WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
25 February 2005 
 (05-0804) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
Addendum  
 
 
PART 4  
  This part of document G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5 c ontains summary information regarding all 
issues which were raised in the SPS Committee between 1995 and 200 4, and on which a resolution 
was reported prior to 2004.  
                                                     
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
Page ii  
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
Page
 
 
ARGENTINA ............................................................................................................................... ..1 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ARGENTINA ..........................................1  
Animal Health and Zoonoses ........................................................................................................1  
171. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Br azil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, 
Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Roma nia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, 
Spain, United States and others – Measures related to BSE...............................................1  
AUSTRALIA ............................................................................................................................... ...3 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY AUSTRALIA ...........................................3  
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... ......3  
172. Australia – Restrictions on imports of sauces containing benzoic acid..............................3  
173. Australia and New Zealand – Import restrictions on cheese ..............................................4  
Animal Health and Zoonoses ........................................................................................................5  
174. Australia – Ban on salmon imports.....................................................................................5  
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... .....5 
175. Australia - Access of Ca lifornia table grapes .....................................................................5  
BRAZIL ......................................................................................................................... ........................6  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BRAZIL ..................................................6  
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... .....6 
176. Brazil – Restrictions on imported wheat.............................................................................6  
CANADA ......................................................................................................................... ......................7  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CANADA ................................................7  
Animal Health and Zoonoses ........................................................................................................7  
177. Canada - Measures affecting imports of  products containing Brazilian beef.....................7  
CHINA .......................................................................................................................... .........................8  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINA ...................................................8  
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... ......8  
178. China – Import ban on pro ducts of Dutch origin................................................................8  
Animal Health and Zoonoses ........................................................................................................9  
179. China – Quarantine measures for the entry and exit of aquatic products ...........................9  
COLOMBIA....................................................................................................................... .................10  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY COLOMBIA ..........................................10  
Animal Health and Zoonoses ......................................................................................................10  
180. Colombia - FMD restrictions............................................................................................10  
CZECH REPUBLIC................................................................................................................. ..........11   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
 Page iii 
 
 
 CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CZECH REPUBLIC ..............................11  
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... ....11  
181. Czech Republic - Prohibition of poultry meat imports from Thailand.............................11  
Animal Health and Zoonoses ......................................................................................................12  
182. Czech Republic – Regulation concer ning warehouses and silos......................................12  
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ...12 
183. Czech Republic - Imports of potatoes...............................................................................12  
EL SALVADOR.................................................................................................................... ..............13  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EL SALVADOR ....................................13  
Animal Health and Zoonoses ......................................................................................................13  
184. El Salvador – Restrictions on meat and dairy products ....................................................13  
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES .........................................................................................................13  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ................13  
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... ....13  
185. European Communities – Restri ctions on honey imports.................................................13  
186. European Communities - Emergenc y measures on citrus pulp ........................................14  
187. European Communities – Trade restrict ions in response to cholera.................................14  
HONDURAS....................................................................................................................... .................15  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY HONDURAS ..........................................15  
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ...15 
188. Honduras – Restrictions on imports of rough rice............................................................15  
INDONESIA...................................................................................................................... ..................15  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA ..........................................15  
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ...15 
189. Indonesia - Restrictions on importation of fresh fruit.......................................................15  
ISRAEL......................................................................................................................... .......................16  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ISRAEL ................................................16  
Animal Health and Zoonoses ......................................................................................................16  
190. Israel – Measures affecting imports of bovine meat.........................................................16  
JAPAN .......................................................................................................................... .......................17  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN ..................................................17  
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ...17 
191. Japan – Testing requirements for different varieties of apples, cherries and nectarines...17  
REPUBLIC OF KOREA.............................................................................................................. ......17  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA .................17  
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... ....17  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
Page iv  
 
 192.
 Korea – Import ban on frozen poultry ..............................................................................17  
193. Korea – Shelf-life requirements........................................................................................18  
Other Concerns ............................................................................................................................19  
194. Korea – Import clearance measures and practices............................................................19  
MALAYSIA....................................................................................................................... ..................20  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY MALAYSIA ..........................................20  
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... ....20  
195. Malaysia and Singapore - Notifi cations related to dioxin ................................................20  
MEXICO......................................................................................................................... .....................21  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY MEXICO ..............................................21  
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ...21 
196. Mexico – Import prohibition of milled rice......................................................................21  
NEW ZEALAND .................................................................................................................... ............23  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY NEW ZEALAND ...................................23  
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ...23 
197. New Zealand - Proposed import prohibition of commodity-country combinations of fresh 
cut flowers and foliage......................................................................................................23  
NORWAY......................................................................................................................... ...................23  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ................23  
Animal Health and Zoonoses ......................................................................................................23  
198. Norway – Restrictions on gelatin imports ........................................................................23  
PANAMA......................................................................................................................... ....................24  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY PANAMA ..............................................24  
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ...24 
199. Panama – Requirements for certification of consumer rice..............................................24  
PHILIPPINES.................................................................................................................... .................24  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE PHILIPPINES ................................24  
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... ....24  
200. Philippines – Certification of  meat and dairy products ....................................................24  
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ...25 
201. Philippines - Notification on Chinese fruit imports..........................................................25  
POLAND......................................................................................................................... .....................26  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY POLAND ...............................................26  
Animal Health and Zoonoses ......................................................................................................26  
202. Poland - Notifications on veterinary m easures and measures on animal products 
including gelatin .............................................................................................................. .26  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
 Page v 
 
 
 SLOVAK REPUBLIC ................................................................................................................ ........27  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC .....................27  
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ...27 
203. Slovak Republic – Restrictions on impor ts of apples, pears and quinces.........................27  
UNITED STATES.................................................................................................................. .............28  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE UNITED STATES ..........................28  
Plant Health ............................................................................................................................... ...28 
204. United States – Import restrictions on rhododendrons in growing medium.....................28  
 
 
   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
 Page 1 
 
 
 ARGENTINA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ARGENTINA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to TSEs 
 
171. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Br azil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, 
Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, United States and others – Measures related to BSE 
Raised by: Switzerland 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5 and Corr.1,  paras. 6-9), October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, 
para. 53), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras.  56), July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, paras. 
10-19), October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Re v.1, para. 15-17), March 1998 
(G/SPS/R/10, para. 9), June 1998 (G/ SPS/R/11, para. 29), September 1998 
(G/SPS/R/12, paras. 26-30), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 17-18), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/14, para. 14), Ma rch 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, para. 8) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/56, G/SPS/N/AUS/57, G/SPS/N/CAN/18, G/SPS/N/CHL/1, 
G/SPS/N/CHL/6, G/SPS/N/CHL/31, G/SPS/N/CZE/14 and Add.1, G/SPS/N/SGP/1, G/SPS/W/68, G/SPS/W/79, G/SPS/GN/5, G/SPS/GEN/71 
Solution: Slovak transit ban removed, mutua lly satisfactory soluti on found with regard 
to Slovak importation of Swiss milk  and milk products; Chilean import 
measure modified; some other measures withdrawn/revised. 
 1. In May 1996, Switzerland presented informati on on its BSE situation,  and noted that a 
number of countries had restricted imports of dairy products, although both the OIE and the WHO 
concluded that dairy products posed no risk in  respect of BSE.  In October 1996, Switzerland 
provided an update of its sanitary prescriptions, culli ng and veterinary measures to be adopted at the 
border.   In March 1997, Switzerland indicated th at although it was a country of low incidence of 
BSE, it had been subject to a number of BSE-relate d trade restrictions, some of which could not be 
justified under WTO rules.  The Chairman agreed to hold informal consulta tions with interested 
Members on 21 March 1997. 
2. In July 1997, Switzerland reported that alt hough there had been some positive developments, 
problems remained.  Switzerland addressed some questions to the Members concerned, stressing its interest to find rapid solutions through bilatera l discussions.  Argentina in formed the Committee that 
it had replied to Swiss questions and would pr ovide more information; Switzerland expressed 
satisfaction with this progress.  Brazil noted that  its import prohibition of bovine semen was based on 
the classification of bovine semen as a medium risk  product, and on Brazil's BSE-free status.  At the 
subsequent meeting of the relevant MERCOSUR work ing group in July 1997, Brazil would attempt to 
reclassify bovine semen as low risk. 
3. Canada noted that there had been no changes to its import conditions for the importation of 
live cattle, bovine embryos, bovine semen, bovine m eat or meat products from Switzerland, although 
a draft document on BSE policies was being discussed.  Canada was receiving comments on its draft measure, which would be in accordance with the OI E Code.  Canada was concerned with the lack of 
quantitative or qualitative parameters for the diffe rentiation between countri es with high and low 
incidence of BSE, and re-extended an  invitation for bilateral discussions. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
Page 2  
 
