WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
27 March 2008 
 (08-1344) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
 
 
 
SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
 
Note by the Secretariat1 
 
Addendum  
  
ISSUES NOT 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 between 1995 and 2007, and on which no further 
discussion or activities occurred during 2007.  However, issues raised as of 1995 but for which a resolution was reported prior to 2007, are not contained in this part but are contained in Part 4 of this 
document.   
 
                                                     
 
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.2 
Page ii  
 
   
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
Page
 
ARGENTINA ...................................................................................................................... ...................1  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY ARGENTINA .............................................1  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....1 
38. Temporary prohibition of fresh pork and products..............................................................1  
84. Import restrictions affecting BSE-free countries – Maintained by Argentina, 
Australia, Canada, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, United States ..................................1  
138. Pest risk assessment requirements .......................................................................................2  
236. Restrictions on beef exports under the Hilton Quota...........................................................3  
AUSTRALIA...................................................................................................................... ....................3  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY AUSTRALIA ..............................................3  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ....3 
50. Quarantine requirements for chicken meat..........................................................................3  
84. Import restrictions affecting BSE-free countries – Maintained by Argentina, 
Australia, Canada, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, United States [See Item 84, 
page 1] ........................................................................................................................ .........4  
139. Restriction on pigmeat......................................................................................................... 5 
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..................6  
74. Restrictions on imports of tropical fresh fruit......................................................................6  
78. Notification on methyl bromide...........................................................................................7  
79. Import restrictions on durian ...............................................................................................7  
155. Import requirements for Netherlands Truss Tomatoes ........................................................9  
BAHRAIN........................................................................................................................ .....................10  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY BAHRAIN ................................................10  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................10  
165. Import restrictions on Spanish olive oil – Maintained by Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, 
Qatar and United Arab Emirates........................................................................................10  
BARBADOS ....................................................................................................................... ..................11  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY BARBADOS .............................................11  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................11  
195. Restrictions on citrus ......................................................................................................... 11 
BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA................................................................................11  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF 
VENEZUELA ......................................................................................................................11   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page iii 
 
 
  Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..11 
29. Measures related to avian influenza...................................................................................11  
70. Import conditions for pork meat and products...................................................................12  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................12  
93. Phytosanitary requirements for potatoes, garlic and onions ..............................................12  
Other concerns................................................................................................................. .............14  
123. Restrictions on imports of potatoes, oni ons, fertilised eggs, day-old chicks and 
meat products.................................................................................................................. ...14 
BRAZIL ......................................................................................................................... .......................16  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY BRAZIL ...................................................16  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................16  
5. Import requirements for wine ............................................................................................16  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..17 
140. Imports of live ostriches ....................................................................................................17  
218. Lack of recognition of regionalization and disease-free status for classical swine 
fever.......................................................................................................................... .........17  
237. Lack of regionalization for Newcastle di sease and restrictions on live birds....................18  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................19  
46. Import prohibition of coconut pa lms and related products................................................19  
141. Pest risk assessments for imports of plant origin...............................................................19  
CANADA ......................................................................................................................... .....................20  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CANADA .................................................20  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................20  
6. Importation of cheese ........................................................................................................20  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..20 
15. Zoosanitary import policies pertaining to BSE..................................................................20  
84. Import restrictions affecting BSE-free countries – Maintained by Argentina, 
Australia, Canada, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, United States [See Item 84, 
page 1] ........................................................................................................................ .......21  
88. Import restrictions due to FMD – Mainta ined by Canada and United States....................21  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................21  
229. Import restrictions on Enoki mushrooms from Chinese Taipei.........................................21  
CHILE.......................................................................................................................... .........................22  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CHILE .....................................................22  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................22  
9. Zero-tolerance for salmonella in importe d poultry products – Maintained by 
Chile, Czech Republic, El Salva dor, Honduras and Slovak Republic...............................22  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page iv  
 
  CHINA .......................................................................................................................... ........................23
 
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINA ....................................................23  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................23  
114. Food safety regulations affecting agricu ltural products produced from modern 
biotechnology .................................................................................................................. ..23 
142. Zero tolerance for e-coli ....................................................................................................24  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..25 
128. Import requirements for cosmetics ....................................................................................25  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................26  
143. Regulation on wood packaging material ...........................................................................26  
Other concerns................................................................................................................. .............27  
184. Lack of transparency for certain SPS measures.................................................................27  
COSTA RICA..................................................................................................................... ..................27  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY COSTA RICA..........................................27  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................27  
230. Phytosanitary requirements on fresh oranges ....................................................................27  
CROATIA........................................................................................................................ .....................28  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CROATIA ................................................28  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..28 
158. Restrictions on pork imports..............................................................................................28  
166. Import measures on live animals and meat products.........................................................28  
CUBA ........................................................................................................................... .........................29  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CUBA......................................................29  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................29  
105. Restrictions on apples and pears........................................................................................29  
CZECH REPUBLIC................................................................................................................. ...........30  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CZECH REPUBLIC .................................30  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................30  
9. Zero-tolerance for salmonella in importe d poultry products – Maintained by 
Chile, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Ho nduras and Slovak Republic [See Item 9, 
page 22] ....................................................................................................................... ......30  
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC ............................................................................................................. ....30  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY DOMINICAN REPUBLIC .........................30  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................30  
239. Tolerance levels for soil content on potato tubers .............................................................30  
EGYPT.......................................................................................................................... ........................31  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY EGYPT ....................................................31   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page v 
 
 
  Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................31  
77. Restrictions on canned tuna...............................................................................................31  
EL SALVADOR.................................................................................................................... ...............31  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY EL SALVADOR .......................................31  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................31  
9. Zero-tolerance for salmonella in importe d poultry products – Maintained by 
Chile, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Ho nduras and Slovak Republic [See Item 9, 
page 22] ....................................................................................................................... ......31  
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ..........................................................................................................3 2 
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ...................32  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................32  
40. Trade restrictions in response to cholera ...........................................................................32  
47. Measure on establishments operati ng in the animal feed sector........................................32  
52. Measures on food treated with ionizing radiation .............................................................33  
72. Measures regarding canned tuna in oil – Maintained by Belgium ....................................34  
89. Import restrictions on soy sauce ........................................................................................34  
94. Directive 2000/42 on pesticide residues ............................................................................35  
95. Legislation on the fungicide thiabendazole (TBZ) ............................................................36  
106. Regulations on genetically modified food and feed ..........................................................36  
117. Traceability and labelling of genetically m odified organisms and food and feed .............39  
130. Restrictions on shellfish.....................................................................................................4 1 
131. Pesticide and antibiotic limits in honey (Directive 96/23).................................................41  
144. Restrictions on the importation of fruits and fruit juices ...................................................42  
168. Maximum levels for aflatoxins in corn  and sampling contaminants in food.....................43  
169. EC proposed regulation on maximum residue levels of pesticides ...................................44  
175. Notification on food and feed controls ..............................................................................45  
176. Notification on maximum tolerance levels for ocratoxin A in coffee – Maintained 
by Germany ..................................................................................................................... ..46 
191. Maximum residue levels for pesticides on food ................................................................47  
197. EC regulation on Ocrat oxin A in coffee ............................................................................48  
198. EC regulation on aflatoxins and Ocratoxin A in foods for infants and young 
children ....................................................................................................................... .......50  
206. Inspection and testing procedures for imported wheat – Maintained by Greece...............50  
207. Directives on residual pesticide tolera nce and inspection methods for tea........................51  
208. Food and feed hygiene rules ..............................................................................................52  
219. EurepGAP requirements for bananas ................................................................................52  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page vi  
 
  220.
 Proposed regulations for piper methysticum (kava-kava) – Maintained by 
United Kingdom ................................................................................................................5 3 
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..54 
17. Cosmetics and  BSE...........................................................................................................54  
18. Certification requirements for pet food – Maintained by France ......................................54  
31. Rules on "specified risk materials" in products of animal origin ......................................55  
32. Gelatin imports ................................................................................................................ ..56 
33. Salmonella-related restriction on fishmeal imports ...........................................................57  
64. Ban on antibiotics in feed ..................................................................................................58  
97. Restrictions on the use of fishmeal....................................................................................58  
159. Proposal on animal by-products ........................................................................................60  
160. Transitional BSE measures................................................................................................62  
161. EC Directive 2001/661/EC on foot and mouth disease .....................................................63  
170. Live animals and animal products .....................................................................................64  
171. Animal health conditions and certification requirements for live fish...............................64  
177. Sanitary conditions for the importation of live material for apiculture .............................65  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................66  
19. Protected zones ................................................................................................................ ..66 
81. Wood packing material......................................................................................................67  
98. Restrictions on Egyptian potatoes......................................................................................68  
108. Cut flowers .................................................................................................................... ....68  
109. Phytosanitary regulations (Canary Is lands) – Maintained by Spain..................................69  
199. Deviation from international standard for wood packing material....................................70  
209. Plant health directive ......................................................................................................... 72 
Other concerns................................................................................................................. .............72  
110. Agricultural biotechnology approval process ....................................................................72  
GUATEMALA ...................................................................................................................... ...............74  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY GUATEMALA ..........................................74  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................74  
211. Restrictions on the transit of avocados ..............................................................................74  
HONDURAS....................................................................................................................... ..................75  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY HONDURAS ............................................75  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................75  
9. Zero-tolerance for salmonella in importe d poultry products – Maintained by 
Chile, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Ho nduras and Slovak Republic [See Item 9, 
page 22] ....................................................................................................................... ......75   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page vii 
 
 
  Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..75 
145. Import restrictions on chicken meat imports .....................................................................75  
INDIA.......................................................................................................................... ..........................76  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY INDIA ......................................................76  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................76  
200. Ban on food grade wax ......................................................................................................76  
240. Biotech labelling and import approval process regulations...............................................77  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..78 
61. Import restrictions on bovine semen..................................................................................78  
62. Restrictions on imports of horses.......................................................................................79  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................80  
186. Phytosanitary import restrictions.......................................................................................80  
Other concerns................................................................................................................. .............82  
192. Non-notification of various SPS measures ........................................................................82  
INDONESIA...................................................................................................................... ...................83  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA .............................................83  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................83  
146. Ban on hormones in animal production.............................................................................83  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..84 
111. FMD restrictions............................................................................................................... .84 
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................86  
21. Fresh fruit and vegetables..................................................................................................86  
ISRAEL......................................................................................................................... ........................86  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY ISRAEL ...................................................86  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..86 
55. TSE-related import restrictions of live cattle.....................................................................86  
232. Import restrictions on EC beef due to BSE........................................................................87  
JAPAN .......................................................................................................................... ........................87  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN .....................................................87  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................87  
147. Regulation on food additives .............................................................................................87  
148. Amendment of the food sanitation law..............................................................................88  
178. Revision of standards and specifica tions for food and additives.......................................89  
201. Standards and specifications for food additives (boscalid)................................................89  
212. Positive list system for pesticides, vete rinary drugs and feed additives MRLs.................90  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page viii  
 
  Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... ..92
 
34. Measures regarding FMD..................................................................................................92  
99. Restrictions on importation of s ugar cane top from Indonesia ..........................................93  
213. Restrictions on beef  imports .............................................................................................94  
221. Safety insurance and quality improvement standards for feed and feed additives ............95  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................96  
23. Plant quarantine regulations ..............................................................................................96  
56. Notification on amendment of the Japanese Plant Protection Law ...................................96  
133. Official control restrictions on citrus and other fresh fruits and vegetables ......................97  
162. Fumigation standards.......................................................................................................100  
223. Import requirements for Indian mangoes.........................................................................101  
Other concerns................................................................................................................. ...........101  
13. Translation of regulations – Main tained by Japan and Korea .........................................101  
173. Notification on uses of living modified organisms..........................................................102  
224. Restrictions on EC exports of  plant and animal products................................................102  
REPUBLIC OF KOREA.............................................................................................................. .....103  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY REPUBLIC OF KOREA ..........................103  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... ...............103  
179. Guidelines for maximum residue level (MRL) testing....................................................103  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 105 
65. Import restrictions on beef...............................................................................................105  
84. Import restrictions affecting BSE-free countries – Maintained by Argentina, 
Australia, Canada, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, United States [See Item 84, 
page 1] ........................................................................................................................ .....105  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..............105  
174. Notification on transboundary movement of living modified organisms........................105  
Other concerns................................................................................................................. ...........106  
13. Translation of regulations – Maintained by Japan and Korea [See Item 13, page 
100]........................................................................................................................... .......106  
KUWAIT ......................................................................................................................... ...................106  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY KUWAIT ...............................................106  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... ...............106  
165. Import restrictions on Spanish olive oil – Maintained by Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, 
Qatar and United Arab Emirates [See Item 165, page 10] ..............................................106  
MEXICO......................................................................................................................... ....................107  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY MEXICO ...............................................107   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page ix 
 
 
  Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 107 
67. Import restrictions on beef...............................................................................................107  
163. Restrictions on Austrian products....................................................................................107  
225. Restrictions on US poultry...............................................................................................107  
NEW ZEALAND .................................................................................................................... ...........109  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY NEW ZEALAND ....................................109  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 109 
84. Import restrictions affecting BSE-free countries – Maintained by Argentina, 
Australia, Canada, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, United States [See Item 84, 
page 1] ........................................................................................................................ .....109  
OMAN........................................................................................................................... ......................110  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY OMAN ...................................................110  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... ...............110  
165. Import restrictions on Spanish olive oil – Maintained by Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, 
Qatar and United Arab Emirates [See Item 165, page 10] ..............................................110  
PANAMA......................................................................................................................... ...................110  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY PANAMA ...............................................110  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... ...............110  
83. Restrictions on milk powder imports...............................................................................110  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 110 
149. Restrictions on food products ..........................................................................................110  
187. FMD restrictions..............................................................................................................1 11 
214. Inspection regime for food processing establishments ....................................................112  
PHILIPPINES.................................................................................................................... ................113  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY PHILIPPINES ........................................113  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..............113  
119. Notification on Chinese fruit imports ..............................................................................113  
POLAND......................................................................................................................... ....................113  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY POLAND ...............................................113  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..............113  
25. Restrictions on wheat and oilseeds ..................................................................................113  
QATAR .......................................................................................................................... .....................114  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY QATAR .................................................114  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... ...............114  
165. Import restrictions on Spanish olive oil – Maintained by Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, 
Qatar and United Arab Emirates [See Item 165, page 10] ..............................................114  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page x  
 
  ROMANIA ........................................................................................................................ .................114
 
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY ROMANIA .............................................114  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... ...............114  
134. SPS measures on animal products ...................................................................................114  
SLOVAK REPUBLIC ................................................................................................................ .......115  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY SLOVAK REPUBLIC .............................115  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... ...............115  
9. Zero-tolerance for salmonella in importe d poultry products – Maintained by 
Chile, Czech Republic, El Salvador, Ho nduras and Slovak Republic [See Item 9, 
page 22] ....................................................................................................................... ....115  
SOUTH AFRICA................................................................................................................... ............115  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY SOUTH AFRICA ....................................115  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 115 
43. Prohibition on bone-in beef imports from EC member States.........................................115  
135. Restrictions on beef and pork ..........................................................................................116  
SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND 
MATSU (CHINESE TAIPEI)......................................................................................................... ..116  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINESE TAIPEI ..................................116  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 116 
227. BSE-related import restricti ons on non-ruminant products.............................................116  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..............117  
136. Policies regarding quarantine and non-quarantine pests..................................................117  
THAILAND....................................................................................................................... .................118  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY THAILAND ............................................118  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... ...............118  
215. Public Health Regulation 11............................................................................................118  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 119 
234. Suspension of importation of live poultry and poultry carcasses ....................................119  
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO ............................................................................................................ .120 
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO .....................120  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 120 
151. Restrictions on imports of pork sau sages and other pork products .................................120  
TURKEY ......................................................................................................................... ...................121  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY TURKEY ...............................................121  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 121 
48. Import ban on livestock ...................................................................................................121   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page xi 
 
 
  UNITED ARAB EMIRATES ........................................................................................................... 122 
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY UNITED ARAB EMIRATES ...................122  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... ...............122  
165. Import restrictions on Spanish olive oil – Maintained by Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, 
Qatar and United Arab Emirates [See Item 165, page 10] ..............................................122  
UNITED STATES.................................................................................................................. ............122  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY UNITED STATES ...................................122  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... ...............122  
58. Notification on refrigeration and labe lling requirements for shell eggs ..........................122  
152. Restrictions on melons.....................................................................................................123  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 124 
7. Regionalization in relation to animal health ....................................................................124  
44. Measures related to BSE..................................................................................................124  
84. Import restrictions affecting BSE-free countries – Maintained by Argentina, 
Australia, Canada, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, United States [See Item 84, 
page 1] ........................................................................................................................ .....125  
88. Import restrictions due to FMD – Maintained by Canada and United States [See 
Item 88, page 21] .............................................................................................................1 25 
120. Restrictions on pigmeat ...................................................................................................125  
137. Import restrictions on meat and meat products................................................................126  
189. US prohibition on the use of specified risk materials and requirements for 
disabled cattle ................................................................................................................ ..126  
203. US rule on materials derived from cattle  and record-keeping requirements ...................127  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..............128  
37. Actions taken by local governments................................................................................128  
59. Interim rule affecting solid  wood packaging material .....................................................128  
121. Imports of clementines ....................................................................................................129  
153. Restrictions on imports of Chinese potted plants in growing medium............................129  
216. Restrictions on Ya pears imports.....................................................................................131  
228. Import procedures for fruits and vegetables ....................................................................131  
URUGUAY ........................................................................................................................ .................132  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY URUGUAY ............................................132  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 132 
154. Risk assessment on  BSE.................................................................................................132  
CERTAIN ME MBERS ................................................................................................................ .....133  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CERTAIN MEMBERS ............................133  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page xii  
 
  Food safety.................................................................................................................... ...............133
 
63. Information on dioxin......................................................................................................133  
Animal Health and Zoonoses..................................................................................................... 134 
103. FMD-related import restrictions ......................................................................................134  
124. Notifications related to  Avian Influenza..........................................................................136  
190. Regionalization and recognition of animal disease free status ........................................136  
235. Import restrictions on EC exports of live  birds, meat, meat products and other 
derivates due to avian influenza ......................................................................................138  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..............139  
26. Phytosanitary issues in general........................................................................................139  
183. Implementation of ISPM 15 ............................................................................................139  
204. Notification by Members of implementation of ISPM 15...............................................140   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 1 
 
 
  ARGENTINA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ARGENTINA Animal Health and Zoonoses 38. Temporary prohibition of fresh pork and products  
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras. 34-35) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ARG/9 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
1. The European Communities observed that the Argentine measure applied to the entire 
European Communities.  The European Commun ities had taken measures to regionalize the EC 
member States with restrictions with regard to Cl assic Swine Fever.  Argentina replied that it believed 
in the principle of regionalization, but had found that there was no basis to  assume compliance within 
the European Communities.  Argentina had request ed information from a number of EC member 
States, but only four countries had responded.  Cl assic Swine Fever was a highly infective OIE List A 
disease which had not occurred in Argentina since 1985.   Argentina would assess information received 
so as to adjust its measure as appropriate. 
 
84. Import restrictions affecting BSE-free co untries – Maintained by Argentina, Australia, 
Canada, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, United States 
Raised by: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Repub lic, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, Romania, 
Slovak Republic, Slovenia 
Supported by: United States, European Communities 
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  18-25), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 48) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/247, G/SPS/N/ARG/59, G/SPS/N/AUS/125, 
G/SPS/N/CAN/94, G/SPS/N/KOR/83, G/SPS/N/NZL/77, 
G/SPS/N/USA/379 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
2. On behalf of a group of countries (see table a bove), Romania drew attention to a number of 
emergency notifications banning imports of certain  animal products from countries that were BSE-
free.  These measures violated the SPS Agreemen t since they were not based on a proper risk 
assessment.  The affected countries were willing to  provide the necessary documentation of their BSE-
free status.  The European Communities added that testing or suspension of imports of milk, dairy 
products, collagen and gelatine for BSE was not in  conformity with OIE guidelines, and requested 
Members to adapt their requirements to the internati onal standard.  The United States affirmed that 
BSE-related measures must be based on science and international standards.  The United States, 
although BSE-free, had also been affected by import restrictions, some of them imposed by countries 
sponsoring the statement presented by Romania.  The United States had provided evidence on its G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 2  
 
  freedom from BSE, its surveillance system and cont rol measures to interested trade partners, and 
required similar data from countries that may pose a BSE risk.  The United States looked forward to 
receiving the necessary informati on to assess the risks involved. 
3. New Zealand and Australia were concerned over the increase in known incidence of the 
disease in Europe as a result of intensified testing, and had issued emergency food standards to protect 
public health.  They were developing permanent measures, which would be notified to allow for 
comments from interested Members.  Canada had not recognized any of the countries of the joint 
declaration as BSE-free, and would evaluate indivi dual countries based on a risk assessment as soon as 
the necessary information was received.  Korea indicated that a temporary measure had been 
introduced because of the increased prevalence of B SE in Europe.  Korea would seek the additional 
information necessary for a more obj ective assessment of the risks involved.  Argentina indicated that 
its emergency measure was based on the scientific information available at the time, and stressed that any new information received would be considered.  Bu lgaria pointed out that according to Article 5.7 
Members were obliged to request additional informat ion when temporary measures were implemented.  
Brazil reaffirmed Members' right to go beyond in ternational guidelines based on a risk assessment, but 
stressed that this should only take place on ce the necessary information had been provided. 
4. In July 2001, Bulgaria reitera ted its concern regarding import restrictions affecting BSE-free 
countries. 
 
138. Pest risk assessment requirements 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada, New Zealand, European Communities 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 80-82) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ARG/67 and G/SPS/N/ARG/68 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
5. The United States sought clarification on the criteria Argentina would use in determining 
whether or not a product tracing system through the production and marketing chain met the requirements of this measure.  The measure also re ferred to mutual agreements under which Argentina 
authorized imports of animals a nd animal products and the United St ates requested information about 
existing agreements that Argentina might have conc luded, as well as the criteria and procedures for 
future such agreements.  Furthermore, the United States sought information on the role of equivalence 
under this measure, for example, would Argentin a recognize the overall inspection systems of 
exporting countries, or only verify co mpliance with Argentine requirements? 
6. Canada stated that certain elements of Argentina's measure were unnecessarily trade 
restrictive, such as the requirement for an aud ited traceability system throughout the entire product and 
marketing chain for a wide range of products, live an imals, reproductive material, soil dressing etc.  
Canada was concerned that all foreign establishments would be subject to prior inspection and 
authorization that was only valid for two years.  This requirement provide d no flexibility for cases 
where no risk problems were present, and could resu lt in high costs to exporters.  The representatives 
of New Zealand and of the European Communities s upported the concerns raised by the United States 
and Canada and expressed a systemic interest in the issue.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 3 
 
 
  7. Argentina requested the United States to provid e its questions in writing.  The notification 
was open for comments and the period for comments had been extended due to requests from trading partners.  Argentina noted that other countries, in cluding the European Communities, approved plants 
for export to their markets only after visiting those plants. 
 236. Restrictions on beef exports under the Hilton Quota 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2006 (G/SPS/R/40, para. 34) 
Relevant document(s): Raised Orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
8. In March 2006, the European Communities reported that Argentina had placed restrictions on 
its own beef exports, reducing in pa rticular the quantity of beef it  exported under the so-called Hilton 
Quota.  The European Communities understood that th is measure was taken due to concerns about the 
quantities and prices of beef available on the Argen tine domestic market.  However, according to the 
European Communities, this trade disruption could lead to a weakening of the SPS controls necessary 
to ensure that beef exports met the SPS requireme nts of the European Comm unities.  The European 
Communities sought assurances that its sanitary require ments could be met, particularly in terms of 
traceability, if export quantities were substantially redu ced.  Argentina indicated that it had taken note 
of the concern of the European Communities. 
 
AUSTRALIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY AUSTRALIA Animal Health and Zoonoses 
50. Quarantine requirements for chicken meat 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12,  paras. 42-45), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, 
para. 37), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27,  paras. 135-137), November 2002 
(G/SPS/R/28, paras. 190-192), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 60-62), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 54-56) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/72, G/SPS/GEN/90, G/SPS/GEN/96, see also G/SPS/R/13, 
G/SPS/GEN/137 and GSPS/W/107/Rev.1 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
9. In September 1998, Thailand stated that Aust ralia's requirement for the importation of 
chicken meat was in excess of what was needed to  protect health, and was not viable for commercial G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 4  
 
  manufacturing.  The European Communities added that Australia's recommended temperature and 
time requirements created an extreme and unnecessary barrier to trade, and committed to providing a 
list of relevant questions to Australia.  Australia  replied that its import requirements were based on 
scientific principles and data.  AQIS had based th e final heating requirements on research on the 
inactivation of infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) st rain CS88, a highly virulent strain exotic to 
Australia.  Extensive consultations had been held with Thai and other quarantine authorities to discuss 
the issue, and Australia was prep ared to provide any further info rmation requested.  Australia was 
considering whether additional scientific research c ould be usefully conducted to enhance scientific 
understanding and methods of inactiva tion of various poultry pathogens. 
10. In October 2001, Thailand reported that the Department of Livestock Development was 
finalising its risk analysis on IBVD.  A public hear ing would be held before the analysis was presented 
to Australia.  In May 2001, the OIE had agreed to  conduct research on appropriate heat treatment to 
inactivate the IBD virus in poultry. 
11. In June 2002, Thailand informed  the Committee that its risk assessment on IBD virus in Thai 
cooked chicken meat to Australia showed that the ri sk of introducing IBDV to backyard flocks through 
cooked chicken meat was negligible .  This report had been submitte d to Australia in May 2002.  
Thailand hoped that within its new food safety ma ndate, the OIE would undertake work on IBD.  
Australia indicated that conditions for importation of  cooked chicken had come into effect in August 
1998, setting certain time and temperature cooking parameters.  Thailand had applied for access for 
product from a certain facility, and had recently provi ded information.  Australia would provide a 
response once the Thai document had been considered  by an expert review group.  The representative 
of the OIE reiterated his request that Members submit  information on IBD to be able to make progress 
with the work undertaken by the OIE. 
12. In November 2002, Thailand indicated that it was still waiting for a response from Australia 
on the basis of the risk assessment results.  Australia  noted that at its recent meeting the Australian risk 
analysis panel had examined the Thai document in detail.  The panel had prepared technical comments 
and questions about aspects of the Thai risk assessme nt which would shortly be sent to the relevant 
Thai authorities.  The representative of the OIE took note of the risk analysis document, and indicated 
that as soon as the OIE received more information and data from Members it w ould be in a position to 
review the OIE chapter through its expert working group. 
13. In April 2003, Thailand stated that Australia 's import risk analysis process was very 
complicated, unduly long and conducted without a specific timeframe.  Australia responded that 
current arrangements were the product of a science-ba sed risk assessment which had not been formally 
challenged.  Biosecurity Australia was studying Thailand's risk analysis on cooked chicken meat, 
received in May 2002, along with a dditional information provided in January 2003.  Australia aimed to 
complete the current risk analysis on chicken as soon as possible. 
14. In June 2003, Thailand reported  that no progress had been made since it  provided scientific 
information to Australia in May 2002.  Australia noted that cooked chicken meat from Thailand was 
allowed into Australia if requirements were fulf illed, in accordance with scientific findings.  The 
representative of the OIE indicated that they had considered the issue in January 2002 and had 
requested more and new scientific information, however, no new information had been forthcoming. 
 
84. Import restrictions affecting BSE-free co untries – Maintained by Argentina, Australia, 
Canada, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, United States [See Item 84, page 1] 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 5 
 
 
  139. Restriction on pigmeat   
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Canada, United States 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 75-76), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, 
paras. 67-69), June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 56-58) 
Relevant document(s): WT/DS287/1, G/SPS/GEN/384 and Add.1, WT/DS287/8 
Solution: Dispute settlement.  Panel estab lished 7 November 2003, never composed. 
Mutually agreed solution to the dispute reported on 9 March 2007 
Status: Not reported 
 
15. In November 2002, the European Communities noted that Australia banned imports of 
pigmeat from the European Communities, except Danish  pigmeat subject to a specific heat treatment.  
Australia had begun a risk assessment for pigmeat im ports in May 1998, and although the results had 
been scheduled for February 2000 they had not been  presented and no alternative date had been set.  
Four and a half years was too long a delay to wa it for a risk assessment to be undertaken.  The 
European Communities had formally proposed equi valent measures, but Australia had not accepted 
these.  The European Communities requested Australia to take a decision as quickly as possible. 
16. Australia indicated that a generic import risk an alysis (IRA) of the quarantine risks and risk 
management options associated with  disease agents that may be introduced into Australia with pigmeat 
imported from a number of countries, including EC member States was being conducted.  A technical 
issues paper issued early in 2001 identified a range of quarantine risks including foot-and-mouth 
disease, African swine fever, classical swine fever, as well as various other pig diseases.  The pigmeat 
IRA was necessarily comprehensive and complex;  Australia's pig industry had a very favourable 
health status.  In the case of EC exports, the risk anal ysis had to deal with three OIE List A diseases, as 
well as a number of other serious diseases present in EC member States but absent in Australia.  For some serious diseases little scientific information w as available and Australia had to commission 
significant research to provide independent scientif ic information on a range of issues including the 
transmissibility of Porcine Respiratory and Repr oductive Syndrome (PRRS).  The results of some 
mayor research was expected to be available at the end of the year.  Technical input from the European 
Communities on PRRS and other diseases being consid ered in the import risk analysis would be 
welcomed. 
17. In April 2003, the European Communities noted that it had taken 17 years to obtain some 
access for processed meat from Denm ark into Australia.  Furthermore, there was still no date given for 
the publication of the general risk assessment unde rtaken by Australia in 1998.  The European 
Communities questioned why there was still a debate  on the methodology to be used for conducting 
the risk assessment four-and-a half years after the risk assessment had begun.  The time necessary for 
completion of the IRA was excessive and the require ments for Danish imports were disproportionate  
to the risk.  The European Communities called on Au stralia to publish the IRA without further delay 
and to give positive consideration to equivalent measures.  Canada also expressed frustration with the 
delays in Australia's IRA procedures. 
18. Australia observed that Aujetsky's disease w as eradicated in Denmark only in 1992 and 
following that PRRS emerged.  This had to be cons idered in the import risk  analysis commenced in 
1994.  The import of pigmeat from Denmark, subject to certain requirements, was approved in 1997.  
A generic import risk analysis on pigmeat was assessing import requests from a wide range of 
countries.  Various updates had been provided – including a recent update to the European 
Commission.  Comments on the methodology paper were  welcomed and a draft of the risk assessment 
would be available as soon as possible. The process was transparent and science-based.  Independent G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 6  
 
  research on PRRS had demonstrated oral transmission of the virus via pigmeat.  Given the lack of 
scientific information on its transmission via meat , Australia was seeking the information needed for 
an informed quarantine policy decision. 
19. In June 2005, the European Communities inform ed the Committee that a joint expert working 
group had been established to look at ways of rest oring full trade while protecting Australia from the 
introduction of Post-Weaning Multisystemic Wasting Syndrome (PMWS).  A recent court case in 
Australia had ruled that the risk measures for PM WS protection laid down in the Australian risk 
assessment were not scientifically based and that no import permits relying on these measures would 
be issued.  Consequently, the European Comm unities and other WTO Members where PMWS was 
present were unable to expand the range of products au thorized for export to Australia.  There was also 
a risk that existing licences, valid only for two years, would not be renewed in July 2006. 
20. Canada and the United States expressed apprecia tion for the Australian Government's appeal 
of the court decision and the efforts to minimize its trade impact.  Canada  hoped that the Australian 
Government would continue to honour the existing import permits and would maintain a science-based 
approach to imports. 
21. Australia confirmed that the Australian Govern ment's policy determination for the import of 
pig meat, completed in May 2004, had been the subj ect of a legal challenge in the Federal Court of 
Australia, which focused on the conditions for th e import of pig meat from countries where PMWS 
was present.  While one import permit had been revoked, the remaining 83 had been maintained.  
Australia was unable to issue any new permits.  The Australian Government had appealed this 
judgement and was seeking an expedited hearing. 
 
Plant Health 
74. Restrictions on imports of tropical fresh fruit 
Raised by: Philippines 
Supported by: Brazil, India, Korea, Republic  of, Malaysia, Thailand, United States, 
European Communities 
Dates raised: March 2000 (G/SPS/R/18, para. 67), June 2000 (G/SPS/R/19, paras. 15-20)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/189, G/SPS/GEN/194, WT/DS270/1, G/SPS/GEN/345, 
WT/DS270/5/Rev.1, WT/DS271/1, G/SPS/GEN/346 
Solution: Dispute settlement.  Consultati ons requested.  Panel (DS270) established 
29 August 2003.  Composition pending 
Status: Not reported 
 
22. In March 2000, the Philippines reported that its exports, including mangoes, bananas and 
pineapples, faced phytosanitary restrictions in Aust ralia.  Australia explained that in response to a 
request for access, Australia conducted an open, transp arent and consultative process of scientific risk 
assessment and risk management to avoid the introd uction of diseases.  Both countries indicated that 
they were conducting bilateral consultations on the matter. 
23. In June 2000, the Philippines pointed out th at major ASEAN exports to Australia faced 
stringent SPS measures that were not based on a risk assessment.  These measures were more 
restrictive than necessary, and should be reviewed  within a reasonable period of time.  Malaysia 
suggested Australia carry out ASEAN-wide risk asse ssments.  Australia offered detailed comments on  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 7 
 
 
  each of the points raised by the Philippines and noted that a formal response would be provided in due 
course.  In response to Malaysia, Australia explained that pest risk analysis was specific to the trading 
partners involved and varied accordi ng to the exporter's pest status. 
24. The United States urged Australia to expedite its decisions regarding market access for 
Florida citrus and California table grapes.  Australia  replied that an import risk analysis had been 
completed for table grapes, several appeals had been addressed, and the relevant information was 
about to be released.  In response to Brazil’s co mments regarding its market access applications for 
mango and papaya, Australia confirmed that these were  on the list of matters to be considered by 
Australian risk analysts.  With reference to India' s concern about market acc ess for mangoes, Australia 
reported that Indian authorities had provided helpful information regarding the efficacy of treatment 
for pests in mangoes, and that Australia was current ly evaluating that information.  Regarding EC 
concerns, Australia confirmed that an import risk  analysis was being conducted on bulbs.  Australia 
noted that it was necessary to set priorities for risk assessment given scarce financial and human 
resources. 
 78. Notification on methyl bromide 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 95-96) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/AUS/118 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
25. The European Communities was concerned w ith Australia's proposed introduction of 
minimum standards for fumigation with methyl br omide, which required a minimum temperature of 
10 degrees for fumigation.  This new measure could significantly constrain EC exports.  The European 
Communities requested additional information on Aust ralia's risk assessment and any other relevant 
evidence.  Australia responded that the proposed standard was the result of quarantine breaches 
involving ineffective fumigation treatment of va rious imported goods.  To improve the efficacy of 
fumigation prior to export, Australia developed a st andard reflecting best practice guidelines in the use 
of methyl bromide.  Australia was still consideri ng the comments it had received on its notification of 
this proposed measure, and implementation of the new measure would be delayed until early 2001.  
With regard to the minimum temp erature requirement, this was based  on expert advice and reflected 
the minimum temperature requirement established by the European Plant Protection Organization. 
 
79. Import restrictions on durian 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by: India, Malaysia, Philippines, European Communities 
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 11-14), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, 
paras. 107-108), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/ 27, paras. 133-134), November 2002 
(G/SPS/R/28, paras. 187-189), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 48-50), 
June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 50-53) G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 8  
 
  Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/217, G/SPS/GEN/218, G/SPS/N/AUS/83 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
26. In November 2000, Thailand reported that it had sought access to the Australian market for 
durian since 1991, but Australia had notified its draft import risk analysis only in February 1999.  In 
August 2000, Australia informed Thailand that durian fruit imports would be permitted only under 
unduly restrictive conditions, including excessively trade restrictive sampling requirements.  Furthermore, the seasonal limitation on shipments, as well as the requirement that fruit come only from the eastern region of Thailand, did not appear to be justified. 
27. Australia noted that it had been difficult to obtain accurate information on the relevant 
anthropod pests and diseases present in Thailand, although the numerous bilateral contacts on this 
matter had resulted in an expansion of the scientific information available.  Australia noted that the 
draft conditions established for import of fresh  durian fruit had been discussed with the Thai 
government.  The Australian delegate explaine d the justification for the requirements and 
acknowledged that the conditions were very strict, bu t justified based on the pest and disease situation 
of Thailand.  Nonetheless, these conditions woul d be reviewed after one year of trade. 
28. In October 2001, Thailand indicated that desp ite numerous bilateral meetings, no agreement 
had been reached.  Thailand requested that Australia seek to adjust its import restrictions to make them 
more commercially viable.  Australia replied that a ri sk analysis for durian had first been finalized in 
2000.  The risk assessment indicated that other non-destructive methods of sampling could be 
substituted if efficacy data could be  presented to show they provided an equivalent level of protection.  
However, no information had been received from Tha iland that X-ray technology or irradiation could 
be equally effective.  Australia was keen to fina lize bilateral arrangements so that inspections of 
packing houses and orchards could begin in  Thailand and import permits be issued. 
29. In June 2002, Thailand reiterate d concerns that Australia re quired cutting of the product for 
inspection purposes, and applied an excessive sample size.  Malaysia and the Philippines supported the 
concerns expressed by Thailand on this issue.  Australia indicated their willingness to consider 
alternatives to destructive sampling if their efficacy was shown.  On the basis of joint trials, X-ray 
technology appeared promising. 
30. In November 2002, Thailand recalled that it ha d been seeking access to Australia's market for 
durian since 1991.  The matter had been pursued on a bilateral basis, but to date no agreement had 
been reached.  Thailand was of the view that Australia should have c oncluded its consideration of the 
alternative method of rapid scan for inspection of import durian.  The Philippines, on behalf of 
ASEAN, expressed systemic concerns and noted their interest in monitoring developments in this 
matter.  Australia reiterated that the import conditions were subject to  review after the first year of 
trade, and that other less destructive methods of inspection could be substituted for fruit cutting, if 
efficacy data showed that it could provide an e quivalent level of quarantine protection from the key 
pests of concern.  Australia was willing to continue to work with the Thai authorities to make progress 
on the assessment of non destructive inspection methods. 
31. In April 2003, Thailand stated that there had been little progress on its concerns as the 
measures proposed by Australia were not commercially viable.  Australia reported that alternative risk 
mitigation options such as pest free areas of pr oduction, pest free production sites and reproscan 
inspection methods were discussed by the joint Th ai-Australian working group on agriculture on 3-7 
March 2003.  The Thai authorities were considering th e pest free alternatives a nd had agreed to a joint 
collaborative trial of the reproscan inspection methods  for the fruiting season in late April and June.  A  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 9 
 
 
  longer term solution might be irradiation and Australia  understood that Thailand could be interested in 
conducting trails as no efficacy data was currently available. 
32. In June 2003, Thailand indicated that Australia 's requirements for fresh durian imports were 
not consistent with the obligations  of Article 5.6 of the SPS Agreement.  Australia replied that it had 
specified the use of internationally accepted measure s such as destructive fru it cutting which was used 
by many countries.  Australia was prepared to cons ider alternative ways to address the quarantine risks 
associated with Thai durian fruit. 
 
155. Import requirements for Netherlands Truss Tomatoes 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand 
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras.  25-27), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 64-
65) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
33. The European Communities raised concerns that Australia was taking too long to conduct  an 
import risk assessment for truss tomatoes due to re asons other than technical issues.  The risk 
assessment was still incomplete after six years.  In  1999 Australia presented a draft risk assessment on 
tomatoes without green parts despite the Netherlands' explicit request  to export tomatoes on the truss.  
Truss tomatoes had been approved from New Zeal and after New Zealand had approved Australian 
imports of the same product.  On 26 March 2003, Bi osecurity Australia unexpectedly indicated that 
there was no longer a need for a risk assessment for truss tomatoes.  However, import conditions were 
still pending as a draft review of the quarantine requirements for the import of Dutch tomatoes needed to be circulated to stakeholders for comment.  The European Communities felt that the time period 
necessary for Australia to conduct its import risk analysis was disproportionate to the risk and 
discriminated unjustifiably between WTO Members. 
34. Australia explained that on 26 March, Biosecur ity Australia announced that imports of truss 
tomatoes would be assessed as an extension of th e technical policy recently developed for truss 
tomatoes from New Zealand – this would shorten the risk assessment process.  The draft review would 
include draft import conditions and would be released to stakeholders with a 30-day comment period.  
The finalized review document would be available before the end of May 2003. 
35. In June 2003, Australia reported that the dr aft import policy for truss tomatoes from the 
Netherlands had been issued  and was publicly av ailable and stakeholders invited to comment.  A 
response to the Netherlands request for market ac cess would follow soon.  The European Communities 
expressed disappointment that the draft policy w as still open for comments from stakeholders and 
therefore far from being finalized.  The Philippines,  speaking on behalf of Indonesia and Thailand, 
supported the views of the European Communities. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 10  
 
  BAHRAIN 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY BAHRAIN 
Food safety 165. Import restrictions on Spanish olive oil – Maintained by Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar 
and United Arab Emirates 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, para . 166), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, para. 17), 
October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, para. 58 ), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, 
para. 75) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Partially resolved 
 
36. In June 2003, the European Communities reporte d on the final results of the investigation 
concerning the problems with olive oil contamina tion in Spain in 2002.  The contamination had 
occurred due to a manufacturing error, but the probl em had since been resolved.  The restrictions 
which some Members continued to impose on Spanish olive oil were therefore no longer justified. 
37. In June 2004, the European Co mmunities raised concerns over import restrictions on Spanish 
pomace olive oil imposed by some Gulf countries.  Af ter an isolated safety incident in 2001, some 
Members applied restrictive measures to this produc t.  Since 2001, most Members had gradually lifted 
the import ban, except the Gulf countries.  These pro ducts no longer were a risk to human or animal 
health, as corrective measures had been quickly and properly applied by the competent authorities of 
Spain.  Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the Un ited Arab Emirates were requested to immediately 
lift the ban on any type of olive oil imported from the European Union as the ban was not based on any 
scientific evidence. 
38. In October 2004, the European Communities stated that bilateral consultations were held with 
several Gulf countries prior to the meeting to a ddress restrictions imposed on Spanish olive oil by 
Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Ar ab Emirates.  The European Communities were 
hopeful for a prompt resolution of the issue and woul d also be holding bilateral meetings with Oman 
and Kuwait. 
39. In June 2005, the European Communities info rmed the Committee that Oman, Bahrain and 
Kuweit had decided to lift the ban on EC exports of  pomace oil without further requirements such as 
certification.  The European Communities was hoping that  this would allow trade to resume with these 
three Members very soon. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 11 
 
 
  BARBADOS 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY BARBADOS 
Plant Health 195. Restrictions on citrus 
Raised by: Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2004  (G/SPS/R/35, para. 218) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
40. In October 2004, the Bolivarian Republic of Ve nezuela stated that in the last two years 
Barbados had applied restrictions to shipments of  citrus from the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 
without demonstrating the existence of any pests or diseases.  Several bilatera l consultations had taken 
place but a solution had not been r eached.  Barbados was asked to explain why these restrictions on 
citrus from the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela continued to be applied. 
41. Barbados stated that the actions taken were consistent with their Plant Pest and Disease 
Import Control Act and Article 6 of the SPS Agreem ent.  Barbados was willing to discuss the issue 
further bilaterally and within the framework of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) negotiations between 
CARICOM and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.  At the last meeting both parties had agreed to allow SPS experts to visit and inspect each other' s country and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 
had offered to cover part of the costs.  The CA RICOM secretariat had since informed the Bolivarian 
Republic of Venezuela of the experts that had b een nominated but no arrangements had been put in 
place for the visit. 
 
BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF 
VENEZUELA 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 29. Measures related to avian influenza 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, para . 25), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/19, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: US considered the trade concern unresolved 
Status: Not reported 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 12  
 
  42. In July 1997, the United States informed th at non-pathogenic avian influenza had been 
detected in a few north-eastern US states.  As a consequence, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 
had banned the importation of US poultry and produc ts.  The United States contested the scientific 
basis for this measure and was concer ned that it had not been notified. 
43. In July 2001, the United States indicated that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had acted 
in June 2000 to allow market access for US  processed poultry (G/SPS/GEN/265).  Venezuelan 
authorities had not responded to requests from the Unit ed States to pursue this matter bilaterally.  The 
United States believed that the measures lacked scie ntific justification and considered this trade 
concern unresolved. 
 70. Import conditions for pork meat and products  
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para. 67) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
44. The European Communities reported that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had denied 
access to Danish pork meat and products without clearly indicating the import conditions or the 
relevant provisions.  The EC representative urge d Venezuelan authorities to notify the relevant 
measures, giving other Members a chance to comment. 
 
