WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
6 February 2009 
 (09-0564) 
Committee on Sanitary a nd Phytosanitary Measures  
  
 
 
SPECIFIC TRADE CONCERNS 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
Addendum  
 
 
ISSUES CONSIDERED IN 2008 
  
This part of document G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9 c ontains summary information regarding all 
issues which were raised in the SPS Committee for the first time during 2008, and issues which were 
previously raised but on which further discussions  or activities occurred during 2009.  This includes 
issues for which there was no substantive discu ssion in the Committee during 2008, but where 
Members reported that a previously raised issue ha d been resolved, or where substantive action on the 
issue occurred in another WTO body during 2008 (e.g ., establishment of a dispute resolution panel on 
the issue). 
A total of 29 specific trade concerns were brought to the attention of the Committee during 
2008, of which 16 were new issues.  Figure 1 shows a ll trade concerns raised or for which a resolution 
or other action was reported in 2008 by subject.  Over all, 11 issues (38 per cent) relate to food safety, 
and six issues (21 per cent) relate to plant health.  Ten issues (34 per cent) relate to animal health and 
zoonoses; this category includes issues such as tr ansmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSEs) that 
are also relevant for food safety.  Finally, two issu es relate to other concerns, namely, inspection fees 
and regulatory processes for import permits.  Figure 2 indicates that TSEs account for 22 per cent of animal health concerns raised in 2008, while issues related to foot and mouth disease and avian 
influenza each account, respectively, for 22 and 45 pe r cent.  The remaining 11 per cent concern other 
animal health issues. 
                                                     
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights or obligations under the WTO. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
Page ii  
 
   
FIGURE 1:  TRADE CONCERNS BY SUBJECT – 2008 
 
024681012
Total 10 10 6 3
New 4732Animal Health Food Safety Plant Health Other
 
 
  
FIGURE 2:  TRADE CONCERNS RELATED TO ANIMAL HEALTH & ZOONOSES – 2008 
 
TSE
20%
FMD
30%AI
40%OAH
10%
TSE
FMD
AI
OAH G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
 Page iii 
 
 
  FIGURE 3:  PARTICIPATION OF MEMBERS – 2008 
 
191012
121518
11
0 5 10 15 20Me m be rs Ma i nta i ni ng
the M easure in QuestionSupporting MembersM embers Raising the
IssueNumber of Members
Developed Countries Developing Countries Least-Developed Countries 
Of the 29 trade concerns discussed in 2008, in 12 cases a developed country Member has 
raised the issue, compared to 18 cases for developi ng country Members and one  for a least-developed 
country Member.  On some occasions developing and developed country Members have raised or 
supported the same issue.  Developed country Me mbers have supported anot her Member raising the 
issue in 10 cases and developing country Members ha ve supported another Member in 15 cases.  One 
least-developed country Member has supported a trade concern.  In 12 cases, the measure at issue was 
maintained by a developing country Member, a nd in 19 cases it was maintained by a developed 
country Member.  No trade concerns regarding measures maintained by least-developed country 
Members were raised.  Figure 4 shows that two trad e concerns were reported solved in 2008 and in 
two cases, the Committee was informed that a partia l solution had been found .  For the remaining 
24 cases, no solution was reported. 
FIGURE 4:  SOLVED TRADE CONCERNS - 2008  
2 224
0369121518212427
Resolved Partially resolved Not reported
StatusNumber of Issues
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
Page iv  
 
   
Table 1 – Issues Raised for the First Time in 2008 
Item 
Number  Member(s) Maintaining the 
Measure Title Status
a
262 Egypt  Restrictions on heat-treated products 
in relation to avian influenza NR 
263 Mexico  Import restrictions on cooked and 
frozen meat NR 
264 European Communities  Maximum residue levels for Ethephon 
in pineapple NR 
265 United States  Regulatory process economic analysis 
requirement NR 
266 Malaysia  Price list for inspections NR 
267 Japan  Pesticide maximum residue level 
(MRL) enforcement system NR 
268 United States  Import restrictions on EC dairy 
products NR 
269 United States  Restrictions on apples NR 
270 Mexico  Import restrictions on rice PR 
271 Mexico  Restrictions on imports of swine meat NR 
272 European Communities  Rapid Alert System regarding mango 
imports NR 
273 Oman, Certain Members  Health certificate ratification by 
national embassies NR 
274 Republic of Korea  Livestock Epidemic Prevention Act NR 
275 Separate Customs Territory of 
Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen And Matsu (Chinese Taipei)  Maximum level for Ractopamine NR 
276 European Communities  Maximum residue levels for pesticides 
in cacao NR 
277 Canada, Mexico, United States  NAPPO draft standard for Regulating 
the Movement of Ships and Cargoes Aboard Those Ships from Areas Infested with the Asian Gypsy Moth NR 
 
 a NR = Not Reported, P = Partially resolved, R = Resolved    G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
 Page v 
 
 
  Table 2 – Other Items Considered During 2008 
Item 
Number  Member(s) Maintaining the 
Measure Title Statusa 
153 United States  Restrictions on imports of Chinese 
potted plants in growing medium NR 
185 India  Restrictions due to avian influenza NR 
206 Greece, European Communities  Inspection and testing procedures for 
imported wheat NR 
222 Japan  Import suspension of heat-processed 
straw and forage for feed  R 
229 Canada  Import restrictions on Enoki 
mushrooms from Chinese Taipei  R 
238 European Communities  Application and modification of the 
EC Regulation on Novel Foods NR 
241 United States  Import restrictions on wooden 
Christmas trees  NR 
242 European Communities  Restrictions on US poultry exports NR 
252 El Salvador  Zero tolerance for salmonella in 
poultry and eggs  NR 
254 El Salvador  Animal health requirements for 
poultry meat  NR 
256 European Communities  Import restrictions on cooked poultry 
products from China PR 
257 United States  Import restrictions on cooked poultry 
products from China NR 
193 Certain Members  General import restrictions due to 
BSE PR 
 
 a NR = Not Reported, P = Partially resolved, R = Resolved  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
Page vi  
 
   
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
 
Page
 
CANADA ......................................................................................................................... .......................1  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CANADA ...................................................1  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ..................1  
229. Import restrictions on Enoki mushrooms from Chinese Taipei...........................................1  
277. NAPPO draft standard for Regulating the Movement of Ships and Cargoes 
Aboard Those Ships from Areas Infested with the Asian Gypsy Moth...............................2  
EGYPT.......................................................................................................................... ..........................3  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY EGYPT ......................................................3  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. ...............3  
262. Restrictions on heat-treated products in relation to avian influenza....................................3  
EL SALVADOR.................................................................................................................... .................4  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY EL SALVADOR .........................................4  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... ...................4  
252. Zero tolerance for salmonella in poultry and eggs ..............................................................4  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. ...............5  
254. Animal health requirements for poultry meat......................................................................5  
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ........................................................................................................... .5 
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES .....................5  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... ...................5  
206. Inspection and testing procedures for imported wheat – Maintained by Greece.................5  
238. Application and modification of the EC Regulation on Novel Foods .................................6  
242. Restrictions on US poultry exports....................................................................................11  
264. Maximum residue levels for Ethephon in pineapple .........................................................13  
272. Rapid Alert System regarding mango imports ..................................................................13  
276. Maximum residue levels for pesticides in cacao ...............................................................14  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............14  
256. Import restrictions on cooked poultry products from China..............................................14  
INDIA.......................................................................................................................... ..........................16  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY INDIA ......................................................16  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............16  
185. Restrictions due to avian influenza....................................................................................16   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
 Page vii 
 
 
  JAPAN .......................................................................................................................... ........................21  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN .....................................................21  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................21  
267. Pesticide maximum residue level (MRL) enforcement system .........................................21  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............22  
222. Import suspension of heat-processed straw and forage for feed........................................22  
REPUBLIC OF KOREA.............................................................................................................. .......24  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY KOREA ...................................................24  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............24  
274. Livestock Epidemic Prevention Act ..................................................................................24  
MALAYSIA....................................................................................................................... ...................24  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY MALAYSIA .............................................24  
Other concerns................................................................................................................. .............24  
266. Price list for inspections..................................................................................................... 24 
MEXICO......................................................................................................................... ......................25  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY MEXICO .................................................25  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............25  
263. Import restrictions on cooked and frozen meat .................................................................25  
271. Restrictions on imports of swine meat...............................................................................27  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................27  
270. Import restrictions on rice..................................................................................................27  
277. NAPPO draft standard for Regulating the Movement of Ships and Cargoes 
Aboard Those Ships from Areas Infested with the Asian Gypsy Moth [See Item 
277, pages 2-3] ................................................................................................................ ..28 
OMAN........................................................................................................................... ........................28  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY OMAN .....................................................28  
Other concerns................................................................................................................. .............28  
273. Health certificate ratificati on by national embassies .........................................................28  
SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND 
MATSU (CHINESE TAIPEI)......................................................................................................... ....29  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CHINESE TAIPEI ....................................29  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................29  
275. Maximum level for Ractopamine ......................................................................................29  
UNITED STATES.................................................................................................................. ..............30  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY UNITED STATES .....................................30  
Food safety.................................................................................................................... .................30  
268. Import restrictions on EC dairy products...........................................................................30  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
Page viii  
 
  Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............31
 
257. Import restrictions on cooked poultry products from China..............................................31  
Plant Health................................................................................................................... ................32  
153. Restrictions on imports of Chinese potted plants in growing medium..............................32  
241. Import restrictions on wooden Christmas trees .................................................................34  
269. Restrictions on apples........................................................................................................3 6 
277. NAPPO draft standard for Regulating the Movement of Ships and Cargoes 
Aboard Those Ships from Areas Infested with the Asian Gypsy Moth [See Item 
277, pages 2-3] ................................................................................................................ ..37 
Other concerns................................................................................................................. .............37  
265. Regulatory process economic analysis requirement..........................................................37  
CERTAIN ME MBERS ................................................................................................................ .......38  
CONCERNS RELATED TO ME ASURES MAINTAINED BY CERTAIN MEMBERS ..............................38  
Animal Health .................................................................................................................. .............38  
193. General import restrictions due to BSE .............................................................................38  
Other concerns................................................................................................................. .............39  
273. Health certificate ratification by national embassies [See Item 273, pages 28-29] ...........39     G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
   Page 1   
 
  CANADA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CANADA Plant Health 229. Import restrictions on Enoki mushrooms from Chinese Taipei  
Raised by: Chinese Taipei 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2005 (G/SPS/R/39, pa ras. 36-38), February 2006 (G/SPS/R/39, 
paras. 36-38), April 2008 (G/SPS/R/49, paras. 59-60) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as resolved: 1 January 2007 
 
1. 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 Inspection 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 necessary and urged Canada to lift its import ban on 
Enoki mushrooms. 
2. 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, Cana da 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 assessment.  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. 
3. In April 2008, Chinese Taipei reported that the issue of Canada's restrictions on the 
importation of Enoki mushrooms had been resolved.  Since this issue was first raised, there had been 
constructive technical dialogue on several occasions.  Scientific evidence and information on pest risk 
assessment had been provided, and Canada had undertaken on-site insp ections.  Consequently Canada 
had lifted its ban with effect from January 2007. 
4. Canada confirmed that this issue had been resolved due to a close collaborative working 
relationship between technical officials.  Following the visit of Canadian officials to Chinese Taipei, 
import permits had been issued during 2007 and En oki mushrooms  were now being imported into 
Canada. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
Page 2  
 
  277. NAPPO draft standard for Regulating the Movement of Ships and Cargoes Aboard 
Those Ships from Areas Infested with the Asian Gypsy Moth 
Raised by: China 
Supported by: Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea 
Dates raised: October 2008 (G /SPS/R/53, paras. 112-120) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/880 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
5. In October 2008, China raised concerns relati ng to a draft regional standard of the North 
American Plant Protection Organization (NAPPO) entitled "Guidelines for Regulating the Movement 
of Ships and Cargoes Aboard those Ships from Areas Infested with the Asian Gypsy Moth".  This 
standard would require NAPPO members (Canada, Mexico and the United States) to impose strict 
phytosanitary measures on ships an d cargoes from Russia, Korea, Japan , Mongolia and China.  More 
detailed information was presented in G/SPS/GEN/880. 
6. China had the following concerns regardi ng the draft standard:  (1) if passed and 
implemented, it would have serious impacts on inte rnational trade;  (2) it was inconsistent with 
Articles 2.2 and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement;  and (3) it had ambiguities regarding the technical 
application of the measure in different NAPPO count ries and in different climatic conditions.  China 
urged NAPPO members to delay the implementati on of the standard until it was recognized by 
relevant organizations including the IPPC. 
7. Indonesia Japan and Korea indicated that they sh ared the concerns raised by China regarding 
the NAPPO draft standard. 
8. The United States reported that the NAPPO standard pertaining to inspection and certification 
requirements related to the Asian Gypsy Moth was still in a draft form, and more changes could be 
made based on comments submitted by concerned countries.  China had declined an invitation to 
participate in a meeting held in October 2008 to allow trading partners to present their concerns 
regarding the standard.  A harm onized standard among the three NAPPO members would allow ships 
to enter any port in a NAPPO country after being approved by the first port of call.  Finally, the 
United States invited Members with concerns to engage in discussions with NAPPO members 
regarding this issue. 
9. Canada supported the United States and stated th at previous incursions of the Asian Gypsy 
Moth had caused serious and costly problems for Canada.  Mexico also supported the interventions 
made by the United States and Canada. 
10. China stated that technical comments had alr eady been sent to the NAPPO secretariat and 
hoped that further meetings coul d be held between NAPPO members and the concerned countries. 
11. The European Communities reported that it ha d not taken new measures on the Asian Gypsy 
Moth, but it remained vigilant to any potential risk .  There were parallels between this issue and 
ISPM 15 on wood packaging material that had pr eviously been extensively discussed in the 
Committee.  The European Communities hoped that similar solutions to the Asian Gypsy Moth 
problem could also be found.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  12. Norway expressed interest in this issue and its impact on Norway's exports. 
13. Mali asked if there were quarantine measures ag ainst the Asian Gypsy Moth and whether the 
pest existed in the NAPPO countries.  The United St ates clarified that this pest was not present in 
NAPPO countries and that it was very invasive.  Base d on this information, Mali agreed that NAPPO 
countries should take the necessary measures to prev ent the entry of Asian Gypsy Moth into their 
countries. 
 