 4. The United States stressed that it did not proh ibit the importation of meat.  BSE-related 
measures were subject to continued review based on scientific evidence, which, for example, had led 
to the opening of trade in bovine semen, altho ugh other matters remained unresolved.  The United 
States remained open to scientific discussion in th e area.  Switzerland noted that the United States 
required certification for dried meat, and hoped that the reviewed US policies would be in line with 
OIE recommendations. 
5. Romania informed the Committee that it had held bilateral discussions with Switzerland.  Its 
policies were in line with OIE recommendations, and would be notified shortly.  Switzerland 
expressed satisfaction with the results of bilateral ta lks.  Poland noted that imports to Poland were 
carried out on the grounds of individual import perm issions, but that no application had been received 
from Switzerland.  Switzerland requested bilateral cl arifications.  Singapore indicated that countries 
exporting beef were required to certify BSE-freedom fo r six years.  It believed this measure to be 
consistent with the SPS Agreement, and planned to notify it shortly. 
6. The Czech Republic was concerned about con tinued occurrence of BSE in Switzerland, 
especially since the Czech Republic was BSE-free.  However, imports of bovine semen, brain and 
embryos from Switzerland were not restricted.  The Czech Republic would prefer to continue 
discussion at the level of veterinary experts.  The European Communities noted that measures were 
taken on a national basis by EC member States, but we re screened for conformity with EC law before 
being notified to WTO.  In the case of BSE, this  had taken more time than expected, and although 
there was no common position within the European Communities, changes to the policy were being 
considered.  The European Communities indicat ed it was going beyond OIE recommendations, and 
indicated that it would be useful to conti nue discussions with the relevant experts. 
7. In October 1997, Switzerland indicated that its BSE-situation was improving, but that 
numerous restrictions continued to affect Swiss e xports of live cattle, genetic material, meat, and in 
certain cases milk products.  Bilate ral consultations were continuing.   Switzerland questioned why the 
Australian quarantine requirements for the importa tion of bovine embryos and semen applied to 
Switzerland only, and whether countries with actu al BSE incidents were subject to similar 
requirements.  Switzerland also wondered why the ob jective of the new requirements was to "develop 
import requirements…based on intern ational standards", whereas the notification indicated that no 
international standard existed.  Australia replied that it had developed generic conditions for 
importation of ruminants and rumi nant genetic material from member States of the European 
Communities, but had established bila teral conditions with other tradi ng partners.  The conditions in 
the notified draft requirements for Switzerland were in accordance with Australia's general import 
policy relating to BSE promulgated in January 1995, and were equiva lent to BSE requirements for all 
other countries.  International standards existed and Australia did not consider that the notified draft 
measures deviated from such standards. 
8. Switzerland questioned why the Czech import restri ction on imports of cattle over six months 
applied to Switzerland only, and whether countries w ith actual BSE incidents were subject to similar 
requirements.  The Czech Republic replied that an  individual import permit was required for traders 
interested in importing goods subject to veterinary  control, including live animals.  The Czech 
authorities considered the epizootic situation in the country of origin, frequency of newly found cases 
of contagious diseases, efficiency of eradication programmes, etc.  The import approach was always 
the same and included discussion with the veterinary authorities of the country of origin.  The system 
distinguished between countries with sporadic positiv e cases and those with continued occurrence of 
cases, like Switzerland.  Although the measur es in place in Switzerland corresponded to OIE 
recommendations, they had not fully eliminated BSE-related risks, and had not prevented new 
infections.  Unlike other countries, Switzerland sla ughtered and destroyed only BSE-affected animals, 
not all animals kept and fed in the same place.  Such animals could be considered as a source of 
disease.  Trade between the Czech Republic a nd the European Commun ities was based on EC  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
 Page 3 
 
 
 measures which represented a higher rate of preven tion than the OIE recommendations.  The Czech 
Republic offered to continue bilate ral discussions with Switzerland. 
9. In March 1998, Switzerland reported that most  BSE-related measures against its exports 
remained in place although they deviated from OI E recommendations.  However, some Members had 
eliminated or revised their measures, especially on genetic products.  With respect to the European 
Communities, Switzerland hoped that recent developments would lead to a more predictable situation.  
In June 1998, Switzerland and the Slovak Republic reported on pr ogress achieved during 
consultations and in September 1998, Switzerland reported that the transit ban had been removed, 
although discussions on market access fo r dairy products continued.  
10. In September 1998, Switzerland re iterated concerns with import prohibitions on Swiss bovine 
semen, which seemed to contradict WTO provision s regarding non-discrimination, risk assessment, 
notification and consultation.  Switzerland was still awaiting answers to its detailed questions to the 
relevant Members, or re-admission of Swiss expor ts.  The European Communities reported on useful 
bilateral contacts with Switzerland, and indicated that the European Communities was undertaking an 
inventory of all national BSE-rela ted measures in order to notify them.  In addition, the European 
Communities would propose that EC member Stat es harmonize their conditions for import from 
Switzerland.  Chile indicated that, based on OIE recommendations on BSE, it had authorized bovine 
semen imports from France and was processing a re quest from the United Kingdom.  No official 
request to export bovine semen ha d been received from Switzerland. 
11. In November 1998, Switzerland and the Slovak Rep ublic reported that they were close to a 
short-term solution regarding the Slovak import ban on Swiss dairy.  In the longer term, a few 
technical issues remained to be settled.  In Ma rch 1999, Switzerland informed the Committee that a 
mutually satisfactory solution regarding Slovak import ation of Swiss milk and milk products had been 
found.  Chile reported that its measure affecti ng imports of bovine semen had been modified. 
 
AUSTRALIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY AUSTRALIA  
Food Safety 172. Australia – Restrictions on imports of sauces containing benzoic acid 
Raised by: Philippines 
Supported by: Malaysia 
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 83-85), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, 
paras. 24-25), July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15,  para. 68), June 2000 (G/SPS/R/19, 
para. 21), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 36) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/106;  see also G/SPS/13, G/SPS/GEN/137 and 
G/SPS/W/107/Rev.1 
Solution: Australian tolerance level modi fied in June 2000. In October 2001, the 
Philippines confirmed that sauces were no longer be ing detained. 
 
12. In September 1998, the Philippines voiced con cerns that Australia's import prohibition on 
Philippine sauces containing benzoic acid were disc riminatory, since sauces from New Zealand were 
allowed entry even if they contained benzoic aci d.  Australia indicated willingness to pursue this 
matter with the Philippines.  Both Members noted th e absence of an international standard for benzoic 
acid in sauces.  In November 1998, the Philippines re ported that bilateral cons ultations had not been 
successful.  Australia explained that the different  rules applying to sauces from New Zealand were G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
Page 4  
 
 transitional, and stemmed from a treaty establishing a common food standards system for both 
countries.  Australia expected that the final sta ndard for food additives would be implemented in the 
first half of 1999. 
13. In July 1999, the Philippines again reported on bilateral consultati ons.  Completion of 
Australia's new food code was foreseen for late 1999.  Australia confirmed that benzoic acid would be 
allowed as an additive under the new food standards code. 
14. In June 2000, the Philippines requested an update  of the situation from Australia.  Australia 
reported that the relevant part of the Australian Food Standards Code had been revised.  The present 
restriction on benzoic acid would be removed and replaced on 22 June  2000 with a tolerance level of 
1000 milligrams per kilogram for benzoates in sauces, a pplicable to all products sold in the Australian 
market, whether domestic or imported.   
15. In October 2001, the Philippines confirmed that Au stralia had modified the tolerance level for 
benzoic acid in sauces, and that detention of Phili ppine sauces in Australia due to benzoic acid had 
not been noted in Hold Order Lists since June 2000. 
173. Australia and New Zealand – Import restrictions on cheese 
Raised by: European Communities, Switzerland 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11 and Corr.1, paras. 41-42b), November 1998 
(G/SPS/R/13, paras. 21-23), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, paras. 9-13), November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, para. 32) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/80, G/SPS/N/AUS/107, G/SPS/N/NZL/48 
Solution: Switzerland reported that a mutua lly satisfactory solution had been found. 
 
16. In June 1998, Switzerland reported that, without  advance notice, New Zealand and Australia 
had stopped imports of hard cheeses made from unpasteu rized milk, on the grounds that they did not 
meet the sanitary requirements.  Australia and New Zealand responded that the relevant import 
measure required inactivation of pathogenic organism s.  This measure had been put in place before 
1 January 1995 and therefore not been notified, but compliance had recently been reinforced.  
ANZFA was evaluating the applications received from Switzerland and the European Communities. 
17. In November 1998, the European Communities requested Australia to identify the 
international standard on which its  import ban on Roquefort cheese was based, or to provide scientific 
justification and a risk assessment.  Australia r esponded that its food standards required all cheese to 
be made from pasteurized milk, or milk that had u ndergone an equivalent process.  Australia's risk 
assessment on Roquefort cheese had identified poten tial problems with pathogenic micro-organisms, 
in particular entero-hemorrhagic E-coli.  Furt her data from the Roquefort manufacturers had been 
received and were being evaluated.  In additio n to food safety assessments, Roquefort cheese was 
being evaluated for risks to animal health.  Draf t revised import conditions would be notified soon, 
and comments solicited.  A final decision was likel y in the first quarter of 1999 on both food safety 
and animal health aspects. 
18. In March 1999, Switzerland asked about the progress of ANZFA's procedures. Australia 
responded that ANZFA had conducted a risk assessme nt.  The documentation would be published on 
17 March 1999 for public comment, after which a final recommendation would be made.  Swiss 
officials in Canberra would be br iefed on 16 March 1999.  Regarding EC concerns, Australia reported 
that according to a risk assessment initiated by th e Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA), 
French Roquefort did not comply with Australian requirements.  French officials in Canberra would  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
 Page 5 
 
 
 be briefed on the issue.  In November 2000, Swit zerland reported that a mutually satisfactory solution 
had been found. 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Other Animal Health Concerns 
 
174. Australia – Ban on salmon imports 
Raised by: Canada, United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, par as. 13-15), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 58) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/3 
Solution: Dispute settlement (W/DS18 and W/ DS26, respectively).  Mutually agreed 
resolution between Canada and Au stralia reported in May 2000. 
 
