WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
7 February 2007 
 (07-0521) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
  
SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
Addendum  
  
RESOLVED ISSUES 
 
  This part of document G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7 c ontains summary information regarding all 
issues which were raised in the SPS Committee between 1995 and 200 6, and on which a resolution 
was reported prior to 2006.  
                                                     
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
Page ii  
 
  TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
Page
 
ARGENTINA ...................................................................................................................... ..................1  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ARGENTINA ..........................................1  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ...1 
4. Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Br azil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, 
Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Roma nia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, 
Spain, United States and others – Measures related to BSE...............................................1  
60. Argentina – Import restrictions on bovine seme n and embryos, milk and milk products ..3  
125. Argentina – BSE related measures .....................................................................................5  
AUSTRALIA...................................................................................................................... ...................6  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY AUSTRALIA ...........................................6  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... .................6  
45. Australia and New Zealand – Import restrictions on cheese ..............................................6  
49. Australia – Restrictions on imports of sauces containing benzoic acid..............................7  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ...8 
4. (and Argentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil,  Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, 
Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Roma nia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, 
Spain, United States and others) – Measures related to BSE .............................................1  
8. Australia – Ban on salmon imports.....................................................................................8  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... .................8  
86. Australia - Access of Ca lifornia table grapes .....................................................................8  
AUSTRIA ........................................................................................................................ ......................1  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY AUSTRIA ................................................1  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ...1 
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, 
Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Roma nia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, 
Spain, United States and others) – Measures related to BSE .............................................1  
BAHRAIN........................................................................................................................ ......................9  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BAHRAIN ..............................................9  
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... ......9  
165. Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and United Arab Emirates – Import restrictions on 
Spanish olive oil .............................................................................................................. ...9 
BELGIUM ........................................................................................................................ .....................1   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
 Page iii 
 
 
  CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BELGIUM ...............................................1  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ...1 
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Brazil,  Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, 
Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Roma nia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, 
Spain, United States and others) – Measures related to BSE .............................................1  
BOLIVIA ........................................................................................................................ .....................10  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BOLIVIA ..............................................10  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... .10 
112. Bolivia - FMD trade restrictions.......................................................................................10  
BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA...............................................................................11  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF 
VENEZUELA .....................................................................................................................11  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... .11 
122. Bolivarian Republic of Venezu ela – FMD Restrictions ...................................................11  
BRAZIL ......................................................................................................................... ......................11  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BRAZIL ................................................11  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... .11 
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium,  Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, 
Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Roma nia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, 
Spain, United States and others) – Measures related to BSE .............................................1  
156. Brazil – Notification G/SPS/N/BRA/74 and 75 on BSE-related measures ......................11  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ...............12  
14. Brazil – Restrictions on imported wheat...........................................................................12  
CANADA ......................................................................................................................... ....................13  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CANADA ..............................................13  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... .13 
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium,  Brazil, Chile, Czech Republic, France, 
Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Roma nia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, 
Spain, United States and others) – Measures related to BSE .............................................1  
87. Canada - Measures affecting imports of  products containing Brazilian beef...................13  
CHILE.......................................................................................................................... ........................13  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHILE ..................................................13  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... .13 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
Page iv  
 
  4.
 (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium,  Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, France, 
Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Roma nia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, 
Spain, United States and others) – Measures related to BSE .............................................1  
113. Chile - Pet food import requirements ...............................................................................13  
104. Chile - FMD restrictions...................................................................................................14  
CHINA .......................................................................................................................... .......................15  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINA .................................................15  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ...............15  
127. China – Import ban on pro ducts of Dutch origin..............................................................15  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... .16 
157. China – Quarantine measures for the entry and exit of aquatic products .........................16  
196. China – Measures on US poultry......................................................................................17  
COLOMBIA....................................................................................................................... .................18  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY COLOMBIA ..........................................18  
Animal Health and Zoonoses ......................................................................................................18  
116. Colombia - FMD restrictions............................................................................................18  
CUBA ........................................................................................................................... ........................19  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CUBA...................................................19  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... .19 
129. Cuba – Import restrictions on spi ced pork and salted meat products ...............................19  
CZECH REPUBLIC................................................................................................................. ..........20  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CZECH REPUBLIC ..............................20  
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... ....20  
51. Czech Republic - Prohibition of poultry meat imports from Thailand.............................20  
Animal Health and Zoonoses ......................................................................................................20  
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Chile, France, Germany, 
Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Si ngapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, 
United States and others) – Measures related to BSE ........................................................1  
30. Czech Republic – Regulation con cerning warehouses and silos......................................20  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ...............21  
10. Czech Republic - Imports of potatoes...............................................................................21  
EL SALVADOR.................................................................................................................... ..............22  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EL SALVADOR ....................................22  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... .22  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
 Page v 
 
 
  71. El Salvador – Restrictions on meat and dairy products ....................................................22  
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES .........................................................................................................22  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ................22  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ...............22  
40. European Communities – Trade restrict ions in response to cholera.................................22  
53. European Communities - Emergenc y measures on citrus pulp ........................................23  
167. European Communities – Restri ctions on honey imports.................................................23  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ...............24  
27. European Communities - Citrus canker............................................................................24  
FRANCE......................................................................................................................... .......................1  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY FRANCE .................................................1  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ...1 
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium,  Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, 
Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Roma nia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, 
Spain, United States and others) – Measures related to BSE .............................................1  
60. Argentina – Import restrictions on bovine seme n and embryos, milk and milk products ..3  
125. Argentina – BSE related measures .....................................................................................5  
GERMANY ........................................................................................................................ ...................1  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY GERMANY .............................................1  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ...1 
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium,  Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, 
France, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Roma nia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, 
Spain, United States and others) – Measures related to BSE .............................................1  
60. Argentina – Import restrictions on bovine seme n and embryos, milk and milk products ..3  
125. Argentina – BSE related measures .....................................................................................5  
HONDURAS....................................................................................................................... .................25  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY HONDURAS ..........................................25  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ...............25  
20. Honduras – Restrictions on imports of rough rice............................................................25  
HUNGARY........................................................................................................................ ..................25  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY HUNGARY ...........................................25  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... .25 
90. Hungary - Restrictions on bovine products ......................................................................25  
91. Hungary - Restrictions on  pork products.........................................................................26  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
Page vi  
 
  ICELAND ........................................................................................................................ ....................26
 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ICELAND .............................................26  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ...............26  
75. Iceland - Notification on meat and meat products............................................................26  
INDONESIA...................................................................................................................... ..................27  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA ..........................................27  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ...............27  
82. Indonesia - Restrictions on importation of fresh fruit.......................................................27  
ISRAEL......................................................................................................................... .......................28  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ISRAEL ................................................28  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... .28 
22. Israel – Measures affecting imports of bovine meat.........................................................28  
ITALY.......................................................................................................................... ..........................1  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ITALY ....................................................1  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ...1 
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium,  Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, 
France, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Roma nia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, 
Spain, United States and others) – Measures related to BSE .............................................1  
60. Argentina – Import restrictions on bovine seme n and embryos, milk and milk products ..3  
125. Argentina – BSE related measures .....................................................................................5  
JAPAN .......................................................................................................................... .......................28  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN ..................................................28  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ...............28  
12. Japan – Testing requirements for different varieties of apples, cherries and nectarines...28  
100. Japan - Import measures on fire blight .............................................................................29  
172. Japan – Restrictions on imports of mangoes ....................................................................30  
REPUBLIC OF KOREA.............................................................................................................. ......32  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA .................32  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ...............32  
1. Korea – Shelf-life requirements........................................................................................32  
35. Korea – Import ban on frozen poultry ..............................................................................33  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ...............34  
202. Korea – Septoria  controls on horticultural products.........................................................34   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
 Page vii 
 
 
  Other Concerns................................................................................................................. ...........34  
2. Korea – Import clearance measures and practices............................................................34  
KUWAIT ......................................................................................................................... ......................9  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY KUWAIT ................................................9  
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... ......9  
165. (and Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and United Arab Em irates) – Import restrictions on Spanish 
olive oil...................................................................................................................... .........9  
MALAYSIA....................................................................................................................... ..................35  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY MALAYSIA ..........................................35  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ...............35  
66. Malaysia and Singapore - Notifi cations related to dioxin ................................................35  
MEXICO......................................................................................................................... .....................36  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY MEXICO ..............................................36  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ...............36  
36. Mexico – Import prohibition of milled rice......................................................................36  
NETHERLANDS .................................................................................................................... ..............1  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE NETHERLANDS ..............................1  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ...1 
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium,  Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, 
France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Romania, Si ngapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia,  Spain, 
United States and others) – Measures related to BSE ........................................................1  
60. Argentina – Import restrictions on bovine seme n and embryos, milk and milk products ..3  
125. Argentina – BSE related measures .....................................................................................5  
NEW ZEALAND .................................................................................................................... ............38  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY NEW ZEALAND ...................................38  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ...............38  
101. New Zealand - Proposed import prohibition of  commodity-country combinations of  
fresh cut flowers and foliage.............................................................................................38  
NORWAY......................................................................................................................... ...................38  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ................38  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... .38 
3. Norway – Restrictions on gelatin imports ........................................................................38  
OMAN........................................................................................................................... .........................9  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
Page viii  
 
  C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY OMAN ...................................................9  
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... ......9  
165. (and Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and United Arab Em irates) – Import restrictions on Spanish 
olive oil...................................................................................................................... .........9  
PANAMA......................................................................................................................... ....................39  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY PANAMA ..............................................39  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ...............39  
24. Panama – Requirements for certification of consumer rice..............................................39  
PHILIPPINES.................................................................................................................... .................39  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE PHILIPPINES ................................39  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ...............39  
150. Philippines – Certification of  meat and dairy products ....................................................39  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ...............40  
119. Philippines - Notification on Chinese fruit imports..........................................................40  
POLAND......................................................................................................................... .....................41  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY POLAND ...............................................41  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ...............41  
57. Poland - Requirements for imports  of milk and milk products ........................................41  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... .41 
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium,  Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, 
France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Roma nia, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, 
Spain, United States and others) – Measures related to BSE .............................................1  
68. Poland - Notifications on veterinary m easures and measures on animal products  
including gelatin .............................................................................................................. .41 
QATAR .......................................................................................................................... ........................9  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY QATAR ..................................................9  
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... ......9  
165. (and Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, and United Arab  Emirates) – Import restrictions on 
Spanish olive oil .............................................................................................................. ...9 
ROMANIA ........................................................................................................................ ....................1  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ROMANIA ..............................................1  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ...1 
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium,  Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, 
France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, 
Spain, United States and others) – Measures related to BSE .............................................1   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
 Page ix 
 
 
  SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU 
(CHINESE TAIPEI) ............................................................................................................... ............42  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINESE TAIPEI .................................42  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... .42 
180. Chinese Taipei – Requirements for heat treatment for meat and bone meal in poultry ...42  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ...............43  
181. Chinese Taipei – Import restrictions on potatoes .............................................................43  
SINGAPORE...................................................................................................................... ...................1  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SINGAPORE ...........................................1  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ...1 
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium,  Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, 
France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, 
Spain, United States and others) – Measures related to BSE .............................................1  
SLOVAK REPUBLIC ................................................................................................................ ........44  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC .....................44  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ...1 
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium,  Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, 
France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovenia,  Spain, 
United States and others) – Measures related to BSE ........................................................1  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ...............44  
41. Slovak Republic – Restrictions on impor ts of apples, pears and quinces.........................44  
42. Slovak Republic – Import r estrictions on potatoes...........................................................44  
SLOVENIA....................................................................................................................... .....................1  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SLOVENIA .............................................1  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ...1 
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium,  Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, 
France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Pola nd, Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic, 
Spain, United States and others) – Measures related to BSE .............................................1  
SPAIN .......................................................................................................................... ..........................1  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SPAIN .....................................................1  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ...1 
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium,  Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, 
France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Pola nd, Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic, 
Slovenia, United States and others ) – Measures related to BSE.........................................1  
SWITZERLAND.................................................................................................................... .............45  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
Page x  
 