EGYPT 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EGYPT Animal Health 
262. Restrictions on heat-treated products in relation to avian influenza 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: April 2008 (G/SPS/R/49, paras. 17-18) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/1 (para. 3) 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
14. The European Communities noted that it had held  bilateral negotiations for some time with 
regard to Egypt's import restrictions on heat-tr eated poultry products.  Egypt permitted imports only 
from countries free of avian influenza, which was not in line with the OIE standards.  This measure 
was disproportionate to the risk.  The European Communities hoped that its good relationship with the 
Egyptian authorities, which had permitted the resoluti on of many concerns in the past, would enable a 
rapid resolution to this problem.  The European Co mmunities formally requested that Egypt review its 
import restrictions and bring them in line with the SPS Agreement. 
15. Egypt recalled that the Working Procedures adopted by the SPS Committee (G/SPS/1, 
paragraph 3) indicated that rele vant Members should be informed in advance of a meeting of the 
intention to raise an issue which concerned that Me mber, which had not been done in this case.  Egypt 
recalled that it had previously experienced an outbr eak of avian influenza, and was making all efforts 
to prevent a re-introduction of the disease.  Du ring recent bilateral technical consultations the 
European Communities had provided information, including on treatment methods, that was required 
in order for Egypt to undertak e a risk assessment.  The risk assessment was under way, and the 
comments of the European Communitie s would be taken into account. 
 G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
Page 4  
 
  EL SALVADOR 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EL SALVADOR Food safety 252. Zero tolerance for salmonella in poultry and eggs  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2007 (G/SPS/R/45, pa ras. 17-18), October 2007 (G/SPS/R/46, 
paras. 33-34), April 2008 (G/SPS/R/49, paras. 46-47) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/SLV/21 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
16. In June 2007, the United States raised concer ns about El Salvador's zero tolerance for 
Salmonella in poultry and eggs, and the required certificate attestations.  This requirement did not 
have a scientific justification, and also raised some concerns regarding national treatment.  El 
Salvador had not as yet provided information request ed by the United States regarding the prevalence 
of Salmonella in poultry and eggs in El Salvador, nor on domestic testing for Salmonella.  Despite 
bilateral discussions of the problem, no resolution had been reached. 
17. El Salvador stressed its willingness to continue to  seek a resolution of this problem bilaterally.  
The United States was encouraged to submit their re quest and questions in writing, for consideration 
by the authorities. 
18. In October 2007, the United States reported that  El Salvador had agreed to visit the United 
States for discussions and site visits related to this measure.  The United States looked forward to 
providing the Committee with a report from El Salvador's visit at a future meeting. 
19. El Salvador clarified that the measure referred to  a standard that El Salvador notified in 1999 
as G/SPS/N/SLV/21.  In the past year, El Salvador had held bilateral meetings with US technical 
experts and made progress in the sense that restricti ons on certain products such as day-old chicks and 
fertile eggs had been lifted.  El Salvador had ex tended the certification for those products that were 
free of Salmonella.  There were no prohibitions on pr e-cooked products because the heat de-activated 
the virus.  El Salvador was willing to continue to me et with the technical exports in order to come up 
with solutions which would allow the two countries to have free-flowing trade. 
20. In April 2008, the United States reported that following an inspection visit in February, the 
authorities of both countries were now working on the language for export certificates for poultry 
meat and table eggs.  The draft documents had been  provided to El Salvador, and the United States 
hoped that this issue would soon be resolved in accordance with the SPS Agreement and international 
standards. 
21. El Salvador confirmed that consultations  had taken place, with a positive outcome. 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Animal Health 
254. Animal health requirements for poultry meat  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2007 (G/SPS/R/45, paras.  24-25), April 2008 (G/SPS/R/49, paras. 46-
47) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
22. In June 2007, the United States expressed con cern that El Salvador required that imported 
uncooked poultry meat be sourced from farms free of a number of diseases.  This requirement exceeded the OIE standards, as many of the diseases identified were cosmopo litan in nature and not 
known to be transmissible via poultry meat.  El Sa lvador's measure was therefore without scientific 
justification. 
23. El Salvador observed that there had been bilatera l meetings with US officials, at which some 
protocols had been agreed for certain products.  Th e United States was invited to provide its requests 
and comments in writing. 
24. In April 2008, the United States reported that following an inspection visit in February, the 
authorities of both countries were now working on the language for export certificates for poultry meat and table eggs.  The draft documents had been  provided to El Salvador, and the United States 
hoped that this issue would soon be resolved in accordance with the SPS Agreement and international 
standards. 
25. El Salvador confirmed that consultations  had taken place, with a positive outcome. 
 
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Food safety 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), October 
2008 (G/SPS/R/53, para. 161) G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
Page 6  
 
  Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
26. In March 2005, Canada reported that Gree ce had introduced new inspection and testing 
requirements for imports of grains from thir d 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 measure s and Canada considered the Greek measures to 
be inconsistent with the SPS Agreement.  Cana da's concerns had already been unsuccessfully 
expressed on numerous occasions to both Greek and EC officials, including at technical level. 
27. 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 ministerial 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 a dditional quality criteria, the re-establishment of 
the normal EC requirements with regards to t esting, sampling and inspection procedures and 
removing any provisions that might be viewed  as discriminatory against imported products. 
28. In February 2006, Canada stated that although the Greek authorities had made some useful 
amendments in late March 2005, the issue had recentl y 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 wheat existed.  Canada had unsuccessfully 
offered to accompany each shipment with a letter cer tifying the absence of registered GM wheat in 
Canada.  These requirements were discriminatory as they only applied to cereals originating outside 
the European Communities. 
29. In October 2008, Canada again raised  the issu e of Greece's excessive inspection and testing 
requirements of imported cereals, including Canadian  wheat exports, for the presence of genetically 
modified organisms even though genetically modified  wheat is not commerciall y produced in Canada.  
The European Communities stated  that although there was harmonization among the EC member 
States, there was a degree of difference in the tes ting regimes of different countries.  The European 
Communities would make every effort to resolve this issue. 
 
238. Application and modification of the EC Regulation on Novel Foods 
Raised by: Colombia, Ecuador, Peru 
Supported by: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile , Costa Rica, Cuba, Benin, El Salvador, 
Honduras, India, Mexico, Paraguay, Philippines, Uruguay, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 
Dates raised: March 2006 (G/SPS/R/40, paras. 21-29), June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, 
paras. 35-37), October 2006 (G/SPS/R/ 43, paras.140-143), February 2007 
(G/SPS/R/44, para. 64), April 2008 (G /SPS/R/49, paras. 48-52), October 
2008 (G/SPS/R/53, paras. 19-23)  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
  Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/681, G/SPS/GEN/699, G/SPS/GEN/700, G/SPS/GEN/713, 
G/SPS/GEN/714, G/SPS/GEN/733, G/SPS/GEN/735 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
30. In March 2006, Colombia raised concerns on the application of the EC Regulation on 
Novel Foods (Regulation No 258/97) and with the draft project of the European Commission to amend the regulation, foreseen to enter into force in 2007.  The amendment could directly affect the 
trade potential of traditional and exotic foods. 
31. Some traditional and exotic products already ha d substantial presence in the US and Japanese 
food markets, and European consum ers were now becoming interested in these food products.  It was 
important to recall, however, that these traditiona l foods had been consumed in South America for 
thousands of years.  This was in contrast to gene tically modified products which could be considered 
as real Novel Foods. 
32. Increased trade in traditional and exotic products  also had important socio-economic impacts, 
as the export of these products represented a m easure to decrease extreme rural poverty in 
South America and had potential to address specific social and environmental issues, such as providing alternatives to both the growing of narco tic crops and to the illegal felling of protected 
forests. 
33. Colombia was aware of the importance of prot ecting consumer health.  However, the amount 
of information on the safety of these traditional fo od products required by the EC regulation and the 
costs to undertake scientific studies were not proportional to health risks and were excessive 
especially for small scale farmers and exporters.  The proposed amendment of Regulation 258 would 
result in a non-tariff barrier to trade with negative effects on the introduction of traditional foods into 
European markets, contrary to Articles 2.2 and 5.6 of the SPS Agreement. 
34. Columbia requested the European  Communities to consider the following points regarding the 
amendment of the Regulation 258/97: 
(i) The non-application of Regulation 258 to exo tic, traditional products with a history of 
safe consumption in their region of origin; 
(ii) Greater transparency and clarity in the pro cedures and definition, giving credit to a safe 
consumption history of food in the country of origin; 
(iii) Requirements, tests, and procedures in proportio n with the nature of the foods concerned 
and the risks they could imply for consumers;  and 
(iv) All exotic traditional products to remain in the public domain and no private entity to be 
granted privileged access to  the European market. 
35. Ecuador reported that the amendment would also  affect the trade potential of traditional and 
exotic food from its country.  In light of Ecua dor's great biodiversity, over the last decade 
international organizations like UNCTAD had b een promoting the development of new export 
products ("Bio-Comercio").  In Ecuador also the export of traditional and exotic foods had major 
socio-economic impacts and related closely to effort s to overcome rural poverty.  Ecuador invited the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
Page 8  
 
  European Communities to consider carefully Colomb ia's recommendations regarding the amendment.  
The amendment of the regulation and its impacts were of importance for many developing countries. 
36. Peru added that currently, within the Conve ntion on Biological Diversity, countries were 
discussing measures and mechanisms for the preserva tion and sustainable use of biodiversity.  
Contrary to that approach, the application of Regul ation 258 would restrict greater sustainable use of 
traditional and exotic products, by diminishing their export potential.  Peru stressed the high costs and 
the long period of time needed for products to be registered under Regulation 258 to allow them to enter the European market.  Peru also suppor ted the Colombia's recommendations regarding the 
amendment (G/SPS/GEN/681). 
37. Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica and Paraguay reported that  their exports had also been affected by 
Regulation 258/97.  Benin requested more informat ion on how a product was considered as "novel".  
Argentina and Mexico both indicated that they were still in the process of analyzing the implications 
of the regulation.  El Salvador, Honduras, India,  Uruguay and Venezuela and expressed their interest 
in the topic and shared the concer ns of Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. 
38. The European Communities confirmed that Regulation 258/97 was being reviewed and 
recognized that some modifications were needed.  A 40-page document which might answer a lot of 
questions would be circulated as an SPS document shortly.  The document set out clearly the purpose 
and scope of the regulation, which was targeted  at new food technologies, including genetically 
modified products.  As the food industry was inv esting in different new technologies, Regulation 258 
aimed to reassure European consumers of the safet y of those technologies.  The vast majority of 
applications for authorization of Novel Foods had been from within the Euro pean Communities.  The 
European policy was aimed at striking the right balance between encouraging technical innovation 
and ensuring that consumers are protected.  Some pr oducts marketed as "produc ts of biodiversity" had 
in the past turned out to be unsafe and harmed the users.  Dealing with such products was thus in the 
interest of all stakeholders, considering the damage to  the image of products if they were marketed in 
an unsafe manner.  The European Communities inv ited interested stakeholders to submit comments 
and make their views known. 
39. In June 2006, Peru raised further concerns re garding the EC novel food regulation.  In Peru's 
view, one of the major problems of the EC regula tion was that it did not distinguish between new 
foods that had not been consumed before anywhere , and those that were new only to the European 
Communities, which was the case for most of th e traditional exotic products originating from 
developing countries.  Peru requested that the European Communities provide information showing 
that it was necessary to apply this measure to traditional exotic products, in accordance with the 
provisions of the SPS Agreement.  Peru considered  that the regulation constituted an unnecessary and 
unjustified barrier to trade due to the cost and time required to gain approval for Novel Foods, even if 
they had a history of safe consumption in their c ountries of origin, and requested the exclusion of 
traditional exotic products from the novel food categor y.  Peru also requested that the European 
Communities explain how special needs of developing countries had been taking into account in 
accordance with Article 10 of the SPS Agreement (G/SPS/GEN/713). 
40. Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador, India, Para guay and the Philippines shared the concerns 
raised by Peru.  Ecuador indicated that a study on  the impact of the novel food regulation was about to 
be finalized.  Preliminary results of this study showed that this regulation could have negative 
economic and social consequences for Ecuador's production system by having an effect both on 
current exports and on products w ith export potential in the Eu ropean Communities that were 
currently marketed in other countries (G/SPS/GEN/714).  Bolivia and Colombia highlighted that some of the products were currently being promoted inte r alia by policies supporting alternatives to narcotic 
crops, some of which were funded by the Euro pean Communities or its member States.  The  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
 Page 9 
 