19. In October 1996, the United States reported th at Australia maintained a ban on North 
American fresh, chilled or frozen salmon on the gr ounds that imports might transmit diseases and 
pathogens to Australian fishery stocks.  In 1994, Australia published a draft risk assessment which 
indicated there was little risk from imported North American salmon.  However, Australia did not 
adjust its measure to reflect th e results of that risk assessment , but instead undertook another risk 
assessment, completed in May 1996, which again faile d to find a scientific basis for maintaining the 
ban.  The United States expected that when the fi nal report was published, the ban would be lifted, 
especially since the salmon in question complied with OIE standards. 
20. Australia indicated that the 1995 draft risk ass essment had been revised in response to the 
large number of comments received.  Comments, in cluding from the United Stated and Canada, had 
again been received on the 1996 draft risk assessment, which would be finalized by the end of 1996.  
Australia noted that the OIE standard  did not meet its appropriate leve l of protection.  In March 1997, 
Canada and the United States again noted their concer n that Australia had decided to maintain its ban 
on salmon imports.  Canada had formally requested  the establishment of a panel in the Dispute 
Settlement Body. 
Plant Health 175. Australia - Access of California table grapes 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Philippines on behalf of ASEAN, European Communities 
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  92-94), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 65-
67), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 26), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 
39). 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Mutually agreed solution on a seri es of risk management procedures to be 
re-evaluated in a year. 
 21. In March 2001, the United States indicated th at for the past 10 years there had been 
difficulties in exporting California table grapes to Au stralia.  Even under Australia's new IRA process, 
delays and requests for additional information a nd documentation had continued, although nearly a 
year had elapsed since the release of the impor t risk assessment (IRA).  Australia had conducted 
additional studies, the latest focussing on the gl assy-winged sharpshooter and Pierce's Disease.  The 
United States maintained that these additional studi es were not justified, and urged Australia to G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
Page 6  
 
 modify its import restrictions consistent with the IRA and its obligations under Article 5.1.  Australia 
explained that the administrative process was not complete until the Director of Plant and Animal Quarantine made a final decision.  Australia was fr ee of Pierce's Disease and believed that there was a 
need for further scientific research.  A mission of scientists to the United States in 2000 had raised 
questions about changes in the risk profile which re quired more information.  Australia was willing to 
cooperate with the United States to learn more about  this disease and its vector.  The Philippines, on 
behalf of ASEAN, shared the US concern regard ing Australia's phytosanitary regulatory process. 
22. In July 2001, the United States expressed disappoi ntment at Australia's apparent abandonment 
of its commitment to a transparent, science-based risk assessment system.  The IRA process did not seem to have an end.  Australia had initiated ne w studies whose chief purpose seemed to be to delay 
lifting the import prohibition on Calif ornia table grapes.  Australia ha d pointed to the relatively recent 
introduction of a leaf-hopping insect, the glassy-winge d sharpshooter, although its own IRA had noted 
that the risks associated with this pest would be ne gligible.  Australia had decided more research on 
risk mitigation for glassy-winged sharpshooters woul d be necessary.  Table grapes in California were 
subject to numerous mitigations, and the United Stat es was willing to address legitimate scientific 
concerns.  However, additional research on a pest not found in shipments of table grapes was 
completely without scientific merit and was a delaying  tactic.  Australia indicated that the change in 
risk profile associated with the spread of Pierce 's disease, and of its vector, the glassy-winged 
sharpshooter, in California required additional sci entific information to ensure protection from 
quarantine risk.   
23. In October 2001, the United States informed the Committee that constructive consultations 
had been held to discuss quarantine procedures.  Both  countries had agreed to continue the dialogue to 
work toward a resolution of the outstanding issu es.  Australia was confident that a mutually 
acceptable solution could be found soon. 
24. In March 2002, the United States reported that  following consultations, Australia and the 
United States had agreed on a series of risk ma nagement procedures to allow for the export of 
California table grapes to Australia.  The risk management practices would be re-evaluated after one 
year.   
 
BRAZIL 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BRAZIL  
Plant Health 
176. Brazil – Restrictions on imported wheat 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras.  16-17), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Import of certain classes of wheat allowed as of early 2001. 
 
25. In March 1997, the United States raised concer n regarding Brazilian restrictions on wheat 
imports intended to prevent the establishment of the fungus tilletia controversa  (TCK bunt or Dwarf 
bunt).  However, a 1996 bilate ral agreement was based on the understanding that the fungus in 
question could not be established in Brazil, and the United States was not aware of scientific evidence 
that might alter this conclusion.  Brazil responde d that it had implemented new legislation on risk 
assessment and risk management for several produc ts as a result of harmonization efforts in the  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
 Page 7 
 
 
 MERCOSUR context.  Thus, a certificate of origin  was required for wheat, to establish that the 
product originated in a pest-free zone.  Scientific consultations between Braz ilian and US experts had 
yet to produce a final report on the risk posed by tilletia controversa  and tilletia indica  (Karnal bunt).  
The 1996 bilateral agreement did not preclude Braz il from applying its internal legislation. 
26. In July 2001, the United States reported that  following extensive technical consultations, 
Brazil had issued new import instructions in early  2001 that allow import of certain classes of US 
wheat (G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United states c onsidered this trade concern resolved. 
 
CANADA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CANADA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to TSEs 
 
177. Canada - Measures affecting imports of products containing Brazilian beef 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 2-5) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/245, G/SPS/W/108, G/SPS/N/CAN/39, G/SPS/N/CAN/94 
Solution: Suspension lifted in February 2001. 
 
27. Canada outlined its BSE policy, and informed Members of recent actions taken regarding the 
application of this policy.  Imports from Brazil had recently been suspended because Brazil had not 
provided the information requested by Canada in or der to carry out a risk assessment.  Canada was 
especially concerned about the traceability of cattle  imported from BSE-infected countries.  Canada 
had lifted its suspension after receipt and analysis of documentation from Brazil and a visit to Brazil by scientists from Canada, the United States and Me xico.  Canada reported that Brazilian authorities 
had agreed to certification requirements.  Brazil regr etted that Canada had not handled this matter in a 
more transparent manner, with prior notification an d consultation.  Brazil recalled its BSE-free status 
according to OIE classification, and its ban on feed ing of ruminant material to cattle.  Brazil had 
suffered many adverse effects from Canada's hasty embargo.  This had raised awareness of certain shortcomings of the multilateral system in cases like this one.  Brazil announced its intention to 
present proposals to the SPS Committee and the General Council to address these problems. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
Page 8  
 
 CHINA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINA  
Food Safety 178. China – Import ban on products of Dutch origin 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, par as 31-32), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras 
73-74), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, par as. 82-83), June 2003 (G/SPS/R30, 
paras. 39-40) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Ban on Dutch products lifted 
 
28. The European Communities stated  that the Chinese authorities had suspended imports of all 
products of animal origin from the Netherlands af ter detection of one positive consignment in a single 
category of products. The European Communities consider ed this measure to be more trade restrictive 
than necessary, and noted that in a similar situa tion with regard to Chinese products, the European 
Communities had given China sufficient time to solv e problems of detection of the presence of 
chloramphenicol in their products. 
29. China noted that the use of chloramphenicol in  animal foodstuffs had been prohibited in EC 
member States since 1994.  When the substance ha d been detected in Dutch products, China had 
imposed a provisional ban and immediately alerted the Dutch authorities.  China had received part of the information requested, and was waiting for furthe r information so as to review its measure.  The 
representative of China reported that the problem appa rently arose due to Dutch imports of feedstuffs 
from some eastern European countries, which gave rise to concerns regarding Dutch import control 
measures, residue monitoring systems and export control measures.   
30. In November 2002, the European Communities reported that some progress had been made, 
however they requested China to increase efforts to resolve the issu e.  The European Communities 
considered this a disproportionate reaction to a problem that could ha ve been resolved in a mutually 
satisfactory manner without disrupting trade.  Chin a observed that other countries had faced similar 
problems with Dutch products.  His country was working to remove the ban remaining for some products.  For this purpose, the Netherlands had been  invited to provide information to enable China 
to conduct a risk assessment, as soon as possible. 
31. In April 2003, the European Communities reported that China had lifted restrictions on 
certain products of no real trade significance, but no satisfactory solution had yet been found for a 
large number of animal products of Dutch origin, in  particular dairy products.  In December 2002, the 
European Communities had supplied the informatio n requested by China.  In March 2003,  China 
requested additional information and indicated that an inspection mission would be necessary before 
anything further could be done.  The European Co mmunities questioned why this inspection visit had 
not been proposed sooner. 
32. China responded that it had lifted the ban on certain products on 25 December 2002, after 
receipt of information from the European Commun ities.  For other products, China had been waiting 
for almost one year on the Netherlands' residue monitoring and assessment controls.  Based on the 
information provided to date, China had identified sign ificant defects with respect to conformity with 
the relevant EC directives, including sampling of da iry products and casings.  An inspection visit was  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
 Page 9 
 