  C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SWITZERLAND ....................................45  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ...............45  
54. Switzerland - Notifications regarding im port requirements on meat and eggs.................45  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ...............46  
28. Switzerland - Notification on wheat, rye and triticale ......................................................46  
TURKEY ......................................................................................................................... ....................47  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY TURKEY ..............................................47  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... .47 
76. Turkey - Ban on pet food imports.....................................................................................47  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ...............48  
92. Turkey - Restrictions on banana imports..........................................................................48  
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES ........................................................................................................... ...9 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY UNITED ARAB EMIRATES ....................9  
Food Safety ............................................................................................................................... ......9  
165. (and Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar) – Impor t restrictions on Spanish olive oil .........9  
UNITED STATES.................................................................................................................. .............49  
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE UNITED STATES ..........................49  
Food Safety.................................................................................................................... ...............49  
188. United States – Delisting of France from countries authorized to export certain meat and 
meat products to the United States ...................................................................................49  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ...1 
4. (and Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium,  Brazil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, 
France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Pola nd, Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic, 
Slovenia, Spain and others) – Measures related to BSE.....................................................1  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ...............50  
69. United States – Import restrictions on rhododendrons in growing medium.....................50  
73. United States – Imports of citrus fruit ..............................................................................50  
 
 
   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
 Page 1 
 
 
  ARGENTINA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ARGENTINA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to TSEs 
 
4.  Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Br azil, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, France, 
 Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovak Republic, Slovenia,  Spain, United States and others – Measures related to BSE 
Raised by: Switzerland 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5 and Corr.1,  paras. 6-9), October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, 
para. 53), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras.  56), July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, paras. 
10-19), October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Re v.1, para. 15-17), March 1998 
(G/SPS/R/10, para. 9), June 1998 (G/ SPS/R/11, para. 29), September 1998 
(G/SPS/R/12, paras. 26-30), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 17-18), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/14, para. 14), Ma rch 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, para. 8) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/56, G/SPS/N/AUS/57, G/SPS/N/CAN/18, G/SPS/N/CHL/1, 
G/SPS/N/CHL/6, G/SPS/N/CHL/31, G/SPS/N/CZE/14 and Add.1, G/SPS/N/SGP/1, G/SPS/W/68, G/SPS/W/79, G/SPS/GN/5, G/SPS/GEN/71 
Solution: Slovak transit ban removed, mutua lly satisfactory soluti on found with regard 
to Slovak importation of Swiss milk  and milk products; Chilean import 
measure modified; some other measures withdrawn/revised. 
 1. In May 1996, Switzerland presented informati on on its BSE situation,  and noted that a 
number of countries had restricted imports of dairy products, although both the OIE and the WHO 
concluded that dairy products posed no risk in  respect of BSE.  In October 1996, Switzerland 
provided an update of its sanitary prescriptions, culli ng and veterinary measures to be adopted at the 
border.   In March 1997, Switzerland indicated th at although it was a country of low incidence of 
BSE, it had been subject to a number of BSE-relate d trade restrictions, some of which could not be 
justified under WTO rules.  The Chairman agreed to hold informal consulta tions with interested 
Members on 21 March 1997. 
2. In July 1997, Switzerland reported that alt hough there had been some positive developments, 
problems remained.  Switzerland addressed some questions to the Members concerned, stressing its interest to find rapid solutions through bilatera l discussions.  Argentina in formed the Committee that 
it had replied to Swiss questions and would pr ovide more information; Switzerland expressed 
satisfaction with this progress.  Brazil noted that  its import prohibition of bovine semen was based on 
the classification of bovine semen as a medium risk  product, and on Brazil's BSE-free status.  At the 
subsequent meeting of the relevant MERCOSUR work ing group in July 1997, Brazil would attempt to 
reclassify bovine semen as low risk. 
3. Canada noted that there had been no changes to its import conditions for the importation of 
live cattle, bovine embryos, bovine semen, bovine m eat or meat products from Switzerland, although 
a draft document on BSE policies was being discussed.  Canada was receiving comments on its draft measure, which would be in accordance with the OI E Code.  Canada was concerned with the lack of 
quantitative or qualitative parameters for the diffe rentiation between countri es with high and low 
incidence of BSE, and re-extended an  invitation for bilateral discussions. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
Page 2  
 
  4. The United States stressed that it did not proh ibit the importation of meat.  BSE-related 
measures were subject to continued review based on scientific evidence, which, for example, had led 
to the opening of trade in bovine semen, altho ugh other matters remained unresolved.  The United 
States remained open to scientific discussion in th e area.  Switzerland noted that the United States 
required certification for dried meat, and hoped that the reviewed US policies would be in line with 
OIE recommendations. 
5. Romania informed the Committee that it had held bilateral discussions with Switzerland.  Its 
policies were in line with OIE recommendations, and would be notified shortly.  Switzerland 
expressed satisfaction with the results of bilateral ta lks.  Poland noted that imports to Poland were 
carried out on the grounds of individual import perm issions, but that no application had been received 
from Switzerland.  Switzerland requested bilateral cl arifications.  Singapore indicated that countries 
exporting beef were required to certify BSE-freedom fo r six years.  It believed this measure to be 
consistent with the SPS Agreement, and planned to notify it shortly. 
6. The Czech Republic was concerned about con tinued occurrence of BSE in Switzerland, 
especially since the Czech Republic was BSE-free.  However, imports of bovine semen, brain and 
embryos from Switzerland were not restricted.  The Czech Republic would prefer to continue 
discussion at the level of veterinary experts.  The European Communities noted that measures were 
taken on a national basis by EC member States, but we re screened for conformity with EC law before 
being notified to WTO.  In the case of BSE, this  had taken more time than expected, and although 
there was no common position within the European Communities, changes to the policy were being 
considered.  The European Communities indicat ed it was going beyond OIE recommendations, and 
indicated that it would be useful to conti nue discussions with the relevant experts. 
7. In October 1997, Switzerland indicated that its BSE-situation was improving, but that 
numerous restrictions continued to affect Swiss e xports of live cattle, genetic material, meat, and in 
certain cases milk products.  Bilate ral consultations were continuing.   Switzerland questioned why the 
Australian quarantine requirements for the importa tion of bovine embryos and semen applied to 
Switzerland only, and whether countries with actu al BSE incidents were subject to similar 
requirements.  Switzerland also wondered why the ob jective of the new requirements was to "develop 
import requirements…based on intern ational standards", whereas the notification indicated that no 
international standard existed.  Australia replied that it had developed generic conditions for 
importation of ruminants and rumi nant genetic material from member States of the European 
Communities, but had established bila teral conditions with other tradi ng partners.  The conditions in 
the notified draft requirements for Switzerland were in accordance with Australia's general import 
policy relating to BSE promulgated in January 1995, and were equiva lent to BSE requirements for all 
other countries.  International standards existed and Australia did not consider that the notified draft 
measures deviated from such standards. 
8. Switzerland questioned why the Czech import restri ction on imports of cattle over six months 
applied to Switzerland only, and whether countries w ith actual BSE incidents were subject to similar 
requirements.  The Czech Republic replied that an  individual import permit was required for traders 
interested in importing goods subject to veterinary  control, including live animals.  The Czech 
authorities considered the epizootic situation in the country of origin, frequency of newly found cases 
of contagious diseases, efficiency of eradication programmes, etc.  The import approach was always 
the same and included discussion with the veterinary authorities of the country of origin.  The system 
distinguished between countries with sporadic positiv e cases and those with continued occurrence of 
cases, like Switzerland.  Although the measur es in place in Switzerland corresponded to OIE 
recommendations, they had not fully eliminated BSE-related risks, and had not prevented new 
infections.  Unlike other countries, Switzerland sla ughtered and destroyed only BSE-affected animals, 
not all animals kept and fed in the same place.  Such animals could be considered as a source of 
disease.  Trade between the Czech Republic a nd the European Commun ities was based on EC  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
 Page 3 
 
 
  measures which represented a higher rate of preven tion than the OIE recommendations.  The Czech 
Republic offered to continue bilate ral discussions with Switzerland. 
9. In March 1998, Switzerland reported that most  BSE-related measures against its exports 
remained in place although they deviated from OI E recommendations.  However, some Members had 
eliminated or revised their measures, especially on genetic products.  With respect to the European 
Communities, Switzerland hoped that recent developments would lead to a more predictable situation.  
In June 1998, Switzerland and the Slovak Republic reported on pr ogress achieved during 
consultations and in September 1998, Switzerland reported that the transit ban had been removed, 
although discussions on market access fo r dairy products continued.  
10. In September 1998, Switzerland re iterated concerns with import prohibitions on Swiss bovine 
semen, which seemed to contradict WTO provision s regarding non-discrimination, risk assessment, 
notification and consultation.  Switzerland was still awaiting answers to its detailed questions to the 
relevant Members, or re-admission of Swiss expor ts.  The European Communities reported on useful 
bilateral contacts with Switzerland, and indicated that the European Communities was undertaking an 
inventory of all national BSE-rela ted measures in order to notify them.  In addition, the European 
Communities would propose that EC member Stat es harmonize their conditions for import from 
Switzerland.  Chile indicated that, based on OIE recommendations on BSE, it had authorized bovine 
semen imports from France and was processing a re quest from the United Kingdom.  No official 
request to export bovine semen ha d been received from Switzerland. 
11. In November 1998, Switzerland and the Slovak Rep ublic reported that they were close to a 
short-term solution regarding the Slovak import ban on Swiss dairy.  In the longer term, a few 
technical issues remained to be settled.  In Ma rch 1999, Switzerland informed the Committee that a 
mutually satisfactory solution regarding Slovak import ation of Swiss milk and milk products had been 
found.  Chile reported that its measure affecti ng imports of bovine semen had been modified. 
60. Argentina – Import restrictions on bovine semen and embryos, milk and milk products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Switzerland, South Africa 
Dates raised: March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, par as. 17-18), July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, paras 23-
24), November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras.  26-28), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, 
paras. 44-46), October 2001 (G/SPS/ R/25, paras. 18-19), June 2005 
(G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 51-52) , October 2005/February 2006 
(G/SPS/R/39, para. 91). 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ARG/37, G/SPS/N/ARG/38, G/SPS/N/ARG/47, Corr.1 and Rev.1, 
G/SPS/GEN/114, G/SPS/GEN/131, G/SPS/GEN/135 
Solution: Resolved. 
 12. In March 1999, the European Communities noted it had been unable to obtain the text of 
Argentina's measure on bovine semen imports , and was submitting a series of questions.
  Argentina 
indicated that the measure had been notified (G/SPS/N/ARG/37).  It clarified that the request for the 
full text of the measure had not been received from the Commission, but from several EC member 
States.  Argentina committed to sending the re levant document to the European Commission. 
13. In July 1999, the European Communities ag ain expressed concern re garding Argentina's 
BSE-related restrictions on bovine semen, milk  and milk products.  G/SPS/N/ARG/38 concerned a 
draft measure which classified these products as lo w-risk products.  Subs equently notified import 
requirements (G/SPS/N/ARG/47) established country freedom from BSE or low BSE risk as 
preconditions for importing frozen bovine semen, although according to the OIE, bovine semen from G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
Page 4  
 
