WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
25 February 2005 
 (05-0789) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
 
 
 
SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
 
Note by the Secretariat1 
 
Addendum  
  
PART 2
 
 
 This part of document G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5 c ontains summary information regarding all 
issues which were raised in the SPS Committee for the first time during 2004, and issues which were 
previously raised but on which further discussions  or activities occurred during 2004.  This includes 
issues for which there was no substantive discu ssion in the Committee during 2004, but where 
Members reported that a previously raised issue ha d been resolved, or where substantive action on the 
issue occurred in another WTO body during 2004 (e.g ., establishment of a dispute resolution panel on 
the issue).   A total of 68 specific trade concerns were brought to the attention of the Committee during 2004, of which 21 were new issues.  Figure 1 shows a ll trade concerns raised or for which a resolution 
or other action was reported in 2004 by subject.  Overall, 18 issues or 26 per cent of the trade 
concerns relate to food safety,  21 issues or 31 per cen t relate to plant health, and 4 issues or 6 per cent 
relate to other issues such as transparency of SPS measures.  The remaining 25 issues or 37 per cent 
relate to animal health and zoonoses; this cate gory includes issues such as transmissible spongiform 
encephalopathy (TSEs) that are also relevant for f ood safety.  Figure 2 indicates that TSEs account for 
48 per cent of animal health concerns, while issu es related to foot-and-mouth disease account for 32 
per cent.  The remaining 20 per cent concern other issues such as avian influenza and animal disease-
free status.  
                                                     
 
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.1 
Page ii  
 
 FIGURE 1: TRADE CONCERNS BY SUBJECT - 2004 
 
 
FIGURE 2: TRADE CONCERNS RELATED TO ANIMAL HEALTH & ZOONOSES - 2004 
TSE
48%
FMD
32%Other
20%
 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 
New  6 6 2 7 
Total  18 21 4 25 Food Safety  Plant OtherAnimal Health  & 
Zoonoses   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page iii 
 
 
 FIGURE 3: PARTICIPATION OF  DEVELOPING COUNTRIES – 2004 
332037
302337
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Members Maintaining
the Measure in
QuestionSupporting MembersMembers Raising the
Issue
Number of issues 
Developing countries Developed Countries
 
Of the 68 trade concerns dealt with in 2004,  developing and devel oped country Members 
have raised an equal number of issues, compared  to zero for least-developed countries  (on some 
occasions developing and developed country Members ha ve raised or supported the same issue).  In 
23 cases, a developed country Member has supported another Member raising the issue, compared to 20 for developing country Members and zero for leas t-developed country Members.  In 33 cases, the 
measure at issue was maintained by a developing country Member, and in 30 cases it was maintained 
by a developed country Member (in 5 cases, an unspeci fied number of countries maintained an issue).  
No trade concerns regarding measures maintained by least-developed country Members were  raised.  
Figure 4 shows that 22 trade concerns were reporte d solved in 2004.  In 9 cases, the Committee was 
informed that a partial solution had been found an d for the remaining 37 cases, no solutions had been 
reported. 
FIGURE 4 – SOLVED TRADE CONCERNS 
22
937
0510152025303540
Solution reported Partial solution
reportedNo solution reported
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page iv  
 
 Table 1 – Issues Raised for the First Time in 2004 
Item 
# Title Item 
# Title 
2 Australia – Restrictions on table grapes 4 Barbados – Restrictions on citrus 
10 China – Measures on US poultry 11 China – Lack of transparency for certain 
SPS measures 
16 European Communities –  Maximum 
residue levels for pesticides on food 17 European Communities -  Ocratoxin A in 
coffee 
18 European Communities - Aflatoxins and 
Ocratoxin A in foods for infants and young children  24 European Communities – Deviation from 
international standard for wood packaging 
29 India – Ban on food grade wax 30 India – Restrictions due to avian influenza 
31 India – Phytosanitary import restrictions 32 India – Non-notification of various SPS 
measures 
38 JAPAN - standards and specifications for 
food additives 43 Korea – Septoria controls on horticultural 
products 
45 Panama – FMD restrictions 55 United States – Delisting of France from 
countries authorized to export certain meat and meat products - Resolved 
56 United States – Prohibition of the use of 
specified risk materials and requirements 
for disabled cattle 57 United States – Materials derived from 
cattle and record-keeping requirements 
64 Certain Members – General import 
restrictions due to BSE 66 Certain Members – Regionalization and 
recognition of animal disease-free status 
67 Certain Members – Notification by 
Members of implementation of ISPM 15    G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page v 
 
 
 Table 2 – Other Items Considered During 2004 
Item 
# Title Item 
# Title 
1 Argentina – BSE related measures - 
Resolved 3 Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, United 
Arab Emirates – Import restrictions on Spanish olive oil 
5 Bolivia – FMD restrictions - Resolved 6 Brazil – BSE-related measures - Resolved 
7 Brazil – Import requirements for seed 
potatoes 8 Chile – Pet food import requirements - 
Resolved  
9 Chile – FMD restrictions - Resolved 12 Cuba – Import restrictions on spiced pork 
and salted meat products - Resolved 
13 European Communities – Traceability 
and labelling of genetically modified organisms and food and feed 14 European Communities – Maximum 
levels for certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in foodstuffs 
15 European Communities (Germany) – 
Ocratoxin A in coffee 19 European Communities - maximum 
residue levels of pesticides  
20 European Communities – Restrictions on 
fishmeal 21 European Communities – Proposal on 
animal by-products 
22 European Communities – Sanitary 
conditions for the importation of live 
material for apiculture 23 European Communities – Citrus canker - 
Resolved 
25 European Communities – Agricultural 
biotechnology approval process 26 Hungary – Restrictions on bovine 
products - Resolved 
27 Hungary – Restrictions on pork products 
- Resolved 28 Iceland – Notification on meat and meat 
products - Resolved 
33 Indonesia – Import restrictions on dairy 
products 34 Indonesia – FMD restrictions 
35 Japan – Regulation on food additives 36 Japan – Amendment of the food sanitation 
law 
37 Japan - Revision of standards and 
specifications for foods and additives 39 Japan – Official control of citrus and other 
fresh fruits and vegetables 
40 Japan – Import measures on fire blight - 
Resolved  41 Japan – Restrictions on imports of 
mangoes 
42 Korea – Guidelines for maximum residue 
level (MRL) testing 44 Mexico – Restrictions on the importation 
of dry beans G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page vi  
 
 Item 
# Title Item 
# Title 
46 Poland – Requirements for imports of 
milk and milk products - Resolved  47 Slovak Republic – Import restrictions on 
potatoes - Resolved  
48 Switzerland – Import requirements on 
meat and eggs - Resolved  49 Switzerland – Wheat, rye and triticale - 
Resolved  
50 Chinese Taipei – Requirements for heat 
treatment for meat and bone meal in poultry - Resolved  51 Chinese Taipei – Policies regarding 
quarantine and non-quarantine pests 
52 Chinese Taipei – Import restrictions on 
potatoes - Resolved  53 Turkey – Ban on pet food imports - 
Resolved  
54 Turkey – Restriction on banana imports - 
Resolved  58 United States – Restrictions on imports of 
Chinese potted plants in growing medium 
59 United States – Imports of citrus fruit - 
Resolved  60 Uruguay – Risk assessment on BSE 
61 Venezuela – FMD restrictions - Resolved  62 Venezuela – Phytosanitary requirements 
for potatoes, garlic and onions 
63 Venezuela - Restrictions on imports of 
potatoes, onions, fertilised eggs, day-old 
chicks and meat products 65 Certain Members – FMD-related import 
restrictions 
68 General – Implementation of ISPM 15    G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page vii 
 
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
Page  
 
ARGENTINA ...................................................................................................................... ...................1  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ARGENTINA ...........................................1  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....1 
1. Argentina – BSE related measures .........................................................................................1  
AUSTRALIA...................................................................................................................... ....................2  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY AUSTRALIA ............................................2  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..................2  
2. Australia – Restrictions on table grapes .................................................................................2  
BAHRAIN........................................................................................................................ .......................2  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BAHRAIN ...............................................2  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ..................2  
3. Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and United Arab Emirates – Import restrictions on 
Spanish olive oil .............................................................................................................. .......2  
BARBADOS ....................................................................................................................... ....................3  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BARBADOS .............................................3  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..................3  
4. Barbados – Restrictions on citrus ...........................................................................................3  
BOLIVIA ........................................................................................................................ ........................4  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BOLIVIA .................................................4  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....4 
5. Bolivia - FMD trade restrictions.............................................................................................4  
BRAZIL ......................................................................................................................... .........................4  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BRAZIL ...................................................4  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....4 
6. Brazil – Notification G/SPS/N/BRA/74 and 75 on BSE-related measures............................4  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..................5  
7. Brazil – Import requirements for seed potatoes......................................................................5  
CHILE.......................................................................................................................... ...........................6  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHILE .....................................................6  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....6 
8. Chile - Pet food import requirements .....................................................................................6  
9. Chile - FMD restrictions....................................................................................................... ..7 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page viii  
 
 CHINA .......................................................................................................................... ..........................8
 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINA ....................................................8  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....8 
10. China – Measures on US poultry............................................................................................8  
Other Concerns................................................................................................................. ..............9  
11. China – Lack of transparency  for certain SPS measures........................................................9  
CUBA ........................................................................................................................... ...........................9  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CUBA......................................................9  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....9 
12. Cuba – Import restrictions on spi ced pork and salted meat products .....................................9  
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ..........................................................................................................1 0 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES .................10  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................10  
13. European Communities – Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/150 on traceability and 
labelling of  genetically modified  organisms and food and feed..........................................10  
14. European Communities - Maximum levels fo r certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in 
foodstuffs..................................................................................................................... .........12  
15. European Communities (Germany) – Notification G/SPS/N/DEU/9 and Add.1 on 
maximum tolerance levels fo r ocratoxin A in coffee ...........................................................15  
16. European Communities – EC maximum re sidue levels for pesticides on food 
(G/SPS/N/EEC/236 and 237) ...............................................................................................16  
17. European Communities – EC regulation on Ocratoxin A in coffee (G/SPS/N/EEC/247).............................................................................................................1 7
 
18. European Communities – EC regulation on af latoxins and Ocratoxin A in foods for 
infants and young children (G/SPS/N/EEC/223/Add.1) ......................................................18  
19. European Communities – EC proposed regul ation on maximum residue levels of 
pesticides (G/SPS/N/EEC/196 and Add.1)...........................................................................19  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..20 
20. European Communities – Restricti ons on the use of fishmeal .............................................20  
21. European Communities –  Proposal on animal by-products ................................................22  
22. European Communities – Notification G/SPS/N/EEC/208 on sanitary conditions 
for the importation of live material for apiculture................................................................24  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................25  
23. European Communities - Citrus canker................................................................................25  
24. European Communities – Deviation from international standard for wood packing 
material....................................................................................................................... ..........26  
Other Concerns................................................................................................................. ............27  
25. European Communities - Agricultural biotechnology approval process..............................27   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page ix 
 
 
 HUNGARY........................................................................................................................ ...................29  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY HUNGARY ............................................29  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..29 
26. Hungary - Restrictions on bovine products ..........................................................................29  
27. Hungary - Restrictions on  pork products.............................................................................30  
ICELAND ........................................................................................................................ .....................30  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ICELAND ..............................................30  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................30  
28. Iceland - Notification on meat and meat products................................................................30  
INDIA.......................................................................................................................... ..........................31  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDIA ....................................................31  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................31  
29. India – Ban on food grade wax.............................................................................................31  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..31 
30. India - Restrictions due to avian influenza ...........................................................................31  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................32  
31. India – Phytosanitary import restrictions..............................................................................32  
Other Concerns................................................................................................................. ............34  
32. India – Non-notification of various SPS measures...............................................................34  
INDONESIA...................................................................................................................... ...................35  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA ...........................................35  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..35 
33. Indonesia – Import restrictions on dairy products ................................................................35  
34. Indonesia - FMD restrictions................................................................................................36 
JAPAN .......................................................................................................................... ........................37  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN ...................................................37  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................37  
35. Japan - Regulation on food additives ...................................................................................37  
36. Japan - Amendment of the food sanitation law ....................................................................38  
37. Japan – Notification G/SPS/N/JPN/104 on the revision of standards and 
specifications for fo ods and additives ..................................................................................38  
38. Japan – Notification G/SPS/N/JPN/121 on st andards and specifications for food 
additives...................................................................................................................... ..........39  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page x  
 
 Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................39
 
39. Japan – Official control restrictions on citr us and other fresh fruits and vegetables............39  
40. Japan - Import measures on fire blight .................................................................................42  
41. Japan – Restrictions on imports of mangoes ........................................................................43  
REPUBLIC OF KOREA.............................................................................................................. .......45  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA ..................45  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................45  
42. Korea – Guidelines for maximum residue level (MRL) testing ...........................................45  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................46  
43. Korea – Septoria controls on horticultural products.............................................................46 
KUWAIT ......................................................................................................................... .......................2  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY KUWAIT .................................................2  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ..................2  
3. (and Bahrain , Oman, Qatar, United Arab Emirates) – Import restrictions on 
Spanish olive oil .............................................................................................................. .......2  
MEXICO......................................................................................................................... ......................47  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY MEXICO ...............................................47  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................47  
44. Mexico - Restrictions on the importation of dry beans ........................................................47 
OMAN........................................................................................................................... ..........................2  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY OMAN ....................................................2  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ..................2  
3. (and Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates) – Import restrictions on 
Spanish olive oil .............................................................................................................. .......2  
PANAMA......................................................................................................................... .....................47  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY PANAMA ...............................................47  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..47 
45. Panama – FMD restrictions..................................................................................................47  
POLAND......................................................................................................................... ......................48  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY POLAND ................................................48  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................48  
46. Poland - Requirements for imports  of milk and milk products ............................................48 
QATAR .......................................................................................................................... .........................2  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY QATAR ...................................................2  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ..................2  
3. (and Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, United Arab Emirates) – Import restrictions on 
Spanish olive oil .............................................................................................................. .......2   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page xi 
 
 
 SLOVAK REPUBLIC ................................................................................................................ .........48  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC ......................48  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................48  
47. Slovak Republic – Import r estrictions on potatoes...............................................................48  
SWITZERLAND.................................................................................................................... ..............49  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SWITZERLAND .....................................49  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................49  
48. Switzerland - Notifications regarding im port requirements on meat and eggs ....................49  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................50  
49. Switzerland - Notification on wheat, rye and triticale..........................................................50  
SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND 
MATSU (CHINESE TAIPEI)......................................................................................................... ....51  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINESE TAIPEI ..................................51  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..51 
50. Chinese Taipei – Requirements for heat treatment for meat and bone meal in 
poultry ........................................................................................................................ ..........51  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................51  
51. Chinese Taipei - Policies  regarding qua rantine and non-quarantine pests ..........................51  
52. Chinese Taipei – Import restrictions on potatoes .................................................................52  
TURKEY ......................................................................................................................... .....................53  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY TURKEY ...............................................53  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..53 
53. Turkey - Ban on pet food imports ........................................................................................53  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................53  
54. Turkey - Restrictions on banana imports..............................................................................53  
UNITED STATES.................................................................................................................. ..............54  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE UNITED STATES ...........................54  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ................54  
55. United States – Delisting of France from countries authorized to export certain 
meat and meat products to the United States........................................................................54  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..55 
56. United States – Notification G/SPS/N/USA/844 on US prohibition on the use of 
specified risk materials and re quirements for disabled cattle...............................................55  
57. United States – US rule on materials derived from cattle (G/SPS/N/USA/933) and 
record-keeping requirements (G/SPS/N/USA/934)..............................................................56  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page xii  
 
 Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................57
 
58. United States – Restrictions on imports of Chinese potted plants in growing 
medium......................................................................................................................... ........57  
59. United States – Imports of citrus fruit ..................................................................................58  
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES ........................................................................................................... ....2 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY UNITED ARAB EMIRATES .....................2  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ..................2  
3. (and Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar)– Import restrictions on Spanish olive oil....................2  
URUGUAY ........................................................................................................................ ...................59  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY URUGUAY .............................................59  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..59 
60. Uruguay – Risk assessment on  BSE....................................................................................59  
VENEZUELA...................................................................................................................... .................60  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED VENEZUELA ..............................................60  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..60 
61. Venezuela – FMD Restrictions ............................................................................................60  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................60  
62. Venezuela - Phytosanitary requirement s for potatoes, garlic and onions.............................60  
Other Concerns .............................................................................................................................62  
63. Venezuela – Restrictions on imports of potatoes, onions, fertilised eggs, day-old 
chicks and meat products......................................................................................................6 2 
OTHER CONCERNS................................................................................................................. .........63  
ANIMAL HEALTH AND ZOONOSES ................................................................................................63  
64. Certain Members – General import restrictions due to BSE ................................................63  
65. Certain Members – FMD-related import restrictions ...........................................................63  
66. Certain Members - Regionalization and recognition of animal disease free status..............65  
PLANT HEALTH .............................................................................................................................66  
67. Certain Members - Notification by Members of implementation of ISPM 15.....................66  
68. Implementation of ISPM 15 .................................................................................................67     G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
   Page 1  
 ARGENTINA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ARGENTINA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to TSEs 
 
1. Argentina – BSE related measures 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras.  60-63), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 
46-49), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 78-80) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ARG/65 
Solution: Resolved 
 1. Canada indicated that Argentina appeared to  have copied the EC geographical BSE risk 
categorization scheme (GBR), and had not followed an  international standard or conducted a risk 
assessment.  Canada had been given a Level 2 ra ting, although it had no BS E.  Argentina had not 
requested any data from Canada.  Furthermore, Ca nada questioned why the scheme had been notified 
as an emergency measure, and why Argentina had fo llowed the EC measures instead of carrying out 
its own analysis. The United States shared Canada's  concern and encouraged Argentina to consider 
the BSE risk assessment and data from the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.  
2. Argentina explained that its measures were base d on the available information.  If a Member 
felt the categorization was unjust, it should present the necessary technical information, in which case 
the review would be given priority.  Argentina be lieved its system was in compliance with the OIE 
Code.  Argentina had to take urgent action to update its BSE measures a nd any delay would have 
posed unacceptable risks to Argentina's own BSE status.  
3. In November 2002, Canada reported that it ha d provided a large body of information to 
Argentina but had not yet had a response.  Canada  did not have BSE and did not understand how it 
could have been given such a rating without any ri sk assessment having been conducted by Argentina.  
The United States, which was also free of BSE, shared Canada's concern.  The United States 
encouraged Argentina, as well as other countries, to make use of the information resulting from the 
BSE risk assessment undertaken by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.  
4. Argentina reported that it had reviewed the me asure and amended the provisions in Annex II 
which contained the country ranking based on a risk assessment.  These amendments would be 
undertaken soon.  Argentina was completing its anal ysis of the additional information submitted by 
Canada, and a reply would s oon be provided bilaterally. 
5. In April 2003, Canada reported that the aut horities in Argentina and Uruguay had agreed to 
undertake their own BSE risk assessments.  The Un ited States noted that Argentina's resolution 
allowed for the re-categorisation of the BSE status  of the United States.  However, a significant 
amount of scientific evidence had been provided to  Argentina which exceeded the OIE criteria for 
recognition as a BSE-free country.  Any restrictions  were unjustified and Argentina was requested to 
lift its restrictions on the importation of sweet bread s.  Argentina reported that substantive progress 
had been made on this issue and was confident that further bilateral consultations would result in its 
resolution. 
6. In September 2004, Canada informed the Secret ariat that the issue had been resolved with 
Argentina. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 2  
 
 AUSTRALIA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY AUSTRALIA  
Plant Health 2. Australia – Restrictions on table grapes 
Raised by: Chile 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2004  (G/SPS/R/35, para. 216) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
7. In October 2004, Chile stated that in 1998 Aust ralia was requested to indicate its market 
access requirements for table grapes.  Following initial meetings between the regulatory agencies, 
Chile understood that the import risk analysis w ould last approximately 12 months.  A number of 
technical meetings had since taken place, however , a solution had not been reached despite the 
provision of all required technical information.  The undue delays and changes in the procedures 
undertaken by Australia were  a concern to Chile.  Australia noted the concerns expressed by Chile 
and indicated its commitment to work with Chile to  finalize the import risk analysis as quickly as 
possible.   
 
BAHRAIN, KUWAIT, OMAN, QATAR, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BAHRAIN , KUWAIT , OMAN , QATAR AND 
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES  
Food Safety 
3. Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and United Arab Emirates – Import restrictions on 
Spanish olive oil 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, para . 166), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, para. 17), 
October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, para. 58) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 8. The European Communities reported on the final results of the investigation concerning the 
problems with olive oil contamination in Spain in  2002.  The contamination had occurred due to a 
manufacturing error, but the problem had since been resolved.  The restrictions which some Members 
continued to impose on Spanish olive oil were therefore no longer justified. 
9. In June 2004, the European Co mmunities raised concerns over import restrictions on Spanish 
pomace olive oil imposed by some Gulf countries.  After an isolated safety incident in 2001, some 
Members applied restrictive measures to this produc t.  Since 2001, most Members had gradually lifted 
the import ban, except the Gulf countries.  These pro ducts no longer were a risk to human or animal 
health, as corrective measures had been quickly and properly applied by the competent authorities of  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
 Spain.  Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the Un ited Arab Emirates were requested to immediately 
lift the ban on any type of oliv e oil imported from the European Union as the ban was not based on 
any scientific evidence. 
10. In October 2004, the European Communities stated that bilateral consultations were held with 
several Gulf countries prior to the meeting to ad dress restrictions imposed on Spanish olive oil by 
Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Ar ab Emirates.  The European Communities were 
hopeful for a prompt resolution of the issue and woul d also be holding bilateral meetings with Oman 
and Kuwait. 
11. In February 2005, Oman reported that it had lifted the ban on pomace olive oil from Spain.  
 