Plant Health 
93. Phytosanitary requirements fo r potatoes, garlic and onions  
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Canada, United States 
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 26-28), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, 
para. 131), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/ 25, paras. 99-100), March 2002 
(G/SPS/R/26, para. 43), June 2002 (G/ SPS/R/27, paras. 54-55), April 2003 
(G/SPS/R/29, paras. 53-54), June 2003 (S/SPS/R/30, paras. 36-38), 
October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 23-24), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, 
paras. 63-64) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
45. In March 2001, Argentina provided informati on on the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela's 
import restrictions on Argentine garlic because of Ur ocystis cepulae that had been imposed since 1997.  
According to the terms of the Andean Pact no quarantine measures had been adopted against 
Argentina.  Regarding potatoes, Argentina had beg un efforts to gain access to  the Venezuelan market  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 13 
 
 
  in 1996, and had provided the necessary informat ion for a risk assessment.  Argentina expressed 
concern at the seeming lack of will on the part of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to make 
progress on both issues.  In addition, Argentina w as concerned about a lack of coherence in the 
application of resolution 431 of the mandatory sanita ry and phytosanitary standards of the Andean 
Community, which it would raise with the And ean Community.  The Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela explained that there was no lack of will to move forward on these issues.  Regarding garlic, 
the administrative process to set up the necessary protocols was ongoing.  With respect to potatoes, the 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela believed that Argentine and Andean Community phytosanitary 
standards were not compatible.   Colombia requested  Argentina to submit its concerns to the Andean 
Community. 
46. In July 2001, Argentina inform ed the Committee that bilateral meetings had been held, and 
although the problem had not been completely so lved, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had 
demonstrated a will to find a solution.  In Oct ober 2001, Argentina requested a technical reply from 
the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to the questions  raised during a recent bilateral meeting on the 
sanitary restrictions on potato imports, so as to fac ilitate the start of trading in this product.  The 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela replied that it wa s seeking to prevent the introduction of pests that 
existed in Argentina but were exotic to the Boliva rian Republic of Venezuela.  The sanitary services 
were evaluating the appropriateness of alternative methods, such as pest free areas, that would meet 
Argentina's legitimate trade concerns and the Bolivar ian Republic of Venezuela's appropriate level of 
protection. 
47. In March 2002, Argentina informed that bilate ral negotiations with the Venezuelan health 
authorities had taken place, but in the protocols agr eed for importation on potatoes, garlic and onion 
the matter of certification and inspection visits by Ve nezuelan officials was left outstanding.  In view 
of the seasonal nature of these commodities, Argentina was concerned that if the inspection visits did 
not take place soon, no exports would be possible before 2003.  In response, the Bolivarian Republic 
of Venezuela noted that they were awaiting a pr oposal from Argentina on a convenient date for the 
inspection visit. 
48. In June 2002, Argentina stated that there had been no progress in resolving the problems 
arising from the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela's restrictions on potatoes, garlic and onions.  
Argentina was waiting for the onsite visit which th e Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela indicated was 
necessary before trade could resume.  The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela stat ed that some revisions 
to its requirements had been made, and it was now organizing a technical visit to examine the pest 
surveillance systems in Argentine producing areas, wi th the hope of finding a solution to the problem. 
49. In April 2003, Argentina informed the Comm ittee that Venezuelan technical experts had 
visited Argentina to verify its claims of free dom from onion smut (Urocystis cepulae).  Discussions 
had entered the final phase and the Argentine auth orities awaited the publication of the Venezuelan 
expert report which should allow the resolution of th is issue.  The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 
reported that bilateral consultati ons with Argentina had taken place prior to the Committee meeting 
and that the expert report should be available soon. 
50. In June 2003, Argentina reported that it still had not received the final report and urged the 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela to inform Argentina about the results of the visit so that trade could 
be initiated.  The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuel a clarified that imports from Argentina were not 
prohibited but subject to certain re quirements.  Furthermore, the Bo livarian Republic of Venezuela had 
undertaken a risk assessment which provided the n ecessary justifications.  The results of this 
assessment would be communicated to the Argentine h ealth services as a part of the mutually agreed 
work plan. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 14  
 
  51. In October 2003, Argentina noted that Venezuelan officials had visited Argentina in 
December 2002 to confirm the absence of onion smut.  Argentina had received a report from the 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela just the previous week and hoped it meant the issue was resolved.  
The United States and Canada shared Argentina's c oncerns over delays or denial of import permits 
without scientific justifications.  The Bolivarian Re public of Venezuela noted that the report had been 
sent to Argentina in March and an impor t protocol could now be completed. 
52. In March 2004, Argentina informed the Comm ittee that a technical document had been 
presented to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela dur ing bilateral discussions he ld on 16 March 2004.  
Argentina and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela agreed to hold further discussions and hoped for a 
resolution on this issue.  The Bolivarian Republic  of Venezuela reported that it had received the 
documents requested from Argentina and hoped for an early resolution on the issue. 
 
Other concerns 
123. Restrictions on imports of potatoes, onio ns, fertilised eggs, day-old chicks and meat 
products 
Raised by: Canada, Colombia 
Supported by: Chile, United States 
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 27-29), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, 
paras. 30-32), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/ Rev.1, paras. 55-57), June 2005 
(G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 59-61), Oc tober 2005 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 76-
78), February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 76-78) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
53. In March 2002, Colombia observed that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was not 
granting sanitary certificates for potatoes, fresh mu shrooms, fresh tomatoes, fertile eggs, day-old 
chicks and meat products and requested that the Bo livarian Republic of Venezuela notify the measure 
which served as the basis for the discretionary gran ting or non-issuance of health certificates for 
Colombian exports, or to lift this measure.  Chile, the United States and Canada supported the 
concerns expressed by Colombia. 
54. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela provide d details of import levels for potatoes, 
mushrooms and fresh tomatoes in 2001, which showed  that import licenses were being granted.  The 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had temporarily suspended SPS licensing for fertile eggs and day-
old chicks as a result of an outbreak of avian flu in Colombia, a disease alien to the Bolivarian 
Republic of Venezuela, from January 2002.  On 8 February 2002, the prohibition on fertile eggs was 
removed.  Notification of the lifting of restrictions  against day-old chicks was made on 7 March 2002.  
For meat products, the Bolivarian Republic of Ven ezuela noted that her country regularly imported 
beef on the hoof, slaughtered and processed beef an d swine products.  In reply to the comments of 
other Members, she stated that it was important not to confuse problems of administrative capacity and management with discretionary licensing. 
55. In June 2004, Canada recalled that it had ra ised concerns over the Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela's issuance of SPS-related permits in  previous SPS Committee and Agriculture Committee 
meetings.  The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela's po licies had restricted Canadian exports of meat,  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 15 
 
 
  seed potatoes, table potatoes and onions.  The Bo livarian Republic of Venezuela had not provided a 
clear explanation of this policy, however it appeared  that the permits in question were SPS-related.  
Importers would apply to Venezuelan authorities for permits and provide SPS information to support 
their application, but applications had been deni ed without an SPS-related justification.  Canada 
requested that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela grant permits on an automa tic basis as long as the 
conditions of the SPS Agreement had been met.  The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and Canada 
had agreed to continue to pursue this issue bilatera lly.  Chile and the United States requested that the 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela review its import procedures in order to comply with obligations 
under the SPS Agreement.  The United States noted that for products not subject to tariff rate quotas (TRQs), the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela seemed  to be using SPS permits in a manner equivalent 
to import licences. 
56. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela stated that Canadian import requests were normally 
given a positive reply.  The comments from Canada, Chile and the United States would be considered 
carefully.  The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela woul d contact the Canadian authorities to clarify the 
situation concerning import requests of meat. 
57. In March 2005, Canada reitera ted its long-standing concerns about discretionary import 
licensing being used by the sanitary and phytosan itary authorities of the Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela to restrict imports of potatoes, onions and pork from Canada.  There had recently been two 
substantive meetings with senior delegations from Caracas and Canada  hoped this issue would soon be 
resolved. 
58. The United States shared Canada's concerns re garding the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela's 
restrictive import licensing and SPS permit regimes.   The United States was specifically concerned 
about:  (1) the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuel a's use of SPS permits to enforce quotas based on 
economic rather than scientific justifications;  (2) the lack of transparency and the apparent 
inconsistency of the import permit/license approval pr ocess which resulted in significant delays in the 
issuance of some permits and licences compared to others and which arbitrarily reduced the quantity 
approved for import compared to the requested amount;  and (3) the Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela's insistence on requiring importers and us ers of imported products to purchase domestically 
produced commodities in order to gain approval or permission to import. 
59. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela confirmed the fruitful consultations with Canada and 
hoped to report the resolution of this problem at the next Committee meeting. 
60. In June 2005, Canada indicated that, wit hout any SPS justification and despite having 
negotiated a sanitary agreement a few years ago, Ve nezuelan pork importers had never been able to 
obtain import permits from the Venezuelan sanitary au thorities for Canadian pork.  Permits for seed or 
table potatoes had not been issued for long periods of  time.  Bilateral efforts to resolve the problem 
were continuing. 
61. The United States noted that if the Bolivaria n Republic of Venezuela's restrictive import 
regime was based on SPS permits as opposed to im port licences, as the Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela had implied in the Import Licensing Co mmittee, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 
should explain the risk being addressed through th is permit and supply the supporting risk assessment. 
62. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela took note of Canada's concerns and noted that bilateral 
negotiations were continuing. 
63. 
In February 2006, Canada indicated that this issue was of  long duration and frustration.  
Under the WTO rules, issuance of import perm its was automatic unless there were underlying SPS 
concerns.  Canadian table potatoes, onions and pork were being refused without any rationale.  Unless G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 16  
 
  the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela had identified legitimate SPS concerns, it should expeditiously 
issue import licenses for agricultural produc ts from Canada on an automatic basis. 
64. The United States reported its concern about the lack of progress on this issue as US exports 
of yellow corn, oilseeds and dairy products had been affected by the restrictions. 
65. The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela noted that  a number of the requests Canada had made 
in March had been addressed, and the Bolivarian Re public of Venezuela had issued permits to import 
Canadian pork and potatoes.  Venezuelan technician s were preparing a visit to Canada to inspect 
potatoes to be exported to the Bolivarian Republic  of Venezuela.  The Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela was willing to carry out additional  bila teral meetings to find a mutually satisfactory 
solution to Canada’s concerns. 
 
BRAZIL 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY BRAZIL Food safety 5. Import requirements for wine 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5, para . 13), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 23) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/BRA/13/Rev.1 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
66. In May 1996, the European Communities expr essed concern that proposed Brazilian import 
requirements for wine had not been notified.  Th e European Communities was concerned that Brazil 
was apparently requiring that establishments in exporting countries be inspected and approved by 
Brazilian authorities.  The European Communities considered its own requirements for wine 
production to be at least equivalent to those in Brazi l with respect to the safety of the product for the 
consumer, and planned to present written comments to  Brazil once an SPS notification had been made. 
67. In March 1997, the European Communities qu estioned Brazil's measure on wine exports, 
notified as G/SPS/N/BRA/13/Rev.1 on 6 February 1 997, stating that it was not clear what 
requirements producers faced.  The European  Communities questioned whether inspection 
requirements for individual establishments we re based on science, and expressed concern over 
certification requirements for individual consignments  rather than more general, generic types of 
certification.  Brazil noted that the proposed legisl ation would not be adopted before 16 May 1997, and 
that the full text of the proposed legislation was available from the Brazilian Enquiry Point.  Although 
Brazil insisted that its legislation was in confor mity with the SPS Agreement, and not substantially 
different from legislation in place in several Eur opean countries, it was open for bilateral discussions 
on the subject. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 17 
 
 
  Animal Health and Zoonoses 
140. Imports of live ostriches 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, para. 97) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/BRA/67 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
68. The European Communities stated th at they would bilaterally request clarification of the legal 
scope and scientific grounds for the measure.  Br azil reported that the import restriction on live 
ostriches was due to the possible threats posed to the Brazilian poultry industry.  The regulation that 
had been notified to the SPS Committee required th at the OIE existing standards for inspection, 
supervision and quarantine requirements, both at the point of origin and the point of destiny, be followed.  Brazil took note of the request from th e European Communities to provide the necessary 
risk assessment for the non OIE-listed diseases and ag reed to convey this request to the relevant 
authorities. 
 
218. Lack of recognition of regionalization a nd disease-free status for classical swine fever 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 42-44) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
69. In June 2005, the European Communities recalle d its concerns regarding Brazil's lack of 
recognition of regionalization and disease-free status for several animal diseases, including classical 
swine fever (CSF).  French exports of pig products  to Brazil were experiencing restrictions, although 
the domestic EC pig population was free of CSF according to OIE standards.  CSF in France was epidemiologically under control, with strict veteri nary and police surveillance and systems for animal 
identification and traceability. 
70. Brazil responded that its measures regarding regionalization for CSF in the European 
Communities were based on an assessment of the risk s for disease spread, taking  into account the size 
of the proposed CSF-free area and considering the ep idemiological characteristics of the disease agent.  
These control measures were scientifically supporte d by Article 2.6.7.3 of the 2004 OIE Terrestrial 
Animal Health Code.  Moreover, the disease agent c ould be found in the wild  boar population, which 
made more difficult the establishment of contro l measures for a proposed disease-free area.  The 
probability of the CSF agent spreading to domestic pigs had to be considered.  During bilateral 
meetings in April 2005, Brazil had proposed the esta blishment of a bilateral expert working group to 
define risk analysis criteria related to equivale nt regionalization procedures.  The Brazilian sanitary 
authorities were currently working with the bilateral expert group in order to define criteria.  Brazil 
had a regular and continuous CSF-free zone whic h covered almost all commercial swine herds. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 18  
 
   
237. Lack of regionalization for Newcastl e disease and restrictions on live birds 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2006 (G/SPS/R/40, paras. 30-33) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
71. The European Communities raised concerns re garding import restrictions applied to EC 
products related to the failure to recognize regi onalization and the disease-free status of some EC 
member States.  France had made several offici al requests for recognition of regionalization for 
Newcastle disease to the Brazilian authorities durin g 2005 and 2006, however  no recognition of 
regionalization had been made by the Brazilian competent authorities. 
72. The EC member States did not understand why Br azil refused to recognize regionalization for 
Newcastle disease while the Eu ropean Communities recognized regionalization of Brazil for 
Newcastle disease and for other major animal dis eases.  A situation where a whole country was 
affected by a ban when only a limited part of its  territory was affected by a disease did not fit the 
concept of regionalization promoted by the SPS Agreem ent.  Trade had to be allowed from other areas 
or regions within a country where the disease did not exist.  The European Communities urged Brazil 
to respect Article 6 of the SPS Agreement, to follow the international rules set up by the OIE and to 
respond positively to legitimate requests for the appl ication of the principle of regionalization for EC 
member States. 
73. Brazil reported that due to an outbreak of Newcastle disease in the French department of the 
Loire Atlantique, reported to the OIE on 27 July 2005, on 5 August 2005 Brazil suspended imports of 
live birds and avian genetic material, exclusively from that French department.  Another case was 
notified to the OIE on 21 October 2005 in the Port  de Calais department , whereupon Brazil extended 
the import restrictions to the whole of the French territory.  A further outbreak of Newcastle disease 
was subsequently notified in another French de partment on 18 November 2005.  French health 
authorities denied any epidemiological connection between the outbreaks and reported that the outbreaks had been related to contamination by mi grating birds.  On 25 February 2006, a case of 
highly pathogenic  (AI) was identified in France, wh ich once again was attributed to contamination by 
migrating birds. 
74. In the light of all the outbreaks attributed to migrating birds, Brazil decided to monitor the 
situation in France with regard to bird diseases, in order to protect its own population.  Brazil wished 
to maintain good trade relations with France and the European Communities, and applied fully the 
provisions of Article 6 on regionalization.  Howeve r, the outbreaks of Newcastle disease, the available 
information and the recent occurrence of AI were al l relevant.  Brazil was the world's largest exporter 
of chicken, and needed to maintain its status as free of AI. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 19 
 
 
  Plant Health 
46. Import prohibition of coconut palms and related products 
Raised by: Philippines 
Supported by: Sri Lanka, Malaysia 
Dates raised: June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, par as. 25-26), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12 and 
Corr.1, paras. 5-6) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/BRA/1 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
75. In June 1998, the Philippines submitted a series of  detailed questions to Brazil regarding its 
import prohibition of coconut palms and related produc ts.  Brazil answered that the measure was in 
place to prevent the spread of quarantine pests.  Brazil continued to import coconut palms and related 
products from pest-free countries, if shipments were accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate, but 
only one country had applied for pest-free status.  Br azil stressed that its measure was in conformity 
with the SPS Agreement and the text of the IPPC, and that the risk assessment methodology used had 
been notified. 
76. In September 1998, the Philippines reported that it had received no clear answers from Brazil, 
and reiterated its questions.  Braz il specified which diseases it was concerned about.  Its phytosanitary 
requirements had been extended to desiccated coconut, as there was a risk of transmission of pests or 
exotic pathogens.  Nonetheless, Brazil was prepar ed to discuss proposals for risk evaluation and 
recognition of pest-free areas. 
 
141. Pest risk assessments for imports of plant origin 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: Australia, New Zealand, Pe ru, United States, European Communities 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28 , paras. 77-79) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/BRA/65 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
77. Canada referred to Brazil's legislative requireme nt for pest risk assessments for all vegetable 
products imported into Brazil, published on 28 March 2002.  While Canada did not challenge the right 
of Brazil to conduct pest risk analysis for impor ted commodities, they considered the measure as 
unduly restrictive of trade, in particular given that  imports would be suspended on 27 November 2002, 
pending completion of the pest risk assessments.  Canada had exported a numb er of products covered 
by this measure for many years without any particul ar concern, and requested Brazil to allow existing 
trade from well known sources to continue while the pest  risk assessments were being completed.  In 
this regard, Canada was prepared to provide the in formation required to facilitate the early completion 
of any risk assessments concerning products from Canada. 
78. The United States did not believe that it was necess ary or justifiable to ban or temporarily halt 
the importation of products while  PRAs were being conducted unless there was a specific pest risk G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 20  
 
  problem that would required such drastic action.  Australia, the European Communities, New Zealand 
and Peru shared the concerns expressed by Canada  and the United States and requested Brazil to 
withdraw the application of the measure. 
79. Brazil stated that one key concern was that  many PRAs were open-ended and the studies 
never came to completion.  Brazil was reassessing th e matter and considering alternatives to the PRAs, 
such as the possibility of extending the time-frame fo r implementation of the measure in the case of 
ongoing studies, including cases where documents ha d already been forwarded to Brazil. Brazil 
requested trading partners to identify their concerns  in writing, so that responses could be provided by 
the competent authorities. 
 CANADA CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CANADA Food safety 6. Importation of cheese 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Switzerland 
Dates raised: May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5, para. 14) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CAN/8 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
80. The European Communities raised concerns w ith a proposed Canadian requirement that 
cheese be pasteurized or produced fro m pasteurized milk.  The Europ ean Communities considered that 
its measures, including production requirements, saf e and correct sourcing and subsequent supervision 
in the various production stages from farm to cons umer, provided at least equivalent guarantees in 
terms of food safety.  The European Communities observed that a number of Members maintained 
restrictions on imports of raw milk cheeses from th e European Communities which were not justifiable 
on health grounds.  Canada noted that on request it would provide scientific documentation in support 
of the proposal, and that an expert advisory co mmittee had been appointed to examine the matter. 
 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
15. Zoosanitary import policies pertaining to BSE 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras. 24-25) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CAN/18 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 21 
 
 
  81. The European Communities argued that the Canadian policy went beyond what could be 
scientifically justified, and was furthermore not in  conformity with the OIE Code.  The European 
Communities noted that (i) no distinction was made between high and low incidence countries;  (ii) 
there were provisions for whole-herd slaughter a nd slaughter of mother as well as of progeny despite 
BSE not being considered as a herd disease and unfina lized investigations on maternal transmission; 
and, (iii) the Canadian policy required BSE to ha ve been notifiable for six years under an active 
surveillance programme and that imports would be  allowed only after six years of absence of the 
disease.  Also, the proposed policy implied that Canada would not accept meat from any country which had imported meat and bone meal from a c ountry which had a case of BSE.  Under these 
conditions only one EC member State would qualify to  export meat to Canada.  Canada explained that 
while the BSE policy was already in force, some  changes were proposed.  It was on these draft 
changes that comments were being sought.  The time for comments would be extended. 
 
84. Import restrictions affecting BSE-free co untries – Maintained by Argentina, Australia, 
Canada, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, United States [See Item 84, page 1] 
 
88. Import restrictions due to FMD – Maintained by Canada and United States 
Raised by: Hungary 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 90-91), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, 
para. 133) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
82. In March 2001, Hungary expressed concern about  reported US and Canadian import bans on 
Hungarian meat products in reaction to incidences of  FMD in France.  Canada and the United States 
clarified that they had not placed any restricti ons on the importation of products from Hungary.  In 
July 2001, Hungary reiterated its concern regarding US measures on meat and other animal products 
that were in force since May 2000.  Hungary referred to G/SPS/GEN/266, which listed Hungary as a 
country free of FMD and rinderpest.  The United States offered to work with the appropriate officials 
to explain the situation. 
 
Plant Health 
229. Import restrictions on Enoki mushrooms from Chinese Taipei  
Raised by: Taipei, Chinese 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2005 (G/SPS/R/39, pa ras. 36-38), February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, 
paras. 36-38) G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 22  
 
  Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
83. In February 2006, Chinese Taipei noted that in January 2005 Canada had banned imports of 
Enoki mushrooms with trace amounts of growing medi um.  Canada required that all growing medium 
be removed by cutting off the stalk of the mushroom , but this significantly reduced the shelf-life of the 
mushroom.  In March 2005, Canada had justified this new measure by explaining that the growing 
medium used for Enoki mushroom cultivation coul d be a pathway for the introduction of quarantine 
pests designated by the Canadian Food Inspecti on Agency, such as sudden oak death or the golden 
nematode.  These quarantine pests did not exist in  Chinese Taipei.  Furthermore, Enoki mushrooms 
were produced in Chinese Taipei under soil-free conditi ons.  Chinese Taipei considered that Canada’s 
restrictions were more trade restrictive than necessar y and urged Canada to lift its import ban on Enoki 
mushrooms. 
84. Canada clarified that, historically, Chinese Taipei's mushrooms were free from growing 
medium and had been imported into  Canada without restriction.  In 2004, shipments of Enoki 
mushrooms accompanied by a significant amount of growing material had been intercepted.  
Consistent with the provisions of the IPPC, Ca nada had provided Chinese Taipei's officials with 
several official notifications of non-compliance,  including a written explanation of the scientific 
rationale for prohibiting the entry of Enoki mush rooms accompanied by growing medium.  Canada 
was waiting for scientific information on the type of  pests that might be carried by the medium from 
Chinese Taipei in order to conclude a risk assess ment.  The current science-based requirements would 
remain in place until Canada had assurance that the growing medium would not carry plant pest risks 
to Canada. 
 
CHILE 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHILE 
Food safety 9. Zero-tolerance for salmone lla in imported poultry products – Maintained by Chile, 
Czech Republic, El Salvador, Honduras and Slovak Republic 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, paras. 18-25), March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, 
paras. 52-53), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GN/3, G/SPS/N/CZE/8, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
85. In October 1996, the United States indicated that a number of Members discriminated 
between standards for control of salmonella in dom estic versus imported poultr y products.  Chile, the 
Czech Republic, El Salvador, Slova kia and Honduras applied so-called zero-tolerance standards, 
which was a misleading name since none of these Members appeared to have eradication or 
surveillance systems in place to establish non- existence of salmonella in domestic products.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 23 
 
 
  86. The Slovak Republic responded that it did not ap ply a zero-tolerance standard, but rather 
required ante- and post-mortem treatment of sl aughter poultry, for domestic and imported poultry 
meat.  The Czech Republic clarified that its regula tions required negative results on salmonella tests in 
poultry holdings and slaughterhouses.  Czech requir ements were laid out in the Draft Law on 
Foodstuff and Tobacco Products to be adopted in 1997, notified as G/SPS/N/CZE/8.  No assurances 
had been received from the United States that these requirements would be met.  The Czech Republic 
suggested bilateral consultations between veterinary experts.  Th e representatives of Honduras and El 
Salvador indicated that they would inform their au thorities of the statement made by the United States. 
87. Chile observed that bilateral consultations on salmonella had started in 1992.  The US 
concern was probably due to a misunderstanding of Ch ile's sanitary requirements, which required tests 
to determine the level of salmonella.  The result wa s compared with the level of prevalence in the 
exporting country, which was part of Chile's risk assessment procedure.  Chile was aware that the 
United States had difficulties in complying with this  requirement given the high level of prevalence of 
salmonella domestically.  Given the US situation, the Chilean government was prepared to show a 
certain flexibility and would consider  imports of irradiated poultry fr om the United States as a possible 
alternative. 
88. In March 1997, the United States reiterated its concerns.  In particular, Chile had not 
substantiated its claim that salmonella was less prev alent in domestic poultry stocks compared to the 
imported product, and the Czech Republic continued to maintain a zero-tolerance policy.  
Furthermore, the United States was interested to know when legislation would be implemented to 
harmonize requirements for poultry meat imports in  the Central American Common market.  In 
response, Chile recalled its arguments made at the previous meeting, and remained open to further 
discussion with the United States.  In February 2001,  the Czech Republic reported that its new Law on 
Foodstuff and Tobacco Products had been adopted (decree 298/1997), and than it had been in contact 
with the United States since then. 
89. In July 2001, the United States reported that  it was still discussing the matter with Chile 
(G/SPS/GEN/265). 
 
CHINA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINA Food safety 114. Food safety regulations affecting agric ultural products produced from modern 
biotechnology 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Argentina, Australia, Canada 
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras.  12-14), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 
21-23), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 93-94) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHN/10 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 24  
 
  90. In March 2002, the United States had expressed serious concerns about China's Ministry of 
Agriculture implementing regulations for the mana gement of agricultural biotechnology products.  
These regulations, originally published on 6 June 20 01, were released without warning on 7 January 
2002. The regulations, which required pre-market  approval and mandatory labelling of biotech 
products and affected GMO imports , were scheduled to go into effect on 20 March 2002.  The United 
States noted that China had not notified these regul ations to the WTO, precluding any chance for 
comment by interested WTO Members.  Furthermore,  certain aspects of the new regulations appeared 
to be inconsistent with WTO rules, and establis hed different approval pr ocedures for imported and 
domestic products.  The United States welcomed the interim measures issued on 11 March 2002, 
which streamlined measures for the importation of biotech agricultural products through 20 December 
2002.  Canada, Argentina and Australia associated themselves with the concerns expressed by the 
United States. 
91. China explained that public anxiety country over the safety of GM agricultural products and 
foods had led the Chinese Government to issue regul atory rules in May 2001.  As China was not at 
that time a WTO Member, it had no obligation to make  a notification.  However, China intended to 
notify the three implementing measures issued in Ja nuary 2002t once the English versions had been 
finalised. China reported that bilateral consultations  had been held with the major parties concerned 
and that interim measures had been introduced to avoid disruption of normal trade. 
92. In June 2002, the United States reported that Chin a's Ministry of Health had issued a decree 
on biotech safety and labelling on 8 April 2002.  The decree would take effect on 8 July, but the Ministry of Health had not issued implementing re gulations.  Additionally, the decree had not been 
notified.  The United States believed that mand atory labelling for biotech products that were 
substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts had no scientif ic justification.  Under such 
circumstances, labelling wrongly implied a possible ri sk to the consumer.  US companies exported to 
China over US$ 1 billion/year of biotechnology prod ucts, including soybeans and corn, and processed 
products.  The United States requested an interim pe riod for implementation of the decree, to allow 
sufficient time for compliance by exporters.  Cana da and Argentina shared the concerns expressed by 
the United States.  China explained that the failu re to notify the measure in advance had been 
inadvertent, and invited Members to send comments to its Enquiry Point or directly to the Ministry of 
Health.  China also expressed an interest in hol ding bilateral consultations  with interested WTO 
Members. 
93. In November 2002, the United States and Argentina expressed concern regarding the 
implementation dates proposed for the April regulati ons and requested China to consider ways to 
reduce the possible trade effects.  Argentina also re ported that it had held bila teral consultations with 
China on this matter.  China clarified that notifi cation of the draft regulation had been submitted just 
prior to the last SPS Committee meeting.  China's Mini stry of Health had agreed to extend the interim 
period for one year. 
 
142. Zero tolerance for e-coli 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 87-88) 
Relevant document(s): G/TBT/N/CHN/6 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 25 
 
 
  94. The United States recognized the need for Chin a to reduce bacterial contamination on raw 
meats and poultry products to the lowest achieva ble level but had two concerns related to this 
notification.  The United States believed that the co mplete elimination of enteropathogenic bacteria in 
raw meats and poultry products was not achievabl e using existing technologies and practices and they 
were interested in more information related to the risk assessment that had b een used as the basis for 
this zero tolerance.  Experience in the United Stat es had shown that carcasses of normal healthy birds 
and animals could still contain a variety of bacteria , including those of concern to China, but proper 
preparation and handling could eliminate health c oncerns.  As the basis of China's notification 
appeared to be food safety and human health concer ns, the United States requested that China also 
notify this proposed regulation under the SPS Agre ement.  China agreed to consult with the 
standardizing agency and take the necessary steps. 
 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
128. Import requirements for cosmetics 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, pa ras. 13-14), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
paras. 50-51), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 39-40) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
95. The European Communities noted that China had imposed import restrictions on cosmetics 
beginning in March 2002.  The new regulations prohib ited cosmetics containing certain ingredients of 
animal origin from 18 countries having officially declar ed the existence of BSE.  Cosmetics from these 
18 countries required certification that they did not contain specified products of bovine or ovine 
origin.  According to China's notification, the jus tification of the measure was to prevent introducing 
BSE into China.  The European Communities considered that the me asures were in contradiction to 
the SPS Agreement.  China had notified its measure s as emergency measures, whereas BSE had been 
present in those countries for many years and th ere was no new scientific evidence indicating a 
particular risk from cosmetics.  In addition, th e measures had no scientific basis and went far beyond 
the OIE standard on BSE and were disproportionate co mpared to the risks.   The measures were also 
discriminatory, because they did not apply in the same manner to all countries where identical sanitary 
conditions prevailed.  The European Communities re quested that China make available the scientific 
justification and the risk assessment underlying the measure. 
96. China indicated that it only prohibited the im portation of cosmetics derived from bovine or 
ovine brains, placenta, nerves, etc. from BSE-infect ed countries and regions, in accordance with the 
OIE and WHO recommendations.  China had notified its measure and requested exporting countries to 
provide the names and signatures of the authorities responsible for issuing the certificates ensuring that the cosmetics met the Chinese requirements.  Seve ral EC member States had proceeded accordingly 
and China had recognized, or was in the process of re cognizing, the competent certifying authorities of 
those member States. 
97. In November 2002, the European Communities re ported good progress in resolving this issue.  
Extensive bilateral trade in cosmetics between Ch ina and the European Communities had taken place 
before China introduced the new provisions, and in pa rticular the protective measures related to BSE.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 26  
 
  EC experts on BSE-related risk assessment were to visit Beijing, and both countries were hopeful that 
the discussions would lead to a resolution of the problem. 
98. In June 2003, the European Communities repor ted that further progress was made as China 
had presented a list of prohibited products.  Chin a responded that it was willing to review its 
regulations and welcom ed continued dialogue. 
 
Plant Health 
143. Regulation on wood packaging material 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28,  paras. 38-39), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, 
paras. 39-40) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHN/14 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
99. The European Communities stated that a num ber of aspects of the Chinese regulation on 
wood packaging material, notified as G/SPS/N/CHN/14, caused serious problems.  There were important discrepancies between the Chinese legislation and relevant guidelines from the IPPC, in particular ISPM 15.  The European Communities ha d gone to considerable  lengths to address the 
concerns of the Chinese authorities, and a lot of pr ogress had been made in particular following a visit 
from a number of experts to China.  The Europ ean Communities encouraged China to come into 
conformity with the IPPC standard as expeditiously  as possible, and to work towards resolving the 
issue. 
100. China reported that during 2001 and 2002, large num bers of pests were regularly detected by 
the inspection and quarantine authorities of China in wood packaging material from the European 
Communities.  China had notified this situation to  the European Communities repeatedly, and finally 
decided to take emergency measures on 19 Apri l 2002 in order to prevent the introduction of 
dangerous wood pests, and to ensure the protection of  the environment, forestry and tourism resources 
in the country.  The notification and the risk anal ysis report were sent to the European Communities 
for comments, to which China rep lied in detail on 17 June 2002.  Following that date no further 
comments had been received from the European Co mmunities; the measure had been imposed on 28 
June 2002, and notified to the WTO.  The measur e was based on scientific principles and on a risk 
analysis in line with the relevant provisions of the SPS Agreement. 
101. In June 2003, the European Communities reported that they had now adopted the IPPC 
standard and China had promised to do the same.  China reaffirmed that it was committed to following 
the IPPC standard. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 27 
 
 
  Other concerns 
184. Lack of transparency for certain SPS measures 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 32-33) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CHN/22 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
102. The United States expressed concerns over Chin a's failure to notify nearly 60 regulations 
covering food, forestry and fishery products issued  since 2002.  Burdensome certification requirements 
for fresh, chilled and frozen aquatic products were imposed by AQSIQ Decree 31, which entered into 
force on 1 July 2003, but were not notified to the WT O.  Despite holding bilateral consultations with 
China, no progress had been made on this issue.  The United States urged China to comply with its 
SPS obligations and to notify new regulations so that Members had an opportunity to comment on 
them. 
103. China stressed that it had notified 213 SPS m easures since its accession and was committed in 
fulfilling its transparency obligations.  The co mment period was calculated from the day the 
Secretariat circulated the notification.  There was no obligation to notify AQSIQ Decree 31 as it was 
an operational rule of a corresponding regulation th at had already been notified to the WTO, and 
imposed no new technical requirements.  However, in  the interest of enhanced transparency, Decree 31 
had been notified in August 2003 (G/SPS/N/CHN/22). 
 
COSTA RICA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY COSTA RICA Plant Health 
230. Phytosanitary requirements on fresh oranges  
Raised by: Nicaragua 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2005/Februar y 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 90-92) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/CRI/43 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
104. In October 2005, Nicaragua reported that in  mid-2005 competent authorities from Nicaragua 
and Costa Rica had put in place a bi-national tec hnical team responsible for the prevention and 
eradication of Citrus leprosis, as well as the main tenance of citrus leprosis-free areas.  The team had 
confirmed the presence of the Citrus leprosis in th e south of Costa Rica and in the north of Nicaragua, 
as well as the Citrus leprosis-free status of south Nicaragua, the region containing commercial citrus 
fruits groves for export.  The risk analysis by Cost a Rica indicated mature fruits were not the pathway G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 28  
 
  for the spread of the disease, hence imported fruits, which were mature, did not present any 
phytosanitary risk.  The adoption by Costa Rica of an emergency prohibition on imports from Nicaragua was not justified and more trade restri ctive than necessary to maintain Costa Rica's 
appropriate phytosanitary level of protection. 
105. Costa Rica indicated that Nicaragua complied with the requirements as its fresh oranges 
originated from a pest-free area and Costa Rica ha d not prohibited oranges entering from Nicaragua. 
 
CROATIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CROATIA Animal Health and Zoonoses 
158. Restrictions on pork imports 
Raised by: Slovenia 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 203-204) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
106. Slovenia reported that decrees issued in Ma rch by the Croatian Ministry of Agriculture 
shortened the validity dates on veterinary import pe rmits from six to three months.  The reason given 
for this was market disturbances due to oversupply of  meat in the Croatian market.  The measure was 
not notified to the WTO and was in breach of th e WTO Agreements on SPS, Agriculture and Import 
Licensing Procedures. 
107. Croatia stated that it had not adopted or implem ented any measures to restrict imports of pork 
meat and products.  As of January , Croatia was developing a computerized integrated system for 
veterinary control of border crossings.  This requi red adjustments to the procedures for application and 
issuance of veterinary approvals.  An important el ement of the new simplified system was that the 
period for issuance of approvals had been shortene d from 30 or 60 days to only 15 days.  Bilateral 
discussions between competent authorities would clarify the situation. 
 
166. Import measures on live animals and meat products 
Raised by: Hungary 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, pa ras. 28-31), October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, 
paras. 132-134) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/416, WT/DS297 
Solution: Consultations requested under dispute settlement procedure in July 2003 
Status: Not reported 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 29 
 
 
  108. Hungary expressed concern with measures taken by Croatia to ban imports of live animals 
and meat products.  The ban, supposedly to provide  protection against BSE, entered into force with 
immediate effect and was never notified.  The ban applied to all meat products, including fish and 
poultry, as well as live animals.  These could only be imported if the exporti ng country certified that 
no animal protein had been used as feed.  As ther e was no scientific justification for the measures and 
since it did not apply to domestic producers, Hunga ry considered the ban a disguised restriction on 
international trade.  The European Communiti es expressed support for Hungary's concerns.  The 
European Communities had requested information from Croatia but did not receive any reply. 
109. Croatia maintained that the measure was imposed  to keep its present status as a BSE-free area 
in order to protect its exports of meat products .  The measures taken were in accordance with 
established international rules and with the measure s taken by the European Communities.  Countries 
which had provided the necessary information had b een exempted from the ban, e.g., Bulgaria and 
Romania.  Croatia requested Hungary to submit the necessary information. 
110. In October 2003, Croatia reported that meeti ngs between veterinarians from Hungary and 
Croatia were held to resolve the issue.  The Eur opean Communities noted that the statement made by 
Croatia at the June meeting and circulated in  document G/SPS/GEN/416, that its measures were 
consistent with EC legislation was inaccurat e.  EC legislation did not prohibit imports. 
 
CUBA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CUBA Plant Health 
105. Restrictions on apples and pears 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2001  (G/SPS/R/25, para. 101) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
111. Argentina expressed concerns that Cuba did not accept cold treatment as a quarantine 
treatment for apples and pears.  Bilateral consultati ons had been held, and Argentina expected further 
information from Cuba on this issue. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 30  
 
  CZECH REPUBLIC 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MA INTAINED BY CZECH REPUBLIC 
Food safety 9. Zero-tolerance for salmone lla in imported poultry products – Maintained by Chile, 
Czech Republic, El Salvador, Honduras and Slovak Republic [See Item 9, page 22] 
 
DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY DOMINICAN REPUBLIC Plant Health 239. Tolerance levels for so il content on potato tubers 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, pa ras. 17-18), October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, 
paras. 33-34) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
112. In June 2006, Canada stated that it had been  negatively affected by the unacceptably low 
tolerance levels set by the Dominican Republic for soil content on potato tubers  which were ten times 
lower than those indicated in the international sta ndard.  This measure seemed to target Canada as 
other exporters were not subject to the same requi rement, which was impossible to meet and was not 
based on a risk assessment.  Despite numerous efforts at the bilateral level and an invitation extended 
to the Dominican Republic to visit the potato produc tion sites, the issue remained unresolved.  Canada 
urged the Dominican Republic to am end its tolerance level to bring it in line with international 
practice. 
113. The Dominican Republic explained that the meas ure was not discriminatory as it applied to 
all countries exporting to the Dominican Republic, where there was a risk of introduction of nematodes.  An official communication had been sen t to Canada in this regard and they hoped to 
resolve the issue promptly. 
114. In October 2006, Canada reporte d that it had held bilateral me etings to discuss Canada's  
concerns with the Dominican Republic requirement s for Canadian potato.  In September 2006, the 
Dominican Republic sent representatives to Canada to get first hand information on Canadian potato 
production, distribution and transportation systems and to take samples for testing. At the conclusion 
of the visit, Canada thought they had reached an ag reement on the conditions for Canadian potato to be 
exporter to the Dominican Republic.  Canada reite rated  that there had been no agreement on 
acceptable soil tolerance level as a result of miscommuni cation of the results of the September meeting 
and indicated their interest to continue the techni cal discussion on the issue while hoping that the issue 
could be resolved on the basis of acceptable international practices for soil tolerance.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 31 
 
 
  115. The Dominican Republic observed that following  the recommendations of a multidisciplinary 
team of experts working on potato certification a nd working on phytosanitary measures, they had 
agreed on a soil tolerance level of 1g of soil per kg of potato for consumption and 5g of soil per kg of 
seed potato.  Canadian and Dominican Republic experts were right and agreed that over the next 2 years the situation was to be carefully monitor a nd possibly could agreed to increase to the soil 
tolerance level to 85g of soil per kg of potato.  Howe ver, the Dominican Republic agreed with Canada 
that there had been miscommunication and expressed th eir desire to continue monitoring the situation 
while hoping that an understanding could be reached at a bilateral level. 
 
EGYPT 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EGYPT 
Food safety 77. Restrictions on canned tuna 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2000 (G /SPS/R/19, paras. 103-104) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/203, WT/DS205 
Solution: Formal consultations requested by Thailand September 2000 
Status: Not reported 
 
116. Thailand, acknowledging Egypt's decision to r estrict food imports containing genetically 
modified organisms (GMOs), insisted that Thai canned tuna did not contain soybean oil produced from 
genetically modified plants.  Thailand noted that it  was not possible to identif y the origin of soybean 
oil since the final processing stages destroyed genetic ma terial.  Thailand considered the restrictions on 
Thai canned tuna to be discriminatory, and asked th e Egyptian Government to lift the restrictions as 
soon as possible.  Egypt took note of Thailand's conc erns and agreed to report back to the Committee 
in due course. 
 
EL SALVADOR 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EL SALVADOR Food safety 9. Zero-tolerance for salmone lla in imported poultry products – Maintained by Chile, 
Czech Republic, El Salvador, Honduras and Slovak Republic [See Item 9, page 22] 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 32  
 
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES Food safety 40. Trade restrictions in response to cholera 
Raised by: Tanzania 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras. 56-57), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, 
paras. 96-99) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/54 
Solution: Partially resolved: Measures revised 
Status: Partially resolved 
 
117. In March 1998, the European Communities in formed the Committee that it had taken 
safeguard measures with respect to imports of fruit, vegetables and fish products in light of a cholera 
outbreak in Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda and Mozambique .  The inspection procedures in these countries 
had shown deficiencies, but the European Commun ities planned to consult with them to find 
arrangements by which they could put in force pr oper hygiene requirements.  EC member States were 
trying to develop a joint cholera policy based on ri sk assessment.  The WHO observer did not consider 
the import ban necessary, especially on fish products wh ich were not consumed in raw form in Europe.  
He drew attention to the WHO Guidance on Founda tion of National Policy and Control of Cholera, 
and particularly the conclusion in Chapter IX that:  "Although there is a theoretical risk of Cholera 
transmission associated with some food commodities m oving in international trade, this has rarely 
proved significant and authorities should seek means of dealing with it other than by applying an 
embargo on importation". 
118. In June 1998, Tanzania reported that the Eu ropean Communities continued to prohibit the 
importation of fresh, frozen and processed fishery products from the four African countries, although 
tests had not found the bacteria concerned.  Tan zania stressed that the EC ban was having severe 
economic effects on the Tanzanian economy, and that according to the SPS Agreement, Members should help developing countries comply with their SPS measures.  The European Communities responded that it was now satisfied the necessary gua rantees were in place, and that a new measure 
restoring trade with the four African countries would probably enter into force on 1 July 1998. 
 47. Measure on establishments operating in the animal feed sector  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Argentina 
Dates raised: June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, pa ras. 50-56), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, 
paras. 35-36), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/58, G/SPS/GEN/88, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 33 
 
 
  119. In June 1998, the United States raised its concer ns with regard to an  EC measure which set 
conditions and arrangements for a pproving and registering establishmen ts and intermediaries operating 
in the animal feed sector.  The United States sought clarification regarding criteria used, justification 
and coverage of the measure and the procedur es  involved, and asked for an update on its 
implementation status. 
120. The European Communities replied that it was putting in place the legislative framework for 
the establishment of a single market in regard to  animal, plant and consumer health.  It was 
establishing harmonized standards so that products c ould circulate freely within the Community.  The 
European Communities provided an explanation of the criteria used and risks addressed by the 
framework, and clarified that it applied only to feedi ngstuffs for farm animals, not to pet food.  The 
European Communities clarified that by the end of 1998, EC member States must provide the 
Commission with a list of establishments considered  eligible, which could be modified later on.  
Establishments would be inspected by the EC Co mmission.  The European Communities considered 
its registration requirements to be flexible and not very onerous.  Argentina requested a written copy of 
the EC statement. 
121. In September 1998, the United States reported it was encouraged by the EC willingness to 
consult on this draft directive with a view to safe guarding public and animal health while minimizing 
trade disruptions.  The European Communities noted that the new regime was similar to the previous 
one, but was more flexible in that on-the-spot inspection in third countries was optional.  The 
European Communities assured the United States th at prompt answers would be provided to all 
questions raised. 
122. In July 2001, the United States reported that it did not require or support registration of 
animal feed establishments and considered the issue to still be unresolved (G/SPS/GEN/265). 
 