  healthy animals could be traded without BSE-re lated restrictions.  The European Communities 
indicated that it had received no answers to the que stions raised in March 1999, and raised several 
new questions. 
14. Argentina replied that it had provided answers to the EC questions both bilaterally and in 
G/SPS/GEN/135.  Argentina had received sever al comments on the measure notified in 
G/SPS/N/ARG/47, and had taken these comments into account.  Argentina was planning to issue a 
revision of G/SPS/N/ARG/47, and was committed to continue exchanging information with the 
European Communities to resolve all questi ons before the measure was adopted.   
15. In November 2000, the European Communities stated that Argentina was applying import 
restrictions on bovine semen that went well be yond international recommendations and were not 
justified.  The European Communities would continue  to pursue this issue bilaterally, and was hopeful 
of a resolution.  Argentina replied that it had no tified, in advance, its regulation as G/SPS/N/ARG/47, 
which was subsequently revised following comme nts by the European Communities and others 
(G/SPS/N/ARG/47/Rev.1).  This regulation establishe d criteria not only in relation to BSE concerns 
but also to two other diseases.  Argentina had resolv ed the problems identified bilaterally by many EC 
member States, in particular Germany and France.  Furthermore, an Argentine veterinary mission 
would be visiting various EC member States early in December and was prepared to also address this issue at that time. 
16. In July 2001, the European Communities referre d to the information on BSE circulated by 
OIE and WHO, concluding that there was no evid ence of BSE transmission via milk collected from 
healthy animals (G/SPS/GEN/221, 222, and 230).  However, Argentina was still imposing import 
restrictions on EC dairy products, in par ticular from the United Kingdom.  The European 
Communities had replied to Argentina's extensive qu estionnaire, but Argentina had failed to provide a 
risk assessment to justify its measures.  The Eur opean Communities urged Argentina either to provide 
a scientific justification, or to lift the trade rest rictions.  Otherwise the European Communities would 
have to consider an eventual recourse to Article 12.2 consultation procedures.  Argentina replied that 
in January 2001, its animal health service had ad opted a resolution which imposed restrictions on 
dairy products.  A new, less restrictive sanitary certificate would be notified soon.  Regarding human 
health, dairy products had been reclassified from medium to low risk, and the relevant decree 
eliminated the restrictions.  This reclassification was not yet complete, and one category of milk remained under restriction.  The United Kingdom was considered a high-risk country, but the situation was under analysis. 
17. In October 2001, the European Communities i ndicated that despite statements from the 
Argentine authorities that dairy products would be reclassified, Argen tina continued to place 
restrictions on baby food and on Baileys from Ire land; Belgian chocolate; bovine semen and dairy 
products from the Netherlands; milk powder and ch eese from Germany; Swedish cacao oil butter; and 
dairy products from the United Kingdom and Fran ce.  Furthermore, the European Communities 
disagreed with the classification of dairy products as low-risk, as opposed to no-risk, and criticized the 
lack of transparency of the Argentine measure.  The European Communities was considering eventual 
recourse to Article 12.2 consultation procedures.  Argentina explained that it did not maintain any 
restriction on EC dairy products; they just had to be certified as coming from establishments where no 
case, or suspected case, of BSE had been recorded .  A counter proposal from EC member States that 
milk come from establishments where there had been no case of BSE was currently being studied to 
determine equivalence.  Regarding transparency, a ll standards could be cons ulted on the web page of 
the Official Bulletin.  As Argentina continued effo rts to resolve this question, it did not consider 
recourse to Article 12.2 consultations necessary. 
18. In June 2005, the European Communities recalle d that exports of bovine semen from some 
EC member States to Argentina we re still suffering restrictions.  According to OIE rules, bovine  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
 Page 5 
 
 
  semen should not be subjected to restrictions rega rdless of the BSE status of the exporting country.  
The European Communities invited Argentinean authorities to replace their national bans by specific 
import requirements compliant with OIE standards a nd to finalize negotiations with the concerned EC 
member States in order to resume trade of bovin e semen and embryos.  Argentina replied that it was 
in the process of adjusting its legislation to th e new OIE directive adopted in May 2005. Argentina 
was currently working bilaterally with several EC  member States to reso lve the issue of export 
certificates. 
19. In February 2006, the European Communities re ported that Argentina’s import restrictions on 
bovine semen and embryos due to BSE had recently been lifted and that some EC member States had already benefited from this change. 
125. 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 
 
20. 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.  
21. 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.  
22. 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.  
23. 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. 
24. 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
Page 6  
 
  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. 
25. In September 2004, Canada informed the Secret ariat that the issue had been resolved with 
Argentina. 
AUSTRALIA  
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY AUSTRALIA  
Food Safety 45.  Australia and New Zealand – Import restrictions on cheese 
Raised by: European Communities, Switzerland 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11 and Corr.1, paras. 41-42b), November 1998 
(G/SPS/R/13, paras. 21-23), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, paras. 9-13), 
November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, para. 32) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/80, G/SPS/N/AUS/107, G/SPS/N/NZL/48 
Solution: Switzerland reported that a mutua lly satisfactory solution had been found. 
 
26. In June 1998, Switzerland reported that, without  advance notice, New Zealand and Australia 
had stopped imports of hard cheeses made from unpasteu rized milk, on the grounds that they did not 
meet the sanitary requirements.  Australia and New Zealand responded that the relevant import 
measure required inactivation of pathogenic organism s.  This measure had been put in place before 
1 January 1995 and therefore not been notified, but compliance had recently been reinforced.  
ANZFA was evaluating the applications receive d from Switzerland and the European Communities.  
27. In November 1998, the European Communities requested Australia to identify the 
international standard on which its  import ban on Roquefort cheese was based, or to provide scientific 
justification and a risk assessment.  Australia r esponded that its food standards required all cheese to 
be made from pasteurized milk, or milk that had u ndergone an equivalent process.  Australia's risk 
assessment on Roquefort cheese had identified poten tial problems with pathogenic micro-organisms, 
in particular entero-hemorrhagic E-coli.  Furt her data from the Roquefort manufacturers had been 
received and were being evaluated.  In additio n to food safety assessments, Roquefort cheese was 
being evaluated for risks to animal health.  Draf t revised import conditions would be notified soon, 
and comments solicited.  A final decision was likel y in the first quarter of 1999 on both food safety 
and animal health aspects.  
28. In March 1999, Switzerland asked about the progress of ANZFA's procedures. Australia 
responded that ANZFA had conducted a risk assessme nt.  The documentation would be published on 
17 March 1999 for public comment, after which a final recommendation would be made.  Swiss 
officials in Canberra would be br iefed on 16 March 1999.  Regarding EC concerns, Australia reported 
that according to a risk assessment initiated by th e Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA), 
French Roquefort did not comply with Australian requirements.  French officials in Canberra would  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
 Page 7 
 
 
  be briefed on the issue.  In November 2000, Swit zerland reported that a mutually satisfactory solution 
had been found. 
49.  Australia – Restrictions on imports of sauces containing benzoic acid 
Raised by: Philippines 
Supported by: Malaysia 
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 83-85), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, 
paras. 24-25), July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15,  para. 68), June 2000 (G/SPS/R/19, 
para. 21), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 36) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/106;  see also G/SPS/13, G/SPS/GEN/137 and 
G/SPS/W/107/Rev.1 
Solution: Australian tolerance level modi fied in June 2000. In October 2001, the 
Philippines confirmed that sauces were no longer be ing detained. 
 
29. In September 1998, the Philippines voiced con cerns that Australia's import prohibition on 
Philippine sauces containing benzoic acid were disc riminatory, since sauces from New Zealand were 
allowed entry even if they contained benzoic aci d.  Australia indicated willingness to pursue this 
matter with the Philippines.  Both Members noted th e absence of an international standard for benzoic 
acid in sauces.  In November 1998, the Philippines re ported that bilateral cons ultations had not been 
successful.  Australia explained that the different  rules applying to sauces from New Zealand were 
transitional, and stemmed from a treaty establishing a common food standards system for both countries.  Australia expected that the final sta ndard for food additives would be implemented in the 
first half of 1999. 
30. In July 1999, the Philippines again reported on bilateral consultati ons.  Completion of 
Australia's new food code was foreseen for late 1999.  Australia confirmed that benzoic acid would be 
allowed as an additive under the new food standards code. 
31. In June 2000, the Philippines requested an update  of the situation from Australia.  Australia 
reported that the relevant part of the Australian Food Standards Code had been revised.  The present 
restriction on benzoic acid would be removed and replaced on 22 June  2000 with a tolerance level of 
1000 milligrams per kilogram for benzoates in sauces, a pplicable to all products sold in the Australian 
market, whether domestic or imported.   
32. In October 2001, the Philippines confirmed that Au stralia had modified the tolerance level for 
benzoic acid in sauces, and that detention of Phili ppine sauces in Australia due to benzoic acid had 
not been noted in Hold Order Lists since June 2000. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
Page 8  
 
  Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Other animal health concerns 
 8. Australia – Ban on salmon imports 
Raised by: Canada, United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, par as. 13-15), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 58) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/3 
Solution: Dispute settlement (W/DS18 and W/ DS26, respectively).  Mutually agreed 
resolution between Canada and Au stralia reported in May 2000. 
 
33. In October 1996, the United States reported th at Australia maintained a ban on North 
American fresh, chilled or frozen salmon on the gr ounds that imports might transmit diseases and 
pathogens to Australian fishery stocks.  In 1994, Australia published a draft risk assessment which 
indicated there was little risk from imported North American salmon.  However, Australia did not 
adjust its measure to reflect th e results of that risk assessment , but instead undertook another risk 
assessment, completed in May 1996, which again faile d to find a scientific basis for maintaining the 
ban.  The United States expected that when the fi nal report was published, the ban would be lifted, 
especially since the salmon in question complied with OIE standards. 
34. Australia indicated that the 1995 draft risk ass essment had been revised in response to the 
large number of comments received.  Comments, in cluding from the United Stated and Canada, had 
again been received on the 1996 draft risk assessment, which would be finalized by the end of 1996.  
Australia noted that the OIE standard  did not meet its appropriate leve l of protection.  In March 1997, 
Canada and the United States again noted their concer n that Australia had decided to maintain its ban 
on salmon imports.  Canada had formally requested  the establishment of a panel in the Dispute 
Settlement Body. 
Plant Health 
86.  Australia - Access of California table grapes 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Philippines on behalf of ASEAN, European Communities 
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  92-94), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 65-
67), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 26), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 
39). 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Mutually agreed solution on a seri es of risk management procedures to be 
re-evaluated in a year. 
 35. In March 2001, the United States indicated th at for the past 10 years there had been 
difficulties in exporting California table grapes to Au stralia.  Even under Australia's new IRA process, 
delays and requests for additional information a nd documentation had continued, although nearly a 
year had elapsed since the release of the impor t risk assessment (IRA).  Australia had conducted 
additional studies, the latest focussing on the gl assy-winged sharpshooter and Pierce's Disease.  The 
United States maintained that these additional studi es were not justified, and urged Australia to 
modify its import restrictions consistent with the IRA and its obligations under Article 5.1.  Australia  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
 Page 9 
 
 
  explained that the administrative process was not complete until the Director of Plant and Animal 
Quarantine made a final decision.  Australia was fr ee of Pierce's Disease and believed that there was a 
need for further scientific research.  A mission of scientists to the United States in 2000 had raised 
questions about changes in the risk profile which re quired more information.  Australia was willing to 
cooperate with the United States to learn more about  this disease and its vector.  The Philippines, on 
behalf of ASEAN, shared the US concern regard ing Australia's phytosanitary regulatory process. 
36. In July 2001, the United States expressed disappoi ntment at Australia's apparent abandonment 
of its commitment to a transparent, science-based risk assessment system.  The IRA process did not seem to have an end.  Australia had initiated ne w studies whose chief purpose seemed to be to delay 
lifting the import prohibition on Calif ornia table grapes.  Australia ha d pointed to the relatively recent 
introduction of a leaf-hopping insect, the glassy-winge d sharpshooter, although its own IRA had noted 
that the risks associated with this pest would be ne gligible.  Australia had decided more research on 
risk mitigation for glassy-winged sharpshooters woul d be necessary.  Table grapes in California were 
subject to numerous mitigations, and the United Stat es was willing to address legitimate scientific 
concerns.  However, additional research on a pest not found in shipments of table grapes was 
completely without scientific merit and was a delaying  tactic.  Australia indicated that the change in 
risk profile associated with the spread of Pierce 's disease, and of its vector, the glassy-winged 
sharpshooter, in California required additional sci entific information to ensure protection from 
quarantine risk.   
37. In October 2001, the United States informed the Committee that constructive consultations 
had been held to discuss quarantine procedures.  Both  countries had agreed to continue the dialogue to 
work toward a resolution of the outstanding issu es.  Australia was confident that a mutually 
acceptable solution could be found soon. 
38. In March 2002, the United States reported that  following consultations, Australia and the 
United States had agreed on a series of risk ma nagement procedures to allow for the export of 
California table grapes to Australia.  The risk management practices would be re-evaluated after one 
year.   
BAHRAIN 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BAHRAIN  
Food Safety 
165. 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), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, para. 
75) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Partially resolved 
 