 
  Philippines indicated that the effects of the novel fo od regulation and of EC regulations on genetically 
modified food were still being evaluated. 
41. The European Communities stres sed that the concerns expressed were being taken seriously, 
and that the novel food regulation was currently  under review (G/SPS/GEN/699 and 700).  The 
original intention of the novel food regulation had been trade-creating;  its purpose was to authorize 
trade in Novel Foods.  In addition, products that had already been traded prior to 1997 had been 
exempted.  The regulation had been targeted main ly at EC companies.  The regulation had been 
successful in that new foods were being approved on the basis of safety assessme nts.  A statement that 
a product had been consumed for centuries was not sufficient.  The European Communities 
highlighted that very few applications for approval of  traditional exotic products had been received, so 
that there were very few case studies.  Traditiona l exotic products was a broad category including 
some items where there had been safety concerns.  In  the context of the review of the regulation, the 
European Communities indicated that it would be helpful to receive more information on these 
products, including a clear definition of the products at issue whether they had been approved in other 
export markets, and safety-relate d data available, as well as information on the socio-economic 
impact. 
42. In October 2007, Columbia, Ecuador and Peru reiterated concerns rela ting to EC Regulation 
258/97 on Novel Foods (G/SPS/GEN/733 and G/SPS/GEN/ 735).  They considered that the regulation 
constituted a non-justified barrier to trade in th ese products as it was not flexible and made no 
distinction between novel (GMO) foods and traditiona l foods with no known risks.  They noted that 
exotic products originating from Latin  America were not the result of any type of genetic modification 
but rather formed part of the biodiversity of the re gion and were consumed traditionally.  Also there 
were inconsistencies in the way this regulation was applied throughout the European Communities.  
The European Communities had not considered the fact  that many of the traditional products had been 
marketed in a number of countries with very strict sanitary standards as they posed no health risks to 
consumers. 
43. The European Communities was requested to pr omptly review Regulation 258/97, and to 
exclude from its scope of application exotic tr aditional products resulting from biodiversity.  The 
European Communities was also enco uraged to take into account scien tific assessments and relevant 
evidence from other countries and competent interna tional organizations when risk assessments were 
made, and to establish different procedures for foods of known risk and no known risk in the 
European Communities.  The Europe an Communities was also  requested take into account the history 
of the product, the consumption patterns and traditional knowledge rela ting to its use and preparation, 
so as to provide for greater flexibility in the appli cation of the regulation and facilitate the entry of 
exotic traditional products into the European market. 
44. Bolivia, Brazil and the Philippines shared the c oncerns of Peru, Ecuador and Columbia.  The 
Philippines highlighted the fact that the regulation could become an unjustified non-tariff barrier to 
the EC market in view of the unclear technical distinction between these pr oducts and other products.  
The Philippines expressed hope that progress would be  made on the issue and a mutual solution found 
as soon as possible. 
45. The European Communities reminded the Committee that the issue had been discussed in the 
SPS Committee on previous occasions and there ha d been various exchanges of communications 
between the Members concerned.  The Europ ean Communities acknowledged the problem with 
traditional products, which were not in the EC market  prior to 1997 and noted that the regulation was 
not discriminatory as EC producers had to under go similar risk evaluations.  Nonetheless, the 
European Communities imported an enormous volume of foods and vegetables.   They reiterated the 
request that the Members concerned submit data on the volume of trade and risk assessments carried out in other developed countries.  The European Communities indicated that the EC Commission was G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
Page 10  
 
  putting forward a new proposal that addressed the genuine concerns of Members.  A public 
consultation had been held on the matter and the European Communiti es appreciated the contributions 
from the concerned Members. 
46. In February 2007, Peru noted that although it had not requested that this issue be on the 
agenda for this meeting, it would welcome an  update from the European Communities on current 
developments.  The European Communities indicat ed that the Novel Foods Regulation was being 
revised.  It had initially been designed to cove r a full range of Novel Foods, from GMO foods to 
products of biological diversity.  Following public consultations and the consideration of the views 
and comments received, revised legislation was being prepared.  The European Communities 
anticipated that the result would be a two-tiered pr ocess, with products that had a long history of safe 
use subjected to less rigorous procedures than other Novel Foods.  The European Communities was 
looking to address the concerns identified by tr ading partners, while ensuring consumer safety. 
47. In April 2008, Colombia, speaking on behalf of Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, 
Paraguay and Peru recalled the concerns previously  expressed regarding the proposed revision of the 
EC Regulation 258/97, as contained in COM(2007)872.   The proposed regulation had been notified to 
the TBT Committee, however these Members considered that it was appropriate to continue to 
consider this issue in the SPS Committee.  Th ese Members welcomed the proposed recognition of 
traditional food products from third countries, resulti ng from their biodiversity and with a history of 
safe use for large proportions of the populations of  these countries.  This recognition could facilitate 
trade, which was particularly important as the pr oduction of these traditional products was often part 
of programs to diversify agricultural production and exports. 
48. Colombia noted that a number of concerns rema ined.  The proposed definition of a traditional 
foodstuff was that it had been part of the diet of a large part of the population for at least one generation.  This definition could restrict those produc ts that were part of the dietary traditions of 
certain subpopulations or regions of the country.  It would also be useful to clarify how a "generation" 
was to be defined.  Another concern was that re quests for authorization would have to come from 
commercial operators, hence excluding such request s from the competent governmental authorities or 
producer associations.  These Members also suggested  that information regarding safe use of the 
traditional food in other countries should also be considered. 
49. The concerned Members recognized that although the proposed process had been 
considerably simplified, a period of five months was still foreseen for consideration of a request, and 
they suggested that three months should be suffici ent.  These Members remained concerned that the 
definition of a novel food remained a product that ha d not been consumed in the EC market prior to 
1997, which seemed to bear no relation to the scientif ic evidence regarding the safety of a product. 
50. Brazil indicated that it supported the concerns  raised by Colombia on behalf of eight 
countries.  Brazil was still analyzing the relevant documents, but considered  the issues raised by 
Colombia to be very important. 
51. The European Communities noted that issue had been raised several times previously.  The 
European Communities was currently revising legisla tion, in particular the provisions on traditional 
products and products of biological diversity, in response to concerns raised by various developing 
countries..  A much simplified procedure was now being developed.  A ra nge of legitimate and 
reasonable concerns had been expressed, and these s hould be communicated directly to the relevant 
EC services, since the legislation was currently unde r consideration.  While the concern was that the 
EC legislation might be a barrier to trade in tr aditional products, this should be seen in the broader 
context:  The European Communities was by far the world's largest importer of  fruits and vegetables, 
especially from developing countries, hence the import regime in general was extremely import 
friendly.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
 Page 11 
 
 
  52. In October 2008, Peru requested that there should be a notification to the SPS Committee 
regarding the modification of the EC Novel Foods  Regulation.  Many exporting Members failed to 
understand the content of the regulation, why some products were banned, wh ile others were not.  
Also, the regulation gave exporting countries, many of which were developing countries, the burden 
of proof that their products were safe  and complied with the EC Regulation. 
53. Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Paraguay and the Philippines shared 
Peru's concerns regarding the EC Regulation on Novel Foods. 
54. UNCTAD reported that it was contributing to the review of the EC Regulation on Novel 
Foods in three specific areas:  (1) revising the procedure, which required more scientific clarification;  
(2) facilitating dialogue between the European Communities and developing countries;  and (3) 
analyzing legal aspects of current regulations  in the context of multilateral agreements. 
55. The European Communities stated that the existing legislation was too ambitious in covering 
a whole range of Novel Foods.  For this reason, the European Communities planned to revise the 
regulation, as had been notified to the TBT Committe e.  This proposal had been under negotiation in 
the EC Parliament and Council.  However, there were concerns regarding the approval of some 
products.  For instance, matters became complicated  when exporters requested the classification of 
food supplements as Novel Foods, rather than whol e fruits and vegetables.  However, the revised 
procedure was expected to be more flexible, a nd some Novel Foods had already been approved for 
entry into the EC market. 
56. The European Communities noted that in this sp ecific case, the legal advice had been to only 
notify the proposed revision to the TBT Committee since it covered approval procedures for Novel 
Foods in general.  This did not preclude that th e issue could be discussed at the SPS Committee.  In 
response to a query, the Secretariat clarified that it generally recommended that draft regulations with 
any SPS content should be notified to the SPS Committee,  even if these regulations were also notified 
to the TBT Committee. 
 242. Restrictions on US poultry exports 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, pa ras. 28-29), February 2007 (G/SPS/R/44, 
paras. 32-33), June 2008 (G/SPS/R/51, paras. 27-28) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Given the high hygienic standards in the United States, if the use of AMTs 
were eliminated in US poultry pr oduction, the European Communities 
could most likely resume imports of US poultry products. 
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
57. In October 2006, the United States raised con cerns regarding the delay by the European 
Communities to finalize and implement a draft re gulation that approved antimicrobial treatments 
(AMTs) on poultry subject to certain restrictions.  The United States recalled that in August 1997, the 
European Communities stopped imports of US poultry meat on the basis of the use of AMTs in its 
production.  However, in January 2006 the Europe an Food Safety Authorit y (EFSA) had concluded G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
Page 12  
 
  that the antimicrobial washes at issue were safe, confirming an April 2003 opinion by the EC 
scientific committee on veterinary measures related to  public health.  Despite the decision by the 
European Communities to propose new legislation that provided the framework to approve these 
products for use on poultry, the European Commun ities had yet to approve importation of poultry 
treated with these products.  The United States ur ged the European Communities to authorize these 
products so that US poultry exports which met rigorous US safety standards could also meet EC 
standards. 
58. The European Communities appreciated the US c oncerns regarding the delay but noted that it 
was important that the genuine and long-standing co ncerns in the European Communities over the use 
of AMTs were taken fully into account in the a pproval process.  The circumstances that led to the 
effective ban on poultry meat from the United States in  1997 did not relate exclusively to AMTs.  The 
use of AMTs in food of animal origin was not pe rmitted at present in the European Communities inter 
alia because of concerns that the use of such treatments could disguise other hygiene problems.  The 
European Communities expressed disappointment that while it was possible for US exports to meet 
EC hygiene requirements without the use of AMTs, the United States was still insisting on the use of 
these products.  The European Communities was in th e process of finding a solution and this included 
a recent decision in principle that AMTs could be used to tackle surface contamination.  A draft 
regulation had been prepared which allowed for th e use of such substances under specific conditions.  
The European Communities was still identifying the specific conditions to accompany the draft 
regulation, in order to ensure that AMTs were not used to hide other problems.  However, the 
European Communities expressed hope that bilateral information exchanges with the United States 
could lead to a mutually agreeable solution. 
59. In February 2007, the United States reported th at despite a positive risk assessment by the 
European Food Safety Agency (EFSA), the European  Commission had not yet authorized the imports 
from the United States. 
60. The European Communities responded that the EC market was open to imports of poultry 
meat, and substantial quantities we re imported from Brazil and Thaila nd.  The European Communities 
was also open for US exports, but had difficulties with the US insistence on the use of anti-microbial treatments (AMTs).  The US poultry industry worked to  high standards, but refused to export poultry 
that had not been treated with AMTs.  One solu tion would be for the United States to change its 
system and export without AMTs, which it refused to  do.  The other solution was for the European 
Communities to adapt its system, which was very  sensitive because these products were banned for 
use in Europe.  The use of AMTs was very controve rsial with EC member States and consumers, who 
considered these products unnecessary if appropriate hygiene was used from farm to table.  The 
European Communities had taken constructive steps and adopted framework legislation to allow for 
possible authorization of AMTs.  EFSA had evalua ted their safety, and discussions were underway 
with member States to develop implementing legislation to allow their use. 
61. In June 2008, the United States recalled that its  poultry exports faced restricted access to the 
EC market since 1997, based on a ban on the use of Pathogen Reduction Treatments (PRTs).  Over the past 11 years, EFSA and other scientific bodi es had concluded that the consumption of poultry 
washed with certain PRTs did not pose any risk to  public health.  Although the European Commission 
had proposed legislation permitting the use of PRTs in January 20 06, the ban on imported poultry had 
not been removed. 
62. The European Communities observed that the EC  market was open to trade and it imported 
large volumes of poultry and poultry products fro m a number countries, including Brazil and 
Thailand.  The European Communities banned the use of AMT in poultry because these could be 
abused in order to compensate for poor hygienic conditions throughout the production chain.  Given  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
 Page 13 
 
 
  the high hygienic standards in th e United States, if the use of AM Ts were eliminated in US poultry 
production, the European Communities could most likely resume imports of US poultry products. 
 
264. Maximum residue levels for Ethephon in pineapple 
Raised by: Ecuador 
Supported by: Costa Rica 
Dates raised: April 2008 (G/SPS/R/49, paras. 21-23) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/GEN/841/Rev.1 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
63. In April 2008, Ecuador noted its concern a bout possible modification of the EC maximum 
residue levels (MRLs) for Ethephon, particularly in pineapple.   The European Communities was 
currently using the Codex standards, but a re-evalu ation of these MRLs by the European Food Safety 
Authority (EFSA) had resulted in a lowering of the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) levels.  EFSA was 
now reviewing MRLs in pineapple,  and proposing that these be reduced from 2 mg to 0.05, which 
was the limit of detection.  Ecuador considered that the risk assessment was not based on adequate 
scientific evidence nor on the Codex standard.  Th is change could have serious socio-economic 
consequences. 
64. Costa Rica noted that it was also analyzing th e effect of this new limit on Costa Rica's 
exports, and asked to be informed of  further discussions on this matter. 
65. The European Communities noted that producer s and the plant protection industry in the 
European Communities shared the concerns of Ecuador and Costa Rica.  They had expressed 
concerns that the reduction in MRLs was excessive  and not sufficiently science-based, which showed 
that there was no protectionist intent.  However, in the interest of food safety it was sometimes 
necessary to set limits that creat ed problems for producers, and Ethephon was an example of this.  
EFSA had carried out an extremely thorough evaluation of  the substance, in particular in light of its 
importance, which had led to the recommendation to  set more rigorous limits.  The EC authorities 
were in correspondence with both Ecuador and Costa Ri ca, and invited them to present their scientific 
evidence that the direction taken by the European  Communities was wrong.  Such evidence would be 
taken into account in other cases as well;  in th e past the European Communities had accepted such 
requests to review its risk assess ments.  The European Communities would explore every opportunity 
to be flexible in how this new MRL was applied to imports. 
 