BARBADOS 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BARBADOS  
Plant Health 4. Barbados – Restrictions on citrus 
Raised by: Venezuela 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2004  (G/SPS/R/35, para. 218) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
12. In October 2004, Venezuela stated that in the l ast two years Barbados had applied restrictions 
to shipments of citrus from Venezuela without dem onstrating the existence of any pests or diseases.  
Several bilateral consultations ha d taken place but a solution had not been reached.  Barbados was 
asked to explain why these restrictions on citr us from Venezuela continued to be applied. 
13. Barbados stated that the actions taken were consistent with their Plant Pest and Disease 
Import Control Act and Article 6 of the SPS Agreem ent.  Barbados was willing to discuss the issue 
further bilaterally and within the framework of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiations between 
CARICOM and Venezuela.  At the last meeting both parties had agreed to allow SPS experts to visit 
and inspect each other's countries and Venezuela ha d offered to cover part of the costs.  The 
CARICOM secretariat had since informed Venezuela of the experts that had been nominated but no 
arrangements had been put in place for the visit.   
   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 4  
 
 BOLIVIA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BOLIVIA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses  
Concerns related to FMD 
 
5. Bolivia - FMD trade restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, para. 30)  
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Resolved 
 
14. In March 2004, Argentina informed that it was e ngaged in bilateral cons ultations with Bolivia 
on this matter. 
15. In March 2004, Argentina indicated that the i ssue of Bolivia's FMD trade restrictions had 
been resolved with Bolivia. 
 BRAZIL C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BRAZIL  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to TSEs 6. Brazil – Notification G/SPS/N/BRA/74 and 75 on BSE-related measures 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras.  91-93), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, para. 163) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/74 and 75 
Solution: Not reported 
 
16. Canada expressed concern over the way Brazil applied the EC geographical BSE risk (GBR) 
system as the basis for classifying countries according to their BSE risk .  Canada requested that Brazil 
conduct its own BSE risk analysis and classification of Canada and stated that it had sent a copy of its 
BSE risk assessment to the Brazilian authorities for their consideration. 
17. The United States also questioned Brazil's use of the EC risk assessment classifications and 
noted that the European Communities had stated that  its risk assessment classification system was not 
meant to serve as an international standard.  Chap ter 2.3.13 of the OIE International Health Code 
established the criteria for the determination of BSE risk of a country or region.  The United States 
met the OIE criteria for a country free of BSE and ha d completed a risk assessment on all the factors 
for BSE occurrence.  Active surveillance for BSE continued at levels far exceeding those of the  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
 international standard and a strong BSE awareness programme had been devel oped for veterinarians, 
farmers and others working with ruminants.  The OIE Code recognized that certain tissues could be 
traded if they originated in countries, such as th e United States, which was free of BSE.  The United 
States believed that any measures against its exports of cattle, beef or any other products because of 
BSE were unjustified and not cons istent with WTO obligations. 
18. Brazil noted that human health concerns were at the root of the measures which referred to 
both the OIE international standards and the EC class ification system.  Thus far, Brazil had not been 
able to conduct a risk assessment for all countries  and the provision of Canada's risk assessment 
would assist the Brazilian authorities in this regard.  Brazil would take into consideration decisions 
reached at the OIE International Committee meeti ng in May 2003 when reviewing its measures.   
19. In June 2003, Brazil reported that it had notified six regulations relating to BSE. 
20. In September 2004, Canada informed the Secret ariat that the issue had been resolved with 
Brazil. 
Plant Health 
7. Brazil – Import requirements for seed potatoes 
Raised by: European Communities, Canada 
Supported by: Canada 
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27 , par as. 24-26), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28 , 
paras. 63-68), October 2003 (G/SPS/ R/31, paras. 21-22), June 2004 
(G/SPS/R/34, paras. 55-56) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Resolved with Canada 
 
21. The European Communities reported that on 13  November 2001, the Brazilian authorities had 
given notice of new measures on imports of seed potatoes that Brazil had notified new measures on imports of seed potatoes, but had provided no delay for their implementation, no technical 
justification and had not respected the need for transp arency.  As one of the main suppliers to Brazil, 
the European Communities had commented on the measures, but Brazil's initial response had not 
addressed the EC's concerns and, in particular, had not  identified the pest risk assessment justifying its 
measure.  The requested information had been provi ded during bilateral consu ltations held before the 
SPS Committee meeting, and the European Communiti es looked forward to continuing the bilateral 
process with Brazil.  Canada expressed concern with Brazil's required export certification for non 
quarantine regulated pests, in contradiction to inte rnationally agreed principles and practices.  Canada 
was also involved in bilateral discussion with th e Brazilian authorities and had requested Brazil to 
withdraw its measure.  Brazil indicated that it hope d subsequent technical c onsultations would resolve 
the issue. 
22. In November 2002, Canada expressed concerns regarding Brazil's required certification for 
pests that were not of economic significance nor a si gnificant risk to plant health.  Canada considered 
this to be an issue of quality that was more appr opriately resolved between the buyer and the seller, 
and not by government certification schemes.  Although Canadian technical officials were working 
with Brazil to complete a risk assessment, this i ssue was not being resolved as quickly as warranted.  
The European Communities requested Brazil to modi fy its measures on the basis of the technical 
arguments and proposals that had been made b ilaterally and requested Brazil to postpone the 
implementation of these measures.  The United Stat es shared the concerns expressed by both Canada G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 6  
 
 and the European Communities concerning the disr uption of trade in seed potatoes and requested 
Brazil to revise their policy as soon as possible. 
23. Brazil noted that consultations on the issue of  seed potatoes had been carried out for some 
time.  Brazilian experts were considering a new proposal from the European Communities and hoped 
to provide a reply as soon as possible.  The Br azilian Directive aimed at enhancing market 
opportunities in relation to previous regulations by  creating two new categories of imports for seed 
potatoes.  Brazil was interested in diversifying th eir source of suppliers of seed potatoes given the 
strategic importance of the sector for Brazil.  National producers were subject to the same 
considerations applicable to foreign providers, a nd his country's motivation c ould not be construed as 
restricting market access for seed potatoes.  Braz il invited the European Communities to send a team 
of experts to become familiar with their system, and witness the fact that national producers were 
subject to the same considerations as the foreign suppliers.  With respect to the comments made by 
Canada, Brazil recalled that the matter had b een extensively discussed by authorities from both 
countries.  The Brazilian legislation required that exporters of seed potatoes to Brazil had to have a 
certification system in place; apparently this w as not the case for Canada.  Brazil added that the 
concerns voiced by the United States would be  transmitted to the competent authorities.  
24. Canada clarified that Canada had a certification system for seed potatoes but that the 
certification system did not go into minor details on issues of quality.  In response to Brazil's invitation, the European Communities suggested that  Brazil should send a team of experts to inspect 
the production and food safety conditions within the European Communities. 
25. In October 2003, the European Communities re ported that following discussions with Brazil 
in October 2002, the European Communities had pr esented a proposal for a possible solution  which 
Brazil had agreed to study.  Brazil explained that it was in the process of discussing new regulations and hoped that the issue would be resolved shortly. 
26. In June 2004, Canada reported that the issue of  Brazil's import requirements for seed potatoes 
had been resolved, and Brazil had made a number of adjustments to its regulation of non-quarantine 
pests.  Canada reminded Members of the importance of notifying their SPS measures sufficiently in 
advance to provide an opportunity to comment befo re regulations were finalized to avoid future 
problems of this nature.  Brazil concurred that the issue had been resolved. 
 
CHILE C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHILE  
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to TSEs 
 
8. Chile - Pet food import requirements 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 21-23) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHL/104, G/SPS/GEN/302 
Solution: Resolved 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
 27. Argentina raised concerns about Chile's draft standard that would require imports of pet food 
containing meat and bonemeal from ruminants to undergo thermal treatment (G/SPS/N/CHL/ 104)..  
This requirement was stricter than the OIE reco mmendations and lacked sufficient scientific grounds 
and risk analysis to justify this higher level of protection (G/SPS/GEN/302).  The EU Scientific Steering Committee had given Argentina a Level 1 rati ng, i.e. "highly unlikely that domestic cattle are 
(clinically or pre-clinically) infected with BSE agent".  The United States indicated that the OIE 
Animal Health Code did not recommend that c ountries free of BSE undertak e the treatment outlined 
in the notification.  The United States hoped that th e Chilean authorities would take the results of the 
Harvard Risk Analysis into account.   
28. Chile stressed that a distinction had to be made between countries free of BSE and countries 
free of TSEs;  the draft Chilean measure also incl uded the latter within its scope.  Chile further 
clarified that the procedures had to be applied to ra w materials in pet food and not to the final product. 
29. In March 2004, Argentina reported that the issu e of Chile's import requirements for pet food 
had been resolved.   
Concerns related to FMD 
9. Chile - FMD restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Brazil, United States 
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, pa ras. 90-91), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 
40-41), June 2002 (G/ SPS/R/27, para. 126) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHL/102  
Solution: Resolved 
 
30. Argentina was concerned about Chile's draft regulations on fresh or frozen beef, which 
categorized countries according two categories: FMD-free with or without vaccination.  These draft rules seemed to be more restrictive than the OIE standard, which allowed for the possibility of 
permitting imports from FMD-infected countries or zones as long as certain risk mitigation procedures had been used.  Argentina requested Chile to provide sufficient scientific justification as 
required by Article 3.3.  Chile replied that that  it was premature to discuss the issue as the draft 
regulation had not yet been circulated internationa lly and a bilateral technical meeting was scheduled 
for early November.  The deadline for public co mments had only just passed and comments received 
had not yet been considered.  Chile had not yet been asked to provide a risk assessment by the 
Argentine authorities. 
31. In March 2002,  Argentina referred to Chil ean notification G/SPS/N/CHL/102 on fresh and 
frozen meat controls.  It appeared Chile would perm it imports from countries in one of two categories: 
FMD free without vaccination or FMD free with vaccination.  The draft Chilean regulation did not allow for the import of fresh or frozen bovine meat from countries with zones infected with FMD.  As 
such, the requirement was more demanding than the OIE Animal Health Code which permitted 
imports if risk mitigation procedures were followe d in countries where FMD was present.  Argentina 
requested Chile to amend its draft regulation to refl ect the OIE code, or to show sufficient scientific 
grounds for not applying the international refe rence standard. Brazil supported Argentina and the 
United States stated that they had sent  written comments to Chile and hoped that these comments 
would be taken into account.   
32. Chile explained that the entry into force of the measures in question had been postponed twice 
to enable other trading partners to make additio nal comments.  Controlling the 1987 outbreak of FMD G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 8  
 
 in Chile had cost $8.5 million and forced the eradi cation of 30,000 animals – a considerable cost for 
Chile.  Nevertheless, Chile planned to allow for the possibility of importing from countries not recognized as FMD free by the OIE, on the basis of a risk assessment by the Chilean authorities.  In 
the case of Argentina, Chile had not learnt of the FMD outbreak in that country through their bilateral 
usual channels so the normal risk analysis pro cedures could not be applied and emergency measures 
had had to be instituted. 
33. In June 2002, Argentina reported that progress had been made towards resolving this issue at 
bilateral meetings. 
34. In March 2004, Argentina reported that the issue of Chile's FMD restrictions had been 
resolved. 
 
CHINA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
 
Other Animal Health Concerns 
10. China – Measures on US poultry  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada 
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 26-29) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution:  Not reported 
 
35. The United States raised concerns over China's nation-wide ban on US poultry products 
following the detection of low pathogenic avian influen za in the state of Delaware in February 2004.  
The import ban was not modified accordingly when hi ghly pathogenic avian influenza was detected in 
the state of Texas, instead, it was applied to the en tire territory of the United States despite the fact 
that the highly pathogenic avian influenza outbreak was confined to a limited area.  The outbreaks 
were brought under control and eradication, clean ing and disinfection of the highly pathogenic 
infected premises was completed on 23 February 2004.  On 20 August 2004, trading partners were 
advised that the six-month period prescribed by th e OIE had elapsed and that the United States was 
free of highly pathogenic avian influenza.  Despite  this, China still maintained the ban on poultry 
products from the entire territory of the United States.  These restrictions were not scientifically justified and were inconsistent w ith SPS obligations.  China was requ ested to lift the ban immediately 
and to ensure that future implementation of emerge ncy measures were consistent with Article 6 of the 
SPS Agreement.  Canada noted similar concerns wi th China  maintaining a comprehensive ban when 
regionalized measures were the appropriate respons e, and sought the removal of all measures with 
respect to Canada. 
36. China stated that provisional emergency measure s were adopted early in 2004 to prevent the 
entry and spread of low and highly pathogenic av ian influenza.  A ban on the importation of US 
poultry and poultry products was therefore implem ented.  China had communicated with the United 
States to conduct on-site inspections with the objec tive of regionalizing its ban on avian influenza as 
well as the possibility of lifting the ban on US poultr y.  A risk assessment was being conducted and a  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 9 
 
 
 decision would be made based on the outcome of the risk assessment.  China's actions were consistent 
with Article 6 of the SPS Agreement and OIE guidelines and recommendations. 
Other Concerns 
11. China – Lack of transparency for certain SPS measures 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 32-33) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHN/22 
Solution:  Not reported 
 
37. The United States expressed concerns over Chin a's failure to notify nearly 60 regulations 
covering food, forestry and fishery products issued since 2002.  Bu rdensome certification 
requirements for fresh, chilled and frozen aquatic  products were imposed by AQSIQ Decree 31, 
which entered into force on 1 July 2003, but were no t notified to the WTO.  Despite holding bilateral 
consultations with China, no progress had been made on this issue.  The United States urged China to 
comply with its SPS obligations and to notify new re gulations so that Members had an opportunity to 
comment on them. 
38. China stressed that it had notified 213 SPS m easures since its accession and was committed in 
fulfilling its transparency obligations.  The comment period was calculated from the day the 
Secretariat circulated the notification.  There was no obligation to notify AQSIQ Decree 31 as it was 
an operational rule of a corresponding regulation that had already been notified to the WTO, and imposed no new technical requirements.  However, in  the interest of enhanced transparency, Decree 
31 had been notified in August 2003 (G/SPS/N/CHN/22). 
 
CUBA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CUBA 
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to FMD 
12. Cuba – Import restrictions on spiced pork and salted meat products 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras.  15-16), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, para. 
182)  
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/325 
Solution: Resolved 
 39. Argentina indicated that exports of spiced pork and salted meat products to Cuba were 
prohibited due to Cuba's zero risk approach w ith regard to FMD (G/SPS/GEN/325).  Argentina had 
submitted evidence that the FMD virus would not be  transmitted as a result of the processing of these 
products.  Moreover, Argentina's proposed certifi cation fully complied with OIE standards.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 10  
 
 Nonetheless, Cuba only permitted imports of bov ine meat from countries free of FMD without 
vaccination.  Argentina requested Cuba to lift its restrictions, or to provide sufficient scientific 
evidence to justify its measure.  Cuba indicated th at bilateral consultations had been initiated on the 
issue. 
40. In November 2002, Argentina reported that a few technicalities needed to be sorted out before 
the issue was completely resolved. 
41. In March 2004, Argentina reported that the issue had been resolved with Cuba. 
 
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES  
Food Safety 
13. European Communities – Notification G/SPS/ N/EEC/150 on traceability and labelling of  
genetically modified organisms and food and feed 
Raised by: United States, Canada, Argentina 
Supported by:  Australia,  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, pa ras. 57-62), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
paras.95-96), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 88-90); March 2004 
(G/SPS/R/33, paras. 43-47) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/150, G/SPS/N/EEC/149,  (G/SPS/GEN/354), 
G/SPS/GEN/337 and 338    
Solution: Not reported 
 
42. The United States specified that the EC traceability  requirement was to apply to all biotech 
food and feed products at all stages of placing the product on the market.  The stated objective was to 
facilitate control of labelling claims, environmenta l monitoring and control of the product.  Food 
processors would be obliged to maintain specific in formation at each stage of placing the product on 
the market, including details as to whether the product contained or was produced from biotech products.  As a general rule, if a product contained ingredients cons isting of biotech products or 
produced from biotech events, these must be identifie d.  This included prod ucts made from but not 
containing biotech products, such as soybean oil.  The United States believed that this proposal would 
be expensive to implement, but would not be enfo rceable nor would it achieve its stated objectives.  
43. The United States was further concerned that the me asure was not targeted at health risks, and 
applied to products already approved for use within  the European Communiti es.  Traceback systems 
for food safety had been effectively used to reca ll food in the United States in response to health 
problems, based on batch and lot numbers on packag es.  However, the proposed traceability system 
would be applied across-the-board to products w hose safety had already b een assessed.  Before 
adopting the measure the United States urged the European Commission to as sess the feasibility of 
applying the measure reliably and accurately; consider less trade r estrictive means to achieve the 
objectives and evaluate the regulatory impact of the proposal.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 11 
 
 
 44. Australia indicated that it had submitted detailed written comments that questioned the 
scientific basis for the EC measures, the international standards to be used, and the nature of the risk 
assessment underpinning the EC measures.  Australia also questioned whether a less trade-restrictive 
measure could be used, and why the traceability system  for GM foods differed substantially from that 
for other foods.  Argentina shared the concer ns raised by the United States and Australia. 
45. Norway indicated doubts as to whether the SPS Agreement was relevant to the issue of 
GMOs and added that Norway strongly believed th at labelling and traceability were not contrary to 
WTO obligations.  The EC regulations took account of the Codex, the Cartagena Protocol and the 
OECD guidelines.  According to the Codex guide lines, food labelling should be used to avoid 
misleading or confusing the consumer with regard to the true nature of a food.  Consumers' distrust in 
food products would be greater if labelling and traceab ility were not required.  Norway believed that 
the EC measure addressed a legitimate objective that was not excessive in relation to its purpose. Cyprus stated his country's support of the EC position regarding information to consumers.  
46. The European Communities stated that all co mments would be considered and communicated 
to the appropriate bodies.  Current labelling re quirements in the European Communities required 
information on ingredients included in  food products;  all that was a dded in terms of labelling was to 
ensure the inclusion of GM products within the ge neral requirements.  There were four objectives of 
traceability:  (1)  to recall products in case of an unforeseen problem;  (2) to monitor potential risks 
for the environment;  (3)  to control the accuracy of information provided on the label;  and (4)  to 
inform consumers about what they ate and to  avoid deceptive practices.  The EC Commission 
considered that these four objectives were primarily  related to the TBT Agreement, and had notified 
this proposal to the SPS Agreement only for transparency.  
47. Canada observed that one of the stated objectiv es of the proposed regulation was to provide a 
high level of protection of human health.  Canada  accepted that consumers had the right to know 
many things, but found troublesome that these regulations focussed on products made from GM 
products but not on products made with GM pro cessing aids, even when there might be traces of the 
processing aids left in the product.  Several industries in Europe used GM processing aids.  The 
selective focus was also troubling in  that consumers did not need to  be informed if products were 
derived from mutagenesis, another fo rm of genetic alteration.   The focus of the EC regulations was 
overly specific and selective.  Furthermore, the ma ndatory nature of the tr aceability system created 
problems especially for enforcement.  Canada noted th at no international standard existed in this area; 
the Biosafety Protocol was not yet in effect and ne ither it nor the OECD guidelines were referred to in 
the SPS Agreement.  Canada looked forward to a sci entific assessment of the needs, challenges and 
benefits of the proposed mandatory traceability system .  In November 2002,  Argentina drew attention 
to the 21 questions for which his country w as seeking a written response from the European 
Communities (G/SPS/GEN/354).  Argentina enquired as to whether the latest version notified by the 
European Communities included the amendments made  by the European Parliament.  The European 
Communities noted that they had received the ques tions from Argentina at a late date, and would 
provide answers to the questions in writing.  Th e European Communities usually notified a draft text 
to the WTO to allow Members enough time to co mment while the proposed regulation was being 
circulated in the Parliament and Council.  Di scussions were still underway in these two bodies and as 
soon as a final regulation was adopted it would be no tified to the SPS Committee for information.  
48. 
In April 2003, Argentina enquired whether th e European Communities were in a position to 
answer specific questions it had raised in the last Committee meeting on the proposed traceability and 
labelling legislation.  The European Communities responded that the additional questions submitted 
by Argentina were being studied and that a reply,  based on the new version of the two legislative 
proposals, was being finalized.  The European Co mmunities also stated that detailed answers had 
already been given to many questions raised by  Argentina in documents G/SPS/GEN/337 and 338. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 12  
 
 49. In March 2004, the United States noted that the EC rules on traceability and labelling of 
genetically modified organisms and on food and feed would come into effect in April 2004 but many 
questions and uncertainties remained.  The Euro pean Communities were requested to delay the 
implementation and enforcement of the regulati ons until the implementing guidance on sampling and 
testing was also issued.  Canada questioned the scien tific justification of the regulations and expressed 
concern that burdensome documentation and other requirements were placed on products based upon 
their production method.  The traceability and la belling requirements were ambiguous given the 
absence of segregation systems and of internati onally accepted testing methodologies to validate the 
presence of genetically modified foods.  Australia requested that the Europ ean Communities consider 
less trade-restrictive alternatives. 
50. The European Communities explained that EC regulation 1830/2003 had been adopted on 22 
September 2003.  The measure was considered mo re of a TBT issue but was notified to the SPS 
Committee at the request of several Members.   The regulation supported EC consumer freedom to 
choose or avoid products derived from biotechnol ogy and provided a harmonized framework that 
encouraged efficient functioning of internal mark ets.  The regulation also allowed for the rapid 
withdrawal of products of risk to the health of consumers, animals, and the environment from the EC 
market.  
14. European Communities - Maximum levels for certain contaminants (aflatoxins) in 
foodstuffs 
Raised by: Argentina, Australia, Bolivia , Brazil, The Gambia, India, Indonesia, 
Malaysia, Philippines, Senegal, Thailand 
Supported by: Canada, Colombia, Mexico, Paki stan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines on behalf 
of ASEAN, South Africa, Turkey, United States, Uruguay 
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras.  24-31), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras. 15-
19), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 11-14), November 1998 
(G/SPS/R/13, para. 26), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, paras. 64-66), March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 29-30 and 86- 87), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 
39-43), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 27-31), March 2002 
(G/SPS/R/26, para. 140), June 2002 (G /SPS/R/27, paras. 38-39), November 
2002 (G/SPS/R/28, para. 175), April 20 03 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 51-52), June 
2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 66), Marc h 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 48-49) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/51, G/SPS/GEN/50, G/SPS/GEN/52, G/SPS/GEN/54, 
G/SPS/GEN/55, G/SPS/GEN/56, G/SPS/GEN/57, G/SPS/GEN/58, G/SPS/GEN/61, G/SPS/GEN/62, G/SPS/GEN/63, G/SPS/GEN/93, G/SPS/R/28 
Solution: Maximum levels for some pr oducts and sampling procedures revised. 
 
51. In March 1998, a number of countries argued that the EC proposal to set new maximum 
levels for aflatoxins would impo se severe restrictions on trade while not resulting in a significant 
reduction in health risk to consumers.  The pr oposal did not seem to be based on a proper risk 
assessment.  Furthermore, the proposed sampli ng procedure was unduly costly, burdensome and 
unjust.  Although an international standard on the subject did not yet exist, the Codex Committee on 
Food Additives and Contaminants ( CCFAC) was considering the matter.  The complaining Members 
felt that the timing was unfortunate, and urged the European Communities to review the proposed 
measure. 
52. The European Communities noted that there had been no consensus in the CCFAC on the 
issue; although many countries supported the Codex norm, the European Communities did not.  The proposed measure reflected the EC level of protection.   With regard to the sampling procedure, since  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 13 
 
 
 contamination appeared in a small percentage of ke rnels, one simple sample was not sufficient to 
minimize risk to consumers.  The proposed methods were already used by some EC member States.  
The European Communities planned to evaluate th e comments received until May 1998 and formalize 
the proposal in June 1998.  The measure would enter into effect relatively shortly afterwards. 
53. In June 1998, the European Communities reported that it had forwarded a revised proposal to 
its member States.  The EC Standing Committ ee on Foodstuffs would consider the proposed 
modifications on 17-18 June 1998.  Apart from revi sing some of the maximum levels, the European 
Communities was considering trans itional arrangements, and the new measures would not enter into 
force before 1 January 1999. 
54. In September 1998, Bolivia informed the Co mmittee that the proposed EC measure would 
have severe effects on Bolivian exports of Brazil nuts.  Bolivia requested to see the EC risk 
assessment, and indicated it was prepared to ente r into bilateral discussions with the European 
Communities in order to find a mutually agreeable  solution.  The United States encouraged the 
European Communities to take into account the recommendations contained in the FAO/WHO risk 
assessments establishing maximum levels for afla toxin in consumer-ready products.  The ASEAN 
countries expressed concern with maximum levels in milk, which would affect developing countries' 
feed exports. 
55. The European Communities noted that the dead line for comments had been extended to allow 
for further comments from Members.  The European  Communities had also revised its proposal, and 
was prepared to raise the proposed maximum levels in  nuts.  With regard to milk, the proposed EC 
levels were in line with the standards being discussed in Codex. 
56. In November 1998, the Chairman informed the Committee about bilateral consultations 
between Bolivia and the European Communities whic h he had been requested to facilitate.  The 
Chairman reported that the discussions had been very fruitful, and had helped Bolivia to better 
understand the rationale behind the EC measures, as  well as the EC procedures followed.  They had 
also helped the EC understanding of the potential effect of some of its measures on the Bolivian 
industry.  Technical consultations were continuing. 
57. In March 1999, Bolivia reported that it had presen ted a plan to improve its Brazil nuts, and 
consultations with the European Communities were ongoing.  Bolivia considered that this was a good 
case for the application of special and differential tr eatment.  Peru indicated that several countries had 
brought their problems with the new EC regulation on aflatoxins to the attention of the European Communities through their missions in Brussels, without having obtained a satisfactory response.  In 
particular, the European Communities had not presented a risk assessment.  The European 
Communities assured Bolivia that their common examin ation of the problem w ould continue through 
a rapid procedure.  In response to other Members,  the European Communities indicated that there had 
been ample time for comments, and that the prop osal had been revised in response to comments 
received.  On cereals, the European Communities was prepared to continue accepting comments until 
1 July 1999 and to modify the measure if there was scientific justification. 
58. In March 2001, Argentina raised concerns over EC maximum levels of contaminants in food 
products and sampling methods for aflatoxins in peanuts, other nuts, dried fruits and cereals.  
Argentina was preparing a technical submission for th e European Communities to be circulated before 
the next SPS Committee meeting. The European Communities agreed to carefully consider the 
technical document.  Regarding cereals, the Eu ropean Communities reminded Members that the 
relevant legislation had been adopted in 2000 a nd would come into effect as of 1 July 2001. 
59. Bolivia recalled the information it had provided regarding EC aflatoxin levels in Brazil nuts 
(G/SPS/GEN/93).  The European Communities had not provided a risk analysis for this measure.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 14  
 