39. In June 2003, the European Communities reporte d on the final results of the investigation 
concerning the problems with olive oil contaminat ion in Spain in 2002.  The contamination had G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
Page 10  
 
  occurred due to a manufacturing error, but the prob lem had since been resolved.  The restrictions 
which some Members continued to impose on Spanish olive oil were therefore no longer justified. 
40. 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 
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. 
41. 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. 
42. In February 2005, Oman reported that it had lifted  the ban on pomace olive oil from Spain.  In 
June 2005, the European Communities informed th e Committee that Oman, Bahrain and Kuweit had 
decided to lift the ban on EC exports of pomace oil without further requirements such as certification.  
The European Communities was hoping that this w ould allow trade to resume with these three 
Members very soon. 
BOLIVIA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BOLIVIA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to FMD 112. Bolivia - FMD trade restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 30)  
Relevant 
document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Resolved 
 
43. In March 2002, Argentina informed that it was e ngaged in bilateral cons ultations with Bolivia 
on this matter. 
44. In March 2004, Argentina indicated that the i ssue of Bolivia's FMD trade restrictions had 
been resolved.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
 Page 11 
 
 
  BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF 
VENEZUELA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to FMD 122.  Bolivarian Republic of 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 
45. Argentina requested the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to accept imports of animal-based 
products that had followed the risk mitigation proce dures identified in the OIE Animal Health Code.  
The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuel a 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. 
46. In June 2002, Argentina noted that despite bilateral contacts, the Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela had not provided any further informat ion nor its risk assessment to Argentina.  The 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela indicated that it recognized the region of Argentina south of the 
42nd parallel as free from FMD without vaccination, a nd was prepared to import meat from this 
region.  With respect to the other regions of Argentina, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 
followed the OIE recommendations, however it was w illing to consult with Argentina on the matter. 
47. In March 2004, the Argentina reported that  the issue of the Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela's FMD restrictions had been resolved. 
BRAZIL 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BRAZIL  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to TSEs 
 156.  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: Resolved G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
Page 12  
 
   
48. 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. 
49. 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 
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. 
50. 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.   
51. In June 2003, Brazil reported that it had notified six regulations relating to BSE. 
52. In September 2004, Canada informed the Secret ariat that the issue had been resolved with 
Brazil. 
Plant Health 
14.  Brazil – Restrictions on imported wheat 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras.  16-17), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Import of certain classes of wheat allowed as of early 2001. 
 
53. In March 1997, the United States raised concer n regarding Brazilian restrictions on wheat 
imports intended to prevent the establishment of the fungus tilletia controversa  (TCK bunt or Dwarf 
bunt).  However, a 1996 bilate ral agreement was based on the understanding that the fungus in 
question could not be established in Brazil, and the United States was not aware of scientific evidence 
that might alter this conclusion.  Brazil responde d that it had implemented new legislation on risk 
assessment and risk management for several produc ts as a result of harmonization efforts in the 
MERCOSUR context.  Thus, a certificate of origin  was required for wheat, to establish that the 
product originated in a pest-free zone.  Scientific consultations between Braz ilian and US experts had 
yet to produce a final report on the risk posed by tilletia controversa  and tilletia indica  (Karnal bunt).  
The 1996 bilateral agreement did not preclude Braz il from applying its internal legislation.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
 Page 13 
 
 
  54. In July 2001, the United States reported that  following extensive technical consultations, 
Brazil had issued new import instructions in early  2001 that allow import of certain classes of US 
wheat (G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United states c onsidered this trade concern resolved. 
CANADA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CANADA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to TSEs 
 
87.  Canada - Measures affecting imports of products containing Brazilian beef 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 2-5) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/GEN/245, G/SPS/W/108, G/SPS/N/CAN/39, G/SPS/N/CAN/94 
Solution: Suspension lifted in February 2001. 
 
55. Canada outlined its BSE policy, and informed Members of recent actions taken regarding the 
application of this policy.  Imports from Brazil had recently been suspended because Brazil had not 
provided the information requested by Canada in or der to carry out a risk assessment.  Canada was 
especially concerned about the traceability of cattle  imported from BSE-infected countries.  Canada 
had lifted its suspension after receipt and analysis of documentation from Brazil and a visit to Brazil by scientists from Canada, the United States and Me xico.  Canada reported that Brazilian authorities 
had agreed to certification requirements.  Brazil regr etted that Canada had not handled this matter in a 
more transparent manner, with prior notification an d consultation.  Brazil recalled its BSE-free status 
according to OIE classification, and its ban on feed ing of ruminant material to cattle.  Brazil had 
suffered many adverse effects from Canada's hasty embargo.  This had raised awareness of certain shortcomings of the multilateral system in cases like this one.  Brazil announced its intention to 
present proposals to the SPS Committee and the General Council to address these problems. 
CHILE 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHILE  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to TSEs 113.  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.7/Add.3 
Page 14  
 
  56. 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.   
57. 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. 
58. In March 2004, Argentina reported that the issu e of Chile's import requirements for pet food 
had been resolved. 
Concerns related to FMD 
104.  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 
 
59. 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. 
60. 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.    G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
 Page 15 
 
 
  61. 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 
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. 
62. In June 2002, Argentina reported that progress had been made towards resolving this issue at 
bilateral meetings. 
63. 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  
Food Safety 
127. China – Import ban on products of Dutch origin 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, par as 31-32), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras 
73-74), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, par as. 82-83), June 2003 (G/SPS/R30, 
paras. 39-40) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Ban on Dutch products lifted 
 
64. The European Communities stated  that the Chinese authorities had suspended imports of all 
products of animal origin from the Netherlands af ter detection of one positive consignment in a single 
category of products. The European Communities consider ed this measure to be more trade restrictive 
than necessary, and noted that in a similar situa tion with regard to Chinese products, the European 
Communities had given China sufficient time to solv e problems of detection of the presence of 
chloramphenicol in their products. 
65. China noted that the use of chloramphenicol in  animal foodstuffs had been prohibited in EC 
member States since 1994.  When the substance ha d been detected in Dutch products, China had 
imposed a provisional ban and immediately alerted the Dutch authorities.  China had received part of 
the information requested, and was waiting for furthe r information so as to review its measure.  The 
representative of China reported that the problem appa rently arose due to Dutch imports of feedstuffs 
from some eastern European countries, which gave rise to concerns regarding Dutch import control 
measures, residue monitoring systems and export control measures.   
66. In November 2002, the European Communities reported that some progress had been made, 
however they requested China to increase efforts to resolve the issu e.  The European Communities 
considered this a disproportionate reaction to a problem that could ha ve been resolved in a mutually 
satisfactory manner without disrupting trade.  Chin a observed that other countries had faced similar 
problems with Dutch products.  His country was working to remove the ban remaining for some G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
Page 16  
 
  products.  For this purpose, the Netherlands had been  invited to provide information to enable China 
to conduct a risk assessment, as soon as possible. 
67. In April 2003, the European Communities reported that China had lifted restrictions on 
certain products of no real trade significance, but no satisfactory solution had yet been found for a large number of animal products of Dutch origin, in  particular dairy products.  In December 2002, the 
European Communities had supplied the informatio n requested by China.  In March 2003,  China 
requested additional information and indicated that an inspection mission would be necessary before 
anything further could be done.  The European Co mmunities questioned why this inspection visit had 
not been proposed sooner. 
68. China responded that it had lifted the ban on certain products on 25 December 2002, after 
receipt of information from the European Commun ities.  For other products, China had been waiting 
for almost one year on the Netherlands' residue monitoring and assessment controls.  Based on the 
information provided to date, China had identified sign ificant defects with respect to conformity with 
the relevant EC directives, including sampling of da iry products and casings.  An inspection visit was 
necessary to address these outstanding issues.  Th e receipt of additional information from the 
Netherlands on 21 March 2003 would enable the visit of  China's inspection team in the near future.   
69. In June 2003, the European Communities reporte d that the Chinese embargo on products from 
the Netherlands had been lifted and the European  Communities believed this issue now resolved.  
China reaffirmed that the ban on Dutch products ha d been lifted after an inspection visit and the 
conclusion of a risk assessment. 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Other animal health concerns 
157.  China – Quarantine measures for the entry and exit of aquatic products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras.  33-35), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, para. 39, 
59-60) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHN/17 
Solution: Measure notified and comments solicited 
70. The European Communities noted that Decree No. 31, due to enter into force in June 2003, 
had not been notified to the WTO.  The European Co mmunities, therefore, were not able to assess the 
decree and comment on it.  The Chinese authorities were requested to notify the measure to the WTO 
and suspend its entry into force for four additiona l months to allow Members a chance to comment on 
it and for permits to be issued to  exporters.  The United States echoed the concerns of the European 
Communities. 
71. China explained that Decree 31 was notified to  the WTO as part of a notification covering 
China's existing laws on animal and plant quarantin e and on sanitation, inspection and certification of 
imports and exports of food produc ts at the time of its WTO accession.  The purpose of the Decree 
was to standardize the standards of quarantine for aquatic animals and to improve transparency of 
procedures in line with WTO obligations on transparency and consistency.  The regulation did not contain any new technical requirements and thus did not need to be notified to the WTO.  
Nonetheless, China would consider any comments fr om Members.  China had decided to delay the 
date of entry into force from 10 December 2002 until 12 June 2003, so as to minimize any trade  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
 Page 17 
 
 
  impact.  On 23 December 2002, AQSIQ sent a notice to all foreign embassies in Beijing and 
requested them to identify which governmental au thorities had responsibility for issuing certificates 
for export to China, and to submit a model certificate so that China could verify the certificates. 
72. In June 2003, the European Communities reporte d that China had notified its Decree 31 on 
aquatic products and had provided a comment period.   
196. China – Measures on US poultry  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada 
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, par as. 26-29), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, 
para. 83) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution:  Resolved 
 
73. In October 2004, the United States raised concerns over China's nation-wide ban on US 
poultry products following the detection of low pathogeni c avian influenza in the state of Delaware in 
February 2004.  The import ban was not modifi ed accordingly when hi ghly pathogenic avian 
influenza was detected in the state of Texas, instead , it was applied to the entire territory of the United 
States despite the fact that the highly pathogenic av ian influenza outbreak was confined to a limited 
area.  The outbreaks were brought under control a nd eradication, cleaning and disinfection of the 
highly pathogenic infected premises was comp leted on 23 February 2004.  On 20 August 2004, 
trading partners were advised that the six-month period prescribed by the 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 with SPS obligations.  China was requested to lift the ban 
immediately and to ensure that future implementation of emergency measures were consistent with Article 6 of the SPS Agreement.  Canada noted similar concerns with China  maintaining a 
comprehensive ban when regionalized measures were the appropriate response, and sought the 
removal of all measures with respect to Canada. 
74. 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 
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. 
75. In March 2005, the United States mentioned that since the SPS Committee meeting of 
October 2004, China had taken actions and the issue had been resolved. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
Page 18  
 
  COLOMBIA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY COLOMBIA  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to FMD 116.  Colombia - FMD restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras.  18-19), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 44-
45), November 2002 , (G/SPS/R/28, pa ras. 56-58), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, 
paras. 74-75), June 2003 (G/SPS /R/30, para. 44), October 2003 
(G/SPS/R/31, para. 37) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Restrictions lifted on bovine meat from Argentina 
 
