WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
27 March 2008 
 (08-1341) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
 
 
  
SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
Addendum  
  
ISSUES CONSIDERED IN 2007 
 
 
 This part of document G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8 c ontains summary information regarding all 
issues which were raised in the SPS Committee for the first time during 2007, and issues which were 
previously raised but on which further discussions  or activities occurred during 2007.  This includes 
issues for which there was no substantive discu ssion in the Committee during 2007, but where 
Members reported that a previously raised issue ha d been resolved, or where substantive action on the 
issue occurred in another WTO body during 2007 (e.g ., establishment of a dispute resolution panel on 
the issue).   A total of 35 specific trade concerns were brought to the attention of the Committee during 
2007, of which 16 were new issues.  Figure 1 shows a ll trade concerns raised or for which a resolution 
or other action was reported in 2007 by subject.  Over all, eight issues (22.86 per cent) relate to food 
safety, and six issues (17.14 per cent) relate to plant health.  Nineteen issues (54.29 per cent) relate to 
animal health and zoonoses; this category in cludes issues such as transmissible spongiform 
encephalopathy (TSEs) that are also relevant for f ood safety.  Finally, two issues relate to other 
concerns, such as import licensing.  Figure 2 indi cates that TSEs account for 21 per cent of animal 
health concerns raised in 2007, while issues related to foot and mouth disease and avian influenza 
each account, respectively, for 27 and 26 per cent.  The remaining 26 per cent concern other animal 
health issues. 
                                                     
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
Page ii  
 
   
FIGURE 1:  TRADE CONCERNS BY SUBJECT – 2007 
 
05101520
Total 19 8 6 2
New 9511Animal Health Food Safety Plant Health Other
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 2:  TRADE CONCERNS RELATED TO ANIMAL HEALTH & ZOONOSES – 2007 
 
TSE
21%
FMD
27% AI
26%OAH
26%
TSE
FMD
AI
OAH
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
 Page iii 
 
 
  FIGURE 3:  PARTICIPATION OF MEMBERS – 2007 
 
8614
212116
1
0 5 10 15 20 25Members Maintaining
the Measure in
QuestionSupporting MembersMembers Raising the
Issue
Developed Countries Developing Countries Least-Developed Countries
 
Of the 35 trade concerns dealt with in 2007, in  14 cases a developed country has raised the 
issue, compared to 16 for developing country Members and zero for least-developed countries  (on 
some occasions developing and developed country Memb ers have raised or supported the same issue).  
Developed country Members have  supported another Member raising the issue in six cases and 
developing country Members have  supported another Member in 21 cases.  One least-developed 
country Member has supported a trade concern.  In 21  cases, the measure at i ssue was maintained by a 
developing country Member, and in eight cases it w as maintained by a developed country Member.  
No trade concerns regarding measures maintained by least-developed country Members were raised.  
Figure 4 shows that six trade concerns were reporte d solved in 2007 and in three cases, the Committee 
was informed that a partial so lution had been found.  For the remaining 26 cases, no solution was 
reported. 
FIGURE 4:  SOLVED TRADE CONCERNS - 2007 
26
6
3
036912151821242730
Resolved P artially resolved Not reported
StatusNumber of IssuesG/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
Page iv  
 
   
Table 1 – Issues Raised for the First Time in 2007 
Item 
Number  Member(s) Maintaining the 
Measure Title Status
2
246 China  Import restrictions on products of 
animal origin due to dioxin R 
247 Korea  BSE-related measures on beef 
products NR 
248 Korea  Regionalization for bovine and pig 
meat products NR 
249 Australia  Reform of  Australia's IRA process NR 
251 China  Zero tolerance for pathogens on raw 
meat and poultry products NR 
252 El Salvador  Zero tolerance for salmonella in 
poultry and eggs  NR 
253 India  Export certification requirements for 
dairy products NR 
254 El Salvador  Animal health requirements for 
poultry meat NR 
255 China  Application of regionalization and 
prohibition of bovine meat NR 
256 European Communities  Import restrictions on cooked poultry 
products from China R 
257 United States  Import restrictions on cooked poultry 
products from China NR 
259 China  Avian influenza restrictions NR 
260 Chile  Requirements for quarantine treatment 
of aircraft NR 
261 China  Varietal restrictions on US apples NR 
250 Certain Members  Trade restrictions related to national 
systems for determining maximum 
residue levels (MRLs) for pesticides NR 
258 Certain Members Import restrictions on beef and beef 
products due to Blue Tongue disease NR 
 
                                                      
2 NR= Not Reported, P = Partially resolved, R= Resolved  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
 Page v 
 
 
  Table 2 – Other Items Considered During 2007 
Item 
Number  Member(s) Maintaining the 
Measure Title Status3
85 Australia  Import restrictions on prawns and 
prawn products;  revised generic IRA for prawns and prawn products NR 
96 European Communities  Geographical BSE risk assessment R 
102 United States  Import restrictions on potted plants 
from the European Communities NR 
107 European Communities  Transitional TSE measures  R 
118 Panama  Import licenses for agricultural 
products R 
185 India  Restrictions due to avian influenza NR 
205 Bolivia  Slaughter of imported breeding cattle NR 
210 Guatemala  Restrictions on imports of chicken 
meat  NR 
217 Australia  Import restrictions on apples NR 
222 Japan  Import suspension of heat-processed 
straw and forage for feed  PR 
226 Panama  Inspection regime for agricultural 
products  R 
233 Israel  Phytosanitary import legislation NR 
238 European Communities  Application and modification of the 
EC Regulation on novel foods NR 
241 United States  Import restrictions on wooden 
Christmas trees  NR 
242 European Communities  Restrictions on US poultry exports NR 
243 Indonesia  Lack of recognition of pest-free areas PR 
244 Indonesia  Importation of live animals and meat 
products NR 
245 Romania  Restrictions on US pork and poultry 
imports NR 
193 Certain Members  General import restrictions due to 
BSE PR 
 
                                                      
3 NR= Not Reported, P = Partially resolved, R= Resolved G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
Page vi  
 
   
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
Page
 
AUSTRALIA...................................................................................................................... ....................1  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY AUSTRALIA ..............................................1  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....1 
85. Import restrictions on prawns and praw n products;  revised generic IRA for 
prawns and prawn products .................................................................................................1  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..................4  
217. Import restrictions on apples ...............................................................................................4  
Other concerns................................................................................................................. ...............8  
249. Reform of  Australia's IRA process.....................................................................................8  
BOLIVIA ........................................................................................................................ ........................9  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY BOLIVIA ...................................................9  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....9 
205. Slaughter of imported breeding cattle..................................................................................9  
CHILE.......................................................................................................................... .........................10  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CHILE .....................................................10  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..10 
260. Requirements for quarantine treatment of aircraft.............................................................10  
CHINA .......................................................................................................................... ........................11  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINA ....................................................11  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................11  
246. Import restrictions on products of animal origin due to dioxin .........................................11  
251. Zero tolerance for pathogens on raw meat and poultry products.......................................12  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..12 
255. Application of regionalization a nd prohibition of bovine meat.........................................12  
259. Avian influenza restrictions...............................................................................................13  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................14  
261. Varietal restrictions on US apples .....................................................................................14  
EL SALVADOR.................................................................................................................... ...............14  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY EL SALVADOR .......................................14  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................14  
252. Zero tolerance for salmonella in poultry and eggs ............................................................14  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..15 
254. Animal health requirements for poultry meat....................................................................15   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
 Page vii 
 
 
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ..........................................................................................................1 6 
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ...................16  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................16  
238. Application and modification of th e EC Regulation on novel foods.................................16  
242. Restrictions on US poultry exports....................................................................................19  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..20 
96. Geographical BSE risk assessment....................................................................................20  
107. Transitional TSE measures................................................................................................22  
256. Import restrictions on cooked poultry products from China..............................................23  
GUATEMALA ...................................................................................................................... ...............24  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY GUATEMALA ..........................................24  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..24 
210. Restrictions on imports of chicken meat............................................................................24  
INDIA.......................................................................................................................... ..........................25  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY INDIA ......................................................25  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................25  
253. Export certification requireme nts for dairy products.........................................................25  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..26 
185. Restrictions due to avian influenza....................................................................................26  
INDONESIA...................................................................................................................... ...................29  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA .............................................29  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..29 
244. Importation of live animals and meat products .................................................................29  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................30  
243. Lack of recognition of pest-free areas ...............................................................................30  
ISRAEL......................................................................................................................... ........................32  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY ISRAEL ...................................................32  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................32  
233. Phytosanitary import legislation ........................................................................................32  
JAPAN .......................................................................................................................... ........................33  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN .....................................................33  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..33 
222. Import suspension of heat-processed straw and forage for feed........................................33  
REPUBLIC OF KOREA.............................................................................................................. .......35  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY REPUBLIC OF KOREA ............................35  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
Page viii  
 
  Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..35
 
247. BSE-related measures on beef products ............................................................................35  
248. Regionalization for bovine and pig meat products ............................................................36  
PANAMA......................................................................................................................... .....................37  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY PANAMA .................................................37  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..37 
226. Inspection regime for agricultural products.......................................................................37  
Other concerns................................................................................................................. .............38  
118. Import licenses for agricultural products...........................................................................38  
ROMANIA ........................................................................................................................ ...................38  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY ROMANIA ...............................................38  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..38 
245. Restrictions on US pork and poultry imports ....................................................................38  
UNITED STATES.................................................................................................................. ..............40  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY UNITED STATES .....................................40  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..40 
257. Import restrictions on cooked poultry products from China..............................................40  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................40  
102. Import restrictions on potted plants from the European Communities..............................40  
241. Import restrictions on wooden Christmas trees .................................................................42  
CERTAIN ME MBERS ................................................................................................................ .......44  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CERTAIN MEMBERS ..............................44  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................44  
250. Trade restrictions related to national systems for determining maximum residue 
levels (MRLs) for pesticides..............................................................................................44  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..45 
193. General import restrictions due to BSE .............................................................................45  
258. Import restrictions on beef and beef pr oducts due to Blue  Tongue disease ......................46   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
 Page 1 
 
 
  AUSTRALIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY AUSTRALIA Animal Health and Zoonoses 85. Import restrictions on prawns and praw n products;  revised generic IRA for prawns 
and prawn products 
Raised by: China, Thailand 
Supported by: Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Malays ia, Philippines, Viet Nam, European 
Communities 
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  84-85), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 
109-111), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, pa ra. 137), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, 
paras. 138-139), November 2002 (G/SPS /R/28, paras. 193-194), April 2003 
(G/SPS/R/29, paras. 58-59), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 52-53), 
February 2007 (G/SPS/R/44, paras. 56-60 ), June 2007 (G/SPS/R/45, paras. 33-37), October 2007 (G/SPS/R/46, paras. 24-26) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/124, G/SPS/N/AUS/126, G/SPS/N/AUS/204 and Add.1, 
G/SPS/GEN/791 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
1. In March 2001, Thailand, on behalf of ASEAN, drew attention to Australia's notifications 
regarding its risk analysis and interim measur e on prawn and prawn products, which required risk 
management measures for White Spot Syndrome and Yellow Head Virus.  Pr ior to the deadline for 
comments, Australia had imposed an interim measure on imports of uncooked prawn and prawn 
products from ASEAN countries, which was based on th e fact that the imported prawn might illegally 
be used as fishing bait.  ASEAN objected to the in clusion of illegal domestic  practices as a major 
element in risk analysis.  Thailand urged Australia  to lift this interim measure, which was more 
restrictive than necessary and inconsistent with Artic le 5.  Australia explained that the measures were 
the result of an outbreak of exotic White Spot Virus disease.  Investigations had revealed that far more 
imported prawns were being used for bait than had been previously thought, and a 15 g cut-off point 
was introduced.  The additional measures applied onl y to whole green and unpeeled headless green 
prawns from areas not free of White Spot Disease.  The risk analysis was progressing and comments would be taken into account. 
2. In October 2001, Thailand again expressed serious  concern about the inclusion of Australia's 
domestic enforcement practices as a major element in Australia's risk analysis.  Thailand urged 
Australia to lift the interim measures taken on the b asis of this risk analysis, as ASEAN believed the 
measures were not based on scientific evidence and were more trade restrictive than necessary.  
Australia believed its measures to be scientifically valid.  The risk analysis was continuing and would 
result in final measures.  An application for e quivalence for highly processed prawn products was 
being examined and, if approved, would result in less trade restrictive measures. 
3. In March 2002, Thailand sought info rmation regarding the status of Australia's risk analysis, 
noting that the original date for conclusion of th e risk assessment had been June 2001.  Australia 
replied that work on the risk analysis was continui ng, and all stakeholders would be informed of the 
current status by letter.  In response to request s from importers, Biosecurity Australia was conducting 
an equivalence assessment to determine if there we re less trade restrictive alternative measures which 
could be applied to highly processed prawn products. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
Page 2  
 
  4. In June 2002, Thailand requested information on the period of application of the interim 
measure related to White Spot s yndrome and its scientific basis.   Malaysia and the Philippines 
expressed interest in this issue.  Australia rep lied that a report had been published on progress made, 
including a summary of a meeting with stakeholders .  The next meeting of the risk analysis panel 
considering the issue was scheduled for late July 2002, after which a draft risk analysis report would 
be issued.  The scientific concerns on White Spot  syndrome which had led to the interim measure 
remained.  Australia had completed an equivale nce assessment, and on 25 June 2002 implemented 
changes in the requirements for highly processed prawn products. 
5. In November 2002, Thailand expressed concerns over the continuation of the interim measure 
imposed by Australia and urged Australia to comple te the risk analysis and abolish the measure as 
soon as possible.  The Philippines, speaking on be half of ASEAN, supported the concerns expressed 
by Thailand and noted their interest in monitoring the issue.  Australia reported that the next step of the 
Australian IRA would be the release of a revised draf t import risk analysis report.  In the meantime, 
the interim measures from June 2002, including the amended conditions, would continue.  The interim 
measure was science-based, temporary and applied only to a small proportion of prawn exports to 
Australia from Thailand and other countries.  Experts from the aquatic animal biosecurity team had 
recently visited Thailand to work out a cooperativ e technical assistance programme exploiting the 
feasibility of alternate measures, including area di sease freedom, which might enhance prospects for 
trade in the prawn products of concern. 
6. In April 2003, Thailand observed that inte rim measures against the import of uncooked 
prawns and prawn products from ASEAN countries had been in place for over two years and there was 
no legitimate reason for the continuation of these emer gency measures.  Austra lia stressed that the 
measures were limited to high risk  products – uncooked prawns – th at accounted for only 5% of the 
prawn products exported to Australia from Thailand.  Tests had indicated the positive presence of White Spot Virus in Thai uncooked prawn products sh ipped to Australia.  The disease was exotic to 
Australia.  Biosecurity Australia had commissione d a study on bait use which provided clear support 
for the measures taken.  Australia was committed to finalizing the IRA as soon as possible and was 
also working on technical assistance projects for alternative biosecurity measures for prawns, 
including aquatic disease zoning methodologies. 
7. In June 2003, Thailand reported that the interim measure was still in place and it appeared 
unlikely that the import risk analysis would be co ncluded within a short period of time.  Australia 
reported that it was making good progress in its impor t risk analysis and a revised draft report was 
underway.  The  analysis was very complex and char acterized by a lack of information as Thailand had 
not provided new information on White Spot Syndrome Virus. 
8. In February 2007, Thailand again expressed serious  concerns about the revised draft generic 
import analysis report on prawns and prawn products as notified by Au stralia.  The proposed changes 
would have serious implications for the export of these products.  Thailand had submitted its 
comments in response to the Australian notification a nd was in particular concerned that there was no 
scientific justification for the proposed quarantin e measures.  The analytical methods employed 
suffered from a lack of empirical data, and the c onclusions were not based on scientific data but 
tailored to fit the views of policymakers.  Tha iland considered that these measures were unnecessary 
and would create trade obstacles for its exports. 
9. Thailand recalled that a first draft IRA had b een notified by Australia in November 2000 
(G/SPS/N/AUS/124).  Shortly after, however, Austra lia had imposed interim measures in response to 
an outbreak of exotic White Spot Syndrome Viru s and Yellow Head Virus.  The interim measures 
notified in February 2001 imposed restrictions on foreign exporters because of problem related to 
enforcement of Australia's domestic legislation.  Thailand was concerned that the most recent draft 
report would result in another prolongation of unnecessarily stringent interim measures, without  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  sufficient scientific evidence.   This more than 6-year delay in completing the IRA was an undue delay.  
If the measure were indeed a provisional measure, it  should have been reviewed within a reasonable 
time, and the nature of the emergency requiring the imposition of urgent measures should have been 
described.  Thailand requested that the interim me asure be revoked, and that a new draft IRA be 
concluded within a reasonable period of time, fu lly taking into account Thailand's comments and 
suggested alternative measur es to mitigate the risks. 
10. China shared the concerns expressed by Thailand and considered that the proposed measures 
were more strict than necessary.  For example,  the measure permitted impor ts only from regions free 
from certain diseases, but those same prawn diseases ex isted also in Australia.  Australia had imported 
prawns from Asia for ten years with no evidence that the disease had been spread through trade.  This 
could not be justified as an emergency situation.  Furthermore, there was no justification for requiring 
the removal of shells, as there was no scientific evid ence that they carried dise ases.  This was an extra 
burden on exporters and not consistent with th e practice of selling the product domestically with 
shells.  The proposed measure would require the tes ting of all imports for three diseases, although they 
posed no risk to human health and there was little ri sk of the prawns being thrown into Australian 
waters.  Finally, China considered the requirement that imported prawns must be heated to 85 degrees 
would reduce marketability and that alternatives shoul d be provided.  The proposed measures did not 
have a scientific justification and would cause unnecessary obstacles to trade. 
11. Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Sri Lanka indicated that they shared the concerns of 
Thailand and China. 
12. Australia responded that the revised draft IRA ha d been issued in November 2006, with a 90-
day comment period (closing in February 2007) wh ich had allowed all stak eholders an extended 
opportunity to provide their views.  The IRA team  was now considering the comments received.  The 
draft IRA reflected a comprehensive review of the current science, and had concluded that there was a 
need to strengthen import measures through stricter controls, but a final decision about the necessary measures had not yet been made.  Australia firmly rejected any suggestion that the revised draft IRA 
had relied on subjective assessments or that its finding s had been pre-determined.  After the IRA team 
had considered all stakeholders comments, the revi sed draft IRA would be considered by an eminent 
scientists group, and the IRA team would issue the final IRA report. 
13. In June 2007, Thailand expressed serious concer ns about Australia's revised IRA process, 
which was long and unpredictable.  Almost a decade had passed since the first import risk analysis had been undertaken by Australia on prawns.  The import  risk analysis continued, with no conclusion in 
sight.  In the meantime, Australia had indicated that  it would apply stricter measures on imports.  This 
raised concerns that the scientific information subm itted to Australia was not being taken into account.  
Australia was requested to keep th e Committee informed of its process,  and the expected timeline, as 
well as to report on how the information submitted by Thailand and other trading partners was taken 
into account. 
14. China recalled the concerns they had raised at  the previous meeting and maintained that 
Australia's requirements were too stringent, unn ecessary, and without scientific. basis.  China had 
submitted comments, but received no response;  it would appreciate information on how its comments 
had been taken into account by Australia. 
15. Viet Nam stressed the importance of the praw n industry to his country and the serious 
consequences of the measures imposed by Australia .  To date, there were no reports of any disease 
outbreaks related to Vietnamese prawn exports.  His authorities had carefully studied Australia's draft 
risk analysis.  Of the five diseases identified to be  of concern in the IRA, three were not known to 
occur in Viet Nam.  The other two diseases were wi despread in South East Asia, yet had never been 
introduced into Australia despite years of prawn im ports without the current quarantine restrictions.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
Page 4  
 
