected chicken and that neither fresh meat nor eggs 
imported from regions affected by low pathogenic AI posed a risk of transmitting the disease.  Given 
the scientific evidence underpinning the recently-a dopted changes in the relevant international 
standard, the United States encouraged Mexico to  modify its import restrictions and testing 
requirements.  
119. Canada indicated that in March 2004, Mexico  had banned the importation of poultry and its 
products from all of Canada in response to the findi ngs of high pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in 
British Colombia.  Canada had kept all trading part ners fully informed of the control measures it had 
imposed to limit the outbreak to British Colombia.  Unlike many of its trading partners, Mexico had 
not regionalized its measures to apply to British Co lombia only.  Canada had now been free of HPAI 
for over one year and had provided all the informati on requested by Mexico to verify this status in 
accordance with OIE guidelines.  Consistent with the OIE, the majority of Canada's trading partners 
had removed their measures against Canadian poultry.   Canada called upon Mexico to do the same.  
120. Mexico explained that since May 1994, when low pathogenicity avian influenza (LPAI) had 
been detected in Mexico, specific SPS measures ha d been applied to prevent exotic subtypes and 
control and eradicate the only su btype identified, H5N2.  Mexican Official Standard NOM-44-ZOO-
1995, which covered any subtype of avian influen za (AI), both low and high pathogenic strains, had 
been published in 1995.  In the United States, vari ous subtypes of low and high pathogenic strains had 
been officially identified, none of which, with the exception of one, existed in the Mexican poultry 
sector.  The sanitary requirements established by the Mexican legislation in the domestic poultry 
sector were equivalent to those applied for the export of poultry and poultry products originating in 
the states affected by AI in the United States.  However, the sanitary measures aimed at ensuring 
epidemiological surveillance and monitoring of the transport of poultry and poultry products applied  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
 Page 29 
 
 
  in the affected states of the United States were not  equivalent to those implemented in the Mexican 
poultry sector.  As the risk of transmission of AI w as particularly high in live poultry and less in fresh 
poultry products and by-products, importation of so me poultry products from the quarantined states 
was allowed.  Mexico was continuing to analyze the technical information provided by the United 
States with a view to the opening up of exports  of poultry and poultry products. This additional 
information had been provided by the USDA during the first quarter of 2005.  
121. Mexico recalled that the OIE in May 2005 adopted regulations (Chapter 2.17.12: AI, 
Terrestrial Animal Health Code) that stipulated that  all H7 and H5 subtypes of AI viruses, in both its 
high and low pathogenic forms, were notifiable as well as any AI virus with an intravenous 
pathogenicity index (IVPI) greater than 1.2.  These re gulations also stipulated that a country, zone or 
compartment could be recognized as free from the notifiable high and low pathogenic forms of AI 
virus.  In accordance with Article 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 of the SPS Agreement, Mexico had established the 
health requirements for exporting poultry and poultry by-products from and originating in areas free 
of notifiable AI viruses or free only of highly pathog enic notifiable AI viruses.  Mexico currently 
allowed imports of poultry, poultry products and by-products from the United States, except for birds 
and some products from the states affected by a s ubtype of AI.  Regarding Canada, Mexico explained 
that  following an outbreak of highly pathogenic AI of the H7N3 subtype in British Colombia, the 
province had been quarantined and technical info rmation requested concerning the outbreak. That 
same month, Mexico had received information identif ying the AI virus in ducks and in geese as low 
pathogenic.  In June 2005, it had received information identifying the low pathogenicity virus of the 
subtype H3, also in British Colombia, and would ca rry out an assessment of the health situation in 
respect of AI in British Colombia.  
122. In March 2006, the United States expressed a ppreciation that a bilateral agreement with 
Mexico in August 2005 had resulted in the remova l of bans on US poultry in October 2005.  
However, in January 2006 Mexico had published a final measure that would modify the existing 
import conditions previously agreed upon.  This final measure had not been notified to the SPS 
Committee.  The United States requested Mexico to no tify this final measure and delay its application 
while allowing Members sufficient time to comment  on the measure before its implementation. 
123. Mexico indicated that a draft amendment to the 2004 Mexican regulation had been published 
in notification G/SPS/N/MEX/200, for which Me xico had provided a period for comments by 
Members.  Mexico had received comments, inter alia,  from the US Department of Agriculture.  This 
notification indicated that the date of entry into  force was proposed as the day following publication 
of the final regulation.  The final regulation ha d been published on 30 January 2006 and had been 
notified to the North American Free Trade Agreem ent (NAFTA) contact point on the same day.  
However, Mexico had decided to delay the entry in to force of the measure for 60 days, meaning that 
the regulation would come into force in April 2006. 
124. Mexico further reported that following a m eeting on 8 December 2005 between Mexican and 
US officials, the National Health Service author ized the use of the Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent 
Assay (ELISA) technique and equivalent mechanisms to validate different types of AI.  In Mexico, 
only the AI subtype H5N2, a low pathogen type, had been detected and it was important for Mexico to avoid the introduction of any other types of AI. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
Page 30  
 