52. Measures on food treated with ionizing radiation 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, pa ras. 37-38 ), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, 
para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/61, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
123. In September 1998, the United States sought cl arification on the EC measure on food and 
food ingredients treated with ionizing radiation.  The United States was taking similar steps towards recognizing that this technology could play a role  in ensuring the wholesome ness and safety of food, 
and had sent official comments to the European  Communities.  However, the United States 
emphasized that the list of products provided in an annex to the EC directive should be expanded to 
cover other food products such as pork, beef, poultry,  fruits and vegetables.  The United States also 
requested explanation of how th e approval process for treatment facilities worked.  The European 
Communities indicated that the US suggestions w ould be forwarded to the competent EC services. 
124. In a document introduced in July 2001, the United States reported that two EC directives on 
food irradiation had been adopted in 1999 (G/SPS/ GEN/265).  So far, only dried aromatic herbs, 
spices and vegetable seasonings had been included in the positive list.  One of the directives required G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 34  
 
  that the Commission draft a proposal by 31 December 2000.  The Commission had published a 
consultation paper, describing a possible strategy for expanding the positive list.  After considering 
comments, the Commission would submit the paper to the Council and the European Parliament.  The United Stated had sent comments on the consultation pa per in January 2001, requesting that all foods 
which received a favourable opinion from the Scie ntific Committee for Food be included in the 
positive list.  The United States had also requested  information on how additional foods could be 
added to the positive list. 
 
72. Measures regarding canned tuna in oil – Maintained by Belgium 
Raised by: Philippines 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, paras. 87-88), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, 
para. 44) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
125. The Philippines expressed concern regarding a Belgian decision to withdraw from sale 
Philippine canned tuna in oil based  on allegations of contamination with biphenol-A-diglycydyl and 
biphenol-F-diglycydyl.  The European Communities responded that some products had to be  withdrawn  from sale and offered to pursue the matte r on a bilateral basis with the Philippines.  In 
bilateral discussions, Belgium transmitted, for consid eration by the Philippines, information that in 
Belgium's view provided a basis for its action to  withdraw the subject products from sale.  The 
Philippines reiterated its objection to this action, wh ich it considered was take n without sufficient legal 
basis. 
 89. Import restrictions on soy sauce 
Raised by: Thailand 
Supported by: Korea, Republic of 
Dates raised: March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras.  36-39), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 11-
14), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, pa ra. 106), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, 
paras. 134-136), June 2002  (G/SPS/R/27, para. 132) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/100 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
126. In March 2001, Thailand, on behalf of ASEAN, raised concerns with an EC regulation which 
set new maximum levels for lead, cadmium, merc ury and 3-MPCD in foodstuffs.  ASEAN believed 
that the EC maximum level of 3-MCPD in soy sauce  was too low to be practicable, and constituted an 
unnecessary barrier to trade.  ASEAN asked the European Communities to provide technical information in order to reach a mutually satisfactor y solution.  Korea asked to be informed about the 
outcome of bilateral consultations between the Eu ropean Communities and Thailand.  The European 
Communities stated that several of its member Stat es had detected high levels of 3-MCPD in samples  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 35 
 
 
  of soy sauce.  Recent toxicological studies had in dicated that the substance acted as a non-genotoxic 
carcinogen in vivo.  The European Communities be lieved that maximum levels should be set to 
encourage good manufacturing practices and to prot ect the health of consumers.  A proposed 
Commission Regulation set such limits, and was cu rrently under examination.  Thailand had been 
informed of the 3-MCPD levels reported in so y sauce from one manufacturer, but had not responded. 
127. In July 2001, the European  Communities informed the Co mmittee that the Scientific 
Committee of Food had recently revised its opinion on 3-MCPD in light of new toxicological information, concluding that 3-MC PD was not genotoxic in humans.  A tolerable daily intake had been 
set at 2 μg per kg of body weight.  A maximum level fo r 3-MCPD, to take effect in April 2002, had 
been set at 0.02 mg/kg for both hydrolized vegetable protein and soy sauce.  However, in light of the 
new scientific opinion, the European Communities w ould consider whether the current maximum level 
remained appropriate.  The United States indicat ed that the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on 
Food Additives (JECFA) had re-evaluated the safety of  chlorinated propanols, and concluded that a 
person should not consume more than 120 mg/day of these contaminants.  The Codex representative 
added that the need to establish maximum levels for these contaminants would be considered by 
JECFA in March 2002. 
128. In October 2001, Thailand indicated that it had taken measures to establish maximum 3-
MCPD limits and to modify production processes to  lower rates of contamination; its industry 
expected to be able to meet a 1 mg/kg limit w ithin one year.  JECFA had set a provisional maximum 
daily threshold level at 2 micrograms/kg of body wei ght per day.  Based on th is limit for a person of 
50 kg bodyweight, a safe daily consumption of up to  10 g should be allowabl e.  However, Thailand 
noted that the limits applied by Members differed widely. 
129. In March 2002, the European Communities repor ted that the Scientific Committee had re-
evaluated the potential toxicity of 3-MCPD, and ha d concluded that the risks were not as high as 
initially believed.  A full evaluation of the toxici ty of 3-MCPD was underway, pending receipt of 
additional information; in particular  regarding exposure levels.  The r esults of this study were expected 
for July 2002, at which time the EC requirement woul d be re-examined in light of the results of this 
study as well as of the JECFA review. 
130. The representative of Codex noted that the Codex Committee on Food Additives had the 
previous week discussed the subject of chloropropa nols, substances which could occur in hydrolized 
vegetable proteins and soy sauces.  JECFA had determined that the le vel of chloropropanols could be 
controlled if the levels of 3-MCPD were limited, a nd had developed recommended  daily intake levels.  
On this basis, the Food Additives committee was proceeding to devel op maximum residue levels for 3-
MCPD for commodities of major trade interest. 
131. In June 2002, the European Communities confir med that 3-MCPD had been re-evaluated and 
found to be carcinogenic but not genotoxic, so th e ALARA ("as low as reasonably achieveable") 
principle would no longer be applied.  Howe ver, the European Communities was seeking the 
necessary information on exposure of consumers to 3-MCPD and other chloropropanols so that the 
Scientific Committee could undertake a risk assessment. 
 
94. Directive 2000/42 on pesticide residues 
Raised by: Côte d'Ivoire 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 136-137) G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 36  
 
  Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
132. Côte d'Ivoire expressed concern regarding ne w EC maximum residue levels (MRLs) for 
pesticides in fruits and vegetables, which would affect Côte d'Ivoire's  exports of pineapples, mangoes, 
papayas, cashew nuts, passion fruits and green beans.   Small farmers in Côte d'Ivoire would be 
affected.  The MRLs did not seem to be consistent, or to be based on a pertinent risk assessment, for example in the case of Ethephon.  Technical ques tions posed in April 2001 through different channels 
had remained without answer.  Although technical assistance for pineapple production was planned, it 
had not been carried out before the entry into forc e of the EC directive.  Côte d'Ivoire requested 
waivers from the EC directive.  Once the planned technical assistance had been carried out, adequate 
MRLs could be set with the colla boration of Codex.  The European Communities recalled that one 
year ago the Committee had been info rmed of an EC decision to delay for one year the application of a 
series of MRLs for ACP countries.  The year had now passed, and the directive was being implemented.  Special and differential treatment had not solved the problem.  For discontinued 
substances, the MRLs were set at detection levels ; this was international practice.  The European 
Communities would consider Côte d'Ivoire's request. 
 
95. Legislation on the fungicide thiabendazole (TBZ) 
Raised by: Israel 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 128-129) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
133. Israel was concerned that legislation being cons idered by the European Parliament would ban 
fungicide residues in fruit juices, although they were considered safe according to Codex standards.  
Israel saw no scientific justification for banning th e use of these fungicides, and believed this would 
create unnecessary trade barriers.  Israel had rai sed both with the European Communities and with 
Germany a problem regarding German law which rest ricted residues of TBZ and Imazalil in citrus 
juices to such low levels that in effect this constitu ted a ban.  Israel requested a clarification regarding 
the EC position on the European Parliament initiative.   The European Communities explained that the 
European Parliament could introduce amendments to  Commission proposals, and that Israel would be 
kept informed of the situation. 
 106. Regulations on genetically modified food and feed 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Argentina, Australia, Canada, Taipei, Chinese, Israel, Jordan, Singapore, 
Egypt  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 37 
 
 
  Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 40-44 ), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, 
paras. 45-56), April 2003 (G/SPS/ R/29, paras. 84-87), June 2003 
(G/SPS/R/30, para. 168) 
Relevant document(s): G/TBT/N/EEC/6 a nd 7, G/SPS/N/EEC/149, G/SPS/N/EEC/150, 
G/SPS/GEN/397, G/SPS/GEN/398, G/SPS/GEN/399, WT/DS291, WT/DS292, WT/DS293 
Solution: Panel reports adopted November 2006 
Status: Partially resolved 
 
134. The United States expressed concerns that th e EC proposals on traceability and labelling of 
agricultural biotechnology products had been notif ied only under the TBT Agreement and not the SPS 
Agreement, although the proposals made it clear that  they were intended to address unforeseen adverse 
effects to human and animal health .  Canada and the United States sought clarification as to whether 
the draft regulations covered food safety or human h ealth.  Argentina noted that genetically modified 
food did not affect health, and that the compulsory  labelling required by the proposed EC regulation 
was not consistent with the TBT Ag reement.  Argentina sought clarif ication as to whether the labelling 
requirements extended to pharmaceutical products for human or animal use. 
135. The European Communities observed that request s to prolong the consultation period had 
been accepted and this period would run until the end of the year.  The main objective of the proposed 
regulations was to ensure that consumers were duly informed of the products they bought.  Two other 
key issues were traceability and labelling. The labellin g of pharmaceuticals containing GM ingredients 
was covered by different legislation.  The Eu ropean Communities stated that discussions should 
continue in the TBT Committee. 
136. In March 2002, the United States noted that the EC measure notified as G/SPS/N/EEC/149, 
would require a lengthy food safety review for all bi otech foods, and for the fi rst time, biotech feeds, 
which would also need to be labelled.  Products al ready authorized for food or feed use within the 
European Union would have to be re-authorized w ithin nine years of their first placement on the 
market.  The stated objective of this regulation w as to protect health, environment and consumers and 
to prevent deceptive practices.  However, the propo sed regulation failed to distinguish the protection 
of health and the environment from perceived consum er desires.  The regulation would be more trade 
restrictive than necessary and could create substa ntial difficulties for countries which imported US 
agricultural products for processing and further expor t, without addressing the identified concerns and 
potential hazards.  The United States suggested that without affordable testing and enforcement, the 
proposed regulation left room for fraud, and the European Commission should examine the feasibility 
of implementing the regulation, and analyze its potential regulatory impact. 
137. The United States further noted that the new EU Food Authority (EFA) would undertake the 
risk assessments for biotech food and feed, and provide  technical and scientific information.  But the 
European Commission could propose an outcome incons istent with the risk assessment or other safety 
and technical information considered by EFA.  This le ft room for political interference of the type that 
had led to the existing moratorium on the approva l of biotech products.  Furthermore, the EC 
legislation set a "no risk" level which could effec tively block the regulatory process since no product 
could ever be guaranteed to have "no risk". 
138. Canada believed that these proposed regulations fe ll within the scope of the SPS Agreement, 
and the primary concern of Canada was that certain  elements of these proposals lacked the needed 
scientific basis.  Argentina supported the US and Ca nadian statements.  Israel expressed concern with 
the trend of Members' requiring traceability and mandatory labelling for biotech food and feed products, a requirement not based on scientific info rmation, and hoped that Members could find less G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 38  
 
  trade restrictive measures to address their concerns.  Jordan supported the consideration of the safety 
of GM products on the basis of risk assessment as  provided in the SPS Agreement.  Requirements 
imposed on processed products would result in unjustif ied costs that affected the competitiveness of 
products, and resulted in greater restrictions on deve loping countries.   Egypt supported the statements 
of the United States and Jordan.  Singapore requested  the European Communities to take account of all 
the concerns raised to ensure that the implemen tation of the regulations did not impose a disguised 
restriction on trade, particularly for countries which processed and re-exported goods imported from 
the United States. 
139. Chinese Taipei stated that safety assessment of a ll GM products should be based on scientific 
evidence to ensure that the products were as safe as their conventional counterparts.  Members should 
work together in particular to strengthen risk communication.  Chinese Taipei considered that an 
appropriate labelling scheme was necessary to respect  consumers' right to know and to choose, and 
had introduced voluntary labelling in  January 2001.  Mandatory labe lling would be applied in three 
phases starting in January 2003. 
140. The European Communities recalled that these re gulations had also been notified under the 
TBT Agreement, and that the TBT Committee had held  detailed discussions at the technical level the 
previous week.  The European Communities believed th at a large part of these proposals fell within the 
scope of Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, but had notified these measures also under the SPS 
Agreement because many Members had expressed interest in the SPS Committee.  The time-period to allow Members to submit comments also in response to the SPS notifications had been extended.  The 
comments received had been very similar to those received in response to the TBT notification, and 
the European Communities subsequently circulated  its response to comments received about both 
notifications. 
141. The European Communities further reported that the draft regulation had been adopted by the 
EC College of Commissioners and sent to the EU  Parliament and the EC Council for their final 
decisions.  The comments received by the EC Commi ssion, as well as the responses to these, would be 
provided to the EC member States, the EC Council  and Parliament.  It was unclear how long the 
process would take and when any decisions might be made.  The European Communities noted that 
the EFA would be a scientific body with responsibility  to do independent risk assessment;  its advice 
would be sent to the EC Commission and Council for th e appropriate risk management decisions. This 
procedure was consistent with the Codex guidelines, since it wa s not appropriate for the risk 
assessment body to also make the risk management decisions. 
142. In April 2003, the United States recalled its previous criticisms that the EC biotechnology 
policies breached both EC laws and WTO rules.  By blocking imports on an unscientific basis, the 
European Communities was interfering with the use of safe food products that could stem global 
hunger, improve nutrition and benefit the environment.  Canada and Argentina echoed the concerns of 
the United States.  Australia stated it shared many  of the concerns raised by the United States and 
Canada with regard to the lack of science based decision-making. 
143. The European Communities reported that on 17 March 2003, the Council of Ministers 
adopted a common position on biotechnology approval,  labelling and traceability and the legislative 
proposals had now returned to the European Par liament for a second reading under the co-decision 
procedures.  The second reading should be conclude d at the beginning of July 2003, which implied 
that the proposals should be adopted before th e end of 2003.  Once approved, the labelling and 
traceability proposals should make it possible for the moratorium on biotechnology approvals to be 
lifted since EC member States had imposed the mora torium in the absence of a clear regulation on 
traceability and labelling.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 39 
 
 
  144. The European Communities also indicated th at the biotechnology approval procedure 
envisaged in Directive 2001/18 was now operational and the EU Scientific Committee had given its 
opinion as to the procedure necessary to conduct a ri sk assessment.  The opinion was available on the 
internet.  Nineteen new or revised submissions had been received since the start of 2003 and the 
assessments had begun in accordance with the provisions  of the Directive.  The European Commission 
was awaiting comments from the Scientific Committee on the risk assessments.  The outcome of the 
risk assessments would depend on the quality and conf ormity of the scientific data being submitted to 
determine the effects of GMOs on hum an health and the environment. 
145. In June 2003, the United States, Canada and Ar gentina reported they had held consultations 
with the European Communities under the dispute settlement procedures on 19 June 2003, and were 
now considering further actions. 
 
117. Traceability and labelling of genetically modified organisms and food and feed 
Raised by: Argentina, Canada, United States 
Supported by: Australia 
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, pa ras. 57-62), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
paras.95-96), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 88-90), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 43-47) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/150, G/SPS/N/EEC/149, G/SPS/GEN/354, G/SPS/GEN/337 
and 338 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
146. The United States specified that the EC traceability  requirement was to apply to all biotech 
food and feed products at all stages of placing the product on the market.  The stated objective was to facilitate control of labelling claims, environmen tal monitoring and control of the product.  Food 
processors would be obliged to maintain specific information at each stage of placing the product on 
the market, including details as to whether th e product contained or was produced from biotech 
products.  As a general rule, if a product containe d ingredients consisting of biotech products or 
produced from biotech events, these must be identif ied.  This included products made from but not 
containing biotech products, such as soybean oil.  The United States believed that this proposal would be expensive to implement, but would not be enfo rceable nor would it achieve its stated objectives. 
147. The United States was further concerned that the me asure was not targeted at health risks, and 
applied to products already approved for use within  the European Communiti es.  Traceback systems 
for food safety had been effectively used to reca ll food in the United States in response to health 
problems, based on batch and lot numbers on packag es.  However, the proposed traceability system 
would be applied across-the-board to products w hose safety had already b een assessed.  Before 
adopting the measure the United States urged th e European Commission to  assess the feasibility of 
applying the measure reliably a nd accurately; consider less trade r estrictive means to achieve the 
objectives and evaluate the regulatory impact of the proposal. 
148. Australia indicated that it had submitted detailed written comments that questioned the 
scientific basis for the EC measures, the international standards to be used, and the nature of the risk 
assessment underpinning the EC measures.  Australi a also questioned whether a less trade-restrictive 
measure could be used, and why the traceability system  for GM foods differed substantially from that 
for other foods.  Argentina shared the concer ns raised by the United States and Australia. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 40  
 
  149. Norway indicated doubts as to whether the SPS Agreement was relevant to the issue of 
GMOs and added that Norway strongly believed th at labelling and traceability were not contrary to 
WTO obligations.  The EC regulations took account of the Codex, the Cartagena Protocol and the 
OECD guidelines.  According to the Codex guide lines, food labelling should be used to avoid 
misleading or confusing the consumer with regard to the true nature of a food.  Consumers' distrust in 
food products would be greater if  labelling and traceability were not required.  Norway believed that 
the EC measure addressed a legitimate objective that  was not excessive in relation to its purpose. 
Cyprus stated his country's support of the EC  position regarding information to consumers. 
150. The European Communities stated that all co mments would be considered and communicated 
to the appropriate bodies.  Current labelling re quirements in the European Communities required 
information on ingredients included in  food products;  all that was a dded in terms of labelling was to 
ensure the inclusion of GM products within the ge neral requirements.  There were four objectives of 
traceability:  (1)  to recall products in case of an unf oreseen problem;  (2) to monitor potential risks for 
the environment;  (3)  to control the accuracy of info rmation provided on the label;  and (4)  to inform 
consumers about what they ate and to avoid decep tive practices.  The EC Commission considered that 
these four objectives were primarily related to the TBT Agreement, and had notified this proposal to 
the SPS Agreement only for transparency. 
151. Canada observed that one of the stated objectiv es of the proposed regulation was to provide a 
high level of protection of human he alth.  Canada accepted that cons umers had the right to know many 
things, but found troublesome that these regulations  focussed on products made from GM products but 
not on products made with GM processing aids, even wh en there might be traces of the processing aids 
left in the product.  Several industries in Europe  used GM processing aids.  The selective focus was 
also troubling in that consumers did not need to be informed if products were derived from 
mutagenesis, another form of gene tic alteration.   The focus of the EC regulations was overly specific 
and selective.  Furthermore, the mandatory na ture of the traceability system created problems 
especially for enforcement.  Canada noted that no international standard existed in this area; the 
Biosafety Protocol was not yet in effect and neither it nor the OECD guidelines were referred to in the 
SPS Agreement.  Canada looked forward to a sci entific assessment of the needs, challenges and 
benefits of the proposed mandatory traceability system .  In November 2002,  Argentina drew attention 
to the 21 questions for which his country w as seeking a written response from the European 
Communities (G/SPS/GEN/354).  Argentina enquired as to  whether the latest version notified by the 
European Communities included the amendments made  by the European Parliament.  The European 
Communities noted that they had received the ques tions from Argentina at a late date, and would 
provide answers to the questions in writing.  Th e European Communities usually notified a draft text 
to the WTO to allow Members enough time to comment while the proposed regulation was being 
circulated in the Parliament and Council.  Discu ssions were still underway in these two bodies and as 
soon as a final regulation was adopted it would be notified to the SPS Co mmittee for information. 
152. In April 2003, Argentina enquired whether th e European Communities were in a position to 
answer specific questions it had raised in the last Committee meeting on the proposed traceability and 
labelling legislation.  The European Communities re sponded that the additiona l questions submitted by 
Argentina were being studied and that a reply, based on the new version of the two legislative 
proposals, was being finalized.  The European Co mmunities also stated that detailed answers had 
already been given to many questions raised by  Argentina in documents G/SPS/GEN/337 and 338. 
153. In March 2004, the United States noted that the EC rules on traceability and labelling of 
genetically modified organisms and on food and feed would come into effect in April 2004 but many 
questions and uncertainties remained.  The Euro pean Communities were requested to delay the 
implementation and enforcement of the regulati ons until the implementing guidance on sampling and 
testing was also issued.  Canada questioned the scien tific justification of the regulations and expressed 
concern that burdensome documentation and other requirements were placed on products based upon  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 41 
 
 
  their production method.  The traceability and la belling requirements were ambiguous given the 
absence of segregation systems and of internati onally accepted testing methodologies to validate the 
presence of genetically modified foods.  Australia requested that the Europ ean Communities consider 
less trade-restrictive alternatives. 
154. The European Communities explained that EC regulation 1830/2003 had been adopted on 22 
September 2003.  The measure was considered mo re of a TBT issue but was notified to the SPS 
Committee at the request of several  Members.   The regulation supported EC consumer freedom to 
choose or avoid products derived from biotechnol ogy and provided a harmonized framework that 
encouraged efficient functioning of internal mark ets.  The regulation also allowed for the rapid 
withdrawal of products of risk to the health of consumers, animals, and the environment from the EC 
market. 
 
130. Restrictions on shellfish 
Raised by: Indonesia 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, pa ras. 127-128), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
paras. 183-184) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
155. In June 2002, Indonesia raised concerns rega rding an EC prohibition on shellfish from 
Indonesia due to biotoxic residues that had been app lied for two years.  The three gulfs in Indonesia 
which were not free of biotoxins were closed to shellfish fishing.  Indonesia had responded to a 
questionnaire from the European Communities and w as waiting for the Europ ean Communities to send 
an inspection team. 
156. The European Communities indicated that given th e high risks associated with shellfish, it 
accepted products only from countries with an appr oved sanitary programme which included control 
procedures for the maritime production area.  The information provided by Indonesia had given the 
impression that controls were not mandatory, a nd in March 2001 the European Communities had sent 
a further questionnaire.  The European Communiti es indicated that as soon as the reply to the 
questionnaire was received, an EC evaluation team would visit Indonesia. 
157. In November 2002, Indonesia reported that an EC inspection team had visited Indonesia in 
October 2002.  Indonesia was of the view that the resolution of the problem would have a very positive 
effect on the fish industry in Indonesia, especially at the production level.  The European Communities 
commended Indonesia for all the efforts that the country  had made to meet the safety requirements set 
out in EC legislation, and hoped that further progress would permit resolution of the problem. 
 
131. Pesticide and antibiotic limits in honey (Directive 96/23) 
Raised by: Cuba 
Supported by:  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 42  
 
  Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27/Corr.1,  paras. 130), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
para. 178) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
158. Cuba indicated that it had sought bilateral c onsultations with the European Communities on 
pesticide residues in honey.  Th e European Communities confirmed that it was examining a plan 
submitted by Cuba for residue analysis, and would continue to pursue this bilaterally. 
159. In November 2002, Cuba reported that progress ha d been made in bilate ral consultations with 
the European Communities on regulation EC 96/93  setting out residue limits for imported honey. 
 144. Restrictions on the importation of fruits and fruit juices 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by: Argentina, Bolivia, China, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Uruguay 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 28-31), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, 
para. 211), June 2003 (G/ SPS/R/30, paras. 164-165) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/355, G/SPS/N/EEC/160 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
160. Brazil raised concerns regarding the Eur opean Communities Directive 2002/71/CE, published 
on 19 August 2002, which established new maximum levels  for dimethoate residues in and on cereals, 
foodstuffs of animal origin and cer tain products of plant origin, in cluding fruit and vegetables.  Brazil 
noted that the EC directive would have the effect  of banning Brazilian orange juice from the European 
market and requested the European Communities to  review the directive, taking into account all 
scientific information available.  Bilateral discussi ons held on the previous day had been fruitful and 
Brazil requested a copy of the EC's scientific studies as soon as possible.  Brazil noted that the issue of 
MRLs for dimethoate would be reconsidered by Co dex at its meeting in June 2003, and requested the 
European Communities to suspend the implementation of  this directive pending to a full assessment of 
the situation.  Brazil also requested the European Communities not to apply the same approach in the 
re-evaluation of 320 active substa nces that was now underway.  Argentina, Bolivia, Cuba, the 
Dominican Republic, Jamaica, and Urug uay supported the arguments made  by Brazil, in particular, the 
need for scientific justification for maximum residue  levels (MRLs), and expressed concern regarding 
the implications for developing country exports. 
161. The European Communities stated that the docum ent put forward by Brazil had not yet been 
discussed in Brussels.  Dimethoate was already under evaluation by the European Communities and 
was one of the several hundred plant protection prod ucts which was being reassessed for its safety to 
the environment, animal and public health.  The deci sion to establish a limit of analytical detection had 
not been lightly taken, but the sci entific evidence suggested that th e existing MRL was inadequate to 
provide for an appropriate level of health protec tion.  A number of years ago a recommendation had 
been made to the Codex Committee on Pesticide R esidues to withdraw the MRL for dimethoate.  
Under the circumstances the European Commun ities had considered it necessary to adopt this 
measure, although this was not a popular decision b ecause this substance was used by a range of EC  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 43 
 
 
  growers of citrus and other fruit products, and they  were being obliged to withdraw its use.  The 
measure had been notified (G/SPS/N/EEC/160) and th at comments had been received and taken into 
account from a number of countries, including Brazil.  The fears expressed by several countries over the impact of the ongoing evaluation of a range of other active substances would be communicated to 
the appropriate authorities. 
162. In April 2003, Brazil stated that it looked forw ard to a receiving a copy of the EC scientific 
studies that would serve as the basis for the new European regulation setting MRLs for dimethoate. 
163. In June 2003, Brazil noted that a shipment of  Brazilian apples had been rejected in Sweden 
and that this was one example of how it would be affected by the new MRLs.  The burden of proof for 
justification of the new measures was on the Eur opean Communities and its present approach was not 
in accordance with the principles for special and di fferential treatment.  China supported the concerns 
of Brazil.  The European Communities stated that b ilateral consultations had been held with Brazil and 
hoped that the problem would be resolved soon.  The underlying problem was that many pesticides and chemical products which were in use had neve r been properly evaluated.  Where no toxicological 
data existed, the European Communities would use the level of detection.  For products for which data 
was provided, the European Communities would pro ceed to establish an appropriate maximum residue 
level. 
 
168. Maximum levels for aflatoxins in corn and sampling contaminants in food 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, pa ras. 32-33 ), October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, 
paras. 52-53) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
164. Argentina reported that consultations between its authorities and the European Communities 
had taken place on 2 July concerning EC Regula tion 257/02 which imposed new maximum levels for 
aflatoxins in maize.  Argentina considered th e new measures to be scientifically unfounded and 
requested the European Communities to consider l ess trade restrictive measures and the possibility of 
special and differential treatment.  The European  Communities noted that there were considerable 
health problems with aflatoxins and the difficulti es of establishing an appropriate limit.  The new 
regulation would be notified to the Committee before  it was applied and interested trading partners 
would have the opportunity to present their concer ns and objections.  In response to a question from 
Egypt, the European Communities clarified that  the new measure would apply only to maize. 
165. In October 2003, Argentina stated that the MRL for aflatoxin depended on the intended use of 
products and the levels were not c onsistent with international reco mmendations nor based on scientific 
evidence.  However, the new re gulation modified the MRL for corn and was less restrictive.  
Argentina requested a review of the sampling levels  along with the scientific justification to support 
the measure.  The European Commun ities stated that it had conducted scientific research to support the 
MRLs adopted for corn and that the levels could be met through good agriculture practice.  The MRL 
for corn was established to protect consumer health. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 44  
 
  169. EC proposed regulation on maximum residue levels of pesticides  
Raised by: Argentina, China 
Supported by: Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Chin a, Colombia, Cuba, Honduras, Mexico, 
Paraguay, Uruguay 
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, pa ras. 75-77), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, 
paras. 76-79) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/196 and Add.1 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
166. China indicated that it was highly concerned with the approach taken by the European 
Communities on maximum residue levels in plant and animal products and had submitted comments 
on the notification.  China believed that the new ru les were not in compliance with the SPS Agreement 
and requested information on the risk assessment undertaken by the EC.  Brazil noted that it had 
previously raised similar concerns and requested a three year postponement of the measure.  Chile 
expressed support for the position taken by China and Brazil and also requested information on the 
risk analysis and the scientific basis for the maximu m residue levels.  Brazil que ried whether, for those 
pesticides where there was no scientific eviden ce, a precautionary approach would be used. 
167. The European Communities replied that the draf t rule replaced and simplified four existing 
directives.  The new rule was scheduled to enter into force on 1 January 2005 and would lead to a 
harmonization of maximum residue levels in the European Communities.  The transitional process 
would be very long and additiona l comments could still be made.  The objective was to examine 325 
substances in order to update the available inform ation and to set maximum residue limits since zero 
level was difficult to achieve.  The new rule would not lead to a withdrawal of given authorizations 
except for use within the European Communities.   Imports from third countries would not be 
automatically banned, but could be accepted on the basis of maximum residue limits when it could be 
shown that these limits were sufficient to protect health.  Members and the Codex Alimentarius were 
invited to submit comments on which levels of  residues might be considered as acceptable. 
168. In October 2004, Argentina raised concerns  over EC notification G/SPS/N/EEC/196/Add 1. 
The proposed rule would seriously affect devel oping countries' agri-food exports.  Of particular 
concern was the EC default level of zero for maxi mum residue limits set for products that had not 
being authorized or when data was unavailable to demonstrate the safety of the residues.  This 
requirement was implemented for economic reasons rather than for food safety considerations.  
Moreover, many of the maximum residue limits set by Codex had not been accepted by the European Communities, especially those set before 1990.  Th e European Communities should provide scientific 
justification for deviations from international sta ndards as well as consider the economic impact of the 
implementation of its proposed regulation on trading partners. 
169. ASEAN, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Colo mbia, Cuba, Honduras, Mexico, Paraguay, and 
Uruguay echoed the concerns raised by Argentina.  Chile and Cuba asked what methodology was used 
in setting the default detection limit. The Philippine s, on behalf of ASEAN countries, supported the 
statement made by Argentina and asked why the European Communities had not adopted relevant 
Codex standards.  The European Communities should provide a risk assessment if a higher level of 
protection than that achieved by the relevant Code x standards was adopted.  Furthermore, developing 
countries lacked the technological and analytical cap ability to comply with the new default approach 
and this could have adverse ec onomic implications for them.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 45 
 
 
  170. The European Communities explained that a listing of all available risk assessment 
documents on approved MRLs had been made, in cluding those MRLs for pesticides approved many 
years ago.  Some of the risk assessments were no longer relevant today and so a reassessment of the 
pesticides was needed.  The industry was requested to supply the relevant scientific and technical data 
to carry out these risk assessments.   However, the industry was no longer interested in marketing some 
of the older pesticides and were not keen to fund research.  Therefore, these pesticides were withdrawn 
from the list and a residue default level was se t for them.  The European Communities would, 
however, allow the use of these pesticides if furnishe d with relevant risk assessments from interested 
trading partners.  Argentina was requested to provi de its questions in writing so that detailed written 
replies could be communicated to all interested Members. 
 
175. Notification on food and feed controls 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada 
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 39-41) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/191 and Add.1 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
171. The United States stated that the notified me asure would establish an extensive series of 
official controls on feed and food to be implemente d by 1 January 2005.  EC member States' control 
systems would be harmonized, integrating specific c ontrols at all stages of production in all food and 
feed sectors.  "Control plans" from exporting count ries would have to be submitted annually to the 
European Communities.  All exporting countries would have to demonstrate compliance or 
equivalence to the EC food safety measures for all products to be exported as a precondition for 
market access.  Control plans required informatio n on all legislation, organization of competent 
authorities, training of staff, resources available and assurance of equivalence of domestic safety 
measures.  While the United States agreed this appro ach was appropriate for hi gh risk products such as 
meat and poultry, it felt that this level of risk mana gement was not appropriate for other types of food 
for which any identified risks were generally quite low. 
172. Canada shared the concerns raised by the United States and noted that it had recently 
submitted comments to the European Communities.  Canada sought more information  regarding the 
requirements for non-EC countries. 
173. The European Communities explained that the regulation should facilitate conformity of 
imported food with EC health standards and pr inciples for checking food stuffs.  Written comments 
received by the 27 July 2003 deadline would be cons idered by the EC Enquiry Point and Council of 
Ministers.  As for the control plans, much of the requested information was already available on 
internet sites, i.e., USDA and FDA.  The regulation, which was based on Codex recommendations, 
would facilitate trade through more transparency a nd the exchange of information on controls or 
checks for third countries. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 46  
 
  176. Notification on maximum tolerance levels for ocratoxin A in coffee – Maintained by 
Germany 
Raised by: Colombia, Papua New Guinea 
Supported by: Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, 
El Salvador, Guatemala, India, Mexico, Nicaragua, Peru 
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 47-49), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, 
paras.34-39) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/DEU/9 a nd Add.1, G/SPS/GEN/434, G/SPS/GEN/470 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
174. Colombia stated that on 17 June 2003, German y had notified a draft regulation for MRLs for 
ocratoxin in products,  including soluble and roasted coffee.  In September 2003, the application of the 
measure had been postponed until December 2 003.  Colombia believed that the MRL was 
disproportionate to the risks and that the scientif ic evidence regarding risks to human health was 
inconclusive.  The economic losses could be signif icant for Colombia as it exported 1.7 million bags 
of coffee to Germany, which was equivalent to 17 per cent of its total coffee exports.  The testing 
could result in 6 per cent of all coffee entering Ge rmany from Colombia being rejected.  Colombia 
questioned the relationship between th is measure and the EC regulations. 
175. Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemal a, Mexico and Peru shared the concerns 
expressed by Colombia.  Brazil noted that the highe r MRL for soluble product compared to the roasted 
coffee was unusual, as normally products for dir ect consumption had lower levels of MRLs. 
176. The European Communities explained that each EC  member State retained the right to adopt 
national legislation for the protection of human health  when no EC standard existed.  Since there was 
no MRL ocratoxin A for coffee in the European Communities, Germany could establish its own MRLs.  The measure was based on new scientific ev idence.  The European Commission had organized 
a meeting between Colombian and German toxicology  experts, and replies to Colombia's questions 
would be circulated to all Members shortly. 
177. In March 2004, Papua New Guinea informed the Committee that it had submitted comments 
on Germany's measures on coffee in G/SPS/GEN/470.  Colombia stated that written responses to its 
questions outlined in G/SPS/GEN/434 had not been  provided by the European Communities.  
Germany had since informed Colombia of the ap proval of the Bundesrat Directive 713/03 by the 
Ministry of Consumer Protection, Food and Ag riculture.  Directive 713/03 changed the existing 
regulation of the MRLs for Ocratoxin A (OTA) in roasted and soluble coffee in Germany.  Germany 
also indicated that the European Communities w ould be notifying a similar measure for roasted, 
soluble and green coffee.  Colombia was concerned about the impact of the measure on the marketing 
of coffee in Europe and requested the Eur opean Communities to respond to its questions. 
178. Bolivia, Brazil, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Re public, El Salvador, Ecuador, Guatemala, 
India, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Peru shared the con cerns raised by Papua New Guinea and Colombia.  
Germany's MRLs for OTA in coffee were discriminat ory and scientifically unjustified.  Germany was 
requested to answer the questions previously posed by Colombia and to take into consideration the 
special needs of coffee exporting countries. 
179. Codex explained that OTA, a mycotoxin contamin ant, had been a standing agenda item of the 
Codex Committee for Food Additives and Contaminants (CCFAC) since its 23rd session in March 
1991.  A risk assessment of the consequences of establishing a maximum level of 5 micrograms/kg or  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 47 
 
 
  20 micrograms/kg for OTA in cereals and cereal products had been conducted based on food 
consumption  data for European type diets.  Cereals and wine were identified as major dietary 
contributors of the overall intake of OTA, while  coffee and grape juice were considered minor 
contributors.  The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Comm ittee on Food Additives and Contaminants (JECFA) 
retained the previously established Provisional To lerable Weekly Intake of 100 nonograms/kg of body 
weight and recommended that overall contamination of foods, especially cereals, should be lowered by 
appropriate agriculture, storage and processing prac tices.  The conclusion of the JECFA evaluation 
was available from WHO as Technical Report Series 906.  CCFAC would consider draft maximum levels for OTA in cereals at its 36th Session. 
180. The European Communities stated  that Colombia's questions were still under consideration 
by EC authorities and that a draft Codex standard for OTA levels in cereals was under discussion.  
MRLs for OTA had been established within the Eu ropean Communities for a number of foods, but not 
for coffee.  Germany therefore had the right to establish maximum OTA levels for coffee.  The 
European Communities had already determined MR Ls for OTA in cereals and derivative products 
under EC Directive 466/2001, latter modified by Dir ective 472/2002.   As for beer, OTA levels were 
regulated indirectly by the maximum OTA limits set  on barley.  OTA levels for roasted and soluble 
coffee, wine, certain dried fruits and fruit juices woul d be determined by the end of 2004 and notified 
to the WTO in due course.  EC Directive 2002/26 established the sampling methods and criteria used 
for the analysis of OTA levels in foods.  The Eur opean Communities also stat ed that Germany had not 
rejected shipments of Colombian coffe e due to excessive levels of OTA. 
 191. Maximum residue levels for pesticides on food 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 49-51) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/243 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
181. China raised concerns that the maximum resi due limits (MRLs) notified in G/SPS/N/EEC/236 
and 237 were several times lower than the MRLs proposed by other developed countries and by the 
Codex Alimentarius Commission.  The European Co mmunities were requested to provide scientific 
justification for its measures or modify the MRLs a ccording to relevant international standards.  In 
addition, the European Communities were requested to extend the time period for implementation of 
the measure from the date of adoption to one year and provide China with the testing methods for the 
concerned MRLs. 
182. The European Communities stated that it was prepared to address China's concerns on 
notification G/SPS/N/EEC/243, as indicated in the draft agenda, but was not prepared to provide 
specific answers to China's con cerns on the notifications G/SPS/N/ EEC/236 and 237.  However, a 
detailed written reply would be sent to China shortl y.  The European Communities clarified that the 
proposed date of entry into force in notificati ons G/SPS/N/EEC/236 and 237 should read 19 January 
2005 instead of 19 January 2004.  Furthermore, some  of the Codex MRLs mentioned by China were 
proposed for revocation at the next meeting of th e Codex Alimentarius Commission.  EC MRLs for 
pesticide quantities in foodstuffs were higher than international standards in four cases:  (1) phyto 
pharmaceutical products which did not lead to detectab le levels of pesticides residues in foodstuffs;  
(2) unauthorized use of the pesticides;  (3) EC au thorizations which were  unsupported by technical G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 48  
 
  and scientific evidence;  and (4) residues present in imported foods without sufficient scientific 
evidence indicating their food safety.  In this  case, the European Communities undertook its own 
assessment and was also willing to consider  data submitted by the exporting country. 
 
197. EC regulation on Ocratoxin A in coffee  
Raised by: Colombia 
Supported by: Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, 
Guatemala, Kenya, Peru 
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, par as. 61-67), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, 
paras 168-170) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/475, G/SPS/GEN/490, G/SPS/GEN/515, G/SPS/R/33 (paras. 
34-39), G/SPS/N/EEC/247, G/SPS/N/EEC/247/Add.2. 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
183. In October 2004, Colombia reported that in May 2004, the European Communities had 
responded to Colombia's questions regarding Germ any's measures on Ocratoxin A (OTA) in roasted 
and soluble coffee (see also item 176), explaining that  Germany was able to set maximum levels OTA 
in coffee as harmonized EC standards were not yet established (G/SPS/GEN/490).  On 1 September 
2004, the European Communities issued G/SPS/N/EEC/247, notifying Members of the EC proposal to establish levels for OTA in roasted and soluble coffee. 
184. Colombia continued to be concerned about th e impact of the measures on the marketing of 
coffee in Europe and had raised several questi ons as outlined in G/SPS/GEN/515.  The European 
Communities were asked to explain why OTA levels were set for coffee when coffee contributed only 
8 per cent of the intake of OTA in the European diet compared with cereals and cereal products which 
contributed 50 per cent of the intake of OTA.  Scie ntific justification for the levels of OTA set for 
coffee was requested from the European Communities, as well as an explanation of the method used to 
determine the OTA levels.  The European Communiti es were also requested to explain why the OTA 
levels for coffee and cereals and cereal products were the same when the intake of OTA was higher in 
cereals and cereal products than in coffee.  Moreov er, if the OTA levels for beer were indirectly 
controlled by its main input, malt, why were not  the OTA levels for soluble coffee indirectly 
controlled by its main input, roasted coffee.  Finall y, the European Communities were asked to explain 
why there was a need to protect pub lic health with regards to coffee and not beer.  Colombia suggested 
that the European Communities cons ult studies on OTA toxicology as a starting point in establishing 
maximum OTA levels in green coffee.  The entire production chain would need to be regulated when 
establishing maximum levels of OTA for green coffee which would be both impractical and 
counterproductive as additional infrastructure and stor age facilities would be needed.  Furthermore, the 
risks of formation of mycotoxins were increased  during prolonged periods of storage due to the 
condensation and re-humidification process in the bean s.  OTA levels should not be set until there was 
scientific justification.  The Codex Alimentarius was requested to consider the issue of maximum 
levels of OTA in coffee in the joint FAO/W HO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). 
185. Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Dominican Republic , Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Kenya 
and Peru supported the statements made by Colombia  and requested a copy of the EC response to the 
questions posed by Colombia.  Chile stated that  the Committee should include  this issue under the 
procedure to monitor the use of international standards.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 49 
 
 
  186. The Codex Alimentarius reported that little pr ogress had been made on this issue in Codex 
since the March meeting of the SPS Committee.  Co dex had not established Maximum Residue Levels 
(MRLs) for green and roasted coffee but had been working to establish MRLs in cereals for several 
years.  However, this was still at the elaboration stage due to the lack of consensus on the numerical 
limits. The Codex Committee for Food Additives a nd Contaminants (CCFAC) had requested JECFA 
to include the risk assessments on OTA for evaluati on by 2006.  At the last meeting of the CCFAC, a 
suggestion was made to include new work in Code x on the development of a code of practice to 
reduce mycotoxin contamination in coffee and cocoa.   This proposal will be discussed at the next 
CCFAC meeting in April 2005. 
187. The European Communities explained that once EC harmonized standard s were established, 
national standards ceased to be effective.  From the perspective of the exporting country, the EC 
harmonized standards had the advantage of being lo wer than the national standards of many member 
States.  The responses to Colombia’s questions w ould be made available through the Secretariat and 
the European Commission’s website  contained information on the methodology used to determine the 
level of OTA in coffee.  The EC draft regulati on covered ground and roasted coffee but not green and 
soluble coffee.  MRLs for OTA had already been estab lished for grains and its by-products and raisins.  
Furthermore, MRLs for OTA for wine and wine ba sed beverages had been proposed.  While studies 
had concluded that cereals and cereal-based products were the main sources of consumer exposure to 
OTA, wine, grape juice and roasted and soluble co ffee also contributed significantly to consumer 
exposure.  The European Communities would reassess its  decision on the basis of the results of the 
toxicology studies on OTA that would be available in 2006. 
188. In June 2005, Colombia raised concerns regarding the adoption of EC regulation No. 
123/2005 on maximum OTA levels in coffee, notif ied as G/SPS/N/EEC/247/Add.2.  Colombia had 
commented on previous notifications from the European Communities and from Germany 
(G/SPS/N/DEU/9) on this subject.  The European Co mmunities had adopted more flexible levels than 
those previously established by Germany.  However,  the adopted regulation foresaw a revision of the 
maximum levels for certain products by 30 June 20 06, at which time the establishment of a maximum 
level for OTA in green coffee would be considered .  This was of concern to Colombia because the 
application of maximum ochratoxin levels for roasted  and soluble coffee already implied the indirect 
application of a maximum level for green coffee.  The establishment of a maximum level for green coffee would regulate the entire production chain, unlike for other products covered by the same notified measure.  According to Colombia, given the large amounts of green coffee arriving every day 
in European ports, additional infrastructure would be needed to store the coffee during testing.  
Furthermore, during the testing process, the gr een coffee could underg o condensation and re-
humidification processes, which were among the princi pal risk factors for mycotoxins.  Colombia was 
willing to work with the European Communiti es and share progress made regarding preventive 
measures, which should be taken in to account in risk assessments. 
189. Chile identified similar concerns and sought in formation on maximum ochratoxin levels for 
wine, which faced a similar situation. 
190. The European Communities explained that th e measures introduced represented a harmonized 
system for imports into the European Communities that was advantageous for exporting countries, 
since previously the 25 member States had ha d individual requirements.  These individual 
requirements had been far more demanding than th e harmonized levels now established.  He invited 
Colombia to contact the European  Communities to discuss the details. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 50  
 
  198. EC regulation on aflatoxins and Ocratoxin A in foods for infants and young children 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 68-69) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
191. China raised concerns over EC notificati on G/SPS/N/EEC/223 and adde ndum on aflatoxins 
and OTA in foods for infants and young children.   Studies conducted by JEFCA concluded that the 
acceptable level of risk was the same when the level of aflatoxin B1 was reduced from 20 to 10 mg/kg 
and when the level of aflatoxin M1 was reduced from 0.5 to 0.05 mg/kg.  Any further reductions of the 
levels of aflatoxins B1 and M1 w ould have no significant impact on public health safety.  Furthermore, 
JECFA, in its 37th Session, had established a weekly intake of OTA of 112 mg/kg.  This minimum intake was subsequently lowered to 100 mg/kg at  the 44th Session of JECFA and remained unchanged 
in the 56th Session based on results  of risk assessments carried out on OTA levels in cereals and cereal 
based products.  The European Comm unities was requested to provide scientific justification for its 
measures and to consider the impact of  the measures on international trade. 
192. The European Communities stat ed that the EC regulation amending Commission regulation 
466/2001 concerning aflatoxins and OTA in foods fo r infants and young children applied to products 
placed in EC markets and was effective from 1 November 2004.  Although China had not submitted 
comments during the comment period, China's comme nts would be taken into account and a written 
response would be provided.  The JECFA studies re ferenced above were base d on intake levels of 
adults, rather then on intake levels of infants.  The European Communities had therefore considered it 
necessary to establish maximum levels of aflat oxins of B1, M1 and OTA for infants and young 
children.  These maximum levels were achievable and substantiated by data.  Furthermore, they had 
little trade implications, as finished foods for infant s and young children were not traded in significant 
amounts. 
 