272. Rapid Alert System regarding mango imports 
Raised by: Senegal 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2008 (G/SPS/R/51, para. 156) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
Page 14  
 
  Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
66. Senegal raised concerns regard ing mango exports to the European  Communities.  In 2007, the 
rapid alert system had warned that the limit for a pos t-harvest product had been exceeded.  In fact, this 
information had been based on a testing error.  Sene gal had asked for it to be corrected in the rapid 
alert system, but had received no response.  Only  one exporter had been concerned, but all mango 
exports from Senegal were being affected.  Senegal asked the European Communities to lift the 
sanctions. 
 
276. Maximum residue levels for pesticides in cacao 
Raised by: Ecuador 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2008 (G/SPS/R/53, paras. 13-14) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
67. In October 2008,  Ecuador reported that it w as concerned regarding the MRLs set for the 
limited number of pesticides used in cacao productio n.  These levels were difficult to fulfil and could 
result in the exclusion of Ecuadorian cacao from the EC market.  For pesticides not explicitly 
identified in the EC Regulation, MRLs were set at  0.01 mg per kg.  Ecuador requested the European 
Communities to assess the possibility of establishing a limit of 0.1 mg per kg for substances such as 
Diuron, Melathion, Difenoconozol and Tribufos, which were not explicitly identified within the 
regulation. 
68. The European Communities recalled that Member s had been fully informed of the new EC 
framework regarding residues of pesticides in plan ts.  Third countries could also request that an 
import tolerance be established for any plant protecti on products that had not been approved for use in 
the European Communities.  It w as suggested that Ecuador establis h contacts with the relevant 
officials in importing countries of the European Communities to explore the possibilities of having 
such import tolerances established. 
 
Animal Health 
256. Import restrictions on cooked poultry products from China 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
 Page 15 
 
 
  Dates raised: October 2007 (G/SPS/R/46, paras. 9-10), April 2008 (G/SPS/R/49, 
paras. 41-45), October 2008 (G/SPS/R/53, paras. 40-41) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Removal of import restrictions  on cooked poultry products from Shandong 
Province only 
Status: Partially resolved 
Date reported as resolved: 8 October 2008 
 
69. In October 2007, China raised the concern th at since July 2004, the European Communities 
had suspended the importation of cooked poultry meat  from China because of the presence of highly 
pathogenic avian influenza in China.  The OIE guide lines on AI explicitly stated that heat treatment 
de-activated the virus and that r estrictive measures associated with AI  should not be applied to cooked 
poultry meat.  The EC Health Commissioner had agre ed to lift the prohibition of cooked poultry meat 
from China into the European Communities, and Chin a requested that this be done as soon as possible 
in accordance with OIE guide lines and the SPS Agreement. 
70. The European Communities responded that the pr ohibition in question had been in place since 
January 2002 and related not only to avian influenza but also to certain hygiene concerns.  These 
issues had now been resolved and the ban s hould be lifted within a matter of weeks. 
71. In April 2008, China noted that since July 2002, the European Communities had prohibited 
imports of cooked poultry due to hygienic concerns and AI.  Chin a had taken steps to address these 
concerns and to facilitate a risk evaluation.  Chin a had thought the issue was now resolved, and that 
the ban should have been lifted.  This had not ye t occurred, but China hoped that trade could soon 
take place. 
72. The European Communities observed that trade could take place safely for both cooked and 
fresh poultry meat, and the European Communities imported large quantities of both from a range of 
countries, including countries where AI was endemic in the bird population.  In the case of China, 
discussions had taken place regarding the conditio ns under which trade could take place.  An 
agreement had been reached on these conditions, an d the European Communities had also expected 
trade to resume.  Unfortunately, there had been an obstacle.  China had explicitly agreed to send virus 
isolates to EC reference labs; but these had not yet been received.  Until these had been provided, the 
European Communities could not take the final ad ministrative measures to allow trade to resume. 
73. China noted that it was possible that the isolat es had already been provided.  However, China 
questioned the rationale for this request, as cooked poultry presented a very low risk for transmission 
of the AI virus. 
74. The OIE clarified that there were two issues under consideration.  One was the need to 
encourage transparency and disease reporting, includi ng sharing of information on isolates in order to 
characterize strains of the virus.  The second aspect  was the identification of which measures should 
be applied to trade.  There was now a lot of info rmation on the risks of highly pathogenic AI and on 
the lack of risk associated with low pathogenic st rains, as well as information on effective means for 
inactivation of the virus.  The Terrestrial Animal He alth Code was also clear on the lack of risk from 
pigs, hence no trade measures were warranted.  Th e OIE remained concerned that Members were not 
applying OIE recommendations.  The OIE invited Me mbers to bring forward new information that 
might warrant a revision of the recommendations.  It was critical that trade measures be proportionate 
to the risks, and that Members not apply unjustif ied measures.  This would discourage reporting of 
disease outbreaks and lead to increased risks to human  and animal health.  The representative of the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
Page 16  
 
  OIE recalled that the OIE could help with the r esolution of technical disputes among Members if so 
requested. 
75. The European Communities responded to China th at, as indicated by the OIE, it was in the 
interest of transparency to have virus isolates.  The European Communities required the same data for 
outbreaks in EC member States, to improve scientific knowledge of  the disease. 
76. In October 2008, China thanked the Europ ean Communities for the removal of import 
restrictions on cooked poultry prod ucts from Shandong Province of China.  However, this treatment 
was limited only to Shandong Province.  China requ ested that the European Communities also remove 
the ban on other poultry production areas such as Jili n Province.  A delegation of FAO had visited 
Jilin Province and reported their satisfacti on with local animal health conditions. 
77. The European Communities expressed its intentio n to remove import bans on other provinces 
in China after conducting the necessary evaluations. 
 
INDIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY INDIA 
Animal Health 
185. Restrictions due to avian influenza 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Australia, Canada, Switzerland, United States 
Dates raised: March 2004 (G/SPS/R/33, paras. 18-20), June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, 
paras. 42-43), October 2004 (G/SPS/ R/35, paras. 59-60), June 2007 
(G/SPS/R/45, paras. 21-23), Octobe r 2007 (G/SPS/R/46, paras. 29-32), 
April 2008 (G/SPS/R/49, paras. 33-38), June 2008 (G/SPS/R/51, paras. 31-
35), October 2008 (G/SPS/R/53, paras. 29-34) 
Relevant document(s): G/SPS/N/IND/13/Add.1, G/SPS/N/IND/14, G/SPS/N/IND/46/Add.3 and 
Add.4 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
78. The European Communities rai sed concerns on measures applied by India on 3 March 2004 
on imports of live birds, fresh poultry meat and meat  products due to avian influenza.  These measures 
were not notified as required by the SPS Agreement.   In addition, India's restrictions were 
disproportionate to the health risks associated w ith imports from the European Communities since the 
European Communities were free of hi ghly pathogenic avian influenza.  India was requested to lift the 
restrictions on EC products.  The United States sh ared the concerns of th e European Communities. 
79. India explained that restrictions on poultry im ports were temporary measures to address the 
emerging threat of introduction of highly pathogeni c avian influenza.  The measures were intended to 
protect farmers for whom poultry production was an essential source of income.  Delays in the 
reporting of outbreaks increased the risk of the viru s spreading into other countries.  In addition,  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
 Page 17 
 
 
  infected poultry did not always exhibit clinical signs  of the disease.  Once intr oduced into the country, 
the disease would be impossible to control.  In dia was taking all measures necessary to gather 
information on efforts to contain the disease gl obally and welcomed information from exporting 
Members who were free of the disease. 
80. In June 2004, the European Communities stated th at India continued to apply import bans on 
a range of poultry products from several countries al legedly in response to highly pathenogenic avian 
influenza.  India was requested to review the cu rrent ban and lift all rest rictions on poultry products 
from the European Communities.  India responded that the measures prohibiting poultry and poultry 
products had been implemented as temporary measur es.  New outbreaks of highly pathenogenic avian 
influenza (HPAI) in WTO Members, but not within the territories of the European Communities, had 
been reported as recently as 4 June 2004.  Since poultry production in India was typically a family-run 
business, Indian authorities were particularly con cerned about potential hu man development of the 
disease. 
81. In October 2004, the European Co mmunities stated that India had issued two notifications, on 
7 July and on 6 August, informing Members of th e relaxation of the ban for a range of products.  
However, the ban was disproportionate to the risk, had no scientific basis and should be confined to 
regions affected by the disease following OIE guidelines and recommendations.  India was requested to review its ban and bring its me asures into conformity with the SPS Agreement.  India stated that 
the ban was a temporary measure which was enfo rced due to the outbreak of avian influenza 
throughout the world.  The situati on had been under constant review since the imposition of the ban in 
February 2004.  The ban on imports of poultry w ith vaccination and specific pathogen free eggs was 
lifted in July 2004.  A subsequent review by an expert group resulted in the continuation of the ban on 
imports of certain products such as live and raw poultry and pig meat.  Processed products from HPAI 
infected countries were allowed into India, however , and the situation continued to be monitored. 
82. In June 2007, the United States noted that India was banning poultry, swine and other 
products in response to the detection of low pathogeni c avian influenza in wild birds in some parts of 
the United States.  These restrictions far exceeded the standards developed by the OIE for the control 
of avian influenza.  India failed to apply the con cept of regionalization to the United States.  India 
applied its ban against US products although no in cident of highly pathogenic avian influenza had 
occurred in the United States;  applied its ban to prod ucts that had been treated or processed in such a 
manner that the avian influenza virus was killed;  and applied its ban to species and products from 
animals that were not known to transmit the virus.   Although India had recently notified a change to 
its measures to allow the entry of dry processed pet food, it continued to pr ohibit other heat-treated 
pet foods that posed no animal health risk. 
83. The European Communities observed that it had si milar concerns regarding India's measures.  
Although it had been seeking to resolve the matter  bilaterally, problems continued to appear and 
reappear.  All Members were urged to apply the inte rnational standards, to ensure that the measures 
applied were proportionate to the risks.  India's me asure was applied even to products that had never 
been known to transmit avian influenza, including pork meat. 
84. India noted that high or low pathogenic strains of avian influenza had been reported in more 
than 60 countries, and the authorities were concerne d that the virus was spreading.  The virus had 
important human health implications , given its high fatality rate.  India had experienced an outbreak 
of highly pathogenic avian influenza in 2006 which ha d been successfully contained, and the country 
was now free of the disease.  India was trying to saf eguard animal and human health in its territory, 
and protect its family-run poultry industry.  It th erefore banned imports of poultry from any country 
which had experienced an outbreak of avian influenz a, whether highly pathogenic or low pathogenic.  
The United States had reported an outbreak of lo w pathogenic avian influenza.  Countries free from 
avian influenza could export livestock to India, and pathogen-free eggs fo r vaccine production were G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
Page 18  
 
  permitted from any country, regardless of its avian infl uenza status.  Because many wild birds visited 
India, this was a vector of concern.  With regard  to pet food, India had revised its health protocol 
notified in June 2007, and w ould take into account the co mments made on this matter. 
85. In October 2007, the United States reiterated c oncerns regarding India's ban on imports of US 
poultry, swine and their products due to detections of low-pathogenic avian influenza (AI) in wild 
birds in the United States.  In June, the United St ates had noted that this prohibition went beyond the 
OIE guidelines and that India had not provided scientific  justification for this prohibition.  India had 
made two notifications related to AI (G/SPS/ N/IND/46/Add.3 and Add.4).  The Add.3 document 
extended AI-related import prohibition to include pig bristles.  Prohibiting the import of these products was not scientifically justified nor in co mpliance with the OIE guidelines based on the AI 
status of a country, region or zone.  The Unite d States requested that India remove all import 
restrictions on US origin live pigs and porcine products.  India's Add.4 extended for a further six 
months the emergency measures it had put in place in  August 2006.  The United States urged India to 
put in place permanent measures for trade in poultr y products and AI, and to ensure that these 
measures were consistent with the provisions of the OIE Code chap ter on AI.  India's measures should 
distinguish between highly-pathogenic and low-pathoge nic strains of AI, and allow for the application 
of regionalization. 
86. The European Communities noted that it had pr oblems similar to those mentioned by the 
United States.  India failed to recognize the differe nce between high and low pathogenic influenza as 
well as the AI-related differences between wild birds and domestic animals.  The European 
Communities encouraged India to foll ow the recommendations from the OIE. 
87. India stressed the dangers related to AI and how widespread the virus ha d been.  In addition, 
AI was known to reoccur in countries where outbreaks had previously taken place.  India restricted 
imports from countries reporting AI.  The United St ates was currently positive for low pathogenic AI 
in poultry (LPNAIH5).  India's import restrictions due to outbreaks of AI in the United States were 
clarified in detail to the United States during the l ast trade policy forum meeting held in New Deli.  
India contested the claim that its regulations were  not based on science by observing that the presence 
of LPAI in poultry was a notifiable disease according to the OIE as per the list of diseases in Article 2.1.3 of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code.  Furthermore, as noted by USDA's factsheet on AI, LPAI had a high potential to mutate into highl y pathogenic AI;  a view that India shared.  
Nonetheless, India regularly reviewed its trade regul ations in the light of new developments on AI.  
Regarding the concerns with pork products, there were  numerous scientific reports that pigs could be 
easily infected by many human and AI viruses and, therefore, could provide an environment 
favourable for viral replication and genetic re-assortme nt.  The fast mutating nature of the AI virus, 
along with the possibility that the virus could re-c ombine with other subtypes, made pig and pig 
products a risk.  With regard to wild birds, cons ultations with experts had taken place and the Indian 
authorities were of the view that wild birds could no t be ignored with respect to AI.  The US and EC 
concerns would be reported back to India's technical experts for review. 
88. The OIE clarified the recommendations of the OI E and how they should be put in practice.  
The listing of diseases such as high pathogenic avia n influenza (HPAI) and low pathogenic notifiable 
avian influenza (LPNAI) was first and foremost for disease reporting purposes and related to the 
question of transparency.  Findings of AI in wild birds and of LPNAI should not lead to import bans.  
There needed to be a distinction drawn between reporting and the imposition of measures.  There was 
no scientific basis for restrictions on pigs and pig pro ducts in relation to AI, whether it be high or low 
pathogenic strains, and this point was clear in the OIE Terrestrial Code.  OIE was concerned that the 
imposition of measures that were not scientifically  based worsened the risk s for spread of disease 
because countries were discouraged from proper repor ting if they believed that the reporting would 
lead to unjustifiable measures.  It was of utmost importance that countries report their diseases.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
 Page 19 
 