  Plant Health 
164. Mexico - Restrictions on the importation of dry beans 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada, Nicaragua 
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras.  28-30), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, para.71) 
June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, para. 39) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/379, G/SPS/N/MEX/68, WT/DS284,  
Solution: Resolved  
 
125. The United States reported that Mexico had unjustifiably implemented a temporary 
suspension on the importation of dried beans from the United States on 21 January 2003.  Canada and 
Nicaragua stated that they shared the concerns of  the United States.  Canada noted that no provision 
had been made in the Mexican measure for shipments en route.  Nicaragua indicated that access of its 
black beans to the Mexican market had been bloc ked for what it considered arbitrary reasons.   
126. Mexico replied that high level discussions ha d taken place between the Mexican authorities 
and the United States and Canada.  Mexico would communicate in the next few days what steps it 
would take to resolve this issue.  Mexico w ould reply at a latter date to comments raised by 
Nicaragua. 
127. In March 2004, Mexico informed the  Committ ee that the issue of restrictions on the 
importation of dry beans had been resolved with Ni caragua.  Nicaragua stated that on 8 March 2004, 
the Dispute Settlement Body was notified of Nicaragua 's withdrawal of consultations with Mexico on 
this issue. 
128. In June 2006, the United States informed the Comm ittee that the issue had been resolved with 
Mexico.  
ROMANIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ROMANIA  
Food Safety 
245. Romania – Restrictions on US pork and poultry imports 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, paras. 25-27) 
Relevant 
document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
129. In October 2006, the United States expressed c oncern about Romania's decision to already 
impose EC requirements on US poultry and pork, in advance of Romania's entry into the European Communities.  This resulted in large financial losses to US exporters.  The United States noted that no 
poultry and only two pork facilities in Romania met EC requirements.  Romania's measures therefore 
raised potential national treatment concerns, given that a considerable number of Romanian meat  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
 Page 31 
 
 
  plants were currently not in compliance with the EC regulations and many of the plants had been 
granted a transition period to 2009 to meet these requirements.  
130. Romania expressed surprise that the United Stat es had raised this issue as an acceptable 
solution to both parties had been sought during a ser ies of bilateral meetings.  Although Romania had 
decided to extend the implementation date of these regulations for US exports, the new regulations 
were adopted as part of the requirements for Ro mania's accession to the European Communities.  
According to the Accession Treaty signed on 25 Apri l 2005, Romania had committed to adopt the EC 
legislation and was expected to fully comply with  SPS legislation already in force in the European 
Communities before its accession on the 1 January 2 007.  Romania noted the difficulty it faced in 
modifying and implementing these new rules, but indicated that Romanian producers observed the 
same rules as other EC member States and third coun tries.  To ensure transparency and give Members 
the opportunity to prepare for the new import conditions, all Romanian legislation on import 
conditions for pork and poultry meat ha d been notified to the SPS Committee. 
131. The European Communities sugg ested that the United States should look at the broader 
benefits of Romania's and Bulgaria's accession to  the European Communities.  This was fully 
supported by the global community and provided an outstanding opportunity for the Members 
concerned to strengthen economic  growth and development. 
UNITED STATES 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE UNITED STATES  
Plant Health 102. United States - Import restrictions on po tted plants from the European Communities 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: China 
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, par as. 30-31), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, 
paras. 58-60), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/ 37/Rev.1, paras. 70-71), October 
2005/February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, pa ras. 72-73), March 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, 
para. 40) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/1059  
Solution: Resolved with the issuance of the US final rule on plants in growing media 
 