206. Inspection and testing procedures for imported wheat – Maintained by Greece 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1,  paras. 32-33), October 2005 (G/SPS/R/39, 
paras. 222-223), February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 222-223) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
193. In March 2005, Canada reported that Gree ce had introduced new inspection and testing 
requirements for imports of grains from third countries in August 2004 that exceeded existing EC 
requirements by requiring the testing of 100% of shipments.  Greece had provided no scientific rationale to justify the introduction of these measur es and Canada considered the Greek measures to be 
inconsistent with the SPS Agreement.  Canada's concerns had already b een unsuccessfully expressed 
on numerous occasions to both Greek and EC officials, including at technical level.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 51 
 
 
  194. The European Communities stated  that the Commission had been in extensive bilateral 
contacts with both Canadian and Greek authorities in an effort to find a solution.  Greece was in the 
process of adjusting three major aspects of the mi nisterial decision with the aim of bringing its 
measure into full compliance with the SPS Agreem ent.  In particular, Greek authorities were 
considering the repeal of the provisions establishing additional quality criteria, the re-establishment of 
the normal EC requirements with regards to testi ng, sampling and inspection procedures and removing 
any provisions that might be viewed as discriminatory against imported products. 
195. In February 2006, Canada stated that although the Greek authorities had made some useful 
amendments in late March 2005, the issue had recently  deteriorated.  Canada noted in particular the 
frequency of inspections, the lengthy detention peri ods of up to two months, and Greece's requirement 
for a 1.5% limit on fusarian damaged kernels in grain shipment.  In addition, in December 2005, 
Greece had required that 100% of a shipment be test ed for the presence of GM wheat, regardless of the 
fact that no validated test for the presence of GM wh eat existed.  Canada had unsuccessfully offered to 
accompany each shipment with a letter certifying the absence of registered GM wheat in Canada.  
These requirements were discriminatory as they on ly applied to cereals originating outside the 
European Communities. 
 
207. Directives on residual pesticide tol erance and inspection methods for tea 
Raised by: China 
Supported by: India 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 22-24) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
196. In March 2005, China recalled that in July 2001, the European Communities had issued a 
directive on residual pesticide tolerance and insp ection methods for tea in which the EC maximum 
residue limits (MRLs) for seven types of pesticides were higher than those of the Codex standards.  
When previously discussing that issue bilaterally , China had unsuccessfully requested the scientific 
evidence and risk assessments justifying these MR Ls.  China requested that the European 
Communities apply its detection method for residues on diluted tea as opposed to dry tea leaves, in which pesticide levels were much higher. 
197. India expressed concerns that tea was being si ngled out for rigid residual limits while other 
competing products consumed in larger quantiti es in European Communities were not affected. 
198. The European Communities clarified that the cu rrent regulation on MRLs for pesticides was a 
combination of EC and member States MRLs.  The European Communities was in the process of 
adopting a new regulation on MRLs fo r pesticides in all food and feed stuffs that would harmonize all 
EC member states' national legislation and woul d likely enter into force in mid 2006.  The EC 
inspection methods for tea were based on the existin g Codex methods.  Regarding India's concern, the 
European Communities did not intend to discriminate against tea in relation with any other beverage. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 52  
 
  208. Food and feed hygiene rules 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: Jamaica, United States 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 15-18) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/539 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
199. Canada sought clarifications from the Europ ean Communities on the requirements that would 
apply to third countries when the new food and feed hygiene rules come into force on 1 January 2006 
(Regulations 852/2004, 853/2004 an d 854/2004).  Canada further i nvited the European Communities 
to solicit comments from third countries sufficiently in advance of the implementation date so that the comments could be incorporated into the final meas ures.  The United State encouraged the European 
Communities to provide more formal explanations of  the nature and scope of the rules applying to 
exporting countries.  Jamaica agreed with Cana da and United States on the need for further 
clarifications from the European Communities. 
200. The European Communities recalled that a docum ent clarifying the traceability provisions of 
the new body of legislation had been circulated in February 2005 (G/SPS/GEN/539).  This document 
explained that the aim of traceability provisions were  intended to identify each link in the chain of 
supply in the event of product recalls.  A seminar ope n to all third countries would be held in Brussels 
to explain the consequences of the entry into  force of the food and feed hygiene rules. 
 
219. EurepGAP requirements for bananas 
Raised by: Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 
Supported by: Argentina, Belize, Cuba, Domini ca, Ecuador, Indonesia, Jamaica, Kenya, 
Mexico, Peru, South Africa, Egypt 
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1,  paras. 16-20), October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, 
paras. 40-41) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/766 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
201. In June 2005, St. Vincent and the Grenadines re ported that EurepGap certification, introduced 
in 1997,  had now been made a condition for conti nued trade into UK supermarkets.  Some of the 
measures in the EurepGap certification programme were clearly within the scope of the SPS Agreement.  Jamaica indicated similar problems with EurepGap requirements for fresh fruit and 
vegetable entry into the European Communities.  Si nce a reading of the EC food and feed regulation 
indicated that the Eurep/Gap requirements were private sector requirements, Jamaica asked what 
recourse was available to exporting countries. 
202. The European Communities clarified that EurepGap was a private sector consortium 
representing the interests of major retailers.  Even if these standards, in cer tain cases, exceeded the 
requirements of EC SPS standards, the European Commission could not object to them as they did not conflict with EC legislation.  The European Co mmunities encouraged developing country Members,  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 53 
 
 
  and particularly least-developed country Member s, to discuss this issue with non-governmental 
organizations since, in many respects, the Eu repGap requirements reflected their concerns. 
203. Peru recalled that  Article 13 of the SPS Agreement referred to implementation by non-
governmental entities within the territory of the Member.  Ecuador noted concerns regarding the 
impact of this issue on trade towards the European  Communities.  Mexico indicated that it was only 
when SPS measures were adopted by governmental au thorities that a Member had the obligation to 
ensure that governmental and non-governmental en tities involved were implementing them properly, 
as provided for in Article 13.  Annex 3 of the TB T Agreement established a code of good practice for 
non-governmental standard-setting inst itutions developing food quality st andards.  This code had been 
accepted by many of these organizations.  Mexico  suggested that the SPS Committee examine these 
provisions of the TBT Agreement before reaching any conclusion on the issue. 
204. Argentina noted that international agreements existed to ensure that SPS measures were not 
unnecessarily stringent so as to act as barriers to international trade, and countries had devoted 
substantial resources to participate in standards deve lopment and implementation.  If the private sector 
adopted unnecessarily restrictive standards affecti ng trade, and countries had no forum in which to 
advocate rationalization of these standards, twenty y ears of discussions in international fora would 
have been wasted.  Argentina argued that the ratio nal and legal aspects of these kinds of regulations 
had to be addressed. 
205. In October 2006, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines indicated that their concerns with respect 
to the EurepGAP issue remained th e same, even after the informal session held before the meeting to 
explain the issue of private standards.  The cost implications of these private standards, which were 
often of greater rigidity than the internationally set standards were very huge, especially for small 
farmers in small and vulnerable economies.  Arge ntina, Belize, Cuba, Dominica, Egypt, Indonesia, 
Kenya and South Africa shared the concerns of Sa int Vincent and the Grenadines and suggested that 
the issue of private and commercial standards in  general should be incl uded on the agenda of 
upcoming SPS Committee meetings. 
 
220. Proposed regulations for piper methysticum (kava-kava) – Maintained by 
United Kingdom 
Raised by: Fiji 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 72-73) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/GBR/4 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
206. At the June 2005 meeting, Fiji expressed concerns regarding the UK notification of 
emergency measures on kava-kava, as kava-kava was one of Fiji's few tradable crops of economic 
significance.  Fiji's concerns were related to the re quest of the UK Commission on Safety of Medicines 
(CSM) to prohibit kava-kava use in unlicensed me dicinal products on the grounds that the CSM had 
sufficient evidence to conclude that  kava-kava was associated with rare cases of liver toxicity.  
According to an in-depth investigation of kava-k ava products conducted by a German consulting firm 
in 2003, the efficacy and safety of kava-kava had been  proven by 20 clinical trials including more than 
10,000 patients and supported by post-marketing ex perience in Europe, the United States and other 
areas.  Health authorities such as the US Food and Drug Administration agreed that kava-kava was a G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 54  
 
  safe drug.  Findings also showed that should the toxi city exist, it would occur in an extremely low 
number of patients, far below the incident rate obser ved with other freely available drugs.  Out of 450 
million kava-kava pills exported all over the word  between 1990 and 2000, only three cases of liver 
problems had been linked to the pills.  The Fiji ka va-kava council was currently drafting a legislative 
text including, inter alia, standards, certificati on and labelling to ensure consistency and quality of 
supply.  Fiji requested the European Communities to provide any new evidence that supported the 
claim that the consumption of products containi ng kava-kava was associated with liver damage. 
207. The European Communities recalled that the re gulation banning kava-kava had come into 
force in England and Scotland in 2003 following reports of rare but serious risks to public health and a 
review of evidence by independent experts in 2002.  Similar regulations for Northern Ireland had been 
planned at the time but only notified on 14 June 2005.  A similar notification for Wales was also due to 
be issued soon.  The Food Standards Agency of the United Kingdom had recently requested new 
evidence on kava-kava in order to review its position. 
 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
17. Cosmetics and  BSE 
Raised by: Australia 
Supported by: Brazil, Chile, United States 
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras. 61-62 ), July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, paras. 22-
24) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/20, G/SPS/N/EEC/43 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
208. Australia expressed concern regarding an EC me asure specifying that cosmetics containing 
certain bovine, ovine and caprine tissues etc. should not be placed on the market.  This directive did 
not recognize the animal health status of supplyi ng countries.  The European Communities stressed 
that since BSE surveillance was still under developm ent and since detection was difficult, there was 
considerable uncertainty surrounding the global pr evalence of BSE.  All comments received by the 
deadline would be taken into account, and the regula tion would enter into force on 1 July 1997.  In 
July 1998, the United States stressed  that the measure would reduce or eliminate US exports of tallow 
derivatives, soaps and cosmetics.  The European  Communities clarified that in light of WHO 
recommendations, measures had to be taken to redu ce the risk of transmission of TSEs to humans 
through the food or feed chain, pharmaceuticals or cosmetics.  Regarding BSE-freedom, the European 
Communities was not prepared to recognize any country as BSE-free, taking into account the difficulties of certifying such a status. 
 18. Certification requirements for pet food – Maintained by France 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Chile 
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, paras. 7-8), July 1997 (G/SPS/R/8, paras. 20-21), 
July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127)  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 55 
 
 
  Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/18, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
209. In March 1997, the United States expressed conc ern with regard to French certification 
requirements adopted under national legislation wh ich blocked US exports of pet food and had not 
been notified to WTO.  Bilatera l exchanges with France had produ ced no progress.  The European 
Communities regretted that their internal procedur e for notification of national measures had delayed 
notification of the French measure in question.  The measure had been based on discussions and 
recommendations at the EC Commission level, r ecommendations by the WHO, as well as parallel 
scientific discussions in the United Kingdom and France. 
210. In July 1997, the United States again raised c oncerns with the French measure for protection 
from TSEs.  The measure did not accoun t for the fact that the United States was BSE-free, and did not 
seem to have a scientific basis.  Furthermore, th e measure applied to species not affected by TSEs, 
such as poultry and fish.  Chile expressed concern regarding the effect the regulation might have on 
trade in fishmeal.  The European Communities poi nted out a few inaccuracies in the US document, 
and noted that the provisions banning the use of  frozen animals or animal cadavers were not 
necessarily addressing health issues, but image and qua lity, and were therefore not strictly relevant 
under the SPS Agreement.  Discussion of the matter  continued within the European Communities. 
211. In July 2001, the United States reported that its exports continued to be hampered by French 
certification requirements, which differed from those applied by other EC member States 
(G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United States questioned the scientific foundation for excluding animal meat 
or bone meal from pet food produced in countries where BSE does not occur. 
 
31. Rules on "specified risk materials" in products of animal origin 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Argentina, Australia, Brazil,  Canada, Chile, Colombia, Czech Republic, 
Mexico, New Zealand, Switzerland, Uruguay 
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev. 1, paras. 10-14), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, 
paras. 13-19), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, paras. 34-38), July 2001 
(G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/36, G/SPS/GEN/45, G/SPS/GEN/67, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
212. In October 1997, the United States raised concerns with Decision 97/534 EC banning the use 
of certain specified risk materials, which might  cause international shortages of needed medical 
products and have a major restrictive impact on trade in tallow and derivatives, gelatine, 
pharmaceuticals and many food products.  This ban see med to be more restrictive than necessary to 
achieve its public health objectives, especially as it applied to the United States and other regions 
where BSE was not known to exist.  The European Communities indicated that since scientific studies 
had shown that its previous measures might not be su fficient, it had raised its level of protection.  
Members who considered themselves to present no risk with regard to TSEs could present an 
application for examination by the EC Scientific Committee.  Argentina indicated that in its view, G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 56  
 
  measures which failed to distinguish between countri es infected with BSE and countries not infected 
were contrary to the OIE recommendations and the SPS Agreement.  He distributed copies of a BSE 
risk analysis. 
213. In March 1998, the United States reiterated that the European Communities should recognize 
the BSE-free status of the United States and othe r regions.  Several delegations welcomed the EC 
decision to provide additional time to review all the scientific evidence and other important 
implications of the proposed measure and provide d comments.  The European Communities clarified 
that entry into force of its measure had been post poned from 1 April to 1 July 1998, and that BSE-free 
countries could apply for an additiona l derogation until 1 January 1999. 
214. In June 1998, the European Communities reporte d that EC member States were still unable to 
reach a common position on the issue, and that the EC  Decision would therefore not enter into force 
until 1 January 1999.  In the meantime, member Stat es had introduced a number of measures.  The EC 
Commission was also submitting new legislati on for approval, taking into account the OIE 
classification of countries with respect to BSE. 
215. In July 2001, the United States indicated that the EC legislation on specified risk materials 
had entered into force for third countries on 1 April 2001 (G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United States 
encouraged the European Comm unities to ensure that its measures took account of the disease 
situation in countries where BSE did not occur, such as the United States. 
 
32. Gelatin imports  
Raised by: Brazil, United States 
Supported by: Argentina, Australia, Chile, Mexico, Thailand, United States 
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev. 1, paras. 8-9), March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, 
para. 16), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12,  paras. 22-23), November 1998 
(G/SPS/R/13, para. 19), July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, paras. 9-11), 
November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, paras. 6-7), March 2000 (G/SPS/R/18, 
paras. 21-22), March 2001 (G/SPS/R/ 21, paras. 95-96), July 2001 
(G/SPS/R/22, paras. 52-53), Oct ober 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 34) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/133, G/SPS/N/EEC/74 
Solution: In October 2001, Brazil reported that the European Communities had lifted 
its restrictions in June 2001.  US concern ongoing. 
Status: Partially resolved 
 
216. In October 1997, Brazil indicated that its gela tin exports had been negatively affected by 
French requirements for specific production methods , which in Brazil's view lacked scientific 
justification.  Where BSE had been diagnosed, raw materials for gelatin were considered low risk 
products.  In addition, there had never been a ca se of BSE in Brazil.  The European Communities 
responded that the French decision had been taken in the expectation of EC provisions which would 
introduce conditions related to microbiological an d chemical criteria, and minimum requirements 
related to BSE.  The OIE Code required certain prov isions which in the EC view Brazil did not fulfill, 
and Brazil had not presented an application to the European Communities to request recognition of its 
TSE-free status. 
217. Brazil reiterated its concerns in March 1998, and indicated that an EC questionnaire on 
animal feeding in Brazil would soon be officially pr ovided to the EC authorities.  In September 1998,  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 57 
 
 
  Brazil reported that despite numerous bilateral ta lks, no progress had been made.  The European 
Communities noted that the origin of the problem wa s that Brazil considered itself as BSE-free, while 
in the EC view no country could be designated as BSE -free.  Both countries agreed that there had been 
some misunderstandings and were willing to resolv e them through further contacts.  In November 
1998, Brazil welcomed a new French decision wh ich took into account some of the Brazilian 
comments, and urged France to implement these new requirements as soon as possible. 
218. In July 1999, Brazil acknowledged the EC notifi cation on the matter, but remained concerned 
as its gelatin exports were still interrupted.  The proposed EC legislation, which was not based on a 
risk assessment, would severely impact the ability of  non-European countries to supply gelatin to the 
EC market.  Brazil asked that the European Communities accept other countries' measures as 
equivalent.  The European Communities explaine d its new measure, and invited all Members to 
comment in writing.  In November 1999, both Members reported that they had decided to pursue the matter bilaterally.  In March 2000, Brazil and th e European Communities ma de a joint communication 
announcing that constructive  consultations had taken place, and that the European Communities would 
evaluate the relevant documentation provided by Brazil. 
219. In March 2001, the United States indicated that  since May 2000, EC and US authorities had 
been discussing the continuation of US gelatin sh ipments based on the equivalence of US and EC 
safety systems.  Despite continuing efforts of US  regulatory authorities and industry, the European 
Communities had not agreed to accept equivale nce based on export certificates issued by US 
authorities.  As a result, there had been no expor ts of US food grade gelatin to the European 
Communities since June 2000.  The United States appr eciated EC efforts to review information, and 
urged the Commission to accept the equivalence of US  certificates.  The European Communities stated 
that both sides had a clear idea of the problems involved, which were primarily of a judicial nature.  The European Communities was proposing flexible so lutions which both parties might find acceptable. 
220. In July 2001, the United States reported that d espite ongoing efforts, US shipments of gelatin 
had been discontinued since June 2000 because th e European Communities had not agreed to accept 
equivalence-based export certificates.  The United St ates had demonstrated that US gelatin food safety 
systems met the EC appropriate level of protecti on.  The European Communities clarified that US 
gelatin was not prohibited, but that negotiations we re underway on a specific certificate for the United 
States.  The equivalence of the US production system had been established on all but two points, where compliance with additional requirements must  be certified.  Since December 2000, the only 
pending question was that FDA, as a matter of policy,  did not certify compliance with foreign rules, 
while the European Communities required cer tification by a competent authority. 
221. In October 2001, Brazil reported that intense bilateral consultations on Brazilian processing 
methods and controls had resulted in the European  Communities lifting its restrictions as of 13 June 
2001. 
 33. Salmonella-related restriction on fishmeal imports 
Raised by: Chile, Peru 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Rev.1, paras. 48-50) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 58  
 
  222. Chile and Peru sought clarification regarding th e EC directive governing exports of fishmeal, 
which was not applied to substitutes to fishm eal.  These substitutes could also potentially be 
contaminated with salmonella, as had been confirme d by recent research carried out in the United 
Kingdom.  The European Communities indicated that  the directive was justified on the basis of 
available scientific information, although worki ng groups were considering whether similar criteria 
should be applied to feedingstuffs of vegetable or igin.  Some EC member States had introduced heat 
treatment requirements, although others had fo und that there were not sufficient grounds for 
introducing such criteria. 
223. Chile also raised concerns with unilateral im port prohibitions by France and Italy affecting 
fishmeal for feeding ruminants, including mixtures  with bone meal, with the alleged objective of 
preventing risk arising from contamination.  The European Communities answer ed that it needed to 
effectively enforce its mammalian protein feed ban to ruminants, but was facing practical difficulties 
in segregating the origins of various raw materi als, including fish.  The European Communities 
indicated it would examine the issue together with the two member States involved. 
 64. Ban on antibiotics in feed 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, Canada 
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, paras. 26-29) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
224. The United States noted the failure of the Eu ropean Communities to notify the ban on four 
antibiotics used in animal  feed to enhance production that had been adopted in December 1998.  
Canada and Australia shared the US concern, and Ca nada requested to be informed when the European 
Communities reviewed its measure, which it unde rstood to be provisional.  The European 
Communities replied that this was an interim prot ective measure which would be re-examined before 
the end of December 2000.  The re sults of the re-examination would be shared with Members, as well 
as published electronically.  The measure had not been notified because it did not contain any provision applicable to imports, a nd therefore had no effect on trade. 
 97. Restrictions on the use of fishmeal  
Raised by: Chile, Norway, Peru 
Supported by: Chile, Ecuador, Iceland, Norway, Peru, United States 
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras.  17-21), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 
12-17), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, 31-32), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 
134-136), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/ 36/Rev.1, paras. 74-77) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/256, G/SPS/GEN/264 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 59 
 
 
  225. In July 2001, Peru expressed concern about the EC prohibition on the use of fishmeal in the 
elaboration of ruminant feed, which had no scientific  basis, was not based on a risk assessment, and 
was more trade-restrictive than required.  The comp etent authorities in Peru had shown that fishmeal 
and fish oil were safe to human and animal h ealth, and had high nutritional value.  Since the 
prohibition had a very serious impact on the Peruvian economy, Peru asked the European 
Communities to lift this restriction as soon as possible.  Chile underlined that fishmeal was not at all 
related to BSE.  At bilateral meetings, the Eur opean Communities had explained that the restriction 
was related to cross-contamination of fishmeal  and other animal meals within the European 
Communities.  Chile requested th e European Communities to exclude  fishmeal from the prohibition, 
and to be more flexible with standards applied to  processing plants in the meantime.  The European 
Communities had classified Chile as having minima l BSE risk, and Chile had offered to provide 
quality and traceability certificates.  Chile was surprised  that there were no restrictions on vegetable 
meals, which could also be mixed with meat a nd bone meal (MBM) in feed.  In addition, MBM 
continued to be used as pet food in the European  Communities.  The United States urged Members to 
reacquaint themselves with the relevant OI E guidelines and recommendations (G/SPS/GEN/230). 
226. The OIE representative drew attention to the WHO/FAO/OIE conference held in June 2001 
on BSE, public health, animal health and trade (G /SPS/GEN/260).  The experts at this meeting had 
concluded that the basis of the EC ban on feeding rendered animal protein to farm animals was to 
avoid risk of cross-contamination of the animal feed  system.  Discussions had highlighted the lack of 
technical means to verify the absence of banned produc ts in meals at very low levels.  The European 
Communities confirmed that the ban on the use of fish meal in ruminant feed was a safeguard measure 
reflecting failures in the implementation of rules on animal feed.  Imports of fishmeal had not been 
prohibited, but its use was subject to strict conditions.  The European Communities wished to 
minimize trade effects and was ready to evaluate with Chile,  Peru and other countries the 
consequences, if any, on their exports. 
227. In October 2001, Peru indicated that the Eu ropean Communities recognized that there was no 
scientific evidence demonstrating that BSE could be  transmitted through fishmeal, but maintained its 
restrictions to address an internal problem of cr oss-contamination and fraudulent practices.  Peru 
requested that the European Communities lift the rest rictions as soon as possible.  Chile noted that 
applying the same restrictions on fishmeal as for MBM had no scientific basis and was not consistent 
with OIE or WHO recommendations.  Chile was con cerned over the length of time that the provisional 
measure had been in place and the suggestion that  a new diagnostic test of the presence of animal 
proteins in feed would need to be developed be fore the measure could be rescinded.  Chile would 
explore all options available under the SPS Agreement to have the restrictions lifted.  The United 
States underlined the need for BSE control measures to reflect the different risk status of particular 
products and countries.  Iceland objected strongly to  the EC measures which were tantamount to an 
import ban on fishmeal for animal feed. 
228. The European Communities clarified that the legislation was a provisional measure that 
covered the internal use of fishmeal.  As all produ cers were requested to fulf il the same conditions, the 
measure was not discriminatory.  A derogation allowe d the use of fishmeal in feeds for non-ruminant 
animals provided certain strict pr oduction and handling conditions were  met.  The development of a 
reliable, but less laborious detection test would be a decisive element when reviewing the feed ban, 
and efforts were underway in the Communities in th is regard.  The representative of the European 
Communities questioned claims that the EC re gulations had an adverse impact on trade. 
229. In March 2002, Peru stated that there was a l ack of political will on the part of the European 
Communities to reach a solution to this problem.  Fi shmeal posed no risk of BSE for human or animal 
health, but the EC measure created doubts among othe r countries, which resulted in a negative impact 
on fishmeal trade.  Furthermore, as the EC measu re had been extended indefinitely, it could no longer 
be justified as a provisional measure. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 60  
 
  230. The European Communities noted that the meas ure was maintained due to demonstrated 
cases of cross-contamination detected through the EC 's detection system.  One tool which could help 
resolve this issue was a reliable test which c ould distinguish mammalian meals from fishmeal.  
Unfortunately, although under development, such a test  would not be available in the near future. The 
European Communities requested Peru  to provide evidence of trade disruption as a result of the EC 
measure, as no disruption was apparent in EU trade statistics. 
231. In June 2004, Chile noted that the Europ ean Communities was reviewing the restrictive 
measures on fishmeal in cattle feed.  Lifting the ban would require the developm ent of a diagnostic test 
which would assure all EC member States that detec tion of contamination of fishmeal with bone- or 
meat-meal would be possible.  Chile had received  information that the diagnostic method had been 
standardized and the Food Chain and Animal Health Committee would vote on lifting the ban in 
September 2004. The European Communities were  requested to provide further information 
concerning the possible date when the ban would be lifted.  Peru also requested a written explanation 
from the European Communities. 
232. The European Communities responded that results of the test were pending and that a written 
reply would be made available after the Food Chain and Animal Health Committee meeting in 
September 2004. 
233. In March 2005, Norway reiterated concerns regarding the EC prohibition on the use of 
fishmeal in ruminant feed due to BSE concerns.  The OIE had confirmed that there was no scientific evidence to support the view that fish  or fishmeal could transmit or disseminate the di sease.  Iceland, 
Norway, Peru and Chile supported the statement made  by Norway.  The decision to ban the use of 
fishmeal in feed for ruminants was introduced becau se of fear of cross contamination and of fraud in 
the blending process.  It was now possible to detect whether animal protein was present in feed containing fishmeal.  Peru and Chile asked the Eur opean Communities to take into consideration the 
damage this measure caused to developing countries .  Fish meal was one of Peru's main export 
products. 
234. The European Communities noted that this measu re had been introduced as a control measure 
to prevent fraud and cross contamination and had not  had serious consequences on trade.  The measure 
was modified to allow for continued use of fishmeal for poultry and pigs.  The ban was only applied to feed for ruminants which was only about three pe r cent of the market.  The test, which allowed 
discrimination between protein of mammalian origin and of fish or igin, removed the main technical 
scientific barrier to the lifting of the measur e.  The Commission, however, was concerned about 
reopening the feed dossier, given consumer sensitivities in this area. 
 
159. Proposal on animal by-products 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, Brazil, Canada, China 
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29  paras.  40-45), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 47-
49), October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, par as. 27-30), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, 
paras. 53-55), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 39-41) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/103 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 61 
 
 
  235. The United States stated that EC regulation 1774/2002 would severely restrict or prohibit a 
range of animal by-products intended for use in feed , industrial or other non-food purposes.  Due to the 
lack of transparency of this regulation, the lack of sufficient time and information for exporters to 
comply and the EC failure to adequately address th e concerns of third countries, the United States 
requested a delay in the implementation of the regula tion.  The United States was also concerned about 
derogations for certain EC member States that were not available to third countries, the lack of 
scientific justification for the regulation and the lack  of a risk assessment for the proposed inter-species 
feed ban.  Brazil shared the concerns raised by the United States. 
236. China requested the European Communities to delay the regulation's implementation until 1 
May 2005.  Australia stated that without clarifica tions and equivalence dete rminations, it would have 
difficulty in complying by 1 Ma y 2003 and might seek a delay in the full implementation of the 
regulation.  Canada stated that it did not see how pr actical implementation of this regulation would be 
possible by 1 May 2003 and was of the view that a delay in implementation was warranted and required. 
237. The European Communities stated that the objectives of the draft regulation were to ban the 
recycling of dead animals, offer alternatives to denaturation, take account of environmental 
requirements, control traceability of  sub-products and simplify the patc hwork of existing legislation.  
Information meetings on 13 Novemb er 2002 and 28 March 2003 were organized and an explanatory 
document had been produced.  The measures were based  on solid science, even though no formal risk 
assessment had been conducted for each chapter of the text, and the European Communities were 
willing to make all relevant information available to  trading partners.  Certain EC member States and 
third countries had expressed concern over the date of entry into force of the regulation.  As a result, 
the European Commission was studying transitiona l arrangements which would enable temporary 
flexibility on certain provisions.  Any temporary fl exibility or new measures on certification of third 
country products would be deci ded on and notified to WTO Members with a new deadline for 
comment. 
238. In June 2003, China reported that it had subm itted comments on the EC regulation on animal 
by-products but had not received any reply.  China would need a transitional period of two years to 
adjust.  The United States stated that concerns raised at the last SPS Committee meeting were still 
valid.  The European Communities confirmed that  comments made by China would be carefully 
examined and that China would receive a response.  The European Communities would take a flexible 
view on transitional measures for third countries. 
239. In October 2003, the United States reported that despite bilateral techni cal discussions and the 
lack of scientific risk assessments, disruption of US  exports of pet food was likely.  Canada welcomed 
the decision to postpone implementation of the regul ation for third parties beyond 1 May 2003.  EC 
member States benefited from 16 transitional measures to allow them to adjust to the new regulations, 
and Canada asked to also benefit from such tran sitional measures.  China requested a transitional 
review of the regulation and c ontinued bilateral discussions. 
240. The European Communities explained that tran sitional measures had been adopted for EC 
members States and additional time for compliance for all third parties allowed until 31 December 
2003 (EC 1812/2003).  Certification of imports ha d been reviewed and notified.  The European 
Communities had decided to offer targeted trans itional measures to third countries on a case-by-case 
basis.   A technical agreemen t, based on comments received from Australia, Canada, China and the 
United States, would be notified shortly.  The Eu ropean Communities were awaiting the conclusions 
of a scientific review to produce the risk assessme nt which would be available in February 2004. 
241. In March 2004, the United States expressed con tinued concern over the negative trade impact 
of EC regulation 1774/2002 which entered into for ce on 1 May 2004.  This regulation was notified as G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 62  
 
  G/SPS/N/EEC/103 but questions on its implemen tation remained even though the European 
Communities had granted a one-year delay in its enfo rcement.  The European Communities had yet to 
publish the final text of the regulation and the US re quest for a risk analysis had gone unanswered. The 
European Communities were asked to clarify the remaining implementation questions and to delay 
enforcement of the regulation.  Canada shared th e concerns of the United States and requested the 
European Communities to provide information on its pl ans to formally adopt the derogations as well as 
provide details of any other transitional measures that  had been or would be granted to third countries. 
242. The European Communities recalled that the im plementation of transitional measures were 
announced in the June 2003 Committee meeting and introduced new provisions that required EC 
member States to provisionally accept imports from thir d countries.  With regards to the risk analysis, 
a report would be available at the end of March.   The second postponement of EC regulation 268/2002 
and delayed implementation of EC regulation 1674 should enable trading partners to adapt to new 
conditions for certification of imports into the European Communities.  The European Communities 
was also studying the possibility of adopting meas ures regulating the use of gelatine, collagen and 
other products destined exclusively for technical a nd industrial applications and banning their use in 
food, cosmetic, pharmaceutical and medical produ cts.  A draft bill had been submitted to the 
permanent committee this week and the European  Communities would keep the United States and 
Canada updated on this issue. 
243. In June 2004, the United States commented that EC Regulation No. 1774 imposed new 
requirements on gelatine, tallow, pet food, yellow grease and other animal by-products not intended 
for human consumption.  This regulation had been  implemented on 15 June 2004, although product 
could arrive in the European Communities as late  as 15 August 2004.  Consultations had lead to 
derogations on hide, skins and tallow but the Unite d States continued to be concerned about other 
provisions of the regulation, particularly those related to pet food and yellow grease.  Canada 
expressed satisfaction that the European Comm unities had adopted two transitional measures 
requested by Canada.  Since these complicated re gulations had been put in place, the European 
authorities had indicated that a flexible enforcem ent strategy would be implemented until 15 August 
2004.  Although no problems had yet been reported by  Canadian exporters, problems could arise with 
the end of "soft" enforcement in August. 
244. The European Communities stat ed that based upon on-going consultations with the United 
States and Canada, the regulations were modified to  include justified exemptions.  The EC regulation 
allowed cooking oils (yellow grease) to be used fo r animal feed only when they came from the food 
industry and only when a reliable system of traceab ility had been established.  Imported used cooking 
oils intended for technical purposes remained author ized without restriction.  The use of animal 
carcasses judged unfit for human consumption in pe t food had been prohibited based upon scientific 
information which indicated that the BSE epidemic had spread through recycling of infected bovine 
material in bovine feed.  A waiver had been implem ented for the use of wild fish protein for feed for 
fish in fish farms.  The European Communities indicated a willingness to discuss implementation of 
this regulation with Members concerne d about potential trade restrictions. 
 
160. Transitional BSE measures 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 97-98)  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 63 
 
 
  Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/192 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
245. The United States noted that according to Re gulation 999/2001, th e categorization of 
countries with regard to risk of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs) would be made 
within six months of submission of the informa tion.  Although, the newly notified measure extended 
the transitional measure until 30 June 2005, the Un ited States was concerned whether this was 
sufficient time for the European Communities to complete the classifications.  There was no scientific 
justification for applying BSE-related rest rictions on products from the United States. 
246. The European Communities explained that th e notification concerned an amendment to 
Article 23 of EC Regulation 999/2001 establishing rules for the eradication, prevention and control of 
certain TSEs.  It included BSE and all TSEs.  The amendment extended transitional measures 
established under Article 23 of this regulation.  Th e regulation provided rules to determine the BSE 
status of particular countries which conditioned th e application of measures covering the import of 
certain animals and animal products.  Until the stat us determination was made , transitional measures 
were applied and were to remain in force until 30 June 2003.  An assessment of the cases began at the 
end of 2001.  However, modification of the categorization criteria was necessary to obtain a status reflecting actual risk.  These criteria were taken from th e international code of OIE but it appeared that 
the OIE was not ready to propose a list of BSE -free countries.  Likewise, in the European 
Communities, scientific risk assessments for all countri es were not yet finished, and the EC Scientific 
Committee had adopted opinions for only around one-th ird of countries asking for a determination of 
their status.  Therefore, the transitional measures were being prolonged by two years until 1 July 2005.  
The European Commission would use this period to advance the work in the OIE on determining the 
BSE and TSE status of countries and complete th e scientific risk assessments.  The European 
Communities was examining the substantial documen tation submitted by the United States in January 
2003, and would report to the United States on the r esults of the risk assessment as soon as possible. 
 
161. EC Directive 2001/661/EC on foot and mouth disease 
Raised by: South Africa 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 38-39) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/373 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
247. South Africa stated that its concerns were detailed in G/SPS/GEN/373.  South Africa and 
Namibia are identified as zones free from FMD w ithout vaccination by the OIE.  EC Directive 
2001/661 recognized the free-zone status, allowing the import of fresh meat from South Africa except 
for areas within the FMD control zone of South Africa.  However, Directive 2001/661 required 
supplementary guarantees for the export of ovine an d caprine meat from the FMD free zones without 
vaccination and was inconsistent with Article 2.1.1 20 of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code of the 
OIE.  Article 2.1.2.20 does not require the deboning of meat if the meat originates from FMD free 
countries or zones where vaccination is not practiced. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 64  
 
  248. The European Communities explained that C ouncil Directive 72/462 differentiated between 
various types of FMD.  The Directive provided that  the import of fresh meat from regions which were 
FMD free without vaccination but where vaccination ag ainst SAT or Asiat 1 viruses was practiced in 
another region of the country could only be authori zed under certain conditions.  One of the conditions 
was that the meat be mature, de-boned, with ly mph nodes removed and that importation take place 
only three weeks after slaughter.  These conditions a pplied to South Africa due to the presence of SAT 
in a part of South Africa even though certain areas were officially FMD-free without vaccination.  The 
EC legislation, dating from 1972, wa s to be updated as SAT was no l onger considered differently from 
other virus strains.  This would occur with the entry into force of Council Directive 99/2002 on 1 
January 2005. However, the European Communities w as concerned that there had been four outbreaks 
of FMD in Namibia originating from Zimbabwe , where there were hundreds of cases.  In these 
circumstances, it was prudent to authorize only th e importation of de-boned, mature meat.  Once the 
new Directive was in force, the European Communities would review its measure in light of the FMD 
situation in South Africa and its neighbouring countries. 
 170. Live animals and animal products 
Raised by: Australia 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 68-69) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/190 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
249. Australia stated that the notified measure would affect its alpaca exports to EC member States 
although Australia had been free from blue tongue for more than a decade, as recognized by many 
countries.  Australia had submitted scientific ev idence to the European  Communities on several 
occasions and requested an update on this issue. 
250. The European Communities clarified that th e new notification was not due to a new 
regulation but merely a result of a simplification exer cise which did not address Australia's situation.  
The European Communities indicat ed that it would respond to Australia's request directly. 
 
171. Animal health conditions and certification requirements for live fish 
Raised by: Australia 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 70-71) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/198 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
251. Australia indicated that this new measure could affect its carp exports to EC member States.  
The United Kingdom had rejected live fish from Austra lia due to concerns about the existence of an 
unknown carrier state.  Australia had suggested prior disinfection as a possible solution and had  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 65 
 
 
  requested the risk assessment on which the measure was based, but received no response.  This 
requirement was not in line with OIE standards. 
252. The European Communities replied that the tim e period for replying to comments had not yet 
expired.  The European Communities believed that  the measures could be considered standard 
measures and that no risk assessment was necessary,  although it was prepared to discuss the issue 
bilaterally with interested trading partners. 
 
177. Sanitary conditions for the import ation of live material for apiculture 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Australia, New Zealand, United States 
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 42-44), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, 
paras. 56-58), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/ 34, paras. 27-29), October 2004 
(G/SPS/R/35, paras. 51-52) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/208 and Add.1, G/SPS/N/ARG/71 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
253. Argentina stated it recognized the need to minimize the risks of introducing pests of 
apiculture and that it had its own measures (G/ SPS/N/ARG/71).  However, the EC measure, which 
restricted the importation of queen bees and accomp anying working bees from third countries, was 
unjustified.  The EC measure required exporting count ries to prove that they were free of the small 
hive beetle (Aethina tumida) and of the Tropil aelaps mite.  Argentina was free from the pests and 
considered the EC response to its comments unsa tisfactory.  Argentina requested the European 
Communities to defer implementation of the measure. 
254. The United States expected that the new regula tion would take into account disease free areas, 
for example, Hawaii was free from the two pests.  Au stralia supported the US position and stated that 
the EC proposed requirement was unreasonable and n eeded to take into account disease free status.  
New Zealand supported the comments made by Argentina, the United States and Australia. 
255. The European Communities stated that the first no tification was of a draft decision to restrict 
the importation of queen bees and their escorts to stop  the introduction of the two parasites.  These two 
parasites, although not included on the OIE list, po sed a serious risk as they damaged hives and caused 
economic losses.  Comments from Members had been  taken into account and amendments to the 
measure had been notified.  Disease free zones a nd health certificates covering these two pests would 
enable the safe import of bees in to the European Communities. 
256. In March 2004, Argentina reiterated that the pr esence of the small hive beetle (Aethina 
tumida) and the Tropilaelaps mite had not been re ported in Argentina.  The European Communities 
had not taken into consideration the differing san itary status of exporting countries creating export 
challenges for those countries that did not have the tw o pests.  A bilateral meeting with the European 
Communities was held on 16 March 2004 to seek a pr actical solution to this problem.  The United 
States requested the European Comm unities to consider the fact that the state of Hawaii was free from 
the two concerned pests. 
257. The European Communities indicated that the tw o pests of concern were very difficult to 
eradicate once introduced into a te rritory because the treatments were difficult to implement, were not G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 66  
 
  very effective, and left pesticide residues in  the honey.  The small Tropilaelaps mite, which 
transformed into a flying insect in the adult stage and could fly up to  six kilometres per day, could 
have devastating effects on honey and other agricu ltural production.  The proposed measures were not 
disproportionate to the risks.  Bees could be a llowed from third countries or from regions of third 
countries that had a competent veterinary service approved by the European Communities and where 
the existence of the two pests was required to be notified.  The bees must also be accompanied by a 
sanitary certificate issued by the competent authority declaring that the bees came from within a 30-
kilometre radius of the beehive and that this area wa s free of the two pests.  Argentina satisfied these 
two conditions.  During bilateral c onsultations with Argentina, prac tical problems faced by Argentina 
in the implementation of the control measures had been identified and the European Communities had 
agreed to find alternative solutions to these problems. 
258. In June 2004, Argentina stated that the requireme nts that hives should be subject to official 
check at the point of destination and queens tran sferred to new locations were not supported by 
scientific justification.  Documentation confirming the absence of the concerned pests in Argentina 
had been provided to the European Communities and Argentina hoped that an upcoming bilateral 
meeting with the European Communities would resolve this issue.  Australia and the United States 
also expressed concerns about the appropriateness of the EC measure.  Australia considered that the 
measures were inappropriate for the management of the small hive beetle.  The United States reported 
that honey bee exports from Hawaii to the European Communities had been halted, although the state 
of Hawaii was free of many of the pests covered by  this measure.  The certification requirements for 
honey bees from Hawaii should be modified to reflect the conditions there.  The European 
Communities recalled that these rules had been introdu ced to preserve the parasite free status of honey 
bees in the European Union.  The European Commun ities was prepared to review the legislation and 
border measures of Argentina and other countries, wh en documentation had been provided, in order to 
assess the possibility of instituting joint measures. 
259. In October 2004, Argentina reported that studies confirming the absence of the parasites  in 
the main exporting regions were made available to  the European Communities and the final version 
would be submitted to the OIE.  Despite havi ng taken these measures, trade in queen bees from 
Argentina was still restricted.  Argentina urged th e European Communities for a prompt resolution of 
the issue as trade in queen bees was a seasonal activity.  The Eu ropean Communities stated that 
bilateral discussions were held with Argentin a where it was explained that these measures were 
adopted to prevent the introduction of two particular b ee parasites that were of serious risk to the EC 
bee population.  The recent interception of a cont aminated shipment from Portugal justified the 
protective measures adopted by the European Comm unities.  Although Argentina had submitted eight 
reports, the European Communities were still not satisfi ed that Argentina's measures were sufficient to 
guarantee a parasite-free status.  The reports did not  indicate how particular geographical and climatic 
conditions would permit regionalizi ng the province of Buenos Aires.  The European Communities 
were not in a position at this time to relax cont rols on bee imports from Argentina.  Information 
received by the European Communities indicated that  exports of Argentine bees were not affected 
during the 2004 season.  However, the European Comm unities were prepared to discuss the impact of 
its measures on international trade with Argentina. 
 