  The risk management measures proposed in the draft IRA lacked scientific justification and would 
present a serious barrier to trade.  The details of the statement by Viet Nam are in document 
G/SPS/GEN/791. 
16. The Philippines and Indonesia indicated that they shared the concerns of Thailand and China, 
and urged the Australian authorities to consider the comments submitted in a balanced and speedy 
manner, and provide responses to trading partners. 
17. Australia drew attention to the public consu ltation period which had closed on 21 February 
2007.  Australia had reviewed the large number of  submissions received.  All submissions were 
available from Biosecurity Australia's website.  Australia had provided the opportunity for all 
stakeholders to put forward new scientific informati on that may not have been  considered before the 
implementation of the revised interim measures.  Further consideration was required before the 
Director of Quarantine determined whether the interi m measures needed to be  strengthened to achieve 
Australia's appropriate level of protection (ALOP).  The IRA would then be finalized using the 
established process, including review by the Eminen t Scientists' Group, and a limited possibility for 
appeal of their decision.  Further information on th is matter would be available within the next few 
weeks. 
18. In October 2007, Thailand informed the Comm ittee of the current situation regarding 
Australia's interim measures on the importation of praw n and prawn products that came into force on 
30 September 2007.  Thailand and Au stralia had been undertaking technical discussions within the 
ASEAN SPS expert group and through bilateral trad e negotiations.  Some progress had been made on 
important issues but there were further issues rema ining to be discussed.  Thailand hoped to find a 
mutually acceptable solution on the prawn issue in the near future. 
19. China noted that it shared the concerns express ed by Thailand regarding the restrictions on 
these products.  China requested to be kept in formed of the progress these two countries made 
bilaterally. 
20. Australia responded that Australia's revised interim quarantine measures for prawns and 
prawn products had become effective on 1 October 2007 and it had been notified as an addendum to 
the notification on the release of the revised draft Import Risk Analysis (IRA) report in November 2006 (G/SPS/N/AUS/204/Add.1).  In addition, Austra lia's trading partners as well as existing import 
permit holders were contacted in a dvance to inform them of the implementation of the measures.  The 
revised interim measures followed a very detailed sci entific risk analysis conducted by Biosecurity 
Australia and were deemed necessary to achieve an appropriate level of prot ection.  More than 50 
submissions were carefully consid ered and a number of technical issues had required discussion with 
some of the stakeholders.  On 20 September 2007, Australia had accepted Thailand's proposal on 
alternative cooking parameters for prawns.  Austra lia was willing to consider similar proposals from 
other exporting countries as well as to discu ss equivalent measures such as zoning and 
compartmentalization. 
 
Plant Health 
217. Import restrictions on apples 
Raised by: New Zealand 
Supported by: Chile, United States, European Communities 
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1,  paras. 13-15), October 2005 (G/SPS/R/39, 
paras. 64-68), February 2006 (G/SPS/ R/39, paras. 64-68 ), March 2006  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
  (G/SPS/R/40, paras. 38-40), June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, paras. 32-34), 
October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, paras. 30 -32), February 2007 (G/SPS/R/44, 
paras. 21-24), June 2007 (G/SPS/R/45, paras. 28-30) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/796, WT/DS367/1, WT/DS367/5 
Solution: Dispute settlement.  Request fo r consultations September 2007.  Panel 
established January 2008. 
Status: Not reported 
 
21. In June 2005, New Zealand explained that  it had been actively pursuing access to the 
Australian apple market since 1986.  Fresh apples were the second most significant horticultural export 
of New Zealand after kiwifruit.  Australia's ban on New Zealand apples was based on the perceived risk of fire blight transmission, although science ha d clearly demonstrated that the risk of mature 
symptomless apples in trade being vectors for the tr ansmission of fire blight was negligible.  Since 
1999, when New Zealand made its fourth appli cation for regaining access to the Australian apple 
market, the Australian authorities had only released two draft risk analyses, systematically followed by 
a round of comments.  This undue delay of six years was unacceptable 
22. Chile, the European Communities and the United St ates indicated that they had experienced 
similar difficulties.  The European Communities hoped that since Australia was reviewing the 
scientific justification of its 2004 risk assessment in light of the Panel findings in the Japan-Apples  
case, its phytosanitary import policy might improve.  The United States recalled that the major plant pest of concern was fire blight.  A WTO dispute settlement Panel had recently found that stringent control requirements were not justified on the basis of the available scientific evidence, which clearly 
demonstrated that mature symptomless apple fruit di d not pose a risk of transmitting fire blight.  It 
encouraged Australia to expeditiously modify its  existing import prohibitions on apples and other 
fruits due to fire blight concerns.  Chile requested to be kept informed of any progress on this issue. 
23. Australia reminded the Committee that recent changes to Austra lia's biosecurity agency had 
caused some delays in the time taken to complete a number of risk analyses.  Australia was committed 
to deliver a science-based ri sk assessment for New Zealand apples as soon as possible. 
24. In February 2006, New Zealand informed the Committee that since June 2005, Australia had 
issued a new revised draft import risk analysis for New Zealand apples.  This new revised draft 
allowed the import of New Zealand apples into Au stralia under certain conditions.  Australia had 
already proposed a similar conditional access in res ponse to previous requests without justifying the 
scientific basis of these conditions.  Australia required not only that orchards be inspected by their own 
officials and found free of fire blight, but also that apples be immersed in chlorine prior to export.  
These measures were unjustified.  Australia also prohibited imports of New Zealand apples into 
Western Australia because of apple scab disease, although another outbreak of apple scab had been 
reported in Western Australia at the time the revised draft import risk analysis had been released.  New 
Zealand considered that Australia's biosecurity impor t risk analysis process, based on cycles of drafts 
and consultations, resulted in undue  delays and constituted a disguised restriction on trade.  These 
undue delays created uncertainty about whether and when the Australian Government would complete 
its import risk analysis. 
25. The United States recalled that there was an  outstanding US request for access to the 
Australian market.  Given both the strong science an d the legal record established by the WTO dispute 
settlement process with regard to th e risk of transmitting fire blight via mature symptomless apples, 
Australia should remove its unjustif ied import prohibitions and ensure  that its import requirements 
were based on science and consis tent with the SPS Agreement. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
Page 6  
 
  26. The European Communities recalled that in J une 2005, Australia had suspended its import 
risk assessment for New Zealand apples pending a review in the light of the Japan-Apples  case.  Then 
a new revised draft had been submitted for consider ation, leading to more delays.  The European 
Communities had similar experiences with Australia in  trying to get access for chicken meat and pig 
meat. 
27. Australia stressed that all the relevant scientific  information, including that considered in the 
Japan-Apples  case, had been taken into account in th e assessment of the ri sks from New Zealand 
apples.  The new draft report was available for co mments until 30 March 2006.  After consideration of 
comments received, a final review of the draft report would be undertaken by an eminent group of scientists.  If this group confirmed that all releva nt information has been taken into account in the 
analysis (including stakeholder comments), the report and its recommendati ons on import conditions 
would be transmitted to the Director of Animal a nd Plant Quarantine for a policy determination.  The 
revised draft report took account of Australia’s level of protection (ALOP).  Fire blight was one of a 
number of pest and diseases of quara ntine concern dealt with in the revised draft report.  The report 
appropriately took into account the variations in th e phytosanitary status of different regions within 
Australia. 
28. In June 2006, New Zealand reported that it had commented on a draft risk assessment.  
Contrary to evidence considered in the Japan-Apples  case, Australia maintained that mature apples 
were a vector for fire blight.  New Zealand w as of the view that volume estimates in the risk 
assessment should contain only New Zealand exports.  Biosecurity Australia had indicated that the 
process might conclude at the end of 2006.  If this problem - which had existed for four years - could 
not be resolved bilaterally, New Zealand would not rule out other WTO actions. 
29. The United States reiterated its request that Au stralia revise its approach in light of the 
scientific evidence and of WTO jurisprudence. 
30. Australia indicated that 40 submissions commenting on the draft import risk assessment had 
been received, and that some technical exchanges were continuing.  The draft import risk assessment 
took into account Australia's appropriate level of prot ection; fire blight was only one of the pests of 
concern.  The final report would be reviewed by an  eminent scientist group to ensure that stakeholder 
comments had been properly taken into account. 
31. In October 2006, New Zealand recalled that in December 2005, Australia had released a third 
revised draft Import Risk Analysis (IRA) for New Zealand apples, and New Zealand, in consultation 
with their pip fruit industry, had provided a comprehensive submission to Biosecurity Australia on this 
revised draft.  New Zealand noted that since J une 2006, Biosecurity Australia had completed its 
consideration of stakeholder comments on the revised draft and a final draft report had been referred to 
Australia's Eminent Scientific Group (ESG), which had also finished its consideration of the draft final 
report and made recommendations to Biosecurity Australia.  New Zealand had not received these 
recommendations and urged Australia to make them av ailable in the interest of transparency.  While 
New Zealand was reassured by the progress made in finalizing the issue with Australia, it still had 
concerns regarding the content and s ubstance of the draft IRA.  Australia still maintained that mature 
apples were a vector for fire blight disease, irrespect ive of the science considered in the Japan apples 
dispute which had demonstrated that the risk was negligible.  New Zealand was also concerned about 
the pests and diseases addressed by Au stralia in the revised import risk analysis and hoped that the 
volume of imports assessed in the final IRA woul d take into account only trade from New Zealand.  
New Zealand indicated its commitment to resolvi ng the issue bilaterally with Australia, but was 
prepared to explore other dispute settlement op tions under the WTO system if the issue was not 
resolved in the near future.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
  32. The United States shared the concerns of New Zealand and indicated that the United States 
had also provided a comprehensive submission to Bio security Australia on its revised draft IRA.  The 
United States expected that Australia's final policy determination would be cons istent with the wealth 
of scientific evidence available on the issue and the legal record established by the WTO dispute 
settlement process. 
33. Australia reported that in accordance with its normal procedure, the draft final IRA was sent 
to the independent Eminent Scientific Group ( ESG) on 1 August 2006 for review.  That group had 60 
days to conduct its review and as indicated by Ne w Zealand, the ESG had completed the review and 
the report had been transmitted to Australia's Direct or of Animal and Plant Quarantine.  Biosecurity 
Australia was expected to take into account any recommendations made by the ESG in producing its 
final IRA report and the report would be published.  Australia further not ed that the final IRA could be 
appealed on the basis of any problems with the pr ocess but not in terms of the actual science in the 
report.  Once any appeal process had been comple ted, a final report and recommendations would be 
provided to the Director of Animal and Plant Quar antine for a final quarantine policy determination.  
The whole process was expected to be completed by the end of 2006 and Australia indicated that the 
recommendations made by the ESG woul d be conveyed in an appropriate  fashion as determined by the 
Director of Animal and Plant Quarantine. 
34. In February 2007, New Zealand recalled that this issue concerned restrictions that had been in 
place for over eight decades.  New Zealand's experien ce had been one of frustration;  since initiating a 
fourth request for access in 1999, they had waited fo r over eight years for Australia to complete its 
import risk analysis (IRA) process.  While there had been some progress, the IRA had still not been 
completed before the end of 2006, as previous ly expected.  Now the IRA process was nearing 
completion, and a final IRA had been issued.  Howe ver, the conditions outlined in the final IRA were 
extensive, and it was doubtful that commercially  meaningful trade would be possible under these 
conditions.  The IRA proposed tougher requirements re lating to fire blight, in contradiction to the 
conclusions of the Japan-Apples  case, and clearly in contradiction to Australia's WTO obligations.  
There was no scientific or legal justification for the imposition of these measures relating to fire blight.  
Other proposed measures relating to other pests were also of concern, such as the requirement that 
Australian inspectors be present in orchards.  New Zealand had demonstrated its willingness to work 
with Australia on this matter, and remained committed to resolving this issue.  However, if no progress was made in the near future, New Zealand c ould not rule out dispute settlement options. 
35. The United States recalled that her country shar ed the concerns of New Zealand, and that 
Chile and the European Communities had also raised  similar difficulties with Australia.  The major 
concern was fire blight, and the past dispute case f ound that stringent requirements, such as orchard 
inspections, were not justified.  Mature apples do no t pose a risk of spreading fire blight.  Given the 
strength of the scientific and legal records, she urged Australia to rem ove its unjustified import 
restrictions without delay. 
36. The European Communities observed that undue delays appeared to be a regular, most 
troublesome, feature of the Australian IRA process.   The European Communities would address this 
concern in its comments on Australia's new IRA process. 
37. Australia reported that there had been a number of actions taken since the last meeting, and 
the issue was close to finalization.  At the end of  November 2006, Biosecurity Australia had released 
the final IRA report on apples from New Zealand.  Appeals from the final IRA report had been 
possible until 12 January 2007, on limited grounds.  There had been three appeals, but all had been 
dismissed.  The next step was for the Director of Quarantine to make a policy determination which 
would include any import requirements. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
Page 8  
 
  38. In June 2007, New Zealand stated that since Au stralia had concluded its  import risk analysis 
process by issuing a Final Policy Determination on 27 March 2007, New Zealand had been closely 
engaged with Australian authorities in negotiating standard operating procedures to implement in 
practice the requirements prescribed by Australia.  New Zealand considered that these requirements 
and measures were scientifically unjustified and in consistent with the SPS Agreement, however New 
Zealand had been negotiating a work plan and standa rd operating procedures in good faith in order to 
determine precisely what the conditions would be fo r access of New Zealand apples into Australia.   
Whether or not these conditions would permit any co mmercially meaningful trade to occur remained 
to be seen, but the restrictions and costs impo sed on the NZ industry were unjustified, and New 
Zealand would keep open its options for further action. 
39. The United States noted that her country was disappointed by the March 2007 decision of 
Australia, which imposed more onerous restrictions on apples than could be scientifically justified.  
The United States found it particularly distressing that Au stralia failed to take account of the available 
scientific evidence and of the previous legal proceedings, and had decided to impose onerous 
requirements on apples from New Zealand.  This decision undermined confidence in Australia's 
commitment to ensure that SPS measures were not maintained without sufficient scientific evidence. 
40. Australia reported that considerable progress ha d been made, as the determination of March 
2007 would permit the importation of  apples under certain conditions.  Australia was working to 
permit trade to commence in 2008.  The relati onship between Australia and New Zealand on SPS 
matters was much broader than just the apple issue,  and Australia was committed to continue working 
with New Zealand on a wide range of concerns. 
 