 
 necessary to address these outstanding issues.  Th e receipt of additional information from the 
Netherlands on 21 March 2003 would enable the visit of  China's inspection team in the near future.   
33. In June 2003, the European Communities reporte d that the Chinese embargo on products from 
the Netherlands had been lifted and the European  Communities believed this issue now resolved.  
China reaffirmed that the ban on Dutch products ha d been lifted after an inspection visit and the 
conclusion of a risk assessment. 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Other Animal Health Concerns 179. China – Quarantine measures for the entry and exit of aquatic products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras.  33-35), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, para. 39, 
59-60) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHN/17 
Solution: Measure notified and comments solicited 
34. The European Communities noted that Decree No. 31, due to enter into force in June 2003, 
had not been notified to the WTO.  The European Co mmunities, therefore, were not able to assess the 
decree and comment on it.  The Chinese authorities were requested to notify the measure to the WTO 
and suspend its entry into force for four additiona l months to allow Members a chance to comment on 
it and for permits to be issued to  exporters.  The United States echoed the concerns of the European 
Communities. 
35. China explained that Decree 31 was notified to  the WTO as part of a notification covering 
China's existing laws on animal and plant quarantin e and on sanitation, inspection and certification of 
imports and exports of food produc ts at the time of its WTO accession.  The purpose of the Decree 
was to standardize the standards of quarantine for aquatic animals and to improve transparency of 
procedures in line with WTO obligations on transparency and consistency.  The regulation did not contain any new technical requirements and thus did not need to be notified to the WTO.  
Nonetheless, China would consider any comments fr om Members.  China had decided to delay the 
date of entry into force from 10 December 2002 until 12 June 2003, so as to minimize any trade 
impact.  On 23 December 2002, AQSIQ sent a notice to all foreign embassies in Beijing and requested them to identify which governmental au thorities had responsibility for issuing certificates 
for export to China, and to submit a model certificate so that China could verify the certificates. 
36. In June 2003, the European Communities reporte d that China had notified its Decree 31 on 
aquatic products and had provided a comment period.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
Page 10  
 
 COLOMBIA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY COLOMBIA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to FMD 180. Colombia - FMD restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras.  18-19), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 44-
45), November 2002 , (G/SPS/R/28, pa ras. 56-58), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, 
paras. 74-75), June 2003 (G/SPS /R/30, para. 44), October 2003 
(G/SPS/R/31, para. 37) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Restrictions lifted on bovine meat from Argentina 
 37. Argentina reported that Colombia had restricted  imports of certain products from Argentina 
on 26 September 2001, after the FMD outbreaks in Argentina.  Colombia had agreed to accept 
Argentine products for which risk mitigation techni ques could be applied according to the OIE code, 
and on 17 October 2001 had publis hed new measures specifying those processed products which 
could be imported.  An inspection visit by the Colombian sanitary services in late October 2001 complemented the information provided by the Ar gentine services.  Howeve r, Argentina was unable 
to export the products in question due to continue d information requests from Colombia.  Colombia 
noted that it had replied to comments and ques tions from Argentina in November 2001 and March 
2002.  Argentina did not have establishments author ised by the Colombian Livestock Institute (ICA) 
to export risk products to Colombia.  Colombia was considering the process and production methods 
at Argentine establishments to inac tivate the virus in risk materials,  and if satisfactory, Argentine 
establishments would receive the necessary ICA authorization. 
38. In June 2002, Argentina indicated that its e xports continued to be restricted.  Colombia 
recalled that no plants in Argen tina were currently certified to export to Colombia.  However, 
Colombia had identified 10 plants in Argentina for which it needed to update information, and another 
38 plants which it proposed to visit for the first time.  Only 21 of these establishments had provided 
the information needed for the Colombian Agricultural Institute to undertake certification visits. 
39. In November 2002, Argentina noted that Colo mbia continued to prohibit Argentine meat 
despite the fact that there had been no new outbreaks in Argentina for nine months.  Colombia still 
had not carried out inspections of 21 packing plan ts which Colombia claimed was necessary before 
trade in beef meat could resume.  Colombia stated that Argentina had blocked imports of fresh flowers from Colombia, and requested Argentina not  to link these two issues.  Argentina indicated 
that there was no linkage to Colombian flowers, and asked Colombia to provide information as to 
whether it would carry out the veterinary inspections  in Argentina so that beef meat exports could 
resume. 
40. In April 2003, Argentina noted that it ha d not received a reply from Colombia on the 
completed questionnaire concerning chilled products.  No in-situ in spections had taken place that 
would lead to a lifting of these restrictions nor  had Argentina received any requests for further 
information.  Noting Colombia's concern over cut fl owers, Argentina stated that it did not maintain 
any restriction on the import of flowers from Colombia.  Colombia stated that it enjoyed a favourable 
FMD situation but allowed the importation of low ri sk products.  High risk products, however, were  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
 Page 11 
 
 
 banned from Argentina and this was notified to th e WTO. Establishments of origin had to be 
authorized by the Colombian sanitary service and a programme of visits to Argentina had been 
planned.  Information from Argentine authorities was required with regard to the serological and 
epidemiological assessment of FMD, vaccination c overage, and the dates on which the status of 
disease freedom both with or without vaccination were achieved.   Colombia considered the Argentine 
decision to suspend the import of cut flowers  in November 2001, without a WTO notification, to be 
unjustified. 
41. In June 2003, Argentina reported that progr ess had been made and that inspections of 
Argentine meat plants by Colombian officials were  being planned.  Colombia noted that once the 
necessary information was provided by Argentin a, Colombian authorities would carry out the 
necessary missions.  The good progress in the case of bovine exports from Argentina to Colombia was 
similar to the progress made on the issue of flower exports from Colombia to Argentina. 
42. In October 2003, Argentina reported that the issue had been resolved at the end of September 
2003, and that Colombia had eliminated its restricti ons.  Colombia confirmed that the issue had been 
resolved, and that exports of flowers from Colombia  to Argentina had also been discussed during the 
meeting. 
 
CZECH REPUBLIC 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CZECH REPUBLIC  
Food Safety 181. Czech Republic - Prohibition of po ultry meat imports from Thailand 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 81-82), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, 
paras. 39-40), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, para. 16), July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, 
para. 8), November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, para. 5) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CZE/16 
Solution: Czech measure lifted in October 1999. 
 43. In September 1998, Thailand indicated that si nce June 1998, the Czech Republic had stopped 
shipments of poultry meat from Thailand on the grounds  that it contained levels of arsenic acid above 
the acceptable Czech limits.  Thailand indicated that this measure was not scientifically justified and 
too trade restrictive, and asked whether the me asure was non-discriminatory.  The Czech Republic 
indicated that bilateral consu ltations had begun and would conti nue, and assured Thailand of the non-
discriminatory nature of its testing methodology. 
44. In November 1998, Thailand reporte d that bilateral consultations had been held, and that the 
Czech Republic had agreed to provide further clar ifications on the measure, as well as a scientific 
justification.  The Czech Republic indicated that th e exchange of information would take place before 
a mission of Czech experts to Thailand in the near future.  
45. In March 1999, Thailand and the Czech Republic reported that bilatera l consultations were 
progressing, and that the problem might be resolved  after a visit of Czech experts to Thailand, 
planned for April 1999.  In July 1999, Thailand repor ted that the visit of Czech experts had been re-
scheduled for September 1999.  The Czech Republic conf irmed that consultations were advancing.  In G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
Page 12  
 
 November 1999, the Chairman informed the Commit tee that the Czech Republic had recently notified 
the lifting of the measure from 1 October 1999. 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Other Animal Health Concerns  182. Czech Republic – Regulation concerning warehouses and silos 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, para. 54) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: EC satisfied with Czech clarifications. 
 
46. The European Communities sought clarificati on of a Czech regulation requiring warehouses 
and silos for animal feed to be under state cont rol for purposes of quality assurance.  The Czech 
Republic indicated that it wished to pursue the matter bilaterally with EC veterinary authorities.  In 
February 2001, the Czech Republic indicated th at the European Communities had accepted its 
clarifications. 
Plant Health 
183. Czech Republic - Imports of potatoes 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Argentina 
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, pa ra. 27), October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, 
paras. 51-53) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CZE/6, G/SPS/N/CZE/12, G/SPS/GEN/42 
Solution: Second active ingredient approved, imports from EC resumed. 
 47. In October 1996, the European Communities e xpressed concern that the Czech Republic had 
not specified a final date for comments on G/ SPS/N/CZE/12.  The Czech Republic committed to 
pursuing the matter bilaterally with the European  Communities.  In October 1997, the European 
Communities expressed concern over Czech import requirements for ware potatoes, which it did not believe to be based on scientific principles.  Moreove r, equivalent methods of sprout treatment were 
not allowed.  The European Communities pointed out  that a Codex standard existed for the active 
ingredient involved.  Argentina was concerned that  the treatment had to be applied before harvest, 
making a post-harvest decision to export to th e Czech Republic impossible, although alternative 
treatment methods existed.  Furthermore, it was not clear to Argentina whether the registration 
procedure concerned the entire product formula or only the active ingredient. 
48. The Czech Republic explained that imported plant products could not be circulated 
domestically if they contained residues of active pl ant protection ingredients not registered in the 
Czech Republic.  Only one active ingredient had been approved, but registration procedures for a 
second one were under way.  The Czech Republic belie ved that bilateral channels for resolving the 
issue, notably within the frame work of the European Associa tion Agreement, were far from 
exhausted. 
49. In February 2001, the Czech Republic repor ted that the second active agent had been 
approved since 16 March 1998, and im ports from the EC had resumed.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
 Page 13 
 
 
 EL SALVADOR 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EL SALVADOR  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Other Animal Health Concerns  184. El Salvador – Restrictions on meat and dairy products 
Raised by: Uruguay 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, para. 85), November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, 
para. 32) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution (if reported): Issue resolved. 
 