 
  89. In April 2008, the European Co mmunities indicated that India continued to ban certain EC 
animal products due to AI.  Although India had re laxed the ban for some products earlier in 2008, it 
continued to ban many commodities.  India impo sed the ban in response to both high and low 
pathogenic strains of AI.  The OIE, however, did not recommend trade bans if AI was present only in 
wild birds, or if low pathogenic strains were f ound.  The obligation to notify cases of low pathogenic 
AI to the OIE should not be misused as a reas on to impose trade restrictions, as the OIE had 
previously clarified.  Furthermore, heat-treated products could be safely traded regardless of the AI 
status of the exporting country.  The European Co mmunities considered also that India's ban on 
pigmeat and pork products based on AI concerns was disproporti onate to the risk.  Although the 
European Communities had requested information rega rding what needed to be done to regain free 
status, India had not provided any response.  As indicated previously, the European Communities was 
of the view that India's measures were disproporti onate to the risks and for some products were not 
based on scientific evidence.  In addition, HPAI  had been found in India, and the European 
Communities questioned whether Indian domestic products  would be subject to the same treatment as 
imported goods. 
90. The United States shared the concern that Indi a's measures were introduced and maintained 
without sufficient scientific basis or a risk assessmen t.  The measures were unjustifiably restrictive 
and too broad in geographi c and commodity application.  Bilate ral exchanges had allowed progress on 
some areas, but not regarding the AI measures.  Despite requests, the United States had not yet 
received copies of India's risk assessment.  Furt hermore, these emergency import prohibitions had 
been extended again (G/SPS/N/IND/46/Add.5), after having been in place for almost two years.  The 
United States urged India to lift AI measures that were not based on science, and in particular to 
distinguish between high and low pathogenic strains, recognize disease-free zones, not apply measures to swine and pork products, and to reco gnize measures taken to inactivate the virus. 
91. Australia noted that it shared the concerns  of the European Communities and the United 
States, and urged India to base its meas ures on sound science and the OIE standards. 
92. Mali reported that since it did not know how to do  a risk assessment with regard to AI, it had 
closed its borders to poultry imports from countries which had the disease. 
93. India noted that AI continued to spread, and that it had serious human health implications 
with hundreds of persons already affected.  Indi a had previously had an outbreak, and despite its 
efforts to eradicate the disease, new outbreaks had o ccurred.  Therefore India was extremely cautious 
to safeguard animal and human health, especially as India had widespread, small family poultry 
businesses.  India was not permitting imports from aff ected countries.  India viewed low and high 
pathogenic strains of AI with equal concern, regard less of whether in poultry or wild birds.  LPAI 
presented a high potential risk, as the science showed that the virus was constantly evolving and there 
was a possibility of LPAI mutating into a highly  pathogenic strain.  With respect to the OIE 
guidelines, India had voted against the resolution in  the last annual session which proposed that LPAI 
was not a concern for international trade.  India was not the only country taking such measures, and 
Egypt had apparently imposed similar requirements.   Pigs were potential hosts of both the AI and 
human viruses, and could serve as vessels where th e viruses could mix, therefore India was also 
prohibiting swine and pork products from AI-affected countries.  India was visited by wild birds, 
therefore the risk of transmission of AI through th is means could not be ig nored.  India had recently 
reviewed and modified its measures on pathogen-f ree eggs, and pet food, and agreed to provide 
information to the European Communities shortly.  The concerns raised by other Members would be 
communicated to technical experts in capital.  India assured all Members that it would abide by its 
WTO obligations. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
Page 20  
 
  94. The European Communities clarified that in the case of Egypt, the measures were applied to 
very different commodities.  Alth ough both countries had measures re lated to AI, these could not be 
easily compared. 
95. In June 2008, the European Communities reported that India continued to apply a ban on the 
imports of poultry, swine, and th eir products, from areas that had repor ted outbreaks of either low - or 
high-pathogenic avian influenza in wild bird populations only.  In addition, India restricted the 
importation of products also from areas where LPAI  had been found, disregarding the OIE standards 
which assured the complete elimination of risks and allowed products to be safely traded.  The ban on 
imports of pigs and pigmeat was not justified accord ing to the OIE, nor had India provided scientific 
justification for the ban.  India's restrictions were disproportionate and the European Communities 
requested India to review its measures without delay. 
96. Canada supported the EC arguments, noting that according to the OIE, pigs did not represent 
a threat for transmitting avian influenza.  Furthe rmore, India should recognize the principle of 
regionalization when applying a ban based on avian infl uenza.  Canada requested that India follow the 
OIE's standards and remove the import restrictions currently in place. 
97. The United States supported the concerns raised , observing that India's measure had been 
introduced and maintained without scientific eviden ce or risk assessment.  India's argument that LPAI 
had the potential to mutate into the highly pathogeni c form, and that virus re-assortment could occur 
in swine, had Switzerland supported th e concerns raised and requested India to revisit its measure in 
order to comply with OIE recommendations. 
98. India reiterated that it did not allow the impor tation of poultry and pork products, including 
processed meats, from areas where outbreaks of avian influenza had been reported.  India was equally 
concerned about low and highly pathogenic avian in fluenza, as well as with avian influenza found in 
wild birds only.  A number of scientific studies ha d shown the possibility of low pathogenic forms of 
avian influenza mutating into highly pathogenic st rains.  A report from FAO had also shown that 
mutation was feasible.  An official US web site as serted that low pathogenic forms of avian influenza 
had the potential to mutate into HPAI.  At the OIE General Session in May 2007, India had voted 
against the resolution that stated that LPAI did not pose a risk to international trade.  India remained 
concerned that the low pathogenic viruses also po sed risks to human health.  Regarding pigs, 
scientific evidence showed that pigs could host the virus and were known to be a mixing vessel for 
some diseases, hence they could infect humans wi th avian influenza.  As new scientific evidence 
evolved, India had lifted its bans on some products, such as eggs and pet food.  Further reviews would 
be done in the future.  India took note of Member s' requests for copies of the risk assessment and for 
the recognition of regionalization, and those concer ns would be conveyed to experts in the capital. 
99. In October 2008, the European Communities ack nowledged India's efforts to remove its 
import restrictions on processed pig meat.  However,  India continued to apply a ban on live animals 
and on a wide range of products of animal origin.  This ban had been based on the risk of entry into 
India of several diseases, in particular avian influe nza.  These restrictions did not conform to the OIE 
standards.  India was also invited to acknowledge th at heat-treated meat and meat products could be 
safely traded regardless of the avian influenza stat us of the exporting country.  Moreover, India had 
not responded to the request for providing scientific justification and its risk assessment on pig meat 
and pig meat products.  The European Communities ur ged India to review the import restrictions on 
live animals and different products of animal origin. 
100. The United States expressed concerns regarding India's extension of its emergency measures 
prohibiting a wide range of products because of avia n influenza.  These measures were not based on 
scientific evidence or on risk assessment.  The Unite d States renewed the request to India to provide a  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
 Page 21 
 
 
  copy of their avian influenza risk assessment.  Fina lly, India was requested to modify its measure to 
address the concerns expressed by several Members in the Committee. 
101. In response to the US request, India proposed that a technical discussion between India and 
other technical experts be held.  The United States i nvited India to bring its technical experts to the 
next meeting of the SPS Committee and again requ ested a copy of India's risk assessment. 
102. India suggested that instead of waiting for the next meeting the experts could meet before 
then, perhaps through a video conference, which c ould allow a resolution before the next meeting. 
103. India reported that the import restriction of avian influenza related products had been 
discussed in the OIE, in the SPS Committee, and in  various bilateral meetings with countries 
including the European Communities and the United States.  India treated high pathogenic and low 
pathogenic types of the virus in both poultry or wild  birds with equal concern.  Also, India did not 
import pig meat from countries with avian influenza outbreaks.  India had been reviewing the policy of avian influenza and its trade implications ever y six months.  This led to the removal of import 
restrictions on different processed pig products fro m avian influenza positive countries.  India would 
continue to review its restrictions and keep only t hose which affected human and animal health.  India 
suggested that the discussion should stay among e xperts from India and other concerned partners. 
104. The representative of the OIE stated that countries should notify the presence of avian 
influenza in domestic and wild birds.  However, no tification of the early detection of avian influenza 
in wild birds was requested for purposes of transpar ency and should not lead to trade restrictions.  
Also, the representative urged OIE Members to send thei r scientific evidence to OIE, to be considered 
when making necessary amendments to the standards established in the OIE codes. 
 
JAPAN 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY JAPAN Food safety 267. Pesticide maximum residue level (MRL) enforcement system 
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: China, New Zealand 
Dates raised: June 2008 (G/SPS/R/51, pa ras. 15-17), October 2008 (G/SPS/R/53, 
paras. 15-18) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
105. In June 2008, the United States noted that in May 2006, Japan's Ministry of Health, Labour 
and Welfare (MHLW) imposed a testing and san ctions policy that involved increased testing 
(30 per cent country-wide) after the occurrence of one MRL violation.  If a second violation involving 
the same pesticide and commodity occurred within one year of the first, a 100 per cent test-and-hold 
policy was enforced on all exports of that commodi ty from that country.  The United States believed G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
Page 22  
 
  that the sanctions under inspection and control prog rammes should be limited to  the violating supplier 
as long as there was no indication that a country-wide problem existed.  The United States considered 
that this would be the least trade restrictive measure  and the most appropriate policy.  This was also 
the policy applied by the United States itself. 
106. China supported the concerns raised by th e United States and invited Japan to provide 
scientific justification for its measure, in order to comply with the SPS Agreement. 
107. Japan stated that the MRLs fo r agricultural chemicals in food were developed based on 
scientific assessments, and took into account the MRLs  established by Codex and by other countries.  
Before adopting a new MRL, Japan notified its pr oposal to the WTO and considered any comments 
from Members, as appropriate.  The MRLs app lied equally to domestic and imported products.  
Whenever non-compliance with an MRL was f ound in imported products, Japan strengthened 
inspections of agricultural chemical residues.  The degree, frequency, or extent of enhanced 
inspection was determined by the circumstances.  Each violation was handled on a case-by-case basis, 
but always conducted in a rational and reasonable manner, for instance, by limiting the enhanced 
inspections to the violating exporter only. 
108. In October 2008, the United States again rai sed its concerns about Japan's enforcement 
system for MRLs.  In particular, there was no re ason for Japan to employ country-wide sanctions 
where there was no indication of a country-wide prob lem.  In cases of individual company violations, 
sanctions should be applied at the individual company level. 
109. New Zealand noted that its exports had been subj ect to testing by Japan.  New Zealand asked 
for further clarification regarding the reasons be hind testing products, especially asparagus products 
as these were normally frozen. 
110. China shared the US concerns regarding Japan's testing regime. 
111. Japan responded that in order to enforce thei r MRLs, Japan conducted monitoring inspections 
of agricultural chemical residues in imported food.  These controls were strengthened if imported products did not comply with the established MRLs .  Multiple violations had been detected on 
imported products from the United States, giving rise to increased monitoring. 
 