Other concerns 
249. Reform of  Australia's IRA process 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Philippines 
Dates raised: February 2007 (G/SPS/R/44, paras. 53-55) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/203 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
41. In February 2007, the European Communities we lcomed Australia's proposed reform of its 
import risk analysis (IRA) process, and in particular the establishment of maximum timeframes for 
completion of IRAs.  However, it was unclear what circumstances, if any, could permit the extension or suspension of the timeframes.  How could trading partners be assured that the clock would not be 
stopped for unjustifiable reasons?  The European Communities welcomed the establishment of the 
eminent scientists group, and expressed the hope that  this would ensure that all scientific opinions 
were fully taken into account. 
42. The Philippines shared the concerns of th e European Communities, as the new process 
provided flexibility and allowed for the suspension of the timeframes.  They sought clarifications on 
what regulations under the Quarantine Act might be  modified, and the effect of the new process on 
pending requests for IRAs.  In particular, the Ph ilippines questioned whether pending IRAs would be 
subject to review by the eminent scientists group, and what would be the composition of this group.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
 Page 9 
 
 
  43. Australia clarified that pending IRAs that we re well-advanced would be finalized under the 
current rules.  Australia would announce the tran sitional arrangements, other existing market access 
requests, and their prioritization.  Australia would also clearly define the criteria for suspending the 
prescribed timeframes ("stopping the clock") - this would not be for unjustifiable reasons.  However, 
the possibility of stopping the clock was necessary in light of experience and reflected the practical 
circumstances in completing risk assessments – for ex ample, the need to wait for information to be 
provided by an applicant country.  The details of the procedures would be publicized, and Australia 
would inform the Committee once the new procedures were in place. 
 
BOLIVIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY BOLIVIA 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 205. Slaughter of imported breeding cattle 
Raised by: Mexico 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1,  paras. 45-47), June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, 
paras. 19-20), February 2007 (G/SPS/R/44, paras. 144-145) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
44. In March 2005, Mexico stated that Bolivia ha d slaughtered a number of Mexican cattle in 
2004 on the grounds that Mexico was a high-risk count ry for BSE.  Mexico considered this to be in 
breach of Articles 2.2, 2.3, 5, 6 and Annex C of the SPS Agreement.  BSE was classified as an exotic illness in Mexico, as Mexico was free of the disease.  At the end of 1996, the Mexican animal health 
authorities had implemented an epidemiological su rveillance programme for BSE, based on the OIE 
recommendations. 
45. Bolivia clarified that the Mexican cattle had b een slaughtered because they had arrived at 
Bolivia's airport without the relevant animal hea lth permit.  Bolivian health authorities had required 
the re-exportation or the disposal of the cattle.  Du e to inaction by the Mexican authorities, the cattle 
had been slaughtered.  Mexico concluded that  the issue with Bolivia had been resolved. 
46. In June 2006, Mexico recalled that a Mexican association, FOGAMEX, had been invited to 
show some cattle at a fair in Santa Cruz, Bo livia.  Although the requirements communicated by 
Bolivia's animal health authority (SENASAG) ha d been fulfilled and an import permit had been 
obtained, when the cattle arrived in Bolivia, SENAS AG had seized the animals and ordered that they 
be returned to Mexico.  However, since foot and mouth disease exists in Bolivia while it does not exist 
in Mexico, it was not possible to return the animals to Mexico.  After weeks of negotiations, and after 
the Bolivian authorities had revoked the import permit although the cattle had already arrived, Bolivia 
decided to slaughter the cattle.  Months later, in the context of a lawsuit filed by FOGAMEX against 
SENASAG, the Bolivian Supreme Court in Santa Cruz found that SENASAG had withheld the import permits without legal basis and ordered SENASAG to cover the damages.  Formal consultations held 
in La Paz, Bolivia, in 2005 had not led to an agreem ent.  Since then, bilateral efforts had continued to G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
Page 10  
 
  try to obtain an official and public apology from the Bolivian Government and payment for damages 
caused. 
47. Bolivia indicated that in the absence of OIE guidance, the competent Bolivian authorities had 
followed national and Andean Community sanitary requirements, which required a risk assessment 
before an import permit was issued.  The animal health authorities received insufficient documentation 
to carry out a risk assessment only two days before  the cattle arrived.  According to the Andean 
regulations, the cattle thus had to be slaughtered or  re-exported.  After granting a reasonable period to 
allow the interested parties to organize the re-expor tation of the cattle, which had not been possible, 
the Bolivian authorities had slaughtered the cattle to ensure adequate health protection in Bolivia and 
in the region.  Bilateral efforts were underway to  find a mutually satisfactory solution to Mexico's 
concern about the economic damage suffered by the Mexican exporter. 
48. In February 2007, Mexico recalled that although Bolivia had issued permits for the entry of 
the Mexican breeding cattle for participation in a tr ade fair, upon their arrival Bolivia had refused entry 
and ordered that the cattle to be sent back to Me xico.  This was not possible because FMD existed in 
Bolivia but not in Mexico.  Bolivia had falsely clai med that Mexico was a high risk source of BSE, 
and had slaughtered the cattle.  Although the Suprem e Court of Santa Cruz in Bolivia had ordered 
payment of reparations to Mexi co, this had not yet occurred. 
49. Bolivia indicated that when the 25 head of cattle had arrived in Bolivia, his authorities 
realized that the procedures for this type of importation had not been properly applied 
(G/SPS/GEN/768).  Before such impor tation could be permitted, Bolivia  needed to complete a risk 
assessment for BSE, but this was not possible as not enough information had been provided by 
Mexico, nor was there sufficient time to complete the analysis.  Bolivia had proposed returning the 
cattle to Mexico, as they had in fact arrived in an FMD-free area, but when Mexico refused to accept 
them, the cattle were slaughtered.  Recognition of Mexico as BSE-free needed to be referred to the 
OIE.  Bolivia noted that the company involved had not followed up on the judgement of the court. 
 CHILE CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHILE Animal Health and Zoonoses 260. Requirements for quarant ine treatment of aircraft  
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2007 (G/SPS/R/46, paras. 16-17) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHL/253 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
50. In October 2007, Argentina indicated that in April 2007, Chile notified the quarantine 
treatment of aircraft landing in Chile from areas with high levels of pests (G/SPS/N/CHL/253).  
Fumigation with pesticides and insecticides was requi red every time the aircraft required cleaning.  
This treatment could prevent the export of live bees  from Argentina via any aircraft which landed in 
Chile.  Argentina had conveyed their concerns to the Chilean focal point to ensu re that these measures  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
 Page 11 
 
 
  not unduly affect Argentine exports,  and more specifically, that live bees not be killed by the 
fumigation. 
51. Chile clarified that the measure in question co rresponded to the updating of a law that had 
been in place since 2006, and that the amendments pr oposed were an attempt to facilitate rather than 
hinder trade.  A procedural manual had been develope d that included clear technical specifications to 
ensure proper fumigation of the aircraft.  Regardi ng benign insects such as bees, the concentrations of 
insecticides would be far less than what was specified  in the past.  Although there was no obligation to 
notify this measure, Chile had chosen  to demonstrate implementation of the principles of transparency 
by going beyond what was required.  The measure had not yet entered into force and Chile was 
reviewing comments received from other countries.  Chile would have preferred to see this issue 
addressed bilaterally, and informal meetings  with Argentina had proceeded positively. 
 
CHINA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINA Food safety 
246. Import restrictions on products of animal origin due to dioxin 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: February 2007 (G/SPS/R/44, paras. 13-14), October 2007 (G/SPS/R/46, 
para. 36) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Consultations between the EC authorities and China's AQSIQ, at both the
bilateral and multilateral level, had been  successful in finally putting an end 
to these restrictions. 
Status: Resolved 
 
52. In February 2007, the European Communities ra ised concerns regarding China's import 
restrictions on products of animal origin from some EC member States due to alleged dioxin 
contamination.  There had been an isolated inci dent in January 2006, at which time all potentially 
contaminated products had quickly been recalled.  Trade had been re-established and EC exports had 
returned to normal within weeks, except with China.  China was the only WTO Member that 
continued to impose restrictions because of a pr oblem which no longer existed.  The European 
Communities had pursued bilateral contacts with  China's General Administration of Quality, 
Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) and provided all of the information requested by 
China.  The ban on products from some EC member  States was disproportionate to the potential risk, 
as the contamination problem no longer existed.  The representative of the European Communities 
requested China to remove its restrictions or to pr ovide a scientific justification for their maintenance. 
53. China confirmed that this issue had been th e focus of technical consultations with the 
European Communities.  In Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, this wa s the second time there 
had been this type of problem.  Given the fluidity of movement of goods within the European Communities, the spread of contaminated products was very likely.  China was waiting to receive the 
final EC investigation report on the incident so that it could complete its risk assessment and take the 
appropriate measure. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
Page 12  
 
  54. In October 2007, the European Communities repor ted on the resolution of the specific trade 
concern related to China's import restrictions on some products of animal origin from some EC 
member States due to alleged dioxin contamination.  Import restrictions were originally introduced 
because of an isolated incident which affected a limited number of agriculture products and for which 
prompt corrective action was taken.  Consultations  between the EC authorities and China's AQSIQ, at 
both the bilateral and multilateral level, had been  successful in finally putting an end to these 
restrictions. 
 
251. Zero tolerance for pathogens on  raw meat and poultry products  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2007 (G/SPS/R/45, paras. 15-16) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
55. In June 2007, the United States indicated that China maintained an unrealistic zero tolerance 
level for pathogens in raw meat a nd poultry products.  This requirement  far exceeded the international 
standards;  was more trade restrictive than necessary;   and lacked scientific justification.  The United 
States was also concerned that while several US po ultry plants had been de-listed because of this 
requirement, a similar zero tolerance was appare ntly not applied to Chinese-produced products. 
56. China observed that this issue had been previ ously discussed bilaterally and would again be 
addressed at a meeting scheduled for September.  The requirement that food be free from microbiological contamination applied both to impo rted and domestic produc ts.  Health problems 
relating to microbiological contamination had occu rred in the United States,  such as the situation 
involving spinach, and many Members had similar re quirements to protect the health and safety of 
consumers. 
 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
255. Application of regionalization and prohibition of bovine meat  
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2007 (G/SPS/R/45, par as. 26-27), October 2007 (G/SPS/R/46, para. 
203 ) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
57. In June 2007, Brazil indicated that China con tinued to prohibit meat products that had been 
treated to prevent the potential spread of FMD a nd furthermore failed to apply the concept of 
regionalization in accordance with Article 6 of th e SPS Agreement.  China had not notified these  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
 Page 13 
 
 
  measures;  Brazilian exporters learne d of them only when shipments we re blocked.  Numerous efforts 
to resolve these problems bilaterally had not su cceeded, and China had not responded to Brazil's 
requests for justification.  Brazil requested that Ch ina adjust it requirements to take into account the 
OIE-recognized FMD-free zones, and to remove rest rictions on products whose processing inactivated 
the FMD virus, such as gelatine and dairy products. 
58. China recalled that there had been an FMD out break in Brazil in 2005, which led China to 
impose emergency measures.  However, progress had been made through bila teral consultations.  
China had provided a questionnaire to Brazil with respect to the recognition of FMD-free zones in 
June 2006, and had received a reply only in March 2007.  This response was now being considered by 
experts in risk assessment to determine whether a visit was needed to verify info rmation.  With regard 
to the ban on Brazilian beef, China had provided Br azil with draft protocol last year, and received 
some feedback in February 2007.  However, this  response was not complete, and China was waiting 
for further reply.  China remained willing to furt her discuss this matter with Brazil at the technical 
expert level, as good and efficient cooperation was required to resolve the issue quickly. 
59. In October 2007, Brazil informed Members th at since the last session of the Committee, 
Brazil and China had held a bilatera l meeting and they were  hopeful to resolve this issue through 
more bilateral dialogue in the near future. 
 
259. Avian influenza restrictions  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2007 (G/SPS/R/46, paras. 14-15) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
60. In October 2007, the United States observed that China prohibited imports of poultry and 
poultry products from seven US states (Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Nebraska and Virginia) which had experienced  cases of low-pathogenic avian influenza (AI).  
For some of these states, the cases had been completely eradicated for more than two or three years.   
The prohibition extended even to heat-treated products, a process that inactivated the AI virus.  There 
was no scientific justification for the restrictions China had imposed, which were  inconsistent with the 
provision of the OIE's AI guidelines.  The United States had provided China with extensive 
information of the AI status of these states, and urged China to lift its import restrictions immediately, and to align its measures with the provisions of the OIE guidelines. 
61. China responded that the ban on poultry products from these states was based on risk analysis 
and on the principle of regionalization of the OIE.  Since the beginning of the year, AI had appeared in 
three other states and China was concerned with th e spreading tendency of low-pathogenic strains of 
AI in the United States.  Regarding the four states  where AI had already been eliminated, China was 
conducting a risk analysis based on the information provided by the United States.  China had notified 
the United States on 15 August that according to th e relevant Chinese regulations, poultry products 
coming either directly or indirectly from areas with  AI were not allowed to enter China.  Regarding 
heat-treated products, China invited the United Stat es to provide relevant technical information, 
including processing techniques and flow charts of cooked poultry meat,  so that China could 
undertake a risk analysis. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
Page 14  
 
   
Plant Health 
261. Varietal restrictions on US apples 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2007 (G/SPS/R/46, paras. 18-19) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
62. In October 2007, the United States stated that China currently limited imports of US apples to 
just two varieties:  Golden Delicious and Red Delicious.  Seven years ago, the United States had 
requested that China allow access for all varieties of  apples.  Extensive scientific information had been 
provided to Chinese officials in support of this re quest.  China recently requested information related 
to fire blight and indicated that its import rest rictions on additional varieties of US apples were 
primarily related to concerns over fire blight.  Th e issue of varietal restrictions on imported fruit and 
fire blight restrictions on mature, symptomless a pples had been addressed by WTO dispute settlement 
panels.  The United States urged China to review the findings of these panels and to adjust its restrictions on US apples appropriately. 
63. China noted that in 1995,  the two fire bli ght resistant varieties mentioned by the United 
States were allowed to be imported into China.  In 2006, a request was made to China for other 
varieties.  These new varieties were not fire blight r esistant, so China had to deal with this request on 
the basis of risk analysis.  China had taken note of the WTO dispute settlement case relating to fire 
blight;  however, it still believed mature apples had the potential to serve as a pathway for the disease.  
An experiment recently carried out by Japan had also shown that mature apples could serve as a 
pathway for the disease.  China ask ed the United States to provide additional technical material 
relevant to fire blight and other apple pests as soon as possible in order to complete the market access 
process.  China would handle this matter on a scientific basis and had recently organized a group of experts to speed up the application review process.   At present no varieties of Chinese apples were 
allowed into the United States because the risk an alysis had not yet been completed by the United 
States.  Therefore, China also urged the United Stat es to complete the risk analysis that had been 
ongoing for some time. 
 