50. In November 1999, Uruguay reported on problems wi th exports of meat and dairy products to 
El Salvador on sanitary grounds, although no concrete  sanitary problems or regulations had been 
mentioned.  The representative of El Salvador indi cated that these concerns would be transmitted to 
the appropriate authorities.  In November 2000, Ur uguay reported that the issue that been resolved. 
 
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES  
Food Safety 185. European Communities – Restrictions on honey imports 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: China, Mexico 
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 25-27) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: resolved 
 
51. The United States stated that on 22 May 2003, the European Communities initiated 
administrative steps to prohibit imports of honey fr om the United States.  EC Directive 96-23 required 
exporting countries to submit a residue plan.  If the residue plan did not contain sufficient guarantees 
of compliance with EC residue limits, the country would not be authorised to export honey to the 
European Communities.  The United States considered the EC regime to be far more trade restrictive 
than necessary, and whilst not having identical ru les, the United States had comprehensive control 
mechanisms.  Furthermore, honey was consumed in very small quantities and should be considered a 
"low risk" food.  The existing rules in the United St ates were more than adequate to avoid harm to 
human health.  China and Mexico supported the concerns raised by the United States. 
52. The European Communities explained that it was a net importer of honey and that measures 
were in place to protect consumers.  The request for a residue surveillance plan was a general rule 
which applied to all products, and a high level of surveillance was needed for honey as it tended to be 
consumed by children.  The United States had recei ved a warning in February 2003 that the absence G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
Page 14  
 
 of a residue plan would lead to their removal fro m the list of countries approved for import of honey 
to the European Communities.  The European Communities was, however, willing to examine any 
residue plans provided by the United States. 
186. European Communities - Emerge ncy measures on citrus pulp  
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12,  paras. 49-50), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, 
para. 34) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/62 
Solution: Brazil reported in October 2001 that the emergency measures had been 
lifted. 
 53. In September 1998, Brazil expressed concer ns regarding EC emergency notification 
G/SPS/N/EEC/62, which mentioned very high leve ls of dioxin found in citrus pulp pellets from 
Brazil.  Brazil pointed out that this accident had already been fully dealt with.  Brazilian authorities 
were maintaining bilateral talks with the Eur opean Communities on the su bject.  The European 
Communities explained that this accident had i nvolved 90 000 tonnes of contaminated citrus pulp 
pellets destined for animal feed.  After scientific discussions, including Brazil's private sector, the EC 
authorities had decided that the lack of information on the origin of the contamination, the amount of 
stocks involved and the lack of a solution just ified the emergency measure.  The European 
Communities hoped that ongoing contacts with the Brazilian authorities would result in a solution before the end of the year.   
54. In October 2001,  Brazil reported that following two technical visits by EC officials to 
evaluate Brazilian control systems, the emergency me asures on dioxin in citrus pulp had been lifted. 
187. European Communities – Trade restrictions in response to cholera 
Raised by: Tanzania 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras.  56-57), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras. 96-
99) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/54 
Solution: Measures revised. 
 55. In March 1998, the European Communities in formed the Committee that it had taken 
safeguard measures with resp ect to imports of fruit, vegetables and fish products in light of a cholera 
outbreak in Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda and Mozambi que.  The inspection procedures in these countries 
had shown deficiencies, but the European Commun ities planned to consult with them to find 
arrangements by which they could put in force prope r hygiene requirements.  EC member States were 
trying to develop a joint cholera policy based on risk assessment.  The WHO observer did not 
consider the import ban necessary, especially on fish  products which were not consumed in raw form 
in Europe.  He drew attention to the WHO Guid ance on Foundation of National Policy and Control of 
Cholera , and particularly the conclusion in Chapter IX that:  "Although there is a theoretical risk of 
Cholera transmission associated with some food comm odities moving in international trade, this has 
rarely proved significant and authorities should seek me ans of dealing with it other than by applying 
an embargo on importation".  
56. In June 1998, Tanzania reported that the Eu ropean Communities continued to prohibit the 
importation of fresh, frozen and processed fishery products from the four African countries, although  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
 Page 15 
 
 
 tests had not found the bacteria concerned.  Ta nzania stressed that the EC ban was having severe 
economic effects on the Tanzanian economy, and th at according to the SPS Agreement, Members 
should help developing countries comply with th eir SPS measures.  The European Communities 
responded that it was now satisfied the necessary gu arantees were in place, and that a new measure 
restoring trade with the four African countries would probably enter into force on 1 July 1998. 
 
HONDURAS 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY HONDURAS  
Plant Health 188. Honduras – Restrictions on imports of rough rice 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 55), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Honduras lifted its restrictions in 1997, and the United States considers the 
concern resolved. 
57. In March 1997, the United States expressed concern that Honduras had not lifted its 
restrictions on imports of rough rice.  Honduras assured the Committee that  its authorities would 
attempt to find a rapid solution to the problem. 
58. In July 2001, the United States reported that Honduras had lifted its restrictions in 1997 
(G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United States cons iders this trade concern resolved. 
 
INDONESIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA  
Plant Health 189. Indonesia - Restrictions on importation of fresh fruit 
Raised by: New Zealand 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20,  paras. 8-10), March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, 
paras. 44-45, July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 54-55) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/219 
Solution:  Restrictions lifted on 26 October 2001. 
 59. In November 2000, New Zealand noted that Indonesia had imposed restrictions on fresh fruit 
from New Zealand since the discovery of two fruit flies in a residential area of New Zealand in May 
1996.  No fruit flies were ever found outside a 200  meter zone around the initial incursion, and no 
fruit flies were trapped after three weeks.  A number of WTO Members imposed restrictions on New Zealand fruit products following the initial incursion, but these restrictions were progressively lifted.  
Indonesia, however, continued to prohibit imports of fruit produced within a 15-km radius of the 
incursion and required cold treatment of all fruit from New Zealand.  At bilateral consultations held in G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
Page 16  
 
 November 2000,  Indonesia had undertaken to review the information which New Zealand had 
already provided.  Indonesia took note of New Zealand' s concerns, and clarified that it needed further 
documentation supporting New Zealand's claim of fr eedom from Mediterranean fruit fly.  However, 
Indonesia had no intention of maintaining measures which were not justifiable under the SPS Agreement and remained open to further consultations  in order to achieve an acceptable resolution. 
60. In March 2001, New Zealand reported that bila teral consultations had taken place, and that 
Indonesia had indicated willingness to inspect the fruit fly surveillance and phytosanitary export 
assurance systems in New Zealand.  Indonesia confirmed that officials were planning to visit New Zealand in the near future.  Indonesia hoped that th e visit would result in an expeditious solution.  
Indonesian officials visited New Zealand in May 2001 to review New Zeal and's surveillance and 
export assurance systems.  They verified that the fru it fly has been successfu lly eradicated.  Indonesia 
agreed the requirement of cold treatment and Mediterranean fruit fly free production areas were no 
longer necessary.  It advised that it would lift existing restrictions on the importation of fresh fruit from New Zealand on 1 August 2001.  Indonesia not ified (G/SPS/N/IDN/16) on 26 October 2001 that 
it was lifting its restrictions on New Zealand fresh fruit effective from the date of notification. 
 
ISRAEL  
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ISRAEL  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to TSEs 190. Israel – Measures affecting imports of bovine meat 
Raised by: Uruguay 
Supported by: Argentina, Brazil 
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras.  9-11), July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, para. 6), 
November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, para. 32) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Issue resolved. 
 
61. In March 1997, Uruguay indicated that Israel had adopted BSE-related measures, including 
requirements that bovine meat come from cattle with a maximum age of 36 months, which had not 
been notified to WTO.  Since the measure did not  take into account the sanitary conditions in the 
country of origin, the potential effect on bilateral tr ade was serious.  Israel replied that it had notified 
exporting countries of the planned measure which w as based on a questionnaire  circulated to beef 
exporting countries.  Israel took note of the concer ns expressed.  In July 1997, Uruguay reported that 
bilateral consultation were taking place and that progress had been sa tisfactory.  In November 2000, 
Uruguay reported that the issue had been resolved.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
 Page 17 
 