76. Argentina reported that Colombia had restricted  imports of certain products from Argentina 
on 26 September 2001, after the FMD outbreaks in Argentina.  Colombia had agreed to accept 
Argentine products for which risk mitigation techni ques could be applied according to the OIE code, 
and on 17 October 2001 had publis hed new measures specifying those processed products which 
could be imported.  An inspection visit by the Colombian sanitary services in late October 2001 complemented the information provided by the Ar gentine services.  Howeve r, Argentina was unable 
to export the products in question due to continue d information requests from Colombia.  Colombia 
noted that it had replied to comments and ques tions from Argentina in November 2001 and March 
2002.  Argentina did not have establishments author ised by the Colombian Livestock Institute (ICA) 
to export risk products to Colombia.  Colombia was considering the process and production methods 
at Argentine establishments to inac tivate the virus in risk materials,  and if satisfactory, Argentine 
establishments would receive the necessary ICA authorization. 
77. In June 2002, Argentina indicated that its e xports continued to be restricted.  Colombia 
recalled that no plants in Argen tina were currently certified to export to Colombia.  However, 
Colombia had identified 10 plants in Argentina for which it needed to update information, and another 
38 plants which it proposed to visit for the first time.  Only 21 of these establishments had provided 
the information needed for the Colombian Agricultural Institute to undertake certification visits. 
78. In November 2002, Argentina noted that Colo mbia continued to prohibit Argentine meat 
despite the fact that there had been no new outbreaks in Argentina for nine months.  Colombia still 
had not carried out inspections of 21 packing plan ts which Colombia claimed was necessary before 
trade in beef meat could resume.  Colombia stated that Argentina had blocked imports of fresh flowers from Colombia, and requested Argentina not  to link these two issues.  Argentina indicated 
that there was no linkage to Colombian flowers, and asked Colombia to provide information as to 
whether it would carry out the veterinary inspections  in Argentina so that beef meat exports could 
resume. 
79. In April 2003, Argentina noted that it ha d not received a reply from Colombia on the 
completed questionnaire concerning chilled products.  No in-situ in spections had taken place that 
would lead to a lifting of these restrictions nor  had Argentina received any requests for further 
information.  Noting Colombia's concern over cut fl owers, Argentina stated that it did not maintain 
any restriction on the import of flowers from Colombia.  Colombia stated that it enjoyed a favourable  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
 Page 19 
 
 
  FMD situation but allowed the importation of low ri sk products.  High risk products, however, were 
banned from Argentina and this was notified to th e WTO. Establishments of origin had to be 
authorized by the Colombian sanitary service and a programme of visits to Argentina had been 
planned.  Information from Argentine authorities was required with regard to the serological and 
epidemiological assessment of FMD, vaccination c overage, and the dates on which the status of 
disease freedom both with or without vaccination were achieved.   Colombia considered the Argentine 
decision to suspend the import of cut flowers  in November 2001, without a WTO notification, to be 
unjustified. 
80. In June 2003, Argentina reported that progr ess had been made and that inspections of 
Argentine meat plants by Colombian officials were  being planned.  Colombia noted that once the 
necessary information was provided by Argentin a, Colombian authorities would carry out the 
necessary missions.  The good progress in the case of bovine exports from Argentina to Colombia was 
similar to the progress made on the issue of flower exports from Colombia to Argentina. 
81. In October 2003, Argentina reported that the issue had been resolved at the end of September 
2003, and that Colombia had eliminated its restricti ons.  Colombia confirmed that the issue had been 
resolved, and that exports of flowers from Colombia  to Argentina had also been discussed during the 
meeting. 
CUBA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CUBA 
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to FMD 
129.  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 
 
82. 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.  
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. 
83. In November 2002, Argentina reported that a few technicalities needed to be sorted out before 
the issue was completely resolved. 
84. In March 2004, Argentina reported that the issue had been resolved with Cuba. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
Page 20  
 
  CZECH REPUBLIC 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CZECH REPUBLIC  
Food Safety 51.  Czech Republic - Prohibition of poultry meat imports from Thailand 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 81-82), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, 
paras. 39-40), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, para. 16), July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, 
para. 8), November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, para. 5) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CZE/16 
Solution: Czech measure lifted in October 1999. 
 
85. In September 1998, Thailand indicated that si nce June 1998, the Czech Republic had stopped 
shipments of poultry meat from Thailand on the grounds  that it contained levels of arsenic acid above 
the acceptable Czech limits.  Thailand indicated that this measure was not scientifically justified and 
too trade restrictive, and asked whether the me asure was non-discriminatory.  The Czech Republic 
indicated that bilateral consu ltations had begun and would conti nue, and assured Thailand of the non-
discriminatory nature of its testing methodology. 
86. In November 1998, Thailand reporte d that bilateral consultations had been held, and that the 
Czech Republic had agreed to provide further clar ifications on the measure, as well as a scientific 
justification.  The Czech Republic indicated that th e exchange of information would take place before 
a mission of Czech experts to Thailand in the near future.  
87. In March 1999, Thailand and the Czech Republic reported that bilatera l consultations were 
progressing, and that the problem might be resolved  after a visit of Czech experts to Thailand, 
planned for April 1999.  In July 1999, Thailand repor ted that the visit of Czech experts had been re-
scheduled for September 1999.  The Czech Republic conf irmed that consultations were advancing.  In 
November 1999, the Chairman informed the Commit tee that the Czech Republic had recently notified 
the lifting of the measure from 1 October 1999. 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Other animal health concerns  30. Czech Republic – Regulation concerning warehouses and silos  
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, para. 54) 
Relevant 
document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: EC satisfied with Czech clarifications. 
 
88. The European Communities sought clarificati on of a Czech regulation requiring warehouses 
and silos for animal feed to be under state cont rol for purposes of quality assurance.  The Czech 
Republic indicated that it wished to pursue the matter bilaterally with EC veterinary authorities.  In  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
 Page 21 
 
 
  February 2001, the Czech Republic indicated th at the European Communities had accepted its 
clarifications. 
Plant Health 
10.  Czech Republic - Imports of potatoes 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Argentina 
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, pa ra. 27), October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, 
paras. 51-53) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CZE/6, G/SPS/N/CZE/12, G/SPS/GEN/42 
Solution: Second active ingredient approved, imports from EC resumed. 
 
89. In October 1996, the European Communities e xpressed concern that the Czech Republic had 
not specified a final date for comments on G/ SPS/N/CZE/12.  The Czech Republic committed to 
pursuing the matter bilaterally with the European  Communities.  In October 1997, the European 
Communities expressed concern over Czech import requirements for ware potatoes, which it did not believe to be based on scientific principles.  Moreove r, equivalent methods of sprout treatment were 
not allowed.  The European Communities pointed out  that a Codex standard existed for the active 
ingredient involved.  Argentina was concerned that  the treatment had to be applied before harvest, 
making a post-harvest decision to export to th e Czech Republic impossible, although alternative 
treatment methods existed.  Furthermore, it was not clear to Argentina whether the registration 
procedure concerned the entire product formula or only the active ingredient. 
90. The Czech Republic explained that imported plant products could not be circulated 
domestically if they contained residues of active pl ant protection ingredients not registered in the 
Czech Republic.  Only one active ingredient had been approved, but registration procedures for a 
second one were under way.  The Czech Republic belie ved that bilateral channels for resolving the 
issue, notably within the frame work of the European Associa tion Agreement, were far from 
exhausted. 
91. In February 2001, the Czech Republic repor ted that the second active agent had been 
approved since 16 March 1998, and im ports from the EC had resumed. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
Page 22  
 
  EL SALVADOR 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EL SALVADOR  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Other animal health concerns  71. El Salvador – Restrictions  on meat and dairy products 
Raised by: Uruguay 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, para. 85), November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, 
para. 32) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution (if 
reported): Issue resolved. 
 
92. In November 1999, Uruguay reported on problems wi th exports of meat and dairy products to 
El Salvador on sanitary grounds, although no concrete  sanitary problems or regulations had been 
mentioned.  The representative of El Salvador indi cated that these concerns would be transmitted to 
the appropriate authorities.  In November 2000, Ur uguay reported that the issue that been resolved. 
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES  
Food Safety 40.  European Communities – Trade restrictions in response to cholera 
Raised by: Tanzania 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras.  56-57), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras. 96-
99) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/54 
Solution: Measures revised. 
 
93. In March 1998, the European Communities in formed the Committee that it had taken 
safeguard measures with resp ect to imports of fruit, vegetables and fish products in light of a cholera 
outbreak in Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda and Mozambi que.  The inspection procedures in these countries 
had shown deficiencies, but the European Commun ities planned to consult with them to find 
arrangements by which they could put in force prope r hygiene requirements.  EC member States were 
trying to develop a joint cholera policy based on risk assessment.  The WHO observer did not 
consider the import ban necessary, especially on fish  products which were not consumed in raw form 
in Europe.  He drew attention to the WHO Guid ance on Foundation of National Policy and Control of 
Cholera , and particularly the conclusion in Chapter IX that:  "Although there is a theoretical risk of 
Cholera transmission associated with some food comm odities moving in international trade, this has  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
 Page 23 
 
 
  rarely proved significant and authorities should seek me ans of dealing with it other than by applying 
an embargo on importation".  
94. In June 1998, Tanzania reported that the Eu ropean Communities continued to prohibit the 
importation of fresh, frozen and processed fishery products from the four African countries, although tests had not found the bacteria concerned.  Ta nzania stressed that the EC ban was having severe 
economic effects on the Tanzanian economy, and th at according to the SPS Agreement, Members 
should help developing countries comply with th eir SPS measures.  The European Communities 
responded that it was now satisfied the necessary gu arantees were in place, and that a new measure 
restoring trade with the four African countries would probably enter into force on 1 July 1998. 
53.  European Communities - Emerge ncy measures on citrus pulp  
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12,  paras. 49-50), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, 
para. 34) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/62 
Solution: Brazil reported in October 2001 that the emergency measures had been 
lifted. 
 95. In September 1998, Brazil expressed concer ns regarding EC emergency notification 
G/SPS/N/EEC/62, which mentioned very high leve ls of dioxin found in citrus pulp pellets from 
Brazil.  Brazil pointed out that this accident had already been fully dealt with.  Brazilian authorities 
were maintaining bilateral talks with the Eur opean Communities on the su bject.  The European 
Communities explained that this accident had i nvolved 90 000 tonnes of contaminated citrus pulp 
pellets destined for animal feed.  After scientific discussions, including Brazil's private sector, the EC 
authorities had decided that the lack of information on the origin of the contamination, the amount of 
stocks involved and the lack of a solution just ified the emergency measure.  The European 
Communities hoped that ongoing contacts with the Brazilian authorities would result in a solution 
before the end of the year.   
96. In October 2001,  Brazil reported that following two technical visits by EC officials to 
evaluate Brazilian control systems, the emergency me asures on dioxin in citrus pulp had been lifted. 
167.  European Communities – Restrictions on honey imports 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: China, Mexico 
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 25-27) 
Relevant 
document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: resolved 
 
97. The United States stated that on 22 May 2003, the European Communities initiated 
administrative steps to prohibit imports of honey fr om the United States.  EC Directive 96-23 required 
exporting countries to submit a residue plan.  If the residue plan did not contain sufficient guarantees 
of compliance with EC residue limits, the country would not be authorised to export honey to the 
European Communities.  The United States considered the EC regime to be far more trade restrictive 
than necessary, and whilst not having identical ru les, the United States had comprehensive control G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
Page 24  
 
  mechanisms.  Furthermore, honey was consumed in very small quantities and should be considered a 
"low risk" food.  The existing rules in the United St ates were more than adequate to avoid harm to 
human health.  China and Mexico supported the concerns raised by the United States. 
98. The European Communities explained that it was a net importer of honey and that measures 
were in place to protect consumers.  The request for a residue surveillance plan was a general rule 
which applied to all products, and a high level of surveillance was needed for honey as it tended to be 
consumed by children.  The United States had recei ved a warning in February 2003 that the absence 
of a residue plan would lead to their removal fro m the list of countries approved for import of honey 
to the European Communities.  The European Communities was, however, willing to examine any 
residue plans provided by the United States. 
Plant Health 27.  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 
 
99. 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 
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. 
100. 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. 
101. 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. 
102. In March 2004, Argentina reported that the i ssue had been resolved with the European 
Communities. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
 Page 25 
 
 
  HONDURAS 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY HONDURAS  
Plant Health 20.  Honduras – Restrictions on imports of rough rice 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 55), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Honduras lifted its restrictions in 1997, and the United States considers the 
concern resolved. 
103. In March 1997, the United States expressed concern that Honduras had not lifted its 
restrictions on imports of rough rice.  Honduras assured the Committee that  its authorities would 
attempt to find a rapid solution to the problem. 
104. In July 2001, the United States reported that Honduras had lifted its restrictions in 1997 
(G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United States cons iders this trade concern resolved. 
HUNGARY 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY HUNGARY  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to TSEs 90.  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 
105. 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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
Page 26  
 
  106. In September 2004, Canada reported that the issue of Hungary's restrictions on bovine 
products had been resolved. 
91.  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 
107. 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. 
108. 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 75.  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 
 
109. 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. 
110. 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.7/Add.3 
 Page 27 
 
 
  INDONESIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA  
Plant Health 82.  Indonesia - Restrictions on importation of fresh fruit 
Raised by: New Zealand 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20,  paras. 8-10), March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, 
paras. 44-45, July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 54-55) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/219 
Solution:  Restrictions lifted on 26 October 2001. 
 