EL SALVADOR 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EL SALVADOR Food safety 252. Zero tolerance for salmonella in poultry and eggs  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2007 (G/SPS/R/45, paras.  17-18), October 2007 (G/SPS/R/46, paras. 
33-34 )  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
 Page 15 
 
 
  Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/SLV/21 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
64. In June 2007, the United States raised concer ns about El Salvador's zero tolerance for 
Salmonella in poultry and eggs, and the required certifi cate attestations.  This requirement did not have 
a scientific justification, and also raised some con cerns regarding national treatment.  El Salvador had 
not as yet provided information requested by the Un ited States regarding the prevalence of Salmonella 
in poultry and eggs in El Salvador, nor on domest ic testing for Salmonella.  Despite bilateral 
discussions of the problem, no resolution had been reached. 
65. El Salvador stressed its willingness to continue to  seek a resolution of this problem bilaterally.  
The United States was encouraged to submit their requ est and  questions in writing, for consideration 
by the authorities. 
66. In October 2007, the United States reported that  El Salvador had agreed to visit the United 
States for discussions and site visits related to this measure.  The United States looked forward to 
providing the Committee with a report from El Salvador's visit at a future meeting. 
67. El Salvador clarified that the measure referred to  a standard that El Salvador notified in 1999 
as G/SPS/N/SLV/21.  In the past year, El Salvador had held bilateral meetings with US technical 
experts and made progress in the sense that restrictions  on certain products such as day-old chicks and 
fertile eggs had been lifted.  El Salvador had ex tended the certification for those products that were 
free of Salmonella.  There were no prohibitions on pr e-cooked products because the heat de-activated 
the virus.  El Salvador was willing to continue to m eet with the technical exports in order to come up 
with solutions which would allow the two countries to have free-flowing trade. 
 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
254. Animal health requirements for poultry meat  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2007 (G/SPS/R/45, paras. 24-25) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
68. In June 2007, the United States expressed con cern that El Salvador required that imported 
uncooked poultry meat be sourced from farms free of a number of diseases.  This requirement exceeded the OIE standards, as many  of the diseases identified were cosmopolitan in nature and not 
known to be transmissible via poultry meat.  El Sa lvador's measure was therefore without scientific 
justification. 
69. El Salvador observed that there had been bilatera l meetings with US officials, at which some 
protocols had been agreed for certain products.  Th e United States was invited to provide its requests 
and comments in writing. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
Page 16  
 
   
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Food safety 238. Application and modification of the EC Regulation on novel foods 
Raised by: Colombia, Ecuador, Peru 
Supported by: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Benin, El Salvador, 
Honduras, India, Mexico, Paraguay, Philippines, Uruguay, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 
Dates raised: March 2006 (G/SPS/R/40, paras.  21-29), June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, paras. 
35-37), October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, paras.131-134), February 2007 
(G/SPS/R/44, para. 64) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/681, G/SPS/GEN/699, G/SPS/GEN/700, G/SPS/GEN/713, 
G/SPS/GEN/714, G/SPS/GEN/733, G/SPS/GEN/735 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
70. In March 2006, Colombia raised concerns on the application of the EC Regulation on novel 
foods (Regulation No 258/97) and with the draft project of the European Commission to amend the 
regulation, foreseen to enter into force in 2007.  The amendment could directly affect the trade 
potential of traditional and exotic foods.  Some trad itional and exotic products already had substantial 
presence in the US and Japanese food markets,  and European consumers were now becoming 
interested in these food products.  It was important to recall, however, that these traditional foods had 
been consumed in South America for thousands of year s.  This was in contrast to genetically modified 
products which could be considered as real novel foods .  Columbia reported that the increased trade in 
traditional and exotic products al so had important socio-economic impacts, as the export of these 
products represented a measure to decrease extreme rural poverty in South America and had potential 
to address specific social and environmental issues,  such as providing alternatives to both the growing 
of narcotic crops and to the ille gal felling of protected forests. 
71. Colombia was aware of the importance of prot ecting consumer health.  However, the amount 
of information on the safety of these traditional food  products required by th e EC regulation and the 
costs to undertake scientific studies were not proportiona l to health risks and were excessive especially 
for small scale farmers and exporters.  The propo sed amendment of Regulation 258 would result in a 
non-tariff barrier to trade with negative effects on the introduction of traditional foods into European 
markets, contrary to Articles 2.2 and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement. 
72. Columbia requested the European  Communities to consider the following points regarding the 
amendment of the Regulation 258/97: 
(i) the non-application of Regulation 258 to exo tic, traditional products with a history of 
safe consumption in their region of origin; 
(ii) greater transparency and clarity in the procedures and definition, giving credit to a safe 
consumption history of food in the country of origin;  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
 Page 17 
 
 
  (iii) requirements, tests, and procedures in proportio n with the nature of the foods concerned 
and the risks they could imply for consumers;  and 
(iv) all exotic traditional products to remain in the public domain and no private entity to be 
granted privileged access to  the European market. 
73. Ecuador reported that the amendment would also affect the trade potential of its traditional 
and exotic food.  In light of Ecuador's great biodiversity, over the last decade international 
organizations like UNCTAD had been promoting th e development of new export products ("Bio-
Comercio").  In Ecuador also the export of trad itional and exotic foods had major socio-economic 
impacts and related closely to efforts to overcom e rural poverty.  Ecuador invited the European 
Communities to consider carefully Colombia's recommendations regarding the amendment.  The 
amendment of the regulation and its impacts were  of importance for many developing countries. 
74. Peru observed that currently, within the Conve ntion on Biological Diversity, countries were 
discussing measures and mechanisms for the preservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.  Contrary to that approach, the application of Regul ation 258 would restrict greater sustainable use of 
traditional and exotic products, by diminishing thei r export potential.  Peru stressed the high costs and 
the long period of time needed for products to be registered under Regulation 258 to allow them to 
enter the European market.  Peru also suppor ted the Colombia's recommendations regarding the 
amendment (G/SPS/GEN/681). 
75. Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica and Paraguay reported that  their exports had also been affected by 
Regulation 258/97.  Benin requested more informat ion on how a product was considered as "novel".  
Argentina and Mexico both indicated that they were  still in the process of analyzing the implications 
of the regulation.  El Salvador, Honduras, India, Ur uguay and Venezuela expressed their interest in the 
topic and shared the concerns of Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. 
76. The European Communities confirmed that Regulation 258/97 was being reviewed and 
recognized that some modifications were needed.  A 40-page document  which might answer a lot of 
questions would be circulated as an SPS document s hortly.  The document set out clearly the purpose 
and scope of the regulation, which was targeted  at new food technologies, including genetically 
modified products.  As the food industry was inves ting in different new technologies, Regulation 258 
aimed to reassure European cons umers of the safety of those technologies.  The vast majority of 
applications for authorization of  novel foods had been from within the European Communities.  The 
European policy was aimed at striking the right ba lance between encouraging technical innovation and 
ensuring that consumers were protected.  Some produc ts marketed as "products of biodiversity" had in 
the past turned out to be unsafe and harmed the u sers.  Dealing with such products was thus in the 
interest of all stakeholders, considering the damage to the image of products if they were marketed in 
an unsafe manner.  The European Communities invi ted interested stakeholders to submit comments 
and make their views known. 
77. In June 2006, Peru raised further concerns re garding the EC novel food regulation.  In Peru's 
view, one of the major problems of the EC regula tion was that it did not distinguish between new 
foods that had not been consumed before anywhere , and those that were new only to the European 
Communities, which was the case for most of the traditional exotic prod ucts originating from 
developing countries.  Peru requested that the European Communities provide information showing 
that it was necessary to apply this measure to tr aditional exotic products, in accordance with the 
provisions of the SPS Agreement.  Peru consider ed that the regulation constituted an unnecessary and 
unjustified barrier to trade due to the cost and time  required to gain approval for novel foods, even if 
they had a history of safe consumption in their c ountries of origin, and requested the exclusion of 
traditional exotic products from the novel food categor y.  Peru also request ed that the European G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
Page 18  
 
  Communities explain how special needs of developi ng countries had been taking into account in 
accordance with Article 10 of the SPS Agreement (G/SPS/GEN/713). 
78. Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, India, Para guay and the Philippines shared the concerns 
raised by Peru.  Ecuador indicated that a study on the impact of the novel food regulation was about to 
be finalized.  Preliminary results of this study showed that this regula tion could have negative 
economic and social consequences for Ecuador's production system by having an effect both on 
current exports and on products w ith export potential in the European Communities that were currently 
marketed in other countries (G/SPS/GEN/714).  Bolivia  and Colombia highlighted that some of the 
products were currently being promoted, inter alia , by policies supporting alternatives to narcotic 
crops, some of which were funded by the Eur opean Communities or its member States.  The 
Philippines indicated that the effects of the novel f ood regulation and of EC regulations on genetically 
modified food were still being evaluated. 
79. The European Communities stres sed that the concerns expressed were being taken seriously, 
and that the novel food regulation was currently  under review (G/SPS/GEN/699 and 700).  The 
original intention of the novel food regulation had been trade-creating;  its purpose was to authorize 
trade in novel foods.  In addition, products that had already been traded prior to 1997 had been 
exempted.  The regulation had been targeted main ly at EC companies.  The regulation had been 
successful in that new foods were being approved on the basis of safety assessme nts.  A statement that 
a product had been consumed for centuries was not suffi cient.  Very few applications for approval of 
traditional exotic products had been received, so that there were very few case studies.  Traditional 
exotic products was a broad category including some items where there had been safety concerns.  In 
the context of the review of the regulation, th e European Communities indicated that it would be 
helpful to receive more information on these products , including a clear definition of the products at 
issues whether they had been approved in other export  markets, and safety-related data available, as 
well as information on the socio-economic impact. 
80. In October 2006, Peru, Ecuador and Columbia re iterated concerns related to the European 
Communities Regulation 258/97 on Novel Foods.  They  maintained that the regulation constituted a 
non-technical barrier to trade in these products as it was not flexible, made no distinction between 
strictly novel foods of known risk and no known ri sk and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), 
and was scientifically unjustified.  They noted th at exotic products originating from Latin America 
were not the result of any type of genetic modificati on but rather formed part of the biodiversity of the 
region and were consumed traditi onally.  Furthermore, there had been inconsistencies in the 
procedures for the application of this regulation th roughout the European Communities.  The European 
Communities had not considered the fact that many of the traditional products had been marketed in a 
number of countries with very strict sanitary standards and there were methodological guidelines in order to obtain an authorization. 
81. The European Communities was requested to pr omptly review Regulation 258/97, excluding 
from its scope of application exo tic traditional products resulting fro m biodiversity, and to take into 
account scientific assessments and relevant eviden ce from other countries and competent international 
organizations when risk assessments were made .  The European Communities could adopt an 
exclusive regulation that separated GMOs from unw anted association with exotic products, and that 
established different procedures for novel foods of known risk and no known risk in the European 
Communities.  The European Communities was also requested take into account the history of the 
product in the world, the consumption patterns and tr aditional knowledge in its use and preparation.  
This would provide for greater flexibility in the ap plication of the regulation and thus facilitate the 
entry of exotic traditional products into the European market.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
 Page 19 
 
 
  82. Bolivia, Brazil and the Philippines shared the c oncerns of Peru, Ecuador and Columbia.  The 
Philippines highlighted the fact that the regulation could become an unjustified non-tariff barrier to the 
EC market in view of the unclear technical dis tinction between these  products and other products. 
83. The European Communities reported that ther e had been various exchanges of formal 
communications between the Members concerned.   The European Communities acknowledged the 
problem with products (products of biodiversity or  traditional products), which were not in the EC 
market prior to 1997 and noted that the regulation was not discriminatory as EC producers had to undergo similar risk evaluations.  These products, what ever their potential, were incremental to the 
enormous volume of imports of foods and vegetabl es currently in the EC market.  The European 
Communities reiterated its request that the Member s concerned should submit data on the volume of 
such trade and risk assessments carried out in ot her developed countries.  The European Communities 
indicated that it was putting forward a new proposal th at addressed the genuine concerns of Members.  
However, there was a need for a more proportionate regime to improve the imports of these products.  A public consultation had been held on the matt er and the European Communities appreciated the 
contributions from the concerned countries. 
84. In February 2007, Peru noted that it would welcome an update from the European 
Communities on current developments.  The Europe an Communities indicated that the Novel Foods 
Regulation was being revised.  It had initially been  designed to cover a full range of novel foods, from 
GMO foods to products of biological diversity.  Fo llowing public consultations  and the consideration 
of the views and comments received, revised legisl ation was being prepared.  The anticipated result 
would be a two-tiered process, with products that had a long history of safe use subjected to less 
rigorous procedures than other novel foods.  The European Communities was looking to address the 
concerns identified by trading partne rs, while ensuring consumer safety. 
 
242. Restrictions on US poultry exports 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, pa ras. 28-29), February 2007 (G/SPS/R/44, 
paras. 32-33) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
85. In October 2006, the United States raised con cerns regarding the delay by the European 
Communities to finalize and implement a draft regulation that approved antimicrobial treatments (AMTs) on poultry subject to certain restrictions.  The United States recalled that in August 1997, the 
European Communities stopped imports of US poultry meat on the basis of the use of AMTs in its 
production.  However, in January  2006 the European Food Safety  Authority (EFSA) had concluded 
that the antimicrobial washes at i ssue were safe, confirming an April 2003 opinion by the EC scientific 
committee on veterinary measures related to public health.  Despite the d ecision by the European 
Communities to propose new legislation that provid ed the framework to approve these products for 
use on poultry, the European Communities had yet to approve importation of poultry treated with these 
products.  The United States urged the European Comm unities to authorize these products so that US 
poultry exports which met rigorous US safety standards could also meet EC standards. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
Page 20  
 
  86. The European Communities appreciated the US c oncerns regarding the delay but noted that it 
was important that the genuine and long-standing co ncerns in the European Communities over the use 
of AMTs were taken fully into account in the appr oval process.  The circumst ances that led to the 
effective ban on poultry meat from the United States in 1997 did not relate exclusively to AMTs.  The 
use of AMTs in food of animal origin was not  permitted at present in th e European Communities, inter 
alia, because of concerns that the use of such treat ments could disguise other hygiene problems.  The 
European Communities expressed disappointment that while it was possible for US exports to meet 
EC hygiene requirements without the use of AMTs, the United States was still in sisting on the use of 
these products.  The European Communities was in th e process of finding a solution and this included 
a recent decision in principle that AMTs could be  used to tackle surface contamination.  A draft 
regulation had been prepared which allowed for th e use of such substances under specific conditions.  
The European Communities was s till identifying the specific cond itions to accompany the draft 
regulation, in order to ensure that AMTs were not used to hide other problems.  However, the 
European Communities expressed hope that bilateral information exchanges w ith the United States 
could lead to a mutually agreeable solution. 
87. In February 2007, the United States reported th at despite a positive risk assessment by the 
European Food Safety Agency (EFSA), the European  Commission had not yet authorized the imports 
from the United States. 
88. The European Communities responded that the EC market was open to imports of poultry 
meat, and substantial quantities we re imported from Brazil and Thaila nd.  The European Communities 
was also open for US exports, but had difficulties w ith the US insistence on the use of anti-microbial 
treatments (AMTs).  The US poultry industry worked to  high standards, but refused to export poultry 
that had not been treated with AMTs.  One solu tion would be for the United States to change its 
system and export without AMTs, which it refused to  do.  The other solution was for the European 
Communities to adapt its system, which was very sensitive because these products were banned for 
use in Europe.  The use of AMTs was very controve rsial with EC member States and consumers, who 
considered these products unnecessary if appropriate hygiene was used from farm to table.  The 
European Communities had taken constructive steps and adopted framework legislation to allow for 
possible authorization of AMTs.  EFSA had evalua ted their safety, and discussions were underway 
with member States to develop implementing legislation to allow their use. 
 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
96. Geographical BSE risk assessment 
Raised by: Canada, Chile, India 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, par as. 22-26), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, 
paras. 35-36), June 2007 (G/SPS/R/45, paras. 44-45) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
 
89. In 2001, Canada requested information on the EC geographical BSE risk assessment (GBR) 
process, the consistency of its application and how assessments could be reviewed when risks 
changed.  Canada noted that the OIE was developing a system to verify countries' own assessments of 
their BSE status, and wondered how it would rela te to the EC system.  The United States was  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
 Page 21 
 
 
  concerned that the European Communities was applyi ng similarly stringent measures to countries with 
significantly different risk factors, a practice which lacked scientific justification and ran counter to 
existing international standards.  It was not entir ely transparent how country classifications would be 
determined nor what requirements would be a pplied in the meantime.  The United States had 
submitted detailed comments identifying a number of problems with the methodology and with the 
information related to the United States.  The Unite d States urged countries to take the OIE standard 
into account when developing their BSE measures.  The OIE representative clarified that the OIE 
would deal only with recognition of BSE freedom, not with the other four categories contained in the 
International Animal Health Code (G/SPS/GEN/ 266).  The Commission on FMD and other Epizootics 
had received the mandate to develop guidelines to  help member countries carry out their risk 
assessment, taking into account the experience from GBR assessments. 
90. The European Communities explained that GBRs were based on information provided by 
trading partners in a 1998 questionnaire.  The GBR methodology had been established by the EC Scientific Steering Committee.  The new EC BSE-T SE measure was in conformity with the OIE Code, 
but the GBR pre-dated the current OIE Code.  Any new scientific evidence could be submitted to the 
Commission and a re-evaluation of a GBR would be  considered once additional stability measures had 
been implemented, allowing three to five years to ta ke into account the incubation period of BSE.  The 
European Communities explained the stability factors that were taken into consideration; these were 
considered on a case-by-case basis.  The European Communities consider ed that the GBR reflected the 
international standard, and was willing to coope rate with Members and provide information.  
Knowledge about this disease should be shared to minimize trade effects where possible. 
91. In June 2005, India expressed c oncerns regarding the categorization of India in the suspected 
list of the GBR.  The assumptions made by th e European Communities while conducting the risk 
assessment needed to be reconsidered, as BSE had ne ver been reported in Indian cattle and buffalos.  
India had made these concerns known to the Euro pean Communities on several occasions.  The EC 
categorization had the potential to disrupt India's beef trade not only with EC member States but also 
with its other trading partners. 
92. The European Communities described its BSE impo rt regime in relation to beef and beef 
products as proportionate, non-discriminatory and scien ce-based.  The recent findings of BSE in both 
the United States and Canada had not led to me asures from the European Communities.  The EC 
classification system had been introduced due to insufficient progress in the OIE with the development of an international framework on trade in beef an d beef products and BSE.  In that context, the 
European Communities encouraged all OIE members, including India, to work towards OIE country 
classifications which would allow the European Communities to abandon its classification.  The 
European Communities clarified that, unless the OIE failed to classify countries, India's existing 
classification would not be revisited since it had been carried out on an independent basis by EC scientists. 
93. In February 2006, Chile noted that while it had never registered any cases of BSE, in 2005 the 
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) evaluated Chile as being a country where BSE was likely to occur or had been confirmed (Category 3 of th e GBR).  Chile disagreed with EFSA's analysis, 
particularly the time-frame and some of the da ta underpinning the analysis.  Chile had sent 
documentation to EFSA and the European Commissi on but had not received any reply or comment.  
EFSA's classification cast doubt on the BSE situati on in Chile and had negative impacts on Chile's 
industry.  An ad hoc group of the OIE had noted that Chile satisfied requirements for a country 
provisionally free of BSE.  Chile urged EFSA to recognize the OIE evaluation. 
94. The European Communities noted that while EFSA  had classified Chile as a Category 3 risk, 
the European Communities remained open to reassessing th e status in the light of the OIE revised code 
on BSE.  If the OIE were to classify Chile as pr ovisionally free, the European Communities would G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
Page 22  
 
  take this into consideration.  However only Arge ntina, Iceland, Singapore and Uruguay were in this 
particular category.  Even if a country was categoriz ed as a Category 3 risk of BSE, trade could still 
take place if appropriate measures were in place. 
95. In June 2007, Canada indicated that his aut horities considered both specific trade concerns 
numbers 96 and 107, to be resolved as they had been overtaken by the OI E's new risk assessment 
framework and categorization system for BSE risk posed by countries.  The EC geographical BSE risk 
assessment had led to concerns rega rding the consistency of the risk  analysis and the possibility of 
reviewing risk assessments over time.  The EC tr ansitional TSE measures resulted in the classification 
of countries according to four levels of risk, but only recognized two levels of risk management.  The 
OIE had made amendments to the Animal Health Code, which updated the risk assessment framework 
and BSE categorization.  As previously reported, Canada was recognized as a controlled risk country 
for BSE.  The European Communities had decided to use the new OIE standards. 
96. The European Communities noted that the EC measures on BSE had always been intended to 
be interim measures.  The European Communities ha d clearly indicated that the measures would be 
adapted in light of OIE standards, but that interi m measures were required to protect health while the 
OIE completed its work.   The interim measures had been proportionate, fair and science-based, 
especially when compared to the measures imposed  by other Members.  When cases of BSE had 
occurred in Canada and the United States, the EC measures had not been changed in any way, whereas 
many other Members had imposed unjustified measures.   Now the OIE had completed an excellent job 
in preparing appropriate standards, and the European Communities had adapted its measures 
immediately to ensure full conformity with the new OIE standards.  This modification had already 
been notified to the SPS Committee, and the Europ ean Communities was the first Member to fully 
adopt the new OIE Code.  Members had voiced their confidence in the interna tional standards earlier, 
and the European Communities invited all Members to quickly adopt the OIE standards on  BSE. 
 