Plant Health 
19. Protected zones 
Raised by: Uruguay 
Supported by: Chile, Mexico, South Africa  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 67 
 
 
  Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 60) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
260. Uruguay expressed concern about an EC decision to eliminate the criteria for protected zones 
within the European Communities,  as this might result in a strengthening of phytosanitary 
requirements for the whole Community.  This could also have negative consequences for citrus fruit 
exports from Chile.  Delegations requested a clarificat ion of the scientific basis for this proposal.  The 
representative of the European Communities indicated he would forward the concerns to the relevant 
authorities.  He clarified that according to th e policy, access to the European Communities would 
depend on the conditions in the country of origin. 
 
81. Wood packing material 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by: Chile, Japan, Korea, Republic of, United States 
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 33-35) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/93 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
261. Canada recognized that wood packing material was widely considered to be at risk of 
containing plant pests.  However, it was used for a very large volume of products moving in 
international trade, and the proposed EC measure w ould cover 69% of Canada's exports to the EC.  
Furthermore, the IPPC was working on a comprehensiv e standard for all countries and all pests, to be 
completed by July 2002, it would be best for all countries to focus their efforts on developing an international standard and refrain from taking unilate ral actions in this regard.  The United States 
considered that it would be impossible to implemen t the certification and marking requirements within 
the time-period set out in the EC notification.  Korea stressed the need fo r the European Communities 
to implement the least trade restrictive measure which would be effective, and in this respect to take 
into consideration the historic experience of trad e without pest introduction, the processing of the 
packing materials, and the actual pest risks involved. 
262. The European Communities replied that pine w ood nematode had been detected in packing 
materials in 1998 and 1999, despite the existing EC requirements on wood packing materials.  The EC 
Regulatory Committee for Plant Health was examin ing the comments which had been submitted on 
the EC notification.  The European Communities w as actively contributing to the IPPC efforts to 
develop an international standard, however this did not replace the need for an emergency measure to 
protect EC forests.  It was now obvious that the EC measure would not be finalized and implemented 
on the 1 January 2000 date as initially proposed, and th at bilateral and multilate ral consultations would 
continue. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 68  
 
  98. Restrictions on Egyptian potatoes 
Raised by: Egypt 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 125-126) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
263. Egypt expressed concern that EC measures agains t imports of Egyptian potatoes, allegedly as 
protection against the disease Pseudomonas solanacearum, severely restricted imports.  Importation of 
Egyptian potatoes was prohibited unless they origin ated from agreed pest-free areas, and could be 
suspended if five interceptions of the bacteriu m occurred during the 2000-2001 import season.  Egypt 
believed that these measures might not be in acco rdance with the relevant provision of the SPS 
Agreement and the GATT 1994, and had prepared questions for the European Communities.  The 
European Communities indicated that the questions would be answered, and clarified that Egyptian 
potatoes received special treatment in the European Communities.  Imports were allowed until the fifth 
detection of brown rot, which was a disease on th e quarantine lists of IPPC and EPPO, while the 
normal EC standard prohibited imports after one detec tion.  The special treatment had been granted in 
consideration of Egypt's special efforts to c ontrol the disease.  The European Communities had 
received and was studying a document from Egypt containing a contingency plan for brown rot 
potatoes.  Egypt had also requested determination of new free areas for export for the next season, and 
the request was being considered. 
 
108. Cut flowers 
Raised by: Ecuador, Israel 
Supported by: Kenya 
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, pa ras. 45-48), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
para. 179), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 94-96) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/131, G/SPS/GEN/278 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
264. Ecuador indicated that it had submitted a list of  questions regarding the scientific grounds for 
the EC measure on cut flowers, the risk analysis , the methods to be used at entry ports, special 
treatment for developing countries, and possible a lternative measures.  Israel expressed concern over 
changes in inspection procedures that could detrimenta lly affect deliveries to its major export market.  
Kenya asked to receive a copy of the EC response to Ecuador's questions.  The European Communities 
explained that the notification covered four ha rmful non-native organisms that were regularly 
intercepted on certain commodities including cut fl owers:  Amauromyza maculosa, Bemisia tabaci 
(non-European populations), Liriomyza sativae and Thrips  palmi.  At present, most cut flowers were 
not subject to plant health checks, but it appeared they were a pathway for the organisms in question, 
and control measures needed to be strengthened.  To assess the comments made by Members, the proposed date of entry into force of the draft amended regulati on had been deferred.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 69 
 
 
  265. In November 2002, Israel expressed concern w ith EC Regulation 2002/36/EEC.  While Israel 
appreciated that the European Communities had modi fied and delayed the entry into force of the 
proposed revision until April 2003, Israel was of the view that until the European Communities had 
finalized its pest risk assessment the new regulation should be a temporary, not a permanent, measure.  
Israel was further concerned that the European Co mmunities was not taking measures to control pests 
already established in the EC member States from spr eading to new areas, and requested consultations 
with the European Communities and other interest ed Members. Kenya also expressed hope that a 
solution would be found to the problem.  The Eur opean Communities replied that the question was 
complex and went beyond a simple matter of the u se of the precautionary principle.  The ambitious 
pest eradication measures of the European Communities should not be undermined by imports.  The 
European Communities agreed to bilateral consultations with Israel and Kenya. 
266. In April 2003, Israel noted that EC notifi cation G/SPS/N/EEC/131 concerned an amendment 
to regulation 2000/29/EC which came into force on 1 April 2003, and might have significant effects on 
the export of plant products from a number of Members.   At bilateral consulta tions with the European 
Communities in March 2003, Israel expressed concer ns regarding differentiation between European 
and non-European varieties of Bemisia tabaci and th e existence of the non-European variety in some 
EC member States.  Israel was in the process of an alyzing the two pest risk analyses produced by the 
European Communities.  Kenya stated it shared Isr ael's concerns with regard to unnecessary delays 
and adverse effects on cut flowers exports.  Bilate ral consultations with the European Communities on 
technical assistance for capacity building had no t progressed as desired, although Kenya was still 
hopeful of an amicable solution. 
267. The European Communities recalled that the measures had been enacted after constant 
interceptions of pests on products like fresh flowers led EC member States to review their protective 
measures.    The proposed measures were notified to  the WTO on 19 July 2001 and were to take effect 
on 1 January 2002.  However, the European Commun ities had postponed entry into force until 1 April 
2003 after consideration of the difficulties faced by certain exporting countries.  Nevertheless, the 
European Communities had a responsibility to maintain  its appropriate level of protection and could 
not indefinitely postpone the implementation of  these measures.  The Eu ropean Communities had 
taken all necessary measures to avoid any brea kdown to trade and offered to hold bilateral 
consultations on the matter. 
 
109. Phytosanitary regulations (Canary Islands) – Maintained by Spain 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, par as. 97-98), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 
42) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
268. Argentina expressed concerns about the differe nce between phytosanitary regulations in the 
Canary Islands and the European Communities, particularly as regard ed apple and pear imports.  As 
Argentina had demonstrated the equivalence of its measures in a communication to the EC 
representative in March 2001, there seemed to be no reason to prohibit exports of apples and pears to 
the Canary Islands.  Argentina questioned why the Canary Islands had been exempted from the scope 
of EC Directive 2029, and asked for a probable date  for the implementation of this regulation.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 70  
 
  Argentina requested the acceptance of the equivale nt measures proposed in March.  The European 
Communities stated that it would provide Argen tina with a bilateral reply in due course. 
269. In March 2002, Argentina stated that certain points had been cleared up in bilateral 
consultations with the European Communities an d Spain and that any further progress would be 
reported to the Committee. 
 
199. Deviation from international standard for wood packing material 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Argentina, Canada, Chile, Chin a, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Mexico, 
Philippines 
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, par as. 30-37), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, 
paras. 65-68), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Re v.1, paras. 65-69), October 2005 
(G/SPS/R/39, paras. 69-71), February  2006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 69-71) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/EEC/221 and Add.1-3, G/SPS/GEN/556 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
270. In October 2004, the United States expressed  concerns over EC Directive 2004/102 which 
affected the importation of wood packing material .  The Directive required the debarking of wood 
used in packing material in addition to the heat  and fumigation treatment prescribed by ISPM 15.  
During the development of ISPM 15, IPPC Memb ers had concluded that there was insufficient 
scientific evidence to justify the debarking requireme nt as an additional risk management measure.  
The debarking requirement would disrupt trade and undermine efforts to increase international 
harmonization.  The European Communities was request ed to reconsider its measures or postpone the 
implementation of the debarking requirements until scientific justification was available. 
271. New Zealand stated that countries or regions should not adopt unilateral measures for wood 
packing material that would cause the disruption of the global implementation of ISPM 15.  However, 
there might be technical justifications for re quiring bark-free ISPM 15 compliant wood packing 
material.  Canada shared the concerns of th e United States on the importance of achieving 
harmonization.  ISPM 15 allowed for the introducti on of debarking requirements only where it could 
be scientifically justified.  The issue of debark ing was under review by the international forestry 
quarantine research group.  The European Comm unities and those countries introducing debarking 
requirements were requested to reconsider their measures until the completion of the international 
review.  China, Mexico and the Philippines shar ed the concerns of the United States and urged 
Members not to apply measures in excess of ISPM 15 in the absence of any scientific justification.  
Chile stated that its measures were under pub lic consultation and it welcomed comments from 
Members. 
272. The European Communities stated that EC Di rective 2000/29 established protective measures 
against the introduction and spread of harmful organism s to plant and plant products into the European 
Communities.  These measures were notified on 10 November 2003 and would enter into force on 1 March 2005.  There was some flexibility in the requi rements for markings as specified in Annex 2 of 
ISPM 15 and in the conditions required for dunna ge.  For wood packing material manufactured, 
repaired or recycled before 28 February 2005, the requirements for the markings would not come into 
effect until 31 December 2007.  The requirements fo r dunnage (except wood less than 6 mm thick) and 
processed wood would not come into effect until 31 December 2007.  These products could be made  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 71 
 
 
  from debarked wood that was free from pests.  Th ese requirements were included to ensure protection 
against future infestation or re-infestation once treat ment had been completed.  The current regulations 
were being considered by EC authorities in Bru ssels and the Committee would be informed of any 
changes. 
273. In March 2005, the United States welcomed th e European Council's decision on 28 February 
to delay the debarking requirement contained in Directive 2004/102/EC until 1 March 2006.  Canada 
pointed out that no technical justification currently existed for a debarking re quirement.  Canada hoped 
that if a debarking requirement would be foun d necessary it could be done on a multilateral basis 
within the context of ISPM 15.  The Philippines no ted that debarking should not be imposed if the 
wood packaging was already on the market or ce rtified to have undergone the approved treatment 
according to ISPM 15.  The Philippines asked the Eu ropean Communities to take  the developments in 
international standard setting into account when th ey decided whether or not to implement their 
current legislation.  The Dominican Republic re quested clarification of the EC extension. 
274. The European Communities emphasized that the problem related to what extent ISPM 15 
permitted debarking.  The European Communities ha d a very good disease status with respect to 
certain nematodes commonly found in wood packaging material elsewhere in the world.  
Notwithstanding the views of EC member States th at this was a valid measure, the Commission, in 
light of protests from many third countries, had take n a decision to postpone the measure for one year. 
275. In June 2005, the United States emphasized th at it was still concerned about the pending 
implementation of this new directive, which woul d affect US agricultural and commercial products 
packaged in wood material exported to the Europ ean Communities.  The Unit ed States reiterated its 
request for a detailed pest risk analysis or scientific  evaluation justifying this additional requirement.  
Canada suggested extension of the delay until th e IPPC had reviewed and assessed the technical 
justification for this requirement..  In addition, Cana da encouraged parties to work together to try to 
pursue a harmonized approach for the regulation of wood packaging, irrespective of the outcome of 
the IPPC review.  The Philippines invited Members to wait for further information on the EC risk 
analysis and related technical jus tification for debarking.  The Dominican Republic and Jamaica noted 
the difficulties experienced by many developing countries exporting to the European Communities, 
particularly in their efforts to meet the requireme nts of ISPM 15. Argentina and Chile noted that a 
working group in the IPPC was working on the issue of debarking. 
276. The European Communities recalled that the European Commission had notified the measure 
to the SPS Committee almost one year before its adoption by the European Council 
(G/SPS/N/EEC/221 and Add.1-3; G/SPS/GEN/556).  Although the European Communities was 
satisfied with the scientific basis for the debark ing requirement of Directive 2004/102/EC, it had 
postponed its entry into force as a consequence of the numerous comments received from several 
Members with regard to the potential for very serious disruption of trade, in order to review and strengthen its scientific justification.  The Eur opean Commission was currently putting together a 
technical dossier with the intention of presenting it to the IPPC International Forestry Quarantine 
Research Group in November 2005. 
277. In February 2006, the United States and Canada  welcomed the delayed implementation of the 
requirement that imported wood packaging materi al be debarked (Directive 2004/102), and the 
European Communities commitment to work through the IPPC to address issues related to ISPM 15 
based on scientific evidence.  The representative of the Philippines noted that the Philippines 
continued to be interested in monitoring  further developments of this issue. 
278.
 The European Communities clarified that the implementation of ISPM-15 was not postponed, 
but only the debarking requirement  This postpone ment decision resulted, in part, from previous G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 72  
 
  discussions in the SPS Committee about the potential serious disruption of trade and the need to 
convince trading partners of the scientific and technical basis for this requirement. 
 
209. Plant health directive 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 40-41) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
279. In March 2005, the United States noted under th e new EC plant health Directive 2000/29/EC, 
as amended, and Regulation 1756/2004 the inspecti on rates for plant products would significantly 
increase in relation to previous years.  The increase in inspections was likely to slow the release of 
products to importers, thus increasing the potential for spoilage and damage.  The United States also 
sought clarification on how EC member States had provided the data on imported consignments and 
inspections, as required under Regulation 1756/2004. 
280. The European Communities clarified that the overall purpose of the new Regulation was to 
reduce the level of phytosanitary controls on imports  of certain plants, plants products and other 
objects listed in part B of Annex V to Council Di rective 2000/29/EC.  However, there would be a 
period of adjustment in moving towards this new sy stem during which controls would likely increase.  
A bilateral meeting had permitted discussions of the impact of the legislation with representatives of 
the US industry and EC authorities were making as qu ick a transition as possible to the new system of 
controls, taking into account the past record of  US fresh produce exports. 
 
Other concerns 
110. Agricultural biotechnology approval process 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Argentina, Australia, Canada, Philippines 
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 102-105), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, 
paras. 33-35), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/ 27, paras. 56-57), November 2002 
(G/SPS/R/28, paras. 69-72);  WT/D S291/R, WT/DS292/R, WT/DS293/R 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Dispute settlement.  Panel estab lished August 2003.  Panel report adopted 
on 21 November 2006 
Status: Partially resolved 
 
281. The United States expressed concern regarding th e lack of a functioning approval process in 
the European Communities for agricultural bi otechnology products.  Since 1998, a de facto 
moratorium on approval of biotechnology products had b een in place.  The United Stated believed that 
under the SPS Agreement the Europ ean Communities was ob ligated to have a functioning approval  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 73 
 
 
  process and decisions on pending applications should not be delayed.  The United States urged the 
European Commission to restart the approval process as soon as possible.  Canada was concerned that 
the European Communities was funda mentally altering the regulation of agriculture and food products 
to discriminate on the basis of how a product was produ ced rather than the produc t's characteristics.  
Canada also considered the proposed  new EC regulations to be arbitr ary, as they required labelling for 
highly refined products, such as oil that did not co ntain detectable DNA or protein, while not requiring 
similar controls on products that could present equa l risk but were produced with other methods of 
development such as mutation breeding or muta genesis.  Moreover, the proposed regulations 
discriminated against products produced from genetica lly modified products, but not against products 
produced with genetically modified organisms su ch as cheese and wine.  Canada argued that the 
proposed regulations were not commensurate with the risks and lacked scientific basis.  Furthermore, 
the proposed regulations were fundamentally unw orkable, as demonstrated by the one per cent 
threshold for the adventitious presence of GMOs. 
282. The European Commission reaffirmed its inter est and positive actions aimed at allowing the 
authorization procedures to continue.  The recent meeting of the European Environment Council had 
started a very important discussion on proposals presented by the Commission to restart the 
authorization procedure. 
283. In March 2002, the United States reported that no progress had been made on the EC approval 
system despite statements by vari ous Commission officials.  The de facto moratorium had resulted in 
the loss of over $200 million per year in US ag ricultural exports.  New information given by 
Commission officials in February 2002 that the approval process would be restarted later in 2002 was 
welcome.  Frustration in US commercial and political  circles continued to increase.  While the United 
States welcomed the establishment of the European Food Safety Authority, this did not address the fundamental problem of individual EC member Stat es holding the approval process hostage to political 
concerns, with disregard for science and sound regul atory decision-making.  Canada supported the US 
comments and noted that the March 1998 EC moratori um represented a de facto ban on a wide range 
of products.  As such it violated not just the SPS Agreement, but also Article XI of the GATT.  
Argentina echoed the concerns expressed by the United States and Canada. 
284. The European Communities noted the absence of procedures at the international level for 
approval of these types of products.  The Europ ean Communities was following closely the work of 
the Codex ad hoc Taskforce on Biotechnology.  Consider able efforts had been made to put together a 
consistent body of legislation to set up an authorization procedure for products resulting from 
biotechnology, with the aim of giving the producer legal certainty and transparency.  The newly 
established EC Food Safety Authority was responsib le for risk assessment and risk communication, 
but further time was needed to complete work by the European Parliament and the member States. 
285. In June 2002, the United States indicated their fru stration with the situation and noted that it 
was considering what steps to pursue.  Canada ob served that the EC moratorium essentially operated 
as a ban on imports of certain products for over four years, without any scientific basis.  The 
moratorium resulted in trade disruptions and di scrimination based on production methods without 
regard to the assessment of risks.  Canada consider ed the EC moratorium to be inconsistent with the 
SPS Agreement and the GATT, and requested the Eu ropean Communities to put in place a science-
based approval process, as well as to consider a lternative measures.  Th e European Communities 
replied that the matter was following political proce dures as previously described.  At this time, the 
European Parliament was considering the matter, and the Council of Ministers should examine the 
documents in the coming months.  Internal pro cedures had to be followed to apply the proposed 
Directive. 
286. In November 2002, the United States stated that the EC moratorium had resulted in 
approximately 1 billion dollars loss of US exports  to the European Communities.  Even senior G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 74  
 
  European Commission officials had publicly stated th at the moratorium was illegal.  The United States 
indicated that despite the recent adoption of EC Di rective 01/18, the moratorium remained in place and 
trade continued to be blocked.  The United States was of the view that the Commission had the authority and the power to act in the face of this illegal moratorium and it had chosen not to do so.  
The Commission's failure to take action on this i ssue was a matter of growing concern to the United 
States.  Canada shared the concerns expressed by the United States and regretted the inability of the 
European authorities to take steps to ensure that EC  member States met their SPS obligations.  Canada 
called upon the European Communities to lift the moratorium as soon as possible. 
287. Australia supported the views expressed by the United States and Canada about the lack of 
scientific basis for the EC moratorium.  Australia was also concerned about the EC related proposals 
on genetically modified food and feed, and the traceability and labelling of genetically modified 
organisms (GMOs).  Australia requested further in formation as to whether the European Communities 
had conducted a science-based risk assessment for its traceability regulations or based its measure on 
an international standard.  The European Communities had confirmed in their previous responses that 
the research undertaken had confirmed that those GM foods and GM plants and derived products so 
far developed and marketed following usual risk asse ssment procedures had not shown any new risk to 
human health or the environment, beyond the usua l uncertainties of conventional plant breeding, or 
risks that were likely to put in danger the chosen level of health or environmental protection in the 
European Communities.  Given this explanation, Aust ralia requested further clarification as to how, in 
the absence of an identifiable risk to human health, the proposed traceability system met SPS 
requirements. 
288. The Philippines shared the concerns expr essed by the United States and reiterated his 
country's position regarding traceability of GMOs.  The Philippines noted that the European Communities had failed to demonstrate any scientific  evidence that GMOs were not as safe as their 
conventional counterparts, and that there were not less trade restric tive measures available to manage 
the risk. 
289. The European Communities noted that the Co mmission and the EC member States remained 
determined to put in place a regulatory framework to allow GMO and GM products to be marketed 
freely within the European Communities and noted that  the progress had been made in that respect.  
The European Communities requested patience and unde rstanding on this very sensitive dossier which 
was being dealt with at the highest le vel within the European Communities. 
 GUATEMALA CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY GUATEMALA Plant Health 211. Restrictions on the transit of avocados  
Raised by: Mexico 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 28-29) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 75 
 
 
  290. In March 2005, Mexico observed that Guatemal a had imposed restrictions on the transit of 
avocados.  Progress had been made recently in fi nding a solution to the problem, and Mexico would 
monitor the issue 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. 
 HONDURAS CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY HONDURAS Food safety 9. Zero-tolerance for salmone lla in imported poultry products – Maintained by Chile, 
Czech Republic, El Salvador, Honduras and Slovak Republic [See Item 9, page 22] 
 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
145. Import restrictions on chicken meat imports 
Raised by: Costa Rica 
Supported by: Argentina, Chile, Thailand 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28,  paras. 22-27), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, 
paras. 63-64) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/347/Rev.1, G/SPS/GEN/362, G/SPS/GEN/363, 
G/SPS/N/HND/3, G/SPS/GEN/347/Rev.1 and Add.1 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
291. Costa Rica reported that in March 2002, Hondur as had applied import restrictions on poultry 
meat from Costa Rica, admitting imports of poultry m eat only from countries that were free from avian 
influenza, avian infectious laryngotracheitis, Ne wcastle disease and avian salmonellosis.  Costa Rica 
recognized Honduras' efforts to improve its sanitary situation, but questioned whether the measure was 
scientifically justified and whether Honduras had carried out a relevant risk analysis.  In this regard, it 
would be to the benefit of all if Honduras shared its scientific evidence with other members of the 
organization.  Honduras was trying to reverse the burden by insisting that Costa Rica demonstrate its disease free status regarding these four avian diseases.  Costa Rica's avian health status was in line 
with the parameters recognized by the OIE, and its  poultry meat exports did not constitute a risk for 
the avian health status of Honduras.  Costa Rica requested Honduras to respond to the questions 
contained in G/SPS/GEN/347/Rev.1 and requested that  Honduras lift the measure.  Argentina, Chile 
and Thailand supported the concer ns expressed by Costa Rica.  Chile requested information from the 
OIE on this issue, in particular concerning standa rds for the transmission of different avian diseases 
through fresh poultry meat.  Chile also requested a copy of the risk assessment carried out by 
Honduras. 
292. Honduras explained the background to his count ry's decision to impose restrictions on 
chicken meat imports from Costa Rica.  The Agricu lture and Livestock Secretariat had developed a 
national programme for the prevention, control an d eradication of avian diseases, including avian 
influenza, avian infectious laryngotracheitis, Ne wcastle disease and avian salmonellosis.  This G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 76  
 
  programme had been notified to all WTO member s (G/SPS/N/HND/3).  In October 2001, Honduras 
had notified that it had achieved free status for the four avian diseases mentioned above.  Honduras 
had requested that Costa Rica, as well as other countries, provide the necessary documentation that 
guaranteed equivalence between the exporting coun try's avian health status, as well as access for 
technical experts to carry out the relevant inspecti ons.  His authorities had not been able to determine 
that the poultry health programmes of Costa Rica we re equivalent because they had been unable to 
carry out the relevant inspections and obtain th e necessary technical information requested from Costa 
Rica.  The scientific evidence re quested by Costa Rica was contained in the OIE Bulletin, N°6, pages 
810 to 815, and Honduras welcomed the updating of standards by the OIE. 
293. The representative of the OIE stated that OIE standards existed for avian infectious 
laryngotracheitis, avian salmonellosis, and Newcastle  disease, and for the highly pathogenic form only 
of avian influenza.  The OIE standards for avian infectious laryngotracheitis and avian salmonellosis 
contained recommendations only for live birds, fo r day-old chicks, and for hatching eggs but no 
recommendations for poultry meat.  In other words, at  present there were no official OIE standards for 
poultry meat for these two diseases, however these chapte rs had not been reviewed for some time.  The 
lack of a standard concerning poultry meat could mean  either that there were no risks associated with 
trade in poultry meat for these diseases, or that the OIE had not come out with a recommendation on 
poultry meat which meant that trading partners woul d be expected to negotiate between themselves 
using risk analysis in order to reach science base d conclusions.  In the absence of an official OIE 
standard, the OIE had replied to a request from the Di rector of Animal Health in Costa Rica that there 
was no scientific evidence indicating that avian infectious laryngotracheitis or avian salmonellosis 
could be transmitted through poultry meat.  This w as not an official OIE standard but a scientific 
opinion from the OIE.  If there was sufficient trade di sruption due to the lack of an OIE standard for 
poultry meat for these diseases, the OIE would incl ude updating these standards in its future work 
programme. 
294. In April 2003, Costa Rica noted that bilateral consultations were progressing 
(G/SPS/GEN/347/Rev.1/Add.1).  Honduras reported th at after the November 2002 meeting of the SPS 
Committee, an agreement was reached on how to progress towards re-establishing trade of poultry 
meat and products from Costa Rica. 
 
INDIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDIA 
Food safety 
200. Ban on food grade wax 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 38-39) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
295. The United States stated that on 13 August 2003, India's Ministry of Health and Family 
Welfare published gazette notification GSR 656 am ending the 1955 Prevention of Food Adulteration  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 77 
 
 
  Act by prohibiting the sale of fresh fruits and vegetabl es coated with waxes, mineral oils and colours.  
This amendment threatened US horticultural exports to India and was not notified to the WTO.  The 
new requirements exceeded those of the Codex and were adopted without scientific justification.  
Furthermore, the long shipping journey to India's ports meant that the export of US fruits and vegetables without waxing was not a viable alternativ e.  Waxing was an essential treatment required to 
maintain shelf life.  India was requested to notif y this measure to the WTO so that Members could 
have the opportunity to comment on the regulations. 
296. India replied that the measure in question ha d earlier been published in draft form in the 
Ministry of Health notification GSR 852 on 30 Dece mber 2002, inviting comments from all interested 
parties.  The current measure was in force due to  increasing incidents of the use of unsafe wax and 
adulteration of food with harmful chemicals.  This  was also a problem with domestic food traders and 
vendors.  This issue of wax coating of fruits and vegetables was being examined by an expert group 
under the auspices of the Ministry of Health. 
 
240. Biotech labelling and import approval process regulations 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Argentina, Brazil, Canada 
Dates raised: June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, paras. 15-16) 
Relevant document(s): G/TBT/N/IND/17, G/TBT/N/IND/12 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
297. In June 2006, the United States referred to India's notifications to the TBT Committee 
affecting trade in biotechnology products.  The Ministry of Commerce and Industry's "Supplement to the Government of India's Foreign Trade Policy, Condition 18" (G/TBT/N/IND/17) would require that 
its Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) provide pre-approval of imports.  The Ministry 
of Health and Family Welfare's proposed mandato ry labelling requirement for biotechnology products 
(G/TBT/N/IND/12) would also require pre-approval by the GEAC.  The United States requested that these measures be notified to the SPS Committee to a llow an opportunity for comments and that their 
implementation be delayed until a number of issues coul d be resolved.  In particular, the United States 
was concerned about:  the lack of clarity with regard to the scope and process of the proposed 
measures and their scientific justification;  what procedures would be in place for pre-approval of 
imports and once approved;  what procedures would be in place domestically and at the ports for 
enforcement;  and what was the scope and the justifi cation to require that the process of production be 
included on the label.  Without clarification of  these questions, US exports to India would be 
negatively affected. 
298. Argentina, Brazil and Canada shared the con cerns raised by United States and asked that 
Members be given an opportunity to comment on the measures before their adoption.  Canada 
indicated that it would provide comments on the relevant TBT notifications and also invited India to notify its measures to the SPS Committee and take  into account comments of other Members. 
299. India took note of the concerns raised a nd stressed that the proposed regulation on pre-
approvals was not new as it had already been notifie d in 1989.  The purpose of the current proposal 
was to make the requirements mandatory.  The obj ective of the mandatory labelling requirement was 
to provide correct information to consumers about the nature of the food.  India was committed to 
following the transparency requirements and would consider notifying the relevant measures to the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 78  
 
  SPS Committee and would take into account comment s received before the measures entered into 
force. 
 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
61. Import restrictions on bovine semen 
Raised by: Canada, European Communities 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, para. 19, G/SPS/R/18, paras. 23-25), June 2000 
(G/SPS/R/19, paras. 24-25), Novemb er 2000 (G/SPS/R/20, paras. 18-22), 
March 2001 (G/SPS/R/21, paras. 40-43), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 51), 
April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 76-77) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/113 
Solution: Change of relevant regulations and expected solution reported in July 2001 
Status: Partially resolved 
 
300. In March 1999, the European Communities indi cated that bilateral contact with India 
regarding import restrictions on bovi ne semen had not been successful , and submitted a list of specific 
questions.  In March 2000, the Eu ropean Communities reported that no information had been received 
from India, although there had been some bilatera l and multilateral contacts.  India presented some 
information to the EC delegate at that time. 
301. In March 2000, Canada expressed concern that  India was banning imports of bovine semen 
from Canada because of BSE concerns, although Ca nada was BSE-free, and although BSE was not 
transmissible through semen accordin g to the OIE.  India clarified that the measure was a licensing 
process, not a ban, which had been imposed to avoi d inadvertent introduction of BSE or scrapie into 
India.  India had prepared a questionnaire for its trading partners and was planning to carry out a risk assessment based on the responses.  The representative of India indicated that he would bring the 
Canadian concerns to the attention of his authorities in order to solve the problem bilaterally as soon as 
possible. 
302. In June 2000, Canada informed the Committee that bilateral consultations had failed to 
resolve the matter, and that India continued to restri ct Canadian exports of bovine semen despite (i)  
Canada being BSE-free, (ii) OIE confirmation that BSE was not transmissible through semen, (iii) the 
OIE specifically not calling for restrictions on trad e in bovine semen, and (iv) the absence of a risk 
assessment to justify India's ban on bovine semen.  Ca nada asked that India remove this restriction.  
India noted that recent bilateral consultations had been  helpful and that efforts were being made to find 
a solution to the dispute. 
303. In November 2000, Canada, supported by the Eu ropean Communities, reiterated its concerns 
regarding India's BSE-related restrictions on bov ine semen imports, despite Canada's BSE freedom, 
and despite agreement in the OIE and other veteri nary bodies that BSE was not transmitted by semen.  
In September 2000, India had indicated that it intended  to continue this unjustified prohibition, despite 
the lack of risk assessment for the measure.  India reported that detailed bila teral consultations were 
ongoing.  The Indian Animal Husbandry Commissi on had met on 11 September 2000 and had noted 
the findings of the EC Scientific Steering Committ ee (SSC) regarding the difficulty of making precise 
estimates of the risks of infectivity of various products including semen.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 79 
 
 
  304. India further reported that it had sought detaile d information from the OIE regarding the basis 
for determining that BSE was not transmitted by semen, as well as information on the criteria for determining if a country or zone was free from BSE.   However, to date no reply had been received 
from the OIE. 
305. The European Communities observed that India was referring to a scientific opinion which 
had been published in 1998, which had subsequently  been modified through various meetings of the 
OIE.  The representative of the OIE indicated that the issue of bovine semen had been examined on 
various occasions at the OIE, and the results of these examinations had been provided to India, however, the OIE would again send India all of the relevant information. 
306. In March 2001, Canada and India announced that  they had agreed to informal discussions 
under the SPS Agreement and hoped that the matter w ould be resolved soon.  Canada recalled the OIE 
statement confirming that BSE could not be transmitted by semen (G/SPS/GEN/230).  India stressed that it was not trying to give an unfair advant age to domestic producers.  The socio-religious 
conditions related to the treatment of cows in India were such that India had to be extremely cautious.  
India asked Canada to cooperate with India's risk assessment, which would take at least another six 
months to complete.  Canada questioned the need to  carry out the risk assessment, since according to 
the OIE there was no risk of disease transmission thr ough semen.  India and Canada intended to raise 
the issue at the OIE. 
307. In July 2001, Canada reported that it was e ngaged in bilateral consultations under the SPS 
Agreement with India.  There had been certain positive developments and Canada hoped to quickly 
resolve the issue.  India indicated that the relevant  regulations had been changed, and that the changes 
would soon be notified. 
308. In April 2003, Canada stated that although a successful conclusion had been reported to the 
Committee in July 2001, a further problem had b een encountered and an import licence request was 
rejected by India due to some apparent conn ection between BSE and bovine semen.  Canada 
questioned the scientific basis for the action and stated that the OIE's recommendations supported 
Canada's view.  Canada requested that India remove this restriction.  India agreed to convey Canada's 
concerns to the appropriate authorities. 
 
62. Restrictions on imports of horses 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, para . 20), October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, paras. 22-
24) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/112 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
309. In March 1999, the European Communities indicat ed that trade in horses with India had been 
interrupted, although the necessary health guarantees had not been identified.  Import restrictions were 
based on the presence of contagious equine metritis .  The European Communities presented a series of 
questions to India, including a request for justifi cation of India's measure which was more stringent 
than the OIE Code. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 80  
 
  310. In October 2006, the European Communities agai n raised concerns regarding India's import 
conditions for live horses from some EC member States on the basis of Contagious Equine Metritis (CEM).  India's requirements that allowed only for the importation of breeding horses from countries which had been free of CEM for a minimum of thr ee years was not based on international standards 
and recommendations, in particular Article 2.5.1.1 of  the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code which 
set conditions of live horses to be exported safely in  respect of CEM.  India had not provided any 
scientific justification for import requirements cont aining higher protection measures than reflected in 
international standards, and thus was not complying with Article 3.3 of the SPS Agreement.  Despite 
numerous bilateral discussions on the issue duri ng 2005 and 2006, no progress had been made.  No 
response had been received to a document subm itted by the United Kingdom in January 2006 with 
further scientific evidence that export of breading hor ses from that country posed no risk for the Indian 
equine population.  The European Communities ur ged India to bring their import requirements for 
CEM in line with OIE recommendations. 
311. India stated that it allowed the import of live horses, including breeding horses, under existing 
health protocols.  Although it was free from CEM,  India allowed imports of male horses less than 
seven years of age and female horses less than five  years of age.  India indicated that some CEM-
positive countries in the European region were regularly  exporting live horses to India.  With regard to 
the OIE guidelines, consultation with the relevant te chnical experts was being done and a report on the 
issue was expected very soon.  India was willing to  discuss the issue bilaterally with the European 
Communities. 
312. The European Communities stressed the fact that  some EC member States were experiencing 
restrictions on the export of live horses to India, and welcomed the opportunity for further bilateral 
discussions. 
 
Plant Health 
186. Phytosanitary import restrictions 
Raised by: United States, European Communities 
Supported by: Canada, Chile, New Zealand, European Communities 
Dates raised: March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 23-31), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, 
paras. 22-24), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 45-46) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/IND/12 and Add.1 
Solution: Amendments to Plant Quarantine Order 2003 regarding solid wood 
packaging 
Status: Partially resolved 
 
313. The United States expressed concerns over India's new fumigation requirements which 
entered into force on 1 January and 6 February 2004.   These regulations were not notified to the WTO 
until 4 March 2004 as G/SPS/N/IND/12 and Members did not have an opportunity to provide 
comments.  With respect to almonds, phoshpine had b een an effective treatment to control pests of 
concern to India prior to the imposition of the ne w regulations.  This treatment was supported by 
scientific literature that had been presented to India for examination.  India was requested to revise its 
measures accordingly.  With regards to solid wood packing, India's measures deviated substantially 
from international standard ISPM 15, particularly  in relation to requirements for physotsanitary 
documentation and the lack of scientific justificat ion for treatment requirements.  Under the new 
regulation, both the consignment and packing material were to be treated and by implication, untreated  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 81 
 
 
  consignments, or those without phytosanitary certif ication would not be allowed to enter India.  
Furthermore, India's requirement that packing mate rial be treated with methyl bromide for 32 hours 
exceeded ISPM 15 requirement of 16 hours.  India w as requested to provide scientific justification for 
this divergence or revise its measures accordingly. 
314. The European Communities rejected India's claim that these measures conformed to 
international standards and therefore did not have to be notified.  The lapse of two months in notifying 
the WTO after implementation of the measures deni ed countries the opportunity to comment on them.  
The European Communities requested  India to defer the implementa tion of the new measures until the 
normal 60-day comment period expire d.  Canada shared the concern about the lack of adequate 
comment period and stated that Canada became awar e of the new requirements when its pulse exports 
to India were rejected. India had temporarily agreed to accept Canadian pulse shipments without 
fumigation until 30 April 2004.  However, India's re fusal to consider alternatives to fumigation 
treatment was unacceptable, given that Canada's climate made fumigation unnecessary.  Furthermore, Canada had been free of the relevant pests for 20 years and had been shipping products to India for 
several years without problems.  Canada urged Indi a to use the least trade- restrictive measures as 
stipulated in the SPS Agreement.  Chile and Ne w Zealand shared the concerns expressed by the 
previous countries above, particularly those relate d to certification requirements and the lack of 
adequate comment period. 
315. India explained that the Plant Quarantine Order was intended to simplify India's existing plant 
quarantine regime, which previously had multiple instruments, including the Destructive Insect and 
Pest Act of 1914 and Order 1989 regulating imports of cotton, plants, fruits and seeds into India.  The 
new Order repealed and replaced these instruments a nd filled a gap in the old plant quarantine orders, 
particularly related to emerging global agricultural trade issues such as GMOs, germplasm, transgenic 
plant material, live insects, fungi and bio-control ag ents.  The Plant Quarantine Order of 18 November 
2003, came into force on 1 January 2004 and the app lication of some provisions deferred to 1 April 
2004.  The regulations were made available on th e website immediately after its publication and a 
number of India's trading partners had sought clarifi cation bilaterally.  The Plant Quarantine Order was 
amended on 6 February 2004 to increase clarity  and take account of Member's concerns. 
316. With respect to the US concerns, phosphine fu migation was useful for quality control but was 
not an effective treatment against quarantine pests in  almonds.  Nevertheless, India agreed to examine 
the research papers presented by the United States and requested that Members send their comments 
on the issue.  On the issue of solid wood packing, India required treatment of the whole consignment if 
it contained agricultural produce but would accept treatment according to ISPM 15 otherwise.  
Phytosanitary certificates were required if the e xporting country had not followed ISPM 15 treatment 
requirements.  With regards to Canada's concerns , the new Order contained a temporary provision for 
the relaxation of specific conditions if problems aro se in the clearance of consignments.  Canadian 
pulse consignments imported between  31 December 2003 and 30 April 2004 would be cleared and this 
decision was also extended to all trading partners.  While the new regulations were based on scientific 
principles, India agreed to consider alternative me asures proposed by Canada if they could be proven 
to be effective.  India had notified the WTO of these measures on 4 March 2004 and the final date for 
comment was 30 April 2004. 
317. In June 2004, the European Communities raised concerns about India's import restrictions 
related to plant quarantine.  Wh ile India had amended the wood pack aging part of these measures and 
brought them into line with international standards,  concerns remained about a range of other existing 
measures that had negative trade impacts.  India ha d not produced scientific information to justify 
these measures.  The European Communities understood that according to India's regulatory approach 
in this area many types of products were banned be fore PRAs were conducted to determine if a ban 
was justified.  Since no international standards ex isted for many of the banned products, India should 
conduct a PRA prior to implementing a measure as  required by the SPS Agreement.  Canada, New G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 82  
 
  Zealand and the United States echoed the EC concerns.  Both Canada and New Zealand stressed that 
Members had not had an opportunity to comment  on these measures, and indicated that their 
authorities were engaged in bilateral discussions w ith India to seek a resolution to this issue. 
318. India stated that it had delayed implemen tation of these measures until the comments on 
G/SPS/N/IND/12 could be considered.  The Ministry of Agriculture had also discussed the 
phytosanitary concerns of other Members on a bilate ral basis, and in some cases had provided short-
term solutions to the issues.  For example, Indi a had accepted all import consignments of plant and 
plant materials until 30 June 2004 to provide ample ad justment period to exporting Members.  Some of 
the provisions of the Plant Quarantine Order 2003 had already been amended, including those on 
treatment of solid wood packaging materials, and these amendments had been notified to the 
Secretariat. 
319. In October 2004, the United States recalled th at India’s requirements for methyl bromide 
fumigation for numerous products from the United Stat es was raised in the l ast Committee meeting.  
The fumigation requirements were adopted in Novemb er 2003, but were notified only in January 2004, 
two months after the measure had come into force.  Bilateral discussions were held with India where it 
was agreed that US almonds would be allowed under the previous import requirements until June 
2005.  Phosphine was a proven and effective treatment  for quarantine and storage pests associated with 
almonds.  Nonetheless, the United States was c onducting further research to develop long-term 
solutions to address India’s concerns.  India replie d that the United States had provided information 
and data on the efficacy of phosphine as a fumigant.  However, until field data was available, US almonds would be allowed into India subject to fumigation at the port of entry. 
 
Other concerns 
192. Non-notification of various SPS measures 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, New Z ealand, European Communities 
Dates raised: June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, pa ras. 52-54), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, 
paras. 80-82), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/ Rev.1, paras. 69-70), June 2005 
(G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 48-50) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/R/33 (paras. 23-31) 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
320. In June 2004, the United States indicated that India's non-notification, or late notification, of 
SPS measures  had created unnecessary trade disruptions and an uncertain environment for trade.  India was requested to comply with obligations  under the SPS Agreement by notifying all its SPS 
measures to the WTO and providing a reasonable peri od of time for Members to review and comment 
on the notifications.  Australia, the European Co mmunities and New Zealand shared the concerns 
raised by the United States.  India stated that it att ached great importance to th e issue of transparency.  
With respect to India's Plant Quarantine Order 2003,  statements had already been provided to the 
European Communities and the issue had been discus sed at the March Committee meeting.  India had 
notified the measure on 4 March 2004 with a 60-day comment period and had ensured that trade was 
not restricted because of the lack of timeliness of the notification.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 83 
 
 
  321. In October 2004, the United States expressed continued concern over India's non-notification 
of measures which created uncertainty among US e xporters.  India was requested to notify its SPS 
measures and to allow a reasonable period of time for comment.  The Europ ean Communities shared 
the concerns of the United States and at the same time urged all Members to notify their SPS 
measures.  A bilateral meeting had been held with India and the European Communities were 
optimistic of improvements in India's transparency oblig ations.  India stated that it would ensure that it 
complied with its obligations. 
322. In March 2005, the United States again expressed concern regarding India's non-compliance 
with  its transparency obligations under the SPS Agreement andrequested India to suspend the 
implementation of measures on dairy products a nd pet food until a WTO notification was made 
available and a reasonable time provided to Member s for their review and comment.  The European 
Communities shared the concerns of the United States.   India stated that it would take the necessary 
steps to notify SPS requirements as soon as possible. 
323. In June 2005, the  United States noted that a lthough India had  improved its coordination on 
SPS issues, some Indian departments continued to note notify   SPS measures implemented. The 
United States requested that India notify new a nd revised food regulations and import conditions. 
324. The European Communities noted that it had also been adversely affected by India's lack of 
notification of some SPS rules governing imports of  agricultural products.  Progress in terms of 
transparency had been limited to the phytosanitary sector;  legislation governing animal health and 
production were not systematically notified. 
325. India explained that it had recently notified th e establishment of three separate enquiry points 
with clearly delineated responsibilities.  These efforts had achieved greater coordination among 
agencies, as demonstrated by the number of recent notifications that had been submitted at an early 
stage in the development of the regulation and with a due period for comments. 
 
INDONESIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY INDONESIA 
Food safety 146. Ban on hormones in animal production  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, Canada, Mexico 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 83-86) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/IND/17 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
326. The United States indicated that the implementa tion of this regulation would effectively ban 
the use of several growth hormones and there was no  scientific evidence to support this measure.  US 
regulatory agencies had been conducting research si nce the 1950s on the use and safety of approved G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 84  
 
  growth hormones.  A consensus had been reached re garding the safety of these hormones if used with 
good veterinary practices.  The United States requested Indonesia to put forward scientific data in support of its proposed ban.  In the event that no scientific data existed, the United States requested 
Indonesia to reconsider this proposal as soon as possible. 
327. Canada, supported by Australia and Mexico , expressed concerns regarding Indonesia's 
apparent import ban on live cattle and beef deri ved from cattle treated with synthetic growth 
hormones.  A number of questions surrounding the risk-based nature of these measures were highlighted, particularly given the precedence estab lished in the WTO regarding measures prohibiting 
growth hormones.  They requested Indonesia to indicate whether it had conducted a risk assessment 
and to provide the details  of the risk based rational for its measures.  The European Communities 
noted that there was a WTO finding on the issue a nd that it intended to bring its legislation into 
compliance with the ruling of the panel.  Much wo rk had been undertaken in this regard and the 
European Communities expected to soon be able to ensure that the EC ban was fully compatible with 
the WTO. 
328. Indonesia noted that his country had not yet im plemented the regulation, but had notified to 
Members the fact that they were going to amend the decree concerning classification of veterinary 
drugs.  Although Indonesia had not yet banned hormone growth promoters, there were some reasons to 
believe that growth hormones could be hazardous to  human health, due in part to the fact that 
developed countries' consumption patterns were diffe rent to those in Indonesia.  Indonesia further 
noted that the use of hormone growth promoter s in poultry had been banned internationally. 
 Animal Health and Zoonoses 111. FMD restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Brazil 
Dates raised: October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, paras. 92-93 (see also para. 132)), 
October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 35-36), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, 
paras. 34-35), October 2004 (G/SPS/ R/35, paras. 53-55), March 2005 
(G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 48-49) , June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, 
paras 175-176) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/240 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
329. In October 2001, Argentina noted it had raised concerns about Indonesia's FMD restrictions 
on certain products.  Although Indonesia had informed  Argentina that certain products had been re-
classified, the changes had not been implemented a nd Argentina was still unable to export the products 
concerned, mainly vegetables and corn.  Indonesia stated that the ban on Argentine corn had been 
lifted as of August 2001.  Indonesia looked forw ard to holding further bilateral discussions. 
330. In October 2003, Argentina recalled that I ndonesian restrictions went beyond the OIE 
recommendations (G/SPS/GEN/240) and included produc ts not affected by FMD, i.e., cereals.  
Argentina requested Indonesia to provide scientific  evidence to justify the measures or else lift the 
measures.  Argentina had provided documentation in an informal bilateral meeting with Indonesia and 
proposed a visit of experts to resolve the issue.  Indonesia stated that FMD was a serious risk as  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 85 
 
 
  Indonesia was free of the disease.  The ban was periodi cally evaluated and could be temporary.  A visit 
by experts from Indonesia was being considered .  Progress on this issue was being made in 
consultations with Argentina and the Committee would be informed. 
331. In June 2004, Argentina stated that Argentine bovine meat continued to be prohibited despite 
having made several requests to Indonesia's vete rinary service.  Indonesia required that bovine 
products come from areas free from FMD for the past  twelve months, and where vaccination had not 
been carried out in the previous  three consecutive years.  These measures went beyond official OIE 
recommendations.  Indonesia had not provided any scientific evidence to support these restrictive 
measures.  Indonesia noted that the matter had been discussed in bilateral meetings with Argentina.  
The importation of ruminants and ruminant products  from countries with endemic status or FMD-free 
with vaccination was prohibited pending further deci sions by the Indonesian expert commissions of 
veterinary public health and animal health. 
332. In October 2004, Argentina reported that I ndonesia continued to prohibit imports of 
Argentine beef.  Indonesia was requested to co mply with OIE recommendations or submit a risk 
analysis to justify its measures.  Brazil shared Ar gentina's concerns.  Indonesia had prohibited imports 
of soybean and soybean products from FMD-free areas with vaccination in Brazil.  Indonesia's 
measures were inconsistent with OIE guidelin es and recommendations and Article 6 of the SPS 
Agreement. 
333. Indonesia explained that any country wishing to export to Indonesia must be free of FMD and 
rinderpest as stipulated in the Indonesian Minist ry of Agriculture Decree 1992.  Countries meeting 
these requirements were allowed to export to Indonesi a.  With respect to Argentina, imports were 
allowed when Argentina was decl ared FMD-free in 2000.  However,  imports were suspended when 
there was an outbreak of the disease.  Argentina a nd Brazil had not been declared FMD-free without 
vaccination by the OIE.  The same conditions also  applied to soybean and soybean products and 
imports would be allowed into Indonesia on ce the outbreaks were brought under control. 
334. In March 2005, Argentina argued that Indonesia's re strictions were  inconsistent with Articles 
2.2, 5.1 and 3.3 of the SPS Agreement.  Not onl y did Indonesia's requirements exceed the provisions 
of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code of the OIE, but they were even less justified now that Argentina 
had recovered its status of free from FMD with v accination in the region north of latitude 42°.  
Indonesia noted that it had submitted a protocol for the approval and inspection of exports of meat 
products from Argentina and was waiting for the response from Argentina. 
335. In June 2005, Argentina recalled that Indonesia's requirement that the country of origin had 
been FMD-free for at least 12 months prior to sh ipment,and had not vaccinated against the disease in 
three years, exceeded the OIE Code, especially as Ar gentina had regained its FMD-free status.  Brazil 
reportedsimilar experienced problem s with exports of meat and meat products to Indonesia.  Indonesia 
indicated the concerns would be forwarded to the relevant authorities. 
336. In February 2006, Argentina noted that Indon esian health authorities had been invited to 
inspect the entire Argentine production chain for meat .  Brazil noted that restrictions remained on 
products such as heat-processed meats, although the technology protected the product from FMD 
infection. 
337. Indonesia clarified that it had a policy of maxi mum security for imported products of animal 
origin based on two criteria, animal health and vete rinary public health.  The overall objective was to 
maintain Indonesia’s status as a country free fro m all major diseases such as FMD and BSE, and to 
protect consumers' health and spiritual comfort through assuring the safety of animals distributed in 
Indonesia.  Indonesia undertook on site reviews of potential exporters in order to collect direct and G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 86  
 
  detailed information as a prerequisite for import au thorisation.  In December 2005, Indonesia had 
notified Argentina of its intention to visit Arge ntina in order to undertake an on site review. 
 
Plant Health 
21. Fresh fruit and vegetables 
Raised by: Australia, United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 22) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/IDN/2 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
338. Australia and the United States sought clarificati on with regard to the scope of the Indonesian 
regulation on fresh fruit and vegetables.  In bilate ral discussions with Australia, Indonesian authorities 
had referred to a problem arising from national pr actice, which precluded the circulation of draft 
regulations.  The United States and Australia urged Indonesia to consider legislative adjustments to 
enable WTO Members to receive information on proposed measures sufficien tly in time to be 
assessed.  Australia appreciated Indonesian efforts to meet requests for additional information.  
Indonesia regretted that the draft regulation had no t yet been finalized, but assured the Committee that 
a document containing detailed information about th e proposed regulations would be provided in due 
course. 
 
ISRAEL 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ISRAEL Animal Health and Zoonoses 55. TSE-related import restrictions of live cattle  
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Switzerland 
Dates raised: November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 35-36) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ISR/2 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
339. The European Communities said that it was not entirely clear how Israel categorized 
countries' BSE status, and that the notification did not provide sufficient information.  It listed a 
number of requirements which appeared not to  be justified, and were not based on OIE 
recommendations.  The European Communities requested  an explanation of the notified legislation, 
and submitted a number of questions for written comment by Israel.  Israel requested the EC questions 
in writing..  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 87 
 
 
   
232. Import restrictions on EC beef due to BSE 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2005 (G/SPS/R/39, pa ras. 41-42), February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, 
paras. 41-42 ), March 2006 (G/SPS/R/40, paras. 44-45) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
340. In October 2005, the European Communities noted that exports of EC beef into Israel were 
currently allowed only from a limited number of EC  member States and restricted to calves younger 
than 6-8 months.  No native case of BSE had been detected in some of the EC member States whose 
beef imports were prohibited.  BSE protective me asures were equally impl emented through the whole 
EC territory and equally applied to beef for cons umption within the European Communities and beef 
for export.  With regard to the restriction to calves younger than 6-8 months, amendments to the 
Terrestrial Animal Health Code adopted by the OIE in May 2005 included the addition of deboned 
skeletal muscle meat of animals less than 30 mont hs to the list of products which could be safely 
traded, under certain conditions, regardless of the BSE status of the exporting country. 
341. Israel reported that his country had alread y engaged bilaterally with the European 
Communities on this issue in order to find a mutually satisfactory solution. 
342. In March 2006, the European Communities reported that Israel continued its restrictions on 
beef from EC member States.  However, Israel's veterinary services had indicated its willingness to 
address this issue on the basis of further OIE developments during the coming months, and the European Communities would inform the SPS Comm ittee of the final resu lts of its bilateral 
consultations with Israel. 
343. Israel noted that in general imports of beef and bovine products we re permitted, provided 
there was no record of BSE in the exporting country  and that the import was approved by the Israeli 
veterinary service. 
 
JAPAN 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN 
Food safety 
147. Regulation on food additives 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 35-37) G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 88  
 
  Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
344. The European Communities indicated that a lis t of substances, including food additives, 
aromas, food ingredients and extract solvents, were  not formally authorized by Japanese law, which 
could constitute barriers to food product exports to  Japan.  Some of the additives had already been 
authorized by Japan for other purposes.  The Eur opean Communities requested Japan to approve those 
substances that had been evaluated by the Europ ean Communities on scientific grounds, and noted that 
all of the substances had been evaluated at the in ternational level by the scientific committee of the 
Codex Alimentarius Commission.  The European Communities reported that a number of bilateral 
meetings had already taken place.  The United Stat es shared the concerns expressed by the European 
Communities and urged Japan to consider exped ited approval for these food additives that were 
commonly used and considered safe. 
345. Japan stated that it had recently enacted a new policy for evaluating the safety and the 
necessity of the use of food additives and for authoriz ing their use.  Japanese authorities were putting 
together a list of food additives that were considered  safe and necessary to use for certain foods.  The 
use of food additives varied from country to co untry depending upon customs and habits, and a 
number of food additives authorized by the European  Communities were not authorized in Japan and 
vice versa.  Japan suggested further b ilateral consultations on this issue. 
346. In January 2005, Japan reported that food a dditives, including flavouring agents were 
permitted to be used only when designated by th e Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare under the 
Food Sanitation Law as substances that were unlikely to  cause a health hazard.  With regards to the use 
of unauthorized food additives, an application must be filed with the Minister. 
347. Furthermore, since 2002, Japan had given priority  to certain food additives for authorization, 
including those proposed by the European Communities and that were also proven safe by the 
FAO/WHO Joint Expert Committee on Food Additiv es.  The Minister had taken the necessary 
procedures to hear the opinions of the Food Sa fety Commission (FSC) on 29 additives, including 9 
flavouring agents, for which full documentation had b een prepared.  Of the 29 substances, 4 additives 
(including 3 flavouring agents) were  designated as authorized food a dditives in December 2004.  This 
information was provided to the European Commun ities at the Japan-EU Regulatory Reform Dialogue 
and at other opportunities.  In order to expedite a nd facilitate Japanese evalua tions of the substances, 
the European Communities were requested to provi de the documentation and literature supporting EC 
scientific evaluation of the substances. 
 
148. Amendment of the food sanitation law 
Raised by: China 
Supported by: Korea, Republic of 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 40-42) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/JPN/84, G/SPS/N/JPN/86 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 89 
 
 
  348. China raised concerns over Japan's amendment of the food sanitation law and the procedures 
followed.  Japan's emergency notification (G/SPS/N/ JPN/84), issued on 18 July 2002, indicated that 
the amendment prohibiting the sale, manufacturi ng and import of specific food, food additives, 
apparatus and container/packages when considerab le amounts of foods were assumed not to be in 
conformity with the provisions of the Food Sanita tion Law would enter into force on 7 September 
2002.  A related emergency notif ication had been made on 7 September 2002 (G/SPS/N/JPN/86). 
China questioned the appropriateness of the use of  emergency notifications, as Members could not 
comment before the measure had been enforced.  China requested Japan to provide the scientific 
evidence, including a risk analysis, that supported the measures taken.  Korea indicated that it had 
requested information on Japan's amendment on 3 September 2002, and were awaiting a response. 
349. Japan indicated that they had already recei ved comprehensive comments from China on the 
amendment of the food sanitation law within the frame work of the Trade Policy Review of Japan.  The 
use of the emergency notifications were in accordance with the recommended procedures for 
transparency, however, Japan was prepared to consider the matter further on a bilateral basis. 
350. In February 2005, Japan reported that it had r esponded to China's comments on notification 
G/SPS/N/JPN/86 in November 2002 and had not since received any objections from China. 
 
178. Revision of standards and specifications for food and additives 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 45-46) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/JPN/104 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
351. China expressed concerns over Japan's maximum residue levels (MRLs) for several pesticide 
residues, in particular MRLs for chlorpyrifos.  The limits for chlorpyrifos in spinach and other 
products were not science-based. 
352. Japan noted that answers to questions rai sed by China had been provided through the 
Japanese Embassy in China.  With  regards to the MRL for spinach, this product was not included in 
the notification.  The MRL for the 15 pesticid es were based on toxicological risk assessments 
including residue data and were no mo re stringent than Codex standards. 
353. In February 2005, Japan reported that it had not received any objections from China since 
providing responses to China's concerns in October 2 003 and participating in the Japan-China bilateral 
consultations in December 2004. 
 
201. Standards and specifications for food additives (boscalid) 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 70-71) G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 90  
 
  Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/JPN/121 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
354. China raised concerns over Japan's notifica tion G/SPS/N/JPN/121 on proposed MRLs for the 
fungicide boscalid.  The products affected by the pr oposed MRL included products of animal origin 
although the use of boscalid was applicable to on ly a few products such as soybean and fruits.  
Furthermore, MRLs for boscalid varied for differe nt products, e.g., the MRL for strawberries was 15 
ppm while the MRL for other products was 3.5 ppm.  Japan was requested to explain these differences 
in MRLs and to provide scientific evidence to justify the establishment of MRLs for boscalid. 
355. Japan stated that its measur es were based, in part, on the standards adopted by the US 
Environment Protection Agency (EPA) for boscalid, in cluding the products that were affected by the 
MRL.  As boscalid was a newly registered agricu ltural chemical in Japan, MRLs needed to be 
established to ensure food safety.  Domestic data was also taken into account in establishing the MRL 
and this explained why there were some differences in the MRLs between Japan and the United States. 
 212. Positive list system for pesticides, ve terinary drugs and feed additives MRLs 
Raised by: China, United States 
Supported by: Australia, Philippines 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1,  paras. 19-21), October 2005 (G/SPS/R/39, 
paras. 49-51 and 61-63), February 20 06 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 49-51 and 61-
63 ), June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, paras. 22-24) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
356. In March 2005, China noted that the proposed adoption of a single standard limit of 0.1ppm 
for 700 types of pesticides, veterinary drugs and feed additives for which no specific residue limit had 
been established would jeopardize Chinese exports of vegetables to Japan.  Chin a requested that Japan 
assess the possible impact of such an amendment on exports to Japan, provide opportunities to discuss 
the results of this assessment and c onsider solutions to minimize its impact.  Japan should also provide 
the science-based risk assessment that had led to the amendment of the MRLs.  Should there be any 
notification in the future on this issue, Japan shoul d provide a comment period of at least 60 days as of 
the date of distribution and extend this upon requ est, and allow an adequate adaptation period in 
accordance with the Doha decision.  China also sought clarifications on Japan's detection methods for 
residues.  The Philippines supported China's concerns on this issue and requested relevant information 
from Japan in order to assess the possible implications  of this proposed amendment on the Philippines' 
exports. 
357. Japan clarified that the its new positive list sy stem, based on the revised Food Sanitation Law, 
was aimed at regulating the distribution of foods th at contained agricultural chemicals, veterinary 
drugs and feed additives for which no MRLs had yet been established.  Before the positive list system 
entered into force, the Ministry of Health, Labour  and Welfare would compare its provisional MRLs 
with the Codex standards.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 91 
 
 
  358. In February 2006, the United States reported th at in June 2005, Japan had notified its final 
draft of thousands of new provisional maximum r esidue limits (MRLs) for over 700 pesticides, 
veterinary drugs and feed additives covering all basic commodity groups.  In November 2005, the 
provision of a six-month transition period before official enforcement of the provisional MRLs had 
been notified.  The Ministry of Agriculture, Forest ry and Fisheries of Japan (MAFF) had announced in 
December 2005 the implementation and enforcement of the provisional MRLs on rice, wheat, barley 
and possibly other commodities.  The United States was concerned about the effect of these new MRLs on agricultural exports to Japan and request ed Japan to clarify its plans regarding the 
enforcement of these MRLs. 
359. China requested Japan to grant at least an additional 18 months for developing country 
Members to adjust the application of agriculture chemicals, conduct training and education activities, 
provide guidance to farmers and make laboratory preparations.  Although Japan argued that it had 
taken three years to prepare the draft of its positiv e list system and had already notified this three 
times, each time the number of MRLs and product c overage varied.  A two-year adaptation period was 
appropriate to allow the decline of pesticide r esidues in soil and air after their use had ceased.  
Moreover, considering the number of MRLs id entified, a phased introduction of the new MRL 
requirements was necessary.  Furthermore, Japan ha d published only some of the testing methods used 
to develop the MRLs, and many of these testing methods were only illustrated by flow charts.  China 
requested that Japan notify in advance all ava ilable and newly develope d testing technology and 
methods for all provisional MRLs listed in th e positive list system, and provide a 60-day comment 
period and a 6-month adaptation period. 
360. Australia expressed appreciation for Japan's collaborative attitude when developing this 
comprehensive new positive list and encouraged Japan  to provide some clarification regarding the 
nature of testing requirements. 
361. Japan clarified that, in accord ance with the amendment of the Food Sanitation Law of May 
2003, the positive list system for pesticides, veterina ry drugs and feed additives in food would be 
implemented as of May 2006 as had been officially  announced in December 2005.  From August to 
October 2005, Japan had explained to governmental  organisations of countries exporting rice, wheat 
and barley to Japan that the new inspection system  was to be implemented in December 2005.  Japan 
could not extend the adaptation period as the framewo rk of the system had been published three times 
since 2003.  The final draft had been released in  November 2005, and Japan considered that a six-
month implementation period was sufficient.  Japa n had developed and publis hed analytical methods 
for more than 500 substances when developing the po sitive list system and would continue to establish 
and publish analytical methods for additional substa nces.  Japan would provide China with technical 
advice about analytical methods if requested. 
362. In June 2006, China noted that Japan's positive list system for agricultural chemical residues 
in food had entered into force on 29 May 2006.  Wh ile recognizing Japan's right to revise its residue 
standards to safeguard the health of its citizens,  China was concerned since Japan was the largest 
importer of food from China.  Japan had only published testing methods for 553 agricultural 
chemicals;  testing methods for another 200 chemical s were still lacking, which could seriously affect 
efforts of developing country Members to study th ese methods.  In addition, Japan was not following 
the Codex guidelines for judging test results.  Ch ina requested Japan to publish all testing methods, 
notify them, offer a 60 day comment period, provide a six month transitional period before they 
entered into force and offer technical training and education to China. 
363. China further asked Japan to explain why it ha d started implementing the positive list system 
in December 2005 by requiring that rice be tested according to the new MRLs, well ahead of the May 
2006 implementation date.  This had raised costs for Chinese rice exports and interrupted trade, since 
farmers had no time to adjust their chemical use.  From January to June 2006, on three occasions, G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 92  
 
  China had been given only two weeks to comment on certain MRLs, which was too short.  China 
requested an explanation of the relationship be tween these MRLs and the positive list system.  In 
China's view, these changes should be notified to the WTO.  Finally, China noted that both the 
Japanese and English versions of the positive list sy stem contained many editing errors and that 
therefore there were constant changes and asked Japan to provide a clear and comprehensive list of 
MRLs for agricultural chemicals at an early date.  Previous efforts to resolve the problems had not 
succeeded, and China urged Japan to address China's concerns in a scientific way. 
364. Japan confirmed that its positive list system fo r agricultural chemicals including pesticides, 
veterinary drugs and feed add itives had taken effect on 29 May 2006.  For the establishment of 
provisional MRLs, Japan had taken into account C odex standards;  existing residue levels for 
pesticides set under the Agricultural Chemicals Re gulation Law or limits of determination for 
veterinary drugs set under the Pharmaceutical Affa irs Law;  and MRLs set by other countries where 
residue standards were based upon the toxicologica l data required by the Joint WHO/FAO Expert 
Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and the Join t WHO/FAO Meeting on Pesticide Residues 
(JMPR).  Since these MRLs had been establis hed through a globally accepted approach, Japan 
believed them to be consistent with WTO principl es.  Japan used a toxicological threshold of 1.5 
μg/day to determine the uniform limit, based on JECFA, US FDA and JMPR evaluations.  The 
uniform limit had been set at 0.01 ppm, based on the food consumption patterns of the Japanese 
population.  Japan had published analytical methods for 623 substances and woul d continue to finalize 
and publish the remaining analytical methods for ot her substances.  When Ja pan newly established or 
amended standards, including MRLs, under the Food Sanitation Law, these were explained to foreign 
embassies in advance of WTO notification.  After this meeting, comments were requested within two 
weeks, after which the notification was sent to WTO, with a 60-day comment period. 
 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
34. Measures regarding FMD 
Raised by: Argentina, European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1997 (G/SPS/R/9/Re v.1, para. 46), March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, 
paras. 15-17) 
Relevant document(s): G/TBT/Notif.97.357 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
365. Argentina raised questions on the notified TBT measure, which authorized imports of FMD 
inactivated vaccine (but only the O type of FM D inactivated virus), an d exempted traders from 
undergoing the usual approval procedures.  Three countries were designated as suppliers: Germany, 
the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.  Argentin a sought clarification regarding (a) the current 
FMD-status of Japan since the decision to import FMD vaccines took effect; (b) the criteria used to 
designate only three sources of supply; (c) whether Japan considered itself a "zero-risk" country and 
whether a risk assessment had been  carried out in support of this "zero-risk" status; and (d) since 
Argentina was declared free of FMD with vaccination by the OIE, how Japan viewed its current policy 
not to import Argentine meat.  Japan explained th at the notified measure was an amendment to the 
approval procedures regarding the import of vaccines for emergencies.  It was a precautionary measure 
following the outbreak of FMD in Chinese Taipei in March 1997.  Argentina indicated it would 
provide its questions in writing to Japan.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 93 
 
 
  366. In March 2002, the European Communities stated  that slow administrative procedures had 
caused unjustified disruptions in the trade of several  EC member States with Japan.  In spite of the 
formal recognition by the OIE of EC member Stat es as FMD free, Japanese procedures for recognizing 
the FMD free status of these countries dragged on.  The European Communities noted that they had 
done everything possible to meet the Japanese requi rements and expressed disappointment that Japan 
would not begin the re-opening process until after the official FMD free declaration by the OIE on 19 
September 2001.  The EC noted that the re-openi ng process itself was extremely cumbersome and 
combined with delays in organizing a Japanese insp ection mission, the effect was unnecessary delay in 
reopening of the market.  Furthermore, the Europ ean Communities felt that the use of questionnaires 
was only justified at the time of the outbreak, and that import requirements should be made clear from 
the outset.  The representative of the European Communities requested  an indication of when Japan 
would recognize the EC FMD disease-free status.  Japan noted that the risk assessment for FMD had been delayed due to late responses fro m France, Ireland and the Netherlands. 
 
99. Restrictions on importation of sugar cane top from Indonesia 
Raised by: Indonesia 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 32-35), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, 
paras. 24-25), November 2002 (G/SPS/R /28, paras. 185-186), June 2003 
(G/SPS/R/30, paras. 57-58) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/266, Annex 1, G/SPS/GEN/240 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
367. In July 2001, Indonesia raised concerns regard ing Japan's restrictions on the importation of 
sugar cane top for fear of contamination with FMD, although Indonesia was recognized as free from 
FMD.  Indonesia had cooperated with  Japan's assessment of the FMD situation in Indonesia, but was 
concerned about delays and information requirements.   Indonesia intended to provide the information, 
but requested a clear schedule to ensure a speedy so lution.  Indonesia and Argentina requested the OIE 
to explain whether these restrictions could be justif ied.  Japan replied that it had notified the animal 
health authorities in Indonesia of the additional in formation needed for the analysis and was waiting 
for Indonesia's response.  The OIE confirmed that  Indonesia had been rec ognized as free from FMD 
without vaccination (G/SPS/GEN/266, Annex 1).  The International Animal Health Code contained a 
list of products which could transmit FMD, and the list did not include suga r cane (G/SPS/GEN/240).  
The Code considered that other products, such as cereals, fruits, vegetables and roots did not present a 
risk. 
368. In October 2001, Indonesia reported that in a ddition to informal bilateral consultations, 
Indonesia had also provided detailed information re quested in a questionnair e from Japan.  Indonesia 
was willing to furnish all necessary documentation, as any protraction of this problem would have 
detrimental effects on the Indonesian economy.  Japan stated that at a bilateral meeting certain misunderstandings had been cleared up.  Japan l ooked forward to receiving such information as was 
necessary to resolve this problem. 
369. In November 2002, Indonesia noted that th e Japanese animal health inspection team had 
carried out an FMD risk assessment in Indonesia in  June 2002.  Indonesia recalled that the OIE had 
recognized the country as FMD free without vaccina tion and requested Japan to take this into G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 94  
 
  consideration.  Japan stated that the issue c ould not be resolved until the risk assessment was 
completed.  Further data had been sought from Indonesia in order to finalize the risk assessment. 
370. In June 2003, Indonesia raised concerns that Japan continued to ban imports of sugar cane top 
from Indonesia and as a result the Indonesian indus try had collapsed.  Japan had not acknowledged 
that Indonesia was free from FMD desp ite the fact the Indonesia's FMD-free status had been regularly 
confirmed by the OIE.  Indonesia welcomed fu rther Japanese missions to Indonesia but requested 
Japan to specify more clea rly the issues of their concern.  Japan  responded that technical consultations 
had been held and more experts had been dispatch ed in June 2002 in order to provide Japan with 
additional scientific information.  Further scientific  assessments would now be carried out and Japan 
looked forward to continued consultations. 
 
213. Restrictions on beef  imports  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/ Rev.1, paras. 30-31), June 2005 
(G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 53-55), Oc tober 2005 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 43-
45), February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras.  43-45 ), March 2006 (G/SPS/R/40, 
paras. 46-47) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 10-14 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
371. In March 2005, the United States emphasized its concerns regarding Japan's continuing 
restrictions on US beef based on the detection, in December 2003, of a single case of BSE in an 
imported cow.  It recalled its ongoing cooperation w ith Japan, over the past 14 months, to resolve all 
scientific and health concerns about the safety of  US beef.  The October 2004 bilateral agreement 
required the United States to provide all the scientif ic information requested by Japan and to allow 
access for Japanese technical official s to US facilities.  Effective firewalls had been in place for many 
years to prevent the establishment and spread of BSE within the United States.  In response to the 
single case of BSE, the United States had implemented several additional regulatory measures to further strengthen existing safeguards, had complete d a comprehensive epidemiological investigation 
and taken many other actions described in the report of the March meeting.  Given that there had been 
no indigenous cases of  BSE reported, there was suffi cient scientific evidence for Japan to immediately 
remove restrictions on US beef and beef products. 
372. Japan indicated that the US beef  issue was one of the most important policy agenda items for 
the Japanese government.  Japan r ecalled that the October 2004 bilateral framework agreement to 
resume the two-way trade in beef was subject to  the respective domestic approval processes including 
deliberation by each Member's food safety co mmissions.  The Japanese Food Safety Commission 
would undertake a risk assessment for imports of  US beef as soon as it had completed its risk 
assessment of domestic BSE measures. 
373. In June 2005, the United States emphasized ove r the past 17 months, the United States had 
provided Japan with extensive technical informa tion on all aspects of its BSE-related protection 
measures, internationally recognized as effective and appropriate, for both food safety and animal 
health.  The United States stressed that, according to the revised OIE standards, the recent detection of 
one BSE-infected animal blocked from the food and feed chain could not be used as an excuse to  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 95 
 
 
  restrict imports of US beef products.  The European Communities invited Japan to replace its import 
ban with specific requirements in accordance with OIE standards.  Japan reported that the Food Safety 
Commission had completed the risk assessment on domestic beef on 6 May 2005 and was now 
carrying out the risk assessment on US beef. 
374. In February 2006, the European Communities re ported that Japan had recently reopened its 
market for beef exports from some EC member Stat es, but in accordance with Articles 2.3 and 3.3 of 
the SPS Agreement, Japan should reopen its market to bovine products from all EC member States.  
The protective BSE measures, including the implemen tation and enforcement of the feed ban, the 
removal of specified risk materials and the elabora tion of an identification, registration and traceability 
system for bovines and their products able to warrant ee the age of each bovine, could fully satisfy the 
safety of consumers anywhere in the world.  The United States noted that Japan had re-opened its 
market for some US beef products but maintained  scientifically unjustified restrictions on other 
products, inconsistent with international standards. 
375. Japan observed that numerous countries still suspended beef imports from BSE-infected 
countries and that international standards on BSE change d every year.  On the basis of its risk analysis, 
Japan had decided to reduce its beef im ports from a few BSE-affected countries. 
376. In March 2006, the European Communities indicated  that despite bilateral efforts following 
the consideration of this issue at the last SPS Comm ittee meeting, progress on this issue had not been 
satisfactory.  In the light of favourable develo pments of the disease situation in the European 
Communities and due to recent changes in the OIE Te rrestrial Animal Health Code chapter on BSE, it 
was time for Members to implement international standards for BSE.  The European Communities 
could satisfy Japan's requirements related to the feed  ban and its enforcement;  the removal of specific 
risk materials;  and an effective system of id entification and registration and traceability for bovines 
and their products.  Japan had denied the EC request  to perform BSE risk assessments for interested 
EC member States, in contravention of Articles 2.3 and 3.3 of the SPS Agreement.  The European Communities invited Japan to review its ban on import s of EC beef on the basis of a risk assessment 
and noted that useful discussions had been held just prior to the meeting. 
377. Japan indicated that Japan had decided in January 2006 to hold technical consultations 
between experts from Japan and from those EC member  States interested in exporting beef to Japan. 
 
221. Safety insurance and quality improvemen t standards for feed and feed additives 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 78-79) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
378. In March 2005, China raised concerns that Japan's revision of standards for Astaxanthin 
lacked scientific justification.  China was not aware of any evidence of harmful effects and asked if 
Japan had found Astaxanthin harmful to fish at certain levels. 
379. Japan stated that scientific data was insufficien t and that no international standards had been 
established so far.  Some Members had regulations to  restrict the maximum dose of Astaxanthin to be G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 96  
 
  administered to finfish.  Therefore, as a provisional measure, Japan had set an upper limit for 
Astaxanthin, which was added to feeds, based on SPS measures applied by othe r Members.  Japan had 
taken into account technical a nd economic feasibility when decidi ng the upper limit.  Japan was 
willing to reconsider its regulati on when new international standards or scientific evidence on this 
issue were presented. 
 
Plant Health 
23. Plant quarantine regulations 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 26), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/JPN/19, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
380. In March 1997, the United States informed the Committee of bilateral discussion with Japan 
regarding its plant quarantine regulations.  Both Members agreed that the communication process had 
flowed smoothly, and that this was a good example of how the transparency provisions of the SPS Agreement could enhance the understanding between Members on points of concern.  Japan 
maintained that its proposed regulation was based on the pest-risk analysis guidelines of the IPPC. 
381. In July 2001, the United States reported that it had continued to hold bilateral consultations 
with Japan on aspects of its quarantine regulatio ns, including measures related to apple imports 
(G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United States considers this trade concern unresolved. 
 
56. Notification on amendment of the Japanese Plant Protection Law 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, Canada, Chile, New Zealand, Philippines, Uruguay, European 
Communities 
Dates raised: November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 31-34), November 1999 (G/SPS/R/17, 
para. 82), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/100, G/SPS/N/JPN/37, G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
382. In November 1998, the United States noted that the draft regulation proposed the addition of 
27 pests to the list of non-quarantine pests in Jap an's Plant Protection Law.  The United States, 
although encouraged by certain aspects of Japan's pr oposal, continued to have concerns regarding the 
basis and application of Japan's phytosanitary legisla tion.  The legislative amendments did not appear 
to alter the current practice of requiring fumigation and other costly treatment for most non-quarantine 
pests, including those pests which were widespread in  Japan and not subject to internal regulatory or 
quarantine controls.  The United States urged Japan to take into consideration the IPPC definition of a  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 97 
 
 
  quarantine pest.  The European Co mmunities asked Japan to explain the scientific rationale behind its 
measure, and the risk assessment it was based on.  Japan replied that  its definition of quarantine pests 
complied with the IPPC definition.  The list of non- quarantine pests would be reviewed in the future 
with a view to expansion.  Japan welcomed c ontinued bilateral consultations on the matter. 
383. In November 1999, the European Communities reca lled its request for an explanation of the 
Japanese measure, to which it had not received a repl y.  Japan announced that the matter would be 
pursued bilaterally. 
384. In July 2001, the United States indicated that it continued to pursue the matter bilaterally with 
Japan. 
 133. Official control restrictions on citrus and other fresh fruits and vegetables 
Raised by: New Zealand, United States 
Supported by: Australia, European Communities 
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, pa ras. 27-30), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
paras. 59-62), April 2003 (G/SPS/ R/29, paras. 55-57), June 2003 
(G/SPS/R/30, paras. 61-63), Octobe r 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras.19-20), 
March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 59-62), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, 
paras. 18-21), October 2004 (G/SPS/ R/35, paras. 42-44), March 2005 
(G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 61-64) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/357, G/SPS/N/JPN/132 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
385. In June 2002, the United States indicated th at Japan continued to impose costly and 
unjustified quarantine actions when pests were dete cted on imported US fruits and vegetables, even 
though the same species were commonly found in Japan.  In many instances these actions included 
treatment that damaged and destroyed the commodity in question.  These practices lacked a scientific 
basis and were inconsistent with IPPC standards on official control and risk assessment for quarantine 
pests.  The result was an arbitrary and unpredictabl e system facing US horticultural exports to Japan.  
The United States supported Japan's efforts to bring its plant laws into line with international standards 
and hoped that bilateral technical discussions w ould result in the termination of unjustified 
requirements. The European Comm unities supported the US statement.  New Zealand noted concerns 
with Japan's continuing practice of fumigating consi gnments of fresh products due to the interception 
of pests that did not meet the definition of quarantine pests under the IPPC. 
386. Japan recalled that during bilateral consultati ons with the United States in November 2001, 
the United States had requested Japan to abolish fu migation upon detection of California red scale and 
Fuller rose weevil in US produce, on the grounds that these were non-quarantine pests endemic in 
Japan.  However, California red scale was under dom estic control in Japan as a target pest of 
forecasting programmes and was therefore subject to fumigation if detected at import inspection.  Fuller rose weevil had limited detection with only three points within Japan and was under 
government-oriented control aimed at eradication.   It was not possible under these conditions to 
exclude those species from quarantine pests.  Ja pan noted that they remained open to further 
consultations. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 98  
 
  387. In November 2002, New Zealand expressed concern with Japan's official control restrictions, 
detailed in G/SPS/GEN/357.  New Zealand requested Japan to confirm that it would not take any 
action, such as fumigation, on any pest found on imported produce if that pest was already present in Japan but not under official control as defined by the IPPC  The United Stat es recalled its concerns 
over the basis and application of Japan's phytosanita ry legislation, in particular with respect to 
horticultural products that continued to face unjustified quarantine actions  at Japan's ports of entry.  
Even when Japan required no domestic quarantine treatment for the same species of pests, the 
treatment imposed on imported produce included fu migation which in many cases ruined the products.  
The United States considered Japan's actions to be  highly disruptive of trade.  Australia and the 
European Communities expressed their concern regard ing Japan's official control restrictions and 
supported the statements made by Ne w Zealand and the United States. 
388. Japan recognized that the IPPC standards shoul d be one of the basis in a possible future 
quarantine system for Japan.  Japan was examining wh ether its appropriate leve l of protection could be 
maintained by applying plant quarantine measures in line with the new IPPC definition, taking into 
account Japan's climate and the large volume of impor ts into Japan.  A number of pests were presently 
under study and although a final c onclusion had not yet been reached, discussions were underway to 
identify practical measures to reduce the effects of Japan's official control measures on international 
trade. 
389. In April 2003, New Zealand stressed that Japan's  policy was not consistent with the relevant 
international definition in ISPM-5 of the IPPC and Supplement No.1.  Bilateral discussions between 
New Zealand and Japan continued and New Zealand requested  a policy statement  from Japan by 1 
January 2003.  To date, no such statement had been forthcoming.  Japan had still not brought its 
phytosanitary measures in line with IPPC definitions and guidelines.  The United States stated that it 
shared the concerns and frustrations of New Zealan d and continued to experience trade disruptions due 
to Japan's phytosanitary legislation and unjus tified quarantine actions.  The United States had 
requested information on which pests were considered  quarantine risks but did not receive a reply.  
Australia and the European Commun ities shared the concerns of New Zealand and the United States. 
390. Japan stated that it was under no obligation to make a policy statement regarding non-
quarantine pests, however, in the interest of tran sparency, Japan would provide a statement.  Japan 
respected international rules, including IPPC guidelines, and took appropriate measures where 
necessary on the basis of its national plant protec tion laws.  Further examination was necessary to see 
if Japan's current measures were consistent with  international standards and representatives from 
outside government would be inv ited to review the situation. 
391. In June 2003, New Zealand indicated that it was  pleased to learn that Japan was reviewing its 
system  in order to change it.  The United States stated it was disappointed with the discriminatory 
nature of Japan's measures, its failure to notif y internal regulations a nd the general lack of 
transparency within its system.  Australia expressed  support for statements made by New Zealand and 
the United States.  Japan reported that bilatera l consultations had been  conducted and further 
examination would be necessary befo re conclusions could be drawn. 
392. In October 2003, New Zealand reported that there had not been any response from Japan 
since bilateral contacts in April and June 2003.  Japan responded that it was seeking to resolve the 
issue through technical discussions between relevant national experts.  A bilateral meeting was to be 
held in November to discuss orchard controls and pre-clearance inspection systems.  Japan reported 
that in June it had established a consultative group consisting of different st akeholders to examine 
whether its measures were consiste nt with international standards.  This group had already met three 
times.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 99 
 
 
  393. In March 2004, New Zealand noted that in November 2003, it presented a submission on its 
concerns as part of Japan’s review of its plant quarantine processes and looked forward to having these 
concerns addressed in an early and trade facilitating manner.  The United States reported that on 8 October 2003, the United States had presented its c oncerns on the classification of eleven specific 
species as quarantine pests to the Japanese plant prot ection division.  In cont rast to internationally 
accepted definitions of quarantine pests, Japan's le gal definition of pests included pests that were 
already present in Japan and not subject to official  control.  As a result, imported products faced 
discriminatory treatment compared to domestic produc ts since they were subjected to fumigation for 
pests that already existed in Japan .  Japan was requested to provide clarification and information on 
actions taken to eradicate and contain the eleven sp ecific pests and their distribution in Japan, and on 
its efforts to align its plant health laws with in ternational standards.  The European Communities 
supported the concerns of New Zealand and the United States. 
394. Japan recalled that at the last Committee mee ting, Japan and New Zealand had agreed to 
resolve the issue from a technical perspective and on a case-by-case basis.  As a result of bilateral 
discussions, new quarantine measures were to be intr oduced in May 2004, based on trials of orchard 
control for Fuller Rose Weevil on kiwifruit.  Furtherm ore, quarantine trials for reducing fumigation on 
lettuce from the United States were conducted from Ju ly 2003 to March 2004 and the results were 
under evaluation.  Japan had received requests for 39 species of pests from New Zealand and 11 species from the United States to be designated as n on-quarantine pests.  Members' concerns on the 
inconsistency of Japan’s plant h ealth laws with international st andards were under review.  The 
consultative group on plant quarantin e established by Japan's plant qua rantine authorities had held four 
meetings but experienced a delay in compiling its  recommendations.  The consultative group meetings 
would be reactivated to work on recommendations which would be considered by plant quarantine 
authorities for further action. 
395. In June 2004, New Zealand welcomed the conclusi on of Japan's review of its plant quarantine 
regime and urged that the recommendations of  Japan's Plant Quarantine Review Committee, 
particularly the recommendation that Japan move towa rds international practice, be adopted promptly.  
This issue had first been raised in the SPS Commi ttee in March 2002, but  bilateral exchanges had 
been occurring since 1986 between New Zealand and Jap an on this issue.  With the conclusion of the 
plant quarantine review, New Zealand expected that Japan would expand its non- quarantine pest list to 
reflect those pests alread y in Japan and not under official control.  Although the Plant Quarantine 
Review Committee's report had not yet been consid ered domestically and implementation timelines 
had not been published, New Zealand hoped that a mutually acceptable solution could be reached 
soon. 
396. The United States recalled that it had provided an update at the last Committee meeting on 
Japan's policy for requiring fumigation for non-qu arantine pests, even when these pests were 
commonly found in Japan.  Japan's written response to  the US request on the eleven pests recognized 
the necessity of taking into account the relevant standards of the IPPC when conducting pest risk 
assessments (PRAs), was welcomed.  ISPM 2, "Guidelin es for Pest  Risk Assessment", indicated that 
the PRA process should end when, in the course of th e analysis, a potential quarantine pest had been 
identified as present and not subject to official controls.  The European Communities shared the 
concerns of New Zealand and the United States. 
397. Japan indicated that its authorities were iden tifying measures which would maintain Japan's 
appropriate level of protection a nd be consistent with relevant international standards.  The 
Consultative Group on Plant Quarantine Systems publis hed its report on 21 May 2004, including input 
from national stakeholders and fo reign governments.  The Consultative Group recommended that plant 
quarantine measures should be based on scientific ri sk assessments, following IPPC guidelines.  In the 
review of existing PRAs, the plant quarantine author ities had focused on high priority pests designated 
by other Members.  As a first step, Japan planned to notify these measures by December 2004. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 100  
 
  398. In October 2004, New Zealand asked Japan whet her it had adopted the necessary procedures 
to expand its non-quarantine pest list to include t hose pests already present in Japan that were not 
under official control as defined by the IPPC.  The United States commented that they looked forward to reviewing the report on Japan’s plant quarantine regime at the end of the year.  The European 
Communities expressed support for the statements ma de by New Zealand and the United States and 
urged Japan to align its phytosanitary measures with IPPC definitions and guide lines.    Japan replied 
that Members would be notified of the changes in  its legislation in December 2004 and amendments 
would be made no later than March 2005. 
399. In March 2005, New Zealand reiterated its con cerns and welcomed Japan's announcement of 
expansion of its non quarantine pest list through the addition of 46 pest s, especially as this list included 
a number of pests of specific concern to New Zealan d.  New Zealand encouraged Japan to implement 
these proposed changes as soon as its domestic regul atory procedures allowed, and in a manner that 
significantly addressed its concerns.  New Zealand also requested information on Japan's proposed 
timetable for carrying out risk assessments on other pests of concern to New Zealand with a view to their inclusion on Japan's non-quarantine pest lis t as soon as practicable.  The United States and the 
European Communities shared the c oncern that Japan's systems and procedures needed to be further 
modified to conform to international norms and pr actices while welcoming Japan's efforts to revise its 
plant quarantine process. 
400. Japan noted that it had notified the draft amendment of the ordinance modifying non-
quarantine pest lists in December 2004 (G/ SPS/N/JPN/132).  Comments from Members had been 
accepted for 60 days between 4 January and 4 March 2005.  Domestic comments had been collected 
between 27 December 2004 and 25 February 2005 .  These comments were presently under 
examination by the plant quarantine authorities of Ja pan and it would take appr oximately one month to 
amend the relevant regul ations, if approved. 
 
162. Fumigation standards 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras. 31-32) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
401. The United States reported that a newly adopted measure by Japan's Ministry of Agriculture, 
Fisheries and Food prohibited the re-fumigation of fruit or rice which had previously undergone 
fumigation in the United States.  Japan had not no tified this measure and the United States requested 
clarification from Japan on the objective of the me asure, its scope, implementation, enforcement and 
projected trade effects, as well as a delay in its implementation. 
402. Japan stated that it would transmit the United St ates' concern to its authorities and respond in 
due course. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 101 
 
 
  223. Import requirements for Indian mangoes 
Raised by: India 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 37-38) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
403. In June 2005, India stated that although it had many years ago provided the pest and 
surveillance data and the information on treatment  standards requested by Japanese authorities, the 
pest risk analysis had not yet been completed.   The extremely slow progress made so far was 
impinging heavily on India's market access for mangoes to Japan.  Another round of bilateral technical 
consultations would be held in mid-July 2005. 
404. Japan explained that it was taking the necessar y measures to prevent a possible invasion of 
the melon fly and two other pests recorded in India but not present in Japan.  Japan had to verify the 
disease status of Indian mangoes or the application of an effective disinfestation treatment in 
accordance with relevant international standards.  Technical discussions were currently ongoing in 
order to develop the disinfestation technique, but th e technical data provided were not sufficient to 
allow certification of the effectiveness of the technique. 
 
