WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/43 
26 October 2006 
 (06-5163) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
  
REPORT TO THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
ON CHINA'S TRANSITIONAL REVIEW 
  
 
 The present report is submitted under the responsib ility of the Chairperson, as agreed by the 
Committee at its meeting of 12 October 2006.   
_______________ 
 
  1. The Committee held its fifth Annual Transitiona l Review under Paragraph 18 of the Protocol 
of the Accession of the People's Republic of China at the regular meeting commencing on 
11 October 2006.  
2. Prior to the meeting, the United States and th e European Communities submitted questions in 
writing to China, which can be found in doc uments G/SPS/W/207 and G/SPS/W/208, respectively. 
3. Statements made at the Committee meeting in the context of this transitional review by 
Australia, Brazil, China, the Eur opean Communities and the United States will be reflected in the 
Summary Report of the meeting, to be circulated as G/SPS/R/43 (excerpt attached).   
 
_______________ 
 
 G/SPS/43 
Page 2  
 
  ATTACHMENT - EXCERPT FROM G/SPS/R/43  
AGENDA ITEM 11:  TRANSITIONAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 18 OF THE 
PROTOCOL OF ACCESSION OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA 
1. The Chairman recalled that in accordance with Paragraph 18 of the Protocol of Accession of 
the People's Republic of China, the SPS Committee is to undertake an annual review for eight years of 
the implementation by China of the SPS Agreement.   He opened the floor for comments or questions 
from Members. 
2. The representative of the United States recalled th at in its submission for the 2006 transitional 
review (G/SPS/GEN/594), the United States had pr esented China with written questions covering a 
number of areas, including (1) China's BSE-related bans  on US beef and other low-risk products;  (2) 
China's zero pathogen requirements on meat and pou ltry products;  (3) inappropriate avian influenza 
restrictions on US poultry; (4) inadequate regul atory transparency; (5) China's requirement for 
annually updated lists of approved fruit packagi ng facilities; (6) China's non-recognition of the US 
National Fruit Fly Trapping Program (NFFTP); and (7) China's non-recognition of all types of 
materials for use in food packaging and food-contact  materials sold in the market.  The themes 
underlying these questions continued to be the same  as those underlying the submissions made at the 
three previous transitional reviews.  As shown in documents G/SPS/W/126, G/SPS/W/139 and 
G/SPS/W/153, the United States had consistently ra ised concerns regarding (1) China's failure to 
notify numerous SPS measures;  (2) the lack of tran sparency in China's application of SPS measures; 
and (3) China's imposition of requirements that appear  to have no basis in science.  These concerns 
were most evident in two issues raised in th e United States 2006 submission, namely China's BSE-
related bans and fire blight restrictions. 
3. The representative of the United States further noted  that the United States' strongest concerns 
involved China's BSE- and avian influenza-relate d bans on US beef and poultry and their products, 
respectively.  China had provided virtually no info rmation to the United States on the basic regulatory 
framework under which it would make science-based decisions to consider th e US request for China 
to lift these bans.  Dozens of countries had lifted thei r bans on US beef and each of them had, at a 
minimum, provided the United States with a detailed explanation of the regulatory steps necessary to 
make a decision on the US request to lift the ban.   Since China imposed the bans on US beef and 
poultry, it had still not offered any explanation of its actions or on the necessary regula tory steps for 
lifting the bans.  The United States was also c oncerned that China's measures were not based on 
relevant risk assessments.  The United States re quested China to adhere to the science-based 
principles contained in the OIE guidelines when making related regulatory decisions regarding 
imports of US cattle and beef pr oducts and US poultry and poultry pr oducts.  The United States also 
urged China to take steps to ensure that its regulatory authorities quickly addressed this problem. 
4. The representative of the United States also expressed concern that China continued to 
enforce technically unattainable zero-tolerance re quirements for certain pathogens such as salmonella 
on imports of meat and poultry products from the Un ited States.  The Standardization Administration 
of China (SAC) and the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine of 
the People's Republic of China (AQSIQ) National St andard on Fresh and Frozen Poultry Products 
(GB16869-2005) on these pathogens, effective from 1 Janua ry 2006 appeared to be inconsistent with 
the Codex Alimentarius (Codex) guidelines.  The United States was also concerned because the 
tolerance requirement applicable to imports did not appear to be enforced against domestic products.  
However, China had acknowledged the need to revise domestic regulatory controls in this area and 
the United States urged China to immediately remedy this situation. 
5. Another important concern of the United States related to China's hygienic standards for food 
contact materials.  The representative of the Unite d States expressed concern that under the National  G/SPS/43 
 Page 3 
 