107. Transitional TSE measures  
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, par as. 5-8), June 2007 (G/SPS/R/45, paras. 44-
45) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
 
97. Canada expressed concern about loss of access to the EC markets for pet food, live bovine 
animals, embryos, ova and tallow in the wake of  the adoption of transitional TSE measures by the 
European Communities.  Canada stated that the EC  regulations classified countries according to four 
levels of risk, but applied only two levels of risk management.  According to the OIE criteria, Canada 
was BSE-free, yet Canadian exports faced identical tr ade restrictions to EC member States in which 
BSE was prevalent.  These problems would be compounded by EC animal waste regulations due in 2002 which threatened to prohibit the few remaining animal products that Canada could still export to 
the European Communities.  Canada  requested to be removed from th e scope of application of these 
measures.  The United States agreed that the Eur opean Communities was applying stringent measures 
to countries that were either not affected by BSE, or which had significantly different risk factors.  
This approach lacked scientific justification and ran counter to international standards.  The European 
Communities explained that the transitional measure s laid down import conditi ons for products of  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
 Page 23 
 
 
  bovine, ovine and caprine origin, and would be exte nded to cover certificati on of other products of 
animal origin.  Pet food was included to protect consumers' health. An exemption was made for 
countries classified in category one (presence of BSE unlikely), but neither Canada nor the United 
States were in this category. 
98. In June 2007, Canada indicated that his aut horities considered both specific trade concerns 
numbers 96 and 107, to be resolved as they had been overtaken by the OI E's new risk assessment 
framework and categorization system for BSE risk posed by countries.  The EC geographical BSE risk assessment had led to concerns rega rding the consistency of the risk  analysis and the possibility of 
reviewing risk assessments over time.  The EC tr ansitional TSE measures resulted in the classification 
of countries according to four levels of risk, but only recognized two levels of risk management.  The 
OIE had made amendments to the Animal Health Code, which updated the risk assessment framework 
and BSE categorization.  As previously reported, Canada was recognized as a controlled risk country 
for BSE.  The European Communities had decided to use the new OIE standards. 
99. The European Communities noted that the EC measures on BSE had always been intended to 
be interim measures.  The European Communities ha d clearly indicated that the measures would be 
adapted in light of OIE standards, but that interi m measures were required to protect health while the 
OIE completed its work.  The interim measures had been proportionate, fair and science-based, 
especially when compared to the measures imposed  by other Members.  When cases of BSE had 
occurred in Canada and the United States, the EC measures had not been changed in any way, whereas 
many other Members had imposed unjustified measures.   Now the OIE had completed an excellent job 
in preparing appropriate standards, and the European Communities had adapted its measures 
immediately to ensure full conformity with the new OIE standards.  This modification had already 
been notified to the SPS Committee, and the Europ ean Communities was the first Member to fully 
adopt the new OIE Code.  Members had voiced their confidence in the interna tional standards earlier, 
and the European Communities invited all Members to quickly adopt the OIE standards on  BSE. 
 256. Import restrictions on cooked poultry products from China 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2007 (G/SPS/R/46, paras. 9-10) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Lifting of ban 
Status: Resolved 
 
100. In October 2007, China raised the concern th at since July 2004, the European Communities 
had suspended the importation of cooked poultry meat from China b ecause of the presence of highly 
pathogenic avian influenza in China.  The OIE guide lines on AI explicitly stated  that heat treatment 
de-activated the virus and that restrictive measures associated with AI should not be applied to cooked 
poultry meat.  The EC Health Commissioner had agreed  to lift the prohibition of cooked poultry meat 
from China into the European Communities, and Chin a requested that this be done as soon as possible 
in accordance with OIE guide lines and the SPS agreement. 
101. The European Communities responded that the pr ohibition in question had been in place since 
January 2002 and related not only to avian influenza but also to certain hygiene concerns.  These 
issues had now been resolved and the ban s hould be lifted within a matter of weeks. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
Page 24  
 
   
GUATEMALA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY GUATEMALA Animal Health and Zoonoses 210. Restrictions on imports of chicken meat  
Raised by: Mexico 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1,  paras. 28-29), June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, 
paras. 27-29 ), October 2006 (G/SPS/R/ 43, paras. 148-149), February 2007 
(G/SPS/R/44, paras. 142-143) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
102. In March 2005, Mexico recalled that his c ountry had raised a concern on Guatemala's 
restrictions on imports of chicken meat.  Progress towards a solution to the problem had been made 
recently and Mexico would continue to monitor the i ssue bilaterally and in the context of the Regional 
Organization for Agricultural Health (OIRSA).   Guatemala confirmed its willingness to continue 
working on this issue with Mexico. 
103. In June 2006, Mexico noted c ontinuing problems related to Guatemala's import prohibition on 
poultry meat products and sub-products (including eggs).  The long delays with which Guatemala's 
Ministry of Agriculture (MAGA) had responded to the multiple requests for importation of such 
products from Mexico violated the timeframes estab lished by Guatemalan authorities.  In April 2005, 
Mexico had sent MAGA the model zoosanitary certif icates for approval, accompanied by information 
on avian diseases in Mexico.  Although in Nove mber 2005, during a mee ting of a bilateral SPS 
technical expert group, Guatemalan authorities ha d committed to carry out  a risk assessment and 
provide a response, no response had yet been receive d.  During January and February 2006, Mexico 
had asked Guatemala to remove restrictions impos ed in response to an alleged outbreak of low 
pathogenic avian influenza, taking into account OIE guidance.  At the same time, Mexico requested 
information on Guatemala's avian influenza situati on in order to open Mexico's market for poultry 
products from Guatemala.  Bilateral meetings had been held in the margins of the 34th meeting of the 
SPS Committee.  In June 2006, Mexico had received a communication from MAGA indicating that 
due to the difference in sanitary status between the two countries, Guatemala would not lift its import 
restrictions on poultry products and sub-products fro m Mexico.  At the same time, Guatemala declined 
to respond to Mexico's questionnaire on Guatemala's avian influenza situation.  Mexico considered 
that Guatemala's actions violated the OIE Code and the SPS Agreement, and hoped that Guatemala would soon respond to Mexico's requests, allowi ng trade of poultry products and sub-products 
between both countries. 
104. The European Communities indicated that exports  from EC member States to Guatemala had 
been disrupted because of avian influenza concer ns.  The European Communities emphasized that 
such measures should be proportional to the risk, ta king into account Article 6 of the SPS Agreement.  
The European Communities intended to  pursue the issue bilaterally. 
105. Guatemala indicated it would work bilaterally to resolve the issue related to EC exports.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
 Page 25 
 
 
  106. In October 2006, Mexico reported that althoug h it had taken various measures at bilateral 
level to reach a solution, Guatemala continued to be  in breach of its obligation under Articles 5 and 6 
of the SPS Agreement.  Mexico requested Guatemal a to suspend the restrictions imposed on Mexican 
poultry imports. 
107. Guatemala indicated that a meeting of the technical bodies of both Members was to be held 
on 17-18 October 2006, where an analysis of the situ ation would be made.  At the meeting, the health 
situation of both countries, domestic  quarantine measures and the situ ation regarding avian influenza 
were to be reviewed.  Guatelamala was hopeful th at the meeting would enable technicians from both 
parties to reach a satisfactory solution. 
108. In February 2007, Mexico reported that despite several bilateral meeti ngs seeking an end to 
Guatemala’s restrictions imposed due to low pa thogenic avian influenza, there had still been no 
response from the Guatemalan Ministry of Agricultur e. These restrictions were not in line with the 
OIE Code.  Mexico had requested that Guatemala u ndertake verification visits, but had not received a 
satisfactory reply. 
109. Guatemala confirmed that following technical meetings and discussions of the sanitary status 
of both countries, it had agreed to undertake visits to  check controls in Mexico .  Unfortunately, due to 
budgetary constraints, these visits had not yet been possible, and further delays had occurred due to 
changes in the head of the relevant departme nt.  However, Guatemala remained committed to 
resolving this issue. 
 
INDIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDIA 
Food safety 253. Export certification requirements for dairy products  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2007 (G/SPS/R/45, paras.  19-20), October 2007 (G/SPS/R/46, paras. 
27-28 ) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
110. In June 2007, the United States stated that  India had imposed a number of certification 
requirements on imported dairy products that we re trade prohibitive and lacked any scientific 
justification.  These requirements also raised ques tions regarding national treatment.  There was a long 
history with over 40 years of exports of US dairy products to India with no reported violations of 
Indian safety standards.  Although the United Stat es had proposed certificate language to India in 
October 2006, no progress had been made towards the resolution of this problem. 
111. India observed that the protocol in place in I ndia established limits for contaminants that were 
in accordance with Codex standards.  Indian au thorities were still studying the US comments on 
India's protocol for dairy products. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
Page 26  
 
  112. In October 2007, the United States expressed con cern that India maintained more stringent 
maximum residue levels (MRLs) on imported dairy products than it did for domestic products, raising 
serious questions regarding India's adherence to its  international obligations.  In October 2006, the 
United States had proposed a health certificate attest ing that US milk and milk products were fit for 
human consumption.  However, India had refused  to accept the certificate, highlighting concerns 
regarding US action levels for dair y products.  Bilateral technical m eeting had been held in May 2007 
to discuss the issue and the United States submitted various supporting documents as requested by the 
Indian experts., but no response was received.  Add itionally, the United States had requested bilateral 
health discussions with the Indian technical expert s, but no response had been received.  The United 
States urged India to reconsider its October 2006 ce rtification proposal and also requested India to 
formally and comprehensively respond to the proposal and subsequent requests. 
113. India indicated that a health protocol for dair y products had been in place since 2006 and that 
it applied to all dairy products be ing exported to India. Various dairy products from the United States 
were currently being imported as per the existi ng protocol.  The sanitary certification for India 
proscribed limits of contaminan ts in accordance with Codex standa rds, and India's standards for 
contaminants in domestic dairy prod ucts were also in line with Codex standards for the majority of 
contaminants and even higher for some.  Th e additional information provided on the USDA 
Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) Pesticide Data  Program and on the test results of pesticides in 
milk samples were being currently examined by technical experts.  Regarding the US proposed 
certificate, India had analyzed the action level of cer tain contaminants cited in the US  document and 
found that they were less strict than the Codex st andards.  In a recent high level meeting, it was 
decided that the United States would send a team of technical experts to India.  During a bilateral 
meeting, just prior to the SPS Committee meeti ng, the United States had asked for certain 
clarifications.  This request would be conve yed to India's technical experts in capital. 
 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
185. Restrictions due to avian influenza 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 18-20 ), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 
42-43), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, par as. 59-60), June 2007 (G/SPS/R/45, 
paras. 21-23 ), October 2007 (G/SPS/R/46, paras. 29-32 ) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/IND/13/Add.1, G/SPS/N/IND/14, G/SPS/N/IND/46/Add.3 and 
Add.4 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
114. The European Communities rai sed concerns on measures applied by India on 3 March 2004 
on imports of live birds, fresh poultry meat and meat  products due to avian influenza.  These measures 
were not notified as required by the SPS Agreement.   In addition, India's restrictions were 
disproportionate to the health risks associated w ith imports from the European Communities since the 
European Communities were free of highly pathogenic av ian influenza.  India was requested to lift the 
restrictions on EC products.  The United States sh ared the concerns of th e European Communities. 
115. India explained that restrictions on poultry im ports were temporary measures to address the 
emerging threat of introduction of highly pathogenic  avian influenza.  The measures were intended to  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
 Page 27 
 
 
  protect farmers for whom poultry production was an  essential source of income.  Delays in the 
reporting of outbreaks increased the risk of the viru s spreading into other countries.  In addition, 
infected poultry did not always exhibit clinical signs  of the disease.  Once introduced into the country, 
the disease would be impossible to control.  India was taking all measures necessary to gather information on efforts to contain the disease gl obally and welcomed information from exporting 
Members who were free of the disease. 
116. In June 2004, the European Communities stated th at India continued to apply import bans on 
a range of poultry products from several countries alle gedly in response to highly pathenogenic avian 
influenza.  India was requested to review the cu rrent ban and lift all restrictions on poultry products 
from the European Communities.  India responded that the measures prohibiting poultry and poultry 
products had been implemented as temporary measures.   New outbreaks of highly pathenogenic avian 
influenza (HPAI) in WTO Members, but not within the territories of the European Communities, had 
been reported as recently as 4 June 2004.  Since pou ltry production in India was typically a family-run 
business, Indian authorities were particularly co ncerned about potential human development of the 
disease. 
117. In October 2004, the European Co mmunities stated that India had issued two notifications, on 
7 July and on 6 August, informing Members of th e relaxation of the ban for a range of products.  
However, the ban was disproportionate to the risk, had no scientific basis and should be confined to 
regions affected by the disease following OIE guidelines and recommendations.  India was requested to review its ban and bring its measures into conform ity with the SPS Agreement.  India stated that the 
ban was a temporary measure which was enforced due to the outbreak of avian influenza throughout 
the world.  The situation had been under constant review since the imposition of the ban in February 
2004.  The ban on imports of poultry with vaccinati on and specific pathogen free eggs was lifted in 
July 2004.  A subsequent review by an expert gr oup resulted in the continuation of the ban on imports 
of certain products such as live and raw poultry and pig meat.  Processed products from HPAI infected 
countries were allowed into India, however, a nd the situation continued to be monitored. 
118. In June 2007, the United States noted that India was banning poultry, swine and other 
products in response to the detection of low pathogeni c avian influenza in wild birds in some parts of 
the United States.  These restrictions far exceeded the standards developed by the OIE for the control 
of avian influenza.  India failed to apply the con cept of regionalization to the United States.  India 
applied its ban against US products  although no incident of highly pathogenic avian influenza had 
occurred in the United States;  applied its ban to pro ducts that had been treated or processed in such a 
manner that the avian influenza virus was killed;  and applied its ban to species and products from 
animals that were not known to transmit the virus.  Although India had recently notified a change to its 
measures to allow the entry of dry processed pet fo od, it continued to prohibit other heat-treated pet 
foods that posed no animal health risk. 
119. The European Communities observed that they  had similar concerns regarding India's 
measures.  Although they had been seeking to reso lve the matter bilaterally, problems continued to 
appear and reappear.  All Members we re urged to apply the internationa l standards, to ensure that the 
measures applied were proportionate to the risks.  In dia's measure was applied even to products that 
had never been known to transmit avian influenza, including pork meat. 
120. India noted that high or low pathogenic strains of avian influenza had been reported in more 
than 60 countries, and the authorities were concerne d that the virus was spreading.  The virus had 
important human health implications, given its high fa tality rate.  India had experienced an outbreak of 
highly pathogenic avian influenza in 2006 which had been successfully contained, and the country was 
now free of the disease.  India was trying to safeguard  animal and human health in its territory, and 
protect its family-run poultry industry.  It theref ore banned imports of poultry from any country which 
had experienced an outbreak of avian influenza, whether highly pathogenic or low pathogenic.  The G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
Page 28  
 