 
 JAPAN 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN  
Plant Health 191. Japan – Testing requirements for different varieties of apples, cherries and nectarines 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, par as. 11-12), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 57), 
July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Dispute settlement (W/DS/76) - mu tually satisfactory solution notified in 
August 2001. 
 62. In October 1996, the United States reported  that, under a 1995 bilateral agreement, Japan 
allowed two varieties of US apples into its ma rket.  US suppliers had to conduct lengthy and 
expensive tests to demonstrate that combined tr eatment of methyl bromide and cold storage was 
effective in killing codling moths on both varieties.   These and other tests had demonstrated that the 
effectiveness of this treatment did not vary among different varieties of fru it.  Nevertheless, Japan 
continued to block the introduction of new varieties of US fruit by requiring such redundant testing.  
The United States had formally initiated a consulta tion process with Japan under Article 5.8 of the 
SPS Agreement.  Japan indicated that the formal exchange would be followed by a clarification 
process involving technical experts until a solution was reached based on scientific principles.  In 
March 1997, the United States indicated it was reviewing new information provided by Japan.  Japan noted that bilateral efforts would cont inue in order to reach a solution. 
63. In a document introduced in July 2001, the United States indicated that despite extensive 
consultations with Japan, the United States was still  awaiting implementation of the Panel decision 
(G/SPS/GEN/265).  A mutually satisfactor y solution was notified in August 2001. 
REPUBLIC OF KOREA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA  
Food Safety 
192. Korea – Import ban on frozen poultry 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, para. 45), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras. 
67-68), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras. 21-23), September 1998 
(G/SPS/R/12, paras. 15-16) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/KOR/44 
Solution: Thailand's comments taken into account – measure amended. 
 64. In October 1997, Thailand indicated that Ko rea had banned Thai frozen poultry because of 
listeria, although Korean experts had been satisfi ed after visiting facilities of the Thai poultry G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
Page 18  
 
 industry.  This ban had not been notified in advan ce.  Thailand was determined to resolve this matter 
with Korea. Korea asked for detailed information in writing. 
65. In March 1998, Thailand indicated that it had s ubmitted the requested information.  It sought 
clarification whether the measure was based on an international standard or on a risk assessment, 
particularly in light of information made av ailable by the WHO working group on food-borne 
listeriosis, which indicated that listeriosis had a ve ry low incidence in Asia.  Korea responded that its 
measure was not a ban, but that consignments had been rejected. 
66. In June 1998, Thailand noted that the proposed amendment to the Korean food code had been 
enacted retroactively to cover the disputed testi ng requirements and asked Korea not to enforce the 
testing requirements during the process of amendment of the food code.  Korea reported that bilateral 
consultations had been held.  The food code wa s being reviewed to improve food safety and to 
harmonize Korean regulations with international st andards.  All comments received were currently 
being reviewed, although some delays had occurred.  Korea promised to inform Thailand of the final 
outcome. 
67. In September 1998, Thailand asked for confirmation that the Korean Food Code had been 
amended so that zero tolerance criteria for listeria would not apply to imported frozen chicken after 16 
June 1998.  Korea clarified that meat for further processing and cooking was excluded from the requirement and not subject to inspection un der the zero tolerance criteria for listeria. 
193. Korea – Shelf-life requirements  
Raised by: Australia, Canada, United States 
Supported by: Argentina, European Communities 
Dates raised: June 1995 (G/SPS/R/2, paras.  39-40), November 1995 (G/SPS/R/3, paras. 7-
8), May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5, paras. 42-44), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras. 
20-21), July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, paras. 8-9), October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, 
paras. 6-7), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/KOR/9, G/SPS/W/27, G/SPS/W/41, G/SPS/W/43, 
G/SPS/GEN/40, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: The United States and Korea held  formal consultations under dispute 
settlement (W/DS5), and notified a mutual ly agreed solution in July 1995.  
In July 2001, the United States indicat ed that the problem was resolved. 
Canada initiated formal dispute settlement (W/DS20), and a mutually satisfactory solution was notified in April 1996.  
 68. In June 1995, the United States informed th e Committee of official consultations under 
Dispute settlement procedures with Korea regarding its government-mandated shelf-life requirements.  
Canada had joined these consultations.  Korea i ndicated that although consultations had been 
productive, there was a high degree of ambiguity in the implementation of the Agreement.  The parties had noted the lack of international standard s in the area, and countries maintained very diverse 
practices.  A mutually agreed solution was notifie d in July 1995.  In November 1995, the United 
States expressed serious concern that Korea was not implementing the agreed settlement. 
69. Also in November 1995, Canada indicated that  it had initiated formal  consultations with 
Korea related to shelf-life determination for bottled water and the prohibition of the use of ozonation.  
Korea confirmed that bottled water was excluded fro m the settlement reached with the United States, 
but was willing to enter into consultations with Ca nada.  A mutually satisfactory solution was notified 
in April 1996.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
 Page 19 
 
 
 70. In May 1996 Canada noted th at although a formal understanding had been reached with 
regard to some concerns regarding shelf life, probl ems with the shelf life of bottled water continued.  
Korea had not offered any time-table for moving to a manufacturer-determined shelf life on bottled 
water.  Korea took note of this concern.  In Ju ly 1997, Canada reported that the matter had been 
pursued bilaterally, but no resolution had been found. 
71. In May 1996, Australia expressed serious concern with regard to Korea's shelf-life regulations 
on ultra heat treated milk in consumer packs (UHT  milk), which remained government mandated at a 
period substantially shorter than that applied in most countries.  Australia was unaware of any 
scientific justification for this limited shelf-life pe riod, and requested Korea to permit a manufacturer-
determined shelf life by 1 July 1996.  Korea took note of these concerns. 
72. In March 1997, Australia reported that Ko rea had yet to implement a manufacturer-
determined shelf life for UHT milk.  Australia had provided a scientific submission to Korea in 
November 1996, which had not been accepted.  S ubsequently, Australia had provided another 
submission upon request.  Korea indicated that it was reviewing the information provided by Australia 
and noted that its new system for shelf-life determ ination set a time-frame for the implementation of a 
manufacturer-determined shelf-life period for UHT milk. 
73. In July 1997, Australia noted that Korea had not provided any justification for its non-
acceptance of manufacturer-determined shelf life, a nd requested an explanation in accordance with 
Article 5.8.  Korea indicated that manufacturer-det ermined shelf life would be applied to UHT milk 
before the end of 1998.  In October 1997, Australia  indicated that it had not received a satisfactory 
answer from Korea.  Korea replied that it was reviewing the possibility of extending the current 
mandatory shelf-life period for UHT milk even befo re manufacturer-determined shelf life applied at 
the end of 1998. 
74. In July 2001, the United States indicated that it  considered the trade concern to be resolved 
(G/SPS/GEN/265). 
Other Concerns 
194. Korea – Import clearance measures and practices 
Raised by: United States  
Supported by: Several delegations 
Dates raised: June 1995 (G/SPS/R/2, paras.  39-40), May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5, paras. 4-5), 
October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, para. 54), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 54), 
July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, para. 77), Oct ober 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, paras. 
42-43), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/W/64, G/SPS/W/66, G/SPS/GN/6, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Consultations under Dispute Se ttlement initiated (WT/DS3, WT/DS41); 
mutually satisfactory solution found.  
 75. In June 1995, the United States informed the Co mmittee that it had held formal consultations 
with Korea regarding its inspection and testing met hods.  Korea indicated that although consultations 
had been productive, there was a high degree of ambi guity in the implementation of the Agreement.  
The parties had noted the lack of international st andards in the area, and countries maintained very 
diverse practices.  In May 1996, the United States expressed serious concern regarding Korea's import 
clearance measures and practices, which were not based on science, did not conform to international practice or standards, and were deliberately empl oyed to discourage food and agricultural imports.  
The United States had submitted a formal request for consultations.  Korea replied that these issues G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
Page 20  
 
 had been discussed extensively in a series of bila teral consultations with the United States and other 
countries.  Korea had taken various measures to comply with the SPS Agreement, but encountered 
problems common to developing countries: a low level of sanitary infrastructure, lack of experience 
and information, and lack of relevant internationa l standards.  However, Korea would continue to 
adapt its measures to the SPS Agreement. 
76. In October 1996, the United States reported on ongoing discussions with Korea.  The United 
States expected reforms to shorten the import clearance process in Korea without additional 
burdensome requirements, with a period for comme nts by WTO Members.  Korea answered that an 
ambitious reform programme had been launched the previous year, including the establishment of an 
advanced inspection and quarantine system by the end of 1996.  In March 1997, the United States 
noted that consultations continued.  Although Korea had implemented some changes, concerns 
remained.  Korea indicated that it would continue its efforts to conform its sanitary and phytosanitary 
legislation to the SPS Agreement. 
77. In July 1997, the United States reported that af ter five rounds of consultations under the WTO 
dispute settlement procedure, some Korean import cl earance laws and regulatio ns had been reformed.  
However, since January new problems had arisen.  The United States would continue to address these 
concerns in bilateral consultations until clearance times in Korean ports we re similar to those in 
similar ports.  Korea took note of the US comments.   In October 1997, the United States noted that 
although some progress had been made, there seemed to be problems with the implementation of 
certain changes Korea had agreed to make.  The repr esentative of Korea indicated that in his view the 
new import clearance system was in full complia nce with the SPS Agreement, however, the US 
concerns would be conveyed to the competent authorities in the capital. 
78. In July 2001, the United States indicated that bilateral consu ltations initiated under the dispute 
settlement framework resulted in a mutually sa tisfactory and positive outcome (G/SPS/GEN/265).  
The United States considered th is trade concern resolved. 
 
MALAYSIA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY MALAYSIA  
Food Safety 195. Malaysia and Singapore - Notifications related to dioxin  
Raised by: Switzerland 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para. 16) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/MYS/6, G/SPS/N/SGP/7 
Solution (if reported): Problems with Malaysia a nd Singapore were resolved  in July 1999. 
 