111. In November 2000, New Zealand noted that Indonesia had imposed restrictions on fresh fruit 
from New Zealand since the discovery of two fruit flies in a residential area of New Zealand in May 1996.  No fruit flies were ever found outside a 200  meter zone around the initial incursion, and no 
fruit flies were trapped after three weeks.  A number of WTO Members imposed restrictions on New Zealand fruit products following the initial incursion, but these restrictions were progressively lifted.  
Indonesia, however, continued to prohibit imports of fruit produced within a 15-km radius of the 
incursion and required cold treatment of all fruit from New Zealand.  At bilateral consultations held in 
November 2000,  Indonesia had undertaken to review the information which New Zealand had 
already provided.  Indonesia took note of New Zealand' s concerns, and clarified that it needed further 
documentation supporting New Zealand's claim of fr eedom from Mediterranean fruit fly.  However, 
Indonesia had no intention of maintaining measures which were not justifiable under the SPS 
Agreement and remained open to further consultations  in order to achieve an acceptable resolution. 
112. In March 2001, New Zealand reported that bila teral consultations had taken place, and that 
Indonesia had indicated willingness to inspect the fruit fly surveillance and phytosanitary export 
assurance systems in New Zealand.  Indonesia confirmed that officials were planning to visit New Zealand in the near future.  Indonesia hoped that th e visit would result in an expeditious solution.  
Indonesian officials visited New Zealand in May 2001 to review New Zeal and's surveillance and 
export assurance systems.  They verified that the fru it fly has been successfu lly eradicated.  Indonesia 
agreed the requirement of cold treatment and Mediterranean fruit fly free production areas were no 
longer necessary.  It advised that it would lift existing restrictions on the importation of fresh fruit from New Zealand on 1 August 2001.  Indonesia not ified (G/SPS/N/IDN/16) on 26 October 2001 that 
it was lifting its restrictions on New Zealand fresh fruit effective from the date of notification. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
Page 28  
 
  ISRAEL  
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ISRAEL  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to TSEs 22.  Israel – Measures affecting imports of bovine meat 
Raised by: Uruguay 
Supported by: Argentina, Brazil 
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras.  9-11), July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, para. 6), 
November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, para. 32) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Issue resolved. 
 
113. In March 1997, Uruguay indicated that Israel had adopted BSE-related measures, including 
requirements that bovine meat come from cattle with a maximum age of 36 months, which had not 
been notified to WTO.  Since the measure did not  take into account the sanitary conditions in the 
country of origin, the potential effect on bilateral tr ade was serious.  Israel replied that it had notified 
exporting countries of the planned measure which w as based on a questionnaire  circulated to beef 
exporting countries.  Israel took note of the concer ns expressed.  In July 1997, Uruguay reported that 
bilateral consultation were taking place and that progress had been sa tisfactory.  In November 2000, 
Uruguay reported that the issue had been resolved. 
JAPAN 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN  
Plant Health 
12.  Japan – Testing requirements for different varieties of apples, cherries and nectarines 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, par as. 11-12), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 57), 
July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Dispute settlement (W/DS/76) - mu tually satisfactory solution notified in 
August 2001. 
 114. In October 1996, the United States reported  that, under a 1995 bilateral agreement, Japan 
allowed two varieties of US apples into its ma rket.  US suppliers had to conduct lengthy and 
expensive tests to demonstrate that combined tr eatment of methyl bromide and cold storage was 
effective in killing codling moths on both varieties.   These and other tests had demonstrated that the 
effectiveness of this treatment did not vary among different varieties of fru it.  Nevertheless, Japan 
continued to block the introduction of new varieties of US fruit by requiring such redundant testing.  
The United States had formally initiated a consulta tion process with Japan under Article 5.8 of the  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
 Page 29 
 
 
  SPS Agreement.  Japan indicated that the formal exchange would be followed by a clarification 
process involving technical experts until a solution was reached based on scientific principles.  In 
March 1997, the United States indicated it was reviewing new information provided by Japan.  Japan noted that bilateral efforts would cont inue in order to reach a solution. 
115. In a document introduced in July 2001, the United States indicated that despite extensive 
consultations with Japan, the United States was still  awaiting implementation of the Panel decision 
(G/SPS/GEN/265).  A mutually satisfactor y solution was notified in August 2001. 
100. 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 arbitration established on 30 July 2004.  Article 
21.5 panel report issued 23 June 2005.  Mutually agreed solution reported 2 February 2005. 
 116. 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. 
117. 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. 
118. 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 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
Page 30  
 
  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.  
119. 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.  
120. 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. 
172. 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), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras 81-82). 
Relevant 
document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Resolved 
 
121. 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 
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. 
122. 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. 
123. 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  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
 Page 31 
 
 
  the information.  Brazil had subm itted technical information in Oc tober 2001 and the technical studies 
by Japan were progressing well. 
124. In March 2004, Brazil stated that the Japan ese 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.  Indi a noted that, while India was a fruit fly free area 
its request for market access for ma ngoes into Japan had been under re view for ten years.  India had 
submitted data to Japan and hoped fo r 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. 
125. 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. 
126. In March 2005,  Brazil informed the Committee that on 29 September 2004, Japan had 
modified its phytosanitary regulations and establis hed specific norms for the import of mangoes from 
Brazil.  In December 2004, Japanese inspectors had gone to Brazil to examine packing houses.  On 
12 January 2005, the first shipment of Brazilian mangoes had been exported to Japan, which marked 
the beginning of a regular flow of exports of mangoe s to Japan.  To date, eight shipments of mangoes 
(variety Tommy Atkins) had been exported without restrictions.  Japan noted that the measure was 
taken through the appropriate p est risk assessment process based on technical data submitted by 
Brazil.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
Page 32  
 
  REPUBLIC OF KOREA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA  
Food Safety 1.  Korea – Shelf-life requirements  
Raised by: Australia, Canada, United States 
Supported by: Argentina, European Communities 
Dates raised: June 1995 (G/SPS/R/2, paras.  39-40), November 1995 (G/SPS/R/3, paras. 7-
8), May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5, paras. 42-44), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras. 
20-21), July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, paras. 8-9), October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, 
paras. 6-7), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/KOR/9, G/SPS/W/27, G/SPS/W/41, G/SPS/W/43, 
G/SPS/GEN/40, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: The United States and Korea held  formal consultations under dispute 
settlement (W/DS5), and notified a mutual ly agreed solution in July 1995.  
In July 2001, the United States indicat ed that the problem was resolved. 
Canada initiated formal dispute settlement (W/DS20), and a mutually 
satisfactory solution was notified in April 1996.  
 127. In June 1995, the United States informed th e Committee of official consultations under 
Dispute settlement procedures with Korea regarding its government-mandated shelf-life requirements.  
Canada had joined these consultations.  Korea i ndicated that although consultations had been 
productive, there was a high degree of ambiguity in the implementation of the Agreement.  The parties had noted the lack of international standard s in the area, and countries maintained very diverse 
practices.  A mutually agreed solution was notifie d in July 1995.  In November 1995, the United 
States expressed serious concern that Korea was not implementing the agreed settlement. 
128. Also in November 1995, Canada indicated that  it had initiated formal  consultations with 
Korea related to shelf-life determination for bottled water and the prohibition of the use of ozonation.  
Korea confirmed that bottled water was excluded fro m the settlement reached with the United States, 
but was willing to enter into consultations with Ca nada.  A mutually satisfactory solution was notified 
in April 1996. 
129. In May 1996 Canada noted th at although a formal understanding had been reached with 
regard to some concerns regarding shelf life, probl ems with the shelf life of bottled water continued.  
Korea had not offered any time-table for moving to a manufacturer-determined shelf life on bottled 
water.  Korea took note of this concern.  In Ju ly 1997, Canada reported that the matter had been 
pursued bilaterally, but no resolution had been found. 
130. In May 1996, Australia expressed serious concern with regard to Korea's shelf-life regulations 
on ultra heat treated milk in consumer packs (UHT  milk), which remained government mandated at a 
period substantially shorter than that applied in most countries.  Australia was unaware of any 
scientific justification for this limited shelf-life pe riod, and requested Korea to permit a manufacturer-
determined shelf life by 1 July 1996.  Korea took note of these concerns. 
131. In March 1997, Australia reported that Ko rea had yet to implement a manufacturer-
determined shelf life for UHT milk.  Australia had provided a scientific submission to Korea in 
November 1996, which had not been accepted.  S ubsequently, Australia had provided another 
submission upon request.  Korea indicated that it was reviewing the information provided by Australia  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
 Page 33 
 
 
  and noted that its new system for shelf-life determ ination set a time-frame for the implementation of a 
manufacturer-determined shelf-life period for UHT milk. 
132. In July 1997, Australia noted that Korea had not provided any justification for its non-
acceptance of manufacturer-determined shelf life, a nd requested an explanation in accordance with 
Article 5.8.  Korea indicated that manufacturer-det ermined shelf life would be applied to UHT milk 
before the end of 1998.  In October 1997, Australia  indicated that it had not received a satisfactory 
answer from Korea.  Korea replied that it was reviewing the possibility of extending the current 
mandatory shelf-life period for UHT milk even befo re manufacturer-determined shelf life applied at 
the end of 1998. 
133. In July 2001, the United States indicated that it  considered the trade concern to be resolved 
(G/SPS/GEN/265). 
35.  Korea – Import ban on frozen poultry 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, para. 45), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras. 
67-68), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras. 21-23), September 1998 
(G/SPS/R/12, paras. 15-16) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/KOR/44 
Solution: Thailand's comments taken into account – measure amended. 
 
134. In October 1997, Thailand indicated that Ko rea had banned Thai frozen poultry because of 
listeria, although Korean experts had been satisfi ed after visiting facilities of the Thai poultry 
industry.  This ban had not been notified in advan ce.  Thailand was determined to resolve this matter 
with Korea. Korea asked for detailed information in writing. 
135. In March 1998, Thailand indicated that it had s ubmitted the requested information.  It sought 
clarification whether the measure was based on an international standard or on a risk assessment, 
particularly in light of information made av ailable by the WHO working group on food-borne 
listeriosis, which indicated that listeriosis had a ve ry low incidence in Asia.  Korea responded that its 
measure was not a ban, but that consignments had been rejected. 
136. In June 1998, Thailand noted that the proposed amendment to the Korean food code had been 
enacted retroactively to cover the disputed testi ng requirements and asked Korea not to enforce the 
testing requirements during the process of amendment of the food code.  Korea reported that bilateral 
consultations had been held.  The food code wa s being reviewed to improve food safety and to 
harmonize Korean regulations with international st andards.  All comments received were currently 
being reviewed, although some delays had occurred.  Korea promised to inform Thailand of the final 
outcome. 
137. In September 1998, Thailand asked for confirmation that the Korean Food Code had been 
amended so that zero tolerance criteria for listeria would not apply to imported frozen chicken after 16 
June 1998.  Korea clarified that meat for further processing and cooking was excluded from the 
requirement and not subject to inspection un der the zero tolerance criteria for listeria. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
Page 34  
 
  Plant Health 
202. Korea – Septoria  controls on horticultural products 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, par as. 40-41), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, 
para 84) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution: Resolved 
 
138. 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. 
139. 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. 
140. In March 2005, the United States and Korea re ported that this issue had been resolved 
following technical meetings. 
Other Concerns 
2.  Korea – Import clearance measures and practices 
Raised by: United States  
Supported by: Several delegations 
Dates raised: June 1995 (G/SPS/R/2, paras.  39-40), May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5, paras. 4-5), 
October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, para. 54), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 54), 
July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, para. 77), Oct ober 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, paras. 
42-43), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/W/64, G/SPS/W/66, G/SPS/GN/6, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Consultations under Dispute Se ttlement initiated (WT/DS3, WT/DS41); 
mutually satisfactory solution found.  
 