  United States had reported an outbreak of low path ogenic avian influenza.  Countries free from avian 
influenza could export livestock to India, a nd pathogen-free eggs for vaccine production were 
permitted from any country, regardless of its avian infl uenza status.  Because many wild birds visited 
India, this was a vector of concern.  With regard  to pet food, India had revised its health protocol 
notified in June 2007, and w ould take into account the co mments made on this matter. 
121. In October 2007, the United States reiterated c oncerns  regarding India's ban on imports of 
US poultry, swine and their products due to detections  of low-pathogenic avian influenza (AI) in wild 
birds in the United States.  In June, the United St ates had noted that this prohibition went beyond the 
OIE guidelines and that India had not provided scientific  justification for this prohibition.  India had 
made two notifications related to AI (G/SPS/ N/IND/46/Add.3 and Add.4).  The Add.3 document 
extended AI-related import prohibition to include pi g bristles.  Prohibiting the import of these products 
was not scientifically justified nor in compliance with the OIE guidelines based on the AI status of a country, region or zone.  The United States requested that India remove all import restrictions on US 
origin live pigs and porcine products.  India's Add. 4 extended for a further six months the emergency 
measures it had put in place in August 2006.  The United States urged India to put in place permanent 
measures for trade in poultry products and AI, and to ensure that these measures were consistent with 
the provisions of the OIE Code chapter on AI.  India's measures should distinguish between highly-pathogenic and low-pathogenic strains of AI, and allow for the application of regionalization. 
122. The European Communities noted that it had pr oblems similar to those mentioned by the 
United States.  India failed to recognize the differe nce between high and low pathogenic influenza as 
well as the AI-related differences between wild  birds and domestic animals. The European 
Communities encouraged India to foll ow the recommendations from the OIE. 
123. India stressed the dangers related to AI and how widespread the virus ha d been.  In addition, 
AI was known to reoccur in countries where outbreaks had previously taken place.  India restricted imports from countries reporting AI.  The United Stat es was currently positive for low pathogenic AI 
in poultry (LPNAIH5).  India's import restrictions due to outbreaks of AI in the United States were 
clarified in detail to the United States during the l ast trade policy forum meeting held in New Deli.  
India contested the claim that its regulations we re not based on science by observing that the presence 
of LPAI in poultry was a notifiable disease according to the OIE as per the list of diseases in Article 
2.1.3 of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code.  Furthermore, as noted by USDA's factsheet on AI, LPAI had a high potential to mutate into highly pathogenic AI;  a view that India shared.  Nonetheless, India regularly reviewed its trade regulations in the li ght of new developments on AI.  Regarding the 
concerns with pork products, there were numerous scie ntific reports that pigs could be easily infected 
by many human and AI viruses and, therefore, c ould provide an environment favourable for viral 
replication and genetic re-assortment.  The fast mu tating nature of the AI virus, along with the 
possibility that the virus could re-combine with other subtypes, made pig and pig products a risk.  With 
regard to wild birds, consultations with experts ha d taken place and the Indian authorities were of the 
view that wild birds could not be ignored with r espect to AI.  The US and EC concerns would be 
reported back to India's technical experts for review. 
124. The OIE clarified the recommendations of the OI E and how they should be put in practice.  
The listing of diseases such as high pathogenic avia n influenza (HPAI) and low pathogenic notifiable 
avian influenza (LPNAI) was first and foremost for disease reporting purposes and related to the question of  transparency.  Findings of AI in wild birds and of LPNAI should not lead to import bans.  
There needed to be a distinction drawn between reporting and the imposition of measures.  There was 
no scientific basis for restrictions on pigs and pig pr oducts in relation to AI, whether it be high or low 
pathogenic strains, and this point was clear in the OIE Terrestrial Code.  OIE was concerned that the imposition of measures that were not scientifically based worsened the risk s for spread of disease 
because countries were discouraged from proper repor ting if they believed that the reporting would 
lead to unjustifiable measures.  It was of utmost importance that countries report their diseases.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
 Page 29 
 
 
   
INDONESIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 244. Importation of live animals and meat products 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by: Argentina, Australia, New Zealand 
Dates raised: October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, pa ras. 17-21), February 2007 (G/SPS/R/44, 
paras. 30-31) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/IDN/30 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
125. In October 2006, Brazil expressed concern rega rding Indonesia's Government Regulation 
82/2000 applicable to quarantine import procedures for animals and related products.  Brazil noted that 
Regulation 82/2000 did not comply with the regi onalization provisions of Article 6 of the SPS 
Agreement or with Chapter 1.3.5 of the OIE Territo rial Animal Health Code as it did not take into 
account the sanitary characteristics of the areas fro m which the products originated, but required the 
whole territory of an exporting country to be free of any diseases that were not present in Indonesia.  As a result of Indonesia's regulation, Brazil w as frequently facing import restrictions on a broad 
variety of its products on the basis of the food-and- mouth disease (FMD), even from FMD free zones.  
In particular, there was no scientific justificati on for import restrictions on goods which could not 
under any circumstance transmit the FMD agent, m eat products submitted to treatments which were 
internationally recognized as capable of inactivating the FMD virus, and restrictions on heat-treated 
vegetable products.  These unjustified import restricti ons resulted in huge financial losses.  Brazil 
urged Indonesia to adopt national protection levels based on risk asse ssments, taking into account the 
relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement and OIE standards. 
126. Argentina, Australia and New Zealand expressed similar concerns regarding Indonesia's draft 
Regulation (G/SPS/N/IDN/30) on the importation of meat products.  They indicated their intentions to submit comments on the draft regulation before th e comment deadline.  Argentina urged Indonesia to 
adjust its risk analysis to the OIE standards, while New Zealand further noted that Indonesia had not 
indicated in its notification when the draft Decree  might be adopted.  They encouraged Indonesia to 
work with other Members to address their c oncerns before adopting the draft Decree. 
127. Indonesia reported that with regards to the importation of live anim als and meat products, 
Indonesia had been conducting a review of its le gislation and would soon notify to the WTO a new 
decree on import of meat of various types of species.  The new regulation replaced the existing regulation (Decree 745/1992) on the requirements fo r meat importation.  One of the eventual 
requirements for countries to be eligible to export meat and meat pr oducts intended for human 
consumption to Indonesia was their FMD free status .  Recognition of the disease-free status would be 
based on an OIE declaration.  A further require ment for FMD-free countries to export meat to 
Indonesia would be a desk audit and on-site audit to be carried out by the Director General of 
Livestock Services (DGLS).  In relation to animal importation, existing regulations would remain in effect. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
Page 30  
 
  128. With regards to BSE, Indonesia stated that the requirements for the importation of live 
ruminants and ruminant products from countries or z ones declared as negligible BSE risk by the OIE 
had been set out in a new decree.  In principle, under the new regulation, live ruminants and ruminant 
products from countries or zones declared as negligib le BSE risk by the OIE were allowed to be 
imported to Indonesia.  Imports of meat and meat products from BSE-risk countries were prohibited.  
However, there were exceptions that included meat  and meat products originating from de-boned meat 
as specified in Article 2.3.1.3.1 of OIE Code.  Th e additional requirements to export meat and meat 
products to Indonesia were that such commodities should have originated from an establishment 
approved by the DGLS and that also met th e healthy food requirement of Indonesia. 
129. The OIE clarified that Article 1 of the BSE ch apter contained a list of safe commodities that 
were judged to present no BSE risk no matter the BSE status of the exporting country.  This included 
de-boned skeletal muscle meat that could be impor ted from a country irrespective of its BSE status. 
130. In February 2007, Brazil reitera ted its concerns with Indonesia’s lack of recognition of 
regionalization.  Indonesia had indicated that its legislation was under revision, and was being 
harmonized with the OIE standards and SPS requireme nts, as notified in G/SPS/N/ IDN/30.  However, 
Brazil’s analysis of the revision concluded that In donesia still would not recognize regionalization for 
FMD and other animal diseases.  Brazil had raised its  complaint in October 2006, before the end of the 
comment period provided, but Indonesia's Enquiry Point had never provided answers to the issues 
raised.  Brazil urged Indonesia to ensure the full a pplication of Article 6 of the SPS Agreement and the 
OIE standards for zoning.  The establishment of natio nal protection levels and measures must be based 
on risk assessments, in accorda nce with the SPS Agreement. 
131. Indonesia recalled that FMD was a very sensitive matter for Indonesia, due to its climate and 
the outbreak that had occurred five years ago.  Article 3.3 of the SPS Agreement permitted Members 
to impose requirements that went beyond the intern ational standards.  Indonesia had to apply a 
maximum standard in this case, and this would be  applied until exporting countries had been declared 
FMD free by the OIE.  Indonesia was looking to co ntinue consultations with Brazil on this issue. 
 
Plant Health 
243. Lack of recognition of pest-free areas 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia 
Dates raised: October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, pa ras. 14-16), February 2007 (G/SPS/R/44, 
paras. 25-26), June 2007 (G/SPS/R/ 45, paras. 31-32), October 2007 
(G/SPS/R/46, paras. 22-23 ) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/IDN/24 
Solution:  
Status: Partially resolved 
 
132. In October 2006, the United States expressed concerns regarding Indonesia's Decree 37 
implemented in March 2006, which established new phytosanitary requirements on fruit imports that 
failed to recognize fruit fly free areas in the United States.  For decades, US fruits originating from 
pest-free areas had been shipped to Indonesia without  any quarantine incidence.  The new measure had 
resulted in US fresh fruit being subjected to unwa rranted pest treatment before being exported to 
Indonesia.  The United States noted that the Inte rnational Standards for Phytosanitary Measures  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
 Page 31 
 
 
  (ISPM) guidelines used by the United States were rec ognized by their trading partners worldwide, but 
Indonesia had failed to amend its assessment of the fru it fly status in the United States even after the 
United States had extensively communicated and provided Indonesia's Ministry of Agriculture with the information requested.  The measures imposed by Indonesia for quarantine fruit flies were overly 
restrictive and scientifically unjustified and had im pacted exports of eleven types of US fruits, 
including apples and grapes.  The United States requ ested Indonesia to allow the entry of US grapes 
accompanied by a Federal phytosanitary certificate and additional documentation attesting that the 
grapes were grown in a fruit fly-free area. 
133. Australia shared the concerns of the United St ates and indicated that it was working directly 
with Indonesia and hoped to resolve the issue in the near future. 
134. Indonesia reported that the issue had been discu ssed with the United States in a bilateral 
meeting.  Based on their discussion, Indonesia was confident that the matter would be resolved 
amicably in the near future.  Indonesia indicated th at it was to send an expert team to do an on-site 
inspection of a Mediterranean fruit fly-free area for gr apes in the State of California.  Indonesia needed 
further information on the sites to be visited, incl uding the production area of grapes in specific sites in 
California, substantial geographical information, a list of registered grape growers in the production 
area of California, information on surface proce ssing, packaging and storage facilities, and the 
procedure of phytosanitary certification.  Indonesi a reiterated its commitment to resolving the matter 
as early as possible and in a mutually beneficial manner. 
135. In February 2007, the United States reported that  the concerns regarding Indonesia’s Decree 
37 had been only partially resolved, but a complete resolution was within grasp.  The measure affected 
US exports of 11 horticultural products.  The United States considered that Indonesia imposed 
excessive phytosanitary requirements in relation to pe sts that posed no phytosanitary risks to Indonesia 
because they could not become established. 
136. Indonesia indicated that it would follow-up on th is matter bilaterally with the United States. 
137. In June 2007, the United States indicated that th e measure continued to affect US exports of 
apples, pears and cherries from various states.  In  May, Indonesia had hosted a meeting of technical 
experts to consider whether the pests at issue coul d in fact become established in Indonesia.  The 
United States considered that this disruption of trade should never have occurred, and looked for a 
rapid resolution of the problem. 
138. Indonesia clarified that it prohibited the im portation of fruit and vegetables only from 
countries which had fruit flies that did not exist in Indonesia and which could cause damage if 
introduced.  The products must come from pest-free areas in accordance with ISPM 26, or else the 
fruits and vegetables must undergo suitable treatment.  Indonesia had transmitted to the United States 
the list of fruit flies that were present in the Un ited States but not present in Indonesia.  Indonesian 
authorities had conducted on-site inspection in the Un ited States to verify the Mediterranean fruit fly 
free areas, and although the situation was encouraging,  Indonesia considered that grape imports posed 
too high a risk.  Furthermore, apple maggots did not exist in Indonesia, and as the United States could 
not meet the requirements of a pest-free area according to ISPM 26, apples had to be treated by vapour 
heat treatment, cold treatment or fumigation.  Trapping had shown that apple maggots were still 
present in pest-free areas of the United States.  Contrary to US arguments, apple maggots could 
become established in Indonesia since apples were produced at high altitudes with cool climates.  
Indonesia was looking forward to receiving further t echnical information from the United States, and 
to continuing bilateral effort s to resolve this concern. 
139. In October 2007, the United States reported that  while exports of apples, pears and cherries 
had resumed, Indonesia required treatment for pests that did not exist in the exporting regions, or G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
Page 32  
 
  which could not become established in Indonesian territory.  The United States was still waiting for 
Indonesia to provide a written response to the inform ation that the United States had presented during 
and after a technical meeting in May 2007, and trus ted that Indonesia would continue the technical 
discussions to resolve the issue. 
140. Indonesia noted that it had provided clarifications  regarding this issue in previous Committee 
meetings.  The United States and Indonesia had held a bilateral meeting just previous to the meeting 
and had seriously discussed this issue.  Indonesia had agreed to follow up with further communication 
with the United States. 
 
ISRAEL 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ISRAEL 
Plant Health 233. Phytosanitary import legislation 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2005 (G/SPS/R/39, pa ras. 39-40), February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, 
paras. 39-40), March 2006 (G/SPS/ R/40, paras. 36-37), June 2006 
(G/SPS/R/42, paras. 30-31), February  2007 (G/SPS/R/44, paras. 27-28) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
141. In October 2005, the European Communities reporte d that this trade concern had been raised 
bilaterally on several occasions since 1984.  Dr aft import legislation had been provided to the 
European Communities in November 2003.  Its revisi on, which addressed some of the comments made 
by the European Communities in May 2004, had been  issued in January 2005 to be presented for 
revision, approval and publication by the Israeli co mpetent authorities.  However the legislation was 
still at the draft stage, despite repeated promises by Is rael that a final text would be published in 2005.  
The European Communities considered that the lack of phytosanitary legislation contravened Article 7 
of the SPS Agreement and created unpredictability for EC exporters of plants  and plant products.  
Furthermore, the draft import legislation maintained the system of import licenses and permits currently imposed by Israel.  Israel indicated that these concerns would be transmitted to the relevant 
Israeli authorities and addressed as soon as possible. 
142. In March 2006, the European Communities noted that the continuing absence of 
phytosanitary import legislation in Israel led to uncer tainty for EC exporters and was in  contradiction 
with international standards.  Although some co rrective actions had been taken by Israel, the 
legislation continued to be in a draft stage, and fi nal approval by Israel's relevant authorities was still 
pending.  The European Communities urged Israel  to adopt national legislation containing 
phytosanitary import requirements as soon as possible. 
143. Israel stressed it's full commitment to comply with the obligations of the SPS Agreement.  
Israel was aware of the importance of a coherent and transparent legislation to allow the smooth development of international trade.  Israel ha d informed its trading partners that new and  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
 Page 33 
 
 
  comprehensive draft legislation was under preparation.   This legislation would be submitted to Israel's 
newly elected parliament.  Israel had undertaken measures which showed its willingness to respond to 
its trading partners' concerns. 
144. In June 2006, the European Communities comp lained that Israel's phytosanitary import 
legislation was still at a draft stage, although efforts were being made to publish the final legislation.  
The European Communities invited Israel to finally adopt this legislation. 
145. Israel explained that the plant protection and inspection services of Israel were revising and 
modifying Israel's import regulations for plants a nd plant products.  The regul ations had existed since 
1971, and had been revised and modified since then  to comply with the SPS Agreement.  Various 
products and commodities were allowed according to th eir phytosanitary risk and imports permits for 
new products were granted after a pest risk analysis .  The revision process, which required attention to 
hundreds of products, was taking longer than expect ed.  The import requirements for most products 
were already specified in the import permits and c ould be found on the website of the Ministry of 
Agriculture, but the interagency legislative process had not yet been completed.  The Ministry of 
Agriculture was expected to send its final draft phy tosanitary import legislation to the Ministry of 
Justice within weeks, then the draft would be sent to  the Israeli Parliament.  Israel's plant protection 
and inspection services were doing their utmost to fa cilitate trade with the European Communities and 
with other trading partners. 
146. In February 2007, the European Communities not ed that Israel's l ack of phytosanitary 
legislation lead to uncertainty and unpredictability regarding the steps to be followed when exported 
products reached the market.  Israel had taken some  actions to increase transparency by publishing 
some import requirements on the internet.  However, it appeared that the legislation was still at a draft 
stage, and the European Communities requested Israel to finalize its legislation in accordance with the 
IPPC standards. 
147. Israel expressed regret that this issue had been  raised again despite bilateral discussions with 
the European Communities.  The title of this agenda  item was not appropriate as Israel had legislation 
on SPS requirements for imports.  The European Communities concern related to the level of 
specificity of that legislation.  Israel underst ood the need for predictability and was making great 
efforts in this regard.  The Ministries of Agricultu re, Finance and Justice were involved in the work.  
The Ministry of Justice had completed work on a dr aft, which had been sent to the Ministry of 
Agriculture for final comments.  The final dr aft would be sent to the Economic and Finance 
committees before its final approval.  There was no timeframe established for the adoption of the 
legislation, however Israel insisted that this did not create a hindrance to th e trade of the European 
Communities or any other trading partners as trade continued to take place normally. 
 