132. In July 2001, the European Communities indicated  that exports of plants in growing medium 
had been impeded for over 20 years because the Un ited States conducted a pest risk assessment for 
each type of plant before allowing imports, and each assessment took several years to complete.  In 
addition, the requirements for accepted species were very rigid and not proportional to the potential 
risk.  The European Communities requested the Unit ed States to adjust its import requirements and 
administrative procedures to allow for market access.   The United States replied that its requirements 
reflected the need to avoid introduction of pest s and diseases that could seriously undermine native 
ecosystems as well as cultivated plants.  The root s of potted plants, even in an approved medium, 
could not be examined for signs of disease, and other mitigation measures were necessary.  The 
United States was preparing a technical proposal for review by the Commission and EC member States, and had proposed the formation of a joint technical working group to address the issue.  USDA 
was willing to review any systems certification pr oposal submitted by the Commission or its member 
States, with the understanding that any modifications  to existing US regulations would have to be 
scientifically justified and be subject to the US rulemaking process. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
Page 32  
 
  133. In March 2005, the European Communities reitera ted concerns that for more than 20 years 
this sector has attempted to obtain better conditions for access to the US market.  The most recent visit 
in May 2003 had resulted in a US assessment that EC member States had very high SPS standards and 
were expected to meet US requirements.  However,  the difficulties were continuing.  For instance, a 
Danish request for approval to export Schlumbe rgera to the United States had been submitted ten 
years ago and the corresponding US pest risk assessm ent had become available only in June 2004.  
The European Communities urged the United States to review its internal administrative procedures in 
the phytosanitary field to ensure these did not create unjustified trade restriction. 
134. China shared the concerns of the European Communities.  In 1980, China had started to 
export potted plants in growing media to the United States, and experienced problems similar to those 
of the European Communities.  Although in 1996 China had signed a work plan for exporting plants 
in growing media to the United States, to date, China could not export to the United States. 
135. The United States recognized the importance of this issue to the European Communities and 
had taken a number of steps to ensure that the co ncerns were handled as expeditiously as possible.  
The United States was examining how and whether its  import regulations for nursery stock, including 
plants in growing media, might be changed.  An  advanced notice of proposed rulemaking had been 
published in December 2004, and all Members c ould provide comments on that proposal.  The 
proposal sought to streamline the specific proces s questioned by both the European Communities and 
China.  The United States hoped to publish a pr oposed rule for Schlumbergera from the European 
Communities in the near future. 
136. In June 2005, the European Communities recal led that on 27 April 2005, the US authorities 
had notified as G/SPS/N/USA/1059 a draft rule proposing the inclusion of two species from the 
Netherlands and Denmark in the c onditional positive list of plants established in approved growing 
media that might be imported into the United St ates.  The European Communities welcomed the 
progress made on this issue and requested that new applications for similar species from similar production systems or country pest status be treated as an extension of this proposed rule.  This 
request was legitimate, proportionate to the risk and trade facilitating by nature.  The European 
Communities invited the United States to pu blish the final rule as soon as possible. 
137. The United States indicated that the comment pe riod for its draft rule had closed on 27 June 
2005.  The United States requested a written copy of th e EC statement to further consider its request.  
However, considering any additions or revisions to a proposed rule  that had been both notified and 
published might slow down final action. 
138. In February 2006, the European Communities reca lled that this issue had been pursued in 
bilateral discussions for the past 25 years.  Specifi cally at issue was the request from Denmark and the 
Netherlands for approval of particular plant species ( Schlumbergera spp  and Rhipsalidosis spp  
respectively).  In April 2005, the United States has notified a draft rule on the "Importation of 
Christmas Cactus and Easter Cactus in Growing Media from the Netherlands and Denmark" 
(G/SPS/N/USA/1059) with a comment period ending in  June 2005.  The United States was invited to 
publish the final rule as soon as possible and to cons ider new applications for species with similar 
production systems or country pest status as an extension of the existing proposed rule. 
139. The United States noted that since June 2005, the United States had conducted a thorough 
review of all comments received and had begun draf ting a final regulation.  No revisions to the 
proposed rule were currently being considered in or der to avoid any delays in the publication of the 
final rule, however it was not possible to give a specific time frame for such a publication.  In 
addition, the United States was also considering chan ges to its entire regulatory framework for import 
measures affecting plants in growing media, as notified in G/SPS/N/USA/1043 in March 2005.  Comments on this notification were currently being reviewed.  The United States would ensure that  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
 Page 33 
 