 
  Standard GB 9685-2003, issued by China's Minist ry of Health (MOH), China had approved only 65 
types of materials for use in food packaging and food -contact materials sold in its market.  Thousands 
of these materials were currently permitted for use in food-contact materials in the United States, 
Europe and Canada.  The United States further no ted that these products already existed in the 
Chinese stream of commerce and, if not permitted, could lead to significant economic losses for US 
and other producers/suppliers.  While the United St ates appreciated China's many timely amendments 
to G/SPS/N/CHN/42 on solid wood packaging materials, the United States still  urged China to move 
quickly and approve food-contact materials not previ ously approved in China or by foreign regulatory 
authorities.  
6. On the issue of regulatory transparency, the United States was concerned about the number of 
SPS measures that China enforced against US produc ts without notification to the WTO for members' 
comments prior to adoption and implementation.  The United States had identified over 20 of these 
measures issued between 1 July 2005 and 30 A ugust 2006.  Some of these measures implemented 
new registration requirements, others set new safety  standards for residues, while others invoked new 
procedures for inspection or identified new quarantine pests.  Some of the measures appeared to be 
inconsistent with previous standards.  Although the United States appreciated the fact that many of the 
measures were now available on the Chinese Government  website, they had invariably raised the cost 
of entry into China for US producers, particularly due to lack of the opportunity to review and assess 
them in advance.  However, the United States recogni zed the strides China had made in the past year 
to more consistently implement its WTO obligations in this regard.  The United States also noted that 
China had now overtaken many Me mbers in the WTO with its 99th notification of a new SPS measure 
made to the Secretariat on 28 August 2006, and enc ouraged China to continue to make progress on 
notification. 
7. In its written questions, the United States had also expressed ongoing concerns on several 
other matters, which had been raised previously  in the Committee, including:  (1) the annually 
updated lists of approved fruit pack ing facilities requirement;  (2) zero pathogen requirements on meat 
and poultry products;  (3) inappropriate avian influe nza restrictions;  and (4) non-recognition of the 
National Fruit Fly Trapping Program (NFFTP).  The United States recognized the advances made by China during the Phytosanitary Bilateral Technical meeting in Xi' during the week of 4 September 2006 (in which China recognized the NFFTP of the United States and eliminated the 
requirement of an annually updated list of US produc tion orchards that were approved to ship fruit to 
China).  The United States however, noted that it would still like to see more progress in these areas, 
particularly in the elimination of additional requi rements for an annually updated list of approved fruit 
packing facilities. 
8. The representative of the European Communiti es thanked China for its commitment to the 
transitional review mechanism (TRM) and expressed a ppreciation for the efforts deployed by China to 
answer the questions posed during the previous TRM exercise.  The European Communities noted 
with satisfaction the increased cooperation be tween China and the European Communities on SPS 
issues and mentioned the increasing number of cont acts and the establishment of formal cooperation 
mechanisms aimed at promoting in creased trade flows under safe cond itions.  However, the European 
Communities would welcome further improvement in  the currently limited access to the Chinese 
market for EC food products.  The European Commun ities also noted that in contrast to the large 
number of notifications made as part of the WTO accession process, there has been a sharp fall in the 
number of notifications by China under the SPS Agreem ent over the past year.  Clarification by China 
on this point would be welcome by the European Communities.  
9. The representative of the European Communities indicated two market access areas where 
enhancement of cooperation was needed:  removal of the current BSE-related ban on certain ruminant 
derivative products from the European Communiti es and a greater flexibility on the approval 
procedure for listing of EC establishments e ligible to export products into China. G/SPS/43 
Page 4  
 