JAPAN 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
222. Import suspension of heat-pro cessed straw and forage for feed  
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 33-34 ), June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, 
paras. 25-26), June 2007 (G/SPS/R/45, paras. 46-47) G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
Page 34  
 
  Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Imports from some enterprises permitted 
Status: Partially resolved 
 
148. China recalled that, following an FMD outbr eak in May 2005 in a few Chinese provinces, 
Japan had issued an overall import suspension of st raw and forage for feed from China at the end of 
May 2005.  However, the straw a nd forage exported to Japan originated from FMD-free areas, and was 
subject to heat treatment more than sufficient to  kill FMD viruses, under joint monitoring of Chinese 
and Japanese inspectors.  Japan's ban lacked sc ientific evidence in contravention to the SPS 
Agreement.  China invited Japanes e officials to undertake the necessary controls and discussions with 
the competent departments. 
149. Japan recalled that it had suspended imports of  heat-processed straw and forage from China at 
the end of May 2005 to respond to repetitive detec tion of faeces in imported straw and intentional 
replacement of heat-treated with non heat-treated  straw, in violation of Japan's animal health 
requirements and of Article 2.2.10.28 of the OI E Code.  These products had been accompanied by a 
genuine Chinese animal health authority certificate, in  violation of paragraph 6 of Article 1.3.4.72 of 
the OIE Code.  Considering the recent rapid sp read of FMD in China, Japan had suspended 
importation of heat-processed straw and forage until the Chinese Government  addressed these issues. 
150. In June 2006, China recalled that Japan's measure s with regard to import of straw and forage 
for feed required unnecessary additional assurances, ex ceeding the OIE standard.  There was no risk of 
transmission of any disease after straw and forage were heat-treated at a temperature of 80 degrees or 
more for at least 10 minutes.  Japan was using th e FMD situation in China as an excuse for trade 
restrictions and was not applying the concept of zoning/regionalization as ther e were no new cases of 
FMD in the counties where straw and forage were produced.  China requested Japan to consider the 
complaints of the Chinese industry as well as of Japa nese importers and to amend its unscientific and 
unnecessary trade restrictions following OIE standards and WTO rules. 
151. Japan observed that any straw and forage othe r than rice straw were permitted for importation 
into Japan on the condit ion that pests were not detected in the process of import inspection.  
Regardless of its use in Japan, the importation of  rice straw was prohibited from all countries other 
than Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Kore a and Chinese Taipei.  If rice straw went through 
disinfection treatment, such as heat treatment with water vapour, it coul d be imported into Japan.  In 
order to prevent the introduction of FMD into Japan, imports of heat-treated straw and forage for feed 
from China were permitted only if there was no FMD infection around the areas where raw materials 
were produced, processed and stored and appropriate heat treatment was carried out.  Japan had to suspend the importation of heat-treated rice straw in May 2005 after repeated violations of the 
requirements detected at some ports of entry into Japan.  In addition, China had officially notified to the OIE the spread of the infected area and an increase in the number of areas of foot and mouth 
disease.  Japan had not received sufficient data fro m China to support the claim that rice straw was 
produced in disease-free areas.  Once the data require ments were complete, Japan would review the 
situation to decide whether the import suspension could be lifted and whether any other pre-export 
measures were necessary. 
152. In June 2007, China reported that much progress had been made towards the resolution of this 
concern through bilateral meetings.  China had inv ited three delegations from Japan for inspection, and 
had provided all relevant and requested information.  Six Chinese enterprises had been approved by 
Japan to export straw and forage.  China hoped th at the dozen enterprises still waiting for approval 
from Japan would soon be approved.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
 Page 35 
 
 
  153. Japan noted that there were two factors that ha d to be considered:  the control measures and 
the compliance with control measures.  Japanese author ities were particularly concerned with  how to 
ensure compliance when there had been a history of poor compliance.  On the basis of on-site visits, 
Japan had scheduled expert consultations which had resulted in some lifting of the suspensions.  Japan 
hoped to be able to lift the suspension soon for other Chinese exporters. 
 
REPUBLIC OF KOREA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY REPUBLIC OF KOREA Animal Health and Zoonoses 247. BSE-related measures on beef products 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: February 2007 (G/SPS/R/44, paras. 15-18 ) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
154. In February 2007, Canada recalled that in r esponse to finding a case of BSE in Canada in 
May 2003, Korea had implemented a ban on imports of  beef from Canada.  Cana da had taken effective 
measures to control the risk of BSE, often exceeding OIE standards.  Furthermore, the OIE Terrestrial 
Animal Health Code indicated that no restricti ons should be applied on boneless beef from animals 
aged 30 months or less, regardless of the BSE status  of the exporting country.   More than 30 trading 
partners had resumed importing Canadian beef, but  Korea continued to block imports.  In January 
2007, Canada had, under Article 5.8 of the SPS Agre ement, formally requested Korea to provide a 
justification for this measure.  Canada was disa ppointed in Korea's response, which was to request 
additional information.  On the basis of the info rmation already provided to Korea, other trading 
partners had assessed risks and concluded that Canadi an beef was safe to import.  The information has 
also been sufficient for the OIE Central Bureau to  determine Canada's BSE st atus.  Canada requested 
Korea to lift its restrictions and grant access to Canadian beef according to the OIE guidelines. 
155. The European Communities indicated that they shared Canada's concerns and were facing 
similar problems with Korea.  This was not a new issue.  The European Co mmunities strongly urged 
all Members to apply the OIE standards, especially with respect to BSE. 
156. Korea stated that import restrictions had b een imposed on certain products due to the BSE 
outbreak in Canada.  Korea had taken the necessary st eps to permit the resumption of beef trade.  It 
was clear that under the terms of the SPS Agreem ent Korea could assess the risk from each Member 
individually.  The risk analysis on Canadian m eat had been delayed when new BSE cases were 
reported in January 2006.  Korea was concerned that there might be a problem related to the 
effectiveness of the feed ban measures, and the co ntinued appearance of cases raised questions that 
had not been clearly answered by Canada.  Howe ver, in accordance with Article 5, Korea would 
continue to discuss this matter with Canada. 
157. Canada stressed that the OIE Code allowed fo r trade in boneless beef from animals below 30 
months regardless of the BSE status of the export ing country.  The few cases of BSE in cattle born G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
Page 36  
 
  after the feed ban had no epidemiological signifi cance.  Although Canada was willing to provide any 
relevant information required, it had been unaware that there were any outstanding requests for 
information. 
 
248. Regionalization for bovine and pig meat products 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: February 2007 (G/SPS/R/44, pa ras. 19-20), June 2007 (G/SPS/R/45, paras. 
40-41) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
158. In  February 2007, Brazil raised concerns rega rding the lack of recognition of provisions on 
regionalization by Korea.  This raised serious doubts about the criteria used by Korea for its risk 
assessment and for establishing its appropriate level of protection (ALOP).  Despite various requests, 
Korea never informed Brazil about the sanitary impor t requirements for beef and pig meat, but claimed 
that specific import conditions could not be estab lished because Brazil was not free of FMD.  This 
requirement was not in compliance with the OIE guid elines, nor with Articles 3, 5 and 7 of the SPS 
Agreement.  The OIE did not establish different import requirements for meat from areas free from FMD whether with or without vaccination.  Brazil sought to export meat from a zone free of FMD 
without vaccination, but Korea refused to discuss this  issue before FMD was eradicated from all of 
Brazil without vaccination.  Korea should provide th e risk assessment which supported this measure, 
which did not conform to Article 6.  Brazil appreci ated the information on import procedures recently 
provided by Korea, but this did not meet Brazil's request.  Korea required completion of a questionnaire and an on-site visit just to establish import requirements, whereas this was justified only 
in order to recognize disease-free status or evaluate  veterinary services.  Although a Member could 
determine its ALOP, the measure taken must have a scientific justification and be based on a risk assessment.  It was also disappointing that Korea appeared to not even recognize the concept of 
regionalization. 
159. Korea responded that it accepted the concept of regionalization as contained in Article 6, 
based on factors such as geography, etc, and this w as included in Korea's import policy.  However, 
Korea  had not yet applied this policy with respect  to FMD.  Korea had experienced an FMD outbreak 
in 2002-2003, and had subse quently regained its status as FMD-free without vaccination at great cost.  
Because of this, Korea was very concerned about  FMD and required suppliers to be free of FMD 
without vaccination.  FMD outbreaks in several areas of Brazil in 2005 and again in 2006 led Korea to 
conclude that the FMD situation in Brazil was unsta ble, and that Brazil needed to establish FMD free 
zones through strict measures.  Korean authorities were ready to continue discussing this matter with 
Brazil at the expert level. 
160. In June 2007, Brazil stated that althoug h Korea claimed to accept the concept of 
regionalization in general, it continued to refuse to apply regionalization in practice for FMD.  This 
was contrary to both the SPS Agreement, and the OI E Code.  If Korea wanted to maintain a measure 
that reflected a higher ALOP than that provided by  the relevant international standard, Korea should 
provide the risk assessment supporting its measure .  However, Brazil had not received any such 
information from Korea, and there had been no bilateral progress towards resolving the problem.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
 Page 37 
 
 
  Members should give full weight to the mechanis m for raising specific trade concerns in the 
Committee;  they should seek to resolve these probl ems and to avoid unnecessary barriers to trade. 
161. Korea noted that an outbreak of FMD in Korea could bring social disruption and cause 
serious economic damage.  Korean authorities were  engaged in assessing the risk of importing heat-
treated beef from all of Brazil, taking into account  the OIE Code.  Korea had sent a questionnaire in 
December 2006, and was awaiting Brazil's response.  Korea was committed to continue bilateral talks 
to resolve this concern in a cooperative manner. 
 
PANAMA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY PANAMA 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
226. Inspection regime for agricultural products  
Raised by: Costa Rica 
Supported by: Argentina, Canada, Colomb ia, United States, European Communities 
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, pa ras. 39-41), February 2007 (G/SPS/R/44, 
para. 63), June 2007 (G/SPS/R/45, paras. 48-49) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/PAN/43, G/SPS/GEN/582 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
 
162. In June 2005, Costa Rica noted that, as de veloped in document G/SPS/GEN/582, Panama's 
new inspection system, notified in April 2005 as G/ SPS/N/PAN/43, posed problems to several Costa 
Rican firms trying to export tomato paste, milk a nd animal products to Pana ma.  Panama had changed 
its rules regarding the inspection of plants without  prior notification to the WTO and provision of an 
adaptation period.  Although Costa Rican enterprises already had certifications from Panama's Ministry of Health for exports of sweetened milk  and animal products to Panama, now according to 
the new rules they also had to undergo inspection by the Ministry of Agriculture.  Costa Rica had 
unsuccessfully requested Panama to avoid the second inspection.  Costa Rica had also requested that 
Panama provide the risk assessment and scientific justification supporting this new requirement. 
163. Argentina, Canada, Colombia, the European  Communities and the United States reported 
experiencing similar difficulties accessing the Panamani an market.  Argentina had sanitary difficulties 
in relation to FMD and bureaucratic difficulties whic h did not seem to be designed to protect animal 
health in Panama (see Panama- FMD restrictions ).  The European Communities had suddenly been 
faced with a new Panamanian health legislation re ferring, firstly, to a system which seemed to link 
obtaining an import licence for Panama to a paymen t and, secondly, to an inspection system which 
would be paid for by the exporting country.  Th e United States recalled an issue raised at the 
March 2005 meeting of the Committee concerning the expansion of Panama's inspection programme 
to most food processing establishments and the non no tification of this significant change in Panama's 
import regime.  Canada had been experiencing problems with Panama's requirement for plant-by-plant 
approvals for meat exports and the recent changes to Panama's inspection regime. 
164. Panama reminded the Committee that it was the fi rst time that this issue of plant inspection 
was raised by Costa Rica before the SPS Committ ee.  Panama's inspection regime followed the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
Page 38  
 
  fundamental principles of the SPS Agreement and of OIE and IPPC standards.  Risk assessment 
methods comprised two parts:  the protection of Pa nama's health status and the functioning of the 
Ministry of Agriculture.  The excellent quality of Panama's exports of cattle  and dairy products was 
due to a stringent application of the SPS measures  domestically and to imports.  Because of its 
geographical situation as a hub for world trade, Pana ma was exposed to a greater risk of introduction 
of pest and animal diseases and therefore had to undertake a risk assessment prior to authorizing 
imports from countries affected by exotic diseases.   The risk assessment undertaken by the 
Panamanian authorities would shortly be given to the Costa Rican delegation. 
165. In February 2007, Panama recalled Costa Rica's  concerns regarding its inspection regime, in 
particular with regard to dulce de leche and tomatoes, as detailed in document G/SPS/GEN/582.  
Following a number of bilateral meetings, in October 2006 Costa Rican officials had issued a 
communication indicating the resolution of these issues. 
166. In June 2007, Costa Rica recognized that Panama had established a new regulation, and on 
the basis of an analysis of this, Costa Rica c oncluded that its concerns had been resolved. 
 Other concerns 118. Import licenses for agricultural products 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 26), February 2007 (G/SPS/R/44, para. 61) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
 
167. Canada stated that high level meetings were underway regardi ng the automaticity of Panama's 
import licensing procedures.  Panama stated that Ca nada's concerns were be ing considered by the 
appropriate authorities. 
168. In February 2007, Canada indicated that it considered this specific trade concern to be 
resolved.  Canada had previously been concerne d that the issuance of SPS-related import licenses was 
being hindered for non-SPS reasons, however that concern had been resolved through a bilateral 
discussion.  Panama confirmed that the issue ha d been resolved and stressed their objective of 
smoother trade relations. 
 
ROMANIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ROMANIA Animal Health and Zoonoses 245. Restrictions on US pork and poultry imports 
Raised by: United States  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
 Page 39 
 
 
  Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, par as. 25-27), June 2007 (G/SPS/R/45, paras. 
38-39) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
169. In October 2006, the United States expressed c oncern about Romania's decision to already 
impose EC requirements on US poultry and pork, in advance of Romania's entry into the European 
Communities.  This resulted in larg e financial losses to US exporters.  The United States noted that no 
poultry and only two pork facilities in Romania met EC requirements.  Romania's measures therefore 
raised potential national treatment concerns, given that a considerable number of Romanian meat 
plants were currently not in compliance with the EC regulations and many of the plants had been 
granted a transition period to 2009 to meet these requirements. 
170. Romania expressed surprise that the United Stat es had raised this issue as an acceptable 
solution to both parties had been sought during a series of bilateral meetings.  Although Romania had 
decided to extend the implementation date of thes e regulations for US exports, the new regulations 
were adopted as part of the requirements for Ro mania's accession to the European Communities.  
According to the Accession Treaty signed on 25 April 2005, Romania had committed to adopt the EC 
legislation and was expected to fully comply with  SPS legislation already in force in the European 
Communities before its accession on 1 January 2007.   Romania noted the difficulty it faced in 
modifying and implementing these new rules, but indicated that Romanian producers observed the same rules as other EC member States and third coun tries.  To ensure transparency and give Members 
the opportunity to prepare for the new import conditions, all Romanian legislation on import 
conditions for pork and poultry meat ha d been notified to the SPS Committee. 
171. The European Communities sugg ested that the United States should look at the broader 
benefits of Romania's and Bulgaria's accession to  the European Communities.  This was fully 
supported by the global community and provided an outstanding opportunity for the Members 
concerned to strengthen economic  growth and development. 
172. In June 2007, the United States observed that prior to Romania's accession to the European 
Communities, the United States had successfully exported pork and poultry products to Romania.  
Since accession, poultry exports had ceased, while expor ts of pork and red meat had been drastically 
reduced.  Although product imported into Romani a was now required to meet EC standards, 
Romanian-produced goods benefited from a derogation until 2009.  Th is appeared to be a direct 
violation of Article 2 of the SPS Agreement. 
173. The European Communities observed that the i ssue had arisen because producers in countries 
which became members of the European Communiti es were required to either comply with the 
existing EC regulations or close.  A limited numb er of Romanian establishments had been given a 
brief derogation while they chose to either upgrad e their facilities or to close these down.  The 
derogation was subject to strict conditions and th ese establishments were  permitted to sell their 
products only in Romania.   The United States s hould exercise some patience and understanding given 
the low living standards in Romania, which had so  recently joined the European Communities.  The 
immediate closure of all of these establishments would exacerbate the high unemployment situation of Romania. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
Page 40  
 
  UNITED STATES 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY UNITED STATES Animal Health and Zoonoses 257. Import restrictions on cooked poultry products from China 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2007 (G/SPS/R/46, paras. 11-12) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
174. In October 2007, China stated that the OIE ha d explicitly pointed out in the Avian Influenza 
Guideline that restrictive measures associated with  avian influenza should not be applied to cooked 
poultry meat that had been subjected to heat trea tment to destroy the virus.  Nonetheless the United 
States prohibited the importation of such cooked poultry meat processed from poultry originated in China.  Although the United States admitted that there was no technical problem for the importation of 
such cooked poultry meat and it was only a matter of  legal procedure, the US Congress had passed in 
August the Agriculture Appropriations Bill for Fiscal  Year 2008, of which Section 731 prohibited the 
importation of such products from China.  China qu estioned the scientific justification behind such a 
decision, how this section took into consideration the SPS principle of minimizing negative effects on 
trade and the principle of risk assessment.  China hoped that the United States would abolish 
Section 731 and lift the ban as soon as possible. 
175. The United States noted that the Agriculture A ppropriations bill had not yet passed Congress, 
and was subject to potentially su bstantial change before it was signed into law by the President. 
 