 Bolivia outlined the socio-economic and ecological implications of the m easure for the area of 
production, as well as the effects on the economy.  The European Communities indicated that the science had been explained in detail in the Committee.   An EC expert had visited Bolivia in May 2000 
to evaluate the situation.  The Commission belie ved that the problems in Bolivia stemmed from 
needed improvements in the production chain and th e equipment used.  A project to address these 
issues had been included in the EU Aid Programme. 
60. In July 2001, Bolivia expressed concern about the long time it was taking to resolve the issue.  
Argentina and Chile inquired about the technical assistance and special and differential treatment 
aspects of the issue.  The European Communities noted  that Bolivia was on a high priority list for EC 
cooperation activities.  The expert mission in Ma y 2000 had concluded that  Bolivian products had 
been meeting EC aflatoxin levels, and at least th ree private laboratories were equipped to carry out 
accurate tests.  The European Communities remained willing to di scuss technical difficulties and to 
agree on practical solutions. The European Co mmunities was promoting a project to improve 
production and storage processes and the livelihood of nut collectors, to be executed in 2002; it had 
proposed a certification procedure and hoped that Bolivia recognized the efforts being made to 
improve Brazil nut production in the region concerned.  Bolivia confirmed that bilateral meetings had 
taken place, including a discussion on possible techni cal cooperation programmes.  However, so far 
no practical measures had been taken to reduce the negative effect on trade. 
61. In October 2001, Bolivia reported that the European Communities still had not presented a 
risk analysis to justify its maximum levels for aflatoxins in Brazil nuts, nor applied special and 
differential treatment or justifie d why higher levels were permitted in similar products.  The measure 
was having a severe effect on the Bolivian economy.  Promises of technical assistance were not 
beneficial, and Bolivia wished to see a solution b ased on acceptance by the European Communities of 
a certificate.  The European Communities indicated that prolonged bilateral consultations had taken 
place prior to the entry into force of the measur e, and that expected trade concerns had not 
materialized. The risk assessment had been di scussed on numerous occasions in the SPS Committee 
and in JECFA.  EC technical assistance had the goal of ensuring compliance with EC standards.  A 
national certification and accreditation mechanism was being implemented which would allow the 
three Bolivian laboratories to issue internationally  recognized certificates.  However, no follow-up 
information had been received from Bolivia on this possible solution.  
62. In March 2002, Bolivia indicated that there ha d been no progress on the issue.  The European 
Communities reported that it had agreed to acce pt pre-shipment certification from accredited 
laboratories in Bolivia in order to avoid costly  sampling of the product upon arrival in Europe.  
However, no further information had been prov ided by Bolivia regarding the accreditation of 
laboratories nor a proposal for the pre-shipment ce rtificate.  Nonetheless, shipments of Brazil nuts 
from Bolivia met all of the EC's requirements, and the quantity of shipments continued to grow.   
63. In June 2002, Bolivia noted that although the la rger Bolivian exporters were able to meet the 
EC requirements at considerable costs and difficult ies, smaller exporters could not fulfil the EC's 
requirements.  Bolivia requested information on the manner in which the EC requirements for a 
quality control system were being applied.  Th e European Communities stressed again that no 
consignments of Brazil nuts from Bolivia had been bl ocked due to aflatoxin.  In fact, both the volume 
and value imported from Bolivia had increased in recent years.  The EC Scientific Committee for 
Food had identified aflatoxins as among the most carcinogenic and mutageni c substances known, and 
intake had to be reduced to the lowest levels  possible.  Although the European Commission had 
agreed to accept certification from authorized Bo livian laboratories, Bolivia had not provided the 
necessary information. 
64. In April 2003, Bolivia stated that a pr oposal had been submitted to the European 
Communities to strengthen the Bolivian system of ce rtification for export of Brazil nuts.  He hoped  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 15 
 
 
 that a technical exchange would take place on this  proposal in the near future.  The European 
Communities noted that its authorities would need so me time to examine the Bolivian proposal.  The 
European Communities favoured certification at the point of departure by accredited laboratories and 
commended the Bolivian authorities for their proposal. 
65. In June 2003, Bolivia informed Members that a bilateral meeting had resulted in a favourable 
outcome and Bolivia should soon receive the re quired permission.  The European Communities 
indicated that the procedures for technical assistance were now in place and hoped the issue would soon be regarded as solved. 
66. In March 2004, Bolivia informed Members that bilateral consultations were held with the 
European Communities on 16 March 2004 and details of the assessment visit for the certification of 
chestnuts for export to the European Communities had been finalized.  The European Communities 
stated that it would continue to cooperate with Bolivia to finalize the assistance programme.   
15. European Communities (Germany) – Notification G/SPS/N/DEU/9 and Add.1 on 
maximum tolerance levels for ocratoxin A in coffee  
Raised by: Colombia, Papua New Guinea 
Supported by: Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, El Salv ador, Guatemala, Mexico, Peru, Nicaragua, 
Cuba, India, Ecuador, Bolivia, Dominican Republic, Costa Rica 
Dates raised:  October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31,  paras. 47-49), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, 
paras.34-39) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/DEU/9 a nd Add.1, G/SPS/GEN/434, G/SPS/GEN/470 
Solution: Not reported 
 
67. Colombia stated that on 17 June 2003, German y had notified a draft regulation for MRLs for 
ocratoxin in products,  including soluble and roasted coffee.  In September 2003, the application of 
the measure had been postponed until December  2003.  Colombia believed that the MRL was 
disproportionate to the risks and that the scientif ic evidence regarding risk s to human health was 
inconclusive.  The economic losses could be signi ficant for Colombia as it exported 1.7 million bags 
of coffee to Germany, which was equivalent to 17 per cent of its total coffee exports.  The testing 
could result in 6 per cent of all coffee entering Ge rmany from Colombia being rejected.  Colombia 
questioned the relationship between th is measure and the EC regulations. 
68. Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemal a, Mexico and Peru shared the concerns 
expressed by Colombia.  Brazil noted that the high er MRL for soluble product compared to the 
roasted coffee was unusual, as normally products for direct consumption had lower levels of MRLs. 
69. The European Communities explained that each EC  member State retained the right to adopt 
national legislation for the protection of human health  when no EC standard existed.  Since there was 
no MRL ocratoxin A for coffee in the European  Communities, Germany could establish its own 
MRLs.  The measure was based on new scientific  evidence.  The European Commission had 
organized a meeting between Colombian and German toxicology experts, and replies to Colombia's 
questions would be circulated to all Members shortly. 
70. In March 2004, Papua New Guinea informed the Committee that it had submitted comments 
on Germany's measures on coffee in G/SPS/GEN/470.  Colombia stated that written responses to its 
questions outlined in G/SPS/GEN/434 had not been  provided by the European Communities.  
Germany had since informed Colombia of the a pproval of the Bundesrat Directive 713/03 by the 
Ministry of Consumer Protection, Food and Ag riculture.  Directive 713/03 changed the existing 
regulation of the MRLs for Ocratoxin A (OTA) in roasted and soluble coffee in Germany.  Germany G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 16  
 
 also indicated that the European Communities w ould be notifying a similar measure for roasted, 
soluble and green coffee.  Colomb ia was concerned about the impact of the measure on the marketing 
of coffee in Europe and requested the Eur opean Communities to respond to its questions. 
71. Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Re public, El Salvador, Ecuador, Guatemala, 
India, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Peru shared the conc erns raised by Papua New Guinea and Colombia.  
Germany's MRLs for OTA in coffee were discriminat ory and scientifically unjustified.  Germany was 
requested to answer the questions previously posed by Colombia and to take into consideration the 
special needs of coffee exporting countries. 
72. Codex explained that OTA, a mycotoxin contamin ant, had been a standing agenda item of the 
Codex Committee for Food Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC) since its 23
rd session in March 
1991.  A risk assessment of the consequences of establishing a maximum level of 5 micrograms/kg or 
20 micrograms/kg for OTA in cereals and cereal products had been conducted based on food consumption  data for European type diets.  Ce reals and wine were identified as major dietary 
contributors of the overall intake of OTA, while  coffee and grape juice were considered minor 
contributors.  The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Comm ittee on Food Additives and Contaminants (JECFA) 
retained the previously established Provisional To lerable Weekly Intake of 100 nonograms/kg of body 
weight and recommended that overall contamination of foods, especially cereals, should be lowered 
by appropriate agriculture, storage and processing pr actices.  The conclusion of the JECFA evaluation 
was available from WHO as Technical Report Series  906.  CCFAC would consider draft maximum 
levels for OTA in cereals at its 36
th Session.  
73. The European Communities stated  that Colombia's questions were still under consideration 
by EC authorities and that a draft Codex standard for OTA levels in cereals was under discussion.  
MRLs for OTA had been established within the European Communities for a number of foods, but 
not for coffee.  Germany therefore had the right to establish maximum OTA levels for coffee.  The 
European Communities had already determined MR Ls for OTA in cereals and derivative products 
under EC Directive 466/2001, latter modified by Dir ective 472/2002.   As for beer, OTA levels were 
regulated indirectly by the maximum OTA limits se t on barley.  OTA levels for roasted and soluble 
coffee, wine, certain dried fruits and fruit juices w ould be determined by the end of 2004 and notified 
to the WTO in due course.  EC Directive 2002/26 established the sampling methods and criteria used 
for the analysis of OTA levels in foods.  The Eur opean Communities also stat ed that Germany had not 
rejected shipments of Colombian coffe e due to excessive levels of OTA. 
16. European Communities – EC maximum re sidue levels for pesticides on food 
(G/SPS/N/EEC/236 and 237) 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 49-51) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/243 
Solution: Not reported 
 
74. China raised concerns that the maximum resi due limits (MRLs) notified in G/SPS/N/EEC/236 
and 237 were several times higher than the MRLs proposed by other developed countries and by the 
Codex Alimentarius Commission.  The European Co mmunities were requested to provide scientific 
justification for its measures or modify the MRLs a ccording to relevant international standards.  In 
addition, the European Communities were requested to extend the time period for implementation of 
the measure from the date of adoption to one year and provide China with the testing methods for the 
concerned MRLs.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 17 
 
 
 75. The European Communities stated that it was prepared to address China's concerns on 
notification G/SPS/N/EEC/243, as indicated in the dr aft agenda, but was not prepared to provide 
specific answers to China's concerns on the notif ications G/SPS/N/EEC/236 a nd 237.  However, a 
detailed written reply would be sent to China shortl y.  The European Communities clarified that the 
proposed date of entry into force in notificati ons G/SPS/N/EEC/236 and 237 should read 19 January 
2005 instead of 19 January 2004.  Furthermore, so me of the Codex MRLs mentioned by China were 
proposed for revocation at the next meeting of th e Codex Alimentarius Commission.  EC MRLs for 
pesticide quantities in foodstuffs were higher th an international standards in four cases:  
(1) phyto-pharmaceutical products which did not lead to detectable levels of pesticides residues in 
foodstuffs;  (2) unauthorized use of the pesticides;  (3) EC authorizations which were  unsupported by 
technical and scientific evidence;   and (4) residues present in imported foods without sufficient 
scientific evidence indicating their food safety.  In  this case, the European Communities undertook its 
own assessment and was also willing to consid er data submitted by the exporting country. 
17. European Communities – EC regulation on Ocratoxin A in coffee (G/SPS/N/EEC/247) 
Raised by: Colombia 
Supported by: Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, 
Guatemala, Kenya, Peru,  
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 61-67) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/475, G/SPS/GEN/490, G/SPS/GEN/515, G/SPS/R/33 (paras. 
34-39), G/SPS/N/EEC/247 
Solution: Not reported 
 
76. Colombia reported that the European Communiti es had responded to Colombia's questions in 
G/SPS/GEN/475.  The EC response was contained in G/SPS/GEN/490 and explained that Germany 
was able to set maximum levels of Ocratoxin A (OTA) in roasted and soluble coffee as harmonized EC standards were not yet established.  On 1 September 2004, the European Communities issued G/SPS/N/EEC/247, notifying Members of the EC proposal  to establish levels for OTA in roasted and 
soluble coffee. 
77. Colombia continued to be concerned about th e impact of the measures on the marketing of 
coffee in Europe and had raised several questi ons as outlined in G/SPS/GEN/515.  The European 
Communities were asked to explain why OTA levels were set for coffee when coffee contributed only 
8 per cent of the intake of OTA in the European di et compared with cereals and cereal products which 
contributed 50 per cent of the intake of OTA.  Scie ntific justification for the levels of OTA set for 
coffee was requested from the Europ ean Communities, as well as an explanation of the method used 
to determine the OTA levels.  The European Comm unities were also requested to explain why the 
OTA levels for coffee and cereals and cereal products  were the same when the intake of OTA was 
higher in cereals and cereal products than in coffee.   Moreover, if the OTA levels for beer were 
indirectly controlled by its main input, malt, why were not the OTA levels for soluble coffee 
indirectly controlled by its main input, roasted coff ee.  Finally, the European Communities were asked 
to explain why there was a need to protect public  health with regards to coffee and not beer.  
Colombia suggested that the European Communitie s consult studies on OTA toxicology as a starting 
point in establishing maximum OTA levels in green  coffee.  The entire production chain would need 
to be regulated when establishing maximum levels of OTA for green coffee which would be both impractical and counterproductive as additional infrastructure and stor age facilities would be needed.  
Furthermore, the risks of formation of mycotoxins were increased during prolonged periods of storage 
due to the condensation and re-hum idification process in the beans.  OTA levels should not be set 
until there was scientific justification.  The Codex Al imentarius was requested to consider the issue of 
maximum levels of OTA in coffee in the join t FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives 
(JECFA). G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 18  
 
 78. Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Dominican Republic , Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Kenya 
and Peru supported the statements made by Colombia  and requested a copy of the EC response to the 
questions posed by Colombia.  Chile stated that  the Committee should include this issue under the 
procedure to monitor the use of international standards. 
79. The Codex Alimentarius reported that little pr ogress had been made on this issue in Codex 
since the March meeting of the SPS Committee.  Codex had not established Maximum Residue 
Levels (MRLs) for green and roasted coffee but ha d been working to establish MRLs in cereals for 
several years.  However, this was still at the ela boration stage due to the lack of consensus on the 
numerical limits. The Codex Committee for Food  Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC) had 
requested JECFA to include the ri sk assessments on OTA for evaluation by 2006.  At the last meeting 
of the CCFAC, a suggestion was made to include new work in Codex on the development of a code of 
practice to reduce mycotoxin contamination in coffee and cocoa.  This proposal will be discussed at 
the next CCFAC meeting in April 2005. 
80. The European Communities explained that once EC harmonized standard s were established, 
national standards ceased to be effective.  From the perspective of the exporting country, the EC 
harmonized standards had the advantage of being lo wer than the national standards of many member 
States.  The responses to Colombia’s questions w ould be made available through the Secretariat and 
the European Commission’s website contained info rmation on the methodology used to determine the 
level of OTA in coffee.  The EC draft regulati on covered ground and roasted coffee but not green and 
soluble coffee.  MRLs for OTA had already been  established for grains and its by-products and 
raisins.  Furthermore, MRLs for OTA for wine a nd wine based beverages had been proposed.  While 
studies had concluded that cereals and cereal-based products were the main sources of consumer 
exposure to OTA, wine, grape juice and roasted an d soluble coffee also contributed significantly to 
consumer exposure.  The European Communities would reassess its decision on the basis of the 
results of the toxicology studies on OTA that would be available in 2006. 
18. European Communities – EC regulation on aflatoxins and Ocratoxin A in foods for 
infants and young children (G/SPS/N/EEC/223/Add.1) 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 68-69) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
81. China raised concerns over EC notificati on G/SPS/N/EEC/223 and adde ndum on aflatoxins 
and OTA in foods for infants and young children.  Studies conducted by JEFCA concluded that the 
acceptable level of risk was the same when the level of aflatoxin B1 was reduced from 20 to 10 mg/kg and when the level of aflatoxin M1 was reduced from 0.5 to 0.05 mg/kg.  Any further reductions of 
the levels of aflatoxins B1 a nd M1 would have no significant impact on public health safety.  
Furthermore, JECFA, in its 37
th Session, had established a weekly inta ke of OTA of 112 mg/kg.  This 
minimum intake was subsequently lowered to 100 mg/kg at the 44th Session of JECFA and remained 
unchanged in the 56th Session based on results of risk assessments carried out on OTA levels in 
cereals and cereal based products.  The European Communities was requested to provide scientific 
justification for its measures and to consider th e impact of the measures on international trade. 
82. The European Communities stat ed that the EC regulation amending Commission regulation 
466/2001 concerning aflatoxins and OTA in foods for infants and young children applied to products 
placed in EC markets and was effective from 1 N ovember 2004.  Although China had not submitted 
comments during the comment period, China's comme nts would be taken into account and a written  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 19 
 
 
 response would be provided.  The JECFA studies refe renced above were based on intake levels of 
adults, rather then on intake levels of infants.  The European Communities had therefore considered it 
necessary to establish maximum levels of aflatoxi ns of B1, M1 and OTA for infants and young 
children.  These maximum levels were achievable and substantiated by data.  Furthermore, they had 
little trade implications, as finished foods for infants and young children were not traded in significant 
amounts.  
19. European Communities – EC proposed regulation on maximum residue levels of 
pesticides (G/SPS/N/EEC/196 and Add.1) 
Raised by: China, Argentina 
Supported by: ASEAN, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, Mexico, 
Paraguay, Uruguay, ASEAN countries 
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras.  75-77), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 
76-79 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/196 and Add.1 
Solution: Not reported 
 
83. China indicated that it was highly concerned with the approach taken by the European 
Communities on maximum residue levels in plant and animal products and had submitted comments 
on the notification.  China believed that the new rules were not in compliance with the SPS 
Agreement and requested information on the risk assess ment undertaken by the EC.  Brazil noted that 
it had previously raised similar concerns and requested a three year postponement of the measure.  
Chile expressed support for the position taken by Ch ina and Brazil and also requested information on 
the risk analysis and the scientific  basis for the maximum residue levels.  Brazil queried whether, for 
those pesticides where there was no scientific evid ence, a precautionary approach would be used. 
84. The European Communities replied that the draf t rule replaced and simplified four existing 
directives.  The new rule was scheduled to enter into force on 1 January 2005 and would lead to a 
harmonization of maximum residue levels in the European Communities.  The transitional process 
would be very long and additiona l comments could still be made.  The objective was to examine 325 
substances in order to update the available informat ion and to set maximum re sidue limits since zero 
level was difficult to achieve.  The new rule would not lead to a withdrawal of given authorizations 
except for use within the European Communities.  Imports from third countries would not be automatically banned, but could be accepted on the basis of maximum residue limits when it could be 
shown that these limits were sufficient to protect health.  Members and the Codex Alimentarius were 
invited to submit comments on which levels of  residues might be considered as acceptable. 
85. In October 2004, Argentina raised concerns  over EC notification G/SPS/N/EEC/196/Add 1. 
The proposed rule would seriously affect devel oping countries' agri-food exports.  Of particular 
concern was the EC default level of zero for maxi mum residue limits set for products that had not 
being authorized or when data was unavailable to  demonstrate the safety of the residues.  This 
requirement was implemented for economic reasons rather than for food safety considerations.  
Moreover, many of the maximum residue limits se t by Codex had not been accepted by the European 
Communities, especially those set before 1990.  Th e European Communities should provide scientific 
justification for deviations from international standa rds as well as consider the economic impact of the 
implementation of its proposed regulation on trading partners. 
86. ASEAN, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Colo mbia, Cuba, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, and 
Uruguay echoed the concerns raised by Argentina.   Chile and Cuba asked what methodology was 
used in setting the default detection limit. The Ph ilippines, on behalf of ASEAN countries, supported 
the statement made by Argentina and asked why th e European Communities had not adopted relevant G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 20  
 
 Codex standards.  The European Communities shoul d provide a risk assessment if a higher level of 
protection than that achieved by the relevant Code x standards was adopted.  Furthermore, developing 
countries lacked the technological and analytical cap ability to comply with the new default approach 
and this could have adverse ec onomic implications for them. 
87. The European Communities explained that a listing of all available risk assessment 
documents on approved MRLs had been made, in cluding those MRLs for pesticides approved many 
years ago.  Some of the risk assessments were no longer relevant today and so a reassessment of the 
pesticides was needed.  The industry was requested to  supply the relevant scientific and technical data 
to carry out these risk assessments.  However, th e industry was no longer interested in marketing 
some of the older pesticides and were not keen to fund research.  Therefore, these pesticides were 
withdrawn from the list and a residue default leve l was set for them.  The European Communities 
would, however, allow the use of these pesticides if furnished with relevant risk assessments from 
interested trading partners.  Argentina was request ed to provide its questions in writing so that 
detailed written replies could be communicated to all interested Members. 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to TSEs 
 
20. European Communities – Restrictions on the use of fishmeal  
Raised by: Chile, Peru 
Supported by: Ecuador, United States, Iceland 
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras.  17-21), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 
12-17), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, 31-32) ; June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 
134-136) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/256, G/SPS/GEN/264 
Solution: Not reported 
 88. In July 2001, Peru expressed concern about the EC prohibition on the use of fishmeal in the 
elaboration of ruminant feed, which had no scientif ic basis, was not based on a risk assessment, and 
was more trade-restrictive than required.  The comp etent authorities in Peru had shown that fishmeal 
and fish oil were safe to human and animal h ealth, and had high nutritional value.  Since the 
prohibition had a very serious impact on the Peruvian economy, Peru asked the European Communities to lift this restriction as soon as possible.   Chile underlined that fishmeal was not at all 
related to BSE.  At bilateral meetings, the Eur opean Communities had explained that the restriction 
was related to cross-contamination of fishmeal  and other animal meals within the European 
Communities.  Chile requested the European Comm unities to exclude fishmeal from the prohibition, 
and to be more flexible with standards applied to  processing plants in the meantime.  The European 
Communities had classified Chile as having minimal BSE risk, and Chile ha d offered to provide 
quality and traceability certificates.  Chile was surprised  that there were no restrictions on vegetable 
meals, which could also be mixed with meat a nd bone meal (MBM) in feed.  In addition, MBM 
continued to be used as pet food in the European  Communities.  The United States urged Members to 
reacquaint themselves with the relevant OI E guidelines and recommendations (G/SPS/GEN/230). 
89. The OIE representative drew attention to the WHO/FAO/OIE conference held in June 2001 
on BSE, public health, animal health and trade (G /SPS/GEN/260).  The expert s at this meeting had 
concluded that the basis of the EC ban on feedi ng rendered animal protein to farm animals was to 
avoid risk of cross-contamination of the animal feed  system.  Discussions had highlighted the lack of 
technical means to verify the absence of banned products in meals at very low levels.  The European Communities confirmed that the ban on the use of fish meal in ruminant feed was a safeguard measure  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 21 
 
 
 reflecting failures in the implementation of rules on animal feed.  Imports of fishmeal had not been 
prohibited, but its use was subject to strict conditions.  The European Communities wished to 
minimize trade effects and was ready to evaluate with Chile, Peru and other countries the 
consequences, if any, on their exports. 
90. In October 2001, Peru indicated that the Eu ropean Communities recognized that there was no 
scientific evidence demonstrating that BSE could be  transmitted through fishmeal, but maintained its 
restrictions to address an internal problem of cr oss-contamination and fraudulent practices.  Peru 
requested that the European Comm unities lift the restrictions as soon as possible.  Chile noted that 
applying the same restrictions on fishmeal as for MBM had no scientific basis and was not consistent 
with OIE or WHO recommendations.  Chile was concerned over the length of time that the 
provisional measure had been in place and the suggest ion that a new diagnostic test of the presence of 
animal proteins in feed would need to be devel oped before the measure could be rescinded.  Chile 
would explore all options available under the SPS Agre ement to have the restrictions lifted.  The 
United States underlined the need for BSE control me asures to reflect the different risk status of 
particular products and countries.  Iceland obj ected strongly to the EC measures which were 
tantamount to an import ban on fishmeal for animal feed. 
91. The European Communities clarified that the legislation was a provisional measure that 
covered the internal use of fishmeal.  As all pr oducers were requested to fulfil the same conditions, 
the measure was not discriminatory.  A derogation allowed the use of fishmeal in feeds for non-
ruminant animals provided certain strict produc tion and handling conditions were met.  The 
development of a reliable, but l ess laborious detection test would be a decisive element when 
reviewing the feed ban, and efforts were underw ay in the Communities in this regard.  The 
representative of the European Communities questioned claims that the EC regulations had an adverse 
impact on trade. 
92. In March 2002, Peru stated that there was a l ack of political will on the part of the European 
Communities to reach a solution to this problem.  Fish meal posed no risk of BSE for human or animal 
health, but the EC measure created doubts among other countries, which resulted in a negative impact 
on fishmeal trade.  Furthermore, as the EC measure  had been extended indefinitely, it could no longer 
be justified as a provisional measure.  
93. The European Communities noted that the measur e was maintained due to demonstrated cases 
of cross-contamination detected through the EC's detection system.  One tool which could help 
resolve this issue was a reliable test which c ould distinguish mammalian meals from fishmeal.  
Unfortunately, although under development, such a t est would not be available in the near future. The 
European Communities requested Peru  to provide evidence of trade disruption as a result of the EC 
measure, as no disruption was apparent in EU trade statistics.  
94. In June 2004, Chile noted that the Europ ean Communities was reviewing the restrictive 
measures on fishmeal in cattle feed.  Lifting the ban would require the development of a diagnostic 
test which would assure all EC member States that detection of contamination of fishmeal with bone- 
or meat-meal would be possible.  Chile had receive d information that the diagnostic method had been 
standardized and the Food Chain and Animal He alth Committee would vote on lifting the ban in 
September 2004. The European Communities were  requested to provide further information 
concerning the possible date when the ban would be lifted.  Peru also requested a written explanation 
from the European Communities. 
95. The European Communities responded that results of the test were pending and that a written 
reply would be made available after the Food Chain and Animal Health Committee meeting in 
September 2004.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 22  
 