141. In June 1995, the United States informed the Co mmittee that it had held formal consultations 
with Korea regarding its inspection and testing met hods.  Korea indicated that although consultations 
had been productive, there was a high degree of ambi guity in the implementation of the Agreement.  
The parties had noted the lack of international st andards in the area, and countries maintained very 
diverse practices.  In May 1996, the United States expressed serious concern regarding Korea's import 
clearance measures and practices, which were not based on science, did not conform to international 
practice or standards, and were deliberately empl oyed to discourage food and agricultural imports.  
The United States had submitted a formal request for consultations.  Korea replied that these issues 
had been discussed extensively in a series of bila teral consultations with the United States and other 
countries.  Korea had taken various measures to comply with the SPS Agreement, but encountered  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
 Page 35 
 
 
  problems common to developing countries: a low level of sanitary infrastructure, lack of experience 
and information, and lack of relevant internationa l standards.  However, Korea would continue to 
adapt its measures to the SPS Agreement. 
142. In October 1996, the United States reported on ongoing discussions with Korea.  The United 
States expected reforms to shorten the import clearance process in Korea without additional 
burdensome requirements, with a period for comme nts by WTO Members.  Korea answered that an 
ambitious reform programme had been launched the previous year, including the establishment of an 
advanced inspection and quarantine system by the end of 1996.  In March 1997, the United States 
noted that consultations continued.  Although Korea had implemented some changes, concerns 
remained.  Korea indicated that it would continue its efforts to conform its sanitary and phytosanitary 
legislation to the SPS Agreement. 
143. In July 1997, the United States reported that af ter five rounds of consultations under the WTO 
dispute settlement procedure, some Korean import cl earance laws and regulatio ns had been reformed.  
However, since January new problems had arisen.  The United States would continue to address these concerns in bilateral consultations until clearance times in Korean ports we re similar to those in 
similar ports.  Korea took note of the US comments.   In October 1997, the United States noted that 
although some progress had been made, there seemed to be problems with the implementation of 
certain changes Korea had agreed to make.  The repr esentative of Korea indicated that in his view the 
new import clearance system was in full complia nce with the SPS Agreement, however, the US 
concerns would be conveyed to the competent authorities in the capital. 
144. In July 2001, the United States indicated that bilateral consu ltations initiated under the dispute 
settlement framework resulted in a mutually sa tisfactory and positive outcome (G/SPS/GEN/265).  
The United States considered th is trade concern resolved. 
MALAYSIA 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY MALAYSIA  
Food Safety 
66.  Malaysia and Singapore - Notifications related to dioxin  
Raised by: Switzerland 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para. 16) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/N/MYS/6, G/SPS/N/SGP/7 
Solution (if 
reported): Problems with Malaysia and Singapore were resolved  in July 1999. 
 
145. Switzerland expressed concern that it had been affected by restrictions on imports of 
European goods in response to the dioxin crisis in Belgium.  Some Members had not targeted their 
measures only to affected areas.  Switzerland reporte d that a solution had been found with Malaysia, 
and that the last few problems with Singapore would be resolved soon. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
Page 36  
 
  MEXICO 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY MEXICO  
Plant Health 36.  Mexico – Import prohibition of milled rice 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1,  para. 44), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras. 
69-70), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, para . 24), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, 
paras. 17-18), November 1998 (G/SPS /R/13, paras. 14-16), March 1999 
(G/SPS/R/14, para. 15), July 1999 (G /SPS/R/15, para. 7), November 1999 
(G/SPS/R/17, para. 86), March 2000 (G /SPS/R/18, para. 26), June 2000 
(G/SPS/R/19, paras. 22-23), November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 23-25), 
March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 46-47) , October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 
112-113), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, pa ra. 138), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, 
para. 131) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/MEX/44, G/SPS/N/MEX/45, G/SPS/N/MEX/55, 
G/SPS/N/MEX/153, G/SPS/N/MEX/172, G/SPS/GEN/82, G/SPS/GEN/105, G/SPS/GEN/172, G/SPS/GEN/216 
Solution:  Revised regulation published on 15 April 2002. 
 146. In October 1997, Thailand reported that Mexico  prohibited importation of Thai milled rice 
because of the fungus tilletia barclayana  (Kernel smut), although Mexi can experts visiting Thailand 
had concluded the fungus would be removed during milling, and although the fungus existed in 
Mexico.  Mexico had informed Thailand that the prohibition would be replaced  by a new regulation, 
but despite high-level consultati ons no progress had been achieved.  Mexico assured the Committee 
that the matter would be followed up.  In March 1998, Thailand indicated that it had received no 
replies to its written communication to Mexico.  Th e Mexican delegate replied that he would convey 
the information to his authorities, who were studying the matter.  Thailand expressed its 
disappointment at the lack of progress again in June 1998, and Mexico stated that the issue was still 
under consideration.  In September 1998, Mexico reported on official contacts between the two 
countries.  Mexico was conducting a risk assessment , but had not received the necessary information 
from Thailand. 
147. In November 1998, Thailand reported that it had proposed holding consultations with the 
Chairman, but that Mexico had not agreed.  He str essed that there was no data demonstrating the risk 
of transmission of the fungus tilletia barclayana  from Thai milled rice.  Mexico had requested 
information on a different pest for its risk as sessment, but Thailand did not see the connection 
between the two issues, as this new pest was not  listed in the regulation establishing the Mexican 
quarantine measures.  Thailand was concerned that  Mexico might request information on one pest 
after another.  Mexico repeated that the requested information had not been provided.  Both countries 
indicated consultations would continue. 
148. In March 1999, Thailand indicated that a lthough it had no obligation to do so, it was 
providing the information requested by Mexico.  Me xico noted that its measures had been notified, 
and the text of the measures provided to Thailand.  Mexico would review the latest information and 
act accordingly.  In July 1999, Thailand reporte d that it had handed over additional documents to 
Mexico.  Some progress had been made at bilatera l consultations, where it had been clarified that 
tilletia barclayana  was a quarantine disease only for seed imports, not with regard to rice imported for  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
 Page 37 
 
 
  consumption.  Mexico had also found no reports of the presence of the khapra beetle in Thailand, and 
would thus modify its regulati on which had listed Thailand as a country affected by this pest. 
149. In November 1999, Mexico informed the Comm ittee that the phytosanitary regulations were 
being revised and would be published for comments.  Mexico had provided Thailand with the text of 
the draft measures.  Thailand indicated it was looki ng forward to the publication of the final measure 
and its notification to WTO.  In March 2000, Th ailand noted that Mexico had taken new measures 
replacing the ban, but these measures included unusual and unnecessary requirements such as 
fumigation at point of entry.  Mexico invited Thailand to send official comments on the new draft 
regulation. 
150. In June 2000, Thailand reported that bilateral consultations had taken place.  Thailand had 
posed a list of questions regarding the measure no tified in G/SPS/N/MEX/153.  Mexico explained that 
the questions and comments from Thailand were being reviewed by the competent Mexican authorities.  The sub-committee considering the matter would meet in July 2000, and responses to each of the comments would be published in the O fficial Journal before the final standard was 
published. 
151. In November 2000, Thailand reported that alt hough every effort had been made to find 
resolution to this problem, the issue was still unr esolved.  Thailand had not been informed of the 
status of the matter since the meeting of the Me xican phytosanitary committee in July and August 
2000, and was interested in the expected date of  amendment of the relevant Mexican standard.  
Mexico had no further information. 
152. In March 2001, Thailand reported that during bi lateral consultations, Mexico had indicated 
that it had removed the prohibition on Thai milled  rice, and that Thailand was no longer listed as a 
country under quarantine against Khapra beetle.  Thailand requested that Mexico notify this 
amendment to the SPS Committee.  Thailand was satis fied with the interim measure which allowed 
for the importation of Thai rice upon request by im porters.  However, Thailand was concerned that 
the final publication of the phytosanitary requirem ents had not yet been adopted, meaning that the 
lifting of the ban could not be implemented on a permanent basis.  Thailand would pursue the 
measure bilaterally with Mexico.  Mexico explained that the definitive publication of the measure in 
the Official Journal had not yet been possible due to  administrative procedures requiring legislation.  
However, Mexico would issue phytosanitary certifi cates until the time of publication.  Imports had to 
fulfill certain criteria, including international phytos anitary certificates, inspection at point of entry, 
sampling for laboratory analysis and fumigation with methyl bromide.  Fumigation at place of origin 
would only be accepted if the product was in plastic bags. 
153. In October 2001, Thailand recalled that in  March 2001 Mexico had announced that 
restrictions against Thai milled rice had b een lifted on condition that it underwent fumigation 
treatment.  Despite this statement, notificati on G/SPS/N/MEX/172 showed that Thailand remained on 
Mexico's list of countries affected by the Khapra be etle and subject to quarantine requirements.  In 
subsequent bilateral consul tations, Thailand had been informed that  it would be removed from the list.  
Mexico expressed surprise at Thailand's statemen t since as of March, Mexico had imported over 
1,000 tonnes of Thai rice.  The product mentioned on the notification in question was not Thai rice. 
154. In March 2002, Thailand noted that a bilatera l meeting with Mexico on the matter had been 
held earlier in the week.  Mexico reported that r estrictions on milled rice from Thailand had been 
lifted as of March 2001, however the publication of the modified regulation had been delayed but 
would take place within 30 days. 
155. In June 2002, Thailand informed the Committee that on 15 April 2002, Mexico had published 
the revised regulation.  Thailand appreciated  Mexico's cooperation on this matter.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
Page 38  
 
  NEW ZEALAND 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY NEW ZEALAND  
Plant Health 101.  New Zealand - Proposed import prohibitio n of commodity-country combinations of 
 fresh cut flowers and foliage 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Colombia 
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, par as. 68-70), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 44) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/N/NZL/24, G/SPS/N/NZL/142 
Solution: Proposed measures withdrawn 
 
156. The European Communities was concerned that according to the proposed measure, plants 
not traded for two years might be subject to a prohibition, pending a new risk assessment.  This 
practice was not in accordance with international st andards, and was unnecessary and unjustified.  
Colombia expressed interest in participating in  bilateral exchanges and in receiving relevant 
information.  New Zealand explained that in 1997 it had commenced a review of its import 
requirements for cut flowers as imports were stea dily growing.  New draft standards had been 
approved and notified in 1998, and were  being reviewed in light of the most up to date scientific data.  
At an initial step the review included the suspensi on of historic phytosanitary requirements for some 
countries.  New Zealand had notified its plan to further consolidate the approved country-commodity 
schedules to include only those commodities that ha d actually been exported to New Zealand in the 
past two years.  New Zealand would continue to  address the EC concerns on a bilateral basis. 
157. In March 2002, New Zealand stated that th e proposed measures had been withdrawn. 
NORWAY 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to FMD 
3.  Norway – Restrictions on gelatin imports 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1996 (G/SPS/R/4, para . 47), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 24-
25), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 19-20) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Import conditions clarified. 
 
158. In March 1996, Brazil informed the Committee th at Norway had halted the issuance of import 
licenses for Brazilian gelatin because of the existence of FMD in Brazil.  Consultations with Norway 
had been initiated in 1995, and Norwegian aut horities had reportedly declared the problem was  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
 Page 39 
 
 
  solved.  Nevertheless, import licenses continued to be  denied.  Norway stated that the ban on gelatin 
imports from Brazil would be lifted in the context of recent changes to import regulations.  The two 
Members agreed to continue their consultations. 
159. In September 1998, Brazil reported that bilatera l contacts had not resulted in a lifting of the 
ban.  Norway explained the conditions it applied to imports of Brazilian gelatin, and stated that 
applications fulfilling these conditions would be  accepted.  In November 1998, Brazil thanked 
Norway for having clarified its import requirement s.  Brazil would have no problem meeting these 
requirements and looked forward to r esuming its gelatin exports to Norway. 
PANAMA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY PANAMA  
Plant Health 
24.  Panama – Requirements for certification of consumer rice 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 15), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: Import restrictions removed in 1997, concern resolved. 
 