Other concerns 
13. Translation of regulations – Maintained by Japan and Korea 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Thailand 
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, para. 26) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/JPN/1, G/SPS/N/KOR/29, G/SPS/N/KOR/20, G/SPS/N/KOR/31 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
405. Argentina regretted that the regulations notified by Japan and Korea were not available in one 
of the three WTO working languages.  The Chairman  recalled that Annex B, paragraph 8 of the SPS 
Agreement requires developed country Members to "provide copies of the documents or, in case of 
voluminous documents, summaries of the documents c overed by a specific notification in English, 
French or Spanish", if there is a specific reque st from another Member.  Japan observed that it 
normally provided summaries of the documents in E nglish.  Thailand suggested that countries give 
sufficient detail in the description of content of th eir notifications to enable relevant comments by 
recipient Members. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 102  
 
  173. Notification on uses of living modified organisms  
Raised by: Australia 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 72-74) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/JPN/9 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
406. Australia indicated that Japan's notifica tion regarding its proposed draft law on the 
conservation and sustainable use of living modified organisms raised a number of concerns.  Australia 
was a major grain exporter and was especially interested in the documents which should accompany 
shipments.  Japan had not responded to Australia's query.  The United States was also concerned how 
Japan intended to implement the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol and in particular the documentation 
requirements. 
407. Japan replied that it had ratified the Cartag ena Biosafety Protocol on 10 June 2003 and its 
measures were consistent with the agreement.  Jap an would shortly provide responses to the questions 
it had received from Australia. 
 
224. Restrictions on EC exports of plant and animal products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Brazil 
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, pa ras. 24-25 ), October 2005 (G/SPS/R/39, 
paras. 74-75), February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 74-75 ) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
408. In June 2005, the European  Communities raised concerns  with regard to Japanese 
phytosanitary administrative procedures governing the approval of agricultural imports.  The issue had 
been previously raised on a bilateral basis, but th e procedures continued to be  consuming and not fully 
transparent.  To list a new variety of plant products , EC exporters were facing delays of two to three 
years.  The approval procedure for one plant was us ually not valid for similar varieties although, in 
terms of plant health risk, there were almost no differences between them.  The European 
Communities requested that any future applicati on for similar plant species with similar plant 
production systems and pest status be considered as an extension of the original application. 
409. Other issues of concerns to the European Comm unities included, inter alia, Japan's inspection 
procedures in the exporting country, phytosanitary im port regulations, and a system of zero-tolerance 
for all pests not included in Japan's list of non-quarant ine organisms.  With regard to the animal sector, 
disease-free status recognition and health import certification were difficult.  The European 
Communities invited Japan to review its internal administrative SPS procedures to make them more 
efficient and transparent.  Brazil also expressed concerns regarding Japan ese approval procedures for 
plant varieties.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 103 
 
 
  410. Japan explained that it had already taken the necessary steps to fully comply with the SPS 
Agreement and a number of EC exports of fruits an d vegetables were currently entering the Japanese 
market.  However, Japan remained open to discuss with the European Communities any specific issue 
justified by facts and figures in order to identify the source of the problem. 
411. In February 2006, the European Communities re ported that some progress had been made in 
consultations between Japan and some EC member St ates.  Japan noted that, risk assessments based on 
scientific evidence had been carried out.  Where the assessments showed th at the proposed measure 
met Japan’s appropriate level of protection, import bans had been lifted or SPS measures eased.  The 
content and amount of data necessary for the risk  assessment differed among species and according to 
regional conditions, so the duration of the asse ssment varied accordingl y.  If the European 
Communities could be more specific about their co ncerns, Japan would try to address these through 
bilateral consultations. 
 
REPUBLIC OF KOREA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY REPUBLIC OF KOREA 
Food safety 
179. Guidelines for maximum residue level (MRL) testing 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Australia, Canada, New Zeal and, Philippines, Eu ropean Communities 
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 11-14), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, 
paras. 40-42), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/ 34, paras. 46-48), October 2004 
(G/SPS/R/35, paras. 47-50), March 2005  (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 71-73)
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/KOR/123, G/SPS/N/KOR/154 and 155 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
412. In October 2003, the United States expressed c oncern that Korea's changed import regulation 
was onerous and not supported by science.  U nder the new import inspection programme imported 
grains, fruits and vegetables would be subjected  to annual MRL tests for the presence of 196 
agricultural chemicals.  Importers would have to  bear the US$1,800 cost of such tests, whereas 
domestic producers were exempt from the mandatory testing requirements.  Domestic producers were 
subject to random test for which the Korean Gove rnment bore the costs.  Australia, the European 
Communities and New Zealand also requested Korea to amend the measure which they described was 
contrary to Annex C of the SPS Agreement. 
413. Korea responded that it had amended the regul ations to meet its appropriate level of 
protection and noted that there were no comme nts on the issue when the SPS notification was 
circulated at the beginning of the year.  Technical de velopments had reduced the cost of testing and as 
such Korea planned to considerably reduce the te sting fees.  The United States replied that it had 
submitted comments on Korea's notification in Marc h and had two meetings in September with 
Korean officials regarding this issue. 
414. In March 2004, the United States stated that th ey were informed during bilateral meetings 
held with Korea that test fees would be reduced.  However, the Korean authorities had not finalized G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 104  
 
  this decision nor addressed the issue satisfactorily.  Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the European 
Communities stated that Korea's testing regime  would impose substantial costs on imports and 
discriminated between imported products and simila r products produced in Korea.  Korea replied that 
the relevant administrative procedures to redu ce the testing fees were underway and would be 
completed in two to three weeks, but  not later than the end of April. 
415. In June 2004, the United States commented that  under Korea's import inspection programme, 
importers would bear the cost of the testing fees, now estimated at US$1-2,000 each.  While the United States recognized Korea's attempts to modi fy their requirements through the issuance of 
notifications G/SPS/N/KOR/154 and 15 5 in 2004, the proposed fee for t esting would still be twice as 
large as that proposed by Korea's Food and Drug Administration.  Although the number of chemicals 
subject to mandatory testing had been reduced from 196 to 47, domestic producers were still exempt 
from the mandatory testing requirement.  Thus, Ko rea's import inspection pr ogram was inconsistent 
with national treatment provisions of the WTO.  D espite bilateral discussions over the past year, the 
United States perceived insufficient progress on this issue and hoped for more significant progress in 
the future. Australia, Canada and the European  Communities expressed similar concerns. Korea 
emphasized that both the testing fees and the numbe r of agricultural chemicals for which mandatory 
testing was required had been substantially reduced.  In order to provide testing exemptions based 
upon compliance history, the relevant regulations would need to be revised. 
416. In October 2004, the United States stated many of  its concerns still re mained.  For example, 
Korea had proposed in G/SPS/N/KOR/154 that imported  foods with clean records would be exempted 
from the mandatory laboratory inspections.  However,  the proposed exemptions had not been put into 
effect in the final revised regulations.  Furthermore, although Korea had reduced the number of 
chemicals subject to mandatory laboratory inspecti on from 196 to 47, testing fees of approximately 
US$500 per test were still applied.  Domestic producers were still onl y subject to random testing and 
the costs were borne by the Korean government.  The US  concerns were directly related to distinctions 
in fees between imported goods a nd like-products produced in Korea in accordance with Annex C of 
the SPS Agreement.  The European Communities shar ed the concerns of the United States as the 
European Communities had also been affected by Ko rea's testing requirements.  Korea’s measures as 
notified in G/SPS/N/KOR/123 were still being impl emented and the amendments as notified in 
G/SPS/N/KOR/154 and 155 did not have a proposed im plementation date.  Korea's current testing 
requirements were disproportionate to the risks a nd were discriminatory ag ainst imported products.  
Korea was requested to remove these restrictive meas ures and to align them to international standards. 
417. Korea stated that it would take some time to  revise the relevant legislation needed to 
implement the measures notified in G/SPS/N/KO R/154 and 155.  The testing fee had been 
substantially reduced and was now one-third the cost of the previous fee.  However, the fee was still 
two times higher than what was proposed in October 2003 because the domestic industry was 
concerned that the proposed testing fee was not sufficient to compensate for testing requirements 
needed to ensure the safety of foods.  Testing fees woul d be adjusted in the future  when the need arose.  
Korea applied strict guidelines to domestic products with respect to the use of agro-chemicals and did 
not discriminate between imported and domestically  produced products.   Korea took note of the 
concerns of the United States, particularly w ith reference to Annex C of the SPS Agreement. 
418. In March 2005, the United States noted that although Korea had proposed exemption from 
mandatory laboratory inspection for imported food with a clean record, th e proposed exemption had 
not been included in the final revised regulation.   Furthermore, the fee for mandatory laboratory 
inspection (approximately US$500) remained as a barri er to new products and was still twice as large 
as that initially proposed by the Korean Food a nd Drug Administration in October 2003.  Domestic 
producers were exempted from the mandatory testing requirements but subjected to random tests.  
However, the Korean Government bore all the co sts for these tests.  The United States had held 
bilateral consultations with Korea for nearly two y ears, and further consultati ons were scheduled.  The  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 105 
 
 
  European Communities and the Philippi nes shared the concerns of the United States.  The Philippines 
indicated that the requirements would be particular ly burdensome for developing countries, and asked 
Korea to take developing countries exporters into special consideration. 
419. Korea noted that the revised regulation to implem ent this measure would come into effect this 
year.  The proposed testing fee had been revi ewed following a public hearing process.  Some 
interested groups had expressed the view that th e proposed testing fee would not be enough to 
compensate the cost of the testing.  Korea had caref ully reviewed the various opinions and had decided 
on the level of the testing fee.  That level was two times higher than the proposed one, yet about one 
fourth the level initially proposed.  If necessary, th e testing fee would be adjusted in the future. 
 Animal Health and Zoonoses 65. Import restrictions on beef 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, paras. 13-14) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/109 and G/SPS/GEN/130 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
420. Argentina raised concerns regarding Korea's denial of access to Argentine beef without 
specifying its sanitary requirements or visiting Argen tina to verify its sanitary status.  Korea replied 
that since it had been free of FMD for 60 years, it applied very strict requirements.  Korea believed it 
was acting consistently with OIE recommendations, and offered to discuss the matter bilaterally. 
 
84. Import restrictions affecting BSE-free co untries – Maintained by Argentina, Australia, 
Canada, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, United States [See Item 84, page 1] 
 
Plant Health 
174. Notification on transboundary movement of living modified organisms 
Raised by: Australia 
Supported by: United States 
Dates raised: June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, paras. 72-74) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/KOR/49 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
421. Australia indicated that Korea's notifica tion on the transboundary movement of living 
modified organisms raised a number of concerns .  Australia was a major grain exporter and was G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 106  
 
  especially interested in the documents which s hould accompany shipments.  Korea had responded to 
Australia's query, and Australia was examining this  response.  The United States was also concerned 
how Korea intended to implement the Cartagena Biosafety Protocol and in particular the 
documentation requirements. 
422. Korea stated that it was acting in line with th e transparency requirements and would continue 
to do so. 
 
Other concerns 
13. Translation of regulations – Maintained by Japan and Korea [See Item 13, page 100] 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Thailand 
Dates raised: October 1996 (G/SPS/R/6, para. 26) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/JPN/1, G/SPS/N/KOR/29, G/SPS/N/KOR/20, G/SPS/N/KOR/31 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
423. Argentina regretted that the regulations notified by Japan and Korea were not available in one 
of the three WTO working languages.  The Chairman  recalled that Annex B, paragraph 8 of the SPS 
Agreement requires developed country Members to "provide copies of the documents or, in case of 
voluminous documents, summaries of the documents c overed by a specific notification in English, 
French or Spanish", if there is a specific reque st from another Member.  Japan observed that it 
normally provided summaries of the documents in E nglish.  Thailand suggested that countries give 
sufficient detail in the description of content of th eir notifications to enable relevant comments by 
recipient Members. 
 
KUWAIT 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY KUWAIT 
Food safety 165. Import restrictions on Spanish olive oil – Maintained by Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar 
and United Arab Emirates [See Item 165, page 10] 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 107 
 
 
  MEXICO 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY MEXICO 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 67. Import restrictions on beef 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, para. 12) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/109 and G/SPS/GEN/129 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
424. Argentina indicated it had not received a satisfact ory answer to repeated requests that Mexico 
provide information on its specific sanitary requi rements for beef imports and the related risk 
assessments.  Argentina recalled th at it was free of FMD.  Mexico took note of Argentina's concerns 
and expressed hope to resolve the matter bilaterally. 
 163. Restrictions on Austrian products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, paras.  36-37), June 2003 (G/SPS/R/30, para. 42) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
425. The European Communities stated that Fran ce, Ireland, the Netherlands and the United 
Kingdom had officially regained their OIE FMD-free status without vaccination after the 2001 outbreak.  However, Mexico continued trade restric tions against Austrian animal products, despite the 
fact that Austria had not had a FMD outbreak since 1991.  Austria had applied to be recognized as 
FMD-free by the Mexican authorities.  Mexico indicated that Austria failed to meet certain requirements to be recognized as FMD-free and enc ouraged the Austrian authorities to complete a 
second questionnaire requesting more details. 
426. In June 2003, the European Communities reported that bilateral consultations had been held, 
and Mexico confirmed that it expected  the issue to be resolved soon. 
 
225. Restrictions on US poultry 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 108  
 
  Dates raised: June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1,  paras. 26-29), March 2006 (G/SPS/R/40, 
paras. 41-43) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/MEX/200 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
427. In June 2005, the United States stated that Mexico was banning imports of poultry and 
poultry products from an entire US state in whic h cases of low pathogenic avian influenza (LPAI) had 
been reported in some areas.  Mexico also require d avian influenza (AI) testing for layer and broiler 
flocks regardless of whether or not AI had been re ported.  Only two subtyp es of AI (H5 and H7) had 
been found to mutate into the highly pathogenic fo rms of the disease. Low pathogenic strains of AI did 
not cause systemic disease and had not been shown to  be of consequence for animal health or food 
safety.  The OIE did not recommend any trade restri ctions on poultry and pou ltry products when cases 
of low pathogenic strains of AI of non-H5 and H7 subtypes were reported and only limited measures 
for low pathogenic strains of the H5 and H7 subtyp es.  The relevant scientific evidence showed that 
the LPAI virus did not appear in the muscle tissue of an infected chicken and that neither fresh meat 
nor eggs imported from regions affected by low path ogenic AI posed a risk of transmitting the disease.  
Given the scientific evidence underpinning the recently-a dopted changes in the relevant international 
standard, the United States encouraged Mexico to  modify its import restrictions and testing 
requirements. 
428. Canada indicated that in March 2004, Mexico  had banned the importation of poultry and its 
products from all of Canada in response to the find ings of high pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in 
British Colombia.  Canada had kept all trading part ners fully informed of the control measures it had 
imposed to limit the outbreak to British Colombia.  Unlike many of its trading partners, Mexico had 
not regionalized its measures to apply to British Co lombia only.  Canada had now been free of HPAI 
for over one year and had provided all the information requested by Mexico to verify this status in 
accordance with OIE guidelines.  Consistent with the OIE, the majority of Canada's trading partners 
had removed their measures against Canadian poultry.   Canada called upon Mexico to do the same. 
429. Mexico explained that since May 1994, when low pathogenicity avian influenza (LPAI) had 
been detected in Mexico, specific SPS measures ha d been applied to prevent exotic subtypes and 
control and eradicate the only subtype identified, H5N2.  Mexican Official Standard NOM-44-ZOO-1995, which covered any subtype of avian influen za (AI), both low and high pathogenic strains, had 
been published in 1995.  In the United States, vari ous subtypes of low and high pathogenic strains had 
been officially identified, none of which, with the exception of one, existed in the Mexican poultry 
sector.  The sanitary requirements established by the Mexican legislation in the domestic poultry sector 
were equivalent to those applied for the export of poultry and poultry products originating in the states 
affected by AI in the United States.  Howe ver, the sanitary measures aimed at ensuring 
epidemiological surveillance and monitoring of the tran sport of poultry and pou ltry products applied in 
the affected states of the United States were not equivalent to those implemented in the Mexican 
poultry sector.  As the risk of transmission of AI wa s particularly high in live poultry and less in fresh 
poultry products and by-products, importation of some poultry products from the quarantined states 
was allowed.  Mexico was continuing to analy ze the technical information provided by the United 
States with a view to the opening up of exports  of poultry and poultry products. This additional 
information had been provided by the USDA during the first quarter of 2005. 
430. Mexico recalled that the OIE in May 2005 a dopted regulations (Chapter 2.17.12: AI, 
Terrestrial Animal Health Code) that stipulated that  all H7 and H5 subtypes of AI viruses, in both its 
high and low pathogenic forms, were notifiable as well as any AI virus with an intravenous 
pathogenicity index (IVPI) greater than 1.2.  These re gulations also stipulated that a country, zone or  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 109 
 
 
  compartment could be recognized as free from the no tifiable high and low pathogenic forms of AI 
virus.  In accordance with Article 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 of the SPS Agreement, Mexico had established the 
health requirements for exporting poultry and poultry by-products from and originating in areas free of 
notifiable AI viruses or free only of highly pathogeni c notifiable AI viruses.  Mexico currently allowed 
imports of poultry, poultry products  and by-products from the United States, except for birds and some 
products from the states affected by a subtype of AI.  Regarding Canada, Mexico explained that  
following an outbreak of highly pathogenic AI of th e H7N3 subtype in British Colombia, the province 
had been quarantined and technical information re quested concerning the outbreak. That same month, 
Mexico had received information identifying the AI viru s in ducks and in geese as low pathogenic.  In 
June 2005, it had received informa tion identifying the low pathogenicity  virus of the subtype H3, also 
in British Colombia, and would carry out an assessment of the health situation in respect of AI in 
British Colombia. 
431. In March 2006, the United States expressed a ppreciation that a bilateral agreement with 
Mexico in August 2005 had resulted in the removal of  bans on US poultry in October 2005.  However, 
in January 2006 Mexico had published a final measure that would modify the existing import 
conditions previously agreed upon.  This final me asure had not been notified to the SPS Committee.  
The United States requested Mexico to notify this  final measure and delay its application while 
allowing Members sufficient time to comment on the measure before its implementation. 
432. Mexico indicated that a draft amendment to the 2004 Mexican regulation had been published 
in notification G/SPS/N/MEX/200, for which Mexico had provided a period for comments by Members.  Mexico had received comments, inter alia , from the US Department of Agriculture.  This 
notification indicated that the date of entry into force was proposed as the day following publication of 
the final regulation.  The final regulation had been  published on 30 January 200 6 and had been notified 
to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA ) contact point on the same day.  However, 
Mexico had decided to delay the entry into for ce of the measure for 60 days, meaning that the 
regulation would come into force in April 2006. 
433. Mexico further reported that following a m eeting on 8 December 2005 between Mexican and 
US officials, the National Health Service author ized the use of the Enzyme-linked Immunosorbent 
Assay (ELISA) technique and equivalent mechanisms to validate different types of AI.  In Mexico, 
only the AI subtype H5N2, a low pathogen type, had b een detected and it was important for Mexico to 
avoid the introduction of any other types of AI. 
 NEW ZEALAND CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY NEW ZEALAND Animal Health and Zoonoses 84. Import restrictions affecting BSE-free co untries – Maintained by Argentina, Australia, 
Canada, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, United States [See Item 84, page 1] 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 110  
 
  OMAN 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY OMAN Food safety 165. Import restrictions on Spanish olive oil – Maintained by Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar 
and United Arab Emirates [See Item 165, page 10] 
 
PANAMA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY PANAMA Food safety 83. Restrictions on milk powder imports 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2000 (G/SPS/R/20,  paras. 15-16), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, 
para. 135) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/220 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
434. In November 2000, the European Communities indicated that since April 2000 the 
Panamanian authorities had delayed issuing the necessary import permits and certificates for the import of milk powder for human consumption from Denmark, resulting in a de facto ban on these 
products.  No explanation had been provided in resp onse to EC requests, and no notification submitted 
to the WTO.  The European Comm unities requested a response by Panama to the questions contained 
in G/SPS/GEN/220.  The representative of Panama agr eed to submit the questions to his capital, and 
indicated the willingness of Panama to consult with the European Communities on this matter. 
435. In July 2001, Panama informed the Committe e that it had provided responses to the EC 
questions regarding powdered milk from Denmark.   In these responses, Panama reiterated that it 
applied the same sanitary measures to domestic and imported products.  The European Communities 
indicated that the Commission would study the answers and report back to Panama. 
 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
149. Restrictions on food products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G /SPS/R/28, paras. 195-196)  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 111 
 
 
  Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
436. The European Communities stated  that Panama had instituted a range of severe measures on 
imports of animal products.  Although the law was intended to address risks related to FMD, BSE, 
Newcastle disease and other exotic diseases, the Eu ropean Communities consid ered the law to be 
disproportionate and not science-based.  In addition , the measure had not been notified.  Panama 
indicated that it hoped to be able to provide a prompt response. 
 187. FMD restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by: Brazil, Costa Rica 
Dates raised: March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, pa ras. 16-17), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, 
paras. 56-57), March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/ Rev.1, paras. 50-51), June 2005 
(G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 173- 174), October 2005 (G/SPS/R/39, 
paras. 83-87), February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 83-87) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
437. In March 2004, Argentina raised concerns on two measures adopted by Panama to prohibit 
the imports of certain produc ts due to FMD.  On 19 March 2001, Pana ma issued a resolution to restrict 
the imports of animals and by-products from Europe  and South America with the exception of Chile.  
On 1 August 2001, Panama amended its penal code through Law 44.  Neither measure complied with 
OIE recommendations.  However, during bilateral consultations held on 16 March 2004, Panama had 
proposed amending Law 44 to eliminate these restrict ions.  Panama confirmed the positive outcome of 
the bilateral meeting and indicated discu ssions with Argentina would continue. 
438. In October 2004, Argentina informed the Committee that Argentina had received positive 
news on the issue of Panama’s restrictions on da iry products and was hopeful of a resolution by the 
next Committee meeting.  Panama stated that bilatera l consultations were held with Argentina prior to 
the Committee meeting and was optim istic of resolving the issue. 
439. In March 2005,  Argentina recalled that in October 2004, a bilateral agreement had been 
negotiated with Panama whereby officials from Pana ma would carry out a visit to establish the safety 
of Argentina's milk products.  The visit had not yet taken place and Argentina dairy products 
continued to be prevented from entering Panama. 
440. Panama noted that it permitted imports of agri cultural products if the country of origin 
showed objectively that its sanitary measures guarant eed the same level of protection as the sanitary 
measures established in the regulations of Panama.  Th e legislation in Panama required that imports of 
animal products from countries affected by exotic illnesses be preceded by a risk analysis undertaken 
by the Panamanian authorities, based on the methodologies recommended by the international 
organizations of which Panama was a member.  The inspection of establishments in the exporting 
country was part of the process to determine the sa nitary situation of the country.  Argentina was 
invited to develop a plan of action so that Pa nama could carry out the visits in Argentina. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 112  
 
  441. In June 2005, Argentina reported that the visit of the Panamanian authorities had not yet taken 
place, although Argentina had responded to a questionnair e.  Furthermore, Panama subsequently added 
a registration requirement for firms interested in exporting dairy products to Panama for tax purposes.  
Argentina asked Panama to adjust its  sanitary requirements to those in the OIE Code and to modify its 
administrative requirements. 
442. Panama replied that Argentina's request was clo se to completion.  Registration of interested 
firms was indeed required, and as soon as these steps were completed, Panamanian officials would be 
able to visit Argentine plants to finalize the procedure. 
443. In February 2006, Argentina stated that the vi sits to dairy plants still had not occurred.  
Companies wishing to export to Panama were require d to be registered in Panama and the veterinary 
evaluation services of an exporting country had to be authenticated by the Panamanian competent 
authorities, supposedly to avoid "ghost companies".  Ar gentina reiterated its request that Panama bring 
its regulations into line with the OIE Code, remove  the bureaucratic barriers to market access and be 
transparent about its administration procedures. 
444. Brazil noted that it had recently had problems relating to the administrative procedures 
established by Panama for certain Brazilian products .  Costa Rica also expressed hope that products 
from Costa Rican dairy plants still undergoing inspection would soon have access to Panama. 
445. Panama maintained that its sanitary risk asse ssment methodology was in full compliance with 
both the SPS Agreement and the OIE standards.  Compliance with Panama's requirements for the 
export of dairy products was not limited to the inspection of certain dairy processing plants but 
required the exporting country to objectively demonstr ate this compliance.  Once Panama had received 
the information demonstrating Arge ntina's compliance with Panama's requirements, a risk analysis 
would be carried out in order to re- establish the trade in dairy products. 
 
214. Inspection regime for food processing establishments 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 25-27) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/PAN/1, G/SPS/N/PAN/28, G/SPS/N/PAN/37 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
446. The United States indicated that Panama had broadened its establishment inspection 
requirements to most food processing establishments  in January 2005, without notifying the WTO and 
providing interested Members an opportunity to comme nt.  This was in contradiction with Article 7 
and Annex B of the SPS Agreement.  In addition, Panama had not provided any risk assessment that 
supported these new measures, despite formal requests by the United States.  Canada recalled that it 
also had experienced problems in the past w ith the establishment-by-establishment accreditation 
approach used by Panama, and urged Panama to c onsider the quicker and less expensive alternative 
approach of systems approval. 
447. Panama pointed out that this regime had been notified to the SPS Committee and Members 
provided an opportunity to comment on it (G/SPS/N/PAN/1, G/SPS/N/PAN/28 and G/SPS/N/PAN/37).  This was the first time, since th e implementation of Panama's inspection regime  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 113 
 
 
  for the inspection of food establishments in 1995, that  an issue in relation with this system had been 
raised at the WTO.  Panama's legislation require d that imports of animals and animal products from 
countries affected by exotic illnesses be subject to a risk analysis carried out by Panamanian health 
authorities because Panama, as a hub for world trade tr ansit, was exposed to a greater risk of illness 
from exotic animals and plants. 
 
PHILIPPINES 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY PHILIPPINES 
Plant Health 119. Notification on Chinese fruit imports 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para. 141) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/PHL/35 and Add.1 
Solution: Temporary ban lifted on the condition that those places identified as 
sources of infested exports undertake tr eatment to effectively kill the insect
Status: Partially resolved 
 
448. China reported that the Philippines had applie d an emergency restriction on imports of fruit 
from China, notified in G/SPS/N/PHL/35.  The notification indicated that the measure was imposed because codling moth had been detected in imports of certain fruits.  However, technical experts of 
both countries had re-identified the intercepted in sect as peach fruit moth, a common pest.  On this 
basis, the Philippines lifted the quarantine ban, but the addendum to the notification did not clarify the mistaken identification of the pest (G/SPS/N/PHL/35/Add.1). 
449. The Philippines confirmed that further investiga tion had revealed that the intercepted insect 
was not codling moth, but Carposina nipponensis, a species not previously known in the Philippines.  
The Philippines had lifted the temporary ban on the condition that those places identified as sources of 
infested exports would undertake treatment to effec tively kill the insect.  This decision was reflected in 
the addendum to the notification, although the Phili ppines agreed to further correct the information 
provided in the notification, to avoid confusion and possible unnecessary restrictions on Chinese 
agricultural products by other Members. 
 POLAND CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY POLAND 
Plant Health 25. Restrictions on wheat and oilseeds 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 114  
 
  Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, par as. 13-14), November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, 
para. 27), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, para. 127) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
450. In March 1997, the United States questioned the phytosanitary health basis for Poland's 
restrictions which applied to weed seeds that existed world-wide, some of them known to be 
established in Poland.  Poland replied that the measure did not affect trade with the United States, as no shipment of US grain or oilseeds had been reject ed because of quarantine risks.  In November 1998, 
the Chairman reported that he and the Secretar iat had been requested to facilitate bilateral 
consultations between the United States and Pola nd regarding tolerance levels for weed seed, 
particularly of the genus Ambrosia.  These consultati ons had focussed on technical aspects of pest risk 
analysis, and both parties had agreed to continue the discussions. 
451. In July 2001, the United States indicated that it continued to pursue the matter bilaterally with 
Poland. 
 QATAR CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY QATAR Food safety 165. Import restrictions on Spanish olive oil – Maintained by Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar 
and United Arab Emirates [See Item 165, page 10] 
 
ROMANIA CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY ROMANIA Food safety 134. SPS measures on animal products 
Raised by: Moldova 
Supported by: China 
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 35-37) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/334 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
452. Moldova indicated that Romania had begun to impose EC requirements on imports of meat 
and animal products although Romania di d not meet these requirements domestically 
(G/SPS/GEN/334).  As a result, meat, milk and egg exports from Moldova were in effect banned from 
the Romanian market, which normally absorbed abou t 80 per cent of Moldova agricultural exports.   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 115 
 
 
  Romania had not provided any scientific justification for its measure.  Its failure to notify the measure 
meant that exporters had not had any time to adap t to the new requirements.  China expressed support 
for the concerns expressed by Moldova and urged Romania to review its measures in this area. 
453. Romania argued that the measure in question was a result of its harmonization with the  
acquis communautaire of the European Union, and was necessary to ensure consumer protection.  
Romania stated that this was not a new SPS measure,  so it had not been notified.  Nonetheless, the 
Romanian Ministry of Agriculture was consideri ng ways to address the difficulties posed to Moldova 
from its implementation. 
 
SLOVAK REPUBLIC 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SLOVAK REPUBLIC 
Food safety 9. Zero-tolerance for salmone lla in imported poultry products – Maintained by Chile, 
Czech Republic, El Salvador, Honduras and Slovak Republic [See Item 9, page 22] 
 
SOUTH AFRICA CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY SOUTH AFRICA Animal Health and Zoonoses 43. Prohibition on bone-in beef imports from EC member States 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, par as. 32-33), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12 and 
Corr.1, paras. 19-21) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/ZAF/2, G/SPS/GEN/95 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
454. In March 1998, the European Communities noted that the South African ban on beef imports 
applied to all EC member States.  This was unjustif ied in light of measures taken at EC and national 
level in countries were BSE cases had occurred.  In addition, South African requirements were not in 
accordance with OIE standards.  South Africa stressed that the European Communities were a major 
supplier of meat to South Africa, and that South Africa had no interest in having consumers consider 
EC meat as unsafe.  However, South Africa wanted to maintain its BSE-free status, and protect human 
and animal health.  South Africa invited the Eu ropean Communities to provide written comments. 
455. In September 1998, the European Communities agai n raised this issue.  South Africa replied 
that written comments from the European Communiti es had only recently been received.  In March 
and July 1998, South Africa had provided to the European Communities a written explanation of the 
measure in question.  Furthermore, South Afri ca had reiterated its invitation to the European G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 116  
 
  Communities to submit evidence which would permit a re-evaluation of its decision, possibly on an 
individual EC member State basis.  In accordance with Article 5.7, South Africa would review its 
measure in the light of additional information.  The European Communities recognized that it had yet 
to provide a written reply to South Africa's request  for information, and welcomed the invitation for 
bilateral discussions of the issue. 
 
135. Restrictions on beef and pork 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, pa ras 19-20), November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, 
para. 176) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Imports of meat and pork from Brazilian regions free of FMD authorized. 
Problems remaining concerning administrative procedures for meat products. 
Status: Partially resolved 
 
456. Brazil stated that in February 2002, South Africa had suspended imports of beef and pork 
from Brazil, because FMD vaccination was practised th ere.  South Africa's import ban was not based 
on the OIE standards nor on scientific evidence or ri sk assessment nor had the measure been notified. 
Brazil requested South Africa to lift the ban and ac cept the risk mitigation procedures established by 
the OIE.  South Africa indicated that they were comm itted to bilateral consultations with a view to find 
a quick solution to the problem.  In November 2002, Brazil reported that South Africa had authorized imports of meat and pork from Brazilian regions free of FMD.  Some difficulties remained regarding 
administrative procedures for meat products, but were expected to be resolved soon. 
 SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU 
(CHINESE TAIPEI) 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MA INTAINED BY CHINESE TAIPEI 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 227. BSE-related import restrictions on non-ruminant products 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 30-32) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
457. In June 2005, the United States raised concer ns regarding the BSE-related import prohibition 
imposed by Chinese Taipei on non-ruminant rendered meals except fishmeal, and all spray-dried  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 117 
 
 
  animal products except dairy products and certain porc ine products made in specified plants.  For over 
five years, the United States had been providing sign ificant scientific information to the animal health 
authorities of Chinese Taipei to allow the resumption of this trade.  Chinese Taipei had not provided 
any scientific justification exceeding the relevant inte rnational standards.  Bilateral discussions just 
prior to the meeting gave hope of fi nding a mutually satisfactory solution. 
458. The European Communities requested that Chin ese Taipei and other countries fully adopt the 
new recommendations of the OIE Code.  The cl earer and simpler provisions of the OIE Code 
specifically allowed trade of beef products derive d from deboned skeletal muscle meat from animals 
under 30 months of age. 
459. Chinese Taipei pointed out that Chinese Taipei's  concerns focused primarily on the possibility 
of cross-contamination with material of ruminant  origin.  The implementation of the US system 
needed careful evaluation and verification by on-site  inspections.  Based on risk analysis results, the 
importation of fish products, hydrolyzed proteins de rived from processing meals, spray-dried proteins 
and plasma proteins from the United States were not  currently prohibited.  Chinese Taipei's SPS 
measures were designed to ensure the safe trade of animal and animal products in accordance with the 
concept of an appropriate level of protection a nd did not exceed the OIE guidelines.  Chinese Taipei 
was seeking a solution to the issue with the United St ates.  Regarding the EC concern on beef, Chinese 
Taipei would respond to the European Communities in writing. 
 
Plant Health 
136. Policies regarding quarantine and non-quarantine pests  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras 33-34) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
460. The United States expressed concern that Chin ese Taipei's Plant Production and Quarantine 
Act did not distinguish between quarantine and no n-quarantine pests which was detrimental to US 
exports.  Chinese Taipei had agreed to amend this act, however this was expected to take some time. In 
response, Chinese Taipei indicated that problems ar ose due to inconsistency between the Chinese and 
English version of the Act.  His authorities had agre ed to amend the Act to bring it into conformity 
with the standards of the IPPC. 
461. In January 2005, Chinese Taipei reported that the Enforcement Rules on Plant Protection and 
Quarantine Act were revised in October 2003.  Th e phytosanitary measures applied only to regulated 
pests. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 118  
 
  THAILAND 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY THAILAND 
Food safety 215. Public Health Regulation 11 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Japan, New Zealand 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/ Rev.1, paras. 42-44), June 2005 
(G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 45-47), Oc tober 2005 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 59-
60), February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, paras. 59-60) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/ N/THA/116 and addenda 1-5 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
462. In March 2005, the United States observed that Thailand had notified Public Health 
Regulation N° 11 to be implemented in December 2004 (G/SPS/N/THA/116).  In response to extensive comments, Thailand had delayed implementation to March 2005 
(G/SPS/N/THA/116/Add.1), but had not addressed the s ubstantive issues raised by the United States.  
Many US fresh food products had been categorized in that Regulation as high risk with no scientific basis.  As a result, burdensome and costly tes ting and certification of compliance with pathogen 
requirements, and pesticides and heavy metals resi due levels were now required for US exports to 
enter the market.  The United States urged Thailand to suspend implementation of the Regulation until 
a science-based risk assessment for each product affected had been conducted. 
463. New Zealand also expressed concerns about the testing and certification requirements of 
Regulation 11 and requested Thailand to further delay the entry into force of the regulation in order to 
substantially amend it. 
464. Thailand indicated that the Regulation was part of a national strategic plan on food aimed at 
strengthening control measures for the safety and qu ality of Thai food from farm to table or export 
markets.  The Regulation was not intended to discriminate against imports. 
465. In June 2005, the United States recalled that Th ailand had notified further revisions to Rule 
11 on 23 May 2005, (G/SPS/N/THA/116/Add.3) leaving only 38 days for WTO Members to provide comments.  This was not sufficient for exporters to become familiar with the changes, nor for 
Members to submit comments, or for Thailand to cons ider comments that might have been provided.  
The United States still had substantial concerns abou t the scientific basis for Thailand's categorization 
of many US products as "high risk".  It was also still not clear whether Thailand would require 
certification and testing on domestic products.  On 24  June 2005, the United States had been informed 
that the implementation of Rule 11 would be delayed until 31 December 2005.  The United States appreciated these developments and encouraged Tha iland to develop measures c onsistent with the SPS 
Agreement to manage any documented risks. 
466. Japan observed that a national strategic plan on food, such as Rule 11, aimed at strengthening 
the control measures for the safety and quality of domestic and imported food, should be based on a 
science-based risk assessment and the working prin ciples for risk analysis applied by the Codex 
Alimentarius.  In order to avoid unjustified trade ba rriers, risk management should ensure transparency  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 119 
 
 
  and consistency in the decision-making process in all cases.  Japan requested  information about the 
relationship between the proposed regulation and the related international standards. 
467. Thailand replied that the food standards that  would be applied throughout the country 
complied with the relevant international standards.   Requiring a health certificate was the best option 
to alleviate the burden on importers at the borde r and was in compliance with Codex standards.  
Thailand had addressed most of the comments received from Members.  Some food standards 
inconsistent with the Codex had been withdrawn,  pending further science-based evaluation.  Thailand 
notified additional modifications on 12 July 2005 (G/SPS/N/THA/116/Add.4) and cancelled its 
notification on 12 January 2006 (G/SPS/N/THA/116/Add. 5) in order ot undertake a complete review 
of Rule 11. 
468. In February 2006, the United States expressed appreciation for Thailand's several extensions 
and eventual cancellation of implementation of Decr ee 11.  However, the underlying decree was still 
in place and its overall requirement that food must be  proven to be safe through unspecified testing and 
certification processes remained of concern.  Thaila nd was urged to reconsider the framework of the 
decree and to notify any changes sufficiently in advance for WTO Members to comment before final 
decisions were made. 
469. Thailand clarified that, on the basis of comments by some Members, the requirements for a 
food health certificate had been withdrawn and the cu rrent review focussed on high risk food products.  
This review would be based on scientific risk assessment.  Thailand was convinced that certifying 
healthy food on the basis of international standards was a way of facilitating trade.  Thailand was also 
willing to recognize the equivalence of other measu res. on the basis of international guidelines. 
 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
234. Suspension of importation of live poultry and poultry carcasses  
Raised by: Mexico 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2005 (G/SPS/R/39, pa ras. 88-89), February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, 
paras. 88-89) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
470. In February 2006, Mexico requested Thailand to conclude the emergency measures which had 
led to the temporary suspension of imports of  live poultry and poultry carcasses from the Mexican 
state of Durango.  The strain of avian influenza (A I) detected in the Mexican poultry products (H5N2) 
was low pathogenic.  In accordance with the OIE, prior to implementing such measures, Thailand 
should have demonstrated that it was free of the low pathogenic strain at issue and that it had put in 
place a monitoring programmes able to detect this s ubtype despite the absence of clinical symptoms.  
Mexico's programme for AI control and eradication, which had been in force for ten years, ensured the 
eradication of all subtypes of AI.  The state of Du rango had complied with all the OIE requirements to 
regain a disease-free status in the case of a low pathogenic AI infection and was AI-free for all 
subtypes.  Thailand should therefore remove its temporary restrictions. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 120  
 
  471. Thailand indicated that it had adopted a precauti onary approach since the AI outbreaks over 
the last two years.  Active surveillance had been put in place to control and eradicate the disease.  
Areas at risk had been scanned and movements of  poultry and poultry products within the country 
were under control.  Thailand had temporarily bann ed some Mexican poultry exports from the infected 
state only. 
 
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Animal Health and Zoonoses 151. Restrictions on imports of pork  sausages and other pork products 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 32-34), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29 
paras. 65-66), June 2003 (G/SPS/ R/30, paras. 45-46), October 2003 
(G/SPS/R/31, paras. 31-32) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
472. Argentina reported that the health authorities from Trinidad and Tobago had provided two 
responses regarding import requirements for Argentine pork products, fresh cured or salted.  The first 
response indicated that imports of Argentine pork products were currently banned because of the FMD 
outbreak that had occurred in 2001, and that imports w ould not be able to resume until the health status 
of Argentina changed to that of a country free of FMD without vaccination.  The second response 
stated that imports of pork products were allowe d only from those countries that had FMD free status 
without vaccination for at least three years before the date of export.  These requirements were stricter 
than the OIE Animal Health C ode, lacked a scientific basis and were not proportionate to the 
objectives pursued.  Argentina a lifting of the ban a nd copies of the scientific evidence that justified 
the measure.. 
473. Trinidad and Tobago indicated that the issue of importation of Argentine pork products had 
been the subject of ongoing bilateral consultations .  As a member of the Caribbean Community 
(CARICOM), Trinidad and Tobago adhered to a re gional policy for the importation of meat and meat 
products according to which, in the event that an exporting country had experienced an FMD outbreak, 
imports would only be allowed after disease-free stat us had been achieved without vaccination.  The 
regional decision reflected consensus among member States.  These requirements were transparent and 
applied in an equitable manner to all countries th at had experienced FMD outbreaks. Trinidad and 
Tobago  reaffirmed the country's willingn ess to continue the bilateral process. 
474. In April 2003, Argentina reported that despite  the willingness of Trinidad and Tobago to 
engage in bilateral consultations, no progress had yet been achieved at the technical level.  Trinidad 
and Tobago explained that the OIE Code stated that affected products should not be accepted from 
vaccinated animals. Re-opening of markets was based on consensus among CARICOM members.    
Accordingly, Argentina had been advised that the matter should be pursued through the CARICOM 
Secretariat, which Argentinal had done.  CARICO M was committed to finding a mutually agreeable  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 121 
 
 
  solution and had convened a meeting of the region's chief veterinary officers to discuss the matter on 
7-8 April 2003.  It was expected that the matter would be fully resolved at the time. 
475. In June 2003, Argentina indicated that its au thorities had provided Trinidad and Tobago the 
information agreed upon after the last Committee meeting.  CARICOM was committed to sending a 
technical mission to Argentina with the aim of accepting Argentine exports.  Trinidad and Tobago 
confirmed that a risk assessment mission was expected to take place within the next two months. 
476. In October 2003, Argentina reported that since the last meeting, its authorities had provided 
information to Trinidad and Tobago on the foot-and-m outh disease status of Argentina.  However, a 
visit by three veterinarians from the CARICOM to  dairy factories and sausage production plants had 
been cancelled due to a new outbreak of FMD.  Th e representative of Trinidad and Tobago clarified 
that Argentina had postponed the trip, scheduled for 8-12 September, due to the appearance of an 
isolated case of FMD.  CARICOM had yet to be a dvised by Argentina of new dates for the visit.  
Trinidad and Tobago stated that its restriction would not be removed until the risk assessment was 
completed. 
 TURKEY CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY TURKEY 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 48. Import ban on livestock 
Raised by: Hungary, United States 
Supported by: Australia, New Zealand, Uruguay, European Communities 
Dates raised: June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, para. 33), September 1998 (G/SPS/R/12, paras. 7-
10), June 2000 (G/SPS/R/19, paras.  12-14), July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, 
para. 127), Octo ber 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 33), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, 
paras. 205-206), June 2003  (G/SPS/R/30, para. 67) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/265 
Solution: The United States reported in July 2001 that its concerns were resolved. 
Hungary's concerns are outstanding. 
Status: Partially resolved 
 
477. In June 1998, the United States sought clarific ation from Turkey whether its FMD-related 
import ban on cattle and meat  products had ever been officially pub lished or notified to the WTO.  The 
United States requested an explanation of the meas ure's scientific basis, especially in view of the 
FMD-free status of the United States.  In September 1998, the United States noted that Turkey had extended its import ban for the eighth time.  Turkey replied that the policy was geared at preventing the spread of FMD in the country.  A rigorous na tion-wide eradication progr amme was in place, and 
considerable progress had been made.  Turkey belie ved that the application of temporary measures 
with the objective of creating the necessary animal h ealth conditions within its  borders was justified, 
but was open to dialogue with its trading part ners to reach a mutually agreeable solution. 
478. In June 2000, Hungary recalled that several Members had challenged the WTO-consistency 
of Turkey's import restrictions on live cattle and beef meat.  Hungary had been free from FMD for nearly 20 years, and had pursued FMD control po licies which made vaccination redundant.  Hungary G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 122  
 
  suggested the Turkish ban violated Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement.  Based on Articles 5.1 and 5.8, 
Hungary asked Turkey to provide its risk assessme nt on the importation of live cattle and beef from 
FMD-free countries.  New Zealand asked if Turkey had an import licensing system, and if so, how risk was assessed and how licenses were  issued.  Turkey committed to providing a report on an 
interdepartmental review of the sanitary measures. 
479. In July 2001, the United States indicated th at Turkey had assured the United States in 
September 1999 that the import ban was no longer in force (G/SPS/GEN/265).  The United States considered this trade concern resolved.  In October 2001, Hungary reported that its concerns were still 
outstanding. 
480. In April 2003, Hungary again raised concerns over the on-going restrictions on imports of live 
cattle and beef maintained by Turkey.  Accordi ng to the OIE, Hungary had been free from FMD for 
nearly 20 years.  Hungarian live cattle and beef w as also free from BSE.  Hungary had questioned this 
measure several times bilaterally and in the SPS Committee but had not recei ved any explanation or 
risk assessment studies from Turkey.  Turkey explained that many countries had imposed import restrictions or bans on live animal s and animal products originating from some European countries due 
to BSE and FMD to protect their public health a nd livestock.  Turkey had simply taken the same 
measures based on available information and to sa tisfy the widespread public concern over BSE. 
481. In June 2003, Turkey stated that cattle and beef imports from some EC member States and 
from Hungary had been temporarily suspended as cat tle from these countries had not been vaccinated 
or achieved immunity against FMD and rinderpest whic h was present in Turkey at that time.  The ban 
had been lifted in 1999, however, due to BSE concerns , the import of livestock had been partly banned 
again. 
 