  
21. European Communities –  Proposal on animal by-products 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Brazil, China, Australia, Canada 
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29  par as. 40-45), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30 paras. 47-
49), October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31 paras.  27-30), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33 
paras. 53-55), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 39-41) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/103 
Solution: Not reported 
 
96. The United States stated that EC regulation 1774/2002 would severely restrict or prohibit a 
range of animal by-products intended for use in feed, industrial or other non-food purposes.  Due to 
the lack of transparency of this regulation, the lack of sufficient tim e and information for exporters to 
comply and the EC failure to adequately address th e concerns of third countries, the United States 
requested a delay in the implementation of the re gulation.  The United States was also concerned 
about derogations for certain EC member States that were not available to third countries, the lack of 
scientific justification for the regulation and the la ck of a risk assessment for the proposed inter-
species feed ban.  Brazil shared the co ncerns raised by the United States.  
97. China requested the European Communities to delay the regulation's implementation until 
1 May 2005.  Australia stated that without clarif ications and equivalence determinations, it would 
have difficulty in complying by 1 May 2003 and might seek a delay in the full implementation of the regulation.  Canada stated that it did not see how pr actical implementation of this regulation would be 
possible by 1 May 2003 and was of the view th at a delay in implementation was warranted and 
required. 
98. The European Communities stated that the objectives of the draft regulation were to ban the 
recycling of dead animals, offer alternatives to denaturation, take account of environmental 
requirements, control traceability of sub-products and simplify the patchwork of existing legislation.  
Information meetings on 13 Nove mber 2002 and 28 March 2003 were or ganized and an explanatory 
document had been produced.  The measures were b ased on solid science, even though no formal risk 
assessment had been conducted for each chapter of  the text, and the European Communities were 
willing to make all relevant inform ation available to trading partners.  Certain EC member States and 
third countries had expressed concern over the date of entry into force of the regulation.  As a result, 
the European Commission was studying transitiona l arrangements which would enable temporary 
flexibility on certain provisions.  Any temporary fl exibility or new measures on certification of third 
country products would be decided on and notif ied to WTO Members with a new deadline for 
comment.  
99. In June 2003, China reported that it had subm itted comments on the EC regulation on animal 
by-products but had not received any reply.  China would need a transitional period of two years to 
adjust.  The United States stated that concerns raised at the last SPS Committee meeting were still 
valid.  The European Communities confirmed that  comments made by China would be carefully 
examined and that China would receive a response.  The European Communities would take a flexible 
view on transitional measures for third countries. 
100. In October 2003, the United States reported that despite bilateral techni cal discussions and the 
lack of scientific risk assessments, disruption of US exports of pet food was likely.  Canada welcomed 
the decision to postpone implementation of the regul ation for third parties beyond 1 May 2003.  EC 
member States benefited from 16 tr ansitional measures to allow them to adjust to the new regulations,  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 23 
 
 
 and Canada asked to also benefit from such tran sitional measures.  China requested a transitional 
review of the regulation and c ontinued bilateral discussions. 
101. The European Communities explained that tran sitional measures had been adopted for EC 
members States and additional time for compliance for all third parties allowed until 31 December 
2003 (EC 1812/2003).  Certification of imports had been reviewed and notified.  The European 
Communities had decided to offer targeted transitio nal measures to third co untries on a case-by-case 
basis.   A technical agreement, based on comme nts received from Australia, Canada, China and the 
United States, would be notified shortly.  The Eu ropean Communities were awaiting the conclusions 
of a scientific review to produce the risk assessme nt which would be available in February 2004. 
102. In March 2004, the United States expressed con tinued concern over the negative trade impact 
of EC regulation 1774/2002 which entered into for ce on 1 May 2004.  This regulation was notified as 
G/SPS/N/EEC/103 but questions on its implemen tation remained even though the European 
Communities had granted a one-year delay in its enfo rcement.  The European Communities had yet to 
publish the final text of the regulation and the US request for a risk analysis had gone unanswered. 
The European Communities were asked to clarify the remaining implementation questions and to 
delay enforcement of the regulation.  Canada shar ed the concerns of the United States and requested 
the European Communities to provide information on its plans to formally adopt the derogations as 
well as provide details of any othe r transitional measures that had been or would be granted to third 
countries. 
103. The European Communities recalled that the im plementation of transitional measures were 
announced in the June 2003 Committee meeting and introduced new provisions that required EC 
member States to provisionally accept imports from thir d countries.  With regards to the risk analysis, 
a report would be available at the end of Marc h.  The second postponement of EC regulation 
268/2002 and delayed implementation of EC regulation 1674 should enab le trading partners to adapt 
to new conditions for certification of imports into the European Comm unities.  The European 
Communities was also studying the possibility of adopting measures regulating the use of gelatine, 
collagen and other products destined exclusively fo r technical and industrial applications and banning 
their use in food, cosmetic, pharmaceutical and me dical products.  A draft bill had been submitted to 
the permanent committee this week and the Europ ean Communities would keep the United States and 
Canada updated on this issue. 
104. In June 2004, the United States commented that EC Regulation No. 1774 imposed new 
requirements on gelatine, tallow, pet food, yellow grease and other animal by-products not intended 
for human consumption.  This regulation had been  implemented on 15 June 2004, although product 
could arrive in the European Communities as late  as 15 August 2004.  Consultations had lead to 
derogations on hide, skins and tallow but the Unite d States continued to be concerned about other 
provisions of the regulation, particularly those related to pet food and yellow grease.  Canada 
expressed satisfaction that the European Comm unities had adopted two transitional measures 
requested by Canada.  Since these complicated re gulations had been put in place, the European 
authorities had indicated that a flexible enforcem ent strategy would be implemented until 15 August 
2004.  Although no problems had yet been reported by  Canadian exporters, problems could arise with 
the end of "soft" enforcement in August. 
105. The European Communities stat ed that based upon on-going consultations with the United 
States and Canada, the regulations were modified to  include justified exemptions.  The EC regulation 
allowed cooking oils (yellow grease) to be used fo r animal feed only when they came from the food 
industry and only when a reliable system of traceab ility had been established.  Imported used cooking 
oils intended for technical purposes remained author ized without restriction.  The use of animal 
carcasses judged unfit for human consumption in pe t food had been prohibited based upon scientific 
information which indicated that the BSE epidemic  had spread through recycling of infected bovine G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 24  
 
 material in bovine feed.  A waiver had been implem ented for the use of wild fish protein for feed for 
fish in fish farms.  The European Communities indicated a willingness to discuss implementation of 
this regulation with Members concerned about potential trade restrictions.  
Other Animal Health Concerns  
22. European Communities – Notification G/SPS/ N/EEC/208 on sanitary conditions for the 
importation of live material for apiculture 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Australia, New Zealand, United States 
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, pa ras. 42-44), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 
56-58), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, par as. 27-29), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, 
paras. 51-52) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/208 and Add.1, G/SPS/N/ARG/71 
Solution: Not reported 
 106. Argentina stated it recognized the need to minimize the risks of introducing pests of 
apiculture and that it had its own measures (G /SPS/N/ARG/71).  However, the EC measure, which 
restricted the importation of queen bees and accompanying working bees from third countries, was 
unjustified.  The EC measure required exporting count ries to prove that they were free of the small 
hive beetle ( Aethina tumida ) and of the Tropilaelaps  mite.  Argentina was free from the pests and 
considered the EC response to its comments unsa tisfactory.  Argentina requested the European 
Communities to defer implementation of the measure. 
107. The United States expected that the new regula tion would take into account disease free areas, 
for example, Hawaii was free from the two pests.  Au stralia supported the US position and stated that 
the EC proposed requirement was unreasonable and n eeded to take into account disease free status.  
New Zealand supported the comments made by Argentina, the United States and Australia. 
108. The European Communities stated that the first no tification was of a draft decision to restrict 
the importation of queen bees and their escorts to st op the introduction of the two parasites.  These 
two parasites, although not included on the OIE list,  posed a serious risk as they damaged hives and 
caused economic losses.  Comments from Members ha d been taken into account and amendments to 
the measure had been notified.  Disease free zone s and health certificates covering these two pests 
would enable the safe import of b ees into the Europ ean Communities. 
109. In March 2004, Argentina reiterated that the presence of the small hive beetle ( Aethina 
tumida ) and the Tropilaelaps  mite had not been reported in Ar gentina.  The European Communities 
had not taken into consideration the differing sanita ry status of exporting countries creating export 
challenges for those countries that did not have the tw o pests.  A bilateral meeting with the European 
Communities was held on 16 March 2004 to seek a pr actical solution to this problem.  The United 
States requested the European Comm unities to consider the fact that the state of Hawaii was free from 
the two concerned pests.   
110. The European Communities indicated that the tw o pests of concern were very difficult to 
eradicate once introduced into a te rritory because the treatments were difficult to implement, were not 
very effective, and left pesticid e residues in the honey.  The small Tropilaelaps  mite, which 
transformed into a flying insect in the adult stage a nd could fly up to six ki lometres per day, could 
have devastating effects on honey and other agricultu ral production.  The propos ed measures were not 
disproportionate to the risks.  Bees could be allowed from third countries or from regions of third 
countries that had a competent veterinary service approved by the European Communities and where  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 25 
 
 
 the existence of the two pests was required to be notified.  The bees must also be accompanied by a 
sanitary certificate issued by the competent author ity declaring that the bees came from within a 30-
kilometre radius of the beehive and that this area was free of the two pests.  Argentina satisfied these 
two conditions.  During bilateral consultations with Argentina, pr actical problems faced by Argentina 
in the implementation of the control measures had been identified and the European Communities had 
agreed to find alternative solutions to these problems. 
111. In June 2004, Argentina stated that the requireme nts that hives should be subject to official 
check at the point of destination and queens tran sferred to new locations were not supported by 
scientific justification.  Documentation confirming the absence of the concerned pests in Argentina 
had been provided to the European Communities and Argentina hoped that an upcoming bilateral 
meeting with the European Communities would resolv e this issue.  Australia and the United States 
also expressed concerns about the appropriateness of the EC measure.  Australia considered that the 
measures were inappropriate for the management of the small hive beetle.  The United States reported 
that honey bee exports from Hawaii to the Europ ean Communities had been halted, although the state 
of Hawaii was free of many of the pests covered by  this measure.  The certification requirements for 
honey bees from Hawaii should be modified to re flect the conditions there.  The European 
Communities recalled that these rules had been introdu ced to preserve the parasite free status of honey 
bees in the European Union.  Th e European Communities was prepared  to review the legislation and 
border measures of Argentina and other countries, wh en documentation had been provided, in order to 
assess the possibility of instituting joint measures. 
112. In October 2004, Argentina reported that studies confirming the absence of the parasites  in 
the main exporting regions were made available to  the European Communities and the final version 
would be submitted to the OIE.  Despite having  taken these measures, tr ade in queen bees from 
Argentina was still restricted.  Argentina urged th e European Communities for a prompt resolution of 
the issue as trade in queen bees was a seasonal activ ity.  The European Co mmunities stated that 
bilateral discussions were held with Argentin a where it was explained that these measures were 
adopted to prevent the introduction of two particular b ee parasites that were of serious risk to the EC 
bee population.  The recent interception of a contaminated shipment from Portugal justified the protective measures adopted by the European Comm unities.  Although Argentina had submitted eight 
reports, the European Communities were still not satis fied that Argentina's measures were sufficient 
to guarantee a parasite-free status.  The reports did not indicate how particular geographical and 
climatic conditions would permit regionalizing the province of Buenos Aires.  The European 
Communities were not in a position at this time to  relax controls on bee imports from Argentina.  
Information received by the European Communities i ndicated that exports of Argentine bees were not 
affected during the 2004 season.  However, the Eur opean Communities were prepared to discuss the 
impact of its measures on international trade with Argentina. 
Plant Health 
23. European Communities - Citrus canker 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Brazil, Chile, South Africa, Uruguay 
Dates raised: July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, paras.  30-31), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras. 6-8), 
June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras. 31-33) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/46, G/SPS/N/EEC/47, G/SPS/GEN/21, G/SPS/GEN/26 
Solution: Resolved 
 113. In July 1997, Argentina requested bilateral consultations with EC experts on the proposed 
measure on citrus canker, and that the measure be  suspended during these cons ultations.  South Africa G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 26  
 
 requested that the European Communities reassess its measures in light of the fact that South Africa 
was free from citrus canker.  The European Commun ities noted that it was preparing a response to the 
Argentine concern, and was open to consultations w ith interested parties.  The European Communities 
was moving from a system with internal restrictio ns in the production areas of Italy, Greece and 
Corsica to a truly single market with free movement of goods.  With no restriction on internal 
movement of fruit, and considering the risk of introduction and the relate d economic consequences, 
alternative protection for the main producing areas had to be considered.  This included monitoring 
requirements in the exporting country, treatment  and certification. The European Communities 
considered that its measures were based on science and minimized trade effects. 
114. In March 1998, the European Communities re ported that, in response to constructive 
consultations organized by the Chairman and invo lving Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Brazil and South 
Africa, the measure had been revised and subseque ntly adopted.  The revised text included the 
possibility for recognition of equivalent certificati on systems.  Argentina agreed, but noted that 
negotiations on equivalence were not yet finished. 
115. In June 1998, the European Communities indicated  that it had come to the conclusion that, for 
the time being, Argentina could not objectively dem onstrate the equivalence of its control measures 
with EC requirements.  Argentina requested info rmation on the risk assessment undertaken by the 
European Communities. 
116. In March 2004, Argentina reported that the i ssue had been resolved with the European 
Communities. 
 
24. European Communities – Deviation from international standard for wood packing 
material 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada, China, Mexico, Philippines 
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 30-37) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution:  Not reported 
117. The United States expressed concerns over EC Directive 2004/102 which affected the 
importation of wood packing material.  The Directiv e required the debarking of wood used in packing 
material in addition to the heat and fumigation treatment prescribed by ISPM 15.  During the 
development of ISMP 15, IPPC Members concluded that there was insufficien t scientific evidence to 
justify the debarking requirement as an additi onal risk management measure.  The debarking 
requirement would disrupt trade and undermine effo rts to increase international harmonization.  The 
European Communities were requested to reconsider  its measures or postpone the implementation of 
the debarking requirements until scientific justification was available. 
118. New Zealand stated that countries or regions should not adopt unilateral measures for wood 
packing material that would cause the disruption of the global implementation of ISPM 15.  However, 
there might be technical justifications for requiring bark-free ISPM 15 compliant wood packing 
material.  Canada shared the concerns of the United States on the importance of achieving 
harmonization.  ISPM 15 allowed for the introduc tion of debarking requirements only where it could 
be scientifically justified.  The issue of debark ing was under review by the international forestry 
quarantine research group.  The European Comm unities and those countries introducing debarking 
requirements were requested to reconsider their measures until the completion of the international 
review.  China, Mexico and the Philippines shar ed the concerns of th e United States and urged  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 27 
 
 
 Members not to apply measures in excess of ISPM 15 in the absence of any scientific justification.  
Chile stated that its measures were under pub lic consultation and it welcomed comments from 
Members. 
119. The European Communities stat ed that EC Directive 2000/29 was adopted on 5 October 
2004, establishing protective measures against the introduction and spread  of harmful organisms to 
plant and plant products into the European Co mmunities.  These measures were notified on 10 
November 2003 and would enter into force on 1 March 2005.  There was some flexibility in the requirements for markings as specified in Annex 2 of ISPM 15 and in the conditions required for 
dunnage.  For wood packing material manufactured, re paired or recycled before 28 February 2005, 
the requirements for the markings would not co me into effect until 31 December 2007.  The 
requirements for dunnage (except wood less than 6 mm thick) and processed wood would not come 
into effect until 31 December 2007.  These products could be made from debarked wood that was free 
from pests. These requirements were included to ensu re protection against future infestation or re-
infestation once treatment had been completed.  The current regulations were being considered by EC 
authorities in Brussels and the Committee would be informed of any changes. 
Other Concerns 25. European Communities - Agricultural biotechnology approval process 
Raised by: United States  
Supported by: Canada, Argentina, Australia, Philippines 
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, pa ras. 102-105), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, 
paras. 33-35), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/ 27, paras. 56-57), November 2002 
(G/SPS/R/28, paras. 69-72); WT/DS 291/24, WT/DS292/18, WT/DS293/18 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: DSB Panel established Au gust 2003, constituted March 2004 
120. The United States expressed concern regarding th e lack of a functioning approval process in 
the European Communities for agricultural bi otechnology products.  Since 1998, a de facto 
moratorium on approval of biotechnology products  had been in place.  The United Stated believed 
that under the SPS Agreement the European Communities was obligated to have a functioning 
approval process and decisions on pending applications  should not be delayed.  The United States 
urged the European Commission to restart the approval process as soon as possible.  Canada was concerned that the European Communities was funda mentally altering the regulation of agriculture 
and food products to discriminate on the basis of how a product was produced rather than the product's characteristics.  Canada also considered th e proposed new EC regulations to be arbitrary, as 
they required labelling for highly re fined products, such as oil that did not contain detectable DNA or 
protein, while not requiring similar controls on  products that could present equal risk but were 
produced with other methods of development such as mutation breeding or mutagenesis.  Moreover, 
the proposed regulations discriminated against pr oducts produced from genetically modified products, 
but not against products produced with genetically  modified organisms such as cheese and wine.  
Canada argued that the proposed regulations were  not commensurate with the risks and lacked 
scientific basis.  Furthermore, the proposed re gulations were fundamentally unworkable, as 
demonstrated by the one per cent threshold for the adventitious presence of GMOs.   
121. The European Commission reaffirmed its inter est and positive actions aimed at allowing the 
authorization procedures to continue.  The recent meeting of the European Environment Council had 
started a very important discussion on proposals presented by the Commission to restart the 
authorization procedure. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 28  
 
 122. In March 2002, the United States reported that no progress had been made on the EC approval 
system despite statements by various Commission officials.  The de facto moratorium had resulted in the loss of over $200 million per year in US agri cultural exports.  New information given by 
Commission officials in February 2002 that the a pproval process would be restarted later in 2002 was 
welcome.  Frustration in US commercial and political  circles continued to increase.  While the United 
States welcomed the establishment of the European Food Safety Authority, this did not address the 
fundamental problem of individual EC member States holding the approval process hostage to political concerns, with disregard for science and sound regulatory decision-making.  Canada 
supported the US comments and noted that the Marc h 1998 EC moratorium represented a de facto ban 
on a wide range of products.  As such it violated not  just the SPS Agreement, but also Article XI of 
the GATT.  Argentina echoed the concerns e xpressed by the United States and Canada.  
123. The European Communities noted the absence of procedures at the international level for 
approval of these types of products.  The European  Communities was following closely the work of 
the Codex ad hoc Taskforce on Biotechnology.  Consid erable efforts had been made to put together a 
consistent body of legislation to set up an authorization procedure for products resulting from 
biotechnology, with the aim of giving the producer legal certainty and transparency.  The newly 
established EC Food Safety Authority was responsib le for risk assessment and risk communication, 
but further time was needed to complete work by th e European Parliament and the member States.   
124. In June 2002, the United States indicated their fru stration with the situation and noted that it 
was considering what steps to pursue.  Canada ob served that the EC moratorium essentially operated 
as a ban on imports of certain products for over four years, without any scientific basis.  The 
moratorium resulted in trade disruptions and discrimination based on pr oduction methods without 
regard to the assessment of risks.  Canada consider ed the EC moratorium to be inconsistent with the 
SPS Agreement and the GATT, and requested the Eu ropean Communities to put in place a science-
based approval process, as well as to consider alternative measures.  The European Communities 
replied that the matter was followi ng political procedures as previously  described.  At this time, the 
European Parliament was considering the matter, and the Council of Ministers should examine the 
documents in the coming months.  Internal pro cedures had to be followed to apply the proposed 
Directive. 
125. In November 2002, the United States stated that the EC moratorium had resulted in 
approximately 1 billion dollars loss of US exports  to the European Comm unities.  Even senior 
European Commission officials had publicly stated  that the moratorium was illegal.  The United 
States indicated that despite the recent adoption of EC Directive 01/18, the moratorium remained in 
place and trade continued to be blocked.  The United States was of the view that the Commission had the authority and the power to act in the face of this  illegal moratorium and it had chosen not to do so.  
The Commission's failure to take action on this i ssue was a matter of growing concern to the United 
States.  Canada shared the concerns expressed by the United States and regretted the inability of the 
European authorities to take steps to ensure that EC  member States met their SPS obligations.  Canada 
called upon the European Communities to lift the moratorium as soon as possible. 
126. Australia supported the views expressed by the United States and Canada about the lack of 
scientific basis for the EC moratorium.  Australia was also concerned about the EC related proposals 
on genetically modified food and feed, and the tr aceability and labelling of genetically modified 
organisms (GMOs).  Australia requested further in formation as to whether the European Communities 
had conducted a science-based risk assessment for its traceability regulations or based its measure on 
an international standard.  The European Communities had confirmed in their previous responses that 
the research undertaken had confirmed that those GM  foods and GM plants and derived products so 
far developed and marketed following usual risk as sessment procedures had not shown any new risk 
to human health or the environment, beyond the us ual uncertainties of conventional plant breeding, or 
risks that were likely to put in danger the chosen level of health or environmental protection in the  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 29 
 
 
 European Communities.  Given this explanation, Aust ralia requested further clarification as to how, in 
the absence of an identifiable risk to human h ealth, the proposed traceability system met SPS 
requirements.  
127. The Philippines shared the concerns expressed  by the United States and reiterated his 
country's position regarding traceability of GMOs.  The Philippines noted that the European 
Communities had failed to demonstrate any scientific  evidence that GMOs were not as safe as their 
conventional counterparts, and that there were not less trade restrictive measu res available to manage 
the risk.  
128. The European Communities noted that the Commi ssion and the EC member States remained 
determined to put in place a regulatory framework to allow GMO and GM products to be marketed 
freely within the European Commun ities and noted that the progress had been made in that respect.  
The European Communities requested patience an d understanding on this very sensitive dossier 
which was being dealt with at the highest  level within the European Communities. 
 