79. Switzerland expressed concern that it had been affected by restrictions on imports of 
European goods in response to the dioxin crisis in Belgium.  Some Members had not targeted their 
measures only to affected areas.  Switzerland reporte d that a solution had been found with Malaysia, 
and that the last few problems with Singapore would be resolved soon.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
 Page 21 
 
 
 MEXICO 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY MEXICO  
Plant Health 196. Mexico – Import prohibition of milled rice 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1,  para. 44), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras. 
69-70), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, para . 24), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, 
paras. 17-18), November 1998 (G/SPS /R/13, paras. 14-16), March 1999 
(G/SPS/R/14, para. 15), July 1999 (G /SPS/R/15, para. 7), November 1999 
(G/SPS/R/17, para. 86), March 2000 (G /SPS/R/18, para. 26), June 2000 
(G/SPS/R/19, paras. 22-23), November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 23-25), 
March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 46-47) , October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 
112-113), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, pa ra. 138), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, 
para. 131) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/MEX/44, G/SPS/N/MEX/45, G/SPS/N/MEX/55, 
G/SPS/N/MEX/153, G/SPS/N/MEX/172, G/SPS/GEN/82, G/SPS/GEN/105, G/SPS/GEN/172, G/SPS/GEN/216 
Solution:  Revised regulation published on 15 April 2002. 
 80. In October 1997, Thailand reported that Mexico  prohibited importation of Thai milled rice 
because of the fungus tilletia barclayana  (Kernel smut), although Mexi can experts visiting Thailand 
had concluded the fungus would be removed during milling, and although the fungus existed in 
Mexico.  Mexico had informed Thailand that the prohibition would be replaced  by a new regulation, 
but despite high-level consultati ons no progress had been achieved.  Mexico assured the Committee 
that the matter would be followed up.  In March 1998, Thailand indicated that it had received no 
replies to its written communication to Mexico.  Th e Mexican delegate replied that he would convey 
the information to his authorities, who were studying the matter.  Thailand expressed its 
disappointment at the lack of progress again in June 1998, and Mexico stated that the issue was still 
under consideration.  In September 1998, Mexico reported on official contacts between the two 
countries.  Mexico was conducting a risk assessment , but had not received the necessary information 
from Thailand. 
81. In November 1998, Thailand reported that it had proposed holding consultations with the 
Chairman, but that Mexico had not agreed.  He str essed that there was no data demonstrating the risk 
of transmission of the fungus tilletia barclayana  from Thai milled rice.  Mexico had requested 
information on a different pest for its risk as sessment, but Thailand did not see the connection 
between the two issues, as this new pest was not  listed in the regulation establishing the Mexican 
quarantine measures.  Thailand was concerned that  Mexico might request information on one pest 
after another.  Mexico repeated that the requested information had not been provided.  Both countries 
indicated consultations would continue. 
82. In March 1999, Thailand indicated that a lthough it had no obligation to do so, it was 
providing the information requested by Mexico.  Me xico noted that its measures had been notified, 
and the text of the measures provided to Thailand.  Mexico would review the latest information and 
act accordingly.  In July 1999, Thailand reporte d that it had handed over additional documents to 
Mexico.  Some progress had been made at bilatera l consultations, where it had been clarified that 
tilletia barclayana  was a quarantine disease only for seed imports, not with regard to rice imported for G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
Page 22  
 
 consumption.  Mexico had also found no reports of the presence of the khapra beetle in Thailand, and 
would thus modify its regulati on which had listed Thailand as a country affected by this pest. 
83. In November 1999, Mexico informed the Comm ittee that the phytosanitary regulations were 
being revised and would be published for comments.  Mexico had provided Thailand with the text of 
the draft measures.  Thailand indicated it was looki ng forward to the publication of the final measure 
and its notification to WTO.  In March 2000, Th ailand noted that Mexico had taken new measures 
replacing the ban, but these measures included unusual and unnecessary requirements such as 
fumigation at point of entry.  Mexico invited Thailand to send official comments on the new draft 
regulation. 
84. In June 2000, Thailand reported that bilateral consultations had taken place.  Thailand had 
posed a list of questions regarding the measure no tified in G/SPS/N/MEX/153.  Mexico explained that 
the questions and comments from Thailand were being reviewed by the competent Mexican authorities.  The sub-committee considering the matter would meet in July 2000, and responses to each of the comments would be published in the O fficial Journal before the final standard was 
published. 
85. In November 2000, Thailand reported that alt hough every effort had been made to find 
resolution to this problem, the issue was still unr esolved.  Thailand had not been informed of the 
status of the matter since the meeting of the Me xican phytosanitary committee in July and August 
2000, and was interested in the expected date of  amendment of the relevant Mexican standard.  
Mexico had no further information. 
86. In March 2001, Thailand reported that during bi lateral consultations, Mexico had indicated 
that it had removed the prohibition on Thai milled  rice, and that Thailand was no longer listed as a 
country under quarantine against Khapra beetle.  Thailand requested that Mexico notify this 
amendment to the SPS Committee.  Thailand was satis fied with the interim measure which allowed 
for the importation of Thai rice upon request by im porters.  However, Thailand was concerned that 
the final publication of the phytosanitary requirem ents had not yet been adopted, meaning that the 
lifting of the ban could not be implemented on a permanent basis.  Thailand would pursue the 
measure bilaterally with Mexico.  Mexico explained that the definitive publication of the measure in 
the Official Journal had not yet been possible due to  administrative procedures requiring legislation.  
However, Mexico would issue phytosanitary certifi cates until the time of publication.  Imports had to 
fulfill certain criteria, including international phytos anitary certificates, inspection at point of entry, 
sampling for laboratory analysis and fumigation with methyl bromide.  Fumigation at place of origin 
would only be accepted if the product was in plastic bags. 
87. In October 2001, Thailand recalled that in  March 2001 Mexico had announced that 
restrictions against Thai milled rice had b een lifted on condition that it underwent fumigation 
treatment.  Despite this statement, notificati on G/SPS/N/MEX/172 showed that Thailand remained on 
Mexico's list of countries affected by the Khapra be etle and subject to quarantine requirements.  In 
subsequent bilateral consul tations, Thailand had been informed that  it would be removed from the list.  
Mexico expressed surprise at Thailand's statemen t since as of March, Mexico had imported over 
1,000 tonnes of Thai rice.  The product mentioned on the notification in question was not Thai rice. 
88. In March 2002, Thailand noted that a bilatera l meeting with Mexico on the matter had been 
held earlier in the week.  Mexico reported that r estrictions on milled rice from Thailand had been 
lifted as of March 2001, however the publication of the modified regulation had been delayed but 
would take place within 30 days. 
89. In June 2002, Thailand informed the Committee that on 15 April 2002, Mexico had published 
the revised regulation.  Thailand appreciated  Mexico's cooperation on this matter.    G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
 Page 23 
 
 
 NEW ZEALAND 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY NEW ZEALAND  
Plant Health 197. New Zealand - Proposed import prohibitio n of commodity-country combinations of 
fresh cut flowers and foliage 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Colombia 
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, par as. 68-70), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 44) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/NZL/24, G/SPS/N/NZL/142 
Solution: Proposed measures withdrawn 
 
90. The European Communities was concerned that according to the proposed measure, plants 
not traded for two years might be subject to a prohibition, pending a new risk assessment.  This 
practice was not in accordance with international st andards, and was unnecessary and unjustified.  
Colombia expressed interest in participating in  bilateral exchanges and in receiving relevant 
information.  New Zealand explained that in 1997 it had commenced a review of its import 
requirements for cut flowers as imports were stea dily growing.  New draft standards had been 
approved and notified in 1998, and were  being reviewed in light of the most up to date scientific data.  
At an initial step the review included the suspensi on of historic phytosanitary requirements for some 
countries.  New Zealand had notified its plan to further consolidate the approved country-commodity 
schedules to include only those commodities that ha d actually been exported to New Zealand in the 
past two years.  New Zealand would continue to  address the EC concerns on a bilateral basis. 
91. In March 2002, New Zealand stated that th e proposed measures had been withdrawn. 
 
NORWAY 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to FMD 
198. Norway – Restrictions on gelatin imports 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1996 (G/SPS/R/4, para . 47), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 24-
25), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 19-20) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Import conditions clarified. 
 92. In March 1996, Brazil informed the Committee th at Norway had halted the issuance of import 
licenses for Brazilian gelatin because of the existence of FMD in Brazil.  Consultations with Norway 
had been initiated in 1995, and Norwegian aut horities had reportedly declared the problem was 
solved.  Nevertheless, import licenses continued to be  denied.  Norway stated that the ban on gelatin G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
Page 24  
 
 imports from Brazil would be lifted in the context of recent changes to import regulations.  The two 
Members agreed to continue their consultations. 
93. In September 1998, Brazil reported that bilatera l contacts had not resulted in a lifting of the 
ban.  Norway explained the conditions it applied to imports of Brazilian gelatin, and stated that 
applications fulfilling these conditions would be  accepted.  In November 1998, Brazil thanked 
Norway for having clarified its import requirement s.  Brazil would have no problem meeting these 
requirements and looked forward to r esuming its gelatin exports to Norway. 
 
PANAMA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY PANAMA  
Plant Health 
199. Panama – Requirements for certification of consumer rice 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 15), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Import restrictions removed in 1997, concern resolved. 
 
94. In March 1997, the United States noted that Pana ma required imports of consumer rice to be 
certified free from the fungus tilletia barclayana  (Kernel smut), although this fungus already existed 
in Panama.  Furthermore, the fungus in questio n could not be transmitted through milled rice.  
Panamanian officials had allegedly suggested that  current domestic supply co nditions had influenced 
their decisions.  The representative of Panama rep lied that she would forward a report from capital to 
the US Department of Agriculture. 
95. In July 2001, the United States indicated that Panama had removed its import restrictions on 
rice in late 1997, and that the matter was resolved (G/SPS/GEN/265). 
 