  10. At previous Committee meetings, the Europ ean Communities had welcomed the compliance 
of China's import policy for EC bovine semen and embryos with the World Organization for Animal 
Health's (OIE) standards on BSE.  The Europ ean Communities encouraged China to apply OIE 
standards in accordance with its obligations under Article 3 of the SPS Agreement.  The 
representative of the European Communities noted that China was quick to apply international 
standards when problems arose, but often delayed far beyond these guidelines when lifting the 
measures.  The European Communities also consider ed the very slow progress in negotiations of 
certain bilateral protocols between China and EC member States as a key factor hampering trade in agricultural products between the European Comm unities and China.  The European Communities 
urged China to follow its obligations under the SPS  Agreement, including obligations to maintain 
imports restrictions only if they were scientifica lly based.  In this regard, the European Communities 
invited China to implement the OIE standards, accel erate the negotiations and to avoid undue delays. 
11. The European Communities noted  that China's ban on certain animal products from EC 
member States was based on a single isolated and completely controlled inci dent of contamination 
with dioxins.  The European Communities beli eved that in the absence of proper scientific 
justification, the SPS Agreement gave no basis for Ch ina to maintain the ban.  In addition, China's 
100 per cent testing import requirements on dairy products for E. Sakazakii  were not scientifically 
based and not proportional to the risk in accordance with provisions of the SPS Agreement.  In this 
regard, the European Communities asked China to respect the provisions of the SPS Agreement and 
in particular Article 2.2. 
12. The representative of Brazil noted that while Brazil acknowledged the considerable strides 
made by China with regard to SPS issues, it shar ed the concerns of the United States and other 
delegations regarding the extrem ely rigid levels and technically  unattainable zero-tolerance 
requirements for certain pathogens, such as salm onella on imports of m eat and poultry products, 
which China still continued to enforce.  Brazil also  requested China to make all possible efforts to 
develop and improve on the transparency process rega rding notification of their regulations so that 
Members could have the necessary time to assess the measures. 
13. The representative of Australia expressed appreci ation for China's efforts since joining the 
WTO in 2001 to develop and improve its quarantin e and inspection systems and to ensure that 
quarantine procedures were based on risk assessment and sound scientific evidence.  Australia valued 
its strong relationship with China and continued to make efforts to strengthen communication and 
cooperation with China on SPS matters.  Australia understood the challenges China faced and noted 
the steady progress made by China in the developmen t of SPS measures consistent with the provisions 
of the SPS Agreement.  Australia particularly appreci ated  recent work by China to develop an import 
protocol for Australian citrus, which was now be ing implemented.  Australia was engaged in a 
number of bilateral SPS issues with China and looked forward to an early resolution of these issues to 
allow bilateral trade to expand for the mutual benef it of both Members.  Australia further encouraged 
China to develop measures that were based on scientifically sound risk assessments and harmonized 
with international standards, while also ensuring c onsistency and transparency in its development and 
administration of SPS measures, at both a national and provincial level, as well as conformity with 
notification obligations under the SPS Agreement.  Au stralia further urged China to make sure that 
adopted measures were reviewed appropriately to en sure that they were the least trade restrictive 
possible. 
14. The representative of Australia further observed that Australia had been pleased to offer a 
significant amount of technical assistance to China,  worth about US$2 million, to assist development 
of China's SPS capabilities and systems.  A recen t example was the provision of SPS master class 
training in Canberra for 19 of China's quarantine officials in May 2006.    G/SPS/43 
 Page 5 
 