HUNGARY 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY HUNGARY  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to TSEs 
 
26. Hungary - Restrictions on bovine products 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 16-17) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/230 
Solution: Resolved 
129. Canada indicated that Hungary had suspended imports of all bovine products from Canada 
due to fears over BSE, although Canada was BSE -free and BSE could not be transmitted by bovine 
semen.  Canada was willing to continue working w ith the Hungarian authorities to resolve this matter 
as quickly as possible.  The United States drew attention to the OIE document (G/SPS/GEN/230) 
which listed products that were sa fe from BSE and encouraged Memb ers to review their measures 
accordingly.  Hungary reported that since several  Members had recently imposed import bans on 
certain BSE-free countries, Hungarian consumers had begun to question the safety of animals and 
products from these countries.  Hungarian authoriti es had made prion tests a mandatory condition for 
veterinary import licenses for live cattle, fresh meats and non-heat-treated products of bovine origin.  
Bovine semen was not subject to the import restrictions. 
130. In September 2004, Canada reported that the issue of Hungary's restrictions on bovine 
products had been resolved. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 30  
 
 27. Hungary - Restrictions on  pork products 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 31-32) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Resolved 
131. Canada reported that as of Ja nuary 2001, Hungarian importers of pork products from Canada 
had not been able to obtain import certificates from Hungary's veterinary services.  A similar disruption had occurred the previous year, and had been resolved through bilateral discussion.  
Canada asked Hungary to resume issuing import permits, or to provide a legitimate scientific 
justification for the measure.  Hungary refe rred to fears over BSE transmission and cross-
contamination of foodstuffs, and w as willing to enter into bilateral consultations on the matter.  
Canada requested clarification on the relevance of  feed cross-contamination to the importation of 
frozen pork. 
132. In September 2004, Canada reporte d that the issue of Hungary's  restrictions on pork products 
had been resolved. 
 ICELAND C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ICELAND  
Food Safety 28. Iceland - Notification on meat and meat products  
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2000 (G/SPS/R/18, para. 27) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ISL/1 
Solution: Resolved 
 
133. Argentina expressed interest in the notifica tion of this measure permitting meat imports 
without heat treatment into Iceland since it appear ed to open the market to higher quality beef, 
although this was not entirely clear from the notifi cation.  Iceland confirmed that meat could be 
imported without heat treatment, provided all n ecessary certificates and documents were submitted. 
134. In March 2004, Argentina reported that the issu e of Iceland's notification on meat and meat 
products had been resolved.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 31 
 
 
 INDIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDIA  
Food Safety 29. India – Ban on food grade wax 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 38-39) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution:  Not reported 
 
135. The United States stated that on 13 August 2003, India's Ministry of Health and Family 
Welfare published gazette notification GSR 656 am ending the 1955 Prevention of Food Adulteration 
Act by prohibiting the sale of fresh fruits and vegetabl es coated with waxes, mineral oils and colours.  
This amendment threatened US horticultural exports to India and was not notified to the WTO.  The 
new requirements exceeded those of the Codex and were adopted without scientific justification.  
Furthermore, the long shipping journey to India's ports meant that the export of US fruits and vegetables without waxing was not a viable alternat ive.  Waxing was an essential treatment required 
to maintain shelf life.  India was requested to no tify this measure to the WTO so that Members could 
have the opportunity to comment on the regulations. 
136. India replied that the measure in question ha d earlier been published in draft form in the 
Ministry of Health notification GSR 852 on 30 Dece mber 2002, inviting comments from all interested 
parties.  The current measure was in force due to  increasing incidents of the use of unsafe wax and 
adulteration of food with harmful chemicals.  This was also a problem with domestic food traders and 
vendors.  This issue of wax coating of fruits and vegetables was being examined by an expert group 
under the auspices of the Ministry of Health. 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Other Animal Health Concerns  30. India - Restrictions due to avian influenza 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras.  18-20), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 42-
43), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 59-60) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/IND/13/Add.1, G/SPS/N/IND/14 
Solution:  Not reported 
 
137. The European Communities rai sed concerns on measures applied by India on 3 March 2004 
on imports of live birds, fresh poultry meat and meat  products due to avian influenza.  These measures 
were not notified as required by the SPS Agreement.   In addition, India's restrictions were 
disproportionate to the health risks associated w ith imports from the European Communities since the 
European Communities were free of the highly pathogeni c avian influenza.  India was requested to lift 
the restrictions on EC products.  The United States sh ared the concerns of the European Communities.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 32  
 
 138. India explained that restrictions on poultry im ports were temporary measures to address the 
emerging threat of introduction of highly pathogeni c avian influenza.  The measures were intended to 
protect farmers for whom poultry production was an essential source of income.  Delays in the 
reporting of outbreaks increased the risk of the viru s spreading into other countries.  In addition, 
infected poultry did not always exhibit clinical signs  of the disease.  Once intr oduced into the country, 
the disease would be impossible to control.  In dia was taking all measures necessary to gather 
information on efforts to contain the disease gl obally and welcomed information from exporting 
Members who were free of the disease. 
139. In June 2004, the European Communities stated th at India continued to apply import bans on 
a range of poultry products from several countries al legedly in response to highly pathenogenic avian 
influenza.  India was requested to review the cu rrent ban and lift all rest rictions on poultry products 
from the European Communities.  India responded that the measures prohibiting poultry and poultry 
products had been implemented as temporary measur es.  New outbreaks of highly pathenogenic avian 
influenza in WTO Members, but not within the te rritories of the European Communities, had been 
reported as recently as 4 June 2004.  Since poultry production in India was typically a family-run 
business, Indian authorities were particularly con cerned about potential hu man development of the 
disease.   
140. In October 2004, the European Co mmunities stated that India had issued two notifications, on 
7 July and on 6 August, informing Members of th e relaxation of the ban fo r a range of products.  
However, the ban was disproportionate to the risk, had no scientific basis and should be confined to 
regions affected by the disease following OIE guidelines and recommendations.  India was requested 
to review its ban and bring its me asures into conformity with the SPS Agreement.  India stated that 
the ban was a temporary measure which was enfo rced due to the outbreak of avian influenza 
throughout the world.  The situati on had been under constant review since the imposition of the ban in 
February 2004.  The ban on imports of poultry w ith vaccination and specific pathogen free eggs was 
lifted in July 2004.  A subsequent review by an expert group resulted in the continuation of the ban on 
imports of certain products such as live and raw poultry and pig meat.  Processed products from HPAI 
infected countries were allowed into India, however , and the situation continued to be monitored.  
Plant Health 
31. India – Phytosanitary import restrictions 
Raised by: United States, European Communities 
Supported by: European Communiti es, Canada, Chile, New Zealand 
Dates raised: March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras.  23-31), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 22-
24), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 45-46) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/IND/12 and Add.1 
Solution:  Amendments to Plant Quarantine Order 2003 regarding solid wood 
packaging 
 141. The United States expressed concerns over India's new fumigation requirements which 
entered into force on 1 January and 6 February 2004.   These regulations were not notified to the WTO 
until 4 March 2004 as G/SPS/N/IND/12 and Members did not have an oppor tunity to provide 
comments.  With respect to almonds, phoshpine had b een an effective treatment to control pests of 
concern to India prior to the imposition of the new regulations.  This treatment was supported by scientific literature that had been presented to India for examination.  India was requested to revise its 
measures accordingly.  With regards to solid wood packing, India's measures deviated substantially 
from international standard ISPM 15, particularly  in relation to requirements for physotsanitary 
documentation and the lack of scientific justification for treatment requirements.  Under the new  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 33 
 
 
 regulation, both the consignment and packing mate rial were to be treated and by implication, 
untreated consignments, or those without phytosan itary certification would not be allowed to enter 
India.  Furthermore, India's requirement that packi ng material be treated with methyl bromide for 32 
hours exceeded ISPM 15 requirement of 16 hours.  India was requested to provide scientific justification for this divergence or  revise its measures accordingly. 
142. The European Communities rejected India's claim that these measures conformed to 
international standards and therefore did not have to be notified.  The lapse of two months in notifying 
the WTO after implementation of the measures deni ed countries the opportunity to comment on them.  
The European Communities requested India to defe r the implementation of the new measures until the 
normal 60-day comment period expired.  Canada sh ared the concern about the lack of adequate 
comment period and stated that Canada became aw are of the new requirements when its pulse exports 
to India were rejected. India had temporarily agreed to accept Canadian pulse shipments without 
fumigation until 30 April 2004.  However, India's re fusal to consider alternatives to fumigation 
treatment was unacceptable, given that Canada's climate made fumigation unnecessary.  Furthermore, Canada had been free of the relevant pests for 20 years and had been shipping products to India for 
several years without problems.  Canada urged Indi a to use the least trade-restrictive measures as 
stipulated in the SPS Agreement.  Chile and Ne w Zealand shared the concerns expressed by the 
previous countries above, particularly those rela ted to certification requirements and the lack of 
adequate comment period. 
143. India explained that the Plant Quarantine Order was intended to simplify India's existing plant 
quarantine regime, which previously had multiple instruments, including the Destructive Insect and 
Pest Act of 1914 and Order 1989 regulating imports of cotton, plants, fruits and seeds into India.  The 
new Order repealed and replaced th ese instruments and filled a gap in  the old plant quarantine orders, 
particularly related to emerging global agricultural trade issues such as GMOs, germplasm, transgenic 
plant material, live insects, fungi and bio-control ag ents.  The Plant Quarantine Order of 18 November 
2003, came into force on 1 January 2004 and the app lication of some provisi ons deferred to 1 April 
2004.  The regulations were made available on th e website immediately after its publication and a 
number of India's trading partners had sought clar ification bilaterally.  The Plant Quarantine Order 
was amended on 6 February 2004 to increase clarity  and take account of Member's concerns.   
144. With respect to the US concerns, phosphine fu migation was useful for quality control but was 
not an effective treatment against quarantine pests in  almonds.  Nevertheless, India agreed to examine 
the research papers presented by the United Stat es and requested that Members send their comments 
on the issue.  On the issue of so lid wood packing, India required treatment of the whole consignment 
if it contained agricultural produce but would accept treatment according to ISPM 15 otherwise.  Phytosanitary certificates were required if the expor ting country had not followed ISPM 15 treatment 
requirements.  With regards to Canada's concerns , the new Order contained a temporary provision for 
the relaxation of specific conditions if problems ar ose in the clearance of consignments.  Canadian 
pulse consignments imported between 31 Decemb er 2003 and 30 April 2004 would be cleared and 
this decision was also extended to all trading part ners.  While the new regulations were based on 
scientific principles, India agreed to consider alte rnative measures proposed by Canada if they could 
be proven to be effective.  India had notifie d the WTO of these measures on 4 March 2004 and the 
final date for comment was 30 April 2004. 
145. In June 2004, the European Communities raised concerns about India's import restrictions 
related to plant quarantine.  Wh ile India had amended the wood p ackaging part of these measures and 
brought them into line with international standards,  concerns remained about a range of other existing 
measures that had negative trade impacts.  India ha d not produced scientific information to justify 
these measures.  The European Communities understood that according to India's regulatory approach 
in this area many types of products were banned be fore PRAs were conducted to determine if a ban 
was justified.  Since no international standards ex isted for many of the banned products, India should G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 34  
 
 conduct a PRA prior to implementing a measure as  required by the SPS Agreement.  Canada, New 
Zealand and the United States echoed the EC concerns .  Both Canada and New Zealand stressed that 
Members had not had an opportunity to comment on these measures, and indicated that their authorities were engaged in bilateral discussions w ith India to seek a resolution to this issue. 
146. India stated that it had delayed implemen tation of these measures until the comments on 
G/SPS/N/IND/12 could be considered.  The Mini stry of Agriculture had also discussed the 
phytosanitary concerns of other Members on a bilate ral basis, and in some cases had provided short-
term solutions to the issues.  For example, India had accepted all import consignments of plant and plant materials until 30 June 2004 to provide ample adjustment period to exporting Members.  Some 
of the provisions of the Plant Quarantine Order 2003 had already been amended, including those on 
treatment of solid wood packaging materials, and these amendments had been notified to the 
Secretariat.  
147. In October 2004, the United States recalled th at India’s requirements for methyl bromide 
fumigation for numerous products from the United Stat es was raised in the l ast Committee meeting.  
The fumigation requirements were adopted in November 2003, but were notified only in 
January 2004, two months after the measure had come  into force.  Bilateral discussions were held 
with India where it was agreed that US alm onds would be allowed under the previous import 
requirements until June 2005.  Phosphine was a proven and effective treatment for quarantine and 
storage pests associated with almonds.  None theless, the United States was conducting further 
research to develop long-term solutions to address India’s concerns.  India replied that the United 
States had provided information and data on the effi cacy of phosphine as a fumigant.  However, until 
field data was available, US almonds would be allo wed into India subject to fumigation at the port of 
entry. 
Other Concerns 
32. India – Non-notification of various SPS measures 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, European Communities, New Zealand 
Dates raised: June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras.  52-54), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 
80-82) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/R/33 (paras. 23-31) 
Solution:  Not reported 
 
148. The United States indicated that India's non-notification, or late notification, of SPS measures  
had created unnecessary trade disruptions and an uncertain environment for trade.  India was 
requested to comply with obligations under the SPS Agreement by notifying all its SPS measures to 
the WTO and providing a reasonable period of time for Members to review and comment on the notifications.  Australia, the European Communities and New Zealand shared the concerns raised by 
the United States.  India stated that it attached gr eat importance to the issue of transparency.  With 
respect to India's Plant Quarantine Order 2003, statem ents had already been provided to the European 
Communities and the issue had been discussed at th e March Committee meeting.  India had notified 
the measure on 4 March 2004 with a 60-day comment  period and had ensured that trade was not 
restricted because of the lack of timeliness of the notification.  
149. In October 2004, the United States expressed continued concern over India's non-notification 
of measures which created uncertainty among US exporters.  India was requested to notify its SPS 
measures and to allow a reasonable period of time for comment.  The European Communities shared 
the concerns of the United States and at the sa me time urged all Members to notify their SPS  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 35 
 
 
 measures.  A bilateral meeting had been held with India and the European Communities were 
optimistic of improvements in India's transparency ob ligations.  India stated that it would ensure that 
it complied with its obligations. 
 
INDONESIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to FMD 33. Indonesia – Import restrictions on dairy products  
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras.  17-18), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 
54-55), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, para s. 72-73), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, 
paras. 43), ), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 50-51) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally, G/SPS/GEN/324 
Solution: Resolved 
 
150. Argentina stated that as a result of the outbreak of FMD in 2001, Indonesia had banned 
imports of milk products, incons istent with the SPS Agreement and OIE guidelines.  The OIE Code 
stipulated that milk products be accepted if the sanitary authority of the exporting country certified 
that the necessary requirements had been introduced .  Indonesian had not provided the opportunity for 
the Argentine National Agriculture and Food Qualit y and Health Service (SENASA) to certify the 
requirements set forth by the OIE.  Indonesia indicated that import restrictions imposed on Argentina 
due to FMD only applied to fresh milk.  Other da iry products, including skimmed milk, cream, butter, 
cheese and yoghurt, were not restricted.  Restrictions on fresh milk were based on the fact that Argentina was not listed by the OIE as a country with zones free of FMD. 
151. In November 2002, Argentina indicated that some practical difficulties still impeded 
Argentine dairy products, other than liquid milk, from entering Indonesia.  Indonesia reported that as 
Argentina fulfilled the first provisions a questionn aire which would provided to them, Indonesia 
would send an inspection team to Argentina.  Indonesia hoped that this would lead to a resolution of the problem.   
152. In April 2003, Argentina reported that it ha d completed the questionnaire and extended an 
invitation to Indonesia but Indonesia had not yet sent an inspection team.  Restrictions on imports of 
Argentine milk remained and Argentina requested  clarification from Indonesia.  Indonesia recalled 
that a questionnaire had been sent to Argentina on 27 January 2003.  Out of five plants in Argentina, 
only one had the necessary controls.  If Argent ina could provide information on its control 
programmes, an investigating officer would be sent to conduct an on-site review of the plants in 
Argentina.  Indonesia was confident that furthe r bilateral efforts would resolve this issue. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 36  
 
 153. In June 2003, Argentina reporte d that good progress had been made toward the resolution of 
the problem.  Indonesia confirmed that the bilatera l consultations had led to an agreement to send 
Indonesian inspectors to Argentina. 
154. In March 2004, Argentina informed Members th at Indonesian officials had conducted a risk 
analysis on Argentine dairy produc ts and concluded that Argentina's exports did not pose a FMD 
threat.  Restrictions on Argentina were lifted a nd this issue was considered resolved.  Indonesia 
reported that an inspection team from Indonesia had visited Argentina on 12-20 January 2004 and 
Argentina's monitoring system with respect to FMD was found to be satisfactory.  Two of the five 
plants inspected met Indonesia's requirements and were eligible to export milk powder to Indonesia as 
long as they continued to meet the OIE recommendations and guidelines. 
34. Indonesia - FMD restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Brazil 
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras.  92-93) (see also #8 5 ), October 2003 
(G/SPS/R/31, paras. 35-36), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 34-35), October 
2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 53-55 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/240 
Solution: Not reported 
 155. Argentina noted it had raised concerns about  Indonesia's FMD restrictions on certain 
products.  Although Indonesia had info rmed Argentina that certain products had been re-classified, 
the changes had not been implemented and Ar gentina was still unable to export the products 
concerned, mainly vegetables and corn.  Indonesia stated that the ban on Argentine corn had been 
lifted as of August 2001.  Indonesia looked forw ard to holding further bilateral discussions. 
156. In October 2003, Argentina recalled that I ndonesian restrictions went beyond the OIE 
recommendations (G/SPS/GEN/240) and included products not affected by FMD, i.e., cereals.  Argentina requested Indonesia to provide scientific  evidence to justify the measures or else lift the 
measures.  Argentina had provided documentation in an  informal bilateral meeting with Indonesia and 
proposed a visit of experts to resolve the issue.  Indonesia stated that FMD was a serious risk as 
Indonesia was free of the disease.  The ban was periodically evaluated and could be temporary.  A visit by experts from Indonesia was being consider ed.  Progress on this issue was being made in 
consultations with Argentina and the Committee would be informed. 
157. In June 2004, Argentina stated that Argentine bovine meat continued to be prohibited despite 
having made several requests to Indonesia's veterinary service.  Indonesia required that bovine 
products come from areas free from FMD for the past twelve months, and where vaccination had not 
been carried out in the previous  three consecutive years.  These measures went beyond official OIE 
recommendations.  Indonesia had not provided any scientific evidence to support these restrictive 
measures.  Indonesia noted that the matter had been discussed in bilateral meetings with Argentina.  
The importation of ruminants and ruminant products from countries with endemic status or FMD-free 
with vaccination was prohibited pending further deci sions by the Indonesian expert commissions of 
veterinary public health and animal health. 
158. In October 2004, Argentina reported that I ndonesia continued to prohibit imports of 
Argentine beef.  Indonesia was requested to comp ly with OIE recommendations or submit a risk 
analysis to justify its measures.  Brazil shared Ar gentina's concerns.  Indonesia had prohibited imports 
of soybean and soybean products from FMD-free areas with vaccination in Brazil.  Indonesia's  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 37 
 
 
 measures were inconsistent with OIE guidelines and recommendations and Article 6 of the SPS 
Agreement.   
159. Indonesia explained that any country wishing to export to Indonesia must be free of FMD and 
rudderpost as stipulated in the Indonesian Ministry of Agriculture Decree 1992.  Countries meeting these requirements were allowed to export to Indonesi a.  With respect to Argentina, imports were 
allowed when Argentina was decl ared FMD-free in 2000.  However,  imports were suspended when 
there was an outbreak of the disease.  Argentina a nd Brazil had not been declared FMD-free without 
vaccination by the OIE.  The same conditions al so applied to soybean and soybean products and 
imports would be allowed into Indonesia on ce the outbreaks were brought under control. 
 
JAPAN 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN  
Food Safety 35. Japan - Regulation on food additives 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 35-37) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
160. The European Communities indicated that a list of substances, including food additives, 
aromas, food ingredients and extract solvents, were not formally authorized by Japanese law, which 
could constitute barriers to food product exports to Japan.  Some of the additives had already been 
authorized by Japan for other purposes.  The Eur opean Communities requested Japan to approve those 
substances that had been evaluated by the Eu ropean Communities on scientific grounds, and noted 
that all of the substances had been evaluated at th e international level by the scientific committee of 
the Codex Alimentarius Commission.  The European  Communities reported that a number of bilateral 
meetings had already taken place.  The United Stat es shared the concerns expressed by the European 
Communities and urged Japan to c onsider expedited approval for these food additives that were 
commonly used and considered safe.  
161. Japan stated that it had recently enacted a new policy for evaluating the safety and the 
necessity of the use of food additives and for author izing their use.  Japanese authorities were putting 
together a list of food additives that were consider ed safe and necessary to use for certain foods.  The 
use of  food additives varied from country to countr y depending upon custom s and habits, and a 
number of food additives authorized by the Europ ean Communities were not authorized in Japan and 
vice versa.  Japan suggested further b ilateral consultations on this issue. 
162. In January 2005, Japan reported that food a dditives, including flavouring agents were 
permitted to be used only when designated by the Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare under the 
Food Sanitation Law as substances that were unlikely to cause a health hazard.  With regards to the 
use of unauthorized food additives, an application must be filed with the Minister.   
163. Furthermore, since 2002, Japan had given priority to certain food additives for authorization, 
including those proposed by the European Communities and that we re also proven safe by the 
FAO/WHO Joint Expert Committee on Food Additiv es.  The Minister had taken the necessary G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 38  
 
 procedures to hear the opinions of the Food Safety Commission (FSC) on 29 additives, including 9 
flavouring agents, for which full doc umentation had been prepared.  Of the 29 substances, 4 additives 
(including 3 flavouring agents) were designated as authorized food additives in December 2004.  This 
information was provided to the European Co mmunities at the Japan-EU Regulatory Reform 
Dialogue and at other opportunities.  In order to expedite and facilitate Japanese evaluations of the 
substances, the European Communities were request ed to provide the documentation and literature 
supporting EC scientific evaluation of the substances. 
36. Japan - Amendment of the food sanitation law 
Raised by: China 
Supported by: Korea 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 40-42) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/JPN/84, G/SPS/N/JPN/86 
Solution: Not reported 
 
164. China raised concerns over Japan's amendment of the food sanitation law and the procedures 
followed.  Japan's emergency notification (G/SPS/N/ JPN/84), issued on 18 July 2002, indicated that 
the amendment prohibiting the sale, manufacturing and import of specific food, food additives, 
apparatus and container/packages when considerab le amounts of foods were assumed not to be in 
conformity with the provisions of the Food San itation Law would enter into force on 7 September 
2002.  A related emergency notif ication had been made on 7 September 2002 (G/SPS/N/JPN/86). 
China questioned the appropriateness of the use of  emergency notifications, as Members could not 
comment before the measure had been enforced.  China requested Japan to provide the scientific 
evidence, including a risk analysis, that supported the measures taken.  Korea indicated that it had 
requested information on Japan's amendment on 3 September 2002, and were awaiting a response.  
165. Japan indicated that they had already recei ved comprehensive comments from China on the 
amendment of the food sanitation law within the fr amework of the Trade Policy Review of Japan.  
The use of the emergency notifications were in  accordance with the recommended procedures for 
transparency, however, Japan was pr epared to consider the matter further on a bilateral basis.  
166. In February 2005, Japan reported that it had responded to China's comments on notification 
G/SPS/N/JPN/86 in November 2002 and had not since received any objections from China. 
37. Japan – Notification G/SPS/N/JPN/104 on the revision of standards and specifications 
for foods and additives 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 45-46) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/JPN/104 
Solution: Not reported 
 
167. China expressed concerns over Japan's maximum residue levels (MRLs) for several pesticide 
residues, in particular MRLs for chlorpyrifos.  The limits for chlorpyrifos in spinach and other 
products were not science-based.   
168. Japan noted that answers to questions rai sed by China had been provided through the 
Japanese Embassy in China.  With regards to the MRL for spinach, this product was not included in  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 39 
 
 
 the notification.  The MRL for the 15 pesticid es were based on toxicological risk assessments 
including residue data and were no mo re stringent than Codex standards. 
169. In February 2005, Japan reported that it had not received any objections from China since 
providing responses to China's concerns in Oct ober 2003 and participating in the Japan-China 
bilateral consultations in December 2004. 
38. Japan – Notification G/SPS/N/JPN/121 on standards and specifications for food 
additives 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 70-71) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/JPN/121 
Solution: Not reported 
 