Animal Health 
222. Import suspension of heat-pro cessed straw and forage for feed 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev.1,  paras. 33-34), June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, 
paras. 25-26), June 2007 (G/ SPS/R/45, paras. 46-47), April 2008 
(G/SPS/R/49, para. 61) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Imports from some enterprises permitted 
Status: Resolved 
Date reported as resolved: 1 April 2008 
  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
 Page 23 
 
 
  112. China recalled that, following an FMD outbr eak in May 2005 in a few Chinese provinces, 
Japan had issued an overall import suspension of stra w and forage for feed from China at the end of 
May 2005.  However, the straw and forage exported to Japan originated from FMD-free areas, and 
was subject to heat treatment more than suffici ent to kill FMD viruses, under joint monitoring of 
Chinese and Japanese inspectors.  Japan's ban lacked  scientific evidence in contravention to the SPS 
Agreement.  China invited Japan ese officials to undertake the necessary controls and discussions with 
the competent departments. 
113. Japan recalled that it had suspended imports of  heat-processed straw and forage from China at 
the end of May 2005 to respond to repetitive detec tion of faeces in imported straw and intentional 
replacement of heat-treated with non heat-treated  straw, in violation of Japan's animal health 
requirements and of Article 2.2.10.28 of the OI E Code.  These products had been accompanied by a 
genuine Chinese animal health authority certificate, in  violation of paragraph 6 of Article 1.3.4.72 of 
the OIE Code.  Considering the recent rapid sp read of FMD in China, Japan had suspended 
importation of heat-processed straw and forage until the Chinese Government  addressed these issues. 
114. In June 2006, China recalled that Japan's measure s with regard to import of straw and forage 
for feed required unnecessary additional assurances, exceeding the OIE standard.  There was no risk 
of transmission of any disease after straw and forage were heat-treated at a temperature of 80 degrees or more for at least 10 minutes.  Japan was using the FMD situation in Chin a as an excuse for trade 
restrictions and was not applying the concept of  zoning/regionalization as there were no new cases of 
FMD in the counties where straw and forage were produced.  China requested Japan to consider the 
complaints of the Chinese industry as well as of Jap anese importers and to amend its unscientific and 
unnecessary trade restrictions following OIE standards and WTO rules. 
115. Japan observed that any straw and forage othe r than rice straw were permitted for importation 
into Japan on the condition that pests were not detected in the process of import inspection.  
Regardless of its use in Japan, the importation of rice straw was prohibited from all countries other 
than Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Kore a and Chinese Taipei.  If rice straw went through 
disinfection treatment, such as heat  treatment with water vapour, it c ould be imported into Japan.  In 
order to prevent the introduction of FMD into Japan, imports of heat-treated straw and forage for feed 
from China were permitted only if there was no FMD infection around the areas where raw materials were produced, processed and stored and appropriate heat treatment was carried out.  Japan had to 
suspend the importation of heat-treated rice straw in May 2005 after repeated violations of the 
requirements detected at some ports of entry into Jap an.  In addition, China had officially notified to 
the OIE the spread of the infected area and an increase in the number of areas of foot and mouth 
disease.  Japan had not received sufficient data from China to support the claim that rice straw was produced in disease-free areas.  Once the data requirements were complete, Japan would review the situation to decide whether the import suspension could be lifted and whether any other pre-export 
measures were necessary. 
116. In June 2007, China reported that much progress had been made towards the resolution of this 
concern through bilateral meetings.  China had invited three delega tions from Japan for inspection, 
and had provided all rele vant and requested information.  Six Chinese enterprises had been approved 
by Japan to export straw and forage.  China hoped that the dozen enterprises still waiting for approval 
from Japan would soon be approved. 
117. Japan noted that there were two factors that ha d to be considered:  the control measures and 
the compliance with control measure s.  Japanese authorities were particularly concerned with how to 
ensure compliance when there had been a history of poor compliance.  On the basis of on-site visits, 
Japan had scheduled expert consulta tions which had resulted in some lifting of the suspensions.  Japan 
hoped to be able to lift the suspension soon for other Chinese exporters. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
Page 24  
 
  118. In April 2008, China reported  that following the provision of information requested by Japan, 
Japan had subsequently lifted the ban on imports of heat-processed straw and forage for feed from 
China.  Japan confirmed that a solu tion had been reached on this matter. 
 
REPUBLIC OF KOREA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY KOREA 
Animal Health 274. Livestock Epidemic Prevention Act 
Raised by: Canada 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2008 (G/SPS/R/53, paras. 6-7) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
119. In October 2008, Canada raised concerns that  Korea's Livestock Epidemic Prevention Act 
violated the tenets of animal health and food saf ety principles as its requirements were not based on 
science.  These amendments were not consistent with WTO obligations and did not take into 
consideration the provisions of the BSE chapter of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code.  Korea 
continued to restrict the import of beef products fro m countries with any previous experience of BSE.  
Canada requested Korea to amend its regula tions to comply with the SPS Agreement. 
120. Korea maintained that the Act was consistent with the SPS Agreement, and that Korea had 
conducted the necessary risk assessments. 
 
MALAYSIA 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY MALAYSIA 
Other concerns 
266. Price list for inspections 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by: Australia, New Zealand, Uruguay, European Communities 
Dates raised: April 2008 (G/SPS/R/49, paras. 26-31) 
Relevant document(s):   G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
 Page 25 
 
 
  Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
121. In April 2008, Brazil observed that recently  approved Malaysian le gislation established 
inspection fees of US$30,000 per year for each Braz ilian establishment, even in the absence of any 
health violations.  Although Malays ia had tried to justify the fees as necessary to cover its costs, it 
was apparent that these fees were not in compliance with the SPS Agreement.  According to Annex C, 
any fees should be equitable compared to those ch arged to domestic industries, and no higher than the 
actual costs of the service.  Malaysia was clearly  overcharging exporting countries, and it was not 
clear whether any fees were imposed on national producers. 
122. The European Communities shared the concerns  raised by Brazil, as it had experienced 
similar problems.  It was clear that the fees were not proportionate to costs, and that the requirement 
for annual payment of such fees would discourage e xporters.  Although it appreciated that Malaysia 
wanted to cover the costs of its own inspectors wh en they went to other countries, the European 
Communities requested Malaysia to revise the fee schedule. 
123. Australia also shared the concerns about the tr ade impact of Malaysia's requirement.  It was 
not clear how this fee schedule had been developed, or why different rates were applied to different 
trading partners.  This could have significant imp acts on trade in meats, and Malaysia was requested 
to explain its current requirements and to consider alternative approaches. 
124. New Zealand also shared the concerns expressed, and furthermore noted that although. 
Malaysia had bilaterally informed New Zealand of these requirement after the fact, it had not submitted an official WTO notification.  New Zeala nd requested Malaysia to delay implementation of 
this requirement, to notify it to the SPS Committe e, allow time for comments and discussions, and to 
take these into account. 
125. Uruguay supported the concerns raised by others , and also was concerned that this measure 
could create an unwelcome precedent if others followed the same example. 
126. Malaysia noted that costs had increased and presented a strain on the national budget.  The 
fees would allow Malaysia to continue inspections without disruption.  The measure was not yet in 
place, and Malaysia was engaging in consultations  with exporting countries.  The proposed measure 
had been notified in March 2008, and a comment period was provided. 
 
MEXICO 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURE S MAINTAINED BY MEXICO 
Animal Health 263. Import restrictions on cooked and frozen meat 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
Page 26  
 
  Dates raised: April 2008 (G/SPS/R/49, paras.  19-20), June 2008 (G/SPS/R/51, paras. 36-
39) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
127. In April 2008, Brazil noted its concerns about Mexico's restrictions on cooked frozen meat 
from areas free of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD).  A ccording to the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health 
Code, heat-treatment of meat guaranteed its safet y.  Therefore, there was no scientific basis for 
Mexico's decision not to permit meat from Brazil.  This decision was also not in line with NAFTA 
practices, since both the United States and Cana da imported this product from Brazil.  Brazil 
requested details from Mexico on the criteria used fo r the evaluation of processing facilities.  This was 
not the first time that there had been undue delays  in Mexico's response to such problems;  these had 
previously occurred in the sending of auditing t eams to Brazil.  Brazil was concerned with the 
unpredictable and protectionist practices of Mexico. 
128. Mexico recalled that a bilateral exchange  had taken place in A ugust 2007, regarding a 
Memorandum of Understanding between sanitary servi ces to cooperate in certain areas and address 
trade concerns.  A monitoring group had met to disc uss bilateral issues, and had agreed on the need 
for a technical subgroup to meet to discuss this issue, however the subgroup had not yet met.  Mexico was now analyzing the detailed information on cooked  frozen meat that it had received from Brazil, 
and would continue to work with  Brazil on all bilateral SPS issues. 
129. In June 2008, Brazil reiterated concerns about Mexico's requi rements on the importation of 
Brazilian cooked and frozen meat.  As recognized in  Article 3.6.2.1. of the OIE Terrestrial Code, 
cooking of meat completely inactivated the FMD virus.  In addition, Mexico's ban on Brazilian 
cooked meat was contrary to the decisions of its  NAFTA partners which imported cooked and frozen 
meat from Brazil.  Mexico had sent a communication indicating the need to approve meat processing facilities in order to allow exports.  Brazil had theref ore requested further details about the criteria for 
these evaluations.  The approval procedure should be done on a sample basis.  Furthermore, there had 
been continuous delays by the Mexican authoriti es in sending an inspection group to conduct on-site 
visits.  Brazil urged Mexico to apply the SPS Agreement provisions and OIE recommendations, and 
to eliminate its import restrictions, as cooked and frozen meat did not pose risks of transmitting the 
FMD virus. 
130. Mexico stressed the positive developments in the consultations held with Brazil since the 
issue was first raised.  The Mexican National Se rvice for Agro-food Health, Safety and Quality 
(SENASICA-SAGARPA) had requested more informa tion about the companies that produced food 
and canned meat foods, including their official rec ognition, information about the national programme 
on toxic residues, and information about compliance with specific official requirements in force in 
Mexico.  Imports could be permitted only after the fu lfillment of those requirements.  Mexico further 
raised concerns about Brazil's refusal to import pathogen-free eggs from Mexico.  This restriction 
started in 2005, after the outbreak of low pathogeni c avian influenza in the country.  Mexico had 
provided information and requested an on-site eval uation, but no response had been provided by the 
Brazilian authorities. 
131. Brazil contested the linkages between the restri ctions on importation of Mexican eggs and the 
recognition of FMD-free zones in Brazil.  Regardi ng Mexico's complaint on the restriction on eggs,  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
 Page 27 
 
 
  bilateral technical consultations had been held, and Brazil was waiting to receive the complementary 
information that it had requested of Mexico. 
132. Mexico reported that it was carrying out the necessary analysis on recognition of FMD-free 
areas in Brazil, but the existent Mexican official requirements needed to be complied with.  With respect to exports of eggs, the information request ed by Brazil would be provided as soon as possible. 
 
271. Restrictions on imports of swine meat 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2008 (G/SPS/R/51, paras. 25-26) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
133. In June 2008, Brazil raised concerns about Me xico's delay in recognizing Brazil's FMD-free 
areas, and failure to allow importation of Braz ilian pig meat.  The recognition process had been 
delayed by unjustifiable requests for additional inform ation, resulting in a lengthy and costly process.  
Since June 2007, Brazil had requested Mexico to recognize the State of Santa Catarina as an FMD-
free area without vaccination, based on OIE's decision at its 75th General Session.  However, no 
response had been given, even though these concerns were raised by Brazil in bilateral consultations.  
Taking into account the recent decision by the Co mmittee on regionalization, Brazil requested that a 
working plan containing time-lines and a date fo r finalizing the recogniti on process be established. 
134. Mexico confirmed that Brazil had presented in formation to the competent authorities at the 
Mexico National Service for Agro-food Health, Sa fety and Quality (SENASICA-SAGARPA).  Those 
authorities were presently conducting technical analyses and Mexico hoped to provide a positive 
response to Brazil in the near future. 
 
Plant Health 
270. Import restrictions on rice 
Raised by: Pakistan 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2008 (G/SPS/R/51, pa ras. 23-24), October 2008 (G/SPS/R/53, 
para. 42) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: Mexico had not yet completed its  assessment of plant health risks. The 
results  would be conveyed to Pakistan as soon as it was concluded. Pakistan requested a time-line from Mexi co for each step of the pest risk 
assessment process on plant health.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
Page 28  
 
  Status: Partially resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved: 8 October 2008 
 
135. In June 2008, Pakistan noted that since 200 5, Mexico banned the importation of Pakistani 
rice.  Both countries had engaged in bilateral cons ultations since 2006, but with marginal progress to 
date.  Pakistan was willing to ap ply mitigation treatments on its rice, if necessary, but no further 
information had been provided by  the Mexican authorities.  Pakist an considered that Mexico was 
failing to respect its obligations under Articles 4 and 5 of the SPS Agreement.  Pakistan urged Mexico 
to eliminate the import restrictions imposed on Pakist ani rice, and stressed that Pakistan was ready to 
respond to any request from Mexico. 
136. Mexico observed that it did not agree with th e concerns raised by Pakistan related to 
Articles 4 and 5.  Mexico was currently conducting a pest risk analysis in accordance with IPPC's 
standards, before allowing the importation of rice from Pakistan.  In this pest risk analysis, Mexico 
was assessing all the potential pests, and not only the gorgojo khapra ( Trogoderma granarium ).  In 
addition, in every meeting of the Mexico-Pakista n Commission, Mexico had informed Pakistan about 
the latest developments of the risk analysis.  A memorandum of understa nding between both countries 
acknowledged the need to complete a risk assessment  before allowing imports of rice from Pakistan.  
The results of the pest risk analysis would be conveyed to Pakistan as soon as it was concluded.  
Mexico reiterated its willingness to bilaterally  work with Pakistan on this matter. 
137. In October 2008, Mexico reported that the concern raised by Pakistan regarding restriction of 
rice imports was resolved, however, Mexico had not yet completed its assessment of plant health risks.  Pakistan thanked the Govern ment of Mexico for the efforts undertaken to carry out the required 
pest risk assessment.  Pakistan al so requested a time-line from Mexico  for each step of the pest risk 
assessment process on plant health. 
 