 
  15. The representative of China thanked the United States, the European Communities, Brazil and 
Australia for their comments and questions.  He st ated that China had taken note of the comments 
from Brazil and Australia and were prepared to cont inue the constructive dialogue with them on any 
issue of bilateral interest in the SPS area.  With regard to questions from the European Communities, 
China regretted the fact that due to late submission of document G/SPS/W/208 (on 9 September 
2006), China had had difficulty in processing these qu estions in time and requested the European 
Communities to respect the basic rules and pro cedures on the handling of general item documents 
before the SPS Committee to avoid delays in dealing with their concerns.  China further noted that as 
to the specific questions mentioned by the repr esentative of the United States, some progress had 
already been made through bilateral discussions a nd negotiations prior to the Committee meeting.  
However, he provided the following information an d responses to the comments and questions raised 
by the United States under the framework of Paragraph 18 of China's Protocol of Accession.  
16. In relation to transparency, by March 2002, prior to its accession to the WTO, China had 
notified 140 SPS measures promulgate d before its accession to the WT O.  After its accession, China 
had circulated 100 notifications to the WTO Secr etariat, which provided Members with a comment 
period of 60 days calculated from the date of circul ation of the notification by the Secretariat, as 
requested in China's proposal on transparency (G/SPS/W/131 and corrigendum).  The Ministry of 
Commerce of the People's Republic of China (MOF COM) had established mechanisms to enhance 
coordination among ministries and agencies responsib le for SPS measures and had already organized 
various meetings, workshops and training courses on no tifications for officers from relevant ministries 
and agencies.  These actions had greatly improve d the SPS measure notification process in China.  
Moreover, MOFCOM, together with AQSIQ, had dr afted and adopted guidelines on notification of 
SPS measures. 
17. Regarding BSE-related internati onal standards, the representative of China recalled that in 
previous bilateral talks on the OIE standards code  and from a huge number of statistical analyses, 
China had already pointed out that there existed considerable loopholes in the US prevention and 
control project, tracing system and implementation of  a feedstuff ban.  This provided evidence that  
the United States was not qualified under OIE standa rds as a BSE risk controllable country.  China 
further noted that at present, to prevent the risk of BSE entering China, it only allowed the importation 
of boneless beef from cattle under 30 months old, which meant that the Chin ese authorities needed to 
be convinced that beef other than boneless beef from cattle under 30 months is safe from BSE.  China 
nonetheless indicated its willingness to continue to disc uss the issue bilaterally at a technical level. 
18. Concerning pathogen requirements, China indicated  that it had taken international standards 
into account.  China had no criteria to require zer o pathogens on fresh and frozen poultry products but 
had considered that it was common knowledge that salmonella was harmful to human health, and in 
discussions on food safety goals in the Codex Comm ittee on Hygiene, most Members believed that 
salmonella should not be detected in food produc ts.  China further observed that it was a legal 
requirement in many countries that salmonella should not be detected in fresh or frozen poultry.  The 
risk assessment report on salmonella in poultry by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Meetings on 
Microbiological Risk Assessment (JEMRA) pointed out that data on exposur e levels of salmonella 
was insufficient.  In China, both domestic and foreign-produced poultry had to meet the same 
pathogen standard, as such China was in compliance with its obligations under Article 2.3 of the SPS 
Agreement.  
19. In relation to avian influenza in poultry prod ucts from Pennsylvania in the United States, 
China drew Members' attention to OIE requirement that all H5 avian influenza cases, high or low 
pathogenic, should be reported to OIE, and China as an importer of US poultry should have also been 
notified of the outbreak in Pennsylvania.  China noted that the United States had not notified them 
until repeatedly requested to do so.  China jus tified the ban imposed on poultry products from the 
state of Pennsylvania in accordance with the regiona lization principle of the SPS Agreement, as China G/SPS/43 
Page 6  
 
  could still not identify poultry products that originated  from an epidemic area in the United States.  
Nonetheless, China indicated its intention to hold fu rther bilateral discussions with the United States 
in order to ensure that poultry enteri ng China was safe from avian influenza.  
20. Regarding the issue of notification, China further noted that among the 13 measures which the 
United States claimed it had not notified to the WT O Secretariat, some were revised according to 
international standards where no substantial ch anges had occurred while other were aimed at 
regulating internal trade of products. 
21. The representative of China concluded by expr essing thanks to Members for their cooperation 
and understanding  and hoped that his statement ha d covered most of the comments and questions 
raised by the United States and that the informat ion he had provided was useful and helpful to 
Members.  China also expressed its desire for closer cooperation with all Members of SPS the 
Committee on issues of mutual interest and in the implementation of the SPS Agreement.   
22. The Chairperson thanked the representative of China for the thorough response and asked if 
any other Member wished to take the floor.  With re gard to the procedural aspects of the review, he 
noted that last year China had requested that no re ference should be made to any particular procedure 
when handling the review.  Based on this, questions  were not invited from Members, which was likely 
one of the reasons for the late submission of questions from the European Communities. 
23. The representative of China agreed that questi ons should not be inv ited from Members, but 
with the Chairman but noted that during the bila teral meeting with the European Communities the 
explanation given by the European Communities fo r the late submission of the questions was not 
related to the procedural aspect of the review.  Chin a further noted that due to the complexity of the 
questions from the European Communities, it was going  to take China a lot of time and effort to 
prepare the responses.  China, nonetheless, appreciat ed clarification from the European Communities.   
24. The representative of the Eur opean Communities noted that it had not at anytime suggested 
that it expected China to respond to their questions  during this meeting.  The European Communities, 
however, expected China to review the questions a nd provide them with a response at a time that 
China deemed appropriate.  The European Comm unities will be very pleased to receive China 
contribution.  
25. The Chairman stated that he would make a shor t factual report on the transitional review to 
the Council for Trade in Goods, and attach to this  the relevant section from the report of the 
Committee's meeting.  
__________