170. China raised concerns over Japan's notifica tion G/SPS/N/JPN/121 on proposed MRLs for the 
fungicide boscalid.  The products affected by the pr oposed MRL included produc ts of animal origin 
although the use of boscalid was applicable to onl y a few products such as soybean and fruits.  
Furthermore, MRLs for boscalid varied for differe nt products, e.g., the MRL for strawberries was 15 
ppm while the MRL for other products was 3.5 ppm.  Japan was requested to explain these differences 
in MRLs and to provide scientific evidence to justify the establishment of MRLs for boscalid. 
171. Japan stated that its measur es were based, in part, on the standards adopted by the US 
Environment Protection Agency (EPA) for boscalid, incl uding the products that were affected by the 
MRL.  As boscalid was a newly registered agricu ltural chemical in Japan, MRLs needed to be 
established to ensure food safety.  Domestic data was also taken into account in establishing the MRL 
and this explained why there were some differe nces in the MRLs between Japan and the United 
States.  
Plant Health 
39. Japan – Official control restrictions on citrus and other fresh fruits and vegetables 
Raised by: United States and New Zealand 
Supported by: Australia, European Communities 
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras.  27-30), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 
59-62), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, para s. 55-57), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, 
paras. 61-63), October 2003 (G/SPS /R/31, paras.19-20), March 2004 
(G/SPS/R/33, paras. 59-62), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 18-21), October 
2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 42-44) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/357 
Solution: Not reported 
 172. The United States indicated that Japan continue d to impose costly and unjustified quarantine 
actions when pests were detected on imported US fruits and vegetables, even though the same species 
were commonly found in Japan.  In many instances these actions included treatment that damaged and destroyed the commodity in question.  Japanese practices lacked a scientific basis and were 
inconsistent with IPPC standards on official cont rol and risk assessment for quarantine pests.  The 
result was an arbitrary and unpredictable system fa cing US horticultural exports to Japan.  The United 
States supported Japan's efforts to bring its plant la ws into line with international standards and hoped G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 40  
 
 that bilateral technical discussions would result in  the termination of unjustified requirements. The 
European Communities supported the US statement.   New Zealand noted concerns with Japan's 
continuing practice of fumigati ng consignments of New Zeala nd's fresh products, due to the 
interception of pests that did not meet the definition of quarantine pests under the IPPC.  
173. Japan recalled that during bilateral consultati ons with the United States in November 2001, 
the United States had requested Japan to abolish fu migation upon detection of California red scale and 
Fuller rose weevil in US produce, on the grounds that these were non-quarantine pests endemic in 
Japan.  However, California red scale was under dom estic control in Japan as a target pest of 
forecasting programmes and was therefore subject to fumigation if detected at import inspection.  Fuller rose weevil had limited detection with only three points within Japan and was under 
government-oriented control aimed at eradication.   It was not possible under these conditions to 
exclude those species from quarantine pests.  Jap an noted that they remained open to further 
consultations. 
174. In November 2002, New Zealand expressed concern with Japan's official control restrictions, 
detailed in G/SPS/GEN/357.  New Zealand requested Japan to confirm that it would not take any 
action, such as fumigation, on any pest found on imported produce if that pest was already present in 
Japan but not under official control as defined by the IPPC  The United States recalled its concerns over the basis and application of Japan's phytosanitary  legislation, in particular with respect to 
horticultural products that continued to face unjustified quarantine actions at Japan's ports of entry.  
Even when Japan required no domestic quarantine tr eatment for the same species of pests, the 
treatment imposed on imported produce include d fumigation which in many cases ruined the 
products.  The United States considered Japan's actions to be highly disruptive of trade.  Australia and 
the European Communities expressed their concern regarding Japan's official control restrictions and 
supported the statements made by Ne w Zealand and the United States. 
175. Japan recognized that the IPPC standards shoul d be one of the basis in a possible future 
quarantine system for Japan.  Japan was examining whether its appropriate le vel of protection could 
be maintained by applying plant quarantine measures in line with the new IPPC definition, taking into 
account Japan's climate and the large volume of impor ts into Japan.  A number of pests were presently 
under study and although a final c onclusion had not yet been reached, discussions were underway to 
identify practical measures to reduce the effects of Japan's official control measures on international 
trade. 
176. In April 2003, New Zealand stress ed that Japan's policy was not consistent with the relevant 
international definition in ISPM-5 of the IPPC and Supplement No.1.  Bilateral discussions between 
New Zealand and Japan continued and New Zealand requested  a policy statement  from Japan by 1 
January 2003.  To date, no such statement had been forthcoming.  Japan had still not brought its 
phytosanitary measures in line with IPPC definitions and guidelines.  The United States stated that it 
shared the concerns and frustrations of New Zeal and and continued to experience trade disruptions 
due to Japan's phytosanitary legislation and unju stified quarantine actions.  The United States had 
requested information on which pests were considered  quarantine risks but did not receive a reply.  
Australia and the European Commun ities shared the concerns of New Zealand and the United States. 
177. Japan stated that it was under no obligation to make a policy statement regarding non-
quarantine pests, however, in the interest of tran sparency, Japan would provide a statement.  Japan 
respected international rules, including IPPC guidelines, and took appropriate measures where 
necessary on the basis of its national plant protection laws.  Further examination was necessary to see 
if Japan's current measures were consistent w ith international standards and representatives from 
outside government would be invite d to review the situation.    G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 41 
 
 
 178. In June 2003, New Zealand indicated that it was  pleased to learn that Japan was reviewing its 
system  in order to change it.  The United Stat es stated it was disappointed with the discriminatory 
nature of Japan's measures, its failure to notif y internal regulations and the general lack of 
transparency within its system.  Australia express ed support for statements made by New Zealand and 
the United States.  Japan reported that bilatera l consultations had been  conducted and further 
examination would be necessary befo re conclusions could be drawn. 
179. In October 2003, New Zealand reported that there had not been any response from Japan 
since bilateral contacts in April and June 2003.  Japan responded that it was seeking to resolve the 
issue through technical discussions between relevant national experts.  A bilateral meeting was to be 
held in November to discuss orchard controls a nd pre-clearance inspection systems.  Japan reported 
that in June it had established a consultative group consisting of different st akeholders to examine 
whether its measures were consistent with internatio nal standards.  This group had already met three 
times. 
180. In March 2004, New Zealand noted that in November 2003, it presented a submission on its 
concerns as part of Japan’s review of its plan t quarantine processes and looked forward to having 
these concerns addressed in an early and trade fac ilitating manner.  The United States reported that on 
8 October 2003, the United States had presented its concerns on the classification of eleven specific species as quarantine pests to the Japanese plant protection division.  In contrast to internationally 
accepted definitions of quarantine pests, Japan's le gal definition of pests included pests that were 
already present in Japan and not subject to official  control.  As a result, imported products faced 
discriminatory treatment compared to domestic produc ts since they were subjected to fumigation for 
pests that already existed in Japan .  Japan was requested to provide clarification and information on 
actions taken to eradicate and contain the eleven specific pests and their di stribution in Japan, and on 
its efforts to align its plant health laws with in ternational standards.  The European Communities 
supported the concerns of New Zealand and the United States. 
181. Japan recalled that at the last Committee mee ting, Japan and New Zealand had agreed to 
resolve the issue from a technical perspective and on a case-by-case basis.  As a result of bilateral 
discussions, new quarantine measures were to be intr oduced in May 2004, based on trials of orchard 
control for Fuller Rose Weevil on kiwifruit.  Furthe rmore, quarantine trials for reducing fumigation 
on lettuce from the United States were conducted from July 2003 to March 2004 and the results were 
under evaluation.  Japan had received requests for 39 species of pests from New Zealand and 11 
species from the United States to be designated as non- quarantine pests.  Members' concerns on the 
inconsistency of Japan’s plant h ealth laws with international st andards were under review.  The 
consultative group on plant quarantine established by Japan's plant quarantine authorities had held four meetings but experienced a delay in comp iling its recommendations.  The consultative group 
meetings would be reactivated to work on reco mmendations which would be considered by plant 
quarantine authorities for further action. 
182. In June 2004, New Zealand welcomed the conclusi on of Japan's review of its plant quarantine 
regime and urged that the recommendations of  Japan's Plant Quaran tine Review Committee, 
particularly the recommendation that Japan move towa rds international practice, be adopted promptly.  
This issue had first been raised in the SPS Comm ittee in March 2002, but  bilateral exchanges had 
been occurring since 1986 between New Zealand and Jap an on this issue.  With the conclusion of the 
plant quarantine review, New Zealand expected that  Japan would expand its non-quarantine pest list 
to reflect those pests already in Japan and not unde r official control.  Although the Plant Quarantine 
Review Committee's report had not yet been consid ered domestically and implementation timelines 
had not been published, New Zealand hoped that a mutually acceptable solution could be reached 
soon.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 42  
 
 183. The United States recalled that it had provided an update at the last Committee meeting on 
Japan's policy for requiring fumigation for non-qu arantine pests, even when these pests were 
commonly found in Japan.  Japan's written response to  the US request on the eleven pests recognized 
the necessity of taking into account the relevant standards of the IPPC when conducting pest risk 
assessments (PRAs), was welcomed.  ISPM 2, "Guidelin es for Pest  Risk Assessment", indicated that 
the PRA process should end when, in the course of th e analysis, a potential quarantine pest had been 
identified as present and not subject to official controls.  The European Communities shared the 
concerns of New Zealand and the United States.   
184. Japan indicated that its authorities were iden tifying measures which would maintain Japan's 
appropriate level of protection a nd be consistent with  relevant international standards.  The 
Consultative Group on Plant Quarantine Systems published its report on 21 May 2004, including 
input from national stakeholders and foreign gove rnments.  The Consultative Group recommended 
that plant quarantine measures should be based on scientific risk assessments, following IPPC 
guidelines.  In the review of existing PRAs, th e plant quarantine authorities had focused on high 
priority pests designated by other Members.  As a first step, Japan planned to notify these measures by 
December 2004.   
185. In October 2004, New Zealand asked Japan whet her it had adopted the necessary procedures 
to expand its non-quarantine pest list to include th ose pests already present in Japan that were not 
under official control as defined by the IPPC.  The United States commented that they looked forward to reviewing the report on Japan’s plant quarantine regime at the end of the year.  The European 
Communities expressed support for the statements made by New Zealand and the United States and 
urged Japan to align its phytosanitary measures with IPPC definitions and guidelines.    Japan replied 
that Members would be notified of the changes in its legislation in December 2004 and amendments 
would be made no later than March 2005. 
40. Japan - Import measures on fire blight 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: New Zealand, European Communities 
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras.  27-29), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 9-
11), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 36- 38), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 
52-53) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally; G/SPS/GEN/299, WT/DS245/R, WT/DS245/AB/R 
Solution: Consultations requested on 1 Ma rch 2002;  panel requested on 22 May 2002;  
panel established 3 June 2002; panel re port issued 15 July 2003, Appellate 
Body report issued 26 November 2003, adopted 10 December 2003.  Article 21.5 panel and Article 22.6 arbitr ation established on 30 July 2004 
 
186. In July 2001, the United States maintained that  Japan's requirements for imported apples were 
unduly restrictive.  The United States and Japan ha d agreed on joint scientific research on apples and 
fire blight, and the United States was disappointed that  Japan had not relaxed its import restrictions in 
accordance with the results of the research.  New Zealand agreed that  Japan's phytosanitary measures 
with respect to fire blight were not technically ju stifiable and should be modified accordingly.  New 
Zealand intended to engage Japan in further bilate ral discussions on this issue.  Chile requested that 
the follow-up to this situation be reported to the Committee.  Japan confirme d that the joint research 
had been completed, and indicated that a risk an alysis was being conducted based on the results.  
There were some difficulties in finalizing the eval uation based solely on these results.  Japan desired 
to continue the technical discussion between plant health authorities of both countries.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 43 
 
 
 187. In October 2001, the United States reported on  bilateral discussions on Japan's quarantine 
procedures on US apples.  Although joint scientific research demonstrated that mature symptom-less fruit was not a pathway for the transmission of fire  blight, a mutually acceptable technical solution 
had not been found.  The United States was cons idering what further steps, including dispute 
settlement, it could take on the matter.  New Z ealand announced it would also seek bilateral 
discussions with Japan on its import requirements for apples.  Japan stated that in order to complete 
the technical evaluation, additional information ha d been requested from the United States. Further 
bilateral contacts between the US and Japan ese experts were considered appropriate. 
188. In March 2002, the United States recalled that Jap an’s quarantine restrictions prohibited apple 
imports from orchards in which any fire blight  had been detected and required: three annual 
inspections of US orchards for the presence of fire blight, disqualification from export if fire blight 
were detected in a 500-meter bu ffer zone around the orchard, a nd post-harvest treatment with 
chlorine.  The United States considered that these restrictions were not consistent with Japan's 
obligations under Article 11 of the GATT, or unde r the SPS Agreement.  The United States had 
requested consultations under Ar ticles 1 and 4 of the Dispute Se ttlement Understanding on 1 March 
2002.  New Zealand and the European Communities also  expressed the view that  Japan's restrictions 
on apples were more trade restrictive than necessary a nd stated their interest in a resolution of this 
issue.  
189. Japan explained that the risk from the entry of fi re blight was very serious.  The United States 
had not provided Japan with sufficient scientific ev idence to amend its phytosanitary measures.  At a 
bilateral expert meeting in October 2001, Japan ha d identified the data that was needed and Japan 
hoped that the technical data would be provided by th e United States so as to al low a resolution of this 
issue.  
190. In June 2002, the United States reported that hi s country had requested the establishment of a 
dispute resolution panel with respect to Japan's meas ures related to fire blight.  New Zealand indicated 
that Japan's measures lacked scientific justificati on and limited NZ exports of horticultural products. 
New Zealand and the European Communities indicated  that their countries shared the US concerns 
and would participate in the dispute resolution proced ure as third parties.  Japan indicated that during 
the bilateral consultations held following the US  request, Japan had indicated its willingness to 
consider relevant data submitted by the United St ates, however nothing had been provided.  Fire 
blight was a serious plant quarantine disease which did not occur in Japan and which could severely 
damage the production of apples, pears and other fruit s.  Japan's measures were  indispensable in order 
to prevent the entry of fire blight, and were fu lly justified on the basis of scientific evidence. 
41. Japan – Restrictions on imports of mangoes 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by: India 
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras.  34-35), October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 
25-26), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, par as. 65-67), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, 
paras. 25-26) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
191. Brazil indicated that it had been seeking approval to export mangoes to Japan for 18 years.  
Japan demanded steam treatment in spite of the sa tisfactory level of the measures taken by Brazil, 
Chile and other potential exporters to avoid fruit fly.  Japan had continuously demanded more 
information and had not taken previous scientific studies into account.  Although Japan had offered G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 44  
 
 technical assistance, this had not facilitated the pro cess.  Brazil considered that Japan's measures were 
inconsistent with the provisions of the SPS Agreem ent on equivalence, regionalization and technical 
cooperation. 
192. Japan stated that Brazil had requested technical assistance in 1986 but had stopped the 
technical assistance in 1990 becau se it wished to develop its own technique based on hot-water 
treatment.  This design was launched in 1998.  Both  countries agreed on this and the final data was 
submitted in 2001.  Supplementary information was needed, however, before Japan could approve the 
measures and conclude the necessary technical studies. 
193. In October 2003, Brazil stressed that Japan's  restrictions on imports of mangoes were 
unjustified as mangoes were produced in an area 2000 km away from the area where the fruit fly was 
found.  Brazil was waiting for the completion of  the public consultation process in Japan and 
requested Japan to act swiftly to allow the importa tion of mangoes.  Japan reported its authorities had 
recently received data from Brazil on the trapping of  fruit flies and was in the process of reviewing 
the information.  Brazil had subm itted technical information in Oc tober 2001 and the technical studies 
by Japan were progressing well. 
194. In March 2004, Brazil stated that the Japanese authorities had reacted favourably to technical 
data provided by Brazil the previous year.  The evaluation process had entered a new phase and Brazil 
hoped to come to a satisfactory solution including the signing of a protocol on packaging, storage and transportation of mangoes to Japan.  India noted th at, while India was a fruit fly free area its request 
for market access for mangoes into Japan had been under review for ten years.  India had submitted 
data to Japan and hoped for a favourable response.  Japan  stated that technical evaluation of data 
submitted by Brazil was in the final stages.  With respect to India’s concerns, Japan had not received 
technical data from India but looked forward to receiving such data. 
195. In June 2004, Brazil reported that after the l ast meeting, Brazilian and Japanese phytosanitary 
authorities had held two technical meetings in Japan  to discuss a phytosanitary protocol that would 
allow Brazilian mango exports to Japan.  In the l ast meeting, the Japanese authorities had confirmed 
that negotiations on the protocol ha d been concluded, and certificati on of consignments remained the 
only outstanding issue.  The Japanese authorities had i ndicated that this issue could be resolved in 
parallel with the public consultation phase and Br azil encouraged Japan to initiate the public 
consultation soon.  Japan confirmed that the tec hnical evaluation on the Mediterranean fruit fly had 
been completed and a bilateral meeting had been held to coordinate plant quarantine measures for 
market access and requirements for hot water di pping.  The new protocol was expected to be 
implemented based on the outcomes of these bilateral discussions.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 45 
 
 
 REPUBLIC OF KOREA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA  
Food Safety 42. Korea – Guidelines for maximum residue level (MRL) testing 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, European Communities, New Zealand, Canada 
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, par as. 11-14), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 
40-42), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras.  46-48), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, 
paras. 47-50) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/KOR/123, G/SPS/N/KOR/154 and 155 
Solution: Not reported 
 
196. The United States expressed concern that Kore a's changed import regulation was onerous and 
not supported by science.  Under the new import inspection programme imported grains, fruits and 
vegetables would be subjected to annual MRL tests for the presence of 196 ag ricultural chemicals.  
Importers would have to bear the US$1,800 cost of such tests, whereas domestic producers were 
exempt from the mandatory testing requirements.  Do mestic producers were subject to random test for 
which the Korean Government bore the costs.  Australia, the European Communities and New 
Zealand also requested Korea to amend the measure which they described was contrary to Annex C of 
the SPS Agreement. 
197. Korea responded that it had amended the regul ations to meet its appropriate level of 
protection and noted that there were no comments on the issue when the SPS notification was circulated at the beginning of the year.  Technical de velopments had reduced the cost of testing and as 
such Korea planned to considerably reduce the t esting fees.  The United States replied that it had 
submitted comments on Korea's notification in Marc h and had two meetings in September with 
Korean officials regarding this issue. 
198. In March 2004, the United States stated that th ey were informed during bilateral meetings 
held with Korea that test fees would be reduced.  However, the Korean authorities had not finalized 
this decision nor addressed the issue satisfactorily.  Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the European 
Communities stated that Korea's testing regime  would impose substantial costs on imports and 
discriminated between imported products and simila r products produced in Korea.  Korea replied that 
the relevant administrative procedures to redu ce the testing fees were underway and would be 
completed in two to three weeks, but  not later than the end of April. 
199. In June 2004, the United States commented that  under Korea's import inspection programme, 
importers would bear the cost of the testing fees, now estimated at US$1-2,000 each.  While the 
United States recognized Korea's attempts to mo dify their requirements through the issuance of 
notifications G/SPS/N/KOR/154 and 155 in 2004, the proposed fee for testing would still be twice as large as that proposed by Korea's Food and Drug Administration.  Although the number of chemicals 
subject to mandatory testing had been reduced fro m 196 to 47, domestic producers were still exempt 
from the mandatory testing requirement.  Thus, Ko rea's import inspection pr ogram was inconsistent 
with national treatment provisions of the WTO.  D espite bilateral discussions over the past year, the 
United States perceived insufficient progress on this issue and hoped for more significant progress in the future. Australia, Canada and the European  Communities expressed similar concerns. Korea 
emphasized that both the testing fees and the numbe r of agricultural chemicals for which mandatory G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 46  
 
 testing was required had been subs tantially reduced.  In order to provide testing exemptions based 
upon compliance history, the relevant regulations would need to be revised.   
200. In October 2004, the United States stated many of  its concerns still re mained.  For example, 
Korea had proposed in G/SPS/N/KOR/154 that imported  foods with clean records would be exempted 
from the mandatory laboratory inspections.  However, the proposed exemptions had not been put into 
effect in the final revised regulations.  Furthe rmore, although Korea had reduced the number of 
chemicals subject to mandatory laboratory inspecti on from 196 to 47, testing fees of approximately 
US$500 per test were still applied.  Domestic producers were still onl y subject to random testing and 
the costs were borne by the Korean government.  The US concerns were directly related to 
distinctions in fees between imported goods and lik e-products produced in Korea in accordance with 
Annex C of the SPS Agreement.  The European Communities shared the concerns of the United 
States as the European Communities had also been a ffected by Korea's testing requirements.  Korea’s 
measures as notified in G/SPS/N/KOR/123 were sti ll being implemented and the amendments as 
notified in G/SPS/N/KOR/154 and 155 did not have a proposed implementation date.  Korea's current 
testing requirements were disproportionate to th e risks and were discriminatory against imported 
products.  Korea was requested to remove these restri ctive measures and to ali gn them to international 
standards. 
201. Korea stated that it would take some time to  revise the relevant legislation needed to 
implement the measures notified in G/SPS/N/KO R/154 and 155.  The testing fee had been 
substantially reduced and was now one-third the cost of the previous fee.  However, the fee was still 
two times higher than what was proposed in Oc tober 2003 because the domestic industry was 
concerned that the proposed testing fee was not sufficient to compensate for testing requirements 
needed to ensure the safety of foods.  Testing fees would be adjusted in th e future when the need 
arose.  Korea applied strict guidelines to domestic products with respect to the use of agro-chemicals 
and did not discriminate between imported and domesti cally produced products.   Korea took note of 
the concerns of the United States, particularly with reference to Annex C of the SPS Agreement. 
Plant Health 43. Korea – Septoria controls on horticultural products 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 40-41) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
202. The United States stated that since April 2004,  Korea had banned imports of citrus from 
California due to concerns of the fungi septoria citri .  The United States was working closely with 
Korean plant health officials to address this con cern although no cases of the fungi had been detected 
in any US shipment of citrus.  The United States had proposed sev eral measures to address Korean's 
plant health protection concerns and technical di scussions would be held on 4 November 2004.  The 
United States hoped that discussions on the protocol would be finalized and trade resumed quickly as 
the harvesting season would shortly begin. 
203. Korea stated that septoria citri  was one of the most serious quarantine pests in Korea.  The 
US proposed protocol did not fully address Ko rea's concerns.  A ban was imposed on fruits 
originating from two specific areas in the Unite d States where the fungi was repeatedly detected.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 47 
 
 
 MEXICO 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY MEXICO  
Plant Health 44. Mexico - Restrictions on the importation of dry beans 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada, Nicaragua 
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, par as. 28-30), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, para.71) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/379, G/SPS/N/MEX/68, WT/DS284 
Solution: Resolved with Nicaragua 
 
204. The United States reported that Mexico had unjustifiably implemented a temporary 
suspension on the importation of dried beans from the United States on 21 January 2003.  Canada and 
Nicaragua stated that they shared the concerns of  the United States.  Canada noted that no provision 
had been made in the Mexican measure for shipments en route.  Nicaragua indicated that access of its 
black beans to the Mexican market had been bloc ked for what it considered arbitrary reasons.   
205. Mexico replied that high level discussions ha d taken place between the Mexican authorities 
and the United States and Canada.  Mexico would communicate in the next few days what steps it 
would take to resolve this issue.  Mexico w ould reply at a latter date to comments raised by 
Nicaragua. 
206. In March 2004, Mexico informed the  Committ ee that the issue of restrictions on the 
importation of dry beans had been resolved with Ni caragua.  Nicaragua stated that on 8 March 2004, 
the Dispute Settlement Body was notified of Nicaragua 's withdrawal of consultations with Mexico on 
this issue.  
PANAMA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY PANAMA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to FMD 45. Panama – FMD restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras.  16-17), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 
56-57) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution:  Not reported 
 
207. Argentina raised concerns on two measures adopt ed by Panama to prohibit the imports of 
certain products due to FMD.  On 19 March 2001, Pana ma issued a resolution to  restrict the imports 
of animals and by-products from Europe and Sout h America with the exception of Chile.  On 1 
August 2001, Panama amended its penal code through Law 44.  Neither measure complied with OIE G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 48  
 
 recommendations.  However, during bilateral c onsultations held on 16 March 2004, Panama had 
proposed amending Law 44 to eliminate these restri ctions.  Panama confirmed the positive outcome 
of the bilateral meeting and indicated di scussions with Argentina would continue. 
208. In October 2004, Argentina informed the Committee that Argentina had received positive 
news on the issue of Panama’s restrictions on da iry products and was hopeful of a resolution by the 
next Committee meeting.  Panama stated that bilatera l consultations were held with Argentina prior to 
the Committee meeting and was optim istic of resolving the issue. 
 