PHILIPPINES 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE PHILIPPINES  
Food Safety 200. Philippines – Certification of meat and dairy products 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: Australia, European Communiti es, Korea, New Zeal and, United States 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 98-100), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, 
paras. 70-71) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/PHL/44 
Solution: Implementation of MO7 deferred indefinitely 
 
96. Canada expressed concerns about the eff ects of the memorandum order MO7 from the 
Philippines Department of Agriculture, noting that it would have serious e ffects upon its exports of  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
 Page 25 
 
 
 meat and dairy products.  While Ca nada did not quarrel with the requi rement that imports be produced 
in plants applying HACCP procedures and that there be a certification to this effect, it was not clear whether Philippine producers were subject to simila r requirements.  The requirement of a third party 
independent certification was unwar ranted and not the least trade restrictive option.  Canada's 
governmental authority, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, was prepared to certify that exports to 
the Philippines had been produced in HACCP compliant plants and there was no need for additional 
certification by a third party.  The European Co mmunities, Australia, Korea, New Zealand and the 
United States shared this concern.  The EC certif ication requirements already put a lot of emphasis on 
HACCP compliance.  Australia felt that the Philippi ne's proposed measures were not in accordance 
with SPS obligations.   
97. The Philippines clarified that certification of HACCP compliance by third party auditors was 
required in the light of several documented cases of contaminated products entering the country.  The Philippines was concerned that not all shipme nts came from well established HACCP compliant 
plants.  The measures were not meant to replace  or duplicate the exporting country's inspection 
system but to complement it.  The Philippines believe d that appropriate and sufficient time had been 
provided to trading partners and foresaw no problem that trade restrictions might occur especially for 
countries claiming to be HACCP compliant.  The Ph ilippines indicated that HACCP was a universal 
guideline approved and propagated by FAO and WHO. 
98. In April 2003, Canada reported that on 24 Februa ry 2003, the Minister of Agriculture of the 
Philippines had announced that implementation of Memorandum Order 7 requiring third party 
certification for HACCP plants had been postponed.   The European Commun ities, New Zealand and 
the United States shared Canada's appreciation of th is decision.  The Philippines confirmed that MO7 
had been deferred indefinitely. 
Plant Health 
201. Philippines - Notification on Chinese fruit imports 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 141) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/PHL/35 and Add.1 
Solution: Temporary ban lifted on the c ondition that those places identified as sources 
of infested exports undertake treatment to effectively kill the insect 
 99. China reported that the Philippines had applie d an emergency restriction on imports of fruit 
from China, notified in G/SPS/N/PHL/35.  The notification indicated that the measure was imposed 
because codling moth had been detected in imports of certain fruits.  However, technical experts of 
both countries had re-identified the intercepted ins ect as peach fruit moth, a common pest.  On this 
basis, the Philippines lifted the quarantine ban, but the addendum to the notification did not clarify the mistaken identification of the pest (G/SPS/N/PHL/35/Add.1).   
100. The Philippines confirmed that further investiga tion had revealed that the intercepted insect 
was not codling moth, but Carposina nipponensis, a sp ecies not previously known in the Philippines.  
The Philippines had lifted the temporary ban on the condition that those places identified as sources of 
infested exports would undertake treatment to effe ctively kill the insect.  This decision was reflected 
in the addendum to the notification, although the Phil ippines agreed to furthe r correct the information 
provided in the notification, to avoid confusion and possible unnecessary restrictions on Chinese 
agricultural products by other Members.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
Page 26  
 
 POLAND 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY POLAND  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to TSEs 
 
202. Poland - Notifications on veterinary meas ures and measures on animal products 
including gelatin 
Raised by: Switzerland, United States 
Supported by: Brazil, European Communities 
Dates raised: June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras.  48-49), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 
46-48), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 
40-42) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/POL/3, G/SPS/N/POL/5, G/SPS/N/POL/13, G/SPS/N/POL/14 and 
Add.1, G/SPS/N/POL/25, G/SPS/GEN/265, G/SPS/GEN/322 
Solution: In June 2002, Poland noted th at the regulation had been amended and 
restrictions on gelatine from bovine hides removed 
 101. In June 1998, the United States sought clarificatio n of the status of this temporary ban, its 
scientific basis, and whether future amendments were being considered.  Brazil, the European 
Communities, Switzerland and the United States e xpressed hope that the disease status of the 
supplying country, scientific factors related to th e infectivity of gelatin and gelatin-containing 
products, as identified by the OIE, and non-discr imination between supplie rs with similar BSE 
conditions would all be taken into account in future  amendments.  Poland indicated that the measure 
in question would remain in force until the end of  June 1998, and would be replaced by a measure 
reflecting the present state of scientific knowledge.  Regarding different treatment of Switzerland, the 
United Kingdom and Ireland, the new regulations  had not yet been adopted by the Polish 
Government.  Poland committed to providing a response on the basis of written questions from 
Switzerland. 
102. In September 1998, Switzerland reported on info rmal consultations w ith Poland regarding 
border measures in relation to BSE which diffe rentiated only between countries with a higher 
incidence of BSE and those of low inciden ce.  This constituted a departure from OIE 
recommendations, which also took into account surve illance and prevention systems.  The European 
Communities indicated that imports from herds wi thout BSE history should be accepted even for 
products in the highest risk category.  Poland explai ned that the measure had been taken in relation to 
the BSE situation in the concerned countries.   Bilateral consultations we re ongoing with the United 
Kingdom, Ireland and Switzerland.  The BSE situat ion was under permanent surveillance and all 
results would be taken into account during th e year-end review of Poland's regulations. 
103. In July 2001, the United States indicated  that bilateral discussions on certification 
requirements for bovine gelatin continued (G/SPS/GEN/265). 
104. In June 2002, Switzerland stated that Poland continued to restrict imports of bovine semen 
and gelatin from Switzerland although the OIE had c oncluded that bovine semen and gelatine did not 
present a risk regardless of the BSE status of the exporting country (G/SPS/GEN/322).  The 
representative of the European Communities indicated that EC member States had similar concerns 
regarding Poland's measure.  The representative of  the OIE clarified that Chapter 4 of the 
International Animal Health Code recommended no restriction on bovine semen.  No BSE risk had  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
 Page 27 
 
 
 been identified from gelatin made exclusively from hides, however certain treatments were 
recommended with respect to gelatin made from bones if the exporting country were not free from BSE. 
105. Poland clarified that bovine semen had never been covered by the Polish regulation in 
question.  Its restrictions on imports of several animal products from Switzerland had been notified in 
G/SPS/N/POL/25.  Furthermore, there had just b een further amendments to the regulation, and 
restrictions on gelatine from bovine hides had been removed.  Poland announced its intention to notify 
this new regulation. 
 
SLOVAK REPUBLIC 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC  
Plant Health 203. Slovak Republic – Restrictions on imports of apples, pears and quinces 
Raised by: Hungary 
Supported by: European Communities, Bulgaria  
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras.  20-21), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras. 27-
30), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12 and Co rr.1, paras. 31-34), October 2001 
(G/SPS/R/25, para. 33) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/SVK/8 and Rev.1, G/SPS/N/SVK/11, G/SPS/GEN/79 
Solution: Hungary reported a mutua lly acceptable solution in October 2001. 
 
106. In March 1998, Hungary indicated that althoug h the Slovak Republic had made changes to its 
measure on importation of apples, pears and quinc es as notified, the certification and information 
requirements were extremely burdensome.  The measur e appeared to be more restrictive than required 
to protect health, was not based on scientific prin ciples and constituted a disguised restriction on 
trade.  The Slovak Republic answered that th e measure was intended for protection against the 
introduction of fire blight (Erwinia amylovora), which did not occur in Slovakia.  The revised 
measure, which extended import possibilities, was c onsistent with the SPS Agreement, but the Slovak 
Republic remained open to bilateral discussions. 
107. In June 1998, Hungary ac knowledged improvements made by the Slovak Republic, but 
stressed that the measure was not consistent  with recommendations by the European and 
Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO).   The licensing system, which applied to each 
consignment, remained too burdensome.  The Slova k Republic replied that it imported 35 per cent of 
its apples, pears and quinces, which showed that there were no serious market access impediments.  
Given the potential economic costs of introductio n of the disease, and since available scientific 
information was not sufficient, a precautionary appro ach was adopted in line with Article 5.7.  The 
Slovak Republic was exchanging information with countries applying similar phytosanitary measures, 
and was ready to continue discussion with its trad ing partners.  In September 1998, Hungary again 
acknowledged that the Slovak measure had been impr oved, although a partial ban still applied, for 
which no scientific justification had been given.  The Slovak Republic reitera ted its earlier arguments 
that it had put in place a temporary measure accord ing to Article 5.7.  In October 2001, Hungary 
reported that a mutually acceptable solution had been found. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.3 
Page 28  
 
 UNITED STATES  
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE UNITED STATES  
Plant Health 204. United States – Import restrictions on rhododendrons in growing medium 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para . 66), November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, para. 83), 
March 2000 (G/SPS/R/18, para. 68) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/121 
Solution: Final rule published in Decemb er 1999, importation allowed under certain 
conditions. 
 108. In March 1999, the European Communities indicated that delays in the publication of a final 
rule on the importation of rhododendrons were resulti ng in de facto restrictions on EC exports.  The 
representative of the European Comm unities asked for information on the status of the pest risk 
analysis and of the final rule.  The United States replied that the final rule for the importation of 
rhododendrons in growing medium from the EC had been completed pending final review, and would 
be published within one month after the meeting.  The European Communities requested an update on 
the status of the rule in November 1999, and the Un ited States answered that it would be published in 
the near future.  In March 2000, the United States in formed the Committee that the final rule had been 
published on 30 December 1999, allowing the im portation of rhododendrons under conditions 
designed to prevent the introduction of pests. 
__________