 
  any modification to the existing regulations would meet both the plant health protection requirements 
and the requirements of the SPS Agreement. 
140. At the June 2006 meeting of the SPS Committee, the European Communities indicated that 
the issuance of the US final rule on plants in gr owing media, including Schlumbergera, would resolve 
this issue. 
241. United States - Import restrictions on wooden Christmas trees  
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, paras.  13-14), October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, paras. 
145-146 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Not Reported 
 
141. In June 2006, China expressed concerns regardi ng the US decision to stop the importation of 
artificial Christmas trees from China, although on ly one enterprise had violated the quarantine 
treatment requirement which had resulted in the detec tion of live long-horn beetles in its consignment.  
This exceptional incident did not indicate a defect of the whole Chinese system.  The strict measure 
taken by the United States did not respect the WT O rules on minimizing the impact on trade and had 
caused great losses for Chinese enterp rises and had also affected the US Christmas tree market.  
Furthermore, there was an undue delay in the way th e issue was dealt with by the United States.  The 
Chinese Government had spared no effort to take  corrective measures regarding the whole system, 
including the enhancement of supervision of the quarantine and inspection system and receiving US 
inspectors in several provinces in February 20 06.  Although the experts had indicated their 
satisfaction with the improvements, no formal res ponse had been received from the United States.   
142. The United States replied that between 22 Febr uary 2002 and 22 October 2005, during routine 
2 percent inspections at US ports of entry, th e United States had intercepted quarantine significant 
pests on wood handicraft products shipped from Ch ina 418 times, including on artificial Christmas 
trees, trellis towers, other home and garden wood dé cor, and craft items.  These interceptions had not 
abated.  The plant quarantine authorities of the Un ited States and China had maintained an on-going 
dialogue regarding such interceptions.  This wood  boring pest was closely related to the Asian 
longhorned beetle which had been introduced into  the United States in shipments of wood packing 
material from China and was now being eradicated in Chicago and New York.  The United States had 
spent in excess of US$200 million on its ongoing eradication effort.  Although the United States had 
requested China to provide an action plan to address  the infestations, no response had been received.  
On 1 April 2005, the United States had adopted emergency measures to suspend the importation of wood handicraft items from China, including artific ial Christmas trees, that contained wooden logs, 
limbs, branches, or twigs greater than one centimetre in diameter and with intact bark.  Manufactured 
items that had been heat treated or fumigated with  methyl bromide and had 100 percent of the bark 
removed were not subject to the import suspension, so the US measure was no more trade-restrictive 
than necessary.  When its assessment of the risk of continued introduction of quarantine pests on 
manufactured wood commodities from China was complete d, this would be shared with China's plant 
quarantine authorities. 
143. In October 2006, China reported that although some progress had been made following 
bilateral consultations, it was still concerned that the restrictions imposed by the United States were 
disproportionate and not necessary.  Although impor ts of manufactured items which had been heat G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
Page 34  
 