POLAND 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY POLAND  
Food Safety 
46. Poland - Requirements for imports of milk and milk products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 70-71) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/POL/14 
Solution: Resolved 
 
209. The European Communities indicated that the Po lish sanitary requirements for milk and milk 
products resulted in unjustified trade distortions sin ce they required the application of heat treatment 
to products which were produced with raw milk.  The European Communities felt that there were 
equivalent procedures to ensure that Poland's le vel of protection was met, and invited Poland to 
engage in bilateral discussions on this measure.  Poland indicated that the EC request would be 
considered. 
210. In June 2004, the European Communities reported that this issue had been resolved with the 
accession of Poland into the European Union. 
 
SLOVAK REPUBLIC 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC  
Plant Health 47. Slovak Republic – Import restrictions on potatoes 
Raised by: European Communities, Poland 
Supported by: Argentina, Chile, Hungary 
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, par as. 22-23), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, para. 
21), July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para. 65), November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, para. 
84) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/SVK/9, G/SPS/N/SVK/15, G/SPS/GEN/65, G/SPS/GEN/115, 
G/SPS/GEN/159 and G/SPS/GEN/165  
Solution: Resolved with the accession of th e Slovak Republic to the European Union 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 49 
 
 
 211. In March 1998, the European Communities pointed out that notification of the Slovak 
measure on potatoes as an emergency measure did not appear to be justified, and that less trade-restrictive measures could attain the required leve l of protection.  The Slovak Republic responded that 
problems seemed to stem from the registration pr ocedure, rather than from the phytosanitary 
requirements per se .  Slovak authorities were about to remove the current strict registration 
requirements and establish a maximum residue level. 
212. In March 1999, Poland reported that following b ilateral consultations, the Slovak Republic 
had lifted its earlier import ban on Polish ware potat oes, but that it had been replaced with testing 
requirements for potato spindle tuber viroid.  Po land considered this requirement an unjustified 
obstacle to trade since no comment period had been provided and since the imported potatoes were 
treated to impede germination and were thus unl ikely to introduce diseases to crop plants.  The 
representative of the Slovak Republic indicated he would transmit the Polish comments to his authorities.  In July 1999, both delegations reporte d that consultations regarding potatoes and fruit, 
including apples, pears and quinces had taken place, and had been expanded to  include Slovak exports 
of cereals, maize and malt to Poland.  In N ovember 1999, Poland informed the Committee on the 
development of the issue.  The Slovak Republic thou ght it was more appropriate to discuss this matter 
at the expert level.  The Slovak Republic stresse d that it wanted to avoid importation of potato 
bacterial diseases.  Import measures had been notif ied (G/SPS/N/SVK/15), and were based on a pest 
risk analysis. 
213. In June 2004, the European Communities reported that this issue had b een resolved by the 
accession of the Slovak Republic to the European Union. 
SWITZERLAND 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SWITZERLAND  
Food Safety 48. Switzerland - Notifications regarding import requirements on meat and eggs 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Ch ile, Hungary, India, Israel, New Zealand 
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 39-41), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, 
paras. 29-30), July 2001 (G/ SPS/R/22, para. 127), October 2004 
(G/SPS/R/35, para. 90) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHE/14 and Corr.1, G/SPS/N/CHE/15, G/SPS/N/CHE/16, 
G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Resolved 
 
214. In September 1998, the United States expressed concern that Swiss regulations on meat from 
animals treated with hormones, antibiotics and si milar products imported under the Swiss tariff rate 
quota (TRQ) were not based on science or risk assessme nt.  The fact that different requirements were 
applied to meat imported outside the tariff rate quot a called into question the validity of the alleged 
public health objective behind the regulation.  Th e United States indicated it was preparing formal 
comments and encouraged other Members to carefully consider the implications of the notified 
measure.  Canada noted that the purpose of the m easure was consumer information, yet the measure 
did not make it clear if labelling was carried through to the retail level.  Switzerland noted that thirty 
days were left of the comment period, and that all comments made would be taken into account when 
drafting the final proposal. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 50  
 
 215. In November 1998, the United States reiterated its  concerns regarding restrictions on meat 
imports under the Swiss TRQ, and added that the measure notified as G/SPS/N/CHE/15 would prohibit imports of eggs and egg products from bi rds raised in battery cages under the TRQ.  Such 
imports would be permitted outside the TRQ, subject  to prohibitively high duties, strict labelling and 
additional certification requirements.  The proposed regulations did not indicate what public health 
objective was involved.  The United States was con cerned that the measures did not appear to be 
based on a risk assessment.  Discrimination betw een products imported under the TRQ and outside 
the TRQ was unjustified.  Switzerland explained that  the measures related to the implementation of 
the new Swiss Federal Law on Agriculture of 29 Ap ril 1998.  Swiss authorities were still discussing 
the implementation of the Law, and questions  and comments would be taken into account. 
216. In July 2001, the United States indicated  that it considered the issue unresolved 
(G/SPS/GEN/265).  Switzerland had notified amended measures under the TBT Agreement, on which 
the United States had formally commented. 
217. In October 2004, Switzerland reported that this i ssue had been resolved.  Substantial changes  
had been made to the regulation to take in to account comments received during the public 
consultation process.  These changes were notified to the TBT Committee in 1999 and were no longer 
considered SPS issues.  The United States concurred that the issue was resolved. 
Plant Health 
49. Switzerland - Notification on wheat, rye and triticale 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, para . 32), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, para. 91) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHE/5 
Solution: Resolved 
 
218. Argentina expressed concern with regard to risi ng trade barriers on wheat grain for industrial 
and planting purposes.  Argentina was free from tilletia indica  (Karnal bunt).  Argentina requested a 
full draft of the proposed Swiss measure notifie d as G/SPS/N/CHE/5, includ ing access to the risk 
analysis and other scientific documents which substantiated the proposal.  Switzerland assured 
Argentina that the scientific b asis for the notified measure would be provided as soon as possible. 
219. In October 2004, Switzerland stated that this issue was resolved as Argentina was free from 
triticale indica  and therefore the measure did not apply to them.  Argentina concurred that the issue 
was resolved.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 51 
 
 
 SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU 
(CHINESE TAIPEI) 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINESE TAIPEI  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Other Animal Health Concerns 
 
50. Chinese Taipei – Requirements for heat treatm ent for meat and bone meal in poultry 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 17-18) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Resolved 
 
220. The United States indicated that the heat treat ment requirements of Chinese Taipei for dried 
pet food produced in areas affected by Exo tic Newcastle Disease exceeded the relevant OIE 
guidelines and were not supported by scientific ev idence.  Chinese Taipei required that poultry 
ingredients containing bone meal or poultry meat fro m affected areas be processed so that the interior 
of the bone was heated to 60 degrees Celsius for 30 mi nutes, in contrast with OIE guidelines.  Chinese 
Taipei's heat treatment requirements also app lied to poultry originating in disease-free areas. 
221. Chinese Taipei stated that the regulation for pet food was under review  and amendments had 
been proposed. 
222. In January 2005, Chinese Taipei reported th at the Quarantine Requirements for the 
Importation of Dog and Cat Food were amended on 1 April 2004.  The United States confirmed that 
this matter was resolved.  The requirements for heat treatment fo r meat and bone meal in poultry were 
deleted. 
Plant Health  
51. Chinese Taipei - Policies  regarding quarantine and non-quarantine pests  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras 33-34) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 52  
 
 223. The United States expressed concern that Chin ese Taipei's Plant Production and Quarantine 
Act did not distinguish between quarantine and no n-quarantine pests which was detrimental to US 
exports.  Chinese Taipei had agreed to amend this act , however this was expected to take some time. 
In response, Chinese Taipei indicated that problem s arose due to inconsistency between the Chinese 
and English version of the Act.  His authorities had agreed to amend the Act to bring it into 
conformity with the standards of the IPPC. 
224. In January 2005, Chinese Taipei reported that the Enforcement Rules on Plant Protection and 
Quarantine Act were revised in October 2003.  Th e phytosanitary measures applied only to regulated 
pests. 
52. Chinese Taipei – Import restrictions on potatoes 
Raised by: New Zealand 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 15-16) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: New regulations entered into force on 10 January, 2005 
 
225. New Zealand reported that it had been experienci ng delays with its request for market access 
for potato exports to Chinese Taipei despite fulfillin g all the requirements.  New Zealand had also 
responded to requests by Chinese Taipei for additio nal information which concerned pests not found 
in New Zealand and pests not found on the potato co mmodity exported, but only on the potato plant.  
In considering New Zealand's request, Chinese Taip ei had agreed to use ISPM 10 which provided 
guidance on the Requirements for the Establishment of Pest Free Places of Production and Pest Free Production Sites. 
226. Chinese Taipei recalled that New Zealand had first requested access on 20 September 1995, 
basing this request on ISPM 4 Requirements for the Establishment of Pest Free Areas .  In February 
2002, New Zealand withdrew its initial request but as ked that its proposal be considered under ISPM 
10 Requirements for the Establishment of Pest Free Places of Production and Pest Free Production Sites.  In July 2002, a new pest risk assessment  was completed.  After a visit by officials from 
Chinese Taipei, New Zealand was asked to provide an updated pest list which was received in April 
2003. 
227. In January 2005, Chinese Taipei and New Zeal and reported that a draft of The Quarantine 
Requirements for the Importation of Table Potatoes from New Zealand was notified as 
G/SPS/N/TPKM/43, and entered into  force on 10 January 2005.   
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 53 
 
 
 TURKEY 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY TURKEY  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to TSEs 
 
53. Turkey - Ban on pet food imports 
Raised by: Hungary 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2000 (G/SPS/R/26, para . 6), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 129-
130), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 57) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/316, WT/DS256/1 
Solution: Resolved 
228. The representative of Hungary stated that in March 2001, Turkey ha d banned the importation 
of pet food from all European countries as a resu lt of the BSE epidemic.  Although Hungary was a 
BSE-free country, it was included in the ban's covera ge due to the Turkish authorities' concern about 
cross-infection.  After the Turkish authorities ha d provided an explanation in June 2001, Hungarian 
companies stopped using raw materials derived fro m ruminants in pet food mix, but the ban on 
Hungarian exports remained in place.  Hungary ask ed where the Turkish regulation was published and 
when it had been notified to the WTO.  Hungary al so as requested an explanation of the underlying 
scientific justification for the ban and asked whethe r Turkish suppliers were treated identically to 
foreign suppliers.  The United States and European Communities associated themselves with the comments made by Hungary and requested to be informed of further developments.  Turkey 
explained that the problem may have arisen as a result of some missing laboratory analysis, as no 
import ban was in place.  Once that information ha d been provided, the importation procedures would 
be complete.  
229. In June 2002, Hungary indicated that Turkey had not provided an official response to the 
questions submitted to it.  Hungary had request ed consultations under the DSU on 5 May 2002.  
Although some progress had been made at the cons ultations, the problem was still pending.  Hungary 
hoped to find an amicable solution by the 5 July 20 02 DSU deadline.  Turkey indicated that since the 
issue was now a formal dispute, confidentiality re quirements had to be respected.  Turkey would 
inform the Committee of further developments at a later stage. 
230. In June 2004, Turkey reported that the ba n on imports on pet foods from Hungry had been 
lifted and the issue considered resolved. 
Plant Health 
54. Turkey - Restrictions on banana imports 
Raised by: Ecuador 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  97-98), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 36-
38), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, para. 57) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/249, G/SPS/GEN/275, G/SPS/GEN/276 
Solution: Resolved 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 54  
 
 231. In March 2001, Ecuador indicated that Turk ish authorities were issuing phytosanitary 
certificates for a specific and limited volume of bana nas only.  Ecuador believed that the control 
certificates were not only de facto  quantitative restrictions, but also imposed unnecessary and 
unjustified administrative burdens.  Ecuador asked Turkey for a wr itten response to a number of 
questions submitted, and planned to pursue the matter bilaterally.  Turkey replied that due to resource 
constraints, Turkey could not verify whole shipme nts at once.  Turkey had published all relevant 
regulations, as well as testing and sampling met hods.  These were the same for both domestic 
producers and importers and in conform ity with international standards. 
232. In July 2001, Ecuador indicated that the replies received in response to its questions regarding 
the "Kontrol Belgesi" certificates did not seem to co rrespond to the information provided by exporters 
and importers.  Obtaining the certificates had taken up to three times as long as claimed by Turkey, 
there were inconsistencies regarding the duration and validity of the certificates.  In the case of 
bananas, the expiration dates regularly coincided w ith the beginning of Turkey's banana harvest.  In 
addition, the certificates were granted for a ma ximum of one thousand tons, and thus acted as 
quantitative restrictions.  Turkey claimed that one  could obtain several certificates, but exporters 
indicated that one had to use one certificate before a new one was granted.  Turkey replied that the 
certificate was a reference document used in custom s proceedings and food safety analysis during the 
importation process.  The system was described in the Official Gazette, and was not used to limit 
quantities.  Issuance of the certific ates took between three and seven working days if the information 
was complete, and the validation period was between four and twelve months.  Turkey was ready to 
discuss the issue bilaterally.  Chile and Colombia requested to be info rmed of future developments of 
the issue.  The European Comm unities requested to see Turkey's responses to Ecuador's questions. 
233. In June 2004, Turkey reported that the issue of  restrictions on banana  imports from Ecuador 
had been resolved. 
 
UNITED STATES 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE UNITED STATES  
Food Safety 55. United States – Delisting of France from countries authorized to export certain meat 
and meat products to the United States 
Raised by: European Communities  
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras.  148-149), June 2004 (G/SPS/R34, paras. 
44-45), October (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 88-89) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Resolved 
 
234. The European Communities stated that on 24 Fe bruary 2004, the United States suspended 
France's eligibility to export meat and meat products  to the United States.  The hasty nature of the 
decision meant that France did not have the opport unity to respond to questions raised during an 
earlier inspection.  Furthermore, this decision was mo re trade-restrictive than required to protect the 
safety of consumers. The United Stated explained that this action was based on process control and 
sanitation deficiencies identified over a multi-period in establishments certified by France as meeting US sanitary requirements.  Based on information from French authorities that corrective action had 
been taken to address concerns raised in previous  inspections, US officials scheduled the audit of  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 55 
 
 
 January-February 2004, and clarified in advance th e risk of suspension for non-performance.  The 
second audit identified the same deficiencies.  Fr ench authorities had agreed to submit a new 
corrective action plan to the USDA.  The tr aining of French inspection personnel in the 
implementation of pathogen re duction and hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) 
systems was key to addressing the defici encies identified in this audit.   
235. In June 2004, the European Communities reporte d the lack of progress made on this issue.  
French veterinary services and eleven establishments authorized to export meat products to the United 
States were audited by the USDA early in 2004.  Although six of these establishments had not had 
any major infractions, the US suspension in Februa ry 2004 applied to all eleven establishments.  The 
French authorities had forwarded a detailed plan of ac tion to the US.  The offer by the United States 
to train French veterinary inspectors was apprec iated, however, some of the restrictions were 
disproportionate and discriminatory.  The United States was requested to lift the prohibition on the six establishments with no infractions.   
236. The United States responded that United States a nd French inspection officials had discussed 
the audit findings and follow-up actions, and Fr ance acknowledged the deficiencies and agreed to 
submit a new action plan to the USDA.  The USDA would complete its review shortly and 
communicate findings to the French authorities.  The USDA had identified experts in the European 
Union and could provide training of French insp ection personnel in the implementation of HACCP 
system.  A technical seminar would be held in  September 2004 for senior foreign meat inspection 
officials on the verification and enforcement of  pathogen reduction HACCP requirements in meat 
export establishments.  France had indicated that it w ould send two senior officials to this seminar.  
The United States emphasized its commitment to work  with France to reinstate their eligibility to 
export meat and meat exports to the United States. 
237. In October 2004, the European Communities reported that the USDA had carried out 
inspections in France and concluded that the Fren ch regulatory system met US requirements and was 
eligible to export meat-based products to the Unite d States.  The United States reported that a follow-
up audit of the headquarters of the French In spection Service, three local offices and four 
establishments was conducted in September and Oc tober.  The audit concluded that French 
establishments met the US requirements and the su spension on French meat-based products was lifted 
on 15 October 2004. 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to TSEs 
 
56. United States – Notification G/SPS/N/USA/844 on US prohibition on the use of specified 
risk materials and requirements for disabled cattle 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 68-69) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/844 
Solution: Not reported 
 
238. Argentina stated that notification G/SPS/N /USA/844 was published on 23 January 2004 as a 
standard, non-emergency notification.  The fina l date for comments was on 12 April, 2004 but the 
proposed date of adoption and entry into force wa s on 12 January 2004;  hence Members did not have 
adequate opportunity for comment.  Argentina was required to comply with the same requirements 
imposed on countries affected with BSE although Argentina had never had a case of BSE and G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 56  
 
 complied with the requirements to be considered free of BSE.  The United States was requested to 
clarify this matter. 
239. The United States explained that the USDA had instituted a number of  interim measures on 
12 January 2004 after the announc ement of a presumptive case of BSE in Washington State on 23 
December 2003.  Under the US regulatory system, in terim final rules were en forced immediately but 
there was a concurrent comment period of 90 days.  The comment period for G/SPS/N/USA/844 
would expire on 12 April 2004.  Members that were  free of BSE and interested in seeking recognition 
of alternate control measures equivalent to th e US measures as announced in G/SPS/N/USA/844, 845 
and 846, were encouraged to submit their comment s within the deadline for consideration in the 
development of a final set of BSE rules. 
57. United States – US rule on materials derived from cattle (G/SPS/N/USA/933) and 
record-keeping requirements (G/SPS/N/USA/934) 
Raised by: Argentina, China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 72-75) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/933 and 934 
Solution: Not reported 
 
240. Argentina noted that notification G/SPS/N/ USA/933 and 934 were published as regular 
notifications but were of immediate and compulso ry implementation despite giving a timeframe for 
comments.  Furthermore, Argentina was recognized as free of BSE but had to comply with the same 
requirements imposed on countries affected with BSE.   The United States was requested to recognize 
the different disease status of Members as required in Article 6 of the SPS Agreement.  China was 
concerned that the product description in the notifi cation was too general and the HS tariff codes for 
the products covered by the two measures should be included.  The notifications broadly included all 
trading partners exporting human food or cosmetics to the United States without taking into account 
the BSE status of different countries or regions.  It was not necessary to restrict products from countries free of BSE nor should manufac turers be required to keep re levant records.  These measures 
impeded international trade and the United States  should provide scientific justification for its 
deviation from international standards and modify its measures accordingly. 
241.  The United States explained that notifi cation G/SPS/N/USA/933 prohibited the use of 
materials derived from cattle in human food, incl uding dietary supplements, and in cosmetics.  
Prohibited cattle materials included specified risk materials such as brain and spinal tissue, small 
intestine of all cattle, material from nonambulatory disabled cattle, material from cattle not inspected 
and passed for human consumption and mechanically separated beef.  These restrictions were put in 
place to reduce the risk associated with BSE and th e human disease variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.  
The FDA issued an interim final rule effective immediately with a 90-day comment period ending on 
12 October 2004 and would consider  modifications on the final rule based on comments received.  
The requirements on prohibited cattle materials were  imposed without exceptions to any products or 
ingredients of products manufactured in or importe d into the United States.  However, the United 
States recognized that a country’s BSE status might  merit consideration as the final rule was being 
developed.  To this effect, the United States was seeking comments on the issue of equivalence as it 
related to BSE risk management requirements, as  well as on standards to apply when determining 
another country’s BSE status, providing an exem ption for BSE free countries.  The FDA and USDA 
were working to develop a harmonized US positi on on exempting other countries from respective 
requirements related to BSE which might be based, at least in part, on a country’s BSE status as 
determined by the OIE.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 57 
 
 
 242. Notification G/SPS/N/USA/934 was issued at  the same time as G/SPS/N/USA/933 and 
required manufacturers and processors of human food and cosmetics that were manufactured from, processed with or otherwise contained material from cattle to establish and maintain records 
demonstrating that foods and cosmetics were in co mpliance with the interim final rule.  The comment 
period of the proposed record-keeping rule ende d on 13 August and the comments were currently 
being reviewed.  The United States would notify th e Committee of any chang es incorporated in the 
final rule.  The United States would include the HS  codes as requested by China via a corrigendum to 
the two notifications. 
Plant Health 
58. United States – Restrictions on imports of Chinese potted plants in growing medium 
Raised by: China 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28,  paras. 43-45); March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, 
paras. 21-22) 
Relevant document(s): G/ SPS/N/USA/431 and addendum 
Solution: Not reported 
 
243. China indicated that US prohibitions on the importation of Chinese penjing in growing 
medium continued almost six years after the risk anal ysis had been finished and the protocol had been 
signed.  The United States had relied on the excuse  of domestic legal procedures and the need to 
coordinate work between the relevant government  agencies to delay solving the problem.  China 
requested the United States to notify its work procedures concerning the removal of measures 
prohibiting imports of plants and pl ant products in compliance with th e transparency provisions of the 
SPS Agreement.  China failed to understand why th e United States had proposed to solve only the 
problem of the importation of one of the types of  penjing plants in growing medium, instead of 
considering the five types for which the risk analysis had been completed.  The European 
Communities supported the concerns raised by Chin a and noted that they had run into the same 
difficulties with other varieties of potted plants.  The European Communities urged the United States 
to find a rapid solution to the problem. 
244. The United States noted that the issue of penjing in growing medium had been the subject of 
extensive discussions with China.  The United States  had been working actively to evaluate China's 
proposed importation, but the importation of plants in growing medium was more complicated from a risk mitigation perspective than importation of bare  root plants.  While examination of bare root 
plants could detect certain pests or disease problem s, inspection of potted plants necessarily involved 
the removal of the plant from the pot and the gr owing medium, and could damage the plant and 
reduce its commercial value.  Although the assessmen t of the risk to plant health posed by the 
importation of the five species of penjing was essen tially concluded, other risks needed to be 
evaluated before determination if the importa tion presented an acceptable risk.  US regulatory 
requirements for imported plants and growing medium  reflected the need to  prevent the introduction 
of pests and disease that could seriously undermin e or compromise native ecosystems, as well as 
cultivated plants, and this work was ongoing.  Th e 1997 protocol between the United States and China 
reflected agreement on the technical issues rela ting to production, inspection, and quarantine 
requirements for Chinese penjing that were necess ary but not sufficient conditions for imports to 
occur.  The protocol could not take effect until the risk assessments had been completed, and the 
necessary regulatory and notification processes had run their course.  The United States 
acknowledged the importance that China attached to this issue, and indicated their commitment to 
reaching a mutually satisfactory resolution as soon as possible. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 58  
 
 245. In March 2004, China stated that the US rule on the importation of artificially dwarfed plants 
in growing media from China was unnecessary and not viable given China's production system.  China's proposed measures were rejected by the  United States.  The United States reported that the 
risk analysis for five varieties of penjing was comp leted.  On 16 January 2004, a final rule authorizing 
the importation of five varieties of Chinese origin penjing plants in approve d growing media had been 
published and notified as G/SPS/N/USA/431/Add1.  This  rule built upon an existing regulation that 
was first published in August 2002 and notified as G/SPS/N/USA/431.  The 2002 rule remains 
applicable and required high risk artificially dwa rfed plants, including penjing, to be produced in 
phytosanitary secure conditions for two years prior to export.  However, plants less than two years in 
age were not subject to the two-year quarantine re quirement due to a lower risk profile.  This new 
regulation provided China with additional market opportunities and the United States would continue 
bilateral discussions with China. 
59. United States – Imports of citrus fruit  
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, pa ra. 89), June 2000 (G/SPS/R/19, para. 10), 
July 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 94-96 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Favourable conclusion reported in  June 2000.  New concerns raised in 
October 2001.  Issue reported resolved in March 2004. 
 246. In November 1999, Argentina expressed conc erns regarding the postponement of US 
measures dealing with imports of citrus fruit fro m north-western Argentina.  Negotiation of the 
measure had taken seven years and been finalized one  year earlier.  Argentina appealed to the United 
States to publish the measure before another ha rvest was lost for Argentine producers.  The 
representative of the United States answered that th e draft measures had passed the technical level and 
promised to draw the attention of hi s authorities to Argentina's concerns. 
247. In June 2000, Argentina reported that after years of negotiations with the United States 
regarding citrus produced in north-west Argen tina, a favourable conclusion had been reached. 
248. In July 2001, Argentina expressed concerns rela ted to a California court decision to overturn a 
USDA/APHIS risk assessment which had allowed the import of lemons, oranges and grapefruits from 
north western Argentina starting June 2000.  In Argentina's opinion, the judge's reasoning went 
beyond the terms of the SPS Agreement.  As imports  from other destination were not subject to zero 
risk, Argentina felt this amounted to discrimination.   In addition the judge had ruled that APHIS had 
not measured the economic impact of imports on pr oducers in the United States, an economic test 
inadmissible under the SPS Agreement.  Argentina requested US authorities to ensure compliance 
with the SPS Agreement by bodies other than the ce ntral government, according to Article 13.  The 
United States confirmed that no problems had b een reported during the two seasons that Argentina 
had had access to the US market for citrus.  US regu lations were subject to judicial review and had 
been challenged through a District Court in Ca lifornia.  Although the Federal Government had 
disputed the case, the Court had ruled in favour of  the complainant in September 2001.  The United 
States indicated that the executive branch agencies were consulting about how to proceed and would 
take Argentina's comments into account. 
249. In March 2004, Argentina reported that the issu e of US imports of citrus fruits had been 
resolved.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 59 
 