277. NAPPO draft standard for Regulating the Movement of Ships and Cargoes Aboard 
Those Ships from Areas Infested with the Asian Gypsy Moth [See Item 277, pages 2-3] 
 
OMAN 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY OMAN 
Other concerns 273. Health certificate ratification by national embassies 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: April 2008 (G/SPS/R/49, paras. 57-58; G/SPS/N/OMN/22) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:    G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
 Page 29 
 
 
   
138. In April 2008, the European Communities express ed appreciation to Oman for respecting the 
transparency provisions and providing this notificatio n.  However the requirement being notified, that 
health certificates required ratification by national embassies, was not just a requirement imposed by 
Oman or by the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries.  Other Members imposed a similar 
requirement.  Health certificates issued by competen t authorities' should not need to be ratified by 
embassies, as this lead to additional steps, fees, and undue delays.  Furthermore, sometimes embassies 
refused to provide such ratification, creating add itional trade delays and problems.  The European 
Communities wanted to raise this issue before th e problem became more widespread, and suggested 
that administrative procedures should be simplified and respect WTO provisions. 
139. Saudi Arabia noted that although it was a member of the GCC, its comments were not being 
made on behalf of GCC members as a whole.  Effo rts were being made to draft a manual that 
complied with the relevant international standards, particularly those of C odex.  Although the measure 
was to have entered into force in January 2008, th is had not yet occurred.  Some concerns that had 
been identified should be resolved when the standard  was revised.  The draft was in Arabic, and many 
of the concerns were due to misinterpretations.  An official English translation was underway and 
would be available along with the revision of th e text.  GCC countries were dependent on other 
countries for their food supply, and would make every effort to ensure fair trade for all partners.  
Saudi Arabia was open to discussing these issues bila terally and would also bring the matter to the 
attention of the GCC secretariat. 
 SEPARATE CUSTOMS TERRITORY OF TAIWAN, PENGHU, KINMEN AND MATSU 
(CHINESE TAIPEI) 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MA INTAINED BY CHINESE TAIPEI 
Food safety 275. Maximum level for Ractopamine  
Raised by: United States 
Supported by: Canada 
Dates raised: October 2008 (G/SPS/R/53, paras. 8-12) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
140. In October 2008, the United States stated that the US pork industry had suffered for more than 
a year due to the lack of science-based maximu m residue limits (MRL) for Ractopamine in Chinese 
Taipei.  Chinese Taipei had previously notifie d the SPS Committee of its science-based decision 
regarding ractopamine but then ha d failed to implement the measure as proposed.  US exports had 
dropped due to the need to source pork from animals not treated with Ractopamine in order to meet 
the zero-tolerance requirements.  The United States urged Chinese Taipei to implement its notified 
measure, which would f acilitate US pork exports. G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
Page 30  
 
  141. Canada stated that its authorities had approved th e use of Ractopamine as an ingredient in pig 
feed since July 2005 and in cattle feed since Ma y 2007.  Health Canada had concluded that the 
product was safe to use after conducting several tests.   Canada encouraged all Members to accept the 
use of Ractopamine as long as residues in ed ible tissues were within the safe levels. 
142. Chinese Taipei stated that the use of Ractopa mine was forbidden by many WTO Members.  
The Codex Alimentarius Commission had also been  unable to make a final decision on MRLs for 
Ractopamine. 
143. The representative of Codex reported that the MRLs for Ractopamine had been extensively 
discussed but no conclusion had yet been reached.  Codex invited Members to submit more information regarding Ractopamine for consider ation by the next Codex Commission meeting. 
144. The European Communities reported that it had consulted the European Food Safety 
Authority on the safety of Ractopamine including  the establishment of MRLs.  The European 
Communities hoped to have the information by ea rly 2009, which could be sent to the FAO/WHO 
Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) for further evaluation. 
 UNITED STATES CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY UNITED STATES Food safety 268. Import restrictions on EC dairy products 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: New Zealand 
Dates raised: June 2008 (G/SPS/R/51, paras. 18-20) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would revisit the EC 
concerns and work with the EC Health and Consumer Protection Directorate-General on this matter. 
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
145. In June 2008, the European Communities reporte d that for several years it had undertaken 
efforts to improve the market access for its dairy pr oducts into the United States.  These had included 
requests for recognition of equivalence of its SPS m easures and systems.  The US regulatory regime 
governing the trade of dairy products dated fro m the 1920's and involved different governmental 
levels, such as federal and state levels, as well  as individual representatives.  The European 
Communities had pursued several options, but with no success.  The European Communities 
underlined the importance of the United States cons idering the multiple requests for recognition of 
equivalence. 
146. New Zealand noted that, as a major producer and exporter of dairy products, including fresh 
milk ingredients and its products, it would like to be  kept informed about the developments on this 
issue.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
 Page 31 
 
 
  147. The United States noted that any EC member State, as well as any other Member, were free 
to, and did, export many dairy products to the US market.  Countries could ship "Non-Grade A" 
manufactured products such as cheeses, butter, ic e cream, and other frozen desserts.  It was the 
responsibility of the supplier of f ood products for importation into the United States to ensure that the 
food complied with the applicable US laws and FDA regulations.  In the United States, a segment of 
pasteurized milk products, which were generally refe rred to as "Grade A" products, were subject to a 
specific set of hygiene and safety standards, describ ed in the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance.  Products 
designated as "Grade A" could only be produced by "Grade A" facilities.  These products included 
fluid milk, cultured and acidified milk, cream, sour cream, half-and-half, cottage cheese, yogurt and those dried dairy products that were used as i ngredients in these products.  The US Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) would revisit the EC concerns  and work with the EC Health and Consumer 
Protection Directorate-General on this matter. 
 
Animal Health 
257. Import restrictions on cooked poultry products from China 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: October 2007 (G/SPS/R/46, paras. 11-12), April 2008 (G/SPS/R/49, 
paras. 39-40), June 2008 (G/SPS/ R/51, paras. 29-30), October 2008 
(G/SPS/R/53, paras. 35-36) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
148. In October 2007, China stated that the OIE ha d explicitly pointed out in the Avian Influenza 
Guideline that restrictive measures associated with  avian influenza should not be applied to cooked 
poultry meat that had been subjected to heat treat ment to destroy the viru s.  Nonetheless the United 
States prohibited the importation of such cooked poultry meat processed from poultry originated in 
China.  Although the United States admitted that there was no technical problem for the importation of such cooked poultry meat and it was only a matter of legal procedure, the US Congress had passed 
in August the Agriculture Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2008, of which Section 731 prohibited 
the importation of such products from China.  China questioned the scientific justification behind such 
a decision, how this section took into considerati on the SPS principle of minimizing negative effects 
on trade and the principle of risk assessment.  China hoped that the United States would abolish 
Section 731 and lift the ban as soon as possible. 
149. The United States noted that the Agriculture A ppropriations bill had not yet passed Congress, 
and was subject to potentially su bstantial change before it was signed into law by the President. 
150. In April 2008, China indicated  that despite numerous bilate ral meetings, including on the 
recognition of equivalence, China's cooked poultr y products were still denied access to the US 
market.  The United States had admitted that there were no technical problems with the importation of 
cooked poultry from China, yet imports remained re stricted due to legal problems.  The Agriculture 
Appropriations bill, which contained a specific provi sion to not allow imports from China, had been 
signed into law.  This prohibition was contrary to  Articles 2.2 and 2.3 of the SPS Agreement, as the G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
Page 32  
 
  law was discriminatory and not science-based.  This  development set a bad precedent, showing that 
SPS measures could be easily overturned by legislation that paid no attention to scientific factors. 
151. The United States explained that the Agricultu re Appropriations bill prohibited the use of 
federal funds by USDA to continue work on this ru le.  China's concerns would be brought to the 
attention of the appropriate authorities in Washington , with the aim to resolve this problem as soon as 
possible. 
152. In June 2008, China reported that its con cerns on the US ban on imported Chinese cooked 
poultry dated back to 2004.  China had been inform ed that all technical issues, including recognition 
of the equivalence of its sanitary system, had been resolved during bilateral consultations.  However, 
the US Agriculture Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Y ear 2008, Section 7333, stipulated that the funds 
made available by that bill could not be used to  establish or implement a rule allowing Chinese 
poultry products to be imported into the United States .  This legislation disregarded the fact that the 
USDA had undertaken a risk assessment which c oncluded that Chinese cooked poultry did not pose 
risks to health.  China consider ed the law to be discriminatory, and not based on science.  China 
requested an update of the situation, and an indication of when Chinese cooked poultry products 
would be allowed into the US market. 
153. The United States indicated that it placed great importance on the fact that its SPS measures 
were based on science.  China's concerns would con tinue to be raised with the appropriate authorities 
within the United States with the hope that this  situation could be resolved as soon as possible. 
154. In October 2008, China reiterated its concerns  regarding US import restrictions on cooked 
poultry products from China, even though there we re no technical problems with these products.  
However, the US Agriculture Appropriations Bill banned the use of federa l funds to allow poultry 
products to be imported from China. 
155. The United States affirmed that it would con tinue to raise China's concerns with the 
appropriate authorities in Washington and hoped to resolve the issue as soon as possible. 
 Plant Health 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), April 2008 (G/SPS/R/49, paras 55-56) 
Relevant document(s): G/ SPS/N/USA/431 and addendum 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
156. 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  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
 Page 33 
 
 
  requested the United States to notify its work procedures concerning the removal of measures 
prohibiting imports of plants and pl ant products in compliance with th e transparency provisions of the 
SPS Agreement.  China failed to understand why th e United States had proposed to solve only the 
problem of the importation of one of the types of  penjing plants in growing medium, instead of 
considering the five types for which the risk analysis had been completed.  The European 
Communities supported the concerns raised by Ch ina and noted that it had run into the same 
difficulties with other varieties of potted plants.  The European Communities urged the United States 
to find a rapid solution to the problem. 
157. The United States noted that the issue of penji ng in growing medium had been the subject of 
extensive discussions with China.  The United States  had been working actively to evaluate China's 
proposed importation, but the importation of plants in growing medium was more complicated from a 
risk mitigation perspective than importation of bare  root plants.  While examination of bare root 
plants could detect certain pests or disease problem s, inspection of potted plants necessarily involved 
the removal of the plant from the pot and the gr owing medium, and could damage the plant and 
reduce its commercial value.  Although the assessmen t of the risk to plant health posed by the 
importation of the five species of penjing was essen tially concluded, other risks needed to be 
evaluated before determination if the importa tion presented an acceptable risk.  US regulatory 
requirements for imported plants and growing medium  reflected the need to  prevent the introduction 
of pests and disease that could seriously undermin e or compromise native ecosystems, as well as 
cultivated plants, and this work was ongoing.  Th e 1997 protocol between the United States and China 
reflected agreement on the technical issues rela ting to production, inspection, and quarantine 
requirements for Chinese penjing that were necess ary but not sufficient conditions for imports to 
occur.  The protocol could not take effect until the risk assessments had been completed, and the 
necessary regulatory and notification processes had run their course.  The United States 
acknowledged the importance that China attached to this issue, and indicated their commitment to 
reaching a mutually satisfactory resolution as soon as possible. 
158. 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 Un ited States.  The United States reported that the 
risk analysis for five varieties of penjing was comp leted.  On 16 January 2004, a final rule authorizing 
the importation of five varieties of Chinese origin penjing plants in approve d growing media had been 
published and notified as G/SPS/N/USA/431/Add1.  This  rule built upon an existing regulation that 
was first published in August 2002 and notified as G/SPS/N/USA/431.  The 2002 rule remains 
applicable and required high risk artificially dwa rfed plants, including penjing, to be produced in 
phytosanitary secure conditions for two years prior to export.  However, plants less than two years in 
age were not subject to the two-year quarantine re quirement due to a lower risk profile.  This new 
regulation provided China with additional market opportunities and the United States would continue 
bilateral discussions with China. 
159. In April 2008, China noted that this long-st anding concern was still not resolved despite 
almost six years of pest risk assessments and tec hnical discussions.  A bilateral protocol had been 
signed, but could not take effect before the US  domestic administrative and legal procedures were 
finalized.  However, when the United States had published the final rule, this established more 
stringent requirements than those in the signed protocol, and made expor ts impossible.  China 
requested an explanation of the differences between  the Final Rule and the protocol, and how the 
principle of taking the least trade restrictiv e measure possible had been taken into account. 
160.
 The United States confirmed that although the import requirements for penjing had been the 
subject of extensive bilateral discussions in the p ast, this issue had not been raised by China at 
bilateral plant health talks in February 2008.  Th e United States required dwarf plants to be produced 
under phytosanitary secure conditions for two years pr ior to import.  Plants less than two years old G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
Page 34  
 
  were not subject to this requirement as they posed a lower risk.  In 2003, the United States had 
provided a proposed work plan to China that  would ensure production conditions met US 
requirements.  Since that time, however, China had not engaged with US plant health officials on the 
work plan, which was necessary in order for trade to  take place.  The United States looked forward to 
working on the resolution of this issue with China. 
 
241. Import restrictions on wooden Christmas trees  
Raised by:  China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2006 (G/SPS/R/42, pa ras. 13-14), October 2006 (G/SPS/R/43, 
paras. 145-146), October 2007 (G/SPS/R/46, paras. 20-21), April 2008 (G/SPS/R/49, paras. 53-54) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
161. In June 2006, China expressed concerns regardi ng the US decision to stop the importation of 
artificial Christmas trees from China, although on ly one enterprise had violated the quarantine 
treatment requirement which had resulted in the detec tion of live long-horn beetles in its consignment.  
This exceptional incident did not indicate a defect of the whole Chinese system.  The strict measure 
taken by the United States did not respect the WT O rules on minimizing the impact on trade and had 
caused great losses for Chinese enterp rises and had also affected the US Christmas tree market.  
Furthermore, there was an undue delay in the way th e issue was dealt with by the United States.  The 
Chinese Government had spared no effort to take  corrective measures regarding the whole system, 
including the enhancement of supervision of the quarantine and inspection system and receiving US 
inspectors in several provinces in February 20 06.  Although the experts had indicated their 
satisfaction with the improvements, no formal r esponse had been received from the United States. 
162. The United States replied that between 22 Febr uary 2002 and 22 October 2005, during routine 
2 per cent inspections at US ports of entry, th e United States had intercepted quarantine significant 
pests on wood handicraft products shipped from Ch ina 418 times, including on artificial Christmas 
trees, trellis towers, other home and garden wood dé cor, and craft items.  These interceptions had not 
abated.  The plant quarantine authorities of the Un ited States and China had maintained an on-going 
dialogue regarding such interceptions.  This wood  boring pest was closely related to the Asian 
longhorned beetle which had been introduced into  the United States in shipments of wood packing 
material from China and was now being eradicated in Chicago and New York.  The United States had 
spent in excess of US$200 million on its ongoing eradication effort.  Although the United States had requested China to provide an action plan to address  the infestations, no response had been received.  
On 1 April 2005, the United States had adopted emergency measures to suspend the importation of 
wood handicraft items from China, including artific ial Christmas trees, that contained wooden logs, 
limbs, branches, or twigs greater than one centimetre in diameter and with intact bark.  Manufactured 
items that had been heat treated or fumigated with  methyl bromide and had 100 per cent of the bark 
removed were not subject to the import suspension, so the US measure was no more trade-restrictive 
than necessary.  When its assessment of the risk of continued introduction of quarantine pests on 
manufactured wood commodities from China was complete d, this would be shared with China's plant 
quarantine authorities.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
 Page 35 
 