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY UNITED ARAB EMIRATES Food safety 
165. Import restrictions on Spanish olive oil – Maintained by Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar 
and United Arab Emirates [See Item 165, page 10]  
 
UNITED STATES 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY UNITED STATES Food safety 
58. Notification on refrigeration a nd labelling requirements for shell eggs 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13, paras. 37-38)  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 123 
 
 
  Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/133 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
482. The European Communities queried whether the US measure was based on a risk assessment, 
and if this risk assessment was available.  Th e European Communities s ought written clarification 
from the United States regarding th e non-application of the measure to units with 3000 hens or less, 
and asked the United States to explain the discrim ination between foreign and domestic eggs.  The 
European Communities also enquired whether the Un ited States would accept equivalent measures.  
The United States responded that th e risk assessment was available on the internet, but that a copy 
would be provided to the European Communities.  The United States welcomed the EC request for 
consideration of equivalence, and indicated that answers to the more technical questions would be 
provided in due course. 
 
152. Restrictions on melons 
Raised by: Mexico 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G /SPS/R/28, paras. 180-181) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/366 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
483. Mexico indicated that on 28 October 2002, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 
imposed an emergency import ban on cantaloupe melons imported from Mexico.  Mexico considered 
this measure as being disproportionate and not b ased on scientific evidence of any health risk 
(G/SPS/GEN/366).  Mexico requested the United States to suspend the import ban on cantaloupe melons and to comply with its obligations under the SPS Agreement. 
484. The United States noted that FDA sampling of imported produce found that samples of 
cantaloupe melons from most growing regions in Me xico tested positive for salmonella. The samples 
had been collected both in the fall/winter and spri ng/summer seasons, and it ap peared that unsanitary 
conditions in the growing and packi ng of cantaloupe melons had resulte d in four salmonella outbreaks.  
The import alert recommended officials to detain cantaloupe melons from Mexico at all US ports 
without physical examination.  The October import al ert expanded prior import alerts that had targeted 
specific imports and growers whose products had been  linked to outbreaks or had tested positive for 
salmonella.  On 28 October 2002, the United States ha d announced that they would continue to work 
with Mexico on a food safety programme for produc tion, packing and shipping of fresh cantaloupe 
melons.  The Mexican Government had pro posed a certification programme based on good 
agricultural practices and good manufacturing practi ces that would allow the FDA to identify firms 
that had adopted and implemented such a program me.  This certification programme was still under 
development and the United States looked forward to its early implementation. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 124  
 
  Animal Health and Zoonoses 
7. Regionalization in relation to animal health 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: May 1996 (G/SPS/R/5, para. 15) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/37 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
485. The European Communities welcomed a US notification on the introduction of 
regionalization in import policy and internal contro l policy in relation to animal health, but was 
concerned that the proposed measure did not meet th e criteria of a true regionalization approach in 
conformity with what had been discussed at the OI E.  The United States stressed the purpose of the 
proposed measure was to facilitate tr ade and to fulfil the obligation of the United States under the SPS 
Agreement, in particular Article 5.2 on risk assessment. 
 44. Measures related to BSE 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Argentina, Chile, New Zealand, Switzerland 
Dates raised: March 1998 (G/SPS/R/10, paras. 10-12), June 1998 (G/SPS/R/11, 
paras. 43-47) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/66, G/SPS/N/USA/106 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
486. In March 1998, the European Communities compla ined that recent US measures were neither 
in conformity with the SPS Agreement nor with the OIE, and were singling out Europe.  The European 
Communities rejected US claims that inadequate su rveillance in relation to BSE was a problem within 
the European Communities and indicated that th e European Communities was about to introduce a 
harmonized surveillance system.  The United States  replied that it was receiving numerous comments 
to its interim measure, which was intended to protect  animal and consumer health from BSE in light of 
the unclear information on the distribution of BSE on the European continent.  Trade would resume 
when the countries in question had systems that met US criteria.  The United States would evaluate the 
data submitted, and would take the necessary m easures based on science and risk assessment.  
Argentina noted that BSE was a European problem with important potential consequences for the rest 
of the world, and that it required a joint effort of  political and scientific authorities to find a solution 
based on the available knowledge to avoid unnecessary trade disruption. 
487. In June 1998, the European Communities drew attention to the recent OIE indication that 
when a country had no native cases of BSE and surveillance systems were in place for seven years, trade in meat could take place.  The OIE also provi ded the basis on which trade could take place with 
countries of low incidence of BSE.  The criteria on which US decisions would be based were still not 
clear to the European Communiti es.  The United States announced that comments and information 
received were being incorporated into the risk assessment, taking into account the discussions in the  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 125 
 
 
  OIE framework.  The updated rule would soon be published and notified, a nd responses would be 
provided to all comments received. 
 
84. Import restrictions affecting BSE-free co untries – Maintained by Argentina, Australia, 
Canada, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, United States [See Item 84, page 1] 
 
88. Import restrictions due to FMD – Main tained by Canada and United States [See 
Item 88, page 21] 
 
120. Restrictions on pigmeat 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, para . 11), October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras.33-
34) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/214/Add.1 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
488. The European Communities drew the Co mmittee's attention to notification 
G/SPS/N/USA/214/Add.1, which recognized Portugal as free of African swine fever.  The phrasing of the US notification gave the erroneous impression that Portugal was "in a region infected with 
classical swine fever", whereas Portugal was recognized  as free of classical swine fever by the OIE.  
Several EC member States remained on the US list of countries infected with classical swine fever 
solely because of delays in the US legislative procedure for reclassification, possibly for political 
reasons.  The European Communities was hopeful that the publication of a final classical swine fever 
rule would follow shortly.  The European Commun ities had signed a bilateral veterinary agreement 
with the United States in 1999 on the unders tanding that a final rule was imminent. 
489. The United States noted that an outbreak of Afri can swine fever was reported in Portugal in 
1999 and that on 7 January 2000, the United States had no tified measures taken in this regard.  In spite 
of the change in African swine fever status, the ex port of pork products to the United States could not 
commence due to the presence of other animal di seases. The United States stated that they had 
legitimate scientific concerns related to classical swine fever in the European Communities following 
recent outbreaks in Germany, Spain and Luxembourg. 
490. In October 2003, the European Communities st ated that it had provided the necessary 
information and renewed its request to the United St ates to adhere to commitments made in the 1998 
bilateral agreement between the United States a nd the European Communities on issues relating to 
animal health. 
491. The United States explained that it had been wo rking closely with the European Communities 
and interested EC member States on this regiona lization request.  The United States had published a 
final rule in April 2003 which recognized that cer tain areas of the European Communities were disease 
free.  On 16 October 2003, APHIS ruled that East  Anglia, in the United Kingdom, was disease free G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 126  
 
  and was continuing its evaluation of the status of other EC member States.  Outbreaks of both classical 
swine fever and FMD in France, Spain and Luxembou rg had complicated and delayed the response to 
the regionalization request. 
 
137. Import restrictions on meat and meat products 
Raised by: Switzerland 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 10-12) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/321 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
492. Switzerland reported that following the outbreak of  BSE in Switzerland, the United States had 
banned imports of meat and meat products from Sw itzerland (G/SPS/GEN/321).  The ban applied also 
to meat products processed in Switzerland with me at imported from countries free of BSE, such as 
Argentina or Brazil.  Switzerland had a low incidence of BSE in terms of the OIE International Animal 
Health Code and the US measure did not follow the international standards.  Moreover, the US double 
inspection procedure was in violation of the SPS Agre ement. Bilateral consultations had clarified some 
of the questions raised by Switzerland, and would hop efully soon lead to a resumption of trade in meat 
and meat products.  The European Communities requ ested to be informed of the outcome of the 
discussions between Switzerland and the United States. 
493. The United States noted that there was a further complication pertaining to the FMD status of 
certain countries providing meat to Switzerland fo r processing and subsequent export to the United 
States. 
 
189. US prohibition on the use of specified risk materials and requirements for disabled 
cattle 
Raised by: Argentina 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 68-69) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/844 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
494. Argentina stated that notification G/SPS/N /USA/844 was published on 23 January 2004 as a 
standard, non-emergency notification.  The final date for comments was on 12 April, 2004 but the 
proposed date of adoption and entry into force wa s on 12 January 2004;  hence Members did not have 
adequate opportunity for comment.  Argentina was required to comply with the same requirements 
imposed on countries affected with BSE although  Argentina had never had a case of BSE and 
complied with the requirements to be considered free of BSE.  The United States was requested to 
clarify this matter.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 127 
 
 
  495. The United States explained that the USDA had instituted a number of  interim measures on 
12 January 2004 after the announc ement of a presumptive case of BSE in Washington State on 23 
December 2003.  Under the US regulatory system, in terim final rules were enforced immediately but 
there was a concurrent comment period of 90 days.  The comment period for G/SPS/N/USA/844 
would expire on 12 April 2004.  Members that were  free of BSE and interested in seeking recognition 
of alternate control measures equivalent to th e US measures as announced in G/SPS/N/USA/844, 845 
and 846, were encouraged to submit their comment s within the deadline for consideration in the 
development of a final set of BSE rules. 
 
203. US rule on materials derived fr om cattle and record-keeping requirements 
Raised by: Argentina, China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 72-75) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/USA/933 and 934 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
496. Argentina noted that notifications G/SPS/ N/USA/933 and 934 were published as regular 
notifications but were of immediate and compulso ry implementation despite giving a timeframe for 
comments.  Furthermore, Argentina was recognized as free of BSE but had to comply with the same 
requirements imposed on countries affected with BSE.   The United States was requested to recognize 
the different disease status of Members as required in Article 6 of the SPS Agreement.  China was 
concerned that the product description in the notific ation was too general and the HS tariff codes for 
the products covered by the two measures should be included.  The notifications broadly included all 
trading partners exporting human food or cosmeti cs to the United States without taking into account 
the BSE status of different countries or regions .  It was not necessary to restrict products from 
countries free of BSE nor should manufacturers be re quired to keep relevant records.  These measures 
impeded international trade and the United States  should provide scientific justification for its 
deviation from international standards and modify its measures accordingly. 
497. The United States explained that notification G/SPS/N/USA/933 prohibited the use of 
materials derived from cattle in human food, incl uding dietary supplements, and in cosmetics.  
Prohibited cattle materials included specified risk materials such as brain and spinal tissue, small 
intestine of all cattle, material from nonambulatory disabled cattle, material from cattle not inspected 
and passed for human consumption and mechanically separated beef.  These restrictions were put in 
place to reduce the risk associated with BSE and the human disease variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease.  
The FDA issued an interim final rule effective immediately with a 90-day comment period ending on 
12 October 2004 and would c onsider modifications on the final rule based on comments received.  The 
requirements on prohibited cattle materials were imposed without exceptions to any products or 
ingredients of products manufactured in or importe d into the United States.  However, the United 
States recognized that a country’s BSE status might merit consideration as the final rule was being developed.  To this effect, the United States was seeking comments on the issu e of equivalence as it 
related to BSE risk management requirements, as well as on standards to apply when determining 
another country’s BSE status, providing an exem ption for BSE free countries.  The FDA and USDA 
were working to develop a harmonized US positi on on exempting other countries from respective 
requirements related to BSE which might be based, at  least in part, on a country’s BSE status as 
determined by the OIE. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 128  
 
  498. Notification G/SPS/N/USA/934 was issued at  the same time as G/SPS/N/USA/933 and 
required manufacturers and processors of human food and cosmetics that were manufactured from, processed with or otherwise contained material from cattle to establish and maintain records demonstrating that foods and cosmetics were in co mpliance with the interim final rule.  The comment 
period of the proposed record-keeping rule ende d on 13 August and the comments were currently 
being reviewed.  The United States would notify the Committee of any changes incorporated in the 
final rule.  The United States would include the HS  codes as requested by China via a corrigendum to 
the two notifications. 
 
Plant Health 
37. Actions taken by local governments 
Raised by: Chile 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 1997 (G /SPS/R/9/Rev. 1, para. 47) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
499. Chile noted that legal actions taken by local  governments could disrupt trade flows.  For 
example, Californian judges had re quested the US De partment of Agriculture (USDA) to undertake an 
environmental analysis before allowing imports. In another instance, after Chilean phytosanitary 
authorities had taken a decision regarding the entry of weeds, they were threatened to be subject to 
legal proceedings initiated by the exporting country,  unless the exporting country was declared a "low-
risk" or a "zero-risk" country.  Another related issu e concerned the need for the streamlining or reform 
of national regulatory frameworks.  As many as five  signatures were sometimes required to clear the 
entry of goods into a territory. 
 
59. Interim rule affecting solid wood packaging material 
Raised by: Hong Kong, China 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: November 1998 (G/SPS/R/13,  paras. 3-12), March 1999 (G/SPS/R/14, 
paras. 2-3), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, para. 35) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/107, G/SPS/N/USA/137, G/SPS/N/CAN/44 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
500. In November 1998, the United States provided information on an amendment of the 
regulations applicable to unmanufactured wood, adding treatment and documentation requirements for 
imports from China, including Hong Kong, China.  Hong Kong, China found the rule arbitrary and discriminatory.  Although Hong Kong, China rec ognized that fumigation with methyl bromide was 
effective, it was concerned that the use of this substance had undesirable si de-effects on human health 
and the environment.  Bilateral consultations w ith the United States had taken place.  The United  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 129 
 
 
  States encouraged Members to comment on its draf t measure.  Canada indicated that it had also 
imposed a measure on unmanufactured wood imports from China to avoid introduction of the Asian 
Longhorned Beetle.  A technical expert would be sent to Hong Kong, China to study ways to implement this measure with a minimal disruption of  international trade.  In March 1999, the United 
States announced that an advance notice of propo sed rule making had been published on 20 January 
1999, and that comments were welcome until 22 Ma rch 1999.  The European Communities indicated 
that it had been monitoring similar problems, and woul d provide more information at a later date.  In 
October 2001, Hong Kong, China reported th at no new developments had occurred. 
 
121. Imports of clementines 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras.  7-10), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27, paras. 58-
59) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
501. The European Communities reported that on 30 November 2001, USDA APHIS announced 
an immediate temporary ban on citrus fruit imports  from Spain following two reported interceptions of 
live Mediterranean fruit fly larvae.  The finds were made in cold-treated clementines from Spain stored 
in close proximity to, and possibly even mixed w ith, fruits from other sources.  Imports of Spanish 
citrus into the United States had taken place in acco rdance with a protocol agreed in 1987 comprising 
pre-shipment inspection, cold treat ment, checks at the point of entry and measures that should be taken 
in the event of pest findings.  The European Co mmunities considered the US measure disproportionate 
to the extent and nature of the findings given th e impact on trade, and discriminatory since other 
foreign suppliers, also using cold treatment, coul d still export clementines to the United States.  The 
European Communities was also dismay ed by the US decision to study revisions to the cold treatment 
procedure and issue a final rule accordingly – a proc edure which would take a considerable period of 
time. 
502. In June 2002 the European Communities reporte d that Spain and the United States continued 
bilateral efforts to find a resolution to this probl em.  The European Communities expressed concern as 
to whether exports would be allowed to resume by the following season on the basis of a new import 
protocol, given that the slow procedures being fo llowed by the United States might not be concluded 
in time for the new season.  The Eu ropean Communities indicated that if  this were to occur they might 
invoke the dispute resolution procedures.  Th e United States expressed appreciation for the 
cooperation of the Spanish authorities in the matte r and noted that the comment period had been 
extended in order to permit all relevant parties the opportunity to comment on the US risk assessment. 
 
153. Restrictions on imports of Chin ese potted plants in growing medium 
Raised by: China 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28, paras. 43-45), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, 
paras. 21-22) G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 130  
 
  Relevant document(s): G/ SPS/N/USA/431 and addendum 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
503. China indicated that US prohibitions on the importation of Chinese penjing in growing 
medium continued almost six years after the risk anal ysis had been finished and the protocol had been 
signed.  The United States had relied on the excuse of domestic legal procedures and the need to 
coordinate work between the relevant government  agencies to delay solving the problem.  China 
requested the United States to notify its work procedures concerning the removal of measures 
prohibiting imports of plants and pl ant products in compliance with the transparency provisions of the 
SPS Agreement.  China failed to understand why th e United States had proposed to solve only the 
problem of the importation of one of the types of  penjing plants in growing medium, instead of 
considering the five types for which the risk analysis had been completed.  The European 
Communities supported the concerns raised by Chin a and noted that they had run into the same 
difficulties with other varieties of potted plants.  The European Communities ur ged the United States 
to find a rapid solution to the problem. 
504. The United States noted that the issue of penji ng in growing medium had been the subject of 
extensive discussions with China.  The United Stat es had been working actively to evaluate China's 
proposed importation, but the importation of plants in growing medium was more complicated from a 
risk mitigation perspective than importation of bare r oot plants.  While examination of bare root plants 
could detect certain pests or disease problems, insp ection of potted plants necessarily involved the 
removal of the plant from the pot and the growing medium, and could damage the plant and reduce its 
commercial value.  Although the assessment of the risk  to plant health posed by the importation of the 
five species of penjing was essentially conclude d, other risks needed to be evaluated before 
determination if the importation presented an acce ptable risk.  US regulatory requirements for 
imported plants and growing medi um reflected the need to prevent the introduction of pests and 
disease that could seriously undermine or compromi se native ecosystems, as well as cultivated plants, 
and this work was ongoing.  The 1997 protocol be tween the United States and China reflected 
agreement on the technical issues relating to produc tion, inspection, and quarantine requirements for 
Chinese penjing that were necessary but not sufficient conditions for imports to occur.  The protocol 
could not take effect until the risk assessments ha d been completed, and the necessary regulatory and 
notification processes had run their course.  Th e United States acknowledged the importance that 
China attached to this issue, and indicated their commitment to reaching a mutually satisfactory 
resolution as soon as possible. 
505. In March 2004, China stated that the US rule on the importation of artificially dwarfed plants 
in growing media from China was unnecessary and not viable given China's production system.  China's proposed measures were rejected by the  United States.  The United States reported that the 
risk analysis for five varieties of penjing was comple ted.  On 16 January 2004, a final rule authorizing 
the importation of five varieties of Chinese origin penjing plants in approved growing media had been 
published and notified as G/SPS/N/USA/431/Add1.  This  rule built upon an existing regulation that 
was first published in August 2002 and notifie d as G/SPS/N/USA/431.  The 2002 rule remains 
applicable and required high risk artificially dwarfe d plants, including penjing, to be produced in 
phytosanitary secure conditions for two years prior to export.  However, plants less than two years in 
age were not subject to the two-year quarantine re quirement due to a lower risk profile.  This new 
regulation provided China with additional market opportunities and the United States would continue 
bilateral discussions with China. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 131 
 
 
  216. Restrictions on Ya pears imports 
Raised by: China 
Supported by: European Communities 
Dates raised: March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, paras. 37-39) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
506. In March 2005, China reported that, at the end of 2003, the US Animal and Plant Health 
Inspection Service (APHIS) had suspended imports of  Ya pears from China on the grounds that new 
species of the fungus Alternaria sp. had been fo und.  The Chinese Government had undertaken 
cooperative studies with the United States and finally obtained a result satisfactory to both Chinese and 
US specialists.  However, US authorities had not ye t made any decision based on the above results and 
imports of pears from China were still suspended. 
507. The European Communities noted that it was also experiencing lengthy decision-making 
procedures when trying to export some plant produc ts to the United States, and invited the United 
States to review its internal administrative procedures. 
508. The United States clarified that imports of Ya pears from China were suspended in December 
2003 due to repeated detections of the exotic fun gus Alternaria sp.and that imports of these pears had 
already been suspended in previous years for a similar problem. In May 2004, China had been 
provided with a document describing the status of this organism as a pest of quarantine significance 
and the United States had been work ing closely with China to develop conditions that would allow the 
reopening of the market.  After several bilateral di scussions, agreement had been reached in November 
2004 on a work plan stipulating that Chinese scientists  would cooperate with US scientists to develop 
possible measures to mitigate the fungus.  A protoc ol had been agreed in December 2004 to enable a 
test shipment of Ya pears to be imported for r esearch purposes into the Unite d States to evaluate the 
various mitigation measures..  Unfortunately, the co llaborative research showed that even with all the 
mitigation measures in place, the infestation rate st ill significantly exceeded the one specified in the 
work plan of November 2004.  Alternaria sp. was a newly identified species not known to exist in the 
United States, and a better understa nding of this organism was necessary to develop appropriate 
mitigation measures.  The United States would con tinue work with China to identify measures to 
reduce the level of infestation to an acceptable level so that the market might be reopened. 
 
228. Import procedures for fruits and vegetables 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Argentina 
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/ SPS/R/37/Rev.1, paras. 21-23) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
509. In June 2005, the European Communities observe d that EC exports of fruits and vegetables 
were experiencing lengthy inspection procedures that because of the highly perishable nature of the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 132  
 
  products, resulted in commercial losses.  The US An imal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 
also required that only US-produced pesticides be used during cultivation, some of which were not 
permitted within the European Communities.  The Eu ropean Communities requested the United States 
to accept the use of equivalent pesticides.  Certai n insects used to protect crops in the European 
Communities were not allowed entry into the United St ates.  Other concerns included, inter alia, cold 
treatment import requirements and pre-clearance inspection procedures. 
510. Argentina described the case of markets not attrac tive enough for the private sector to register 
a pesticide, so that no specific limit was fixed for th e level of residues of this pesticide.  On sanitary 
grounds, the default limit was zero or close to zer o, which equalled prohibiting the products.  The 
maximum limits established by Codex should be used by default in such cases. 
511. The United States replied that its import pro cedures were transparent and WTO-consistent.  
Pesticide residue levels on fruits coming into the United States had to be approved by the US 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  Pesticides did not have to be produced in the United States, 
but to be registered on the EPA list of authori zed pesticides.  The United States imported very 
substantial volumes of fresh fruits  and vegetables from about 150 c ountries and the value of imports 
had increased by 97 per cent over the past ten years. 
 
URUGUAY 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY URUGUAY Animal Health and Zoonoses 154. Risk assessment on  BSE 
Raised by: Canada, United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: November 2002 (G/SPS/R/28,  paras. 89-92), April 2003 (G/SPS/R/29, 
para.78, 81) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/URY/5/Rev.1 
Solution: Resolved with Canada. 
Status: Partially resolved 
 
512. The United States observed that Uruguay ha d notified its adoption of the EC BSE 
geographical base risk approach for classifying co untries.  The United States recalled its BSE-free 
status and the Harvard risk assessment on BSE, and asked that Uruguay take these into account.  
Canada indicated that it was providing information to Uruguay which would confirm Canada's status 
as free of BSE.  The European Communities noted th at the EC risk classification on BSE was never 
intended to serve as the international norm.  Memb ers should continue efforts to develop OIE risk 
classifications in relation to BSE at the interna tional level.  The European Communities hoped an 
agreement would be reached in the OIE by June-July 2003. 
513. Uruguay stated that it was highly dependent on animal product exports.  If BSE appeared in 
Uruguay it would not only affect the health and lif e of people and animals, but would have an 
economically devastating effect.  Uruguay had adop ted the emergency measures due to the growing 
number of countries with BSE over the last year and the increased risk of introducing the disease into 
the country.  According to OIE data, at the end of  2000 there were 12 countries with local outbreaks,  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 133 
 
 
  while that figure currently stood at 22.  Uruguay had adopted the risk assess ment criteria established 
by the European Communities until such time as th e OIE produced a list of countries classified in 
relation to BSE, and would review its legislation when the OIE finished its  work in this area. 
514. In April 2003, Canada reported that Argentin a and Uruguay had agreed to undertake their 
own BSE risk assessment instead of relying on the EC BSE risk assessment as the basis for their BSE-
related measures and classification of countries.  Ur uguay stated that it was dependent on meat related 
products for 8 per cent of its GDP.  Since 1996, a number of emergency measures had been taken to 
ensure that BSE did not enter the country.  In 2001, a decree was promulgated which would restrict 
food products on the basis of their BSE categorization.   At the present time, th is decree was suspended 
and bilateral discussions were ongoing.  Informat ion from both Canada and the United States was 
being reviewed and final categorization of both co untry's BSE status should be concluded within a 
short period of time. 
515. In September 2004, Canada re ported that the issue of Uruguay's BSE measures had been 
resolved with Uruguay. 
 
CERTAIN MEMBERS CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CERTAIN MEMBERS Food safety 63. Information on dioxin 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: July 1999 (G/SPS/R/15, par as. 17-22), March 2000 (G/SPS/R/18, para. 19), 
June 2000 (G/SPS/R/19, para. 9) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/123 and Add.1-4 
Solution:  
Status: Partially resolved 
 
516. In July 1999, the European Communities provided information on the dioxin contamination 
which had occurred in Belgium in January 1999, an d on the steps it had taken to manage the health 
risks.  Many Members had responded by imposing trade restrictions.  The European Communities 
stressed that there was no longer any justification for maintaining import bans, regretting that several 
Members had not notified their bans.  The European Communities reserved its right to take action with 
regard to unjustified trade barriers. 
517. Malaysia expressed disappointment to be receiving in formation at such a late stage.  It would 
only be in a position to lift its import ban when it was fully satisfied that there was no more danger 
from EC products.  Australia, Canada, Chile, Brazil, South Africa and the United States appreciated the information provided by the European Communities throughout the dioxin crisis.  Australia and the 
United States had notified any action taken with respect to dioxin.  Canada had banned Belgian 
imports, but was reviewing the products and areas cove red by the ban.  The Philippines indicated that 
its measures had taken into account the EC meas ures regarding dioxin, and were being reassessed. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 134  
 
  518. The WHO noted that it had convened an expert c onsultation in 1998 to evaluate the tolerable 
daily dose of dioxin to which humans could be exposed without harm.  Codex reported that at the July 1999 meeting of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, countries had requested that an intergovernmental group prepare a code of prac tice on animal feed.  The European Communities 
added that it had established a working group within its Standing Committee on Animal Nutrition 
which was examining legislation regarding an imal nutrition to prevent future accidents. 
519. In March 2000, the European Communities provided an update on the dioxin situation.  While 
some Members had adjusted their trade measures as th e situation evolved, othe rs continued to apply 
unnecessarily strict measures.  The European Commun ities looked forward to receiving answers to the 
questions it had raised in G/SPS/GEN/123/Add.3. 
520. In June 2000, the European Communities explaine d that all previously restricted products 
could be circulated and exported without any addi tional certification.  While there was a general 
acceptance by Members that EC and Belgian products  no longer represented a health risk, some 
Members had neither lifted their measures nor responde d to a January 2000 letter requesting that they 
remove them.  The European Communities repeated that it reserved its right to take any necessary 
action with regard to unjustified trade barriers. 
 
Animal Health and Zoonoses 
103. FMD-related import restrictions 
Raised by: Argentina, European Communities 
Supported by: Bolivia, Brazil, Uruguay 
Dates raised: July 2001 (G/SPS/R/22, paras. 56-64), October 2001 (G/SPS/R/25, 
paras. 20-23), June 2002 (G/SPS/R/27 , paras. 48-49), November 2002 
(G/SPS/R/28, paras. 52-53) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/269 
Solution: New Zealand, Indonesia, Ukraine a nd Switzerland lifted restrictions against 
EC member States after they regained FMD-free status.  Problems with other Members persisting.  Resolved with Argentina. 
Status: Partially resolved 
 
521. In July 2001, the European  Communities observed that many Members had imposed 
restrictions on products that had been treated in acc ordance with the international standard to destroy 
the FMD virus, and had kept them in place beyond the recognized waiting period of three months.  
The principles of proportionality, justification of measures and regionalization in accordance with the 
OIE Code and Article 6 had not been followed.  Although border controls within the European 
Communities had been eliminated, they had b een replaced by other control instruments. 
522. Argentina expressed concern that many products from Argentina were facing scientifically 
unjustified restrictions that violated Articles 2.1, 3.1 and 5.1 and the OIE Code.  Plant products, except 
straw and forage, should normally not be affected by FMD-related measures. 
523. Australia explained that it was asking for r easonable information to allow a scientific 
judgement in the face of a different clinical presenta tion in sheep.  Recently, additional restrictions on 
Denmark and Austria and on race horses from the European Communities had been lifted.  Australia would re-examine the restrictions as requested information was received.  The United States clarified  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 135 
 
 
  that its FMD measures on EC countries affected on ly the United Kingdom, Ireland, the Netherlands 
and France.  The United States had lifted restrictions on EC member States that had not had FMD cases in May 2001, and was currently evaluating the situation in France and Ireland.  The OIE 
representative drew the attention of the Committee to G/SPS/GEN/266, which in Annex 1 contained a 
list of countries that had been confirmed as free of FMD without vaccination,  including several EC 
member States.  G/SPS/GEN/240 contained the rele vant Code chapter on FMD, which had been 
thoroughly reviewed betw een 1990 and 1997 and should be ta ken into account by WTO Members. 
524. The European Communities noted its long tradition of good trade with Uruguay and 
Argentina, and hoped the situation would soon be re solved.  In the EC view, Australia's questionnaire 
was out of proportion with the problem to be addressed.  It was not acceptable that non-affected 
countries received a questionnaire corresponding to an affected country wanting to be declared free of 
FMD.  The European Communities appreciated the US reaction regarding unaffected countries, and 
asked the United States to follow th e example of Canada and New Z ealand in handling the crisis.  
Brazil and Bolivia expressed concern that Members were departing from the principles of the SPS Agreement. 
525. In October 2001, the European Communities expressed concern over continued Australian 
restrictions, which affected member States in wh ich there had been no outbreaks of FMD and were 
based on a failure by these countries to reply to an Australian questionnaire.  Canadian and US restrictions against Greece also affected a memb er State where no outbreak had occurred and that had 
been declared FMD-free in the mean time.  The European Communities also brought to the attention of 
the Committee continued US, Japanese and Mexican r estrictions against France, the Netherlands and 
Ireland.  New Zealand, Indonesia, Ukraine and Sw itzerland had lifted restrictions against member 
States after they had regained FMD-free status. 
526. Australia reported that it was now able to recognize all member States except the United 
Kingdom as FMD-free.  Japan stated that bilateral consultations were conti nuing with France, Ireland 
and the Netherlands.  The United States reported that  import restrictions continued to apply to the 
United Kingdom, the Netherlands, France and Ireland.  The United States recognized that the disease 
outbreaks in these countries were limited, no remain ing technical concerns existed, and the United 
States was taking the necessary regulatory actions to publicize the proposals in the Federal Register.  
Concerning Greece, the product ban pre-dated the cu rrent FMD outbreak and was a separate issue.  
Canada recalled that Greece had only recently expr essed an interest in exporting meat products to 
Canada, and the request was being evaluated. 
527. In June 2002, the European Communities re ported that most Members had lifted their 
restrictions related to the FMD outbreak in Europe .  The OIE had just revised its list of countries 
recognized as FMD-free, which included all 15 EC  member States.  Ho wever, some Members 
continued to apply restrictions or requirements wh ich served as administrative bans on EC products, in 
particular UK meat and meat products.  Argentina noted that they also continued to suffer long-term 
negative effects from measures kept in place without justification. 
528. Japan reported that the Domestic Animal Inf ectious Disease Control Law had been amended 
on 14 June, permitting resumption of imports of por k meat and products from France and Ireland.  The 
comment period regarding a proposed lifting of the im port ban on Dutch products  had just concluded, 
and the ban could be lifted as early as mid-July. 
529. In November 2002 the European Communities noted disappointment that some unnecessary 
and unreasonable FMD trade barriers continued to affect EC exports, in violation of the SPS 
Agreement.  Mexico imposed a number of BSE-rela ted measures that had a detrimental effect on 
exports from Austria, although Austria had regi stered no cases of FMD in the course of the 2001 
outbreaks.  Bilateral meetings on the matter had been unsuccessful.  Mexico indicated that it G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 136  
 
  recognized Austria as being FMD free but were waiti ng to receive a request from Austria for plant 
inspections.  Argentina supported the comments made  by the European Communities with regards to 
FMD-related measures taken by certain Members. 
530. In March 2004, Argentina informed the Secretar iat that the issue had been resolved with 
respect to Argentina's concerns. 
 
124. Notifications related to Avian Influenza 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2002 (G/SPS/R/26, paras. 63-66) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
531. The United States noted that although internati onal standards existed with regard to avian 
influenza, differences in the understanding and interpretation of these standards was resulting in 
unjustified trade barriers.  The OIE considered high ly pathogenic avian influenza as a List A disease, 
however low pathogenic strains were not considered to have any significant animal health or socio-
economic consequences.  However, some Members ha d restricted imports of poultry products from the 
United States due to a strain of low pathogenic avia n influenza in two poultry flocks in the state of 
Virginia.  The United States requested that the OIE national and regional offices take a pro-active role 
in advising their members on this matter.  Japan ob served that there was a possibility of variation in 
the strains, with a case of a low pathogenic strain causing an outbreak that later varied to a high 
pathogenic strain.  Japan had provided scientific ev idence in this regard to the United States, and 
believed that its measure was fully justified. 
532. The OIE confirmed that the OIE Animal Hea lth Code referred to highly pathogenic or 
virulent avian influenza;  most strains of avian in fluenza were of low pathogenicity and did not cause 
economic effects.  However, the OIE Manual of Sta ndards also made reference to low pathogenicity 
viruses in laboratory tests through mutation showing hi ghly pathogenic effects in the field.  The OIE 
was working on a definition to include such viruses.  The Philippines noted that the OIE Manual also 
included some text related to low pathogenic strain s as these strains could also cause clinical disease 
and problems. 
 
190. Regionalization and recognition of animal disease free status 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, para. 52) , June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, paras. 35-36), 
October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, para. 87) , March 2005 (G/SPS/R/36/Rev.1, 
paras. 52-54)  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 137 
 
 
  Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Partially resolved 
 
533. In March 2004, the European Communities indicated that they recognized regionalization and 
based their policy on Article 6 of the SPS Agreemen t, while some Members did not give the same 
treatment to regionalization.  The European Communities had provided evidence to the importing 
Member on regions free from the disease and access for inspection or any other relevant procedures as 
in accordance with Article 6.  Nevertheless, EC member States continued to experience unjustified 
export restrictions related to assumed disease prese nce in those regions.  For example, Germany, 
Belgium and the Netherlands had experienced import restrictions due to highly pathogenic avian 
influenza although they regained their disease free status in November 2003.  France, Italy and Spain experienced unjustified restrictions related to clas sical swine fever due to the non-application of the 
principle of regionalization.  Furthermore, all  EC member States were officially free of FMD but continued to face unjustified import restrictions.  The European Communities urged all Members to 
respect the obligations of the SPS Agreement on re gionalization and recognize the disease free status 
of EC member States and remove unjustified import restrictions. 
534. In June 2004, the European Communities stated  that some WTO Members failed to recognize 
that all EC member States were officially free of FMD according to the OIE criteria.  No new 
outbreaks of FMD had been recorded in the territo ry of the European Communities since 2002. The 
European Communities considered the epidemic to be under control and the disease completely 
eradicated.  According to the OIE rules, countries c ould recover free status three months after the last 
identified case when a stamping out policy and serol ogical surveillance were applied.  There was no 
scientific justification for restrictive measures on EC products due to FMD. 
535. The European Communities also highlighted the lack of recognition of regionalization for 
Classical Swine Fever.  The European Communiti es had continued to recognize area disease-free 
status in several WTO Members who themselves fail ed to recognize regionalization in the European 
Communities.  The European Communities regularly  provided information to importing countries 
upon request concerning which EC member States c ould be considered free of Classical Swine Fever 
and had also facilitated inspections.  However, so me WTO Members continued to impose restrictions 
on imports from Italy and France based on concerns  about Classical Swine Fever.  The European 
Communities urged Members to respect Article 6 of the SPS Agreement, particularly related to Italy 
and France, and offered to provide any relevant information to support the implementation of this 
request. 
536. In October 2004,  the European Communities r ecalled that the European Communities had on 
previous occasions requested Members to adhere to the principles of regionalization and to recognize 
the disease-free status of EC member States.  Several Members had now removed their restrictions on 
some EC member States.  The European Communities would provide all necessary information to 
demonstrate its disease-free status to any WTO Member. 
537. In March 2005, the European Communities again drew attention to the fact that some WTO 
Members continued to apply unjustified restrictions on EC exports of animal products despite the fact that the whole EC territory was officially free of FMD.  No new outbreaks of FMD had been recorded 
in the territory of the European Communities since 2002 and FMD was completely eradicated.  Austria 
had last experienced an FMD outbreak in 1981 a nd some WTO Members still refused to recognize it 
as free from FMD. resulting in a complete ban on impor ts of animal products from this country.  The 
European Communities urged all Me mbers to respect the obligations of the SPS Agreement with 
regard to recognition of disease-free status and to  remove all unjustified import restrictions. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 138  
 
  538. The European Communities was in the position to demonstrate to importing WTO Members 
which regions of the European Communities could sa fely export live pigs, pork meat and pork meat 
products and which regions could not .  Spain was officially free from classical swine fever since July 
2002, according to international standards.  Howe ver some WTO Members continued to apply a ban 
on imports of pork meat products from Spain.  Acco rding to Article 2 of the SPS Agreement, there 
was no scientific justification to ban imports of prod ucts from a country where a disease did not exist.  
The European Communities urged all Members to r espect the obligations of the SPS Agreement with 
regard to the recognition of disease free status for classical swine fever and to remove all related unjustified import restrictions on live pigs, pork me at and pork meat products not only from Spain but 
from all other EC member States free of the disease. 
 
235. Import restrictions on EC exports of live bi rds, meat, meat products and other derivates 
due to avian influenza 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2005 (G/SPS/R/39, pa ras. 46-48), February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, 
paras. 46-48), June 2006 (G/SPS/ R/42, para. 21), October 2006 
(G/SPS/R/43, para. 37) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Partially resolved 
 
539. In October 2005, the European Communities stat ed that it had learned, thanks to SPS 
notifications, that four WTO Members had recently imposed a ban on EC poul try products including 
live birds, poultry meat and meat products, feathers , animal feed from poultry meat, bone and feather 
meal, and other by-products of poultry, on the ground  of the presence of avian influenza (AI) in the EC 
territory.  Three of these Members had targeted th e ban to Greece, although the suspected case of AI 
reported by Greece in October 2005 had proved to be  negative for highly pathogenic avian influenza 
(HPAI).  The current ban imposed on Greece was not based on science nor on any existing OIE standards.  It was therefore inconsistent  with Article 3.1 of the SPS Agreement. 
540. The European Communities had b een recognized by the OIE as free of AI and had rapidly 
taken effective safeguard measures to protect and ma intain this status.  A fourth WTO Member had 
banned imports of the same poultry products from the entire world.  According to OIE rules and the 
provisions of the SPS Agreement, bans on bird pro ducts should only apply to regions affected by 
HPAI.  The European Communities urged these four  Members to bring their legislation into 
compliance with international rules a nd Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement. 
541. Canada requested Members to cautiously react to low pathogenic AI outbreaks, especially in 
light of the current worldwide sensitivity on AI-re lated issues, in order to not discourage Members 
from notifying such outbreaks.  Suriname stated hi s country's concern about the EC ban on imports of 
wild birds from Suriname.  Suriname was an AI-free country, as had been proven by investigations by 
UK authorities tracking an infected bird detected in a shipment of wild birds.  Investigations had 
demonstrated that the infected bird did not originate from Suriname.  Other birds in the same consignment, sent to other EC countries, had shown no  sign of the disease.  Suriname's exports of wild 
birds were suffering from the EC ban and Surina me questioned when its exports could resume.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
 Page 139 
 
 
  542. In June 2006, the European Communities reitera ted concerns that certain Members imposed 
unjustified measures on EC exports of an excessively  broad range of poultry products, including heat-
treated ones.  Only a limited number of EC member States had confirmed cases of avian influenza and many had rapidly regained disease-free status.  The European Communities urged all Members to base 
their measures on scientific principles and apply th e concept of regionalization rather than banning 
imports from all EC member States. 
543. In October 2006, the European Communities informed the Committee that although a 
significant number of WTO Members had lifted thei r bans on EC products according to international 
standards, some Members still had unjustified restri ctions in place.  The European Communities would 
continue to seek the lifting of these import restrictions. 
 
Plant Health 
26. Phytosanitary issues in general  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: March 1997 (G/SPS/R/7, para. 12) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
544. The United States noted that the mere existe nce of a plant disease or pest in traded 
agricultural goods did not necessarily constitute a ri sk to the importing country if, for scientific 
reasons, the pest or disease could not establish itself in the area into which it was being imported.  
Likewise, if the disease or pest was already prevalen t in the importing country, import controls were 
unlikely to serve any significant health objectiv e.  The United States urged Members to ensure 
compliance with the principle of national treatment as well as other key provisions. 
 
183. Implementation of ISPM 15 
Raised by: Chile, Uruguay 
Supported by: Argentina, Bolivia, China, Colombia, Mexico, Paraguay 
Dates raised: October 2003 (G/SPS/R/31, paras. 135-137), March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, 
para.151) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/435 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
545. Chile stated that Members should take into c onsideration the zone of production of the wood 
and allow sufficient time for countries to adapt thei r treatment methods to meet the ISPM 15 standard 
when adopting the measures.  Compliance with the st andard required the private sector to make large 
scale investments, a certification process to regist er the mark on packaging, establishment of an G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.8/Add.2 
Page 140  
 
  accreditation system, and the setting up of supervisor y and audit systems.  Chile's concerns were 
detailed in document G/SPS/GEN/435. 
546. Uruguay stated that it was the implementation of the standard that was the problem.  
Argentina supported the comments make by Chile a nd Uruguay.  Mexico stated that problems could 
arise with implementing this standard and that discu ssions on this issue should continue in the context 
of the SPS Committee.  Paraguay and Colomb ia supported the comments made by others. 
547. Canada commented that the standard was not ne w as it had been adopted by the IPPC in June 
2002.  Canada had planned to implement the standa rd in June 2003 but  delayed its implementation 
until January 2004 to give Members sufficient time to  adapt wood treatment processes.  Canada would 
provide a transition period and recommended that the issue be discussed under Agenda Item 7(a) 
regarding the use of international standards. 
548. In March 2004, Uruguay indicated it was provi ding national level certification of wood 
packaging which was used as support material for e xported products.  However, Uruguay needed more 
time to apply the different phases of the certifica tion procedure.  Uruguay emphasized the need to 
recognize the valid use of alternative sanitation me thods (as described in section 3.3 of ISPM 15), 
particularly in cases in which countries did not have  the necessary infrastructur e.  Argentina, China 
and Bolivia shared Uruguay's concern about ISPM  15, particularly relating to the explicit 
implementation timelines. 
 
204. Notification by Members of implementation of ISPM 15 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, paras. 83-84) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
 
549. The European Communities stated that a number  of Members had informed the Committee of 
their intentions to put in place wood packing re quirements based on ISPM 15.  These wood packing 
requirements would also cover wooden barrels and cask s containing distilled spirits or other alcoholic 
beverages.  Although ISPM 15 was not clear on th e coverage of products, it provided guidance on 
products that might be excluded such as manufactured  wood.  The wooden barrels and casks typically 
used to contain distilled spirits and wine were s ubject to heat treatment at 100 degrees centigrade for 
40 minutes, exceeding ISPM is guidelines of 56 centigrade for 30 minutes. 
550. It was apparent that the drafters of ISPM 15 did not intend to cover wooden barrels used to 
contain alcoholic beverages such as spirits.  Some countries had clearly indicated in their domestic 
legislation that ISPM 15 did not apply to wooden barrels containing spirits.  The European 
Communities noted that the IPPC was organizing a gl obal training workshop in 2005 to explain the 
application of ISPM 15 but requested the IPPC to  clarify the matter as soon as possible in order to 
allow trade to continue. 
 
__________