 
  
URUGUAY 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY URUGUAY  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to TSEs 
 
60. Uruguay – Risk assessment on  BSE 
Raised by: United States, Canada 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 89-92), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, 
para.78, 81) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/URY/5/Rev.1 
Solution: Resolved with Canada. 
250. The United States observed that Uruguay ha d notified its adoption of the EC BSE 
geographical base risk approach for classifying c ountries.  The United States recalled its BSE-free 
status and the Harvard risk assessment on BSE, and asked that Uruguay take these into account.  
Canada indicated that it was providing information to Uruguay which would c onfirm Canada's status 
as free of BSE.  The European Co mmunities noted that the EC risk classification on BSE was never 
intended to serve as the international norm.  Memb ers should continue efforts to develop OIE risk 
classifications in relation to BSE at the interna tional level.  The European Communities hoped an 
agreement would be reached in the OIE by June-July 2003. 
251. Uruguay stated that it was highly dependent on animal product exports.  If BSE appeared in 
Uruguay it would not only affect the health and lif e of people and animals, but would have an 
economically devastating effect.  Uruguay had adopt ed the emergency measures due to the growing 
number of countries with BSE over the last year an d the increased risk of introducing the disease into 
the country.  According to OIE data, at the end of 2000 there were 12 countries with local outbreaks, 
while that figure currently stood at 22.  Uruguay had adopted the risk assessment criteria established 
by the European Communities until such time as the OIE produced a list of countries classified in 
relation to BSE, and would review its legislation when the OIE finished its  work in this area. 
252. In April 2003, Canada reported that Argentin a and Uruguay had agreed to undertake their 
own BSE risk assessment instead of relying on the EC  BSE risk assessment as the basis for their BSE-
related measures and classification of countries.  Urug uay stated that it was dependent on meat related 
products for 8 per cent of its GDP.  Since 1996, a nu mber of emergency measures had been taken to 
ensure that BSE did not enter the country.  In 2001, a decree was promulgated which would restrict 
food products on the basis of their BSE categorization.  At the present time, this decree was 
suspended and bilateral discussions were ongoing.  Information from both Canada and the United 
States was being reviewed and final categorization of both country's BSE status should be concluded 
within a short period of time. 
253. In September 2004, Canada re ported that the issue of Uruguay's BSE measures had been 
resolved with Uruguay.    G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 60  
 
 VENEZUELA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED VENEZUELA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to FMD 
61. Venezuela – FMD Restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 20) , June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 46- 47) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Resolved 
254. Argentina requested Venezuela to accept imports of animal-based products that had followed 
the risk mitigation procedures identified in the OI E Animal Health Code.  Venezuela stated that 
Argentina had not been listed as an FMD-free zone  in an OIE Bulletin dated 17 March 2002, and that 
the Pan-American Health Office had reported on a new FMD outbreak in Argentina in a 6 March 
2002 report. 
255. In June 2002, Argentina noted that despite b ilateral contacts, Venezuela had not provided any 
further information nor its risk assessment to Arge ntina.  Venezuela indicat ed that it recognized the 
region of Argentina south of the 42nd parallel as free from FMD without vaccination, and was 
prepared to import meat from this region.  With r espect to the other regions of Argentina, Venezuela 
followed the OIE recommendations, however it was w illing to consult with Argentina on the matter. 
256. In March 2004, the Argentina reported that the issue of Venezuela's FMD restrictions had 
been resolved. 
Plant Health 
62. Venezuela - Phytosanitary requirement s for potatoes, garlic and onions  
Raised by: Argentina  
Supported by: United States, Canada 
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  26-28), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 131), 
October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 99- 100), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 
43), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 54- 55), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 
53-54), June 2003 (S/SPS/R/30, par as.36-38), October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, 
paras. 23-24), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 63-64), 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 257. In March 2001, Argentina provided informa tion on Venezuela's import restrictions on 
Argentine garlic because of Urocystis cepulae that had been imposed since 1997.  According to the 
terms of the Andean Pact no quarantine measures ha d been adopted against Argentina.  Regarding 
potatoes, Argentina had begun efforts to gain acce ss to the Venezuelan market in 1996, and had 
provided the necessary information for a risk assessment.  Argentina expressed concern at the 
seeming lack of will on the part of Venezuela to ma ke progress on both issues.  In addition, Argentina 
was concerned about a lack of coherence in th e application of resolution 431 of the mandatory  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 61 
 
 
 sanitary and phytosanitary standards of the Andean  Community, which it would raise with the Andean 
Community.  Venezuela explained that there was no  lack of will to move forward on these issues.  
Regarding garlic, the administrative process to set up the necessary protocols was ongoing.  With 
respect to potatoes, Venezuela believed that Argentine and Andean Community phytosanitary 
standards were not compatible.   Colombia requested  Argentina to submit its concerns to the Andean 
Community. 
258. In July 2001, Argentina inform ed the Committee that bilateral meetings had been held, and 
although the problem had not been completely solv ed, Venezuela had demonstrated a will to find a 
solution.  In October 2001, Argentina requested a technical reply from Venezuela to the questions 
raised during a recent bilateral meeting on the sanitary restrictions on potato imports, so as to facilitate 
the start of trading in this product.  Venezuela rep lied that it was seeking to prevent the introduction of 
pests that existed in Argentina but were exotic to Venezuela.  The sanita ry services were evaluating 
the appropriateness of alternative methods, such as pest free areas, that would meet Argentina's 
legitimate trade concerns and Venezuel a's appropriate level of protection. 
259. In March 2002,  Argentina informed that bila teral negotiations with the Venezuelan health 
authorities had taken place, but in the protocols ag reed for importation on potatoes, garlic and onion 
the matter of certification and inspection visits by Ve nezuelan officials was left outstanding.  In view 
of the seasonal nature of these commodities, Argentin a was concerned that if the inspection visits did 
not take place soon, no exports would be possible be fore 2003.  In response, Venezuela noted that 
they  were awaiting a proposal from Argentina on a convenient date for the inspection visit. 
260. In June 2002, Argentina stated that there had been no progress in resolving the problems 
arising from Venezuela's restrictions on potatoes, garlic and onions.  Argentina was waiting for the 
onsite visit which Venezuela indicated was necessary before trade could resume.  Venezuela stated 
that some revisions to its requirements had been made, and it was now organizing a technical visit to 
examine the pest surveillance systems in Arge ntine producing areas, with the hope of finding a 
solution to the problem. 
261. In April 2003, Argentina informed the Comm ittee that Venezuelan technical experts had 
visited Argentina to verify its claims of freedom from onion smut ( Urocystis cepulae ).  Discussions 
had entered the final phase and the Argentine auth orities awaited the publication of the Venezuelan 
expert report which should allow the resolution of this issue.  Venezuela reported that bilateral 
consultations with Argentina had taken place prio r to the Committee meeting and that the expert 
report should be available soon. 
262. In June 2003, Argentina reported that it still had not received the fi nal report and urged 
Venezuela to inform Argentina about the results of  the visit so that trade could be initiated.  
Venezuela clarified that imports from Argentina were not prohibited but subject to certain requirements.  Furthermore, Venezuela had unde rtaken a risk assessment  which provided the 
necessary justifications.  The results of this assessment would be communicated to the Argentine 
health services as a part of th e mutually agreed work plan. 
263. In October 2003, Argentina noted that Venezuelan officials had visited Argentina in 
December 2002 to confirm the absence of oni on smut.  Argentina had received a report from 
Venezuela just the previous week and hoped it mean t the issue was resolved.  The United States and 
Canada shared Argentina's concerns over delays or denial of import permits without scientific 
justifications.  Venezuela noted that the report ha d been sent to Argentina in March and an import 
protocol could now be completed. 
264. In March 2004, Argentina informed the Comm ittee that a technical document had been 
presented to Venezuela during bilateral discussions held on 16 March 2004.  Argentina and Venezuela G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 62  
 
 agreed to hold further discussions and hoped for a r esolution on this issue.  Venezuela reported that it 
had received the documents requested from Argentina and hoped for an early resolution on the issue. 
Other Concerns 
63. Venezuela – Restrictions on imports of potatoes, onions, fertilised eggs, day-old chicks 
and meat products 
Raised by: Colombia, Canada 
Supported by: Chile, United States 
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras.  27-29), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 30-
32) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Not reported 
 
265. Colombia stated that Venezuela was not gran ting sanitary certificates for potatoes, fresh 
mushrooms, fresh tomatoes, fertile eggs, day-ol d chicks and meat produc ts and requested that 
Venezuela notify the measure which served as the basi s for the discretionary granting or non-issuance 
of health certificates for Colombian exports, or to  lift this measure.  Chile, the United States and 
Canada supported the concerns expressed by Colombia.   
266. Venezuela provided details of import levels fo r potatoes, mushrooms and fresh tomatoes in 
2001, which showed that import licenses were being granted.  Venezuela had temporarily suspended 
SPS licensing for fertile eggs and day-old chicks as a result of an outbreak of avian flu in Colombia, a 
disease alien to Venezuela, from January 2002.  On 8 February 2002, the prohibition on fertile eggs 
was removed.  Notification of the lifting of restri ctions against day-old ch icks was made on 7 March 
2002.  For meat products, Venezuela noted that her country regularly imported beef on the hoof, 
slaughtered and processed beef and swine products.  In reply to the comments of other Members, she 
stated that it was important not to confuse problem s of administrative capacity and management with 
discretionary licensing.  
267. In June 2004, Canada recalled that it had rai sed concerns over Venezuela's issuance of SPS-
related permits in previous SPS Committee and Agriculture Committee meetings.  Venezuela's 
policies had restricted Canadian exports of meat, seed potatoes, table potatoes and onions.  Venezuela 
had not provided a clear explanation of this policy,  however it appeared that the permits in question 
were SPS-related.  Importers would apply to Ve nezuelan authorities for permits and provide SPS 
information to support their application, but appli cations had been denied without an SPS-related 
justification.  Canada requested  that Venezuela grant permits on an automatic basis as long as the 
conditions of the SPS Agreement had been met.  Ve nezuela and Canada had agreed to continue to 
pursue this issue bilaterally.  Chile and the United States requested that Venezuela review its import 
procedures in order to comply with obligations under the SPS Agreement.  The United States noted 
that for products not subject to tariff rate quotas (TRQs), Venezuela seemed to be using SPS permits 
in a manner equivalent to import licences. 
268. Venezuela stated that Canadian import requests were normally given a positive reply.  The 
comments from Canada, Chile and the United Stat es would be considered carefully.  Venezuela 
would contact the Canadian authorities to clarify the situation concerning import requests of meat. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 63 
 
 
 OTHER CONCERNS 
Animal Health and Zoonoses  
TSE concerns  64. Certain Members – General import restrictions due to BSE 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Canada, United States 
Dates raised: June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras.  37-38), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, para.85-
86) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Several WTO Members reviewed their bans  
 
269. The European Communities raised concerns about unjustified import restrictions on EC 
exports due to concerns about BSE.  To satisfy  consumer demands, the European Communities had 
adopted comprehensive measures to  address risks relating to BSE.  These measures applied both to 
products intended for consumption within the Euro pean Communities, and to  those destined for 
export.  The system of geographical assessment us ed in the European Co mmunities had successfully 
identified countries in which the disease was still pr esent.  The European Communities called on other 
countries to replace import bans, which exceeded OIE recommendations and yet did not fully address 
potential internal risks, with specific import require ments in accordance with OIE standards.  Many 
products, such as semen, embryos and dairy products could be traded with predefined guarantees.  
Members were urged to take into  consideration OIE recommendations for international trade and to 
stop discriminating among Members with similar BSE conditions. 
270. Canada recalled that at its last meeting the OIE had reconfirmed that some products, such as 
semen, embryos, hides, and milk, did not contribute to  the transmission of BSE.  Hence the imports of 
these types of products did not provide a potentia l pathway for introduction of the disease.   
271. In October 2004, the European Communities informed the Committe e that several WTO 
Members had reviewed their bans on EC beef and small bovine ruminant products and replaced them 
with specific requirements in accordance with OIE standards.  The European Communities urged all 
those Members who had not yet done so to align thei r regulations in accordance with OIE standards.  
The United States noted that some Members were reviewing their import restrictions on US beef and also urged all those Members who had not done so to align their regulations in accordance with OIE 
standards. 
Concerns related to FMD 
65. Certain Members – FMD-related import restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina, European Communities 
Supported by: Bolivia, Brazil, Uruguay 
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras.  56-64), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 
20-23), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 48-49), November 2002 
(G/SPS/R/28, paras. 52-53) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/269 
Solution: New Zealand, Indonesia, Ukraine a nd Switzerland lifted restrictions against 
EC member States after they regained FMD-free status.  Problems with other Members persisting.  Resolved with Argentina. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 64  
 
  
272. In July 2001, the European  Communities observed that many Members had imposed 
restrictions on products that had been treated in a ccordance with the international standard to destroy 
the FMD virus, and had kept them in place beyond the recognized waiting period of three months.  The principles of proportionality, justification of  measures and regionalization in accordance with the 
OIE Code and Article 6 had not been followed.  Although border controls within the European 
Communities had been eliminated, they had been  replaced by other control instruments.   
273. Argentina expressed concern that many products from Argentina were facing scientifically 
unjustified restrictions that violated Articles 2. 1, 3.1 and 5.1 and the OIE Code.  Plant products, 
except straw and forage, should normally not be  affected by FMD-related measures.   
274. Australia explained that it was asking for r easonable information to allow a scientific 
judgement in the face of a different clinical pres entation in sheep.  Recently, additional restrictions on 
Denmark and Austria and on race horses from the European Communities had been lifted.  Australia would re-examine the restrictions as requested info rmation was received.  The United States clarified 
that its FMD measures on EC countries affected only the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Netherlands 
and France.  The United States had lifted restrictions on EC member States that had not had FMD 
cases in May 2001, and was currently evaluating the situation in France and Ireland.  The OIE 
representative drew the attention of the Committee to G/SPS/GEN/266, which in Annex 1 contained a 
list of countries that had been confirmed as free of FMD without vaccination, including several EC member States.  G/SPS/GEN/240 contained the rele vant Code chapter on FMD, which had been 
thoroughly reviewed betw een 1990 and 1997 and should be ta ken into account by WTO Members. 
275. The European Communities noted its long tradition of good trade with Uruguay and 
Argentina, and hoped the situation would soon be resolved.  In the EC view, Australia's questionnaire 
was out of proportion with the problem to be addressed.  It was not acceptable that non-affected countries received a questionnaire corresponding to an a ffected country wanting to be declared free of 
FMD.  The European Communities appreciated the US reaction regarding unaffected countries, and 
asked the United States to follow the example of Ca nada and New Zealand in handling the crisis.  
Brazil and Bolivia expressed concern that Members were departing from the principles of the SPS Agreement. 
276. In October 2001, the European Communities expressed concern over continued Australian 
restrictions, which affected member States in wh ich there had been no outbreaks of FMD and were 
based on a failure by these countries to reply to an Australian questionnaire.  Canadian and US 
restrictions against Greece also affected a member State where no outbreak had occurred and that had 
been declared FMD-free in the m eantime.  The European  Communities also brought to the attention 
of the Committee continued US, Japanese and Mexican restrictions against France, the Netherlands and Ireland.  New Zealand, Indonesia, Ukraine and Switzerland had lifted restrictions against member 
States after they had regained FMD-free status.   
277. Australia reported that it was now able to recognize all member States except the United 
Kingdom as FMD-free.  Japan stated that bilateral consultations were continuing with France, Ireland 
and the Netherlands.  The United States reported that  import restrictions con tinued to apply to the 
United Kingdom, the Netherlands, France and Ireland.  The United States reco gnized that the disease 
outbreaks in these countries were limited, no remain ing technical concerns existed, and the United 
States was taking the necessary regulatory actions to publicize the proposals in the Federal Register.  
Concerning Greece, the product ban pre-dated the cu rrent FMD outbreak and w as a separate issue.  
Canada recalled that Greece had only recently expr essed an interest in exporting meat products to 
Canada, and the request was being evaluated.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 65 
 
 
 278. In June 2002, the European Communities re ported that most Members had lifted their 
restrictions related to the FMD outbreak in Europe .  The OIE had just revised its list of countries 
recognized as FMD-free, which included all 15 EC  member States.  However, some Members 
continued to apply restrictions or requirements which served as administrative bans on EC products, 
in particular UK meat and meat products.  Argentin a noted that they also continued to suffer long-
term negative effects from measures kept in place without justification. 
279. Japan reported that the Domestic Animal Inf ectious Disease Control Law had been amended 
on 14 June, permitting resumption of imports of po rk meat and products from France and Ireland.  
The comment period regarding a proposed lifting of the import ban on Dutch products had just 
concluded, and the ban could be lifted as early as mid-July. 
280. In November 2002 the European Communities noted disappointment that some unnecessary 
and unreasonable FMD trade barriers continued to affect EC exports, in violation of the SPS 
Agreement.  Mexico imposed a number of BSE-related measures that had a detrimental effect on exports from Austria, although Austria had regi stered no cases of FMD in the course of the 2001 
outbreaks.  Bilateral meetings on the matter had been unsuccessful.  Mexico indicated that it 
recognized Austria as being FMD free but were waiting to receive a request from Austria for plant 
inspections.  Argentina supported the comments made  by the European Comm unities with regards to 
FMD-related measures taken by certain Members. 
281. In March 2004, Argentina informed the Secretar iat that the issue had been resolved with 
respect to Argentina's concerns. 
Other Animal Health Concerns  
66. Certain Members - Regionalization and recognition of animal disease free status 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, para. 52) , June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 35-36), 
October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, para.87) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Several WTO members removed re strictions on some EC member States 
 
282. The European Communities indicat ed that they recognized regionalization and based their 
policy on Article 6 of the SPS Agreement, while some Members did not give the same treatment to regionalization.  The European Communities had provided evidence to the importing Member on regions free from the disease and access for inspecti on or any other relevant procedures as in 
accordance with Article 6.  Nevertheless, EC me mber States continued to experience unjustified 
export restrictions related to assumed disease prese nce in those regions.  For example, Germany, 
Belgium and the Netherlands had experienced impo rt restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian 
influenza although they regained their disease free st atus in November 2003.  France, Italy and Spain 
experienced unjustified restrictions related to cla ssical swine fever due to the non-application of the 
principle of regionalization.  Furthermore, all  EC member States were officially free of FMD but 
continued to face unjustified import restrictions.  The European Communities urged all Members to 
respect the obligations of the SPS Agreement on regionalization and recognize the disease free status of EC member States and remove unjustified import restrictions 
283. In June 2004, the European Communities stated  that some WTO Members failed to recognize 
that all EC member States were officially free of FMD according to the OIE criteria.  No new 
outbreaks of FMD had been recorded in the terr itory of the European Communities since 2002. The G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
Page 66  
 
 European Communities considered the epidemic to be under control and the disease completely 
eradicated.  According to the OIE rules, countries co uld recover free status thre e months after the last 
identified case when a stamping out policy and serologi cal surveillance were applied.  There was no 
scientific justification for restrictive measures on EC products due to FMD.   
284. The European Communities also highlighted the lack of recognition of regionalization for 
Classical Swine Fever.  The European Communiti es had continued to recognize area disease-free 
status in several WTO Members who themselves fail ed to recognize regionalization in the European 
Communities.  The European Communities regularly  provided information to importing countries 
upon request concerning which EC member States could be considered free of Classical Swine Fever and had also facilitated inspections.  However, so me WTO Members continued to impose restrictions 
on imports from Italy and France based on concerns  about Classical Swine Fever.  The European 
Communities urged Members to respect Article 6 of the SPS Agreement, particularly related to Italy 
and France, and offered to provide any relevant information to support the implementation of this 
request.  
285. In October 2004,  the European Communities r ecalled that the European Communities had on 
previous occasions requested Members to adhere to the principles of regionalization and to recognize 
the disease-free status of EC member States.  Several Members had now removed their restrictions on some EC member States.  The European Comm unities would provide all necessary information to 
demonstrate its disease-free status to any WTO Member.   
P
LANT HEALTH  
67. Certain Members - Notification by Members of implementation of ISPM 15 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 83-84) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Not reported 
 
286. The European Communities stated that a number  of Members had informed the Committee of 
their intentions to put in place wood packing re quirements based on ISPM 15.  These wood packing 
requirements would also cover woode n barrels and casks containing dis tilled spirits or other alcoholic 
beverages.  Although ISPM 15 was not clear on th e coverage of products, it provided guidance on 
products that might be excluded such as manufactur ed wood.  The wooden barrels and casks typically 
used to contain distilled spirits and wine were subj ect to heat treatment at 100 degrees centigrade for 
40 minutes, exceeding ISPM is guidelines of 56 centigrade for 30 minutes. 
287. It was apparent that the drafters of ISPM 15 did not intend to cover wooden barrels used to 
contain alcoholic beverages such as spirits.  Some  countries had clearly indicated in their domestic 
legislation that ISPM 15 did not apply to wood en barrels containing spirits.  The European 
Communities noted that the IPPC was organizing a gl obal training workshop in 2005 to explain the 
application of ISPM 15 but requested the IPPC to clarify the matter as soon as possible in order to 
allow trade to continue.    G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.5/Add.1 
 Page 67 
 
 
 68. Implementation of ISPM 15 
Raised by: Chile, Uruguay, 
Supported by: Argentina, Bolivia, China, Colombia, Mexico, Paraguay 
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, pa ras. 135-137), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, 
para.151) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/435 
Solution: Not reported 
 
288. Chile stated that Members should take into c onsideration the zone of production of the wood 
and allow sufficient time for countries to adapt thei r treatment methods to meet the ISPM 15 standard 
when adopting the measures.  Compliance with the st andard required the private sector to make large 
scale investments, a certification process to regist er the mark on packaging, establishment of an 
accreditation system, and the setting up of supervisor y and audit systems.  Chile's concerns were 
detailed in document G/SPS/GEN/435.  
289. Uruguay stated that it was the implementation of the standard that was the problem.  
Argentina supported the comments make by Chile and Uruguay.  Mexico stated that problems could arise with implementing this standard and that discu ssions on this issue should continue in the context 
of the SPS Committee.  Paraguay and Colomb ia supported the comments made by others. 
290. Canada commented that the standard was not ne w as it had been adopted by the IPPC in June 
2002.  Canada had planned to implement the standa rd in June 2003 but  delayed its implementation 
until January 2004 to give Members sufficient time to adapt wood treatment processes.  Canada would provide a transition period and recommended that the issue be discussed under Agenda Item 7(a) regarding the use of international standards. 
291. In March 2004, Uruguay indicated it was provi ding national level certification of wood 
packaging which was used as support material fo r exported products.  However, Uruguay needed 
more time to apply the different phases of the cer tification procedure.  Uruguay emphasized the need 
to recognize the valid use of alternative sanitation methods (as described in section 3.3 of ISPM 15), 
particularly in cases in which countries did not have  the necessary infrastruct ure.  Argentina, China 
and Bolivia shared Uruguay's concern about ISPM  15, particularly relating to the explicit 
implementation timelines.   
 
__________