 
  163. In October 2006, China reported that alt hough some progress had been made following 
bilateral consultations, it was still concerned that the restrictions imposed by the United States were 
disproportionate and not necessary.  Although impor ts of manufactured items which had been heat 
treated or fumigated with methyl bromide were  permitted, no information was provided to China 
since the United States had detected beetles in wooden trees.  China requested details of the 
enterprises that failed to meet the US quarantine re quirements.  China had adopted IPPC standards to 
treat the wooden handicrafts and therefore expected  the United States to accept the Christmas trees or 
to identify alternative procedures so that Chinese enterprises knew how to meet the US requirements. 
164. The United States indicated that the measures imposed on the importation of certain 
manufactured wood items (including artificial Christ mas trees with bark attached) from China were 
imposed after no response was received for a requ ested plan of action to address the issue.  
Manufactured wood items that were heat treated or fumigated with methyl bromide and that had their 
bark removed were not subject to the import restri ction.  Progress had been made during the bilateral 
technical discussions in September 2006 and the United States looked forward to receiving China's 
accreditation proposal for fumigation and heat treatment of wood handicrafts from China. 
165. In October 2007, China reiterated that since 2005, when the United States suspended certain 
wooden handicrafts, the trade of these products had not resumed.  Trade affected by this measure 
already amounted to over 1 million dollars.  All products exported from Chin a were fumigated with 
methyl bromide or were heat-treated  to eliminate the risk of pests.   The wooden Christmas tree which 
was found by the United States to have pest insects was a single violation and a problem of exceptional incidence rather than a problem with the heat treatment or fumigation methods.  US 
experts had found a satisfactory treatment supervis ion system in China in February 2006.  The 
suspension of all imports based on one case was not in line with the WTO principle of least trade 
restrictive.  On the other hand, in 2006 and 2007, China intercepted more than ten types of pests from US imports and yet China had not taken any measu res nor suspended the importation of US wooden 
products.  The United States and China had reached  an agreement on the framework for inspection 
management measures on wood handicr afts exported to the United St ates after technical meetings 
were held in Beijing in April 2007.  China reque sted that the United States consider the IPPC 
guidelines in wood packaging and the SPS Agreement requirement of least trade restriction, and 
resume the importation of these products on the basis of scientific analysis. 
166. The United States recalled that since mid-2004 it had intercepted more than 400 brown fir 
beetles over a two-year period.  Quarantine pests had even been detected on products that had 
reportedly, according to the certification by Chinese offi cials, been fumigated or heat-treated.  At the 
time, the United States actively sought input of Ch inese quarantine officials to develop a plan of 
action to address this problem, but did not receive  any response.  Therefore, on 1 April 2005 the 
importation of the handicrafts were suspended to pr event the introduction of dangerous forest pests.  
The restrictions did not apply to products which ha d been treated and had the bark removed.  Prior 
introduction of forest pests from China, including the Asian long horned beetle and the emerald ash 
borer, had serious environmental a nd economic consequences in the United States.  The United States 
was in the final stages of the risk assessment an alysis and hoped that this assessment would be 
available for public comment in the near future .  The United States had been very transparent 
regarding this issue and had maintained significan t dialogue with the Chinese officials.  The United 
States had also provided significant funding to support training for Chinese port personnel on 
appropriate treatments for exported Chinese wooden handicrafts.  The United States was committed to 
continuing the dialogue with Chinese officials in  order to reach a solution on this issue. 
167. In April 2008, China reiterated that no solutio n had been found to the trade restrictions 
affecting wooden Christmas trees and other wooden ha ndicrafts despite three years of hard work.  
China had developed an inspection and supervision plan to ensure that the IPPC standard was 
implemented, i.e. the fumigation or heat treatment of these products.  US experts had undertaken a G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
Page 36  
 
  field visit which resulted in a positive evaluation.  The US pest risk assessme nt was reportedly in the 
final stage, and the delegate questioned whether this  had now been finalized.  China  wished to know 
when trade would be resumed, and how China's wo rking plan was being taken into account by the 
United States. 
168. The United States recalled that the restrictions had been imposed following the interceptions 
of large numbers of live pests on Chinese wooden handi crafts over a 2-year period.  Of particular 
concern were interceptions on products that had b een fumigated or heat-treated.  The United States 
had sought input from the Chinese authorities to develop a plan of action to address the problem, but had received no response.  As a result of continue d interceptions, in April 2005 the United States 
suspended importation of  wood handicraft items  from China that contained wooden logs, limbs, 
branches or twigs greater than one centimetre in diameter and intact bark.  The United States had 
shared its risk assessment with Chinese authorities, and undertaken a number of bilateral technical 
meetings.  The United States was now developing a proposed rule on import requirements, that would 
likely be published within nine months.  The objectiv e was to permit trade to take place with as few 
restrictions as possible while safeguarding against the introduction of dangerous forest pests. 
 
269. Restrictions on apples 
Raised by: China 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: June 2008 (G/SPS/R/51, pa ras. 21-22), October 2008 (G/SPS/R/53, 
paras. 37-38) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as resolved:   
 
169. In June 2008, China noted that it had submitted an application to export apples to the United 
States, accompanied by the necessary technical material s.  Additional materials had been provided in 
accordance with the US requirements on pest risk analysis.  However, the US pest risk analysis had 
been unduly delayed.  China was free of fruit flies in apple planting areas, and it used fruit-bagging techniques to prevent pests and disease infections as the bagged fruits were totally isolated from the 
environment.  China was also free of fire blight and there were no quarantine risks for Chinese apples.  
Furthermore, China had provided all the technical materials requested by the United States, and had 
held bilateral technical consultations with the co mpetent authorities.  However, the US pest risk 
analysis on Chinese apples had still not been completed after ten years.  China urged the United States 
to complete the relevant procedures as soon as possible. 
170. The United States noted that given the significant number of pests of quarantine significance 
that needed to be addressed in Chin a's request, the pest risk assessment  had proven to be challenging.  
The United States had been seeking to finalize the lis t of apple pests in China since 2004.  Dozens of 
pests of potential quarantine significance had been id entified.  A final list of pests needed to be 
developed in order to evaluate the risks associated  with Chinese apples and to identify the appropriate 
mitigations measures.  The United States would contin ue to work on this issue to address the scientific 
matters associated with the risk assessment.  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
 Page 37 
 
 
  171. In October 2008, China reported that it had subm itted an application for the export of apples 
to the United States in 1998, with the necessary techni cal materials for a pest risk analysis.  However, 
the process of pest risk analysis had been delayed fo r more than ten years with the claim of repeated 
technical problems.  This had seriously impede d the export of Chinese apples.  Chinese apples had 
similar production areas, disease and pest occurrences , and regulations as pears in China.  The United 
States allowed the importation of pears based on a risk  assessment.  This showed that there should not 
be any quarantine problem for Chinese appl es to be exported to the United States. 
172. The United States reported that since 2004, it had sought to finalize the list of apple pests of 
China.  However, more scientific informati on was needed from the Chinese authorities to know 
whether some pests occurred in areas of Ch ina where apple production was concentrated. 
 
277. NAPPO draft standard for Regulating the Movement of Ships and Cargoes Aboard 
Those Ships from Areas Infested with the Asian Gypsy Moth [See Item 277, pages 2-3] 
 
Other concerns 
265. Regulatory process economic analysis requirement 
Raised by: Brazil 
Supported by:  
Dates raised: April 2008 (G/SPS/R/49, paras. 24-25) 
Relevant document(s):  
Solution:  
Status: Not reported 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
173. In April 2008, Brazil indicated that before an import permit final rule was approved, the US 
regulatory process required not only a health risk assessment but also economic analysis of the imported product.  This longstandi ng Brazilian concern had previously been discussed bilaterally but 
remained unresolved despite the est ablishment of a bilateral committee.  The analysis was done to see 
if there would be damage to small US businesses, however it was unclear what happened when an economic impact was detected.  This time-consuming step resulted in delays in the final assessment, 
which caused economic losses to the exporting Member.  Brazil considered that this requirement was 
not in compliance with Article 5 of the SPS Agre ement, according to which only certain economic 
factors were to be considered in risk assessment s.  These did not include the analysis of possible 
economic harm that could be caused by the impor ted goods.  Brazil requested the United States to 
eliminate this economic analysis requirement. 
174. The United States noted that Brazil's concerns a ppeared to be based a misunderstanding.  The 
US Administrative Procedures Act of 1946 established the regulatory process for all regulations.  This included public participation in the rule-making process, but ensured the scientific basis of final 
decisions.  Many stakeholders had requested that the process be expedited.  The relevant US agencies 
made every effort to expedite the process, but were  required to comply with the legislation.  The 
economic analysis provided importa nt information on the likely impact of  a proposed regulatory G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
Page 38  
 
  change.  But SPS measures were not determined on the basis of the economic analysis – this was 
simply a part of the internal transparency requirements. 
 
CERTAIN MEMBERS 
CONCERNS RELATED TO MEASURES MAINTAINED BY CERTAIN MEMBERS 
Animal Health 
193. General import restrictions due to BSE 
Raised by: European Communities 
Supported by: Canada, Switzerland, United States, Uruguay 
Dates raised: June 2004 (G/SPS/R/34, pa ras. 37-38), October 2004 (G/SPS/R/35, 
paras. 85-86), June 2005 (G/SPS/R/37/Rev. 1, paras. 75-76), February 2007 
(G/SPS/R/44, para. 29), October 2008 (G/SPS/R/53, paras. 24-28) 
Relevant document(s): Raised orally 
Solution:  
Status: Partially resolved 
Date reported as 
resolved:   
 
175. In June 2004, the European Communities raised concerns about unjustifie d import restrictions 
on EC exports due to conc erns about BSE.  To sa tisfy consumer demands, the European Communities 
had adopted comprehensive measures to address risk s relating to BSE.  These measures applied both 
to products intended for consumption within the European Communities, and to those destined for 
export.  The system of geographical assessment us ed in the European Co mmunities had successfully 
identified countries in which the disease was still pr esent.  The European Communities called on other 
countries to replace import bans, which exceeded OIE recommendations and yet did not fully address 
potential internal risks, with specific import require ments in accordance with OIE standards.  Many 
products, such as semen, embryos and dairy products could be traded with predefined guarantees.  
Members were urged to take into  consideration OIE recommendations for international trade and to 
stop discriminating among Members with similar BSE conditions. 
176. Canada recalled that at its last meeting the OIE had reconfirmed that some products, such as 
semen, embryos, hides, and milk, did not contribute to  the transmission of BSE.  Hence the imports of 
these types of products did not provide a poten tial pathway for introduction of the disease. 
177. In October 2004, the European Communities informed the Committe e that several WTO 
Members had reviewed their bans on EC beef and small bovine ruminant products and replaced them 
with specific requirements in accordance with OIE standards.  The European Communities urged all 
those Members who had not yet done so to align thei r regulations in accordance with OIE standards.  
The United States noted that some Members were reviewing their import restrictions on US beef and also urged all those Members who had not done so to align their regulations in accordance with OIE 
standards. 
178. In June 2005, the European Communities reporte d that the number of countries that had lifted 
their respective bans on EC bovines and bovine pro ducts in accordance with OIE standards had been 
regularly growing, including also non-Members of the WTO.  According to the revised BSE chapter  G/SPS/GEN/204/Rev.9/Add.1 
 Page 39 
 
 
  of the Terrestrial Animal Health Code, many bovi ne derivated products, including deboned skeletal 
muscle and blood products, could be safely traded  regardless of the BSE status of the exporting 
country.  The European Communities invited the remaining WTO Members to replace their import 
bans with specific import requirements in accordance with OIE standards. 
179. In February 2007, the United States expressed concern that US ruminant and non-ruminant 
products continued to face BSE-related restricti ons.  Although there had been some progress and a 
number of Members had removed measures, US pr oducts continued to face overly restrictive 
measures which exceeded the OIE standards.  The United States had undertaken extensive 
surveillance and put in place interlocking safeguards, nonetheless many restrictions remained in place.  
The United States asked Members to review th e evidence now available and to revise their 
requirements accordingly. 
180. In October 2008, the European Communities reca lled the concerns previously raised by 
Canada regarding Korea's restric tion on beef imports.  The European  Communities also had concerns 
regarding restrictions maintained by other WT O Members on EC beef exports even though these 
products were considered safe and in compliance with the BSE chapte r of the OIE Terrestrial Animal 
Health Code. 
181. Canada shared the EC concerns and asked Members to base their measures on the BSE 
chapter provisions of OIE Terrestrial Animal Heal th Code.  In May 2007, Canada was officially 
recognized by the OIE as controlled-risk for BSE and this was reconfirmed in May 2008.  Canada was 
grateful to the increasing number of WTO Members that had restored full or partial access for beef and cattle.  Canada urged other Members to resume  full trade in beef and cattle based on the OIE 
designation. 
182. Uruguay supported the concerns of the European  Communities and Canada.  With regard to 
animal health regulations applied to trade, Urugua y stated that all WTO Members should conform to 
the OIE designation and to the standards of the thre e reference organizations in general.  Switzerland 
supported the EC concern on restrictions due to BSE. 
183. The representative of the OIE urged Members to abide by the standards enacted by the OIE. 
 
Other concerns 
273. Health certificate ratification by nati onal embassies [See Item 273, pages 28-29] 
 
__________