Plant Health 
102. Import restrictions on potted plants from the European Communities 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: China 
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, par as. 30-31 ), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, 
paras. 58-60), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Re v.1, paras. 70-71), October 2005 
(G/SPS/R/39, paras. 72-73), February  2006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 72-73 ), 
March 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, para. 40), Fe bruary 2007 (G/SPS/R/44, para. 62)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/1059  
Solution: Reported as resolved in June 2006, with the issuance of the US final rule on 
plants in growing media.  However, in February 2007, the EC reported that the issue remained unresolved due  to continued difficulties faced 
by one EC 
Member state. 
Status: Not reported 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
 Page 41 
 
 
  176. In July 2001, the European Communities indicated that exports of plants in growing medium 
had been impeded for over 20 years because the United States conducted a pest risk assessment for 
each type of plant before allowing imports, and each assessment took several years to complete.  In addition, the requirements for accepted species were very rigid and not proportional to the potential 
risk.  The European Communities requested the United States to adjust its import requirements and 
administrative procedures to allow for market access .  The United States replied that its requirements 
reflected the need to avoid introduction of pests and diseases that could seriously undermine native 
ecosystems as well as cultivated plants.  The roots of potted plants, even in an approved medium, 
could not be examined for signs of disease, and ot her mitigation measures were  necessary.  The United 
States was preparing a technical proposal for revi ew by the Commission and EC member States, and 
had proposed the formation of a joint technical wo rking group to address the issue.  USDA was willing 
to review any systems certification proposal subm itted by the Commission or its member States, with 
the understanding that any modifications to existing US regulations would have to be scientifically 
justified and be subject to the US rulemaking process. 
177. In March 2005, the European Communities reitera ted concerns that for more than 20 years 
this sector had attempted to obtain better conditions for access to the US market.  The most recent visit 
in May 2003 had resulted in a US assessment that EC member States had very high SPS standards and 
were expected to meet US requirements.  However,  the difficulties were continuing.  For instance, a 
Danish request for approval to export Schlumberger a to the United States had been submitted ten years 
ago and the corresponding US pest risk assessment had become available only in June 2004.  The 
European Communities urged the United States to revi ew its internal administrative procedures in the 
phytosanitary field to ensure these did not create unjustified trade restriction. 
178. China shared the concerns of the European Communities.  In 1980, China had started to 
export potted plants in growing media to the United States, and experienced problems similar to those 
of the European Communities.  Although in 1996 Chin a had signed a work plan for exporting plants in 
growing media to the United States, to date, China could not export to the United States. 
179. The United States recognized the importance of this issue to the European Communities and 
had taken a number of steps to ensure that the con cerns were handled as expeditiously as possible.  
The United States was examining how and whether its  import regulations for nursery stock, including 
plants in growing media, might be changed.  An  advanced notice of proposed rulemaking had been 
published in December 2004, and all Members could provide comments on that proposal.  The proposal sought to streamline the specific process  questioned by both the European Communities and 
China.  The United States hoped to publish a prop osed rule for Schlumbergera from the European 
Communities in the near future. 
180. In June 2005, the European Communities reca lled that on 27 April 2005, the US authorities 
had notified as G/SPS/N/USA/1059 a draft rule propos ing the inclusion of two species from the 
Netherlands and Denmark in the conditional positive list of plants established in approved growing 
media that might be imported into the United St ates.  The European Co mmunities welcomed the 
progress made on this issue and requested that new applications for similar species from similar production systems or country pest status be treated as an extension of this propos ed rule.  This request 
was legitimate, proportionate to th e risk and trade facilitating by na ture.  The European Communities 
invited the United States to publish the final rule as soon as possible. 
181. The United States indicated that the comment peri od for its draft rule had closed on 27 June 
2005.  The United States requested a written copy of th e EC statement to further consider its request.  
However, considering any additions or revisions to  a proposed rule that had been both notified and 
published might slow down final action. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
Page 42  
 
  182. In February 2006, the European Communities reca lled that this issue had been pursued in 
bilateral discussions for the past 25 years.  Specifi cally at issue was the request from Denmark and the 
Netherlands for approval of particular plant species ( Schlumbergera  spp and Rhipsalidosis  spp, 
respectively).  In April 2005, the United States has notified a draft rule on the "Importation of Christmas Cactus and Easter Cactus in Growing Media from the Netherlands and Denmark" 
(G/SPS/N/USA/1059) with a comment period ending in  June 2005.  The United States was invited to 
publish the final rule as soon as possible and to cons ider new applications for species with similar 
production systems or country pest status as an extension of the existing proposed rule. 
183. The United States noted that since June 2005, the United States had conducted a thorough 
review of all comments received and had begun draf ting a final regulation.  No revisions to the 
proposed rule were currently being considered in or der to avoid any delays in the publication of the 
final rule, however it was not possible to give a specifi c time frame for such a publication.  In addition, 
the United States was also considering changes to its entire regulatory framework for import measures 
affecting plants in growing media, as notified in G/SPS/N/USA/1043 in March 2005.  Comments on 
this notification were currently being reviewed.  Th e United States would ensure that any modification 
to the existing regulations would meet both th e plant health protection requirements and the 
requirements of the SPS Agreement. 
184. At the June 2006 meeting of the SPS Committee,  the European Communities indicated that 
the issuance of the US final rule on plants in grow ing media, including Schlumbergera, would resolve 
this issue. 
185. In February 2007, the European Communities recalled that they had previously reported that 
their concerns regarding US measures on plants an d growing media had been resolved as the United 
States had indicated that it would publish a final ru le which addressed these concerns.  Unfortunately, 
one EC member State continued to face difficulties in exporting to the United States.  The European Communities therefore considered that, for the time being, this issue was as yet unresolved. 
 241. Import restrictions on wooden Christmas trees  
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, paras.  13-14 ), October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, paras. 
145-146), October 2007 (G/SPS/R/46, paras. 20-21 ) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
186. In June 2006, China expressed concerns regardi ng the US decision to stop the importation of 
artificial Christmas trees from China, although on ly one enterprise had violated the quarantine 
treatment requirement which had result ed in the detection of live long-horn beetles in its consignment.  
This exceptional incident did not indicate a defect  of the whole Chinese system.  The strict measure 
taken by the United States did not respect the WTO rules on minimizing the impact on trade and had caused great losses for Chinese enterprises and had al so affected the US Christmas tree market.  
Furthermore, there was an undue delay in the way th e issue was dealt with by the United States.  The 
Chinese Government had spared no effort to take  corrective measures regarding the whole system, 
including the enhancement of supervision of the quarantine and inspection system and receiving US  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
 Page 43 
 
 
  inspectors in several provinces in February 2006.  Although the experts had indicated their satisfaction 
with the improvements, no formal response had been received from the United States. 
187. The United States replied that between 22 Febr uary 2002 and 22 October 2005, during routine 
2 percent inspections at US ports of entry, the United States had intercepted quarantine significant 
pests on wood handicraft products shipped from Ch ina 418 times, including on artificial Christmas 
trees, trellis towers, other home and garden wood déco r, and craft items.  These interceptions had not 
abated.  The plant quarantine authorities of the Un ited States and China had maintained an on-going 
dialogue regarding such interceptions.  This w ood boring pest was closely related to the Asian 
longhorned beetle which had been introduced into  the United States in shipments of wood packing 
material from China and was now be ing eradicated in Chicago and New York.  The United States had 
spent in excess of US$200 million on its ongoing erad ication effort.  Although the United States had 
requested China to provide an action plan to address the infestations, no response had been received.  
On 1 April 2005, the United States had adopted emergency measures to suspend the importation of 
wood handicraft items from China, including artificia l Christmas trees, that contained wooden logs, 
limbs, branches, or twigs greater than one centimetre in diameter and with intact bark.  Manufactured 
items that had been heat treated or fumigated with methyl bromid e and had 100 percent of the bark 
removed were not subject to the import suspension, so the US measure was no more trade-restrictive than necessary.  When its  assessment of the risk of continued introduction of quarantine pests on 
manufactured wood commodities from China was complete d, this would be shared with China's plant 
quarantine authorities. 
188. In October 2006, China reported that alt hough some progress had been made following 
bilateral consultations, it was still concerned that the restrictions imposed by the United States were 
disproportionate and not necessary.  Although impor ts of manufactured items which had been heat 
treated or fumigated with methyl bromide were pe rmitted, no information was provided to China since 
the United States had detected beetles in wooden trees.   China requested details  of the enterprises that 
failed to meet the US quarantine requirements.  Ch ina had adopted IPPC standards to treat the wooden 
handicrafts and therefore expected the United St ates to accept the Christmas trees or to identify 
alternative procedures so that Chinese enterp rises knew how to meet the US requirements. 
189. The United States indicated that the measures imposed on the importation of certain 
manufactured wood items (including artificial Christ mas trees with bark attached) from China were 
imposed after no response was received for a requested plan of action to address the issue.  Manufactured wood items that were heat treated or fumigated with methyl bromide and that had their 
bark removed were not subject to the import restri ction.  Progress had been made during the bilateral 
technical discussions in September 2006 and the United States looked forward to receiving China's 
accreditation proposal for fumigation and heat treatment of wood handicrafts from China. 
190. In October 2007, China reiterated that since 2005, when the United States suspended certain 
wooden handicrafts, the trade of these products had not resumed.  Trade affected by this measure 
already amounted to over 1 million dollars.  All pr oducts exported from China were fumigated with 
methyl bromide or were heat-treated to eliminate the risk of pests.  The wooden Christmas tree which 
was found by the United States to have pest insects was a single violation and a problem of exceptional incidence rather than a problem with the heat treatment or fumigation methods.  US 
experts had found a satisfactory treatment supervis ion system in China in February 2006.  The 
suspension of all imports based on one case was not in line with the WTO principle of least trade 
restrictive.  On the other hand, in 2006 and 2007, China intercepted more than ten types of pests from 
US imports and yet China had not taken any measu res nor suspended the importation of US wooden 
products.  The United States and China had reached  an agreement on the framework for inspection 
management measures on wood handic rafts exported to the United States after technical meetings 
were held in Beijing in April 2007.  China requ ested that the United States consider the IPPC G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
Page 44  
 
  guidelines in wood packaging and the SPS Agreement requirement of least tr ade restriction, and 
resume the importation of these products on the basis of scientific analysis. 
191. The United States recalled that since mid-2004 it had intercepted more than 400 brown fir 
beetles over a two-year period.  Quarantine pests had even been detected on products that had 
reportedly, according to the certification by Chinese offi cials, been fumigated or heat-treated.  At the 
time, the United States actively sought input of Chine se quarantine officials to develop a plan of action 
to address this problem, but did not receive any response.  Therefore, on 1 April 2005 the importation of the handicrafts were suspended to prevent th e introduction of dangerous forest pests.  The 
restrictions did not apply to products which had been treated and had the bark removed.  Prior 
introduction of forest pests from China, including the Asian long horned beetle and the emerald ash 
borer, had serious environmental a nd economic consequences in the United States.  The United States 
was in the final stages of the risk assessment analysis and hoped that this assessment would be 
available for public comment in the near future.  The United States had been very transparent 
regarding this issue and had maintained significan t dialogue with the Chinese officials.  The United 
States had also provided significant funding to  support training for Chinese port personnel on 
appropriate treatments for exported Chinese wooden handicrafts.  The United States was committed to 
continuing the dialogue with Chinese officials in  order to reach a solution on this issue. 
 
CERTAIN MEMBERS 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CERTAIN MEMBERS Food safety 
250. Trade restrictions related to national sy stems for determining maximum residue levels 
(MRLs) for pesticides  
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Certain Members 
Dates raised: June 2007 (G/SPS/R/45, paras. 12-14) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
192. In June 2007, Argentina raised the concern th at a number of Members establish maximum 
residue levels (MRLs) for pesticides at levels that  are more restrictive to trade than the levels 
established by the Codex.  These lower MRLs had a particularly negative impact on developing 
countries, since they often concerned some of the older pesticides on the market.  The prices for older 
pesticides were usually lower than  for the newest products, in par ticular for those products no longer 
under patent protection.  Argentina considered that  these Members were not taking into account their 
obligations under the SPS Agreement, in particular under Article 10.1.  Argentina was also concerned 
regarding the review and maintenance of Codex MR Ls for older pesticides, an issue they addressed 
under the agenda item on monitoring the use of international standards. 
193. Many Members shared Argentina's concern and stressed that MRLs which were not based on 
those established by Codex should not be maintained  without appropriate scientific justification as 
required by the SPS Agreement.  Several suggested that the Committee should analyze the use of and  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
 Page 45 
 
 
  deviations from international standards, to ensure  that SPS measures did not present disguised barriers 
to trade for products from developing countries. 
194. Codex noted that the Codex Committee on P esticide Residues had recently adopted new 
procedures to allow more rapid development of MRLs .  If the necessary data were available, it should 
usually take no more than two years for Codex to establish MRLs for a pesticide in various products. 
 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
193. General import restrictions due to BSE 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Canada, United States 
Dates raised: June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, pa ras. 37-38), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, 
paras. 85-86), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev. 1, paras. 75-76), February 2007 
(G/SPS/R/44, para. 29) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Partially resolved 
 
195. In June 2004, the European Communities raised concerns about unjustifie d import restrictions 
on EC exports due to concerns a bout BSE.  To satisfy consumer demands, the European Communities 
had adopted comprehensive measures to address risk s relating to BSE.  These measures applied both 
to products intended for consumption within the European Communities, and to those destined for 
export.  The system of geographical assessment us ed in the European Co mmunities had successfully 
identified countries in which the disease was still pr esent.  The European Communities called on other 
countries to replace import bans, which exceeded OI E recommendations and yet did not fully address 
potential internal risks, with specific import require ments in accordance with OIE standards.  Many 
products, such as semen, embryos and dairy products could be traded with predefined guarantees.  
Members were urged to take into  consideration OIE recommendations for international trade and to 
stop discriminating among Members with similar BSE conditions. 
196. Canada recalled that at its last meeting the OIE had reconfirmed that some products, such as 
semen, embryos, hides, and milk, did not contribute to  the transmission of BSE.  Hence the imports of 
these types of products did not provide a poten tial pathway for introduction of the disease. 
197. In October 2004, the European Communities informed the Committe e that several WTO 
Members had reviewed their bans on EC beef and small bovine ruminant pr oducts and replaced them 
with specific requirements in acco rdance with OIE standards.  The European Communities urged all 
those Members who had not yet done so to align thei r regulations in accordance with OIE standards.  
The United States noted that some Members were reviewing their import restrictions on US beef and also urged all those Members who had not done so to align their regulations in accordance with OIE 
standards. 
198. In June 2005, the European Communities reporte d that the number of countries that had lifted 
their respective bans on EC bovines and bovine pro ducts in accordance with OIE standards had been 
regularly growing, including also non-Members of th e WTO.  According to the revised BSE chapter of 
the Terrestrial Animal Health Code, many bovine  derivated products, including deboned skeletal 
muscle and blood products, could be safely traded re gardless of the BSE status of the exporting G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.1 
Page 46  
 
  country.  The European Communities invited the remaining WTO Members to replace their import 
bans with specific import requirements in accordance with OIE standards. 
199. In February 2007, the United States expressed concern that US ruminant and non-ruminant 
products continued to face BSE-related restricti ons.  Although there had been some progress and a 
number of Members had removed measures, US products  continued to face overly restrictive measures 
which exceeded the OIE standards.  The United St ates had undertaken extensive surveillance and put 
in place interlocking safeguards, nonetheless many rest rictions remained in place.  The United States 
asked Members to review the evidence now availabl e and to revise their requirements accordingly. 
 
258. Import restrictions on beef and beef products due to Blue Tongue disease 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2007  (G/SPS/R/46, para. 13) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
200. In October 2007, the European Communities stated that certain  WTO Members were 
imposing unjustified import restrictions that went  beyond the recommendations of the international 
standard-setting organizations on  the basis of the presence of Blue Tongue disease.  The OIE 
Terrestrial Animal Health Code contained clear  recommendations regarding Blue Tongue disease.  
While WTO Members might review the import conditions  for live ruminants or genetic material in 
light of the recent outbreaks in a limited number of EC member States, there was no scientific basis for imposing additional import restrictions on beef and beef products.  According to the OIE, these 
products did not pose a risk from a Blue Tongue perspective. The European Communities was not 
aware of any scientific justification and urge d Members not to impose import restrictions. 
 
 
 
__________