  treated or fumigated with methyl bromide was perm itted, no information was provided to China since 
the United States had. detected beetles in wooden tre es.  China requested details  of the enterprises that 
failed to meet the US quarantine requirements.  Ch ina had adopted IPPC standards to treat the wooden 
handicrafts and therefore expected the United Stat es to accept the Christmas trees or to identify 
alternative procedures so that Chinese enterpri ses knew how to meet the US requirements.   
144. The United States indicated that the measures imposed on the importation of certain 
manufactured wood items (including artificial Christ mas trees with bark attached) from China were 
imposed after no response was received for a requ ested plan of action to address the issue.  
Manufactured wood items that were heat treated or fumigated with methyl bromide and that had their 
bark removed were not subject to the import restri ction.  Progress had been made during the bilateral 
technical discussions in September 2006 and the United States looked forward to receiving China's 
accreditation proposal for fumigated and heat treatment of wood handicrafts from China.   
OTHER CONCERNS 
Animal Health and Zoonoses  
Concerns related to avian influenza 
235. Certain Members - Import restrictions on EC  exports of live birds, meat, meat products 
and other derivates due to avian influenza 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2005/Fe bruary 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, pa ras. 46-48), June 2006 
(G/SPS/R/42, para. 21), Octobe r 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, para. 37) 
Relevant 
document(s):  
Solution: Partially resolved 
 
145. In October 2005, the European Communities stat ed that it had learned, thanks to SPS 
notifications, that four WTO Members had recently  imposed a ban on EC poultry products including 
live birds, poultry meat and meat products, feathers, animal feed from poultry meat, bone and feather 
meal, and other by-products of poultry, on the gro und of the presence of avian influenza (AI) in the 
EC territory.  Three of these Members had target ed the ban to Greece, although the suspected case of 
AI reported by Greece in October 2005 had proved to  be negative for highly pathogenic avian 
influenza (HPAI).  The current ban imposed on Gr eece was not based on science nor on any existing 
OIE standards.  It was therefore inconsistent  with Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement.   
146. The European Communities had b een recognized by the OIE as free of AI and had rapidly 
taken effective safeguard measures to protect and maintain this status.  A fourth WTO Member had 
banned imports of the same poultry products from the entire world.  According to OIE rules and the provisions of the SPS Agreement, bans on bird pro ducts should only apply to regions affected by 
HPAI.  The European Communities urged these four  Members to bring their legislation into 
compliance with international rules a nd Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.1 
 Page 35 
 
 
  147. Canada requested Members to cautiously react to low pathogenic AI outbreaks, especially in 
light of the current worldwide sensitivity on AI-rela ted issues, in order to not discourage Members 
from notifying such outbreaks.  Suriname stated hi s country's concern about the EC ban on imports of 
wild birds from Suriname.  Suriname was an AI-fr ee country, as had been proven by investigations by 
UK authorities tracking an infected bird detected in a shipment of wild birds.  Investigations had 
demonstrated that the infected bird did not originate from Suriname.  Other birds in the same 
consignment, sent to other EC countries, had show n no sign of the disease.  Suriname's exports of 
wild birds were suffering from the EC ban and Suri name questioned when its exports could resume. 
148. In June 2006, the European Communities reitera ted concerns that certain Members imposed 
unjustified measures on EC exports of an excessively broad range of poultry products, including heat-
treated ones.  Only a limited number of EC member States had confirmed cases of avian influenza and 
many had rapidly regained disease-free status.  The European Communities urged all Members to 
base their measures on scientific principles and appl y the concept of regionalization rather than 
banning imports from all EC member States. 
149. In October 2006, the European Communities informed the Committee that although a 
significant number of WTO Members had lifted their bans on EC products acco rding to international 
standards, some Members still had unjustified r estrictions in place.  The European Communities 
would continue to seek the lifting of these import restrictions. 
__________