160. In March 1997, the United States noted that Pana ma required imports of consumer rice to be 
certified free from the fungus tilletia barclayana  (Kernel smut), although this fungus already existed 
in Panama.  Furthermore, the fungus in questio n could not be transmitted through milled rice.  
Panamanian officials had allegedly suggested that  current domestic supply co nditions had influenced 
their decisions.  The representative of Panama rep lied that she would forward a report from capital to 
the US Department of Agriculture. 
161. In July 2001, the United States indicated that Panama had removed its import restrictions on 
rice in late 1997, and that the matter was resolved (G/SPS/GEN/265). 
PHILIPPINES 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE PHILIPPINES  
Food Safety 150.  Philippines – Certification of meat and dairy products 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: Australia, European Communiti es, Korea, New Zeal and, United States 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 98-100), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, 
paras. 70-71) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/PHL/44 
Solution: Implementation of MO7 deferred indefinitely G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
Page 40  
 
   
162. Canada expressed concerns about the eff ects of the memorandum order MO7 from the 
Philippines Department of Agriculture, noting that it would have serious e ffects upon its exports of 
meat and dairy products.  While Ca nada did not quarrel with the requi rement that imports be produced 
in plants applying HACCP procedures and that there be a certification to this effect, it was not clear 
whether Philippine producers were subject to simila r requirements.  The requirement of a third party 
independent certification was unwar ranted and not the least trade restrictive option.  Canada's 
governmental authority, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, was prepared to certify that exports to 
the Philippines had been produced in HACCP compliant plants and there was no need for additional 
certification by a third party.  The European Co mmunities, Australia, Korea, New Zealand and the 
United States shared this concern.  The EC certif ication requirements already put a lot of emphasis on 
HACCP compliance.  Australia felt that the Philippi ne's proposed measures were not in accordance 
with SPS obligations.   
163. The Philippines clarified that certification of HACCP compliance by third party auditors was 
required in the light of several documented cases of contaminated products entering the country.  The 
Philippines was concerned that not all shipme nts came from well established HACCP compliant 
plants.  The measures were not meant to replace  or duplicate the exporting country's inspection 
system but to complement it.  The Philippines believe d that appropriate and sufficient time had been 
provided to trading partners and foresaw no problem that trade restrictions might occur especially for 
countries claiming to be HACCP compliant.  The Ph ilippines indicated that HACCP was a universal 
guideline approved and propagated by FAO and WHO. 
164. In April 2003, Canada reported that on 24 Februa ry 2003, the Minister of Agriculture of the 
Philippines had announced that implementation of Memorandum Order 7 requiring third party 
certification for HACCP plants had been postponed.   The European Commun ities, New Zealand and 
the United States shared Canada's appreciation of th is decision.  The Philippines confirmed that MO7 
had been deferred indefinitely. 
Plant Health 119.  Philippines - Notification on Chinese fruit imports 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 141) 
Relevant 
document(s): G/SPS/N/PHL/35 and Add.1 
Solution: Temporary ban lifted on the c ondition that those places identified as sources 
of infested exports undertake treatment to effectively kill the insect 
 165. China reported that the Philippines had applie d an emergency restriction on imports of fruit 
from China, notified in G/SPS/N/PHL/35.  The notification indicated that the measure was imposed because codling moth had been detected in imports of certain fruits.  However, technical experts of 
both countries had re-identified the intercepted ins ect as peach fruit moth, a common pest.  On this 
basis, the Philippines lifted the quarantine ban, but the addendum to the notification did not clarify the mistaken identification of the pest (G/SPS/N/PHL/35/Add.1).   
166. The Philippines confirmed that further investiga tion had revealed that the intercepted insect 
was not codling moth, but Carposina nipponensis, a sp ecies not previously known in the Philippines.  
The Philippines had lifted the temporary ban on the condition that those places identified as sources of 
infested exports would undertake treatment to effe ctively kill the insect.  This decision was reflected  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
 Page 41 
 
 
  in the addendum to the notification, although the Phil ippines agreed to furthe r correct the information 
provided in the notification, to avoid confusion and possible unnecessary restrictions on Chinese agricultural products by other Members.  
POLAND 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY POLAND  
Food Safety 
57.  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 
 
167. 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. 
168. In June 2004, the European Communities reported that this issue had been resolved with the 
accession of Poland into the European Union. 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
Concerns related to TSEs 
 
68.  Poland - Notifications on veterinary me asures and measures on animal products 
 including gelatin 
Raised by: Switzerland, United States 
Supported by: Brazil, European Communities 
Dates raised: July 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras.  48-49), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 
46-48), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 
40-42) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/POL/3, G/SPS/N/POL/5, G/SPS/N/POL/13, G/SPS/N/POL/14 and 
Add.1, G/SPS/N/POL/25, G/SPS/GEN/265, G/SPS/GEN/322 
Solution: In June 2002, Poland noted th at the regulation had been amended and 
restrictions on gelatine from bovine hides removed 
 169. In June 1998, the United States sought clarificatio n of the status of this temporary ban, its 
scientific basis, and whether future amendments were being considered.  Brazil, the European 
Communities, Switzerland and the United States e xpressed hope that the disease status of the 
supplying country, scientific factors related to th e infectivity of gelatin and gelatin-containing 
products, as identified by the OIE, and non-discr imination between supplie rs with similar BSE G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
Page 42  
 
  conditions would all be taken into account in future  amendments.  Poland indicated that the measure 
in question would remain in force until the end of  June 1998, and would be replaced by a measure 
reflecting the present state of scientific knowledge.  Regarding different treatment of Switzerland, the 
United Kingdom and Ireland, the new regulations  had not yet been adopted by the Polish 
Government.  Poland committed to providing a response on the basis of written questions from 
Switzerland. 
170. In September 1998, Switzerland reported on info rmal consultations w ith Poland regarding 
border measures in relation to BSE which diffe rentiated only between countries with a higher 
incidence of BSE and those of low inciden ce.  This constituted a departure from OIE 
recommendations, which also took into account surve illance and prevention systems.  The European 
Communities indicated that imports from herds wi thout BSE history should be accepted even for 
products in the highest risk category.  Poland explai ned that the measure had been taken in relation to 
the BSE situation in the concerned countries.   Bilateral consultations we re ongoing with the United 
Kingdom, Ireland and Switzerland.  The BSE situat ion was under permanent surveillance and all 
results would be taken into account during th e year-end review of Poland's regulations. 
171. In July 2001, the United States indicated  that bilateral discussions on certification 
requirements for bovine gelatin continued (G/SPS/GEN/265). 
172. In June 2002, Switzerland stated that Poland continued to restrict imports of bovine semen 
and gelatin from Switzerland although the OIE had c oncluded that bovine semen and gelatine did not 
present a risk regardless of the BSE status of the exporting country (G/SPS/GEN/322).  The 
representative of the European Communities indicated that EC member States had similar concerns 
regarding Poland's measure.  The representative of  the OIE clarified that Chapter 4 of the 
International Animal Health Code recommended no restriction on bovine semen.  No BSE risk had 
been identified from gelatin made exclusively from hides, however certain treatments were 
recommended with respect to gelatin made from bones if the exporting country were not free from BSE. 
173. Poland clarified that bovine semen had never been covered by the Polish regulation in 
question.  Its restrictions on imports of several animal products from Switzerland had been notified in 
G/SPS/N/POL/25.  Furthermore, there had just b een further amendments to the regulation, and 
restrictions on gelatine from bovine hides had been removed.  Poland announced its intention to notify 
this new regulation. 
SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU 
(CHINESE TAIPEI) 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINESE TAIPEI  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Other animal health concerns 
 
180.  Chinese Taipei – Requirements for heat trea tment 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  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
 Page 43 
 
 
   
174. 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. 
175. Chinese Taipei stated that the regulation for pet food was under review  and amendments had 
been proposed. 
176. 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 
181.  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 
 
177. 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. 
178. 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. 
179. 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 in to force on 10 January 2005. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
Page 44  
 
  SLOVAK REPUBLIC 
C
ONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC  
Plant Health 41.  Slovak Republic – Restrictions on imports of apples, pears and quinces 
Raised by: Hungary 
Supported by: European Communities, Bulgaria  
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras.  20-21), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras. 27-
30), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12 and Co rr.1, paras. 31-34), October 2001 
(G/SPS/R/25, para. 33) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/SVK/8 and Rev.1, G/SPS/N/SVK/11, G/SPS/GEN/79 
Solution: Hungary reported a mutua lly acceptable solution in October 2001. 
 
180. In March 1998, Hungary indicated that althoug h the Slovak Republic had made changes to its 
measure on importation of apples, pears and quinc es as notified, the certification and information 
requirements were extremely burdensome.  The measur e appeared to be more restrictive than required 
to protect health, was not based on scientific prin ciples and constituted a disguised restriction on 
trade.  The Slovak Republic answered that th e measure was intended for protection against the 
introduction of fire blight (Erwinia amylovora), which did not occur in Slovakia.  The revised 
measure, which extended import possibilities, was c onsistent with the SPS Agreement, but the Slovak 
Republic remained open to bilateral discussions. 
181. In June 1998, Hungary ac knowledged improvements made by the Slovak Republic, but 
stressed that the measure was not consistent  with recommendations by the European and 
Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO).   The licensing system, which applied to each 
consignment, remained too burdensome.  The Slova k Republic replied that it imported 35 per cent of 
its apples, pears and quinces, which showed that there were no serious market access impediments.  Given the potential economic costs of introductio n of the disease, and since available scientific 
information was not sufficient, a precautionary appro ach was adopted in line with Article 5.7.  The 
Slovak Republic was exchanging information with countries applying similar phytosanitary measures, 
and was ready to continue discussion with its trad ing partners.  In September 1998, Hungary again 
acknowledged that the Slovak measure had been impr oved, although a partial ban still applied, for 
which no scientific justification had been given.  The Slovak Republic reitera ted its earlier arguments 
that it had put in place a temporary measure accord ing to Article 5.7.  In October 2001, Hungary 
reported that a mutually acceptable solution had been found. 
42.  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.7/Add.3 
 Page 45 
 
 
  182. 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. 
183. 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. 
184. 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 54.  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 
 
185. 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.7/Add.3 
Page 46  
 
  186. 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. 
187. 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. 
188. 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 
28.  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 
 
189. 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. 
190. 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.7/Add.3 
 Page 47 
 
 
  TURKEY 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY TURKEY  
Animal Health and Zoonoses Concerns related to TSEs 
 
76.  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 
191. 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.  
192. 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. 
193. In June 2004, Turkey reported that the ban on imports on pet foods from Hungary had been 
lifted and the issue considered resolved. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
Page 48  
 
  Plant Health 
92.  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 
 
194. 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. 
195. 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. 
196. In June 2004, Turkey reported that the issue of  restrictions on banana  imports from Ecuador 
had been resolved.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
 Page 49 
 
 
  UNITED STATES 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY THE UNITED STATES  
Food Safety 188. 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 
 
197. 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 
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.   
198. 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.   
199. 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. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
Page 50  
 
  200. 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. 
Plant Health 
69.  United States – Import restrictions on rhododendrons in growing medium 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para . 66), November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, para. 83), 
March 2000 (G/SPS/R/18, para. 68) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/121 
Solution: Final rule published in Decemb er 1999, importation allowed under certain 
conditions. 
 201. In March 1999, the European Communities indicated that delays in the publication of a final 
rule on the importation of rhododendrons were resulti ng in de facto restrictions on EC exports.  The 
representative of the European Comm unities asked for information on the status of the pest risk 
analysis and of the final rule.  The United States replied that the final rule for the importation of 
rhododendrons in growing medium from the EC had been completed pending final review, and would 
be published within one month after the meeting.  The European Communities requested an update on 
the status of the rule in November 1999, and the Un ited States answered that it would be published in 
the near future.  In March 2000, the United States in formed the Committee that the final rule had been 
published on 30 December 1999, allowing the im portation of rhododendrons under conditions 
designed to prevent the introduction of pests. 
73.  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. 
 202. 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. 
203. 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.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.7/Add.3 
 Page 51 
 
 
  204. 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. 
205. In March 2004, Argentina reported that the issu e of US imports of citrus fruits had been 
resolved.  
__________